I have been saying since the CV psyop was rolled out in 2020 that in order to understand what’s going on in the world you must know that the overriding principle driving the policies of globalist power elites is to drastically depopulate the world, and that Covid was just the first shot fired across the bow toward that eventuality.
Global fertility rates have plummeted to near record lows since the mRNA vaccines were mass injected into people’s bodies starting in late 2020. I don’t believe that’s a coincidence. Healthcare has become totally unaffordable for a growing segment of the population even in wealthy countries like America, and even those who can afford to keep their insurance are receiving AI-driven healthcare that is of inferior quality. But the doctor’s office is not the only means of population reduction. That’s just the beginning.
The elitist goal of mass depopulation was plastered in no uncertain terms on the Georgia Guidestones and the timing and manner in which that monument was destroyed in July 2022seemed questionable, to say the least. Among the 10 principles for sustainable living posted on that monument near Elberton, Georgia, was reducing the global population down to around 500 million, in order to bring humanity into proper “balance” with nature.
I have always maintained that the 500 million goal was probably too aggressive to achieve but that a more realistic goal was to cut the world population in half, taking it from 8 billion down to around 4 billion.
Low and behold, a new scientific study has just been released calling for exactly that.
Scientists propose ‘final sustainable solution’ they’re not calling genocide
A group of 11 scientists published a paper on July 26, 2026, in the Sustainable Development Journal the suggests that cutting the world’s population in half would lead to habitat recovery, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, less conflict over resources and less poverty. Some of the authors stated a population as low as 1 billion to 3 billion would be ideal, but all agreed it should not be above 4 billion.
The article states:
The paper never says exactly how the world should go about reducing the population by such drastic amounts.
The paper states:
Some who have worked the numbers conclude we have already far surpassed sustainable levels of both population and per capita consumption. For example, Lianos and Pseiridis (2016) calculated the sustainable (overshoot-free) population at 3.1 billion living on the global 2011 average income. Dasgupta et al. (2023), using a different method, reached a roughly similar conclusion. Whitmore (2024) estimates the long-term carrying capacity of the planet as “2.5 billion with current resource usage, and 8 billion with one third of current resource usage.” Willey (2000) presents an argument that a population around 1 billion would be sustainable for “a good quality of life available to everyone everywhere.”
The culling of humanity is presented by the paper’s authors as a gradual, slow reduction of human life on the planet. Of course, it would be too shocking to tell the truth about the timing of the mass die off, likely within the next three to five years, perhaps seven to 10 at the most. That would look too suspicious, and beg the question of what could possibly cause so many people to die in such a short span of time. So they stretched the stated timeframe out 174 years to the year 2200.
At the same time, we see major nuclear powers rewriting their nuclear doctrines. Russia did this a couple of years ago in light of the Ukraine war.
And now the U.S. Pentagon confirms it is rewriting its nuclear doctrine “in preparation for potential war with Russia and China.”
According to an exclusive NBC News report, Defense Department policy chief Elbridge Colby is drafting the new strategy where nuclear weapons are concerned, involving shorter-range tactical munitions. This is reportedly in case the U.S. finds itself in a conflict with Russia and China.
No comments:
Post a Comment