If you take the time to do some digging will soon come to the realization that those running the oil and precious metals industries purposefully foster a belief that there’s a critical shortage of resources in the world; if you can’t spare the time at least take a peek at films like ‘The Formula’ and ‘Blood Diamond’, which are clever dramatizations of the global elite’s devious approach to managing those resources.
Creating the illusion of scarcity is intrinsically linked with an excessive desire for profits – a desire that will stop at nothing. Not even the loss of human lives.
Unfortunately, it’s like that with everything in our world at present. We address this particular issue in our book THE ORPHAN CONSPIRACIES: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy.
Such illusions are constantly being fed to us as if they are proven facts – the illusion that wars are unavoidable, that there’s not enough wealth to go around, that the Third World cannot organically sustain itself, that terrorists are everywhere…
As we covered in our “The price of a free media” chapter, mainstream media is a big part of this grand deception. This should come as no surprise considering the bulk of the world’s news outlets are owned by only a handful of media tycoons who all belong to secretive, elitist and unaccountable organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations.
It’s becoming obvious to most that mainstream media is nothing but a megaphone for the global elite to present biased news that’s designed to align the masses with their agenda.
The Overpopulation Theory
Take the Overpopulation Theory – a pet hobbyhorse of virtually every powerful individual in the Establishment. The supposed need to depopulate the planet for the good of Mankind is a theory that has been peddled by every elitist from the Rockefellers, to Bill Gates and Ted Turner, to US Presidents like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, to Prince Charles HRH the Prince of Wales and other British Royals. The latter includes the Queen’s husband Prince Philip who once infamously remarked, “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Let us also not forget Henry Kissinger’s aforementioned comment in the recently declassified National Security Memorandum 200 document in which he states, “Depopulation should bethe highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World,” to secure mineral resources for the US.
The motivations behind depopulation suggestions may actually be a desire to create a modern form of eugenics, albeit masquerading as something more benign. That may sound a rather extreme accusation, but keep in mind it was only a generation or two ago that the global elite were bona fide supporters of draconian eugenics programs.
How many remain adherents of this insidious science, but choose to keep their beliefs to themselves now that eugenics has been universally vilified?
A politically correct version of eugenics
Many independent researchers, ourselves included, believe the proposed global population control measures really are a politically correct version of the once government-sponsored eugenics programs.
In our opinion, racial hatred is the likely impetus behind this new version of eugenics. As Edwin Black reminds us in his book War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, “Eugenics was” a “pseudoscience,” and “In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed ‘unfit,’ preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype”.
There are clues that would seem to confirm that domination of non-white races remains a part of the agenda. The biggest clues are the countries and peoples that are being singled out for supposedly propagating too fast.
Have you noticed how those powerful figures who promote the “urgent need” for depopulation are almost always, if not always, referring to Third World countries or developing nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America – and not countries like the UK, France, Germany, Russia or the US whose citizens are predominantly Caucasian?
Could it be that Mr. Kissinger is not the only elitist who fears the West will lose its stranglehold on the planet’s resources if certain developing nations grow too big and powerful?
A convenient coincidence
Remember, so-called experts have been suggesting the Earth must depopulate since the early 20th Century, which notably coincides with the exact same period that eugenics programs were first endorsed by governments.
By the 1960’s, when the planet’s total population was 3 billion, the overpopulation theory reached popular consciousness – aided no doubt by those influential figures who regularly trumpeted it in the media. The concept was always presented as if it was an absolute fact: the world could not handle many more people and humanity would soon cease to exist unless depopulation strategies were implemented immediately.
However, the world’s population is now over 7 billion and life goes on. In some respects, life’s a lot more complicated than it was back in the Hippy Era, but nevertheless Mother Earth continues to sustain life and, despite what some may tell us, she shows no immediate sign of exploding, imploding or otherwise wilting.
Earth’s immense problems unediable
None of this counter-argument should be misconstrued as ignoring the Earth’s immense problems. Yes people are dying of malnutrition, thirst and disease; yes nations are fighting over resources; yes there is an ever-widening gap between rich and poor; and yes much of our planet is disgustingly polluted.
However, these problems, or tragedies, need to be assessed in the context of that which is being withheld. For every Yes there’s a No.
No the world’s most advanced technologies have not been released; no there is not fair and proper distribution of wealth and resources; no we haven’t progressed beyond the strong dominating the weak through wars and the like; no the financial system has not been cleansed of corrupt bankers and economic hitmen.
When you balance the No’s against the Yes’s it becomes obvious that if we lived in a fairer world – especially one where there is greater equality and where no technology or information is ever suppressed – the planet could sustain an even bigger population. Perhaps much bigger.
The daily struggle of many for food, water and other basic necessities is more about greed and unfair political and economic systems than population levels.
What if…
For example, if half of Africa’s population was wiped out tomorrow, millions of people would still be left scavenging for bare essentials due to the fact that very little of the continent’s abundant resources (that are mined, drilled or otherwise extracted) remain in Africa for the benefit of Africans. So the problem is one of imperialism, or expansionism, rather than there being too many mouths to feed.
Yoko Ono summarized this issue well during her appearance on The Dick Cavett Show on September 11, 1971, when she said, “I think the problem is not overpopulation, as people believe to be, but it’s more of the balance of things … Like food. Some parts of the world there’s wastage of food, in some parts nobody has food. And that kind of a balance, if that is solved, I don’t think we’d be worried so much about overpopulation.”
The big question is: why is anyone still suggesting depopulation? And why is the media still giving such suggestions airtime?
Unless outlawed eugenics programs are revived or certain elitists get their way with nefarious strategies such as mass sterilizations or forced abortions, depopulation is hardly likely in this day and age. Except of course where it’s an inevitable consequence of wars, genocide or natural disasters.
The sensible solution
It would make more sense to seek solutions for the world’s current and projected populations than trying to take away or limit people’s basic right to procreate. China’s one-child policyaside, procreation is something Man has always done freely and without thought.
Releasing classified or suppressed scientific inventions would likely be a good start. Especially technologies that have the potential to combat the world’s most pressing issues, such as pollution and its effects on climate, whatever those effects may be.
It’s worth noting that throughout history, population growth has usually spurred technological advances. This was true during the Industrial Revolution, the post-WW2 years and the Space Age era; and we are witnessing it again with the explosion of computer and mobile phone technologies, which can barely keep pace with worldwide consumer demands for those products.
We’ve already acknowledged that pollution is an urgent problem. However, a few hundred million less people less – which is all strict population controls could hope to achieve in the near future – wouldn’t decrease pollution levels that much.
And who is to say higher populations won’t actually make it easier to develop pollutant-free and clean energy technologies in the same way they created the necessary demand, infrastructure and labour force to spark other inventions of bygone years? We are not saying higher populations would necessarily achieve this, but at present there has been zero public debate as to the potential benefits of the planet’s increasing numbers of people.
Many cities are undoubtedly overpopulated, but much of this is to do with poor economicmanagement and a lack of environmental and geographic planning. For example, rural-dwellers are often so impoverished they have no choice but to move to cities for work. With a greater and fairer distribution of wealth, governments could provide incentives for citizens to remain in rural areas or relocate to emerging cities or even build new cities.
Morcan Books & Films 