If you really believed that man made global warming was real…. and if you really believed that global population growth was the “existential threat” to all humanity and life on the planet…. and if you were part of the elite group, multinational corporations and politicians, who run the socio-economic systems that sustain human existence….. then a strategy to eliminate the population by reducing the lifespan of people would be viewed internally as an altruistic endeavor to save the planet.
If that sounds like hyperbole, you likely have not listened to the impassioned speeches and pleas at the “Conference of the Parties 26” (COP26) assembly in Glasgow, Scotland today.
Humans, as an existential threat to planetary survival, was exactly the terminology used today by current White House occupant Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emanuel Macron, HRH Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, and her son heir to the throne, Prince Charles.
All of these global leaders called the people who populate the planet “an existential threat to mankind.”
Joe Biden said: “This is the challenge of our collective lifetimes. The existential threat to human existence as we know it. And every day we delay, the cost of inaction increases. So let this be the moment that we answer history’s call” (link)
Prince Charles called for a military approach, a war footing and the assembly of multinational corporations united with politicians in dealing with the existential threat that people represent:
The key point is this: The global elite consider the population of the planet to be the problem.
Pause and think about that for a moment. Man made climate change as an issue is only solvable, in its most dire of circumstances, by eliminating the root cause of the problem, people.
The global political elite wax philosophically about the issue, with increasing levels of severity according to their own definition of alarm signals, but their underlying problem is with a planet that is -according to their worldview- overpopulated.
Now, with that level of urgency behind what they claim to be the “existential threat”, what actions would they consider appropriate in order to save the planet?
This is where the fundamental question about why there is such a big push on the COVID-19 vaccination, that is wildly disproportionate to the risks from the virus itself, start to make a little more sense.
If you want to reduce the population, a key method would be to reduce the lifespan of the average human on the planet.
What exactly would a product do that is designed to reduce lifespan?
A product designed to reduce lifespan would likely attack or replace the body’s natural immune system. This would leave the human immune system compromised so that ordinary ailments, viruses, diseases and illness would become much more deadly.
The human body’s natural reaction to attacking ordinary cancers would be compromised allowing cancer to grow and become more deadly. By suppressing a natural immune system, or replacing it with a synthetic mRNA type immunity design, the natural ability of the human body to deal with illnesses would be weakened. People would die more frequently and people would not live as long.
If people died more frequently, and/or people did not live as long, the objective of saving the planet from the existential threat -by reducing the population- could be achieved.
How do you get the human immune system compromised on a mass scale, in a global population consisting of billions of people?
▶️ 22 seconds
The process to reduce life-expectancy, and save the planet, would explain why there is such a disproportionate push to get people vaccinated.
The virus was the premise.
The vaccine becomes the method.
That would explain why they have been pushing the vaccine so hard.
That would explain why they want to vaccinate kids who are not at risk from the virus.
This motive makes sense.
The scale of their anxiety underpins it.
The need for control is a reaction to fear. ✪