Depopulation Virtue Signaling: How To Kill Billions Without Being Ill-Mannered
Depopulation Virtue Signaling: How To Kill Billions Without Being Ill-Mannered
Dennis Meadows On A "Peaceful Collapse"
My friend Torbjörn Sassersson of Sweden’s main alternative media outlet Newsvoice published this staggering video.
He says the planet can support one billion people or at most two billion, then he describes things that “could” happen, such as volcano eruptions or “epidemics” to kill a great many people.
We are never sure what exactly he its saying—the sign of a dangerous person.
“I hope that it can occur in a civil way….and I mean civil in a …peaceful.”
Postscript: Comment submitted by Good Citizen:
”Excerpt from Chapter 2 of Virtually Lost: Young Americans In the Digital Technocracy... The Club of Rome, which represented exactly the kind of formation Rockefeller was intent on helping develop, also upped the ante in the 1970s. It published its primary mission statement in 1972 (Meadows et al., Limits to Growth); this massively influential work, based on computer simulations, argued that economic growth would eventually and inevitably hit the buffers of resource depletion and was therefore as untenable as it was undesirable. Later, in 1991, the tone and scope of the Club’s prognostications would harden into the kind of highly questionable but emotionally compelling catastrophism with which we are now all too familiar. The key publication here was The First Global Revolution by Alexander King (one of the Club’s founders) and Bernard Schneider. Its primary purpose was to rally humankind to the cause of extreme environmentalism in such a way as to support the Rockefeller–Club of Rome agenda for globalisation. For this to work, King and Schneider argued that humanity at large could best be mobilised through the inculcation of the sense that there existed a common enemy to it: 𝘐𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘢 𝘥𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺, 𝘸𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘱, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵, 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧. An examination of the original Limits to Growth model by a multidisciplinary team from the University of Sussex, published Models of Doom: A Critique of the Limits to Growth (1973), criticised the Club’s modelling, inaccurate predictions, and misguided Malthusian assumptions. Later, economist Thomas Sowell took up the critique of the motivations, practices, and methods of the elite environmentalists, in his The Vision of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995).”
Two more comments:
“Billions of people will be culled - and he wants it carried out in a civil manner. He is a very dangerous psychopath. He should be in an institution for the criminally insane.”
—Peter Blaney
“Pathocracy. I've seen a shorter version before, but never this one. Notice how he articulates just like Gates (or vice versa). Wild hand gestures and everything. Note: double post then tried to edit one and it deleted both. Wth.”
—Dave
Billions of people will be culled - and he wants it carried out in a civil manner. He is a very dangerous psychopath. He should be in an institution for the criminally insane.
Excerpt from Chapter 2 of Virtually Lost: Young Americans In the Digital Technocracy...
The Club of Rome, which represented exactly the kind of formation Rockefeller was intent on helping develop, also upped the ante in the 1970s. It published its primary mission statement in 1972 (Meadows et al., Limits to Growth); this massively influential work, based on computer simulations, argued that economic growth would eventually and inevitably hit the buffers of resource depletion and was therefore as untenable as it was undesirable. Later, in 1991, the tone and scope of the Club’s prognostications would harden into the kind of highly questionable but emotionally compelling catastrophism with which we are now all too familiar. The key publication here was The First Global Revolution by Alexander King (one of the Club’s founders) and Bernard Schneider. Its primary purpose was to rally humankind to the cause of extreme environmentalism in such a way as to support the Rockefeller–Club of Rome agenda for globalisation. For this to work, King and Schneider argued that humanity at large could best be mobilised through the inculcation of the sense that there existed a common enemy to it:
𝘐𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘢 𝘥𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺, 𝘸𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘱, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵, 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧.
An examination of the original Limits to Growth model by a multidisciplinary team from the University of Sussex, published Models of Doom: A Critique of the Limits to Growth (1973), criticised the Club’s modelling, inaccurate predictions, and misguided Malthusian assumptions. Later, economist Thomas Sowell took up the critique of the motivations, practices, and methods of the elite environmentalists, in his The Vision of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995).