So what’s the “Nexus”?
Well, you can look at the “Nexus” from two angles:
The Nexus with regards to what it is which links Covid 19 and Climate Change in terms of overall goal(s)
The Nexus with regards to the people promulgating it and who, clearly and unambiguously, have the same goal(s) in mind.
Let’s consider number 1 first:
You will be stunned to read just how far the issue of controlling population goes. The “Gods” of philosophy: Aristotle and Plato even consider it in a time where the population of the earth was a fraction (so we are told) of today’s at approximately, 160M – 200M in Plato and Aristotle’s time of between 400BC and 300BC.
Population Policy in Plato and Aristotle
Part 1: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-17.58.13.png
Part 2: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-18.09.53.png
Part 3: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-18.10.37.png
Those exact same arguments are being espoused today by the “Aristotles” and “Platos” of today.
The “Nexus” for Covid and Climate is population control and reduction. The adherents to this philosophy grasp the outdated belief (and wrong even in his own time) and ‘teachings’ of one Thomas Malthus (hence the term “Malthusian”) who simply based his reasoning on the linear growth of agricultural capability to feed the population and the exponential growth of the population itself, outstripping that capability. It was proven to be wrong in his timescale and it is wrong now. However, that “philosophy”, as I said, is still pushed by all of the supporters of depopulation for the purpose of having a form of justification of their motives and their policies.
Part 1: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-19.14.26.png
If by fiat I had to identify the most consequential ideas in the history of science, good and bad, in the top 10 would be the 1798 treatise An Essay on the Principle of Population, by English political economist Thomas Robert Malthus. On the positive side of the ledger, it inspired Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace to work out the mechanics of natural selection based on Malthus’s observation that populations tend to increase geometrically (2, 4, 8, 16 …), whereas food reserves grow arithmetically (2, 3, 4, 5 …), leading to competition for scarce resources and differential reproductive success, the driver of evolution.
On the negative side of the ledger are the policies derived from the belief in the inevitability of a Malthusian collapse.
“The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race,” Malthus gloomily predicted.
His scenario influenced policy makers to embrace social Darwinism and eugenics, resulting in draconian measures to restrict particular populations’ family size, including forced sterilizations.
In his book The Evolution of Everything (Harper, 2015), evolutionary biologist and journalist Matt Ridley sums up the policy succinctly:
“Better to be cruel to be kind.”
The belief that;
“those in power knew best what was good for the vulnerable and weak” led directly to legal actions based on questionable Malthusian science.
For example, the English Poor Law implemented by Queen Elizabeth I in 1601 to provide food to the poor was severely curtailed by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, based on Malthusian reasoning that helping the poor only encourages them to have more children and thereby exacerbate poverty.
The British government had a similar Malthusian attitude during the Irish potato famine of the 1840s, Ridley notes, reasoning that famine, in the words of Assistant Secretary to the Treasury Charles Trevelyan, was an;
“effective mechanism for reducing surplus population.”
A few decades later Francis Galton advocated marriage between the fittest individuals (“What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly man may do providently, quickly and kindly”), followed by a number of prominent socialists such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw, who advocated the culling of the disabled; Havelock Ellis and H. G. Wells, who openly championed eugenics as a tool of social engineering.
We think of eugenics and forced sterilization as a right-wing Nazi program implemented in 1930s Germany. Yet as Princeton University economist Thomas Leonard documents in his book Illiberal Reformers (Princeton University Press, 2016) and former New York Times editor Adam Cohen reminds us in his book Imbeciles (Penguin, 2016), eugenics fever swept America in the early 20th century, culminating in the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, in which the justices legalized sterilization of “undesirable” citizens. The court included prominent progressives Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the latter of whom famously ruled, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The result: sterilization of some 70,000 Americans.
Science writer Ronald Bailey tracks neo-Malthusians in his book The End of Doom (St. Martin’s Press, 2015), starting with Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 best seller The Population Bomb, which proclaimed that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over.” Many doomsayers followed. Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown, for example, declared in 1995, “Humanity’s greatest challenge may soon be just making it to the next harvest.” In a 2009 Scientific American article he affirmed his rhetorical question, “Could food shortages bring down civilization?” In a 2013 conference at the University of Vermont, Ehrlich assessed our chances of avoiding civilizational collapse at only 10 percent.
The problem with Malthusians, Bailey writes, is that they;
“cannot let go of the simple but clearly wrong idea that human beings are no different than a herd of deer when it comes to reproduction.”
Humans are thinking animals. We find solutions—think Norman Borlaug and the green revolution. The result is the opposite of what Malthus predicted: the wealthiest nations with the greatest food security have the lowest fertility rates, whereas the most food-insecure countries have the highest fertility rates.
The solution to overpopulation is not to force people to have fewer children. China’s one-child policy showed the futility of that experiment. It is to raise the poorest nations out of poverty through democratic governance, free trade, access to birth control, and the education and economic empowerment of women.
However, while Scientific American admonish malthusianism, they still adhere to the idea that population is a problem! Population is only a problem because the billionaire elite class do not wish to have to share ‘their’ “Elysium” earth with the rest of us.
Meanwhile, this absolute fool, and self proclaimed gobshite, thinks (and will promote) that he’s the guy to have found out the “single major impact on climate change” within the last week or so….. the EGO of the man and yet he speaks of the egos at the BBC. He was BBC, has all those mirrors but, obviously, never looks in them! Just listen to this….
https://www.youtube.com/
^ ^ ^ [Whoops. sorry, it was censored by Jewtube. can't have paid shill making a fool out of himself.]
Nevertheless, I wrote to Mr Bellend in July this year and this is, in part, what. I said to him (with zero reply or acknowledgement):
If they can (as they are) destroying the family and using the “gay agenda” to achieve it [read Joffe memo, which proves this to be true], it all helps to reduce population. The UNPF and “Population Matters” in the UK and many others are all working toward this. It is “Population Matters” which presented Harry and Meghan with the award for having just two children!
Now, I want to repeat this from January 2020:
“Would you convert to a plant-based diet to stop climate change? Have one fewer child?”
“Such sacrifices may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies,” they wrote.
https://karmaimpact.com/shock-to-citizens-may-be-needed-as-climate-change-fight-fails-deutsche-bank-says/
“Shock” to Citizens May Be Needed as Climate Change Fight Fails, Deutsche Bank Says – KarmaWould you convert to a plant-based diet to stop climate change? Have one fewer child? Sadly, while personal sacrifices are commendable, they haven’t been enough to curb global warming. “A big-picture holistic solution” regarding global transportation, industry and electricity generation is needed, and the necessary changes might inevitably bring economic trade-offs, suggested a Deutsche …karmaimpact.com
Meanwhile, the “Climate Change” enthusiasts decided to “REFRAME” the climate issue as an ‘infectious disease’ issue going back as long as 2009/10 or longer because the ‘climate change’ threat was not working! There is a mountain of documentation I can point to supporting this fact.
Please understand the information is all there if you look! And that you know what to look for!
I gave him much more than the above (I will post later the entire email) but Alex has only one thing on his mind: Building his audience. While he criticises the government and the BBC etc, he obeys every rule and regulation (he will get a booster if it means he can get to Las Vegas and his strippers). Alex found himself an audience and he’s sucking it dry. A Clear Undisputed National Treasure he is, in fact.
Here’s just a few articles from prior to Covid, pointing out the obvious which Alex thinks he’s just discovered. Well HE has but the bloody arrogance in promoting he’s bringing us the news!
Part 1: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-19.23.44.png
Part 2: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-19.28.55-1.png
However, they are aware they cannot (at least until now) come straight out and say it:
- That they demand we have lesser children.
It is political suicide (or has been) and, to an observant eye, they’ll have displayed their hand. In addition, people will look at Boris Johnson [chabadnik] and his father (and others like them preaching their bile) and say “Ok for you with 6 kids a piece. Not walking your talk again, I see?” And the reason they don’t is because this “Climate Change” and “Covid” is not for them, it’s for you! You have got to be a special kind of moron not to have this penny drop by now!
Part 1: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-22.22.33.png
Part 2: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-22.23.47.png
Part 3: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-22.24.07.png
You can read clearly, in the above that population control is a hot button! And sure it is. They have been scared to admit that this is the reality behind “Climate Change” and is, in fact, why the threat of “Climate Change” was introduced in the first place!
Even Boris admits the politicians (as he now is) are too scared to talk the real talk:
Part 1: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2020-03-23-at-15.42.59.png
Part 2: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-22.38.58.png
It is as clear as day so what the hell is wrong with people’s mental faculties who just cannot grasp it? The fat bastard’s own words from 2007!
Part 1: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-19.25.18.png
Part 2: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-19.26.49.png
Part 3: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-19.28.03.png
What do you do when you want to stop the rise of population and, particularly, focus in on stemming the impact (and a threat to you, the ‘elite’) of a growing middle class which will demand access and use of resources that you want for yourself?
You create a “threat” which, once your audience – the global population – accepts the ‘threat’ as real, you can implement policies (and vaccine certificates) which significantly reduces the ability of that middle class to enjoy such resources.
A lot of people in the alternative media and elsewhere, are getting it all wrong. They seem to think that this ‘elite’ will shoot themselves in the foot with all this control and putting people out of work. Not at all! It is what they have now decided they want! They don’t need us. They will have AI soon (actually now but a growing presence) and putting people out of work reduces the use of resources and energy and punctures the middle class bubble.
You're bloody royalty, mate:
Part 1: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-22.06.01.png
Part 2: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/screenshot-2021-11-17-at-22.06.51.png
Part 3: https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/OXFAM_CO2_Chart_1088x725-1024x682.jpg
My God! This is all so transparent and yet, even after reading this blog, the average ‘Joe’ still won’t get it. It blows my mind how mind numb the vast majority are!
So, to bring this section to an end:
The first securitised “threat” to the global state (spearheaded by, in the main, western monarchies, old dynasty money and more recent billionaires) was, in recent times (circa 1960s), raised as “GLOBAL POPULATION”.
The second securitised threat was then created throughout the 1970s and introduced to the public consciousness in the 1980s/90s and that was “Climate Change”. “Climate Change” told us that we were the problem through our use of resources based on hydrocarbons/fossil fuels and our general abuse of the earth. However, the main culprits are the very people telling you that YOU are the problem! “Climate Change” then supported the Malthusian theory and pointed (subtly and now not so subtly) toward the solution: LESS PEOPLE.
“Climate Change” however, as a ‘threat’ did not work. Yes they securitised it (and have now, post Covid successfully) but, pre Covid, the securitisation was not successful. They needed something (an event) to crystallise the ‘threat’ in the global consciousness and catalyse the climate policies. They had to change the climate narrative and they did so by aligning it with health and a global public health threat: Covid 19. This also had to be in place by 2020 as is consistently referred to in their literature.
It is then important to also understand that they did not need an actual airborne pathogen to achieve their goal however, on successfully introducing the threat of one which we, on the whole accepted, they could then start the vaccinations and it is highly likely there is a protein pathogen in the vaccines. That is where I readily admit I cannot prove this but it is unnecessary to prove it if you understand the foregoing.
So, the “Nexus” is that Covid and Climate [as well as mRNA markets, the 4th Industrial Revolution, human commodity markets, etc.] fuse together when you realise they are both for the purposes of justifying Population Control. In addition, “Climate Change” and Sustainable Development level the global playing field economically for the globalists, between the ‘Global North’ and the ‘Global South’. This paves the way for a global marketplace (“Economic Area”) and a global currency and governance (not necessarily ‘Government’ as such isn’t actually needed but, to a great extent, already exists through the UN, IMF, BIS, World Bank, WHO etc).
THREE MAJOR STEPS (OR STAGES) TO TODAY’S TOTALITARIANISM: THREE COMPUTER MODELS TO JUSTIFY EACH STEP:
Graph: https://earthlinggb.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/pyramid.jpg
there doesn't seem to be anything here