When a partisan faction committed to depopulation by other means openly admits that we’d be better off with fewer of us around, they mean it. Culling the wrong people out of the population has been a goal for over a century, and these social engineers openly support policies that prove it.
Abortion isn’t health care. It is a feature of a longstanding depopulation agenda. Progressives have long sought to reduce populations of people who are not like them.
Assisted suicide sounds like well-meaning empathy until you let them control it. It quickly becomes a subject of much debate as a means to relive the state of the homeless, mentally ill, and others whom they’ve long wanted to cull but lacked a way to do it without looking like who they really are.
The Climate movement has long been very clear on the need to reduce populations to save the planet but they never volunteer to go first. Who would make sure the right people remained if they lived by their own creed?
Professor Bill McGuire shared an observation the other day along these lines. A very casual, you know, if we’re serious about reducing emissions, people gonna have to die.
“If I am brutally honest, the only realistic way I see emissions falling as fast as they need to, to avoid catastrophic #climate breakdown, is the culling of the human population by a pandemic with a very high fatality rate
To summarize.
- He’s convinced that a trace gas incapable of warming the planet as advertised will be the end of the world.
- We must reduce the emissions of that gas to prevent a global catastrophe.
- Culling (killing) human beings is the only honest way to prevent planetary doom.
- There is no other way to get there from here.
When called out on this, he did what you’d expect. He accused everyone of taking him out of context and twisting his words.
RIGHT, I AM DELETING THE INITIAL TWEET NOW. NOT BECAUSE I REGRET IT, BUT BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE HAVE MISTAKENLY, OR INTENTIONALLY, TAKEN IT THE WRONG WAY. pic.twitter.com/5S65IIN8Rb
— Bill McGuire (@ProfBillMcGuire) May 12, 2024
The only thing in this response that matters is that he doesn’t regret it, which I believe. I feel certain he thinks people need to die to satisfy his perception of the effect of emissions on climate. The rest is rubbish.
The only person who has taken his meaning the wrong way is Bill McGuire because this sort of thinking is part of his movement’s collective consciousness. It is no less a fact that 0.04% of the atmosphere has more influence on waring than the sun, solar mechanics, and water vapor.
It is also true that the political catalysts of the movement, the ones who keep the climate fear messaging funded, are ideologically descended from social engineers whose rhetoric has inspired past cullings of the human population. Leaders who share other commonalities like the need for a command and control economy managed by the Government and a police state to keep order when the humans they have not yet culled (but will be for dissenting) discover how badly they’ve been screwed.
Bill is a useful idiot.
Regardless of whether you agree with his science, he aids and abets despotism, whose logical conclusion is the systematic culling of the population when it does not fully align with the goals of the State or dares to challenge it.
Bill and his climate theory is a bigger threat to humanity (human rights, justice, liberty, and prosperity) than CO2.
