Around the alternative media sphere, there is a lot of conversation about the events of the past several years, leading to the question, “Well, why is this happening?” Like “If COVID was planned, why?” or “What’s driving the gay bloc to push transgenderism and drag queens?”.
These are hot social issues in the USA and in many countries that have not specifically taken steps to guard their societies against such subversive ideologies and machinations. What is the ultimate cause of these ideas?
We must be plain and clear about it if we are going to find our way forward into the future with any sense of good. This is chiefly because applying strategies of biowarfare and sterilization to the human population is most definitely not good. It promotes death, illness, harm, and pain. No amount of pretzel logic can make a truthfully justifiable argument that these are ultimately beneficial ways to go about treading forward into the future.
Take the transgender issue as an example. What is going on there? A very deliberate process is being applied. It goes something like this:
Step 1. Encourage children to adopt gender fluidity mindsets. Make it seem totally harmless, fun, and accepted by everyone. It’s about love, inclusion, making people feel good, and other cushy ideas.
Step 2. Once children adopt the gender that is directly opposite of their birth sex, reinforce that mindset. Anyone who does not accept such psychological reinforcement must be prevented from influencing the children’s minds at all costs, even if it means disenfranchising or imprisoning the children’s very own parents.
Step 3. Encourage children to purchase puberty blockers in order to make sure that their physical body matches the gender they choose. These pharmaceutical products cause permanent damage to otherwise natural, physical, mental, and spiritual development.
Step 4. Encourage children to self-castrate. Provide free life-altering, life-shortening surgery. This prevents natural reproduction and ensures that the individuals will be addicted to pharmaceutical products for life.
Step 5. (optional) Use state power to remove children from parents’ custody if parents refuse to comply or attempt to reject the ideology.
This is a terrifying process. What is the purpose? It is, ultimately, population control. This is nothing new. Population control has driven many wars and social movements in the past. Sometimes it is naturally occurring. Sometimes it is implemented or engineered by humans against themselves. In the case of transgender ideology, it is humans encouraging other humans to adopt life-altering, life-shortening practices. When cells in the body damage and destroy other cells in the body like this, it is called cancer. In this sense, this expression of transgender ideology is cancerous.
I am not saying here that all transgender ideology is cancerous. Not all people are encouraging others to take puberty blockers and self-castrate. And above a certain age, perhaps 16, 18, 21, or something along those lines, such a decision is one that may derive from free will. For children under 21, and assuredly for children under 16, it is not free will. It is child abuse.
This is an example of neoliberal population control. People like the WEF’s Yuval Harari, Arizona Democratic Party member Brianna Westbrook, and US women’s soccer star Megan Rapinoe have been figureheads of this movement, and there are many more. How many of them realize that the push for indoctrinating children ultimately leads to sterilization and is thus a form of population control? If you were to confront them and tell them that castrating children is not the best form of population control, they might look at you funny. It’s unlikely that they’ve made the link in their own minds between their seemingly compassionate political activism and the ultimate strategic political goal of the movement.
As a civilization, on the planetary scale, we are so obsessed with achieving results immediately in the present that we do not often consider longer-term solutions that might be truly compassionate. Such as incentivizing people to not have children– here’s a good one. Give people USD$33,000 for every year that they do not have a child. Ultimately, this also stimulates the economy, but it does not go directly into the coffers of the pharmaceutical industry. It also does not directly cause massive amounts of psychological pain and life-long trauma. This is a much more effective economic stimulant than encouraging self-castration, as it provides purchasing power directly to the citizenry and allows people to freely choose how they would like to build and lead their own lives.
Regardless of whether population reduction is necessary or what the actual carrying capacity of the planet is at our current level of technology, another idea might be to incentivize one child. China tried this in the 20th century with great failure, but it is not worth abandoning the idea totally. As financial technology develops, and with lessons learned from failed policy, continued tinkering in small populations might lead to a better, healthier result. For example, a married couple could be financially incentivized to have only one child. If they have only one child, and they voluntarily participate in an accountability program which permits limited surveillance to ensure that there is not a secret second or third child, then they become eligible for a yearly USD$20,000 stipend. The stipend would only kick in once the child is enrolled in an education system, public or private, providing further positive incentives. Every year that the couple verifiably proves that they only have one child, they receive the one child policy financial stipend. At least in this way, there is limited population replacement rather than guaranteed maximal lifelong trauma for a small minority.
The core of the issue of population control is reproduction. It is better to incentivize people to individually be healthy, happy, and whole than it is to physically prevent reproduction through permanent body alteration. It is better to incentivize people to have one child or no children at all than it is to make natural reproduction a physical impossibility. That is not compassionate, and it is not good. It is the exact opposite of good.
