New Video : UN Depopulation Agenda

5 Responses to New Video : UN Depopulation Agenda

1. Disillusioned says:

   July 23, 2020 at 12:18 pm

   Bingo and…

   Reply
2. G W Smith says:

   July 23, 2020 at 2:44 pm

   There will always be some for whom there will always be too many. Semper Paratus.

   Reply
3. SDR says:

   July 23, 2020 at 9:37 pm

   The data is clear. By far the best way to reduce the birthrate below replacement is prosperity.

   Reply
4. Bob Hoye says:

   July 23, 2020 at 9:46 pm

   Sometimes civil servants become demented.
   Well after Malthus published his personal revelations about a pending population disaster, the threat of too many people stayed within the Brit civil service.
   With Ireland’s famine in the 1840s there some officials in Whitehall who advised not helping,
   Because too many people ‘now’ would make the ultimate disaster even worse.
   A generation of civil servants later. In the 1890s in India there was another severe famine.
   That some in Whitehall advised not helping.
   Too many people.

   Reply
5. Kevin Loughrey says:

   July 23, 2020 at 10:30 pm

   Tony, I love your work and I greatly appreciate the intellectualism, energy and ability you bring to any endeavour. I could write a book on this and related subjects though I doubt, given all of my other pursuits and interests, I will ever have the time.

   I have for a very long time been concerned that the human race cannot continue to increase its numbers on this planet and that logic implies there is a finite limit to the size of human population the earth can support. My belief has always been that if one provides people with free, unfettered access to information, education and commercial opportunities, the rate of growth of the population will decline naturally. (See: http://nvtech.com.au/Projects/Nicaea.html)

   There is a problem. There is always a problem when mankind interferes with the “natural process” because invariably, even though one has the very best of altruistic motives, there are unintended consequences which may actually make the situation worse rather than better over the long term.

   With my “solution”, the perceived unintended consequence is that a particular personality type is drawn to education, information and commercial opportunities whilst others are not. Those that are, have much smaller families and those that are not, still have larger families. This is particularly the case with women. Those that have extraordinary talent in the world outside of domesticity have much smaller families. Many have none and the consequence of this is that their gene pool is diminishing. In the statistical sense, my intuition suggests that the former group are more likely to be tolerant of racial and religious difference and more empathetic. The latter group, once again in a statistical sense, are less likely to be so.

   Being in the former group does not necessarily mean that person will be a collectivist, ie, an adherent to socialism but, because of empathy and social manipulation, evidence tends to suggest that the education I wanted people to be exposed to has been hijacked by those who firmly believe collectivism, legal control and socialism is “fairer” when, in actuality, historical evidence strongly suggests it is not. The inevitable consequence of this trend is that the role of the family is suborned by the State.

   These are challenges I think we are facing and I think that is the question all Americans must address in the forthcoming November election. My hope is that the US will choose individual responsibility and free enterprise over collectivism and socialism.

   Thank you again Tony to your contribution to our “education”. I really appreciate it.

   Reply