One of the things that the plague chronicle aims to do is draw back the curtain on the institutional or cultural roots of particular malignancies, which seem at first to be contingent on specific bad actors. While I understand that some of you find this irritating, it’s not my purpose to let anybody off the hook. It’s rather to point out that the very real villains we’re all concerned about are mere expressions of much deeper forces, and that fixing things will involve a lot more than rounding up all the Anthony Faucis of the world and trying them for crimes against humanity.
One vein of Corona analysis sees the entire pandemic as the plot of globalist conspirators who are interested in reducing the world population. There are many variations on this theory, but the most basic would hold that lockdowns and the rest were a means of driving us to accept harmful vaccination, which will cause a massive die-off among the vaccinated in the coming years and prepare the way for whatever Net Zero sustainable future Klaus Schwab has planned for the survivors.
My readers often send me links to podcasts, videos and other media providing proofs of this Global Depopulation Agenda. Clip compilations like this one constitute an important genre in this area. They generally feature globalist goons – in this case, Bill Gates – saying ominous things about the overabundance of humans at different interviews and panel discussions.
I have a look at almost everything you send me, and by now I’ve seen enough to note that the internet case against Gates rests heavily on the same dozen or so video statements. Some of these items, for example the third one in that link (where Gates is talking about reducing childhood mortality), are deliberately deceptive, and it’s an important question, why this area is so awash in clearly manipulated media. The rest of the clips are more or less accurate representations of Gates’s arguments, the only problem being that they’re presented too narrowly.
The fourth at that link, for example, is from a TED talk, where Gates opines that:
The world today… is headed up to about nine billion [people]. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%.
The fifth is very similar. Here, Gates pleads:
The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where the people are the least able to deal with it, so it’s in the very poorest places that you’re going to have a tripling in population by 2050. And so their ability to feed, educate, provide jobs, stability, protect the environment, in those locations means they’re facing an almost impossible problem.
If you read these statements carefully, you’ll see they don’t actually support the idea that Gates wants to reduce the world population by vaccinating people to death. First, he could hardly be expected to air such plots in a public forum; and second, Gates almost always pairs his remarks about population with other concerns about healthcare, food and education. These are strange scruples for a homicidal maniac bent on killing billions.
These statements only begin to make sense, when you realise that they’re rooted in the sociological theory of demographic transition. This theory observes that, as societies advance technologically and economically, they shift from an order of high birth rates and high death rates to an order of low birth rates and low death rates. Gates, who like all globalist elites is worried about environmental impacts from there being too many humans, believes that he can reduce the total peak population in places like Africa by introducing medical interventions to lower mortality and thereby guide populations to a low-birth-rate, post-transition demographic pattern. Whether this theory is right, or whether this makes Gates’s interventions morally defensible, are separate questions. What is beyond dispute, is that this is what Gates is arguing and what everybody in his audience understands him to be arguing.
The banal truth is that Gates is an unoriginal flabby Western liberal. He’s worried about the environment, about population and about disadvantaged brown people, and he thinks he can solve all these problems by improving healthcare. This isn’t a defence of him. I happen to think he’s a malign influence and that if we can’t rein in the Gates’s of the world we’re finished, but that’s not because he’s bent on using mRNA vaccines to decimate humanity.
Those concerned about the Global Depopulation Agenda will not be appeased by these clarifications, of course. They’ll point to anti-natalist messaging and policy in Western nations, and also to organisations like the Club of Rome and establishment intellectuals like Paul Ehrlich, who have openly railed against the spectre of overpopulation. They’ll argue – rightly – that our entire political culture is in thrall to a green movement which opposes any technology that might further human flourishing via reliable energy, regardless of its carbon impact. They’ll say I myself have frequently complained that countries like Germany are doing permanent damage to their economies by pursuing an energy transition which will make no difference in the longer term, because future carbon emissions are almost entirely a function of increasing prosperity and population growth in the developing South and East.
If there isn’t a Global Depopulation Agenda, what’s going on, and how are all these ominous developments to be explained?
The answer is very important, and it lies in the peculiarities of postwar political ideology and the moral instincts which this ideology expresses.
There are many ways to illustrate this, but the most efficient is probably this classic Nature paper on ‘Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle‘.
Among other things, the authors asked study participants identifying as ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ (in the American sense) to indicate their spheres of primary moral concern. ‘Conservatives’ tended to emphasise those spheres nearest to themselves – their immediate family, their more extended relatives, their friends – as bearing the greatest moral weight. ‘Liberals’, meanwhile, expressed the greatest moral interest in those spheres furthest from themselves – ‘all people on all continents’, for example, or ‘all mammals’.
Plotted as heat-maps on 16 concentric circles, where the first circle is ‘immediate family’ and the 16th is ‘all things in existence’, the comparative results look like this:
Because the future survival of humanity is at stake here, we should drop the dumb ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ labels.
The heatmap on the left is not ‘conservative’. It reflects the ordinary, unremarkable moral orientation of almost all human beings who have ever lived, and almost all currently living humans across the entire world. Without a moral orientation that somehow prioritises your progeny and your relatives (however widely understood), your genes will get nowhere.
The heatmap on the right, meanwhile, represents the anomalous exogenous moral orientation (EMO) of political and cultural elites in the developed West, which ‘liberal’ cannot even begin to describe, and which applies primary moral emphasis to circles 13 and 14. These are ‘all animals in the universe, including alien lifeforms’ and ‘all living things in the universe including plants and trees’. Substantial moral value is also attached to things in the twelfth circle, ‘all animals on earth including paramecia and amoebae’, and in the fifteenth circle, ‘all natural things in the universe including inert entities such as rocks’. These are people who, strictly speaking, claim to feel morally bound to family, friends and relatives primarily to the extent that these fall within the ‘living things’ or ‘things in existence’ categories.
While we aren’t exactly governed by shape-shifting lizards, we are governed by completely insane ideologues who would do the bidding of shape-shifting lizards – if necessary at our dire expense – were these ever to be discovered.
Now, it’s not quite as bad as it seems. Remember above all that these are moral aspirations and ideals; they are how study respondents claim to feel. Revealed preferences show that most of these people, in their personal lives, still attach substantial moral weight to their immediate friends, family and community. They probably feel qualms about this, however, and when the context is not so immediate – when, for example, they’re making policy decisions for millions of citizens – they’ll compensate by caving to their idealised EMO wherever possible. Put another way: Bill Gates likes the convenience of his private jet, even as he hopes to discourage people from flying.
Remember also that it is the dose which makes the poison. Some degree of EMO isn’t bad. It’s one reason that we look down on littering, for example. An important expression of growing Western EMO would be the European interest in other peoples and cultures, including much-maligned colonialism and the less-maligned British campaign to abolish the slave trade after the later 18th century. Particularly since 1900, however, the EMO of Western governing elites has grown ever more extreme, to the point that it has begun to constitute an existential threat for human civilisation.
How this radical and historically unprecedented EMO came to be so ingrained is a complex question. Putting it down to the media or to propaganda is not fully satisfying, because we’d have to ask where the media and the propagandists got these ideas in the first place.
A prerequisite is technology and our growing alienation from nature. Anyone who has spent a rough week or two on the face of a mountain will come away from the experience personally enriched, but perhaps also doubtful that unmanaged, unmitigated nature is every bit as friendly, good and deserving of moral concern as his immediate family. Tropes which locate wisdom in distant indigenous peoples and on foreign continents likewise betray a naivete about the realities of hunter-gatherer existence and a lack of experience with life beyond the prosperous West.
A more important, immediate causal factor, is the upset in established social orders since the Industrial Revolution, which has coincided with the rise of liberal democracy, and the replacement of the traditional aristocracy with new managerial elites. The latter have frequently pursued tactical alliances with outsiders or the lower classes to displace prior establishments – including, as the quiet revolution continues, prior managerial establishments. This is the primary function of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity initiatives in America today, and it obviously encourages and depends upon both orchestraters and beneficiaries to engage in radical EMO rituals.
As the problem seems to be growing worse over time, self-reinforcing selection effects probably also play an important part. The more pronounced EMO is favoured by the governing elite, the more all politicians and persons of prominence in the West are specifically selected for this trait, or at least for their willingness to pantomime it. While people with these moral tendencies have always existed, they’ve never been so heavily concentrated in positions of influence before, and the more concentrated they become, the more aggressively they filter for like-minded radicals like themselves, even in the absence (and in excess) of any specific objective.
Once you have seen this simple dynamic at work, you cannot unsee it.
It explains the increasing prominence of animal (and even alien) protagonists in entertainment media, the overt preference for fringe sexual minorities, the predilection for supranational global political bodies and non-governmental organisations which transcend borders and national institutions.
It explains, in particular, why governing elites are so open to insane unprecedented policies like mass immigration. They no longer have particular national moral categories at all, and so they reluctantly embrace all of humanity, and preferentially all living things everywhere. Similarly, it explains why mainstream liberal policies happily enlarge the carbon footprints of millions of third-world immigrants by welcoming them into the industrialised West, while simultaneously waging war on all aspects industrial society for their supposed negative impacts on nature.
Less obviously, the radical EMO of our leaders and their supporters explains the increasing willingness of elites to tolerate suboptimal and actively harmful policies at home. The moral world of the people who run our countries has grown enormously in size, leaving the spheres of their direct jurisdiction almost microscopic in comparison. Why not shut down all of society in an effort to kill a (likely man-made) virus? Why not inject poorly tested mRNA novelty vaccines in billions and suppress all evidence of negative effects? That elites increasingly treat their populations like cattle is a direct expression of their expanded moral universe. They have so many other things to care about.
It took a while for these moral sentiments to find their proper ideological articulation. In the early 1970s, people with radical EMO signalled, for a brief time, about the dangers of human overpopulation, and there ensued a moment of moral hysteria in which people like Paul Ehrlich wrote books like The Population Bomb. The years since have seen the emergence of a more differentiated ideological system, which extends lesser but still privileged consideration to Third World populations. Thus anti-natalist systems are confined mostly to the West, where the most zealous environmental policies are also implemented. That Europe could disappear tomorrow with minimal effects on long-term global population projections or the future composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant. It is the fact that this is the circle of least moral concern which is determinative.
In the nineteenth century, somebody like Bill Gates would be far more likely to run domestic charities, but in our present hyper-EMO world, he spends every waking moment thinking about Africa, and how he can help Africans, and in the process also save nature by hastening the African transition towards lower birthrates and bringing the Net Zero ideal closer to reality. All the policy documents and aspirational statements produced by the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and other bodies are animated by a similar spirit.
A globalist cabal plotting the depopulation of the world would be a grave problem, but one with a clear enough solution. We’re facing, instead, an entire moral and ideological system, with very deep roots in prosperous Western culture. This isn’t a universe where everybody wakes up tomorrow, elects to put Bill Gates on trial for his crimes against humanity, and returns thereafter to sensible public health policy. It’s a world where millions of people share the ideological anxieties of eccentric children like Greta Thunberg, manifest escalating indifference to adverse policy outcomes in their own countries, and dream of a future earth devoid of humans like themselves. Because the driving forces operate at the level of moral instinct and emotion, no amount of evidence or appeals to reason that can stop this. Probably the best hope lies in its naïveté and idealism. Worsening conditions will ultimately deprive these ideologies of their cultural appeal; how bad things have to get before this happens, is the terrifying question.
This piece originally appeared on Eugyppius’s Substack newsletter. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Kill Gates is on the record stating that a 10-15% reduction in population through quacksination is achievable and desirable. Rona was largely a G20 event, a white middle class religious phenomenon, not sure it was used to depop to be honest, but might well have been part of the plan for the aged. If it was, it targeted the wrong countries of course if you view population explosions.
G20 countries will soon see their populations implode due to low birth rates and unfettered baby murders. I read that Japan, Italy and Spain will be halved in size by 2100. China will suffer as well. India and Africa keep growing, with Africa set to double and head to 2.5 billion by 2050.
If you think the UK is going to sink from the 1 million immigrants a year now, just wait. Show has only just started.
There lies the population issue – Africa. What do you do about it? Open your borders? Poison the quacksines and hope? Abort every baby? Wage wars?
The stupidity of the eco cult is that ‘civilisation’ leads to not only ‘cleaner, greener’ countries, but to imploding pops. Africa is not ‘modern’ in any sense and a perfect lab for green nonsense. It is not green, nor Gaia friendly. It is largely a mess.
I guess the Africans are destined to rule the world, along with the Indians and Brazilians. I wonder how that will work out.
Interesting, and certainly food for thought, but I cannot possibly believe that the switch that was flicked three years ago was the result of a change in moral orientation of the elites (and liberals at large). I don’t believe that is a plausible explanation because what happened wasn’t any kind of steady state change, it was a global step change. A step change has a clear trigger, and cannot be explained away by the slow shift of a moral compass.
It’s theoretically possible that a shift in moral orientation could explain the reason for coordinating the step change, but coordination there most certainly needed to be.
But it is not suggested that a switch was flipped 3 years ago – it has been building for a long time. It may feel as though a switch was flipped with the Trans and Climate Agendas etc but that is surely because those who aspire to be part of this big thinking gang have become more confident and therefore outspoken?
Nah. Most people don’t think anywhere near that much.
The vast majority of people understand and are drawn to power and success.
If Bill Gates shows himself to be running the global “pandemic” response, then people instinctively feel he’s the man to follow.
If you hung, draw and quarter Bill Gates publicly, the public will quickly understand the signal not to follow what that guy thinks.
The left, btw, understand this very well, which is why they jump to demonise and destroy anyone who disagrees with them.
(“Left” means collectivists)
So, yeah, lop a few of the right heads off and the public zeitgeist will dutifully follow.
What I find sinister is Bill Gates’ use of vaccines as a gateway to digital ID. Digital ID will indirectly kill a lot of people by enabling tyrannical government.
I think it’s also fair to say that if their policies kill people then they are not too bothered. For example when they insist that everybody should take a poorly-tested novel vax, or when the WHO pandemic treaty includes a commitment to misdirect 5% of national health budgets, with all the misdirection of real resources such as medical personnel that follows from that, to fight a largely non-existent threat of pandemics.
“to fight a largely non-existent threat of pandemics.”
Let me correct that:
…to fight a non-existent threat of pandemics…
Huxley you’re not being true to form. There is a pandemic threat. Firstly they’re buying the media to tell us it’s a pandemic. Secondly they’re cooking up new bugs and corresponding “vaccines” as we speak. “The next one will be noticed”. You never know we might have a pandemic next time.
Yes that was such a weird thing for Gates to say. No pandemics to speak of for over a century, then a lab escape with exceptional PR, then “We’ll have to prepare for the next one. That will get attention this time.”?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5010580/user-clip-bill-gates-pandemic-will-attention-time
Yes Bill. You sound vaccinated to me.
“a commitment to misdirect 5% of national health budgets”
Sorry for the misinformation, it’s actually worse than we thought. If you look at Chapter VI article 19 of the draft treaty https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf, the 5% is just for domestic spending on pandemic preparedness. There will be a further percentage (currently marked “XX%” in the draft) on top of that for international spending on pandemic preparedness.
If Dr. Jordan Peterson’s recent interview with Stephen Shaw is to be believed, in which Shaw posits that the declining birth rate could bring about societal collapse due to the lack of new children being born, we won’t have to worry about Gates, Schwab and friends. Worth a listen IMO.
Just happened to listen today and agree very interesting.
Regarding motivations of the Covid players, IMO number one is money (Big Pharma, social and MSM, Gates), feeding into desire for power (politicians, technocrats, WHO, WEF), with stupidity at the bottom (the sheeple).
If the jabs were an attempt at massive depopulation, then they were a reasonably poor device on a world scale.
“If the jabs were an attempt at massive depopulation…”
Oh I believe it is reasonably safe to assume they were designed to depopulate. We are quite a number of years from knowing what the long term effects of the injections will be but reduced lifespan for many is nigh on a certainty.
It depends on how far the birth rate declines though. If, God forbid, it drops into Children of Men territory, then he would be correct. But if it remains at or near the average European levels seen in the past couple of decades, the population will shrink of course, but it won’t be catastrophic like some think it will be.
In the long run, if the TFR remains as follows after any positive momentum runs out:
TFR > 2.1 = continued growth
TFR 2.0-2.1 = ~ ZPG
TFR 1.5-1.9 = gentle decline
TFR 1.0-1.5 = rapid decline
TFR < 1.0 = Children of Men
I.m intimidated by the sheer length of this article, so I’m unsure whether you’ve disappeared up your own fundament or not. Fundamentally speaking, I’m disinclined to take it on, (as in “I can’t be ar$ed”)·.
Yes, I gave up when I encounted the phrase anomalous exogenous moral orientation (EMO). The writer would do himself (and us) a favour by trying to express his thoughts in a rather more succinct and digestible style.
A surprising number (well, surprising to me) of my kids’ friends say they don’t want children of their own. A rather less surprising number can’t afford their own house, which certainly puts a brake on having kids should they want them. Instead, they inevitably continue to lead prolonged, student like living conditions, deferring responsibility until some undefined future date. It’s easy to see why they think they care more about babies in Africa than babies at home when they have neither babies nor home.
You can’t have a capitalist society if the people haven’t got any capital. Capital gives you something to defend & grow. A failure to allow so many younger people to acquire capital is the great failure of Western governments.
QE and zero interest rates for over a decade are the root cause of that.
Indeed, QE and ZIRP are in practice basically UBI for the ultra-rich, which increased the half-century trend towards greater financialization of the economy (and thus rigging of the economy for benefit of the oligarchs).
Hey downvoter, you know I’m right. Now admit it. You’re probably one of the oligarchs, lol.
Indeed, they are actually the ones thinking rationally. When the game is rigged, only suckers still play by the old rules.
So Bill Gates just “means well” and there is nothing sinister whatsoever in his capture of Global Health/Vaccine Institutions and a fast-track to Governments, who fawn over him almost as much as they do St Greta of the Bleeding Moronic.
The Chinese Government “meant well” when it introduced the One Child Policy …. which led directly to child-murder, at-term “abortions” and many other abuses.
Gates is a malign influence and his money should NOT give him a fast-track to Government and Global Health Policies which – whether he intended it or not – will result in the abuse, and possibly early deaths, of millions.
He’s also the owner of the largest area of farmland in the USA & a funder & promoter of fake food made with GMO & highly processed products, which are known to cause inflammation in the body. Inflammation in the body is what causes disease.
Irrespective of what fluffy, positive spin he puts on a subject for public consumption, his desire for control is anything but philanthropic.
Everything over the last few years, & long before, has been about the children. It’s the children that they wish to get to. Child trafficking (about 10 million children are trafficked each year) has never been stamped out despite all the right noises being made in public. Why not?
Injecting toxins into children, known carcinogens, neurotoxins being in every paediatric “vaccination” vial. Why?
This man is a promoter of paediatric vaccination programmes & has been found out in India for including undisclosed pzp in the HPV vaccine, which is a known sterilisation substance. Yet he has not sued any journalist who has asserted that none of Gates’ children have been vaccinated. He can’t sue when what has been asserted is most likely the truth. Why is he promoting something which he didn’t subject his children to?
He’s also known to be in Epstein’s black book & on flight logs…. This man’s presence/involvement in any health or public interest issue signals a deeply malign intent, IMHO.
Gates is also wanted in India to answer charges of mass murder of children and young women related to …oh, his “vaccines” I do believe.
Indeed. I think Eugyppius should look a bit more into Gates’ sterilising Gardasil vaccines that he shoved into Indian kids before swallowing whole his good intentions.
I find the discussion of Gates along the lines of whether he is a goodie who gets it wrong or a full-on baddie is childish and very reflective of our infantilised times.
Anyone who is a grown up understands that everything has a cost. Doing “good” things are no exception. They have costs too. The problem with the likes of megalomaniacs with big global projects like Gates feel empowered and justified in defining and imposing the costs on others. So, for example, he goes on national television at the start of the covid panic and advocates the most severe strict lockdowns possible. He advocates jabs for everyone (and later admits they don’t work, without any apparent remorse). The psycho considers himself entitled to place a cost on others to achieve HIS vision.
Our society has simply forgotten that powerful people – regardless of how noble their intentions may be – invariably do awful things to others. The abuse of their power is what makes them evil – not what lies in their hearts, which quite frankly none of us know and I personally couldn’t give a shit about.
“We meant well” has been the cause of so much misery in this world throughout history. We all know what the road to hell is paved with. In economics, it’s called the law of unintended consequences. Or in layman’s terms, Murphy’s Law.
I don’t think Gates has a philanthropic bone in his body, all he is interested in is making money. Look how quickly he dropped his covid Pharma shares.
He is a philanthropath: a psychopath posing as a philanthropist.
He’s the perfect Bogeyman
Much of what is argued here is absolutely accurate and is a great sociopsycological analysis of Western Elite thinking. It is a fact that millions, in some Western states supermajorities of the inhabitants are zealous adherents to this EMO ideological framework. Gates and the Davos cronies are either deeply welded to their religious precepts or are simply quite comfortable wearing its adornments as long as they don’t interfere with their materialistic obsessions.
Also what is true here is that it is only possible through the artificially pumped up economic system that is currently teetering on the precipice of an almighty cliff.
Whats missing are the confluence of other mechanisms that are being put in place via NGO influence. Specifically the PPP groupings well discussed in Ian Davis’ book “Pseudopandemic.”
The digital control systems and the climate industrial complex are now so obviously being ratcheted up to corral the Western populace in particular that a deeper depopulation agenda doesn’t need to play a prominent role. The end result however is that should one want to depopulate the planet all the mechanisms for doing so without significant resistance will be created once we are subject to digital IDs, full spectrum surveillance systems and a centrally controlled CBDC.
It may very well be that there is no overt agenda to depopulate the planet via the MRNA vaccine system morphing into all injections now, but it’s quite convenient that very policy, every lie and manipulation coming from governments, through paid for media, funded Davos level corporations, just happens to be achieving the same result.
As some other clever poster here said regarding conspiracy vs cockup, sometimes it can and is both.
I this regard, there is both a generational social change of belief systems and a deeply powerful group of elites using the ideology of hyper materialism, anti tradition, anti humanity trend to achieve the nihilistic and totalitarian fantasies through an advanced technological control grid.
People like Gates are the vax damaged autistic and mentally deranged leaders of a movement that is so destructive and careless of humanity that they do deserve a special place in hell.
This is nonsense.
The global ruling class hate and fear us plebs. They think there are too many of us cluttering the place up. In particular they feel that us Western middle class types are using too much energy and too many resources.
Quite frankly they would prefer to have picturesque re-wilded areas rather than farms to feed us useless eaters.
It’s as simple as that.
Quite.
Charlie Windsor believes that the result of their great reset will be a vastly depopulated England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in which he can trundle about in his cheese powered, open-topped Bentley accepting the doffed caps of his peasantry as they break from their labours to watch him passing. A 21st century version of a Constable painting in other words.
Interesting essay.
How do we know the ‘liberals’ are not just virtue signalling ?
In my experience ‘liberals’ have mental health issues and personality disorders.
RFKjr book Fauci is worth reading for an understanding of BG’s moral compass.
Wait, what? Gates actually HAS a moral compass? That’s news to me!
One substantial question from reading this article – am I any better informed for the reading thereof?
No, not really. There is always a danger given our current circumstances of overthinking the situation and that is exactly what Eugyppius has done. This is a far more relevant analysis of where we are and where we are headed:
https://iceni.substack.com/p/spartacast-08#details
Hat tip Mogwai.
Thank you for that – the same author tells the story of a promising broad-spectrum antiviral https://iceni.substack.com/p/draco-down-the-memory-hole The agent targets double-stranded RNA, which is characteristic of the reproduction of RNA and DNA viruses but not of normal cells. It never got funding beyond the initial stage and MIT allowed the patents to lapse prematurely. There’s a NZ company working on veterinary applications and there is published Chinese research too. It could be manufactured in secret to protect a rogue, privileged group against some engineered pandemic.
Many thanks.
One of the most profound analyses I have ever read on the subject. Western civilisation is imploding – destroying itself. Another way of analysing the collapse is to understand that it has rejected its roots in Christianity, which (a) places strong emphasis on loving one’s immediate neighbour, and (b) warns against false righteousness (as epitomised by the Pharisees – saying but not doing, concerned about appearance rather than the state of one’s heart). Given that God exists and that Christianity expresses his model for living well, he cannot be indifferent to what is going on. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are clear that civilisations eventually become so corrupt that there is nothing in them worth saving and then they are brought to an end. This is about to happen with our own – see my When the Towers Fall: A Prophecy of What Must Happen Soon.
Steven, I Googled your book and saw it was on Amazon. But alas the Amazon reviews were very light on details. I do recall you mentioning it on Daily Sceptic several times recently. Please elaborate a bit about what you think will happen, and when. Honest question for you: we know that throughout history, there have been a gazillion other predictions by a gazillion other folks based on the Bible and such that were supposed to have come to pass by now but they did not, so what is it about yours that stands out from the rest? Thanks
How this radical and historically unprecedented EMO came to be so ingrained is a complex question. Putting it down to the media or to propaganda is not fully satisfying, because we’d have to ask where the media and the propagandists got these ideas in the first place?
All the destructive NGOs paid for by the likes of Soros, Gates and the Rockefellers have had a massive impact over many decades. Grants to media outlets and universities likewise.
‘This isn’t a universe where everybody wakes up tomorrow, elects to put Bill Gates on trial for his crimes against humanity, and returns thereafter to sensible public health policy. It’s a world where millions of people share the ideological anxieties of eccentric children like Greta Thunberg,…’
A superb piece by Eugyppius, but he omits to ask if his ‘ideological anxieties’ affecting millions could be medical. So many people feel something is wrong, they just don’t feel right within themselves, cannot relax and live, are terrified that life is ebbing when they have not begun to live. This is what produces EMO, which is a euphemism for self-hate.
Any theory accounting for this syndrome must also account for its absence. What is it that is different about people, still the majority, who are not terrified of death, do not get a stabbed in the stomach feeling from the recurring thought that the best is already past, and nothing is to come except gloom and the shade?
Get ready for a banality.
Human infants have basic needs, which must be met if they are to grow up happy, relaxed and comfortable within themselves. These needs are not debatable or negotiable but simply factual. The human infant needs the love and nurture of a (biological) mum and a (biological) dad. And, absolutely essentially, they need breast feeding.
I enjoyed the essay, but I am not sure it works to post-rationalise an apparent belief system. It is certainly a good description, but a description is not a reason. I am much more concerned about how this belief system infiltrates all our civic institutions.
EMO people are also far more prone to have mental health problems than internally focused ones.
A third of young liberal girls now have them, as per this article.
https://www.thefp.com/p/why-the-mental-health-of-liberal
So we have basically put the lunatics in charge of the asylum, and we are now paying the price for that.
EMO people are also not interested at all in anything or anyone outside of the Cult.
When they speak, they only speak to another, to get approval and increased status within their Cult.
And that explains and reinforces their and their Cult’s now very obvious nihilism.
https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=29470
https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=29445
It is worse then that. An attempt to depopulate would at least be fuelled by some sort of endgame, even if it is just some naive aesthetic. We are talking about the great poisoning that started in 1998. And it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to kill it was more an acknowledgment on an economic level that money could go wherever it wanted. From that point onwards we have all been poisoned including insects and animals. Compare your insect population to ten years ago. People ask, why would they do this when they are poisoning themselves – the answer is simple – we are talking about the psychology of the junkie who doesn’t care who he harms in order to get his next fix. Why assume that because people have more power than you that they have more control over their base impulses. It is quite clear that the opposite must be true.
First of all, Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab are not running the world. The world is owned and run by bankers and financiers, not geeks and Blofelds.
We’ve given the ability to print money over to a cartel of private banks and allowed them to establish central banks in each country that essentially run our monetary policy. Our pensions and insurance premiums are used to own and manage the stock market on our behalf while we slave away for those same corporations without any say in how they are governed.
These bankers and financiers control the media and academia. The pervasiveness of the corporate media is such that few people would accept their own opinions or those of their most respected loved ones over the corporate faces and voices that come out of the boxes in their living rooms or the devices they carry around.
The most that Bill Gates can aspire to in this is to provide the front end of the digital ID system, which will be used to deliver the Central Bank Digital Currency. In this endeavour he hopes to partner with the Rockefeller Foundation through the ID2020 Project. Have you ever seen or heard of anyone from the Rockefeller Foundation? Neither have I, but I’ll bet you my bottom dollar that they have a lot more influence over this world than Bill Gates.
Academics like to think of the world as playing out according to a set of evolving theories and thought patterns that spontaneously develop. These thought patterns are based in natural and political philosophies that can trace their development over the centuries and shape the world by playing out in the actions of our political leaders and captains of industry. I’m sorry to say it, but I think the attraction of this worldview to academics is that it gives them some level of control in understanding the theories and the possibility of a solution if only they could get others to understand them.
An alternative perspective is that these theories and thoughts are almost entirely curated with an agenda firmly in mind. By taking over academia and the media, the concentrated owners of this planet have the opportunity to empower those that will prosecute their agenda and disempower or outright attack those that stand against it. As much as these evolving arguments and attitudes could follow a particular pattern, they could equally follow another. The influence the centralised financial and media forces have over which pattern plays out in society is close to absolute.
We are in every sense in the position of sophisticated livestock. The main difference between us and livestock being that we are so programmable through the media and financial incentives provided to us and so easily fooled that we are in charge of our own destinies.
The political leaders we elect have no incentive whatsoever to act in our interest and every incentive to act in their masters’ interest. They do not have anywhere near the power of the owners of this planet and at most are able to lick their boots and maybe make a few million off of speaking tours when they leave office (Blair, Boris). They are not independent actors and if they even think about having their own ideas they can be kicked out by the owners without a blink from the livestock (Liz Truss).
This relationship of empowerment is an agent/principle relationship but it need not be direct. Indeed the agent need not be aware of the identity of the principle if the principle has the ability to control the public discourse and the thought leaders through the media. Things that were unthinkable a decade ago are suddenly axiomatic.
What has amazed me over the last decade is how the common livestock can become so actively involved in constructing their own prison and torturing themselves and their fellow prisoners. Social media and mobile devices have allowed those on fixed salaries slaving away for corporations owned by their pension funds to only find delight in subverting every norm that has held our society and economy together over centuries. When they strike a blow for the overturning of everything that previously held them together, they are rewarded with digital thumbs up from all their similarly empowered buddies. The culture of compliance this creates is self-evident and I cannot see it as organic.
I very much enjoyed Eugyppius’ article on the conflict in Ukraine, where he refers to “the global American empire [that] doesn’t invade; [as] that is not what systems do. It assimilates. It is basically a borg that imposes economic and political constraints on an ever expanding expanse of the globe, which progressively fatten, distract and deracinate populations, with a view towards blending them into the same shallow multinational consumerist soup.”
I couldn’t agree more, but for the reasons I’ve outlined above I don’t see it as a “system” that’s developed naturally or a mindless borg without a purpose. There is very much a directing mind and will behind it.
It’s a theory, but I don’t see what evidence would be used to support or refute it, or what useful conclusion you would draw from it.
What’s a theory? Are central and fractional reserve banking theories? I suppose they are, but they’re also the mechanisms of finance that make the world go round. I suppose the theories of Freud, Bernays, Strauss and Alinksy are theories, but they also run through every message put out by the corporate media for the last 50-100 years.
Are the ownership structures in the media and the stock market theories? No, they’re very much practical realities. Are the owners that have established them theoretical? No, they’re very real indeed.
If you want to imagine what useful conclusion you could draw from it, just take the news this week. The US Federal Government is using the banking crisis it created to cause a run on several smaller banks or to directly take them over, so that the remaining banks can consolidate their cartel power. Next will be the abolishment of cash so that you can never have a run on a bank again and then it’s digital currency.
The more we acknowledge that this is an agenda being directed by a small number of people, the more chance we have to push back against it. I don’t think putting it down to the zeitgeist as this article does is going to do that.
Sorry, at the time I responded to your comment I didn’t know what you meant. God bless.
I think you have to understand these positions on a more visceral and spiritual level. HIgh populatons have been a concern since the time of Plato. There is an unconscious anxierty in elites in that they know that when the disparity in numbers goes beyond a certain point they will naturally lose control as a matter of course. Yes they would be happier with most of us out of the way but this is a tendency that I have seen in many people.
An attempt to lower the population has at least a twisted good intention. The real agenda is the great poisoning and it has no intention or agenda.
They plot nothing in fact a l ot of what they do ends up poisoning themselves and their families.It is a different thing it is adherence to a system, which is ultimately far more destructive. But they won’t be able to adhere for much longer,
Bill Gates doesn’t care about disadvantaged brown people, white people, black people or any other kind of people.
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
The name “Wokingham” needs to change as it is too “woke”, lol.
He is actually one of your benefactors. You should see what your enemies have in store for you. You won;t have to wait much longer.
“…fixing things will involve a lot more than rounding up all the Anthony Faucis of the world and trying them for crimes against humanity.”
Wouldn’t be a bad way to start though, would it.
Absolutely
Gates would just love a population of that’s equal to Epstein Island where he can practice his satanic desires. Don’t worry folks we’ll soon be one less per world population. ADIOS WILLIAM.
On ‘Conservatives’ and ‘Liberals’, or Right and Left, Ronald Regan said in his 1964 ‘A Time for Choosing’ speech, “You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down.”
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VBtCMTPveA, Transcript at: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/time-choosing-speech-october-27-1964%5D
No one has explained the push to vaccinate the young with the MRNA vaccines. The young who are the fertile or potentially fertile. Even now a push for a 4th shot for school age children when covid has basically left the scene! Why if not for some nefarious purpose?
Exactly.
The biggest problem with Eugypius’s considerations (which I don’t wholly disagree with) is that there is zero consideration as to WHY these global elites believe that a) there is a problem to solve and b) that they have the right answers.
That they believe they are sufficiently powerful, competent, should be listened to etc is not beyond doubt – their sheer arrogance has confirmed this for a long time! But WHO has fed them the ‘science’ (how I detest that word now) which confirms that this is a problem and that this is what is causing it etc?
This argument suggests that these middle aged (being generous), over confident psychopaths are just yet another cog in the wheel. Yes, Eugypius may have identified WHY they believe they are doing good in their own twisted way but NOT addressed the remainder of the condundrum
The number 1 reason that our society is in crisis is the amount of wealth that is available in western countries. Governments have become too large and have too much disposable wealth. Too much money is available for funding fake charities and Non Profits as well as all the myriad of government funded institutions all peddling fear to ensure funding and power. Governments also directly fund many of these institutions like the UN and WEF through direct funding and tax free donations from oligarchs’. ALL of these movements like climate change, perpetual wars and net zero only occur in rich western countries. Elites have learned how to work this system to ensure funding and incomes. There are literally millions of these charities and non profits in the west all dreaming up ways to generate revenue usually through fear generation problems.
Re-reading this article, I think Eugyppius could probably have cut down the stuff about heatmaps (including the illustrations themselves) to about three sentences without reducing the import of his message – which is interesting but probably something most people have thought about to some extent one way or another anyway. Not saying it’s an idea not worth thinking about again, but I’m not sure it justifies the length of this article. Hope that doesn’t sound ungrateful for the many other articles from Eugyppius that have hit the mark a little more intriguingly…