Population Reduction is the Driving Logic of Covid and Global Warmers

Covid and climate change are a battleground for the right to “rebuild post-pandemic society in a sustainable way.” Even committed believers admit “some turned to eco-facism and decided that the world would just be better off without us.”

I'd rather use the word Millenarian rather than the wooly eco-fascist, because those who want to purify the earth of humans through a holocaust (accurate meaning of a sacrifice completely consumed by fire) are religious zealots. 

'What will you do when the world gets hot?’, the red-robed, carefully made up, street actors of Extinction Rebellion intone as they gyrate their bodies in a mock fire of hell. 

I also call them Global Warmers which is a far more accurate description of their beliefs than climate change, which is a tautology. On the other side are those who seized upon Event Covid as an opportunity -- or who planned it as a rival path to an ecological Great Reset.

What separates the Global Warmers from the Covidians is mostly a difference of degree. The Red Cross, whom you might expect to be busy to the point of obsession with Event Covid, has time to remind us that Climate change is a bigger threat than COVID.

"Unfortunately there is no vaccine for climate change," said the Secretary-General of the International Federation of Red Cross in a snappy one-liner.

In Nov 2020 the IFRC had time to compile a report on global catastrophes since the 1960s, and claims the world had been hit by more than 100 disasters—many of them climate related—since the World Health Organization declared the pandemic in March.

One can't help hearing the smacking of lips as professionals in the business of disaster tot up the running total of catastrophe. Sure enough, the Red Cross/Crescent estimated that $50 billion would be needed annually over the next decade to help 50 developing countries to adapt to the changing climate.

The main mover behind Event Covid is, of course, Bill Gates who has financed preparations for a pandemic and has been spot-on with his predictions. This includes Event 201 in Oct 2019, that predicted that the world would be unprepared for a viral outbreak -- and then did nothing to prepare for it. This fact puts a new spin on the phrase "disaster planning".

Gates was not alone. The Rockefeller tax-exempt foundations produced the Lockstep document in 2010 and the World Economic Forum has been working on its Great Reset for half a decade. All were predicated upon a looming disaster for which would fail to prepare, resulting in the forcible regulation of society that would lead to protest and economic discomfort.

That is the Global Warming agenda in a nutshell but how does progress on GW compare with "progress" on Event Covid and how do these strands weave together? We don't need to fend off accusations of bias because the International Energy Agency has been thinking along the same lines.

In Aug 2020 Bill Gates quoted the IEA to estimated that the Event Covid Lockdown had reduced carbon emissions by about 8 percent, meaning that industry and human activities would release the equivalent of around 47 billion tons of carbon, instead of 51 billion.

Carbon emissions are the gold standard to some and gobbledygook to others. Measurements of carbon, like temperature, can be made to show an increase or a decrease depending on what you choose to measure and when. There is no scientific consensus because consensus is not a scientific concept. There is a tsunami of cash from taxation and carbon tax credits that are a proven boondoggle. Tax-exempt foundations fund exclusively those whose findings report that global warming is caused by carbon emissions.

Bill Gates is one of the funders and makes ready use of the research

"Consider what it’s taking to achieve this 8 percent reduction. More than 600,000 people have died, and tens of millions are out of work. This April, car traffic was half what it was in April 2019. For months, air traffic virtually came to a halt.

Now let’s treat the shutdown caused by COVID-19 as if it were a carbon-reduction strategy. Has closing off major parts of the economy avoided emissions at anything close to $100 per ton? (what Gates calls the benchmark for discussion.)

No. In the United States, according to data from the Rhodium Group it comes to between $3,200 and $5,400 per ton. In the European Union, it’s roughly the same amount. In other words, the shutdown is reducing emissions at a cost between 32 and 54 times the $100 per ton that economists consider a reasonable price."


We are not within striking distance of the Global Warmers' goals, even with a third of small businesses on the verge of bankruptcy and tens of millions of people out of work. The World Food Program says those in acute danger of starvation has doubled to about 300 million. The fact is, we can only imagine how badly people are faring because the corporatist media is not reporting it.

"The loss of life and economic misery caused by this pandemic are on par with what will happen regularly if we do not eliminate the world’s carbon emission," Bill Gates opines. On his own calculations, meeting the Global Warmers' goals will need 32 to 54 times more suffering.

This is where the millenarians arise. Would it not be simpler to just, you know, as Prince Philip said in this exchange with the BBC:

BBC: What do you see as the biggest challenges in conservation?

Philip: The growing human population. From where we are there’s nothing else.

BBC: And do you have views about what should be done about that?

Philip: Can’t you guess?

This is the man who said on another occasion that he would like to return in the after-life as a virus to wipe out humans.

And if you think he's an irrelevant dotard the interests that are most prominent in the Club of Rome and promotion of Agenda 21 and the Great Reset — the British and Dutch royal families, the Rockefellers and Rothschilds — are among the leading owners of the Earth’s mineral resources through Corporations like BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Exxon.

Which brings us full circle to autocracy and plutocracy. One of the great shibboleths of the global warming debate is that the leading environmental organizations are locked in a battle with Big Oil, a struggle for the very survival of the Earth. This opinion is deliberately ignores some inconvenient truths: restriction on the use of oil raises its scarcity value and preserves the wealth for future generations of oligarchs.

As the environmental leader Vandana Shiva puts it, "We are talking about the old oil economy trying to maintain itself with another raw material: the green planet."

If environmentalism and plutocracy find common cause, what is the future for the working stiffs, the ordinary people who built the wealth on which the former rest, signalling their virtue in comfort and plenty?

What we see now is a vary real meeting of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement founded in 1991 by Les Knight and a human culling that involves no such choice. The modern version is Extinction Rebellion, described by spiked! magazine as an "upper-middle-class death cult". Author Brendan O'Neill describes their millenarian chanting in colorful detail:

"The men and women gathered outside King’s Cross station and formed a circle. They swayed and chanted. They preached about End Times.

Extinction Rebellion near New York Stock Exchange, Oct 2019, by Felton Davis (licence)

‘What will you do when the world gets hot, what, what?’, they intoned, conjuring up images of the hellfire they believe will shortly consume mankind. They sang hymns to their god – science. ‘We’ve got all the science / All that we need / To change the world / Hallelujah’, they sang, rocking side to side as they did so."

Both Global Warmers and Covidians argue that a mass die-off is only a matter of time. In both cases the die-off may be averted by timely measures -- yet by their own logic the adjustment to industry, economies and working lives is so great that is not compatible with current levels of consumption, liberty or living standards.

Inconsistent logic means someone is not telling the whole truth. Goals that are incompatible with current stated plans means there are other plans that are not being stated.

To be continued.

Comments