Why wear a tinfoil hat

In the last podcast O Papo É, number 67, I was asked what I think: if I really think that the virus Covid is a biological weapon and if vaccines were made to kill a portion of the population. I, who haven’t been bothered by being called a far-right radical or a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist for a long time, replied that I think there is a plan to reduce the world’s population. As the podcast wasn’t about that, the discussion didn’t go any further. So, today I bring here some considerations about the State of Social Welfare and about the Agenda 2030, of the UN.

Before, however, some considerations. I missed female sterilization for vaccines. As we saw in this paper, Pfizer’s vaccine “does not stay at the injection site and spread throughout the body, as had already been suggested by the European Medicines Agency and a leaked Japanese report. mRNA nanoparticles are found in small amounts in ovaries, spleen and % remain in the liver after 48 hours of injection”. Just as Pfizer’s vaccines began to be applied, the English-speaking internet was flooded with reports of problems with menstrual cycles. If it is already a daunting task to state the causal relationship between a vaccine that causes thrombocytopenia (see the leaflet) and the death from thrombocytopenia of a healthy boy vaccinated with it (see Arlene Graf’s ordeal), it is not surprising that the issue of fertility has been neglected. Furthermore, it doesn’t take long for people to have a heart attack or a stroke, but it takes them a while to discover that they are sterile. These girls who are now being taken by their parents to the vaccination lines will only want to be mothers in about ten years. Lots of water will flow. The effects of this mRNA on your ovaries are not being studied, but schools are conditioning enrollment to injection!

That this sort of thing is uncritically accepted by many people, shows that we should not dismiss hypotheses because they seem too malevolent. So, in the spirit of these “aluminum hat” reflections, I wrote in this newspaper a text in which I explain that it makes more sense to speak, today, of cultural neo-Nazism than of cultural Marxism.

From Europe to the globe?

As we see on the UN website, the agenda 2030 can be considered a kind of globalized version of the Welfare State mixed with Greta Thumberg environmentalism and identity. Welfare State is not communism; in it, instead of the end of private property, there is a kind of state allowance and good public services, all financed with a high tax burden. This is the model that triumphed in Europe, England included. To stick with the scenario described by Dalrymple, there we have a lot of bureaucracy, a lot of planning, a lot of young drug addicts who lead a meaningless life and depend on help to pay the bills, and, to work, people from other cultures, who do not enjoy citizenship rights (since in Europe the jus sanguinis is valid, not the place of birth), nor are they integrated. There is the middle class, there is the underclass (European citizens who do not work and live in an eternal Datena program) and there are manual workers (who are not citizens). It’s a very different scenario from the United States, where birth guarantees citizenship and the state doesn’t bank a big underclass (Thomas Sowell says that, in particular, blacks are the underclass of the United States, and that this lifestyle is forged by bureaucrats. See his Black Rednecks & White Liberals, or its preface to Life in the Gutter, by Dalrymple). For a few reasons, which probably include the cost of living and the cultural revolution of May 68, the birth rate of European citizens in Europe has been a sadness for a long time, bringing concerns those who compare them with the birth rate of Arab communities.

It is reasonable to say that this European model has been exported to the world. In the United States, Democrats favor the Welfare State; and, as we were saying, the UN intends to implement it: “We are determined to end poverty and hunger, in all forms and dimensions, to ensure that all human beings can fulfill their potential in dignity and equality, and in a healthy environment”.

To end poverty, in fact, there is an easy and certain solution: to exterminate the poor. If we assume that natural resources are limited and that poverty exists, one of these postures will have to be adopted: accept poverty as a given of human reality (denying the agenda 2030), take wealth and distribute it in the big hand or increase global productivity to distribute wealth to the poor. These last two options involve a lot of driving. The option of taking the riches without making a communist revolution is very plausible, and, as I have already argued, it is ongoing during this pandemic: the middle class is expropriated while the giants grow. In the world there would be the owners of everything and the underclass, without middle class. Jeff Bezos and beneficiary of Auxílio Brasil. Western oligarchs and people who have nothing and will be happy, as the WEF preaches.

Still, to increase the wealth of this underclass global without increasing productivity, it would be necessary to reduce the world population.

Eugenics and Neo-Malthusianism

The last issue, that of productivity, could be optimistic: it would require more hands to work in the world. But that’s where environmentalism a la Greta Thumberg comes in. Brazil, with its technological agriculture, should be seen as a hero by the world, as a guarantor of food security. But it is treated as a villain, under the banner of the climate agenda. The UN, so pacifist, intended that “climate change” be seen as threats to global security, thus legitimizing a war against a country accused of environmental crimes. Putin’s Russia saved us: with its veto power, it prevented this resolution from passing. Everyone knows that China burns crazy coal. Still, the good guys point the finger only at Brazil when it comes to environmental crime. And Brazilian journalists don’t care when it’s pointed out that the director of NATO wants to create a green global army to fight climate villains .

UN environmentalism is a very poor cover for neo-Malthusianism, whose corollary is population reduction. You can click here and read the UN document entitled “Population 2030: Demographic challenges and opportunities to plan for sustainable development”. People are treated like carbon emissions, and the world has to prepare for this terrible problem that is the next billion women who will enter of childbearing age. “Enabling women to have the desired number of children and choose the period of their pregnancies presupposes that all women have access to family planning, including a wide range of contraceptive options”. The report also says that female empowerment is a goal and uses the sinister expression “risk of pregnancy”, as if pregnancy is a disease or something unwanted in itself. It is alleged concern with the will of women, but if that were the case, there would be some mention of women who have fewer children than they would like, or who cannot be mothers due to a medical problem that can be resolved.

Furthermore, the report coined the expression “demographic dividend”, a good phase in which the many old people in low-birth countries die and a large proportion of the working-age population remains.

A global planning document talks about the death of the elderly and the reduction of the global population. Years later, a virus “escapes” from a laboratory and reforms Italy’s pension system, the I of the PIGS. A hastily made substance that lodges in the ovary is compulsorily injected into women of childbearing age. Shouldn’t we get a tinfoil hat?

Bad history

The good guys are under our nose for decades, hidden under their sheepskins. Sweden is touted as a success because of its Welfare State – but no one says the human cost of that. Sweden ended poverty by mass forced sterilization of its own population. Is that a price to pay? If so, let each one have the courage to state this in public; what cannot be overlooked.

Planned Parenthood came up with the same UN chat above: helping women to reduce the number of children through planning. Or abortion, even (in the document, there is only talk of avoiding “unsafe abortion”, unsafe abortion). More specifically, its purpose was to wipe out blacks – as Thomas Sowell constantly denounces. Today the White House still has the nerve to say that “the restrictions [ao aborto] are particularly devastating for communities of color”. Shouldn’t we get our tinfoil hat? This is the keynote of the UN conversation, which focuses on Africa when dealing with fertile women as a global problem.

Finally, I remember that the USA started the surveys of gain of function that, because they were too dangerous, were transferred to Wuhan, China. The US should do its best to investigate the achievements of Peter Daszak and Anthony Fauci; but instead that country, through its journalism corporations and big tech, endeavored to call anyone crazy or a conspiracy theorist who said that the virus had been created in a laboratory. What is now an overwhelming probability was censored by Facebook.

I will not be deluded by China’s supposed communism. The biggest problem we face in the West is this globalist neo-Nazism.

Back to top button