THE GENETIC INHERITANCE
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
In the past, I have talked about the various agendas at depopulation and how one of the biggest agendas that have been pushed by the technocrats is depopulation. In order to maintain sustainability, the technocrats have pushed the idea of thinning the heard with policies aimed at reducing fertility rates: (1) reproductive choice enhancement, (2) preference adjustment, and (3) incentivization.
While few object to the first type of policy, the latter two are generally rejected because of their potential for coercion or morally objectionable manipulation. However, the elite believes that all three are morally justified in order to keep resources balanced.
In the academic journal known as “Social Theory and Practice” a memo entitled “Population Engineering and the Fight against Climate Change” by Colin Hickey, Travis N. Rieder, and Jake Earl states clearly the objective of the powers that be and their agenda of population engineering and what it means to everybody.
In the published memo it states:
“There are two important considerations that favor including population engineering as part of the global policy response to the threat of dangerous climate change. First, the current consensus approach to mitigating climate change, which does not include population engineering, falls short of offering a clear and reasonably certain pathway to avoiding dangerous climate change. Second, reducing global population growth over the next century would have a truly massive effect on global Greenhouse Gas emissions.”
Furthermore, it says:
“While reducing fertility in developing nations is important since their per capita GHG emissions are projected to increase significantly (and should be allowed to do so) over the next several decades, it is not nearly as critical as near-term reductions in the numbers of the world’s wealthy. Although it would be difficult to lower the fertility rate in the United States from 1.9 to, say, 1.4, such a reduction would have a massive impact on both near-term and long-term global GHG emissions—much more even than proportionally larger fertility reductions in sub-Saharan Africa.46 But this raises a question: Why bother to reduce fertility in developing nations at all? If the United States and other developed nations are the real problem, then our efforts, surely, ought to focus exclusively on reducing their numbers. But this is also too simplistic. Many of the worlds poor are becoming richer, and all of the rest ought to become richer. That is, it is both descriptively true that many of the worlds poor will have higher per capita GHG emissions as a result of economic development over the next century, and normatively true that they ought to be allowed to develop this way.47 But the details concerning climate change and demographics in the previous sections make clear that Earth cannot sustain a significantly larger population of wealthier individuals.”
And finally, the way to intervene is to use coercion or change the cultural norms regarding having healthy and happy families.
“Sitting to the right of choice-enhancing interventions on the coercion spectrum is a category of interventions aimed at adjusting preferences to encourage people to have fewer children. The policies in this category work by changing cultural norms and influencing individuals’ beliefs and desires, with the ultimate goal of changing procreative behaviors in the direction of lower fertility.
These changes could be achieved through mass media such as radio and TV content, billboards, poster campaigns, leaflet distribution, folk theater or other artist sponsorship, campaigns or assemblies in public schools, funding for public lectures, etc.”
There is more, but it is very terrifying; what is equally terrifying is that it appears this agenda is underway, not only do they want fertility rates to plummet, but our life expectancy is also plummeting.
I was reading today that the CDC made an announcement that with high mortality rates and low birth rates the United States can no longer sustain a competitive population. Health statistics are showing the population is in ill health and that the fertility rate is at a 30 year low.
The CDC has found in its “National Vital Statistics” report that as of 2017, birth rates have fallen 16 percent below the level needed for the American population to replace itself.
The report finds that only two states, New Mexico and Utah, can replace their own population. D.C. holds the lowest birthrate with 1,421 births for every 1,000 women.
The reported “total fertility rate” was found based on the expected number of births in a lifetime per 1,000 women, given current birth rates by age. The report took its information from 2017 birth certificate data.
Several factors are believed to have an impact, include finances and the cost of a child.
Women are also having children later in life, often because they have not reached all of the milestones they would like to before having kids.
By race, white women consistently had fertility rates below the “replacement level” in any state.
Hispanic women hit the rate in 29 states, while black women only in 12 states.
Life expectancy is also declining in the United States and in most high-income countries worldwide.
Opioid overdose cases are now topping the list for young adult premature death rates and surprisingly deaths from flu, depression, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer are also top killers in high-income countries.
Widespread or sustained declines in life expectancy may signal problems in a nation’s social and economic conditions or in the provision or quality of its healthcare services.
This is the first time in recent decades that so many high-income countries simultaneously experienced declines in life expectancy for both men and women.
Out of 18 countries in the study, 12 experienced life expectancy declines among men and 11 experienced life expectancy decline among women.
Even worse, the study found rising midlife death rates from dozens of diseases of the heart, lung cancer, cancer in the digestive system and other organs.
Although a part of this health disadvantage of lower socioeconomic classes is explained by ‘traditional’ risk factors such as poor diet, alcohol, and smoking, the question remains why these people have a higher risk of choosing such health-damaging behaviors in the first place.
The answer seems to be obvious – in high-income countries, there has to be a group of people that do not have the money to get the right health care and they also lack the money to have nutritious foods that provide them with the nutrients they need to keep healthy.
Many of the drugs and vaccines they get seem to be ineffective and so it looks as if people are doomed to various diseases that are not cured or prevented but prolonged with medicines that cover up the problem.
With all of these negative factors in play, we begin to see a generational pattern of bad habits and ill health being passed down in a genetic domino effect that is decimating the populace.
There’s no money to be made in prescribing prevention advice like eating better, avoiding fewer chemicals and exercising more.
The “bread and butter” of the pharmaceutical industry is unleashing the next, latest-and-greatest drug that is loaded with side effects.
It appears that there really isn’t a reinforced effort to prevent and cure — there are just methods of patching up and prolonging a life of disease that leads to a clean iatrogenic death with plausible deniability.
There is no money in giving patients hope; in fact, a lot of what is recommended by doctors and western medicine is done under duress. Next to the Morticians in the funeral business there really isn’t anything like the pressures you get from doctors to capitalize on the emotional upheaval that happens when you get the news about diseases of the heart, diabetes or cancer.
Cancer, of course, is a topic with high emotional resonance – there is hardly a family in the world that has not been touched by this complex family of diseases. Yet cancer is still widely misunderstood it.
Last year, I reported that a Goldman Sachs analyst actually stated that cures for terminal diseases like Cancer are bad for business in the long run.
The cold and immoral analysis was made in an April 10th, 2018, publication of “The Genome Revolution.”
Analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients:
“The potential to deliver ‘one-shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy, and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies.”.”While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”
Richter cited Gilead Sciences’ treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90 percent. The company’s U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.
“GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients,” the analyst wrote. “In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines… Where an incident pool remains stable like, in cancer cases, the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”
Once again we reported last year that a Goldman analyst said outright that curing people will hurt their cash flow. And he said that in a note designed to steer clients away from investing in cures.
How can we not conclude that an openly evil statement like that does not prove that there is certainly a push to keep people unhealthy to line the pockets of pharmaceutical companies?
This means that there is a war on between you and those who are betting that you will die at a relatively young age.
There is also an information war with regard to health literacy. Health literacy moves at a very slow pace. Allopathic medicine is always the first weapon used in our arsenal for cures but many of the methods used can do a lot of harm and of course, trigger a lot of side effects.
However, the best cure is prevention and the best tool to fight is knowledge.
What is happening to people, with mortality rates and fertility problems is that the global population has been expanding since antiquity, interrupted by wars, disasters, pandemics, and famine. It looks as if we see another interruption – social engineering with its focus on public health and fertility.
This is a worldwide effort.
How can we explain that Population is already declining in many other countries, including China, Brazil, Germany, Japan, Italy, Singapore, Hong Kong, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Ukraine, and Belarus? Many more are on the brink.
The total population of the continent of Europe, including Russia and non-EU countries, peaked in the year 2000.
Sub-replacement fertility is a total fertility rate that if sustained leads to each new generation being less populous than the older, previous one in a given area. In developed countries, sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman, but the threshold can be as high as 3.4 in some developing countries because of higher mortality rates.
Sub-replacement fertility is being masked by immigration from poorer countries that are still growing in population.
Poorer countries are seeing growth in population rates and immigration is seen as a problem, as one very populated group expands to areas of less population.
Now as you comprehend depopulation – perhaps a more simple approach would illustrate its impact.
Think about what that would mean if you have a room full of 10 people and nine out of 10 ends up with an incurable disease and die — now put that on a scale of millions of people that are supposed to sustain a civilization. Think of what happens to the social structure of a culture.
Think of who they lose – they lose potential workforce, they lose those who may know traditional and alternative medicines for cures, they lose engineers, architects, builders, planners, writers, artists, social and religious leaders.
Think of the impact it will have on the history – now think of how easy it will be to alter the history as those who lived it are long dead – think of how easy it will be to hijack a culture and even destroy its language.
This is why it is important for globalists to cull those who will not cooperate with their planned world take over.
Studies of past economic growth provide many hypotheses about population and economic growth. As for productivity growth, there are some interesting hypotheses.
First, the larger the population, the higher the chance that great innovators will emerge. This is called the “genius hypothesis,” and since the innovation is the source of technological progress, a simple inference shows that economic growth will stagnate as the population declines.
Second, a larger population increases the opportunity for intellectual interchange with diverse human resources, which in turn promotes technological progress. Although it is difficult to clearly identify the causes of productivity growth, diverse human interchange is considered to be a necessary condition. A population decline reduces the chances of that happening.
Third, as the population declines, the number of people in research and engineering jobs falls, which negatively affects the nation’s Research and Development performance.
The aging of the population also impacts economic growth through changes in productivity. A nation’s population declines when the fertility rate drops, which results in the aging of the population and a reduction in the size of the young labor force. As a result, society gradually loses the creativity and aggressiveness associated with younger people.
With this in mind do we realize the impact of what social engineering is doing to the decline of American fertility, health, and wellbeing?
The decline in health and the rise in mortality rates threaten our national security.
What are we going to give to a diminishing progeny?
Instead of handing them down our cancers and diseases perhaps we should learn and teach healthy adaptive techniques.
However, it will be difficult as a lot of western progressive thinkers are all ready to push a depopulation agenda. Many people have already been convinced that it is necessary and that it will happen naturally because since you were in grade school, you have been bombarded with messages about the dangers of over-population and the fragility of the environment.
The narrative is working. It is being handed down from generation to generation.
Those who rule over us don’t need more Americans or Europeans who believe in sovereignty to cement their power and wealth within nations they control.
They need more believers in the superstate and the many benefits of the redistribution of wealth and health care.
Is it any wonder that agendas of toxic masculinity and female rage are separating men and women?
It is a cause for depopulation.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law that legalizes abortion up until birth in many cases.
That is a cause for depopulation.
The promotion of sterile human relationships between men and women, the push for transhumanism is also a cause of depopulation.
Homosexuality and Transgender operations also decrease the reproductive rate.
It can be implemented either directly through the killing of life, or indirectly by promoting guilt and alternative lifestyles that are incompatible with the creation of life.
It is a result of bad health choices, dosing the populace with antibiotics and opiates. It is also the result of greedy pharmaceutical companies that see no need to lose money on cures for things like cancer and diabetes.
I really don’t have an all entailing “answer” as to how we change the course of the depopulation boom only that as for me and my family we will try to keep ourselves healthy and try to endure through the tribulations that come with generational elimination and depopulation.