I have long argued against the ‘conspiracy theorists’ who believed that the elites wished to cull the world’s population by drastic numbers. Many of my libertarian, conservative, and voluntaryist colleagues believe that the top politicians, bankers, and powerbrokers in the world want to decrease the amount of humans by billions. I have consistently argued that it would be illogical for the elites to reduce the number of sheep and tax slaves they control. Here, I will present some evidence in favor of the depopulation theory.
While I am not a biologist, I have spent my entire adult life (since 2011) in emergency medicine. I can say with fairly strong certainty that homosexuals cannot reproduce, while heterosexuals can. If you are a human who is reading this article, there is a nearly 100% chance that a heterosexual biological woman (XX chromosomes) gave birth to you after being impregnated by a heterosexual biological man (XY chromosomes). Those are simply the facts. If a person becomes homosexual, they effectively remove themselves from the population of humans who could reproduce more children. It is no secret that the world’s elites have taken on the facade of ‘progressivism’ as they radically promote becoming gay as a noble act. And the statistics are clear: it is working. Over the past decade, the percentage of Americans who identify as LGBT has skyrocketed from 3.5% in 2012 to 7.1% in 2021, according to a Gallup Poll. Even more shocking is that 21% of Gen Z adults now identify as LGBT.
(It should go without saying that I have no issue with LGBT people; they are free to live their lives as they wish and I would never support laws mandating reproduction or banning vasectomies or hysterectomies. I am just pointing out some interesting statistics and facts.)
Considering that the trend shows a drastic increase in non-reproducing persons and considering that the united states already has a population crisis, this should be cause for concern. The economy is already suffering from the anemic workforce, which is seemingly caused by a lack of children being born and the incentive by socialists (read: politicians) to remain unproductive and collect redistributed wealth from taxpayers.
Mathematically, each couple must have at least two babies in order to maintain a steady population. This means that each woman must have at least two children (immigration and child deaths notwithstanding). Historically, American couples had around 7 children on average. By 1950, that number was just above 3. By 1965, it dropped below 3, and kept dropping like a stone. It never hit 3 again. The birth rate continued its steady decline, falling below 2 in 2010 and never hitting 2 since then. In 2023, the birth rate in the united states stands at 1.78 and shows no signs of recovering. It’s hard to know where the bottom will be, but the elites show no signs of reversing course. And yes, the dramatic and decades-long plummeting of birth rates is largely due to our culture and the policies promoted by elites. The increasingly intense propaganda in favor of remaining single and/or childless for life is alarming. Below are a few examples in mainstream media:
The next attack on the population and families involves the use of radical transgenderism. This phenomenon differs from gender dysphoria, a mental illness that may have existed in humans since the dawn of time. Like depression, anxiety, PTSD, addiction, and other mental illnesses, gender dysphoria should not be celebrated as much as treated as a rare, unfortunate, and complicated mental disorder. Much like the gay revolution, the percentage of people who identify as transgender (or something other than ‘cis’) is skyrocketing and showing no signs of slowing down. As of a 2022 Pew Research Poll, 5% of young adults in the united states identified as something other than their gender at birth. Again, the percentage of trans people is increasing drastically with each generation. It’s hard to pinpoint the potential point of diminishing acceleration, but it’s entirely reasonable to suspect that the next generation will be 12% trans and the one after that could be 27% trans, and so on.
Even more so than homosexuals, who could theoretically still have children, transgender people may have even more difficulty having children ever again. When transgender people are treated with hormone therapy or surgery to ‘affirm their preferred gender’, they are effectively neutered for life, due to severe endocrine and/or physiological disruption of their reproductive systems. Short of a vasectomy or hysterectomy, the simplest way to neuter someone for life could be to make them transgender. And unlike forced surgeries, convincing people that it’s cool to be trans is very easy when you run the world’s propaganda and government machines and when it makes you seem righteous, especially compared to opposition parties.
It is becoming more obvious that government school teachers are pushing children to identify as transgender. In addition to all of the ethical barriers this violates and the trauma it causes, the new identity also drives a horrible wedge between parents and children, which tyrannical governments love. Powerful governments want to dismantle the family unit; no support system needed except for the government!
But the transgender movement has another massive benefit to the elites: Lifelong cash cows, err ‘patients’. When a person becomes transgender, they often begin taking medications for life. Who makes these medications? Pharmaceutical companies, of course! If a massive corporation could spend a few dollars to attain fantastic customers for life, why wouldn’t they do so?
Some of the pharma companies involved in the transgender movement include:
As Patrick Bet-David explained in his video, billionaire leftist tyrant George Soros is a major investor and/or trustee of Gilead, Arcus, and Gill, three of the major groups pushing radical transgenderism.
Many other authors have certainly addressed the nefarious push by the elites and the pharma cronies to create as many transgender people as possible.
The next reason I believe the elites may support reducing the population involves global warming, which, just a day prior to this writing, has been rebranded as ‘global boiling’. The radical left has increasingly pushed propaganda aimed at convincing humans that we are the worst thing for this planet and that we should eliminate ourselves in order to save the planet. In fact, a growing movement of young people is determined to deter people from reproducing in order to decrease the ‘carbon footprint’ of humanity on the Earth. Of course, the elites themselves do not believe that the world is warming or that humans could cause the world to warm.
Among the next steps the elites will take if they really wish to decrease the population could be the elimination of the child tax credit. Currently, American taxpayers making under $200,000 receive a $2,000 reduction in their federal income tax bill for each child they have. Naturally, this incentivizes reproduction. Of course, they know that the child tax credit is politically popular, helping them get reelected. If the politicians decrease or eliminate this credit, we can be more certain that they do not support reproduction.
What is their motive?
So, why would the elites want to decrease the world population of 8 billion people? Why would DC politicians want to cull the herd of 340 million Americans? Aren’t we their tax-slaves? Isn’t it nice to have a lot of sheep? Yes. But that is changing.
With the development of artificial intelligence at lightspeed, huge chunks of people are being put out of jobs. Let’s examine the reasons the elites want their slaves to exist:
- They extract around a third or even half our income (the products of our labor), allowing them to live very rich lives.
- They do need workers in the economy to physically produce things and provide services.
- They are power-drunk tyrants who derive pleasure from ruling over their slaves and sheep.
If you think about it, technological advancement and AI could diminish or eliminate all three of those motives. They could keep a small number of people around in order to extract their wealth. They could also continue to print and borrow infinite money, and they could live with less money due to digital currencies and AI providing them with products and services, which leads to the second item. Currently, the elites need humans to staff their restaurants, bars, shows, cruises, and private jets that they enjoy. But AI is increasingly capable of fulfilling those roles for the elites. As for the third motive, I think that the more humanlike the robots become, the more likely it could be that they pacify the tyrants by letting them boss humanoids around.
The most likely motive for supporting a reduction in the population seems to be the deterrence of revolution. The billions of citizens far outnumber the few elites and their millions of armed agents. As Larken Rose explained in his brilliant 2011 video, ‘The Tiny Dot’. Now, the elites have always been outnumbered, and their propaganda-fueled illusion of legitimacy has long warded off rebellion. But the advent of instant social media and decentralized communication threaten that paradigm. Now, when government thugs murder or rape innocent citizens, the story (and possibly the video) could spread around the world in a matter of minutes. The elites surely comprehend that this could destroy their curated façade as a benevolent and necessary institution. With books dispelling the myth of government necessity (some of which are on the sidebar to the right of this article) becoming increasingly available to read from anywhere in the world, the optimist might reckon that the government’s days may be numbered. Anyone with internet access could find articles, books, and videos that destroy the fallacy of government without much effort. I have plenty of physical books and downloaded books and videos that I’m happy to share with anyone who is curious to learn about voluntaryism.
Far too many times, elites have alluded to their desire to decrease the population.
- In July 2023, Vice President Kamala Harris said that we must “reduce population” in order to combat global warming. The official White House transcript of her speech acknowledges and corrects Harris’ disquieting error. In the transcript, “population” is crossed out and “pollution” is added in brackets to denote what the VP intended to say.
- Bill Gates said at a Ted Talk that we should reduce the world population by 10-15%.
- CNN Founder and billionaire Ted Turner said that “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal…We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming.”
- Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class” and “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
- Nina Fedoroff, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”
- David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
- Prince Charles, the son of aforementioned Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth II, has openly expressed support for a recent population study by biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, calling for drastic global efforts to reduce fertility worldwide.
- Henry Kissinger, a top architect of the New World Order, is believed by many to be one of the biggest war criminals alive. He has worked hard to put his depopulation plans into action. He was also quoted saying: “Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries”.
I am still not convinced that the elites want to decrease the number of people, but evidence for the theory does seem to be mounting.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Liberty Block or any of its members. We welcome all forms of serious feedback and debate.