"Unless that occult operation becomes widely known and people take steps to overcome it, the stated goal of bringing the worlds population down to the half million called for in the recently sabotaged Georgia Guidestone looks like it will happen."
typo - half billion, not half million
Still reading, but just wanted to let you know Kyle...
We might hit zero along with all life on earth. They're so "concerned" with climate change but not at all with destroying the planet with forever chemicals and plastic. And what happens to nuclear power plants when they can't get people to work there?
EMF -5G followed by 6,7,8 coming to us via cell towers and satellites will kill all life forms long before 50 years has reduced the human population by decreasing birthrate. Throwing all smart phones in the dumpster will prevent the fast approaching apocalypse, but will the addicted populace wise up in time? It's more likely that a massive solar flare will knock out all man-made EMF and thereby save us from ourselves.
May 27, 2023·edited May 27, 2023Liked by Kyle Young
Such a sad world and time we are living in. I have to take breaks from reading all these blogs.
I always knew this was where the world was heading, I just hoped that it happened after I'm gone. The shit is hitting the fan and the conspiracy theorists were basically right about most theories.
Everyone knew that the world's economy which is 100% based on unlimited expansion was not going to end well. It's just that no one knew when it would happen.
Plan A is living in the country, off grid and off line. Plan B is a shotgun to protect you and what's yours from the marauding thugs and armed military who want what's yours. Plan C is Plan A and B combined. Plan D is an island in the Pacific out of reach of marauding thugs. Plan E is how to protect oneself and what's yours from the military. This is still in the thinking about it stage. Suggestions welcomed.
I've paid attention to this since my teens because everyone was/is parroting "the world is over populated", "too many people" etc and I'd wonder at the collective self species loathing.
People have to love themselves, and from my experience, that comes from feeling and knowing you are loved and cherished, by God, and hopefully by your parents when you are very small.
And then it's natural to love others.
I've argued my whole life that there are NOT too many humans, if we all live simply. The opposite of the zenith of the age of Materialism - 1950s through 2020(?)
Anyway, I was always looked at askance because I worked as an environmentalist and had four sons, while my academic colleagues had all gotten vasectomies and hysterectomies in their 20s so as not to "add" to what the Eugenics programs had brainwashed them to think was the "problem."
Abortion and the pill came cannon balling into my age group in our high school years, so actually having a baby in the early/mid 70s seemed to be a novelty, at least in southern California.
I try to find the current birthrates in Alaska where I've lived for 40 years, and it's difficult. IT appears that the northern villages are doing well, and if so, I'm very glad because the injection was pushed mercilessly on all the indigenous people without a pause.
They'll tell you this site is a "security risk". Huh?
My Grandad was one of the first Sierra Club members. I remember people always worrying about him when he'd trailer his horse, Smokey, and go off alone, solo, on horseback for weeks in the Sierras.
I also remember his only concern with civilization, was, not for my grandmother, but the fact that while deep into the Sierras, his transistor radio would have poor to no reception of his beloved baseball games!
This is quite some drama we're living in (or should I say "living out"?). Of course when everything finally appears entirely hopeless, along should come a rescuer, a "savior", to save the day.
I wonder how it would go, though, if the "savior" then turned out to be the ringleader of the globalists? What a clever deception. Why, I think we have already witnessed a trial run. Looks good, on with the show.
That's not the way good stories are supposed to end, and I believe this story has another enormous plot twist coming beyond that one, but as gullible as so many people are they certainly could fall for such a trick and be grateful to be "rescued". Again. For a while.
Now I see why the American govt. has refused to ensure affordable day care for babies of young parents: the govt. is deliberately discouraging babies. Perhaps the jab is the backup plan.
And I suppose that the govt.'s lack of public analysis of fertility and birthrate is consistent with its long term goals of reduced birthrate. I wonder how it sees this shrinking population playing out. Will there be anyone left to actually need a govt.?
I have a different point of view on "gov. ensuring affordable day care for babies". It's not the government's job - nor is it any of their damn business - getting involved with how we raise our children. We've bought into a socialist mentality that the govt. should provide these services. NO. The govt. should stay out of the way so we can take care of ourselves!
in perpetual balance with nature" [original in all caps]
I went looking for photos of it and, surprise, surprise, found the same one over and over again showing two faces not in English. But one particular hi-res photo that I located did show this text. Whether it is what was actually on the slab, who knows.
Of course "under 500,000,000" is not the same as "at 500,000,000".
We know from history that there have always been populations that come and go. It seems the difference this time is we have a small group of uber rich psychopathic monsters that want to "engineer" this population collapse and rebuild it in their own devilish image.
I've noticed that as well. And they'll continue to get busier for some years to come. But as I pointed out in the post, the results won't really begin to show up for several decades.
Great analysis, Kyle. You are wise to take into account the missing CovAin't data from Shaw's research.
Another aspect that I would like to call attention to is the wayward wizards' push for the insane notion of choosing one's gender. They've already persuaded men and women to have a dangerously distorted view of actual biological women by putting transgendered men in all visual media since the advent of tv/film and print advertising. With a large percentage of boys and men being programmed to be attracted to the male physique dressed as a "woman," the psychological damage is huge. They come to expect that real women behave like the tell-a-vision trannies. They turn to porn and other drugs to try to fill in the neuro-biological reality gap.
Furthermore, girls and women are being programmed to hate their bodies and their voices and to imitate their tv/film/print idols. They starve themselves of crucial nutrients, become depressed and anxious. They turn to anti-anxiety drugs (more damaging pharmakeia) and isolate themselves because they can never ever look like those tall, lean-muscle, flat-stomach, long-legged MEN portraying women. They pretend to be like the trannies on tv: Bossy, super-confident, strong, intelligent, and anything but nurturing.
What I'm describing is just one more layer of the religious zealotry being marched forward by Luciferian soldiers. I mean, if Target is (or WAS) hawking children's clothing with tags that say on swimwear bottoms "tuck friendly" (for boys wanting to pretend being girls) and on swimwear tops "gentle compression" (for girls wanting to pretend being boys), this agenda is full-on mainstream . . . and people are accepting it as normal. That's exactly what the wayward wizards want.
Wow i heard from a friend who saw the target/walmart shockingly heavy promotion of trans-ism targeting small children - it wasn't just tags on clothing - it was huge signs! i could hardly believe it. . . . But i have to point out that in the 50s (1950s) and early 60s, we had super feminine icons like marilyn monroe in films, femme fatale yet strong scarlett ohara and uber-masculine swashbuckling rhett butler in gone with the wind, motherly "housewives" (as they were known then) on tv shows like "father knows best" - the media back then was promoting polarized male-female stereotypes and gender roles. I haven't watched much mainstream media in decades so have not really seen much of what you call the "transgendered men in all visual media". Interesting perspective, i will be looking more carefully now. I think "they" may be trying to get us to accept it as normal, and even succeeding with some of the screen-hypnotized young people (just like with the jab) but i don't think it will really fly.
May 29, 2023·edited May 29, 2023Liked by Kyle Young
Reduction of fertility by sterility (as a result of drugs/vaccines etc.) is hard to generate. As an example - even when sperm counts fall dramatically it doesn't typically change the birth rate much or at all. This is because when people decide to have children they keep trying until they get the number they want - resorting to more sex, in vitro fertilization, surrogate parents, sperm banks etc.
I (strongly) suspect that the poverty and warped incentives which stem from our diabolical taxation/welfare state have a much larger effect. People who don't want children (or at least as many children) don't have them, whether they are fertile or not. And people want far fewer children than they used to because
(a) taxation makes children much harder to afford
(b) government interference in healthcare, hosuing and education markets makes those essentials much more expensive and again makes children harder to afford
(c) social security replaces reliance on your own children for support in old age with reliance on everyone elses' children. This acts as a disincentive to have children.
This is all part of Satan's system - it is inimical to life. And it was designed knowingly although largely implemented by unwwitting fools.
There is also the question of the quality of the remaining sperm and eggs. Who wants to be producing eggs and sperm contaminated with nanoparticle technologies? What will be the impact of that on future generations?
Unlike antibiotics which can be found in many plants we've been eating for millennia, nanotech is something the human body has never had to deal with before. I would want to see some studies done proving otherwise before I'm convinced they're harmless to sperm and eggs.
I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying here, and/or if we are disagreeing.
I'm saying that these types of harm tend to have only a small affect on the number of babies born because people counteract the problem by increasing the effort they put into having babies to compensate. So let's say I am a young man and my wife and I decide we want four children. Then we pour whatever effort is necessary into having four children.
If I have solid, capable super-sperm then we only have to procreate four times and we are done.
On the other hand if my sperm have been crippled by poor food, vaccines, other toxins and Satan has been whispering in their little ears then we may have to visit the fertility clinic forty times, pay for expensve medical assistance, and have sex every night for decades. But we will likely make whatever effort is necessary to get the number of children which we decide we want.
Therefore I am saying that there many attacks on the population growth rate
(1) a biological attack - a reduction in the number and motility of sperm
(2) an economic attack - an attack on the wealth and incentive structure of the family
(3) a psychological/cultural attack on the idea of marriage, family and values in general.
I have ignored (3) for the purposes of this discussion, but am saying that (2) is far more significant than (1) because (2) causes people to want to have fewer children. And when people actually want fewer children then they willingly cooperate in achieving that result. A couple with great biological fertility who want two children usually end up with two children and only rarely end up with more as a result of "a mistake". Whereas a couple with all sorts of biological issues who want two children also usually end up with two children despite the extra effort they must put in to achieve their goal.
Do you disagree with this? If you do, could you be specific about exactly what you are disagreeing with?
(1) I think sperm issues are only one portion of the biological attack. There are environmental toxins, dietary and other portions of this attack as well.
(2) I was not aware that epigenetic dysfunctions would inherently deteriorate over generations. I am not an expert by any means - but I thought
(a) epigenetic dysfunctions were not inheritable - the son gets the original DNA which is of course susceptible to behave in the same way as the father's but no worse
(b) recreating the environment which caused the problem in the father would result in the same issue (but not a worse one) for the son.
Obviously if subsequent generations are subject to worse environmental factors than preceding generations then the problem might deteriorate - but that's not quite the same thing.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think this is a non-issue. I just don't think it's as important as the economic attack.
I don't think you're correct about the son starting in a worse place than the father. My understanding is that
(a) Epigenetic changes are environmental and are switched on and off by environmental factors.
(b) Epigenetic changes are not inherited at all. The son starts in exactly the same place with the original DNA inherited down through the generations.
(c) If the son is then subjected to the same environment as the father he would presumably suffer the same epigenetic changes.
If you are saying that you believe that epigenetic changes are inherited and therefore somehow accumulate over generations in a way which would cause a deterioration in fertility in an unchanging environment, could you point me at a source which describes the mechanism by which this happens.
On the economic issues:
(1) Yes - the coming economic collapse will probably blow everything out of the water in terms of total effect. I'm not sure I would have suggested that losing access to pharmaceuticals would be a major contributor though :-).
(2) That wasn't actually what I was referring to in terms of the economic attack, although - as you point out - I should have been. I was actually referring only to the distorted incentive system which results from the welfare / regulatory state. Specifically the mechanisms of taxation, inflation and state provided retirement which all act to incentivize people not to have children.
I believe people should have the freedom to chose, but I also believe we need to change our focus from concerns about social, career and medical pressures to kids and families. The world would be a far better place for it.
"Unless that occult operation becomes widely known and people take steps to overcome it, the stated goal of bringing the worlds population down to the half million called for in the recently sabotaged Georgia Guidestone looks like it will happen."
typo - half billion, not half million
Still reading, but just wanted to let you know Kyle...
My mistake. Thanks for the correction.
It sounds like we might hit the half million instead.
We might hit zero along with all life on earth. They're so "concerned" with climate change but not at all with destroying the planet with forever chemicals and plastic. And what happens to nuclear power plants when they can't get people to work there?
At this point that doesn't seem out of the question.
EMF -5G followed by 6,7,8 coming to us via cell towers and satellites will kill all life forms long before 50 years has reduced the human population by decreasing birthrate. Throwing all smart phones in the dumpster will prevent the fast approaching apocalypse, but will the addicted populace wise up in time? It's more likely that a massive solar flare will knock out all man-made EMF and thereby save us from ourselves.
We should all be praying for a solar flare large enough to accomplish that.
Such a sad world and time we are living in. I have to take breaks from reading all these blogs.
I always knew this was where the world was heading, I just hoped that it happened after I'm gone. The shit is hitting the fan and the conspiracy theorists were basically right about most theories.
Everyone knew that the world's economy which is 100% based on unlimited expansion was not going to end well. It's just that no one knew when it would happen.
The status quo was not sustainable. But why kill-off everyone? Why not just change the status quo?
Probably to protect themselves from the mass uprising. And/or they are just plain evil and get off on it.
I'm going with both.
Plan A is living in the country, off grid and off line. Plan B is a shotgun to protect you and what's yours from the marauding thugs and armed military who want what's yours. Plan C is Plan A and B combined. Plan D is an island in the Pacific out of reach of marauding thugs. Plan E is how to protect oneself and what's yours from the military. This is still in the thinking about it stage. Suggestions welcomed.
I adopted plan C about 40 years ago. No plan E yet.
Well done Kyle, thank you for a new source, Shaw.
I've paid attention to this since my teens because everyone was/is parroting "the world is over populated", "too many people" etc and I'd wonder at the collective self species loathing.
People have to love themselves, and from my experience, that comes from feeling and knowing you are loved and cherished, by God, and hopefully by your parents when you are very small.
And then it's natural to love others.
I've argued my whole life that there are NOT too many humans, if we all live simply. The opposite of the zenith of the age of Materialism - 1950s through 2020(?)
Anyway, I was always looked at askance because I worked as an environmentalist and had four sons, while my academic colleagues had all gotten vasectomies and hysterectomies in their 20s so as not to "add" to what the Eugenics programs had brainwashed them to think was the "problem."
Abortion and the pill came cannon balling into my age group in our high school years, so actually having a baby in the early/mid 70s seemed to be a novelty, at least in southern California.
I try to find the current birthrates in Alaska where I've lived for 40 years, and it's difficult. IT appears that the northern villages are doing well, and if so, I'm very glad because the injection was pushed mercilessly on all the indigenous people without a pause.
They'll tell you this site is a "security risk". Huh?
https://health.alaska.gov/dph/VitalStats/Documents/stats/birth_statistics/Birth_Rates_Census.html
https://www.thecentersquare.com/alaska/how-alaska-s-birth-rate-compares-to-the-nation/article_1def2eb3-bf83-5d57-b77a-3156e0660f21.html
David Brower once told me that we are a part of nature, not apart from it. Everyone needs to take that to heart.
Thanks for the links.
Yep.
My Grandad was one of the first Sierra Club members. I remember people always worrying about him when he'd trailer his horse, Smokey, and go off alone, solo, on horseback for weeks in the Sierras.
I also remember his only concern with civilization, was, not for my grandmother, but the fact that while deep into the Sierras, his transistor radio would have poor to no reception of his beloved baseball games!
We all have our contradictions:)
UNITE WITH LIKE MINDED Those agaist the evil satanic murderers so we can depopulate them for a better free World
I think many are working on that.
WE ARE EVERYWHERE
Excellent synopsis!
Thank you Tom.
This is quite some drama we're living in (or should I say "living out"?). Of course when everything finally appears entirely hopeless, along should come a rescuer, a "savior", to save the day.
I wonder how it would go, though, if the "savior" then turned out to be the ringleader of the globalists? What a clever deception. Why, I think we have already witnessed a trial run. Looks good, on with the show.
That's not the way good stories are supposed to end, and I believe this story has another enormous plot twist coming beyond that one, but as gullible as so many people are they certainly could fall for such a trick and be grateful to be "rescued". Again. For a while.
Those seem like possible scenarios.
While Tulsi is listed as a young global leader, in recent years she's denounced the WEF and their globalist agenda.
Thanks for compiling this research, Kyle.
I'm glad you found it interesting Richard.
Now I see why the American govt. has refused to ensure affordable day care for babies of young parents: the govt. is deliberately discouraging babies. Perhaps the jab is the backup plan.
And I suppose that the govt.'s lack of public analysis of fertility and birthrate is consistent with its long term goals of reduced birthrate. I wonder how it sees this shrinking population playing out. Will there be anyone left to actually need a govt.?
I have a different point of view on "gov. ensuring affordable day care for babies". It's not the government's job - nor is it any of their damn business - getting involved with how we raise our children. We've bought into a socialist mentality that the govt. should provide these services. NO. The govt. should stay out of the way so we can take care of ourselves!
Amen brother.
That could be one of many back-up plans.
No analysis, no awareness.
As to your last sentence, I hope not.
After the Black Death Bubonic plague, it is estimated that the world population was 10 million. I would say that is the target.
I was wrong about the Georgia Guidestones. It was half a billion.
Yes. "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000
in perpetual balance with nature" [original in all caps]
I went looking for photos of it and, surprise, surprise, found the same one over and over again showing two faces not in English. But one particular hi-res photo that I located did show this text. Whether it is what was actually on the slab, who knows.
Of course "under 500,000,000" is not the same as "at 500,000,000".
We know from history that there have always been populations that come and go. It seems the difference this time is we have a small group of uber rich psychopathic monsters that want to "engineer" this population collapse and rebuild it in their own devilish image.
Yup. And that's a big difference with long term ramifications that remain unknown.
Well if we're headed for a population crash the highways are not showing it. If fact the highways are more busy then I have ever seen
I've noticed that as well. And they'll continue to get busier for some years to come. But as I pointed out in the post, the results won't really begin to show up for several decades.
by which time most of us will be dead, and those that remain will think things are just normal, or even fine . . .
Great analysis, Kyle. You are wise to take into account the missing CovAin't data from Shaw's research.
Another aspect that I would like to call attention to is the wayward wizards' push for the insane notion of choosing one's gender. They've already persuaded men and women to have a dangerously distorted view of actual biological women by putting transgendered men in all visual media since the advent of tv/film and print advertising. With a large percentage of boys and men being programmed to be attracted to the male physique dressed as a "woman," the psychological damage is huge. They come to expect that real women behave like the tell-a-vision trannies. They turn to porn and other drugs to try to fill in the neuro-biological reality gap.
Furthermore, girls and women are being programmed to hate their bodies and their voices and to imitate their tv/film/print idols. They starve themselves of crucial nutrients, become depressed and anxious. They turn to anti-anxiety drugs (more damaging pharmakeia) and isolate themselves because they can never ever look like those tall, lean-muscle, flat-stomach, long-legged MEN portraying women. They pretend to be like the trannies on tv: Bossy, super-confident, strong, intelligent, and anything but nurturing.
What I'm describing is just one more layer of the religious zealotry being marched forward by Luciferian soldiers. I mean, if Target is (or WAS) hawking children's clothing with tags that say on swimwear bottoms "tuck friendly" (for boys wanting to pretend being girls) and on swimwear tops "gentle compression" (for girls wanting to pretend being boys), this agenda is full-on mainstream . . . and people are accepting it as normal. That's exactly what the wayward wizards want.
That is certainly part of the depopulation agenda. Fortunately the backlash against all of that is gaining steam.
Wow i heard from a friend who saw the target/walmart shockingly heavy promotion of trans-ism targeting small children - it wasn't just tags on clothing - it was huge signs! i could hardly believe it. . . . But i have to point out that in the 50s (1950s) and early 60s, we had super feminine icons like marilyn monroe in films, femme fatale yet strong scarlett ohara and uber-masculine swashbuckling rhett butler in gone with the wind, motherly "housewives" (as they were known then) on tv shows like "father knows best" - the media back then was promoting polarized male-female stereotypes and gender roles. I haven't watched much mainstream media in decades so have not really seen much of what you call the "transgendered men in all visual media". Interesting perspective, i will be looking more carefully now. I think "they" may be trying to get us to accept it as normal, and even succeeding with some of the screen-hypnotized young people (just like with the jab) but i don't think it will really fly.
Reduction of fertility by sterility (as a result of drugs/vaccines etc.) is hard to generate. As an example - even when sperm counts fall dramatically it doesn't typically change the birth rate much or at all. This is because when people decide to have children they keep trying until they get the number they want - resorting to more sex, in vitro fertilization, surrogate parents, sperm banks etc.
I (strongly) suspect that the poverty and warped incentives which stem from our diabolical taxation/welfare state have a much larger effect. People who don't want children (or at least as many children) don't have them, whether they are fertile or not. And people want far fewer children than they used to because
(a) taxation makes children much harder to afford
(b) government interference in healthcare, hosuing and education markets makes those essentials much more expensive and again makes children harder to afford
(c) social security replaces reliance on your own children for support in old age with reliance on everyone elses' children. This acts as a disincentive to have children.
This is all part of Satan's system - it is inimical to life. And it was designed knowingly although largely implemented by unwwitting fools.
All of that has been and will continue to be a part of the depopulation agenda. Until it all falls apart.
Thanks for pointing that out reante.
There is also the question of the quality of the remaining sperm and eggs. Who wants to be producing eggs and sperm contaminated with nanoparticle technologies? What will be the impact of that on future generations?
If eggs and sperm are so indestructible why are so many deformed and nonfunctional?
Unlike antibiotics which can be found in many plants we've been eating for millennia, nanotech is something the human body has never had to deal with before. I would want to see some studies done proving otherwise before I'm convinced they're harmless to sperm and eggs.
I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying here, and/or if we are disagreeing.
I'm saying that these types of harm tend to have only a small affect on the number of babies born because people counteract the problem by increasing the effort they put into having babies to compensate. So let's say I am a young man and my wife and I decide we want four children. Then we pour whatever effort is necessary into having four children.
If I have solid, capable super-sperm then we only have to procreate four times and we are done.
On the other hand if my sperm have been crippled by poor food, vaccines, other toxins and Satan has been whispering in their little ears then we may have to visit the fertility clinic forty times, pay for expensve medical assistance, and have sex every night for decades. But we will likely make whatever effort is necessary to get the number of children which we decide we want.
Therefore I am saying that there many attacks on the population growth rate
(1) a biological attack - a reduction in the number and motility of sperm
(2) an economic attack - an attack on the wealth and incentive structure of the family
(3) a psychological/cultural attack on the idea of marriage, family and values in general.
I have ignored (3) for the purposes of this discussion, but am saying that (2) is far more significant than (1) because (2) causes people to want to have fewer children. And when people actually want fewer children then they willingly cooperate in achieving that result. A couple with great biological fertility who want two children usually end up with two children and only rarely end up with more as a result of "a mistake". Whereas a couple with all sorts of biological issues who want two children also usually end up with two children despite the extra effort they must put in to achieve their goal.
Do you disagree with this? If you do, could you be specific about exactly what you are disagreeing with?
Hmmm.
(1) I think sperm issues are only one portion of the biological attack. There are environmental toxins, dietary and other portions of this attack as well.
(2) I was not aware that epigenetic dysfunctions would inherently deteriorate over generations. I am not an expert by any means - but I thought
(a) epigenetic dysfunctions were not inheritable - the son gets the original DNA which is of course susceptible to behave in the same way as the father's but no worse
(b) recreating the environment which caused the problem in the father would result in the same issue (but not a worse one) for the son.
Obviously if subsequent generations are subject to worse environmental factors than preceding generations then the problem might deteriorate - but that's not quite the same thing.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think this is a non-issue. I just don't think it's as important as the economic attack.
I don't think you're correct about the son starting in a worse place than the father. My understanding is that
(a) Epigenetic changes are environmental and are switched on and off by environmental factors.
(b) Epigenetic changes are not inherited at all. The son starts in exactly the same place with the original DNA inherited down through the generations.
(c) If the son is then subjected to the same environment as the father he would presumably suffer the same epigenetic changes.
If you are saying that you believe that epigenetic changes are inherited and therefore somehow accumulate over generations in a way which would cause a deterioration in fertility in an unchanging environment, could you point me at a source which describes the mechanism by which this happens.
On the economic issues:
(1) Yes - the coming economic collapse will probably blow everything out of the water in terms of total effect. I'm not sure I would have suggested that losing access to pharmaceuticals would be a major contributor though :-).
(2) That wasn't actually what I was referring to in terms of the economic attack, although - as you point out - I should have been. I was actually referring only to the distorted incentive system which results from the welfare / regulatory state. Specifically the mechanisms of taxation, inflation and state provided retirement which all act to incentivize people not to have children.
4 unvaccinated homeschooled children should be the bare minimum. Bill Gates has 3 and he’s always whining about overpopulation
I believe people should have the freedom to chose, but I also believe we need to change our focus from concerns about social, career and medical pressures to kids and families. The world would be a far better place for it.
5.5B+ dead vaxxed walking.
Scary.