That has been a MAIN "feature" of the proposed future of the WEF. NO UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION. I'm not aware that WEF has admitted this yet, but it's obviously a covert goal. I'm sure that the childbearing problems induced by the MANDATORY "vaccines" (they are NOT vaccines, by mechanism or by 'effectiveness') are just coincidental. I'm …
That has been a MAIN "feature" of the proposed future of the WEF. NO UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION. I'm not aware that WEF has admitted this yet, but it's obviously a covert goal. I'm sure that the childbearing problems induced by the MANDATORY "vaccines" (they are NOT vaccines, by mechanism or by 'effectiveness') are just coincidental. I'm sure that the (lack of) coverage (the info is "out" there, but you won't see it on CNN) of this by the MSM is ALSO coincidental.
Childbearing is DOWN, somewhere around 10% to 40% for most countries.
That's major sarcasm on my part if it's not obvious.
“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
In a 1972 BBC interview, he admits to having gotten into trouble for raising the idea of reproductive licenses:
“Licenses to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child.”
Championing a one-world government, Strong writes:
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental co-operation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of global environmental security.”
Bloody hell!, I can't find it right now, and it's getting late, will have to find it later, but I have a video section somewhere here where Alexander King explains something along the lines that reducing economic growth will simultaneously reduce population growth.
On that subject, check out the first video below at 2:47 mins.:
That has been a MAIN "feature" of the proposed future of the WEF. NO UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION. I'm not aware that WEF has admitted this yet, but it's obviously a covert goal. I'm sure that the childbearing problems induced by the MANDATORY "vaccines" (they are NOT vaccines, by mechanism or by 'effectiveness') are just coincidental. I'm sure that the (lack of) coverage (the info is "out" there, but you won't see it on CNN) of this by the MSM is ALSO coincidental.
Childbearing is DOWN, somewhere around 10% to 40% for most countries.
That's major sarcasm on my part if it's not obvious.
"NO UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION"
Yes, reproduction is a MAJOR concern for these people.
See this article:
https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-klaus-schwab
A few quotes (these from Maurice Strong):
“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
In a 1972 BBC interview, he admits to having gotten into trouble for raising the idea of reproductive licenses:
“Licenses to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child.”
Championing a one-world government, Strong writes:
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental co-operation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of global environmental security.”
And then, from this same Margaret Anna Alice article, this video (go to 6:15 mins): https://www.bitchute.com/video/iHhHxe5c5mTU
Bloody hell!, I can't find it right now, and it's getting late, will have to find it later, but I have a video section somewhere here where Alexander King explains something along the lines that reducing economic growth will simultaneously reduce population growth.
On that subject, check out the first video below at 2:47 mins.:
https://odysee.com/@N1755L:7/depopulation
https://odysee.com/@N1755L:7/KlausSchwabQuotes
Bed time, g'nite.