(CBC article openly suggesting population control & reduction)
(Tracking world population over time)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for the CBC article on population control.
Previous CBC Propaganda Articles
CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #1, Canada must have 100 million people by the year 2100.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #2, Europe should have open borders.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #3, Islam not responsible for Islamic violence.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #4, The Wage Gap.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #5: Borders Are Pointless.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #6: State Supplied Drugs For Addicts.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #7: UN’s Call to Welcome Back ISIS fighters.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #8: Walls Are Useless. Don’t Bother.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #9: “Conspiring” With Free Speech Activist.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #10: World Hijab Day, celebrating a symbol of oppression as “diversity”.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #11: A Hit Piece That Conflates Sarcasm With Sincerity.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #12: Judy Sgro Shrugs Off Ethics Concerns.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #13, Charities Free To Engage In Political Spending.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #14, encouraging total demographic replacement of Canadians.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #15, free drugs for prison inmates.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #16, $2B of Pension Fund Spent in Mumbai, India.
2. Spoiler: Climate Change Industry A Scam
CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord.
As has been thoroughly explained and documented here previously, the climate change industry is a business. The entire “industry” requires deceiving the public in order to be successful. At the heart of it is a business opportunity: to make a lot of money at the expense of preying on people’s good intentions.
While profit is certainly a plausible motive for running this scam, the article suggests another. Is population reduction and control the real motivation behind creating this “crisis”?
3. U.N. Population Replacement Agenda
CLICK HERE, for tracing the steps of U.N. population replacement agenda over the last 50 years.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism violates convention against genocide.
CLICK HERE, for Harvard research on ethnic “fractionalization”.
CLICK HERE, for research into forced diversity.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 New York Declaration.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Global Migration Compact.
UN webpages worth a read
CLICK HERE, for the UN Population Division website.
CLICK HERE, for the UN research into replacement migration
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies.
CLICK HERE, for participant contact info.
CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline.
CLICK HERE, for various conferences.
CLICK HERE, for the “About” page.
CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.
4. Quotes From The Article
Climate change has taken global centre stage in recent months following three reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that paint a dire picture of the future should governments fail to take action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It has been predicting the end of the world for decades. Not to brag, but we’re still here. This is more fearmongering.
But when the discussion turns to modifying our behaviours in order to reduce CO2 emissions in order to keep the planet from warming 1.5 C or 2 C above pre-industrial levels, the threshold that would result in widespread damage, one word creeps up more often than not: overpopulation.
You need Carbon Dioxide (CO2), to sustain plant life.
The argument is that if there were fewer people on Earth, greenhouse gases would be reduced and climate change could be averted. But experts say population control isn’t the panacea some think it might be.
“It is a very complicated, multifaceted relationship. Population issues certainly are an important dimension of how society will unfold, how society will be able to cope with this crisis over the course of this century,” said Kathleen Mogelgaard, a consultant on population dynamics and climate change and an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland.
A consultant on both:
(a) climate change; and
(b) population dynamics?
What could possibly go wrong?
“But it’s not a silver bullet, and it’s certainly not the main cause of climate change. And fully addressing population growth is not, on its own, going to be able to solve the climate crisis. But it is an important piece of the puzzle.“
“Is population an issue in climate change? Absolutely. Is it underreported, underrated, under-talked-about as an issue in climate change? Absolutely,” Engelman said. “If it were just Adam and Eve on the planet, they could fly a 747 around the world 24/7 and heat Mar-a-Lago and 25 other homes with coal, and it wouldn’t make a difference.”
But he notes population control alone “won’t solve” climate change.
Alone. Key word. It will take more than just population control. That implies that it will be part of the solution.
“It’s one of a number of things that needs to be considered as we try to address or respond to this incredibly difficult problem that the world is facing. There’s no one thing that’s going to do it.”
No. People like yourself should stay away from writing, and of public policy in general. Your ideas are harmful to society as a whole.
Concern about overpopulation has been rather long-standing. One of the most familiar arguments, by Thomas Robert Malthus, dates back to 1798. In An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus wrote that population growth would eventually surpass our ability to provide sustenance for the masses — a belief now known as Malthusianism.
The fear of overpopulation has even seeped into our pop culture: In the recent Marvel movies Avengers: Infinity War, the villain, Thanos, wants to eliminate half of the universe’s population in order to end suffering, such as starvation.
But Bricker believes it’s gone too far.
No kidding.
He’s particularly irked by recent stories about youth pledging not to have children; while many talk of fears over what the world will look like in the generations to come, still others point to population concerns.
The other thing to take into consideration about our growing population is that the issue isn’t so much about births, but rather about dying. Or more accurately not dying. Today, people are living longer.
So, should we withhold health care in certain cases in order to sped up the dying? Sort of sounds like the medical death squads Obamacare critics feared would come.
In China, for example, the average person lived to age 40 in 1950, Bricker said. According to the World Bank, the country’s average life expectancy is now 76.5, and by the mid-2030s, the average person should live to 80.
Access and education
One of the universal calls to prevent the global population from ballooning is to better educate women, particularly in developing countries.
“The key to achieving slower population growth is best done through a rights-based approach that includes educating girls and providing universal access to family planning and reproductive health services,” said Mogelgaard. “That is the best and most sustainable way to achieve reductions in fertility that leads to slower population growth.”
To anyone who doesn’t know “reproductive health services” is often a euphemism used to mean “abortion”. Slow the population growth by promoting abortion.
“Per capita is important,” he said. “One-third of the population already have lower per capita CO2 emissions than we do, and they’re dropping faster.”
Serious question: what happens when you reduce CO2 to the point where plant life is not sustainable anymore? Are you that dense, or is it just an excuse to promote your taxes and globalist agenda?
Instead of looking at population control as the biggest factor in the battle against climate change, experts say it’s about looking at better education for women, adopting cleaner energy and changing our overall consumption patterns, especially in developed countries.
Not ruling out the idea of population control and reduction, just saying there are some other approaches to consider as well.
There is no single solution.
“Just because we slow population growth, if we continue to use coal-fired power plants to generate electricity, or if we continue to cut down forests at the rate that we’re cutting down forests, those are going to be challenges regardless what the population is,” said Mogelgaard.
So population control and reduction is not the only solution, but apparently it is part of the puzzle. Yay, I suppose.
5. Photosynthesis Explained
This video explains the process of photosynthesis very well, and very quickly. This so-called “pollution”, Carbon Dioxide, is a critical part of that chemical process.
6. Population Control Read Agenda
Photosynthesis is a process that plants engage in to convert CO2 and H2O into sugars. It is necessary to sustain life. Remove the Carbon Dioxide and this does not work. Why engage in such obviously junk science unless there was some other goal?
As has been outlined previously, one of the main goals to use the money generated in Carbon taxes and other U.N. schemes to generate a slush fund which can create more wealth. In short, the public is being forced to subsidize these investment schemes.
Of course, the United Nations has been studying population dynamics since the 1950s. And guess what the solution they always propose? More immigration from the 3rd World to the 1st.
If Western nations were to indulge in population control, as suggested by the author, will we then be subjected to a bait-and-switch? Will lower birth rates be used as an excuse to import more of the 3rd World?
Creepy, nefarious, and evil.
