Since the 1970s, globalists have been pursuing two main objectives: (1) the ceding of national sovereignty to global supranational organizations, which implies the progressive suppression of private property and freedom; (2) the reduction of population and the management of this reduction.
Global warming“ and ”climate change“ are concepts promoted by the globalist neo-Malthusians of the Club of Rome since at least 1991. It is then that global warming began to be used as a pretext for the public to accept supranational global governance.
The Club of Rome literally says in its 1991 book «The First Global Revolution»:
- “In the search for a common enemy against which everyone could unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would be the solution.”.
- «These dangers are exclusively man-made and therefore the conclusion, explicitly stated in the book, is clear: The real enemy then is mankind itself.”.
- «If the very existence of humanity is the great threat, it will be easy to rally public opinion and convince it to sacrifice its own rights and submit to global control under the belief that the human species is too dangerous to be allowed freedom.».
The Club of Rome describes in its official history that the 1992 UN Rio Summit and Agenda 21 «echoed many of the Club's founding ideas,” such as the need to place limits on growth, the interconnectedness of global problems (climate change, population expansion and resource scarcity), and the urgency of balanced development.
The 2030 Agenda
The 2030 Agenda adopted by the UN in 2015 (whose origins lie in Agenda 21 of 1992 and the Millennium Goals of 2000), took up that banner and developed its objectives around climate change and the “sustainability” of the economy, through the concept of «global governance» that will appear in subsequent UN documents developing the Agenda.
Thus, the Agenda mentions the word «sustainable» 223 times, «climate change» 20 times, «gender ideology» 15 times; while «freedom of expression», «free market», «private property», «freedom of worship», or «transcendence» are mentioned... 0 times.
The promoters of the 2030 Agenda propose a catastrophic climate scenario similar to the one proposed by the Club of Rome, in order to make us believe that the only solution is the acceptance of «global» measures decided by non-democratic organizations.
Concrete proposals
The Agenda claims to want to put an end to hunger and double agricultural productivity, but proposes measures that promote just the opposite. Under the alibi of climate change, the 2030 Agenda proposes a real declaration of war against farmers and livestock breeders, as well as against the industrialization of many countries.
- He claims to want to fight poverty, but his policies only increase it by suppressing freedom and private property and growth, which are the essence of economic progress.
- It pretends to make people believe, against all evidence, that it is states and not individuals that create wealth.
- It poses a neocolonialist attitude towards the inhabitants of the poorest countries, making it impossible for them to use their energy resources and thus denying them the ability to be the protagonists of their own development.
The promoters of the 2030 Agenda do not seem to care that, with almost the entire deadline having passed, progress in achieving its 17 goals is described by many analysts as “insufficient” or even “deficient”.
They are not concerned because the real objectives of Agenda 2030 are the same as those of the globalists: the surrender of the sovereignty of peoples, the reduction of the world population and the management of decline. To achieve these objectives, they know that it is necessary to control minds and, very specifically, to control energy sources. And in these respects the globalists have come a long way.
Indeed, globalism has succeeded in turning “climate environmentalism” into a secular «new religion». The various supranational globalist organizations, from the IPCC to the Davos Forum to the WHO, have used climate change with great success in the formation of what is called “mass psychosis”.
The process of formation of mass psychosis requires first that a good part of society feels lonely, disconnected, isolated, without meaning in their lives. For that it is first necessary to detach society from its religion, from God, from the transcendent meaning of their lives. In the West this means de-Christianization.
When some establishment or organization subjects that part of the population that has lost the raison d'être of their lives to an intense «state of fear» through propaganda (on any subject), a critical state is reached from which, if these people are offered something to fight for, however irrational it may be, their lives will make sense again and they will immediately feel connected.
Often, such people will become radically intolerant. They will be willing to sacrifice anything to achieve what propaganda has presented to them as a common goal that will solve their fears.
Once this type of psychosis has taken root in the most susceptible population (no more than one 20% or 30% of a society is needed), a large part of the rest will follow them by mimicry, and the majority of society will end up participating in the same psychosis, closing the cycle of the mass formation process.
The end result of mass formation is equivalent to collective hypnosis.
This process of manipulation, which begins with propaganda about a minority, is used by the elites so that it is society itself that persecutes those who disagree with the official narrative - in different spheres. But the persecution itself is not the important thing, it is merely instrumental for the elites to achieve the goals of their hidden agenda.
The process of de-Christianization first and then of propaganda and exaggeration regarding anthropogenic global warming, gender ideology, pandemics, or any crisis or issue presented as a «global» problem, has nothing to do with the environment, nor with identity, nor with health. It has to do with that process of forming mass psychosis to deconstruct society, so that certain groups or non-democratically elected people can impose their Agenda. And gain more power and money.
They have been particularly effective with respect to population control, because the world is already close to the time when the population, as a whole, will begin to decline.
Decreased fertility
The world fertility rate is already less than 2.2 children per woman, which is the true global replacement rate (not 2.1 as is usually considered, given the high mortality in developing countries). If things do not change much, from 2050 onwards, the world population will begin to decline rapidly. The native population has already begun to decline significantly in almost all European countries, in China, South Korea, Russia, Japan, Cuba and Thailand.
It is estimated that in countries that now have fertility rates close to 1 child per woman or lower and that do not accept immigrants, such as China, the fall of their population in a few decades will be greater than during the Black Death.
The reduction of the native population has also started in France in 2025 (in Spain it started in 2015). That is why Macron has just asked the French to have more children. It seems an irony in bad taste (of the «you pay, it's on me» type), because Macron has not had children and is the main promoter of the «right» to abortion being included in the French Constitution.
The collapse of the fertility rate is already occurring in all social classes: For example, Hispanic America as a whole already has a lower fertility rate than the U.S., contrary to what has historically been the case. And the greatest contributions to this fertility decline are coming from young, uneducated women, not among the more educated Hispanic women, as was the case until now.
Demography is not only important for those of us who believe in the transcendence of the human being (having children so that they can enjoy this wonderful world, full of beautiful forms of life, so that they can be happy first here on earth -helping others with their ideas and their work-, and then be much happier with God in eternity). Demography is essential for the economy. Because the economy only grows if productivity or population grows.
The decline in the birth rate is not due to the Pill, as many simplistically claim. The Pill is a symptom, not the cause. The reason people want to use the pill to avoid having children is deeper. The loss of the transcendent meaning of life has made society more selfish and hopeless. The Pill is an excellent drug for that mentality. Thus, it has been easy for climate environmentalism to replace transcendent meaning and hope.
Food production
The mass psychosis of degrowth is so profound that they are unable to accept how irrational it is to think that the planet is overpopulated and that further growth is unsustainable. Most of planet Earth is uninhabited and food production has been growing much faster than population for decades.
Food production has multiplied since 1961 much faster than the population, on all continents; and this with a minimal increase in the area of land used in absolute terms and with a drastic reduction in terms of hectares used per inhabitant. According to various studies, this large increase in agricultural productivity is not so much due to improvements in cultivation techniques (although this is also the case), but mainly to the higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which boosts agricultural productivity very significantly (and with lower water consumption).
The area occupied by human settlements, including all roads, represents only 1,56% of the planet's continental land area (not counting a single cm2 of land area).2 of the seashore), or 2,93% if we eliminate the continental areas that are not habitable today (deserts, frozen areas, mountains, rivers, lakes and marshes). The areas dedicated to cultivation occupy 10,56% of the continental land, but these are areas where a lot of wild fauna also lives, they are not lands occupied exclusively by man.
Some say that AI and humanoid robots will improve productivity so much that the economy will grow exponentially without any push from population growth. In my opinion, to argue that this is what will happen in the long run in a world increasingly full of old people and with sharply declining populations is extraordinarily speculative, not to say naïve. Perhaps sectors such as diapers for the elderly, Imserso trips and robots for geriatric care will grow for a few decades, but from the point at which the vast majority of society is old and the population is declining rapidly, I can't think of any industry that can grow, not even supported by AI and humanoid robots.
There is nothing more important for the Earth (and for Heaven) than reversing the birth rate.
Analyst. Science, economics and religion. Five children. Investment banker. Profile on X: @ChGefaell.
Español 
English 
Italiano