Depopulation Agenda = The Next Dark Age

If they destroy us, they destroy themselves

This is a (lightly edited version of) an article I published in February 2023, when my Substack was a lot smaller.

The lede: we need a large population in order to have enough geniuses to create innovations. Wipe out a bunch of us, as the globalists appear to want to do, and a dark age will follow.

This subject has come up again recently, so it is worth revisiting.

---

The Horrors Aren’t Random

A manmade virus. A killer vaccine.

Massive increases in…

• miscarriages

• fertility problems

• cancers

• numerous other health conditions

• heart attacks and deaths in children and young adults of child-bearing age

• destruction of food production facilities (fires, explosions, fields of dead cattle, etc.)

• all-cause mortality

(These aren’t run-of-the-mill increases. These increases are so large that it is statistically impossible for them to be random.)

Everyone who is not living in the Matrix is aware of these occurrences and the associated data. Statisticians have figured out that the amount of time it would take for these increases to happen randomly is longer than the universe has existed.

There is a cause—something that did not exist before, but does exist now.

That cause is not covid (these occurrences are outside the scope of the direct covid death toll). That cause is also not climate change—a suggestion that would be hysterically funny if it weren’t for the fact that some people actually believe it (and still take themselves seriously).

Is This Intentional Depopulation?

It is now being openly and broadly discussed in social media and elsewhere: whatever is being done is being done intentionally to reduce the number of humans on the planet There is obviously no direct proof of this—no hot-mic recording of Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates discussing how the depopulation agenda is proceeding.

That said, the lack of direct proof does not make the speculation irrational for two reasons:

1. These events are not random. They have a cause. There is no indication of any change outside human agency (something in nature, for example) that has caused any of this. All signs point to intentional actions by humans: something initiated by some number of humans is causing lots of other humans to die from a variety of causes. (In the case of the threats to fertility and food supply, the killing is slow-motion or indirect.)
   
   So, either

   1. killing lots of people is the goal, or

   2. killing lots of people is a secondary outcome of whatever they are up to.
      
      It is certainly not unreasonable to at least consider the possibility that the result (inordinate numbers of people dying, and many more at risk of dying) of the thing that is happening is, in fact, the intent of the thing that is happening.
      
      This may be right and it may be wrong, but the speculation itself is in no way unreasonable.¹

2. Reinforcing this speculation are two things:
   
   a. We live in an era that is increasingly dominated by a global ideology—some combination of self-important elitism, leftism, and the pursuit of power and wealth (with some psychopathy likely in the mix somewhere). One of the main tenets of this ideology is the notion that there are too many people.
   
   Even before (the demonstrably unscientific cult of) climate change came along, the left generally held that humans pose a threat to the environment. Now, everything we do—the way we live, the very breath we exhale—is deemed an existential ‘threat’ to the planet.
   
   Would it really be that much of a surprise if—after a half-century of this rhetoric being pounded into our heads, day in and day out—some government officials, globalist control freaks, and ideologically driven billionaires might have taken it to heart…and decided to do something about it?
   
   b. While there is no smoking-gun proof, there have certainly been hints—little things that government officials, globalist control freaks, and ideologically driven billionaires have said that contribute to the impression that they might actually take steps to “cull the human herd.” (Not them and their friends, of course—just the rest of us useless eaters.)

In the absence of direct proof, I will have to remain agnostic on the subject of whether an actual depopulation agenda is being implemented. The best I can say for now is that people are dying, and weird attacks are occurring, at statistically non-random rates, and one way or another, this phenomenon almost certainly has a human cause.

However, that does not stop me from a thought experiment…

The Need for Geniuses and Luck

Let us presume, for the sake of this discussion, that such an agenda is being deployed. Such a thing would be evil, and also colossally incorrect. Humans do not pose a significant risk to the climate, nor are we at any risk of overpopulation. Indeed, even before they started meddling, we were scheduled to experience demographic decline (an important subject for another time). But there is plenty of precedent for evil, ignorance, and stupidity in human history, so let’s go with it.

My working thesis right now is that depopulating the planet (some ideologues have suggested that a population of 500 million is the right number) would bring about a technological and cultural dark ages.

The reason is simple: we would not have enough geniuses.

Roughly speaking, fewer than 0.1% of humans have an IQ above 145. That is a tiny fraction. Most of the advances that benefit the rest of us—medicine, science, technology, creative endeavors, etc.—come from this tiny fraction. Not all, but most.

Yet not all geniuses provide such advances:

• Some of those with an IQ over 145 simply don’t have much energy—they’re smart, but they lack the motivation to put in the work to do big things.

• Of the ones who have motivation, some will do something cool, but not necessarily something that has a lasting benefit to many others.

• Of those who set out to do something of lasting benefit, some will simply not make the right connections—funding, partners, etc.—that enable them to pursue their vision.

• Of those who make the right connections, not all will succeed. Even geniuses head off on the wrong track, or miss some important aspect of the very complex endeavor they are attempting. For every victory, there are a thousand setbacks.

• And then there is the luck factor: that happy accident that leads to the Eureka! moment…

• Often needed, in addition to all that, are special combinations of traits:

  • Genius sprinkled with the courage and disagreeableness to see one’s crazy vision through to the end.

  • Insecurity and the drive to prove the naysayers wrong.

  • Ineffable combinations of nature and nurture.

Sometimes, success comes from bad things. Do we know for sure that Beethoven’s genius would have fully manifested without his father’s abuse?

Sometimes, people who are autistic go on to create amazing things.

I am not supporting parental abuse or wishing for more insecure geniuses with Asperger’s. I am merely pointing out the truth of what “God” said in the film Bruce Almighty: “If you want to paint pictures like this, you have to use some dark colors.”

Innovation is not a formula. Our globalist overlords cannot wipe out a few billion of us and then say, Okay, genius peasant—go innovate. It takes a lot of people, in a lot of circumstances, with a lot of unlikely combinations before we are all graced with that tiny number of truly beneficial inventions, advances, and creative works.

The Death of Progress and Prosperity

Prior to about 1800, the whole of humanity lived on the inflation-adjusted equivalent of three dollars a day. The classical-liberal revolution created circumstances—in freedom, rights, and political equality—that allowed people from all classes (rather than just the upper classes) to begin contributing to human progress.

The results were enormous and nearly instantaneous: a 3,000-percent increase in wealth, standards of living through the roof, and the entire species on a rocket ride we’re still on. The reason was innovation.

For the reasons cited above, innovation requires an unlikely combination of traits: genius + motivation + choice + connections + luck + that one-out-of-a-thousand success. Throw in some happy accidents, courage, disagreeableness, and any number of ineffable combinations of nature and nurture.

It takes a huge population of potential contributors to get those tiny number who actually succeed at doing something really big. That is why the Great Enrichment happened after 1800: we welcomed the contributions of an ever-growing number, and population growth continued to grow the number of potential contributors.

Kill off 95 percent of us—as more than one radical environmentalist has asserted “must happen” to “save the planet”—and you kill off what you need in order to get innovation and creativity: NUMBERS. Most of us will never do anything really really big. We need large numbers of us in order for those rare individuals to exist and succeed.

We don’t know for sure if a depopulation agenda is underway, but we do know that there are many ideologues who believe that the human population must be reduced drastically.

Setting aside all the false premises upon which such a belief is based, it is certainly a testament to the evil that people can contemplate in service of a goal that they believe is good. None of them (to my knowledge) have committed suicide to do their part, but they nonetheless harbor the monstrous belief that a large swath of us must be wiped out.

For this reason, it seems unlikely that we can appeal to them on moral grounds, so how about we appeal to their self interest?

If you kill off large numbers of us, we can tell them, you are killing the future. You are laying the groundwork for the next dark age.

They probably won’t hear us through the din of their virtue-signaling, ‘climate-change’ paranoia, powerlust, and bloodthirsty do-goodery, but hey—it’s worth a try.

Wikimedia: “A Peasant Holding a Glass,” Teniers/public domain

This is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

1. The only people who are absolutely certain that this speculation is unreasonable are either a) completely ignorant of what has actually been going on (a common affliction) or b) have an unwarranted level of trust in government leaders and powerful people with ideological agendas, one that requires willful blindness to the record of human history (also a common affliction).