The Real Purpose of Net Zero - Farmers are becoming endangered because of government policy to meet ‘climate goals’ and it’s being allowed to happen.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account


The Real Purpose of Net Zero​

Farmers are becoming endangered because of government policy to meet ‘climate goals’ and it’s being allowed to happen.

The recent Telegraph headline rang out of England recently with unsettling tones: Tenth of farmland to be axed for net zero

More than 10 per cent of farmland in England is set to be diverted towards helping to achieve net zero and protecting wildlife by 2050, the Environment Secretary will reveal on Friday.
Swathes of the countryside are on course to be switched to solar farms, tree planting and improving habitats for birds, insects and fish.
The move comes on the back of an aggressive and highly unpopular inheritance tax placed on generational farmers by British politician Rachel Reeves that has drawn sustained protest in the country. The commercial officer of Britain’s largest supermarket chain Tesco warned Reeves’ tax raid on farmers is placing “UK’s future food security is at stake.

What if that’s the whole point? Tucker Carlson recently asked Piers Morgan this uncomfortable question.

Morgan refused to let his mind go there. And for good reason. It’s a dark premise. Yet one with historical context that must be analyzed due to the aggressive moves now in play against farmers around the world and humanity at large.

The British East India Company was the early template for the modern mega-corporate monopoly, globalization & vehicle to expand colonial power. Eventually dominating trade between Indian and Britain and far beyond. To say the company’s practices were ruthless would be putting it lightly.

Thomas Malthus was the East India Company’s first economist training individuals for service as administrators for the organization. Malthus was also a eugenicist in the economic wheelhouse of the world’s largest corporate monopoly with its own private army.

He wrote the following in his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population:

The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction; and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague, advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.
Eugenicists aren’t picky. Whatever gets people off the planet en masse – they’re into. Notice his last sentence, when bases are loaded and “success be still incomplete,” it’s the famine that is the preferred home run hitter – the weapon of choice.

In the 1860s, the full weight of the East India Company’s monopoly helped kill off India’s economy of textile industries putting countless out of work and forcing them into agriculture. This, in turn, made the Indian economy much more dependent on the whims of seasonal monsoons as dry seasons gripped the country.

The Indian and British press carried reports of rising prices, dwindling grain reserves, and the desperation of peasants no longer able to afford rice.

All of this did little to stir the colonial administration into action. In the mid-19th Century, it was common economic wisdom that government intervention in famines was unnecessary and even harmful. The market would restore a proper balance. Any excess deaths, according to Malthusian principles, were nature’s way of responding to overpopulation.
-BBC
The current overlay argument government, NGOs, and global bodies like the United Nations are using to interrupt farming during present day is because of ‘net zero’ goals.

[See video below on the origin of the ‘climate crisis’ narrative highlighting the Club of Rome’s hand in crafting the modern day operation.]

Cows create greenhouse gases, carbon emissions from fertilizers, destruction of wildlife, and people themselves are all, we are told to believe, BIG negatives for the earth. Therefore they must be reduced.

Not in an orderly way, but as fast as possible because we’re told change in climate is the biggest, world-ending threat humans face – or something like that.

The United Nations [think Agenda 2030, Paris Agreement] has been the prime mover, policy-shaping action arm to accomplish this ‘net zero’ utopia. Enter Julian Huxley.

Huxley emerges after World War 2 as a crucial bridging figure from what has been referred to as “old eugenics” [Malthus] to a new eugenics based on molecular biology and human evolution.

In 1945 as World War 2 was ending, the United Nations was founded in New York. That same year, the United Nations Conference for the Establishment of an Education and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) was also founded in London with Julian Huxley becoming the first Director-General.

One year later Huxley wrote UNESCO ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY stating:

At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.
As it appears we are now in the home stretch of the environmental overlay of modern-day eugenics, the consensus-building and subtle messaging are being done away with.

A 2022 research article published in the journal Social Studies of Science titled Environmental Malthusianism and Demography writes:

Some bioethicists argue that, because ‘we are threatened with more population than the planet can bear’, humans simply ‘don’t have a right to more than one biological child’ (Conly, 2016: 2). Some recommend that governments act to uphold this limit (Hickey et al., 2016). Even feminist historians and sociologists of science, including some sharp critics of the population control projects of the late 20th century, now call for measures to reduce childbearing as a means of combatting climate change. Environmental Malthusianism, the idea that human population growth is the primary driver of environmental harms and population control a prerequisite to environmental protection, is experiencing a resurgence.
The current leadership of the UK, EU member states and the U.S. in regards to climate. Where Keir Starmer is racing to fulfill ‘net zero’ goals, as of last week, the U.S. has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change via executive order.

Without food, food production, and farming, there is famine. It’s that simple. The failed pandemic response was a reminder of that.

It has been assumed that leaders and policymakers, especially the United Nations, know these basic historical and current facts. Farmers are becoming endangered because of government policy to meet ‘climate goals’ and it’s being allowed to happen.
 
A lot of things USAID did were population control related. Mass vaccination is a population control method (under the premise that people naturally have fewer children if more of their kids survive to adulthood), and so is promoting LGBT stuff everywhere. Forcing women into the workforce and forcing households to become dual-income to make ends meet is a population control measure; it leaves less time and energy for having and raising kids. Same thing with getting rid of single-family zoning and forcing people into apartments; the goal is to bust up families and atomize people into pod-dwellers who have transient hookup culture trysts with contraceptive use, but no lasting relationships.

The goal is to have as few "viable breeders" as possible. Naturally, this creates huge problems of its own in terms of the aging-out of the workforce, more people ending up on pensions and social security and fewer people paying into the system with taxes. So, in the end, the powers-that-be are going to need some kind of cull of the elderly coupled with automation of industries to keep GDP growth up with a static population. That's where the AI and robots come in.

If you're constantly left wondering why everything is so fucked up, why the authorities push faggy shit on people, and why you can never seem to get ahead in life, the answer is almost invariably population control.

 
Man who knew an internet provider could be so malicious? I knew their cheap and reliable service was too good to be true!
IMG_2073.jpeg
 
Control the food, control the goy. When growing your own unpoisoned food is an act of rebellion against the kike state, you know you're living in a semitic situation.
 
Fixed that for ya.
Indeed. They actually have a playbook for it and everything.


GPT's summary:

Summary of the UN Report on Replacement Migration

The United Nations Population Division prepared this report, titled Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?, to examine whether international migration can offset the demographic challenges of population decline and ageing in certain countries. The study focuses on eight nations (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, and the United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union) over a period from 1995 to 2050.

Key Findings:

  1. Population Decline & Ageing:
    • Many developed countries, particularly in Europe and Japan, are expected to experience significant population declines due to low birth rates and increasing life expectancy.
    • For instance, Italy’s population is projected to drop from 57 million (2000) to 41 million (2050), and Japan’s from 127 million to 105 million.
    • The median age in these countries is rising significantly, with Italy’s increasing from 41 to 53 years and Japan’s from 41 to 49 years.
  2. Impact of Migration Scenarios: The study evaluates five scenarios to measure how different levels of international migration might influence population trends:
    • Scenario I: Assumes the medium variant of UN population projections, which includes regular migration flows.
    • Scenario II: Assumes zero migration after 1995.
    • Scenario III: Calculates migration needed to maintain the total population size at its peak level.
    • Scenario IV: Estimates migration needed to maintain the working-age population (15-64 years old).
    • Scenario V: Estimates migration required to maintain the potential support ratio (PSR)—the ratio of working-age individuals to those aged 65+.
  3. Number of Migrants Required:
    • To maintain total population (Scenario III): Countries like Italy would need 12.6 million immigrants by 2050, while the European Union would need 47 million.
    • To sustain the working-age population (Scenario IV): Germany would need 24 million immigrants, and Japan would require 32 million.
    • To maintain PSR (Scenario V): The numbers skyrocket—Japan would need 524 million immigrants, and the EU would need 674 million, an unrealistic figure.
  4. Challenges & Policy Implications:
    • In France, the UK, the US, and the EU, past migration trends suggest that replacement migration could be manageable.
    • However, in Italy, Japan, Korea, and Europe overall, migration levels needed to offset ageing and decline would far exceed historical levels.
    • Maintaining current working-age-to-elderly ratios solely through migration is unrealistic. Instead, raising retirement ages (e.g., to 75) may be necessary.
    • The economic, social, and political impact of large-scale immigration must be considered, including labor market integration, retirement policies, and healthcare systems.

Conclusion:

The report finds that replacement migration can help mitigate population decline and workforce shortages but is not a viable solution for maintaining current elderly dependency ratios. Governments will need comprehensive policy adjustments in pensions, healthcare, and labor markets, alongside potential increases in fertility rates and retirement ages.

The main reason they want to import a workforce is actually quite simple; they want a higher ratio of tax-paying workers to people drawing social security, because an aging populace means they can't balance the gubmint budget. Unfortunately for us, the ruling class are completely retarded, think we're all basically interchangeable, and don't understand how the quality and productivity of the population plays a significant role.

They're actually really screwing themselves hugely by importing lower-IQ transplants; a lot of them can't be trained to do the digital economy jobs that the Davos types are trying to push us towards to "dematerialize" the economy.

Man who knew an internet provider could be so malicious? I knew their cheap and reliable service was too good to be true!
View attachment 6957614
I knew we shouldn't have used those banner ad killers with our free dialup back in the day. Now, they're out for blood!
 

Attachments

Back
Top Bottom