Population Control

➡ Ron Partain from the Untold History channel discusses global population control. He reads from the book ‘Global Population Policy: From Population Control to Reproductive Rights’ by Paige Wally Eager, discussing the shift in global population policy from regulating population growth to upholding reproductive rights, triggering a debate on the impact of these policies and the role of women in population growth.
➡ The study explores the shifting paradigm in global policy from population control to reproductive rights and health over the past 30 years, using a constructivist approach. It includes a detailed single case study using interviews, primary document analysis and secondary resources, highlighting the role of reflexivity, discourse analysis, and coalition-building strategies among actors in the field. The author acknowledges personal bias but maintains the legitimacy of the research.
➡ The speaker is considering various ideas for a watch party happening the next night and possibly a Christmas event next week, refusing to share specifics but is open to suggestions. The speaker discusses plans of establishing a Telegram group and a Facebook group to interact with the audience consistently and effectively. They are also mindful of avoiding copyright issues. Final goodbye hints at the upcoming watch party scheduled for 05:00 08:00 eastern.
➡ The text discusses the transition from population control to reproductive rights & health and the challenges faced in this normative change. It shares concerns about population control efforts creating ethical issues, especially considering the implications on women’s fertility in the third world. It also touches on opposition faced from certain movements, such as pro-life groups, and varied perspectives on issues like sustainable development & population growth. It highlights that US, despite initial resistance, eventually supported the shift towards reproductive rights & health.
➡ The global women’s health and rights movement (GWHRM) challenged the norm of population control by focusing more on women’s reproductive rights, demonstrating how in some instances, family planning programs became a form of population control, violating women’s human rights. Despite facing significant challenges, GWHRM highlighted the importance of reproductive rights both in public and private spheres over the course of two decades, resulting in transformative attitudes and practices.
➡ The text discusses how the United States altered its stance on population control in the 1960s, heavily influenced by powerful and wealthy families like the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. Additionally, despite their claims of philanthropy, hesitations are expressed regarding the intentions behind global efforts, such as vaccinations, led by these influential groups, particularly in light of their openly expressed concerns about overpopulation.
➡ The Rockefeller family has been involved with population control initiatives since the 1950s. In 1952, John D. Rockefeller II founded the Population Council to promote birth control methods and encourage parents to have fewer children, which some see as hypocritical given the large size of their own families. Many powerful figures, including Walt Disney, have also promoted population control measures over time, often using entertainment and media to subtly disseminate these ideas.
➡ The Rockefeller Foundation has pledged $13.5 million to enhance public health in Africa, India, and Latin America, focusing on Covid-19 vaccination efforts, countering misinformation and building trust. This discourse also covers global concerns such as population control, efforts like increasing contraception availability, and lowering carbon emissions. Prominent figures like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are identified as contributing to these causes. Gates, in particular, is scrutinized for his stance on population control via vaccines and his connections to the Chinese government, Michael Bloomberg, and simulations involving pandemic scenarios.
➡ The text discusses disparities in the handling of the pandemic, such as varying symptoms in patients, public expectations for a vaccine, and inadequate supplies of personal protective equipment. It also critiques the roles of Twitter and Facebook in pandemic misinformation, the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and John Hopkins University in pandemic response and narrative control. The text also references the planning for a potential pandemic, potential misuse of funding, controversial figures and organizations involved in public health, and their roles in population control.
➡ Prince Philip’s death at 99 sparked discussions about the vaccine and heart problems warned by the CDC. Furthermore, concerns about overpopulation and the global environment have led to controversial views from figures like Stanley Johnson, Boris Johnson’s father, and Joe Biden, advocating for population control and sustainable economic growth. Wealthy individuals such as George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates have made significant contributions towards overpopulation solutions including vaccination campaigns and Planned Parenthood, raising questions about their intentions amidst the Covid-19 pandemic. This narrative is interwoven with insights about predictive programming seen in Hollywood and prime-time TV.
➡ The text suggests possible links between the Rockefeller family, billionaires like Micheal Bloomberg, and a global trend towards increased authoritarian control sparked by responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. It raises questions about the connections between whole population vaccination, biometric IDs, population control, and concepts of a global unified government. It also implies a long-term agenda for human population control via forced sterilization and other practices, fueled by the belief in the negative impact of population growth on the global ecosystem.

Welcome back to the Untold History Channel. My name is Ron partain and tonight we’re going to go over population control. Sorry, guys, I was a couple of minutes late. I actually lost track of time. I was making some t shirts. I got my website built and it’s coming along and it’s probably good enough to be viewed, but I’m going to give it one more day just because I want to tighten a few things up and go over everything.

But everything seems to be on track and working on getting the store up. And that’s my project when I get done tonight, if I have enough energy. But anyway, good stuff coming. So the song that you guys are listening to when you’re waiting on the when you’re waiting, that is m 83. It’s called outro. So let’s see here. Is it working? Is it working? I think it’s working.

Walker says that it’s frozen, but I see it’s there. Yeah. 730 Eastern. I try to keep it uniform on eastern time, so that’s why I put the eastern time on there. What I’m going to probably do, I don’t know if I’m going to get through the entire first chapter here. There is a book, and the book is entitled the Global Population. What is it called? Let’s see here.

This is one of my page one. That’s page twelve. Let’s see. It’s called global. Here, I’ll just share the screen. It’s called global population policy. From population control to reproductive rights by Paige Wally eager. I had to rent it out, actually. I’m going to. Let’s see here. Hide the bookmarks and make it maximum. And actually I’m going to do the visual adjustments and I’m going to make it dark mode.

Make it to page twelve, just so you can see the contents of the chapters are global population policy, past and present. Let me make it a little bit bigger so you guys aren’t struggling to see it. Global population, past and present population control is global policy. And then I’m going to actually do this because I like this better. And I’ll make it a little bit darker with a little more contrast.

There we go. That should make it a little bit easier on everybody’s eyes. So, global population policy, past and present population control s global policy. The winds of change. New approach to global population policy. And on and on. So it’s a rather long book and I’m going to try to read a good chunk of the first chapter, but I’m probably not going to get through all of it.

I think I’ll get through enough that you guys will get a good grasp of what it’s talking about, but it’ll probably be somewhat disturbing in many ways. But it’s going to go back and it’ll really talk about, I’ve just kind of like, picked through a few things and you’ll be like, whoa, it goes back a long time. Anyway, there’s that. And just want to say that, hey, guys, the stuff that I share here, this is information that I’ve come across, but always do your own research and never take for granted the stuff that I say as gospel truth.

Another thing I am beginning to I’m probably going to be starting to do some stuff on YouTube, but it’s just going to be some kind of lightweight stuff that I can do just to maybe bring more audience members over into the rumble side. I’ve established channels on Odyssey and Brighteon and bitchute so that I can upload all my libraries there. Just because I’m not 100% sold, that rumble is going to last forever.

I don’t know, I just kind of have this uneasy feeling about rumble. But anyway, so with that said, how’s everybody doing tonight? I hope you all are well. Juju, I do not recognize you, so welcome. Walker. I’m not really familiar with you either, but I think you’ve been here before, maybe. And Billy’s three. That’s kind of a new name. So if you guys have been here before and I don’t recognize you, I apologize.

But welcome, everybody. And I know truth is out there, so. Hey, sling. How once I get done reading a good portion of this, if we don’t get through all of it, then I’m going to play a video that was done by a good friend of mine. It goes by Brad. His name is Brad gets. He actually does some stuff on. He’s one of the guys on Badlands, but I’ve known him before Badlands even existed.

He went by the name where we go one, we go all on YouTube a long time ago, and he’s done some really good work. Really fond of him. Anyway, let’s jump in here and start reading some of this. So when I get to page, here we go right here. And I’m going to make it a little bit bigger. So. All right. Global population policy, past and present. Introduction in the years after World War II, the developed world began to direct its attention towards the third world.

The wave of decolonization post World War II. Endangered, engaging. I’m sorry, engineered. I’m not really familiar with that word engaging debates, I think it’s probably supposed to be engineered. Probably engineered. Engaging debates within the developed world regarding the path the third world should follow in order to become more developed. One important part of the developed debate, or the development debate, focused on population growth in the developing world.

The United States, along with a few other developed countries, determined that the developing world needed to decrease population growth in order to have any hope of achieving economic growth and development. Thus, the main message the United States brought to the developing world was that population control would help in its quest for development. In other words, fewer people being born into poverty would help a country grow economically. I think that’s utter bullshit.

If you want my honest opinion. These countries aren’t in poverty because they’re just populating them or growing their populations. The countries are in poverty because they’ve not been allowed to flourish because of colonization and basically european domination of them. They don’t have the resources and whatnot, and therefore the first world goes down and exploits them. So I don’t thoroughly agree with that. And it’s kind of ironic here that the United States is the ones that are leading.

In other words, fewer population being born into poverty would in the end help a country grow economically. Also, the developed world argued that any economic gains made were being outstripped by out of control population growth. Population control was propagated as the main norm guiding global population policy from 1965 until 1994. Prior to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, hereafter referred to as the Cairo Conference, population policy was narrowly defined as formal statements by governments of a perceived national problem, solutions and desired goals and objectives, along with a systematic organizational plan of implementation.

That’s Dixon Miller, 1993 to 15. Before the 1994 Cairo Conference, it was assumed that governments assembled at future world population and development conferences would continue to commit themselves to the idea that global population policy ought to be first and foremost concerned with decreasing women’s fertility rates, especially in developing countries. Prior to the Cairo conference, women often were conceptualized and treated as the means through the goal of population control was to be achieved.

The Cairo conference signaled a paradigm shift in the issue area of global population policy. Reproductive rights and health emerged at Cairo as the new norm, dominating discussions about global population policy. Cairo declared that women were no longer to be treated as a covenant means towards the end of population control. Global population policy prior to Cairo sanctioned demographic goals, quantitative quotas and acceptors, and often coercive methods. Moreover, population policy prior to Cairo often failed to acknowledge and prioritize women’s humans rights.

Although most global population policy documents called for the respect of universally recognized human rights and women’s voluntary participation in family planning programs. Governments sometimes argue that it was within their sovereign rights to implement often controversial and sometimes draconian population control policies in order to decrease population growth. At Cairo, these arguments were deemed inappropriate and illegitimate forms of behavior. Cairo proclaimed that women have the right to control their reproductive capabilities free of coercion, violence, and discrimination by governments and non state actors.

And the way I read this is what they’re doing, is they’re essentially saying that this is all about abortion. Oh, well, reproductive rights are abortion. Well, who’s pushing the abortion, and where are they pushing it? I mean, the vast majority of this stuff is in Africa. We all know that the elite want, basically, Africans to not populate or Indians. Anybody that they conceive, or anybody that the elite perceive as people that aren’t white, call it that.

I mean, that’s probably the best way to say it. They’re just not white. So we don’t want them populating, we don’t want them reproducing. That’s right. So understanding why and how this change occurred at the Cairo conference is the main puzzle driving this analysis. Why was an entire chapter at the Cairo program of Action called Reproductive Rights and Health? In all previous UN global conference documents on population, there is no mention whatsoever of the phrase reproductive rights.

Where did reproductive rights come from then, and how did this language find its way into the Cairo program of action? The concept of the reproductive rights did not suddenly drop down from the sky in 1994. Rather, the term appears in some feminist literature as early as the late 70s. Even though many observers characterize the Cairo conference as a paradigm shift in the field of global population policy in the sense that the language, assumptions, and norms supporting population control were supplanted by the language, assumptions, and norms supporting reproductive rights and health, there are no analysis which address how this unexpected outcome succeeded in revolutionizing the field.

I argue a constructivist approach can illuminate processes of normative change at the international level. The main goal of this study, then, is to utilize a constructive approach in order to trace the process through which, over the past 30 years, a population control norm and discourse has become delegitimized as a reproductive rights and health norm, and discourse has become legitimized in a way. It was in no way inevitable that population control would be supplanted by reproductive rights and health.

I draw upon the existing theoretical and empirical work on international norms, global governance, social movements, and constructivism to develop my own model of normative change and nascent norm emergence. The model explicated in this chapter and throughout this book should not be viewed as an invariant model, nor should one view the process I describe as sequentially ordered in a predetermined manner. This chapter will provide an overview of the case study and explore theoretical questions regarding norm change, norm emergence, and the utility of UN global conferences in general.

Moreover, I explicate the five integral processes in my model of normative change. The chapter will discuss some of the reasons normative change in this issue was exceedingly difficult, which will provide the reader with an overview of this issue area before delving into the empirics and theoretical questions explored in this study. A brief discussion on the methodology used to conduct this analysis is warranted. Methodology qualitative research is pragmatic, interpretive, and grounded in the lived experiences of people.

Although there is no blueprint for qualitative research, it is largely grounded in a philosophical science, which is broadly interpretivist in the sense that it is concerned with how the social world is interpreted, understood, or produced. In the spirit of constructivism, the single case study utilizes the following methods of data collection, interviews, primary document analysis, and secondary resources. Though through data source triangulation, a single case study done well can illuminate questions of a broader theoretical relevance and significance.

A case study is appropriate when the form of the research questions is how or why, when there is no control over behavioral events, and when there is a focus on contemporary events. Case studies are able to address a variety of evidence and serve five main purposes, testing theories, creating theories identifying antecedent conditions, testing the importance of the antecedent conditions, and explaining cases of intrinsic importance. Although this research is an examination of one case study, in depth informed observations will offer insights on the processes through which norms change and emerge in issue areas of global policy making.

Due to the chronological nature of the analysis, process tracing is utilized. In process tracing, the investigator explores the chain of events or the decision making processes by which the initial case conditions are translated into outcomes. Process tracing is unique, for no other theories predict the same pattern of events or the same actor testimony on their motives. In spite of criticisms launched by some positivists against interpretivist case studies, a thorough process trace of a single case study can provide a strong test of theory.

Alexander George contends that process tracing permits a researcher to examine how actors’beliefs influence behavior. Although George focuses on individuals subjective beliefs and ideas, process tracing can also help explore how collectively held ideas and interjectivity, shared values and norms about what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behavior affect global public policies. In other words, George’s individual level of analysis should not deter one from utilizing process tracing at a different level of analysis or the system level.

A quality case study is dependent upon well designed interviews. Ruben and Ruben. 95 moreover, qualitative interviewing refers to in depth, semistructured forms of interviewing. Hence, the first method of data collection was conducting interviews with key actors who participated in the Cairo conference held in 1994 or who are involved in the global women’s health and rights movement. In addition, interviews were conducted with those opposed to the nascent norm of reproductive rights.

15 in depth, semistructured interviews were conducted. I conducted half of the interviews in New York City and in Washington, DC from February to April of 2002. The other interviews were conducted via phone. All of the interviews were tape recorded and transcribed word for word. Interviewees were placed or interviewees were also permitted to review the interview transcript once it was transcribed, a few of the respondents made this request.

Subsequently, the respondent altered those interview transcripts only slightly. Any quotes used by these respondents are from the altered transcripts. Interviewees have been granted the right to view any arbitrations prior to publication. One interviewee requested anonymity. A decade has elapsed since Cairo therefore, it is inevitable that memories have faded somewhat. However, by checking interviewees comments against the primary and secondary sources, every attempt was made to corroborate attributions made by interviewees regarding the role certain actors played in the Cairo process.

A key area focused upon the interviews with individuals working on reproductive rights and health issues was adopted. Was attributions made regarding the importance of strategy and the utility in building coalitions and alliances with other like minded actors. Most constructivist literature consistently refers to the reflexivity of actors, whereby actors purposefully or intentionally monitor their own actions and the activities of other agents. Some social movement scholars also acknowledge the reality of reflexivity and argue that it’s indicative of the postmodern world.

Actors are not mere bearers of structures or dupes of culture rather, they are reflexively actors monitor their actions and the outcomes, make adjustments, imagine new goals and possibilities, and respond to others. A second source of data collection was primary document analysis. The primary written material includes United States congressional hearings and legislation, United nations agency publications, proceedings from the conferences pertaining to the issues addressed in this research, the New York Times, and other assorted primary materials, though through the analysis of these materials I was able to corroborate the information provided by these interviewees, even though I was unable to secure interviews with some of the more prominent figures surrounding this debate, past and present.

The language used to discuss these issues is in a public forum where available from these and other sources were to help me reconstruct the discourse or communicative interaction. The third leg of data source triangulation consisted of secondary resources on this topic. The secondary literature on this topic is vast and spans the three decades under investigation of this research. Secondary resources provided much of the historical background for the case study and were important in understanding the progression of the events and international family planning.

Family planning to me, I don’t know about you all, but family planning is basically abortion. That’s what they’re talking about. I mean Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood is abortion clinics, right? And go and get birth control pills and abortion clinics and do everything you can to not have children. So population control and reproductive rights and health. Again, reproductive rights is a euphemism for abortion. Secondary resources also helped me initially to identify important organizations and individuals for interviewing.

Consistent with the spirit of qualitative research, expectations of perfect data replication are not feasible. However, research validity and generalized generalizability are still important. The methods chosen to conduct this research allowed me to observe and identify my puzzle of interest. Moreover, although previously stated that I am not attempting to construct an invariant processual mode of normative change and emergence, I do contend that my research is generalizable to the extent that the conclusions reached do not make some form of a wider claim about understanding the process of normative change and nascent norm emergence in other issue areas.

My processual model of normative change and nascent emergence norm emergence can be empirically tested by conducting other case studies. Finally, I wish to address researcher bias. I support most of the general goals of the global women’s health and rights movement. I admire the work that many of these activists commit their lives to. However, this does not mean that my research is therefore invalid. All research is value based.

We, as social scientists, research these things about which we care deeply. We may be repulsed by or attracted to the social phenomena we research. However, we are rarely, if ever, indifferent. If we were indifferent, we would not have the interest to sustain the months and often years necessary to undertake thorough analysis. And that’s a big deal to me. This right here is right on point. These people believe in what they’re doing, and that belief system gives them the will, if you will, to continue and see this thing to the end.

And their ultimate desire is for mankind to stop producing or not produce nearly as much, or do what they can to reduce the population in some of these places and specifically in the third world. And how did they do? Oh, people like, oh, I don’t know, Bill Gates and all of his vaccine programs. I don’t know. Just saying. In order to appreciate the non determined nature of the normative change from population control to reproductive rights and health, it is informative to examine, albeit briefly, the major challenges to normative change in the specific issue area.

The next session is intended to provide readers an indication of why the case study offered a rich empirical and theoretical opportunity for analysis. This section evaluates six reasons why this case study encompassed both empirical and theoretical complexity. After extensive reviewing the secondary literature on the topic, I deduced the following impediments in changing the discourse, norms, and language from population control to reproductive rights and health. So what he’s doing here? I deduced the following impediments in changing the discourse norms and again changing the language from population control to reproductive rights.

So what they’re doing is they don’t want to be at population control. They want to call it reproductive rights. So essentially, when you see a reproductive rights, think population control. Each of these barriers to normative change will be discussed more completely in subsequent chapters. First, the dominant power in the international system, the United States, was not supportive of the normative change to reproductive rights and health until the inauguration of Bill Clinton in January of 93.

In fact, the United States was the state actor within the international system that initially propagated the population control norm. The reasons why the United States believed that fertility rates had to decline around the world will be explored in depth in chapters two and three. Upon the election of conservative presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, the UN based Women’s Health and rights movement faced a hostile administration which sought to equate reproductive rights simply within abortion or simply with abortion.

While the Reagan and Bush administrations did not support population control efforts as eagerly as had previous democrat and republican administrations, the White House was certainly not an ally in promoting reproductive rights and health for women in the United States or internationally, and I’m going to find that very difficult to believe. Maybe reagan, but certainly not Bush. I’m going to disagree with that. But again, this person is probably thinking along the Democrat lines and thinking that Bush was not on board with their plans, but whatever.

In fact, during various years of the Reagan and Bush administration’s all funding for international family planning assistance programs via the United Nations Populist Fund was eliminated due to the domestic controversy over abortion. Second, the shift from population control to reproductive rights was difficult due to the power of the population control establishment. The population control establishment was influenced by neomalthusian beliefs that low rates of population growth are beneficial for economic growth and development.

Therefore, and I’m sorry, guys, I have to shift this a little bit every time I do. Therefore, fertility reduction ought to be the most important objective of global population policy. The population control establishment effectively dominated the debate surrounding global population policies since the early 1960s. Largely comprised of white males from the developed world, the population control establishment believed it had uncovered the definitive answer as to why development in the third world was not proceeding.

According to the modernization theory, the answer was because fertility rates in the developing world were too high and the growing population in many countries was outstripping any prospects for economic growth and development. The remedy the population control establishment offered to prevent overpopulation was the mass provisions of contraceptives to women in the developing world. Population controllers, however, failed to take into consideration what women in the developing world desired in regard to their fertility.

Population controllers escued most considerations of the ethical implications of treating women as targets of family planning services and at times, implicitly or explicitly supported governmental use of coercive methods to persuade women to accept fertility regulation methods. Women were not consulted, for the most part, in the design, implementation, or evaluation of the population control programs. For the population control establishment, success was measured in the increasing rate of contraceptive acceptors and the decreasing fertility rates.

Whether women’s reproductive health was being jeopardized by the unsafe contraceptive methods was of little concern initially to the population control establishment. The global women’s health and rights movement, however, would challenge the population control establishment and demand that women’s voices and individual interests be placed before macro level societal concerns. Third, other transitional actors at times worked at cross purposes against the global women’s health and rights movement. One cannot assume that all social movements are unproblematic, natural allies for one another’s causes.

Various actors in world politics all are all vying to get their issues on the world’s agenda. The nature of cross cutting issues such as women’s rights, human rights, sustainable development, and socioeconomic development issues might lead one to assume that all groups would automatically support each other’s causes. However, this was not necessarily the place or the case in this issue. In fact, many environmental groups were in favor of population control in the 1970s early 90s.

Some environmentalists believed that population control was integral to decreasing the strain placed upon the earth’s ecosystem and nonrenewable sources of energy. Therefore, some environmental groups, while perhaps not supporting overt violations of women’s bodily integrity and the pursuit of population control, nonetheless failed to direct much attention to the ethical and normative concerns raised by women’s rights and health groups. In fact, a schism between some environmentalists and the global women’s health and rights movement was apparent at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

It would take a concerted effort and the part of nonprofit foundations to close this schism in time for the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development. As a result, many environmentalists claimed to more fully understand the GHRm issue better after the Earth Summit and became allies by the Cairo conference. I want to come back up here for a second and say, where is it? Anytime you see sustainable development, that’s just code for global communism.

Sustainable development, that’s just environmentalist bullshit. Let’s see here. And if you guys are repulsed at what I’m reading, please, by all means, let me know in the comment section, because this is just. I mean, this makes me want to vomit. Fourth, the GWHRM faced a considerable and well organized oppositional actor in the form of a global right to life movement. Just as reproductive rights of health had become a transnationalized issue, so too had the pro life movement.

The global antichoice pro life movement is first and foremost opposed to abortion. However, some groups within the movement have also lobbied against the continuation of international family planning programs and funding. The Holy See, in particular, has been highly effective in organized in garnering media attention and has found sympathetic allies in many of the predominantly muslim and catholic countries. While global conferences have provided an opportunity for women supportive of reproductive rights and health to network, conferences have also helped pro life groups network.

The anti choice pro life global movement also benefits from vocal public support in the United States. In addition, the movement as a global actor seeks to affect changes in the global agenda and has been working both prior to and after the Cairo conference to eliminate reproductive rights and health from the United nations lexicon and the text of future conference consensus documents. Fifth, the agent propagating the reproductive rights and health norm was different than the agent propagating the population control norm.

The agent propagating the population control was a nation state. However, the agent challenging population control was not another state, but rather a global social movement. Controlling global population growth has been viewed by the United States as consistent with national security interests. Over the past three decades, the United States, acting as a norm entrepreneur and through its initial funding of the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, and other bilateral programs, did effectively teach developed countries that it was in their best interest to establish family planning programs and bureaucracies.

What a shock. The main goal of these initial family planning programs, even though the United States government has always advocated voluntarily planning. Family planning participation was to decrease women’s fertility rates. The United States was the largest funding source of international population control assistance up until the mid 1980s. Doesn’t that just give you the warm fuzzies about our country? I mean, I love my country, make no mistake, but this is what our country’s been doing behind our backs, and it’s been in the open.

We just have never taken the time to read this stuff. The United States, along with other western countries, was largely successful in convincing developing countries of the need to undertake measures to reduce population growth. Of course, the United States alone did not bring population control to the developing world. In some cases, the developing countries approached the United States seeking financial and programmatic assistance in developing family planning programs aimed at reducing population growth rates.

However, many countries in the developing world recognized that the United States, as well as many us based foundations and universities, was in favor of population control. Subsequently, requests for funding and professional expertise were received favorably, and every effort was made to honor these requests. The population control establishment worked multilaterally and bilaterally to demonstrate and persuade developing countries that it was in their national interest to undertake family planning programs.

The actor who challenged the population control norm was, by and large, the global women’s health range. Excuse me, the global women’s health and rights movement, the GWHRM, challenged the idea that family planning programs should first and foremost be concerned with macro level targets of reducing women’s fertility rates in society. Instead, the GHDWHRM disseminated information demonstrating how us backed voluntary family planning programs in the developing world in some cases became a euphemism for draconian population control programs, which violated women’s human rights.

The GWHRM faced a difficult task in effectively challenging the institutionalized norm of population control. The process through which the GWHRM challenged population control over the course of two decades will be discussed briefly in this chapter. 6th an obstacle to this normative change concerns the nature of the norm itself. Fundamentally, it is not only the behavior of states and international organizations that the GWHRM sought to alter. Rather, many violations of women’s reproductive rights are extracted, are exacted by individuals, and often within the family unit.

Population control was carried out for the most part by governments, international organizations, and foundations. Obviously, individuals were responsible for designing, implementing, and evaluating population control measures. However, with reproductive rights, the behavior of individuals is paramount. The GWHRm brought attention to the reality that reproduction, sexuality, and women’s human rights do not fit neatly into either the public or private spheres. Historically, many governments have argued that it is their sovereign right to regulate human reproduction within their territorial boundaries.

Yet the impression, or, excuse me, yet the imposition of a population control norm as propagated by the United States and the west was viewed as another instance of western imperialism by many developing countries. Also, reproductive rights were also reproductive rights and health addresses the ways in which family members can prevent women from exercising reproductive rights and attaining reproductive health. Issues such as female genital mutilation. Husbands forbidding wives to use conditions, and forced sexual intercourse are traditionally left to the private sphere within the domain of the home, and therefore viewed as outside the reach of traditional human rights issues.

With reproductive rights and health, the GWHRM propagated a new norm, that women’s reproductive rights and health needs ought to be violated or ought not to be violated in either the private or public sphere, and that the state has the obligation to intervene on women’s behalf when violations are occurring within the private sphere as well. Thus, the transformation of individuals behavior and attitude towards women reproductive autonomy presented another obstacle for the emergence of a reproductive rights and health norm.

In some, the obstacles mounted to changing global population policy. Norms from population control to reproductive rights and health were formidable. However, I contend that normative change did indeed occur over a period of 30 years in order to understand the conditions under which norms can be challenged and empirical norms literature within international relations. Moreover, the constructivist turn in international relations will be examined in an effort to demonstrate why constructivism is more capable of shedding light on this puzzle than other approaches.

Normative consternation and change God, this makes me want to freaking take a bath. It’s disgusting. Let’s see here. I’m going to check some of the chats here. You guys are a lot more chatty tonight than you were last night, that’s for sure. Let’s see. Hello, Safira and Juju. Yeah, I hear that, Walker. I can’t been here before. Of course, I can’t watch live very often. Let’s see. You’re going to time travel pv.

Hello. E 33 33 and ginster and redneck. How are you all doing? Yarn. What’s going on? During the Reagan years, a lot of money was put into health departments to provide and give access to birth control for women and teen. Yeah, if you were over 16, you didn’t have to have a parental consent. I believe that a lot of people Reagan. I think Reagan had some good ideas and I think he had good intentions.

But after they shot at him in the early part of his presidency, he basically, as I understand it, he acquiesced significantly to the agenda. That’s just my understanding. Let’s see. I’m just reading to the chat here, guys, so bear with me here. Bill Gates, over and over. We have to reduce human. Have you guys. In fact, let me find that real quick. Bill Gates. Let’s see. See if I can find the video of when you said that at the TED talk.

It is that one, the thing that TEDx, because there was one that was like about ten minutes. Let me go to YouTube. If you guys find it, by all means, share it. Bill Gates Ted talk. Oh, co2. Yeah, this is it, I think. Yeah. Innovating to zero. Well, sh. Now, the price of energy, the natural ecosystems can’t adjust to these rapid changes and so you get ecosystem collapses.

Now, the exact amount of how you map from a certain increase in of co2 to what temperature will be and where the positive feedbacks are, there’s some uncertainty there, but not very much. First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6. 8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, can you guys hear that? Can you guys hear the Bill Gates talk? Let me know if you guys can hear this.

If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps ten or 15%. But there we see an increase of about 1. 3. The second factor is the services we use. This encompasses everything. The food we eat, clothing, tv, heating, these are very good things. Getting rid of poverty means providing these services to almost everyone on the planet.

And it’s a great thing for this number to go up in the rich world. Perhaps the top 1 billion, we probably could cut back and use less. But every year this number on average is going to go up. And so overall, that will more than double the services delivered per person. Here we have a very basic service. I’m not going to play that whole thing, I’ll put it in there.

But basically he’s just saying here that, hey, we need to carbon emissions down to zero, and then once we can get the carbon emissions down to zero, then we can have, hey, we can stop people from reproducing. And again, I’m not going to go through this whole thing. This is actually a pretty long chapter. But it’s very interesting to me that this whole thing really, the United States, the United States is the ones that were producing or that were leading the charge on this.

In fact, let me go to. I want to say it was the beginning of chapter 235. Population control is a global policy I’m just gonna read this. I’m gonna read this first thing, and then, and then we’re gonna. We’re gonna jump into the documentary, because the documentary is the thing that’s, that’s gonna be a little bit more fun. This chapter will explore how population control, as the dominant norm guiding global population policy, was diffused internationally.

From 1965 to 1973. The United States, as an actor with agency, effectively propagated the norm of population control as critical to third world development. From the period of 1965 to 73. Through the population control establishment, which was largely based in the United States and a few other developed countries, the United States worked bilaterally and multilaterally to socialize other countries into accepting the need for population control measures. So this isn’t something that happened in the 1990s or the 2000s.

This goes back to the 60s, before I was born, so this is not anything that’s new. During that time, both the executive and legislative branches were in support of generously funding international population control programs. Moreover, domestic consensus within the United States supported the idea that development of the world’s poor would occur only when fertility rates began to decrease. Demographers, politicians, and the donor community supported population control measures without giving much thought as to how these policies affected women’s health and rights.

Although resistance from the developing world was apparent in regard to implementing population control measures, the developing world had few avenues through which to express its views. For example, the 1965 gathering on world population in Belgrade, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, was primarily attended by demographers and non government and not governments. Only in 1974 would the international community have the opportunity to convene in a global forum to discuss world population and effectively challenge the norms.

The United States sought to disseminate, internationalize, and institutionalize regarding the casual relationship position between population and development. Throughout human history, it was generally accepted that a growing population was vital to a society’s military and economic strength. However, by the mid sixty s, the problem of rapid population growth, especially in the developing world, began to affect the institutions of the international system. The heretofore common stock of knowledge that a growing population is consistent with state strength began to be questioned.

Moreover, the new idealism, or the idea, I’m not sure what that word is. Ideational structure that population growth can be negative, especially in the developing world, affected the interests and identity of the United States. The United States, prior to the mid 60s, was adamantly opposed to becoming involved in the business of birth control within the United States, let alone in the developing world. However, by 1968, with the publication of the Ehrlichs, the population bomb.

The United States had begun to marshal its formidable resources, political, economic and scientific, to change how the world, and most importantly, how the developing world viewed population growth. Therefore, this chapter will demonstrate that, in accordance with constructivist insights, the United States did change its interests and identity in relation to the social structure at that time. The United States and a few other industrialized countries responded to what they perceived as a manageable crisis of overpopulation, poverty, and lack of development.

This chapter will begin with an examination of why population growth became the global problem in the mid 1960s. I’m going to leave it at that, because there’s no sense in going on basically what they were trying to do. The United States is the ones that were leading the charge here. And I don’t think it was necessarily the United States as much as it was like the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds that were using a lot of these international programs and their influence post World War II to push population control.

And if you look at what, you go back and you look at a lot of the stuff with the COVID thing and how they’ve been researching all these bioweapons and whatnot going back 2030 years, that marries up. That marries up with all this stuff, it’s kind of disgusting. But guys, I’m doing video heavy stuff over the next week or so just because of, because of my eye surgery.

I’m trying to rest my eyes a little bit. But I. I do want to do a little bit of reading because the stuff that I read is not stuff that you’re going to get other places. And some of it may seem a little bit dry. But it’s important to understand that we’re not the good guys in this. And I hate to say that. It just pains me to say that.

It really truly does pains me to say that, but it’s not necessarily us that’s doing it as much as it’s just a small group of people that have basically captured our country that are pushing this out there. So with that said, this is a video done by. Let’s see here. Let me find it. Where is he? I got it right here. So basically what I’m doing is, and I’ve put the link in the thing here.

It’s population control by where we go, when we go. All this is the name of the channel. And Brad GCG, he’s got a different channel, but this is all the stuff that he had on his YouTube channel before his YouTube channel was taken down. But this is his video. And like I said, I’ve put a link to it in the description. But this is what we’re going to watch here tonight.

So I hope you guys enjoy this. He does a really good job. There’s a few things that I’m going to be uploading of his over the course of the next couple of weeks, some really good stuff, but I think you guys will really like this. Let us, with faith in God, in ourselves, and in humanity, go forward courageously. Resolve to play our part worthily in building a better world.

It Elbert county, Georgia. March 22, 1980. A monument called the Georgia Guidestones is unveiled with a chilling message, maintain humanity under 500 million. This monument was commissioned on behalf of a small group of loyal Americans and stands till this day as an ominous warning of what some wish to do to the population. Reduce it by 7. 3 billion. As to who this small group is still remains a mystery.

But historically, there has been one group above all else, obsessed with reducing the population, the rich and powerful. Now, before I get started, I want to ask all of you this. Picture your town square, or the most prominent area in your neighborhood. Now picture a group of philanthropists arriving one evening and calling a press conference in the very town square. The whole town shows up, and this group of rich and famous philanthropists begin announcing that they want to live in your town as well.

But there are just too many of you. Would you trust them if the very next day they started handing out an unknown concoction that would, quote, heal all your ailments? Would you trust them if they were given out this new miracle elixir for free, out of the kindness of their hearts? Would you drink the miracle elixir blindly from people who just told you that they think there are too many of you? While you think of that answer, here’s David Rockefeller in 1994, addressing the United nations.

Ironically, however, the very innovations that are making possible dramatic improvements in human well being are also creating new problems which raise the specter of an alarming and possibly catastrophic disaster to the biosphere we live in. And herein lies the dilemma that we all face. Let me illustrate. Improved public health has caused the world’s infant mortality rate to decline by 60% over the last 40 years. In the same period, the world’s average life expectancy has increased from 46 years in 1950s to 63 years today.

This is a development which, as individuals, we can only applaud. However, the result of these positive measures is a world population that has risen during the same short period of time, geometrically, to almost 6 billion people, and could easily exceed 6 billion 8 billion by the year 2020, the negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident. Unless nations will agree to work together to tackle these cross border challenges posed by population growth, overconsumption of resources, and environmental degradation, the prospects for a decent life on our planet will be threatened.

The recent UN meeting in Cairo is appropriately focused on one of these key issues, population growth. But the controversies which have erupted at the conference illustrate the problem of coming to grips with issues that are deeply divisive and which have a profound moral dimension. The United nations can and should play an essential role in helping the world find a satisfactory way of stabilizing world population and stimulating economic development in a manner that is sensitive to religious and moral considerations.

Economic growth is, of course, an inevitable corollary of a growing population and is essential to improved standards of living. But without careful coordination, unrestrained economic growth poses further threats to our environment. This was a major subject of discussion at the conference in Rio de Janeiro on the Environment two years ago. The focus then was on sustainable growth and global development. It was pointed out at the conference that growth is most efficiently managed by the private sector, but regulation of the process by national governments and international bodies is also needed.

And once again, the United nations should certainly be among the catalysts and coordinators of this process. Well, there you have it, one of the wealthiest, most influential people on this planet, from one of the most influential families on this planet, the Rockefellers, openly admitting that he thinks the size of our population is leading to a catastrophic disaster, asking the United nations to lead the charge in finding a solution to this, while also revealing, with his reference to the UN’s International Conference on Population Development in Cairo that took place just a little before that, also in 1994, and the United Nations Agenda 21 conference in Rio de Janeiro took place two years earlier, in 1992, that they all, in fact, periodically get together for worldwide conferences about what to do with this problem of overpopulation.

That’s David Rockefeller, grandson of oil tycoon and World’s first billionaire John D. Rockefeller, talking about needing to find a solution to population growth now in a combination that you’ll find far too common by the end of this video. The Rockefellers are one of the main driving forces behind childhood vaccination. They started their vaccination crusade in 1985, and by 1990, in a collaborative effort with the United Nations Development Program, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the World bank, government agencies, scientists and vaccine manufacturers, Rockefeller foundation started the Children’s Vaccine initiative.

Their immediate goals included improving existing vaccines, developing new vaccines, combining vaccines, and enhancing vaccine production and quality control and ensuring vaccine availability worldwide. Now, let me ask you another question. Why would someone who openly talks about needing to find a way to decrease the number of humans on the planet want to spend a fortune on worldwide free chemical injections? Sure, their website states that it’s part of an effort to save children from potential future ailments, but does this sound like someone who wants to add to the number of people on this planet? Improvements in human well being are also creating new problems which raise the specter of an alarming and possibly catastrophic disaster to the biosphere we live in.

The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident. And this is no new revelation about the Rockefellers. Here’s a snippet from the History Channel, of all places, showing that population control has been a goal of the Rockefellers since as far back as at least the 1950s. The year 1952 marks the end of the transition from John D. Rockefeller Jr. To his sons.

It’s from that point on that the sort of the brothers generation begins to have the recognition, visibility and effective control over things that allows them to do the kinds of things they want. The brothers were anxious to have the money. Unlike their father, for whom the money had been associated with such evil, fraught with such peril, there was a kind of a sense that this money could be used for personal ends.

Now to pursue their professional and social objectives. John D. II continued to run the family philanthropist, but was emerging from his father’s shadow through his work in population control and US Asia relations through his work in population control. So this has been a family goal for quite some time. In fact, it was in that very year, 1952, that John D. Rockefeller II founded the population Council to spread new methods of birth control and start new programming aimed at convincing parents to have less children.

Funny, I don’t see anyone telling the Rockefellers how big a family to have. In fact, John D. Rockefeller II was one of six children. He himself had four children. His brother Nelson, who was governor of New York for over a decade, and four as vice president, had seven children. And his brother David, who we just watched address the United nations, had six children. And altogether the six siblings had 24 kids.

So it would appear to one that their efforts to lower the size of families only applies to us. Here’s an excerpt from one of their productions from 1967, where the Rockefellers Population Council teamed up with Walt Disney, of all people, to make this propaganda piece called family planning. This upward rise is being slowed by the sheer weight of numbers. The family of man is increasing at an astonishing rate, almost doubling every generation.

Ironically, this too comes about through man’s intelligence. To understand something of why this is so, let’s picture one small community and let it stand for communities around the world. Now, to begin with. To begin with, the number of people in the community remained about the same for many generations. There was almost a balance. A balance between the large number of babies born each year and the large number of people who died.

The large number of deaths were brought about primarily by disease, often raging epidemics, and by famine. Most tragic of all, many of those taken were small children. Then, in the space of a single generation, man began to change these conditions. There was great progress in medical science. There was more food and better distribution. There were vastly improved methods of health and sanitation. Now let’s go back to the balance and see what happens.

There are still about the same number of babies being born each year. But today deaths are cut in half or better, especially among children. The old balance is upset. Those who live now, instead of dying, are added each year to the number of people in the community. Of course, as more and more people are added, their needs increase. New industries are being developed to provide more goods. But whatever is done, it is not enough.

But to see better what this means, let us look at a smaller group of people. I suppose we start with a middle sized family, father and mother, and just a few children. Now, imagine that there is a house to live in, and a plot of land which the father works to support them on. There is an ox to pull the plow, and the land yields a good crop.

With only this many at a meal, there is enough for all, and even a little left over to provide money for some comforts and modern conveniences. The mother doesn’t have to work too hard and stays healthy and happy. The children, too, are healthy and happy and go to school to gain an education. Even with modest resources, this family is doing well. But now let’s paint another picture of this family.

And suppose that in time, more and more children are born. But let us also suppose that the house and the plot of land remain the same. Now, the entire crop must be used just for food. But even so, with this many mouths to feed, there won’t be enough to go around. Of course, there will be no money for modern conveniences. Even worse, the ox can no longer be fed, and the work must be done by human effort.

The mother will have too much to do. She’ll be tired and crossed, and her health will suffer. The children will be sickly and unhappy, with little hope for the future. And when the sons grow up, the land will have to be divided into so many small pieces that no one will have enough. I mean, that’s about as much of a propaganda piece as there is one in the beginning of it.

Trying to get people to feel bad for not dying as much, okay? And then literally telling people that if you have more than three kids, your kids are going to get sickly, your farm animals are going to die, not going to have any leftover money for, like, radio or comforts, as they called it. And essentially, you’re ruining the world. That sounds about accurate. We just watched. Sincerely, your rich overlords, who, us ourselves, all have a ton of kids, but that was a joint venture from John D.

Rockefeller’s population control venture, the population council and Walt Disney. They all are obsessed with population control. Disney’s even pushing population control propaganda to this day. The Avengers infinity War, for example, where the main villain, Thanos, wishes to cut the earth’s population in half to, quote, save humanity. Now, although he’s the bad guy, he’s made out to be a sympathetic character and is allowed to explain how the world is overpopulated and needs to be reduced to save humanity for two full movies straight.

Now, how many people left that movie thinking to themselves, hey, Thanos actually made some good points. This is how you seed information into an unsuspecting public and allow them to begin to familiarize themselves with concepts you wish to push. In fact, he’s echoing concepts that have been around and have been pushed by the rich and powerful for a long time, even going back to ancient Greece, where both Plato and Aristotle were advocates for population control, arguing that it was actually the state’s duty to ensure the success of society by controlling the growth of the population.

So now if you come back here to Disney and Thanos, you can see that he is actually echoing concepts that have been around the elite for a long, long time. The movie Thanos says, the universe is finite. Its resource is finite. If life is left unchecked, life will cease to exist. It needs correction. Which is very similar to this quote from this essay on the principle of population.

The power of population is so superior to the power of earth to produce substance for man that premature death must, in some shape or other, visit the human race. This is what they wish on us, premature death. We’re just a number to them. But it’s not just Disney. It’s not just the Rockefellers. Nearly all the rich and powerful of the world wish there were less of us. And it’s not just a hollow wish.

They get together and have meetings about it, with some of them even being public. One such meeting took place in New York City in 2009, where they called themselves the good Club. And they’re going to, quote, save the world by discussing the cris of, you guessed it, overpopulation. Included in this group were Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, George Soros, Bill Gates, and of course, David Rockefeller. All the usual suspects, sitting around discussing how they believe the world is overpopulated.

Then, right in the same article, it mentions how the Bill and Melinda Gates foundations are one of the biggest funders of, once again, vaccines. What a coincidence. Just like how David Rockefeller also attendance families started the Childhood vaccination initiative of the 1990s. And just like how Warren Buffett gave Bill Gates $30 billion in 2007 for more vaccinations, Ted Turner, the very next year, traveled to Africa with his United Nations foundation to put on a showcase about modern vaccines.

And finally, rounding out the good club’s love of vaccination campaigns is George Soros, who just donated $42 million to the Covid-19 vaccine. So isn’t that interesting? The majority of powerful people who get together and discuss how there are too many human beings here, all donate small fortunes to world vaccination programs. In fact, it’s exactly these people whose money is funding the coronavirus vaccine. I just showed you how George Soros had donated $42 million towards them.

Here’s a press release from 2010 by Bill and Melinda Gates, also occurring the year right after the good Club meeting. Just like Ted Turner’s little vaccine crusade that states they pledged $10 billion and call for a decade of vaccines. So luckily, those ten years to help research, develop and deliver vaccines to the world’s poorest countries went right into 2020. Rockefeller foundation has also launched its action plan for increasing global Covid-19 vaccination efforts, and has even pledged 13 and a half million dollars in funding to help strengthen public health in Africa, India and Latin America.

And this funding will support the design and evaluation of interventions, tools and methods, build trust in Covid-19 vaccination efforts. So basically propaganda, and they’re going to counter inaccurate information. Well, who decides which is inaccurate and which is not? And of course, Warren Buffett’s 30 billion is going towards better contraception, a humane way to control the population, and then vaccinations, something that seemingly everyone who talks about population control also happens to support.

That’s just plain as day. Not like it even matters if people heard it. They literally tell us themselves all the time, and no one even bats an eye half the time. Depending on the situation, they get applause. Here’s a TED talk with Bill Gates talking about lowering carbon emissions. It’s an average about five tons for everyone on the planet. And somehow we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero.

It’s been constantly going up. It’s only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all. So we have to go from rapidly rising to falling and falling all the way to zero. This equation has four factors, a little bit of multiplication. So you’ve got a thing on the left, co2, that you want to get to zero. And that’s going to be based on the number of people, the services each person’s using on average, the energy on average for each service, and the co2 being put out per unit of energy.

So let’s look at each one of these and see how we can get this down to zero. Probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero. That’s back from high school algebra. But let’s take a look first. We’ve got population. The world today has 6. 8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps ten or 15%.

That’s plain as day says. The population is 6. 8 billion going to nine. But if we do a really good job on vaccines, that can be lowered by 15%. Well, 15% of the proposed 2. 2 billion person increase is 330,000,000 people. If you break down what he’s saying, he’s basically making the claim that with vaccines and, quote, health care, they can prevent the births of 330,000,000 babies. If that’s the case, one’s got to ask, what’s the real purpose behind these vaccination programs? Is it sterilization? Is that why so many people have trouble conceiving these days and have to go to fertility doctors? Who knows? But one thing that is for sure is that they’re pretty out in the open about their desire for less people on this planet.

Here’s another member of the good club, Bill Gates friend and also huge supporter of vaccines, Ted Turner, telling us exactly to we’ve got to stabilize the population. When I was born, so what’s wrong with the population? I mean, we’re too many people. That’s why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. But if there were less people, they’d be using less stuff.

If we don’t get global warming and the nuclear weapons straight out, we don’t have to worry about human rights. The humans will all be gone. Okay, do you think we’ll do it? Are you optimistic in the end that the world will come to its center? On behalf of my grandchildren and the children all over the world, I absolutely think we got to do it. There are too many people using too much stuff.

When someone with the power and influence of billions of dollars starts talking about that there were too many of us, that’s a major red flag. But this is how they feel. Now, going back to Bill Gates, here’s a clip where he reveals that the actual reason the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation started in the first place was population control. When our foundation first started up, it was focused on reproductive health.

That was the main thing we did because, you know, population growth in poor countries is the biggest problem they face. So again, they’re all obsessed with population control and vaccines. In fact, Bill Gates constantly talks about both. He’s even worked with the chinese government to help him find partnerships with chinese companies on these very things. Yeah, we’re challenging the scientists in China to help find solutions for the poor.

We call it grand challenges. And we’re investing more and more money. We have a lot of specific partnerships that are growing, like a partnership with Akma to keep vaccines cold, a lot of things in the agriculture area. And so we see increasing opportunities. In fact, the government has helped us find these companies and figure out these. In the capacity for biological breakthroughs is growing very rapidly. Innovation in China will be a higher and higher percentage of those projects that we back.

All right, so interesting, but certainly not against the law to work with the chinese government. But here’s where things start getting really interesting. Here’s Bill Gates from April of 2018 talking about how to cause millions of deaths in a single year. Of all the things that are out there, what could cause an excess in a single year of 10 million deaths? Now, clearly, a big war could. And a pandemic, natural or created by bioterror.

The natural pandemic, the last gigantic one, was 100 years ago. We are healthier today, but the speed of travel and therefore the speed of global spread, that works against us. A pandemic, natural or created by bioterror. Interesting subject for someone obsessed with the size of our population to bring up. And even more interesting is that it’s at that exact time that Bill Gates buys a $16 million horse farm in the town of north Salem, Westchester, for his daughter.

Now this is significant because this is the exact town where his friend Michael Bloomberg has two expansive properties. And it, quote, looks like Gates and Bloomberg are building another World trade center, which turns out to be quite the ironic statement. May 15, Michael Bloomberg’s John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health would just so coincidentally run an event on exactly what Bill Gates had just mentioned 15 days earlier, an exercise of a simulated bioterror pandemic.

GNN has just learned a group calling itself a brighter dawn, or ABD, is claiming responsibility for the creation and intentional release of the Clade X virus. In a YouTube video, a spokesman for the group says the goal is to reduce the human population to pre industrial levels that he says will bring the world back into balance and prevent the destruction of the planet. The spokesman is anonymous. He speaks English, but with what sounds like a british or european accent.

It was called Clade X, and it was about a bioterrorist who releases a deadly flu to thin out the population, which winds up killing 900 million people. Now, was this simulation provoked by Gates, who had been talking about this exact thing 15 days earlier, at the same time he was building a family estate in Bloomberg’s town? I don’t know. But it is known that Gates and Bloomberg have worked together in the past, like in Seattle, where they worked to pass the gun control bill initiative 594.

Now, this exercise that was conducted by Bloomberg’s John Hopkins School of Health was the first such exercise in 13 years, and only the third in total since they started in 2001, and was what some believe to have been a test run for event 201, where Bloomberg’s John Hopkins School of Health ran their fourth and final emergency preparedness read through a simulated coronavirus pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, just 89 days before the coronavirus comes to the United States.

And also, curiously enough, the very weak Covid-19 is believed to have surfaced. That’s right. Covid-19 is believed to have originally surfaced in mid October 2019. And event 201, Bloomberg’s coronavirus pandemic exercise, took place on October 18. Now, this time, there’s no wondering about Gates and Bloomberg’s possible connection, because event 201 was officially a joint venture with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and the World Economic Forum, with both officially joining Bloomberg’s John Hopkins School of Health for their fourth and final pandemic exercise.

So that’s three huge organizations meeting on October 18, 2019, the exact week this coronavirus was believed to have originated, to run a pandemic simulation of a coronavirus. They even produced a whole series of commercials and fake media that probably are going to sound very familiar. Continuing our coverage of the newly discovered caps disease and the scope of its deadly outbreaks, there are now more than 30,000 reported cases.

Experts warn this may be just the beginning of a global problem. A new coronavirus spread silently within herds. Gradually, farmers started getting sick. Infected people got a respiratory illness with symptoms ranging from mild flulike signs to severe pneumonia. The sickest required intensive care. Many died. For comparison, Caps is about as lethal as SARS and two to four times more lethal than the 1918 influenza pandemic, the worst pandemic on record.

Even so, some people only exhibit mild flulike symptoms not requiring treatment in a hospital. Alarmingly, those people are able to walk around and spread the virus, not realizing they are doing so. Models developed by leading public health authorities indicate a caps pandemic could lead to an outcome worse than the 1918 influenza, which killed 50 to 100 million people worldwide. Our US affiliate has just released polling results on public expectations for a vaccine.

A majority of Americans expect a vaccine to be available within two months, and 65% of those polled are eager to take the vaccine, even if it’s experimental. In related news, a significant demand for personal protective equipment like n 95 masks and gloves are on the rise due to the pandemic. However, globally, hospitals are running low. Alarming news emerging from social media companies today about the caps pandemic. Twitter and Facebook are reporting they’ve identified and deleted a disturbing number of accounts dedicated to spreading disinformation about the outbreak.

This is a huge problem that’s going to keep us from ending the pandemic and might even lead to the fall of governments, as we saw in the Arab Spring. If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it’s the right choice. Well, seems a lot like what we just witnessed over the past year and a half, right down the Facebook and Twitter claiming disinfo and using as an excuse to ban everybody.

All prepared for this conference just 89 days before Covid-19 reached the US. Sexercise also conveniently occurred just one week after Bill Gates was outed by the New York Times for his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. But now let’s take a closer look at the three organizations involved. First, you have the World Economic Forum, whose head and founder Klaus Schwab is the very person who authored the Great Reset. Second, you have the host, John Hopkins University, which has been one of the main institutions for official Covid data.

They’ve also been the main Covid info hub for United States mayors with a program that was initiated by Bloomberg himself. And then third, you have the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, who started their foundation with the goal of population control and whose expertise is in vaccines. So between the three of them, you have major control over all the data and subsequently the narrative. You have the world leader in vaccines, and you have someone to prepare for the economic fallout with which he must have done a good job, being that they all got richer while we all got poorer.

But that’s nearly every component you would need to orchestrate a pandemic. But what else would you need? Here’s an ad put out by the CDC on November 15, 2019, 61 days before COVID reaches the US, looking for quarantine advisors in every major city. Its aim being used to create an inventory of applicants for public health advisors for quarantine program positions and will be used to fill immediate and future needs.

What fortunate timing. Creating a quarantine advisor inventory just months before the first quarantine in 50 years. What are the ods of that? And finally, you would need funding. Well, November 24, just 52 days before coronavirus hits the United States, Michael Bloomberg enters the race and proceeds to spend over $900 million in just 101 days. So unless it seemed to you as if there were millions and millions of dollars worth of Bloomberg ads every single day that he was running, I think we could agree that that money probably went somewhere else.

Which brings us to January 15. Covid-19 arrives in the United States on the exact day phase one of the new China deal aimed at evening out, our extremely lopsided tariffs, is signed. This is also the day that the Dems curiously waited to bring over the articles of impeachment. And finally, on March 11, it’s declared that we are officially in a coronavirus pandemic, exactly like what had just been prepared for less than five months earlier in event 201.

Now, speaking of event 201, it is only the fourth such event in the 18 years since the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health has been doing this, the very first one being held just a few months before 911 in June of 2001, where they simulated a terror attack named Dark Winter. Boy, it sure was a dark winter here in New York, I’ll tell you that much. But they didn’t hold another emergency preparedness drill for four years until 2005, titled Atlantic Storm.

And in another stroke of divine timing, that summer catastrophe hit the United States in the name of Hurricane Katrina, aka the worst atlantic storm in our history. So three of the four John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health emergency preparedness drills just so happened to directly precede the three worst catastrophes in the United States history, with the final one, event 201, being specifically about a coronavirus pandemic that was a joint venture with Bill Gates, a man who is obsessed with population control.

He even had quite the curious slip of the tongue here on late night television, where he seems to have said, producing instead of reducing childhood death. What’s the purpose of the letter? And why a letter? They have computers now, Bill, what is the purpose of this? Well, every year we get to see a lot of things. We travel to Africa, meet with scientists. We see a lot of things that are going very well.

Things like producing childhood death and things like producing childhood death. And producing childhood death actually runs in the family because Bill Gates father was on the board for Planned Parenthood, an institution whose main purpose is aborting unborn babies. Since Roe versus Wade in 1973, which was strongly supported by good club member David Rockefeller’s brother, then governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller, there have been 60 million abortions in the United States, 58.

8 million specifically from 1973 to 2018. Then you have a third member of the good club who is also keeping in the family, George Soros. Who him and his family have donated a combined $8 million to Planned Parenthood since 2012 alone. Funny how so many members of this club that met to discuss the problem of overpopulation have family members attached to the number one place for abortions, which again has been roughly 60 million since 1973.

Now, this shouldn’t come as a surprise, because Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenicist named Margaret Sanger. Her obsession with population control was so awful that even Planned Parenthood itself was forced to finally disavow her last year, removing her name from the Manhattan Health center as a public commitment to reckoned with the former founder’s harmful connections to the eugenics movement. And also in renaming Margaret Sanger Square at the intersection of bleaker and Mott street in Manhattan, Sanger wrote a piece that appeared in the April 1932 issue of birth Control Review that the government should implement forced sterilization and segregation on farmlands of morons, mental defectives, epileptics, illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope fiends should be given the choice of either segregation on farmlands and homesteads or sterilization, and she estimates that this is about 5 million people in the late 30s.

She then instituted an effort to bring Planned Parenthood clinics to black women in the south in an effort that was called the Negro Project. To get ahead of possible scrutiny of this project. In 1939, Sanger wrote a letter to Clarence Gable in an effort to get a black minister to gain the trust of the black community. In this letter, she wrote, the minister’s work is also important, and he should be trained, perhaps by the federation as to our ideals and the goals that we hope to reach.

We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of the more rebellious members. So, once again, amongst the elite, ways to lower the number of people on this planet is their ever present main goal. To make no bones about it, here’s a quote from Queen Elizabeth’s husband, Prince Philip.

Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation. Okay, that’s one of the most influential men on this planet. One, talking about cannibalism. Creepy. And two, calling the amount of people on the planet a problem. He has infinite money and means. And that’s not his only quote on the subject of reducing the number of people on this planet. For he wrote in the forward to the 1986 book people as animals, that he was in fact tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particular deadly virus as a way to elicit revenge on overpopulation.

That’s some pretty dark stuff right there. And to just joke about that so nonchalantly, it just goes to show that this is not a taboo topic to the rich and powerful. Now, ironically, back in January, Prince Philip went to go be vaccinated against the very thing that he quibbed about all those years ago. But just one month after that, he was hospitalized for a heart procedure. The exact adverse reaction that people keep having from these vaccines.

And then just a few weeks after being released from the hospital, Prince Philip dies at age 99. Was it from the vaccine? Who knows? But the CDC literally just came out and put out a warning that the vaccine can cause cases of inflammation in the heart. So isn’t it something that the man who wanted a deadly virus to contribute to this problem of overpopulation might possibly have died trying to vaccinate himself from exactly that? Actually, it seems like population control is quite the popular topic in Britain.

Here’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s father, former member of the European Parliament and employee of the World Bank Stanley Johnson, giving his thoughts on population control. What is the hope for mankind? The hope for mankind is to stabilize and preferably reduce population, and above all, not to go hell for leather, for economic growth. In other words, it really questioned the basic model on which societies have been trading for years.

And I still think those were words well said. And if you look back at it now, you’ll say that in both respects, we have signally failed to achieve results. Yes. I mean, basically, if you said to me, who is right in the argument, the no growth people or the leftover growth people? I would certainly say the no growth people. But I’d add, as a corollary to that, you have to get population under control as well.

Because if you look at it in sheer economic terms, how can you sustain increases in per capita income at a time when you have rising population without rising in economic growth? Whereas if you have a declining population, which is what I would aim for, then, of course, even a stable economic growth situation will give you increases in per capita income. So that’s where I stand. Do you have a sense of what the carrying capacity of Britain is or of the world as a whole? Well, Britain, I’d put it at ten or 15 million.

I think that’d be absolutely fine. I mean, that would do us really splendidly at a limit, 2025. I think it’s complete nonsense that we are now confronted with an island, would you believe it, of 70 million. The only hope for mankind is to stabilize and preferably reduce the population. And then when asked how much he would reduce the population, he suggests from 63 million to 15 million. So he’s saying that he thinks there are 48 million people too many in Britain.

And that’s, again, a former employee of the World bank and member of European Parliament, whose son is currently the prime minister of Britain. Or what about Joe Biden, who is now pushing the vaccine to near mandatory limits? Along with subtle threats like this, those who are not vaccinated will end up paying the price. Now adding door to door vaccination squads to the mix, community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and oftentimes door to door, literally knocking on doors, who said in a 1992 deposition to the Senate that overpopulation was a threat to our future security and prosperity.

That required, quote, a global solution. That’s an awful lot of people of money and influence talking about how there are too many of us and how the population needs to be reduced. And once you realize that at the top, this is their main concern, everything they do suddenly begins to make sense. Joe Biden thinks overpopulation is a threat to our future security. That needs a global solution. It’s calling the unvaccinated a pandemic and sending vaccine squads door to door.

Stanley Johnson thinks mankind needs to drastically reduce his population, despite he himself having six kids, one of which being the prime minister of Britain. Prince Philip wants to fight over population by returning as a deadly virus, was hospitalized a month after taking the vaccine and died shortly thereafter. Ted Turner thinks there are too many people using too much stuff. Rolls out massive vaccination campaigns in Africa. Warren Buffett thinks overpopulation is a problem.

Donates tens of billions of dollars towards vaccines. George Soros thinks overpopulation is a problem. His family is one of the biggest supporters of planned parenthood. He donated $42 million specifically to the Covid-19 vaccine and has just teamed up with Bill Gates, the bimologic, a major maker of Covid-19 tests. Not to be confused with the biometric Covid-19 test patented by Richard A. Rothschild in May of 2020. Speaking of Bill Gates, he wants to do a good enough job with vaccines to help reduce the population.

His father was on the board of Planned Parenthood, and he once slipped and said that he was producing childhood death. Started his foundation to combat overpopulation and through it is one of the worldwide leaders in vaccines. He has contracts in China for the refrigeration and said in a 2018 interview that the fastest way to reach millions of death in one year would be a bioterror pandemic. One month later, his friend Bloomberg, whose town he just built in the state in, ends a 13 year hiatus of exercises and runs a simulated bioterror pandemic nine months after that.

This awkward moment that makes a lot more sense now in hindsight, happened. Normally at this point of the show, the host would do something fun and spontaneous to show how we’re all just ordinary people, like ordering pizza for everyone. But since we already get food at the globes, we thought we’d mix it up and try something new. So roll up your sleeves, Hollywood, because you’re all getting flu shots.

You know you wore a sleeveless gown for a ma’am, ma’am, you’re definitely going to want to get to foe everybody. These nurses are all licensed professionals straight from the right aid in Echo park. And look, if you’re an antivaxxer, just put a napkin over your head and we’ll skip you. You’re welcome. You guys cost 50 grand, you guys. You’re welcome. And just in case that wasn’t obvious enough, the predictive programming continued three months after that on this episode of Project Runway, where Covid from New York designs a face mask that the judges think is sick.

I got more and more positive. I got better. It’s time to recharge and go for it. I actually am feeling way much better today. You’re still here, so you have a chance to redeem yourself and come back on top this week. Let’s kill it. Let’s kill it. We got it. There is such cool prints. I just have to make sure that I deliver this time. I see. Yeah.

This is one of the most influential stylists in the world, Marnie Saraponte. Hi. Marnie’s clients include style icons Kendall Jenner and the fabulous Beyonce. Hi, Marnie. Oh, my God. What’s your name? Covid. Nice. Covid, you can do anything in Korea. Don’t they walk around in the gas masks? Oh, my God. It’s like my head. My mind was a dam. And you push the button and you let all the creativity flow.

The creative ideas just start gushing. Course. Of course. Covid, you better get in that sewing room. You’ve been cutting that pant way too long. You are killing me. I want to make sure that I incorporate my inspiration from Miss Marnie. I’m going to make a gas mask that’s going to bring the entire look together. I love this look. I’m feeling so, so energized. I’m feeling so satisfied. It’s exactly how I envisioned it, and it’s a true expression of who I am as a fashion designer.

Think I need to borrow that look. Designers, we really enjoyed the show. Good job. This is terrifying back here, for some reason. Hi, Covid. Hello. As soon as she walked out, I thought, oh, she’s sick. But, like, sick in a good way. It’s sick. The outfit is sick. The whole thing is perfect. I just had so much fun with this. Thank you. I think we all loved Covid’s look.

Loved. Do you mind putting your mask back on? Thank you. I had not noticed Covid’s detail. 3D Applique. I mean, it just gets better. What do you guys think of this mask? It’s sick. Brandon said it, but you must be hot. You should probably take the mask off. Can you breathe in? It’s a good look, but we want to keep you alive, Covid. You all really made a bold statement with your prince.

And honestly, it was hard to pick a winner. Covid, you are in. Thank you. You can leave the Runway. Thank you. Now, isn’t that something? And she’s even in pajamas now. What everyone do in the lockdown. Just sat around in your pajamas, and Covid spent the whole first day in what looks like a pair of medical scrubs they called Covid’s outfit sick five times, four in one shot.

Ask the model if she could put her mask back on. A now familiar phrase. Covid says, let’s kill it. The host tells Covid. You’re killing me. That’s what predictive programming is meant to do. Familiarize the unsuspecting subconscious with future concepts, so when they happen, the people will be more accepting, without even realizing why repetition is key. And just six months after that, Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum team up with John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health and run another simulated pandemic exercise.

This time a coronavirus one. The exact week Covid-19 mysteriously appears. One month after that, the CDC puts out a call for quarantine advisors in every us city. Nine days later, Michael Bloomberg enters the race for president. And two months after that, Covid-19 arrives in the US. And surprise, surprise, Michael Bloomberg is also a fan of population control, as he has donated $7. 6 million to Planned Parenthood, which is just under the Soros family’s 8.

25 million. Bringing us finally back to the Rockefellers. David Rockefeller thinks the size of our population is causing a catastrophic disaster, meets with billionaires to discuss overpopulation, and attended the UN Agenda 21 conference in Rio de Janeiro. Nelson Rockefeller was a major supporter of Roe versus Wade as governor of New York, an act that has led to 60 million abortions. And their other brother, John D. Rockefeller II, founded the Population Council in 1952 to try and reduce the size of families.

Their foundation is the driving force behind ramping up childhood vaccinations. From this many in 1986, just a few, to this much more extensive list of vaccines today. End pledged $13. 5 million to fight, quote disinfo about the coronavirus vaccine, which is ironic. One, they’re being so involved in vaccines in general over the decades, and two, they’re attacking of anyone speaking out against them because their great grandfather, William Avery, devil Bill Rockefeller, was literally a snake oil salesman who used to go town to town selling people bogus elixirs and miracle potions.

Which brings us to this 2010. The Rockefeller foundation releases a pamphlet with four potential disaster scenarios that features, first and foremost, a worldwide pandemic where, quote, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks, to body temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and intensified.

In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty, leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power. Boy, is that not exactly what we’re seeing right now, right? This was released in 2010 by the Rockefeller foundation, and it continues that in developed countries, this heightened oversight would take the form of biometric ids. Sound familiar? Well, it shouldn’t come as that much of a surprise, because the Rockefeller foundation are actually founding partners of id 2020, which is an organization which aims to make a coordinated, concerted push to provide digital id to everybody.

And it even cites that in September 2015, all United nations member states adopted the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, including their commitment to provide legal identity for all, including birth registration. And furthermore, going back to the document from 2010 that talks specifically about biometric ids, this has in fact been in their plans all along. I had a friend, Nick Rockefeller, okay, who is one of the Rockefeller family. And when I was running for governor in Nevada, he came to me, introduced himself to me through an attorney, and we became friends.

We started talking about things. And I learned an awful lot from Mr. Rockefeller. And one of the things that we used to talk about was the ultimate plan of the banking industry, what they wanted to accomplish. And the whole agenda is to create a one world government where everybody has an RFID chip implanted in them. All money is to be in those chips, right? There’ll be no more cash.

And this is giving me straight from Rockefeller himself. This is what they want to accomplish. Well, it seems like their wish of biometric IDs is finally gaining speed, thanks to Covid-19. Exactly as they wrote back in 2010. Standard Oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller’s grandsons, the poster children for population control and vaccines. An all too familiar combination. A combination that really makes no sense. Which brings me to my original question.

If a group of philanthropists showed up to your town one night, told you that there were too many people there, and then handed you an unknown chemical injection to, quote, save you from a mysterious virus that happened to spring up right as they arrived in town, would you take it? That ultimately is for you to decide. I’m Brad CGZ and I’ll see you on the next one. We’ve signed a climate convention on the importance of economic instruments in free markets.

We’re included in this mammoth agenda 21 document and the Rio declaration. Agenda 21 document. There are less than 400 weeks left of the 20th century. Time is short for us to rectify the present unsustainable patterns of human development. We must reconcile human activities and human numbers with the laws of nature. During preparations for this conference, many developing countries declared themselves ready to make political commitments to curb population growth, which must make a significant start here in Rio towards full implementation of agenda 21.

The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident. We would not be here today if we were not convinced that the rapid and unsustainable growth of human population was an issue of the utmost urgency. Too many people are using too much stuff. If there were less people, they’d be using less stuff. The hope for mankind is to stabilize and preferably reduce population.

Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money has been spent forcibly sterilizing indian women. Many have died being mistreated, causing outrage from those who suspect Britain simply wants to curb the country’s population. There is a policy of the american government. It’s called the Kissinger Report, which was produced in the mid seventy s. To this day, it remains the official policy of the american government. It has not changed.

Purpose of the foreign policy in Africa was to reduce the population. The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it. So it’s in the very poorest places now. If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps ten or 15%. The issue of pandemic preparedness and if there’s one message that I want to leave with you today, based on my experience, is that there is no question that there will be a challenge.

The coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing, but also there will be a surprise outbreak. What could cause an excess in a single year of 10 million deaths? The pandemic natural are created by bioterror. A group calling itself a brighter dawn is claiming responsibility for the creation and intentional release of the clade x virus. The goal is to reduce the human population to preindustrial levels.

Digital innovation is really pervasive and so whether it’s tracking, do you have the vaccines? Out where they should be tracking, do you have the vaccine? See a lot of things that are going very well. Things like producing childhood death. Let’s play. You are killing me high. Covid. She’s sick. But like, sick in a good way. It’s sick. The outfit is sick. Do you mind putting your mask back on? What do you guys think of this mask? It’s sick.

I wasn’t involved directly in the h one m one response, but I lived here as a White House staffer and if anyone thinks that this can’t happen again. They don’t have to go back to 1918, they just have to go back to 2009, 2010. Imagine a virus with a different mentality, and you can just do the math on that. Of course, because we didn’t prepare for this pandemic.

If we could have the equivalent of this dashboard to understand where the supplies are, to map to the needs, a global stockpile would certainly help ensure more rational and strategic allocation. We didn’t prepare for this pandemic. New coronavirus spreads silently. Some people only exhibit mild flulike symptoms, not requiring treatment in a hospital. Alarmingly, those people are able to walk around and spread the virus, not realizing they are doing so.

65% of those cold are eager to take the vaccine, even if it’s experimental personal protective equipment like n 95 masks and blobs. However, globally, hospitals are running low. Alarming news emerging from social media. Companies say about the cap pandemic. Twitter and Facebook are reporting they’ve identified and deleted a disturbing number of accounts dedicated to spreading disinformation about the outbreak. More than 11,000 scientists signed a petition calling for population control, writing, quote, the world population must be stabilized, and ideally, gradually reduced.

I trust science Covid-19 can be characterized as a pandemic. Now, malaria is of course transmitted by mosquitoes. I brought some here so you could experience this. We’ll let those roam around the auditorium a little bit. Things won’t go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world. Interesting stuff. Interesting stuff there, guys. Very interesting stuff. So, yeah, going back to the population control stuff, they’ve been pushing this for decades.

Decades, probably. I don’t have anything to confirm it, but probably a century or more anyway. Well, that’s pretty much all I have for tonight, guys. It’s pretty much all I have for tonight. So I am taking, if you guys have any requests for what you want to watch tomorrow night for the watch party, let me know. I have a couple of things that I’m kind of rolling mulling around in my brain.

I’m not sure if I should do something. Let me see here. I’m going to go to date, I think if I’m going to do something for Christmas, somebody said to play it’s a wonderful life. If I’m going to do something for Christmas, probably we’ll do that next week because it’s right before Christmas. I’m going to kind of keep that to myself there. Pv but if you guys have any suggestions, by all means, share them.

So, but I have a couple of things that I’m thinking about, but I’m not going to reveal them. Maybe what I’ll do is I’m not going to reveal it, but I will let you guys that Truman show. That’s actually funny. I’m trying to steer clear of things that are copyright stuff and the movies are, even though I haven’t received any notifications or whatever. I don’t know. I’m just trying to minimize those as much as possible.

We’ll figure something out. We’ll figure something out. Whatever I do, I know you guys will be happy with. Anyhow, let’s see, we started a new group and then if you guys are unaware, if you guys have telegram, I’m not sure if you all have telegram, but there is a telegram group that I have and I’m going to start posting in there or interacting with you guys on a consistent basis there.

So let me, let me see if I can. There’s the telegram group. You know what? Anyone? Okay. So you know what? Let’s see here. I’m doing this right now live. So I’m trying to figure, it’s been so long since I’ve done stuff on here. Let’s see. Manage group. I want to make it public it, so there it is. You guys want to join me on there? That is a, and I’m probably actually, I am going to be doing something.

I’m going to get a Facebook group as well because I know a lot of people still have know, you know what? Hold on. Then. Actually, some of you guys might not, might have Facebook. So give me a second here. Let me do that. So actually, this isn’t a group as much as it’s like me as a person. So if you want to add me as a friend on there, that’s like adding that is a person unit.

And I’m going to start putting some of this stuff into the stuff into the messages or into the descriptions and whatnot. So I’m trying to expand all this and make it a little bit more of a brand and whatnot. But anyway, those are a couple of places where you can get a hold of me on the group channel and whatnot. Somebody just sent me a friend request I just accepted anyway.

All right, guys, well, if I do not talk to you before, I will see you tomorrow at 05:00 08:00 eastern and for the watch party. So I look forward to seeing you guys mana, hope you all have a great night. And bye. Like I said, we’ll see you tomorrow so have a good night, everybody. Bye. .