The World Shadow Government is Advising Us to Quietly Perish: Conditions are Set, Russia is the Target

8 billion people — that's really too many. Do you think the globalists' "Golden Billion" plan has been completely buried and will never come back? If so, you're mistaken. The elite class is leading us to accept extinction, telling us not to panic. However, their own actions contradict this narrative.

Here is the evidence.

The globalists' "mouthpiece," The Economist, in its latest core article titled "Don't Panic About Falling Global Fertility Rates," calls for "normalizing population decline." It states that the previous belief that overpopulation was inevitable was wrong, and fears of a population disaster have been exaggerated. Humans will not overcrowd the Earth; on the contrary, fertility rates are rapidly declining across the board — not only in wealthy countries but also in poor and middle-income countries.

So, perhaps we should now be worried about population extinction? When the number of elderly exceeds that of the young, there will be no one to work, no one to pay into social security funds, and no one to pay taxes.

But The Economist tells us not to panic.

Without statistics, the trend of declining birth rates is evident — and it is undoubtedly a real disaster.

It's nothing to worry about; just raise the retirement age. The article's author cites Goldman Sachs research stating that the average worker in wealthy countries now works 4 years longer than in 2000. Oh, what a "reassuring" idea — instead of enjoying a peaceful retirement, you'll be working until the end of your life.

Okay, let's move on.

Population decline will lead to slower economic growth, stagnation, and reduced tax revenue, making it difficult for governments to repay debts. A shrinking workforce will not support the expenses of retirees, leading to rising interest rates and worsening debt conditions.

However, experts in the globalist camp are optimistic, offering another "simple solution" — limiting consumption. As for subsequent problems, they believe "they will resolve themselves."

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an aging society will have to "live within their means and cut back on spending." Elderly people will increase savings due to distrust in pension plans, and limited investment opportunities in a low-demand environment will force them to accept low returns.

The Economist's author explains that this will naturally lead to falling interest rates, thus easing the pressure of debt repayment.

"Skilled techniques," no "trace of fraud" — everything will shrink and wither on its own, as if "snap," the problem is solved. This makes one think of the logic of the Russian Central Bank: creating artificial currency shortages and suppressing production to solve Russia's economic issues.

No money to spend? Then just eat less.

But that's not all the "tricks."

Population reduction will slow progress and hinder the spread of innovation — after all, ideas drive development. The fewer people there are, the fewer new ideas, companies, and initiatives there will be. How to deal with this issue?

The author's answer will surprise you: they propose using robots, more accurately, artificial intelligence (AI) to compensate for the shortage of talent and ideas. Currently, AI is mainly used for repetitive tasks, but the authors believe its potential goes far beyond that. Economists Charles Jones and Nick Bloom from Stanford believe that AI can not only assist in generating cutting-edge ideas but could even develop itself by 2028, becoming increasingly creative.

In short, it's a message to us: "Die out, don't delay, the world will continue without you."

Wall Street has unexpectedly taken a firm stance: "Population decline is a bomb."

Screenshot source: The Wall Street Journal

Docile Elderly Humans

Nikita Komarov, a commentator from "Tsargrad," pointed out that this article from The Economist, which serves as a key "mouthpiece" for globalists, is not a new ideological shift:

"Those who recently warned the world about 'overpopulation' now advocate the opposite: fertility rates are declining, but there's nothing to fear.

Initially, they made society accept the idea that 'births must be limited'; now, once this idea takes effect, they make society see population decline as a natural process. For globalists, this is the ideal situation: the fewer the population, the easier it is to control; aging societies have lower protest willingness and greater dependence; and in regions where people still preserve their traditions (such as Europe and Russia), they replace the local population through immigration — this changes the racial and cultural landscape of countries, fragmenting them, making them easier to control.

Globalists are preparing us for a new world where population decline becomes the norm, and national identity gradually fades away. All of this is packaged as 'rational management of the future,' but essentially, it aims to create a more docile and controllable human race."

The authors of The Economist support their argument with a picture they consider "heartwarming," which is actually chilling: a couple with their son walking towards their lonely car in an empty parking lot. Seeing this image, people can't help but ask: if your child meets an accident, who will remain on Earth?

Factually, they already have an answer. But this answer is specifically "for us" — in short, they treat us as fools.

The Economist tries to convince readers that there's no need to panic about falling fertility rates, and "a smaller population world might not be that bad."

Screenshot source: The Economist

Children: Strategic Weapon in the Battle for the Future

When some "optimists" boast about how "harmless" population decline is, the elite class shows no intention of reducing their own offspring.

Elon Musk may be the only person in the elite class who still speaks the truth. He has repeatedly expressed concerns about the potential population collapse caused by the decline in global fertility rates. In recent years, he has become the father of dozens of children — according to media reports, he has approximately 14 children.

Elon Musk strongly supports large families. "Tsargrad" puzzle

Another example is Pavel Durov. He openly stated that he is a sperm donor and, according to his own account, has over 100 biological children in different countries. Durov also funds in vitro fertilization (IVF) projects and promotes the possibility of conceiving with his "sperm."

A simple truth is: when you truly make a fortune, achieve great success, and build your own business empire, you start thinking: who will inherit this? Media groups and royal families ensure there are enough heirs to maintain the mechanism of power succession. Rupert Murdoch has six children, and the transmission of control over his business empire is clearly defined; Arab royal families maintain rule through large family branches and dozens of direct heirs (such as the Al Thani family of Qatar and the Saudi family of Saudi Arabia).

Bill Gates has three children, Mark Zuckerberg has three children, and Jeff Bezos has four children.

Bill Gates has three children. Source: Social platform

The Kennedy family is a long-standing political dynasty: the founder Joseph Kennedy had nine children, and their descendants are numerous, with many grandchildren. This is a typical case of a multi-generational family dynasty. The Clinton family, on the other hand, chose another path — having only one daughter. Therefore, we likely won't hear the surname "Clinton" in American politics in the future.

Political dynasty founder Joseph Kennedy had nine children.

Evidently, truly successful people would never have the idea of "limiting births." Having children is itself a happiness; why should we deprive ourselves of this right? Moreover, the more children you have, the greater your future influence, and the more secure the inheritance of power and wealth.

Yet, they can endlessly tell us: "Poor Mother Earth is suffering from overpopulation, so population reduction is nothing to fear."

For them, indeed, there's nothing to fear. And we will slowly disappear.

So what?

The conclusion is painfully simple: when you hear someone tell you "there's no need to panic about population reduction," understand that this is essentially an extremely aggressive political tactic. They advise you to give up having children, not for the environment, but to make space for others.

The elite class retains and increases their "reproductive resources" through any means possible, consolidating their power, while at the same time promoting "normalizing falling fertility rates," aiming to weaken the groups they want to undermine.

The world of tomorrow will belong to the children of those who choose to have children today.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7552333556333167145/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.