Oct. 4, 2023 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
41:28
Scientism, De-Populationists & the Climate Cult
Dr. Jerome Corsi takes a close look into the close relationship between Scientism, the De-Populationist movement and the Climate Change Agenda on today's The Truth CentralGet your FREE copy of Dr. Corsi's new book with Swiss America CEO Dean Heskin, How the Coming Global Crash Will Create a Historic Gold Rush by calling: 800-519-6268/Follow Dr. Jerome Corsi on Twitter: @corsijerome1Our website: https://www.thetruthcentral.comOur link to where to get the Marco Polo 650-Page Book on the Hunter Biden laptop & Biden family crimes free online: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/marco-polo-publishes-650-page-book-on-hunter-biden-laptop-biden-family-crimes-available-free-online/Our Sponsors:MyVitalC: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/myvitalc-ess60-in-organic-olive-oil/Swiss America: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/CorsiRMP.phpThe MacMillan Agency: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/the-macmillan-agency/Pro Rapid Review: https://prorrt.com/thetruthcentralmembers/RITA: https://members.sayrita.com/truthcentralreaders/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-truth-central-with-dr-jerome-corsi--5810661/support.
Thank you for joining us on The Truth Central dot com.
This is Dr. Jerome Corse and today is a Wednesday.
It's October 4th, 2024.
Thank you for joining us on The Truth Central dot com.
We are broadcasting every weekday.
Now today we're going to do a deep dive.
We're going to take a hard look at how the global elite have been planning since the 1990s, actually planning going back to 1968, when this whole club of the Council of Rome was formed and a meeting in Italy, Henry Kissinger and Zygmunt Brzezinski and George Soros, among others from the various kind of groups that were the elitist groups coming together, the Bilderberger group in particular,
And they decided that they were going to have to have dramatic changes, what the World Economic Forum is calling the Great Reset, where the oligarchs, the super rich, millionaires, the millionaires won't even count, the billionaires, and the multinational corporations will take over one world government, and they will be the masters, There's too many people, they think they don't need the people, so they're going to depopulate, they're Malthusian, and we'll be the serfs and the slaves because they'll do transhumanism thinking that they are now the elite of the world and they have the ability to perfect everything by using machines.
Between AI and robotics, they'll be able to produce all the food they want and have all the resources of the earth to themselves.
They don't need us.
So the world would be a great place if it weren't for the people, is kind of the presumption of what we're going to talk about today.
And I'm going to show you how I've woven this into the books I'm writing, and I want to get you keyed into anticipating what I think is going to be a great awakening.
I'm calling my three series of books here, the first one being The Truth About Energy, Global Warming, and Climate Change.
The second one's The Truth About Neo-Marxism.
Multicultural Maoism and Anarchy.
We're going to begin with a video that we started showing about the Club of Rome.
This is from the Epoch Times.
And Chris, if you'll start playing, it'll be the prelude to what we want to discuss.
At some point down the line, the narrative changed to be around climate.
What was the narrative prior to that?
What was the justification they were giving in order to push, you know, this kind of more control from the top down?
Yeah, immediately preceding climate and environment, actually, the Cold War was the pretext for having this incredibly large, incredibly powerful federal government.
In fact, you see a very clear break when the Club of Rome met in 1991 as the Soviet state and the Eastern European communist states were collapsing. The Club
of Rome, very, very powerful elitist, obviously Mikhail Gorbachev was there,
you had many prominent Americans, people like Al Gore, they got together and they
came up with this incredible document where they actually said we need a new
justification for this all-powerful state. So the new excuse is going to be
because the environment is going to be harmed and because climate is
going to hurt us.
Wait, what?
I could not believe what I just heard.
I just heard.
Did world leaders really lay out this globalist plan in plain English in a physical book way back in 1991?
I went on Amazon, and there it was.
The first global revolution, which states, and I quote, in searching for a common enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill.
The science is clear.
We are getting dangerously close to the point of no return.
The science is very clear.
This natural world is severely endangered.
Code Red for Humanity.
It's not a group of political officials, elected officials.
These are the scientists.
There is a top-down quality to this policy, which is extremely forceful.
And the forcefulness comes from scientism, which is the ideology that we understand the world fully because of science.
We have to listen to the science so that we have a better future for tomorrow.
Okay, now that's the basic background here.
That was Alex Newman, who was being interviewed on the Epoch Times.
And I encourage you to watch the entire clip here.
It goes on for about four or five minutes, and it's very good.
But the point is, I want to get into the book itself.
Now, Chris, if you could show the cover of the book.
I want to quote from a few sections of the book.
And remember, this was written in 1991.
This is now 30 years ago, and it is, I think, a shock to see where all of this comes from.
There is the first Global Revolution.
That's a copy of the book.
It was actually printed by Pantheon here.
It cost about $900 to get a copy of it, of the original book.
They're rare.
They've tried to get rid of them.
They don't want you knowing what they were planning to do back 30 years ago.
But I've highlighted a few sections of the book.
You can see where they decided they were going to make climate an issue.
Let me read a few paragraphs.
This is on page eight, a whirlwind of change.
And they say that, however, other gases, which exist in much smaller concentration, were formerly referred to as trace gases, control the greenhouse effect.
Since the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of these gases has increased.
The most important of these, carbon dioxide, has increased by 25%.
Oxides of nitrogen by 19%, methane by 100%.
In addition, newcomers to the atmosphere, such as our notorious man-made CFCs.
They were worried about those back then.
Refrigerators had CFCs, etc.
They're going to destroy the ozone.
Also add to the effect, as does terrestrial ozone.
They're trying to combine ozone with greenhouse gas.
They ultimately dropped the ozone argument, because the ozone opens and closes, and it really is not in relationship To the carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas effect or global warming, any of those.
So, concern with the consequences of greenhouse gas effect changes arose from the observations of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, realizing that the influence of the other trace gases came quite recently.
It was noted that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, although small, had been increasing.
Indeed, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased most Okay, so in 1991 the argument was constructed.
than in the previous 16,000 years, according to the combustion of fossil fuels
as oil and coal, which are the basis of industrialization.
This increase also results from a reduction of nature's capacity to absorb the gas
through photosynthesis in the green leaf as a result of the extensive elimination of tropical
forests.
Okay, so in 1991, the argument was constructed.
Now, first of all, it's predicated on the idea that the Industrial Revolution was a remarkable time
for beginning to use hydrocarbon fuels, which we had not used.
By the way, they called them fossil fuels.
No fossil ever made a fuel.
I'm going to get to that in a minute.
But the point is, demonizing hydrocarbon fuels means that we could Make it noxious.
We're all going to die if the Earth gets too warm.
We can't survive here.
We're going to have disaster effects in these bizarre weather, natural hazards.
And so they get alarmism with all the hurricanes and all the effects, snows and all the other bizarre weather effects because the Earth is getting warmer.
Al Gore said the seas were going to rise.
We had movies where the seas destroyed cities.
Of course, Barack Obama bought his mansion, his million-dollar place, palatial place, on Nantucket Island on the seashore.
So he's not particularly worried the sea is going to rise.
The argument is a fallacious argument because it is not, there's a lot of aspects of it that are fallacious and the carbon dioxide is not the driving, turning knob of the Earth's temperature.
But I want to show you that, in fact, this did develop as the... This goes back to the 1960s, but it took off after Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb.
I'm going to come back to this in a minute.
It's a depopulation agenda.
Now, I'm going to go into my book and read a few paragraphs from it.
The first book I want to focus on is this truth about energy, global warming, and climate change.
Okay, and it is the deconstructing these climate lies in an age of disinformation.
Now, the major argument came from Michael Mann's hockey stick.
Michael Mann's hockey stick was an attempt to say the Earth's temperature was just perfectly fine until the Industrial Age.
We started burning hydrocarbon fuels and that's when everything went haywire because the Earth started warming up.
It's actually nonsense.
There was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 600 million years ago.
We've had ice ages come and go.
We've had the medieval warming period, which was an unusual warming period, and the truth is that the sun has a much greater impact on Earth's temperature than anything else.
So I want to read from A. W. Monford, who is a very brilliant He's a scientist who has done a lot of work.
He's a British writer.
He's an editor and owner of the British Hill blog.
He wrote a book in 2010 called The Hockey Stick Illusion.
And he pointed out, let me read you a quote from him.
Quite apart from what the hockey stick tells us about the positioning of the IPCC, that's the International Panel on Climate Change, which is the UN You've got to listen to the scientists, you know.
climate nonsense as official dogma. Scientism, you've got to listen to the scientists, you know.
C.S.
C.S. Lewis warned us decades ago that scientism was a form of totalitarianism,
because in true science it is never a consensus.
It's always open to new paradigms.
We never have a complete understanding of anything here.
We're constantly learning and modifying what we know about how this place, Earth, operates and the universe we happen to find ourselves in.
I mean, I'm waiting for the IPCC to explain to us how we got here and where this place really is.
That's God's subject, but they don't want to acknowledge God.
So, quite apart from what the hockey stick tells us, Manfred tells us about the positioning of the IPCC in the global warming debate, the panel's need for a sales tool, Also suggest something important about the overall case for man-made global warming.
None of the corruption and bias and flouting of rules that we've seen in the course of this story would have been necessary if there is, as we are led to believe, a watertight case that mankind is having a potentially catastrophic effect on the climate.
What the hockey stick suggests is that the case for global warming, far from being settled, is actually weak and unconvincing.
That's the truth.
Now, what Manfort demonstrated, I'm reading now from page 132 of my book, He, in an article, he said that basically the Michael Mann, who was the scientist, a junior scientist, who created this hockey stick and published it in 1998 in Nature.
This is going far back into the 90s, 30 years ago when all this nonsense started.
He essentially modified the data And so that when you use tree ring analyses, which Monfort cites, which was done scientifically looking at the tree rings as a surrogate indicator of whether that was hot or warm.
And in hotter cycles, the tree rings are thicker, larger.
In cold temperatures, the tree rings are smaller.
What the tree ring analysis did is it identified the medieval warm period and the subsequent little ice ages, and Michael Mann tried to say that this was limited only to Europe, not to other places.
Of course, science has for a long time, for decades, been establishing that the medieval warming period was a global phenomenon.
So, when the hockey stick was born, man decided that he was going to rig the data, and as such, they erased the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age as regional effects.
The conclusions were stark, Manfort noted.
Current temperatures were unprecedented as a result of the analysis that they rigged.
Man instantly achieved international celebrity status.
See, they were prepared to find someone who would do this research, rig the data, and then they would tout the data, get it published in a scientific journal, and tout it with the IPCC and the international community, saying, see, we're getting warmer, we have to stop using hydrocarbon fuels.
The mainstream media worldwide proclaim that man's tree ring data have proved that we were warmer in the 1990s than since any year since the 1400s.
The hockey stick graph portrayed the 20th century as significantly warmer than the five centuries that preceded it, with the global climate change of the 20th century assumed to be linked to the burning of fossil fuels.
Okay.
Now the IPC embraced this and they thought this was just great.
And I do an analysis to show how the science, how the data was rigged, but the ClimateGate analysis, ClimateGate was a phenomenon that occurred when these computers were released in East Angleton in New Jersey.
New Jersey, UK, released data that showed that the scientists had rigged the data, and they acknowledged that all these IPC scientists, including Michael Mann, were exchanging with each other emails that were hacked.
And the hack of the emails, I'm going to try to find the page here where it really shows you with the climate gate.
Okay.
On November 6th, 17th, 2009, an unidentified hacker began publishing thousands of emails and other documents taken from a server of the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England.
The CRU is the source of much of the data supporting this anthropogenic, meaning caused by human being, carbon dioxide theory.
And what the hacked emails showed was that scientists, including Michael Mann, knew that they had to alter the data in order to make it work.
It wasn't true.
I've just completed Michael Mann's nature trick of adding the real temperatures to the series for the last 20 years.
They perform statistical tricks and they produce this chart.
You can see it right there, that's the hockey stick.
So the problem is that the scientist methodology in looking at the data, they utilized techniques which sound appropriate, but actually were statistically leveling out the data to erase any abnormalities like the Little Ice Age or the medieval warming period that proved that the Michael Mann theory was nonsense.
Can I go into the book and show the evidence for the Middle Eagle Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and show that carbon dioxide lags temperature changes, it doesn't cause temperature changes.
So, page 147 of my book, Despite the Determination of the IPCC to Blame Carbon Dioxide for Global Warming, the historical record is carbon dioxide lags temperature warming, not the reverse.
So, when multiple papers were published, they did papers on air bubbles that were found in Antarctic ice cores from over the last 420,000 years, found that as the climate cooled into a nice age, the decrease in carbon dioxide lagged temperature by several thousand years.
Other stories of Antarctic ice cores show the carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million after warming caused the last three glacial terminations.
Proving the carbon dioxide changes in geological time are lagging temperature changes, not the other way around.
Now that's the legitimate scientists and Michael Mann has ultimately embraced the Green New Deal and he has now declared that AOC is correct and we can't solve this problem unless we end racism and we destroy the modern industrial state as we know it by stopping to use hydrocarbon fuels.
Now, what I want you to understand is that this is a politically constructed narrative.
That does not have any basis in legitimate climate science.
The climate science is really much more complex.
Notice one simple variable proves the case.
And a new article has come out, and Christopher, you'll show this new article.
I'd like to, if this is just, in fact, it was just released.
I just got it today in an email.
So this is the sun's true role in global warming has been miscalculated.
It's been underplayed by the IPCC.
So there's a new study published, an international study published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is research in astronomy and astrophysics.
There's 20 climate researchers from 12 countries suggest that the IPCC, the UN's panel, The article began as a response to a 2020 comment on an extensive review of the causes of climate change.
The original article suggested that the IPCC reports had inadequately accounted for two major scientific concerns when they were evaluating the cause of global warming since the 1850s.
Global temperature estimates used in the IPCC reports are contaminated by urban warming biases.
So where they sample the temperatures in urban areas, urban areas produce more heat because of the concentration of Concrete, steel, and other substances that do not absorb the irradiance of the sun as the earth naturally does.
Second, the estimates of solar activity changes since the 1850s considered by the IPCC substantially downplayed a possible large role for the sun.
Why?
Because the sun varies in temperature.
It burns hotter, it burns less hot.
Hotter burning produces like the meander minimum.
Less active meander minimum produced a little ice age.
Warmer burning of the sun produced the medieval ice age.
Medieval warming period, I'm sorry.
So they say, if the IPCC had paid more attention to open-minded scientific inquiry, rather than trying to force a premature scientific consensus, then the scientific community would be a lot closer to having genuinely resolved the causes of climate change.
However, our new analysis and data set Can help other scientists to get back to doing real climate science.
In other words, if the sun is a major factor, we don't have much control over how the sun burns.
Circular in its orbit to the sun, like it is right now, we get an interglacial warming period.
Now, one more thing I want to demonstrate here on the argument I'm making that this is a political movement, not a true science-driven movement, is that John Holdren, who is a physicist, Joined Paul Ehrlich, whose PhD was on butterflies.
He became known for saying that we were overpopulated, Malthusian, we had too many people in the world.
And so, Holdren started working with Paul Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich, and they published a, in 1977, they published a textbook called Echo Science, Population, resources, and environments.
So in 1968, the Club of Rome was formed, the Club of the Council of Rome was formed in Italy in a meeting that was Bilderberger people together with Kissinger and Zygmunt Brzezinski, George Soros, and they decided they were going to do the reset.
They looked to the 1977 work done by Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren, which is where this climate change nonsense occurred.
I have a copy of this book, which again costs hundreds of dollars because the book has been suppressed.
This Ecoscience, Population, Resources, and Environments.
It's a big book and used as a textbook.
They did an edition without Holdren under a different title, which was Population, Resources, and Environment.
when Holdren joined, the new edition of the book went from 383 pages to over 1,000, 1,051 pages,
and they put a new term in which was ecoscience, the science of the ecology.
So they started making it clear that what Holdren was adding to the depopulation movement
was this concern of greenhouse gases, that we were going to have carbon dioxide because of
hydrocarbon fuels.
We were going to heat up the world to be unlivable.
Now, I also cover that hydrocarbon fuels are perfectly natural.
They are not toxic.
We need greenhouse gases in order to keep the Earth from freezing at night, when the sun is not shining, because the Earth rotates, and we get a... the irradiance the Earth is absorbed, we go back out into outer space, it would be extremely hot.
I call John Holdren the Malthusian wizard extraordinaire, and what he did was to introduce this whole concept.
The 1977 edition makes climate change a genuine concern, and yet Earth was experiencing about a global cooling at the time, and the environmental left was preoccupied with the possible coming of a new ice age, which is what they first touted But this book that they wrote in 1977 coincided with the publication of a blockbuster book in that year, which was The Weather Conspiracy, The Coming of a New Ice Age, which was allegedly based on CIA studies.
So, when the Earth stopped cooling, they switched back to global warming and locked in by 1991 on global warming as the theme they were going to pursue.
Now, that means it is a political narrative.
It is not true.
It is not meant to be true.
It is known by the practitioners of it to be faulty science.
The ClimateGate emails prove that.
And if I can pull another book here by Judith Curry, hold on a second.
This book right here, Judith Curry, this is a recent book.
She is a very, very well-respected climate scientist, climate uncertainty and risk.
She was Professor Emerita of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the George Institute of Technology for many years.
She quit that and went into private practice advising people on climate issues.
What she says is she was a believer in global warming until the ClimateGate emails came out.
And this whole book is about why... ...relies upon to predict future carbon dioxide emissions and temperature are rigged with biases of the scientists who created the models.
Truthfully, we don't know what the weather's going to be, even tomorrow, with any reliability.
Now, the second book, which is about to come out, The Truth About Neo-Marxism, Cultural Maoism, and Anarchy, this book has got 1,441 footnotes in it, and it's probably one of the most extensive books I've written.
It's 418 pages long.
Now, the length of the footnoting doesn't make it a good book, but I'm going to point out to you
some of the reasons I think that this book explains why they love it.
Marxism has evolved with Gramsci into saying we've got to destroy the culture.
of capitalism in order to destroy capitalism.
These people hate capitalism, they hate the middle class, they hate people, and this is a depopulationist movement.
So when you get to some of the advanced understandings of how these people think, and I'm going to introduce you to a couple of the identity politics bedlam that these people get into, they are looking at constructing narratives To match what they want the world to be, what they want the world to believe.
So we have various scientists like Baudrillard, who wrote Simulacra and Simulations, who said that there is no objective reality.
I can pull that book too from my shelf here.
Hold on.
This is the book in English, and it is a...
A very powerful book that is completely insane.
The Matrix shows this book in French, or one of the versions of it, in the beginning of the Matrix movies.
Baudrillard refused to work with the Matrix group because they had the rebels who understood that there was an objective reality and everybody else was living in the Matrix.
Baudrillard said there is no objective reality, there is no Rebel group.
We are all living in a simulation.
It's all just imaginary.
So, in this book, he starts it out with a quotation from Ecclesiastes, which reads, the simulacrum, that's what he looks like, the simulacrum is never what hides the truth.
It is truth that hides the fact there is none.
There's no truth.
The simulacrum is true.
Ecclesiastes.
In other words, the made-up narrative, the running of a, as it were, a simulation, is all we're doing, because there's no reality behind it.
He was a nihilist.
And so he laid out four successive phases of what the image is, the simulacrum.
Number one is the image is a reflection of a profound reality, a picture of an apple reflecting a real apple.
He rejects that.
The image masks and denatures profound reality.
So the apple picture makes you think that that's what an apple really is.
It looks tasty, but that's not the reality.
It masks the reality.
The image masks the absence of a profound reality.
Picture of the apple?
Well, there really isn't any apple.
It's just the picture.
The image has no relationship to any reality whatsoever.
It is its own pure simulacrum.
In other words, they just made up the picture of an apple.
Everybody thinks there's apples.
There's not.
It's just what we made up to think they are.
There is no objective reality.
He was a nihilist.
He wanted to be sure that he was not confused with Kant or others in the Frankfurt School who were trying to produce an objective reality.
He says, the dialectic stage, the critical stage, is empty.
There is no more stage.
There is no indifferentation.
Okay, so he's saying that the Marxist critical school thinkers Uh, we're suffering from a melancholy attached to the system itself, and it was incurable, but they were completely, um, uh, deluding themselves to think that they could perfect anything because it's all just narratives and the narratives are just designed for control.
Now, Jürgen Habermas was born in 1929.
He was part of the Hitler youth.
And an analysis of his works, published in Stanford Encyclopedia, what they explained is he came up with this theories of communicative action and discourse ethics.
And discourse ethics, What he is saying is that we get together and we decide upon the values that we are going to propose.
In other words, let's imagine a world without boundaries.
Let's imagine a world without crime.
Let's imagine a world without racism.
Imagine a world without oppression.
John Lennon's song, Imagine, is based on this concept.
We can just create the world.
Since there's no objective reality, why not create the ideal world and begin living in it and make the world comply to the simulacrum we've created.
Here's another Habermas.
These people are not easy to read, by the way.
The abstract concept of the world is a necessary condition of communicatively active subjects are to reach understanding among themselves about what takes place in the world or is to be affected by it.
Through this communicative practice, they assure themselves at the same time of their common life relations of an intersubjectively shared life world.
This life world is bounded by the totality of interpretations presupposed by the members as the background knowledge.
So, in other words, a group of people in the university who are trained on this woke ideology get together, They form an intersubjective world in which they decide
that there are as many genders as you can imagine and that everyone gender is not sex and so
therefore it's legitimate for people to have different gender expressions.
The world is now since there's no objective reality in the world they can posit anything
they want and they can live that reality, assuming the rest of us are going to have to.
The same is positing a world in which we don't use hydrocarbon fuels.
It becomes appropriate and acceptable to construct a narrative to get to that result, even if they know the narrative is a lie.
Because in this basis, there is no objective reality, and so therefore deconstructing, which is part of this post-modernism, narratives which are repressive.
In other words, we have to use hydrocarbon fuels.
That's a repressive narrative because it doesn't allow us to be truly free and express our individuality.
This is a form of socialism.
It's only negative.
It's aimed at destruction.
And the end result is going to be transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and perpetual life extinction, which is where this WHO oligarchy, Bill Gates and the like, think they're going.
And they think they'll get there by this neo-Marxist and cultural revolution, deconstruction of capitalism, which is the phase we're going through right now.
In other words, this is an architected reality we're living through.
It's not accidental.
It's been planned for decades.
And when the New World Order takes over, you know, the George H.W.
Bush's declaring a New World Order going back into the 90s, these people have been on this idea for more than three decades.
It's actually a very ancient idea.
A few people taking over and everybody else being their slaves.
Except these people are into depopulation.
Now I'm going to go back one more time to the The 1991 book of the Club of the Council of Rome, and I'm going to try to search depopulation.
So this is in that book.
They're saying that depopulation, rural depopulation, is constantly bringing into the outskirts of large cities, streams of people, Driven from their land by poverty and the possibility of survival, and also as a result of local wars, some 20 in Africa alone, large infrastructural projects requiring the displacement of the population, etc.
Okay, so it is important, however, that although rural depopulation in favor of the big cities can be slowed down, it cannot be stopped.
Now, these people believe there are too many people, And they focus on the cities with an aspect to drive people into the cities and then destroy the cities.
Now, if we go back to this Club of Rome publication in 1991, it ties together, I'm going to kind of complete this theme, as we started out with depopulation, too many people, we call the video with the, we started this Uh, this deep dive with saying essentially that there are too many people.
We have a drain on the limited, limited resources of earth.
We have to listen to the scientists.
We have to stop using hydrocarbon fuels.
We have to de-industrialize.
Well, 1991 in this club of Rome report, which is the, uh, the first global revolution.
They are saying this, they're saying that population control, this is on page 165 of this 1991 book, population control, necessary as it is, must be planned in terms of human well-being.
It is of paramount importance that all the countries striving for development should design their population policies.
These policies have to be based on detailed exploration of the demographic growth prospects in relationship to resource availability and development aims, including the standard of living which each country hopes to obtain.
Only through informed assessment of such prospects can development planning be realistic.
If the public is to respond to population control needs, it must be given sufficient information to understand the dangers of overpopulation for the individual and the benefits that would flow from population growth restraint.
Such conditions are necessary if the population planning is to be implemented with humanity.
This is where we get the United Nations' plan for 2023, sustainability.
This is a whole sustainability agenda, Agenda 2030.
It's Agenda 2030.
They intend by 2030 to implement population control, limitation of resources, and other sustainability.
Which the word is suggesting, we have to sustain the earth.
We are the blight.
Human beings are the problem.
Now, anything that's predicated on depopulation is almost inherently suicidal.
It's fundamentally hating people.
We exhale carbon dioxide.
These insane people want to eliminate cows, and I was not eating meat because cows fart methane.
We exhale carbon dioxide.
What does that tell you about the regard for human beings?
These people will eliminate human beings because we're a blight on the climate if you believe their nonsense science.
I hope in this program we've given you the beginnings, and there's much more here we can develop, but you're going to have to get into it.
You have to do some reading.
And if you do, you're going to see the world in which these people live, and you're going to understand that the narratives you're being given are not science, they're scientism, and they are designed to have you walk into slavery willingly, thinking that you're saving the earth.
This show is a deep dive show, we'll do more of these, because again, I want to have you understand how psychologically, how in terms of their Phenomenology of how the woke view the world.
They're living in a different space than the normal human being is.
And if we're going to combat them, we have to understand the space in which they live.
Otherwise, we've got to disconnect.
Dr. Jerome Corsi, today is Wednesday, October 4th, 2023.
This is the Truth Central.
God will always win.
God created this place.
He can unplug it anytime he wants.
God is in control.
We have to live by God's world, not by Habermas or by any of these other Frankfurt School or postmodernists.
We don't need... A cultural revolution ends up with mass famine killing millions of people.
The solution is 2 Chronicles 7.14.
We've got to ask God's forgiveness.
We've got to get to a point where God will hear our prayer and hopefully heal our land.
It's going to take divine intervention to open up people's minds to what we're living through.
But as long as God's in the game, as long as we're asking God to remain in the game, These people will lose.
Dr. Jerome Corsi, thank you for joining us.
We'll be back tomorrow, every weekday, TheTruthCentral.com.
Please like the show, please share the show, please let others know we're around.
