The logic of murder follows naturally from climate deception

One old trope of horror movies is that the witness to implacable evil is never believed. The sweet old lady you notice speaking to your friend in the lane suddenly morphs to reveal its true nature: “I saw it – it had huge eyes and green skin, and dragged Thelma down a hole.”

“It’s just your imagination – she’s only gone to buy some bread, and will be back soon.”

Since the Great Gloom, many of us (usually isolated from each other) have felt the same way, as our friends and relatives either humour or mock us for what, in fact, we know and they don’t. Very often they seem, over time, to have accepted saucer-eyed, green-skinned monsters as being normal anyway. And they’ve forgotten about Thelma.

A number of examples to choose from today. I could talk about the horrendous – and deliberately hidden – data from the CDC VAERS system, belatedly and grudgingly released after a FOIA request. But although it’s a veritable green-skinned monster, sending the link to my friends would simply earn me yet another “conspiracy theory” tag.

Maybe a better one to discuss, because it concerns attitudes, not data, is the newly reported Lancet Commission on the Value of Death. The linked article is short but revealing of what is rotten in medicine, once it becomes divorced from Hippocratic values.

The basic point is that, whilst paying lip service to human values, especially medical values of compassion, the core of the report is the subordination of the value of human life to an ideology of climate alarmism. The quote from the report that says:

The commission believes it is healthy to die… We are embodied creatures who are ultimately no more important than lizards or potatoes…

…itself shows what happens when another ideology, naturalistic Darwinism, is anterior to one’s medical practice. After all, they teach Darwin in elementary biology, before you even get to med school. Already, one’s medical practice is based on some other priority than the sacredness of human life. The Commission takes “overpopulation” as an axiom – and like it or not, that is the antithesis of God’s creation command to “Be fruitful, and replenish the earth,” as well as Jesus’s willingness to stir up hatred against himself by healing just one man on the sabbath.

The quote that immediately follows in the report introduces the climate ideology’s role in relation to this reduced view of human value:

Treatment at the end of life will be an important contribution to the carbon footprint of health care . . . Everything, and especially death, must be thought of in the context of the climate crisis . . . In the report we explore the many values of death.

Now, what I take from all this, in the first instance, is how easy it is for even the quintessential caring profession to see the “climate emergency” as so crucial that matters like the avoidable emissions of life-saving treatments, the planet-saving promotion of euthanasia, and even your carbon-footprint on Boot Hill, take priority over your well-being. In today’s top-down bureaucratic medical systems, it only requires that a report like this be adopted by the NHS for millions of British people to be cajoled into “a ritual practised by some Indian sects”(!) and then dissolved in acid like John George Haigh’s victims.

But the Commission’s logic follows inevitably from its premises. And not only that, but the veneer of human, even spiritual, values applied over the real ideology makes even the religious corruptible by it. As I wrote recently, even Tearfund has jumped aboard the climate emergency bandwagon. Can you not easily imagine such Christian charities, not to mention the House of Bishops, in a year or two warmly endorsing the Lancet Commission and urging the elderly to hasten their path to heaven through the midazolam injection, realising that their continued emission of carbon is an affront to the God who calls us to creation care?

The whole perspective changes completely if you come to the conclusion that the “Climate Emergency” is at best an error, and more plausibly a fraud perpetrated by those with an anti-human agenda. And I have no doubt whatsoever, after several years of study, that there is no Climate Emergency (but Tearfund supporters, too, are adept at labelling one a conspiracy theorist without studying evidence – sigh). And there is no associated Overpopulation Emergency either.

But (to develop my theme of the logic of murder further), there are powerful people who do believe in those things – or at least believe they’d like more personal elbow room, and see climate alarmism as a tool to achieve it. Let me start from the documented fact (straight from the horse’s mouth) that Bill Gates would prefer the population to be 15% lower than it already is.

Now he might, conceivably, see that as an impossible pipe-dream, like a return to the Greek Golden Age. But he does not, because he said it in the context of his Foundation’s practical programme to improve the world. If I remember the clip aright, I think that context had more to do with spreading vaccines across the developing world that his birth control programmes, which is odd in itself. But my point is that someone like Gates (as a proxy for all the other powerful people inspired by Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb) see themselves as problem fixers, not as pessimistic observers. “We’ve got the men, we’ve got the guns, and we’ve got the money, too.” Inaction is not an option for these guys with such a publicly stated wish. So how would he achieve population reduction as a goal, whether his motivation is to save the planet, or express his personal power? What does the logic dictate?

The ostensible means are those entirely voluntary birth-control programmes, aforementioned. But Gates will be as aware as anyone how even the compulsory One Child Policy in China merely slowed the rate of increase over its entire course. That’s not going to stop the population bomb going off.

It might be more successful to institute a clandestine No Child Policy by putting anti-fertility agents in your Tetanus vaccines, as has been suspected by targets of Gates’s vaccination programmes in both Africa and Asia. That, of course, targets only part of the world population, but what if you could influence the entire vaccine industry? If there was an effective agent, one might see sperm counts inexplicably dropping across both the developed and the poorer world… oh, one does, but don’t let your imagination run riot: Thelma’s only gone out to get buns for the oven, and will be back soon.

If such a programme were so successful that global infertility became obvious, the ensuing demographic disaster, and fear of human extinction, would inevitably expose the villains and their methods, though. And we don’t see global monopolists including being lynched as part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In any case, no method is that effective, and remember the goal is not slowed population growth, but reduction of (according to Bill Gates) 15%.

Logic dictates, therefore, that the only practical way to achieve that goal is not merely to prevent conception, but to kill your “excess” people. And here’s where good-hearted people like the cardiologist Dr Aseem [Mehrotra] (edit: Malhotra – silly me!) cry “conspiracy theory” at those who suspect, like good-hearted people such as the pharma researcher Mike Yeadon, that the mRNA vaccines are intended to cause excess deaths. Maybe Mehotra is right, but I started this piece by showing how a Commission of one of the world’s leading medical journals is proposing euthanasia as a necessary aspect of dealing with overpopulation and climate change. Do we expect monopolist billionaires to adhere to higher ethical standards?

Now, I’m not here making accusations against Gates or any other movers or shakers. I’m merely pointing out that, if someone like that seriously proposes that we ought to reduce world population by 15%, or anything like it, within their lifetime, then they either have to admit immediate defeat, or devise ways to murder 1.2 billion people without giving the game, or at least their role in it, away.

Almost any cause of major chaos would assist that aim: not only toxic vaccines, but disrupted supply chains and economic collapse, a dollar currency crisis, or even a nuclear war, might sound good to those who have convinced themselves that the planet is dying from “parasitic” humanity. At least that’s true for those who (crucially) wield the Effective Altruism™ tools knowing that philanthropy also increases their bottom line, as Bill Gates’s vaccine investments have.

In the face of logic like that, what else is a philanthropist to do but grow saucer eyes and a green skin?

Avatar photo

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in Medicine, Politics and sociology, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The logic of murder follows naturally from climate deception

  1. shopwindows says:

    Scales fall from eyes at different rates and to different extents. I’m with you not Malhotra.

    The kill all debate “conspiracy theory” perjorative is asinine. I’d rather elevate the term “gullible” or “ulterior motive” to hallowed status as it would more likely preserve society.

    Malhotra assumes just the right amount of scales have fallen from his eyes. That his position is always the right position and no doubt uses Einstein to console himself if the “facts” change one changes one’s mind. No. Malhotra was slow on instant appraisal and on the uptake after rather gleefully employing celebrity status to push EUA drugs. Ioannidis had already published IFR analyses after Diamond Princess against which we had more unknowns. The risk benefit trade off was sufficiently clear to wait and see per Bret Weinstein not to join the “pushers”.

    But you make clear there is not only a question as to the facts we accept as given, the institutions verdicts we consider gospel but the values context by which we appraise them. Is everything about return on investment? Is sanctity of life important? Otherwise we will indeed view anyone not in the active workforce as fertiliser – whilst those lofty individuals pulling the strings will no doubt be sunbathing and considering what more help they can provide to rationalise the plebeians lives.

    We need God not gods. O

    • Avatar photo Jon Garvey says:

      I’m with you not Malhotra.

      Thank goodness I have no scales over my eyes then! No, I think we have to beware of both deifying and demonising people: I’m with the penitent prodigal son, even if he still had issues to resolve. I agree Malhotra “ought” to have known better than to trust vaccines carte blanche, but know enough of the indoctrination process to understand why he might fail to register the possibility. In particular, it’s a story that’s been around since long before Big Pharma went seriously bad – just as anti-Russian propaganda has been simmering away for a couple of decades, making it easy to assume that what our press says is broadly true.

      It’s only when things like the powers behind “Russiagate,” the almost unthinkable government control of all our media, and the unthinkable possibility that we may not be the good guys all come together that one can begin to think critically and look for alternative sources.

      Malhotra had, years ago, been brave enough to cross the entire medical establishment on the business of cardiac disease, and to see the role of Big Pharma in that. His courage, then, is not in doubt – merely his ability to extrapolate to a parallel field in which he had no specialist knowledge.

      There’s a phenomenon whose name I forget, in which in any field in which we are proficient we see that the media are misrepresenting the truth. But (at least up till now) we assume that they are reliable in everything else. Once that illusion is shattered, one stops paying one’s TV licence, and so on.

  2. shopwindows says:

    There is maybe a variant of the Peter’s principle. Once one has glowed as to one’s accomplishments in one field one mystically tends to believe one can pronounce for the plebeians on other fields.

    That’s either hubris or celebrity endorsement fees beckoning. I am convinced Aseem is a highly principled person trying to right a wrong and humanity needs all the help all credentialed revered people can bring.

    Yes he was not malicious and he has crossed swords with powerful groups to right wrongs previously But we all must be humble in our achievements and in our criticism.

    As to the future the fact remains that without adequate consideration he was a vax pusher.

  3. shopwindows says:

    There is maybe a variant of the Peter’s principle. Once one has glowed as to one’s accomplishments in one field one mystically tends to believe one can pronounce for the plebeians on other fields.

    But as previously having considered QALYS a rational method to manage resources in the DH your essay prompts me to reconsider its application.

    Aseem was not malicious and he has crossed swords with powerful groups to right wrongs previously But we all must be humble in our achievements and in our criticism.

    But crucially it is alarming to have confirmation that euthanasia is gaining ground not just in Canada, MAID, but as reflected by the Lancet.

  4. Avatar photo Jon Garvey says:

    But as previously having considered QALYS a rational method to manage resources in the DH your essay prompts me to reconsider its application.

    I refrained from a discussion along these lines purely for reasons of brevity. But as a GP I disliked QUALYs for individual care (as opposed to epidemiological planning) because they embody the attempt to quantify what cannot be quantified. “I know you can’t put a value on a human life, but we have to, so…”

    No – find a way of managing without the category error of “human life” for “commodity.”

    That said, I would have endorsed the idea that medical care should reflect an unquantifiable difference between patients, including their wishes, and a bunch of other stuff. Don’t do a heart transplant on a 97 year old. Think hard before imposing multiple drug therapies on elderly confused people who will mistake the dose. Etc.

    There was a medical saying, originating as an expression of cynicism but actually (in context) a reasonable maxim: “Thou shalt not kill, but thou shalt not strive officiously to keep alive.”

    PS I’ve left both your last posts up, though I think one was an edit, because they each cover some different ground.

Leave a Reply