The Malthusian dilemma: Between Climate Change and the Sponsors of Global Terrorism

 Abstract

 Terrorism, diseases, famine, and war as a way of mitigating challenges of population have become a source of worry particularly in Africa. In real terms, the beautiful Earth may not be saved through these obscene population reduction strategies. While Malthusians prognosis could be ruled as credible, there is a whir of intelligence that favors more attention to a reduction in our carbon footprint. The article argues that the ills of industrial revolution, strides globalist’s scheme and in its place recommends education, human rights and justice.

Introduction

In Amai, a remote but bustling community in Delta state, Nigeria, a woman was probed why she is breeding so many children she cannot obviously train. She said, “..if God does not bless me with riches, but endowed me with children, what is wrong with having so many” we are not equally gifted my brother she mused. 

Here, children are gifts from God, and you aren’t sure which of the children would become rich and famous – it’s perhaps akin to gambling in Las Vegas’ copious casinos.

Consistently, moderate to conservative demographic projections indicates that by 2070 global human population would reach 10 billion, fostering growing tension between two seemingly irreconcilable trends – population growth and normative consumption pattern. 

It has thus, become increasingly apparent over the past 50 years that the Earth may not support more than 3Billion people. 

Malthusian catastrophe is the prediction that population growth would outpace agriculture unless it is checked by moral restraint, disaster or by disease, famine, war, or widespread poverty. Africa, Middle East and Asia leads on population growth globally - a common feature of poor governance. And there is a need to save the Earth from this catastrophe.

But there is also a subjective aspect. The same period signaled the industrial revolution and its attendant upshot of ozone layer depletion – the greenhouse effect. Unlike population concern, how to turn the dialogue on Climate Change into action has been arduous. 

Between population growth by the poor and climate change phenomenon caused by greed, there is a need to contend – which one will kill the Earth.

While it was easy to predict the outcome of population growth and its predicament, the outcome and danger that the industrial revolution portends was not certain – at least when Malthus came up with his theory. 

It is hardly surprising why Globalist choose to exterminate Africans and Arabs by instrumentation of “induced terrorism” in other to save the Earth. We could do better than pursuing profits and actions that is based on prejudice.

Obscene Ideas

By nature, man is easily attracted to acts of Genocides. To be specific – Europeans are impudent about black civilization, and always scheme to exterminate them at the slightest excuse. And history is replete of this. 

Before the Jewish holocaust, black population has always been target of genocide. Efforts to shrink population, from a probable Y2070 peak of 10 billion to that of 23rd Century and beyond population optimum of 2 Billion people (Ken Smail, 2018) is prejudiced and ill motivated. The global war on terrorism is grounded on this idea. 

Globalists, driven by greed, hate and egoism has focused on iniquitous acts of induced famine, war and diseases (Ebola, HIV, Diabetes, Cancer etc.) to reduce Black population particularly where growth is exponential. 

Though, the Climate Change effect could ultimately kill more whites than Arabs and Black Africans and cause irreversible damage to our planet – white supremacists have vigorously repudiated the raison detre of climate change. Unfortunately, they have carry on with this same mentality to Planet Mars.

There is little doubt that reducing our carbon footprint requires new technology with (short-term) prohibitive marginal cost. 

However, – Producing killer vaccines, and viruses that kill more Arabs and black population would serve three purposes: Depletion of the ozone layer through cheaper mode of production, more profit to make space rockets, and elimination of undesirables from Earth. 

Globalist contends that Earth may only sustain 3 Billion inhabitants if normative consumption aspired is close to what obtains in the United States. This is ludicrous as no nation on earth is as gluttonous and as wasteful like the Americans do. 

Inducing war in Africa and Middle East (terrorism) that kills more men, as was the case during WWI&WWII in Europe or creating artificial plague (HIV, EBOLA) and tainted food- aids is to say the least obnoxious.  

Terrorism is provoked

So, what about eliminating the undesirable Blacks and Arabs through a well-conceived, clearly articulated, flexible, and internationally coordinated terrorism program. The media made this plan a great success - so far.

So are some Diseases

HIV-AIDS, EBOLA and other viruses would not only eliminate certain genes, but also vaccines that would reduce fertility are brilliant ideas. All these would create white jobs and generate immense profits. 

Climate Change denied

Yes, there is nothing like ozone layer depletion, and climate change is a hoax. And if it is true, White Supremacist could easily relocate to MARS.

When it comes to profit, there is no emotion, no morals, no truth. As we see in Yemen, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo – there are certain species that do not deserve to live. 

And those building walls, killing the Earth and contemplating other planets to dwell are globalist – were they present when the universe was created? Were they here to assist the creator? This we may never know. 

Contemplation

Listening to Donald Trump on Climate Change, despite all scientific attest – He sounds objectively unreasonable, and yet he belief.

Africans were hunters and gatherers before civilization caught up – today there are more small arms than bread on the table. And while the killing goes on, globalist defiles the Earth, its ozone layer and is looking at Mars to inhabit. Except, there is a superior agenda, devastating this beautiful place, just to move to another planet is sardonic. 

Is it more cost effective to save the Earth, than build-up MARS? Is it a bad idea to colonize two beautiful planets? The rich could move to Mars, while some stay on earth. – Yes? And yes indeed, the ‘Amai woman’ deserves better education, equal rights and justice.

We could envision better cleaner energy, suppress greed and wastages, ensure universal education and stimulate Human Rights and Justice. 

We can save the ozone layer, achieve better health care and restore the state of nature.