The eugenicists are fundamentally social engineers. Being Godless, they see human culture as a chaotic senseless overgrowth of random behaviors. They believe that they themselves can and should take this in hand, re-engineer society, and perfect humanity. For them, the perfect humanity will be one plugged in to their social design foundry. To do this, they require control over the gene pool through personality type quotas and abortion, couples pairing, and gene splicing. And once citizens are born they will have to be programmed to fulfill the roles that they have been designed for. To accomplish this, the eugenicists require control of the social experience.
The eugenicists realize that forcing humanity into their mold would not be successful, but that they can get voluntary participation. They know that the most pervasive socializing presence for humanity is society itself, and they see that the experience of social life is moving to the cloud. If the cloud were to simply be a recording and filing device that replaces other forms of record-keeping that would be one thing. But in the hands of the social engineers the cloud is much more than that. There is already notable suppression of content on the online social networks in the name of “hate speech”, but this is just a foretaste of what is to come.
The eugenicists realize that forcing humanity into their mold would not be successful, but that they can get voluntary participation. They know that the most pervasive socializing presence for humanity is society itself, and they see that the experience of social life is moving to the cloud. If the cloud were to simply be a recording and filing device that replaces other forms of record-keeping that would be one thing. But in their hands the cloud is much more than that. There is already notable suppression of content on the online social networks in the name of “hate speech”, but this is just a foretaste of what is to come.
While the public is one side of the cloud, uploading our messages, thoughts, and experiences, the social engineers are on the other side designing responses. Well, actually, they are designing automated responses. An early form of this has been targeted advertising, that offers the user products based on their personal interests and recent activities and plans. The social engineers want to extend this to targeting our other choices: career choices, political views, life choices. As computing power increases in complexity and speed, the programs that generate these automated responses and inputs are rapidly evolving into a form of artificial intelligence (AI). With enough computing power and speed, an AI deployed on the internet can taylor the internet experience of each individual user to reshape their views and behavior based on the current status of the beliefs, doubts, and motives. This technology is being rapidly developed. It only remains for the eugenicists to ensure that the public plugs in to it.
David Icke, in the video below, is discussing this process of getting humanity plugged in. In his view mass addiction to the internet through computer and mobile devices has already been accomplished. He describes technology advancing and making the human/machine interface an ever more intimate, immediate, and realistic representation of reality. In order to get us plugged in, he says, the sales pitch for A.I. will be that when we connect to it we gain superhuman intelligence. He cites Ray Kurzweil as saying that by 2030 the technology will be available to connect the brain directly to the cloud, or smart grid. And what will be smart about it? Artificial intelligence. Kurzweil says that the more human thinking and the A.I. interact, the more human thinking will be brought under the influence of the A.I.
Parallel to those developments is the capability to electronically induce human emotions and thoughts through what is sometimes called psychotropic technology. I think of it as brainwave entrainment, since it “speaks” to the brain directly by an electronic equivalent of ESP. This technology has been being refined for decades, and as it is paired with an ever more subtle online A.I., the hope of independent thought and individual freedom diminishes to zero.
These technologies and the industries that develop and deploy them are very expensive. Only the largest corporations and nation-states can play in this field. Naturally, this brings the Rothschilds into view – the wealthiest family dynasty on earth. You have to give it to them for thinking big. Lucifer is their god, and they are developing and using psychotropic weapons to mesmerize the human race. Their social engineers are facilitating what they might call an evolutionary leap from homo sapiens sapiens to homo sapiens synth.
In preparation for that, they are outlining expansive synth-free green zones (or over-synth zones) for the ruling and leisure elite, and preparing Smart Cities (synth zones, or worker-synth zones) to pack the rest into. Thus the worker-synths will be plugged into the hive mind and will worship and serve their Luciferian overlords. When all is in readiness the fallen ones will be called down from their celestial abodes to be the gods. Our present world elite will be the worshipful priests; while the remainder of humanity worship and serve them.
In this discussion, we have alluded to the past and to the future. What does this look like today? According to Humans are Free, psychotropic downloads are responsible for the sudden rash of madness we are seeing in Western societies. They say:
These weapons are used against the mind to induce hallucinations, sickness, mutations in human cells, “zombification,” (such as feelings of being TRANSGENDER or that you are black when you were born white)… or even death. (Parenthetical remark is in the original. The Rothschild Agenda: World War 3 & New World Order)
One must admit, it makes sense of the madness we are currently seeing in Europe and the United States.
The eugenicists figure the plan is big enough no one will believe it. They’re right, except for a few. They will succeed in taking over the world by their trickeries, but the true God will slap them down in the end. Please watch for these unfolding events.
If someone suddenly receives so much attention and is the rising star on the world stage, that is usually no coincidence. Also in the case of the Swedish climate and environmental activist Greta Thunberg it seems that a proper planning had preceded this.
Her mother, Malena Ernman, won the final for the Swedish participation in the Eurovision Song Contest in 2009 and thus became a familiar face, which is useful if your daughter looks like you and later has to become a world star.
The secret promotion probably already started there. You can answer the question whether mother Malena can really sing so well (see here). However, it is much more interesting to study the Thunberg family and you will find that the subjects CO2, ‘global warming’ and ‘population reduction’ are descended from the same family.
Greta Thunberg (born in 2003) according to Wikipedia a distant second cousin of Svante August Arrhenius. Her father Svante Thunberg, an actor, is named after Svante Arrhenius. Arrhenius is seen as the first scientist to describe the so-called Arrhenius effect, a natural enhancement of global warming through increasing evaporation of water and carbon dioxide (CO2) from the sea due to a decrease in reflectivity.
He predicted that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in temperature on Earth. According to him, a doubling of CO2 would be correlated with a warming from 4 to 6 degrees, which was caused by solar heat for 2 / 3 th part and for 1 / 3 th part by CO2. This has been interpreted by researchers like Keeling as a greenhouse effect caused entirely by CO2. So you could say that the subject is rather in the family.
Svante Arrhenius was born in Gut Vik, near Uppsala, the son of Svante Gustav and Carolina Thunberg Arrhenius. It seems that Greta is not a distant cousin, but a direct great-granddaughter. Wikipedia does not say that Svante Arrhenius himself also married a Thunberg. Her name was Karolina Kristina Thunberg.
This is evident from the still visible search results from Google. However, if you click on the link itself, the content is similar myheritage.com to be adjusted in relation to what the search result still shows (see screenshot below). There seems to be a bit of fiddling with the pedigrees and it seems that the name Thunberg can actually be directly linked to this global warming founder, Svante Arrhenius.
It is also remarkable that Svante probably married in the family (from his mother’s side). Such an incest is typically something we see with old noble bloodlines (such as mentioned in my book mentioned). However, if there is fumbling with family trees, then the direct pedigree may not be proven anymore, but the family link is indisputable.
Svante Arrhenius was involved in eugenics and was a member of the board of the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene. The website eugenicsarchive.ca states the following about this:
Arrhenius involved himself in the eugenics movement by joining the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene, a group focused on researching and promoting the benefits of controlled reproduction in humans (Broberg & Roll-Hansen, 2005). This society was formed in 1909 in an attempt to popularize eugenics and encourage policy changes to promote eugenics (Bjorkman & Widmalm, 2010). Arrhenius was not only a member; he was on the board for society (Broberg & Roll-Hansen, 2005). The society gave lectures and handed out pro-eugenic pamphlets to the public, but because it was illegal for them to discuss any method of birth control, the group was thought to have limited influence overall (Broberg & Roll-Hansen, 2005).
Greta’s (presumed) great-grandfather was therefore a high peak. Around 1900, this Svante Arrhenius became involved in the founding of the Nobel Institute and the associated Nobel Prizes. In 1901 he was – despite a strong opposition – elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
For the rest of his life he would remain a member of the Nobel Committee of Physics and a de facto member of the Nobel Committee of Chemistry. He used his influential position to arrange Nobel Prizes for his friends (Jacobus van ‘t Hoff, Wilhelm Ostwald and Theodore Richards) and tried to prevent his enemies (Paul Ehrlich, Walther Nernst, Dmitri Mendeleev) from receiving them.
He also received a Nobel Prize in 1903 and so in fact rewarded himself, because he was involved in setting up the institute that awards the prizes. So science was then all about favoritism and not about content.
It is interesting that in several publications it is discussed that the global warming story is about establishing a world government and population reduction. I wrote about that in my last article (see here). In this article Publicist Brandon Smith also makes it clear that a manifesto from the UN Secretary General from the 90 shows that global warming was invented to frighten the world population and then push through an agenda. In his article he also conclusively demonstrates that that agenda is also about population reduction. Well, that agenda item can also be traced to Greta’s (presumed) great-grandfather.
So if Greta Thunberg blows so high from the tower that we need to listen more to the science of global warming with CO2, it now appears that this theory comes directly from her (very likely) great-grandfather and that this same great-grandfather was a scammer who awarded himself and his friends Nobel Prizes. That is telling about the way many scientists today are being pushed aside when they criticize the official reading of global warming as a result of CO2.
Is fame random? Or, is fame the result of access to power? The recent prominence of Greta Thunberg is a case in point. Did she become famous for simply being photographed sitting alone in front of the Swedish parliament building, on strike for the environment? Or, did she inherit the mantle of an eco-prophet? Is she just an ordinary, outraged young woman, or someone with deep family links to environmentalism, and who thus has all the right connections?
For those that might not know, Greta supposedly shot to fame when the aforesaid photo of hers was put on Twitter in 2018. The Twitter account belonged to a group called, We Don’t Have Time, a Swedish organization, funded by Al Gore. Therefore, the photo was a clever piece of propaganda, designed to “capture” the hearts of people all over the world – a “lonely little girl,” speaking truth to power.
Of course, using children to further environmentalism is an old tactic. Back in 1992, there was Severn Suzuki, who at age nine started ECO (Environmental Children’s Organization), and gave a speech at the UN, which was far more coherent that Greta’s performance. But Severn’s father is David Suzuki, Canada’s foremost environmentalist.
Cory Morningstar has very meticulously, and very brilliantly, analyzed the deep connections that Greta has to the many power-structures, all of which seek to change the world. This excellent research should be widely read.
But why Greta? Why her photo? The clue lies in what she really advocates – the Fourth Industrial Revolution, aka, the New Green Deal. This is, very simply, transhumanism, which is the creation of a bio-digital world, where technology merges with humanity.
The oft-heard mantra of the environmentalists, “Change Everything,” means changing what it means to be human, what it means to work, what it means to be free, what it means to live a happy life. In short, it is Neo-Eugenics – or, the improvement of humanity by way of technology. This gives a whole meaning to Greta’s iconic phrase, “I want you to panic.”
But why Greta? Because she belongs, as it were, to global warming “royalty,” being directly related to that very Swedish scientist who, a little over a century ago, invented, and then popularized, the concepts of both global warming and man-made climate change. His name was Svante August Arrhenius (1859–1927), and his mother was a Thunberg.
Greta’s fame therefore is not accidental. She is continuing the project started by her illustrious ancestor – of course, enabled by her astute parents. Arrhenius’s name may not be familiar now, but in his time, he was well-known throughout Europe and North America.
People commonly assume that overwhelming data (inductive reasoning) led scientists to declare man-made climate change to be “settled science.” The problem with this assumption is that global warming and climate change are in fact hypotheses first invented by Arrhenius, and for which data (evidence) is continually being sought (deductive reasoning). It is hardly settled science, as recently shown.
Why do people back this hypothesis over any other? Because the majority of college graduates have a humanities or arts degrees, which skews how they perceive things scientific, for which they have little aptitude, let alone understanding. For example, innumeracy in the general population is very high. But these arts-degree-holders are also the electorate and their consent must therefore be continually manufactured.
Also, when it comes to sociopolitical matters, those with science degrees think the same way as their humanities counterparts, given that the entire purpose of higher education now is inculcation into radicalism. In the post-truth era, this means that those who research and teach science no longer believe that science is wedded to truth, as the recent humiliating defeat of the high-priest of global warming, Michael Mann, clearly showed, along with other studies, for example, here and here and here.
Science, like all other human activities, depends upon ideas, which are structures or models with which we understand, manipulate and benefit from the reality of the natural world. In other words, inductive reasoning was once the ideal of science.
But science, serving other masters than truth, now often aligns itself with social activism and social engineering (aka, power). Such cooption of science by the power-elite means that narrative (rhetoric) becomes far more important than truth – because rhetoric is the most effective tool to manufacture consent. Humanities degree holders are used to stories and they therefore respond well to rhetoric. And so goes the entire industry of environmentalism, where the “climate crisis” is continually narrativized for consumption.
Not surprisingly, in his popular writings, Arrhenius used rhetoric to further his hypotheses of global warming and man-made climate change. Early scientists had, in fact, variously looked at how air could warm the earth, such as, Leon Teisserenc de Bort, Alexander Buchan, Josef Stefan, Samuel Langley, Claude Servais Mathias Pouillet, Arvid Gustaf Högbom, Joseph Fourier, and of course, John Tyndall.
Arrhenius took this early work and imagined that the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), or “carbonic acid,” as he called it, in the atmosphere was directly responsible for warming the planet. He went on to suppose that if the amount of CO2 kept rising, then likewise the planet would keep getting hotter and hotter. This notion would become known as the “greenhouse effect.” And where would all this excess CO2 come from? Fossil fuels, of course.
He laid out this idea in a paper that was published in 1896 and entitled, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.”
This paper would become the bedrock of the contemporary climate-change industry, even though it was much criticized at the time of its publications (and later also) for its faulty science, such as that the effects of water vapor are mistaken for the effects of CO2.
Many of his contemporary scientists pointed out (as many scientists still do today) that CO2 cannot have any warming effect (or climate sensitivity) – which thus means that CO2 is not a “greenhouse gas.” Also, Arrhenius’s math was severely criticized by many, such as the physicist, Anders Ångström.
But it would appear that alarmism was something Arrhenius excelled at, for he next wrote an international bestseller, entitled, Worlds in the Making, in 1908, in which he explained to the layman his “hot-house” theory, where the continuous burning of fossil fuels, by industry, would increase the earth’s temperature. Thus, he linked his dubious science to modern human life – the ideal formula for alarmism.
The logic followed in his book is obvious – control human activity and you will control the earth’s temperature. For this reason, Arrhenius is rightly called the “father” of global warming. He is also the “father” of the entire energy crisis industry, since he was the first to suggest that oil reserves were finite (aka, peak oil) and coal would run out.
Any alarmism worth its salt has an end-game (massive social change) and so must also offer solutions that will bring about this desired result. Accordingly, Arrhenius suggested that the use of oil and coal be limited, if not eliminated; that electricity replace oil as an energy source; that fuel efficiency be practiced; that bio-fuels be used; that atomic energy be developed. Arrhenius, in fact, gave modern environmentalism all of its talking points.
But how did his ideas become foundational to environmentalism today? Arrhenius was largely ignored until 1979, when the Charney Report, entitled, “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” was published. It relied heavily on Arrhenius and thus gave him instant legitimacy.
Then, in 1990, the IPCC used the Charney Report as the basis for its own report, which turned Arrhenius’s hypotheses of man-made climate change and global warming into “settled science.” Henceforth, climate could only and “correctly” be viewed through the lens of Arrhenius. Those who refused or objected would be labeled as “deniers” – i.e., heretics.
Another “settled science” in which Arrhenius made much contribution was eugenics. Just as animals and planets could be bred to show particular characteristics, so too, it was believed, could humans be made better by selective breeding (which was known as racial hygiene). Thus, human reproduction was to be controlled and limited by the state, all bulwarked and justified by science. The mantra of “listen to the science” that is oft-repeated by environmentalists in itself has a very sinister history, for eugenics was nothing but “settled science” for people like Arrhenius, Margaret Sanger and Hitler.
The obvious question that arises is a simple one, then – does Arrhenius’s work on global warming stem from his eugenics? For example, in 1912, he famously concocted an experiment in which public school children were electrified, in order to make them grow taller. Apparently, it was said to have worked. Thus, where does climate science stop and eugenics being for Arrhenius? It is a question not yet settled.
Further, Arrhenius was the founding member of the Swedish Society of Racial Hygiene, which was established on 1909, as well as the State Institute for Racial Biology, in 1922. Both institutes justified Sweden’s sterilization of non-Aryans, and other “undesirables,” long before the Nazis. And these institutes set the context for the forced sterilization of over 60,000 Swedish women, who were deemed unfit to breed. This practice continued until 1975. Sweden was hardly a socialist paradise for these unfortunates. As well, Arrhenius worked with Gustaf Retzius, who used phrenology (developed by his father, Anders Retzius) to further claims of Nordic racial superiority.
And, in 1900, Arrhenius was the founding member of the Nobel Institute and its Nobel Prize and headed both the Nobel Committees on physics and chemistry. Needless to say, he made sure that most of his friends received the Nobel (such as, Theodore William Richards and Wilhelm Oswald). Three years later, he himself became the first Swede to receive the prize.
Thus, Greta’s own nomination for the Nobel is part-and-parcel of being a member of the global warming “royalty.” It is interesting to note that her father, who is an actor, writer and producer, is named Svante; and her mother (Malena Ernman) is a well-known operatic singer, who has also co-authored, with her husband, the bestselling book about her family and their environmentalism, entitled, Scenes from the Heart (2018).
Like her mother, Greta recently published her own book, No One is Too Small to Make a Difference, which is a collection of her eco-activist speeches. And it does not come as a surprise that she herself has her biography on the Internet Movie Database, given her parents’ careers. But her recent stumble does give one pause as to her spontaneity.
As for Greta’s access to power? She is backed by the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Institute, the Prince of Wales’ Corporate Leaders Group, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and more than twenty NGOs – and they all want to bring about the Fourth Industrial Revolution. She is hardly a “lonely little girl” heroically fighting the powers that be. Rather, she is famous because she is an effective ambassador of these powers, and because she belongs to the right family.
Greta means serious business. Wittingly or unwittingly, she is the child-herald of a nightmare future, inhabited by a mechanized humanity, wherein that century-old experiment, conducted by her relative, of electrifying children, will be upgraded for all humanity. Saving the planet means eugenics, for it is ultimately Malthusian in its logic, in that people are the enemies of the planet and their numbers need to be controlled. Greta’s alarmist environmentalism is impossible to accomplish without eugenics. But then global warming and man-made climate change are both the invention of her ancestor who understood such eco-eugenics well.
Sources and Credit