Sometimes I wonder if it's not the other way around - that these grand theories about mass depopulation are a form of consensus cracking, meant to discredit legitimate criticism of corporate business practices. To put it in brief, company X has some shady dealings, mostly amounting to dodging taxes and cutting corners regarding quality, maybe doing some money-laundering on the side. Overall, nothing special.
However, in order to hide its activities even from nosy wannabe whistleblowers, the company also produces phantom documents and correspondence about some "great big plan" or other, and mixes them in with well-timed "leaks", so that if an otherwise mildly competent online search finds a thread to pull on, the "grand scheme" docs start spilling first. Only, they have no real trail within the company itself.
So when an accusation is leveled about said grand scheme, the company simply allows an inspection - that produces no evidence, because there simply isn't any - and the rest of the potential accusations are dismissed as part of the whole package - that is, a crappy attempt at slander by a malicious litigant. And the company walks away scot-free.
Substitute company for government, or NGO, and it's the exact same deal. It's gaslighting in its purest form, where people are intentionally made to chase paranoid delusions, instead of looking for practical goals and motives.
Sometimes I wonder if it's not the other way around - that these grand theories about mass depopulation are a form of consensus cracking, meant to discredit legitimate criticism of corporate business practices. To put it in brief, company X has some shady dealings, mostly amounting to dodging taxes and cutting corners regarding quality, maybe doing some money-laundering on the side. Overall, nothing special.
However, in order to hide its activities even from nosy wannabe whistleblowers, the company also produces phantom documents and correspondence about some "great big plan" or other, and mixes them in with well-timed "leaks", so that if an otherwise mildly competent online search finds a thread to pull on, the "grand scheme" docs start spilling first. Only, they have no real trail within the company itself.
So when an accusation is leveled about said grand scheme, the company simply allows an inspection - that produces no evidence, because there simply isn't any - and the rest of the potential accusations are dismissed as part of the whole package - that is, a crappy attempt at slander by a malicious litigant. And the company walks away scot-free.
Substitute company for government, or NGO, and it's the exact same deal. It's gaslighting in its purest form, where people are intentionally made to chase paranoid delusions, instead of looking for practical goals and motives.