Ever had the experience of something you’re looking at disappearing right in front of your eyes? It’s disconcerting. You’re sitting in a huge old library, leafing through the tome you ordered up from the stacks, you turn a page and pouf! — the book dematerialises in your hands.
That’s akin to what just happened with deagel.com‘s forecasts for 2025.
Deagel reports on military-industrial affairs, along the lines of the much better-known Janes defence and security platform; articles assessing weapons systems and acquisitions, R & D, military expenditure, states of readiness, that kind of thing… As such it is of specialised interest.
But in 2014 its comprehensive country-by-country 2025 forecast attracted wider attention, because it arrived the bottom line — military expenditure — via some startling projections about population.
I’d taken a quick look at the site years two or three years ago. Almost every country in the world was listed, together with population, GDP, relative purchasing power, military budget and so on. According to the forecasts, the year 2025 would see population trends thrown into reverse, with the global population projected to decline by over a billion people.
Counterintuitively, these losses would be concentrated, not in the Third World as comfortable Westerners might prefer to assume, but in the West itself. USA, the Five/Eyes British Commonwealth countries, Western Europe and Scandinavia registered the most brutal reductions.
The population of the USA, for example, would shrink to 61 million people — an astonishing 80% reduction on the 2013 census. The United Kingdom would be hit almost as hard. These were the deepest cuts, but losses on a comparable scale were registered across the Western block, country after country being devastated by population collapses comparable with the effects of the mid-fourteenth century ‘Black Death’.
In contrast, India would continue to grow, though more slowly than the current rate, as would Pakistan, Indonesia and Brazil. China and Japan would experience significant but manageable reductions, while losses in Russia would be marginal.
In marked contrast to the rich world, Second and Third World countries continued to grow or experienced relatively modest reductions. Thailand, for example, was slated to lose three and a half million of its 68 million inhabitants, around 5% of its population, while Australia to the South would decline by 60%, and even the fabled sanctuary of New Zealand would lose a quarter of its people.
No commentary or explanation of the methodology was provided. A brief ‘Disclaimer’ stated that the website was ‘non-profit, built on spare time’, had no links to any government, and provided its information ‘AS IS, without further explanations and/or guarantees.’ The forecasts were merely a model built on ‘speculative assumptions’.
This did nothing to dispel the mystery. What were these ‘speculative assumptions’? What might happen to bring about this utter collapse of population throughout the Western block? What was the scenario being modelled here?
‘Does Deagel know something we don’t?’ was the question everywhere.
The site responded to all the unexpected attention with a second, expanded Disclaimer dated 26th October 2014, explaining the general rationale behind the model. Noting that ‘There have been many questions about the countries forecast specially the one focusing on the United States’, and promising some ‘explanations, thoughts and reflections’, the author goes first to the question of its sources:
The majority of the economic and demographic data used in the making of the forecasts is widely available by institutions such as the CIA, IMF, UN, USG, etc. You can see the most relevant data at every single country’s page. There is a tiny part of data coming from a variety of shadow sources such as Internet gurus, unsigned reports and others. But all these sources are from the internet and are of public domain for at least a minority. For example, several years ago Dagong, the Chinese ratings agency, published a report analyzing the physical economy of the States comparing it with those of China, Germany and Japan. The conclusion was that the US GDP was something between $5 to $10 trillion instead of $15 trillion as officially reported by the USG. We assume that the official data, especially economic, released by governments is fake, cooked or distorted in some degree.
He then gets into the premises on which the forecast is based, with a reflection on the consequences of an ebola pandemic:
So far the few cases of Ebola-infected people have “enjoyed” intensive healthcare with anti-viral and breathing assistance but above all with abundant human support by Physicians and nurses. In a pandemic scenario that kind of healthcare won’t be available for the overwhelming number of infected leading to a dramatic increase of the death rate due to the lack of proper healthcare. The “quality” factor is that the death rate could increase to 80-90% in a pandemic scenario from the stated 50-60% rate.
This turns out to be something of a false start, since neither a pandemic nor a nuclear war figures among the forecasts’ ‘speculative premises’.
So what is it that Deagel was modelling? What was going to wipe all these millions from the census?
Simple: the collapse of the Western financial system, inevitable since 2008.
First he reassures us that not all of these disappearing people are going to die:
The countries’ forecast population numbers do reflect birth/deaths but also migratory movements. Many countries are going to increase their gross population due to immigration while their native population may shrink.
Nevertheless, ‘the death toll will be horrible.’ The West will fall much harder than the Soviet Union 30 years ago, its problems exacerbated by top-heavy demographics and economic reliance on a service sector which will disappear along with the financial system. It’s ‘a confluence of crisis with a devastating result’, dwarfing the collapse of the Soviet empire.
I’d gone back to the site after seeing an interview with Stanley Johnson, father of the UK’s current prime minister, in which he expresses the view that the ideal population of Britain would be somewhere between 10 and 15 million. That rang a bell — didn’t Deagel’s forecast fall within that range?
Furthermore, speaking in 2012, Johnson said that such a reduction needed to be achieved ‘at a limit’ by 2025.
That year again.
Please note that I am not proposing Johnson senior as some kind of arch-villain pulling strings behind the scenes — merely suggesting that as an former European Commissioner, his thinking might be taken as representative of establishment-environmentalist orthodoxy across the multilateralist institutions, not just the EC but the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the WEF, the WHO and the rest.
And yes — the UK population was projected at 14 million, within the desired range as expressed by European Commission panjandrum Stanley Johnson, whose son — no doubt under unremitting pressure from his GSK and BMGF advisers — now enacts precisely the policies which allow us to see with chilling clarity the route to such a societal collapse.
In late April this year, thinking of writing something about the depopulation agenda, I went back to Deagel.com and found that everything had changed. The site had been redesigned, with a cleaner, more modern look — and the 2025 forecasts had completely disappeared.
This didn’t strike me as good news: these apocalyptic forecasts had sat there for seven or eight years, and for them to abruptly disappear at this critical juncture seemed only to underline their significance. A year into the pandemic, with a devastating economic and supply-chain collapse inching closer with every lockdown, this looked very much like the belated suppression of something that was never intended to attract such widespread attention in the first place.
If so, the move backfired, only re-intensifying the curiosity. Internet researchers renewed their efforts to find out who ran the site, and finally made a breakthrough. One of the hosts of Marfoogl.tv was finally able to put a name to the domain registration by digging back to its inception using the ‘WhoIs’ registry. The registration had been hidden from 2014 onwards, but you know what they say — the internet never forgets.
The name was Edwin A Deagle. Details of Deagle’s career and the content of occasional published writings by him confirmed the plausibility of the identification. We had our webmaster, the impatient, authoritative voice of the disclaimers.
This is an important breakthrough — but it is also heralds more bad news. Why? Because this man was well connected and highly experienced in his field. Deagle’s background was in the US airforce and army (he was a decorated combatant in Viet Nam). After the war he became a national security expert, an adviser to the Carter transition team. Ultimately he was recruited as Director of the International Relations at the Rockefeller Foundation.
My heart sank. Readers may or may not be aware of the influence of the Rockefeller Institute in creating and controlling a professionally centralised medical-pharmaceutical complex from the turn of the twentieth century onwards. Rockefeller interests are notorious for their leadership in eugenics programmes, pre-war, in both the United States and the German Fourth Reich. According to historians Anthony C Sutton and Webster Tarpley among others, Rockefeller industries partnered with I G Farben, the corporate powerhouse of National Socialistism, both in co-ownership of the Auschwitz labour camp and the provision of key technologies to Germany which it refused to share with the Allies until forced to after the US entry into the war in 1942. A number of today’s most prominent pharmaceutical companies derive directly from the post-war break-up of the Farben chemical conglomerate.
Deagle’s CV, with its Rockefeller, CFR and Trilateral Commission connections, holds open the possibility of unacknowledged sources, and only adds weight to his speculations. It would have been more reassuring to discover that the author or the forecasts was some unknown amateur.
Edwin Deagle died of cancer on 16th February of this year, and sometime between the 1st and 23rd April his site was redesigned and the 2025 forecasts abruptly suppressed.
There is some good news along with all this — though it’s only good news about the bad news, I’m afraid. First, an anonymous internet researcher was able to dig up the forecasts and archive them here: https://archive.is/nAHJK. [The link is included in this interview with Doug Casey, whose analysis is worth reading.]
After Deagel’s final tweaks, both the US and the UK are let off a little bit more lightly, at 100 million and 22 million — losses of around 70 and 65% of their respective populations.
The Deagel forecasts are only one premise among many for my black-pilled conviction that we are witnessing the beginning of a long-anticipated 21st century Great Cull. Orthodox Covidians should not think that in my scepticism about the pandemic I am in any way minimising the horrors we are facing. Quite the contrary.
Beyond the highly ambiguous impacts of the pandemic itself, what I’m seeing down the road — I’m sorry — is iatrogenic holocaust, economic breakdown, mass starvation, and the collapse of the fragile societies of the West.
Not only do we have the raw figures, we have — more good news about the bad news — a new edge in interpreting them. Late in 2020, after tweaking his figures for what would turn out to be the last time, Deagle dashed off a third, ‘post-COVID’ version of the Disclaimer, with some compelling — and disturbing — additions and variations.
Possibly it was this essay as much as anything which finally led to the suppression of the notorious Deagel forecasts after his death in February 2021. This third and final version should be read in full, and I reproduce the whole text below.
It is essential reading. Enjoy.
Disclaimer #3 dated Friday, September 25th, 2020
In 2014 we published a disclaimer about the forecast. In six years the scenario has changed dramatically. This new disclaimer is meant to single out the situation from 2020 onwards. Talking about the United States and the European Union as separated entities no longer makes sense. Both are the Western block, keep printing money and will share the same fate.
After COVID we can draw two major conclusions:
The Western world success model has been built over societies with no resilience that can barely withstand any hardship, even a low intensity one. It was assumed but we got the full confirmation beyond any doubt.
The COVID crisis will be used to extend the life of this dying economic system through the so called Great Reset.
The Great Reset; like the climate change, extinction rebellion, planetary crisis, green revolution, shale oil (…) hoaxes promoted by the system; is another attempt to slow down dramatically the consumption of natural resources and therefore extend the lifetime of the current system. It can be effective for awhile but finally won’t address the bottom-line problem and will only delay the inevitable. The core ruling elites hope to stay in power which is in effect the only thing that really worries them.
The collapse of the Western financial system – and ultimately the Western civilization – has been the major driver in the forecast along with a confluence of crisis with a devastating outcome. As COVID has proven Western societies embracing multiculturalism and extreme liberalism are unable to deal with any real hardship. The Spanish flu one century ago represented the death of 40-50 million people. Today the world’s population is four times greater with air travel in full swing which is by definition a super spreader. The death casualties in today’s World would represent 160 to 200 million in relative terms but more likely 300-400 million taking into consideration the air travel factor that did not exist one century ago. So far, COVID death toll is roughly 1 million people. It is quite likely that the economic crisis due to the lockdowns will cause more deaths than the virus worldwide.
The Soviet system was less able to deliver goodies to the people than the Western one. Nevertheless Soviet society was more compact and resilient under an authoritarian regime. That in mind, the collapse of the Soviet system wiped out 10 percent of the population. The stark reality of diverse and multicultural Western societies is that a collapse will have a toll of 50 to 80 percent depending on several factors but in general terms the most diverse, multicultural, indebted and wealthy (highest standard of living) will suffer the highest toll. The only glue that keeps united such aberrant collage from falling apart is overconsumption with heavy doses of bottomless degeneracy disguised as virtue. Nevertheless the widespread censorship, hate laws and contradictory signals mean that even that glue is not working any more. Not everybody has to die migration can also play a positive role in this.
The formerly known as second and third world nations are an unknown at this point. Their fate will depend upon the decisions they take in the future. Western powers are not going to take over them as they did in the past because these countries won’t be able to control their own cities far less likely countries that are far away. If they remain tied to the former World Order they will go down along Western powers but won’t experience the brutal decline of the late [ed; latter?] because they are poorer and not diverse enough but rather quite homogenous, used to deal[ing] with some sort of hardship but not precisely the one that is coming. If they switch to China they can get a chance to stabilize but will depend upon the management of their resources.
We expected this situation to unfold and actually is unfolding right now with the November election triggering a major bomb if Trump is re-elected. If Biden is elected there will very bad consequences as well. There is a lot of bad blood in the Western societies and the protests, demonstrations, rioting and looting are only the first symptoms of what is coming. However a new trend is taking place overshadowing this one.
The situation between the three great powers has changed dramatically. The only relevant achievement of the Western powers during the past decade has been the formation of a strategic alliance, both military and economic, between Russia and China. Right now the potential partnership between Russia and the European Union (EU) is dead with Russia turning definitively towards China. That was from the beginning the most likely outcome. Airbus never tried to establish a real partnership but rather a strategy to fade away the Russian aerospace industry. Actually Russia and China have formed a new alliance to build a long haul airliner. Western Europe (not to mention the United States) was never interested in the development of Russia or forming anything other than a master slave relationship with Russia providing raw materials and toeing the line of the West. It was clear then and today is a fact.
Russia has been preparing for a major war since 2008 and China has been increasing her military capabilities for the last 20 years. Today China is not a second tier power compared with the United States. Both in military and economic terms China is at the same level and in some specific areas are far ahead. In the domain of high-tech 5G has been a success in the commercial realm but the Type 055 destroyer is also another breakthrough with the US gaining a similar capability (DDG 51 Flight IIII) by mid of this decade (more likely by 2030). Nanchang, the lead ship of the Type 055 class, was commissioned amid the pandemic and lockdown in China.
Six years ago the likelihood of a major war was tiny. Since then it has grown steadily and dramatically and today is by far the most likely major event in the 2020s. The ultimate conflict can come from two ways. A conventional conflict involving at least two major powers that escalates into an open nuclear war. A second scenario is possible in the 2025-2030 timeframe. A Russian sneak first strike against the United States and its allies with the new S-500, strategic missile defenses, Yasen-M submarines, INF Zircon and Kalibr missiles and some new space asset playing the key role. The sneak first strike would involve all Russian missile strategic forces branches (bombers and ground-based missiles) at the different stages of such attack that would be strategic translation of what was seen in Syria in November 2015. There was no report that the Russian had such a capability of launching a high precision, multiple, combined arms attack at targets 2,000+ kilometers away. Western intelligence had no clue. The irony is that since the end of the Cold War the United States has been maneuvering through NATO to achieve a position to execute a first strike over Russia and now it seems that the first strike may occur but the country finished would be the United States.
Another particularity of the Western system is that its individuals have been brainwashed to the point that the majority accept their moral high ground and technological edge as a given. This has given the rise of the supremacy of the emotional arguments over the rational ones which are ignored or deprecated. That mindset can play a key role in the upcoming catastrophic events. At least in the Soviet system the silent majority of the people were aware of the fallacies they were fed up. We can see the United States claims about G5 being stolen from them by China or hypersonic technology being stolen by Russia as the evidence that the Western elites are also infected by that hubris. Over the next decade it will become obvious that the West is falling behind the Russia-China block and the malaise might grow into desperation. Going to war might seem a quick and easy solution to restore the lost hegemony to finally find them into a France 1940 moment. Back then France did not have nuclear weapons to turn a defeat into a victory. The West might try that swap because the unpleasant prospect of not being Mars and Venus but rather a bully and his dirty bitch running away in fear while the rest of the world is laughing at them.
This website is non-profit, built on spare time and we provide our information and services AS IS without further explanations and/or guarantees. We are not linked to any government. Take into account that the forecast is nothing more than a game of numbers whether flawed or correct based upon some speculative assumptions.
If there is not a dramatic change of course the world is going to witness the first nuclear war. The Western block collapse may come before, during or after the war. It does not matter. A nuclear war is a game with billions of casualties and the collapse plays in the hundreds of millions.
So there it is. As that black-pilled priest said, live-streaming as he walks home from the Basilica through the deserted streets of Rome, the most important thing is not to pretend it isn’t happening. Unless we face the reality of where we are and what is coming, no meaningful actions, decisions or preparations — whether political, legal, financial, medical, social, practical or spiritual — can be made in response to the destiny modelled out for us in Edwin Deagle’s numbers.
APPENDIX: Foreword to World Energy Survey by Ruth Sivard, 2nd edition (1981), by Edwin A. Deagle, Jr.
“The massive energy transition the world has been undergoing since 1973 continues to be full of surprises. Past predictions of energy independence based on a diversity of supplies; of the unlikelihood that conservation based on higher energy prices would be much help; of the prospect that OPEC countries would drive prices higher and higher have all proven wrong. Many people now interpret the current surplus in he oil market as evidence that the power of OPEC is broken and the energy crisis is essentially over. This prediction is undoubtedly wrong too.”
“What is true is that energy will remain high on the policy agenda of most countries for a decade and probably longer. New sources of supply require vast sums of capital and long periods of time to bring to the market. The promise of renewable sources of energy at reasonable prices remains in the future. conservation in reaction to high energy prices has been the most successful public response to the energy transition to date, greatly overshadowing the efforts of governments.”
“Nevertheless, governments and international agencies have begun to act. We note that the United Nations is holding a Conference on New and Renewable Sources of Energy at Nairobi, in August 1981. It is the first international effort in some time to attempt to fashion strategies for international action; and we hope that it will be successful.”
“In the belief that informed public opinion is both the prerequisite and the guarantee of effective public policy, The Rockefeller Foundation is pleased to support the work of Ruth Sivard in preparing this volume. Revised and expanded from an earlier version published in 1979, the volume is intended to provide an overview of the world energy situation and prospects for the future. Its merit, in our judgment, lies in the useful way it marshals complex facts and issues for the lay reader. The foundation takes no formal positions on matters of public policy and therefore does not, by its sponsorship, necessarily endorse the substantive views expressed in this report. We are pleased, however, to support this useful work with the hope that it will contribute greatly to public understanding of these complex and vexing issues.”
Edwin A. Deagle, Jr., Ph.D.
Director, International Relations
The Rockefeller Foundation