The thesis blaming AI for shutting most people out of the system

AI and the suspicion that most people are surplus to the new order

What if the problem were not that artificial intelligence destroys jobs, but that the economic and demographic system surrounding it was already designed to do without the majority? The discussion starts from a blunt thesis: the elites who have ruled since the Protestant and French revolutions —and who have consolidated their power through the so-called colour revolutions— apply eugenic criteria and see the majorities as a useful nuisance. AI would be the final blow, not the cause.

The thread does not stop at the slogan. It jumps to demographics, to the history of the Church and to the political economy of the female wage. And that is where the data and calculations underpinning the conversation appear.

From eugenics to the demographic agenda

One of the most developed lines argues that contemporary eugenics does not work through sterilisation, but through incentives. Women are empowered with public or subsidised salaries, via coercion of private companies, under the label of gender equality. The result, the argument goes, is consumerism with a raised male standard: it is claimed that a female graduate would only accept men with the physiques of Marvel actors. The consequence would be falling birth rates and reproduction concentrated among the **top 20%** of men.

The calculation has a hole that the thread itself detects: the arrival of immigrants should offset that decline. It does not. The answer given is that the birth rate of foreigners also collapses once they arrive, even in India. The decline is global, not confined to one country.

What is the 2030 Agenda and who wrote it?

The conversation drifts towards authorship. It is claimed that the 2030 Agenda was drafted by the Catholic pope, and that the encyclical on AI was too, after receiving at the Watercano **Amodei of Anthropic, Elon Musk and other CEOs** who are atheists or of other religions. This is not a verified claim, but it serves as a bridge to the historical thesis: the Church already did something similar after the coup d'état by its puppet Constantine.

The parallel is laid out along several axes. The first, geopolitical: the founding of Constantinople in **330 AD** as the New Rome, with full citizenship and free bread rations to attract population, tripling the size of the city within a few years. The second, legal: Constantine repealed Augustus's rules that penalised celibacy and childlessness, benefiting Christian virgins and celibates who could inherit without penalties. The goal, it is argued, was not birth rates but changing the demographics in order to impose a new system.

The attack on educated men and the date of 2045

Another strand describes an attack on humanity that would have begun with Westerners, and among them with the most educated and sensitive men, those closest to the values of Jesus Christ even if they are atheists. The villain still respected would have three or four years of leeway. The forecast being floated: by **2045** we will start to see it.

Against that reading, there is a fundamental objection: after the industrial revolution and the massive use of fossil fuels, humanity quadrupled in less than a century. That is dangerous and unviable. The complaint is not about the diagnosis, but about the method: a few have decided the solution without consulting anyone.

---

In the end, the discussion splits between those who see a deliberate agenda and those who see a historical process with perverse incentives. AI appears not as the cause, but as the alibi. And the question remains unanswered: if the majority is surplus, who decides what counts as surplus?