Today at the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation conference, David Cameron pledged a further £814 million of British taxpayer money towards third-world vaccination programs.
Bill Gates, a well known vaccine advocate who jointly hosted the conference with Cameron, pledged a billion dollars to the fund.
According to activists, Gates, though not on the official attendee list, was present at the Bilderberg conference in Switzerland on friday.
At TED 2010, Gates revealed that vaccines will play a role in reducing the population, and has since repeated this many times.
The 'nothing to see here' explanation for Bill Gates' quote is that the population of the third world is currently high due to poor health, and improving the health will lower the population. For a while, I struggled to follow the logic that the population of the third world is high because lot's of children are dying, but now I see it does make sense. The populations of western countries are lower because they naturally stabilized when the countries developed, due to an overall improvement in health. The reason poverty causes overpopulation is because high child mortality leads to mothers having more kids.
Let's say for example a country has a ten percent child mortality rate. In other words, one in ten children will die before they reach adulthood. Such a high rate will prompt parents to have more kids to balance it out, but since you can't have 0.1 of a kid, most parents will say have one more kid, resulting in more births than deaths and an increase in the population.
Now I still see some logical problems with this. For one thing, when population increases, so does poverty, which would increase the death rate and you'd think it would balance out. Also there are other reasons why birth rates in western countries are lower, such as the fact that we have better access to contraceptives.
Nonetheless, improving health in the third world most likely would lower the population as Gates' defenders claim, but there are a number of reasons to suspect that improving health isn't his goal. The elite tend to talk in code (e.g. whenever they say 'security', they mean tyranny) and we're not basing our 'paranoia' entirely on Bill Gates' words. It's more of a dot connecting exercise. As I said before in a response to Pat Curley:
I didn't interpret Bill Gates' statement as an admission like other people have - "see, Bill Gates admitted vaccines are bad" - but rather I see it as another dot to connect. I already know vaccines are bad, that's Dot No. 1. I also know, from all the scandals, and from common sense, that man-made global warming is a fraud, that's Dot No. 2. And here's a multi-billionaire, who's associated with the likes of David Rockefeller (there's twenty more dots right there!), invoking the climate fraud and saying vaccines are going to be used for population control ... You connect the dots!The reason Bill Gates wants to lower the population of the third world supposedly is to reduce global CO2 emissions to combat 'climate change'. Whenever the 'threat' of climate change is invoked to justify something, you should be suspicious. In ancient times the priest class would claim whenever there was a solar eclipse that a 'snake god' was eating the sun, and would eat the Earth unless their tribes worshipped them. This whole climate hysteria is just the modern day equivalent - blaming humans for natural phenomena. Hell, they tried blaming the earthquake in Japan on 'climate change'. It may very well have been due to climate change, but of course when they say 'climate change', they're implying 'human CO2', which is ridiculous.
I challenge anyone to read this excellent analysis of the leaked 'ClimateGate' emails and still have 100% confidence in the 'science' of anthropogenic global warming.
Another thing to consider is that the elite have no intention of developing the third world. In fact, the environmental movement has become the number one force for preventing third-world development. This is exposed in the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
This is made obvious in Bill Gates' TED talk with his formula: P×S×E×C. It's no good lowering the P (Population) of the third world if you're going to increase its S, E and C (Services, Energy and Carbon use), because that would just cancel it out. So in the same way the western world has to lower its S, E and C to be more 'sustainable', which will condemn us to poverty, the third world must remain in poverty.
If you still doubt that 'depopulation' means 'killing people', consider this. According to veteran Bilderberg journalist Jim Tucker, who has moles inside the meetings who leak intel to him every year that allows him to essentially predict the future, one of the main talking points at this year's Bilderberg, which Bill Gates attended, was the wars in the middle east. According to Tucker, "They're unifed on their war project. Their rationalization is that the world is too crowded anyway, they have to limit the population growth, and one way to do it is with our wars. They've been amplifying that all day". So in this sense, 'depopulation' really does mean 'killing people'.
Just yesterday, in the NATO/Bilderberg led 'kinetic military action' in Libya, a university was bombed, leaving many innocent students and staff members dead. This is the sort of thing they mean when they say 'depopulation'. It's not about saving lives, it's about ending lives.
So, can you really be sure when they talk about vaccinating the third world to reduce the population, they mean '... by saving lives'?
Can you really be sure that the Microsoft founder who sounds like Kermit the Frog has good intentions?
Since mid-April I've been unemployed again. It's times like this I'm glad I don't pay tax.
