Bilderberger Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Used for Human Depopulation

1. 61

   sannyasinmanposted 13 years ago

   Bill Gates is at the Bilderberg Group meeting in Sitges, Spain 6 June 2010. His foundation donates billions to fund new vaccines. Now we know why .. .   
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A … r_embedded
   
   Bilderberg Group's Depopulation Plans
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlcGtbDzy1w

   replyreport
   1. 60

      LarasMamaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The second excerpt in link one didn't appear to say exactly that - it seems a bit taken out of context.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Or very out of context!
         
         Bill Gates is way out of his depth, he should stick with software development. A typical case of a man with too much power and not enough general knowledge.
         
         A few seconds in he states that Co2 emissions need to be 'zero'. We would in fact all die extremely quickly if Co2 emissions were zero, since this would kill every single eco-system.
         
         Quite how he believes humans can change their breathing habits is beyond me, a good way for him to help achieve 'zero' Co2 emissions would be to stop spouting too much crap. Talking produces a significant amount of Co2.
         
         He is a scary man.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Gates is talking about reducing MAN MADE Co2 emissions, not ALL Co2. If man made Co2 emissions were reduced to zero, we would not "in fact all die extremely quickly" because there would still be naturally occurring Co2 in the environment.
            
            Indeed trying to reduce man made Co2 emissions makes sense if those emissions are a contributing factor to climate change.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Did you even watch the video? He clearly states "Co2 emissions need to be zero", I am simply pointing out that this is factually incorrect, since zero Co2 emissions mean death.
               
               If you didn't bother to watch the video then please do not speculate as to the clear verbal content.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Don't be an idiot. At the very beginning of the video he talks about Co2 emissions, saying "for each American it's about 20 tons. For people in poor countries it's about 1 ton. Its an average of about 5 tons for everyone on the planet. Somehow we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero."
                  
                  Clearly he is referring to Co2 emissions made by people and their activities.
                  
                  And if that's not obvious enough he then goes on to show a graph titled "Global Carbon Emissions from Energy Production" showing Co2 emissions in gigatons from 1855 to 2009, i.e. from the late industrial revolution to the present. Again clearly he is referring to man-made Co2 emissions.
                  
                  And if that isn't clear enough for you, he then presents a formula for Co2 emissions, which has four variables: People, Services per Person, Energy per service and Co2 per unit energy. Once again it's clear Gates is referring to Co2 emissions caused by people and their activities.
                  
                  Try actually listening to what is being said in the video rather than just hearing it. Quoting out of context is something I expect from newspapers and theatre notices. By doing the same you're in serious danger of appearing to be a moron which, in this case, you do.

                  replyreport
   2. 82

      Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Get your facts right.
      
      Gates believes vaccines reduce the infant mortality rate, and that reducing the number of child deaths and increasing health actually helps in reducing population growth.
      
      "A surprising but critical fact we [gates and his wife] learned was that reducing the number of deaths actually reduces population growth. Chart 3 shows the strong connection between infant mortality rates and fertility rates. Contrary to the Malthusian view that population will grow to the limit of however many kids can be fed, in fact parents choose to have enough kids to give them a high chance that several will survive to support them as they grow old. As the number of kids who survive to adulthood goes up, parents can achieve this goal without having as many children."
      (2009 Annual Letter from Bill Gates: Childhood Deaths)

      replyreport
2. 0

   ryankettposted 13 years ago

   No he doesn't, he actually advocates the use of vaccines to reduce the growth in population growth. That is far away from the idea of 'depopulation'. I don't like your spin.
   
   It may still not be ethical, but your conclusion is not accurate. I was more concerned that the owner of one of the worlds biggest manufacturers is lecturing people about Co2 emmissions.... that strikes me as hypocritical.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly.  Education and human rights does the same thing.  So by OPs logic we would be better off living in the dark ages.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      lxxyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      To...reduce the growth of population growth?
      
      And you don't see any sort of eugenic nightmare in that?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I mean reduce the rate of population growth.
         
         China achieved this quite successfully through legislation, without the systematic slaughter of their people.
         
         Nobody has to die to reduce population growth, less people need to be born.
         
         Whether you like it or not, the World population is growing too fast. It is only right that world leaders consider ways and means to manage their resources. Although that should be on a national level, not a global level.
         
         Would I be happy if Bill Gates was genuinely intending to propose the lowering of fertility rates through vaccination? No, I would be freaked the f' out. But he isn't necessarily implying this, you could spin whatever sentence any way you want.
         
         I do think that Bill Gates should mind his own business though. He is from a country which has sufficient resources to effectively sustain population growth, through the restructure of its capital systems. He has profited through those capital systems.
         
         A good place to start would be for the redistribution of wealth, an 80% inheritance tax on the estates of billionaires. Then when this whiney man pops his clogs, the US government could use some of his money to prop up their failing social services or manage their national debts.
         
         There are sufficient world resources to go around in a fairer system. I am not talking about communism or anything that extreme. Bill Gates, William Buffett, Richard Branson, they all lecture tirelessly on problems that the existence of the Bourgeoisie has effectively caused.
         
         It is the ultimate irony.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lxxyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not saying they're going to outright slaughter, but would you call dozens of abandoned XOR killed chinese girls 'successful'?
            
            It's a tricky concept--but make no mistake about it, having ANYONE decide "who gets to procreate, and who doesn't." is a bit too close to NAZI germany for me.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Well Bill Gates scares me too, don't worry.
               
               There should be systems in place to avoid individuals attaining some much power.
               
               A cap on the wealth of an individual does not need to hinder the growth of a corporation. It would just mean that the profits of a corporation are distributed more widely. I would much rather see 53 people worth $1bn than one man worth $53bn, put it that way.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  lxxyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You and I think surprising alike!
                  
                  But then that shifts power from people in corporations--to say--a government entity to enforce said restrictions, no?
                  
                  And who are those people?
                  
                  Great convo Sadly, I'm off to curl up in bed and watch The Crow II with k@ri.
                  
                  Hope to catch you around!

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Enjoy!

                     replyreport
      2. 84

         psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No.  The reduction is voluntary not imposed.  He is talking about creating conditions that cause people to *choose* to have fewer children. That has nothing at all to do with eugenics.  These condtions include health, wealth, and education.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lxxyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Reminds me of VHEMT: "Let us live long and die out."

            replyreport
         2. 0

            ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Spot on. Believe it or not a healthier society chooses themselves not to have as many children.
            
            In many cultures it is essential that a family has children in order for them to work for the family. They are so used to seeing men and children die early that they have to leave behind sons to ensure that their elders and supported financially.
            
            That plays a major part in why the birth rates in Africa and undeveloped Asia are so much higher than that of the US, UK, Japan etc... we can have two children and be pretty confident that they will be around longer than us!
            
            Sad but true. Perhaps this is where his references about vaccination lie? Look at how many children and young adults in some parts of Africa are lost to malaria and other preventable diseases. This does not reduce the population, it increases the population, as you may need 3 or 4 children to ensure that one makes it adulthood.

            replyreport
   3. 61

      sannyasinmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Even by your interpretation, please explain to me how there is a role for vaccines in the "reduction of population growth"?  We are talking about vaccines here, which we are supposed to prevent diseases and save lives.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         When fewer children die due to disease people feel more secure and have smaller families, confident that their few children will survive to look after them in their old age.  It is a well proven phenomenon.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Looks like I interpreted that correctly then! Great minds think alike

            replyreport
3. 61

   sannyasinmanposted 13 years ago

   Call me old-fashioned, but aren't vaccines supposed to save lives?
   
   We can argue the symantics of "human depopulation" versus "reducing the growth in population growth" but either way, it amounts to human beings either being killed or refused the right to live - through vaccines.
   
   Swine flu jab anyone?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lxxyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I concur. Maybe not to the swine flu thing, but with ever sophisticated garage chemists and biologists these days it just may be possible.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I really think you have totally misunderstood what he is saying.

      replyreport
4. 79

   jiberishposted 13 years ago

   I saw an interview with Ted Turner who advocates the same thing, Population Control

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lxxyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You're absolutely correct.
      
      It's one of those things people with lots of money see as a way of improving demographics and restructuring society.
      
      So far out though, not many understand the true reality behind it.

      replyreport
5. 61

   sannyasinmanposted 13 years ago

   . .and of course Ted Turner, Bill Gates and others in their group will put members of their own families first in line - to show good faith. .
   
   did anyone watch the second video? It also mentions Ted Turner. 
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlcGtbDzy1w

   replyreport
   1. 84

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I am sure everyone in Bill Gates family is vaccinated, and that they use borth control to have small families.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You are (I hope) being cynical?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Why would she be? Of course Bill Gates family will have been fully vaccinted, and of course they will at times use contraception. I guess that the concepts are above your head? A healthy chooses to have less children. That is why the birth rates in the US, Japan and other developed countries are not only sustainable but potentially even insufficient.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You may be right, Bill & Co may have been vaccinated, but I suspect he and his cohorts will have received the antidote rather than the precursor.
               
               You are far too trusting, eugenics is alive and well, and a few years ago, when I was involved in power stuff, I agreed with the program, it made sense to limit of stop those 'less able' from producing progeny.
               
               Thankfully I saw the error in that way of thinking.
               
               Google and research the 'Club of Rome' and their decisions made in 1991.
               
               I wrote about it in a hub for the Copenhagen Treaty

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  "less able", I think that you may mean "less priviledged".

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     That's the right conclusion, but they do call them less able.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        And who are 'they'? They don't where I am from.

                        replyreport
                        1. 71

                           aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           That's good, it means that you are not a NWO stooge, there is hope!
                           
                           I'm not going to post the link, no self promotion, but I did write a hub dealing with this, as I said its called: Copenhagen trick or treaty, and if you spin down to the Club of Rome bit, it shows you who and what they are.

                           replyreport
      2. 61

         sannyasinmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         If you knew what was in, for example, the swine flu vaccine, you would never agree to take it.
         
         And you can be pretty sure that no-one in Bill Gates's or Ted Turner's circle has taken it - unless, as they did in Germany, the pharma company produced a different "clean version" for the chosen few.

         replyreport
6. 71

   aguasilverposted 13 years ago

   I suspect that we are looking at good old eugenics here, plain and simple, the Illuminati /NWO cabal reckon that the 'Global Agenda' is now acceptable to the 'new global awareness humanity' they have created by media manipulation, and are moving to stage two.
   
   I foresee that all these 'poor black and Asian' folk who get their children vaccinated for free, will either find that the vaccine effectively sterilizes those children, or that it infects them with part one of a two part virus, the second part to be released at any given point that the NWO are ready to depopulate the world by 5.5 billion.
   
   The UN via Kissinger admitted this in 1964, it's just taken a while to prepare and condition the world from nationalistic sovereign thinking to universal (as in the top ten nations) global awareness.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Oh dear, with an outlook like that you may as well volunteer to be one of the 5.5bn. Do you really look at the world in such a bitter and twisted way? I would sooner die at 45 having been happy for 45 years than die at 90 having lived my entire life in a bubble of fear and paranoia. What will be will be. There is nothing to be gained by reducing the world population by 5.5bn, the very people who lose are the Bill Gates of this world. The developed world has built its fortunes through the exploitation of the third world and the developing world, killing them all would make no sense to anybody but your small clique of freaks.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I have no fear whatsoever, I just know about the ploys and ways of these folk.
         
         500 million is what they have calculated will be sufficient to service the power elite, and with modern computer technology (OOOH Bill Gates knows about that) they estimate that they can run a very cosy world that serves them, and those who are 'have nots' and have survived, will be their controlled and well maintained slaves.
         
         I am 59, so in reality these scenarios will not affect me, nor my ilk, they may affect my children, but they are also aware and protected from this sort of NWO manipulation, so go figure, I'm just an old guy blowing off steam, or I'm someone who has observed and studied the evidence and see's through their plans.
         
         I care not a jot.

         replyreport
7. 67

   MikeNVposted 13 years ago

   There is a large percentage of the "masses" that have no idea what is going on... ignorance, then there are those who don't want to believe what is going on..., then there are the rest of us who can see what is going on.
   
   Yesterday there was a new story on how much more expensive food has become in the past 2 years in impoverished countries with families spending 70% of their income on food.
   
   Most people are completely unaware of the worldwide privatization of Water Systems.
   
   So you take away the food, you take away the water, then you add in a vaccine to stop reproduction.
   
   It's pretty clear the depopulation agenda is in full swing.
   
   And using "Global Warming" as the tool to accelerate the depopulation is the easiest route.
   
   Gates needs to stop exhaling C02 and society needs to stop listening to people just because they have money. Money doesn't equal intelligence.
   
   On the flip side population can not continue unchecked forever... something, someone, somehow it will reach a maximum.  I am never really surprised to hear another story about an impoverished family with more than a half dozen children.  At what point do the impoverished "wake up" and realize they can not on their own abilities support the additional humans they are creating?
   
   If you don't have money why would you continue to have children?  And who should/would/will pay for them?
   
   These are tough questions to answer.

   replyreport
8. 65

   TinaMarieTadposted 13 years ago

   It is quite common knowlege that the members of the Bilderberger group advocate a One World Order as well as
   population control. One simply has to research the members to see that it is common beliefs amongst many members.
   
   Vaccines, are just one way in which they assume they can execute population control, there are many more..
   
   Great topic!

   replyreport
   1. 84

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It is common myth rather than common knowledge IMHO.  This thread seems to bare no relation whatsoever to what the man actually said.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         TinaMarieTadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You are correct about it being common assumption/myth..because the Bildeberger group does not disclose information and are very private. Thanks for your reply..

         replyreport
9. 74

   Arthur Fontesposted 13 years ago

   THE MESSAGE OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES
   
   1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
   2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
   3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
   4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
   5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
   6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
   7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
   8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
   9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
   10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

   replyreport
10. 60

    Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

    First, as others observed, Bill Gates did not say what the title of this post suggests. The Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation is giving away billions to improve the human condition. I don't get the minutes to the meetings, but it seems possible that the group observed the facutal estimates -
    
    Human population from 1900 to 2000 trippled -from approximately 2 Billion people to over 6 Billion.
    
    No responsible scientist believes that the earth can sustain a trippling again in this century. The Earth can not support 18 Billion humans.
    
    If you believe that (and I do) then there are 2 options.
    
    First - Implement planned strategies of incentives and disincentives to stabilize human population.
    
    OR
    
    Allow humans to breed into planetary collapse and allow mass starvation to do what planning failed to accomplish. 
    
    Which do you prefer?

    replyreport
11. 70

    pylos26posted 13 years ago

    Mr Hughes...you have my support with your comments.

    replyreport