The UN has warned world population could reach 15 billion by 2100, adding pressure to crowded cities such as New Delhi. Photograph: Manish Swarup/AP
The United Nations will warn this week that the world's population could more than double to 15 billion by the end of this century, putting a catastrophic strain on the planet's resources unless urgent action is taken to curb growth rates, the Observer can reveal.
That figure is likely to shock many experts as it is far higher than many current estimates. A previous UN estimate had expected the world to have more than 10 billion people by 2100; currently, there are nearly 7 billion.
The new figure is contained in a landmark study by the United Nations Population Fund (Unfpa) that will be released this week. The report –The State of World Population 2011 – is being compiled to mark the expected moment this month when somewhere on Earth a person will be born who will take the current world population over the 7 billion mark, and will be released simultaneously in cities across the globe.
Some experts reacted with shock to the figure. Roger Martin, chairman of Population Matters, which campaigns on population control, said that the Earth was entering a dangerous new phase. "Our planet is approaching a perfect storm of population growth, climate change and peak oil," he said. "The planet is not actually sustaining 7 billion people."
The Earth has now doubled in population since the 1960s, boosted by high birthrates in Africa, Asia and Latin America as the spread of medicine and better healthcare has seen the mortality rate for young children decline. This has easily offset the general decline in the birthrate of advanced countries. It has also been boosted by an increase in lifespans of people across the world.
Some experts reacted with scepticism that the population would really hit the upper end of the predicted spectrum of growth and reach 15 billion so quickly. Professor Jack Goldstone of George Mason University, author of The Population Bomb, said that he thought world leaders would act to ensure the Earth's population would start to plateau below that higher level. "The means and the desire to reduce the number of children people have is spreading around the world," he said, adding that he thought a level of 10-12 billion would be more likely by 2100.
Many policy experts believe that governments and NGOs have the tools to limit and control the world's population. The key effort, many say, is simply making sure that effective family planning spreads throughout the developing world. "What's really critical is the political commitment of governments. Family planning is not actually that expensive," said John Bongaarts, vice-president of the New York-based Population Council.
However, campaigners on family planning issues often come across cultural and religious factors that make educating women and reducing the size of families difficult.
Some governments make a point of trying to increase their populations, while many religious groups preach against the use of contraceptives.
The Population Research Institute, a Virginia-based group linked to anti-abortion organisations in America, last week welcomed the news that the world's population was set to hit 7 billion this month. "Humanity's long-term problem is not going to be too many children, but too few," said the institute's president, Steven Mosher.
[Webmaster - The global-elitists continue to make their case of overpopulation, thereby supposedly justifying their depopulation efforts. Conspiracy theory? No...their own writings. George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, Aldeous Huxley, H.G. Wells, Charles Galton Darwin, Bill Gates, Ted Turner... eugenisists ... They, and people like them want to decide who will be born...who will live...and who will die. Their depopulation efforts have started: the food you eat, the water you drink, the vaccinations you take. Sterilization, cancer... all increasing exponentially over the last 50 years. It's real and it's here. It is already being done to us.]
World Population Day was celebrated yesterday, as it has been every year since 1989. Propaganda spewed from the United Nations and other “green” organizations tell us that our carbon footprint needs to be reduced, we are having too many children, and our energy consumption needs to be cut in half.
This propaganda is for the ignorant general public that will follow along with trendy ideals that are cloaked with false righteous indignation. The organization Planetsave tells us, “Cut your carbon footprint and consider having a smaller family. In the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than all of the “green” practices you might employ in your entire lifetime…”[Full Article]
A Nano caught fire in Gujarat this week; the fire started near the engine compartment.
This particular Nano was owned by Tata Motors; officials said the car had no mechanical flaw. [Webmaster - Does this mean it was SUPPOSED to burst into flames?]
Last month a Tata Nano caught fire in Mumbai as its new owner was driving it home from the dealership.
MUMBAI, India — A second Tata Nano has caught fire in less than a month in India. This news follows reports last fall that several of the ultralow-priced minicars had faulty electrical switches that caused smoke and melting plastic.
The latest incident involved a Nano owned by Tata Motors itself. Reportedly, the car was being driven to a Tata dealership in Gujarat, India. According to Bloomberg, Tata officials said the car "has no design flaw."
In March, a Nano caught fire in Mumbai while the owner and his family were driving home from the dealership. The car was reduced to ashes. Tata said it is investigating the incident.
Indian press reports have said the fires in both incidents appeared to have started in the rear, in or near the engine compartment.
In a statement to Bloomberg, Tata said, "The Nano has successfully passed the most stringent national and international safety and durability certifications."
The Nano went on sale last July in India, priced from around $2,500. Tata is planning to launch Nano sales in Europe and North America over the next two to three years.
NAIROBI, Kenya — Bill Gates will have the attention of most of the world's health ministers on Tuesday, when he plans to share one main message: Get your vaccination rates up.
Gates is pushing to get countries to increase vaccination rates as an easy, low-cost way to protect their populations. He is scheduled to give the keynote address at the World Health Assembly in Geneva.
The health community wants to see the vaccination rate in every country rise to at least 90 percent, up from about 80 percent currently. A second part of that goal would have no one area in any country be below 80 percent. Gates said the goal will be difficult to meet, though new and cheaper vaccines will help countries improve their rates...[Full Article]
Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation
Next are two short excerpts from a recently filmed TED presentation (Feb 2010) by none other than Bill "Microsoft" Gates.
At the heart of Gates' address lies the central Global Warming dogma, which dictates that Co2 emitted by human beings are the primary culprit for the unwanted heating of the globe. Since this artificial alleged human-induced heating effect allegedly stands to devastate the planet if left unabated, Global Warming dogma proponents therefore argue that human Co2 emissions must be drastically reduced. As Gates casually addresses the issue, he goes on to state that one way to accomplish this goal is to reduce the global human population.
ERRATUM: To be completely fair and accurate, I should have stated that Gates seeks to reduce the anticipated growth of the human population rather than that he seeks to reduce the current population. I admit that the latter slogan, that is contained in the video, is a bit misleading and I do not want to insinuate that Gates seeks to kill off currently living people. He rather seeks to lower the projected population growth.
He postulates the central equation, giving an estimation of the humanly emitted C02 load per year, to be:
Co2 = P times S times E times C
Where P stands for the population number, S the average number of services per person, E the average amount of energy units per service, and C the average Co2 emitted load per unit of service, per year; Co2 stands for the projected total humanly emitted carbon-dioxide load by the entire population per year.
In the first clip you will hear him state in plain language that he considers VACCINES to be desirable to bring down the future population number P and so reduce Co2. You will also casually hear him promoting HEALTH CARE and REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, to accomplish that same C02 reducing goal.
Here are Bill Gates' verbatim words [square parentheses additions for clarification purposes are mine though]: "The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [number of 9 billion] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent. But there we see an increase of about 1.3 [billion]."
Let's focus on the vaccines. Gates is stating that he considers vaccines to be useful in contributing to bring the projected population growth of 2.2 billion down to 1.3 billion, roughly one billion. What kind of properties can thus reasonably be deduced that vaccines are to have according to Gates? Well, basically all the properties that impede people to either have children, or successfully rear them. In other words, Gates implicitly advocates the definition of his favorite kind of vaccine to be one that fosters infertility, sterility and (early onset) senility (autism) alike. Note that Gates does not mention a word on the much touted purported intention of vaccines: to offer protection against relevant diseases and therefore as such, precisely prolong life. Given the abundance of toxins in vaccines (see my blog for some links of simply Google "toxin ingredient vaccine"), the position that vaccines contribute to decrease mortality rates, is kind of hard to maintain.
So Gates proves to be quite the humanitarian there huh?
In the second excerpt you hear Gates explain what he considers to be the single most important thing that he would choose to see become a reality in the future time span of 50 years. He again confirms his "love" for the vaccine.
Many imagine an Orwellian nightmare world in which people will be rounded up and shot en mass, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pohl Pot disposed of their “undesirables.” However, the actual means by which the elite will achieve their 90% reduction in world population will be much subtler than that – and you won’t even see it coming.
(NaturalNews) Bill Gates is promoting a plan to use wireless technology to register every newborn on the planet in a vaccine database.
In a keynote address to the mHealth Summit, which focuses on using mobile technology to improve health care, Gates said that improving survival rates among children under the age of 5 would benefit not just individual families, but societies and the planet as a whole.
"The key thing, the most important fact that people should know and make sure other people know: As you save children under 5, that is the thing that reduces population growth," he said. "That sounds paradoxical. The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have less children."...
Next are two short excerpts from a recently filmed TED presentation (Feb 2010) by none other than Bill "Microsoft" Gates.
At the heart of Gates' address lies the central Global Warming dogma, which dictates that Co2 emitted by human beings are the primary culprit for the unwanted heating of the globe. Since this artificial alleged human-induced heating effect allegedly stands to devastate the planet if left unabated, Global Warming dogma proponents therefore argue that human Co2 emissions must be drastically reduced. As Gates casually addresses the issue, he goes on to state that one way to accomplish this goal is to reduce the global human population.
ERRATUM: To be completely fair and accurate, I should have stated that Gates seeks to reduce the anticipated growth of the human population rather than that he seeks to reduce the current population. I admit that the latter slogan, that is contained in the video, is a bit misleading and I do not want to insinuate that Gates seeks to kill off currently living people. He rather seeks to lower the projected population growth.
He postulates the central equation, giving an estimation of the humanly emitted C02 load per year, to be:
Co2 = P times S times E times C
Where P stands for the population number, S the average number of services per person, E the average amount of energy units per service, and C the average Co2 emitted load per unit of service, per year; Co2 stands for the projected total humanly emitted carbon-dioxide load by the entire population per year.
In the first clip you will hear him state in plain language that he considers VACCINES to be desirable to bring down the future population number P and so reduce Co2. You will also casually hear him promoting HEALTH CARE and REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, to accomplish that same C02 reducing goal.
Here are Bill Gates' verbatim words [square parentheses additions for clarification purposes are mine though]: "The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [number of 9 billion] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent. But there we see an increase of about 1.3 [billion]."
Let's focus on the vaccines. Gates is stating that he considers vaccines to be useful in contributing to bring the projected population growth of 2.2 billion down to 1.3 billion, roughly one billion. What kind of properties can thus reasonably be deduced that vaccines are to have according to Gates? Well, basically all the properties that impede people to either have children, or successfully rear them. In other words, Gates implicitly advocates the definition of his favorite kind of vaccine to be one that fosters infertility, sterility and (early onset) senility (autism) alike. Note that Gates does not mention a word on the much touted purported intention of vaccines: to offer protection against relevant diseases and therefore as such, precisely prolong life. Given the abundance of toxins in vaccines (see my blog for some links of simply Google "toxin ingredient vaccine"), the position that vaccines contribute to decrease mortality rates, is kind of hard to maintain.
So Gates proves to be quite the humanitarian there huh?
In the second excerpt you hear Gates explain what he considers to be the single most important thing that he would choose to see become a reality in the future time span of 50 years. He again confirms his "love" for the vaccine.
Climate change and population control can make for a politically explosive mix, as media mogul Ted Turner demonstrated Sunday when he urged world leaders to institute a global one-child policy to save the Earth’s environment.
Mr. Turner spoke at a luncheon where economist Brian O’Neill from the U.S.’s National Center for Atmospheric Research unveiled his study on the impact of demographic trends on future greenhouse gas emission, a little-discussed subject given its political sensitivity.
Mr. O’Neill’s study concluded that a rapidly rising global population is contributing to an acceleration of emission growth, and that widespread availability of family planning could reduce the amount of emissions reductions required in 2050 by as much as 30 per cent.
Mr. O’Neill acknowledged that discussion of climate change and population is a political minefield. The Roman Catholic Church has condemned any such connection, while developing countries resist rich-world prescriptions that they should limit their populations.
The global population is now close to seven billion people, and is expected to rise to 10 billion by 2050, with 80 per cent of that growth coming in developing countries.
Mr. Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce...
[Webmaster - Ted Turner has 5 children. This is another example of the elitist view of "do as I say, not as I do." Turner views himself as a better person than you and I and not subject to the same rules and regulations he would impose on everyone else.]
On the tails of a recent TED conference where Bill Gates stated that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures, he added more to this insanity last week with a keynote address at the mHealth Summit, an annual gathering whose supposedly focuses on improving health care through mobile technology.
Gates told an audience of more than 2,000 that if we could register every worldwide birth on a cell phone, we could ensure that children receive the proper vaccines. He also said the key to controlling population growth is to save the lives of children under 5; and the next big thing in technology is robots...
WASHINGTON – Fifty years after the pill, another birth control revolution may be on the horizon: free contraception for women in the U.S., thanks to the new health care law.
That could start a shift toward more reliable — and expensive — forms of birth control that are gaining acceptance in other developed countries.
But first, look for a fight over social mores.
A panel of experts advising the government meets in November to begin considering what kind of preventive care for women should be covered at no cost to the patient, as required under President Barack Obama's overhaul.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., author of the women's health amendment, says the clear intent was to include family planning.
An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach nine billion by 2050. Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis—the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year.
"Demography will matter to greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40 years," said Earth systems scientist Brian O'Neill of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, lead author of the analysis, in a statement. "If global population growth slows down, it is not going to solve the climate problem, but it can make a contribution."...
Following the leak of a United Nations blueprint which outlined the plan to replace fearmongering about global warming with the contrived threat of overpopulation, a Scientific American report mimics precisely that talking point, pushing the notion that programs of mass abortion and birth control need to be encouraged in order to reduce the amount of humans on the planet exhaling carbon dioxide.
“Ultimately, family planning alone – such as the use of condoms and other reproductive health services – in parts of the world with growing populations, including the U.S., could restrain population growth significantly, this analysis finds,” writes David Biello.
To back up his argument, Biello links to an article by the completely discredited eugenicist Paul Ehrlich, who once stated that “everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam.”
The article cited by Biello advocates a mass public relations campaign targeted at women to encourage them to have abortions in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In other words, more babies need to be killed to prevent them from exhaling CO2. Coincidentally, the cover of the Scientific American issue in which the article appears features a set of human skulls.
As we revealed in a report last month, the true agenda behind fanning the flames of fears about overpopulation is to reduce living standards globally, by preventing the third world from ever becoming economically prosperous, while also eviscerating the middle classes of western nations.
A leaked UN blueprint concerning the need to re-energize the move towards global government outlined a plan to re-brand global warming as “overpopulation” as a means of dismantling the middle classes while using “global redistribution of wealth” and increased immigration to reinvigorate the pursuit of a one world government.
The aim of globalist institutions is to “limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world,” in other words to reduce the standard of living for the middle classes in Western Europe and America.
Similarly, in his report, Biello decries the potential that “richer people” would lead to more consumption, once again revealing the eugenicist fervor that environmentalists embrace in deliberately preventing the third world from lifting itself out of poverty and mass starvation.
In reality, whenever a country is allowed to develop and become more prosperous, population figures drop naturally, underscoring the fact that environmentalists do not really care about the threat posed by overpopulation, their primary concern is the threat posed to the elite by a stronger middle class globally.
Environmental controls which prevent third world nations from developing infrastructure are fueling overpopulation, starvation and misery, which is precisely how the elitists want it to remain.
Warnings about the threat posed by overpopulation are fundamentally flawed. In reality, underpopulation will be seen as the biggest danger to human prosperity in the latter half of the 21st century.
The UN’s own figures clearly indicate that population is set to stabilize in 2020 and then drop dramatically after 2050. As the Economist reported, “Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.”
Of course, the globalist agenda to reduce world population by as much as 80% in the name of saving the environment, a figure achievable only via draconian and genocidal measures, has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with whittling down the number of slaves so that they can be more easily controlled on the plantation.
Holdren and Ehrlich’s eco-fascist plan to sterilize people through the water supply is already taking effect, as global sperm counts drop and gender-bending chemicals pollute our rivers and lakes, while feminizing antiandrogens are sprayed on our food in the form of pesticides.
Global sperm counts have dropped by a third since 1989 and by half in the past 50 years. The rate of decline is only accelerating as more and more couples find it harder to have children. In studies of white European men, the rate of decline is as much as 50 per cent in the last 30 years. In Italy, this equates to a native population reduction of 22 per cent by 2050. Population reduction is already occurring amongst native residents in many areas of Europe and America.
The agenda to reduce global population, a process that could naturally be achieved by alleviating third world poverty and lifting the living standards of people worldwide, is instead being enacted through the deliberate mass poisoning of our food and water supplies.
In addition, governments are already developing neutron bombs that destroy humans but not buildings, “for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world,” according to a 2007 British Ministry of Defence report, which predicted that their use could lead to the “application of lethal force without human intervention, raising consequential legal and ethical issues.”
As the video below demonstrates, overpopulation is a myth. Globalists and their eugenicist minions have misrepresented population statistics for decades in order to justify their agenda to wipe out large portions of the population. If this genocidal agenda continues, humanity will go the way of the Brontosaurus.
John Lennon called it right on the overpopulation myth.
The man, known as John, who has been addicted to heroin for 15 years, was given £200 by an American charity in return for having a vasectomy.
Project Prevention, the charity running the scheme, has made similar payments to thousands of men and women in America in a crusade to prevent them having children who may inherit their addictions.
The 38-year-old man said he had been involved with drugs since the age of 11 or 12 and that the offer of money had "spurred" him into having the operation.
He said: "It was kind of what spurred me into doing it in a way.
"It was something that I'd been thinking about for a long time and something that I'd already made my mind up that I wanted to do. Just hadn't got around to it."
The charity began offering the cash incentive to British addicts after paying 3,500 American men and women addicted to drugs or alcohol to be sterilised...
Deanna Spingola February 1, 2010 NewsWithViews.com
In 1922, Margaret Sanger wrote The Pivot of Civilization with an introduction by eugenicist H. G. Wells. The Rockefeller Foundation “enthusiastically supported the concept of ‘eugenics,’ which encourages the reproductive efforts of those deemed to have ‘good’ genes, while discouraging or stopping procreation by undesirables. But Rockefeller and others were anxious to go even further to mold America’s breeding patterns along evolutionary lines.”[1] John D. Rockefeller Jr., per the advice of Raymond B. Fosdick, provided financial backing for Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood movement.[2] Sanger, a feminist and birth control activist established the first family planning clinics in New York City. Several U.S. foundations financed eugenic research, including the Carnegie Institution, which funded Davenport’s eugenic studies at Cold Spring Harbor, and the Rockefeller Foundation, which gave grants in the 1930s for eugenic research at the Galton Laboratory at University College in London and to the Cornell Medical School in New York.[3]
Advocates for population control and the study of eugenics include Theodore Roosevelt, Charles Wilson, president of Harvard and Irving Fisher, president of Yale and president of the Eugenics Research Association in the 1920s plus a host of other very public vocal figures.[4] President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court where he served from 1902 to 1932. Holmes was an advocate for selective breeding and issued the sterilization verdict in the case of Carrie Buck in 1927. He said, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”[5] Sir Frederick Pollock, a Pilgrims Society member and law professor at Oxford, was the editor of Law Quarterly Review from 1885 to 1919. He was in close communication with Harvard-educated Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. during a sixty-year period of time. Researcher Charles Savoie maintains that the Pilgrims Society was closely connected to America’s Supreme Court for more than a century.[6]
The Rockefeller Foundation financed what is known as Psychiatric Genetics, a new specialty. The Foundation restructured medical training in Germany including managing the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity under the direction of Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin, supported by his trusty protégés, Otmar Verschuer and Dr. Franz J. Kallmann. In 1932, the British eugenics’ movement appointed Dr. Rudin as president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The eugenics movement promoted the killing or sterilization of burdensome people, individuals that Henry Kissinger referred to as “useless eaters.”[7] Rockefeller funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Eugenics Institute in Germany, founded in 1927.
The Bush family joined John D. Rockefeller and the British Royal Family in sponsoring the eugenics initiatives that gave rise to Hitler’s racial hygiene programs. Prescott Bush was later found guilty of trading with the Nazis during WWII. According to court records, the Rockefeller family and their Standard Oil Company supported Hitler more than they did the allies during the war. In fact, one judge declared Rockefeller guilty of treason. Dr. Gary Glum documented the insidious eugenics programs to create a “superior race,” which were initially sponsored not by Adolph Hitler, but by the American elite like the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, Morgan, DuPont, Kellogg and Bush families.[8]
Hitler, who had been financed by international bankers, became Chancellor of the Third Reich on January 30, 1933. Wilhelm Frick, the minister of the interior, introduced the early sterilization law which was enacted within six months after Hitler was appointed chancellor. Sterilization was used for “life unworthy of life.” Certain individuals who reportedly warranted serialization included those with: “congenital feeblemindedness (now called mental deficiency), an estimated 200,000; manic depressive insanity, 20,000; schizophrenia, 80,000; epilepsy, 60,000; Huntington’s chorea (a hereditary brain disorder), 600; hereditary blindness, 4,000; hereditary deafness, 16,000; grave bodily malformation, 20,000; and hereditary alcoholism, 10,000. The projected total of 410,000 was considered only preliminary, drawn mostly from people already in institutions; it was assumed that much greater numbers of people would eventually be identified and sterilized.”[9]
After the Nazis took power, I.G. Farben and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil merged into a single entity which contained beneficial provisions for each company. I.G. Farben was, until 1937, controlled by the Warburg family who had collaborated with Rockefeller in crafting Nazi eugenics. Standard Oil maintained their alliance with I.G. Farben even after the U.S. entered the war. In 1940-41, I.G. Farben constructed a large industrial complex in Poland adjacent the Auschwitz concentration camp where they planned to use slave labor to make gasoline from coal. Standard-Germany president Emil Helfferich admitted that Standard Oil financed part of the operations at Auschwitz.[10]...
(NaturalNews) In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.
P = People S = Services per person E = Energy per service C = CO2 per energy unit
Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."
Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.
So what does it mean when Bill Gates says "if we do a really great job on new vaccines... we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent?"
Clearly, this statement implies that vaccines are a method of population reduction. So is "health care," which all NaturalNews readers already know to be more of a "sick care" system that actually harms more people than it helps.
Perhaps that's the whole point of it. Given that vaccines technology help almost no one from a scientific point of view (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...), it raises the question: For what purpose are vaccines being so heavily pushed in the first place?
Bill Gates seems to be saying that one of the primary purposes is to reduce the global population as a mechanism by which we can reduce CO2 emissions. Once again, watch the video yourself to hear him say it in his own words: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A...
How can vaccines actually be used to reduce world population?
Let's conduct a mental experiment on this issue. If vaccines are to be used to reduce world population, they obviously need to be accepted by the majority of the people. Otherwise the population reduction effort wouldn't be very effective.
And in order for them to be accepted by the majority of the people, they obviously can't just kill people outright. If everybody started dropping dead within 24 hours of receiving the flu shot, the danger of vaccines would become obvious rather quickly and the vaccines would be recalled.
Thus, if vaccines are to be used as an effective population reduction effort, there are really only three ways in which they might theoretically be "effective" from the point of view of those who wish to reduce world population:
#1) They might kill people slowly in a way that's unnoticeable, taking effect over perhaps 10 - 30 years by accelerating degenerative diseases.
#2) They might reduce fertility and therefore dramatically lower birth rates around the world, thereby reducing the world population over successive generations. This "soft kill" method might seem more acceptable to scientists who want to see the world population fall but don't quite have the stomach to outright kill people with conventional medicine. There is already evidence that vaccines may promote miscarriages (http://www.naturalnews.com/027512_v...).
#3) They might increase the death rate from a future pandemic. Theoretically, widespread vaccination efforts could be followed by a deliberate release of a highly virulent flu strain with a high fatality rate. This "bioweapon" approach could kill millions of people whose immune systems have been weakened by previous vaccine injections.
This is a known side effect of some vaccines, by the way. A study documenting this was published in PLoS. Read the story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028538_s...
Here's the study title and citation: Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? Viboud C, Simonsen L (2010) Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? PLoS Med 7(4): e1000259. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000259
The short answer is yes, seasonal flu vaccines do cause increased susceptibility to the H1N1 pandemic virus. In other words, seasonal flu vaccines could set up the population for a "hard kill" pandemic that could wipe out a significant portion of the global population (perhaps 10 to 15 percent, as Bill Gates suggested).
Conveniently, their deaths could be blamed on the pandemic, thereby diverting blame from those who were really responsible for the plot. As yet another beneficial side effect for the global population killers, the widespread deaths could be used as a fear tool to urge more people to get vaccinated yet again, and the entire cycle could be repeated until world population was brought down to whatever manageable level was desired... all in the name of health care!
The more people around the world are vaccinated before the release of the "hard kill" pandemic virus, the more powerful the effect of this approach.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Perhaps not coincidentally, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into vaccine programs targeting people all over the world. One such program is researching the development of "sweat-triggered vaccines" that could use specially-coated nano-materials to deliver vaccines to people without using injections.
It seems that the actions of the Gates foundation are entirely consistent with the formula for CO2 reduction that Bill Gates eluded to in his TED conference speech: CO2 = P x S x E x C.
By reducing birth rates (through sterilization technologies) and increasing vaccine penetration throughout the world population (by using sweat-triggered nano-vaccines), his stated goal of reducing the world population by 10 to 15 percent could be reached within just a few years.
Who will be left alive? The smart people
The interesting thing about all this is that this campaign to reduce global population through vaccines will obviously not impact people who consciously avoid vaccines. And those people, by and large, tend to be the more intelligent, capable people who actually have an improved ability to move human civilization forward with thoughtful consideration.
I can only imagine that those people designing this vaccine-induced population control measure might be sitting around a table chuckling to themselves and saying, "It's only the stupid people that are going to be killed off anyway, so this is actually helping the future of humankind!" (Their words, not mine.)
In a weird world government kind of way, this effort might actually be based on some distorted vision of philanthropy where some of the most powerful people in the world quite literally believe the way to save humanity is to kill off as many of the gullible people as possible. Vaccines are, in effect, an "evil genius" kind of way to conduct an IQ test on the population at large: If you go get vaccinated every flu season, you're not too bright and probably don't engage the kind of strong mental faculties that humanity will no doubt need if it is to face a future where it is now all but obvious we are not alone in the universe.
If humanity is to save itself from its own destruction and compete as an uplifted species in our universe, killing off the least intelligent members of society (or making them infertile) may appear to the world controllers to be a perfectly reasonable approach. I disagree with that approach, but it may be precisely what they are thinking.
In any case, choosing to receive a seasonal flu shot is undoubtedly an admission that you have failed some sort of universal IQ test, whether or not this is the intention of world influencers such as Bill Gates. More importantly, it is also a betrayal of your own biology, because it indicates you don't believe in the ability of your own immune system to protect you even from mild infections.
Perhaps the world vaccine conspirators figure that if people are willing to betray themselves anyway, it's not much different for governments and institutions to betray them as well. In other words, if you don't even care enough about your own health to take care of your health, why should any government care about protecting your health, either?
As you ponder this, also consider something else: The U.S. is going broke due to sick-care costs which are rising dramatically under the new federal health care reform guidelines. Can you guess the fastest and easiest way to reduce those health care costs? If you guessed, "unleash a hard-kill pandemic that takes out a significant portion of the weak or sick people" then you guessed right. Sadly, killing off those most vulnerable to sickness could save the U.S. government literally billions of dollars in sick-care expenditures. Plus, it would save Social Security yet more billions by avoiding ongoing monthly payouts. (Again, I am completely against such an approach because I value human life, but I also know we live in a world where the people in charge have little or no respect for human life and will readily sacrifice human lives to achieve their aims.)
As far as Bill Gates goes, consider his statement in the context of what we've discussed here: "The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
It suddenly seems to make a lot of sense when you understand that reducing the population reduces CO2 emissions, and using more vaccines on more people increases the death rate of the population.
My advice? Try to avoid being among those 10 to 15 percent who get culled through global vaccine programs. You will not only save your life, you'll also pass the "universal IQ test" which determines whether you're smart enough to know that injecting your body with chemicals and viral fragments in order to stop "seasonal flu" is a foolish endeavor.
Be healthy and wise, and you'll survive the world depopulation effort that victimizes conventional thinkers who don't have the intelligence to question what they're being told to do by their own corrupt governments.
America's birth rate was lower in 2009 than at any other time in the past century, the AP reports -- and many experts feel that the economic downturn is to blame.
In 2009, the total number of births across the country fell for the second year in a row -- from 4,247,000 in 2008 to 4,136,000, according to provisional data released Friday by the National Center for Health Statistics. No doubt about it: By historical standards, 4 million babies is still a lot of new kids coming into the world. But the rate -- the number of births per 1,000 people already alive -- is very low indeed. There were roughly 4 million babies born in the U.S. in 1960 too, but back then the population was only 60% as large it is today -- so that the birth rate back then was much higher. In 2009, the new data shows, there were only 13.5 live births for every 1,000 U.S. residents...
In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction — which outlines the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts in the 1960s funding research into so-called “anti-fertility vaccines”– another series of documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”.
WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation have worked together on “anti-fertility” vaccine since the 1960s.
Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of its members, to support:
“basic and clinical research onthe development of birth control vaccines directed against thegametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involvedthe use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridomatechnology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluationof a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As aresult of this international, collaborative effort, a prototypeanti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raisingthe prospect that a totally new family planning method may beavailable before the end of the current decade.”
In regards to the scope of the Task Force’s jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:
“The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.”
One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:
“The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines.”
Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:
“If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes.”
Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over “currently available methods of fertility regulation” the Task Force states, is the following (179):
“low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services.”
Already in 1978, the WHO’s Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of “large scale synthesis and manufacture” of the vaccine:
“The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; (b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of antigens of known chemical structure, there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost.”
In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:
“In 1972 the Organization (…) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO’s technical assistance programme to governments at the service level.”
Although the term “Anti-Fertility Vaccine”, coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding “Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, The time line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extensions, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header “Scientific Dictatorship”. The relationshipbetween the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization, this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness of “gossypol” as an “antifertility agent”, the bulletin states:
“The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and smallscale clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect. Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of gossypol.”
In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding “fertility regulating vaccines”. According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.
“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible.”
“Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s”, Spieler wrote.
In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer “variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines”.
“Research”, he goes on to say,”is also needed in the field of “basic vaccinology”, to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems.”
In the 1992 document, the problem of “variations in individual responses” is also discussed:
“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document, “immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines.”
The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 70s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded “anti-fertility vaccine”. What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It’s a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world’s population: a dream long cherished by the global elite...
The grocery store, along with your kitchen sink, are two of the most dangerous places in the world.
In a special video, Alex Jones addresses one of the darkest modes of power the globalists have used to control the population– food. The adulteration of the planet’s staple crops, genetically-altered species and intentionally-altered water, food and air all amount to a Eugenics operation to weaken the masses and achieve full spectrum domination.
PART 1/2
People the world over, but especially in the United States are under chemical attack. Deadly and dangerous toxins ranging from Aspartame to Fluoride, GMO, Mercury-tainting, pesticides, cross-species chimeras, plastic compounds in chicken, high fructose corn syrup, cloned meat, rBGH and new aggressive GM species of salmon have all entered into our diets and environments– whether we want it or not.
PART 2/2
Many of these substances knowingly cause or are linked with sterility, low birth weight, miscarriages, smaller or deformed offspring, as well as organ failure, cancer, brain tumors and Death itself, what you DON’T know about on your grocery shelves can hurt you. Further, Alex demonstrates that a pattern of buried studies, fraudulent statistics and a will reduce global population all point to the deliberate criminal poisoning of the food and water supply.
Suffer no fools if those you show refuse to believe what is going on. Instead, research these important areas for yourself, and warn those you love about need to stop their food from being used as a Depopulation-weapon against us all. Please share this important video with everyone, so the truth about these substances can be known.
GULISTAN, Uzbekistan -- Saodat Rakhimbayeva says she wishes she had died with her newborn baby.
The 24-year-old housewife had a cesarean section in March and gave birth to Ibrohim, a premature boy who died three days later.
Then came a further devastating blow: She learned that the surgeon had removed part of her uterus during the operation, making her sterile. The doctor told her the hysterectomy was necessary to remove a potentially cancerous cyst, while she believes he sterilized her as part of a state campaign to reduce birthrates.
"He never asked for my approval, never ran any checks, just mutilated me as if I were a mute animal," the pale and fragile Rakhimbayeva said through tears while sitting at a fly-infested cafe in this central Uzbek city. "I should have just died with Ibrohim."
According to rights groups, victims and health officials, Rakhimbayeva is one of hundreds of Uzbek women who have been surgically sterilized without their knowledge or consent in a program designed to prevent overpopulation from fueling unrest...
As we know, the globalists endeavor to “even the odds” in the world through the concept of wealth redistribution. Simply put, richer nations should freely bleed some of their wealth for absorption into the soil of poorer ones. Sounds reasonable to quite a number of people. It seems to appeal to the Robin Hood-sentiment of fair shares for all. Of course the sad truth is that both sides are being used as pawns in a geopolitical game of high-power monopoly. Irrespective of their systems of state, both developed and developing countries in the end are being run by power-hungry psychopaths, hellbent on destruction (filling their own pockets in the process). The powers beyond this, the sociopaths placed at key points in the overall infrastructure, control the psychopaths below them. Endgame? To organize the orderly extermination of the people by stealth. It sounds incredible, I know. But the facts speak for themselves.
Although the UN in the west have learned to speak of “sustainable development” when speaking of population control, their puppets in developing countries have been less successful: they continue to speak in the original eugenic tongue: the language used of old to describe how best to keep the population in check, by whatever means necessary...
The Royal Society, an organisation made up of renowned eco-fascists and depopulation fanatics, is to launch a major study on human population growth and its implications for social and economic development, a study it has ludicrously branded “objective”.
“The society acknowledges it is delving into a hugely controversial area, but says a comprehensive and scientific review of the evidence is needed.” reports the BBC, along with a picture of a huge crowd of people crammed together (which is actually a rock concert of some kind).
“This is a topic that has gone to and fro in the last few decades, and appears to be moving back up the political agenda now,” said the leader of the study Sir John Sulston.
“So it seems a good moment for the Royal Society to launch a study that looks objectively (emphasis mine) at the scientific basis for changes in population, for the different regional and cultural factors that may affect that, and at the effects that population changes will have on our future in term of sustainable development.”
The manifestly obvious problem with this study, as anyone who knows anything about the Royal Society will note, is the fact that leading members of the group are obsessed with pushing a depopulation agenda...
Via news outlet the Global Times, the Chinese State laments the “issue of unauthorized births” in light of the UN’s stated goal of “efficient population control.”
“Unauthorized births” accounted for a large percentage of births in China.
The UN’s World population Day, July 11, was originally set up in 1989 by the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programma to “raise awareness of global population issues.”
“The theme of this year’s 21st World Population Day”, mentions the article, “is “Everyone Counts”, and the activities in China will focus on the 2010 population census and emphasize the right to life.”
“In China”, the article goes on to say, “the issue of unauthorized births is at the forefront of its efforts to control the growth of its population as it undermines the country’s family planning policy, or “one-child policy”, which was implemented in 1980.”
“According to Chinese statistics, the national population reached 1.3 billion at the end of 2008, with 6.7 million born that year. Unauthorized births accounted for a large percentage of those births.”
“Since the family planning policy was implemented, local governments strictly controlled the births of each family, and allowed each couple to have one child, but with a more flexible policy in China’s ethnic minority areas. However, not all couples obeyed the rules (…).”
Besides the horrible “obeyed the rules”, the bone chilling term “unauthorized births” is used several times in the article to describe families exceeding their allowance of babies they decide to put on this earth. As we know, having more than one baby provokes direct interference from the Chinese State, which can tax, fine, threaten and even terminate the new life considered by the all-powerful state to be a burden on the environment...
The Royal Society, an organisation made up of renowned eco-fascists and depopulation fanatics, is to launch a major study on human population growth and its implications for social and economic development, a study it has ludicrously branded “objective”.
