in ,


Bill Gates Reveals Sinister Plan To Use Vaccines And Abortion To ‘Control The World’s Population’

Share this story:
  • 2

Bill Gates has revealed a sinister plan to control the world’s population through the use of vaccines and abortion, stating that he thinks it could reduce the global population by ’10 to 15 percent’.

Bill Gates notably stated in a Ted Talk in 2020 that the world’s population is approaching an unsustainable level of 9 billion people, a coming disaster that must be addressed by finding ways to dramatically slow population increase. The way to accomplish this, it appears, is to “make people healthier”. He offered a three-part strategy that he defined as “doing a really great job on Vaccines, Health Care, and Reproductive Health Services,” which he claimed might “lower [world population] by perhaps 10 to 15%.” Many people have accused Bill Gates of advocating genocide and this doesn’t help his case.

The language used by Bill Gates is worrisome. Vaccines are at the center of the debate, which has alienated entire countries, yet he is a fervent supporter of experimental cures and has spent considerably in them. “Health care” is an amorphous concept that may imply whatever one wants it to signify; it has even been used as a justification for eugenics in its most heinous manifestations. Furthermore, “reproductive health” is unmistakably euphemism for abortion. It’s easy to see why so many people think of Gates as a dangerous man. He is indescribably wealthy, powerful, and influential, as well as persuasively glib in advancing his different goals. Obviously, no one can know for certain what his true motivations are. Is he a philanthropist or an exploiter, a hero or a villain, a hero or a villain, a savior or a eugenicist? However, there is good reason to be dubious of his credentials.

To be sure, his Ted Talk was set in the context of global warming and the need to cut CO2 emissions, a challenge that could be overcome by lowering the global population count. CO2 = P x S x E x C, where P = People, S = Services per person, E = Energy per service, and C = CO2 per energy unit, where P = People, S = Services per person, E = Energy per service, and C = CO2 per energy unit, fewer people in a congested world means less atmospheric carbon and, as a result, a slower rate of (ostensibly) rising global temperature.

The issue here is that a decrease in population does not always imply a decrease in manufacturing and industry. China and India, two of the world’s most polluting countries, show no signs of reducing carbon-emitting coal plants. Furthermore, green technology—the nexus of wind farms and solar arrays—is notoriously expensive, unreliable, landscape-degrading, and fossil-fuel reliant, with its unavoidable and regular outages. The half-ton, non-disposable, poisonous EV lithium batteries that are currently all the rage in the plans of quantitative futurists have similar disadvantages. The Green solution is a fluorescent green fantasy that, in the long run, is generally impracticable. Energy extraction is still necessary. Fracking and nuclear power are the most viable options, yet they are ruled out by environmentalists.

Another flaw in Gates’ reasoning is his assertion that population growth can be slowed by improving people’s health. Maarten Schenk of Lead Stories defends Gates by arguing that wealthier and healthier people have fewer children because they don’t have to account for high child mortality. “How about the references to ‘new vaccines, health care, and reproductive health services?'” Schenk poses a rhetorical question, to which Schenk responds:

That is exactly what population growth experts are predicting. As individuals become wealthier, they gain access to better healthcare, and as a result, they cease having large families because the danger of their children dying at a young age decreases dramatically. This indicates that after a period of time, the total population stabilizes and stops rising.

On the surface, this appears to be a compelling argument, particularly in the context of developing countries. The problem is that affluent people may enjoy having more children—perhaps not now in the decadent West, but perhaps in the future, as we see in countries like Hungary and Poland, which are returning to their ancestral traditions, restoring the sanctity of marriage, reviving the Christian faith, and financially incentivizing procreation. As a result, families are rapidly expanding. Healthy people in these countries have more children, not fewer. H=V=C could be the formula. Children equals Health plus Vitality plus Health plus Vitality plus Children plus Children plus Children plus Children plus Children plus Children plus It’s possible that Gates’ X will turn out to be non-X.

  • 2

Leave a Reply