Before COVID, Gates Planned Social Media Censorship of Vaccine Safety Advocates With Pharma, CDC, Media, China and CIA. They planned and then executed the COVID SCHEME.
Today the the world is different because of this plan!
In October 2019, shortly before the COVID outbreak, Gates and other powerful individuals began planning how to censor vaccine safety advocates from social media during a table-top simulation of a worldwide pandemic, known as Event 201.
By
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Over the last two weeks,Facebookand other social media sites havedeplatformed meand many other critics of regulatory corruption and authoritarian public health policies. So, here is some fodder for those of you who have the eerie sense that the government/industry pandemic response feels like it was planned — even before there was a pandemic.
This document shows that a cabal of powerful individuals did indeed begin planning the mass eviction of vaccine skeptics from social media in October 2019, a week or two before COVID began circulating. That month, Microsoft founder Bill Gates organized an exercise of four “table-top” simulations of a worldwide coronavirus pandemic with other high-ranking “Deep State” panjandrums. The exercise was referred to as Event 201.
Gates’ co-conspirators included representatives from the World Bank, the World Economic Forum (Great Reset), Bloomberg/Johns Hopkins University Populations Center, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, various media powerhouses, the Chinese government, a former Central Intelligence Agency/National Security Agency director (there is no such thing as a former CIA officer), vaccine maker Johnson & Johnson, the finance and biosecurity industries and Edelman, the world’s leading corporate PR firm.
At Gates’ direction, these eminences role-played members of a Pandemic Control Council, wargaming government strategies for controlling the pandemic, the narrative and the population. Needless to say, there was little talk of building immune systems, off-the-shelf remedies or off-patent therapeutic drugs and vitamins, but lots of chatter about promoting uptake of new patentable antiviral drugs and vaccines.
But the participants primarily focused on planning industry-centric, fear-mongering, police-state strategies for managing an imaginary global coronavirus contagion culminating in mass censorship of social media.
Oddly, Gates now claims that the simulation didn’t occur. On April 12, 2020, Gates told BBC, “Now here we are. We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory.”
Unfortunately for that whopper, the videos of the event are still available across the internet. They show that Gates and team did indeed simulate health and economic policies. It’s hard to swallow that Gates has forgotten.
Gates’s Event 201 simulated COVID epidemic caused 65 million deaths at the 18-month endpoint and global economic collapse lasting up to a decade. Compared to the Gates simulation, therefore, the actual COVID-19 crisis is a bit of a dud, having imposed a mere 2.5 million deaths “attributed to COVID” over the past 13 months.
The deaths “attributed to COVID” in the real-life situation are highly questionable, and must be seen in the context of a global population of 7.8 billion, with about 59 million deaths expected annually. The predictions of decade-long economic collapse will probably prove more accurate — but only because of the draconian lockdown promoted by Gates.
Gates’ Event 201 script imagines vast anti-vaccine riots triggered by internet posts. The universal and single-minded presumption among its participants was that such a crisis would prove an opportunity of convenience to promote new vaccines, and tighten controls by a surveillance and censorship state.
Segment four of the script — on manipulation and control of public opinion — is most revealing. It uncannily predicted democracy’s current crisis:
The participants discussed mechanisms for controlling “disinformation” and “misinformation,” by “flooding” the media with propaganda (“good information”), imposing penalties for spreading falsehoods and discrediting the anti-vaccination movement.
Jane Halton, of Australia’s ANZ Bank, one of the authors of Australia’s oppressive “no jab, no pay” policy, assured the participants that Gates Foundation is creating algorithms “to sift through information on these social media platforms” to protect the public from dangerous thoughts and information.
George Gao, the prescient director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control, worries about how to suppress “rumors” that the virus is laboratory generated: “People believe, ‘This is a manmade’… [and that] some pharmaceutical company made the virus.”
Chen Huang, an Apple research scientist, Google scholar and the world’s leading expert on tracking and tracing and facial recognition technology, role-plays the newscaster reporting on government countermeasures. He blames riots on anti-vaccine activists and predicts that Twitter and Facebook will cooperate in “identify[ing] and delete[ing] a disturbing number of accounts dedicated to spreading misinformation about the outbreak” and to implement “internet shutdowns … to quell panic.”
Dr. Tara Kirk Sell, a senior scholar at Bloomberg School of Health’s Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, worries that pharmaceutical companies are being accused of introducing the virus so they can make money on drugs and vaccines: “[We] have seen public faith in their products plummet.” She notes with alarm that “Unrest, due to false rumors and divisive messaging, is rising and is exacerbating spread of the disease as levels of trust fall and people stop cooperating with response efforts. This is a massive problem, one that threatens governments and trusted institutions.”
Sell reminds her fellow collaborators that “We know that social media is now the primary way that many people get their news, so interruptions to these platforms could curb the spread of misinformation.”
There are many ways, Sell advises, for government and industry allies to accomplish this objective: “Some governments have taken control of national access to the Internet. Others are censoring websites and social media content and a small number have shut down Internet access completely to prevent the spread of misinformation. Penalties have been put in place for spreading harmful falsehoods, including arrests.”
Matthew Harrington, CEO of Edelman Public Relations agrees that social media must fall in line to promote government policy: “I also think we’re at a moment where the social media platforms have to step forward and recognize the moment to assert that they’re a technology platform and not a broadcaster is over. They in fact have to be a participant in broadcasting accurate information and partnering with the scientific and health communities to counterweight, if not flood the zone, of accurate information. Because to try to put the genie back in the bottle of misinformation and disinformation is not possible.”
Stephen Redd, the Admiral of the Public Health Service, has the sinister notion that government should mine social media data to identify people with negative beliefs: “I think with the social media platforms, there’s an opportunity to understand who it is that’s susceptible … to misinformation, so I think there’s an opportunity to collect data from that communication mechanism.”
Adrian Thomas of Johnson & Johnson announces “some important news to share from some of “our member companies [Pharma]”: We are doing clinical trials in new antiretrovirals, and in fact, in vaccines!” He recommends a strategy to address the problems to these companies when “rumors were actually spreading” that their shoddily tested products “are causing deaths and so patients are not taking them anymore.” He suggests, “Maybe we’re making the mistake of reporting and counting all the fatalities and infections.”
Former CIA deputy director, Avril Haines unveiled a strategy to “flood the zone” with propaganda from “trusted sources,” including “influential community leaders, as well as health workers.” He warns about “false information that is starting to actually hamper our ability to address the pandemic, then we need to be able to respond quickly to it.”
Matthew Harrington (Edelman CEO) observes that the Internet — which once promised the decentralization and democratization of information — now needs to be centralized: “I think just to build a little bit on what Avril said, I think as in previous conversations where we’ve talked about centralization around management of information or public health needs, there needs to be a centralized response around the communications approach that then is cascaded to informed advocates, represented in the NGO communities, the medical professionals, et cetera.”
Tom Inglesby (John Hopkins biosecurity expert advisor to the National Institutes of Health, the Pentagon and Homeland Security) agrees that centralized control is needed: “You mean centralized international?”
Matthew Harrington (Edelman) replies that information access should be: “Centralized on an international basis, because I think there needs to be a central repository of data facts and key messages.”
Hasti Taghi (Media Advisor) sums up: “The anti-vaccine movement was very strong and this is something specifically through social media that has spread. So as we do the research to come up with the right vaccines to help prevent the continuation of this, how do we get the right information out there? How do we communicate the right information to ensure that the public has trust in these vaccines that we’re creating?”
Kevin McAleese, communications officer for Gates-funded agricultural projects, observes that: “To me, it is clear countries need to make strong efforts to manage both mis- and disinformation. We know social media companies are working around the clock to combat these disinformation campaigns. The task of identifying every bad actor is immense. This is a huge problem that’s going to keep us from ending the pandemic and might even lead to the fall of governments, as we saw in the Arab Spring. If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it’s the right choice.”
Tom Inglesby, director of Bloomberg’s Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security concurs, asking if “In this case, do you think governments are at the point where they need to require social media companies to operate in a certain way?”
Lavan Thiru, Singapore’s Finance Minister suggests that the government might make examples of dissidents with “government or enforcement actions against fake news. Some of us, this new regulations are come in place about how we deal with fake news. Maybe this is a time for us to showcase some cases where we are able to bring forward some bad actors and leave it before the courts to decide whether they have actually spread some fake news.”
Read this transcript to see how Gates and his government, pharma and intelligence apparatus telegraphed their plans to censor and control the media during the pandemic. In yet another uncanny coincidence, COVID-19 began circulating among global populations within days of Gates’ meeting.
READ MY OTHER BLOG ON BILL GATES
Democrats and The Bill Gates Foundation slaughter African Americans.
Outlaw Technocrats And Big Pharma AND THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX are Stealing Our Democracy.
FIGHT TO STOP IT NOW OR IT WILL BE LOST FOREVER. FREE SPEECH IS A GIFT BESTOWED UPON US BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. DO NOT SQUANDER IT!
My dear Readers,
In this article below, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. explains how the
pandemic is being used to shift wealth upwards, abolish civil rights
and destroy democracy. This is his essay. It says it better than I ever could.
Read, understand, share and fight back before its too late.
Government technocrats, billionaire oligarchs, Big Pharma, Big Data, Big Media, the high-finance robber barons and the military industrial intelligence apparatus love pandemics for the same reasons they love wars and terrorist attacks.
Catastrophic crises create opportunities of convenience to increase both power and wealth. In her seminal book,
“The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” Naomi Klein
chronicles how authoritarian demagogues, large corporations and wealthy plutocrats
use mass disruptions to shift wealth upwards, obliterate the middle
classes, abolish civil rights, privatize the commons and expand
authoritarian controls.
A consummate insider, the former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is
known for his admonition that vested power structures should “never let
a serious crisis go to waste.” But this treadworn strategy — to use
crisis to inflame the public terror that paves the road to dictatorial
power — has served as the central strategy of totalitarian systems for
millennia.
The methodology is, in fact, formulaic, as Hitler’s Luftwaffe commander, Hermann Göring, explained during the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg:
“It is always a simple matter to drag the
people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament or a communist dictatorship.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works
the same in any country.”
The Nazis pointed to the threats from Jews and Gypsies to justify the
homicidal authoritarianism in the Third Reich. The dictatorial
demagogue, Senator Joseph McCarthy, and the House Unamerican Activities Committee
warned against communist infiltration of the U.S. State Department and
film industry to rationalize loyalty oaths and the Blacklist.
Dick Cheney used the 911 attack to launch his “long war” against amorphous terrorism and the Patriot Act abridgments that laid the groundwork for the modern surveillance state.
Now the medical cartel and its billionaire Big Tech accomplices have
invoked the most potent, frightening and enduring enemy of all — the
microbe.
And who can blame them? Increasing the wealth and power of the
oligarchy is seldom a potent vessel for populism. Citizens accustomed to
voting for their governments are unlikely to support policies that make
the rich richer, increase political and social control by corporations,
diminish democracy and reduce their civil rights.
So demagogues must weaponize fear to justify their demands for blind
obedience and to win public acquiescence for the demolition of civil and
economic rights.
Of course, the first casualty must always be freedom of speech. After
stoking sufficient panic against the hobgoblin du jour, robber barons
need to silence protest against their wealth and power-grabs.
In including free speech in the First Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison argued that all our other
liberties depend on this right. Any government that can hide its
mischief has license to commit atrocities.
As soon as they get hold of the levers of authority, tyrants impose
Orwellian censorship and begin gaslighting dissenters. But ultimately
they seek to abolish all forms of creative thinking and self-expression.
They burn books, destroy art, kill writers, poets and intellectuals,
outlaw gatherings, and at their worst, force oppressed minorities to
wear masks that atomize any sense of community or solidarity and prevent
the subtle, eloquent nonverbal communication for which God and
evolution have equipped humans with 42 facial muscles. The most savage
Middle Eastern theocracies mandate masks for women, whose legal status —
not coincidentally — is as chattels.
The free flow of information and self-expression are oxygen and
sunlight for representative democracy, which functions best with
policies annealed in the boiling cauldron of public debate. It is
axiomatic that without free speech, democracy withers.
The most iconic and revered monuments of democracy therefore include the Athenian Agora and Speakers’ Corner at Hyde Park.
We can’t help feeling exhilaration about our noble experiment in
self-government when we witness the boisterous, irreverent debates in
the House of Commons, or watch Jimmy Stewart’s filibuster scene in “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” — an enduring homage to the inseparable bond between debate and democracy.
To consolidate and fortify their power, dictatorships aim to replace
those vital ingredients of self-rule — debate, self-expression, dissent
and skepticism — with rigid authoritarian orthodoxies that function as
secular surrogates for religion. These orthodoxies perform to abolish
critical thinking and regiment populations in blind, unquestioning
obedience to undeserving authorities.
Instead of citing scientific studies to justify mandates for masks, lockdowns and vaccines,
our medical rulers cite WHO, CDC, FDA and NIH — captive agencies that
are groveling sock puppets to the industries they regulate. Multiple
federal and international investigations have documented the financial entanglements with pharmaceutical companies that have made these regulators cesspools of corruption.
Iatrarchy — meaning government by physicians — is a little-known
term, perhaps because historical experiments with it have been
catastrophic. The medical profession has not proven itself an energetic
defender of democratic institutions or civil rights. Virtually every
doctor in Germany took lead roles in the Third Reich’s project to
eliminate mental defectives, homosexuals, handicapped citizens and Jews.
So many hundreds of German physicians participated in Hitler’s worst
atrocities — including managing mass murder and unspeakable experiments
at the death camps — that the allies had to stage separate “Medical
Trials” at Nuremberg. Not a single prominent German doctor or medical
association raised their voice in opposition to these projects.
So it’s unsurprising that, instead of demanding blue-ribbon safety
science and encouraging honest, open and responsible debate on the
science, the badly compromised and newly empowered government health
officials charged with managing the COVID-19
pandemic response collaborated with mainstream and social media to shut
down discussion on key public health and civil rights questions.
They silenced and excommunicated medical professionals who refused to genuflect to Pharma and treat unquestioning faith in zero liability, shoddily tested experimental vaccines as religious duty.
Our current iatrarchy’s rubric of “scientific consensus” is the
contemporary iteration of the Spanish Inquisition. It is a fabricated
dogma constructed by this corrupt cast of physician technocrats and
their media collaborators to legitimize their claims to dangerous new
powers.
The high priests of the modern Inquisition are Big Pharma’s network
and cable news gasbags who preach rigid obedience to official diktats
including lockdowns, social distancing and the moral rectitude of
donning masks despite the absence of peer-reviewed science that
convincingly shows that masks prevent COVID-19 transmission. The need
for this sort of proof is gratuitous.
They counsel us to, instead, “trust the experts.” Such advice is both
anti-democratic and anti-science. Science is dynamic. “Experts”
frequently differ on scientific questions and their opinions can vary in
accordance with the demands of politics, power and financial
self-interest. Nearly every lawsuit I have ever brought pitted highly
credentialed experts from opposite sides against each other, with all of
them swearing under oath to diametrically antithetical positions based
on the same set of facts. Science is disagreement; the notion of
scientific consensus is oxymoronic.
The modern intention of the totalitarian state is corporate
kleptocracy — a construct that replaces democratic process with the
arbitrary edicts of unelected technocrats. Invariably, their fiats
invest multinational corporations with extraordinary power to monetize
and control the most intimate parts of our lives, enrich billionaires,
impoverish the masses and manage dissent with relentless surveillance
and obedience training.
In 2020, led by Bill Gates,
Silicon Valley applauded from the sidelines as powerful medical
charlatans — applying the most pessimistic projections from discredited
modeling and easily manipulated PCR testing,
and a menu of new protocols for coroners that appeared intended to
inflate reporting of COVID-19 deaths — fanned pandemic panic and
confined the world’s population under house arrest.
The suspension of due process, and notice, and comment rulemaking
meant that none of the government prelates who ordained the quarantine
had to first publicly calculate whether destroying the global economy,
disrupting food and medical supplies, and throwing a billion humans into
dire poverty and food insecurity would kill more people than it would save.
In America, their quarantine predictably shattered the nation’s once-booming economic engine, putting 58 million Americans out of work, and permanently bankrupting
more than 100,000 small businesses, including 41,000 Black-owned
businesses, some of which took three generations of investment to build.
These policies have also set into motion the inevitable dismantling
of the social safety net that nurtured America’s envied middle class.
Government officials have already begun liquidating the 100-year
legacies of the New Deal, New Frontier, the Great Society and Obamacare
to pay the accumulated quarantine debts. Say goodbye to school lunches,
healthcare, WICS, Medicaid, Medicare, University scholarships, etc.,
etc., etc.
While obliterating the American middle class and dropping an
additional 8% of Americans below the poverty line, the 2020 “COVID coup”
transferred a trillion dollars of wealth to Big Technology, Big Data,
Big Telecom, Big Finance, Big Media behemoths (Michael Bloomberg, Rupert
Murdoch) and Silicon Valley Internet titans like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg,
Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Jack Dorsey. It seems beyond coincidence
that these men, who are cashing in on the poverty and misery caused by
global lockdowns, are the same men whose companies actively censor critics of those policies.
The very Internet companies that snookered us all with the promise of
democratizing communications have created a world where it has become
impermissible to speak ill of official pronouncements, and practically a
crime to criticize pharmaceutical products. The same Tech/Data and
Telecom robber barons, now gorging themselves on the corpses of our
obliterated middle class, are rapidly transforming America’s once-proud
democracy into a censorship and surveillance police state over which they profit at every turn.
For example, this cabal used the lockdown to accelerate construction of their 5G network
of satellites, antennae, biometric facial recognition and
“track-and-trace” infrastructure that they, and their government and
intelligence agency partners, will use to mine and monetize our data for
free, compel obedience to arbitrary dictates and suppress dissent.
Their government/industry collaboration will use this system to
manage the rage when Americans finally wake up to the fact that this
outlaw gang has stolen our democracy, our civil rights, our country and
way of life — while we huddled in orchestrated fear from a flu-like
illness.
Predictably our other constitutional guarantees lined up behind free
speech at the gibbet. The imposition censorship has masked this
systematic demolition of our Constitution, including attacks on our
freedoms of assembly (through social distancing and lockdown rules), on
freedom of worship (including abolishing religious exemptions and
closing churches, while liquor stores remain open as “essential
service”), private property (the right to operate a business), due
process (including the imposition of far-reaching restrictions against
freedom of movement, education and association without rule making,
public hearings, or economic and environmental impact statements), the 7th Amendment right to jury trials (in cases of vaccine injuries
caused by corporate negligence), our rights to privacy and against
illegal searches and seizures (warrantless tracking and tracing), and
our right to have governments that don’t spy on us or retain our
information for mischievous purposes.
Putting opiates — which kill 50,000 Americans
annually — aside, pharmaceuticals are now the third biggest killer of
Americans, after heart attacks and cancer it must understood that good health does not
come in a syringe or a Pharma pill, but from building strong immune systems.
Big Pharma’s $9.6 billion
annual advertising budget gives these unscrupulous companies control
over our news and television outlets. Strong economic drivers
(pharmaceutical companies are the biggest network advertisers)
have long discouraged mainstream media outlets from criticizing vaccine
manufacturers. In 2014, a network president, Roger Ailes, told me he
would fire any of his news show hosts who allowed me to talk about
vaccine safety on air. “Our news division,” he explained, “gets up to
70% of ad revenues from pharma in non-election years.”
Thus, pharmaceutical products were both the predicate and the
punchline of the Cancel Culture. The Pharmedia long ago banned anti pharma activists from the airwaves and newsprint while turning Wikipedia — which
functions as Pharma’s newsletter and propaganda vehicle — into a mill
for defamations against him and every other integrative and functional
health physician.
At COVID’s outset, the social media robber barons — all with their
own financial entanglements with Pharma — joined the campaign to silence
anti vaxxers from their platforms.
It’s a bad omen for democracy when citizens can no longer conduct
civil, informed debates about critical policies that impact the vitality
of our economy, public health, personal freedoms and constitutional
rights. Censorship is violence, and this systematic muzzling of debate —
which proponents justify as a measure to curtail dangerous polarization
— is actually fueling the polarization and extremism that the autocrats
use to clamp down evermore draconian controls.
We might recall, at this strange time in our history, my father’s
friend, Edward R. Murrow’s warning: “The right to dissent … is surely
fundamental to the existence of a democratic society. That’s the right
that went first in every nation that stumbled down the trail to
totalitarianism.”
ASK THE DEMOCRATS AND THE BLACK COMMUNITY LEADERS AND BILL GATES AND THE GATES FOUNDATION...WHO ARE THE RACISTS !
NANCY PELOSI, CHUCK SCHUMER AND THE THE DEMOCRAT PARTY...
(THE PARTY OF THE KKK).. HAVE FOUND AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD RIGHT UNDER
THE NOSES OF POOR BLACKS, TO REDUCE THEIR POPULATION! THIS IS WHAT
REAL RACISM LOOKS LIKE!
THEY DO NOT WANT BLACKS IN
THEIR VOTER POOL. THEY DO NOT WORK AS HARD. THEY WANT HARD WORKING
SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICANS IN THEIR VOTER POOL AND THEY WANT THEM TO
WORK WITHOUT COMPLAINING!
Abortion, by the numbers, is a
racist institution. This statement has nothing to do with agendas or
intent. It has everything to do with the simple, undeniable reality
that in the United States, abortion kills minority children at more
than three times the rate of non-Hispanic, white children.
The
Reverend Clenard H. Childress calls this phenomenon "black
genocide," and has built a national ministry around its
exposure. Alveda C. King, daughter of slain civil-rights leader A.D.
King and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., quotes her uncle often
when outlining her opposition of abortion.
She writes:
[Martin
Luther King, Jr.] once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is
willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and
safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children?
Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother.
The mother decides his or her fate.
Lest you feel these claims
are an exaggeration, consider the numbers. According to 2010 census
data, African Americans make up 12.6% of the U.S. population2 but the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that black women accounted
for 35.4% of all abortions in 2009.3
The Guttmacher Institute (AGI)
puts the percentage of black abortions at 30% of the U.S. total.
Their most recent numbers are from 2008. Similarly, AGI tells us that
Hispanic women accounted for 25% of all U.S. abortions in 2008,6
though Hispanics make up just 16.3% of the U.S. population.
The CDC
lists the percentage of Hispanic abortions at 20.6%.8 Compare those
numbers to non-Hispanic whites, who make up 63.7% of America's
population, but account for only 36% of all U.S. abortions (37.7%
according to the CDC).
Every day in America, an average of
3,315 human beings lose their lives to abortion. Based on the
percentages above, between 683-829 of those babies are Hispanic,
between 1,193-1,174 are white, and between 995-1,207 are black. Not
only are black children being killed at a far greater percentage than
white children, it's possible they're being killed in greater
numbers, period. Is that not shocking?!
Though the white population
in the U.S. outnumbers the black population five to one, abortion may
well be killing more black children each day than white children.
John Piper, a white pastor with a heart for "racial justice", remarks
on the disparity of abortion this way:
The de facto effect (I
don’t call it the main cause, but net effect) of putting abortion
clinics in the urban centers is that the abortion of Hispanic and
Black babies is more than double their percentage of the population.
Every day 1,300 black babies are killed in America. Seven hundred
Hispanic babies die every day from abortion. Call this what you
will—when the slaughter has an ethnic face and the percentages are
double that of the white community and the killers are almost all
white, something is going on here that ought to make the lovers of
racial equality and racial harmony wake up.
In 2009, a total
of 286,623 blacks died in the U.S.
That same year, an estimated
1.21 million abortions took place in the United States. If 35.4%
were performed on black women, that means almost twice as many blacks
were killed by abortion as by all other causes.
In 2010, the black
population in the U.S. stood just shy of at 39 million.
The CDC
reports that during the 1970's, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions
were performed on black women.
That percentage rose to 30% in the
1980's, 34% in the 1990's and 36% in the 2000's.
That means that
about 31% of all U.S. abortions since 1973 have been performed on
African American women.
Based on the January 2013 estimate that there
have been 55.7 million abortions in the United States since 1973, we can deduce that approximately 17 million of the aborted babies
were black. Despite an overall black population growth of 12% between
2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the black
population "grew at a slower rate than most other major race and
ethnic groups in the country."
CBS News reported in 2009 that
"Hispanics have surpassed blacks as the nation's largest
minority group." Can there be any question about the role
abortion has played in this demographic shift? Despite similar
population numbers, Hispanic women currently account for about 20% of
all U.S. abortions, whereas African-American women account for 35%.
From 1973 to 2012, abortion reduced the black population by 30%, and
that doesn't even factor in all the children that would have been
born to those aborted a generation ago. To put it bluntly, abortion
has thinned the black community in ways the Ku Klux Klan the RACIST
ENTERPRISE FOUNDED BY DEMOCRATS....could have only dreamed of.
The
fact that black leaders, like Ex President Obama, support abortion
rights does not change the reality of what is happening. How many
candidates for public office have abandoned a prior conviction so as
to be consistent with a party platform? This is perhaps nowhere more
evident than in Reverend Jesse Jackson's flip-flop on abortion. Prior
to having ambitions as a Presidential candidate for the Democratic
Party, he was an incredibly eloquent and outspoken opponent of
abortion. Though his public stance on abortion has reversed, his
earlier remarks remain as applicable as ever, and show that there is
more than mere numbers at stake. Abortion attacks the "moral
fabric" of an entire people.
The following remarks come from his
1977 article for the National Right to Life News:
The question
of "life" is The Question of the 20th century. Race and
poverty are dimensions of the life question, but discussions about
abortion have brought the issue into focus in a much sharper way.
How
we will respect and understand the nature of life itself is the
over-riding moral issue, not of the Black race, but of the human
race.
The question of abortion confronts me in several different
ways. First, although I do not profess to be a biologist, I have
studied biology and know something about life from the point of view
of the natural sciences. Second, I am a minister of the Gospel and,
therefore, feel that abortion has a religious and moral dimension
that I must consider. Third, I was born out of wedlock (and against
the advice that my mother received from her doctor) and therefore
abortion is a personal issue for me.
From my perspective, human
life is the highest good, the summum bonum. Human life itself is the
highest human good and God is the supreme good because He is the
giver of life...
There are those who argue that the right to
privacy is of higher order than the right to life. I do not share
that view. I believe that life is not private, but rather it is
public and universal.
If one accepts the position that life is
private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you
please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was
the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or
treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and
therefore outside of your right to concerned.
Another area that
concerns me greatly, namely because I know how it has been used with
regard to race, is the psycholinguistics involved in this whole issue
of abortion. If something can be dehumanized through the rhetoric
used to describe it, then the major battle has been won. Those
advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or
murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting
a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk
about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore
can be justified.
… What happens to the mind of a person, and
the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life
of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person, and
what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be
taken so casually?
It is that question, the question of our
attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the
nature and worth of life itself that is the central question
confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively
may leave us with a hell right here on earth.
The majority of
Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics are located in communities with
minority populations that exceed the city or state averages. Is this
a bizarre coincidence, or is it merely an extension of the eugenic
principles that seem to have driven Planned Parenthood's founder,
Margaret Sanger, a founder who is documented as saying, "We do
not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro
population." This statement, written in a 1939 letter to a
colleague, can be taken in one of two ways. Either she didn't want
the black community to wrongly assume that her efforts promoting
birth control were an attempt to eliminate them, or she didn't want
the black community to find out that this is exactly what she had in
mind. Planned Parenthood assumes the first; her opponents assume the
latter. Based on the greater context of her writings, the truth
likely lies in between. She probably didn't have in mind the
elimination of all blacks, but it is quite reasonable to infer that
she did want to keep them in submission and in line.
Whatever
the case may be, the bottom line is this. Margaret Sanger's vision of
social purification was rooted in birth control and sterilization.
Compared with abortion, these were minor threats to minority
communities. Planned Parenthood's contemporary vision of social
purification is much more menacing. No longer is the organization
driven by pregnancy prevention, it is now driven by pregnancy
elimination. We can debate the racial intent of Planned Parenthood
past and present, but we cannot debate the results. Abortion is by no
means an equal opportunity killer.
A NEW WRINKLE TO BE ADDED TO THIS
DID YOU KNOW THAT BILL GATES' FATHER WAS THE HEAD OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD FOR A TIMNE?
Read UP..
The Urgency of Population Issues
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated billions to the cause of improving global health, largely by sponsoring vaccine and agricultural programs in Third World countries. In an interview on the PBS program NOW with Bill Moyes(May 9, 2003), Moyes asked Gates how, given his background at Microsoft, he came to this champion this particular cause. Bill Gates responded:
The two areas that are changing in this amazing way are information technology and medical technology. Those are the things that the world will be very different 20 years from now than it is today.
I’m so excited about those advances. And they actually feed off of each other. The medical world uses the information tools to do their work. And so when you have those advances you think will they be available to everyone. [pause]
The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population… reproductive health.
Then he revealed that, for a time, his father, William H. Gates, Sr. was the head of Planned Parenthood.
Decreasing Population Through Better Health Care?
As did Sanger, Gates believes in the eugenist Thomas Malthus’s idea that the sustainability of the world’s resources is completely dependent upon maintaining population control. Ironically, Gates believes that improving health care, primarily through vaccinations, will accomplish this.
And maybe the most interesting thing I learned … is that, as you improve health in a society, population growth goes down. You know…before I learned about it, I thought it was paradoxical. Well if you improve health, aren’t you just dooming people to deal with such a lack of resources where they won’t be educated or they won’t have enough food? You know, sort of a Malthusian view of what would take place.
And the fact is that health leads parents to decide, “Okay, we don’t need to have as many children because the chance of having the less children being able to survive to be adults and take care of us, means we don’t have to have 7 or 8 children.” Now that was amazing. (Bill Gates, NOW interview).
Gates emphasizes vaccination programs as the best means of combating Third World poverty. However, as with birth control and The Negro Project, this exclusive focus on vaccines has raised some suspicion among the civic leadership. For example, in 2014, the Kenyan Catholic Doctors Association and the Kenyan Catholic Bishops Conference issued a statement expressing concern that a UNICEF/WHO Tetanus vaccine was tainted with hCG, a contraceptive hormone. While this accusation has been denied by the agencies involved, the Catholic groups remain wary.
“Innovating to Zero”
Population control is also central to the issue of climate change, another of Gates’s passionate causes. In a talk titled, Innovating to Zero, presented at the 2010 Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) Conference, Gates proposed a goal of achieving zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2050. He explained his mathematical formula by which that goal may be achieved.
To that end, since 2012, Melinda Gates, a Catholic, has pledged over a billion dollars from the Gates Foundation to support Family Planning 2020 (FP2020). She helps lead this international effort whose goal is to get birth control to 120 million more women by 2020. This despite strong objections from groups such as Culture of Life Africa who resent “the disturbing encroachment of the bold and wealthy proponents of the Culture of Death.”
“All Lives Have Equal Value”
It remains, even if well-intentioned, the activities of Bill and Melinda Gates, like Margaret Sanger, are in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church. As stated by Pope Francis In his encyclical, Laudato Si:
Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. Yet while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development. To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. (50)
It is remarkable that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation webpage has as its slogan, “All Lives Have Equal Value.” Would that they and Margaret Sanger actually believed that was true.
Bill Gates’ father is William H. Gates Sr., a Co-Founder of Preston Gates & Ellis (they had offices across the United States and China). A prominent banker and lawyer, William H. Gates Sr. was also deeply involved with politics and “philanthropy”. In the era before Roe v. Wade, he sat on the board of Margret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood. https://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gates.html
Why is that important? The Roe v. Wade case legalized abortion, but almost no body knows that legal abortion was a law formed by eugenicists, to “genetically improve” the population, by “reducing” the population.
In his book, ‘Vaccine-Nation: Poisoning the Population, One Shot at a Time’, Andreas Moritz, documented the very real eugenics connection between the Rockefeller Foundation (and family) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (and family). In it, He write this about them… “While launching the initiative called the Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines, Bill Gates had said in 2000, “It seems like every new corner we turn, the Rockefellers are already there. And in some cases, they have been there for a long, long time.”
Gates made that speech while announcing that his foundation was pledging $555 million to health programs across the globe.
I say ironic because the Rockefellers have been notorious in their funding of controversial research, dubbed by some as “genocidal”. This research concerns depopulation programs, communist and socialist programs, ‘mind control’ or behavioural modification experiments and the notoriously controversial experiments of Alfred Kinsey.
But the Gates and Rockefellers are old friends and partners in the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). The alliance, which controls major international vaccine programs, has the following as members: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations, UNISEF, World Bank, WHO, and many national governments.
If you want to know exactly what those in the Rockefeller-financed eugenics movement think of the common, or “unfit” man, read the following statements made by Margret Sanger…
“But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies.”
“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”
“Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded [sic] upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.”
“No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.”
As a side note, in 2010, William H. Gates Sr. was also the face of a socialist (communist)-styled State Income Tax Initiative (Initiative 1098), in Washington State.
How do I know for certain, that Bill Gates’ dad is a secret communist (and globalist)? Well, in April of 2003, the Fabian Society, yet another Rockefeller-controlled (globalist) political “think thank”, whose original logo was a wolf in sheep’s clothing (but is a now a slow-moving turtle), wrote a report entitled, ‘Communities In Control’. In this report, it clearly shows a connection between William H. Gates Sr. and the Fabian Society. The report says the following… “In the Foreword to the report, Bill Gates Sr, father of the billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates, lends his support to the Fabian proposals and links them to the growing campaign in the United States against President Bush’s proposal to abolish US estate tax. The reform of inheritance tax is also analyzed here by experts including representatives of HM Treasury and the Irish Revenue.” https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2003/09/CommunitiesInControl.pdf
Isn’t that strange? The more we dig into those connected to William H. Gates Sr., the more that word (eugenics) keeps on popping up! But, what is the Fabian Society? Well, Geoffrey Robertson of The Guardian, wrote this about the Fabian Society, in a 2008 article; “Fabian socialists provided the intellectual justification for the eugenics policy that led to the stolen generations scandal.” Please, read the entire article, here. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/feb/14/australia
Along with pushing eugenics policies on the American people; for a century, the Fabians have also been pushing for, and to the dismay of many patriotic freedom-loving Americans, often succeeded in completely undermining Biblical values, the traditional family, property rights, and individual freedom! Their cause is anti-family, and anti-freedom; nothing good can come from their policies! The more one looks into the Fabians, the more treasonous, and evil they appear.
For example, Fabians pride themselves on infiltrating the most key and privileged positions in American society (UK and Canada as well), to flood the society with subversive pro-socialist, communist, and globalist propaganda, in a long-term effort to get the God-fearing, freedom-living American people, to abolish the Constitution of the United States of America “on their own”; and replace it, with a global system of oligarchical collectivism (a new world order). In the words of Bertrand Russell, a famous Fabian Socialist; “The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated.”
In 1953, in The Impact of Science on Society (by Fabian Socialist), Bertrand Russell declared the following; “I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology….Various results will soon be arrived at: that the influence of home is obstructive….although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen….Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism….A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.”