October 21, 2020 JV

Idle hands are the devil’s playground

There appears to be widespread and growing evidence of intent to implement population control under a centralised system of world government driven largely by a cabal of oligarchs.  Having made their billions from free market capitalism, they now lurch left in an attempt to implement tyrannical socialism for everybody else.  Some of the key players include Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet and Ted Turner, supported by “experts” including NIAID Director Tony Fauci and WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

If true, this presents a significant threat to anybody and everybody who values their freedom, their sense of pride and their ability to provide for themselves, their families and the communities within which they live.  This article examines some of the emerging evidence of that apparently ever-increasing threat.

In an amazing example of “life imitating art,” these players appear to be acting the role of

Senator Palpatine in the Star Wars film “The Phantom Menace.”  Palpatine rose to prominence in the Galactic Senate, orchestrating the Clone Wars and playing both sides of the war in order to accumulate political capital.  He leveraged this during the final years of the Galactic Republic in order to ascend to absolute power as the Emperor. Appearing as a benevolent peace-maker, Palpatine had cleverly hidden his dual identity as the Dark Lord of the Sith, Darth Sidious.  Let’s now examine how this story applies to the current

The information in this article is gleaned from several sources, but primarily from a Corbett Report (thanks again, o’l cobber) that raises many questions and concerns about the ideals and behaviours currently expressed by Bill Gates.

To make sure I was drawing on a balance view, I also decided to see what the “fact checkers” had to say about the author.  Here are some comments from rationalwiki.

“The Corbett Report is a Conspiracy-Pseudoscience source that publishes unverifiable information with tinfoil hat conspiracy level, moderate pseudoscience level and low factual reporting……  Ultimately, however, all he achieves is talking to an echo chamber of other dangerous morons about the same nonsense.  He is also a vigorous denier of climate change and doesn’t like the IPCC, Wikipedia, Agenda 21 or Bill Gates.  In conclusion, he is your typical kook…avoiding anything that could damage and challenge the narrative he creates.”


After reading comments like these, I thought that to draw that much flack, at least some of Corbett’s material must be over the target.  I decided to read Corbett’s report and watch his videos.  As I got into it, I checked many of his links for veracity.  Although some of his arguments were not supported by strong evidence, many were.  Further, even the weakly-supported claims, combined with the strongly-supported ones to form a coherent story.  Add to this, my previous, personal findings on Hydroxychloroquine vis-à-vis its COVID-19 early stage treatment efficacy and the flurry of high-level efforts to ban its use.

So, what does all of this mean for this article of mine?  I am confident that it is more plausibly true than false.  Plus, it just makes sense.

A few disclaimers before I begin:

  • I simply don’t trust “fact-checkers.”  They are often political ideologues, posing as honest brokers.  I prefer to do my own research.  In an upcoming article, I plan to write about how the media curates information dissemination and what we can do about it.
  • I am not making any claims about the intent of the characters in this article.  I’ve simply assembled a body of evidence that you can use to draw your own conclusions.
  • Much of the early part of this article either quotes or summarises the Corbett Report. I can’t take much credit and have not used apostrophes, mainly to simplify the look of the article.  
  • The latter half of the article is my own work, informed by a variety of other sources.

Do you trust my research?  If so, keep reading.  Otherwise, please don’t read on.  You may not like what you see.

Bill Gates is no public health expert. He’s not a doctor, an epidemiologist or an infectious diseases researcher.  Yet he has somehow found himself dictating the medical actions required for the world to go ‘back to normal.’  His transformation from a derided computer kingpin to a beloved global health czar is absolutely remarkable.

In less than two decades, Gates has managed to convince the world that he is giving away his fortunes as one of the world’s greatest philanthropists.  However, despite donating over $35 billion to a charitable foundation, during the course of one “Decade of Vaccines,” his net worth has doubled, from $54 billion to over $100 billion.

Could this just be a lucky streak of investment coincidences or is it perhaps due in part to the way that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation interacts with their Foundation Trust?  Could donations to the Foundation often benefit the value of their trust’s assets?

As indicated in a 2016 Al Jazeera News story, Gates spends tens of millions of dollars per year on media partnerships, sponsoring coverage of his program areas across various media platforms.  He funds The Guardian‘s Global Development website; NPR’s global health coverage; Our World in Data website; and BBC coverage of global health and development issues, both through its BBC Media Action organization and the BBC itself.

In addition to this, Gates has made substantial donations to many global Health Institutes and has provided prominent positions of leadership to current WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (chair of the Gates-founded Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, board of the Gates-founded Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Gates-funded Stop TB Partnership) and NIAID Director Dr Tony Fauci (Leadership Council of the Gates-founded “Decade of Vaccines”) on various councils and projects.  The WHO’s most recent donor report shows that the Gates Foundation is single-biggest private donor, contributing more than Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Russia and the UK combined.

Gates himself admits that it is not a spirit of selfless generosity that motivates his interest in vaccines and other lucrative health interventions.  He noted that vaccine development offers a 20:1 return on investment.

One must ask: is there something (other than lucre) about Big Pharma and the vaccination process that we’re just not seeing?  Could Gates’ motivation be anything but a case of opportune-altruism?  Does it not make sense to provide vaccines to the world and perhaps make a few Billions on the side?  After all, that’s business and vaccines are an effective way to control certain diseases.  However, vaccines may not be the safest or most cost-effective way.  More on this in another article.

The “Decade of Vaccines” kicked off with a Gates-funded $3.6 million observational study of HPV vaccines in India that, according to a government investigation, violated the human rights of the study participants with “gross violations” of consent and failed to properly report adverse events experienced by the vaccine recipients.  Samiran Nundy, editor emeritus of the National Medical Journal of India lamented that “[t]his is an obvious case where Indians were being used as guinea pigs.”

However, it seemed that wherever Gates went, the Rockerfellers had been there before.  The Rockefellers’ Population Council and other research organisations joined with the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1972 to create a Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation.  By 1995, they were able to report progress in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine, causing women to develop antibodies against the hCG hormone and causing them to mis-carry.

A series of scandals over WHO-led vaccination programs in the third world led to allegations that tetanus vaccines in places like the Philippines and Kenya were being laced with hCG in order to implement population control by stealth.  The controversy generated by these stories led global institutions to step back from the campaign to champion population control by vaccine.

But, as usual, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was there to renew interest, working with the UK government to host a “London Summit on Family Planning” in 2012 at which the foundation announced their support for funding the research, development and deployment of injectable contraceptives to the developing world.

Gates openly champions population control, arguing that a broad vaccination program will not just bring about improvements in health, but also a reduction in population rates in the Third World as parents will not require as many children to ensure at least a couple survive to adulthood.  Gates attempts to make Population Control sound more palatable by invoking the term “Reproductive Health.”  However, I contend that the First-World approach of reducing excess births through abortion is nothing less than war on the unborn.  Do the lives of 1,000 black babies aborted in the US each day matter?  And you want to introduce abortion clinics across Africa?  I don’t think that’s what is meant by “flattening the curve,” Mr. Gates.

Population Control has been around for more than two centuries according to a lifesitenews research paper.

Are stories of population control and human rights abuses new?  An article, written by the Catholic pro-life organisation: lifesitenews.com traces this darkness back to the 18th Century.  Concerned about rapid population growth and mankind’s ability to feed itself, economist Thomas Malthus encouraged an active repression and abuse of the poor based on what he believed was their natural inferiority.  He stated that

“instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits.  In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.”

In doing so he had essentially created and was advocating for a new type of racism; a “scientific” racism by which whole segments of the population were to be discriminated against based on their socioeconomic status. Malthusian thinking gave rise to the eugenics movement 100 years later.  In 1883, Sir Francis Galton, a respected British scholar and cousin of Charles Darwin, first used the term eugenics, meaning “well-born.” Galton believed that the human race could help direct its future by selectively breeding individuals who have “desired” traits. This thinking flourished among the elites.  Hubris has a great way of perpetuating itself!

The eugenics movement of the early twentieth century had been very successful in implementing many of its policies by influencing the American elite.  Perhaps its greatest and most important victory was winning Margaret Sanger to its cause and providing her with the tools and favourable environment in which her initiatives were able to prosper.  Sanger, the infamous founder of Planned Parenthood, would serve as one of the key leaders of an elite group of new “scientific” racists, referred to by Stephen Mosher of the Population Research Institute as the “Population Firm.”  This group was dedicated to forcing Malthus’ principles on the world through a well-coordinated population control program.  The group’s tools would be Sanger’s favourites – birth control, abortion, and sterilization.

In 1948, in an article titled UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy, Sir Julian Huxley, the President of the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) showed how much Malthusianism had invaded the ranks of UN leaders, when he explained that:

“Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much [that] is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

As the “Population Firm” grew and continues to grow today, much of its financial support came through a small consortium of some of the most influential and wealthy people in the world.  These [people] now put more funds towards population control than the U.S. government.  The world’s newest wealthy men, many of them such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner belonging to the exclusive billionaire’s club, have joined their wealth with the wealth of their Malthusian predecessors to support the many efforts of those in the Population Firm.  

So, what might happen if the intelligentsia is left unchecked?  In March 2006, an author and scientist, Forrest Mims, attended the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science.  When a kerfuffle broke out at the podium and the cameraman disappeared, Mims began taking notes.  I’d suggest you read his chilling account of a scientist, Dr. Eric R. Pianka speculating about using airborne Ebola to cull the world’s population.  There is no reason to doubt his reporting.

One would hope that Pianka was a lone wolf.  However, if Mims is correct, the virus of elitism had already infected many of his colleagues, giving him a “prolonged standing ovation!”  Is it possible that scientists would consider such an atrocity?  I guess there are precedents.

In a 2009 meeting of billionaires, it was Gates who convinced the others (including Warren Buffet, George Soros, Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey) that the aim of the meeting should be “to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population.”

Here are some very revealing quotes from that 2009 meeting:

“This [population growth] is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest.  “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”

It’s unclear which of the Billionaires offered up this “big-brain” quote, but here are some questions that must be asked:

  • So, because you are rich, does that automatically mean that you are smarter than us?
  • Why do you believe government agencies are unable to deal with such disasters?
  • Why, instead, do you see anti-sovereign nation, globalist agencies like the UN, WHO, World Economic Forum and Open Societies as intellectually superior?  Do they also have bigger brains than our nations’ leaders?

Sir / madam, I must advise you that your Malthusian slip is showing.

And then, if this meeting was so crucial, why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” the friendly reported said.  There is no doubt that these Billionaires care little for sovereign nations, their laws and the accountability that those institutions demand.

Before I continue, I’d like to write briefly about some of Gates compatriots. Let’s begin with George Soros.  After conducting a straw poll of acquaintances, most people had never heard of George Soros. 

Most don’t know that Soros is feared as a powerful financial predator, has been (rightly) accused of being an uncaring anti-Semite (although he is a Jew) and has spent tens of millions of dollars to help appoint left-leaning activist lawyers, judges and politicians to positions such as mayor, governor and District Attorneys in US local, state and federal legislature. 

You may not have heard of Soros because, like the Harry Potter character Voldemort, one cannot even mention Soros’ name.  In fact, he seems to have such enormous influence that even some of (conservative) Fox News journalists refuse to allow such discussion.  Verboten.

If you were to google what I wrote above, you would probably read how these claims have been debunked and that this is tin-foil hat-wearing, conspiracy-theorist crank-ism.  What they hope you don’t find out is that, despite Soros best efforts to bury old videos and photos of himself, they have resurfaced.    While on the Open Societies web-site, Soros claims that “1944, the year of the German occupation, was my formative experience.  Instead of submitting to our fate we resisted an evil force that was much stronger than we were—yet we prevailed” and “not only did we survive, but we managed to help others.”

However, to Soros’ chagrin, a 1998 60 minutes story that has recently resurfaced and it says something very different.  Check it out and form you own opinion about Soros.  Thanks again, ol’ cobber!

Then there’s Ted Turner.  From a 2008 CBS interview, we learn of his desire to reduce the world’s population by two billion.  At least this is less severe than his 1996 recommendation in the Audubon Magazine of a 95% reduction of humans on Earth!  Turner, like Gates, is convinced that human-made global warming and population control are inextricably linked.

Gates links CO2 (man-made global warming assertion) to Population Control

Please refer to Gates’ 2010 TED talk “Innovating to Zero” to understand Bill’s equation for reducing Carbon Emissions to ZERO.  People appear to be in the way of his fantasy.

So, Corbett appears not to be as whacky as the fact-checkers make him out to be.  He did not say that he had proof of Gates being a eugenicist, but the following facts are simply not in dispute:

Gates’ four drivers for Population Control
  1. Gates is a champion of Population Control
  2. Gates wants every human to be vaccinated
  3. Gates has funded the development of a broad digital identification system (biometrics – not part of Vaccine delivery – yet)
  4. Gates has funded the development of high-tech vaccine delivery technologies including implanted microchips and fluorescent digital tattoos
  5. Gates is a champion of digital currency (cash-less society)
Vaccine delivery technology – dissolvable quantum dot fluorescent microneedle patch

Gates’ primary end is Population Control; to that there is no doubt.  Therefore, the other four are simply means to that end.

So, let’s do a thought experiment using Gates’ own statements and logic.

  1. Every human needs to be vaccinated for life to get back to normal (post-COVID-19);
  2. Vaccine administrators need to know who has been vaccinated and who hasn’t.   Delivering the vaccine using the new technology will create a unique digital ID tattoo on the person.
  3. Knowing who has and who hasn’t been vaccinated will help target the remainder.  This is supported by feedback loop 1 (red).
  4. So how does 5. – digital currency fit into this?  Gates is vague on this one.  However, the Digital ID could also be used to facilitate national and eventually, global electronic payment systems for all financial transactions.  Once cash is no longer is use, a good way to “coerce” anti-vaxers to participate in the program (and receive the Digital ID) would be through financial incentives (or penalties).  This is feedback loop 2 (green).

Points a), b) and c) are straight from the horse’s mouth while d) is a logical extension that may help to explain Gates’ interest in this endeavour.

Both Gates (3:40 – 3:50) and Fauci (first 60 seconds) are in lock-step about the first point of “life not getting back to normal until there is a good vaccine.”  Although vaccines and identity may seem unrelated, Bill Gates has spent the last few years funding research (1:10) that can bring these two ideas together into ONE BIG IDEA.  On a recent “Ask Me Anything” thread on reddit, when asked “What changes are we going to have to make to how businesses operate to maintain our economy while providing social distancing?” Bill Gates answered: “Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”

All five of Gates’ goals would have been “unthinkable” but a few short years ago, but now some have shifted enormously, although a few are now much closer than anyone may think:

2.            Every human vaccinated;

3.            Every human digitally registered; and

4.            Every human microchipped or digitally tattooed.

The Overton Window taught us that it could take years, if not decades to shift topics that are “unthinkable” among the masses to become mainstream.  If Population Control is such a critical outcome for Gates and his Billionaire super-hero friends that they are willing to spend their Billions on to achieve it, then why wait?

Could some form of Sith mind control technique be applied to the Overton Window to shift the thoughts of millions of freedom-loving humans?  Just what kind of force is needed to convince the entire world’s population to submit to being vaccinated and in doing so, receive a fluorescent digital ID tattooed at the same time? 

Let’s conduct another thought experiment.

Imagine if a deadly new virus spread quickly across the world.  Imagine also that the world’s leaders were caught unaware and that modelling projected death in the millions.  What would most nations’ leaders do in response?  Would they be advised by their health system professionals to take extraordinary steps and even act as though they were on a war footing.  For example, would they:

  • Shut down international and even state borders, decimating the airline and tourism industries;
  • Mandate lockdowns or shelter in place orders for the healthy, to flatten the curve.  That is, to avoid an over-extension of health system capacity;
  • Place recovering, elderly patients in nursing homes to free up hospital beds;
  • Make arbitrary distinctions between essential and non-essential businesses, closing down small businesses, churches and schools and allowing large business, drug injecting rooms and casinos to thrive;
  • Destroy thousands of gyms, restaurants and hair salons permanently for the “health of the many;”
  • Pay people to stay at home, incurring many Trillions of dollars of global debt; and
  • Allow politically-motivated mass gatherings, but arrest anyone who protests the lock-downs?

What would the media do in support of the leaders’ policy positions?  Would they:

  • Flood the zone with information in support of the policy;
  • Refute, debunk, smear and hide information in opposition to it (whether supported by evidence or not);
  • Cancel the social media accounts and publicly shame anyone with a dissenting view; and
  • Focus news incessantly on only pandemic data, avoiding the devastation of lockdowns, and crafting a narrative that delivers leaders with their coveted prize – paralysing fear.

Well, there’s no need to imagine any of this, because it is all actually happening NOW!  However, unless you read the previous article, “Nothing to see here”, you may not realise that these scenarios were gamed out back in October 2019 at Event 201.  All that’s left to the imagination now is what insights Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and the world’s premier health agencies intended to discover during the desktop simulation event.

When I first wrote (on 22 March 2020) about the possible efficacy of Hydoxychloroquine (HCQ) as an early stage treatment for COVID-19, I thought that the outrage against it was mostly Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Then later, I began to believe that the outrage was likely more to do with protecting the revenue streams of Big Pharma vaccines for COVID-19.  Today, however, it would seem that, although the previous two reasons are valid, a more sinister reason for the anti-HCQ rhetoric exists.

The media hates Trump.

Big Pharma wants to protect future vaccine revenue streams.

Gates wants every human vaccinated as part of his Population Control agenda.


It would seem that a cheap, decades-old anti-malaria drug may have been the catalyst for exposing the true intentions of this cabal.  Refusing its use has resulted in hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. Add to this number, escalating suicide rates, undiagnosed cancer, heart disease and other ailments, massive death rates in nursing homes and the impending starvation of an estimated 130 million people in the third world all due to tyrannical responses to the disease. It’s not COVID-19 that is killing people so much as it it the response to it that has caused so much collateral damage both now and well into the future. It would appear that even though SARS-COV-2 was not as deadly as some might have thought (hoped?) it has still gone some way to denting population growth. More significantly, it has made large chunks of the population fearful and maleable.

I’d like to finish with these quotes:

If ‘back to normal’ means acting like there never was a coronavirus problem, I don’t think that’s going to happen until we do have a situation where you can completely protect the population [with a vaccine],’ said Fauci.   

“Humankind has never had a more urgent task than creating broad immunity for coronavirus. Realistically, if we’re going to return to normal, we need to develop a safe, effective vaccine. We need to make billions of doses, we need to get them out to every part of the world, and we need all of this to happen as quickly as possible.”  (Bill Gates).

The Sith are in our midst, but cracks are beginning to appear.

Gates and Fauci have both stated that “there will be no return to normal until we have a good vaccine.”  However, I believe that there will be no return to normal until we have a…….


Leave a Reply