Friday, October 12, 2012

The 'Soft Eugenics' of Bill Gates

This article originally appeared on the website of Christian Voice ( The article is published here with permission of Christian Voice.

To commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first eugenics conference, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation put on a family planning conference this summer. The conference, which began on 11 July and was co-hosted by the UK Department for International Development, included among its coalition partners such organizations as Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International, and the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA). 

From Hard Eugenics to Soft Eugenics

Bill and Melinda Gates
The original conference that Bill Gates wished to commemorate was titled The First International Eugenics Congress. It was convened in London from 24-29 July, 1912, and was presided over by Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin. The conference was dedicated to Charles Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton (1822–1911). Galton invented the term Eugenics to describe his theory that man could be perfected through strategic breeding. His ideas that certain races are genetically superior to other races had a profound impact on later Nazi theorists.

The 1912 conference included an exhibit by the American Breeders’ Association, whose former president, Harry Laughlin, proposed to eradicate the “inferior” members of society through compulsory sterilization. The conference featured a presentation from Bleeker van Wagenen, who gave a report on the progress of sterilization laws in the United States and advocated compulsory sterilization as a means for improving the human gene pool.

Early 20th century Eugenics theory was often accompanied by the notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population. Such ideas were based on the theories of Thomas Malthus (1766 –1834) who suggested that the poor were draining the world’s recourses. One of Malthus’s solutions for reducing the surplus population was to introduce policies specifically designed to bring death to large numbers of peasants. For example, he encouraged poor people to move near swamps, because he knew that they would catch diseases there and begin dying off.

The conference that the Gates Foundation put on to commemorate The First International Eugenics Congress included no calls for forced sterilization, but Bill and Malinda Gates did pledge hundreds of millions of dollars to improve access to contraception in the developing world. Following in the footsteps of early 20th century social engineering theory, they echoed Malthus by suggesting that we have an economic responsibility to ensure that there are fewer people. Wendy Wright has rightly called this the “latest effort to blame children for poverty and women’s troubles.” 

Bill Gates is quick to repudiate his dependence on Malthus. In an interview with PBS, he told Moyers that “The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population” and he shared how originally he “thought that the Malthusian principles applied at least in the developing countries.” Gates went on to say how he came to understand that “essentially Malthus was wrong” and that alternatives to Malthus’s doomsday scenarios included raising wealth, improving health and educating women.

But we should not be too quick to assume that Bill and Melinda Gates have completely abandoned their earlier Malthusian framework. On the contrary, Mr and Mrs Gates have both frequently drawn attention to the economic ramifications of there being too many people. This was made explicit by Melinda Gates in 2011 when she commented that “Government leaders…are now beginning to understand that providing access to contraceptives is a cost-effective way to foster economic growth…”

So what exactly is the relation between contraception and economic growth? 

The connection is simple: fewer people = more resources. This may not be the hard eugenics of Malthus, but it certainly involves what Andressen Blom and James Bell have appropriately termed “soft negative eugenics.” In an article for The American Thinker last June, Blom and Bell define soft eugenics as follows:
“for economic reasons governments should use taxpayer dollars to underwrite the decisions of citizens to pursue recreational sexual activity. The underlying economic assumption is that the prospective children of the poor citizens likely to utilize such government-funded programs would be likely to hamper economic growth if they are born.”

Decreasing the Surplus Population

This is not the first time that Bill and Malinda Gates have ventured into population control. At the Technology, Entertainment and Design 2010 Conference, Bill Gates gave a talk in which he suggested that the solution to global warming is to have fewer people.

Campus of the Gates Foundation
This is part of a new groundswell of interest in population control which posits a direct relationship between global warming and the amount of people on the earth. The Microsoft founder reduced our planet’s problem to a simple equation: CO2=P x S x E x C CO2 (total population-emitted CO2 per year) = P (people) x S (services per person) x E (average energy per service) x C (average CO2 emitted per unit of energy). 

The goal, Gates said, was to “get this down to zero.” Referring to P(eople) specifically, he said, “Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” 

That’s right. Rather than leading to more life, which was the original purpose of vaccines and healthcare, their great advantage in Gates’ mind is that they can lead to fewer people. While this is obviously true when it comes to contraception, it is hard to understand how vaccination is specifically related to a decrease in the population. (But hold onto that thought.)

The Gates Foundation are certainly doing all they can to decrease what it sees as surplus population. In May of this year, they gave a grant of $100,000 to researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill to develop a new type of ultrasound which has been described as a “non-invasive, reversible form of birth control for men.” Already tested on animals, it would make a man infertile for up to six months. Nine other grants were given to other scientists attempting to create new forms of contraception. 

Forced Sterilization

One of the coalition partners in last month’s conference was Planned Parenthood, whose founder Margaret Sanger hoped to “assist the race towards the elimination of the unfit.” Similarly, Marie Stopes International, who also had a prominent presence at the conference, was started by a woman who advocated for “the sterilization of those totally unfit for parenthood [to be] made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” (To read more about forced sterilization in the 20th century, see my article ‘Social Engineering and the Dark Side of American Liberalism.’)

But while these organizations previously supported forced sterilization, surely no one in the West still thinks that the poor and ‘feeble minded’ ought to be subjected to compulsory sterilization, right? Well, not so fast. Consider the following facts:


The Hidden Truth About Vaccines and Forced Sterilization

Rather than leading to more life, which was the original purpose of vaccines and healthcare, their great advantage in Gates’ mind (at least according to his remarks at the Technology, Entertainment and Design 2010 Conference) is that they can lead to fewer people. While this is obviously true when it comes to contraception, it is hard to understand how vaccines are specifically related to a decrease in the population.

The connection between vaccines and population control becomes clearer if we consider an event that occurred in the early 1990’s. The World Health Organization, working under the control of the UN, launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of people in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines against tetanus. The project was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the UN Development Programme, and the US’s National Institutes of Health.

Tetanus is a potentially lethal infection caused by external wounds or cuts from things like rusty nails. There is nothing unusual in tetanus inoculations, which are routine in the Western World. But there was something that didn’t quite add up about these particular vaccinations.

For one thing, the WHO was choosing to only vaccinate females. For another thing, the girls they chose to vaccinate are primarily those between the ages of 15 and 45 (in Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.)

It wasn’t just disease experts who noticed that something was amiss. After all, it doesn’t take a great deal of intelligence to know that men and boys are more prone to wounds from cuts and rusty nails than ladies. So why was the WHO only choosing to vaccinate girls of child-bearing age?

To make matters more suspicious, the vaccination protocols were calling for multiple injections -- three within three months and a total of five altogether. However, tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, so why this call for multiple inoculations?

These were the questions that Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, began asking and why they decided to have some vaccine samples tested. 

The tests revealed that the tetanus vaccine contained human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). hCG is a natural hormone that is secreted during the initial stages of pregnancy. When this hormone is combined with the tetanus toxoid carrier, it tricks the body into thinking that hCG is an invading enemy, with the result that a woman’s body begins producing anti-hCG antibodies, making it impossible for her to ever maintain a pregnancy.

After a number of labs exposed that the vaccine was really a life-time birth control shot, WHO officials tried to keep things quiet and continued administering the anti-fertility injections. It was only after the courts intervened that the WHO was forced to stop administering the vaccine. Unfortunately, by then the damage had already been done and thousands of girls in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines had been rendered permanently infertile. The scandal made it all the way up to the Philippines Supreme Court. To quote from an article on Lifesite news, reported that in 1995, the Catholic Women’s League of the Philippines won a court order halting a UNICEF anti-tetanus program because the vaccine had been laced with B-hCG, which when given in a vaccine permanently causes women to be unable to sustain a pregnancy. The Supreme Court of the Philippines found the surreptitious sterilization program had already vaccinated three million women, aged 12 to 45. B-hCG-laced vaccine was also found in at least four other developing countries.

Was the 1990s tetanus scandal simply a medical blunder? Hardly! For 20 years prior to the incident, WHO researchers had been actively involved in creating anti-fertility vaccines utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier. This was publically documented in medical journals from the 70s through to the 90s.

What could possibly have motivated the World Health Organization to knowingly, but covertly, sterilize thousands of women in third world countries? While we do not have sufficient information to answer this question for definite, the answer could have something to do with the fact that population control is once again a growing public concern among the world’s elite. Consider that
  • Population control seems to be the pet topic among those men who control much of the world's wealth. Not only Bill Gates but also Warren Buffett and Ted Turner have all spoken publically in favour of drastically reducing the human species, and supported programs designed to eliminate the excess in babies. For example, in 1996, Ted Turner stated that, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
  • In an interview with the New York Times in 2009, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg alluded to the fact that abortion is all about getting rid of certain types of people that we do not want around: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.”
  • Echoing comments made by the Optimum Population Trust in 2007, The London School of Economics suggested in 2009 that the best way to combat global warming is to reduce the surplus population through contraception and abortion. Their logic is simple: more people = more polluters.
  • A 2007 report, written by specialist Professor Barry Walters for the Australian medical journal, called for couples with more than two children to be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions. Parents would be charged $5,000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.
  • In a 1981 interview, Thomas Ferguson of the United States Department Office of Population Affairs, commented that “we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”
  • College professors and leaders frequently cite the Georgia Guidestones to in arguing that that we should "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." To achieve that, the human population would have to be thinned by 90%.
  • The Anglo-Dutch financial empire has been and still is committed to reducing the world's population from the present 6.7 billion, to under 2 billion persons. This has been stated repeatedly in the post-war period by such leading spokesmen as Lord Bertrand Russell, Julian Huxley, and World Wildlife Fund founders Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and the still-living Prince Philip, who has reiterated many times his desire to see the human population thinned.
  • Robert McNamara of the World Bank has said, "Excessive population growth is the greatest single obstacle to the economic and social advancement of most of the societies in the developing world."
  • An initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 Earth Charter reads, "The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary."
  • Dr. Henry Kissinger has said "World population needs to be decreased by 50%."
  • Friends of the Earth founder, David Brower, has stated, "That's the first thing to do, start controlling the population in affluent white America, where a child born to a white American will use about fifty times the resources of a child born in the black ghetto." "Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
  • President Obama's top science and technology advisor, John P. Holdren, has advocated the possibility of a "planetary regime" that would use a "global police force" to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.
  • The Secretary of State for International Development, Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP, is a hard-line pro-abortionist in his ideal job. In November 2010 he proposed to “hard-wire” abortion and contraceptive services into overseas development programmes. In December 2010 this came to fruition as he announced plans to spend an extra £2.1 billion on programmes including abortion and contraception, drawing a rebuke from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. The Governments' abortion policy is now an integral part of their foreign aid packages.

Further Reading

No comments:

Buy Essential Oils at Discounted Prices!