Jurriaan Maessen
April 7, 2012

In a twisted exercise in deceiving semantics Co-chair and trustee of the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation Melinda Gates attempted to counter the growing criticism in regards to the Foundation’s efforts in the Third World. During a speech she gave at the TEDx Change in Berlin yesterday, the wife of Microsoft founder and “philanthropist” Bill Gates characterised all criticism of the Foundation’s adventures in the third world as dangerous, especially the charge that the foundation is actively but covertly involved in population control. Gates described the charge as so dangerous in fact, that the criticismhas led to much suffering and death.”

Some people worry that the real goal is to control populations.”, Gates stated. “All these side issues have attached themselves to the core idea that men and women should be able to decide when to have a child. As a result, birth control has almost disappeared from the global health agenda.”, the audience was told.

The greatest victims”, Gates continued, “have been in sub-Saharan Africa and the poorest parts of South Asia which contraceptives are frequently unavailable.”

Gates also said that “some people think contraceptives are code for abortion, which they’re not. Some people are uncomfortable because contraceptives have to do with sex.”

Speaking of “code” at a 2006 gathering of top globalists devoted to the “family planning agenda” under the umbrella-name “Demographic Dynamics and Socio-Economic Development”, professor of Medical Demography at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, John Cleland, admitted to the fact that they should cease using coded language when communicating to the general public. The gathering was attended by the usual suspects. Representatives were present of the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the European Commission, the World Bank and, last but not least, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

No more shrouding our statements in code.”, the professor said. “Because code just confuses people.”, the professor said (page 33 in the document).

Cleland went on to say: “It does this cause no service at all to continue to shroud family planning in the obfuscating phrase “sexual and reproductive health”. People don’t really know what it means. If we mean family planning or contraception, we must say it. If we are worried about population growth, we must say it. We must use proper, straightforward language. I am fed up with the political correctness that daren’t say the name population stabilization, hardly dares to mention family planning or contraception out of fear that somebody is going to get offended. It is pathetic!”

In describing proven facts such as population control and her Foundation’s efforts in this field “side issues”, Melinda Gates is so blatantly fraudulent that we are surely dealing with a conscious effort to deceive the audience. She was however almost on the mark when she exclaimed that handing out contraceptives in third world nations is “a global movement in waiting.”

Well, not “waiting” of course. The policies have been fully operational for many a decade. The characterizations by Gates echo those by the lovely professor Kari Norgaard, who recently equated “climate deniers” to the mentally ill who require treatment.

As Paul Joseph Watson wrote in his September 21 2010 article Global Tax Scam Shifts From Climate Change To Poverty the new guise under which the same old population control agenda is being pursued is now called “poverty reduction” as global warming has hit a bit of a snag along the way.

To people who cannot believe dear Melinda would ever engage in deceiving an audience, let alone execute an age-old population control agenda, I always recommend reading Henry Kissinger’s 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200in which the fiend wrote:

(…) economic and social progress resulting from population control will (…) contribute to the decline in fertility rates” and “we cannot wait for overall modernization and development to produce lower fertility rates (…)”.

In 2005 a professor at MIT, ferociously writing on a chalkboard, echoed the old eugenic oath. Telling her students that as future scientists they need not worry about the population growth in developed countries, but focus all the more on reducing the populations in developing ones, she continued by saying:

“(from 10 minutes, 10 seconds onward) The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.

As fast as we can”. This, at its core, is an admission of 21st century eugenics in action- and it is yet another example of the fact that eugenics has anything but died out. On the contrary: it has never been more alive.

In a 2007 publication named Revamping U.S. Foreign Assistance, Ban-Ki-moon’s top adviser in matters of “poverty reduction” Jeffrey Sachs called for the “Reinvigoration of Global Population Policies”(page 22) in regards to the developing world:

Total Fertility Rates often average 6 to 8 children per mother in impoverished rural areas, and notably in the impoverished dry lands. These regions are without reliable access to modern contraception and family planning services, despite the pledges of the world community to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health services by the year 2015. Much research has demonstrated that the failure of population control in the poorest countries poses enormous risks for those societies and for the rest of the world.”

Melinda Gates’ assertion that there is no such effort as population control therefore is ludicrous. Under auspices of the same Jeffrey Sachs a team of scientists in a dissertation titled Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology conclude that the best way to eradicate poverty and disease is to.. well… eradicate humans:

Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established. But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?

The answer to that question is given by Bill Gates in 2010 when he promoted using vaccines to lower the population by 10 to 15%.

Disease and poverty, intertwined as they are, can therefore be eliminated by means of mass-scale fertility reduction. Melinda Gates agrees wholeheartedly.

The Reopen America Back to School Special is now live! Save up to 60% on our most popular items!

Related Articles