Population Control: The Receipts
By: Robert Malone
Personally, I have been reluctant to wander down the rabbit hole relating to various “depopulation agenda” theories involving the COVID crisis. However, the odd concordance between a possible population reduction objective and the dysfunctional “public health” policies is obvious to all open-minded thinkers. These policies include that the biologically engineered SARS-CoV-2 virus, the many “public health” policies, as well as the rushed gene therapy-based COVID “vaccines” and their wide range of associated – but rigorously denied – “serious adverse events” (not the least of which are sudden unexpected death and fertility issues) are more consistent with a population control/depopulation agenda as opposed to being effective “public health” interventions.
Buckle up, because this is going to be a deep dive down that very same rabbit hole.
Recently, a respected colleague (Mr. Gavin DeBecker) sent me an email comprising a lengthy analysis and attached documents concerning (formerly classified) National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 titled the “Kissinger Report”. He also provided links to associated supplemental federal government documents including the National Security Directive Memorandum 314 “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests, 11/26/75.” Gavin is a well-published author, including the pivotal work titled The Gift of Fear : Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence, and he had prepared this analysis (below) while preparing a new book. His text, thoughts and analysis are shared by permission of the author.
In considering these documents, it is helpful to keep in mind that Henry Kissinger is a key mentor of Dr. Klaus Schwab, was involved (together with the CIA) in originally creating and continues to consult with the World Economic Forum as well as with the CCP/Xi Jinping.
Reading through the comments, observations, and associated documents I was stunned by the frank, “Realpolitik”-based arguments in favor of a US Federal Government global population control/depopulation agenda, as well as the similarities to various activities known to have been performed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World Health Organization, United Nations and other non-governmental (and governmental) organizations. I am also amazed by the parallels between some of the proposed and implemented COVID crisis policy positions (keeping in mind that NSSM 200 as well as NSDM 314 were formally implemented as US federal policy by Gerald Ford and remain in place as US policy to this day).
It is absolutely true that correlation does not prove causation, and we do not (yet?) have documentation that these official population control/depopulation policy items influenced COVID crisis public health policy – as many so-called “conspiracy theorists” have surmised. However, as far as I am concerned, one must recognize and acknowledge the amazing parallels between preceding population policy and many of the “public health” policies and actions which were implemented in the US and most Western countries (particularly the “Five Eyes” nations). As previously covered in this Substack, Ernst Wolff has been one (of many) leading proponents of the theory that the COVID crisis was largely driven by an economic/financial agenda. It is always possible, and in this case probable, that many agendas were being advanced during this recent manufactured crisis.
After reading this essay and the supporting documentation, I suggest that each reader should make his/her (they/them?) assessment of the probability that the response to this “public health crisis” was influenced by US Federal population control policy as clearly outlined in the “Kissinger Report.” The report indicates that global population MUST not exceed 8 billion human beings. Is it a coincidence that in 2020 total global human inhabitants reached 7.84 billion?
It all started with a meeting.
June 8, 1973, 10:30 AM, Ambassador Porter’s Office, State Department
COPIES TO: S, D, P, E, M, C, S/PC, S/S, EUR, IO, S/PM, AID
General Draper and his colleagues presented their views that the population explosion in developing countries was not only a threat to US interests in the economics and in the development of those countries but also, more fundamentally, presented a danger to our politico-military interests. They referred to the memorandum written by General Taylor on this subject. Ambassador Porter said that he had read General Taylor’s memorandum and asked him to comment on it further if he cared to. General Taylor said he would add only that, although he was a neophyte in population matters, he felt very strongly that, as stated in his memorandum, the rapid growth of populations in many developing countries was a likely source of internal violence and of possibilities of external aggression. He and General Draper asked Ambassador Porter for his advice on how to proceed with the subject. They said they had talked to General Scowcroft in Mr. Kissinger’s office about it in terms of the possibility of a NSC study. General Draper said he had written the President explaining his views that rapid population growth could endanger the concept of a generation of peace and recommending that the President speak out on this subject.
Ambassador Porter said that they were talking to someone who was already converted to this whole idea. He felt that our population programs were not closely enough connected to our overall aid programs but were handled too separately. He believed there was no use pumping in aid funds and food without closer correlation with population programs. They were now much too separate. He felt the relationship needed reorientation. He believed we should not put large amounts of money in aid programs in developing countries without thinking over the long-term consequences. He said he agreed that population growth in developing countries is a definite threat to the peace, not just an economic problem. Ambassador Porter recalled his experience in Korea, where he had first come in contact with a national population control program. He found that at the governmental level there was, at least vocally, a strong program but that when he went to the village level he found that the charts showing acceptors had large gaps. He found that at the ministerial level it was thought that the population program was necessary but at the village level it would not work for the individual family until they had two male children to run the farm. In fact, the government program did not really encourage women to practice birth control until they had two male children.
Ambassador Porter said that fundamentally this is a NSC study. An overall directive for the whole program should come from the White House. He said we will check on what has happened in the White House since the receipt of General Draper’s letter. He said we will try to get something done.
Ambassador Porter brought up the other subject which had been mentioned by General Draper in his correspondence: the Brezhnev visit. He said he thought that the Soviet Union would not be much interested in internal population programs because, although they were interested in birth control for China, they wanted to fill their own empty space in Siberia. He agreed, however, with General Draper’s argument that the Soviets should be interested, as the US is, in encouraging developing countries to reduce their rates of population growth. Ambassador Porter said he would make a formal proposal to Kissinger to put the matter on the agenda for the Nixon-Brezhnev talks.
General Draper said that he has three important steps in mind now:
1. Talks with the Soviets concerning a positive approach to the World Population Conference.
2. A statement by the President at the UNGA this fall on the threat which population growth poses for world peace.
3. The exclusion of oral contraceptives from the 40 percent limitation on AID’s contributions to the IPPF.
He asked if Mr. Claxton and Mr. Porter would agree that this last item was appropriate and, if so, if they would express their views to Dr. Hannah who had it under consideration. Ambassador Porter and Mr. Claxton said they would.
Ambassador Porter again raised the subject of the NSC and felt that the object was to get it involved. Mr. Claxton suggested that it might be useful sometime after the Secretary’s return from Europe to convoke a meeting of the Secretary, Mr. Rush, Under Secretary Casey and Ambassador Porter with Dr. Hannah and members of his staff to take a general, broad, long-range policy look at US interests and programs in the population field. He said he would send up suggestions on this subject.
Senator Tydings said there were several domestic problems involved which related strongly to our international position. He said he believed that State and AID were far ahead of other departments of the Government. He said, for example, the present generation of contraceptives is not adequate for the needs of peoples in the diverse rural societies and that there was a great need for research which, however, was not being adequately supported by the US Government. He said he feels there is lacking any sense of urgency anywhere else in the Government. He felt there is a lack of coordination of internal sectors in relation to foreign policy interests in this field. For example, although it is reported that Texas, Minnesota, and some other states will have exceptionally large wheat crops, he is not aware of any planning to provide the necessary railroad cars to get the wheat to port. Mr. Claxton added that Senator Humphrey has said he is not aware there is planning to provide the necessary propane or natural gas to dry the large expected soybean crop in the Midwestern states this fall. He also wondered whether there was planning for the necessary ships to carry increased cargoes of feedgrains. Although these were generally considered to be domestic matters, they strongly relate to the success of basic foreign policy interests
Senator Tydings added that he believes the top command of HEW is not only unwilling to expand our national family planning services but apparently is not willing to support what we already have going on. Ambassador Porter and Mr. Claxton both observed that it is important to be able to show abroad that we are not asking peoples of other countries to do more than we are doing at home.
General Taylor said he thought that any NSC study should include a study of the domestic scene viewed from the standpoint of the effects of family planning programs. Senator Tydings emphasized that logistics in the US are essential to getting food abroad for family planning purposes.
Ambassador Porter asked if anyone knew what China is doing in population control. General Draper said he had spent three weeks recently in China and had testified before Senator Kennedy’s Health Subcommittee. He would send Ambassador Porter a copy of that testimony. Ambassador Porter said he would be very glad to have it. General Draper outlined very briefly what he had seen in China.
General Draper then brought up his concern that the amendments to the AID bill proposed by 22 members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee would be harmful because: 1) they authorized funds for population and broad health subjects together and authorized only $150 million for both; and 2) as he understood it, the earmarking for population funds which had been essential to the success of the program was being dropped. He asked the Department’s consideration of this subject and support for retaining the earmarking. He said he would testify before the Foreign Affairs Committee next week and would urge the Committee to leave $125 million earmarked for population programs alone and to transfer the health subject with $25 million to the food and nutrition section.
Concerning the Nixon-Brezhnev meeting, Mr. Claxton said he had already prepared a paper for the President’s use and that he would get it to Ambassador Porter to send to Mr. Kissinger. Ambassador Porter said that he would also include in his memorandum to Kissinger a suggestion that the population subject be taken up by the NSC in its broad aspects.
Kissinger Report and Subsequent US Population Control Policy
The classified National Security Study Memo known as The Kissinger Report, undertaken at the direction of President Nixon, laid out detailed plans for population reduction in many countries. These plans became official US policy in 1975 though National Security Decision 314, enacted by President Gerald Ford.
The policies developed from the report were seen as a way the United States could use human population control to prevent undeveloped nations from gaining substantial political power. Believing that future generations birthed throughout the world posed a danger to wealth accumulation, the policy was backed by wealthy individuals in the US. The policy was also expected to protect American businesses abroad against interference from nations seeking to support their growing populations.
Historically, war was required to reduce an adversary’s population; the Kissinger Report proposed a more strategic and well-disguised approach aimed at countries that could pose long-term risk to US economic and military interests.
From Wikipedia: “NSSM200 was reworked and adopted as official United States policy through NSDM 314 by President Gerald Ford on November 26, 1975. It was initially classified for over a decade but was obtained by researchers in the early 1990s. The memorandum and subsequent policies developed from the report were observed as a way the United States could use human population reduction to limit the political power of undeveloped nations, ensure the easy extraction of foreign natural resources, prevent young anti-establishment individuals from being born, and to protect American businesses abroad from interference from nations seeking to support their growing populations.”
From the Kissinger Report Executive Summary:
World policy and programs in the population field should incorporate two major objectives:
(a) actions to accommodate continued population growth up to 6 billions by the mid-21st century without massive starvation or total frustration of developmental hopes; and
(b) actions to keep the ultimate level as close as possible to 8 billions rather than permitting it to reach 10 billions, 13 billions, or more
This major objective –to not exceed 8 billion– combined with the fact that we hit the 8-billion mark in 2022 might help explain the intense urgency of so many planned and organized actions during the past three years.
When we set aside Covid/virus/pandemic (the ostensible rationale for everything that’s been done since 2020), and focus instead on plans that were developed and enacted by USG over decades, and when we focus on actions that have been taken on those plans, and when we focus on the effects that have been caused by those actions, it emerges that population reduction, population control (and control of the population) has resulted. This is expressed without judgment about good or bad motives, and without reference to specific people – simply looking at what has resulted.
Perhaps the most obvious result of COVID lockdowns and the interruption of commerce is the current record number of people at risk of starvation: Before COVID lockdowns and all their results, the number of people at risk of starvation was 135 million. By the end of 2021, that had increased by another 135 million people, and in 2022, it then increased another 67 million. The result is currently about 10 million deaths from starvation, 3 million of them children.
The classified Kissinger Report set forth a strong belief system that population must urgently be reduced (a belief that many reasonable people support and many reasonable people oppose). The Kissinger Report created a template and spending plan that includes items I’m quoting directly:
… fertility and contraceptive research
… biomedical research would be doubled
… field testing of existing technology
… development of new technology
… oral contraceptives (optimal steroid hormone combinations and doses for populations)
… intra-uterine devices of differing size, shape, and bioactivity should be developed and tested to determine the optimum levels of acceptability
… Sterilization of men and women has received wide-spread acceptance in several areas. Female sterilization has been improved by technical advances with aparoscopes, culdoscopes, and greatly simplified abdominal surgical techniques… the use of tubal clips, trans-cervical approaches, and simpler techniques can be developed. For men, several current techniques hold promise but require more refinement
… Leuteolytic and anto-progesterone approaches to fertility control including use of prostaglandins
… injectable contraceptives for women… administered by pare-professionals. Currently limited by their side effects and potential hazards… can be overcome with additional research
… male contraceptive, in particular an injection which will be effective for specified periods of time
… injection which will assure a woman of regular periods. The drug would be given by pare-professionals once a month or as needed to regularize the menstrual cycle
The budget for each intended/recommended action in the report gives insight into the level of priority and commitment assigned to each item.
The report proposes the (then-innovative) idea of incorporating birth control into “the context of broader health services” in order to help make reductions in population “more acceptable to leaders and individuals who, for a variety of reasons (some ideological, some simply humanitarian) object to family planning.”
The report recommends population control only in Least Developed Countries (LDC), and cautions that “We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs,” though the policy was precisely that.
The report stresses more than once that weaving the concepts of family planning into health programs is a strategy for gaining acceptance, and will:
“help the U.S. contend with the ideological charge that the U.S. is more interested in curbing the numbers of LDC people than it is in their future and well-being. We should recognize that those who argue along ideological lines have made a great deal of the fact that the U.S. contribution to development programs and health programs has steadily shrunk, whereas funding for population programs has steadily increased.”
The report proposes recruitment of “traditional medical practitioners,” and reaches the conclusion that “the commercial approach offers a practical, low-cost means of providing family planning services, since it utilizes an existing distribution system.” (Mass vaccination is an example of this.)
The report explains that the International Planned Parenthood Federation and USAID were “testing commercial distribution schemes in various Least Developed Nations to obtain further information on the feasibility, costs, and degree of family planning acceptance achieved through this approach.” The work was to be “aimed at simple, low-cost, effective, safe, long-lasting and acceptable methods of fertility control.”
Note: USAID (10,000 employees, $27bn budget) figures most prominently in the report, and was a co-author, along with CIA and Dept of State.
“A growing number of experts are of the belief that the outlook is much harsher and far less tractable than commonly perceived… the conclusion of this view is that mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now.”
Note from Gavin: This next section of the classified document written by CIA and USAID is uncomfortably close to other global ambitions in world history. The proposal asks if the U.S. should:
“make an all out commitment to major limitation of world population with all the financial and international as well as domestic political costs that would entail”
“Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?”
“Would food be considered an instrument of national power?”
“Are mandatory population control measures appropriate for the U.S. and/or for others?”
“Should the U.S. seek to change its own food consumption patterns toward more efficient uses of protein?”
Note: During the COVID pandemic, the FDA began a $5 billion program related to this, and the Gates Foundation has funded several projects along these lines. (While these pursuits are certainly not all bad, they are science-fiction projects that will change the natural food supply, and it might be too much to expect they will great care.)
The report proposes the commercial approach in which USG uses “big-medical research to improve the existing means of fertility control and to develop new ones.” (Note that this project was a National Security Directive, not inspired to improve reproductive freedom – quite the opposite. There is no reproductive freedom when one can’t have children.)
The report favors “large-scale programs that will induce fertility decline in a cost-effective manner,” and enthusiastically describes controversial examples, such as what it calls “the remarkably successful experiments in India in which financial incentives, along with other motivational devices, were used to get large numbers of men to accept vasectomies.”
“Only a concerted and major effort in a number of carefully selected directions can provide the hope of success in reducing population growth…”
The report states that primary emphasis on “population moderation” should be applied to “the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special U.S. political and strategic interest.” In 1974, the named countries were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Columbia.
Note: 33 years later, in 2021, the US donated millions of mRNA vaccines to the following countries, all of which were specifically named in the Kissinger Report: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, Ethiopia, and Columbia.
None of the countries listed are predominantly Caucasian.
The report states it is “desirable in terms of U.S. interests” to work with the U.N. Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), which already had projects in more than 70 countries.
Pressure to develop a global strategy of population reduction was advanced to the Nixon Administration by Major General William Draper, who had been instrumental in establishing UNFPA and also co-founded the Population Crisis Committee. The Population Crisis Committee encouraged population reduction “so that humanity and the natural environment can exist in balance with fewer people living in poverty.” It’s more accurate to say their goal was “fewer people living,” period.
UNFPA ran programs described by critics as forced abortions and coercive sterilizations. Naturally, UNFPA describes its mission quite differently:
“To deliver a world in which every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe, and every young person’s potential is fulfilled.”
It’s clear that the lofty goals of every young person’s potential being fulfilled applies only to young people who are actually born, since the first item listed by UNFLA under WHAT WE DO is “ensuring a steady, reliable supply of quality contraceptives… including pills, implants, intrauterine devices, and surgical procedures that limit fertility.”
The UNFPA gave money from the US to support the People’s Republic of China’s birth control campaign, widely accused of major human rights violations, mainly on women and girls. Likewise, UNFPA provided funding for the forced sterilization program promoted by the Indian government, exposed in 2014 when dozens of women died in “sterilization camps” to which they were lured in exchange for social benefits.
The program also received funds from other governments and various US organizations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. https://thewolf.report/2017/08/27/the-kissinger-report-and-the-world-population-control/
Major General Draper, arguably the most effective early proponent of reducing population, gave a presentation to senior staff at the Department of State in 1973, in which he said population growth in Least Developed Countries “fundamentally presented a danger to our politico military interests.” Within a year of this meeting, the Kissinger Report would state:
“A growing number of experts believe the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted…. even stronger measures are required and some fundamental, very difficult moral issues need to be addressed.”
According to the report, reducing the number of people in other countries applied methods considered extreme enough to invoke fundamental and “very difficult moral issues.”
The report offered the President a choice about which arm of the US Government should have authority over the world population issue: the National Security Council (Option A), or USAID (Option B). Not surprisingly, Option A was supported by the National Security Council and the CIA, as well as “State, Treasury, Defense, Agriculture, HEW, and Commerce.”
Main observations advanced by NSSM200:
Population growth of foreign nations provides more geopolitical power and possible opposition to US interests
- The United States relies on countries being underdeveloped in order to easily obtain natural resources
- American businesses are vulnerable to interference by foreign governments that are required to provide for growing populations
- High birth rates result in more young individuals who oppose established governments
“Young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the establishment, imperialists, multinational corporations, or other, often foreign [meaning U.S.] influences that are blamed for their troubles.”
The idea of having fewer young people could be embraced by almost any power structure, and venturing into dystopian territory it is (perhaps inadvertently) a consequence of the Covid mass vaccination policy. Working-age populations in mass-vaccinated countries are in decline – again perhaps inadvertently.
From NSSM 200 and National Security Decision 314:
“The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”
“In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”
“No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion…”
The National Security Council recommended that world-wide support for population reduction should be sought through “increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA, and USAID.”
The policies adopted from NSSM200 and NSDM 314 expanded even further in 1976 after the National Security Council advocated for the use of withholding food as a strategy of influence (food power), and using military force to prevent population growth.
“In some cases, strong direction has involved incentives such as payment to acceptors for sterilization, or disincentives such as giving low priorities in the allocation of housing or schooling to those with larger families. Such direction is the sine qua non of an effective program.”
These exact kinds of incentives and disincentives, and increased use of mass media were applied during the push for mass vaccination, presumably with different intent.
A December 1974 memo from the National Security Council to President Ford explained that “All U.S. efforts should be undertaken in such a way as to minimize criticism that they are directed against the interests of the developing countries,”
and should stress “the development of the well-being and economic progress of the poorest countries.” [We’re only here to help.]
A June 1976 memo from the National Security Council to President Ford enacted plans from the Kissinger Report, specifically advocating that “paramedics, midwives, volunteers, and other” trusted people be trained to offer sterilization and family planning in villages.
“We recommend that U.S. officials refrain from public comment on forced-paced measures such as those currently under active consideration in India [because] there are moral considerations as well as practical obstacles to involuntary sterilization programs (inadequacy of medical, legal, and administrative facilities), and they might have an unfavorable impact on existing voluntary programs.”
In August of 1974, the CIA prepared OPR-401:
“The world’s increasing dependence on American surpluses portends an increase in US power and influence.”
“The implications for the world food situation and for US interests would be considerably greater if climatologists who believe a cooling trend is underway prove to be right. If the trend continues for several decades there would almost certainly be an absolute shortage of food. The population ‘problem’ would have solved itself in the most unpleasant fashion.”
1. To verify the Kissinger Report is authentic, here is the official USAID website which maintains the original text for consultation
2. A detailed discussion of issues arising from the US global policy, the Kissinger Report, Malthus, etc: https://thewolf.report/2017/08/27/the-kissinger-report-and-the-world-population-control/
What we see are official secret US policies that have included population reduction for decades. Throughout history, the powerful have waged war on young people who resist, and have always waged war on non-conformity and non-compliance.
Even during the presumably more innocent responses to Covid, people who advanced and elevated contrary information were enemies of the State.
Throughout history, imposed conformity has been a central goal of the powerful. A contemporary example is mass vaccination with out-of-date products:
You are good (as in a good little boy) if you got the shot. Even if you got the shot two years ago and even though it no longer has any medical relevance, you can participate in society because it’s not about science – it’s about compliance.
- Questioners of authority are enemies of the State
- Independent thought is an enemy of the State
- Uncontrolled natural human thought and spirit is an enemy of the State
- Non-Conformity is an enemy of the State
- Nature is an enemy of the State
- Human nature is an enemy of the State
- And today, there is a hack for everything, a technology that can fix every-thing
- And people are things
Future wars will be waged on casualties who don’t even know they’ve been hit – wars of persuasions, often for the benefit of large corporations that use government, and governments that use large corporations.
Even when it’s a dark truth, truth is light.
Here are the top 10 methods “they” are using to reduce human population down to a “manageable” amount, at which point those remaining (apparently including the heirs to the fortunes of those driving this bus) will all live in a “utopian society”. Personally, I suspect that the result will be more akin to the dystopia of “Mad Max” than enlightened Athenian Democracy or Platos Republic.
Method 10: Targeted sterilization
Throughout history, and still today, people have used the philosophy of Eugenics to “improve” the human population by deciding who shouldn’t be allowed to have children. Oftentimes this means sterilizing the Sick and/or Poor.
Admitted cases of targeted sterilization include some 33 States of the United States from the 1930’s-1980’s. In the case of North Carolina they even apologized and established the N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation in 2010 to compensate victims.
Other cases of forced sterilization include Nazi Germany and rumored immunization vaccines laced with antibodies to render woman sterile in the Philippines and in Africa. In China’s totalitarian system the Elites directly implement their famous single child quota.
Sterilization ploys throughout history usually end up playing out as some sort of racists scheme. But the ultimate goal is self-administered population reduction methods such as abortion.
Method 9: Wars
Wars have the obvious effect of reducing human population, and what may not be so obvious is the benefit that comes to international bankers who fund both sides of wars through central banks.
Wars accomplish population reduction while at the same time enriching war profiteers. The world has always managed several fronts of wars at any given time. However, the war on terrorism promises perpetual wars with no end in sight and a rising death toll that comes with it.
Method 8: No cures for diseases
Today’s doctors are drug dealers for the large and powerful pharmaceutical companies. Human doctors might replaced by Artificially Intelligent machines.
Doctors remain powerless against Big Pharma, government regulatory bodies such as the FDA,
Any doctor who tries to be a real Doctor and actually cures people is discredited out of the profession.
Method 7: Sexually transmitted diseases
Sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) such as HIV reduce human reproduction, shorten lifespan while creating a drug-dependent patient forced to buy treatments since cures are purposely withheld. The main goal of STD’s is to discourage pregnancies and create self-inflicted population control, which is a lot more efficient than forced population control.
Method 6: Environmental Manipulation
Pesticides and other chemical agents in the air that cause cancers, asthma, allergies and other sicknesses are very effective at making people sick and requiring them to buy medical treatments that make them even sicker.
Meanwhile, weather manipulation by DARPA and other agencies around the world directly result in disasters that appear natural and kill thousands of people at a time.
Method 5: Abortions
Abortions is the result of a perfectly executed population reduction campaign that resulted in self-execution. According to the World Health Organization, there are 40-50 million abortions per year worldwide, or about 125,000 abortions per day.
Method 4: Genetically Modified Organisms
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) such as insects, plants and animals is the future.
These GMO’s do all sorts of interesting new things such as mating with natural organisms to prevent them from producing natural seeds, using them as bioweapons and merging them with technology to carry out even more impressive missions against the human population.
Method 3: Same sex relationships
The explosion of same sex images in the media and Hollywood content is a planned and executed psychological operation (psyop).
This psyop conducted over the last 10 years on the human population has accomplished its mission of creating a self-executing population reduction paradigm.
Same sex relationships promise to be the most efficient human population reduction tool that ever existed.
Method 2: The food supply
If you control the food supply for any living organism, you control the organism, and humans are no different. The powerful have been slowly modifying the food of humans with all sorts of hormones, antibiotics and God knows what else for both profit and to affect physical change in the human body.
The most evident effect of food source manipulation is obesity, early menstruation in females, reduction of testosterone levels in men, and overall hormonal imbalance that causes sexual confusion and gender dyslexia. The combination of all this feeds right into the same sex relationship psychological operation against the human population to ultimately reduce the human reproduction rate.
Method 1: Transhumanism
— the merging of humans with sophisticated technologies that greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Transhumanism would completely eliminate the need for human population control or reduction by other means, since the technological enhancements would allow the creators and administrators of the “transhumans” to literally control their body and mind.
Population Policy from U.S. Department of State Archives
Washington, June 8, 1973, 10:30 a.m.
Members of the Population Crisis Committee discussed their concerns with Department of State officials.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, SOC 13. Confidential. Drafted by Claxton. The meeting took place in Porter’s office. The Population Crisis Committee was a self-appointed group of advocates favoring a variety of measures to limit worldwide population growth.
Washington, June 13, 1973
Eliot transmitted two briefing papers emphasizing the importance of discussing population control policy with Soviet General Secretary Brezhnev during his upcoming visit to the United States.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files, 1970–73, POL 7 USSR. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Claxton on June 12 and Barbour on June 13, and cleared by Porter.
Washington, June 19, 1973
Rogers and Weinberger recommended that Nixon establish a commission for the observance of the 1974 World Population Year.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, SOC 13. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Spengler, Claxton, and Allen; and cleared by De Palma and Murray. A memorandum from Rush to Nixon, December 10, recommended that Nixon approve the proposal (ibid.). Nixon’s January 17, 1974 Executive Order establishing the Commission is published in Department of State Bulletin, February 11, 1974, pp. 153–154.
Washington, July 11, 1973
The airgram provided posts with guidance concerning the U.S. position on population control issues.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files, 1970–73, SOC 13. Unclassified; Priority. Drafted on July 2 by Allen, Claxton, and Burke; cleared by Marshall and Ravenholt; and approved by Claxton, Kieffer, and Marcy. Sent to Paris for the Representative to UNESCO and to Rome for the Representative to the FAO. None of the enclosures are published. For Enclosure 1, not attached, see Public Papers: Nixon, 1973, pp. 512–513. For Enclosure 2, not attached, see Department of State Bulletin, May 7, 1973, pp. 545–560. Enclosure 3, January 8, 1971, is U.N. Document A/RES/2683 (XXV). Enclosure 4, April 14, 1970, is U.N. Document E/RES/1484 (XLVIII). Enclosure 5, undated, is a U.N. Centre for Economic and Social Information brochure entitled “World Population Year 1974” reproducing Waldheim’s September 10, 1972 statement formally proclaiming 1974 as the World Population Year. Enclosure 6, undated, is a brochure entitled “World Population Year 1974: What the United Nations is Doing, What You Can Do,” produced by the UNFPA World Population Year Secretariat. Enclosure 7, February 14, 1973, is U.N. Document E/CN.9/276.
Washington, October 5, 1973
Claxton reviewed U.S. population policy since 1966 and identified current issues that required Kissinger’s attention.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73 SOC 13. Confidential. Drafted by Claxton on October 5. Tab A is not attached. Tab B is published as Document 106. Kissinger’s September 24 address to the U.N. General Assembly is published in Department of State Bulletin, October 15, 1973, pp. 469–473. Nixon’s July 18, 1969 Special Message to Congress on Problems of Population Growth is published in Public Papers: Nixon, 1969, pp. 521–530.
October 20, 1973, 0705Z
Moynihan offered observations about population policy in India, population control more generally, and détente with the Soviet Union.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to Dacca, Islamabad, and Colombo. Telegram 209070 to London forwarded this message to Claxton, who was attending a meeting in London. Telegram 12555 from London forwarded this message to key NSC and Department of State officials (both ibid.).
110. Memorandum From the President’s Assistant for International Economic Affairs (Cooper) to the President’s Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs (Scowcroft), Washington, November 26, 1973.
Washington, November 26, 1973
Cooper explained his rationale for delaying the issuance of a National Security Study Memorandum concerning population policy.
Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H–204, National Security Study Memoranda, NSSM 200 [2 of 2]. Limited Official Use. Sent for action. Scowcroft initialed his approval of the first recommendation, crossing out “in approximately two weeks” and writing in “ASAP.”
Washington, February 8, 1974
The Bureau of Intelligence and Research presented an overview of population-related issues at the opening of the World Population Year.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, P740024–0442. Limited Official Use. Prepared by Giffler.
Washington, March 23, 1974
Scowcroft recommended issuance of a National Security Study Memorandum on world population issues.
Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H–204, National Security Study Memoranda, NSSM 200 [2 of 2]. Confidential. Sent for action. Kissinger wrote at the top of the memorandum, “Brent, we don’t need Pres. OK for NSSM’s.” Tab I, Kissinger’s undated memorandum to Nixon, is attached but not published. On it, Kissinger initialed his approval of Scowcroft’s recommendation on Nixon’s behalf. Tab A, as signed, is published as Document 113.
Washington, April 24, 1974
The President directed a study of the implications of worldwide population growth on U.S. security and overseas interests.
Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H–204, National Security Study Memoranda, NSSM 200 [2 of 2]. Confidential. A copy was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Washington, May 31, 1974, 1 p.m.
Kissinger discussed international population policy with a group of experts from outside government.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, P820050–0597. Confidential; Nodis. Approved by Bremer on June 19. The meeting took place in the Madison/Monroe dining room. For Kissinger’s address to the Sixth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on April 15, see Department of State Bulletin, May 6, 1974, pp. 477–482. The referenced NSSM on population is published as Document 113.
Washington, July 25, 1974
The Scope Paper presented an overview of the major issues facing the World Population Conference and outlined U.S. goals for the Conference.
Source: Department of State, IO/DAR Files: Lot 82 D 211, SD/E/CONF.60/1. Unclassified. Drafted by Marshall and Allen, and cleared by Claxton and McDonald.
August 31, 1974, 1605Z
The telegram summarized the accomplishments of the World Population Conference.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, D740242–0932. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to USUN, the Mission to the U.N. in Geneva, Moscow, and Saigon. Forwarded to all diplomatic posts as Airgram A–8189 on October 29 (ibid., P740116–2194).
Washington, September 19, 1974
Weinberger communicated his assessment of the World Population Conference.
Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H–204, National Security Study Memoranda, NSSM 200 [2 of 2]. Confidential. The accompanying 36-page unclassified report is not published. The memorandum and report were transmitted under a December 14 covering memorandum from Springsteen to Scowcroft (ibid.) for consideration in the preparation of the response to NSSM 200 (Document 113). Herter’s statement is published in Department of State Bulletin, September 30, 1974, pp. 436–437.
Washington, December 14, 1974
Ingersoll summarized the recommendations of the NSSM 200 report on the implications of worldwide population growth.
Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H–204, National Security Study Memoranda, NSSM 200 [1 of 2]. Confidential. The 198-page attached report is not published. The 13 key countries identified in the report as comprising almost half (47%) of the present population growth were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia. NSSM 200 is published as Document 113.
Washington, June 1975
The commission recommended creation of a permanent body within the U.S. government to monitor and coordinate population policy efforts.
Source: Ford Library, White House Central Files, Subject Files, FG 373, Box 195, 4/1/17–1/20/77. No classification marking. The entire report, including appendices, is not published. Committee Chairman Clifford M. Hardin submitted the report to Ford on June 15.
Washington, July 17, 1975
Horan recommended that Kissinger forward to Ford a National Security Decision Memorandum concerning population policy.
Washington, October 16, 1975
Kissinger recommended the issuance of a National Security Decision Memorandum on population policy. Ford initialed his approval.
Source: Ford Library, National Security Council, Institutional Files, Box 63, NSDM 314 (3). Confidential. Sent for action. Tab A, as signed, is published as Document 122. Tab B is published as Document 118. Tab C is published as Document 113.
Washington, November 26, 1975
The President issued several related directives designed to foster a coordinated governmental approach to international population policy issues.
Source: Ford Library, National Security Adviser, NSDMs File, Box 1, NSDM 314. Confidential. Copies were sent to the Chairman of the National Security Council Under Secretaries Committee, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. NSSM 200 is published as Document 113. The NSSM 200 response is published as Document 118.
Washington, April 10, 1976, 2:30 p.m.
Kissinger discussed how to promote U.S. international population policy objectives with Green and other Department of State officials.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, P820117–2114. Confidential. Drafted by Simmons on May 17 and approved by Aherne on May 21. The meeting was held in Kissinger’s office. Kissinger’s trip included stops in the United Kingdom (April 23–24), Nairobi (April 24–25), Dar es Salaam (April 25–26), Lusaka (April 26–27), Kinshasa (April 27–30), Monrovia (April 30–May 1), Dakar (May 1–2), Nairobi (May 2–6), and Paris (May 6–7). Kissinger’s May 6 speech to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Nairobi is published in Department of State Bulletin, May 31, 1976, pp. 657–672. Kissinger’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly Seventh Special Session is ibid., September 22, 1975, pp. 425–441.
Washington, April 13, 1976
Green submitted a list of specific actions Kissinger could take to support U.S. international population policy.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, P760069–0390. Confidential. Sent for action. Drafted on April 13 by Green. Sent through Kratzer. A handwritten notation indicates that Kissinger approved, on May 7, the draft cable attached at Tab 1. Tab 1, not printed, was sent as telegram 113982 to all diplomatic posts, May 10, indicating Kissinger’s personal interest in promoting U.S. population policy objectives. (Ibid., Central Foreign Policy Files) The memorandum of Kissinger’s conversation with Green and other Department officials on Saturday, April 10, is published as Document 123. NSDM 314 is published as Document 122. Kissinger’s May 6 speech to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Nairobi is published in Department of State Bulletin, May 31, 1976, pp. 657–672.
Washington, July 29, 1976
Robinson submitted the first annual report on U.S. international population policy, including recommendations for action.
Source: Ford Library, National Security Council, Institutional Files, Box 74, NSC–U/DM 130. Confidential. The Annexes are not published. A copy of this report was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, the Under Secretary of Agriculture, the Under Secretary of Commerce, the Under Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Director of the National Science Foundation, the Administrator of the Agency for International Development, and the Acting Director of the Council for International Economic Policy. NSSM 200 is published as Document 113. The NSSM 200 study is published as Document 118. NSDM 314 is published as Document 122. For Kissinger’s Address to the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, read by Moynihan on September 1, 1975, see Department of State Bulletin, September 22, 1975, pp. 425–441. For Kissinger’s May 6, 1976 speech to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, see ibid., May 31, 1976, pp. 657-672.
Washington, December 15, 1976
Smith recommended securing Ford’s formal acceptance of the first Annual Report on U.S. International Population Policy and the recommendations therein.
Source: Ford Library, National Security Adviser, Presidential Files of NSC Logged Documents, Box 42, 7604397. Confidential. Sent for action. Tab 1 is attached but not published. Tab C was not found. Tab D is published as Document 127. The first Annual Report of U.S. International Population Policy is published as Document 125.
127. Memorandum From the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Scowcroft) to the Chairman of the National Security Council Under Secretaries Committee (Robinson), Washington, January 3, 1977.
Washington, January 3, 1977
The memorandum indicated acceptance of the first Annual Report on U.S. International Population Policy and offered guidance for its further implementation
Source: Central Intelligence Agency, OPI 29, Job 82M00587R, Box 5, NSSSM 200. No classification marking. Forwarded under the designation NSC–U/N–185 to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, the Under Secretary of Commerce, the Under Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Acting Director of the National Science Foundation, the Administrator of the Agency for International Development, and the Acting Director of the Council for International Economic Policy. The first Annual Report on U.S. International Population Policy is published as Document 125. NSSM 200 is published as Document 113. The NSSM 200 study is published as Document 118. NSDM 314 is published as Document 122.
Associated Press reported on a 2009 “New York meeting of billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Eli Broad, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah, Michael Bloomberg and others.” The Times of London headlined “Billionaire Club in Bid to Curb World Population,” said the issues discussed in the top-secret meeting included the most controversial: slowing the global population growth.
“Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority,” the article said, adding that “this could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.”
Mssrs. Gates, Buffett and Turner have been quietly worrying about Malthusian population problems for years. Mr. Gates in February outlined a plan to try to cap the world’s population at 8.3 billion people [consistent with the Kissinger Report].
In 2010, a former staffer with a government health initiative in Ghana made a shocking claim: a project partially funded by the Gates Foundation had tested the contraceptive Depo-Provera on unsuspecting villagers in the remote region of Navrongo, as part of an illicit “population experiment.” The woman making the charge was the Ghanian-born, U.S.-educated communications officer for another Gates-funded initiative by the Ghanaian government and Columbia University to use mobile phones to improve health care access for rural women and children. She had previously attempted to sue her employer for a multi-million dollar settlement when, after repeated clashes with her boss, her contract wasn’t renewed.
The lawsuit fizzled, but with help from a small U.S. nonprofit called the Rebecca Project for Human Rights, she shopped a series of stories to Ghana’s tabloid press. The Depo-Provera story caused a national scandal. Although it was denounced by Ghanaian health professionals and traditional leaders as libelous—the Navrongo project hadn’t tested any medications— so many death threats were directed at the project that some staff had to be evacuated across the Burkina Faso border.
The episode would mark the opening shot in a new war over birth control in Africa. It also reflected an evolution in the U.S. anti-abortion movement’s strategy in which it started to co-opt the language of women’s and civil rights used by progressives. There were fewer bloody fetus posters and more talk about how abortion and contraception violated women’s safety and impeded racial justice.
Anti-abortion groups hired black activists and highlighted uglier aspects of the history of reproductive health care — in particular, the courting of the eugenics movement by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger in the early part of the 20th century. A right-wing documentary, Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America, used a Swahili word that refers to the holocaust of African enslavement to denounce Planned Parenthood as racist. Billboards in Atlanta and Manhattan carried messages like, “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.” And federal and state legislators proposed a series of bills banning race- and sex-selective abortions in order to insinuate that abortion providers deliberately target communities of color.
An anti-abortion billboard in Atlanta in 2010.
<Do Black Lives Really Matter to the US Federal Government?>
As black feminists pointed out, these groups cared little for women’s or civil rights in general, or black women’s well-being in particular. (A 2009 U.S. House bill titled the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act” was co-sponsored by a champion of the Confederate flag.)
But the strategy exploited the real and painful history of medical abuses against people of color in the U.S., from compulsory or coercive sterilization campaigns from the 1910s to ’60s (including the sterilization of a third of all Puerto Rican mothers between 20 and 49 years old by 1965) to unsafe contraceptives marketed to poor women of color from the 1970s to ’90s. And the legacy of those abuses could be profound. One 2016 study found that the notorious Tuskegee Study, wherein hundreds of black men were left with untreated syphilis so U.S. government researchers could track the progress of the disease, led to such mistrust of the medical establishment that it reduced the life expectancy of a generation of black men by more than a year.
The Rebecca Project, a small, Washington-based nonprofit focused on issues disproportionately affecting women of color, hadn’t been involved on either side of the abortion fight. But in 2011, the group released a thinly-sourced report titled “Non-Consensual Research in Africa: The Outsourcing of Tuskegee,” outlining what it claimed was a series of unethical U.S.-backed medical experiments in Africa.
Some of the examples were documented stories of legitimate concern — for instance, HIV-positive women in southern Africa had been pressured into sterilization procedures by local health care entities. The report attempted to link them to shakier allegations of USAID funding being used for coercive sterilization campaigns in other countries. But the report’s real target, it seemed, was the Gates-backed health initiative in Navrongo. Later, the report’s lead author would suggest that people involved with the project should be charged with attempted genocide.
“The new narrative was that Gates was waging “chemical warfare on poor women” in a neocolonial effort to suppress African births.”
The report had numerous factual problems. Its author ― the Rebecca Project’s chief financial officer, Kwame Fosu ― also hadn’t disclosed a significant conflict of interest: The employee who’d leveled the charges against the Ghana project was the mother of his child. The fallout wound up splitting the organization, as one of its founders and several staff departed, taking with them all the Rebecca Project’s funding. Left with the group’s name, Fosu doubled down on his conspiratorial claims.
In 2013, Fosu published another report, “Depo-Provera: Deadly Reproductive Violence Against Women.” Drawing heavily on unnamed sources, paranoid accusations and the rhetoric of right-wing anti-abortion groups, this report used the Ghana story to anchor claims of a massive international conspiracy, led by the Gates Foundation, to push dangerous contraceptives on poor black women as a means of decreasing African births and advancing “population control ideology.” Fosu brought the Rebecca Project into alliance with a network of conservative Catholic nonprofits, like C-Fam and the Population Research Institute (PRI), that had long focused on fighting reproductive rights in developing nations or at the United Nations.
His new allies began publicizing Fosu’s claims to a large audience of conservative activists, arguing that he had uncovered the smoking gun confirming their long-held suspicions. As the head of PRI put it, “The population controllers will stop at nothing to stop African women from having children.” By 2014, the Rebecca Project was focusing full-time on the scourge of Depo-Provera. At the same time, the Gates Foundation was undertaking a new mission to radically expand contraceptive access to women in Africa, including with a new, low-dose adaptation of Depo-Provera.
The foundation’s family planning campaign had already drawn predictable backlash from religious groups. But as U.S. anti-abortion groups and websites circulated the Rebecca Project’s allegations, the opposition was no longer dominated by complaints that Gates was tempting African women to defy their faith. The new narrative was that Gates was waging “chemical warfare on poor women” in a neocolonial effort to suppress African births.
Soon, powerful figures across Africa were making similar claims, undermining vital public health projects in the process. In 2014, Zimbabwe’s Registrar General, Tobaiwa Mudede — the official responsible for overseeing the country’s dubious elections — warned women to avoid modern contraceptives because they caused cancer and were a Western ploy to limit African population growth. In 2015, Mudede told parliamentarians, “Western countries are bent on curtailing the population of the darker races of the world.” According to a parliamentary committee, Mudede’s campaign panicked Zimbabwean women, who flooded into clinics to have contraceptive implants removed.
In Kenya, all 27 members of the nation’s Conference of Catholic Bishops declared that a WHO/UNICEF campaign to administer neonatal tetanus vaccines to women of childbearing age was really “a disguised population control programme.” According to the bishops, the vaccines were laced with a hormone that would cause repeated miscarriages and eventual sterility.
The same conservative Catholic network the Rebecca Project had allied itself with published numerous stories amplifying the bishops’ accusations and casting doubt on the government’s response. The Kenyan Parliament was forced to have the vaccine tested repeatedly. But by the time the claims were debunked, priests around Kenya had already instructed their congregants to refuse the vaccine.
Back in the U.S., Fosu also worked with C-Fam to lobby delegates from African nations, with some success. After a meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women, a regional grouping of African countries released an unprecedented statement expressing concerns over “harmful contraceptives,” echoing specific claims by Fosu and his allies. The next month, at the Commission on Population and Development, delegates couldn’t agree on an outcome document for the first time in the commission’s 48 years — the result, conservative advocates claimed, of African and other developing nations’ frustration with “the profusion of references to population control, adolescent sexual activity, abortion, and comprehensive sexuality education.”
Undermining Confidence In A Coronavirus Vaccine
The Rebecca Project has long since faded into obscurity. But the current attacks on Gates and his foundation are now broadcasting the same themes to a massive global audience.
In April, Trump boosters Diamond & Silk vowed they would never take a vaccine created by Gates because he’d sought to make Africans “guinea pigs.” (This claim was helped along by erroneous media reporting that falsely suggested Gates planned to test his vaccine in South Africa.) “I have a problem receiving any vaccine from any entity, especially anybody like Bill Gates who pushed for population control. The same thing that Margaret Sanger pushed for,” Diamond said. “Abortions! Genocide!” Silk explained.
In response to these and other conspiracy theories, including their contention that the virus was a “plandemic,” Fox Nation reportedly cut ties with the pair. But Diamond and Silk weren’t alone.
Conservative commentator Candace Owens tweeted in April that “vaccine-criminal Bill Gates” had used “African & Indian tribal children to experiment w/ non-FDA approved drug vaccines.” Last week, she declared “that under no circumstances will I be getting any #coronavirus vaccine that becomes available. Ever. No matter what.”
An Infowars video suggested that Gates was the successor of eugenicist population controllers from Sanger to Nazi collaborators, and asked whether viewers would “allow your government to impose forced vaccines.” In a viral sermon, Rev. Danny Jones, the pastor of a 250-member Georgia church, echoed similar accusations while predicting that Gates would use vaccines to usher in a new world order under which Christians might be forced to accept biometric tattoos.
On Twitter, hundreds of posts claimed that the billionaire had publicly said that vaccines could be used to lower the population by 10% to 15%. This was an old misrepresentation of Gates’ suggestion that increasing vaccination rates in the developing world could slow population growth, since families in which more children survive to adulthood might have fewer children overall.
Doctored photographs falsely suggesting the Gates Foundation runs a “Center for Human Population Reduction” spread so widely that both Reuters and Snopespublished articles debunking them. Anti-vaxxer and Pizzagate proponents began sharing old C-Fam articles as proof that Gates “Thinks There Are Too Many Africans.” And the White House petition resurrected the old Kenyan controversy, informing new believers that Gates has “already been credibly accused of intentionally sterilizing Kenyan children through the use of a hidden HCG antigen in tetanus vaccines.”
By Saturday, the Gates-population control narrative had made its way onto conservative network One American News, quoting an anti-social distancing protester who charged,“This is not about COVID or about a virus. This is about gaining control over the human race and limiting population.”
“In the U.S. alone, nearly a third of Americans say they’ll refuse a coronavirus vaccine.”
Anti-Gates theories have resurfaced in Africa, as well. Unfounded rumors that Gates had bribed Nigerian lawmakers to pass a compulsory vaccination bill sparkeda legislative investigation there. African Twitter influencers posted threads linking him not just to population control but the entire history of colonialist medical violence. One described the foundation’s family planning work “as genocide in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Another suggested that Gates would turn to “toxic Covid-19 vaccines” to depopulate South Africa next, since it had become “clear that this Depo is not working fast enough.”
Nancy Rosenblum, author of “A Lot of People are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy,” said that some people may simply see the proliferation of these conspiracy narratives as a vehicle to advance their agenda, exploiting the swirling outrage around Gates to introduce fringe arguments to a much larger audience. To Quassim Cassam, author of the book “Conspiracy Theories,” the anti-Gates attacks reflect a larger global trend towards populism, characterized by profound distrust of the establishment and experts.
“If you say it’s Gates or big corporations who are responsible for developing coronavirus via 5G, these are all ways of expressing anti-elitist sentiment,” Cassam said. “They’re fantasies, but they’re fantasies that give expression to real things in their lives.”
The potential impact of such fantasies could be dire. The legacy of medical abuses against people of color helped give rise to HIV/AIDS conspiracy theories, Rosenblum noted, from claims that it was a government-crafted bioweapon to charges that life-saving medications were poison. After the latter theory was adopted by South Africa’s former president, Thabo Mbeki, Harvard University researchers found it was responsible for more than 330,000 unnecessary deaths.
The Gates Foundation has already committed $300 million to fighting the coronavirus and finding a vaccine. Tens of millions of that sum are dedicated to ensuring that vaccines are distributed in poor countries. Conspiracy theories suggesting an eventual vaccine is part of a nefarious plot could leave many of the world’s most vulnerable at greater risk; in the U.S. alone, a late April survey found, nearly a third of Americans say they’ll refuse a vaccine.
Of course, the same side that is accusing Gates of planning an imminent eugenicist attack is also loudly pushing to reopen the economy, even though this will almost undoubtedly come at the cost of thousands of lives, overwhelmingly people of color. Rather than reckon with that reality, Republican leaders have argued that “there are more important things than living” and the public will “have to accept” massive new casualties.
Wisconsin’s chief justice dismissed superclusters of infection in the minority-staffed meatpacking industry as distinct from the threat posed to “regular folks.” One local California official mused that allowing the virus to “run rampant” through the ranks of the homeless, the old, the sick and the poor, represents a “natural” process of culling the “herd” that could lighten Social Security and health care burdens and free up jobs and housing.
Against this backdrop, right-wing claims of eugenics or population control begin to seem not just disingenuous, but like the most amoral form of projection.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.