Ominous: Billionaires Meet In NYC To Discuss Overpopulation


Don’t these people have anything better to do? :

SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

The interest in eugenics population control by these esteemed members of  “The Good Club” should surprise no one. Most of them have extensive backgrounds in the area:

David Rockefeller Jr:

Eugenic ideals also attracted the attention of the ‘Rockefellers’ who in the late 1930’s , funded the Kaiser Willem Institute in Germany. The Rockefeller foundation, following the embarrassing consequences of post war American occupation in Japan approved of the Eugenic protection act– legalising abortion in that country. The in 1952 in company with Frederick Osborn [ex-president of the American Eugenics Society] John D. Rockefeller founded the Population Council.

Two principal goals of the Population Council have, over many years, remained unchanged.

  1. to convince government leaders in poor nations that they have a serious population problem.

  2. Solving this problem can be achieved through (Council aided and approved) population control.

Rockefeller funds have amongst other causes provided for the Kinsey Report 3 which launched the sexual revolution. Their funds have aided in the development of the contraceptive pill, the IUD and more recently rights to the RU 486 patent and its (Chinese) manufacture. Rockefeller funds have also supported the growth of Feminist activism, promoting in particular Betty Friedan and her 1963– “Feminine Mystique”.

Warren Buffet:

Since 1981, the Buffett name has been linked to ‘family health’ programs, disbursing some $197 million in charitable donations. However, in 2003 the Berkshire Hathaway Board 3 made a decision to cease donating (undoubtedly embarrassed by the projects sponsored) Notwithstanding, in May 2006 William Buffett pledged the bulk of his $44 billion fortune (~$31b) in support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Which foundation seems to exhibit priorities essentially consistent with furthering the ideals of world population control.

William Buffett’s name has been associated with some of the most radical aspects of the population control. In 1994, $2 million was given to the Population Council, to fund US. clinical trials of Mifepristone (RU-486) initiated by Joseph Pike’s Danco Co. Other grants in this US. RU 486 project were provided by George Soros’ Open Society and David and Lucille Packard Foundation.4

Buffett provided a further $2 million to Family Health International [FHI] for the distribution of quinacrine hydrochloride, the chemical used to sterilizes a woman by burning her fallopian tubes. Although Quinacrine is illegal in the U.S., it has been used, often coercively, in Vietnam, India, and other nations. During the late 1990’s another grant of $20 million was made to International Projects Assistance Services (IPAS) which manufactures and distributes manual vacuum aspirators [MVA’s], used for performing abortions in the Third World.

MVA’s were first invented by Dr. Malcolm Potts; First Medical Director of IPPF (1968-80 )

& Harvey Karman.5

Other Buffett linked funds have provided support to Family Health International (FHI) for evaluation of quinacrine sterilisation and for the manufacture of ‘manual vacuum aspirators’ for third world distribution by International Projects Assistance Services(IPAS)

Other population control agencies enjoying Buffett largesse have been Planned Parenthood both National (US) and International, The Centre for Reproductive Law and Policy and Catholics for a Free Choice.

In effect, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation continues as the quiet force in the controversial area of population control.

George Soros:

George Soros (himself a father of 5) through his Open Society Inst.6 has funded the US Nationwide Mifepristone Affiliate Readiness Project backing media advertising and training programmes for medical (chemical) abortion training; with a pledge of $600,000

The Soros foundation provided the funds needed to pioneer the Abortion Rights Mobilisation RU 486 clinical trials in the US. With additional funds from John Merck Foundation 15 medical centres were provided with RU 486 for ‘evaluation’ by 3000 women.

Ellen Chesler author of ‘Women of Valour– Margaret Sanger and the IPP’ has directed Soros’ backed Program for Reproductive Health & Rights; assisting in the allotment of National (US) Network of Abortion Funds.

Soros’ Open Society Inst. is quite openly political in its aim– “to protect laws governing reproductive health care, especially abortions… to support public opinion research….to combat anti choice activities in support of a campaign to gain widespread awareness and acceptance of emergency contraception.

Soros’ foundation has provided the not for profit vehicle for the Council on Foreign Relations7,8. to filter tax money in support of population control programs.

Ted Turner:

[Humanist of the Year 1996] Philanthropic Funder of the UN Foundation and outspoken Media mogul.
“The population problem and the environmental destruction that is going on in the world will eventually lead to our demise if it is not reversed…”
Then later at the National [US] Family Planning and Reproductive Association’s meeting in 1999 commented… “ The dangerous proliferation of people could be stopped…. If couples would promise to have no more than two children.”
“over-population is the single most important issue facing mankind today.”
“People who abhor the China one child policy are dumb dumbs..”

Ted Turner is moreover highly critical of Christianity calling it an eco-unfriendly religion.
He, as father of five, from multiple marriages, has been bold enough to suggest that the 10 commandments need to be reviewed and replaced, particularly Numbers 7..(he should know!)
Then speaking at a Pro-abortion meeting in Washington….
“If you are going to have 10 rules, I don’t know if banning adultery should be one of them.”

Bill Gates:

The Gates Foundation is a patron for a wide range of world wide ‘reproductive-health’ programmes, funding research to improve birth control. Planned Parenthood, for instance has received $34 million from the Gates Foundation out of a total of $10.5 billion worldwide.

Notwithstanding, on 5 Nov. 1999 Trevor Neilson, spokesman for the Gates foundation, assured his audience that while the ‘Foundation’ maintains concern for overpopulation and ‘family health problems’ it holds to – “ as a policy the Gates Foundation doesn’t fund abortion services of any kind.” Jaquelline Fuller (another foundation spokesperson) has also commented that while the foundation has provided in excess of $10.5 billion the funds were earmarked for Planned parenthood programs other than the provision of abortion.

Former President-Gloria Feldt- of Planned Parenthood has affirmed that the giving from the ‘Foundation’ is not used for abortion services. Yet Planned Parenthood itself is clearly one of the world’s largest providers of abortion services.

The recent augmentation of the Gate’s Foundation with a legacy of over $30 billion from William Buffett elevates the Gates Foundation to a pinnacle position as the world’s largest private funding agency.

Historically the Foundation has committed significant funds in 1998 to AVSC (Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception– sterilization);.internationally a major player in global and domestic population control.

A guest at the confab said:

…there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.

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

Why was the meeting held in secret?

“They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.

It’s not like all their money and power could ever be conflated as such:

Bill Gates, Ted Turner, George Soros, Warren Buffett and David Packard have all given away much of their money to international family planning programs aimed at curbing population growth. Together they have access to personal assets exceeding the combined gross domestic product of over 48 of the least-developed nations in the world. Their funds however, are directed essentially for population control and environmental issues.

Many thanks to the website Population Control, which is a font of knowledge on population control issues.

17 thoughts on “Ominous: Billionaires Meet In NYC To Discuss Overpopulation

  1. Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. I’m not talking about the obvious environmental and resource issues. I’m talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.

    I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

    This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management. Our policies that encourage high rates of population growth are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.

    But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.

    The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries – India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China – as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050.

    If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit either of my web sites at or where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It’s also available at

    Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph. I just don’t know how else to inject this new perspective into the overpopulation debate without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.

    Pete Murphy
    Author, “Five Short Blasts”


  2. as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products.

    I’m sorry, but lack of closet space has got to be one of the weakest reasons for economic woes I’ve ever heard. Particularly if you look at the segments of the US population that are growing. Hint: it’s not among the people who have accumulated too many material possessions.

    Though it is amusing to think of closet organizers as Saviors of Humanity.


  3. Geoff, you need to expand your thinking far beyond “closet space.” (Did I say anything about closet space?) Here’s a good example: consider Japan, a nation ten times as densely populated as the U.S., just as modern and nearly as wealthy. The per capita consumption of dwelling space (housing) in Japan is less than a third that of Americans, not because the Japanese like living in tiny homes, but because there is no room for anything else. As a result, the per capita consumption of all products involved in building, furnishing and maintaining their homes is dramatically reduced. And to a greater or lesser extent, their per capita consumption of everything is similarly affected. The same holds true for all such densely populated societies.

    The problem is that per capita consumption and per capita employment are directly and inextricably linked. Low per capita consumption results in high unemployment. This makes overpopulated nations like Japan utterly dependent on manufacturing for export in order to prop up their economies.


  4. Did I say anything about closet space?

    I’ll admit that I was having fun at your expense, but yeah, essentially you did:

    People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products.

    not because the Japanese like living in tiny homes, but because there is no room for anything else

    …or rather, because they can’t afford anything else. Market demand drives the avg price/ft^2, which in turn drives the size of the housing units.


  5. Pingback: Potpourri « Teh Resistance Blog

  6. Pingback: H1N1, Global Conspiracies, and Amerikan Gulags…By: Jim O’neill « Stevex09's Blog

  7. This is what happens to our world when people leave God out of the equation. Wheather one believes or not , God who created the world and populated it with man, turned it over to man and said , “be fruitfull and multiply”,will have the last word. God knew that we would mess up, so he sent His Son as a sacrafice for our sin, that if we accept Him and live by His instructions in His Word, He will give us a life of peace and love for one another. Can you imagine what the world would be like if we all treated one another like we want to be treated? God in His forknowledge Knew there would people who would not believe, so He has plans to mop up the world and set things right before man destroyes himself off the face of the earth.Read it for yourself, it’s all in the God’s Word the BIBLE.


  8. Pingback: H1N1, Global Conspiracies, and Amerikan Gulags « Sentinel Radio

  9. The reason there is a “Patriot Act” and the fascist organization known as “Homeland Security” is so these billionaires that are discussing population reduction can further enslave humanity. There is a great deal of land owned in America owned by, guess who? For the first time move of the homes are owned by the bankers than the American people. It is funny that they get the bailout when it is the average American who is enslaved and bankrupt.


  10. These people need to be *real* leaders! Show us the way! I submit we allow a special exemption to anti-euthanasia laws: all rich, population control-obsessed, Gia-obsessed, Progressive/State-ist “no one else is to join my elitest club, so lets have laws maid to impoverish everyone else!” Gadianton Robbers will not be ticketed unless their chosen method breaks someother law… like a noise ordinance or traffic jam or something. In that case, for example, we need to ticket them for “disturbing the peace” or its local equivalent.
    But I say: by allmeans, go ahead! If it is *REALLY* important to them, they need to lead by example!


  11. Pete Murphy:
    Have you ever seen an aerial population map survey? We are NO WHERE NEAR crowding the U.S., much less the world! We’re currently at approx 1person/17sq.mi, though that figure is a few yrs old. It only seems crowded b/c Gov. regulations are being written w/the express purpose of concentrating us into the cities. This under the “sustainability” canard, but actually because all sociological studies show it is easier to control high-density population centers, both due to centralization, (the citizens are all “right there”, after-all) *and* because the people *themselves* become more malleable in what control and infringement of their liberties that they’ll permit.


  12. BTW: that of 17sq.mi., may seem exceedingly low, and it is. The definition of “habitable lands” was constructed so as to exclude all but those most choice for human use. If you don’t mind *not* being within walking distance of a lake or its equivalent in terms of entertainment value, that number of 17sq.mi. balloons by orders of magnitude.
    We’ve got ALOT of unused land here, folks!
    And world-wide, it is even better.
    People in 3rd world nations stack like cordwood b/c of tyranny-created conditions, not b/c we’re filling the place up!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s