Melinda Gates Talks Eugenics

Andreson Blom, American Thinker, June 6, 2012

This July, we will be celebrating the centennial anniversary of London’s First International Eugenics Conference of 1912. One century later, on July 11, 2012, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (the largest private foundation in the world) and the British government will co-host a new London conference on eugenics with global coalition partners such as American abortion chain Planned Parenthood, British abortion chain Marie Stopes International, and the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA). The only difference is that the July 2012 London conference will never acknowledge that eugenics is its driving idea. Melinda Gates has claimed that the conference, which is officially dedicated to “deliver[ing] more modern family planning tools to more women in the world’s poorest countries,” should involve “no controversy.”


Eugenicists differed on whether eugenics should be practiced in a soft manner, with taxpayer-underwritten incentives, or in a hard manner, using coercive and often deadly force. The movement claimed many adherents. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her British counterpart Marie Stopes were both involved in their national eugenic societies. Margaret Sanger viewed her activism as a way to “assist the race towards the elimination of the unfit.” Marie Stopes lobbied for “the sterilization of those totally unfit for parenthood [to be] made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.”


Unfortunately, the idea lives on. Melinda Gates, wife of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, said recently, “Government leaders . . . are now beginning to understand that providing access to contraceptives is a cost-effective way to foster economic growth . . . Governments should provide all women with access to family planning tools that are safe and effective and meet the needs of all women.” This is a succinct summary of soft negative eugenics: for economic reasons governments should use taxpayer dollars to underwrite the decisions of citizens to pursue recreational sexual activity. The underlying economic assumption is that the prospective children of the poor citizens likely to utilize such government-funded programs would be likely to hamper economic growth if they are born.


Hard eugenics is the ideology that dare not speak its name. But soft eugenics is based on the same disturbing belief—that government should spend its resources to prevent the propagation of those whom the government believes to be detrimental to society and economic growth.

And that should be deeply controversial.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
    •  Sterlization and IUDs are the answer in Africa and Asia.  This will bring peace to both Whites and Non-Whites. 

    • Detroit_WASP

      That’s a great link.  We should all encourage government programs like this.  

  • Eugenics?
    Sterilization IS the answer!

    • Detroit_WASP

      I the government would just PAY the underclass to be fixed, it would make a world of difference in just 20 years.

      • Eagle_Eyed

         Until it decides you are part of the underclass

  • Francis Galton

    American Thinker? Isn’t that an ostensibly “conservative” e-zine? 

    I can’t believe the last two sentences.  The author is basically appealing to moral relativism: since it’s “impossible” to determine or demarcate exactly which individuals are “unfit” (even though such individuals clearly exist), and since we “can’t” even determine which traits or characteristics mark someone as unfit in the first place, it therefore follows that the government can’t even make an ATTEMPT to INFLUENCE people to take certain beneficial courses of action (never mind COERCE them into certain choices). 

    Actually, the author may be denying the concept of lack of fitness to begin with (which is completely daft).  Or maybe he thinks the “right” to have children is worth the social and economic cost (assuming he believes there are costs)?

    Here are some suggestions for characteristics that MAY mark someone as unfit:

    1) Has at least 3 children with 3 corresponding baby mamas/daddies, all out of wedlock (the ghetto Love Dodecahedron).

    2)Has a life-long pattern of using taxpayer money to buy necessities, and money from a job–legitimate or otherwise–to pay for luxury items (bass-ackwards financial priorities).

    3)Has a history of committing violent crime(s).

    4)Has an IQ below 70.

    5)Has an Ivy League degree (okay, just kidding!)

    I think the first four would be a good place to start in terms of selecting candidates for a HARD eugenics program.  I don’t believe even a hard, coercive eugenics program should be controversial, let alone a “soft,” incentives-based one.


    At this very moment scientists around the world are working feverously to improve the genes of crops and domesticated animals.   God forbid that we would want to improve the genes of humans.  

    • Here on the farm, we raise Cotswold sheep, as well as our own vegetables and other things…

      Our sheep were bred for certain traits over thousands of years… an ancient breed, it is said that the Cotswold sheep date back to pre-Roman times.  When we breed the females, the Cotswold ram always has to have certain traits:  size, health, condition of wool, good teeth and eyes, etc.. we don’t want bad traits to be passed onto our flock.  This is the slow-motion version of eugenics..  Now that I think about it, dogs are the result of the same thing.  Bred for certain traits, or conversely, certain traits bred out of them…  

      All the seed we buy is of the heirloom kind, bred over hundreds of years for certain traits.  The advantage is that you can save part of the harvest to plant next year.  Repeat.

      The problem with genetically engineered crops is that after one generation, you cannot use the seed to plant for next year.  The plants turn out all jacked up and the fruit they bear is almost inedible… I refuse to use it, lest it contaminate the rest of our crops.

      I am a big, big fan of slow-motion eugenics (I even practiced it when I was choosing a wife, and our fruit (our son) is magnificent.  Tall, strong, movie-star handsome, quick witted, steel grey eyes and a flashing smile… I couldn’t be happier, save if he chooses a mate like I did:  go to the tree for the best apple), but not such a big fan of genetically engineered crops and/or animals. 

      Just like there are mistakes with slow-motion eugenics, there are mistakes with genetically engineered things… we’re playing a dangerous game with things we’re just starting to understand… I’m happy being white, being on top..

      At some point in the future, does anyone REALLY want to see the dawn of a super-smart Uruk created by some do-gooder genetecist in a lab somewhere?  We got enough problems with the dumb ones as it is… I think we could do without the genius ones…

      • Sherman_McCoy

        What we need is a do-gooder that creates a virus which sterilizes all Uruks and their ilk.  I’m betting on the Chinese, who would probably just as soon have Africa to themselves.

        • Detroit_WASP

          Yep, I am betting the Asians will start a eugenics program to prevent the third wolders from destroying the planet.  And it won’t be pretty.   Think 1943 .

          Whites don’t have the stones to do what needs to be done in a “soft eugenics” program, things will spiral out of control  and the results will be like something out of a science fiction movie.   Suddenly zero foreign aid, mass starvation, food wars.

          • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

            This was said by Issac Asimov as early as 1980, when predicting the likely view of the 21st century as a member of the think tank called “The Futurists.”

      • Please enlighten me…..what is an “Uruk’? I never heard the term before. I’ve heard the term, “Kulak”, but not Uruk.

  • IstvanIN

    Soft dysgenics is practiced in the black community. By having multiple children with multiple men you greatly increase the chance that relatives will inadvertently breed together. I would imagine the inner city is a cauldron of second cousins having children with second cousins over and over again. Might explain why blacks seem to get dumber with each generation.

    • MikeofAges

       Contrary to what you think, that kind of interbreeding is not a big problem. At least as far as I know. At least when you are bringing some fair number of outsiders into the family tree on a regular basis. Close interbreeding is another issue; for example the kind practiced by some dynasties in the ancients world. This is a subject where it is better to let the experts speak. If you can find any who keep their expert opinions and their political baggage separate.

    • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

       You ought to read, “The 10,000 Year Explosion.”  It turns out that genetic isolation and concentration as in “cousin” marriage is what is responsible for Europeans turning out to be the way they are, with Ashkenazi Jews as a separate example of how highly isolated communities can produce the most favorable mutations where things like IQ are concerned.  The generalizing of populations (miscegenation) has the opposite effect.

  •  Especially since idiot Michael Barone now thinks the next great immigrant wave will be subsaharan Africans:

    Just what America needs, more blacks.

  • WhiteGuyInJapan

    One of the biggest problems is that contraception requires planning and taking action.  Something large chunks of humanity are not good at doing.  Biological changes occur and we become fertile.

     I am thinking of a science fiction scenario in which everyone is given temporary contraception, such as those implants women get in the arm that last for five years.  Then, if one chooses to have a child, they have to go to the doctor to get the contraception removed and then they can reproduce. 

    Silly dream, I know.

  • Detroit_WASP

    Quote:  “disturbing belief—that government should spend its resources to prevent the propagation of those whom the government believes to be detrimental to society and economic growth.”

    So, what are they saying?  The world would be a better place if we were all like a bunch of prison inmates…..low IQ and criminal tendencies?   The audacity of well meaning yet stupid liberal think astounds me.

    Look at the difference between a boarder collie and a pit bull.  It is all in the breeding.   Same between a race horse and mule.  

    I have long been in favor of a color-blind global eugenics program.  Nobel Prize winners in hard science should be having dozens of kids.  The welfare mothers with an IQ of 80 shouldn’t be having any.  We would end up with a better white, black, hispanic and asian poppulation.  What is wrong with that? 

  • I W

    Of far greater concern, not to mention absolute evil are the dysgenic policies of ‘welfare’, ‘affirmative action’ etc. Taxing the productive in order to encourage and reward the worthless for breeding has been the policy of the past half century, with the inevitable results.
    Star Trek and the like used to Love bashing the Eugenics movement, while supporting and expanding their own dysgenic goals -or should I just call them Genocidal goals?

  • Eagle_Eyed

     It’s quite simple, really.  A government with the power to tell certain groups they must be sterilized has the power to do it to anyone.  Do you want the likes of Obama and Holder telling you what you can and cannot do?

  • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

     They have assimilated in a way, just not the way you are thinking.  In fact, they’ve taken the American Mainstream down to their level.  But what white race realist would want to assimilate with blacks anyway?

  • Space4jan

    Teachers, doctors and judges do not make entirely “subjective” judgements.

  • Orion_Blue

    No small part of the problem derives from the incessant meddling in affairs in the Third World.

    When palliative measures are invested it enables a huge population explosion, so that the next naturally-occurring disaster simply means there are more people who require intervention.

    It is hard to know what to do, as a total lack of involvement would seem callous and indifferent.