Anatomy of a Philanthropath: Dreams of Democide & Dictatorship

Guest Post by Margaret Anna Alice

“Tyranny is a habit which may be developed until at last it becomes a disease. I declare that the noblest nature can become so hardened and bestial that nothing distinguishes it from that of a wild animal. Blood and power intoxicate; they help to develop callousness and debauchery. The mind then becomes capable of the most abnormal cruelty, which it regards pleasure; the man and the citizen are swallowed up in the tyrant; and the return to human dignity, repentance, moral resurrection, becomes almost impossible.”

―Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The House of the Dead (Kindle, paperback, hardcover, audiobook)

If you’re the type of person who’s brimming with lovingkindness and thinks everyone is sunshine and daisies like you, you’re due for a crash course on tyrants and their enablers.

Maybe you think the idea that philanthropaths are trying to liquidate a hefty portion of the populace is preposterous and anyone who says so is a misinformation-superspreading conspiracy theorist.

What’s a philanthropath? A philanthropath is a socio/psychopath masquerading as a philanthropist. This is a fairly accurate portrayal:1

Bill Gates is a textbook example. If you’re exceptionally, prodigiously, monumentally deluded, you might think this planetary threat is a beacon of humanitarianism, but that’s only because he paid the media $319 million to tell you that while gasconading that his philanthropathic foundation has made a twenty-to-one return on its $10 billion investment (duper’s delight starts at 00:34) in the Vaccine Industrial Complex:

African women suddenly discover they’ve been sterilized via infertility-technology–laced tetanus vaccines, and Indian tribal children have died or suffered long-term injuries from Merck’s controversial Gardasil HPV vaccine—all thanks to the beneficence of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and its NGO subsidiaries.

And I haven’t even gotten into his ties to the eugenics movement, friendship with Jeffrey Didn’t-Kill-Himself Epstein, or notorious TED talk citing “new vaccines” as a component of his population reduction aspirations.

It’s enough to make you want to watch this delicious pieing clip on repeat:

Another standard-issue philanthropath is DA-collecting, justice system–refurbishing George Soros, who looks like he’s been kept alive a century beyond his expiration date by sipping indigenous toddlers’ blood from satyr hooves.

Of course, you have the legacy lineages like the Ludlow–Massacring Rockefellers, retiree-defrauding Rothschilds, hypocritical Homestead-Mill–union-busting Carnegies (who teamed up with John D. Rockefeller to launch the petrochemical-pharmaceutical-medical complex), and the Hitler-heiling and Epstein–cavorting British Royal family whose munificent histories of philanthropathy are too immense, too boundless, and too tenebrous to outline here. Frankly, those rabbit-holes are so dark, so tortuous, and so deep, I may never emerge if I travel down them.

And then there are the lesser-known varieties like the totally-not-a-Satanist2 Marina Abramović, whose galactic fame and fortune can only be explained by a Luciferian handshake—a hypothesis bolstered by her tauntingly posing with fellow philanthropath Jacob Rothschild in front of the 1797 painting Satan Summoning His Legions.

As beguiling as such quixotic rabbit-holes appear, we don’t need to resort to dot-connecting the necromancers to prove the philanthropaths harbor devilish intentions.

We merely need to listen to them, their advisors, and their mentors.

Let’s start with these gobsmacking hopes expressed by former Director of the Club of Rome Project on Predicament of Mankind at MIT Dennis Lynn Meadows:

“Globally, we are so far above the population and consumption levels which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another it’s gonna come back down.… I hope that it can occur in a civil way, and I mean ‘civil’ in a special way. Peaceful. Peace doesn’t mean that everybody’s happy, but it means that conflict isn’t solved through violence, through force but rather in other ways, and so, that’s what I hope for, that we can, I mean—the planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people.

“Conversely, you can have more people … we could even have eight or nine billion probably if we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They’re always stupid. But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you could have them. But we want to have freedom, and we want to have a high standard, so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal so that people share the experience and you don’t have a few rich trying to force everybody else to deal with it. So those are my hopes.” (emphases mine here and in subsequent quotes)

Klaus Schwab’s beloved mentor and conscienceless, literarily-convicted war criminal Henry Kissinger appears to share these concerns, which he outlined in a December 10, 1974, National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200) on population growth:

“2. The second new feature of population trends is the sharp differentiation between rich and poor countries. Since 1950, population in the former group has been growing at 0 to 1.5 percent per year, and in the latter at 2.0 to 3.5 percent (doubling in 20 to 35 years).…

“3. Because of the momentum of population dynamics, reductions in birth rates affect total numbers only slowly.… Policies to reduce fertility will have their main effects on total numbers only after several decades. However, if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970’s and 1980’s.”

—Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security & Overseas Interests (The Kissinger Report)

Kissinger was most concerned about population growth in least developed countries (LDCs), partly because it could threaten access to “depletable resources (fossil fuels and other minerals)”:

“[8] … the world is increasingly dependent on mineral supplies from developing countries, and if rapid population frustrates their prospects for economic development and social progress, the resulting instability may undermine the conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources.”

The now-declassified 123-page report stresses the urgency of implementing a population control plan in these nations:

“[15] We cannot wait for overall modernization and development to produce lower fertility rates naturally since this will undoubtedly take many decades in most developing countries, during which time rapid population growth will tend to slow development and widen even more the gap between rich and poor.”

Bill Gates seems to have especially taken this component of the World Population Plan of Action to heart:

“[31(d)] Initiate an international cooperative strategy of national research programs on human reproduction and fertility control covering biomedical and socio-economic factors.”

This passage is particularly sinister:

37. There is an alternative view which holds that a growing number of experts believe that the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted. It holds that, to prevent even more widespread food shortage and other demographic catastrophes than are generally anticipated, even stronger measures are required and some fundamental, very difficult moral issues need to be addressed. These include, for example, our own consumption patterns, mandatory programs, tight control of our food resources. In view of the seriousness of these issues, explicit consideration of them should begin in the Executive Branch, the Congress and the U.N. soon.”

With apparent admiration for China’s population control policies (“the People’s Republic of China, with a massive, enforced birth control program”), the Kissinger report notes:

“As Table 4 shows, the population of countries with centrally planned economies, comprising about 1/3 of the 1970 LDC total, is projected to grow between 1970 and 2000 at a rate well below the LDC average of 2.3 percent. Over the entire thirty-year period, their growth rate averages 1.4 percent, in comparison with 2.7 percent for other LDCs. Between 1970 and 1985, the annual rate of growth in Asian communist LDCs is expected to average 1.6 percent and subsequently to decline to an average of 1.2 percent between 1985 and 2000. The growth rate of LDCs with market economies, on the other hand, remains practically the same, at 2.7 and 2.6 percent, respectively. Thus, barring both large-scale birth control efforts (greater than implied by the medium variant) or economic or political upheavals, the next twenty-five years offer non-communist LDCs little respite from the burdens of rapidly increasing humanity. Of course, some LDCs will be able to accommodate this increase with less difficulty than others.

“Moreover, short of Draconian measures there is no possibility that any LDC can stabilize its population at less than double its present size.”

One of the short-term measures recommended is sterilization:

“Sterilization of men and women has received wide-spread acceptance in several areas when a simple, quick, and safe procedure is readily available.”

Written the year following Roe v. Wade (now overturned), this report does not hesitate to praise abortion as a mechanism of population control—even while recognizing it is “politically sensitive”:

• “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.”
• “Indeed, abortion, legal and illegal, now has become the most widespread fertility control method in use in the world today.”

Noting Section 114 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 93-189) prohibits the use of A.I.D. funds for abortion programs, a caveat is made for research:

“A.I.D. funds may continue to be used for research relative to abortion since the Congress specifically chose not to include research among the prohibited activities.”

Lest you be tempted to believe the philanthropaths’ cruel-to-be-kind dreams of democidal dictatorship for the “greater good,” both history and science have proven this monstrous marriage of Malthusianism and Utilitarianism as wrong as the celebrity COVID modelers’ data deceits deployed to provoke a manipulable mass panic.

Rik Mayall tried to warn us about such presumptuous puppeteers in his 2014 film, One by One, before his startling heart attack at fifty-six:

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)