According to Bill Gates, part of his success is due to his parents – in fact, his late mother, Mary Gates, was said to be instrumental in a deal that helped propel Microsoft into the big leagues.
|How to Become As Rich As Bill Gates – a strange offshoot of the Bill Gates Personal Wealth Clock by Philip Greenspun:|
Lesson 1: Choose Your Grandparents Carefully
William Henry Gates III made his best decision on October 28, 1955, the night he was born. He chose J.W. Maxwell as his great-grandfather. Maxwell founded Seattle’s National City Bank in 1906. His son, James Willard Maxwell was also a banker and established a million-dollar trust fund for William (Bill) Henry Gates III.
In some of the later lessons, you will be encouraged to take entrepreneurial risks. You may find it comforting to remember that at any time you can fall back on a trust fund worth many millions of 1998 dollars.
Lesson 2: Choose Your Parents Carefully
William Henry Gates, Jr. and Mary Maxwell were among Seattle’s social and financial elite. Bill Gates, Jr. was a prominent corporate lawyer while Mary Maxwell was a board member of First Interstate Bank and Pacific Northwest Bell. She was also on the national board of United Way, along with John Opel, the chief executive officer of IBM who approved the inclusion of MS/DOS with the original IBM PC.
Remind your parents not to send you to public school. Bill Gates went to Lakeside, Seattle’s most exclusive prep school where tuition in 1967 was $5,000 (Harvard tuition that year was $1760). Typical classmates included the McCaw brothers, who sold the cellular phone licenses they obtained from the U.S. Government to AT&T for $11.5 billion in 1994. When the kids there wanted to use a computer, they got their moms to hold a rummage sale and raise $3,000 to buy time on a DEC PDP-10, the same machine used by computer science researchers at Stanford and MIT.
Mary Gates was a respected businesswoman with many responsibilities, including her membership on the board of nonprofit organization United Way of King County. There, she met the late John Opel, then-chairman of IBM, who also was a member of the United Way board. In 1980, Microsoft was a small, five-year-old firm and Mary saw an opportunity to help her son’s fledgling company by speaking with Opel, according to The New York Times.
That’s because for the first time in IBM’s then 70-year history, the company was looking to outsource help for an endeavor the company called project “Chess.” IBM wanted to hire an outside software maker to develop an operating system for its personal computer.
Microsoft was already in the running for the project, but IBM was considering many software companies, including Digital Research, one of Microsoft’s competitors. With this knowledge, Mary used her connection and spoke with Opel about Microsoft, and afterward, Opel spoke to IBM executives about the company.
Luckily for Microsoft, IBM’s talks with Digital Research started to flounder, and when assessing options, Opel remembered Microsoft as the company “run by Bill Gates, Mary Gates’ son,” according to The Seattle Times.
As a result, IBM “took a chance,” The New York Times reported, and hired Microsoft for the job. (In addition to Microsoft, IBM also contracted Digital Research and SofTech Microsystems to adapt operating systems for IBM’s personal computer.)
When Microsoft won the job, it didn’t actually have an operating system of its own. So in 1981, the company bought QDOS, an operating system created by hardware company Seattle Computer Products, and with it developed MS-DOS, the Microsoft Disk Operating System. Microsoft licensed its MS-DOS to IBM to use as the operating system for its personal computer. (In addition to Microsoft, IBM also contracted Digital Research and SofTech Microsystems to use their operating systems for IBM’s personal computer.)
Because the MS-DOS was non-exclusive to IBM, it became one of Microsoft’s most profitable products ever. The operating system was not only used in all IBM computers at the time, but also became the go-to operating system for almost every personal computer on the market.
In 1986, Microsoft went public at $21 a share, and following, Gates immediately became a multi-millionaire. As the company’s success continued, Gates became a billionaire just a year later.
Gates was CEO at Microsoft until 2000, stepped down as chairman in 2008 and left the company’s board in March to dedicate more time to his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Microsoft currently has a market cap of $1.6 trillion.
It is interesting to note that Bill Gates, and his Microsoft colleagues, were not the pioneers of the first operating system for personal computers. Nearly ten years before Bill Gates signed the epochal deal with IBM, Gary Kildall, a computer science professor had developed his own system…the Control Program for Microcomputers.
Kildall and Gates had known each other from their years…freely sharing ideas in the Home Brew Computer Club, a group that Kildall had founded. Why IBM connected with Bill Gates, and not Kildall, is not widely known. However, one can speculate that Mary Gates’ connection to IBM‘s John Opel played an important, if not critical, role.”
“… it was Opel who met with Bill Gates, CEO of the then-small software firm Microsoft, to discuss the possibility of using Microsoft PC-DOS OS for IBM‘s about-to-be-released PC. Opel set up the meeting at the request of Gates’ mother, Mary Maxwell Gates. The two had both served on the National United Way‘s executive committee.
As CEO, Opel was also able to resolve an ongoing antitrust lawsuit with the U.S. Justice Department, which allowed the company to grow more rapidly.”
Here’s what Paul Graham has to say in How to Make Wealth: Millions, Not Billions:
“Certainly Bill is smart and dedicated, but Microsoft also happens to have been the beneficiary of one of the most spectacular blunders in the history of business: the licensing deal for DOS. No doubt Bill did everything he could to steer IBM into making that blunder, and he has done an excellent job of exploiting it, but if there had been one person with a brain on IBM’s side, Microsoft’s future would have been very different. Microsoft at that stage had little leverage over IBM. They were effectively a component supplier. If IBM had required an exclusive license, as they should have, Microsoft would still have signed the deal. It would still have meant a lot of money for them, and IBM could easily have gotten an operating system elsewhere.
Instead IBM ended up using all its power in the market to give Microsoft control of the PC standard. From that point, all Microsoft had to do was execute. They never had to bet the company on a bold decision. All they had to do was play hardball with licensees and copy more innovative products reasonably promptly.
If IBM hadn’t made this mistake, Microsoft would still have been a successful company, but it could not have grown so big so fast. Bill Gates would be rich, but he’d be somewhere near the bottom of the Forbes 400 with the other guys his age.
There are a lot of ways to get rich, and this essay is about only one of them. This essay is about how to make money by creating wealth and getting paid for it. There are plenty of other ways to get money, including chance, speculation, marriage, inheritance, theft, extortion, fraud, monopoly, graft, lobbying, counterfeiting, and prospecting. Most of the greatest fortunes have probably involved several of these.”
One thing caught my attention in all the counts I’ve read about this story: everyone ASSUMED that IBM made an almost fatal mistake in it’s dealings with Gates.
“In one of the most extraordinary business arrangements in modern history, Microsoft leveraged its knowledge of the Intel microprocessor environment to outmaneuver IBM and establish its operating system as the dominant operating system for the PC. In a strategy Microsoft executive Steve Ballmer called, “Riding the Bear,” Microsoft worked with IBM to the point where it was strong enough to go on its own, ultimately becoming one of the richest companies in the world by having their software on nearly every PC in the world. This would first include developing programming software for the fledgling Intel-based microcomputer industry and then in association with IBM, standardizing an operating system for the non-Apple microcomputer industry.” – Anthony J. Pennings, PhD, in”MICROSOFT AND THE IBM PC CASE STUDY: THE DEAL OF THE CENTURY“.
“The IBM PC offered a choice of three operating systems – the other two being UCSD P and CP/M 86 – and the future development of the personal computer industry might have been very different had Gary Kildall, boss of Digital Research (DR), then a much bigger company than Microsoft, had initially agreed the terms on which IBM originally wanted to contract him for DR’s CP/M.The apocryphal story that he was enjoying a day off flying his plane, is now seen to be an over simplified, or even falsified account, of the events. Even so IBM’s unexpected decision to contract an almost unheard of startup, certainly determined the fates and fortunes of his and Bill Gate’s companies.” – I-programmer
Why would eveyone assume IBM made a huge mistake when all their history, as well as Microsoft’s, proves they built their dominance on connections, intelligent strategic decisions and other people’s intellectual efforts?SILVIEW.media
Furthermore, if Microsoft and IBM are two pockets of the same suit, and if by moving money from one pocket to another you make more money, that’s a money printer right there. What better way to make money?
An Interesting Comparison
“It’s hard to communicate to people just how large the Standard Oil trust was”, said Ron Chernow, author of “Titan, The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.”. “Standard Oil was 20 times bigger than its nearest competitor.”
It was also one of the two largest companies in America. When it was broken up, among the 34 companies spun off were what we know today as Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Chevron, Arco, Conoco, BP America and Cheesebrough-Ponds.
“At least four of those companies still are dominant in the oil industry and still among the largest 100 companies in the world,” Chernow said. “Rockefeller really owned the whole industry lock, stock and barrel.
“I guess the situation would be equivalent (to the Rockefeller monopoly) if Microsoft was a personal computer manufacturer and not only controlled the operating system, but controlled all of the applications and the microprocessors and all of the collateral equipment and owned all of the retail outlets at the same time.”Ron Cernow
What goes for Gates in the above quote, also goes for IBM, especially if they are “two pockets of the same suit”.
Coincindences are just causalities we haven’t found yet.
Another coincidence in the series is IBM and Microsoft’s long history of similar problems with the anti-trust regualtions around the world, it’s almost as if the same people with the same manners ran both and separating the mainframe business (IBM) from the software business (MS) was a matter of survival.
Antitrust Cases, U.S. v. IBM, are Tried and Eventually Withdrawn
“The 1969 Case” Alleged That IBM Illegally Acquired And Maintained Its Monopoly Of General Purpose Digital Computers Through Exclusionary And Predatory Conduct Going Beyond The 1956 Decree.
The 1969 action alleged that “IBM had undertaken exclusionary and predatory conduct with the aim and effect of eliminating competition so that IBM could maintain its monopoly position in general purpose digital computers. (See Plaintiff’s Statement of Triable Issues (dated September 23, 1974) at 8; U.S. 1969 tab 1.) Specifically, the Government contended that from 1961 to 1969 IBM engaged in anticompetitive practices “for the purpose or with the effect of restraining or attempting to restrain actual or potential competitors from entering” the relevant markets. (Id. at 8.)1 Such practices allegedly included anticompetitive price discrimination such as giving away software services for “the purpose or with the effect of .
On May 19, 1975 the Federal Government’s antitrust suit against IBM went to trial. The complaint for the case: U.S. v. IBM .
After thousands of hours of testimony (testimony of over 950 witnesses, 87 in court, the remainder by deposition), and the submission of tens of thousands of exhibits, on January 8, 1982 the anti-trust case U.S. v. IBM was withdrawn on the grounds that the case was “without merit.”
30,000,000 pages of documents were generated in the course of this anti-trust case, according to historyofinformation.com . Of course they wouldn’t risk another one any soon.
Read: The IBM Hall of Shame: A (Semi) Complete List of Bribes, Blunders and Fraud
For Bill Gates, antitrust fight was a personal crucible
“With the U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft, Gates faced company’s gravest threat” – Patrick Thibodeau, Senior Editor, Computerworld, JUN 26, 2008
“In 1998, Bill Gates was the new John D. Rockefeller. And from the U.S. government’s perspective at the start of its antitrust trial against Microsoft in 1998, Gates was every bit as powerful as the legendary oil baron was — if not more so. The desktop operating system was seen as important to the new, tech-focused economy as oil had been to the industrial economy of the early 20th century.
…It is difficult to believe that in 1998 the U.S. government and more than 20 states were focused on Microsoft’s desktop operating system dominance. The case threatened Microsoft with a breakup and would ultimately bring Gates, then serving as Microsoft’s chairman and CEO, to the witness stand in defense of the company he is now about to leave. It was a brutal case with enormous stakes. It was a crucible, and it was personal.
The antitrust fight turned on many legal issues concerning Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices. Part of Microsoft’s defense was based on the idea that its behavior was constrained by emerging technologies. The company argued that it faced “unknown knowns,” as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld might have put it. Microsoft 10 years ago knew that game-changing threats were certain to arrive — it just didn’t know their exact shape. Linux, Java and browsers were often cited as threats at the trial, but those were known threats; what Microsoft argued was that the unknown threats to come were just as real.
It was not an argument that Rockefeller’s Standard Oil could have raised. It was not an argument the judge bought at the time. But history may still have more to say on whether the argument had merit.
Unlike the strain Windows faces today, Microsoft’s OS was on top of the desktop world. That fact led to the antitrust fight that would roil Microsoft for years, a fight that was personified on the company’s side by its leader.
… Microsoft officials thought the government was seeking a corporate breakup. Gates’ feistiness also underscored a different worldview: that the company saw itself competing in a market that could change overnight. Gates’ now famous 1995 Internet Tidal Wave memo (download PDF) illustrated his view: “Browsing the Web, you find almost no Microsoft file formats. After 10 hours of browsing, I had not seen a single Word DOC, AVI file….”
One of the things Microsoft hoped to accomplish in this case was to convince the government that the tech industry was unlike any other. Just like IBM beore him. The company hired Richard Schmalensee, dean of the Sloan School of Management at MIT, to help make its case. A big part of his argument was that the real threats hadn’t yet arrived. It was fear of these unknown threats that served to constraint Microsoft’s apparent power.
Boies countered Schmalensee with MIT professor Franklin Fisher, who dismissed that warning about future threats. The notion that “a wolf might come out of the forest” to challenge Microsoft wasn’t serious analysis, he said. The issue, the government argued, was about the monopoly power the company had at the time.
Gates tried to explain the threat in his deposition with Boies (download PDF).
Boise: When people used the word with you “commoditize” as in the statement that Netscape was threatening or endeavoring to commoditize the operating system, what did you understand “commoditize” to mean?
Gates: That they were creating a product that would either reduce the value or eliminate demand for the Windows operating system if they continued to improve it and we didn’t keep improving our product.
The argument did not hold — at least as far as the judge was concerned. In 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson order that Microsoft be broken up, Standard Oil-style (read the decision). A year later, in 2001, the U.S.government — in the interest of moving the case along — dropped that remedy and announced a settlement under which Microsoft would agree to change some of its business practices.
Before that agreement was finalized in court, Gates, after refusing to appear years earlier, took the stand. In 2002, one of the points he raised concerned the future.
In 2008, Windows — though still dominant — is facing new platform threats, and a renewed browser war is brewing, thanks to Firefox. Meanwhile, Google looms as an ever-larger threat, as Microsoft has sought — so far unsuccessfully — to scoop up an Internet search company to better fit in with a new age. And Gates, his company intact, is moving on to other endeavors, looking less like Rockefeller the oil baron and more like Rockefeller the philanthropist.” – Patrick Thibodeau, Senior Editor, Computerworld, JUN 26, 2008
Now replace “Rockefeller” with “IBM” in Thibodeau’s story and think that creating or buying a false opposition is the game of the mega-rich, fighting competition is for the poor.
So on July 1st, 2005, Microsoft Corp. and IBM announced that they have entered into an agreement to resolve antitrust issues between the two companies:
“Today’s settlement resolves claims arising from the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case in the mid-1990s, where IBM was identified in U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s findings of fact as having been impacted in its business by certain Microsoft practices. Under the agreement, Microsoft will pay IBM $775 million and extend $75 million in credit towards deployment of Microsoft software at IBM.
In addition to addressing all discriminatory pricing and overcharge claims based on the findings in the U.S. antitrust case, the settlement resolves all antitrust claims, including claims related to the IBM OS/2 operating system and SmartSuite products, with the exception of claims for harm to IBM’s server hardware and server software businesses. IBM has further agreed, subject to certain limitations, that it will not assert claims for server monetary
damages for two years and will not seek to recover damages on such claims incurred prior to June 30, 2002. Microsoft also releases antitrust claims.
In November 2003, Microsoft and IBM entered into tolling agreements extending the statute of limitations on antitrust claims based on the U.S. antitrust case while exploring resolutions that would avoid protracted litigation. Microsoft’s and IBM’s tolling agreement was set to expire in July and the parties engaged in settlement discussions during the last two months.
“With these antitrust issues behind us, both Microsoft and IBM can move ahead, at times cooperatively and at times competitively, to bring the best products and services to customers,” said Brad Smith, general counsel and senior vice president, Microsoft. “Over the last few years we have been focused on resolving our disputes with other companies, and today’s announcement takes another significant step towards achieving that goal.”
“IBM is pleased that we have amicably resolved these long standing issues,” said Ed Lineen, senior vice president and general counsel, IBM.
The story that made everyone scratch their heads makes all the sense if you look at IBM not just as founder, but forever owner of Microsoft, even if not in official papers.
Gates, IBM and the Nazis connection
This chapter is, for the most part, a compilation of excerpts from “Is Bill Gates a closet liberal?” by the liberals at Salon.com, and Dean Arnold’s book exposing Gates and his population control efforts in Ethiopia and Africa
Bill Gates’ cold-cash concern for family planning could even be construed as asking for trouble. The groups that the Gates Foundation is giving money to have close ideological and organizational ties with pro-choice bastions like Planned ParenthoodSalon.com
Is it really a wonder though, that IBM made the deal with a eugenicist-supporting family? Let us not forget, that IBM is the very same company that (literally) made the punch cards for the Nazi death camp possible.
Founded in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (C-T-R), the company now known as International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) can be traced back even farther, to the 1880s, when Dr. Alexander Dey invented the first dial recorder. Dey’s business later became part of the foundation of C-T-R, along with Harlow Bundy’s Bundy Manufacturing Company, which produced the world’s first employee time clock.More recently, IBM has become a global information technology company focused on software, cloud computing, and consulting services.Investopedia
Edwin Black, in his book, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation, quoted Leon Krzemieniecki, the only man still living, who worked in the Hollerith Department (named after Herman Hollerith, the inventor the infamous ‘electromechanical tabulating machine‘ used by the Nazis, and founder the company that later became IBM), which could be found at Auschwitz (and all Nazi camps). This is what Krzemieniecki said… “I knew they were not German machines,” recalled Krzemieniecki. “The labels were in English. The person maintaining and repairing the machines spread the diagrams out sometimes. The language of the diagrams of those machines was only in English. I asked Krzemieniecki if the machine logo plates were in German, Polish or English. He answered “English. It said Business Machines.” I asked, “Do you mean, International Business Machines?” Krzemieniecki replied, “No, Watson Business Machines.”
”When Adolf Hitler came to power, many saw a menace to humanity. But IBM treated Nazi Germany as a lucrative trading partner. Quickly, its president, Thomas J. Watson, engineered a strategic business alliance between IBM and the Third Reich, beginning in the first days of the Hitler regime and continuing right through World War II.
This alliance instantly catapulted Nazi Germany into being IBM’s most important customer outside the United States. As part of that strategic alliance, IBM and the Nazis jointly designed, and IBM exclusively produced, technologic solutions that enabled Hitler to accelerate and automate key aspects of his persecution of the Jews from the initial identification and social expulsion, to the confiscation and ghettoization, to the deportation and ultimate extermination.
Nazi documents contained in the U.S. National Archives and Polish eyewitness testimony make clear that IBM’s alliance with the Third Reich went far beyond its German subsidiary. During the rape of Poland and the Polish Holocaust, which killed millions and plundered a nation, IBM technology was a key factor. The company’s custom-tailored technology was provided directly through a new special wartime Polish subsidiary reporting to IBM New York.
And that’s how the trains to Auschwitz ran on time.
Once the United States entered the war after Dec. 10, 1941, the Reich appointed Hermann Fellinger, a Nazi devoted to IBM, as enemy property custodian. He maintained the original staff and managers, keeping Watson Business Machines productive for the Reich and profitable for IBM New York. The Polish subsidiary now reported to IBM’s Geneva office and from there to New York. After the war, IBM recovered all its Polish machines and profits, which amounted to millions of dollars.
Contacted about IBM’s Polish subsidiary’s involvement in the Polish Holocaust, IBM spokesman Carol Makovich said only, “IBM does not have much information about this period.”
But 21st century silence cannot alter the historical documentation. A tangle of subsidiaries throughout Europe helped IBM reap the benefits of its partnership with Nazi Germany. ” Edwin Black, San Francisco Gate
Bill Gates Sr. administers the approximately $300 million William H. Gates III FoundationSalon.com
As explained earlier, the public story of Bill Gates is as follows: a middle-class computer geek becomes an overnight billionaire, and one day he wakes up out of nowhere in his forties and decides to take on overpopulation.
But his handlers have kept you from the rest of the story. Bill committed another gaffe in 2006 when he gave an interview to Bill Moyers. He said the following:
“When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it’s fascinating. At the dinner table, my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that.”
No, Bill Gates didn’t just decide one day later in life to take on overpopulation. He was raised from childhood to believe overpopulation was the key problem for humanity. He was discipled by a disciple of Margaret Sanger.
More excerpts from a Salon.com eulogy for The Gates:
<<Whatever you call it — “population control” or “family planning” — this isn’t just a billionaire fad for the Gates family.
“Bill Gates Sr. has been deeply involved in this issue for decades,” says Laurie S. Zabin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Zabin, who served with Gates Sr. on the national board of Planned Parenthood, was instrumental in getting the Gates Foundation grant for Johns Hopkins.
But that doesn’t mean Gates Sr. is the only one who cares about overpopulation, said Zabin: Gates Jr. “has supported issues of real social concern and certainly this is one of them.”
Gates Sr. agreed: “It’s an interest he has had since he was a kid. And he has friends who are interested in supporting research into world population problems, people whom he admires — it’s just a matter of a fit between his proclivities and mine.”
A “proclivity fit” is one way to put it. Or one could surmise that Bill Gates is growing up to be the man his parents raised him to be.>>
“His parents were involved in charitable activity, and I’ve heard him talk about it quite a bit,” said Microsoft spokesman Shaw. “I think that set a strong tradition and ethic of giving back and I should say that we are only seeing the beginning of that now.”
We never hear about this again from Bill Gates. He provides a seven-page interview on his late father in 2015 and did not mention Planned Parenthood, although several other boards his father sat on were named. What did Bill mean exactly by “My dad was head of Planned Parenthood”? Did he mean the local chapter?
We learn from Salon that Bill Gates, Sr., was a member of the national board of directors of Planned Parenthood. Let that sink in. Such a nonprofit empire is controlled by its board of directors. They have more power than Planned Parenthood’s president, a position they appoint. This fact means that there was no person on earth with more power over the control, population control efforts, abortion operations, or Planned Parenthood assets ($2.2 billion today) than Bill Gates’s father. He shared that power with a handful of others.
What did Bill Jr. mean by “head of Planned Parenthood”? Perhaps his father was chairman of the board for a time. I could find no records to document that fact.
But Gates Sr. did acknowledge that he and Mary Gates exerted pressure on their son to do more with all his billions.”His mother and I always pushed a little,” said Gates Sr. Like Mary Gates, Gates Sr. has long been involved in philanthropy — ever since “I first gave a nickel to the Salvation Army man,” he joked.Salon.com
Bill Gates, Sr., as much as any person in the world, had the power and position to advance the legacy of Margaret Sanger, the woman who openly called for using birth control and sterilization to eliminate “human waste” and “create a race of thoroughbreds.” In her Birth Control Review she promoted Nazi eugenics and white supremacy. As one contributor to Sanger’s Birth Control Review wrote: “It is the lower elements of the population, the negroid aboriginal tribes and the pariahs or outcasts, who are gaining the fastest.”
Download to read (PDF): “Margaret Sanger – Our Founder,” 100 Years Strong,” from Planned Parenthood
UPDATE: The above link has been deleted from the Planned Parenthood website. Makes you wonder why…
Luckily, there’s still something called The Wayback Machine.
But I’m uploading their “stunning” PDF here too, just in case:
Sanger’s same magazine published a favorable review by her lover, Havelock Ellis, of the book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy by Lathrop Stoddard. Ellis notes that Stoddard chooses to “concern himself mainly with . . . the maintenance of White supremacy.” Ellis agrees that “by prejudice of color, we must mostly be on his side in this matter.” Ellis also shares his concern about African Americans: “the migrations of lower types, even within the white world, such as those which have worked havoc in the United States, must be rigorously curtailed.” Ellis also wrote the preface to Sanger’s 1920 book, Woman and the New Race.
“Reproductive health and family planning” is a buzz phrase that emerged out of the 1994 United Nations Cairo conference on population issues, said Dr. Gordon Perkin, president of PATH. In the past, the research topic used to be referred to as “population control” — though, said Dr. Perkin, “the words ‘population control’ are not used any more, except by people who don’t know the field.”Salon.com
In a later Birth Control Review article, Sanger calls for giving “certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” She also published an article by close friend and advisor Ernst Rudin, who was then serving as Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization for the Nazis. It was entitled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need.” Sanger famously said: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
How did Bill Gates’s father view Margaret Sanger? According to an official Planned Parenthood history: “Our founder, Margaret Sanger, was a woman of heroic accomplishments, and like all heroes, she was also complex and imperfect.”
And, of course, Microsoft continued the legacy by funding them.
Billionaires have always had a fond spot in their hearts for population control: Ted Turner is a big supporter, as is Warren Buffett, a Gates family friend.Salon.com
To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them