Bill Gates, Epstein, and Epstein's Eugenics Obsession
"He Was Evil Personified": A Match for "Science" Made in Hell
“I did not like that he had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, no. I made that clear to him . . . I regretted [meeting Jeffrey Epstein] the second I walked in the door. He was abhorrent. He was evil personified. My heart breaks for these women.” -Melinda Gates describing her husband’s close relationship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein
This is our latest article in the Epstein series. Previously were articles on Ghislaine Maxwell and her connection to child sacrifice culture, Bill Barr’s connection to Epstein through both his father and his work, Biden’s island investment right next to Epstein island, and an article on Trump’s tangential relationship to Epstein and how he helped stop the monster.
The American Tribune is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Another Man Meets the Monster
One aspect of the Jeffrey Epstein saga that is hard to impress on those who do not spend an inordinate amount of time investigating what happened is just how far Epstein’s tendrils reached. No matter who it is you are reading about, whether the English royal family,1 Hollywood stars,2 American politicians,3 or even those in the halls of academia,4 everyone who is anyone was somehow involved with Jeffrey Epstein.
Take a few random examples. Remember Clinton Special Counsel Kenn Starr? He defended Epstein and got him the deal that let him prey on more young girls5…perhaps with Bill Clinton.6 Or how about quantum engineer and tenured MIT professor Seth Lloyd? Also close to Epstein.7 Victoria’s Secret founder Les Wexner? He’s the one who got Epstein his start.8 Hollywood star Kevin Spacey? He was on the Lolita Express.9 Comedian and actor Chris Tucker? On the Lolita Express as well.10
That’s just a small smattering of random people who knew the financier and pedophile, but it gets to the thing many people either don’t or won’t recognize: those who rule and create the culture our rulers use to solidify their support were in bed with the pedophile, sometimes literally.
Among those who is close to the regime are close and also was close to Epstein is Microsoft founder Bill Gates. From his company’s contracts for the military11 to the Gates Foundation’s funding of pro-regime organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations,12 not to mention the Foundation’s support of regime-supported activities like abortion access in the third-world,13 Bill Gates is “in” with the American regime’s power brokers.
But Mr. Gates didn’t just spend his time minting millions off military contracts,14 buying up American farmland,15 and funding abortion schemes in Latin America.16 He also spent time with Epstein, even after Epstein was a convicted pedophile.17 Quite a bit of time, in fact.18
What Were They Up To? Epstein’s Obsession with the Science of Eugenics?
Like with Ghislaine’s oddly-named TerraMar project,19 the goal of Gates’ relationship with Epstein can only be guessed at, as can his motivations in continuing to meet with the pedophile.
On the one hand, there is a pretty obvious and explicit reason why Gates would have wanted to hang around with a man known for having many young women at his beck and call. And, as Melinda Gates’ interview about Bill’s affairs and sex life suggests,20 Bill and whatever sexual proclivities he had were interested in that reason. Gates’ relationship with Epstein beginning after the pedophile was let out of prison21 for sex crimes could indicate that as well.
But there was likely something more going on in the relationship, with that “something” probably being either Epstein’s advice on Bill’s marital problems22 or, more likely, their shared obsession with scientific research. VICE, reporting on the Gates-Epstein relationship and what their respective donations reveal, reported (emphasis added):23
Around this time, the Wall Street Journal interviewed Gates, who was promoting a Netflix documentary about himself. Asked to describe his relationship with Epstein, Gates said, “I met him. I didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with him. I didn’t go to New Mexico or Florida or Palm Beach or any of that.”
A week after that, on September 6, 2019, the New Yorker published a report about the relationship between Epstein and the MIT Media Lab. In October 2014, Gates had donated $2 million to the lab; an email from director Joi Ito the magazine obtained said, “This is a $2M gift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein.” A spokesperson told the magazine that “any claim that Epstein directed any programmatic or personal grantmaking for Bill Gates is completely false.”
On October 12, 2019, the New York Times published what was and remains the most in-depth examination of the relationship between the software tycoon and the criminal.
“Mr. Gates met with Mr. Epstein on numerous occasions,” the Times reported, “including at least three times at Mr. Epstein’s palatial Manhattan townhouse, and at least once staying late into the night.” According to the paper, the two men were introduced by Boris Nikolic, the science adviser for Gates’ multi-billion dollar foundation. The report identified three distinct occasions in 2011 on which the two had met—a party in January at Epstein’s townhouse; a conference in March in Long Beach, California; and a get-together in May, again at Epstein’s townhouse, where they were surrounded by the likes of Nikolic and former Treasury secretary Larry Summers—as well as one occasion in September 2013, when the two met for dinner in New York. It also identified an occasion in March 2013 when Gates flew to Palm Beach on Epstein’s private airplane from New Jersey, though it wasn’t clear if this was the same 2013 flight on which CNBC had reported.
And what type of scientific research were the two men interested in and funding? Well, Epstein’s interest in and funding provided for pure research science were well-known in the upper tier of the research world.24 When asked what he was looking for with his funding of scientific research, Epstein said, "I'm looking for smart people who might have a great idea. I'm making a bet that certain people, not a lot of them, can do great things if they simply can be freed up to think, and freed up from writing grants and having to worry about the necessities of life. Remember, I'm not building a laboratory, so [my money] goes to support them in a nicer way than being on a postdoc salary."25
Further, Epstein even criticized the sort of research and causes the Gates Foundation funds, saying: "Frankly . . . since the discovery of penicillin [in 1928], there's been no really remarkable discovery. I've followed the genome project, and there's lots of hope. But in terms of a real product, there's probably nothing that has kept more people alive than penicillin . . . The [Bill & Melinda] Gates Foundation doesn't search for smart people. Bill wants to cure polio. He wants to eliminate poverty. But in terms of coming up with new theories of biology or some new form of mathematics, zero [interest]."26
With his donation dollars, Epstein did not want to promote diversity in science27 or try to make it more appealing to the masses.28 Instead, he wanted to find and fund the best of the best, creating a scientific elite. "I'm interested in the rarefied peaks. I have no insight into that area, zero. Again, I'm trying to reach the smartest of the smart. It's the same issue in terms of money. My clients are not in any way near the middle, they're at the tippy tip of the top of the pyramid," he said.29
And that is where things get weird, as Epstein was apparently using his massive New Mexico ranch30 to work on a eugenics project. Based on what resources he was marshaling, it looks like he was trying to create a class of extremely gifted and attractive people, a goal that fits well with his obsession with finding the peak of the research pyramid. Here’s what the New York Post reported on his desert project (emphasis added):
Jeffrey Epstein dreamed of improving humanity by using his sperm to impregnate scores of women at his New Mexico ranch — and also wanted his penis and head frozen after death so they could eventually be reanimated, according to a report Wednesday.
Two award-winning scientists and an adviser to large companies and wealthy individuals told the New York Times that the since-disgraced multimillionaire financier shared his plan for a baby-making factory in the desert on multiple occasions starting in the early 2000s.
Computer scientist and writer Jaron Lanier also told the Times that he once spoke to a scientist who related how Epstein’s goal was to have 20 women at a time impregnated at his 33,000-square-foot Zorro Ranch outside Santa Fe.
Lanier said the scientist told him that Epstein was inspired by the Repository for Germinal Choice, a controversial sperm bank stocked by high-achieving white males – reportedly including as many as five Nobel Prize winners – that operated in California from 1979 to 1999.
Lanier told the Times he suspected that Epstein – a convicted pedophile who was busted July 6 on child sex trafficking charges and has pleaded not guilty – used his dinner parties to screen attractive women with impressive academic credentials as potential mothers for his children.
A source described as an adherent of “transhumanism” – the belief that human evolution can be furthered through science and technology – told the paper that Epstein described wanting to have his penis and head cryogenically preserved.
In other words, if you can’t find enough people at “the tippy tip of the top of the pyramid" and have a contemplative, dismissive attitude toward everyone else, why not breed your own top of the pyramid?
How does that have anything to do with Bill Gates? Well, remember how Gates, whose father was on the board of Planned Parenthood,31 uses the Gates Foundation to fund “abortion access” around the world? That abortion focus is essentially eugenic in outlook and action,32 even if Bill and Melinda Gates don’t openly call for culling the less gifted. In fact, one research paper on the Gates Foundation’s work abroad found that it is “strongly rooted in a eugenic history oriented to controlling or managing the growth of particular populations in the world.”33
Describing that “eugenic history” and how it relates to the Gates Foundation, the paper notes (emphasis added):34
Many public “health and hygiene” projects of the Progressive Era were concerned with improving public health by developing “health code standards, as well as health education for physicians, government, and the public,” but were also informed by eugenicist, racial, class, and imperialist concerns related to biological reproduction. Some campaigns fell into the category of “positive eugenics,” defined by the Eugenics Archive as “promoting the idea that healthy, high-achieving people should have children, or have larger families.” For example, during state fairs held in many capitals, “Better Babies” exhibits included experts who examined and measured babies brought in by parents and concluded with contests that showed off the “best” and “healthiest” examples.
While “Better Babies” contests show an example of positive eugenics, or measures to improve environmental and population health, there were also several examples of negative eugenics in the US. The Eugenics Archive defines negative eugenics as “discouragement or prohibition of marriage and family life for those with eugenically undesirable traits; and sexual segregation, sterilization, and euthanasia of those with such traits.”
After the WHO’s failed attempt to get involved with family planning in 1952, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, NGOs and private foundations took charge in population control movements since they had less constraints than governmental bodies like the UN.
This section draws connections between the Gates Foundation’s pharmaceutical and medical fertility control initiatives in the Third World since 1999 and earlier US population control efforts. The foundation’s “philanthropic” efforts on birth control and health in African, Asian, and other Third World countries, I argue, fit within longstanding Western imperialist interest in eugenicist and racist population control projects for the purposes of reinforcing their own geopolitical and economic power. We saw earlier in the chapter that the figures involved in the Population Council and the Rockefeller Foundation have historically been powerful, wealthy and directly connected at the most elite levels with US military, political, scientific, and academic institutions. The Gates Foundation and Population Council are similar in their use of language such as “aid” and “philanthropy” to soften the edges of these undemocratic and poweraccumulating projects. They are also similar in how they use “modernization” and “advancement” to push their interests, although the Gates Foundation is more likely to focus on the gender dimensions of this, e.g. “empowerment,” especially of women.
Sound familiar? Producing “better” babies to advance into the future as an improvement project while culling the human herd using abortion and propagandistic slogans about lowering the Total Fertility Rate? If Epstein and Gates were working hand in hand, with Epstein creating the new “tippy top of the pyramid” in his New Mexico ranch as Gates’ foundation culled the human herd, that would fulfill the old eugenic goal.
Perhaps they were up to something else. Perhaps it was just lecherous lust on Gates’ part. Maybe there was a different scientific advancement they were focused on jointly achieving. Maybe their divergent views on what should be researched simply led to multiple meetings and debates about what would be the better way to spend research dollars. Maybe both cared about eugenics in their own way and never collaborated on any such project.
But Gates has admitted little about his Epstein relationship, leaving the true nature of it up in the air and open to speculation. And in the opening for speculation provided by that silence, a eugenics project is certainly an intriguing possibility that fits with their interests. Both men have an interest in it, albeit on different sides of the same coin, and spent heavily on their pet sides. That’s not necessarily damning, but it is a tantalizing clue.
The American Tribune is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.