Bill Gates is Seriously Dangerous

[stickdog99]

There's no point piling on Gates with stuff like it when he's doing so much actual shit worth looking into. It's a distraction.

Probably, yes. It does comport with the overall vision. All persons monitored in all ways at all times within a single system. This was attempted but wasn't quite what Microsoft's near-monopoly on personal OS achieved. Google's gone way further, and comes closer by the day. It probably isn't what BAMGF and the current spider's web of BG interests will achieve, but it points toward a future where it is supposed to be achieved... by some combination of IT, Wall Street, MIC, surveillance agencies, multinationals, and development institutions.

Total Information Awareness = where every individual is at every moment, what each's habits, likenesses, and voices are, what each's assets and work history are, what each's credit rating is, what each's medical/vaccination/exercise/fitness histories are, what each's political beliefs are, what each's consumption habits are, and how each's DNA is encoded

We are well our way. Most of us already pay corporations to broadcast this information about us continually. Many people reading this would love to have people imprisoned in their homes for not being "fully vaccinated", have people's driving and flying "privileges" suspended for not having high enough credit ratings, have people refused emergency medical attention for having "unhealthy" habits, and even have people refused any opportunity of decent housing and employment for having defaulted on any previously incurred debts.

If you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem?

[stickdog99]

I was referring to the T.P. Wilkinson article, not the Vandana Shiva video. Don't get me wrong, I dislike Gates as much as the next guy, I just thought the article was really bad.

I see, previous page. I do not have time to read that article, way too long. I skimmed some of it, down to "Gates is not a health expert". This is definitely true, and it is a major phenomenon of male geeks in general, PHDs, and specialist doctors. Almost always men but there are some exceptions I've met. People become an expert in a specific subject and get an inflated ego, and think that their expertise carries over into all subjects. Graduate and medical school is like an intellectual version of going through boot camp that is traumatic, and they come out of it feeling entitled to act like a superior egomaniac even when it is not appropriate. I've seen some public hearings in which a male engineer asserts that 5G technology is safe for human health, and a woman trained in medicine opposite him has to point out that it is not his field, and he knows nothing about that. Specialist doctors are often woefully uninformed about areas of medicine outside their specialty, and this makes it easy to ignore side effects of the drugs they prescribe.

True. But your post seems to include a tacit assumption that "experts in a specific subject" actually have informed and accurate opinions about that subject rather than the ability to suspend their critical reasoning skills when considering the currently fashionable groupthink precepts that define their subspecialities.

For example, I know a woman who is a good-hearted, highly intelligent expert in water treatment. Despite this, she has overseen the progressive contamination of San Francisco's water supply. Every step of the way, her career success has depended on her acceptance of certain evidence that argues for further contamination and suppression of contrary evidence that argues against this. Over the years, I have watched her attitudes about this ever increasing contamination slowly change from righteous defiance, to muted objection, to resigned acquiescence, and finally to "common sense" defense of each decision her department has made to contaminate SF's tap water further. Of course, she still has not totally "drunk the Kool-Aid" because somewhere along the line, she started to get mountain spring water delivered to her own family.

[dada]

Jack, I'll say that I think Dante's poem isn't a metaphor for hell on earth, but about the topography of the soul. Rodin's sculpture is to be seen in that context.

[DrEvil]

There's no point piling on Gates with stuff like it when he's doing so much actual shit worth looking into. It's a distraction.

Probably, yes. It does comport with the overall vision. All persons monitored in all ways at all times within a single system. This was attempted but wasn't quite what Microsoft's near-monopoly on personal OS achieved. Google's gone way further, and comes closer by the day. It probably isn't what BAMGF and the current spider's web of BG interests will achieve, but it points toward a future where it is supposed to be achieved... by some combination of IT, Wall Street, MIC, surveillance agencies, multinationals, and development institutions.

Total Information Awareness = where every individual is at every moment, what each's habits, likenesses, and voices are, what each's assets and work history are, what each's credit rating is, what each's medical/vaccination/exercise/fitness histories are, what each's political beliefs are, what each's consumption habits are, and how each's DNA is encoded

We are well our way. Most of us already pay corporations to broadcast this information about us continually. Many people reading this would love to have people imprisoned in their homes for not being "fully vaccinated", have people's driving and flying "privileges" suspended for not having high enough credit ratings, have people refused emergency medical attention for having "unhealthy" habits, and even having people refused any opportunity of decent housing and employment for having defaulted on any previously incurred debts.

If you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem?

If you want to see what that looks like just have a peek at China, they're already there. I doubt many readers here want that and I'm a little mystified why you would even think that.

[stickdog99]

There's no point piling on Gates with stuff like it when he's doing so much actual shit worth looking into. It's a distraction.

Probably, yes. It does comport with the overall vision. All persons monitored in all ways at all times within a single system. This was attempted but wasn't quite what Microsoft's near-monopoly on personal OS achieved. Google's gone way further, and comes closer by the day. It probably isn't what BAMGF and the current spider's web of BG interests will achieve, but it points toward a future where it is supposed to be achieved... by some combination of IT, Wall Street, MIC, surveillance agencies, multinationals, and development institutions.

Total Information Awareness = where every individual is at every moment, what each's habits, likenesses, and voices are, what each's assets and work history are, what each's credit rating is, what each's medical/vaccination/exercise/fitness histories are, what each's political beliefs are, what each's consumption habits are, and how each's DNA is encoded

We are well our way. Most of us already pay corporations to broadcast this information about us continually. Many people reading this would love to have people imprisoned in their homes for not being "fully vaccinated", have people's driving and flying "privileges" suspended for not having high enough credit ratings, have people refused emergency medical attention for having "unhealthy" habits, and even having people refused any opportunity of decent housing and employment for having defaulted on any previously incurred debts.

If you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem?

If you want to see what that looks like just have a peek at China, they're already there. I doubt many readers here want that and I'm a little mystified why you would even think that.

Says the guy who thinks that barring children who are not fully vaccinated from schools is sound public policy. Do you also believe that unvaccinated adults should be barred from ever leaving their homes? I don't see how that's a big leap. How about barring any people who are shedding any potentially deleterious microbes or viruses from ever leaving their homes? I mean, why not? Aren't such people far more dangerous to the conscientious herd than the untouchable unvaccinated?

[JackRiddler]

We are well our way. Most of us already pay corporations to broadcast this information about us continually. Many people reading this would love to have people imprisoned in their homes for not being "fully vaccinated", have people's driving and flying "privileges" suspended for not having high enough credit ratings, have people refused emergency medical attention for having "unhealthy" habits, and even having people refused any opportunity of decent housing and employment for having defaulted on any previously incurred debts.

If read to mean RI, not true, at least not of those posting. However, I read this more generally, regarding popular assent and enthusiasm. There are many who endorse these and similar ideas.

[undead]

I was referring to the T.P. Wilkinson article, not the Vandana Shiva video. Don't get me wrong, I dislike Gates as much as the next guy, I just thought the article was really bad.

I see, previous page. I do not have time to read that article, way too long. I skimmed some of it, down to "Gates is not a health expert". This is definitely true, and it is a major phenomenon of male geeks in general, PHDs, and specialist doctors. Almost always men but there are some exceptions I've met. People become an expert in a specific subject and get an inflated ego, and think that their expertise carries over into all subjects. Graduate and medical school is like an intellectual version of going through boot camp that is traumatic, and they come out of it feeling entitled to act like a superior egomaniac even when it is not appropriate. I've seen some public hearings in which a male engineer asserts that 5G technology is safe for human health, and a woman trained in medicine opposite him has to point out that it is not his field, and he knows nothing about that. Specialist doctors are often woefully uninformed about areas of medicine outside their specialty, and this makes it easy to ignore side effects of the drugs they prescribe.

True. But your post seems to include a tacit assumption that "experts in a specific subject" actually have informed and accurate opinions about that subject rather than the ability to suspend their critical reasoning skills when considering the currently fashionable groupthink precepts that define their subspecialities.

For example, I know a woman who is a good-hearted, highly intelligent expert in water treatment. Despite this, she has overseen the progressive contamination of San Francisco's water supply. Every step of the way, her career success has depended on her acceptance of certain evidence that argues for further contamination and suppression of contrary evidence that argues against this. Over the years, I have watched her attitudes about this ever increasing contamination slowly change from righteous defiance, to muted objection, to resigned acquiescence, and finally to "common sense" defense of each decision her department has made to contaminate SF's tap water further. Of course, she still has not totally "drunk the Kool-Aid" because somewhere along the line, she started to get mountain spring water delivered to her own family.

Hmmm, I didn't mean to imply that, I agree that experts can be completely wrong about their specialty for the reasons you stated. The example you bring up is very interesting to me because the non-male example I was thinking of, who I personally know, is also a woman who specializes in water treatment. She currently works in the West Bank, trying to find the least worst cocktail of chemicals to add to the water to try to make it less poisonous/disease infested. This inevitably involves adding chemicals, making an ecological solution impossible. Mycoremediation and scientific composting could be a better alternative, but the institutional support for that is nonexistent. To those people the institutional consensus is the only reality, you can't argue with them. On certain issues that are subject to financial conflicts of interest, they might as well have attended a seminary.

[dada]

A social credit database could be hacked, couldn't it? Buy an AAA rating on the black market. You can bet they have that in China already, too.

I'm just saying, as the tech grows, the hacks will grow. That's just the entrepreneurial spirit at work.

[norton ash]

Systems are built to be gamed.

[0_0]

I made a list of people/organisations who have received money or who have worked for the Gates Foundation; just a little sample to show some of my friends and acquaintances the extent of Mr Gates´ influence:

-World Health Organisation (2nd largest donor)
-Tedros Adhanom, WHO Director General
-Michael Ryan, WHO´s Health Emergencies Programme
-Chinese Institute of Medical Biology,
- Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention
-Christian Drosten, “co-discoverer of covid19 and developer of one of its diagnostic tests
-Chris Whitty, UK chief medical advisor
-Neil Ferguson, maker of the “lockdown” pandemic model
-BBC, Guardian News Media, El Pais, Associated Press and other propaganda outlets
-European Commission
-IHME, developers of the “lockdown model” for the US
-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (US)
-Global Vaccine Alliance
-Global Vaccine Action Plan
-Global Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
-Task Force for Global Health
-MIT´s “under the skin” medical records project
-Digital Identity Alliance

Like I said this is not an extensive list but it shows that every single institution, every key person enabling the flu d’état links to Mr. Gates in one way or another: from the people declaring the pandemic, the containment and treatment protocols, to the developer of the diagnostic test, the model, the surveillance technology, etc.

When I shared it online I was made aware that even the implication that there might be a serious conflict of interest, let alone the absolute co-optation of global health policy by a single individual with gargantuan investments and no accountability, is nowadays considered just one more of those silly “conspiracy theories without any foundation”.

from the comments on https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/28/the ... r-on-cash/

[annie aronburg]

Systems are built to be gamed.

A social credit database could be hacked, couldn't it? Buy an AAA rating on the black market. You can bet they have that in China already, too.

I'm just saying, as the tech grows, the hacks will grow. That's just the entrepreneurial spirit at work.

The Borg does seem omnipotent and omnipresent, but we are also a virus that mutates to outwit it, time after time.

Don't get me started on why I hate Grammarly.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

A couple quick links with excerpts.

https://www.rupe-india.org/57/gates.html

[hyperlinks at Source]:

The Real Agenda of the Gates Foundation

“You're trying to find the places where the money will have the most leverage, how you can save the most lives for the dollar, so to speak,” Pelley remarked. “Right. And transform the societies,” Gates replied.

In 2009 the self-designated “Good Club” – a gathering of the world’s wealthiest people whose collective net worth then totaled some $125 billion – met behind closed doors in New York City to discuss a coordinated response to threats posed by the global financial crisis. Led by Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and David Rockefeller, the group resolved to find new ways of addressing sources of discontent in the developing world, in particular “overpopulation” and infectious diseases. The billionaires in attendance committed to massive spending in areas of interest to themselves, heedless of the priorities of national governments and existing aid organizations.

Details of the secret summit were leaked to the press and hailed as a turning point for Big Philanthropy. Traditional bureaucratic foundations like Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie were said to be giving way to “philanthrocapitalism,” a muscular new approach to charity in which the presumed entrepreneurial skills of billionaires would be applied directly to the world’s most pressing challenges:

Today’s philanthrocapitalists see a world full of big problems that they, and perhaps only they, can and must put right. … Their philanthropy is “strategic,” “market conscious,” “impact oriented,” “knowledge based,” often “high engagement,” and always driven by the goal of maximizing the “leverage” of the donor’s money. … [P]hilanthrocapitalists are increasingly trying to find ways of harnessing the profit motive to achieve social good.

Wielding “huge power that could reshape nations according to their will,”5 billionaire donors would now openly embrace not only the market-based theory, but also the practices and organizational norms, of corporate capitalism. Yet the overall thrust of their charitable interventions would remain consistent with longstanding traditions of Big Philanthropy, as discussed below:

I. The World’s Largest Private Foundation
II. Foundations and Imperialism
III.Gates and Big Pharma
IV. A Broader Agenda

AND:

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2020/04 ... apitalism/

Vaccines, Blockchain and Bio-capitalism

Vaccine Markets

Pay for success finance deals will be well served by the global vaccine market that is being advanced through Gates’s outfit GAVI. Vaccine doses are readily quantifiable, and the economic costs of many illnesses are straightforward to calculate. With a few strategic grants awarded to prestigious universities and think tanks, I anticipate suitable equations framing out a healthy ROI (return on investment) will be devised to meet global market demands shortly.

Over the past month, the gaze of investigative researchers has been fixed on GAVI, Bill Gates, Gates’s associates like Fauci, and the over-size influence they are having on public health policy around Covid-19. Use the link for the map to dig further into the relationships. The members of the 2012 Development Impact Bond (DIB) Working Group Report are of particular interest, since DIBs are being considered as a way to finance vaccination campaigns.

Among them:

Toby Eccles, Founder of Social Finance and developer of the social Impact Bond

Owen Barder, Former Economic Aide to Tony Blair, UK AID

Elizabeth Littlefield, JP Morgan, World Bank, OPIC, US Impact Investing Alliance

Vineet Bewtra, Lehman Brothers, Deutsche Bank, Omidyar Network

Bob Annibale, CitiGroup Community Development

Chris Egerton Warburton, Goldman Sachs, Lions Head Partners

Rebecca Endean, UK Research and Innovation

Kippy Joseph, Rockefeller Foundation, International Development Innovation Alliance

Oliver Sabot, Absolute Return On Kids (ARK, UK Charter School), The Global Fund

Steven Pierce, USAID

Public health is a servant of bond markets and financiers. A glance at the participants in this working group makes it clear, doses and people and death and suffering are just going to be part of their market analysis. For too many people, openly discussing concerns about vaccines remains a third-rail. But we DO have to learn how to talk about this to one another, because the stakes are too damn high to shy away from it. I also believe these campaigns and the tracking systems associated with them have been structured as an imperial enterprise and should be treated with profound caution.

[stickdog99]

Right. And if you don't agree 100% with Gates, you are a science denying, climate change denying, child murdering Luddite.

Because every vaccine ever invented or yet to invented is inherently good by definition. And thus forced vaccination at gunpoint is also always inherently good. These are self-evident human health postulates that can never be questioned in any case, real or imagined, in the past, present, near future, or even distant future. To do so would be to commit the most grievous possible scientific heresy, which is of course punishable by scientific ex-communication (at minimum). And this is why vaccine manufacturers must never be held liable for injuries caused by the vaccines they manufacture because such liabilities could discourage the continued development and proliferation of an inherent good that always was, always is, and always will be inherently blasphemous to question.

[8bitagent]

Right. And if you don't agree 100% with Gates, you are a science denying, climate change denying, child murdering Luddite.

I remember a couple years ago when Trump was on Twitter attacking Bezos and Amazon, I saw a bunch of people on social media pledge to defend Amazon and up their buying power with Amazon. Fast forward to 2020, people of all stripes are recognizing that Amazon ( like Apple) is a terrible company abusing their factory employees. Literally the last couple weeks on social media I've seen people saying they'll unfriend and ban anyone espousing "Bill Gates conspiracy theories".

I don't know why the left doesn't get that Silicon Valley is IN BED WITH and just as evil as the very "right wing government" groups they claim to hate. I guess it's like all the Democrats on social media who ruthlessly will defend every horrifying measure, policy and antion Joe Biden has supported or done because "least he's not Trump". I've no doubt Bill Gates is a bad faith actor.

[Nordic]

What makes me the most nervous about someone just ITCHING to inject “vaccines” into the world’s population.

Nanotechnology.

Just doing a quick search, it didn’t take me long to find this to use as an example:

Fourteen years ago, researchers figured out a way of infusing neurons with light-sensitive molecules, allowing them to control these cells with flashes of light. This technique, known as optogenetics, paved the way for many powerful studies, allowing neuroscientists to precisely manipulate the brains of living animals.

...MANIPULATE THE BRAINS OF LIVING ANIMALS ...

And this just from a “gosh gee whiz ain’t new technology great!” article in The Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... on/583768/

“An Ingenious Injection Can Create Infrared Vision
Nanotech particles expanded mice’s sense of sight. But would they work in humans?”

The implications of this are mind-boggling. And not in a good way. In a terrifying way.

The team have filed a patent based on their work, which they say could “pave the way for critical civilian and military applications.”

But of course!

And I remember reading several years ago as to how DARPA was testing injectable nanotech into soldiers to give them special abilities. Perhaps like these mice, so they can have their brains “precisely manipulated”.

Hold the world hostage for 18 months so you can inject your “vaccine” into 7 billion people. Even though nobody has ever created a successful vaccine for a corona virus ever before. And even though, right now, the virus is already mutating like mad, making an effective vaccine impossible.