There it is, suckers: the "Mark of the Beast" fm Book of Revelations, morons--get ur digital ID--pushed by Bill Gates--who else?

Apollonian

Guest Columnist

Bill Gates Unveils His Preferred National Digital ID Program. If you can’t prove your identity, then you can’t access services, The Mark!​

August 22, 2023 3:38 pm by CWR

Link: https://citizenwatchreport.com/bill...ntity-then-you-cant-access-services-the-mark/

Bill Gates is now pushing the digital ID slavery system for humanity, and the billionaire globalist recommended which platform he prefers.
“850 million people lack ID that proves their identity. As a result, they’re shut out of a lot of services that could change their lives,” Gates said Monday.

“That’s why I’m so excited about MOSIP, an open-source technology that could dismantle barriers worldwide.”
barriers limit the spread of disease, corruption, trafficking, wars think masks u want us to wear Billy , a barrier to protect against disease


See also The CBDCs Are Coming, And The Elite Plan To Use These “Digital Currencies” To Enslave Humanity


Proof of identity enables people to fully participate in the economy,” Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Program Officer, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, writes.

If you can’t prove your identity, then you can’t access services.

STRAIGHT UP PROOF MARK OF BEAST BELOW


See also Comedy Show Canceled Because One of the People Involved Opposes Child Mutilation


rev 13-16-17: 16Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,1so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name

doesnt get any clearer than that


100percentfedup.com/bill-gates-unveils-his-preferred-national-digital-id-program/
 

GATES FOUNDATION PUSHES NATIONAL DIGITAL ID TECH​


Published: August 22, 2023

SOURCE: RECLAIM THE NET

Link: https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/85270/gates-foundation-pushes-national-digital-id.html/

Pushing the controversial technology in India.

gates-digital-id.jpg

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
The digital era, with its myriad of innovations, has ushered in a wave of conveniences – but at what cost? The recent advocacy by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the Modular Open-Source Identification Platform (MOSIP) will now be under scrutiny by privacy advocates, questioning the broader implications of such a global digital identification system.
The Seattle-based Gates Foundation, guided by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, has actively endorsed MOSIP’s undertakings with a sizable $10 million pledge.
The Foundation’s aim seems to focus on propelling a universal digital identification framework, especially targeting low to middle-income economies. But as history has shown, with such advancements often come potential pitfalls, particularly regarding personal privacy.
Screenshot-2023-08-21-at-17.34.jpg.jpg

The MOSIP initiative, although modeled after India’s controversial state digital ID (Aadhaar) system initiated in 2009, prompts a plethora of concerns.
While Aadhaar spurred global interest, the unique challenges faced by different countries meant that many had to grapple with potentially expensive and less transparent commercial systems, resulting in “vendor lock-in” and potential misuse of user data.
MOSIP, since its inception in 2018, presents itself as a remedy to these challenges, promoting its accessibility and adaptability to different nations.
While the Philippines led in its adoption, 11 countries, predominantly from Africa, have followed suit. However, with over 90 million digital IDs already distributed across the Philippines, Ethiopia, and Morocco, the magnitude of data collection and the potential risks associated with breaches or misuse become alarmingly evident.
Screenshot-2023-08-21-at-17.51.jpg.jpg

Adapting MOSIP to each nation’s unique requirements means collecting and customizing vast amounts of personal data. The system, despite its boasts of an 80+ vendor ecosystem, raises red flags.
The higher the number of vendors, the greater the potential access points for data breaches. Although MOSIP offers complimentary training, product showcases, and a certification process, the complexities of managing multiple vendors across various countries can jeopardize the sanctity of personal data.
MOSIP’s ambitious plan to register 1 billion individuals in the coming decade only intensifies the concerns. While the Gates Foundation views digital ID systems as integral to fostering digital public infrastructure (DPI) that can, in theory, stimulate economic growth, the risks to personal privacy cannot be ignored.
Though DPI promises to streamline transactions for individuals and governments, its adoption without robust privacy safeguards can lead to potential misuse, surveillance, and unwarranted data access.
Personal data has become as valuable as gold and the push for such extensive digital ID systems, with such global intentions, needs to be critically examined. Privacy remains a fundamental right, and any compromise on it, however advanced or innovative the reason, deserves rigorous scrutiny. Digital ID in general undermines privacy.

TOP TRENDING ARTICLES​


US government raids Amish cattle farmer, seizing his property in a shocking display of overreach…
13 comments
Banning Central Bank Digital Currency is "Essential to America's FinTech Future" House Rep Says
10 comments
Fauci declares lockdowns were 'absolutely justified' and suggests they should be used again to force vaccinations
14 comments
It’s Really Happening: Mask Mandates, Contact Tracing RE-IMPLEMENTED At Colleges, Offices
37 comments
IARPA’s new pants will record your location
6 comments
Neocon dark money front launches desperate ad blitz as support for Ukraine forever war craters
 

We the Targeted: How the Government Weaponizes Surveillance to Silence Its Critics​

by John & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute
August 29th 2023, 1:33 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/we-t...aponizes-surveillance-to-silence-its-critics/

Weaponized surveillance is re-engineering a society structured around the aesthetic of fear.
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” — President Harry S. Truman

Ever since Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his groundbreaking “I Have a Dream” speech during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on Aug. 28, 1963, the Deep State has been hard at work turning King’s dream into a living nightmare.

The end result of the government’s efforts over the past 60 years is a country where nothing ever really changes, and everyone lives in fear.

Race wars are still being stoked by both the Right and the Left; the military-industrial complex is still waging profit-driven wars at taxpayer expense; the oligarchy is still calling the shots in the seats of government power; and the government is still weaponizing surveillance in order to muzzle anti-government sentiment, harass activists, and terrorize Americans into compliance.

This last point is particularly disturbing.

Starting in the 1950s, the government relied on COINTELPRO, its domestic intelligence program, to neutralize domestic political dissidents. Those targeted by the FBI under COINTELPRO for its intimidation, surveillance and smear campaigns included: Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, the Black Panther Party, John Lennon, Billie Holiday, Emma Goldman, Aretha Franklin, Charlie Chaplin, Ernest Hemingway, Felix Frankfurter, and hundreds more.

In more recent decades, the powers-that-be have expanded their reach to target anyone who opposes the police state, regardless of their political leanings.

Advances in technology have enabled the government to deploy a veritable arsenal of surveillance weapons in order to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” perceived threats to the government’s power.

Surveillance cameras mounted on utility poles, traffic lights, businesses, and homes. License plate readers. Ring doorbells. GPS devices. Dash cameras. Drones. Store security cameras. Geofencing and geotracking. FitBits. Alexa. Internet-connected devices. Geofencing dragnets. Fusion centers. Smart devices. Behavioral threat assessments. Terror watch lists. Facial recognition. Snitch tip lines. Biometric scanners. Pre-crime. DNA databases. Data mining. Precognitive technology. Contact tracing apps.

What these add up to is a world in which, on any given day, the average person is now monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

Consider just a small sampling of the ways in which the government is weaponizing its 360 degree surveillance technologies to flag you as a threat to national security, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong.

Flagging you as a danger based on your feelings. Customs and Border Protection is reportedly using an artificial intelligence surveillance program that can detect “sentiment and emotion” in social media posts in order to identify travelers who may be “a threat to public safety, national security, or lawful trade and travel.”

Flagging you as a danger based on your phone and movements. Cell phones have become de facto snitches, offering up a steady stream of digital location data on users’ movements and travels. For instance, the FBI was able to use geofence data to identify more than 5,000 mobile devices (and their owners) in a 4-acre area around the Capitol on January 6. This latest surveillance tactic could land you in jail for being in the “wrong place and time.” Police are also using cell-site simulators to carry out mass surveillance of protests without the need for a warrant. Moreover, federal agents can now employ a number of hacking methods in order to gain access to your computer activities and “see” whatever you’re seeing on your monitor. Malicious hacking software can also be used to remotely activate cameras and microphones, offering another means of glimpsing into the personal business of a target.

Flagging you as a danger based on your DNA. DNA technology in the hands of government officials completes our transition to a Surveillance State. If you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name. By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.” It can also be used to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects. It’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.

Flagging you as a danger based on your face. Facial recognition software aims to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded as they go about their daily business. Coupled with surveillance cameras that blanket the country, facial recognition technology allows the government and its corporate partners to identify and track someone’s movements in real-time. One particularly controversial software program created by Clearview AI has been used by police, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to collect photos on social media sites for inclusion in a massive facial recognition database. Similarly, biometric software, which relies on one’s unique identifiers (fingerprints, irises, voice prints), is becoming the standard for navigating security lines, as well as bypassing digital locks and gaining access to phones, computers, office buildings, etc. In fact, greater numbers of travelers are opting into programs that rely on their biometrics in order to avoid long waits at airport security. Scientists are also developing lasers that can identify and surveil individuals based on their heartbeats, scent and microbiome.

Flagging you as a danger based on your behavior. Rapid advances in behavioral surveillance are not only making it possible for individuals to be monitored and tracked based on their patterns of movement or behavior, including gait recognition (the way one walks), but have given rise to whole industries that revolve around predicting one’s behavior based on data and surveillance patterns and are also shaping the behaviors of whole populations. One smart “anti-riot” surveillance system purports to predict mass riots and unauthorized public events by using artificial intelligence to analyze social media, news sources, surveillance video feeds and public transportation data.

Flagging you as a danger based on your spending and consumer activities. With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time. Consumer surveillance, by which your activities and data in the physical and online realms are tracked and shared with advertisers, has become a $300 billion industry that routinely harvests your data for profit. Corporations such as Target have not only been tracking and assessing the behavior of their customers, particularly their purchasing patterns, for years, but the retailer has also funded major surveillance in cities across the country and developed behavioral surveillance algorithms that can determine whether someone’s mannerisms might fit the profile of a thief.

Flagging you as a danger based on your public activities. Private corporations in conjunction with police agencies throughout the country have created a web of surveillance that encompasses all major cities in order to monitor large groups of people seamlessly, as in the case of protests and rallies. They are also engaging in extensive online surveillance, looking for any hints of “large public events, social unrest, gang communications, and criminally predicated individuals.” Defense contractors have been at the forefront of this lucrative market. Fusion centers, $330 million-a-year, information-sharing hubs for federal, state and law enforcement agencies, monitor and report such “suspicious” behavior as people buying pallets of bottled water, photographing government buildings, and applying for a pilot’s license as “suspicious activity.”

Flagging you as a danger based on your social media activities. Every move you make, especially on social media, is monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line. As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior. This obsession with social media as a form of surveillance will have some frightening consequences in coming years. As Helen A.S. Popkin, writing for NBC News, observed, “We may very well face a future where algorithms bust people en masse for referencing illegal ‘Game of Thrones’ downloads… the new software has the potential to roll, Terminator-style, targeting every social media user with a shameful confession or questionable sense of humor.”

Flagging you as a danger based on your social network. Not content to merely spy on individuals through their online activity, government agencies are now using surveillance technology to track one’s social network, the people you might connect with by phone, text message, email or through social message, in order to ferret out possible criminals. An FBI document obtained by Rolling Stone speaks to the ease with which agents are able to access address book data from Facebook’s WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage services from the accounts of targeted individuals and individuals not under investigation who might have a targeted individual within their network. What this creates is a “guilt by association” society in which we are all as guilty as the most culpable person in our address book.

Flagging you as a danger based on your car. License plate readers are mass surveillance tools that can photograph over 1,800 license tag numbers per minute, take a picture of every passing license tag number and store the tag number and the date, time, and location of the picture in a searchable database, then share the data with law enforcement, fusion centers and private companies to track the movements of persons in their cars. With tens of thousands of these license plate readers now in operation throughout the country, affixed to overpasses, cop cars and throughout business sectors and residential neighborhoods, it allows police to track vehicles and run the plates through law enforcement databases for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives. Of course, the technology is not infallible: there have been numerous incidents in which police have mistakenly relied on license plate data to capture out suspects only to end up detaining innocent people at gunpoint.

Flagging you as a danger based on your political views. The Church Committee, the Senate task force charged with investigating COINTELPRO abuses in 1975, concluded that the government had carried out “secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power.” The report continued: “Groups and individuals have been harassed and disrupted because of their political views and their lifestyles… Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials.” Nothing has changed since then.

Flagging you as a danger based on your correspondence. Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service, which has been photographing the exterior of every piece of paper mail for the past 20 years, is also spying on Americans’ texts, emails and social media posts. Headed up by the Postal Service’s law enforcement division, the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) is reportedly using facial recognition technology, combined with fake online identities, to ferret out potential troublemakers with “inflammatory” posts. The agency claims the online surveillance, which falls outside its conventional job scope of processing and delivering paper mail, is necessary to help postal workers avoid “potentially volatile situations.”

Now the government wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear from these mass spying programs as long as we’ve done nothing wrong.

Don’t believe it.

As Matthew Feeney warns in the New York Times, “In the past, Communists, civil rights leaders, feminists, Quakers, folk singers, war protesters and others have been on the receiving end of law enforcement surveillance. No one knows who the next target will be.

The government’s definition of a “bad” guy is extraordinarily broad, and it results in the warrantless surveillance of innocent, law-abiding Americans on a staggering scale.

Moreover, there is a repressive, suppressive effect to surveillance that not only acts as a potentially small deterrent on crime but serves to monitor and chill lawful First Amendment activity, and that is the whole point.

Weaponized surveillance is re-engineering a society structured around the aesthetic of fear.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the police state wants us silent, servile and compliant.

They definitely do not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

And they certainly do not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully, whether it’s protesting police brutality and racism, challenging COVID-19 mandates, questioning election outcomes, or listening to alternate viewpoints—even conspiratorial ones—in order to form our own opinions about the true nature of government.
 
Last edited:

Bill Gates Says He Is ‘The Solution’ To Climate Change So It’s OK To Own Four Private Jets​

Link: https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/bill-gat...te-change-so-its-ok-to-own-four-private-jets/

September 7, 2023 Baxter Dmitry

Screen-Shot-2023-09-07-at-6.57.52-PM-678x381.png.webp


Bill Gates has the right to fly around the world on private jets while normal people are forced to live in 15 minute cities without freedom of travel, according to Bill Gates himself, who told the BBC he is doing much more than anybody else to fight climate change.

Gates claimed that because he continues to “spend billions of dollars” on climate change activism, his carbon footprint isn’t an issue.


“Should I stay at home and not come to Kenya and learn about farming and malaria?” Gates said in the interview with Amol Rajan.
“I’m comfortable with the idea that not only am I not part of the problem by paying for the offsets, but also through the billions that my Breakthrough Energy Group is spending, that I’m part of the solution,” Gates added. Watch:

Earlier this year, Gates flew around Australia on board his $70 million dollar luxury private jet lecturing people about climate change and ordering them to stop flying on planes.
Gates, who has declared that the energy crisis is a good thing, owns no fewer than FOUR private jets at a combined cost of $194 million dollars.
A study carried out by Linnaeus University economics professor Stefan Gössling found that Gates flew more than 213,000 miles on 59 private jet flights in 2017 alone.
Gates emitted an estimated 1,760 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, over a hundred times more than the emissions per capita in the United States, according to data from the World Bank.
Elsewhere during the carefully constructed interview, Gates said he was surprised that he was targeted by ‘conspiracy theorists’ for pushing vaccines during the pandemic.

While the BBC interview was set up to look like Gates was being challenged or grilled, he wasn’t asked about his close friendship with the elite pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
 

Bill Gates' foundation bets nearly $100 million on Bud Light, former Anheuser-Busch exec says huge investment is a 'mistake'​

STATION GOSSIP 08:19

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2023/09/bill-gates-foundation-bets-nearly-100.html/

Despite the controversy surrounding Bud Light , Bill Gates is betting big on the beer brand's parent company – Anheuser-Busch ...

Van Jones: Democrats ‘Are Terrified,’ ‘Grandpa’ Joe Biden ‘In Real Trouble’

Radical Environmental Protesters Who Delayed US Open Hit With Criminal Charges

Despite the controversy surrounding Bud Light, Bill Gates is betting big on the beer brand's parent company – Anheuser-Busch.
Bud Light has been dethroned as the king of beers in the United States following a months-long boycott. The once-beloved beer brand began being boycotted in April after Bud Light's advertising campaign with transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney.

Anheuser-Busch faces another potential public relations pitfall with billionaire Bill Gates investing millions into the beer behemoth.
Last quarter, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust bought 1.7 million shares of Anheuser-Busch InBev – valued at nearly $95 million, according to an SEC filing.
MarketWatch reported, "The exact timing of the purchase was unclear. But Cascade Asset Management Co., the firm that oversees the investment decisions for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, said the Microsoft Corp. co-founder didn’t participate in the trust’s decision, and that it was attracted to the price."
A spokesperson for Cascade said the asset management company "sees value" in Anheuser-Busch InBev.

The stock is down about 6% year to date.
Fox Business reported, "Sales took a clear hit. Anheuser-Busch InBev reported a steep drop in profits as a result of the boycott, with U.S. revenue dropping 10.5% in the second quarter, while earnings before taxes, interest and depreciation fell 28.2%. The company has laid off hundreds of workers amid the fallout." estment is a "mistake."
"Bill Gates is definitely making a mistake," former Anheuser-Busch exec Anson Frerks told "Cavuto: Coast to Coast" on Wednesday. "Earlier this year, he already made a $900 million mistake when he invested into one of Anheuser-Busch's largest rivals, Heineken. He did that earlier this year. And since that investment, Heineken's down about 10%, whereas the broader markets are up 10%."
"So if I was looking for advice on investing in software companies, tech companies, I might go to Bill Gates. But if you're looking at the beer industry, he doesn't have a great track record of investing in winners at this point," Freks added.
In February, Gates acquired a 3.76% stake in Dutch beer giant Heineken, said to be worth $902 million at the time.
During an "Ask Me Anything" thread on Reddit in 2018, Gates wrote, "I am not a big beer drinker," but said he'll "drink light beer to get with the vibe of all the other beer drinkers" during a baseball game.
Other major investments by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation include Microsoft, Walmart, and agricultural manufacturer Deere & Co.
According to Forbes, Gates is the seventh-richest person in the world with a net worth of more than $111 billion.
 

Is Bill Gates' reputation as the world's most noble philanthropist about to be torn to shreds by a new book which claims his billions do more harm than good?​

By TOM LEONARD
PUBLISHED: 20:32 EST, 24 November 2023 | UPDATED: 20:40 EST, 24 November 2023

Link: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...reds-new-book-claims-billions-harm-good.html/

He was deserted by wife Melinda over his rumoured philandering and embarrassed by revelations about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. The past few years haven't been kind to Bill Gates' image.
But no matter how ugly the headlines have been for the nerdy Microsoft co-founder, formerly the world's richest man, we've been able to reassure ourselves that — personal foibles aside — he's one of the good guys.
For didn't he and his former wife Melinda pledge to give away 95 per cent of their vast fortune and lean on other billionaires to be similarly generous?
And didn't the most influential power couple on the planet set up the world's largest private charity, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that has already spent billions on alleviating poverty, malnutrition and disease and whose current $67 billion endowment is more than most countries' GDP? Surely all that counts for more than a wandering eye at the office and an ill-chosen friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, a paedophile conman courting the rich and powerful?
Not according to a trenchant new book on 68-year-old Gates and his philanthropy.
Bill Gates, right, and his wife Melinda attend to a child as they meet with members of the Mushar community at Jamsot Village near Patna, India, in March 2011


Bill Gates, right, and his wife Melinda attend to a child as they meet with members of the Mushar community at Jamsot Village near Patna, India, in March 2011
Penned by bestselling journalist Seamus Bruner, the book asserts Gates' investments in fertilizers and plant-based meats are doing little to slow carbon emissions as he claims, and come at the expense of citizens


Penned by bestselling journalist Seamus Bruner, the book asserts Gates' investments in fertilizers and plant-based meats are doing little to slow carbon emissions as he claims, and come at the expense of citizens
78232153-0-image-a-28_1700941435775.jpg

PETER HITCHENS: Cameron is back in time to see end of his centrist lie

In The Bill Gates Problem: Reckoning With The Myth Of The Good Billionaires, author Tim Schwab argues that the billionaire's supposed transformation from a rapacious and arrogant technology mogul into a benign do-gooder doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

READ MORE: BILL GATES IS BUYING SWATHES OF LAND TO SEIZE A MONOPOLY ON A VEGAN FUTURE, NEW BOOK CLAIMS

38065616-12789287-The_tech_billionaire_has_quietly_bought_up_270_000_acres_of_farm-a-140_1700875622496.jpg



In fact, says Schwab, a Washington DC journalist whose articles on Gates have been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he's the same man who once ruthlessly elbowed out business rivals and colleagues alike while driving Microsoft to tech-world dominance.
Only this time Gates' power trip is focused on bending the world of international aid and development to his will and to his often deeply misguided thinking.
It is costing us, the taxpayer, money as Gates is using his enormous leverage to persuade governments to invest alongside him in what he sees fit. And it is all done in what Schwab calls a 'totally unaccountable, undemocratic, and non-transparent manner'.
While Gates has been feted and fawned over by governments — he received an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth and the Presidential Medal Of Freedom from Barack Obama — he's really trying to save his tarnished reputation, says Schwab.
As for giving away all his money, Gates is actually now worth $117 billion — astonishingly, twice as much as when he set up his foundation in 2000, discloses the book. Much of that, says Schwab, is down to the enormously generous tax breaks that are attached to philanthropic donations in the U.S.
A man whose fortune is, in large part, based on Microsoft's ingenious methods of legally avoiding tax around the world would be better serving the planet if he gave that money to governments to spend on aid and development rather than playing God himself, Schwab argues.
Nobody who's followed Gates's life needs telling he's dripping in hubris.
He reportedly once boasted that he 'went to Harvard to learn from people smarter than him... and left disappointed'.
Of his philanthropy, Gates has said: 'I have no use for money, this is God's work,' and no matter how ludicrous that sounds from a man with a clutch of huge multi-million-pound homes, a fleet of private jets, and jaw-dropping art and car collections, many people have taken him at his word.
Melinda and Bill Gates attend The Robin Hood Foundation's 2018 benefit at Jacob Javitz Center on May 14, 2018 in New York


Melinda and Bill Gates attend The Robin Hood Foundation's 2018 benefit at Jacob Javitz Center on May 14, 2018 in New York
The writer explains how he believes Gates is looking to obtain the intellectual property of food production through a series of trademarks, copyrights, and patents.


The writer explains how he believes Gates is looking to obtain the intellectual property of food production through a series of trademarks, copyrights, and patents.
Music industry giants such as Bono — who has intoned that Gates 'gets s**t done' — and the rapper Jay-Z have fawned over him, while other celebrities line up to be photographed with him.

READ MORE: BILL GATES GIRLFRIEND PAULA HURD IS SPOTTED WEARING A LARGE RING ON HER WEDDING FINGER

73307457-12789287-image-m-147_1700875880139.jpg



For years, Gates was regularly voted the world's most admired person in polls. Children held up his portrait to celebrate his 60th birthday at a mass Bill love-in in India. Behind them was a giant picture of the man, smiling compassionately in his trademark V-neck jumper and geeky glasses above the slogan 'Grow Rich, Help Others'.
The Gates Foundation is now responsible for more than 88 per cent of the total funds donated by philanthropic foundations to the World Health Organisation, giving billions of dollars each year to health, education and farming initiatives. In 2015, it distributed more aid for global health than any government and 14 times as much as the UK's contribution. So when Bill Gates speaks, politicians and charity bosses have to sit up and listen.
According to Schwab, all this plays perfectly into Gates's lust for power and international influence.
Schwab doesn't deny the possibility that Gates and his ex-wife may genuinely want to save the world but, fatally, he says they — and particularly Bill — are convinced that only they know how to do it. '[The Foundation is] a tool Bill Gates uses to advance his world view,' he says. 'He's not donating money as much as he's buying influence.'
And it's no coincidence, he writes, that a few months before Gates launched the foundation, his reputation had been severely battered when Microsoft was ruled to be an 'abusive monopoly' in a case brought by the U.S. government.
So what of the secretive Gates Foundation's central claim — that it saves millions of lives, particularly of children, primarily through a mass vaccination programme?
In 2018, a 'Louisiana investor,' later revealed to be Gates, paid $171 million for a swath of farmland in the Horse Heaven Hill, one of the largest real estate purchases in recent memory


In 2018, a 'Louisiana investor', later revealed to be Gates, paid $171 million for a large swath of farmland in the Horse Heaven Hill, making it one of the largest real estate transactions in recent memory
The farmland was bought by Gates and wife Melinda predominantly through their investment company, Cascade Investments. It is not connected to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which also works to help support farming


The farmland was bought by Gates and wife Melinda predominantly through their investment company, Cascade Investments. It is not connected to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which also works to help support farming
The foundation's achievements are often exaggerated or simply invented, says Schwab, and that certainly includes the astonishing figure of 122 million children's lives the foundation is often reported to have saved.
On closer analysis, says Schwab, this figure is simply the number of children under the age of five who would have died if mortality rates had remained the same since 1990.
Why on earth, asks Schwab, should Gates be taking credit for lives that were probably actually saved by rising living standards? The truth, the author asserts, is that nobody really knows how many lives the foundation has saved.
It may be doing good in some areas, Schwab concedes, but it's also in some cases making things worse by concentrating attention and resources on priorities chosen by the Gateses at the expense of far more pressing needs. For example, Gates is making it his personal crusade to entirely wipe out polio. This might seem a noble aim, but by taking the focus off more lethal diseases such as measles and diphtheria, it can cost rather than save lives.
Diseases such as polio, say experts, are usually not worth trying to destroy completely as the last lingering cases require considerable expense and effort to address.
But, of course, making a public pledge as Gates has done looks great on the CV.
'Bill Gates hasn't been a champion for the poor as much as of himself,' writes Schwab damningly.
In Pakistan, for example, 25 million people need intervention against other tropical diseases and 28 million are undernourished. However, Gates strong-armed the Pakistani government into making polio its top priority at the expense of these other diseases, says the new book.
In some poor countries, an unintended consequence was that medical clinic fridges were so fully stocked with unneeded polio vaccines that there was no space for measles doses that could have saved lives.
Gates's faith in vaccines, meanwhile, has enriched the pharmaceutical companies that produce them but left no money for far more cost-effective health measures against diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria, although Gates cannot be held entirely responsible for that.
Sometimes his fixation with vaccines can also go terribly wrong. Schwab highlights a 2009 case in which seven school-age girls died in India during a Gates-funded trial of a vaccine against HPV (Human papillomavirus), which can cause cervical cancer.
The government shut down the trial and, after discovering the researchers had failed to obtain the consent of the children's parents or adequately prepared for potential harmful side-effects, public health experts accused the foundation of using Indians as 'guinea pigs'.
The Indian government stated that the girls' deaths were not related to the vaccine but, says Schwab, 'questions continued to surface when it was reported that no autopsies were conducted'.
The 'alleged ethical missteps in the Gates-funded study unleashed a major backlash' and prompted an Indian parliamentary study that condemned the vaccine trial as a 'blatant violation… of all regulatory and ethical norms'.
The Gates Foundation called the allegations of wrongdoing 'misinformation' while the organisation that conducted the trial with Gates money called the charge of ethical misconduct 'inaccurate in many details'.
Gates has also been repeatedly accused of surreptitiously taking the side of big business over poor people, for example supporting patent protection — just as he once fiercely protected Microsoft's software monopoly — held by multinationals including Pfizer and Merck, so keeping the price of drugs and vaccines too high for many of the world's poorest.
But woe betide anyone who dares point out Gates's folly. There's a popular phrase in the international development world — 'Bill Chill' — to describe the displeasure felt by charities which suddenly find themselves frozen out by the Gates Foundation and its precious funding if they do anything to antagonise its over-mighty co-founder.
As for Gates's tax benefits from philanthropy, Schwab estimates that he and billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who by 2022 had together donated $75billion to the foundation, have between them saved some $37billion in taxes — clawing back about 50 per cent of their donations in tax rebates.
Why don't we know more about the debatable side of Gates philanthropy? Schwab believes that Gates attracts little scrutiny in large part because his foundation has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to myriad media outfits — including The Guardian, BBC and FT — to write about subjects related to the foundation's work.
Schwab says this poses potential problems for their impartiality. 'The target of your investigation, generally speaking, cannot also be your funder,' he writes.
Responding to the new book, a spokesman for Bill Gates told the Mail: 'The claims in the book are based on flawed and misguided interpretations of Bill's work. Bill is committed to solving the world's toughest challenges.
'Through his foundation, Bill has committed to donating the majority of his wealth to society and devotes his resources to projects that have the greatest potential to improve and save lives.'
Schwab doesn't ignore Gates's controversial private life — including his alleged philandering (which Gates denies), an 'inappropriate' relationship with a female Microsoft employee that sparked an internal investigation at the same time as he stepped down from the company's board in 2019, and his curious friendship with Jeffrey Epstein after the latter was jailed for underage sex offences in 2008.
Gates has said he was duped by Epstein and only met him to discuss a major philanthropic fund-raising effort.
A sceptical Schwab asks why one of the richest men in the world would need Epstein's help to raise money. Gates, he adds, has an army of people working to protect his reputation and they would surely have warned him off the paedophile financier.
'Gates has never been forced to really respond to the many contradictions that surround his relationship with Epstein,' he writes, adding: 'The real irony is that the Gates Foundation has become one of the world's leading philanthropic funders of gender equity and women's empowerment.'
Some will argue that, whatever Gates's weaknesses, it's still better that he gives billions away rather than keeps hold of it.
Schwab, whose knee-jerk objection to capitalism solving the world's problems has drawn accusations of a Left-wing bias, insists not. Gates, he says, behaves like an autocratic monarch and is actually making the vast problem of global inequality significantly worse.
Bill and Melinda Gates were always hailed as a perfect couple before the reality turned out to be different.
Is their reputation as the world's perfect philanthropists about to be similarly destroyed?
 

Bill Gates: AI Will Allow Us To Genetically Modify Beef Cows To Fight Climate Change​

Raw Egg Nationalist | Infowars.com
April 20th 2024, 4:42 am

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/bill...lly-modify-beef-cows-to-fight-climate-change/

The Microsoft founder believes AI will help revolutionize the way we eat

In a recent episode of his podcast “Unconfuse Me With Bill Gates,” the Microsoft founder offered the prediction that AI would have a clear role to play in fighting climate change. This could include genetically modifying cows to produce less methane or to produce “meat without the cow.”
Gates was speaking to Hannah Ritchie, a data scientist and researcher at the University of Oxford, when he made the bold prediction about AI’s potential role in fighting climate change.

In doing so, he expressed his astonishment at the speed of AI advancement.
“I was very stunned how the AIs went from basically not being able to read or write at all, to doing that in a very facile way.”
Ritchie sounded a less optimistic note about the future of food technology, pointing to the difficulties currently being faced by advocates of plant-based diets as they try to convince others to change their food-consumption habits.
https://www.infowarsstore.com/survi...tm_medium=banner&utm_content=x340banned.video
A few years ago, a study from Australia showed that 73% of men would rather lose ten years of their lives than give up meat. Manufacturers of plant-based “meats” like Beyond and Impossible continue to suffer drastic setbacks in their aim to replace traditional meat products, as sales continue to fall.
The hype behind so-called “lab-grown meat” has also largely evaporated. A recent New York Times opinion piece called it “the revolution that died on its way to dinner.” A series of unfavourable revelations about the companies producing lab-grown meat, such as Josh Tetrick’s GOOD Meat, revised assessments of its environmental benefits—little to none, with the possibility that it may even be more harmful for the environment than real meat—and the threat of product bans in states including Florida, have left lab-grown meat producers and advocates in an unenviable position.
Bill Gates is well known for his pronouncements on the future of food. He has used his podcast to talk about his vision for an environmentally friendly

In an episode last year, for example, he noted the difficulties of informing people about the true cost of traditional agriculture, especially livestock grazing.
“Of all the climate areas, the one that people are probably least aware of is all the fertiliser and cows, and that’s a challenge.”
Despite these difficulties, Gates expressed his hope for real change, and his role in driving it.
“Something told me plant-based is going to be the future… and I want to be the person that plants the seed.”


Black America Is Awake: Alex Jones Interviews Dom Lucre
 
Back
Top