Updated: 4 days ago
Great good, no doubt, philanthropy does, but then it also does great evil.
The Pivot of Civilization: "The Cruelty of Charity"
William "Bill" Henry Gates III, has managed to convince a lot of people that he is not a complete asshole despite being... a complete asshole. The man with enough confidence to release the Zune, and who was known for suing employees for leaving Microsoft as well as writing snarky letters to hobbyists in the 70's for their usage of his Altair BASIC paper tape, has convinced many that he's changed man.
Or maybe, at least in the case of the media, he's buying them off. More on that later.
I've been investigating Bill Gates for a while now, since the beginning of the Wuhan Flu/Coronavirus outbreak at the beginning of this year. I admit to not really paying much attention to him before now. I was shocked at how nefarious the initiatives he has pulled off with his $48 Billion foundation are... while still being hailed as a hero.
On the first page of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's website, you are immediately greeted with these words:
ALL LIVES HAVE EQUAL VALUE we are impatient optimists working to reduce inequality
As it would turn out, this is the kind of vague phrasing that Bill and his wife Melinda rely on to fly under the radar of the general public. Pair the vaguely inspirational taglines with images of African children playing in the dirt, and you can apparently do no wrong.
Even more baffling, Gates has managed to become arguably the most influential person on global health issues, agriculture, energy sources, and a myriad of other crucial elements of our functioning societies.
I noted that the Gates Foundation (BMGF from here out) has not always watered down its mission statement. In fact, from 2008 - 2012 BMGF had a nice list of fifteen guiding principles that were quite specific.
To use a phrase I absolutely can't stand: "Let's unpack this."
Guiding Principle #1:
This is a family foundation driven by the interests and passions of the Gates family.
The foundation chairs are Bill Gates, Melinda French Gates, and William Gates Sr.
Bill Gates is known for his interests in technology, business, and software. You might also argue that he is interested in planned obsolescence and running Microsoft like a "velvet sweatshop" but that's really a personal preference thing. He is also quite passionate about predicting global killer pandemics. So much so that he gave a TED Talk in Vancouver on the subject back in 2015.
In this quick clip, Gates claims that we need health systems in "poor countries" for women to give birth and vaccinate their children, a global medical reserve corp, pair our global medical corp with military forces, and to run simulations to practice. (As it turns out, we've been running "germ games" for over two decades now, a lot of them partially financed by BMGF, but more on that in a bit.)
Melinda Gates is not as gregarious as Bill, but she certainly has interests of her own. Like her husband, she is particularly interested in family planning and vaccination strategies in poor countries. Since 2013, BMGF has contributed nearly $1 Billion to Family Planning 2020 and that's just one of many intiatives they fund.
Some have claimed that the Gates family is perhaps a bit too keen to curb populations in less developed countries. Melinda herself says that contraceptives are one of the "greatest anti-poverty innovations in history" but does that really mean wanting to reduce the amount of people in certain countries in the world?
Here's a video of Melinda sounding like an actual psychopath.
We'll turn last to the third member of the Gates family to take a look at his "interests and passions" and find out if it runs in the family! William Gates Sr. was born in 1925. He studied law and founded Preston Gates & Ellis in 1964, and was also very involved in philanthropy efforts around Snohomish WA. He is also the former head of Planned Parenthood in the era of Margaret Sanger- the woman who once wrote The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.
"But L," you say to me accusingly, "Planned Parenthood isn't like that anymore. They offer so many other services, not just abortions. Besides, who's to say Gates Sr. held her views anyway? Pro choice =/= pro eugenics!"
Point taken, dear imaginary reader. I am personally pro life, but I concede that women seeking abortions are likely not doing so with the intention of ethnic cleansing. Be that as it may, I find it curious that "pro choice" foundations and charities tend to ignore our adoption and foster care systems that need vast improvment and instead rely on advocating for a woman's right to abort a child up until the moment the baby is born.
In New York City, a black woman is now more likely to have an abortion than to give birth (29,007 abortions to 24,108 births in 2013). Black people make up 12% of the United States population, and yet represent 36% of all abortions. Planned Parenthood Global exists in these countries: Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Peru, Senegal, and Uganda. When ethnologist John McLennan traveled to South America and observed women in South American Indian tribes who were reproached for their infanticide practices. Their response? "Men have no business to meddle with women's affairs."
Now who does that sound like? And who has campaigned endlessly to promote this concept?
But I digress. Back to Bill Gates Sr., shall we?
In addition to his work at Planned Parenthood, Bill Gates Sr. was often in the company of the Rockefeller Family who are/were known eugenicists as well as Ted "the mouth of the South" Turner who said once in an interview that the population should be kept below 2 billion. Ted and Harvard both seem to have tried quite hard to remove all traces of that link from the internet... so please enjoy and show your friends.
As far as the "interests and passions of the Gates Family" go, it seems that population and methods to shape it are very much always on their minds. We will go in depth into this concept at length.
Guiding Principle #2:
Philanthropy plays an important but limited role.
In 2018, Bill and Melinda Gates were named the most generous philanthropists in the United States in an annual list compiled by The Chronicle of Philanthropy. They have a massive list of philanthropic partners on the BMGF website and Bill even wrote about going to the Forbes Philanthrophy Summit on June 27, 2019 in his blog... but there was a time when Guiding Principle #2 was the second most important thing to the BMGF.
In 2014, Gates wrote about catalytic philanthropy where he insisted that the space for philanthropy was "innovating where markets won't and governments can't."
Melinda and I did not invent catalytic philanthropy. The core concepts have been around at least 100 years, when the Rockefeller family stepped in to fill the gap between government and business and catalyzed the elimination of hookworm disease in the United States.
Always a fan of the Rockefellers, that Gates. He probably should be, considering the Rockefeller Foundation funded some of his favorite experimental playgrounds like the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Johns Hopkins School of Health, and the Harvard School of Public Health, the School of Hygiene at the University of Toronto.
Did you know that the term hygiene when used in a medical sense has origins in Nazi Germany via public health measures that would control reproduction and marriage to strengthen the "national body" by eliminating biologically threatening genes from the population? I wonder, too, if Bill is aware that Rockefeller also funded many of the men who would later join Hitler's inner circle that would commit atrocities in the name of science and medicine during WWII?
The Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution funded various German eugenics programs including one belonging to Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, for whom Josef Mengele worked before heading to Auschwitz. In 1935, Verschuer left the institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenics press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenics doctor's journal he edited, that Germany's war would yield a "total solution to the Jewish problem."
Rockefeller also funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute's Institute for Brain Research run by Ernst Rudin- a notorious medical henchman in Adolf Hilter's circle. Erdin would go on to conduct experiments on Jews, Gypsies, and whomever else was allowed.
During the '20s, the Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics.
"There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."
Leon Whitney of the American Eugenics Society (known today as the Society for Biodemography and Social Biology) said of Nazism: "While we were pussy-footing around, the Germans were calling a spade a spade."
The name was changed because it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption. Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time," said Frederick Osborn about the name change.
Today, the Society for Biodemography and Social Biography publishes their self-titled journal featuring articles such as this one:
Previous journal titles: Social Biology (1969 - 2007) and Eugenics Quarterly (1954 - 1968).
Even more fun, is the Rockefeller Foundation (with whom the BMGF has many partnerships currently), Johns Hopkins University (home of the JH Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health) and USAID (who also partners with the BMGF and receives hundreds of millions of dollars in funding) feature the journal formerly known as Eugenics Quarterly on their Global Health journal aggregate.
For Bill Gates, philanthropy is limited when it comes to this topic. His method is building massive networks of governments, academics, philanthropies, and private companies that he usually has an overhead position in. Either that, or his influence is leveraged by way of providing massive influxes of cash. Here's a great example:
The BMGF donates a significant amount of money to the Population Council, Inc. (Founded in 1952 by John D. Rockefeller by the way).
These are specific grants awarded in 2018.
On the board of trustees is Amy Ong Tsui, a professor and senior scholar at the BMGI for Population and Reproductive Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
There's not enough time today to get into the issues that are glaring on this page, but this list of contributors is an absolute trip. I promise, we'll circle back around to it.
In an attempt to not sound too overzealous the Population Council lists their ethical guidelines and regulations. They also mention their expertise lies in "bioethics, biomedical engineering, demography, health care, HIV/AIDS, international relations, law, obstetrics/gynecology, physiology, public policy, regulatory affairs, and social psychology. A hell of a resume.
Philanthropy seems to be a byproduct of the things that the Gates Foundation wants to work on, not the goal. It definitely holds up to Guiding Principle #2.
Guiding Principle #3:
Science and technology have great potential to improve lives around the world.
Human genetics have become a fun endeavor for the common man as of late after scientists cracked the human code through the Human Genome Project. Now, every individual can be biologically identiﬁed and classiﬁed by trait and ancestry. For example, Elizabeth Warren learned that having high cheekbones doesn't mean one has Native American ancestry.
However, for Bill Gates, he's got his eye on at-home DNA testing for many other reasons.
Here's their 2019 letter where they muse about the genetic influence on black women's pregnancy lengths. Around the same time it was written, the Pentagon was issuing memos to military service members about the lack of accuracy and privacy concerns that come with at-home DNA testing:
These genetic tests are largely unregulated and could expose personal and genetic information, and potentially create unintended security consequences and increased risk to the joint force and mission.
In 2018, law enforcement teams used DNA to identify the Golden State Killer which is obviously a good thing, but it raises the question: will authorities, philanthropists, or private companies know when to stop when it comes to invading personal privacy? Probably not.
GlaxoSmithKline, a pharma giant, partnered with 23andMe on an opt-out voluntary basis in 2018. Glaxo has developed TB vaccines for BMGF in the past, and is today one of the leaders in the Coronavirus vaccine race. They have partnered with Sanofi and are receiving a significant amount of funding from BMGF.
Going back to the BMGF Principles list: This has nothing whatsoever to do with philanthropy. Sure, there are some who might benefit from assistance with medical bills, but Bill Gates has repeatedly expressed his desire to trace and eventually vaccinate everyone in the world against Coronavirus. This is not a financial thing. It's a control one.
This is pure conjecture, but with Bill Gates currently pushing at-home antibody tests for everyone, what's to stop these tests from being kept in a repository somewhere for future use? Big Pharma's good word? Bill's? Pfft.
The at-home tests are currently not approved by the FDA under emergency-use authorization, but that could change any day.
"We have been in conversation with the FDA since March 1st and hope to have our EUA soon," SCAN (Seattle Coronavirus Assessment Network) said in the statement. "We are grateful for productive partnerships with the FDA, the Washington State Department of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as we continue to respond to this unprecedented and rapidly changing outbreak."
Even more concerning are the Contact Tracing Task Forces forming where our elected leaders are casually mentioning "removing people" from their homes in the name of public safety.
Here's a video of Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Gavin Newsom, and Governor Cuomo advocating for exactly that. One says "we need the bodies" to get out there and track people. Former president and alleged rapist Bill Clinton suggests this is a great opportunity to form a national public health network around the issue. Nancy Pelosi's nephew-in-law Gavin Nepotis- I mean, Newsom, expresses that Americans must allow for their privacy to be impacted. Ophelia Dahl, who is in her position of privelege simply for being the daughter of Roald Dahl, says isolation can be done in a "dignified" way- and since people are out of work in droves due to the draconian lockdown measures in place, she is hopeful people will want to work for the contact tracing task force. It would be "good for the economy" she says.
To each and every person in that video I offer my response: "Go fuck yourself."
Bill Gates says science and technology improves lives around the world, but does not mention which lives those might be. I have a feeling it might not mean the common folk.
The American taxpayer has been treated as a nuisance for asking questions about the legitimacy of "philanthropists" like Bill Gates funding programs at local, state, national, and global levels. Those who speak up are labeled conspiracy theorists by the lazy who need their fragile reality to be true to avoid having to ask hard questions.
Here's the Reality: Very few of our elected officials, unelected leaders, and influencers in the media think twice about getting on their knees and doing what it takes to earn their next influx of cash.
Venture Philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates have spent a significant amount of effort ensuring they have the approval of media figures that matter and leaders in places that have influence. There are very few consequences for their actions, and they are not beholden to the general public whatsoever when making choices that affect all of us.
The question is, are our elected leaders simply too stupid to realize they're allowing their offices to be rendered ineffective, or are they too corrupt to care?