Continued from: Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 8)
Perhaps, if Bill Gates were offered to present himself with a few words, it is a good guess that he would refer to himself as former Mr. Microsoft and presently as a person totally dedicated to world’s population reduction.
But, really, who is Bill Gates? A software developer? A businessman? A philanthropist? A global health expert? (See the kaleidoscopic contribution of The Corbett Report: Who is Bill Gates, 01.05.2020, in four parts).
This question, once possibly unimportant, is becoming a very real one for those who are beginning to realize that Gates’ phantasmagorical wealth has been used to gain control over every corner of the fields of public health, medical research and vaccine development. And now that the world is presented with the very problem about which Gates has been talking for years, one will soon find that this software developer with no medical training is going to leverage that wealth into control over the fates of billions of people. “Gates: [. . .] because until we get almost everybody vaccinated globally, we still won’t be fully back to normal.”
Bill Gates is no public health expert. He is not a medical doctor, an epidemiologist or an infectious disease researcher. Yet somehow he has become a central figure in the lives of billions of people, presuming to dictate the medical actions which will be required for the world to go “back to normal.” The transformation of Bill Gates from computer kingpin to global health czar is as remarkable as it is instructive, and it tells people a great deal about where they are heading as the world plunges into a crisis the likes of which they have not seen before.
So, this is the story of how Bill Gates became so wealthy and consequently so powerfully connected as to be able to monopolise global health.
Until his reinvention as a philanthropist in the past two decades or so, what follows is what many people might have thought of when they thought of Bill Gates.
In the case of the United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the United States Justice Department contended that the software giant had breached antitrust laws by competing unfairly against Netscape Communications in the internet browser market, effectively creating a monopoly. Chairman, C.E.O. Gates’ first concern was that the prosecution could potentially block the release of his company’s latest operating system, Windows 98.
Microsoft was charged with illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of the original equipment manufacturers and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programmes such as Netscape and Java. At trial, the District Court ruled that Microsoft‘s actions constituted unlawful monopolisation under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed most of the district court’s judgments.
The case was protracted. The Department of Justice announced on 6 September 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing personal computer manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software. On 2 November 2001 the Department of Justice reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft’s systems, records and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance. However, the Department of Justice did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future. On 5 August 2002 Microsoft announced that it would make some concessions towards the proposed final settlement ahead of the judge’s verdict. On 1 November 2002 Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a judgment accepting most of the proposed Department of Justice settlement. Nine states and the District of Columbia did not agree with the settlement, arguing that it did not go far enough to curb Microsoft’s anti-competitive business practices. On 30 June 2004 the United States appeals court unanimously approved the settlement with the Justice Department, rejecting objections that the sanctions were inadequate. During the eighteen months trial, Gates gave hours and hours of videotaped testimony in which he was transparently evasive, pompous, reticent, petulant and egotistical.
Gates gave ambiguous answers and muttered “I don’t recall” so many times that even the presiding judge had to snicker. He also made a long list of claims which would soon be directly refuted in court by comparison to his own emails. Throughout the trial, Gates and Microsoft took a public relations beating, so they began what was referred to as a ‘charm offensive’ aimed at improving their image. (J. Lettice, Gates moans to press in PR spectacle (Not), The Register, 08.12.1998). The Microsoft boss’ charm offensive is sinking on the reef of his own intransigence.
Critical to the very complex case was the application of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The Act was successful against the ‘Oil Baron’ Rockefeller in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911). It has suffered varying fortunes since, largely depending on political considerations, such as the coming of the neo-liberal plague with Ronald Reagan or the do-nothing attitude of the Obama Administration. What is important to emphasise here is that the Act carries both civil and criminal provisions.
After years of investigation by the Federal Trade Commission since 1992, the trial of Microsoft began on 18 May 1998, with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of twenty U.S. states and the District of Columbia suing Microsoft for illegally thwarting competition in order to protect and extend its software monopoly. The case went through several stages and was concluded in 2001.
The Department of Justice was represented by David Boies, a lawyer and chairman of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner. Boies rose to national prominence for three major cases: the first was leading the U.S. federal government’s successful prosecution of Microsoft.
Gates was called for his deposition. There are several – twelve, it seems – video-print recordings of that. The following print collects the deposition between 27.08 and 02.09.1998 – eleven hours, 45 minutes and 27 seconds. (Deposition, Bill Gates: case, U.S.A. v. Microsoft Corporation; United States. Administrative Office of the United States Courts. [Washington, D.C.]: [Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts], [1998?] VHS video: VHS tape: National government publication Visual material: English. Videotape deposition of Bill Gates in the Microsoft offices in Redmond, Washington. Subjects: Microsoft Corporation Trials, litigation, etc. United States, Trials, litigation, etc. Antitrust law United States).
At different points of the deposition, Gates is called “evasive” and “nonresponsive”. There is a precise legal definition of the word ‘evasive’: “tending or intending to evade.” (Further, under the U.S. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), an evasive or incomplete answer to an interrogatory or to a question at a deposition is treated as a failure to answer and may be subject to an opponent’s motion to compel an answer).
Gates argued over the definitions of words such as ‘compete’, ‘concerned’, ‘ask’, and ‘we’; certain portions of the proceeding would later provoke laughter from the judge, when an excerpted version was shown in court. (CNN, Gates deposition makes judge laugh in court, 16.11.1998).
Businessweek reported that “early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying ‘I don’t recall’ so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Many of the technology chief’s denials and pleas of ignorance were directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of email Gates both sent and received.” (E. Neuborne, ‘Microsoft’s Teflon Bill’, Businessweek, 30.11.1998).
In common parlance, evasive means: tending to avoid commitment or self-revelation, especially by responding only indirectly, or by avoiding, dodging, escaping, eluding, sidestepping.
Under deposition Gates was characterised as prevaricating, elusive, ambiguous, equivocal, equivocating, indefinite, non-committal, vague, indeterminate, imprecise, inexact, indistinct, inexplicit, cryptic.
Example: when asked to verify a quote attributed to him in a published article, Gates said he would have to view the transcript of the interview to see its full context before commenting.
Confronted about the content of an e-mail, he rebutted: “Are you asking me about when I wrote this e-mail or what are you asking me about?”
Boies: I’m asking you about January of ’96.
Gates: That month?
Boies: Yes, sir.
Gates: And what about it?
Boies: What non-Microsoft browsers were you concerned about in January of 96?
Gates: I don’t know what you mean: “concerned.”
Boies: What is it about the word “concerned” that you don’t understand?
Gates: I’m not sure what you mean by it.
So there is the whole mightiness of Gates: petty, prickly and petulant.
Microsoft’s founder and one of the world’s wealthiest men, Bill Gates, projects the image of a benign philanthropist using his billions through his tax exempt Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to tackle diseases, solve food shortages in Africa and alleviate poverty.
It is a mantle that Gates has been wearing for at least twenty years.
One may, perhaps, wonder how – and above all why – the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was set up. The Foundation was originally set up to help ‘gloss over’ Bill’s shredded reputation during Microsoft’s antitrust trial in the late 1990s.
It was during this time that Gates ‘discovered’ the “wonders of charitable giving.” The fact of the matter is that between the beginning of the trial and the verdict, Gates contributed $20.3 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. According to Ken Auletta’s book World War 3.0: Microsoft and Its Enemies (Random House, New York, 2001), the contributions “became part of Microsoft’s public relations effort to humanize Gates.” In other words, Gates used the donations to help ‘rebrand’ his name as a philanthropist, when in fact the donations were nothing more than a fig leaf to rebuild his reputation of being a ruthless, condescending, ruling-class predator. And the mainstream media were more than happy to help spit-shine his reputation as a “generous benefactor of humanity” instead of a petty, bullying profiteer.
The ‘benevolent Bill Gates’ was born in December of 1998 – during the Microsoft antitrust trial – when the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced a $100 million gift to establish the Bill and Melinda Gates Children’s Vaccine Program.
The next year the Foundation pledged $750 million as the ‘seed money’ to set up the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (G.A.V.I.). G.A.V.I.’s partners include certain countries, the Bill & Melinda Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, Rockefeller Foundation, United Nations Children’s Fund, W.H.O., and the World Bank. The G.A.V.I. board is comprised of representatives from Big Pharma.
In 2006 the Gates Foundation donated $100 million and formed an alliance with the Rockefeller Foundation to help spur a “green revolution” in Africa, with a major focus being to encourage the use of pesticides and “advanced” (i.e. genetically modified organism – g.m.o.) seeds.
In 2010 the Foundation purchased 500,000 shares in Monsanto, the world’s largest producer of g.m.o. food as well as pesticides like glyphosate – Roundup, making it abundantly clear that this so-called benevolent charity is up to something other than eradicating disease and feeding the world’s poor.
Since 2015 the Gates Foundation has donated a total of $15 million to two global campaigns aimed at “ending world hunger” by encouraging small farmers around the world to use g.m.o.
Interestingly, while the Foundation is heavily promoting g.m.o. to farmers, at the same time it is investing in the ‘Doomsday Crop Diversity Vault’, a seed bank located in Norway. Other investors include the Norwegian government, the Rockefeller Foundation, and major g.m.o. seed and agrichemical companies. One should wonder why is the Gates Foundation recommending g.m.o. seeds – which destroy the plant seed varieties, while at the same time investing tens of millions of dollars to preserve every seed variety known in a bomb-proof doomsday vault near the remote Arctic Circle “so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future.”?
Since 2007 Gates has been personally funding and closely involved in the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research – (F.I.C.E.R.), based at Harvard University, which carries out research into the possibility of blocking the sun in order to mitigate global warming, using chemicals or particles of metals such as aluminium.
In 2012 F.I.C.E.R. announced its intention to spray sun-reflecting sulphate particles into the atmosphere artificially to cool the planet, and it also contemplated using aluminium for the same purpose. (Bill Gates – Philanthropist or Eugenicist? – Nexus Newsfeed nexusnewsfeed.com/article/geopolitics/bill-gates-philanthropist-or-eugenicist). Between 2002 and 2012 Gates sold an estimated $22 billion in Microsoft stock but contributed only $3.7 billion of that to the Foundation. That is less than the possibly intended 20 per cent.
The saga of the ‘new man’ might have started with a conference in California, where Gates revealed a less public agenda of his philanthropy – population reduction, what used to be called eugenics.
Gates made his remarks in February 2010 to the invitation-only Long Beach, California TED2010 Conference – The Entertainment and Design, in a speech titled: “Innovating to Zero!”
He presented a speech on global warming, stating that CO2 emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050. Gates said every person on the planet puts out an average of about five tons of CO2 per year.
“Somehow we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero,” he said. “It’s been constantly going up. It’s only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all. So we have to go from rapidly rising to falling, and falling all the way to zero.”
Gates presented the following equation: CO2 (total population emitted CO2 per year) = P (people) x S (services per person) x E (average energy per service) x C (average CO2 emitted per unit of energy).
“Let’s look at each one of these and see how we can get this down to zero,” he said. “Probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero. That’s a fact from high school algebra.”
Discussing the “P,” or population element of the equation, he stated: “Let’s take a look. First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” [Emphasis added]
Further, he said, it would not be hard to keep track of children, the vaccines they have had and when they are due for another.
There it is, in plain English, one of the most powerful Americans in the world would clearly state that he expects vaccines to be used ‘to reduce population growth’.
When Bill Gates speaks about vaccines, he speaks with authority. In January 2010 at the elite Davos World Economic Forum, Gates announced that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation would give $10 billion over the next decade to develop and deliver new vaccines to children in the developing world.
The primary focus of the multi-billion dollar Gates Foundation is vaccinations, especially in Africa and other underdeveloped countries. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a founding member of the Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunization (G.A.V.I.) in partnership with the World Bank, W.H.O. and Big Pharma vaccine industry. G.A.V.I.’s goal is to vaccinate every newborn child in the developing world.
And does not that sound like noble philanthropic work? The problem is that the vaccine industry has been repeatedly caught dumping dangerous – unsafe because untested or proven harmful, hence dangerous – vaccines onto unwitting Third World populations when the industry cannot get rid of the vaccines in ‘the West’. Some organisations have suggested that the true aim of the vaccinations is to make people sicker and even more susceptible to disease and premature death.
In the aftermath of what was the most recent unnecessary pandemic declaration of a global H1N1 swine flu emergency, industrial countries were left sitting on hundreds of millions of doses of untested vaccines. They decided to get rid of the embarrassing leftover drugs by handing them over to the W.H.O. which in turn planed to dump them – free, of course! – on select poor countries. France gave away 91 million of the 94 million doses the Sarkozy government had bought from Big Pharma; England gave 55 million of its 60 million doses.
As Dr. Thomas Jefferson, an epidemiologist with the Cochrane Research Centre in Rome, Italy noted: “Why do they give the vaccines to the developing countries at all? The pandemic has been called off in most parts of the world. The greatest threat in poor countries right now is heart and circulatory diseases while the virus figures at the bottom of the list. What is the medical reason for donating up to 180 million doses?” Flu is a minor problem in countries with abundant sunshine, and it turned out that the much feared H1N1 Pandemic ‘new great plague’ was the mildest flu on record.
The pharmaceutical vaccine makers do not speak about the enormous health damage from infant vaccination – including autism and numerous neuro-muscular deformities – which have been traced back to the toxic ‘adjuvants’, the pharmacological or immunological agents which improve the immune response of a vaccine – and preservatives used in most vaccines. Many vaccines, especially multi-dose vaccines which are made more cheaply for sale to the Third World, carry something called Thimerosal, a compound of sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate, containing some 50 per cent mercury, used as a preservative.
As early as July 1999 the United States’ National Vaccine Information Center had declared in a press release that: “The cumulative effects of ingesting mercury can cause brain damage.” The same month, the American Academy of Pediatrics (A.A.P.) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.) alerted the public about the possible health effects associated with Thimerosal-containing vaccines. They strongly recommended that Thimerosal be removed from vaccines as soon as possible. Under the directive of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, the F.D.A. also determined that infants who received several Thimerosal-containing vaccines may be receiving mercury exposure over and above the recommended federal guidelines. (F. W. Engdahl, Bill Gates And Neo-Eugenics: Vaccines To Reduce Population, Rockefeller Foundation, Financial Sense, March 5, 2010; Bill Gates And Neo-Eugenics: Vaccines …, Prison Planet.com, 05.03.2010).
Was that eugenics achieved in a different way?
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!