William Henry Gates III
William Henry Gates III
Who is Bill Gates? (Part 1 of 3)
Introduction
This three-part essay chronicles my journey trying to reconcile the image of Bill Gates and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), which we can glean from the Gates’s themselves, the mainstream media, and others in their orbit of influence versus the palpable countervailing consensus coming from the world beyond it.
Part 1 introduces the ‘Who is Bill Gates?’ documentary from independent journalist James Corbett and explores the mass censorship that has descended upon us, using Corbett’s case an instructive example. It also provides a list of common-sense questions, which the media does not ask and Bill Gates will never forthrightly answer.
Part 2 explains how I awoke from the Camelot fairy-tale and summarizes key findings from numerous books, which offer alarming indictments of Gates and the BGMF across many domains. It also highlights concerning historic parallels between Gates and Rockefeller and their respective foundations.
Part 3 finishes with further supporting information and my own conclusions about Bill Gates and his prominent role in the Power Versus People Paradigm.
Who is Bill Gates?
In asking ‘Who is Bill Gates?’, the documentary by the same name from James Corbett of The Corbett Report is a great place to start looking for answers. Produced to a high standard, this four-part series done in 30-minute segments is highly informative and immensely watchable. The video is here:
Questions the media won’t ask and Bill Gates will never candidly answer
This essay recognizes that the BMGF facilitates good in the world. However, the Gates’s have spent years seeding the mainstream media with hundreds of millions of dollars to cultivate favorable coverage of themselves. They have also gifted billions to universities, health regulatory agencies, governments, and other institutions around the world, all of which also undoubtably buys influence in one form or another. Considering this backdrop, simply asking whether the BMGF does good, or even enormous good, leads to an incomplete understanding of the bigger picture. A critical focus with more analytically inclined questions is needed to unpack things and to answer Corbett’s all-important question - Who is Bill Gates? Here is this Substack’s working list of questions:
Do the activities of the BMGF consistently deliver compelling benefits which are objectively measurable and verified by relevant independent experts?
Are the impacts of mistakes, incidental harms, and collateral damage of Bill Gates and BMGF activities also properly assessed and quantified?
Do the positives demonstrably outweigh the negatives substantially enough to justify the enormous tax avoidance and power the Gates’s are afforded under the auspices of the BMGF?
Are the BMGF and its founders free from excessive conflicts-of-interest and clear ulterior motives? Do they foster a culture of transparency and accountability throughout their organization including onto themselves?
Are the activities of the BMGF and its founders, including their outcomes, free from serious moral hazards, which if widely understood would call into question the validity of the foundation itself, irrespective of all else?
Is Gates’s character beyond reproach? Does he display qualities desirable in leaders with great power, such as empathy, compassion, caring, and humility? Is he capable of self reflection and accepting of criticism? Why did he befriend and spend extensive time with convicted sex offender, and well-known predator of minors, Jeffrey Epstein?
What is the full extent of Gates’s relationship to the World Health Organization? Even if Gates were perfect, and he is not, is having a self-appointed billionaire with no medical qualifications as the de facto head of the world’s public health a wise precedent or a dangerous one? Should similar questions not be asked about Gates’s roles in agriculture and education et al?
Are governments and the media functioning properly in scrutinizing the BMGF and keeping its power in check on behalf of We-the-People?
If governments were to legitimately attempt to significantly curtail the BMGF’s power, is it safe to assume they would be able to do so?
In its current form, is the BMGF compatible with democracy and nation-state sovereignty or is it part of a larger threat to both?
Regardless whether readers are persuaded by this essay, those who have not yet done so are urged to investigate Bill Gates for themselves. Such efforts can be as simple as reading a single book or as extensive as one wants to make them. Among other things, this essay will provide a roadmap for many important lines of inquiry. Wherever your findings lead, considering the power and reach that this man has over us all, further verifying things for yourself will surely count as a victory for you.
My own attempts at finding answers to the above questions reveal a picture of Bill Gates and the BMGF that is incompatible with the one they and the mainstream media project. Forthright answers, convincing arguments, and actual evidence from the media and the Gates’s are in short supply, and deeper more determined scrutiny leads to startling findings. Seeing them requires navigating around and beyond the reaches of Gates money and power. Gates’s web of influence is vast, and if one is stuck in it without realizing it, one is unlikely to get very far. By all means, hear what Gates has to say, read the BMGF’s report cards about itself, and look for answers in the Gates-bought-and-paid-for mainstream media, university departments, and regulatory bodies, but do so with a critical eye, rather than blind trust. Such efforts still are unlikely to lead to satisfactory or complete answers.
Beyond domains where Gates’s conflicts of interest reign, the perspective that emerges of Gates and the BMGF changes dramatically, as does the quality of information. In this parallel world, valid questions and concerns, robust arguments and debate, hard data and other supporting evidence all become transparent and abundant. Those allegedly aggrieved by Gates or the BGMF come into the fore in countless numbers. Independent or independently minded journalists, authors, doctors, scientists, lawyers, whistleblowers, politicians, and others who stand for them, do so without obvious conflicts of interest of their own, typically taking significant risks and making great sacrifices in the process. While their world is not nearly as powerful as the one that Gates presides over, it too is vast. It is simply hidden from the general public in wealthier nations, which is a strong indication that Gates’s enormous payments to the media have been money well spent - for him.
There is potentially an even bigger dividend to be had in all this. If the Bill Gates you come to know turns out to be completely different from the one he and the media have been portraying all these years, you will then have to ask yourself where else you and We-the-People are potentially being systematically misled by Power. A concerted study of Bill Gates is definitely one of those crossroads where Morpheus is asking Neo if he wants to take the blue pill or the red one. I hope friends will take the red pill and truly get to know Bill Gates for themselves.
For now, let’s return to Corbett one more time and use his case as an example, not only to shine further light on Bill Gates, but also on censorship, both of which loom large in the Power Versus People Paradigm.
James Corbett and the surreal matter of censorship
Corbett’s documentary was on YouTube for many months. While almost certainly shadow-banned during that time, it was fast approaching a million views when… YouTube took it down. Then, as we have seen countless times, it fell like dominoes to censorship on one Big Tech platform after another. The mainstream media ignored both the explosive documentary and the systematic censorship. So, on the one hand Big Media won’t properly cover controversies related to Bill Gates and on the other, Big Tech that won’t let independent media or anyone else do so either. Clearly, this ‘arrangement’ works very well for Gates and poorly for We-the-People, but it is just one example of a much more widespread problem.
We-the-People allowed Big Tech to create our modern-day public squares, without recognizing the inherent dangers that were being built up around us. Having failed to anticipate problems and to embed adequate protections, we now find ourselves almost singularly captured like sheep in these squares, which Big Tech monopolizes and governments have commandeered as part of a broader effort to actively control and manipulate us. Big Tech companies are only too happy to oblige governments in this as they know where their bread is buttered. In any case, Big Tech was already leading the way as its entire business model depends on manipulating and controlling us with ever increasing power and precision. Therefore, their priorities are closely aligned with those of Big Government and the surveillance state, not just in the United States, but all over the world, including in totalitarian China. Bill Gates features prominently in this.
Adding to the concerns is the fact that, as Harvard Professor Shoshana Zuboff makes abundantly clear in her decade-in-the-making work ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’, Big Tech’s dominance is no longer confined to the time we spend online. The so-called ‘public squares’ and other online domains of Big Tech have long since exploded out into every aspect of our physical lives bringing all their invasive intrusions and hidden harms with them.
Accordingly, surveillance, suppression, propaganda, and full-blown psyops are systematically tested and employed on us all to great effect all the time. To those who have a sceptical sixth sense about these things or who have spent time investigating them, they are in plain sight and can be seen almost everywhere. Each of the books shown above provides insights into the various phenomena at work. Several discuss the Big Government / Big Tech nexus behind them. We will review some of these books along with several others as they directly relate to Bill Gates and the philanthro-capitalism of the BMGF later in Part 2.
These concerted campaigns of mass manipulation have conditioned the general public to accept so many previously unconscionable things in the Covid era, which most of us would never have accepted so readily if we had been thinking clearly, free from these highly sophisticated manipulation techniques and tactics. One of those unconscionable things is censorship. After extensive investigations, I find it highly implausible, even in the context of a novel virus, that democratic populations around the world would spontaneously accept systematic censorship and government’s role in the same, without extensive priming and psychological conditioning preceding such acceptance. In any event, today, censorship is no longer a secret, nor a conspiracy theory. The general public knows it is happening. It knows governments are involved, and yet we accept it.
With the sad fact of mass censorship acknowledged, why, in particular, did this Gates documentary, which was published six months before the first Covid jabs came to market, and stood unscathed while other content was being systematically taken down, suddenly become a problem? Why was it taken down when its arguments are well made and the controversies and the evidence it highlights are clearly sourced from the public record?
Why can neither we nor independent journalists properly question and scrutinize the actions of Bill Gates, when such matters carry enormous significance for us all? Why not, when Gate’s power (like Big Tech’s) is so asymmetrical to our own that it dominates regulatory agencies, rivals governments, and, as some argue, poses serious risks to societies and to democracy itself? Is Gates incapable of engaging even his most prominent and articulate critics to allay their concerns, especially when so many are experts in areas where Gates operates? Are we to believe that Gates is simply too busy to be bothered, that he is too important to be transparent and accountable? Are any of these scenarios acceptable given the power Gates is afforded?
Could a documentary from an independent investigative journalist really pose a threat to the mighty Bill Gates if it were not powered by at least some significant degree of uncomfortable truth? Why does Bill Gates need YouTube’s protection? Why does YouTube feel the need to protect Bill Gates, when Bill Gates is already amply protected under the law? With money and resources virtually limitless, if Gates had even a remotely viable case, then suing the offending journalist for defamation would presumably be easy. Surely, setting an example through the courts would be a more impactful and valid remedy for Gates, both as vindication and as a deterrent to others, than flagrant censorship under a cloud of secrecy on the part of Big Tech, would it not?
I have no good answers to the above questions. The most plausible explanations I can think of are these:
The censorship, which governments and Big Tech have not only unleashed but overtly embraced, is metastasizing. Accordingly, the powerful enabling algorithms built under the direction of powerful people, finally caught up with Corbett as part of censorship’s general ongoing expansion.
Or, perhaps Corbett’s documentary was simply becoming ‘too successful’. Perhaps he did ‘too good’ a job compiling facts and information, which had otherwise been safely fragmented and quietly buried in plain sight, most of it for a long time. Perhaps that became a problem for powerful people and or their algorithms.
Either way, it basically comes down to this…
The image of Bill Gates most of us know is the one he has spent decades and billions of dollars meticulously cultivating. Corbett, like many others, convincingly shows us another side. Gates fans who watch the ‘Who is Bill Gates?’ documentary will be faced with a conundrum from which there are really only three exits:
a) legitimately debunk Corbett (difficult) and, because Corbett covers a smorgasbord of serious issues, debunk him comprehensively (very difficult),
b) embrace cognitive dissonance and memory-hole what they have seen (easy), or
c) accept that Bill Gates is not who they thought he was (difficult), and hopefully investigate things further for themselves (challenging and rewarding).
By the end of Part 3, it is my hope that this essay will pose the same conundrum. In the meantime, please consider sharing Corbett’s documentary with others. Unless you want to risk being censored yourself, it’s probably better to do so over email instead of social media. Alas, it is interesting how censorship quickly leads to self censorship!
End of Part 1