Bill Gates monopolises population issues
Summary: Criticism of Gates’ ambitions of controlling the world, including the world’s poorest people (which is insulting because Gates is richest, at their expense)
The Gates Foundation is shy about a eugenics-like agenda that it quite openly promotes, always using some PR spin and planted ‘articles’ that utilise Melinda as a well-groomed front. Sometimes the grooming is done by a publication right after Gates is paying this publication, e.g, The Guardian. Depopulation, no matter how one puts it and whether it is necessary, should never be an issue for the world’s richest people to decide on. Therein lies the big issue and lots of sexy headlines about contraception are not going to change that. History shows that when those in power (wealth and political control) police population growth we end up killing based on race, political inclinations, etc.
Bill and Melinda keep bribing the press and lobbying for the plutocrats. They are controlling the corporate press also through panels, think tanks, so-called ‘studies’, and selective funding whose purpose is to characterise them as heroes we depend on rather than people with agenda, striving for power and gain of more wealth (investing in what they lobby for).
Gates was recently described negatively using the same argument I have made for years: “These organizations do not seem to understand that eliminating poor people is not the same as eliminating poverty.”
“Depopulation, no matter how one puts it and whether it is necessary, should never be an issue for the world’s richest people to decide on.”To quote in context: “Melinda Gates either does not know or does not care about the work she is funding. Even if there were no argument surrounding contraception, giving abortion and population control platforms at a development conference would create one. These organizations do not seem to understand that eliminating poor people is not the same as eliminating poverty. Given her promotion of contraception, perhaps she has also confused the two. Until Gates and her foundation recognize the gulf between her words and her actions, she cannot hope to avoid controversy.”
FAIR, a good organisation dedicated to accuracy in journalism (exposing a lot of corporate media bias), recently published those two recommended articles:
Corporate and foundation money often comes with an agenda
Mainstream journalism is, we’re often told, in a state of severe crisis. Newsroom employment began to decline as a result of corporate takeovers in the 1990s. Then the digital revolution destroyed the advertising market, plunging the industry into serious doubt about its very business model.
But times aren’t rough all around. There are many pundits and TV anchors who are doing very well in the media world, racking up millions of dollars from their media contracts, book deals and lucrative speaking fees. Though they don’t generally approach the compensation packages awarded to network morning show hosts like Matt Lauer or evening anchors like Diane Sawyer, they’re not exactly hurting.
Having gone through thousands of headlines about the Gates Foundation (seeded by its peripheral PR agencies) I think I am sufficiently familiar with all their marketing tactics in most areas. That’s not to say they never do anything positive, but most of the time they simply do what they derive power and profit from. They just know how to shrewdly disguise and market it. █