“Land mobility” not land reform
Hunger, claims the Gates Foundation website, is rooted in “population growth, rising incomes, dwindling natural resources, and a changing climate,” and is best addressed by enhancing agricultural productivity. Unmentioned is the fact that per capita food production has been trending upward for decades and remains at historic highs, meaning that hunger is an issue of unequal distribution rather than inadequate productivity. Extensive scholarship shows also that food insecurity has been greatly exacerbated over recent decades by massive dispossession of small farmers, depriving millions of their livelihoods. Contra Gates, the food crisis is not one of “rising incomes” but of vanishing incomes.
Although Foundation publicity pays lip service to the idea of sustainable smallholder agriculture, in fact its initiatives are uniformly directed toward high-tech, high-yield farming methods – much like the “Green Revolution” technologies that proved ultimately ruinous for rural peasantries beginning in the 1960s. Gates works closely with agribusiness giant Monsanto through organizations like the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which steers billions in grant money primarily to biotech and GMO research. The Foundation has also thrown its weight behind a revival of Grameen-style microbanking schemes, which transpired during the 2000s to be a debt trap leading to dispossession of rural families.
Far from empowering small farmers, BMGF’s efforts envision the exit of “inefficient” small farmers from their land – a process euphemistically termed “land mobility” – as revealed by an internal memo leaked to the press in 2008:
In order to transition agriculture from the current situation of low investment, low productivity and low returns to a market-oriented, highly-productive system, it is essential that supply (productivity) and demand (market access) expand together… [this] involves market-oriented farmers operating profitable farms that generate enough income to sustain their rise out of poverty. Over time, this will require some degree of land mobility and a lower percentage of total employment involved in direct agricultural production.
The impact of these policies on small farmers and their families is disastrous. As Fred Magdoff recently explained, “the world capitalist economy is [no longer] able to provide productive employment for the huge numbers of people losing their lands. Thus the fate of those migrating to cities or other countries is commonly to live in slums and to exist precariously within the ‘informal’ economy.
Indeed, the Foundation’s agricultural policy strikingly resembles what Samir Amin describes as the logical outcome of subjecting agriculture to the same market principles as any other branch of production: 20 million industrial farmers producing the world’s food supply in place of today’s three billion peasants. As Amin observes:
The conditions for the success of such an alternative would include: (1) the transfer of important pieces of good land to the new capitalist farmers (and these lands would have to be taken out of the hands of present peasant populations); (2) capital (to buy supplies and equipment); and (3) access to the consumer markets. Such farmers would indeed compete successfully with the billions of present peasants. But what would happen to those billions of people?
Amin’s analysis chimes with the Gates Foundation memo quoted above, and there is reason to believe that BMGF is already contemplating strategies for coping with the “surplus” population that the processes of accumulation and dispossession are generating.
Recent Activity
In order to help African farmers who can’t afford fertilizer, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave $10 million dollars (as a grant) to a group of British scientists working on new genetically modified crops that require no fertilizer. This largest single investment in GM crops ever made in that country by a private organization, is meant to help spread genetically modified corn, wheat and rice because they contain artificially inserted genes that pull nitrogen from the air. Bill Gate’s goal: to allow Africa to grow enough food for themselves. But genetic alterations of crops also leads to doing business with huge corporations like Monsanto, that do not allow farmers to keep their own seeds, but must rather purchase licenses every year to get more patented corporate GM seed, Monsanto’s herbicide and insecticide, and even down to costly crop system equipment rentals. Currently, GM crop systems are failing in America, being overrun by what are being termed super-bugs and super-weeds, and the quality of food has plummeted for conventional farmers who have to use up to ten times the amount of pesticide to try to keep their yields from diminishing.
Bill Gates and his Foundation’s Genetically Modified “Assistance” is Not Sustainable
A study published by Rodale Institute found that organic growing methods (traditional) produce higher crop yields and are far more sustainable than any of the GMO crops that have emerged from Monsanto research laboratories. In an auspicious way the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is investing in chemical food research, development of untested food technologies, and possibly the spread of cancer in Africa. Organic poly-culture crop systems that use the natural environment are safe, healthy and sustainable. Organic crops are still the safest and most nutritious crops available to mankind, but the Gates Foundation is only concerned with crops that grow without fertilizer, so all the donations go to fund that biotech research. In fact, Gate’s investment strategies assist African nations in producing “bio-safety laws” that promote agribusiness interests instead of protecting Africans from potential health and environmental threats posed by GM crops. Even Roundup herbicide has been proven toxic to the heart by renowned French scientist/team Seralini.
GMO crops are not sustainable, as more farmers are using more toxic herbicides and insecticides, depleting soil nutrients and adding toxic waste to the water and surrounding communities. To date, only four African nations have released GM crops, but the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has its goals and aspirations. Since most African nations have no bio-safety regulations in place, Gates figures it’s a great place for a corporate takeover. Despite the GMO push in America, though, organic food consumption topped $42 billion in sales in 2014, up more than $10 billion from two years ago. Nations of Africa must address food security before even considering GM maize, soya or cotton, just look at the disease figures in America from its consumption. Cancer rates have skyrocketed since the introduction of genetically modified foods over twenty years ago.
In 2014, the BMGF funded a massive tetanus vaccination campaign in Africa. After Dr. Ngare of Kenya noticed that a WHO and UNICEF campaign funded by the Gates foundation was only being given to young women of childbearing age, and being required far more frequently than normal tetanus vaccination requires, he sent six different samples of the vaccine to an independent laboratory in South Africa for testing. The results confirmed their worst fears: all six samples tested positive for the HCG anti-fertility antigen. The Kenya Catholic Doctors Association released a bulletin stating “that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.”
Two years earlier in another BMGF funded vaccination program in the small village of Gouro, Chad, Africa, 500 children were locked into their school and threatened that if they did not agree to being vaccinated with a meningitis A vaccine, they would receive no further education. These children were vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge. This vaccine was an unlicensed product still going through the third and fourth phases of testing. Within hours, one hundred and six children began to suffer from headaches, vomiting, severe uncontrollable convulsions and paralysis. Christina England, a U.K. journalist and author, reports that “According to the newspaper La Voix, out of 500 children who received the new meningitis vaccine MenAfriVac, at least 40 of them between the ages of 7 and 18 have become paralyzed. Those children also suffered hallucinations and convulsions.”
Gates has now decided to take his vision a step further, by developing a computer chip technology that could essentially aid him in his quest for population control and reduction. Gates’ medical microchip implants are intended to serve as “the new face of medicine that polygamously marries Big Pharma, biotech, nanotech and wireless remote technology,” if Activist Post’s Heather Callaghan has any say in the matter. “Maybe hooking oneself into the Internet of Things will be an additional app, although this sounds like a passive form of medicine where someone else gets to call the shots, so to speak,” she added.
Unsurprisingly, the same developers who are bringing wireless, remote-controlled implants are currently focused on a product that is the cornerstone of future efforts: Gates Foundation-funded birth control microchip implants. The wireless implants are intended to essentially activate a woman’s ability to conceive, or prevent it, at will, thereby amounting to temporary sterilization. Just imagine: If an all-powerful government agency decides to prevent a woman from bearing child, the government could transform itself from “pro-choice” (by giving women the option of abortion) to no choice at all. Moreover, the chips are to be encrypted; thus, neither cyber criminals nor technologically gifted individuals could try to bypass the government, you know, if it ever decides to utilize the implants for less than charitable purposes.
As reported by TheWindowsClub.com:
“The birth control chip is the brain child of a professor, Robert Langer, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Bill Gates and Melinda Foundation has funded the research and the prototype is ready for human testing. The chips will be ready for sale in 2018 according to Robert Langer. The institute’s Chip Foundation and Bill Gates’ Foundation have been working on the birth control chip for past three years.
“The safety tests would begin by the end of year 2015 and Robert Langer is confident that the chips will hit market sometime in 2018. The main target of these chips are women in third world who are often subject to pain and risks of death during early pregnancies.”
That report also mentions that the chip is expected to remain viable for at least 16 years once implanted. While the supposed intentions behind the chip could be seen as admirable, there’s no denying the fact that sinister motives could make such technology susceptible to abuse. Now, just a food for thought: If women from third world countries really are the target demographic of the chip, is encryption really necessary? How many third world populations have the ability to hack into these chips, anyway?
Ultra-rich philanthropists and their foundations have long had an influence on decision-making and are setting the global health and agriculture agenda in developing countries, according to a major study (pdf). Foundation spending on global development has increased from $3bn a year in the early 2000s to $10bn today. By far the largest donor, say the authors, is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which in 2012 gave $2.6bn. This compares with $1.2bn from the next nine largest US trusts.
The report also questions why the Gates foundation invests heavily in companies like Monsanto and Bayer. “In addition to its grant-making activities, the Gates foundation has recently stepped up its support for the biotechnological industry directly.” In February 2016, it took a $52m equity stake in CureVac, a German bio-pharmaceutical company. Their strategy includes placing people in international organisations, and gaining privileged access to scientific, business and political elites.
“There is a revolving door between the Gates foundation and pharmaceutical corporations. Many of the foundation’s staff had held positions at pharmaceutical companies,” the report adds.
The study says: “Both Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation regard technological innovation and close cooperation with the food and agricultural industries as key to overcoming hunger … In 2006 they together launched the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra), based on the premise that hunger in Africa is mainly the result of a lack of technology and functioning markets. [This] changed the farming agenda in Africa,” say the authors.
Since then Gates has given more than $3bn to support 660 agricultural projects as well as several hundred million dollars for nutrition. “The vast majority of grants focus on Africa. However, more than 80% of the $669m to NGOs went to organisations based in the US and Europe, with only 4% going to Africa-based NGOs.”
The report claims Agra has been intervening directly in the formulation of African governments’ agricultural policies on issues like seeds and land. “Because of its focus on bio-technological farming methods, it has increasingly promoted GM seeds. Critics claim that under the guise of eliminating hunger in Africa, it is a tool to open African markets to US agri-business,” says the report.
Achieng’ Otieno, a spokeswoman for the Rockefeller’s Africa office, said: “The agricultural research that the Rockefeller Foundation funded through the green revolution saved millions of lives. Today our focus is on making better use of the resources that go into food production, and in particular reducing both post-harvest losses and retail- and consumer-level food waste.
“These are the biggest food security issues of our day, and, yes, we want to influence decisions so that more food ends up on tables and in mouths and far less of it in landfills, particularly as we want to see this done in a way that benefits smallholder farmers.”
Diller said: “It’s important to point out that in all of our grant-making we are guided by the evidence and by the deep research and expertise of our partners and grantees … Our open access policy reflect[s] our commitment to the open exchange of information across our work. We continue to try to do all we can to be transparent and accountable to our investments and our decision-making.”
Dependency not democracy
Speaking off the record, public health officials are scathing about the imperiousness of the Gates Foundation. It is said to be “domineering” and “controlling,” contemptuous of advice from experts, seeking to “divide and conquer” the institutions of global health via “stealth-like monopolization of communications and advocacy. But the high-handedness of the Foundation goes far beyond office politics in Geneva. In general it “has not been interested in health systems strengthening and has rather competed with existing health services.” It routinely subverts the health ministries of sovereign nations, either coercing their cooperation or outmaneuvering them via NGO-sponsored field operations that bypass existing infrastructure and personnel.
In particular, the Foundation’s emphasis on single-issue, vertically organized interventions tends to undermine community-based primary care, endorsed by the Alma Ata Declaration of 1978 as the model for Third World public health programs. Based implicitly on the “barefoot doctor” program that revolutionized public health in the People’s Republic of China, the philosophy of primary care proposed that the people “have a right and duty to participate individually and collectively in the planning and implementation of their health care.” In theory, the goal was not only improvement of health as such, but also popular empowerment and genuine democracy at the local level. People would be encouraged to believe that health care was not a gift from Western benefactors, but belonged to them as of right.
Although the Chinese model could never be properly implemented in non-socialist countries, Alma Ata inspired various community-based health initiatives in developing countries, achieving some success in lowering infant mortality and raising life expectancy. Today, however, primary care programs worldwide are on the decline due both to the imperatives of structural adjustment programs and to the meddling of US-based foundations. The Gates Foundation, for its part, invariably acts to steer resources away from community-based holistic doctoring and toward single-disease crash programs, controlled by Western NGOs in collaboration with health-related MNCs. Its approach to diarrhea, which kills upwards of one million infants annually, is a case in point.
The procedures necessary to control diarrhea are not mysterious: clean water and adequate sanitation are essential to prevention, while treatment consists of administering oral rehydration salts (ORS) and zinc supplements to afflicted infants. Chinese “barefoot doctors” achieved steep declines in diarrhea mortality from the 1950s through the 1980s by distributing ORS supplies at the village level and educating families on their importance and proper use. Yet while shepherding governments away from investing in the sanitation infrastructure and primary care that have been proven to save lives, BMGF funds and promotes vaccine research, marketing programs administered by NGOs, and “work[ing] with manufacturers and distributors to make ORS and zinc products more attractive to consumers—by improving flavors and repackaging products.”
Perhaps Bill Gates, who became rich through the expert marketing of inferior software, really believes that poor mothers can’t be relied upon to take an interest in saving their children’s lives unless medicines are advertised like Coca-Cola. But BMGF’s overall stance toward diarrhea, as toward public health in general, reminds us that the attenuation of Third World democracy is far from unwelcome to the rulers. As the educational theorist Robert Arnove has observed, foundations are at bottom
a corrosive influence on a democratic society; they represent relatively unregulated and unaccountable concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, promote causes, and in effect, establish an agenda of what merits society’s attention. They serve as ‘cooling-out’ agencies, delaying and preventing more radical, structural change. They help maintain an economic and political order, international in scope, which benefits the ruling-class interests of philanthropists.
Charitable activities that undermine democracy and state sovereignty are immensely useful to the ruling class. Robust, effective social programs in developing countries are an impediment to the current imperial agenda of worldwide expropriation; healthy people, in control of their own destinies and invested in the social well-being of their communities, are better equipped to defend their claim to the wealth they possess and produce. Far better, from the point of view of the Good Club philanthrocapitalists, if the world’s poorest billions remain wholly dependent on a largesse that may be granted or withdrawn at pleasure.
Continued on next page…
A facelift for the rulers
In the wake of the 2007-08 financial crisis and the subsequent implementation of “austerity” programs worldwide, the super-rich experienced popular anger more directly than at any time since the Great Depression. The masses took to the streets worldwide; the avowedly anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street movement received extensive and largely favorable press coverage; newspaper columnists openly wondered whether reforms might be needed to save capitalism from itself; Capital and The Communist Manifesto returned to bestseller lists. Particularly worrisome to the mega-rich was the extent to which they themselves, rather than vague complaints about “the system,” became the focus of discontent. Even relatively well-to-do Americans questioned the power and disproportionate wealth controlled by elites, now commonly identified as “the 1 per cent” or the “1 per cent of the 1 per cent.” Confronting widespread hostile scrutiny, the ruling class was in need of a facelift.
BMGF’s publicity operation was quick to respond. The Foundation exploited “multiple messaging avenues for influencing the public narrative” including the creation of “strategic media partners” – ostensibly independent news organizations whose cooperation was ensured via the distribution of $25 million in annual grant money. Bill Gates, said to be socially awkward and formerly shy of media attention, was suddenly ubiquitous in the mainstream press. In every interview Gates worked from the same talking points: he had resolved to dedicate “the rest of his life” to assisting the world’s poor; to that end he intended to give away his entire fortune; his uncompromising intelligence and business acumen made him uniquely qualified to wring “more bang for the buck” from philanthropic endeavors; he is nevertheless kindhearted and deeply moved by personal encounters with sick and impoverished children; etc. Invariably he told the suspiciously apposite story of his mother’s deathbed adjuration: “From those to whom much is given, much is expected.” At the same time BMGF expanded its online operations, using Twitter and Facebook to disseminate pseudoscientific aperçus and heartwarming images to millions of “followers” worldwide.
Gates’ willingness to carry the torch for the world’s billionaires reflected an understanding that his Foundation plays an important ideological role within the global capitalist system. Apart from the promotion of specific corporate interests and imperialist strategic aims, BMGF’s expertly publicized activities have the effect of laundering the enormous concentration of wealth in the hands of a few supremely powerful oligarchs. Through stories of Gates’ philanthropy we are assured that our rulers are benevolent, compassionate, and eager to “give back” to the less fortunate; moreover, by leveraging their superior intelligence and technocratic expertise, they are able to transcend the bureaucratic fumblings of state institutions, finding “strategic, market-based solutions” to problems that confound mere democracies. This apotheosis of Western wealth and knowhow works hand-in-hand with an implicit contempt for the sovereignty and competence of poor nations, justifying ever more aggressive imperialist interventions.
Thus the Gates Foundation, like the MNCs it so closely resembles, seeks to manufacture consent for its activities through the manipulation of public opinion. Happily, not everyone is fooled: popular resistance to the designs of Big Philanthropy is mounting. The struggle is broad-based, ranging from the women activists who exposed the criminal activities of PATH in India, to the anti-sterilization activities of African-American groups like The Rebecca Project, to the anti-vaccine agitations in Pakistan following the revelation that the CIA had used immunization programs as cover for DNA collection. Surely a worldwide campaign to eradicate the toxic philanthropy and infectious propaganda of the Gates Foundation would be in the best traditions of public health.
Partnering with CCP Propaganda Apparatus
According to documents leaked to ProPublica, the Cyberspace Administration of China coordinated China’s massive propaganda and censorship operation during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to shape the narrative and shift blame of the virus outbreak away from China. According to a 2015 memo, the China Internet Development Foundation (CIDF) and the Gates Foundation agreed “to form a cooperative partner on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and complementary advantages.”
The China Internet Development Foundation (CIDF) operates under the Chinese Communist Party’s Ministry of Civil Affairs and is controlled by the Cyberspace Administration of China.
Xiao Qiang, a research scientist at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley, and the founder of China Digital Times, warned in Dec. 2020 that China’s information warfare arm is extremely powerful and unlike anything other nations have seen.
“China has a politically weaponized system of censorship; it is refined, organized, coordinated and supported by the state’s resources,” Qiang told ProPublica. “It’s not just for deleting something. They also have a powerful apparatus to construct a narrative and aim it at any target with huge scale.”
(Infowars)
Sources:
- https://www.naturalnews.com/035105_Bill_Gates_Monsanto_eugenics.html#ixzz4GiQi0C2y
- https://www.liberationnews.org/real-agenda-gates-foundation/
- https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/15/bill-gates-rockefeller-influence-agenda-poor-nations-big-pharma-gm-hunger
See also:
See 3 videos exposing Bill Gates plan to vaccinate the world HERE
Historical Events Related to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
200 Organizations Deliver Letter Asking Gates To Stop Funding ‘Failed’ AGRA Projects
The German Club of Clear Words Report: Exposes the network of individuals and organizations responsible for the COVID scam
Bill Gates-Funded Company Releases Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In US
Austrian Court Rules PCR Unsuited For COVID, Lockdowns Unlawful
Lawsuit Exposes COVID Jabs As Unsafe Transhumanist Gene Therapies
The Divorce of Bill and Melinda Gates Announced
Study: CDC Illegally Inflated COVID Fatality Number by at least 1,600 percent Ahead of 2020 Election
Bill Gates Says World Won’t Return to Normal Until “A Lot of People” Take a Second COVID Vaccine
Medical Journal Calls For Mandatory COVID Vaccine: “Non-Compliance Should Incur A Penalty”
