Scumbag Bill Gates: "We Need Genetically Modified Seeds"

Thursday, February 23, 2012 by Common Dreams
Gates' yield-increasing claims widely refuted by studies


At a forum of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in Rome today, Microsoft founder Bill Gates pressed the need for genetically modified seeds in the developing world, and the need for a "digital revolution" to meet the needs of the world's farmers. Gates' claims that genetically modified crops double or triple smaller farmers' yields have been challenged by recent research.


Agence France-Presse reports:

(World Economic Forum / swiss-image.ch/Photo by Sebastian Derungs)

Microsoft founder Bill Gates on Thursday called for a "digital revolution" to alleviate world hunger by increasing agricultural productivity through satellites and genetically-engineered seed varieties. 

"We have to think hard about how to start taking advantage of the digital revolution that is driving innovation including in farming," the U.S. billionaire philanthropist said in a speech at the UN rural poverty agency IFAD in Rome.

"If you care about the poorest, you care about agriculture. We believe that it's possible for small farmers to double and in some cases even triple their yields in the next 20 years while preserving the land," Gates said. [...]

Another key development is the use of satellite technology developed by defense departments to document data about individual fields, as well as information videos of farmers discussing best practices to help others. [...]

Gates also defended the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the developing world and large-scale farm land investments by foreign states in the developing world -- both highly controversial issues in the aid community.

AFP adds that Gates announced $200 million (150 million euros) in new grants from his foundation to finance research on a new type of drought-resistant maize.

The Associated Press notes that Gates' plan is looking for more accountability with countries receiving aid, saying they should provide "report cards" to show what they've accomplished with the aid.

As John Vidal reported for the Guardian, the claims that genetically modified seeds can increase gains have been challenged by research:

Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop but has vastly increased the use of chemicals and the growth of "superweeds", according to a report by 20 Indian, south-east Asian, African and Latin American food and conservation groups representing millions of people.

And a 2009 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that genetically modified seeds failed to increase yields in U.S. crops:

Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields. 

"The biotech industry has spent billions on research and public relations hype, but genetically engineered food and feed crops haven't enabled American farmers to grow significantly more crops per acre of land," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a biologist in the UCS Food and Environment Program and author of the report. "In comparison, traditional breeding continues to deliver better results."

Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, told Common Dreams:

“Bill Gates may be a smart guy in terms of computer programming, and an expert on how to become a billionaire, but he obviously knows nothing about agriculture other than what Monsanto the devil and the biotech industry have told him. Eighteen years after the introduction of the first genetically engineered crops, there is no evidence, including data from the pro-biotech USDA, that these energy and chemical-intensive crops increase yield, improve nutrition, or provide greater yields under adverse weather conditions of drought or heavily rains. On the contrary hundreds of studies, including those by peer-reviewed scientists and the U.N.’s FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) indicate that organic crops provide significantly higher levels of vitamins, nutrients, and cancer-fighting anti-oxidants; that organic crops have significantly higher yields during periods of drought and torrential rain; and that agro-ecological or organic farms produce 2-10 times great yields than industrial-scale chemical and GMO farms. In others words, not only can organic farming and ranching feed the world, but in fact it is the only way that we will ever be able to feed the world.”

* * *

Recent reports also show Gates behind climate engineering efforts, as he is among other wealthy individuals financially backing scientists to lobby governments to push geoengineering, raising concerns that this small group may have a large impact on further decisions on geoengineering.

(Gates' support for geoengineering and GMOs is what makes him a scumbag. You retired, Bill. Now, go the fuck away!--jef)

Independent News Site Fraudulently Blacklisted by Internet Explorer After Negative Bill Gates Article

Friday, November 5, 2010@Activist Post

Is the Internet Blacklist already being enforced via web browsers?  Microsoft's Internet Explorer recommended that visitors should not access Activist Post today, claiming the site contains threats to outside computers.  First, we want to assure all of our visitors that this is blatantly FALSE. Our site does not contain any viruses, malware, or data-harvesting capabilities.  We have a voluntary and confidential sign-up mechanism for our free weekly newsletter, which apparently now falls under the category of illegal data mining according to Microsoft.

Our website runs on a Google Blogger back-end which immediately declines any material that may be "malicious."  This back-end also makes it easy for us to scan our entire site for potential viruses or other problems.  This scan is, and always has been, 100% clean.  Furthermore, our technical team ran a check at Website Grader which tests various aspects of a site, including cleanliness Activist Post scored a 97% (FAR above the average).  Yet, Microsoft has taken an anonymous tip from a user as enough evidence to deter access to our site.  Meanwhile, other browsers such as Chrome, Safari, and Firefox have similar malware protection, yet none of them flagged Activist Post today.

What's interesting about the timing of this possible censorship is that it comes on a day when we posted an article that reflects negatively on Bill Gates.  It appears that his empire carries out vendettas by deterring access to websites not favorable to their overlord.  We did receive a complaint through our contact form from a reader listing the e-mail address: office@heavenaboveyourlife.com.  This email address is not valid and the domain is not currently registered.

All of the information about the cleanliness of our site, and the potential false tip, was easily obtained by our tech staff within minutes.  Why couldn't a behemoth like Microsoft do the same?

This appears to be the latest tactic the establishment will use to shut down access to alternative voices, making visitors believe that the site is "harmful" to their computer.  We have been informed by Microsoft that this is basically a guilty-until-proven-innocent situation, since we certainly weren't contacted to counter any claim in advance of the warning they posted. 

Internet Explorer users represent 42% of our visitors, while representing a similar overall market share.  For alternative sites that are 100% user-funded through visiting sponsors and donations, this can be a damaging blow that has the potential to force people out of business.  Welcome to the free market of ideas.

Our technical team is working hard on restoring our site to Internet Explorer users.  Presently, it is fully accessible and safe to view from Firefox, Google Chrome, and Safari.  In protest of such shenanigans, we hope that readers will drop IE and use a different browser, as this type of censorship is likely to continue from the Gates Gestapo.  One can also send a statement to Microsoft that our site has been clean in your experience.  Click HERE to submit.

UPDATE:  We're hearing reports that site accessibility with Internet Explorer has been returned.  If you continue to have problems accessing our site with that browser please do the following: In Internet Explorer go to the Tools menu, select "Smart Screen Filter" and choose to "Turn Off Smart Screen Filter."  After completing this, accessibility should be returned immediately.

The Real Story Behind Bill Gates And “Death Panels”

Paul Joseph Watson - Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Bill Gates’ advocacy for “death panels” has caused controversy amongst conservative commentators, but the real outrage behind the story has been completely overlooked – the fact that Gates is a hardcore eugenicist and has called for lowering the global population.

Gates’ “death panel” comments were actually made over two months ago at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen Colorado, but they only garnered attention when the video clip appeared on numerous conservative websites on Sunday, including Breitbart.tv and The Blaze.

vidlink

During a question and answer session, Gates implied that elderly patients undergoing expensive health care treatments should be killed and the money spent elsewhere.

Gates said there was a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers.

“But that’s called the death panel and you’re not supposed to have that discussion,” added Gates.

The Microsoft owner’s advocacy for killing granny in the name of spending the money elsewhere strikes at the root of why so many Americans are outraged over Obamacare, which contains as one of its core components a cost/benefit board which will be able to refuse care to elderly patients, proving that death panels will indeed come into force despite establishment media PR campaigns to convince the public otherwise.

Although Americans will be subject to the whims of death panels, the federal government will “continue to require hospitals to provide emergency treatment to illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense,” the New York Times reported.

However, the wider significance of Gates’ comments has gone completely unnoticed by those outraged over what he said.

Gates is an avowed eugenicist who is committed to drastically reducing the world’s population in the name of combating global warming. This is alarming given the fact that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation funds the production and distribution of vaccines to the third world.

During a February 2010 TED conference, Gates openly stated that vaccines would be used to reduce global population and lower CO2 emissions.

Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

Watch the clip.

vidlink

Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates was referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

Indeed, As Natural News’ Mike Adams revealed, one of the Gates Foundation’s current projects revolves around the funding of a “sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man’s scrotum to render him infertile for six months.”

“Now, the foundation has funded a new 'sweat-triggered vaccine delivery' program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin,” writes Adams. “The technology is describes as a way to '…develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines.'”

The Microsoft founder’s advocacy for death panels is a shocking admission, but it pales in significance when one considers that Gates, as one of the richest men on the planet who routinely meets with other billionaires to discuss population reduction efforts, has publicly stated his intention to use the billions of dollars worth of vaccines that he funds to lower global population in the third world, which could only be achieved if the vaccines were designed to forcibly sterilize people without their consent or induce forced abortions.

vidlink

Rich Running Scared?

(I hardly think so.--jef)

***

Saturday, August 07, 2010 – by Staff Report

Billionaires giving half their fortune to charity ... They have devoted almost all their time and energy to building up fortunes worth billions. And now they are going to give most of it away. ... Star Wars director George Lucas, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Hilton hotels owner Barron Hilton are among those who will provide an estimated £250bn. Others pledging fortunes include media mogul Ted Turner, fashion director Diane Von Furstenberg, David Rockefeller, the heir to the Rockefeller fortune, and construction billionaire Eli Broad. The unprecedented commitment was brokered by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and investor Warren Buffett (pictured together left) over a series of intimate dinners. They set up The Giving Pledge, which asks billionaires to make a 'moral commitment' to give away at least 50% of their wealth to charity either during their lifetime or after their death. So far 40 have signed up. -- UK / This Is Money

Dominant Social Theme: The most admirable thing ever.

Free-Market Analysis: We've watched this story unfold and are quite taken by its admirable qualities. There is something amazing about watching so many important people come together to give so much money to worthy causes. That this cavalcade of generosity would be led by such luminaries as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet only adds to its impressiveness. These individuals could be out golfing instead of extracting billions from their friends and acquaintances for charity.

Obviously there is a dominant social theme at work here. We would venture to say that it is along these lines: "Not only are Western (especially Anglo-American) billionaires among the smartest that you will find, they are also among the most generous and caring." In this article, then, we will reflect on this giving and probe its causes. Of course, perhaps there is nothing more to this Giving Pledge than a belated realization that those with great blessings ought to give back proportionately. Sometimes, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a rose is just a rose.

So let us proceed then with the understanding that sometimes generosity is "just generosity." And certainly acts of generosity, without doubt, are being formulated within the parameters of this program. But being instrument of power-elite analysis, we need to ask WHY? As in "why now?" Why have powerful billionaires (at the behest of the power elite itself?) gotten together in 2010 to announce to the world that they are giving their money away? Why didn't they decide to do so in 2008, or 1998 for that matter? Has something changed? Are their forces at work (a generosity bug?) today that were not present a year ago, or ten years ago? And if there is a reason, what is it telling us about the society's larger trends?

We would argue, in fact, that there is a reason. As dedicated meme watchers, we have seen the power elite (and we don't necessarily include all generous billionaires among them) try to grapple with the reality that the financial system itself is radically tilted toward institutional gestures. When the financial crisis became severe in 2008, it was the big banks and securities firms that for the most got bailed out. Homeowners and others, especially in America, grappled with their burgeoning debts without the help of money printing.

While this is perhaps to be expected, as we have pointed out before, the spectacle of large institutions being laved with funds while the "little people" were left parched and hopeless, was at root immoral. In one poisonous fortnight, the reality of the financial system struck home to people in a way that it never had before. A very skilled meme watcher (as we have related before) brought this point home to us, sending us what we consider to be a seminal feedback on this issue. What he was basically saying was that the Internet had provided a window wherein people could see as they never had before how the system really worked.

In one instant, the reality of the system became crystal clear. The money that the elite was disbursing may have stabilized the financial system, but why was that money only flowing in one direction, people suddenly began to wonder. Not only that, but we must believe that many, probably for the first time, began to realize however foggily that the money that was given away was being "manufactured" – that it was being printed out of nothing and directed toward targets self-selected by those doing the printing. We wrote an article about it ourselves entitled, "Have the immoral actions of central bankers precipitated the decline of the West." Here is some of what we wrote:

And so it begins. You have seen the essential immorality of the system. You have felt it deep in the gut, just the way they did once they began to read Bibles (courtesy of the Gutenberg press) 500 years ago and began realizing that the Roman Catholic Church was profoundly immoral -- that its entire ethic (you can buy your way into heaven) was built on a kind of lie. Just as society is today. Yes, he's right. This financial crisis and the "outside the box thinking" (President Obama's term) of Ben Bernanke and others has not just doomed the elite's dominant social themes, it has probably doomed the freakin' CIVILIZATION.

Even stranger, Bernanke and the rest have not yet likely realized this. They are too busy patting themselves on the back. Do Bernanke et al. really believe that the average joe is awestruck and thankful for their chicanery. No, the average joe has suddenly realized that he lives in a society where a few people control trillions while he controls thousands. This is not just going to lead to a breakdown of society, over time it is going to lead to a meltdown of western civ.

Click here to read more: Have the Immoral Actions of Central bankers Precipitated the Decline of the West?

Do we need to belabor the point? This Giving Pledge from our point of view may constitute a direct counter-attack by the powers-that-be on the perception of unfairness that was made manifest by the egregious central banking bailouts of institutional cronies during the depths of the financial crisis. The Federal Reserve in particular, which created tidal waves of cash at the time, has fought very hard to withhold information about just who funds went to and the amounts that were sent.

We do believe the powers-that-be attempt to control public opinion (and thus the public) through various promotions, most of them fear-based. In this case the promotion is not fear-based and has something of a rushed quality about it. The cause-and-effect in our humble opinion is obvious however. Whether it will have the requisite impact is another question. We tend to doubt it.

It is important to note however, because it does tend to show (if one accepts our interpretation) that those at the top of the heap are getting the message about how things are being perceived by the plebes down below. The trouble is that people, if they have already made up their minds, are not apt to be swayed by such a spectacle. The damage has already been done and we would argue that dramatic Acts such as these may have actually do more harm than good, given that people are already cynical about the system.

Of course, being cynical ourselves, we don't believe for instant that all this charity will in some sense ease the plight of those who are injured financially or otherwise. For one thing, the massive charities and foundations of the West today are run by the same power elite that runs the financial system and has orchestrated the current problems of Western economic society. Secondly, the program smacks of a kind of hold-up.

Yes, we visualize it as a sort of elegant blackmail in which a billionaire who has somehow resisted becoming part of the elite's one-world promotion, gets a perfumed letter asking that half of his or her wealth be directed to a "worthy" cause. These worthy causes, being organized by the elite, will likely only further benefit the ultimate goal of further promoting and strengthening Western-style regulatory democracy to the detriment of those who want to live their lives without high taxes, high inflation and endless regulatory encumbrances.

Conclusion: The Giving Pledge is a very clever promotion from our point of view, and illustrates the elite's penchant for never letting a crisis go to waste. It may, however, prove "too clever by half" as the saying goes. Its ultimate importance may have more to do with its rushed nature and the insight it offers us into the current mindset of the very wealthy and the measures they are willing to take to take to shore up their aggregate public personas.

The Conscience of the Very, Very Rich: Buffett, Gates, Rockefeller and ...

The Great Marginalization
By CARL GINSBURG

Of all the farcical notions put forth during this time of high farce, casting America as “broke” places way up there on the list, as trillions of dollars are being stockpiled in the face of a national downsizing and its attendant growth in misery. Here we sit, a captive national audience to the president’s seemingly daily farce, “We are all in this together”.

Instances of hoarding in U.S. history are many, but the current example stands out for its enduring quality, as Congress reaches deep into corporate pockets, with occasional forays into legislation of the extreme incremental variety. Profits are up 41 percent since Obama’s election; yet half of American workers have suffered a job loss or a cut in hours or wages over the past 30 months--- hardly the recipe for togetherness.

More farce: that irresponsibility is the root of poverty, a stalwart theme in American political theater, with the latest reminder from Treasury Secretary Geithner in a New York Times op-ed this month, saluting Americans for “saving more” and “borrowing more responsibly”. These instructions from the government’s top economic point man were imparted in the face of continued wage stagnation, high foreclosure rates and new forms of financial foolery.

Now enter stage left: the ”Great Givers”, they come in the form of American billionaires proposing to give away half their wealth. Beware strangers bearing gifts.

The billionaire pledge – a broadside of noblesse oblige – was formulated by none other than two of the planet’s leading mega-billionaires, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. These two American moneybags are imploring fellow prophets of profit to address global suffering by earmarking not less than fifty per cent of personal wealth for charity. First discussed at a dinner in May 2009, the specifics are just now surfacing thanks to Carol J. Loomis in the June 16 issue of Fortune.

According to Loomis, Buffett and Gates, who share a commitment to charity and to the Democratic Party, summoned a group of billionaires to dinner in New York City. David Rockefeller -- whose granddad cornered the market in kerosene, then gasoline – played host and invited this billionaire boys club to share their calling. Two subsequent dinners were held, expanding the group invited to take the plunge to about thirty. Areas of charitable concern shared by America’s very richest, Loomis says, include “education, culture, hospitals and health, the environment, public policy, the poor generally.” Generally.

Details are scarce because participating billionaires were promised privacy -- privacy being a constitutional commitment to enormous wealth. One detail that did get out was the name Buffett assigned his file on this new initiative: “Great Givers”.

It would appear that the ability to give greatly stops at the factory door. Buffett’s billions, for example, include holdings in Wal-Mart, a company fresh from victory in Chicago where, after years of resistance by community forces, construction of its first mega-store was just given a green light. Times as they are, with “jobless recovery” taken to new heights and millions looking for work, Wal-Mart offered a wage of $8.75 per hour to seal the deal. The amount Wal-Mart agreed to pony up is 50 cents over the Illinois minimum; still, at under $20,000 per year gross, no one would argue that it constitutes a living wage. Such are the elements of Great Giving.

Buffett’s profits are not tied exclusively to low wages stateside; his Wal-Mart earnings are a result of paying the lowest garment wages in the world, according to labor rights advocates. Wal-Mart has started moving some of its garment factories out of China, where garment workers have been making the princely sum of $147 per month, to Bangladesh, where monthly earnings total $64, the lowest wage of its kind. In this world of farce these wages are linked to Bangladesh’s low literacy rate—55 percent. Had workers only acquired educations, the master thespians of farce would say, wages would be higher.

It’s not fair, however, to solely tie Buffett’s billions to uneducated Bangladeshis.

This Great Giver also bought a stake in Goldman Sachs and its Ivy-educated money managers, doing his part to rescue the financial system by transferring $5 billion to America’s gilded investment bank (in exchange for a 10 percent per annum return). Yes, this is the same Goldman that last month admitted “a mistake” in selling subprime mortgage bonds destined to collapse; the same Goldman that set aside $9.3 billion the first half of this year for salary and bonuses; and, yes, the same Goldman that orchestrated speculation in the world wheat crop with disastrous results, according to Frederick Kaufman’s cover story in the July issue of Harper’s, “The Food Bubble.” Undoubtedly, Buffett’s due diligence uncovered the following when sizing up the Goldman investment:

“The history of food took an ominous turn in 1991, at a time when no one was paying much attention. That was the year Goldman Sachs decided our daily bread might make an excellent investment…. [W]ith accustomed care and precision, Goldman’s analysts went about transforming food into a concept. They selected eighteen commodifiable ingredients and contrived a financial elixir that included cattle, coffee, cocoa, corn, hogs, and a variety or two of wheat…. They weighted the investment value of each element… that could be expressed as single manifestation, to be known thenceforward as the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index….

“Since Goldman’s innovation, hundreds of billions of new dollars had overwhelmed the actual supply of and actual demand for wheat….

“In 2008, for the first time since such statistics have been kept, the proportion of the world’s population without enough to eat ratcheted upward. The ranks of the hungry had increased in a single year, the most abysmal increase in all of human history.”
(pp. 27-28)

Clarifying what the Great Giver Buffett means by the poor generally.

Buffett’s Goldman investment remains solid, as the SEC fined Goldman for its “mistake” what amounted to little more than petty cash -- $550 million. It was, according to finance professor Charles Geisst, “like passing around the church collection plate and collecting a few extra bucks for sins.” Geisst summed it up this way: “This is unlikely to change much at all. I think it will be business as usual right away.” More money for Buffett to give greatly.

Warren Buffett’s fellow Giver of Great Gifts, Bill Gates, has diversified his holdings as well. But his tens of billions result chiefly from the company he co-founded and led for decades, Microsoft, where profits remain very strong. “Microsoft Still Earnings Powerhouse,” barked the headline in USA Today, July 23, 2010. In its fledgling years, profits on Gates’ software were reportedly 70 per cent annually. Otherwise, after all, you don’t make upwards of $50 billion charging cost plus five percent.

Current returns for this scion of the responsible class were reported at 48 per cent, as Windows 7, the latest software batch out of Microsoft, led the company’s product pack. “It certainly shows that Office and Windows franchises are as strong as ever and delivering huge revenue,” analyst Brendan Barnicle told the Wall Street Journal recently. Indeed, annual sales have hit new records year after year, tripling to $62.5 billion in fiscal 2010. Net income for Gates’ Microsoft grew from $9.4 billion per year a decade ago to $24.1 billion this year.

Another way to gauge Gates’s billions is by catching a glimpse of the multitudes of students priced out of the computer market – thanks in part to that Great Giver’s expensive software – lined up daily at community college libraries for some free access to computers, each machine an expression of Gates’ creative commitment to profit in the +40 percent range – a gift Gates gave himself that keeps on giving. As Gates told Fortune: “The diversity of American giving is part of its beauty.”