What most people missed in Bill Gates’ most infamous speech…

And no, I’m not talking about the ‘using vaccines to lower populations’ bit! Everybody saw that, and it’s sort of a misdirection. The real juice is hiding in plain sight: this is not science.

I’ll get the populations/vaccines bit out of the way right now: conspiracy theorists do themselves no favours when they say he admitted his vaccines will lower populations. Yes they possibly will do that, because yes they may well do more harm than good, and all the rest, no question. But no, that wasn’t what he ‘admitted’. He may not even fully appreciate the magnitude of the problems his foundation is accused of causing: paralysing children in India, sterilising them in Africa, ethics violations heaped on ethics violations etc. I believe that, with all the sincerity that a blinkered megalomaniac could ever muster, what he meant is that healthy populations don’t have so many babies because their survival is assured. It’s an understandable sentiment I strongly disagree with, and a bogus justification for his programme, and the guy makes my skin crawl: but let’s not assume the absolute worst. He probably believes in what he is doing, and will cling to it in the face of huge evidence his programme ruins lives.

Here is that speech, where Bill Gates talks about using vaccines to lower populations:

Specious nonsense should not be allowed to pass as world-saving science.

What I really want to draw attention to is Gates’ equation [CO2 = PxSxExC] taken from his own lecture slides. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity it is not. It just looks like it was scribbled on a napkin the day before. He bolsters it with throwaway statements like “I asked the top scientists”, as if he – Bill Gates – happens to have hot-and-cold running access to all ‘the top scientists’, and that the entire range, complexity and nuance of their opinions can be summarised in a few unanimous soundbites. With my two science degrees, I don’t even know what ‘the top scientists’ means. What about the bottom ones, or the ones in the middle? Are they simply not as good? Or do they just not hold the right opinions to get the top jobs? Not sure.

But this juvenile pseudoscience is the reasoning he holds up to justify radical re-engineering of human society, at a monumental cost, whether we want it or not, whether this uncontrolled experiment even works or not. Since this proposal may include the destruction of countless traditions as well as aggressive depopulation of earth – it needs a whole lot more deconstruction than it has got. Frankly, it needs to be stopped.

Please note: Bill is selling this aggressively. He is not asking for our consent, since he would meet objections aplenty:

First, his premise is that there is no option but to reduce CO2 output to zero: that we do this, or we are dead. And if the people of the world are slow to catch on, well, self-appointed saviour of mankind, Saint Bill, will just have to push them along a bit.

Screech of brakes… I could say an awful lot about that house of cards, man-made climate change, just for starters. But despite Gates’ delusions of worldwide unity, the whole world and all its scientists – top, middle or bottom – are not on the same page as Bill, despite several decades of pushing very hard the catastrophic global warming hypothesis and all the ideology that comes with the package. But ANY wavering would undermine this fragile business model. And yes, the Gates Foundation, for all its presentation as a pure-as-the-driven-snow charity, is a business. So is climate change. And don’t think for a second that butter wouldn’t melt in Bill’s mouth – it would.

Second, since all the terms in that equation are multipliers, in his own words “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero”.

Which number, Bill?

Where do you see the focus of such radical change? The way we live our lives, or the physical and energetic means to support that?

Did you mean the population itself, Bill? Are we going to have to depopulate the planet radically, starting now? Or just a teeny bit, because that would be okay?

Or do you mean to address ALL those numbers, in your crusade to get your precious answer to zero? Say what you mean, Bill, let’s leave no doubt over such matters.

But I’m just leading up to the real logical howler, which is this. In short, he’s forgotten some terms – MINUS terms.

Why only multiplication terms? One or two minus terms could zap this, couldn’t it? Did the worlds’ most successful computer engineer really forget to include some minus terms? He does mention carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the talk. That’s a minus term. So where is it in the formula? “Whoops, I just turned human life and society upside down, then I realised I overlooked something. Silly me…”

Since reducing ANY of those numbers to zero is not possible – and the results of such experimentation could be far more devastating than CO2 itself, and since Bill shows no sign that he is joking, or lacking in the influence and determination to pursue this – then his assumptions really need checking.

It doesn’t take a genius so see the holes in this ‘science’.

And given what he is proposing, that’s not good enough. Basically, he is turning a blind eye to the obvious flaws in his own thesis. To acknowledge them would be to zero one of his other goals, those not stated in the video, depopulation, technocratic power, huge pots of money for him and his industrial cronies; essentially, total control over human society and limitless opportunity for himself.

As things stand, it all leads to a needlessly complex practical approach. And clearly Bill likes it that way, this is the sort of thing that gets him out of bed. Teching the heck out of this is precisely what he goes on to say he intends.

And for him the means may be more important than the ends. In the current pandemic crisis, which he seems far too interested in apparently, he has made it clear that the consequences of total economic collapse are not a problem compared to ‘saving lives’. What sort of bogus dichotomy is that? And how does he get a platform for such rubbish?

In short, he is either less smart or less honest than he would like us all to think, while at the same time totally undeserving of the influence he has bought and bestowed upon himself. And to fix any of that would see poor Bill and his cronies as no longer the beneficiaries of this little-needed job creation scheme.

Where you see the word ‘Innovation’, read ‘Investment’

However, minus terms are not all the same. To the autistocrat brain, negative carbon output means an expensive industrial solution, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS); and since people can’t be trusted as much as machines to get with the programme, total technological monitoring and control of every aspect of our lives through the internet of things, social credit scoring, and so on. And of course, it means lots of innovation, as the title of his lecture suggests. He goes on to explain that CCS is not without problems, and no doubt Bill is happy to work on solutions for those as well. This all looks much less like Mother Theresa to me and more like a PR exercise for a mega-industrialist.

Innovation is grist to the mill for the likes of Bill Gates. Even if the innovations themselves are unneeded or doomed to fail, backing innovation is itself big business. The trick is not so much to get in on the ground floor, as to be the one building the elevator, and ideally get off before everybody else does.

Innovation means money up front, and a few billion in philanthropic donations (read venture-capital) doesn’t go very far in the terraforming business. Such ‘grands projets’ mean public debt heaped on already existing public debt for generations to come. Sustainability, my foot.

We don’t need Gates, we need trees.

Environmentally speaking, one great beauty of trees is that they address atmospheric carbon in the most natural way. But they also provide countless other services on which life depends. They do this without any downside I can think of. Even the most climate-sceptical right-wing petrol-head has to agree that reversing deforestation is a good thing.

Planting some trees would be just a bit too simple and boring for Bill, and most of all a bit too much like nature. And he seems to abhor nature! This is the man who opposes natural immunity in the current pandemic, who wants to solve all health problems with vaccines and drugs, and all food shortages with GMOs. These are basically unproven or dangerous sticking plasters to complex problems, which in turn are maintained largely by convenient blinkering to the obvious; that nature already has perfectly good solutions, and trashing it creates problems that we don’t need to have in the first place. He likes these solutions because they concentrate control and thereby create ownership, unlike the dispersed solutions that are more akin to the natural way of doing things, and which are therefore more democratic.

So, social and communal responsibility do not mean the same thing to technocrats as to the rest of us. For them, it all means power, freedom, opportunity: they get to go where they want and shape events to their own design – for the good of all mankind, apparently. But it only works if the ordinary people fit in precisely with the plans and give up on their own ambitions. Globalism is always two-tier. Since it involves greater distance between power and the people, to the man on the street it means less personal autonomy, and greater control, surveillance, confinement, imposed limits to our own ambition and increase; and continually having to demonstrate ones innocence or face harsh penalties for the crime of not doing so. So, just another form of fascism.

What about some carbon capture and storage?

Indeed, why is CCS not a minus in his equation? Well, he sort of fudges this, as a possible influence on some of the other terms, rather than a term in its own right. As a definite minus it would hole his own thesis below the waterline. So, as an innovation it has merits for Bill, but obviously it can’t be that good, or it would solve his problem, and spare us having to listen to the rest of his argument. And of course it is unproven at best. And once again, nature has already given us carbon capture and storage: trees already work, they fit in perfectly with nature, and there is plenty of scope – nay need – to plant many many more anyway. It is possible that they aren’t a complete solution: but what sort of machines would it take to compete with billions of acres of forest? And how much carbon dioxide will we have to generate to build the damned things?

What about renewable energy? Well, it has its place, and it has the sort of technocratic appeal I imagine he is pushing. A child can see the problems with covering every piece of land in solar panels and wind farms; or even a fraction of the land. We could start with the sheer amount of up-front energy that must be embedded in the technology itself before a single joule of useful energy is delivered. Once again, how much CO2 before we even start? Or the exotic materials that must be mined to make them, or the fact that they render the land useless for anything else? Wind farms have considerations for wildlife and military security, as well as aesthetics, and I am as disappointed as anyone else to find out they don’t really produce that much energy. In school they taught us thermodynamics. That means you don’t get something for nothing. The only solutions that work in nature are ones that give back as much as they get, or more. That is why the industrialist vision that has trashed the world simply cannot be relied upon to save the world: it will always lack the holism of a truly natural system. We may yet be very far from achieving divorce from fossil fuels, but forcing the issue could backfire horribly.

Which all leads back to trees.

Trees are still the number one fuel source for over two billion people, the world’s most popular building material; and a carbon-neutral resource at that, so long as they are replaced. Since the loss of our forests is one of the most persistent and pernicious environmental problems, turning mankind’s environmental effort towards replacing trees is an absolute no-brainer. The forests will eventually replace themselves, given a chance, but we can speed this up without negative consequence. There is currently enough vegetation in the world to offset the man-made CO2 anyway (but not much else), which means that even a partial restoration of forest would suffice to – at the very least – buy time, in terms of energy and pollution, and make the world better in so many other ways anyway. If anybody has an objection to that, hit me with it, please, and I will deconstruct that also. Don’t bother telling me we can’t afford to plant trees, then say we need money to pay for CCS or solar power instead, or a space-shield for the sun, or I will call you a moron.

Not that I am even convinced anymore that CO2 is remotely the problem it is made out to be. As a heartfelt eco-warrior for nearly 30 years, I have argued most of the arguments myself. And for all kinds of reasons I am just no longer convinced by them.

All the same, the trees are going, and if this continues we are screwed, and no invention of Bill Gates will save us.

But wait… I hear he has a seed bank in the arctic circle, for just such a scenario. Nice job! Or is it in fact to complement his work in GMOs? After all, nobody knows better than Bill Gates, that, before you install a new operating system, you make a back up. Think about that for a moment…

I certainly support simpler living as a way to a healthier, safer, more manageable life. And if it means less pollution as a result, that is a good thing. By pollution, I do not mean CO2 mainly. The real inconvenient truth for the globalists who have bet on carbon, as the means to guilt us all into submission to their control, is that CO2 is a natural part of a healthy atmosphere, and the natural world has thrived historically with far more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now. It has done so without suffering higher temperatures and more unstable weather as a result. Until a generation or two ago it was considered completely harmless. All the same, I am not saying that messing with the chemistry of the atmosphere is a good idea. But, by pollution, what I mean is the truly harmful, toxic stuff; plastics, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, agrochemicals, drugs, electrosmog and so on.

And I still appreciate the fruits of an industrial world. The question is whether such industry is truly geared to making life better for all people; or whether it serves the big industrialists, with any claim for humanity’s salvation merely a sop. Speaking personally I am tired of my very existence being blamed for problems caused by the greed of corporations and sociopaths. I am not looking to those same people for solutions.

And as for population reduction, well, I don’t see any evidence that the world benefits from fewer of us. Just the reverse, in fact. A healthy planet is one with abundant life of every kind. Biomass is what we are, and considering the biomass that industrialists have destroyed, a few billion people is actually a tiny amount. It obviously isn’t ideal if we’re having to buy our food in plastic packets, from a distant supermarket, instead of from a small local supplier. It isn’t ideal if we have lost our locally needed skills, and are only skilled in white-collar administration for globalist systems.

I hope you see my point: the small person is not to blame for the ills of the world, and usually doesn’t need pushing to do his bit to put things right. Mostly people just need a chance to live a decent life – and to not be forced by pragmatics to compromise on that – in order to do the right thing. It is the big monopolies and oligopolies of the world that need to be confined and controlled; one of the few truly necessary functions of government.

Hence, I do not support the sort of living proposed by Bill and his kind, where every aspect of life is managed, monitored, prescribed and controlled, where our numbers are limited and our lifestyle designed for us; where nothing happens organically, and where every problem invokes a one-track search for a grand technological solution. I do not support their rejection of nature as the bench-mark for a healthy world, for a healthy society, and for healthy people. I don’t agree that most ordinary humans are feral and self-centred, and that only things that are designed can be trusted to work properly.

Humans can do some things that nature alone can’t: and the power of creation that has been placed in our hands is truly a gift to our species. But there are also the things that nature has always done, and only nature can do them without some kind of negative consequence. Thinking that we can improve upon god and nature, and even replace them, is the greatest folly of our species; a folly that has become, for the technocrats, both a fine art and a clever conjuring trick.

But where are the minus terms, Bill?

 

 

 

~