DCLugi Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 http://usuncut.com/climate/bill-gates-only-socialism-can-save-us-from-climate-change/
VolT Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 “Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.” "government R&D is far more effective and efficient than anything the private sector could do." I stopped reading at this point. --Edit-- That man has significant experience in business, what must he have to have experienced for him to say such a thing. 3
regevdl Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 oh gawd...sorry. I normally can stomach through crappy logic but the title.... I need to take a minute. This is a man who FULLY set him and his future offspring for many-o-generations for life is now bashing capitalism. I .....am having a hard time digesting that. ok...breathe, breathe...hold my nose and I'm diving in.... oh.... made it through the first paragraph. Whew. Ok, Mr. Gates.... of course there is not as much money in the free market when you have other leeches hooking up their corporate feeding tubes to the gvt...making it that much more expensive for privateers and now you have become or are propagating to become one of those leeches which in turn makes it more expensive and less profitable for the privateers. Oh....the NSF funded research by over 200 Nobel laureates...well.... case closed. We shouldn't be skeptical about the nobel prize handouts... I think I'll find the next one in my Kracker Jack Box. <<cough cough>> Obama <<cough cough>> Wait...we shoudl look to China because it's socialist or because of it somehow being the role-model of clean air and earth...did I miss something? What an asshole. There are few people in this world that I am tempted to say I hate; he is one of them. Severe cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy of the highest order. Ptooey!! You said it.. He is GROSS and a fake humanist. If I understood the last 'smoking gun' I came across is that he invested in the vaccine manufacturer for the vaccines that he 'donated' to AFrica. Meaning, sure..he created a tax-haven charity, donates vaccines but bought shares in the vaccine manufacturer...cha-ching-bada-bing!
jpahmad Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 So let me get this right. Bill Gates thinks the world is too selfish to do anything in anyone else's interest, so he wants to grab the gun and force everyone to do what he wants? And this makes him different? 3
Romulox Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 “Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.” Who needs a carbon tax when you have the EPA. Looks like the energy generation market has plenty of incentive to go around.
dsayers Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 The byline to the article is "Bill Gates explains why the climate crisis will not be solved by the free market." The only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence. So let me get this right. Bill Gates thinks the world is too selfish to do anything in anyone else's interest, so he wants to grab the gun and force everyone to do what he wants? And this makes him different? Spot on! It's important to remember that when people speculate with generalities, they're projecting.
Very Ape Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Not intending to hijack the thread but to expand on the Bill Gates Vaccine scandal please read the following: “While fraud and corruption are revealed on almost a daily basis now in the vaccine industry, the U.S. mainstream media continues to largely ignore such stories. Outside the U.S., however, the vaccine empires are beginning to crumble, and English versions of the news in mainstream media outlets are available via the Internet. One such country is India, where the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and their vaccine empire are under fire, including a pending lawsuit currently being investigated by the India Supreme Court.” [1] Goes on... “BMGF, PATH and WHO were criminally negligent trialling the vaccines on a vulnerable, uneducated and under-informed population school administrators, students and their parents who were not provided informed consent or advised of potential adverse effects or required to be monitored post-vaccination.” [2] "The Economic Times India published their report August 2014. They stated that in 2009, tests had been carried out on 16,000 tribal school children in Andhra Pradesh, India, using the human papiloma virus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil. According to the report written by KP Narayana Kumar, within a month of receiving the vaccine, many of the children fell ill and by 2010, five of them had died. A further two children were reported to have died in Vadodara, Gujarat, where an estimated 14,000 tribal children were vaccinated with another brand of the HPV vaccine, Cervarix, manufactured by GlaxoSmitheKline (GSK). Shockingly, the report stated that many of the consent forms used to vaccinate the girls were signed “illegally,” either by the wardens from the hostels where many of the girls resided, or using thumbprints from illiterate parents." http://vactruth.com/2014/10/05/bill-gates-vaccine-crimes/ But, but...It was for the "Greater Good"...
regevdl Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 I wonder if those vaccine manufacturers use foreskins for research and production? Or else what is he invested in that makes circumcision propaganda in Africa of interest to him? Disgusting. And I wonder whether you have that backwards. He invests in vaccine producers, then uses the charity to lobby for a state mandate of those vaccines. I could have had that backwards. It was something I came across a few years ago an since then I just try to tune the guy out, so I wouldn't claim myself to be the most accurate in reporting about him. lol I had no idea he's even interested in circumcision in Africa...good lord...he is simply vile. The ultimate concern troll with a billion dollars to probe and inject and snip. There are very few prominant people in the world who give me the willies and he is one of them He has definitely turned to the 'dark side' if you ask me. 1
SamuelS Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 And there's the horrific story of what happened when Gates tried to eradicate polio in India. http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/110/1065 1
utopian Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 I think I have alluded to Mr. Gate's issue before in one of my own threads on here, but never in full detail. I think I understand what he might be getting at. So, right now I currently work with some NASA engineers on a fuel source that has the capability to replace oil in it's entirety. But there is a big fat problem; the existing automotive infrastructure relies on oil based technologies. Everyone has oil based cars, boats, planes, and everything else. If we bring out this new fuel source, no one can utilize it at least for, lets say a decade, because everyone would have to buy new car etc. The only answer (besides waiting for everyone to let their oil based technology degrade into uselessness) would be to let everyone trade in their oil based technologies for a new-fuel technology. But who wants to take all the old technologies that you won't be able to sell back? That's a loss of money. No one is going to do that. The private sector will instead continue to sell oil and oil based technologies until depletion, in pursuit of money. The only answer is for inventors of the new fuel source and technologies to socialize their products, forcing the entire oil based infrastructure into obsoletion and default. The world is already reeling from the blows of the recession, and is in no shape to go through such tectonic shifts in the world economy. I am out of time for today and have already spent more time here than I wanted, I will post more later, just food for thought for now.
dsayers Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 utopian, we have the sum of human history full of empirical evidence to the contrary. There was a time when if you wanted to make a phone call, you had to go to someplace that had a phone already, drop a quarter into a machine that could be found in many public place/street corners, or you could pay thousands of dollars for equipment and hundreds of dollars every month in access fees to be able to make that phone call with no wired geographical constraint. Would you say "Well I guess we have to force everybody to pay for this thing that's better"? Or would you say "If this is better, people will pay for it."? Creative destruction happens all the time as people choose for themselves what is better as technology advances. If it's what people want, you don't have to point a gun to their head. That's how you know if what you're seeing is rape or love making. I wonder how much of the exorbitant cost of the first cell phone technology was a direct result of State power being used to create artificial barriers and steal from a burgeoning technology. 1
AccuTron Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 A fair question of those two deaths out of many thousands, is what is the projected death rate w/o the vaccines? (I don't know.) The other items are concerning, such as faked signatures, etc. However, as to Gates...do you know how he got started with that abomination called Windows, by intimidation forced upon the world with endless blue screen crashes and huge amounts of wasted money? I can supply that briefly if anyone wishes, but for now, know that he's basically a mobster. That's how all those billions came into being in the first place. Maybe he's trying to quell his conscience as the first truly powerful cyber-bully. (Bullying workplaces into cyber/computer distress.)
Very Ape Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 A fair question of those two deaths out of many thousands, is what is the projected death rate w/o the vaccines? (I don't know.) The other items are concerning, such as faked signatures, etc. However, as to Gates...do you know how he got started with that abomination called Windows, by intimidation forced upon the world with endless blue screen crashes and huge amounts of wasted money? I can supply that briefly if anyone wishes, but for now, know that he's basically a mobster. That's how all those billions came into being in the first place. Maybe he's trying to quell his conscience as the first truly powerful cyber-bully. (Bullying workplaces into cyber/computer distress.) I read somewhere else that it wasn't just the two deaths - many of the girls had neurological damage, etc. I heard it was not the "standard" batch but rather a trial batch. Some kind of experiment gone wrong sort of thing but I don't want to go into details about that here. We'll have to let the Indian Government sort it out. PS - I have also heard that Mr. Gates would be arrested on the spot should he travel to India. Same with Dick Cheney and George W. Bush in Malaysia. We just don't hear about these stories here in the west.
Very Ape Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 .... The only answer is for inventors of the new fuel source and technologies to socialize their products, forcing the entire oil based infrastructure into obsoletion and default. The world is already reeling from the blows of the recession, and is in no shape to go through such tectonic shifts in the world economy. I am out of time for today and have already spent more time here than I wanted, I will post more later, just food for thought for now. It's interesting that you're basically saying you won't put your product to market out of fear of some sort of backlash. Fear of what specifically may I ask? Are you afraid the government might back the automotive industry and crush your enterprise if you did? Or is it that you would be personally sad to put all those people out of work? Or it is that you are afraid no one can build a car around your new fuel source in which case its not a valid fuel source to begin with? Surely there are some private investors who could prototype it no? Not even Tesla? You can't just dangle it out there but then retract it and say no one is ready just so you can get your startup costs paid for by Uncle Sam... In the first case your argument is invalid for obvious reasons. In the second case you are making an emotional appeal which should not prevent others from taking your product to market. In the third case you are just being short sighted. I don't see any justification for your argument for socializing the cost of investment.
Crallask Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I think I have alluded to Mr. Gate's issue before in one of my own threads on here, but never in full detail. I think I understand what he might be getting at. So, right now I currently work with some NASA engineers on a fuel source that has the capability to replace oil in it's entirety. But there is a big fat problem; the existing automotive infrastructure relies on oil based technologies. Everyone has oil based cars, boats, planes, and everything else. If we bring out this new fuel source, no one can utilize it at least for, lets say a decade, because everyone would have to buy new car etc. The only answer (besides waiting for everyone to let their oil based technology degrade into uselessness) would be to let everyone trade in their oil based technologies for a new-fuel technology. But who wants to take all the old technologies that you won't be able to sell back? That's a loss of money. No one is going to do that. The private sector will instead continue to sell oil and oil based technologies until depletion, in pursuit of money. The only answer is for inventors of the new fuel source and technologies to socialize their products, forcing the entire oil based infrastructure into obsoletion and default. The world is already reeling from the blows of the recession, and is in no shape to go through such tectonic shifts in the world economy. I am out of time for today and have already spent more time here than I wanted, I will post more later, just food for thought for now. Make it cheap, efficient, and scalable and people will want to buy it. Hell, people want Tesla cars despite their drawbacks, it's just that they cost too much for average consumers atm.
regevdl Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 And there's the horrific story of what happened when Gates tried to eradicate polio in India. http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/110/1065 What an interesting article. I am not sure if it's just too early in the a.m. for me but I am not sure I understood it all. To put it simply, they created a a synthetic polio virus which isn't something newly created rather a rearranged atom formation of the actual virus? I got a little lost of the technical speak but sort of get the 'punchline'. Also, is NPAFP contracted from the vaccine (as some flu vaccines can actually give you the flu or a worse version of it)? That is often the case with many vaccines. some people get the disease they are being vaccinated from but it comes down much harder on them than had they caught it 'naturally'. Is my understanding correct?
utopian Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Ugh... this seems to be needing to turn into the essay I was hoping to avoid writing. Dsayers, we do indeed have quite a lot of history to speak against socialism, that is valid, and that I even agree with. However, something has changed in the last century that we have no real historical experience from which to draw upon. That change is technology; a robotic workforce. I agree, it is wrong to socialize a living humans productivity. But we never had the technological capabilities that we have today. In fact, I would argue that the large majority of people don't even know the kinds of technologies we have to day, and how they can upset the economy. Human productivity has become obsolete, and it has become obsolete so quickly, most people have yet to grasp the concept, let alone know it exists. This is a large part of what I am sure Bill Gates sees. And he is not the only one. Check out this article about Stephen Hawking, who also says we need a new economic system; http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-says-we-should-be-more-frightened-of-capitalism-than-robots/? Think about this for a second. Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates are probably a couple of the most intelligent people in the world. What is going on, that they would be saying such things? I am telling you, there are tectonic shifts going on in the world economy, and the world is not ready for it. If something does not change fast, we are going to suffer consequences greater than those of the recession. And don't get me wrong, there is still a lot of things I disagree with from Bill like a carbon tax. I want to be free just as much as the next guy. But we are not living in a world where the common man can make it any more. We are living in the intelligent's world that they have created for us, and they have shaped our world so well that they have made us obsolete. Fear of what specifically may I ask? Are you afraid the government might back the automotive industry and crush your enterprise if you did? Or is it that you would be personally sad to put all those people out of work? Or it is that you are afraid no one can build a car around your new fuel source in which case its not a valid fuel source to begin with? Yes, and yes, and no. But also, as I seem to recognize in dsayers comment, one of the major problems is that humanity is not ready to face the philosophical nightmare it is facing in the wake of technological advancement. Indeed, the bankers are in a race to bring the entire world under their credit system before they themselves, their establishment of power, becomes obsolete in technology's wake. I wrote of this (incompletely) in my thread in my signature. You can't just dangle it out there but then retract it and say no one is ready just so you can get your startup costs paid for by Uncle Sam... Oh no, Uncle Sam would be much more likely to kill me to shut me up. Consider the case of Steven Meyer and his hydrogen powered car; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell Now wiki of course says it didnt work, but it did. There are videos which show it working. The rhetoric and records have been manipulated. But if one needs more proof, he need not look further than the modern hydrogen powered bike; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11904005/French-unveil-world-first-hydrogen-powered-electric-bike-emitting-only-pure-water.html The state's power in the world foundationally rests upon the idea that oil technologies run the world and that oil has a monopoly on energy. The state cannot have alternatives threatening it's power foundation. I don't see any justification for your argument for socializing the cost of investment. Agreed, that my post here is incomplete.To encompass the idea fully, I would have to write another post as long if not longer than the one in my signature. Have you looked at that monster? Do you know how long I was researching and writing that? I mean I will write it if you really want but for god's sake, gimme some time, I have a life to live. Consider what I have linked here so far, and see if you can ask questions that have short answers.
regevdl Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 I read somewhere else that it wasn't just the two deaths - many of the girls had neurological damage, etc. I heard it was not the "standard" batch but rather a trial batch. Some kind of experiment gone wrong sort of thing but I don't want to go into details about that here. We'll have to let the Indian Government sort it out. PS - I have also heard that Mr. Gates would be arrested on the spot should he travel to India. Same with Dick Cheney and George W. Bush in Malaysia. We just don't hear about these stories here in the west. Malaysia will arrest Bush/Cheney (possibly Indian too but I know for sure Malaysia.) Their Supreme Court founded Bush/Cheney guilty of war crimes. I used to share this information with people and the reaction was....ahh...who cares...it's only Malaysia. So people are in a serious mode of cognitive dissonance in that even if they truly believe the Iraq war was just and legal and such, then that means, they felt that country or any country deserves the same standard as us and the people have equal rights as us. But then when evidence rails against the purpose of the war, all of a sudden the other countries in the world are just 'play pretend' countries and only our country and courts matter and anyone's opinion or judgment based on evidence of our country (leaders) is irrelevant..only the judgment of our courts against our leaders. It's really sad to see people in this state of mind. I wonder if their arguments would have worked during the Nazi period. Ahhh...it's only Canada who sees Nazis guilty of war crime...who cares. it's maddening.
regevdl Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Make it cheap, efficient, and scalable and people will want to buy it. Hell, people want Tesla cars despite their drawbacks, it's just that they cost too much for average consumers atm. I've been looking into Tesla Power Walls. I think they will only pay off in new-builds and in certain environments (very sunny most of the year) rather than revamping an already constructed home. For anyone doing a new build the power walls aren't that expensive considering. But I think Americans get too caught up in the auto sector of environment conservation and you are right...many times the production makes up for the savings of carbon foot print or...sadly, exceeds the carbon footprint. We are a nation proud of our cars and making a statement but we use so much electricity 24 hours a day...more running hours than our cars. I used to live in AZ and it drove me crazy that you barely saw a single solar panel. What a wasted opportunity! The Tesla Power wall stores the energy so it isn't lost in the evening or during cold weather, etc. That's the added benefit.
dsayers Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 utopian, I'm not one for minutia. The initiation of the use of force is immoral. Behaviors that are not binding upon others are preferences. Behaviors that are binding upon others but with their consent is none of my concern. I just wanted to be clear about that since your response seemed to miss that. Which could by my fault for not staying as focused as I'd like. Dsayers, we do indeed have quite a lot of history to speak against socialism, that is valid, and that I even agree with. However, something has changed in the last century that we have no real historical experience from which to draw upon. That change is technology; a robotic workforce. This does not fundamentally change the fact that using one's property to deny others the use of their property is internally inconsistent. I would argue that the large majority of people don't even know the kinds of technologies we have to day, and how they can upset the economy. I don't know what upset the economy means. Though I think I've made the point that creative destruction is a normal part of progress. A minority who deal with the obsolete technology loses out, humanity wins. It's nobody's fault and it cannot be controlled. I tried to make the point that we've survived technological paradigm shifts in the past. If the advent of Blu-ray players would cause society to fall apart, then either we wouldn't adopt it or we'd gradually work towards it. Check out this article about Stephen Hawking, who also says we need a new economic system; http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-says-we-should-be-more-frightened-of-capitalism-than-robots/? Think about this for a second. Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates are probably a couple of the most intelligent people in the world. What is going on, that they would be saying such things? This is an appeal to authority. 2+2=4 is true because it's objectively reproducible, not because Einstein wrote it down one time. People who use the phrase "economic system" are disposing of consent. If people are free to trade what they want with whomever they want whenever they want for whatever reason they want, this isn't exactly a system, thought it would be relatively "new" in that economies have been taken over by the State throughout the world. In a free market, the economy is self-correcting because it is subject to the market forces of competition and consequence. So if it were true that the economy is so rigid it couldn't adapt, the State would be the reason, not the solution. 1
AccuTron Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 PS - I have also heard that Mr. Gates would be arrested on the spot should he travel to India. Same with Dick Cheney and George W. Bush in Malaysia. We just don't hear about these stories here in the west. You've got my curiosity. Do you have links? I'll clip this paragraph and check it out later on my own. ------------------------ One glaring thing, about all claims that Big Oil is stifling alternative technologies: The energy industry has giant amounts of capital and talent. If something were viable, they'd invest in it. If it competed, so what? -- they eat from both pieces of the pie. Even better, one becomes perhaps a hedge against variations in the other.
SamuelS Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 What an interesting article. I am not sure if it's just too early in the a.m. for me but I am not sure I understood it all. To put it simply, they created a a synthetic polio virus which isn't something newly created rather a rearranged atom formation of the actual virus? I got a little lost of the technical speak but sort of get the 'punchline'. Also, is NPAFP contracted from the vaccine (as some flu vaccines can actually give you the flu or a worse version of it)? That is often the case with many vaccines. some people get the disease they are being vaccinated from but it comes down much harder on them than had they caught it 'naturally'. Is my understanding correct? I think the article has three main takeaways -- firstly that polio will never be eradicated because any mad scientist worth his salt can whip it up in a lab, secondly that the vaccine used in that program was more harmful than polio itself, and third that even if the vaccine was fine a paltry $5mil donation from Gates got India to waste a billion on a program that was wasteful and shouldn't have been a priority. In a nutshell, polio wasn't a priority for India (and arguably should not have been) until Gates came along w a vaccine that is worse than that which it seeks to cure.
utopian Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 The initiation of the use of force is immoral. Behaviors that are not binding upon others are preferences. Agreed. Unfortunately, in today's practical world, the state that we have been born into has left us with no other choice but to initiate the use of force, consciously or unconsciously, or suffer and/or perish. As you are still alive and have access to resources which allow you on the internet, I am willing to assume you have participated in such initiation of force in one way or another. So do I. So does Stephan, because he knows like I do that if we do not participate, men with guns will show up to our door. Though we strive for our ideals, we still have to confront the issue of the problems our modern world creates for us. I argue, that may mean socialism. This does not fundamentally change the fact that using one's property to deny others the use of their property is internally inconsistent. Agreed, and if I could choose to have a job where I could support myself, I would. But the state keeps me down with the rest of us, and the intelligents keep making my jobs obsolete. Do you expect me to roll over and die? Do you expect everyone else who cant make it in this modern economy to do the same? Would you do so yourself? I don't know what upset the economy means. Though I think I've made the point that creative destruction is a normal part of progress. A minority who deal with the obsolete technology loses out, humanity wins. It's nobody's fault and it cannot be controlled. I tried to make the point that we've survived technological paradigm shifts in the past. If the advent of Blu-ray players would cause society to fall apart, then either we wouldn't adopt it or we'd gradually work towards it. It means, in short, being expected to pay your debts while not having a job because technology has eliminated most of them, except the ones you need to go to college for, in which case you have to go further into debt. I don't have a problem with any of this, but I was lucky to get inheritance and such. I can survive creative destruction. The common man cannot, in this current state run climate. Yes, the state is the source of many of our problems and it would be ideal to operate without it. Do please call me when anarchy and.or libertarianism has figured it all out. In the mean time, I am going to listen to Bill and Steve and consider why they are saying what they are saying. 1
RCali Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 Utopian, it goes back to the simple question: do you expect so little of mankind, that unless we are coerced and forced to do something by ugly, evil doers we will just wither away, hungry and scared and die?
dsayers Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 I can survive creative destruction. The common man cannot, in this current state run climate. How do you know? I owned a record player as a child. Records died, cassettes died, CDs died. This is just within my lifetime. More people listening to music than ever before, paying for it as much as before, without having to burn fuel to travel to the record store, pay for their rent and employees, etc. What part of this process threatened my survival? We're all better off for it, which is why we chose that way without anybody pointing a gun to our head to make us do so. I've noticed that "have to point guns at people's heads" types never address the infinite regression in that proposition. Namely, if people are so unmotivated you can only force them to do things, who forces the forcers? Who points guns at their heads to make them get guns to point at other people's heads? And so on. Agreed. Unfortunately, in today's practical world, the state that we have been born into has left us with no other choice but to initiate the use of force, consciously or unconsciously, or suffer and/or perish. I drive a car, so I can name a dozen ways in that process alone in which the State steals from me. That money is used in part to initiate the use of force against others. This is not me initiating the use of force against others. What you're doing here is trying to normalize YOUR willingness to dispense with consent by making it sound like it's unavoidable and something everybody does. As such, we have nothing further to discuss. I will not give of myself to somebody who understands that violence is immoral, but is okay with it anyways. 1
Very Ape Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 You've got my curiosity. Do you have links? I'll clip this paragraph and check it out later on my own. ------------------------ One glaring thing, about all claims that Big Oil is stifling alternative technologies: The energy industry has giant amounts of capital and talent. If something were viable, they'd invest in it. If it competed, so what? -- they eat from both pieces of the pie. Even better, one becomes perhaps a hedge against variations in the other. The Gates Foundation and WHO Labeled Unethical by Medical Experts In 2012, Ramesh Shankar Mumbai, an author writing for the Pharmabiz website, reported that two medical experts from India had accused the Gates Foundation and WHO of being unethical. In his report, Mumbai stated that Dr. Neetu Vashisht and Dr. Jacob Puliyel of the Department of Pediatrics at St. Stephens Hospital in Delhi, wrote the following information in their report in the April issue of Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. It was unethical for WHO and Bill Gates to flog this program when they knew 10 years back that it was never to succeed. Getting poor countries to expend their scarce resources on an impossible dream over the last 10 years was unethical. Pharmabiz.com reported that Dr. Vashisht and Dr. Puliyel had continued their report by stating: Another major ethical issue raised by the campaign is the failure to thoroughly investigate the increase in the incidence of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) in areas where many doses of vaccine were used. NPAFP is clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly. Pharmabiz.com continued: The authors noted that while India was polio-free in 2011, in the same year, there were 47500 cases of NPAFP. While data from India’s National Polio Surveillance Project showed NPAFP rate increased in proportion to the number of polio vaccine doses received, independent studies showed that children identified with NPAFP ‘were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection.’ [8] The corruption and deceit by these organizations does not stop there. The Gates Foundation Blamed for 10,000 Vaccine-Related Deaths In 2013, yet another report named the Gates Foundation and GAVI as being responsible for multiple deaths using untested vaccinations on children from the developing world. The report, published on the website Occupy Corporatism and written by Susanne Posel stated: It was found out through an investigation, that GAVI was using an untested vaccine; giving this dangerous vaccine to Pakistani children shows the lack of empathy associated with these organizations. GAVI was blamed for the deaths of 10,000 children in Pakistan when they came in and administered polio vaccines that resulted in casualties. [9] As we know, GAVI is heavily funded by the Gates Foundation. [10] So, what was the name of the organization that investigated GAVI and found them using untested polio vaccinations in Pakistan? According to the Express Tribune article, which I referred to earlier in this article, it was none other than the Indian government, who, upon discovering the shocking truth, recommended the immediate suspension of the administration of all types of vaccines funded by GAVI. [7] In a recent radio show hosted by Sallie O. Elkordy, Susanne Posel gave her frank and honest views on the whole sorry mess that we find ourselves in today. Warning: This report is not for the faint-hearted. [11] http://www.activistpost.com/2014/10/india-holds-bill-gates-accountable-for.html
Very Ape Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 You've got my curiosity. Do you have links? I'll clip this paragraph and check it out later on my own. ------------------------ One glaring thing, about all claims that Big Oil is stifling alternative technologies: The energy industry has giant amounts of capital and talent. If something were viable, they'd invest in it. If it competed, so what? -- they eat from both pieces of the pie. Even better, one becomes perhaps a hedge against variations in the other. " Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia by Yvonne Ridley May 12, 2012 428 Comments Kuala Lumpur — It’s official; George W Bush is a war criminal. In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia. The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is also asking that the names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Haynes be entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals for public record. The tribunal is the initiative of Malaysia’s retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. He sat through the entire hearing as it took personal statements and testimonies of three witnesses namely Abbas Abid, Moazzam Begg and Jameelah Hameedi. The tribunal also heard two other Statutory Declarations of Iraqi citizen Ali Shalal and Rahul Ahmed, another British citizen. After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, Mahathir Mohamad said: “Powerful countries are getting away with murder.” War crimes expert and lawyer Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in America, was part of the prosecution team. After the case he said: “This is the first conviction of these people anywhere in the world.” While the hearing is regarded by some as being purely symbolic, human rights activist Boyle said he was hopeful that Bush and Co could soon find themselves facing similar trials elsewhere in the world." http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/12/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-absentia/
utopian Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 Utopian, it goes back to the simple question: do you expect so little of mankind, that unless we are coerced and forced to do something by ugly, evil doers we will just wither away, hungry and scared and die? Yes, I expect very little from the majority of mankind. Intelligence is on a bell grade curve. To say otherwise is to suggest everyone is at the same intelligence level. I have been attempting to simplify the evils of things like the Federal Reserve for the common man to consider for a good long while. It is beyond most people's comprehension. Indeed, most people cannot comprehend anything beyond "America, fuck yea". The majority of people will never consider any other rhetoric in the first place, much less listen to what makes these problems valid. But also, I remember what it was like in the recession we had just a couple few years ago. People did indeed wither away, hungry, scared and dying. If they were allowed to just go out in the wilderness and farm for themselves, they might have been able to make it. Unfortunately, they are bound by the oppressions of the state, and they are not figuring out how to survive its current. Further more, this is not the first time this has happened. History is abundant with examples of bankers squeezing the economy until mankind withers and dies. It's been happening long since before Thomas Jefferson spoke about it in the quote in my sig. The majority has never figured it out throughout history. How do you know? Because besides the fact that the US just went through a recession that saw people all over the streets, I have studied the specific history of bankers, and it is full of examples of times they have used the state to squeeze the economy to smother the people. A lot of it I wrote about in the article in my sig. Hell, I could do it myself, if I was a banker. I've noticed that "have to point guns at people's heads" types never address the infinite regression in that proposition. Namely, if people are so unmotivated you can only force them to do things, who forces the forcers? Who points guns at their heads to make them get guns to point at other people's heads? And so on. And I notice, that you deliberately avoided answering my question about whether or not you would choose death in the face of survival or moral achievement. I think, perhaps, the truth about what you would do is too hard for you to swallow. You pursue the non aggression principle naively. I know the truth about myself, and that is, when faced with the choice, I chose to survive, and survive well. And because I chose such, men asked to serve me, and women wanted to give themselves to me. I am willing to bet that if you yourself were faced with the choice, you would choose survival too. The alternative would be to take your philosophical pursuit with you to the grave, where it might die forever. I still survive to support the idea that we should all do our best not to agress. Now as for your comment, I have never exactly had to point a gun at anyone, figuratively or literally speaking. I learned from bankers in history that people seem all but willing to give themselves to you, for a considerably cheap price. It's why the state has so many people who volunteer to support it, and why they have such a power base to do what they do. I think my favorite chapter in "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is the one titled "The Great Duck Dinner". But I do have an answer for your question, and its implications. The people who force the forcers, are the forcers themselves. Because the guy at the top, the number 1, always knows there is a number 2 just waiting to overcome him. Therefore he has to always do everything in his power to stay on top, because if he does not, one day that number 2 will become the new number 1... and he might not be so nice. As for your implication about socialism, it need not be forced. Once the common man sees how easy life can be in their socialized life, they will willingly give themselves to it. The alternative will be to find work to support themselves in an environment where there is none to find. I drive a car, so I can name a dozen ways in that process alone in which the State steals from me. That money is used in part to initiate the use of force against others. This is not me initiating the use of force against others. Sure it is, you could choose to not drive. As I theorized earlier, you choose to survive.
Recommended Posts