YusefJuly 18, 2020 at 12:10 PM I'm going to take a stab at explaining what's going on from a more "structural" perspective. I want to steer clear of the more lurid conspiracy theory aspects of my understanding to this point. I will explain why. The first structural feature: the concentration of worldwide wealth, first to a small number of nation states; then, within those nation states to a remarkably small number of individuals. The second structural feature: globalization as a fait accompli. It is a done deal now and the global economy and political organization is the reality. Most of what we grew up believing about the economy and political organization (the nation state, democracy, totalitarianism, or communism-- you name it-- it is all obsolete.) About the first structural feature: concentration of wealth. What I want to call attention to is a phenomena we can all agree on: the emergence of a single man named Bill Gates as a world leader of epic power and sway. When I say we can all agree on it, I mean no one doubts Gates is one of the most wealthy and powerful people in the world. (Some people claim he is the second most wealthy--it wouldn't surprise me.) It is not controversial he is heavily invested in vaccines: vaccine research and development, production, and dissemination. This investment is both through his charitable foundation, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and in for-profit private companies. (I recall several years ago reading he'd invested 11 billion in a for-profit private company. He likely has increased this. I need to check to see if I can find out where he's at now.) It is not controversial this one man, Bill Gates, contributes more to the funding of the World Health Organization,(WHO) than all but one of the 193 nation-state members. As an aside, note the confluence of structural element number one and number two in this truly extraordinary state of affairs: One man contributing more than all of those nation-states to an organization which is an outgrowth of the United Nations, a signal or earlier attempt (failed) toward a global governance. |
Almost 120 years ago, Cecil Rhodes, with the backing of Lord Rothschild and other bankers, created a secret society with the goal of bringing the entire world under British rule. The society still exists and is known by its public face as the British Institute for International Affairs, or Chatham House, and its American spin-off, the Council on Foreign Relations. Rhodes' project, backed as it was by Lord Rothschild and other bankers, thus set the world on course for control by what Carrol Quigley referred to, in his magnum opus, Tragedy and Hope, as the Money Power.
Writing in the 1960's, Quigley assumed that, as at the founding of Rhodes' Secret Society, banks would remain central to the Money Power. However, as the Canadian economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, realized, by the 1960s corporations were increasingly able to control competition and hence fix prices and were thus able to accumulate capital sufficient to their investment needs without resort to the banks. Thus, the Money Power came increasingly to be dominated by corporate managers who pursued globalization for the sole purpose of profit maximization.
The vast importance of corporations in the process of globalization became evident following the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to which 128 countries were a party. Under that agreement, great corporations based in Europe, America and Japan were free to move capital and technology to where labor was cheapest, environmental and workplace safety regulations were least onerous, while shipping goods to where prices were highest, and taking profits where taxes were lowest.
Since 1994, however, there has been a further evolution of the Money Power, as vast personal fortunes have been accumulated by entrepreneurs such as Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and dozens of others. What we are seeing now, as you show in the case of Bill Gates and global health policy, is that the globalization project is taking on a more idiosyncratic course as individual plutocrats are able to impose their personal judgment on how the future of the world should unfold.
Second:
YusefJuly 18, 2020 at 12:11 PM Now we have this one man, Bill Gates, exercising influence and power. The exact nature of the way Gates is exercising influence and power IS CONTROVERSIAL. I don't deny it. What needs to be remembered, though, is something which wasn't controversial very long ago in the US, Canada, Britain or any other western democracy: systems of checks and balances and other forms of restraint on ALL exercises of public power and influence. I have to wonder how hard it would be to get people to see, in the case of Bill Gates and this pandemic, we do not have such systems in effect. We don't need the idea of Bill Gates as a psychopathic madman conspiring to depopulate the planet and make himself a trillion dollars richer by manipulating a crisis. All we actually need is recognition he is no longer "one man throwing his two cents into the pot, along with everyone else's two cents." We don't have a war of, or marketplace, of words and ideas duking it out on a level playing field so that in the long run the better ones win. We have one guy, who may very well have the best intentions, pulling strings here and there in the way he thinks is best-- but without any contest of ideas-- not likely the best FOR EVERYONE or, failing that, FOR THE GREATER GOOD. He can't! He has his narrow perspective, his personal experiences, his unconscious desires and drives, his imperfections, limitations, defects of character, intelligence, and personality-- just like all us slobs. (Here and there he may have some quality to recommend him so what, but I alone know at least a dozen smarter and better men.) There are corollaries to this. Gates is not where he is due to his merits. (Not really.) The people beneath him aren't necessarily there due to their merits, either. Gates has business skills, I would say, probably some very rusty computer skills, and he has less knowledge of biology and medicine, I think, than you or I. He is to some degree or other unable to evaluate who is best and what is best. (This is true for so many of our "leaders". They are so out of their depth it is painful. I even felt sorry for Trump. He just plain doesn't know what's going on and he's too old and too stressed to learn.) Gates is going to feel comfortable working with some people, not others, and will, as we all may tend to do, think those are the best. He is going to have, as many wealthy and powerful people do, a bias in favor of those who obtain access to him personally. These people are also not necessarily the best and may be among the worst. They may very well have access because they are powerful enough, or corrupt enough, to get it. I have to stop here. Hopefully you can see where I am going. Every time I have seen a goof-- and there have been so many-- (the 20% hospitalization rate for those infected is an example; so are Neil Ferguson's modeling results), I have been angered and seen it all as a hoax (and conspiracy.) There is plenty of evidence of hoax, conspiracy, gross negligence, and corruption, but what I am thinking now is it has more to do with our global abandonment OF WHAT WORKED WELL ENOUGH for what we all knew had to be avoided and guarded against. |
Unfortunately, there seems no obvious way back. Money has always had political influence, and with so much money held by so few, the influence of egocentric, idiosyncratic, or truly insane individuals seems certain to grow.
But Bill Gates`s strange, not to say Strangeloveian manner and impulses, gives warning to the world, so none can claim ignorance of what may lie ahead.
But what to do?
What do others think?
Meantime:
Related
Tom Chivers: Why Covid will become the new common cold
National Post: Does humanity have an unseen ally against COVID?
I express deepest gratitude to you for commenting on my comments.
ReplyDeleteI thought you might want to check this out:
July 14, 2020
The Pandemic Could Get Much, Much Worse. We Must Act Now.
A comprehensive shutdown may be required in much of the country.
“To understand just how bad things are in the United States and, more important, what can be done about it requires comparison. At this writing, Italy, once the poster child of coronavirus devastation and with a population twice that of Texas, has recently averaged about 200 new cases a day when Texas has had over 9,000. Germany, with a population four times that of Florida, has had fewer than 400 new cases a day. On Sunday, Florida reported over 15,300, the highest single-day total of any state.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/opinion/coronavirus-shutdown.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
By John M. Barry
Mr. Barry is the author of “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History.”
The information about the increasing number of cases (infections) is confirmed by CDC data, but what interested me was that this increasing number of cases has been accompanied by a decreasing number of fatalities, and, apparently, morbidity.
How that could be I have been trying to figure out. I went through the CDC data fairly carefully and could find nothing which would rule out the possibility the increasing number of infections was due to the increasing number of tests administered. That doesn't mean evidence isn't there; it means if it is there it is not easily found by one man working alone in his spare time.
There is a major difference in how the situation is depicted if one cites new infections per day versus mortality and morbidity rates per day. Especially if one does not carefully and specifically rule out all the other potential factors for an increasing new infection count. You don't see any such sophistication in the NYT, America's journal of record (America's Pravda).
Anyway, there were, I noticed, 1688 comments accompanying the article. I went through the readers' picks and got a wake up call as to how "fringe" what I think is, at least compared to NYT readers.
I had gone to the NYT because I was looking for its coverage of the spike I told you about the other day. I figured if it was being covered anywhere, it would be in the NYT, because the NYT seems more devoted to inducing panic and hysteria than any other major newspaper I know of. Yet there was no such coverage. (Again, if it is there, it is not page one or easily accessible.) My YouTube home page, where there were at least four recommended videos of the spike the other day, also mentioned nothing. That you may have been correct about the media hyping (with falsehoods, too) anything and everything to keep America in lock down, leaves me speechless.
John Barry is an author and historian, not a scientist, a doctor, virologist, or epidemiologist. The damned comparison to the influenza pandemic of 1918, in which Barry has such an active role, is a big part of the hysteria campaign and has been from the beginning...To right now, mid-July 2020. (There's not the slightest awareness of this either at the NYT...)
Yes, the rise in reported cases while reported deaths decline is an important development. As Professor Carl Heneghan explains in the article from the Spectator that I have posted above, one factor must be the increased use of tests with a false positive rate that is high relative to the true-positive rate.
ReplyDeleteBut there are other possibilities:
(1) Those most at risk of death having now been identified (i.e., the aged and those with certain pre-existing conditions) are now better protected, or taking greater precaution;
(2) The relatively invulnerable, i.e., healthy young people, are becoming more careless both because they have learned of their relative invulnerability and because this is the time to go to the beach, to barbeque and just generally to be together with friends;
(3) There may be exaggeration of infection numbers in the US to discredit the US government's Covid response in the run up to the Presidential election;
(4) Or there could be, so it has been postulated, a second corona virus that is spreading faster than Covid19 and creating false positives on serological tests for Covid19, while providing some immunity from subsequent infection by Covid19 (see National Post article);
(5) In addition, intensive care of the seriously ill Covid patients has likely improved through the use of more effective drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, thereby cutting the death rate.
The clip showing Bill Gates is looking for indemnification is blood chilling.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a lie for me to say I have done business with the guy.
Many times over many years. He does not care about the quality of the product he churns out.
It is true Mr. Gates knows how to "turn a buck." What I have never been able to understand is how he gets away with it. If I could get away with it the Mr. Gates does, I too could "turn a buck."
One example I can give: the infamous Windows 3.0 farce. Windows 3.0 was a defective piece of shit I at the time felt compelled to buy, believing I had to "keep up."
I'd started having my doubts about why I always needed the latest model of the stuff Microsoft was churning out. I noticed the latest model rarely gave me added use value while requiring additional hardware RAM and so on to function.
Then this Windows 3.0 fiasco.
That was handled by Microsoft in a very short time issuing Windows 3.1 to replace the original Windows 3.0.
In effect, Bill Gates was not only not punished for selling a defective product, he was rewarded. He didn't have to do a recall or reimbursement-- he got to sell the patch. He "turned a buck."
I don't get to do that. Even the suggestion/accusation my product is defective costs me significantly.
It might be argued defective software doesn't require recall or reimbursement the way say a defective automobile would because defective software doesn't pose the same kind of health and safety risks defective autos pose. I'm not quite sure I agree.
A defective vaccine will pose all kinds of health and safety risks.
The track record of this man-- and his track record is a matter of public record-- is he doesn't care about selling a defective product if he can sell it and get away with it. And then continue to get away with it as long as he wants.
One example I can give: the infamous Windows 3.0 farce. Windows 3.0 was a defective piece of shit I at the time felt compelled to buy, believing I had to "keep up."
DeleteLOL. My experience, exactly. Updating with each new version of Windows in the hope it would, at last, do something useful.
Up to Version 3.0, it should have been called Window, singular, not Windows. Attempting to run programs in separate windows simultaneously just didn't work. Yet we found a cheap DOS-program, that would run half a dozen simultaneous sessions of an electronic bulletin board without a hitch.
Windows 3.1 did, as you say, work -- sort of, although we had to wait for several additional versions before we had one that would support a typesetting and page layout program of the kind that had been running on the Mac for years.
No doubt the frustration with Microsoft's crappy software explains, in large part, the suspicion and even loathing with which Gates, as a vaccine developer, is regarded. But the grating voice and weird hand gestures don't help.