Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: Jolly2 on 18/02/2021 14:40:02
-
Apparently Bil Gates has now become the biggest owner of farm land world wide.
He has also taken complete control over the entire planets seeds
Surely there are anti trust laws that prevent this kind of behaviour?
According to some in 18 countries where gates has complete control over the food chain, starvation has been increasing.
How can mankind be saved from this tyranny?
Gates and a plan to starve everyone?
https://climate.news/2019-08-26-bill-gates-depopulation-scheme-pollute-the-skies-starve-everybody.html
-
He has also taken complete control over the entire planets seeds
Why would anyone actually believe that?
-
He has also taken complete control over the entire planets seeds
Why would anyone actually believe that?
It's a claim made by Doctor Vandana Shiva in the news report.
Dr Shiva is a climate Activist who has worked in the area of seed control and protection for decades.
Who cares what you believe, as usual you're trolling.
-
"For a man obsessed with monopoly control, the opportunity to also dominate food production must seem irresistible."
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bill-gates-neo-feudalism-farmer-bill/
Surely there is anti trust legislation that could prevent this?
The entire world food supply in the hands of one man is utter lunacy
-
https://dianeravitch.net/2021/01/04/the-gates-foundations-not-green-revolution-in-africa/
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation promised Africa a “Green Revolution” to fight hunger and poverty. It hasn’t worked — but it has upped corporate agriculture’s profits. Local farmers are being left empty-handed, and hunger is rising.
...But fourteen years after AGRA was founded, it’s safe to say that the initiative has failed to meet its goals. Rather than combat hunger and poverty, hunger has actually increased by 30 percent in the AGRA focus countries — meaning that thirty million more people are suffering from it than when AGRA started.
.......
I think it's fair to suggest that Bill Gates is a bare faced liar, who claims to be involved in charity and philanthropy, yet has managed to double his wealth by doing so, so he isnt actually interested in charity or helping people, these ventures are clearly just investments or procurement activities with a charitable camouflage.
And also under the lie of solving world food shortages he is buying up land and increasing world hunger.
The guys a menace.
-
must seem
is not evidence of anything.
Hunger will continue to increase wherever the population increases and rainfall does not.
-
Gates and a plan to starve everyone?
https://climate.news/2019-08-26-bill-gates-depopulation-scheme-pollute-the-skies-starve-everybody.html
That link contains no evidence to support such a crazy claim.
-
It's a claim
Which is obviously false.
Bill gates is not in charge of the seeds currently in my garden, is he?
Who cares what you believe, as usual you're trolling.
The one posting obvious nonsense is the troll.
The entire world food supply in the hands of one man is utter lunacy
True.
So why do you believe in it?
Are you an utter lunatic?
-
I think it's fair to suggest that Bill Gates is a bare faced liar
It's only fair if you can offer evidence.
-
The problem is that people like Jolly keep using Microsoft products and feeding Gates' greed. Jolly is clearly in league with the Devil.
-
Everyone is happy to respond to something bat sh1t crazy. It's easy to laugh at the naked man wearing sandals.
-
Nice to see you are all eger for some gates funding.
-
must seem
is not evidence of anything.
Hunger will continue to increase wherever the population increases and rainfall does not.
Well theres a distraction, that misses the point. The AGRA initiative was proclaimed as a solution to food shortages and as an answer to the hunger Africa had faced.
But after 14 years they had managed to reduced food production in all countries the program was active, replaced the food grown with less nutritious crops and increase hunger by 30%. That's pre-covid19.
So your suggestion they should just have less babies really misses the point completely, and is utterly disgusting actually.
As stated by someone if you want to know what a system is designed for, rather then looking at why people tell you it exists, you can actually look at what it achieves and take that as it's real reason for existing.
And looking at AGRA under that context, well appears it's meant to reduce food production, increase hunger and starvation, and provide less nutritious food for Africans.
-
It's a claim
Which is obviously false.
Bill gates is not in charge of the seeds currently in my garden, is he?
Do you ever stop trolling? Seeds in your garden are not the issue, gates has taken control of all seeds involved in Farming.
Who cares what you believe, as usual you're trolling.
The one posting obvious nonsense is the troll.
The entire world food supply in the hands of one man is utter lunacy
True.
So why do you believe in it?
Are you an utter lunatic?
It's clearly Gates' agenda.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielshapiro/2021/01/14/americas-biggest-owner-of-farmland-is-now-bill-gates-bezos-turner/
That Article is over a month old and he has since bought a Ton more.
-
The problem is that people like Jolly keep using Microsoft products and feeding Gates' greed. Jolly is clearly in league with the Devil.
A FEW YEARS LATER
"The Problem with people like this guy is they keep eating food and just funding Gates greed"
I generally avoid Microsoft.
-
Did you see the Green RT in the corner of the screen?
- That is a Russian government-controlled TV channel.
- That might ake you somewhat suspicious of their motives when talking about Americans and Africa.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network))
I have seen a few of the projects launched by the Gates Foundation, and I have generally found them to be well-intentioned (but not always successful)
- They plowed hundreds of millions of dollars into eradication of polio, only to see it hijacked and sabotaged by the CIA.
- They funded tens of millions into agile mRNA vaccines for neglected tropical diseases - this one came through with flying colors in the past year, producing the first two published clinical trials & approved vaccines against COVID-19 (ironically, it will be more useful in advanced countries than poor tropical countries)
- Funding research into proliferation-resistant Thorium power reactors
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Funds_for_grants_in_developing_countries
-
Nice to see you are all eger for some gates funding.
...why would Bill Gates fund me?
-
Nice to see you are all eger for some gates funding.
My computer runs Windows.
I am funding Mr Gates.
-
gates has taken control of all seeds involved in Farming.
No, he hasn't.
The seeds in the farm are not under his control- just like the seeds in my garden.
And, in any event, the claim you are now making is different from your original claim.
You have walked back from the absurd claim in that video clip (presumably because you now realise it's false).
Keep walking and you might reach reality.
-
Anyway it makes a change from blaming Monsanto for supplying sterile high-yield seed., or Swaminathan and Borlaug for introducing industrial farming to India.
Jimmy Doherty famously pointed out that 85% of the population of Uganda work on the land, and starvation is rife, but less than 5% of the UK population grow food and the shops are full. The climate is, if anything, more favorable in Uganda. So what are they doing wrong? Nothing. What are we doing right? Everything. So why not export a bit of good practice?
-
Well done everybody.
I now have a grin on my face because of how conspiracy theories are delt with here.
-
Anyway it makes a change from blaming Monsanto for supplying sterile high-yield seed.,
Not really Bill Gates has rather large investments in Monsanto.
or Swaminathan and Borlaug for introducing industrial farming to India.
Jimmy Doherty famously pointed out that 85% of the population of Uganda work on the land, and starvation is rife, but less than 5% of the UK population grow food and the shops are full. The climate is, if anything, more favorable in Uganda. So what are they doing wrong? Nothing. What are we doing right? Everything. So why not export a bit of good practice?
Ok you want African countries to become neo colonial corporate tyrannies that benefit from the exploitation of other countries. I don't think it will help.
-
Anyway it makes a change from blaming Monsanto for supplying sterile high-yield seed.,
Not really Bill Gates has rather large investments in Monsanto.
or Swaminathan and Borlaug for introducing industrial farming to India.
Jimmy Doherty famously pointed out that 85% of the population of Uganda work on the land, and starvation is rife, but less than 5% of the UK population grow food and the shops are full. The climate is, if anything, more favorable in Uganda. So what are they doing wrong? Nothing. What are we doing right? Everything. So why not export a bit of good practice?
Ok you want African countries to become neo colonial corporate tyrannies that benefit from the exploitation of other countries. I don't think will help.
I see you didn't mention the original idea of the thread in that post.
Have you realised it was a bit silly to claim that he has bought everything?
-
Nice to see you are all eger for some gates funding.
...why would Bill Gates fund me?
Tell him you believe in eugenics like his father did, and that massively reducing the human population is the only way to say the planet. Might help.
-
Anyway it makes a change from blaming Monsanto for supplying sterile high-yield seed.,
Not really Bill Gates has rather large investments in Monsanto.
or Swaminathan and Borlaug for introducing industrial farming to India.
Jimmy Doherty famously pointed out that 85% of the population of Uganda work on the land, and starvation is rife, but less than 5% of the UK population grow food and the shops are full. The climate is, if anything, more favorable in Uganda. So what are they doing wrong? Nothing. What are we doing right? Everything. So why not export a bit of good practice?
Ok you want African countries to become neo colonial corporate tyrannies that benefit from the exploitation of other countries. I don't think will help.
I see you didn't mention the original idea of the thread in that post.
Have you realised it was a bit silly to claim that he has bought everything?
Excuse me, the suggestion of the thread is that bill Gates is intending to monopolies the entire planets food supply. Not that he actively achieved it but that he intends to
-
He has also taken complete control over the entire planets seeds
No he hasn't.
Excuse me, the suggestion of the thread is that bill Gates is intending to monopolies the entire planets food supply.
No it isn't.
The suggestion is the claim in the first post.
And also where you doubled down on it.
Do you ever stop trolling? Seeds in your garden are not the issue, gates has taken control of all seeds involved in Farming.
-
Ok you want African countries to become neo colonial corporate tyrannies that benefit from the exploitation of other countries. I don't think it will help.
So what's your solution?
-
Tell him you believe in eugenics like his father did
Well, I don't.
So why were you saying that I was eager for Gates funding?
-
Excuse me, the suggestion of the thread is that bill Gates is intending to monopolies the entire planets food supply. Not that he actively achieved it but that he intends to
If you are psychic, you may indeed know his intentions. But then you would be in a unique position to prevent him from doing anything, or even better, to get ahead of him and hold him to ransom. But you certainly wouldn't want anyone else to know what you know or what you are are doing, so your pronouncements here are either random guesswork or outright lies.
-
Ok you want African countries to become neo colonial corporate tyrannies that benefit from the exploitation of other countries. I don't think it will help.
So what's your solution?
The only solution we stop suppressing Africa and allow them to develop. Learning from our mistakes. Brith rates will naturally fall as they do in all developed countries when children survive.
They will all earn a better income, have better quality of life, and be more environmentally engaged, because it's with a certain level of social development and standard of living people naturally also start to care about their environment.
The entire issue in Africa stems from first world oppression and exploitation.
108.20 on
All comes down to the same problem, the modern corporate system of greed, leads to massive pollution, and no company paying for their actual costs of business or having any interest in acting better with regards to the environmental damage they cause, combined with a desired to exploit and keep people impoverished (essentially for cheap labour) which leads to higher birth rates, less environmental concern and even hunger and starvation for the populations this is imposed on.
Busines practice is the biggest issue and they have the power, and with that power they seek to keep as much profit as possible, carry on regardless and force the populations to change, in a sad attempt to compensate for thier failure.
All an expression of corporate governance and tyranny. Rationally it's time to realise business and its telos should not be in power.
-
Tell him you believe in eugenics like his father did
Well, I don't.
So why were you saying that I was eager for Gates funding?
I wasn't, you asked "why would gates fund me?"
My postulation was merely that as gates funds so much science, many would be too scared to bite the hand that feeds them, even if he isnt now directly, he could in the future.
But clearly a scientist would never put money, before science.
-
I wasn't
Yes you were, because you said:
Nice to see you are all eger for some gates funding.
"All" would include me.
My postulation was merely that as gates funds so much science, many would be too scared to bite the hand that feeds them, even if he isnt now directly, he could in the future.
But clearly a scientist would never put money, before science.
And what does that have to do with me, specifically?
-
I wasn't
Yes you were, because you said:
Nice to see you are all eger for some gates funding.
"All" would include me.
My postulation was merely that as gates funds so much science, many would be too scared to bite the hand that feeds them, even if he isnt now directly, he could in the future.
But clearly a scientist would never put money, before science.
And what does that have to do with me, specifically?
You're just being semantic, it's a turn of phrase, or figure of speech. Like saying "everyone knows". Its a given everyone doesn't mean everyone, it means a majority know.
What's more interesting is why your so sensitive about it.
-
What's more interesting is why your so sensitive about it.
Because I tend to be annoyed by conspiracy theory talk.
-
What's more interesting is why your so sensitive about it.
Because I tend to be annoyed by conspiracy theory talk.
Wasnt a conspiracy theory it was a speculation that as Gates is so involved in funding science many scientists may hold back on criticism rather then risk a potential source of funding.
-
Wasnt a conspiracy theory
Saying that there is a realistic chance that Gates plans to starve everyone is very much a conspiracy theory.
-
Surely there is anti trust legislation that could prevent this?
There are laws that would prevent this.
In order for him to circumvent those laws he would need the collusion of law enforcement. Someone would have to help him break those laws.
A group of people working together to break the laws is pretty much the definition of a conspiracy.
And yet we have the claim that this
Wasnt a conspiracy theory
.
Well, it very clearly is, and if Jolly doesn't understand that perhaps he should keep quiet.
-
Wasnt a conspiracy theory
Saying that there is a realistic chance that Gates plans to starve everyone is very much a conspiracy theory.
Dont change the subject we were talking about scientists not criticising Gates. Not his intention to monopolies food supplies.
And it's not a conspiracy that in the;African countries Gates was operating hunger increased 30%. Not a conspiracy it's a horrendous reality.
-
African countries Gates was operating hunger increased 30%
What happened in the ones where he wasn't operating?
-
we were talking about scientists not criticising Gates.
I think you were.
I think it's fair to suggest that Bill Gates is a bare faced liar
-
Dont change the subject
I'm not. You mentioned it in the OP so it's on-topic.
And it's not a conspiracy that in the;African countries Gates was operating hunger increased 30%. Not a conspiracy it's a horrendous reality.
To say that there's a reasonable chance that he did it intentionally for the purpose of population control is a conspiracy theory.
-
Dont change the subject
I'm not. You mentioned it in the OP so it's on-topic.
It is the title of the thread, but the title of the thread we were not discussing. We were discussing the speculation about scientists being to scared to critic bill Gates, by moving to the title of the thread you changed the topic.
And it's not a conspiracy that in the;African countries Gates was operating hunger increased 30%. Not a conspiracy it's a horrendous reality.
To say that there's a reasonable chance that he did it intentionally for the purpose of population control is a conspiracy theory.
Another speculation not a conspiracy theory. The label conspiracy theorist was invented by the CIA as a means to silence critics, don't be a tool.
-
Another speculation not a conspiracy theory.
Is it speculation that you are taking seriously? I guess you must be, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up.
The label conspiracy theorist was invented by the CIA as a means to silence critics, don't be a tool.
A conspiracy theorist is a person who promotes/believes in conspiracy theories. Who came up with it doesn't change its meaning.
-
Another speculation not a conspiracy theory.
Is it speculation that you are taking seriously? I guess you must be, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up.
Gates desire to reduce population in Africa is well documented. He has repeatedly in many interviews stated it to be his agenda.
The question is more about the means by which he seeks to achieve it.
To see the farming programs he has established reduce food production, increased hunger by 30% and also to have reduced the nutritional value of the crops grown. Is suggestive some of his means may well be conspiratorial.
If the systems he has imposed are behaving as he wants them to then he certianly is.
This isn't some new scheme, its been over 14 years. A program meant to increase food production has reduce it. Bill Gates is no fool with his money, after an 18 year program for increased food production causes less food production, the program is a failure. Yet he carries on funding it. Suggestive that it may well be the actual point of the program. And Gates is resorting to other means to achieve his agenda.
His Agenda of African population reduction is clear, he has stated it repeatedly across the world in many interviews TED talks, documentaries.
How badly does he want the agenda to succeed is the real question.
The label conspiracy theorist was invented by the CIA as a means to silence critics, don't be a tool.
A conspiracy theorist is a person who promotes/believes in conspiracy theories. Who came up with it doesn't change its meaning.
Actually it does. The world is full of conspiracies, you only need two people with a secret plan to have a conspiracy. The term with the stigma the CIA designed it to have are completely interwoven. That reality changes it's meaning completely.
-
Is suggestive some of his means may well be conspiratorial.
Uh huh. Right.
The world is full of conspiracies, you only need two people with a secret plan to have a conspiracy.
That is true, but those which are called conspiracy theories are most typically those that refer to conspiracies of a grand stature, usually supposedly perpetrated by large entities such as governments or militaries. They are usually something paranoid. And more specifically than that, those conspiracy theories are most usually devoid of good supporting evidence, rather relying on "someone somewhere said something" that can't be proven, assuming that correlation is causation or jumping to conclusions. Bill Gates planning to reduce the world population through starvation certainly fits that.
-
Is suggestive some of his means may well be conspiratorial.
Uh huh. Right.
His programs already are starting to starve people, that's a reality.
The question is, is that by design or not?
The world is full of conspiracies, you only need two people with a secret plan to have a conspiracy.
That is true, but those which are called conspiracy theories are most typically those that refer to conspiracies of a grand stature, usually supposedly perpetrated by large entities such as governments or militaries. They are usually something paranoid. And more specifically than that, those conspiracy theories are most usually devoid of good supporting evidence, rather relying on "someone somewhere said something" that can't be proven, assuming that correlation is causation or jumping to conclusions. Bill Gates planning to reduce the world population through starvation certainly fits that.
Bill Gates Agenda of African population reduction is clear, he has stated it repeatedly across the world in many interviews TED talks, and documentaries. No New news Bill Gates wants massive depopulation in Africa.
The question is more about the means by which he seeks to achieve it.
To see the farming programs he has established reduce food production, increased hunger by 30% and also to have reduced the nutritional value of the crops grown. Is suggestive some of his means may well be conspiratorial.
If the systems he has imposed are behaving as he wants them to then he certianly is.
This isn't some new scheme, its been over 18 years. A program meant to increase food production has reduce it. Bill Gates is no fool with his money, after an 18 year program for increased food production causes less food production, the program is a failure. Yet he carries on funding it. Suggestive that it may well be the actual point of the program. And Gates is resorting to other means to achieve his agenda.
How badly does he want the agenda to succeed is the real question.
-
The question is, is that by design or not?
That's exactly what I'm skeptical of. Hence what I said about correlation not being causation.
-
The question is, is that by design or not?
That's exactly what I'm skeptical of. Hence what I said about correlation not being causation.
Be skeptical.
But Gates has a declared agenda to reduce African population.
And his program currently after over 14 years, is reducing food production, increasing hunger and providing less neutrious crops.
I'm also skeptical, I'm skeptical about the stated agenda of this failed program. and ponder why such a failed program would still be being funded. That it might be doing exactly what Gates wants it to, isnt a conspiracy, it's a possible explanation
-
isnt a conspiracy
Gates trying to kill people with starvation is most certainly a conspiracy, because if he is doing so, he would be keeping it a secret.
-
isnt a conspiracy
Gates trying to kill people with starvation is most certainly a conspiracy, because if he is doing so, he would be keeping it a secret.
If proven, Gates would be engaged in a conspiracy. Right now it's simply one of a few speculative explanations.
-
If proven, Gates would be engaged in a conspiracy.
That's quite a big "if".
-
Bill Gates wants massive depopulation in Africa.
So does anyone who cares about climate change, sustainability and quality of life. The question is whether it will be achieved by disease and starvation (as has been the case for several thousand years), genocide and civil war (since the 1950s), or education and economics (as promoted by the Gates Foundation).
-
If proven, Gates would be engaged in a conspiracy.
So, if it was a theory, it would be a conspiracy theory.
Are you saying it's not a conspiracy theory because it is just baseless guesswork?
-
Bill Gates wants massive depopulation in Africa.
So does anyone who cares about climate change, sustainability and quality of life.
Nonsense, as I have been arguing for ages, population isnt the issue, it's how we produce. 75% of all environmental damage is comming from business practice, as usual business passes the buck and wants to blame people. It's all rubbish. Reducing the population achieves nothing, when the real cause is how business behaves. Even if everyone stops behaviour that damages the planet only 25% of the issue is solved leaving everything as a consequence of corporate behaviour.
The question is whether it will be achieved by disease and starvation (as has been the case for several thousand years), genocide and civil war (since the 1950s), or education and economics (as promoted by the Gates Foundation).
All dooms day nonsense and hype used to justify agendas that are unnecessary. We can feed far more people then we currently do, we can produce energy in far cleaner and safer ways, we can produce products and services in ways that dont damage the environment, that's all possible. Sadly some oligarchs never have enough, and so keep people in poverty and starvation, to make it easier for low wage exploitation.
There are 1000s of solutions to problems the elites however are only interested in solutions that guarantee their continuation as Rulers, and that is the biggest issue.
-
If proven, Gates would be engaged in a conspiracy.
So, if it was a theory, it would be a conspiracy theory.
Are you saying it's not a conspiracy theory because it is just baseless guesswork?
No, I'm looking at gates stated agenda. To depopulate Africa.
And then looking at one program he has in Africa that was claiming it would increase food production.
Then wondering why a program that was meant to increase food production is after 18 years actually decreasing food production.
It simple a question why is this failed program still running? Its increasing hunger, reducing the nutritional value of crops and producing less food.
Is that Bill Gates actual intention? Is the question not a conspiracy theory, it's a speculative answer to the question why is that program still running after over 18s years of failure?
If I was a politician in one the African countries effected I would be demanding an investigation in to what has gone wrong. On opening the books into the decision making that have lead to this failure, we might find the actual answer to the question. That answer could be Bill Gates intends to reduce food production on purpose, but it could also be people mismanaged the program and just sort to take as much money as possible from Gates as a milking scheme. Although I find the latter less likely as Gates doesnt appear to be the type, to be so easily taken advantage of. And ultimately after this failure he still funds it.
-
The suggestion that an African government might be corrupt is, frankly, outrageous. Never in the history of any African country has here been a case of a president or minister with his hand in the till. These guys are all of the highest moral caliber and integrity, who practice genocide and ignore election results because that is the proper way to do business.
If the bank makes a mistake, the rain fails or the crop gets hijacked, that is clearly the fault of the man who invented Windows.
Whilst I have your attention, may I ask for a small favor that will be to our mutual advantage? My second cousin died in a freak accident in his Ugandan gold mine, leaving me with $25,000,000 in bullion in his will, with which to look after his starving wife and children. I am entitled to a half share in this wealth but I need $150,000 immediately to pay the legal fees for probate and death duties. I will be pleased to refund the money plus 10% per annum interest and a 20% tax-free honorarium as soon as the case is settled. Please send me a personal message with an authority to access your bank account. This offer is only open to correspondents on this forum as you are all known to be persons of honor and integrity.
-
The suggestion that an African government might be corrupt is, frankly, outrageous. Never in the history of any African country has here been a case of a president or minister with his hand in the till. These guys are all of the highest moral caliber and integrity, who practice genocide and ignore election results because that is the proper way to do business.
Actually it's often at the behest of the very people that installed them, there are countless examples of African leaders seeking a better circumstance for thier people, being assinated by the west for daring to challenge the status quo of western corporate control over their resources.
If the bank makes a mistake, the rain fails or the crop gets hijacked, that is clearly the fault of the man who invented Windows.
Nice nonsense ramble that seeks to change the actual point.
Whilst I have your attention,
You think you achieved anything besides showing your complete support for western corporate exploitation of Africa?
may I ask for a small favor that will be to our mutual advantage? My second cousin died in a freak accident in his Ugandan gold mine, leaving me with $25,000,000 in bullion in his will, with which to look after his starving wife and children. I am entitled to a half share in this wealth but I need $150,000 immediately to pay the legal fees for probate and death duties. I will be pleased to refund the money plus 10% per annum interest and a 20% tax-free honorarium as soon as the case is settled. Please send me a personal message with an authority to access your bank account. This offer is only open to correspondents on this forum as you are all known to be persons of honor and integrity.
It's funny because only really poor people, both financially and spiritually engage in such schemes, I wonder what reality they must have grown up in, to end up like that?
-
No, I'm looking at gates stated agenda. To depopulate Africa.
Where is this stated?
-
No, I'm looking at gates stated agenda. To depopulate Africa.
Where is this stated?
In almost every interview, documentary, and TED talk he has given over the past 10 years about Africa.
Bill Gates on his best investment ever, over 20 to 1 return.
Paid 10 billion on vaccines made in profit over 200 billion.
What a philanthropist.
-
What a philanthropist.
Indeed.
Because, of course, it wasn't Bill (who is estimated to own about $120 B) who got the $200B.
He put in the start up money, and society benefitted to the tune of 20 times as much as his donation.
It is important to remember that Jolly thought that Bill was getting the return- even though this is obviously impossible.
This in turn is because Jolly's bias blinds him to even obvious facts like "If Bill had received $200 B then Bill would have more than $200 B".
-
In almost every interview, documentary, and TED talk he has given over the past 10 years about Africa.
Citation please.
-
Reducing the population is the only way to make life tolerable and sustainable for our successors. Agriculture in many parts of Africa is already marginal despite a century or so of introducing modern farming methods. Famine is pretty much the norm thanks to unpredictable rainfall and a failure to control locust populations in areas where civil war has been raging for decades, so the priority areas for controlling the one variable that can be controlled (population) must be in such states.
-
In almost every interview, documentary, and TED talk he has given over the past 10 years about Africa.
Citation please.
Citation, if you want to see Bill Gates talk about reducing Africas population, just go do search.
This is am interesting story from algazeera
-
Reducing the population is the only way to make life tolerable
Tolerable? And no it isnt.
and sustainable for our successors. Agriculture in many parts of Africa is already marginal despite a century or so of introducing modern farming methods. Famine is pretty much the norm thanks to unpredictable rainfall and a failure to control locust populations in areas where civil war has been raging for decades, so the priority areas for controlling the one variable that can be controlled (population) must be in such states.
More doom and gloom nonsense.
-
Of possible relevance: https://observers.france24.com/en/africa/20210119-bill-gates-kill-three-billion-people-video-conspiracy
I'm also curious, do we have any actual statistics regarding hunger in those countries? Sure, one can claim that it's increased 30%, but do the statistics back that up? If so, was that a trend before Gates even started his program?
-
The statistics, such as I can find, show the continuation of historical starvation in bits of Africa but, oddly, not in the areas where the Gates Foundation is working, apart from Nigeria.
-
The statistics, such as I can find, show the continuation of historical starvation in bits of Africa but, oddly, not in the areas where the Gates Foundation is working, apart from Nigeria.
Is that the same Nigeria expected to have a population increase to make it more populous then China? What a shock.
-
Of possible relevance: https://observers.france24.com/en/africa/20210119-bill-gates-kill-three-billion-people-video-conspiracy
I'm also curious, do we have any actual statistics regarding hunger in those countries? Sure, one can claim that it's increased 30%, but do the statistics back that up? If so, was that a trend before Gates even started his program?
It the hilarious thing about these supposed reports they title it one way then write the article in another.
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by about 10 or 15% But there we see an increase of about 1.3,” Gates says, breaking down the formula.
Honestly who voted for Bill Gates to be a population Zar?
-
It the hilarious thing about these supposed reports they title it one way then write the article in another.
So what in the article says the opposite of what the title says? The part that you quoted certainly doesn't.
-
It the hilarious thing about these supposed reports they title it one way then write the article in another.
So what in the article says the opposite of what the title says? The part that you quoted certainly doesn't.
They change the actual statement of the doctor from "eliminate" to "Kill" to make the title more punchy, no doubt as a part of click bait.
The doctor is talking about agendas to reduce Africa's population. And its exactly a stated goal of Gates. And As I have questioned in this tread starvation could be one of his tactics in that endeavor, certainly seems plausible when you see starvation increasing in the countries he is active.
-
starvation could be one of his tactics
So could nuclear devastation or just walking away and letting the people starve by themselves. Please replace "could be" with some evidence of something.
I have heard it said that you might be an agent of Satan.
-
certainly seems plausible when you see starvation increasing in the countries he is active.
I'm also curious, do we have any actual statistics regarding hunger in those countries? Sure, one can claim that it's increased 30%, but do the statistics back that up? If so, was that a trend before Gates even started his program?
-
certainly seems plausible when you see starvation increasing in the countries he is active.
I'm also curious, do we have any actual statistics regarding hunger in those countries? Sure, one can claim that it's increased 30%, but do the statistics back that up? If so, was that a trend before Gates even started his program?
Farming yields before ARGA were going up
"In the period before AGRA, yields in these countries had grown by 17 percent. The increases in yields with and without AGRA were therefore almost identical."
https://dianeravitch.net/2021/01/04/the-gates-foundations-not-green-revolution-in-africa/
-
The increases in yields with and without AGRA were therefore almost identical."
So then Gates is not actually increasing hunger in Africa beyond what would have otherwise occurred anyway.
-
starvation could be one of his tactics
So could nuclear devastation or just walking away and letting the people starve by themselves. Please replace "could be" with some evidence of something.
I have heard it said that you might be an agent of Satan.
Seems more your line of work, you happily seem to promote western tyranny over Africa and extremely defend the current course of action taken by the despots incharge.
-
The increases in yields with and without AGRA were therefore almost identical."
So then Gates is not actually increasing hunger in Africa beyond what would have otherwise occurred anyway.
No your miss reading that means at best AGRA made no difference at worst they reduced farming output.
Farming was increasing by 17% before AGRA, simple means initially AGRA didnt interfere with that trend, not now after 14 years it certainly has, what was an increase of 17% has become a reduction of 20%
-
No your miss reading that means at best AGRA made no difference at worst they reduced farming output.
How do you get that out of "almost identical"?
Farming was increasing by 17% before AGRA, simple means initially AGRA didnt interfere with that trend, not now after 14 years it certainly has, what was an increase of 17% has become a reduction of 30%
That doesn't match this statement:
By 2018, agricultural yields in the focus countries had increased by only 18 percent
An increase of 18 percent is not a reduction of 30 percent.
-
No your miss reading that means at best AGRA made no difference at worst they reduced farming output.
How do you get that out of "almost identical"?
But fourteen years after AGRA was founded, it’s safe to say that the initiative has failed to meet its goals. Rather than combat hunger and poverty, hunger has actually increased by 30 percent in the AGRA focus countries — meaning that thirty million more people are suffering from it than when AGRA started. By 2018, agricultural yields in the focus countries had increased by only 18 percent, as opposed to the 100 percent AGRA promised. In the period before AGRA, yields in these countries had grown by 17 percent. The increases in yields with and without AGRA were therefore almost identical.
Effectively ARGA achieved 1% of it goals. After 15 years... I have trouble believing that isnt by design.
Farming was increasing by 17% before AGRA, simple means initially AGRA didnt interfere with that trend, not now after 14 years it certainly has, what was an increase of 17% has become a reduction of 30%
That doesn't match this statement:
By 2018, agricultural yields in the focus countries had increased by only 18 percent
An increase of 18 percent is not a reduction of 30 percent.
Sorry my mistake, hunger increased by 30% cerial crops reduced by 21%
Statistics for the thirteen AGRA focus countries show that production of cereals has fallen by 21 percent since the initiative was launched. A yield decline of 7 percent was recorded for root and tuber crops. All in all, AGRA reduces the diversity in farmers’ fields and thus also the variety of seeds being used. This development in turn makes agriculture even more vulnerable to the consequences of the climate crisis.
-
After 15 years... I have trouble believing that isnt by design.
So it was "by design" to waste money on an operation that effectively neither increased nor decreased the farming growth trend. He intentionally wasted money doing something that would have happened anyway without his interference. Are you serious?
Statistics for the thirteen AGRA focus countries show that production of cereals has fallen by 21 percent since the initiative was launched. A yield decline of 7 percent was recorded for root and tuber crops. All in all, AGRA reduces the diversity in farmers’ fields and thus also the variety of seeds being used. This development in turn makes agriculture even more vulnerable to the consequences of the climate crisis.
Source? So where does the, "By 2018, agricultural yields in the focus countries had increased by only 18 percent" statement fit in? If the total agricultural yield has increased 18 percent while cereal and tuber production has gone down, the production of other crops must have gone up significantly in order to explain overall growth and not reduction.
-
After 15 years... I have trouble believing that isnt by design.
So it was "by design" to waste money on an operation that effectively neither increased nor decreased the farming growth trend. He intentionally wasted money doing something that would have happened anyway without his interference. Are you serious?
There are really on a few explanations, Bill Gates has been ripped off, which I ha e trouble believing. You invest and see your investment fail for a few years ok, but eventually you have to conclude maybe the actual claimed agenda of the program is a cover story. Leading to one of the other possible explanations the program is meant to reduce food production and increase hunger, as a part of a depopulation
Program. Seeking to reduce population by giving them more food, seems counter productive actually, seeking to de populate by giving them less actually fits.
Statistics for the thirteen AGRA focus countries show that production of cereals has fallen by 21 percent since the initiative was launched. A yield decline of 7 percent was recorded for root and tuber crops. All in all, AGRA reduces the diversity in farmers’ fields and thus also the variety of seeds being used. This development in turn makes agriculture even more vulnerable to the consequences of the climate crisis.
Source? So where does the, "By 2018, agricultural yields in the focus countries had increased by only 18 percent" statement fit in? If the total agricultural yield has increased 18 percent while cereal and tuber production has gone down, the production of other crops must have gone up significantly in order to explain overall growth and not reduction.
Not really with the 17% occurring anyway, it's an increase of 1% for certain crops. And that 1% certainly wasnt enough to feed the people, leaving an increase in hunger.
-
Leading to one of the other possible explanations the program is meant to reduce food production and increase hunger, as a part of a depopulation
But food production hasn't been reduced. Take this 2013 article from the United Nations website, for example: https://www.un.org/en/africa/osaa/pdf/pubs/2013africanagricultures.pdf It states:
Contrary to popular belief, agricultural production in Africa has increased steadily over the last 30 years: its value has almost tripled (+160%), showing an increase that clearly exceeds the growth rate for global agricultural production over the same period (+100%), almost identical to that of South America (+174%), and below but comparable to growth in Asia (+212%).
1. Cereal production has increased by 125%, yields by 32%, and cultivated land by 70% in 30 years
There are charts on page 20 of the article that show crop production from 1980 to 2010. We don't see a drop in crop production starting in 2006. The trend of increase continues instead. Page 22 shows a further breakdown of the specific kinds of crops and all of them are still increasing from 2006 to 2010.
-
Leading to one of the other possible explanations the program is meant to reduce food production and increase hunger, as a part of a depopulation
But food production hasn't been reduced. Take this 2013 article from the United Nations website, for example: https://www.un.org/en/africa/osaa/pdf/pubs/2013africanagricultures.pdf It states:
Contrary to popular belief, agricultural production in Africa has increased steadily over the last 30 years: its value has almost tripled (+160%), showing an increase that clearly exceeds the growth rate for global agricultural production over the same period (+100%), almost identical to that of South America (+174%), and below but comparable to growth in Asia (+212%).
1. Cereal production has increased by 125%, yields by 32%, and cultivated land by 70% in 30 years
There are charts on page 20 of the article that show crop production from 1980 to 2010. We don't see a drop in crop production starting in 2006. The trend of increase continues instead. Page 22 shows a further breakdown of the specific kinds of crops and all of them are still increasing from 2006 to 2010.
Ok you are referencing a 2013 article that is reporting on the previous 30 year trend. AGRA starts in 2006 and as the article I referenced stated African countries were seeing a 17% increase.
The article upto 2010 only covers the first 4 years of ARGA it's now been running 15 years, with the latter 11 years not accounted for.
ARGA was meant to increase food production by 100% it managed 1%, I think the hunger issue is comming from population increase and so increased food demand ARGA isnt supporting
-
The article upto 2010 only covers the first 4 years of ARGA it's now been running 15 years, with the latter 11 years not accounted for.
So do you have data showing that food production actually decreased instead of increased after 2010?
-
The article upto 2010 only covers the first 4 years of ARGA it's now been running 15 years, with the latter 11 years not accounted for.
So do you have data showing that food production actually decreased instead of increased after 2010?
Well the 21% reduction in crops as previously stated.
There is this article
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/gates-stop-funding-industrial-farming-southern-africa/
-
Well the 21% reduction in crops as previously stated.
Where are the statistics to back that claim up? I don't see "21%" anywhere in that article you just linked. A link to an authoritative source would be preferred. Your linked website has "Big Pharma" as one of its categories. Those who use that term unironically are often conspiracy theorists. I see that several of the people associated with that site are anti-vaxxers, so that's another red flag. Any claims you see there should be back-checked before being accepted as truth.
-
Well the 21% reduction in crops as previously stated.
Where are the statistics to back that claim up? I don't see "21%"
It's in the first article I quoted it directly before.
anywhere in that article you just linked. A link to an authoritative source would be preferred. Your linked website has "Big Pharma" as one of its categories. Those who use that term unironically are often conspiracy theorists. I see that several of the people associated with that site are anti-vaxxers, so that's another red flag. Any claims you see there should be back-checked before being accepted as truth.
The secound article related to an open letter send to the gates foundation, basically because AGRA is destroying small scale farmers essentially because Gates is interested in profiting of the poverty.
-
It's in the first article I quoted it directly before.
No, the quote is about the production of cereals specifically, not crops in general. I still want to know where they got their data from.
-
It's in the first article I quoted it directly before.
No, the quote is about the production of cereals specifically, not crops in general. I still want to know where they got their data from.
I'm not entirely sure still, it appears the ARGA is really similar to schemes previously ran in India were GM crops with Roundup were sold to small scale farmers, which trapped them into each year having to buy seeds and pesticides from Monsanto, Monsanto has a degree of investment from Gates it should be noted.
Normally a farmer would save some seed for the next years planting, but Monsanto seeds were designed to make that impossible, the only way to plant again was to buy new seeds, which increased the costs that many farmers couldn't afford.
The AGRA scheme appears to be another way to profit from farming more then it is actually about increasing productivity.
-
Which doesn't mean Gates is out to thin the population via starvation.
-
Which doesn't mean Gates is out to thin the population via starvation.
Means he could be potentially. Maybe he prefers suicide, thousands of Indian farmers committed suicide because they could no longer afford to continue farming thanks to similar schemes ran in India.
Again who elected Bill Gates to go interfere with other countries? If he wanted to use his money to support different counties it's one thing, but he isn't doing that, he is actively controlling the programs he invests in and gaining returns on those investments. This should be illegal. It isnt philanthropy, he is using his wealth to gain power across the world and directly controlling the programs. Are we all left to hope some Hilter type character doesnt become a billionaire in the future?
-
Means he could be potentially.
Any number of world leaders could potentially send us into a nuclear war too. Just because they have that power doesn't mean they plan on doing it.
-
Means he could be potentially.
Not really, because, if you and I were hungry enough, we would gang up on him and hit him with a rock.
But it's deeper than that; you seem not to understand that the seeds in my garden will grow, no mater what bits of paper BG has got saying he "owns" them. The same is true for the seeds on the farm.
He doesn't have control of anything.
-
Means he could be potentially.
Not really, because, if you and I were hungry enough, we would gang up on him and hit him with a rock.
But it's deeper than that; you seem not to understand that the seeds in my garden will grow, no mater what bits of paper BG has got saying he "owns" them. The same is true for the seeds on the farm.
He doesn't have control of anything.
Not the case the Monsanto seeds were genetically edited so they only produce one crop, you cant save seed and replant for the next year, which forces farmers in contracts with Monsanto to buy new seeds every year. The farmers are renting the seeds
-
Means he could be potentially.
Any number of world leaders could potentially send us into a nuclear war too. Just because they have that power doesn't mean they plan on doing it.
There is a slight difference a world leader from politics has gone through the election process, and is monitored by the public and the associated parliament, an oligarchy justs has a Ton of cash how he or she got it can vary, but they dont have the same level of scrutiny, and they also have no mandate from the public.
-
There is a slight difference
Only very slight.
-
Not the case the Monsanto seeds were genetically edited so they only produce one crop,
Then don't use them.
-
Not the case the Monsanto seeds were genetically edited so they only produce one crop,
Then don't use them.
Honestly you're a genius.
-
Honestly you're a genius.
It's a relative thing.
-
So David attenborough is in total agreement with starving people to death as a means of population control. Sociopaths run this world clearer by the day
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-attenborough-says-sending-food-famine-ridden-countries-barmy-8823602.html
-
This topic contains posts which misrepresent and are defamatory or libellous.
The OP needs to represent information correctly or they will find their posting rights are limited.