Eco-Fascists Call For Prison Cities

You are here:FEATURED STORIES > CORRUPTION > Eco-Fascists Call For Prison Cities

Making GENOCIDE A New World Order

Eugenics: Effective by Incrementalism - Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
February 21, 2012

Every time we read about another technocrat (biocrat may be a more accurate description) stating that the planet should be liberated from “excess humans”, some obscure manuscript in a long-forgotten library rattles with glee. For the eugenic idea does not originate with some sadist in a United Nations office building. It is a practice, rather, that has been tried and tested by many civilizations and tribes in earth’s history- and now perfected at the hands of a biocratic elite hellbent on seizing the human body, constricting the human mind, and by doing so, subdue all of mankind.

Georgia Guidestones.

The biocratic thought is simply this: in order to achieve total control over the body and the mind, both components must be made dependent on a specific cure for a specific ill. A feigned ill is usually preferred, as it can be made to go this or that way just as they see fit. By presenting themselves as well-doers, the biocrats raise the perfect guise behind which they can exercise eugenic power in full impunity. They regard their work as a great work, a sacred exercise. Like the human offerings of old, this too is performed as a sacrifice to be laid at the feet of some dark deity.

True culture-changes, the biocrats know, are not spontaneous- nor are they the children of sudden revolutionary acts. It is by the hand of gradual variations, the tiniest adjustments, that humanity is led towards the biocratic society.

In a shocking little booklet (click for PDF) entitled “Ancient Eugenics” written in 1913 by “late scholar” Allen G. Roper, this incrementalism is further elaborated upon. The way to build this future eugenic state, Roper argues, is not by an open decree or oppressive measures. For the trick to work, it must be a thing of the long haul.

“(…) compulsion”, writes Roper, “or guidance, however veiled, is foredoomed to failure in the case of an institution which can only rest on inclination or an innate sense of duty. Moreover, “custom is lord of all,” and custom can only be modified gradually and in the course of centuries”

“Modern Eugenists”, the author goes on to say, “have recognized that, if there is to be Eugenics by Act of Parliament, the Eugenic ideal must first be absorbed into the conscience of the nation.”

The author, a fierce proponent of eugenics himself, also shows us a glimpse into the mind of the biocratic utopians: those who believe themselves to be equal to God and therefore permit themselves the leisure of deciding who lives and who dies.

The author traces the idea of exterminating the weak in favor of the strong’s survival back to the ancients. Roper does not, as you would expect, limit his search to the ancient Greeks. He descents even further into the past until he reaches the very beginnings of man.

“The preface to a history of Eugenics may be compiled from barbarism, for the first Eugenist was not the Spartan legislator, but the primitive savage who killed his sickly child.”

“While they (the “savages”, as Roper tends to describe early man) lived their short lives, the weakly, the deformed, and the superfluous were a burden to the tribe. Human law, superseding natural law, strove to eliminate them at birth. This was the atavistic basis on which subsequent Eugenics was built.”

Infanticide, therefore, as a means to preserve the tribe. Roper states outright that eugenics flows from the killing of baby’s. Any lapse in this human endeavor will be compensated by nature, Roper says:

“Nature, forging additional weapons, hastens the elimination of the unfit by disease.”

But the author makes clear that:

“Modern Eugenics is based on Evolution not a passive form, but one that concedes some latitude to the guiding action of the human will.”

“While infanticide is everywhere disappearing”, Roper writes, “there remain still the principles simultaneously developed. Three centuries ago Eugenics was the Utopian dream of an imprisoned monk. A century later Steele, more in jest than in earnest, suggested that one might wear any passion out of a family by culture, as skilful gardeners blot a colour out of a tulip that hurts its beauty. But neither science nor public opinion was ready to respond. It was not till late in the nineteenth century that the crude human breeding of the Spartans, in altered form and in new conditions, became the scientific stirpiculture of Galton.”

There it is. Eugenics existed for countless millenniums. Now, in the last fifty years or so, the mainstream media will make you believe eugenics does not exist. It’s a conspiracy theory, they claim. To understand where the eugenics movement of the early 20st century- and by extension the Rockefeller-funded environmental movement of today, draw their inspiration from, the following quote must be read in its entirety:

“The Ancients attempted to combat the wasteful processes of Nature by eliminating the non-viable at birth; our efforts, on the contrary, have been directed to the prolongation of their lives. Instead of sacrificing the unfit in the interests of the fit, we have employed every resource of modern science “to keep alight the feeble flame of life in the baseborn child of a degenerate parent.”” (…) “There is the female infanticide of China and the Isles of the Southern Pacific, the male infanticide of the Abipones of Paraguay, and the indiscriminate massacre of the Gagas, who, killing every child alike, steal from a neighbouring tribe. There are the Indians who offer up children to Moloch or drown them in the Ganges; the Carthaginians sacrifice them to Kronos, the Mexicans to the rain god. There is the murder of twins and albinos in Arebo, and the cannibalism of the Aborigines. In Mingrelia, ” when they have not the wherewithal to maintain them, they hold it a piece of charity to murder infants new born.” There are the Biluchi, who kill all their natural children, and there is the modern factor of shame. Co-existing with all these various practices there is the definitely Eugenic motive. Among the Aborigines, all deformed children are killed as soon as born. The savages of Guiana kill any child that is “deformed, feeble, or bothersome.” The Fans kill all sickly children. In Central America “it is suspected that infant murder is responsible for the rarity of the deformed.” In Tonquin we hear of a law which forbids the exposing or strangling of children, be they ever so deformed. In Japan, deformed children were killed or reared according to the father’s pleasure. Among the Prussians the aged and infirm, the sick and deformed, were unhesitatingly put to death.”

“Unhesitatingly put to death”, thus ends the quote. The biocrats who pull the strings of the scientific dictatorship are very much aware of the origins of their belief-system, which is firmly rooted in the ancient practice of infanticide. Roper continues to say modern eugenicists have refined the ancient practices of primitive man to the degree that in modern times the state is the deciding factor. Roper:

“Limitation of numbers, though it does not itself constitute “aggeneration” of the race, improves to a considerable degree the individuals of which the race is constituted. When the undesired children are out of the way, more attention can be paid to the desired. The savage bred recklessly, compensating his recklessness by infanticide, but a natural law of civilization has superseded the artificial law of primitive man. Control of reproduction, and resulting from it a falling birth-rate and a diminished death-rate, is a tendency which, first showing itself in Imperial Rome, is conspicuous today in every civilized community.”

Roper also mentions the obsession of the biocrats, including Plato, with numbers:

“Obsessed by the idea of the mean and a mystic doctrine of numbers, he (Plato) would fix the number of the state at an unalterable 8,000. To attain this static equilibrium the guardians are to regulate the number of marriages.”

The idea that numbers have a mystical dimension is prevalent amongst biocrats. The before-mentioned statement is also reminiscent of the Georgia Guidestones, which reads:

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

“(…) there is”, Roper continues, “the question of the numbers of the population. It is no definitely Eugenic conception that leads to the limitation of 5,040: there is a certain Malthusian element, and something of a prepossession with a mystical doctrine of numbers.”

Although Roper invokes the Platonic way of conducting eugenics- quick and openly- he states that to the modern eugenicist “the chronic pauper is the victim of the germ-plasm- heredity.”

“With increased knowledge to justify restrictions”, Roper explains, “the modern state may be purged of the pauper more slowly, but no less surely, than the Platonic state of the Laws.”

Since 1913 two World Wars have raged over the earth, leaving a pile of dead in their wake. Eugenics became a thing of the state. In Nazi-Germany, eugenics was the norm, in Europe and the United States it became a more or less covert enterprise. Finally, the UN was constructed to make sure that the ancient Eugenic ideal would be preserved and passed on into the 21st century on a global scale.

Agenda 21 Behind The Green Mask of Death - Monday, February 13, 2012

Infowars.com
February 13, 2012

On this Sunday edition, Alex is joined by author and top researcher on the UN’s Agenda 21, Rosa Koire, a veritable expert on the creeping takeover of cities and states under the paralyzing guise of the buzzword “sustainability.” Koire’s book, BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21, not only deconstructs the agenda’s aims with solid facts, but is designed for use as a study guide and starting point for developing a strategy to defeat its effects in your area. Rosa Korie is Executive Director of the Post Sustainability Institute, where she studies the impacts of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development on liberty, and also runs the website Democrats Against UN Agenda 21.

HEADLINE NEWS LINKS

1984 World Bank Report Contemplates “Sterilization Vans” & “Camps” - Sunday, February 12, 2012

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
February 11, 2012

In its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank suggests using “sterilization vans” and “camps” to facilitate its sterilization policies for the third world. The report also threatens nations who are slow in implementing the bank’s population policies with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”

The report, literally saturated with dehumanizing proposals, is devoted entirely to the World Bank’s long-term strategies in regards to population control and does not shy away from proposing the most draconian methods in order to depopulate the planet:

“Male and female sterilization and IUDs can be made more readily available through mobile facilities (such as sterilization vans in Thailand) or periodic “camps” (such as vasectomy and tubectomy-camps in India and IUD “safaris” in Indonesia).”

To illustrate how serious the World Bank is in achieving the overall strategy objectives on population control, the report makes use of outright threats:

“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”

In the preface, then President of the World Bank and 1985 Bilderberg attendee, A.W. Clausen stated:

“(…) although the direct costs of The World Bank programs to reduce population growth are not large, a greater commitment by the international community is sorely needed to assist developing countries in the great challenge of slowing population growth.”

“(…) governments can use incentives and disincentives to signal their policy on family size”, the report continues. “Through incentives, society as a whole compensates those couples willing to forgo the private benefits of an additional child, helping to close the gap between private and social gains to high fertility.”

To give an adequate illustration of the World Bank’s preference for all-out government control over the people, and their intent on meddling in people’s personal decisions, the following quote will suffice (page 107):

“By taxing and spending in ways that provide couples with specific incentives and disincentives to limit their fertility, government policy can also affect fertility in the short run. Government can offer “rewards” for women who defer pregnancy; it can compensate people who undergo sterilization for loss of work and travel costs; and it can provide insurance and old-age security schemes for parents who restrict the size of their families. Each of these public policies works through signals which influence individual and family decisions- when to marry, whether to use contraception, how long to send children to school, and life expectancy, and whether and how much family members work.”

Under the header “Incentives and disincentives” (page 121), the World Bank proposes several more examples of government interference in the affairs of free humanity:

“To complement family planning services and social programs that help to reduce fertility, governments may want to consider financial and other incentives and disincentives as additional ways of encouraging parents to have fewer children. Incentives may be defined as payments given to an individual, couple, or group to delay or limit child-bearing or to use contraceptives. (…). Disincentives are the withholding of social benefits from those whose family size exceeds a desired norm.”

The report uses the example of China to make clear such measures can be highly successful if governments would only be willing to implement them:

“With the possible exception of China, efforts to raise the age at marriage by persuasion and edict have not been particularly successful.”

“In China the birth rate at the end of 1982 was estimated to be nineteen per 1,000 people, down from forty in the 1960s. The current figure, based on birth registrations rather than on a census, may slightly understate the actual birth rate; but it would still be well below current rates in South Asia, Africa, and most of Latin America.”

On page 124, the World Bank report further marvels at the Chinese government’s accomplishments:

“China has the most comprehensive set of incentives and disincentives, designed (most recently) to promote the one-child family. Since the early 1970s women undergoing various types of fertility-related operations have been entitled to paid leave: in urban areas fourteen days for induced abortion; ten days for tubal ligation; two to three days for insertion or removal of an IUD; and in the case of postnatal sterilization, seven extra days over the normal fifty-six of paid maternity leave.”

Making clear that the overall World Bank population reduction strategy must be implemented in a country-specific manner, the report states:

“The specific policy agenda for each country depends on its political culture, on the nature of the problem it faces, and on what it has already accomplished.”

What does have to be global, according to the World Bank, is continuing urbanization: people nicely locked up in massive townships. The report explains:

“Living in small towns does less to reduce fertility than does living in larger cities. That many of these changes take time to have an effect only underlines the need to begin them now. At the same time, other measures that complement and speed socioeconomic change can hasten a decline in fertility.”

This report is completely in step with the strategies outlined by the UN, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, World Health Organization and IMF as they move to depopulate the earth in a consorted global effort. The pretexts for fertility reduction given throughout the report are “sustainable development” and “poverty reduction”. The truth is, so states the World Bank itself, to introduce and further develop “policy measures to increase people’s welfare as well as (and as a means) to reduce fertility.”

HEADLINE NEWS LINKS

Planned Parenthood Advances The Eugenics Agenda: Rev. Clenard Childress Reports - Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Infowars.com
Tuesday, February 7, 2012

On the Monday, February 6 edition of Infowars Nightly News, co-host Aaron Dykes interviews Rev. Clenard Childress of Blackgenocide.com, a website that uncovers the orchestrated holocaust of abortion and the attack centered on the family unit.

HEADLINE NEWS LINKS

Church to declare war on Obama over birth control as religious leaders threaten President - Tuesday, February 07, 2012

UK Daily Mail
Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Prominent Catholic leaders across the country have deepened their fight against the Obama administration.

The fight is over a provision of the health reform law announced on January 20 that would require health insurance plans — including those offered by institutions such as Catholic-affiliated hospitals and universities — to offer free birth control including sterilization.

According to estimates, there are some 70 million Catholic voters – and many could be posed to vote against the president in the crucial upcoming election.

HEADLINE NEWS LINKS

Government Fits 13-Year-Old Girls With ‘Contraceptive Devices’ Without Parents’ Knowledge - Tuesday, February 07, 2012

London Telegraph
February 7, 2012

The procedure was carried out in Southampton, Hants, as part of a government initiative to drive down teenage pregnancies.

As many as nine secondary schools in the city are thought to have been involved.

But it has caused a backlash from parents who weren’t aware that their daughters had been fitted with the 4cm device, which sits under the skin.

It is currently unknown exactly how many youngsters have taken part in the scheme.

Parents say they have been forced to inspect their child’s arm for any sign of the implant.

Full article here

Rich Cabal Meet About Over Population Control: Infowars Nightly News - Thursday, February 02, 2012

Infowars.com
February 1, 2012

Alex Jones discusses the media censorship and sanitizing of global elite meetings on depopulation. Bill Gates and others literally pay media for positive coverage, spinning dark designs into supposed benefits for the world’s poorest.

Bill Gates Pays Media to Portray Him As a Saint

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 31, 2012

Reports commonly say Bill Gates– through his philanthropic foundation work– is ‘saving lives’ and ‘feeding the world’s poor.’ In fact, the billionaire is made out to be almost a saint.

Why? The simple answer is that many media voices are foundation funded– with grants and partnerships paid directly from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The very journalistic outlets who should otherwise be holding Gates’ policies accountable with tough questions and volumes of scrutiny are instead financially-tied to his work.

A big part of the problem is that Bill Gates, son of a top Planned Parenthood official, is in league with a group of wealthy eugencists working to reduce the world’s population. But instead of admitting the agenda he is working towards, much of his heavily-backed efforts are branded in “the media” under hopeful sounding terms like “global health,” “feeding the world’s poor,” “fighting disease” and other positive buzz terms. Look at the secret meeting of billionaires back in 2009, at which Bill Gates, David Rockefeller and numerous other celebrity elites gathered to coordinate population reduction-targeted programs.

Note the difference between ABC’s dull headline “Meeting of America’s Richest About ‘Need,’ Attendee Says” vs. the London Times eye-catching headline “Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation.”

Infowars Nightly News: Does Bill Gates Have a Conflict of Interest Problem?

For example, an ABC News article discussing the expansion of GMO drought resistant crops– aimed directly at Africa and the developing world– is published under a glowing title: “Bill Gates on Using His Money to Save Lives, Fixing U.S. Schools, Reflecting on Steve Jobs”. Mixed with disclosures that Gates holds 500,000 shares of stock in the world’s most controversial company, Monsanto, is a note at the bottom admitting that ABC News’ coverage has been sponsored in part by Gates, under the BE THE CHANGE: SAVE A LIFE program focused on health care in the poorest areas of the world:

Paid PR or Support for Unbiased News Reporting: ABC Says Bill Gates ‘Saving Lives’ in Story Sponsored by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Without a doubt, disclosing their links is better than not doing so. But is it enough?

But ABC News is far from the only media partner funded in part by Bill Gates.

The London Telegraph, too, has at least two blogs– on Global Development and Poverty Matters– subsidized by the Gates Foundation. Many stories, such as those on the rising prices of food, note the sponsorship of Gates, but the stories themselves fail to deal with the other interests owned by Gates– such as shares in Cargill and Monsanto– that may directly affect or influence the very food crisis at hand. Instead, the sponsorship logo paints a mainly positive impression of the foundation in the minds of readers.

Two blogs at the London Telegraph are overtly subsidized by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations, but the media outlet denies this potential conflict of interest affects their journalistic integrity.

Read full article

Microsoft buys eugenics technology from Merck - Thursday, February 02, 2012

Becomes drug development partner with top global vaccine manufacturer

Mike Adams
Natural News
Thursday, February 2, 2012

When you buy Microsoft products, you are now promoting the pharmaceutical industry and its global vaccine agenda. That’s the new reality in which we live, where the world’s largest software company is “in bed” with the world’s largest vaccine pusher.

How so? In 2009, Microsoft purchased a key piece of technology from the drug company Merck, the world’s largest maker of vaccines (which Bill Gates says can help “reduce the global population” by 10 to 15 percent). That technology, as you’ll see below, can conceivably be used to develop eugenics vaccines that target specific races and nationalities with infertility-inducing pharmaceuticals — something that is entirely consistent with Bill Gates’ openly-admitted goal of reducing world population through the use of vaccines (see link to video below).

This gene-targeting vaccine research technology purchased by Microsoft was developed by the company known as Rosetta Biosciences, formerly owned by Merck. Their software is described as a way to “figure out how genes interact with each other, analyze peptides and metabolites, and determine how they relate to gene expression.” (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoft/2009288622_rosetta020…)

An announcement on the Rosetta Biosoftware web site explains, “The deal allows Microsoft to incorporate genetic, genomic, metabolomic and proteomics data management software into the Microsoft Amalga Life Sciences platform for enhanced translational research capabilities.” (http://www.rosettabio.com/company/news/rosetta_microsoft)

This same announcement goes on to say that vaccine maker Merck will “provide strategic input to Microsoft” as a part of the deal. Merck’s strategy, of course, is to make money by pimping vaccines and pharmaceuticals, including the now-infamous Gardasil vaccine.

Rupert Vessey, the vice president of Merck Research Laboratories, openly admits this deal puts Microsoft in the role of being a drug developer. He says, “We look forward to collaborating with Microsoft to develop new bioinformatic solutions to enable and expedite drug discovery and development…”

This is a key statement to understand, because the term “bioinformatic” can only mean one thing. What stores information in biology? These is only one digital storage system in human biology, and that system is, of course, DNA. Therefore, the idea of developing “bioinformatic solutions” really means to develop “gene-targeting drugs and vaccines.”

This is fully consistent with Bill Gates’ admitted agenda of reducing world population with the help of drug company technologies. At a TED conference, he announced in front of a live audience:“…if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower [global population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”(http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html)

See the video yourself at:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723

All this comes on the heels of other recent news that Bill Gates is fundingsperm-destroying technologyto cause widespread male infertility (http://www.naturalnews.com/034834_Bill_Gates_sperm_infertility.html). His foundation has also funded genetically modified mosquitoes and other mad science experiments (http://www.naturalnews.com/030940_Bill_Gates_Foundation_genetics.html).

Microsoft the new leader in eugenics technology?

What’s clear from all this is that Bill Gates is pursuing an agenda of human depopulation. This is a similar agenda of those who pursueeugenicsefforts around the globe, including Adolf Hitler and a long list of former FDA Commissioners in the United States. One of the most common ambitions of those in the highest positions of power, it seems, is to cull the human population and eliminate “the little people,” leaving only a “master race” of supreme beings.

Even major universities around the globe are now teaching students that human beings are evil for merely being alive and exhaling carbon dioxide, and that killing off humans is “green” for the planet.

In order to kill off large swaths of human beings, the most efficient mechanism to use is a self-replicating, gene-targeted bioweapon. Microsoft’s Amalga Life Sciences technology, purchased from vaccine developer March, theoretically provides a viable platform to develop precisely such bioweapons. It is interesting that no announcements from the company appear to have been made since being acquired by Microsoft in 2009, indicating that their work is now being conducted in total secrecy, behind closed doors.

U.S. government admits developing weaponized, deadly flu strains

Recent headlines reveal that the United States government has also secretly funded bioweapons research that resulted in the development of super-deadly flu strains that could wipe out far more than just 15 percent of the human population. As revealed in recent news headlines:

“Scientists agreed Friday to a 60-day moratorium on research into a modified avian flu virus that has been demonstrated to be more transmissible among mammals. Although the investigators believe their research has a public health benefit, they acknowledge the fear of some governments and others that the genetically altered virus could escape from labs and infect people.”(http://www.philly.com/philly/health/news/HealthDay660965_20120120_Res…)

That may be precisely the point, it turns out. There is no better way to promote the vaccine profits of the pharmaceutical industry than to actually release an engineered bioweapon virus into the wild. And there is no faster way to reduce the world population than to engineer either a vaccine or a weaponized flu virus that burns through the human population, targeting those of an “undesirable” genetic profile who need to be “cleansed” from the human gene pool.

This about this the next time you think about purchasing Microsoft Office, Windows or some other Microsoft product. By doing so, you are funding what could very well be a global eugenics agenda with the ultimate goal of wiping out a significant proportion of the human race.

The Death Cults and their real evil agenda's - Thursday, February 02, 2012

Bill Gates Media Partners Praise Vaccine, GMO Programs Led by Microsoft Founder - Tuesday, January 31, 2012

When Does Sponsored Positive, Uncritical Coverage of Controversial Global Medical, Food Programs Become a Conflict of Interest?

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 31, 2012

Reports commonly say Bill Gates– through his philanthropic foundation work– is ‘saving lives’ and ‘feeding the world’s poor.’

But there’s no mistaking the genocidal overtones. Hundreds of millions if not billions are living on the edge of starvation at the start of the 21st Century, while a new era of GMO-proliferation and Big Agra domination pose other grave threats– both economic and vital. Thus, it is extremely important that we collectively decide on the best solutions for the future; it could prove far too costly in hindsight to pander to the wrong development.

So why has “the media” been so positive about Gates’ singular heavy-hand pushing GMO crops on the developing world (see AGRA partnership with Rockefeller Foundation and Monsanto) while vowing to lower population numbers through his global vaccination campaign (see GAVI alliance with Rockefeller Foundation), all while helping consolidate ownership in the food market now driving up prices (see global food security under Gates Foundation, Cargill and others)?

The simple answer is that many media voices are foundation funded– with grants and partnerships paid directly from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The very journalist outlets who should otherwise be holding Gates’ policies accountable with tough questions and volumes of scrutiny are instead financially-tied to his work.

For example, an ABC News article discussing the expansion of GMO drought resistant crops– aimed directly at Africa and the developing world– is published under a glowing title: Bill Gates on Using His Money to Save Lives, Fixing U.S. Schools, Reflecting on Steve Jobs. Mixed with disclosures that Gates holds 500,000 shares of stock in the world’s most controversial company, Monsanto, is a note at the bottom admitting that ABC News’ coverage has been sponsored in part by Gates, under the BE THE CHANGE: SAVE A LIFE program focused on health care in the poorest areas of the world:

Paid PR or Support for Unbiased News Reporting: ABC Says Bill Gates ‘Saving Lives’ in Story Sponsored by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Without a doubt, disclosing their links is better than not doing so. But is it enough?

ABC News is far from the only media partner funded in part by Bill Gates.

The London Telegraph, too, has at least two blogs– on Global Development and Poverty Matters– subsidized by the Gates Foundation. Many stories, such as those on the rising prices of food note the sponsorship of Gates, but the stories themselves fail to deal with the other interests owned by Gates– such as shares in Cargill and Monsanto– that may directly affect or influence the very food crisis at hand. Instead, the sponsorship logo paints a mainly positive impression of the foundation in the minds of readers.

Two blogs at the London Telegraph are overtly subsidized by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations, but the media outlet denies this potential conflict of interest affects their journalist integrity.

To be fair, the same sponsored blog does post articles critical of Bill Gates, like this one: Why is the Gates foundation investing in GM giant Monsanto?. But why they pay to support these reports? Entities as large as the Gates Foundation no that they can never avoid all criticism; a better PR strategy, therefore, is to funnel one’s own critique through “friendly” outlets.

Both the London Telegraph and ABC News claim that their relationship does not bias the reporting or add editorial pressure. However, if there was no benefit from such ties, lobbyists would have stopped taking politicians out for dinner & entertainment a long time ago.

Criticism is indeed dished out at Gates, but has the media steered clear of the controversy over vaccine dangers or studies that show GMO crops have correlation with cancer, organ failure and multi-generational sterility in lab rat studies?

In a CNN interview [no known sponsorship from the Gates Foundation] with Bill Gates, he was given softball questions heralding his savior status in Africa. Meanwhile, Gates was given freehand to smear Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who raised questions about the possible link between vaccines and autism.

Wakefield has already initiated a lawsuit against journalist Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal for publishing lies, distortions and mischaracterizing of his work. Yet Brian Deer has been criticized for not disclosing his own links. He appeared at a French conference attended by three MMR vaccine manufacturers (targeted by Wakefield’s research) as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Similarly, the producer of a BBC (Gates Foundation grant recipient) documentary largely attacking Dr. Wakefield also failed to disclose her links. According to the Age of Autism blog, producer for the BBC program, Alexandra Feachem, is the daughter of Sir Richard Feacham, a bonified beneficiary of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and advocate for private-public partnerships in health.

While on CNN, Gates called him a ‘fraud’ and overtly suggested that the doctor was biased from a financial interest– all while potentially costing the lives of vulnerable children:

Bill Gates: Vaccine Safety Skeptics Kill Children!

All while the Gates Foundation gives annual grants to dozens of media organizations– from training to reporting and more. The Seattle Times disclosed in Feb. 2011 at least 45 media entities receiving money from the Gates Foundation. Some of the money is significant, other grants are paltry– but history shows that such financial support tends to sway influence (even without “buying” it).

Among these organizations are big name news media, including the BBC, NPR and AllAfrica.com, as well as numerous university and global outlets, and of course, many press clubs and training grounds for tomorrow’s journalists. Further recipients include many centers that write or train for the writing of medical research and journal publication:

AllAfrica Foundation
BBC World Service Trust
Brookings Institute
Columbia University
Crosscut Public Media
Editorial Projects in Education
Education Writers Association
Foundation for Public Broadcasting in Georgia
Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies
InterMedia Study
International Center for Journalism
International Center for Journalists
International Women’s Media Foundation
InterNews Network
Johns Hopkins University
Learning Matters, Inc.
Lincoln Square Productions, LLC
Link Media, Inc
Mater Medical Research Institute
National Conference of Editorial Writers Foundation
National Journal Group
National Press Foundation
National Public Radio (NPR)
New Venture Fund
Overseas Development Institute
President and Fellows of Harvard College
ProPublica, Inc.
Project Hope (to publish papers on global health issues)
Public Library of Science
Public Radio International
Regents of the University of California Berkley
Rhodes University
SeattleFoundation
Seattle University
Stanford University
Steps International Foundation
Teachers College, Columbia University
Aspen Institute, Inc.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
United Nations Foundation
Unity Journalists of Color, Inc.
WGBH Educational Foundation
Washington News Council
World Health Organization

The White House has been under fire– both during the George W. Bush Administration as well as the Barack Obama Administration (also, campaign plants on CNN)– for paid news scandals masquerading as fair, but friendly reporting. They are, of course, taxpayer funded government institutes, making their conflicts of interest more poignant and controversial.

Yet, in the quasi-private sector where numerous large foundations, with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation chief among them, also grant money to media outlets while simultaneously promoting campaigns (like GAVI and AGRA) where they hope for positive coverage, questions of ethics also arise. Given the scope of operations at Gates, Rockefeller and other mega-foundations, there is no doubt that decisions they make– in what and how to promote– can have consequences for the world’s population that even outweigh what governments do.

With that in mind, it is time that Bill Gates’ image in “the media” as a savior of the poor be blemished with the full light of day and balanced with full criticism and deep discussion about the impact his foundation’s choices can make for our very livelihoods and future.

HEADLINE NEWS LINKS

Fathers Canada

for justice

Making GENOCIDE A New World Order

Bill Gates Pays Media to Portray Him As a Saint

Paid PR or Support for Unbiased News Reporting: ABC Says Bill Gates ‘Saving Lives’ in Story Sponsored by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Two blogs at the London Telegraph are overtly subsidized by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations, but the media outlet denies this potential conflict of interest affects their journalistic integrity.

Paid PR or Support for Unbiased News Reporting: ABC Says Bill Gates ‘Saving Lives’ in Story Sponsored by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Two blogs at the London Telegraph are overtly subsidized by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations, but the media outlet denies this potential conflict of interest affects their journalist integrity.