Bastard Elites are at it again.

Brown Bomber

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Of course, a CT could be that it's all a publicity thing, misdirection to make themselves look better, and really they keep the money. But with all the publicity and the huge sums of money involved, it would be extremely unlikely that the money doesn't go to charitable causes.

Look I'll give you an example of Rockefeller "charity". Rockefeller via Flexner through the Carnegie & Rockefeller Foundation published The Flexner Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report which was the hijacking and ultimate transformation of medicine and education into a model which Rockefeller wanted - drugs and profit.

Nothing to do with helping people.

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Look I'll give you an example of Rockefeller "charity". Rockefeller via Flexner through the Carnegie & Rockefeller Foundation published The Flexner Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report which was the hijacking and ultimate transformation of medicine and education into a model which Rockefeller wanted - drugs and profit.

Nothing to do with helping people.

and some would argue reading the report that it was put there to help advance medical training and education......
which is a good thing in my books........

but if you would rather doctors to not be trained as well as they could be well that up to u...

profitius

All these charity foundations are designed to have a negative influence on society. Usually you find these shady characters donating to colleges and universities.

Not forgetting Bono telling the world to give aid to Africa while he sits on a personal fortune of €100m+.

robtri

profitius wrote: »

All these charity foundations are designed to have a negative influence on society. Usually you find these shady characters donating to colleges and universities.

yes those bastards at the red cross and other such charitites are at it again saving people... the feckers like them:rolleyes:

My name is URL

Can't help notice there's no mention of population control in that article.. maybe they've dropped it as a goal.. pity, I thought it was an important issue

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece

robtri

My name is URL wrote: »

Can't help notice there's no mention of population control in that article.. maybe they've dropped it as a goal.. pity, I thought it was an important issue

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece

yes heres a quote from the link YOU provided

Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.

doesnt seeem like he is out to cull the population, does it... and this is direct from your evidence

Yitzhak Rabin

robtri wrote: »

yes heres a quote from the link YOU provided

Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.

doesnt seeem like he is out to cull the population, does it... and this is direct from your evidence

I don't think he was claiming it did.

My name is URL

robtri wrote: »

yes heres a quote from the link YOU provided

Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.

doesnt seeem like he is out to cull the population, does it... and this is direct from your evidence

I never said he was.. and besides I do genuinely think it's important that global populations decrease over time. 'Cull the population' implies murder, so I don't know where you're coming from at all with that.

profitius

robtri wrote: »

yes those bastards at the red cross and other such charitites are at it again saving people... the feckers like them:rolleyes:

We're not talking about the red cross on this thread. The red cross wouldn't be the sort of charity these people would donate to.

robtri

My name is URL wrote: »

I never said he was.. and besides I do genuinely think it's important that global populations decrease over time. 'Cull the population' implies murder, so I don't know where you're coming from at all with that.

considering gates never said the words CULL the POPULATION, i think you are sadly missing the point of his speech,

again from the article you linked....i quote

Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.

now if you can show me bill gates saying he believes or wants to cull the population i would be very interested.

robtri

profitius wrote: »

We're not talking about the red cross on this thread. The red cross wouldn't be the sort of charity these people would donate to.

how do you know he didnt?????
I remember reading the the red cross did benifit from the Gate foundation

bonkey

robtri wrote: »

now if you can show me bill gates saying he believes or wants to cull the population i would be very interested.

I think the point MNIU was making is that he never claimed that Gates believes / wants to cull population. He made a reference to population reduction goals, which is - as you're both pointing out - an entirely different kettle of fish.

Scarab80

profitius wrote: »

We're not talking about the red cross on this thread. The red cross wouldn't be the sort of charity these people would donate to.

Check it up for yourself...

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grants/Pages/search.aspx

Over $10 million given to the red cross.

And just in case that is disinformation from the elites, here from the red cross.

http://www.ifrc.org/what/health/diseases/malaria/index.asp

The International Federation’s annual appeal for malaria funds aims at pooling resources from a number of donors in order to scale up malaria interventions in a cost efficient manner and to demonstrate disease impact. To achieve this, the International Federation works with global partners to identify candidate recipient countries. The International Federation’s contributions are intended to fill gaps and make an important difference in country programmes. The International Federation’s efforts are fully integrated and in harmony with global malaria partners including Roll Back Malaria (RBM), UNICEF, the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), the UN Foundation (UNF), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Swim for Malaria Charitable Foundation and many others.

robtri

bonkey wrote: »

I think the point MNIU was making is that he never claimed that Gates believes / wants to cull population. He made a reference to population reduction goals, which is - as you're both pointing out - an entirely different kettle of fish.

ahhh sorry MNIU....

i took it up wrong as in you where saying bill wants to cull the population

Di0genes

Torakx wrote: »

Oh i dont doubt many have considered that.But i wont be posting it in a sarastic thread lol
There is a reason i have Diogenes on ignore and its become more apparent from reading quotes in this thread that nothing has changed im sorry to say.I dont think this thread was made to discuss a conspiracy.
Does Diogenes really think the elites are bastards in any sense of the word?
I dont think so and must presume then its a sarcastic comment directed at people who have recently slated such celebrities.
His main point appearing to be that the elites give money to charity so they are not bastards(going with sarcasm)
If Alex jones is replaced instead of the Elites im not sure what he is saying?
Alex jones gives money to charity? He is also corrupt?
I might agree if the point was a bit clearer to be honest.

For someone who has me on ignore you seem awfully interested in my opinion.

profitius

Scarab80 wrote: »

Check it up for yourself...

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grants/Pages/search.aspx

Over $10 million given to the red cross.

And just in case that is disinformation from the elites, here from the red cross.

http://www.ifrc.org/what/health/diseases/malaria/index.asp

$10m is nothing. Naturally they'll give something to genuine charities but you have to look at the overall picture.

Another thing is I'm not sure Gates can be compared to Rockefellar.Gates could be genuine. If anybody thinks Rockefellar has good intentions they should do some research.

robtri

profitius wrote: »

We're not talking about the red cross on this thread. The red cross wouldn't be the sort of charity these people would donate to.

profitius wrote: »

$10m is nothing. Naturally they'll give something to genuine charities but you have to look at the overall picture.

back pedalling i see....

first post was you saying they wouldnt but yet they did.... now you try to brush it off as 10m is nothing....

Podman

Being charitable is great for the image, and very easy to pull off especially if your a trillionaire. All you need is a few "believers" to spread the word.

It's called PR and its good for business
To me its just propaganda.

This thread is pointless.

Scarab80

profitius wrote: »

$10m is nothing. Naturally they'll give something to genuine charities but you have to look at the overall picture.

How about you look at the overall picture, you can search through all of the grants issued in the link I helpfully provided.

How about $1.5bn to help under privileged black kids go to college, or the multiple billions to fights AIDS, Malaria and Polio in Africa.

Almost $23bn in grants issued by the foundation to date.

profitius wrote: »

Another thing is I'm not sure Gates can be compared to Rockefellar.Gates could be genuine. If anybody thinks Rockefellar has good intentions they should do some research.

The Rockefellar Foundation would appear to do similarly good work, maybe you shouldn't rely on youtube for your research.

profitius

Scarab80 wrote: »

How about you look at the overall picture, you can search through all of the grants issued in the link I helpfully provided.

How about $1.5bn to help under privileged black kids go to college, or the multiple billions to fights AIDS, Malaria and Polio in Africa.

Almost $23bn in grants issued by the foundation to date.

$20bn, $40bn, $100bn its alot of money. The point some of you are missing is its loose change to some of these people. So $10m to the red cross and a few similar charaties is laughable.

Scarab80 wrote: »

The Rockefellar Foundation would appear to do similarly good work, maybe you shouldn't rely on youtube for your research.

I rely on my intelligence to spot patterns. Its a thief who stole 100 euro but gave 10c to charity. Some people think he's great.

Ever ask yourself why the Rockefellers didn't just give their money away. They create foundations instead to influence and gain power.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2893

"Philanthropy is the essential element in the making of Rockefeller power. It gives the Rockefellers a priceless reputation as public benefactors which the public values so highly that power over public affairs is placed in the Rockefellers' hands. Philanthropy generates more power than wealth alone can provide.'' -Myer Kutz Rockefeller Power

http://www.sntp.net/fda/piper_griffin.htm

The Association of American Medical Colleges has been one of the principal vehicles of foundation and cartel control over medical education in the United States and Canada. First organized in 1876, it serves the function of setting a wide range of standards for all medical schools. It determines the criteria for selecting medical students, for curriculum development, for programs of continuing medical education after graduation, and for communication within the profession as well as to the general public. The Association of American Medical Colleges, from its inception, has been funded and dominated by the Commonwealth Fund, the China Medical Board (created in 1914 as a division of the Rockefeller Foundation), the Kellogg Foundation, the Macy, Markle, Rockefeller, and Sloan foundations.(8)

By way of analogy, we may say that the foundations captured control of the apex of the pyramid of medical education when they were able to place their own people onto the boards of the various schools and into key administrative positions. The middle of the pyramid was secured by the Association of American Medical Colleges which set standards and unified the curricula. The base of the pyramid, however, was not consolidated until they finally were able to select the teachers themselves. Consequently, a major portion of foundation activity always has been directed toward what generally is called "academic medicine." Since 1913, the foundations have completely preempted this field. The Commonwealth Fund reports a half a million dollars in one year alone appropriated for this purpose, while the Rockefeller Foundation boasts of over twenty thousand fellowships and scholarships for the training of medical instructors.(9)

In The Money Givers, Joseph Goulden touches upon this sensitive nerve when he says:

If the foundations chose to speak, their voice would resound with the solid clang of the cash register. Their expenditures on health and hospitals totaled more than a half-billion dollars between 1964 and 1968, according to a compilation by the American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel. But the foundations' "innovative money" goes for research, not for the production of doctors who treat human beings. Medical schools, realizing this, paint their faces with the hue desired by their customers .(10)

Scarab80

profitius wrote: »

$20bn, $40bn, $100bn its alot of money. The point some of you are missing is its loose change to some of these people. So $10m to the red cross and a few similar charaties is laughable.

No it's not loose change, currently the richest man in the world in Carlos Slim with a net worth of $53.5bn.

profitius wrote: »

I rely on my intelligence to spot patterns. Its a thief who stole 100 euro but gave 10c to charity. Some people think he's great.

Ever ask yourself why the Rockefellers didn't just give their money away. They create foundations instead to influence and gain power.

Your intelligence is failing you.

What do you mean just give their money away? Go into the middle of time square and dump a load of dollar bills in the middle of the road? Bill Gates resigned as CEO of Microsoft because being a philanthropist is a full time job. Finding who needs the money most and distributing the money efficiently takes time, administration and a back office team. Setting up a foundation is just an easy way of organising things, having everything under one umbrella organisation. How is extra power gained by setting up a legal structure to distribute money to charity??

nullzero

A lot of charitable organisations tend to be owned by elites anyway. So if these are the bodies recieving the money they could concievably be taking the money from one pocket and putting it in the other, thats just one take on it though. If we could see how every dollar of this money was being spent and if we could see that it's really making peoples lives better than I'd just commend their altruism, but being a big lunatic "CTer" I'll entertain both possibilities.

uprising2

drunk rant, gone!.

drkpower

uprising2 wrote: »

Now they don't know what's ahead, because me and people like me will destroy them,

That made me laugh.
:D:D:D:D

uprising2

drkpower wrote: »

That made me laugh.
:D:D:D:D

Yea funny what an alcohol binge can do to the mind, actually better delete all that ranting before somebody else quotes it.

Torakx

feck em lol.
Who cares

My name is URL

robtri wrote: »

ahhh sorry MNIU....

i took it up wrong as in you where saying bill wants to cull the population

Well I never even hinted that he did want to cull anything, but ok

Jesus dude.. even agreeing with you is difficult =p

profitius

Scarab80 wrote: »

No it's not loose change, currently the richest man in the world in Carlos Slim with a net worth of $53.5bn.

Actually theres evidence to suggest theres plenty of trillionaire families out there. The Rothschild family being worth, some say $400trillion, some say $100trillion. I don't know but to put it into perspective $100trillion is approaching 2000 times the wealth or Mr Slim. If those figures are anywhere true they make a mockery of the rich lists some papers like to bring out every year.

Scarab80 wrote: »

Your intelligence is failing you.

What do you mean just give their money away? Go into the middle of time square and dump a load of dollar bills in the middle of the road? Bill Gates resigned as CEO of Microsoft because being a philanthropist is a full time job. Finding who needs the money most and distributing the money efficiently takes time, administration and a back office team. Setting up a foundation is just an easy way of organising things, having everything under one umbrella organisation. How is extra power gained by setting up a legal structure to distribute money to charity??

Ah stop! How about just giving the money to REAL charities? lol Hire an accountant to keep track of it. Problem solved.

Yitzhak Rabin

Ok here's my take on this.

I think charity is a great thing, and someone giving to a charitable cause, regardless of who they are should be commended.

But......

You have to wonder about a system where this can come about. Why exactly should a small few control such a huge amount of the wealth. Who is the real philanthropist? Is it a multi-billionaire american industrialist, or is it the worker in India who works his hole off for 20 quid a month to produce the products and the huge profits that these billionaires can then give a portion of back to charity. Who is risking more, Warren Buffet as he gambles on the stock market, or the African mine worker who is forced to risk life and limb for a few measly bucks.

In one sense, you have to admire these guys like Bill Gates, George Soros, etc. who weren't born into vast wealth, but just made it for themselves. But then again, a lot of the time, their wealth creation comes at the expense of the suffering of others. Like the whole hedge fund and speculative unsustainable stock market that the likes of Soros and Buffet created. It earned them huge, inconceivable wealth, but then the cost is, when it can no longer be sustained, it crashes, causing huge suffering and job losses world wide.

Another problem I have with this, is its another way these billionaires can avoid tax. As charitable donations are tax deductable, it allows them to hand pick which charities their money goes to, rather than leaving it up to the people/government to decide.

But I do think that they are genuinely interested in helping people, particularly Bill & Melinda Gates. What I am against is the system that got them there in the first place. I do not think that a system whereby half the world starves, while a tiny minuscule percentage can hold inconceivably large amounts of the wealth. It is fundamentally unfair.

So the obvious question is then....."What do you suggest?"

Well, I don't know exactly, but, that doesn't change the fact that it is a very uneven and biased system. Just because the fuedal system peasants didn't know of a better system in the Middle Ages, doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

alastair

yekahs wrote: »

But I do think that they are genuinely interested in helping people, particularly Bill & Melinda Gates. What I am against is the system that got them there in the first place. I do not think that a system whereby half the world starves, while a tiny minuscule percentage can hold inconceivably large amounts of the wealth. It is fundamentally unfair.

So the obvious question is then....."What do you suggest?"

Well, I don't know exactly, but, that doesn't change the fact that it is a very uneven and biased system. Just because the fuedal system peasants didn't know of a better system in the Middle Ages, doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Who said life was fair?

I'm all for striving for a society with equitable opportunities for all, and the model I like is boring old scandinavian style social democracy. But look what happens within that system when someone builds up significant wealth - Ingvar Kamprad built IKEA up from a small mail-order business in the 50's to a huge multinational, and himself one of the richest men in the world. With great wealth comes greater leverage, and he opted to take his wealth to a state that didn't tax him to the same degree; Switzerland.

Is that unfair of Kamprad? Probably, but you can't force the man to keep his money in Sweden - particularly when much of it isn't generated in Sweden, and there will always be somewhere that offers a better deal for those with the income. Wealth inequality is always going to be with us, even in societies that value equality - it's just a question of degree.

oh and back OT: I reckon it's fair enough to point out that anyone shifting half their wealth to charitable organisations - regardless of their degree of oversight/control, and any accrued tax breaks they might garner, isn't doing it for personal gain - there's easier ways of making money.