05-18-2020, 10:28 AM
(05-17-2020, 11:33 AM)Diana Wrote:(05-17-2020, 04:05 AM)peregrine Wrote: the Gates people …
I don't follow the media, but from my very limited point of view, Bill Gates, or what he is representing knowingly or not, is suspicious. Vaccines are are highly suspect. When one thinks about how the medical establishment operates here in the U.S., there isn't a lot of confidence in the STO aspects of it generally.
Philanthropy, like that of Gates, is a mixed bag. People who are really, really rich (and largely became so rich by being smart in their expressions of selfishness), can make themselves widely loved, and fondly remembered by future generations, by investing a portion of their riches into "good causes". If they're not super-negative at heart, it also makes them feel better, as they can then settle into a new self-image of being heroic.
People who think it's all somehow part of great, ominous plans don't explain how those agendas would suit the rich philanthropists. How would it satisfy Gates personally to be a little pawn in supporting super-evil New World Order plans? And if being a tiny pawn in super-sized evil plans wouldn't satisfy him, then why would Gates bother? I think people like Gates tend to focus much more narrowly, simply, and in relation to the self than is supposed by those who think them key people in grand conspiracies.
You can generally expect people like Gates to funnel some money into causes which are good from the conventional point of view. By conventional standards, that's good deeds. But non-conventionalist analyses can find flaws in the goodness, without bringing alleged larger conspiracies into the picture.