Tim Schwab

De combinatie van de titel ‘Het probleem Bill Gates’ met als ondertitel ‘De mythe van de goede miljardair’ belooft een kritische invalshoek. In het voorwoord wijst de journalist Tim Schwab op de moeilijkheden die hij bij zijn onderzoek voor dit werk ondervond, want Bill Gates noch iemand van de Gates Foundation stond hem ooit een interview toe. In de inleiding wordt de toon al iets scherper als Schwab het manipulatieve karakter van Bill Gates belicht aan de hand van zijn relatie met show more Paul Allen, medeoprichter van Microsoft.

Het boek is in vijftien hoofdstukken onderverdeeld, gaande van ‘Geredde levens’ over ‘Journalistiek’ tot ‘Covid 19’. Bill Gates wordt in de media als filantroop met het hart op de juiste plaats geportretteerd, terwijl het oprichten van de Gates Foundation de negatieve publiciteit rond de antitrustzaak van Microsoft wou counteren en hij enkel op macht belust is. Tim Schwab toont met talrijke voorbeelden aan hoe ver de tentakels van Gates’ Stichting reiken en pleit daarom voor meer transparantie en een betere controle van de geldstromen. Concrete cijfers geven is moeilijk en dat is een lacune in dit gedetailleerde onderzoek. Hij beweert bijvoorbeeld dat de Gates Foundation tot 74 % belastingvermindering geniet, maar geeft geen keiharde bewijzen, zodat de grens tussen pertinente vragen en insinuaties vervaagt.

Gates is zeer intelligent, maar zijn grote fout is dat hij zichzelf als de meest intelligente persoon op aarde beschouwt. Zijn IQ stijgt boven het gemiddelde uit, maar qua emotionele intelligentie of empathisch inlevingsvermogen hinkt hij achterop. Hij is de rijke witte man die het leven van de arme mensen in Afrika wil redden op zijn voorwaarden. GGO’s voor de landbouw en door hem gekozen hormoonimplantaten voor gezinsplanning. Als er iets fout loopt, zoals zijn onderwijshervorming, schuift hij de verantwoordelijkheid van zich af.

Filantropie is de “liefde voor de medemens”. Omdat Bill Gates zich zo superieur voelt, kleeft Schwab hem het etiket van misantroop op. Als mensenhater zou ik hem niet bestempelen, maar dat hij een narcistische betweter zonder grondige medische kennis is, staat buiten kijf. Dat wordt zeer duidelijk als Gates’ mening over vaccins aan de inzichten van een arts en vaccinontwikkelaar worden getoetst. Een tweede voorbeeld: onder zijn impuls wordt in arme landen onderzocht of het gebruik van antibiotica bij gezonde mensen ziektes kan voorkomen, terwijl het gebruik van antibiotica beperkt moet worden, omdat de bacteriën resistent worden.

Tim Schwab somt kurkdroge feiten op, maar wel in een heldere taal, zodat de lezer mits een inspanning zijn logica kan volgen. Bijna iedereen vraagt zich wel eens af, hoe rijke mensen door het weggeven van hun geld aan goede doelen nog rijker worden. Doorheen het hele boek zijn voorbeelden verweven van de ingenieuze vondsten van de ‘goede’ miljardairs. De auteur geeft op elk thema goed onderbouwde kritiek en laat nauwelijks ruimte voor positieve gevolgen van de investeringen, wat voor een onevenwicht zorgt. Hij wil kost wat kost de verheerlijking van Bill Gates in de media counteren, media die overspoeld worden met donaties van de Gates Foundation. Toch zijn er steeds meer kritische stemmen. Million Belay en Bridget Mugambe schreven ‘Gates should Stop Telling Africans What Kind of Agriculture Africans Need’. Zijn foute aanpak bij Covid19 leidde eveneens tot een golf van openlijke kritiek.

Het slothoofdstuk is een aaneenschakeling van onbeantwoorde en retorische vragen. Welk werk wordt niet gefinancierd als het geld van de belastingbetaler wordt gericht op de publiek-private partnerschappen van Gates? Moet je polio uitroeien of beheersen? Het vergt alertheid en aandacht van de lezer, maar het is zeker boeiend om al die manipulaties te doorgronden. Na het lezen van dit werk zal je kijk op de nieuwsberichten nog kritischer worden. De vraag is niet, hoe het geld van Gates beter besteed kan worden, maar waarom we toestaan dat iemand zoveel geld en macht heeft.

Met dank aan Atlas Contact voor het opsturen van een recensie-exemplaar. show less

Full on demolition job on Bill Gates. And on the Gates Foundation. Yet the further I delved into the phenomenal mass of information Schwab has packed into this tome, the more I began wondering. Is Bill Gates the problem? Perhaps the problem really is an economic system that allows people like Bill to acquire such absurd wealth and the unreasonable power that accompanies it. To this author’s credit, he summarises his concerns with exactly this view—on page 350.

This book by Tim Schwab is excellent. I used to admire Bill Gates greatly but lost my enthusiasm for the man during the COVID-19 pandemic. I also felt he spoke like an authority on subjects he had no training for; when I read the book, I brought my prejudice to my reading of the book.
However, Tim Schwab has done considerable research on the subject, and it appears Bill Gates is tough to crack.
He speaks a lot and uses this to hide the secrets he holds dear.
The research is meticulous. I show more like how Tim Schwab divided the book into distinct chapters, each dealing with its topic. Without this organization, the book would have been a mess.
The style is engaging, and while he has no sympathy for Bill Gates, he has done his best to be objective.
His suggestions in the last chapter are bold. I doubt the powers that be will accept them!
Beware of Bill Gates: this is the lesson of the book. show less

This was a very difficult read. I do not remember any book this long to take me full 14 days to read.

While the book is terrifying expose of one man and his dream of the world "as it should be", as defined by him of course, some elements of the story are full of modern activist views on the world that author just cannot evade no matter how he tries (if he tries of course). Why I mention this? I mention this because after very detailed views on Foundation's activities and Gates' meddling into show more works of independent states, these need-to-be-modern statements are akin to pissing on everything that was said before.

First is Gates association with Epstein. Gates was not first nor last high level individual that was seen in company of Epstein. There were government officials (shall we dare name them?) but also actors , directors, public figures etc. Why was Gates with Epstein - who knows. But all of a sudden this disqualifies him from role of leading any public organization, especially something like Gates Foundation. And author mentions this in Conclusion, about a page after he notes that one cannot put everyone associated with the Foundation into the same basket. But Gates can be? Little bit disingenuous dont you think, especially when one considers what some high ranking people from Foundation did to advance their own position (plenty of examples in the book trust me). Whenever someone pulls the sexual card when discussing about someone, for me this is usually very cheap trick, and in this case completely unnecessary.

Second is about racial structure of the Foundation, again something to mark the time when the book was written I guess. Apparently if company does not reflect the social making of the state it works in, that is bad. I assume this means Foundation should also have proportionate number of PTSD sufferers and veterans, homeless people and heavy drug addicts or drunks, because are we to say that drags of society (no matter the flag or color) are not to be represented? Especially in the urban areas. And I am hurt, indeed very much hurt, that nobody mentions Native Americans - are we to say they do not exist? Where are they in all these percentages that need to be present in all of the companies. Again, completely idiotic and unnecessary comments that just take away from the true content of the book, but I guess it is required to be hip and in-accordance-with-time.

Third is very interesting view when it comes to exploitation and forcing the solutions to countries outside the modern West. While author does note how Foundation and Gates constantly make decision on behalf of locals in the area they work in (like countries in Africa, or in India) that are just pushing them into greater dependency on the very Foundation, this never comes as an uncontrolled meddling in foreign affairs when talking about India, which is interesting. When one of the representatives of Africa mentions how problem is not neo-colonialism but neo-dependency author's comment is that this is complete misunderstanding of the concept of justice and attempt to redress crimes of the past [solution for which I assume is getting back everything that colonizers have taken in centuries past, because why work for the future when you can constantly live off the past]. So, after all the talk how Foundation presents all these countries, they try to help and "help", as poor and requiring simplest solutions because they are incapable of anything complex (akin to "you know our slow cousin over there"), author ends up with image of African fight with Foundation as quest to get reparations from the former colonizers (which ends showing them up as for all means and purposes bad governors of their own domain), while Indians are more than capable to handle and control Foundation's actions through their own governance. You know, for modern activist approach very unusual approach full of stereotypes. Again, I am 100% sure author does not think this (or at least I hope this is the case, otherwise it is hilarious) but this talk is again to be hip and in-the-moment. Again, idiotic.

Fourth is about the latest epidemic. For an investigative journalist, author readily repeats the narrative that is proven ridiculous when one compares the actual deaths that are results of fighting against the epidemic. I would like the author to read a bit about epidemics of 1950's and 1960's, he would be surprised how (when it comes to numbers, like speed of spreading, number of deaths etc) everything sounds very very similar. Only thing that is different is technology that delivered in an amazingly short time the actual vaccines (quality of the same is story for another time). But i guess drama is required (although if you ask me drama is not only because of the failures of Gates Foundation - these are but a drop in the sea when one looks at overall failures of states and other international organizations). Yet again, why concentrate on this when you give as a backdrop of truly nefarious (and in some instances moronic) actions of Gates and his Foundation when it comes to vaccines?

With the above said (and only reason why I deducted one star) this is terrifying book. While I understand that US citizens are surprised because of say education and health programs that are now taking place in US, for anyone outside the US this type of things is very common, especially in Europe's eastern parts when free market entered in a big way in 1990s. Imagine being told that you do not need this or that industry, you cannot cultivate this or that crop or vegetable or that your pigs or in general cattle you raise for food need to have playgrounds and toys and lots of things that will basically prevent you from having it in the first place. All of this was successfully tested in the "new territories" and finally found its way home - in US and Western Europe. Just look at so called Bologne program for university education in Europe or force closures of farms in Western Europe (and we are to face famine, right?) ...... Fail of epic proportions.

Gates's of the world are people who have zero idea what normal working life looks like. And this is very understandable. In a world of ass-kissers and sycophants of every type of course they will think they are the best thing after sliced bread. You dont believe? Just look at actors and their Foundations and world wide activities. Entertainers, guild that developed from the court jesters, circus style entertainers with here and there skill to recite actually think they are the elite, and they take stand (sometimes very aggressive) for something they will forget in a month. And people actually drink this cool-aid.

These people are used by forces to be for international interests and overtaking markets. They are very dangerous because of the effect they have in places they operate. But they are to stay. Only way to prevent their influence is to build national systems for education, food and health - everything that functional state needs. Nations need to build these, not someone from the outside whose intentions and plans cannot be deduced. These private humanitarian types of organizations are like drug dealers that get countries hooked up and then, depending on how things should progress, either increase the dose or leave the victim go cold turkey and deconstruct.

Also I do not agree with author that Foundation needs to be built from people from areas Foundation is helping. No. Foundation can be made of whomever but they are to give money (after checking all the information and making sure that grantees are true) - grantees are to be people from the area of interest. Not diaspora living outside the respective country. People living in it. Period. But this is something that will happen only when countries where grantees are placed in also have mechanisms to control who from outside is investing and into what to ensure there is no foul play. Author shows India as one of the countries that functions in this way.

Very interesting and troubling book. I wish someone writes similar work on Soros and his Foundation (one can only dream I guess).

Recommended. show less