BY JAMIE FOSTER
In this powerful and hard-hitting analysis, Daniel Jupp examines the enormous personal power and political influence of one of the world’s richest men. The Gates of Hell covers everything from the childhood influences that shaped Bill Gates to the Microsoft years and his current incarnation as the most powerful philanthropist on the planet. Jupp traces just how vast and unaccountable the influence of Gates has become, including his leading role in current global health policies and the drive toward a net zero “Green Revolution,” which threatens the economic and social fabric of the entire western world.
Firmly asking the questions that mainstream commentators often avoid, Jupp supplies a damaging criticism not just of Gates himself but of the political corruption and inertia which has allowed one man to effectively direct key global policies adopted by multiple nations without any democratic accountability. From educational and health campaigns of dubious efficacy and unexamined risk to green policies that make little rational sense, Jupp shows how the public-private funding hybrid championed by The Gates Foundation allows a powerful billionaire to push health, agriculture, and science policies in directions which profit investors whilst harming others who have no say in any part of the process.
Now more than ever, following the COVID-19 pandemic, the consequences of lockdowns, mass mRNA vaccinations, and the advances of net zero policy, questioning why one man—who has never been elected to office—has such influence on these decisions is vital.
CSM: Why Bill Gates?
DJ: Primarily because he’s the biggest threat, in my opinion. There are several billionaires using their wealth and power to shape politics in deeply undemocratic ways. George Soros has used his money to pretty directly control parts of the US legal system. The Open Society Foundation was rightly banned from Hungary due to its social and political interference. Or you could point to Mark Zuckerberg pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the 2020 election but specifically into parts of the electoral process. But I think the thing that distinguishes Gates is that even among billionaires he’s both more active and more influential-he’s a person who organises other billionaires, as he did with the Giving Pledge. And during COVID of course he effectively decided the global response. That’s because the Gates Foundation and the Gates Trust aren’t operating in one area, either as a region or as a policy area. Gates interferes in everything imaginable. You can’t escape what he is doing, whether you live in India and he’s doing a polio campaign that potentially harms 500,000 young people, or whether you are in Germany or England affected by net zero policies with increased energy prices, or whether you are a Dutch farmer or an African farmer or a US consumer-Gates is involved in everything that is reshaping the world. He’s wildly ambitious still, and he’s a big dreamer who is certain that he knows how to save the world. Those things make him unusually dangerous.
CSM: Your new book does not look kindly on Gates. From depopulation guru to crapitalist, what is Gates’ worst characteristic?
DJ: I’d say his worst characteristic is his certainty. He doesn’t have any doubt about the policies he supports and he doesn’t seem to register consequences and problems with them. For example, he heavily pressed mask wearing, although he didn’t apply it to himself, of course. He says that’s scientific, and then he ignored The Cochrane Library analysis, which was gold-standard research and which showed no impact on transmission rates from mask wearing. Now there are all sorts of things coming out about the harms caused by mask wearing. Gates hasn’t backtracked on any of the now proven harmful advice he gave. And he’s the biggest funder of the World Health Organisation other than the US government. Every government was consulting with The Gates Foundation and together with WHO they really took over the global response. Now everything they pressed was founded on very dubious science and had terrible and damaging impacts. If people aren’t sure of this, they need to research it more-everything, just everything Gates pressed made things worse. And it was undemocratic, it was unaccountable, it was all run through the Foundation and through things like Gates making personal phone calls to world leaders. That’s crazy. It destroys the very notion of democratic accountability. Gates was certain on masks, on lockdowns, on MRNA vaccines, on lab leak being a conspiracy theory. He was certain on Common Core education, which he massively influenced and which was a disaster in US schools. He’s certain on net zero, which he says himself is the most radical and ambitious reworking of an entire economy ever undertaken. He doesn’t know whether by the way it will reduce global temperature, at all, and the evidence from reduced activity during lockdowns is that it won’t. But he’s still certain that’s the policy we need. That kind of evidence ignoring certainty combined with that level of risk taking, of huge plans affecting the whole globe, is perhaps potentially more of a civilisational threat than anything he’s attempting to solve. Especially if you look at some of the geoengineering projects he is backing which I discuss in the book.
CSM: Your book has been direct. For example, in the way you deal with Gates’ Epstein links.
DJ: I don’t think it’s helpful to avoid those issues, and I think silence on certain issues or certain claims is one of the hallmarks of how a tacit propaganda system operates. What we know is that Gates has faced sexual misconduct claims personally, in the workplace, connected with behaviour at Microsoft. Now claims aren’t themselves proof. But still, he’s faced that issue. We also know he was a friend of Epstein for years, as were many other powerful people. In the book I’m clear on the fact that I didn’t find any certain proof of wrongdoing. It’s possible to be befriended by a pervert, after all, without yourself being one. But I do discuss the way in which Gates did have a connection to Epstein that was more than just casual, and that this friendship was a factor in his divorce. People will have to look at it and make up their own minds, but it’s definitely legitimate to look at that connection and wonder why it started, why it lasted so long, and why it seems like Gates was committed enough to that friendship to risk his marriage. I don’t find the Gates explanation, that they were just discussing charity projects all the time, that convincing, personally. Epstein had a charity organisation, much, much smaller than the Gates Foundation. But nothing came of these discussions. Normally a financial connection is how you prove something suspicious, but here the meetings for years with no actual project attached looks more worrying than a bequest to some cause would.
CSM: The Gates Foundation has faced criticism that it has too much power and influence in the global health realm, including within the World Health Organization, without the requisite accountability. Surely venture philanthropy beats squeezing yet more cash out of hard-pressed taxpayers?
DJ: Well, I’m all for reducing government spending, but it’s not true that the kind of philanthropy Gates conducts does that. What the Foundation does is make a large donation to some cause or grand aim, and then demand that it be matched by national governments. Or persuade and cajole. This is called a public-private partnership. But these things are just recipes for corruption, for mixing the worst excesses of the State in terms of incompetent management with the worst excesses of the private sector in terms of greed and unaccountability. Does anyone get to vote on the US or the UK government suddenly announcing a 300 million dollar or 300-million-pound investment matching one by the Gates Foundation? No. Is this what taxpayers want the money spent on? Who knows, they are never asked. And this happens again and again on multiple issues until you find that large chunks of your government’s spending are basically going where Bill Gates, who has never been elected, decides, or you find entire budgets moving from recognised duties at home to saving the world projects abroad. Government spending goes up, accountability for that spending goes down. The Foundation or some subsidiary it has funded is put in charge, and they just hoover up loads of government cash. And this can be things that are invested in that nobody actually wants, or that don’t work, or that Gates in his non Foundation capacity, through his Trust and private holdings, will personally benefit from. Philanthropy is good, but networks of power that avoid monopoly restrictions or the restraints placed on companies and then redirect government spending and effectively decide government policies are definitely not good. Gates has been ‘giving’ in this way for years, for two decades-but what right does he have to give, via influence on politicians, taxpayers money away? And in 20 years of giving in this way, his personal fortune has increased significantly.
CSM: Bill Gates’ leadership style has taken a hit in your book. Such a lack of empathy is a characteristic shortcoming of some of the most charismatic and successful narcissists. Would you describe Gates as a narcissist?
DJ: Well, he’s not narcissistic in terms of physical appearance, and I don’t think he’s ever had the opportunity to be like that. But if you’re talking about huge self-confidence, ruthless selfishness, together with a lack of empathy or understanding that would limit the ways he behaves, then yes. He’s definitely got more charisma than you’d expect from him physically. I’ve heard he can be very witty and engaging in conversation when he wants to be, and he is something of a natural leader. He’s always wanted to be in charge. And he is as well ferociously bright. I think he’s applied his cleverness to the issue of his social awkwardness, to an extent, and he doesn’t give off the weird vibe so much that he did in the early days or that he does when put under severe pressure. But the thing about narcissism is the lack of concern for others. Again, on the surface you’d say that can’t apply-after all, he wants to save lives, he wants to reduce child mortality rates. You can’t really get a nicer aim than that. The question is whether it’s the sincere aim, and even then if it is sincere whether the methods end up harming more people than are helped. I don’t think Gates ever asks himself those questions, I don’t think he worries about things going wrong, and that’s the huge danger.
CSM: While your references to Gates and the pandemics and the green revolution are well-sourced, is there not a danger of going down a conspiracy rabbit hole in blaming one man with so many things?
DJ: Yes there is, I suppose, but I don’t imagine that he operates alone. I single him out not because he’s the only one acting like this, but because he really is the best at it, in terms of building a network and using it. I think he’s smarter than Zuckerberg or Warren Buffet or George Soros, and he’s more active and imaginative in terms of applying his power than even the very few personally richer men are. Maybe only Elon Musk has that same intellectual capacity. Combine that with him being the one who thinks globally on every issue and that’s what makes his actions, his risk taking, more dangerous.
CSM: In the chapter called “Enjoy your dystopian toilet” you refer to Gates as a naïve optimist. Gates describes himself as an impatient optimist. The small government that you say Gates envisages is surely the optimist’s dream?
DJ: I don’t recall saying he envisages a small government. He’s effectively taken over some government policy areas and the world outsourced the pandemic response to his private Foundation, but I’d say Gates has a typical leftwing love of the Big State. One of the dangers about him is he sees no difference between his private aims and the duties and functions of the State. He was raised in a family of privileged philanthropists, his mother was one. They used to have the Governor over for breakfast or dinner and discuss policy. So, he’s never understood the idea that private interests and State interests should be kept separate, or that the resources of the State aren’t an ever-flowing hose of money you get to point where you want. I’m a conservative which means I’m pretty pessimistic about the State doing anything well and I prefer individuals being left alone as much as possible. But Gates has a utopian vision. He thinks science and technology can solve everything and it’s his job to direct the State towards using as much science and technology for as much change as possible. He thinks do that and technology will come good. He doesn’t worry about it going wrong. Now that’s maybe fine when you are rushing out a bit of computing hardware or software to capture market share, then correct any errors with a patch or a 2.0 version. It’s frankly terrifying when you apply that get it out fast, don’t worry about the risks, it will come good in the end optimism to reconfiguring the global economy, putting novel medicines in half the population of the planet or changing global temperature.
CSM: Is Gates a eugenicist?
DJ: In the end I didn’t make a full decision on that. I think he is deeply concerned with reducing global population. He’s put forward an argument that lowering child mortality rates, that saving children, gradually reduces population as people no longer have the need to have large families. There’s evidence for and against that. There are plenty of people who think he is genuinely evil and wants to reduce population by killing people off. I don’t immediately dismiss those ideas the way mainstream media would, but my point is more that we can’t prove that’s the case and he might sincerely want to do good. But the phrase the road to hell is paved with good intentions exists or a reason. I’m more about telling people, look, these policies have huge risks. Well intentioned or utterly malign, we know they harm people and can potentially do much more harm. With some of them they could be existential threats and I talk about that at length in the book. It’s simply not rational to enact the changes and take the risks that Gates is advocating.
CSM: What do you hope to achieve by publishing this book?
DJ: Well hopefully it will be successful enough to make more people think and question the direction of policy that Gates has already influenced, and maybe put some pressure on governments to be a bit more restrained in terms of following his lead. The net zero policies seem to me to be potentially even more damaging than lockdowns and mass vaccines were, at least economically. And there really needs to be accountability now and proper investigation of all the things Gates and those who followed his direction got wrong from 2020 onwards. We can’t let one man direct global policies with no accountability, and we have a huge rise in excess deaths telling us there is something to be worried about and maybe something that should be punished here. I’d like these things looked at properly and I’d like the network of power and formal and informal influence Gates has built up through the Foundation investigated the way we would investigate a monopolistic company using dubious practices. Charitable Foundations need stricter scrutiny, as far as I can see.
CSM: Did you approach Gates for comment?
DJ: No, we didn’t. I’m considering sending him a copy of the book. I’m certainly open to him rebutting or reacting to anything I’ve written. Trying to get an interview with him during the research would have been ideal but was pretty unrealistic given the resources available to me or to a small publishing house backing me. For a start I couldn’t afford to fly to the States for one interview, even with the subject of the book. I know one biographer had more than 20 interviews with him but I think that was a more flattering, approved sort of take.
CSM: Where can the public pick up a copy?
DJ: My publisher, Post Hill Press, will be releasing the book on the 26th September, that is at the end of this month. Copies can be ordered from them or from Amazon or from booksellers and bookstores online from that date.