What Do Bill Gates and Joseph Goebbels Have in Common?

What Do Bill Gates and Joseph Goebbels Have in Common?

Bill Gates and Joseph Goebbels

Bill Gates and Joseph Goebbels are/were ordinary human beings, just like you and I. Both of them visionaries in their own way; which is how I like to see myself - and possibly you do too? Vision is invariably related to a better world, an ideal in which the greater good exists for all – well-being, health, prosperity, etc. The huge difference between Gates and Goebbels, however, is how they would define the ‘all’. For Joseph, like his infamous associate Adolf Hitler, the ‘all’ did not include Jews, and even those it did include would never be seen as equals. Aryans were superior - no doubt about it. For Bill the story is very different. The Gates Foundation statement that ‘we see equal value in all lives’ leaves us in no doubt where he stands. Along with all other races, his vision would definitely include Jews!


What a person says and what he does can sometimes be quite different. A man must inevitably ‘put his money where his mouth is’, so to speak. Joseph Goebbels certainly did this. He passionately believed in the Nazi ideal with its blatant Antisemitism, and went on to become a major force in dissemination of party propaganda, as well as perpetrating major crimes against humanity. Bill Gates likewise has literally been putting his money where his mouth is - distributing substantial funding toward his superlative vision over the past decade. For this I both admire and respect his philanthropy and humanitarianism. Each of these men display an inordinate zeal and fervour for what they believe in. However, Gates has an all-inclusive vision; whereas Goebbels’ vision was exclusive. Personally, I love it when I'm included - and tend to suffer feeling excluded. So, if I had to choose between the two, I would definitely prefer Bill’s vision to Joseph’s! I know what exclusion feels like. After forty years in an exclusive religious faith, at the age of 43 I felt moved to leave. I was subsequently ex-communicated and have been shunned by that community ever since. I could easily have ended my life in the early months, so the question of inclusion is naturally close to my heart.


But even closer to my heart is the core value of freedom - the freedom to choose for oneself. Throughout my religious life, as a child from a tender age, through my teens and the following two decades as I raised a family, ‘choice’ was never on the menu. In its place was ‘requirement’. And it wasn't my parents or any other human authority figure, it was God himself who exacted so much from me. Or so I was led to believe. And if I didn't do what was required, then I would likely be out of favour when he called all his children to account, during the forthcoming fear-inspiring day of reckoning at Armageddon. This was far too scary for me to contemplate, so I always towed the line, willingly complying with everything a ‘good’ Jehovah's Witness should think, say and do. There was no room for feelings at all.


It actually felt as if I had made my choice, whereas in fact I had never been informed of any other option. I’m not complaining; in many ways it has served me, and shaped me into the human being I have become. But while it lasted, I totally identified myself with the movement. Had I lived in Germany during the holocaust, I would have been incarcerated in a concentration camp along with Jews, Gypsies and many who questioned the ethics of Nazism. I may even have been shot or beheaded for not voting; some Witnesses during the 30s were. Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hitler had vowed: “this brood will be exterminated!” Why? Simply because their allegiance belonged elsewhere and he didn't like it. In other words, they were exercising their freedom of choice. Any timorous stand against a perverted ideology has to be an evolutionary plus for humanity.


There have always been perversions of ‘good intention’, and perhaps there always will be. It’s only when those concerned hold positions of power over others that serious problems arise. For millennia, power was derived through birthright - royalty and nobility. During the last century or so, power shifted more and more toward the common people, those whose vision could be expressed through the zealously passionate word. (Like his mentor Adolf Hitler, Goebbels would spend hours in front of the mirror, perfecting his oration skills.) But in recent decades an even subtler shift is taking place, one that has nothing to do with birthright and little to do with rhetoric. Loudly and clearly in today's world - money talks. Therefore, power currently lies primarily in the hands of the super-rich.


As we mature as human beings, the desire eventually arises to contribute to the world in a more meaningful way. It's a natural development of personal consciousness, as we grow toward our soul-purpose. We will tend to contribute the kind of things we believe in strongly. And with contribution comes a sense of fulfilment. Each one’s contribution goes toward making up the whole. All are invited to the world stage. The human race has thankfully evolved out of the strongly egocentric world of yesteryear – of Stalin, Hitler, Goebbels, et al. We have apparently left despotism way behind in the last century, and are quick to move against it, should it ever raise its ugly head. But are we still blinkered where the cataracts of fear obscure clarity?  


Humanity has been drawing ever closer toward the One World ideal. We no longer live in fear of other nations and how they might oppress us, taking away our national, therefore personal freedom. The current coronavirus pandemic is demonstrating without doubt how far human beings can go in cooperation with each other, irrespective of national grouping. For the very first time in planetary history we have been facing a common enemy: the COVID-19 virus. Pooling resources, donating equipment and money, heartfelt appreciation, self-sacrificing spirit, etc. - all have suddenly become the order of the day. It seems we will never return to that smug complacency of the passing era. Everyone is saying that ‘life will never be the same again’. So, we are moving rapidly toward uncertain but exciting times, a new world order, the age of Aquarius, as we begin to feel the cleansing waters of change.  


But what does the vision entail for you, for me, for the world? Does it breathe with expected human rights and freedom of choice in all the important areas affecting our individual lives? Are you aware for example, that had the US presidency gone to Hillary Clinton in the last election, it is likely there would soon follow mandatory laws regarding disease control affecting all citizens? Laws supposedly for the good of all, yet at the same time riding roughshod over the basic human right to choose? And are you further aware of the ongoing and future implications regarding disease control? According to Science Alert 18th April 2020: “The wealthy Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation called Wednesday for global cooperation to ready COVID-19 vaccines for 7 billion people, while offering an additional US$150 million toward developing therapeutics and treatments for the virus.” Those of us alive during the 1960s will remember the space race – the huge national programs to dominate outer space, to gain ascendancy, for fear of being overpowered. Now we have the race to dominate inner space – to find a ‘cure’ for the new common enemy. This time there seems to be more cooperation than competition, which is a marked improvement. But one thing remains obvious – the assumption that such measures are ‘required’ for humanity to survive and thrive is at best only an assumption.  


There are many sincere, well-meaning philanthropists who believe wholeheartedly in the efficacy of certain procedures for the common good. There are also opportunists for whom money talks loud and clear. And there is a fine line between the two, which line can easily become diffused and blurred. And finally, there are others, like myself, who have an overarching belief in the efficacy of the human organism itself, to be supplemented only as a last resort by man’s interventions. (Read my poem No Stranger) 


So, what do Joseph Goebbels and his partners in obvious crime have in common with Bill Gates and his partners in well-intentioned coercive enthusiasm? Read for yourself the ten simple clauses of the 1947 Nuremburg Code. Like the US founding fathers’ constitution of 1787, the code was drawn up by men of integrity, holding human dignity and freedom of choice as core values. Then ask yourself: What part of ‘informed consent’ could ever countenance the thought of ‘mandatory’? Yet this is the thrust of many advocates of the sought-after ‘cure’.  


To quote Bill Gates himself: “As we look ahead in the next century, leaders will be those who empower others”. I, for one, sincerely hope his fidelity to this vision will strongly oppose any move toward ‘mandatory’ measures anywhere in the world. After all, how can you ever empower another by withholding information and removing their freedom to choose? His estimate of seven billion vaccinations leaves headroom for only half a billion or so who might have other ideas. Does he honestly believe only 6.66% of the world population - (yes that is the correct figure!) – would choose not to avail themselves of ‘the fastest vaccine ever’?  Is he naively hoping for a basic world conversion to the efficacy of the ‘cure’? Or is he just throwing around the figure of 7 billion as a rough estimate for the whole populace?  If this were so, the implications are far more conspiratorial and sinister than any opposing ‘conspiracy theory’.  


  So, on the one hand we are left to ponder the sad legacy of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels’ delusions of grandeur. And on the other we have Facebook taking down posts about how to boost your immune system through use of natural products. We have YouTube removing videos alerting us to the dangers inherent in certain vaccinations, as well as first hand testimonies of virology and epidemiology experts who don’t agree with mainstream views. And we have anyone wanting to help others make an informed choice by examining all possible evidence labelled as a ‘conspiracy theorist’, even having their accounts removed from public arenas.


This begs the question: Just how different is this to the holocaust of eight decades ago? Or from any other totalitarian and draconian regime? And how close might we be to the brink of world fascism, achieved through fear of a common enemy – a simple, albeit complex protein? During the insidious rise of Nazism, there were people who gave their lives for freedom of choice. Some were individuals with temerity, others part of a group consciousness. Let’s pray it won’t come to that extreme again, but the singular issue remains the same: Is truth worth more than the illusion of security? Upon this question alone hangs the next quantum leap in the evolution of humanity.


Back to blog