Connect with us

Culture

The Ukraine Crisis: Facts Versus Lies

In the old detective series Dragnet, the protagonist Sgt. Joe Friday became famous for his phrase, “Just the facts, ma’am!”

Is it possible today to get “just the facts” about anything in the Western world? No, because the corporate media is complicit in all the crimes of their global masters of the universe and have become the propaganda arm of disinformation advancing their worldwide globalist agenda.

This is the case with the globalist empire that is provoking Russia by way of Ukraine. Of course by “empire,” I mean the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire of the New World Order headquartered in the City of London with offices in Brussels, New York, and Washington, DC.

The Empire’s goal of world domination over the decades of the last century has been achieved through both deception and the force of arms. By the use of propaganda and disinformation, along with color revolutions, the Empire has funded proxies used to destabilize nations they seek to topple and absorb.

This is what is happening in the Ukraine right now. This ginned up “crisis” is not about the wellbeing of Ukraine, but rather it is about the Empire’s attempt to chip away at Russia and isolate them, since they are a firewall to the Empire’s goal of world subjection.

So let us look at the Empire’s media lies and propaganda and contrast it with facts. I write from the worldview of an American Protestant who places his Christian religion above his nationalism.

“THE FACTS”

LIE #1: RUSSIA IS AN ENEMY OF THE WEST.

FACTS: Since the Soviet empire fell and the various satellite nations of the Eastern Bloc gained their independence, the present Russian Federation, created in 1991, has done nothing to threaten the United States or to compromise its borders. They have not planted military bases near the United States, nor have they posed any threat to our domestic economy. Yes, Russia is competing with the US to provide natural gas to Europe, but they are doing so—ahem—in a capitalist free-market manner. Their product is quicker and cheaper. Remember, it was Germany who asked Russia to build Nord Stream II.

If the question is formulated, “Was the Soviet Union an enemy of the US?”, then the answer would be yes. But there is no more Soviet Union, which Reagan accurately labeled “the Evil Empire,” with its expansionist military aggression.

Russian president Putin has come under tremendous criticism in his own country for being conciliatory to the US in his public addresses, referencing the US as “colleagues and partners.”

Putin, along with his foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, has always resorted to dialogue and cooperation rather than coercive military action, “foreign aid” bribes, or meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. When dealing with the Empire and NATO, the foreign policy of Russia toward Ukraine has been strictly defensive. Their time is running out. Just as the United States in the early ‘60s did not want Russian nukes in Cuba, so too Russia does not want NATO military bases and missiles in the Ukraine.

When one examines “just the facts,” what we see is Russia’s unbelievable forbearance in the face of ceaseless aggression of the Empire and the non-stop agitation of the Western propaganda machine.

LIE #2: VLADIMIR PUTIN IS A “THUG.”

FACTS: This mantra is chanted ruthlessly by “conservative” commentators such as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Ben Shapiro. Nevertheless, upon examination, none of their inflammatory statements are supported by facts or evidence. Their propaganda relies on hearkening back to a bygone era, old Soviet stereotypes, and distant memories of past decades.

Putin is a European Russian. Out of a population of 144 million people, fully 111 million live west of the Ural Mountains in the continent of Europe. In religion and culture, Putin is much more European than Asian. Yet he is demonized by the West and assailed with constant lies.

In Putin’s last four presidential elections from 2000–2018, he had vote margins over his closest competitor of 23.9%, 58.1%, 46.2%, and 64.9%. What Western politician could ever have this level of admiration and respect from his people as Putin does?

Putin was secretly baptized as an infant in 1952 by his mother at an underground Orthodox Church ceremony. He identifies himself as a Russian Orthodox Christian and often attends Sunday services in Moscow. Is Putin’s faith genuine? That’s between him and God. What matters most to Russia’s people is Putin’s unwavering support of the church. He is very close to and supportive of the Russian Orthodox Church and has been instrumental in renewing Russia’s historic “symphonia” relationship between church and state. In America, the government attacks the church. In Russia, church and state work together to advance a Christian culture. The Russians know without Trinitarian Orthodoxy there is no Russia. Their 1,000-year Christian faith is their foundation.

George Orwell’s famous dystopian novel 1984 had its “two minutes of hate” where the people’s minds were conditioned to oppose anything the ruling party wanted them to oppose. Putin is the Empire’s new Emmanuel Goldstein.

In reality, Putin will go down in Russian history as one of its greatest princes if not the greatest. In miraculous fashion, he has decoupled Russia from the Western banking oligarchs, severed the Russian economy from Western parasites, restored Russian defenses, and shown the nation the path to full recovery after over 70 years of brutal communism. In the world of modern diplomacy, Putin is the foremost adult in a room of impulsive Western boys and avaricious megalomaniacs.

LIE #3: UKRAINE IS A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY.

FACTS: This is one of the “whopper” lies. The fact is that the Ukraine is currently a vassal state of the Anglo-American Empire, and its shadow government is being run out of the United States embassy in Kiev, being led and orchestrated by a Russophobe, neo-con American, Victoria Nuland, who serves as the Under Secretary of State.

Any sovereignty Ukraine possessed disappeared when the US State Department engineered a coup d’état where democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych was forced to flee in 2014. These events were called the “Maidan Revolution.” In the Western media it was called the “Revolution of Dignity.” It was one of the Empire’s many “color revolutions” to isolate and chip away at Russia and expand the Empire’s hegemony.

The main narrative created by the Empire, the American war party, neo-cons, and their supportive conservative pundits is, “Ukraine is a sovereign country, and it deserves our US protection and support.”

Yet the opposite is true. The US-led regime change in Ukraine’s government was under the direct control of the United States, which has installed its successive puppets. Americans are very comfortable with effecting “regime change” while hypocritically talking about “respecting sovereignty.” The dissonance could not be clearer.

If the American commentators are really concerned about Ukraine sovereignty, shouldn’t they be exposing the past actions against Ukraine’s sovereignty by the US State Department and NATO?

LIE #4: UKRAINE SHOULD BE FREE TO JOIN NATO.

FACTS: This lie cannot be effectively understood without knowing the history of NATO (1949) and the dissolving of the Soviet Union in 1991.

NATO was created as a military alliance of Western European countries, including Canada and the US, to counter FDR, Churchill, and Truman’s assistance to Stalin’s invasion of seven Eastern European countries by 1948.

The Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, and the Russian Federation formed with pro-Empire president, Boris Yeltsin, installed. At the time, George H. W. Bush, James Baker, and American diplomats assured President Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward. None of these agreements were put in writing (Gorbachev’s mistake) and the US went back on their commitment. NATO, which started with 12 members as an answer to the former Warsaw Pact nations, now stands at 30 members and is constantly working to surround Russia with additional NATO states. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved on July 1, 1991, after communism fell.

The issue over Ukraine membership in NATO, is Russian security and Article 5 of the NATO member states’ agreement. Article 5 is based on military alliance commitments that when one member state is attacked, all other NATO members must come to its defense. This absurd article is a sure path to war. This is similar to the “entangling alliances” over Serbia that compelled Europe to the disaster of WWI.

A simple application of the Golden Rule brings this all in perspective. How would we respond if Russia built and fortified military bases in Cuba, Mexico, and Canada, and stocked it with nuclear missiles? We all know how that went over. Why should anyone expect Russia not to respond similarly when NATO seeks to expand into the Ukraine and place massive amounts of military equipment and even nukes on its border? Why can’t we be honest about this? Why do our conservative commentators never bring this up for discussion?

LIE #5: RUSSIA IS THE AGGRESSOR IN THE UKRAINE CRISIS.

FACTS: This lie is another whopper. The US, which runs Ukraine, has placed CIA operatives and numerous military advisers throughout Ukraine, along with offensive and defensive military weapons. Supplying military equipment to a border country is in itself an act of war.

In response, Russia has had to build up its defenses in its own country near the Ukraine border and in Belarus.

The Empire and NATO is moving toward Russia’s front porch, just miles from Moscow and yet Russia is the aggressor? Putin currently has stated that Russia has nowhere else to retreat. It is commonly said that the side which fires the first shot starts the war. This is not actually true. It is another neo-con trick. It is the one who makes firing the first shot necessary who starts the war. The Empire’s endgame with Russia is to encircle, attack, destroy, and subjugate.

LIE #6: THE US IS IN UKRAINE TO HELP THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE.

FACTS: This claim is laughable. When the Empire decapitates a nation, installs their own puppets, and takes control of a country, that country ends up being plundered financially by being made dependent on their conquerors.

In the days of the Soviet Union, and even after the collapse of communism in 1991, the Ukraine was an agricultural and industrial center. Since 1991, and the Empire’s regime change in 2014, Ukraine has become Europe’s poorest country and has lost 14.7 million people.

Ukraine has fared no differently than other nations brought under Western hegemony, facing poverty, destruction of its defenses, massive loss of population, and third world dependency. Who is the real aggressor?

The only reason the US State Department is in Ukraine is in order to destabilize Russia. The Empire’s plan is to isolate Russia by the numerous color revolutions it organizes in the nations that border Russia. The most recent example is what just happened this January in Kazakhstan. The culprits in this recent Kazakhstan color revolution are always the same: CIA, English MI6, and Israel’s Mossad.

LIE #7: IF RUSSIAN MILITARY ENTERS UKRAINE, IT WILL BE AN ILLEGAL INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY.

FACTS: No, the invasion has already taken place since 2005 and 2014 by the Empire and NATO. The Empire’s invasion was similar to invasions of other countries, regime changes, takeovers of the military, and running puppet governments from US embassies, turning Ukraine from its own sovereign nation into a vassal state.

If the Russian military enters Ukrainian territory, it will be for purposes of liberation of the Ukrainian people from their present conquerors. The liberation will be first in the Donbas region marked by Russian humanitarian aid, with some help to rebuild the Ukrainian infrastructure and economy which the Empire has destroyed.

Russia is committed to defend Russian people in the Donbas of Ukraine but has no desire to incorporate Ukraine into the Russian Federation.

THE NEW MULTIPOLAR WORLD

The sources of power for a new order in the world are already in. The days of American hegemony, instituted at Bretton Woods (1944), are in full reversal. The world is fast moving from the Empires unipolar base to a multipolar base of power of Russia, China, Iran, and India.

Unfortunately, the Empire’s arrogance in their rejection of Russia forced the Russians eastward to China. However, Russia is ever so careful in their new relationship with China, not to mention an “alliance,” meaning militarily, but a “strategic partnership” which is mostly economic. Russia will never foolishly enter into the obligations of a military alliance.

This move has put Russia in a somewhat difficult position, especially if the relationship deepens. For Russia is Christian and China is atheistic. Russia’s hope here is the growing numbers and vigor of the Chinese church.

History demonstrates that when a major shift in power moves from an old order to a new one, that the transition period is never smooth. For despite being vassal states of the old order, the smaller states are often militarily and economically dependent on the empire. When an empire fades from power, old disputes immediately emerge and smaller economies go into freefall.

Also, despite Russia’s advances out of the Western financial systems, they remain tied to a Western-styled central bank. They will never be truly free from the Empire until they rid themselves from the City of London financial center. All of these things take time.

But what is certain is the tectonic plates of power have now shifted from the Empire’s old order to a new Eastern order. The old corrupt Empire must fall and, hopefully, a new multipolar order will provide a base for the nations to live in peace.

CONCLUSION

American conservatives and Christians need to start putting their Christianity above their nationalism and take an objective view of the foreign policy of our country. We will not be able to correct our disastrous international policies unless we take an honest look at what we have done.

The days of conservatives covering up the State Department’s international crimes with chest beating and shouts of “Oohrah” and “USA, USA” are over. We must stop listening to the Sean Hannity-matinee-commentator types who “see no evil” when they look at US foreign policy. The American neo-cons have been weighed in the balance and have been found wanting. War fatigue has set in. Americans have lost their stomach for their endless and pointless wars.

Questions are starting to be asked. Why does the United States military have over 750 bases in over 150 countries? Who gave the United States Department of State the right to rule the world? What is the real American interest in these foreign countries?

We must face the massive amount of destruction and human misery the US State Department has brought to the world since WWII. The US policy of war, economic sanctions, regime changes, created conflicts, blockades, currency devaluation, and trade restrictions have resulted in the biggest humanitarian crisis since the end of WWII. Does the average American recognize how much we as a country are hated and despised around the world because of our meddling? “Saving the world for democracy?” Oh, please.

I am afraid that the average American mind—having lived under decades of propaganda extolling US foreign policy as the epitome of righteousness with some kind of holy calling—will be unable to escape their mental conditioning.

But there is good news. The Anglo-American-Zionist Empire is in a freefall collapse. America’s military and worldwide hegemony is coming to an end. NATO’s disintegration is in process. There are already French politicians pushing a French exit out of NATO.

All empires fall. This one will also fall. Empires fall because they are unable to sustain the costs of hegemony and they go broke. The Empire’s defeat in Afghanistan is the start of a larger pattern that will continue to the utmost edges of the Empire.

The other good news is the ascent of the Russian Federation’s influence around the world. Russia, which seems to be the only voice of international reason in the world, has been a tremendously stabilizing influence in the last decade.

Russia has virtually ended the US funding and led proxy wars in the Middle East and is one of the few countries that can get the rogue state of Israel under control where they would be compelled to live in peace with their neighbors.

Russia had an empire once. It does not seek another one, but they would like to have security for their people from the evil, war-loving, sodomy-promoting, gender-confused, hedonistic, pro-abortion, porn-ified, anti-family, anti-Christ nations of the West.

To the West, leave Russia alone. Its recovery out of atheistic Bolshevism is the modern miracle of our time. Who could have seen a Christian Russia emerge from the rubble of communism, and all in just three decades?

America, let Russia finish its recovery. Let her new destiny run its course. A destiny that will once again bring her to a place as one of the great Christian nations of the world.

As for post-Christian Europe and America, all that remains is judgment. I believe it to be irreversible. The West has squandered its Christian heritage and blessings. Its 100 years of unending wars, state-sponsored terror, and institutionalized decadence has reaped the whirlwind. The collapse is not coming; it is already upon us.

Like Russia, the West also has its coming destiny which must run its course. After its collapse, Europe and America must rebuild again. Maybe in God’s gracious providence a Christian Russia could be our model and aid us in the renewal of a new Western Christian civilization.

Source link

Culture

‘Conversations Outside The Cathedral’: The fight for abortion rights in Colombia | Culture

February 21 marked two years since the Colombian feminist movement achieved a historic victory: the decriminalization of abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy, the longest period in Latin America.

A new book has just been published in Spanish, to tell the story of this triumph: Conversations Outside The Cathedral (Penguin Random House), playing on the title of Mario Vargas Llosa’s innovative novel, Conversation in The Cathedral (1969).

“One thing that happens to many of us feminists is that we work and fight… but we’re not putting together a log for history,” admits Ana Cristina González Vélez — a doctor and pioneer of the Just Cause movement — in her interview for the book. “I think men have been more aware of the value of narrating [such historical events] and that’s a shame,” she adds.

It’s time to put together the log, fight for a place in history and tell the feat better. As Argentine novelist Claudia Piñeiro describes it, this is a book about “the memory of the Colombian green tide.”

Conversations Outside The Cathedral is a book of interviews that journalist Laila Abu Shihab has put together, alongside González and her closest colleague, Cristina Villarreal. For years, Villarreal ran one of the few safe centers for women seeking abortions in Bogotá: Oriéntame (“guide me”).

“Cristina and I partnered together a lot… [she] from the perspective of [reproductive] services, [while I was] closely linked the feminist movement and advocacy. We were like two faces on one body,” González jokes, describing herself and Villareal.

The book includes conversations with activists, lawyers, legislators, reggaeton singers and famous actresses who were all fundamental to the victory. There are some men here and there, but the bulk of the interviewees are women. The diverse chorus describes the long road to victory: defeats, strategies, unexpected turns, debates, divisions, betrayals. But along the way, there was also an exceptional degree of solidarity… a feminist way of working that was “collective and went against egos and vanities,” the journalist writes.

Ana Cristina González, during a feminist demonstration, in Bogotá.
Ana Cristina González, during a feminist demonstration, in Bogotá.Victoria Holguín de Causa Justa

The first thing that Conversations Outside The Cathedral tries to do is give credit to those who rarely get any. For example, the book interviews university professor and sociologist Lucero Zamudio, who led the first ambitious study on abortion in Colombia in 1994, which revealed that induced abortion was the second-biggest cause of maternal mortality. “That study was never repeated — [there was never any document] of that magnitude and with that depth,” González affirms.

Another person included in the book is Iván Marulanda Gómez, a former senator who tried to get the right to abortion included in the Colombian Constitution of 1991. “Friends, it’s the right of Colombian women to give birth to children as a result of love and commitment… and it’s the right of Colombia’s children to be born surrounded by love and protection,” Marulanda told his colleagues in the Constituent Assembly. His motion was ultimately defeated: 25 votes in favor, 40 against, three abstentions. Congress has since voted on several initiatives to either decriminalize or legalize abortion. None have succeeded.

There are no protagonists in the fight for the right to abortion, but there are certainly key characters. There’s Mónica Roa, a lawyer who, in 2006, managed to get abortion decriminalized in three cases. Or Sandra Mazo, who’s committed to ending the guilt of abortion by leading the organization Catholics for the Right to Choose. For Cristina Villarreal, however, the key person was her father: Jorge Villarreal Mejía, a gynecologist who started a medical movement in favor of family planning. He founded Oriéntame in 1977. “I learned everything with my father,” his daughter explains. She’s of the leaders of the Just Cause movement, as well as the movement that preceded it: the Board for the Life and Health of Women.

Cristina Villareal.
Cristina Villareal.CORTESÍA

The book also deals with uncomfortable conversations. For instance, there were tensions that emerged among feminists after Roa’s victory in 2006, either because of what they perceived as her excessive media attention, or because of her strategy: rather than trying to get abortion decriminalized across the board, she sought exemptions from the law in three cases. “They criticized us and said that what we asked for was very little… only crumbs of justice,” Roa recalls.

The women on the Board for the Life and Health of Women aren’t afraid of engaging in increasingly complicated debates. They struggle, for example, with how to regulate the right to abortion when there’s a malformation of the fetus, because “any effort in this regard reinforces stereotypes and aggravates discrimination against people with disabilities,” González notes.

“There was a time when we decided that, every month, or every two months — I don’t remember very well — we would choose a topic for discussion, to ask each other uncomfortable questions,” Villareal says. “One of those issues was the [high level of abortions] in the case of female fetuses in India. At first, that generates a very strong reaction.”

Conversations Outside the Cathedral aims to document the epic battle, but also to warn the unsuspecting. For instance, two years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the ruling that had guaranteed women the right to abortion for decades. In Argentina, the new government of President Javier Milei is also promising to remove abortion rights. And, in Colombia, the so-called “pro-life” groups (González Vélez and Villarreal ask that they be identified more accurately as “anti-rights” groups) continue to seek their victory against the right to abortion by getting court rulings overturned. Within the feminist movement, victory cannot be completely achieved, because the fight is always shifting.

“I don’t know if one day — in a few decades, I hope — this conversation will seem very strange to [the next generations]. It will seem incomprehensible to them that abortion was a crime,” ponders one of the interviewees in the book. “I’m convinced that there’s no moment when the fight ends,” another woman notes. For now, the conversations continue.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Source link

Continue Reading

Culture

‘Mrs. Doubtfire’: The highlights Of Robin Williams’ Role That defined His Artistic Greatness

The highlights Of Robin Williams’ Role That defined His Artistic Greatness

The Voice Of EU | One of the most versatile comedian and actor Robin Williams left an indelible mark on an entire generation throughout the 1990s, evoking both laughter and tears. His portrayal of a strict yet endearing housekeeper in the hit film “Mrs. Doubtfire” (1993) resonated deeply with audiences worldwide, propelling it to resounding success across global boundaries.

Señora Doubtfire Robin Williams
Robin Williams in a scene from ‘Mrs. Doubtfire’ (1993). Archive Photos (20th Century-Fox / Getty Images)

Williams played the role, despite the adversities and addictions that plagued his life at the time, by putting aside the devised script and becoming a master of improvisation during the filming of the movie, which brought in more than €400 million.

In the year of its release it was only outdone by Jurassic Park (€1 billion). This is what its director, also an avowed admirer of the American actor, explained on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Mrs. Doubtfire’s debut on the big screen: “It took me three months to rewrite the script. I sent it to Robin and he said he loved it.” After Williams’ suicide in 2014, in an interview for Business Insider magazine, Chris Columbus unveils details that were buried 30 years ago.

“Four and a half hours, maybe five,” is the time in which, according to the director, Robin Williams was able to play Mrs. Doubtfire, a characterization for which the film earned the Oscar for Best Makeup. The actor was not comfortable in portraying his role: a father who disguises himself as a housekeeper in order to spend more time with his children after a bitter divorce. For him, it presented a challenge. “We never could shoot two consecutive days of Robin as Mrs. Doubtfire. It was a punishing day for him, so always the next day, we would shoot him as Daniel (the father),” the director of the film reveals three decades after its release.

Comedy is acting out optimism.” — Robin Williams

In between the laughs and moments that are etched in the minds of many, Columbus describes the challenge of keeping actors such as Pierce Brosnan and Sally Field, who played leading roles in the film, from breaking away from the script of their characters while Williams was at his most unrestrainedly creative.

Indeed, according to the director, his boundless energy even created situations where the script supervisor could not keep up, resulting in unrepeatable and spontaneous takes. “None of us knew what he was going to say when he got going and so I wanted a camera on the other actors to get their reactions.” Most of the sequences in the film, and specifically all of those featuring Williams, were the result of an incredible amount of improvisation from the American comedian. “If it were today, we would never end. But back then, we were shooting film so once we were out of film in the camera, we would say to Robin, ‘We’re out of film.’ That happened on several occasions,” recalls Columbus.

“Hey boss, the way I like to work, if you’re up for it, is I’ll give you three or four scripted takes, and then let’s play.” This was the actor’s first warning to the director of Mrs. Doubtfire. Robin Williams was a significant figure in Chris Columbus’ life, and he still is to this day. Not only because he was responsible for his move to San Francisco, the actor didn’t want to shoot anywhere else, but due to his ability to make people laugh and cry at the same time. “Williams wanted the film to be shot there because he was living in San Francisco with his wife, Marsha, and their children. Thanks to him I fell in love with the city that has become my home,” he explains.

“You will have bad times, but they will always wake you up to the stuff you weren’t paying attention to.” — Robin Williams

The director also reminisced about some memorable scenes that contributed to the film’s status as a cinematic masterpiece, as perceived by many. However, what stood out the most was his innate ability to improvise: “The entire restaurant sequence was remarkable. When Robin, portraying Mrs. Doubtfire, accidentally loses his teeth in his drink, you can see the joy on Robin’s face; he’s almost smirking to himself for coming up with that.” Following the success of the Mrs. Doubtfire premiere, the production team is currently exploring ways to honor Williams and his portrayal in the film, although no definitive plans have been made yet. “There are approximately 972 boxes of footage stored in a warehouse somewhere in California. There’s something truly special and enchanting about his performances, and I believe it would be exciting to delve deeper into it.”

Despite initial reservations about creating a sequel, the notion of a new spin-off gained traction shortly before the actor’s tragic passing on August 11, 2014, at his residence in Paradise Bay, California. “Robin’s only concern was: ‘Boss, do I have to spend as much time in the suit this time around?’ The physical toll of portraying Doubtfire was immense for Robin; it felt like running a marathon every day,” the director recounts. Following a brief meeting at the actor’s home, and a simple handshake, Chris Columbus began outlining the script mere days before the unfortunate event. “During the rewrite, we contemplated reducing the role of Doubtfire. However, Robin’s untimely demise extinguished any hopes of a sequel,” he laments. Although not spearheaded by its creator, Mrs. Doubtfire has found new life as a stage musical. “What set him apart as a performer is that there was no one like Robin Williams before him, and there will never be anyone like him again. He was truly one-of-a-kind,” reflects the actor’s superior.

Mrs. DoubtfireRobin Williams and Matthew Lawrence in a scene from ‘Mrs. Doubtfire’ (1993).

In addition to the director, another Mrs. Doubtfire star who later spoke of Robin Williams’ brilliance was Matthew Lawrence, who played Daniel’s son. Lawrence was just a teenager in the film, which also gave a debut to his co-star Mara Wilson, the unforgettable Matilda. One day Lawrence went to Robin’s dressing room and did not expect what he was told: “‘Stay away from drugs, particularly cocaine.’ He was being serious and told me: ‘You know when you come to my trailer and you see me like that?’ He’s like, ‘That’s the reason why. And now I’m fighting for the rest of my life because I spent 10 years doing something very stupid every day. Do not do it.’ I stayed away from it because of him”, Lawrence recalled in an interview with People magazine in March 2022.

The lesser-known chapter of Williams’ life, while unrelated to his demise, shed light on the inner struggles of a comedian committed to bringing joy to others yet grappling with profound personal sorrow. “As charismatic as he appeared on screen, I’d often visit him in his trailer for chats, he was tormented. It was truly agonizing for him. He didn’t conceal it. He confided in me about his battles with addiction,” the actor concluded.


Continue Reading

Culture

‘The Bill Gates Problem’ – The Case Against World’s Richest Man

The Case Against World’s Richest Man

When Clinton assumed the presidency of the United States, there was eager anticipation from the Chinese, not for Clinton himself, but for Bill Gates. This was during the late 1990s, a period when the internet was still in its nascent stages, and the digital boom of the early 2000s had not yet reached its peak. The enigmatic persona that captivated the attention of the burgeoning Asian powerhouse is now portrayed in “The Bill Gates Problem” as a “domineering, brusque figure” whose demeanor is likened to “a cauldron of passions that freely erupts.” According to a former employee cited in the book, Gates was perceived as “a complete and utter jerk to people 70% of the time,” while the remaining 30% saw him as a “harmless, enjoyable, exceptionally intelligent nerd.”

The 1990s were also the decade of the conflict between Microsoft and the now defunct Netscape browser, which challenged what was already being openly described as the former’s monopolistic practices. Gates was investigated and accused in Congress for such practices; he ultimately won the battle, but the case harmed his reputation, and in 2000 he resigned as CEO of his company. From there he undertook an expansion of the foundation that he had established with his wife and to which he has dedicated his main efforts in the last two decades. In 2006, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation received the Prince of Asturias Award for International Cooperation.

With a personal fortune of $100 billion and tens of billions more in his private foundation, Gates has been one of the richest men in the world for decades, and the foundation has been the most generous organization of its kind, specializing above all in health aid, education and child nutrition, with a large presence in Africa and India among other regions of what was formerly known as the Third World. Tim Schwab, a contributor to the weekly left-wing newspaper The Nation, undertook a detailed investigation to denounce something that in truth was already known: that American foundations are largely a way for billionaires to avoid taxes.

To prove this, he thoroughly looked into the accounts and procedures of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the failures and occasional successes of its philanthropic policies, and came to the conclusion that behind this facade of help to the needy hides an operation of power. He is ruthless in his criticism, although accurate in his analysis of the growing inequality in the world. Absorbed by the revolutionary rhetoric, he laments that the Gates Foundation has remained “deadly silent” regarding movements such as Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter, which demand social change in the face of the “excess wealth and ‘white savior’ mentality that drives Bill Gates’ philanthropic work.” He does attribute some good intentions, but his criticism is merciless, sometimes even coarse, while the absence of solutions for the problems he denounces — other than the calls for do-goodism — is frustrating.

His abilities as an investigative journalist are thus overshadowed by a somewhat naive militancy against the creative capitalism that Gates promotes and an evident intention to discredit not only his work but, above all, him. The demands he makes for transparency and the accusations of obscurity are dulled by the author himself in the pages he dedicates to Gates’ relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the famous corruptor of minors at the service of the international jet set. Gates has explained his meetings and interviews with him on countless occasions, and in no case has any type of relationship, other than their commercial relations or some confusing efforts to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, been proved. Still, Schwab raises, with no evidence whatsoever, the possibility that their relationship “could have had something to do with Epstein’s principal activities in life: sexual gratification and the exercise of power.” The book is full of this kind of opinions and speculations, to the detriment of a more serious analysis of Gates’ mistakes in the management of his foundation, the problems of shielding the intellectual property of vaccines in the hands of the pharmaceutical industries and, ultimately, the objective power that big technology companies have in global society.

He signed a collaboration agreement with the RAE to improve Microsoft’s grammar checker and was interested in the substantial unity of the Spanish language in all the countries where almost 600 million people speak it. That man was very far from the sexist, arrogant, miserable predator that Schwab portrays. Nor did we deduce — and this can be applied to the personal adventure of Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Zuckerberg, Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos — that his life’s goal was world domination, as suggested by this book. If they have achieved it, or may achieve it, it is due to the dynamics of digital civilization and the objective difficulties in governing it. The deregulation of financial capitalism, which has increased inequality among humankind, is due to the incompetence of obsolete political institutions and to leaders who care more about their own fates than those of their people. The criticism against “lame and wasteful government bureaucracies” might be part of the propaganda promoted by the world’s wealthy, but lately we have also heard it from small-scale farmers across Europe.

In conclusion, we found the book to be more entertaining than interesting. It provides a lot of information — we’re not sure if it’s entirely verified — and plenty of cheap ideology. Above all, one can see the personal crusade of the author, determined to prove that Bill Gates is a problem for democracy and that millionaire philanthropists are a bunch of swindlers. The world needs their money; maybe managed by party bureaucracies, that much is not clear. Bill Gates’ money, that is, but not Bill Gates himself.


Continue Reading

Trending

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates 
directly on your inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!