We're looking for a smoking gun because the original poster said there were "billions of dollars spent in an effort to increase public ignorance". For that clai

We're looking for a smoking gun because the original poster said there were "billions of dollars spent in an effort to increase public ignorance". For that claim to be true you'd need an entire battlefield of smoking guns. The idea that there's billions of dollars spent on influencing the public and the whole thing is entirely covert is a conspiracy theory. It can be true, but requires good evidence, not a light-year sized goalpost move. > You're saying that Gates Foundation is playing subterfuge No I haven't said that. I've said, quite clearly, that the Gates Foundation is an example of spending vast sums very openly and non-subtly. You can even search their website to learn about their spending. Which is my point! I can evidence my claims because a billion dollars spent on influencing the public is about as non-subtle as you can get and easily proven when true. This is the second time you've quite seriously misinterpreted clear statements by me in this thread. Firstly you read 60 seconds as 1 second, now you think I've said the Gates Foundation is an example of "playing subterfuge", but that's not a claim even its critics make of it. You've projected your own biases onto my posts and read things that aren't there.