There's always been something desperate about Bill Gates. Doug Wilson / Corbis via Getty
At a moment when the world’s most revered humanitarian faces growing public scrutiny and a fading public profile, what does he do? Try to change the narrative. Over the past year, we’ve seen Bill Gates embark on a powerful PR tour. In addition to his podcast, his blog, and endless speeches and op-eds, he pushed out a five-part self-aggrandising Netflix series last year. And now he’s got a new memoir.
A single volume would not be sufficient for Gates, however, and he has announced that he needs three to tell his life story. The first, Source Code, focuses on his early life, and the initial years of Microsoft, the company that made him a billionaire. As one of the most interviewed and talked about people in history, much of Gates’s personal story has already been told. So what could he tell us at this point that we haven’t heard before?
Actually, he could tell us a lot. But only if he wanted to. His remarkable life has been full of intrigue, filled with war stories — including the cut-throat tactics he used to kill Microsoft’s competitors and create one of the most powerful and destructive monopolies in the history of commerce. His personal life has been no less interesting. While his PR handlers have pushed the picture of a bookish nerd, the real Bill Gates has always lived in the fast lane; speeding in his Porsche, throwing explosive temper tantrums, and, apparently, enjoying a robust and diverse romantic life — one that, according to numerous allegations, has crossed lines.
Accounts of his bad-boy behaviour are legion, and, in recent years, the media has been increasingly open to critical profiles of the billionaire. Over the past 18 months, three books (including my own, The Bill Gates Problem) have been published, all of which were at least cautiously critical. At the same time, many legacy news outlets, which have long praised Gates, have started interrogating his presumed moral authority — exploring, for example, his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
If Gates was willing to consider partnering with a monster like Epstein to advance his philanthropic goals — that’s Bill Gates’s explanation for their numerous meetings — what else might he be willing to do? What drives a man like Gates to such extreme behaviour?
You won’t find an answer in Source Code, an insipid, sanitised work of revisionist history, a PR exercise aimed at humanising and revitalising Gates in the public eye — reminding us that, in a world of oligarchs, there truly are some “good billionaires”.
With a heavy focus on his youth, his book tells of the accidental death of his childhood best friend, the difficulties he had seeing eye-to-eye with his parents, and his earliest entrepreneurial activities in high school. These anecdotes are supposed to make readers see him as thoughtful and reflective, but they ring hollow because he never actually reflects on his hubris, his most defining character trait. Gates is a man who has always insisted that he is the smartest guy in the room — and should be sitting at the head of every decision-making table. As he once reportedly quipped at a dinner party: “Of course, I have as much power as the President has.”
Yet Source Code gives us few hints about the genesis of his god complex. As a result, it doesn’t help us understand who Gates is today, the promiscuous pedant who uses his extravagant wealth to position himself as leader, expert and authority on a dizzying array of topics — public health, public education, climate change, artificial intelligence, vaccines, contraceptives, agricultural development and endless other issues.
If Gates had used his memoir to simply embrace his inner power broker and reveal his real self — a man obsessed with power and control, a man driven by ego and self-interest, a man unable to control his emotions, a man who, according to numerous accounts, has trouble respecting women — we might, then, have a reason to read it.
The timing of publication is interesting, coming at a moment when other tech billionaires are surging ahead of him. Gates seems anachronistic today. He exercises most of his money-in-politics influence through dark corridors and back rooms. Last year, it was revealed that he made a $50 million dark-money donation to Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign. Publicly, meanwhile, he goes to extraordinary lengths to hide his influence, presenting himself as a wholly non-political humanitarian, driven by a selfless desire to help others.
This elaborate branding stands in contrast to billionaires like Elon Musk, a brazenly self-interested billionaire who seems to wear the title of oligarch like a king’s crown. He certainly doesn’t try to fool the public into believing that he is a philanthropist. Likewise, Donald Trump, though a politician who is required to at least gesture to the public’s interest, usually can’t help but show how devoted he is to his own interests. The reason these men are surging into public life may be, in part, because of the vulgar honesty they bring to the table. They are not nice, kind, or generous people. And they don’t pretend to be.
There’s something grotesque in seeing the contours of our oligarchs so exposed. But this behaviour also seems like a natural evolution of oligarchy, at least in American politics. Republicans and Democrats have long normalised and legitimised billionaires like Gates — accepting his campaign contributions, giving him humanitarian awards, generously co-funding Gates Foundation projects, delivering to him massive tax benefits for his philanthropy, and financially partnering with the company that continues to make Gates rich, Microsoft. Elon Musk may present a new level of normalisation and legitimisation for oligarchy, but he’s standing on the shoulders of Bill Gates.
Gates, perhaps, also deserves comparison to another billionaire, Howard Hughes, a man who spent his final years in extreme isolation, losing touch with reality. He reportedly let his fingernails grow several inches in length, his toenails even longer. As his health declined, he pursued a regiment of self-medication and quackery, obsessively injecting himself in the groin with mysterious fluids.
Hughes’s self-destructive behaviour and agoraphobia was probably not helped by his great wealth, which allowed him to surround himself with people who depended on him for money. Financial dependence, invariably, makes people afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. Or maybe even help a man clearly in need of assistance. And this is also becoming Gates’s story.
Today, Gates surrounds himself with people who depend on his money, and cloisters himself away from his critics, even as they grow in volume and viability, on both the Left and Right. Some of the intended beneficiaries of the Gates Foundation — farmer organisations across the African continent — are openly calling on the foundation to pay reparations for all the harm it is causing. A growing body of independent experts levy a similar critique: that the foundation is doing more harm than good. To this criticism, Bill Gates never offers a response.
Meanwhile, in his private life, Gates has found himself subject to headline after headline of alleged inappropriate behaviour toward women. (He denies any wrongdoing.) And in his business affairs, his zealous efforts to present himself as a leader on climate change have fallen flat because none of the game-changing innovations he has promised have materialised.
Despite, or perhaps because of, this growing criticism, Gates and his handlers are going out of their way to create a world in which no critics exist. For his forthcoming book tour, he has decided to charge, which will keep out critics and naysayers. Couldn’t the $166-billion man simply rent out the venue at his own expense?
On the flipside, his philanthropic foundation shamelessly gives out hundreds of millions of dollars to the news media — The Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC and dozens of other outlets around the world — which creates strong incentives to praise Gates. Though the news media occasionally does put a critical lens to Gates, most journalists, even those not directly funded by the foundation, tend to treat him differently — and better — than other billionaires. To be sure, most news outlets appear to love Gates’s new memoir. The New York Times‘s recent, glowing review of Gates’s memoir was headlined: “Bill Gates isn’t like those other tech billionaires.”
A similar story can be found in the billions of dollars the Gates Foundation donates to universities, which has led to what academic researchers call the “Bill chill” — the chilling effect that makes them reluctant to criticise the man who so many look to for funding.
There’s always been something desperate about Gates deploying his money in a manner that reliably builds allies and quiets critics. Why not enter the public debate standing on his own two feet, explaining who he is and what his ideas are? What is Gates so afraid of? That he’ll finally hear the chorus of voices calling him the emperor who has no clothes?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOddly for all Trump’s brashness and Elon’s awkwardness there is an authenticity on display. A very definite what you see is what you get.
Gates is very much a creature from the other side. At no point do you know what he is about. He seems reasonable enough when interviewed in his obligatory knitwear and tie combo. But in reality look at what he’s created? Actually look at it. And why does he want to be involved in vaccines and farming?
No. Bill Gates is part of the technocratic set. Public shows of benevolence and care for humanity. But in reality this is control from the shadows. His motives are not clear.
The ridiculous and awkward oligarchs we see are possibly grotesque in their self interest (I personally am not sure that financial gain is their aim). But the seemingly reasonable Gates is one we should be keeping a very close eye on.
Oddly for all Trump’s brashness and Elon’s awkwardness there is an authenticity on display. Yeah. Trump is an authentic narcissist, and Musk is an authentic….um….lizard creature from another planet, probably.
Why shouldn’t he take an interest in vaccines and farming ? Perhaps he’s a little bored after Microsoft and looking round for tough problems to solve.
One can’t help feeling that there’s a resentment amongst Gurwinder’s “problem sellers” that an actual “problem solver” has turned up on their patch actually trying to fix stuff – and put them out of business.
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy theory ?
The problem that the Right has with Gates is that many of them are anti-vaxxers, and they dislike him for being pro-vax.
Given what we know of his software. I would ask one question.
Is that the kind of thinking we would want to apply to farming?
Or vaccines for that matter?
I would argue no. If we take his Office suite of products for example, they are clunky and survive through arguably monopolising the market place. Are there better products, absolutely. Do we all still find ourselves having to use this garbage because clients insist on it, that’s a yes too.
If I want someone to monopolise a situation then he’s my man. Do I want him anywhere near the means of food production, or vaccines, hell no!
Because all is not as it seems, initially, namely that he’s giving his money away to save the world.
Oddly, he just gets richer and richer. Funny kind of philanthropy. He funds media which the publish articles that are little more than puff pieces for him and his works.
It’s the same in the universities. Imperial college gets millions from him. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The tune we got was Neil Ferguson’s apocalyptic Covid models, recommending lockdowns.
Maybe he is a good guy. In which case sunlight is the best disinfectant, but everything he does is in the shadows.
In the meantime have a Google at what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds. The tentacles run everywhere.
Use your loaf. The writer didn’t mention conspiracy theories. Allow me to reiterate on their behalf. The problem with Gates is the persona he projects to the world. Nobody knows who the real Gates is. He’s secretive. This is very apparent in his words and deeds. There are no theories.
Gates is a bit nerdy. That is common among IT people. What’s the big deal?
Why shouldn’t he take an interest in vaccines and farming ?
Because he knows little about either but has the resources to cause great harm? The left is freaking out over Elon, asking what he knows about govt. Perhaps not much but Musk does understand balance sheets and ROI. Look at the predatory practices that Microsoft was sued over; THAT is how he does business. It is reasonable to believe he would bring the same tactic to farming or vax making.
How do you know how much Gates knows about vaccines and farming ? He’s a pretty bright guy with a lot of free time. There’s no magic or priesthood which says that someone can’t build up knowledge and expertise in a new field. Innovation happens when people move into established fields bringing new ideas.
Feels like >90% of the criticism of Gates here is purely tribal. When the critique gets so personal and doesn’t address the points on their merits, it’s usually a clue.
I will ask once again – what is it you would actually prefer Gates to do with his time, intellect, money and contacts ?
Or is this all just tall poppy syndrome ?
As part of the anti-Bill Gates tribe, the first question that comes to mind is “Has Bill Gates ever actually done any farming? Has he ever had any actual dirt under his impeccably manicured nails?” My, and I’m sure many others’, opposition to Gates and all these similar technocrats, is based on the realization that they don’t actually know half as much as they pretend to, about farming or vaccines. They represent a caste of people that seems to believe that the important part of the job consists of modelling fantasies on computers without ever really consulting with the poor sods who will have to try to make these fantasies reality, and who will bear the consequences of any failures; consequences the technocrats always seem to be able to shield themselves from.
This techocratic mindset has meanwhile taken over nearly everything, from the military, to food-production, to housing. In a previous age that I am old enough to remember, tehnocrats were called paper-pushers, and were regarded with some disdain by those who actually did the work. We need to reinstate that attitude.
Yes, the harm includes replacing biodiversity in local farming in India (4,000 varieties of rice) with monoculture.
Where’s there’s big money involved, there’s conspiracies. It’s not that complicated. Unless you’re genuinely sure Gates is actually an altruist??
A creature from the dark side.
This is correct. I think it’s partially a reflection of the times. Bill Gates rose to power and prominence just before the Internet was deployed to the public in an era where all billionaires were expected to keep to the shadows and actually could do so. In that era, it took a lot more journalistic legwork to track down where all the money came from and was going. Since that time, the revolution that intersects technology and democracy that is the unregulated Internet has changed the way we gather information and how much is out there while the public battle over campaign finance led by John McCain exposed a lot of the process even as it failed to change it. Following the money no longer requires talking to shadowy figures in parking garages. These days, it generally takes a few mouse clicks. It’s trivially easy now to find out who’s donating money to which superPAC. The public now knows who George Soros is, who the Koch brothers are, and everything Bill Gates has his grubby fingers in. It takes all of thirty seconds to find out how much more money the Harris campaign spent than the Trump campaign and see some of the many billionaires and corporations that supported her from the shadows. Now google even has the helpful little AI bot that answers the question directly.
Elon is ever the innovator. I suspect he recognizes that we inhabit a changed reality. Given the current political and technological reality, it is nigh impossible for any billionaire to conceal their political activities or hide their political leanings behind the masquerade of philanthropy. Thus, there’s nothing to be gained by attempting to hide one’s political alignment. It will be found out anyway and then the people suspect that person of being deceptive and having a secret agenda, which through the limitless human imagination can easily become a criminal conspiracy or a nefarious plot to take over the world. By stepping forth into the open and publicly declaring himself, Elon avoids this perceptual trap and removes the element of subterfuge and deception. He’s made his fortune in part by being one step ahead of others in understanding and predicting our changing world, and this is just another example.
Vandana Shiva has condemned Bill Gates for his use of “philanthropy to control the world.”
So, just to clarify, “philanthropy” is bad, right?
Philanthropy as a means of control is bad. Do you not see why? The Sacklers were ‘philanthropists’ and I’d wager big donors to children’s charities are likely pederasts. You sound naive and gullible.
I haven’t seen any evidence of Gates using philanthropy as a means of “control”. He just seems like a philanthropist to me. As to “naive and gullible”, I know a “bad guy” when I see one (and that’s Musk).
Gates is a philanthropath.
A philanthropath is a psychopath masquerading as a philanthropist.
Gates wants to help people. Musk doesn’t even understand what “people” are. Certainly his attempts to emulate one are comical.
So anyone who says they’re motivated by “philanthropy” should not be questioned and deserve outright trust no matter what? That’s very naïve thinking Im afraid.
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” — Albert Camus, “Resistance, Rebellion, and Death”
The essence of “philanthropy” is giving away your money to help others. Gates does that. Whether you like him personally or not doesn’t alter that fact.
But then again, I’m automatically in favor anything that a quack line Vendana Shiva is against.
At least Musk innovates: cars, spaceships, satellite technology. You can buy a Tesla or not; it’s your choice. By contrast, Microsoft, Gates’ cash cow, is just a huge monopolistic rentier, lazily digesting the cud of innumerable license fees for what has become an essential product.
And philanthropic Gates — hopefully soon in RFK Jr’s gunsights — has an absolute and dangerous belief in simple technological answers to every complex medical and agricultural problem that besets humanity, usually to his own benefit.
Why is Microsoft an essential product? I use non-microsoft search engines and email providers and never go near it.
When the dam breaks and the various, hinted-at stories finally become “News”, the ensuing scandal will presumably be called “Gatesgate”.
Gatey McGateGate
He pays for the product placement of his Foundation and its aims in the Daily Telegraph. It is Gates product placement.
Only an idiot, or an Unherd intern, would claim this is philanthropy in action ‘giving out hundreds of millions.’
He buys the media and inserts himself in it to further his political aims.
“He buys the media and inserts himself in it to further his political aims“. So, nothing like Musk then?
With Musk you know what you are getting. He tells you.
With Gates? Who knows?
Just like the owner of this political tool Unherd? Marshall. With his friend Gove. Who knows what he wants?
With Musk you know what you are getting. He tells you. Yeah, that’s the problem. You can’t think “Maybe he’s not that bad after all”, because everything he says and everything he does reminds you that he is that bad.
This just reads like a rather partisan attempted hit job on Gates. Along with attendant unsubstantiated allegations and smears. There’s no balance at all to it.
Isn’t it at least possible that Gates is trying to do some good in places like Africa (regardless of whether he is or not) ? How does Tim Schwab know what Gates’ internal movitations actually are here ?
Was Microsoft really “one of the most powerful and destructive monopolies in the history of commerce” as Schwab claims ? Sure, I wasn’t a fan most of the time Microsoft was on top, but they were actually providing products and services people wanted to buy – and increasing the productivity and wealth of all of us as a result.
Where is this evidence that Gates is a power-crazed megolomaniac, bent on world domination ? I realise this is the fashionable line, but I’m just not seeing it. If he were really as powerful as people suggest, why did Trump win ?
And finally, what would Schwab have Gates do with his billions ? What better alternative does he have to suggest ?
Somewhere behind all this, I can’t help feeling that there’s a definite tone of resentment and jealousy from the journalistic/media class that “nerds” like Gates have – through talent, hard work and luck – come out on top. Tough !
I presume 1. you are one of the few IT professionals who swims the against the tide that view Microsoft as a problem NOT a solution? Or, 2. You are not an IT professional and know as much about it as i do about knitting or raising llamas?
I’m not an IT professional (not even sure that’s not a non sequitur). For what it’s worth, I’ve worked in tech for several decades and actually been a fully paid up Microsoft hater almost all of my career. Absolutely hated MS-DOS.
But so what ? I now see Gates at least trying to do something constructive (in some ways similar to earlier US titans like Rockefeller and Carnegie). The man doubtless has many faults, but that doesn’t mean everything he touches will turn bad. This frankly tribal level of critique seems rather childish.
Well said. Bill Gates has his faults (don’t we all?), but what makes him interesting is not those faults (which seem rather ordinary) but (1) his ability to create a product that people wanted to buy (personally, I have mostly preferred the Apple Mac, but that was my choice) and (2) his leadership in how he has used his fortune for good.
I find it sad that so many writers prefer to write about the faults and failures of people in the public eye, rather than their successes and virtues. Is that how they themselves would like to be remembered?
Anyone who donated $50 million to Kamala Harris has got to be dodgy! He makes my skin crawl!
“….reminding us that, in a world of oligarchs, there truly are some “good billionaires“”. It wouldn’t matter if Gates was outed as a someone who spends his private time torturing puppies. I’d still like him more than I like Musk.
How sad.
Musk is creepy on a visceral level. I have always understood why he was bullied at school.
So, you’re not only a Gates’ fanboy but, also, a Fauci fanboy?
I wouldn’t say I am a Gates “fanboy”. I mean, I wouldn’t have a beer with him. I find nerds boring.
The retribution, justice and vengeance of the Lord, with any luck.
Bill Gates’ business malpractices have long been spoken of in hushed tones. To me, Gates always came across as the most pedantic/boring tech billionaire ever. He should fire his PR agency for the ‘billionaire do-gooder’ narrative.
I’d still like to know what Gates discussed with Starmer in his visit to Downing Street a couple of months ago. Offering to buy up farms whose owners were forced to sell by inheritance tax?
I wouldn’t bet against that. He has done just that in America and his company Blackrock owns more agricultural land that any other single entity in the USA.
Two years ago Gates was a visitor at Kirribilli House, Sydney, for discussions with the Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. We were told they discussed ” climate change, global health issues and new and clean energy opportunities”.
Why his wife of 30 years left him? No cheating. No financial or freedom problems. Look at her face when married vs now? She was frightened.
Could it be cruelty for another name? Never trust immature, insecure man with power!
Most women lighten up considerably when they get divorced.
Is there nothing you don’t know or do you just not know what you don’t know?
Gates has clearly got more up his sleeve than his dirty arm, and whatever it is ( ideaology? mental illness?) he wants to keep it hidden. I wonder if its a version of survivors guilt? Hearing he lost a close friend in his youth supports this theory. 1980s, early days of corporate and home IT: Apple had OS2 and a “windows” GUI. IBM and other Intel chip based computers had Disc Operating Systems. 86-DOS, IBM DOS and MS DOS (Microsoft) By the late 80s these code intensive and cumbersome PC systems were losing sales to Unix and Xenix, open source operating systems using a windows GUI that unlike DOS worked with Intel, Motorola and the emergent AMD type chipsets. Unix set ups were expensive and hard to fit into PCs at sensible cost, but far easier to program, change or maintain. Worst of all they were open source so whatever software strides were made by Western IT firms could easily be copied by USSR or other opponents. Unix still exists as Lynux and is widespread in EPOS systems and some phones but as we know the history of mass computing favoured the IBM ( + clone) hardware, Microsoft operating systems and applications on top of them – especially as Gates & Co followed Apple and Unix into a windows user interface. So a mix of geopolitics and luck got Microsoft where it is today. Those of us who saw it happen were not pleased as though MS developer tools were copies of the 80s C languages and CASE tools they were cumbersome compared to more advanced methods, making user orientated systmes harder to code and harder to maintain. Add on the obsessively rapid built in obsolescence changes in MS products and lax coding and security (India?) and it is even more surprising MS became what it is now. It will not last forever. I expect & fervently hope Gates malign influence will wain before Microsoft’s fortunes do. If you ever get the chance look up Gate’s interview with BBC Radio “Womens Hour” around 2013? Scary stuff – like Kermit with monomania he is on and on about the future like he has been there. Would be funny if he were a bum on the street but he has enough money and therefore power to do damage that his pals like Epstein could only dream of.
Deleted
What is Bill Gates afraid of?
Perhaps he is afraid of the Epstein Island trips becoming public and ending his days in a jail cell with his billions of dollars and millions of acres of American farmland being stripped from him?
It was a bit hard to trudge on after the hyperbolic opening claim of this horrid little man as the world’s most revered humanitarian. Perhaps it was sarcasm given what followed but still.
Gates owes his vast wealth to one single stroke of genius: doing the deal (while antitrust slept at the wheel) to ensure that every PC came pre-installed with his inferior OS.
Gates has been afraid this entire life. He is nothing but a Marketing dude and when your OS platform has 90 percent of the market, you really don’t have to do anything but extoll your acumen, virtue, and badass persona. Or so he hopes. It is a little pathetic that he needs so much attention. Well, maybe the next three or four books on what a great dude he is his will help. I seriously doubt it.
“…including the cut-throat tactics he used to kill Microsoft’s competitors and create one of the most powerful and destructive monopolies in the history of commerce.”
Nonsense. The author seems to believe that success in business must be rooted in evil. His comment has to assume that Microsoft’s competitors were benevolent altruists with superior technology, not others wanting to make big bucks. And that there is no benefit derived from a widely used software that has created and supported the development of multitudinous apps by a wide range of other companies.
There’s a good chance the article was input into a PC.
Oddly enough his biggest technological legacy will probably be causing the rise of open source software. By over-aggressively pushing competitors out of business typically abusing monopolistic power and using dirty tricks he helped highlight the justifications for open source software and create the perfect software environment (two choice left : unpredictable windows or free and open Linux?) for its flourishing. Having such low reputation amongst techies must be hurting his ego despite all his wealth.
The new generation of mRNA vaccines which include Cancer vaccines are a mixture of High tech and Bio Engineering. High tech by means of understanding what cancers you could be susceptible to and transmitting the information to a data centre, all inside your body This is what Bill Gates would invest in while turning us into Cyborgs. Sorry but I see these Billionaires as the Beast (Devil).
Sorry but I see these Billionaires as the Beast (Devil). Not Musk though, right? Everyone on here likes Musk (except me, of course – oh, and probably Champagne Socialist).
What a simply ridiculous article. I don’t like Bill Gates and probably disagree with him on almost every political topic you could imagine, but this is an empty-headed critique devoid of specifics and speciously exaggerating all its claims. One example…
“Republicans and Democrats have long normalised and legitimised billionaires like Gates — accepting his campaign contributions, giving him humanitarian awards, generously co-funding Gates Foundation projects, delivering to him massive tax benefits for his philanthropy, and financially partnering with the company that continues to make Gates rich, Microsoft.”
US politicians are using Microsoft products! US politicians are accepting campaign contributions! US politicians are using the tax code to encourage philanthropy! UnHerd’s editorial standards should be much higher than this. Its readers’ are.