Let's Fight Microsoft

[DavidB]

This is my first post on this forum; thank you for creating it.

My real name is David Blomstrom, and I've been fighting Microsoft for several years. I worked for the Seattle School District, which was effectively taken over by Bill Gates, which helps explain why it gets worse every year.

In 1999, I learned just how corrupt politics is when I ran for a seat on the Seattle School Board. The highlights included receiving my first computer virus, a gift from Bill Gates Senior. It was a real eye opener, and it accomplished just the opposite of what it was supposed to do - persuade me to butt out of politics. In fact, I later became the first candidate for public office in the nation (that I know of) to make Microsoft-bashing a campaign issue.

I ran for office three more times, twice for state office. However, our election system is utterly broken; it's almost impossible to even get any publicity outside the Internet - and even the Internet has proven a general failure.

I wated to run for Seattle Mayor this time around, but I couldn't come up with the money for the filing feee. (I was laid off three years ago.)

I'm also the webmasterof www.freedomware.us, another anti-Microsoft site. It's woefully underdeveloped, but I'll get back to it when I find the time. I hope to add a forum some day, too. So this will make a great example to study.

There are obviously many, many things to discuss about Microsoft, including its exploitation of public school students, Bill Gates' phony philanthropy, the Preston, Gates & Ellis scandal(s), M$ relations with George W. Bush and on and on.

Right now, I'd just like to introduce myself and ask how many other members here are serious about nailing Microsoft. Ranting is fine; in fact, it's a great strategy for smearing Microsoft's name and letting the general public know there are dissenters.

But how many of you care enough to really study Microsoft's politics, create an anti-Microsoft project or support an anti-Microsoft candidate?

During my last two campaigns, when I was speaking out against Microsoft, I was utterly stunned by the refusal of even high-tech websites to publicize my campaign. I wrote a brief article for SlashDot.org; it was rejected. No Linux journals would mention me.

This is powerful evidence of Microsoft's stunning influence. I've long suspected that Microsoft has largely infiltrated the Linux community here in the U.S., and I've encountered open source groups that were actually Microsoft operatives.

I'm hoping this forum is different. So how many of you hate Microsoft (the famously corrupt corporation), and how many of you also hate Bill Gates personally? And how many of you are interested in actually working to stomp Microsoft, whether by promoting Firefox or fighting M$ in the political arena???

[piratePenguin]

Whoa, finally someone's serious about eradicating Microsoft.
You should post up them articles you've written. [EDIT: Nevermind, just realised they're on your website, which didn't work the first time I tried (the link in your post points to http://freedomware/us)]
I'm definetly interested!

[Refalm]

I can tell you that this is an anti-Microsoft website that has been outdated. We're now in the proces of creating new content.

I'm interested in the infiltration of Microsoft into open source groups, as you claim.
How did you become aware of it?

[EDIT]Nice website. We may be able to use your articles here [/EDIT]

[DavidB]

Whoa, finally someone's serious about eradicating Microsoft.
You should post up them articles you've written.
I'm definetly interested!

Hey, PiratePenguin. It may take me a while to post any articles; I'm simply overwhelmed with projects right now. But here are a few ideas.

First, it seems like no one is really fighting Microsoft! Sure, lots of people grouse about M$, and some even take potshots at Bill Gates. But the resistance is neither organized nor determined. They often shoot me down for being too hostile!

There's no question that many anti-Microsoft forces are actually Microsoft operatives PRETENDING to be anti-Microsoft. That makes things far more difficult, but it still isn't impossible to fight back and win. We just have to use our brains.

Let's ask ourselves where the big battles against Microsoft are being fought. It seems to be they're pretty much limited to the courtroom and the marketplace. Of course, anyone who tries to fight Microsoft in the marketplace is begging to be massacred.

Many open source software fans insist that it's just a matter of time before Linux kicks Microsoft's butt. That's delusional. Microsoft has heavily infiltrated the open source community and has employed a thousand dirty tricks to keep open source at bay. That doesn't mean open source can't win, but it's not guaranteed. And even a delayed Linux victory would be very costly. We need to cut M$ off at the knees NOW, not wait ten more years for Linux to gradually erode its market share.

The courtroom isn't much better, since the U.S. legal system is so corrupt (and few attorneys are more powerful or corrupt than Bill Gates' father, who's a founding parter of the Seattle lawfirm Preston, Gates & Ellis).

I think we should extend the battlefield to the media (with an emphasis on the Internet) and politics. Though there might appear to be plenty of Microsoft bashing as it is, a close insepection reveals that most of it is actually quite insipid and unorganized. Remember, Bill Gates' wife and bridge partner both site on the Washington Post's board of directors, and there must be thousands of Microsoft operatives who post on political forums like Democratic Underground.

So we need to speak out more strongly and intelligently, and we need to question each other, attempting to root out operatives. I think it's especially important to make the point that Microsoft corruption isn't just an example of "business." Corruption is inappropriate and unacceptable. Nor is the stench confined to Microsoft itself; as founder and de facto CEO, Bill Gates is personally responsible for Microsoft's crimes, and he should be vilified just as ferociously as George W. Bush.

In fact, that's one particular tactic I pioneered - connecting Bill Gates and George W. Bush. The last time I ran for public office, I included this sentence in my statement in the Voters Pamphlet:

"I'm the only candidate speaking out against America's greatest traitors,             George aWol Bush (http://www.jail4bush.org) and his pal Bill Gates (http://www.freedomware.us),             who are cruelly exploiting children in public schools that have been             effectively privatized."

It would be much more effective if more people ran for office on an anti-Microsoft platform and made the Gates-Bush connection.

Although resistance often seems futile when the enemy is MICROSOFT, I do see some positive signs. Ironically, one of my favorite examples is DemocraticUnderground.com. I say ironic, because I think that website is corrupt.

But I've seen a major switch in attitudes towards Microsoft. When I used to posted on DemocraticUnderground, threads that focused on Microsoft typically erupted into arguments, with the pro-Microsoft forces generally touting Bill Gates' "philanthropy."

I was banned from DemocraticUnderground, apparently for criticizing my corrupt teachers union, though I think my Microsoft bashing also had something to do with it. However, I've seen virtually no support for Microsoft in recent months. When people criticize Microshaft, almost no one defends it. It's really striking - and encouraging.

I encourage anyone who really wants to defeat Microsoft to make Microsoft-bashing part of their lifestyle. It doesn't take much effort to promote Firefox on your website or insert the words "Microsoft sucks" (linked to an anti-Microsoft website) in your signature on a political forum.

Little gestures like these do make a difference, especially when multiplied by hundreds and thousands of people.

I'm especially trying to connect with people in other nations. I've simply given up on my country. Every major institution in the U.S. is corrupt. Liberal Seattle is actually one of the most corrupt cities in the U.S. As I noted earlier, the open source community in the U.S. is generally pathetic from a political perspective.

But there's a growing hatred for the United States - or at least for our corporate-managed government - in other lands. I think this is where victory lies. I fear that Americans may never reform their government; like Nazi Germany and totalitarian Japan, they'll just keep plodding along until some other nation or coalition of nations kicks our ass.

So I would like to encourage citizens of other nations to bash Bill Gates just as viciously as they do George W. Bush. I'd like them to study Bill Gates and learn how he exploits children in his own backyard. I'd like to see other nations produce killer open source operating systems that can finally defeat Microsoft in the marketplace. (Why isn't Linux making headlines during the YEARS between Windows XP and Longhorn??? This is the perfect time to nail Microsoft!)

If the global community makes enough noise, they can help educate the most stupid people on Earth - Americans - and motivate any real activists in the U.S.

Let's hope Microsoft's fortunes begin a serious - and terminal - decline in the very near future.

[DavidB]

I can tell you that this is an anti-Microsoft website that has been outdated. We're now in the proces of creating new content.

I'm interested in the infiltration of Microsoft into open source groups, as you claim.
How did you become aware of it?

[EDIT]Nice website. We may be able to use your articles here [/EDIT]

THANK YOU for not asking me for "proof" that Microsoft has infiltrated open source groups! People often ask me that, then call me a liar when I fail to produce a smoking gun document. It's obviously much more complex than that.

Let's start at square one by imaging three circles repesenting Microsoft, the general public and "communications" (including the media, Internet, etc.).

Imagine that the third circle is filled with anti-Microsoft diatribes. Obviously, Bill Gates doesn't like that - but what can he do about it?

Since the U.S. is unofficially a democracy, he can't tell people to shut up. But remember the adage, "If you can't beat'em, join'em"?

That's just what Bill Gates and other corporate wh*res do. They create phony philanthropical organizations and enlist operatives to pose as critics and activists. To be believable, they have to criticize Microsoft. But they do it in a really clever way. Instead of focusing on a $1 billion government boondoggle, they may focus on a lesser scandal. Or maybe they grudgingly admit that "At least, Bill Gates gives to charity!" (even if he really doesn't).

Seattle left-wing columnist Geov Parrish (Seattle Weekly, Eat The State) is a corporate operative who appears to be right on target most of the time. I was his biggest fan until he stabbed me in the back.

I began studying him and discovered that he lowers the boom during elections. He does a great job of attacking George Bush and Bill Gates in his articles, then endorses candidates who are effectively working for Bush and Gates!

So we need to apply this logic to our investigation: Nature abhors a vaccum, so corporations attempt to fill vaccums with phony critics and activists (e.g. operatives or "gatekeepers").

Next, we look for evidence that this is in fact occurring. My favorite clues include track records and websites. It's amazing how many activists and politicians do not have track records. When they ask for your vote, you decide to research them and spend half an hour on Google trying to find out the most basic information.

If they're genuine reformers, why don't they put a biography online? Activists who don't even have websites obviously don't have a clue. And most who do have websites have unbelievably lame websites. After all, how can you hope to reform America - or a single institution - without educating the public?

So let's apply this to the open source community. How are they fighting Microsoft? They promote open source software and sling a little mud here and there - but they're incredibly lame.

I've suggested on a number of forums that Firefox should be promoted as the unofficial browser of activists. Every activist and reformer in the U.S. should promote Firefox on his or her website. "Socialists" around the world should promote Firefox.

But the open source community has just laughed at my suggestion.

I've tried to interest open source groups in Bill Gates' exploitation of public schools, but they don't care. "All I care about is a good operating system."

Many have blasted me for my hostility. Many of them think Microsoft is corrupt, but Bill Gates is basically a nice guy. Even people who hate Bill Gates get upset when I hurl epithets at him.

We could challk all of this up to apathy and cluelessness if it wasn't so extensive. It almost seems as if the open source community is making an effort to close its ears to Microsoft criticism.

When I ran for public office, becoming the first candidate in the U.S. to make Microsoft a campaign issue, I should have received some publicity in both the mainstream media and the open source community.

Now, if someone wants to argue that my candidacy was a joke, I was unhinged, or whatever, that's fine. But my campaign WAS newsworthy nevertheless. Yet I couldn't even get one little blurb on SlashDot.org. That's utterly bizarre. For crying out loud, I was blasting Bill Gates in his own backyard!

Not one member of the Seattle Linux group ever contacted me during TWO anti-Microsoft campaigns. And I recently had an encounter with one of their bigwigs at a most unusual location. I can't go into detail, but I said to myself, "Go figure."

During my last campaign for public office, one of my opponents was a woman named Juanita Doyon. She was a first-time candidate and a total bimbo, with nothing intelligenet to say. In contrast, I was running my fourth political campaign, and I had over a dozen websites online discussing a wide variety of topics.

Amazingly, if you typed our names into Google, hers produced three or four times as many hits. She was obviously being manipulated.

There's an online high-tech magazine based in the UK. I can't think of the name offhand, but they even published an article about her. She reportedly discovered that the Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction's website was linked to a pornographic site and blew the whistle. Sheez, is that really international news?

I contacted this outfit and asked them how they learned about this story and why it qualifed as news, but, of course, they never replied.

I also recall reading about some corporate bigwig joining Redhat's board of directors.

I've had many experiences and discoveries that help fill in the puzzle, but many of them wouldn't make sense to anyone who isn't familiar with Seattle politics. On, I just remembered one that's particularly interesting. I joined an open-source forum and was delighted to discover an anti-Microsoft post by a member of the manamgement. I posted a response, bsically saying "Good job!" and discussing Bill Gates' exploitation of education and Seattle.

The reaction was startling. People began criticizing me. When I stood my ground, they became more vicious, eventually banning me.

The name of this forum is CodeWalkers. I think it's at http://www.codewalkers.com - and I believe the conversation is still online. They rigged it so I can no longer access their site, but I think it still registers in Google. If you find it interesting, I suggest you make a copy of the converstation before they erase it. I think I already have a copy in my files.

I think you can find this conversation at one of these locations:
http://codewalkers.com/forum/index.php?action=displaythread&forum=pasture&id=58&realm=default
http://codewalkers.com/archives/pasture/58.html

Returning once again to logic, it would be foolish to assume that Microsoft would not attempt to infiltrate the open source community. The question, then, is this: To what extend has Microsoft succeeded?

Considering the extraordinary games Microsoft played with its SCO venture and the phenomenal success of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's public relations program (convincing the world that Bill Gates is a philanthropist), I think the answer becomes fairly obvious.

[skyman8081]

I would like to see proof.  I'm not a big fan of unsubstatiated claims.

Innocent unril proven guilty, and all.

Right now this all seems like "I ran for public office and evil M$ made me lose!".

[DavidB]

I would like to see proof.  I'm not a big fan of unsubstatiated claims.

Innocent unril proven guilty, and all.

Right now this all seems like "I ran for public office and evil M$ made me lose!".

The problem with "proof" is that everyone has their own definition of what it is. Do you want a statement that says, "I confess that everything David Blomstrom says about Microsoft is true," signed by Bill Gates and witnessed by a notary public?

Many right-wingers especially like to say, "Innocent until convicted by a judge and jury." Of course, that means George Bush and his entire administration are decent, law-abiding citizens - even though all intelligent people know otherwise.

if it's so hard to prove that George W. Bush is a crook, how can we prove that some Linux group is actually working for Microsoft?

Instead, we should be focusing on EVIDENCE and LOGIC, which together can add up to proof - or something reasonably close.

Do you think Bill Gates would NOT try to infiltrate the open source community? Frankly, I think that would be a very stupid assessment.

And if Bill Gates did try to infiltrate the open source community, do you think he would fail? Do you think it would be impossible for Bill Gates to recruit a single individual to pose as an innocent bystander and join a Linux group? Again, stupid assumption.

Do you want me to prove that Bill Gates' wife sits on the Washington Post's board of directors? If you're too lazy to track that information down yourself, just say so, and I'll post a link later.

Do you doubt that I ran for office? That shouldn't be hard to verify - after all, I did so FOUR TIMES. So visit Google and try to find some of the articles or posts that were written about me in various media, high-tech forums, etc. There are virtually none.

Visit http://www.seattleweekly.com and type "David Blomstrom" into their archives. Half of what they've written about me over the years were carefully calculated insults, and the rest was blather. During my fourth bid for office, they didn't mention my name ONCE. That's pretty bizarre.

I have no way of proving that Bill Gates Senior sent me a computer virus, along with a veiled threat. But if anyone would like to write about this, feel free to visit Seattle and ask me to submit to a polygraph test (as long as you pay the bill). I'll gladly oblige.

Incidentally, I never said "Microsoft made me lose." In fact, a coalition of corporations, media and operatives were arrayed against me. I'll write much more about that when I find time.

In the meantime, I'm going to throw your challenge right back in your face. PROVE that you aren't a Microsoft operative. Do you know of any other candidates for public office in the U.S. who have attacked Microsoft as part of their campaigns? If so, how did they fare?

Are you aware of any high-tech journals or open source groups that wrote about them?

If you're up for some really stimulating challenges, I'll gladly oblige. I'm going to be gone for a few hours, but I can give you some challenges that ought to prove awfully interesting. They'll help prove I'm not a phony, and they may tell us something about you at the same time.

[adiment]

Welcome to the forum David. Rep+ for good first post.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I agree :thumbup:

[Refalm]

Well David, I believe the way you critisize Bill Gates and George Bush isn't working out at all.

On your website, you have a picture of Bush photoshopped with a swatsika and the famous Bill Gates picture.
Now let's presume that I should live in the US, in Seattle, and I was searching on the Internet for candidate websites.
Even if I agreed with your ideas, I still would find your website to be immature and chaotic.

Really, one stupid picture can ruin it. There are also too many animated stuff to distract my attention and which are very annoying.

Your articles are great, but you're lowering yourself to radicalism. I believe you're shooting yourself in the foot.

[Refalm]

http://www.freedomware.us/world/eur/nld/index.php

True. The Netherlands is filled with Microsoft whores and old judges that have no clue whatsoever about computers and internet.

Microsoft has succesfully infiltrated our schools and government to be Microsoft locked-in.

Novell is the only company in the Netherlands trying to lessen Microsoft market share, but is losing ground at the moment.

[worker201]

Bush deserves and should receive the death penalty, after the appropriate legal or quasi-legal formalities

What kind of nutjob are you?  You are asking the world to support the execution of a man with no trial?  That's insane!  Perhaps he does deserve the death penalty.  Perhaps he doesn't.  Regardless of what you or I believe, it isn't up to us to decide.  The death penalty is a very serious matter, and in the US, it is decided by a judge and jury.  We aren't Old West posses, out for a hangin'.  Law and order must be maintained, unless there is revolutionary action.

Calling for assassination (which is what peacetime death penalty without trial amounts to) is not a good way to make friends or get elected to office.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I think the death penalty should have no place in any modern civilized country.

[DavidB]

Well David, I believe the way you critisize Bill Gates and George Bush isn't working out at all.

On your website, you have a picture of Bush photoshopped with a swatsika and the famous Bill Gates picture.
Now let's presume that I should live in the US, in Seattle, and I was searching on the Internet for candidate websites.
Even if I agreed with your ideas, I still would find your website to be immature and chaotic.

Really, one stupid picture can ruin it. There are also too many animated stuff to distract my attention and which are very annoying.

Your articles are great, but you're lowering yourself to radicalism. I believe you're shooting yourself in the foot.

That's a gray area. I agree with you to a point. That is, I'm well aware that my ideas and means of expressing them appear "radical" to many people. But let's define radical.

In common usage, I believe it has two meanings:

1) Weird or bizarre.

2) Anything outside the norm.

It's certainly not my intent to appear weird or bizarre. On the contrary, I go out of my way to embrace logic and ethics. But consider the second definition. Imagine an indvidual who preaches brotherly love and world peace. Would he be considered radical?

If he lived in Nazi Germany, the answer would be YES, because peace and goodwill were not the norm in Adolph Hitler's Germany.

I find myself in a simliar predicament. There's nothing more stupid than the average U.S. citizen, whose brain has been pulverized by a lifetime of the most sophisticated propaganda in world history, sensory overload (video games, a complex society, etc.) and terminal apathy.

I'm fascinated by the "socialism" - in the broadest sense of the word. But if I inserted the word "socialism" in a campaign statement, I'd instantly be branded a radical, even here in  liberal Seattle. The problem is that Americans have been brainwashed into believing that socialism is - well, radical. They've been brainwashed into believing that anyone who wants to hold corrupt corporations (e.g. Microsoft) accountable is a socialist - in the strictest sense of the word.

In summary, I really don't know how to communicate to the sheeple, and I don't apologize for not knowing how. If you know of anyone who's doing a better job, please let me know.

But I'm certainly not going to practice business as usual and talk about the usual one or two insipid issues while kissing babies and praising voters for their intelligence when they're really dumber than ashtrays.

In some respects, I run futuristic campaigns. My statements may appear radical now, but I think they'll sound more sensible as more and more people get screwed by corporate America. I also know that things will never change until the general public changes its attitude. Voting as usual will only continue business as usual.

[DavidB]

What kind of nutjob are you? You are asking the world to support the execution of a man with no trial? . . . Calling for assassination (which is what peacetime death penalty without trial amounts to) is not a good way to make friends or get elected to office.

Well, you just flunked Comprehension 101. Where on my website does it saying "without a trial"? And where did you find the word "assassinate"? For crying out loud, use some common sense: If I was calling for Bush's assassination, I'd be posting this message from prison.

To put it in perspective, consider the THOUSANDS (if not millions) of people who are calling George Bush's impeachment. Do you think they're asking a group of vigilantes to just kick Bush out of the White Hosue without a trial? Of course not!

They're simply stating their belief that Bush has committed crimes worthy of impeachment, and they're encouraging lawmakers to initiate the legal proceedings.

Ditto for Death4Bush. It's my belief that Bush's crimes deserve the harshest punishment the law can mete out. I think Bush should be legally prosecuted and sentenced, and I think that any sane and non-partisan jury would find him guilty on many counts.

But my Death4Bush campaign is about more than punishing Bush. It's also about freedom of speech.

I'm SO sick of hearing cowardly liberals whimper at the feet of right-wing bullies, afraid to say anythying the latter deem hostile, unhinged, un-American or unpatriotic.

I issued my statement partly because I knew it would be extremely provocative. In a sense, it was a dare. In effect, I said, "I believe George W. Bush deserves to be LEGALLY executed for his crimes, and I'm not afraid to sign my name to it. Better yet, I'm running for office and making it a campaign issue. You right-wingers who are so good at tyrannizing liberal pussies are welcome to turn your guns on me. Report me to the Secret Service, assassinate me, burn my home donw. You know where I live, so either put or or shut up."

Although I did received a few death threats, no one visited my home. In fact NO MEDIA even mentioned my Death4Bush campaign, including liberal and alternative media and the local, Seattle media.

That further confirms the extraordinary media corruption, which is obviously not limited to the traditional corporate media. Thus, I'd say I accomplished quite a bit with my Death4Bush statement, even if I never got elected.