Friday, July 24, 2026

Bill Gates & America’s Millionaires Are Building Underground Survival Bunkers – ‘The Future Is Going To Be Rough’

Date:

What Bill Gates is afraid of:

September 29, 2016: The rich and famous are investing millions of dollars to build elaborate underground bunkers and safe houses in what has become a booming industry for the contractors that specialize in luxury survival accommodations, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

“Bill Gates has huge shelters under every one of his homes, in Rancho Santa Fe and Washington,” Robert Vicino, the founder of bunker company Vivos, revealed. The Microsoft founder and philanthropist is considered the world’s richest man.

“His head of security visited with us a couple years ago, and for these multibillionaires, a few million is nothing,” Vicino said. “It’s really just the newest form of insurance.”

Gates is not alone, as movie stars, financiers, athletes and other wealthy celebrities are all so worried about the future that they’re investing millions in bunkers and safe houses, The Reporter discovered. The wealthy’s worries include terrorist attacks, riots, World War III, class warfare, economic collapse and political chaos stemming from the election.

“People are going for luxury [to] live underground because they see the future is going to be rough,” Mike Peters of Ultimate Bunker told The Reporter. “Everyone I’ve talked to thinks we are doomed, no matter who is elected.”

Sales at one upscale bunker maker, Rising S Bunkers, have increased by 150 percent in 2016, according to a Reporter article, and sales to upscale clients by 700 percent.

Survival is the latest fad in Hollywood, with wealthy celebrities going to incredible lengths to preserve their lavish lifestyles. The bunkers that companies like Rising S build construct are a far cry from the air raid shelters of the 1940s and 50s.

Bunkers of the Rich and Famous 

Some of the lavish survival precautions the wealthy are taking include:

  • A 37-room, 9,000-square-foot bunker in California’s Napa Valley wine country that cost an “unidentified Academy Award winner” $10.28 million. The bunker’s amenities include a bowling alley, sauna, home theater, Jacuzzi and shooting range.
  • A $9 million, 7,600-square-foot compound in Napa Valley that features hidden safe rooms, four escape tunnels and a safe house disguised as a horse barn.
  • A $3 million bunker for a “major sports figure” who lives in Southern California.
  • A 10-by-50-foot bunker that costs $112,000 and features its own power and water sources and air filtration systems. Rising S Bunkers reported those bunkers are being installed in homes throughout Los Angeles.
  • A $10 million complex, located a few hours north of Minneapolis, that contains two 1,000-square-foot bunkers and 300 feet of tunnels. The same property has three guesthouses — each of which has its own $200,000 bunker.
  • A $100 million subterranean residence for a venture capitalist that features a pizzeria and a day spa. That bunker’s builder, Al Corbi of Strategically Armored & Fortified Environments (SAFE), claims it can withstand a nuclear holocaust, electromagnetic pulse, solar flare and pandemic, among other threats.

Another company, Creative Home Engineering, specializes in building secret doors and panels. When company president Steve Humble started, most of his installations were novelties created for entertainment.

“Nowadays, 80 percent are used for security,” Humble revealed. “In the past year, I have performed installations inside two nuclear-protected complexes with more than 10 secret doors each, one in the L.A. area owned by a plastic surgeon.”

Humble added, “I can tell you that we’ve built secret doors for many of the most recognizable and highly awarded directors and celebrities in Hollywood. There are a lot of Oscars and Emmys tucked away safely behind my secret doors.”

Additional Information:

4 Sep 2022: The super-rich ‘preppers’ planning to save themselves from the apocalypse

Tech billionaires are buying up luxurious bunkers and hiring military security to survive a societal collapse they helped create, but like everything they do, it has unintended consequences

Time to bunker down … if you’ve got the cash. Photograph: Terravivos/Observer Design

As a humanist who writes about the impact of digital technology on our lives, I am often mistaken for a futurist. The people most interested in hiring me for my opinions about technology are usually less concerned with building tools that help people live better lives in the present than they are in identifying the Next Big Thing through which to dominate them in the future. I don’t usually respond to their inquiries. Why help these guys ruin what’s left of the internet, much less civilisation?

The next morning, two men in matching Patagonia fleeces came for me in a golf cart and conveyed me through rocks and underbrush to a meeting hall. They left me to drink coffee and prepare in what I figured was serving as my green room. But instead of me being wired with a microphone or taken to a stage, my audience was brought in to me. They sat around the table and introduced themselves: five super-wealthy guys – yes, all men – from the upper echelon of the tech investing and hedge-fund world. At least two of them were billionaires. After a bit of small talk, I realised they had no interest in the speech I had prepared about the future of technology. They had come to ask questions.

A shelter under construction at the Rising S Company in Murchison, Texas. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images

They started out innocuously and predictably enough. Bitcoin or ethereum? Virtual reality or augmented reality? Who will get quantum computing first, China or Google? Eventually, they edged into their real topic of concern: New Zealand or Alaska? Which region would be less affected by the coming climate crisis? It only got worse from there. Which was the greater threat: global warming or biological warfare? How long should one plan to be able to survive with no outside help? Should a shelter have its own air supply? What was the likelihood of groundwater contamination? Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system, and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” The event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, solar storm, unstoppable virus, or malicious computer hack that takes everything down.

This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from raiders as well as angry mobs. One had already secured a dozen Navy Seals to make their way to his compound if he gave them the right cue. But how would he pay the guards once even his crypto was worthless? What would stop the guards from eventually choosing their own leader?

The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers – if that technology could be developed “in time”.

It’s as if they want to build a car that goes fast enough to escape from its own exhaust

I tried to reason with them. I made pro-social arguments for partnership and solidarity as the best approaches to our collective, long-term challenges. The way to get your guards to exhibit loyalty in the future was to treat them like friends right now, I explained. Don’t just invest in ammo and electric fences, invest in people and relationships. They rolled their eyes at what must have sounded to them like hippy philosophy.

This was probably the wealthiest, most powerful group I had ever encountered. Yet here they were, asking a Marxist media theorist for advice on where and how to configure their doomsday bunkers. That’s when it hit me: at least as far as these gentlemen were concerned, this was a talk about the future of technology.

Taking their cue from Tesla founder Elon Musk colonising Mars, Palantir’s Peter Thiel reversing the ageing process, or artificial intelligence developers Sam Altman and Ray Kurzweil uploading their minds into supercomputers, they were preparing for a digital future that had less to do with making the world a better place than it did with transcending the human condition altogether. Their extreme wealth and privilege served only to make them obsessed with insulating themselves from the very real and present danger of climate change, rising sea levels, mass migrations, global pandemics, nativist panic and resource depletion. For them, the future of technology is about only one thing: escape from the rest of us.

These people once showered the world with madly optimistic business plans for how technology might benefit human society. Now they’ve reduced technological progress to a video game that one of them wins by finding the escape hatch. Will it be Jeff Bezos migrating to space, Thiel to his New Zealand compound, or Mark Zuckerberg to his virtual metaverse? And these catastrophising billionaires are the presumptive winners of the digital economy – the supposed champions of the survival-of-the-fittest business landscape that’s fuelling most of this speculation to begin with.

A proposal for a Mars colony by Elon Musk’s company, SpaceX. Photograph: SpaceX

What I came to realise was that these men are actually the losers. The billionaires who called me out to the desert to evaluate their bunker strategies are not the victors of the economic game so much as the victims of its perversely limited rules. More than anything, they have succumbed to a mindset where “winning” means earning enough money to insulate themselves from the damage they are creating by earning money in that way. It’s as if they want to build a car that goes fast enough to escape from its own exhaust.

Yet this Silicon Valley escapism – let’s call it The Mindset – encourages its adherents to believe that the winners can somehow leave the rest of us behind.

Never before have our society’s most powerful players assumed that the primary impact of their own conquests would be to render the world itself unliveable for everyone else. Nor have they ever before had the technologies through which to programme their sensibilities into the very fabric of our society. The landscape is alive with algorithms and intelligences actively encouraging these selfish and isolationist outlooks. Those sociopathic enough to embrace them are rewarded with cash and control over the rest of us. It’s a self-reinforcing feedback loop. This is new.

Amplified by digital technologies and the unprecedented wealth disparity they afford, The Mindset allows for the easy externalisation of harm to others, and inspires a corresponding longing for transcendence and separation from the people and places that have been abused.

Instead of just lording over us for ever, however, the billionaires at the top of these virtual pyramids actively seek the endgame. In fact, like the plot of a Marvel blockbuster, the very structure of The Mindset requires an endgame. Everything must resolve to a one or a zero, a winner or loser, the saved or the damned. Actual, imminent catastrophes from the climate emergency to mass migrations support the mythology, offering these would-be superheroes the opportunity to play out the finale in their own lifetimes. For The Mindset also includes a faith-based Silicon Valley certainty that they can develop a technology that will somehow break the laws of physics, economics and morality to offer them something even better than a way of saving the world: a means of escape from the apocalypse of their own making.

By the time I boarded my return flight to New York, my mind was reeling with the implications of The Mindset. What were its main tenets? Who were its true believers? What, if anything, could we do to resist it? Before I had even landed, I posted an article about my strange encounter – to surprising effect.

Almost immediately, I began receiving inquiries from businesses catering to the billionaire prepper, all hoping I would make some introductions on their behalf to the five men I had written about. I heard from a real estate agent who specialises in disaster-proof listings, a company taking reservations for its third underground dwellings project, and a security firm offering various forms of “risk management”.

But the message that got my attention came from a former president of the American chamber of commerce in Latvia. JC Cole had witnessed the fall of the Soviet empire, as well as what it took to rebuild a working society almost from scratch. He had also served as landlord for the American and European Union embassies, and learned a whole lot about security systems and evacuation plans. “You certainly stirred up a bees’ nest,” he began his first email to me. “It’s quite accurate – the wealthy hiding in their bunkers will have a problem with their security teams… I believe you are correct with your advice to ‘treat those people really well, right now’, but also the concept may be expanded and I believe there is a better system that would give much better results.”

He felt certain that the “event” – a grey swan, or predictable catastrophe triggered by our enemies, Mother Nature, or just by accident –was inevitable. He had done a Swot analysis – strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats – and concluded that preparing for calamity required us to take the very same measures as trying to prevent one. “By coincidence,” he explained, “I am setting up a series of safe haven farms in the NYC area. These are designed to best handle an ‘event’ and also benefit society as semi-organic farms. Both within three hours’ drive from the city – close enough to get there when it happens.”

Here was a prepper with security clearance, field experience and food sustainability expertise. He believed the best way to cope with the impending disaster was to change the way we treat one another, the economy, and the planet right now – while also developing a network of secret, totally self-sufficient residential farm communities for millionaires, guarded by Navy Seals armed to the teeth.

JC is currently developing two farms as part of his safe haven project. Farm one, outside Princeton, is his show model and “works well as long as the thin blue line is working”. The second one, somewhere in the Poconos, has to remain a secret. “The fewer people who know the locations, the better,” he explained, along with a link to the Twilight Zone episode in which panicked neighbours break into a family’s bomb shelter during a nuclear scare. “The primary value of safe haven is operational security, nicknamed OpSec by the military. If/when the supply chain breaks, the people will have no food delivered. Covid-19 gave us the wake-up call as people started fighting over toilet paper. When it comes to a shortage of food it will be vicious. That is why those intelligent enough to invest have to be stealthy.”

JC invited me down to New Jersey to see the real thing. “Wear boots,” he said. “The ground is still wet.” Then he asked: “Do you shoot?”


The farm itself was serving as an equestrian centre and tactical training facility in addition to raising goats and chickens. JC showed me how to hold and shoot a Glock at a series of outdoor targets shaped like bad guys, while he grumbled about the way Senator Dianne Feinstein had limited the number of rounds one could legally fit in a magazine for the handgun. JC knew his stuff. I asked him about various combat scenarios. “The only way to protect your family is with a group,” he said. That was really the whole point of his project – to gather a team capable of sheltering in place for a year or more, while also defending itself from those who hadn’t prepared. JC was also hoping to train young farmers in sustainable agriculture, and to secure at least one doctor and dentist for each location.

On the way back to the main building, JC showed me the “layered security” protocols he had learned designing embassy properties: a fence, “no trespassing” signs, guard dogs, surveillance cameras … all meant to discourage violent confrontation. He paused for a minute as he stared down the drive. “Honestly, I am less concerned about gangs with guns than the woman at the end of the driveway holding a baby and asking for food.” He paused, and sighed, “I don’t want to be in that moral dilemma.”

That’s why JC’s real passion wasn’t just to build a few isolated, militarised retreat facilities for millionaires, but to prototype locally owned sustainable farms that can be modelled by others and ultimately help restore regional food security in America. The “just-in-time” delivery system preferred by agricultural conglomerates renders most of the nation vulnerable to a crisis as minor as a power outage or transportation shutdown. Meanwhile, the centralisation of the agricultural industry has left most farms utterly dependent on the same long supply chains as urban consumers. “Most egg farmers can’t even raise chickens,” JC explained as he showed me his henhouses. “They buy chicks. I’ve got roosters.”

JC is no hippy environmentalist but his business model is based in the same communitarian spirit I tried to convey to the billionaires: the way to keep the hungry hordes from storming the gates is by getting them food security now. So for $3m, investors not only get a maximum security compound in which to ride out the coming plague, solar storm, or electric grid collapse. They also get a stake in a potentially profitable network of local farm franchises that could reduce the probability of a catastrophic event in the first place. His business would do its best to ensure there are as few hungry children at the gate as possible when the time comes to lock down.

So far, JC Cole has been unable to convince anyone to invest in American Heritage Farms. That doesn’t mean no one is investing in such schemes. It’s just that the ones that attract more attention and cash don’t generally have these cooperative components. They’re more for people who want to go it alone. Most billionaire preppers don’t want to have to learn to get along with a community of farmers or, worse, spend their winnings funding a national food resilience programme. The mindset that requires safe havens is less concerned with preventing moral dilemmas than simply keeping them out of sight.

Vivos hopes to fit its bunkers with features such as swimming pools and gyms. Photograph: Terravivos

Many of those seriously seeking a safe haven simply hire one of several prepper construction companies to bury a prefab steel-lined bunker somewhere on one of their existing properties. Rising S Company in Texas builds and installs bunkers and tornado shelters for as little as $40,000 for an 8ft by 12ft emergency hideout all the way up to the $8.3m luxury series “Aristocrat”, complete with pool and bowling lane. The enterprise originally catered to families seeking temporary storm shelters, before it went into the long-term apocalypse business. The company logo, complete with three crucifixes, suggests their services are geared more toward Christian evangelist preppers in red-state America than billionaire tech bros playing out sci-fi scenarios.

There’s something much more whimsical about the facilities in which most of the billionaires – or, more accurately, aspiring billionaires – actually invest. A company called Vivos is selling luxury underground apartments in converted cold war munitions storage facilities, missile silos, and other fortified locations around the world. Like miniature Club Med resorts, they offer private suites for individuals or families, and larger common areas with pools, games, movies and dining. Ultra-elite shelters such as the Oppidum in the Czech Republic claim to cater to the billionaire class, and pay more attention to the long-term psychological health of residents. They provide imitation of natural light, such as a pool with a simulated sunlit garden area, a wine vault, and other amenities to make the wealthy feel at home.

On closer analysis, however, the probability of a fortified bunker actually protecting its occupants from the reality of, well, reality, is very slim. For one, the closed ecosystems of underground facilities are preposterously brittle. For example, an indoor, sealed hydroponic garden is vulnerable to contamination. Vertical farms with moisture sensors and computer-controlled irrigation systems look great in business plans and on the rooftops of Bay Area startups; when a palette of topsoil or a row of crops goes wrong, it can simply be pulled and replaced. The hermetically sealed apocalypse “grow room” doesn’t allow for such do-overs.

Just the known unknowns are enough to dash any reasonable hope of survival. But this doesn’t seem to stop wealthy preppers from trying. The New York Times reported that real estate agents specialising in private islands were overwhelmed with inquiries during the Covid-19 pandemic. Prospective clients were even asking about whether there was enough land to do some agriculture in addition to installing a helicopter landing pad. But while a private island may be a good place to wait out a temporary plague, turning it into a self-sufficient, defensible ocean fortress is harder than it sounds. Small islands are utterly dependent on air and sea deliveries for basic staples. Solar panels and water filtration equipment need to be replaced and serviced at regular intervals. The billionaires who reside in such locales are more, not less, dependent on complex supply chains than those of us embedded in industrial civilisation.

Surely the billionaires who brought me out for advice on their exit strategies were aware of these limitations. Could it have all been some sort of game? Five men sitting around a poker table, each wagering his escape plan was best?

But if they were in it just for fun, they wouldn’t have called for me. They would have flown out the author of a zombie apocalypse comic book. If they wanted to test their bunker plans, they’d have hired a security expert from Blackwater or the Pentagon. They seemed to want something more. Their language went far beyond questions of disaster preparedness and verged on politics and philosophy: words such as individuality, sovereignty, governance and autonomy.

That’s because it wasn’t their actual bunker strategies I had been brought out to evaluate so much as the philosophy and mathematics they were using to justify their commitment to escape. They were working out what I’ve come to call the insulation equation: could they earn enough money to insulate themselves from the reality they were creating by earning money in this way? Was there any valid justification for striving to be so successful that they could simply leave the rest of us behind –apocalypse or not?

Or was this really their intention all along? Maybe the apocalypse is less something they’re trying to escape than an excuse to realise The Mindset’s true goal: to rise above mere mortals and execute the ultimate exit strategy.

Source: The Guardian, BBC, Offthegridnews, Redacted, Vox

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related articles

Government’s new strict law against paper leaks, Cabinet approves

On Friday, the Cabinet meeting chaired by PM Narendra Modi approved the "Paper Leak Bill Amendment," which will...

Anti-India forces active in India regarding the ongoing NEET exam paper movement

Pakistan and other foreign forces are exploiting the ongoing movement against NEET exam rigging in India, led by...

Not just roofs, windows will now generate electricity, with a solar panel

Electricity prices are rising rapidly, and people are turning to solar panels to combat these rising costs. To...

 Need to go to the bathroom more frequently than usual! it could be a sign of illness 

If you're feeling the need to go to the toilet more often than before, don't take it lightly....
news-1701

yakinjp

yakinjp

rtp yakinjp

yakinjp

yakinjp

yakin jp

yakinjp id

maujp

maujp

maujp

\

sabung ayam online

sabung ayam online

SLOT MAHJONG

sabung ayam online

article 0000141

article 0000142

article 0000143

article 0000144

article 0000145

article 0000146

article 0000147

article 0000148

article 0000149

article 0000150

article 0000151

article 0000152

article 0000153

article 0000154

article 0000155

article 0000156

article 0000157

article 0000158

article 0000159

article 0000160

article 0000161

article 0000162

article 0000163

article 0000164

article 0000165

article 0000166

article 0000167

article 0000168

article 0000169

article 0000170

article 0000171

article 0000172

article 0000173

article 0000174

article 0000175

article 0000176

article 0000177

article 0000178

article 0000179

article 0000180

article 0000181

article 0000182

article 0000183

article 0000184

article 0000185

article 0000186

article 0000187

article 0000188

article 0000189

article 0000190

article 00046

article 00047

article 00048

article 00049

article 00050

article 00051

article 00052

article 00053

article 00054

article 00055

article 00056

article 00057

article 00058

article 00059

article 00060

article 00061

article 00062

article 00063

article 00064

article 00065

article 00066

article 00067

article 00068

article 00069

article 00070

article 00071

article 00072

article 00073

article 00074

article 00075

article 00076

article 00077

article 00078

article 00079

article 00080

article 00081

article 00082

article 00083

article 00084

article 00085

article 00086

article 00087

article 00088

article 00089

article 00090

article 00091

article 00092

article 00093

article 00094

article 00095

article 888836

article 888837

article 888838

article 888839

article 888840

article 888841

article 888842

article 888843

article 888844

article 888845

article 888846

article 888847

article 888848

article 888849

article 888850

article 888851

article 888852

article 888853

article 888854

article 888855

article 888856

article 888857

article 888858

article 888859

article 888860

article 888861

article 888862

article 888863

article 888864

article 888865

articel 000000171

articel 000000172

articel 000000173

articel 000000174

articel 000000175

articel 000000176

articel 000000177

articel 000000178

articel 000000179

articel 000000180

articel 000000181

articel 000000182

articel 000000183

articel 000000184

articel 000000185

articel 000000186

articel 000000187

articel 000000188

articel 000000189

articel 000000190

articel 000000191

articel 000000192

articel 000000193

articel 000000194

articel 000000195

articel 000000196

articel 000000197

articel 000000198

articel 000000199

articel 000000200

articel 000000201

articel 000000202

articel 000000203

articel 000000204

articel 000000205

articel 000000206

articel 000000207

articel 000000208

articel 000000209

articel 000000210

articel 000000211

articel 000000212

articel 000000213

articel 000000214

articel 000000215

articel 000000216

articel 000000217

articel 000000218

articel 000000219

articel 000000220

article 2000136

article 2000137

article 2000138

article 2000139

article 2000140

article 2000141

article 2000142

article 2000143

article 2000144

article 2000145

article 2000146

article 2000147

article 2000148

article 2000149

article 2000150

article 2000151

article 2000152

article 2000153

article 2000154

article 2000155

article 2000156

article 2000157

article 2000158

article 2000159

article 2000160

article 2000161

article 2000162

article 2000163

article 2000164

article 2000165

article 2000166

article 2000167

article 2000168

article 2000169

article 2000170

article 2000171

article 2000172

article 2000173

article 2000174

article 2000175

article 2000176

article 2000177

article 2000178

article 2000179

article 2000180

article 2000181

article 2000182

article 2000183

article 2000184

article 2000185

article 838000421

article 838000422

article 838000423

article 838000424

article 838000425

article 838000426

article 838000427

article 838000428

article 838000429

article 838000430

article 838000431

article 838000432

article 838000433

article 838000434

article 838000435

article 838000436

article 838000437

article 838000438

article 838000439

article 838000440

article 838000441

article 838000442

article 838000443

article 838000444

article 838000445

article 838000446

article 838000447

article 838000448

article 838000449

article 838000450

article 838000451

article 838000452

article 838000453

article 838000454

article 838000455

article 838000456

article 838000457

article 838000458

article 838000459

article 838000460

news-1701