Categories
bill and melinda gates foundation bill gates distraction Divorce false flag Headline News hiding capital Intelwars Jeffrey Epstein Lolita Express Mainstream media Media Manipulation melinda gates Pedophile plandemic population control scamdemic wake up Wealth

Has The Mainstream Media Finally Turned Against Bill Gates?

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge. 

Not long after we pointed out a report from the Daily Beast which traced the tensions in the marriage of Bill and Melinda Gates to Bill’s relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the Wall Street Journal has followed up with more reporting that confirms that Melinda Gates started consulting divorce attorneys as far back as 2019, before the pandemic thrust her husband back into the global spotlight as the world’s de facto vaccine czar.

Documents obtained by WSJ show the couple negotiated their divorce throughout the pandemic.

Ms. Gates consulted with divorce lawyers roughly two years before she filed for divorce from Mr. Gates, saying their marriage was “irretrievably broken,” according to people familiar with the matter and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

As the Daily Beast also reported, tensions in their marriage can be traced back to a New York Times report claiming that Gates had met with Epstein several times and that he had once stayed late into the night at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. Their meetings, according to Gates’ people, reportedly focused on issues of philanthropy. The pair first announced their split a week ago, and since then, the world has been waiting to learn more about how they plan to split their $130 billion-plus fortune.

But what’s almost more notable than the details report by WSJ and the Daily Beast, is the fact that the MSM seems to be jumping on the story that Bill Gates’ relationship with Jeffrey Epstein directly led to the dissolution of his marriage.

This is a big deal because, as we reported more than a year ago, Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation have built up one of the world’s most formidable media-manipulation machines to help silence Gates’s growing chorus of critics.

Here’s a snippet from a Columbia Journalism Review story on how Gates manipulates the press:

Gatess generosity appears to have helped foster an increasingly friendly media environment for the worlds most visible charity. Twenty years ago, journalists scrutinized Bill Gatess initial foray into philanthropy as a vehicle to enrich his software company, or a PR exercise to salvage his battered reputation following Microsofts bruising antitrust battle with the Department of Justice. Today, the foundation is most often the subject of soft profiles and glowing editorials describing its good works.

During the pandemic, news outlets have widely looked to Bill Gates as a public health expert on covideven though Gates has no medical training and is not a public official. PolitiFact and USA Today (run by the Poynter Institute and Gannett, respectivelyboth of which have received funds from the Gates Foundation) have even used their fact-checking platforms to defend Gates from false conspiracy theories and misinformation, like the idea that the foundation has financial investments in companies developing covid vaccines and therapies. In fact, the foundations website and most recent tax forms clearly show investments in such companies, including Gilead and CureVac.

In the same way that the news media has given Gates an outsize voice in the pandemic, the foundation has long used its charitable giving to shape the public discourse on everything from global health to education to agriculturea level of influence that has landed Bill Gates on Forbess list of the most powerful people in the world. The Gates Foundation can point to important charitable accomplishments over the past two decadeslike helping drive down polio and putting new funds into fighting malariabut even these efforts have drawn expert detractors who say that Gates may actually be introducing harm, or distracting us from more important, lifesaving public health projects.

As we have reported, Gates’ ties to Epstein are much deeper than a simple prearranged meeting or two on the subject of philanthropy. The Daily Mail once reported that Gates was a guest aboard Epstein’s plane.

When confronted about this, a representative for Gates said he wasn’t aware the plane belonged to Epstein!

Meanwhile, employees of the Gates foundation also visited Epstein’s mansion on multiple occasions, while Epstein also “spoke with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and JPMorgan Chase about a proposed multibillion-dollar charitable fund — an arrangement that had the potential to generate enormous fees for Mr. Epstein,” according to the Times.

Two of Gates’ closest advisors developed close relationships with Epstein and later introduced him to Gates.

Gates once said in an email that he found Epstein’s “lifestyle” to be “intriguing”, though he immediately noted that it wouldn’t suit him.

With all this preamble once again coming out in the press, we can’t help but wonder: is a Bill Gates accuser about to step forward?

The post Has The Mainstream Media Finally Turned Against Bill Gates? first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Conspiracy Intelwars population control Videos

How Can A Global Conspiracy Work? – QFC #074 (video)


John writes in to ask how a global conspiracy can function and how it can be kept under wraps. Good question. Join James for this week’s edition of Questions For Corbett where he tackles the most common objections of the skeptics and their fallacious counter-arguments against the global conspiracy.

Share
Categories
Conspiracy Intelwars population control Questions For Corbett

How Can A Global Conspiracy Work? – Questions For Corbett #074


John writes in to ask how a global conspiracy can function and how it can be kept under wraps. Good question. Join James for this week’s edition of Questions For Corbett where he tackles the most common objections of the skeptics and their fallacious counter-arguments against the global conspiracy.

Share
Categories
bill gates BILL OF RIGHTS collectivists COVID-19 false paradigm forced vaccinations freedom governments Headline News inherent rights Intelwars legal argument legality liberties Mainstream media Morality my body my choice pandemic plandemic population control scamdemic Social Engineering

Why The Public Should Rebel Against Forced Vaccinations

This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market. 

The debate over the morality and practicality of forced vaccinations has been raging for many years, long before the coronavirus ever hit the US population. With the advent of the pandemic the narrative has shifted to one of “necessity”. The media and the majority of governments around the world now act as if mass vaccinations are a given; the “debate is over”, as collectivists like to say when they are tired of having to deal with any logical or factual complaints.

In the case of the novel coronavirus there is no vaccine yet; unless of course the virus was engineered or evolved in a lab (as more and more evidence is suggesting), and then perhaps there is one already developed. Typically, vaccines take years to test and produce, and whenever a vaccine is rushed onto the market very bad things tend to happen.

The vaccine debate often revolves around the issue of safety. Is a particular inoculation safe or poisonous? Does it have long term effects that are dangerous? Does it harm children with highly sensitive and underdeveloped body systems?  These are valid concerns, but ultimately the fight over vaccines has less to do with medical safety or effectiveness and more to do with individual rights vs government demands.

In other words, the more important questions are:  Should social engineering by governments and elites be allowed? Do people have the right to determine how their bodies are medically augmented or manipulated? Does the “security of the majority” take precedence over the civil liberties of the individual?  And if so, who gets to determine what freedoms will be taken away?

The Legal Argument

The purveyors of the forced vaccination philosophy usually make a legal or technical argument first before they appeal to the idea of “the greater good”.  They do this because they know that public perception often assumes (wrongly) that legal authority is the same as moral authority.

In 1905, the US Supreme Court was presented with Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, a case involving the subject of state-enforced smallpox vaccination. The defendant argued on the grounds of the 14th Amendment that his bodily liberty was being violated by the state if he was subjected to arbitrary vaccination without his consent. The state and the Supreme Court felt differently (of course). The Supreme Court ruled against Jacobson on the grounds that his refusal to take the vaccine put other people “at-risk”, and that “for the common good” states have certain “police powers” that supersede personal liberties.

Whenever liberty movement activists argue against forced vaccinations on constitutional grounds, THIS is the counter-argument that the government and statists will make. They will bring up Jacobson vs. Massachusetts and then claim that is the end of the discussion.

Essentially, the Supreme Court argued that the federal government could not interfere with state-imposed forced vaccinations on the grounds of states’ rights and the 10th Amendment. Most people in the liberty movement will find this rather ironic, as it is bizarre to hear about the federal government defending states’ rights. But, this support of the 10th Amendment is highly selective.

First, let’s not forget that the Supreme Court has been wrong many times in the past. In the Dredd Scott case in 1834, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery and the right of states to enforce the institution. They also argued that the 5th Amendment protected slave owners because freeing slaves meant depriving owners of their “property”.

The Supreme Court’s habit is to defend states’ rights and the 10th Amendment when people’s individual liberties are being quashed. However, if a case involves states protecting citizens from federal intrusion, the court flips and attacks states’ rights when they work in favor of individual liberty or self-determination.

The Jacobson vs. Massachusetts case may be the reason why Trump and the federal government have mostly left the lockdowns and emergency actions to the states.  The legal precedence was already established in 1905 on quarantines and forcing vaccinations through state police powers, so it only follows that the establishment would utilize the states to carry out such measures in the near future.

The “states vs federal government” debate sets up a false paradigm. There is no separation between state and federal governments when it comes to tyranny – both sides love it, though they pretend to be opposed to each other at times. That is to say, whether it is the federal government violating your constitutional rights or the state government violating your constitutional rights, the Supreme Court is often comfortable with both.

The truth they don’t want to discuss is that at the bottom the Bill of Rights overrules them regardless of federal precedent or the 10th Amendment. The key to the Bill of Rights is that each American citizen has INHERENT LIBERTIES that supersede both federal and state power. These rights are inalienable. They cannot be violated today, and the law cannot be adjusted to violate them tomorrow. These rights and freedoms are ETERNAL.

The Supreme Court hisses with a forked tongue about the “spirit of the constitution” but ignores the clear and concrete intent as stated by the Founders. Statists argue in favor of the “living document” philosophy when it suits them as a means to change the original meaning and laws put forth in the Bill of Rights because this allows them to violate citizen freedoms under the guise of “legality”. But “legality” is not the same amorality. Legality is meaningless, and the Supreme Court is meaningless if it acts against the constitutional bedrock of the Bill of Rights and individual liberty as they have done numerous times in the past.

The Moral Argument

So, if we cannot rely on legality to protect us from state tyranny, what can we rely on? Forced vaccine advocates will say that morality is on their side as well, for if a person does not vaccinate they are putting the rest of society at risk of infection. Therefore, your individual rights must be violated in order to protect the rights of the rest of society. The problem is that Jacobson vs Massachusetts makes no logical argument supporting this assertion, and neither do forced vaccine proponents.

Look at it this way: How can a person that is not vaccinated “harm” people that are vaccinated? How are they putting those people at risk? If the vaccine actually works, then vaccinated people are safe from infection, aren’t they? So, the only person “at-risk” is the person that chose not to vaccinate. This comes down to personal choice, there is no question of “the greater good” or social risk.

I find it fascinating that the people that argue fervently in favor of forced vaccinations (people like Bill Gates) also tend to be the same people that argue in favor of abortion rights.  So, “my body my choice” is acceptable when it comes to women ending the lives of unborn children, but “my body my choice” is not acceptable when it comes to mass vaccinations even though an unvaccinated person is a threat to no one.

Some vaccine advocates will then claim that unvaccinated people could be host to “mutations” that threaten herd immunity. The problem is that there is no evidence to support this argument. The vast majority of viruses tend to mutate into LESS deadly or infectious strains, not more deadly. The only mitigating factors would be if a virus was deliberately designed or engineered to mutate in an unnatural manner.

If a virus is designed to mutate into a vastly different and more deadly strain that can attack vaccinated persons then the vaccine was never useful to begin with, and forced vaccinations are pointless. Once again, if the vaccine is effective then there is simply no basis for the position that an unvaccinated person puts vaccinated people in danger.

The Conformity Argument

The next argument by pro-forced vaccination people is to ask “why”? Why do you care if you are vaccinated? What do you have to worry about? Just go along to get along, right…?

This argument reminds me of a common anti-gun narrative: Why do you need to carry a gun? Why frighten other people? The chances you will need it are slim, right…?

The most important answer to the gun question is “Because it’s my right to carry and I plan to exercise it. Also, your fear of guns does not take precedence over my constitutional freedoms.” The same goes for forced vaccination: Because it is my right to refuse to have ANY pharmaceutical product injected into my body. Your fears of infection do not matter to my constitutional rights. If you want to take the vaccine then that is your choice. Leave me out of it.

Arguing about hypothetical threats is a waste of time. I carry a firearm because I have the right to have a means of defense just in case I need it. I refuse vaccinations because I have a right to avoid potential bodily harm just in case I have suspicions of a faulty product.

And is there reason to be concerned about faulty vaccines? Absolutely. Mass vaccination programs that were rushed to the public have a track record of harming people’s health.

With globalists like Bill Gates, an obsessive champion of depopulation at the forefront of the Covid-19 effort, I have no plans to accept any coronavirus vaccine. Bill Gates has funded numerous experimental vaccine trials through the World Health Organization, including Polio vaccination programs.  It was these same programs that led to viral outbreaks of polio in various countries and hundreds of paralyzed children. In fact, the vaccines caused more cases of Polio than the wild-type virus. This if VERIFIED FACT, admitted by the WHO and other mainstream sources, though numerous leftist media outlets continue to deny it.

At most, the WHO and Gates can claim that the infections were “accidental”. But if this is the case, it would still suggest that vaccines developed by Gates Foundation programs and the WHO should not be trusted.

In 1976 a swine flu scare enabled the initiation of a government-funded mass vaccination program. The vaccine was faulty and was canceled in less than 10 weeks after causing hundreds of cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a rare neurological condition that leads to temporary paralysis and sometimes death.

In 2008, Swiss company Novartis tested a Bird Flu vaccine on the homeless and poor population of Poland. The vaccine trial paid participants $2, and they were told the inoculation was for the “normal flu”. According a homeless center in the area, at least 21 people died right after they participated in the trial.

A GlaxoSmithKline executive by the name of Moncef Slaoui was recently tapped by Donald Trump to head up the government’s effort to develop a coronavirus vaccine. This appointment should be highly concerning to the public. Why? Because Glaxo has a dark history in vaccine development, including an incident in Argentina in 2007-2008 when they were fined after a pneumonia vaccine trial allegedly caused the deaths of at least 14 babies. Slaoui was in charge of Glaxo’s vaccine division at the time.

Statists that argue in favor of forced vaccination will dismiss all of these examples as mere “accidents” that are “rare”. Others will claim that fighting the pandemic is worth the risk of a “few deaths” due to some faulty vaccines. But this does not address the core issue of the battle against forced vaccination programs.  Does a minority of elites in government or even a majority of useful idiots in the general population have the right to declare ownership of your body in the name of an arbitrary “greater good”?  I say no, which is why I will NOT be conforming to any forced vaccine measures and I am willing to take extreme actions to defend myself from them if necessary.

As mentioned above, if a vaccine works, then there is no need to force people to take it. It will protect those that want it and the only risk is to those that choose not to use it. Frankly, the people in charge of the vaccine effort are not to be trusted, they have open ideological agendas that are questionable to say the least. Allowing them to dictate what goes into our bodies is akin to slavery at best, and possible mass death at worst.

Share
Categories
bill and melinda gates foundation bill gates Coronavirus Death enslavement Event 201 failed vaccines Globalists Headline News immunizations killed India Intelwars monitor Orwellian Overreach plandemic Planned Parenthood Police State population control scamdemic Track vaccination agenda Virus

BILL GATES SURVEILLANCE DREAM: Your Freedom IS NEXT!

This article was contributed by Tom Beck at Portfolio Wealth Global. 

The world has come a long way since the days of United States v. Microsoft Corporation, when everybody thought Bill Gates’ worst alleged crime was violating antitrust policy. Today, the corporate press treats Bill Gates with kid gloves as if he’s just naïve about politics and regulations, but his overreach into global affairs has been well documented.

Bill’s been busy pushing his personal agenda for many years now – though the mainstream press keeps this on the back burner if they even bother to report on it at all. It’s well-known that Bill Gates’ father was on the board of Planned Parenthood and Bill’s foundation donated $1,730,000 to the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Portfolio Wealth Global has studied the life of Bill Gates closely.

The Planned Parenthood connection fits into Bill’s agenda, where he’s admitted that he wants to implement population reduction measures in third-world countries. The problem is that Gates knows how to speak persuasively, framing extreme population control measures as “philanthropic efforts.”

This underscores a much deeper and more disturbing strain in Gates’ master plan, which encompasses not only population reduction but also mega-scale, technology-enhanced surveillance tactics – and the common thread, as always for Bill Gates, is personal gain.

Gates’ immunization efforts have already failed miserably, as the government of India abruptly cut off ties with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2017, essentially refusing to accept their funding capital for a massive vaccination program. India’s immunization advisory body reportedly suspected conflict of interest arising from the foundation’s connection with pharmaceutical companies.

Then there was the $121 million completely wasted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in a failed attempt to bring an anti-HIV vaccine to South Africa. After all that money was spent, the research indicated that the proposed “vaccine” was no more effective than a placebo. The trials for this failed vaccine started back in 2016 and were finally put to rest in February of this year.

All of this was just preparation for something much bigger and far worse. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was involved in the so-called “Event 201” simulation, in which a computer simulation of the spread of a fatal virus suggested that 65 million people would die globally.

This “training exercise” took place in October of 2019, long before the coronavirus was the topic of conversation in the United States. Truthfully, the pandemic wasn’t discussed in earnest in America until February, yet Bill’s foundation was planning and preparing a simulation of what might be considered the most evil of “population control” schemes.

But this goes beyond a plan to depopulate the world – there’s also a surveillance component to Gates’ agenda. Old Bill has always been a techie, so his Orwellian version of a police state naturally involves a “broad” use of “digital tools” to monitor the population.

Bill figures that everybody can be tracked through the smartphones they carry with them everywhere, so he wants to implement “apps that will help you remember where you have been; if you ever test positive, you can review the history or choose to share it with whoever comes to interview you about your contacts.”

Exactly who would “come to interview you about your contacts?” Would it be the government, or perhaps an enterprise controlled by Bill’s foundation? Wait, it gets even more dystopian, as Gates seems to like the idea of “allowing phones to detect other phones that are near them by using Bluetooth and emitting sounds that humans can’t hear.”

That’s how total population control starts: tracking of each individual that’s undetectable because it’s beyond the range of human hearing.

Moreover, Bill Gates suggests that “if someone tested positive, their phone would send a message to the other phones…” Say goodbye to privacy and hello to Orwell’s 1984.

Gates also wants to get into your DNA – literally. He’s now “excited” about a vaccine that would actually alter your genetic code, along with your immune system. This would be the final nail in the coffin for your basic human rights: first “contact tracing” through invasive technology, then control of your body and genes is given up – Bill’s got a vision, alright, and we’re all in the crosshairs.

 

Share