I never thought I'd be writing about divorces, but the Gates one has implications for important public policy and even governance issues. As we've tried to point out in the context of the Covid Hoax, powerful NGOs and foundations have far more say in public policy than the voters do, since these organizations have direct access to government officials (both elected and appointed) and can offer many incentives--both financial and prestige/job related.
Today at Zerohedge there is a nice overview of what's being learned. We've already seen some of this, but the most telling parts come from a WSJ article that provides details on Gates' relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. It appears that the Gates marriage was on the rocks for some years and that a precipitating event was Melinda's lack of "comfort" regarding Gates's association with Epstein. Gates, for his part, wrote an email--that's right, the document exists--professing himself "intrigued" by Epstein's "lifestyle." Gates supporters attempt to explain this in a benign sense, having to do with supposed charitable activities. The fact remains that Epstein was, by then, a convicted pedophile and that his ongoing "lifestyle" included hosting (shall we see) numerous underage girls at his residences--including his NY mansion that Gates and Gates associates visited. Small wonder that Melinda was "uncomfortable." Contrary to public statements, it appears that this divorce is seriously acrimonious. Read about it here:
Zerohedge closes with this intriguing question:
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?
While waiting for an answer to that question, it's worth paying attention to the signs that the MSM is turning on Gates, who has led a charmed media life up till now. As noted, Gates has become the world's de facto Covid Czar--a position which, as we've tried to emphasize, involves a lot more than disinterestedly simply funding research. Anyone who thinks Gates isn't behind the social control policies as much or more than anyone else needs to seriously reconsider. Any event--such as a divorce--that impacts his activities is therefore of interest.
With that in mind, Zerohedge quotes from an article that appeared in the Columbia Journalism Review. That's about as prestigious a venue in the world of journalism as you can imagine, so it's been garnering considerable comment. Indeed, David Reaboi comments: "Pretty interesting that EVERY major outlet is covering this story."
Here that snippet is:
Gates' 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.
Did you know that money talks in the world of "high-kless" journalism? You know it now--haha! Read on:
During the pandemic, news outlets have widely looked to Bill Gates as a public health expert on covid--even though Gates has no medical training and is not a public official. PolitiFact and USA Today (run by the Poynter Institute and Gannett, respectively, both 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.
Woops! Let's see--he's a college dropout with no really apparent expertise in the usual sense of the word; he's not an elected or a confirmed public official and so has no real accountability; he's been using his position of prestige to make money hand over fist and has leveraged that money making scheme through his influence with world governments--with the goal of advancing some pretty kooky schemes. Nothing to see here, so we move on:
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 agriculture--a level of influence that has landed Bill Gates on Forbes' list of the most powerful people in the world. The Gates Foundation can point to important charitable accomplishments over the past two decades--like helping drive down polio and putting new funds into fighting malaria--but 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.
Imagine that--MSM journalists defending one of the most powerful and money grubbing men in the world against "expert detractors who say that Gates may actually be introducing harm, or distracting us from more important, lifesaving public health projects." No wonder the MSM's trustworthiness is at a low ebb among everyone who knows anything.
Can we get a TED talk on the intriguing aspects of Epstein's "lifestyle" ? I'm sure there's just loads of smart and intriguing things to thoughtfully contemplate. Mark AReplyDelete
The very wealthy, very prominent, have been known to keep up marriages of convenience for decades until something tips the balance. Bill Gates seems like the dullest, least sexy man on the planet (ditto Zuckerberg and the other high tech billionaires). It wouldn’t come as a surprise that - after ending up with all that money and having surrounded himself with all sorts of material thrills (the ostentatious house, the cars, etc.) that what Eptsteine was up to might offer a kinky allure. Something happened back there to set off Melinda’s alarms and maybe more is to come. Do I care? Absolutely not at all. I just don’t want either Bill or Melinda tinkering with our country, our world.ReplyDelete
Good thing Barr was in place to secure the establishment from Epstein's revelations. Now we have to rely on suppositions extracted from divorce proceedings.ReplyDelete
Well, well. Color me unsurprised: how can having that amount of $$$ not lead to a messiah complex & hedonism?ReplyDelete
Be interesting to see how it plays out.
But this stuff has been known for a long time. Maybe something beyond. Epstein stuff might qualify.
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"Delete
Gates intrigued by Epstein's lifestyle? Foundations donating money to MSM outlets like PolitiFact and USA Today? and the MSM propping him up as a Covid czar??? Well as my father used to say "I'm pretty sure he puts on his pants one leg at a time"... Hold my Beer.ReplyDelete
the fact that this is a deal is a tribute to his successful relationship with the media and political figures. There's an article in the Daily Mail about his 'party' lifestyle in the earlier days of M$, and there's tons of facts in the US District Court opinion that show M$ was built on the OG business model. Wozniak the man didn't seem fooled by him. And isn't it common knowledge that swingers refer to their lifestyle as 'the lifestyle"? Good thread of consistency running through here... Money and self-pleasure matter, and like epstein, fooling people with a charitable veneer is necessary to keep it going.ReplyDelete
I'm sure its just a personality thing... so many of these guys "fell into" their wealth or are recent to it...ReplyDelete
But I cannot think of anything I would rather do, if I came into major wealth, than to disappear from the public life as thoroughly and permanently as possible. Even my philanthropy would be anonymous.
As the Gates story unfolds, lets not forget Balzac's warning:ReplyDelete
Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.
It is fact that MS has a long predatory history of ripping others off.Delete
Totally OT (but everything's connected)ReplyDelete
Mark, have you or one of your commenters posted Nicholas Wade's (former Science editor of the NYT) analysis of the origins of the coronavirus:
If so, apologies for re-posting.
An excellent read.
As I like to say: so many questions!
No problem. If you recall, we were all over that angle early on. There were strong arguments advanced from the get go, including studies by Indian scientists (and others) that tended to show that the virus had been altered in ways that would not have happened through a normal mutation path. The mainstream of science writers is finally coming around to the fact that Fauci was funding the research that led to these developments. NYMag had a major story a few months ago on that topic.Delete
Fauci is no longer needed as a blessed and anointed foil to an evil GOP president. So the press can not start reported on this.Delete
I think that what this article adds, in credible and hard to refute fashion is the evidence that the National Institutes of Health "was supporting gain-of-function research, of a kind that could have generated the SARS2 virus, in an unsupervised foreign lab that was doing work in BSL2 biosafety conditions". And that Dr. Anthony Fauci was intimately involved.Delete
@Cass, to add to your comment: "an unsupervised foreign lab" with connections to the military of our chief adversary...Delete
So...re: Bill Gates. Might we say that "The Emperor has no clothes"? I had been mulling over how perfectly prophetic Hans Christian Andersen's classic story is (every child should own an illustrated copy) for our COVID times...ReplyDelete
I got a $100 that says Maxwell has fingered Gates in her cooperation with the SDNY and the wife knows.ReplyDelete
I've got another $100 that says they will bury it and protect him.
Devilman I'll lay a thousand SDNY never needed Maxwell's cooperation to finger Bill in the first place, Epstein et al were IC controlled, one of many tools in the black bag, Maxwell was taken into custody only to bring her in from the cold so to speak. Mark A. I did not commit suicide.ReplyDelete
Touché, only a fool would argue otherwise.Delete