Bill Gates, COVID, Epstein, Greed, Lying, Etc
No need for a lie detector on Bill Gates.
"Abject Lie" is written on his forehead. Just dinner. "That's all." You might think my venom is due to his attempt to surreptitiously slip antibiotics to his wife after surreptitiously exposing her to venereal disease caused by his adventures with Jeffrey Epstein. No, that's merely the tip of the iceberg.
Sayer Ji lays it out. Go to Sayer Ji's article, "BREAKING: The Epstein Files Illuminate a 20-Year Architecture Behind Pandemics as a Business Model—With Bill Gates at the Center of the Network: Inside the JPMorgan–Gates–Epstein Pipeline: Donor-Advised Funds, Vaccine Finance, and the Architecture of Pre-Positioned Profit."
Also visit Ji's recent posts on X. Start here:
Dig into this post and the posts that follow for images of documents and links to many other documents that substantiate all of this).
We thought we have been electing the people who govern us, but George Carlin was so very correct when he said: "They own you," and he was speaking of the "Big Club," people like Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein, people we did NOT elect and whom we would never have elected. Yet this is just one example (out of millions) of what corrupt people can do to mold a 'democracy" in their own image and likeness. Eric Weinstein reacts:
Weinstein continues in the comments to his own post:
[More . . . ]
DataRepublican is Exposing “The Big Club”
Who are the powerful shy people who tell so many politicians what to do and say? What am I talking about? Dozens of members of Congress (I'm focusing on the political Left these days) walk in lockstep. For example:
Modern Democrats apparently have conjured up a political purity test that they require of each other.
In his American Dream bit, George Carlin spoke of "The Big Club" and you and I are not in "The Big Club."
They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want: They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. Thats against their interests. Thats right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that!You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place! It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it! You, and I, are not in the big club.
The amazing Data Republican has dug into the politicians who are all mouthing the same words in unison, abdicating their duties to think for themselves in congress. What has she found? Lots of financial ties binding these politicians to their "Big Club." For instance,
Carlin thought that there was no need for formal meetings to coordinate the activity of "The Big Club."
Thanks to DataRepublican, we are now learning, however, that sophisticated logistics and money-flow coordinate the activities of The Big Club.
Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson Discuss Ukraine and Propaganda
What follows is an excerpt from a Nov 20, 2024 discussion between Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson. This is a critically important discussion regarding recent developments in the Ukraine War and related U.S. Propaganda:
Glenn Greenwald [00:18:53] Tucker, there's nobody I'm certain of this in the United States, just an average, ordinary American voter who believes that their life is affected in any way by the question of who rules various provinces in the Donbass in eastern Ukraine. Nobody thinks about Ukraine, let alone the Donbass, let alone eastern Ukraine. It's an incredibly complex situation there in terms of the people's allegiances, which are far closer to Moscow than they are to Kiev. The question of what that territory should be, should it be somehow autonomous, should it be used as a buffer against the West? The whole framework, as you well know, and as other people have pointed out, when Russia agreed to the reunification of Germany, which was obviously an extraordinary thing for the Russians to agree to, given the Russian history in the 20th century with respect to Germany, when they opened, the Berlin Wall fell and they allowed the eastern and the western parts of Germany to reunite and to become part of the West and become part of the EU. The only concession they extracted in exchange for that was with reunification. NATO's now moving eastward, closer to our border in a country that has devastated our country twice in two world wars, invaded Russia twice, killed tens of millions of Russian citizens. The only thing we need as a security guarantee in exchange for allowing that is that NATO will never expand one inch eastward beyond what was East Germany and the United States agreed to that. And immediately in the 90s, an administration, the administration started talking about it and implementing NATO's expansion eastward toward Russia. Exactly what was promised to Gorbachev the United States would not do in exchange for them agreeing to reunification. And why? Why? Why did we need to expand eastward toward Russia. And now it's not just eastward in general. It's going directly up to the Russian border on the part of their border that has been invaded twice in Ukraine to destroy Russia. And both of those world wars, we also participated in the change of government. We removed the democratically elected leader of Ukraine before his constitutional term was expired in 2014 because we perceived him as being too friendly to Moscow, which is what the Ukrainians voted for and replaced him. [U.S. State Department's] Victoria Nuland constructed a government and they was replaced by a government that was more pro-U.S.. Imagine if the Russians engineered a coup in Mexico to take out the government because they were too friendly to us and put in a hard line, pro Russian, anti-American, anti-NATO president. Imagine how threatening we would regard that as. And that's exactly what we did in Ukraine. The question is, though, this has nothing to do with the national security of the American people. No American is threatened by who governs Ukraine. What they're threatened by is what the United States is doing in Ukraine, including this most recent act.
... This is not a lame duck decision and it's not like there was any emergency to it. It wasn't there was no emergency to it. They just wanted to escalate it because they thought Trump wouldn't. And so they did.
Tucker [00:27:52] It puts us in this remarkable moment where the only adult is Vladimir Putin. This person, we've been told, is Hitler and deranged, crazy, dying of nine different kinds of cancer can't be trusted like the only reason we're not. I mean, we're all relying on his restraint. That's just a fact right now. How weird is that?
American Universities as Black-Ops Leading the Way on Censorship
Mike Benz explains:
At min 5, he pulls up USASpending.gov, which he describes as the only substantive difference between the U.S. and North Korea or China or Russia. All of these do less censorship than the U.S. At USASpending.gov, we can actually see what our government is paying to each university to do its censorship. Simply plug in "misinformation," then read and weep.
"We don't have a fucking First Amendment anymore." The government merely pays our universities to do its censorship. "Funded by the underbutt of the Pentagon."
Julian Assange: To Know Where We Should Be Headed, We Need to Figure Out Where We Are
We can all write about our political issues, we can all push for particular things we believe in, we can all have particular brands of politics, but I say actually it's all bankrupt," Assange said. "And the reason it's all bankrupt, and all current political theories are bankrupt and particular lines of political thought, is because actually we don't know what the hell is going on. And until we know the basic structures of our institutions — how they operate in practice, these titanic organizations, how they behave inside, not just through stories but through vast amounts of internal documentations — until we know that, how can we possibly make a diagnosis? How can we set the direction to go until we know where we are? We don't even have a map of where we are. So our first task is to build up a sort of intellectual heritage that describes where we are. And once we know where we are, then we have a hope of setting course for a different direction. Until then, I think all political theories — to greater and lesser extents of course — are bankrupt.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- 18
- Go to the next page