Former Pfizer Inc. Vice President and Respiratory Disease Expert: Covid was created as a pretext for mass murder by fake vaccine injection

Via Off Guardian:

COVID19/11 – Mike Yeadon:

Episode Eight of Narratives Intertwined

Consistent with which is this article at UnHerd:

Covid safetyism has gone mad

Gone mad meaning that Covid policy bears no sensible relation to the public interest and thus, presumably, serves some other purpose: perhaps, as Mike Yeadon suggests, Bill Gates's desire for planetary depopulation. But what think those who visit this blog — almost ten thousand of them so far this month, but all beside a couple of trolls, thus far silent. 

America's Repellent Elite: The Truth About Bill Gates, Microsoft, and Jeffrey Epstein

 By Whitney Webb

In early May, the announcement that Bill and Melinda Gates would be divorcing after twenty-seven years of marriage shocked both those that praise and those that loathe the “philanthropic” power couple.

Less than a week after the initial announcement of the divorce, on May 7, the Daily Beast reported that Melinda Gates had allegedly been “deeply troubled” by Bill Gates’s relationship with child sex trafficker and intelligence asset Jeffrey Epstein. The report suggested that Melinda was a major reason for her husband’s decision to distance himself from Epstein around 2014 because of her discomfort with Epstein after they both met him in 2013. That previously unreported meeting had taken place at Epstein’s mansion on New York’s Upper East Side.

The Daily Beast also revealed that the details of the Gates’s divorce had been decided several weeks prior to the official announcement. Then, on May 9, the Wall Street Journal published a report suggesting that the plans for divorce went back even farther, with Melinda having consulted divorce lawyers in 2019. Allegedly, that consultation was made after details of Bill Gates’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had gained considerable mainstream media attention, including from the New York Times.

While mainstream media outlets apparently agree that Jeffrey Epstein was a likely factor in the Gates’s recently announced split up, what these same outlets refuse to cover is the real extent of the Bill Gates–Jeffrey Epstein relationship. Indeed, the mainstream narrative holds that Gates’s ties to Epstein began in 2011, despite the evidence pointing to their relationship beginning decades earlier.

This blanket refusal to honestly report on the Gates-Epstein ties likely is due to Gates’s outsized role in current events, both in terms of global health policy as it relates to COVID-19 and in his being a major promoter and funder of controversial technocratic “solutions” to a slew of societal problems. What is more likely, however, is that the nature of the relationship between Gates and Epstein before 2011 is even more scandalous than what transpired later, and it may have major implications not just for Gates but for Microsoft as a company and for some of its former top executives.

This particular cover-up is part of an obvious tendency of mainstream media to ignore the clear influence that both Epstein and members of the Maxwell family wielded—and, arguably, continue to wield—in Silicon Valley. Indeed, the individuals who founded tech giants such as Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, Microsoft, Tesla, and Amazon all have connections with Jeffrey Epstein, some closer than others.

Read More

Brilliant Billionaires, No. 79. Bill Gates's Brilliant Plan to Block the Sun Blocked

An effort to dim the sun to stop global warming has been scrapped by the Swedish Space Agency, who announced that the program, funded by Bill Gates, has ‘divided the scientific community’ and will therefore not be carried out.

Gates should confine his efforts to culling the population with epidemics and driving the survivors insane with crap software.

The solution to problems resulting from human-caused emissions of carbon carbon dioxide is to stop emitting carbon dioxide, a plan now universally agreed. 

As for the carbon dioxide already added to the atmosphere, the ocean will take care of it, and it will do so at the rate of about 12 billion tons a year. 

How? did you ask?

Photosynthetically. 

Marine algae and cynanobacteria grow by the assimilation of carbon dioxide. When these organisms die they sink to the bottom of the ocean where they form a layer of goop that retains the assimilated carbon indefinitely.

This process of marine assimilation removes about 12 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year. That's equal to about one quarter of current human-caused, carbon dioxide emissions. 

Thus, if as planned, humanity ends net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will begin falling by around 2042. 

Thereafter, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will continue to fall over a period of several hundred years until reaching the pre-industrial concentration of around 280 parts per million, or about 70% of the current concentration.

At that point, we will be back to an equilibrium between all emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, both human-caused and natural, and photosynthetic sequestration. Thereafter Bill Gates will be able to rest easy in his grave. 

Related:

Italian Politician Calls For Bill Gates Arrest And Charge Of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’

Bill Gates and the Billionaires Behind the Drive for Global governance

There are a couple of comments in response to an earlier post on the Corona virus pandemic that I want to respond to with the convenience of a regular post rather than dependence on Blogger's spavined comment software.  

First:

YusefJuly 18, 2020 at 12:10 PM I'm going to take a stab at explaining what's going on from a more "structural" perspective. I want to steer clear of the more lurid conspiracy theory aspects of my understanding to this point. I will explain why. The first structural feature: the concentration of worldwide wealth, first to a small number of nation states; then, within those nation states to a remarkably small number of individuals. The second structural feature: globalization as a fait accompli. It is a done deal now and the global economy and political organization is the reality. Most of what we grew up believing about the economy and political organization (the nation state, democracy, totalitarianism, or communism-- you name it-- it is all obsolete.) About the first structural feature: concentration of wealth. What I want to call attention to is a phenomena we can all agree on: the emergence of a single man named Bill Gates as a world leader of epic power and sway. When I say we can all agree on it, I mean no one doubts Gates is one of the most wealthy and powerful people in the world. (Some people claim he is the second most wealthy--it wouldn't surprise me.) It is not controversial he is heavily invested in vaccines: vaccine research and development, production, and dissemination. This investment is both through his charitable foundation, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and in for-profit private companies. (I recall several years ago reading he'd invested 11 billion in a for-profit private company. He likely has increased this. I need to check to see if I can find out where he's at now.) It is not controversial this one man, Bill Gates, contributes more to the funding of the World Health Organization,(WHO) than all but one of the 193 nation-state members. As an aside, note the confluence of structural element number one and number two in this truly extraordinary state of affairs: One man contributing more than all of those nation-states to an organization which is an outgrowth of the United Nations, a signal or earlier attempt (failed) toward a global governance.

That through the investment of vast personal resources, Bill Gates seeks a pivotal role in the global response to a pandemic confirms the role of the money power in the drive for global governance.

Almost 120 years ago, Cecil Rhodes, with the backing of Lord Rothschild and other bankers, created a secret society with the goal of bringing the entire world under British rule. The society still exists and is known by its public face as the British Institute for International Affairs, or Chatham House, and its American spin-off, the Council on Foreign Relations. Rhodes' project, backed as it was by Lord Rothschild and other bankers, thus set the world on course for control by what Carrol Quigley referred to, in his magnum opus, Tragedy and Hope, as the Money Power.

Writing in the 1960's, Quigley assumed that, as at the founding of Rhodes' Secret Society, banks would remain central to the Money Power. However, as the Canadian economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, realized, by the 1960s corporations were increasingly able to control competition and hence fix prices and were thus able to accumulate capital sufficient to their investment needs without resort to the banks. Thus, the Money Power came increasingly to be dominated by corporate managers who pursued globalization for the sole purpose of  profit maximization.

The vast importance of corporations in the process of globalization became evident following the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to which 128 countries were a party. Under that agreement, great corporations based in Europe, America and Japan were free to move capital and technology to where labor was cheapest, environmental and workplace safety regulations were least onerous, while shipping goods to where prices were highest, and taking profits where taxes were lowest.

Since 1994, however, there has been a further evolution of the Money Power, as vast personal fortunes have been accumulated by entrepreneurs such as Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and dozens of others. What we are seeing now, as you show in the case of Bill Gates and global health policy, is that the globalization project is taking on a more idiosyncratic course as individual plutocrats are able to impose their personal judgment on how the future of the world should unfold.

Second:

YusefJuly 18, 2020 at 12:11 PM Now we have this one man, Bill Gates, exercising influence and power. The exact nature of the way Gates is exercising influence and power IS CONTROVERSIAL. I don't deny it. What needs to be remembered, though, is something which wasn't controversial very long ago in the US, Canada, Britain or any other western democracy: systems of checks and balances and other forms of restraint on ALL exercises of public power and influence. I have to wonder how hard it would be to get people to see, in the case of Bill Gates and this pandemic, we do not have such systems in effect. We don't need the idea of Bill Gates as a psychopathic madman conspiring to depopulate the planet and make himself a trillion dollars richer by manipulating a crisis. All we actually need is recognition he is no longer "one man throwing his two cents into the pot, along with everyone else's two cents." We don't have a war of, or marketplace, of words and ideas duking it out on a level playing field so that in the long run the better ones win. We have one guy, who may very well have the best intentions, pulling strings here and there in the way he thinks is best-- but without any contest of ideas-- not likely the best FOR EVERYONE or, failing that, FOR THE GREATER GOOD. He can't! He has his narrow perspective, his personal experiences, his unconscious desires and drives, his imperfections, limitations, defects of character, intelligence, and personality-- just like all us slobs. (Here and there he may have some quality to recommend him so what, but I alone know at least a dozen smarter and better men.) There are corollaries to this. Gates is not where he is due to his merits. (Not really.) The people beneath him aren't necessarily there due to their merits, either. Gates has business skills, I would say, probably some very rusty computer skills, and he has less knowledge of biology and medicine, I think, than you or I. He is to some degree or other unable to evaluate who is best and what is best. (This is true for so many of our "leaders". They are so out of their depth it is painful. I even felt sorry for Trump. He just plain doesn't know what's going on and he's too old and too stressed to learn.) Gates is going to feel comfortable working with some people, not others, and will, as we all may tend to do, think those are the best. He is going to have, as many wealthy and powerful people do, a bias in favor of those who obtain access to him personally. These people are also not necessarily the best and may be among the worst. They may very well have access because they are powerful enough, or corrupt enough, to get it. I have to stop here. Hopefully you can see where I am going. Every time I have seen a goof-- and there have been so many-- (the 20% hospitalization rate for those infected is an example; so are Neil Ferguson's modeling results), I have been angered and seen it all as a hoax (and conspiracy.) There is plenty of evidence of hoax, conspiracy, gross negligence, and corruption, but what I am thinking now is it has more to do with our global abandonment OF WHAT WORKED WELL ENOUGH for what we all knew had to be avoided and guarded against.

Yes, the problem well stated.

Unfortunately, there seems no obvious way back. Money has always had political influence, and with so much money held by so few, the influence of egocentric, idiosyncratic, or truly insane individuals seems certain to grow.

But Bill Gates`s  strange, not to say Strangeloveian manner and impulses, gives warning to the world, so none can claim ignorance of what may lie ahead.

But what to do?

What do others think?

Meantime:

FacebookTwitterRedditEmailRSS FeedNewsletterDonate

      Related     
Tom Chivers: Why Covid will become the new common cold
National Post: Does humanity have an unseen ally against COVID?

Taxing the One Percent

Make the rich pay: that's a good populist slogan, and very dangerous — to the rich.

How do the rich fight back? Currently, two ways. First, they have some dupe or colluding leftie to advocate for higher income tax. Currently, for example, newly elected US Congress woman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is calling for a 70% top tax rate, while Bernie Sanders, an old-line Commie, calls for a more moderate 15% increase in the top tax rate to a mere 52%, or about what Canada's 1% pay, already.

But what does that mean for the rich. Well here's Bill Gates, one time richest man in the world, on how income tax impacts the rich:

In terms of revenue collection, you wouldn’t want to just focus on the ordinary income rate, because people who are wealthy have a rounding error of ordinary income.

Get it? For rich people the income tax rate is essentially irrelevant because they pay it on only a trivial amount of their actual annual increment in wealth. How come. Because, as Bill Gates goes on to explain:

(The rich) have income that just is the value of their stock, which if they don't sell it, it doesn't show up as income at all, or if it shows up, it shows up over in the capital gains side. So the ability of hedge fund people, various people — they aren't paying that ordinary income rate.

OK, and the second way to fight making the rich pay?

Why, like Canada's young and handsome Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, you point out that the poor don't pay any tax at all! 

This is, of course a preposterous lie, since in Canada, income tax kicks in on any earned income in excess of $12,069 per year: or approximately $750 US per month.

How do Trudeauvians justify such a preposterous claim? Why, easy sleazy: from your tax payment we deduct the cost of the government services you receive, for example, brain-washing your kid with compulsory sex "education, " you know, indoctrinating the youth of the nation with the idea that the only sexual vice is reproduction. Then there's the cost of all those wonderful bureacratic services you receive from Ottawa, like that of Revenue Canada, for example.

The argument is absurd: like saying that when you buy a new car you don't pay for it because, well hey, you received a car of value equal to the money you handed the car dealer. But what else could a rather dim-bulb trust-fund kid like our Justin say?

But in any case, who really benefits most from government? The rich, obviously, who are absolutely dependent on the military and the forces of internal law and order to secure their property from the depradations of both fellow citizens and foreign enemies. Thus, the chief form of taxation should be on wealth, not earned income.

How should wealth be taxed? By a simple yearly percentage.

How much should be the tax on capital? Enough to pay for the maintenance of the state, which is to say the cost of the military, the police, the physical infrastructure upon which the functioning of the state and the value of most property depends — for example, a house without road access, water supply, or sewer connection is of little or no value.

In addition, the tax on wealth should cover the cost of basic social services that contribute to the education and health of the people upon whom the owners of capital depend for the operation of the corporations in which they are invested, and the provision of the infrastructure and services such as roads, airports, sewage works, etc.

So how much should this tax on wealth be? For Canada, we can work that out from the fact that the average net worth of a Canadian currently stands at $808,000 or thereabouts.* That means the total wealth of Canadians amounts to around $29 trillion, of which 80% is owned by the wealthiest 20%. So let's exempt the poorest 80% from the wealth tax, and impose a tax of 1% a year on the nearly $24 trillion, or $3.4 million each, owned by the top 20%.

Such a tax would yield $240 billion a year, which is more than the current combined Federal Government revenue from income tax and the job killing corporation tax, both of which could be abolished. Then the poor really would pay no tax, but the rich would still be rich.

According to the French economist Thomas Picketty, financial assets yield around 7% annually over the long-term.  Thus, even if inflation eats 3 or 4% of that return annually, the rich could still expect a positive, after-tax unearned income of 2 or 3% on their investments. What more do they expect? Well, any amount obviously. But if the alternative is a bloody revolution, they should be well content with a real after tax unearned return of 2 or 3%.

Meantime, the really hardworking entrepreneurs and corporate employees, the people who are not rich, by the standards of the rich, but who earn big money, would have maximal incentive to be productive by working like crazy, without the distraction of attempting to minimize their tax obligation through off-shore structures, and the use of trusts and foundations.

____

* Different sources give widely different estimates of Canadians' net worth. The actual number makes no difference to the argument presented, only to the extent to which a capital tax reduces the need for other taxes.

Brilliant Billionaires, No. 79: Bill Gates and Chicken Economics

Poverty stalks the land, but Bill Gates has the answer: get a chicken.

Every poor person should raise chickens, says Bill.

“They’re a good investment.”he says. “Suppose a new farmer starts with five hens. One of her neighbors owns a rooster to fertilize the hens’ eggs. After three months, she can have a flock of 40 chicks.”

Wow. So after five years at that rate of multiplication “she” (or I guess it could be a fella, but let’s keep this PC) could have five trillion chicks, which, says Bill, would have a sale price [when full grown] of $5 per chicken — which is typical in West Africa.”

So there you are, being poor is just about being stupid really, and anyone following Bill’s easy to follow tip can become rich beyond the dreams of avarice in practically no time at all.

Problem for some, though, may be getting that first chicken. So why doesn’t Bill give everyone in the United States a chicken to get them started. At five bucks a piece it would cost him practically nothing out of his $79 billion pile. And for those without a yard to keep a live chicken, no doubt a fresh frozen, oven-ready bird would be most acceptable.