In a recent excellent review titled Lizard King? Philanthropath? Genocidal Maniac?, available on her Substack) Elizabeth Nickson combined the descriptions I had given in my book Gates of Hell: Why Bill Gates is the Most Dangerous Man in the World with information from Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner’s book Reckless Endangerment, as well as further extensive financial evidence detailed in Whitney Webb’s One Nation Under Blackmail, to reach a bold and damning conclusion.
Nickson essentially asserts that much of the increase in the Gates fortune since leaving Microsoft and establishing the Gates Foundation has been the consequence of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein:
“He was going to give away his massive fortune, give back to the people from his incredible privilege.
In the ensuing years, the fortune doubled and then doubled again.
That’s because he met Jeffrey Epstein. While Epstein’s sexual activities have received 90% of the attention, his activities during the last years of the Clinton administration are the more significant. First of all, Epstein was running an entrapment scheme for various covert agencies, which made his insinuation into government easy. At the same time, he taught high-level government officials, cabinet ministers, heads of agencies, and the great larcenous dame herself, Hillary Clinton, how to steal. It was a pincer movement. Having second thoughts? Here’s a video of your encounter with a fourteen year old.”
Nickson here is pulling no punches, and expresses an opinion that mainstream media and of course entirely partisan, paid for thought police like fact checking organisations instantly dismiss as ‘conspiracy theory’. But despite repeated and powerful attempts to quash this idea, it refuses to be killed off. Mainstream sources will tell you that’s because of ‘disinformation’ and paranoid fantasy, but increasingly the public aren’t buying that official line.
The public, or at least a very large percentage of them, don’t think that fact checkers and mainstream media receiving multiple payments (sometimes the bulk of their funding) from a handful of billionaires are the best people to tell us honestly if one of their patrons happens to be a pervert. Nor are officials and politicians (or indeed, scientists) dependent on these mega-oligarchs for campaign contributions or research financing or that 500 million dollar bequest that makes such a difference to a policy announcement, likely to tell the unvarnished, gruesome truth about the people they are courting for that money.
And the people are right. You aren’t going to get honest reporting or comment on Gates or any other billionaire from institutions or journalists funded by them. Sometimes this is supremely obvious, as with the fact that Fox News won’t make a habit of airing detailed criticisms of it’s owner Rupert Murdoch, nor will The Washington Post be going out of its way to air any controversies regarding Jeff Bezos.
But often, and especially with Gates, direct ownership is no longer the most effective means of asserting control and guiding the media (or the authorities) where you want them to be. Instead, as I comment on in my book and as others have also described, Bill Gates provides donations, bequests and funding to hundreds of separate media organisations. Rather than one outlet acting as his voice (and which everyone knows has that relationship with him), he will have hundreds, perhaps the entire non-alternative media, personally invested in avoiding stories which upset or challenge him.
Other than the investment banks, Gates by diversifying his interests, by being active across a broader range of interests than his billionaire peers, and by building personal relationships with world leaders through his philanthropic Foundation, has the most extensive network of influence held by any one of the modern oligarchs. It’s in that context that whether or not the media will be actively seeking proof of wrongdoing by him is best understood.
Nickson, though, is asserting a lot more than that the network of influence quashes negative stories. She is asserting that the intelligence services use sexual blackmail to control the powerful, blackmail involving the worst sexual crimes such as child abuse, that Epstein was at the heart of this, and that the Gates fortune post Microsoft is built on these same rancid foundations. She describes the Gates tendency to use philanthropy matched by public funds (while simultaneously investing in the companies that are going to receive the donations and contracts flowing from that ‘benevolent’ policy) as something taught by Epstein:
“Webb describes a veritable den of thieves as Epstein blackmailed US Senators, Department Heads, judges, and Attorney General. Within his inner circle, which included Gates and the Clintons, they learned how to create wealth by tapping into public money. While the Clintons have been stopped, Gates has to be Epstein’s finest pupil.”
This is explosive stuff. It inverts the mainstream narrative. Rather than Epstein being a peripheral figure who ingratiated himself with the powerful to disguise his own perversion, he’s a central, connected figure who with intelligence agency backing drew out the perversions already in others to control them. But it’s consistent with what can be described as a now very widely held belief. That belief is that the ruling class in the western world today, the most powerful politicians, the most influential agencies, and the most wealthy oligarchs, are so utterly corrupt that as well as being unaccountable in terms of policy and democracy are also prone to being sexual deviants, perverts and abusers who use sexual abuse both to control others and to gratify themselves.
Again, fact checkers and mainstream media will dismiss that idea as insane, ridiculous, and nonsensical. But is it really? Here’s the more cautious (but I think still damning) line I took in my book, specifically regarding Gates and his links to Epstein:
“To be accused of sexual abuse yourself could be a malicious falsehood. To be the friend of one of the most notorious sexual abusers of recent years could be an inaccurate guilt by association. To have your marriage break up because of the first two could be an unfair mistake on the part of your wife and just one of those tragic things in any failed marriage. But all of these things together do draw the outlines of a pattern. Yes, accusing Bill of sexual abuses when those haven’t been proven in court is drawing the lines in, making a conclusion for which only circumstantial evidence exists.
It’s true that those thinking that Bill is a predator at the moment only have an opinion. It’s not a confirmed fact in any way.
But until the Epstein client list is published and authorities start having an interest in finding and punishing the other powerful people who shared his victims, what possible reason do ordinary people have to dismiss this pattern altogether? How can they possibly trust fact checkers on this, who have lied about so many other things, or believe that complete inaction represents actual justice when Bill Gates is an Epstein associate with direct power and influence over the media?
We know that scores of underage girls were abused by Epstein and visitors to his island, by him and his friends. Only Epstein and Maxwell have been arrested. Epstein is dead, supposedly by his own hand while under suicide watch and, of course, the cameras observing him either failed or switched off. Only alternative media seems to consider it a story anymore. We have no idea how many other people have gotten away with it, how many clients there were, who they were, and why people shown on flight logs to Epstein’s island aren’t under investigation. This in itself is a disgusting betrayal of the victims. It’s not crazy, or irrational, or a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory to know that a guy who procured and forced underage girls into sex had clients who haven’t been punished, any more than it’s a conspiracy theory to know that grooming gangs don’t operate alone and that pimps and hookers have Johns.
And Bill, according to the comments of his ex-wife and several mainstream papers who won’t take the inquiry any further, seems to have sacrificed his marriage for this particular friend.
Make of that what you will.”
As you can see, I decided to be a little more cautious in my comments on this than Nickson is. I wanted to persuade those who have been told by ‘fact checkers’ that all this is crazy, as well as those who already regard Gates as a monster. My point was therefore made by logic, and by a more ‘look at how much smoke there is…shouldn’t we at least try to find the fire?’ approach.
But it’s not Nickson alone saying these things, or me alone discussing them. Nor is the opinion that many of the most powerful people could be engaged in the most disgusting sexual crimes without the media exposing that, all that unlikely.
Jimmy Savile in the UK was, after all, considerably less powerful than a Gates or even an Epstein. But he used charity (the philanthropy of the slightly less rich) as a cover. And his crimes were ignored for decades. He befriended senior politicians, charity heads, and doctors and hospital administrators. His sexual predations spanned children’s hospital wards and BBC studios, and he was a highly known, public figure. The BBC at the time had multiple other staff who were later exposed as child abusers and sexual predators.
So is it crazy to think that they might have helped each other, or looked the other way through shared moral and sexual degeneracy? Yes, it would be perfectly possible to be innocent and unaware as a work colleague or as a fellow charity supporter. But networking and webs of influence and support is also a pedophile (as well as a business and political) trait. We know such gangs exist.
Why shouldn’t they exist amongst the most powerful, and those least likely to be punished?
In the UK, too, we saw the phenomenon of Muslim grooming gangs. Now these men were very different to a Gates, a Clinton, or an Epstein. Grooming gang members were taxi drivers, bus drivers, fast food shop owners and workers. They were not super rich, famous and powerful. But they had one trait in common with famous and powerful sexual predators.
That trait is misplaced and unquestioning respect.
They had this in their own community as ‘good Muslims’. The community rallied round, supporting them even after their crimes were well known. They were considered upstanding pillars of their Muslim community, good Muslim fathers, cousins, husbands. They had this unwarranted respect to from outside officials worried about community relations and not appearing racist.
It’s consistently where people have this automatic respect that rumors about them get silenced, and indicators of perverse and sick behavior hushed up or ignored. We see that too with Catholic priests and the abuses that occurred in various Catholic institutions and nations.
What garners more respect and less questioning than the kind of philanthropic, world-saving endeavors modern billionaires engage in? If Savile’s pathetic little marathons and few hundred thousand pounds at a time of charity efforts purchased a blind eye to his sexual sins, if just being a Muslim or a Catholic priest can induce the kind of communal respect that sees no questions asked, how much of this turning away, this refusal to see, might be operating for the most powerful people on the planet?
Are these irrational questions, or very, very urgent ones?
And to the political part of all this. We are told it’s crazy to imagine sexual crimes being fabricated or ignored in a political context. It’s crazy to pretend our intelligence agencies would cover up or incite sexual crimes as a means of control.
Yet we know foreign intelligence agencies do this all the time. We know the Russians and the Chinese use sexual blackmail. Don’t they? We have all heard of honeypot Chinese and Russian agents. Some of us have heard of Fang Fang and her relationship with multiple senior Democrats including Rep. Eric Swalwell while he was serving on the House Intelligence Committee. This is a Chinese spy known to have worked as a key fundraiser, employee and confidant of a Democrat receiving the most sensitive intelligence briefings. Swalwell refuses to discuss whether he had ‘sexual relations with that woman’. When Marjorie Taylor Greene asserted that he had slept with Fang Fang, it was struck from the record. There are of course hundreds of incidents of sexual blackmail being used by intelligence agencies around the world in the past, now known and documented. It was a common KGB practice.
But it’s OK. Alone among nations, our guys don’t do it. And they certainly wouldn’t do it with kids. There’s some other reason that Epstein suddenly had access to everyone powerful, some other original source of his wealth, and some other reason why we still don’t hear any mainstream media outlet caring to ask who were the people fucking kids on his island, anyway?
Just like it’s perfectly normal that a whole bunch of senior politicians and major celebrities share a taste for sado-masochistic porn art featuring children, that such art was also in the possession of Jeffrey Epstein, and that mainstream journalists all dismissed it as ‘just art collecting, philistines’ during the Pizzagate scandal (the scandal that was debunked by a journalist who turned out to himself be…a pedophile).
Just like the curious universal mainstream dismissal of a powerful true story about sexual child trafficking networks was for non-political aesthetic reasons denied release for years before being subject to endless negative articles and reviews (all with references to ‘Qanon conspiracy theories’) in a way that couldn’t possibly lead us to suspect that some of the people who hate that movie hate it because it exposes their kind of behavior.
Just as our guys in our intelligence services wouldn’t possibly make up lurid and perverse sexual fantasies about a rival, or ignore others doing so after briefing about it, and then publicly sign their names to a letter about Russian collusion based on those very same sexual smears they knew to be false.
Nor would our guys in the intelligence services or the FBI or the mainstream media do anything so obviously corrupt as suppressing true revelations like the photographic and financial evidence on a laptop of sexual activity with what look like minors just prior to an election.
Because the idea that our guys might have created a figure like Epstein and used sexual blackmail based on crimes they encouraged is (drumroll please) ‘a crazy conspiracy theory’.
As is the idea that Bill Gates might be a sexual predator, of course.
Not Bill. Not that great humanitarian philanthropist. Not that very powerful and respected guy. Not our guy Bill.
To be fair, I still hold that we need firmer proof before we say that Bill Gates IS a sexual predator. My position remains that there’s an awful lot of smoke. Multiple claims of sexual misconduct in the Microsoft days. The long friendship with Epstein. Melinda citing that friendship at the time of their divorce. A lot of smoke.
As well as the damning assertions in Nickson’s review of my book, we have just seen banking, asset management and investment advising giants J.P.Morgan reach an enormous $365 million settlement with Jeffrey Epstein’s victims (see Patricia Harrity’s article just a few days ago on this). Both Epstein and Gates had a close relationship with J.P.Morgan as a firm. The suits on behalf of Epstein victims revealed that J.P. Morgan facilitated 1 billion dollars of Epstein financial transactions which the bank now admits were the proceeds of human trafficking. Seamus Bruner’s new book Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, Their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life discusses the Epstein, J.P.Morgan, Gates links extensively.
These include J.P.Morgan teaming up with Gates to create a global health investment fund in 2011, the same year Gates began having close contacts with Epstein (Hannity’s article suggests it was this link that initiated the friendship). It was a top J.P.Morgan executive (its former chief of investment banking) James E. ‘Jess’ Staley who introduced Epstein to Gates. Staley was a personal friend of both men.
In the only publicly released photo showing Epstein and Gates together, Staley is also there. As is Boris Nikolic, who was a senior Gates Foundation science advisor.
Epstein appointed Nikolic as the executor of his estate, an ‘honor’ Nikolic declined after Epstein, facing child sex trafficking charges, ‘killed himself’.
And that’s enough smoke for today.
Thank you for your brief allusion to the parallel conflagration in the Catholic Church, which has its own Epstein in the person of Theodore McCarrick. As the title of your book suggests, no word in our language comes as close to describing all this as “Satanic.”
Have you seen this recent article on the Daily Sceptic?
Billionaire Funds the Guardian to Tune of $116 Per Reader of Print Edition – The Daily Sceptic
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/11/16/billionaire-funds-the-guardian-to-tune-of-116-per-reader-of-print-edition/