News Ticker

Bill Gates Thought Jeffrey Epstein Was His Ticket to a Nobel Prize, Ex-Staffer Says

Jeffrey Esptein, wearing slippers and jeans, entertains the wealthy and powerful at his home after he's registered as a sex offender. PHOTO: New York Times

The prize ‘is what Bill wants more than anything else in the world,’ one former Gates Foundation employee said.

By Kate Briquelet and Lachlan Cartwright | 18 May 2021

THE DAILY BEAST — Bill Gates enjoyed holding court at Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan mansion, allegedly seeking refuge from his marriage and talking with the sex offender’s circle of high-profile dinner guests about philanthropy and other worldly topics.

But the Microsoft mogul may have been angling for another perk by networking with Epstein: Gates hoped the well-connected pervert could help him secure the Nobel Peace Prize, one former Gates Foundation employee told The Daily Beast.

This person said members of the foundation’s communications team were alerted to Gates’ relationship with Epstein and were told it “was a maneuver to try to get himself a Nobel Peace Prize.” They said the tech mogul had even kept some employees on call on prize day in years past just in case he was awarded the distinction.

“We were aware of things that were potential reputational risks for the foundation and the co-chairs, Bill and Melinda,” said the former employee. “Even back then, people knew this guy wasn’t squeaky clean,” the person said, referring to Epstein. […]

3 Comments on Bill Gates Thought Jeffrey Epstein Was His Ticket to a Nobel Prize, Ex-Staffer Says

  1. As Dr. Mercola wrote, Gates does not practice philanthropy, but rather “philanthrocapitalism.” Not only does Gates wield incredible influence in the tech and vaccine world, but Mercola noted that he also mirrors this power in “agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification and other climate technologies, surveillance, education and media.”

    This was supported by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who wrote that Gates practices “weaponized philanthropy,” a tactic he employed “to resuscitate his reputation after the Microsoft antitrust case exposed him as a lying, cheating, thieving, manipulator intent on felonious monopoly control of global information conduits.” With Gates’s own personal net worth increasing to nearly $130 billion, his much advertised “philanthropy” has proven to be personally profitable.

    The accumulation of wealth comes at a cost, although not to Gates himself. In 2004 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) partnered with the Rockefeller Foundation in the $424 million Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), supposedly to increase food productivity and incomes, while lowering food insecurity. Gates forced the local farmers to abandon their traditional techniques, and instead use imported commercial seeds, petroleum fertilizers and pesticides, for which he supplied the infrastructure.

    He also pressured African governments into large spending and made them use draconian penalties and authoritarian control to force farmers to buy his expensive inputs and comply with his diktats.

    Nutrition and productivity dramatically declined, and a 2020 report, “False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)” revealed that in the countries Gates selected, extreme hunger had increased by 30%.

    The Corbett Report noted that “the 9,000,000 people who die every year of hunger would be best served by securing food supplies, running water and other basic necessities, not costly medical interventions for rare diseases. But there is no return on investment to be made from that kind of charity.”

    As noted by the Corbett Report, Gates is also intent on controlling identities, through the imposition of an all-encompassing ID system, and ensuring that all financial transactions are conducted through the purview and control of the mainstream monetary sphere, as opposed to novel, purely digital systems which are much harder to “track.”

    “No, this is not about charity. It is about control,” declared the Corbett Report.

    Robert Kennedy recently reported on the effect which Gates’s so called “charity” for the global health was actually having. “The global lockdowns that Bill Gates helped orchestrate and cheerlead have bankrupted more than 100,000 businesses in the U.S. alone and plunged a billion people into poverty and deadly food insecurity that, among other devastating harms, kill 10,000 African children monthly — while increasing Gates’ wealth by $20 billion.”


    The ancient Persians had a significant impact upon some of the core myths that underscore Judaism and Christianity. Among other things, Judaism and Christianity owe thanks to the Persian priests of Zoroaster for the light versus darkness motif, the belief in an impending apocalypse, and the messianic dogma. But above all, both Jews and Christians should thank Persia for the Devil himself. I think it’s fair to say that had they not adopted this fictitious character from the Persians, they might not have succeeded with such ease in persuading and maintaining their frightened and superstitious flocks.

    The religion of Zoroaster, or Zarathustra, received its name from a Magian Priest by the name of Zoroaster (Greek)/Zarathustra (Persian), who was a loyal servant of the “one true” Persian God Ahura Mazda, or Ormuzd. Ormuzd was commonly referred to as the “The Holy Spirit” in the pre-Christian portions of the Avesta. This religion began to flourish toward the end of the second millennium BCE, and its primary corpus of holy texts are known as the Zend Avesta. These ancient scriptures contain a number of the superstitious seeds that were eventually sown into the soil of both the Jewish and Christian religions. Such parallels have led the learned Rabbis responsible for compiling the Jewish Encyclopedia to make mention of their closeness to the two later Abrahamic religions, saying:

    Most scholars, Jewish as well as non-Jewish, are of the opinion that Judaism was strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism in views relating to angelology and demonology, and probably also in the doctrine of the resurrection, as well as in eschatological ideas in general, and also that the monotheistic conception of Yhwh may have been quickened and strengthened by being opposed to the dualism or quasi-monotheism of the Persians. (1)

    Prior to the Persian invasion of Babylon, the religion of Judaism believed that their chief God was responsible for all that happened in the universe. Both good and evil were the manifestations of their God.

    This is reflected in the book of Isaiah, in which the anonymous author writes:

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

    The author of Isaiah possibly wrote this verse in order to achieve two ends. Firstly, the verse appears to be a soft polemic against the dualistic Persian theology, which posited an evil counterpart to a good god, a notion still foreign to the Israelites at the time, and secondly, as a warning to the Israelites not to fall into the Persian heresy of believing in a counterpart to their god. Thus, the author of the book of Isaiah has Yahweh taking direct responsibility for both good and evil, leaving no room for the existence of a devil.

    The figure of Satan is found in only three places in the OT, and all of these are postexilic in date (i.e., after 538 B.C.): Job 1-2; Zechariah . 3:1-2; and 1 Chronicles. 21:1.

    The Devil has never managed to achieve a unique character or identity within either the Jewish or Christian religions, and thus has been known by many names and occupied many forms, none of which represent a single definable character. The Hebrew word, ‘ha satan’(הַשָׂטָן) or satan, as it is transliterated in English, was not originally a name, but a verb meaning ‘to accuse,’ or ‘to oppose’, and was used in its common noun form by “David” in 2 Samuel (19:22), in which he was alleged to have described the sons of Zeruiah as ‘satans’ (adversaries) unto him. It also appears in verb form in various other places throughout the Old Testament (see Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 29:4 and Psalms 109:6). Satan is a word which pre-existed the Devil in the Hebrew holy books, however, when he was introduced into the religion it was chosen as one of the most appropriate epithets to apply to his Zoroastrian character.

    Another name for the Devil is ‘Lucifer’, and it means ‘light bearer.’ Astronomically, it has been said to represent the planet Venus, as Venus is the brightest star in the morning before the sun has fully risen and obliterated it from the sky. In a misinterpreted passage from chapter 14 of the book of Isaiah, describing the King of Babylon, the name ‘Lucifer,’ which derives its current form from the Latin ‘Lucem/Lux Ferer’, was incorrectly applied to the Devil.

    Some of the confusion surrounding this misinterpreted passages from Isaiah arose due to the fact that the king of Babylon was described as having “falling from heaven” and many theologians misunderstood the use of the word ‘heaven’ to mean the “literal” heaven, rather than its obvious figurative application. The king of Babylon enjoyed success on a grand scale, success which brought with it pleasure, wealth, dominion, abundance, and as a result, he became arrogant and so the heaven we was said to be falling from was his luxurious lifestyle. Much like the way we use the term heaven to describe a taste, a feeling, or a state of being.

    To refute any apology to the contrary, the Lucifer of Isaiah was described as having been:

    The king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4),
    Who ruled nations with aggression (Isaiah 14:6), as the king of one of the largest empires did, also;
    Who other defeated kings will say; “you have become weak like us,” (Isaiah 14:10), and;
    Who would not let his captives (the exiled Jews) go home (Isaiah 14:17), but most importantly,
    Was a man (Isaiah 14:16).

    It is obvious that this Lucifer (‘shining one’) was the king of Babylon, but beliefs require a minimal amount of fuel and a maximum amount of propagation to catch on and spread, as has been the case in this instance.

    Modern apologists have twisted these passages in every conceivable manner to try and claim that it is a double entendre for both the Devil and the king of Babylon, however as seen above, the term was only referring to the man himself. The association between Lucifer and Satan was made by Christians who errantly interpreted “Luke” 10:18 (I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning), to be a reference to “Isaiah’s” Lucifer.

    The epithet Lucifer is translated from the Hebrew ‘Helel’ (הילל) ‘shining one’ or ‘Ben Shachar’ (‘Day Star,’ ‘Bringer of Light’ or ‘Sun of the Morning’).

    Another name for the Devil within the Judeo-Christian belief system is ‘Beelzebub’. The word Beelzebub stems from the Hebrew Ba’al-Zebub. In English, Ba’al-Zebub means ‘Lord of the Flies,’ and it is the first part of this name which is of interest to scholars of comparative mythology. The name Ba’al, which could be etymologically rooted in the name of the ancient Babylonian Sun-god ‘Bel’. Yet, in its present form, Ba’al represents the later Phoenician and Canaanite God, Ba’al, who guest stars in the Hebrew holy books on numerous occasions (See Numbers 22:41, Judges 2:13: the husband of the goddess Asherah, 6:25, 28, 30-32, 1Kings 16:31 etc.). Ba’al was incorporated into the Hebrew language and came to have a variety of meanings, including; ‘Lord’, ‘Master’, ‘Husband’ and ‘Possessor.’

    The Canaanite god Ba’al was described in Judges 2:19 as the “husband” of the goddess Asherah. This is significant as Zeev Herzog, Ze’ev Meshel and other archaeologists have discovered that the ancient Israelite’s primary god Yahweh, was commonly worshipped alongside his consort, the Canaanite goddess Asherah, both being seen as the father and mother of heaven ruling equally together. This fact is evidenced by various eighth century B.C.E reliefs, statuets and inscriptions that depict and describe YHVH and ASHERAH as being a couple. (see discovery at Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Kom). This fact further explains why Yahweh is directly referred to as a Ba’al at Isaiah 54:5: For your maker (Yahweh) is your Ba’al (Lord/Master).

    The conflicting characterizations attributed to the Devil within the religious literature of the Jews, along with the verse found in Isaiah 45:7 (God alone is responsible for good and evil), seems to indicate that the Devil had been a relatively more recent interpolation by Jewish mythographers, who grafted him into the existing scriptures, thereby creating a situation in which this fictitious character has been ascribed multiple names and titles. Further, as mentioned, the very form/being of the Devil has been the subject of much confusion. Many Christians and Jews try to suggest that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was the Devil, but the description of the serpent contradicts this notion.

    It should be noted that “the serpent” of Genesis 3 is never in the Old Testament identified as Satan.
    The serpent is described as one of the “beasts of the field”, and after tempting Eve to eat the forbidden, ethics-infused fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, the serpent is punished by God in the following manner:

    And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:14-15

    One does not need to be a theologian to understand what the author was talking about in this passage. The serpent was a cunning beast of the field, who prior to his indiscretion, had legs and spoke. This alleged description of the Devil as being a beast of the field contradicts the portrayal of him given in the book of Job, in which he (Satan) is counted amongst the sons of God (See Job 1:6).

    Regarding Satan’s role in the book of Job:
    In the first two instances (Job 1-2; Zechariah. 3:1-2), Satan is depicted as a member of God’s court whose basic duty it was to “accuse” human beings before God. He is clearly not at this point an enemy of God and the leader of the demonic forces of evil, as he becomes later.

    Even if we admit that the serpent in the Genesis paradise story ought to be identified with Satan, we have here no exception, for it should be borne in mind that the Book of Genesis was probably not completed before about the beginning of the fifth century before Jesus, a century after the Captivity closed. Satan appears in the Books of Job, Zechariah, and Chronicles; but these are all late writings. Belief in the existence of such a bad being the foe of God, the accuser of the good, the tempter of men to evil seems to have come into Judaism from the religion of the Persians, through contact with that people during or after the Exile.

    Then there is the discrepancy between the accounts of David being tempted to take a census given in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. Within both books, David is tempted to take a census of his people – the only difference is that in 2 Samuel it is God who tempts him to do so and in 1 Chronicles it is Satan.

    In the appearance of this new belief we find an instructive explanation of that strange contradiction which appears between the two accounts of the numbering of Israel found in the Books of Samuel and Chronicles.

    The record in Samuel tells us that it was the Lord who tempted David to do the numbering; that in Chronicles says it was Satan. The explanation is evidently this:

    Samuel is the older book by two or three centuries. At the time it was written the belief in such a being as Satan was unknown, and evil, as well as good, was referred to God as its author. But by the time Chronicles was compiled, belief in Satan had come in, and he, not God, was now held to be the instigator of evil. Hence an event which in the earlier book was naturally ascribed to God was now as naturally ascribed to Satan.

    This contradiction is irreconcilable until one realizes that the Jews probably adopted their Devil from the Persians and so, evil acts which were once attributed to Yahweh were now being rewritten and passed off as the Devil’s handiwork.

    If we also keep in mind Isaiah 45:7, this theology discrepancy becomes explicable and the contradiction is exposed for what it probably is; a change in the theology of the Jews, influenced by the dualistic Persian religion at the time of the Persian’s conquest of Babylon in around 539 BCE. Thus, it is a near certainty that Judaism inherited the Devil from the Persian Zoroastrians and the Christians, in turn, inherited their Devil from the Jews.

    Finally, there was a related concept that the Christians seemed to have directly inherited from the Persians, and this was the concept of the anti-Christ. The Anti-Christ as described in the Zoroastrian texts is literally called, the Anti-Mithras, Mithras being the sun god and son of the supreme God of the Persians, Ahura-Mazda.

    From the ancient Zoroastrian Scriptures, we read:

    Backward flies the arrow which the anti-Mithras shoots on account of the wealth of bad unpoetic thoughts which the anti-Mithras performs. Even when he shoots it well, even when it reaches the body, even then it does not harm him on account of the wealth of bad unpoetic thoughts which the anti-Mithras performs. Yasht 10:20-21

    Jeremiah 17:9
    “The human heart is the most deceitful of ALL things, and desperately evil. Who really knows how bad it is?

    Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man:
    But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away OF HIS OWN LUST, and ENTICED.
    Then when LUST HAS CONCEIVED it brings forth SIN: and SIN, when it is finished, brings forth DEATH. [James 1:13-15]

    Stop with the Flip Wilson theology: “The Devil made me do it”!
    YOU TUBE: Flip Wilson on The Ed Sullivan Show

Post a Comment

Winter Watch
%d bloggers like this: