What would you make of someone who cheerfully – well, that is just a figure of speech; I don’t know if this individual is capable of being cheerful – sponsors the development of ‘vaccines’ that turn out to be no real vaccines, and when ‘insufficient’ numbers of people take up the call to be ‘vaccinated,’ find other means of getting their destructive payload into people? Such as arranging for these drugs to be inserted into food, for instance?
Or, who declares that those people who would dare resist the flood of mRNA jabs that are coming would be ‘excluded from society?’ (A lot is riding on the meaning of ‘exclusion,’ here, of course; he probably means, overtly at least, that they would be excluded ‘temporarily,’ and not as ‘permanently’ as those who accept the jabs.) This same individual apparently also believes that ‘billions will die’ in the next ‘pandemic’ (of the so-called Disease X), reportedly planned for 2024.
Moreover, this individual – whom I shall not honour with the term ‘person’ – and his colleagues at the World Economic Forum do not even deign to hide their reprehensible, scurrilous intentions pertaining to the rest of the world’s population – those who are not of the billionaire class of technocrats who are apparently working towards a one-world, totalitarian neo-feudal state.
Would you trust a bunch of would-be overlords who show scant concern for the rest of humanity? Such as when the individual in question embarks on a project which supposedly aims at letting fruit last longer by covering it with a layer of innocuous ‘plastic?’ Would you bet on this layer as being safe and above-board? I certainly would not. Or offering ‘help’ to poor Africans with a ‘large language model’ scheme (which makes unrestricted data surveillance possible)?
Thanks to investigative journalists like those from The People’s Voice and Redacted – to mention only two such teams – we know who this individual is. His name is Bill Gates, and he is ‘known’ throughout the world – if you know what I mean…nudge nudge, wink wink…In India, there has been fury over the Gates’ Foundation’s involvement in the country for several reasons. In 2021 The Diplomat reported as follows:
Last month, Bill Gates’ divorce and allegations of sexual misconduct made headlines in Western media. But in India, the billionaire philanthropist and his foundation have been under criticism for months for completely different reasons. Indians have called for Gates’ arrest over alleged violations of medical ethics and laws by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in the country. #ArrestBillGates trended on Indian Twitter in May, part of a campaign calling Indian authorities to charge the BMGF and Gates for conducting illegal medical trials on vulnerable groups in two Indian states.
Dr Vernon Coleman, a British medical doctor and one of those who has courageously and consistently spoken out against those who relentlessly strive for the subjugation of the world’s people, writing in that indispensable British investigative online newspaper, The Exposé, reminds one of Gates’s control over the World Health Organisation:
My suspicion has, for a long time, been that the covid jab was merely a test to try out some form of weapon system.
I have little doubt that within the next year or so there will be a huge number of deaths from heart disease and circulatory problems.
These deaths will be blamed on the lockdowns (which did, as I warned in April 2020, have a very damaging effect on health care) and, in the UK, on strikes by doctors and nurses.
The vaccines will, of course, be ignored as a risk factor.
And in a year or two (or even earlier) governments everywhere (aided and abetted by the Gates-controlled WHO) will announce that a new, even deadlier virus has been isolated.
And a new “vaccine” will be promoted with tremendous enthusiasm.
By now readers would have gathered that Gates is a member of that group of (infamous) individuals scattered all over the world – and I am not talking about his membership of the ‘Davos elites’ – what I have in mind is the group distinguished by their psychopathic tendencies. Before we delve deeper into the meaning of ‘psychopath’ (and the closely related concept, ‘sociopath’), consider the telling question asked by Ray Williams in a fascinating article; namely, why there are more psychopaths in corporate boardrooms compared to other environments.
Williams reminds one that the first thing that comes to mind when we think of psychopaths is the fictional Hannibal Lecter or the real Jeffrey Dahmer, never dreaming that real-life ‘corporate psychopaths’ have destructive effects on the lives of people and sometimes entire countries through their boardroom decisions. In fact, he points out, while the percentage of psychopaths in the general population amounts to about 1%, studies have indicated that this increases three- and even fourfold among business executives and leaders.
He further reports that a Danish study which carried out tests among students according to their major subjects found, alarmingly, that – when assessed by means of the criteria of Machiavellianism (disposing of one’s rivals ruthlessly), narcissism (excessive self-love and egocentrism) and psychopathy (unscrupulous, remorseless decisions regarding others) – students majoring in economics and business displayed significantly higher levels of these ‘dark’ personality qualities. Those specialising in law occupied a position in the centre, while students primarily interested in psychology showed – perhaps predictably – the least inclination to psychopathy.
The researchers suggested that this may be because of a need for status, money, and power, which is associated with the corporate sphere, where individuals with these dubious traits may benefit from them. Put differently: decisions which benefit both the self and the company, often at the cost of rival companies (and sometimes the public, as Joel Bakan has demonstrated at length), come easily to individuals endowed with the ‘dark triad’ of personal characteristics.
Does this perhaps resonate with something that I have written above about Bill Gates (for whom I could easily have substituted Klaus Schwab or Anthony Fauci)? If it does, don’t be surprised. Just to refresh your memory, though, thinking back to ‘Disease X,’ mentioned earlier, here is a bit of reporting from The Exposé:
Additional preparations for “Disease X” have also taken place thanks to funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, [which] has helped the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to invest $1.2 million in a startup with Jurata Thin Film Inc. to create under-the-tongue vaccine wafers for needle-free vaccines. CEPI’s mission is to fund the development of “rapid response platforms to develop vaccines against ‘Disease X.’
Keeping in mind the (by now) well-documented detrimental effects, including death, of the Covid ‘vaccines’ on recipients worldwide, one is hardly inclined to look forward to these touted ‘vaccines’ (needle-free or not) against an as-yet unknown disease. They would probably amount to the final nail in the coffin, as it were.
Having referred to psychopathy several times, precisely what does this psychological condition denote? The Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (p. 593) describes it thoroughly:
A mental disorder roughly equivalent to antisocial personality disorder, but with emphasis on affective and interpersonal traits such as superficial charm, pathological lying, egocentricity, lack of remorse, and callousness that have traditionally been regarded by clinicians as characteristic of psychopaths, rather than social deviance traits such as need for stimulation, parasitic lifestyle, poor behavioural controls, impulsivity, and irresponsibility that are prototypical of antisocial personality disorder. Whether psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder share a common referent is an open question. Compare sociopathy. psychopath n. A person with psychopathy. psychopathic adj.[From Greek psyche mind + pathos suffering.]
Sociopathy, which is closely related to, but not identical with, psychopathy, is characterised as follows (Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, p. 69):
antisocial personality disorder n.
A personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, beginning in childhood or early adolescence and continuing into adulthood, with such signs and symptoms as failure to conform to social norms, manifested by repeated unlawful behaviour; deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying or swindling for pleasure or personal gain; impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; irritability and aggressiveness involving frequent assaults or fights; reckless disregard for the safety of self or others; consistent irresponsibility involving failure to hold down jobs or to honour financial obligations; and lack of remorse for the mistreatment of others, as indicated by indifference and rationalization. Also called sociopathy or (in ICD-10 and elsewhere) dissocial personality disorder. Compare conduct disorder, psychopathy, XYY syndrome. APD abbrev.
Note that, when scrutinising these characteristics of psychopaths and sociopaths, respectively, it is not hard to recognise in Gates a synthesis of the two. What emerges from the reports involving Gates, listed above by hyperlink, is that he displays the ‘superficial charm [very superficial; BO], pathological lying, egocentricity, lack of remorse, and callousness’ of the psychopath.
But simultaneously one detects in his actions and words (recalling that speech act theory informs us that speaking is also a way of acting) signs of sociopathy as well – ‘a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others,’ and ‘failure to conform to social norms, manifested by repeated unlawful behaviour; deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying or swindling for pleasure or personal gain.’
The sociopathic traits of ‘impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; irritability and aggressiveness involving frequent assaults or fights; reckless disregard for the safety of self or others; consistent irresponsibility involving failure to hold down jobs or to honour financial obligations…’ may not appear to apply to him, but if one elides ‘or others; consistent irresponsibility involving failure to hold down jobs or to honour financial obligations’ – which his psychopathic intelligence (strangely not emphasised by the Oxford Dictionary entry, above) enables him to do – then they arguably do.
In sum, as far as I can judge, Bill Gates (and the same could be argued regarding Fauci and Schwab, to mention only two other candidates for this dubious honour) is a textbook example of a psychopath, as revealed in the many reports of his sayings and doings.
A fictional example of a psychopath who exhibits all the traits listed above paradigmatically, is encountered in Bret Easton Ellis’s nihilistic novel, American Psycho (which has also been filmed, with Christian Bale in the protagonist’s role). Patrick Bateman (probably a corruption of ‘Batman’) embodies a psychopath so completely that the book and the film leave one with a hollow feeling that is partly disgust and partly despair. The novel is, in my estimation, a work of genius that constructs a model by which one might assess those who occupy the oft-valorised position of investment banker, or any cognate profession in the business world.
Not literally, perhaps, given Bateman’s ambivalent role as banker by day and serial killer by night (a kind of contemporary Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde) but at least metaphorically, in so far as such businessmen (or -women) in the real world routinely have to indulge their desire to dispose of the competition in financial terms ruthlessly, if not sadistically, sometimes with disastrous material consequences for the latter.
What makes Patrick Bateman such a suitable and convincing template for individuals such as Gates and Schwab is what I alluded to as his ‘ambivalent’ role. What I mean is that Ellis has cleverly crafted the novel in such ontological-literary terms that one is never sure whether, in the intra-fictional Manhattan business world, Bateman is a banker with an overactive sadistic imagination that conjures up a series of bloody murders, sometimes combined with violent sexual encounters, committed by himself, or whether he really lives this double life. And perhaps the final stroke of genius is that Ellis concludes the book with the words, ‘THIS IS NOT AN EXIT,’ supposedly when Bateman is looking for an exit to leave a certain venue called ‘Harry’s.’
The implication? The reader should not fool her- or himself into believing that they can leave the fictional world of the novel behind. It is an exemplary poststructuralist (sometimes called metafictional) literary device of the ‘both/and’ kind. The novel is and is not fiction; the former because one ‘intends’ the intra-novelistic reality as imaginary, and the latter, in so far as that concluding literary coup shocks the attentive reader into the awareness that the world depicted in the novel bears an uncanny, unsettling resemblance to the real world in which we live – today (and even when the novel was published, in 1991) the world of Bill Gates.
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.