Gates and his fellow psychopaths do not need the informed consent of their intended victims.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Gerald Celente was slightly but forgivably off when he quoted Mussolini on the definition of fascism to the effect that it denotes the fusion of state and corporate power. That is technically correct, except that the “corporations” Mussolini referred to originally are not the exactly same as the corporations that Celente has in mind. Mussolini was referring to collective entities representing the various sectors of society. In the system he proposed the state would play a central role in controlling these corporations and mediating their disputes. In theory at least, Mussolini’s system was intended to create a unified, harmonious society where class conflict would be eliminated through the integration of workers, employers, and the state.

When Celente refers to corporate power, he does not mean entities representing and acting on behalf of a cross section of major professional, craft, trade, cultural, and economic segments of society. He is referring to an essentially different type of “corporation,” as found in Western capitalist societies, with a specific relationship to state structures. Such corporations are disinterested in social harmony since they are business enterprises engaged in the predatory pursuit of material gain and frequently they transcend state boundaries.

The definitional nuance is significant for at least two reasons. Firstly, much as in practice the Corporatist system advocated by Mussolini diverges from its theoretical model, its postulated objective was to achieve a measure of social harmony and cooperation. That objective is completely foreign to the agenda of corporations which operate within the liberal capitalist system today. Secondly, corporations as the term is currently used manifestly are not subordinate to the state, as would have been the case under classical fascism, but increasingly assert their dominance over it. If comparisons may be drawn between the contemporary state and its interaction with corporate entities, on the one hand, and the classical scheme of fascism as described by Mussolini on the other, the picture we get today is of a reversal. The state has lost its attribute of controller and referee and is no longer empowered or asked to mediate between conflicting social interests. It is instead marginalised and replaced by private corporate interests and their agenda as the predominant power.

If such a role reversal may still be regarded as “fascism,” so be it.

An important feature of that arrangement, evidence of which we can observe all around us, is that some of the most fundamental functions of the state have been usurped and are being exercised by private corporate, often transnational, entities. Those private entities set the public agenda and through their control of the media determine the bounds of public discourse on all issues of significance. Unlike governmental organs, which theoretically are endowed with some semblance of democratic legitimacy, the corporate entities which have usurped their functions do not submit to any form of public supervision, other than the control exercised by their stockholders.

The global depopulation agenda, symbolised by the “golden billion” meme, since further reduced to a mere 500 million helots, is being insistently promoted by some of the wealthiest and most influential members of the world corporate elite. In contrast to Planned Parenthood, a related organisation that is supportive of their agenda, the elite are no longer seeking merely to slow down population growth. They advocate the application of “active measures” designed to achieve a more radical goal: to drastically reduce the world’s population. The philosophy behind it was crudely articulated by Yuval Noah Harari of the World Economic Forum as “getting rid of useless eaters.”

Professor Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research has warned that physical extermination on a vast scale is precisely the plan that is being pursued by a powerful cabal of corporate billionaires. In an article originally posted on 29 September 2021 but republished recently, Prof. Chossudovsky states that “for more than ten years, meetings have been held by billionaires described as philanthropists to reduce the size of the world’s population, culminating with the 2020-2024 Covid crisis.”

He recalls the 26 May 2009 Wall Street Journal report headlined “Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population,” disclosing that “billionaire philanthropists met behind closed doors at the home of the president of The Rockefeller University in Manhattan. This secret gathering was sponsored by Bill Gates. They called themselves ‘The Good Club’. Among the participants were the late David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and many more. The emphasis in their discussion was not on population growth (i.e. Planned Parenthood) but on “Depopulation”, i.e. the reduction in the absolute size of the world’s population.”

According to the Sunday Times, which also reported on that meeting, “the philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.”

The referent of the deceptive euphemism “change” was subsequently made plain by Bill Gates in a lecture he gave a few months later, in February 2010:

“First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.”

What according to Gates is the purpose of vaccines and health care: to preserve or to extinguish human lives?

The question is appropriate because according to Gates’ statement the demographic “change” that he and his fellow corporate moguls are working to impose consists of an absolute reduction of the World’s population, in the initial phase of the order of at least 680 million to 1.02 billion. How can such a population reduction be achieved? Will the 680 to 1.02 billion excess human beings (useless eaters) slated to die voluntarily commit suicide in order to meet the numerical quotas set by Bill Gates’ psychopathic programme?

That is highly unlikely. But Gates and his fellow psychopaths do not need the informed consent of their intended victims. They have at their disposal all the required scientific instruments to realise their homicidal objectives without seeking anyone’s permission or approval.

In a compilation of texts (see here) authored by scholars and scientists and also published by Global Research, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and Dr. John Campbell show that the tools necessary to implement the nefarious population reduction scheme are available, were used during the recent fabricated global health emergency, and will most likely be used again when required.

The depopulation agenda that is being pursued by the corporate cabal of the rich and powerful is but one, though exceedingly perverted and gruesome, facet of measures deliberately designed to the detriment of billions of human beings. They are pursuing that agenda self-confidently and with a sneering sense of impunity. The agenda fits to a “T” the criminal plan to destroy human life that is denounced in the Genocide Convention.

Indeed, one of the leading ideologues of this and other monstrous plans, billionaire “philanthropist” Bill Gates, who has a long record of investing world-wide in projects whose ultimate common denominator is organised mass homicide on a hitherto unimaginable scale, was recently sued by a number of private parties in the District Court of Northern Netherlands for acts of genocide, biological warfare, and crimes against humanity. Unsurprisingly, “Gates never showed up. He didn’t send lawyers. Instead, he arrogantly dismissed the Dutch court like a medieval king waving off the peasants. But the judges didn’t flinch. They ruled that the case against Gates will go ahead,” political analyst Jim Ferguson has stated, praising the court’s decision.

Of course, whilst the court’s readiness to hear such a landmark case is a significant step toward establishing accountability, that does not guarantee that the merits of the charges will be properly heard or adjudicated. The disparity in power and influence between the Plaintiffs and the Accused is too pronounced and will probably determine the further course and outcome of the proceedings.

However, this Dutch court’s willingness to bring an accused of Gates’ calibre in the dock and to hear evidence assembled against him does, ever so slightly, restore trust in the integrity of at least some parts of the judicial system. It should send a resonant message to “philanthropic” corporate killers everywhere that even if these proceedings ultimately do not result in an effective conviction the day of reckoning, in some form, inexorably draws closer.