Category Archives: Corporate Takeover

GMO Foods And The Dark Act Are Unacceptable! Act Now! (VIDEO)

dark act gmo labeling

The day will come, when all of God’s creatures, have clean and natural food to eat and WE are making that day a REALITY.

We WILL get GMO labeling, we WILL repeal the Monsanto Protection Act, we WILL hold Monsanto, and their politicians, ACCOUNTABLE.

And, we will NEVER give up our mission, through direct communication, grassroots journalism, activism, and social media.

All we want, All we ask for, is the truth. This movement, is all about truth! And we won’t be satisfied, UNTIL THE TRUTH PREVAILS, AND SETS US FREE.

We are a force that will continue to shake our nation until justice PREVAILS.

Let’s WORK together, PRAY together, STRUGGLE together, and STAND together, knowing we can win. And make no mistake about it, we CAN win, and we WILL WIN!

Monsanto may have the cash, but WE have the passion.

Our freedom is not for sale, our rights are not for sale, and our health, and the health of our children, are NOT FOR SALE!

What is the DARK Act?

H.R. 1599, known as “The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015”, but MORE accurately known as the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” – or DARK Act, is legislation that would establish an unacceptable landscape for our health, the health of the planet, and the food industry.

This bill takes away our right to know what type of food we are eating. This bill prohibits the labeling of GMO foods. This bill undermines the efforts of people in states like Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut, that have already passed, GMO labeling laws.

Make no mistake about it — this is a full blown attack on the future, of clean food in America. Although the House, has already passed the DARK act it still has to go through the senate.

Results of the October 21st Hearing

The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry hearing on H.R. 1599 was anything but fair and balanced. Eight witnesses were allowed to testify and only one was remotely aligned with consumers and public health. The others were talking heads who represented corporate interests.

Thanks to all of you who have contacted your Senators, a Senate version of H.R. 1599 has yet to be introduced but that doesn’t mean it’s not coming. It also doesn’t mean new legislation won’t be introduced. Debbie Stabenow from Michigan has said she’s working on a new bill to have a federal solution by the end of the year. Will it require GMO foods be labeled? Time will tell.

Don’t let up. Continue to contact your Senator’s office at 888-897-0174 and tell them you want GMO labeling. American lawmakers need to wake up, and speak for the citizens they represent, not the corporate giants, who contributed to their campaigns. The United States is one of the only industrialized countries in the world that doesn’t require GMO labeling. And, 9 out of 10 Americans WANT GMO labeling.

Watch the Senate hearing.

DARK Act Timeline

  • March 25, 2015 — H.R. 1599, is introduced as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 by Mike Pompeo, Representative for Kansas’s 4th congressional district.
  • July 14, 2015 — The Committee on Agriculture recommends the bill be considered by the House.
  • July 23, 2015 — H.R. 1599 passes the House and heads to the Senate for consideration.
  • October 17th and 18th, 2015 — March Against Monsanto organizes the Food Justice Rally in Washington, D.C. to ensure the American people are heard.
  • October 21st, 2015 — The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry holds a lopsided, food-industry-focused hearing on H.R. 1599.

Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.

US Congressman: TPP Violates National Sovereignty (VIDEO)

Brad Sherman is a Representative from the State of California. (Photo:

Brad Sherman is a Representative from the State of California. (Photo:

(The Real Agenda) Transpacific Partnership is a blank check for Corporate conquest of society, says Brad Sherman, a democrat congressman from California. 

Mr. Sherman was interviewed on SophieCo. program, where he explained that while members of the political and economic elite are praising the terms of the agreement, the secretive text is nothing more than an academic dream.

According to Sherman, corporations are the force behind TPP and they have strong lobbies in both the US House and Senate, where they are putting pressure on congressmen and women to support the treaty signed by 11 nations.

Last week, the site Wikileaks made public the intellectual property chapter of the TPP so the public can vet its content and really learn about the impact that the TPP will have in their lives.

Sherman’s full interview can be seen below.

Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

McDonald’s To Kids: Eat Fast Food Everyday To Lose Weight

By: Brandon Turbeville, Natural Blaze |

If ever a massive food corporation had no shame – truly it would be McDonald’s. In addition to paying their workers slave wages, doing everything in their power to milk their employees for time and money, selling some of the world’s worst quality food, and aggressive and shameless marketing strategies (amongst many other negative qualities), McDonald’s is now announcing yet another marketing ploy designed to deflect any responsibility for the quality of its food and for staggering rates of obesity.

Fresh on the heels of McTeacher’s Nights, a program where high school teachers volunteer to work the night shift at McDonald’s for free in exchange for a portion of the profits being donated to the school (a program that benefits McDonald’s more so than the school), one of McDonald’s many “brand ambassadors” is now on the road attempting to convince high school and college students that not only does McDonald’s food not cause obesity, but it is possible to actually lose weight by consuming it three times a day.

To be fair, eating at McDonald’s for most people is a personal choice. (Yes, there are also people who eat at the fast food chain as a necessity.) Regardless, one would find it hard to blame a food retailer or a restaurant for the choices made by individuals. However, it is just this type of aggressive, false, and malicious advertising – along with treacherous business practices – that makes McDonald’s so dangerous and such a poster boy for typical out of control corporation.

Take Iowa teacher, John Cisna, a “brand ambassador” whose time and travel are paid for by McDonald’s. Cisna is promoting his “McDonald’s Diet,” which consists of eating nothing but McDonald’s food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for 90 days straight as a way to lose weight. His message is that you “can lose weight while still eating the foods you love, like Big Macs and Hot Fudge Sundaes.”

Cisna claims that he “started off” at 280 pounds and attributes much of his weight issue to eating “home-cooked meals” and food prepared at sit-down restaurants. He claims his new diet revolved around eating only 2,000 calories per day at McDonald’s which he says shows “there’s no such thing as bad food.” There is curiously no mention of how much Cisna currently weighs.

Cisna’s argument basically revolves around the idea that it is not the type of food you eat, it is the size of the portions.

Of course, Cisna and McDonald’s are correct when they state that portion size is a major player in an individual’s weight gain. Without a doubt, eating two french fries from McDonald’s versus a full meal in a sit-down restaurant that serves actual food would likely see an individual lose weight. Indeed, a steady consumption of cocaine or meth would also see an individual lose weight even faster, but no one in their right mind is suggesting that anyone should do so. Simply starving oneself is not an answer to the incredibly unhealthy food served at McDonald’s and chains like it.

In addition, it may seem as heresy to some but, aside from the gallon-sized drinks served at fast food chains, the portions at fast food restaurants are not really that big. The fries are average portions (if you go large) and the sandwiches are quite small. Still, they pack quite a punch on your health. The fact that food portions of this size can cause such detrimental effects on health should speak volumes alone.

Cisna’s McDonald’s speaking tour is thus nothing more than a treacherous attempt at re-marketing to children and families (an admitted goal of McDonald’s going forward), since their last marketing effort did not draw in as much revenue as the corporation had hoped for.

Both the McTeacher’s Night program and Cisna’s brand ambassador speaking tour are clever (or not so clever depending on the audience) attempts to attract and target audiences of high-schoolers, children, and young adults so as to ensure that the next McGeneration is as Mcfat and unMchealthy as the last one.

Image source

Brandon Turbevillearticle archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books,Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 600 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)

Sofia Smallstorm Maps The Corporatized You (VIDEO)


Incisive sociopolitical researcher Sofia Smallstorm joins the program to discuss her recent work examining the stealth privatization of individuals, local and regional governments, and the United States itself. She argues that this legal corporatization that has ensued in varying degrees since the late 1800s is a major factor in better understanding recent “mass shooting” drills, some of which are being presented to the public as actual events. In other words, once local municipalities and law enforcement agencies become dependent on federal grants, they are compelled to partake in such exercises to justify continued funding.

Sofia’s “From Chemtrails to Pseudolife” lectures and video series explain the relationship between synthetic biology, radiation biology and stratospheric geoengineering. In 2013 she began researching the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. The project resulted in her DVD, “Unraveling Sandy Hook in 2, 3, 4, and 5 Dimensions.” The presentation offers a different take on the use of staged events to shape society as we are moved to a posthuman world.

Smallstorm is a graduate of Brown University and hosts a series of interview podcasts available at her website,

MP3 Audio Player

Professor James F. Tracy is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. James Tracy’s work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. James is editor of Union for Democratic Communication’s Journal Democratic Communiqué and a contributor to Project Censored’s forthcoming publication Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2012. Additional writings and information are accessible at

Impact Of Released TPP Agreement


As the details in the TPP agreement become known, the worries mount. The BATR RealPolitik Newsletter October 8, 2015 edition, TPP Deceitful Deal is Done, has a number of significant articles on the TPP agreement and links to the recently released sections of the document. Finally, the opportunity to examine the particulars allows for citing specifics. What are you supposed to believe, your own evaluation of the terms or the Summary of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement provided by the government?

Two sections prove enlightening. Start out with the TPP Intellectual Property Chapter is “A Disaster for Global Health” and read the Expert Analysis: “Pharmaceutical Provisions in the TPP” (PDFHTML).

  • Patents for new uses and new methods of using existing products (Article QQ.E.1.2, p. 17);
  • A low inventiveness threshold – potentially preventing countries from tightening the criteria for granting patents (Footnote 33, p. 17);
  • Patent term extensions to compensate for delays in granting patents (Article QQ.E.12, p. 20) and delays in marketing approval (Article QQ.E.14, p. 22);
  • Data protection for small molecule drugs – at least 5 years for new pharmaceutical products plus 3 years for new indications, formulations or methods of administration (Article QQ.E.16, p. 23-24);
  • Patent linkage provisions likely to result in delays in marketing approval for generic drugs (Article QQ.E.17); and
  • Market exclusivity for biologics, provided through one of two options: at least 8 years of data protection, or at least 5 years of data protection and other measures to “deliver a comparable outcome in the market” (Article QQ.E.20, p. 25-26).

Oh, woe, is me. It sounds like Big Pharma has just spliced together some cartel genes that will extend their longevity as profit centers for the management of diseases that never attempt to find actual cures.

The Washington Examiner reports in Why everybody hates the drug deal in the trade pact.

“The White House’s last-minute compromise on drug copyright protections in a huge trade agreement appears to have pleased nobody, with liberals, conservatives, patient groups and the industry all criticizing the deal.”

“It is a giveaway to Big Pharma, which wants to lock cheaper generics out of the market for eight years,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., a leading trade skeptic. “This will result in more expensive medicines, as well as slower progress toward medical breakthroughs.”

What is found in the TPP talks is a precipitous pattern of corporatist protectionism over the beneficial interests of the consumer. So much for the lofty medicine, prescribed as “Free Trade”, as a cure for a healthier future. In actuality Trans-Pacific Partnership could pose risk to public healthcare, leaked draft shows that most of Asian countries are being pushed into accepting the U.S. medical pharmacological model.

“The US was initially seeking 12 years of data exclusivity on biologics, and they have now backed down to eight years in this draft, which they’re selling as a big concession and as a new flexibility,” said Gleeson, who is also a spokeswoman for the Public Health Association of Australia.

“But eight years is much longer than the current protection period in all TPP countries except for Japan, Canada and the US.”

The next section has received far more attention. What will the internet look like if all the provisions are implemented to penalize and even criminalize fair use news reporting? The International Business Times points out the legal jeopardy and censorship implications encoded in the language of the agreement. Cited in the account, TPP Pits Big Tech Against Internet Freedom Groups As Wikileaks Reveals Strict IP, Copyright Protections, has Maira Sutton, a global policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation making a grim warning:

“Protecting trade secrets is a major theme throughout the highly technical TPP agreement, with language that seems to “make it a crime for whistleblowers and journalists to disclose trade secrets,” Sutton said. “If a journalist reports on the Snowden documents, which reveal how tech companies deal with the National Security Agency, they could be penalized. The language is that vague.”

Obviously, you know that Free Speech is on life support. If the drug cabal seeks guarantee returns in the TPP arrangements, compare the effective results to be similar to that miracle of modern medicine, Part D addition in Medicare. Who pays for the privilege of access to the aesculapian concoctions that claim the healing art is a practice that only the doctor profession is fit to dispense?

The bottom line that is missed by the medicated society is that big business operates under a much different set of rules from the real economy that provides the basic needs of the consumer. So when the Leaked Trans-Pacific Partnership Document Raises New Concerns For Progressives, it should also be a concern for every end user.

“If you dig deeper, you’ll notice that all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding,” the group writes, citing access to material in the public domain as one area that has been weakened. “All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever.”

There lies the rub. Transnational’s do not see the buyers of their products as essential partners in the chain of mutual rewarding business transaction. There is not even a veiled appearance of a level playing field. The TPP agreement has the objective of consolidating corporatist enforcement over a global population that has effectively been marginalized, from the political process that is steamrolling approval.

The death of discourse and the incarceration of internet intellectual insights is a guaranteed byproduct from the global destruction of independent national economies. Corporate cultures see their customers as money center migrants, who can be evicted from the consumer promised land, if these international trade treaties are not implemented.

The impact of allowing the adoption of such a trading system is the demise of individual autonomy, replaced with rationed dependency for personal survival.

SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. “Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at

An Introduction To Technofeudalism Ascending


The future of the planetary Reign of Terror has never been clearer. The pattern for global governance has been set into motion and operates under a model that has been used throughout much of history. The modern day version of command and control can be effectively described as Technofeudalism. The purpose of this introduction is to provide an outline of the arguments used by Steven Yates, Ph.D. The link to this significant treatise is provided below. In addition News With Views maintains an extensive archives of Dr. Yates’ work. Invest the time to read the entire essay for a full understanding of the linkage behind Technofeudalis and the course for top down dominance.

Technofeudalism Ascending comprises nine sections. Dr. Yates provides the following preface.

My book Four Cardinal Errors (2011) introduced the idea of technofeudalism. Though a bit of a mouthful, this is the best term for the political economy towards which an intergenerational superelite has been directing as much of the world as possible for at least a century. This existence of this group, I argue, is the foremost political-economic reality of our times.

Their goal, I argued in Four Cardinal Errors, is to institute corporate controlled global governance: de facto world government, managed for private profit and for control over national governments and populations. Technofeudalism is the resulting political economy. While preserving some of the vocabulary and outward features of market capitalism, technofeudalism has almost nothing to do with free markets, or free enterprise, as generally understood. It is about instituting whatever policies, instigating whatever wars, bringing about whatever revolutions, and causing whatever levels of misery are deemed necessary for enforced mass compliance. Its tools include both neoliberal and neoconservative ideology, artificial scarcity, education reduced to job training, and fear induction through constant pontificating about “terrorism” amidst random and often-depraved acts of violence, reducing as many as possible to a status of permanently cash-strapped, mentally paralyzed subjects — living amidst the most advanced technology in human history, but equivalent to serfs (“owned” as de facto property by “their” governments, employers, etc., as in medieval feudal systems of old). Hence, the term technofeudalism.

Introduction:  Why Technofeudalism? (Technofeudalism is the best term for a kind of political economy that has been coming together very gradually for much of the past century, but accelerating in recent decades: it is technologically advanced but populations are controlled by various means and, in effect, made into serfs who are tied to whatever work they can find and to government programs. Technofeudalism is driven by those I call the superelite—a group of globalist-minded extended families whose primary motivation is wealth and power. It illustrates the primary problem of practical political philosophy and strategy: how to contain that minority in our midst that is drawn to power.)

  1. The End of History? (The collapse of the Soviet Union seemed to leave the world at a major turning point; Communism was dead, the combination of market capitalism and liberal democracy seemed to be catching on everywhere, and the U.S. was the sole superpower. It seemed conceivable that it really was, as Francis Fukuyama described, the end of history.)
  2. The Neoliberal Illusion.  (Things began to unravel almost at once, as trade deals such as NAFTA began to put an end to the largest financially independent middle class in history. Neoliberal ideology proved to have a dark side, as wealth began to be redistributed upward and millions of people ended up out of work.)
  3. Precariatization and the Destruction of the American Mind.  (Higher education faced multiple crises: rising radical left “scholarship” in the humanities, a rising corporate or business mindset in expanding administrations, the collapse of the academic job market creating conditions where control was possible, and the impoverishing of faculty via adjunctification, one species of the creation of a precariat — workers in an environment of part-time, temporary, and short term work. Liberal arts learning itself came under assault, as the thinking skills it provides threaten a political economy of power, domination, precarity, and corruption.)
  4. The Empire of Corruption.  (Ensuing decades have seen rising corruption and financial manipulation which eventually caused the 2008 meltdown and have brought about a steadily lowering of the standard of living in the U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United ensure a bought-and-paid-for political class, and articles now appear in refereed journals indicating that the U.S. is now a plutocratic oligarchy.)
  5. The Global Corporatist Leviathan.  (If the present political system is plutocratic oligarchy, the correct term for the present economy is corporatism, with technofeudalism its broader political-economic-technocratic instrument. Poor education ensures a systematic confusion between capitalism and corporatism. Under corporatism, corporations are in the driver’s seat behind governments, as we can see from their latest effort to dominate a section of the world’s economy: the Trans-Pacific Partnership.)
  6. The New Serfdom.  (You are living in a feudal system when there is one set of rules for those with power and another set of rules for those without power, with only token representation. Technofeudalism emerges in that its subjects are technologically advanced serfs — surrounded by technology but tied to low-wage work or to a government-based support system.)
  7. “What Can We Do?”  (You can educate yourself on issues ranging from the possibilities of expatriation to that of peoples separating politically from empires, which may become possible as a very severe downturn, worse than the Great Recession — a Greater Depression — is almost certainly inevitable.)
  8. Preparing for the Greater Depression.  (The world is on the verge of having to face the realities of financialization that will bring on the Greater Depression. You can prepare by building proper skills now. It is conceivable that the global superelite is planning on a Greater Depression. You should prepare anyway.)
  9. Grounds for Hope: Real Sustainability and the Cycles of History.  (Technofeudalism will prove unsustainable. It may be put in place, but its structure and the mindset that gave rise to it will cause it to decay and eventually disintegrate. We have come this way before, as empires have risen and fallen before. This provides hope, in that with the collapse of the technofeudalist state, separation and the building of a world of small states will become possible — again if we begin to prepare now.)

This summary outline attempts to persuade the compelling case to review the entire critique. Filling in the connections and relationships to achieve the eternal objective of worldwide ascendancy in an age of technological supremacy, means that the return to a feudal society becomes the undeniable 21th century danger.

Technofeudalism is based upon herding marginal and unneeded humans into ghettos of subsistent serfdom existence. The technocrats who administer the process of dehumanization become the executioners of civilization. Utopia for the select, built on the misery of the masses is a future not worth living. This fact is exactly the objective of the globalist. Destroying resistance through marginalizing survival rules a feudal society. However, building the achievement of a renaissance culture is based upon the liberation of the human spirit and decentralization of authority.

The global elites depend on acquiesce of the masses to accept and adopt the tyrannical systems and indoctrination methods propagated by the technocratic matrix. Liberty is despised by authoritarians. Technofeudalism is the enemy of all human beings. Once armed with the knowledge of this threat, what will be the response of the populace targeted for slavery or extinction?

SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. “Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at

Transpacific Partnership: Why So Secret?


The TPP is, simply explained, a counterweight to China’s growth in the struggle for trade and economic influence.

Today, skepticism is considered one of the best tools to understand what is happening in most areas of our lives. However, skeptics are commonly labeled as conspiracy theorists, ‘flat earthers’, homophobes, racists, KKK members, home-grown terrorists and so on.

The attempt to alienate those who think differently and who have the audacity to use reason and evidence to defend their arguments is seen as absurd in all social and political spheres. One of those instances is the TPP.

We have witnessed the damage caused by the so-called free trade agreements in the last decades. Both rich and poor countries have been affected by what in practice is nothing less than corporate colonization of nations.

In the 21st century, we know that free trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and now the TPP, are attempts carried out by corporations to extend their dominance in all areas of our lives. Ask yourself this question: What is the reason behind the secrecy under which the negotiation of the TPP agreement has been kept? If these agreements were truly beneficial for everyone, there would not be any need for such secrecy.

Today, the vast majority of Americans understand that the TPP is not a good deal because, if approved by Congress, the guidelines contained in it will restrict their constitutional freedoms, whose validity would remain in the hands of third parties.

The TPP is exactly the opposite of what the mainstream media say it is. The TPP is presented only as a trade agreement when in reality it is about much more than trade.

The rules agreed in the treaty use bait such as low tariffs to impose policies that are diametrically opposed to the rights and duties of workers, environmental standards, and the free circulation of information.

The treaty seeks, under the excuse that it protects intellectual property, to give more power to multinationals to limit the free flow of information and content such as music or video.

This agreement is the model for future negotiations between political blocks. For example, between the United States and the European Union. In Europe, the United States seeks to overthrow existing laws regulating food security, particularly for Europeans to allow the entry of food containing genetically modified organisms to their market.

The TPP is the biggest trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was approved in the nineties. Along with the United States, Latin American countries that have signed include Chile, Peru and Mexico, as well as Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei.

Together these countries account for 40% of the world’s economy and a third of the trade. That’s why his approval is crucial for corporations that support it, because it establishes regulations for agricultural products, ownership of technological and pharmaceutical products and the creation of arbitration bodies that erode national sovereignty.

The excuses of those who support the TPP are the same than the ones given by those who supported NAFTA 20 something years ago: They argue that falling trade barriers will boost exports and create jobs.

As evidence shows, this is a lie. In fact, employment has fallen after the free trade agreements with the United States became effective. From the start, companies have left their hometowns to open factories and offices in countries whose labor laws are more relaxed or non-existent, leaving thousands of people unemployed.

A study cited by the Obama Administration speaks of increasing income derived from the agreement, about $223 billion annually. A total of $77 billion will correspond to the United States.

“Given that over 95% of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can not allow countries like China to write the rules of our economy,” Obama said in a statement. “We should write the rules, opening new markets for Americans while we raise standards to protect workers and preserve the environment.”

The TPP is a double-edged sword. First, it is not a trade agreement but the effective transfer of power from national governments to multinational corporations. Second, corporations, the main supporters of the agreement does not seek to promote markets, trade or low prices, but to accumulate power to unilaterally determine who can sell products or services, in which places, in what quantities and with what rates and limitations.

All these decisions, which are now in the hands of national governments, are surrendered to a few governments and eventually to the same multinationals that have written and designed the TPP.

The trade pact between the United States, Japan and 10 Pacific countries is sold as an economic and geopolitical triumph for Obama. Along with the supposed improvement in relations with Cuba and the nuclear deal with Iran, the TPP was one of the priorities of Obama in the final stretch of his term, which ends in January 2017.

The TPP is, simply explained, a counterweight to China’s growth in the struggle for trade and economic influence.

The scope of the TPP may be even greater if one takes into account what is yet to come. Waiting behind the negotiation of the TPP is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TPIP). The TPIP is an addendum to the TPP that seeks to include countries from the Atlantic to the same rules imposed through the TPP.

Those opposed to secret negotiations related to the TPP -of which little is known, and what is known has been revealed by Wikileaks- include NGOs like Doctors Without Borders, which warns about the increase in drug prices if the TPP is implemented. Americans unions also reject the TPP as their members are convinced that the agreement accelerates industrial relocation and the erosion of the middle class, a process associated in the U.S. with the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.

Although Washington argues that the TPP provides the “highest labor standards” to the nations involved, major unions have criticized the secrecy of the negotiations as they consider that many of the concessions only benefit large corporations. The pact covers from the right of workers to form a union to security requirements, minimum wage, working hours and a limit to protections against discrimination.

In addition to labor laws, Washington has set a new deadline for the exclusivity of the formulas used to create drugs to treat diseases like cancer. Critics of the deal say that exclusivity periods prevent other pharmaceutical companies from using the same information to do research and create generic products, which in turn will expand costs and limit the availability of medical treatment for the poorest people.

Another member of opposition parties is Obama’s Democratic Party, an organization that has traditionally stood beside unions. Historically, the Republican Party has been the party of free markets and free trade and the Democratic Party the one involved in protectionism. The ratification of the TPP in the U.S. Congress is in the air, although the fact that the Republicans control both the Senate and the House of Representatives can facilitate approval. Should the U.S. Congress fail to approve the deal, Obama has threatened to act unilaterally to sign the TPP into law in the United States.

Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

How Hacktivists Will Break Corporate Control Of Information Within A Decade

By: Jake Anderson, The Anti-Media |

Sci-fi author and information rights activist Cory Doctorow appeared out of the dusty heat of the 2015 Burning Man in a gray jumpsuit and a pair of Adbusters Black Spot sneakers. In his hand he held a small black moleskin, which he glanced at intermittently while delivering an electrifying, albeit head-spinning talk on the future of the Internet of Things.

Doctorow, who recently re-joined the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), contextualized the Internet of Things as an information rights struggle that requires an end to patent laws that forbid jailbreaking digital locks. Concordantly, he and the EFF have an ambitious plan: To dismantle the draconian Digital Rights Management (DRM) laws currently protected by the DMCA Section 1201. Doctorow and the EFF seek to counter this oppressive legislation with the Apollo 1201 initiative, by which they will strategically pick cases that can clearly demonstrate Congress violated the Constitution when it passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998.

The Internet of Things Vs. the Inkjet Printer Model

Doctorow began his Burning Man presentation describing the dubious nature of our current computer-controlled landscape. Increasingly, we own and inhabit devices completely dependent on computers, from coffee makers and respiration devices to houses and airplanes. Without computers, the very house in which you live could become virtually uninhabitable; an unserviced Boeing air jet carrying you home could fall right out of the sky.

Hyperbole aside, the real danger of this computerized grid is that it is restricted by the corporatist clutch of the ink jet printer model, which Doctorow says represents the very worst of technology — a “covenant” by which customers become the product, and patent holders, such as mobile carriers and companies like John Deere — ruthlessly leverage aftermarket consumables that prohibit the use of 3rd party parts (including tractor circuit boards!) and disallow tethering. Even the lowly light bulb is now fully protected as patented intellectual property.

The dystopian nature of our computerized landscape includes, of course, the reality of ubiquitous surveillance. Doctorow also mentions the specter of subprime car lending, which he says will become the new housing bubble: computerized cars with location-aware ignition kill switches — if you’re late on a payment, the manufacturer just shuts off the car’s mainframe.

DMCA Restricts Innovation & Protects Corporate Control of Information

Most gadgets that contain digital content also contain digital locks. The DMCA Section 1201 prohibits removing these locks. Whether piracy is involved or not, it’s still a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $500,000 in fines. In other words, it’s a felony to ascertain and disclose information — including potentially life-altering bionic innovations— people could use to improve the world and the conditions of our lives.

Doctorow goes so far as to call the enforcement of the DMCA “deadly.” In order to enforce it, the government “makes it a felony to disclose information about defects, errors and vulnerabilities in systems that have software locks. So if there’s a bug in a system you rely on, it’s against the law to tell you about that bug because if you knew about that bug you might be able to jailbreak the system.”

A ruling against the DMCA Section 1201 could destroy the legal efficacy of digital locks, which according to Doctorow, don’t even work. After all, he says, “you wouldn’t put a safe in a bank robber’s house.”

Doctorow maintains this legal struggle goes far beyond entertainment piracy. Patent locked devices include computer-controlled respiration systems and heart defibrillators. Interestingly, Doctorow notes that in 2007 Dick Cheney’s defibrillator was made wireless so that no one could hack into his heart and assassinate him. Of course, doctors discourage the average patient from doing this because medical providers use telemetry, which is useful in treatment and may or may not also be valuable to data miners.

Destroying DRM laws and DMCA Section 1201 involves freedom of information; it’s a 1st amendment issue, which, Doctorow professes, is critical to startups that want to break out of the inkjet model. It is also critical in democratizing the Internet of Things.

The major obstacle in mounting a legal attack on the DMCA is that there is almost no litigation history because very few judges have issued rulings on it. Doctorow noted a few rare examples, one being a case where 2600: The Hacker Quarterly published source code that could crack copyright protections on DVDs. The journal’s lawyers failed to obtain a declaratory judgement. A 2004 case saw two companies bring legal action against Skylink over anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA.

The problem with regard to DRM and patent law litigation is that the government only chooses cases they know they will win. In response, Doctorow and the EFF are currently vetting cases the government will feel compelled to defend, cases that constitute “impact litigation,” which could issue structural blows to the DMCA.

Why is This Important to the Future of Free Information

It’s highly likely Congress didn’t intend the DMCA to allow coffee maker manufacturers to prevent device modification. The original purpose was to protect Hollywood plaintiffs from piracy. Now, the law is exploited to allow all platform vendors to control digital locks and restrict practical jailbreaking activities.

No turf is more foundational than free and open Internet use, Doctorow says. His plan for a legal “Six Sigma event” aims to protect the future of progressive crypto alongside the evolution of the Internet of Things. Why is this important? This is the first time in history, he says, that normal humans outside the elite circles of oligarchy can proliferate uncrackable messages.

A new patent case, Lexmark v. Impression, presents a disturbing but related new twist to the Apollo 1201 initiative. IBM division Lexmark is arguing that DRM patent laws give them and other corporations the right to restrict how you use your devices after you buy them. This case looks like it will seek to permanently cement restrictive patent laws into place. According to Doctorow,

“This represents an unprecedented grab over your property rights to the things you own. It makes section 1201 of the DMCA — which makes it a felony to change the configuration of your electronics — look unambitious by comparison.”

Contact Doctorow at [email protected] if you have a case you believe can challenge the DMCA.

Jake Anderson joined Anti-Media as an independent journalist in April of 2015. His topics of interest include social justice, science, corporatocracy, and dystopian science fiction. He currently resides in Escondido, California.

Capitalising On Human Suffering

Martin Shkreli

By: Holly Walter |

Martin Shkreli, the CEO of a large pharmaceutical company that recently acquired the rights to a drug used by HIV and cancer patients, has brought the shocking callousness of unchecked capitalism into the spotlight.

Last month, Turing Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to manufacture and sell Daraprim in the United States. Daraprim is used to treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic and life-threatening disease that affects people with compromised immune systems.

Despite being classified as an essential medicine which should be affordable to the general population by the World Health Organisation (1), Turning Pharmaceuticals has raised the price of Daraprim extortionately, from $13 per 75mg pill to a massive $750 per pill. Each 75mg pill costs only $1 to produce. It is a single source pharmaceutical product (2), which means Turing Pharmaceuticals is the only company in America that has the legal right to produce and sell this potentially life-saving drug. Patients can’t take their business elsewhere.

Let’s really put that into perspective. For each Daraprim pill sold, Turing Pharmaceuticals will make a $749 profit. Around 2,000(3) Americans use the drug every year, with the average treatment course lasting around three weeks, at a dosage of 75mg per day (4). That means Turing Pharmaceuticals stand to make a profit of $27,258,000 from Daraprim sales every year, while the average American earns just $27,000 a year, barely enough to cover the cost of a three-week course of treatment.

Though most Americans who require treatment for Toxoplasmosis will be covered by their health insurance, some won’t, and insurance companies (too motivated by profit), will be forced to raise insurance premiums and/or make their policies stricter so as to avoid paying out huge sums to people in genuine need.

While most people are shocked and disgusted by Martin Shkreli’s brutal, cold, and calculated effort to make obscene profits off the backs of other people’s misfortune, the business of capitalising from human suffering extends far beyond this story.


Another example of big business profiteering from human suffering has been brought to public attention recently through a campaign by Amnesty International. Until their recent advertising campaign, few people were aware that every two years a huge defence and security equipment exhibition called the Defence Security and Equipment International (5) is held in London Docklands. Essentially, this is a trade show where arms dealers can display the latest technology in weaponry to military representatives, some from countries renowned for human rights abuses such as Saudi Arabia. Amnesty International, who have attended the fair a number of times, have reported that illegal torture equipment and weapons such as cluster bombs, leg irons, and electric shock batons have been advertised at the event (6). The trade show, which hosted 1,500 exhibitions in 2013, is owned by Clarion Events (7), a company that organises numerous such trade shows, and reportedly turns over £200 million (8) every year. While arms companies profit from torture and (often illegal) wars, Clarion Events profits from introducing the arms dealers to totalitarian regimes at fairs like DSEI.


Profiteering from war might start with arms dealers, but that is by no means where it ends. One hundred and thirty-eight billion dollars (9) of US taxpayers’ money was spent on securing contracts with private companies during the 2003 Iraq war, for services such as security, feeding troops, and replacing infrastructure that had been destroyed during the US-led coalition invasion.

Private mercenaries played a huge role in the war in Iraq, with companies such as the infamous Blackwater reaping large monetary rewards for providing armed “security personnel”. In August 2008 alone, there were 7,121 armed “private security contractors” deployed in Iraq. (10)

The American company Halliburton was the biggest contract winner, securing $39.5 billion (11) from the US government in exchange for their services during the invasion and subsequent occupation. This included a $7 billion (12) deal for rebuilding Iraq’s oil infrastructure, a contract that would have given Iraq’s economy a huge boost had it been awarded to an Iraqi company or the state, as opposed to a multi-billion dollar US corporation.

What is perhaps most disturbing about these contracts, is that many of them were what is known as “cost-plus” (13). When a company is awarded a cost-plus contract, as well as having all their expenses covered, they are guaranteed to be paid a certain amount on top, in order to ensure that they make a substantial profit. Such contracts provide little incentive for these private companies to minimise costs. In fact, the opposite is true; they provide an incentive for contractors to spend more than necessary, as every extra dollar spent means extra profit.

It seems war is a profitable business. Foreign corporations literally made billions of dollars from the deaths of 224,000 people (14), 165,000 of those being Iraqi civilians.


War is not the only atrocity private companies are profiting from. Private prisons are proving to be another lucrative business.

The US has 5% of the world’s population, but more than 20% of the world’s prisoners (15). It has more prisoners than China, Russia, and Iran. Despite decreasing crime rates, the prison population has grown by 721% since the 1980’s, with over 500 per 100,000 people being incarcerated in 2010 (16). The adoption of draconian “tough-on-crime” laws by the US government in the 1980s (17), such as mandatory minimum sentencing for minor drug-related offences, has been a large contributing factor to the dramatic increase in incarceration rates, with the majority of inmates serving long sentences for non-violent offences.

The private prison industry has been reaping huge rewards from the mass incarceration of US citizens that began in the 1980s, when the complete management of entire prisons began to be handed over to private corporations. Corrections Corporations of America, the biggest private corrections company in the US, was the first private company to be awarded a contract that covered the complete operation of an American jail in 1984. Now CCA manages more than 65 prisons across 19 states, and in 2015, the company’s revenue was more than $1.7 billion (18).

The privatisation of prisons isn’t limited to the United States. In 1992, under John Major’s Conservative government, Wolds Prison was opened as the first privately managed prison in the UK. Under the government’s Private Finance Initiative, 25-year contracts were awarded to private companies for the construction and management of new prisons. Of 150 prisons in the UK, 14 are managed by three private companies, G4S, Sodexo, and Serco (19), and it is estimated that these companies make a 7% return on their investment (20). Privatisation doesn’t seem to lead to efficiency either; in 2013, the Ministry of Justice (21) awarded only one private prison their highest performance rating, while two were awarded the lowest rating and another two the second lowest rating.

These private prison corporations are profiting from people’s suffering. Many people in prison are addicts serving sentences for drug-related crimes, and a large number of those incarcerated in the US have mental health problems and a history of being abused. In 2012, there were an estimated 356,268 people (22) with severe mental health problems locked up in US jails.

Often such problems are only exasperated by a punitive justice system that makes criminals out of vulnerable people. Following release and supposed rehabilitation, ex-convicts struggle to find employment because of their criminal records. In the US, ex –convicts lose their right to vote and are not entitled to state benefits, housing, food stamps, or student loans. This is a recipe for re-offending. Imprisonment not only removes vulnerable people from society, it makes their reintegration following incarceration very challenging.

The rise in the business of profiting from human suffering is a reprehensible result of a society moving away from state ownership to an increasingly privatised money making machine that is the globalised economy. The hands of private businesses are reaching into the darkest corners of our world, grabbing at every possible opportunity to make a profit. But making money from disease, war, and crime is not only immoral; basic economics shows that a growing market is a profitable one. For every sick person, every war, and every crime, there is money to be made, so there is a strong motive for businesses with interests in these “industries” to want the rates of these horrors to proliferate. We will never eradicate disease, achieve world peace, or eliminate crime while corporations are making billions from humanity’s biggest crises.

What can we do?

In a world where corporations are king, we as individuals can feel powerless, believing there is nothing we can do to prevent these opportunists from capitalising on other people’s pain. But small actions can have a big influence. Public outrage and media backlash forced Martin Shkreli to backtrack on his original price hike, though he has not yet confirmed to what extent he will lower the price of Daraprim. As for preventing big business from continuing to profit from war and incarceration, the first step is raising public awareness. The facts I outlined in this article are enough to make anyone angry and indignant, but they rarely make front-page headlines. The next step is to put pressure on our governments and on corporations to stop the modern-day business of war and incarceration. To raise awareness and to make a change, we cannot work alone. Like-minded people must come together, organise, and collectivise in order to find a solution. Change starts with the people, not a person.


(11) (12)

Holly Walter is an English teacher and aspiring writer with a passion for travel and international politics. Following completion of a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology and a Master’s degree in Evolution and Human Behaviour, Holly moved from the UK to Japan, where she lived for a year before moving again to the Costa Blanca, Spain. Living abroad forced her to be more open-minded and to take a different perspective when looking at the world; her ambition is to encourage others to do the same through her writing. Holly’s website is, where you will also find her blog. You can also follow her on Twitter (hollywalter0420).

Disaster Capitalism: Outsourcing Violence And Exploitation

 Disaster Capitalism Making a Killing out of Catastrophe

In his just-released book, ‘Disaster Capitalism: Making a Killing out of Catastrophe’, Antony Loewenstein offers us a superb description of the diminishing power of national governments and international organisations to exercise power in the modern world as multinational corporations consolidate their control over the political and economic life of the planet. 

While ostensibly a book about how national governments increasingly abrogate their duty to provide ‘public’ services to their domestic constituencies by paying corporations to provide a privatized version of the same service – which is invariably inferior and exploitative, and often explicitly violent as well – the book’s subtext is easy to read: in order to maximize corporate profits, major corporations are engaged in a struggle to wrest all power from ordinary people and those institutions that supposedly represent them. And the cost to ordinary people (including their own corporate employees) and the environment is irrelevant, from the corporate perspective. 

Loewenstein spent five years researching this book so that he could report ‘the ways in which our world is being sold to the highest bidder without public consent’. In my view, he does this job admirably. 

Taking as his starting point the observation of famed future studies and limits to growth expert Professor Jørgen Randers that ‘It is profitable to let the world go to hell’, Loewenstein set out to describe precisely how this is happening. He went to Pakistan and Afghanistan to explore the world of ‘private military companies’, Greece to listen to refugees imprisoned in ‘brutal’ privatized detention centres, Haiti to investigate its ‘occupation’ by the United Nations and ‘aid’ organizations following the earthquake in 2010, and Bougainville to understand the dilemma faced by those who want progress without the price of further corporate environmental vandalism (for which they have paid heavily already). 

Loewenstein also checked out the ‘outsourced incarceration’ that now ensures that the US rate of imprisonment far exceeds that in all other countries, the privatized asylum seeker detention centres in the UK which are the end product of ‘a system that demonizes the vulnerable’, and the equivalent centres in Australia which ‘warehouse’ many asylum seekers in appalling privatized detention centres, including those located on offshore islands. 

It is easy and appropriate to be outraged by some of the details Loewenstein provides, like the ‘three strike’ laws in the United States ‘that put people behind bars for life for stealing a chocolate bar’, but it is obviously important to comprehend the nature of the systemic crisis in which we are being enveloped by ‘disaster capitalism’ if we are to have any chance of resisting it effectively. So what are it’s key features? 

In essence, predatory corporations (which usually keep a low profile) are financed by government money (that is, your taxes), supported by tax concessions and insulated from genuine accountability, political criticism and media scrutiny while being given enormous power to provide the infrastructure and labor to conduct a function, domestically or internationally, which has previously been performed by a government or international organization. If this happens at the expense of a nation truly exercising its independence, then too bad. 

Moreover, because the corporate function is being performed ‘solely to benefit international shareholders’ which means that maximum profit is the primary aim, both the people who are supposedly being served by the corporation (citizens, refugees, prisoners…) and the corporation’s own employees are invariably subjected to far greater levels of abuse, exploitation, violence and/or corruption than they would have experienced under a public service equivalent. 

Loewenstein provides the evidence to demonstrate this fact in one case after another. The ones that I found most interesting are the use of mercenaries in Afghanistan which provided further evidence that US policy, and even its military strategy and tactics ‘on the ground’, is being progressively taken over by corporations, and the ‘occupation’ of Haiti, post-earthquake in 2010, by the UN and NGO ‘aid’ agencies which forced locals into the perpetual victimhood of corporate-skewed ‘development’. 

The use of private military companies (jargon for government-contracted companies that hire and deploy mercenary soldiers, ‘intelligence’ personnel, private security staff, construction teams, training personnel and provide base services such as food, laundry and maintenance) in Afghanistan has meant that there are far more US contractors than US soldiers in Afghanistan and ‘troop withdrawal’ means just that: troops not contractors. The occupation is far from over, Loewenstein notes. 

Moreover, he asserts, the US mission in Afghanistan is ‘intimately tied to these unaccountable forces’. As many of us have been observing for considerable time, with control of US government policy now largely in the hands of the US elite (a select group compared with the military-industrial complex of which departing president Eisenhower warned us in 1961), its controlling tentacles reach ever more deeply into US actions at all levels. This is reflected in the way that military tactics are often designed in response to the development of weapons (such as drones) rather than, as should be the case, policy and strategy determining the nature of the tactics and weapons (if any) designed and used. It’s not so much that the corporate ‘tail’ is now wagging the government ‘dog’: the ‘tail’ is now bigger and more powerful than the ‘dog’ itself. In essence, the ‘US government interest’ means the ‘US corporate interest’. 

Unfortunately, Afghanistan is not the only ‘horror story’ in Loewenstein’s book. I was particularly pained by his account of the multi-faceted violence that has been inflicted on Haiti since the devastating earthquake on 12 January 2010 that affected three million Haitians, killing more than 300,000. On 1 February 2010, US Ambassador Kenneth Merton headlined his cable ‘The Gold Rush Is On’ and went on to explain his excitement: ‘As Haiti digs out from the earthquake, different companies are moving in to sell their concepts, products and services.’ Merton’s lack of compassion for those killed, injured or left homeless by the earthquake is breathtaking. 

Tragically, it isn’t just corporate exploitation of Haitians that exacerbated the adverse impact of the earthquake. The United Nations was horrific too. The evidence clearly pointed to its responsibility for a cholera epidemic shortly after the earthquake, which affected more than 700,000 people, killing 9,000. And given the responsibility of UN troops, allegedly present to enhance safety, for previous violence against Haitians, most Haitians simply regarded the presence of UN troops as ‘another occupation’ following the French colonization, which they overthrew in 1794, and the US occupation which led to the Duvalier dictatorships, that were resisted until their defeat in 1986. 

But whatever damage the UN has done, it is the governments of the US, France and Canada, whose aid dollars via many corporations never reach those in need, NGOs like the Clinton Foundation, and the predatory corporations that truly know how to exploit a country. This is why the civil infrastructure in Port-au-Prince remains unrepaired nearly six years after the earthquake and the average city resident still lives in ‘rubbish, filth, and squalor’. Somehow, the corporations that were given the aid money to rebuild Haiti or provide other services were able to absorb billions of dollars without doing much at all. Although, it should be noted, company profits have been healthy. Are they held accountable? Of course not. Disaster capitalism at its best. 

So can we predict the outcome for Nepal following its earthquakes earlier this year? We certainly can. The corrupt diversion of aid funds to corporate bank accounts. And ordinary Nepalese will continue to suffer. 

I could go on but you will be better off checking out the book yourself. Loewenstein writes well and he has fascinating material with which to hold your interest. By the way, his personal website if you want to keep track of his journalism is here. He has recently been doing research in South Sudan. 

So is there anything I didn’t like? Well, given my own passion for analysis and strategy, I would have liked to read more about Loewenstein’s thoughts on why, precisely, this all happens and how we can get out of this mess. He is an astute observer of reality and hopefully, in future, he will be more forthcoming in making suggestions. 

In the meantime, if you are interested in understanding why many individuals have a dysfunctional compulsion to make profits at the expense of human and environmental needs, my own analysis is briefly outlined in this article: ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’. But there is much more detail explaining the psychological origins of violent and exploitative behaviours in ‘Why Violence?’ 

And if you are someone who does not outsource your own responsibility to play a role in ending the elite-driven violence and exploitation in our world, you might like to sign the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’. The Nonviolence Charter references other documents for action if you are so inclined. 

Anyway, apart from this observation, the main reason why I think this is such a good book is because it gave me much new and carefully researched information that got me thinking, more deeply, about issues that I often ponder. There is a good chance that it will enlighten you too. 

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’. You may email him or visit his website at

Trawling The Farm For Human Energy (VIDEO)

Chevron’s motto “Human Energy” is a clue to the ultimate purpose of the NWO conspirators: to trawl the human farm for energy, using people like cattle.

Chevron’s motto “Human Energy” is a clue to the ultimate purpose of the NWO conspirators: to trawl the human farm for energy, using people like cattle.

In many ways, living on Planet Earth is like living on a human farm.

We are being trawled for our “human energy”. I was starkly reminded of this the other day when I saw someone walking around with a Chevron t-shirt which sported their logo and new motto: human energy. How ironic. For most people, the motto probably seems harmless enough, or maybe even benevolent, showing a kindhearted corporation caring about its employees and the world, or recognizing the importance of the people running its operations. Yet if you understand the occult foundation of corporate logos, you’ll know that Chevron’s logo is really a pyramid (2 levels of the corner edges). The pyramid is a favorite image of the New World Order, because it represents a tiny hierarchy at the top being held up by a large majority at the bottom, and symbolizes the compartmentalization of knowledge the further you go up. Just like its logo, Chevron’s motto has nothing at all to do with caring for people, and everything to do with controlling people and harvesting energy from the human farm, looking at people as nothing more than batteries that create energy (ever wonder why corporations call it “human resources”?).

The Ultimate Point of the Conspiracy: Harvesting Energy from the Human Farm

Corporations (like Chevron, spin off from Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil) have cut a deal with the real devil or harvester. Corporate heads are middle managers in the equation. They are conduits to set up human farms, and funnel human energy upwards.

Corporations (like Chevron, spin off from Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil) have cut a deal with the real devil or harvester. Corporate heads are middle managers in the equation. They are conduits to set up human farms, and funnel human energy upwards.

When looking at the headlines and news each day, it’s useful to take a step back sometimes and ask yourself: why? What’s the point of all this control? The NWO conspirators have all the money, wealth and prestige they could want. Some of them are the international banksters that own the money printing press and could literally print what they wanted. Some of them would never have enough time to spend all their money.

At a certain point the game is not about money; it’s about power and it’s about energy – or more specifically, human energy. It’s about setting up a system where people at the top sit around all day, managing the human farm, while their economic or literal slaves do all the work to benefit the controllers. Check out Stefan Molyneux’s great ebook The Handbook of Human Ownership for the precise history and techniques behind it all. NWO-owned corporations are the middle managers in this equation: they are the physical conduits through which the human energy is funneled upwards. These NWO conspirators are not the ultimate controllers, because they themselves are being demonically possessed – and the force which is doing the possessing is a group of non-human entities which many have referred to as the “Archons”.

9/11 14th Anniversary: Recall 9/11 Was a Mass Ritual to Generate Loosh

As we approach the 9/11 14th anniversary, it is worth remembering that ultimate point of that horrendous false flag operation: to ritually sacrifice people, scare the wits out of anyone else and generate a large amount of loosh. It’s no coincidence that the operation was carried out on 9/11 when 911 is the emergency number dialed in the US. Think how many times our so-called leaders have said that “the world changed forever on 9/11”. Like the hackneyed term national security, 9/11 has become the excuse for the NWO conspirators to do anything they want, whether it’s expanding Government (creation of the DHS), passing draconian legislation (The Patriot Act), attacking innocent, sovereign and foreign nations (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), squelching key aspects of the Bill of Rights and concocting an entirely new faceless, enemy-less and endless war – the Fake War on Terror.

Solution: Make a Strong Determination Not to Be Food on a Human Farm

the-food-of-the-gods-hg-wellsLike it or not, we live in a predatory universe. Not all of Nature is predatory, but it’s certainly an aspect which is present in a large degree. In our arrogance we may think we are at the top of the food chain, but maybe we’re not. Getting out of the human farm starts with waking up to the truth that the human farm exists. Fortunately, the signs are that a lot of people are doing that. Hopefully it will be fast enough before the NWO becomes too entrenched …




Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at, writing on many aspects of the global conspiracy, from vaccines to Zionism to false flag operations and more, and also including info on natural health, sovereignty and higher consciousness.

Will Monsanto Launch Another ‘Sneak Attack’ In Congress?


(Organic Consumers) Something is going to happen. If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.

So we were told recently by a Senate staffer, during one of the many meetings we’ve held with Senators to urge them to reject H.R. 1599, or what we refer to as the DARK—Deny Americans the Right to Know—Act.

Could that comment mean Monsanto is cooking up another “sneak attack,” similar to the one it conducted in 2013, that led to passage of the Monsanto Protection Act? Only this time, the sneak attack would be aimed at stomping out the GMO labeling movement?

It wouldn’t surprise us. A quick look at the lay of the land reveals that Monsanto and Big Food have several opportunities to rush the DARK Act into law, without a hearing or a stand-alone vote in the Senate.

How likely is that to happen? We don’t know for certain. But it’s worth remembering that Monsanto and Big Food are nothing if not opportunists. Please sign our petition asking key Senators to reject a Monsanto “sneak attack” that would send the DARK Act sailing into law, without due democratic process.

A Bill to End GMO Labeling for Good

In case you’re still in the dark about the DARK Act, here’s the Readers Digest backgrounder. (There’s plenty more here, including fact sheets, leaflets, talking points and toolkits).

Rep. Mike “Agribusiness Puppet” Pompeo (R-Kan.) introduced H.R. 1599 earlier this year. He then managed to rush it through the House, where it passed by a vote of 275 to 150 on July 23 (2015).

The bill is a sweeping attack on states’ rights to self-govern on the issue of GMO labeling, and on consumers’ right to know if their food has been genetically engineered. If the Dark Act becomes law, there will never be GMO labels, safety testing of GMOs, protections for farmers from GMO contamination or regulations of pesticide promoting GMO crops to protect human health, the environment or endangered pollinators.

Under what most of us would consider a fair and democratic process, the bill would move next to the Senate, where there would be the opportunity for debate, amendments and a vote.

But with the July 1, 2016 enactment of Vermont’s GMO labeling law, Act 120, looming, Monsanto is probably thinking it doesn’t have time to slog through a Senate hearing and stand-alone vote, especially as the Senate has yet to introduce its own version of the bill. And perhaps even more daunting than the July 1 deadline, is the prospect that the DARK Act might get watered down, or worse yet killed, in the Senate—a risk Monsanto would likely prefer to avoid.

Four Potential Sneak Attack Scenarios

So, what are the potential “sneak attack” scenarios that would allow Monsanto to push through the DARK Act this year, without going through the normal Senate process?

There are several. They all take advantage of the fact that Congress is seriously behind on its work, and that the threat of a government shutdown looms.

When Congress leaves its must-pass legislation to the last minute, bills don’t go through the normal legislative process where votes and amendments take place in committee hearings and floor debates. Instead, bills are negotiated behind closed doors, then, to increase the likelihood they’ll pass, brought to votes with only limited debate and amendments.

In a skit titled “You Stuck What Where?” the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart described how this last-minute legislating makes it easy for lawmakers to sneak provisions into bills, with no accountability:

It turns out, members of Congress involved in writing a bill while the bill is in subcommittee, are allowed to add any provision they want, anonymously. No fingerprints. The laws of the most powerful nation are written with the same level of accountability as internet comments.

This year, Congress could procrastinate until December and then cram all of its must-pass legislation into one “grand bargain.” This would be the perfect opportunity for Monsanto to launch a “You Stuck What Where?” sneak attack. We might not even know until it’s too late, if unscrupulous House and Senate leaders were to slip the DARK Act into a “grand bargain” that included appropriations, reauthorizations, extensions of expiring legislation, and an increase in the debt ceiling.

But, even if these bills are dealt with individually, there’s still ample opportunity for sneak attacks.

How could Monsanto sneak the DARK Act into law? Here are what we believe are the scenarios industry lobbyists are probably considering.

1.    They’ll sneak it into a must-pass spending bill.

The government needs to be funded by September 30. But Congress is way behind in its work on its spending bills. Not a single one of a dozen annual appropriations bills has passed both chambers yet this year. That increases the likelihood that lawmakers will try to pass another Continuing Resolution to keep spending at basically the same level as last year, and keep the government open.

This would give Monsanto a chance to launch the same “sneak attack” strategy it used in 2013, when the Monsanto Protection Act (Monsanto called it the Farmers Assurance Provision) was slipped into a six-month Continuing Resolution cobbled together at the 11th hour to avert a government shut-down.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) played a big role in the 2013 Monsanto Protection Act “sneak attack.” He could do it again with the DARK Act, especially if he convinces Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to help him.

The only question for Monsanto is if the Continuing Resolution will last long enough to block the July 1, 2016 implementation date of Vermont’s new GMO labeling law. Continuing Resolutions are normally short-term, 3 months or as long as 6 months. This wouldn’t help Monsanto.

But, Congress may choose to meet its end-of-the-fiscal-year deadline (September 30) by passing a full-year continuing resolution. If this happens, any riders that get attached to the resolution would have a twelve-month lifespan. That could mean a DARK Act that would delay the implementation of Vermont’s GMO labeling law.

2.    They’ll sneak it into the Child Nutrition Act Reauthorization bill.

On September 17, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) will bring the Senate version of the Child Nutrition Act Reauthorization bill to his committee for amendments, debate and vote. The Child Nutrition Act expires on September 30, and should be reauthorized before then for another five years. But, as with the spending bills, if Congress doesn’t finish its reauthorization work it can opt for a short-term extension.

If Sen. Roberts, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, wanted to do a favor for his Big Ag donors who have given him $791.2k so far this election cycle, he could let Sen. Blunt, slip the DARK Act into the Child Nutrition Act. There would be little anyone could do about that, unless they were willing to risk the future of the school lunch program past September 30, when the legislation expires.

If Monsanto can’t get Sen. Roberts to act alone, the other Senators on the Agriculture Committee could be enlisted in a team effort. With a two-person majority, the committee’s 11 Republicans could vote to attach the DARK Act to the Child Nutrition Act Reauthorization without any Democrat’s support.

3.    They’ll sneak it into another bill as an amendment

If Monsanto doesn’t manage to stick the DARK Act into an appropriations or reauthorization bill anonymously, it can try for an amendment to one of these bills, once either of the bills hits the Senate floor.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hasn’t been given $1.1M from agribusiness so far this election cycle for nothing. Monsanto and its allies know that the DARK Act could live or die depending on how important it is to Sen. McConnell. As the Senate Majority Leader, he controls which bills go to the floor and which amendments may be offered.

If the DARK Act doesn’t get attached to another piece of legislation by a committee chair or by a vote in committee, it could be brought to the floor as stand-alone legislation. This rarely happens in the Senate, because it takes 60 votes (a bipartisan effort) to cut off debate and avoid a filibuster.

But amendments to legislation are different. An amendment requires only 51 votes to pass—as long as the amendment is germane. (Non-germane amendments require 60 votes.) Of course, what’s “germane” is largely up to the Senate Majority Leader.

The ability to wield these parliamentary tactics gives Sen. McConnell enormous power and will make him the top target of Monsanto’s lobbying machine.

4.    They’ll sneak it into the budget reconciliation bill.

The FY 2016 budget passed by Congress earlier this year allows for a “budget reconciliation” bill to be considered and passed by majority vote—only 51 votes in the Senate.  The bill can also be amended with only 51 votes.

For Monsanto’s sneak attack strategy, the catch is that, under the rules of this reconciliation, the underlying provisions of a reconciliation bill must have a “budget effect.” It’s very difficult to imagine Monsanto being able to make the case that passing the DARK Act could save the government money. However, the rule can be broken with 60 Senators voting to override an objection.

The “budget reconciliation” bill is optional, so it’s likely that Congress won’t act on it until 2016.

When it comes to the DARK Act, will consumers be at the table? Or, as our Senate staffer friend suggested, on the menu? We don’t know yet. But we do know which Senators might be able to give Monsanto a hand with a “sneak attack.” Please read and sign our petition.

Alexis Baden-Mayer is political director for the Organic Consumers Association.

Ronnie Cummins is international director or the Organic Consumers Association and its Mexico affiliate, Via Organica.

Economic Nationalism: Alternative To Globalism


Ivory tower economists, corporate business analysts and financial experts routinely trash any discussion that America needs to institute a national economic policy that actually benefits our own country. The mantra of unchallenged doctrine that globalism is the only path for world commerce has been intensively pushed for well over the last half century. How well did the United States fare? An honest evaluation must acknowledge the diminishing middle class has paid the greatest penalty from the corporatist sedition that has destroyed internal independence and productive prosperity.

Building viable enterprises that conduct useful economic activities produce needed and desirable goods and services. Good paying jobs grow when the velocity of money flows in the “real” domestic economy.

International trade can and is often advantageous if it benefits all parties involved in prosperity from the transactions. However, in the un-free framework for maximizing the corporatism structure of above and beyond any particular country jurisdiction or trade policies, the globalists have set up the exact opposite from the much lauded “Free Trade” conduit.

The next argument points out the inconsistency in Economic Nationalism in the Age of Globalism, and asks:

“Is economic nationalism a reaction to global integration, which in essence means cooptation and domination of national markets by the strongest multinational corporations of the richest nations? Neoliberal insist on the forces of the free market operating without government interference to protect the national capitalist class and workers. Naturally, neoliberals advocating global integration have come out against the tide of economic nationalism in any form. However, the same advocates of neoliberalism have no problem supporting corporate welfare in their own countries, a system that is a form of economic nationalism. When governments use taxpayer money to bail banks and subsidize corporations that is a form of economic nationalism, just as when they lobby to have products and services of their industries marketed in countries competing with similar products and services.”

Note the error in the assumption that multinational corporatists have a beneficial relationship to any country that flies their business flag. In a perverted business culture which is now based upon the ‘Citizens United’ court decision that confirms previous precedents that a corporation is a person, the United States has lost the leverage to reverse the international trade practices that has clearly been the vehicle for domestic economic decline.

The alternative to the surrender of sovereignty and globalist blackmail can be found in paleo-conservative populism and the economic history that built America in the 19th century.

Still relevant and sound as the day it was written, Pat Buchanan on Free Trade, provides the template for a rational and constructive national economic model.

“Good for global business” isn’t necessarily good for US

Global capitalists have become acolytes of global governance. They wish to see national sovereignty diminished and sanctions abolished. Where yesterday American businesses suffered damage to their good name for selling scrap iron to Japan before Pearl Harbor, today [war materiel is routinely exported] to potentially hostile nations. Once it was true that what was good the Fortune 500 was good for America. That is no longer true, and what is good for America must take precedence. (Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.349 , Oct 9, 1999)

“Economic Nationalism”: trade only when it helps US

Rather than making “global free trade” a golden calf which we all bow down to, and worship, all trade deals should be judged by whether:

they maintain US sovereignty;

they protect vital economic interests;

and they ensure a rising standard of living for all our workers.

We must stop sacrificing American jobs on the altars of transnational corporations whose sole loyalty is to the bottom line.

“America First”: Tariffs; reciprocal trade; anti-dumping

America’s workers are being sacrificed to the Global Economy, and our leaders seem deaf to their distress.

Impose tariffs on cheap foreign imports

Prioritize the American Economy before the Global Economy by withdrawing from international organizations that imperil our financial stability & economic independence

Open foreign markets to American products by requiring reciprocal trade policies

Protect vital industries by passing tough anti-dumping legislation.

A policy of Rational Tariffs Lower Irrational Trade Deficits is a course for a rebirth in economic vigor. Tariffs Can Restore America’s Greatness sounds like the next topic for the Donald Trump campaign to take directly to the people.

Economic Nationalism is a bipartisan issue that offers hope and practical employment for the displaced and discouraged. American companies have been punished for decades under the power elite and globalist betrayers.

The Wall Street crowd despises the small investor and by inference the average hard working American. The plutocrats have built much of their ill-gotten gain on the outsourcing of an independent domestic economy.

Globalism is on the precipice of a world-wide implosion. The danger is not just a planetary economic depression, but an intentional political crisis that will demand even more control and loss of access to meaningful commerce.

The cries that international trade will stall to a halt will be used to economically enslave the populist further. Combat this devious strategy to stamp out the diminished vestiges of national ventures with a total rejection of the internationalist “Free Trade” prototype.

Demand for real jobs exists now. In order to achieve the opportunity for earning a living with dignity can be accomplished under a transition to economic nationalism.

The discontent of the electorate is distinctly observable at the Trump or Sanders rallies. The frustration is real and the outcry is becoming louder.

Nevertheless, the road to a solution cannot rely upon a government nanny state mentality. The globalist juggernaut is formidable, as much as it is destructive. In order to implement the conversion into a merchant economy, the bulwark blockage of crony finance and fatal usury need to be broken.

The start to this process begins with an awakening that globalism is the foremost enemy to America. The elites and the entire establishment are hell bent on maintaining a corrupt system. Is it not time to regain our own economic destiny?

SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. “Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at

“Environmental” Zoning Forcing Off-Grid Woman To Connect To Power Company (VIDEO)


Just as we’ve been warning about for years here at PFT, international trade deals and treaties, like the TPP or NAFTA, allow multinational corporations to sue governments and even individuals if they think their investments are at risk. And sure enough, the power company in Nova Scotia is not allowing Cheryl Smith to live off the grid.

Dan Dicks


Former Merck Rep Says Mandatory Vaccination Is For Profit and Not Public Health

brandy vaughan merck rep

Brandy Vaughan is a former sales rep for Merck & Co. – a vaccine maker – and she details how vaccine companies are using vaccines as a vehicle for massive profit and not public health. Brandy researched the safety of vaccines and found that not only do vaccines contain known toxins that can cause neurological damage, but that vaccine makers do not create the same safety studies for vaccines as they do for other drugs. This lack of true safety research of vaccines combined with the known adverse reactions to vaccination has helped Brandy to decide to never vaccinate her own child. Brandy says giving children a vaccine is like playing Russian roulette with our children and that mandatory vaccination is simply a way for vaccine makers to profit off of our children. Don’t be fooled: we do not need mandatory vaccination.


Stop Mandatory Vaccination

Most Scientific Research Of Western Medicine Untrustable And Fraudulent, Say Insiders And Experts

The fraudulent scientific research of Big Pharma is rife, and has been acknowledged as untrustable by medical journal editors, professors, doctors, government officials and former Big Pharma insiders.

The fraudulent scientific research of Big Pharma is rife, and has been acknowledged as untrustable by medical journal editors, professors, doctors, government officials and former Big Pharma insiders.

Fraudulent scientific research is rife throughout the world due to the power of monetary influence wielded by Big Pharma, the giant cartel of multinational pharmaceutical corporations started over 100 years ago by the Rockefellers. This fraudulent scientific research is now so widespread and pervasive it is become an open secret. There is a long list of medical journal editors, doctors and professors on the “outside”, former Big Pharma employees and executives on the “inside”, as well as government officials somewhere in between, who have stepped forward as whistleblowers and acknowledged the fraud. Money buys favorable research. Period. This is not really surprising, given the history of Rockefeller Western medicine and the fact that Big Pharma’s business model is based on “managing” disease, “treating” symptoms and keeping patients on the hamster wheel, rather than actually healing them completely.

Everyone Knows How the “Game” Works

Whistleblower Dr. Peter Rost, former vice president of Pfizer, a giant Big Pharma company, spelled it out. In the video clip embedded above, taken from the documentary One More Girl, he reveals that everyone knows how the “game” works:

“Universities, health organizations, everybody that I have encountered … are out there …. begging for money. (Big Pharma corporations) use that money to basically buy influence … (Big Pharma provides) grants for various kinds of research … make sure they (scientific researchers) became beholden … Everyone obviously knows this is how things work.”

“They (scientific researchers) are not going to continue to get money unless they’re saying what you (i.e. Big Pharma) want them to say. They know it, you know it, and it’s only maybe the public that doesn’t know it.”

In this way, the almost the entire medical scientific community has been compromised and has become thoroughly untrustworthy.

Fraudulent Scientific Research Exposed by Medical Journal Editors and Professors

Look at what numerous key experts are saying about this epidemic of fraudulent scientific research. Dr. Richard Horton is the current editor-in-chief of the British Lancet journal, which is respected as one of the best peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. He came out and stated:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

Then look at what Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), had to say about the pervasive fraudulent scientific research:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines … I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of disease prevention at Stanford University, published a study in a PLoS One paper entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. He found that research conclusions are less likely to be true when study samples sizes are too small, when effect sizes are even smaller, and when there are major variances in study designs, definitions, outcomes and analytical modes. He highlighted the corrupting influence of Big Pharma and concluded that:

“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false … it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.”

Fraudulent Scientific Research Exposed by other Big Pharma Whistleblowers

The pervasive fraudulent scientific research shows that most “solid medical evidence” may in fact be quackery.

The pervasive fraudulent scientific research shows that most “solid medical evidence” may in fact be quackery.

Fraudulent scientific research has also been exposed by former executives and employees of the Big Pharma machine. In addition to Dr. Peter Rost, another Big Pharma whistleblower include Dr. John Virapen, author of Side Effects: Death. Confessions of a Pharma-Insider, who admits in this book that he “bribed a Swedish professor to enhance the registration of Prozac in Sweden.” Virapen worked for 35 years in the pharmaceutical industry internationally (most notably as general manager of Eli Lilly and Company in Sweden) where he was responsible for the marketing of several Big Pharma drugs (all of them with side effects). He exposes how Big Pharma invests more than USD$50,000 per physician per year to entice them to prescribe their products, how more than 75% of leading scientists in the field of medicine are “paid for”, and how illnesses are invented by the pharmaceutical industry to increase profit.

Another Big Pharma whistleblower is Gwen Olsen, a former Big Pharma sales rep who really knew how to push for a hard sell. She reveals the underhanded tactics she was taught by Big Pharma executives to ensure doctors were prescribing their drugs. After her niece killed herself while taking antidepressants, she changed her tune and exposed the tactics. Olsen admits that she used bribery and personal connections to sell Big Pharma meds, because she found it very difficult to sell drugs on their own merit, that the true purpose of pharmaceutical drugs is social control, that Big Pharma buys up real cures to disease, or sues companies not to release genuine cures. She also reveals how drug effects or side effects were often separated to avoid full disclosure, e.g. if the effect was on the CNS (Central Nervous System) then Big Pharma would break it down to say dizziness, fatigue, etc. so effects would look smaller.

Sadly, patients were harmed or killed due to Olsen’s (and other drugs reps like her) intentional sidestepping/misinforming physicians about a drug’s effects. Olsen refers to the “Revolving Door Syndrome”, meaning patients who are hospitalized continue to come back repeatedly, and each time lose more of their bodily functions. The drugs were brain damaging, could induce violence and were slowly killing them. Meanwhile, many drugs are found to be not more efficacious than a sugar pill (placebo).

Fraudulent Scientific Research Exposed by Governmental Whistleblower Too

Lastly, it is also useful to note that fraudulent scientific research has been acknowledged by governmental officials too. Dr. William Thompson of the CDC (the US Center for Disease Control) made headlines last year when he bravely came forth to publicly admit that he had cooked the books and fudged the data regarding vaccines. Here is an excerpt of his public statement from August 27th, 2014:

“My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”

Many people were harmed (or killed) by this instance of fraudulent scientific research, especially young black baby boys under the age of 3. Consequences for Thompson or the CDC for this fraudulent scientific research? Basically none. Obama gave him legal immunity – but that’s not surprising since he also singed the NDAA (claiming the right to imprison any American indefinitely without charge or trial) and initiated his weekly Kill Lists.

Don’t Fall for Appeals to “Scientific” or “Clinical” Research when Fraudulent Scientific Research is So Rife

The lesson in all this is clear: don’t believe it when you are told by anyone involved with the Western Medical Establishment that their products are based on sound, valid, scientific, clinical evidence. Fraudulent scientific research is so widespread you can’t know anything for sure. Maybe you have to use Western Medicine, or maybe you don’t, but don’t go in blindly believing everything you’re told.





Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at, writing on many aspects of the global conspiracy, from vaccines to Zionism to false flag operations and more, and also including info on natural health, sovereignty and higher consciousness.

Seeding Fear – The Story Of Michael White vs Monsanto (VIDEO)

seeding fear

All giants fall. Monsanto’s day is coming.

Neil Young’s new documentary, “Seeding Fear,” tells the story of Alabama farmers Michael White and his father who were sued by the agrochemical giant in 2003 for patent infringement of its GMO soybeans.

The film I would like you to see tells the story of a farming family in America, but the same thing is happening around the world,” Young added. “It is a story that takes 10 minutes of your time to see. It is a simple human one, telling the heartbreaking story of one man who fought the corporate behemoth Monsanto, and it illustrates why I was moved to write ‘The Monsanto Years.’ – Neil Young


More here