In the video below, Dr. Peterson Pierre, M.D., confirms what Minnesota State Senator and Dr. Scott Jensen, M.D., revealed. Senator Jensen explains that hospital administrations have an incentive to diagnose and treat a person for COVID-19. The system is financially skewed toward diagnosing and treating COVID-19 even though the patient may not actually be ill from COVID-19. The patients may be in the hospital for an entirely different reason, but if they test positive for COVID-19 or they are diagnosed as having COVID-19 then the hospital hits the financial jackpot and can begin raking in the financial windfall from the federal government through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).
For example, a hospital is reimbursed $5,000 for ordinary pneumonia under Medicare. But under the CARES Act, the hospital can charge the federal government $13,000 if that same person tests positive for COVID-19 or is diagnosed as having COVID-19. Although the patient is being treated for pneumonia, he is put on the COVID-19 billing rolls. If the patient is subsequently put on a ventilator, the payment from the federal government through the CARES Act goes up to $39,000.
Please understand that mechanical ventilation is a dangerous last-resort treatment. Studies have shown that between 66% and 86% of COVID-19 patients placed under mechanical ventilation die. One study reported that 31 of 32 (97%) mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients died
Mortality rates for those who received mechanical ventilation in the 18-to-65 and older-than-65 age groups were 76.4% and 97.2%, respectively. Mortality rates for those in the 18-to-65 and older-than-65 age groups who did not receive mechanical ventilation were 1.98% and 26.6%, respectively.
Compare the 76.4% of those 18 to 25 years old COVID-19 patients who were put on mechanical ventilators and subsequently died with only 1.98% of COVID-19 hospital patients 19 to 65 years old who were not ventilated and who died. We find that the mechanical ventilators caused a 39 fold increase in deaths (+3,900%).
Mechanical ventilation is a death sentence. Doctors have known for almost 200 years that mechanical ventilation is a dangerous and damaging practice. The federal authorities knew it full well beforehand and the greedy hospitals designed their protocols accordingly. Among the 2,634 COVID-19 New York City hospital patients who were discharged or died on or before April 4, 2020, approximately 12.2% (320) of them received invasive mechanical ventilation. That represents a $12,480,000 payout to the New York City hospitals.
Please make no mistake about it; mechanical ventilation is a deadly treatment. It is perverse to incentivize hospitals to administer such a dangerous protocol to treat a disease, unless you want to kill people. Hospitals who have been incentivized by the prospect of a financial windfall have turned to mechanical ventilation to treat COVID-19 when it is not otherwise appropriate.
Lest you think that this is some kind of fantastic exaggeration, USA Today, which is a left-wing liberal publication, did a fact check of Senator Jensen’s allegations and determined the following:
We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE
Dr. Pierre further alleges that the hospitals are financially incentivized to administer the toxic drug, remdesivir. I explain the danger and ineffectiveness of remdesivir in the following two articles:
The ICD-10-PCS billing codes for the CARES Act add-on payment for remdesivir are XW033E5 (peripheral vein introduction) and XW043E5 (central vein introduction).
Add the financial incentives to administer remdesivir is the fact that the FDA has blocked the administration of safe and effective treatments like ivermectin. The FDA has ruled:
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10.
Two new reports show how Covid restrictions and technocrats are threatening liberties worldwide
The first report cards on democracy and economic freedom for 2021 are out and the results are not good. Economic Intelligence Unit, the sister company ofThe Economistmagazine, found that last year’sDemocracy Indexhad fallen by almost a tenth of a percent. That’s the biggest drop in the index’s 15-year history.
The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, meanwhile, saw a similar albeit larger decline of 1.6 points out of 100. Heritage looked at economic policies and conditions in 177 countries while the Democracy Index looked at 167 countries.
Both reports blame government-enforced COVID restrictions for the declines. The Index of Economic Freedom noted that increased government spending to make up for lost income had failed because it “increases inflation and generates huge public debts that future generations will have to pay.” The Democracy Index noted that both developed democracies like the United States and authoritarian regimes like North Korea slid towards more technocracy. It worried that emergency powers enacted by governments won’t go away even as the pandemic subsides.
“[H]istory teaches us that once they acquire these sorts of emergency powers, governments are generally reluctant to remove them from the statute books,” Joan Hoey, editor of the Democracy Index, told me in an email. She said warnings in 2020 hadn’t been heeded: “This state of affairs is becoming normalized and the public is becoming habituated to this extension of state power over many areas of life. This raises some troubling Qs about the future of democracy: in what circumstances and for how long are governments and citizens prepared to accept this extraordinary extension of state power and withdrawal of civil liberties in the cause of public health — or indeed any other threat in future?”
Hoey also expressed alarm about the current situation in Canada where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked emergency powers in the hopes of stopping trucker-led protests against Covid restrictions. Canada’s Democracy Index score dipped below nine, with researchers worried it was becoming more like the United States, featuring “extremely low levels of public trust in political parties and government institutions.”
The Index of Economic Freedom’s findings explains why that public trust is low. It points out that politicians have handed out favors to “societal elites or special interests” that “exercise the most influence on and control over the government and its institutions.” It’s a populist message, one that’s been expressed across the globe for the last decade.
The Democracy Index doesn’t necessarily see populism as a bad thing, though it does think it tends to cause governments to recoil rather than reform. “There is some indication that the populists have had an impact in terms of injecting more political competition and contestation into the body politic, something that has been sorely lacking,” Hoey says. “But things need to go much further if we are to see a more substantial revival of representative democracy and genuine political contestation.”
But how? What happens when the body politic cordons itself off into segments instead of listening to others? The Democracy Index suggests “physician, health thyself,” that Western nations should emphasize and, more importantly, follow their own democratic ideals. The authors suggest that doing this will encourage people to be more tolerant and respectful of other viewpoints, and avoid becoming a technocratic state ruled by fiat a la China.
As for those who believe a China-style, state-empowered government might be better than democracy, the report warns that “China’s ‘political meritocracy’ has also failed to arrest the growth of huge economic inequalities.”
It continues:
Income inequality in China has increased since the reforms and reopening of the 1980s, even if the regime is seeking to redress this now. The level of inequality in China, which [Serbian-American economist Branko] Milanovic estimates at almost 50 Gini points in the 2010s, significantly exceeds levels of inequality in the US (the Gini Index measures equality on a scale of 0-100, with 100 representing total inequality). Disposable income inequality in the US rose by about 4 Gini points between the mid-1980s and 2013, whereas in China it increased by almost 20 Gini points over the same period.
The Index of Economic Freedom’s answer to societal and political loggerheads involves more free markets and fewer state controls. The authors acknowledge that people look to government in times of crisis but encourage politicians to not seek more power. “[Lasting solutions] lie in a return to free-market principles that have unambiguously made our societies strong, vibrant, and flourishing,” it says.
It’s far from surprising to see that the Covid pandemic caused a massive drop in democratic norms including civil liberties and free markets. This only furthers declines seen in 2008 and 2009 when the global economy slowed. The post-September 11 world of increased surveillance under the guise of rooting out terrorism also contributed to the decline in civil liberties. Whether anyone in power chooses to listen to these warnings is, unfortunately, another question.
It has become something of a habit in both the American and Canadian media to insist that the Canadian trucker protest against vaccine mandates is an "illegal protest." They are "illegal border protests," one American news affiliate proclaims. Canada's National Post dutifully refers to the protests in its headlines as illegal acts. The term "illegal" has been used a multitude of times by Liberal Party politicians in the House of Commons. The premier of Ontario—one of Canada's most hysterical politicians—not only paints the protests as illegal but as a "siege." Other opponents of the protests refer to them as an "occupation" and as an "insurrection."
"Lawbreaker" as a Political Slur
So why the obsession with labeling the protests illegal? The idea, of course, is to cast suspicion on them and portray them as harmful and morally illegitimate. We could contrast the rhetoric surrounding the trucker protest with that of the Black Lives Matter protests. In the case of the BLM protests, illegal acts were downplayed and ignored, with one obvious riot labeled a "mostly peaceful" protest. when it comes to protests and other acts of which the regime approves, legality is never an issue.
The regimes of the world, of course, like to use legality as a standard for judging human behavior because the regimes make the laws. Whether or not the laws actually have anything to do with human rights, private property, or just basic common sense is another matter entirely. Thus history is replete with pointless, immoral, and destructive laws. Slavery has been lawful throughout much of human history. Temporary slavery—known as military conscription—is still employed by many regimes. In the US, the imprisonment of peaceful American citizens of Japanese descent was perfectly lawful under the US regime during World War II. Today, employers can face ruinous sanctions for hiring a worker who lacks the proper immigration paperwork. Worldwide, people can be jailed in many jurisdictions for years for the "crime" of possessing an illegal plant.
During covid, the reality of arbitrary law came very much to the fore when unelected health bureaucrats and lone elected executives began ruling by decree. They closed businesses, shut people up in their homes, and imposed vaccine and mask mandates. Those who refuse to comply—and businesses who refuse to enforce these edicts—are condemned as lawbreakers and subject to punishment.
The Moral Limits of "Law and Order"
All of these legal provisions, acts, and sanctions represent mockeries of basic natural rights rather than protections of them. The notion that laws can be perversions of true justice has long been obvious to many. In fact, the disconnect between morality and legality is a fundamental aspect of Western civilization. The basic notion is very old, but the idea's endurance in the West was reinforced by the fact that Christianity began as an illegal religion and early Christians were often considered to be criminals deserving of the death penalty. It should be no surprise, then, that Saint Augustine declared an unjust law to be no law at all and compared kings to pirates: the decrees of pirates, of course, are not worthy of obedience or reverence. And if kings are like pirates, kingly decrees are of equal respectability. This same tradition fueled Saint Thomas Aquinas's support for regicide (in certain cases). Needless to say, regicide has been always and everywhere declared illegal by the would-be targets.
Yet, unfortunately, declaring something to be "illegal" remains an effective slur. There is no shortage of people who proudly consider themselves to be blind supporters of "law and order" and who insist "lawbreakers" are axiomatically in the wrong. Their simple-minded refrain is "if you don't like the law, change it" and many of these people naïvely believe that acts of legislators and regulators somehow reflect "the will of the people" or some sort of moral law. The opposite is often the reality.
Thankfully, in the United States, the value of lawbreaking is so "baked in" to the historical narrative that it's difficult to ignore, even today. The American Revolution was fundamentally a series of illegal acts. The Declaration of Independence was little more than a declaration of a thoroughly illegal rebellion. In response, the king sent men to the colonies to enforce law and order. The American response to this attempt to enforce the law was to kill the government's enforcers. Less violent acts committed by American rebels were equally criminal, ranging from the Boston Tea Party to a multitude of assaults on tax collectors committed by Samuel Adams's Sons of Liberty.
Modern shills for the regime have unsurprisingly tried to redefine this conflict as one of a tussle over democracy. "Those American revolutionaries fought for democracy," the claim goes. Thus, by their definition, no one is ever allowed to rebel in a jurisdiction that has occasional elections. (The reality is that the American rebellion was about the protection of human rights. Elections had little to do with it.)
Fortunately, it will take more than cheap slogans about democracy to undo the fact that the national origin story is about having contempt for the laws of one's political leaders.
In much of the world, however, rebellion against unjust laws is not regarded with equal amounts of reverence. In Canada, for instance, the national origin story is largely about following the rules and politely asking one's overlords for autonomy. This is bound to affect how one sees the roles of law and disobedience.
It Is Often Prudent to Follow Unjust Laws
This isn't to say that open rebellion is necessarily wise. Avoiding illegal acts is often—if not usually—the prudent thing to do. We often follow the law simply to stay out of jail and avoid attracting the attention of regulators and government enforcers. For those who prefer spending time with their families to spending time in prison, this only makes sense. Moreover, disobeying unjust laws can often bring even more unjust laws as a result.
It is one thing to follow the law for prudential reasons. It is another thing entirely to assume the law brings with it some sort of moral imperative. Few laws do. Yes, there are laws against murder, but murder is just one case where the letter of the law happens to often match up with what is fundamentally moral and right. Countless laws lack such solid standing.
When we hear government officials or media pundits refer to something as "illegal" or unlawful, all this should really do is cause us to ask if the defense of these laws is actually prudent, moral, or necessary. Some laws are well founded in basic protections of property rights and other human rights. But many laws are nothing more than the fruits of political schemes to help the regime maintain power or to reward its friends at the expense of others.
We can always expect the regime and its supporters to try to outlaw things they don't like. And once such things are illegal, we'll hear all about the evils of the "lawbreakers" any time those lawbreakers threaten the prestige or power of the regime. (Lawbreaking in favor of the regime, of course, is always tolerated.) It's a highly successful trick they've been using for thousands of years.
Statues also considered art can be seen as a way to celebrate, remember, and tell the stories of culturally or historically significant people. However, they are marks of history or recognition of good deeds and bad – or both.
Our relationship to a statue normalizes the past for better or worse, in doing so their (statues or monuments) power ebbs and flows.
We live in uncertain times, but all around us, historical forces that have always shaped our lives have now become visible.
This is the blindness of everyday life.
Facts matter and the protests are, at the bottom, about facts – the historical truth of colonialism, slavery, and patriarchy, and the contemporary truth of the people they still marginalize.
Some argue that statues are an important ‘window’ into the past as they reflect who – and what – was important at the time they were built.
I can remember when Nelson was blown sky-high by the IRA in 1966 followed by Wellington.
Fast-forward to 2022.
The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria have displaced nearly 20 million people, part of the largest refugee crisis in modern history. The top 1% of people now own half of the global wealth, while the bottom 70% account for less than 3%.
The past few years have seen a recession, with the steady breakdown of international norms, the rise of illiberal democracy and re-entrenchment of authoritarian regimes, and the emergence of rightwing populism in the west, leading to the self-inflicted wounds of Brexit and the Trump presidency.
Meanwhile, the world faces a new existential crisis: climate change. The impact of decades of unchecked growth is now undeniable, with rising temperatures and quickening cycles of natural disasters that threaten new calamities every day.
Suddenly life feels overdetermined, shaped by forces larger than any individual, community, or nation.
Little by little, we begin to connect the inequality of the present to the past and this is why statues, buildings, and street signs have become flashpoints because they embody the tension between two worldviews of having and not having.
Virtually all western cities are monuments to colonialism.
Either they were superimposed on earlier indigenous settlements (New York), founded to support the trade in slaves and natural resources (Cape Town), or substantially built with capital extracted from the colonies (pretty much any major European city).
Removing a few of the most egregious statues will not, as some people fear, erase the histories of these places, nor diminish the cultural heritage their residents are, for better and worse, heir to.
So what are we allowed to see, hear, and what if anything can be done?
We can modify statues to recognize historical truths and to perform a kind of apology, but that’s as far as agonism goes. Given the now impossible-to-ignore continuity between the misdeeds of the past and the conditions people face in the present, this feels insufficient.
Erasing history and arguing that people in the past can’t be judged by attitudes today – statues should be preserved because they teach people about the past, even if it is seen as unpleasant now.
I am of the opinion that new plaques should be added which explain why the person is controversial, reflecting both the good and bad things they did.
Everyone agrees as society’s values change, reconciliation can’t just be about the past it must be forward-looking by reflecting a country’s diverse population which were and still are traditionally focused on white men.
Beliefs or views held by the figures when they were alive will not be erased by removing statues to museums.
The question now is.
Does the plaque justify that the statue should stay in place?
The statues were built to honor and enforce white supremacist views, and the intent or damaging effect has not been erased by time.
Monuments to men who advocated cruelty and barbarism of any kind to achieve are a grotesque affront to moderne the day cultures of mixed societies.
Their statues pay homage to hate, not heritage.
We don’t want to leave this so that people looking back in 50 years will say: you know, they took the statues down, why didn’t they do something about racism?”
Finally here are a few examples to chew over.
The UK The Foreign Office has a painting. The picture shows the racial world of Britannia is ordered.
The superior Anglo-Saxons show their naked bodies, but cover their loins, subordinate races, such as Indian and Arab, are fully clothed, and the ‘least’ of races, the African, is still a naked infant.
Here we have a racial meta-narrative clearly imprinted on the body. British imperialist Cecil Rhodes statue is above the entrance to Oriel College, on Oxford High Street.
Is his non-removal an “act of institutional racism”?
He was a slave trader in the 17th century (the 1600s) and part of a group called the Royal African Company, which transported about 80,000 men, women, and children as slaves from Africa to the Americas.
The Statue now has the below plaque.
The plaque directs readers to the college’s website and an article entitled “Contextualisation of the Rhodes Legacy”.
Edward Colston: Slave trader.
He was a slave trader in the 17th century (the 1600s) and part of a group called the Royal African Company, which transported about 80,000 men, women, and children as slaves from Africa to the Americas.
It made him very rich and when he died in 1721, he left a lot of money to charities and good causes.
We cannot weigh morally significant achievements against serious wrongdoing in order to justify public statutes of wrongdoers. In my view governments have a duty to condemn and repudiate serious wrongdoing that is incompatible with retaining public statues of historical figures who perpetrated serious rights violations.
Remember the end of The Return of the Jedi? It's something I've referenced a few times because it's a handy cultural signifier for a certain idea.
For those who don't know, here's the gist: Darth Vader is dead. The Empire has fallen. The Rebels have won! Time to party! Cut to a montage of the Ewoks dancing around Darth Vader's funeral pyre and joyous festivities being held across the galaxy.
. . . But we viewers know that this isn't really the end of the story. The battle has been won, but the war between good and evil has not been decided forever. It would be far too naïve of us to believe that.
Indeed, it's hard not to be reminded of that Darth Vader funeral party when looking at the recent signs that the scamdemic narrative is falling apart:
England is dropping its mask requirements and "health pass" mandates;
If you're looking for it, the good news is everywhere right now. So, time for the Ewok dance party, right?
Well, hold on to your light saber, young paduwan. This battle is not over yet. You see, the would-be societal controllers have not given up the fight yet, and some of the rollback of the scamdemic restrictions that is happening right now could be part of a deception that is in fact furthering their agenda of control.
Different people have different names for this deception. Dave Cullen of Computing Forever calls it "Two Steps Forward and One Step Back." Over at Revelations Radio News, Tim and Andrew have attempted to warn their listeners about "The Strategic Rug Pull." Whatever you call it, the concept isn't difficult to grasp if you know how the Powers That Shouldn't Be operate.
In a nutshell, the danger is that if the "authorities" begin to relax the draconian controls that have been put in place in the name of the COVID-1984 scamdemic, the population might believe that they have won. That it's over. That they can stop worrying about the descent into tyranny. Meanwhile, the real work of hardwiring the infrastructure of the biosecurity state can continue on behind the scenes, unhindered by opposition from erstwhile freedom activists.
I went over a case study of this very phenomenon in the most recent edition of New World Next Week. As Americans will know by now, there is reason to celebrate: the Supreme Court has shot down the illegal and unconstitutional mandate requiring businesses with more than 100 employees to force their employees to get vaxxed (or to submit to weekly testing). And, in another seemingly positive follow-up, The US Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has withdrawn the "emergency temporary standard" (ETS) codifying that mandate.
Yay! Time for the Ewok dance party!
. . . Until you read the fine print, that is. You'd have to persist past the headline and the opening blather of the MSM coverage of the story to discover that this is not the end of the war. As I pointed out on New World Next Week, the OSHA press release on the ETS withdrawal explicitly concedes that although they are withdrawing the temporary standard, they are only doing so in order to prepare a permanent rule:
"Although OSHA is withdrawing the vaccination and testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, the agency is not withdrawing the ETS as a proposed rule. The agency is prioritizing its resources to focus on finalizing a permanent COVID-19 Healthcare Standard."
What? They are finalizing a permanent "Healthcare Standard" for COVID-19? What does that mean? What does that entail?
Too bad for you if you want more info on that. You certainly won't find an answer to those questions in the press release itself.
If you do persist in digging through the OSHA website, you will find a statement from U.S. Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh on the Supreme Court ruling earlier this month. In the statement, Walsh confirms that he is "disappointed in the court’s decision" and reaffirms that "OSHA stands by the Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard as the best way to protect the nation’s workforce from a deadly MacGuffin that is infecting more than 750,000 Americans each day and has taken the lives of nearly a million Americans." (OK, I changed one word in that quotation. I'll let you follow the link to find out which one.) The statement ends with the threat that "OSHA will do everything in its existing authority to hold businesses accountable for protecting workers."
If you want the really ominous news, though, you'll have to leave the OSHA website entirely and head on over to The National Law Review, which informs its readers about the ETS withdrawal before adding some highly relevant information:
"In the same announcement, OSHA clarified that the text of the ETS will remain in place to solicit additional comments from the general public so that, according to OSHA, the agency can 'prioritiz[e] its resources to focus on finalizing a permanent COVID-19 Healthcare Standard.' If OSHA follows this path, the final rule will be published no later than May 5, 2022." [Emphasis mine.]
Yes, folks, the "withdrawal" of this ETS turns out to be a charade after all. The text will "remain in place" while they "solicit additional comments from the general public" so that they can finalize the rule and enact it in May.
Yay? Nay. Cancel the dance party.
This is the quintessential demonstration of the One Step Forward Two Steps Back Rug Pull.
Sadly, it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see how this exact type of distraction operation can be used in any number of situations to lull the public into letting their guard down on a key agenda item.
For the hard of thinking, let me be clear what I am saying here: successes, however minor and fleeting, are still good things. They should be celebrated and encouraged . . . but not at the expense of our eternal vigilance against the forces of control.
The freedom convoy in Canada is a good thing. Can it be corrupted and co-opted? Of course. Can agents provocateurs go in and provoke acts of violence or destruction in the name of freedom lovers? Of course. Will the entire spectacle cement in the minds of some that our fundamental freedoms are the government's to give or to take away and that our only option is to ask them for our rights back? Of course.
But absolutely any movement or protest or idea in the world can be spun to portray freedom-lovers as violent, dangerous or silly people by those who control the mass media. The point is that we know people who are supporting the convoy for the right reasons. We know that there is a tidal shift in public opinion happening in Canada right now and the political puppets are working so hard to demonize it (or run away from it) precisely because it can represent a "storming of the Bastille" moment for a genuine freedom movement. And we can bypass the mass media control and directly influence the public's understanding of these events for ourselves.
Even the fact that OSHA is having to use a strategic withdrawal tactic demonstrates that they know they don't have the support of the public on this issue. They have to resort to subterfuge and underhanded tactics because if what they were doing were widely known the public would not stand for it.
So yes, these are steps in the right direction and we should encourage freedom fighters and activists in their efforts. . . .
. . . But let's hold off on that dance party for now. There's still a lot of work to be done.
The control of food for use as a weapon is an ancient practice. The House of Windsor inherited certain routes and infrastructure. One finds the practice in ancient Babylon/Mesopotamia 4,000 years ago. In Greece, the cults of Apollo, Demeter, and Rhea-Cybele often controlled the shipment of grain and other food stuffs, through the temples. In Imperial Rome, the control of grain became the basis of the empire. Rome was the center. Conquered outlying colonies in Gaul, Brittany, Spain, Sicily, Egypt, North Africa, and the Mediterranean littoral had to ship grain to the noble Roman families, as taxes and tribute. Often the grain tax was greater than the land could bear, and areas of North Africa, for instance, were turned into dust bowls.
The evil city-state of Venice took over grain routes, particularly after the Fourth Crusade (1202-04). The main Venetian thirteenth century trading routes had their eastern termini in Constantinople, the ports of the Oltremare (which were the lands of the crusading States), and Alexandria, Egypt. Goods from these ports were shipped to Venice, and from there made their way up the Po Valley to markets in Lombardy, or over the Alpine passes to the Rhône and into France. Eventually, Venetian trade extended to the Mongol empire in the East.
By the fifteenth century, although Venice was still very much a merchant empire, it had franchised some of its grain and other trade to the powerful Burgundian duchy, whose effective headquarters was Antwerp. This empire, encompassing parts of France, extended from Amsterdam and Belgium to much of present-day Switzerland. From this Venetian-Lombard-Burgundian nexus, each of the food cartel’s six leading grain companies was either founded, or inherited a substantial part of its operations today.
By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the British Levant and East India companies had absorbed many of these Venetian operations. In the nineteenth century, the London-based Baltic Mercantile and Shipping Exchange became the world’s leading instrument for contracting for and shipping grain.
Here’s The Harsh Reality: Today, The Biggest Risk For Global Catastrophe Isn’t What It Was 50 Years Ago…
Ten to 12 pivotal companies, assisted by another 3 dozen, run the world’s food supply. They are the key components of the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss-American cartel, which is grouped around the 2 families. Led by the six leading grain companies – this food and raw materials cartel has complete domination over the world’s cereals and grains supplies, from wheat to oats and corn, from barley to sorghum and rye. But it also controls meat, dairy, edible oils and fats, fruits and vegetables, sugar, and all forms of spices.
Each year tens of millions die from the most elementary lack of their daily bread. This is the result of the work of the BAC cartel. And, as the ongoing financial collapse wipes out bloated speculative financial paper, the oligarchy has moved into hoarding, increasing its food and raw materials holdings. It is prepared to apply a tourniquet to food production and export supplies, not only to poor nations, but to advanced sector nations as well.
Today, food warfare is firmly under the control of London and New York. Today’s food companies were created by having had a section of this ancient set of Mesopotamian-Roman-Venetian-British food networks and infrastructure carved out for them.
The oligarchy has built up a single, integrated raw materials cartel, with three divisions – energy, raw materials, and increasingly scarce food supplies.
Figure 1 above represents the situation. At the top are the House of Windsor and Club of Isles. Right below are the principal control instruments of the Rothschilds – the Worldwide Fund for Nature – headed by Prince Phillip – which leads the world in ethnic conflicts and terrorism.
The firms within each cartel group are listed. While they maintain the fiction of being different corporate organizations, in reality this is one interlocking syndicate, with a common purpose and multiple overlapping boards of directors. The oligarchy owns these cartels, and they are the instruments of power of the oligarchy, accumulated over centuries, for breaking nations’ sovereignty.
Up to the 1940s, the share of international trade in grains was around 10 million tons. This was a substantial amount, but small compared to the levels of trade that would follow. World War 2 ravaged the globe, creating mass hunger, especially in Eurasia, and what is today the Third World. Under the impetus of American programs such as “Food for Peace “, the worldwide trade in grains shot up to 160 million tons by 1979. Today, it is 515 million tons per year. In addition, tens of millions of other foodstuffs are traded each year.
It is proper for countries with grain, meat, dairy, and other surpluses to export them. But the cartel’s four exporting regions were given pre-eminence in a brutal manner, while much of the rest of the world was thrust into enforced backwardness. The 2 families denied these nations seed, fertilizer, water management, electricity, rail transportation, that is, all the infrastructure and capital goods inputs needed to turn them into self-sufficient food producers. These nations were reduced to the status of vassals: Either import from the cartel’s export regions, or starve.
However, the food cartel also has control internationally. For example, outside of the US, the largest producer of soybeans and soybean products are Argentina and Brazil. One of the Big Six grain companies, Bunge and Born, settled in Argentina in 1876, and accumulated plantations of hundreds of thousands of acres. In the second half of the twentieth century, it also moved into Brazil. Today, in Brazil and Argentina, Bunge and Born is a major force in soybeans and related products, along with Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, and Continental. Thus, the grain cartel dominates output everywhere. Further tightening the control are joint ventures, especially in the area of producing new strains of seeds and biotechnology. Cargill, the world’s largest grain exporter, through its Nutrena division, is also the biggest producer of animal feed and hybrid seed in the world. In 1998, Cargill announced a joint venture with Monsanto, one of the leading farm biotechnology firms. Also in 1998, Novartis (the new company name for the 1996 merger of Swiss chemical giants CIBA-Geigy and Sandoz) formed a joint venture with Land O’Lakes, and through them, with ADM, for the development of specialty corn hybrids for food and feed markets.
Meanwhile, the food cartel reduced the export regions, which supposedly enjoy favored status, to a state of servitude as well. During the last 4 decades, millions of farmers in the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, India and South Africa, have been wiped out.
This report will document, for the first time, the extent of concentration and control that the raw materials cartel exercises over both the international and domestic trade in food. It will look at the food cartel’s international and domestic control over grain, milk, edible oils and fats, and meat. This article will provide the names of the key forces in the cartels’ control of the world’s food supply.
The five privately held grain companies were carved out from the centuries-old Mesopotamian-Venetian-Burgundian-Swiss-Amsterdam grain route, which today extends around the world. The Big Five are Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and Born, and André Cargill Company, the world’s largest grain company, is based in the Minneapolis, Minnesota suburb of Minnetonka. It was founded by Scotsman William Cargill, in Conover, Iowa in 1865, and has been run, since the 1920s, by the billionaire MacMillan family. But the true nexus of Cargill is in Geneva, Switzerland, where Cargill’s international trading arm, Tradax, Inc., is headquartered, having been established there in 1956.
Archer Daniels Midland’s purchase of Töpfer, a Hamburg, Germany-based Grain Company, vastly increased ADM’s presence in the world grain trade. Töpfer’s trade is situated within the old Venice-Swiss-Amsterdam-Paris routes, and it has extensive business partnerships with the British Crown jewel, the Rothschild Bank. The manner in which the grain cartel companies operate is highly secretive. All but ADM-Töpfer are private companies.
Profiles & Histories
Here are the strategic profiles of some of the key companies that constitute the food sector of the BAC cartel. The British have a far greater degree of control in the food business, due to its predecessor’s involvement, dating back centuries. Allied with various other European families and companies, the totality of the European food companies, the British companies effectively exert control over most of the European giants. This is due to the fact that the Rothschilds have based themselves in London, since 1795, and from this base, managed to dominate European business and finance.
The US has come to the party late. But, since 1945, under Rockefeller patronage, the American companies have made great strides in the field of food. That is why the title “British-American Cartel, or BAC, for short.
The profiles confirm that through multiple forms of concentration, these companies dominate grain, dairy, meat, and other food production, and the processing and distribution system of food, all the way to the supermarket. Very little food moves on the face of the earth without the food cartel having a hand in it.
Cargill
Cargill raises 700,000 pigs, 14 million turkeys, and 500 million broiler chickens. In the US, it owns 440 barges, 16 towboats, 3 huge vessels that sail the Great Lakes, 22 ocean-going ships, 3,000 railroad hopper cars, and 3,500 tank cars. Cargill and its subsidiaries operate 900 plants globally. It has 500 US offices, 300 foreign offices. It operates in 60 countries.
Shortly after the American Civil War, William Cargill, a Scottish immigrant sea merchant, bought his first grain elevator in Iowa. In 1870, with his brother Sam, William Cargill bought grain elevators all along the Southern Minnesota Railroad, at a time when Minnesota was becoming an important shipping route. But Cargill’s biggest break came when he bought elevators which went west along the line of James J Hill’s Great Railroad Northern. Hiss was the business partner of Ned Harriman (father of Averell Harriman, and a front for William Rockefeller – brother of John D). Through a rebate system, and other arrangements, Hill’s rail line builds the Cargill operation.
Twice during the 20th century, the Cargill firm nearly went under, and between 1909 and 1917, Cargill hovered on the brink of bankruptcy. The founder’s daughter married John Macmillan. William Rockefeller rescued the firm and designated Macmillan and his family to come in and reorganize Cargill. This was the period in which the Macmillan family started running Cargill. Following the 1929 stock market crash, and ensuing Great Depression, Cargill nearly went bankrupt, but, this time was again rescued by the Rockefellers Chase Manhattan Bank. Chase sent its officer John Peterson to help run Cargill, and soon headed the firm. Since then, the Rockefellers Chase bank has a stake in Cargill. With Rockefeller backing, Cargill began to expand.
Cargill has been repeatedly cited for “blending” – adding foreign matter to its grain. For example, an export contract may allow for 8% of the grain volume that a company is exporting to be foreign matter. If Cargill’s grain load is only 6% foreign matter, it will mix in dirt and gravel. A Cargill supervisor said, in July 1982, “ If we’ve got a real clean load, we will make sure we hold it until we can mix it with something dirtier. Otherwise, we’d be throwing away money.”
Cargill has expanded into every major crop and livestock on earth, in over 60 countries. It has also expanded into coal, steel (becoming America’s 7th largest steel producer), waste disposals and metals. Today, Cargill runs one of the 10 largest commodity brokerage firms in the US, trading on the Chicago and world markets. In 1995, Cargill bought the US business of Continental Grain. The combined Cargill and Macmillan families own 100% of the company’s stock, with a combined net worth of some $15 billion.
Continental Grain
It is the second largest grain trader in the world. The combined Cargill-Continental nexus accounts for some 50-60% of the world’s export share. Continental processes and markets beef, pork, poultry, seafood, along with animal feeds and wheat flour. The company transports nearly 95 million tons of grains, oilseeds, rice, cotton, and energy products annually, an amount that exceeds the annual production of almost every country in the world. Continental owns a fleet of towboats and 500 river barges. It owns over 1500 hopper cars. It has offices and plants in 50 countries, on 6 continents.
Simon Fribourg founded the business as a commodity-trading company in Belgium, in 1813. Fifty years later, the Fribourg family went into milling, building mills in Luxembourg and Belgium, especially Antwerp, which, with its deep harbors and connections to the Rhine River, transported Fribourg flour and wheat to and from the rest of Europe.
By 1914, the heirs moved operations to London, to capitalize on the ability to trade grain internationally. In 1920, the headquarters moved to Paris. Then, in the 1920s, the company opened offices in the US. During the Depression of the 1930s, the Continental Company made out like bandits. The then head of the family, Jules, instructed his New York agent to buy Midwest grain elevators, which were at depressed prices, with the instructions, “Don’t bother to look at them –just buy them.” When the Nazi army invaded France in June 1940, the Fribourgs fled to America.
In 1969, the Fribourgs, working with the Cargill company, and through an agent of the grain cartel in the US Dept of Agriculture, Clarence Palmby, helped destroy the American merchant fleet, by convincing President Nixon that the “50-50” provision, by which half of all American grain exports had to be carried on American vessels, should be abolished, in order to land a large Russian grain order. Almost all of the grain went on Russian-bottom boats. Various favors paid off, for, in 1973, the Russians rewarded Continental by making an unprecedented purchase from the company of 6 million tons of grain and soybeans.
In 1976, Continental was fined $500,000 for short-weighting ships. In the late 1970s, when Congo, or Zaire, which was very poor, was unable to pay its bills, Continental cut off food shipments to that starving nation. In the 1970s, Continental became the first grain company to sell grain to China. The company is headed by Paul Fribourg. The Fribourg family own 100% of the company, and the family is worth some $4 billion.
Louis Drefuss
It is the number 1 French grain exporters, number 3 world grain exporter, number 4 US grain exporter, number 5 Argentine grain exporter, and so on. Louis Dreyfuss operates 57 vessels – bulk carriers, lakers, panamaxes, and chemical and LNG ships worldwide.
Leopold Louis Dreyfuss was born in France. In 1852, at age 19, he set up his wheat trading operations in Switzerland. He built mills and grain elevators throughout Europe, and by the end of the 19th century, he was marketing all types of grain, corn, barley, and other crops.
Louis Dreyfuss, although privately owned, is also a cooperative under French Law. It owns 49% of the coop UFC. Ubder this arrangement, UFC sells French grain exclusively for itself and Dreyfuss, both within the EU and other markets. This allows Dreyfuss to obtain credit at low interest rates from the semi-official French bank- Credit Agricole, which terms are not available to purely private companies.
Louis Dreyfuss also owns one of the largest private banks in France, the Dreyfuss Bank. The current head of the firm is Gerard Louis Dreyfuss. The Dreyfuss family is worth some $3 billion.
Bunge & Born
It is the largest Brazilian grain exporter, as well as a large exporter from Argentina and the US. Bunge operates 50 grain elevators in the US, and has a giant grain export elevator in Quebec City.
In 1750, in Amsterdam, the Bunge family had starting trading hides, spices, and rubber from Dutch overseas colonies. In 1850, Charles Bunge moved the family business to Antwerp, Belgium. Charles’s two sons established a merchant dynasty straddling the Atlantic Ocean. With his brother-in-law George Born, Ernest established the firm Bunge and Born. In 1897, a Jewish grain trader-Alfred Hirsh joined the firm in Buenos Aires. In 1927, Hirsh became president of Bunge and Born, holding that position for 30 years.
Hirsh and others at Bunge and Born accumulated millions of acres of land in the rich soil region of the pampas. The extent of the Bunge and Born domination of the Argentine economy was revealed in 1974, when the Montoneros terrorists kidnapped the heirs to the firm, Jorge and Juan Born, and held them for many months. During the time the brothers were in captivity, they revealed that Bunge and Born not only dominated Argentina’s agriculture, but also that the Bunge companies produced 40% of Argentina’s paint, 35 % of its tin cans , 20% of its textiles, etc.
Argentine President Juan Peron attempted to suppress the power of Bunge and Born and other grain cartel companies in Argentina. When Peron became President for the first time in 1946, he moved to have the government buy the grain from the Argentine farmer and export it. The profits were used to finance the industrialization of Argentina. In 1948, he established the Institute for the Promotion of Trade (IAPI) to achieve this purpose. However, the grain cartel companies, weakened by Peron’s reforms, wanted him out of power. In 1955, Peron was deposed and the IAPI system he had set up was disbanded. When Peron returned to power in 1973, he established a National Grain Board for the same purpose. Again, Peron was fiercely opposed by the grain cartel companies. He died in 1974, and was succeeded by his wife, Evita. In 1976, Evita Peron was overthrown. The National Grain Board was disbanded, and control of grain and meat exports was returned to the private grain companies.
In the meantime, Bunge had diversified a large share of its capital into Brazil and the US. However, the power of Bunge and Born is still strong in Argentine. The Born and Hirsh families, which run Bunge and Born today, are each conservatively estimated to be worth a billion dollars.
Here is just a small glimpse of what you’ll find in this massive 300-page sequel (in color) to The Lost Ways:
A lost super-food will bulletproof you against any food shortage or famine. It’s a food that vanished with the Incas over 6 centuries ago. This mysterious dish was just recently rediscovered by NASA who has been giving away rations of it to our brave men and women in their month-long space missions. The Incas stored it in pit holes for up to 10 years, ate it year-round, and actually used it to survive a 4 year long super-drought that wiped out their southern neighbors. So, if it managed to save the Incas centuries ago and it still works for our astronauts today, you can bet your last dollar it will keep you and your family well fed in any crisis. And the best part is that you probably already have the ingredients in your kitchen right now.
Andre
It is the number 1 South African grain exporter, and the 5th largest grain exporter in the world.
It was founded in 1877 by George Andre in Switzerland. He imported wheat from Russia for pasta. In 1937, Frederic Hediger went to the US and founded Garnac, using money from George Andre. Garnac became a subsidiary of the Andre Holding Company. During the 1970s, after an embargo had been placed on the commercial activities of what was then Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Andre helped sell Rhodesian grain on world markets through illegal channels. After Andre’s death, in 1942, his three sons inherited the company. The Andre family is conservatively estimated to be worth more than $2 billion.
Archer Daniels Midland/Topfer
It is the 6th largest world grain exporter, with 9% of the market. It is also the number 1 US soybean crusher, with an estimated 40% of the market. It is also the no 1 producer of ethanol, the number 2 us flour miller, and more. ADM/Topfer makes enough flour to bake 16 billion loaves of bread and enough soybean meal to feed 14 billion broiler chickens – twice as many broilers as the US produces.
In 1878, Jon Daniels began crushing flaxseed to produce linseed oil and in 1920 formed the Daniels Linseed Company. George Archer, another experienced flaxseed crusher joined the company in 1903. In 1923, the company bought Midlands Products and adopted the name Archer Daniels Midland (ADM).
ADM purchased a 50% stake in Topfer International, one of the most powerful second-tier grain cartel companies. This purchase also works the other way, with the older Hamburg-based Topfer Company, with extensive roots in Europe, exercising an influence over ADM. The Topfer Co has an over 70% equity position in two French firms – Compagnie Europeene des Cereales and G. Muller. The remaining shares in these companies are held by the Rothschild Group in France. These two French companies own 10 large grain elevators in France and Germany.
The head of ADM in the 1980s was Andreas, who regularly contributed between $50,000 and $100,000 a year to the organized crime-linked Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith.
ConAgra
It is the number 1 US flour miller, number 1 US sheep slaughter, number 2 US beef and pork slaughter, among other things.
Conagra was founded in Nebraska in 1919 as Consolidated Mills, a grain processor (the name was changed to ConAgra in 1971). In 1982, ConaGra bought the Peavey Company, along with its Minneapolis confederates, the Pillsbury and Washburn families dominated the milling of American flour. This immediately made ConaGra America’s largest flour miller. This was followed by a slew of purchases in the meatpacking industry.
IBP
It is the number 1 US beef and pork slaughterer. IBP is the largest butcher in the world, accounting for 14% of the US total. Japan, which consumes half of all US meat exports, is a major market for IBP.
It was formed in 1960 by A. Anderson and C. Holman, as Iowa Beef Processors. IBP makes money by driving down the wages of its workforce, and the price of beef paid to farmers.
Nestle
It is the number 1 world food company, number 1 world trader in dry milk powder, condensed milk, seller of chocolate and confectionary products, and the number 1 seller of mineral water, and number 3 US coffee firm. Nestle has 500 manufacturing plants on 6 continents.
In 1866 in Cham, Switzerland, Charles Page founded the Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Co. In 1867, in nearby Vevey, Henri Nestle founded Farine Lactee Henri Nestle. In 1905, Nestle and the Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company merged.
In 1922, a banker, Louis Dapples, took over management of the company, and eventually became chairman of Nestle. Over the next 90-odd years, Nestle made one takeover after another, especially during the past two decades. It controls the export of powdered milk to the developing sector.
Nestle also owns Alcon eye products, and 26% of L’Oreal, the world’s largest shampoo and cosmetics company. It is controlled by the Rothschild Group. Its board of directors serves as a retirement home for central bank heads (those central banks that are under Rothschild ownership, such as the central banks of European countries, and the BIS).
Unilever
It is the number 1 world producer of ice cream, and margarine, and one of the top five world exporters of dry milk powder, the number 1 European tea seller, the number 2 world producer of soaps and detergents, and one of the top five world crushers of palm oil , and one of the world’s largest producers of olive oil.
In 1885, Englishman William Lever and his brother formed Lever Brothers. It produces Lifebuoy, Lux, Rinso, and Sunlight soaps. In the Netherlands, rival butter-makers, Jurgens and Van den Burgh were pioneers in margarine production. In 1927, they created the Margarine Union, a cartel that owned the European market. In 1930, the Margarine Union and Lever Brothers merged, forming Unilever. Both Unilever and Royal Dutch Shell are corporate entities that express the joint interests of the Anglo-Dutch monarchies, as well as the Rothschild Group.
Philip Morris
It is the number 2 world food company, number 1 US Food Company. In 1847, Philip Morris opened a London tobacco store, and by 1854 he was making his own cigarettes. In 1919, US financier George Whelan purchased the rights to market Philip Morris brands such as Marlboro. Ten years later, Whelan’s successor began manufacturing the cigarettes in Richmond, Virginia. In 1985, Philip Morris bought General Foods; in 1988, it acquired Kraft Foods. Philip Morris is one of the largest cigarette smugglers in the world, both for sale and as barter for other illegal goods. It is also one of the world’s largest marijuana dealers.
Major US Food Companies
It has been extremely difficult to gather information on the grain cartel companies, as they are privately-owned. It was easier to gather information on US companies, as most of them are public companies. Here is a list of the other major food companies. Most of these are within the Rockefeller orbit. These include Coca Cola, Pepsico, Mars, Walmart (acts as a distribution entity). This is just to name a few. Below is a partial list of a few of the world’s largest food companies. Grain companies are excluded.
Mondolez, Nestle, Associated Biscuits and Unilever are Rothschild-controlled entities. Pepsico, Coca Cola, Mars, Kellogg’s , Phillip Morris, Kraft Foods, General Milling, Grand Metropolitan-Pillsbury and RJR-Nabisco are part of the Rockefeller Group. The main alcoholic companies are all within the Rothschild bloc, such as SAB Miller, as well as the groups, such as wine, champagne, whisky, scotch, etc. Most of these premium brands are based in Scotland and France.
Concentration in four food groups
Grains and grain products, milk and dairy products, edible oils and fats, and meat provide the majority of the intake of calories, as well as proteins and vitamins, which keeps the human species alive. Grain and grain products can be consumed as animal feed, and directly for human consumption, sometimes in grain form, but often in a milled form, such as in bread, rotis, and tortillas.
The big six leading grain cartel companies are Cargill (New York), Continental (New York), Paris-based Louis Dreyfus, Brazil and Netherlands-based Bunge and Born, Swiss-based Andre, and US and German-based Archer Daniels Midland/Topfer. The first five of these companies are privately owned and run by billionaire families. They issue no public stock, nor annual report. They are more secretive than any oil company, bank, or government intelligence agency. Just two of these companies, Cargill and Continental, control 45-50% of the world’s grain trade.
Domestic Markets
The cartel exercises an iron hand over the domestic agricultural economies of nations, especially those that comprise the four export source regions of the food cartel. This is exercised through the processing industries: If one controls the processing industries, one controls domestic trade. Except for use as animal feed, corn, wheat and soybean cannot be eaten in their unrefined form. The grain or soybean must be processed. The same is true for meat, which must be slaughtered and cut, before it is fit for human consumption.
This is where the processing/milling industries, in the case of grains and soybeans, and the packing/slaughtering houses, in the case of meat come in. Taking America as the test case, in order to make the case generally, one can see the cartel’s domination is about 90% of milling capacity. In 1979, the top four millers controlled 41% of the industry. Today, they control 92%!
Finally, four of the six leading grain cartel companies own 64% of America’s grain elevator storage capacity. However, this figure is deceptive. Many of the grain elevators are in local areas, where there is a substantial degree of individual or cooperative ownership. When one gets to regional grain elevators, the grain cartel’s ownership percentage is much higher. And at ports, where grain is transshipped, the same four grain cartels own 89% of all grain facilities. A farmer must sell his grain either to a grain elevator or, in the rarer case where he can afford transport, to a grain miller. In either case, it is grain Cartel Company to which he must sell. By this process, the grain cartel sets the price to the farmer – at the lowest levels possible.
Much of their workings are shrouded in mystery, because they release little information to the public. People who have attempted to write books about the grain companies have spent years without getting a single interview from any of the reigning grain company families. Unlike many American companies, where the founding family has long since departed the scene, such as in the case of Morgan bank or Chrysler Corp., the grain cartel companies are run by the same families that have run them for centuries. The inter-married MacMillan and Cargill families run Cargill; the Fribourg family runs Continental; the Louis Dreyfus family runs Louis Dreyfus; the André family runs André; and the Hirsch and Born families run Bunge and Born.
While evading taxes and inspection, Cargill also uses its network to move large shipments of goods anywhere on the globe, on split-second notice. It has an in-house intelligence service that matches the CIA’s: It uses global communication satellites, weather-sensing satellites, a database that utilizes 7,000 primary sources of intelligence, several hundred field offices, etc.
Cargill is representative of all of the grain companies, and a brief examination of it gives insight into all the others. Cargill, which had $101 billion in annual sales in 2014, has a dominant position in many aspects of the world food trade. It is the worlds and the United States’ number-one grain exporter, and has a market share of 25-30% in each of several commodities. It is the world’s number-one cotton trader; the number-one U.S. owner of grain elevators (340); the number-one U.S. manufacturer of corn-based, high-protein animal feeds (through subsidiary Nutrena Mills); the number-two U.S. wet corn miller and U.S. soybean crusher; the number-two Argentine grain exporter (10% of market); the number-three U.S. flour miller (18% of market), U.S. meatpacker (18% of market), U.S. pork packer/slaughterer, and U.S. commercial animal feeder; the number-three French grain exporter (15-18% of the market); and the number-six U.S. turkey producer. It also has a fleet of 420 barges, 11 towboats, 2 huge vessels that sail the Great Lakes, 12 ocean-going ships, 2,000 railroad hopper cars, and 2,000 tank cars. Cargill has been able to place its people in top posts around the world. Today, Cargill Company is privately owned and run by the MacMillan family. The MacMillan family’s collective wealth, sits at $15.1 billion.
The food cartel continues to consolidate its worldwide control in the face of the oncoming financial disintegration. In the past 30 years, the food cartel has bought up many milling-processing plants and bakeries throughout the former Soviet Union and East bloc, bringing these nations under tight food control.
The food cartel has also built up its control, in the food distribution industries, through such combines as Philip Morris, Grand Metropolitan-Pillsbury, and KKR-RJR-Nabisco-Borden; i.e. Philip Morris, which owns Kraft Foods, General Foods (Post cereals), the Miller Brewing Company, and a host of other brand names.
The food cartel’s power must be broken. But the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss-American cartel is playing for high stakes—the ability to constrain the supply of raw materials, and above all, food, to turn back the clock of history, and reduce mankind from the 7 billion population it currently enjoys’ to the state of a few hundred million semi-literate souls scratching out a bare existence. That assault cannot be fought timidly. The full truth about the food cartel must be known.
Alongside the hyper-speculation in food and related commodities that must be stopped urgently, there is a related feature of the food crisis to be eliminated: the now-extreme globalization of the food chain. This has come about under the control of a select few commodities and logistics cartels, operating above and against national governments and the interests of their populations. Nations have been forced into dependence on food from hundreds and thousands of miles away; now it isn’t there to be had. Genocide is an intent of this system, not a side-effect.
Governments and financiers today, prominently including Federal Reserve chairman, is notorious for saying that the current spike in food prices, and the growing shortfalls are simply a result of “increased demand,” i.e., “market forces.” They are maliciously lying. What “markets”? The way it works is that these cartel companies’ activities and practices are what is meant when “the markets” are cited. The companies are, in fact, the hard-product wing of the financial interests; best called the neo-British Empire, and since the late 1940s, joined by the American faction.
If you want to see what happens when things go south, all you have to do is look at Venezuela: no electricity, no running water, no law, no antibiotics, no painkillers, no anesthetics, no insulin or other important things.
This book is a unique guide for the layman that you can use when help is not on the way or to manage common ailments that don’t require seeing a doctor.
Let me show you just some of the things you’ll find inside the Home Doctor:
British imperialist Cecil Rhodes statue is above the entrance to Oriel College, on Oxford High Street.
