OLIGARCHY POPULATION AND MIND CONTROL
- ParrisVstefanow
- Mar 31
- 44 min read
Oligarchy = a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution; a country governed by an oligarchy; government by an oligarchy .
"If one were to closely examine the birth of every iron-fisted oligarchy throughout history, they would find a cyclical pattern of centralization;"
....... "the removal of checks and balances, the removal of legitimate public involvement in the political process, a dependent and infantilized citizenry, and the rise of a "bureaucratic class" which regards itself as superior and born to lead."
"All steps taking place within Western societies today."
When Americans hear that virtually all the food on grocery store shelves basically comes from no more than 10 mega-companies, or hear statements like this one from our own Attorney General Eric Holder who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that some banks are just too big to prosecute, or check out studies like this one out of Princeton which openly declare we are not a democracy but an oligarchy.
It's kind of hard to believe we aren't an oligarchy (because we are).
Come on, even our Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen (you know, the lady that runs the place that prints our money and sells it to us with interest) has basically admitted it.
But are things really getting worse these days or is this just par for the course - the same course we've been on for over a century now?
Tinkering around in an old bookstore in a small Texas town, we came across a set of old books on democracy; we got the first seven volumes of a set entitled, "The March of Democracy - A History of the United States" written by James Truslow Adams - the guy who coined the term "The American Dream" - for a mere $20.
The first book's copyright is 1932. The last book ends in 1958.
Fascinating stuff
For example, in volume four "America and World Power," the book discusses how,
"Gradually and quite naturally, there grew up the belief in a great conspiracy on the part of the very rich to ruin the poor."
Read this and tell me - does any of it sound even the least bit familiar to you?
Most strikingly in the public eye were the great Titans of the new business era, the coal and meat "barons" and the copper, railway, steel, and other "kings," men of the type of:
- the elder J.P. Morgan
- James J. Hill
- William H. Vanderbilt
- Carnegie
- Frick
- William H. Clark
- Rockefeller
....... Such men had certain broad traits in common, differ as they might from each other as individuals.
They were men of wide economic but intensely narrow social vision, and of colossal driving power and iron wills.
They could lay their economic plans with imperial vision in time and space, but for the effect of their acts on society they cared nothing whatever. They claimed the right to rule the economic destinies of the people in any way that would endure their own personal advantage.
Illogically, they insisted upon the theory of laissez-faire for all except themselves, while they demanded and received every favor they wished in the way of special privileges from the government, as in the tariff and the silver purchase Act.
The whole machinery of government must be at their disposal when desired - legislation, court decisions, and Federal troops.
They combined their business units into "trusts" and combinations of almost unlimited power, yet they insisted on "freedom of contract" when dealing with labor, whose organization in any form they almost wholly refused to sanction.
They never taught you any of that back in school, did they?
That was written, by the way, in 1940; the author was discussing how America was run back in the late 1800s.
Not only is the emphasis on Democracy a distortion of the fact the nation was founded as a Constitutional Republic, where rights are preserved rather than subjected to the whims of the majority, but these passages demonstrate the familiar snow job surrounding the all-but-official banker's oligarchy that has ruled this country and many others for some time.
In fact, in volume five, "The Record of 1933-1941," Adams records the death of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., as the end of the era of this great wealth - never to occur again.
On May 23, John D. Rockefeller, Sr., died at the age of 97.
Owner at one time of the largest fortune in the world, his lifespan had covered the entire history of American business from before the Civil War… Nearly $350,000,000 are handled by three of the Rockefeller Foundations for education, medical research and other uses.
Whatever may be thought as to the methods of accumulating the beginnings of the fortune in a period of different business ethics and social outlook, no other man through his financial gifts has ever so widely benefited mankind.
With our income and inheritance taxes no other such fortune will ever again be accumulated, and his death marked the end of an era in American history.
And so that's the end of the story, kids…
Everything ended happily ever after.
Well, not quite.
Despite appearances, the shift on the part of the Rockefellers and other Robber Barons of the day from outright monopoly to "philanthropic", "non-profit", charity work was not an end to the dominance by the super-rich of the early 20th Century, but an intensification of their undue influence.
The taxation of the wealthy as well as the anti-trust actions of the day, which included busting up mega-corpses like Standard Oil and AT&T, were perhaps well meaning but fundamentally failed to reign in the disparity of power.
Instead, new tax laws, in reality, acted to restrict new wealth from reaching the heights of the oligarchy, allowing "the elite" the keep their own, and initiate new members as desired.
The tax-free status of many institutions, including:
The Rockefeller Foundation
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The Ford Foundation
... allowed the incredibly wealthy to shield their fortunes from taxation
appear to do good works and boost public opinion of their principle members while
influencing, writing and developing official public policy through the steering mechanisms of its own tax-free grant making, think tank and research powers.
Much social engineering has taken place - with far too little public notice - through these bodies;
....... additionally, many of its directors and board members were in "respectable" positions to shift into official government positions through the revolving door without appearing to be acting on behalf of their corporate masters.
The Reece Committee Hearings, conducted in 1953, attempted to probe the role of tax-free foundations in public life and uncovered many outrageous and conspiratorial actions taking place;
....... including very apparent agendas advancing a one-world corporate-dominated government (read 'The Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations - 1954').
However, it did not succeed in a general public understanding of what was taking place, nor did it reign in their powers.
Yesterday, the markets in gold, silver, oil, steel and other commodities were successfully cornered by the Rothschilds and other top bankers.
Under Wall Street direction, and through the powers of the then newly-created Federal Reserve, these titans were able to officially dominate nearly all the important areas of public life, including great expansions in consumer spending and government agency powers.
The icons of this magnificent and terrible wealth were:
John D. Rockefeller
J.P. Morgan
Andrew Carnegie
E.H. Harriman
Cornelius Vanderbilt
...and a handful of others.
Today, those icons of wealth are the likes of:
Bill Gates
Warren Buffett
Carlos Slim
Larry Ellison
the Koch Brothers
Michael Bloomberg
Steve Jobs (now deceased)
The Walton family descendants of Walmart,
...and, again, a handful of others who are largely known for their role in the age of computers, the Internet, telecommunications and electronic devices.
The real wealth, from older robber barons accumulated in land, resources, banking and investment and commodities are still there, but remain under reported on the Forbes' list of the world's richest, instead ruling largely from the shadows and influential but secretive groups such as Bilderberg.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as the Gates-Buffett led billionaires' "giving pledge" are keeping in stride with the groundwork laid and continued by the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation.
Heavily funded initiatives to push vaccines, birth control, population control, Western-oriented "education," GMO and corporate-dominated agriculture and the like remain some of the most consequential and troubling policies done in the name of "good" by tax-free entities wielding enormous, nearly incalculable wealth and power.
In short, the myth of "democracy" and "freedom" in the United States - the beacon around the world - perpetuates, despite a few blemishes. But in reality, the Oligarchy took hold some time ago, has not let up and perhaps never will.
Let that sink in, kids. Take a good look, and let it all sink in.
And don't forget to read Charlotte Iserbyt's revealing and TRUE work, loaded with documents and footnotes, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. It helps to explain why you don't know this stuff, why the reigns of power have been stolen from us, and why things are not soon going to get better.
Unfortunately, the late comedic genius George Carlin was all-too-right (below video) when he explained the owners of America and why the education system is broken:
And like Carlin said of James Truslow Adams' American Dream,
"The reason they call it the 'American Dream' is because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Back in 1983, 50 corporations controlled most of the American media, but by 1992 the number had dropped by half, and by 2000 there were left only 5 corporations wielding totalitarian control over the media.
Their control covers all the means for expression of speech and ideas: television, movies, radio, books, music, news feeds.
Those figures refer to everything except for print media, newspapers and magazines, which would add a couple of more oligarchs to the small group of media controlling owners. Some of the Big Five media corporations are in themselves also print media owners.
The present article follows on my article on the extreme concentration of ownership in general in the United States, which was published in parallel with the present one. That article illustrates how the ownership of all America's major corporations has been concentrated in incredibly few hands.
To make matters worse, those business corporations (in themselves oligopolies) are as a rule owned by the same set of investors, which in turn are cross-owned by each other (oligopolistic investors).
There then is a situation where oligopolies own oligopolies. What was said above about the extreme concentration of ownership obviously also holds true for the media (including print).
I reported there that institutional investors like:
- BlackRock
- Vanguard
- State Street
- Fidelity
- JP Morgan,
....... now own 80% of all stock in S&P 500 listed companies.
The Big Three investors:
- BlackRock
- Vanguard
- State Street
....... alone constitute the largest shareholder in 88% of S&P 500 firms, which roughly correspond to America's 500 largest corporations.
Both BlackRock and Vanguard are among the top five shareholders of almost 70% of America's largest 2,000 publicly traded corporations.
These same institutional investors largely control the media, television, film, publishing, telecommunications and Internet, as it will be shown below.
In media there is therefore ultimately the situation that just a few persons hold the power over the entire media. We do not have the means to untangle the whole web of control connections to get to the ultimate few.
However, what I present here should be damning enough.
This report shows beyond any doubt that an incredibly small group of oligarchs have amassed all the most important media assets in the United States. Whether the ultimate owners are a yet smaller group than it would seem at this first glance does not alter the picture to any significant degree.
What is clear is that just a few oligarchs now have the means to exercise a totalitarian control over speech and ideas in the United States (and increasingly globally, too).
In this connection, I will not digress into a substantial discussion of how this totalitarian control manifests itself.
For now suffice to allude to the multitude of instances when the media has through systematic campaigns of propaganda for war coerced the political leaders to declare wars (or to wage undeclared wars):
Iraq, Libya, Syria, to mention just a few relatively recent ones.
The continuous vilification of Russia's President Putin and Russia as a nation is another of their campaigns of war propaganda.
More recently, similar patterns of vilification have been extended to the treatment of China and its President Xi.
The Russia hoax, that is, the attempted coup against U.S. President Trump by alleging his election campaign colluded with Russia, was founded in totalitarian media lies.
Other examples of agendas that the media pursue by way of abusing their monopoly on expression include a one-sided fact-free propagation of climate change alarmism and gender identity politics to the extent of denying obvious biological facts.
These were but a few examples of the totally agenda-driven reporting by the concentrated oligarch media.
In an article where he maintains that "America is a dictatorship by its super-rich," American writer and investigative historian Eric Zuesse maintains that the U.S. regime has elevated propaganda lies to the role of primary means of coercion, obviously seconded by its ample use of violence both domestically and around the globe.
It is through this incredible concentration of media that the regime has achieved a virtual monopoly on lies, which it employs to justify and varnish that violence.
National Amusements
The biggest media owners are:
- Comcast
- The Walt Disney Company
....... the oligarch Rupert Murdoch, with News Corp and Fox Corporation
the oligarch Sumner Redstone via his National Amusements Inc., which holds both Viacom Inc., CBS Corporation, and Warner Media (owned by AT&T)
Comcast - a former General Electric subsidiary - owns among other assets NBC and the British based Sky TV.
It provides consumer cable television, telephone, internet, and wireless services under the brand name Xfinity. Comcast is America's largest provider of cable internet access servicing 40% of the market.
The film studio Universal Pictures (aka Universal Studios) is a NBC subsidiary.
The major shareholders of Comcast are listed in below table. (The shareholder data in this and other tables are sourced, when other source not mentioned, from www.stockzoa.com).
The Walt Disney Company is the world's largest media conglomerate in terms of revenue. It's original asset is the Walt Disney Studios and Disney theme parks.
Over the years it has added on among others:
- Pixar
- Marvel Studios
- Lucasfilm
- 20th Century Fox
- ABC broadcast network
- ESPN
- National Geographic network,
....... and several other cable TVs.
Disney like all the other media oligopolists are also involved in publishing and many other fields of business.
Walt Disney acquired the Fox Entertainment Group (including 20th Century Fox film studio) and National Geographic Partners from 21st Century Fox which had come to being after News Corporation was split in 2013.
In connection with the split of the original News Corporation and the sale of above mentioned assets to Walt Disney, two other companies emerged.
These are,
Fox Corporation
the new News Corp,
...both controlled by the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch.
Fox Corporations owns the Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Television Stations, and Fox News.
The assets of News Corp include:
- Dow Jones & Company, publisher of The Wall Street Journal
- The New York Post, News UK, publisher of The Sun and The Times
- News Corp Australia
- Realtor .com
- HarperCollins
Viacom Inc. and CBS Corporation are both controlled by the oligarch Sumner Redstone through his National Amusements Inc.
Redstone has cemented his control of those corporations through an arrangement where the oligarch owns the so-called Class A or voting shares whereas the other investors keep the Class B common stock, whose voting rights are severely curtailed.
As of December 2016, National Amusements (and it's not funny), directly and through subsidiaries, held 79.8% of the Class A voting shares of Viacom Inc., corresponding to only 10% of the overall equity.
In CBS Corporations, National Amusements, held 79.5% of the Class A voting shares and 2.4% of the Class B non-voting shares, which constituted 9.1% of the overall equity.
In the case of Viacom, Redstone's National Amusements holds 10% of the total equity by which he wields control over the resting 90%. In CBS Corporation National Amusement controls the company with 9% of total equity.
Viacom consists of Viacom Media Networks (owner of MTV) and Paramount Pictures and operates approximately 170 networks reaching 700 million subscribers in 160 countries.
CBS Corporation operates television broadcasting stations (CBS and CW), TV production and distribution, publishing (Simon & Schuster), cable TV and recording operations.
Warner Media is currently owned by AT&T. The company has film, television, cable and publishing operations.
It owns CNN and the Cartoon Network. Its assets include also Warner Bros. one of the major film producers with also television and video games; HBO cable and satellite TV operations with 130 million subscribers.
AT&T is also the largest American telecommunications company and second largest provider of mobile telephone (wireless telecommunication) services after Verizon.
What about print media
Some of the major print media outlets - newspapers, magazines and their digital sites - are still held outside the above listed media conglomerates.
To some extent their controlling shareholders are another set of oligarchs while they also are cross-owned by the same oligarchs as above.
After its acquisition of Time Inc. in 2018, Meredith Corporation became the largest print media publisher,
with assets including a multitude of magazines with a readership of more than 120 million, paid circulation being 40 million copies.
It also operates 15 television stations which reach 11% of American households.
After everything we already reported, the ownership structure of Meredith Corporation should not surprise anybody, as per below chart.
The second largest American newspaper publisher is Gannett Co., Inc.
It's portfolio includes USA Today and a number of regional newspapers. The company is publicly traded and owned by the oligarchy's institutional investors.
Among the top 4 print media publishers are also,
McClatchy Company operating 29 daily newspapers in fourteen states, and the Tribune Publishing Company, the publisher of the Chicago Tribune and many regional and local newspapers.
McClatchy Company is owned by Comcast, AT&T, major oligarchy banks and the usual suspects of institutional investors:
BlackRock
Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan etc.
Tribune is held by the business magnate Michael W. Ferro.
The New York Times is owned by the same line up of the U.S. oligarchy.
The other of America's major newspapers have been assigned to the care of individual members of the U.S. oligarchy.
Time magazine - with the world's largest news magazine circulation - is held by Marc Benioff.
The Washington Post has been parked with the Amazon oligarch Jeff Bezos.
The Los Angeles Times is owned by tycoon Patrick Soon-Shiong.
News agencies
To add to the already dismal picture of media concentration, we must also realize that most of American media - and Western media in general (increasingly the whole world) - rely heavily on newsfeeds coming from only three news agencies with a global presence.
These are,
Associated Press (AP, USA)
Reuters (UK)
Agence France-Press (AFP, France)
Associated Press is structured as a not-for-profit organization directly controlled by the already listed media conglomerates.
Reuters is owned by Thomson Reuters Corporation, which is ultimately owned by the Canadian oligarch Thomson family.
AFP is nominally owned by the French state but it operates as a commercial business with strong neoliberal leanings.
In economy and business news a substantial source is also Bloomberg L.P. owned by the oligarch Michael Bloomberg.
In the old days with much more media plurality, the more solid newspapers would employ a vast network of overseas correspondents. Many of them where in-house journalists organized as the paper's foreign bureaus.
In the old times, by having access to the reporting of a vast number of journalist representing competing media outlets and different ideologies, active readers could stay well-informed about global events.
But during the last two decades, most media outlets have dramatically cut down on their overseas staff.
This has been driven by cost-cutting efforts and has also come as an inherent consequence of the concentration, the oligarch owners have figured they do not need separate bureaus for the different media outlets they own.
I assume that the reasons are even more sinister than those and infer that the large scale reduction has happened in conspiracy between the media controlling oligarchs as a means to facilitate propaganda:
the less correspondents out there in the wide world, the less the risk that the truth about global affairs would slip out potentially ruining the carefully crafted propaganda narratives.
For this purpose it is much better to have global reporting concentrated in the hands of the three agencies and State Department officials. (The flip side of this is however that there are less opportunities to post intelligence agents abroad under the cover of journalists).
A Washington Post blogger reported that the American Journalism review had in 2011 exposed that 18 of the major U.S. newspapers had closed every one of their foreign bureaus over the preceding 12 years.
The same source told that most of the remaining "bureaus" in fact only consisted of a single journalist posted abroad. (Even more likely that nobody was "posted abroad" and that the newspaper only relied on locally based freelancers).
The harrowing outcome of all this is that the typical modern-day citizen consumer of media reporting has less access to the truth than one would have had a hundred years ago. This is truly mind gobbling when we consider our today's extensive networks of affordable air transportation and the enormous opportunities for exchange of information offered by online technology.
Only those who are willing to invest their time in finding out the real state of affairs through alternative Internet based information resources can possible stay neutrally informed.
This is precisely why those in power have moved so forcefully against dissident sources on the Internet.
They are adamant to patch up that crack in the propaganda wall.
Cable and wireless
The wireless communication service and cable internet providers are the gatekeepers to the Internet.
And they are all also owned by the oligarchy. Although they - in their roles as Internet providers - do not produce content, they carry content and communication. (We must also keep in mind that these corporations are largely cross-owned by the same set of oligarchs.)
The problem is that in this capacity they tend to interfere with that and discriminate against content and communication they do not like, by blocking, or by charging more, or by slowing down the traffic they do not like.
Some providers have openly stated that as their policy, some are doing it without acknowledging it, many have been caught, and then denied.
The fact is that they do interfere and the worst is that this tight knit-class of oligarchs have a means to interfere on this severely concentrated market at their will when the urge emerges.
In addition to interference on political grounds, these internet providers also give preferences to some business clients and penalize others in service packages that distort competition.
All the internet service providers are also known to willingly share all client data and communication with the U.S. spy agencies, most notably the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA without even a simulacrum of legality and due process.
The top 4 wireless telecommunication providers (2018) are:
Verizon, 9 million subscribers
AT&T, 153.0 million
T-Mobile, 79,7 million (owned by the German Deutsche Telekom)
Sprint Corporation, 53.5 million
Below the Verizon ownership table. AT&T was already presented above. T-Mobile is owned by the German Deutsche Telekom and Sprint by Japanese SoftBank.
The companies that control the cable internet market are:
AT&T
Comcast (Xfinity)
Charter Communications (Spectrum, Optimum)
Verizon
CenturyLink
Most of these oligarch structures are already known to us from above.
Below we give the charts for the two not presented above, Charter Communications and CenturyLink.
After its 2016 acquisition of Time Warner's cable divisions, Charter Communications and Comcast have gained a virtual duopoly of the broadband market of 25Mbps and more, the two Internet service providers could control about 70 percent of the nation's 25Mbps-and-up broadband subscriptions.
Google, Facebook and other tech giants' digital monopolies; The tech giants form one more set of noxious monopolists infringing on freedom of speech and the free distribution of ideas .
These are in particular the Big Four :
- Amazon
- Apple
They have each established uncontested monopolies in their respective sectors, with the exception of Apple who controls the mobile phone market in a duopoly with Google's Android based platforms. Through their monopolistic dominance over their respective markets they abuse both political and economic freedoms.
They accomplish that by restricting the free flow of opinions and business information both on the level of the individual, by directly interfering in a person's choices and abilities to express opinions; ....... as well as on a system level by deciding what visibility, if any based on the tech giants' preferences media content producers, business enterprises, and political groups are allowed to have.
It is not the purpose of the present report to give a full account about the pernicious monopolies of the tech giants. That is an enormous topic in itself, which would require its own specialized literature.
My aim is here only to outline the general contours of that plague in order to alert the readers to the dark side of the hipster technology, which the non-reflecting public may take to be brought to us by cool young tech entrepreneurs laden with all kinds of benign capitalist values. For a substantial introduction to that topic, I recommend Jonathan Tepper's seminal The Myth of Capitalism - Monopolies and the Death of Competition.
(My report was prompted by the ideas derived from Tepper's book. The book was first published in November 2018 and the facts are largely up to date by that year. Many of the references in the present report come from sources, which I have discovered through Tepper and following the sources he provided. Tepper, Jonathan, Hearn, Denise, 2018. Wiley).
Owners of the tech giants
Systematic predatory monopolies
Through its search engine, Google has carved out for itself a 90% market share in U.S. online search activities. Apple and Google share a global duopoly in phone operating systems with a 99% market share, as globally all major phone manufacturers, apart from Apple, use Google's Android operating system.
By abusing these two monopolies Google has also been able to capture a 66% market share for its Google Chrome browser. This monopolistic exploitation has culminated in Google grabbing 76% of the online search advertising market, while Facebook controls 80% of social media advertising. (Tepper, Jonathan, Hearn, Denise, 2018.)
The combined share of Google and Facebook amounted to 60% of the $129 billion digital ad market (2018). A third monopolist, Amazon has been able to bite into the revenues of the duopoly, by capturing 6.8% of that revenue. In reality, however, Amazon has just crafted a new monopoly segment for itself as it is charging companies for promoting their products on Amazon's own marketplaces;
....... which have reached hegemonistic dominance in e-commerce, where Amazon has a 43% market share, whereas its monopoly in book sales has reached 75% (as of 2018; see Tepper, Jonathan, Hearn, Denise, 2018). Digital ad spending already makes up about half of all U.S. advertisement spending, with a rising trend.
One striking feature of Google's stranglehold on global business comes in form of its Google Play app store. Google has tied the Android mobile operating system; ....... which runs 85% of the world's smartphones - to its app store, which effectively allows the corporation to decide which apps and which product offers the consumer may access.
The significance of Google's app store is that no phone that is powered by the Android operating system can download and run any application; ....... for example a taxi service, a messaging service, a cloud storing service, games, a language course - if it hasn't previously been allowed to be listed in Google Play.
According to Tepper, over 45% of Americans get their news from Facebook and 25% from Google. This has put these two oligarch corporations in the position of gatekeepers to what news people are allowed to see.
By abusing their monopoly powers they and their owners have become fabulously rich as they cannibalize on all the traditional media corporations and other online platforms in all forms of media content: news, political analysis, comedy, music, etc.
All the costs, the entire financial burden weighs on those content producers, while the tech giants rob the profits. Not only do they steal the content from the lawful producers, but they also regulate what can be seen by whom. Having trapped the publishers and creators to share their content on Facebook, the monopolist is now even forcing them to pay for simply appearing on Facebook, an option few can decline considering its dominance.
It's not all about sleek commercial strategies, in fact, these tech giants are known to go as far as employing traditional methods of theft by simply stealing content from competitors and placing that on the sites of their own or affiliated companies. (Tepper, Jonathan, Hearn, Denise. 2018. page 95).
Tepper reports that when competitors asked Google to stop taking their content, it threatened to make them disappear completely - a classic offer you cannot refuse (Tepper, Jonathan, Hearn, Denise, page 95). Google does not even have any qualms about extracting revenue from pirated content willingly allowing such to appear on its YouTube video-sharing web platform. Amazon's business model is similarly built on pimping for pirated goods. (Tepper, Jonathan, Hearn, Denise).
Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes recently argued that,
"When it hasn't acquired its way to dominance; ....... Facebook has used its monopoly position to shut out competing companies or has copied their technology."
As the case is with their political censorship and propaganda (more on this below), the tech giants use the same range of pernicious practices - blocking, making disappear, demoting, and propagating - in their commercial endeavors. Originally Google was a search platform, but it has since become an investor in totally different kinds of businesses and started selling products of its own.
To secure its investments and to promote its own products Google abuses its monopoly by directing these monopoly tools to destroy its competitors and partners commercially in favor of its own products and services and in favor of its privileged advertisement customers.
One of the tricks Google uses is to have its Chrome browser block certain types of online advertisements, particularly of those of its competitors. Federal investigators have discovered and documented that Google used a special search algorithm to manipulate its search results in order to boost the placement of its own products.
The investigators' report also confirmed the widely known fact that Google habitually engaged in the practice of scraping and copying content from competitors' websites. Tepper documents the case of Foundem.com which was destroyed by Google, because it competed with the corporations similar service. (Tepper, Jonathan, Hearn, Denise, 2018, page 87).
Foundem. com was a website dedicated to find the best prices online.
As soon as the founders had their service up and running users were rushing to their site, but after the second day they discovered to their amazement that the flow of visitors stopped completely as if a gate had been closed. And that is precisely what had happened.
Google had shut the gate on the users trying to enter Foundem.com by making the site disappear from search results.The site was removed from Google's organic search results but on top of that Google also blocked the owners from purchasing ad placements via Google AdWords.
The reason was clear,
Google had its own competing product search site.
Tepper stresses that Google was regularly engaged in this kind of predatory abuse of its monopoly. The case of Amazon shows how every monopolist will abuse its dominance once it controls the market. Amazon started as an online seller of books. The corporation soon achieved an absolute dominance in book sales, today controlling 75% of the U.S. market.
On the strength of its book dominance, Amazon expanded to other product categories, now having a decisive 43% market share of e-commerce. Amazon functions as both a direct seller of products but also as a platform for other online sellers. With its overwhelming dominance, showing up as the top site in most of e-commerce searches other sellers cannot avoid joining the platform. And that's where the abuse starts.
Amazon allows - in what is called "modern-day piracy" - counterfeit products to be sold on its platform with ruinous consequences for the original brand owners. Further Amazon - the giant pirate as it is - tracks third-party sales on its site and uses that data to sell the most popular items in direct competition. (Tepper, Jonathan, Hearn, Denise, 2018, page 104).
Google shaping an alternative reality
By the original idea, Google would have been a program helping people to find information on the web, but as soon as Google had monopolized the search market, the corporation moved to control the search results. This has resulted in Google censoring ideas and opinions across the spectrum of public discourse:
political, religious, moral, scientific, etc... There are several layers of bias and manipulation in Google's search results. It starts with an inherent American cultural bias.
On top of this comes an ideological bias based on American liberal (so-called) values and the globalist agenda. The corporation also customizes (filtering and censoring) the search results and newsfeeds to bias them according to the user's personal profile that Google surmises from all the personal preferences of the user drawn by illegally recording users' Google activities.
Multiple studies have found that Google provides unique, different, search results for identical queries depending on the user's browsing history or the particular device used. In a traditional encyclopedia any user would have found the precisely same information on the same page, but Google has destroyed the objectivity and feeds a different reality to everybody, the more it is a reality that Google has manufactured and prescribed for the user.
Yet, another level of manipulation and bias in Google search results is added with the corporation outright censoring individuals and organization who express opinions about politics and other topics which do not correspond to the globalist agenda that Google peddles.
This censoring happens by way of demoting or de-ranking those individuals and organizations so that the search algorithms do not show sources pertaining to them in search results. Political opposition and dissent are increasingly openly being blocked from Google in what amounts to modern day book burnings, for example political commentators being wholesale banned from its YouTube video service.
Facebook's memory hole
All what was here said about Google holds largely true for Facebook, too. In a similar vein Facebook's totally opaque algorithms determine what posts are viewed and which not. Facebook - just like Google - make people and groups disappear - rather the same way the Bolsheviks used to retouch old photos to blot out the existence of people who had fallen foul of the party leadership.
Another analogy which cannot be missed in this connection is that of the concept memory hole popularized by George Orwell in his Nineteen Eighty-Four. In that novel the Party's Ministry of Truth systematically and continuously re-created historical documents in order to adjust the past to their present political exigencies.
With Google and Facebook the fearful and dehumanized world of Orwell's novel can no longer be regarded as a dystopia but a life foretold. Add the insight from Ray Bradbury's book from 1953 Fahrenheit 451 and you'll have a pretty good description of present-day life under the U.S. media conglomerates and their globalist agenda.
Following these dystopian antecedents, the present day surreality is nicely illustrated by Facebook covering up its massive online repression with references to its homely sounding "Community Standards." No community of Facebook users have ever had a say in setting up such supposed standards.
They are nothing but vague formulations of a set of supposed values designed to serve as references to the entirely vague formulations by which the corporation motivates its systematic arbitrary censorship activities and online purge of dissent.
One of the methods of the tech censors is so-called 'shadow banning.' In this method the person (or a particular post) is not totally removed from the service while Facebook restricts the visibility of that person. The user sees himself and his posts, but others will not, or only a very limited number of followers would.
Google and Facebook are globalist tools
At the end of the analysis, Google and Facebook are no independent actors, as it has been showed in this article, they form part of the cross-owned media conglomerates eventually controlled by the same 0.01% oligarchs. Therefore it must not come as any surprise that these tech corporations have admitted that they engage in mass censorship by demoting in this way content from media that challenge the globalist hegemony;
....... most notably,
Russia's RT and Sputnik (for spreading "disinformation" aka information that contests the U.S. global hegemony agenda) ....... as well as American dissidents for "hate speech" aka information that contests the globalist agenda
Their censoring is much more sinister than they want to admit, whereas the admissions must be seen as mere public acknowledgements that the tech giants toe the party line.
Just as there is suppression of dissent and censorship, these two tech giants correspondingly run enormous and continuous propaganda campaigns to promote the globalist agenda. This is achieved by doing the opposite to the censoring, promoting people, groups and sources which propagate the agenda.
Tech giants subcontracting for intelligence agencies
One more devastating outcome of the tech giants' monopolies is that they employ their predatory powers in the service of American spy agencies essentially acting as their subcontractors. They harvest untold amounts of personal information on their users:
- contact data
- health matters
- political and sexual preferences
- the whole browsing history
- every like and dislike
- the network of friends and acquaintances
- religious and scientific beliefs
- recordings of calls
Everything
This data they use for their commercial purposes and to advance the globalist political agendas, as well as giving full access to all that to the intelligence agencies.
Time to break up Google and Facebook
The hegemonic dominance of these tech giants is all the more frustrating when we realize that it has been achieved through blatant abuse of monopoly in collusion with the formal government. Tepper gives a lucid exposition of the genesis and nature of these predatory monopolies in the already cited book ((Tepper, Jonathan, Hearn, Denise, 2018).
In there we can read about the ideological origins of monopolization of the U.S. economy propagated by failed neoliberal economists and embraced by political actors since the fatal presidency of Ronald Reagan.
The U.S. establishment has been on it ever since the 1980s. It seems to me that this has been part of a deliberate long-term scheme to concentrate the economy under the core nucleus of the oligarchy. (This is a hypothesis, which I will return to in a later report).
Tepper's exposition reveals how the process of monopolization has been greatly abetted by corruption of government officials in response to satisfaction of the ordinary sort of pecuniary greed as well as the particular American plague of corrupting the political system with campaign donations in favor of candidates, of both establishment parties - who represent the oligarchy.
Regarding the monopolization of media, President Bill Clinton's role was especially damning. Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act was the first to recognize the Internet as forming part of media broadcasting.
This law represented a major neoliberal act of deregulation with the explicit intent to allow concentration of ownership of media and telecommunications. In particular, the act effectively removed the barriers to cross ownership and allowed giant corporations to buy up thousands of media outlets across the country.
It seems to me that this was made for the explicit purpose of concentrating the media in the hands of the oligarchy in order for them to be unchallenged in propagating the ideology that has cemented their power and the wealth derived from it. In essence, Google and Facebook should be considered as public utilities or even agencies which have usurped governmental powers over the Internet.
According to formal U.S. laws such corporations must be deemed illegal trusts in breach of civil and criminal law. They would need to be punitively fined, their owners and officers convicted, and the corporations broken up. But the formal political government of the United States does nothing about them.
Perhaps the reason for the inaction is that the monopoly of the tech giants - together with that of the traditional media - very well suits the interests of the shadow government of the elite: the Deep State. The calls to terminate the tech giants' monopolies are gaining traction.
For example, Chris Hughes who was a co-founder of Facebook has in a May 2019 op-ed in the New York Times called for the break-up of that social media behemoth. Hughes suggests that Facebook should among other things be separated into multiple companies.
This would include releasing Facebook Inc.' two other communication platforms,
-
....... into separate companies.
The U.S. Justice Department had in apparent breach of the anti-trust laws allowed Facebook to acquire those two platforms in 2012 (Instagram) and 2014 (WhatsApp).
The Economic Corporate Oligarchy of the World
Today's world is ruled by a myriad of multinational corporations and financial institutions that belong to a network of private round table organizations that stretch across the planet. There exists an international ruling elite that has been building an economic-corporate empire for over a century, which oppresses any dissent to their agenda.
A recent study (2014) conducted by Northwestern and Princeton University on America's political system supports the thesis that political systems are not directed by the people of the country, but rather by a network of "economic elites" and "business interests".
The study concluded that the US political system is an oligarchy, where the,
"wishes of corporations and business and professional associations" are the driving forces behind policy decisions within the government.
"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy;
....... while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence".
Gilens and Page, 2014, p.3 1
This study illustrates the influence that trans-national corporations along with international financiers can have on a population if they are given the conditions to flourish.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) epitomizes the economic-corporate governance that exists in most countries of the world today, with democratic political systems often corrupted by lobbying groups and special interests.
A self titled,
"independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank and publisher",
...the CFR is a private organization which holds the real power in American politics. It has a membership which is made up from the top echelons of the political, academic, media, corporate, and banking fields.
Hillary Clinton revealed the nature of her (along with the US State Department's) relationship with the CFR when she addressed the council at their newly opened outpost in Washington D.C. in 2009:
"I have been often to the mother ship in New York City, but it's good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future."
A look at the corporate membership of the council reveals the level of power vested in such a small amount of hands, with approximately 200 of the most influential corporate players on the planet members of the council, including:
- Exxon Mobil Corporation
- Goldman Sachs Group Inc
- BP plc
- Barclays
- Google Inc
- Lockheed Martin
- Deutsche Bank AG
- Shell Oil Company
- Soros Fund Management
The CFR is part of a shadowy network of private organizations that stretches across the globe to influence policy of most nation states. Professor Carroll Quigley was an insider at the CFR and knew,
"of the operations of this network because" he "studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records".
Quigley, 1966, p. 950
He wrote two books about the activities of the network,
the first titled
- Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time published in 1966
....... the second was
- The Anglo-American Establishment published in 1981
The father of the CFR is the British based Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) which is headquartered at Chatham House in St James's Square, London. Growing out of the Cecil Rhodes Secret Society and the Lord Alfred Milner Group, the RIIA was formed in 1919 by Lionel Curtis and fellow members of the Milner Group:
"In 1919 they founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) for which the chief financial supporters were Sir Abe Bailey and the Astor family (owners of The Times).
Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations) in the period 1919-1927".
Quigley, 1966, p. 132
These organizations are composed of inner circles and outer circles, with the larger institutes serving as a front organization for the inner circle who direct the group. This has been the case since RIIA was established as a front organization for the Milner Group in 1919:
"The Milner Group controls the Institute. Once that is established, the picture changes.
The influence of Chatham House appears in its true perspective, not as the influence of an autonomous body but as merely one of the many instruments in the arsenal of another power".
Quigley, P.197, 1981
Lord Alfred Milner and Cecil Rhodes both shared an ethos that British expansionism would lay the foundation for a world system that was to come in the future: "The goals which Rhodes and Milner sought and the methods by which they hoped to achieve them were so similar by 1902 that the two are almost indistinguishable.
Both sought to unite the world, and above all the English-speaking world, in a federal structure around Britain. Both felt that this goal could best be achieved by a secret band of men united to one another by devotion to the common cause and by personal loyalty to one another.
Both felt that this band should pursue its goal by secret political and economic influence behind the scenes and by the control of journalistic, educational, and propaganda agencies".
Quigley, 1981, P.49
Quigley was honest at admitting the dangers of a small oligarchic group having such a concentration of power vested in it:
"No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner Group accomplished in Britain - that is, that a small number of men should be able to wield such power in administration and politics;
....... should be given almost complete control over the publication of the documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion; ....... and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and teaching of the history of their own period".
Quigley, 1981, p. 197
Today, Chatham House is one of the world's pre-eminent organizations on world affairs, which conducts its activities under a veil of secrecy. Very little mainstream media spotlight is put on the organization which has been at the centre of British policy for close to a century - perhaps due to the fact that,
- the BBC
- Thomas Reuters
- Bloomberg
- the Telegraph Media Group
- the Daily Mail and General Trust plc
- the Guardian
- the Economist,
...are all corporate members of the RIIA.
- Raytheon
- the Ministry of Defence
- the British Army
- the Foreign & Commonwealth Office UK
- BAE Systems plc
- Chevron
- the Royal Bank of Scotland
- HSBC Holdings plc
- the Scottish Government
- the European Commission
....... are just a handful of organizations that also belong to the Institute.
Chatham House is one of the most influential organizations relating to western imperial policy, with the creation of an Anglo-American-European world empire the core objective of the institute.
The Director of Chatham House has recently been announced as the chair of a new North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) policy group, which will advise and recommend future NATO policy. The Director Dr Robin Niblett revealed the intimate relationship between the RIIA and NATO since its formation in a speech about the new initiative last month, stating:
"Chatham House has been involved in debates around the role of NATO since its inception".
The European branch of this organization (the European Council on Foreign Relations - ECFR) has also had a strong affiliation with NATO, as 3 of the former Secretary Generals are individual members of the council:
including:
- the previous leader Jaap De Hoop Scheffer (Jan 2004 - Aug 2009)
- along with George Robertson (Oct 1999 - Dec 2003)
- Javier Solana (Dec 1995 - Oct 1999)
A further example of the network of economic and corporate elites is the annual Bilderberg conference that took place in Copenhagen between the 29th May and 1st June, where a percentage of the world's corroupt elite meet to manipulate geopolitical, social and economic affairs.
Founded in 1954 by Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, the group is a mix of corporate and banking giants meeting with military heavyweights, media moguls, politicians and royalty from North America and Europe.
This 2014 meeting was an especially high level affair with:
- the Managing Director of the IMF Christine Lagarde
- the Secretary General of NATO Andres Fogh Rasmussen
- the former head of the National Security Agency (NSA) Keith Alexander
- the Executive chairman of Google Inc Eric Schmidt
- the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne
- H.M the Queen of Spain
....... all amongst that year's participants.
Back in 2009, the Belgian Minister of State and former chairman of the Bilderberg Group Étienne Davignon revealed that the group 'helped create the Euro in 1990's', demonstrating the power of the group in making major decisions regarding Europe's economic affairs.
The President of the European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi has also attended the conference in 2009 when he was Governor of the Bank of Italy, two years before taking office at the ECB.
The elite will remain in control as long as people allow themselves to be Balkanized by the media and the political establishment along the lines of race, class and status, whilst the true enemy to a free world continues to roll on unabated.
Oligarchy and The War on individualism; All the social systems controlled by the figurative 1% and opposed by the 99%, all the institutions that any compassionate person would liken to fascist or feudal;
....... all have been instigated, implemented and reinforced by people.
I know that I alone cannot change such systems; this is guaranteed by the combined oligarchical complex of government, corporate, financial and military, all formed in a steep pyramid system with "the 1%" (those in control) atop and "the 99%" (those under control) below.
But it is perfectly obvious that if a system is simply the creation of people, then people can change that system - with serenity, courage and wisdom.
And since the systems in question operate at the progressive expense of our physical environment and personal freedoms , it is no longer a question of whether people can force such change, but when.
Anyone who says that people cannot change things, that we are powerless to the control systems that already exists, does not realize they are in a system that began as imagination, an idea, which came about through influence.
With new, better ideas, people can change those outdated systems that other people once created; even those that have become long-standing traditions, or pose as such.
War On Individualism
The best business strategies utilize knowledge of trends, if a stock is going up and has been going up, chances are it will continue to go up for a time.
In the same way trends can be used to gain an understanding of history and current events. If something has occurred and is occurring and nothing is being done to change it, chances are it will continue to occur, perhaps more frequently so.
One such growing trend is the investment into a police state. Increasingly the United States is becoming a police state where institutions are allowed to figuratively and literally put the boot down.
The aim of the game is social control, not governance.
The police in the United States support the institutional ties between the state, corporate and military collective and are often used as cogs in a system of enforcement for revenue, rather than enforcement for the purposes of upholding human rights - as they were intended.
Individual police no doubt vary in their ethics, but right now, one can accurately say police across the United States do not support the rights of individuals - our rights are no longer what informs their orders.
This is clear when observing the national trend of the horrendous treatment of people (the 99%) who practice their First Amendment rights to gather and demand redress of legitimate grievances.
The result of last year's demonstrations in Ferguson a recent example.
It is clear to anyone with a sense of history who has been observing trends that the increasing brutality of the police state state is a financially-driven institutional movement, while Occupy Wall Street is dichotomously a morally-driven individual movement.
Currently, the police are forcefully executing the will of a self-serving oligarchy at every turn, while individuals resisting the unlawful encroachment of such government agencies are forced to defend our rights twice - first by defending ourselves against our so-called protectors in order to exercise our rights (protected by the First Amendment) to communicate and protest in the first place, and second, then insisting our original grievance is redressed.
In an increasingly militaristic oligarchy, it seems the real terrorists sometimes have uniforms on.
The War On Drugs
It is arguable that the mechanics of the Orwellian world being implemented around us is predominantly funded through the prohibition of narcotics.
Whole swaths of police forces are funded solely by the money found in narcotics operations - literally feeding off of prohibition and addiction.
Indeed the "War On Drugs" is big business - a billion dollar industry. Countless companies make money through the prison system, such as food distribution companies, as does government, and the police who so diligently strive to meet their arrest quotas.
But most glaringly, the questionably-connected private corporations that are paid per incarceration to operate prison facilities that are sub-standard by global standards.
Monetizing and industrializing the lives of people held prisoner is akin to terrorism.
And given the co-operative ties that are evident between government agencies (like the CIA) and the illegal drug trade, this is especially true of prisoners of the government's never-ending, and highly profitable, "War On Drugs" program.
According to journalist Victor Thorn:
One of the big questions asked by naïve media talking heads is: Where does all of this heroin come from?
The answer is the same as it was a decade ago following a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-led invasion of Afghanistan: 75%-80% of the world's heroin is exported from Afghanistan.
In spite of the fact that the U.S. military controls a great deal of that mountainous country, production levels hit record highs last year.
You do the math. And the seemingly endless "War On Drugs" has led to an unparalleled culture of incarceration in the United States.
Journalist Maya Schenwar describes the scope of the problem:
An estimated 2.4 million people [are incarcerated] at any moment in,
"1,719 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 2,259 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,283 local jails, and 79 Indian Country jails as well as in military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers, and prisons in the U.S. territories."
That's about one of every 100 Americans, more than 60% of whom are people of color.
Add in another almost five million on probation or in some way under the supervision of the criminal justice system and you've reached about seven million, the equivalent of the population of Serbia or Paraguay.
Not surprisingly, that's also the largest prison population on Earth… On any day of your choice, the United States, with 5% of the world's population, has close to 25% of the people imprisoned on this planet.
That population, by the way, has risen by 700% since 1970, a tidal movement for incarceration that only in recent years has shown small signs of finally ebbing.
In short, state by state or as a country, the U.S. leaves the rest of the world in the dust. (USA! USA!)
As this trend has proven, making narcotics 'illegal' does not eliminate drug use, or cure addiction, it only stimulates a very dark corner of the economy.
As other cultures have demonstrated, illicit drugs are a bigger health risk to a prohibitionist society than one that deals openly and constructively with issues of addiction and regards the alteration of consciousness (whether casually or addictively) as a personal and spiritual concern instead of a social and criminal one.
The possession and use of mind-altering substances is of itself a victimless "crime"; it is only through substance prohibition, by the same governments that ultimately profits from prohibition, that crime becomes an inherent part of the story.
Thus, the "War On Drugs" can only be considered a money-making venture conducted by a creeping militaristic government.
The War On Kids
Creating a police state is an unwanted and unsustainable violation of human rights, as protected by the First Amendment of the Bill Of Rights.
But how did we get here? By progressive indoctrination; a steady process of normalizing that which was once considered abhorrent.
It is arguable that most all prominent institutions today, including media and the public education system, help to shape the mindset that accepts a prescribed life as a cog in someone else's industry; one that accepts a corporate prison system, aimless "wars on" everything, and a police state that does not respect the spirit of the First Amendment.
Today, the United States education system has become so corrupted from its original purpose that most schools in the average neighborhood now resemble prisons.
In school kids are taught how to behave in an oligarchy:
wear a uniform
compete for grades
submit to authority
value the rational over the creative
The kids must change to fit the syllabus, not the other way around.
Their heads are crammed full of false history, false measures of success, and unnatural social expectations, all at an emotionally vulnerable time of their lives. And they learn to live in an Orwellian world, with body scanners, video security, standardized testing (what child is "standard"?) and an instilled behavioral conformity, reinforced by the virtues of competition, punishment and ostracism.
Regardless of your perspective, this continuing trend is clearly counterproductive to the development of a child's individuality, sense of security, inherently peaceful nature, and trust in their natural impulses.
No child development expert in their right mind would prescribe such treatment to children.
And yet as a society we continue this system of instilled conformity, which is crafted to train (and failing that, medicate) children into an inherited preconception of "social normality" - one that facilitates our society's collective march toward industrialized totalitarianism.
Zero tolerance for divergence = zero common sense + zero liberty.
Alter, Reform, Abolish
Of course I alone cannot change the prison industrial complex.
I alone cannot reform the education system. I alone cannot hold a peaceful global revolution, or sever the viperous head of the corporate oligarchy. But I alone can start, and so can you.
We can exercise our rights, as protected by the First Amendment, to think, seek, speak, stop, act, peaceably, as we see fit… and we can change any human made systems together.
These systems are simply conundrums made by people, and they can be altered, reformed or abolished - by people, armed with serenity, courage and wisdom.
"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…"
U.S.A. Declaration of Independence
A New Paradigm Resolution
Resolved,
That the existence of secret and affiliated institutions is hostile to one of the principal defenses of liberty - free and open discussion - and can serve no purpose of utility in a free government save oligarchical institutions.
Resolved,
That we, as global citizens, individuals with hearts, will adopt the counsel given us by the illustrious Washington, "That all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of the fundamental principle of liberty, and of fatal tendency."
Resolved,
That the organization of the majority of love party is founded upon the most satisfactory and undeniable evidence, that secretive institutions are dangerous to the liberties, and subversive of the laws in The Bill of Rights and contrary to natural and spiritual laws as well.
Resolved,
That where evils of this nature are found existing in a free government, holding, by means of a secret combination, a majority of the civil, judicial, and military offices in the country, there are but two modes of redressing the grievance - either by revolution, or by an appeal to the ballot boxes.
Resolved,
That the majority of love party, in choosing the latter remedy, have taken up the peaceful and legitimate weapons of freemen, and that they ought never to lay them down in this cause, until the liberty of the press, the liberty of speech, equal rights, and an entire overthrow of oligarchical usurpations, are fully and completely achieved.
Resolved,
That the direct object of secretive institutions is to benefit the few, at the expense of the many, by creating a privileged class, in the midst of a community entitled to enjoy equal rights and privileges.
Resolved,
That we esteem it the plain duty of the members of those institutions as sons and daughters of Earth Mother, either collectively to abolish them, or individually to abandon them.
Resolved,
That we have witnessed with pleasure, the efforts on the part of some of the oligarchical institutional fraternity to produce a voluntary abandonment of their order of operations.
While we regard these efforts as the manifestation of homage to public opinion, we should rejoice in their success, inasmuch as it would produce a more speedy accomplishment of the great object which the majority of love part;
...... with singleness of purpose, are striving to effect - that is open information and individual liberty.
Resolved,
That discussion, persuasion, and argument, in connection with the exercise of the right of suffrage, is a correct and speedy mode of diffusing information upon the subject of oligarchy, and is the best method to ensure the entire destruction of the oligarchical institutions.
Resolved,
That the oaths and obligations imposed upon persons when admitted into oligarchical secretive institutions, deserve the unqualified reprobation and abhorrence of every son and daughter of Earth Mother, and every friend of morality and justice.
Resolved,
That these oaths, being illegally administered, and designed to serve fraudulent purposes, ought not to be regarded as binding in conscience, morality, or honor;
....... but the higher obligations of spirituality and civil society require them to be explicitly renounced by every son and daughter of Earth Mother.
Resolved,
That the gigantic global conspiracy for the few to rule the many, where every strata of entirety is polluted and degraded on behalf of energy oligarchies and industrial complexes of the most nefarious sorts;
....... was the natural result of secretive oligarchical functions and obligations, understood and acted upon according to their plain and obvious meaning.
Resolved,
That there is sufficient proof that the perpetrators of oligarchical corruption to the environmental and social detriment of every person;
....... place and thing have, in several instances, been shielded from the punishment due to their crimes, by the collectivism of oligarchical institutions;
....... according to their secretive obligations and mutual oligarchical interests, whereby those institutions become accomplices in their guilt.
Resolved,
That those oligarchical collectivists who became acquainted with and concealed the facts relative to oligarchical corruption and destruction of Earth Mother;
....... are accessory to that horrid transaction and that we, the majority of love, seek justice among the institutions, but most importantly solutions for individuals.
Resolved,
That, in applying the right of suffrage to effect the suppression of oligarchical institutions, we not only exercise a right which is inalienably secured to us;
....... but discharge a duty of the highest obligation, in thus endeavoring to abate a great political evil and environmental calamity.
Resolved,
That there can be no proscription, where every freeman has a right - and exercises that right - to vote for the candidate of his own choice.
Resolved,
That the majority of love has for its object the destruction of oligarchical collectivism; for its means, public opinion, manifested through the exercise of the elective franchise;
...... that it acts upon the great principles of liberty and the brotherhood of man, and relies upon them to ensure the attainment of its high purpose.
Resolved,
That an actual adherence, by secretive oligarchical collectivists, to the principles contained in the obligations of secrets, is inconsistent with paramount duties, which they owe to the state, and is a disqualification for offices of public trust.
Resolved,
That we find, in the unexampled growth of the majority of love, the diffusion and prevalence of its principles;
....... the continued approbation bestowed upon them by the enlightened and wise individuals of the world, abundant cause for encouragement, and perseverance with increased zeal and unabated determination;
....... until the oligarchical institutions shall be overthrown or abandoned.
Peace… only for real.
The Deep State Oligarchs/Plutocrats want to Keep America Drugged
Brave New World is a novel written in 1931 by Aldous Huxley, and published in 1932.
Set in London in the year AD 2540 (632 A.F. - "After Ford" - in the book), the novel anticipates developments in:
- reproductive technology
- sleep-learning
- psychological manipulation
- classical conditioning
....... that combine profoundly to change society.
The "World State" was built upon the principles of Henry Ford's assembly line:
mass production, homogeneity, predictability, and consumption of disposable consumer goods.
While the World State lacks any supernatural-based religions, Ford himself is revered as the creator of their society but not as a deity, and characters celebrate Ford Day and swear oaths by his name (e.g., "By Ford!").
In this sense, some fragments of traditional religion are present, such as Christian crosses, which had their tops cut off to be changed to a "T".
From birth, members of every class are indoctrinated by recorded voices repeating slogans while they sleep (called "hypnopædia" in the book) to believe their own class is superior, but that the other classes perform needed functions.
Any residual unhappiness is resolved by an antidepressant and hallucinogenic drug called "soma."
This is why the Oligarchy/Plutocracy supports a 'vibrant' pharmaceutical industry, consisting predominantly of:
- anti-depressants
- anti-anxiety
- anti-human emotion drugs
As was explained in ZeroHedge's article by Michael Snyder in "The Drugging of America Summarized in 19 Mind-Altering Facts," the author makes the points that:
"The American people are the most drugged people in the history of the planet.
Illegal drugs get most of the headlines, but the truth is that the number of Americans that are addicted to legal drugs is far greater than the number of Americans that are addicted to illegal drugs;
....... close to 70 percent of all Americans are currently on at least one prescription drug…
In addition, there are 60 million Americans that 'abuse alcohol' and 22 million Americans that use illegal drugs… What that means is that almost everyone that you meet is going to be on something.
That sounds absolutely crazy but it is true… We are literally being drugged out of our minds… there are 70 million Americans that are taking 'mind-altering drugs' right now.
If it seems like most people cannot think clearly these days, it is because they can't.
We love our legal drugs and it is getting worse with each passing year.
And considering the fact that big corporations are making tens of billions of dollars peddling their drugs to the rest of us, don't expect things to change any time soon."
The pharmaceutical industry funds with billions of dollars medical doctor and scientific whores who have categorically declared that the vast majority of Americans are bona fide, "mentally ill," and thus require immediate, consistent, and long-term medication.
As was recited in the article "Psychiatrists - The Drug Pushers" published by The Guardian,
"They say failed doctors become psychiatrists, and that failed psychiatrists specialize in drugs."
The article asks the seminal question:
"Is the current epidemic of depression and hyperactivity the result of disease-mongering by the psychiatric profession and big pharma?
Does psychiatry have any credibility left at all?"
Unfortunately the long-term effects on the population are that the best and brightest;
....... the ones who can easily gauge and determine just what exactly is wrong with the way the planet is being run, are often times the most depressed, and therefore deemed to be "mentally ill."
The Psychiatric Times issued an obviously well-hidden article by the Oligarchs/Plutocrats entitled "The Association Between Major Mental Disorders and Geniuses" wherein it was shown that:
"There exists an association between creativity and major mental disorders known since antiquity. The ancient Greeks considered both as 'having been touched by the gods.'
Aristotle, in his perspicacity, stated,
'There is no genius without having a touch of madness.'
This phenomenon has been verified repeatedly in studies in the past.
Does one phenomenon cause the other or do both share a common underlying factor or mechanism? How are geniuses able to accomplish 'creative fits'?
Although the proposed origin and mechanism of the brain function of creative geniuses is novel, empirical evidence is available to support this theory.
Empirical evidence demonstrates that creativity and major mental disorders share a common pool made up of individuals with an extreme temperamental variant who;
...... if endowed with other qualities (e.g., high intelligence, tenacity, curiosity, energy) and live in a nurturing and complementary zeitgeist, can be creative geniuses.
On the other hand, persons with a similar temperament but who do not have the additional qualities form a common pool of individuals who are at increased risk for a major mental disorder."
The early-on "diagnosis" and forced drug administration immediately silences and stifles creativity and problem-solving abilities;
....... not to mention the motivation to undo the wrongs of the world, and renders the world's people leaderless.
The Oligarch/Plutocrat's favorite and most highly funded publications, such as the Huffington Post, eschew mercilessly and repeatedly that "Early Detection for Mental Illness Is a Must,"
....... while preaching on and on about today's young geniuses needing to be clipped right from the beginning, before they do any real or meaningful damage to the existing status quo, which is often pretty evil.
These articles go on ad nauseam about how it is absolutely essential to "take out" these geniuses of society, as early as possible, for the ultimate benefit of the ruling class.
And this is exactly what the Oligarchs/Plutocrats want.
#Oligarchy #PopulationControl #MindControl #illuminati #Rockefeller #BillGates #DisneyWorld #EntertainmentIndustry #DemonicMasonic #HumanPopCulture #PsyOp #FalseFlag #Facebook #Amazon #CFR #Drugs #CIA #Plutocrat
k