Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Pharmaceutical Takeover of Healthcare and the Suppression of Natural Cures

  1. #1
    One with Nature
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Víðálfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Daco-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Daci, Suebi, Carpi & Bastarni
    Subrace
    Pontid/Baltid/Dinarid
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Völkisch
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    961
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    832
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    946
    Thanked in
    437 Posts

    The Pharmaceutical Takeover of Healthcare and the Suppression of Natural Cures

    The Pharmaceutical Takeover of Healthcare and the Suppression of Natural Cures (1)



    A huge part of the so-called disclosure process regards the requisite knowledge for obtaining optimal health, wellbeing, and longevity. Today we will make the case that this knowledge has been sequestered by select institutions for over a century in an attempt to profit from sickness and death and to create both physical and psychological dependency. Confusion around the topic of health stems both from top-down disinformation and from grassroots misinformation. Our current predicament is one of contrived science, coercive medicine, scandalous reporting, suppressive control, predatory regulation, deceptive marketing, subjective diagnostics, systemic indoctrination, willful ignorance, obstructed patents, assassinated doctors, revolving doors, and conflicts of interest, all masquerading as medical progress.

    Today, we will assess our healthcare system as a doctor would a patient. We will examine it, diagnose it, prescribe an antidote, and give a prognosis as to what the healing process will look like.
    This series of articles will expose the sick and dying allopathic medical system by investigating money, murder, and medicine. This presentation will follow the money and get to the root of how pharmaceuticals have taken over healthcare, practically speaking. In the next installment, we will expose the murders of thousands of holistic doctors, inventors, and authors who are healing patients and getting the truth out. In the final installment, we will disclose the medicine by investigating various remedies, discoveries, and technologies that have the potential to heal humanity from illness and disease.


    With subject matter this vast in scope, we will limit our investigation as best as possible to the core attributes of this grand conspiracy beginning with a history lesson, a look at its current standing, the coconspirators and their motives and methods, as well as some solutions to turn the tide. There are many aspects that we simply will not have the time to cover in this series, so we will leave further analysis up to you. This presentation is designed to be an alarm clock to wake the sleeping giant from its slumber.


    There exists a mythology surrounding the pharmaceutical-industrial complex. If we can understand that heavy amounts of compartmentalization keep honest altruists from recognizing the true motives of the companies they work for, then we can begin to come to terms with the existence of a pernicious plot perpetuated to keep humanity sick. Some believe medicine emerged from warfare where it was practiced to save warriors on the battlefield. Some believe various forms of modern medicine, like chemotherapy for instance, is itself a form of warfare meant to kill rather than save.


    This medical mythology stems from our lack of historical context as to the origins of the pharmaceutical industry and the motives of its architects and bankrollers. Behind the superstition supporting this myth lies blind faith, propaganda, and the psychological power of suggestion. In essence, a confirmation bias is met with the placebo effect. Humanity desperately wants to believe the international drug companies are operating ethically. When we see multimillion dollar advertisements, we are roped into the medical mythology and become cheerleaders for falsehood. Each monetary donation to pharmaceutical research, each “walk for a cure” and each blind faith decision to follow doctors’ orders represents a link in the chain of causality supporting this nefarious industry.


    Few are willing to change their minds or their traditions when exposed to new information. In fact, psychology tells us that most people double down on their convictions when their worldviews are challenged.
    Underpinning the motives, statistics, and logistics of the medical mythology is an even more worrisome philosophy – one of standardization and collectivism. Throughout this presentation, we will follow the blood money wherever it may lead us to determine who is behind the curtain and how man became entrained by the mythos of a necrotic system.
    Before we begin, few disclaimers: This article has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not intended to cure, treat, or prevent illness or disease.


    So now, let’s talk about the pharmaceutical takeover of healthcare and the suppression of natural cures.


    CHAPTER 1: STANDARDIZATION OF MEDICINE




    John Rockefeller Donated Over $9.1 Billion to Medicine and Education

    John D. Rockefeller was born July 8, 1839 and died at age 98 on May 23, 1937. The very next day, the New York Times ran an article entitled Rockefeller Gifts Total $530,853,632.
    The cumulative rate of inflation from 1937 to 2017 is 1,602.2%. Adjusting for inflation, John Rockefeller and his 4 foundations donated $9,036,308,491. That’s nine billion thirty six million three hundred and eight thousand four hundred ninety one dollars. The amount is likely higher than this because Rockefeller donated this money over the course of four decades. However, we are only able to calculate this based on the rate of inflation from the year of his death. Regardless, this unfathomable scale of money raises some serious questions. Chiefly, where exactly did all of that money go?


    According to the same New York Times article, “Mr. Rockefeller’s benefactions from 1855 to 1934 totaled $530,853,632, of which the greater amount went to the four great foundations he established for the purpose of handling his charities. They were the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, in memory of his wife, and the General Education Board. The University of Chicago was another large beneficiary.”


    The article goes on to explain the creation of the Rockefeller Foundation.
    A list of Mr. Rockefeller’s organized charities shows that he was chiefly interested in education, scientific research, the Baptist Church and other religious or social organizations. His chief agency of distribution was the Rockefeller Foundation, established in 1913 with a $100,000,000 capital fund, later increased by $25,000,000 in 1917. It received up to 1934 from Mr. Rockefeller $182,851,480.90. This organization was formed “to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world.
    World-wide in scope, its activities were largely directed to medical research in recent years. The 1936 annual report declared it to be devoted to the ‘advancement of knowledge with research as the chief tool’. It financed work in the natural sciences, social sciences, medical science, the humanities, public health. It does no research of its own
    .”


    The article describes various donations and milestones the Rockefeller Foundation reached including financially supporting the International Health Board, establishing the China Medical Board in 1914, funding the Graduate School at Harvard in 1919, establishing the Division of Medical Education in 1920, providing financial support for the Red Cross and the United War Work Fund, and funding the Teachers College of Columbia University in 1920.
    It also made substantial donations to the General Education Board at Washington University, Johns Hopkins, University of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rochester, Yale Medical School, and the Meharry Medical College. The grand total that the General Education Board received was $129,209,107.10, or $2,199,426,134.19 after accounting for inflation.


    John Rockefeller personally founded the University of Chicago in 1892. In 1901, he founded the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. This was his first philanthropic organization.
    “…At the second annual meeting it was decided to centralize all research work in the institute’s own laboratory… Dr. Simon Flexner resigned as Professor of Pathology in the University of Pennsylvania to become director of the institute.”
    Apart from the $9 billion that the Rockefeller Foundation made, John made a number of private donations that totaled $101,500,786.36 after inflation.
    According to the New York Times article, “Mr. Rockefeller made smaller gifts that aggregated less than $100,000 each but totaled $5,962,839.93.”


    Nine billion dollars would go a very long way, even today. Now, imagine how much further it went over a century ago when there were no bureaucratic systems in place yet, no infrastructure, no governing bodies, no regulatory third parties, no television, no documentaries, and no internet or any other practical way for genuine news to spread to the ordinary citizen.
    John Rockefeller famously said: “I don’t want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.”


    The Flexner Family Connection




    The following section is an adaptation from an alternative media online article from October 27, 2014 entitled The Forgotten ‘Flexner Report’ of 1910 and its Connection to Today’s ‘Common Core’.

    According to the 1937 New York Times article we just looked at, “The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was the first of Mr. Rockefeller’s philanthropic organizations in point of time. The Rockefeller Institute was incorporated in 1901. Scholarships and fellowships for research work in medicine were distributed throughout the country during the first year, but at the second annual meeting it was decided to centralize all research work in the institute’s own laboratory… Dr. Simon Flexner resigned as Professor of Pathology in the University of Pennsylvania to become director of the institute.”


    Who was Dr. Simon Flexner, and why did John Rockefeller choose to appoint him to this esteemed position?
    Simon Flexner, born March 25, 1863, was an American pathologist who discovered polio antibodies in 1911 and worked toward developing the first polio vaccination. At the time, only a small handful of vaccinations had been developed, but Flexner was a major proponent of vaccinations. Vaccinations, even from the early days, were patentable property which ensured a windfall profit in the event of a pandemic. That’s not to say that every vaccination ever developed has been patented, as Jonas Salk, creator of the polio vaccine, famously decided not to patent the vaccine.


    Simon Flexner hailed from a family of nine children. He had 6 brothers and 2 sisters. The Flexner family became heavily involved in medicine. Simon’s eldest brother, Jacob, aspired to become a doctor, although he eventually became a pharmacist and ran a small drug store. Abraham, who will we investigate more thoroughly in a moment, was the most instrumental person in standardizing medical education in America in the early 20th century. Bernard became a Zionist leader, which shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has studied the Rockefeller connection to Zionism. Unfortunately, we don’t have the time to examine that in this article, but the connection is there for those who wish to do their own research.


    The Financial Elite Privately Received Homeopathic Treatment While Publicly Condemning It


    There is a preponderance of evidence demonstrating that the Rockefeller family sought to publicly excoriate naturopathy and homeopathy as preventative medicine while they themselves continued to receive it privately. To keep this brief and to avoid disturbing the flow of this presentation, we will look at just a few examples now.


    According to the homeopathic historical archives at SueYoungHistories.com, “Eugene Alonzo Austin, Myra King Merrick and Hamilton Fisk Biggar were homeopaths to the Rockerfeller family and to all the Standard Oil families.
    Rockefeller also consulted Mary Belle Brown who was the Second Vice President of the American Institute of Homeopathy in 1903. Mary Belle Brown had a 40 year career as a homeopath in New York. Her patients included Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt II, Huntington and John Davison Rockefeller Senior
    .”


    Ironically, John Davison Rockefeller Senior’s philanthropy had a devastating effect on homeopathy in America. Titan Ron Chernow “It was deeply ironic that Rockefeller retained a residual faith in homeopathy even as he financed the world’s most sophisticated medical research operation.
    Periodically, he had spasms of irritation, firing off letters on the need to save homeopathy, but these outbursts quickly passed. Through his philanthropies, Rockefeller did more than anyone else to destroy homeopathy in America, and in the end he seemed powerless to stop the scientific revolution that he himself had largely set in motion
    .”


    Philanthropy as a Smokescreen




    When John D. Rockefeller founded The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in 1901, his reputation had already been tarnished from many of his cutthroat business tactics. With a splash of philanthropy and the circulation of adulatory rumors, public opinion would soon be swayed. The Rockefeller Dynasty would soon be rebranded as the poster child for charity.

    Not everyone was buying it. Many observed Rockefeller’s philanthropy as smokescreen it was. Congressman Wright Patman, chairman of the House Banking Committee, condemned these foundations. He wrote: “Unquestionably, the economic life of our Nation has become so intertwined with foundations that unless something is done about it they will hold a dominant position in every phase of American life.”


    Given that pharmaceutical drugs are oil and shale-based, would-be-competitors Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan allied behind a common goal to maximize profits in the experimental field of medicine known as allopathy.

    Ken Adachi, investigative reporter of Educate-Yourself.org, wrote the following: “Abraham Flexner was engaged by John D. Rockefeller to run around the country and ‘evaluate’ the effectiveness of therapies taught in medical schools and other institutions of the healing arts. Rockefeller wanted to dominate control over petroleum, petrochemicals, and pharmaceuticals (which are derived from ‘coal tars’ or crude oil). He arranged for his company, Standard Oil of New Jersey to obtain a controlling interest in a huge German drug cartel called I. G. Farben. He pulled in his stronger competitors like Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan as partners, while making other, less powerful players, stockholders in Standard Oil. Those who would not come into the fold ‘were crushed’ according to a Rockefeller biographer. (W. Hoffman, David: Report on a Rockefeller, New York: Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1971, page 24.)

    It is important to emphasize the collusion between Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, and Ford, as this will play a vital role in our investigation as we will see in the next part of this article series.

    Source

    Die Farben duften frisch und grün... Lieblich haucht der Wind um mich.

  2. #2
    One with Nature
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Víðálfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Daco-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Daci, Suebi, Carpi & Bastarni
    Subrace
    Pontid/Baltid/Dinarid
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Völkisch
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    961
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    832
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    946
    Thanked in
    437 Posts
    The Pharmaceutical Takeover of Healthcare and the Suppression of Natural Cures (2)



    In 1976, Gary Allen wrote the following: “When you hear of Carnegie Foundation think Rockefeller. For many years the five Carnegie foundations have been mere appendages of the Rockefeller octopus. The chief operators of the Carnegie foundations have for decades been members of the Rockefeller coordinating committee, The Council on Foreign Relations, the glue which holds the Rockefeller Establishment together. In addition, two of the six men on the Carnegie Corporation’s finance committee are also directors of Rockefeller financial institutions.

    The baby giant of the foundation world is the $3 billion-in-assets Ford Foundation. From 1953 to 1965, John J. Mc Cloy was chairman of the Ford Foundation, during most of which time he was also chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank. Mc Cloy was succeeded by another Rockefeller minion, Eugene Black, a director of Chase Manhattan and former head of the World Bank. Currently running the show at the Ford Foundation is Mc George Bundy, formerly on the payroll of the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations. As with the Carnegie foundations, most of the trustees of the Ford Foundation are members of the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations
    .”

    Many were becoming increasingly wise to the shady operations of the Rockefellers and Carnegies and the collusion between their various foundations.

    According to the same article by Gary Allen, “The first of the Congressional Committees to attempt such an investigation was the Cox Committee, created in 1952 under the leadership of Congressman Eugene E. Cox, a Democrat from Georgia. Warren Weaver notes in U. S. Philanthropic Foundations that the official purpose of this Committee was to determine ‘which foundations and organizations are using their resources for purposes other than the purposes for which they were established, and especially to determine which such foundations and organizations are using their resources for un-American and subversive activities or for purposes not in the interest or tradition of the United States’. Liberal Democrats in control of Congress first delayed the appropriation of funds for the Cox Committee, then gave it only six months to conclude an investigation that would properly require several years.”

    The Flexner Report of 1910 and the War on Holistic Health


    Rockefeller threw the weight of his various foundations and their grants about in a pursuit to standardize medicine. Beginning with university doctoral curriculums right straight through to hospital care, medicine was to be uniform and preapproved. The preexisting American Medical Association, which had been birthed in 1847, was then weaponized and granted exclusive regulatory power of the issuance of doctoral licenses and the certification process of schools that either met or failed to meet the new national standard.

    According to SueYoungHistories.com, “Abraham Flexner, the owner of a bankrupt prep school, had the good fortune to have a brother, Simon, who was director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. At his brother’s suggestion, Abraham Flexner was hired by the Rockefeller-allied Carnegie Foundation so that the report would not be seen as a Rockefeller initiative. And Andrew Carnegie, whose main goal was to ‘rationalize’ higher education, that is, replace religion with science, saw the American Medical Association cartelization drive as useful.

    Claiming to have investigated nearly every school in the country, Flexner rated them on suitability. Schools he praised received lush grants from the Rockefeller and associated foundations, and almost all the medical schools he condemned were shut down, especially the ‘commercial’ institutions.
    AMA-dominated state medical boards ruled that in order to practice medicine, a doctor had to graduate from an approved school. Post-Flexner, a school could not be approved if it taught alternative therapies, didn’t restrict the number of students, or made profits based on student fees
    .”

    To recap, we have just looked at evidence connecting three brothers within the Flexner family directly to John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, who themselves were conspiring to push medicine towards allopathy through a conjoined effort using their respective foundations. Abraham Flexner compiled the Flexner Report for the Carnegie Foundation while his brother Simon was director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.



    According to page 22 of the Flexner Report of 1910, which went by the official name Medical Education in the United States and Canada: “The privileges of the medical school can no longer be open to casual strollers from the highway. It is necessary to install a doorkeeper who will, by critical scrutiny, ascertain the fitness of the applicant, a necessity suggested, in the first place, but consideration for the candidate, whose time and talents will serve him better in some other vocation, if he be unfit for this, and in the second, by consideration for a public entitled to protection from those whom the very boldness of modern medical strategy equips with instruments that, tremendously effective for good when rightly used, are all the more terrible for harm if ignorantly or incompetently employed.”

    What followed was a systematic debunking campaign on the part of the AMA which used coercion and propaganda to displace all medical schools teaching anything other than allopathy including – but not limited to – Ayurvedic medicine, Chinese medicine, homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, and other traditional forms of therapy. Conventional medicine of the era was then arbitrarily relabeled as alternative medicine and allopathic medicine began to be referred to as conventional medicine.

    The Flexner Report declared that any discussion of patients who had successfully “healed” from alternative medicine was anecdotal and those patients probably dodged a bullet by not using allopathic treatment. This is tantamount to trying to prove a negative. It is tacitly asserted on page 17 of the report that fewer doctors are needed to better control the medical system and phase out undesirable information by creating an exclusive club.

    It appears, then, that the country needs fewer and better doctors; and that the way to get them better is to produce fewer. To support all or most present schools at the higher level would be wasteful, even if it were not impracticable; for they cannot be manned. Someday, doubtless, posterity may reestablish a school in some place where a struggling enterprise ought now to be discontinued. Towards that remote contingency nothing will, however, be gained by prolonging the life of the existent institution.”

    Abraham Flexner not only worked directly for Carnegie, he also later worked directly for Rockefeller. According to Philanthropy Roundtable, “The Rockefeller Foundation hired Flexner in 1913 to advise its General Education Board. The foundation then systematically funded reforms at several medical schools, including Washington University at St. Louis, Yale University, the University of Chicago, and Vanderbilt University. In 1923, the Rockefeller Foundation gave additional money to reform public medical schools in Iowa, Colorado, Oregon, Virginia, and Georgia. These efforts established a single high standard for medical education in the United States, and launched American medicine to international prominence, a prestige it continues to possess today.”

    Granting Regulatory Powers to the State


    Much like the Federal Reserve, the American Medical Association is a private institution comprised of medical “professionals”. Theoretically, if it were not for the revolving door for Congressional members to step into cushy jobs, the AMA should remain an impartial body capable of genuine regulation. The Carnegie Foundation shows its hand on page 19 of the Flexner Report where the transference of regulatory power from the AMA to the state is called for.

    The overwhelming importance of preventative medicine, sanitation, and public health indicates that in modern life the medical profession is an organ differentiated by society for its own highest purposes, not a business to be exploited by individuals according to their own fancy. There would be no vigorous campaigns led by aware practitioners against tuberculosis, malaria, and diphtheria, if the commercial point of view were tolerable in practice. And if not in practice, then not in education. The theory of state regulation covers that point. In the act of granting the right to confer degrees, the state vouches for them; through protective boards it still further seeks to safeguard the people.”

    Talismanic phrases like “safeguard the people”, “public safety” and “greater good” are often red flags that should give the reader pause. Of course, any sane person wants public safety, but sophistry in this arena typically uses the aforementioned talismanic language to collectivize the masses to support a misanthropic agenda. It is often the preamble for the roll out of a Hegelian bait and switch.

    The American Medical Association Funded by the Rockefellers and Carnegies




    The American Medical Association was founded in 1847 and incorporated half a century later in 1897. It has been accepting money from the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations from as early as 1910, the same year that Carnegie issued the Flexner Report.

    In his book The World Without Cancer, G. Edward Griffin makes the argument that the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations began to support the AMA in an effort to control the medical schooling establishment and to gain power over this “large and vital sphere of American life”.

    The Rockefeller Foundation has openly discussed its financial ties to the AMA and issued public annual reports on its progress.
    The 1932 Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report admits that many of the early vaccinations were developed in Rockefeller Foundation laboratories using Rockefeller funding.

    The Rockefeller Foundation now has available such a laboratory at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, which has placed adequate space at the disposal of the Foundation in one of its buildings. This laboratory, in which a successful method of vaccination against yellow fever has been devised and many other problems with regard to this disease have been cleared up, is now the backbone of all Foundation work against yellow fever. Work in this laboratory on research problems in other diseases, especially malaria, is under consideration.”

    We can find further ties between the Rockefeller Foundation and the AMA on page 78 of the 1957 Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report.
    The Educational Council’s program, which has the sponsorship of the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, will be partially financed by a two-year grant of $100,000 from The Rockefeller Foundation”.

    Codex Alimentarius


    In 1963, the World Health Organization in concert with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations held its first meeting on Codex Alimentarius, a complex rubric of codes and standards by which food can be sold internationally. Its headquarters is in Geneva, Switzerland.

    According to the FAO’s official website, “The Codex Alimentarius international food standards, guidelines and code of practice contribute to the safety, quality and fairness of this international food trade. Consumers can trust the safety and quality of the food products they buy and importers can trust that the food they ordered will be in accordance with their specifications.
    While being recommendations for voluntary application by members,
    Codex standards serve in many cases as a basis for national legislation.”

    In short, Codex Alimentarius is a push for the centralized global control over our food supply and the vitamin industry with standards set by politicians at the United Nations.
    In an October 2006 article published by Paul Taylor entitled Codex: What is it and How Does it Affect You and Your Health?, he summarizes: “Codex is not an easy subject to get to grips with. With over 20 committees meeting on an annual basis, and published reports comprising a total of over 1,400 pages in 2005 alone, most people are blissfully unaware of the extent to which its activities affect their health.

    At the time of writing, the Commission presides over a total of 27 active subsidiary committees and ad hoc intergovernmental task forces, the main functions of which revolve around the drafting of standards, guidelines and other related texts for foods, including food supplements.


    In addition to dealing with ordinary foods, however,
    Codex also sets standards and guidelines for, amongst other things: vitamin and mineral food supplements; health claims; organic foods; genetically modified foods; food labeling; advertising; food additives and pesticide residues.

    Significantly, therefore, and as we shall see below, in all of these areas the evidence is now inescapable that
    Codex is increasingly putting economic interests – and particularly those of the pharmaceutical and chemical industries – before human health.”

    Source
    Die Farben duften frisch und grün... Lieblich haucht der Wind um mich.

  3. #3
    One with Nature
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Víðálfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Daco-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Daci, Suebi, Carpi & Bastarni
    Subrace
    Pontid/Baltid/Dinarid
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Völkisch
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    961
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    832
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    946
    Thanked in
    437 Posts
    The Pharmaceutical Takeover of Healthcare and the Suppression of Natural Cures (3)


    Now, let us look at one example of how Codex Alimentarius has limited our health freedoms, suppressed natural cures, and rewarded pharmaceutical companies with greater control.

    The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as a new global standard at its meeting in Rome, Italy, in July 2005. Drafted using the European Union’s restrictive Food Supplements Directive as a blueprint, the Guidelines mandate the setting of restrictive upper limits on the dosages of vitamins and minerals, and the prohibiting of claims that vitamin and mineral supplements are suitable for use in the prevention, alleviation, treatment or cure of disease.


    Additionally, Codex Alimentarius has lowered the standards set for organic foods, severely restricted the health claims that both vitamin supplement and food manufacturers can make, paving the way for the approval of genetically modified foods, and approving many food additives, chemicals, and pesticides of particular concern. Many argue that it has led to selective prosecution of natural product companies while looking the other way when it comes to pharmaceutical companies and they claim they make, the dangers they pose, and the legal immunities they enjoy.


    CHAPTER 2: MASSIVE PROFITS


    Much of the research material in this chapter was originally performed by David Wilcock and was included in his free e-book entitled Financial Tyranny: Defeating the Greatest Cover-Up of All Time.


    How Are Medicinal Drugs Made?


    Many people are unaware of the developmental process of pharmaceutical drugs. Most people outside the industry believe that the pharmaceutical companies themselves develop drugs entirely from scratch – in many cases they do. However, this is hardly the full story. Often, research and development for the early stages of drugs are carried out in government labs which later sell them to pharmaceutical companies.


    On May 25, 2011, the Huffington Post ran an expose entitled The Horrifying Hidden Story Behind Drug Company Profits, stating in it:
    Our governments have chosen, over decades, to allow a strange system for developing medicines to build up. Most of the work carried out by scientists to bring a drug to your local pharmacist – and into your lungs, or stomach, or bowels – is done in government-funded university labs, paid for by your taxes. Drug companies usually come in late in the process of development, and pay for part of the expensive but largely uncreative final stages, like buying some of the chemicals and trials that are needed. In return, they own the exclusive rights to manufacture and profit from the resulting medicine for years. Nobody else can make it.”


    The article goes on to describe how only 14% of the budgets of pharmaceutical companies goes into development and the rest goes to marketing and profits:
    But a detailed study by Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, says that only 14 percent of their budgets go on developing drugs – usually at the uncreative final part of the drug-trail. The rest goes on marketing and profits. And even with that puny 14 percent, drug companies squander a fortune developing ‘me-too’ drugs – medicines that do exactly the same job as a drug that already exists, but has one molecule different, so they can take out a new patent, and receive another avalanche of profits.
    As a result, the US Government Accountability Office says that far from being a font of innovation, the drug market has become ‘stagnant’. They spend virtually nothing on the diseases that kill the most human beings, like malaria, because the victims are poor, so there’s hardly any profit to be sucked out
    .”


    According to the article, the pharmaceutical companies have effectively bought the government regulators and written their own regulations themselves:
    Why would we keep this system, if it is so bad? The drug companies have spent more than $3 billion on lobbyists and political ‘contributions’ over the past decade in the US alone. They have paid politicians to make the system work in their interests. If you doubt how deeply this influence goes, listen to a Republican congressman, Walter Burton, who admitted of the last big health care legislation passed in the US in 2003: ‘The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill’.”


    Healthcare is the Most Profitable Industry in the World




    According to Wikipedia, “The Fortune 500 is an annual list compiled and published by Fortune magazine that ranks 500 of the largest United States corporations by total revenue for their respective fiscal years”.

    According to the 2008 list, the most profitable industry to be in is Network and Other Communications Equipment, earning a 20.4 percent profit margin. The second most profitable is Internet Services and Retailing, at 19.4 percent.
    The third most profitable is pharmaceuticals at a 19.3 percent margin. However, this is very misleading because the healthcare system is divided into seven different categories on theFortune 500 list. They are listed as follows:
    Pharmaceuticals – 19.3%. Medical Products and Equipment – 16.3%. Insurance: Life, Health (stock) – 4.6%. Health Care: Pharmacy and Other Services – 3.0%. Health Care: Medical Facilities – 2.4%. Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care – 2.2%. Wholesalers: Health Care – 1.3%.”


    Of the 43 industries on the Fortune 500 list that actually generated profits in 2008, seven of them belong to the healthcare industry.
    The healthcare industry as a whole accounts for 16.28% of all the profitable industries on the Fortune 500 list. Healthcare and pharmaceuticals together is the largest and most profitable sector to be in. The only industry that comes close is oil and energy, as we will now see. As we go over the following data, bear in mind that in almost all cases pharmaceutical drugs are derived from oil, coal, and shale. Also bear in mind that there is a fair amount of cross-ownership between pharmaceutical companies and oil companies.


    Pharmaceutical Companies Top the Charts


    Nine out of the top 50 most profitable Fortune 500 companies in 2010 were pharmaceutical companies, totaling 64 billion and 924.6 million dollars in profits.
    These nine companies are only the most obvious, verifiable pharmaceutical / healthcare companies on the list, and only those that appear in the top 50 of the Fortune 500 list: “In 9th place is Johnson and Johnson with 13 billion, 334 million. In 10th place is Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, with 12 billion, 967 million. Then, Procter & Gamble comes in right behind them for 12th place at 12 billion, 736 million. In 21st place is Pfizer with 8 billion, 257 million. In 29th place is Eli Lilly with 5 billion, 69.5 million. In 32nd place is UnitedHealth Group with 4 billion, 634 million. In 33rd place is Amgen with 4 billion, 627 million. In 37th place is United Technologies with 4 billion, 373 million. Lastly, in 47th place is CVS Caremark with 3 billion, 427 million.”


    Just to recap, nine out of all 50 of the top Fortune 500 companies are pharmaceuticals. These companies alone pulled in almost 65 billion dollars in profits for 2010, close behind the 70 billion made in oil money.


    Oil/Energy is the Second Most Profitable Industry in the World


    Following the same formula of consolidating the various categories that comprise the same industry, we can see that the second most profitable American industry is the petroleum and energy industry which accounts for six out of 43 spots. The 6 categories are: “Mining, Crude Oil production – 11.5 percent. Oil and Gas Equipment, Services – 10.2 percent. Utilities: Gas and Electric – 8.7 percent. Petroleum Refining –2.1 percent. Pipelines – 1.5 percent. Energy – 0.9 percent”.


    The oil industry as a whole accounts for 13.95% of all the most profitable categories of American businesses in 2008.
    Combining both the pharmaceutical and oil industries amounts to 13 out of 43 categories of the Fortune 500 list. That means 30.23% or almost 1/3 of the profits in the United States were made by the oil and pharmaceutical companies.


    Oil Companies are the Most Profitable Individual Businesses


    So far, we have mostly been looking broadly at the profitability of disparate industries. This assessment is helpful in determining a broad view of which industries stand the best chance of making windfall profits, but it does not help us understand exactly how much money they are pulling making. To do this, we will now assess the profits of individual companies.


    From the 2010 Fortune 500 list, we can determine specifically what the profits are of the top 50 companies in the United States.
    The single most profitable American corporation in 2010 was Exxon Mobil, earning 30 billion, 460 million dollars. This company is part of the Rockefeller family dynasty. Chevron ranks third (behind AT&T) at 19 billion, 24 million dollars. ConocoPhillips was #16 at 11 billion, 358 million. Both Chevron and CoconoPhillips were successors of Standard Oil when it was broken up as a monopoly, meaning both Chevron’s and CoconoPhillips’ profits also trickle up to the Rockefeller family dynasty. Devon Energy and Occidental Petroleum both made 4.5 billion.
    All together, these five companies made 69 billion, 842 million dollars in oil profits in 2010 alone. This list does not include any oil companies that were founded outside of America.


    Banking and Oil Comprise 75% of the Global Market




    When you continue with this train of thought and investigate the most profitable companies on an international level, oil companies such as BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and Total S.A. are themselves topping the charts. The international equivalent of the Forbes 500 list is called the Forbes Global 2000. This list provides us with a more comprehensive analysis of the global market, but only lists companies whose profits are made publicly available.

    Of the top 20 largest international companies, eight are banks: JP Morgan Chase, HSBC (UK), ICBC (China), Citigroup, BNP Paribas (France), Wells Fargo, Banco Santander (Spain) and China Construction Bank. They amount to 40 percent of the international market.
    Seven of the top 20 public international companies are oil and gas: Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Petro China, Petrobras, Gazprom, Chevron and Total. That’s 35 percent.
    Together, a total 15 out of the top 20 companies on the Forbes 2000 list are either banking or oil, comprising 75% of the global market. That leaves only five slots left in the top 20.


    Breaking up the Standard Oil Monopoly Did Not Affect its Profits


    Standard Oil Company of New Jersey had a virtual monopoly on producing, transporting, refining and marketing oil up until 1911, when the United States Supreme Court passed the antitrust legislation which forced the monopoly to partition into 34 separate companies. However, these companies continued to grow into some of the largest companies on the planet and remain so to this day.
    Standard Oil of New Jersey became Esso, later to be renamed Exxon – which became a key part of ExxonMobil, currently the most profitable company in the world – earning 30 billion, 460 million dollars.


    Standard Oil of California became Chevron – currently the third most profitable company in the world at 19 billion, 24 million dollars per year.
    Continental Oil Company became Conoco, now a part of ConocoPhillips – currently the sixteenth most profitable company in the world at 11 billion, 358 million dollars.
    BP Amoco is a conglomerate of several Standard Oil splinter companies. Yahoo Finance currently lists BP Amoco’s gross profit at 16 billion, 28 million dollars.
    Therefore, four out of the six largest companies in the oil industry today are direct Rockefeller spinoffs. These companies are BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips.


    The Same Families are Behind the Federal Reserve Which Effectively Owns the US Government


    Unsurprisingly, with all of this money and power, Rockefeller and the other financial elite of that time colluded to commandeer the government of the United States through the implementation of a central bank. This central bank would come to be known as the Federal Reserve and was a private company that was granted a monopoly on the printing and regulation of the official currency of the nation. Although the Federal Reserve’s founders met in secrecy, we now know who its owners are.


    According to Global Research, “J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank – by far the most powerful Fed branch – by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.


    CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister’s claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches. He names N.M. Rothschild of London, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York.


    Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed. The Schiffs are insiders at Kuhn Loeb. The Stillmans are Citigroup insiders, who married into the Rockefeller clan at the turn of the century.


    Eustace Mullins came to the same conclusions in his book
    The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, in which he displays charts connecting the Fed and its member banks to the families of Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller and the others.
    The control that these banking families exert over the global economy cannot be overstated and is quite intentionally shrouded in secrecy. Their corporate media arm is quick to discredit any information exposing this private central banking cartel as ‘conspiracy theory’. Yet the facts remain
    .”


    Source

    Die Farben duften frisch und grün... Lieblich haucht der Wind um mich.

  4. #4
    One with Nature
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Víðálfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Daco-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Daci, Suebi, Carpi & Bastarni
    Subrace
    Pontid/Baltid/Dinarid
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Völkisch
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    961
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    832
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    946
    Thanked in
    437 Posts
    The Pharmaceutical Takeover of Healthcare and the Suppression of Natural Cures (4)




    CHAPTER 3: CONTROLLING THE NARRATIVE

    The Rockefeller Family Bought the Educational System

    The Rockefellers funded the National Education Association throughout the 20th century and even purchased myriad state university systems outright.
    According to Thrive Movement, “In the early 20th century both the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were donating large sums of money to education and the social sciences. They supported, in particular, the National Education Association. By way of grants, they spent millions of dollars – money which was used to radically bend the traditionalist education system toward a new system that favored standardized testing over critical thinking, toward ‘scientific management’ in schools. This was part of a calculated plan to make the schooling system benefit corporate America, at the expense of the American school child. Powerful foundations with private interests, such as the Ford Foundation, continue to support, and thereby influence the policy of the NEA to this day.”


    Additionally, an unprecedented U.S. Congressional investigation into tax-exempt foundations identified the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations engagement in an agenda for vast population control.
    Norman Dodd, Research Director for the Congressional Committee, found this statement in the archives of the Carnegie endowment: “The only way to maintain control of the population was to obtain control of education in the U.S. They realized this was a prodigious task… [so] the portion of education which could be considered as domestically oriented [was] taken over by the Rockefeller Foundation and that portion which was oriented to International matters [was] taken over by the Carnegie Endowment.”


    Carnegie Pushes for the Standardization of both Medicine and Education


    As we explored in Chapter One of this article, the Flexner Report of 1910 was produced under the auspice of the Carnegie Foundation, the same entity that would later collaborate with David Coleman and Jason Zimba on the inception of Common Core. This new national standard would be the torch the Obama Administration would rally the Left with, to further George W. Bush’s 2001 program, No Child Left Behind. This is more evidence that Western politics has generally had a false left/right paradigm as both parties align behind the same agenda.
    Ironically, the left has historically been more in favor of the arts, which are right brain disciplines. The right has been more in favor of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields, which are left brain disciplines.


    Tim Murphy of MotherJones.com writes: “In 2008, Coleman and Zimba unveiled an ambitious plan for overhauling education in an essay for the Carnegie Corporation. ‘The standards must be made significantly fewer in number, significantly clearer in their meaning and relevance for college and work, and significantly higher in terms of the expectations for mastery of what is covered’, they wrote. In reading, for example, they said schools should deemphasize literature and rely more on ‘informational texts’ – speeches, magazine articles, government reports”.


    Bill Gates Takes the Reins


    Perhaps the modern version of John Rockefeller, Bill Gates hides his true agenda behind a smile and a massive public relations firm. This relation was noticed by one of the biographers of John Rockefeller.
    According to Big Oil: The Old Dynasty – an Oil Giant Would Lack a Rockefeller published December 3, 1998, “Ron Chernow, author of Titan, a biography of the elder Rockefeller, compares the Standard Oil founder to William H. Gates, chairman of Microsoft, which is currently the target of an antitrust lawsuit. Both created dominant companies from scratch, drove rivals out of business through aggressive pricing, and innovated relentlessly to maintain their franchises. In both cases, the Government attacked the methods of the individual businessmen as a core part of the threat posed by the companies, Mr. Chernow said.”


    According to a Seattle Times article, “At $40.2 billion, the Gates foundation is more than triple the size of the No. 2 Ford Foundation, according to a tally by the Foundation Center, which tracks philanthropy”.


    But what agenda is Gates hiding? And why does Gates send his children to a private school that does not adhere to Common Core standards while simultaneously advocating it for everyone else’s children?
    Consider the fact that the Gates Foundation is the biggest financial contributor to Common Core. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also helps to fund vaccination development, radical contraceptive technologies, and of course – what portfolio would be complete without massive grants for geo-engineering projects?


    The Guardian discloses: “Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford are the world’s two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide Earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer’s money, which comes directly from Gates’s personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.
    According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.


    Cascade Investment, LLC is Gates’ personal investment firm, answerable only to him. It has invested in companies in the biotech (GMO) industry such as Monsanto and Seattle Genetics, prescription pain pharmaceuticals such as Pain Therapeutics Inc., and satellite and tracking companies such as Liberty Satellite and Technology Inc.


    Gates, who had already poured hundreds of millions of dollars into public education, bought in, and his foundation began spreading grants around to think tanks that could get the ball rolling politically, as well as to the governors’ and state school officials’ groups. He has channeled more than $200 million toward Common Core’s implementation, with the money flowing to dozens of universities, state departments of education, policy institutes, and trade groups – recipients ranged from the progressive Center for American Progress to the conservative US Chamber of Commerce, which was awarded $1.38 million in just one year to whip up support for the standards.


    Bill Gates and the Educational Coup




    The standardization and centralization of control in the American educational system is eloquently summarized in the following excerpt from DianeRavitch.net: “In a remarkable job of reporting, Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post describes the creation of the Common Core standards. Two men – Gene Wilhoit and David Coleman – went to see Bill Gates in 2008 to ask him to underwrite national standards. He agreed, and within two years, the standards were written and adopted by almost every state in the nation.

    This is the closest thing to an educational coup in the history of the United States. Our education system is made up of about 14,000 local school districts; most education policy is set at the state level. But Bill Gates was able to underwrite a swift revolution. It happened so quickly that there was very little debate or discussion. Almost every consequential education group was funded by the Gates Foundation to study or promote the
    Common Core standards. Whereas most businesses would conduct pilot testing of a major new product, there was no pilot testing of the Common Core. These national standards were written with minimal public awareness or participation, and at least one state – Kentucky – adopted them before the final draft was finished.”


    The Future of Education


    Finally, students and teachers are beginning to resist this.
    The future of education, if it does not change direction, is heading for an Orwellian statist school system akin to that depicted in Pink Floyd’s The Wall. The very name Common Coreimplies the standardization and centralization of power. Every book, every lesson, every shred of the curriculum will be prepackaged and dictated by a clandestine group of lawmakers operating behind the national purview. It will be increasingly focused on producing dependent, malleable minds instead of independent critical thinkers. Homeschooling, Waldorf Schools, Freedom Project Academy, and certain private schools are some of the only options left now if hope is to be had for our youth to grow into critical-thinkers.


    Mainstream Media Consolidation


    In 1983, the United States was home to fifty different independent news media companies. By 2004, this number had reduced to six companies. They are News Corporation, National Amusements, Disney, Time Warner, Comcast, and Sony. These five companies own nearly all of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the country. These companies are among the 325 largest corporations in the world.


    In many cases, these giant companies are vertically integrated, controlling everything from initial production to final distribution. That means these companies often control the entire creative process of a film or television show from beginning to ending – making it an ideal environment for creating propaganda. The U.S. media landscape is dominated by massive corporations that, through a history of mergers and acquisitions, have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read.


    Mainstream Media Companies Own the Pharmaceutical Companies


    Alarmingly, the same news media companies most Americans trust to report unbiased information especially when it comes to healthcare own controlling interests in the pharmaceutical companies that often run ads on their channels and outlets.


    A recent FAIR study of nine major media corporations and their major outlets, Disney (ABC), General Electric (NBC), CBS, Time Warner (CNN, Time), News Corporation (Fox), New York Times Co., Washington Post Co. (Newsweek), Tribune Co. (Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times) and Gannett (USA Today) found connections to six different insurance companies. Five out of the nine media corporations studied shared a director with an insurance company; two insurance companies – Chubb and Berkshire Hathaway – were represented by more than one media corporation director.


    The study also found crossover between these media corporations and several large pharmaceutical companies, such as Eli Lilly, Merck and Novartis, whose profits would also likely be negatively impacted by a single-payer system. Out of the nine media corporations studied, six had directors who also represented the interests of at least one pharmaceutical company. In fact, save for CBS, every media corporation had board connections to either an insurance or pharmaceutical company.


    The website goes on to list the media companies and the pharmaceutical companies they are connected to. Disney and ABC are connected to Procter & Gamble. General Electric and NBC are connected to Chubb, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, and Merck. Time Warner is connected to AIG, Health Cap, and Paratek Pharmaceuticals. News Corp and Fox are connected to GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, and Hybritech. The New York Times Co. is connected to First Health Group and Eli Lilly. Tribune Co. is connected to Abbott Labs, and Middlebrook Pharmaceuticals. And finally, USA Today and Gannett are connected to Chubb.


    Direct to Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertisements


    Drug companies collectively run the most ads on TV than any other industry. Pharmaceutical companies are the main sponsors of most major news outlets. By controlling the dissemination of news, drug companies are able to curate their own public criticisms unlike any other. Broadcasters are told what they can and cannot say about their stations’ sponsors.
    Why are drug companies advertising to the consumer anyway, and not solely to doctors? Direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising (DTCPA) was illegal in America until the early 90s. Now, it is the norm. Right now, it is only legal in America and New Zealand, although drug companies are lobbying for Canada and Europe to create more lax laws.


    According to a 2011 article published in Pharmacy and Therapeutics, “DTCPA can be defined as an effort (usually via popular media) made by a pharmaceutical company to promote its prescription products directly to patients. The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow DTCPA that includes product claims. Most other countries don’t allow DTCPA at all; however, Canada does allow ads that mention either the product or the indication, but not both. The pharmaceutical industry and lobby groups have tried unsuccessfully to overturn bans against DTCPA in Canada and other countries or regions, such as in the European Union (EU). Notably, in 2008, 22 of the 27 EU member states voted against proposed legislation that would have allowed even limited ‘information to patients’ to be provided.


    In 2000, it was reported that drug companies spent $2.5 billion on direct to consumer advertising. According to USA Today, that number exceeded $6 billion in 2016. In 1997, the average American watched about 9 drug commercials per day. By 2006, 64 different drugs were advertised to the public per day.
    The FDA does not have to review these drug ads before they hit the airwaves. In other words, drug ads do not have to be checked for veracity before airing live in front of millions of consumers. Additionally, the FDA does not require all known side effects to be listed on the drug product’s label.


    Epilogue




    In this series of articles we followed the money. To get a complete picture, read other articles we have posted on our website which expose both the murder and the medicine that have been routinely suppressed by this pernicious industry.

    It is no matter of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society”, said Jiddu Krishnamurti. This may be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, to adopt the neuroses of a schizoid culture so as to find a sense of belonging is not healthy. Moreover, to view a society rampant with physical sickness as normal or immutable is erroneous. Perhaps man is suffering more from a mental malady than a physical one.


    While speaking to an audience in Berkeley, California, Aldous Huxley admitted that his dystopic novel Brave New World was more predictive than fictional.
    And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing… a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods.”


    Nepenthe” is a word referring to a potion used in antiquity to assuage physical pain or the pain of sorrow. Some speculate that it was a salve, others say an opiate, still others say it was an edible herb. However, it was not a curative potion, it was merely analgesic. Ergo, the problem persisted. Etymologically, the word has also been used to imply “blissful” ignorance. A nepenthe is a painkiller that allows the patient to operate as if nothing is wrong. In Matrixterminology, a nepenthe represents the “blue pill”.


    In a time when antidepressants and pharmaceuticals are dispensed like candy, the question must be raised: “What has caused this universal pain that afflicts the collective?” Moreover, how long can man persist in “blissful” ignorance, suppressing symptoms and neglecting the root cause of his mental malady? Why does he choose a nepenthe instead of a cure?


    As man endures the apathetic culture he finds himself in, anticipating truth and instead finding fallacy, looking for meaning and coming up empty-handed, he represses his curiosity, his optimism, and his hope. He uses television to allay his worried mind; he uses vacariism to escape his own anxiety, he uses food and other substances to anesthetize the grief he feels from his psychic suicide. Whatever the nepenthe of choice is, man will do whatever it takes to lessen the pain, sorrow, apathy, guilt, anxiety, cynicism, sadness, and disease he feels every day that he continues to live an inauthentic life.


    Source

    Die Farben duften frisch und grün... Lieblich haucht der Wind um mich.

  5. #5
    One with Nature
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Víðálfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Daco-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Daci, Suebi, Carpi & Bastarni
    Subrace
    Pontid/Baltid/Dinarid
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Völkisch
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    961
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    832
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    946
    Thanked in
    437 Posts
    First of all, due to the length of each article, I thought it was better to post each of them in separate posts... Sorry for that, I hope it's fine!

    Secondly, there are two other threads related to this issue, but being unsure if I should fit these into one of them (it could fit well in both), I preferred to open a new thread. Again, sorry for that, and I hope it's fine!

    The other two threads closely related to this issue are:

    Codex Alimentarius - The REAL Threat To Our Health (opened by me in March 2010)

    and

    How Rockefeller Founded Big Pharma And Waged War On Natural Cures (opened by velvet in September 2018).
    Die Farben duften frisch und grün... Lieblich haucht der Wind um mich.

Similar Threads

  1. United Nations Demands The Suppression Of “White Awareness” Websites
    By Resist in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Monday, November 26th, 2018, 11:36 AM
  2. How Rockefeller Founded Big Pharma And Waged War On Natural Cures
    By velvet in forum Health, Fitness & Nutrition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, September 27th, 2018, 12:08 AM
  3. American Tap Water Contaminated by Pharmaceutical Drugs
    By Northern Paladin in forum The United States
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, September 9th, 2010, 03:29 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •