Peter Myers Digest: Monopoly Capitalists back Great Reset..

(1) Monopoly Capitalists back Great Reset, UN as world government; "pandemic" was orchestrated to bring it about(2) Who Runs The World? Blackrock and Vanguard; "Pandemic" was orchestrated to bring World Government about(3) Three corporations - BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street - own corporate America(4) State Attorneys General call for Dr. Mercola & RFKjr to be silenced(5) The Disinformation Dozen(6) 'Food Crisis' a myth pushed by Agribusiness; small farmers CAN feed the world(1) Monopoly Capitalists back Great Reset, UN as world government; "pandemic" was orchestrated to bring it aboutFrom: "Peter Williams" <> An Overview Of The Great Reset – Follow The MoneyApril 15, 2021Summary (Peter M.):The major corporations own each other, via interlocking share ownership. The result is Monopoly.The above video documents who owns whom.These monopoly capitalists are pushing for the Great Reset, and the UN's Agenda 30 too, even though it has a 'communist' touch. They are promoting a synthesis of Communism and Capitalism.But it's not a mix of the BEST side of Communism (full employment) and the BEST side of Capitalism (free speech); rather, a mix of the WORST side of Communism (totalitarianism) and the WORST side of Capitalism (insecurity).To implement Agenda 30,  the UN says we need a world government – namely the UN, itself.TRANSCRIPTAs you are watching millions fall into poverty because of the corona measures of the past year, even if the greatest economic crisis in history has not affected you yet, it will only be a matter of time until the rippling effects will hit you, as wellThis is not fear-mongering but it's a harsh reality. I also think we might mitigate the damage and may even do better, provided we are informed correctly about our situation. This is why I would like to show you a few facts you can easily check facts that are of crucial importance.Less than a handful of big corporations dominate every aspect of our lives. That may seem exaggerated but from the breakfast we eat to the mattress we sleep on and everything we wear and consume in between is largely dependent on these corporations.Those are huge investment companies that determine the course of money flow. They are the main characters of the play that we are witnessing. I know your time is valuable, so I summarize the most important data.How does it work?THE FOOD INDUSTRYLet's take Pepsico as an example. It is the parent company of many soda companies and snack companies. The so-called competitive brands are from factories from a few corporations who monopolize the entire industry. In the packaged food industry, there are a few big companies, like Unilever, the Coca-Cola Company, Mondelez and Nestlé.In the picture, you see that most brands in the food industry belong to one of these corporations. The big companies are on the stock market and have the big shareholders in the board of directors.On sources like Yahoo Finance, we can see detailed company info, such as who the biggest shareholders actually are. Let's take Pepsico again, as an example. We see about 72% of stock is owned by no less than 3,155 institutional investors. These are investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies, banks and in some cases, governments.Who are the biggest institutional investors of Pepsico? As you can see, only 10 of the investors own together nearly one third of the stock. The top 10 of investors together amount to a value of $59 billion dollars but out of those ten, only three own more stock than the other seven. Let's remember them and look up who owns the most stocks of the Coca-Cola Company, the biggest competitor of Pepsi.The biggest lump of stock is again owned by institutional investors. Let's look at the top 10 and start at the bottom six of them. Four of these institutional investors we also saw at the bottom six of Pepsico. These are Northern Trust, JPMorgan-Chase, Geode Capital Management and Wellington Management. Now, let's look at the four biggest stock owners. They are BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. These are the world's biggest investment firms, so Pepsico and Coca-Cola are not competitors, at all.The other big companies that own a myriad of brand names, like Unilever, Mondelez and Nestlé are from the same small group of investors. But it's not only in the food industry that their names come up. Let's find out on Wikipedia, which are the biggest tech companies.BIG TECHFacebook is the owner of Whatsapp and Instagram. Together with Twitter, they form the most popular social media platforms. Alphabet is the parent of all Google companies, like YouTube and Gmail but they are also the biggest investor in Android, one of the two operating systems for nearly all smartphones and tablets. The other operating system is Apple's IOS. If we add Microsoft, we see four companies making the software for nearly all computers, tablets and smartphones in the world.Let's see who are the biggest shareholders of these companies. Take Facebook: we see that 80% of the stock is owned by institutional investors. These are the same names that came up in the food industry; the same investors are in the top three. Next, is Twitter. It forms with Facebook and Instagram the top three. Surprisingly, this company is in the hands of the same investors, as well. We see them again, with Apple and even with their biggest competitor, Microsoft.Also, if we look at other big companies in the tech industry that develop and make our computers, TVs, phones and home appliances, we see the same big investors, that together own the majority of the stock. It's true for all industries. I'm not exaggerating.THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY (AND ENERGY & MINING)One last example, let's book a holiday on a computer or smartphone. We search for a flight to a sunny country on Skyscanner or Expedia. Both are from the same small group of investors. We fly with one of the many airlines. Many of which are in the hands of the same investors and of governments, as is the case with Air France, KLM. The plane we board is, in most cases a Boeing or an Airbus, also owned by the same names. We book through or AirBnB and when we arrive we go out for dinner and place a comment on Tripadvisor.The same big investors show up in every aspect of our trip and their power is even bigger, because of the kerosene is from their oil companies or refineries. The steel from which the plane is made comes from their mining companies. This small group of investment firms and funds and banks are namely also the biggest investors in the industry that dig for raw materials.Wikipedia shows that the biggest mining companies have the same big investors that we see everywhere. Also, the big agricultural businesses, on which the entire food industry depends; they own Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, the biggest seed producer in the world but they are also the shareholders of the big textile industry. And even many popular fashion brands who make the clothing out of the cotton are owned by the same investors.Whether we look at the world's biggest solar panel companies or oil refineries, the stocks are in the hands of the same companies. They own the tobacco companies that produce all the popular tobacco brands but they also own all big pharmaceutical companies and the scientific institutions that produce medicine. They own the companies that produce our metals and also the entire car, plane and weapons industry, where a great deal of the metals and raw materials are used. The own the companies that build our electronics, they own the big warehouses and online markets and even the means of payments we use to buy their products.To make this video as short as possible, I only showed you the tip of the iceberg. If you decide to research this with the sources I just showed you, then you will see that most popular insurance companies, banks, construction companies, telephone companies restaurant chains and cosmetics are owned by the same institutional investors we have just seen.BLACKROCK & VANGUARDThese institutional investors are mainly investment firms banks and insurance companies. In turn, they, themselves are owned by shareholders and the most surprising thing is that they own each other's stocksTogether, they form an immense network comparable to a pyramid. The smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies whose names we have often seen by now. They are Vanguard and BlackRock. The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies. This gives them a complete monopoly.A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost anythingBloomberg calls BlackRock "The fourth branch of government", because it's the only private agency that closely works with the central banks. BlackRock lends money to the central bank but it's also the advisor. It also develops the software the central bank uses. Many BlackRock employees were in the White House with Bush and Obama. Its CEO, Larry Fink can count on a warm welcome from leaders and politicians. Not so strange, if you know that he is the front man of the ruling company. But Larry Fink does not pull the strings, himself.BlackRock, itself is also owned by shareholders. Who are those shareholders? We come to a strange conclusion. The biggest shareholder is Vanguard. But now he gets murky. Vanguard is a private company and we cannot see who the shareholders are. The elite who own Vanguard apparently do not like being in the spotlight but of course they cannot hide from who is willing to dig.Reports from Oxfam and Bloomberg say that 1% of the world, together owns more money than the other 99%. Even worse, Oxfam says that 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to this 1%.Forbes, the most famous business magazine says that in March 2020, there were 2,095 billionaires in the world. This means that Vanguard is owned by the richest families in the world. If we research their history, we see that they have always been the wealthiest. Some of them, even before the start of the Industrial Revolution, because their history is so interesting and extensive, I will make a sequel.For now, I just want to say that these families of whom many are in royalty are the founders of our banking system and of every industry in the world, these families have never lost power but due to an increasing population, they had to hide behind firms, like Vanguard, which the stockholders are the private funds and non-profits of these families.NGOs AND FOUNDATIONS AND THEIR OWNERSHIP OF BIG PHARMATo clarify the picture, I have to explain briefly what non-profits actually are. These appear to be the link between companies, politics and media. This conceals the conflicts of interests a bit. Non-profits, also called "foundations" are dependent on donations they do not have to disclose who their donors are they can invest the money in the way they see fit and do not pay taxes as long as the profits are invested again in new projects. In this way, non-profits keep hundreds of billions of dollars among themselves according to the Australian government, non-profits are an ideal way of financing terrorists and of massive money-laundering.The foundations and funds of the families that are the richest stay in the background as much as possible. For issues that get much attention, the foundation of philanthropists are used that are lower in rank but very rich.I want to keep it short, so I will show you the three most important ones that connect all industries in the world. They are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Society Foundation of the controversial multi-billionaire, Soros and the Clinton Foundation. I will give you a very short introduction to show you their power.According to the website of the World Economic Forum, the Gates Foundation is the biggest sponsor of the WHO. That was after Donald Trump quit USA financial support to the WHO in 2020. So the Gates Foundation is one of the most influential entities in everything that concerns our health. The Gates Foundation works closely with the biggest pharma companies, among which are Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Biontech and Bayer.And we have just seen who their biggest shareholders are. Bill Gates was not a poor computer nerd who miraculously became very rich. He's from a philanthropist's family that works for the absolute elite. His Microsoft is owned by Vanguard, BlackRock and Berkshire Hathaway. But the Gates Foundation, after BlackRock and Vanguard is the biggest shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway. He was even the member of the board there.We would need hours if we wanted to uncover everything in which Gates, the Open Society Foundation of Soros and the Clinton Foundation are involved. They form a bridge to the current situation, so I had to introduce them.THE MAINSTREAM MEDIAWe need to start the next topic with a question. Someone like me, who never makes videos can, with an old laptop objectively show that only two companies hold a monopoly in all industries in the world. My question is, why is this never talked about in the media?We can choose daily between all sorts of documentaries and TV programs but none of them cover this subject. Is it not interesting enough or are there other interests at play? Wikipedia, again gives us the answer. They say that about 90% of the international media is owned by nine media conglomerates. Whether we take the monopolist Netflix and Amazon Prime or enormous concerns that own many daughter companies, like Time-Warner, the Walt Disney Company, Comcast, Fox Corporation, Bertelsmann and Viacom, CBS, we see that the same names own stocks.These corporations not only make all the programs, movies and documentaries but also own the channels on which those are broadcast. So, not only the industries but also the information is owned by the elite.I will show you briefly how this works in the Netherlands. To start with, all the Dutch mainstream media are owned by three companies. The first one is De PersGroep [DPG Media], the parent company of the following brands (. Apart from the many newspapers and magazines, they also own Sanoma, the parent company of some of the big commercial Dutch channels. Many media outlets from abroad, like VTM are also owned by the De PersGroep.The second one is Mediahuis, one of Europe's biggest media concerns. In the Netherlands, Mediahuis owns the following brands. Until 2017, also Sky Radio and Radio Veronica were owned by Mediahuis, as were Radio 538 and radio 10.And then there is Bertelsmann, which is one of the 9 biggest media firms. This company owns RTL, that owns 45 television stations and 32 radio stations in 11 countries. But Bertelsmann is also co-owner of the world's biggest book publisher, Penguin Random House.The stocks of these companies are owned by private funds of three families. Those are the Belgian Van Thillo family, the Belgian Leysen family and the German Bertelsmann-Mohn family. All three families sided with the Nazis in the War.According to Wikipedia, for this reason, the Telegraaf, the Leysen newspaper was temporarily forbidden in the Netherlands after the war.THE FAKE NEWSTo complete this overview, look at where the news comes from. The daily news of all these media outlets the diverse news media do not produce news. They use information and footage from the press agencies, .ANP and Reuters. These agencies are not independent. .ANP is owned by Talpa, John de Mol. Thomson-Reuters is owned by the powerful Canadian Thomson family.The most important journalists and editors working for these agencies are members of a journalism agency, like the European Journalism Centre. These are one of the biggest European sponsors of media-related projects. They educate journalists, publish study books, provide training spaces and press agencies and work closely together with the big corporations, Google and Facebook.For journalistic analysis and views, the big media use Project Syndicate. This is the most powerful organization in the field. Project Syndicate and organizations like I mentioned are together with the press agencies. The link between all worldwide media outlets when news anchors reap from their autocues [teleprompters], chances are that the text stems from one of these organizations. That is the reason that worldwide media shows synchronicity in their reporting.And look at the European journalism center, itself. Again, the Gates Foundation and the Open Society Foundation. They are also heavily-sponsored by Facebook, Google, the Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Who sponsors the organization and press agencies that produce our news? With Project Syndicate, we see the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Society Foundation and the European Journalism Centre. The organizations that bring the news get paid by non-profit organizations, of the same elite that also owns the entire media but also a part of taxpayers money is used to pay them.In Belgium, there are protests regularly, since Mediahuis and De Persgroep receive millions of euros from the government, while many are abroad…THE DANGER WE ARE IN NOWWell, this was a lot to chew on and I tried to make it as short as I could. I only used examples that I thought were necessary to create a clear overview. This helps to better understand our current situation, that can shed new light on past eventsThere will be enough time to dive into the past, but now let's talk about today but my goal is to inform you about the danger we are in now. The elite governs every aspect of our lives, also, the information we get and they depend on a coordination, cooperation to connect all industries in the world to serve their interests. This is done through the World Economic Forum, among others, a very important organization.Every year in Davos, the CEOs of big corporations meet national leaders, politicians and other influential parties, like UNICEF and Greenpeace. On the supervisory board of the WEF is former Vice President, Al Gore, our own minister, Sigrid Kaag, Feike Sijbesma, Chairman of the Royal Dutch State Mines and the Commissioner of the Dutch bank, Christine Lagarde, the Chairwoman of the European Central Bank. Also, politician, Ferdinand Grapperhaus' son works for the WEF.Wikipedia says that the annual fee for members is 35,000 euros "but over half of our budget comes from partners who pay the cost for politicians who otherwise could not afford membership."According to critics, the WEF is for rich businesses to do business with other businesses or with politicians. For most members, the WEF would support personal gain instead of being a means to solve the world's problems. Why would there be many world problems if the industry leaders, bankers and politicians from 1971 onwards have gathered every year to solve the world's problems?Isn't it illogical, that after 50 years of meetings between environmentalists and the CEOs of the most polluting companies, nature is gradually doing worse, not better; that those critics are right, it's clear, when we look at the main partners that together make up more than half of the budget of the WEF. Because these are BlackRock, the Open Society foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and many big companies, from which Vanguard and BlackRock own the stocks.Chairman and founder of the WEF is Klaus Schwab, a Swiss professor and businessman. In his book, The Great Reset, he writes about the plans of his organization. The coronavirus is, according to him a great "opportunity" to reset our societies. He calls it "Build Back Better". The slogan is now on the lips of all Globalist politicians in the world.Our old society must switch to a new one, says Schwab. The people own nothing but work for the state to have their primary needs met. The WEF says it's necessary for the consumption society the elite forced upon us is not sustainable anymore. Schwab says in his book that we will never return to the old normal and the WEF published a video recently to make clear that by 2030, we will own nothing but we will be happy.THE GREAT RESET = THE NEW WORLD ORDERYou probably heard of the New World Order. The media wants us to believe that this is a conspiracy theory, yet it has been talked about by leaders for decades. Not just George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela but also world-famous philanthropists, like Cecil Rhodes, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and even George Soros.The UN presented in 2015 their controversial Agenda 2030. It is almost identical to the Great Reset of Klaus Schwab. The UN wants to make sure, as does Schwab that in 2030, poverty, hunger, pollution and disease no longer plague the Earth.Sounds nice but wait till you read the small print. The plan is that Agenda 2030 will be paid by us, the citizens. Just like they ask of us now to give away our rights for public health, they will ask us to give away our wealth to battle poverty. These are no conspiracy theories. It is on their official website. It comes down to this: The UN wants taxes from Western countries to be split by the mega corporations of the elite to create a brand new society. The new infrastructure, because fossil fuels are gone in 2030.For this project, the UN says we need a world government, namely the UN, itself.The UN agrees with Schwab that a pandemic is a golden chance to accelerate the implementation of Agenda 2030.It is worrisome that the WEF and the UN openly admit that pandemics and other catastrophes can be used to reshape society. We must not think lightly about this and do thorough research.END TRANSCRIPT. The Transcript is included in Bill Sardi's article (item 2) - which has since been removed from Who Runs The World? Blackrock and Vanguard; "Pandemic" was orchestrated to bring World Government about - Bill SardiFrom: JUDY schuchmann <>'s no longer at I found it at Runs The World? Blackrock and VanguardBy Bill SardiApril 21, 2021If you've been wondering how the world economy has been hijacked and humanity has been kidnapped by a completely bogus narrative, look no further than this video by Dutch creator, Covid Lie.What she uncovers is that the stock of the world's largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. They all own each other. This means that "competing" brands, like Coke and Pepsi aren't really competitors, at all, since their stock is owned by exactly the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies, banks and in some cases, governments. This is the case, across all industries. As she says:"The smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies whose names we have often seen…They are Vanguard and BlackRock. The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies. This gives them a complete monopoly.A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost everything.Bloomberg calls BlackRock "The fourth branch of government", because it's the only private agency that closely works with the central banks. BlackRock lends money to the central bank but it's also the advisor. It also develops the software the central bank uses. Many BlackRock employees were in the White House with Bush and Obama. Its CEO. Larry Fink can count on a warm welcome from leaders and politicians. Not so strange, if you know that he is the front man of the ruling company but Larry Fink does not pull the strings himself.BlackRock, itself is also owned by shareholders. Who are those shareholders? We come to a strange conclusion. The biggest shareholder is Vanguard. But now he gets murky. Vanguard is a private company and we cannot see who the shareholders are. The elite who own Vanguard apparently do not like being in the spotlight but of course they cannot hide from who is willing to dig.Reports from Oxfam and Bloomberg say that 1% of the world, together owns more money than the other 99%. Even worse, Oxfam says that 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to this 1%.In other words, these two investment companies, Vanguard and BlackRock hold a monopoly in all industries in the world and they, in turn are owned by the richest families in the world, some of whom are royalty and who have been very rich since before the Industrial Revolution. Why doesn't everybody know this? Why aren't there movies and documentaries about this? Why isn't it in the news? Because 90% of the international media is owned by nine media conglomerates.Covid Lie asks, "Who sponsors the organization and press agencies that produce our news? With Project Syndicate, we see the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Society Foundation and the European Journalism Centre. The organizations that bring the news get paid by non-profit organizations, of the same elite that also owns the entire media but also a part of taxpayers money is used to pay them."Or, as George Carlin said, "It's a small club and you ain't in it."So when Lynn Forester de Rothschild wants the United States to be a one-party country (like China) and doesn't want voter ID laws passed in the US, so that more election fraud can be perpetrated to achieve that end,what does she do?She holds a conference call with the world's top 100 CEOs and tells them to publicly decry as "Jim Crow" Georgia's passing of an anti-corruption law and she orders her dutiful CEOs to boycott the State of Georgia, like we saw with Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball and even Hollywood star, Will Smith. In this conference call, we see shades of the Great Reset, Agenda 2030, the New World Order.The UN wants to make sure, as does Schwab that in 2030, poverty, hunger, pollution and disease no longer plague the Earth. To achieve this, the UN wants taxes from Western countries to be split by the mega corporations of the elite to create a brand new society. For this project, the UN says we need a world government – namely the UN, itself.And it is clear that the "pandemic" was orchestrated in order to bring this about. This video does an incredible job of explaining how it is all being done.(3) Three corporations - BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street - own corporate America three firms own corporate AmericaMay 10, 2017 4.14pm AESTby Jan Fichtner,Eelke Heemskerk andJavier Garcia-BernardoA fundamental change is underway in stock market investing, and the spin-off effects are poised to dramatically impact corporate America.In the past, individuals and large institutions mostly invested in actively managed mutual funds, such as Fidelity, in which fund managers pick stocks with the aim of beating the market. But since the financial crisis of 2008, investors have shifted to index funds, which replicate established stock indices, such as the S&P 500.The magnitude of the change is astounding: from 2007 to 2016, actively managed funds have recorded outflows of roughly US$1,200 billion, while index funds had inflows of over US$1,400 billion.In the first quarter of 2017, index funds brought in more than US$200 billion – the highest quarterly value on record.Democratising the market?This shift, arguably the biggest investment swing in history, is due in large part to index funds' much lower costs.Actively managed funds analyse the market, and their managers are well paid for their labour. But the vast majority are not able to consistently beat the index.So why pay 1% to 2% in fees every year for active funds when index funds cost a tenth of that and deliver the same performance?Some observers have lauded this development as the "democratisation of investing", because it has significantly lowered investor expenses.But other impacts of this seismic shift are far from democratising. One crucial difference between the active fund and the index fund industries is that the former is fragmented, consisting of hundreds of different asset managers both small and large.The fast-growing index sector, on the other hand, is highly concentrated. It is dominated by just three giant American asset managers: BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – what we call the Big Three.Lower fees aside, the rise of index funds has entailed a massive concentration of corporate ownership. Together, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have nearly US$11 trillion in assets under management. That's more than all sovereign wealth funds combined and over three times the global hedge fund industry.In a recently published paper, our CORPNET research project comprehensively mapped the ownership of the Big Three. We found that the Big Three, taken together, have become the largest shareholder in 40% of all publicly listed firms in the United States.In 2015, these 1,600 American firms had combined revenues of about US$9.1 trillion, a market capitalisation of more than US$17 trillion, and employed more than 23.5 million people.In the S&P 500 – the benchmark index of America's largest corporations – the situation is even more extreme. Together, the Big Three are the largest single shareholder in almost 90% of S&P 500 firms, including Apple, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, General Electric and Coca-Cola. This is the index in which most people invest.The power of passive investorsWith corporate ownership comes shareholder power. BlackRock recently argued that legally it was not the "owner" of the shares it holds but rather acts as a kind of custodian for their investors.That's a technicality for lawyers to sort. What is undeniable is that the Big Three do exert the voting rights attached to these shares. Therefore, they have to be perceived as de facto owners by corporate executives.These companies have, in fact, publicly declared that they seek to exert influence. William McNabb, chairman and CEO of Vanguard, said in 2015 that, "In the past, some have mistakenly assumed that our predominantly passive management style suggests a passive attitude with respect to corporate governance. Nothing could be further from the truth."When we analysed the voting behaviour of the Big Three, we found that they coordinate it through centralised corporate governance departments. This requires significant efforts because technically the shares are held by many different individual funds.Hence, just three companies wield an enormous potential power over corporate America. Interestingly, though, we found that the Big Three vote for management in about 90% of all votes at annual general meetings, while mostly voting against proposals sponsored by shareholders (such as calls for independent board chairmen).One interpretation is that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are reluctant to exert their power over corporate America. Others question whether the Big Three really want this voting power, as they primarily seek to minimise costs.Corporate American monopolyWhat are the future consequences of the Big Three's unprecedented common ownership position?Research is still nascent, but some economists are already arguing that this concentration of shareholder power could have negative effects on competition.Over the past decade, numerous US industries have become dominated by only a handful of companies, from aviation to banking. The Big Three – seen together – are virtually always the largest shareholder in the few competitors that remain in these sectors.This is the case for American Airlines, Delta, and United Continental, as it is for the banks JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citigroup. All of these corporations are part of the S&P 500, the index in which most people invest.Their CEOs are likely well aware that the Big Three are their firm's dominant shareholder and would take that into account when making decisions. So, arguably, airlines have less incentive to lower prices because doing so would reduce overall returns for the Big Three, their common owner.In this way, the Big Three may be exerting a kind of emergent "structural power" over much of corporate America.Whether or not they sought to, the Big Three have accumulated extraordinary shareholder power, and they continue to do so. Index funds are a business of scale, which means that at this point competitors will find it very difficult to gain market shares.In many respects, the index fund boom is turning BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street into something resembling low-cost public utilities with a quasi-monopolistic position. Facing such a concentration of ownership and thus potential power, we can expect demands for increased regulatory scrutiny of corporate America's new "de facto permanent governing board" to increase in coming years.(4) State Attorneys General call for Dr. Mercola & RFKjr to be silenced Attorneys General Threaten to Silence Dr. Mercolaby Dr. Joseph MercolaApril 22, 2021While, for many years, I’ve been a popular target for Big Pharma smear campaigns, 2020 onward has really given new meaning to what it means to be under attack. I’m not alone, by any means, as censorship of anti-propaganda narratives have ratcheted up to unprecedented levels for many others seeking to uncover the truth.These days, even elected government officials misuse their positions of power to openly call for censorship of certain groups, organizations and individuals in direct violation of Constitutional law — the highest law of the land.The latest in this series of attacks comes from two state attorneys general, Letitia James of New York and William Tong of Connecticut, who in an April 8, 2021, op-ed1 in The Washington Post stated, right in the headline, that "Anti-vaxxers put us all at risk," and that "Facebook and Twitter must ban them."According to James and Tong, COVID-19 vaccine availability marks "the end of the pandemic and the start of our recovery," but "vaccine availability means nothing without vaccine acceptance."This lack of acceptance of novel gene therapy technology, they claim, is all because a small group of individuals with a social media presence — myself included — are successfully misleading the public with lies about nonexistent vaccine risks."The solution is not complicated. It’s time for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to turn off this toxic tap and completely remove the small handful of individuals spreading this fraudulent misinformation," they write.2‘The Disinformation Dozen’The basis for their censorship push is a report by two previously unknown groups called the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and Anti-Vax Watch, both of which are opaque in the extreme as to their history and funding.According to that report,3 "The Disinformation Dozen," a mere 12 individuals "are responsible for a full 65% of anti-vaccine content on Facebook and Twitter," Tong and James write, again stressing that "they must be removed from the platforms."4But, just who are these "social media researchers" whose word Tong and James take as gospel? An online search for "Anti-Vax Watch" delivers a single hit for a site called, which is nothing but a simple news aggregator. Its "About" page provides no names, no indication of who is part of this group, or who funds them.The CCDH is only marginally better. As detailed in "Pressure Mounts to Ban My New Book From Amazon," the CCDH is a one-man organization with undisclosed funding and connections to technocrat-led institutions that support the Great Reset.By way of its board members, the CCDH can be linked to the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the European Council of Foreign Relations, Save the Children Fund (funded by the Gates Foundation and a partner of Gates’ GAVI Vaccine Alliance), the British Parliament, the CIA and Reuters. CCDH chairman Simon Clark even has ties to a participant of Event 201 (former CIA deputy director Avril Haines).Event 201 was a coronavirus pandemic exercise held in October 2019 that foreshadowed and "played out" the draconian countermeasures implemented when COVID-19 appeared mere months later. Curiously enough, a primary focus of that exercise was how to best censor and counteract problematic narratives about the virus, public disagreement with pandemic measures and doubts about vaccine safety.You would think that if public health were the primary concern and impetus behind such an exercise — as opposed to wealth transfer, economic destruction and societal reformation — it would focus on the medical and scientific strategies of how to best contain and control the actual virus, and not how best to contain and control information about the virus. Infectious disease control science would have been the key feature, not the science of social engineering."Let us be clear — nothing is wrong with asking questions and researching vaccine effectiveness and safety," Tong and James write.5 "We are not in any way looking to limit the ability of individuals to ask these important questions, but the small handful of people we’re talking about are simply promoting dangerous lies …"People in search of vaccine information should "seek out legitimate medical experts … and official sources, such as local departments of public health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention," they say, adding that:"As the chief law enforcement officers of our states, we can say that there is no First Amendment right to spread disinformation on social media."What Is Disinformation?The problem with this argument is that what they perceive and label as "disinformation" is entirely subjective. The definition of "disinformation" provided by the American Heritage dictionary is: "Deliberately misleading information" and "Dissemination of intentionally false information to deliberately confuse or mislead."I — and, as far as I know, none of the others on the CCDH’s hit list — am not engaging in the dissemination of "intentionally false" information with the "deliberate intent" to confuse or mislead. We provide information — the other side of the story — that "official" sources and mainstream media not only refuse to share but social media platforms will ban them for sharing. We provide a counterbalance to the wholly one-sided official narrative.With respect to my own site, my articles are fully referenced to publications in the medical literature, and I make every effort to clearly indicate where I insert my own opinions.I’ve also published my own research in peer-reviewed journals, the last of which was a scientific review6 on the impact of vitamin D in COVID-19, co-written with William Grant, Ph.D., and Dr. Carol Wagner, both of whom are part of the GrassrootsHealth expert vitamin D panel. You can read the paper for free on the journal’s website.Opinions are protected speech under the First Amendment, as is reporting on published science — even if that science is later found to be flawed, incomplete or, in worst case, outright fraudulent. The fake hydroxychloroquine study in The Lancet, which was ultimately retracted after being exposed, is a perfect example.This study, which was found to be completely fraudulent, was reported as fact, worldwide, by virtually all mainstream media and continues to serve as the basis for the WHO’s discrediting of hydroxychloroquine. If opinion and scientific reporting were not protected speech, Tong’s and James’ own op-ed could be banned, as could every single mainstream media report on scientific findings that has ever been published.No one has unequivocal rights to the truth. No one "owns" the truth. There is no single group or organization on this earth that knows everything, has all the facts and tells the unbiased truth. Tong and James would like you to believe otherwise. They want you to listen to select sources only — sources which, curiously, only present one side of any given argument. This is what social engineering is all about."Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime," Lavrentiy Beria once said. Beria, described7 as "the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror," claimed he could prove criminal conduct on behalf of anyone, even people who were completely innocent.Indeed, anyone can be made to look like a crook. Facts can be twisted through clever wording salted with hidden bias. But, usually, truth tends to win in the end. You just have to survive long enough.Illegal Attacks on Free SpeechIn their op-ed, Tong and James admit they intend to use their official powers to force social media companies to comply with their demand to censor certain individuals. If platforms refuse to violate the free speech of select people, they will find something to prosecute. Does this sound unethical to anyone else but me?The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. ~ Supreme Court Justice Clarence ThomasAs noted by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an April 5, 2021, ruling8 in which he weighed in on the ability of social media giants to control free speech:"The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly … Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital platform if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats."As attorneys general, Tong and James are government officials and, as such, they are legally barred from accomplishing "through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits [them] from doing directly."In other words, they do not have the legal right to pressure social media companies into violating the First Amendment rights9 of Americans when they do not have the legal right to censor or "abridge"10 free speech themselves. Put yet another way, it is illegal for government officials to pressure private companies into censoring free speech on their behalf or at their request, since they as government officials do not themselves have the right to infringe on free speech.‘Free Press’ Pushes for Censorship, and MoreThe fact that attorneys general are now getting involved and calling for censorship is to me a sign of just how desperate Big Pharma and the Great Reset interests are getting. There’s no room for free speech and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment in that New World Order.To their credit, they have, over the decades, masterfully infiltrated and now appear to control all the required areas of influence, from media, Big Tech and Hollywood, to nongovernmental organizations with global influence, government agencies and intelligence agencies of all stripes.In a sane, free world concerned with democratic processes, we simply would not see a "free press" calling for the censorship of books,11 we would not see public officials calling for the selective elimination of free speech (as has been done by several congressmen and senators in recent months12,13,14), and writing legislation aimed at penalizing social media companies that refuse to censor.15We would not see a dozen state attorneys general — chief law enforcers — calling for the selective elimination of First Amendment rights by private companies,16 and we would not see intelligence agencies using sophisticated cyberwarfare tools to aid in the elimination of select speech online.17,18,19In a free world, all of these would stand squarely on the side of free speech rights. So, that must mean we no longer live in a free world where democratic processes and Constitutional rights are given their due consideration.Decentralized Uncensorable Web Is Part of the AnswerIn his legal commentary,20 Supreme Court Justice Thomas presents an intriguing idea for how to address the monopolistic power over speech currently wielded by social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, which would be to treat them as public utilities that, like phone service providers, must serve all customers, without discrimination.21That’s certainly one way to go, and would probably be a positive strategy. Beyond that, however, we really need a more censor-proof web in general. This is something a decentralized, blockchain-based web can provide. I am currently working with some of the brightest minds in the tech space who are committed to preserving your personal freedoms and liberties.The technology22 focuses on maintaining data sovereignty, giving you control over your data and privacy, and undoing the current system of surveillance capitalism where Big Tech profits off your personal data and uses it against you at the same time. In this Web 2.0, tech monopolies also will no longer have the ability to censor.In the meantime, consider ditching social media networks that erode your civil liberties, and to join those that promote freedom of speech instead. For example, free-speech alternatives to Facebook and Twitter include Gab, MeWe, Minds and Parler. Uncensored alternatives to YouTube include Bitchute, Rumble, Brighteon, BrandNewTube, and Thinkspot.For content creators and alternative news sources that no longer have a social media presence due to censoring, subscribe to their newsletter if available, and/or mark their website in your favorites and check back on a regular basis.- Sources and References1, 2, 4, 5 Washington Post April 8, 20213 CCDH, The Disinformation Dozen6 Nutrients October 31, 2020;12, 3361; doi:10.3390/nu121133617 Oxford Eagle May 9, 20188, 20 Ruling for writ of certiorari, President Joe Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, April 5, 2021 (PDF)9, 10 History, First Amendment11 Sky News March 5, 202112 Glenn Greenwald Substack February 23, 202113 Yahoo March 25, 202114 March 24, 202115 KSRO April 9, 202116 AG Letter to Tech CEOs March 24, 2021 (PDF)17 The Times November 9, 202018 UK Defense Journal November 10, 202019 The National News November 9, 202021 Matt Stoller Substack Why Is Clarence Thomas Attacking Google?22 The Conversation February 5, 2021(5) The Disinformation DozenWhy Platforms must act on Twelve Leading Online Anti-VaxxersCenter for Countering Digital Hateand Anti-Vax Watch ......................................................................................................................................................4Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 5The Disinformation Dozen are responsible for up to 65% of anti-vaccine content ...............6The Disinformation Dozen account for up to 73% of Facebook’s anti-vaxx content..............7Facebook is underestimating the influence of leading anti-vaxxers ..........................................8Up to 17% of anti-vaccine tweets feature the Disinformation Dozen..........................................9Platforms must act on the Disinformation Dozen ............................................................................ 10Platforms must do more to protect users from harmful misinformation...................................11Appendix: The Disinformation Dozen ....................................................................................................121 Joseph Mercola........................................................................................................................................122 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ...........................................................................................................................143 Ty & Charlene Bollinger...................................................................................................................... 164 Sherri Tenpenny................................................................................................................................... 185 Rizza Islam...............................................................................................................................................216 Rashid Buttar.........................................................................................................................................247 Erin Elizabeth .........................................................................................................................................258 Sayer Ji.................................................................................................................................................... 289 Kelly Brogan............................................................................................................................................3110 Christiane Northrup ...........................................................................................................................3311 Ben Tapper.............................................................................................................................................3512 Kevin Jenkins....................................................................................................................................... 383The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a not-for-profit NGO that seeks to disrupt thearchitecture of online hate and misinformation. ...Anti-Vax Watch is an alliance of concerned individuals who are seeking to educate theAmerican public about the dangers of the anti-vax industry.Comment (Peter M.):Meryl Nass and Peter Koenig might be offended at not being included. Must be because they're on websites but not FB or Twitter.(6) 'Food Crisis' a myth pushed by Agribusiness; small farmers CAN feed the world, provided prices are high enough for them to make a living Big Ag Doesn’t Want You to Know: Small Farms Can Feed the WorldAccording to a new peer-reviewed paper, "The Myth of a Food Crisis," corrupt philanthropic and academic sectors in agriculture and development perpetuate the lie that Big Ag is the only way to feed the world.By Jonathan Latham, Ph.D.Sustainable, local, organic food grown on small farms has a tremendous amount to offer.The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It's free.Sustainable, local, organic food grown on small farms has a tremendous amount to offer. Unlike chemical-intensive industrial-scale agriculture, it regenerates rural communities; it doesn’t pollute rivers and groundwater or create dead zones; it can save coral reefs; it doesn’t encroach on rainforests; it preserves soil and it can restore the climate. Why do all governments not promote it?For policymakers, the big obstacle to global promotion and restoration of small-scale farming (leaving aside the lobbying power of agribusiness) is allegedly that, "it can’t feed the world." If that claim were true, local food systems would be bound to leave people hungry and so promoting them becomes selfish, short-termist and unethical.Nevertheless, this purported flaw in sustainable and local agriculture represents a curious charge because, no matter where one looks in global agriculture, food prices are low because products are in surplus.Often, they are in huge surplus, even in the hungriest countries. Farmers will tell you they are going out of business because, as a result of these surpluses, prices are low and continuously falling. Indeed, declining agricultural prices are a broad trend continuing, with the odd blip, for over a century, and applying to every commodity. This downward trend has continued even through a recent biofuel boom designed to consume some of these surpluses. In other words, the available data contradict the likelihood of food shortages. Despite the rising global population, food gluts are everywhere.Global food modelsThe standard justification for claiming that these surpluses will one day turn into global food shortages comes from various mathematical models of the food system. These models are based on food production and other figures supplied to the UN by national governments. Whereas anecdotal or local evidence is necessarily suspect, these models claim to be able to definitively assess and predict the enormous, diverse and highly complex global food system.The most prominent and most widely cited of these food system models is called GAPS (Global Agriculture Perspectives System). GAPS is a model created by researchers at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome. These models — and most often GAPS — are thus what is being cited in any quantitative discussion of future food needs. GAPS, for example, is the basis for the common ‘60% more food needed by 2050’ prediction, what Britain’s chief scientist John Beddington called "a perfect storm" facing humanity.How reliable are these food system models?In 2010 Professor Thomas Hertel of Purdue University gave the annual presidential address of the U.S. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. He chose to discuss the ability of mathematical models like GAPS to predict future supplies (this work was subsequently published). Hertel told his audience that those models are faulty.What Hertel highlighted is that economic analysis has plainly shown that food supplies respond to long-term prices. That is, when prices for food items increase, food production also increases. For example, when prices increase, it becomes more worthwhile for farmers to invest in boosting their yields; but when prices are low there is little such incentive. Other actors in the food system behave similarly.Yet global food models, noted Hertel, have adopted the opposite interpretation: they assume global food supplies are insensitive to prices.In the firm but diplomatic tone expected of a presidential address, Hertel told his audience:"I fear that much of this rich knowledge has not yet worked its way into the global models being used for long run analysis of climate, biofuels and agricultural land use … it is not clear that the resulting models are well-suited for the kind of long run sustainability analysis envisioned here."This is rather important. Since the whole point of these models is long-term prediction, if global food models underestimate the ability of food systems to adjust to higher demand, they will tend to predict a crisis even when there isn’t one.Like all mathematical models, GAPS and other food system models incorporate numerous assumptions. These assumptions are typically shared across related models, which is why they tend to give similar answers. The reliability of all such models therefore depends crucially on the validity of shared assumptions like the one Hertel focused on.Hertel’s analysis therefore prompts two important questions. The first is this: If GAPS contains an assumption that contradicts the collective wisdom of conventional agricultural economics, what other questionable assumptions hide in global food models?Surprisingly though, given the stakes, scarcely any attention has been devoted to rigorous independent testing of these crucial assumptions.The second question is this: Is it significant that the error identified by Hertel will tend to generate predictions that are unnecessarily alarmist?Critiquing the critical assumptionsIn a new peer-reviewed paper, "The Myth of a Food Crisis," I have critiqued FAO’s GAPS — and by extension all similar food system models — at the level of these, often unstated, assumptions."The Myth of a Food Crisis" identifies four assumptions in food system models that are especially problematic since they have major effects on the reliability of modeling predictions. In summary, these are:1. That biofuels are driven by ‘demand.’As the paper shows, biofuels are incorporated into GAPS on the demand side of equations. However, biofuels derive from lobbying efforts. They exist to solve the problem of agricultural oversupply. Since biofuels contribute little or nothing to sustainability, land used for them is available to feed populations if needed. This potential availability (e.g., 40% of U.S. corn is used for corn ethanol) makes it plainly wrong for GAPS to treat biofuels as an unavoidable demand on production.2. That current agricultural production systems are optimized for productivity.As the paper also shows, agricultural systems are typically not optimized to maximize calories or nutrients. Usually, they optimize profits (or sometimes subsidies), with very different results. For this reason, practically all agricultural systems could produce many more nutrients per acre at no ecological cost if desired.3. That crop "yield potentials" have been correctly estimated.Using the example of rice, the paper shows that some farmers, even under suboptimal conditions, achieve yields far in excess of those considered possible by GAPS. Thus the yield ceilings assumed by GAPS are far too low for rice and probably other crops too. Therefore GAPS grossly underestimates agricultural potential.4. That annual global food production is approximately equal to global food consumption.As the paper also shows, a significant proportion of annual global production ends up in storage where it degrades and is disposed of without ever being counted by GAPS. There is thus a very large accounting hole in GAPS.The specific ways in which these four assumptions are incorporated into GAPS and other models produces one of two effects. Each causes GAPS to either underestimate global food supply (now and in the future), or to overestimate global food demand (now and in the future).Thus GAPS and other models underestimate supply and exaggerate demand.The cumulative effect is dramatic. Using peer-reviewed data, the discrepancy between food availability estimated by GAPS and the underlying supply is calculated in the paper. Such calculations show that GAPS and other models omit approximately enough food annually to feed 12.5 billion persons. That is a lot of food, but it does perfectly explain why the models are so discrepant with policymakers’ and farmers’ consistent experiences of the food system.The implicationsThe consequences of this analysis are very significant on a number of fronts. There is no global shortage of food. Even under any plausible future population scenario or potential increases in wealth, the current global glut will not disappear due to elevated demand. Among the many implications of this glut is, other things being equal, global commodity prices will continue to decline. The potential caveat to this is climate chaos. Climate consequences are not factored into this analysis. However, for people who think that industrial agriculture is the solution to that problem, it is worth recalling that industrialized food systems are the leading emitter of carbon dioxide. Industrializing food production is therefore not the solution to climate change — it is the problem.Another significant implication of this analysis is to remove the justification for the (frequently suggested) adoption of special and sacrificial ‘sustainable intensification’ measures featuring intensive use of pesticides, GMOs and gene edited organisms to boost food production. What is needed to save rainforests and other habitats from agricultural expansion is instead to reduce the subsidies and incentives that are responsible for overproduction and unsustainable practices.In this way, harmful agricultural policies can be replaced by ones guided by criteria such as ecological sustainability and cultural appropriateness.A second implication stems from asking: if the models err on such elementary levels, why are critics largely absent? Thomas Hertel’s critique should have rung alarm bells. The short answer is that the philanthropic and academic sectors in agriculture and development are corrupt. The form this corruption takes is not illegality — rather that, with important exceptions, these sectors do not serve the public interest, but their own interests.A good example is the FAO, which created GAPS. The primary mandate of FAO is to enable food production — its motto is Fiat Panis — but without an actual or imminent food crisis there would hardly be a need for an FAO. Many philanthropic and academic institutions are equally conflicted. It is no accident that all the critics mentioned above are relative or complete outsiders. Too many participants in the food system depend on a crisis narrative.But the biggest factor of all in promotion of the crisis narrative is agribusiness. Agribusiness is the entity most threatened by its exposure.It is agribusiness that perpetuates the myth most actively and makes best use of it by endlessly championing itself as the only valid bulwark against starvation. It is agribusiness that most aggressively alleges that all other forms of agriculture are inadequate. This Malthusian spectre is a good story, it’s had a tremendous run but it’s just not true. By exposing it, we can free up agriculture to work for everyone.Originally published by Independent Science News. <>END.6) Agribusiness has Hijacked the UN Food Summit