Only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.
In 2013, Oxfam International created a “Behind the Brands” report, which focused on 10 of the world’s biggest and most influential food and beverage companies. These mega-corporations are so powerful that their policies can have a major impact on the diets and working conditions of people worldwide.
In an effort to push these companies to make positive changes—and for customers to realize who controls the brands they are buying—Oxfam created a mind-boggling infographic that shows how interconnected consumer brands really are.
Based on the report, these 10 companies, known as the “Big Ten,” are Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars, Associated British Foods and Mondelez. Each of these companies employs thousands and make billions of dollars in revenue every year, while virtually controlling the world’s food supply.
The Oxfam scorecard assesses the agricultural sourcing policies of the world’s 10 largest food and beverage companies and exclusively focused on publicly available information that relates to the policies of these companies on their sourcing of agricultural commodities from developing countries.
The selection of these companies was based on those with the largest overall revenues globally, as well as their position in the Forbes 2000 annual ranking, which measures companies on the basis of composite sales, assets, profits and market value.
The agriculture and food production industry employed more than one billion people as of last year, or a third of the global workforce. While the industry is substantial, a relatively small number of companies wield an enormous amount of influence.
“If you look at the massive global food system, it’s hard to get your head around. Just a handful of companies can dictate food choices, supplier terms and consumer variety,” Chris Jochnick, director of the private sector department at Oxfam America, told 24/7 Wall St.
“In Pakistan, rural communities say Nestlé is bottling and selling valuable groundwater near villages that can’t afford clean water. In 2009, Kraft was accused of purchasing beef from Brazilian suppliers linked to cutting down trees in the Amazon rainforest in order to graze cattle. And today, Coca-Cola is facing allegations of child labor in its supply chain in the Philippines,” the Oxfam “Behind the Brand” report notes.
“Sadly, these charges are not anomalies. For more than 100 years, the world’s most powerful food and beverage companies have relied on cheap land and labor to produce inexpensive products and huge profits. But these profits have often come at the cost of the environment and local communities around the world, and have contributed to a food system in crisis.”
These 10 companies are among the largest in the world by a number of measures and essentially operate as an oligopoly. Every one of the “Big 10” had revenues in the tens of billions of dollars in Fiscal Year 2013—with five of these companies having at least $50 billion in assets, while four had more than $6 billion in profits last year.
Many of these companies are household names, as they often spend massive amounts on advertising in an effort to promote their brands. Out of these companies, nine of the ten were among the 100 largest purchasers of media advertising in the world in 2012. Coca-Cola, the world’s sixth largest advertiser, spent more than $3 billion in 2012 on advertising. Unilever’s media expenditure, at $7.4 billion, was the second-highest worldwide.
Essentially, these companies work to propagandize the public into a sense of familiarity through advertising, in an effort to keep people buying their “food-like” products. Across western society, and specifically in the United States, most of what we buy is what environmental and food advocate Michael Pollan deems “edible, food-like substances.”
“If it has more than five ingredients, it’s probably not food. Or if it has ingredients that your third grader can’t pronounce, it’s probably not food,” Pollan says.
Typically, “food-like” items come from a guy in a white lab coat, rather than from nature, and these products are not good for your body, or your health. It is important to remember that the “Big 10” specialize in edible “food-like” products that come from a lab and you should do your best to steer clear of them.
While “food-like” products may not be extremely harmful when used infrequently, it is important to remember that these products often contain unhealthy trans fats, high levels of sodium, hydrogenated oils and refined sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup. All of these things have been linked to one or more chronic diseases. In addition, many processed foods are much lower in vitamins and minerals but much higher in calories than whole foods.
Please share this enlightening infographic to help others become aware of which companies are selling the vast majority of unhealthy “food-like” substances that are detrimental to the human health!
I’ve written about the dangers of monopolies within the drug and agricultural industries on numerous occasions, but Google is perhaps one of the greatest monopolies that ever existed on the planet. The reason why I’ve decided to address Google here is because the technology giant is injecting itself ever deeper into our day-to-day lives, from childhood education to patented meat substitutes1,2 and health care, and with its internet monopoly and personal information tracking and sharing,
Google poses a very unique threat. Anyone concerned about their health and food and their ability to obtain truthful information about both needs to understand the role Google plays, and whose side Google is really on.
Starting with the issue of health care, the company recently partnered with the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and is getting deeper into the drug promotion business with its launch of a depression self-assessment quiz.3,4 Just like WebMD before it, this test funnels you toward a drug solution. No matter how you answered WebMD’s questions, you were diagnosed as being at risk for major depression and urged to discuss treatment with your doctor.
That test, it turns out, was sponsored by drugmaker Eli Lilly, maker of the antidepressant Cymbalta. Now, any time you use the search term “clinical depression” in the Google mobile search engine, you will find a link to a page to “check if you’re clinically depressed.” The quiz is part of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHG-9), “a clinically validated screening questionnaire” according to MedicalXpress.5
Beware of ‘Patient’s Rights Groups’ Working on Behalf of Drug Makers
While it may seem like an altruistic ideal to raise awareness about mental illness, the “stop the stigma” campaign is actually funded and driven by the drug industry itself, under the guise of various front groups, of which NAMI is one. As noted by PsychCentral, nearly 75 percent of the organization’s funding comes from drug companies.6 Evidence also shows that drug companies have instructed NAMI to “resist state efforts to limit access to mental health drugs” and “how to advocate forcefully for issues that affect industry profits.”
As noted by CCHR International,7 the “next time you see an ad promoting ‘stop the stigma’ see it for what it is, a pharmaceutical marketing campaign.” While CCHR was started by the Church of Scientology, which does not believe in conventional psychiatry to begin with, the group has some valid points. What they forgot or failed to include is the fact that the insurance industry has also played a significant role in creating the trend of over-prescriptions by favoring reimbursement for drug treatment over other forms of treatment.
The article goes on to discuss how the drug industry created “patient’s rights groups” for the mentally ill. In reality, these so-called advocacy groups are part of the drug industry’s marketing and lobbying machine. According to CCHR, front groups like NAMI and Children and Adults With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) “have consistently lobbied for legislation that benefits the mental health and pharmaceutical industries which fund them, and not patients they claim to represent,” adding:
“A patients’ rights group for the mentally ill would never endorse something as absurd and obviously dangerous as giving electroshock to pregnant women, nor condone schools being able to require children to take a psychiatric drug as a condition of attending school.
Furthermore, they would never be opposed to the FDA actually doing its job and finally issuing long overdue warnings that antidepressants can cause children to commit suicide, or issue warnings that ADHD drugs have serious and even deadly side effects. Yet these are just some of the actions condoned and promoted by these so-called patients’ rights groups.
To put it simply, these groups are not what they appear to be. Yet their influence over legislation, lobbying, drug regulation (or lack thereof), and public relations campaigns is substantial and effects the entire nation,” CCHR warns. “[T]hese groups … frenetically lobby Congress and state governments to channel billions more taxpayers’ dollars into mental health programs that benefit the industry that funds them — not the patients they claim to represent.”
Tech-Driven Mental Health Diagnostics
In 2015, Google hired former National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) director8 Dr. Tom Insel as senior researcher for the Google Life Sciences (GLS) unit.9 (GLS was later rebranded as Verily, partially owned by Alphabet, the parent company that now also owns Google.) At the time, Insel told The Register his job at GLS would entail identifying technology to “help with earlier detection, better prevention and more effective management of serious health conditions.”
Insel served as director for NIMH between 2002 and 2015.10 In 2010, Insel — who led efforts to tighten ethics rules — got caught up in a conflicts of interest scandal and was accused of having a longstanding “quid pro quo” relationship with Charles B. Nemeroff, a psychiatrist and researcher at Emory University found guilty of failing to disclose pharmaceutical funds totaling $1.2 million.11 According to The Chronicle of Higher Education:12
“In 2003, the journal Nature toughened its policies for author disclosures after Dr. Nemeroff used an article in Nature Neuroscience to praise treatments for depression in which he had an unreported financial interest. In 2004, Emory issued a report citing him for multiple “serious” violations of its conflict-of-interest policies for protecting patients.
He quit as editor of the journal Neuropsychopharmacology in 2006 after he was reported to have endorsed an implantable device for treating depression without disclosing payments from its manufacturer. And he finally left Emory … after U.S. Senate investigators found he received $2.8 million from GlaxoSmithKline and other pharmaceutical companies between 2000 and 2007 and failed to disclose at least $1.2 million of it.”
Insel initially denied the charge outright,13 but weeks later expressed regret in a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley, admitting that helping Nemeroff get a job at the University of Miami was inappropriate.14 In May of this year, Insel left Verily (formerly GLS) to join another technology startup called Mindstrong. Interestingly, Mindstrong is doing more or less exactly what Verily is doing — creating smartphone and computer app technologies to diagnose and treat mental health disorders. According to Wired:15
“[A]combination of your medical records … and how you use your gadgets … could be a Big Data bonanza for predicting and treating health issues … In fact, mood is one of the things that Verily’s $100 million Baseline study will track among its 10,000 eventual participants. At Mindstrong, one of the first tests of the concept will be a study of how 600 people use their mobile phones, attempting to correlate keyboard use patterns with outcomes like depression, psychosis, or mania.”
I don’t know about you, but the idea that your electronic medical records might eventually be linked to your use of the internet and social media to assess your risk of mental health problems and/or other health issues does not make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Google has repeatedly been caught infringing on privacy rights and misrepresenting the type and amount of data it collects on its users.
It’s now become clear that Google catches every single thing you do online if you’re using a Google-based feature. It’s also clear that capturing user data is Google’s primary business.16 The fact that it provides services while doing so is really beside the point and serves as a convenient distraction from the fact that obnoxious privacy violations are taking place. As reported by Gawker:17
“Every word of every email sent through Gmail and every click made on a Chrome browser is watched by the company. ‘We don’t need you to type at all,’ [Google co-founder Eric] Schmidt once said. ‘We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.’”
Today’s youth, and their parents, need to be particularly vigilant and aware of what Google is doing. Over the past five years, Google has taken over classrooms across the U.S. As noted by The New York Times,18 more than 30 million American children now use Google-based education apps such as Gmail, Google docs, Google classroom apps and Google-powered Chromebooks.
Once out of school, these youngsters are encouraged to convert their school accounts into personal accounts, allowing Google to build exceptionally powerful personality profiles of them as they grow into young adults. If these profiles are used for marketing purposes only, that would be bad enough. But what if they’re used for other types of profiling? Google’s data harvesting is particularly concerning in light of its military connections.19
A recent Activist Post article reveals how YouTube is censoring Ron Paul, former congressman and 2011 Republican GOP presidential candidate, for promoting peace.20 Paul has also been a tireless defender of health freedom throughout his long career. In other words, Google is now actively controlling the public narrative — also known as social engineering — and, as noted in the article:
“When standing up against an illegal war with a message of peace and liberty becomes a censorable ‘offense’ it’s time to start paying attention … Make no mistake, what we are witnessing on YouTube and Facebook right now is a move to silence the peaceful opposition …
[T]his crackdown is also coinciding with a massive push by the mainstream media to stoke divide among the people … [D]ivisive identity politics are shoved down the collective throats of the masses in order to create an atmosphere so divided that people never look up at who’s controlling them. Disagreeing with the status quo is the new hate speech — speak out and you will be mowed down.”
Google’s catchphrase used to be “Don’t be evil,” but that’s exactly what it is. When Google became Alphabet, it dropped the “don’t be evil” slogan for a more comprehensive motto, which begins with doing “the right thing — follow the law, act honorably, and treat each other with respect.”21 Yet the company continues to act as if it’s above the law and really struggles when it comes to doing what’s right. In fact, Google seems to think its actions are righteous and justifiable simply by the fact that they’re doing them.
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
All of this brings us to the issue of monopolization and the corruption that inevitably follows. At this point, I cannot think of any company operating in breach of antitrust rules as blatantly as Google. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and this adage certainly fits when describing Google. As reported by The Washington Post:22
“Google has established a pattern of lobbying and threatening to acquire power. It has reached a dangerous point … The moment where it no longer wants to allow dissent … Once you reach a pinnacle of power, you start to believe that any threats to your authority are themselves villainous and that you are entitled to shut down dissent. As Lord Acton famously said, ‘Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.’ Those with too much power cannot help but be evil.
Google, the company dedicated to free expression, has chosen to silence opposition, apparently without any sense of irony… [I]n recent years, Google has become greedy about owning not just search capacities, video and maps, but also the shape of public discourse. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, Google has recruited and cultivated law professors who support its views.”
According to a recent Campaign for Accountability (CfA) report,23 Google has paid academics in both the U.S. and Europe millions of dollars to influence public opinion and policymakers alike.24,25
This includes funding research papers “that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy.” Some of these academics have not declared the source of their funding, even though payments have reached as high as $400,000. As noted by The Times:26
“On one occasion Eric Schmidt, Google’s former chief executive, cited a Google-funded author in written answers to Congress to back his claim that his company was not a monopoly — without mentioning that it had paid for the paper …”
Europe Fines Google Nearly $3 Billion for Antitrust Violations
Power can be assessed by looking at lobbying expenditures and, so far this year, Google is leading the pack when it comes to corporate spending on lobbying — efforts primarily aimed at eliminating competitors and gaining power over others. Google also appears to take full advantage of its power over organizations that it helps fund.
A recent example of this was when the Open Markets team at the New America think tank published a statement praising the EU’s decision to levy a $2.7 billion fine against Google for antitrust violations. In summary, Google gave preference to its own shopping subsidiaries over competitors in its search results, which the EU deemed to be a violation of antitrust rules (see the featured video above).
The Open Markets team also called on the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice (DOJ) and state attorneys general to apply American monopoly law to Google’s business in the U.S. Google’s response to the Open Markets statement was swift, and within three days, the New America think tank — which has received more than $21 million from Google over the years — ousted the entire Open Markets team.27
Zephyr Teachout, associate professor of law at Fordham University, writes in her Washington Post article, “Google Is Coming After Critics in Academia and Journalism. It’s Time to Stop Them:”‘ 28
“The imperial overreach of Google in trying to shut down a group of five researchers proves the point that the initial release from Open Markets was trying to make: When companies get too much power, they become a threat to democratic free speech and to the liberty of citizens at large …
Google is forming into a government of itself, and it seems incapable of even seeing its own overreach. We, as citizens, must respond in two ways. First, support the brave researchers and journalists who stand up to overreaching power; and second, support traditional antimonopoly laws that will allow us to have great, innovative companies — but not allow them to govern us.
Google’s actions forced the Open Markets team to leave New America. But, thankfully, it did not succeed in silencing them entirely. Open Markets will continue on as a separate organization, which I will chair. Their work exposing corporate monopolies and advocating for regulation is more important than ever. Google shows us why.”
New America Faces Backlash
The fact that New America was coddling Google and doing the company’s bidding did not go unnoticed, however, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, president of the Google-funded think tank is now accused of jeopardizing New America’s reputation with her decision to kick Open Markets out.
Scholars affiliated with New America have also been “quietly comparing notes on past instances in which they contend she placed donors’ interests over ideology.” According to The New York Times,29 Slaughter has “pledged to re-examine her group’s policies for dealing with donors while defending the organization’s intellectual integrity.” Whatever might come of that “re-examination” remains to be seen.
Former business journalist Barry Lynn, director of Open Markets, who spent over a decade with the New America Foundation before being ousted by Slaughter, has been a longtime advocate against monopolies such as Google, and his work is now gaining traction in what some have called an “antitrust revival.”30 As noted by The Daily Beast:31
“For years, Lynn has been warning about the pernicious effect monopolies have on all facets of American life: from the food one eats, to the financial system one uses, to the forms of communications on which one depends. And for years, his work has been restricted to the usual confines of advocacy and academia …
On [July 24, 2017], that changed. [Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)] … outlined an agenda that put heavy emphasis on cracking down on corporate monopolies.
The topic occupies the first four pages of a 10-page document and includes placing new standards on the consolidation of corporate power, giving new tools to regulators to confirm and review mergers, and creating a new consumer competition advocate to tackle ‘anti-competitive behavior.’ Lynn, who estimates that he has been working on this stuff for 15 years, called the new agenda ‘fantastic.’”
Monopolies Threaten Public Liberties and Democracy
In a recent interview by The Verge,32 Lynn discusses his plans to continue fighting monopolies in America. Open Markets still has most of its funders and the organization is “already up and running” as an independent institution. They also have new funding sources lined up. When asked why it’s so important to dialogue about monopoly power, Lynn replies:
“[M]onopolies are a threat to our democracy and to our basic liberties and to our communities. Monopolization, this concentration of wealth and power, is a threat to everything that is America … So, Open Markets is built to fight the environment of law and regulation that currently promotes unrestrained monopoly. America today has a monopoly problem.
We’re seeing basically a second wave of consolidation and monopolization because of the digital revolution. These companies are just as bad as Newscorp or Walmart or Citibank was in 2005. Google, Facebook, and Amazon: the danger they pose is on a vastly different level.The first issue is consumer protection and potential consumer harm. We created antitrust laws originally to protect our liberties, often as producers of stuff …
My liberty to bring my wheat, my ideas, the product of my labor to market. That’s liberty. The second purpose was to protect our democracy against huge concentrations of wealth and power. To protect our democratic institutions. And the third purpose [was] to protect your community.
If I’m living out in Peoria, do I want the city of Peoria to be run by a couple corporations based on Wall Street, or do I want it to be run by the citizens of Peoria? So you use anti-monopoly law to ensure that.”
Tech Monopolies Merge to Create Ultimate AI World
Last year, The Register33 published an article pointing out the revolving door between Google and EU policy advisers; 16 Google employees have joined the government ranks in the EU while 64 policy advisers left to join Google. We see this revolving door phenomenon so often these days, it’s become quite cliché. Unfortunately, it is highly effective, which is why industry abuses it. Google is running such a clear monopoly, it’s quite astounding the U.S. has not nailed it on antitrust charges similar to those raised in the EU.
Then again, Music Technology Policy published a long article34 last year describing how Google managed to install one of its own lawyers in the DOJ antitrust division, thereby protecting its own interests. These revolving doors between government and corporations exist for a reason, and it is not to benefit the public in any way.
As we look to the future, we also have Google’s sights on artificial intelligence (AI) to contend with. Already, two large monopolies have joined forces to bring about the ultimate AI world. As reported by The New York Times,35 Amazon and Microsoft are now working together, merging their voice-controlled digital assistants — Alexa and Cortana — in order to enlarge the capabilities of both by building on each other’s strengths and abilities.
“In an interview … [Amazon CEO Jeff] Bezos predicted that over time people would turn to different digital assistants … the same way they turn to one friend for advice about hiking and another for restaurant recommendations. ‘I want them to have access to as many of those A.I.s as possible.’ Mr. Bezossaid.”36
Ultimately, the goal is to create self-learning AIs capable of imitating human thought processes. Meanwhile, Vanity Fair reports that Elon Musk is raising a “billion-dollar crusade” to prevent the AI apocalypse, calling for regulations on the technology “before it’s too late.” According to Musk, AIs are improving at a far greater pace than most people realize, and there’s no telling what they might ultimately be used for. Vanity Fair writes:37
“In a startling public reproach to his friends and fellow techies, Musk warned that they could be creating the means of their own destruction. He told Bloomberg’s Ashlee Vance … that he was afraid that his friend Larry Page, a co-founder of Google and now the C.E.O. of its parent company, Alphabet, could have perfectly good intentions but still ‘produce something evil by accident’ — including, possibly, ‘a fleet of artificial intelligence-enhanced robots capable of destroying mankind.’
It’s in Larry Page’s blood and Google’s DNA to believe that A.I. is the company’s inevitable destiny — think of that destiny as you will. (‘If evil A.I. lights up,’ Ashlee Vance told me, ‘it will light up first at Google.’)”
Take Action — Here’s What You Can Do
As you can see, Google (or more accurately, Alphabet, the rebranded parent company that houses all of the various divisions) is turning into a gigantic octopus-like super entity, the tentacles of which reach into government, food production, health care, education, military applications and the creation of AIs that may run more or less independently.
A key component of many of these enterprises is data — your personal usage data; the tracking of every webpage you’ve ever visited and every single thought you’ve ever written on a Google-enabled device, along with geo tracking tracing your every move.
Ultimately, what can be done with that kind of information, besides personalized advertising? How might it be used in combination with military AI-equipped robots? How might it be used to influence your health care decisions? How might it be used to influence your lifestyle decisions? How might (or is) it used to shape politics and society at large?
Today, being a conscious consumer includes making wise, informed decisions about technology. Anyone who has spent even a small amount of time pondering the ramifications of Google’s ever-growing monopoly over our day-to-day lives is likely to shudder at the possibilities and agree that we cannot allow this to continue. To be part of the solution, I encourage you to take the following actions:
Avoid any and all Google products. If you have a Gmail account, close it and open an account with a non-Google affiliated email service. Stop using Google docs. Digital Trends recently published an article suggesting a number of alternatives.38 If you’re a high school student, do not convert the Google accounts you created as a student into personal accounts
Don’t use Google search engine. So far, one of the best alternatives I’ve found is DuckDuckGo.39 It is now my primary search engine and I avoid Gmail and all of Google products whenever possible.
And the unknown trade deal that cost the US a hundred thousand jobs
This isn’t one of the big trade deals everybody knows about.
This one was launched during the glorious Obama years:
The (South) Korea Free Trade Agreement.
Signed, sealed, and delivered by Obama in 2011 with his assurance that it would create 70,000 American jobs.
His assurance was on the level of his promise that, under Obamacare, you would be able to choose your own doctor.
Four years later, in 2016, this was the outcome of the Globalist Korea Free Trade Agreement, as reported by Public Citizen:
“…the loss of more than 102,554 American jobs.”
Oops. Slight miscalculation.
“U.S. goods exports to Korea have dropped 10 percent, or $4.5 billion…”
Sorry about that.
“U.S. imports of goods from Korea have increased 18 percent, or $10.8 billion…”
Sorry about that, too.
How could this have happened? I’ll tell you how. It’s simple. Despite claims, these trade deals are written and calculated to torpedo economies. That’s what Globalists do.
Because an ultimate top-down takeover of populations is easier that way.
Here’s another example: NAFTA. Remember that trade treaty? It enabled, among other consequences, the export of very cheap corn—massive amounts—from the US to Mexico. Result? 1.5 million Mexican corn farmers were thrown out of business. Boom. Many of them decided to come across the border to the US.
Does that sound like an all-around economy-building scenario?
Globalism: the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
No more countries—only elite corporations in control, making markets wherever they can find them…
There’s just one problem. As these corporations and their Globalist leaders play economic game with countries and their people, the net effect is decreasing the number of customers who can afford to buy the corporations’ products.
You can’t just shift the beneficiaries of trade deals from one nation to another, in an unending shuffle and reshuffle of the deck. Sooner or later, you wind up with more sellers than buyers.
You create more overall chaotic conditions.
Elite corporations don’t want to think about this.
They’re counting on governments to bail them out with, for example, some form of “universal income” for citizens, which means expanded welfare. That isn’t going to cut it. Piddling “new money” isn’t going to invent, magically, a billion or two new customers for cars and cell phones and houses.
Basically, these corporations are playing Musical Chairs among themselves. Which companies will survive, and which will fall?
The corporations are dreaming about a controlled future in which they are more powerful kings. It isn’t going to work out. Even mergers and acquisitions won’t win the day.
Robust economies depend on many, many small and large businesses operating in relative freedom, in stable nations.
The fantasy of one global economy is intrinsically a hoax.
When you eliminate tariffs (the goal of all trade treaties), you accentuate the differences between various labor forces. Giant corporations shut down factories in countries where labor is expensive and laws against gross polluting are “obstructing profits,” and they open up those factories in places where labor is dirt cheap and you can pollute night and day.
That isn’t free enterprise. That’s ongoing crime.
Someone eventually pays the piper.
Corporations believe they can, with their Globalist partners, keep postponing a day of reckoning indefinitely.
They’re wrong. The bottom line is the corporations’ bottom line: fewer buyers for their products. They can’t wriggle out of that one.
Free enterprise is the last thing on Globalists’ minds. They want a single worldwide planned economy, with central points for production and distribution of goods and services.
They want a tighter Surveillance State. They want a single toxic medical cartel to dominate citizens’ lives. They want to install many features that add up to massive top-down control.
In this atmosphere, elite corporations are going to thrive?
The truth is, Globalists are USING corporations, temporarily, to forward their aims.
Those corporations don’t want to see this. They want to remain blind. They want to dream their dreams.
These titans, with all their skills, turn out to be the masters of self-delusion.
Stable and separate nations, not Globalism, is the solution staring them in the face.
But they keep their eyes closed.
—Look at Europe. Under the aegis of the Globalist European Union (EU), it is the canary in the coal mine. And the canary is bringing back devastating messages.
Nations are being disrupted and torn by the EU’s forced immigration policy of open borders. Widespread crime, crushing budgets to support the wave of migration, massive unrest.
In this atmosphere, European mega-corporations are going to flourish and grow? New customers are going to appear out of nowhere?
Recall the old term “double cross?” A person allied with one side in a deal secretly betrays the deal and the ally. That’s what Globalist elites are doing to giant corporations.
They’re going back on their promise.
They’re creating an atmosphere in which corporations can’t function beyond a certain point. And worse, they’re creating a forced planetary economy in which the corporations will become mere government appendages—functionaries in a slave-based system.
These deluded corporations…it only takes a few of them to wake up and see the real game.
The reason I am posting this is simple. Do not patronize any company, any website, that does not include comments. Comments are for the masses, not the corporations, it’s the only power us little pawns have in dealing with these non-human entities. We are not here to suffer what corporations think we should think.
Retailer also removes older public comments, switches to private messaging
For the time being, people commenting on Sears Canada via Facebook will have to send the retailer a private message. (Colleen Connors/CBC)
After getting flooded with angry comments about its treatment of laid-off workers, and by calls for a boycott, Sears Canada is no longer allowing public posts on its Facebook site.
The retailer also appears to be in the process of removing all current comments.
When CBC News first checked out Sears’ Facebook page on Wednesday afternoon, we could still view posts from early July such as: “Still no severance pay for your employees huh, you know Canadians won’t stand for that” and “Joining the boycott of Sears Canada.”
However, a couple of hours later, those posts too disappeared.
A snapshot of some of the comments on Sears Canada’s Facebook site that have now been removed. (Sears Canada/Facebook)
On Sunday, CBC News noted that Sears Canada’s Facebook page was riddled with comments from Canadians protesting what was happening to its employees.
The retailer announced last month that, as part of a court-supervised restructuring process, it’s closing 59 of its 255 stores and laying off 2,900 workers — none of whom will get severance pay.
“We will, for the time being, close comments on our [public] feed to concentrate on responding to messenger inquiries.”
The retailer also encouraged people to continue with their comments — using the private messaging format.
“We are focused on making Sears Canada a successful business, and so much of that relies on your feedback,” it stated.
‘Insult to injury’
But the new messaging policy may only serve to further agitate some Canadians.
“It just adds insult to injury,” says Tracy Brown in Stratford, Ont. She informed Sears last week on Facebook she’ll no longer shop at the retailer, “in light of your decision to cheat your faithful employees.”
On hearing that Sears is removing comments and shutting down public posts, Brown finds herself even more upset.
“Makes me angry if they took my comment down,” she says. “It wasn’t a rude comment. It was just me stating my opinion.”
Sears Canada told CBC News that deep financial troubles left it with no choice but to seek court protection from its creditors while it restructures.
As part of the court proceedings, the company said it’s not able to make payments to a number of stakeholders, including laid-off workers owed severance.
(Natural News) We are living under a pharmaceutical dictatorship that spends billions of dollars to systematically bribe medical professionals and influence lawmakers. This industry uses the media and associated press not only to advertise its products but also to influence news stories that scare people into vaccinating for alleged protection against benign illnesses.
For example, all media coverage of “measles outbreaks” is really a scripted re-run pharmaceutical advertisement used to scare parents so they will submit their children and comply with the vaccine industry’s current orders. No real information is shared about measles, why so-called vaccine protection wears off, why deadly measles cases were going down before a vaccine was introduced, or why no one has died from the complication of this illness in the past decade. These scare stories never reveal why it’s a good thing to be naturally exposed to the measles virus, so an individual can gain real, lifelong immunity that also prepares the immune system for more important stressors later in life.
These news stories are used to get in the minds of all people, to make everyone doubt themselves before they refuse the 50+ doses of vaccine that are now pushed on children by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) which owns vaccine patents and is part of the industry. These scripted FAKE NEWS stories always target those who choose not to vaccinate to make them feel responsible for the advertised disease and to get other people to blame them too. It’s psychological warfare.
Scare tactics are used throughout the medical system
In fear of losing their license, reputation, and medical authority, most medical doctors and pediatricians push the vaccines that they are told to push by the CDC. They have virtually no knowledge of how the natural immune system works, so they blindly cite the science that they are fed by the industry and/or bribed to prescribe. It’s hard to find a doctor that hasn’t been bribed by pharmaceutical interests. Instead of learning about the many facets of the natural immune system and how it is activated, we’re taught to believe that we are deficient in vaccine science, that they are a safe replacement for our bodies and work 100% of the time. Even though infectious disease, communicable disease, superbug infections, neurological disorders and non-communicable disease including cancer are all at an all time high in our world, vaccines are credited for solving our public health problems and making our immune system strong! On top of all this, we’ve been weakened to the point of accepting vaccine damage as a normal way of life and forced to pretend this perpetual chemical and heavy metal augmentation of our bodies is going to sustain us.
From state to state, laws are written to push a number of vaccinations onto infants and children, forcing parents to beg for exemptions if they disagree with the vaccine dictates. Disease scares are played and replayed through the scripted media to motivate legislatures to pass new mandatory vaccine laws that take away any conscientious, philosophical, or religious exemptions to vaccinations. California did just that by passing SB277, America’s most severe mandatory vaccination law that strips parents of their rights and denies children a public education if they are free from one, some, or all of the pharmaceutical industry’s dictated vaccines.
Furthermore, the public outcry against coercive and forced pharmaceuticals is stifled by the FAKE NEWS media that is dead set on carrying out the wishes of the pharmaceutical vaccine tyrants. Watch below, as citizens of Italy protest against mandatory vaccine laws that are taking over their country. You won’t find this on CNN, on NPR, NBC or any other fake news outlets.
Unite against mandatory, coercive, and discriminatory vaccine laws
Children aren’t allowed to attend preschool, receive a public education or go to some colleges unless parents follow along with the vaccine mandates that pharmaceutical companies have coerced into law. Ironically, these school institutions are still riddled with infectious and communicable disease like never seen before. Sickness in all its forms is still widespread, even though vaccine “science” is the glorious savior and only “real prevention” method for children’s well-being.
You won’t find the scripted news media telling the truth about measles, how it is a benign illness that children can overcome and gain natural, lifelong immunity to. No, you will find a scare story about how deadly measles is, even though no one in the U.S. has died from its complications in the last decade. You will find the scripted news media shaming people who are independent of vaccines. The typical FAKE NEWS article will use the terms “anti-vaxxers” “anti-science” or “conspiracy theorist” to describe people who understand the truth.
More people need to use discernment, to wisely judge when the media is being used to turn people against one another and push needless vaccines. People should instead unite against these fear campaigns and denounce the scare tactics used to force mandatory vaccine laws into existence. “The problem is not vaccines per say, but that Glaxo [Glaxo Smith Kline] is inside our ministry [government.]” says one bold protester speaking to a crowd of protesters in Italy.
With two million vaccines delivered daily to over 160 countries, these pharmaceutical companies are only interested in protecting their profits, power, and pride, as public health continues to suffer. Using the media to their advantage, this powerful industry continues to hoax the general population into believing they need vaccines for supposed protection against benign illnesses.
The most important issue now is uniting people to stand against mandatory and discriminatory vaccination laws that coerce parents into compliance so they can send their children to school. The ingredients in the vaccines deteriorate the cellular environment inside every recipient, weakening their body’s overall immunity and neurological function. Choosing to reject this risky, one-sided method of “immunization” should remain a fundamental liberty of every family and individual. (Related: For more news on vaccine freedom, vaccine damage, and immune system science, visit Vaccines.News.)
In this video, Vin Armani explains why you’ve been tricked into supporting net neutrality. Some big corporations don’t want a free market. They want a protected market with barriers. Lawmakers seem hungry to regulate the Internet. It’s a dangerous combination that infects most industries. Don’t let it happen to the Internet.