Are you an animal?

The FDA’s claim of control over your body stems from their legal classification of all human beings as animals and therefore subject to federal law as property or wards of the state.  This legal hocus pocus has facilitated all kinds of abuses, from forced vaccination to the drug war to shutting down family farms under cover of safety concerns which are clearly not operative when it comes to big agrobiz.  Whether you are religious or not, you should know that there’s an important constitutional argument relating to religious freedom which would prohibit these fraudulent “protectors” from acting out their malicious compulsions.  See:

and more specifically:

Bill Would Authorize Domestic Propaganda

“An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill….

“The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Pentagon, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee’s official website.  The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns. …

“The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. “It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”

“According to this official, “senior public affairs” officers within the Department of Defense want to “get rid” of Smith-Mundt and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The evaporation of Smith-Mundt and other provisions to safeguard U.S. citizens against government propaganda campaigns is part of a larger trend within the diplomatic and military establishment.

“In December, the Pentagon used software to monitor the Twitter debate over Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing; another program being developed by the Pentagon would design software to create “sock puppets” on social media outlets; and, last year, General William Caldwell, deployed an information operations team under his command that had been trained in psychological operations to influence visiting American politicians to Kabul.  The upshot, at times, is the Department of Defense using the same tools on U.S. citizens as on a hostile, foreign, population. …”

Population Control is the Prime Motivation Behind Elite Social Policy

When the “compassionate” global aristocracy puts forth a new plan to save the earth, look for its impact on human life span, reproduction and development.  It’s never neutral on these measures, never leads to enhanced human life, more opportunities for women (which is known to reduce family size) or happy, healthy, family/community-raised children.  It’s always about centralization of power, the brainwashing and exploitation of children and a steeper survival gradient.  Maybe there ARE too many people in the world, but we can’t say for sure because our economic and political systems are so pathologically destructive to the environment.  Don’t expect the prime beneficiaries of these systems to threaten their own lifestyle.  They’d rather improverish and kill the rest of us through pointless, wasteful, ecologically devastating wars and exploitative economic policies.  Their abject failure as global leaders is manifest.  Humanity and the earth can no longer afford them.

Obviously they aren’t going to be open and transparent about their real motives.  At least not usually.  Here Ted Turner, at this years bilderberg meeting, calls for a 1 child policy for 100 years and a reduction to 2 billion people.  Not necessarily evil, until you consider the logistics.  The population is growing at around 70 million per year and most people are too desperate and lacking in education/indoctrination to voluntarily submit to the dictates of the central planners.  What are the options, realistically?  Think about it.  It’s not pretty.  Perhaps this is why the NIH pushed for the publication of the NIH-funded flu weaponization research recently.  As a way to obfuscate the proximate origin of any future outbreak.  But of course the ultimate origin will be obvious.

The elites were given a choice a long time ago: share the wealth and technology at their disposal to raise up humanity and create a sustainable civilization.  They chose differently because of their own fear of loss of power and control.   Therefore it’s unlikely that their predatory and ecologically destructive impulses would disappear even if the global population was reduced to 2 billion.  Population reduction would address a symptom, but not the underlying problem.   The problem is the structure and distribution of power.  A systemic approach is required, one that would start with economic localization and control of monetary policy.