Message From the Elite: "You Will Eat the Fodder We Feed You"

If you want to raise some livestock, it's necessary that you first put up a good fence or enclosure, next you'll want to control which animals breed with each other..and certainly of perhaps greatest importance is making sure they get the food you want them to eat. If you were an ethical farmer, you'd probably give the animals free range and let them feed at pasture...if your concerns were more selfish, you'd more likely keep them locked in close quarters and feed them cheap, unnutritious fodder and shoot them up with antibiotics and hormones to force their production level up.

As you gaze around your world, it might come home to you that you are, in fact, the livestock kept for the use of the elite power holders of the world. Your masters aren't ethical farmers either...they are greedy and prone to "livestock abuse". They have fenced you into the small, unnatural enclosures of urban dwelling, piped in toxic water for you to drink, and put in place a grid to surveil your every action. Far be it from those who think of everything where their cattle are concerned to neglect to be assured that you are provided with the fodder that they want you to have. A cheap, unnutritious diet which they will be happy to add to their regimen of antibiotics and vaccinations which you, their farm animals, are prescribed.

The idea of livestock having access to anything they'd want to eat is ridiculous of course...sheep are dumb, they might decide to dine on something poisonous. The question is, do you consider yourself a sheep or a human being? If you are a human being, i might assume that you have enough intelligence to make choices between consuming what is dangerous and what is healthful, and even if i were wrong in my assumptions, i would still have to afford you the right to make a choice because it's simply wrong to impose what i feel is best for you on your person by force. If the government powers that mandate laws on food safety felt that you were a human being with the natural right to make those choices...this would be a vastly different country, maybe even one approaching something like "free", but alas, they count you as livestock.

To bring into focus the disturbing reality of "their" view of you...consider raw milk. Most people have been raised up on a repetition of argument for the pasteurization process. Children are informed in school and tend to believe for the duration of their lives that this process is what ensures milk is clean enough to drink, so one doesn't catch some "nasty bug" from drinking the raw product. In the growing awareness of healthful, natural living, however...some have come to realize that when they have access to consuming raw milk, their health is greatly improved. Ailments which have plagued them their whole lives disappear, they stop needing to visit a doctor and they generally get sick less often. For this reason, there is a growing would-be market for raw milk. I say "would-be" because the sale and distribution of raw milk is illegal in many states and if the government had its way, it would be illegal in all 50.

From it's growing popularity has come serious irritation from the "Masters of the Herd"...they can't have their livestock learning that there are better ways to eat and live than what they have provided and so the raids have begun. You might expect that some viciously evil criminal bent on causing death and mayhem had been apprehended if you witnessed on of these raids....complete with swat teams and armed officers...but the "criminals" have been no one of greater threat than small farmers, often Amish farmers. The charges are flimsy...even if you feel inclined to uphold a law against the sale and distribution of raw milk, it is mostly the case that these small farmers are only serving the raw milk to their own families or giving it away to neighbors and friends...neither of which are illegal.

In one such incident in which an Amish farmer was raided, the officials proclaimed "We have credible evidence that you are involved in interstate commerce." The said "credible evidence" was not explained and amounts to hearsay as a justification for the raid. What's the law though to those who are above it? If the law can't get the job done..just weasel around it...can't have the sheep feeding on open pastures.

In another incident it was shareholders in a dairy farm and the operators of said farm who came under fire. In the case of shareholders, people pay to have shares of dairy cows which they then can take milk from for their own use. No sale of milk is actually taking place..but still, something must be done...livestock are getting something other than their prescribed fodder. Here is the description of the event by one of the shareholders:

""I was placing empty bottles in carriers when I noticed a Cincinnati police cruiser moving through the parking lot slowly toward the trailer. Another cruiser followed. Officers moved toward the cow-share owners and told them not to pick up the milk that had already been set out, and actually moved in to prevent members from picking up the milk."

Out of several unmarked cars emerged men in plain clothes who "gathered near the tailgate of the trailer," Miller says. Only one would identify himself, an agent of the Ohio Dept. of Agriculture (ODA), she says. Other agents were there from the Kentucky Public Health Dept. and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Joanne Miller thinks there were about eight agents there, plus the four Cincinnati police. As the agents began confiscating the milk both from the truck and from a few shareholders, and loading it into an ODA van, she says, they told objecting shareholders, "What's happening here is not your concern.""

People who feel that human beings are human beings and therefore have the intellectual capacity to choose their own foods are fighting back. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit stating that the ban on raw milk is fundamentally unconstitutional...which it surely is if we are to accept that in the definition of the pursuit of life and liberty and happiness includes choosing what one wishes to eat or not and that the control of the health of one's own body is not just a right afforded by constitution but afforded by the very definition of being a human being, made in the image of the Creator. The FDA's response to the lawsuit, though cleared up for anyone still guessing about where they stand in the structure of society according to the ruling controllers...with no attempt at a sugar coating. Here is their response:

""Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p. 4]

"It is within HHS's authority . . . to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well." [p. 6]

"Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p.17]

"There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [p. 25]

"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]

"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [p. 26]
FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health." [p. 27]

"There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [p. 27]"

In case the full weight of their message didn't fully digest in your mind...meditate on this for a moment: "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."

In other words...the government gavel has dropped on the matter and it has been ruled that you are far too ignorant and degenerate a creature to have control over your own health, the foods you wish to eat and those you don''s not your's theirs. Don't for one minute believe that anything else is meant to be sent here other than "You Belong To Us".

The only question left to be asked is why the controllers of your person would wish to keep things like raw milk out of your hands. Taking a look at some other things they want to keep out of your hands might explain a lot. Codex Alimentarius...the devil of food and safety laws which sadly went without nearly enough attention from people as it loomed closer to reality in the last couple years, was recently implemented by Obama when no one was looking.

To explain Codex Alimentarius briefly...this abomination defines anything which could remotely have an effect on your health a "drug"...and so includes everyday vitamins, minerals and natural herbs that might grow in anyone's back yard. Since these things are now're not allowed to have them without a prescription..even as a food source. To ensure that you will not be getting those dangerous vitamins in your foods they will mandate irradiation of all foods you can purchase and a widespread use of GMO products so that vitamins and minerals can be kept at such low levels in your food as to be negligible.

The problem is that vitamins are not just good for you...they are absolutely necessary for survival. Just try living without consuming any vitamin C for a while and find out what occurs. First you will have hangnails and cracked lips, then you will have spots developing on your skin and bleeding from your mucus membranes, eventually you will have large open sores and begin loosing your teeth and at last, you'll die....but i wouldn't really recommend taking the experiment that far. The cure? Eat an orange.

It just so happens that raw milk has such a powerful potential for healing in the human body that to allow it's sale and distribution widely would revolutionize the health of the populace. People would suffer from far fewer ailments which are simply taken for granted as being "normal" and good reasons to go see a doctor. The pharmaceutical industry would take a large financial hit...but the most sinister of reasons is that the elite would lose valuable ground in their attempt to cull their herd. Depopulation is the holy grail of agendas on the elite's to-do list.

These are some of the benefits which are denied people who have only pasteurized milk to drink:

Raw milk is will get sick much less often with a diet including raw milk.

It is actually Fights Cancer..

It is easily digested...people who are lactose intolerant are so because the milk they drink is pasteurized and no longer has the appropriate enzymes to aid digestion of the milk.

It prevents tooth decay....who needs fluoride?

Raw milk raises your metabolic functions, fights obesity and helps build muscle.

It drastically improves asthma conditions and fights insulin resistance in diabetics

If this world, this society and its governing made sense..if it is organized for the good of people and not for their harm...we would see this product promoted, not banned. We would see farms run the old fashioned way...ethically..with clean and natural conditions which produce healthy animals and thus healthy milk. Instead we have a society which promotes giant agribusiness...encourages the use of chemicals, antibiotics and steroids...cramped living conditions and poor nutrition which then produce sickly animals and thus filthy milk which is sanitized to be drank, dead microbes and all.

But what can you expect for real cows when human beings are farmed in a like manner?

Views: 526

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I wonder how many terribly unstable orthorexia nervosa sufferers there are these days? Scary thought isn't it? At any moment in time they could just snap and take out....a carrot or an apple. This must be stopped! Someone..please round up the orthorexia nervosa patients and save us from their unseemly dietary aberrations!

Alright, that was some sarcasm...but in case you hadn't heard, there really are a new class of mentally disturbed people out there suffering from this so-called orthorexia nervosa. At least that's the case if you are to take the word of those psychologists who apparently sit around concocting new and interesting diseases to treat people for.

This particular disease apparently effects those who are crazy enough to try to avoid gmo food or pesticides..or anything else that is a lab concocted chemical non-food. If you attempt to restrict your diet to things that won't kill're a nut case of course. In the end, i suppose being forcefully hospitalized and medicated with some of the things you would have never consumed on your own will put you straight. Then you'll be sure to fit into society and be on the right track to ushering in the NWO depopulation agenda the good old fashioned way.

You can read a bit more about it here... ...or if you just want to enjoy the best line in the it is...

""The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."

Lol..i'm guessing i don't have to point out the problem with this logic.

it seems like whether it's decent, natural food or decent, natural medicine.. others will listen, and possibly agree, until the information breaches their comfort zone perimeters.. at which time there seems to arise either a temporary or permanent refusal to agree with reason or logic where natural living is concerned.

part of the issue seems to stem from the fact that the reasons unnatural foods are so bad tend to sound ludicrous to the average human being.. demanding the food one eats is actually nutritious and free from adulterations sounds odd to someone who believes that if it looks like a carrot smells like a carrot and tastes relatively like a carrot, then it must be a carrot..

but the underlying means of the food adulterations, such as chemtrailing and genetic modifications, being part of the enemy's plot to dumb-down, control and depopulate society - now that is when people tend to shift from "that's interesting, i just buy what's on sale and it's fine" to "are you really one of those people who thinks the government is out to get you?"

an age where it's seen as 'unhealthy' to not visit the doctor, and seen as a mental illness to desire and seek out normal, natural food.. sounds crazy doesn't it? recently i was told "you should go to the doctor. it's more important to be healthy than to be a good Christian".. granted it was from someone who doesn't claim to be solid in Faith, but that's the condition and mindset of the majority of believers now.

hopefully this won't breed a new crop of "don't ask don't tell" types who will continue to do what they can to be naturally healthy themselves, but will cease to discuss the importance of it with others for fear of being committed.. imagine a world where it is a mental health crime to refuse to eat the hospital food when one is there recuperating from something legitimate like a broken leg..

"Doctor DoWrong, he's refusing to eat his corn because i couldn't assure him it isn't GMO-free organic".. "Well, Nurse Nosey, looks like he's another orthorexia nervosa case.. better get him prepped for transport to the mental ward."

hopefully more people than ever are telling people the truth, preparing for the worst, and praying that Codex Alimentarius and the like will miraculously do no harm.
"recently i was told "you should go to the doctor. it's more important to be healthy than to be a good Christian.""

perhaps it should be noted that you did recover in a couple of days without seeing a doctor or using any pharmaceuticals, yes? What would a doctor have prescribed and how long would you have been fighting off the problem and paying a bill for a visit to the hospital if you had taken their advice?

not sure there is any health better than health for free and quickly. we have a Good Physician in Yahushua.
S. 510, Codex, and The One-World Government Agenda
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has Codex Alimentarius written all over it. By now, this much should be apparent. Besides the cumbersome regulations accompanied with traceability provisions which are merely a cover for surveillance to prevent small or local farmers from providing food outside of the corporate system, the bill gives unprecedented power over food production to FDA, HHS, and DHS.

Overbearing regulations aimed at small food producers that provide larger facilities with an unfair advantage are a hallmark of Codex guidelines. Likewise, the ability of the FDA, HHS, and DHS to implement various standards independently, or as a result of executive decrees, signals the coming Codex principles to the American food supply. This much has been well documented in recent publications.

However, there is yet another aspect of S.510 that has yet to be discussed, which also relates to Codex guidelines. Section 113 , titled “New Dietary Ingredients.” It is unfortunately as much of a Codex wish list as the previous provisions. This section alone gives a great deal more discretionary power to the Secretary of the HHS and FDA regarding dietary supplements. Under the guise of an attempt to reduce the access to and usage of anabolic steroids, the result of section 113 would give the Secretary the authority to ban any “new” dietary supplement that he/she sees fit.

This is not the first time that this has been attempted. In early 2010, John McCain and Byron Dorgan introduced the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010, which would have done essentially the same thing. This is a true signal that there is a higher force at work here. In fact, the DSSA of 2010 was submitted under the guise of preventing anabolic steroid use as well. This bill would have given the FDA the authority to establish a list of acceptable dietary supplements, without grandfathering in supplements from pre-1994 (the enactment of the famous Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act), and subsequently remove those supplements if it saw fit in the future.

While not a carbon copy of the DSSA, the intent remains the same in section 113 of S.510. The bill states:
If the Secretary determines that the information in a new dietary ingredient notification submitted under this section for an article purported to be a new dietary ingredient is inadequate to establish that a dietary supplement containing such article will reasonably be expected to be safe because the article may, or may contain, an anabolic steroid, the Secretary shall notify the Drug Enforcement Administration of such determination.
Although the language of the bill at first seems to be specifically aimed at anabolic steroids, subsequent statements cloud the focus of the section and leave it more open to interpretation. This is because this section cleverly gives the HHS and FDA the responsibility of creating a mechanism to identify acceptable dietary ingredients from the unacceptable ones.

Although nowhere in S.510 are “positive and negative lists” discussed in those specific terms, it is nonetheless mandated in this section. Common sense mandates that this be the case since regulatory agencies would necessarily need some sort of standard to reference in future policy considerations and decisions. That being the case, the bill states:

Not later than 180 days after date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish guidance that clarifies when a dietary supplement ingredient is a new dietary supplement ingredient, when the manufacturer or a distributor of a dietary ingredient or dietary supplement should provide the Secretary with information as described in section 413(a)(2) of the Federal, Food and Cosmetic Act, the evidence needed to document the safety of new dietary ingredients, and appropriate methods for establishing the identity of a new dietary ingredient.
There should be little doubt that the guidance specified here will eventually come in the form of a positive and negative list of vitamin and mineral supplements. Such a list would likely begin in the same manner as the positive and negative supplement lists currently existing in Europe with the passage of the European Union Food Supplements Directive.[1] Of course, the EU Food Supplements Directive was merely the beginning of the implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines in Europe, specifically those dealing with vitamins and minerals. The EU Food Supplements Directive has and will continue to cause serious damage to the natural supplement industry as well as the health of millions of Europeans since its passage.

Codex has proven to be much more successful with their attack on vitamin and mineral supplements in Europe than in the United States. Likewise, it has been more successful in promoting the proliferation of genetically modified foods in the United States than in Europe. Because of this, it often appears that the Codex fight is isolated to one country, yet this idea is far from the truth. We are witnessing the implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines by stealth on a worldwide scale. It is a fact that whenever the same laws and policies are being enacted in very different places at the same time that there is another more hidden agenda behind the laws than the one being presented to the public.

Codex Alimentarius is a hydra with many different heads and it is important to view much of the domestic food- and supplement-related legislation with this in mind. Unfortunately, Codex is merely a symptom of the greater problem of an emerging world government and total domination of the individual through every means available – especially food.
Activist Post: S. 510, Codex, and The One-World Government Agenda
Though attempting to purchase foods which are natural, organic and non GMO can be difficult and more costly, the public has the ability to make a bigger difference than perhaps they realize by putting forth effort to do this.

The demand for clean food and the rejection of those products which are loaded with chemicals and genetically modified ingredients will inevitably put pressure on the suppliers to provide those things. As big corporate farms are the beneficiaries of such legislation and their profits will dictate what controls can be forced upon the consumers, what people will buy will make all the difference.

Many i know choose to never buy anything which is massed produced on corporate farms, contain chemical additives or GMOs and are committed to doing that even if that eventually comes down to finding creative ways to feed themselves with what they themselves can grow or harvest wild. Not an easy choice perhaps, but worth it in order to not join the majority of the populace in chronic illness and debilitating disease, the end result of a life spent consuming these unnatural foods.

A choice to be defiant against the so-called progress of food safety management will perhaps also mean being a criminal at some point as far as the establishment is concerned. If that becomes the case, i can only hope there are a lot of criminals at that stage. It is not worth convenience or a misplaced sense of civil duty to sentence one's self or their family to a diet of poison and malnutrition.

When one’s eyes are opened to see the deception that has been worked on us, as you give evidence to in this article, they can begin to see a larger picture unfolding.

I know of four news stories just this week that indicate to me that the push is on by the government to gain control of our food:

1. Legislation that is waiting to be passed that appears to be targeti...

2. President Obama is pushing the public to accept GMOs


3. Michelle Obama has said that “obesity is a national security threat.”


4.“Homemade holiday food baskets may give gift of botulism
As the popularity of canning rises, so do the risks — especially when newbies get creative”

To an unsuspecting public, any justification by the government can seem real and reasonable. But to those of us who see our government in a different light, we see these efforts as nothing more than fear mongering in an attempt to manipulate us into accepting further controls.

As we know, any problem that the government needs to fix is a problem they originally created. So, Michelle, give me a break. Whatever the government has allowed to be eliminated from our food, or added to our food, is responsible for the obesity we see in our country today.


GMO’s and further legislative controls will only work to increase the profits of the food industry and advance the agenda of poor nutrition and health for the people of America.


And, this latest story, about “Homemade holiday food baskets…” is the most foolish nonsense.
But, again, you put these innocent sounding ideas in front of an unsuspecting public and you will hear the outcry. We have turned on each other because of color, religion, gender, drug use, smoking, drinking, and soon we will begin to marginalize the fat and the farmers among us.


It would almost seem that some types of attempted propaganda are simply too senseless to work on the public and yet it often still does. i would guess that the success of things like this depends upon the younger generations to succeed many times. Those who are too young to remember a time when canning foods and planting gardens were not simply hobbies but a real necessity.


Common sense should certainly tell anyone that if canning foods was such a dangerous practice it surely would have claimed many more lives in the past and perhaps would have been replaced by some other less dangerous means of preservation like drying or salt curing. Any who have ever encountered a badly canned food product knows it is bad and a sense of smell is normally all that is required to keep one from danger.


What is safe according to the establishment? Only foods which are not foods at all but concoctions of chemicals and foreign dna compiled to make something which tastes close enough to food? It would be nice if the response to propaganda messages like this was to only increase the numbers of those who try to raise and can their own foods.

Can you imagine the reaction of people a century ago if you tried to tell them to eat produce which contained insect or other animal components? Naturally they would have been horrified. The establishment response to that might be "because they were less knowledgeable and more superstitious"... but i would say it's quite the opposite. People of a century ago had something which is lacking now...common sense and an innate distrust of the rich and powerful attempting to push their agenda on them.

S 510 Fake Food Safety bill passed by Senate in late-night sneak attack on small farmers and food freedom



The infamous S.510 "food food safety bill" was passed by the US Senate last night in a sneaky, last minute voice vote. All Senators voted for it, Republicans and Democrats alike. Not a single U.S. Senator -- not even Coburn -- objected to its passage.

With this vote, the US Senate now sends the bill back to the House of Representatives where it is due for a final vote as HR 2751 that would then send the bill to the White House for a presidential signature. This House vote could take place as early as tomorrow (Tuesday).

FDA has even participated in armed raids on small-scale co-ops and membership organizations. The FDA should not be given any additional power.

2. FDA has adequate powers under existing law to ensure food safety and effectively deal with foodborne illness outbreaks. FDA has power to inspect, power to detain product and can readily obtain court orders to seize adulterated or misbranded food products or enjoin them from being sold. The problem isn't that FDA needs more power; it's that FDA does not effectively use the power it currently has. The FDA already has power to inspect imported food yet inspects only 1% of food coming into this country from outside our borders.

3. S.510 (HR.2751) does nothing to address many significant food safety problems in this country, such as those resulting from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and various contaminants (e.g., BPA, pesticides, herbicides, etc.).

4. FDA has used its existing power to benefit the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries at the expense of public health (e.g., allowing the overuse of antibiotics in confined animal feeding operations and refusing to require labeling for genetically-modified foods). This bill does not address the fundamental problems at this agency in order to truly protect public health.

5. S.510 (HR.2751) will expand FDA's involvement in regulating food in intra-state commerce, further interfering with local communities. State and local governments are more than capable of handling any problems related to food in intrastate commerce. All the major outbreaks of foodborne illness involve either imported food or food in inter-state commerce.

6. S.510 (HR.2751) will hurt our ability as a nation to be self-sufficient in food production because it has more lenient inspection requirements for foreign than domestic producers creating an unfair advantage for food imports. Giving an advantage to foreign producers will only increase the amount of food imported into this country that does not meet our domestic standards. S.510 (HR.2751) does not address food security -- the ability of a country to produce enough food to meet its own needs.



Bill Summary & Status
111th Congress (2009 - 2010)
Latest Title: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act

Related Bills: 

H.RES.1781, H.R.520, H.R.1550, H.R.1606, H.R.2640, S.247, S.510, S.1135, S.1200, S.1248

 Latest Major Action: 12/21/2010 Resolving differences -- House actions. Status: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 215 - 144 (Roll no. 661).

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - H.R.2751 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)



The Vote Is In: Congressional Mafia Rams Food Safety HR 2751 Down Our Throats! | Farm Wars

Congressman Higgins Announces Passage of Food Safety Bill | Buffalo, NY | Congressman Higgins Announces Passage of Food Safety Bill

Is it just me or is the scene really beginning to heat up where it comes to all things oppressive and tyranical in this country? The TSA indecent security protocols.."food safety" legislation... and many i've spoken to having issues with their bank accounts, stricter credit checking...anything and everything to make living without plastic or using cash more difficult. This makes me wonder if "what's next" will involve a serious shift in the economy that will further drive people into the  system and away from being able to use their own hard earned cash to buy anything. Something which smacks of "Beast" when you think about it.


Can't eat real food. can't use real money..can't even keep your own body to yourself if you board a plane.

Reply to Discussion


© 2024   Created by Cyprium.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service