Unearthing the Barrett Brown Story: A Political Prisoner in Pursuance of Press Freedom & Government Accountability.

In January of 2013, following his suicide, Aaron Swartz’s family and partner released an official statement declaring his death more than a mere personal tragedy. They claim, “It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach”. The statement also lauds Swartz’s efforts as, “instrumental to the defeat of an internet censorship bill; he fought for a more democratic, open and accountable political system”.[i] It is in that spirit of press freedom and accountable government, and in honor of Aaron Swartz that I write this article.

Continuing the Legacy

The efforts of Swartz and the scores of whistleblowers and journalists before him, and since, have shined a spotlight on the brazenly lawless and inept bureaucracies that govern our nation from the shadows.[ii] [iii] Once untouchable, these institutions of unaccountable centralized power are decaying from within, despite the best efforts of their corporate media lapdogs to polish their thin veneer of legitimacy. [iv] [v]

While most journalists, like frogs in a slowly boiling pot of water, still yield to the ever increasing demands of illegitimate authorities, becoming themselves lapdogs of the establishment, Barrett Brown has stood by his principles, challenging the unconstitutional mandates of those powers that shouldn’t be, and blowing on their precious little house of cards. These actions, are not without consequence, however. To quote Beatrice Edwards, Senior International Policy Analyst of the Government Accountability Project, “The first thing corrupt institutions do when they’re threatened by the truth is distract attention from the message by shooting the messenger”.[vi] [vii]

As a young man of 18, Brown began his career as a freelance writer, eventually landing a gig with Vanity Fair magazine. It is here, as a magazine writer, that brown received his inoculating dose of disillusionment. He saw, throughout the industry, useful idiots and establishment hacks like Thomas Friedman not only commanding audiences of millions, but winning Pulitzers, while talented writers and reporters critical of US Government policies, such as Glenn Greenwald, were relegated to smaller niche audiences, away from the spotlight.[viii] [ix]

No sooner had Barrett Brown’s disillusionment set in than he began challenging and attacking those morally bankrupt cronies of the media establishment and their propaganda. In the same spirit of openness that guided Aaron Swartz, and driven by contempt for the failure of the press to uphold any standard of information integrity, in 2009, Brown, with the help of various bloggers, journalists and scientists, embarked on a project to establish a mechanism of accountability in media and government, what he called a “distributed think tank”, known as Project PM.[x] [xi] [READ MORE]

*If you are a Newsbud Community Member, you must log in to view full content.

**If you are not yet a Newsbud Community Member, just click on "SUBSCRIBE" to view subscription enrollment options.

Newsbud Exclusive Report- Clinton, Rockefeller & the New Green Revolution: Are Native Resources Fueling the Global Empire?

A Newsbud investigation into US and international plans to advance a global transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy has uncovered a joint initiative of the Clinton Foundation, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and other governmental and non-governmental organizations to exploit Native American Tribal land and resources in the service of multinational corporate interests. In many respects, this initiative parallels the Green Revolution of the1960s, an earlier global “philanthropic” initiative spearheaded by the Rockefellers.

In the 1960s, farming throughout the developing world was undergoing an industrial revolution of sorts, which has come to be known as the Green Revolution. Throughout the 1950’s, in the lead-up to this Green Revolution, former Assistant Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, then president of the Rockefeller Foundation (1952-1961), shifted the foundation’s focus to promoting agricultural productivity and food security in developing nations. In the aftermath of World War II, which left a global climate of economic and political uncertainty, the foundation, under Rusk, also actively supported US foreign policy. Promoting sustainable agriculture and ensuring food security in strategically significant, third-world countries, Rusk believed, could stim the spread of communism.

The Rockefeller Foundation, in partnership with the Department of State’s (DoS) United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other “philanthropic” groups, established a network of agricultural research centers in several countries. To justify these actions, the foundation marketed the program as being urgently needed to stave off the specter of imminent, catastrophic famine and drought, which it claimed was the inevitable consequence of unsustainable global population growth. Through research and innovation, synthetic fertilizers, industrial farming techniques and selective breeding, the program exponentially increased crop yields in the target regions. It was, however, not without cost.[1]

While the Foundation claimed to be helping the poor, its actions tended instead to further subjugate them while wealthy landowners and the oil industry made a killing. Doing what they do best, the industrial capitalist Rockefellers structured their program for maximum profit, not for meeting the nutritional or cultural needs of the native people. In fact, the farmers initially rejected the new, high-cost, high-yield seeds, dependent on fertilizer (synthesized from petroleum) and industrial farming technology. They capitulated, however, when water shortages and government fixed, high wheat prices made it necessary. The program’s initial success was soon overshadowed by the resulting rapid population growth. That, combined with the resulting decreased crop biodiversity and over-farming, stripped the soil of nutrients, needing ever more land and resources (from which the Rockefellers profited greatly). Perhaps that is why J. George Harrar, the Foundation’s President in the 1960s, called the program the “Conquest of Hunger”. [2]

In virtual lock step with the green revolution of 40+ years ago, today’s green energy revolution looks to have been pulled straight out of the old playbook. The overall strategy is the same:

Step 1:  Galvanize public opinion with an impending global catastrophe, for which the only solution is urgent, unwavering action.

  • In the 1960s, Rockefeller Foundation president J. George Harrar used the specter of catastrophic famine precipitated by exponential population growth.[3]
  • Today’s US political and financial elites warn of the specter of catastrophic, man-made global warming, albeit based on biased research and questionable data.[4]

Steps 2 & 3: Coopt the power of the state to strengthen the foundation’s global influence. Commoditize and consolidate the world’s natural resources under the centralized control of a global hegemon.

  • Throughout the 1950s, the Rockefeller Foundation was a revolving door through which former and future State Department members passed. Also, as a former Assistant Secretary of State, the foundation’s president, Dean Rusk, used its agricultural philanthropy as a weapon against communism.
  • Into the 1960’s, the foundation both served the US national security agenda, and generated tremendous profits through its development scheme of outsourcing industrialized farming. [5] [6]
  • In September of 2009, during Hillary Clinton’s first year as Secretary of State, USAID teamed up with J.P. Morgan and the Rockefeller Foundation to establish the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) with a mission to, “accelerate the development of an effective impact investing industry”. The nations targeted by its investments, although poverty stricken, were expected to yield returns, and thus their developing assets were beholden to the globalist, corporate elites. [7]
  • In the Joint, Strategic Plan through 2017, the US Department of State and USAID expressed the desire to further centralized global governance, and to forge an international agreement, applicable to all nations, that would significantly limit the right of those nations to produce their own energy, independent of a centrally regulated and enforced global market. The DoS and USAID, in their own words, intend to “lead the global fight against climate change” with “aggressive, smart and effective action”, using “diplomatic tools” to ensure the other nations comply with their international agreements.[8]

A microcosm of this plan, currently underway at the national level, is the Clinton Global Initiative’s (CGI) Joint Wind Power Development Project on Tribal Lands. Through CGI America, six Sioux tribes combined their resources and, accepting investments from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation and other powerful governmental and non-governmental entities and philanthropies, established the Oceti Sakowin Power Authority (OSPA), an industrial wind farm project, on Tribal land.  While the authority will technically own the wind assets, the power they generate will be shipped off throughout the United States, while the vast majority of the profits will go to pay off the massive debt the OSPA accrued from the very corporate giants that have pillaged their sacred land and resources for centuries. With none other than the Rockefeller Foundation running 350.org’s campaign against fossil fuels, the enemy has coopted the movement, and will profit handsomely.[9] [10] [11]

# # # #

Daniel Begley is a Newsbud Analyst with six years’ experience in the US Intelligence Community. He earned his Associate of Applied Science in Intelligence Studies, his BA in Psychology and is pursuing an MA in Intelligence Studies. Mr. Begley’s primary interests are in social theory and the structures of political influence such as media propaganda.


[1] Amanda Carroll Waterhouse, Food & Prosperity: balancing technology and community in agriculture, 2013, New York


[2] Joseph Cotter, Troubled Harvest: Agronomy and Revolution in Mexico, 1880-2002, Westport, Connecticut:

Praeger Publishers, 2003, p.255.

Praeger Publishers, 2003, p.255. https://books.google.com/books?id=a5VJk0KGgL4C&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=%22advisory+committee+on+agriculture%22+harrar&source=bl&ots=4F77sIA6zD&sig=SmnZKz1zSdBjhabj2Y1SLo2zm-c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQupmCw6zTAhVrxoMKHR1QDOQQ6AEIJDAA#v=snippet&q=trust&f=false

[3] Amanda Carroll Waterhouse, Food & Prosperity: balancing technology and community in agriculture, 2013, New York, p.150.


[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-


[5] Joseph Cotter, Troubled Harvest: Agronomy and Revolution in Mexico, 1880-2002, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, 2003, p.255. https://books.google.com/books?id=a5VJk0KGgL4C&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=%22advisory+committee+on+agriculture%22+harrar&source=bl&ots=4F77sIA6zD&sig=SmnZKz1zSdBjhabj2Y1SLo2zm-c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQupmCw6zTAhVrxoMKHR1QDOQQ6AEIJDAA#v=snippet&q=trust&f=false

[6] Amanda Carroll Waterhouse, Food & Prosperity: balancing technology and community in agriculture, 2013, New York, p.137.


[7] O'donohoe, Nick, Christina Leijonhufvud, Yasemin Saltuk, Antony Bugg-levine, Margot Brandenburg, “Impact

Investments: An Emerging Asset Class,” J.P. Morgan Global Research, Rockefeller Foundation and

Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN), 29 November 2010, p17.


[8] https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/perfrpt/2009performancesummary/html/139642.htm

[9] http://www.theartofannihilation.com/mckibbens-divestment-tour-brought-to-you-by-wall-street-part-xii-building-acquiescence-for-the-commodification-of-the-commons-under-the-banner-of-a-new-economy/

[10] http://www.rbf.org/news/350org-urges-students-take-stand-schools-investments

[11] http://www.theartofannihilation.com/rockefellers-1sky-unveils-the-new-350-org-more-more-delusion/