Connect with us

Alternative News

Breaking: Harvey Weinstein Sentenced To 23 Years In Prison For Sexual Assaults

Published

on

Breaking: Harvey Weinstein Sentenced To 23 Years In Prison For Sexual Assaults
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

Harvey Weinstein was just sentenced to 23 years in prison for rape and sexual assault of multiple women. The Hollywood mogul goes to prison as the first major case out of the #MeToo movement. It illustrates the power of voices coming together in unison to expose actions that are otherwise enabled by remaining hidden. It’s why we focus some of our media on the idea of Breaking The Illusion, which helps people understand that what they believe about their world & how it functions may not be true.

Weinstein was convicted last month of raping an actress in a New York City hotel room in 2013 and forcibly performing oral sex on former TV and film production assistant Mimi Haleyi at his apartment in 2006. Weinstein faced a maximum of 29 years in prison for his actions.

More than 90 women, including actresses Gwyneth Paltrow, Salma Hayek and Uma Thurman, eventually spoke up and accused Weinstein of sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Weinstein told the court he felt “remorse for this situation” and that he felt “Thousands of men are losing due process. I’m worried about this country,” he said. Weinstein went on further to say that he feels men are being accused of “things that none of us understood.”

“I’m totally confused. I think men are confused about these issues.”  Weinstein added that he had fond memories of his accusers. As he looked back at various emails exchanged with his accusers during the trial, he said, he thought they had a good friendship: “I had wonderful times with these people.”

The Takeaway

After watching Corey Feldman’s recent documentary just yesterday, and then hearing this news today, we are truly seeing the shift that occurs when people question authority figures and speak up about actions that cause suffering and are made to be hidden.

It feels as though an energy continues to build around these subjects, and even though they might be difficult to hear about, they represent a shadow within society’s consciousness that must be faced as we move towards a better world.

This article (Breaking: Harvey Weinstein Sentenced To 23 Years In Prison For Sexual Assaults) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Alternative News

George Orwell Warned Us Of The Most Dangerous Type Of Censorship

Published

on

George Orwell Warned Us Of The Most Dangerous Type Of Censorship
Photo Credit: Pexels

“The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment.”George Orwell

The big tech companies are now openly censoring popular viewpoints and deleting select social media pages who supposedly ‘violate community guidelines.’

There is, of course, never a detailed explanation of why companies like You Tube and Facebook delete user generated pages (our You Tube page was deleted in 2017 for no apparent reason and our Facebook page has been throttled down to almost no reach), and there is never a reasonable way to appeal for the reinstitution of these pages.

The end result of this type of censorship, however, quite likely will not bring about the feared Soviet style clampdown on ideas that challenge the establishment. It’s more reasonable to expect that these companies have fallen pray to monopolistic hubris and will soon see massive declines in viewership, collapsing stock prices and the revolt of angry shareholders. In other words, these companies are shooting themselves in the feet.

That said, the current social/political/media climate in America today is likely to bring about the rise of a far more insidious and dangerous type of censorship: self-censorship.

The Cambridge dictionary defines self-censorship as:

“control of what you say or do in order to avoid annoying or offending others, but without being told officially that such control is necessary:”

Wikipedia defines it as:

“Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one’s own discourse. This is done out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities or preferences (actual or perceived) of others and without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority.”Wikipedia

In other words, self-censorship is voluntarily silencing one’s self out of fear of unofficial reprisal. That reprisal can come in many forms, soft and hard, but at its most fundamental level it involves the fear of what others will think of you or say to you if they don’t like what they hear.

This form of censorship is already taking hold and is the result of the fear that individuals have of upsetting the mobs and virtue signalling hordes of self-righteous personalities. It is the fear that anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion and political correctness. That just by voicing your opinion on something you risk being attacked by black clad and megaphone wielding tyrants, physically removed from restaurants or harassed when conducting the ordinary affairs of life.

George Orwell wrote extensively of self-censorship at the conclusion of world war II. When he sought to publish his classic book Animal Farm, which he wrote during the war as a metaphorical critique of Soviet society, he was rejected by a number of publishers who were afraid to offend the prevailing sentiment of the time that the USSR should not be criticized for fear of instigating a diplomatic rift with the UK.

Publishers and editors were not ordered by law not to criticize the USSR, but they did so as not to offend the political establishment and popular sentiment. To this, Orwell penned an introduction to Animal Farm explaining the effects of self-censorship on a free society.

Entitled, ‘The Freedom of the Press,’ Orwell’s short letter aptly describes the situation we are faced with today.

“…the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.” – George Orwell

Orwell continues in his critique:

“Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines — being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that “it wouldn’t do” to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was “not done” to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.” – George Orwell

In this dynamic, the influences of peer pressure and commercial pressures do more to silence dissent than any official decree of censorship could possibly accomplish.

When speaking on the importance of press freedom, American writer E.B. White spoke of the cultural importance of having many independent viewpoints and fearless news organizations professing a wide range of ideas.

“The press in our free country is reliable and useful not because of its good character but because of its great diversity. As long as there are many owners, each pursuing his own brand of truth, we the people have the opportunity to arrive at the truth and to dwell in the light. The multiplicity of ownership is crucial. It’s only when there are a few owners, or, as in a government-controlled press, one owner, that the truth becomes elusive and the light fails. For a citizen in our free society, it is an enormous privilege and a wonderful protection to have access to hundreds of periodicals, each peddling its own belief. There is safety in numbers: the papers expose each other’s follies and peccadillos, correct each other’s mistakes, and cancel out each other’s biases. The reader is free to range around in the whole editorial bouillabaisse and explore it for the one clam that matters—the truth.”  – E. B. White

Final Thoughts

Media censorship is a shift in the flow of information, while self-censorship is a shift in consciousness. It is the dangerous cornerstone of group-think.

We haven’t reached that point yet, not by a long shot, as is evident in the fact that both sides of the political spectrum are 100% engaged in bickering with the other side. But as social discourse continues to digress and corporations and other institutions feel more empowered to compel their employees and clients to unofficially comply with one political view or another, self-censorship will come creeping more so into our culture.

Will you have the courage to be yourself as the push towards internet censorship gains momentum?

The views in this article may not reflect editorial policy of Collective Spark.

About the Author

Dylan Charles is the editor of Waking Times and host of The Battered Souls Podcast, both dedicated to ideas of personal transformation, societal awakening, and planetary renewal. His personal journey is deeply inspired by shamanic plant medicines and the arts of Kung Fu, Qi Gong and Yoga. After seven years of living in Costa Rica, he now lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains, where he practices Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and enjoys spending time with family. He has written hundreds of articles, reaching and inspiring millions of people around the world.

This article (George Orwell Warned us of the Most Dangerous Type of Censorship) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Dylan Charles and WakingTimes.com.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Globalists Reveal That The “Great Economic Reset” Is Coming In 2021

Published

on

Globalists Reveal That The “Great Economic Reset” Is Coming In 2021
Photo Credit: Truth Theory

Brandon Smith, Activist Post

For those not familiar with the phrase “global economic reset”, it is one that has been used ever increasingly by elitists in the central banking world for several years. I first heard it referenced by Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF at the time, in 2014. The reset is often mentioned in the same breath as ideas like “the New Multilateralism” or “the Multipolar World Order” or “the New World Order”. All of these phrases mean essentially the same thing.

The reset is promoted as a solution to the ongoing economic crisis which was triggered in 2008. This same financial crash is still with us today; but now, after a decade of central bank money printing and debt creation, the bubble is even bigger than it was before. As always, the central bank “cure” is far worse than the disease, and the renewed crash we face today is far more deadly than what would have happened in 2008 if we had simply taken our medicine and refused to prop up weak parts of the economy artificially.

Many alternative economists often wrongly attribute the Fed’s habit of making things worse to “hubris” or “ignorance”. They think the Fed actually wants to save the financial system or “protect the golden goose”, but this is not reality. The truth is, the Fed is not a bumbling maintenance man, the Fed is a saboteur, a suicide bomber that is willing to destroy even itself as an institution in order to explode the US economy and clear the path for a new globally centralized one world system. Hence, the “Global Reset”.

In 2015 in my article “The Global Economic Reset Has Begun, I stated:

The global reset is not a “response” to the process of collapse we are trapped in today. No, the global reset as implemented by central banks and the BIS/IMF is the cause of the collapse. The collapse is a tool, a flamethrower burning a great hole in the forest to make way for the foundations of the globalist Ziggurat to be built….economic disaster serves the interests of elitists.

Now in 2020 we see the globalist plan coming to fruition, with the elites revealing what appears to be their intent to launch their reset in 2021. The World Economic Forum officially announced the Great Reset initiative as part of their Covid Action Platform last week, and a summit is scheduled in January 2021 to discuss their plans more openly with the world and the mainstream media.

The WEF also posted a rather bizarre video on the Reset, which consists of a series of images of the world falling apart (and images of factories releasing harmless carbon emission into the air which I suppose is meant to scare us with notions of global warming). The destruction is then “reset” at the push of a button, with everything reversing back to a pristine human-less world of nature and the words “Join Us”.

The reset, according to discussions by the IMF, is basically the next stage in the formation of a one-world economic system and potential global government. This seems to fall in line with the solutions offered during the Event 201 pandemic simulation; a simulation of a coronavirus pandemic that was held by the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum only two months before the REAL THING happened at the beginning of 2020. Event 201 suggested that one of the top solutions to a pandemic would be the institution of a centralized global economic body that could handle the financial response to the coronavirus.

Is it not convenient that the events of the real coronavirus pandemic fall exactly in line with the Event 201 simulation, as well as directly in line with the global reset plans of the IMF and the World Economic Forum? As they say, let no crisis go to waste, or, as is the motto of the globalists “Order Out Of Chaos”.

With civil unrest about to become a way of life for many parts of the world including the US, and the pandemic set for a resurgence of infections after the “reopening”, creating a rationale for a second wave of lockdowns probably in July, the economy as we know it is being destroyed. The last vestiges of the system, hanging by a thin thread after the crash of 2008, are now being cut.

The goal is rather obvious – terrify the population with poverty, internal conflicts and a broken supply chain until they lobby the establishment for help.  Then, offer the “solution” of medical tyranny, immunity passports, martial law, a global economic system based on a cashless digital society in which privacy in trade is erased, and then slowly but surely form a faceless “multilateral” global government which answers to no one and does whatever it pleases.

I remember back in 2014 when Christine Lagarde first began talking about the reset. That same year she also made a very strange speech to the National Press Club in which she started rambling gleefully about numerology and the “magic number 7”. Many within the club laughed, as there was apparently an inside joke that the rest of us were not privy to. Well, I would point out that the World Economic Forum meeting on the global reset in 2021 will be held exactly 7 years after Lagarde gave that speech. Just another interesting coincidence I suppose…

The new world order, the global reset, is a long running scheme to centralize power, but in a way that is meant to be sustained for centuries to come. The elites know that it is not enough to achieve global governance by force alone; such an attempt would only lead to resistance and eternal rebellion. No, what the elites want is for the public to ASK, even beg for global governance. If the public is tricked into demanding it as a way to save them from the horrors of global chaos, then they are far less likely to rebel against it later. Problem – reaction – solution.

The pandemic is not going away anytime soon. Everyone should expect that state governments and the federal government will call for renewed lockdowns. With these new lockdowns, the US economy in particular will be finished. With 40 million people losing their jobs during the last lockdowns (46 million as of today – Ed.), many states only partially reopened, and only 13% to 18% of small businesses receiving bailout loans to survive, the next two months are going to be a devastating wake-up call.

The real solution will be for people to form more self-reliant communities free of the mainstream economy. The real solution should be decentralization and independence, not centralization and slavery. The globalists will seek to interfere with any effort to break from the program. That said, they can do very little if millions of people enact localization efforts at the same time. If people aren’t reliant on the system, then they cannot be controlled by the system.

The real test will come with the final collapse of the existing economy. When stagflation spikes even harder than it is right now and prices of necessities double or triple yet again, and joblessness skyrockets even further, how many people will clamour for the globalist solution and how many will build their own systems? How many will be bowing in submission and how many will be ready to fight back. It is a question I still don’t have an answer to even after 14 years of analysis on the issue.

What I suspect is that many people will fight back. Not as many as we might hope for, but enough to defend the cause of liberty. Maybe this is overly optimistic, but I believe the globalists are destined to lose this war in the long run.

The views in this article may not reflect editorial policy of Collective Spark.

About the Author

Brandon Smith is the founder of Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defence. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better or contribute to their Safe Haven Project. You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Vancouver Council Votes Against Mandatory Mask Mandate: They’re Not Required

Published

on

Vancouver Council Votes Against Mandatory Mask Mandate: They’re Not Required
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

What Happened: The city of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada will not mandate masks inside city buildings and will “strongly encourage” people to wear them instead. This is a bold move as many cities across the globe have mandatory mask measures in place.

The proposal by Counc. Sarah Kirby-Yung, which would have required masks inside city buildings, was opposed by more than a dozen speakers who pleaded with the city council to vote against it.

Please consider our forefathers fought for our freedom, and if we release that choice, it’s the first step towards a dictatorship,” said one speaker according to City News. “Masks are used as weapons and they have certainly been used as weapons against me and others to silence and marginalize us and it’s not fair.”

According to Coun. Christine Boyle, public health experts encourage wearing masks, but a mandatory policy is not needed.

This recent decision echoes the thoughts of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. He offers an interesting perspective to the forced “authoritarian measures” that multiple governments are taking.

I actually don’t think the government should have the mandatory authority to say look, nobody goes out, you can’t leave, you can’t do this that or the other, but…apart of the reason that I feel that way is that I don’t believe that it’s actually necessary. I believe that if the government makes recommendations, and we have the kind of public education that’s of a quality that can convince people and persuade them rationally that they should limit the amount of time that they spend outside, that they spend in crowds, you know that they’re in basically zones of potential infection and transmission, they will make the right decision themselves…Is it better for the government just to, you know, break out the jack boots and batons, and, look, nobody’s out of their house or it’s off to the patty wagon. Alternatively, you tell people, look, this is dangerous to you, it’s dangerous to your family, this is a global pandemic, you can reduce the risk to yourself, your community, if you follow this kind of recommendation, and here’s why we make these recommendations, here’s the basis for it, here are the facts, here’s our evidence and our science. (source)

World Doctors Alliance: “we do not have a medical pandemic.” Fake News? (Click here to read the full article!)
The Takeaway

A number of renowned scientists and health professionals all over the world have shared their belief that mandatory masking as well as lockdown measures are doing more harm than good. The Great Barrington Declaration is one of many examples. There are multiple studies claiming that masks are simply ineffective to stop the spread of viral infections, and others claiming they are useful for stopping the spread of COVID-19. Today more than ever we are completely separated in our views and beliefs surrounding many topics, especially this pandemic. It seems to me that it would be more responsible for governments to make recommendations and let the people decide for themselves what they would like to do. This is why I was glad to see this decision made in Vancouver, but that’s just my opinion.

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves, do governments always make the bests decisions for their citizenry? Are there other factors at play, like corruption and hidden agendas? Why do independent health bodies and professionals continue to be ridiculed and censored for offering information, evidence and opinion that goes against the grain?

This article (Vancouver Council Votes Against Mandatory Mask Mandate: They’re Not Required) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Some South Korean Doctors & Politicians Call To Stop Flu Shots After 48 People Die

Published

on

Some South Korean Doctors & Politicians Call To Stop Flu Shots After 48 People Die
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

What Happened: It’s that time of year and flu shot programs are rolling out across the globe. The number of South Koreans who have died after getting the flu shot has now risen to 48 and some South Korean doctors and politicians have called to stop flu shots as a result, according to Reuters. The Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) has decided not to stop the program, and that flu vaccines would continue to be given and will reduce the chance of having simultaneous epidemics in the era of COVID-19.

Health authorities in South Korea have explained that they’ve found no direct link between these deaths and the shots. KDCA Director Jeong Eun-kyung said, “After reviewing death cases so far, it is not the time to suspend a flu vaccination programme since vaccination is very crucial this year, considering…the COVID-19 outbreaks.”

According to Reuters, “Some initial autopsy results from the police and the National Forensic Service showed that 13 people died of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and other disorders not caused by the vaccination.”

The South Korean government is hopeful to vaccinate approximately 30 million of the country’s 54 million people.

Concerns Some People Have With The Flu Shot: One concern many people seem to have is the worry of a severe adverse reaction.

Dr. Alvin Moss, MD and professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine emphasizes in this video:

The flu vaccine happens to be the vaccine that causes the most injury in this country. The vaccine injury compensation program, 40% of all vaccinations in this country are flu shots, but 60% of all the compensations are for the flu vaccine. So a disproportionate number of  vaccine related injuries are the flu shot.

Moss is one of many who believe that the flu vaccine is not as effective as it’s been marketed to be. For example,  A study recently published in Global Advances In Health & Medicine titled “Ascorbate as Prophylaxis and Therapy for COVID-19—Update From Shanghai and U.S. Medical Institutions outlines the following:

Recently outlined A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years.

Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal)  published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.”  In it,  he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”

These are just a few examples out of many claiming that the flu shot has not really been effective, opposing others that claim it is.  Mercury that’s still present in some flu shots also seems to be a concern.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project stated at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference that more doctors are starting to be hesitant when it comes to recommending vaccines.

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…

This is no secret, and actions against mandates are being taken. The University of California was recently sued for making the flu shot mandatory. That trial will begin soon, and you can read more about it here, and find information regarding the claim that the flu shot can help in the times of COVID-19.


Tech giants Google, Oracle to monitor Americans who get COVID-19 vaccine. (Click here to read the full article!)
The Takeaway

We are living in an age of extreme censorship of information, no matter how credible or how much evidence is provided, information that goes against the grain always seems to receive a harsh backlash from mainstream media as well as social media outlets. Why is there a digital fact checker patrolling the internet? Should people not have the right to examine information openly and freely and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t?

As far as vaccines are concerned, despite the fact that there are many safety issues the scientific community  is bringing up, a push for vaccine mandates continues and the idea that we are protecting other people is usually the narrative that’s pushed hard. Vaccine scepticism is growing at a fast pace among people of all professions, and people aren’t stupid. There’s a reason why more and more people are starting to question what we’ve been told for years, and those reasons should be acknowledged and openly discussed amongst people on both sides of the coin.Formun Üstü

This article (Some South Korean Doctors & Politicians Call To Stop Flu Shots After 48 People Die) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending Now

STAY AWARE

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

You have Successfully Subscribed!