Connect with us

Alternative News

Poland Moves To Make Censorship By Facebook, Twitter & Other Big Tech Giants Illegal

Published

on

Poland Moves To Make Censorship By Facebook, Twitter & Other Big Tech Giants Illegal
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

What Happened: The deactivation of Donald Trump’s social media accounts has sparked both praise and outrage across the globe. One fact, however, that remains unacknowledged on such a large scale is the deactivation of thousands of social media accounts which includes many doctors, scientists, journalists and people for sharing information, evidence, science and opinions that go against the grain, so to speak.

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labelled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)

The Polish government has responded as officials have denounced the deactivation of Trump’s social media accounts and has said that a draft law is now being prepared, in Poland. This law will make it illegal for tech companies to take similar actions there and regulate what information people are able to see and access.

According to Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, “Algorithms or the owners of corporate giants should not decide which views are right and which are not.” He said that there can be “no consent to censorship”, comparing social media companies regulation of information to Poland’s experience during the communist era. He said that “Censorship of free speech, which is the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, is now returning in the form of a new, commercial mechanism to combat those who think differently.”

Below are his words taken from a recent Facebook Post.

I was born and raised among people from whom freedom was the most valuable value. In Poland we are so attached to freedom because we know what it’s like when someone tried to limit it. For nearly 50 years we lived in a country where censorship was in force; in a country where Big Brother told us how to live, what think and feel – and what to think, say and write…That’s why we look at all attempts to restrict freedom with such anxiety.

One of the synonyms of freedom has always been the Internet for us. The most democratic medium in history, a forum where anyone can speak without embarrassment. A tool that allows every person to really influence reality, to an extent unknown several years ago. Freedom related to the lack of internet regulation has many positive effects. But they are also negative: big, transnational corporations, richer and more powerful than many countries, have gradually begun to dominate it. These corporations have only begun to treat our online activity as a source of profit and strengthening global domination. And also to ensure political correctness the way they like it. And fight those who oppose them.

Recently, we are increasingly dealing with practices that would seem to have gone on in the past. Censoring free speech, the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, returns today in the form of a new commercial mechanism to combat those who think differently

The discussion is about exchanging views, not gagging your mouth. We don’t have to agree with what our opponents write, but we can’t deny anyone from spreading views that are legal.

There is no, and cannot be, consent to censorship….Freedom of speech is the salt of democracy – that’s why we must defend it. Which views are right and which are not, cannot be decided by algorithms or owners of corporate giants.

Poland will always stand guard for democratic values, including freedom of speech. Social media owners cannot operate above the law. That’s why we’ll do everything to determine how Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other similar platforms operate. In Poland, we regulate this with appropriate and national regulations. We will also propose that similar regulations apply throughout the European Union.

Social media must serve us – the public, not the interests of its powerful owners. All people have the right to freedom of speech. Poland will defend this right.

This does not mean Poland has not succumb to the corruption that plagues multiple governments, it seems these days no government is free the burdens of many unethical and immoral actions and measures they take and may impose on the population. This article however, is focusing specifically on censorship. Perhaps this is simply a PR move to “look good.” I don’t know.

It’s great to see censorship on the minds of many and with all of the controversy that has crept into the mainstream, more people are definitely aware of the problem. I would, however, like to emphasize again that it’s not just Donald Trump that’s been subjected to it, it’s thousands of doctors, scientists, journalist and media organizations.

We are living in an age where there is a digital authoritarian Orwellian type of “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t. Should people not have the right to examine information openly and transparently and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t?

All of this censorship obviously requires a mass amount of surveillance. It’s no secret that tech companies like Facebook and Amazon, for example, have strong connections to intelligence. If you look at Facebook, Google and Amazon employees for example, there are many who have come from very high positions within the Department of Defence.

Amazon appointed Keith Alexander, director of the NSA under Barack Obama. NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden pointed out in a recent interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald,

He was one of the senior architects of the mass surveillance program that courts have repeatedly now declared to be unlawful and unconstitutional…When you have this kind of incentive from a private industry to maintain the warmest possible relationship with the people in government, who not just buy from you but also have the possibility to end your business or change the way you do business…You now see this kind of soft corruption that happens in a constant way.

In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic. These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways…They’re trying to make you change your behaviour…

Snowden goes on to explain how people get upset when government tries to set the boundaries of what appropriate speech is by attempting to stop big tech censorship, he then says,

If you’re not comfortable letting the government determine the boundaries of appropriate political speech, why are you begging Mark Zuckerberg to do it?

I think the reality here is…it’s not really about freedom of speech, and it’s not really about protecting people from harm…I think what you see is the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication. That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try to gain control over this instrument of power.

What we see is an increasing tendency to silence journalists who say things that are in the minority.

I would argue, however, that big tech may not just be censoring “minority” opinions. When it comes to the coronavirus for example, there seems to be, in my opinion, a large majority of doctors, scientists and journalists who are presenting information, science, evidence and opinion that strongly oppose certain measures taken by governments to combat Covid, like lockdowns, for example. Yet somebody like Dr. Anthony Fauci can go on television anytime he wants and is given the gift of instant virality while other experts in the field with opposing views seem to be completely ignored.

I would argue that the mainstream can make the majority feel like the minority, and the minority feel like the majority.

Final Thoughts

Censorship of information, thoughts, opinions and more can be a tricky subject to debate. At the end of the day, information that should not be censored seems to be censored simply because it threatens various corporate and government initiatives, or because it opposes a narrative that we see within the mainstream media. This is exactly why people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, among many, face difficulty. What does it say about our world when we silence and jail those who expose unethical and immoral actions by those we give the most power to?

This, in my opinion, is just wrong and not something humanity should stand for. Already we’ve seen a massive growth of other social media platforms that don’t work with and engage in big tech censorship, like Telegram, for example, and this doesn’t really come as a surprise. Many people are under the opinion that Facebook or Twitter can do whatever they like because these are private companies, and we the users, choose to use them. That may be true, but at the same time why censor so much information that is clearly not false, but simply because you don’t want people to think that way? What we are seeing today is not censorship of harmful information but rather the continued and concerted effort to control the way people think. The information that is censored is constantly labelled as “misinformation” and “fake news” when again, that’s clearly debatable and in many cases simply not true.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are melded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. – Edward Bernay’s, Propaganda 1928

The good news is that censorship measures have exploded and have also acted as a catalyst for more people to question what’s happening on our planet, why, and ask themselves what can we do about it. The number of people asking questions today is more so than ever before, and although sometimes it presents itself and seems like chaos, perhaps we are simply experiencing birthing pains as humanity transitions into a new experience. The more this kind of activity happens, the more our collective eye begins to see our planet in another light. The veil is being lifted.

Right now all of this is simply a reflection of human consciousness, the need to control, the need for power, control and more. Once human consciousness shifts and as it continues to shift, perhaps one day we will have more “conscious corporations.”

This article (Poland Moves To Make Censorship By Facebook, Twitter & Other Big Tech Giants Illegal”) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Alternative News

Israel Mandates “Vaccine Passes” For Gyms, Malls, Hotels & More – Some Using Facial Recognition

Published

on

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

What Happened: Israel has recently implemented a new measure that requires citizens who would like to enter into gyms, shopping malls, theatres, swimming pools and hotels to be vaccinated. Once they are vaccinated they receive a “vaccine pass.” You get a “green pass” if you have had two doses of the vaccine or if you’ve had COVID-19 and are presumed to be immune. Some of these places are also using facial recognition technology to confirm the identity of people.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted, “We are the first country in the world that is reviving itself thanks to the millions of vaccines we brought in….Vaccinated? Get the Green Pass and get back to life.”

Social-distancing and mask wearing mandates are still in place even for those who have been vaccinated. Israel has administered at least one dose of the vaccine to nearly 50% of their population. That’s almost 4.5 million people, and they are claiming that the risk of illness from COVID-19 has dropped 95.8% among people who have received both shots.

According to Reuters:

Israel has logged more than 740,000 cases and 5,500 deaths from COVID-19, drawing criticism of Netanyahu’s sometimes patchy enforcement of three national lockdowns. The government has pledged that there will not be a fourth. But Nachman Ash, a physician in charge of the country’s pandemic response, told Army Radio that another lockdown “is still possible … Half of the population is still not immune.”

It’s unclear whether or not controversy has surrounded the death count in Israel. For example Ontario (Canada) public health clearly states that deaths will be marked as COVID deaths whether or not it’s clear if COVID was the cause or contributed to the death. This means that those who did not die as a result of COVID are included in the death count. You can find the source for that and read more about it here.

Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health stated the following during the first wave of the pandemic,

If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live and then you were also found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death, despite if you died of a clear alternative cause it’s still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who is listed as a COVID death that doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death.

These are a few of many examples.

Why This Is Important: Many mainstream media sources, as expected, have picked up on this story. There are quotes from citizens who have been interviewed who support these mandatory vaccine measures, with many expressing that it makes them feel safe and protected. This is obviously understandable, a large portion of people do feel this way, and do feel that vaccines help to protect people and stop the spread of COVID-19. But these are the people that seem to be given a voice within mainstream media. All other opinions, especially if they call into question the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine seem to be instantaneously shut down. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram for example, have been quite open about the fact that they do and will ban any accounts who bring to light information that paint vaccines in a negative light.

https://gbdeclaration.org/

Despite no attention from mainstream media, many in the “alternative” media community are well aware of the growing vaccine hesitancy that exists within multiple countries. 

Riverside County, California has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50% of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it. At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County’s frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials. According to the L.A. Times, “The vaccine doubts swirling among healthcare workers across the country come as a surprise to researchers, who assumed hospital staff would be among those most in tune with the scientific data backing the vaccines”

The “scientific data” as the L.A. Times puts it has also come into question by academicians, scientists and doctors. For example, Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a piece in the journal issuing a word of caution about the supposed 95% Effective” COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.” In it he outlines how there is no proof showing that the vaccine can and will prevent infection and/or transmission of the virus.

 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 points out,

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.

But according to Facebook fact-checker Health Feedback,

In the case of both COVID-19 vaccines, the FDA concluded that they met the necessary criteria for safety and efficacy. Preliminary data from clinical trials indicate that both vaccines have more than 94% efficacy in protecting vaccinated individuals from the disease. Clinical trials are still underway, so estimates of each vaccine’s efficacy may change.

A few other papers have raised concerns as well, for example. A study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:

 COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”

I’m not going to go into detail here. If you want to read more about growing vaccine hesitancy among, not only people, but doctors and scientists as well and  the reasons as to why so many people are hesitant, you can do so in articles I’ve previously published that go more in depth herehere, and here.

The reason why Israel has implemented these measures, and why many other places in many other countries will most likely follow is based on the theory that if you are vaccinated, you are ultimately protecting others. This is referred to as “herd immunity.” In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors claim that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” This is one of multiple reasons why so many suggest voluntary choice as opposed to vaccine mandates.

It’s obviously quite a controversial issue these days.

The point I am making is that freedom of choice, in my opinion, should always remain and if not I feel that is quite immoral and unethical. At the end of the day, mandatory measures are being done in a clever way, because you still do have the freedom of choice in Israel, you just can’t enter certain places of business.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, what seems to be happening is that the mainstream does not do a proper job at addressing controversial issues? When it comes to vaccines specifically, it’s not uncommon to hear terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorist” being used without actually addressing the concerns that are being raised.

I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, that this kind of terminology does not help and needs to be done away with. She also stated,

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.

When it comes to vaccines specifically, a quote from a paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy by professor Paddy Rawlinson, from Western Sydney University, provides some good insight into what I am referring to.

Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-big pharma relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when big pharma products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and big pharma industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines. It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.

Censorship does not solve any problems. If there’s misinformation out there the solution to that, in my opinion, is more discussion and more free speech. Conversations and healthy debates should be occurring more in these times, instead what we are seeing is the shutdown of any opinion, information and evidence that seems to go against the grain.

Many of us are feeling the loss of freedoms, and even with new measures like that which is presented in this article, we are now seeing how our reality may become limited should we choose not to participate in certain measures we don’t agree with. The trouble we seem to be having is determining how to communicate about COVID, the fears we have around it, and how to come together as a community to ‘draw a line’ as to where we may be taking things too far.

Have we given ‘authority’ figures too much power to the point where they can limit our rights and freedoms if we do not comply? The issue of vaccines is not a black and white one. There are many concerns and issues and as a result of this, freedom of choice, I believe, should always remain. Many people see mandatory vaccine measures as completely unethical, others see them as necessary and justified. At the end of the day, if we keep listening and obeying we continue to place more power in the hands of people and institutions that may not have the best interests of humanity at heart and are more focused on profit, power and control. If there’s one thing that’s constant throughout history, it’s that global issues like COVID, climate change, and terrorism, for example, have all been used for powerful people to capitalize off of in more ways than one.

Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these datasets will not be kept? – Edward Snowden

It’s fine if you believe this vaccine is safe, effective and that everybody should take it. It’s also fine if you believe the opposite, why can’t we all just get along without one side forcing the other in order to access certain rights and freedoms?

This article (Israel Mandates “Vaccine Passes” For Gyms, Malls, Hotels & More – Some Using Facial Recognition) 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

University Of Alaska Study ‘Definitively’ Concludes Fire Did Not Cause Building 7 Collapse On 9/11

Published

on

9/11,
Photo Credit: Mint Press News

Phillip SchneiderGuest Writer

On September 3rd, the University of Alaska Fairbanks released a study on their analysis of the infamous Twin Towers collapse. In it, they found that the third tower’s collapse was, “caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”

On September 11th, 2001, World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed in on itself at free fall speed, falling over 100 feet in less than 10 seconds. After the event, the New York City government cleaned up the debris before a full forensic investigation could be done.

This information and more has prompted many family members of victims, architects, engineers, and everyday people to be sceptical of the official narrative surrounding 9/11, that three buildings fell that day based solely on the impact of Al-Qaeda’s hijacked planes.

The report, led by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey and funded by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is currently in draft form until its public comment period ends. The final report is expected to be released before the end of the year.

“The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse.” – Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey

University Study Concludes: Fire Did Not Bring Down Building 7 on 9/11

The conclusions of this four-year study, funded by the not-for-profit group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, runs in complete contrast to the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government-funded agency responsible for the official conclusion that fire caused by jet fuel was responsible for the collapse of each World Trade Center building, including Building 7, which was not hit by a plane.

In the recent study, computer models were created to simulate each collapse scenario, including both the conclusions of Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, as well as those of the NIST.

After analysing each scenario, the study authors concluded that, “the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building.”

“We discovered that NIST over-estimated the rigidity of the outside frame by not modelling its connections… overall thermal movements at the A2001 base plate support near Column 79 were not sufficient to displace girder A2001.” – Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization which represents over 3,000 certified architects and engineers who question the official story put out by NIST and the White House. The nonprofit has produced other studies as well, including “15 Years Later: One the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses”, published in the European Scientific Journal in 2016.

Footage of Building 7 collapsing on 9/11
Compiled Footage of Building 7’s Collapse

As time moves on, people seem to be more open-minded about the idea that the World Trade Center may not have fallen due to fire, as the official story suggests. Even Donald Trump suggested at one point that the buildings had probably been destroyed by explosives.

“How could a plane, even a 767 or a 747 or whatever it might have been, how could it possibly go through the steel? I happen to think they had not only a plane, but they had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously because I just can’t imagine anything being able to go through that wall…. I just think that there was a plane with more than just fuel.” – Donald Trump, 2001

The tragic events that occurred on 9/11 have led to many global changes including the war on terror, the TSA, the Patriot Act, and more, which were all introduced after the attacks. No matter what the cause of the collapse, people deserve to know the truth about this event that killed thousands and changed our government forever.

According to this analysis, the question is still very much up in the air.

“Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.” – Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey

About the Author

Phillip Schneider is a student as well as a staff writer and assistant editor for Waking Times. If you would like to see more of his work, you can visit his website, or follow him on the free speech social network Minds.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Germany Starts Universal Basic Income Trial Giving Some Citizens $1400 A Month For 3 Years

Published

on

Germany Starts Universal Basic Income
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

What Happened: Germany is starting a universal basic income trial where volunteers will get a $1400 dollar payment every single month as part of a study that will compare the experiences of 120 volunteers who receive it to 1,380 people who won’t. A total of 140,000 people have come together to help fund the study after the idea of a universal basic income continues to gain popularity. Germany is not the only country who has begun such initiatives, Finland also did something similar a few years ago, and proponents of the initiative believe it would improve peoples’ lives and reduce inequality, among other things. Opposition arguments to this type of initiative suggest that it would simply be unaffordable, too expensive and also discourage work.

Jürgen Schupp, who is leading the study, told the German newspaper Der Spiegel that it would improve the debate about universal basic income by producing new scientific evidence.

“The debate about the basic income has so far been like a philosophical salon in good moments and a war of faith in bad times,” he told the newspaper.

Universal basic income is not really supported by any of the major political parties across the globe, especially in Germany.

Why This Is Important: A quote often attributed to Henry Ford reads as follows, “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” Isn’t it odd that the financial elite can simply print money at will? How come when we do it it’s called counter-fitting, but when they do it it’s called increasing the money supply? These people can literally create money out of thin air, and the more I understand the concept of fractional reserve banking, the more I realize that money is simply a tool to in-slave and control the human race while benefiting a select few. This becomes easier to see when you follow the money.

Do we not have the potential to create something better on our planet? Is money really needed, or could we all come together, cooperate and find a better way? If we are going to use this creation of ours, could it not be used in a better and more efficient way?

“As I followed the money I’ve learned that everything I once believed about money is simply not true.” – Foster Gamble

If you want to learn more about the system, you can refer to this article that goes into more detail: The Real Purpose of the Federal Reserve Banking System.

I believe these questions are important, as many of us have been made to believe that our financial system is for the greater good, and that it’s efficient and the only possible way to operate here on our planet. When it comes to the world of finance, our minds are stuck inside of a box.

When it comes to universal basic income, is it really too expensive? For those who believe it is not feasible, did you know that Mark Skidmore, a Michigan State University economist teamed up with multiple researchers, including Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and  found trillions of unaccounted for dollars missing from housing & D.O.D?  Did you know that trillions of dollars are going into “black budget” programs that the president, for example, has no idea about? Did you know that there is no branch or agency of government that can overrule actions that the Federal Reserve takes? It’s simple, if you control the money supply, if you are the printer and the maker of money, you control the population and can create the experience you want humans to live inside.

The researchers found documents indicating a total of $20 trillion of undocumented adjustments had been made, from 1998 to 2015. The original government documents and a report describing the issue can be found here where updates are continually provided.

Imagine if this $21 trillion was allocated to a universal income package? Big financial institutions seem to have no issue with constantly printing money when they need it, but when it comes to concepts of universal income, there are always excuses. Ask yourself, is it really too expensive when this type of misallocation of money is happening?

The problem doesn’t really seem that we don’t have enough money, the issue is that the monetary system is used for control and money is allocated, both legally and illegally, to projects that don’t have the best interests of humanity at hand. The system would work better of the world of finance was not dominated by global elitist agendas seeking control and power. Perhaps it would work better if these people were actually making decisions based on what’s best for humanity.

It’s a complicated topic, a deep one that I would have to go in depth into the fraud, corruption and intentions behind our modern day banking system.

I believe humanity is more than capable of creating a human experience that doesn’t require money. We are extremely advanced, and we already have the means to create an experience where everybody’s basic needs can be met without the requirement for work. This can come as a result of various technological advancements, cooperation not competition, and more.

This is why shifting human consciousness is so paramount.

I believe that solutions exist, yet any type of solution that threatens to uproot our economy and how it currently operates never sees the light of day, and some of these developments are kept from public eye due to ‘national security’ concerns. Today, national security has become an umbrella term to classify technology and information that threatens corporate interests. This is why Julian Assange is in jail.

For example, most countries have an Invention Secrecy Act. Are certain technologies that threaten our current economic system that’s based on the idea that resources are scarce, a threat to scarcity? Is technology that could provide abundance to all hidden from the public simply because they threaten those with large amounts of power? What type of technology is under restriction under the Invention Secrecy Act? We don’t really know, but a previous list from 1971 was obtained by researcher Michael Ravnitzky. Most of the technology listed seems to be related to various military applications. You can view that list HERE.

As Steven Aftergood from the Federation of American Scientists reports:

“The 1971 list indicates that patents for solar photovoltaic generators were subject to review and possible restriction if the photovoltaics were more than 20% efficient. Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction if they offered conversion efficiencies in “excess of 70-80%.” (source)

You can read more about the Invention Secrecy Act here.

There have been even more efficient developments.

There is significant evidence that scientists since Tesla have known about this energy, but that its existence and potential use has been discouraged and indeed suppressed over the past half century or more.  – Dr. Theodor C. Loder, III (source)

What if I told you all of our homes could be powered by nature, without the need to be reliant on the corporation, without the need for gas, coal, oil, fossil fuels etc…These are a few of many examples that would be included in a world that would operate without the need to pay for your life, or services that should be everybody’s birth right.

“Much to my surprise, these concepts have been proven in hundreds of laboratories throughout world and yet they have not really seen the light of day.” – Former NASA astronaut and Princeton physics professor. (source)

There are many examples of this, Paramahamsa Tewari, a physicist and inventor, who won early commendation by Nobel Laureates in physics for his revolutionary Space Vortex Theory, published a paper in Physics Essays (2018) explaining his theory, from which he built an electrical generator capable of achieving over-unity efficiency. You can watch a video of him and his machine here. Why isn’t humanity exploring these concepts that could lift our dependence on big energy corporations and eliminate scarcity of resources, openly, freely and transparently? 

Again, energy generation is one of many examples, there are many solutions to all of our issues from food, to environmental degradation and more.

It seems that when it comes to solutions that can help ‘free’ the human race, even just a little bit with the idea of universal basic income, it is sharply opposed by all major political parties, just like it is in Germany.

Any type of bartering system, or monetary system that is controlled by the citizenry, like Bitcoin for example, also always faces harsh opposition, or an attempt to gain control over it ensues. There are people out there who desire power and control above anything else, and the money supply represents the center of that control.

The truth is, a thriving society will be one that’s devoid of any reliance on governments/federal regulatory agencies. Our various systems are put in place and structured in a way to make it easy for us to be controlled, and for the “1%” to thrive. Right now, we are their worker bees and we choose to uphold the system and are taught, through education, to justify it and see it as necessary without ever using our imagination to ponder how it could be different.

We have so much potential, and we can do much better than we are currently doing.

Bitcoin image
5D Shift: Essential Evidence Of A Widespread Awakening Underway. Click here to read the article.
The Takeaway

I often think about how absurd it is to live on a planet where you can die if you are unable to pay for your life. Having worked in this field for a number of years now, and as stated above, solutions exist to change our world and kick our dependence on corrupt governments and organizations. We could be in the stars by now. Life doesn’t have to be this way, if we continue operating from our current level of consciousness our planet will continue to be destroyed. There are better ways to do things here, and providing all citizens with a basic income, whether they are currently earning or not, is a fantastic place to start as it is clearly possible given all of the money that’s spend on measures that don’t really make sense.

This article (Germany Starts Universal Basic Income Trial Giving Some Citizens $1400 A Month For 3 Years) 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

Catholic Church Ignores Pedophilia, But Bishop Warns Reiki & Energy Healing Are Satanic

Published

on

Bishop Alphonsus Cullinan
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

 Richard Enos, Guest Writer

It is wisely said that, ‘you should clean up your own backyard first before you come running over to fix mine.’ Obviously, this wisdom continues to be lost on the clergy of the Catholic Church.

According to this Irish News article, Catholic Bishop Alphonsus Cullinan has said he is establishing a “delivery ministry” of people who will attempt to rid others of the devil and warned that using reiki or other new-age healing methods could open one up to the possibility of encountering malevolent spirits. He said he had received “several requests” from people to help deal with evil forces.

On the strength of what spellbinding evidence and research does the bishop rest his indictment against reiki healing treatments on? He said he was told by the brother of a reiki master that the man was “working on somebody one day when he actually says he saw a vision of Satan” and was “scared out of his wits, dropped the reiki and went back to the Church”.

Gosh. Did Bishop Cullinan even go so far as to interview the reiki master himself, to verify the authenticity of the report, and perhaps inform himself just a touch more about the philosophy and practice of reiki, before giving it such firm identification with the dark side?

“This is something that has to be done in secret because you don’t let these people’s names out, and they are going to houses where people maybe have been involved in some kind of new-age thing or some kind of séance or that kind of thing, and unfortunately, they’ve opened up a door to an evil force, Satan.” – Bishop Alphonsus Cullinan

Absolving Personal Responsibility

Let’s be clear on what the good bishop is saying here: he is worried about people getting influenced by Satan while engaging in ‘new-age’ healing practices. (In fact, he misidentifies reiki as a ‘new age’ practice when in fact it was developed in the early 1900’s in Japan by Mikao Usui, who realized that healing energy can be transmitted between human beings via the hands and directed intention and visualization.) Does he say what the consequences might be if people fall deeply enough under Satan’s spell under these conditions? Will they suddenly be tempted to steal an apple from the grocery store? Say a crossword to a neighbour? He doesn’t know. And doesn’t say. And probably hasn’t even thought that far.

No, what it really looks like is that the good bishop would like to stop people who are taking personal responsibility for their own healing, and play the devil card to encourage such people to run back to the Catholic Church where members don’t actually have to take responsibility for their own actions–they can simply believe the devil made them do it. This is a scenario in which the good bishop can feel useful in an advisory capacity because he has the God-given power to absolve participants of their sins with the recitation of a few ‘Hail Mary’s.

Why Not Address In-House Pedophilia?

You would think, if indeed you believe Cullinan is being sincere, that he would not be sticking his nose into something he knows little about, and instead bring his Satan-fighting attention to the actions of his Catholic brethren who are already known to be torturing children. You would think it would be of the highest order to turn his exorcising powers to work on these contemporaries of his, if for nothing else than to try to resurrect the reputation of the Catholic Church which has fallen to unprecedented depths.

But you get the feeling that his attitude falls in line with the Church on the matter of pedophilia in the church. Their inaction seems to indicate that they feel not much can be done about it. It is not a question of personal responsibility; it is a question of demonic possession. In the past, Cullinan said he “absolutely” agreed with Pope Francis’s view that child abuse is caused by Satan. This means offenders themselves are not to be ‘blamed’ for their actions. The church’s propensity to take offenders of these violent crimes and simply move them away from one outraged community to continue their criminal activity in another one is a clear sign of this.

Popes audience hall
Multiple Catholic Priests Expose the Practice of “Satanism” within the Vatican. Click here to read the article.
The Takeaway

This bishop certainly has gall to act concerned about potential demonic influence coming from modern energy healing practices he knows nothing about. The good news is, the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church continues to reveal itself in these feeble attempts to retain power over people, and they could serve as a catalyst for more people who still give themselves over to these institutions to take their power back.

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

About the Author

My Master’s thesis on “The Anatomy of Self-Overcoming in Nietzsche” was only the beginning of my journey of exploration into consciousness. I have since lived and taught in Korea, studied yoga in India, written a book entitled “Parables for the New Conversation”, built a film and theatre production company (pandorasboxoffice.ca), and started a family.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending Now