Connect with us

Alternative News

Neil Young Calls For Starbucks Boycott – Starbucks Get’s Stuck Without GMO Stance

Published

on

With the recent buzz still freshly roasting, Neil Young has plucked the GMO boycott nerve like a finely tuned guitar string. His recent announcement calling for a boycott of Starbucks products covered by Rolling Stone magazine has resonated for better or worse.

advertisement - learn more

On Young’s website he states that “Monsanto might not care what we think — but as a public-facing company, Starbucks does.” Last spring, Vermont passed the very GMO labeling law that fell short this year in Oregon (92) and Colorado (105). To no one’s surprise, four corporate food organizations filed a lawsuit against the state to challenge it and forever be branded as ‘the bad guys’. Starbucks, along with Monsanto, both belong to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA); one of the four horseman plaintiffs in the Vermont lawsuit riding away with what’s left of corporate America’s integrity.

In response to Young’s call to boycott that went viral, Starbucks was forced to release a rapid public statement in which it wisely denied its active part in the lawsuit. Here is part of that statement:


“….Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not aligned with Monsanto to stop food labelling or block Vermont State law.

The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their description of our position.

Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labelling. As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we prefer a national solution.”

advertisement - learn more

GMA & Monsanto: Birds Of A Feather

Taken at their word, Starbucks may not be part of the Vermont lawsuit, but they are part of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (with Monsanto). Put a different way, Starbucks may not be attempting to rob the bank or disable the alarm, but they are outside in the getaway car. Starbucks is in the 5% of top grossing GMA member companies as measured by the coffee slingers 2013 revenue earnings of $14.9 billion. It appears that by being one of four associations suing Vermont, the GMA is breaking its agreed upon benefits and advantages initially marketed and offered to its members (Starbucks). The GMA’s ‘Benefits of Members‘ PDF found on their website states the following points (bold emphasis added):

GMA works across a broad spectrum of issues and disciplines to maintain and improve the trust consumers have in our member companies, their brands and products.

GMA is uniquely positioned to educate policymakers, the media and the public

GMA is committed to and promotes a culture of excellence that delivers value to member companies

GMA will advocate for the public policy interests of its members by participating and responding to legislation and regulation

Re: Topic For Tomorrow’s Starbucks Board Meeting

A quick pulse check of the current GMO labeling climate would reveal that the GMA is neglecting its duties by actively suing the state of Vermont. Vermont’s residents voted in favor of helping GMO companies to market their product to their consumers through better labeling. GMO labeling is arguably one of the more popular, common sense initiatives to ever activate an awake and empowered public. Large corporations such as Whole Foods have witnessed the movement coming and have wisely chosen to surf the coming wave with the introduction of their ‘Responsibly Grown‘ ratings system and their public promise to label all GMO food in their store by 2018. The Internet, social media, and the open sourcing of ideas are ending, one by one, companies and associations who talk out of both sides of their mouth while waving a ‘transparency’ flag. It is ultimately up to every person and corporation to decide which side of the road they are on. In a time when consumers are more educated than ever before, it’s telling that ‘the fifth most admired company in the world’ according to Fortune makes a statement like this:

Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling

I would like to bring their attention to American writer Max Eastman who wrote, “People that demand neutrality in any situation are usually not neutral but in favor of the status quo.”

The status quo has changed and companies are scrambling to keep up, stay relevant, and grasp on to their market share accrued during less transparent times. The business and market leaders of tomorrow will not show indecisiveness on major issues that are mobilizing and passionately affecting communities across the world.

Where do you stand regarding GMO labeling?

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Finally, A Clear Explanation Of The “Baby It’s Cold Outside” Controversy

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Recently, the 1944 song 'Baby It's Cold Outside' came under fire from modern feminists claiming it was a song promoting rape culture. Some radio stations banned the song. A check into the lyrics and song's meaning proved that simply wasn't true.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we so quick to jump to aggressive conclusions without simple research? Why are we so emotionally driven about everything these days? Why are we so quick to protect ourselves from 'offensive' things? Don't we decide to get offended?

When I first heard of the “Baby It’s Cold Outside” controversy it seemed to resemble the type of results from the common social engineering practices taking place right now whereby people are led to think incompletely about events and culture in order to create a divide amongst people. This creates enemies where they don’t truly exist and makes for a very easy to manipulate and control populace. Ultimately, this leads for people to call for greater governance.

And this is exactly what is happening when you observe the millions up in arms about issues they don’t fully understand, calling for the government or corporate bodies to step in and do something about it.

Common examples are microaggressions, trying to say everything is hate speech, and blaming gender, racism, or privilege at any possible time, even when those things have nothing to do with situations.

I feel this is often, not always, a reflection of the barriers we want to put up around ourselves so we don’t have to deal with much of the pain we have within ourselves. When we were children we were taught “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.” The reason we are told that is simply because while we all do want to live in a world where everyone is nice to one another, people may sometimes say mean things. The piece we miss today is, how we react to what people say isn’t a reflection of what they said, it’s a reflection of how we feel within ourselves.

“I was just minding my own business looking for people to crucify in my witch hunts instead of dealing with my own pain…” JP Sears, Baby It’s Cold Outside Controversy Explained

Remember, when it comes to getting offended, we all decide what offends us and how to get offended by what someone says. TRUE empowerment means you have the control within yourself. We don’t have to allow things to offend us simply because someone says something, and this also doesn’t mean everyone is going to be mean to us all the time, this is an unsubstantiated fear.

advertisement - learn more

How The Controversy Began

The controversy began a few weeks ago when people claimed the lyrics of the song Baby It’s Cold Outside were promoting rape culture. A groundswell emerged on social media, causing the song to be banned on several radio stations in the US and Canada. Singer Melinda DeRocker even opted out of recording it on her recent holiday album.

But did anyone stop to find out what the writer of the song meant when they wrote it in 1944? Yes, actually, some did, thankfully.  But many didn’t and jumped on the hate bandwagon because nowadays many of us seem to have become headline and meme readers and take all we see as fact without ever questioning what we’re being told. We seem to shy away from delving deeper into content and research, as a general statement, and this is a big problem.

The truth is, the song’s composer Frank Loesser wrote the song so he and his wife Lynn Garland could perform it at holiday parties.

The song’s original score designates the duet partners as “wolf” and “mouse,” and genders are unspecified. This is why many decades of covers have had women and men switching roles as we saw with Lady Gaga and Joseph Gordon Levitt’s version where Gaga plays the wolf’s role. Heck, even Miss Piggy of the Muppets played the wolf as she pursued ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev.

The Real Meaning, All About Perspective

When you truly begin to observe the lyrics more clearly, you can actually deduce what it’s about. In fact, some have argued it’s a song about female empowerment.

In 2006, Slay Belle wrote for the feminist blog Persephone:

“At the time period the song was written, ‘good girls,’ especially young, unmarried girls, did not spend the night at a man’s house unsupervised,”

“Later in the song, she asks him for a comb (to fix her hair) and mentions that there’s going to be talk tomorrow – this is a song about sex, wanting it, having it, maybe having a long night of it by the fire, but it’s not a song about rape. It’s a song about the desires even good girls have.”

“The song ends with the woman doing what she wants to do, not what she’s expected to do, and there’s something very encouraging about that message.”

And in 2015, writer Helen Rosner decided to remove the part about the ‘aggressor’ in the song, or the wolf, and determined that the song was about a “sexually aware woman worried about slut-shaming.”

“The first two verses are both: (1) I have to go. (2)I’m having a great time, but (3) I’m scared of my family’s opinions,” Rosner wrote on Twitter. “She clearly wants to stay, is scared of the social ramifications of that choice, and in the end says ‘fuck society’s repressiveness’ & stays.”

“If you think Baby It’s Cold Outside is creepy, you are robbing the woman in that song of her agency,”
“You are the problem. I’m not kidding.” – Helen Rosner

The Takeaway

In this article, we covered 2 different perspectives of what this song is about. In 2018 it’s about rape, 2015 it’s about a sexually aware woman who is trying to avoid slut shaming, which was the same sentiment in 2006 as the song “was about sex, wanting it, having it, and maybe having a long night of it by the fire, a song about the desires even good girls have.”

The differences come down to important nuances that often don’t exist in many overly emotional activists these days: critical thinking. The 2006 and 2015 examples are intelligently thought out, researched, unemotional and balanced. The example from here in 2018 resembles movements that are about narratives, rhetoric, and creating enemies and divide. It’s angry, emotional and does not have a basis in truth when you take the time to analyze and look at original meanings.

I feel it’s very important we remember not to push so hard about taking sides and trying to identify with certain movements. The more we do this, the more we filter everything through that narrative. Thus we become unconscious.

I wanted to end with a laugh. I will say, I like JP Sears for his comedy. Sure sometimes I am not sure if it comes across to most people as making fun of spirituality and personal work, or if it just calls out the ridiculousness of some of it when we do it inauthentically, but he still has some great jokes. Perhaps though, a shift in his style is needed or even emerging, so his message, whatever it may be, can be a lot clearer to viewers.

That said, I feel in this video’s tone, it hits pretty well on what things are like today with many activists.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

If Cannabis Can Kill “Incurable” Brain Cancer, Why Is It Criminalized?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Cannabis contains a compound that may kill brain cancers that chemotherapy and radiation can't touch. This is outlined by the research below.

  • Reflect On:

    Why has it been such a struggle for patients interested in medical marijuana to actually find it? Why, with all its medicinal potential, is this the case?

This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com. His work is reproduced and distributed here with permission. 

In recent years, we’ve focused heavily on educating our readers about the still relatively unknown role that cancer stem cells play in cancer, both in terms of conventional cancer treatment failure and the exceptionally promising role that natural interventions play in targeting these highly malignant cells.

It is encouraging to witness a growing awareness that cancer has been completely misunderstood, and that in order to make progress against the global epidemic we will have to go back to the wisdom of the ancients by using foods and spices instead of toxic chemicals and radiation to fight a disease that should be classified more as a survival mechanism unmasked than an inexorably lethal, genetically-driven condition. Even the National Cancer Institute now admits that it had been wrong for decades about “early stage” breast (DCIS) and prostate (HGPIN) “cancers,” and that they should be reclassified as indolent or benign lesions of epithelial origin, i.e. not “cancer” at all! Essentially, therefore, millions were overdiagnosed and overtreated for cancers they never had. Even now, despite this admission, the vast majority of conventional doctors have yet to account for, acknowledge, or integrate this radically different definition of cancer and its implications for treatment into their “standard of care.”

Only last week, we featured a new review on natural therapies that target cancer stem cells, many of which included common foods and spices. You can view it here. But one substance conspicuously absent from the list was cannabis, which is the herb we now turn to to give it a fair representation in the context of this topic.

A recent article published in the Journal Neuroimmune Pharmacology titled, “The Antitumor Activity of Plant-Derived Non-Psychoactive Cannabinoids,” reviewed the therapeutic potential of a non-psychoactive class of phytochemicals found in cannabis known as cannabinoids. Unlike THC, cannabinoids do not activate the cannabinoid 1 and cannabinoid 2 receptors in the central nervous system in any significant way, making their activity less controversial as they do not produce changes in perception and sensation associated with “recreational” and/or “psychedelic” drugs. There are actually over 60 cannabinoids in cannabis, but the second most abundant one, cannabidiol (CBD), has been found to inhibit and/or kill a wide range of cancers in the animal model, including gliobastoma (a difficult-to-treat type of brain cancer), breast, lung, prostate, and colon cancer. There have been a wide range of mechanisms identified behind these observed anti-tumor activities, including anti-angiogenic (preventing new blood vessel formation), anti-metastatic, anti-cell viability, but the one we wish to focus on in this report is its ability to to inhibit the stem-like potential of cancer cells.

Stem cells are unique within the body as they are capable of continual self-renewal, theoretically making them immortal relative to regular body cells (somatic cells), which die after a fixed number or replication cycles. In their normal state of function they are essential for healing and bodily regeneration, as they are capable of differentiating into the wide range of cells that make up the body and need to be regularly replaced when damaged.

advertisement - learn more

This so-called pluripotent property of stem cells is also observed in tumor formation and maintenance, as cancer stem cells are capable of producing the entire range of different cells that make up a tumor colony. Unlike regular tumor cells, cancer stem cells are uniquely tumorigenic because they are capable of breaking off from an existing lesion or tumor and forming a new tumor colony of cells. In this sense, they are “mother cells” at the heart of cancer malignancy, whose ability to colonize other tissues by producing all the “daughter cells” necessary to form a new tumor make their existence highly concerning from the perspective of cancer prevention and treatment. Radiation and chemotherapy, while capable of reducing the size of a tumor, actually enrich the post-treatment residual lesion or tumor with higher levels of cancer stem cells, and in some cases transform non-cancer stem cells into cancer stem cells, ultimately making the post-treatment state of the treated tissue far worse than its pre-treatment condition. This is why identifying and using natural, safe, effective and affordable ways to target cancer stem cells versus the non-tumorigenic tumor cells in a lesion or tumor is the only rational way to treat cancer, and should be the primary focus of present day cancer treatment approaches.

The new review discussed the way that cannabidiol targets and/or inhibits the cancer stem cell subpopulation in cancers such as the highly treatment-resistant form of brain cancer known as glioblastoma, which is widely considered by conventional medicine as “incurable.” A 2013 study,1mentioned in the review, found that patient-derived glioblastoma cells when exposed to cannabidiol saw a significant down-regulation of the genetic tumor marker Id-1, which has been closely correlated with brain cancer cell invasiveness. They also found that cannabidiol was capable of inhibiting neurosphere formation (a sign of cancer stem cell tumor formation), as well as was capable of inhibiting glioblastoma tumor invasiveness in an animal model.

The results of this preclinical study were so compelling that the researchers concluded cannibidiol might make an ideal adjunct treatment:

With its lack of systemic toxicity and psychoactivity, cannabidiol is an ideal candidate agent in this regard and may prove useful in combination with front-line agents for the treatment of patients with aggressive and high-grade glioblastoma tumors.

Integrative approaches often focus on using natural interventions as “adjuncts” to conventional, inherently toxic approaches like chemotherapy and radiation, we believe that another possibility exists, namely, that cannabidiol in combination with a wide range of other natural substances studied for targeting glioblastoma is more effective (and certainly far safer) than a combination approach. To view other anti-glioblastoma substances, view our database on the subject.

Another highly relevant study published in 2007 titled, “Cannabinoids induce glioma stem-like cell differentiation and inhibit gliomagenesis,”2 found that cannabinoids target the stem-like properties of glioma cells, encouraging their differentiation into functioning, non-tumorigenic cells, and inhibiting the dysregulated increased production of glioma cells.

A more recent 2015 study,3 found that glioblastoma cells treated with cannabidiol inhibited their self-renewal by down-regulating “critical stem cell maintenance and growth regulators.”

Another study, published last month, found that cannabidiol inhibits glioma stem-like proliferation by inducing autophagy, a natural form of programmed cell death.4

Consider, finally, that the cancer stem cell targeting and killing properties of cannabidiol are only one of a wide range of potential mechanisms through which cannabis as a whole plant, comprised of hundreds of different phytochemicals and phytonutrients, can treat cancer. We have indexed hundreds of studies on cannabis’ therapeutic properties, a good subset concerning its ability to prevent, kill, or regress a wide range of different cancer types. You can view them all on our cannabis research database.

Research on cannabis and brain cancer has only just begun, but considering the abject failure if not also sheer violence of conventional approaches, waiting for sufficient quantities of Pharma or government capital to flow in the direction of a non-patentable substance already saddled with archaic laws in some cases criminalizing its possession is a no win proposition. Anecdotes of healing with cannabis are not uncommon. One such report can be viewed on our colleague Dr. Jeffrey Dach’s website, titled, “Cannabis Oil Brain Tumor Remission,” demonstrating just how powerful cannabis and its cannabinoids may be for accomplishing what conventional approaches can not. Last year, we reported on a similar case of temporary remission in childhood leukemia using cannabis extract. Also, consider reports like this one, where a woman clearly being victimized by conventional medicine was able to replace 40 different medications through using raw cannabis juice.

The short of it is that the future of medicine, if it is to continue to advertise itself to be concerned with alleviating human suffering and being guided by “evidence,” must incorporate this safe, time-tested, affordable and effective healing agent into its standard of care. Failing to do so will not de-validate cannabis, rather, but the medical system itself. One might ask, if cannabis can treat “incurable” brain cancers, and is safer and more effective than chemotherapy and radiation, shouldn’t withholding it or information about its healing properties be considered criminal? Instead we still live in a time and age where simply possessing it or using it is in some jurisdictions classified as a criminal offense of dire if not irreparable consequence to our civil liberties. Perhaps we are at a critical turning point now and the aforementioned research will lead us all forward to a more enlightened medical ethos that respects the right of a patient to choose his or her treatment as long as it does no harm to others.

  • Get access to the upcoming documentary on the healing properties of medicinal cannabis starting on Dec. 12th, 2018. Save Your Spot.

 Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

George H. W. Bush Met With The Bin Laden Family On The Morning of 9/11

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    George Herbert Walker Bush had a meeting with Shafiq bin Laden, the brother of Osama bin Laden, and members of his family the day before and the morning of the 9/11 attacks. It was apparently a routine "business" meeting.

  • Reflect On:

    Why was there no mention of this within the mainstream? Why no investigations of these connections? Why no hearings or inquiries? Why the total silence?

It’s always interesting to read the comments on a post that tries to get to the truth about 9/11. Comments ridiculing these efforts as “conspiracy theory” are still popping up, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans and global citizens believe that something fishy happened that day and that an adequate explanation as to what happened was never provided by the US government.

These days, people are taking matters into their own hands instead of constantly relying on the government, especially for information. Government and mainstream media forces have fought back, bringing about the complete deletion and/or censorship of alternative media outlets. Prior to social media, mainstream media decided what information was to be disseminated to the public. But with social media providing a platform for organizations like Wikileaks to get information out, the global elite are struggling to maintain control of the narrative. They are banking on a modern day Orwellian type of war against “fake news” that is reminiscent of the “war on drugs” or the “war on terror”: a lot of it is based on lies, misinformation, and the global elite, or cabal, simply creating a problem so they can propose the solution.

9/11: Order Out Of Chaos

This is exactly what seemed to happen on 9/11. It was false flag terrorism at its finest. There are multiple studies published in physics and engineering journals that show, beyond a doubt, that ALL THREE TOWERS fell due to a controlled demolition. President Donald Trump has even expressed his knowledge that there was absolutely no way that planes could take down the towers, and that controlled demolition was involved.

Here are some out of many articles we’ve written about the topic:

9/11 Unmasked: The Ultimate Evidence-Based Challenge To The Official Narrative

Studies Show WTC Building 1,2 & 7 Could Not Have Fallen – Why Does The US Still Lie About 9/11?

advertisement - learn more

15 Disturbing Facts About 9/11 You’ll Wish Weren’t True

To simply label this a “conspiracy theory” is ignorant in light of information and evidence that has emerged since that day, be it in the form political witness testimony, documentation about what happened that day, academic research or even eyewitness testimony from firefighters who survived the event. We KNOW something strange happened. Those who push the conspiracy attitude seem to be the ones who have yet to actually look into it and examine the evidence for themselves. Anybody who does look at the reams of evidence and analysis could not possibly come to any other conclusion than the one made within this article. Ridiculing a topic and referring to it as a ‘conspiracy theory’ seems to be the first resort, instead of just saying “I don’t know,” or “I haven’t looked into it.”

When we don’t look into things, we allow our perception of events to be manipulated. Most people have a hard time believing that there are people out there who would want to manipulate the perception of humanity in such an extreme way, but this is actually the only thing that makes sense of the workings of the modern world.

The Bush/Bin Laden Meeting

One of the pieces of evidence of “fishy business” we haven’t covered before is the fact that, one day before the 9/11 attacks, as well as the morning of, the recently deceased George Herbert Walker Bush had a meeting with Shafiq bin Laden, the brother of Osama bin Laden, the supposed mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. Is this not fairly convincing evidence in itself that the bin Laden family, and Osama, may have been working for the Western military industrial complex? Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist and University of Ottawa professor emeritus  explains it sardonically:

It was a routine business meeting on September 10-11, no conflict of interest, no relationship to the 9/11 attacks which allegedly were carried out on the orders of Shafiq’s brother Osama, no FBI investigation into the links between the Bush and bin Laden families.

What is presented below is a factual account. Fellow investors of the Carlyle Group, including Osama’s brother Shafiq bin Laden and former President George H. W. Bush, met in the plush surroundings of New York’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel on September 10-11, 2001.  This “business” meeting was interrupted by the attacks on that day. This meeting was confirmed by the Washington Post, though it was published well after the attacks, and went virtually ignored:

It didn’t help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden [Shafiq bin Laden]. Former president Bush [senior], a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day.

In his article Chossudovsky points out the real context and the seriousness of this situation that mainstream media completely ignored.

Let’s be clear as to what happened: the dad of the sitting president of the US was “harboring” (to use GWB’s expression) the brother of  the alleged terror mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Other members of the bin Laden family were also there. The next time this info leaked out into the mainstream came almost two years after the event:

On the day Osama bin Laden’s men attacked America, Shafiq bin Laden, described as an estranged brother of the terrorist, was at an investment conference in Washington, DC, along with two people who are close to President George Bush: his father, the first President Bush, and James Baker, the former secretary of state who masterminded the legal campaign that secured Dubya’s move to the White House. The conference was hosted by the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that manages billions of dollars, including, at the time, some bin Laden family wealth. It also employs Messrs Bush and Baker.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when no one was being allowed in or out of the United States, many members of the bin Laden family in America were spirited home to Saudi Arabia. The revival of defense spending that followed greatly increased the value of the Carlyle Group’s investments in defense companies.

The Carlyle Group is embroiled with the defense and intelligence establishment. “It is widely regarded as an extension of the US government, or at least the National Security Agency, the CIA, and the Pentagon.” ( The Economist, June 26, 2003)

The meeting of members of the bin Laden family with the father of the president of the United States was covered up, and 13 members of the bin Laden family including Shafig were flown out of the US on September 19, 2001 in a plane chartered by the White House.

The Takeaway

How come there were no inquiries into this? How come there was no questioning? If our world operates the way we are told, both Bush and members of the bin Laden family should have been taken in for questioning. Obviously, it’s easy to see why they weren’t, and that’s because, in my opinion, they were directly involved in orchestrating the event, to basically revive the ‘war on terror’ in order to invade other countries for ulterior motives.

Eventually, the soldiers who give orders will stop giving them, and the ones that take them will stop taking them. This will happen when more people realize that the entire ‘war on terror’ is a complete fabrication.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

We Need Your Support...

 

With censorship, things have become tough. If just 5% of people seeing this today supported CE, we'd be able to fund a TRUE investigative team INSTANTLY. Your support truly matters and goes a long way! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.