Connect with us

News

Democracy Doesn’t Exist: Here’s Why Voting Doesn’t Change Anything

Avatar

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

“Presidents are selected, not elected.” These are the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt, longtime politician and the 32nd President of the United States. Are presidents really selected? Do votes really count? Or are presidential elections rigged? More and more people seem to believe so, as every year, presidential candidates seem more like walking billboards for the numerous corporations showering them with money than actual politicians looking to make a difference. Stating that “presidents are selected, not elected” isn’t too farfetched, especially when you are a former president yourself. There are some important points we might want to take a look at when it comes to presidents, elections, and democracy in general.

advertisement - learn more

It’s also relevant to mention here that President Eisenhower warned us about the “military industrial complex,” and the disastrous potential rise of a “misplaced” power that could have great influence globally, and on humanity in general. JFK also warned us about those willing to capitalize on secrecy. He stated that “there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.” (source)(source)

--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!

Woodrow Wilson, the 13th president of the United States, said that:

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce, and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” (Taken from his book The New Freedom.)

Corporations Are Above The Government: They Dictate Government Policy.

Presidents, politicians, and overall governmental policy is heavily influenced by major corporations, and this reality is not really a secret anymore. A great example is the revolving door between Monsanto and various government agencies, like the FDA. Similarly, there is the example of Obama appointing Michael Taylor, former Monsanto VP, to food safety czar.

We see this type of thing happening throughout history. For example, David W. Beier, former head of Government Affairs for Genentech, Inc., was also chief domestic policy advisor to Al Gore when he was Vice President. Another example is Linda J. Fisher, former Assistant Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, also a Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for Monsanto Corporation. The list goes on and on.

advertisement - learn more

Most of this is done through lobbying. There are always lobbyists for GMOs, fracking, nuclear power, bank regulation, and more. This is why we always see government policy favouring the interests of these big corporations, despite being against the interests of the rest of the planet.

There is a great article in The Guardian titled 10 Ways Big Business Controls The Government which goes into more detail.

Below is an excellent breakdown from Foster Gamble, heir to the Foster Gamble corporations. He was groomed to be a part of this system, but instead took a different route.

I’d also like to mention that corporations are constantly breaking the law, destroying the environment with toxic dumps, dislocating and uprooting people from their homes, and wreaking havoc on the planet. At this moment this degradation is out of control, but we still have a small window of opportunity to change it.

Government Secrecy

How can we live in a a democracy when, according to some historians, the United States alone classifies over 500 millions pages of documents every single year?

“It is ironic that the U.S. would begin a devastating war, allegedly in search of weapons of mass destruction, when the most worrisome developments in this field are occurring in your own backyard. It is ironic that the U.S. should be fighting monstrously expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, allegedly to bring democracy to those two countries, when it itself can no longer claim to be called a democracy; when trillions, and I mean thousands of billions of dollars have been spent on projects about which both Congress and the Commander in Chief have been kept deliberately in the dark.” –  Paul Hellyer, Former Canadian Defense Minister (source)

Consider how a researcher might study the official history of their country – how is this even possible when most of that history is kept secret for the sake of ‘national security?’

Scientists working for the Canadian government are starting to raise their voices, accusing the federal government of “muzzling” them and their findings on various issues. You can read more about that story here.

Even inventions and patents are delayed due to secrecy orders. There were over 5,000 inventions under secrecy orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2014, which marked the highest number of  secrecy orders in effect since 1994. You can read more details about that HERE.

You can read a heavily sourced article that goes more in depth on government secrecy HERE.

Final Comments

I just wanted to provide a couple of points to make it quite clear that we are far from a democracy.

It seems as if presidents are used as celebrities, used to capture the hearts and attention of people while corporations freely pollute and destroy our planet. Barack Obama was a big time celebrity, and there is no doubt in my mind that Hilary Clinton will be the same by taking on the role of “first female president.” I’m not saying that such progress in the battle for equality is not commendable (because of course it is), I’m just saying it’s time to turn our eyes away from these ‘leaders’ and focus on bigger issues. We can’t look to them for change, we have to look to ourselves.

There are various examples of how we do not live in a democracy. What the people want is never represented properly. For example, approximately 50 percent of American people don’t believe the official story of 9/11 and have demanded another investigation, yet nothing happens. The majority of people in America have made a tremendous effort for GMO labelling laws to come into effect, yet the government continues to put in legislature to oppose these efforts. The list goes on and on.

If we want to combat environmental issues, war, poverty, and all of our other problems, we can’t keep looking to political ‘leaders’ like Obama and international organizations like the UN, who simply give their speeches as they’ve always done, year after year. None if it ever seems to change anything at all. They know of the solutions, and have known for years. These are people/organizations who act as puppets and mouthpieces for those in real power, those who apparently care little about us or the planet. The people we think are in power are like gaudy jewels meant to catch the eye and distract the mind. The people who are actually in power are clever, fooling us with words that resonate with the soul and make headlines. Dark acts are always done in the disguise of good deeds, capturing peoples’ hearts. Don’t continue to be bamboozled. Turn your eye away from them, change will not come from them, it never has and it never will. Change can only come from you and me. If we keep looking to them to provide the solutions and take care of our planet, the planet will continue to get trashed as it always has. It’s how we got here in the first place…

We cannot continue to give our power away and charge others with taking care of our planet. The only way things are going to change here is if we come together as one human race. Governmental policy reflects nothing but corporate interest, and we simply can’t afford to sit around much longer, letting our planet suffer. In my opinion, voting has never changed anything and never will.

“Democrats and republicans are two wings of the same bird, and the flight path doesn’t change.”  – Unknown.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

General

Houston Methodist Hospital Set To Terminate Unvaccinated Employees

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 1 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Houston Methodist Hospital is set to terminate employees who refuse COVID-19 vaccines. As of June 12th, a district Judge has shot down a lawsuit the employees have filed against the the hospital. The employees, led by Jennifer Bridges, are set to file an appeal and are prepared to take the case all the way to the supreme court.

This case will be important to track as this may set the tone for how private companies will approach the ‘mandating’ of vaccines that governments had suggested would not be policy. If people can be fired for refusing a vaccine, is it fair to say these vaccines are truly not mandatory?

 

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Exopolitics

US Air Force is Building Telemetry Stations Along The East Coast To Track UAP Activity

Gautam Peddada

Published

on

By

3 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Several telemetry stations are set to be built along the US east coast to begin tracking UAP activity.

  • Reflect On:

    Are these truly signs that the US military is now taking this subject seriously? Or has it done so behind the scenes for quite some time?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The United States Air Force will construct a new telemetry station in Florida that will use cutting-edge tracking equipment to record data mainly from UFOs. This development is most likely connected to Aviator Ryan Graves’ assertion that there were sensitive air space intrusions practically daily on Florida’s East Coast for two years. For decades, the United States Department of Defense has reserved the specific air space in question for national security concerns. It is clearly a no-fly zone.

I had contacted the Plans Examiner Supervisor for Pasco County’s Building Department at the time of this writing. For the past seven years, Jeff Robert Blask has had the distinction of being a part of substantial progress. He has assessed construction designs for buildings ranging from new residences to new hospitals to guarantee compliance with the Florida Building Code.

A Project Engineer contacted Pasco County in April 2021 to obtain a permit for the facility’s construction. Mr. Blask understood from his expertise that the Federal Government does not require licenses to develop on state or municipal territory, therefore he was perplexed as to why permission was being asked for what was clearly a military complex. When Jeff inquired, the Project Engineer stated that the property was leased rather than owned by the federal government. As a result, the exemption is inapplicable.

The location is made up of multiple structures, including a 100-foot tall tower with a radar dome, two 50-foot collapsible auxiliary towers, and an elevated monitoring facility with an observation deck.

Approved plans (Public Record)

Approved plans (Public Record)

Approved plans (Public Record)

Approved plans (Public Record)

Jeff Blask wrote in his publication —

“Normally, I wouldn’t look at this particular project with too much zeal especially since MacDill Air Force Base is about 45 miles south at the southern tip of Tampa Bay. MacDill is Central Command for Middle Eastern operations. However, being that I am a life-long UFO enthusiast and given everything occurring recently, my radar went off, no pun intended.”

Mr. Blask said to the Project Engineer “Wow! That’s some hefty equipment. This is obviously for tracking possible UAP activity that we’ve had around our coasts in recent years.”

“You got it! And as a matter of fact, if you are interested in that subject it may also interest you to know that this facility is not being manned and monitored by MacDill Air Force Base… it’s being monitored in its entirety by Eglin.” responded the Project Engineer.

“The assets themselves are not classified, however, the data that will be collected is. Therefore, this facility will be under heavily armed guards and only people with Top Secret clearance will be allowed in.” Added the Engineer that Mr. Flask was speaking with.

Jeff Flask has written in his own story posted to thejolt.net that he has learned that the private contractor has been asked to construct several similar facilities along with the coastal areas.

“Needless to say, I was somewhat speechless. First and foremost, he so nonchalantly confirmed what this site was to be used for and secondly, this site is being monitored by Eglin Air Force Base, a large 640 square mile base that’s about 60 miles east of Pensacola; not MacDill our local base here in the greater Tampa Bay Area.” stated Jeff Blask.

This demonstrated to him, at his own grassroots level, that the military is now taking the UAP issue seriously.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

Censorship: Facebook Has Removed 16 Million Pieces of Content & Added ‘Warnings’ On 167 Million

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 13 minute read
©Andrey Yanevich/123RF.COM

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Journalist Laurie Clarke has published a piece in the British Medical Journal about the censorship of science, and who these Big Tech "fact-checkers" really are.

  • Reflect On:

    Why has there been such an effort to hide information that threatens the accepted narrative we get from the mainstream? What is going on here? How is this legal, moral and ethical?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The censorship of information is at an all time high, but do people really recognize the extent to which it has been and is being carried out? A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

Being an independent media outlet, Collective Evolution has experienced this censorship first hand. We’ve also been in touch with and witnessed many doctors and world renowned scientists be subjected to the same type of treatment from these social media organizations. Not long ago I wrote an article about Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard professor of medicine who has been having trouble with twitter. I did the same with Dr. Carl Heneghan, a professor of evidence based medicine from Oxford and an emergency GP who wrote an article regarding the efficacy of facemasks in stopping the spread of COVID. His article was not removed, but a label was added to it by Facebook saying it was ‘fake information.’ There are many more examples.

Clarke’s article says, with regards to posts that have been removed and labelled, that,

“while a portion of that content is likely to be wilfully wrongheaded or vindictively misleading, the pandemic is littered with examples of scientific opinion that have been caught in the dragnet.”

This is true, take for example the ‘lab origins of COVID debate.’ Early on in the pandemic you were not even allowed to mention that COVID may have originated in a lab, and if you did, you were punished for doing so. Independent media platforms were demonetized and subjected to changes in algorithms. Now, all of a sudden, the mainstream media is discussing it as a legitimate possibility. It makes no sense.

Laurie Clarke outlines in her piece,

This underscores the difficulty of defining scientific truth, prompting the bigger question of whether social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube should be tasked with this at all…

“I think it’s quite dangerous for scientific content to be labelled as misinformation, just because of the way people might perceive that,” says Sander van der Linden, professor of social psychology in society at Cambridge University, UK. “Even though it might fit under a definition (of misinformation) in a very technical sense, I’m not sure if that’s the right way to describe it more generally because it could lead to greater politicisation of science, which is undesirable.”

This type of “politicization of science” is exactly what’s happened during this pandemic.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. – Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. (source)

An important point to get across is also the fact that these independent “fact checkers” are working with Facebook, who in turn is working with the government. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden offered his thoughts on the censorship we’ve been seeing during this pandemic in November of last year stating the following,

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.

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.

It makes you wonder, is this “fact-checking” actually about fact checking? Or is something else going on here?

Below is a breakdown from Clarke’s article illustrating how fact checking works and what the problem is with following the science. Since we have reported this many times over the last 5 years, we decided to let our readers hear it from someone else for a change as it’s truly quite vindicating to see more investigators coming to these conclusions.

How fact checking works

The past decade has seen an arms race between users who peddle disinformation (intentionally designed to mislead) or unwittingly share misinformation (which users don’t realise is false) and the social media platforms that find themselves charged with policing it, whether they want to or not.1

When The BMJ questioned Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (which is owned by Google) they all highlighted their efforts to remove potentially harmful content and to direct users towards authoritative sources of information on covid-19 and vaccines, including the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although their moderation policies differ slightly, the platforms generally remove or reduce the circulation of content that disputes information given by health authorities such as WHO and the CDC or spreads false health claims that are considered harmful, including incorrect information about the dangers of vaccines.

But the pandemic has seen a shifting patchwork of criteria employed by these companies to define the boundaries of misinformation. This has led to some striking U turns: at the beginning of the pandemic, posts saying that masks helped to prevent the spread of covid-19 were labelled “false”; now it’s the opposite, reflecting the changing nature of the academic debate and official recommendations.

Twitter manages its fact checking internally. But Facebook and YouTube rely on partnerships with third party fact checkers, convened under the umbrella of the International Fact-Checking Network—a non-partisan body that certifies other fact checkers, run by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a non-profit journalism school in St Petersburg, Florida. Poynter’s top donors include the Charles Koch Institute (a public policy research organisation), the National Endowment for Democracy (a US government agency), and the Omidyar Network (a “philanthropic investment firm”), as well as Google and Facebook. Poynter also owns the Tampa Bay Times newspaper and the high profile fact checker PolitiFact. The Poynter Institute declined The BMJ’s invitation to comment for this article.

For scientific and medical content the International Fact-Checking Network involves little known outfits such as SciCheck, Metafact, and Science Feedback. Health Feedback, a subsidiary of Science Feedback, handpicks scientists to deliver its verdict. Using this method, it labelled as “misleading” a Wall Street Journal opinion article2 predicting that the US would have herd immunity by April 2021, written by Marty Makary, professor of health policy and management at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. This prompted the newspaper to issue a rebuttal headlined “Fact checking Facebook’s fact checkers,” arguing that the rating was “counter-opinion masquerading as fact checking.”3 Makary hadn’t presented his argument as a factual claim, the article said, but had made a projection based on his analysis of the evidence.

A spokesperson for Science Feedback tells The BMJ that, to verify claims, it selects scientists on the basis of “their expertise in the field of the claim/article.” They explain, “Science Feedback editors usually start by searching the relevant academic literature and identifying scientists who have authored articles on related topics or have the necessary expertise to assess the content.”

The organisation then either asks the selected scientists to weigh in directly or collects claims that they’ve made in the media or on social media to reach a verdict. In the case of Makary’s article it identified 20 relevant scientists and received feedback from three.

“Follow the science”

The contentious nature of these decisions is partly down to how social media platforms define the slippery concepts of misinformation versus disinformation. This decision relies on the idea of a scientific consensus. But some scientists say that this smothers heterogeneous opinions, problematically reinforcing a misconception that science is a monolith.

This is encapsulated by what’s become a pandemic slogan: “Follow the science.” David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, calls this “absolutely awful,” saying that behind closed doors scientists spend the whole time arguing and deeply disagreeing on some fairly fundamental things.

He says: “Science is not out in front telling you what to do; it shouldn’t be. I view it much more as walking along beside you muttering to itself, making comments about what it’s seeing and making some tentative suggestions about what might happen if you take a particular path, but it’s not in charge.”

The term “misinformation” could itself contribute to a flattening of the scientific debate. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, has been criticised for his views on lockdown, which tack closely to his native Sweden’s more relaxed strategy.4 He says that scientists who voice unorthodox opinions during the pandemic are worried about facing “various forms of slander or censoring . . . they say certain things but not other things, because they feel that will be censored by Twitter or YouTube or Facebook.” This worry is compounded by the fear that it may affect grant funding and the ability to publish scientific papers, he tells The BMJ.

The binary idea that scientific assertions are either correct or incorrect has fed into the divisiveness that has characterised the pandemic. Samantha Vanderslott, a health sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, told Nature, “Calling out fake stories can raise your profile.” In the same article Giovanni Zagni, director of the Italian fact checking website Facta, noted that “you can build a career” on the basis of becoming “a well respected voice that fights against bad information.”5

But this has fed a perverse incentive for scientists to label each other’s positions misinformation or disinformation.6 Van der Linden likens this to how the term “fake news” was weaponised by Donald Trump to silence his critics. He says, “I think you see a bit of the same with the term ‘misinformation,’ when there’s science that you don’t agree with and you label it as misinformation.”

Health Feedback’s website says that it won’t select scientists to verify claims if they’ve undermined their credibility by “propagating misinformation, whether intentionally or not.” In practice, this could create a Kafkaesque situation where scientists are precluded from offering their opinion as part of the fact checking process if they expressed an opinion that Facebook labelled misinformation. Strengthening the echo chamber effect is the fact that Health Feedback sometimes verifies claims by looking at what scientists have said on Twitter or in the media.

Scientific “truth”

Van der Linden says that it’s important for people to understand that in the scientific domain “there’s uncertainty, there’s debate, and it’s about the accumulation of insights over time and revising our opinions as we go along.” Healthy debate helps to separate the wheat from the chaff. Jevin West, associate professor in the Information School at the University of Washington in Seattle, says that social media platforms should therefore be “extra careful when it comes to debates involving science.” He explains: “The institution of science has developed these norms and behaviour to be self-corrective. So, for [social media platforms] to step into that conversation, I think it’s problematic.”

Experts who spoke to The BMJ emphasised the near impossibility of distinguishing between a minority scientific opinion and an opinion that’s objectively incorrect (misinformation). Spiegelhalter says that this would constitute a difficult “legalistic judgment about what a reasonable scientific opinion would be . . . I’ve got my own criteria that I use to decide whether I think something is misleading, but I find it very difficult to codify.”

Other scientists worry that, if this approach to scientific misinformation outlives the pandemic, the scientific debate could become worryingly subject to commercial imperatives. Vinay Prasad, associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, argued on the MedPage Today website: “The risk is that the myriad players in biomedicine, from large to small biopharmaceutical and [medical] device firms, will take their concerns to social media and journal companies. On a topic like cancer drugs, a tiny handful of folks critical of a new drug approval may be outnumbered 10:1 by key opinion leaders who work with the company.”7 Thus the majority who speak loudest, most visibly, and with the largest number online, may be judged “correct” by the public—and, as the saying goes, history is written by the victors.

Social media companies are still experimenting with the new raft of measures introduced since last year and may adapt their approach. Van der Linden says that the talks he’s had with Facebook have focused on how the platform could help foster an appreciation of how science works, “to actually direct people to content that educates them about the scientific process, rather than labelling something as true or false.”

This debate is playing out against a wider ideological struggle, where the ideal of “truth” is increasingly placed above “healthy debate.” Kulldorff says: “To remove things in general, I think is a bad idea. Because even if something is wrong, if you remove it there’s no opportunity to discuss it.” For instance, although he favours vaccination in general, people with fears or doubts about the vaccines used should not be silenced in online spaces, he says. “If we don’t have an open debate within science, then that will have enormous consequences for science and society.”

There are concerns that this approach could ultimately undermine trust in public health. In the US, says West, trust in the government and media is falling. He explains, “Science is still one of the more trusted institutions, but if you start tagging and shutting down conversation within science, to me that’s even worse than the actual posting of these individual articles.”

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!