A story trapped within a story trapped within a story. A few years ago, I successfully crowdfunded the start of a peer-to-peer staffing network that would allow freelance hospitality staff to solicit their expertise directly to clients without being hired by nefarious staffing agencies.
The research into “new” and “sharing” and “peer-to-peer” economies was fascinating and undoubtedly evolutionary in scope. Although organizations such as Couchsurfing and WWOOF (WorldWide Opportunities on Organic Farms) kept the grassroots, relatively cost-free foundations of early sharing-economy principles in place, the inevitable was about to happen in the money economy. As the global economy receded in 2008 and subsequent industries collapsed, a global “sharing” economy was born out of its ashes.
The sharing economy, as it’s come to be known, has been around since before the word economy existed. The word economy literally means the “management” of the “household.” It preceded monetary economies. It preceded financial institutions and debt, as it has come to exist. It could also be said it was the basis for communal solidarity and resilience before monetized economies and scarcity began to empower the individual and disregard the community.
And so in the west we have come full circle, with many emerging companies whose foundations of disintermediation create or strengthen community and offer people an opportunity to make money where they otherwise couldn’t previously. None of these things are inherently bad, but when we don’t question how a new economy works, only that it works, we inevitably fall deeper into a story that we consider ourselves to be escaping.
A Different Business Model
The business model I created attempted to remedy the increasing disparity in the hospitality catering world between staffing agencies and staff. So I imagined a website that could do what the agencies did, independent of administrative personnel and “finders’ fees.” I realized at the same time that simply paying people more to work the same job does not necessarily remedy the acute vapidity or abuse of their work, it just makes it more palatable. As seems to be the case for a large majority of peer-to-peer networks that tend to stylize the sharing economy, the agency middlemen defend their role as facilitators by taking up to 70% of the staff’s wages charged to the client, at least in the case of hospitality staff in Toronto.
That being said, it’s no wonder alternatives are arising. Similar alternatives have popped up for other freelance workers as well, usually in tech and design. Although these models follow similar styles as AirBnB and Uber in creating safe networks and allowing peer reviews, none of the models implement safeguards to ensure safer work environments, higher pay rates, guaranteed pay rates, etc.
In fact, the models do the opposite of the story of innovation and sharing and disintermediation that they are so quick to espouse. The online models replacing the traditional middlemen instead allow competition to such an extent that the price of one’s work is affected by a “race-to-the-bottom.” (“Because the competition is offering the same service for less, they will probably have more business, so then I should lower my prices too.”) Not to mention the considerable project revisions that can be demanded pro bono just so a user can retain a positive review. These consequences should come as no surprise when longterm, unpaid internships, which often don’t result in paid work, have become the norm in the corporate and non-corporate work world alike.
Today you can hire someone online to micro-manage your week for you, although most people require simple tasks completed. Fiverr is the big one, where people can sign up and hire designers for any variety of micro-projects, starting at $5. As if this outsourcing of work isn’t enough, there has to be Fourerr, which is a laughable, albeit sad declaration of the race to the bottom. And don’t forget, most of these peer-to-peer job networks take a 20% commission.
Larger project-based online job networks like Guru and UpWork so opaquely try to represent themselves as the cutting edge of next generation work (so says their pretentious names). But that’s just it. These platforms are exactly that — an evolution of the same system that came before it, just more efficient. But it does absolutely nothing for the world when a more efficient model is presented, especially when it’s based on grandfathered principles. What good does it do to make a runaway train more efficient? What it does do is dress the emperor in new clothes. But the ugly truth is that he’s still naked.
Of course, things are never so black and white. Share-washing is a term coined to describe the greenwashing of the sharing economy.
Somehow a person who decides to become a short-term landlord is suddenly helping the world by renting their spare room to complete strangers. It doesn’t mean they suddenly contribute something revolutionary to the world. What it does mean is that they are being convinced that is the case.
Somehow they are not a capitalist, not a slumlord, not exacerbating an economy in protracted collapse, but rather the angels and creators of a more beautiful world. Marketing also convinces them of this with redemptive, but equally vague catch phrases such as “open source,” “gift economics,” and my personal favourite, “collaborative consumption.” Still, things are not so black and white. Many organizations and networks have bred a more beautiful world without the necessity of monetized interactions. Let’s contrast the angels and demons.
Couchsurfing is a great example of a grassroots, community-building introduction to a peer-to-peer sharing economy. Essentially, it is a social network, much like Facebook, that allows users to register, build a profile, and engage with people from all over the world to either host travellers in their homes or to solicit hosts for a couch to sleep on. The organization charges a fee to register as a verified member, enhancing security, but other than that, it is not only free to use, but policies demand that no money is exchanged for the use of one’s couch. It is free, yes, but there is a sort of unspoken responsibility among couchsurfers that they at least offer to buy or cook the host dinner and share stories, skills, and ideas.
Those who might flip this around and see their responsibility as an obligation perhaps don’t understand the generosity and otherwise unnecessary need to offer a stranger a place to sleep for the night, because as you might be able to glimpse, it can be much more than that. I’ve been a member for a long time and it is an amazing way not only to meet new people, but new cultures, in a way that removes one from the cultural concept of strangers, and brings them together in an inter-cultural space that demands something of them, and not their wallets.
Often when I explained to my parents or friends that I would be staying on a stranger’s couch or hosting someone in the same way, their fears would be curled up around their curiosity, demanding that their worldviews on the dangers of strangers be somehow accommodated. They never were. But for their ilk a slightly similar website emerged that not only brought the idea out of alternative lifestyles, but monetized it. AirBnB has become a household name. The website allows people to rent out spare rooms and whole apartments to strangers. For those who can’t afford to stay in hotels, and those who desire income, AirBnB is a perfect match. While this new platform certainly undercuts the revenue of local hotels, AirBnB provides work and money for people who otherwise might not have any. Much in the vein of couchsurfing, AirBnB hosts and guests often have an opportunity to bridge cultural valleys, learning and interacting in ways that eclipse the capacities of museums, cultural centres, and day tours to educate.
The AirBnB model has had incredible success spreading wealth that was once consolidated in the hands of corporations and agencies and allowing it to funnel into the hands of the average citizen. While this, coupled with the capacity to create inter-cultural dialogues and bridges, is amazing, there is certainly a side to this coin that most people don’t want to acknowledge. In allowing people to utilize their homes and rental units, they don’t just allow them to increase their income, but by default turns them into landlords. It also encourages people to obtain more properties as a means for extra, and often easy, money. As if it wasn’t difficult enough to own property in 21st century North America without a lifelong mortgage, “innovation” sings the song that now everyone can become a landlord. This model has kept unemployed people from becoming homeless and employed people a little bit more financially secure, but only at the cost of their tenants. AirBnB hosts have become the proletariat Marriott, the friendly, average Joe version of Donald Trump. By monetizing the model that couchsurfing started, AirBnB has not solved the increasingly dangerous rent problem in North America, it has exacerbated it tenfold by saying “why risk permanent tenancy when you too could be a landlord?” It is simply an extension of the capitalist model in the face of its own collapse.
Uber is a similar example. Take a profession that requires multiple licenses, shady intermediaries, often negative public opinion, and offer a somewhat de-regulated, cheaper version of the same thing, and suddenly you have a brand new industry worth tens of billions of dollars. An industry which anyone can make money at, as long as they have a nice car and a driver’s license. It is likely that here too, many, many people who might have otherwise gone unemployed now have full-time jobs as drivers. But the reason Uber has become so popular is not because it offers people jobs, or that the public is discouraged with the conventional model of taxis, but because it offers a cheaper service. This alone is why most people use Uber, which is 20% cheaper than taxi cabs on average.
While it varies from city to city and country to country, Uber drivers can often make more money than taxi drivers, when they don’t have to pay for insurance or licensing fees. But while tons of people now have jobs they otherwise wouldn’t, the price of the service is going down, along with all drivers’ income — simply as a direct relation to the amount of competition that now exists. The peer-to-peer economy claims to remove the middlemen, previously agencies and government regulation, and to create new jobs. The flip side of the coin is that it postpones the shrinking of local and global economies because, simply, the prices of these services are cheaper. It is essentially the 21st century version of free trade — that rosy sounding economic style that promised to “develop” all countries to a rich, work-free standard of living, but instead has brought the global economy to its knees, making rich people in rich countries richer, and anyone else not already poor left with the promise of lifelong drudgery.
The ethos of capitalism as it has come to exist in the modern world is to make more people, so they can buy more things, at cheaper prices, so that inevitably there will be money left over for the next transaction. The peer-to-peer economy is not a socially just revolution of microeconomics and disintermediation — it is the natural consequence of the global capitalist economy trying, in its death throws, to prop itself up and shy away, as efficiently as possible, from its last gasps. And look how it is championed by the liberal and progressive among us.
Leave your dog with a stranger. Rent a car or bicycle from a neighbour. Lend or borrow money (with interest) from a peer investor. Buy used clothing from a friend instead of a second-hand shop. Rent sporting goods from a peer instead of a store. Rent your parking space for the days you don’t use it. This kind of peer-to-peer economics certainly reduces waste and makes local economies much more efficient than they previously were, but what also seems inevitable, is that the praise and proponents of the new economics actually encourages people to monetize, at least potentially, every thing that they own and every service they can offer. A person’s objects no longer exist primarily in relation to ownership or want, but that everything has a resale price attached. The consequences are endless, and unnerving.
The “sharing” economy is so often offered up in quotations because it is obvious that sharing something does not and never did mean putting a price tag on sharing. The bright side is that there are social networks and organizations whose word is bond and offer up platforms and meeting spaces where things not only don’t have to be monetized — what a concept! — but aren’t monetized. Couchsurfing, online barter and “freecycling” networks, tool-lending libraries, seed libraries, book libraries, and carpooling are all great and sometimes timeless examples of how we can start to tell stories that might include money in some fashion, but not as the foundation through which the interaction unfolds.
The culture of innovation for entrepreneurs today has become a caricature, with very few stones left unturned in order to find a way to justify monetizing a new idea. Young people dressing up in their blazers and v-neck t-shirts, paying money to attend “salons” and “unconferences” and get certified as a life coach at 30 (the irony!), so they can then charge for their own salons and certification programs. Don’t get me wrong — everyone needs to make money, pay rent or a mortgage, and so on. But saying that is what everyone needs is also saying that it has always been this way, which is one of the hallmarks of the story of western civilization. If you convince someone that it has always been this way, then how could it ever be otherwise?
So in the face of western culture rotting from its core comes the rush to create new technologies and bandaids masquerading as solutions. Still, people need narrative. And so with the share-washing of business, otherwise known as business innovation, is it really any surprise that conferences and salons always begin with some organizer pitching a story — something relatable, something hopeful, something that hinges on a world much unlike their own? But the guests in the audience, even with their inspiration lit, conscious of it or not, are there to build something they can sell to others, and without even knowing they are being sold the same. old. story.
A story trapped within a story, that is ironically enough, trying to tell a different story.
Is Saudi Journalist’s Disappearance & Allegations Of Murder A ‘White’ False Flag?
- The Facts:
US-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi walked into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2 and never came out. Turkish sources claim to have audio and video evidence that Khashoggi was murdered, and Saudi officials deny the claim.
- Reflect On:
Can we start to see beyond the perceptions being created by players in the geopolitical arena? What will it take for deception to end and truth to reign in our world?
US-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a well-known critic of Saudi Arabia and its leadership, went missing in Turkey on October 2. He entered Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Istanbul around 1 pm to obtain a document certifying he divorced his ex-wife. He has not been seen since.
The former editor of Saudi newspaper Al Watan fled the kingdom last year fearing for his safety amid a wide-scale crackdown on dissidents. He had become a frequent contributor to The Washington Post and continued to critique Saudi Arabia from the safety of the U.S., often raising concerns about the war in Yemen as well as diplomatic tensions with Qatar.
There is video evidence widely circulating that show Khashoggi entering the consulate in Istanbul. One would think that if it existed, video evidence showing him exiting the building would be just as accessible, but none has been forthcoming.
Claims Of Proof
US and Turkish officials have now been quoted as saying they have proof that Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in what Turkish sources describe as “premeditated murder”.
Sources told Al Jazeera that a delegation of 15 Saudi officials arrived in Turkey the day Khashoggi, 59, disappeared. “The Saudi officials flew into Istanbul on two different flights on Tuesday,” the sources said. There is video that has been put out in the public by Turkish officials piecing together the movement of this Saudi team while in Turkey that traces their involvement.
However, the most damaging evidence has not been released to the public. It allegedly consists of audio and video recordings from inside the embassy that implicate this Saudi team in Khashoggi’s murder. As reported in this Washington Post article,
The recordings show that a Saudi security team detained Khashoggi in the consulate after he walked in Oct. 2 to obtain an official document before his upcoming wedding, then killed him and dismembered his body, the officials said. The audio recording in particular provides some of the most persuasive and gruesome evidence that the Saudi team is responsible for Khashoggi’s death, the officials said.
“The voice recording from inside the embassy lays out what happened to Jamal after he entered,” said one person with knowledge of the recording who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss highly sensitive intelligence. “You can hear his voice and the voices of men speaking Arabic,” this person said. “You can hear how he was interrogated, tortured and then murdered.” A second person briefed on the recording said men could be heard beating Khashoggi.
Why Is The Evidence Not Made Public?
Apparently, Turkish officials are wary of releasing the recordings, fearing they could divulge how the Turks spy on foreign entities in their country, according to those same officials. It’s not clear that U.S. officials have seen the footage or listened to the audio, but Turkish officials have described their contents to their American counterparts.
Saudi officials have denied any involvement in the disappearance of Khashoggi, saying he left the consulate shortly after entering. Again, video evidence of him leaving the consulate should be as easy to obtain as the video of him entering, if this was true. This sentiment was echoed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan earlier on. Certainly, video of Khashoggi’s fiancee waiting outside the embassy for him, and her testimony that he never came out, doesn’t help matters for the Saudis. This seems to be an iron-clad case.
Key word: seems.
Could This Be A False Flag?
Bear with me here, because this is just speculation. But I believe it is worth considering.
As in previous articles such as ‘Russia Exposes Deep State Tactics Ahead Of Impending Syria False Flag Chemical Attack,’ my instincts about false flags start with the question of the motivation for the act perpetrated:
When I do have conversations with people about Syria or other false flag scenarios, I don’t get much into the hard evidence that makes me believe these chemical weapons attacks are staged events. I talk more about the motivation. I ask the question that if Bashar Al-Assad, President of Syria and commander-in-chief of the Syrian Armed Forces since 2000, seems to be winning the battle against rebels in his country who seek to remove him from power, then what could possibly be his motivation for authorizing chemical weapons attacks against his citizens, which ends up harming and killing innocent children? Surely he realizes this would not only bring the wrath of the international community but also a complete breakdown in the support of his own people?
In the case of Khashoggi, we have to ask about the motivation that Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and the Saudi regime would have in killing the dissident journalist in the fashion they did. Yes, it could certainly be argued that the Saudi regime may have wanted him dead, and certainly Western media has been providing evidence to this effect. However, one has to ask if this powerful regime would ever want to do things in this way, in a way that CLEARLY implicates them directly in the disappearance of Khashoggi, and brings upon them a totality of unwanted scorn and contempt from the international community at large. Why unwanted? There are at least 3 reasons:
Saudi Arabia under Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has at least been trying to present an image of a country in the process of implementing economic and human rights reforms. The idea that Saudi Arabia would go so far out of its way to kill a dissenting voice that was not even in the country tears this new image to shreds.
Saudi Arabia has a lot riding on their growing business partnerships and the continued work through the upcoming ‘Davos in the Desert’ conference in Riyadh. British billionaire Richard Branson summed up the impact these murder allegations could have: “I had high hopes for the current government and its leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. What has reportedly happened in Turkey…if proved true, would clearly change the ability of any of us in the West to do business with the Saudi government.”
3. Military Protection
Saudi Arabia wants to maintain good relations with the US, in order to continue the military protection they have enjoyed for the past several decades. Donald Trump has hinted that this arrangement could be severely impacted if it turns out that Khashoggi was murdered by Saudi Arabia.
Clearly, a plan as elaborate as this one to kill Jamal Khashoggi in an embassy in a foreign country would have required plenty of thought, and surely some of the thought would concern the impact of such a transparent plan on Saudi Arabia’s standing with the rest of the world, an impact, as noted in the previous section, that would be wholly negative for the Saudi Kingdom. That’s the part that doesn’t make sense.
Motivation For The Other Side
And so let’s consider the ‘other’ side of this situation, which I will define here as the Alliance affiliated with the Trump administration intent on taking down the Deep State, as discussed in the recent article ‘Many Insiders Believe Military Tribunals For Deep State Will Happen Any Time Now.‘ If we could be so bold and presumptuous as to believe that this Alliance is as perfectly willing and able to commit false flag operations as the Deep State has done throughout history, the question of motivation starts to take shape.
Having no access to insider information this is broad speculation on my part, but given that Saudi Arabia is considered by many commentators to be one of the few remaining Deep-State controlled nations (along with Israel and a few others), then attempting to negatively impact the status, financial stability and military protection of Saudi Arabia would seem high on the Alliance wish list.
The bullet-proof narrative that has been created here, and the clear, conclusive evidence that is being put out to the public (or withheld, for strategic reasons) seems perfectly designed to cause a significant hit to the reputation of Saudi Arabia in all forums of world opinion. And Saudi Arabia clearly seems to have been caught off guard, unable to offer much resistance to the evidence other than complete denial of the prevailing narrative.
Could the Alliance have pulled this off in concert with newly-compliant ally Turkey and Khashoggi himself? Sure. Arrangements could have been made with allies planted inside the Saudi Embassy in Turkey to escort Khashoggi back out of the embassy clandestinely, into some witness-protection type arrangement; perhaps his fiancee is not his true fiancee, and participated in this in order for him to have a credible reason to enter the embassy–seeking divorce papers so he could then marry her. The video and audio ‘evidence’ that is being talked about could have been role-played and recorded in advance. Footage of the Saudi nationals flying into Turkey could also have been staged. No part of this kind of plan, which could have been hatched when Khashoggi became a US resident, would have been materially difficult to pull off.
If this was a false flag, Saudi Arabia would certainly know it. But in a way, it wouldn’t matter. There would be no way for Saudi Arabia to change the perception that has been created, and politics is all about perception. The negative image that has been foisted upon Saudi Arabia gives the Alliance and the Trump administration leverage in dealing with Saudi Arabia politically, economically, and militarily. When Donald Trump talks about Saudi Arabia, his calm, slow-playing posture makes him appear to be a man who suddenly has a lot of leverage.
What I have proposed here is just a theory, but at the very least it is an attempt to discern the hidden motivations behind an event that is playing out in the political arena. The very reason that geopolitical theatre continues to be acted out in front of us, featuring deception, lies, false flags, and so on, is that these tricks have worked for so long to create their desired perception.
Our collective discernment thus becomes very important here. The more we question and investigate stories that don’t quite make sense, and the better we become at seeing through these schemes designed to get us to go along with certain political agendas, the less we will have to deal with it. Eventually, as our consciousness grows, all lies and deception will become transparent to us, and the truth will reign.
Catholic Church Ignores Pedophilia, But Bishop Warns Reiki & Energy Healing Are Satanic
- The Facts:
Catholic Bishop Alphonsus Cullinan has said he is establishing a "delivery ministry" that will attempt to rid people of the devil and warned that using reiki or other new-age healing methods could open one up to demonic influence.
- Reflect On:
Can these types of fear-based attempts to retain power over people serve the greater awakening to our innate power and sovereignty?
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 neighbor? 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 raping and 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 article, Cullinan said he “absolutely” agreed with Pope Francis’s view that child abuse is caused by Satan. Which means offenders themselves are not to ‘blame’ 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.
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.
After Social Media Purges Independent News Sites, Ben Swann Announces ‘Isegoria’
- The Facts:
October 11th, Facebook silently deleted dozens of independent media pages for what they claimed to be "inauthentic activity." That same day, ex-CBS anchor and "Reality Check" host, Ben Swann announced a new blockchain media platform called Isegoria.
- Reflect On:
What's the true reason behind this purge of independent media? Is this purge a violation of free speech and the Constitution of the United States itself? Is Isegoria laying the foundation for how independent media can survive this all out purge?
“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” ~ Tyrion Lannister
The media circus we’ve been witnessing lately has only exacerbated the political rabble-rousing and created an even larger divide between the right and left, leaving those in the middle wondering how we got into this mess in the first place.
For anyone who has watched any of Ben Swann’s Reality Check episodes over the past few years, you know that his agenda is simple: present facts without any expression of his own views or opinions.
At the end of every Reality Check, Ben would always finish with a statement or question that encompasses the entire segment and would finish by saying “That’s a reality check, let’s talk about that right now on social media.” He has a knack for allowing the free thought process to percolate in his viewers’ minds and opens a platform for conscious debate instead of giving an opinion or pushing his own beliefs or an agenda on his viewers. It’s no secret that most of the mainstream media has been lacking in this skill-set for quite some time, hence the inevitable rise of Isegoria.
What Exactly Is Isegoria?
Note: The below summary, mission and problem is taken directly from the website www.Isegoria.com
Spearheaded by multi-award winning investigative journalist Ben Swann, whose social following is nearing 1 million subscribers. Mr. Swann has created content that has reached hundreds of millions of viewers. Isegoria will be a collaboration of independent journalists and entertainers.
Isegoria will have two parts: Part 1 is the 24 hour streaming platform and Part 2 is the treasury that funds independent creators. There is an illusion of a free marketplace for ideas and debate in American and Global Media, when in fact powerful platforms are deciding which thoughts, ideas and messages the public will be allowed to hear, discuss and debate.
Isegoria’s Mission: To create an uncensored, blockchain-based, decentralized news and entertainment platform with a funding mechanism for independent media.
The Problem: Independent media is being purged from social media platforms at an alarming rate. Facebook has been banning pages with millions of fans and followers for no stated reason. Twitter has already been shadow banning content creators for years but is now outright banning dissenting voices from its platform. YouTube is deleting channels without warning on a regular basis.
Meanwhile, mainstream media is becoming increasingly consolidated and centralized. In the 1990s, around 50 corporations owned all the media in the US, whereas now only 6 corporations control 90% of all media in the United States. There is an illusion of a free marketplace for ideas and debate in American and Global Media, when in fact powerful platforms are deciding which thoughts, ideas and messages the public will be allowed to hear, discuss and debate.
So, what do we need to prepare ourselves for the ongoing consciousness wars? We must be vigilant. We must have integrity. We must shine light on those who speak the truth. And we must never forget George Orwell’s warning: Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Catholic Church Ignores Pedophilia, But Bishop Warns Reiki & Energy Healing Are Satanic
It is wisely said that, ‘you should clean up your own backyard first before you come running over to fix mine.’...
Many Insiders Believe Military Tribunals For Deep State Will Happen Any Time Now
There is a growing consensus in the narrative within the alternative news community (commentators, their insiders, and members in general) that has...