Connect with us

Alternative News

Marine Le Pen or Emmanuel Macron? The French Presidential Election: Nationalism, The Elite, & More

Published

on

There is a massive shift in global consciousness going on right now, and it’s being reflected in the global political landscape. From the U.S. presidential election to Brexit, it’s clear that people want change, and they’re willing to use their voting power to try to achieve it. However, can any real change actually be accomplished with the current political systems in place?

advertisement - learn more

The latest country we’re seeing this shift in consciousness take place in is France. There are technically eleven people gunning to be elected as France’s President in 2017, all of whom have expectedly opposing views. However, even the left and the right share some surprising similarities, which makes sense given the transformations these parties have endured in France and all over the world. The left wing is becoming more right and the right wing is becoming more left; the political system is reforming right in front of our eyes.

France has two candidates who are perceivably leading the race: an anti-establishment, far right, outspoken candidate, Marine Le Pen, and a centrist, progressive, globalist candidate who has ties to the big banks, Emmanuel Macron. France’s election is starting to sound dangerously similar to the U.S. presidential election we just witnessed. Though the main issues on the table seem to be national sovereignty and immigration, France’s political system affects all of us as a collective!

France Clearly Wants Change

Traditionally, the National Front (FN) party has been seen as relatively extremist, but Marine Le Pen is starting to change that. Yes, the media is still referring to her as “far right,” but she’s changed the dialect. She has some perceivably extreme views like committing to suspend all immigration while new rules are drafted if she gets into office and stating that France had no responsibility for the Paris round-up of 13,000 Jews deported in WW2; however, her speech has softened since running for office, making the far right slightly more “socially acceptable.”

Le Pen has also made some anti-establishment comments, making her seem even more similar to U.S. President Donald Trump. Like Le Pen, Trump has many conservative views, but he strangely provided a breath of fresh air for those looking to vote anti-cabal. Of course, that doesn’t mean anything these people say is morally “correct” or even honest, but it certainly provides people with the option for change they so desperately crave. Le Pen even recognizes her similarities to Trump, as she explained in an interview.

“He [Donald Trump] made possible what had previously been presented as impossible,” Le Pen told Andrew Marr of the BBC in an interview cited by the Independent. “So it’s really the victory of the people against the elites.”

advertisement - learn more

“If I can draw a parallel with France, then yes, I wish that in France also the people upend the table, around which the elites are dividing up what should go to the French people.”

Le Pen spoke to ITV at the opening of her presidential campaign headquarters, saying, “The forces at work in these various elections are ideas, forces which could bring about my election as the president of France next May.”

Those forces refer to the shift against “unchecked globalization, destructive ultra-liberalism, the elimination of nation states, the disappearance of borders.”

I’m not saying that she’s actually anti-establishment, but she has clearly made some anti-elite comments, just as Trump did during his election campaign. However, who knows if these politicians are actually against the elite or if they’re a part of it themselves. As I’m sure you know, politicians have an uncanny ability to spin words and will often lie to get votes.

On the other side of the spectrum, the other top contender is Emmanuel Macron, who exited Parti Socialiste (PS) to create his own movement, En Marche, which translates to On The Move. Macron is a strong supporter of the EU, NATO, and the UN, all of which relate to a globalist agenda. Macron has traditional progressive views, such as exiting gas and transitioning to entirely renewable energy, but his socialist policies don’t cross over into the business community. His stance on the economy and proposed changes, like significantly cutting corporate taxes, has raised opposition from the left, which is why he’s considered a “centrist” or redefining the left.

A US State Department document, which was apparently prepared for Hillary Clinton in 2012, referred to Macron as “a banker in mergers and acquisitions at Rothschild in Paris,” stating that he used to work at the general inspection of finances and “could also become the top civil servant at the Finance Ministry.”

His ties to the elite bankers certainly draw an interesting parallel between him and Hillary Clinton. She held very close ties to the Rothschild’s, the elite banking family that profits off war, terror, separatism, and government leniency toward corporations. Macron’s supporters are also mostly very young and progressive, a trend we saw with Clinton.

His supporters probably think he provides a refreshing change from the staunch left side of the political spectrum. His views are still fairly left, with the exception of some points swinging more toward the right. To me, this reflects a shift we’re seeing across the global political landscape: a merging of the left and the right wings. In many countries, especially in the U.S., the left and the right wings are still controlled by “the same bird,” so to speak, or the corporations and the elite, but they’ve still traditionally always taken a firm divide.

How the Right and the Left Are Merging

The media often portrays a strong sense of duality between the left and right wings. Society in general perpetuates the division between the left and the right: We define ourselves as “left” or “right” wing voters and start to identify with a certain side. Politics has painted this tug of war picture for many years, but for the first time this polarizing view is starting to shift.

The global elite have slowly been planting seeds in the left wing, like billionaire George Soros, who helped create the Black Lives Movement in the U.S. in order to capitalize on separatism and fear. The left, which used to be defined by more progressive views and staunch equality, has slowly shifted toward imperialism and globalization. The left has slowly become more supportive of military force and “soft” power, allowing the big banks and the elite to gain more control over societies. They’ve convinced society that it’s socially acceptable to literally fight for equality, increasing violence and separatism.

This seems a little backwards: How could society be tricked into thinking that war can be justified in the name of “equality” and “anti-racism”? Well, when you think about previous false flag terrorist attacks like 9/11 or even what’s going on in Syria, it starts to make more sense. The U.S. launched missiles at Syria after an alleged chemical attack in an effort to “stop violence,” when in reality those missiles just resulted in more death and destruction.

We’re observing a huge transition in the French political spectrum, as the left and the right are starting to merge. In some cases, you even have the far right candidates and the far left candidates preaching the same thing. For example, the “far left” candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the “far right” candidate, Marine Le Pen, both support leaving the euro, both want to either exit the EU or negotiate with them to improve treaty terms for France, both support social policies to benefit workers and low income individuals, both want to improve relations with Russia, and both have discussed leaving NATO. Perhaps their greatest similarity is that they both have been categorized as “sovereignists.”

The primary difference between these two candidates is their stance on immigration. On one end of the spectrum, you have Le Pen, who views immigration as being “not an opportunity for France, it’s a tragedy for France,” whereas  Mélenchon apparently has a more welcoming approach toward immigration and refugees. Of course, this is a very delicate issue in Europe right now, as we’ve seen some countries seriously struggle as a result of opening their doors to refugees. Though I strongly support equal rights and oneness, given the current state of the world, it’s clear that immigration policies are needed (though they shouldn’t be too strict, either).

When it all comes down to it, national sovereignty is going to play an integral role in the upcoming French election. Many people feel that France has lost its national sovereignty to the European Union, which is understandable. The EU has tried to implement some questionable trade deals like the TTIP and has strong ties to the financial elite. It’s no wonder people like Macron support the EU and that some people are questioning the EU’s overall antics (read more about the EU in our CE Brexit article here).

Nationalism and patriarchy don’t have to be “bad things,” either. In the past, they’ve been tainted with an air of separatism. That’s because historically people have used patriarchy to defend their support for war and foreign invasion, which is where the problem with patriarchy lies. However, there’s a big difference between appreciation for your culture and identification with it.

It’s perfectly fine to appreciate and be grateful for the country you were born in or the country you live in and recognize how that has served you. It’s a completely different thing when you start to identify with that country. Yes, you may be French, but more importantly, you’re a human being. There shouldn’t be any hierarchy when it comes to nationalism, and sometimes when people begin to identify with their nationality, separatism grows.

Why the Current System Doesn’t Allow for Significant Change

A serious issue for the countries within the European Union (EU) is that whatever politicians promise in their electoral platforms may not come into fruition because of the EU. Some people, like candidate François Asselineau, claim that there’s no way to actually improve the EU from the inside, as any proposed changes would require unanimity between the member states, who often disagree on key problems.

This is why many candidates are proposing withdrawing from the EU, just as the United Kingdom is doing now. This would allow France to actually make its own decision and implement true national sovereignty and democracy. It could be argued that the merging of the left and the right in France is because of the EU, and that without it there could be a more distinguishable left and right (though I believe it is more so due to the elite’s agenda, but the EU probably plays a role).

Another issue is that many people only vote to ensure that one candidate doesn’t win; for example, many people may have voted for Trump to ensure Clinton didn’t win. This happens all of the time; even I’m guilty of it over here in Canada. I once voted in order to keep Stephen Harper out of office, despite the fact that I didn’t wholeheartedly support any of the other candidates. It’s called “strategic voting,” and it’s more of a problem than it is an actual strategy. In this case, people may vote for Macron to keep Le Pen out of office, or vice versa.

If we’re just voting for whatever candidate we dislike the least, how is that truly reflecting our wants and needs as a society? Shouldn’t we be voting for the people we love and actually want deciding the future of the countries we live in?

Unfortunately, politics is largely about the image that the media paints of the politicians and their status quos, making this more difficult to achieve. We’ve seen how much the media convolutes elections by twisting information, falsifying polls, and expressing biases toward candidates, particularly during the last U.S. election. Globalist media is already getting involved in France’s presidential election, with some outlets even preparing to place the blame of electing a “sovereignist” candidate on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As previously mentioned, some of the “sovereignist” candidates want to restore relations with Russia, and news outlets have been quick to jump on this, claiming that Putin allegedly supports only those candidates. For example, on April 20, the EU Observer published an article titled “Russia-linked fake news floods French social media,” which addressed articles that were allegedly influenced by Russia and supported only the “sovereignist” candidates. However, the EU Observer’s article could be argued as being just as politically biased as the articles in question.

You could draw comparisons here to the U.S. election, as Western mainstream media blamed Russian hackers and alternative media sites for Trump’s victory. There were countless accusations of fake news sites spreading misinformation about Hillary Clinton and even the CIA claimed Russia hacked into the system, causing Clinton to lose. It’s ironic that alternative media was blamed for taking an independent stance and actually reporting on Clinton’s wrongdoings, instead of covering them up like many mainstream media outlets did. In reality, news stations that report using a political bias hold far more influence over the elections than independent journalists.

Public opinion in the West is already preparing for protests against whoever the winner will be of this year’s French election. This may also influence people’s votes; for example, people may not vote for Le Pen in fear of the future protests against her, or any other candidate for that matter. If we’re already anticipating significant protests, doesn’t that mean that whoever’s voted in clearly doesn’t reflect a true democratic election?

The issue isn’t even necessarily with the candidates, it’s with the entire system, which includes us as a collective. It was never about Trump versus Clinton, just like it’s not about Macron versus. Le Pen. This is the type of mindset that keeps us in the system, forcing us to go in circles and further perpetuating the “warship authority” mentality.

We can’t simply blame authority for not handing us ideal presidential candidates, because the system is designed to serve authority and the elite, not the people. However, in some way, all of these candidates are a reflection of us, whether you like the candidates or not. The same can be said for the U.S. presidential election. America got the President it “deserved,” because when you act like slaves searching for a single leader to follow, you get a master like Trump in return. This can be applied to many countries that follow this “democratic system,” including France.

It wants us to polarize our beliefs and choose one opposing side of the spectrum, and then help the side we choose destroy the other side. Regardless of whom you choose, you are rendering yourself powerless because you are gifting your power to others. This system certainly served an important purpose a long time ago, and many people considered their right to vote empowering at that time; however, that has shifted over the years, largely due to the elite’s involvement. Democracy gives you the illusion of freedom and “human rights,” because only without an overarching, elite-serving government could you truly have these things.

Even if your involvement is simply a product of indoctrination and adhering to social norms, if you’re voting within the system, then you’re enabling the system. As long as you support the “religion” of government, this system will continually be perpetuated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Help Support Collective Evolution

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

Anderson Cooper Caught Spreading Fake Information & Lying About Vaccines Live On CNN

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A clip of Anderson Cooper making very weak arguments in support of Mercury inside of vaccines. Each point he makes is not really correct and can be countered with actual science, which is outlined within the article. Mercury is clearly a big concern.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are there no studies demonstrating that mercury is safe to inject into a child? Why has it simply been presumed safe? Why are there well over 100 studies showing that it's not safe to inject? What is going on here?

Most people probably aren’t surprised at the title of this headline. It’s become commonplace to hear about problems with pharmaceutical products, but when it comes to vaccines, many people are still unaware of the potential side effects. Much of the concern around vaccines has to do with the ingredients, many of which have been added to vaccines for multiple decades without any safety testing and have simply been presumed safe. This is easy for big pharma to do, given that they are often exempt from any responsibility or being held liable for someone who has a bad reaction to their product. They are protected, which allows them to be careless with their product.

This is why when I came across a clip of Anderson Cooper on CNN spreading false information, I thought it would be great to illustrate how false news, an anchor speaking about a topic without providing any sources, can easily be believed by the masses and taken as fact. The person he is interviewing is not really equipped to respond or reply appropriately.

Sure, it’s from 2015, but it’s still very relevant today.

It’s strange how anybody even has mainstream media ‘on’ these days. Relying on your T.V. for information is ironically why so many people become misinformed, as it’s best to do your own independent research. Given the amount of traffic alternative media sites have received over the past ten years, it’s quite clear that people are looking for other sources of information. Many eyes have veered away from mainstream media and into alternative media outlets, which shows we’ve come a long way.

If you want to look for alternative media and other sources of information,  it’s unfortunately becoming more and more difficult. The corporate/financial elite recognized the rise in alternative news, and as a result they’ve put in place a ‘ministry of truth’ (Orwell, 1984) to determine what information is fake and what information is real.  For example, News browser extension NewsGuard promises to help readers pick out fake news, and it’s funded and run by individuals tied to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Atlantic Council and other prominent elite groups. You can read more about that in detail here.

This is terrible. People should be allowed to decide for themselves what is real and what is not, and they should be allowed to examine the sources used and utilize their own brains.

advertisement - learn more

It seems that these people, whoever they are, want to do our thinking for us.

William Arkin, a well-known military and war reporter who is best known for his groundbreaking, three-part Washington Post series in 2010, has gone public outing NBC/MSNBC as government run agencies. You can read more about that hereHere you can access declassified documents and read more about mainstream media’s connection to intelligence agencies and how they influence mainstream media and even academia. Here are 50 facts about the CIA and mainstream media, and here is a clip of an award winning mainstream media journalist telling us the same thing.

As James F. Tracy, a former professor of communications at Florida Atlantic University, emphasizes:

Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will assert they have few, if any, relationships, yet the seldom acknowledged history of their intimate collaboration indicates a far different story–indeed, one that media historians are reluctant to examine.

When it comes to Anderson Cooper, some have speculated he is working directly for US intelligence agencies. Even if a mainstream anchor is unaware of this, and is employed by the network, they are ‘loosely’ employed by intelligence agencies, outlined by the documents/articles linked above. It’s easy to see why many would think this of Anderson Cooper, especially since he was an  intern at the CIA while completing his undergrad at Yale University. Furthermore, his uncle, William Henry Vanderbilt III, was an Executive Officer of the Special Operations Branch of the OSS under the spy organization’s founder, William “Wild Bill” Donovan.  He also reached the rank of captain in the navy during WW2. (Source)

All of the information above is important to consider when you’re examining mainstream media. It makes it more understandable why they lie so much, and why they are fighting hard to shut down the voices of any opposition.

You can watch the full clip below.

A proper response to Anderson’s comments

Can you tell me the name of any of these scientists who claim this because they go against, what, every study? I mean the CDC says this, Institutes of Health, all these studies say you’re just wrong.

This was Anderson’s response to the comment by former U.S. Congressman Dan Burton regarding mercury in vaccines.

What Anderson says is a complete lie, as his claim that mercury in vaccines is dangerous does not go against “every study.”

In fact, his logic is completely backwards, because there is actually not one study showing that it’s safe to inject mercury into people, let alone little infants whose organs haven’t fully developed yet.  Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to man, it shouldn’t be a debate, yet it’s presented as one on mainstream media. As a result of this kind of presentation, it becomes a debatable topic within the mainstream, inside of homes, etc. This is pure brainwashing that’s occurring by utilizing false statements that everybody seems to take at face value.

Modern-day scientists have been amassing evidence of mercury’s toxicity for decades, with a growing focus in recent years on the metal’s association with neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A new review in the multidisciplinary journal Environmental Research pulls together a wide body of literature with the aim of summing up current research and emerging trends in mercury toxicology. Geir Bjørklund, the study’s lead author, is the founder of Norway’s non-profit Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine and has published prolifically on topics related to heavy metals, autoimmune disorders and ASD. – Robert F Kennedy Jr.

A couple of years ago, Robert F. Kennedy Junior and Robert DiNero actually offered a $100,000 reward for any scientist, journalist or doctor who could present one paper or proof that mercury is safe to inject into children. At that conference, they brought more than 100 peer-reviewed studies showing how it isn’t.

A fairly recent Meta-Analysis published in the Journal Bio Med Research International points out what all of these other studies did as well:

 “The studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies.” (source)

Anderson then comments:

Well, are you against breast-feeding?  But you are aware that Methylmercury is actually in breast milk that’s given to children. If a child is only breastfed, they get more methylmercury then they would have ever gotten in any of the vaccines.

Just because there are other sources of mercury due to environmental pollution, like breastmilk, does not justify having mercury inside of vaccines. Mercury exposure comes from multiple areas, not just vaccines, because it’s presence in our environment is abundant as a result of multiple industries, not jut pharmaceutical. Mercury and heavy metal contamination are huge problems that cause a variety of diseases, but if mercury was banned from our environment, a lot of big industries would lose billions of dollars. I believe that the same powers behind our medications are the same ones spraying our food and using other methods to keep us sick to drive their profits up.

Furthermore, injecting heavy metals is far different than taking them in via other sources, like our food for example. This has been shown by numerous studies regarding aluminum, which is also present in multiple vaccines. Scientists discovered using animal models that injected aluminum does not come into the same method of excretion as the aluminum we take into our bodies via food or deodorant. Injected aluminum is picked up by macrophages (white blood cells) and transported to distant organs and the brain, where it can still be detected years after injection.

You can access those studies regarding injectable aluminum in the article linked below:

Brain Imaging Shows Autistic Brains Contain High Amounts of Aluminum

The truth is that there hasn’t been an appropriate study that actually looks at the bioaccumulation of vaccine ingredients and where they go in our body, including mercury.

This interview was a joke, and it unfortunately featured two people who were both ill-equipped to discuss the topic of vaccines. There are thousands of scientists and publications they could have used or cited, yet all we get is a massive ridicule campaign combined with the heavy marketing of vaccines instead.

Anderson also mentions organizations like the CDC and FDA, or regulatory agencies that approve our medications. These are very corrupt organizations, with dozens of examples showing their ties to big pharma.

The idea that vaccines aren’t entirely safe gained a lot of attention when one of the lead authors of a 2004 study came forward. His name is Dr. William Thompson, a senior researcher at the CDC who co-authored one of the most widely cited studies to debunk any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The study allegedly found:

“The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.”(source)

10 years later, he countered the original study, arguing:

“The [CDC] co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the [MMR vaccine] study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can.” (source)

The Takeaway

The takeaway here is to recognize how mainstream media can easily influence us and perpetuate a completely false idea with absolutely no evidence to back it up. As a result, “monkey see monkey do” happens, as the rhetoric is then repeated and believed by those who watch it and it becomes the dominating opinion. This type of ‘fake news’ is also pushed hard by pharmaceutical companies, as they’ve completely taken over medical education. This is why you see so many doctors lacking knowledge in areas you’d assume they’d be experts in.

Think for yourselves.

Help Support Collective Evolution

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

‘Russia Collusion’: The Only Real ‘Colluders’ Have Been Proven To Be The Accusers

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    As more evidence comes out, it is looking like the only ones 'colluding' in the 'Russian Collusion' affair are those U. S. government officials who have been trying to make the case against Donald Trump.

  • Reflect On:

    Is there anyone out there that still believes claims that Donald Trump somehow 'colluded' with Russia, given that no evidence to that effect has come out after all this time?

What do John Brennan (ex-CIA), James Clapper (ex-DNI), James Comey (ex-FBI), Andrew McCabe (ex-FBI), Peter Strzok (ex-FBI), Lisa Page (ex-FBI), Rod Rosenstein (DOJ), Bruce Ohr (ex-DOJ), Hillary Clinton (ex-DOS) and a whole host of lesser-known players have in common? They’ve all been revealed as co-conspirators (“colluders”) in an attempt first to prevent and then to terminate the Trump presidency by whatever means possible.

Their strategy was to accuse the Trump campaign of “collusion” with Russia, not based on any credible evidence, but on the basis of the idea that this would be the easiest and most powerful story to fabricate. Most powerful because Russia remains the most feared enemy and biggest threat to U. S. sovereignty in mainstream perception, and easiest because these accusations are actually a projection of their own activities, including Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One dealings with Russian entities.

FISA Warrant ‘DECLAS’

At this point, anyone who still believes that there is any possibility that Donald Trump somehow “colluded” with Russia, which isn’t even illegal, has simply fallen victim to mainstream propaganda. If you take a look at any of the actual evidence, it seems like this was all a ‘witch hunt,’ as Trump would say.

We are still awaiting the ‘DECLAS,’ Q-Anon’s catchword referring to the declassification of various documents and texts including the full and unredacted FISA Warrant used against Trump Administration official Carter Page. This particular FISA Warrant is what allowed the colluders to first spy on the Trump campaign prior to the election. While this warrant was technically already released in July 2018, it was highly redacted. The unredacted version, which Donald Trump threatened to release in late September, was set to lay bare many of the conspirators’ means and motives behind this charade and prove that Robert Mueller’s special council was knowingly built upon pure fabrication.

However, Donald Trump pulled back his push for declassification, and he explained this decision on Twitter:

It’s unclear as to why he didn’t go ahead with the DECLAS in September. However, between the documents, emails and text messages that have already been made public as well as the testimonies of some of these co-conspirators, it’s not difficult to piece together what’s really going on here.

A Simple Breakdown

This Epoch Times article, which provides a comprehensive infographic and a detailed analysis of all the players involved in what they call ‘Spygate,’ is a great place to start for those of you who want to dig deeper. The following is a direct quote from the article, providing a simple breakdown of what happened:

1. CIA Director John Brennan, with some assistance from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, gathered foreign intelligence and fed it throughout our domestic Intelligence Community.

2. The FBI became the handler of Brennan’s intelligence and engaged in the more practical elements of surveillance.

3. The Department of Justice facilitated investigations by the FBI and legal maneuverings, while providing a crucial shield of nondisclosure.

4. The Department of State became a mechanism of information dissemination and leaks.

5. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided funding, support, and media collusion.

6. Obama administration officials were complicit, and engaged in unmasking and intelligence gathering and dissemination.

7. The media was the most corrosive element in many respects. None of these events could have transpired without their willing participation. Stories were pushed, facts were ignored, and narratives were promoted.

The first point is worth examining further, and everything else cascades down from there. It seems as though Deep State operatives Brennan and Clapper got together to find ways to prevent Trump from becoming President, since Hillary Clinton was the Deep State’s preferred choice and Brennan and Clapper would fare very well under her presidency. They decided, in concert with other conspirators, to use their favorite boogeyman Russia, and felt that if they could find enough information to make a little smoke, they would be able to cry ‘Fire!’ and everyone would stop, drop and roll on their command.

But times are changing, and schemes like this are not as effective for the Deep State as they used to be, especially since Donald Trump took office and is now being supported by an alliance that is against the Deep State. This matter has been under investigation, and in front of the House Intelligence Committee, Brennan admitted that his ‘intelligence findings’ were the main basis for the FBI investigation:

“I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred.”

It is public record that the dossier that forms the bulk of Brennan’s ‘intelligence’ was funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, that this fact was not disclosed when the FISA Warrant was applied for, and that James Comey ultimately conceded that the information in this dossier was ‘salacious and unverified.’ The fact that no official intelligence was used to open the FBI’s investigation is quite unusual–stunning, in fact–and gives way to the idea that the FBI investigation was nothing more than part of the conspiracy to prevent Donald Trump from taking office.

The Takeaway

Unlike in the past, when matters of corruption, conspiracy, and even treason at high levels seemed to end with a single individual taking the blame and higher powers getting off scot-free, it looks like the truth on this matter may actually be revealed to the public and the elite may be held accountable. It is our own interest in and awareness of these matters that help push them further toward full disclosure. The fact that detailed, public information clearly identifies a conspiracy of many of the highest-ranking people from top government agencies suggests that it’s only a matter of time before the DECLAS is dropped. Perhaps this will be the act that finally brings the existence and activities of the Deep State into mainstream consciousness.

Help Support Collective Evolution

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

Why We Need To Stop Bashing R. Kelly If We Want To Stop Teen Sexual Abuse & Pedophilia

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Singer superstar Robert Kelly has been charged with multiple accounts of child porn, rape, abuse, and running a sex cult where he kept several young women as sex slaves inside his home.

  • Reflect On:

    If we only react to crimes with judgement, anger, and hatred, do we ever give ourselves a chance to understand why this happens? If we don't take the time to do that, how can we ever stop it? Today, it's turned into an epidemic.

R. Kelly is a hot topic right now, as he’s been accused of raping minors, keeping minors locked up in his home for sexual purposes, and having inappropriate relationships with minors. We are talking about teenagers who ultimately are still just children. The testimony of many women and those close to him have illuminated  what Kelly has done, although he still denies these claims. As a result of a recent docu-series on Lifetime called ‘Surviving R Kelly,’ he is being made fun of, judged, and hated on publicly by many within the industry as well as outside of it. On the surface, this is understandable given the crimes and atrocities he’s committed.

The star is known as a predator of teenage girls. When he was 27, he married 15-year-old singer Aaliyah at a secret ceremony in Chicago. Vibe magazine later discovered that they were able to change Aaliyah’s age on the wedding certificate listing herself as 18, even though she was only 15 at the time. The marriage was annulled in February 1995.

A girl by the name of Tiffany Hawkins sued R Kelly for the personal injuries and emotional distress she suffered during a three-year relationship with the star. In court documents, she said she began having sex with Kelly in 1991 when she was 15 and he was 24.

He has been charged with 21 counts of making child pornography involving intercourse, oral sex, urination, and other sexual acts. Chicago police accused him of videotaping each of these acts and enticing minors to participate in them.

Back in July 2017, a crowd gathered in Chicago as Timothy Savage told the world that he believed his 21-year-old daughter was being “held against her will” as part of an alleged sex cult led by R&B singer R Kelly.

As it turns out, she wasn’t the only one. Apparently, there were several women held captive as sex slaves in a home he owned.

advertisement - learn more

The story made global news, and put the spotlight on the 51-year-old superstar’s private life – in particular, the rumours about his alleged sexual relationships with underage girls.

Savage claimed his daughter, Jocelyn, was part of an abusive sex cult, in which young girls were groomed and physically/sexually abused by Kelly.

R Kelly’s wife, ex-wife, and daughter have also been quite outspoken about his abusive behaviour, even more so now that so many people are gathering together and sharing their stories. When R. Kelly was making millions for record companies, it seemed to be swept under the rug. Along with these accusations also came many awards, fame, and notoriety.

It’s important to note that what we hear and what leaks out into the mainstream probably represents only a fraction of Kelly’s illegal activities. Many celebrities and members of the elite are often protected from the law, and many abused women and children may not feel comfortable coming forward.

How Should We React?

Amidst all of the judgement, anger, resentment and hatred towards R. Kelly, and any sexual predator, criminal, etc. for that matter, we often fail to address one of the most important questions: We forget to ask why and how.

There is no denying people have been hurt here, and it’s important to discuss what’s happened, but we must also discuss solutions. All we seem to do is judge, hate, and punish without asking why and how these things happen. It reminds me of how we operate prison systems in the western world. We claim to rehabilitate individuals, but really we just force them into incredibly poor conditions that often make their state of mind worse by the time of their release, and then we send them back out into society expecting that the past won’t repeat itself.

If we continue to judge, make fun, and ‘bash,’ we simply reinforce the cycle and allow it to continue without ever getting to the root cause of it, thus prolonging the issue instead of stopping it. In essence, just as we must provide a loving space for victims to process their experiences, we must also create that space for perpetrators.

As much as people may not want to hear it, ask yourself the question: Are we really changing anything by holding so much hate and judgment toward perpetrators? What happens when those hated individuals enter into bad rehabilitation systems and are out of prison a mere 5 or 10 years later? We’re perpetuating a cycle of disconnection.

Flipping The Script

People like R. Kelly are ‘sick,’ in the same way murderers, other rapists, and criminals are ‘sick.’ The only response from society has been judgement, and the result of that judgement is jail time which largely benefits politicians and corporations. It’s a modern day example of slavery, and actually has nothing to do with rehabilitation and fostering understanding and compassion.

When it comes to sexually abusing children, those who participate in this type of activity have often been subjected to severe childhood trauma themselves. It could be sexual or something else. As a result, they grow up and repeat what they have been through or look for other unhealthy ways to cope as they struggle to fit into society. This is something that has not been addressed nor understood by all of those who are participating in what’s become known as ‘elite level sexual abuse.’

In the case of R. Kelly himself, most people probably don’t realize he is a victim of child sex abuse. He has detailed in his autobiography how he was raped when he was eight years old, which continued for years. His brother also recently gave an emotional interview detailing how both of them were repeatedly raped at very young ages by their older sister, starting from when they were about 6 years old. They were forced to perform sexual acts on her as well as have intercourse. (source)

Think about what this does to a child at that age. This is trauma, and his behaviour may be a result of this trauma. Further, the Lifetime documentary series Surviving R Kelly clearly shows Kelly tries incredibly hard to protect himself from getting hurt. This is likely part of why he is so controlling. As hard as it is to watch and hear, it seems like he attempts to control every aspect of his life so that he avoids getting hurt. Does it mean it’s right to do? Of course not, it simply shows the frame of mind he’s operating from, and understanding that helps us figure out how we can help R Kelly. If we don’t put aside our hatred and judgement in order to feel compassion for these individuals, we will never find a solution. If we refuse, we not only fail to help the perpetrator, but we end up further perpetuating the issue and creating more victims.

Another great example would be the Vatican. Take Cardinal George Pell, for example, who recently became the highest ranking Vatican official to ever be convicted of child sexual abuse. This is something, most likely, he grew up experiencing himself. To him, it could be ‘normal’ behaviour, even if that’s at the subconscious level. Many of these Cardinals have been in the church since they were children. Not long ago, decades worth of sexual abuse was reported in a choir that was led by the retired pope Benedict’s brother. In that specific case, there were approximately 600 members of a Catholic boys’ Dompatzen choir in Regenburg, Germany who where physically and sexual abused from 1946 to 1992. Georg Ratzinger, the former Pope’s Benedict’s brother, was the choir’s head from 1964 to 1994.

Without treatment, many of these children may grow up and abuse young children. And if they don’t leave the church, they could end up further perpetuating the cycle of sexual abuse within it.

Asking The Important Questions

Register to watch our exclusive 4-part interview series with Anneke.

What does hatred do? What does judgement do? What progress will we ever make by making fun of these people, labelling them as psychopaths, and locking them up? On the other hand, what will love do? What does understanding do? What progress would be made without judgement and punishment, but rather with understanding, openness, transparency, and communication? We may need to detain these people to stop them from hurting others, but we must think of better ways of approaching this than our current methodology.

Don’t believe me? Hear it from a victim of elite child sex trafficking. We just put out a 4-part interview series with Anneke Lucas on January 17th, where she describes in detail her involvement as a child in an elite Belgian pedophile ring, her remarkable escape, and her healing journey over the last couple decades.

In the interview, she explains how vital it is during the healing process to not feel like a ‘victim,’ and that you actually empower your abuser by taking the victim stance or by labelling them as ‘crazy satanic pedophiles.’ She learned to look at them from a different perspective. Eventually, she felt sorry for her perpetrators and realized that the abusers are in need of something society is not ready to provide them with: the opportunity to heal.

The Takeaway

Sexual abuse has been an issue deeply ingrained in society for centuries, and it’s in part because society fails to respond with compassion. We do the exact opposite of that. We make fun of, vilify, point fingers, punish, and kill criminals. We do not rehabilitate and we do not give a chance for ‘lost souls’ to connect to the light that exists within them, that light that exists within all of us. There is no talk of past trauma and healing, and this is one of the biggest problems when it comes to alleviating various crimes including sexual abuse and pedophilia.

These people have nobody to talk to, their always running and hiding and never addressing the root cause of their problems. As a result, many people experience pain and trauma, and the cycle continues.

Help Support Collective Evolution

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

CETV

Watch this 4-part Exclusive Interview Series with Anneke Lucas.

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.