Connect with us

Alternative News

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

Michelle Blair

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.

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.

-->Free e-book - Eat to Defeat Cancer : Are you eating any of the foods that fuel cancer... or the foods that help PREVENT it? Get the TRUTH, and discover the top 10 Cancer-Fighting Superfoods Click here to get the free ebook.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Alternative News

Ontario (Canada) Gives Police Authority To Pull Over Vehicles To Find Out Where They Are Going

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 6 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Ontario government has just announced very strict lockdown and stay at home orders. They've also given police the power to pull people over to find out where they are going and where they live.

  • Reflect On:

    Is this really about the virus? Why are so many experts, and so much science that opposes what government is saying completely unacknowledged?

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.

As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what’ is being built is the architecture of oppression. -Edward Snowden (source)

Ontario, Canada has just announced stronger lockdown measures after current lockdown measures and stay at home orders have not done anything to slow the spread of covid when taking cases into account. Under the new orders, most non-essential businesses, manufacturing and construction will be closed, this includes non-essential curb side pick ups as well for retail businesses. Outdoor recreational facilities like parks, basketball courts, tennis courts and golf courses will now be closed and essential businesses, like grocery stores, will be limited to a certain capacity.

For the first time, the Ontario government has given police officers the power to pull vehicles over without cause, demand their ID and home address as well as ask where they are going and why. This also applies to citizens who are outside. This is effective immediately for a period of 6 weeks.

I just came across this via the live press conference. Part of the changes in the recent announcement were to give police more authority to handle non-compliance, something that’s been a big part of this pandemic as many people, doctors and scientists continue to disagree with the actions being taken by governments, while others agree. The government has also put restrictions on travel between provinces.

We have made the deliberate decision to temporarily enhance police officers’ authority for the duration of the stay at home order. Moving forward, police will have the authority to require any individual who is not in a place of residence to first provide the purpose for not being at home and provide their home address. – Solicitor General Sylvia Jones said in the press conference.

The Ontario government continues to blame the citizenry for non-compliance when, in reality, there is a tremendous amount of science and data that’s been published in various medical and scientific journals from around the world showing that lockdowns have not been helpful in stopping the spread of COVID.

Furthermore, there is research showing lockdowns have killed more people than covid, and will have devastating results for years to come. Not only that, an estimate from the United Nations World Food Program indicates that pandemic lockdowns causing breaks in the food chain are expected to push 135 million people into severe hunger and starvation.

The ease to which people could be terrorised into surrendering basic freedoms which are fundamental to our existence…came as a shock to me…History will look back on measures – as a monument of collective hysteria & government folly.” – Jonathan Sumption, former British supreme court justice. (source)

This is quite confusing, if lockdowns and restrictions aren’t necessarily helping to curb the spread, why is government, especially the Ontario government, acting like they are effective and necessary tools? This is a discussion that has not been had within the mainstream. Renowned experts in the field who are presenting this data have been completely ignored, censored and in many cases ridiculed.

Another point that’s being used to justify restriction measures is the fact that hospitals in Ontario are at capacity, and ICUs are full. This has always been a concern in many countries, especially in Ontario, Canada. For example, in 2017 more than 50 percent of hospitals in Ontario were above 100 percent capacity. There are examples all over the world for the past decade. That being said, is covid adding to this, or is it simply something we’ve always seen in hospitals? Is the only difference big media coverage?

What about the fact that PCR testing may yield an enormous amount of false positives? Testing positive does not mean you have the virus, or that you can spread it, especially if you are asymptomatic, yet this entire lockdown is based on testing asymptomatic people and asymptomatic cases. What about the death count and the fact that Ontario Public Health has admitted to the fact that they are marking deaths as “covid” when it’s not even clear if covid caused or contributed to the death? What about the fact that the survival rate of the virus is 99.95 percent and above for people under the age of 70, or that prior infection can provide more immunity than the vaccine?

Again, the point is,there are many concerns that are being completely ignored and unacknowledged.

In the case of covid, it’s quite clear that people of all backgrounds and professions are split. You even have world renowned experts in the field split on these issues, with many opposing and supporting measures. As a result, this has many people confused, and it begs the question, should government really have the authority to put mandates into place that restrict our movement, rights and freedoms?

Is this really about the virus, or about the benefits that big tech, health and government will reap and have been reaping from this pandemic? When measures go against the will of so many people, should government not be allowed to mandate such measures and instead, present their science and make recommendations to people, leaving them the choice to act in ways they see fit?

Are we living in an age where government and big tech are doing the thinking for us, telling us what is and isn’t and trying to control our lives more and more every single year? How do we stop this if it’s true? Why do we continue to comply? One thing is certain, covid has been a great catalyst for more and more people to really question what type of world we are currently living in.

So what’s the solution to this? Is it mass/collective organized peaceful non-compliance? A Belgian court has ruled that the current COVID-19 measures being deployed don’t have a sound legal basis. The State has 30 days to lift restrictions or face fines. Can something like this happen in this situation? We will wait and see what happens as, no doubt, many people are going to be upset and showing it.

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

Alternative News

Florida Education Minister Urges Schools To Drop Mask Mandates

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran said schools should make mask-wearing voluntary in the 2021-2022 school year, stating that they should simply be optional.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is one narrative being pushed hard, while the other is being heavily ridiculed and labelled as "dangerous" by mainstream media and government?

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.

What Happened: Earlier this week, Florida’s education commissioner directed all schools to drop mask mandates for the next school year because, according to him, they are not necessary and can simply be an optional measure for students and parents. According to him, mask policies “do not impact the spread of the virus” and they “may impede instruction” for some students. The decision is not up to him, however, as each individual district will ultimately decide whether or not they want to impose mask mandes for next school year.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently convened a round table on public health. At that discussion, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University Dr. Jay Bhattacharya stated that “masks have not only been not effective but have been harmful.”

The video of this discussion was removed from YouTube, and then ridiculed by mainstream media. This has been a big problem throughout this pandemic. We have big tech “fact-checkers” censoring and removing any kind of narrative that does not fit within the framework or narrative that government health authorities are telling us. If things were so obvious, why would they need to censor world renowned experts?  It’s been a common theme, and Bhattacharya is one of many who have been subjected to this type of treatment.

He’s one of the three initiators of The Great Barrington Declaration. The other two are  Dr. Sunetra Gupta, PhD Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, PhD, Professor of Medicine at Harvard, Infectious Disease Epidemiologist. You can watch an interesting discussion with all three of them here if interested.

Bhattacharya responded to the criticism in a recent piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) stating the following:

I attended a public-policy roundtable hosted by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last month. The point was to discuss the state’s Covid policies in the months ahead. That 600,000 Americans have died with Covid-19 is evidence that the lockdowns over the past year, including significant restrictions on the lives of children, haven’t worked. Florida reopened in May and declined to shut down again. Yet age-adjusted mortality is lower in Florida than in locked-down California, and Florida’s public schools are almost all open, while California’s aren’t.

My fellow panelists—Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Scott Atlas of Stanford—and I discussed a variety of topics. One was the wisdom of requiring children to wear masks. The press asked questions, and a video of the event was posted on YouTube by local media, including Tampa’s WTSP.

But last week YouTube removed a recording of this routine policy discussion from its website. The company claimed my fellow panel members and I were trafficking in misinformation. The company said it removed the video “because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

Yet the panelists are all experts, and all spoke against requiring children to wear masks. I can’t speak for my counterparts, but my reasoning was a cost-benefit analysis. The benefits of masking children are small to none; the costs are much higher.

The scientific evidence is clear.

He then goes on to cite site some science.

Kari Stefansson, senior author of a study  study from Iceland conducted early in the epidemic when masking was uncommon showing that incidents of covid in children is far less than adults, stated that children are.

“less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults.”

According to Bhattacharya, “many studies in the scientific literature reach a similar conclusion: Even unmasked children pose less of a risk for disease spread than adults.”

For example, Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute wrote letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that:

“Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

You can read more about this specific story here, as he has quit his research due to the harassment he received for simply presenting data.

Why This Is Important: There are the points made above, and then there are papers outlining the supposed dangers and ineffectiveness of masks. Many have been published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals prior to covid, and during covid.

For example, one paper titled “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis” concludes:

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

I’ve written about a study published in the New England Medical Journal by Harvard doctors that outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection in a public setting. According to them,

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The papers cited above are a few of many, there are a plethora of them available within the scientific literature.

Yes, there are also studies that claim and explain why they believe masks are an effective tool to mitigate the virus, and we know that organizations like the Centres For Disease Control (CDC) deem them to be extremely effective and necessary.  The point is, why are those who point out, explain, and provide evidence and reason for the idea that masks are not effective being heavily censored, vilified, and ridiculed? What’s going on here? Why is proper critique and discussion being completely shut down and why are those who are creating awareness about these issues labelled as “dangerous anti-maskers.” This, in my opinion is quite frankly unscientific.

Perhaps I can explore one possible explanation. Perhaps any type of information, data or evidence, no matter how credible, that opposes the measures and narrative of government and big media threatens various business/agendas in these powerful circles. It begs the question, does government and government affiliated health/business really look out for what’s best for its citizens? The COVID pandemic has definitely served as a catalyst for more people to ask that question who wouldn’t have prior to the pandemic.

This is just my opinion, but in presenting it I put our platform, Collective Evolution, at risk being punished in various ways for simply sharing it. We’ve not only been falsely smeared by fact checkers but have also been hurt financially on social media simply for bringing forth facts that the mainstream doesn’t wish to address.

The Takeaway: At the end of the day, it’s very difficult to determine who is right or wrong, which is why we need open dialogue. The fact that simple discussion and pieces of evidence that change the narrative, or threaten it, is being shut down, censored and completely ridiculed is quite concerning. The mainstream media continues to fail to have appropriate conversations surrounding all things COVID while forcing their narrative on the public. This in turn has created a great divide among the citizenry when really, we should all be coming together and respecting everybody’s decision to act as they please.

When things are not so cut and dry, it’s questionable whether or not we should really give governments the ability to control our lives in the manner they have done with 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. –

Dr. Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open. Taken from his published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science.”

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

Alternative News

Ontario, Canada To Impose Stricter Measures: Lockdown & Stay At Home Orders Are Not Working

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 5 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Ontario (Canada) government is set to impose even more restrictions and enforcement on the citizenry despite already being in lockdown and stay at home order mode. The announcement will be made this afternoon.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do governments continue to ignore the vast amount of research and data that's been published showing lockdowns and other restrictions do nothing to stop the spread of covid, and are probably doing more harm than covid?

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.

What Happened: Ontario, Canada is and has been well into a province wide lockdown and stay at home order. Most businesses, if not already permanently closed from going out of business, have been reduced to curb side pick-ups only, while essential stores, like grocery stores, have remained open. This has been ongoing, on and off, as all of you know for more than one year now.

This afternoon, the government is set to announce even more restrictions.

According to CTV News Toronto,

Sources tell CTV News Toronto and CP24 the latest data, which is expected to be released on Friday, shows that based on Ontario’s current trends there could be between 12,000 to 18,000 new daily infections by the end of May, with up to 1,800 patients in intensive care. The measures under consideration include shutting down construction to just critical infrastructure projects and placing limits on non-essential manufacturing and warehousing. Additional restrictions on religious services are also being considered by cabinet.

Ontario is also considering more enforcement with regards to fines for those who disobey rules, and perhaps shutting down curb side pick-ups of some non-essential retailers.

Cases, however, are still accelerating exponentially. A lot of “fear-mongering” and concern is being raised by government public health officials, doctors and scientists. On the other hand, you have a number of doctors and scientists who are not as concerned, explaining that the number of cases, and rising case numbers are not as big of a threat as it’s being made to be, especially given the fact that infection can provide an immunity that is stronger than the supposed immunity a vaccine can provide. They have also been pointing out that we are dealing with a virus that has a very low mortality rate, 99.95 percent and higher for people under the age of 70, to be exact.

Many in the field have been creating awareness around the catastrophic impacts of lockdowns, providing data showing that lockdown measures around the globe may have already killed more people than covid itself, and will have lasting impacts for years to come while they affect most aspects of humanity. Furthermore, they’ve also presented a wealth of data showing that lockdowns are not effective at all at stopping the spread of the virus, that they are, essentially, useless.

This is quite confusing, if lockdowns and restrictions do nothing to curb the spread, why is government, especially the Ontario government, acting like they are effective and necessary tools? Why do they also completely ignore the idea that lockdowns may be completely ineffective and more harmful? This is a discussion that has not at all been had within the mainstream, and renowned experts in the field who are presenting this data have been completely ignored, censored and in many cases ridiculed.

Another point that’s being used to justify restriction measures is the fact that hospitals in Ontario are at capacity, and ICUs are full. This has always been a concern in many countries, especially in Ontario, Canada. For example, in 2017 more than 50 percent of hospitals in Ontario were above 100 percent capacity. There are examples all over the world for the past decade. That being said, is covid adding to this, or is it simply something we’ve always seen in hospitals? Is the only difference big media coverage?

Why This Is Important: Sure, many people might agree with lockdowns and other mandates. It’s hard to hear, however, the Ontario government constantly blaming portions of the population for the fact that they are not being effective, without ever considering, as again something that’s been shown time and time again in several countries, that lockdowns are simply not effective in stopping the spread. If this is the case, it renders lockdowns useless and paints a bad picture for government, which would be the fact that they’ve done nothing but put people in harm’s way.

In the case of covid, it’s quite clear that people of all backgrounds and professions are split. You even have world renowned experts in the field split on these issues, with many opposing and supporting measures. This as a result has many people confused, and it begs the question, should government really have the authority to put mandates into place that restrict our movement, rights and freedoms? Is this really about the virus, or about the benefits that big tech, health and government will reap and have been reaping from this pandemic? When measures go against the will of so many people, should government not be allowed to mandate such measures and instead, present their science and make recommendations to people, leaving them the choice to act in ways they see fit? Are we living in an age where government and big tech are doing the thinking for us, telling us what is and isn’t and trying to control our lives more and more every single year? How do we stop this? Why do we continue to comply? One thing is certain, covid has been a great catalyst for more and more people to really question what type of world we are currently living in.

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!