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?
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.”
“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.
How Facebook Has Become The Strategic Media Mouthpiece For The Global Elite
- The Facts:
Facebook has made deals with mainstream media outlets to pay for their news content, further turning Facebook from a neutral social media platform into a conglomerate that supports a political bias and the agenda of the global elite.
- Reflect On:
What can conscious media outlets do to overcome growing censorship and mainstream bias from the big tech companies and ensure that you continue to get neutral, agenda-free news coverage and commentary on the issues of the day?
It’s not clear whether Facebook was truly conceived by an innocent genius with noble intent, but one fact has become abundantly clear: Facebook is now a mouthpiece and tool for the proliferation of mainstream perception. This is specifically designed to enrich the global elite and continue to disenfranchise ordinary citizens and any attempts to bring important truths to light that would threaten the elite. And, of course, Mark Zuckerberg is now a ‘junior partner’ in this global elite.
The episode of the Jimmy Dore show found in the video below, which is worth watching to get the full context of the discussion, introduces whistleblower Vikram Kumar, a former promoter of third-party videos on Facebook. Dore brings interesting insights into Facebook’s latest strategies in terms of controlling the news commentary. He explains how Facebook is proliferating the establishment’s narrative while limiting and blocking alternative voices which, of course, Facebook characterizes as ‘Fake News’. Here, Kumar discusses Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony in Congress to this effect:
Back in 2017 there was that TechCrunch report that said that Facebook was taking measures to stop the spread of ‘Fake News’ by banning certain political accounts from promoting their videos on their newsfeed. So when I heard Mark Zuckerberg in 2018 telling Congress that he would be doing the same thing, I thought, what changed between 2017 and 2018? Are they taking new measures, are they re-taking the measures? And it wasn’t until a week later that I realized that Variety Magazine reported that Facebook Watch, which is Facebook’s media platform, had reached a multi-million dollar deal with CNN, Fox News, ABC, and large media outlets.
The congressional testimony was the perfect opportunity for the political establishment, the media establishment, and the tech companies to form an alliance against small media outlets.
Returning Media To The Global Elite’s Control
The process of bringing fundamentally liberating technologies like social media under control has been a difficult process, but the global elite seems to feel they are getting a handle on it. Since the big media giants Google, Facebook, Youtube and others are now strictly following the global elite playbook, with special algorithms and thinly-veiled censorship strategies, the process of promoting the elite agenda while suppressing dissenting voices is in full swing.
One of the biggest issues to remedy was the lack of viewership that traditional mainstream media was getting from young people, which is really the target market not only for advertisers but the social engineering wing of the global elite as well. Here’s how Kumar describes it:
As you know, young people, they don’t watch cable… the viewership of Fox News, CNN, and ABC are dying off, they’re getting older and older, and so what Facebook is, is access to young people, right, and so they viewed small anti-establishment media outlets such as yourself as an existential threat to their next generation of revenue.
Tech companies view media companies extremely valuably, you could go back to 1996, there was that merger between Microsoft, General Electric and NBC to create MSNBC.com. A lot of people don’t know that the ‘MS’ in MSNBC stands for Microsoft, and the reason why media companies and tech companies are so intertwined with each other is ’cause you can influence young people so much when you have the distribution network of something like Facebook, and with Facebook Watch, and their media platform, and their deal with CNN, Fox News, and ABC, they’re able to indoctrinate the next generation of young people. And so they want to take viewership away from shows like yours, and put those young people that haven’t been paying attention with cable news back into the pockets of companies like Fox News, ABC, and CNN.
Every media company wants some of that Facebook Watch dough. And so the companies that have coverage that Facebook doesn’t like are out of there, and new companies that have coverage that Facebook likes are back into the deal. And so Facebook is already taking steps to craft the political landscape in the framing that they find positively. And so you get that whole thing where Facebook shuts down over 800 political pages and accounts, and even legitimate political pages that expose things like police brutality… you’re already seeing a coordinated effort from the establishment media and tech companies to kind of craft the narrative for young people.
This is how that Variety Magazine article Kumar talked about characterizes the deal between Facebook and Mainstream Media:
After going through the fake-news wringer, Facebook is shelling out money on original news content. The strategy is partly aimed at driving up viewing on its Facebook Watch platform — but it also is supposed to demonstrate the social-media giant’s commitment to funding trustworthy journalism.
A corporate conglomerate now giving itself the authority to judge what is and isn’t trustworthy journalism. What could possibly go wrong?
Is Facebook Still Just A Tech Company?
The slippery slope that Facebook is trying to anchor itself to is as clear as the nose on Mark Zuckerberg’s face. He continues to want us to think about Facebook as a social media platform whose objective is still ‘to make the world more open and connected,’ yet at the same time he wants Facebook to become the prime arbiter of the ‘news that is fit to print,’ or in this case, to decide which sources of news will benefit and not benefit from Facebook’s tremendous reach. The same Variety article reinforces the idea that Facebook is trying to have things both ways, gaining the advantages of defining itself as a tech company, and not taking on the liabilities inherent in being a media company:
In the past, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has remarked that Facebook is a technology company — not a media company. Asked whether Facebook is now in fact a media company, given that it’s paying for a growing slate of content, Brown responded, “Having worked for big media companies, I don’t think Facebook is a media company. But are we responsible for the media on Facebook? Yes.”
The fact is that we have entered into somewhat uncharted territory in terms of what defines a media company since the rise of the Internet. We can only hope that we will collectively awaken to the fact that Facebook has clearly gone beyond being a platform that provides equal access to all voices and commentaries, and has given in to the temptation to control the flow and proliferation of information. As this Wired article starts off,
FACEBOOK STEADFASTLY RESISTS categorization as a traditional media company. Instead, CEO Mark Zuckerberg insists on calling the social network a technology platform—even though nearly half of all American adults get their news on Facebook. These old arguments no longer work, especially as Facebook starts making its own video content.
It is incumbent upon the awakening community to clearly grasp what is happening here and to act accordingly in terms of our future engagement with social media sites like Facebook. It is important to see how Bill Clinton’s Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed media cross-ownership that led to mergers between tech companies and media companies, was a seed that has already started to bear the fruit of an Orwellian dystopia, where the global elite are permitted to continue to proliferate mainstream propaganda and limit exposure to alternative views that are a threat to their agenda.
Conscious media outlets, like us here at Collective Evolution, are in the crosshairs of the recent efforts on the part of Facebook and other large media conglomerates to selectively control the proliferation of information. Our best hope in these times is that the awakening community makes deliberate choices in terms of which sources to tune in to. While the global elite may have the power, the wealth, and the technology, they are still pushing an agenda, which to discerning minds looks and sounds very different from the unbiased truth.
Our hope is that a growing number of people are seeing through the agenda of the global elite enough to be motivated to ensure that conscious media survives, and then thrives. One of the future goals of our Conscious Media Movement campaign is to strengthen an alliance between ourselves and other conscious media outlets and work together to find ways we can amplify the voice of truth and neutrality.
One of the first steps we are taking in our CMM campaign is to fund an Investigative Journalism team to join our efforts here at CE. To help support this, click here.
The Man Who “Hacked” NASA & The AFSPC Gives A New Interview Describing What He Found
- The Facts:
Nearly two decades ago, Gary Mckinnon of the UK accesses nearly 100 NASA and Department of Defence, including the US Air Force Space command. He faced extradition for 10 years after finding a picture of a UFO and a list of "non terrestrial officers."
- Reflect On:
How sheltered are we from certain information? Has 'national security' simply become an excuse to keep information concealed from the public to protect corporate and government interests?
The field of UFOlogy has long been muddled with disinformation campaigns and bad journalism, and sometimes this journalism includes infiltration efforts by intelligence agencies themselves. This is clear given the fact that intelligence agencies have a direct relationship with journalists and mainstream media outlets, as there are declassified documents showing so. Operation mockingbird is a great example, not to mention all of the mainstream media journalists who have come out and said that mainstream media is directly influenced by intelligence agencies, governments and corporations. You can find some of these documents and see examples of these whistleblowers in two previous articles I’ve published that go into more detail here, and here. When it comes to UFOs, we know that they’re real, but we also know that along with that reality there has been “an official campaign of ridicule and secrecy.” (Ex-CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter) Perhaps this ridicule campaign carries on today through some rather ghastly, unbelievable claims, but let’s not let that mask the fact that this phenomenon is indeed real, and there are a plethora of credible sources including documents, data, physical evidence, and more suggesting we’re not alone, and that we probably are being visited and have been visited by intelligent extraterrestrial beings from other worlds and possibly other dimensions.
A lot of this evidence has come from UFOlogist Richard Dolan, who has always been a key resource for me with regards to accessing credible information about the UFO phenomenon. I find that it’s important to seek out proper researchers who share information in a credible and verifiable way, especially about a subject that can so easily be ridiculed when you are trying to reach the masses who don’t have much knowledge about it, but are genuinely curious. I also feel that my generation of UFO researchers lack proper research and investigative skills, are easily influenced and swayed, and in the age of social media are simply trying to share whatever they can, no matter how credible, to simply ‘stay relevant,’ instead of doing it for the love and genuine desire to share important, truthful information.
Like I said, there are some rather ‘outside the box claims’ out there that have absolutely no credibility behind them, and to share those actually does more disservice to the movement, in my opinion. On the other hand, there are some very outside the box claims and information that do indeed have tremendous amounts of credibility behind them, and these are the ones we should be paying attention to.
One example comes from the case of Garry McKinnon, who for 10 years was in great danger of extradition to the United States for accessing nearly 100 NASA and military computers including the United States Space Command. This was the real deal, and HERE is a clip of Obama and the UK Prime Minister at the time fielding a question about Garry, this breach made headlines new.
Gary was able to access these computers in real time and view files on them. He found some startling pictures, one in particular was of a large cylindrical shaped UFO hovering in space, in addition to a strange spreadsheet document with a list of “non-terrestrial officers,” presumably belonging to a publicly unacknowledged branch of the United States military operating in space, as well as “fleet to fleet” transfers of materials, whatever that means.
I’ll let you listen to the interview below for more details straight from Garry McKinnon’s mouth, via Dolan’s Youtube Channel, where he also describes a high-resolution photograph, taken from space, of a smooth, cigar-shaped craft.
The Real Secret Space Program
Is there a secret space program, and have clandestine groups been reverse engineering ET technology?
Dr. David Clarke is an investigative journalist, reader and lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University in England. He was also the curator for The National Archives UFO project from 2008–2013, and regularly comments in national and international media on UFOs.
These documents reveal how the RAF expressed great interest in finding UFOs.
Dr. Clarke told The Daily Mail,
Even though they have been partly censored they can’t conceal the fact the UK military were interested in capturing UFO technology or what they coyly refer to as ‘novel weapon technology’… And the files reveal they were desperate to capture this technology – wherever it came from – before the Russians or the Chinese got hold of it first…. Although this was 1997, Russia was still regarded as an undefeated enemy with a weapons programme regarded as a threat to the West.
The question is: Did they get one? More on that later…
The military personnel who are encountering these phenomena tell remarkable stories. In one example, over the course of two weeks in November 2004, the USS Princeton, a guided-missile cruiser operating advanced naval radar, repeatedly detected unidentified aircraft operating in and around the Nimitz carrier battle group, which it was guarding off the coast of San Diego. In some cases, according to incident reports and interviews with military personnel, these vehicles descended from altitudes higher than 60,000 feet at supersonic speeds, only to suddenly stop and hover as low as 50 feet above the ocean. – Christopher Mellon, former Assistant Secretary of Defence
We don’t know the answer to these questions, but we do know that the United States has a history of government agencies existing in secrecy for years. The National Security Agency (NSA) was founded in 1952, and its existence was hidden until the mid 1960s. Even more secretive is the National Reconnaissance Office, which was founded in 1960 but remained a secret for 30 years.
We are talking about Special Access Programs (SAP). From these we have unacknowledged and waived SAPs. These programs do not exist publicly, but they do indeed exist. They are better known as ‘deep black programs.’ A 1997 US Senate report described them as “so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress.” (source)
We also know that there is a black budget to fund these programs.
HERE is another great discussion with Dolan titled “Secret Space Program, Real Evidence.”
Are These Objects Extraterrestrial?
There are literally hundreds of people with extensive academic, political and military backgrounds, all the way to astronauts, who have been blowing the whistle for a very long time. Many scientific publications have also been made throughout the years describing strange and radar confirmed military sightings by military pilots. You can see some evidence and documentation from this article I wrote regarding the Chilean Air Force.
According to Herman Oberth, one of the founding fathers of rocketry and astronautics, “flying saucers are real and . . . they are space ships from another solar system. I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries.” (Oberth, Hermann: “Flying Saucers Come from a Distant World,” The American Weekly, October 24, 1954) (source 1)(source 2)
“”We have, indeed, been contacted — perhaps even visited — by extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with the other national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public.”
–Victor Marchetti (Second Look, Volume 1, No 7, Washington, DC, May, 1979)
Another great quote:
“There are objects in our atmosphere which are technically miles in advance of anything we can deploy… we have no means of stopping them from coming here… there is a serious possibility that we are being visited and have been visited for many years by people from outer space, from other civilizations… This should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation and not the subject of ‘rubbishing’ by tabloid newspapers.”
– Lord Admiral Hill-Norton, former Chief of Defence Staff, 5 Star Admiral of the Royal Navy, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee
The point is, if you believe some of these objects are indeed extraterrestrial, you are not alone. Couple these statements with the claims of thousands of individuals who have had contactee and abduction experiences who’ve shared remarkably consistent stories, it’s definitely a plausible hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon.
What are the implications of extraterrestrial contact? Humanity will always go through paradigm shifting realizations that will jolt human consciousness. Right now, we have a lot of work to do here on Earth, and we should be focusing on cleaning up our planet and ridding it of greed, destruction, war, etc. I feel that the ET reality is somehow connected to that realization, and the need and urgency that many of us feel regarding the planet and service to others.
What about you?
Media Silent As Nobel Prize Winning OPCW Found “Fixing” Its Own Findings On Syria
- The Facts:
Evidence suggests that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) deliberately suppressed evidence and testimony that contradicted the U.S. and mainstream media narratives regarding chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
- Reflect On:
Why is there so much information manipulation by mainstream media? How much of a stranglehold does mainstream media have on the perception of the masses with regards to various global events?
Douma, Syria, April 2018. Dozens of people die in a suspected chemical weapons attack in the eastern suburb of the capital Damascus. The United States and many European countries immediately identify President Bashar al-Assad as responsible for the attacks, and respond with deadly violence of their own, starting a bombing campaign against his forces. Yet new evidence leaked from whistleblowers suggests that not only is the Western story on shaky ground, but the report into the incident from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) deliberately suppressed evidence and testimony that contradicted the U.S. narrative.
Founded in 1997 to represent the collective position of its 193 member states, the OPCW oversees and verifies adherence to the strict rules that regulate the use of chemical weapons, which it hopes to eliminate.
After its fact-finding mission was complete, the OPCW issued a report on the alleged Douma attack. While far from conclusive or damning (it refused even to speculate on who was responsible for the attacks), it did suggest there was “likely” a chlorine attack carried out by dropping gas canisters from the air. This seems to contradict its interim findings that stated, “No organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties.” Nevertheless, some insinuated that the new report implicated government forces, the only groups likely to possess both the chemicals and the helicopters necessary to carry out such an attack.
But others criticized the findings. Piers Robinson, Co-Director for the Organization for Propaganda Studies and formerly Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at Sheffield University claimed the OPCW report contained “significant anomalies” and was “unpersuasive, to put it mildly”, noting contradictions on analysis of chemicals used, the method of delivery, and more.
Robinson’s fears appear to have been confirmed and on October 15 an OPCW whistleblower met in secret with a panel of international experts, including the first Director-General of the organization, Dr. Jose Bustani. After seeing the evidence provided by the whistleblower, the panel came to the conclusion that the OPCW had suppressed and distorted its data, analysis and conclusions, noting that “key information” about chemical analysis, toxicology, ballistics investigations and witness statements were suppressed, “ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion.” The panel also expressed alarm at efforts to exclude certain inspectors from the investigation or from allowing them to express differing opinions and observations. Dissenting assessments that concluded that the gas canisters were probably placed in Douma, rather than dropped from aircraft – suggesting an altogether different scenario to the one the U.S. government was presenting – were suppressed.
On the new evidence provided, Dr. Bustani said it, “confirmed doubts and suspicions I already had” about the incoherent report, claiming that “the picture is clearer now, although very disturbing.”
Who, if anyone, pressured the OPCW to do this? One possibility is the Trump administration, who recently awarded them a further $4.5 million for “further investigations” into Syria. This is particularly noteworthy, as the United States is infamously thrifty when it comes to paying international organizations. For decades it has refused to pay its dues to the UN, now owing billions, in retaliation for not fully complying with its wishes. It also cut funding to UNESCO in 2011 and left the organization in 2017 after it recognized Palestine– even though the U.S. is officially committed to a two-state solution in the Middle East. Many with experience in bidding for funds will know that if an organization gives you millions of dollars for research, you know what is expected of you. On the issue, Robinson said there is “certainly an element of incentivization…in order to encourage the OPCW to find and reach conclusions that are going to be compatible with what they want.”
The U.S. also previously forced Bustani from the OPCW in 2002 for contradicting their claims on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration under Secretary of State John Bolton seemingly threatened to kill his family if he did not resign: “You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don’t comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you. We know where your kids live,” John Bolton told him.
The Media Demands War
The whistleblower’s testimony goes directly against the way in which corporate media presented the Douma attack. Unquestioningly accepting the Trump administration’s line, media claiming to be the custodians of truth and defenders of democracy, immediately began to clamor for a military response.
Even as the dust in Douma was still settling, the Washington Post’s editorial board claimed that “President Trump will deal another blow to US global leadership if he does not follow through” on bombing the country. The New York Times’ editorial team appeared to be trying to goad him into action, noting, “The president should know by now that tough talk without a coherent strategy or follow-through is dangerous.” In other words, “talk is cheap, it is time for action.” For the Guardian, considered at the left extreme of the mainstream spectrum, even waiting for a report to ascertain what truly happened was “irresponsible obfuscation”; its top foreign affairs commentator and former foreign and U.S. editor, Simon Tisdall insisting that, “After Douma, the West’s response to Syria’s regime must be military…there can be no more excuses.” He also condemned Obama’s hesitance to commit to more U.S. involvement in Syria as “a blot on his record.”
This article was written by Alan-Macleod for mintpressnews.com where it was originally published. Posted here with permission.
Doctors Explain How Hiking Actually Changes Our Brains
While it may seem obvious that a good hike through a forest or up a mountain can cleanse your mind,...
Scientists Show How Gratitude Literally Alters The Human Heart & Molecular Structure Of The Brain
Gratitude is a funny thing. In some parts of the world, somebody who gets a clean drink of water, some...