Connect with us

Alternative News

Donald Trump’s Main Reasons For Withdrawing From The Paris Climate Agreements

Published

on

As you’ve probably already heard, Donald Trump has chosen to exit the Paris climate agreement that would commence in the year 2020.

advertisement - learn more

Just to make it clear, Collective Evolution does not deny climate change. We do believe, however, that more factors play into the equation than human activity, and that there is a lot of corrupt science behind the phenomenon. Other factors include solar activity and natural climate cycles, among others. There is more information on that later in the article.

Regardless, our ways are destroying our environment, damaging our health, and eradicating entire species. This is the biggest issue. There is no excuse not to implement new energy technologies. Fossil fuels are done and have been for a long time.

According to Trump:

The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.

Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.

advertisement - learn more

He pointed out that the “Green Climate Fund” made under the accord will cost the United States 100-500 billion dollars per year, while at the same time decreasing millions of jobs, throwing even more people into poverty and forcing them to pay even more taxes.

He cited the National Economic Research Associates’ estimate of approximately 3 million jobs lost by 2025, and 3 trillion dollars lost in GDP.

So, as you can see, he is trying to tell people that the United States, as a result of this agreement, would come closer and closer to an economic collapse. This is reminiscent of the Australian Prime Minister’s Chief Business Adviser’s assertion that climate change is a “ruse” led by the United Nations to create a new world order under the agency’s control, and pose even more restrictions on the global citizenry — a statement that coincided with a visit from the UN’s top climate negotiator.

Maurice Newman, chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, claims that the UN is using false models that show sustained temperature increases in order to impose authoritarian rule and end democracy:

It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 percent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. . . . The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook. (source)

Trump also alluded to this point:

Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals.  As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does -– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.

He then pointed to the fact that China can do whatever they want for 13 years, and are free from the restrictions imposed on the U.S. He also highlighted how other countries’ participation is contingent on receiving billions and billions of foreign aid.

Now, you might be thinking, how can Donald Trump claim to care about the environment when he just slashed so much funding from the EPA? Well, what about the revolving door between the EPA and the corporations they’re connected to? What about the fact that it’s been shown that these government agencies manipulate media and science press?

What about the fact that multiple editors in chiefs of major peer-reviewed scientific journals have been telling us that half of the literature is false? You can read more about that here and examine those sources for yourself.

Agencies like the EPA have been approving products that’ve been known to cause cancer, like glyphosate, cosmetics, and common household products, for decades. This has been done through a lot of fraudulent science. For example, the fact that glyphosate is linked to cancer has been known for decades, and publications revealing this fact have been coming out for years, yet only recently has this issue begun gaining traction.

You can read more about that here and examine the sources.

A great example of scientific fraud regarding GMOs was actually uncovered via a federal lawsuit by lawyer Steven Druker, who also published a book about it.

Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and professor emeritus of genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” piece and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.”  

You can read more about that here.

Trump went on to emphasize that, “This agreement is less about the climate, and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.”  You can read more about that here.

He also pointed out:

Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.  Tiny, tiny amount.  In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.

Trump does not believe he should sacrifice the American economy, jobs, and more money for virtually no gain.

Closer to the end of the speech, he brought up clean energy, promising the citizens that “the United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth. . . . We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work . . . we’re going to grow rapidly.” 

He then mentioned that he is willing and able to negotiate with democratic leaders to enter back into the Paris agreement under terms that are fair to the U.S. and don’t harm American citizens and taxpayers.

After this, he again emphasizes the politicization of science:

The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States, while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries, should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement:  It’s to give their country an economic edge over the United States.

We saw the same thing in United States with regards to GMO approval, as shown from various sources, including Wikileaks. See here.

“The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense.”

Trump is trying to tell the world that this agreement is not about climate change, but about politics and science. And he’s not the only one to do so, as you can see later in the article.

It’s not hard to believe, especially given the fact that for years we’ve watched the elite gather and discuss solutions without any action. Nothing has changed, and now when they do take action, it will have little impact on the problem and benefit the “1 percent” even more.

Again, the Green Climate Fund would require America to send up to half a trillion dollars a year to developing countries.

He also said that “nobody even knows where the money is going to.”

He closed his speech by making reference to the environment again, saying that it’s time for the world to pursue a new deal, one that actually does protect the environment.

Below you can watch the full conference below.

The Politicization of Climate Science

Despite the mainstream media narrative continually dishing out the idea that the science is solid, and that 90% of scientists agree, research paints a different picture. There are many who don’t, so why doesn’t mainstream media ever provide a source for that statistic?

Who are these scientists that oppose the politicization of climate science? There are many, and I’ll mention a couple here as I have before in the past.

“The problem we haven now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.” (source)

The above quote comes from Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, and winner of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction. Bengtsson, along with four of the world’s top climate scientists, recently had his research rejected for suggesting that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC. He was appalled that a paper might not be published based on political grounds alone, stating that “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.” (source)

As expected, he came under fire, despite the fact that many scientists echoed his sentiments in support, including a former senior member of the UN’s climate change advisory board, Mike Hulme. Hulme is currently a professor of climate and culture at King’s College London. (source)

Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, former president of the Royal Meteorological society, and a fellow of the Royal Society, has done the same. (source)

These are just a few of many experts with very impressive backgrounds in the field who have spoken out about this issue.

Senator James Inofhe, chairman of the US Senate Committee on  Environment and Public Works, provided a list in a congressional hearing of multiple hundreds of scientists bringing this up. (source)

Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.

The quotes below are from the video of Lindzen.

He brings up the corruption, profit, and political aspect of the problem that has infiltrated science. He also explores how fear is being pushed into the population to justify political measures. It kind of reminds me of false flag terrorism, when governments create events to justify the infiltration and invasion of other countries to establish a new government that serves their own interests.

“How did we get to this point where the science seized to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate, for an understanding of how climate actually works, and instead, devoted itself to supporting a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on.”

“Has anything happened that in fact rendered things like climate science vulnerable to corruption? . . . I won’t even bother dwelling on the specifics, climategate made clear that you had the suppression of different views, the intimidation of editors, the falsification of data, despite claims that the perpetrators have been exonerated. The emails are available for anyone to look at, they will speak for themselves. My personal feeling is that the writers of the emails were more the beneficiaries of the ultimate corruption, and defending their status that arose from their corruption rather than the sources of it.”

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Second FBI Informant Tried To Entrap Trump Campaign With $2 Million Offer For Hillary Dirt: Roger Stone

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Trump aide alleges that an FBI informant tried to spy on and infiltrate the campaign, and entrap them in a deal to exchange cash for Hillary intel.

  • Reflect On:

    If Trump was not an outsider, why was the Deep State so interested in spying and trying to infiltrate his campaign? What do we make of our election process when this is the type of behaviour taking place? Time to evolve?

We had been reporting a great deal during the 2016 campaign that if Hillary made her way into office it would have been the Deep State plan going to perfect tune once again. We talked about a great deal of corruption associated with her as a person, her foundation and her administration.

When Trump ended up in office we talked about this as a divide or fork in the Deep State that Trump was essentially disrupting the longtime running plan that had been going on for decades, as well as playing a key role in pushing for deeper reflections for humanity. This is why we see, for example, a full-on mainstream media barrage against Trump. The cabal is using their voices to attack and confuse the public about the ‘outsider’ that got his way in.

Now, as time goes on, more is being revealed about the shady nature of the 2016 election, as with any, and more is coming forward about not only the previous administration but Hillary’s campaign. We all know what they did to push Bernie Sanders out, the same was being done to Trump.

More Scandals

(Zerohedge) Now, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo say that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian appears to have been an “FBI sting operation” in hindsight, following bombshell reports in May that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.

“When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. –WaPo”

The meeting went nowhere – ending after Stone told Greenberg “You don’t understand Donald Trump… He doesn’t pay for anything.” The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.

advertisement - learn more

After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo – a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting after Greenberg approached Caputo’s Russian-immigrant business partner.

“How crazy is the Russian?” Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted “big” money, Stone replied: “waste of time.” -WaPo

Stone and Caputo now think the meeting was an FBI attempt to entrap the Trump administration – showing the Post evidence that Greenberg, who sometimes used the name Henry Oknyansky, “had provided information to the FBI for 17 years,” based on a 2015 court filing related to his immigration status.

He attached records showing that the government had granted him special permission to enter the United States because his presence represented a “significant public benefit.”

Between 2008 and 2012, the records show, he repeatedly was extended permission to enter the United States under a so-called “significant public benefit parole.” The documents list an FBI agent as a contact person. The agent declined to comment.

Greenberg did not respond to questions about his use of multiple names but said in a text that he had worked for the “federal government” for 17 years.

“I risked my life and put myself in danger to do so, as you can imagine,” he said. -WaPo

“Wherever I was, from Iran to North Korea, I always send information to” the FBI, Greenberg told The Post. “I cooperated with the FBI for 17 years, often put my life in danger. Based on my information, there are so many arrests criminal from drugs and human trafficking, money laundering and insurance frauds.”

Stone and Caputo say it was a “sting operation” by the FBI:

“I didn’t realize it was an FBI sting operation at the time, but it sure looks like one now,” said Stone.

“If you believe that [Greenberg] took time off from his long career as an FBI informant to reach out to us in his spare time, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you,” Caputo said in an interview.

Greenberg told WaPo he stopped working with the FBI “sometime after 2013.”

In terms of the timeline, here’s where the Greenberg meeting fits in:

April 26, 2016 – Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud allegedly tells Trump campaign aide George Paoadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton

Papadopoulos’ statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast Mifsud told Papadopoulos “he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials.” Mifsud explained, “that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Clinton.” Mifsud told Papadopoulos “the Russians had emails of Clinton.” -The Federalist

May 10, 2016 – Papadopoulos tells former Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer during an alleged “drunken barroom admission” that the Russians had information which “could be damaging” to Hillary Clinton.

Late May, 2016 – Stone is approached by Greenberg with the $2 million offer for dirt on Clinton

Related CE Podcast: Trump, Alt News, & Disclosure W/ Jordan Sather

July 2016 – FBI informant (spy) Stefan Halper meets with Trump campaign aide Carter Page for the first time, which would be one of many encounters.

July 31, 2016 – the FBI officially launches operation Crossfire Hurricane, the code name given to the counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.

September 2016 – Halper invites Papadopoulos to London, paying him $3,000 to work on an energy policy paper while wining and dining him at a 200-year-old private London club on September 15.

Foggy memory

Stone and Caputo say they didn’t mention the meeting during Congressional testimony because they forgot, chalking it up to unimportant “due diligence.” Apparently, random offers for political dirt in exchange for millions are so common in D.C. that one tends to forget.

Stone and Caputo said in separate interviews that they also did not disclose the Greenberg meeting during testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence because they had forgotten about an incident that Stone calls unimportant “due diligence” that would have been “political malpractice” not to explore. -WaPo

While Greenberg and Stone’s account of the meeting mostly checked out (after Greenberg initially denied Stone’s account), Greenberg said that a Ukrainian friend named “Alexi” who was fired by the Clinton Foundation attended as well, and was the one asking for the money – while Stone said Greenberg came alone to the meeting.

“We really want to help Trump,” Stone recalled Greenberg saying during the brief encounter.

Greenberg says he sat at a nearby table while Alexei conducted the meeting. “Alexei talks to Mr. Stone, not me,” he wrote.

The Clinton Founation has denied ever employing anyone with the first name of Alexi.

Caputo’s attorney on Friday sent a letter amending his House testimony, and he plans to present Caputo’s account of the Greenberg incident to the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Justice, which has announced it is examining the FBI’s use of informants during the Russia probe. Stone said his attorney has done the same. -WaPo

Second FBI informant

Caputo hinted at the interaction in late May when he said that there were multiple government informants who approached the Trump campaign:

“Let me tell you something that I know for a fact,” Caputo said during a May 21 interview on Fox News. “This informant, this person [who] they tried to plant into the campaign … he’s not the only person who came into the campaign. And the FBI is not the only Obama agency who came into the campaign.”

“I know because they came at me,” Caputo added. “And I’m looking for clearance from my attorney to reveal this to the public. This is just the beginning.”

Stone told the Post that he may be indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and charged “with a crime unrelated to the election in order to silence him,” and that he anticipates the meeting with Greenberg may be used to try and pressure him to testify against President Trump (leaving no stone unturned), which he told the Post he would never do.

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Chilling “Before And After” Photos Of Libya Go Viral

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A man takes pictures of Libya before and after post Hillary Clinton-NATO “liberation” of Libya. The reality is chilling.

  • Reflect On:

    What was the real reason Gadaffi was removed from power? Why was Hillary Clinton so proud of killing this man only to leave the country in devastation? Are we doing the right thing by supporting these politicians?

In the year 2000, a Libyan man took several photos of himself situated at various spots across the city of Benghazi, Libya. 18 years later, he recently revisited the exact same locations to take photos of the spectacular, beautiful human trafficking laden, NATO liberated mess of modern day Libya under the rule of the United Nation’s backed regime.

When we think about how western nations have gone into countries and destructed what they had, took over and ‘rebuilt’ as it’s often called, we have this image of something being done that is ‘right.’ What we don’t consider is all of the innocent people who are killed, the REAL reasons why western countries are looking to take over others, why they create, fund and aggressively push the idea of terrorism and so forth.

“Utter devastation” is how Libya is described today, after a coalition of over 19 countries and NATO took out the regime, in an incredible show of force that seems to resemble what they want to do to Syria or Iran today if you observe the pattern.

The man’s before and after photos have gone viral, with 50,000 retweets at least after being posted to an account that tends to feature other historical images of Libya while it was under the rule of the enemy of both Al Qaeda and the West, Gaddafi, between 1969 and 2011.

advertisement - learn more

 

 

Via Zerohedge…

It appears people do still care about Libya even if the political elites in Paris, London, and Washington who destroyed the country have moved on. Though we should recall that British foreign secretary Boris Johnson was caught on tape in a private meeting last year saying Libya was ripe for UK investment, but only after Libyans “clear the dead bodies away.”

We previously detailed in Libya’s Slave Auctions And African Genocide: What Hillary Knew how Libya went from being a stable, modernizing secular state to a hellhole of roving jihadist militias, warring rival governments, and open-air slave auctions of captured migrants.

Yet what the viral photos confirm is that Libya was once a place of sprawling hotels, wide and clean city streets, functioning infrastructure, and lively neighborhoods. But these very places are now bullet-ridden ruins rotting amidst the political backdrop of the ‘Mad Max’ style chaos unleashed immediately after US-NATO’s bombing the country into regime change.

Hillary still says that she has no regrets even after Obama timidly voiced a half-hearted and too-little-too-late Libya mea culpa of sorts in 2016.

Though Hillary’s beloved Libyan Al Qaeda …”rebels” — legitimized and empowered through broad support from the West — are now among the very militias hosting slave auctions and fueling the European refugee crisis, she’s never so much as hinted that regime change in Libya left the country and much of the region in shambles. Instead, she simply chose to conclude her role in the tragic story of Libya with her crazed and gleeful declaration of “we came, we saw, he died.”

Regime change enthusiasts everywhere please take note of what your blind jingoism has wrought.

A year before the NATO bombing of Libya the UN Development Programme (UNDP) assigned a Human Development Index (HDI) ranking of 53 to Libya (out of 169 countries ranked, Libya ranked highest on the African continent).

Right up until the eve of NATO’s air campaign against the Libyan state, international media outlets understood and acknowledged the country’s high human development rankings, though it later became inconvenient to present the empirical data. A February 2011 BBC report is a case in point.

The 2011 war and aftermath created a failed state with a once economically independent population now turned largely dependent on foreign aid and relief.

Currently considered to be at “emergency levels” of need, prior to NATO intervention Libya was not even on the World Food Program’s radar, yet is now considered a dire humanitarian disaster zone.

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Should Government Be ‘Protecting’ Gender Identity/Expression?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Ontario's Bill 89 expanded the province's child welfare laws to include protection of a child's "gender identity and gender expression."

  • Reflect On:

    Is the ability of individuals in a society to respect and manage differences amongst one another something that is best fostered by mandated government oversight?

With any new legislation that increases the power of government over people–and what new legislation can you think of in recent history that does otherwise?—there is reason for concern and vigilance.

For example, a year ago the Ontario government passed Bill 89 into law. It was called the ‘Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act’ and was an update to the province’s child welfare laws, including child protective services, foster care, and adoption.

New ‘Protections’ For Gender Identity And Gender Expression

Of note was an update to the criteria for analyzing the wellbeing of a child to match the human rights code. These include “a child’s or young person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.”

Yes, that’s right. The ‘protection’ of a child’s gender identity and gender expression is now in the hands of our ‘benevolent expert’ on everything under the sun—our government.

Foreboding Statement

The man who introduced the bill last year was Michael Coteau, Minister of Child and Family Services. His statements about the new protections for gender identity and expression certainly seems to challenge parents’ autonomy in making choices on behalf of their children:

“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently. If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”—MP Michael Coteau

advertisement - learn more

Bill 89 retains the provision in current law that a child who is suffering or “at risk of suffering” mental or emotional harm and whose parents do not provide “treatment or access to treatment” is in need of protection under the law.

Disturbing Hypotheticals

This information can lead to the contemplation of some disturbing possibilities. Let us say that your doctor, or teacher, believes that your 10-year old child is experiencing what the American Psychiatric Association has coined ‘Gender Dysphoria’, which they define as follows:

Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person’s physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify. People with gender dysphoria may be very uncomfortable with the gender they were assigned, sometimes described as being uncomfortable with their body (particularly developments during puberty) or being uncomfortable with the expected roles of their assigned gender.

People with gender dysphoria may often experience significant distress and/or problems functioning associated with this conflict between the way they feel and think of themselves (referred to as experienced or expressed gender) and their physical or assigned gender.

If the Ministry of Child and Family Services is made aware of signs of  ‘gender dysphoria’ on the part of your child, they have the right to ensure that a parent is taking what the ministry would consider ‘treatment or access to treatment’  that would mitigate the risk of suffering mental or emotional harm.

So then if individual human beings in the ministry, in their ever-expanding role of all-seeing and all-knowing authority on all things ‘children’, have decided to side with the notion held by some in the medical establishment that ‘puberty blockers’—pharmaceutical drugs designed to temporarily delay the onset of puberty—is appropriate ‘treatment’ for reducing the risk of the child suffering mental or emotional harm as a result of their ‘gender dysphoria,’ then, hypothetically, the ministry would have the power to take your 10-year old away from you unless you submit them to this drug ‘treatment’ program.

Big Leap

Certainly, this is a big hypothetical leap. There have been no cases resembling this in Ontario since the law was passed. Comments made by Akihito Tse from the Ontario Child’s Advocate Office made in this article appear to bring us back from the edge of the cliff:

Mere disagreement with a child about their gender identity or gender expression is not enough to bring the child into care. Instead, it has to be part of “a pattern of abuse, neglect or serious emotional harm” before removing the child can be considered, according to Akihito Tse, a spokesperson for the advocate’s office.

The reasons a child may require protection are laid out in section 74(2) of Bill 89. There is no specific reference to gender identity or gender expression, but if a child is suffering sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, including “serious” psychological effects, child welfare agencies may intervene.

As Tse noted, there is a high threshold for ever removing a child from their family, and the decision to take a young person into care cannot be made by government bureaucrats and child aid workers alone. “There is a clear process through which the final decision is made by a judge,” Tse said.

Stuck In The Left/Right Dichotomy

Perhaps, from a moderate and balanced perspective, there is no need for urgent and immediate concern. I say perhaps. In trying to examine the information on this subject on the internet, the moderate seeker is struck by an inescapable phenomena: the whole discussion (read: contentious battle) about the implications of government becoming the protector of a child’s gender rights is cast as the struggle between Far-Right Religious Conservatives fighting for their rights to raise their children in accordance with their dogmatic religious beliefs on gender, and Far-Left Liberals fighting for the radical breakdown of traditional societal order through the government-sponsored promotion of gender confusion and ambiguity–depending, of course, on which side you’re on.

In this landscape, it appears that there is no room for moderates—you know, those of us who don’t really care to identify with one of the polarities—to be part of the discussion. And that’s exactly the way our authority wants it. And by authority I don’t mean the government, I mean those who control the government.

To say that government overreach is at play here is not making a statement in favor of extreme right-wing agendas over extreme left-wing agendas. It is an observation that those powerful forces that control the government constantly fuel the fires of this polarity to exert more and more control over citizens. If we look back in history, it matters not which side of the spectrum is used to advance their agenda of control, as long as the battle between the polarities rages on to hide the influence of their hidden hand. And I do indeed believe that our authority has to some extent promoted and sponsored gender confusion in our society, doing so with absolute and complete disregard for the health and well-being of people who are transgender as well as an underlying disrespect for all individuals that make up our society.

A Moderate Perspective

I believe a moderate perspective on the matter of gender identity and expression focuses on the following points:

  • Physiologically there are 2 human genders: male and female
  • There are people who exist in our society that are not comfortable with their gender as denoted by their physiology
  • Some of these people identify with the gender opposite to the gender denoted by their physiology
  • Individuals have the right to choose to submit to treatments that modify or change aspects of their physiology when they reach a sufficient level of maturity to make informed decisions

As individuals, as a society, how should we deal with these facts? Through open dialogue and communication in search of truth; through a desire to share and to learn from each other as kindred souls; and with respect for differences between us and compassion about the impact of these differences in how we live together.

It is in bringing consciousness to bear in our personal lives and in the way we deal with others in our society that these matters are best handled. One important step is to join the growing number of people who have decided to dis-identify with either side of this fabricated extreme left/right polarity and promote open-minded and open-hearted discourse.

Related CE Podcast: Why We Get So Offended

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

Watch: Exclusive Uncut Interview With David Wilcock'Disclosure & The Fall Of The Cabal'

Enter your name and email below to watch the interview.

You have Successfully Subscribed!