As you’ve probably already heard, Donald Trump has chosen to exit the Paris climate agreement that would commence in the year 2020.
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.
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.
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.”
US Hits Julian Assange With 17 More Charges Under Espionage Act
- The Facts:
The US Department of Justice just announced 17 more charges against Julian Assange for publishing leaks exposing government wrongdoing.
- Reflect On:
Should we be punishing journalists who help the world see who is running the countries they live in? Should we be seeing the amount of censorship we are seeing today?
Julian Assange was hit with another 17 criminal charges under the espionage act today as a federal grand jury in Virginia returned a brand new indictment that adds 17 more charges to the original charge Assange was handed in March 2018. These are in connection with the alleged leaks publicly released in conspiracy with Chelsea Manning.
These new charges could land him in prison for the 170 years, all for doing what many are arguing are responsible and important acts of journalism. Need I remind that WikiLeaks has never had to make a retraction on their journalistic work.
The new charges against Assange include allegations that he published what John Demers, the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, describes a “narrow subset” of documents that identified the names of individuals who were working with the US government, including sources in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Of course, Assange’s arrest has been controversial since it happened. Garnering opinions from many directions including that he is a hero and that he is a villain that must be prosecuted for revealing government secrets. Demers responded to supporters of Assange who feel the WikiLeaks founder was being targeted for work as a journalist. Demers stated this information put the sources at risk, and that no “responsible” journalist would publish it.
“The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it. It has not and never has been the department’s policy to target them for reporting. But Julian Assange is no journalist,” John Demers
The US Department of Justice has just announced SEVENTEEN more charges against Julian Assange for publishing the most substantial piece of journalism in my lifetime.
— Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) May 23, 2019
Assange is currently still serving a 50-week sentence in London after a judge found that he has violated his bail conditions.
This story is breaking and will be updated as we learn more.
In the meantime, for those still thinking ‘this is all part of the Q plan,’ check out a bit of a discussion on that below. I did a segment on The Collective Evolution Show on CETV. You can become a member of CETV and support Collective Evolution here.
New York Times Denies Health Consequences of 5G & Then Blames Russia
- The Facts:
A number of scientists, doctors and published peer reviewed research have clearly shown the health effects of EMF radiation. So why is it being ridicule by the mainstream? Why does it continued to go ignored?
- Reflect On:
How are these technologies able to be approved without any safety . testing, what's going on here?
Is this another story that will be heavily censored, and possibly even branded as fake news? It’s not unlikely, and it’s quite reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, a classic book depicting a populace ruled by a political regime that persecutes individualism and independent critical thinking as “thoughtcrimes” that must be enforced by the “thought police.” Today, the thought police are the global elite, who are using social media platforms like Facebook to censor information, no matter how well presented, sourced and truthful the information is. This is because information, in several different areas, is threatening multiple corporate, political and elitist interests.
So, who are these fact checkers? Well, NewsGuard is one of them, which is funded by Clinton donors as well as big pharma and the Council on Foreign Relations. These organizations are also heavily tied to mainstream media outlets like The New York Times. Mainstream media outlets are owned by a small group of powerful people. These groups also have very close ties to multiple corporations and intelligence agencies like the CIA. Although these days it doesn’t seem very hard to recognize this, mainstream media is still used to sway the minds of the masses on certain topics by ridiculing them and failing to address and counter the points made by others. The latest example of this is with regards to 5G.
The 5G wireless technology rollout has been happening for a long time. We’ve seen a lot of marketing and information detailing how this type of technology will make our lives better and speed up the process of anything wireless. President Donald Trump recently described the 5G rollout as a “race” that “America must win.” The Canadian Prime Minister has also been quite outspoken about 5G, but has completely ignored anything regarding the health consequences, like most politicians have done so far.
A recent article in The New York Times, a major mouthpiece for the establishment, is a fiction piece on the topic of 5G masquerading as news. The piece was written by William Broad titled, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You But Russia Wants You To Think Otherwise.” The paper claims that the health risks associated with 5G technology are a crazy “conspiracy theory” without even acknowledging all of the concerns being brought up by hundreds of scientists and doctors, not to mention all the peer-reviewed research and the considerable number of papers that have been published on the subject over the years. If 5G technology is so safe, why don’t we simply put it through appropriate safety testing to ease everyone’s minds? The answer is simple: It’s an obvious threat to human health, and if the corporations who control this technology, which unfortunately seem to control our government health regulatory agencies, actually did put it through transparent safety testing, there is no way these technologies would be allowed to come out. It’s truly a crime against humanity.
Furthermore, it’s quite comical how the essay blames Russia. Too long has Russia been used as a tool to simply cast blame on, the latest example would be hacking the 2016 US presidential election. There was no evidence for that, and it seems to be a narrative that was made up out of thin air by the elite, using mainstream media as their tool.
“As a patriotic loyalist of Russo-paranoia, Broad has dreamed up a hallucination that Russia is preparing to outpace the US’s strategy to dominate the global “internet of everything” in the race to launch 5G technology globally. Aside from Broad’s otherwise corporate friendly stances supporting hydrofracking, genetically modified foods, and the myth that vaccines do not contribute to neurological disorders, he has produced some excellent work about Yoga culture and North Korea. Yet these are hardly topics that would enable a person to speak intelligently about electromagnetic frequency’s (EMFs) biomolecular effects on living organisms.” – Richard Gate, Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries, & Dr. Gary Null, the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director including Poverty Inc and Deadly Deception (source)
The statement was made by Céline Fremault, the Minister of the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region, responsible for Housing, Quality of Life, Environment and Energy. From an interview last Friday, with L’Echo:
“I cannot welcome such technology if the radiation standards, which must protect the citizen, are not respected, 5G or not. The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. We cannot leave anything to doubt.”
– Céline Fremault, Minister of the Government (Brussels-Captial Region)
There are more than 10,000 peer-reviewed studies that confirm 5G’s measurable adverse effects on human biology. Again, the Times completely ignored this and simply implied that these health concerns are a conspiracy theory. Meanwhile, as far back as 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This was based on research showing a direct correlation between glioma tumors — a malignant brain cancer — and wireless mobile phone use. The Agency falls under the umbrella of the WHO, a cesspool compromised of corporate conflicts of interests and biased influence. It’s important to mention that the former chair of the IARC group, Anders Ahlbom, who’s also the co-founder of Gunnar Ahlbom AB, a Belgian lobbying firm providing public relations services to the telecom industry, was responsible for evaluating the epidemiology and carcinogenicity of mobile phone radiation. The IARC is completely biased, yet it still admits that 5G is “possibly” carcinogenic, even though the science shows that it clearly is carcinogenic.
Between August 2016 and September 2018, over 400 new studies on electromagnetic radiation risks were compiled by public health professor Joel Moskowitz at the University of California at Berkeley. These studies cover earlier generation technologies, whereas 5G will be everywhere and far less safe. Compared to 4G technology, which is commonly used today, every 5G base station will contain hundreds of thousands of antennas, each aiming lasers like microwave beams to all devices. In an urban area, base stations could be installed as little as 100 meters (328 feet) apart.
Those studies show a myriad of risks, including damage to DNA, damage to sperm, neuropsychiatric damage, and much more. For example, a study titled “Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression” published in the Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy outlines this quite clearly, and it’s only one of thousands of peer-reviewed studies raising multiple concerns in regards to this type of technology.
Dr. Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, is another academic who has gathered a number of studies and compiled them together. Taken from his report titled “5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field(EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them,” he states that:
“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”
According to Dr. Marin Blank from Columbia University’s Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, with regards to wireless radiation in general:
“We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation. Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely.”
If you want to dive deeper into the science of this stuff and see just how obvious it is, you can find a lot of research that’s been published over the years linked at the Environmental Health Trust. It’s a great resource.
Furthermore, we’ve covered this topic in depth, and you can read some of our other related articles if you’re interested. They’re listed below:
Do we really need to use these technologies? Why do politicians and mainstream media continue to talk about 5G without ever addressing the health concerns, and why do mainstream media outlets simply ridicule all of the health concerns that are being brought up by the public? What is going on here? Can mainstream media really convince people that 5G technology is completely safe, and that those who claim it’s not have no idea what they are talking about?
At the end of the day, all we can do is lower our exposure to EMF radiation. We can choose a faster wired connection. There are products available on the market, like paint for your home as well as clothing, that can block this radiation. Most importantly, you can utilize a healthy lifestyle as well as the mind-body connection to mitigate the effects. Awareness without fear/worry is our best tool, but at the end of the day we must continue to raise our voice in an age of massive censorship.
Susan Sarandon, Pamela Anderson & Roger Waters Question Silence of OPCW on Douma, Syria Gas ‘attack’
- The Facts:
Susan Sarandon, Pamela Anderson & Roger Waters have all voiced their concern about the supposed chemical gas attacks in Douma. Recently attention was brought to the silence of a OPCW regarding a leaked report suggesting the truth wasn't told.
- Reflect On:
Why are celebrities so careful to speak up against injustice? Why are they made to be idolized? Why do the elite not want them to speak out against their actions? What's the truth behind the so called "war on terror?"
“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States.” (source) – Robin Cook, Former British Foreign Secretary
In a world full of massive media censorship, something we at Collective Evolution have tried to combat with the creation of CETV, it’s great when celebrities use their voices to speak up about crimes against humanity, especially ones committed by their own governments. Obviously, these crimes go completely ignored by mainstream media because these outlets are controlled by the government, as exposed by multiple documents as well as multiple award winning mainstream media anchors and journalists.
Today, mainstream media is ridiculing certain topics that threaten their agendas, and this is in conjunction with elitist organizations labelling certain information as ‘fake news.’ Our voices and our right to freedom of speech are being threatened because of this censorship, which is more evident to those within the field of alternative media. Any type of information or evidence that threatens the narrative of certain geopolitical and corporate interests is being shut down. Media outlets are being demonetized, and mainstream media is refusing to cover certain topics and has even branded certain ideas as “conspiracy theories.”
This is why it’s great when celebrities, and people in general, use their voices to share information. It’s so important today to speak up, maybe even more so than ever before. Many people are afraid to speak up on ‘controversial’ topics out of fear that they’ll lose their jobs, or in some cases, out of fear for their lives given the fact that their voices can reach a large amount of people. Celebrities are usually used in this manner for marketing and advertising, given the fact that they have such large fan bases. That’s why when they do choose to ‘speak out,’ some people don’t like it.
The latest examples of celebrities brave enough to speak out are actress Susan Sarandon, celebrity Pamela Anderson, and music star Roger Waters.
All of them have been outspoken and asking questions about why the mainstream media (MSM) is ignoring a leaked Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) report, which contradicts the claim that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad carried out a chemical weapons attack on his own people in Douma.
To recap, not long ago, the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WGSPM) published a document signed by a man named Ian Henderson, whose name is seen listed in expert leadership positions on OPCW documents from as far back as 1998 and as recently as 2018. It’s unknown who leaked the document and what other media organizations they may have tried to send it to, but with all of the lies that permeate through mainstream media organizations these days, it’s great to see documents like these being leaked. It’s something we need more of, and it’s not something easy to do. Julian Assange is a great example of the punishment and scrutiny you may face for simply leaking documents.
The report goes deep into the physics of the alleged gas attack and the narrative within the official OPCW analysis. It concluded that:
The dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders, and the surrounding scene of the incidents, were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder being delivered from an aircraft.
The investigators stated that manual placement of the cylinders in the locations investigators found them in is “the only plausible explanation for observations at the scene.”
“To be clear, this means that according to the assessment signed by an OPCW-trained expert, the cylinders alleged to have dispensed poison gas which killed dozens of people in Douma did not arrive in the locations that they were alleged to have arrived at via aircraft dropped by the Syrian government, but via manual placement by people on the ground, where photographs were then taken and circulated around the world as evidence against the Syrian government which was used to justify air strikes by the US, UK and France. There were swift military consequences meted out on what appears now to be a lie. At the time, the people on the ground were the Al Qaeda-linked Jaysh Al-Islam, who had at that point nothing to lose and everything to gain by staging a false flag attack in a last-ditch attempt to get NATO powers to function as their air force, since they’d already effectively lost the battle against the Syrian government.” – Caitlin Johnstone (source)
After the document leaked, Susan Sarandon tweeted the following:
Hollywood star turned activist, Pamela Anderson, tweeted her (source!) support for “independent thinkers in Hollywood,” while Roger Waters, guitarist for Pink Floyd, called on The Guardian and journalist Jonathan Freedland to apologize for attacking him for accusing the White Helmets of concocting the chemical weapons attack. Not long ago, he stopped his concert in Barcelona to address the crowd about the propaganda being spread about what’s happening in Syria. He pointed out that the White Helmets are an organization that exists for the sole purpose of propaganda. Collective Evolution reported on the corrupt nature of the White Helmets in 2017 and we’re now seeing it here again. The White Helmets have been caught staging events to create propaganda for media. Not long ago, a UN panel discussing the criminal activities of the White Helmets relating to organ theft and false flag terrorism also went completely ignored by the mainstream media. You can read more about that and watch that panel here.
This Isn’t The Only Information Calling Into Question Facts About What Happened In Douma
As Mark Twain brilliantly emphasized:
“The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”
This is what we’ve seen today–so called attacks that have, as the evidence points out, been staged by the ones who are and have been trying to justify an “intervention.” We’ve seen this with the “war on terror” and with terrorist groups in general. For example, organizations like ISIS have connections to the US government in several different ways. Take current presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, a veteran who was quoted as saying that the “CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo.” Her statements align with a plethora of evidence–these aren’t just beliefs.
The idea that the US government and the western military alliance could be arming these terrorists and have their hands in staging “terrorist” attacks to justify an intervention and play the hero in the eyes of the masses is very disturbing. Their intentions are completely sinister.
The latest example I wrote about regarding the attacks in Douma was on Riam Dalati, a well-known BBC Syria producer who recently put out a tweet stating that the supposed gas attacks in Douma were “staged.”
How many whistleblowers, documentation and examples do we need in order to see the truth here? How many examples of mainstream media completely making up stories and aiding the global elite (their owners) will it take until we stop believing their narrative? Why do we continue to watch?
As his twitter states, he is also a close colleague of the well-known BBC Middle East Correspondent, Quentin Sommerville.
You can read more about that story here.
An interesting report by Robert Fisk (pictured above), a multi-award winning Middle East correspondent of The Independent who has risked his life to visit the Syria clinic at the centre of a global crisis, is also important to mention. Fisk joined The Independent in 1989 and has written bestselling books on the Middle East, including Pity the Nation and The Great War for Civilisation. Fisk gained his BA in English and Classics at Lancaster University and holds a PhD in politics from Trinity College, Dublin.
He met with Dr. Assim Rahaibani and shared his experience with the doctor:
“The 58-year old senior Syrian doctor then adds something profoundly uncomfortable: the patients, he says, were overcome not by gas but by oxygen starvation in the rubbish-filled tunnels and basements in which they lived, on a night of wind and heavy shelling that stirred up a dust storm.”
It’s important to get the real narrative of the people on the ground in Syria, but it’s also important to mention that he is sharing his experience not as an eye witness himself.
“He refers twice to the jihadi gunmen of Jaish el-Islam (the Army of Islam) in Douma as “terrorists” – the regime’s word for their enemies, and a term used by many people across Syria. Am I hearing this right? Which version of events are we to believe?”
He goes on to explain,
“Readers should be aware that this is not the only story in Douma. There are the many people I talked to amid the ruins of the town who said they had “never believed in” gas stories – which were usually put about, they claimed, by the armed Islamist groups. These particular jihadis survived under a blizzard of shellfire by living in other’s people’s homes and in vast, wide tunnels with underground roads carved through the living rock by prisoners with pick-axes on three levels beneath the town. I walked through three of them yesterday, vast corridors of living rock which still contained Russian – yes, Russian – rockets and burned-out cars.”
You can read more about that story here.
The list of examples goes on and on, and there are too many to mention within this article alone.
How many examples are needed for us to see the truth? Why does mainstream media completely ignore this type of stuff? Why is it labelled as fake news? Are we really at the point where ‘fact checkers,’ who are funded by the global elite and major corporations, need to determine what is real and what’s not for us?
The world is more ‘awake’ than most of us think, regardless of the massive amount of censorship our world is experiencing. In a way, this censorship is making some claims more obvious.
The collective perception of our world is changing drastically, and that’s a good sign. It’s one important step towards positively changing our world.
These Plants Are Oxygen Bombs & They Clean The Air In Your Home
Everyone would love to have a fresh, clean living space to come home to each day, and while part of...
US Government Accidentally Releases Electromagnetic Mind Control Documents In FOIA Request
When researcher Curtis Waltman of the website Muckrock received files resulting from his Freedom of Information Act request on Antifa and...