Mauritius is a beautiful honeymoon island in the Indian Ocean. On March 12th, 1968, Mauritius gained independence from British rule, and this March 12th was the 49th independence anniversary celebration in Port Louis, Mauritius’ capital.
I happened to be backpacking in Mauritius at this time, so I went to the capital for the day to check out the independence day celebration, but it turned out that there was no one celebrating. The city was quiet!
The official celebration started at 5pm that evening; yet the last buses to head back home left at 6pm. I don’t know if it was just bad organization, but there was no information about the event on the internet and the people I spoke to had no idea what actually happens because they had never been to the celebration and were not intending to go this time, either.
We are told that Mauritius is a democratic island paradise, Britain gave back its colonies because it was the right thing to do, and the USA’s close relationship with Britain is rooted in a historic friendship based on such shared moral principles as the desire for a fair and democratic world.
What if there were an alternative perspective to these statements?
It has been fascinating for me to learn from the Mauritians I’ve spoken to that they would actually prefer it if Mauritius were part of Britain again.
They speak of the corruption in government as the main reason for this, and they often give the example of how politicians are directly involved in the importation of (synthetic) drugs, like heroin, which are causing serious problems for their children on the island.
One local man who I spent two evenings with on the beach in La Preneuse told me that a Mauritian politician had recently been caught at the airport with 25 billion rupees’ worth of heroin concealed in sealed pesticide canisters. Apparently, the politician paid off the judge and got away with it in court.
Many Mauritians also suggest that it is the money politicians are making from their involvement in drugs which leads them to crack down so harshly on marijuana which, as a plant, can be grown quite easily by the locals thanks to the island’s climate.
Another man told me that last Aug/Sept there was a demonstration for the legalization of marijuana in the capital, and the police came and beat up the demonstrators, throwing many of them in prison. We hear none of this in the news.
While on the topic of Mauritian independence from Britain, this also reminds me of a documentary I once watched on British TV, but what it said I’ve never seen on TV again, and it is completely ignored in our history books.
The USA wanted greater access to the markets of the British colonies and to their natural resources, and they also wanted to prevent communism from infiltrating British colonies, which they saw as a distinct possibility.
So after WWII, when Great Britain was economically bankrupt, the country took out a loan with the USA to help rebuild itself. This loan was taken out on July 15th 1946 and was paid off in 2006 — 61 years later.
As part of the so-called ‘Anglo-American Loan Agreement’, the USA agreed to support the UK financially in exchange for Britain not implementing the Labour government’s welfare reforms and withdrawing from all major overseas commitments; in other words, dissolving the British Empire.
Now I hasten to add that I have very negative views about the British government’s policies today and if you want to see how terribly we treated the indigenous peoples of our colonies during the British Empire, I highly recommend watching the incredible film Rabbit Proof Fence (about Australia), but I am a strong believer in critical thought and not just accepting the information we are given in our mainstream media.
The mainstream picture we are painted serves a certain purpose. It shapes our beliefs and attitudes towards other countries and peoples.
I think the important thing is to be open to alternative perspectives that make our world a little less black and white and a little more multi-dimensional, and the above ‘hidden’ or ‘untold’ perspectives provide alternative information on Mauritius, the UK, and the USA.
One beauty of roaming the world is that we get to speak to other peoples in other countries and find out such alternative perspectives on what we are being told directly from the people who live there.
In the Philippines, for example, everyone I spoke to loves their president who, they say, has indeed ordered the police there to shoot-to-kill if drug users run from the police but, at the same time, he offers free rehabilitation services for any drug users who come forward to the police. More importantly for the locals, the streets in the Philippines are finally becoming safe again for the ordinary average citizen.
Now I am a pacifist and strongly against killing anyone, but the Western media do not report this perspective. They only present the president of the Philippines as a tyrant. Why?
Could it be because at the same time he is openly speaking out against the economic grip the USA holds over the country, while also making economic deals with Russia and China? After all, we know that Russia and China are bad while the USA is good.
Ultimately, the question that we should always ask ourselves is WHY our media is choosing to present us with one perspective of ‘the truth’ or the reality in which we live, and what purpose does that perspective serve in shaping our beliefs and attitudes?
This is the foundation of critical thought.
Related CE Articles
The Perversion Of Wikipedia: Skepticism As A Tool For The Censorship Of New Ideas
- The Facts:
Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, a supposed resource for the open sharing of wisdom and knowledge, is violating its own policies and non-profit status by favoring donors' worldview through exerting undue editorial influence.
- Reflect On:
If we can't trust Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, does that mean we can't trust anything we hear and read about?
Those of us who make a habit of challenging our current worldviews in order to uncover deeper truths and expand our understanding of reality, will have probably come to realize by now that much of the ‘skepticism’ out there that is supposedly founded in ‘science’ is nothing more than the preservation of the mainstream perception that is constantly being promoted by our hidden authorities and their minions.
It is likely that every one of us has encountered frustration in dealing with the ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’ type of skeptic among family and friends. Some hold it as a badge of honor that they refuse to be ‘fooled’ by suggestions that the world is not exactly as it seems, or that there is anything substantial going on behind the scenes, as long as the mainstream media continues to ridicule it and use labels like ‘unproven pseudo-science’ or ‘debunked conspiracy theory.’
Now, this is not to dispute that some skepticism is healthy. Not at all. One should not believe everything one hears indiscriminately, and all claims should be evaluated based evidence, coherence, logic, and common sense. When skepticism is in balance with an open mind, it helps us develop discernment, and enables us to build and expand a coherent worldview that begins to incorporate and make sense of more and more of the subtle mysteries the universe has to offer.
However, an extreme brand of skepticism that is not open to possibility until it becomes self-evident is damaging to human inquiry and the flourishing of new ideas. Joe Martino and I discussed this skepticism in our latest episode of ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ on CETV, and went on to examine how this philosophical position is at the heart of the censorship efforts of mainstream media and the now co-opted social media giants, indiscriminately labeling ideas and analyses of world events outside of the mainstream perception as ‘fake news’ and characterizing it as ‘dangerous’ and something the public must be protected from.
Below is a clip from that episode exploring how dogmatic skepticism is holding us back. Become a member on CETV to watch the full episode of The Collective Evolution Show.
In the full episode, we go on to discuss specifically how Wikipedia has become one of the latest information sources to fall under the control of the mainstream authority. We talk about how instead of being ‘the people’s encyclopedia’ and being open to all ideas, it has adopted the very strict skepticism of the mainstream. Among other things, it systematically denigrates those scientists, researchers and medical professionals that promote alternative modalities to Western medicine.
Some will say ‘I’m a scientist. And therefore I’m a skeptic.’ In some ways, this makes sense–a real scientist does not come to any conclusions unless the evidence in their experiments bears them out. However, it often represents someone who is not open to possibility, and will not seriously consider anything that is not proven and established, meaning what they have ‘seen’ with their own eyes.
When this type of person says (usually informally) that they are a ‘scientist,’ what they really mean is that they ascribe to scientific materialism, a philosophical position founded on the belief that only the material world, the world perceived by our senses, is what is real. We don’t even need to get into the fact that quantum physics has long demonstrated that this position is no longer tenable in the real world, and that non-material forces are exerting influence on the world all the time.
In a banned TedX talk entitled ‘The Science Delusion,’ biologist Rupert Sheldrake performs a brilliant dissection of scientific materialism and all the questionable assumptions it is founded on, and is clear to distinguish between real ‘science,’ which is exploration and experimentation designed to expand knowledge, and the philosophical dogma of scientific materialism which, in mainstream discourse, is considered ‘science.’ No wonder it was banned. Watch this one, it is well worth your time.
Now it must be said, anybody refuting scientific materialism is pulling the rug out from most of the skepticism used by mainstream forces to control the narrative. And so, as you might expect, whenever the mainstream media has the opportunity to comment on who Rupert Sheldrake is or the value of his work, they are not likely to be very complimentary.
Wikipedia On Sheldrake
In an article entitled ‘Wikipedia’s Assault on Scientific Progress: The Case of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake,’ Gary Null makes a very persuasive case not only that Wikipedia attempts to marginalize Rupert Sheldrake as a ‘pseudoscientist,’ but they exhibit a draconian control over the editorial content of Sheldrake’s Wikipedia page, quite against their own stated policies.
Sheldrake’s original Wikipedia biography, created in October 2002, was limited to two sentences and a link to his personal website: “Rupert Sheldrake (1942-) is a British biologist and author of several books. In his 1981 book A New Science of Life he put forward the hypothesis of formative causation which basically suggests that memory is inherent in nature.”
That’s it! Today, his biography has grown to 9 major headings and 12 subheadings. Instead of identifying him as a biologist — only noting this title in the past-tense — the article falsely identifies Sheldrake as a “parapsychologist” in the lead paragraph. Although he conducts experiments in telepathy, he approaches the topic from a biological viewpoint, in keeping with his scientific training. Reviewing the many thousands of edits made to his biography during the past 16 years is a lesson in how brutal and vicious the Wiki wars spawned by Skeptics can become.
Sheldrake’s Wikipedia “Talk” page begins with the warnings:
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don’t take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article.
Here we observe Wikipedia’s own Committee showcasing flagrant bias in identifying Sheldrake’s scientific research as “pseudoscience.”
Wikipedia’s Violation Of Its Non-Profit Status
The concept of Wikipedia, the people’s encyclopedia, a resource for the open sharing of wisdom and knowledge, where respect for opposing points of view was maintained, is what made Wikipedia popular and trusted to begin with. However, the potential profits that would be possible from this trust and Wikipedia’s popularity seems to have become too tempting for its owners and of course Big Business to resist.
This letter written to the IRS by Neal S. Greenfield, lawyer for Dr. Gary Null, in which he explicitly details the ways in which Wikipedia has blatantly violated their 501 (c)(3) non-profit status, as well as their own stated values and objectives, will certainly help you to see Wikipedia in a different way than what it pretends to be.
Of note in the summary on page 1 is the contention that ‘Wikipedia has selectively permitted pay-to-play editing and institutional conflicts of interest, particularly where generous donors are concerned.’ It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. We are coming to realize that our entire economic and political systems are founded on the corrupt influence of the powerful and wealthy. The maintenance of their power is founded on keeping people ignorant, which is the brute impact of scientific materialism and the skepticism that follows from it.
Every day there seems to be new information out about another previously trusted source of information that has shown itself to be unworthy of trust. But rather than rue the destruction of the naive innocence of humanity, we should bless these revelations as stepping-stones to achieving a higher discernment. Certainly, the majority of humanity, when released from these corrupting influences, will be able to be trusted to act in a way that is ultimately for the benefit of all. This higher discernment will allow us as a collective to separate the wheat from the chaff, and create a world where truth, transparency and the open exchange of ideas will be supported.
Farmer Gives His Cows To A Sanctuary After Seeing Them “Terrified”
- The Facts:
A Cattle farmer turned vegan and gave his whole £50,000 herd to an animal sanctuary because he could no longer bear seeing them 'terrified' on the way to the abattoir.
- Reflect On:
Why do we subject other living beings to torture, pain, hurt and a terrible life? Why do we not value the life of an animal as much as we do a human?
Billions of animals are raised and killed for slaughter every single year, and that’s in America alone. There is nothing humane about our food industry. It’s quite clear that the majority of animals are tortured, live in extreme fear, anxiety and depression, and constantly have their kids and other family members ripped away from them. Take cows, for example. These majestic, compassionate, empathetic and brilliant beings are basically raped so we can drink their milk.
They are forcefully inseminated, which is odd given the fact that casein, the protein found within the milk of a cow, has been found to increase our risk of cancer and even accelerate the growth rate of cancer . Furthermore, the milk from a cow creates a condition within the body called metabolic acidosis, and as a result the body compensates by leeching calcium from the bones. How ironic is that?
When the cow gives birth, the babies do not get the milk because that’s reserved for humans and big profit. The babies are separated from their mothers and then are either immediately killed or raised for slaughter. This is extremely inhumane, and it represents one of the most heartbreaking genocides in human history. It makes no sense to drink the milk of a cow because it’s meant for cows.
In fact, humans are the only animal that drink the milk of another animal, and we are the only animal to drink milk after weaning. Furthermore, we previously didn’t have the ability to digest the milk of a cow, that’s an ability our bodies eventually developed, given the fact that the milk of a cow is so unnatural to the human body. It makes sense that 65 percent of the planet has some form of lactose intolerance. In some regions of the world it’s an astonishing 90 percent. It makes no sense at all, and it’s quite clear that the big food companies are behind this and have marketed milk as ‘healthy’ simply for the purposes of profit.
The main purpose of this article is to emphasize that all of this is happening because of us. Granted, things have drastically changed over the past decade, and are continuing to change. The profits of the dairy and meat industries are steadily declining, and this is as a result of people waking up to what’s really going on with regards to how these animals are treated as well as the health consequences of human beings over-consuming animal products.
One other thing that seems to be happening is an increase in global compassion. It’s always strange to ask how any human being can be involved in this process. We are talking about living, sentient, emotional, intelligent beings being subjected to extreme pain. How can anybody on the planet be okay with someone else going through such things? The reality is that there are individuals who oppose these industries, and there are those who deem the lives of other animals as insignificant.
As I said, people are changing, but some people just don’t realize this. Jay and Katja Wilde are the latest examples of how change is spreading.
Pictured above, the 61-year-old farmers just couldn’t take the guilt anymore after spending many years as beef farmers. They recently decided to give their entire herd to an animal sanctuary. It’s interesting because he’s been a vegetarian for thirty years, yet at the same time this was his occupation, and through it he discovered that each individual cow had their own unique personality. They are loving, caring, intelligent and affectionate animals.
In an interview with the Daily Mail, he said:
“I’ve long felt there was a very strong conflict of interest between not eating meat and producing cattle for meat,” he says. “The problem is that when you inherit a farm, it feels like a duty to keep its life continuing into the future. That also means looking after animals, really getting to know them. But then I felt that sending them off was betraying them. I needed to do something differently. Whether they are stubborn, shy, friendly, they’re all different. These traits can pass down generations, too. You can match sons and daughters to their mothers.”
He emphasized how his profession made him much more “acutely aware of taking them to their place of death.” A death that Jay felt sure the cows were fully aware of. “It’s hard to know exactly what they know, but logic suggests everything about that final journey must be terrifying,” he said.
Jay and his wife Katja have now converted their beef farm into an organic vegan one, becoming the first farmers in the UK who are believed to have taken such action.
“The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as now they look upon the murder of humans.” – Leonardo Da Vinci
Below is great, heart-warming video.
Eating meat isn’t healthy. It’s well-established in scientific literature that a meat-free diet, when done correctly, offers tremendous health benefits. Plant-based eating is not only nutritionally sufficient, but helps you avoid chronic illness as well. You can read more information regarding that in the articles linked below.
What we are doing today, raising and slaughtering billions of animals, is not only destroying our health, it’s destroying our environment as well. More importantly, compassion, care, empathy and love must return to our planet, and the food industry is where we need to start showing these qualities that have somehow been made to lay dormant within us. If one suffers, we all suffer.
Multiple Investigations Reveal Secrets About Where US Tax Dollars Are Really Going
- The Facts:
Multiple investigations and testimony from high ranking sources have discovered that trillions of dollars of our tax dollars are going towards programs that not even the highest ranking people within government know about.
- Reflect On:
Why are we made to believe our taxes dollars are going towards necessary services that favour the population? Why do we so easily trust our government and take their word for it when evidence says otherwise.
It’s amazing how much money is scraped off of each paycheque, and how much money multiple small and big businesses pay. We are told that it’s necessary, that this is the money going towards various programs that are responsible for building our schools, employing people for necessary services and infrastructure, among many other things. It’s truly amazing how much money governments rake in from taxes.
It’s an astronomical amount that makes it hard to see how all of the money is allocated to services that are in the people’s favour, instead of the possibility of it going into the pockets of certain politicians and elitists, among other places. Yet we are heavily taxed, and reasons for taxation are constantly brought up and justified, almost as if to imply that there really is no other way of changing things and doing things differently here on planet Earth. Our potential is huge, yet we are convinced that money and taxation are our only ways to operate.
Sure, some of our taxes are going toward various needs and services we deem necessary, but how much off of our paycheques is really required for this? Judging by the amount of money that has been poured into black budget programs, it doesn’t seem like much is needed at all, and this is because trillions upon trillions of our tax dollars are actually going towards projects that the public has absolutely no idea about.
These projects are known as ‘black budget programs,’ which include Special Access Programs (SAPs). Within 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.”
Not many people have investigated the black budget world, but The Washington Post revealed that the “black-budget” documents indicate that a staggering 52.6 billion dollars was set aside for operations in fiscal year 2013.(source) More recent investigations, however, reveal a lot more than that. The topic was discussed in 2010 by Washington Post journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin. Their investigation lasted approximately two years and concluded that America’s classified world has:
Become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work. (source)
Recently, Arkin quite NBC/MSNBC and went public outing them as completely fake government run agencies. You can read more about that here. Here is another article we published that has links within it to documents showing the close relationship between mainstream media, academia, and the CIA.
The most recent investigation was conducted by economist and Michigan State professor Mark Skidmore, alongside some of his graduate students as well as Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development. They discovered trillions of unaccounted for dollars missing from the Department of Housing & Urban Development as well as the Department of Defense. For their research, the team used several government websites and made inquiries to multiple U.S. agencies. Much of the time they received no response and the Office of the Inspector General even disabled links to all key documents that revealed unsupported spending, according to the team.
Given the Army’s $122 billion budget, that meant unsupported adjustments were 54 times spending authorized by Congress. Typically, such adjustments in public budgets are only a small fraction of authorized spending… Skidmore thought Fitts had made a mistake. “Maybe she meant $6.5 billion and not $6.5 trillion,” he said. “So I found the report myself and sure enough it was $6.5 trillion.” – Michigan State News.
They went on to find documents indicating a total of $20 trillion worth of undocumented adjustments made from 1998 t0 2015. Our tax dollars are going directly into these black budget programs, which often cost far more than our roads and services. If this information was made transparent and public for discovery and use, it would leap all of humanity into the stars and into new discovery and exploration. The implications would be huge, and it would force us to ask more questions.
Here’s a great quote from Paul Hellyer.
It is ironic that the U.S. would begin a devastating war, allegedly in search of weapons of mass destruction when the most worrisome developments in this field are occurring in your own backyard. It is ironic that the U.S. should be fighting monstrously expensive wars allegedly to bring democracy to those countries, when it itself can no longer claim to be called a democracy when trillions, and I mean thousands of billions of dollars have been spent on projects which both congress and the commander in chief know nothing about. (source)
What’s even more interesting is that Fitts has been quite outspoken about a secret space program and where this missing money is actually going. She explains how enormous amounts of resources were handed over to covert operations to develop a security system of finance. This then created the CIA and a select group of people who were in charge of UFO technology. “By the time JFK came into office ready to challenge this shadow government and make space program the centrepiece of his administration, the civil war between the Deep State and the public state was in full force.” (source)
Interesting to say the least.
Deeper Black Budget Discussion On CETV
CETV is a platform we created in order to combat censorship and demonetization we have been facing over the past few years. On episode 4 of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, we discussed the Black Budget in much deeper detail. Below is a clip exploring the validity behind missing money from the black budget and special access programs, explaining where the money is going and what exactly it’s being used to do.
You can become a member of CETV, get access to the full show and many others, and support conscious media here.
The takeaway here is to really question what’s going on with our tax dollars. Whose pockets is the majority of money going into, and for what purpose? What are we really paying for? Secret space programs? Deep underground and under ocean military bases? Have we just been made to believe that the way we are taxed is absolutely necessary? What is really going on here and how come nobody is questioning it?
Wikileaks Document Exposes a “Secret US Base on the Moon”
The Assange arrest is scandalous in several respects, and one of them is the effort of governments, and it’s not...
The Powerful Aspirin Alternative Your Doctor Never Told You About
In a previous article titled “The Evidence Against Aspirin and For Natural Alternatives,” we discussed the clear and present danger...