Connect with us

Alternative News

The FCC Votes To Repeal & Kill Net Neutrality: A Freedom of Speech Violation

The FCC voted today to give internet service providers ultimate control over the internet. Could this be the beginning of even greater censorship? Has this been going on for years but just not reported publicly?

Published

on

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just voted to scrap the rules and regulations pertaining to net neutrality. Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers must treat all data on the internet equally, with no discrimination or charge based on the user, website, platform, content, or method of communication.

advertisement - learn more

With net neutrality in effect, internet service providers legally cannot block, slow down, or charge money for specific websites and content posted online.

With today’s vote, the FCC has scrapped net neutrality regulations, giving internet providers the ability to legally block websites and content, among other things.

It’s funny how this issue, despite being in the public eye for a few years now, coincides with the era of fake news, which has been used by the government to push the blocking of certain content they themselves deem fake, instead of allowing people to decide for themselves. They do this with help of sites like Snopes and companies like the Disney Corporation, which apparently have become the ‘police of fake news.’

The fake news saga came after a number of articles, documents, and sensitive information was leaked and publicized via alternative news websites. This was information the mainstream media doesn’t often touch. It was exposing things like the existence of a global elite, political fraud, corruption in health, finance, and more.

It seems any information and evidence that counters the mainstream narrative these days is deemed as “fake news.” Many are speculating this is one main reason net neutrality changes are moving forward.

advertisement - learn more

The recent decision by the FCC reverses the changes made in 2015 during the Obama administration. It hasn’t taken effect yet, but will so in a couple of weeks.

As with everything else, it’s become a highly political issue, and it’s now entering into legal realms, with multiple Democrats set to file a lawsuit to stop the change.

So, what happens now? According to NPR:

In undoing the regulations, the FCC has reasserted one of the net neutrality requirements: that Internet providers — such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T — disclose to their users what exactly they do to web traffic. This will essentially shift all enforcement to the Federal Trade Commission, which polices violations rather than pre-empts them through regulations.

Broadband companies have been saying that they do not intend to block, slow down or prioritize any web traffic as a result of this repeal, arguing that it’s not in their interest to aggravate their users by messing with their Internet traffic.

Thus far, internet service providers claim they have no intent of blocking traffic, but that’s exactly what the changes allow them to do. Like with anything, internet service providers can be strong-armed and may receive political pressure from branches of government and intelligence agencies. This was made even more evident by Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks.

There is always a story behind these political decisions, especially when it seems to be a corporate battle. AT&T, Comcast Corp, and Verizon Communications INC now have the power in their hands and will determine what content consumers can access.

They now have unlimited power to how consumers access the internet, but the new rules also force them to be completely transparent and disclose any changes to the consumers. But who knows if that will even happen or if they will be held accountable for this.

According to Reuters“Internet service providers say they will not block or throttle legal content but may engage in paid prioritization. They argue that the largely unregulated internet functioned well in the two decades before the 2015 order.”

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said in a written statement that the decision gives internet providers “extraordinary new power” from the FCC.

“They have the technical ability and business incentive to discriminate and manipulate your internet traffic. . . . And now this agency gives them the legal green light to go ahead,” she wrote.

Was the Internet Ever Really Free and Equal ? 

Was the internet ever really free? To some extent sure it was. But it’s presented a massive problem for the global elite. Prior to the birth of the internet, most Westerners’ source of information came from approximately six corporations who controlled Western media. That’s it, that’s all. There were no other sources of information available to the public with regards to learning about what is happening in the world.

These corporations were exposed, as well as mainstream media. It’s now a disclosed fact that mainstream media was and is a branch of corporations and intelligence agencies. Perhaps this is why Anderson Cooper interned with the CIA?

Alternative, not corporate/government funded media started to generate more views than mainstream media. For example, a few years ago, Collective Evolution had reached over 1.5 billion site hits in only four heavy years of traffic.

We’re talking about multiple websites presenting credible sources and evidence which constantly opposed the Western mainstream media narrative on issues like health and politics.

Following the 2016 presidential election in the U.S., multiple sites were deemed as “fake news,” and web site traffic was heavily limited. We saw it ourselves here at Collective Evolution right after the election. The dramatic decrease in traffic for us and those we work with in the same field has been extreme.

My Thoughts

This is why I believe the internet is changing so much. The global elite has a long history of silencing information that threatens their interests, as well as accessing information openly and freely, especially if it threatens their “national security interests.” Because of this fact, the Freedom of Information Act was created decades ago, but even that has lost its ability to allow the public to access information.

The sad part about that is, it’s not about national security to them; that’s now become an umbrella term to conceal massive amounts of information and fraudulent activity that would expose a corrupt government, which is the same thing a free and open internet would/did do.

In an era where human consciousness is greatly shifting and changing, it’s only fitting that more restrictions be applied to the internet. People are changing, and the way they perceive our world is changing, which is in large part due to the fact that they can access new information and ideas that threaten the current human experience, and information and ideas which are never really presented on their television screens.

People started to actually think for themselves and question what they are told. Our ability and right to share information with each other is being threatened. It’s no different from the global elite cracking down on Edward Snowden or Julian Assange.

We are stepping out of the darkness and into the light, out of falsities and into truth and critical thinking. We are starting to wake up, and question the world around us and what’s really happening here. We never did that before, but thanks to a free and open internet we were able to do so.

A free and open internet makes it difficult for those who want to deceive us, and we’ve seen it time and time again.

Is this decision really to allow internet service providers to become more innovative and advanced? Or is there some sort of ulterior motive here? I am inclined to believe the latter, obviously, but what do you think? It’s not uncommon for ulterior motives to be linked with major political decisions like this one.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Japan Leads the Way: No Vaccine Mandates and No MMR Vaccine = Healthier Children

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    This article was written By Kristina Kristen, Guest Writer, for Children's Health Defense, posted here with permission.

  • Reflect On:

    How much do pharmaceutical companies really care about our health? Why is important information on vaccines never acknowledged and countered by the mainstream?

In the United States, many legislators and public health officials are busy trying to make vaccines de facto compulsory—either by removing parental/personal choice given by existing vaccine exemptions or by imposing undue quarantines and fines on those who do not comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) vaccine edicts. Officials in California are seeking to override medical opinion about fitness for vaccination, while those in New York are mandating the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine for 6-12-month-old infants for whom its safety and effectiveness “have not been established.”

The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness.

American children would be better served if these officials—before imposing questionable and draconian measures—studied child health outcomes in Japan. With a population of 127 million, Japan has the healthiest children and the very highest “healthy life expectancy” in the world—and the least vaccinated children of any developed country. The U.S., in contrast, has the developed world’s most aggressive vaccination schedule in number and timing, starting at pregnancy, at birth and in the first two years of life. Does this make U.S. children healthier? The clear answer is no. The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness. Analysis of real-world infant mortality and health results shows that U.S. vaccine policy does not add up to a win for American children.

Japan and the U.S.; Two Different Vaccine Policies

In 1994, Japan transitioned away from mandated vaccination in public health centers to voluntary vaccination in doctors’ offices, guided by “the concept that it is better that vaccinations are performed by children’s family doctors who are familiar with their health conditions.” The country created two categories of non-compulsory vaccines: “routine” vaccines that the government covers and “strongly recommends” but does not mandate, and additional “voluntary” vaccines, generally paid for out-of-pocket. Unlike in the U.S., Japan has no vaccine requirements for children entering preschool or elementary school.

Japan also banned the MMR vaccine in the same time frame, due to thousands of serious injuriesover a four-year period—producing an injury rate of one in 900 children that was “over 2,000 times higher than the expected rate.” It initially offered separate measles and rubella vaccines following its abandonment of the MMR vaccine; Japan now recommends a combined measles-rubella (MR) vaccine for routine use but still shuns the MMR. The mumps vaccine is in the “voluntary” category.

Here are key differences between the Japanese and U.S. vaccine programs:

advertisement - learn more
  • Japan has no vaccine mandates, instead recommending vaccines that (as discussed above) are either “routine” (covered by insurance) or “voluntary” (self-pay).
  • Japan does not vaccinate newborns with the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, unless the mother is hepatitis B positive.
  • Japan does not vaccinate pregnant mothers with the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine.
  • Japan does not give flu shots to pregnant mothers or to six-month-old infants.
  • Japan does not give the MMR vaccine, instead recommending an MR vaccine.
  • Japan does not require the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.

In contrast, the U.S. vaccine schedule (see Table 1) prescribes routine vaccination during pregnancy, calls for the first HepB vaccine dose within 24 hours of birth—even though 99.9% of pregnant women, upon testing, are hepatitis B negative, and follows up with 20 to 22 vaccine doses in the first year alone. No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.

The HepB vaccine injects a newborn with a 250-microgram load of aluminum, a neurotoxic and immune-toxic adjuvant used to provoke an immune response. There are no studies to back up the safety of exposing infants to such high levels of the injected metal. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) upper limit for aluminum in intravenous (IV) fluids for newborns is far lower at five micrograms per kilogram per day (mcg/kg/day)—and even at these levels, researchers have documented the potential for impaired neurologic development. For an average newborn weighing 7.5 pounds, the HepB vaccine has over 15 times more aluminum than the FDA’s upper limit for IV solutions.

Unlike Japan, the U.S. administers flu and Tdap vaccines to pregnant women (during any trimester) and babies receive flu shots at six months of age, continuing every single year thereafter. Manufacturers have never tested the safety of flu shots administered during pregnancy, and the FDA has never formally licensed any vaccines “specifically for use during pregnancy to protect the infant.”

Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms.

U.S. vaccine proponents claim the U.S. vaccine schedule is similar to schedules in other developed countries, but this claim is inaccurate upon scrutiny. Most other countries do not recommend vaccination during pregnancy, and very few vaccinate on the first day of life. This is important because the number, type and timing of exposure to vaccines can greatly influence their adverse impact on developing fetuses and newborns, who are particularly vulnerable to toxic exposures and early immune activation. Studies show that activation of pregnant women’s immune systems can cause developmental problems in their offspring. Why are pregnant women in the U.S. advised to protect their developing fetuses by avoiding alcohol and mercury-containing tuna fish, but actively prompted to receive immune-activating Tdap and flu vaccines, which still contain mercury (in multi-dose vials) and other untested substances?

Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms. U.S. regulators have ignored these and similar reports and not only continue to aggressively promote and even mandate the formerly optional HPV vaccine beginning in preadolescence but are now pushing it in adulthood. The Merck-manufactured HPV vaccine received fast-tracked approval from the FDA despite half of all clinical trial subjects reporting serious medical conditions within seven months.

Best and Worst: Two Different Infant Mortality Results

The CDC views infant mortality as one of the most important indicators of a society’s overall health. The agency should take note of Japan’s rate, which, at 2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, is the second lowest in the world, second only to the Principality of Monaco. In comparison, almost three times as many American infants die (5.8 per 1,000 live births), despite massive per capita spending on health care for children (see Table 2). U.S. infant mortality ranks behind 55 other countries and is worse than the rate in Latvia, Slovakia or Cuba.

If vaccines save lives, why are American children dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a 57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood?

To reiterate, the U.S. has the most aggressive vaccine schedule of developed countries (administering the most vaccines the earliest). If vaccines save lives, why are American children “dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger” compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a “57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood”? Japanese children, who receive the fewest vaccines—with no government mandates for vaccination—grow up to enjoy “long and vigorous” lives. International infant mortality and health statistics and their correlation to vaccination protocols show results that government and health officials are ignoring at our children’s great peril.

Among the 20 countries with the world’s best infant mortality outcomes, only three countries (Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore) automatically administer the HepB vaccine to all newborns—governed by the rationale that hepatitis B infection is highly endemic in these countries. Most of the other 17 top-ranking countries—including Japan—give the HepB vaccine at birth only if the mother is hepatitis B positive (Table 1). The U.S., with its disgraceful #56 infant mortality ranking, gives the HepB vaccine to all four million babies born annually despite a low incidence of hepatitis B.

Is the U.S. Sacrificing Children’s Health for Profits? 

Merck, the MMR vaccine’s manufacturer, is in court over MMR-related fraud. Whistleblowers allege the pharmaceutical giant rigged its efficacy data for the vaccine’s mumps component to ensure its continued market monopoly. The whistleblower evidence has given rise to two separate court cases. In addition, a CDC whistleblower has alleged the MMR vaccine increases autism risks in some children. Others have reported that the potential risk of permanent injuryfrom the MMR vaccine dwarfs the risks of getting measles.

Why do the FDA and CDC continue to endorse the problematic MMR vaccine despite Merck’s implication in fraud over the vaccine’s safety and efficacy? Why do U.S. legislators and government officials not demand a better alternative, as Japan did over two decades ago? Why are U.S. cities and states forcing Merck’s MMR vaccine on American children? Is the U.S. government protecting children, or Merck? Why are U.S. officials ignoring Japan’s exemplary model, which proves that the most measured vaccination program in the industrialized world and “first-class sanitation and levels of nutrition” can produce optimal child health outcomes that are leading the world?

A central tenet of a free and democratic society is the freedom to make informed decisions about medical interventions that carry serious potential risks. This includes the right to be apprised of benefits and risks—and the ability to say no. The Nuremberg Code of ethics established the necessity of informed consent without “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” Forcing the MMR vaccine, or any other vaccine, on those who are uninformed or who do not consent represents nothing less than medical tyranny.


Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

British Physicist & Royal Navy Weapons Expert Speaks On 5G Wireless Radiation Health Hazards

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Barrie Trower is a former Royal Navy weapons specialist and physicist who as years of experience with microwave weapons. In the interview here he goes in deep as to why it's a big problem, and she's one of many to do so.

  • Reflect On:

    Why have our federal health regulatory agencies approved the rollout of these technologies without any safety testing?

5g is making a lot of noise around the world, but when it comes to this topic within the mainstream, there is absolutely no mention at all of the detrimental health hazards this technology poses to us, and the health hazards wireless radiation in general poses to us. It’s most likely that it’s never brought up because, for one, many people are simply unaware of it, and two, there is an abundance of research clearly showing that there are no safe levels for this type of technology and all it does is wreak havoc on our biology.

Not long ago, Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, outlined a lot of the science that makes these health hazards clear. In that report he also stated that 5G is the “stupidest idea in the history of the world.”  “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.”

There are more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications regarding the health concerns of wireless technology, and 5G is another level. If you’re looking for more information, I often point people toward the Environmental Health Trust because it’s a great resource that gives you access to more science.

A Belgian government minister announced that Brussels is halting its 5G plans due to health effects.

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. In an interview last Friday with L’Echo, she said:

“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.”

advertisement - learn more

– Céline Fremault, Minister of the Government (Brussels-Captial Region), responsible for Housing, Quality of Life, Environment and Energy

You can read more about that here.

Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician & professor gave her testimony regarding the dangers of electromagnetic radiation. She said: “Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period.” You can watch that entire testimony here.

U.S., Russian, and Chinese defense agencies have been active in developing weapons that rely on the capabilities of this electromagnetic technology to create burning sensations on the skin for crowd control. The waves are Millimetre waves, also used by the U.S. Army in crowd dispersal guns called Active Denial Systems. The same technology and frequencies behind 5G are the same ones used for these types of weapons.

Barrie Trower, a British physicist who carried out research for the Royal Navy and military intelligence into the effects of microwave radiation, is another individual who’s been speaking up against this type of technology for years. You can read about him and find more sources within this document.

There is a reason why this type of technology is banned in multiple countries around the world. The French National Library and many other libraries in Paris along with several universities have completely removed all Wi-Fi networks. It’s also been banned in many municipal buildings and elementary schools.

Below is an interesting discussion with Mr. Trower if you’re interested.

What Can You Do To Protect Yourself?

This information can spark a fearful reaction, and that’s normal. It could elicit the same fearful reaction you may have to other humanitarian issues including the massive amounts of pesticides being sprayed in our environment and on our food, the rising deforestation rates, and several other aspects of the human experience that need to be changed. As important as it is to not react with fear and panic, it’s even more important not to completely ignore these things and think everything will magically be okay.

Earth has become engulfed with this mess as a result of our ignorance, as a result of us ignoring important scientific findings such as these. If we continue along this path, disease rates will continue to rise. Awareness is key, and simply being informed about this issue is a huge step in the right direction.

So, what can you do? You could purchase some EMF protective clothing and bedding, or you could even paint your home with EMF protective paint. You can unplug your computer when not in use, turn off your cell phone, and unplug all your electronic devices before you go to sleep. You could have a wired internet connection, which is actually much faster than any wireless connection. You can live a healthy lifestyle, and you can use mind-body healing techniques to help you.

I write a lot about parapsychology, and it’s quite clear that our minds can have a significant impact on our biology. I know it sounds a little ‘new agey,’ but the truth is, if you don’t believe you are being harmed, odds are that the impact on your biology will be significantly different than someone who is fearful and stressed out about health concerns. Consciousness is huge, and it is one of the biggest factors in regards to preventative measures.

You can learn more about this balance through our CE Protocol.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

FBI Sued for Failure to Report Known 9/11 Evidence to Congress

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 victim family members have announced a joint federal lawsuit against U.S. Department of Justice for not acknowledging evidence about what happened on 9/11.

  • Reflect On:

    Why has the US government continuously ignored credible evidence? Why do they constantly deem it a 'conspiracy theory' and use character assassination and ridicule tactics instead of just countering the evidence?

Nearly 20 years after 9/11, the tragic event has served as a catalyst for the mass awakening of millions of people to facts about our government, or ‘the powers that be,’ that they previously were unaware of. Furthermore, every year after that event has brought even more awareness and new information to the forefront, serving as a mass awakening tool. It has helped so many people understand that not everything presented to us by our government is accurate. When it comes to 9/11, many believe it was an event created by the powers that be in order to justify the invasion of Iraq by the western military alliance, otherwise known as ‘false flag’ terrorism. This narrative has been supported by many academics trying to bring awareness to the truth of the event as well as multiple political figures from around the world, including those within the United States.

The evidence that something fishy happened on 9/11 is very strong, and this is why the majority of American citizens alone don’t believe the official explanation provided by their government, which is evident if you look at the latest polls. Over the past few years, this subject has been under investigation by thousands of architects, engineers and physicists. Researchers have even been publishing papers in peer reviewed academic journals emphasizing that what we really saw, apart from planes hitting the towers, was a simultaneous controlled demolition.  For example, a paper titled “15 Years Later, On The Physics Of High-Rise Building Collapses” in the European Scientific Journal concluded:

The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.

This is just one of many examples suggesting it was a controlled demolition, but the key takeaway there is the “far-reaching implications.” Full disclosure on what happened that day, if a controlled demolition was involved, would be very impactful. Just think about what that means… Furthermore, it’s quite clear that the majority of people around the world have already accepted this conclusion. What does that say about our government and the entire western military alliance? What does that show us about what these people are capable of? What else have they done? What else are they going to do? What is the extent of their deception and for what purpose?

In more recent news, The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 victim family members Robert McIlvaine and Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli announced a joint federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI. The lawsuit is for their failure to perform a congressionally mandated assessment of any evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission related to any factors that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Initiatives like this are important, because as mentioned earlier, there is more than enough evidence showing that something fishy happened, and that a controlled demolition was involved. Donald Trump has even made some comments on 9/11, suggesting that bombs were involved in taking down the World Trade towers.

advertisement - learn more

This current lawsuit is being brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 702, 706, and the federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. 1361.

The complaint cites the failure of the FBI and its 9/11 Review Commission to assess key 9/11-related evidence that the FBI can be shown to have had, or been aware of, regarding:

  1. the use of pre-placed explosives to destroy World Trade Center Buildings, 1, 2, and 7;
  2. the arrest and investigation of the “High Fivers” observed photographing and celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11;
  3. terrorist financing related to the reported Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers;
  4. recovered plane parts, including serial numbers from all three crash locations;
  5. video from cameras mounted inside and outside the Pentagon; and
  6. cell phone communications from passengers aboard airplanes.

This is evidence relevant to the 9/11 Review Commission’s and the FBI’s compliance with the mandate from Congress, which should have been assessed by the FBI and the 9/11 Review Commission and reported to Congress. The complaint also cites the destruction by the FBI of evidence related to the “High Fivers.” Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has joined in bringing the counts that involve the evidence of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition and evidence related to the “High Fivers,” while the other plaintiffs are party to all counts. (source)

A news conference was held after the filing near the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington, D.C. Prior to this,  the non-profit Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Manhattan, requesting that he present to a grand jury the extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center high rises on 9/11. The petition cited conclusive evidence, providing proof of explosives and incendiaries employed at ground zero to bring down the twin towers as well as the WTC building #7.

Every time I write an article on this subject, I love sharing the following quote by Edward Bernays, the founding father of public relations:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. (source) 

Mark Twain is another great figure who shared this point of view, stating that:

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. (source)

These quotes sum up what I believe 9/11 was all about. George Orwell once said that “in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Since he offered those words decades ago, we have seen deceit become a pervasive and global problem, where the general public really has no clue what is happening around the world. The truth is, we live in a world of secrecy, and many prominent figures throughout history have been trying to tell us this for years. Even President Theodore Roosevelt warned us of the secret government, revealing that “behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”  (source)

Are these the perpetrators behind 9/11? Has there really been 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?

Something to think about.

The Takeaway

How long has this type of ‘false flag terrorism’ been going on? Today, it seems that every time a ‘deceptive’ event is pulled off, it simply serves as a tool to wake up even more people. Transparency is here, and more than enough information is available for those who are curious and willing to actually take a look. As time goes on, the collective population is learning to think for themselves instead of simply believing what is told and presented to us. Despite the fact that speaking out against such things can bring character assassination and ridicule and is often casted off as fake news, it’s important to follow our hearts and really look into things that no longer resonate with us. The truth is available, and it will continue to come to light as we move through 2019 and beyond.

 

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod