The First Amendment of the United States Constitution declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
With that being said, exactly what is happening to this right for the freedom of speech? It seems everywhere we turn someone or something is being censored, particularly when it is something that questions what the mainstream would like us to believe. Is this fair?
-->Watch now: Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting and hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! Click here to register now!
“The problem of fake news isn’t solved by hoping for a referee, but rather because we as citizens, we as users of these services, help each other. We talk and we share and we point out what is fake. We point out what is true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship, the answer to bad speech is more speech. We have to exercise and spread the idea that critical thinking matters, now more than ever, given the fact that lies seem to be getting more popular.”
Ever since Donald Trump’s election, it seems as though major companies such as Facebook, YouTube and Google have begun tightening up their grip on what sort of content they allow. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that Mr. Trump ended up winning the election, despite the mainstream media’s ongoing efforts to vilify, mock, and tear him down. Is the mainstream media really losing its power? It’s possible, and this would make a really good case for the censorship we are seeing today.
Now, this really has nothing to do with Trump, but this does provide a good example for the message I’m trying to get across. It does, however, have to do with the fact that somehow this apparent horrible monster of a guy ended up winning because people were seeing enough alternative information, none of which was supplied by the mainstream about how the alternate candidate wasn’t as squeaky clean as everyone thought, or as the mainstream made her out to be. So, despite the mainstreams attempts, the wrong person won, which might mean that this power is diminishing, slowly, but surely. Hence the need for censorship, but is this right? The people who did not want Trump to win might think it is, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion, aren’t they?
Some recent examples of this include a viral video merely questioning the integrity of the mainstream news reports of the Florida School Shooting that made it to the top of YouTube’s Trending, within a matter of 3 hours of being uploaded. It was then taken down, and YouTube issued a formal apology for having allowed that to happen. Regardless of the content in the video, my question is, are we not allowed to have an alternative perspective or point of view from the mainstream or question it’s integrity? Shouldn’t the people be allowed to decide for themselves? If the video is so false, and so out there, wouldn’t it speak for itself? Wouldn’t the people be able to tell and dismiss it on their own?
Popular alternative news website, Infowars, had their YouTube account terminated for posting a video that merely questioned the recent Florida shooting. This is the exact definition of censorship.
Google has now eliminated the popular natural health website, NaturalNews.com from its search results. Maybe this site does have some stuff that is a little far out, doubtful or even not always factual, but again can’t we, as the readers, decide this for ourselves? Let the content speak for itself. On one hand we have to give the people more credit, but on the other hand, we are bombarded with so much information these days that many people only read headlines and then make up their minds as to whether or not they want to believe it.
So, unfortunately most people are too lazy, or maybe too busy, or maybe just distracted with too much information to actually look into the information presented, use their own discernment, check the sources, and decide whether or not the story holds any merit or not. Before making an opinion about anything, shouldn’t we all be doing that?
Personally, I can’t count the number of times I have seen my friends, fellow truth tellers and activists go to Facebook jail for posting something that does not meet the standards for Facebook criteria. Yes, this is again often information that is questioning the mainstreams perspective on large events that are taking place around the world. This is the definition of censorship, and quite frankly this is not okay. You know, as I’m typing this I realize that this alone should make us question why “they” are trying so hard to cover this information up in the first place, I realize that in my perspective it actually makes it more credible.
Collective Evolution had their Reddit account permanently deleted after using our network to up vote a comment to get it featured an AMA (Ask Me Anything) in order to ask a question to NASA about disclosing some information regarding alien life, here’s what we asked,
“Collective Evolution Media asks: When is NASA going to reveal what is known about ET life? Former defence minister of Canada Hon. Paul Hellyer has said there are at least 4 known ET species communicating with humans. He is certainly not the only high ranking whistleblower on this topic. When is NASA going to address this? Thanks!”
An innocent question, that got us banned? Why? Maybe just don’t answer it, but why ban us? You can read more about that here.
Be Aware Of Your Own Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviours to reduce the discomfort and restore balance, etc.
For example, when people smoke (behaviour) and they know that smoking causes cancer (cognition).
Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance). This is known as the principle of cognitive consistency.
What Can We Do?
This is somewhat of a difficult question to answer because these social media platforms have become such integral aspects of many of our lives. Of course a protest, or a boycott would definitely raise some attention, imagine even 1 million people not signing on to Facebook for 1 week? It may come to the point where something like this needs to happen, in order to show that this is important to us. Unfortunately, this platform has become a place for ridicule, judgment, and anger and many people are afraid to really speak their truth out of fear of opposition.
It is important to “Speak the truth even if your voice shakes.” The more people offering an alternative perspective, the more likely those who are conditioned by the mainstream will at least have a look at it, but it’s important to not share anything unless you yourself have looked into it and can legitimize it in some way, otherwise you are just perpetuating the popular “fake news” label.
DO YOUR RESEARCH. Not everything that goes against the mainstream is true, and there is a lot of B.S. information out there and actual fake news sites that exist.
Use an alternative search engine. By now, it has become obvious that Google filters their search results, if you want an unbiased list of results from the whole internet consider using any of these instead, DuckDuckGO.com, Qwant.com, StartPage.com or a few more that can be found here.
Always question what the mainstream media is telling you. I don’t care how “conspiracy crackpot” that sounds. There is almost always more to the story than what you are being told, and often there are many holes in the story that are being presented. Pay attention to this, and until you’ve looked into it, don’t judge others who are offering an alternative perspective, chances are they have looked into it. It’s important to keep our emotions aside, and consider the facts. Don’t get engaged in an argument with someone on social media who is merely offering a different perspective until you have looked into and considered the alternative.
Don’t forget, if something is being censored, there is a reason for it. Think about this one, think long and hard, would there be so much vested interest in hiding something just so you won’t be exposed to it? Really? Or is the other reason more believable?
In this age of information, it is up to us to do our research, consider the facts and not take anything at face value.
Our Biology Responds To Events Before They Even Happen
- The Facts:
Multiple experiments have shown strong evidence for precognition in several different ways. One of them comes in the form of activity within the heart and the brain responding to events before they even happen.
- Reflect On:
Do we have extra human capacities we are unaware of? Perhaps we can learn them, develop them, and use them for good. Perhaps when the human race is ready, we will start learning more.
Is precognition real? There are many examples suggesting that yes, it is. The remote viewing program conducted by the CIA in conjunction with Stanford University was a good example of that. After its declassification in 1995, or at least partial declassification, the Department of Defense and those involved revealed an exceptionally high success rate:
To summarize, over the years, the back-and-forth criticism of protocols, refinement of methods, and successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the (remote viewing) phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise… The development of this capability at SRI has evolved to the point where visiting CIA personnel with no previous exposure to such concepts have performed well under controlled laboratory conditions. (source)
The kicker? Part of remote viewing involves peering into future events as well as events that happened in the past.
It’s not only within the Department of Defense that we find this stuff, but a lot of science is emerging on this subject as well.
For example, a study (meta analysis) published in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience titled “Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity” examined a number of experiments regarding this phenomenon that were conducted by several different laboratories. These experiments indicate that the human body can actually detect randomly delivered stimuli that occur 1-10 seconds in advance. In other words, the human body seems to know of an event and reacts to the event before it has occurred. What occurs in the human body before these events are physiological changes that are measured regarding the cardiopulmonary, the skin, and the nervous system.
A few years ago, the chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Dr. Dean Radin, visited the scientists over at HearthMath Institute and shared the results of one of his studies. Radin is also one of multiple scientists who authored the paper above. These studies, as mentioned above, tracked the autonomic nervous system, physiological changes, etc.
Scientists at HeartMath Institute (HMI) added more protocols, which included measuring participants’ brain waves (EEG), their hearts’ electrical activity (ECG), and their heart rate variability (HRV).
As HMI explains:
Twenty-six adults experienced in using HeartMath techniques and who could sustain a heart-coherent state completed two rounds of study protocols approximately two weeks apart. Half of the participants completed the protocols after they intentionally achieved a heart-coherent state for 10 minutes. The other half completed the same procedures without first achieving heart coherence. Then they reversed the process for the second round of monitoring, with the first group not becoming heart-coherent before completing the protocols and the second group becoming heart-coherent before. The point was to test whether heart coherence affected the results of the experiment.
Participants were told the study’s purpose was to test stress reactions and were unaware of its actual purpose. (This practice meets institutional-review-board standards.) Each participant sat at a computer and was instructed to click a mouse when ready to begin.
The screen stayed blank for six seconds. The participant’s physiological data was recorded by a special software program, and then, one by one, a series of 45 pictures was displayed on the screen. Each picture, displayed for 3 seconds, evoked either a strong emotional reaction or a calm state. After each picture, the screen went blank for 10 seconds. Participants repeated this process for all 45 pictures, 30 of which were known to evoke a calm response and 15 a strong emotional response.
The results of the experiment were fascinating to say the least. The participants’ brains and hearts responded to information about the emotional quality of the pictures before the computer flashed them (random selection). This means that the heart and brain were both responding to future events. The results indicated that the responses happened, on average, 4.8 seconds before the computer selected the pictures.
How mind-altering is that?
Even more profound, perhaps, was data showing the heart received information before the brain. “It is first registered from the heart,” Rollin McCraty Ph.D. explained, “then up to the brain (emotional and pre-frontal cortex), where we can logically relate what we are intuiting, then finally down to the gut (or where something stirs).”
Another significant study (meta-analysis) that was published in Journal of Parapsychology by Charles Honorton and Diane C. Ferrari in 1989 examined a number of studies that were published between 1935 and 1987. The studies involved individuals’ attempts to predict “the identity of target stimuli selected randomly over intervals ranging from several hundred million seconds to one year following the individuals responses.” These authors investigated over 300 studies conducted by over 60 authors, using approximately 2 million individual trials by more than 50,000 people. (source)
It concluded that their analysis of precognition experiments “confirms the existence of a small but highly significant precognition effect. The effect appears to be repeatable; significant outcomes are reported by 40 investigators using a variety of methodological paradigms and subject populations. The precognition effect is not merely an unexplained departure from a theoretical chance baseline, but rather is an effect that covaries with factors known to influence more familiar aspects of human performance.” (source)
“There seems to be a deep concern that the whole field will be tarnished by studying a phenomenon that is tainted by its association with superstition, spiritualism and magic. Protecting against this possibility sometimes seems more important than encouraging scientific exploration or protecting academic freedom. But this may be changing.”
– Cassandra Vieten, PhD and President/CEO at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (source)
We are living in a day and age where new information and evidence are constantly emerging, challenging what we once thought was real or what we think we know about ourselves as human beings. It’s best to keep an open mind. Perhaps there are aspects of ourselves and our consciousness that have yet to be discovered. Perhaps if we learn and grow from these studies, they can help us better ourselves and others.
The 5G Health Summit Starts Tomorrow (June 1st) – Reserve Your Free Spot Here
- The Facts:
A global online summit featuring doctors, scientists & activists addressing the health concerns of 5G technology and what people can do about it is set to take place the first week of June and it's free to sign up.
- Reflect On:
Why are safety concerns that've been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals called a "conspiracy theory?" Why is this idea ridiculed? Why don't our federal health regulatory agencies simply to some health safety testing before rolling it out?
Some of the world’s leading scientists, doctors and activists are gathering for a free online summit that begins on Monday June 1st and will run for approximately one week. The summit will dive into the health concerns of 5G technology, and why it’s a concern and what people can do about it. The summit is completely free to sign up and watch, and you can do so here.
We’ve also put together an E-book titled “Is 5G Safe? An Easy to Understand Guide” summarizing the published peer-reviewed research that is raising concerns about electromagnetic radiation that’s emitted from our favourite wireless devices, cell phones and more, as well as novel 5G technology. It’s a great resource that you can share with family or friends who desire to look at the proof, research, evidence and concerns that thousands of doctors and scientists have been and are creating awareness about all over the globe. We wrote it in language designed to be simple and factual.
Once you sign up for the summit, you get access to the free E-book.
It’s quite strange that any researched journalist could dismiss the health concerns of 5G technology, as well as 4G and 3G, when there are nearly 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies that raise cause for concern. A study published in 2019 in Frontiers in Public Health is one of many that raises concerns about 5G technology, explaining how there is no safety testing, and that in vivo and in vitro studies regarding this type of technology and it’s predecessors have shown that it’s harmful to human health, even at levels below current “safety” limits.
At the end of the day, whether you believe this type of technology is safe or you don’t, would it not be in the best interests of everybody to have the technology go through some type of required safety testing? Shouldn’t any technology that has any sort of biological effect be put through safety testing? Why has there not been any safety testing?
In December 2018, US. Senator Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) sent a letter to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr seeking answers regarding potential health risks posed by new 5G wireless technology. At a hearing, that took place last year, Blumenthal criticized Carr for failing to provide answers, and did the same thing to other industry representatives that were in attendance for not putting the technology through safety testing. You can watch a clip of that hearing and read more about it, here.
How can our federal health regulatory agencies approve products that are clearly a cause for concern?
This is why the summit is going to be such a great resource. It will answer many questions, and again, let people know what they can do about it!
Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world’s leading experts on the subject, all FREE! Click here to register now!
Dr. Buttar Reveals Declassified Government Report Related to 5G Dangers
- The Facts:
Dr. Rashid Butter discusses a declassified report on millimetre wave technology and the effects it has on human health. These are the same waves used in 5G technology.
- Reflect On:
If we already know these waves cause harm to human health, why do we use them in airport scanners? Why are we about to roll out an entire wireless network based on these technologies?
People often say 5G hasn’t been tested, and to some extent that is true. But given 5G uses millimetre wave technology and that technology has been studied for quite some time, it has obviously been tested by those who have worked on them. So why hasn’t this information been widely released? Why are we not looking at the available data on millimetre wave technology as it relates to 5G?
Recently we came across 7 Russian studies that were summarized in a report declassified through the CIA. These studies were declassified in 2012 and marked “For Goverment Use Only.” From what you can gather very quickly in this report, the conclusions should shut down 5G rollout instantly. At least until someone can show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this technology is safe.
Let’s have a quick look at how this report was concluded:
“Thus the conducted investigations indicate high biological activity and an unfavourable influence of millimeter radiowaves on the organism. The expression of the biological reactions increased with an increase of the period of iridation and depended on individual characteristics of the organism.”
What this translates to in plain English is, millimetre-wave frequencies do affect the human body negatively, and the longer the exposure, the more damage that occurs. Since 5G uses millimetre waves and is set to push a constant barrage of frequency on humans anywhere they go, this would mean sustained wave exposure, and thus inevitable biological damage.
Incredibly, these are the same wave technologies used in airport fully body scanners that we have been raising awareness about for years. It’s important to note, you CAN opt out of going through those scanners.
Dr. Rashid Buttar has given an incredible interview where he goes page by page as to exactly what this declassified CIA research reveals. The report summarizes 7 studies on the effects of millimeter-wave radiation levels between 37-60GHz. These levels are “safe” according to government, but that is NOT what the science says.
As we have said for the last year and a half, now is a potent time to understand the dangers of 5G and work to stop its rollout. This interview is a must listen. Click here to watch Dr. Rashid Buttar’s interview.
As we can tell in our world right now, a ton of truth is coming to the surface, the environment to create change is ripe. If we can stay grounded, in our hearts and avoid descending into hate, we can TRULY make a big difference here.
Dr. Buttar Reveals Declassified Government Report Related to 5G Dangers
People often say 5G hasn’t been tested, and to some extent that is true. But given 5G uses millimetre wave...
University Mathematician Decodes The Crop Circle With A Binary Code & Extraterrestrial Face
Did you know that crop circles are actually real? How they’re made and who or what is making them is...