Connect with us

Alternative News

Humanity Has Become One Massive Genetic Experiment: What Everyone Should Know About GMOs

Published

on

Are you concerned about Genetically Modified Foods? Here’s (GMOs Revealed) a great documentary that addresses many of the questions and concerns most people have today. 

advertisement - learn more

In March 2014, scientists from Indiana University announced that they had conducted research to examine the operations of the fruit fly genome “in greater detail than ever before possible” and had identified “thousands of new genes, transcripts and proteins.” Their results indicated that the fly’s genome is “far more complex than previously suspected and suggests that the same will be true of the genomes of other higher organisms.” Of the approximately 1,500 new genes that were discovered, 536 of them were found within areas that were previously assumed to be gene-free zones. Furthermore, when the flies were subjected to stresses, small changes in expression level at thousands of genes occurred, and four newly modelled genes were expressed altogether differently.

Why is this important? Because it reveals how little we know about this planet and the organisms dwelling on it, yet also how much we think we know. This kind of hubris is found within all areas of human knowledge, but particularly when it comes to science.

Another great example that I’ve used before is when the populace first realized that the Earth wasn’t flat. Another is a statement made by physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in 1900 that “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This assertion was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity.

When it comes to our genes, and the genes of other organisms, we really do know next to nothing. Unfortunately, proponents of the biotech industry (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, etc.) claim otherwise, and have developed multiple, flawed assumptions that undergird agricultural bioengineering.

The information presented in this article comes from a variety of different sources, but my primary sourceis Steven Druker, a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug (FDA) to release its files on genetically engineered foods, and recently published a book about it, which has received dozens of rave reviews from the world’s most accredited scientists in the field. I draw primarily from his book for this article.

advertisement - learn more

“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don’t entail abnormal risk.” 

– David Schubert, PhD, molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

Natural Genetic Modification Versus Human Induced Genetic Modification

Biotech proponents have an unshakable faith in their GE crops, and these corporations also hold major sway over mainstream media outlets, and close relationships with government agencies like the FDA. Indeed, several high level industry employees have also held positions at these institutions. One example is the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, who is also Monsanto’s former Vice President for Public Policy. While at the FDA, he was instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

Druker outlines in his book how the commercialization of genetically engineered foods was enabled by the fraudulent behaviour of these government agencies, and how this actually violates explicit mandates for federal food safety law. The evidence shows that the “FDA’s falsehoods have been abundantly supplemented with falsehoods disseminated by eminent scientists and scientific institutions, and the entire GE food venture.”

This is why it’s so amazing to see so many scientists within the field supporting the dissemination of truth, and bringing the falsehoods to light. So if you still think this type of thing is a conspiracy theory, we now have the documents as well as the science, which stands on its own, to show that something is terribly wrong here.

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

There are several presumptions on which the bioengineering venture was based, and one of them is that natural breeding is more random and unruly than bioengineering. The standard argument holds that genetic modification has been occurring for thousands of years, and what we do now is simply that process sped up and made better.

Key Presumptions on Which the Bioengineering Venture Was Based

Genetic engineering is based on the presumption that the genome is just a linear system, where the action of a single gene will not impact the action of other genes, or disrupt their normal function.

In 2007, the New York Times published an article outlining how “the presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.” 

Basically, genes are viewed as autonomous, adding to the whole without acting holistically because they don’t express their proteins in a closely coordinated matter. Another assumption used to justify genetic engineering is that genes aren’t organized in a specific way, that the sequence in which they occur is meaningless From this point of view, a gene would function normally if it were relocated to a different chromosome or came from a neighbouring gene. Quite a big assumption, don’t you think? Giorgio Bernardi, a biologist at the University of Rome III who specialized in the study of genome evolution, calls this perspective a “bean-bag view of the genome” because it regards the genes as “randomly distributed.”

Druker explains:

Together, these two assumptions supported the belief that a chunk of recombinant DNA could be put into a plan’s genome without inducing disturbance — because if the behavior of the native genes was largely uncoordinated and their arrangement was irrelevant, there would be no important patterns that could be perturbed by such insertions. Accordingly, they engendered confidence in the precision of genetic engineering, because they implied that the outcome of a gene insertion would be exactly what the bioengineers expected.

How could biotech proponents push the idea that the target organism would continue to function just as it had before, and that the change would be limited to the new trait endowed by the inserted gene? How can it simply be assumed that this would not alter any of the organism’s other qualities?

These presumptions still underly genetic engineering today. The example of the fly above serves well here. In the New York Times article cited earlier, the author noted that “genes appear to operate in a complex network,” and states that “evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.”

Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, who testified at New Zealand’s Royal Commission in 2001, notes that agricultural bioengineering “was based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each other.” He also presented evidence showing that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of families.”

Despite the grave possibility that these presumptions are indeed wrong, they still form the backbone of genetic engineering today.

Antoniou himself was even selected to represent multiple nongovernmental organizations to present precaution reasons to the UK’s GM Review Panel, and a plethora of studies that clearly justify it. Despite his presentation, and many others’, the 11 other scientists on the panel, who were biotech proponents, dismissed these studies and continued to argue that it makes absolutely no difference how genes are arranged.

How can a scientist make such a statement?

What do we have as a result? As Druker says:

Such disregard, denial, or avoidance in regard to the evidence was essential for maintaining faith in the venture, because its predictability and safety have always relied on the genome being largely disjointed; and the more the genome instead appears to function as a tightly coordinated system, the more potentially disruptive and unpredictable are the interventions of the bioengineers.

Geneticist, activist, and environmentalist David Suzuki weighed in on this very subject a few years ago in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC):

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. . . . Essentially, the FDA has said that genetically modified organisms, or food, are basically not much different from regular food, and so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this: Geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, in what we call a vertical fashion . . . [but] what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it, what we call horizontally, into a totally unrelated species. Now, David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot plant and exchange genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other, without regard for the biological constraints. . . . It’s very very bad science. We assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.

More Differences

This is a common argument made by GE-food proponents, and commonly used whenever an expert brings up a challenge to the technology’s safety. For example, David Schubert, PhD, a molecular biologist and the Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, commented in Nature Biotechnology that there was mounting evidence that the insertion of even one gene into a cell’s DNA alters the expression patters of genes throughout the entire cell. He said facts like this one, among many others, “cast doubt on the soundness of agricultural bioengineering — and entail the conclusion that it ‘is not a safe option.’ “

Predictably, when a professor and a laboratory director of one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions makes a comment like this, there’s going to be a response. This time it came in the form of a letter, published by 18 biologists at respected universities and institutions, stating that Dr. Schubert failed to properly consider “the genetic realities.” The main reality he allegedly failed to recognize is that the natural method of plant breeding is inherently more random than bioengineering.

A portion of the letter reads as following:

We do not take issue with Schubert’s basic contention that unintended genetic and metabolic events can take place. The reality is that ‘unintentional consequences’ are much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific engineering goal.

In his book, Steven Druker offers the following counterargument: “This letter thus reveals how strongly the GE food venture relies on the presumption that the natural process driving biological development are intrinsically more disorderly and risk-bearing than the genetic interventions instigated by the human mind. And it confirms that this belief forms the ideological bedrock on which the venture rests.”

In fact, a report published in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences couldn’t uphold “even the more modest notion that bioengineering and natural breeding pose the same risks.” The panel that produced the report ranked various modes of plant breeding in terms of their disposition to produce unintended effects. They were forced to acknowledge that bioengineering produces far greater effects than pollen-based sexual reproduction. Despite this fact, they still insisted that this does not mean a difference in risks.

Druker says in response:

Thus, there’s no rational way to reconcile the fact that natural breeding is less disruptive and more predictable than bioengineering with the claim that it poses equal or greater risk, which is why the admission in the 2004 report is a rarity — and why biotech proponents almost always ignore or deny that fact and instead assert that natural breeding is more disorderly and unpredictable.

Randomness

According to the biotech industry, natural plant breeding could actually result in crops that are dangerous to human consumption, which is why we should be grateful for genetic engineering. For example, in the same NAS report mentioned above, they portrayed what are known as “jumping genes” as more randomly mobile and threatening, but failed to recognize, as Druker points out, that although these entities do not pose risks within natural pollen based breeding, when bioengineering is employed they do because that process alone “tends to stir them up and get them jumping.”

When it comes to sexual reproduction, it’s yet another area where biotech proponents state that it’s a random phenomenon, despite the fact that we now know that it’s not random, and that there are multiple factors that can and do influence the genetics of life.   Genetic engineering, be it human induced or naturally occurring, requires a genetic “rearragnement,”  a recombination of DNA. The difference between the artificial way and the natural way is that the natural way does not disrupt the entire organism, as was discussed a little earlier in the article and touched upon in the Suzuki quote above.

As Druker explains:

This natural form of recombination occurs during the formation of gametes (the sperm and egg cells). It includes a step called crossover in which two partner chromosomes break at corresponding points and then exchange complementary sections of DNA; and every time a gamete is produced, every set of paired chromosomes engages in it. In this way, all the chromosomes end up with genes from both parents instead of from only one. However, all the genes are preserved, as is the sequences in which they’re positioned. The only changes are in the relationships between aleles. . . . So this natural recombination augments diversity while maintaining stability. And without it, except for the occasional favorable mutation, the composition of chromosomes would stay the same from generation to generation, and genetic diversity would grow at far too sluggish a pace.

He goes on to mention how natural recombination preserves the order of the genes, and is predictable in the way it cuts DNA. The entire process displays a great deal of order.

Despite this fact, scientists who support GE state, as in, for example, the 2004 NAS report, that “genetic engineering methods are considered by some to be more precise than conventional breeding methods because only known and precisely characterized genes are transferred.” They use the idea that the randomness and unpredictability of natural engineering make bioengineering safer.

Yet, as Druker so brilliantly captures:

This misleading tactic fixates on the predictability of the plant’s specific agronomic traits; and it portrays traditional breeding as less predictable than bioengineering because undesired attributes are often transferred along with the one that is desired. However, those who employ this ploy don’t acknowledge that if both parents are safe to eat, the unwanted traits hardly ever pose risk to human health. Rather, they’re undesirable for reasons irrelevant to risk (such as aesthetic appearance or seed size), and breeders must then perform back-crossing to eliminate them while retaining the trait they want. However,  although the inclusion of unwanted traits entails more work, it does not increase attendant risks. Therefore, while breeders can’t fully predict what traits will appear, they can confidently predict that the resulting plant will be safe to eat.

This is why the GE stance on natural modification is so flawed and misleading.

Druker goes on:

Although it describes the sexual reproduction of food-yielding plants as a messy and risky affair that involves the transfer of “thousands of unknown genes with unknown function,” we actually know quite a lot about those genes. And what we know is far more important than what we don’t know. We know that they’re all where they’re supposed to be, and that they’re arranged in an orderly fashion. And we know that during the essential process in which some of them are traded between partnered chromosomes in order to promote the diversity that strengthens the species, their orderly arrangement is marvelously maintained. Most important, we know that their functions mesh to form an exquisitely efficient system that generates and sustains a plant that regularly provides us with wholesome food.

This sharply contrasts with genetic engineering.

As you can see, comparing natural modification to biotech modification is not an easy process, and this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Research shows that it’s not natural modification that’s more random and risky, but biotech genetic modification:

The inserted cassettes are haphazardly wedged into the cell’s DNA, they create unpredictable disruptions at the site of insertion, the overall process induces hundreds of mutations throughout the DNA molecule, the activity of the inserted cassettes can create multiple imbalances, and the resultant plant cannot be deemed safe without undergoing a battery of rigorous tests that has yet to be applied to any engineered crop.

RELATED CE ARTICLES: 

Below are a few of many articles we’ve published on GMOs, if you’re interested in reading more please browse through our website.

Reviewed Science Loosing Credibility As Large Amounts of Research Shown To Be False

Wikileaks Cables Reveal The US Government Planned To Retaliate Cause & Cause Pain On Countries Refusing GMOs

Federal Lawsuit Forces The US Government To Divulge Secret Files On Genetically Engineered Foods

New Study Links GMOs To Cancre, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

Why Bill Nye Is Not A Science Guy: What He Gets Wrong About GMOs

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

Canadian Food Guide Shifts From Meat & Dairy To A Whole Foods Plant-Based Recommendation

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Canada has announced the implementation of a new food guide, one that promotes a whole foods, plant-based diet with the elimination of dairy and processed meats as well as a reduction in the consumption of meat.

  • Reflect On:

    With all of the science and documented examples showing that the human body is more adapted to a whole foods plant based diet, why is it so hard for people to believe? Who has been influencing our thoughts about our diet for all of these years?

The world is quickly changing, and it’s changing for the better. It’s incredible to see just how much the consciousness of the planet has shifted in so many different areas, including the food industry. At the same time, the more the world continues to wake up, the harsher the reaction from the opposition. It’s hard to challenge false beliefs systems that humanity has held onto for so long.

The most recent example of this shift in consciousness comes from Canada, one of multiple countries now encouraging a whole foods, plant-based diet. Why? It’s lot healthier, and the science proves it. Can you believe our old food guide actually recommended processed meats and dairy? We’ll discuss that more later, but for now let’s focus on the new food guide.

This is a dramatic change for Canada. As Global News points out:

The guide is one of the federal government’s most-requested publications, with its influence felt in doctor’s offices, school cafeterias, hospitals and home kitchens across the country. And for the past four decades, the guide has looked more or less the same, telling Canadians to eat a diet of specific servings from four food groups

But the new guide unveiled on Tuesday – the first major update in more than 12 years – radically upends this formula. It no longer has separate “meat” and “dairy” categories – or four distinct food groups at all. Also gone are serving sizes and numbers. Instead, Health Canada has chosen a simpler approach: The new guide shows an image of a plate, half of it covered with fruits and vegetables. The other half is divided into whole grains and “proteins,” a new category that contains meat, dairy and plant-based foods such as chickpeas and tofu.

Our education regarding food has been extremely misleading, and that’s largely because it’s heavily funded by major food corporations. So why the switch now? It’s likely because the population has had a shift in consciousness, and the government had to make a shift in order to reflect these changes. We’ve seen the same thing with unidentified flying objects, and we will begin to see it with many other topics as well.

advertisement - learn more

It’s also a positive step, because eating meat and consuming dairy products is simply not sustainable for the planet. For example, approximately 80 percent of Amazon rainforest destruction is due to grazing animals. Most of that is to support the high demand of the meat and dairy industries. If you can believe it, we clear out an entire football field worth of forests every single second. (You can find sources in the articles linked below).

Today, close to 100 plant, animal and insect species are lost because of meat and dairy farming. Here we are with all of our focus on CO2, when animal agriculture produces more greenhouse gases than all of the transportation industries combined. Meat accounts for a shocking 51 percent of global greenhouse gases. This is a huge issue that needs to be addressed, but instead it’s been swept under the rug for years.

Not only are the meat and dairy industries destroying our planet, but consuming these products also causes multiple chronic health ailments and diseases.

Think about it: Consuming another animal’s breast milk just doesn’t seem normal. We are the only animal on the planet who drinks the milk of another animal. We are the only animal on the planet who drinks milk after weaning and continue to do so well into adulthood. Big Food has used calcium as a marketing scam to justify consuming cows milk, but if you look at the science, drinking milk from a cow has led to weaker bones and higher risk of osteoporosis. In fact, animal protein creates a condition within the body called metabolic acidosis, which sucks out calcium from the bones. You cannot, in fact, absorb calcium without equal parts magnesium, which milk does not provide. There is a reason why most of the world is lactose intolerant because we actually had to develop and evolve the enzyme to be able to digest the milk of a cow. (Sources linked below.)

It’s become quite clear that we can’t really trust our regulatory agencies.

“The FDA ‘protects’ the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government’s police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies… People think that the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day.” – Dr.Herbert Leonard Ley Jr, 10th commissioner and head of the FDA

The Takeaway

There is still a long way to go until our global food system is healed, including the GMO/pesticide issue that also plagues our planet and our health.

It’s interesting to reflect on the government’s intentions behind shifting our food guide: Is it really rooted in health (which it wasn’t in the past), or is it still all about money? The previous food guide has made it abundantly clear that we cannot trust the government to look out for our health, and so we must do our own research. Although this is a step in the right direction, it’s still not enough.

A recent study showed that nearly 10 percent of the population of Canada now identifies as being vegetarian or vegan. According to research from Dalhousie University, there are 2.3 million vegetarians in Canada, which is up 900,000 from a survey taken 15 years ago, and another 850,000 people identify as vegan. Combined, these numbers add up to 9.4 percent of the Canadian population. This is forcing restaurants and the meat, egg, and dairy industries to consider new approaches to a dwindling market.

At the end of the day, we have to acknowledge the health and environmental benefits of a meat- and dairy-free diet and either cut these products out completely or at least reduce our consumption of them. It’s not healthy and it’s unsustainable, and that really can’t be argued anymore.

“Veganism is a very fine form of nutrition. It’s a little extreme to tell a person who is using flesh foods that you’re going to take everything entirely away from them. When I was in practice in medicine, I would tell the patients that the vegetable based diet was the healthy way to go, and to keep away from the animal products as much as possible. People are very sensitive about what they eat. You can talk to people about exercising,  relaxation, good mental attitude and they will accept that. But you talk to them about what they are eating and people are very sensitive about that. If an individual is willing to listen, I will try to explain to them on a scientific basis of how I think it’s better for them.” – Dr. Ellsworth Wareham, heart surgeon. (source)

The Science of Not Eating Meat & Dairy if you’re looking for Proof & “Scholarly” Articles

9 Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Meat 

Internal Medicine Physician Shares What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Eating Meat

Plant-Based Protein VS. Protein From Meat: Which One Is Better For Your Body? 

Doctor Explains How Humans Have A “Strict” Vegan Physiology & Anatomy

Disturbing Aerial Photos Show What Killing Billions of Animals For Meat Is Doing To The Environment

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

France To Make ‘Unsanctioned’ Protesting Illegal In Light Of Yellow Vests Movement

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The French government recently announced plans to make "unauthorized" protests illegal. This is coming as a result of the Yellow Vests movement.

  • Reflect On:

    What is an "unauthorized" protest? Does this mean protests can only be legal in France if it's 'authorized' by the government?'

The Yellow Vests hit the streets and began raising awareness about the latest economic austerity measures in France that have impacted everything from gas prices to taxes for the middle class. The distaste for how things are being governed in France has been building for many years and has simply boiled over into this movement.

Similar to most mass protests we’ve seen over the past few years, mainstream media constantly focuses on the violence that’s often brought forth only by a few people, which steers attention away from the actual issues they’re protesting against. In fact, I would not be surprised if people were hired to purposefully cause destruction to deflect away from the actual issue, which would give the authorities the right to intervene and impose more security measures. A similar situation happened here in Toronto for the G20 summit a few years ago.

One of the most significant facts about the Yellow Vests movement is that law enforcement and even the military started to realize that what was happening was wrong, siding with the people rather than the elite. They started identifying more with civilians than the superiors giving them orders to do things they no longer believed in. This means that the global elite is in a very precarious position, and this is why we say ‘change starts within.’ It starts at an individual level.

As with any demonstration, when something like this happens and gains significant attention, the focus shifts away from the concerns of the citizenry and toward the ‘violent protest’ narrative.

Now, it’s being reported that French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe has announced plans to punish people who hold ‘unsanctioned’ protests “after seven weeks of anti-government unrest.” This is according to the BBC, which focuses on the ‘anti-government’ initiatives instead of bringing up the actual concerns of local citizens. Why doesn’t mainstream media talk with the actual protestors? Why is there little effort being made to understand their perspective? Why is only one perspective constantly shared by the mainstream media, allowing the underlying issues to go completely ignored? And why have protestors been lumped into one category as ‘violent’?

The BBC goes on,

advertisement - learn more

His government wants to draft new legislation that will ban troublemakers from protests and clamp down on the wearing of masks at demonstrations. He said 80,000 members of the security forces would be deployed for the next expected wave of protests. Protesters smashed down the gates to a government office this weekend. In other chaotic scenes in Paris, demonstrators fought riot police and cars and motorbikes were burnt.

Again, the violence narrative was shared, which provides a convenient excuse to implement these types of extreme measures.

Don’t believe it? Look at all the mainstream headlines. As usual, they are all about violence and how order will be restored (order out of chaos, ordo ab chao, the timeless strategy of the elite). Meanwhile, the actual reason that so many ordinary citizens would go to the trouble of protesting is buried somewhere in the article and given little importance. The New York Times’ ‘Macron Inspects Damage After ‘Yellow Vest’ Protests as France Weighs State of Emergency’ is a perfect example.

We have to ask ourselves: Would a grassroots movement of concerned law-abiding citizens (which most citizens are) motivate these ordinary citizens to set someone’s car on fire? How could destroying another citizen’s car actually help the movement? Looting and breaking store windows? Why would law-abiding citizens take their frustrations out on innocent retail vendors? Would ordinary citizens contrive to harm civilians with bombs and gas attacks? – Richard Enos

The announcement to crack down on ‘unauthorized’  demonstrations came into fruition when Philippe appeared on French TV channel TF1, who said the government would support a “new law punishing those who do not respect the requirement to declare (protests), those who take part in unauthorized demonstrations and those who arrive at demonstrations wearing face masks.”

“Those who question our institution will not have the last word,” – Mr Philippe said

Obviously, this narrative is strongly backed by most politicians. Laurent Wauquiez, leader of the Republican party, tweeted that the move was not enough. Senator Bruno Retailleau supported the Prime Minister’s plans, stating that “hooded” troublemakers who participated in protests “must be severely punished.”

Meanwhile left-wing leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon said the planned measures would mean that “demonstrators can no longer demonstrate.” In a Twitter post, he described Mr. Philippe as the “king of the Shadoks”, a reference to bird-like cartoon characters featured in a popular French TV series who are known for their ruthlessness.

What’s Really Going On?

In a recent video interview from the ground in Paris, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange spoke to a well-informed anonymous citizen discussing the fact that mainstream media is doing everything it can to minimize the size and seriousness of the Yellow Vests movement. This citizen seems to capture the real mood and motivation of the Yellow Vests movement, discussing its origins and the reason it has continued to grow.

We’ve been covering this movement since it began, and it’s quite clear that it’s much larger than what mainstream media is making it out to be. In reality, this movement is comprised of hundreds of thousands of protestors, if not millions. The BBC is reporting that there were approximately 280,000 who turned out in November, with cities like Rouen and Caen comprised of approximately 50,00. But again, the narrative here focuses on rioting and violence.  It almost reminds me of false staged attacks, such as the chemical gas attacks in Syria, to justify certain security measures.

In this case, it would mean no more protests unless they’re ‘authorized,’ whatever that means.

Mainstream media has also been caught doctoring photos of the protest, as seen below. You can read more about that here.

The Takeaway

Something very special is happening on the planet right now. More people are waking up and starting to realize that, as a collective, we no longer resonate with different aspects of this human experience. We want change, and many of us are willing to take action. The role of conscious media has never been more integral, allowing more people all over the world to get involved thanks to a clearer understanding of what is going on.

Solving the issues we face within ourselves, our systems and our structures all comes down to elevating our consciousness to a place where we no longer reside within a vibration that’s filled with hate and disconnection.

Enough with the polarity, the fighting, the comparisons. Let’s begin unifying together to bring forth a more peaceful state of being, putting an end to the deep state once and for all. Without our participation, they have no power. And I believe we are seeing glimpses of this in France.

Related CE Articles On The Yellow Vests Movements

Why The Yellow Vests Movement Could Erupt Into A Modern Day French Revolution

Yellow Vests Update: CNN Says They Are Creating Chaos, But Are They? 

The Deep State Has A Big Problem In France, Here’s Why 

French News Channel Caught Doctoring & Changing Sign of Yellow Vest Protester 

 

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

What The ‘MAGA Hat Kid’ Story Really Teaches Us

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The mainstream media spread a story about a kid and his friends surrounding a native elder even though the story was taken out of context and was false. However, there is MUCH we can learn from this story.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we truly gaining from getting caught up in race-baiting and racial divide? Is the mainstream media purposefully misinforming people? Is it time to take a step back and look at life from a more nuanced position?

The story associated with the image featured above went viral a couple of days ago. There are many reasons for this, but likely not what you might think. And that is the discussion I wish to have in this article.

A very short video clip and image, both entirely out of context, were released to the internet showing a picture media has been painting for a very long time. We apparently saw a racist group of kids taunting and intimidating a native elder. In its limited length, it was tough to look at as what it was saying certainly wasn’t good. However, that wasn’t the truth.

When I first saw this image I decided to do research as my initial thought was that it was entirely out of context. I know this because the mainstream media and many famous influencers on Instagram have been making false stories viral for years now about subjects that incite divide and misplaced racism.

This happens at the media level because journalists have been aggressively following the political social engineering of our modern times and are very often concerned with being FIRST to the press about a story – even if that means having the story wrong. Influencers fall into the trap of wanting likes and to be first to get a story out as in many cases they are after growth and feeling righteous through their platform. Of course, this isn’t everyone, but it is certainly seen in our culture.

As I researched this story more I began to see a completely different truth. Thanks to citizen journalists who began digging for the truth and eventually found multiple FULL videos of the event in question, we saw what really happened. Instead of covering those fine details as I’d rather get into some deeper messages here, for those that don’t know what actually happened, please check out this video then come back and read. We have been lied to, and there is a very clear reason for it.

Social Engineering

I have been pointing out for over 2 years now, that slowly but surely fake news media and unconscious IG influencers are building racism and divide into people in a big way via one-sided or false stories. We’re seeing the fruit of years of that unconsciousness in today’s day and age.

advertisement - learn more

We have a very important rule here at Collective Evolution when it comes to reporting: when something hugely viral happens, wait a couple of days, the truth will begin to emerge. Report on it then.

This is because at CE we are concerned with truth. Not virality and drama. We are interested in how we can consciously and empathetically understand a story from a deeper level vs just making a ton of rash assumptions without thinking or seeing the full story. This is precisely what most people did when it comes to the story with the kid in the MAGA hat; we collectively made rash assumptions with no interest in seeking truth. Because we have been socially engineered to do so.

Here’s What We Learned

1. The media has no interest in telling you the truth.

They knowingly lied to the public, virally, without taking the time to perform some proper journalism. How is it that a publication (Us) with very limited resources knows to hold off and wait for more information on a story when the rich and powerful mainstream media runs with it, effectively lying and dividing the public? You can figure that one out yourself I’m sure.

2. We as a society can spread fake news FAST.

When we don’t take responsibility for our lives and our actions, which is the ONLY way to create a better world, we rely on the government and media to tell us what to do. Thus, we don’t research what they say enough, so we spread fake news as they are the main perpetrators of it.

3. We are not a nuanced culture that is concerned with empathetically understanding a situation.

Even if the story were true, and those kids approached and surrounded the elders, how does it makes sense to destroy the lives of those 15 and 16-year-old kids via public shaming? Why do we not ask these questions? Why do we not try to understand what really happened from both sides?

4. We have been socially engineered to hate and divide one another by race. The Elite’s divide and conquer plan is working.

The best way to win a war is to divide the enemy. Further, the best way to control a society and convince them they need to be governed by parents is to keep them lost and divided, so they cannot unite. this is precisely what is happening to us, and we’re playing into it.

5. We as a whole are not emotionally intelligent.

We talk about this constantly hear on CE. We MUST develop emotional intelligence if we want to get to the truth. When events like this occur and people move into outrage, they are not only showing a lack of emotional intelligence but they are blinding themselves from the truth. The elite thrives off of an emotionally engaged and emotionally uncontrolled population, it’s why they excite so much emotion at all times. Through emotionally intelligence comes empathy.

6. Many cultures and races are hateful and racist.

I personally don’t think racism is anywhere near as big a problem as many are making it out to be, again, divide and conquer. However, growing up in the multicultural city of Toronto and seeing what I see online today from all cultures, every culture has a small percentage of racism within it, not just white people as the narrative seems to want to promote. The question is, are we unknowingly growing that percentage?

7. Our outside world is giving us a chance to see if we like where extremism, race pride, race baiting and unconsciousness is taking us. Does it feel good? Is it helping?

As I pointed out in the red highlighted #7. These events serve as an opportunity for us to wake up. Wake up to the fact that we are purposefully being misled. We are being engineered to divide and hate each other by race via political agendas because when we are divided we can be controlled. We are also being deeply misled into forms of race pride that I believe are VERY destructive to the fabric of our society & world.

So I ask, do we want to play this game? Do we want to hate? Be on edge? Does it feel good? Is life getting better? It’s a time to step back and choose what game you want to play. Live from the heart? Or the mind?

Remember, this is less about seeking right and wrong, and more about asking the bigger question… are we headed down a helpful path here? Truly observe what our unconsciousness and fundamentalism in identities is creating. All you have to reflect on within yourself is if it feels good to you and if you wish to choose the continuation of this game. If we all make our choice, it either stops or continues. Don’t worry about others’ choice… Feel your own.

The Takeaway

This event reflects our current state of consciousness as a collective. Within it, we have so much opportunity to learn. See the emotions that come up, truly understand what you are feeling then let them go. From that state, have a look at this story again, the full story, what do you see now?

If we truly wish to solve the challenges at hand, we must become more emotionally intelligent, grounded, present and less identified with our physical world. take a step back, expand your consciousness, and have the courage to view our world from a neutral lens to understand truth.

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

CETV

 

The all-new CETV brings together the leading voices in the truth and consciousness realm to a single platform for the first time ever. 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.