Connect with us

Alternative News

Do You Believe In Freedom? In Democracy? Then Stop Voting

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Our vote no longer represents our power as individual citizens to have an impact on the actions of our government, but rather forces us to participate in a false dichotomy designed to keep us distracted from accessing the true source of our problems.

  • Reflect On:

    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.--Buckminster Fuller. If you do, why do you still continue to vote?

I’m about to take on one of great sacred cows that has endured throughout the history of our modern society: the notion that our ability to vote in our political elections symbolizes our freedom, and those unwilling to vote do not deserve a voice in the democratic process.

advertisement - learn more

Indeed, there may be blood.

But if you are the type of reader that holds to the core values of open-mindedness and curiosity, then certainly you will be willing to read through this article to the end and reflect for a moment before casting a stone of harsh rebuke. And with that, let’s begin.

Not A Call For Inaction

First things first. When I exhort all those who believe in freedom to ‘stop voting’, I am not for a minute suggesting that we become apathetic or lazy about our responsibilities to impact the quality and nature of our own governance. Quite on the contrary, this is a call to action. But an action that is purposeful, in that it has the potential to eventually ensure rights and freedoms that are inherent to us as human beings.

I consider people who vote to be ‘people of action’—they believe that they have a role and a responsibility in preserving our democracy, and they are willing to take time and trouble to impact the way our country is run. My argument is that voting no longer serves as an expression of our power. It has been reduced to a tiresome exercise of taking sides in a never-ending struggle born out of a false dichotomy. This false dichotomy has been maintained both as a distraction and to provide us with the illusion of ‘choice.’

Left/Right Dichotomy

The basic mechanism being used by our governing authority has long been some form of the traditional Liberal/Conservative dichotomy. To participate in our democracy, one is prompted to self-identify as leaning towards one or the other polarity, and much of the ‘drive’ and ‘energy’ around political discourse gets reduced to bickering between two fundamental ideologies: one that would have us empower the brightest, richest and most successful among us to help them lead the entire society into prosperity; the other that would focus on empowering the less fortunate of the society so that they can experience a certain level of dignity and equality with all members of the collective.

advertisement - learn more

Admittedly, it’s tempting to choose sides. That’s why this ruse has worked for so long. What should finally be dawning on us, though, is the obvious fact that these two ideologies need to work in balance to create the optimal level of harmony, prosperity, and fulfillment within a society.

House of Horrors

And getting these two ideologies to work in balance is supposed to be what our government legislatures were designed for. Serious, intelligent people coming together to engage in open-minded and open-hearted discourse, equipped with an understanding that there are multiple perspectives on any issue, each imbued with strengths and weaknesses that are to be respected. Their shared goal is to efficiently arrive at solutions to the nation’s most pressing problems in a way that is most beneficial to the common good. And this is exactly what the people in the US House of Representatives and the House of Commons in Canada are doing.

NOT. BIG NOT.

Have you been to a live session of our legislatures lately? An absolute farce and embarrassment of posturing, sarcasm, and petty bickering layered with a nauseating veneer of decorum. It has become a theatre of the absurd, a reality show to legitimize the enslavement of the majority of the citizens within a society.

It also provides a convenient distraction that prevents many of us from engaging in the real battle going on behind the scenes: the struggle between those who want to liberate humanity and those who would enslave them.

No Real Choice

These days, our choice of candidates seeking election is a choice between near and far left-leaning people who will maintain a system of enslavement for their masters, and near and far right-leaning people who will maintain a system of enslavement for their masters.

It’s no wonder that we are dealing with candidates that seem to have little character, that seem to be involved in some scandal or another, and that don’t really stand for anything that we believe in. Most of them have already sold themselves out to elite power just to get into the position they are in, and if not, they are soon co-opted into the fold to play out their mandates as puppets for the real controllers of society.

In our elections coming up here in Ontario, the choice of available candidates is bleak and uninspiring. None of the 3 main party leaders have the trust of more than 30% of residents of Ontario. Things are so bad that a mainstream news article was written entitled, “Ontarians who don’t like their options can decline to vote — here’s how,” wherein the following is explained:

It’s a form of protest that Ontario residents have the right to, according to Section 53 of the Ontario Election Act, which reads: “An elector who has received a ballot and returns it to the deputy returning officer declining to vote, forfeits the right to vote and the deputy returning officer shall immediately write the word ‘declined’ upon the back of the ballot and preserve it to be returned to the returning officer and shall cause an entry to be made in the poll record that the elector declined to vote.

Essentially, this puts on public record the number of people who went to the trouble of lining up at the polling station in order to voice their dissatisfaction with all of the candidates available. A record 29,442 people exercised this option in the 2014 Ontario elections. It’s a pretty good indication of how disgruntled and frustrated we are.

The Perils Of Working From Within

Some might think that this ‘protest vote’ is what I am advocating here. But it is not. To go through the trouble of registering such a protest is, in my mind, a waste of an hour that could have been spent doing something useful, like planting a tree. The problem with this ‘protest vote’ is that it is designed to quell our frustration and thus stop us from taking more purposeful action. Not only that, but by turning the candidates into scapegoats, the system continues to present itself as the arbiter of our grievances rather than the true and actual source from which our grievances originate.

I would say the same thing about the official doctrine of democratic  participation—writing a letter to your minister of parliament, congressperson or senator—as though they have any power at all to sway the massive ship of state, or even care about your concerns to any degree beyond ensuring their own re-election.

Sure, there are a few renegades within the political systems of our societies that are actively fighting with fiery and perhaps even sincere rhetoric to highlight threats to our freedom and other examples of governmental overreach—Nigel Farage in England comes to mind—but there is no getting around the fact that they still work within the system and their livelihood rests in keeping the system intact. They still must wait their turn, politely limit their speeches to the time allotted, and usually appear to be talking to a half-empty room of representatives, most of whom are busy chatting on their computers or about to fall asleep.

Unless and until these renegades are able to get themselves out of the system and continue to have a platform from which to air their grievances, their words and actions will continue to legitimize the very institution they are criticizing.

Waking Up

Freedom–and real democracy for that matter–are in some ways very foreign to us. We were born into this system. So it’s natural that we don’t expect much more than has been presented to us–although it’s becoming obvious that even the little we once had has started to be taken away. What are some of the things we could expect if we created a real democracy, and had true freedom? The end of secrecy and suppression of those inventions and technologies that could truly help us thrive. The implementation of policy on the part of our governing councils that completely made sense to us, and was generally consistent with our wishes and desires. The elimination of all involuntary tax, and a standard of living for ALL citizens of a nation that would rival that currently enjoyed by the upper class.

But in order to get there, we need to become clear about how our government and our ‘democracy’ have essentially been a tool of manipulation and self-interest at the hands of our world’s powerful corporate and financial elite.

And so, I will reiterate that if we truly want freedom the first step is to the wake up to the fact that voting is an endorsement of this current system that helps it maintain power. Making a conscious effort to disengage as ‘voter’ and completely ignore the unending mainstream polarization that characterizes political coverage is necessary. It will free us up to take a serene, clear-minded look at how we want to live as a collective and talk about alternative possibilities to the way we govern ourselves.

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. –Buckminster Fuller

It’s not so difficult for many of us to see that our archaic political system has indeed become obsolete. The ‘how’ and ‘what’ of building a new model is difficult and subtle, and I will be writing about this in a companion article that is coming soon. Suffice it to say, though, that I believe the first step is for all of us to ‘exit stage left’ from the tiresome political drama we have been subjected to, so that we can refocus our time, energy, intelligence and creativity into building a system that works for us all.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out—Getting Paid to Play

Published

on

[Note: This is Part IX in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]

The vaccine industry and its government and scientific partners routinely block meaningful science and fabricate misleading studies about vaccines. They could not do so, however, without having enticed medical journals into a mutually beneficial bargain. Pharmaceutical companies supply journals with needed income, and in return, journals play a key role in suppressing studies that raise critical questions about vaccine risks—which would endanger profits.

Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.

An exclusive and dependent relationship

Advertising is one of the most obviously beneficial ways that medical journals’ “exclusive and dependent relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry plays out. According to a 2006 analysis in PLOS Medicinedrugs and medical devices are the only products for which medical journals accept advertisements. Studies show that journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.” The pharmaceutical industry puts a particularly “high value on advertising its products in print journals” because journals reach doctors—the “gatekeeper between drug companies and patients.” Almost nine in ten drug advertising dollars are directed at physicians.

In the U.S. in 2012, drug companies spent $24 billion marketing to physicians, with only $3 billion spent on direct-to-consumer advertising. By 2015, however, consumer-targeted advertising had jumped to $5.2 billion, a 60% increase that has reaped bountiful rewards. In 2015, Pfizer’s Prevnar-13 vaccine was the nation’s eighth most heavily advertised drug; after the launch of the intensive advertising campaign, Prevnar “awareness” increased by over 1,500% in eight months, and “44% of targeted consumers were talking to their physicians about getting vaccinated specifically with Prevnar.” Slick ad campaigns have also helped boost uptake of “unpopular” vaccines like Gardasil.

Advertising is such an established part of journals’ modus operandi that high-end journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) boldly invite medical marketers to “make NEJM the cornerstone of their advertising programs,” promising “no greater assurance that your ad will be seen, read, and acted upon.” In addition, medical journals benefit from pharmaceutical companies’ bulk purchases of thousands of journal reprints and industry’s sponsorship of journal subscriptions and journal supplements.

advertisement - learn more

In 2003, an editor at The BMJ wrote about the numerous ways in which drug company advertising can bias medical journals (and the practice of medicine)—all of which still hold true today. For example:

  • Advertising monies enable prestigious journals to get thousands of copies into doctors’ hands for free, which “almost certainly” goes on to affect prescribing.
  • Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.
  • Journals will guarantee favorable editorial mentions of a product in order to earn a company’s advertising dollars.
  • Journals can earn substantial fees for publishing supplements even when they are written by “paid industry hacks”—and the more favorable the supplement content is to the company that is funding it, the bigger the profit for the journal.

Discussing clinical trials, the BMJ editor added: “Major trials are very good for journals in that doctors around the world want to see them and so are more likely to subscribe to journals that publish them. Such trials also create lots of publicity, and journals like publicity. Finally, companies purchase large numbers of reprints of these trials…and the profit margin to the publisher is huge. These reprints are then used to market the drugs to doctors, and the journal’s name on the reprint is a vital part of that sell.”

… however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry.

Industry-funded bias

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), nearly three-fourths of all funding for clinical trials in the U.S.—presumably including vaccine trials—came from corporate sponsors as of the early 2000s. The pharmaceutical industry’s funding of studies (and investigators) is a factor that helps determine which studies get published, and where. As a Johns Hopkins University researcher has acknowledged, funding can lead to bias—and while the potential exists for governmental or departmental funding to produce bias, “the worst source of bias is industry-funded.”

In 2009, researchers published a systematic review of several hundred influenza vaccine trials. Noting “growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence underpinning [influenza vaccine] policy recommendations,” the authors showed that the vaccine-favorable studies were “of significantly lower methodological quality”; however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry. The authors commented:

[Studies] sponsored by industry had greater visibility as they were more likely to be published by high impact factor journals and were likely to be given higher prominence by the international scientific and lay media, despite their apparent equivalent methodological quality and size compared with studies with other funders.

In their discussion, the authors also described how the industry’s vast resources enable lavish and strategic dissemination of favorable results. For example, companies often distribute “expensively bound” abstracts and reprints (translated into various languages) to “decision makers, their advisors, and local researchers,” while also systematically plugging their studies at symposia and conferences.

The World Health Organization’s standards describe reporting of clinical trial results as a “scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility.” However, it appears that as many as half of all clinical trial results go unreported—particularly when their results are negative. A European official involved in drug assessment has described the problem as “widespread,” citing as an example GSK’s suppression of results from four clinical trials for an anti-anxiety drug when those results showed a possible increased risk of suicide in children and adolescents. Experts warn that “unreported studies leave an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the risks and benefits of treatments.”

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science.

Debased and biased results

The “significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions” can play out in many different ways, notably through methodological bias and debasement of study designs and analytic strategies. Bias may be present in the form of inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up periods, inappropriate placebos or comparisons, use of improper surrogate endpoints, unsuitable statistical analyses or “misleading presentation of data.”

Occasionally, high-level journal insiders blow the whistle on the corruption of published science. In a widely circulated quote, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of NEJM, acknowledged that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” Dr. Angell added that she “[took] no pleasure in this conclusion, which [she] reached slowly and reluctantly” over two decades at the prestigious journal.

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science. In formulaic articles that medical journals are only too happy to publish, the conclusion is almost always the same, no matter the vaccine: “We did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.” As an example of the use of inappropriate statistical techniques to exaggerate vaccine benefits, an influenza vaccine study reported a “69% efficacy rate” even though the vaccine failed “nearly all who [took] it.” As explained by Dr. David Brownstein, the study’s authors used a technique called relative risk analysis to derive their 69% statistic because it can make “a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is.” However, the absolute risk difference between the vaccine and the placebo group was 2.27%, meaning that the vaccine “was nearly 98% ineffective in preventing the flu.”

… the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had ignored important evidence of bias.

Trusted evidence?

In 2018, the Cochrane Collaboration—which bills its systematic reviews as the international gold standard for high-quality, “trusted” evidence—furnished conclusions about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that clearly signaled industry bias. In May of that year, Cochrane’s highly favorable review improbably declared the vaccine to have no increased risk of serious adverse effects and judged deaths observed in HPV studies “not to be related to the vaccine.” Cochrane claims to be free of conflicts of interest, but its roster of funders includes national governmental bodies and international organizations pushing for HPV vaccine mandates as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—both of which are staunch funders and supporters of HPV vaccination. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s president is a former top CDC official who served as acting CDC director during the H1N1 “false pandemic” in 2009 that ensured millions in windfall profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Two months after publication of Cochrane’s HPV review, researchers affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre (one of Cochrane’s member centers) published an exhaustive critique, declaring that the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had “ignored important evidence of bias.” The critics itemized numerous methodological and ethical missteps on the part of the Cochrane reviewers, including failure to count nearly half of the eligible HPV vaccine trials, incomplete assessment of serious and systemic adverse events and failure to note that many of the reviewed studies were industry-funded. They also upbraided the Cochrane reviewers for not paying attention to key design flaws in the original clinical trials, including the failure to use true placebos and the use of surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer.

In response to the criticisms, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library initially stated that a team of editors would investigate the claims “as a matter of urgency.” Instead, however, Cochrane’s Governing Board quickly expelled one of the critique’s authors, Danish physician-researcher Peter Gøtzsche, who helped found Cochrane and was the head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Gøtzsche has been a vocal critic of Cochrane’s “increasingly commercial business model,” which he suggests is resulting in “stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests.” Adding insult to injury, Gøtzsche’s direct employer, the Rigshospitalet hospital in Denmark, then fired Gøtzsche. In response, Dr. Gøtzsche stated, “Firing me sends the unfortunate signal that if your research results are inconvenient and cause public turmoil, or threaten the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings, …you will be sacked.” In March 2019, Gøtzsche launched an independent Institute for Scientific Freedom.

In 2019, the editor-in-chief and research editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine—the journal that published the critique of Cochrane’s biased review—jointly defended the critique as having “provoke[d] healthy debate and pose[d] important questions,” affirming the value of publishing articles that “hold organisations to account.” They added that “Academic freedom means communicating ideas, facts and criticism without being censored, targeted or reprimanded” and urged publishers not to “shrink from offering criticisms that may be considered inconvenient.”

In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists.

The censorship tsunami

Another favored tactic is to keep vaccine-critical studies out of medical journals altogether, either by refusing to publish them (even if peer reviewers recommend their publication) or by concocting excuses to pull articles after publication. In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists. To cite just three examples:

  • The journal Vaccine withdrew a study that questioned the safety of the aluminum adjuvantused in Gardasil.
  • The journal Science and Engineering Ethics retracted an article that made a case for greater transparency regarding the link between mercury and autism.
  • Pharmacological Research withdrew a published veterinary article that implicated aluminum-containing vaccines in a mystery illness decimating sheep, citing “concerns” from an anonymous reader.

Elsevier, which publishes two of these journals, has a track record of setting up fake journals to market Merck’s drugs, and Springer, which publishes the third journal as well as influential publications like Nature and Scientific American, has been only too willing to accommodate censorship requests. However, even these forms of censorship may soon seem quaint in comparison to the censorship of vaccine-critical information now being implemented across social media and other platforms. This concerted campaign to prevent dissemination of vaccine content that does not toe the party line will make it harder than ever for American families to do their due diligence with regard to vaccine risks and benefits.


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.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Jeffrey Epstein’s Case Raises Questions About Royal Family Pedophilia & Elite Ritualistic Abuse of Children

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The recent case against Jeffrey Epstein, who is being charged with child sex trafficking, has opened up the idea that 'higher powers' like the Royal Family might be involved in this type of thing, along with other political "VIPs."

  • Reflect On:

    Is this really a surprise? If we look at our world and our 'leaders,' our actions are truly a reflection of their psychopathic behaviour. The involvement of high ranking people in ritual sex abuse, if you think about it, shouldn't be a surprise.

Child sex abuse among the global elite is extremely rampant. This no doubt makes those who aren’t really aware of it wonder: Why is this not more well-known? Well, the answer to that is simple, it’s the same reason why so many other ‘happenings’ on planet Earth go virtually unknown, and that’s because we have been relying on a small group of very powerful and wealthy people and the corporations they run for information about what is happening on our planet. We are constantly being spoon-fed lies by mainstream media. There are a number of examples to choose from, and multiple award-winning mainstream media journalists have been blowing the whistle with regards to what really goes on behind the scenes for years. All information that comes from mainstream media is given to them in the form of instructions from big corporations, government, and intelligence agencies. This is evident by documents that’ve been released via the Freedom of Information Act as well.

Furthermore, media outlets providing access to alternative information using credible sources that go against the narrative and interests of these big corporations and the government have been completely censored and demonetized.

Information like what’s discussed in this article has been made out to be a ‘conspiracy theory’ by the mainstream, but it’s now becoming so obvious that the mainstream has no choice but to start reporting on it.

The latest example is the case of Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire who has close connections to the Clintons and people like Prince Andrew of the Royal Family. He is a registered sex offender, and apart from that, a number of his victims have come forward over the years claiming that he abused them, many of whom are under age. One example is Virginia Roberts Giuffre, pictured here with Prince Andrew. She claims that she was loaned out by Epstein to people like Prince Andrew as a young teenager.

The latest news regarding Epstein was that he was arrested and taken into federal custody for the sex trafficking of children. Specifically, it deals with the sex trafficking of minors in both New York and Florida between 2002 and 2005. He is expected to appear in court tomorrow. The arrest was made by the FBI-NYPD Crimes Against Children Task Force, and it comes almost 12 years after Epstein didn’t receive any penalty except a slap on the wrist for supposedly molesting and raping children in Florida.

Here is the information coming from a Miami Herald article titled ‘With Jeffrey Epstein locked up, these are nervous times for his friends, enablers’

advertisement - learn more

Jeffrey Epstein, 66, was arrested at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey shortly before 4 p.m. Saturday, July 6th as he arrived on his private jet from Paris.

It should be noted that the Department of Justice has said that it is not rescinding the plea deal Jeffrey Epstein got in his previous conviction even though it has been determined to have been illegal.

Although details of the case remain undisclosedthere are indications that others involved in his crimes could be charged or named as cooperating witnesses.

The fact that others involved in his crimes could be charged is quite significant, since it indicates that law enforcement and the judiciary are not shying away from proving a CONSPIRACY in this case. This is quite different from his earlier conviction in Florida in 2008, which was ‘soliciting an underage girl for prostitution.’

According to the Daily Beast:

Several of the billionaire’s employees and associates allegedly recruited the girls for Epstein’s abuse, and some victims eventually became recruiters themselves, according to law enforcement. The girls were as young as 14, and Epstein knew they were underage, according to details of the arrest and indictment shared by two officials.

Why are these people always connected to and have close relationships with the global elite? What’s even more eye-opening is that this is not the only example that’s leaked into the mainstream. It’s become impossible for the world to ignore as of late. For exmaple,  Smallville actress Allison Mack was ‘outed’ for being a member of a sex cult and working in a management capacity. Apparently, Mack’s job was to lure women into the program under the false pretence of female empowerment and self-help workshops. They were then convinced to sign up for a more “advanced program” called Dominus Obsequious Sororium, which required these women to basically turn their lives over to the leader, Keith Raniere. Dominus Obsequious Sororium is a quasi-Latin phrase that roughly translates to “Master Over The Slave Women.”

You can read more about that here.

Raniere owns a company called NXIVM, which supposedly offers executive success programs, but clearly, that’s not the case. Raniere was also arrested, along with Mack, in March 2018 in Mexico on charges of sex trafficking. He stands accused of raping girls as young as 12 years old, imprisoning a woman for 18 months, child pornography, and more. He has been kept in federal custody in New York, but has now been found guilty on all charges.

This group also has strange connections to the powerful elite, as Billionaire Clare Bronfman was indicted on racketeering charges. These charges were connected to her role as “Operations Director” for NXIVM. Clare Bronfman is the daughter of Charles Bronfman, a Canadian/American businessman and philanthropist. The Bronfman family has been referred to as the “The Rothschilds of the New World” by author Peter C. Newman, a well-known Canadian journalist and writer. The Bronfman family has also been in business with the Rothschild family for quite some time. One of many examples is their wealth management company, Bronfman Rothschild, which began in 1997 as Virchow Krause Wealth Management.

Bronfman’s brother, Stephen, was one of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s biggest funders. Trudeau was also very close to Peter Danglish, a high-ranking UN sex-offender mentioned below. I mention this because I came across more strange ties to the Trudeau family, like the Pierre Elliott Trudeau foundation symbol, as you can see, is the same symbol used by pedophiles to identify sexual preference.

Just like with the Epstein case, the Clinton’s are mentioned with regards to NXIVM as well.

The Rolling Stone reported:

“There are strange political connections as well. Mark Vicente, a documentary filmmaker and former high-ranking member of the group, testified at the trial of NXIVM head Keith Raniere that Clare Bronfman, the billionaire Seagram’s heiress and alleged benefactor of the organization, approached him and a few other members of the group to help her make a contribution to a Clinton campaign.” (source)

Pretty weird stuff, isn’t it?

Let’s not forget about Sir Jimmy Savile, a BBC children’s television presenter feted by the Royal Family and Downing Street, abused 450 victims, mostly boys and girls as young as eight over 50 years. While Savile had long been seen as odd, the scale of his offenses shocked the country. He was even allowed special access to hospitals, and the authorities laughed at or ignored his victims before he died a national hero. He was very close with the Royal Family.

This kind of thing has been floating around out there for decades. For example, a member of the Royal family was claimed to be part of a suspected pedophile ring under investigation by the police in the late 1980s, a former police officer has said. The former Metropolitan Police officer said he was told by a detective sergeant that the investigation into the ring, which was also claimed to include an MP, was shut down for national security reasons. “I was in a car with two other vice squad officers … The detective sergeant said he had just had a major child abuse investigation shut down by the CPS regarding a royal and an MP,” he told the Sunday Mirror newspaper. “He did not mention names, but he said the CPS had said it was not in the public’s interest because it ‘could destabilise national security’.”

We even have whistleblowers when it comes to this issue, like Steve Pieczenik, a former United States Department of State official and a Harvard trained psychiatrist with a doctorate in international relations from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He’s been openly talking about this type of thing in elitist circles. You can view an example of him talking about the Clintons here.  Here’s another one of him implicating Bush Sr.

Peter McKelvie, a former child protection chief in the UK, gained attention when he claimed that senior politicians, military figures and even people linked to the Royal Family were among the alleged abusers. While working in Hereford and Worcester, he helped to convict notorious child abuser Peter Righton, who was once one of the country’s most respected authorities on child care.  This highlights a great point, and something that I’ve come across multiple times in my research. Many people who work for national child care protection programs are directly involved in this type of thing. McKelvie  is one of many who told the world that these types of powerful VIP pedophile rings have been running in secrecy for multiple years. (source)

The same types of scandals take place here on our side of the pond as well.

Congress is now looking at a bipartisan bill to stop employees from sharing child porn on Department of Defense computers. Yes, it’s a real problem, which begs the questions: Where are these kids coming from? Who is making these kids ‘perform,’ who is filming them, and where are these high-ranking people getting this from?

“The notion that the Department of Defense’s network and Pentagon-issued computers may be used to view, create, or circulate such horrifying images is a shameful disgrace, and one we must fight head on.” – Abigail Spanberger (D-Virginia), spoken in a  statement as she and co-sponsor Mark Meadows (R-N. Carolina) introduced the End National Defense Network Abuse (END Network Abuse) Act in the House.

As The Hill reports, “The Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service subsequently identified hundreds of DOD-affiliated individuals as suspects involved in accessing child pornography, several of whom used government devices to use and share the images.”

You can read more about that and see some more disturbing connections between high ranking powerful people and this type of activity here.

It doesn’t stop there, and it goes all the way up into the Vatican.

What I’ve Discovered From My Research: This Is Ritualistic In Nature

It was only a few years ago when the information cited above was considered a conspiracy theory, but we here at Collective Evolution were creating awareness about it in a credible way. Based on our research, this doesn’t just involve the rape and trafficking of children. It also involves murder and ritualistic satanic abuse of children who are used for various ceremonies, sacrifices and rituals. In some cases, it even deals with cannibalism.

The term “ritual” hasn’t been mentioned in the mainstream. On November 12, 2012 the former Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, set into motion a Royal Commission to inquire into institutional responses to child abuse. Five years later, in December 2017, the Royal Commission presented its final report to the government, an absolutely damning indictment against institutions that dealt with children, including the Catholic Church. As a result, the current Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, delivered a public apology on October 22, 2018.  You can read more about that story here.

“The crimes of ritual sexual abuse happened in schools, churches, youth groups, scout troops, orphanages, foster homes, sporting clubs, group homes, charities, and in family homes as well.” Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison

Our Interview With A Survivor

Anneke Lucas is an author, speaker, advocate for child sex trafficking victims, founder of the non-profit organization Liberation Prison Yoga, and creator of the Unconditional Model.

Her work is based off her 30-year journey to restore her mental and physical wellbeing after surviving some of the worst atrocities known to humankind before the age of 12. Sold as a young child into a murderous pedophile network by her family, she was rescued after nearly six years of abuse and torture.

We recently conducted an interview with her. Below is a clip from the four part series, as it was a very long and detailed interview. You can access the full interview HERE on CETV, a platform we created to help combat internet censorship and allow us to continue to do our work and get the word out about various issues and topics.

The Takeaway

There is so much evidence showing that the global financial elite (various members of big politics, corporations, hollywood, Royal Families, and people in positions of great power, the Vatican, etc.) are engaged in psychopathic behaviour. But are you really surprised? Look at the world and its systems and all aspects that surround humanity… It’s truly a reflection of psychopathic ‘leaders.’ And it’s a reflection of us being totally oblivious to it as a result of mass brainwashing. Still, in many cases, we support and stand up for these systems, and accept no other way. We refuse to acknowledge things that any fairly intelligent person should be able to see with a bit of investigation.

If you watch the Anneke interview, you will see how there is a very positive and uplifting message that comes out of all of this, despite the disheartening subject matter. Human trafficking and child abuse represent the most untold stories of our generation, as they hurt millions of souls every year, many of them being children. The International Tribunal For Natural Justice (ITFNJ) is one of many organizations to bring awareness to child sex trafficking. You can read more about that here, especially if you are feeling hopeless about this issue.

We are slowly coming to terms with the fact that this happens at elite levels, done by some of the most ‘prominent’ and powerful people. It’s time to talk about it, and it’s time to ask more questions. Let’s keep disclosure coming.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Why I Haven’t Paid Much Attention To “Q Anon”

Published

on

We are living in some very interesting times. Amidst all of the mass brainwashing we’ve received from establishment mouthpieces (mainstream media), the birth of alternative media brought to light information that simply wasn’t being presented by the mainstream media. Prior to the mass popularity that alternative media garnered, global media was completely owned by a handful of corporations. It still remains a vital tool for this small group of powerful people to completely control the perception of millions of people across the world.

The owners of these outlets did not like how their viewers were wandering off to alternative media, so they’ve used their power to create massive amounts of censorship, but the truth can’t really be stopped. This is why we’ve seen the persecution of Wikileaks, for example, and the demonization of alternative media outlets simply because their beliefs don’t fit the accepted framework of knowledge. Alternative media outlets have been demonetized and censored, and multiple award-winning mainstream media journalists have called out mainstream media and how these networks are slaves to their masters–their masters being big corporations, governments, and intelligence agencies.

Truth doesn’t come from mainstream media, so it’s no mystery why millions have flocked to other sources of information that provide evidence instead of a news anchor simply talking, since these networks do nothing but push propaganda and put out false information.

Our world is and has been experiencing a shift in consciousness for a very long time, and a big reason the global elite started to deem certain information and credible sources as ‘fake news’ and subject them to extreme amounts of censorship was simply due to the fact that this type of information is extremely threatening to several corporate, political and elitists agendas, so much so that freedom of information and speech continues to be censored.

In the midst of all this, along came “Q Anon.” For reasons I am completely unaware of, I never took an interest in Q Anon, and still haven’t. Perhaps it was the predictions being made that didn’t come to light, although many did, or perhaps it’s the fact that it could be anyone speaking. Nevertheless, I simply don’t know why I never took an interest.

The thought crossed my mind that collective consciousness has shifted so much, and so many people have awakened to so many different things, that the only way to capture and deceive this segment of people, who represent the majority in my opinion, would be to develop a character like Q. I don’t really believe this, it was just a thought that crossed my mind.

advertisement - learn more

The thought also crossed my mind that Q could be legit, given the fact that they’ve put out information and predictions that have come to light. Q has a good track record for that and appears to be a team of people who are in or have access to the “inside.” In this sense, Q seems very legit at times.

Furthermore, Q could represent Donald Trump and another faction of the ‘Deep State.’ I believe there are governments within governments, and they are constantly fighting for power, but always remain at the top. This is evident by the fact that all presidents and politicians always followed the will of their masters, they’ve all had ties and close relationships with corporations and the elite and made policies that benefited certain corporate interests and elitist agendas.

What turns me away from Q is its religious-like following. What Q preaches is never questioned by them, and a lot of information and claims are put out there simply based on nothing. Q is not really needed, there are more than enough whistleblowers, documentation, etc. to really seek out the truth and present it in a credible way that will reach the masses.

That being said, Q has no doubt been an awakening trigger forcing and encouraging people to think for themselves, connect the dots, and do their own research.

Trump is also not questioned by many and is seen as a saviour in some cases. People are giving away their own critical thinking, they’re giving away their own brain to another entity without questioning it. Regardless of whether or not Q is legit, or represents another side of the ‘deep state’ or not, this is dangerous.

There have also been some shady claims, just as there have been some legit claims made by Q. One of them was when Q claimed the arrest of Julian Assange was to free him from his poor conditions, and that we should simply just “trust the plan.” This was far from the truth, and this is one of multiple examples that raised red flags about Q in my mind. At the same time, there are many things Q has put out that have been credible and that suggest Q is part of or has deep connections to the inside.

I don’t think that this is a larper… This is way beyond, this is someone who is, I don’t think it’s possible to say the things that Q has been saying without being a true insider. So it’s someone that is real, it’s someone that truly believes that Trump is working against the deep state for the good of the American people, that’s their perspective. The real question is how accurate are they, and I don’t really have an answer to that. – Richard Dolan (source)

When it comes to Trump, it’s quite clear and easy to see, in my opinion, that he represented a disturbance to some very powerful elite that use people like Hillary Clinton to represent them. Trump represented, and still does in many ways, an ‘outsider.’ Looking at politics with no opinion or bias and without a “republican” or “democrat” point of view, it’s easy to see how, during Trump’s campaign, the powerful elite did everything possible to ensure a victory for Clinton. This included not only swaying the Democratic party (which previously played dirty pool against Bernie Sanders), but the entire mainstream media machine, the financial community, the EU, and even the Republican party itself.

Since Trump’s campaign, we have been told that Trump is a racist, sexist, xenophobe, liar, cheat, and narcissist. It’s reminiscent of the concerted media attack against Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff, which culminated earlier in 2016 in her impeachment and removal from power. It’s important to understand why Trump is demonized, and that’s because he is a disruptor, and his disruption falls squarely against the two key pillars of the American ruling elite’s ideology: neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

During Trump’s campaign, he was quite vocal about pharmaceutical corruption, the US government funding terrorist organizations, vaccine safety, and he even called out Bill Clinton and his relationship to Jeffrey Epstein. Now, in some instances, he seems to have changed his views on a few matters, which goes to show that he could have been compromised by the deep state, or the other side of the deep state, if you will.

“So a person is elected, he comes with his ideas. Then people with briefcases come to visit him, well dressed, in dark suits, kind of like mine. Except instead of a red tie it’s black or navy. And then they explain what to do, and the whole rhetoric changes, you see? This happens from one administration to the next.”  – Vladimir Putin, providing one of many examples of politicians around the world and within the US speaking up about this hidden power that controls the presidency. (source)

I’d like to leave you with this thought-provoking quote from Catherine Austin Fitts, former Commissioner of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, who recently said:

“In the Red Button Problem, everybody wants their check and they want to pretend that they are good. So it’s very important that politicians come up with this story of ‘good’. The story of ‘I’m good,’ doesn’t have to make sense, but it has to be good enough so that I can just take my check and feel good and not have to do anything. It’s a way of being free to stay on my couch and do the things that I love instead of being bothered with the responsibility of being a citizen.”

So Q is the new story of, ‘I am good,’ because, ‘I can just trust the plan, and these covert operators are going to get their thing done.’ So I’ve been nice because I know some very intelligent, capable people who buy this whole thing hook, line, and sinker. It has been really frustrating for you and me. I took FASAB 56 to these Q believers, and they said, ‘You need to trust the plan.'”

The Takeaway

It appears that people are becoming too engaged with the Q narrative that it is blinding them from the truth of what Q is actually representing. Instead of viewing Q as right or wrong, what steps does it represent in our awakening process? Is the narrative truly creating a world where humanity thrives? Or is it perhaps only taking us a step forward, if at all?

We can’t let Q do all thinking, we must continue to do what got is here in the first place, that’s think for ourselves. It’s ok to peak and take a look at Q, but to hang on to and live and die by everything Q says, and to constantly push the idea that whatever Q says is correct is a little troublesome to me.

Related CE Article: Is The Q Narrative Providing False Hope? Catherine Austin Fitts Weights In

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod