- The Facts:
Platforms including YouTube, Facebook, Pinterest, Spotify and Apple have all banned Infowars and Alex Jones. These bans came within hours to days from one another, all citing an end to 'hate-speech' on their platforms. Twitter has chosen not to ban.
- Reflect On:
What is considered hate speech today? Is it the job of social media sites to politically lean? What precedent is set with a ban like this? Might this extend to less extreme voices? Are we not able to think and discern for ourselves?
Beginning August 4th, 2018, major social media content platform giants Apple, YouTube, Facebook and Spotify all banned Infowars and Alex Jones from their respective platforms.
Each platform gave a simple and succinct reason: they don’t support hate speech on their platform. Interestingly, each and every platform stated the same thing. In the days that followed, more companies like MailChimp, LinkedIn and Pinterest also banned Jones and Infowars from the platform, again citing the same reasons.
Apple for example stated to BuzzFeed News, “Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users,” adding, “podcasts that violate these guidelines are removed from our directory.”
Let’s go even further, the full list of companies to have banned Infowars altogether up until now: Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Google Podcast, Spotify, TuneIn, Spreaker, iHeartRadio, Audioboom, Pinterest, MailChimp, Stitcher, Disqus, Sprout Social, and LinkedIn.
What many seem to be overlooking in this are two key things:
1. The major bans all came within 24 hours of one another, followed by the rest over the next couple of days
2. By banning alleged ‘hate speech,’ a precedent is set for what can happen to any journalist that crosses the imaginary line of what the mainstream will accept.
Recently, Twitter has made headlines as they have not succumbed to the public shaming and political pressure to ban Alex and Infowars. Left-leaning Vox was critical of Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey for not banning Infowars stating:
What’s most jarring — and disturbing — about Dorsey’s statement is its latent suggestion that all of Twitter’s progress has been a mistake. Instead, it seems to insist that the better approach should be a hands-off one, which pretends the major issues the website faces in 2018 are not inherently and irreparably politicized.
In essence, Twitter is choosing to treat the question of whether Alex Jones’s presence on the site is harmful as an issue of semantics rather than an issue of morality.
What Vox, like many others, fails to mention is that for most people, making social media websites politically slanted is not in the best interest of the people. Not only that, Twitter should be recognized in a positive light for not succumbing to public and corporate bullying about its choices. Something that shows courage in a time when everyone would rather use public shame to bait people into doing what people generally think is the best way forward.
On one hand, the mainstream is pushing a faulty narrative that Russia hacked the 2016 US election, but then doesn’t want to cover the fact that Hillary Clinton rigged the DNC primaries to oust Bernie Sanders. And further, they want to call for the banning of certain voices that threaten mainstream accepted narratives. Does this not seem like election meddling?
The challenge here is, the mainstream typically doesn’t understand any narrative outside the small viewpoint that exists within the systems they operate within. For example, as they covered this Infowars ban story they continually pointed to 9/11 as one of the major conspiracy theories that Jones would talk about. They laughed it off as if the official narrative of what happened on 9/11 being false is impossible. Yet anyone with an ounce of journalistic skill and integrity would know the official story is absolutely false, both common-sensically and scientifically. Yet they continue to tout the false narrative and refuse to go through the evidence.
What the mainstream doesn’t seem to understand is that ‘conspiracy theorists’ are not saying “this is exactly what happened on 9/11,” they are simply saying what we were told happened, didn’t. And are asking for an investigation into the truth.
The difficulty in this whole conversation is, the mainstream media culture is to laugh off any of these theories, making it so no real investigation is explored or encouraged. This creates a divide within mainstream and alternative journalists that isn’t necessary but is built so unity cannot happen. If we looked at straight facts, all journalists would be on the same page with 9/11, as the events of 9/11 do not match the official story. Period. How might that change the perception of Jones, or any other website, on matters like this?
If Infowars and Alex Jones are wrong in asking these questions about 9/11, then we have a HUGE problem on our hands that companies like Facebook, Google and Apple are fully supporting.
Now this isn’t to say Alex Jones and Infowars haven’t shared false news as well, they certainly have, and their aggressive, angry and highly emotional approach to news CAN lend to the instability of individuals who take it to heart. Which is why we feel conscious media, what we produce at CE, is so important. We provide information not with the intention of riling anyone up or getting them politically slanted, but to inform and allow them to ask good questions, see the big picture and so forth. Something the mainstream is often not brave enough to do.
How These Companies Work
Firstly to get it clearly, each one of these platforms is a private company and of course has their own rules they can implement. So to play on their platform, you must play by their rules. The problem is, many realize their rules are not so much built around stopping hate speech, they are built around protecting their own political view and responding to pressures from corporate and political hands. This would include the deep state.
Further, there are extreme double standards at play here. It’s not hate speech when CNN or VOX or HuffPost trashes the opposing political party they stand for. Or if ANTIFA or certain activist groups create content trashing certain genders or races, so long as it ties in with mainstream narratives of extreme left points of view. White males are the worst, toxic masculinity is the cancer of our world, every male is a sexual abuser, the alt-right is everyone who didn’t vote for Hillary and who questions anything, and you can’t say a single thing that might offend someone… or else you’re evil. These are the narratives in mainstream media in 2018. But the moment someone challenges that narrative, it becomes a problem.
The key is, whether you are in support or not of any politician, the right to free speech is important. While Jones sometimes would get aggressive or be incorrect in his reporting, to all-out ban his platform from many major platforms on the internet shows a collusion that exists within these organizations to censor a voice. Whether this is right or wrong is up to people to decide.
It’s also important to note, just because something is shared and put on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true, that it will get liked or shared, or even commented on. It’s up to us to do ALL those things. Just because people see something in a feed, they can still ignore it. You don’t HAVE to engage with it.
What This Will Help Do
Since the ban, many believe it is only a matter of time before more outlets and voices who challenge mainstream rhetoric and manipulative agendas will also be censored. But this isn’t that bad of news. As this happens more and more, people will see quite clearly what is going on to control narratives. This will cause an even greater expansion of consciousness and demand for change.
This change will begin within the hearts and minds of people as they begin to see through the illusion and understand what’s happening. The truth of simply opting out of these platforms and games being played will be the way forward.
Let’s take the Streisand effect for example. It is a phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. The more this is talked about, the bigger it gets and the more people realize what is actually happening.
The Infowars ban is not about Infowars. It’s a move to make it a culture that we, the people, have no power and need to be governed. We are being told we are too stupid to discern truth from fiction. That’s the deeper message here. If people don’t follow the herd, they are to be shamed.
In another sense, this will allow people to begin asking how else Infowars affects collective consciousness. Is it spreading false news? Are the themes and emotional slants healthy for us? Can we discern when it comes to listening to these types of voice? Or do we blindly follow?
I ask people all the time, “what world do you want to support? One where we give up all our power to governing forces because we are too afraid to take responsibility for ourselves, our emotions? Or one where we own our shit and begin to truly empower ourselves. The choice is ours.” It’s like the old saying ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.’ Yet here we are, giving so much power to words that we lose free speech, and are shamed for asking important questions about what goes on in our world. Sure, Alex is extreme at times, but this seems more like a witch hunt than anything else.
Thinking less about this immediate gratification of something, truly think about where this could go next. It was like when no one thought the glory days of Facebook sending news to people would end, yet here we are, 2018, and Facebook is no longer a driver of traffic for media websites and users to get news they want. Truly think about what could be next… who could be next.
FBI Sued for Failure to Report Known 9/11 Evidence to Congress
- The Facts:
The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 victim family members have announced a joint federal lawsuit against U.S. Department of Justice for not acknowledging evidence about what happened on 9/11.
- Reflect On:
Why has the US government continuously ignored credible evidence? Why do they constantly deem it a 'conspiracy theory' and use character assassination and ridicule tactics instead of just countering the evidence?
Nearly 20 years after 9/11, the tragic event has served as a catalyst for the mass awakening of millions of people to facts about our government, or ‘the powers that be,’ that they previously were unaware of. Furthermore, every year after that event has brought even more awareness and new information to the forefront, serving as a mass awakening tool. It has helped so many people understand that not everything presented to us by our government is accurate. When it comes to 9/11, many believe it was an event created by the powers that be in order to justify the invasion of Iraq by the western military alliance, otherwise known as ‘false flag’ terrorism. This narrative has been supported by many academics trying to bring awareness to the truth of the event as well as multiple political figures from around the world, including those within the United States.
The evidence that something fishy happened on 9/11 is very strong, and this is why the majority of American citizens alone don’t believe the official explanation provided by their government, which is evident if you look at the latest polls. Over the past few years, this subject has been under investigation by thousands of architects, engineers and physicists. Researchers have even been publishing papers in peer reviewed academic journals emphasizing that what we really saw, apart from planes hitting the towers, was a simultaneous controlled demolition. For example, a paper titled “15 Years Later, On The Physics Of High-Rise Building Collapses” in the European Scientific Journal concluded:
The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.
This is just one of many examples suggesting it was a controlled demolition, but the key takeaway there is the “far-reaching implications.” Full disclosure on what happened that day, if a controlled demolition was involved, would be very impactful. Just think about what that means… Furthermore, it’s quite clear that the majority of people around the world have already accepted this conclusion. What does that say about our government and the entire western military alliance? What does that show us about what these people are capable of? What else have they done? What else are they going to do? What is the extent of their deception and for what purpose?
In more recent news, The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 victim family members Robert McIlvaine and Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli announced a joint federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI. The lawsuit is for their failure to perform a congressionally mandated assessment of any evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission related to any factors that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Initiatives like this are important, because as mentioned earlier, there is more than enough evidence showing that something fishy happened, and that a controlled demolition was involved. Donald Trump has even made some comments on 9/11, suggesting that bombs were involved in taking down the World Trade towers.
This current lawsuit is being brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 702, 706, and the federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. 1361.
The complaint cites the failure of the FBI and its 9/11 Review Commission to assess key 9/11-related evidence that the FBI can be shown to have had, or been aware of, regarding:
- the use of pre-placed explosives to destroy World Trade Center Buildings, 1, 2, and 7;
- the arrest and investigation of the “High Fivers” observed photographing and celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11;
- terrorist financing related to the reported Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers;
- recovered plane parts, including serial numbers from all three crash locations;
- video from cameras mounted inside and outside the Pentagon; and
- cell phone communications from passengers aboard airplanes.
This is evidence relevant to the 9/11 Review Commission’s and the FBI’s compliance with the mandate from Congress, which should have been assessed by the FBI and the 9/11 Review Commission and reported to Congress. The complaint also cites the destruction by the FBI of evidence related to the “High Fivers.” Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has joined in bringing the counts that involve the evidence of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition and evidence related to the “High Fivers,” while the other plaintiffs are party to all counts. (source)
A news conference was held after the filing near the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington, D.C. Prior to this, the non-profit Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Manhattan, requesting that he present to a grand jury the extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center high rises on 9/11. The petition cited conclusive evidence, providing proof of explosives and incendiaries employed at ground zero to bring down the twin towers as well as the WTC building #7.
Every time I write an article on this subject, I love sharing the following quote by Edward Bernays, the founding father of public relations:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. (source)
Mark Twain is another great figure who shared this point of view, stating that:
The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception. (source)
These quotes sum up what I believe 9/11 was all about. George Orwell once said that “in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Since he offered those words decades ago, we have seen deceit become a pervasive and global problem, where the general public really has no clue what is happening around the world. The truth is, we live in a world of secrecy, and many prominent figures throughout history have been trying to tell us this for years. Even President Theodore Roosevelt warned us of the secret government, revealing that “behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” (source)
Are these the perpetrators behind 9/11? Has there really been a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism?
Something to think about.
How long has this type of ‘false flag terrorism’ been going on? Today, it seems that every time a ‘deceptive’ event is pulled off, it simply serves as a tool to wake up even more people. Transparency is here, and more than enough information is available for those who are curious and willing to actually take a look. As time goes on, the collective population is learning to think for themselves instead of simply believing what is told and presented to us. Despite the fact that speaking out against such things can bring character assassination and ridicule and is often casted off as fake news, it’s important to follow our hearts and really look into things that no longer resonate with us. The truth is available, and it will continue to come to light as we move through 2019 and beyond.
Vietnam Demands Monsanto Pay Victims of Agent Orange For Cancer & Birth Defects
- The Facts:
More than 4.8 million people in Vietnam have been exposed to the herbicide and over 3 million of them have been suffering from deadly diseases. Vietnam is again demanding that Monsanto (Bayer) be held accountable.
- Reflect On:
Things here are quite obvious, the information in the article is just a tidbit. The only thing making these corporations not accountable is their ownership and stranglehold on the government. They own and influence government agencies.
Agent Orange studies were mandated by Congress in the 1980s. These studies were headed by Dr. Frank DeStefano, and Dr. Coleen Boyle of the CDC, who are now in charge of vaccine safety studies at the agency. Frank and Coleen ended the Agent Orange studies two years early, emphasizing that “no link” would be found between illnesses being reported by injured veterans and Agent Orange. The early termination of the study is what allowed the US Department of Veterans Affairs to deny any connection between Agent Orange and medical problems, preventing veterans and their families from qualifying for fair compensation. The Boyle/DeStefano team’s deception was outed by Admiral Zumwalt, who went to the President and laid out the science in a classified report (which has now been declassified):
“Without exception, the experts who reviewed the work of the Advisory Committee disagreed with its findings and further questioned the validity of the Advisory Committee’s review of studies on non — Hodgkin’s lymphomas .”
“a decision which should have been based on scientific data was reduced to vague impressions”
[One impartial review team’s results were] “a stunning indictment of the Advisory Committee’s scientific interpretation and policy judgments”
“1987 Followup Examination Results,” described statistically significant increases in health problems among Ranch Handers including all cancers”
“The work of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards, as documented in their November 2, 1989 transcript, has little or no scientific merit, and should not serve as a basis for compensation or regulatory decisions of any sort.”
This is one of many examples of fraud that’s come out of the CDC, and it’s a huge problem that many from within the agency, even as of recent, are trying to expose. One of the latest examples is known as the ‘Spider papers.’ A group called the CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER, put a list of complaints in a letter to the CDC Chief of Staff and provided a copy of the letter to the public watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).
We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.
The Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA) recently told Reuters that more than 4.8 million people in Vietnam have been exposed to the herbicide and over 3 million of them have been suffering from deadly diseases. Agent Orange was one of many herbicides used by the U.S. military as a weapon during the Vietnam war, and Monsanto was contracted by the government to manufacture it for the Department of Defence. According to Monsanto:
“The use of Agent Orange as a military herbicide in Vietnam continues to be an emotional subject for many people. Asian Affairs Specialist Michael Martin notes, ‘[a]t the time the herbicides were used, there was little consideration within the U.S. military about potential long-term environmental and health effects of the widespread use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.” (source)
Below you will see pictures courtesy of Reuters of agent orange birth victims.
Millions upon millions of gallons of this stuff was dumped over millions of acres of land in Vietnam and other areas. Even today, countless people have been exposed to the herbicide and many of them continue to suffer from deadly diseases. The US government still maintains that the main objective for the spraying was to kill all of the forest in North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops along with any crops that might be used to feed them.
The millions of dollars that have recently been awarded to victims of Monsanto’s herbicides in America made noise across the world. There are currently more than 10,000 pending cases for herbicides causing cancer, and as a result, Vietnam likely thought it was finally time to seek justice for the victims of Agent Orange. Again, the biotech firm had supplied the US military with the chemical during the Vietnam War. The Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA) has written a letter to a US court asking that it restart a class-action lawsuit by Agent Orange victims against American chemical firms, including Monsanto, which the Eastern District Court of New York dismissed in 2004, claiming a ‘lack of evidence’ and asserting that ‘herbicide spraying… did not constitute a war crime pre-1975’.
Last month a jury in San Francisco awarded $80 million in punitive damages to Edwin Hardeman after the court found that Roundup, Monsanto’s infamous glyphosate-based herbicide, was a “substantial factor” in causing non-Hodgkins lymphoma cancer. In a similar case in August 2018, Dewayne Johnson was awarded $289 million after developing cancer from long-term exposure to Roundup. However, after months of legal drama, the terminally ill cancer patient agreed to a reduced payout of $78 million.
Despite the information shared earlier in this article, Monsanto is STILL denying the damage linked to Agent Orange.
“It can, in my judgment, be concluded, with a very high degree of confidence, that it is at least as likely as not that the following are caused in humans by exposure to TCDD: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chloracne and other skin disorders, lip cancer, bone cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, birth defects, skin cancer, lung cancer, porphyria cutanea tarda and other liver disorders, Hodgkin’s disease, hematopoietic diseases, multiple myeloma, neurological defects and auto-immune diseases and disorders.
In addition, I am most comfortable in concluding that it is at least as likely as not that liver cancer, nasal/pharyngeal/esophageal cancers, leukemia, malignant melanoma, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, brain cancer, psychosocial effects, and gastrointestinal disease are service– connected.” (source)
Below is a picture of one of many birth deformities believed to be caused by Agent Orange.
Below is a photo from Vietnam circa 1961-1971. Credit: Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. Collection: Agent Orange Subject Files/The Vietnam Center and Archive/Texas Tech University. The land on the right has been sprayed, and the land on the left hasn’t.
The fact that Monsanto is just starting to be held accountable for the damaging effects from their herbicides is unbelievable, and the fact that they have not yet really been held accountable for DDT and substances like Agent Orange and the damage they have caused and continue to do is outrageous. What we can really take away here is the connection between big corporations and the United States government. It shows how powerful these corporations are, and how they sit above the government and influence policies and decision making. We do not live in a democracy, but more so a ‘corporatocracy.’ If you follow the money, corporations like Monsanto (now Bayer) sit above the government, and then the big banks sit above the corporations. This is exactly how the decision making process goes and it’s something that definitely needs to change.
At the end of the day, we are the ones who purchase these products, which is why awareness is key to stopping these powerful corporations from causing so much damage to our health and the environment.
The Perversion Of Wikipedia: Skepticism As A Tool For The Censorship Of New Ideas
- The Facts:
Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, a supposed resource for the open sharing of wisdom and knowledge, is violating its own policies and non-profit status by favoring donors' worldview through exerting undue editorial influence.
- Reflect On:
If we can't trust Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, does that mean we can't trust anything we hear and read about?
Those of us who make a habit of challenging our current worldviews in order to uncover deeper truths and expand our understanding of reality, will have probably come to realize by now that much of the ‘skepticism’ out there that is supposedly founded in ‘science’ is nothing more than the preservation of the mainstream perception that is constantly being promoted by our hidden authorities and their minions.
It is likely that every one of us has encountered frustration in dealing with the ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’ type of skeptic among family and friends. Some hold it as a badge of honor that they refuse to be ‘fooled’ by suggestions that the world is not exactly as it seems, or that there is anything substantial going on behind the scenes, as long as the mainstream media continues to ridicule it and use labels like ‘unproven pseudo-science’ or ‘debunked conspiracy theory.’
Now, this is not to dispute that some skepticism is healthy. Not at all. One should not believe everything one hears indiscriminately, and all claims should be evaluated based evidence, coherence, logic, and common sense. When skepticism is in balance with an open mind, it helps us develop discernment, and enables us to build and expand a coherent worldview that begins to incorporate and make sense of more and more of the subtle mysteries the universe has to offer.
However, an extreme brand of skepticism that is not open to possibility until it becomes self-evident is damaging to human inquiry and the flourishing of new ideas. Joe Martino and I discussed this skepticism in our latest episode of ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ on CETV, and went on to examine how this philosophical position is at the heart of the censorship efforts of mainstream media and the now co-opted social media giants, indiscriminately labeling ideas and analyses of world events outside of the mainstream perception as ‘fake news’ and characterizing it as ‘dangerous’ and something the public must be protected from.
Below is a clip from that episode exploring how dogmatic skepticism is holding us back. Become a member on CETV to watch the full episode of The Collective Evolution Show.
In the full episode, we go on to discuss specifically how Wikipedia has become one of the latest information sources to fall under the control of the mainstream authority. We talk about how instead of being ‘the people’s encyclopedia’ and being open to all ideas, it has adopted the very strict skepticism of the mainstream. Among other things, it systematically denigrates those scientists, researchers and medical professionals that promote alternative modalities to Western medicine.
Some will say ‘I’m a scientist. And therefore I’m a skeptic.’ In some ways, this makes sense–a real scientist does not come to any conclusions unless the evidence in their experiments bears them out. However, it often represents someone who is not open to possibility, and will not seriously consider anything that is not proven and established, meaning what they have ‘seen’ with their own eyes.
When this type of person says (usually informally) that they are a ‘scientist,’ what they really mean is that they ascribe to scientific materialism, a philosophical position founded on the belief that only the material world, the world perceived by our senses, is what is real. We don’t even need to get into the fact that quantum physics has long demonstrated that this position is no longer tenable in the real world, and that non-material forces are exerting influence on the world all the time.
In a banned TedX talk entitled ‘The Science Delusion,’ biologist Rupert Sheldrake performs a brilliant dissection of scientific materialism and all the questionable assumptions it is founded on, and is clear to distinguish between real ‘science,’ which is exploration and experimentation designed to expand knowledge, and the philosophical dogma of scientific materialism which, in mainstream discourse, is considered ‘science.’ No wonder it was banned. Watch this one, it is well worth your time.
Now it must be said, anybody refuting scientific materialism is pulling the rug out from most of the skepticism used by mainstream forces to control the narrative. And so, as you might expect, whenever the mainstream media has the opportunity to comment on who Rupert Sheldrake is or the value of his work, they are not likely to be very complimentary.
Wikipedia On Sheldrake
In an article entitled ‘Wikipedia’s Assault on Scientific Progress: The Case of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake,’ Gary Null makes a very persuasive case not only that Wikipedia attempts to marginalize Rupert Sheldrake as a ‘pseudoscientist,’ but they exhibit a draconian control over the editorial content of Sheldrake’s Wikipedia page, quite against their own stated policies.
Sheldrake’s original Wikipedia biography, created in October 2002, was limited to two sentences and a link to his personal website: “Rupert Sheldrake (1942-) is a British biologist and author of several books. In his 1981 book A New Science of Life he put forward the hypothesis of formative causation which basically suggests that memory is inherent in nature.”
That’s it! Today, his biography has grown to 9 major headings and 12 subheadings. Instead of identifying him as a biologist — only noting this title in the past-tense — the article falsely identifies Sheldrake as a “parapsychologist” in the lead paragraph. Although he conducts experiments in telepathy, he approaches the topic from a biological viewpoint, in keeping with his scientific training. Reviewing the many thousands of edits made to his biography during the past 16 years is a lesson in how brutal and vicious the Wiki wars spawned by Skeptics can become.
Sheldrake’s Wikipedia “Talk” page begins with the warnings:
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don’t take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article.
Here we observe Wikipedia’s own Committee showcasing flagrant bias in identifying Sheldrake’s scientific research as “pseudoscience.”
Wikipedia’s Violation Of Its Non-Profit Status
The concept of Wikipedia, the people’s encyclopedia, a resource for the open sharing of wisdom and knowledge, where respect for opposing points of view was maintained, is what made Wikipedia popular and trusted to begin with. However, the potential profits that would be possible from this trust and Wikipedia’s popularity seems to have become too tempting for its owners and of course Big Business to resist.
This letter written to the IRS by Neal S. Greenfield, lawyer for Dr. Gary Null, in which he explicitly details the ways in which Wikipedia has blatantly violated their 501 (c)(3) non-profit status, as well as their own stated values and objectives, will certainly help you to see Wikipedia in a different way than what it pretends to be.
Of note in the summary on page 1 is the contention that ‘Wikipedia has selectively permitted pay-to-play editing and institutional conflicts of interest, particularly where generous donors are concerned.’ It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. We are coming to realize that our entire economic and political systems are founded on the corrupt influence of the powerful and wealthy. The maintenance of their power is founded on keeping people ignorant, which is the brute impact of scientific materialism and the skepticism that follows from it.
Every day there seems to be new information out about another previously trusted source of information that has shown itself to be unworthy of trust. But rather than rue the destruction of the naive innocence of humanity, we should bless these revelations as stepping-stones to achieving a higher discernment. Certainly, the majority of humanity, when released from these corrupting influences, will be able to be trusted to act in a way that is ultimately for the benefit of all. This higher discernment will allow us as a collective to separate the wheat from the chaff, and create a world where truth, transparency and the open exchange of ideas will be supported.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr Explains How Big Pharma Completely Owns Congress
Those of you who have been involved in the past in the battle to protect our children from poorly made...
Wikileaks Document Exposes a “Secret US Base on the Moon”
The Assange arrest is scandalous in several respects, and one of them is the effort of governments, and it’s not...