Connect with us

Alternative News

Information Warfare & Alex Jones: Journalistic Responsibility In A Post-Truth Era

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    With the Alex Jones and Infowars ban, the game is changing as to how YouTube, Facebook, Apple and other social media giants feature content. Consumers of news must now be vigilant and proactive in the truth discovery process.

  • Reflect On:

    As conscious truth-seekers, what standards should we hold media sources, journalists, and corporations to? In the realm of public discourse, are popular pundits and theorists like Alex Jones held to sufficient standards of journalistic integrity?

In our quest for truth, we all have intuitions, hunches, and personal insights that we may not be able to prove.  Whether it’s spiritual premonitions, conspiracy theories, or superstitious synchronicity, our conscious thought is an explorer in a universe of ideas, possibilities, and theories.  However, if there is no filter in place to bring form and meaning to these free-flowing ideas, the truth quickly becomes whatever we want it to be; feelings and opinions become just as “true” as verifiable, well-researched facts.

advertisement - learn more

The revolutionary ideas that produced the American experiment enshrining the Enlightenment principle of freedom of expression has produced an unchained intellect.  With that conscious liberty comes a responsibility to quest for truth with journalistic integrity.  In our current media free-fall of anything goes think-pieces and political punditry, we have reached a post-truth stage in our history where “fake news” is simply whatever we want it to be, usually characterized by a viewpoint we disagree with.

As explorers of consciousness, we have a deep responsibility to substantiate our thoughts & theories in order to foster legitimate discussion of the important matters of our time.

“We risk being the first people in history to have been
able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive,
so ‘realistic’ that they can live in them.” — Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to
Pseudo-Events in America (1961)

Alex Jones & The “Mainstream” Media

By now, everyone has chimed in on the concerted effort among major companies (YouTube, Facebook, Apple) to ban Alex Jones & Infowars from its platforms.  Many in the conscious community remember when Alex first came on the scene in Austin, Texas where he developed his signature gravelly voice that shouted conspiracy from the mountaintop. Since his early underground days on community radio, Jones has ascended in popularity and has become a prominent voice in media buoyed by audiences fascinated with his conspiratorial takes and fervent support of President Trump (who granted Infowars White House press passes after his election in 2016).

Jones and his supporters continually lambast the “mainstream media” when framing commentary on global events.  However, Alex Jones has become mainstream media, boasting view stats in the billions with subscribers in the millions that rival and eclipse traditional media giants like CNN and NBC.

advertisement - learn more

Since Jones was banned, his Infowars app has surged on the Google Play and iTunes charts, ranking third among trending apps behind only Twitter and News Break.  It’s important to acknowledge just how vast the Alex Jones audience has become, and the bulk of his viewers solely rely on Infowars for information gathering on political and global events.

Ironically, the ascent of Alex Jones into the mainstream has been buoyed by Facebook & YouTube, who actively promoted and pushed out Alex Jones content in their respective feeds as his popularity sky-rocketed and his content raked in considerable advertisement profits for the Silicon Valley behemoths.  But unlike newspapers and traditional media sources who are liable for what they publish, Facebook & YouTube have been shielded from liability in the U.S. for what their users publish – which largely has resulted in the quest for truth taking a back-seat to the quest to go virile.

Freedom Of Speech & Responsibility

The aptly named “Infowars” is emblematic of the information war that is currently taking place in America.  From traditional media giants like Fox, CNN & MSNBC to emerging internet media forces like The Young Turks, Mark Dice & Secular Talk, there is a jockeying for power and news authority that is shaking up the global political landscape – and this is significantly changing how (and what) people think.

Indeed, freedom of speech and a free press is something that truth-seekers should hold sacred, but Jones being banned is not about freedom of speech.  Jones is free to broadcast his message as he sees fit – but that doesn’t guarantee that private companies like YouTube and Facebook will feature his content.

An important question that must be answered in response to the ban is this: What responsibility should Alex Jones, YouTube & Facebook assume in presenting “truth” to audiences?  While many say that they should bear no responsibility as it pertains to journalistic integrity, what effect is that having on our aggregate consciousness?  America is in a mental health crisis.  Suicides are increasing at alarming rates, iPhones, social media and technology have dominated the lives of young children with distraction and fantasy. Reality is becoming so abstract that more and more are losing grip on their day-to-day lives, opting to live in a world where truth is malleable and whatever you want it to be.

Media sources like Infowars that purposely and knowingly perpetuate false information and sensationalized conspiracy under the guise of “the truth that the mainstream media won’t tell you” have significantly contributed to the growing American population that is misinformed and increasingly mentally unstable.

“Every single school/public shooting is a hoax staged with crisis actors.” “Queen Elizabeth is converting to Islam and is a Jihadi.”  “Democrats (and only Democrats) are running a global prostitution ring.” “Obama is having sex with 10 men a day on taxpayer dime.”

The aforementioned are actual quotes and takes from recent Alex Jones broadcasts, and they are seeding millions of minds with precisely what they are purportedly railing against: Fake News.  In effect, Jones has produced the same kind of disinformation that he accuses “The Liberal Left” of producing – and that has a very real effect on public consciousness.  In order to educate, enlighten, and challenge the conventionally programmed mind, you must credibly appeal to truth.  You cannot do that when you are peddling junk theories.  There are real instances of false flag events and manipulated events for geopolitical gain without us pressing to find conspiracy where there is none.

There are real global cabals and child prostitution rings to expose and bring to justice without us having to go down a rabbit hole of gutter dialogue, obsessing over “Pizzagate” and other poorly evidenced theories while actual instances of human trafficking are taking place right in front of our eyes. There is a real war on our planet, environment and bodily integrity without entertaining lunatic claims that “they are putting chemicals in the water that make frogs gay!”

This is not to say that there aren’t legitimate grievances and critiques of traditional media.  The American public’s faith in the media is at a historic law – and there is good reason for that.  The level of discourse, global news coverage, and critical thinking displayed on CNN, NBC, & Fox are numbingly restrictive, biased, and dishonest.  Major newspapers were complicit in presenting false and poorly sourced information to readers that precipitated the criminal and illegal Iraq War.  The New York Times (and others) peddled conspiracy theories from the NeoCon Bush Administration which knowingly lied and deceived Americans with lies and false information – and this greatly influenced public opinion in the lead-up to the war.

Both things can be true: Our media institutions have often failed to enlighten and inform us – *and* Alex Jones is contributing to the post-truth movement that is further skewing truth in favor of journalistic anarchy and chaos.  There are kernels of truth that can be found on Infowars, just as there are kernels of truth to be found within traditional, “mainstream” media.  But what separates the real from the fake are journalists and media that take deep personal responsibility in presenting information, news & intelligence that is in service to truth, and not just in service to shares, likes, views & trending statistics regardless of the actual integrity of the content.

While many rail against the New York Times or the Washington Post, there is a level of journalistic standard (citation, sourced information, liability for slander/libel) that is too often absent from alternative news.  As writers within conscious media, we should take that responsibility to heart as we are already exploring thought forms, theories, and ideas that are often outside of the parameters of what the restrictive corporate media sources will broadcast and publish.  It is imperative that we report and explore ideas with integrity, and that means thoroughly investigating, researching, and filtering our ideas and claims before blindly adopting popularized conspiracy theory that has no firm grounding to stand on.

Unintended Consequences of “Chilling” Alex Jones Content

Regardless of whether you resonate with Alex Jones and his content, the larger question to explore is the implication of banning his content on YouTube, Facebook and other mainstream platforms.  As reported above, Infowars has gained massive popularity and its app has soared since the ban.  Banning Jones only increases his allure and – in effect – martyrs Jones and Infowars, giving credence to supporters who feel that his message is being chilled and suppressed by the Deep State.

This type of censorship often produces unintended consequences.  For example, Europe has criminalized the denial of the holocaust.  The result of that has seen more people in Europe actually denying the holocaust, as their viewpoint gets pushed to the fringes and foments rebellion amongst those who declare that the State is suppressing their voice.  America leans more heavily on free speech than any country in the world, creating an environment where there’s a competition of opposing views and a marketplace of ideas.

This traditional American defense of freedom of speech posits the notion that the way to challenge the false claims of someone like Alex Jones is to challenge that viewpoint, expose it, and present an argument so that readers/viewers can make up their own mind.  The censorship of Jones is a relative divorce from this principle, and there is legitimate concern as to whether a precedent will be set to ban other commentators and media sources simply because they report, write, and opine on controversial topics and conspiracy.

Unlike authoritarian regimes in China and Russia, American jurisprudence has long held that the State is not permitted to infringe upon free speech unless speech directly incites violence.  Given the immense power and influence of giant companies like Facebook and YouTube, the question that is now being presented is whether they are the proper arbiters of truth and permissible dialogue.  Facebook & YouTube have never been neutral in presenting information.  They control timelines and push certain content that is trending in order to increase their advertisement sales, viewership, and profitability – which is one reason why Alex Jones became so popular in the first place.  Just as our very own Joe Martino reported earlier this week, Facebook deliberately governs the content that you see and thus can greatly influence (or diminish) any organization’s reach and view-power.

Relying on Facebook & YouTube – en masse – for information and access to news is problematic in itself – and this challenges consumer behavior to be proactive in its quest for information.  Taking control of the narrative by not being simply a receiver of a manipulated timeline will become paramount.  Visiting websites directly will become an important way to sift through the emerging regulation and censorship that will change the way companies like YouTube and Facebook operate.  While they’ve been immune from liability for slander and defamation (unlike traditional newspapers and media), the U.S. Congress is intent on taking away the absolute shield of protection for these corporations.  Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) actually wrote the law himself (circa 1996) which prevented internet companies from being sued over user-generated content.

Earlier this week he stated,

“I just want to be clear, as the author of Section 230, the days when these pipelines are considered neutral are over.”

This signals a new era of social media regulation that will have significant impact on how news and opinion are presented on platforms like YouTube and Facebook.   This presents a challenge to you: the truth-seeker; the information gatherer; the critical thinker. How active will you be in seeking out truth?  Will you rely on the State for your information? Will you rely on YouTube and Facebook for your information?  Will you actively search for and frequent the journalism and viewpoints that resonate with you, regardless of censorship?

As journalists, will we take more responsibility in our own viewpoints, ensuring that standards of empirical truth and grounded arguments are upheld? We are at a dangerous point in our history as it pertains to steering the collective consciousness of the planet.  Now more than ever, discernment and active participation in creating the narrative of now is a task that cannot be left to the control of someone or something else.  As with everything else, it starts from within to where we are self-reliant in our quest for truth. Once we take that responsibility within ourselves, we will see that moral imperative extended to institutions (like Big Media) which have too often twisted reality via half-truths and mis-truths to service veiled agendas.

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

New Study Links Acetaminophen (Tylenol) To Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity

Published

on

Another damning study indicates it is simply time to pull the plug on this outdated drug.

The study just published in JAMA Pediatrics once again indicated that women who take acetaminophen during pregnancy are more likely to have a child with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The researchers also found that prenatal exposure to the medication was associated with a higher risk of having children who exhibit other emotional or behavioral symptoms.

Recent detailed analysis of clinical studies on acetaminophen (Tylenol) have concluded that this popular drug was ineffective for low back pain and provided no significant clinical relief of hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain, while quadrupling the risk for liver damage.

All together, the results from all of these analyses further calls into question whether this drug should still be on the over-the-counter market or at all.

Background Data:

Acetaminophen is the only remaining member of the class of drugs known as “aniline analgesics” that is still on the market, as the rest were discontinued long ago. Acetaminophen only blocks the feelings of pain and reduces fever, it exerts no significant anti-inflammatory or therapeutic action.

advertisement - learn more

It is well-known that acetaminophen is very hard on the liver. About 40% of regular acetaminophen users show signs of liver damage. Acetaminophen reduces the liver’s store of the important detoxifying aid and antioxidant glutathione. When acetaminophen is combined with alcoholic drinks or other compounds toxic to the liver including other medications, its negative effects on the liver are multiplied. It should definitely not be used in anyone with impaired liver function and given the stress the liver experiences during pregnancy, it appears unwise to use it while carrying a child for both mother and the developing fetus.

Acetaminophen is often the drug of choice in children to relieve fever. However, use for fever in the first year of life is associated with an increase in the incidence of asthma and other allergic symptoms later in childhood. Asthma appears to be another disease process that is influenced greatly by antioxidant mechanisms. Acetaminophen severely depletes glutathione levels not only in the liver, but presumably other tissues as well, and should definitely not be used in people with asthma.

Each year acetaminophen causes over 100,000 calls to poison control centers; 50,000 emergency room visits, 26,000 hospitalizations, and more than 450 deaths from liver failure. In addition, regular use of acetaminophen is linked to a higher likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease, infertility, and hearing loss (especially in men under 50 years of age). Acetaminophen use during pregnancy has also been linked to the development of ADHD confirming animal studies showing acetaminophen use in pregnancy can disrupt normal brain development.

New Data:

To more closely assess the associations between maternal prenatal acetaminophen use and behavioral issues in their children, researchers in the United Kingdom collected and analyzed data 7,796 mothers along with their children. The data included acetaminophen use and behavioral assessments of the children were 7 years old. From this data the estimated risk ratios for behavioral problems in children after prenatal exposure to acetaminophen was determined.

The results showed that prenatal acetaminophen use at 18 and 32 weeks of pregnancy was associated with a 42% increased risk of the child having conduct problems and hyperactivity symptoms, while maternal acetaminophen use at 32 weeks was also associated with a 29% increased risk of the child having emotional symptoms and a 46% increase in total behavioral difficulties.

Obviously, the researchers concluded “Children exposed to acetaminophen prenatally are at increased risk of multiple behavioral difficulties, and the associations do not appear to be explained by unmeasured behavioral or social factors linked to acetaminophen use.”

Comment:

The results from this study and others are clear. Stay away from acetaminophen. Most people consider acetaminophen (e.g., Tylenol) as being an extremely safe pain reliever for both children and adults. The reality is that it can be extremely dangerous and causes significant side effects. The FDA has done a poor job alerting the public to the dangers of acetaminophen. In my opinion, it is a drug that serves no real medical purpose in the 21stcentury. Bottom line, it is time to pull it from the market.

As far as alternatives to acetaminophen during pregnancy, I would recommend ginger. Historically, the majority of complaints for which ginger (Zingiber officinale) was used concerned the gastrointestinal system as well as pain and inflammation. Several double-blind studies have shown ginger to yield positive results in a variety of gastrointestinal issues, especially those related to nausea and vomiting including severe morning sickness. In regards to pain and inflammation, dozens of clinical studies have supported this use with positive results in various forms of arthritis, chronic low back pain, muscle pain, and painful menstruation.

Ginger powder, ginger tea or a shot of fresh ginger juice added to any fresh fruit or vegetable juice is certainly a much better option to acetaminophen anytime, but especially during pregnancy.

My overall interpretation of the study is that depletion of glutathione caused by acetaminophen leaves cells, especially brain cells, susceptible to damage. I believe that future studies will not only show more evidence of a link to ADHD, but also autism as well. Glutathione is absolutely critical in protecting cellular function. Any factor that depletes glutathione is obviously going to alter proper development. In addition to acetaminophen, the following factors can deplete glutathione:

To boost your glutathione level it is important to focus on a diet rich in colorful fruits and vegetables. Their rich source of antioxidant phytochemicals and nutrients spare the use of glutathione and help to keep cellular levels high.

For additional related research use the following links: 


If you want to learn more from Greenmedinfo, sign up for their newsletter here


Reference

Stergiakouli E, Thapar A, Smith GD. Association of Acetaminophen Use During Pregnancy with Behavioral Problems in Childhood. Evidence Against Confounding. JAMA Pediatrics. Published online August 15, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1775


Dr. Murray is one of the world’s leading authorities on natural medicine. He has published over 40 books featuring natural approaches to health. His research into the health benefits of proper nutrition is the foundation for a best-selling line of dietary supplements from Natural Factors, where he is Director of Product Development. He is a graduate, former faculty member, and serves on the Board of Regents of Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington. Please Click Here to receive a Free 5 Interview Collection from Dr Murray’s Natural Medicine Summit with the Top Leaders in the Field of Natural Medicine. Sign up for his newsletter and receive a free copy of his book on Stress, Anxiety and Insomnia.

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

‘Targeted Individuals’ Activist Getting Stonewalled In Seeking Anti-‘Organized Torture’ Legislation

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Tomo Shibata, who has asked 9 California legislators to introduce a bill that specifically criminalizes 'Organized Covert Torture,' has uncovered evidence of undue influence from the perpetrators over the legislative process.

  • Reflect On:

    How can those of us within the awakening community take the efforts of Dr. Shibata and use them to help us all better understand the truth about 'Organized Covert Torture' in a way that we are empowered to put an end to it?

In a previous article, “New California Bill Proposal Aims To Protect ‘Targeted Individuals’,” I described how Dr. Tomo Shibata proposed a bill to members of the California legislature entitled ‘The Organized Torture Act,’ which seeks to criminalize many of the types of attacks that are clandestinely made on targeted individuals.

Now, it appears that Dr. Shibata is getting stonewalled by the California lawmakers she has approached to introduce the bill. And it is Dr. Shibata’s belief that the very forces she is fighting against, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center intelligence contractors in coordination with local law-enforcement officials, are influential in dissuading these politicians from introducing the bill.

What Is ‘Organized Covert Torture’?

This article by Ramola D explains the genesis of Dr. Shibata’s bill proposal and helps us better understand the attacks that ‘targeted individuals’ are facing:

This proposal was made, Dr. Shibata states, on the basis of complaints to human rights groups from high numbers of residents across California from various cities including San Diego, Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Palo Alto, and others, of “organized covert torture” whereby, in lieu of outright abduction, victims are kept under constant control of the covert torture organizations by organized stalking, sustained surreptitious monitoring, cyberstalking, and stealth physical assault and battery with radiation weaponry such as microwave/radar surveillance weapons. Different sources offer varying estimates, running into hundreds of thousands, of the numbers of organized covert torture victims often labeled “Targeted Individuals” within the USA and around the world.

It may be hard for some to believe that this phenomenon is real, let alone affecting hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of individuals on the planet. But that is why this is such a diabolical process. It is designed to appear to outsiders as though it is not happening at all, while some of the tactics are not fully hidden from the victims themselves, when the desire is to inflict a sense of helplessness and paranoia upon the victim.

What is beyond doubt, for those who have researched into this matter, is that technology does indeed exist to remotely target individual people with invisible weapons that cause physical pain as well as debilitating mental and auditory stimulation (source).

advertisement - learn more

This form of torture and human experimentation has the most power when the general public does not believe in its existence. This is why the awakening community must stand behind victims and give their stories credence, as I outlined in a previous article ‘Targeted Individuals Need The Awakening Community To Believe Their Stories.’ And this may be one reason why Dr. Shibata is working tirelessly to get this bill proposal introduced in the California legislature, since just the introduction of the bill (let alone the passing of it into law) will bring it into the public domain and give this issue the legitimacy it desperately needs.

The Culprits

However, ‘legitimacy’ is the last thing that the perpetrators of organized covert torture want. This is why Dr. Shibata believes that these perpetrators are playing a direct role in overtly and covertly discouraging California State legislators from introducing ‘The Organized Torture Act.’

In Dr. Shibata’s email to me (which is the source of all the quotes from her in this article), she specifically points to local law enforcement in concert with Fusion Centers as the most visible culprits of ‘Organized Covert Torture’:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center intelligence contractors “empower frontline law enforcement…to understand local implications of national intelligence, thus enabling local officials to better protect their communities.” (source)—the Fusion Center’s rationale for the organized surveillance and covert torture operations of those who are wrongfully named as criminals and/or terrorists without any due process, as per Former FBI Special Agent Geral Sosbee’s testimony.

Dr. Shibata believes that these intelligence contractors could “empower” police groups as a front organization to mind-control the California legislature:

The police have very strong lobbying groups at the California state legislature. The Fusion Center intelligence contractors could help police lobbying groups in becoming so “strong” in influencing the California legislature, by deploying the following technique: covertly manipulate those who exert the most influence on the target-legislators, who might introduce the bill to prohibit organized covert torture, in order to safeguard the excessive privileges of the police/intelligence contractors to torture targeted individuals.

And indeed, her experience dealing with legislators bears this out.

Stonewalled By Legislators

In total, Dr. Shibata has asked 9 California legislators to review the bill proposal and introduce it to the legislature. Any bill that amends the Penal Code is required to go through an ‘analysis’ by the Public Safety Committee Counsel. This analysis, according to Dr. Shibata, ‘exerts considerable influence on the voting outcome of the members of the committee.’ The committee majority approval is needed first before the bill is introduced to all members of the legislature for voting. So, although the proposed bill has not yet been introduced, the legislative director of Assembly Member Shirley Weber went ahead and asked the Assembly Public Safety Committee Counsel to issue a provisional analysis of the proposed bill, in order for Dr. Weber to find out the prospects for the proposed bill in the legislature. Dr. Shibata believes that the opinions of this counsel have resulted from the undue influence of police lobby groups that front the intelligence operations behind covert organized torture.

In communication with Dr. Weber’s legislative director, Dr. Shibata was made aware that Weber’s office received the following advice from Assembly Public Safety Committee Deputy Chief Counsel Sandy Uribe:

1. The acts of organized covert torture and organized stalking, which the proposed bill prohibits, are already proscribed by the current Penal Code. There is no need for an addition law.

2. The incident, where a civilian complained about his inner ears injured by the police’s ongoing act of using an ultrasonic weapon at him, shot and killed a rookie female police officer in Davis, CA (20-minute driving distance from Sacramento) on January 10, 2019, would discourage the legislature from voting favorably on the proposed bill. The location of the incident is so close to the California capitol that this incident would considerably influence the voting results of the proposed bill.

Dr. Weber decided not to introduce the proposed bill upon receiving this advice. Yet, Dr. Shibata finds the advice highly questionable, and refuted it as follows:

Assembly Public Safety Committee Counsel Deputy Chief Uribe’s above advice prejudicially interprets the proposed bill text and the recent police officer’s murder incident in the light that is most protective of the excessive privileges of the police to torture targeted individuals. Please note that the police abuse discretion vested in them and elect not to enforce the existing laws against organized covert torture and organized stalking. The socio-legal context of the proposed legislation parallels that of the anti-domestic violence legislation, because the police abused their discretion vested in them and did not enforce the pre-existing law against battery in domestic relations, prior to the anti-domestic violence legislation. Just as many police officers themselves committed domestic violence at home back then, many police officers commit organized covert torture themselves today, along with the Fusion Center contractors and under the supervision of the FBI, as per Former FBI Special Agent Geral Sosbee’s aforementioned testimony.

The anti-domestic violence legislation established the rule of law in domestic relations and drastically reduced the killings of husbands by the battered wives at home. The proposed bill will establish the rule of law surrounding organized covert torture and thus will substantially prevent the killings of the police officers by the civilian victims of organized cover torture by the police, as exemplified by the aforementioned Davis police shooter, who had a violent criminal record. Indeed, L.A. law enforcement officers fire electronic weapons remotely at prison inmates, which the ACLU describes as “tantamount to torture,” according to CBS News. Therefore, the recent Davis police officer’s lethal shooting incident only casts light on the urgent need for the rule of law surrounding organized covert torture, instead of discouraging the legislature from voting against the proposed bill.

Another legislator Dr. Shibata asked to introduce the bill was Ed Chau, the chair of the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, and a former judge and an engineer, who has successfully authored bills against the technological invasion of privacy and is already aware of one of the most sophisticated technologies used against targeted individuals, “synthetic telepathy,” which is known to have been researched by the University of California at Irvine and funded by the Army (source). The task of preparing an internal report to Chau on the proposed bill was delegated to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee Consultant/Attorney Nichole Rapier Rocha. In a phone conversation with Rocha, Dr. Shibata found out that Rocha had received unsolicited advice from Sandy Uribe similar to the advice she gave Dr. Weber’s office, which led Dr. Shibata to ask the following question:

Why did super busy Sandy Uribe go out of her way to identify/trace which influential staffer at the legislature was still reviewing the bill proposal for potential recommendation and further to “warn” that influential staffer of the said “problems” of the bill proactively?

While Ed Chau has not yet decided whether to sponsor the bill, the following legislators have already declined: Assembly Member Reginald Jones-Sawyer, Senator Nancy Skinner, Senator Jim Beall, and Senator Chris Holden. Their refusal to take up the challenge, according to Dr. Shibata, is partly “due to their apathetic complicity in leaving thousands of victims, in California alone, continuously and indefinitely exposed to irreversibly maiming torture and slow-kill murder.” But she also has seen telling signs of infiltration within legislators’ committees and the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry in discouraging these legislators from introducing the bill.

Aside from Assembly Member Ed Chau, those legislators who have yet to make a decision are Senator Steven Bradford and Senator Holly Mitchell. Whether or not the tremendous effort made by Dr. Tomo Shibata to get this bill introduced to the California legislature will come to fruition rests in their hands. Time is short, as the bill introduction deadline is February 22, 2019. If you would like to show your support for Dr. Shibata, please try to let your opinions be known to these three remaining California legislators or go to Dr. Shibata’s GoFundMe Page.

The Takeaway

While her proposal to introduce legislation may not be accepted this time around, the time and effort that Dr. Shibata has put into this enterprise has still afforded us the opportunity to see a little more deeply into the mechanisms of control behind organized covert torture and the complicity between politics, law enforcement and intelligence that is needed to keep it in place. Her work is helping to bring the phenomena more into public awareness, and it is through growing awareness and our commitment to uncover the truth that we will one day end these kinds of operations.

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

YouTube Will Stop Recommending Videos Of 9/11 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ To Users

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    YouTube has decided to change its algorithm for recommending videos by excluding certain videos such as those they feel 'make blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.'

  • Reflect On:

    Can we see through the deception and come to know the truth about mainstream media's efforts to promote a false narrative and create within us a disempowering perception about our world?

Heartwarming, isn’t it? Social media giants like YouTube are willing to sacrifice advertising profits in order to ensure that their cherished viewers are deterred from seeing content that YouTube deems dangerous and potentially damaging to their viewers’ mental and emotional health. They’re doing this even though these viewers have demonstrated that they want to see this content. It’s just like having a Big Brother around to help steer us onto the straight and narrow path, isn’t it?

Examples the social media giant cited include videos “promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”

Now, we can talk about any of these examples cited above for wildly different reasons, but let’s stick with the 9/11 theme. While there is no denying that it was a ‘historic event,’ what is implied by this phrase is that 9/11 has an established, well-proven historical account based on the government’s explanation of what happened and supported by the ‘official’ report cobbled together by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). For YouTube, this report is seen as the authoritative ‘last word’ on what happened in New York City on September 11th, 2001.

I could spend pages detailing how many 9/11 ‘conspiracy’ videos, like ones done by the Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, are much more coherent, objective and evidence-based than the NIST report or mainstream media coverage on the subject. But no need, as this is fairly self-evident for anyone who has done a modicum of research into the subject.

What is important to note here is to read the phrase ‘making blatantly false claims’ as really meaning ‘making claims that deviate from the official, controlled mainstream narrative.’ In this regard, the takeover of social media companies by the global elite, as with the prior consolidation of traditional media companies, has been done mainly to try to continue to have a stronghold on how human beings interpret past events, in a way that advances their agenda.

Understanding ‘Recommended’ Videos

Now, to be specific, YouTube is not simply deleting videos they don’t want on their platform (well, they’ve done that too, but that’s another story). They are changing the process by which YouTube ‘recommends’ videos to users based on that viewer’s preferences.

advertisement - learn more

‘Recommended’ videos are those videos that YouTube makes available to the viewer alongside whatever video they are watching, using artificial intelligence to come up with a selection most likely to tempt viewers to continue watching after they are done with the video they are engaged with.

Guillaume Chaslot, a former Google engineer that helped build the artificial intelligence (AI) used to curate recommended videos, said the goal of YouTube’s AI was to keep users on the site as long as possible in order to promote more advertisements. What’s the ‘problem’ with this, according to YouTube? This algorithm encouraged some people with a penchant for ‘Conspiracy Theory’ (to use the famed psy-op label coined by the CIA) to go down a dangerous rabbit hole of misinformation, delusion and potential violence.

Andrew Mendrala, supervising attorney of Georgetown Law’s Civil Rights Clinic warns that the previous YouTube algorithm is “an echo chamber. It’s a feedback loop. It creates an insular community that is continually fed misinformation that reinforces their prejudices.”

Chaslot agrees with this sentiment, saying that when a user was enticed by multiple conspiracy videos, the AI not only became biased by the content the hyper-engaged users were watching, it also kept track of the content that those users were engaging with in an attempt to reproduce that pattern with other users. In a thread of tweets he recently posted, Chaslot praised the change that actually prevents flagged videos from being included within the recommended selection. His comment about this change should give us pause:

“It’s only the beginning of a more humane technology. Technology that empowers all of us, instead of deceiving the most vulnerable.”

Humane? Censorship and controlling information have been couched in many terms recently, but to call this change ‘humane’ feels like the height of hypocrisy. It truly strains credulity to imagine that a corporation like YouTube actually cares about the ‘most vulnerable’ people in society.

Mainstream Rationalization

Let’s call this most recent change in policy by a social media giant what it is: a small step in a subtle, ongoing effort to control the minds of people and reinforce mainstream perceptions rather than letting people sift through a variety of opinions and think for themselves.

There is little the public can do about the policy change itself because YouTube is a private company with legal rights to decide what is broadcast on their platform. But it is the rationalization that we hear in the mainstream for justifying this change that is hard to endure. YouTube claims that the change “strikes a balance between maintaining a platform for free speech and living up to our responsibility to users.” Here’s how a Guardian article frames the mainstream narrative on this particular subject:

YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms have faced growing scrutiny in recent years for their role in hosting and amplifying political propaganda and abusive content that spark real-world consequences and can lead to violence.

In 2016, the conspiracy theory that became known as “Pizzagate” – a popular rightwing fake news story alleging that the Comet Ping Pong restaurant was linked to a child sex ring involving the Hillary Clinton campaign – motivated a gunman to fire a weapon inside the restaurant.

It’s amazing how often this one stooge firing a weapon inside Comet Ping Pong–quite possibly a staged event–is pulled out in mainstream media to try to discredit any investigations into Pizzagate. This technique is used often to bring fear and ridicule upon people following alternative narratives in an attempt to sway the public back to the mainstream perception.

Mainstream Projection

Then the mainstream parades out people like Mendrala, who will make claims that providing viewers more of what they are interested in creates an ‘echo chamber’ and a ‘feedback loop.’ In reality, these comments are pure projection, as this is what mainstream media has been and is desperately trying to continue to be: an untouchable, self-perpetuating Ministry of Truth. As George Orwell wrote in his novel 1984:

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

Accordingly, we see how the mainstream media has been working in alliance with the social media giants to ‘control the present’ by incrementally removing certain content from view as we move forward, a slow and patient high-tech form of ‘book burning.’ In controlling the present, they then control the past–i.e. they get to say what events in the past mean, creating a controlled interpretation of the past that then informs us about who we are and what life is about. This then allows them to control the future, which enables the gradual acceleration of the program to enslave humanity.

The Takeaway

Our ability to see through the mainstream deception is going to be our greatest asset in averting the agenda of global elite enslavement. While they do have the power and the wealth, we have the numbers, and we have the truth on our side. If together we truly aspire to awaken to know the truth, it will set us free.

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.