- The Facts:
Celine Dion teams up with Nununu to create a clothing line called Celinununu that produces gender neutral clothing for children.
- Reflect On:
Does this clothing line feel creepy to you? Whether it be the call for a 'New Order' or even the looks of the children in the images? Are we truly even our physical identity and appearance? Should we not be exploring the deeper parts of ourselves?
I was perusing through my Facebook newsfeed and came across what I initially thought was pretty crazy. Images of kids wearing odd-looking clothing with occult symbols and the words ‘NEW ORDER’ written across the chest. I thought it was some joke someone had put together to play on how there has been a long-standing goal of the elite/cabal to create a ‘new world order’ and what better way to start than babies and kids.
It all is shown in a new commercial where Celine Dion is breaking into a hospital baby ward to help bring her new clothing line to babies. The company Celinununu states in its mission: CELINUNUNU unites two forces by one voice: fashion has the power to shape people’s minds. Inspire your children to be free and find their own individuality through clothes.
--> Practice Is Everything: Want to become an effective changemaker? Join CETV and get access to exclusive conversations, courses, and original shows that empower you to embody the changemaker this world needs. Click here to learn more!
The commercial for the product line is interesting on its own. She plays the ‘saviour’ of these babies, against police who are trying to stop her from telling these babies it’s OK to not select a gender. After she sneaks in, gets to the baby ward, she blows a magical dust onto the children, suddenly turning them all into gender-neutral babies wearing her clothing line. In cabal/occult terms, one might look at this as casting a spell on the children, something that fits deeply into the constant confusion the cabal is trying to cast on humanity.
One of the long-discussed plans of the elite/cabal has been to create a New World Order. Part of that order involves bringing everyone under one religion, one government, one military, and stopping things like procreation etc so as to have to control fewer people. This is why it’s so odd that the focus of this clothing line seems to push towards ‘New Order’ while talking about a highly controversial issue. Have a look at the images below for a deeper look into this line.
Here is the commercial.
Could This Be Something Else?
Another way to look at some of what is being said here is to look at the words “inspire your children to be free and find their own individuality through clothes.”
While this is an interesting concept, are we not telling them that their individuality is to identify as gender neutral? Or to wear these clothes so you don’t fall into one box or another? Does this not defeat the purpose of allowing a child to choose? I’ve always brought this up because it reminds me of people who follow a trend like wearing Uggz and then saying ‘I’m expressing my individuality through fashion” yet they are wearing the trendiest boot on the market. Is that individuality? Or capitalizing on a trend?
Then we can look at the occult aspect of this whole thing and the tie to the New World Order. Maybe they do stuff like this on purpose. Choose branding and designs that are so obviously occult that it will get people talking about it. Free publicity! She could later change the designs to something a lot less cabal/occult-ish, but then again, for the cabal, exposing their religion on the masses, and making it cool and acceptable has been their belief and goal all along. So it actually makes much more sense that they would be doing it in this fashion.
Using people in the industry they create and control to push their religion is not a new idea either. Below is an image of just a few examples. You can even see Celine Dion in the bottom right corner. Again, you have to look at this in the exact same way Christians wear crucifixes. This isn’t about some outlandish conspiracy, this is about a religion to them, and symbolism is very important to their beliefs. Many inside whistleblowers have corroborated this fact.
Discussion On Gender
Firstly, I do feel that man or woman, you are not defined by your sex or gender identity, and therefore I feel you should not have to be or do certain things simply because society has always stated that’s how men or women should be. Do women have to wear makeup every day? Do men have to do labor jobs? Do women have to play with Barbies while men play with GI Joe’s? No. If people allow themselves to pay attention to who they truly are, we will do what we feel most guided to do outside of expectation and so forth. But we also must be open as a society to not assume it’s bad to give a boy a GI Joe and a girl a Barbie.
People are doing what is classic in the modern human condition: we’re acting from extremes. When we view one side of the polarity, we tend to push to the other side and call it neutrality. A human is either male or female from a physical perspective, sure sometimes people have both parts and those are different cases. Beyond that, I understand people can sometimes feel that they are in the ‘wrong’ body per se, I personally do not know all of the reasons why this might be the case. I do feel it’s possible some people legitimately feel that way naturally, but I also feel many people who feel that way do for psychological reasons, in the same way many of us struggle with psychological challenges. It’s simply about how it shows up.
Before anyone loses it over that statement, I repeat, “I personally do not know all of the reasons why this might be the case. I do think it’s possible some people legitimately feel that way naturally.”
I feel that when looking at children, why is it OK to push schooling, religion and those sorts of ideas down their throats, yet we’re worried about buying someone the wrong toy or piece of clothing because it may harm their identity and individuality? Are we even our physical identity? You have the freedom to do whatever you wish. The problem is, people are confused, so they are trying to work through that confusion by blaming everyone else for why they are confused. Hence you have people getting upset about what pronoun a stranger addresses them by.
Does a child know how they want to dress and be when they are young? Whether they want to change their sex from a man to a woman or vice versa? What age do they figure that out? How much of the time is this a result of parents unconsciously forcing their new beliefs on their children?
In classic modern human consciousness, we are looking at all the things we are not, and trying to find ourselves. Our individuality comes from knowing ourselves beyond our mind and ego, and instead recognizes the unique energy, gifts, and intentions we come here to express. In my view, knowing that would produce a much healthier society versus one where we’re focused entirely on material and physical means. That isn’t who we are.
I do feel that in many of the extremes we are seeing today, we recognize where we operate from on a regular basis, and this allows us to see ourselves VERY clearly. By seeing so heavily how we identify with the physical, we can ask questions about what we are beyond the physical. This will allow us to dive more deeply in exploring who we truly are and ultimately this will pull immense power away from material and physical identifications and will instead awaken ourselves to an infinite love and confidence that already exists within ourselves.
While it’s easy to simply say this is all crazy stuff leading towards the end of society as we know it, it can also be a giant mirror that shows us what we are not. The next step is simply letting go of those old ideas.
COVID Vaccine Hesitancy Widespread, Even Among Medical Professionals
- The Facts:
Public health groups, including the World Health Organization, are making a concerted effort to reduce COVID vaccine hesitancy, as many medical professionals and minority groups remain doubtful about safety and efficacy.
- Reflect On:
Why is information about vaccines sometimes labeled by the mainstream as an "anti-vax conspiracy theory?" Why are concerns never really addressed properly and constantly ridiculed or unacknowledged?
It’s no secret that vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high, even among many physicians and scientists. This has actually been observed for a while. For example, one study published in the journal EbioMedicine in 2013 outlines this point, stating in the introduction:
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts and science. These two dimensions are at the core of vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviours and attitudes varying according to context , vaccine and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.
At a 2019 conference on vaccines put on by the World Health Organization this fact was emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project. She is referenced, as you can see, by the authors in the study above. At the conference, she emphasized that safety concerns among people and health professionals seem to be the biggest issue regarding vaccine hesitancy.
She also stated,
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…
We have to ask ourselves the question, why? Vaccines are not a one size fits all product, in the US alone nearly $4 billion has been paid out to families of vaccine injured children, and a number of studies are calling into question their safety. Aluminum, for example, seems to be a concern. You can and read about why here, but that’s just one of multiple examples.
Here’s an example of a vaccine injury I recently wrote about regarding the HPV vaccine.
Below is an article that was recently published Jeremy Loffredo, a reporter for The Defender. It goes into details about vaccine hesitancy among health professionals when it comes to the new COVID vaccines that are about to hit the market.
As details on the latest COVID vaccine contenders flood the news cycle on a daily basis, reports of concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccine are widespread among many demographics, even including the professional medical community.
As vaccine hesitancy grows agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), are stepping up efforts to build vaccine confidence through public relations and communications campaigns.
Surveys reveal vaccine hesitancy
Researchers from the University of California Los Angeles’ Karin Fielding School of Public Health surveyed healthcare personnel working in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. As the Washington Post reported, they found that two thirds (66.5%) of healthcare workers “intend to delay vaccination,” meaning they do not intend to get the COVID vaccine when it becomes available. They plan instead on reviewing the data once it’s widely administered and proven safe.
Seventy-six percent of the vaccine-hesitant healthcare workers cited the “fast-tracked vaccine development” as a primary reason for their concerns. Typically, vaccines take between eight to 10 years to develop, Dr. Emily Erbelding, an infectious disease expert at National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN in an article titled, “The timetable for a coronavirus vaccine is 18 months. Experts say that’s risky.”
The coronavirus vaccine frontrunners — Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca — are expected to make their debut in January. The pharmaceutical giants have exponentially accelerated the average safety and review timeline for vaccine development and production, to get the vaccines to market in under a year. Erbelding admitted that the accelerated pace will involve “not looking at all the data.”
Susan Bailey, president of the American Medical Association, said in a video that the number of physicians expressing hesitancy was “unprecedented” and “posed a real risk” to public confidence in vaccines.
A recent Gallup poll showed that only 58% of Americans plan on getting the COVID vaccine when it’s available. An October poll conducted by Zogby found that nearly 50% of Americans have concerns about the safety of the coming COVID vaccines.
A new collaborative survey project by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Langer Research found that Black and Latinx Americans are overwhelmingly concerned about the coming COVID vaccine.
The survey, as reported in the Washington post, claims to be “one of the largest and most rigorous conducted on this topic to date.” It found that only 14% of Black Americans trust that a vaccine will be safe, while only 34% of Latinx Americans trust it will be safe.
The survey also found, in the context of COVID, only 19% percent of Black Americans trust drug companies, while less than a third trust the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to “look after their interests.”
According to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of medical experts who advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fears surrounding the painful or harmful side-effects of the COVID vaccine are rooted in reality.
According to CNBC, during a virtual Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ meeting on Nov. 23, Dr. Sandra Fryhofer told fellow CDC officials that patients need to be aware that the side effects from the COVID vaccines “will not be a walk in the park.” Fryhofer acknowledged that side effects from the vaccines have been reported to mimic symptoms of a mild case of COVID, including muscle pain, fever, chills and headache.
Fryhofer, who explained that both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID vaccines require two doses, worries that her patients might not come back for a second dose after experiencing potentially unpleasant side effects after the first shot.
As a participant of the Moderna vaccine trials noted “it was the sickest I’ve ever been.”
Health officials try to combat vaccine hesitancy
Despite this, officials at the forefront of the COVID response plan to combat vaccine safety concerns and hesitancy using, what some are calling, questionable psychological techniques.
For example, the WHO, which named “vaccine hesitancy” as the top global public health threat, has hired the PR firm Hill + Knowlton to identify micro-influencers, macro-influencers and “hidden heroes” on social media who could covertly promote the organization’s image as a COVID authority in order to “ensure WHO’s advice and guidance is followed.”
Cass Sunstein, the chairman of WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on Behavioral Insights, recently wrote an article in Bloomberg in which he promoted the use of popular celebrities, athletes and actors as tools for vaccine persuasion against those who “lack vaccine confidence.”
“Trusted politicians, athletes or actors — thought to be ‘one of us’ rather than ‘one of them’ — might explicitly endorse vaccination and report that they themselves have gotten the vaccine,” Sunstein wrote.
Then there’s the “Guide to COVID-19 Vaccine Communications,” developed by the University of Florida and the United Nations that aims to help governments improve COVID vaccine uptake. The authors of the guide promote the tactic of covertly using trusted community leaders to help with pro-vaccine information.
Citing vaccine hesitancy among the African American community, the guide suggests that barber shops and hair salons in predominantly black neighborhoods might be tapped to help disseminate approved vaccine messaging.
Senator Questions Mark Zuckerberg On Censorship After Facebook Whistleblower Comes Forward
- The Facts:
In a recent Judiciary Committee Hearing, Mark Zuckerberg gets grilled by Sen. Josh Hawley about whether or not Facebook collaborates with Google and Twitter to censor information. Hawley also mentions he was contacted by a Facebook Whistleblower.
- Reflect On:
Why are some "experts" given the limelight and mainstream media air time, while others are censored and ridiculed? Why is there such a battle to control human perception on a variety of different topics today?
The amount of censorship of information taking place on the internet today is truly staggering. It may not seem that way to your everyday person, but here at Collective Evolution, which has been operating for nearly twelve years now, we’ve experienced it first hand. Some of our articles have been wrongfully “fact-checked” despite the fact that there is no misinformation or misinterpretation, and we’ve also been subjected to constant Facebook/Youtube algorithm changes and demonetization. As a result of this censorship, we had to create CETV, this is the only thing that’s sustaining us and allowing us to continue to do what we do.
It seems that any type of information which threatens the status quo or any information exposing wrong-doings of or threatens the interests of governments and big corporations is subjected to censorship. When it comes to COVID-19, for example, we’ve seen a large majority of doctors and scientists all over the world being censored by social media giants simply because their information and opinion opposes the World Health Organization and recommendations that governments are making. Not only are these voices silenced and completely unacknowledged by mainstream media, they are also heavily ridiculed.
In our opinion what’s taken place and happened to not only us, but to other platforms as well, has been very illegal, unethical and immoral. It’s happened on an even larger scale with Julian Assange, for example. To think that someone who has exposed war crimes and other wrongdoings of multiple governments and big corporations is currently fighting for his life is very disheartening. What does this say about the world we live in, when those who expose crimes, immoral and unethical actions by powerful entities are locked up? It’s easy to feel quite powerless in the face of Big Tech censorship, they can basically censor any piece of content they please and not only that, they can provide a new “fact-checked” article that tells a completely different story, and then spread it as if it were truth.
In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic. These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways…They’re trying to make you change your behaviour… – Edward Snowden (source) (More on Snowden’s thoughts here)
Below is a clip from a recent Judiciary Committee Hearing, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg gets grilled by Sen. Josh Hawley about whether or not his company collaborates with Google and Twitter to censor information. Hawley brings up the fact that he was contacted by a Facebook whistleblower, and goes into more detail about questions about censorship that Zuckerberg doesn’t seem to have an answer for.
Final Thoughts: At the end of the day, censorship of information only seems to have more people questioning what’s going on. If information is clearly false, why does it need to be “fact-checked” and censored? Why is there, as I’ve said before, a digital authoritarian Orwellian fact checker going around the internet telling people what is and what isn’t? Should people not have the right to examine information for themselves and determine what they wish to believe? Why are Big Tech companies working so closely with governments to control the narrative and shape our perception about what’s really going on?
Why do we hold on to ideas even when new evidence tells us it’s time to question them? What state of being identified so strongly with ideas of the mind that we think those ideas are our identity, and that there is no other possibility? Why do we become so polarized in our beliefs, be it about COVID or even politics? Why can’t we all come together and have appropriate discussions instead of having Big Tech companies regulate information in the way they do, and literally have us on one side or the other?
Ultimately, it’s time to ask the bigger questions, which is why I’m sharing the video below from CE founder, Joe Martino.
Edward Snowden On Big Tech Companies, Like Facebook, Censoring & Controlling Information
- The Facts:
Glenn Greenwald interviews NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden about Big Tech censorship of information, and the muzzling of journalists who go against the grain.
- Reflect On:
f your perception is built by mainstream media, do you truly know what is going on in the world if they are often working to hide or censor stories that would dramatically change your perception?
Glenn Greenwald is no stranger to censorship, he’s the journalist who worked with Edward Snowden (NSA mass surveillance whistleblower) to put together his story and release it to the world while working for the Guardian. He eventually left the Guardian and co-founded his own media company, The Intercept, an organization that would be free from censorship and free to report on government corruption and wrong-doings of powerful people and corporations. He recently resigned from The Intercept as well due to the fact that they’ve now censored him, and is now completely independent. You can find his work here.
Anybody who reports on or sheds a bright light onto immoral and unethical actions taken by governments and the powerful corporations they work with has been subjected to extreme censorship. In the case of Edward Snowden, he’s been exiled, and Julian Assange of Wikileaks is currently clinging to his life for exposing war crimes and other unethical actions by multiple governments and corporations. There are many other examples. What does it say about our civilization when we prosecute those who expose harm, corruption, immoral/unethical actions by governments and war crimes?
Greenwald recently interviewed Snowden about internet censorship and the role big tech companies and governments are playing. Greenwald explains that in one of his earliest meetings with Snowden, he (Snowden) explained that he was driven in large part by the vital role the early internet played in his life, “one that was free of corporate and state control, that permitted anonymity and exploration free of monitoring, and, most of all, fostered unrestrained communication and dissemination of information by and among citizens of the world without corporate and state overlords regulating and controlling what they were saying.
This is what he and Snowden go into in the interview posted below. Prior to that I provide a brief summary of Snowden’s key thoughts.
Snowden starts off by mentioning government surveillance programs and the companies they contracted to do this work and compares them to modern day Big Tech giants censoring information on a wide range of topics. We see this today with elections/politics, to medical information dealing with coronavirus and vaccines, for example.
“In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic. These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways…They’re trying to make you change your behaviour… – Snowden
So basically, these Big Tech companies have become slaves, if you will, to the governments will, or at least powerful people situated in high places within the government. Snowden brings up the fact that many of these companies are hiring people from the CIA, who come from the Pentagon, who come from the NSA, who have top secret clearances…The government is a customer of all the major cloud service providers. They are also a major regulator of these companies, which gives these companies the incentive to do whatever they want.
This is quite clear if you look at Facebook, Google and Amazon employees. There are many who have come from very high positions within the Department of Defense.
In no case is this more clear than Amazon – Snowden
Amazon appointed Keith Alexander, director of the NSA under Barack Obama.
He was one of the senior architects of the mass surveillance program that courts have repeatedly now declared to be unlawful and unconstitutional….When you have this kind of incentive from a private industry to maintain the warmest possible relationship with the people in government, who not just buy from you but also have the possibility to end your business or change the way you do business…You now see this kind of soft corruption that happens in a constant way. – Snowden
Snowden goes on to explain how people get upset when government, especially the Trump government, tries to set the boundaries of what appropriate speech is by attempting to stop big tech censorship, he then says,
If you’re not comfortable letting the government determine the boundaries of appropriate political speech, why are you begging Mark Zuckerberg to do it?
I think the reality here is…it’s not really about freedom of speech, and it’s not really about protecting people from harm…I think what you see is the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication. That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try to gain control over this instrument of power.
What we see is an increasing tendency to silence journalists who say things that are in the minority.
You can watch the full conversation between Greenwald and Snowden below, the conversation is about 40 minutes long.
Closing Comments: This kind of information almost begs the question, are we ready as a society to truly create and disseminate journalism that is honest, integral and bi-partisan? Why is it that these types of organizations fail or struggle? How do some media companies fail? Well, they no longer stay true to their mission. They fall to the pressure of politics and fall into ideology. How many other times did ideology change what media outlets reported? Yes, it’s almost impossible to have zero bias, but how close can we get to zero? How can we achieve this when media outlets who do not fit within the accepted framework and disseminate information that challenges the popular opinion are constantly being punished for simply putting out information?
As Snowden mentioned above, these Big Tech companies in collusion with governments are literally attempting to not only censor information, but change the behaviour of people as well, especially journalists. When you take away one’s business or livelihood as a result of non-compliance, you are in a way forcing them to comply and do/say things you they way you want them done/said. We’ve experienced massive amounts of censorship and demonetization here at Collective Evolution, but we haven’t changed as a results of it. We simply created CETV, a platform that helps support our work as a result of censorship.
A Complete List of Alternatives To The Google Search Engine
We are living in a very interesting time, one in where we have a ‘ministry of truth’ that is quite...
British Foreign Secretary Says “False Positive Rate” For COVID-19 Is “Very High”
What Happened: British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab recently made an appearance on Sky News, and when asked about testing inside of...