Connect with us

Alternative News

Prominent Yale Professor Explains How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Doesn’t Match The Science

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution has, for a great many scientists, become relatively obsolete in the face of new research into the creation and generation of life.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we see that the belief in the randomness of the creation and evolution of life, as posited by Darwin's Theory of Evolution, is a limitation on human progress and no longer serving us in our collective evolution?

Science never ceases to question. When a theory is taught as an unquestionable fact, it should be quite obvious that something is wrong. Today, science isn’t really science, and this is not only true for topics such as evolution, it’s true in many areas where science is used for an agenda by powerful and corrupt forces.

advertisement - learn more

Health sciences are a great example. As Bud Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said, “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

Today, some scientific publications are silenced and others are pushed forward, depending on how they affect corporate and political agendas. It’s not actually about the science. What the mainstream media preaches as “settled science” is not actually settled. In fact it is often highly dubious. Why don’t more people see this? The answer is simple, it’s because we rely on outside sources to tell us ‘what is,’ instead of taking the time, as individual researchers, to really look into something.

The Theory Of Evolution

The ‘Theory of Evolution’ falls into this category. Scientists who have rejected the basic premises of Darwin’s theory continue to be condemned and shunned by the mainstream community and powerful people. This is because their paradigm-shifting thoughts and ideas on the subject, though more grounded in fact, threaten the goal of the global elite, which NSA whistleblower William Binney says, is “total population control.” The average person who gets a bachelor’s degree in science is trained to simply repeat the same old textbook rhetoric as to why evolution is the be all and end all of human existence, without actually looking into why the theory is highly questionable.

One of the latest dissenters is David Gelernter, a prominent scientist and distinguished professor of computer science at Yale University. He recently published an essay in the Claremont Review of Books explaining his objections to a premise behind Darwin’s theory.

He first points to the famous “Cambrian Explosion” which occurred half a billion years ago, in which a number of new organisms, including the first ever known animals, pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a period of approximately 70 million years. Apparently, this giant explosion of spontaneous life was followed by evolution, slow growth and “scanty fossils, mainly of single celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and a half billions years ago.”

advertisement - learn more

From here, he explains how Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from preceding ones. but if this is applied to the Cambrian creatures as well, it doesn’t work. The predecessors to the Cambrian creatures are missing, something that Darwin himself was disturbed by as well. Furthermore, even without this fact, many scientists have already used other aspects of the fossil record to demonstrate that Darwin’s theory is clearly wrong.

The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting – and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted….the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified—according to many reputable paleontologists, anyway. When does the clock run out on those predictions? Never. But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion. (source)

The Genesis Of New Life Forms

His next point goes a little deeper. Many people point to the fact that variation occurs naturally among individuals and different traits are past on, this is something observable and something that we all know. Many scientists actually use this point as a proof for evolution, which doesn’t make much sense. According to proponents of the theory of evolution, natural variation is the consequence of random change or mutation to cells, to the genetic information within our cells that deal with reproduction. These cells pass on genetic change to the next generation, which, according to Darwinians, changes the future of the species and not just the individual.

The engine behind this thought, as Gelernter explains, is ‘change’ driven by the survival of the fittest and, obviously, lots and lots of time. He then goes on to ask a very crucial question: What exactly does generating new forms of life entail? Many within the field agree that generating a new shape of protein is the key to it. But does Darwinian evolution even purport to be able to do that? For Chris Williams, A Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University, the full scope of Darwinian Evolution barely touches upon this important matter:

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Intelligent Design

More and more, the evidence points to the great intelligence apparent in the system of life-creation. The reason that Darwinian Evolution is being left behind, and for many is obsolete, is because it is completely based on random, non-intelligent processes. Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry, uses a clear real-life laboratory example to explain the need to posit the existence of an overriding ‘intelligence’ in order for things to make any sense:

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Gelernter brings this conversation specifically to the generation of proteins:

Proteins are the special ops forces (or maybe the Marines) of living cells, except that they are common instead of rare; they do all the heavy lifting, all the tricky and critical assignments, in a dazzling range of roles. Proteins called enzymes catalyze all sorts of reactions and drive cellular metabolism. Other proteins (such as collagen) give cells shape and structure, like tent poles but in far more shapes. Nerve function, muscle function, and photosynthesis are all driven by proteins. And in doing these jobs and many others, the actual, 3-D shape of the protein molecule is important.

So, is the simple neo-Darwinian mechanism up to this task? Are random mutation plus natural selection sufficient to create new protein shapes?

Diving Into Proteins

Gelernter goes on to answer that question in great detail, and after going through the entire explanation he comes to what seems to be an inarguable conclusion. That the Theory of Evolution cannot, in any way, be a possible explanation for the generation of new proteins and mutations that are required for evolution to occur at all. This explanation is complex, but well worth it if you really want to understand how the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is refuted by the science of proteins:

How to make proteins is our first question. Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next. A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a “modest-sized” chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen, ordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids. A chain of amino acids is a polypeptide—“peptide” being the type of chemical bond that joins one amino acid to the next. But this chain is only the starting point: chemical forces among the links make parts of the chain twist themselves into helices; others straighten out, and then, sometimes, jackknife repeatedly, like a carpenter’s rule, into flat sheets. Then the whole assemblage folds itself up like a complex sheet of origami paper. And the actual 3-D shape of the resulting molecule is (as I have said) important.

Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of 150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work. Only certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped proteins.

So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped protein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get something good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care? It happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.

Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene. (Enter, finally, genes, DNA etc., with suitable fanfare.) Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule. DNA, of course, is the famous double helix or spiral staircase, where each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid. Each three-nucleotide group is a codon, and the correspondence between codons and amino acids is the genetic code. (The four nucleotides in DNA are abbreviated T, A, C and G, and you can look up the code in a high school textbook: TTA and TTC stand for phenylalanine, TCT for serine, and so on.)

Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish. You have a choice because DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense. Most biologists think that the nonsense sequences are the main source of new genes. If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism—long before you start making it better. The gibberish sequences, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines without making proteins, and you can mutate them, so far as we know, without endangering anything. The mutated sequence can then be passed on to the next generation, where it can be mutated again. Thus mutations can accumulate on the sidelines without affecting the organism. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution.

Mutations themselves enter the picture when DNA splits in half down the center of the staircase, thereby allowing the enclosing cell to split in half, and the encompassing organism to grow. Each half-staircase summons a matching set of nucleotides from the surrounding chemical soup; two complete new DNA molecules emerge. A mistake in this elegant replication process—the wrong nucleotide answering the call, a nucleotide typo—yields a mutation, either to a valid blueprint or a stretch of gibberish.

Building a Better Protein

Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a test drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?

It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20150. In other words, many. 20150 roughly equals 10195, and there are only 1080 atoms in the universe.

What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.

In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.

Proteins/Mutations Are One of Several Issues

Despite all of the scientific dogma that plagues this issue, proteins/mutations and lack of fossil evidence are simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding faults found within the Theory of Evolution. There are many facts, information, science and new discoveries that would make one wonder how it’s even still being taught.

Furthermore, despite the fact that we get pounded with the idea that random mutation is ultimate truth within the mainstream, and that one is wrong for questioning it, there are a number of prominent scientists, who are actually getting together in large numbers to collectively refute Darwinism. A group of 500 scientists from several fields came together a few years to create “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” as one examples. The issue is that these scientists are never getting any mainstream attention. But clearly there are some very intelligent people here.

The theory will be with us for a long time, exerting enormous cultural force. Darwin is no Newton. Newton’s physics survived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that dominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very smallest and largest scales. It’s just these most important cases, the ones we see all around us, that Darwin cannot explain. Yet his theory does explain cases of real significance. And Darwin’s intellectual daring will always be inspiring. The man will always be admired.

He now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.

Other Examples That Throw Off The Theory Of Evolution

Not long ago I wrote about a  recent paper published by 33 scientists in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal suggesting that the flourishing of life during the Cambrian era (Cambrian Explosion) originates from the stars is so fascinating.

“With the rapidly increasing number of exoplanets that have been discovered in the habitable zones of long-lived red dwarf stars (Gillon et al., 2016), the prospects for genetic exchanges between life-bearing Earth-like planets cannot be ignored. ” (The study)

There is a great little blurb from Cosmos Magazine, one of the few outlets who are talking about the study:

With 33 authors from a wide range of reputable universities and research institutes, the paper makes a seemingly incredible claim. A claim that if true, would have the most profound consequences for our understanding of the universe. Life, the paper argues, did not originate on the planet Earth.

The response?

Near silence.

The reasons for this are as fascinating as the evidence and claims advanced by the paper itself. Entitled “Cause of the Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?”, the publication revives a controversial idea concerning the origin of life, an idea stretching back to Ancient Greece, known as ‘panspermia.a’.

Academics like Francis Crick, an English scientist who co-discovered the structure of the DNA molecule (alongside James D. Watson), argues that there is no possible way that the DNA molecule could have originated on Earth. The generally accepted theory in this field, as explained above, is that we are the result of a bunch of molecules accidentally bumping into each other, creating life. However, according to Crick, we are the result of what is now known as Directed Panspermia. Crick and British chemist Leslie Orgel published their paper on it in July of 1973, hinting that we were brought here by chance, or by some sort of intelligence from somewhere else in the universe.

This is interesting, because then you can get into the lore of creation stories that exists within ancient cultures from around the world, one would be our relation to, for example, what many indigenous culture refer to as the ‘Star People.’

I’m not even going to go into all of the strange skeletal remains that have been completely left out of the record, like the remains of giants, for example.

The Takeaway

The agenda for the maintenance of the neo-Darwinian version of the ‘Theory of Evolution’ was nothing less than to move people away from the notion of an intelligent creator and towards a perception founded in scientific materialism. In this way, those who funded and controlled scientific activity on the planet would have tremendous power.

Darwin’s theory may have served humanity for a certain phase of our own evolution, but now it is holding us back. It’s time for all of us to pierce more deeply into an understanding of the nature of the creation of life if we are to become creators ourselves by studying the current evidence. As the group of 500 scientists asked, ‘How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself?’

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Trump’s Tweet About Turkey, The Epitome Of Egoic Leadership

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A tweet from Donald Trump on Oct 7th, 2019 illustrates the state of being he operates from as he views the world around him. It's reflective of an egoic, ME centred state of being, and important to note.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we at a point where we must begin to discuss politics, society and challenges we face through a different light? One that isn't centred in judgement and political sides?

If we are to expect changes in our society from an infrastructure perspective, we might expect that changes in society’s culture and leadership must go along with that. But first, we must see the nature of culture clearly, unavoidably and loudly – to me, this is what we’ve been seeing with Trump’s character and in ways, I feel it serves.

For years CE has presented the very basic foundational notion that in order to create change in our outer world we have to look at the inner world, or state of human thought, conditioning, culture etc, and learn how it has shaped that external world. Through that process, we must also see the truth, not a veiled version of reality, but actual truth. We call this Breaking The Illusion. In fact, it’s step one in the CE Protocol, which is a calculated plan, if you will, as to how we can create the inner state of being and thinking necessary to create change in our external world.

In order to break the illusion, or the spell if you will, much like Neo in the movie the Matrix, one must be open and willing to see it. Be open to following that deep knowing that something is ‘off’ about our world, not quite right, and that we are capable of something more.

What better way to begin to explore that ‘matrix’ than to have it become so loud that it’s hard not to see? In simple terms, Trump represents how millions of people think and operate, including politicians, only, he does it loudly and on display for everyone to see. It’s so loud that guess what, we can’t avoid having to talk about what it means and represents.

In my view, this was made evidently clear in a recent tweet from earlier this month where Trump left it all on display, and we has many times:

It’s my way or the highway, is essentially what he’s saying here.

Interestingly, this tweet was retweeted 40,000 times and liked 145,000+ times, far more than the majority of his posts. Why? Because many people do resonate with Trump and his way of thinking. Instead of viewing this as right or wrong, we can see this as the current state of people and extract details as to what this means and how it helps to create the world we live in today.

We’ve often reported on Trump’s different, yet limited way of seeing things. A reality that does scare or make some in the establishment uncomfortable. This is why in many ways it feels like Trump is rocking the boat on some issues, while playing the ‘same old’ on others.

By looking at things in this manner, as opposed to traditional forms of judgment or political lenses, we Awaken Neutrality. This steps us beyond the polarity of right or wrong for a moment, from left or right, and instead allows us to examine the deeper layers of humanity’s culture and actions that ultimately create the state of affairs we operate within daily. Neutrality is important as it lets you see truth, not your version of truth, or a political version of the truth.

This is why step 2 of The CE Protocol is awakening that neutrality, because once we can begin looking at the world from a neutral point of view, we begin to hold the power to actually adjust it – and ourselves.

Trump’s tweet is representative of self-centeredness, the ME culture that permeates so much of what we experience today. It’s easy to blame this on vanity and social media but really it’s about showing, loudly, what it looks like to live under the notion that we are all completely separate, that we are all just a ME.

How does that feel? What world does that create? Do we create solid community? Or does it create many individual directions, all that move with no connection to another? Don’t confuse this with the notion that we must all be the same, instead reflect on the disorganized nature that ME culture creates and ask whether or not it considers the whole and stems from self-awareness.

Remember, it serves when our inner states of being become loud at times, as they become easier to see.

Within curiosity instead of judgement, i.e. neutrality, we now can begin letting go of all the programming we have learned via these disconnected and unaware states of being. This is where we begin to sense our true potential and start feeling what it’s like to be a more aware, wise, connected and authentic person. These steps represent steps 3 and 4 of the CE Protocol, Deprogramming Limits and Living Aligned. 

The Conscious Takeaway

In current events, we can see the truth of our current culture, society and state of being. We can choose to judge these actions, get upset, lash out and be angry, and that will lead us somewhere. We can also choose to take an approach similar to the protocol we present, and make a cultural shift that moves us out of anger and into empowerment that creates a new state of being and a new set of actions in turn.

Which path do you choose? It’s in that answer where you can decide which world you’re voting to create.

Collective Evolution is creating a massive and needed evolution in media through the CE Protocol. This is something that is much needed and has not been presented in the past. To learn more about the CE Protocol, click here.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Greta Thunberg Wants You To Be Scared & Big Business Will Make a Killing off It

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Greta Thunberg seems to have a good heart with good intentions, but she also seems to be a puppet for big business and powerful interests.

  • Reflect On:

    Why don't the victims of child trafficking and war in the Middle East receive a platform like Greta has received?

Eva Bartlett spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and occupied Palestine, where she lived for nearly four years in becoming one of the world’s most prominent journalists. Scrolling through her twitter feed reveals thought-provoking messages that can really help us further our understanding about what’s really happening on our planet, especially with regards to geopolitics.

Her posts are heavily censored by social media giants and search engines like Google because the information directly opposes fake narratives that are constantly spewed by mainstream media at the behest of their puppet masters, among them the Western intelligence agencies. A great example would be what’s happening in Syria, as many of her posts greatly expose networks like CNN and the BBC for reporting and spreading information that is completely fake. She backs up her tweets with proof and credible sources, not to mention that she goes directly to the places where she reports from.

She isn’t the only one. Several insiders have joined the quest for truth. For example, William Arkin, a longtime well known military and war reporter who is best known for his groundbreaking, three-part Washington Post series in 2010 has gone public outing NBC/MSNBC as completely fake government run agencies. You can read more about that here.

Comments On Greta Thunberg

Then there is Riam Dalati, a well known BBC Syria producer who recently put out a tweet stating that the supposed gas attacks in Douma were “staged.” You can see that and read more about it here. She is very sharp, which is why it was refreshing to come across some of her recent tweets and retweets that express her perspective on young climate activist Greta Thunberg.

She retweets a post from Ollie Richardson from September 25th, which resonated with her experiences:

“Please forgive me for not “caring” about the climate. It’s because every single day I am faced with images and videos of children in Donbass who try to survive despite the West’s conscious decision to drop bombs on them.

advertisement - learn more

Another one from Corey Morningstar explains how this movement was actually orchestrated by powerful forces, giving a short timeline of events that transpired:

May 2018: a teleconference led by a 350/fossil Fossil Free rep. & Climate Reality Project (Al Gore NGO) proposes a large climate march. Greta Thunberg partakes in this call as well as others that transpire. The idea of a strike came about. Thunberg was receptive. May 2018: Rentzhog is in contact with Greta’s mother (Malena Ernman) at a conference. June 2018: The Thunberg social media accounts are created. August 2018: Greta sits on a sidewalk. Ingmar Rentzhog, CEO of We Don’t Have Time discovers “the lonely girl.”

Not too long after these came out Eva Bartlett got in on it by retweeting the following:

Then another,

Dear #GretaThunberg if you want to know how stolen childhood looks like you have to speak to children in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya or Donbass whose childhood is being destroyed by acts of the biggest polluter in the world  #Pentagon

Finally, Bartlett tweets about an article that she called “timely” and “well written.” It was an article from last month entitled “Greta Thunberg wants you to be afraid, and big business will make a killing off it” published by RT, which includes this tidbit:

Since she shot to fame after organizing school walkouts in her native Sweden last year, Thunberg has been on a whirlwind tour of the world’s corridors of power. Appearing at economic forums, houses of parliament and most recently on Capitol Hill, the content of Thunberg’s speeches are always the same: what we’re doing for the planet isn’t good enough, and the end is nigh.

“I want you to act as if the house is on fire,” she told the world’s economic movers and shakers at Davos in January, asking them to “feel the fear I feel every day.”“We probably don’t even have a future anymore,” she told British lawmakers in April. And so on at every appearance, her portents of doom dutifully reported by the world’s media.

Thunberg’s emotional, fear-driven rhetoric has been criticized by climate scientistspoliticians, and conservative pundits. While Thunberg told Congress last week to “listen to the scientists,” even the scientists of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stepped on the brakes, with one saying that the temperature rises predicted by Thunberg are simply “not going to feel like Armageddon to the vast majority of today’s striking teenagers.”

Putin Weighs In

This type of sentiment is shared by many who have peered into the politics of climate change, like Vladimir Putin, for example. He had this to say about Greta:

I may disappoint you, but I don’t share everyone’s enthusiasm about Greta Thunberg’s speech. You know, the fact that young people, teenagers to the acute problems of the modern world, including ecology, that is right and very good. We need to support them. But when somebody uses children–teenagers and children in their own interest, it deserves only to be condemned.

“Im sure that Greta is a kind and very sincere girl,” Putin added. (source)

Vladimir Putin has been quite outspoken of the “powers that be” with regards to a number of issues, claiming that they create “imaginary” and “mythical” threats in order to justify immoral actions. For example, he’s stated that the Western military alliance created and armed terrorist groups, whose cruel actions have sent millions of civilians into flight, made millions of displaced persons and immigrants, and plunged entire regions into chaos.” You can read more about that here. It’s the reason that current democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard created the Stop Arming Terrorist Act, in order to stop the US government from funding terrorist organizations.

CO2 & Big Business

Connecting CO2 with climate has been going on for a while. (source)

In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen told the US Senate that the summer’s warmth reflected increased carbon dioxide levels. Even Science magazine reported that the climatologists were skeptical.

The reason we now take this position as dogma is due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector. One person who benefited from this was Maurice Strong, a global bureaucrat and wheeler-dealer (who spent his final years in China apparently trying to avoid prosecution for his role in the UN’s Oil for Food program scandals). Strong is frequently credited with initiating the global warming movement in the early 1980s, and he subsequently helped to engineer the Rio Conference that produced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others like Olaf Palme and his friend, Bert Bolin, who was the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were also involved as early as the 1970s. – Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is actually the lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. (source)

The ‘Green New Deal (The Sunrise Movement) is already being adopted in the US,  104 members of Congress, and three of the four frontrunners for the Democratic nomination next year have endorsed it. The legislation promises to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2050 and gives the  government large amounts of control over healthcare, wealth redistribution, transport, food production and housing. This movement has it’s roots in the financial elite, a bunch of neoliberal think-tanks and financiers.

Formed by French President Emanuel Macron and investment corporation BlackRock capital last year, the Climate Finance Partnership sees government-funded carbon reduction as a “flagship blended capital investment vehicle.” Salivating at potential profits in the world’s “developing and emerging markets,” the partnership calls for the “unlocking” of pension funds and government money to finance green industry in the developing world. Only instead of calling our planet’s situation a “climate emergency,” they call it “the climate opportunity.”

The Blended Finance Action Taskforce – comprised of 50 financial giants including HSBC, JP Morgan Chase and Citi – is even more explicit, calling for a “layer of government and philanthropic capital,” as there are “profits to be had” in “climate-related sectors…across three regions including Latin America, Asia, and Africa.”

Put simply, financial giants want your pensions and your taxes to support their investments half a world away. Greta Thunberg and The Climate Emergency Movement are paralyzing you with fear, and knowingly or unknowingly aiding the interests of the world’s mega-rich. (source)

This isn’t about the planet, it’s about money, period. Climate change is no different than using ‘the war on terror’ to create patriotism and to drive the population into accepting measures that hurt them, not benefit them. These ‘fear’ narratives are completely fake. We saw the same thing with Al-Qaeda:

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is 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. The country behind this propaganda is the United States.” (source)

Using Children

Somehow, the use of children seems to make the deception even more egregious, as described by.

Children are representative of all that is pure, innocent, and truthful, and girl children add that extra element of vulnerability and need: the need for urgent rescue. Lighting a candle on the path toward mass hysteria, with the intention of stimulating a mass response, we have had young girls play in similar roles (as Greta). There have been at least nine since 1990.

(1) The notorious Nayirah al-Ṣaba who lectured at the UN about the infamous and entirely made up “incubator babies” murdered by Iraqi forces in Kuwait in 1990.

(2) Severn Cullis-Suzuki, another young girl lecturing at the UN’s Rio Summit on the Environment, in what appears to be the template that has been copied almost to the letter by Greta Thunberg.

(3) Malala Yousafzai, who became the figurehead that somehow justified US occupation in Afghanistan and intervention in Pakistan, celebrated by the US State Department;

(4) Bana Alabed, the Syrian sock puppet of Twitter fame, a darling of imperialists who served as the angel of regime change on the side of foreign terrorists—see Eva Bartlett for more analysis.

(5) Now Greta Thunberg, promoted to the world stage declaring that mass extinction is already here, a prophet of doom who will profit certain well positioned investors.

And, don’t forget a whole array of other iconic girls featured on TIME and National Geographic magazine covers, such as (6) the famous “Afghan Girl,” Sharbat Gula, whose image was used to champion US support for the Afghan anti-Soviet resistance (an investment with proven blowback value), or more recently (7) Aisha, used as a motif to support continued US occupation of Afghanistan. One girl to oppose occupation of Afghanistan, another girl to promote occupation of Afghanistan.

The Rockefeller Report

In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the sole authority of the global warming agenda. The fund boasts of being one of the first major global activists by citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“The global elite have always benefited in some way shape or form from crises, we’ve seen it over and over again with war.

What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.

Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls that debate?

There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?” – Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa (source)

You can access the full report here. It was published by the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in 2016.

The Science

The climate is changing, and it has been changing for a very long time. In fact, the climate has always been changing, and there are a myriad of factors that influence climate change like solar activity and much more. If you’re not educated on climate science, it’s easy to adopt the “doomsday” perspective that’s often dished out by mainstream media. However, when you look at what actual climate scientists are saying, it doesn’t seem like anyone on either side agrees with the media’s “climate hysteria” narrative.

The main argument among those who ascribe to the hysteria perspective is that CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been since we started to record them, currently sitting at approximately 415 parts per million (ppm). It’s not like climate scientists disagree on the idea that C02 causes some warming of our atmosphere, that seems to be a fact that’s firmly established in scientific literature. But what’s never mentioned is the fact that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than what they are now; in fact, CO2 levels have been in the thousands of ppm and Earth’s temperature has been much warmer than it is now. The idea that human CO2 emissions are responsible for shifts and changes in climate is not scientifically valid, yet policy initiatives that do nothing for our environment are being produced and put forward, putting large sums of money in the pockets of some very powerful people.

“Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.” – Dennis T. Avery, agricultural and environmental economist, senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia, and formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State (source)

CO2 causing a temperature increase is the backbone of the global warming argument, but does CO2 even cause the temperature to increase, or does an increase in temperature cause a rise in C02?

“The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?” – Dr. Tim Ball, (source) former professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg

William Happer, American physicist and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, is one of what seems to be thousands of academics to go unheard by the mainstream media who shares the same perspective:

n every careful study, the temperature first rises and then CO2 rises, and the temperature first falls and then CO2 falls, temperature is causing changes of CO2 at least for the last million years, there’s no question about that. (source)

He also pointed out the major ice ages in Earth’s past when C02 levels were also extremely high, much higher than they are now, and did so to show how the correlation between C02 and temperature is “not all that good.”

In their paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999), they show how CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousands of years, but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other, but offer no explanation. The significance is that temperature may influence C02 amounts. At the onset of glaciations, temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall, suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times as well.

Since 1999, this theory has been discussed in numerous scientific papers, but not one shred of evidence exists to confirm that a CO2 increase causes ‘extreme warming.’

Doubling COinvolves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure. The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all. Lindzen (source)

Another quote stressing this point:

Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics. This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control. Lindzen (source)

A number of times, Lindzen and many others have been quite outspoken regarding the conclusions of this document that are drawn by politicians, not scientists. There will be more on that later in the article.

According to Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist:

The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causing ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…(source)

In the IPCC documents, we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are, specifically in their findings titled ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.’ Here was one of their recommendations:

Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

If we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science. The scientists included these three statements in the draft:

  1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
  2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
  3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

The “Summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary.’ Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:

  1. “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

Here’s another great point made by Lindzen:

How did we get to this point where the science seized to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate for an understanding of how climate actually works and instead devoted itself itself to a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on. (source)

HERE are some more informative comments about the politics of climate change.

The Other Side of The Coin

A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters claimed that 97% of climate scientists agreed with the ‘humans changing the climate’ narrative in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011. Not long ago, that paper hit 1m downloads, making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+ journals published by the Institute of Physics (as Lindzen mentions above, many of these papers are being published by scientists outside of climate physics), according to the authors.

A recent article that presents more scientific studies was published in the Guardian, titled ‘No Doubt Left About Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, say experts.’

But is this true? Do “97 percent of scientists” really agree as is so often promoted by the mainstream media?

“This claim is actually a come-down from the 1988 claim on the cover of Newsweek that all scientists agree. In either case, the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people. The claim is made by a number of individuals and there are a number of ways in which the claim is presented. A thorough debunking has been given in the Wall Street Journal by Bast and Spencer. One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger. Nonetheless this is portrayed as support for catastrophism. Other dodges involve looking at a large number of abstracts where only a few actually deal with danger. If among these few, 97% support catastrophism, the 97% is presented as pertaining to the much larger totality of abstracts. One of my favorites is the recent claim in the Christian Science Monitor (a once respected and influential newspaper): “For the record, of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014, four authors rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change.” I don’t think that it takes an expert to recognize that this claim is a bizarre fantasy for many obvious reasons.” – Richard Lindzen, from his paper “Straight Talk About Climate Change,” where he goes into greater detail.

This is a deep topic and there are many points to make. Here’s a great video by Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress for Prager University, explaining the 97 percent myth and where it came from.

Obviously, there is an ongoing debate surrounding climate change, and many people still think something fishy is going on here. It’s similar to the vaccines argument, or a host of other issues that never receive any attention from the mainstream media. Instead of presenting the concerns of scientists from the other side, or the side often labelled ‘skeptics,’ these scientists are often heavily ridiculed by mainstream media.

A great example is this dialogue, which is quite old now, between Lindzen and Bill Nye. It’s not hard to see that Nye has no idea what he is talking about, and he’s simply being used because, at that time, he had a large following.

The reason why so many people are unaware of the arguments made by climate ‘skeptics’ is because their points are never presented by mainstream media in the same way the other side’s are. The media controls the minds of the masses, but thankfully this is changing.

We Are Not Denying Climate Change/The Takeaway

We are not denying climate change, we are simply presenting the evidence showing that climate change has been happening for a long time, and that human CO2 output doesn’t seem to play a significant role at all, and that this is simply being used for profit, control, and to take more ‘power’ away from the people and put it into the hands of politicians and the global financial elite.

This is not about the planet.

We here at CE care deeply about our planet and creating harmony on it. Since we were founded in 2009, we’ve been creating massive amounts of awareness regarding clean energy technologies and the harmful industries polluting and destroying our planet. The issue is not with finding solutions, we already have those for the most part, the issue is with the systems we have that prevent these solutions from ever seeing the light of day. In fact, we have been heavily involved with multiple clean energy projects and assisting them in coming into fruition.

Opposing the ‘doom and gloom’ global warming narrative does not mean we do not care for our environment; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. We feel that politicians meeting every single year for the past few decades have done absolutely nothing to clean up our planet, and instead have been coming up with ways to simply make money off of green technology that cuts CO2 emissions.

If the people in power, with all of their resources, really wanted to change the planet, it would have happened by now.

While our focus is on CO2, not nearly enough attention and resources are going into re-planting our planet, cleaning up our fresh water lakes and oceans, and changing our manufacturing habits to cause less waste and less pollution. If anything, this should be our main focus, especially when it’s not really clear that C02 is an issue.

Environmental and species protection should be our first priority, but it’s not. I believe this green revolution is a distraction and, in many ways, further harms our environment by taking our focus off of what’s really important and putting it on something that is not impacting our planet in a negative way.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Abby Martin’s Film Gaza Fights For Freedom Humanizes World’s Largest Concentration Camp

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    This article was written by Miko Peled for Mintpressnews.com. Posted here with permission

  • Reflect On:

    It's amazing how much false information and propaganda are dished out by mainstream media regarding what's really happening in Gaza. Journalist Abby Martin really places the Gaza Strip under a microscope for the viewers to see another side.

GAZA, OCCUPIED PALESTINE — In her new documentary film, Gaza Fights for Freedom, journalist Abby Martin places the Gaza Strip under a microscope for the viewers to see. The result is an excellent movie that is difficult to watch, and disturbing at times, precisely because it presents a true, realistic view of life in Gaza. The movie shows how a small, courageous nation — locked up in the world’s largest concentration camp, facing inexcusable, unjustifiable and unforgivable violence — refuses to give up on its hopes and dreams and continues to fight for life.

Nothing left but bones

Heroism and cliches aside, the conditions in the Gaza Strip are horrifying. As one father interviewed in the movie says: “We are alive only by name… Gaza is no longer Gaza; all that is left of it are bones.” He may be referring to the distant past when the city of Gaza was one of the most important, prosperous and prestigious cities not only in Palestine but in the entire Middle East.

Perhaps what is most refreshing about Martin’s work is that the voices one hears are clear, authentic, Gazan voices. She makes no attempt to create the artificial “balance” one too often has to endure in movies and reports about Palestine in general and Gaza in particular. As though the Israelis who kill and maim and keep 2.2 million civilians caged and under siege in the Gaza Strip have a right to be heard. As though an explanation or justification can be given to the sheer cruelty and brutality exercised by Israel.

More than just bombs

Israel kills people in Gaza in more ways than one might imagine. While bombs make the headlines, the other methods are more subtle and rarely make it to the headlines. In Gaza Fights for Freedom, all of these draconian methods are brought to light. Here are a few examples:

    • It is no secret that if we want to kill people, other than shooting them, denying them water is a sure bet. Some 98 percent of the freshwater in the Gaza Strip is toxic and unfit for human consumption.
    • Food insecurity has been the reality in Gaza for many years. Israel allows only enough food to enter so as to avoid total starvation. Similar to the German policy of counting calories in the concentration camps during World War II, Israel too uses calorie counting in Gaza.
    • Electricity is available only sporadically and people go for 16 to 20 hours per day with no power. This means water pumps do not work. The danger of fire increases due to the extensive use of candlelight; medicine that requires refrigeration goes bad. Operation rooms in hospitals cannot function.
  • Access to health care is denied. While excellent health care facilities are available just a few short miles from the Gaza Strip, only Israelis and a very few Palestinians are given access. One example of the devastating results of this can be seen by comparing breast cancer survival rates, which among Israeli women are up to 86 percent but in the Gaza Strip are only 30 percent.
  • When Israel bombs Gaza one usually hears the casualty count and little notice is given to those who are injured. However, without access to proper facilities the wounded are, as Abby Martin puts it, “sentenced to a slow and painful end.”

Savages

Israel’s foremost talk-show host and “journalist” Yaron London recently said on Israeli television that Arabs as a whole are savages and that the Arab culture is savagery. Gaza Fights for Freedom accomplishes several important objectives, not the least of which is showing a clear distinction between the two competing, opposing parties in this story. On the one side the Israeli savagery and its well oiled PR machine and on the other the bare-chested Palestinians — men, women and children who are literally sacrificing life and limb so that the world will hear their cry for freedom.

advertisement - learn more

On the one hand, Israeli tanks and troops waving Israeli flags. The clean-cut well-spoken, Israeli spokesmen and -women trained by Hasbara experts that have taken control over the corporate media spew their well-rehearsed lies, telling a story about terrorists that they call Khamas and about people who they say fell prey to Khamas’ lies and are sacrificed on the altar of Khamas’ goal of inflicting death and destruction on Jews.

On the other side, Palestinians who lost nearly everything, speaking from the heart. In an honest, articulate, and measured way, young and old talk about their desire for freedom, their losses and their willingness to fight for it. As though they have a choice. It isn’t as though if Palestinians in Gaza sat quietly and did nothing they would be spared the death and destruction inflicted by Israeli savagery. The past seven decades have shown that Palestinians are killed regardless of whether they stand and fight or lie in their beds sleeping.

Razan Al-Najjar

In Gaza Fights for Freedom, Martin describes several groups that are supposed to be given protection under international law but in reality are not: children, people with disabilities, journalists, and medical teams such as paramedics. Israel has targeted, injured and killed Palestinians belonging to all of these groups. When on June 2, 2018, Razan Al-Najjar, a young female paramedic was shot and killed by an Israeli sniper, her death was a moment — just a single moment — in which the world seemed to stop and pay attention. Maybe because she was a woman, maybe because she was young, maybe because she was beautiful, and maybe because all of the above, she could not be painted as anything but innocent. Yet a sniper took aim and shot her.

“This was the first time she participated in an action, in a march, because this was a peaceful activity [in which] we all participated; even I participated in the March,” says Razan’s mother, Sabreen Al-Najjar.

The emergency medical crews in Gaza were, and continue to be nothing if not heroic, going far beyond the call of duty, day in and day out as the casualty count continues to grow. Razan was there from day one and her dedication and sacrifice moved the world — though again, only for a brief moment.

A small brave nation

The great Palestinian writer, political leader and martyr, Ghassan Kanafani, whom I often quote, in his now-famous interview from 1970 said that the Palestinians are “a strong brave nation” and that they will go on fighting for their cause and their rights. If anyone had any doubt that this was indeed the case, Abby Martin’s film, Gaza Fights for Freedom will put that doubt to rest.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Censorship is hiding us from you.

Get breaking conscious news articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!