- The Facts:
An op-ed in the New York Times tries to make the argument that free speech online needs to be curbed by our elected officials and private corporations because it is the cause of growing violence in our society.
- Reflect On:
What is the real source of violence in our society?
At the end of each opinion piece the New York Times makes the following statement: ‘The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor.’ Essentially, the pretext of this statement is that the New York Times does not censor or reject opinion simply because it is not aligned with the opinions of the editorial staff, and will print what does and does not resonate with the newspaper’s editors in equal measure. In other words, the New York Times purports to be strong advocates and facilitators of free speech and dissenting views.
The irony should not be lost on any of us that the New York Times opted to publish an opinion advocating for the restriction of free speech online. Unlike the New York Times, which has control over exactly what gets published under their moniker, the internet as a whole was not designed with such limits in place, and therefore quickly became the real place where people were free to publish their views, uncensored. And this, according to the published opinion of a staff writer for The New Yorker named Andrew Marantz, has become a dangerous problem. In his article entitled ‘Free Speech Is Killing Us: Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?‘ he goes so far as to presume everyone agrees:
Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress.
No one believes that anymore.
Marantz apparently thinks that no one believes we can allow people to speak freely and without limits on the internet anymore. That’s funny. I still do. And so do many of the people I speak to. But let’s not let that get in the way of the crafting of a good narrative.
Noxious Language Online Is Causing Real-World Violence?
I endeavored to see what kind of proof Marantz provided to justify his notion that online speech actually caused real-world violence. All I could find was a continuation of his point that ‘nobody believes [it doesn’t cause violence] anymore’:
No one believes that anymore. Not after the social-media-fueled campaigns of Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump; not after the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va.; not after the massacres in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and a Walmart in a majority-Hispanic part of El Paso. The Christchurch gunman, like so many of his ilk, had spent years on social media trying to advance the cause of white power. But these posts, he eventually decided, were not enough; now it was “time to make a real life effort post.” He murdered 51 people.
So let’s take his ‘big’ claim: the Christchurch gunman, who we can presume has long been an angry and disturbed individual, spent years on social media with his grievances. It is because he was able to express himself online that he killed people? Where is the causal connection? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to point to the fact that being an angry and disturbed individual is the reason he killed people?
No causal connection has been established because there is none. Mainstream media speculation, repeated over and over, is what is taken as evidence. And yet Marantz thinks it is compelling enough to use the phrase ‘8chan-inspired massacres’ with authority, as though any website whose only ‘crime’ is that it does not censor free speech could ever be ‘responsible’ for real-world human massacres.
In our latest episode of the Collective Evolution Show, Joe Martino and I discuss at length who and what this op-ed tries to convince us are ‘responsible’ for mass shootings and other acts of violence. One of the observations we make is that it has long been understood in psychology that it is the suppression of what is inside of us, not the expression of it, that fuels the type of emotions that build up and explode into highly violent acts. Check out the first segment below or see the full episode when you sign up for a free 7-day trial on CETV.
Putting Foxes In Charge Of The Hen House
Referring to this growing problem of internet-free-speech-fueled violence, Marantz asks the question, ‘What should we — the government, private companies or individual citizens — be doing about it?’ Unfortunately, he goes on to ignore individual citizens, as the only solutions he offers are to suggest what the government and private companies can do about it:
Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC. It could rethink Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder. If Congress wanted to get really ambitious, it could fund a rival to compete with Facebook or Google, the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.
Or the private sector could pitch in on its own. Tomorrow, by fiat, Mark Zuckerberg could make Facebook slightly less profitable and enormously less immoral: He could hire thousands more content moderators and pay them fairly.
In the process, Marantz’ whole pitch is laid bare: we cannot trust individuals to manage themselves, however we can trust government and the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world to decide what forms of speech may incite real world violence and should therefore be prevented from seeing the light of our monitors.
Marantz never addresses that eternal quandary that comes up whenever free speech is challenged: Which individual human being, whether clothed in an organization, council, governing body or not, has the right to determine what other individuals should not have the right to say and express? Our inalienable natural rights as human beings dictate simply that no one has such rights.
This is further compounded by the fact that Marantz makes the base assumption that we all believe that his powerful arbiters of free speech can be trusted to do what’s best for the people, when in fact elected officials and corporate leaders have shown almost ubiquitously that they act either in their own self interests or according to the agenda of their puppet masters, in ways that seldom if ever benefit individuals in society.
Calling Out The Propaganda
It strains credulity for me that someone with the intelligence that Marantz displays in his use of words and turns of phrases does not know that we are well past the era when government officials and corporate leaders were trusted for anything. And so logic would have me conclude that Marantz is simply playing along with the mainstream narrative because he has been instructed to do so, not because, as he so disingenuously tries to spin in his article, that he was once a full advocate of the first amendment but he has since grown up and really tried to solve some of the problems in society.
The fact that social media companies have already been proven to be employing egregious censorship, banning, demonetization and other practices to silence the growing voices that are speaking out against the mainstream narrative (our own company can list a litany of such attacks upon us) is completely ignored by Marantz.
The real purpose of challenges to free speech, as history has shown us since time immemorial, is to limit and thwart the challenges to the existing power structure. The New York Times and much of mainstream media are owned, controlled, and used by the power structure as a propaganda arm, and so the decision for NYT to publish this particular ‘opinion’ should come as no surprise. And by the way–I support their freedom to do so.
Mainstream culture has recently been moving towards a ‘victim’ mentality and away from self-responsibility, and this is all by design. When the population is not self-responsible, it is much easier for Big Daddy government and corporations to rule, and to propose limiting our freedoms in order to protect us from the ‘dangerous elements’ within the society. The problem is that our true salvation will only be possible when each of us moves towards self-responsibility and seeks personal sovereignty.
I wrote an article last year entitled, ‘Let’s Discard The ‘Right’ To Be Insulted By Free Speech,’ and in it my main point was that allowing and embracing free speech will lead us to realize that other people’s views, pronouncements, even grievances and judgments, have no power over us unless we give that power to them. In fact, learning to deal with such speech contributes to our personal growth. Free speech, and not the suppression of it, is what will allow us as individuals to become stronger and as a consequence, will slowly strengthen our society and make it safer.
Is There Collusion Between Facebook & DC Think Tanks in Censoring Alternative Media Voices?
- The Facts:
Neocon Jamie Fly has taken partial credit for the purge of alternative media sites on Facebook and Twitter. They still claim the reason for this is their spreading of fake news from Russia and China. They allege that more deletions are coming.
- Reflect On:
Are we still believe this Russian interference narrative from the mainstream? Is this not just a modern book burning? By not questioning mainstream narratives, is our voluntary unconsciousness creating an undesirable world?
After the recent social media purge of independent media voices, Jamie Fly, an employee of a leading Washington DC think tank has allegedly taken credit for being involved in the colluded efforts by Facebook and Twitter, stating this was necessary in order to fight against ‘fake news’ from Russia and China.
To be clear, I, a Canadian operating an independent media outlet (Collective Evolution) am friends with some of the admins of these pages who were deleted this October. The people running and owning these pages are American and have absolutely no ties to Russia and China nor get their narratives from Russia or China.
Yet, this is still the narrative being put forth, and it clearly has no backing.
“Russia, China, and other foreign states take advantage of our open political system,” Jamie Fly said.
Jamie Fly is no quiet voices when it comes to non-peaceful tactics. He has advocated for military assault on Iran, a regime change war on Syria, and hiking military spending to unprecedented levels. He is the what many people would consider is a pure neoconservative.
Fly began showing up in the news as an expert on social media and ‘Russian disinformation’ speaking on the narrative that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential election in the US. Which there is still has no credible evidence to support.
“They can invent stories that get repeated and spread through different sites. So we are just starting to push back. Just this last week Facebook began starting to take down sites. So this is just the beginning.” Fly continued.
According to Jeb Sprague, a visiting faculty member in sociology at the University of California-Santa Barbara, recalls various claims Jamie Fly made to him with regards to Facebook and Twitter censorship. According to Sprague, Fly also stated that he was working with the Atlantic Council in the campaign to purge alternative media from social media platforms like Facebook.
If you recall, we wrote an entire piece on the Atlantic Council who has been working with Facebook to determine who to delete. The Atlantic Council has ties to many prominent deep state figures and is funded by them as well.
Having the chance to speak recently with a major neo-con official in the German Marshal Fund,I felt compelled to write here& expose the collusion taking place between Facebook & leading DC think tanks in censoring alternative media voices.See article,co-authored w/@MaxBlumenthalhttps://t.co/zIDumxs2pc
— Jeb Sprague (@JebSprague) October 23, 2018
Again here we’re seeing more pieces to the puzzle show up in this effort against independent media voices. Note, this is not about silencing hateful voices or extreme voices, it’s simply anyone who dissents from the mainstream narrative. This is The United States creating George Orwell’s 1984, and it’s those who don’t question mainstream narratives who are unknowingly supporting these actions.
What does our unconsciousness and unwillingness to ask questions about mainstream narratives truly causing?
At CE we have lost 80% of our funding since two years ago due to censorship of our voice. If you feel our work is important and want to ensure we keep independent media going, please consider joining our CETV platform.
Since we can be removed from Facebook at any point, join our email list to stay updated with our content.
Tulsi Gabbard Files Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton Over Defamatory Statements
- The Facts:
Tulsi Gabbard, a United States Congresswoman, Army National Guard Major, and 2020 presidential candidate, filed a defamation lawsuit against Hillary Rodham Clinton for her defamatory remarks.
- Reflect On:
Is the political system broken? Can we keep voting and using the same system hoping for change? Does politics, and voting, take power out of our own hands and put it in the hands of a small group of people?
There are a few Great quotes that instantly come to mind everytime the thought of politics enters my head, one of them comes from Edward Bernays, “the father of public relations” from his book, Propaganda, 1928. If you’ve read some of my articles you have probably come across it before,
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
To me, this is what modern day politics, for the most part, represents. It’s a game where, whoever is elected, or rather selected as some would argue, seems to insult and expose their competition in as many ways as possible, while simultaneously making moves and making statements that accumulate more loyal followers, and voters. It is the complete opposite of doing what our leaders should be doing, working together while at the same time being completely transparent. Furthermore, the upper echelon of the political game only seems to feature powerful people, with close ties and connections to people above them who have accumulated even more wealth and power. Many presidents over the years only seem to follow the will of their masters, who are comprised of the corporate and financial elite.
Another great quote that comes to mind I like to use often,
Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great staffs, both of the old parties have ganged aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them in martialling [sic] to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. – Theodore Roosevelt (source)
This ‘invisible’ government has been referred to by many over the years. In the modern day, some called it “the deep state” and believe it’s made up of mainstream media, and many other corporations and institutions that greatly influence US elections, foreign policy as well as the decisions that are supposedly made by the president of the United States. This is why we see people connected to great power always take the presidency. It’s no secret that politics is full of corruption, not to mention entrapment, blackmail, pedophilia (as exposed more within the mainstream with regards to the Jeffrey Epstein case), and much more.
But every now and then, a pure soul seems to emerge garnering the attention of many. And when they do, ‘the establishment’ completely ignores them, belittles them, and falsely accuses them in an attempt to shift the perception of the character in question within the minds of the masses. It’s as if, from the very beginning, they have no chance to win because it’s so unfair, and so much is pitted against them.
This is exactly why veteran and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is experiencing this type of thing. Gabbard first caught my attention when she introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act (H.R.608) which would have stopped, or attempted to stop the U.S. government from using taxpayer dollars to directly or indirectly support groups who are allied with and supporting terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda in their war to overthrow the Syrian government. The legislation is based on congressional action during the Iran-Contra affair to stop the CIA’s illegal arming of rebels in Nicaragua. It is endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America, the U.S. Peace Council, and Veterans For Peace.
She has long been creating awareness on issues of how this ‘establishment works.’ Here’s one of her latest re-tweets.
She spoke and speaks a lot of truth, she is a supporter of people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, and an advocate for peace and has the desire to end corrupt wars, and much more. Clearly, she’s a big threat to the establishment that seems to control and has controlled the presidency for a long time.
Related CE Articles: Tulsi Gabbard: “DNC and Corporate Media Are Rigging The Election Again”
This is why her persona has been ‘bashed’ by establishment owned mainstream media, and the powerful Hillary Clinton, who has labelled Gabbard as a Russian asset, among many other things, which in Turn is why Gabbard has filed a lawsuit against Clinton for defamation of character.
They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset (Tulsi), I mean, totally. – Clinton (source)
According to he NY Post:
She filed her $50 million defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton to hold the former secretary of state “accountable” for her alleged smears.
Washington, DC – Tulsi Gabbard, a United States Congresswoman, Army National Guard Major, and 2020 presidential candidate, today filed a defamation lawsuit against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Gabbard, a U.S. Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd congressional district, asserts in her complaint that Clinton deliberately and maliciously made false statements in an attempt to derail Rep. Gabbard’s campaign, by alleging that Gabbard is a “Russian asset.” The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Brian Dunne and Dan Terzian, Rep. Gabbard’s legal counsel and partners at Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP.
Clinton was the 2016 Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States, United States Secretary of State from 2009 until 2013, a United States Senator for the State of New York from 2001 to 2009, and the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001. On October 17, 2019, she publicly stated in an interview that “somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary … [is a] favorite of the Russians… Yeah, she’s a Russian asset.” The press extensively republished and disseminated these statements, which were interpreted widely as Clinton asserting that Gabbard is a Russian asset.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages and an injunction prohibiting the further publication of Clinton’s defamatory statements.
The case is Tulsi Gabbard and Tulsi Now, Inc. v. Hillary Rodham Clinton. A copy of the full complaint is available here.
I often wonder why humanity keeps playing with a system that’s completely corrupt and broken. Our ‘leaders’ don’t seem to have humanity and planet Earth in mind when it comes to making their decisions. Today, the system is a representation of greed, fear, ego, profit, and much more, but one thing is for sure, it’s far from serving the people and other beings that reside on our planet. We need leaders that truly care about our environment, the people, preservation, life, and abundance for all. What we really need is a complete collapse of the current system we are playing with, and to implement something far greater that is more in line with the current level of human consciousness, and something that is more representative of our collective human potential. And most of all, we need to stop pointing fingers and blaming political figures for our problem because at the end of the day, on the deepest of levels, we are simply allowing it to happen. Politics doesn’t help as it makes us feel the power to change things is out of our hands, in in ‘theirs.’
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete – Buckminister Fuller (L. Steven Sieden, A Fuller View – Buckminster Fuller´s Vision of Hope and Abundance for all“, p. 358), Divine Arts Media (2011)
One thing seems to be quite clear, people are tired of politics and it is no longer serving humanity. It’s useless and pointless, and is counterintuitive. It’s no longer serving the collective, and it’s quite questionable whether it ever has.
Snakes In Suits: Are Psychopaths Running The World?
- The Facts:
By comparing traits of psychopaths, as determined by experts, to those of people in corporate or political positions of power, we can see a clear link.
- Reflect On:
Psychopaths feel no remorse, guilt or empathy for their actions. When we look at the many inhumane acts that are currently taking place on our planet, it begs the following question with judgement aside: Are psychopaths running our world?
Editors Note: We felt this was important to discuss, not from a place of judgement and fear but one of observation so we can ask important questions as to whether or not we want to keep supporting the world we are co-creating at this time.
Often when we think of the word psychopath, we think of deranged serial killers that are hopefully locked up in prison for life. While there are many psychopaths who kill for reasons that are unfathomable to most of us and who are indeed in prison, there is an even greater number roaming free in our society and often using their condition to their advantage in any way possible. In fact, it is very likely that you know some–they might even be your colleagues.
Most of us do not know or work with any serial killers, at least not that we are aware of. So, what exactly is a psychopath and how can we define them? The dictionary definition is as follows:
“A person suffering from a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.”
As you can probably tell, a lot more than just serial killers will fit into this broad definition. In fact, according to Canadian psychologist Dr. Robert Hare, a world-renowned expert on psychopathy, an estimated 1% of the Earth’s population is psychopathic and around 25% of the population of male inmates at federal correctional facilities are psychopathic.
It is important to note that, in contrast with the popular image of the ‘deranged psycho,’ psychopaths tend to be very well composed, take good care of their appearance and are very charming (think of Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman in American Psycho). Because of this you may have a difficult time spotting them out, as they are masters of deception and are able to fake a lot of the qualities that define regular people. Some other psychopathic traits, according to Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist, are as follows:
- Glib and superficial charm
- Grandiose estimation of self
- Need for stimulation
- Manipulative and cunning
- Complete lack of remorse or guilt
- Pathological lying
- Have a parasitic lifestyle, often latching onto and taking from others
- Have a history of early behavioral problems
- Overly impulsive
- Are very irresponsible
- Unable to accept responsibility for actions
- Unable to commit to long-term relationships
- History of juvenile delinquency
- Display criminal versatility
- Experienced a “revocation of conditional release”
- Lacks realistic long term goals
- History of promiscuous sexual behavior
- Have poor behavioral controls
- Are callous and lack empathy
- Have a “shallow affect” (psychopaths show a lack of emotion when an emotional reaction is appropriate.)
You can actually rate yourself to find out if you are psychopath. On each criterion, the subject is ranked on a 3-point scale: (0 = item does not apply, 1 = item applies somewhat, 2 = item definitely applies). The scores are summed to create a rank of zero to 40. Anyone who scores 30 and above is most likely a psychopath. Hare has used this test and checklist to detect which inmates are psychopaths.
Snakes In Suits
What many of us may not realize is that psychopaths actually thrive in the corporate world. Hare has actually co-authored a book with Dr. Paul Babiak on this topic entitled, Snakes In Suits: Understanding and Surviving the Psychopaths in Your Office. Psychopaths manipulate others to accrue power, sometimes pitting them against each other in an attempt to divide and conquer. They are often attracted to bigger, dynamic corporations with very little structure or supervision. They generally don’t work well in teams because they don’t like to share information or skills and it brings them joy to watch others fail. They are addicted to power, status and money. Sound familiar?
The corporate world is set up to favor psychopathic traits such as fearlessness, dominant behavior and immunity to stress. Because of this, psychopaths often find themselves in these types of positions, and then have an easier time climbing the corporate ladder and obtaining positions of great power. This is where they can do real damage to society as we see it today.
Are Psychopaths Running The World?
Not only as corporate heads do psychopaths find success in our modern-day society, but also within our governments and political system — often as front-line politicians. This may come as a shock to you, but when you really look at some of the atrocities that are taking place on our planet, and if you’ve ever wondered how things that are so inhumane could actually be happening, well, therein lies part of your answer.
When you consider the war, genocide, senseless murder of civilians, treatment of the indigenous cultures of the world, chemicals in our food, air and water supply, acts of “terrorism”, war crimes and so many other unjust and cruel actions which are often instigated by our political leaders, it becomes easy to see how psychopaths actually fit the requirements for these types of roles quite well. As mentioned before they are masters of deception, pathological liars and often quite charming.
Many soldiers go to war and because they are conditioned to believe that they are fighting an enemy in the name of peace. They do as they are told and commit these heinous acts against other human beings. The reason why so many soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder is because it is not within human nature to murder other humans, and especially innocent civilians.
We already know how many politicians are crooked, but perhaps its time to start looking at them with the psychopath checklist in mind so that we can be better equipped to protect not only ourselves but our society from their malicious acts.
But Can’t We Help Them?
It is natural for anyone who is involved in spiritual work to have compassion for these individuals and feel compelled to help them overcome their psychopathic behavior. However, most research has pointed towards the understanding that psychopaths are born, not made and therefore cannot be cured. This is one of the main differences that separates sociopaths from psychopaths. Another is that sociopaths have a conscience, albeit a weak one, and will often justify something they know to be wrong. By contrast, psychopaths will believe that their actions are justified and feel no remorse for any harm done. Sociopaths are made, and have a higher likelihood of overcoming their current condition. However, many of those with sociopathic behavior will find themselves in similar corporate positions.
Hare’s research discovered that by attempting to heal or help a psychopath, you might actually be strengthening their cunning abilities, as they will find a way to manipulate you into believing that they are remorseful and understand how their actions were wrong.
Editors Note: As we begin to ask difficult but necessary questions about people in positions of power, including world leaders, that we agree to put there and support, we turn readers towards the CE Protocol in exploring the purpose of this more deeply, and what to do about it. Click here to check out the protocol.
This Psychiatrist’s Take On Alcohol May Make You Never Want To Drink Again
A psychiatrist gives his insight on just how toxic alcohol is for our mind, body, and soul.
Retired American Bishop Believes The Church Invented Hell & Is In The “Control Business”
Religion is a controversial topic, and I’d like to preface this article by saying that it is not my aim...