- 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.
16 Months of Hidden Camera Footage Shows What Happens At “Humane” Dairy Farms
- The Facts:
Hidden cameras were set u across dairy farms that market themselves as "humane," "free range," and "organic." These labels truly mean nothing when it comes to how the entire dairy industry treats these animals, as the hidden camera footage shows.
- Reflect On:
When we've been made to believe something for so long and we are confronted with the idea that it's not true, it can cause cognitive dissonance. In today's day in age, it's best to keep an open mind and question our actions. What are we doing?
The practice of drinking cow’s milk begs the question, for the mass consumption of human beings, can it really be done in any sort of humane or ethical way? It’s hard to think of a way it could be, given the simple fact that for one, a cow has to give birth in order to produce milk for their young. This means that if you are going to provide the masses with the milk of a cow, you’re going to have to forcefully impregnate a cow, which today on most farms is done by artificial insemination. Second of all, the milk needs to be preserved for humans, so the baby is prevented from taking the mothers milk and is usually separated from the mother and taken away to be used for beef. Male calves are of no use to the dairy industry and generally less suitable for beef production. This means that every year around 90,000 male dairy calves in the UK are shot soon after birth and discarded as a by-product. Dairy cows are sent to slaughter after around 4 – 6 years, or when they are too weak to continue producing milk. Their natural lifespan is around 25 years.
From the perspective of the animal, and hopefully the human, it’s heart-breaking, depressing and hard, and the animals are predominately kept in terrible conditions. These animals love, they fear, they think and contemplate. They are emotional just like us, and it’s our lack of ability to see ourselves in all other life that continues this pattern.
One of the latest examples comes from footage captured by hidden camera’s that were set up across dairy farms in the United Kingdom by Dismantle Dairy.
We’ve Been Brainwashed Into Thinking A Cow’s Milk Is Necessary.
Calcium has been the backbone of big food companies that have marketed cow’s milk to human beings. These are big corporations that, through lobbying, have basically dictated government policy when it comes to what’s distributed as ‘food education’ in many different countries. It’s ironic, because calcium is largely available in many plant forms. Furthermore, casein, the protein found in dairy, actually triggers something called metabolic acidosis. This happens when the body produces too much acid and becomes very acidic, which can be caused by multiple things, including the absorption of casein found in animal protein. In order to compensate for this condition, the body actually leeches calcium out of its bones, this helps neutralize the increased acidity.
Animal protein in general has been shown to be harmful to human health, while plant protein shows the opposite. You can read more about that here in this heavily sourced article.
Perhaps this is why multiple studies show that drinking milk from a cow leads to an increased mortality rate and actually makes bones more prone to fracturing, not less. One example would be this giant study from researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden.
This became known to me through the work of Dr. Colin Campbell, an American biochemist who specializes in the effect of nutrition on long term health. He is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. Scholars like Campbell are vital to the world, because they are among the few who actually examine and study nutrition and health, something that our modern day medical industry completely ignores. You can watch a video of him explaining, here. Dr. Campbell also discovered that animal protein (casein) can accelerate and “turn on” cancer, while plant based protein has the opposite effect. You can read more about that and which him explain in this article.
If we look at all other animals who don’t consume the milk of another animal or after weaning, it is because they do not have the enzymes to break down the sugar found in milk. We are no different, and this explains why in some ethnic populations around the world, lactose intolerance is present in 90 percent of the population. A staggering 70 percent of the world’s population has some degree of lactose intolerance. Humans actually never had this enzyme, and to digest the sugar in cow’s milk, we had to develop the LTC gene, which was acquired by mutation. This is the lactase gene, which allows us to process lactose as adults. Clearly, we are not doing what is natural and in accordance with our bodies. I first came across this information from Katherine S. Pollard, a PhD at the University of California, San Francisco, in this lecture.
More doctors are waking up, The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) recently submitted a citizen petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change labeling on cheese to include a cancer warning.
The petition states:
High-fat dairy products, such as cheese, are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. Components in dairy such as insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) and other growth hormones may be among the reasons for the increased risk for cancer.
To ensure that Americans understand the potential significant risks, and resulting long-term costs, of consuming dairy cheese products, the FDA should ensure that the notice above is prominently placed on product packaging and labeling for all dairy cheese products.
The list goes on and on, what’s presented in this article is simply a tidbit with regards to why big milk is going out of business. People are waking up. It’s just not necessary.
Perhaps the biggest indication that people are waking up is the fact that Dean foods, the largest milk producer in the United States has filed for bankruptcy. You can read more about that here.
When it comes to health and cruelty, it’s not just dairy, it’s also meat-eating as well. It’s very in-humane, not all that healthy, and is also destroying our planet.
You can read this article for more information about that: Another Study Suggests That Human Beings Are Not Designed To Eat Meat
Let’s not forget about that animal agriculture is also destroying our planet. There is simply nothing good about dairy, period. It’s truly hard to make an argument in favour of it.
Why are human beings forced into believing things that aren’t true, and that ruthlessly defend them so much? It’s because our consciousness is used against us, and with regards to various topics, we’ve been made to believe the opposite of truth for the purposes of control, profit, greed and ego. Many may have a hard time accepting that our federal health regulatory agencies, or big corporations for example can be so corrupt, but they are. The positive thing is that many truths are not surfacing, as truth cannot stay hidden for long. We live in a world with beautiful people, and there are many great things about our planet. Compassion and empathy are returning to our planet, and that’s the backbone as to why the dairy industry continues to struggle. Let’s keep the awareness going! How have we been made to believe that it’s ok to treat other lifeforms in the manner that we treat them?
The US Tried To Detonate A Nuke On The Moon – USAF Colonel Says ‘Someone’ Intervened When We Did
- The Facts:
Documents as well as witness testimony from high ranking people with verified backgrounds point to the idea that extraterrestrials have tampered with and disarmed our nuclear weapons on more than one occasion.
- Reflect On:
With so much corroborating evidence, it's clear that something is going on which is why the mainstream has started to take this seriously. But why are stories like this never presented by the mainstream, are they trying to control the narrative?
Did the United States try and detonate a nuclear weapon on the Moon? Well, there is a slew of declassified documents that clearly show it was a deep desire for the United States to do so. These documents were heavily classified, and you can be assured that if the United States did, or at least did attempt what they were planning to do, it would remain highly classified and away from public knowledge. A declassified report by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center from June 1959 shows just how seriously they considered the plan. It was called Project A119, and it outlines the desire of the government to investigate the capability of weapons in space, as well as gain further insight into the space environment and the detonation of nuclear devices within it, hence why they wanted to detonate a nuke on the Moon.
Again, it’s s just one of multiple documents that show a high level of interest with regards to detonating weapons on the Moon. There are even strange documents with regards to supposed bases on the Moon. To complement the disclosed desire is the testimony of a very interesting person, Colonel Ross Dedrickson. Dedrickson was a real whistleblower, meaning his background can be verified, he actually was who he says he was. In the episode below we present multiple documents that show this, including a list from the Air Force registrar as well as a document from the atomic energy commission. He is one of hundreds of high ranking people to discuss and share his experiences with UFOs and what he knows and extraterrestrials. He is one of many who specially worked close with nuclear weapons.
He was assigned to the US Atomic Energy Commission and served with them from 1950-1958. His job dealt with the administration duties at Nevada test sites, Pacific Nuclear Test Areas west of Hawaii, nuclear weapon manufacturing and quality assurance in Albuquerque, and inspection of nuclear and non-nuclear facilities throughout the country.
In our latest episode of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, founder Joe Martino and I go in deeper into the discussion of the desire of the United States to test nuclear weapons on the Moon for scientific purposes, measurements and such. We also present the video testimony of Ross Dedrickson, which show his claims that yes, the US did attempt transporting nuclear weapons to the Moon, but extraterrestrials destroyed the weapon before it they got there, according to him. We go deep into the connection between nuclear weapons and UFOs and provide more evidence in the form of documentation and witness testimony from more high ranking military personnel , as well as dive deeper into the discussion about possible extraterrestrials and their interest in our nuclear weapons as it seems that, on more than one occasion, they’ve destroyed and or deactivated these weapons of ours.
The clip below is just the introduction, for the full episode and hundreds of other inspiring shows and interviews, you can start a free 7-day trial on CETV today and watch it. We created this platform in an attempt to stay alive and allow us to continue to do what we do as we are experiencing tremendous amounts of censorship from social media platforms
Princeton Study: The U.S. Is Not ‘Losing’ Its Democracy, It’s Already Long Gone
- The Facts:
A Princeton University study found that the United States operates much more as an Oligarchy than as a Democracy.
- Reflect On:
Can the current system be fixed or do we need to walk away from it to get what we really want?
The notion that citizens of the United States don’t actually live in a democracy has been picking up steam for decades, with scars from economic, social and political decay inflicting themselves ever more deeply into our psyches as the years move on.
You would think that, with the rise of science and technology, we would have been able to build a far more prosperous nation. Instead, we have seen a vast reduction in our standard of living, and are being forced to work longer and harder in increasingly menial and unfulfilling jobs across the board. We are ever more being subjected to the control-hungry vicissitudes of mega-corporations that are swallowing up American entrepreneurship and prosperous self-employment.
The notion that we as individuals are failing ourselves as a nation, and somehow have earned the massive and growing national debt as a result of our own poor decisions and ineptitude, is only valid if you still believe that we are living in a democracy, where the majority of individuals directly make policy. If in fact the United States ever fully operated this way, the least we can say is that our democracy is currently broken.
Of course, if you are in the small coterie of economic elites at the top of the pyramid, you don’t feel that anything is broken. In fact, in the back rooms where all the important meetings take place, you likely spend part of the time congratulating each other because things are going exactly according to plan.
A study by two political scientists at Princeton and Northwestern, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, analyzed 1,779 recent policy outcomes found that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” while average citizens “have little or no independent influence.”
The research had two parts: First, they measured the amount of political influence various groups have in America. Then, they checked this against some technical definitions of democracy, oligarchy, and other forms of government.
In our latest episode of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, Joe Martino and I discuss this study and the broader notion of whether the system itself is simply broken and can be fixed, or if we should start thinking about how we can move away from it altogether. The opening clip is below, and for the full episode and hundreds of other inspiring shows and interviews, you can start a free 7-day trial on CETV today.
The Wealthy Have More Influence
The chart below shows how much political influence different groups have in America today. Not only do the wealthy have the most influence, ordinary voters have basically none.
To have “political influence” in this case means that Congress responds to you by passing the laws and policies you like. Low influence means you’re ignored — Congress passes laws that have no relationship to what you want.
Special interest groups also have sway over public policy. The researchers divided them into two types. “Mass” interest groups, which represent large groups of organized citizens, have a small amount of power. Business groups, like trade associations, have a moderate amount, likely because they can afford to spend more on lobbying and political donations.
None of this means that ordinary people never get what they want from Congress. Sometimes public opinion data matched up with things Congress actually did. However the vast majority were also outcomes favored by the wealthy and business interests. Statistically speaking, the government doesn’t care what 90% of Americans think.
America Is an Oligarchy
The authors defined four possible systems we might have: (1) democracy, (2) oligarchy, or semi-democratic systems dominated by (3) interest groups generally or (4) business groups especially. You can look at the chart below and judge for yourself: America in 2014 matches mostly with the oligarchy model — an oligarchy of wealthy individuals. In fact, the general public has even less influence than it does in a typical oligarchy model.
The problem here isn’t the existence of wealth, or that wealthy Americans have political opinions. It’s that the government is representing only 10% of the American people. Everyone else is living with something less than democracy.
The authors make the following observations: Organized groups regularly lobby and fraternize with public officials; move through revolving doors between public and private employment; provide self-serving information to officials; draft legislation; and spend a great deal of money on election campaigns.
At its heart, this is a problem of corruption – caused by money in our political system. Such corruption is fundamentally opposed to the ideals of our republic because “the public is likely to be a more certain guardian of its own interests than any feasible alternative.”
While some might argue that introducing new campaign finance laws as well as anti-corruption legislation is the answer, we have to remember that the foxes remain in charge of the hen house, and there is always resistance from lawmakers to introduce, implement, and enforce legislation that will reduce their power and ultimately find them guilty of having obtained their power through corrupt means. More than likely this problem will only get solved when we amass the collective will to walk away from this system, and create one that is more aligned with our values and aspirations.
Doctors Explain How Hiking Actually Changes Our Brains
While it may seem obvious that a good hike through a forest or up a mountain can cleanse your mind,...
The US Tried To Detonate A Nuke On The Moon – USAF Colonel Says ‘Someone’ Intervened When We Did
Did the United States try and detonate a nuclear weapon on the Moon? Well, there is a slew of declassified...