- The Facts:
The influence of intelligence and government agencies when it comes to mainstream media is quite large. This article provides numerous examples from documents to whistleblowers that clearly prove this point.
- Reflect On:
Our world has become quite Orwellian with regards to free and open information. There now seems to be a 'Ministry of Truth' that is hiding information from people, and telling them what to believe and how to think. Censorship is rampant.
A declassified document from the CIA archives in the form of a letter from a CIA task force addressed to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency details the close relationship that exists between the CIA and mainstream media and academia.
The document states that the CIA task force “now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation,” and that “this has helped us turn some ‘intelligence failure’ stories into ‘intelligence success” stories,’ and has contributed to the accuracy of countless others.” Furthermore, it explains how the agency has “persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.”
Although it is a document outlining their desire to become more open and transparent, the deception outlined by various whistleblowers (example) requires us to read between the lines and recognize that the relationships shared between intelligence agencies and our sources of information are not always warranted and pose inherent conflicts of interest.
Herein lies the problem: What is “national security,” and who determines that definition? JFK bravely told the world that the “dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it.” He also said that “there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.”
“National security” is now an umbrella term used to justify concealing information, but who makes these decisions?
The real reason why people like Julian Assange are treated the way they are treated is because they threaten immoral corporate and elitist actions/interests of various governments and institutions, and because they simply share truth and information.
This is why we are also seeing the mass censorship of alternative media outlets, like Collective Evolution.
Not long ago, William Arkin, a longtime well known military and war reporter who is best known for his groundbreaking, three-part Washington Post series in 2010, went public outing NBC/MSNBC as completely fake government run agencies.
He blasted NBC News along with MSNBC news in an email for “becoming captive and subservient to the national security state, reflexively pro-war in the name of stopping President Donald Trump, and now the prime propaganda instrument of the War Machine’s promotion of militarism and imperialism.” This is something, based on my research, mainstream media has always been. It’s why they were created in the first place.
Arkin stated that, as a result of this, “the national security establishment not only hasn’t issued a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength, and “is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism.”
Another great quote comes to mind here,
“The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation . . . The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties . . . [and] control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.” (source)(source) – Mayor of New York City from 1918-1925
MSNBC’s star national security reporter Ken Dilanian was widely mocked by media outlets for years for being an uncritical CIA stenographer before he became a beloved NBC/MSNBC reporter, and let’s not forget CNN’s Anderson Cooper’s connections to the CIA.
Operation Mockingbird, a CIA program to infiltrate mainstream media and use it to influence the minds of the masses decades ago, seems to be in full effect today, at a larger scale than anyone can possibly imagine.
In early 2018, NBC hired former CIA chief John Brennan to serve as a “senior national security and intelligence analyst.”
Dr. Udo Ulfkotte was a top German journalist and editor and has been for more than two decades. He went on the record stating that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also mentioning that noncompliance would result in him losing his job. Not long ago, he made an appearance on RT news Stating that:
“I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia — this is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe.” (source)
There are many examples, the information above is simply small fraction of information regarding a big problem.
This is why I thought it was important to share a piece written by by Dr.Michel Chossudovsky, titled “War Propaganda: “Fake News” and the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence (OSI). Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. It was originally posted on hist website, GlobalResearch.ca.
War Propaganda: “Fake News” and the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence (OSI)
The following text on Rumsfeld’s “Office of Strategic Influence” (OSI) was first published by Global Research in January 2003 two months before the onslaught of the war on Iraq. The analysis largely pertained to the role of the Pentagon in planting fake stories in the news chain with a view to providing a “human face” to US-led military interventions.
Already in 2002, the “Militarization of the Media” was on the drawing board of the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld created the OSI with a view to influencing public opinion in the months leading up to the war on Iraq in March 2003. “The purpose [of the OSI] was to deliberately lie to advance American interests,” (quoted in Air Force Magazine, January 2003). It consisted in feeding disinformation into the news chain as well as seeking the support of the corporate media. Acknowledged by the New York Times:
“The Defense Department is considering issuing a secret directive to the American military to conduct covert operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policy makers in friendly and neutral countries [Germany, France, etc], senior Pentagon and administration officials say.
The fight, one Pentagon official said, is over ”the strategic communications for our nation, the message we want to send for long-term influence, and how we do it.”
As a military officer put it: ”We have the assets and the capabilities and the training to go into friendly and neutral nations to influence public opinion. We could do it and get away with it. That doesn’t mean we should.”…
In February , Mr. Rumsfeld had to disband the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence, ending a short-lived plan to provide news items, and possibly false ones, to foreign journalists to influence public sentiment abroad. Senior Pentagon officials say Mr. Rumsfeld is deeply frustrated that the United States government has no coherent plan for molding public opinion worldwide in favor of America in its global campaign against terrorism and militancy.(NYT, December 10, 2002)
Many administration officials agree that there is a role for the military in carrying out what it calls information operations against adversaries, especially before and during war, as well as routine public relations work in friendly nations like Colombia, the Philippines or Bosnia, whose governments have welcomed American troops.
… But the idea of ordering the military to take psychological aim at allies has divided the Pentagon — with civilians and uniformed officers on both sides of the debate.
Some are troubled by suggestions that the military might pay journalists to write stories favorable to American policies or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of American policies. (NYT, December 16, 2002)
The Ongoing “Militarization of the Media”
Most people do not even know that an Office of Strategic Influence (tantamount to a “Ministry of Truth”) existed within the confines of the Pentagon. Why? Rumsfeld decided to abolish the OSI. In reality, it was never abolished. They just changed the name to something else (as confirmed by Rumsfeld in a November 2002 Press Conference):
Rumsfeld: And then there was the office of strategic influence…. I went down that next day and said fine, if you want to savage this thing fine I’ll give you the corpse. There’s the name. You can have the name, but I’m gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have.
That was intended to be done by that office is being done by that office, NOT by that office in other ways.
DARPA Press Conference (Dept of Defense, November 18, 2002 emphasis added)
Flash Forward: 2002- 2017
While the OSI process launched by the Pentagon in 2002 is still functional as intimated by Rumsfeld, it has become increasingly sophisticated. Moreover, the media environment has changed dramatically since 2002 with the rapid development of social media.
Today, the Militarization of the Media is accepted. It is part of a “New Normal”. The actions of both by the Pentagon and NATO are now largely directed against the Blogosphere integrated by social media and independent online news and analysis.
“Strategic Influence” seeks to undermine critique or opinion by the alternative online media directed against (illegal) acts of war. Since 2001, a firm relationship has developed between the mainstream media and the Military establishment. War crimes are tacitly ignored. US-NATO “acts of war” are routinely upheld by the corporate media as humanitarian endeavors, i.e. a so-called “Responsibility to Protect”(R2P).
“America is Under Attack”
On September 11, 2001, Afghanistan had allegedly attacked America, according to NATO’s North Atlantic Council. The legal argument was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power.
In the months leading up to the announced 2003 invasion of Iraq, the propaganda campaign consisted in sustaining the illusion that “America was under attack”.
A similar logic prevails today: America’s is allegedly being threatened by “rogue states”: Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.
“Information Operations” are now envisaged by the Pentagon against alternative media which refuse to acknowledge that “America is under attack”. The online independent media are tagged as “adversaries”. Countering (critical) social media is part of a US-NATO’s agenda. NATO points to the “weaponization of disinformation”, suggesting that online media directed against US-NATO constitutes a “weapon”.
Both the US DoD and NATO consider that online “false information” (published by independent and alternative media) has “security implications”. The objective is ultimately to dismantle all civil society media and movements which are opposed to America’s global war agenda.
The censorship of independent media is quite large. Here at Collective Evolution, we are in threat of shutting down due to the fact that we have been censored, as well as demonetized from platforms like YouTube. This is why we created CETV, it’s how people can support us and it allows us to continue what we are doing, by being funded by YOU.
At the end of the day, the censorship efforts are coinciding with multiple mass campaigns to influence the minds of the masses via mainstream media. Mainstream media is a huge tool for the global elite to push various agenda’s, our compliance and their justification for various geopolitical actions are justified through the manipulation of our consciousness, and there is no doubt that independent media has made that much harder for them.
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...