Connect with us

Alternative News

Professor Explains Why He Believes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Doesn’t Make Sense

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.”

--> CE Reader Exclusive: Get 45% off PuraThrive's Micelle Liposomal Vitamin C and/or Micelle Liposomal Vitamin D3 + K2. Click here to learn more.

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?’

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

New Bodycam Footage Reveals Details Of George Floyd’s Arrest Prior To His Death

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    New police bodycam footage shows what happened prior to George Floyd's death.

  • Reflect On:

    Do we have solutions that can lead us to different societal outcomes, not based on new belief systems, but truly allowing people to experience peace, emotional calm and connection?

George Floyd’s death at the hands of police officer Derek Chauvin was one of the events of 2020 that has brought up a great deal of collective shadows that need to be addressed. News of Floyd’s death sparked massive civil unrest and protests that are still going on today, more than two months since it happened.

New police bodycam video shows a terrified George Floyd begging for officers not to shoot him. The footage is from body cameras worn by officer Thomas Lane and Alex Kueng, two of the four cops fired and charged in Floyd’s death. The video was leaked to the Daily Mail and shows officer Lane, approaching Floyd’s SUV, ordering him to show his hands. Floyd does not comply, so the officer pulls out his gun.

“Please don’t shoot me. Please[…] Please, please don’t shoot me. I just lost my mom, man.”

“Put your hands up there,” says the office. “Put your (muted) hands up there. Put your hands on the wheel.”

“I didn’t do nothing wrong,” Floyd says as he’s dragged out of his SUV and handcuffed. Floyd is then taken to a police vehicle across the street, where officers attempt to get him inside. Floyd pleads that he’s claustrophobic and scuffles to avoid being put in the vehicle.

“I’ll roll down the window,” one of the officers says.

“Please, I’m not trying to win,[…] “I’m not a bad guy, man. I’m not a bad guy.”

Floyd is wrestled to the ground after avoiding going into the backseat. As the video ends Floyd begins telling officers “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe.” The world is aware of how this incident ends.

The current murder case against former cops Thomas Lane, Alex Kueng, Derek Chauvin, and Tou Thao is ongoing. This piece of footage is being used as evidence in the case.

The video below shows the entire incident. Viewer be warned some of this footage may be unsettling.

Why It Matters: The Floyd death has had me wondering what can honestly be done differently when it comes to policing. Watching this video I did not feel a sense of connection and community amongst officers. I felt a separation between them and the potential ‘criminal’ they were engaging with.

In the US, stats show this type of behavior can affect black people more than others, but I never felt this incident was race-related. To me it felt like how many police interactions feel: stressful and disconnected. So why is that? Why in general is humanity so disconnected from one another?

A deeper look into the state of being of police officers points us to the fact that police are consistently under a high level of stress and are not living in a balanced state of being while on the job. Not a surprise to some, but perhaps to others.

I’ve often wondered if the larger issue here is that we have a police force that is experiencing “among the most stressful occupations in the world and officers typically suffer a variety of physiological, psychological, and behavioral effects and symptoms,” according to a 2012 study examining the role of stress and other psychological challenges in a police officers life. “Officers operating under severe or chronic stress are likely to be at greater risk of error, accidents, and overreactions that can compromise their performance, jeopardize public safety, and pose significant liability costs to the organization” the study abstract continues.

After following 59 police officers through 16 weeks that had been trained on Heart Math’s Resilience Advantage® training, it was noted that:

“The greatest and, in our view, most important effect of the self-management training was seen in the participants’ increased ability to manage their moods and emotions, which is a fundamental key to sustaining resilience. … For the police officer, the abilities to think rationally under stress, concentrate, plan ahead, remember and organize crucial information, make effective decisions, and control inappropriate emotion-triggered reactions are critically important and in some cases, can determine the difference between life and death for the officer and other parties.”

Since 2012, 300 to 400 police officers per week in the Netherlands have received heart coherence training through the HeartMath.  It was estimated that by 2016, 30,000 Dutch officers would have gone through the training, we are awaiting an update on this figure. HeartMath Benelux is an official partner of the Dutch Police Academy as clearly they see value in this form of training for officers.

The Conscious Takeaway: Why is the emotional and psychological state of an officer not one of the most important factors discussed in the media? It so often comes down to race as our social engineering has trained us to view things in that manner.

We have a potentially extremely powerful solution through Heart Math’s Resilience Advantage® training yet instead of having these discussions we point to divisive narratives like race? But does this really account for the vast majority of poor interactions with police? Perhaps it’s time for a new approach?

Maybe we can begin to address the state of being of ourselves and start taking responsibility for how we feel, what we go through, and how to master our emotions? There are plenty of tools out there, it simply requires a cultural shift in wanting to move towards peace vs staying right where we are. It moves us from a story of separation to one of connection – something that we experience directly, not are taught through beliefs and ideas.

Perhaps attuning to heart coherence can be a solution alongside other proposed ideas?

After all, are the police not people we want to feel like can truly help the community?

“It makes you not want to call the police department […] If you don’t feel safe with the police department, then who do you feel safe with?” – James Smith, neighbor who called police.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Alan Dershowitz Implicated In Unsealed Ghislaine Maxwell Documents

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Alan Dershowitz has been implicated in the latest events pertaining to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the accuser, is claiming to have sexually engaged with him as a minor, unsealed documents reveal.

  • Reflect On:

    How many people may be implicated here that don't come to light? Is there something deeper going on here that remains to be uncovered and continues not be covered by mainstream media?

What Happened: Well known attorney and political commentator Alan Dershowitz has been implicated in the latest news pertaining to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. She is currently being held in New York awaiting her trial next year. Dershowitz was mentioned, along with Bill Clinton and others in a set of unsealed documents that were part of now-settled civil litigation against Maxwell. She appealed the decision of the judge to unseal them, but to no avail.

Maxwell was Epstein’s right hand person, and the documents, along with testimony from many others over the past few years, show that Maxwell sexually abused children and also directed victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre to be sexually abused by others, using her and many others as sex slaves.

The NY Post explains:

The emeritus Harvard Law professor was accused of having sex with then-minor “Jane Doe #3” — identified in court documents as Virginia Roberts Giuffre — and witnessing Jeffrey Epstein and others sexually abusing girls and young women.

The allegations, lodged in a 2014 court filing, reemerged in more than 600 pages unsealed Thursday night in Giuffre’s 2015 defamation case against.

In 1997, Dershowitz wrote the following: “Reasonable People Can Disagree Over Whether It Should Be As Low As 14.” You can find that article and read more about that here.

He is currently denying the allegations made by Giuffre, calling her a liar. He also stands by that article he wrote in 1997.

Why This Is Important: Elite level trafficking and pedophilia are coming to light, and it’s a major step for humanity given that many implicated and accused people are those in positions of great power, and in some cases made out to be idolized by the general public, usually showered with fame and fortune.

Research indicates there are many children suffering and that do suffer as a result of this activity, and there are so many examples going beyond the Jeffrey Epstein showing that this is quite rampant among our political and financial elite, and among those who pull the strings that we never really see.

This type of activity also shines light onto the world of politics. For example, with regards to Epstein and Maxwell, there is evidence suggesting that both are actually high ranking intelligence officers, with the job of entrapping powerful politicians and people. You can read more about that here. Is this what goes on in the system we continue to hold up and empower by voting year after year? Why are we playing with a system that’s clearly created out of disconnection and separation, and that does not allow humanity to thrive?

Is it time for something new? Is the current state of our world a reflection of the ‘leadership’ we choose and agree to put into power?

If you want to see some more examples and dive through more evidence, you can refer to this article I published towards the end of last year.

You can also watch our interview with a survivor of these types of pedophile rings.

You can access the full interview and start your free trial HERE on CETV, a platform we created to help combat internet censorship and allow us to continue to do our work and get the word out about various issues and topics.

The interview is with Anneke Lucas, who is is an author, speaker, advocate for child sex trafficking victims, founder of the non-profit organization Liberation Prison Yoga, and creator of the Unconditional Model. Her work is based on personal experience of a 30-year healing journey after surviving being sold by her family as a child sex slave to a pedophile network.

The interview is deep, and goes into the consciousness aspect of her experience and why that aspect is so important.

The Takeaway: There are many events taking place that are causing people to really question what’s happening on our planet and why. Why do we think and live the way we are living, and why is there so much misinformation, deception, and examples of fraud and deceit that come from multiple governments? Is it really a surprise that many of these people may be involved in activities that represent such a disregard for human life? Isn’t that what geopolitics has resulted in? War is a great example.

More people are starting to realize that we’re not really living in a democracy, but in the illusion of democracy where our physical rights are slowly taken away by governments who are capitalizing on crisis after crisis, ones in which they themselves help create and prolong.  Elite level child trafficking simply shines a light on how our current level of unconsciousness is creating a world built on disconnection.  Now is a time where these truths are being made transparent.

At the end of the day, we can change things anytime we want. We are indeed that powerful as one human collective.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

“Reasonable People Can Disagree Over Whether It Should Be As Low As 14” – Alan Dershowitz On Sexual Consent

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    In 1997, well known American lawyer and political commentator Alan Dershowitz published an article titled "Statutory Rape is an Outdated Concept." In it, he argued for lowering the age of consent.

  • Reflect On:

    Has there been a slow and steady effort within the mainstream and 'powers that be' to normalize and justify pedophilia and underage sex? If so, why?

What Happened: In 1997, well known American lawyer and political commentator Alan Dershowitz published an article titled “Statutory Rape is an Outdated Concept.” (You can see a screenshot of  it below.) In it, he states that “reasonable people can disagree over whether it (the age of consent) should be as low as 14, 15 would be an appropriate compromise.” He then goes on to suggest that “Perhaps there should be stair-casing below 15 with the penalty increasing inversely with the age of the victim.” This means that if the age of consent was lowered to 14, and a 50 year old man slept with a 13 year old, the penalty wouldn’t be as severe as it would be if it were a 12 year old, and so on and so forth. He has since defended his position.

His argument is that if girls at this age can decide whether or not they can have an abortion, then they are certainly capable of consenting to sex with older people. Another point he makes is that puberty is happening at younger ages these days, another reason he seems to justify his position.

For me, at that age a child is still a child, they are still developing both mentally and physically. You could argue they are in-fact in a more vulnerable time in their life to be taken advantage of, which in my opinion is simply another form of rape, despite the fact that at the time it may appear to be “consensual.” This is why many of these children grow up and are adversely affected by their experience, because when they are older they have a greater mental capacity to understand what really happened.

Someone like Jeffrey Epstein is an expert in manufacturing consent, perhaps that’s why there is reason to believe Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were both high ranking intelligence officers, with the job of entrapping powerful politicians and people. You can read more about that here.

Keep in mind that Epstein and other powerful people have been accused of rape, without consent, despite the fact that again, manufacturing the consent of a child is still, in my-opinion, rape and leads to large amounts of trauma. One only has to ask: is this the type of world we wish to live in? If not, then what do we do about this reality? Are we addressing the underlying reasons as to why this happens? Are we empowering it unknowingly?

Many people have brought Dershowitzs’ article back into the lime-light given the fact that he had defended Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted pedophile who apparently killed himself. The article has also been making its rounds after documents were recently unsealed a few days ago in which Bill Clinton, Dershowitz and others have been implicated. The documents pertain to Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently being held without bail. She was Epstein’s right hand person, and the documents allege that Maxwell sexually abused children and also directed victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre to be sexually abused by others like Dershowitz. These accusations also corroborate with a number of other victims that have spoken out against both Maxwell, Epstein and others, claiming that many children were groomed to be sex slaves.

The documents were part of now-settled civil litigation against Maxwell. The NY Post explains:

The emeritus Harvard Law professor was accused of having sex with then-minor “Jane Doe #3” — identified in court documents as Virginia Roberts Giuffre — and witnessing Jeffrey Epstein and others sexually abusing girls and young women.

The allegations, lodged in a 2014 court filing, reemerged in more than 600 pages unsealed Thursday night in Giuffre’s 2015 defamation case against Maxwell.

Did Dershowitz know what Epstein was doing? He claims he didn’t, but from the public point of view, and in my opinion, it’s quite clear that nearly ‘everyone’ in Hollywood and big politics knows what is going on, and knew what was going on, as stated even by John McCain’s wife.

This begs the question, how can so many people remain silent and not speak up about and against elite level pedophilia? Why didn’t she say anything? Are they involved? Why are so many people who ‘mingle’ in these circles so silent? It’s great when people from within the industry speak out, Ricky Gervais would be the latest example, he recently told Hollywood to “Stop F****** Children” during an Oscars speech. While this appeared to be in gest, many felt the truth within his words.

Then there is Cardinal George Pell, a high ranking Vatican official who was convicted of child sexual abuse has been set free, and all charges have been dropped. If Cardinal George Pell is or would be involved in such things, is not odd that he himself established The Diocesan Commission Into Sexual Abuse in 1996. If he is in fact guilty, this leads to the point above made by Wedger, that the people responsible for tackling this issue are actually involved and part of the problem. That being said, Pell is innocent under the law.

Dershowitz is of course responding to the recent allegations, saying that Giuffre is lying, and that there is no evidence at all he was ever involved in having sex with/raping a minor. What’s concerning is that Giuffre’s accusations corroborate with many other victims that have come forward making these claims over the years.

We’ve written about this topic a lot, and if you want to dive in a bit deeper, I published this article late last year that provides more examples.

Child-Sex Trafficking Is A Much Deeper Issue

It’s strange sometimes when reading about this topic within the mainstream, or how it’s covered by mainstream media. The word “rape” doesn’t seem to be used, and instead there are more terms used like “underaged girls.” We must remember that although young children have not been implicated in the Epstein case, teenagers are still developing both physically and mentally, and they are very susceptible and vulnerable to brainwashing and manipulation by people of power. The Epstein case is a great example, and there are multiple accusers here who are all sharing the same story.

But how much of what we are getting from the mainstream pertaining to the Epstein/Maxwell case actually highlights how widespread this issue really is?

There is evidence suggesting that little children, not just teenagers, are also being sexually abused, trafficking, and murdered, sometimes in a ritualistic fashion.

This is why we are using the Epstein case to highlight our interview with a survivor.

You can access the full interview and start your free trial HERE on CETV, a platform we created to help combat internet censorship and allow us to continue to do our work and get the word out about various issues and topics.

The interview is with Anneke Lucas, who is is an author, speaker, advocate for child sex trafficking victims, founder of the non-profit organization Liberation Prison Yoga, and creator of the Unconditional Model. Her work is based on personal experience of a 30-year healing journey after surviving being sold by her family as a child sex slave to a pedophile network.

The interview is deep, and goes into the consciousness aspect of her experience and why that aspect is so important.

The Takeaway

A lot of information is coming to light, and more people are starting to have a major paradigm shift when it comes to seeing how our world operates. The idea that many people in powerful positions that are responsible for and have a great influence with regards to dictating health, environmental and political policy are engaged in some these actions makes us realize that they are not operating from a space of connectedness and wellness for all, they appear to be disconnected and out to harm others. So are they capable of dealing with major global issues in a way that truly allows humanity to thrive?

Is our world a result of handing our power over, again and again, to ‘leaders’ who do not possess empathy, morality, and have such a large disregard for human life? Why do we continue to choose to participate? What does it say about our collective level of thinking and consciousness? Why do we continue to vote every four years and put power into the hands of those who wish to progress our society into an authoritarian Orwellian state under the guise of good will, instead of taking matters into our own hands?  If billions of us can follow orders a lockdown for months, why can’t we take such large steps, collectively, to tackle issues that matter more deeply?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!