- The Facts:
Several brave thinkers, including Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project and Colin Turner of the Free World Charter, have proposed ways in which a future society could thrive if we eliminated money and trade and instead built a resource-based economy.
- Reflect On:
The first step in any new paradigm is believing it's possible. Do you believe humanity could not only survive but thrive in a money-free world? What would it look like?
Before you begin...
“For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. By craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.”–1 Timothy 6:10
While it is still not commonly held in mainstream discourse that humanity could survive and even thrive without some form of monetary exchange, more and more people that are starting to trace their general discontent about contemporary society to its source are finding money and profit motive at the root of it.
--> Our latest podcast episode: Were humans created by extraterrestrials? Joe sits down with Bruce Fenton, multidisciplinary researcher and author to explore the fascinating evidence behind this question. Click here to listen!
Perhaps the first of the knee-jerk reactions some people might have to the idea of shifting into a money-free system is the sinking feeling of watching their hard-earned wealth evaporate into nothingness, which they might equate with abject poverty. We are so programmed to equate money with abundance that we don’t understand what abundance truly is.
At the heart of it our ‘net’ abundance is shared, and is grounded in the resources available in nature on the planet. The aggregate of these natural resources not only represents our potential abundance but our very survival. A money system grants ownership to many of these resources, and makes it exponentially easier for those with abundance to get more abundance at the expense of the vast majority of people. A money system is, in some ways, antithetical to the proper management and distribution of these resources. Without money, each individual would naturally be entitled to their share of all the resources in the world, and that would never change. But how would such a system work?
Jacque Fresco, founder of the Venus Project, believes that the world has reached a level of technology that will allow us to build fully self-sustaining communities all over the world which, when optimally designed, will provide not only an unimaginably high level of abundance for all its residents, but a far greater sense of shared purpose within a community. This vision is grounded in the principles of a Resource-Based Economy:
In a Resource Based Economy all goods and services are available to all people without the need for means of exchange such as money, credits, barter or any other means. For this to be achieved all resources must be declared as the common heritage of all Earth’s inhabitants. Equipped with the latest scientific and technological marvels mankind could reach extremely high productivity levels and create abundance of resources.–Venus Project website
Without profit motive, individuals within the community will naturally turn their energy towards the efficient maintenance of the infrastructure and problem-solving and innovation for the collective, as the happiness and well-being of the community is naturally equated with one’s own happiness and well-being.
In the video below is a brief introduction to Fresco’s inspiring vision of our potential future. More information. including where the Venus Project is at on their timeline, is available on their website.
No Need For Trade
Since money is nothing more than a medium of exchange, it is only in removing the convention of exchange or ‘trade’ itself that then renders money obsolete. That’s why a Resource-Based Economy proposes that ‘all resources must be declared as the common heritage of all Earth’s inhabitants.’
In his TedX talk, Colin Turner really questions the idea that ‘trade’ is the only organizational model for life on the planet, and in fact outlines the ways in which trade is actually antithetical to human abundance and well-being:
We all more or less accept trade as being the de facto way of operating our society, so much so that we even see it as some kind of universal law. But it might surprise you to know actually that trade has only existed in relatively recent years, that in 90% of our modern human history we didn’t actually trade at all, there still are no archaeological traces of trade. In these early tribal, agrarian communities what actually happened was there was an implied understanding that everyone in the tribe looked after each other. And this was how the tribes operated for perhaps the vast majority of our early human history.
So we see trade now as a very important way of doing business, and you have to say that trade works, I get what I want and you get what you want and we all go home happy. But when you actually scratch the surface a little bit more about how trade actually pans out in the real world, it’s not such a nice story. It seems to be a better theory than actually works out in practice.
For example, the most obvious case is, about 3 billion people in the world today live on $2.50 or less a day–many of them much, much less than that. Obviously they are wracked with starvation or dying of curable diseases, so, I mean, you have to ask yourself, is trade really working for them, for those people? Clearly, it isn’t.
Colin Turner is the founder of The Free World Charter, which currently has 58,611 signatories among people from 215 different countries (and would welcome yours, if you are so inclined). The charter constitutes a set of principles that really formalizes the notion that all human individuals are entitled to maintain an equal share of the Earth’s resources, but it also outlines the natural responsibilities and practices that each individual would assume in order to live optimally and harmoniously together in a money-free community and world. Here are the ten principles:
- The highest concern of humanity is the combined common good of all living species and biosphere.
- Life is precious in all its forms, and free to flourish in the combined common good.
- Earth’s natural resources are the birthright of all its inhabitants, and free to share in the combined common good.
- Every human being is an equal part of a worldwide community of humans, and a free citizen of Earth.
- Our community is founded on the spirit of cooperation and an understanding of nature, provided through basic education.
- Our community provides for all its members the necessities of a healthy, fulfilling and sustainable life, freely and without obligation.
- Our community respects the limits of nature and its resources, ensuring minimal consumption and waste.
- Our community derives its solutions and advances progress primarily through the application of logic and best available knowledge.
- Our community acknowledges its duty of care and compassion for members who are unable to contribute.
- Our community acknowledges its responsibility to maintain a diverse and sustainable biosphere for all future life to enjoy
These are certainly not the final words on which principles should truly define a future society and world free of money, but in reading them one can clearly grasp the overall essence of the kind of mindset we will need to develop and implement in our lives if we are to shift into this new paradigm.
Walking Away From A Money Economy
The shift we are looking for here is grounded in a conscious move by the individuals of this planet away from a model of competition and towards a model of cooperation. We are all quite familiar with both, as we surely have an ample amount of experience in both ways of relating to the people around us. If you could choose right now, which kind of model would you want as the basis for the entire planet?
Some might argue that the competitive/trade/money paradigm has been instrumental in getting us to make progress, especially technologically, which we may not have achieved by remaining with the cooperative tribal model. There may be some truth in this. But does it not seem that, at this time in history, most of us have had it with the debt, scarcity, and inequality that is a hallmark of the money model? Are we not hungering for more love, cooperation and shared abundance imbued in the very organizational structures we create for ourselves to live?
Understand that making this change is not as simple as going to the United Nations or other authoritative world body, as Jacque Fresco has already done. Presenting a compelling vision of a future without money to the benefit of all of humanity does not automatically mean that the world authority will implement it right away. The powers behind world authority like the UN are actually made up of those who have the most money. What we see going on in the public arena are essentially the machinations of the puppets they control.
This is nothing new. An overall system that maintains power by the few has been in place ever since money and exchange were introduced. While in the past this wealth was protected over generations and generations by certain families who were the visible ‘royalty,’ ‘noblemen’ and ‘aristocracy’ of the day, today’s world only differs in the sense that these powers are more hidden from sight, while countries maintain the illusion of having some form of ‘democracy.’
The point is that we will never be able to elicit the help of our authority if we want to abandon our current money economy. Those in authority, who at the very top own a vast percentage of the world’s resources, certainly believe they would have the most to lose if we moved to a model founded on equally-shared abundance. What we actually need to do is elicit the help of each other, energizing important movements and fostering an awakening as to how powerful we actually are as a collective. When a critical mass of us begin marching in step to a new way of life, the current authority will have no power to stop us.
A money-free society and world can certainly work from the standpoint of creating abundance for everyone on the planet. What is needed is a new awareness founded on some of the natural principles discussed here. The more that individuals of the planet slowly move away from competitive money-centered practices and spend their time and energy cultivating cooperation, the more quickly we will be able to collectively walk away from a system that no longer serves us.
European Defence Industry Claims It Will Crack Down On UFO & ET Discussion
- The Facts:
The European Defense Industry & Space has claimed it will look to crack down on disinformation occurring online with regards to the UFO and ET phenomenon, following a rapidly growing culture of censorship.
- Reflect On:
Who will decide what is true and what's false about the UFO and ET phenomenon? Can we trust government, mainstream media and intelligence agencies who have misled people on these subjects for decades?
Before you begin...
In a recent tweet from the European Commission’s Defense Industry and Space (DEFIS), they claimed they will begin to crack down on online discussion relating to Flat Earth, UFOs, and Aliens as they feel there is disinformation permeating all sectors of our society when it comes to these subjects. They intend on working with the EU Digital Services Act to put a plan in place in the coming months.
Who knows what their plan will look like when it’s ready, but it falls in line with a rapidly building culture within government of taking mass control of narratives that are controversial and important to the general public. In the process, government and mainstream media seem to be the only ones allowed to have a voice anyone can hear.
The #EU #DigitalServicesAct will implement a clear, comprehensive & broad set of rules to fight the spread of online disinformation #EUvsDisinfo #FactsMatter #TackleFakeNews pic.twitter.com/cc7OGumGRF
— 🇪🇺 DG DEFIS #StrongerTogether (@defis_eu) January 18, 2021
At first glance, the move by DEFIS might seem a useful tactic, after all there is disinformation being spread about all of these topics. But who decides what is disinformation and what isn’t? What if information is in fact real and suddenly that content is ‘censored’ in the wide net that is cast to stop this apparent problem? How will the public even know what is being censored and what is not? Will this push control over who can talk about and disseminate ‘facts’ about these topics to mainstream media and government only?
Before we might jump into the idea that my questions above may come from a paranoid mind, let’s look at the facts.
There has been a long held veil of secrecy around the UFO subject for years. Governments deny realities that their own intelligence communities know are real. With the recent US Navy UFO videos that were released a couple of years ago, people began to realize that a subject long ridiculed was in fact heavily studied by governments, even as they pretended as if nothing was there. This caused a huge resurgence in a fascinating topic that deeply touches the very worldviews that inspire how we design and live our lives.
In 2017 when we all saw the US Navy footage released, did it not suggest that perhaps the US government had known about this phenomenon for decades? How long might government lie about other pieces of information related to the UFO topic before they come out saying it was true all along? Like they did in 2019, confirming the Navy footage was authentic.
Let’s take a quick look at the next obvious question people ask when thinking about a UFO sighting: “Who is manning that craft? A human? An ET? Is it remote controlled?”
That question brings up the next: what evidence do we have of ET bodies? With this we inevitably all know that there is no publicly available evidence that suggest beyond any reasonable doubt that an ET body exists, however, we have credible whistleblowers from institutions many often trust who have stated quite clearly that government knows about different ET species and even has ET bodies. Do we trust them? Can we be more open to this reality given their testimony? If not, why do we trust these types of credentialed people for COVID information but not ET information?
Which leads to even bigger questions: do we really lack the information to make informed decisions about the UFO and ET phenomenon? Or are we too busy protecting our existing worldview to take an honest and unbiased look?
Popular By Design?
I also want to point out that I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon take place within media as it relates to controversial conversations and it makes me hypothesize whether there are ulterior motives involving social engineering at play. I’ll explain. But before I do, let me be clear, I don’t support the idea of censorship or the banning of free speech. I don’t believe certain people should be censored while others not.
It’s no secret that in recent years, many people have been losing trust in government and mainstream media due to a lack of transparency, obvious agendas, and consistent lies. People have no reason to fully trust these sources anymore, and so they have looked elsewhere with different perspectives. As a result, independent media has gained a lot more influence when it comes to informing public perception. You might imagine that those with a monopoly on information might not be too happy about this. Powerful and wealthy people who enjoy having the media outlets they bought to influence public perception would see a loss in their power as well.
When I think of things like the resurgence of the ‘flat earth’ discussion that began years ago on Reddit, YouTube, and other social media sites, I wonder how and why this random topic blows up in pop culture instead of fizzling out like so many other trends do.
With flat earth, people began adamantly claiming that beyond all reasonable doubt, the earth was flat, and this was the biggest secret kept from humanity. Huge YouTube channels popped up, documentaries were made about it, and major NBA and pop culture influencers were all on board.
I decided to look into it all for a few days, and as an open minded person and journalist who spends a ton of time reading paranormal and supernatural research, the evidence and arguments for a flat earth were bad. I didn’t see any reason to take it seriously. This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t look at a new piece of evidence should someone provide one, but from having looked into the subject, there really isn’t anything there that is worth time in exploring further.
Is it possible that subjects like this are seeded out into the collective consciousness to see what people will pick up on? What they will believe? Perhaps an experiment by intelligence agencies who seem obsessed with sniffing habits, data, and culture through mass surveillance?
The resurgence of flat earth and the amount of clout it was getting in pop culture made me feel odd. Was it being placed into large conversations and given so much algorithmic power on social media so that a topic so obviously wrong can now be the focus of a pointing finger that says: “see, look what happens when people talk online, they believe crazy things.” I wasn’t incredibly convinced by my theory, but I was open to it. However it was further solidified when the Q phenomenon took over next.
The Q phenomenon, or as it’s known in the mainstream ‘Qanon,’ is based on the idea that a secret group of ‘patriots behind Donald Trump were working to pull off an intelligence operation to inform the public that Trump and team were poised to take down an evil cabal that ran the world. This subject was everywhere. Mainstream media covered it constantly, using it to show how everyone who believed in it were unhinged, crazy, conspiracy theorists who likely had sociopathic tendencies. It made its way into politics and was brought up in countless mainstream discussions leading into the 2020 US election. It became a clear cultural position: “if you believe in Qanon and the subjects related to it, you’re a dangerous and crazy conspiracy theorist.”
Once that was clear and in place, mainstream pundits and other pop culture voices began using “Qanon” to take down anyone who believed in discussing any other controversial subject. Vaccines, COVID, UFOs, Aliens, you name it – if you wanted to ask questions about these topics in a way that was not accepted in the mainstream, you might as well be one of those crazy “Qanon” people.
Then comes the discussion of evidence. For “Q” it was one of those you either believe or you don’t type conspiracies. But with so many of the other topics being systematically linked to Q, like vaccines or UFOs, does it matter if there is actual evidence to support the controversial conversations people are having? It would appear that it doesn’t, because the culture had made any of these subjects synonymous with the more extreme and unfounded views seen within Q enthusiasts.
Did the Q phenomenon become a useful tool for censorship? An opportunity to grab hold of every controversial narrative and say no one can talk about this except for trusted sources, or else look… crazy Qanon people will shoot up Capitol Hill if we don’t stop all of this madness.
It took only two years to go from disappearing Milo and Alex Jones to banning content said to “amplify narratives that undermine faith in NATO.”
Imagine where the line will be two years from now.
Censorship is an intoxicating power that endlessly expands until it’s smashed. https://t.co/ShrHhTqxGY
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 24, 2021
Back in the summer of 2020 I wrote an essay called “Conspireality: Time for a Serious Conversation?” It’s purpose was to have a discussion about the fact that YES, conspiracy is real, it exists, and your government lies to you, we know this for a fact, but it doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. It also goes on to suggest that we have to be more discerning in critical in our thinking and exploration of these topics, as some information is flat out false and it takes away from the legitimate information that can be focused on to create change.
Further, it suggests that if we aren’t careful as a culture, big tech and governments will work to shut down any inquiry into these topics as too many are going about it in an unbalanced way, often with no evidence or fake evidence. It’s my feeling that this approach doesn’t help with meaningful progression and conversation, but actually pulls down all conversation around controversial topics.
So I asked, are people going about this information in that manner actually speeding up the censorship process? After all, much of what they post is indeed false.
I said, and still say, all of this with first hand experience. Having had our social media accounts shut down, demonetized, our website removed from Google news, all because we talk about subjects that sound like the ‘crazy Qanon people or flat earthers.’ It doesn’t matter that we go about these subjects in a credible, evidence based manner, we are guilty by association. This inevitably led me to ask: is it possible that powerful social engineers actually spent time focusing deeply on some of these extreme topics purposefully, to set up a call and need to take down that which was obviously false, and bring down all other ‘uncontrollable’ yet truth-filled conversations in the process?
I can’t help but see that these subjects acted as a magnet to suck all sound alike conversations into the abyss of censorship. And even as we watched it all happened, many of my colleagues criticized me for simply bringing forth the question: should we be thinking more critically about which conspiracies are real and which are not, and how we might go about having a more grounded conversation about it all so that mass culture doesn’t cancel ALL conversation?
NYT Column Suggests Biden Hire A ‘Reality Czar’ & Establish A ‘Truth Commission’
- The Facts:
The New York Times published an essay on Tuesday detailing a range of recommendations for the Biden administration to adopt to fix the “reality crisis” and “de-radicalize” citizens, including setting up a “reality czar” and “truth commission.”
- Reflect On:
Why does mainstream media fail to have proper discussions about "conspiracy theories?" Yes, there is a lot of "fake" information out there, but what about legitimate information that's being censored? Can't we decide for ourselves what is and isn't?
Before you begin...
Introduction: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, so I apologize if you’ve come across me saying it already. Today we have what seems to be a digital authoritarian Orwellian “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t. This does not imply that there isn’t a wealth of “fake news” and information out there, but should people not have the right to look at information openly and transparently and decide for themselves what is and what isn’t? Are people really that “dumb” to the point where we need Big Tech to step in and tell us what is true and what isn’t? This is a problem, especially given the fact that many issues are not so black and white. It also brings in the issue of corruption, and the ability of Big Tech to control the perception of the masses on various issues, be it political or something else. A big concern being raised is the idea that these companies who have been granted the ability to tell us ‘what is’ have strong political ties.
Today, those who support censorship do so under the guise of protection, relaying their opinion that it’s necessary to “protect our democracy.” It reminds me of the term “national security”, today it’s a term used to justify the concealment of information that exposes immoral and unethical actions of various governments and multinational corporations. Is this why Julian Assange is in jail?
How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes? How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with the people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy. – Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of Int Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Prof of Int Law at the University of Glasgow, UN Rapporteur on Torture and Other Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
I agree with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, that the censorship we are seeing today is “not really about protecting people from harm.” He pointed out in a recent interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald that “the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication. That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try and gain control over this instrument of power.” This instrument of power allows these platforms to control the way people think, behave, and tells us what to believe.
What Happened: The New York Times recently published an essay on detailing a range of recommendations for the Biden administration to adopt to fix the “reality crisis” and “de-radicalize” citizens, including setting up a “reality czar” and “truth commission.” Again, this has sort of happened already in various indirect ways. Politicians, doctors and scientists have now been subjected to extreme censorship measures, especially when it comes to COVID-19. Any information, evidence or opinion that opposes or calls into question government health regulatory agencies, their recommendations or actions seems to be completely ignored, ridiculed and censored. Debate and/or conversation is not even encouraged. This has many people questioning what’s really happening in our world? Why is it that someone like Dr. Anthony Fauci can receive massive mainstream media attention when so many other experts in the field never see the light of day?
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – source)(
The essay was written by technology columnist Kevin Roose, and it explains how “conspiracy theories” have been embraced by millions of Americans and that so many people have succumb to “hoaxes, lies and collective delusions” that has these people creating “their own version of reality.” But is this true? Are all these “hoaxes and lies” actually hoaxes and lies? I don’t know, but what I do know is that mainstream media fails to have appropriate conversations about them.
Joan Donovan, the research director of Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, suggested that the Biden administration could set up a “truth commission.”…Several experts I spoke with recommended that the Biden administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by something like a “reality czar.” – NTY essay.
Roose then states that these experts warned that much more is needed to “bring back the millions of already radicalized Americans” who the essay claims are drawn to “extremist groups like the Proud Boys and conspiracy theories like QAnon not because they’re convinced by the facts, but because the beliefs give them a sense of community or purpose, or fills a void in their lives.”
Expert Micah Clark, a program director at London counter extremism firm Moonshot CVE, suggests “a kind of ‘social stimulus’ — a series of federal programs to encourage people to get off their screens and into community-based activities that could keep them engaged and occupied” as an effective means to curb radicalization.
To me, it’s reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984 is a classic book depicting a populace ruled by a political regime that persecutes individualism and independent critical thinking as “thoughtcrimes” that must be enforced by the “thought police.” This party seeks power above all, and, through the propagandist Ministry of Truth, presents the people with their version of truth.
When it comes to QAnnon, I believe this movement has made it much easier for powerful people to justify censorship and the deplatforming of various people on social media outlets. By that I mean you don’t need QAnon to create awareness about elite level pedophilia, for example. There are more than enough extremely credible sources to create awareness about that topic, so why use someone posting as QAnon that doesn’t really provide any link to credible information? Why not use the Franklin Scandal or more examples from big poltics for example, or information regarding Jeffrey Epstein, or survivor testimony? Why not use examples from the Pentagon? Or others from Hollywood and more? Why not use concrete solid examples? By not using proper sources, it simply ridicules the topic and doesn’t bode well for its credibility. It makes it look more ridiculous and more like a “conspiracy theory” in the minds of the masses. When you use something like QAnon, it really does make it look like a conspiracy theory, when in fact this type of elite level child sex trafficking is a very real and one that deserves serious attention.
It’s also important to mention, again, that this censorship is not just happening to “extremists” and other such groups, it’s happening to renowned scientists, journalists and doctors. Why is it that the New York Times, for example, uses ridicule and hatred to belittle a belief but never acknowledge the reasons as to why people believe what they do? Why do they simply label something as a “conspiracy theory” without any evidence that it actually is a conspiracy theory?
That being said, I don’t think anything needs to be censored. I think what we need here is less ridicule and more of an understanding of why someone feels the way they do, especially if they disagree with your view-point. More empathy is needed, the type of censorship happening today seems to be done, in my opinion, not to protect people or the truth, but keep a stranglehold over the perception of people for political, financial, and other gains.
Perception manipulation has long been a tool used by mainstream media, this is made evident from declassified documents showing the relationship mainstream media outlets have the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for example. We are at the point today where mainstream media networks can say one thing, while other big networks can be saying something completely different. People do not know who to trust anymore and have been drawn towards independent media outlets as a result. These media outlets, like Collective Evolution, have been subjected to extreme amounts of censorship.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. – Edward Bernays (Propaganda, 1928)
The Takeaway: At the end of the day, regardless of what is true and what isn’t, the mainstream and traditional media seem to be failing to have important conversations that are controversial. Things are so divided right now, on one end you have people convinced of something, and on another end you have mainstream articles denouncing that something as a crazy conspiracy theory. What we are lacking right now is rigor and critical thinking.
Given we are deeply feeling the need to make sense of our world, is it time we begin to look at developing the inner faculties necessary to move beyond ideology, limited thinking patterns and truly begin looking at what evidence around us says?
What’s happening right now might seem chaotic, but it’s truly been a catalyst for more people to question what’s happening on our world, to question actions by our governments, and to question why we really live the way we do. We are living in exciting times.
Related CE Article: Conspireality: Is It Time For A Serious Conversation?
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it… And 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. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control, and no official of my administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know….But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding it’s fear of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. It’s preparations are concealed, not published. It’s mistakes are buried, not headlined. It’s dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. – JFK
Trump Says COVID-19 Vaccine Won’t Be Mandatory, Biden Says It Should Be
- The Facts:
It doesn't seem likely that a COVID vaccine will be mandatory under the Trump administration, but Joe Biden recently shared that he believes it should be.
- Reflect On:
If the vaccine did become mandatory, would you take it? Will there be too much of a backlash if the vaccine is made mandatory, or mandatory to travel for example?
Before you begin...
What Happened: US President Donald Trump told Stuart Varney on Fox Business Network’s ‘Varney &Co’ that he doesn’t plan to make the coronavirus vaccine mandatory for American citizens, because “there are some people who feel strongly about the whole situation,’ alluding to the idea that people should still have freedom of choice when it comes to what they choose to do with their own body.
On the other hand, presidential candidate Joe Biden said he would urge all state representatives, governors, mayors and council members to make the vaccine mandatory, just like some have done with masks. He acknowledged that such a mandate would be difficult to enforce, but stated that “we should be thinking about making it mandatory.”
Trump has long been promoting alternative therapies for COVID, many have come under scrutiny by mainstream media. The scientific and medical community have both promoted these therapies as well as criticized them, the only difference seems to be that those who support them don’t seem to receive much media attention, while simultaneously become subjected to a censorship campaign by media and social media outlets.
Scientists who share opinions that contradict the World Health Organization (WHO) have also been heavily censored. Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University is one of many who have criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus.
The Great Barrington Declaration is experiencing the same thing for questioning lockdown measures, it’s now been signed by nearly 40,000 doctors and scientists.
A paper recently published in Global Advances in Health and Medicine titled Ascorbate as Prophylaxis and Therapy for COVID-19—Update From Shanghai and U.S. Medical Institutions points out:
A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years.
The paper also promotes the use of alternate therapies like intravenous vitamin C and provides evidence showing its success in COVID patients. It’s one of multiple studies to do so, but vitamin C has been heavily ridiculed and censored by mainstream media and social media for being able to provide any help when it comes to healing from COVID, or to help prevent it.
We are being made to believe that a vaccine is the only answer. No other suggestions seem to be acceptable. Why?
Why This Is Important
Why is there an authoritarian ‘fact-checker’ patrolling the internet and censoring information? Sure, a lot of stories may be completely false and irresponsibly written, especially ones that don’t provide any sources for their claims, but a lot of legitimate information is also being censored. Should people not have the right to examine information and opinions that go against the grain and decide for themselves what is, and what isn’t? Are we not capable of this? Can the mainstream media make the minority feel like the majority and the majority feel like the minority?
I’ve emphasized in many of my articles how vaccine hesitancy continues to grow. That’s no big secret. This is occurring not only with much of the general population, but doctors and scientists as well.
Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project stated at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference that:
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…
Many people are asking why doesn’t mainstream media or Bill Gates actually addresses the concerns that are being raised by scientists and doctors? Why is ridicule and terms like “conspiracy theory” always used instead?
What are the concerns? Vaccine injury is one of them. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.
There are several concers.
If you’d like to access more of articles that are properly sourced regarding vaccine concerns, there is a link to a few at the bottom of this article I recently published.
Big Politics: Every single year big politics, in my opinion, continues to be exposed as a system that’s no longer capable of dealing with and appropriately handling big issues our planet faces today. I often ask myself, does voting simply uphold a system that’s no longer capable of creating any meaningful change? Big politics is filled with an enormous amount of corruption, and many would say that corporations now dictate policy, not government.
When it comes to health policy, there are many conflicts of interests to be concerned about, scientists from within federal health regulatory agencies have been bringing awareness to this fact for many years. For example, few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out public statement detailing the influence corporations have within the CDC, how corrupt things are, how it happens in all departments how many high ranking people within the CDC condone this behaviour. They were referred to as the Spider Papers.
Award winning medical investigator Jeanne Lenzer also made this quite clear in a 2015 paper published in the British Medical Journal.
The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law. Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.
This is a huge problem, and it’s one that seems to plague all industries, not just the medical industry.
We are pitted against each other like never before these days, and it doesn’t seem that politics helps us find common ground. It’s about belittling and ridiculing every move an opponent makes, and does not in any way shape or for represent a system of people who are willing to pool their resources and work together for meaningful change. So why do we continue to be captured by it? Why do we even pay attention? How can we change things and take matters into our own hands? Why do we live the way we do?
Power has corrupted our political process, and decisions today are made for politicians, corporations and those who seem to control these entities in order to gain more power from and profit off of.
Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today – Theodore Roosevelt
Honesty, morality, empathy, and an overall unawareness regarding the interconnectedness of life is severely lacking, and I do believe human beings are capable of creating a human experience where all life can thrive. We have the solutions, but many of them never see the light of day or receive any attention, so ask yourself, if we have the solutions, what’s preventing them from being implemented?
Was Stanley Kubrick Telling Us Something With His 1999 Film ‘Eyes Wide Shut’?
Stanley Kubrick’s last film before his untimely death, ‘Eyes Wide Shut,’ starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman was perceived as...
Supposed Unreleased Images from The Apollo Missions They Don’t Want You To See
Having researched the UFO/extraterrestrial topic for more than 15 years now and having my own unique experiences with sightings, I...