- 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.
--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!
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.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Opinion | Which Is More Dangerous: Mainstream Media or The Spike Protein?
- The Facts:
It's known that SARS-COV2 poses very little risk to healthy children. Mainstream media continues to urge universal & immediate vaccination of this group claiming the vaccine is safe, while ignoring data that points to grave danger of the vaccines.
- Reflect On:
When will large mainstream media sources be held accountable for unbalanced reporting? Who will hold them accountable?
Before you begin...
Update June 18, 2021: A summary of the uncertainties involving the spike protein experiments and a link to a HealthFeedback.org critique were added.
Last week CE published this piece that demonstrated the obvious spin The Washington Post used to mislead their readers about the status of the unvaccinated, claiming that their rates of infection, death and hospitalization are significantly higher than vaccinated individuals when in fact they never measured these rates. In this article I will once again focus on the Washington Post and their lack of journalistic integrity. This time their propaganda is more egregious because they are targeting the largest pool of unvaccinated individuals: children.
The Washington Post urges the vaccination of adolescents
On May 10, 2021 the Washington Post published this article titled “FDA authorizes Pfizer Coronavirus vaccine for adolescents 12 to 15 years old”. The article begins with a quote from Kawsar R. Talaat, an assistant professor of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who says, “A vaccine gives them an extra layer of protection and allows them to go back to being kids.”
This is a fascinating statement. Obviously kids were never not kids during the pandemic. Dr. Talaat is essentially saying that in order to be allowed to enjoy their youth kids must be vaccinated. However the restrictions that have been imposed upon their activity were never based on sound data. Asymptomatic spread could never be quantified or even confirmed. Mask mandates have been empirically demonstrated to have no effect on transmissibility or incidence of infection. The only things preventing kids from going back to being kids are the mandates that remain unsupported by any evidentiary arguments–not their vaccination status.
This statement was then further supported in the article:
”Robert W. Frenck Jr., the researcher who led [an] adolescent trial at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, who said the study was designed to test whether it triggered immune responses, not whether it prevented disease. But because of the number of children who became ill in the placebo arm of the trial, it also became evident the vaccine offered robust protection. He finishes by stating ‘That really points out how much covid there is in the adolescent community.’”
Dr. Frenck admits that the study he conducted was not designed to tell whether the vaccine prevented disease but whether children in the study developed antibodies. The point he is trying to make is that there is a lot of disease in the adolescent community. How much? In his study 16 out of approximately 1150 unvaccinated kids got Covid, all of whom recovered. That is an absolute risk of 1.4%. Compare that to the risk of getting the flu in a flu season: 8%.
The article goes on to claim that the mortality of COVID is greater than the flu in children. The Post correctly states that of the 581,000 deaths from Covid only 300 adolescents have perished from the disease, an admittedly extremely small percentage but tragic nonetheless. However they state that this number is greater than the number of adolescents that die from the flu which justifies universal vaccinations. The article cites this paper from the CDC that they claim confirms this statistic. In it the CDC states that 188 children died from the flu in the 2017-18 season, indeed less than 300. However the paper then states that “CDC estimates the actual number was closer to 600”. We have caught the Post in what can be fairly called a lie that is being used to make their case that the threat of the disease justifies prevention through vaccination.
Vaccination Risks and what we know about the “Spike Protein”
Every medical intervention has a risk/benefit relationship that must be examined closely. The Washington Post never once addresses the potential risk of the vaccine in children. Despite mainstream media’s dogged refusal to pursue any research into potential harm of the Covid vaccines, some very troubling information has recently surfaced if one is willing to look beyond headlines and CDC reports. Unlike the Washington Post, I will also examine the risk aspect of the vaccine with a look at the role of the infamous “spike” protein.
As is well known, the Spike protein on the SARS-COV2 virus is what allows it to enter a human cell and infect it. It is also the target protein of the mRNA “vaccines” that use a novel approach to teach our immune systems to recognize it by stimulating our own cells to produce this protein ourselves, hopefully triggering our immune system to produce antibodies against it.
The vaccine manufacturers and the FDA who grant them authorization to deploy their product have made an enormous assumption: the virus is dangerous, but the spike protein is not. It is becoming clear that this assumption does not hold true. In this short article published on April 30, 2021 (11 days before the WP published their article) Salk News summarizes one of several scientific publications that demonstrate the danger of the spike protein:
“The paper, published on April 30, 2021, in Circulation Research, also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease, demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system on a cellular level. The findings help explain COVID-19’s wide variety of seemingly unconnected complications, and could open the door for new research into more effective therapies.
‘A lot of people think of it as a respiratory disease, but it’s really a vascular disease,” says Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor, who is co-senior author of the study. “That could explain why some people have strokes, and why some people have issues in other parts of the body. The commonality between them is that they all have vascular underpinnings.'”
The takeaway from these statements is that Covid-19 is a vascular disease more than just a respiratory illness. This was suspected very early on in the pandemic when many people were injured by bleeding, clots, strokes and organ failure. The authors were able to establish its mechanism by an elegant experiment. They designed a “pseudovirus”, one that had the SARS-COV2 spike protein on its surface but without any viral RNA in it. The pseudovirus damaged the lungs and pulmonary vasculature in animal models. They then isolated the molecular pathway by which spike proteins alter the metabolism of vascular endothelial cells causing injury. Conclusion: the spike protein itself causes harm in animal models.
Though we cannot definitively assert, from this study alone, that the spike protein is directly responsible for injury in humans, we must avail ourselves of the reality that this may take a very long time to prove definitively. If it is shown that an intervention is dangerous to animals there is no justification in assuming that it will be safe in a human being. That is why we use animal models in medical research to begin with.
“Fact Checkers” are Taking Notice
As expected, such statements are getting a lot of attention in the media. PolitiFact quickly responded with two articles (one here) “debunking” the theory that spike proteins are dangerous to humans. They quote Dr. Walter Orenstein (associate director of Emory University’s Emory Vaccine Center) and Dr. Paul Offit (director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia) who both summarize that they are not aware of any evidence around the danger of spike proteins. Neither, however commented on the study presented in this essay.
PolitiFact also noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) called the spike protein “harmless”. Once again, PolitiFact accepted their blanket statement without asking the CDC for their opinion of the evidence cited here. PolitiFact declined to query the CDC for a different explanation of why hospitalized Covid-19 patients commonly expressed systemic disease often with vascular and clotting disorders.
Another fact-checking organization, HealthFeedback.org, took aim at the Circulation Research study. They correctly point out that we cannot confirm whether the spike protein on the “pseudovirus” is identical to the SARS-COV2 virus or the ones encoded for by the mRNA in the vaccines. The concentration of pseudovirus used in their experiment may exceed that of a typical or severe Covid-19 infection and/or the level of circulating spike protein following vaccination as they point out as well. You can read their full critique of the relevant scientific studies and subsequent claims here.
The Danger of an mRNA vaccine that generates spike proteins
If the spike protein is pathogenic, i.e. capable of causing disease, how do we know that when we create antibodies to it we will be completely protected from it? We don’t. How do we know that every person inoculated will mount an antibody response to them? We don’t. This should be sounding alarms in every institution charged with public health. Why? With traditional vaccines there is very little risk, if any, of contracting disease from the vaccine. For example, if a person inoculated with a Hepatitis B vaccine does not mount an immunological response they do not end up getting Hepatitis B.
The situation we may be in is much more concerning. These mRNA vaccines, if they work as intended, are in fact introducing the disease-inducing component of the virus into our bodies. As with most biological processes there will be a wide distribution of responses to the vaccine from people who have little or no side-effects to others who suffer devastating injury. Is that what we are seeing now? Yes it is.
The vaccines migrate throughout the body after injection
More recently, more disturbing information is coming to light. Bioavailability studies of the vaccine were not made public prior to Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). A Pfizer bioavailability study, obtained through the FOIA from a Japanese regulatory agency by a group of international scientists, demonstrates where the vaccine may go once it has been injected into the muscle tissue of our shoulder. Table 126.96.36.199B in this study indicates that the very same Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs) used in the Pfizer vaccine begin to redistribute throughout the bodies of mice. Within 15 minutes after inoculation LNPs show up in the brain, liver, gastrointestinal tract, heart, lungs and especially in the ovaries and spleen. We can infer that where the LNPs go so do the mRNA that codes for spike protein. That was the purpose behind doing this study. We can also safely say that Pfizer and the other Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers never intended for their product to migrate so far from the site of inoculation.
This story is still evolving, however these studies and recently released bioavailability reports help to explain the clinical picture of Covid-19 with its broad effects on the body that are not limited to the respiratory system. Furthermore it may substantiate the numerous reports of injury following vaccinations like strokes, blood clots, bleeding, “brain fog”, Bell’s Palsy, etc.
The spike protein is toxic. The vaccine induces our cells to make spike proteins. The vaccine spreads throughout the body after injection. Until another unifying explanation is found we must assume that these vaccines are potentially far more dangerous than anticipated.
A call to halt vaccinations in the UK
In this advisory letter to Dr. June Raine, chief executive of Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (the UK’s FDA), Dr. Tess Lawrie, the director of an evidence based medicine consulting firm, urges the director to halt the vaccination program in that country after an extensive review of the UK’s adverse reaction data was conducted.
We know, through the CDC’s own data, that Covid-19 vaccines provide almost no benefit to children and adolescents. The danger of vaccination is yet to be fully understood or quantified. In my opinion, the medical community, the FDA and CDC have no reasonable argument to encourage parents to vaccinate their children at this point. The Washington Post has once again demonstrated sloppy research standards, unbalanced reporting and lack of integrity. In this case adolescents, who are among the least vulnerable to the virus, may be harmed from The Post’s inability or unwillingness to uphold basic journalistic principles.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Dear Canadian Parents: Will You Give Informed Consent For Your Child To Get The Covid-19 Injection?
Before you begin...
Dear Canadian Parent, with the recent announcement from Health Canada in May 2021 that children 12 and older have been cleared to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, you are now faced with a highly consequential decision: whether or not to consent to your child getting this injection.
And, I think you will agree, this decision cannot be justified as a simple continuation of the regular schedule of childhood vaccines, for several reasons:
1. This product is not a traditional ‘vaccine,’ because by definition vaccines use the actual virus (dead or weakened) to stimulate the production of antibodies that will fight off future infections. This product is actually an experimental mRNA gene manipulator, in that it forces our cells to make a new protein to trigger an immune response which, allegedly, will then trigger our body to produce antibodies that will supposedly protect us from this virus.
2. Not only do manufacturers have complete immunity from prosecution if this injection causes bodily harm or death to your child, Canada has not yet set up a vaccine injury compensation program for victims of injury.
3. A thorough risk/benefit analysis for giving this product to your child, who statistically has a 99.96% recovery rate from the disease, has not been established by Health Canada or any other agency promoting this product.
This product is the first ever “vaccine” in the world to have purportedly been developed and approved within less than 2 years. It has not had to follow the legally mandated safety protocols, which involve years of testing and trials, because it has been cleared for ’emergency use only.’ Aside from mounting evidence of short-term injury and death, its mid-term and long-term effects are absolutely impossible to determine.
Now far be it from me, dear parent, to tell you what choice to make. You are the one who bears the full weight of responsibility for providing consent on behalf of your child. My only urging, and the point of this letter, is that such consent be informed. The argument that your child will ‘have to’ get the vaccine, so you might as well do it sooner than later, does not hold water. It is well established in Canadian law that Canadians have personal sovereignty with regards to what is put into their bodies. You remain responsible for making an informed decision on behalf of your child.
I became informed about vaccines just before my son was born in 2014. I had real trepidation and ambivalence about the vaccine issue, and whether or not I would be comfortable with my son receiving vaccines. I had heard arguments on both sides, but hadn’t looked into it in depth. I decided to read a book from each side of the argument, ‘The Vaccine Book’ by Robert Sears, and ‘Dissolving Illusions’ by Suzanne Humphreys. Once I had read these two books, and had done some follow-up research, my mind was made up for life.
If you are starting your research today it is even easier to find information, even though one side of the argument is being subjected to growing censorship. My belief is that, in order to make an informed decision, it is important to look deeply into both sides of the argument. The notion that these Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ are safe and effective is being promoted by mainstream media, the big social media companies, the government and the medical establishment. So you have ample avenues to investigate that side of the story. The place I would start you off to find information about vaccines being potentially harmful and ineffective is Vaccine Choice Canada, which has long established itself as an alternative to the mainstream narrative on vaccine safety, and can lead you to other sources of information as well.
I am not suggesting you should trust one side or the other when it comes to your child’s health and well-being. I am suggesting that you have the courage to trust yourself, and rely on the discernment of your own logic and intuition, to the best of your ability.
Do your important research of both sides with an open mind, and don’t just accept surface opinions. Follow to where (or whether) these opinions are substantiated by fact, evidence, actual studies, statistics, and take note of the credentials of experts testimony. Only once you look deeply into both sides will you be able to make an informed choice and a decision you can live with.
It is important to note that in Ontario, the government believes there is no minimum age to provide consent for vaccination. The notion that they have the legal right to enforce this has been refuted by constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati. Nonetheless, they have started setting up clinics where children aged 12 and over are being invited to consent for themselves to get the Covid-19 injection, and, as happened at Toronto’s city hall on May 23rd, ice cream was being offered as an extra incentive for young participants. If you still believe you should trust the government and the medical establishment to make your decisions for you, I don’t know what more I need to say.
But if, dear parent, you at least agree with me that your child should only get the Covid-19 injection after you have made that informed choice on their behalf, you may need to have a conversation with your child to protect them from the growing risk that the government is trying to lure them into getting the Covid-19 injection without your knowing.
The Hippocratic Oath to ‘first, do no harm’ is still sworn to by all doctors and nurses who are physically performing the injections. It makes me wonder whether those who are performing injections on self-consenting children as young as 12 understand the full weight of that oath. We are living in a time, dear parent, where more than ever we need to re-establish ourselves, in our own minds as well as in the public consciousness, as the legal and conscientious guardians of our beloved children.
Richard Enos, Ontario parent
This letter was originally published on my website daocoaching.com.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Obama Says UFOs Are Real & We Don’t Know What They Are: Is This True?
- The Facts:
Barack Obama, along with recent mainstream media coverage, recently emphasized that UFOs, or UAPs are real and that the U.S. government does not know what they are.
- Reflect On:
When UFOs were a "conspiracy", the evidence for their existence was strong, yet it was still not accepted. Did you know that the evidence showing UFOs may originate from a non-human life form is also quite strong?
Before you begin...
UFOs have gone “mainstream” in a big way. The U.S. Navy has released multiple videos and pictures of “unidentified aerial phenomenon” (UAPs) as they call it, and the Pentagon has verified this footage to be authentic. It’s unfortunate that footage has to be released and confirmed “authentic” by the Department of Defense for it to be credible in the public eye. This alone shows how reliant humanity has become on these institutions and organizations.
It’s also the reason why humanity’s perception of major global events and controversial topics is open to manipulation. It’s no secret that governments, through their relationship with mainstream media, have attempted to manipulate the perception of the masses on a wide range of issues for “national security” purposes, as they claim. It’s unfortunate that there is simply not enough trust in governments or mainstream media institutions to provide a correct and accurate analysis of major issues. That being said, it’s great to see the phenomenon being legitimized within the mainstream.
The question is, why would mainstream media actively engage in ridiculing this topic, deeming it a “conspiracy,” for so many years yet now all of a sudden take it so seriously? It’s not like the UAP encounters released into the mainstream are anything new, military encounters with UFOs have been happening for decades. Here’s one of many examples.
Just as there was evidence for the existence of UFOs when they were a considered a conspiracy theory, there is ample evidence suggesting that these objects are not made by humans, at least some of them. This it’s suspicious when someone like Barack Obama goes The Late Show and says that the US government doesn’t know that it’s unknown what these objects are.
We know that governments and military agencies have been studying the phenomenon for at least 70 years. Perhaps “high ranking” individuals are simply adhering to their national security oaths? Perhaps they are simply regurgitating what they’ve been told to say from people who are “in the know.”
What is true, and I’m actually being serious here, is that there are, there’s footage and records of objects in the skies, that we don’t know exactly what they are. We can’t explain how they moved, their trajectory. They did not have an easily explainable pattern. And so, you know, I think that people still take seriously trying to investigate and figure out what that is. – Barrack Obama
Next month, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense will be required to provide the intelligence and armed services committees of Congress with an unclassified report on UAPs, but it’s safe to say that what is actually known about the phenomenon within these circles will remain classified. What we do get from this report will be nothing new to those who have been studying the phenomenon for years.
Evidence suggests otherwise, that it is actually known what some of these objects are, but it depends on your definition of evidence. Whether it’s examples of, as Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell said, “crashed craft and bodies recovered”, civilian experiences, and even high ranking military personnel sharing what they apparently know, testimony like this never seems to make its way into the public domain. If you’re interested in reading more about UFO crash retrievals, you can do so here.
Sure, military pilots and and political figures are now able and willing to talk about the phenomenon, but this is nothing new. Why is it that those who go deeper are unacknowledged within the mainstream? Why is it that those who go in depth into the implications on human consciousness, or perhaps supposed evidence that these objects do indeed originate from another non-human intelligence, are never acknowledged properly within the mainstream? Why can’t we take the discussion to the next level and speculate?
What makes one person’s testimony who remains on the “safe” side, simply going as far as saying that these objects are real, more credible than another person’s testimony, of equal or higher rank, going into a deeper discussion into the question and intentions of the intelligence behind the “unidentified” objects? Why do we keep saying “we don’t know” when really, there is more than enough information and testimony out there to have an intelligent discussion and/or speculation? Is it because we have video and pictures of these objects from the government and not pictures of other intelligent life forms? I could see how that may play a role, but again, the testimony from “credible” sources is curious to say the least when they continually express that nobody knows what these objects are. I don’t believe that to be true.
For example, in his very last interview before his death, conducted by director James Fox, Colonel Robert Friend, who from 1958-1962 was a director of Project Blue Book, suggests the U.S. Air Force knew what these objects were. He didn’t quite say what, but it seems as if he was implying that they were extraterrestrial. Mitchell, mentioned above, has done the same.
Colonel Ross dedrickson served the with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission from 1950-1958, his stint there included contract administration duties at Nevada test sites, Pacific Nuclear Test Area west of Hawaii, nuclear weapon manufacturing and quality assurance in Albuquerque, and inspection of nuclear and non-nuclear facilities throughout the country. He retired from the air force in 1962. According to him, various people within the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force Space Command were well aware of the fact that some of these objects are, according to him, extraterrestrial, and that they are concerned about the preservation of our planet.
Now, there are plenty of benevolent, and what seem to be in some cases malevolent stories associated with this phenomenon and non-human intelligence, and that’s where the discussion needs to go in my opinion. Unfortunately humans want to put everything into a box and label it. This phenomenon is quite large, it leaves no aspect of humanity untouched and goes into quantum physics, consciousness, multiple dimensions, and much much more.
Dr. Norman Bergrun, renowned NASA/Ames research scientist, has also shared the same type of information regarding non-human intelligence, implying that it’s already known that this intelligence is behind the phenomenon.
Despite these examples, and they are a few of many, there is good reason to believe that we are being lied to by mainstream media and governments when they state that they don’t know what these objects are. Sure, there are probably a lot of unknowns that remain, but why they seem to be lying is a different story and discussion. Again, individuals who share this perspective may simply be sharing what they are told, and others may be under non-disclosure agreements and national security oaths that may not be able to go past stating that these objects are real. Perhaps they are sharing what they can, which is great.
My concern is this, by mainstream media and governments are sharing that that they don’t know what these objects are and staying firm in this stance, they can simply continue to keep their secrets as they have done for decades and continue doing whatever it is they do in the black budget world. It’s another way of saying “here, this is all we know, satisfied?” “National security” in my opinion has become an umbrella term to justify the secrecy of information due to the fact that its disclosure may threaten various corporate, financial and other elite interests, but I don’t know.
Secondly, by sharing that they don’t know what these objects are sets up the government, in the public eye, to find out. The Pentagon has created a new program to study this phenomenon, and they now have, through this program, the ability to relay to the public what exactly they find out and discover. As I said in the beginning, does this give them the ability to paint a perception of the phenomenon that is not accurate or indicative of it’s behaviour? That remains to be seen. If one thing is certain, to me at least, the behaviour of these objects, which have clearly been around a very long time, is not indicative of any type of threat.
Sure, there may be some perceived air-safety issues and perhaps other issues with regards to approaching these craft, like radiation and what not, but as far as their behaviour goes, for the most part they perform evasive manevuers to avoid our own aircraft. They’ve been observed doing this for decades. In my opinion, based on my research, they are curious and playful when engaging with our air-craft, they clearly do not want to shoot them down like we do.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Your Vagina Is More Beautiful Than You Think
It was 11 years ago and I was in a big documentary phase. I had watched hundreds of documentaries in...
82-Year-Old Woman With Dementia Gets Her Memory Back After Changing Her Diet
A message to our readers: Have you checked out our NEW on demand video platform called CETV? We created it to combat...