Comments

• 

  Roaring Lovely May 12, 2021 at 9:04am

  

  It is very bad to, after noticing a problem with mainstream media, one moves recklessly all the way to alternate media rather than 'going within'! It is like a pendulum swinging hopelessly between two extremes!
  
  It is like, seeing a problem with Christianity, you move directly to Buddhism, Islam or atheism, like a numbskull. If one can lie, why can't the other?
• 

  Joanna May 12, 2021 at 7:56am

  

  Some in the awakening communities believe, when it comes to media, politics, health, other areas, that it's a case of 'take the blue pill or the red pill - one will lock you into the matrix, one will set you free' - when this is just another expression of the duality drama imprinted into the collective consciousness... mainstream v alternative, red v blue... when there are truths and distortions in both, while any veiling's still in play individually and collectively...
  With best of intentions, many remote viewers and channellers could be picking up on shared imprints within a collective psychic/telepathic field too, or filtering through them without realizing...rather than what is beyond...
  We all have the choice every moment though, to stand in a place of Universal Love that encompasses the duality field and sends Love and Peace and Joy into it, for the Whole...
  That's how Unity Consciousness anchors...just as in other galactic civilzations operating in Love...truly, we can do this...🌟😊
• 

  Joanna May 12, 2021 at 7:20am

  With you Hellen, on holding positive focus for humanity, and the Earth and all life here 💛🌏
  
  I've used a visualization/affirmation practice called the Golden Apple for many years, as a focus for maintaining the integrity of my light-field...and also as a transformer of energies...I'll link the page it's on below, for anyone this might appeal to:
  
  https://heartstar.org/2014/03/30/four-foundational-heart-practices/

  

  Four Foundational Heart Practices

  The exercises below assist in maintaining a steady soul alignment, keeping your energy field clear and your heart light. We recommend these practices…
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 12, 2021 at 6:55am

  

  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://googleweblight.com/sp%3Fu%3Dht...
  
  You see that suing media for lieing is unreasonably difficult. This gives them a licence to lie.
  
  When US first ammendment was made, they probably never had a monopolistic media controled by cabal in mind. The only thing capable of monopoly was the state itself.
  
  But if the media becomes part of the 'deep state', then the 'freedom of media' is nolonger about protecting citizens. It is now a protection of the elites against the rest of the citizens demanding truth, the opposite of what was perhaps intended!!
  
  They say, for instance, that we must prove that the lies were 'intentional', which is almost impossible as intent is in the mind where we can't demonstrate!
  
  Another one is that we must prove that the lies caused a damage, a meaningless criteria. Lieing is a vice in and on itself, whether or not it causes any damage, and should never be protected by any law!
  
  Lastly they only consider the damage that the lies does to those who are lied about and never the damage that the lies does to those who are lied to! In the case of a 'democracy' this is dangerous as the public is the judge who listens from the witness offered by the media. It is very unwise that they did not realize this. In courts they did see that we can't make a law that protect lies from the witnesses. It is here did they realize that lieing should never be taken lightly!
  
  The rule should be simple: if someone demonstrates that media lied about anything or anyone, that media should be fined and / or de-licensed! They do so in courts, why not to media? If you offer false testimony in court, then you do a crime!

  Redirect Notice
• 

  Sarah Jane 1975 May 11, 2021 at 3:50pm

  Sometimes things transpire that bring us to a level that brings us back to one. I've been assured the facts are always found if one asks the universe than shuts off all outside media the right answers come. You can always confirm your findings later to see if your the only one. I'm amazed everyone how far humanity has come in such a short time.
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 11, 2021 at 1:37pm

  

  Meanwhile, we can simply make a guiding principle that we should never trust ANY media if it reports things that cannot have been directly witnessed by at least 100 people collected randomly from public. In other words media should be just a public mouth, not a lecturer to the public!
  
  As far as I can tell, reports about COVID does not meet this criteria. Media usurps the duty of science and other 'experts', rather than public.
  
  But the same thing applies to the alternate media, for instance when it talks of 'stolen US elections'. The asurp the duty of electoral commissions.
  
  Media also should never do criminal investigations, intelligent information etc. These areas should be left to people who can be sued for telling lies!
• 

  AlternateEarth May 11, 2021 at 1:36pm

  https://www.infowars.com/posts/tucker-carlson-calls-for-investigati...

  

  Tucker Carlson Calls For Investigation Into Fauci Wuhan Lab Connection

  "Why isn’t there a criminal investigation into Tony Fauci’s role in this pandemic?"
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 11, 2021 at 1:28pm

  

  If you want to determine how trustworthy I am, you can ask me a question that you already know the answer. Ask me, for instance, 'where is your home', and then see if I will lie. But then there is a prerequisite for this to work: You must know that I don't know that you know my home. If I know that you know, then I won't lie to you, even if I often lie to you. This is because if I do, you will get me!
  
  But now tell me how do we publicly interrogate the media, so that it's trustworthiness is demonstrated to public, and not just to few individuals?
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 11, 2021 at 1:16pm

  

  How do we know that a certain media is trustworthy worthy? The only way is by watching how they report things that we already know, and which the media itself doesn't know that we know them. It is closely similar to the way judges determine a trustworthy witness. But how can we do this for a media when we want to convince a mass of people? There is always a way in which the media can know that masses are informed, since a mass, as opposed to individuals, cannot easily creep in secretly to interrogate the media.
  
  There is no way media can lie about, for instance, how many scores Real Madrid scored in the last match. This is because a mass of people knew it already. Now give me an example of such a public knowledge that can happen without the media knowing it, so that they are fooled to lie about and thus got red handed! Without this, the media can easily create an illusion of trustworthiness!
• 

  LokisLibrarian May 11, 2021 at 12:31pm

  Based on intuition and critical thinking, the site's bias makes it an untrustworthy and inaccurate source for news.