Category: Collective-evolution

A Video That Reveals The Complete Charade That Is Politics

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

People ask me all the time: ‘Why don’t you vote?’ And every time, it comes down to the same feeling within myself. I choose not to be governed. I do not consent to giving up my power to people who take action in favour of their own ego, power, and profit. I don’t judge them for it, it’s simply an observation of the system at hand and a choice made based on that observation.

By now we must know, even if we might not like to admit it, that if anything could be changed through our current political establishment, it would have already, otherwise voting itself would likely be made illegal. Why? Because there is an established group out there that works and acts above government and makes the important choices in our world. Often called the Deep State, the Cabal, or the Illuminati, it’s out there, and the time of denying this basic fact has come to an end.

I felt inspired to shared this video because I believe we are in a time of great reflection in our world. Are we in a revolution? No. An evolution, perhaps, but this will not be something where we overthrow one system and replace it with another.

Our species is maturing, moving beyond things like politics, identifying with one creed or class or culture, and fighting over who’s right and who’s wrong. We’re moving beyond ego running our entire experience. Now is a time of taking responsibility for ourselves as beings having a human experience. We are shifting the ways we are doing things forever, and in an incredible way.

The video below is several months old, but reminds and helps us to reflect on how childish and ineffective the system we call politics truly is.

Something else to consider is the idea that, by voting, we agree to this system and we give our power to it. I’m not asking anyone to not vote out of hate or judgement of the system. I’m simply asking us to reflect on how it really works and really think about why nothing ever changes.

By giving up our power to a government, especially one that operates in this manner, we agree to this system and we ultimate agree to not take full responsibility for our own lives. As a result, we never truly grow up, which is why we still have this system in place.

Vía Collective Evolution http://ift.tt/2w9erdo

What Afghanistan Looked Like Before False Flag Terrorism

http://ift.tt/2jzZ1J1

In 1967, Dr. William Podlich, an amateur photographer and college professor, took a leave of absence from his job at Arizona State to work with UNESCO in Kabul, bringing his wife and daughters along with him. It was here that Podlich documented Afghanistan, at a time before the U.S. invasion, Russian war, and Marxist revolution had touched the land with its power and destruction.

The photos expose a place that once looked healthy in its nature, strong in its structure, and flourishing with free people. But soon the Soviet invasion of 1979 would open the doors to the destruction of the country known now for being war-torn — a stark opposition to its past reputation as a thriving and modern nation.

“When I look at my dad’s photos, I remember Afghanistan as a country with thousands of years of history and culture,” says Dr. Podlich’s daughter, Peg Podlich. “It has been a gut-wrenching experience to watch and hear about the profound suffering which has occurred in Afghanistan during the battles of war for nearly 40 years. Fierce and proud yet fun-loving people have been beaten down by terrible forces.”

Peg Podlich also said of her father:

He had always said that since he had served in WWII…he wanted to serve in the cause of peace. In 1967, he was hired by UNESCO as an expert on principles of education for a two-year stint in Kabul…. Throughout his adult life, because he was interested in social studies, whenever he traveled around [in Arizona, to Mexico, and other places] he continued to take pictures. In Afghanistan he took half-frame color slides [on Kodachrome] and I believe he used a small Olympus camera.

Podlich’s eye-opening collection of photos from the 1960s were honoured by his son-in-law Clayton Esterson, who took it upon himself to revive the message behind the images by putting them on the web. People were astounded by the images exposed: a country with character; with promise.

“I have taken on the role as family archivist and when Bill Podlich gave us his extensive slide collection, I immediately recognized the historical significance of the pictures,” Esterson says. “Many Afghans have written comments [on the website] showing their appreciation for the photographs that show what their country was like before 33 years of war. This makes the effort to digitize and restore these photographs worthwhile.”

Many photos have circulated the web in various forms, while a full collection of Dr. Podlich’s work can be found on a website maintained by Esterson.

When you imagine Afghanistan, you likely don’t envision a place where liberal lifestyles run the show. But as you will see in the following images, The Kabul used to be a bustling capital of well-dressed men, women wearing colourful clothing, and even short skirts, as they walked freely amongst the masses, while foreigners and tourists had the pleasure of exploring peacefully, without fear for their safety, and children had comfortable classrooms, lush land to explore, and adolescences free from the ravages of war.

To read our articles about “False Flag Terrorism,” you can click HERE.

afghanistan

afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan afghanistan

 

Photos: Dr. William F. Podlich

Vía Collective Evolution http://ift.tt/2w91IXO

What Unlocking Your 7th Sense Could Mean For You

http://ift.tt/1sZG637

Because science was not advanced enough to detect and measure 6th and 7th sense energy fields, such phenomena was illegitimized as paranormal, and even ridiculed.  Slowly, as cited by supporting articles found on Collective Evolution, this is beginning to change.

Intimately intertwined within the commonly accepted five senses our body uses to collect information about our external world lies the uncharted territory of our metaphysical world containing extrasensory perception and our chakras. It’s only recently that our sixth sense has come into humanity’s collective awareness. But did you know you have a seventh sense?

It is Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) who is credited with the classification of the primary five sense organs: sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing. These sense organs contain receptors for specific stimuli that are connected to your body’s nervous system which then sends data to your brain, providing you with useful information about your physical/external world. But what about your essential/internal world?

blog-confusedBuddhists consider the mind to be a sense organ in addition to the five senses. Simultaneously processing the collective data of the first five senses, the mind becomes a gateway, making an exponential or fractal leap to a broader spectrum of perception that includes your internal sensory system. This extrasensory system has been referred to as the psychic realm.

Because science was not advanced enough to detect and measure these energy fields, such phenomena were illegitimized as paranormal, and even ridiculed. Slowly, this is beginning to change.

Our sixth sense has been feared and revered since humans were a much more primitive species, depending on what period of history you had the (mis)fortune of being born in. If you were lucky enough be born into a Native American tribe, you may have been recognized for your inner genius and exalted as your community’s shaman.

But, historically, for the majority of those unacquainted with their internal guidance system, or those subject to culture and conditioning that only recognizes external power sources, much fear-generated misinformation has been disseminated over the centuries, leading the unfortunate to societal ostracization and even death.

Even in modern times, there is still very little information that can be called qualitative. And, to add to the mystery, a seventh sense is coming to light as humanity continues its evolution into higher forms of consciousness.

BEYOND SPACE AND TIME

The difficulty for scientists in collecting empirical data is that the sixth and seventh senses function outside of space and time. The difficulty for non-scientists is that much outlier phenomena is still accredited to external forces or entities—channeling, spirits (good or bad), extraterrestrials, etc.—rather to than to the anomalous experience that is actually happening within.

Sixth sense experiences range from intuition, déjà vu, prescience, to past life parallels. As our conscious mind is always trying to create a linear story out of our experiences, we tend to look for cause and effect to explain a multi-dimensional event. When our mind can’t make two and two equal four, we call it a coincidence.

To demonstrate the complexity contained within your senses, there isn’t even scientific agreement on the number of senses because of differing definitions. Wikipedia states that the senses are divided into the exteroceptive and interoceptive.

Exteroceptive includes the traditional five while interoceptive senses perceive sensations in the internal organs neurologically linked to the brain for the purpose of regulating bodily functions, i.e. regulation of respiration, the sensation of fullness, blushing and more. Add to these sub-groups, the body’s awareness of balance, pain, temperature, pressure, which are derived from the synthesis of multiple senses.

Some “sense” can be made of all this when you understand that your primary senses are inseparable from your chakra system. Chakras are multi-dimensional vortices of energy, as levels of consciousness, resonating at specific frequencies that also line up with the notes on a musical scale. Chakras act as an interface between the dense physical world and the non-physical world of pure consciousness. There are seven notes in a musical scale, seven chakras, and you have seven senses.

BYPASSING YOUR PHYSICAL WORLD

While your sixth sense utilizes your feeling body to inform you when your intuition is on or off target, your seventh sense is your doorway to the Universal Self via Unity Consciousness. Bypassing physicality, it is direct access to all information contained within the entire Universe—relative to your physical world. No intermediary or channeling is involved. It has been called the Akashic records by some, or the Hall of Records. Another term coined by this author is The Universal Library.

ChakrasHow do you know you are accessing your seventh sense? Every human being intermittently uses his or her seventh sense, but most do so unconsciously. You are using your seventh sense when you ask the Universe a question and receive the answer as your own thought with such clarity, there is no doubt. It is pure knowing.

You could have recently used your seventh sense for something as inane as walking into an unfamiliar grocery story, wondering where the balsamic vinegar was, and allowing your feet to carry you directly there without questioning why “left” was the thought.

You cultivate your seventh sense when you consciously make use of all the resources available to you in the Universe. Quite literally, nothing can be hidden from you by any part of Creation—past, present, or future. All you have to do is tap into your seventh sense and inquire.

This happens by sitting quietly in contemplation—or remaining in a state of open wonderment. The wonder of a child is still contained within you, as you, and is a gateway to greater knowledge. In reality, all of life is a gateway to higher consciousness or enlightenment—Self-Knowledge.

Want to know how the Universe works? Or mankind’s true history? Ask! The information will flow to you at a level you can understand, the spectrum broadening when you are capable of going deeper. Be advised the information is relative to the physical plane as a more comprehensive version of reality, but is by no means complete. No human nervous system has the capacity to contain the totality of light.

As a fun exercise, if you’d like to go deeper using this article as a jump-off point, then contemplate that there are really twelve notes in a musical scale if you include the half notes, twelve chakras in the body, and the exponential/fractal leap from the individual human is the twelve archetypes commonly referred as the twelve tribes!

Are you able to recognize when you are using your seventh sense? Pay attention throughout your day, cultivating greater awareness until your seventh sense becomes inseparable from the rest of your senses.

Vía Collective Evolution http://ift.tt/2w8TjnB

Dopamine & Serotonin: Is Depression Really The Result of a Chemical Imbalance?

http://ift.tt/2wlUFuP

There are many uninformed individuals when it comes to knowing what’s happening within the modern day medical industry, and by no fault of their own. The world of medical science, unfortunately, has been plagued with scientific fraud and pharmaceutical company influence.

The words ‘big pharma’ are far from a conspiracy theory, which is why so many physicians and doctors in influential positions are trying to let the world know.

For example, Dr Richard Horton, current editor-in-chief of The Lancet is one of them. He stated that half of all the published literature could be false.  Mark Mattson, the current Chief of the Laboratory of Neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging said that pharmaceutical companies can’t make money off of healthy people, which is why there is no funding for research and why there’s a lot of pressure for regular eating patterns forced upon us by the food industry.

Physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal, Dr Marcia Angell, told the world that “it’s simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.”

Pharmaceutical fraud and industry influence is prominent. Some still refer to ‘big pharma’ as a conspiracy theory, but the small group of people and the corporations they hide behind have tremendous amounts of power.

“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.”  – (source)(source) Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal

Chemical Imbalance or Not?

Is the chemical imbalance theory of depression really true, or is it just a tool used to push more drugs onto the market? After all, antidepressant drugs are the most commonly prescribed drugs in North America. Pharmaceutical companies are bringing in billions of dollars every single year from the sale of antidepressant drugs alone, and they also spend billions of dollars marketing and advertising their products.

Joseph Coyle, a neuroscientist from Harvard Medical School, sums it up best, writing that “chemical imbalance is sort of last-century thinking. It’s much more complicated than that.” And it’s true; depression is much more complicated than that, at least compared to the commonly accepted belief that depression results from a chemical imbalance in the brain. This idea was posed in the late 1950s and has since taken hold in everyone’s minds. It’s the general idea that a deficiency of select neurotransmitters exists (chemical messengers) at critical points, like synapses. One of these neurotransmitters, for example, is serotonin; others include norepinephrine and dopamine.

As Scientific American reports, “much of the general public seems to have accepted the chemical imbalance hypothesis uncritically,” and that “it is very likely that depression stems from influences other than neurotransmitter abnormalities.” (source)

Harvard Medical School put out a press release a few years ago stating that it’s “often said that depression results from a chemical imbalance, but that figure of speech doesn’t capture how complex the disease is.”  (source)

Of course, there are brain events and biochemical reactions occurring when someone feels depressed, as there are all the time, but no research has ever established that a particular brain state causes, or even correlates with, depression. . . . In all cases studies yield inconsistent results, and none have been shown to be specific to depression, let alone causal.

The fact that more than 50 years of intense research efforts have failed to identify depression in the brain may indicate that we simply lack the right technology, or it may suggest we have been barking up the wrong tree!

Dr. Joanna Moncrieff,  British Psychiatrist, Author (source)

The most commonly cited evidence to support the chemical imbalance theory is simply that some drugs have been shown to increase and decrease mood in human and animal models, and yes — many antidepressants increase the amounts of serotonin and other neurotransmitters at synapses, but what we fail to realize today is, just because mood can be artificially manipulated with drugs, does not mean the chemical imbalance theory is true. Just because these antidepressants do increase and decrease certain chemical levels in the brain does not prove the chemical imbalance theory of depression.

We simply can’t currently determine if a human being has a chemical imbalance (to whatever extent) or say what neurotransmitters are involved, which is why the chemical imbalance theory of depression remains a theory. It’s not like chemical levels in the brain can accurately be measured or ‘looked at,’ either.

Yet much of the general public still accepts the chemical imbalance theory. Indeed, a survey conducted in 2007 of 262 undergraduates at Cleveland State University found that more than 80 percent of the participants found it “likely” that chemical imbalances cause depression.

“At best, drug-induced affective disturbances can only be considered models for natural disorders, while it remains to be demonstrated that the behavioral changes produced by these drugs have any relation to naturally occurring biochemical abnormalities which might be associated with the illness.” (source)

Keep in mind, as Harvard Medical School points out, there are probably many chemicals involved, working both inside and outside of our nerve cells: “There are millions, even billions, of chemical reactions that make up the dynamic system that is responsible for your mood, perceptions, and how you experience life.”

“The cause of mental disorders such as depression remains unknown. However, the idea that neurotransmitter imbalances cause depression is vigorously promoted by pharmaceutical companies and the psychiatric profession at large.” (source)

Again, theories like the low serotonin one came into existence because scientists were able to observe the effects of drugs on the brain. It was a hypothesis that attempted to explain how drugs could be fixing something, yet whether or not depressed people actually had lower serotonin levels actually remains to be proven. You can read more about the science here.

“The serotonin theory is simply not a scientific statement. It’s a botched theory – a hypothesis that was proven incorrect.” – Dr. Joseph Mercola (source)

Not only is there no solid scientific proof to back up the chemical imbalance theory, many depressed people are not even helped by taking antidepressants like SSRIs. For example, a review done by the University of California in 2009 found that one third of people treated with antidepressants do not improve, and a significant portion of these people remain depressed. As Scientific American observes, “if antidepressants correct a chemical imbalance that underlies depression, all or most depressed people should get better after taking them.”

Depression has one focus, brain chemistry, even though it is a multifaceted issue involving many concerns and many chemicals. Focusing on this one chemical imbalance theory, and then dishing out drugs that actually alter brain chemistry, is shortsighted and dangerous.

“In spite of the enormous amount of money and time that has been spent on the quest to confirm the chemical imbalance theory, direct proof has never materialized.”  (source)

The irony of this situation is hopefully not lost on everyone. The only imbalances we know for sure to exist in the brains of ‘mentally ill’ people are the ones inflicted on them by psychiatric drugs. We are making a false claim that they have biochemical imbalances and then actually giving them biochemical imbalances based on that claim.

Antidepressants are supposed to work by fixing a chemical imbalance, specifically, a lack of serotonin in the brain. Indeed, their supposed effectiveness is the primary evidence for the chemical imbalance theory. But analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect. Some antidepressants increase serotonin levels, some decrease it, and some have no effect at all on serotonin. Nevertheless, they all show the same therapeutic benefit. Even the small statistical difference between antidepressants and placebos may be an enhanced placebo effect, due to the fact that most patients and doctors in clinical trials successfully break blind. The serotonin theory is as close as any theory in the history of science to having been proved wrong. Instead of curing depression, popular antidepressants may induce a biological vulnerability making people more likely to become depressed in the future.

Related Article: 10 Ways To Increase Dopamine Levels In The Brain 

Irving Kirsch offered the above information in a publication obtained from the US National Library of Medicine. He is the Associate Director of the Program in Placebo Studies and a Lecturer in Medicine at Harvard Medical School. He is also Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the Universities of Hull and Plymouth in the United Kingdom, and a few others in the United States.  Needless to say, he’s done a lot of research, and his revelations above should be read by anybody taking, or considering taking, antidepressant drugs.

Investments in the pharmacological and pharmaceutical business.

The Effectiveness of Anti-Depressant Drugs Compared To Placebo

In a 2002 study conducted by Kirsch and his team of researchers, published in The American Psychological Association’s Prevention & Treatment, it was discovered that 80 percent of the effect of antidepressants, as measured in clinical trials, could be attributed to the placebo effect. The difference between the response of the drugs and the response of the placebo was less than two points on average on a clinical scale that goes from fifty to sixty points. This is a very small difference, and is, according Kirsch, clinically meaningless:

I assumed that antidepressants were effective. As a psychotherapist, I sometimes referred my severely depressed clients for prescriptions of antidepressant drugs. Sometimes the condition of my clients improved when they began taking antidepressants; sometimes it did not. When it did, I assumed it was the effect of the drug that was making them better. Given my long standing interest in the placebo effect, I should have known better, but back then I did not.

Analyzing the data we had found, we were not surprised to find a substantial placebo effect on depression. What surprised us was how small the drug effect was. Seventy-five percent of the improvement in the drug group also occurred when people were give dummy pills with no active ingredient in them.  (source)

To learn more about the placebo effect and access more studies about it, you can refer to this article we published on it a couple of years ago.

“Unpublished Data That That Were Hidden By Drug Companies”

The idea that scientific literature has firmly established the benefits of antidepressants has lost all credibility, thanks in large part to Kirsch and his team. They used the Freedom of Information Act to request that the Food and Drug  Administration (FDA) send data that pharmaceutical companies had sent to it for the process of obtaining approval for multiple antidepressants, which accounted for the bulk of antidepressant prescriptions at the time.  As a result, the researchers were able to obtain data on both published and unpublished trials:

 This turned out to be very important. Almost half of the clinical trials sponsored by the drug companies have not been published (Melander, Ahlqvist-Rastad, Meijer, & Beermann, 2003Turner, Matthews, Linardatos, Tell, & Rosenthal, 2008). The results of the unpublished trials were known only to the drug companies and the FDA, and most of them failed to find a significant benefit of drug over placebo. . . .  [T]he data in the FDA files were the basis upon which the medications were approved. In that sense they have a privileged status. If there is anything wrong with those trials, the medications should not have been approved in the first place. (source)

All in all, the data sent to the researchers by the FDA showed that only 43% of the trials showed a statistically significant  benefit of drug over placebo. The remaining 57% were failed or negative trials.

Many other studies have also demonstrated just how ineffective antidepressants are, as well as how often that fact is obscured by pharmaceutical companies. What’s worse, studies have since determined that anti-depressants can cause real harm to those who take them, and this information is often withheld, too. For example, a study published in The British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen revealed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported. These are the reports sent to major health authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and Lead Author of the study, noted that they “found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them,” revealing that she was “actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if [they] had the complete data.”

Joanna Moncrieff, a psychiatrist and researcher at University College London, elaborates:

[This study] confirms that the full degree of harm of antidepressants is not reported. They are not reported in the published literature, we know that – and it appears that they are not properly reported in clinical study reports that go to the regulators and from the basis of decisions about licensing.

It’s also important to note the pharmaceutical drug aspect into this equation. For (one small out of many) example(s), American psychologist Lisa Cosgrove and others investigated Financial Ties between the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM) panel members and the pharmaceutical industry. They found that, of the 170 DSM panel members 95 (56%) had one or more financial associations with companies in the pharmaceutical industry. One hundred percent of the members of the panels on ‘mood disorders’ and ‘schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders’ had financial ties to drug companies. The connections are especially strong in those diagnostic areas where drugs are the first line of treatment for mental disorders. In the next edition of the manual, it’s the same thing. (source)(source)

“The DSM appears to be more a political document than a scientific one. Each diagnostic criteria in the DSM is not based on medical science. No blood tests exist for the disorders in the DSM. It relies on judgments from practitioners who rely on the manual.” (11) – Lisa Cosgrove, PhD, Professor of Counseling and School Psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.

The very vocabulary of psychiatry is now defined at all levels by the pharmaceutical industry,” Dr. Irwin Savodnik, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Los Angeles (source)

Conclusion & What You Can Try If You’re Not Interested In Drug

Don’t get me wrong, depression is a very real, and a big problem. It’s just the methods commonly used to treat it is what should be called into question.

We’ve written countless amounts of articles on depression, many of which provide alternative method of treatment you can use to help you out. You can read some of them that are listed below:

How Depression Affects Brain Structure & What You Can Do To Change It Back

15 Natural Plant Materials For Treating Depression

5 Things You Can Do To Overcome Depression Using Your Mind

6 Tips To Help You Overcome Anxiety & Depression Without Using Drugs

10 Ways To Increase Dopamine Levels In The Brain

Vía Collective Evolution http://ift.tt/2wfJyUZ

New Study: How Smartphones Make Today’s Teens Unhappy & Cause Dramatic Shifts In Their Behaviour

http://ift.tt/2v6KdTw

It’s concerning to see just how many young people have become consumed by their smartphones. We know the dangers associated with the use of various electromagnetic emitting devices, like cells phones and WiFi, and how cellphone companies suggest that users “use hands-free operation if it is available and keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.59 in (15mm) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women)” to avoid radiation exposure. But what about their psychological risks?

Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego State University, was recently interviewed by NPR‘s Audie Cornish on “All Things Considered.” In the interview, she argues that we can directly link the loneliness that has become so prevalent in modern society to the introduction of smartphones in 2012. While “you can’t absolutely prove causation,” she says, through “a bunch of different studies, there’s this connection between spending a lot of time on social media and feeling lonely.”Twenge has been researching generational differences for 25 years and has shared her findings in her book iGen, a name she uses to describe young people born between 1995 and 2012. She adapted her book in a story published on the Atlanticwhere she delves deeper into her concerns:

Around 2012, I noticed abrupt shifts in teen behaviors and emotional states. The gentle slopes of the line graphs became steep mountains and sheer cliffs, and many of the distinctive characteristics of the Millennial generation began to disappear. In all my analyses of generational data—some reaching back to the 1930s—I had never seen anything like it.

It’s not all bad news, however. Homicide rate among teens has declined, teens are drinking less, driving later, and waiting to have sex, making them “physically safer” than their predecessors. But the role smartphones occupy in a teen’s life has gone deeper, making them more vulnerable psychologically instead.

Teens are also choosing to spend more time “hanging out with friends” via social media rather than in person. A 75-year-old study directed by Harvard psychiatrist Robert Waldinger determined that “good relationships keep us happier and healthier. Period.” The study explicitly confirms that interaction is necessary for us to thrive, as loneliness is a killer, adding further weight to the findings of Twenge’s research.

“Being more connected to family, friends, and community makes for happier, physically healthier, and longer lives compared to people who are less well-connected,” the study asserts.

The suicide and depression rate for teens has skyrocketed since 2011. “It’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones,” says Twenge.

Twenge also refers to iGen’s surprising lack of independence. They depend solely on their parents for transportation and are less likely to have a job in high school. “Across a range of behaviors—drinking, dating, spending time unsupervised— 18-year-olds now act more like 15-year-olds used to, and 15-year-olds more like 13-year-olds. Childhood now stretches well into high school,” she says. This is truly concerning, particularly because when an individual doesn’t feel capable of caring for themselves or taking important risks, they are less likely to feel inspired — an indescribable feeling that helps to motivate an individual to spring to action — and become confident in their abilities and comfortable in their skin.

With the amount of time teens are spending at home and not engaging with friends, you’d assume that they probably have a better relationship with their family, but the opposite seems to be true. They are more likely to seclude themselves in a space where they can freely access social media platforms and engage with friends there.

Many parents assume that if their child is at home rather than out spending time with friends, they’re less likely to drink or have sex. What parents don’t realize is that the biggest danger is lying right in plain sight. Parents need to become more aware of the screen time their child is engaging in, and Twenge suggests prolonging the introduction to a smartphone as long as possible: “If you feel they need a phone, say, for riding a bus, you can get them a flip phone. They still sell them. And then once your teen has a smartphone, there are apps that allow parents to restrict the number of hours a day that teens are on the smartphone, and also what time of day they use it.”

There are so many risks associated with online use for children, and there are even sneaky ways they can be manipulated and tricked into engaging with or watching something inappropriate. Aside from SM use, texting has been found to have a very negative affect on us psychologically as well.

It appears that human connection is an essential ingredient to overall happiness and well-being. When we engage with others, we are offered the opportunity to experience an array of emotions and create timeless memories. Lessons will be learned and friendships crafted, so if you haven’t yet, call up your best friend today and spend some time together!

What are ways you’ve limited your screen time or that of your child? If you’re a parent, have you noticed any behavioural changes in your teen since they got a smartphone?

Vía Collective Evolution http://ift.tt/2v77qF3

Debunking One of The Greatest Myths About GE Crops: “Genetic Modification of Crops Has Been Happening In Nature For Thousands of Years”

http://ift.tt/2uM89k4

Are you concerned about Genetically Modified Foods? Here’s (GMOs Revealed) a great documentary that addresses many of the questions and concerns most people have today. 

In March 2014, scientists from Indiana University announced that they had conducted research to examine the operations of the fruit fly genome “in greater detail than ever before possible” and had identified “thousands of new genes, transcripts and proteins.” Their results indicated that the fly’s genome is “far more complex than previously suspected and suggests that the same will be true of the genomes of other higher organisms.” Of the approximately 1,500 new genes that were discovered, 536 of them were found within areas that were previously assumed to be gene-free zones. Furthermore, when the flies were subjected to stresses, small changes in expression level at thousands of genes occurred, and four newly modelled genes were expressed altogether differently.

Why is this important? Because it reveals how little we know about this planet and the organisms dwelling on it, yet also how much we think we know. This kind of hubris is found within all areas of human knowledge, but particularly when it comes to science.

Another great example that I’ve used before is when the populace first realized that the Earth wasn’t flat. Another is a statement made by physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in 1900 that “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This assertion was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity.

When it comes to our genes, and the genes of other organisms, we really do know next to nothing. Unfortunately, proponents of the biotech industry (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, etc.) claim otherwise, and have developed multiple, flawed assumptions that undergird agricultural bioengineering.

The information presented in this article comes from a variety of different sources, but my primary sourceis Steven Druker, a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug (FDA) to release its files on genetically engineered foods, and recently published a book about it, which has received dozens of rave reviews from the world’s most accredited scientists in the field. I draw primarily from his book for this article.

“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don’t entail abnormal risk.” 

– David Schubert, PhD, molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

Natural Genetic Modification Versus Human Induced Genetic Modification

Biotech proponents have an unshakable faith in their GE crops, and these corporations also hold major sway over mainstream media outlets, and close relationships with government agencies like the FDA. Indeed, several high level industry employees have also held positions at these institutions. One example is the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, who is also Monsanto’s former Vice President for Public Policy. While at the FDA, he was instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

Druker outlines in his book how the commercialization of genetically engineered foods was enabled by the fraudulent behaviour of these government agencies, and how this actually violates explicit mandates for federal food safety law. The evidence shows that the “FDA’s falsehoods have been abundantly supplemented with falsehoods disseminated by eminent scientists and scientific institutions, and the entire GE food venture.”

This is why it’s so amazing to see so many scientists within the field supporting the dissemination of truth, and bringing the falsehoods to light. So if you still think this type of thing is a conspiracy theory, we now have the documents as well as the science, which stands on its own, to show that something is terribly wrong here.

Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus of Genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.” 

There are several presumptions on which the bioengineering venture was based, and one of them is that natural breeding is more random and unruly than bioengineering. The standard argument holds that genetic modification has been occurring for thousands of years, and what we do now is simply that process sped up and made better.

Key Presumptions on Which the Bioengineering Venture Was Based

Genetic engineering is based on the presumption that the genome is just a linear system, where the action of a single gene will not impact the action of other genes, or disrupt their normal function.

In 2007, the New York Times published an article outlining how “the presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.” 

Basically, genes are viewed as autonomous, adding to the whole without acting holistically because they don’t express their proteins in a closely coordinated matter. Another assumption used to justify genetic engineering is that genes aren’t organized in a specific way, that the sequence in which they occur is meaningless From this point of view, a gene would function normally if it were relocated to a different chromosome or came from a neighbouring gene. Quite a big assumption, don’t you think? Giorgio Bernardi, a biologist at the University of Rome III who specialized in the study of genome evolution, calls this perspective a “bean-bag view of the genome” because it regards the genes as “randomly distributed.”

Druker explains:

Together, these two assumptions supported the belief that a chunk of recombinant DNA could be put into a plan’s genome without inducing disturbance — because if the behavior of the native genes was largely uncoordinated and their arrangement was irrelevant, there would be no important patterns that could be perturbed by such insertions. Accordingly, they engendered confidence in the precision of genetic engineering, because they implied that the outcome of a gene insertion would be exactly what the bioengineers expected.

How could biotech proponents push the idea that the target organism would continue to function just as it had before, and that the change would be limited to the new trait endowed by the inserted gene? How can it simply be assumed that this would not alter any of the organism’s other qualities?

These presumptions still underly genetic engineering today. The example of the fly above serves well here. In the New York Times article cited earlier, the author noted that “genes appear to operate in a complex network,” and states that “evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.”

Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, who testified at New Zealand’s Royal Commission in 2001, notes that agricultural bioengineering “was based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each other.” He also presented evidence showing that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of families.”

Despite the grave possibility that these presumptions are indeed wrong, they still form the backbone of genetic engineering today.

Antoniou himself was even selected to represent multiple nongovernmental organizations to present precaution reasons to the UK’s GM Review Panel, and a plethora of studies that clearly justify it. Despite his presentation, and many others’, the 11 other scientists on the panel, who were biotech proponents, dismissed these studies and continued to argue that it makes absolutely no difference how genes are arranged.

How can a scientist make such a statement?

What do we have as a result? As Druker says:

Such disregard, denial, or avoidance in regard to the evidence was essential for maintaining faith in the venture, because its predictability and safety have always relied on the genome being largely disjointed; and the more the genome instead appears to function as a tightly coordinated system, the more potentially disruptive and unpredictable are the interventions of the bioengineers.

Geneticist, activist, and environmentalist David Suzuki weighed in on this very subject a few years ago in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC):

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. . . . Essentially, the FDA has said that genetically modified organisms, or food, are basically not much different from regular food, and so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this: Geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, in what we call a vertical fashion . . . [but] what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it, what we call horizontally, into a totally unrelated species. Now, David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot plant and exchange genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other, without regard for the biological constraints. . . . It’s very very bad science. We assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.

More Differences

This is a common argument made by GE-food proponents, and commonly used whenever an expert brings up a challenge to the technology’s safety. For example, David Schubert, PhD, a molecular biologist and the Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, commented in Nature Biotechnology that there was mounting evidence that the insertion of even one gene into a cell’s DNA alters the expression patters of genes throughout the entire cell. He said facts like this one, among many others, “cast doubt on the soundness of agricultural bioengineering — and entail the conclusion that it ‘is not a safe option.’ “

Predictably, when a professor and a laboratory director of one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions makes a comment like this, there’s going to be a response. This time it came in the form of a letter, published by 18 biologists at respected universities and institutions, stating that Dr. Schubert failed to properly consider “the genetic realities.” The main reality he allegedly failed to recognize is that the natural method of plant breeding is inherently more random than bioengineering.

A portion of the letter reads as following:

We do not take issue with Schubert’s basic contention that unintended genetic and metabolic events can take place. The reality is that ‘unintentional consequences’ are much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific engineering goal.

In his book, Steven Druker offers the following counterargument: “This letter thus reveals how strongly the GE food venture relies on the presumption that the natural process driving biological development are intrinsically more disorderly and risk-bearing than the genetic interventions instigated by the human mind. And it confirms that this belief forms the ideological bedrock on which the venture rests.”

In fact, a report published in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences couldn’t uphold “even the more modest notion that bioengineering and natural breeding pose the same risks.” The panel that produced the report ranked various modes of plant breeding in terms of their disposition to produce unintended effects. They were forced to acknowledge that bioengineering produces far greater effects than pollen-based sexual reproduction. Despite this fact, they still insisted that this does not mean a difference in risks.

Druker says in response:

Thus, there’s no rational way to reconcile the fact that natural breeding is less disruptive and more predictable than bioengineering with the claim that it poses equal or greater risk, which is why the admission in the 2004 report is a rarity — and why biotech proponents almost always ignore or deny that fact and instead assert that natural breeding is more disorderly and unpredictable.

Randomness

According to the biotech industry, natural plant breeding could actually result in crops that are dangerous to human consumption, which is why we should be grateful for genetic engineering. For example, in the same NAS report mentioned above, they portrayed what are known as “jumping genes” as more randomly mobile and threatening, but failed to recognize, as Druker points out, that although these entities do not pose risks within natural pollen based breeding, when bioengineering is employed they do because that process alone “tends to stir them up and get them jumping.”

When it comes to sexual reproduction, it’s yet another area where biotech proponents state that it’s a random phenomenon, despite the fact that we now know that it’s not random, and that there are multiple factors that can and do influence the genetics of life.   Genetic engineering, be it human induced or naturally occurring, requires a genetic “rearragnement,”  a recombination of DNA. The difference between the artificial way and the natural way is that the natural way does not disrupt the entire organism, as was discussed a little earlier in the article and touched upon in the Suzuki quote above.

As Druker explains:

This natural form of recombination occurs during the formation of gametes (the sperm and egg cells). It includes a step called crossover in which two partner chromosomes break at corresponding points and then exchange complementary sections of DNA; and every time a gamete is produced, every set of paired chromosomes engages in it. In this way, all the chromosomes end up with genes from both parents instead of from only one. However, all the genes are preserved, as is the sequences in which they’re positioned. The only changes are in the relationships between aleles. . . . So this natural recombination augments diversity while maintaining stability. And without it, except for the occasional favorable mutation, the composition of chromosomes would stay the same from generation to generation, and genetic diversity would grow at far too sluggish a pace.

He goes on to mention how natural recombination preserves the order of the genes, and is predictable in the way it cuts DNA. The entire process displays a great deal of order.

Despite this fact, scientists who support GE state, as in, for example, the 2004 NAS report, that “genetic engineering methods are considered by some to be more precise than conventional breeding methods because only known and precisely characterized genes are transferred.” They use the idea that the randomness and unpredictability of natural engineering make bioengineering safer.

Yet, as Druker so brilliantly captures:

This misleading tactic fixates on the predictability of the plant’s specific agronomic traits; and it portrays traditional breeding as less predictable than bioengineering because undesired attributes are often transferred along with the one that is desired. However, those who employ this ploy don’t acknowledge that if both parents are safe to eat, the unwanted traits hardly ever pose risk to human health. Rather, they’re undesirable for reasons irrelevant to risk (such as aesthetic appearance or seed size), and breeders must then perform back-crossing to eliminate them while retaining the trait they want. However,  although the inclusion of unwanted traits entails more work, it does not increase attendant risks. Therefore, while breeders can’t fully predict what traits will appear, they can confidently predict that the resulting plant will be safe to eat.

This is why the GE stance on natural modification is so flawed and misleading.

Druker goes on:

Although it describes the sexual reproduction of food-yielding plants as a messy and risky affair that involves the transfer of “thousands of unknown genes with unknown function,” we actually know quite a lot about those genes. And what we know is far more important than what we don’t know. We know that they’re all where they’re supposed to be, and that they’re arranged in an orderly fashion. And we know that during the essential process in which some of them are traded between partnered chromosomes in order to promote the diversity that strengthens the species, their orderly arrangement is marvelously maintained. Most important, we know that their functions mesh to form an exquisitely efficient system that generates and sustains a plant that regularly provides us with wholesome food.

This sharply contrasts with genetic engineering.

As you can see, comparing natural modification to biotech modification is not an easy process, and this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Research shows that it’s not natural modification that’s more random and risky, but biotech genetic modification:

The inserted cassettes are haphazardly wedged into the cell’s DNA, they create unpredictable disruptions at the site of insertion, the overall process induces hundreds of mutations throughout the DNA molecule, the activity of the inserted cassettes can create multiple imbalances, and the resultant plant cannot be deemed safe without undergoing a battery of rigorous tests that has yet to be applied to any engineered crop.

RELATED CE ARTICLES: 

Below are a few of many articles we’ve published on GMOs, if you’re interested in reading more please browse through our website.

Reviewed Science Loosing Credibility As Large Amounts of Research Shown To Be False

Wikileaks Cables Reveal The US Government Planned To Retaliate Cause & Cause Pain On Countries Refusing GMOs

Federal Lawsuit Forces The US Government To Divulge Secret Files On Genetically Engineered Foods

New Study Links GMOs To Cancre, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

Why Bill Nye Is Not A Science Guy: What He Gets Wrong About GMOs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vía Collective Evolution http://ift.tt/2uMba3I

Australia’s ‘Safe Schools’ Program: Should We Be Teaching LGBTQI, Masturbation & Gender Theory At A Young Age?

http://ift.tt/2vGVTQv

Australia’s Safe Schools program was originally promoted as an anti-bullying campaign. Aimed at making schools feel more safe, particularly for children within the LGBTQI community, Safe Schools was about encouraging equality and acceptance within the education system, which is crucial for children to really become kind, compassionate people.

However, many parents are concerned with the contents of this program, and have suggested that the program is “sexualizing” children to a certain degree and introducing them to sex and porn at far too young of an age.

If this is, in fact, an issue, it’s not about being homophobic or transphobic. To be very clear, CE as an organization supports the LGBTQI community and encourages self expression and equality, and does not condone bullying whatsoever. Of course, there are benefits to this program, because it was designed to make children feel safe in school, and that’s truly incredible. The question we’re debating here is, are some aspects of this program inappropriate?

Let’s take a deeper look at the program, and then you can decide for yourself whether or not it’s appropriate.

Details of Australia’s Safe Schools Program

Implemented in 2013, the Safe Schools program has grown into a four-year federally funded program to the tune of $8 million in Australia. It was inspired by the clear need to decrease bullying and inspire schools to become safe spaces for those who are attracted to the same sex, are transgender, or anyone else who falls into the LGBTQI community. Teachers are trained, and then they can either teach the entire eight-part lesson plan or parts of it to their students, depending on what the school agrees to roll out.

Many people supported the program because it was expected to decrease bullying and mitigate transphobic and homophobic behaviour, while others staunchly opposed the very idea of the program, particularly those who fall into the “far right” side of the political spectrum, but that’s not what we will be discussing here. In this article, we will be focusing on parents’ concerns regarding specific content, because the inspiration behind the program itself was clearly well-intended and justified.

One Victorian mother filmed herself while discussing her concerns about the program, which has since gone viral. She explains that she is neither transphobic nor homophobic, but simply concerned about what her kids are being taught in school.

She explained that the children are being taught that there are 63 different genders. That’s a lot of different genders that go far beyond the original “boy” and “girl” descriptions, which concerned this mother. The program also teaches gender theory, stating that gender is only a theory and that science cannot depict your gender.

Although this is inclusive and teaches children that it’s okay to ‘identify’ with a gender outside of the traditional “male” and “female” classifications, some question whether this confuses children’s identities.

Another thing to reflect on, why are we giving so much power to our gender in the first place? Whether you’re male, female, trans, or whatever else, at the end of the day that’s not who you truly are. For example, my name is Kalee and I am technically a woman, but I’m also a human being, and underneath it all I’m just a soul living out my human experience.

Our genders don’t actually separate us, they’re an illusory difference that doesn’t actually reflect our inner being and who we truly are. Perhaps this obsession with defining our genders actually represents a deeper desire to explore who we truly are. Instead of focusing on our outer identities, perhaps we can start reflecting on who we are as individuals, going beyond the physical level.

Perhaps the biggest concern here is whether or not the program sexualizes children. It encourages masturbation, as teachers argue that children as young as 12 are having sex and thus they need to be educated on “safer” options like masturbation. The program explains to kids different households tools they can use as dildos, one of which is an electric razor. It’s not difficult to imagine how that could go wrong.

A lot of parents had no idea what exactly the program included because children were asked not to discuss the contents of the classes outside of school. Naturally, this upset parents because it discludes them from their children’s education. However, it’s also easy to imagine how the need for a “safe space” is important, as some parents aren’t as accepting of their child’s sexual preferences, genders, etc.

A lot of parents feel their 13-year-olds are simply too young to be learning about things like anal sex and masturbation. Plus, even if parents were okay with the curriculum, they weren’t made aware of its implementation, which means teachers essentially stripped them of their ability to have the “sex talk” with their kids first.

Lastly, the program allegedly directs children toward pornography and shows them how to hide it from their internet browsing history, as one mother explained. Porn is another issue entirely, and it’s sort of ironic that an “anti-bullying” campaign would encourage the use of pornography when this is known to provoke sexual violence and distort reality and our expectations when it comes to sexuality.

How All of This Relates to Porn and Sex Culture

If you’ve never considered what the issue is with watching porn, that’s completely understandable. We live in a society where sex often becomes fickle. It’s encouraged and normalized, making it commonplace to have casual sex with multiple partners.

To understand this concept, check out the following excerpt from an article written by Brett and Kate McKay called “The Problem With Porn“:

Pornography is such a polarizing issue, that it’s easy for people to take extreme sides when approaching it. Oftentimes, religious people, while very sincere in their beliefs, brand porn as vile filth that turns good men into sexual perverts and unclean lepers. I’ve sat through plenty of church sermons where porn is approached this way. However, such a approach hardly helps men rationally think through the issue. Rather it transforms porn into an even more desirable forbidden fruit, pushes porn consumption into a secretive underground fetish,  and prevents men from being honest in their need for help.

The other extreme sees porn as just a healthy expression of sexuality. Pornography is heartily encouraged in order to help people discover what pleases them sexually, no matter how graphic or violent the material is. The people in this camp will argue that as long as consenting adults are involved and no one gets hurt, then anything goes. However, this approach fails to recognize the detrimental effects porn can have on an individual, on women, and on society.

There’s no shortage of issues within the porn industry: child pornography, violence, associating pain with pleasure, rape, pedophilia, disconnection, objectification, and more. Even the U.S. government has recognized the addictive nature of porn and the issues associated with watching it. The state of Utah tried to issue a bill in response to these concerns, stating pornography is “a public health hazard leading to a broad spectrum of individual and public health impacts and societal harms.” You can read more about that in our CE article here.

When it comes to modern sex culture and porn, we went from one end of the spectrum, suppressing our natural instincts and sexual nature because of religion and patriarchy, to the complete opposite, running wild with it and often setting the goal to sleep with many partners. There’s is of course nothing inherently wrong with this; but our actions allows us to reflect and become more aware of our deeper soul desires, challenging us to not simply act from the mind in an unconscious state.

We witnessed a massive shift during the feminist era in regards to our sexuality and our ability to express it freely, and we’re experiencing another shift today. We’re becoming more comfortable with our sexual preferences and more accepting of the LGBTQI community, which is awesome! However, as with every issue that touches upon people’s core beliefs and values at the mind level, opinions vary widely and intensely. Does science depict our gender, is it a choice, or is it entirely dependent on an inherent feeling within us?

I believe that’s up to interpretation, but I also have to ask if it really matters if your opinion differs from another’s and if it’s worth arguing over? The most important thing here is to be accepting of other people and learn to love their differences. If you’re not transgender, how can you argue with their feelings? If you’re not attracted to the same sex, how can you argue that it’s a “choice”? We have no idea what it’s like to walk in another person’s shoes, and thus non judgment of others’ actions is the best way to begin to understand them.

Final Thoughts

When it comes to Australia’s Safe Schools program, it’s clearly a controversial subject, and for good reason. We shouldn’t be teaching kids to watch porn, but we should also recognize the sheer necessity of creating anti-bullying programs. Bullying is not an experience we want to encourage, and children and adults alike can benefit from becoming more aware of our actions and how they affect one another.

We’ve obviously come a long way in regards to accepting the LGBTQI community, but we still have a long way to go. At the end of the day, we are all fundamentally connected to one another, and we are so much more alike than we are different. We all deserve compassion, love, forgiveness, and kindness; things like sexual preference and gender shouldn’t make a difference when it comes to the way we perceive and treat other people!

Vía Collective Evolution http://ift.tt/2vGESpG

Is Almost Everything We Hear From Mainstream Media A Complete Lie? What I Learned From Backpacking Around Maritius

http://ift.tt/2wTkrEj

I am currently backpacking around Mauritius, a beautiful honeymoon island in the Indian Ocean. On March 12th, 1968, Mauritius gained independence from British rule, and this March 12th was the 49th independence anniversary celebration in Port Louis, Mauritius’ capital.

I went to the capital for the day to check out the independence day celebration, but it turned out that there was no one celebrating! The city was quiet.

The official celebration started at 5pm that evening and yet the last buses to head back home left at 6pm. I don’t know if it was just bad organization, but there was no information about the event on the internet and the people I spoke to had no idea what actually happens because they had never been to the celebration and were not intending to go this time, either.

We are told that Mauritius is a democratic island paradise, Britain gave back its colonies because it was the right thing to do, and the USA’s close relationship with Britain is rooted in a historic friendship based on such shared moral principles as the desire for a fair and democratic world.
What if there were an alternative perspective to these statements?

It has been fascinating for me to learn from the Mauritians I’ve spoken to that they would actually prefer it if Mauritius were part of Britain again.

They speak of the corruption in government as the main reason for this, and they often give the example of how politicians are directly involved in the importation of (synthetic) drugs, like heroin, which are causing serious problems for their children on the island.

One local man who I spent two evenings with on the beach in La Preneuse told me that a Mauritian politician had recently been caught at the airport with 25 billion rupees’ worth of heroin concealed in sealed pesticide canisters. Apparently, the politician paid off the judge and got away with it in court.

Many Mauritians also suggest that it is the money politicians are making from their involvement in drugs which leads them to crack down so harshly on marijuana which, as a plant, can be grown quite easily by the locals thanks to the island’s climate.

Another man told me that last Aug/Sept there was a demonstration for the legalization of marijuana in the capital, and the police came and beat up the demonstrators, throwing many of them in prison. We hear none of this in the news.

While on the topic of Mauritian independence from Britain, this also reminds me of a documentary I once watched on British TV, but what it said I’ve never seen on TV again, and it is completely ignored in our history books.

The USA wanted greater access to the markets of the British colonies and to their natural resources, and they also wanted to prevent communism from infiltrating British colonies, which they saw as a distinct possibility.

So after WWII, when Great Britain was economically bankrupt, the country took out a loan with the USA to help rebuild itself. This loan was taken out on July 15th 1946 and was paid off in 2006 — 61 years later.

As part of the so-called ‘Anglo-American Loan Agreement’, the USA agreed to support the UK financially in exchange for Britain not implementing the Labour government’s welfare reforms and withdrawing from all major overseas commitments; in other words, dissolving the British Empire.

Now I hasten to add that I have very negative views about the British government’s policies today and if you want to see how terribly we treated the indigenous peoples of our colonies during the British Empire, I highly recommend watching the incredible film Rabbit Proof Fence (about Australia), but I am a strong believer in critical thought and not just accepting the information we are given in our mainstream media.

The mainstream picture we are painted serves a certain purpose. It shapes our beliefs and attitudes towards other countries and peoples.

I think the important thing is to be open to alternative perspectives that make our world a little less black and white and a little more multi-dimensional, and the above ‘hidden’ or ‘untold’ perspectives provide alternative information on Mauritius, the UK, and the USA.

One beauty of roaming the world is that we get to speak to other peoples in other countries and find out such alternative perspectives on what we are being told directly from the people who live there.

In the Philippines, for example, everyone I spoke to loves their president who, they say, has indeed ordered the police there to shoot-to-kill if drug users run from the police but, at the same time, he offers free rehabilitation services for any drug users who come forward to the police. More importantly for the locals, the streets in the Philippines are finally becoming safe again for the ordinary average citizen.

Now I am a pacifist and strongly against killing anyone, but the Western media do not report this perspective. They only present the president of the Philippines as a tyrant. Why?

Could it be because at the same time he is openly speaking out against the economic grip the USA holds over the country, he is also making deals with Russia and China? After all, we know that Russia and China are bad while the USA is good.

Ultimately, the question that we should always ask ourselves is WHY our media is choosing to present us with one perspective of ‘the truth’ or the reality in which we live, and what purpose does that perspective serve in shaping our beliefs and attitudes?

This is the foundation of critical thought.

Please watch and share this video I made using found-footage for my project Wake Up World Education.

Mainstream Media The Movie (43 mins)mediapic Feel free to follow me on Facebook or Twitter.

Related CE Articles

3 Popular Mainstream Media Journalists Come Together To Tell The Truth About “Tell Lie Vision.”

Declassified CIA Documents Shows Agencies Control Over Mainstream Media

The CIA & The Media: 50 Facts The World Should Know

Vía Collective Evolution http://ift.tt/2wSZn0Z

Do You Complain About Life A Lot? Try Focusing on Gratitude. Here Are 7 Things Most of us Can Be Grateful For

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

We all have things that we can complain about in life.

Whether it’s the amount of traffic we need to sit in every day on our way to and from work, our in-laws’ remarkable ability to push our buttons in every situation, or our income’s refusal to meet the rising cost of living, there are always things we wish we could change.

While we may not be able to actively amend a number of those challenges, we can change the way that we react to them. Complaining about them might get us some sympathy points from those ‘lucky’ enough to hear us out, but what tangible good does it actually do for us?

In hopes of helping us cut back on our tendency to complain, I’d like to present a short list of things we can instead love and appreciate about our life. I encourage you to not only read this list (or watch this video) now, but to also bookmark it or print it out for quick reference should you ever find yourself basking in negativity again.

1. You’re Alive

This might seem cliché, but when was the last time you genuinely gave thanks for the gift of life? Just in case you need the reminder, we are conscious beings inhabiting a vehicle of meat and bones that already has and will continue to experience an assortment of things in this life.

We have emotions, can interact and connect with other living beings, possess our own set of skills and talents, and have all had a completely unique human experience thus far. If that’s not something to be grateful for and love about life, then I don’t know what is.

2. You’ve Been Through a Lot and You’re Still Here 

While hardship may not be easy to endure while it’s happening, the fact that you are still here to read this article suggests that you made it through. You not only survived those moments when your shit seemed to hit the proverbial fan, but you’re also stronger (whether or not you choose to recognize that) because of them.

Love the fact that you are a warrior who has persisted through everything life has thrown your way, and focus on feeling grateful for how your character developed as a result. 

3. You’ve Laughed and Will Laugh Again 

I don’t need to sell you on how great laughter is, and I don’t care how challenging your life has been thus far — we’ve all experienced a number of moments where we could not be paid to stop laughing.

I’m referring to those moments where your eyes watered up and the muscles in your cheeks and stomach hurt from how hard you were cracking up. The fact that you are capable of experiencing that much joy and are going to experience it again is a pretty great aspect of life to love.

4. We Can Connect With So Many People, So Damn Easily 

The internet is undoubtedly a double-edged sword. On one side, it provides a platform to far too many people whose toxic intentions should never have been given greater voice, while on the other, it offers us all a medium to connect with one another like never before.

With just a mouse click and a few strokes on our keyboard we can connect to hundreds if not thousands of people, all while accessing a database that is now pretty well endlessly filled with content on virtually every subject. If that isn’t enough, the ways in which we can connect today are already mind-blowing, yet we all know that what’s available 10 years from now will make modern technology seem archaic.

5. Every Great Memory You Have 

Whether it was the birth of your child, the day you graduated from school, or the moment you mustered up the courage to ask your significant other out on a date, we all have certain memories that stand out more than others.

The reason these moments stand on a mental pedestal is because they offered an experience that was far more memorable than the likely mundane nature of your daily life. The fact that these greatest moments (no matter what they are to you) are a part of your life story thus far is definitely something to love and appreciate.

6. Relationships 

Let me start by clarifying that I am not solely referring to romantic relationships, but rather, our ability to forge relationships with one another as a whole. Whether they be familial, friendly, or romantic, our interactions with other people are an easy thing to love about life.

We have the ability to open up to others, to learn from their experiences, and to evoke emotions in one another amongst a gamut of other things that make life that much more interesting. Yes, relationships can be painful or heartbreaking at times, but they can also be fun and exciting, and regardless of how they end, they always enrich your life in some way. 

7. Your Imagination 

There are few things I love in this world more than my imagination. Not only has it been the source of so many great ideas that have now been made into a reality, but it has also allowed me to conceptualize so many things I’ll never consciously get the time to do.

Our conscious human experience is already so vast; the fact that it also comes with the ability to mentally forge entire worlds is like icing on the cake. While your imagination may have gotten you into trouble on a few occasions, you can still choose to love your access to it and all of the good it has done for you, too.


Do you enjoy light-hearted yet thought-provoking content like this? Be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel, and to like me on Facebook to see the new video and article that I release weekly as part of my mission to make personal development more interesting for both of us!

Vía Collective Evolution http://ift.tt/2vGtlXw

Do You Complain About Life A Lot? Try Focusing on Gratitude. Here Are 7 Things Most of us Can Be Grateful For

http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

We all have things that we can complain about in life.

Whether it’s the amount of traffic we need to sit in every day on our way to and from work, our in-laws’ remarkable ability to push our buttons in every situation, or our income’s refusal to meet the rising cost of living, there are always things we wish we could change.

While we may not be able to actively amend a number of those challenges, we can change the way that we react to them. Complaining about them might get us some sympathy points from those ‘lucky’ enough to hear us out, but what tangible good does it actually do for us?

In hopes of helping us cut back on our tendency to complain, I’d like to present a short list of things we can instead love and appreciate about our life. I encourage you to not only read this list (or watch this video) now, but to also bookmark it or print it out for quick reference should you ever find yourself basking in negativity again.

1. You’re Alive

This might seem cliché, but when was the last time you genuinely gave thanks for the gift of life? Just in case you need the reminder, we are conscious beings inhabiting a vehicle of meat and bones that already has and will continue to experience an assortment of things in this life.

We have emotions, can interact and connect with other living beings, possess our own set of skills and talents, and have all had a completely unique human experience thus far. If that’s not something to be grateful for and love about life, then I don’t know what is.

2. You’ve Been Through a Lot and You’re Still Here 

While hardship may not be easy to endure while it’s happening, the fact that you are still here to read this article suggests that you made it through. You not only survived those moments when your shit seemed to hit the proverbial fan, but you’re also stronger (whether or not you choose to recognize that) because of them.

Love the fact that you are a warrior who has persisted through everything life has thrown your way, and focus on feeling grateful for how your character developed as a result. 

3. You’ve Laughed and Will Laugh Again 

I don’t need to sell you on how great laughter is, and I don’t care how challenging your life has been thus far — we’ve all experienced a number of moments where we could not be paid to stop laughing.

I’m referring to those moments where your eyes watered up and the muscles in your cheeks and stomach hurt from how hard you were cracking up. The fact that you are capable of experiencing that much joy and are going to experience it again is a pretty great aspect of life to love.

4. We Can Connect With So Many People, So Damn Easily 

The internet is undoubtedly a double-edged sword. On one side, it provides a platform to far too many people whose toxic intentions should never have been given greater voice, while on the other, it offers us all a medium to connect with one another like never before.

With just a mouse click and a few strokes on our keyboard we can connect to hundreds if not thousands of people, all while accessing a database that is now pretty well endlessly filled with content on virtually every subject. If that isn’t enough, the ways in which we can connect today are already mind-blowing, yet we all know that what’s available 10 years from now will make modern technology seem archaic.

5. Every Great Memory You Have 

Whether it was the birth of your child, the day you graduated from school, or the moment you mustered up the courage to ask your significant other out on a date, we all have certain memories that stand out more than others.

The reason these moments stand on a mental pedestal is because they offered an experience that was far more memorable than the likely mundane nature of your daily life. The fact that these greatest moments (no matter what they are to you) are a part of your life story thus far is definitely something to love and appreciate.

6. Relationships 

Let me start by clarifying that I am not solely referring to romantic relationships, but rather, our ability to forge relationships with one another as a whole. Whether they be familial, friendly, or romantic, our interactions with other people are an easy thing to love about life.

We have the ability to open up to others, to learn from their experiences, and to evoke emotions in one another amongst a gamut of other things that make life that much more interesting. Yes, relationships can be painful or heartbreaking at times, but they can also be fun and exciting, and regardless of how they end, they always enrich your life in some way. 

7. Your Imagination 

There are few things I love in this world more than my imagination. Not only has it been the source of so many great ideas that have now been made into a reality, but it has also allowed me to conceptualize so many things I’ll never consciously get the time to do.

Our conscious human experience is already so vast; the fact that it also comes with the ability to mentally forge entire worlds is like icing on the cake. While your imagination may have gotten you into trouble on a few occasions, you can still choose to love your access to it and all of the good it has done for you, too.


Do you enjoy light-hearted yet thought-provoking content like this? Be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel, and to like me on Facebook to see the new video and article that I release weekly as part of my mission to make personal development more interesting for both of us!

Vía Collective Evolution http://ift.tt/2vGtlXw