Tagged: Collective-evolution

Why We Need To Stop Bashing R. Kelly If We Want To Stop Teen Sexual Abuse & Pedophilia

http://bit.ly/2ChjV6D

R. Kelly is a hot topic right now, as he’s been accused of raping minors, keeping minors locked up in his home for sexual purposes, and having inappropriate relationships with minors. We are talking about teenagers who ultimately are still just children. The testimony of many women and those close to him have illuminated  what Kelly has done, although he still denies these claims. As a result of a recent docu-series on Lifetime called ‘Surviving R Kelly,’ he is being made fun of, judged, and hated on publicly by many within the industry as well as outside of it. On the surface, this is understandable given the crimes and atrocities he’s committed.

The star is known as a predator of teenage girls. When he was 27, he married 15-year-old singer Aaliyah at a secret ceremony in Chicago. Vibe magazine later discovered that they were able to change Aaliyah’s age on the wedding certificate listing herself as 18, even though she was only 15 at the time. The marriage was annulled in February 1995.

A girl by the name of Tiffany Hawkins sued R Kelly for the personal injuries and emotional distress she suffered during a three-year relationship with the star. In court documents, she said she began having sex with Kelly in 1991 when she was 15 and he was 24.

He has been charged with 21 counts of making child pornography involving intercourse, oral sex, urination, and other sexual acts. Chicago police accused him of videotaping each of these acts and enticing minors to participate in them.

Back in July 2017, a crowd gathered in Chicago as Timothy Savage told the world that he believed his 21-year-old daughter was being “held against her will” as part of an alleged sex cult led by R&B singer R Kelly.

As it turns out, she wasn’t the only one. Apparently, there were several women held captive as sex slaves in a home he owned.

The story made global news, and put the spotlight on the 51-year-old superstar’s private life – in particular, the rumours about his alleged sexual relationships with underage girls.

Savage claimed his daughter, Jocelyn, was part of an abusive sex cult, in which young girls were groomed and physically/sexually abused by Kelly.

R Kelly’s wife, ex-wife, and daughter have also been quite outspoken about his abusive behaviour, even more so now that so many people are gathering together and sharing their stories. When R. Kelly was making millions for record companies, it seemed to be swept under the rug. Along with these accusations also came many awards, fame, and notoriety.

It’s important to note that what we hear and what leaks out into the mainstream probably represents only a fraction of Kelly’s illegal activities. Many celebrities and members of the elite are often protected from the law, and many abused women and children may not feel comfortable coming forward.

How Should We React?

Amidst all of the judgement, anger, resentment and hatred towards R. Kelly, and any sexual predator, criminal, etc. for that matter, we often fail to address one of the most important questions: We forget to ask why and how.

There is no denying people have been hurt here, and it’s important to discuss what’s happened, but we must also discuss solutions. All we seem to do is judge, hate, and punish without asking why and how these things happen. It reminds me of how we operate prison systems in the western world. We claim to rehabilitate individuals, but really we just force them into incredibly poor conditions that often make their state of mind worse by the time of their release, and then we send them back out into society expecting that the past won’t repeat itself.

If we continue to judge, make fun, and ‘bash,’ we simply reinforce the cycle and allow it to continue without ever getting to the root cause of it, thus prolonging the issue instead of stopping it. In essence, just as we must provide a loving space for victims to process their experiences, we must also create that space for perpetrators.

As much as people may not want to hear it, ask yourself the question: Are we really changing anything by holding so much hate and judgment toward perpetrators? What happens when those hated individuals enter into bad rehabilitation systems and are out of prison a mere 5 or 10 years later? We’re perpetuating a cycle of disconnection.

Flipping The Script

People like R. Kelly are ‘sick,’ in the same way murderers, other rapists, and criminals are ‘sick.’ The only response from society has been judgement, and the result of that judgement is jail time which largely benefits politicians and corporations. It’s a modern day example of slavery, and actually has nothing to do with rehabilitation and fostering understanding and compassion.

When it comes to sexually abusing children, those who participate in this type of activity have often been subjected to severe childhood trauma themselves. It could be sexual or something else. As a result, they grow up and repeat what they have been through or look for other unhealthy ways to cope as they struggle to fit into society. This is something that has not been addressed nor understood by all of those who are participating in what’s become known as ‘elite level sexual abuse.’

In the case of R. Kelly himself, most people probably don’t realize he is a victim of child sex abuse. He has detailed in his autobiography how he was raped when he was eight years old, which continued for years. His brother also recently gave an emotional interview detailing how both of them were repeatedly raped at very young ages by their older sister, starting from when they were about 6 years old. They were forced to perform sexual acts on her as well as have intercourse. (source)

Think about what this does to a child at that age. This is trauma, and his behaviour may be a result of this trauma. Further, the Lifetime documentary series Surviving R Kelly clearly shows Kelly tries incredibly hard to protect himself from getting hurt. This is likely part of why he is so controlling. As hard as it is to watch and hear, it seems like he attempts to control every aspect of his life so that he avoids getting hurt. Does it mean it’s right to do? Of course not, it simply shows the frame of mind he’s operating from, and understanding that helps us figure out how we can help R Kelly. If we don’t put aside our hatred and judgement in order to feel compassion for these individuals, we will never find a solution. If we refuse, we not only fail to help the perpetrator, but we end up further perpetuating the issue and creating more victims.

Another great example would be the Vatican. Take Cardinal George Pell, for example, who recently became the highest ranking Vatican official to ever be convicted of child sexual abuse. This is something, most likely, he grew up experiencing himself. To him, it could be ‘normal’ behaviour, even if that’s at the subconscious level. Many of these Cardinals have been in the church since they were children. Not long ago, decades worth of sexual abuse was reported in a choir that was led by the retired pope Benedict’s brother. In that specific case, there were approximately 600 members of a Catholic boys’ Dompatzen choir in Regenburg, Germany who where physically and sexual abused from 1946 to 1992. Georg Ratzinger, the former Pope’s Benedict’s brother, was the choir’s head from 1964 to 1994.

Without treatment, many of these children may grow up and abuse young children. And if they don’t leave the church, they could end up further perpetuating the cycle of sexual abuse within it.

Asking The Important Questions

Register to watch our exclusive 4-part interview series with Anneke.

What does hatred do? What does judgement do? What progress will we ever make by making fun of these people, labelling them as psychopaths, and locking them up? On the other hand, what will love do? What does understanding do? What progress would be made without judgement and punishment, but rather with understanding, openness, transparency, and communication? We may need to detain these people to stop them from hurting others, but we must think of better ways of approaching this than our current methodology.

Don’t believe me? Hear it from a victim of elite child sex trafficking. We just put out a 4-part interview series with Anneke Lucas on January 17th, where she describes in detail her involvement as a child in an elite Belgian pedophile ring, her remarkable escape, and her healing journey over the last couple decades.
In the interview, she explains how vital it is during the healing process to not feel like a ‘victim,’ and that you actually empower your abuser by taking the victim stance or by labelling them as ‘crazy satanic pedophiles.’ She learned to look at them from a different perspective. Eventually, she felt sorry for her perpetrators and realized that the abusers are in need of something society is not ready to provide them with: the opportunity to heal.

The Takeaway

Sexual abuse has been an issue deeply ingrained in society for centuries, and it’s in part because society fails to respond with compassion. We do the exact opposite of that. We make fun of, vilify, point fingers, punish, and kill criminals. We do not rehabilitate and we do not give a chance for ‘lost souls’ to connect to the light that exists within them, that light that exists within all of us. There is no talk of past trauma and healing, and this is one of the biggest problems when it comes to alleviating various crimes including sexual abuse and pedophilia.

These people have nobody to talk to, their always running and hiding and never addressing the root cause of their problems. As a result, many people experience pain and trauma, and the cycle continues.

Vía Collective Evolution http://bit.ly/2T0zVkH

Advertisements

Tylenol Damages The Brains of Children, Research Reveals

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Original Article Link

A number of non-peer-reviewed articles have been written and published on the web claiming that there is literally nothing to fear from acetaminophen during pregnancy. There are two types of articles that fall into this category. First, reputable watchdog organizations have weighed in on the issue, declaring acetaminophen use during pregnancy and during childhood to be proven safe. In particular, the National Health Service of the UK and the Center for Accountability in Science have both strongly criticized the Spanish study from 2016 showing a link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and ADHD/autism.

The second type of article is generally written by a science writer working for an organization that runs a website. Often quoting one to three experts who claim that is perfectly safe and that pregnant women and families should not be concerned, many of these articles are published by reputable sources that are generally trustworthy. Typically, an expert is being asked to comment on one particular publication showing a link between acetaminophen use (usually during pregnancy) and some sort of neuropsychiatric problem (autism, lowered IQ, hyperactivity, and/or social/behavioral problems, depending on the study). There are several important things to consider when evaluating these articles:

1.  There are a number of University Professors who have studied the use of acetaminophen on the developing brain and who are keenly aware of the potential dangers. A partial list of these individuals is provided below.

2.  Being an expert in acetaminophen neurotoxicity during development means that considerable time has been invested in studying the issue. Any true expert in this issue will be aware of basic facts regarding acetaminophen neurotoxicity. These facts include the following:

(a) Studies in animal models (both in mice and in rats) demonstrate that acetaminophen use during a sensitive period of brain development causes long-term alterations in the brain and is manifested as problems with social function.

(b)  Margaret McCarthy, Chair of Pharmacology at the University of Maryland, has worked out the probable mechanism by which acetaminophen-induced brain damage occurs. Her research team has found that the male brain is considerably more sensitive to acetaminophen than the female brain, possibly accounting for the gender bias in autism.

(c) There are (as of January 2017) a total of 8 published studies evaluating the long terms effects on children of acetaminophen use during pregnancy or during childhood. Two of these (one in 2014, one in 2016) were published in JAMA Pediatrics, one of the most highly respected pediatric journals. All studies point toward acetaminophen use being associated with long-term problems with neurological function. Each study design has included some attempt to control for indication. In all studies, acetaminophen use rather than indication has been identified as the key factor associated with cognitive problems. A formal meta-analysis is not currently possible because of the varied outcome measures and study designs, but all 8 studies point in the same direction: Acetaminophen is neurotoxic to the developing brain. The studies are not “cherry picked”, selecting only those which find an effect. All studies point toward a neurotoxic effect of acetaminophen in the developing brain.

(d)   Acetaminophen substantially alters brain chemistry and temporarily impairs awareness of social issues in adult humans.

(e)  Testing of acetaminophen safety in children did not include any evaluation of brain function, and no long-term studies were ever conducted. The primary manufacturer of acetaminophen in the US acknowledges that the drug has never been shown to be safe for brain development when used during pregnancy or in childhood. All safety tests were performed with the assumption that any side effects would be acute in nature (e.g., bleeding or acute organ damage). This assumption was based on observations made with acetaminophen in adults and with aspirin in children. It was not based on any experience with acetaminophen use in children.

3.     Having prescribed tens of thousands of doses of acetaminophen does not make anyone an expert on the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen, any more than eating thousands of pounds of chips makes somebody an expert in the effects of an inflammatory diet. Credentials and certifications that allow physicians to prescribe acetaminophen do not make them experts, and elevated positions in the medical community do not qualify anybody as an expert on the effects of acetaminophen. If somebody does not know those basic facts listed above, then they are not an expert on the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen. Usually, the experts will have published one or more peer-reviewed manuscripts on the topic. Those are the people to ask when an expert is needed.

4.     It is tempting to point accusing fingers at physicians who say that acetaminophen is safe when they literally have no grasp whatsoever of the relevant scientific literature. However, this would be a mistake. I have tracked down a few of these individuals who were quoted in a very public format, and one individual, in particular, didn’t even remember having made a comment on the topic. The most likely explanation is that a reporter asked them if acetaminophen was safe, and their response based on their training (not on the knowledge of the literature) was that it is safe. After all, if they didn’t think it was safe, they would not be administering it dozens of times per day. So, if a reporter asks a physician if something is safe, and they provide their knowledge based on what they have been taught and how they practice, then it is hard to blame them. The reporter didn’t ask them to spend days or even weeks reviewing the literature in detail, but rather assumed that any physician administering something dozens of times per day would know the literature. (This is a false assumption. No physician has the time to study all current literature on every drug they administer.) So, in a nutshell, a tragic propagation of incorrect information is occurring despite the best of intentions of all parties involved.

5.     Unless an organization such as the National Health Service has the time to review a topic thoroughly, they should remain silent on an issue. It took a team of us two years to put together our summary of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, regarding the potential neurotoxicity of acetaminophen during development. It took the NHS only days to publish their recent criticism of the 2016 Spanish study. Offering questionable criticisms of a single paper without reviewing the literature to see how that publication fits into the big picture is a disservice to the public being served.

6. Reading the published quotes from many “experts” who exonerate acetaminophen, it is apparent that the logic falls into one of two categories.

(a) Everybody is doing it, so it must be OK.

(b) This single study is not perfect, so no change in practice should be made.

Neither of these criticisms is logically sound, of course. These two criticisms are often combined and were, in fact, part of the critical comments directed toward the first paper showing that acetaminophen probably has substantial neurotoxicity during development (published in 2008 by Steve Shultz). Further, the evaluation of study weaknesses is usually skewed and not entirely valid. Since the idea that acetaminophen is safe is being embraced, then any merit in the paper is often undermined to make the case. This is certainly true of the published (peer reviewed) criticisms of the 2008 Shultz paper.

7.     Many on-line sources support the view that acetaminophen can be very dangerous to the developing brain. Probably the most reliable source, the FDA, is remaining silent on the topic until something more definitive is done. The FDA knows that this is extremely urgent, but unfortunately, our FDA is not linked well (in a practical manner) with our NIH, and thus they can’t dictate research priorities.

8.     Here is a list (not comprehensive) of experts regarding the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen during brain development.

a) First, I’ll thank the wonderful team of individuals who helped put together our comprehensive review on this topic. Shu Lin, a professor with me in Duke’s Surgery Department, is a very dear and long-time friend of mine who has supported me through countless projects over the past 22 years. Staci Bilbo, director for research on Autism at Harvard, is a friend and collaborator who has helped me understand what causes inflammation and the role of inflammation in brain dysfunction. Chi Dang Hornik, a pediatric pharmacist at Duke, contributed greatly to our understanding of the frequency of acetaminophen administration and the available formulations of the drug. Many thanks to Martha Herbert. As a Harvard professor and clinician, she has a great appreciation for the clinical data obtained from patients with autism. Cindy Nevison, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, rounds out our team, providing critical information about the epidemiology of autism. (Thanks also to our interns (Rasika Rao and Lauren Gentry) and research analyst (Zoie Holzknecht) who were a tremendous help in compiling information and preparing that information for publication.)

b) Margaret McCarthy, chair of Pharmacology at the University of Maryland, it the most knowledgeable person I know regarding the biochemistry of the human brain and how that is affected by acetaminophen and other drugs in that class.

c) Chittaranjan Andrade, Chair of Psychopharmacology at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, has written a peer reviewed paper on the topic of acetaminophen induced brain damage. He nicely summarized a number of studies looking at the connection between acetaminophen and neurological damage. His final conclusion is that the drug is probably more associated with ADHD than autism, but the conclusion was limited to exposure during pregnancy and his work was conducted before some critical studies were published in 2016.

d) Henrik Viberg is a professor in the Department of Organismal Biology at Uppsala University in Sweden. He has studied how exposure of mice to acetaminophen during development can cause long term brain damage.

e) In 2015, a group of scientists working with Laurence de Fays at the Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products in Brussels acknowledged the clinical studies and the studies in animal models which indicated that acetaminophen could be dangerous to the developing fetus, but concluded that paracetamol is “still to be considered safe in pregnancy”. At the same time, they state that “additional carefully designed studies are necessary to confirm or disprove the association (between acetaminophen and brain damage to children)”, and that “care should be taken to avoid raising poorly founded concerns among pregnant females”. We very strongly agree with the conclusion that more studies are needed, but very strongly disagree with the conclusion that women should be kept in the dark about the matter. It is important to point out that several more studies have come out since Laurence de Fays’ report. One of those is a 2016 manuscript in JAMA Pediatrics(see the next expert), a highly reputable peer reviewed journal, which addresses the concerns raised by de Fays, so it is possible that de Fays’ group may now have a different opinion.

f) A team of scientists and doctors working with Evie Stergiakouli at the University of Bristol analyzed data from a prospective birth cohort, and concluded that “children exposed to acetaminophen prenatally are at increased risk of multiple behavioral difficulties”. They found considerable evidence indicating that the association was not due to the confounding factors that concerned de Fays’ group (previous expert).

g) Jordi Julvez at the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, Spain worked with a team of a dozen clinicians and scientists to publish their 2016 study linking acetaminophen with autism and ADHD.

h) Amany A. Abdin, a professor in the Department of Pharmacology, Tanta University, Egypt, wrote a review of the acetaminophen/autism connection and published it in the journal Biochemistry and Pharmacology: Open Access. Her conclusion in 2013 was that the drug is not safe and that the acetaminophen/autism connection should receive attention.

i) The original paper that identified a connection between neuropsychiatric disorders and acetaminophen was published by Steve Shultz while at the University of California at San Diego. Coauthors on the paper included Hillary Klonoff-Cohen, currently an Endowed Professor and Director of the MPH program at the University of Illinois.

j) Four scientists, including research scientist Ragnhild Eek Brandlistuen and professors Hedvig Nordeng and Eivind Ystrom in the Department of Pharmacy at the University of Oslo, coauthored a study showing a connection between adverse neurodevelopment and acetaminophen use during pregnancy.

k) Jorn Olsen, Professor and Chair of the Department of Epidemiology at UCLA, published one of the more recent papers (2016) showing a connection between autism and acetaminophen use during pregnancy.

l) Five professors (John M. D. Thompson, Karen E. Waldie, Clare R. Wall, Rinky Murphy, and Edwin A. Mitchell) from four different departments at The University of Auckland published their findings in PLOSone in 2014 which “strengthen the contention that acetaminophen exposure in pregnancy increases the risk of ADHD-like behaviours. Our study also supports earlier claims that findings are specific to acetaminophen.”

For evidence-based research on the dangers of acetaminophen, visit the GreenMedInfo.com Research Dashboard.\

Read their related article on Tylenol: 

Tylenol Kills Emotions As Well As Pain, Study Reveals

Sign Up For The Greenmedinfo Newsletter HERE.


William Parker is an Associate Professor at Duke University, where he has worked in the Department of Surgery since 1993.  William is currently investigating a number of issues associated with inflammation and Western society, including vitamin D deficiency, heart disease and alteration of the symbionts of the human body (“biota alteration”). He has been interested in “natural” immune function for some time, which has led him down a path that includes the first studies of immune function in wild rats and the discovery of the function of the human appendix.

Vía Collective Evolution http://bit.ly/2RAJJFu

European Union Caught Plagiarizing Monsanto Science To Push Glyphosate Approval

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

It’s hard to know where to begin when it comes to glyphosate, an active ingredient used in Monsanto’s infamous ‘Roundup herbicide,’ a product that’s illegal in many countries (not including Canada and the United States). For a number of years, these countries have been citing the devastating health and environmental effects of Roundup herbicide, namely regarding glyphosate. Sri Lanka, for example, completely banned the product because of it’s link to deadly kidney disease, whereas many other countries have cited its carcinogenic effects. The science is quite clear, and it’s been coming out for decades. Fernando Manas, Ph.D. at the National University of Rio Cuarto in Argentina, outlines how “There is evidence of high levels of genetic damage in people of Marcos Juarez (Argentina), which may result from unintentional exposure to pesticides.” (source)

Nobody can really argue against why glyphosate shouldn’t be approved anywhere in the world, especially when you take a look at the science. Glyphosate recently made headlines, as the case regarding school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson was the first lawsuit claiming that glyphosate causes cancer to go to trial. There are thousands upon thousands of similar pending cases. Any jury that reviews all of the scientific evidence will not be able to rule otherwise, and Johnson’s case was a great example that showed glyphosate caused his cancer.

How are these products approved? It comes as a result of corrupt regulatory agencies here in Canada as well as within the US, specifically the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centres for Disease Control  and Prevention (CDC). The list of examples is very long when it comes to corruption and government connections to corporations like Monsanto. This is the only way these products get approved, it’s not science, it’s simply lobbying efforts and shady politics.

“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides… Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.” – R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014), article ID 179691

EU regulators recently decided to relicense glyphosate, and it came based on an assessment that was plagiarized from industry reports. It’s quite backwards that for years, health regulators have been relying on the scientific reports from the company that manufactures these products, instead of seeking out independent scientific studies.

A group of MEPs decides to commission an investigation into claims that Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (bFr) copy-and-pasted tracts from Monsanto studies.

As the Guardian points out:

The study’s findings have been released hours before a parliamentary vote on tightening independent scrutiny of the pesticides approvals process. The authors said they found “clear evidence of BfR’s deliberate pretence of an independent assessment, whereas in reality the authority was only echoing the industry applicant’s assessment. Molly ScottCato, a Green MEP, said the scale of alleged plagiarism by the BfR authors shown by the new paper was “extremely alarming.”

Molly Scott Cato, a member of European Parliament, went on to tell the Guardian:

“This helps explain why the World Health Organization assessment on glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen was so at odds with EU assessors, who awarded this toxic pesticide a clean bill of health, brushing off warnings of its dangers.”

The study found plagiarism in half of the chapters assessing published studies on the health risk, which means that half of the science came directly from Monsanto themselves, because the plagiarism was of industry science.  And what does the industry do? Jane Goodall, although referencing GMOs, hammers home the point:

As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science. They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that GMOs were safe. (source)

This quote came from a book written by Lawyer Steven Druker, who sued the FDA and uncovered documents showing how the agency manipulated the science and corrupted scientists in order to get GMOs approved. You can read more about that in detail here.

The same thing goes for glyphosate.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) based its recommendation that glyphosate was safe for public use on the BfR’s assessment.

According to the EFSA, “The report does not provide any new scientific information that calls into question the assessment and conclusions of glyphosate. EFSA stands firmly behind the integrity of its risk assessment process and its conclusions on glyphosate.”

Jo Lewis, the Soil Associations policy director told the Guardian:

“It is unacceptable that pesticide-industry studies receive greater recognition than scientific peer-reviewed open literature in regulatory decision-making. Whilst this paper focuses on the US EPA, similar criticisms have been made of EU decisions and we fear that outside the EU, pressure to approve pesticides will increase.”

Again, it’s weird how this is even a debate. This has been known for a very long time, and we’ve seen similar happenings with DDT in the past.

“Children today are sicker than they were a generation ago. From childhood cancers to autism, birth defects and asthma, a wide range of childhood diseases and disorders are on the rise. Our assessment of the latest science leaves little room for doubt; pesticides are one key driver of this sobering trend.” – October 2012 report by Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (source)(source)

Keep in mind that the use of glyphosate has skyrocketed, a 1500% increase from 1995 to 2005 was seen, and 100 million pounds of this stuff is used every year on more than a billion acres in the United States alone.

It’s found in our food, our beverages, our favourite snacks, etc.

It’s even been found in the breast milk of mothers, and in urine samples of people across Europe. (source)

The main toxic effects of glyphosate as identified by MIT’s Dr. Stephanie Seneff include:

  • Kills beneficial gut bacteria and allows pathogens to overgrow
  • Interferes with function of cytochrome p450 (CYP enzymes)
  • Chelates important minerals (iron, cobalt, manganese, etc)
  • Interferes with synthesis of aromatic amino acids and methionine – leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate
  • Disrupts sulfate synthesis and sulfate transport

Need I write more?

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, despite the power these corporations hold over government regulatory agencies, it’s human beings that are actually spraying this stuff. This is why change needs to occur at an individual level. One day, no human will agree to spray or use Roundup herbicide, because our lives literally depend on it. We’re simply being used as tools by these corporations, and they profit off our ignorance. Our own consciousness is being used against us. The lies and the scientific fraud that occur in order to get these products on the market actually convince people that they are safe. It’s still hard for some people to accept let alone entertain the idea that our regulatory agencies would ever knowingly do something to harm us.

This is why awareness is so important, and why we must do our own research.

Vía Collective Evolution http://bit.ly/2APl6KF

Gillette’s New Ad On “Toxic Masculinity” Is Incredible – And Necessary, But…

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

In an age of extremes, the nuance of this article is going to be what helps us understand what we are truly seeing in terms of the challenges we face and how we can solve them without generating a strong opinion on these issues. I encourage you all to carefully read this article as if we want to help move away from things like “toxic masculinity,” “toxic femininity,” racism and so forth, but we must do so wisely by truly understanding the depth of what is being said.

Before I continue on, I want to say that in many cases, when talking about issues regarding men, women, or any particular race as politics and media often do today, we must remember that what is talked about does not represent the whole of any group. In fact, in many cases, it only represents a very small percentage of the group being discussed.

As a result of aspects of our consciousness, which we will discuss further in this article, there is no shortage of extremism in society right now when it comes to the discussion of gender. The #MeToo movement helped the greater population recognize that sexism is a huge problem within prominent industries, like music and film, where women are being harassed or abused sexually by men. This then extended to a greater discussion about sexual abuse in society in general, which I feel anyone can agree is an important topic to bring awareness to. In fact, I don’t know if I have ever come across anyone who actually opposes putting a stop to something like this, yet due to extreme positions, many are being wrongfully accused of such opposition. This is where we need to have a deeper discussion.

By now we know it happens, we don’t need another article exposing it, we need one talking about solutions, so that is what I’m going to focus on.

We exist in very polarized states of consciousness, and because we are a society who has not put a large focus on emotional intelligence, many issues that come to the forefront go through a long period of extremism before/if we become grounded again in order to truly understand what’s going on.

Of course, what I am talking about doesn’t relate only to what occurred after the #MeToo movement began, but with anything, including people’s views on government conspiracies, race, politics and other societal issues. In short, we attempt to apply blanket statements to issues instead of viewing things on a case by case basis or through the properly grounded facts that we do have about an issue.

As Stefan Molyneux puts it,

“The general leftist approach is that all disparities in group outcomes are the result of prejudice, of racism, of sexism, of colonialism, of exploitation of generally bad white male behaviour.”

Ultimately he goes on to say that if you choose not to look at the larger reasons as to why certain things are happening in our world, you will always be stuck blaming racism, sexism, the patriarchy, men, women, or any particular race. We must preface our discussion with this gnosis before discussing what’s next because it is only in the grounded understandings of our world that we actually can tell where we are at.

 Gillette Aims To Help Raise Awareness About “Toxic Masculinity”

I’ve put the terms toxic masculinity and toxic femininity in quotations both times thus far because many people have very different ideas of what those things look like and mean. In fact, some people don’t even think “toxic masculinity” exists, similar to the way they feel only white people are capable of being racist.

For the purposes of this article, I refer to the term toxic masculinity as partaking in a destructive form of male culture that does not operate on the basis of respect, equality and self-responsibility, and that will often exude overly strong behaviours of sexualizing women and competing with others to maintain egoic power. In short, much of what we have seen as male culture through pop culture, movies, music, and so forth can tinker on promoting this form of masculinity. It’s seen in situations where a female is marginalized down to simply being a sex object or situations where male dominance is valued and strived for.

Let’s have a look at this great Gillette ad before we continue the conversation.

As Gillette accurately illustrates in its new ad, justifying certain behaviours that are not self-responsible and that do not create a harmonious world with statements like “boys will be boys,” is not something we can continue to do if we want to create a better world. Furthermore, leading by example and being able to speak up about behaviours you observe in others is important. It’s important not to do so in a condescending and judgemental tone, but rather by using a compassionate tone instead that truly questions the behavior and allows you to empathize with how the other may feel in a situation.

As Gillette brand director Pankaj Bhalla told the Wall Street Journal,

“This is an important conversation happening, and as a company that encourages men to be their best, we feel compelled to both address it and take action of our own, … “We are taking a realistic look at what’s happening today, and aiming to inspire change by acknowledging that the old saying ‘boys will be boys’ is not an excuse. We want to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and hope all the men we serve will come along on that journey to find our ‘best’ together.”

I have been in a number of situations where I’m in an all-male setting and one or two males are talking disrespectfully about females and I will observe other males join in simply so they feel included in the conversation or so that the other men don’t judge them. I personally know the men who joined in on the conversation don’t actually agree with the others, but do so because they feel they have to. Or better put, they do not know themselves or are comfortable enough with themselves to take the potential backlash that can sometimes come from not joining in.

This is why I say the way through these challenges is not by creating an enemy, judging their behaviour, and casting them out like many are doing, but instead by helping people question what they are doing and encouraging a culture of self-responsibility, empathy, and a deeper relationship with self. These sorts of conversations can be openly had, but it’s challenging because of our societal norms. Instead, our culture is often either that of the ‘toxic masculinity’ in question or that of extreme judgement towards unfavorable behaviours. Both are extremes, and neither help change the individual in a deep manner.

To be clear, any gender, any race and any person from a socio-economic class can take part in the disconnected behaviours mentioned above. It is not just men.

This is also where the nuance comes in. It’s important to recognize that not all men represent characteristics of “toxic masculinity.” Male pop culture might, and male pop culture does affect a certain subset of people, but it is not representative of the whole. This leads to my one small issue with the Gillette commercial. It, like many people today seem to be doing, is throwing the baby out with the bath water, i.e. not paying attention to nuance. In the case of #MeToo and this commercial, this behaviour does not apply to all men, perhaps not even to most men. We must remember that societal issues don’t apply to everyone within any particular subset of people, yet that is what people often focus on. This is also why so many enemies are being created. It’s like how some will view all Muslims as terrorists, for example.

Let’s recall the quote from Stefan Molyneux above, “The general leftist approach is that all disparities in group outcomes are the result of prejudice, of racism, of sexism, of colonialism, of exploitation of generally bad white male behaviour.” He is absolutely right in pointing out that the reasons for these things are not as simple as people want them to be, and thus we run in circles of extremes. I bring this point up not to turn the focus away from men, but because I actually care about seeing our culture change. I’ve spent enough time coming to understand that people have become outright extreme and misinformed about issues because we are too focused on an enemy and choosing sides. Thus, we have no clue where we actually stand. This is about changing how we live and operate as humans, not just of any particular race or gender.

If there are feelings of wanting to say or utilize some of the classic deflections of today including “easy for you to say from a white male privileged standpoint,” please save it. Let’s have the courage to have mature, grounded conversations, ones that can help us solve the challenges we face together.

If Not Careful, Our Unchecked Behaviour Divides Us

Like with any movement that begins, it often starts on a positive and helpful note. In this case, bringing awareness to sexual abuse of women is important to address. But the movement has come under fire to some extent as it appears to be going too far. The reasons for this include sweeping judgments, assumptions, and a lack of understanding of things that are said or what’s happening.

This has caused great divides amongst people whereby gender happens to be the card played when any issue is brought forth, even when gender truly has nothing to do with it. We are similarly seeing this with race.

This has given rise to grounded voices like Candace Owens, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and Cassie Jaye, to name a few, who are discussing gender inequality in a way that is helping us to diagnose the problem more clearly and ultimately understand how to move forward. This is, of course, in contrast to the extremism out there where you begin to see women hating men or men hating women simply because we are always attempting to blame people for problems.

Cassie Jaye talks a lot about humanizing your ‘enemy.’ In her case, her enemy was males. As she discusses in her TEDx talk, when she released her movie The Red Pill, she received a great deal of backlash from feminists as her film explored The Men’s Right’s movement from her perspective as a feminist. As you might imagine, in her film, Cassie decided to go and speak to people directly. She learned about the people she was fighting against, and in some cases hated, only to realize that in most cases the issues and people involved were not quite who she thought they were.

She goes onto discuss that the greatest issue and challenge she faced was “having to peel back the layers of her own bias.” She goes deeper saying “it turned out I did meet my enemy while filming. It was my ego saying that I was right, and they were subhuman.”

Near the close of her talk she states “It’s no secret now that I no longer call myself a feminist, but I must clarify, I am not anti-feminist, and I am not a men’s rights activist. I still support women’s rights, and I now care about men’s rights as well. However, I believe if we want to honestly discuss gender equality, we need to invite all voices to the table. Yet this is not what is happening. Men’s groups are continually vilified, falsely referred to as hate groups and their voices are systematically silenced.”

The point here is not to pit men’s groups against women’s groups and see who is right, the point is that we have to stop creating sides and enemies. We instead must create a culture where we truly see one another beyond the physical realm. We also must see that in our own ways, we experience challenges from a system that truly does not support our growth.

When her film was released, the media entered into the popular groupthink of our modern times when it comes to gender politics, causing her to become one of the most hated filmmakers at the time. All she did in her film was explore the truth, beyond the fight of side vs side. She instead chose to see things for that they truly are, and this led to what I like to call an upheaval of emotions in viewers that struggle with neutral viewpoints, and instead are addicted to the fight and having an enemy.

This is where I believe many of us exist today. We live in a world where we’re encouraged to choose a side, accept limiting beliefs about what is going on, and ultimately become addicted to the drama of having an enemy to fight… even when they are not doing what you think they are doing.

The Takeaway

What benefit truly comes from identifying as a certain form of activist? I’m not talking about simply saying “I’m an environmentalist” so people understand you care about the environment, I’m talking about when we identify so deeply as an environmentalist that we now filter everything we hear and learn through that lens, thus blocking us from not only hearing the truth but understanding where we stand as a collective. What benefit does that serve other than to show us what disconnection looks like?

I feel it’s time we pay attention to the nuance, the facts and the feelings within our hearts and stop working so hard to find or even create an enemy.

Vía Collective Evolution http://bit.ly/2SY07wq

Vaccine Mandates Results Don’t Safeguard Children’s Rights or Health: How Did We Get Here?

http://bit.ly/2TVG5mm

For decades, the U.S. government has made compulsory childhood vaccination one of the cornerstones of its public health policy. Outside the U.S., countries’ vaccination policies range from completely voluntary to “aggressive,” with some nations promoting vaccination but leaving the decision up to the individual, and others pushing a little harder by financially incentivizing vaccination. Some of the countries with mandatory vaccination have “modest” policies that focus on a single vaccine such as polio, and some—with broader mandates on the books—choose not to enforce them.

Regardless of the policy, no other country requires as many childhood vaccines as the U.S., but the legal edifice shoring up the compulsory childhood vaccine program is surprisingly flimsy. As New York University legal scholar Mary Holland explains in a 2010 working paper, this edifice relies primarily on two century-old Supreme Court decisions—from 1905 and 1922—and on the game-changing National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, which fundamentally altered the legal landscape for vaccination by exempting vaccine manufacturers and medical practitioners from liability for childhood vaccine injuries.

…current childhood mandates are not only radically different from what the earlier courts and legislators envisioned but are unreasonable and oppressive and have led to…perverse results that do not safeguard children’s rights and health.

The 1986 Act, in particular, resulted in an absence of legal protections for vaccinated children that is “striking compared to almost all other medical interventions.” Examining the legal trajectory of vaccine mandates since 1905, Holland argues that current childhood mandates are not only radically different from what the earlier courts and legislators envisioned but are “unreasonable and oppressive and have led to…perverse results” that do not safeguard children’s rights and health.

From mandates for emergencies to mandates for “prevention”

The Supreme Court’s 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision, as summarized by Holland, justified the imposition of one vaccine—smallpox—on adults “on an emergency basis” and under circumstances of “imminent danger.” At the same time, the Jacobson decision established medical exemptions, reasoning that it “would be cruel and inhuman in the last degree” to vaccinate someone who was medically unfit. Jacobson also contained “robust cautionary language,” calling attention to the potential for “arbitrary and oppressive” abuse of police power and warning against going “far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public.” Jacobson urged courts to be “vigilant to examine and thwart unreasonable assertions of state power.”

Despite these words of warning, state-level courts did not wait long before broadening the judicial interpretation of Jacobson beyond the notion of imminent danger or necessity—although still within the context of just the smallpox vaccine:

  • In 1916, Alabama and Kentucky courts affirmed states’ right to mandate vaccination for prevention of smallpox epidemics, stating that state Boards of Health “are not required to wait until an epidemic actually exists before taking action.” The Alabama court also broadened the rationale for mandates beyond adults to children.
  • In 1922, the three-paragraph Zucht v. King Supreme Court decision sanctioned vaccine mandates as a condition for public school attendance. According to Holland, this decision further shifted Jacobson’s “paradigm…by upholding a mandate exclusively for children and not for the entire population.”
  • Decisions in Mississippi and Texas in the early 1930s granted public health authorities the leeway to define public health emergencies in whatever manner they saw fit.
  • A New Jersey court in the late 1940s interpreted Jacobson as justifying all vaccine mandates, “disregarding its language to reject unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive state actions.”
  • An Arkansas court in the early 1950s suggested that anyone questioning vaccine safety or efficacy should “lodge [their] objections with the Board of Health rather than the court.”

Occasionally, legal officials expressed their disapproval of vaccine mandates outside of emergencies, as with the North Dakota judge who, in 1919, pronounced childhood vaccination in the absence of a smallpox epidemic an act of “barbarism.” The same judge also wrote presciently about the self-interest of the medical profession and vaccine manufacturers—“the class that reap a golden harvest from vaccination and the diseases caused by it.” In comments that bear repeating today, the judge stated,

“Every person of common sense and observation must know that it is not the welfare of the children that causes the vaccinators to preach their doctrines and to incur the expense of lobbying for vaccination statutes. …And if anyone says to the contrary, he either does not know the facts, or he has no regard for the truth.”

The legal sea change in 1986

Although vaccination mandates had become legally “well-entrenched” by the mid-1950s—regardless of emergency and “all but erasing” Jacobson’s cautionary language—Holland emphasizes that this legal framework arose in the context of a single vaccine for a contagious disease considered to be life-threatening. Even when the polio vaccine subsequently came on the scene, the nonprofit organization that helped develop and distribute the vaccine “opposed compulsion on principle.”

According to Holland, the creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—“a federal advisory body with little public participation and no direct accountability to voters”—laid the groundwork for far more coercive vaccine policies. In fact, ACIP has become, over time, the “driving force” behind vaccine mandates. Whereas Jacobson justified mandates under specific and rare circumstances, ACIP has created an “infrastructure” that pushes mandates for any vaccine-preventable illness.

…revenue-generating vaccine development and promotion have enjoyed priority over vaccine safety science and injury compensation since the Law’s (NCVIA) inception

By 1981, after ACIP helped ensure that multiple vaccines were obligatory for school attendance in all 50 states, the number of vaccine injuries began increasing. Against this backdrop, Congress enacted the NCVIA in 1986. Although some legislators may have been well-intentioned when they passed the Act, Holland makes it clear that it has been nothing short of a disaster. In essence, the Act located “vaccine promotion, safety and compensation under one [government] umbrella,” thereby creating “the risk of trade-offs among competing goals.” The rather predictable result is that “revenue-generating vaccine development and promotion have enjoyed priority over vaccine safety science and injury compensation since the Law’s inception.”

Holland identifies the paradox at the core of the 1986 Law. On the one hand, the legislation “for the first time publicly acknowledged that universal compulsory vaccination is likely to cause permanent injury and death to some infants and children”; on the other hand, it forces healthy children to give up ordinary legal protections, including informed consent, and takes away from injured children the right to sue manufacturers directly.

Meanwhile, ACIP has continued to promote a shift away from “necessity” as the rationale for vaccine mandates. A number of the vaccines that ACIP now calls for American children to get to attend school—70 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18—are for rarely fatal illnesses and for conditions “not contagious through ordinary social contact.” Holland’s conclusion is that:

“Necessity no longer determines the validity of state childhood vaccination mandates…. New vaccine mandates are guided by financial returns on low prevalence diseases, not protection of the entire population against imminent harm.”

“Ravenous corporate greed and mindless bureaucracy”

Some of the most troubling facts come at the end of Holland’s impressive legal review and concern the power of the pharmaceutical industry. She notes:

  • The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in the U.S. since the 1980s.
  • In a single year in the early 2000s, “the combined profits of the ten largest drug companies in the Fortune 500 had higher net profits…than all the other 490 companies [in the Fortune 500] combined.”
  • There are more full-time pharmaceutical industry lobbyists on Capitol Hill than there are legislators in both Houses of Congress.
  • The leading manufacturers of childhood vaccines in the U.S. (Merck, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur) have records of documented fraud and criminal/ethical misconduct.

Holland also tackles the extensive collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and government regulators, including a quote about “ravenous corporate greed and mindless bureaucracy” in a related article. Whereas “demonstrably predatory corporations selling compulsory products to a vulnerable population should lead to a high level of government scrutiny and skepticism,” Holland observes that “government appears to ally its interests with industry in the arena of vaccines.”

Coercion is backfiring

Fortunately, the public and even some health professionals are growing increasingly wise to this industry-government shell game. In one community, opposition to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine mandates recently put public health authorities on the defensive about the epidemic of autoimmunity in today’s youth, the “exorbitant” amount of neurotoxic aluminum in vaccines and the requirement to “get a vaccine for something that can’t be caught in a classroom.” A parent responding to the news article stated, “Why should I as a mother trust the Public Information Officer for the state Department of Health when he cannot even name the amount of aluminum in the vaccine?” Thus, it is up to the public—and ethical professionals—to engage in the “scrutiny and skepticism” that the U.S. government has unconscionably failed to exercise.


Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.


Vía Collective Evolution http://bit.ly/2HiwfcG

Authentic UFO Footage Caught On Camera By A University Professor & His Research Students

http://bit.ly/2TQL3AF

UFOs have gone from being a ‘taboo’ topic of discussion to a scientifically proven phenomenon. They’re real, and practically everybody knows it. This is evident from all of the declassified documents, witness testimonies, and electrooptical data that’s available as well as all of the mainstream ‘UFO’ disclosure that’s occurred over the past few years. We’re talking about testimonies from astronauts, generals, colonels, pilots and long-time Department of Defence and space agency scientists, like Norman Bergrun, Bob Dean, Colonel Ross Dedrickson, Edgar Mitchel, etc. The list is a very long one, and the number of testimonies reaches to well over one thousand if we look at them on a global scale.

The question is no longer if UFOs exist, but rather, who or what is behind the wheel? Just as there was evidence for UFOs decades ago when the phenomenon was referred to as a mere ‘conspiracy theory,’ the same holds true for the hypothesis that some of these objects may indeed be crafts piloted by extraterrestrial or extradimensional beings. There are plenty of reasons to assume that many of these craft are extraterrestrial, from contactee/abduction accounts as well as witness testimonies like the one included above.

The extraterrestrial hypothesis holds a lot of credibility, not to mention that many encounters with these crafts show a display of physics-defying maneuverers. This hypothesis made its way into the mainstream recently when a Pentagon official disclosed its “Aerospace Ariel Threat Identification Program.” The head of that program, Louis Elizondo, went on national television just weeks after retiring from the Pentagon stating that he believes some of these objects are piloted by intelligent extraterrestrials. (source)

So if that’s what you believe, you’re not alone in your thoughts. Mainstream UFO disclosure requires another discussion, as it’s hard to really trust any information or perspective that comes from mainstream media these days.

Video Footage

There are no shortage of, what seem to be, authentic videos from very credible sources. Sure, we’ve had multiple videos and pictures of these objects released by dozens of governments worldwide, but we also have footage from a number of civilians, like you and me, who have encountered these objects and have been lucky enough to have a phone or a camera on hand.

For example, a UFO was filmed by multiple crews in Turkey on May 13, 2009, and the footage appears to show occupants inside of the craft. It made headlines over there, and is well known to UFOlogists as the  Kum­burgaz, Turkey UFO incident. There were also several witnesses from the local village. The video was ana­lyzed by the Sci­en­tific and Tech­nol­ogy Research Board of Turkey (which is sponsored by the gov­ern­ment). They concluded and vouched for its authenticity. It was filmed by the late Dr. Roger Lier, which is fascinating because he was a doctor of Podiatric medicine, and arguably the best known individual with regards to extracting alleged alien implants. He has performed more than fifteen surgeries that removed sixteen separate distinct objects. These objects have been investigated by several prestigious laboratories, including Los Alamos National Laboratories, New Mexico Tech, and many others. You can watch him speak at the Citizens Hearing on Disclosure which took place a few years ago here.

The sighting in the video below comes from Erling P. Strand, an assistant professor in the Faculty of Computer Sciences at Østfold University College, Remmen in Halden.

The footage was taken by the Hessadalen Interactive Observatory at Ostfold University College. This particular observatory has captured and documented many strange anomalies that seem to plague the area. As far as I know, its the only official 24 hour UFO observatory in the world. Radar and cameras have tracked and filmed numerous inexplicable phenomenon in this area, with the fastest one recorded at 30,000 km per hour, which is faster than any known aircraft today.

The light phenomena here in Hessadelenm, Norway started in late ’81 with a lot of sightings. At the most it was 20 sightings a week. The local people here started to see the light down in the valley, sometimes close to their houses, and they were wondering, what could this be?

Radar and camera have since picked up astonishing photos of unexplained light phenomenon. Landings have also been reported, and conclusive evidence showing earth samples have also been taken.

Below is a picture of students and scientists examining a two ton piece of turf that was cut out in the area using laser precision. It was lifted and placed a few meters away. There was no sign of machinery or people.

One week during September 2007, a major survey was carried out by the university scientists assisted by students with several observation units. On the fourth night of the survey, something special happened. Below is footage taken from the film The Day Before Disclosure, written and produced by Filmaker Terje Toftenes. The film (from where the above picture was taken) has footage of multiple instances documented by the observatory as well as more information on this particular area of Norway. It was taken by Stand and the students.

The first bit you see there is what showed up in September, although it’s dark but you can hear the excitement of Strand as well as the students as they scream with joy. The second piece of footage within the clip below, where it cuts to shortly after, is another incident that was filmed by the observatory .

Below is another picture from the observatory, one of many that continue to be completely unexplained to this day.

The Takeaway

What kind of implications are to come from the realization that we are not alone, and that we’ve been visited by beings from elsewhere for a long time? It truly leaves no aspect of humanity untouched, and it’s interesting to reflect on how sheltered we’ve been from so many topics, not just limited to UFOlogy. Ultimately, this sheltering from the truth often ends up hindering our willingness to learn about these subjects.

We have been conditioned to live our life, accept things the way they are, and ignore any information that challenges our beliefs despite any evidence presented. There is something for us to discover here, perhaps about ourselves or about the nature of reality and where we came from. Not long from now, it will be us traversing through the stars, stumbling upon other civilizations who will look up in awe. But first, we have to collectively accept that it’s time to take off the training wheels and fly. No longer can we continue to live on this planet the way we have been. If we want to move forward and live in peace, harmony and abundance, drastic changes need to be made.

At the end of the day, I believe this planet is more important than we are.

Vía Collective Evolution http://bit.ly/2ss0CTB

The Most Powerful Testimony I’ve Ever Heard: My Interview With Anneke Lucas

http://bit.ly/2ChjV6D

I believe that life brings synchronicities to those who are open to them. Well, I suppose life brings synchronicities to everybody, but it is those of us who accept that the universe has a more comprehensive vision of our life mission than we do that are more likely to take advantage of them. It is not so much that we have to be on the lookout for every sign and symbol that flashes past us; it’s more about noticing the things that resonate most with us, calling us to pay attention and perhaps even take action.

It was only four months after starting to work for CE that I got an email with the heading ‘Change from within’ from a woman named Anneke Lucas, where she said the following:

I’m writing to thank you for your articles about the nature of power, pedophilia and Satanic practices. As a survivor, it is refreshing to find someone writing about these issues with such clarity, with both awareness of the problem and the dawning awakening of humanity to this darkness.

A friend of hers had forwarded her my James Gunn article and she went on to read other articles including my Lucifer series. The first thing that gave me that tingling feeling about the timing of this email was the fact that I had become aware of Anneke Lucas’ story at the office a week earlier when someone had sent me a link to one of her videos. In fact, I even wrote about this synchronicity in my reply to her.

In her initial email she briefly introduced herself as someone who had gone through Satanic ritual and sexual abuse, and directed me to some of the videos she had done, including a TedX talk she had given. She ended by saying ‘I would like to keep communication open, perhaps further explore synergies.’ It was this elegant invitation that resonated most with me, and as I researched who she was and what she had been through, I was not only awed by the unthinkable amount of trauma she had endured in her childhood, but deeply impressed with her clear-minded analyses into the nature of her perpetrators and their own trauma-based motives.

From reading her writings, like this Elephant Journal article, I gained some insight into how perpetrators of pedophilia are desperately seeking the feeling of their own lost childhood innocence. They project their own trauma onto an innocent child to gain power and momentarily escape their own feelings of shame and lack:

Power addicts are attached to positive projections. Admirers, followers, lovers, fans and in the case of pedophiles, the child victims, are parental substitutes, unwittingly providing the necessary fuel for this addiction.

By being thought of as powerful, different, special, more attractive, bigger or better, power addicts adopt those projections and use them as nurturing substance, feeding the damaged infant inside, which can be experienced as emptiness or a sort of black hole if the person has no connection to that inner part.

The power game lies in keeping one’s own negative thoughts secret while warding off negative projections and using positive ones to maximum advantage, so obtaining the feeling of innocence through calculating and exploitative means.

Exploring Synergies

Register to watch our exclusive 4-part interview series with Anneke.

Through my own life experiences, I have come to believe that no trauma is beyond healing. One of the reasons I began to delve into pedophilia and Satanic practices since I started writing for CE was because I felt that I could bring some nuance to the discussion that transcends the rage and disgust that many tend to react with. Seeing Anneke’s words, I felt that in some ways she was a kindred soul, but at the same time she endured and overcame exponentially more suffering and abuse than I could have ever imagined. I felt that she had a profound and meaningful story to tell, one that could be of benefit to all people in their journey toward healing. I felt it would be a great privilege to help her tell her story.

I asked her if there are any of her videos or writings that she wanted me to analyze and write about, or if she would be interested in an interview via Skype. I even asked her where she lived (Brooklyn, NY, as it turns out) in the unlikely event that I could arrange a live interview with her. It was unlikely indeed, since I had not been with CE very long and had never done an interview for them (or ever, to be frank). Not only that, but we were going through a budget crunch at CE, as everyone had to have their hours (and pay) reduced to part-time. I thought there was no way I could ask to expense flights for both myself and our cameraman James to fly to Brooklyn to conduct a live interview. So I didn’t ask.

Ideas about how to get something done remotely occupied my brain over the next few days, which lead to various discussions at the office and some back-and-forth emails with Anneke. Then one morning it just hit me. This was too important an interview not to do live, and this was too great an experience for me not to take the opportunity to meet Anneke in person and have a conversation. I decided that I would find the cheapest flights, ask CE’s Founder Joe for a small budget to cover some of the expenses, and pay for the rest myself if I had to. Joe was cool with the idea, James was up for a road trip, and everything fell into place, including James knowing a friend in Brooklyn that we could stay with for the night. I feel very grateful that I chose to follow the synchronicity of Anneke’s initial email invitation.

The Interview

The road trip was filled with synchronistic numbers and fortuitous events. We were in New York and we arrived at James’ friend’s place at 9:11 pm. The next morning, our GPS had us arriving at Anneke’s place at 9:11 am. Our flight down was smooth as silk, and when we flew back we transferred to an earlier flight and were upgraded to first class.

The interview itself went exceptionally well. We were warmly greeted by our gracious host and the entire interview was conducted in a space of trust and comfort. And that comfort grew quickly as the interview went along, as Anneke mentioned that she was happy to be not just with one but two people who ‘get it’ and were able to hear her story with equanimity. We initially thought we would be restricted to shoot from 8 am to 2 pm, but Anneke had made arrangements to allow us to continue filming for as long as we were able to.

Anneke’s daughter came home from school in the afternoon (surprisingly, since she had been asked by Anneke to stay with a friend until the interview was over), but she defiantly said she didn’t want to and that she was going to her room instead, but that she would put headphones on and would not disturb us. At that point I felt comfortable enough to tease Anneke and say that it was ‘too bad she turned out just like you!’ We all had a good laugh and were able to resume working into the evening, which allowed us to get the whole story in over 4 hours of video content, virtually all of which was usable for the 4-part video series.

Anneke’s story is filled with revelations of the nefarious activities perpetrated by the royals and elites of Belgian society, but more importantly Anneke goes deep into the healing journey she went through after suffering so much trauma. This testimony not only gives incredible insights into how each one of us can face our darkness as individuals, but also provides a roadmap to the healing of our planet from the state of collective trauma and dysfunction we currently live in.

The Takeaway

As we have discussed many times in our articles at CE, an essential aspect of our personal awakening is to look into the darkness of our unhealed emotions. Similarly, at the collective level, our healing will not come to pass if we are not willing to bear witness to the most profane examples of human activity. This is not to say we need to remain fixated in either fear or indignation or even fascination towards these heinous acts; but we need to acknowledge them and, as a collective, take ownership of them so that we have the power to move forward.

This four-part interview with Anneke Lucas reflects just this. We first come to grips with her harrowing story of subjugation and the miracle of her escape; then, we come to marvel at the breadth of her healing journey and discuss its implications for us as a collective.

I invite everyone to sign up for the official launch of this free four-part video series starting on January 17th, and would be surprised if you did not agree that this was the most powerful testimony you’ve ever heard.

Vía Collective Evolution http://bit.ly/2AM3OOt

Ex US Dept. Of State Official Says Existence Of Elite Pedophile Rings Are “NOT Shocking!”

http://bit.ly/2ChjV6D

Steve Pieczenik is a former United States Department of State official and a Harvard trained psychiatrist with a doctorate in international relations from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He held many roles within the US political system, including as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan and George H.W. Bush.

Now, if you’ve done research into US politics, being associated with names like Kissinger and Bush automatically raise a red flag. What’s even more concerning is that he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group many consider to be ‘wicked’ while hiding behind good deeds. However, he was removed from the membership as early as October 2012, which was around the same time he started to “blow the whistle.”

Not everyone from ‘within’ is part of this strange clique that many people are becoming aware of today. The clique that Donald Trump doesn’t seem to be part of, which is a huge step, and is something we haven’t seen for a long time. That’s not to say we support his presidency whatsoever, we’re just stating that he doesn’t seem to be part of the Deep State. Nevertheless, many from within are starting to have a shift in consciousness, and feel a deep need to let the public know what’s really going on.

Despite his credentials, Pieczenik’s statements have gone completely ignored by mainstream media. In 1982, Pieczenik was mentioned in a New York Times article as “a psychiatrist who has treated C.I.A. employees.” In 2001, he operated as chief executive officer of Strategic Intelligence Associates, a consulting firm. 

He’s been an insider for years and is one of many from within who have a much clearer idea of what is going on behind the scenes, despite the narrative that’s controlled and televised by the establishment’s media mouthpieces.

Pieczenik is a legend for speaking his truth, and he deserves to at least be listened to.

It’s interesting to review how ‘elite level pedophilia’ hit the mainstream over the past couple years, bringing up Pizzagate at first, which was quickly labelled a ‘conspiracy theory,’ and then again when the ‘Q anon’ phenomenon began to surface, which mainstream media brushed off as a ‘conspiracy’ yet again.

 You don’t have to look far to see that this kind of thing isn’t a conspiracy theory. The victims are starting to come forward, and people like Pieczenik are speaking up about it. Not long ago, an MSNBC news report even implicated Hillary Clinton in covering up a pedophile ring within the state department.

A lot of this is simply labelled as ‘fake news’ by the establishment because it implicates many of its members. It’s also easy to label it as such because some of it is so unbelievable that it’s hard for the mind to accept.

The truth is that we have more than enough information to at least warrant a proper investigation.

Register to watch our exclusive 4-part interview series with Anneke.

The more we continue to refer to this type of thing as a conspiracy theory, the more we allow those who are involved to continue hurting and abusing innocent women and children who have no way out.

We are talking about ritual abuse, and it seems to start at the Vatican, bleeding down into the government and other power structures. It’s a big club, and we’re obviously not in it. Let’s not forget Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted pedophile of the Royal Family, similar to the relationship Jimmy Savile had with the Royals as well.

Even foreign politicians have suggested that western politics is associated with pedophilia and Satanism, Vladimir Putin being one of the latest examples.

This is why I wasn’t shocked when I came across the tweet below, discussing the news that came out at the end of last year stating that celebrity Sacha Baron Cohen found a potential pedophile ring while taping the show “Who is America.”  Cohan was quoted as saying, “We immediately turned over the footage to the FBI because we thought, perhaps there’s a pedophile ring in Las Vegas that’s operating for these very wealthy men.”

You may be asking: Why hasn’t the FBI done anything? (Ted Gunderson, former FBI special agent and head of their L.A office did a lot of work in this area).  If you want the answer to that question, retired police detective Jon Wedger, with over 25 years of service in the investigation of child abuse, explains who is involved in this ring and how it operates continually without ever being taken down. It’s because, for the most part, when you take this information to your superior, they are already aware of these activities and fail to act on any information. The ones we go to solve this problem may actually be condoning it.

Pieczenik has also implicated the Clintons, stating that“We know that both of them have been a major part and participant of what’s called The Lolita Express, which is a plane owned by Mr. Jeff Epstein, a wealthy multi-millionaire who flies down to the Bahamas and allows Bill Clinton and Hillary to engage in sex with minors, that is called Pedophilia.” 

It’s important to note that Trump’s name was found once on the flight ledger to Lolita Island but not repeatedly as with many other people, like Bill Clinton who appeared 26 times for example. It is often believed that Trump appears to be working so hard to stop sex trafficking because of what he saw when visiting Lolita Island.

Again, given his background, and all of the evidence that’s already been put out to the public, why should anybody deem this a conspiracy theory? Why have there been no investigations? Why were Australian media outlets forced into silence when Cardinal George Pell was recently convicted on five counts of child sexual abuse? He is now the most senior official ever to be found guilty, serving as an advisor to Pope Benedict as well as Pope Francis. He’s one of the Vatican’s most powerful officials.

Children are being subjected to torture, murder, and a life full of trauma. We must understand that pedophilia within the realm of politics goes far beyond just that, it goes into ritual abuse and Satanism as well. And it’s not just politics, it’s Hollywood too. You can find it in many institutions that have amassed massive amounts of power.

Weird connections have always been observed from within, take the Obama administration for example. He appointed Kevin Jennings as Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the US Department of Education. He’s a member of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) and supports Harry Hay, who is also in support of NAMBLA. This was more than a decade ago, but these strange connections exist all over the political system.

Another example of institutional pedophilia support can be found within the UK government and the Catholic Church, which have come under public scrutiny for claiming that victims of child sexual abuse can “consent” to their rapes. They did this in order to avoid compensating victims. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) establishes which victims get compensated, and they do so by determining whether or not the victim gave consent, even if that victim is a child. You can read more about that here.

A lot has happened since Former U.S. representative Cynthia McKinney blew the whistle about pedophilia within the government in 2005. She grilled Donald Rumsfeld on DynCorp’s child trafficking business of selling women and children. (source)

Not long after that, retired Army General James Grazioplene, who worked in the Pentagon and as the Vice President of DynCorp, faced six rape charges against minors.

There are so many connections, whistleblowers and investigations that have uncovered examples of institutional pedophilia — we just aren’t aware of them because the mainstream media often fails to report on them.

The Takeaway

What does this tell us about who we are electing as our leaders? Are they that two-faced? Many of these people are powerful members of the elite, and some of them have been made for us to idolize and almost worship. They hide behind philanthropy and good deeds, masking some very disturbing things taking place behind the scenes.

We’ve been turning a blind eye to this topic for too long and it’s time to pay attention. A big issue here is the fact that many of the people involved have also experienced the same type of trauma as a child. It’s considered normal to them, and it’s normal to many of the children who are involved today. If we as a society are going to bring this out into the open, a discussion has to happen from a place of compassion, not judgement. This is still something the human race needs to work on, because if we continue to punish and ostracize people for their wrongdoings, we will never address the root causes of the issues we wish to rid the planet of.

Register for our free exclusive 4 part interview series on Overcoming Elite Child Sex Trafficking w/ Anneke Lucas.

Vía Collective Evolution http://bit.ly/2sqNZIw

Scientist Demonstrates Fascinating Evidence of Precognitive Dreaming

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The world of dreams is a mystery to all. We dream every night when we go to sleep, though sometimes we remember our dreams and sometimes we do not. It can be a lot of fun to relay your dreams to friends and coworkers the next day, but often their significance is only perceptible to yourself and you end up boring your audience with a long, drawn-out recall of the previous night’s adventures.

Have you ever woken up from a dream so real that you were overcome with whatever emotion had been triggered in the dream, such as sadness, anger, bliss, or excitement? How about waking up with a huge sigh of relief that it was only a dream? Dreams can seem so real to our minds that our bodies actually respond as if they were.

Despite all our years of studying and trying to interpret dreams, the age-old question remains, what is the significance of dreams and do they actually mean anything in relation to waking life? Many people dismiss dreams as random thoughts formulated from the subconscious mind, but what about the concept of precognitive dreams — dreams about events or experiences that haven’t yet occurred, but end up taking place at a later point in reality? The very notion goes against what we know to be true of time and relativity; if time is linear, then precognitive dreams simply cannot be possible.

Is It Possible To Accurately Dream About The Future?

Dr. Stanley Krippner, Professor of Psychology at Saybrook University, has devoted his life to the research and experimentation of parapsychology, precognitive dreaming, and shamanism for the past forty years. He claims that this phenomenon of precognitive dreaming is not only possible, but his research can back it up. In an interview with Geraldine Cremine of Vice Motherboard, Krippner explained one of his most significant laboratory studies on precognitive dreaming:

Each night, the subject dreamer would go through an ordinary night of dreaming, with an intent to dream about an experience he would have the following morning. The dreamer was woken 4-5 times throughout the night to relay his dreams to an experimenter. The following mornings, experimenters randomly selected an experience from a number of prearranged options, and the dreamer was subjected to that experience. Dr. Krippner said there was no way for the participants to know what experience they would encounter before it was selected and administered.

The following is a specific example of a dreamer who, one night, had several dreams about birds in various different settings and circumstances. The following morning, the dreamer was exposed to one of the experiences selected at random. “The experience was to have him sit with earphones on,” Dr. Krippner said. “And what was played? Bird calls. He was also played a video. And what was played? Pictures of birds.” After the experiment, which lasted 8 days, was over, outside judges who were not a part of the original experiment were called in to determine the dreams of the dreamers versus the experiences they were subjected to upon waking. For each participant, the judges were able to find at least one match between a dream and the random experience on most nights of the experiment.

Even if we were to accept — at least for argument’s sake — that this phenomenon of precognitive dreaming is possible, we are still left wanting an explanation. And unfortunately, we simply don’t have one yet.

What we do know is that the unconscious mind is capable of having deep revelations during the rapid eve movement (REM) state of sleep, aka: the dream state. One example of such a revelation occurred in 1865, when chemist Frederich August Kekulé was struggling to understand how atoms in the benzene molecule were arranged. After wrestling with the problem for some time, he fell asleep and dreamt about a snake biting its own tail. Through this image, he conceived the benzene ring, revolutionizing organic chemistry in the process. But people come to much more mundane understandings during sleep all the time, as I’m sure you yourself have on one or more occasions, perhaps explaining where the phrase, I’ll sleep on it comes from.

Could Quantum Physics Be The Answer?

Quantum physics offers one theory for precognitive dreams, suggesting that during the uninhibited state of REM, the brain may be capable of identifying some kind of a signal that we aren’t aware of in our conscious state. These signals could assist with awareness of the future. This idea links to theories of quantum entanglement and the idea that two separate particles or points in time can interact as if connected to one another despite being spatially separated.

Dr. Krippner himself elaborated on how quantum physics could potentially explain  precognitive dreaming. “Quantum events happen on a different time scale to what most people live and experience in the West,” he explained. “We have this understanding of time that is: ‘past, present, future.’ But quantum physics gives you a different concept of time.” He says that these same concepts are found throughout the many indigenous cultures he studied during his research into precognitive dreaming and shamanism:

Many indigenous people see time going in a circle; it goes around and around and it’s a spiral. “Then you also have the indigenous North American point of view that people lived in a ‘long body’; they do not end where their skin ends. A person’s long body projects and involves other people and other parts of nature, so everything is happening all at once. For them it’s no surprise that you can dream about the future.

Precognitive & Lucid Dreams

Precognitive dreams are fairly common phenomena and many people have reported experiencing them, including some famous people throughout history, like Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain. While researching this topic I also came across some interesting information on lucid precognitive dreams – the notion that you could actually intend to see into the future by being conscious in your dream and asking questions such as: What are Saturday’s winning lottery numbers?; What will be the best performing stock tomorrow? and so on… Trying this out for yourself could help prove that it works, and would be a fun experiment at the very least.

The Takeaway

Dreams are a mystical experience to all who have them, and I think it’s safe to say that few people aren’t at least curious about their nightly adventures. Have you had any dreams you would consider precognitive? Ultimately, dreams can be a great tool for reflection and contemplation regarding our own life. It’s interesting to interpret them, and perhaps no one can really do that but ourselves, because no one else can really feel what it feels like to have your dream. It’s interesting because we don’t really pay attention to them, and are not really taught to do so and thus we usually brush them off as ‘not real.’ Perhaps there are some deeper meanings here that we’re missing?

Vía Collective Evolution http://bit.ly/2TUb1U7

Scientist Demonstrates Fascinating Evidence of Precognitive Dreaming

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The world of dreams is a mystery to all. We dream every night when we go to sleep, though sometimes we remember our dreams and sometimes we do not. It can be a lot of fun to relay your dreams to friends and coworkers the next day, but often their significance is only perceptible to yourself and you end up boring your audience with a long, drawn-out recall of the previous night’s adventures.

Have you ever woken up from a dream so real that you were overcome with whatever emotion had been triggered in the dream, such as sadness, anger, bliss, or excitement? How about waking up with a huge sigh of relief that it was only a dream? Dreams can seem so real to our minds that our bodies actually respond as if they were.

Despite all our years of studying and trying to interpret dreams, the age-old question remains, what is the significance of dreams and do they actually mean anything in relation to waking life? Many people dismiss dreams as random thoughts formulated from the subconscious mind, but what about the concept of precognitive dreams — dreams about events or experiences that haven’t yet occurred, but end up taking place at a later point in reality? The very notion goes against what we know to be true of time and relativity; if time is linear, then precognitive dreams simply cannot be possible.

Is It Possible To Accurately Dream About The Future?

Dr. Stanley Krippner, Professor of Psychology at Saybrook University, has devoted his life to the research and experimentation of parapsychology, precognitive dreaming, and shamanism for the past forty years. He claims that this phenomenon of precognitive dreaming is not only possible, but his research can back it up. In an interview with Geraldine Cremine of Vice Motherboard, Krippner explained one of his most significant laboratory studies on precognitive dreaming:

Each night, the subject dreamer would go through an ordinary night of dreaming, with an intent to dream about an experience he would have the following morning. The dreamer was woken 4-5 times throughout the night to relay his dreams to an experimenter. The following mornings, experimenters randomly selected an experience from a number of prearranged options, and the dreamer was subjected to that experience. Dr. Krippner said there was no way for the participants to know what experience they would encounter before it was selected and administered.

The following is a specific example of a dreamer who, one night, had several dreams about birds in various different settings and circumstances. The following morning, the dreamer was exposed to one of the experiences selected at random. “The experience was to have him sit with earphones on,” Dr. Krippner said. “And what was played? Bird calls. He was also played a video. And what was played? Pictures of birds.” After the experiment, which lasted 8 days, was over, outside judges who were not a part of the original experiment were called in to determine the dreams of the dreamers versus the experiences they were subjected to upon waking. For each participant, the judges were able to find at least one match between a dream and the random experience on most nights of the experiment.

Even if we were to accept — at least for argument’s sake — that this phenomenon of precognitive dreaming is possible, we are still left wanting an explanation. And unfortunately, we simply don’t have one yet.

What we do know is that the unconscious mind is capable of having deep revelations during the rapid eve movement (REM) state of sleep, aka: the dream state. One example of such a revelation occurred in 1865, when chemist Frederich August Kekulé was struggling to understand how atoms in the benzene molecule were arranged. After wrestling with the problem for some time, he fell asleep and dreamt about a snake biting its own tail. Through this image, he conceived the benzene ring, revolutionizing organic chemistry in the process. But people come to much more mundane understandings during sleep all the time, as I’m sure you yourself have on one or more occasions, perhaps explaining where the phrase, I’ll sleep on it comes from.

Could Quantum Physics Be The Answer?

Quantum physics offers one theory for precognitive dreams, suggesting that during the uninhibited state of REM, the brain may be capable of identifying some kind of a signal that we aren’t aware of in our conscious state. These signals could assist with awareness of the future. This idea links to theories of quantum entanglement and the idea that two separate particles or points in time can interact as if connected to one another despite being spatially separated.

Dr. Krippner himself elaborated on how quantum physics could potentially explain  precognitive dreaming. “Quantum events happen on a different time scale to what most people live and experience in the West,” he explained. “We have this understanding of time that is: ‘past, present, future.’ But quantum physics gives you a different concept of time.” He says that these same concepts are found throughout the many indigenous cultures he studied during his research into precognitive dreaming and shamanism:

Many indigenous people see time going in a circle; it goes around and around and it’s a spiral. “Then you also have the indigenous North American point of view that people lived in a ‘long body’; they do not end where their skin ends. A person’s long body projects and involves other people and other parts of nature, so everything is happening all at once. For them it’s no surprise that you can dream about the future.

Precognitive & Lucid Dreams

Precognitive dreams are fairly common phenomena and many people have reported experiencing them, including some famous people throughout history, like Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain. While researching this topic I also came across some interesting information on lucid precognitive dreams – the notion that you could actually intend to see into the future by being conscious in your dream and asking questions such as: What are Saturday’s winning lottery numbers?; What will be the best performing stock tomorrow? and so on… Trying this out for yourself could help prove that it works, and would be a fun experiment at the very least.

The Takeaway

Dreams are a mystical experience to all who have them, and I think it’s safe to say that few people aren’t at least curious about their nightly adventures. Have you had any dreams you would consider precognitive? Ultimately, dreams can be a great tool for reflection and contemplation regarding our own life. It’s interesting to interpret them, and perhaps no one can really do that but ourselves, because no one else can really feel what it feels like to have your dream. It’s interesting because we don’t really pay attention to them, and are not really taught to do so and thus we usually brush them off as ‘not real.’ Perhaps there are some deeper meanings here that we’re missing?

Vía Collective Evolution http://bit.ly/2TUb1U7