Connect with us

Metaphysics & Psychology

A third of humanity will ascent to 5th dimension – Do you feel the symtoms?

We go through a turbulent period in terms of planetary vibration. Since a year ago, this has been accentuating little by little more intensely. There are people who feel energy both positively and negatively.

Part of humanity is to ascend to the fifth dimension. The sensations that these people may feel, may be, for example, nausea, physical discomfort, and that all the food feels bad, feels heavy and bad body normally.

TRULY

We prepare for an imminent change of energy on the level of the planet, which comes little by little. Many will feel it during these next 2 years, so if you are one of the few who feel these sensations, it should be considered privileged.

I say this due to the fact that their sensitivity is increasing and, according to quantum science, people who are at this level, work unconsciously to enter the third part of humanity that will ascend to the fifth dimension, that is, that you will be able to follow your present life and the lives of future incarnations on the planet earth that is to come.

THE NEW EARTH

In it, we will live a period of countless light, as the vibration changes, and this for those who are up to date is nothing new, it would be said that in the new earthly life on this planet is no longer going to be a full planet of proofs and atonement like the one we are now, and it will become a planet of regeneration.

There will be no more pain or suffering, in the near future, everything will be lighter. Water and sunlight will be the energy base of the new human.

We will have a sensation of apparent satiety, which will make us eat only the precise. The reason for the vibratory change is nothing else than to make humanity realize that life is more than pain and suffering. Everything is to come and the best is yet to come.

Advertisement
Comments

Metaphysics & Psychology

The human brain retrieves memories backwards

Image Credit: CC 2.0 Andrew Mason

The human brain works in mysterious ways. 

A new study has revealed that the human brain actually works in reverse when recalling details of our memories.

The research, which was conducted by researchers at the University of Birmingham’s Center for Human Brain Health, involved reconstructing the memory retrieval process using special brain decoding techniques that make it possible to track when a unique memory is being reactivated.

For the study, participants were each shown images of specific objects and were asked to associate each of them with a unique reminder word. After a certain time had passed, they were then presented with one of these reminder words and asked to reconstruct the image in as much detail as possible.

The findings indicated that when the brain retrieves memories about a specific object, it begins by first focusing on the core meaning of that object before recalling more specific details.

When a person encounters an object for the first time however, the brain focuses initially on the visual aspects such as patterns and colors, before moving on to the meaning afterwards.

“We know that our memories are not exact replicas of the things we originally experienced,” said study lead author Juan Linde Domingo. “Memory is a reconstructive process, biased by personal knowledge and world views – sometimes we even remember events that never actually happened. ”

“If our memories prioritise conceptual information, this also has consequences for how our memories change when we repeatedly retrieve them.”

“It suggests they will become more abstract and gist-like with each retrieval. Although our memories seem to appear in our ‘internal eye’ as vivid images, they are not simple snapshots from the past, but reconstructed and biased representations.”

Source: Medicalxpress.com

Continue Reading

Metaphysics & Psychology

It’s Not Your Serotonin

This article was written by Dr. Kelly Brogan, posted here with permission.

Millions believe depression is caused by ‘serotonin deficiency,’ but where is the science in support of this theory?

“Depression is a serious medical condition that may be due to a chemical imbalance, and Zoloft works to correct this imbalance.”

Herein lies the serotonin myth.

As one of only two countries in the world that permits direct to consumer advertising, you have undoubtedly been subjected to promotion of the “cause of depression.” A cause that is not your fault, but rather; a matter of too few little bubbles passing between the hubs in your brain! Don’t add that to your list of worries, though, because there is a convenient solution awaiting you at your doctor’s office…

What if I told you that, in 6 decades of research, the serotonin (or norepinephrine, or dopamine) theory of depression and anxiety has not achieved scientific credibility?

You’d want some supporting arguments for this shocking claim.

So, here you go:

The Science of Psychiatry is Myth

Rather than some embarrassingly reductionist, one-deficiency-one-illness-one-pill model of mental illness, contemporary exploration of human behavior has demonstrated that we may know less than we ever thought we did.  And that what we do know about root causes of mental illness seems to have more to do with the concept of evolutionary mismatch than with genes and chemical deficiencies.

In fact, a meta-analysis of over 14,000 patients and Dr. Insel, head of the NIMH, had this to say:

“Despite high expectations, neither genomics nor imaging has yet impacted the diagnosis or treatment of the 45 million Americans with serious or moderate mental illness each year.”

To understand what imbalance is, we must know what balance looks like, and neuroscience, to date, has not characterized the optimal brain state, nor how to even assess for it.

A New England Journal of Medicine review on Major Depression, stated:

” … numerous studies of norepinephrine and serotonin metabolites in plasma, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid as well as postmortem studies of the brains of patients with depression, have yet to identify the purported deficiency reliably.”

The data has poked holes in the theory and even the field of psychiatry itself is putting down its sword. One of my favorite essays by Lacasse and Leo has compiled sentiments from influential thinkers in the field – mind you, these are conventional clinicians and researchers in mainstream practice – who have broken rank, casting doubt on the entirety of what psychiatry has to offer around antidepressants:

Humble Origins of a Powerful Meme

In the 1950s, reserpine, initially introduced to the US market as an anti-seizure medication, was noted to deplete brain serotonin stores in subjects, with resultant lethargy and sedation. These observations colluded with the clinical note that an anti-tuberculosis medication, iproniazid, invoked mood changes after five months of treatment in 70% of a 17 patient cohort. Finally, Dr. Joseph Schildkraut threw fairy dust on these mumbles and grumbles in 1965 with his hypothetical manifesto entitled “The Catecholamine Hypothesis of Affective Disorders” stating:

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

Contextualized by the ripeness of a field struggling to establish biomedical legitimacy (beyond the therapeutic lobotomy!), psychiatry was ready for a rebranding, and the pharmaceutical industry was all too happy to partner in the effort.

Of course, the risk inherent in “working backwards” in this way (noting effects and presuming mechanisms) is that we tell ourselves that we have learned something about the body, when in fact, all we have learned is that patented synthesized chemicals have effects on our behavior. This is referred to as the drug-based model by Dr. Joanna Moncrieff. In this model, we acknowledge that antidepressants have effects, but that these effects in no way are curative or reparative.

The most applicable analogy is that of the woman with social phobia who finds that drinking two cocktails eases her symptoms. One could imagine how, in a 6 week randomized trial, this “treatment” could be found efficacious and recommended for daily use and even prevention of symptoms. How her withdrawal symptoms after 10 years of daily compliance could lead those around her to believe that she “needed” the alcohol to correct an imbalance. This analogy is all too close to the truth.

Running With Broken Legs

Psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Carlat has said:

“And where there is a scientific vacuum, drug companies are happy to insert a marketing message and call it science. As a result, psychiatry has become a proving ground for outrageous manipulations of science in the service of profit.”

So, what happens when we let drug companies tell doctors what science is? We have an industry and a profession working together to maintain a house of cards theory in the face of contradictory evidence.

We have a global situation in which increases in prescribing are resulting in increases in severity of illness (including numbers and length of episodes) relative to those who have never been treated with medication.

To truly appreciate the breadth of evidence that states antidepressants are ineffective and unsafe, we have to get behind the walls that the pharmaceutical companies erect. We have to unearth unpublished data, data that they were hoping to keep in the dusty catacombs.

A now famous 2008 study in the New England Journal of Medicine by Turner et al sought to expose the extent of this data manipulation. They demonstrated that, from 1987 to 2004, 12 antidepressants were approved based on 74 studies. Thirty-eight were positive, and 37 of these were published.  Thirty-six were negative (showing no benefit), and 3 of these were published as such while 11 were published with a positive spin(always read the data not the author’s conclusion!), and 22 were unpublished.

In 1998 tour de force, Dr. Irving Kirsch, an expert on the placebo effect, published a metaanalysis of 3,000 patients who were treated with antidepressants, psychotherapy, placebo, or no treatment and found that only 27% of the therapeutic response was attributable to the drug’s action.

This was followed up by a 2008 review, which invoked the Freedom of Information Act to obtain access to unpublished studies, finding that, when these were included, antidepressants outperformed placebo in only 20 of 46 trials (less than half!), and that the overall difference between drugs and placebos was 1.7 points on the 52 point Hamilton Scale.  This small increment is clinically insignificant, and likely accounted for by medication side effects strategically employed (sedation or activation).

When active placebos were used, the Cochrane database found that differences between drugs and placebos disappeared, given credence to the assertion that inert placebos inflate perceived drug effects.

The finding of tremendous placebo effect in the treatment groups was also echoed in two different meta-analyses by Khan et al who found a 10% difference between placebo and antidepressant efficacy, and comparable suicide rates. The most recent trial examining the role of “expectancy” or belief in antidepressant effect, found that patients lost their perceived benefit if they believed that they might be getting a sugar pill even if they were continued on their formerly effective treatment dose of Prozac.

The largest, non-industry funded study, costing the public $35 million dollars, followed 4000 patients treated with Celexa (not blinded, so they knew what they were getting), and found that half of them improved at 8 weeks. Those that didn’t were switched to Wellbutrin, Effexor, or Zoloft OR “augmented” with Buspar or Wellbutrin.

Guess what? It didn’t matter what was done, because they remitted at the same unimpressive rate of 18-30% regardless with only 3% of patients in remission at 12 months.

How could it be that medications like Wellbutrin, which purportedly primarily disrupt dopamine signaling, and medications like Stablon which theoretically enhances the reuptake of serotonin, both work to resolve this underlying imbalance? Why would thyroid, benzodiazepines, beta blockers, and opiates also “work”? And what does depression have in common with panic disorder, phobias, OCD, eating disorders, and social anxiety that all of these diagnoses would warrant the same exact chemical fix?

Alternative options

As a holistic clinician, one of my bigger pet peeves is the use of amino acids and other nutraceuticals with  “serotonin-boosting” claims. These integrative practitioners have taken a page from the allopathic playbook and are seeking to copy-cat what they perceive antidepressants to be doing.

The foundational “data” for the modern serotonin theory of mood utilizes tryptophan depletion methods which involve feeding volunteers amino acid mixtures without tryptophan and are rife with complicated interpretations.

Simply put, there has never been a study that demonstrates that this intervention causes mood changes in any patients who have not been treated with antidepressants.

In an important paper entitled Mechanism of acute tryptophan depletion: Is it only serotonin?, van Donkelaar et al caution clinicians and researchers about the interpretation of tryptophan research. They clarify that there are many potential effects of this methodology, stating:

“In general, several findings support the fact that depression may not be caused solely by an abnormality of 5-HT function, but more likely by a dysfunction of other systems or brain regions modulated by 5-HT or interacting with its dietary precursor. Similarly, the ATD method does not seem to challenge the 5-HT system per se, but rather triggers 5HT-mediated adverse events.”

So if we cannot confirm the role of serotonin in mood and we have good reason to believe that antidepressant effect is largely based on belief, then why are we trying to “boost serotonin”?

Causing imbalances

All you have to do is spend a few minutes on http://survivingantidepressants.org/or http://beyondmeds.com/ to appreciate that we have created a monster. Millions of men, women, and children the world over are suffering, without clinical guidance (because this is NOT a part of medical training) to discontinue psychiatric meds. I have been humbled, as a clinician who seeks to help these patients, by what these medications are capable of. Psychotropic withdrawal can make alcohol and heroin detox look like a breeze.

An important analysis by the former director of the NIMH makes claims that antidepressants “create perturbations in neurotransmitter functions” causing the body to compensate through a series of adaptations which occur after “chronic administration” leading to brains that function, after a few weeks, in a way that is “qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the normal state.”

Changes in beta-adrenergic receptor density, serotonin autoreceptor sensitivity, and serotonin turnover all struggle to compensate for the assault of the medication.

Andrews, et al., calls this “oppositional tolerance,” and demonstrate through a careful meta-analysis of 46 studies demonstrating that patient’s risk of relapse is directly proportionate to how “perturbing” the medication is, and is always higher than placebo (44.6% vs 24.7%). They challenge the notion that findings of decreased relapse on continued medication represent anything other than drug-induced response to discontinuation of a substance to which the body has developed tolerance. They go a step further to add:

“For instance, in naturalistic studies, unmedicated patients have much shorter episodes, and better long-term prospects, than medicated patients. Several of these studies have found that the average duration of an untreated episode of major depression is 12–13 weeks.”

Harvard researchers also concluded that at least fifty percent of drug-withdrawn patients relapsed within 14 months. In fact:

“Long-term antidepressant use may be depressogenic . . . it is possible that antidepressant agents modify the hardwiring of neuronal synapses (which) not only render antidepressants ineffective but also induce a resident, refractory depressive state.”

So, when your doctor says, “You see, look how sick you are, you shouldn’t have stopped that medication,” you should know that the data suggests that your symptoms are withdrawal, not relapse.

Longitudinal studies demonstrate poor functional outcomes for those treated with 60% of patients still meeting diagnostic criteria at one year (despite transient improvement within the first 3 months). When baseline severity is controlled for, two prospective studies support a worse outcome in those prescribed medication:

One in which the never-medicated group experienced a 62% improvement by six months, whereas the drug-treated patients experienced only a 33% reduction in symptoms, and another WHO study of depressed patients in 15 cities which found that, at the end of one year, those who weren’t exposed to psychotropic medications enjoyed much better “general health”; that their depressive symptoms were much milder”; and that they were less likely to still be “mentally ill.” 

I’m not done yet. In a retrospective 10-year study in the Netherlands, 76% of those with unmedicated depression recovered without relapse relative to 50% of those treated.

Unlike the mess of contradictory studies around short-term effects, there are no comparable studies that show a better outcome in those prescribed antidepressants long term.

First Do No Harm

So, we have a half-baked theory in a vacuum of science that that pharmaceutical industry raced to fill. We have the illusion of short-term efficacy and assumptions about long-term safety. But are these medications actually killing people?

The answer is yes.

Unequivocally, antidepressants cause suicidal and homicidal behavior. The Russian Roulette of patients vulnerable to these “side effects” is only beginning to be elucidated and may have something to do with genetic variants around metabolism of these chemicals.  Dr. David Healy has worked tirelessly to expose the data that implicates antidepressants in suicidality and violence, maintaining a database for reporting, writing, and lecturing about cases of medication-induced death that could make your soul wince.

What about our most vulnerable?

I have countless patients in my practice who report new onset of suicidal ideation within weeks of starting an antidepressant. In a population where there are only 2 randomized trials, I have grave concerns about postpartum women who are treated with antidepressants before more benign and effective interventions such as dietary modification and thyroid treatment. Hold your heart as you read through these reportsof women who took their own and their childrens’ lives while treated with medications.

Then there is the use of these medications in children as young as 2 years old. How did we ever get the idea that this was a safe and effective treatment for this demographic? Look no further than data like Study 329, which cost Glaxo Smith Klein 3 billion dollars for their efforts to promote antidepressants to children. These efforts required ghost-written and manipulated data that suppressed a signal of suicidality, falsely represented Paxil as outperforming placebo, and contributes to an irrepressible mountain of harmdone to our children by the field of psychiatry.

RIP Monoamine Theory

As Moncrieff and Cohen so succinctly state:

“Our analysis indicates that there are no specific antidepressant drugs, that most of the short-term effects of antidepressants are shared by many other drugs, and that long-term drug treatment with antidepressants or any other drugs has not been shown to lead to long-term elevation of mood. We suggest that the term “antidepressant” should be abandoned.”

So, where do we turn?

The field of psychoneuroimmunology dominates the research as an iconic example of how medicine must surpass its own simplistic boundaries if we are going to begin to chip away at the some 50% of Americans who will struggle with mood symptoms, 11% of whom will be medicated for it.

There are times in our evolution as a cultural species when we need to unlearn what we think we know. We have to move out of the comfort of certainty and into the freeing light of uncertainty. It is from this space of acknowledged unknowing that we can truly grow. From my vantage point, this growth will encompass a sense of wonder – both a curiosity about what symptoms of mental illness may be telling us about our physiology and spirit, as well as a sense of humbled awe at all that we do not yet have the tools to appreciate. For this reason, honoring our co-evolution with the natural world, and sending the body a signal of safety through movement, diet, meditation, and environmental detoxification represents our most primal and most powerful tool for healing.


Learn more by taking Dr. Kelly Brogan’s E-Course Vital Mind Reset.

GreenMedInfo LLC. . This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC.  Where it first originally appeared. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”


Dr. Brogan is boarded in Psychiatry/Psychosomatic Medicine/Reproductive Psychiatry and Integrative Holistic Medicine, and practices Functional Medicine, a root-cause approach to illness as a manifestation of multiple-interrelated systems. After studying Cognitive Neuroscience at M.I.T., and receiving her M.D. from Cornell University, she completed her residency and fellowship at Bellevue/NYU. She is one of the nation’s only physicians with perinatal psychiatric training who takes a holistic evidence-based approach in the care of patients with a focus on environmental medicine and nutrition. She is also a mom of two, and an active supporter of women’s birth experience. She is the Medical Director for Fearless Parent, and an advisory board member for GreenMedInfo.comVisit her website.

Source link

Continue Reading

Metaphysics & Psychology

Candace Owens Responds To Black Students Who Feel They’re Oppressed

  • The Facts:Candace Owens, a political activist, explains how some movements, like Black Lives Matter, are being used by the elite for a means to a political end. She explains important nuances about victim mentality that we all can truly consider.
  • Reflect On:Can we see how the current climate regarding racism, sexism, and other matters of contention are predominantly falsified narratives that are actually preventing us from coming together and growing?

Candace Owens is known as an American commentator and political activist. She is well known for her criticism of Black Lives Matter as well as the Democratic party. She is the Director of Communications at the conservative advocacy group Turning Point USA. In a recent talk she was giving to black youth (see video below), she responded this way to a disruptive group of audience members that represented Black Lives Matter:

I have yet to meet an Asian-American that walks around talking about the internment camps, and yet you will always find a black person talking about slavery…What is happening in the black community right now is, there is an ideological civil war happening. Black people that are focused on their past shouting about slavery and black people that are focused on their futures, ok? That’s really what it comes down to.

I can guarantee you what you’re seeing happening is victim mentality vs victor mentality…Victim mentality is not cool, I don’t know why people like being oppressed…, “we’re oppressed…four hundred years of slavery, Jim Crow…” which, by the way, none of you guys lived through, your grandparents did, and it’s embarrassing that you utilize their history and you come in here with more emotion than they ever had when they were living through it. It’s embarrassing, you’re not living through anything right now, you’re overly privileged Americans…I’m so ashamed at the way you guys are acting and the fact that you love being oppressed, I don’t get it…You’re not going to ever make me think that oppression is cool.

Trying To Help People Break The Illusion

She is trying to help the black community, and references the Black Lives Matter movement as an example of promoting a victim mentality. She states that these members are pawns for the Democratic Party and that they don’t even realize it, while in the process they are ruining their lives for something they don’t understand and which is “fundamentally false.”

It’s not hard to see how these movements have been used as a political ploy, in the same sense Russia has been used with regards to hacking the election, ultimately to slander and discredit Donald Trump. It’s a false accusation many have bought into it.

I’m not even going to go into the Democratic Party at this time, more specifically the DNC which has participated in unfathomable corruption to the point where they should not be associated with Democrats or Republicans at all.

Candace is truly a breath of fresh air, and her message is something Collective Evolution has been writing about for a long time. A victimhood complex does absolutely nothing positive, and benefits nobody unless the victims are trying to use that complex as some sort of means to an end. That’s why we see this so much in our politics, which is infused with fraud and corruption and operates mainly in self-interest rather than for the benefit of all.

Others just seem to love taking on that role and jumping on the bandwagon, without even thinking about it. What’s worse is that these groups have tremendous support from mainstream media, which means the populace and the masses will follow with that perception.

Is this our domain of change? If so, if we keep participating in it every single year it doesn’t seem that it’s going to benefit anybody.

Movements Co-Opted By The Establishment

I believe movements like Black Lives Matter, as well as others like the Me Too movement, may have started out for noble reasons, but were easily co-opted to be used by the establishment in ways that divide people.

The War On Terror, for example, is a war that’s been exposed as being based on false premises. While terrorism to some extent exists, the connection between these ‘terrorist’ groups and rogue parts of our government and intelligence agencies, as well as the whole entire western military industrial complex, is strong. The war on terror is used politically to impose our will on others. 9/11 is a perfect example, and so is what’s transpired in Syria.

Our hearts are used and sparked to support movements like this, but if you really look at the outcomes, they ultimately do nothing but create more chaos and division. The polarities in these movements are not what they are presented to be, but created by those who cause chaos in order to propose their brand of solution. Without these problems existing, the United States would not be able to set up hundreds of military bases around the world and impose their political will on other governments.

Another example is the Black Panthers Movement, which has a long history of infiltration by intelligence agencies, in order to further spread more hate, separation and chaos. Any of these things create conflict, and justify a heightened national security state, among other things. It’s well known that the American government actually hired black people to infiltrate these movements, not only to find out more and shut it down, but to stir up conflict as well and create issues within it as well, not to mention using racism like they’ve used religion.

The Black Lives matter is no different in this sense: it’s not about equality and fairness, it’s something that’s beamed out and supported by the mainstream media in order to fulfill a political agenda, and also to create further divide amongst people. Such movements eventually are driven by the same hate, anger and attitudes as that which they claim they are fighting against.

The Rise Of Identity Politics

One profound strategy on the part of the establishment was to learn about and promote identity politics, which has served and continues to serve many useful purposes for them. Here is a quote from Mark Crispin, a professor of media studies from New York University:

It’s interesting to note that Ford and Rockefeller and the other foundations with strong CIA connections started giving grants in the early 70s to study race and gender. It was a sudden move towards identity politics by these organisations and the theory is that the reason they did this was to balkanize the left and to prevent it from pursuing any kind of a class or economic analysis. (source)

Another important point made by Crispin is that rather than empowering a ‘class’ identity which supports unity, major academic institutions are instructed to promote the primacy of race and gender, to ensure that the establishment’s agenda of ‘polarization’ is always fuelled.

New York University (NYU), one of the most prestigious and expensive institutions in the United States, likes to present itself as liberal and “diverse,” and as an “institution without walls.” Many of the school’s departments, including history, sociology or anthropology, count leading representatives of postmodernism and identity politics among their faculty, and the promotion of race and gender as having primacy over class is, in many ways, the official school ideology.

However, behind this surface of “diversity” lie extensive ties to big business, the Democratic Party and the military. As this series will demonstrate, NYU is now closely integrated into the preparations for war against both Russia and China, and, along with that, in the efforts of both the state and the major corporations to conduct mass surveillance and censor free speech on the Internet.

It’s a common tactic the global elite use, they take our good hearts and our desire for a better world, and use us as pawns to further prevent us from getting there. (source)

So you can see, there is a big issue to be discussed here that’s hardly ever talked about, yet alone known, by those who support these movements, many of whom may be operating from a good place within. Jordan Peterson from the University of Toronto takes the side of Candace Owens for bringing attention to this mindset which he feels the universities should take much of the blame for:

Candace is commenting about the danger of adopting a victimization oppressor narrative, and it’s a narrative that the hard left has really been pushing, everyone successful is an oppressor, and everyone else is a moral victim. To look at the world through a group identity lens, puts us back in a tribal situation and will produce conflicts…Candace is objecting to that, and rightly so, it’s an unbelievably pernicious ideology, and the universities are to blame for distributing it in large part. (source)

Does Racism Even Exist?

Does racism exist today? Sure it does, but it’s not nearly as bad as it’s made out to be by mainstream media. People are not becoming enraged due to their own experience, but rather in-raged from what they are constantly viewing on television. Racism in our world is not at all comparable to what it once was. Being a minority myself, I have never experienced racism and I urge all those who question me to think about how many times in their own lives they’ve experienced oppression. Legit oppression, not something that’s speculative.

Racism is also a learned behaviour, the only reason why some people are racist towards Muslims, for example, is because they think some are terrorists. Again, we all know where that narrative comes from.

Here’s a great quote from Richard Enos, a colleague here at CE. I retrieved it from an article he published regarding the Antifa topic.

I personally don’t know of anyone who supports White Nationalists, White Supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, or other hate groups. Ideally, we should be completely ignoring any violent groups with such extremist ideologies. But there is a reason we have a hard time doing so. It is because it is these groups that get to star in the mainstream media circus and in the political discourse, at the exclusion of the vast majority of citizens who are moderate, reasonable, and have legitimate grievances. Isn’t it farcical that we are still talking about the Ku Klux Klan? That they still supposedly ‘exist’ on their archaic agenda?

To be perfectly honest, I’m not even sure if many of the people that go out to protest and counter-protest in public are necessarily ardent supporters of their respective group’s fundamental ideologies. I believe many are paid mercenaries. Others may be looking for an opportunity to vent their own suppressed anger.

We live in a world full of opportunity, and to assume everybody who is not part of your ‘race’ in a higher position is constantly scheming against you and not providing you with opportunity is ridiculous. Again, this does not mean racism does not exist in our world, but the extent it’s been taken too is completely false and ridiculous.

The prison system, for example, might be a great way to create awareness about “racism and slavery,” not pointing fingers at someone like Donald Trump who is clearly not racist.

We must start seeing how much of what the government (or in this case the deep state) is doing with regards to violent protests, and counter-protests is complicit with the way these protests are being used to prevent us from actually dealing effectively with real issues. The way black oppression is presented by the mainstream media is not a real issue, and seems to be a complete distraction. Protesters in this case might be creating problems, instead of combating them.

Programmed To Be Offended

You cannot even have a conversation with most members of these groups about it, because if you bring up this narrative, they instantaneously become offended, and are not willing to listen to nor think about what you have to say. Founder of Collective Evolution Joe Martino wrote an article about how we’re systematically being trained to be offended by everything we see:

There is also a role being played by the Deep State and the media, who want to maintain control over the population as we become more self aware. To prevent us from raising these deeper internal questions, the focus is being brought back to the external. It’s being brought to things like race, gender, our appearance, the words we use, who’s right, who’s wrong, and who we can judge and for what reason. We’re being systematically taught how NOT to change. And it’s being done through innocent memes, articles, videos, and even loving intention at times, all lacking deeper thought.

Can we see how much of what the government is doing with regards to violent protests and counter-protests is complicit with the way these protests are being used to prevent us from dealing effectively with the real issues?

Perpetuated By Media

The only reason so many people are talking about problems of racism is because most of mainstream media has perpetuated it. A statement from Morgan Freeman comes to mind here, one of the best ways to combat racism is to stop talking about it. We need to stop referring to people as black, white, Jewish, etc, and simply refer to them as human beings.

Making gender, race, and other factors like these highly significant is a tool for the global elite to continue to their campaign of massive perception manipulation. They’ve even used religion as an excuse to prolong war, maintaining control while putting money and in their own pockets. This is evident by the ongoing promotion through mainstream media of the supposedly organic, self-created ‘Islamic State,’ which in fact is a pure creation of investment dollars, equipment, and training by the CIA and the western military alliance. Have we finally figured out that these rich, well-funded groups are not grassroots organizations that represent some kind of domestic agenda?

Time To Drop The Polarities

The truth is, with regards to any issue in your life, if you have an “us and them” mentality you will not progress, but instead will only create more hardships in your own life, and a response from an opposing side, thus creating more opposing views. Life begins when we start looking at our hardships as opportunities for growth and development. What’s worse is that a lot of these hardships that many are apparently facing in America, don’t even exist as we are made to believe they do.

The world is full of wonderful people, and today, most of these people are not racist, and are very accepting. Ask yourself, how many racist people have you met in your own life, and how often have you experienced racism? We must be careful in our advocacy for quality among different races/genders, as our minds are constantly manipulated about the issue. In fact, we must be suspicious of ALL attempts to make us ‘choose sides,’ to engage in the fight, to identify with a certain polarity. Below is video of Joe going into some important points a little deeply with regards to political labels and race issues.

The Takeaway

The takeaway here is to recognize how media is trying to manipulate us and use race and gender issues to simply further their agenda. What’s worse is that our own hearts and our own perception is constantly manipulated, and people are somewhat brainwashed while at the same time being inspired to get involved in something they believe is a just cause.

How much of what we do is dictated by the media? How many of our beliefs are generated by mainstream media when it comes to certain issues and events? How much do the global elite actually care about these issues, when they seem to only be using them for political gain and reputation-bashing?

While racism and sexism are not to be condoned, our world is not as violent, racist, and sexist as it’s made out to be in 2019. This is a perception fostered by mainstream media for a certain agenda, and the more widely we realize this, the less power the establishment will have over our perception.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending