I go back to this statement a lot because I’m passionate about it: the UFO phenomenon, and its relationship with the reality of extraterrestrials, is a consciousness shifting moment for humanity that has the power to change how we live our lives. It may not be immediately obvious why that’s the case, but when you consider the change to our worldview in and amongst the technologies that come with this phenomenon, nothing would be the same.
What Happened: For the reasons above you can imagine that many are sensing how near the public discussion of the reality of ETs really is. The Society of Catholic Scientists (SCS), an organization that believes science and faith can work well together, is going to be holding a conference in Washington D.C. on the subject of non-human intelligence.
The conference is titled “Extraterrestrials, AI, and Minds Beyond the Human” and will take place from June 4-6, 2021.
The conference will feature discussion from experts on the topics of extraterrestrial life as well as artificial intelligences. The possibility of extraterrestrial life will be presented from the fields of study including – astrophysics, astrochemistry, evolutionary biology, and Catholic theology. It was unclear to me whether current evidence from credible witnesses will be presented or whether this is strictly based on a scientific hypothesis. This distinction is key as the likelihood of ET life, as limited by the study of scientific models, does not necessarily provide all the the available evidence that dramatically changes the reality based on what we currently know.
“There’ll be 13 talks. Half of the talks are going to be about extraterrestrial life, and there’s going to be talks by some big experts on that subject,” Dr. Stephen Barr, president of the Society of Catholic Scientists
The speakers will include Jonathan Lunine, director of the Cornell Center for Astrophysics and Planetary Science; Karin Öberg, professor of Astronomy and director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University; Simon Conway Morris, chair of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge; and Christopher Baglow, director of the Science and Religion Initiative of the McGrath Institute for Church Life of the University of Notre Dame.
“There’s a lot of excitement because in recent years astronomers have discovered large numbers of planets orbiting other nearby stars. They could learn a lot about these planets – how far they are from the star, how big the planet is, even things about the chemistry of the planet in some cases.” Dr. Stephen Barr
Why It Matters: It appears that various institutions, even one’s where the reality of ETs might not easily fit into their existing theology, are starting to take the ET discussion seriously enough to begin engaging with their communities about it. This is likely because mainstream discussion around the topic has become significant, and the evidence we’re learning about continues to mount. If you’re not lending serious inquiry to this subject yet, it might be a good time to start exploring. It’s no longer culturally considered ‘a conspiracy theory.’
The Takeaway: As we’ve reported on for many years, the reality of this phenomenon inches closer to mainstream public acceptance. While this doesn’t mean we will know every detail, it means we will have a much greater idea of what’s been happening in this field for many decades now. This does also mean that if we are told the totality of what is known, we’ll understand not only that non human life is almost 100% real, but that governments and intelligence agencies have known for many decades. For some, dealing with the shock of not only the existence of ET life but also that governments knowingly kept it secret may feel like a lot. To others, this will be a welcome sense of relief. Curiosity and playfulness can take us a long way in collectively gaining clarity in our world, but we have to be careful not to become too rigid in any narrative we choose to play with.
On April 16th Ontario premier Doug Ford announced stricter lockdown measures, including that Ontario police, both provincial and municipal, will have the power to stop citizens and ask them where they are going in order to find out if their travel outside their home is essential or whether they may be attending a social gathering. If this sounds draconian to you, you’re certainly no alone. And the police seem to think so too.
As of the evening of April 17th, just one day later, 39 or 44 municipal police departments in Ontario have stated they will not comply with this measure and stop citizens to ask where they are going. However, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) have remained onboard with the measures on social media. The tally came from investigative reporter Andrew Lawton who took it upon himself to hear from departments themselves.
Also important: It’s clear from my inbox that the OPP’s commitment to increased enforcement did not extend to all communities in which the OPP is the municipal police force. I heard from several who said they were going to have no part in this. Only the OPP brass were, it seems.
Since the rejection, the Ontario government has begun changing it’s mind on the measure:
BREAKING: The Ontario government is backtracking on allowing police to randomly and without cause stop and question people for not being at home (after 39/45 Ontario police agencies said they wouldn’t do it). pic.twitter.com/ivKhACm2Uq
Why It Matters: This is a great example of how power is only enforced when people participate. In this case, if law enforcement went through with this, ‘the people’ wouldn’t have much of an obvious way to resist these measures, but when law enforcement denies draconian measures like this, the power the government has is restricted significantly.
Early this morning I was speaking to a fellow journalist here at CE talking about how for most people working on the police force, this measure would probably feel like one of the first times they very obviously had to ‘take things too far.’ To see only 12 hours later that the vast majority of police are standing up to this is a good sign that enforcers of rules are open to questioning their government. In my opinion, I hope this trend continues.
I also found it interesting to note that holding government accountable used to be something mainstream media would do, but now they only seem complicit in going along with government. Independent media now is tasked with the job, all while they face funding challenges and claims from mainstream and social media that independent media is not trustworthy.
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again, there is ample evidence to support a completely different approach to treating COVID-19, yet it’s being ignored. We would likely not need any lockdowns, expensive drugs or vaccines if we used these treatments – and this might be exactly why they are not being talked about. That being said, there’s a lot of data already published showing lockdowns are already not only ineffective, but harmful.
What Happened: Last week the World Health Organization (WHO) updated its guidelines on COVID-19 and the drugs that go with treating it. A drug we’ve reported on in Dec 2020 called Ivermectin, shows via meta-analysis that an 81% drop in mortality was seen in those treated with ivermectin instead of standard care. This also came with a 64% decrease in hospitalizations. These are powerful numbers given what’s happening in our world with COVID, yet the WHO still refuses to endorse ivermectin as it feels confidence is low in how effective ivermectin might be.
“The issue with the Ivermectin is that based on initial study and the currently available data, it is not strong enough for us to advocate the use of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID or prevention of COVID,” said WHO representative to the Philippines Rabindra Abeyasinghe.
He further goes on to state that without strong evidence they might be providing false confidence to the public. Interestingly, the WHO has no problem recommending highly experimental and not fully proven vaccines to the public, with no fear of giving them overconfidence. Why is this the case?
Why It Matters: Ivermectin is not a new drug that we know little about. To date, there have been 49 studies looking at the drug, and 26 of them were randomized controlled trials, showing that ivermectin works to treat COVID-19.
Back in December of 2020, multiple physician specialists were urging the CDC to look at Ivermectin as they had clinically seen it was a powerful treatment for COVID-19, yet this fell on deaf ears.
The pooled results of Ivermectin/COVID studies show an 80% improvement when used early, 89% when used as prophylaxis, and even a 50% improvement at late stages of contraction. You might be wondering why such a safe, long used and well understood drug is not being used while experimental vaccines are – you are right to wonder this. In the US, the FDA has not yet approved the vaccines and no vaccine company will be held liable for damages caused to citizens. Of course, unlike ivermectin, the vaccines also have zero long term safety studies associated with them.
William C. Campbell and Satoshi ?mura discovered ivermectin as a cure to river blindness and received a Nobel Prize for their work in 2015. Here is an excerpt from the press release of the Nobel Assembly:
“Today the Avermectin-derivative Ivermectin is used in all parts of the world that are plagued by parasitic diseases. Ivermectin is highly effective against a range of parasites, has limited side effects and is freely available across the globe. The importance of Ivermectin for improving the health and wellbeing of millions of individuals with River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, primarily in the poorest regions of the world, is immeasurable. Treatment is so successful that these diseases are on the verge of eradication, which would be a major feat in the medical history of humankind.”
Disease eradicated without vaccines? Interesting. Perhaps COVID’s story could be the same if there was greater coverage.
The Takeaway: There are a number of treatments that are promising in treating COVID-19, and quickly, supplements like vitamin D or effective doses of IV Vitamin C, but instead mainstream consensus is to ignore these treatments, cast doubt on them, throw a mask on everyone and urge people to take experimental vaccines. When people question why this is the case and why other treatments are being ignored, they are gaslit and called conspiracy theorists.
Hypocrisy is apparent in our current situation, and while not everything is certain and clear when it comes to COVID-19, what is clear is that there is a lack of honesty and transparency around why certain decisions are made, and people are noticing.
As we’ve said before, lack of trust in governing institutions is not the result of crazy online conspiracies, it’s the result of people becoming more aware of actions being taken by these institutions that don’t make sense.
The WHO lists ivermectin as one of its Model List of Essential Medicines for 2019 as it is so effective against parasitic infections and has a long standing track record of safety, yet all of a sudden we can’t use it against COVID. To not ask why this is happening might be irresponsible.
In society right now, we’re not having open and honest conversations, and it’s driving division like we’ve never seen before. Allow me to explain. People have a great deal of questions regarding COVID-19, and those questions are not honestly being explored in mass culture. And while some of the doubts and questions are in fact unfounded and perhaps paranoid, other questions are founded in science or are at least very grounded inquiry – so why are ALL questions being painted with the “unhinged conspiracy” brush?
For example, people are wondering why COVID treatments like Ivermectin or HCQ are not being focused on more, leaving the only treatment option a vaccine. If the pandemic is indeed so bad as we’re told, why wouldn’t we be excited about treatment options that have been shown to work? Why are we not giving mainstream media platforms to doctors and scientists who are urging governments to these well studied treatments? As more and more people witness denial or censorship of these options, they begin to turn to conspiracy because they cannot understand why they are being told there is a deadly disease all while being told we can’t use treatments that aren’t a vaccine.
Then as we see measures on people’s freedoms increase, the emotions fly as people don’t feel heard in raising questions in the overall narrative.
As of March 31st, a negative COVID test is now required for citizens of Berlin to enter into non essential shops. This measure also applies to visits to the hairdresser or museums, but not to essential businesses like supermarkets, pharmacies or drugstores.
In early March 2021, and agreement between the German federal government and its states allowed eased restrictions providing COVID case levels stayed below the metric of 100 new infections per 100,000 within 7 days. Right now in Berlin the value has sits at about 138.6 and has for several days. There is still a lack of clarity around how many of these cases are asymptomatic.
The way this functions is when you go to visit a store that requires a test, you must have proof of a negative COVID test in hand in order to enter or be serviced.
Germany also will now require travellers to present a negative COVID test for entry into the country.
Why It Matters:
Greater surveillance and measures are coming in ways we likely could have only imagined in sci-fi movies. While humans can sometimes be reluctant to change, that at first sounds bad, but ends up being good later on. When it comes to much of the COVID measures we’ve seen, I’m not sure people want to get comfortable with what’s being presented. While the promises of a return to normal are there, the goalpost seems to always be pushed, while other ‘experts’ claim normal will never be seen again.
What happens in one major city in the world tends to be a case study for what might come to other cities around the world. This can actually be a very positive thing when testing out new ideas, but in the case of COVID measures, people are feeling that a tested measure in one country means a loss of freedom in their own in a few weeks to come. This reveals that people don’t want a loss to their freedoms, which is normal, so the question we must come back to: is the danger of the virus or threat to our systems worth the measures we’re taking? A big question of course. But even bigger might be, if the systems are at such a threat, perhaps the systems are not resilient and haven’t been for a long time. After all, can we really say that ‘normal’ was creating a thriving and healthy world? I personally don’t think so.
Those that feel the virus presents a serious danger might ask, shouldn’t we be giving up our freedoms for the safety of all people? And this is where the frustration begins between differing perspectives as not all of us have heard the same information about COVID and thus see it as something different. We don’t have an agreed upon set of facts about things PCR testing, asymptomatic spread of COVID, treatments for COVID-19 and so on. – this is the case not just with everyday citizens but with experts also.
Based on evidence we might have each explored, there are some people in any given community who feel COVID is extremely dangerous, and others who feel it’s similar, but more intense, than a seasonal flu. How are those two sets of people supposed to communicate when the foundation for their discussion is completely different? Are we even recognizing how each other feels and where our ideas came from when we have these debates?
The events playing out at an everyday level invite a deeper inquiry into how our decisions are made and how our world functions. Inevitably there is complexity in all of this and judging people’s position on COVID measures is not a simple “these people are all sheep” or “these people are all conspiracy theorists”, it goes much deeper than these judgements.
Take an honest look around social media or news and you’ll notice a multitude of completely opposing, yet certain, perspectives on any given issue. Further, you might find people will tell you that they are often confused about what is true these days. Can I trust what I read online? Can I trust alternative news? Can I trust mainstream news? Are these platforms always wrong? Or maybe just sometimes? Do we really know that ‘fake news’ is fake? How can we tell?
The questions can feel dizzying, yet I feel we are seeing the result of several factors playing out, including that of a mainstream culture that has been choosing to shun important conversations for quite some time now. Of course, those who might be into more ‘fringey’ topics have a role in this too, But let me explain so we’re clear and not offending each other.
First off, we’ll get it out of the way right off the top, yes, I do feel that ‘conspiratorial’ thinking, for lack of a better word, has increased in recent years. Sometimes, the reasons for this are good, evidence based and justified – conspiracies do exist in our world. Other times however, many ideas are brought on with no evidence or poor logic, and this is a problem that some feel needs to be dealt with through force of censorship. I chronicled my specific thoughts on the damage of poor conspiratorial thinking in an essay I wrote last year called “Conspireality: Time for a Serious Conversation?”
The basic summary is that conspiracy does exist in our world today, we have evidence to back that up, but if we aren’t careful in sticking to actual evidence that exists, and instead just make wild claims, conversation will get shut down around these topics. This won’t allow mainstream and alternative ideas to converge in any way.
Second, I want to note that just because there are a few fake conspiracies out there that gained steam, it doesn’t mean all conspiracy sounding topics are false. Remember that just 6 years ago someone would have laughed at you for believing UFOs are real – yet the US Navy has recently confirmed that they are in fact real. Following that admission comes further dialogue and exploration of evidence that we do have. This dialogue requires openness and mutual respect, something that didn’t exist prior to the mainstream telling some people it was OK for them to now believe in UFOs.
Were those ‘unhinged conspiracy theorists’ wrong in presenting the evidence they had that UFOs were real 6 years ago? No, we just weren’t willing to listen and were relying on a heavily bias mainstream culture to tell us what’s true.
NBC Journalist Bares All
So let’s take a quick look at some recent comments from a widely known mainstream media personality Lester Holt, who’s the anchor of NBC’s Nightly News. On March 30th, during his acceptance speech after receiving the Edward R. Murrow Award for Lifetime Achievement in Journalism, Holt stated:
“Decisions to not give unsupported arguments equal time are not a dereliction of journalistic responsibility or some kind of agenda, in fact, it’s just the opposite.”
“Imagine, if you would, what the pandemic would look like without the media holding leaders to account for vaccines rollouts or countering harmful misinformation or why some communities are being left behind,”
The irony, a journalist receiving a lifetime achievement award in journalism for breaking the number one rule in journalism: objectivity – and perhaps holding government and big corporations accountable.
The interesting part here is Holt likely does not believe he is breaking these rules. More than likely he feels it’s absolutely the right thing to do to not give platform to misinformation. I don’t doubt his intentions. This exercise of empathizing with someones perspective is something we have to continually practice before we go on attacking people for what WE think their beliefs and intentions are.
What I do doubt in Holt’s intentions is how he, and mainstream media in general, decides what is misinformation and what is not. This process has long seemed unclear to me.
Why should we not give platform to a doctor who feels COVID-19 tests may not be accurate, if they, in fact, may not be accurate? Why should we not give platform to scientific studies that bring into question the effectiveness of lockdowns if those lockdowns are not only harming people’s lives greatly but may in fact not be useful? Are we really to pretend that ideas that descent from mainstream worldview are not fact based all of the time? Or are we just working to protect our fragile mainstream worldviews?
6 years ago, should we not have investigated and pressed government to release UFO information because it was a well known conspiracy that was commonly laughed off by journalists, academics and politicians? We were told many times over the last 12 years that we shared ‘UFO misinformation’ when we wrote about the issue. But was that information really wrong? It’s funny now to see how many mainstream and alternative news sources are suddenly investing heavily in covering the subject – as if now that it’s OK to talk about UFOs. Mainstream sites like the New York Times or newcomers like The Drive are now the authority.
The key here is, if you’ve been ridiculed in the past, when you’re shown to be right, it doesn’t matter, the damage has already been done.
What about vaccines? Steam is gaining around certain issues associated with vaccines, issues that could be widely admitted as common knowledge only 3 or 4 years from now, so should we ignore all doctors and scientists who raise scientifically validated concern about vaccines simply because mainstream media and its hosts believe its misinformation? Who are they to say? Why do they trust some experts but not others? When this information is eventually widely known, are we then going to say The New York Times is now the authority on the issue even though they were wrong for decades?
You can very quickly see where the issue is here. We can very easily build a culture of doubt around any issue that we want to be false, and how we portray it in mainstream conversation feeds that culture. Then, without a doubt, we’ll see all others fall in line with this cultural narrative without truly looking at all the facts.
It’s here where I think Holt missteps. When I probe many journalists or even doctors about whether they have looked into vaccine research that suggests they may be causing unintended illness they often tell me it has been debunked but have never looked into it themselves. When you do however, you begin to see that the vaccine issue is not one of just ‘science vs anti-science’, it’s a complex one, that we really should be openly talking about in the public eye to make sense of some glaring issues.
Instead, we’ve chosen to label those ‘other facts’ as misinformation, and give them no platform – just as mainstream award winning journalism intends.
Cornell Law School professor and media critic William A. Jacobson gave a statement to Fox News following Holt’s comments:
“In the real world, Holt’s advice simply justifies media political bias.”
Absolutely, and herein lies the hard truth: we’ve come to accept bad journalism as truth. That is to say, we’ve come to accept political bias and unbalanced inquiry into various subjects as good honest journalism, when in reality it’s subjective opinion passed off as certain truth. And look at the mess this culture is creating.
Some people distrust mainstream media because conspiracy analysts told them to, but the majority who don’t trust mainstream media don’t because they see how bad its process is. When will mainstream media take responsibility for this instead of just saying it’s unhinged conspiracy theorists that are ruining society? Sure, some poor conspiratorial thinking is happening out there, and responsibility has to be taken there too, but what’s worse is when citizens and experts have serious questions to ask and they are not addressed in mainstream dialogue because its ‘too controversial’ or doesn’t align with the agendas of pharmaceutical companies the mainstream media relies on to pay their bills.
When these conversations are censored and pushed to the fringes, that is to say ‘not given a platform,’ the level of inquiry and quality of thinking applied to these issues can sometimes suffer as less experts have the courage to weigh in and converge on ideas.
The situation we are in is one that we’re all responsible for in some way, and various camps have to really take a step back and ask how they are contributing to a culture of confusion in an age of censorship.
True objectivity in mainstream journalism is somewhat rare, we can see that in the ease at which Holt made the comments he did. His comments reveal the type of culture that exists in mainstream newsrooms, it may not be malicious as some might assume, but it’s a culture, a groupthink, and most are likely honestly doing their best.
But, as citizens not in journalism, we have an opportunity to apply objectivity whenever we like, and the world just might need this level of effort to end our current meaning crisis.
Just a few weeks ago we created a course to help empower people with the tools to become more aware of bias and improve critical thinking as we’re in a time where authoritative figures literally cannot see how their thinking and awareness is broken and the implications of this are huge as we discussed. Further, the extreme views that can sometimes be created in conspiracy circles, as a result of pushing conversations from common dialogue, has also created a mess of bad thinking.
COVID measures around the world have been a source for much debate around whether or not they are helpful in stopping the spread of COVID-19 and whether or not they are legal. Given the current state of our society, how it functions and how our economies work, lockdown measures essentially state that millions of everyday citizens in countries must forgo their wellbeing and financial standing to stop COVID all while huge corporations and banks make billions. Through the loss of rights and liberties we can see why COVID measures have been such a huge discussion with real implications for and against.
What Happened: A court in Brussels ruled that all COVID-19 measures put in place by the government must be lifted within 30 days or fines will begin. The ruling was based on the fact that there is no legal basis for these measures to be upheld.
The League for Human Rights had filed a lawsuit weeks prior, challenging Belgium’s way of implementing the COVID measures using what are called ‘Ministerial Decrees,’ which means they were put in place without any discussion from parliament.
“We believe that in view of the restrictions on fundamental freedoms imposed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, a debate in Parliament was essential, […] While restrictions on these rights and freedoms may of course be made, given the importance of the issues at stake and the need to protect the rights to life and health of individuals, they must be fair and proportionate.” The League of Human Rights stated.
As I opened this piece with, the argument here is that a holistic view of society is not being taken into consideration here, as everyday citizens ability to live life is bulldozed while big corporations are rewarded, further fuelling the ongoing discussion that government does not serve people but instead corporate interests.
The Belgian State now has 30 days to provide what law they believe they are abiding by or they must lift the measures. If they fail to provide a law and do not lift measures, they face a penalty of €5,000 per day, up to a maximum of €200,000.
The laws involved here are rather nuanced and complex. As of now, measures will stay in place as they are until the Interior Ministers office completes their review of the case. The current measures are based on the Civil Safety Act of 2007, which allow the Belgian State to move quickly during “exceptional circumstances,” however, in this case the judge has ruled that the government cannot act from Ministerial Decrees while using these laws.
The State can appeal the decision, but an appeal would not suspend the execution of the judgment.
Belgium’s Chamber is set to debate pandemic law, hoping that they can come to some sort of agreement around a more permanent legal basis for these types of society restrictions in the future.
Why It Matters: As we’ve noted with other measures around the world, what happens in one country often creates a precedent or motivation for other countries to act as well. If the COVID-19 pandemic indeed is not as large a threat as being purported by mainstream dialogue, an idea that a great deal of science does align with, then the way to come to our societal senses here might be through grassroots legal action.
Then again, can we agree on how much of a threat COVID-19 really is? What would it take to do so? Are mainstream media and big tech, both who are censoring and ridiculing those with different perspectives, actually making coming to an agreement on the threat level of COVID-19 much worse? Are they welcoming a lack of trust in mainstream institutions by refusing to address science and perspectives that oppose the measures being taken?
The Takeaway: Society must have controversial conversations in a meaningful way. We are not getting anywhere by taking authoritarian actions that harm the well being of general society and our ability to stay connected as communities. Mainstream culture is expecting everyone to side with the idea that fringe ‘conspiracy theories’ are undermining truth in society, yet mainstream culture does not want to take responsibility for its role in this phenomenon via censorship and corporate favoritism.
People want to thrive, they are tired of being constantly handed the short end of the stick as the rich get richer. It does not take long to look with open eyes and see that government is not working to serve people as much as we’d like to think.
Do you notice that you sometimes feel tired or fatigued but are not sure why? Maybe you can have a restful sleep and still wake up having a sense that your energy is not quite there? Maybe you notice yourself being reactive, having a short fuse and feeling unclear about what decisions to make? Maybe you say things to friends, family or people online that you later regret or didn’t truly mean. Much of this can have a lot to do with how we’re feeling emotionally on a regular basis. Emotions that are happening just a touch outside our conscious awareness.
Let’s just do a very quick check in to see what I mean. If you stop a take a moment right now to ask “how am I feeling?” What do you notice? Are you feeling good? Energized? Do you have a background tension? Are you a bit stressed? Annoyed? Are you relaxed and calm? Are you perhaps relaxed yet feeling blah? When we do these check ins we bring awareness to how we might be feeling. This is something we typically don’t do that often and thus are simply not consciously aware of how we feel. If we were a bit more consciously aware of how we felt, we’d have a greater understanding of what we could do to feel better as we know where we’re at.
This is important because one of the greatest unrecognized sources of prolonged stress, fatigue and physical wear and tear on our bodies comes from living our day to day lives in a state where we consciously or subconsciously experience what we might call ‘draining emotions.’ These are emotions like worry, fear, anger, resentment, or sadness etc.
For each of us, we’re likely going to experience these emotions at some point in life, and this is normal. Typically when we experience these emotions, we’re getting an insight into ourselves. Since what triggers these emotions can often be subjective, we can learn something about our current self by paying attention to these emotions. For example, someone might cut us off while we’re driving on the freeway. On one hand, one person might react aggressively and become very angry, while another might simply see it as a mistake on the part of the other driver and move on with their day.
Why some of us react and others don’t typically comes down the the story we’re telling ourselves about why that person cut you off. Perhaps they take it personally, perhaps they see it as an attack in some way – who knows? You. Only you know, and you can get closer to knowing what that is so you don’t harbour that draining emotion for the rest of the day, and even remove the trigger to begin with so you don’t necessarily have to go down that angry road every time something small like this happens.
I want to be clear here, we’re not looking to avoid emotions or never experience them, we’re looking to gain awareness around why they come, and ultimately have the choice over what gets us bothered and what might be better to simply let go. There is a difference between momentarily feeling an emotion like this, and letting it become a ‘background state’ of being that slowly begins to shape our attitude towards unhealthy and draining tendencies.
We can likely go on all day about where we should ‘honor’ some emotions in some situations or stand up for ourselves in others – I’ll let you decide that within yourself for each situation, but what the focus here in this piece is to simply look at how we can neutralize an emotional experience so we can stop it from draining all our energy and gain greater clarity on why it might be happening.
The exercise below is geared towards improving our self awareness around situations and how we feel, so we can learn to self-regulate emotions at anytime, as well as turn off triggers that might not really be the greatest to have to begin with.
Remember, we’re going to stick with a situation where we are cut off in traffic, but you can use these steps for anything. Maybe you realize you are fearful about a situation. Maybe you notice ongoing worry about something that’s happening or may happen – whatever it may be, the steps can be applied.
A Quick 3 Minute Exercise
We’ll go through the steps, this might seem long at first but it’s actually very short once you get the hang of it. This method is based on decades of scientific researching involving the heart and the benefits of creating coherence through good heart rate variability. You can learn more about that here under the section “Coherence & Optimal Function.”
1. The first step is becoming aware of the fact you’re having the emotional experience. What we’re doing here is by reading this we’re setting up a bit of an increased self awareness in our minds that can help us remember to check in when we next have an emotional reaction to something. Perhaps the car cuts us off while driving, and we react, but then shortly after we remember that we want to have a closer look at that emotional reaction and perhaps choose a different response instead of going down an energy draining rabbit hole. So the first thing we want to do is become aware that the experience is happening.
2. The next step is accepting the experience that’s happening. What this means is, if the person in front of us cuts us off while driving and we get angry and realize we’re angry, bring to your awareness that this is OK. We’re not looking to create a judgement about what happened or what we’re experiencing, instead we simply want to see it for what it is, an experience that happened and we’re now aware of and sitting as an observer of it. What this does is it empowers us to be able to look a little more closely at what we’re feeling and why. After we become aware, take note of the emotion you’re experiencing and name it. Is it anger? Is it worry? Is it fear?
As a small kicker to this, just imagine that the intention here is to turn down the intensity of the emotion so we can go in a take a look at what’s going on in the same way that a firefighter will spray water onto a burning house to stop the fire and cool it enough to go in and assess what the source of that fire was.
3. Next we’re going to take a moment and place our hand or a couple fingers over the areas of our chest, around where your heart is, and use the placement of your hand as something to focus on. With your eyes open, take some comfortable yet slightly deeper breaths. Feel your breath moving in and out of the area of your heart (where you hand is). To do this, don’t worry too much about how perfect the breathing is or whether it’s exactly going in and our of your heart area, just sit with a gentle focus that your breath is moving in and out of the area of your heart. Our goal here is to bring awareness to the physical heart and begin to influence its rhythms ever so slightly. Breath into your heart for about 30 seconds.
4. Next we want to continue our heart focused breathing while also imagining the feeling of calm or ease enter into our bodies. Spend the next 2 minutes or so breathing in the feeling of calm or ease into your heart with comfortable breaths. Notice the calm and ease come over your mind and body. What this stage does is it shows us that we have the ability to produce our own emotional regulation by creating a physiological state that is more synchronized and favorable for introspection and clarity.
After step 4 you should feel a lot more neutral in your feeling, but it may be possible you’re still annoyed or upset about the situation, this is great and in many ways the point of the exercise. Remember the firefighter analogy.
If it’s a really small situation, this awareness might already help us choose to simply let it go. If it’s a larger situation, this exercise helps us reduce the intensity so we can gain a bit more clarity about what’s going on and stop us from simply circling the experience over and over again in our minds, potentially increasing our anger and draining our energy.
Now as a final step, you can take a moment to just assess, what is the story you have been telling yourself about the situation? What might be a more effective way to approach or think about the situation? In the case of getting cut off in the car, was it really personal? If so, how do you know? If it was a mistake, is anger helping you or just providing an undesirable experience? If you had the freedom, would you choose anger at the other driver or to just let it go and maintain better health?
The point here is that with awareness we get clearer on who we are and how we function. This inevitably gives us a choice in how we choose to react.
As global vaccine rollout for COVID-19 picks up, the long spoken about ‘vaccine passport’ is making headway in countries around the world. First starting in Israel, the US is now added to the list as a country looking to implement the surveillance measure. I recall a time when global leaders told people the vaccine would never be mandatory. Many people, including myself, felt that was a bit misleading as it felt like privileges to do anything in life would be limited if you don’t get a vaccine – seems we’re getting to that point.
The Biden administration is currently working to organize plans for how it will manage COVID-19 vaccine passports as numerous projects around the country are already working to bring this idea to life. The ‘vaccine passports’ are credentials that could be displayed on smartphone apps or be printed. The reason for them is to provide proof of vaccination to travel or attend major events like concerts or sports games.
There are at least 17 initiatives currently underway to develop their own ‘passports.’ This includes a tech company coalition called the Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI), the World Health Organization, and the International Air Transport Association.
Earlier this week, New York state began using a digital pass developed by IBM that shows vaccination status or what your COVID-19 test results might be. Madison Square Garden in New York has shown interest in implementing the digital pass as part of their admission process.
As expected, developers are running into many technical and ethical issues related to these projects. Credential programs will require extensive privacy protections and be resistant to hacks or forgery. Due to the degree to which these project infringe on rights and freedoms, many people will likely look to create a black market for forged vaccine receipts.
Many have speculated that pharmaceutical companies have been strategizing for years to increase adult vaccination rates and develop new vaccination products specifically for adults. Ongoing COVID-19 ‘booster’ vaccinations have been brought up as a possibility to add to their already highly profitable product lines.
The Biden administration stated that they will be providing more information about vaccine passports soon. The hope, according to plans, is that travel with vaccine proof could begin by summer 2021.
Why It Matters:
As outlined in an article I wrote last week, vaccination against COVID-19 does not appear to be the most effective treatment and as government and health officials continue to deny cheap and effective treatments, people have called into question why the focus is on vaccination instead of helping ill people through treatment with drugs like Ivermectin.
With treatments being ignored and ‘vaccine passport’ infrastructures on the rise, one might hypothesize that allegiance to pharmaceutical interests is greater than public health. Further, as whistleblower Edward Snowden points out, it’s hard to ignore the ever increasing draconian surveillance state that has been thrust upon citizens during crisis’, real or manufactured.
While not ‘mandated,’ governments appear to be pulling off a bait and switch, easing public tensions with verbiage that makes them feel they have a choice, when in reality their freedom to do almost anything in life will be hindered unless they roll up their sleeve and take a new, experimental vaccine that still hasn’t been fully approved by the FDA. The FDA has only provided approval via the Emergency Use Authorization.
The choice to live life to its fullest seems to be disappearing for those that wish to decline COVID-19 vaccination. For many, including myself, this is a concerning reality that will certainly push groups to come together and strategize how to move forward with action that will push back on these measures.
I’ve been writing about UFOs quite a bit over the last couple of weeks, mainly because I feel so strongly about the impact this subject has on the way we think and on our foundational world-views. For a long time, the UFO subject has been ridiculed in the mainstream, this has created a culture where the general public laughs off the subject and views it as a fringe idea. However, this has been changing over the last few years, especially as mainstream media began covering the verified NAVY footage showing objects making maneuvers that are not possible given our known technology.
With the US government set to release a report by June 1st that is supposed to discuss other UFO events further, including who might be manning them, the mainstream media has begun taking a subject they once made fun of and called a “conspiracy theory” quite seriously.
I’ve spoken about this subject a lot over the years, and I have many feelings around why I think this subject is incredibly important for humanity and the way we think, but I won’t go into that in this piece, instead I’ll turn your attention to my full raw interview from the recent documentary Close Encounters of The Fifth Kind, you can watch the interview here.
Mainstream media discussions around the UFO phenomenon over the last few years have been posing these vehicles as a potential threat – something we might have to go to war with. While at first this doesn’t seem like a faulty thought, it actually begins to push a potential agenda that aligns with our weaponized warring culture as opposed to being open to what the UFO phenomenon is really about and what evidence supports that.
In a recent article from the NY Post, we see this narrative being pushed yet again. “UFOs harassed US warships off California: report” the headline reads. The report does not indicate that the objects are known to be any more than drones, and further, their maneuvers are not described as anything that would be harassment. While seeming innocent, many investigators and researchers are raising concern over the last decade or so, that the general public continues to hear about UFOs without being told the whole story. Most coverage focuses on the scary unknowns of UFOs, the fact that they may be here to go to war, or that we need to prepare ourselves with weapons to fight back – but the evidence doesn’t support any of that. In fact, the evidence supports the opposite, but people aren’t being told this.
Long time investigators are well aware that UFOs have shown extensive peace or evasive maneuvers during virtually every encounter on record, and that more than likely they don’t intend to be a threat to humanity. From disarming nuclear missile sites, to disabling harmful missiles in the air, to evading human attacks on UFOs without retaliation, these objects and those manning them don’t seem interested in attacking back like we often see in our human interactions with people or other countries.
Why It Matters:
It seems the general culture being created for the public to take in attempts to create the idea that we don’t know what’s going on at all with the UFO phenomenon, when we actually know a lot more than what’s being said. For years, virtually every discussion I’ve had with fellow citizens shows a general lack of knowledge about anything UFO related, and it’s not their fault, it’s because it’s never talked about. When I bring forth what is known and the evidence that supports it, people are typically surprised or doubtful because the mainstream hasn’t spoken about it.
A lack of transparency means people are uninformed, and thus they support actions that may not be based on reality or that may lead to destructive ends. Just look at the US’ “war on terror” that has been never ending, expensive, has cost millions of innocent lives, and is a threat manufactured by long held foreign policy that seeks to create enemies. How does this serve the people?
Just like we have seen with so many important subjects that independent media has brought greater clarity on for the general public, now the UFO subject seems to be one that government wants to control. Not long ago I noted that now that mainstream media and government seems to have gotten a hold on controlling speech surrounding other ‘conspiracies,’ there has been talk about beginning to control the UFO and ET discussion as well. In a Tweet, the European Defense Industry claims it wants to begin cracking down on UFO ‘disinformation’ :
As typical with most controlled speech and censorship over the last 5 years, the language used to introduce these ideas of control are vague and unassuming, but the end result is destruction of speech and a sharp limit on who can freely talk about these subjects online. Anyone who dissents has their accounts deleted or their ability to monetize their work removed, leaving them unable to do this work sustainably – which, you guessed it, shuts them up.
The same institutions that ran campaigns of ridicule about this subject and lied to the public about it are suddenly trying to admit there is something going on and seem to want to tightly control the narrative along the way. But this is only an invitation. The general public does not have to believe only what these institutions say, they can go elsewhere for information and ideas about what’s going on. It’s likely that honest and meaningful disclosure on this topic will be brought forth by grassroots movements and conversations, not government.