Category: The Pulse

Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Release the tension in your body. Place attention on your physical heart. Breathe slowly into the area for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

In personal development, one can’t change something about themselves until they are first made aware of the pattern or problem they are experiencing. Once they know, steps can be taken to adjust, better themselves, or grow beyond the problem.

The same can be said for how our society functions. After all, we as individuals are a microcosm of our collective story.

In that sense, I am a strong believer that if we don’t have an understanding of how our world works, then we don’t stand a chance in making it a better place as we don’t know what problem we are solving.

The first step towards uncovering truth is being able to re-examine our positions and embrace uncertainty.

In my previous piece on propaganda I talked about how governments distribute a “story” or “narrative” about current events to rally the public behind an idea. It’s through this propaganda that people believe something about how the world works, even if it’s not at all true.

Mainstream media is the mouthpiece that connects government to the people. It has incredible power in shaping public opinion, and governments and powerful people know this.

The is how the masses come to believe they live in a democracy, that government is doing their best to fight enemies. Or that government is keeping people safe through their authoritarian actions, and attempting to create wellness in society. Don’t question government or else you’re a conspiracy theorist.

This narrative is all told through mainstream media. Control mainstream media and you control the masses’ perception.

There are many ways in which mainstream media can be controlled. A common belief is that newsroom directors are constantly getting phone calls from government people telling them not to run certain stories.

This may be true for a small portion of MAJOR stories as we saw with the government program Project Mockingbird.

A 1991 a declassified document from the CIA archives shows the Central Intelligence Agency had a close relationship with mainstream media and academia.

The document states that the CIA task force “now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation,” and that “this has helped us turn some ‘intelligence failure’ stories into ‘intelligence success” stories,’ and has contributed to the accuracy of countless others.”

It admits the agency had “persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.”

We learned through COVID that this sort of thing does still happen, especially with major stories. But for the most part this isn’t how media is controlled in my opinion.

One other common idea is that “all of the journalists at The New York Times or CBC know they are lying.” I don’t think this is true.

Most of these people fully believe in what they publish, and are more so regulated by a news culture and environment that is built around avoiding certain conclusions. They also tend to perform unbalanced investigation into certain subjects.

Part of how news culture is built, and what stops journalists from following their gut, is the fear of the loss of access.

Access is simple: a news outlet can gain access to certain individuals like politicians, powerful business people, or celebrities based on their reputation and knowledge that they won’t “cross the line” or surprise guests.

In this case “the line” is asking tough questions or holding people accountable. Cross the line, and word gets out that powerful people shouldn’t associate with those brands as readily.

Imagine during the Freedom Convoy if the CBC decided they were going to ask Justin Trudeau very tough questions about his abuse of power, lies, and hatred he was disseminating towards unvaccinated people.

You can bet that the CBC would be fearful Trudeau’s admin would give them less access to early stories, updates, interviews and so on if they don’t “play ball” with Trudeau.

If the CBC doesn’t play ball, they will be late on stories, their competition will get things first and the CBC would be playing catch up all the time. This is bad for business.

Access is directly tied to the profitability of many news organizations. Thus, it becomes a race to the bottom dynamic of kissing the ass of those in power and not upsetting them so you can compete amongst other news organizations to get access to stories and interviews first – or even at all.

This concept is well demonstrated in a recent interview Kim Iverson conducted with Alan Dershowitz on her show. To note, Iverson’s program is independent, and not considered mainstream media.

Iverson interviewed Dershowitz about Trump’s looming arrest. During the interview, she also asked him about his ties to Epstein and whether or not Epstein had ties to Mossad.

Dershowitz went on to provide short, weak answers to the questions, but eventually became annoyed with Iverson questioning him about Epstein.

Dershowitz said:

“Are you used to having people come on your show to talk about one subject, and then sandbagging them on another subject without any warning? It’s nice to know you do that. I have nothing to hide, and I’m happy to talk about any of this, but I’m used to more ethical journalism.”

Iverson goes on to state that her team notified the people who booked Dershowitz onto the show that she would ask about Epstein.

Dershowitz said they never told him, and ended the interview by saying,

“[…] it’s the last time you’ll have me on your show, so take advantage of it.”

Iverson went on to provide proof that Dershowitz’s team was notified about upcoming Epstein questions.

Iverson asked Dershowitz tough questions that were significantly less “soft ball” than what he would get from mainstream media. He was also less prepared to tailor his answers perfectly because of an internal team mistake.

As a result, he won’t go on her show again. She lost access to him, and this message could spread throughout, causing her to lose access to others as well.

Simply put, the game is rigged. Play ball in the way powerful people want you to or you don’t get to play.

Put another way, ask tough questions that are “out of bounds” in authoritarian culture and you’ll stop getting interviews. Why then would someone ask tough questions?

But this instance also reveals something important: powerful people know the questions first before they appear on news shows. Does this make sense? Does this create the opportunity for true and honest answers?

Is real journalism even being done by mainstream outlets?

All of us who wonder why certain questions aren’t asked by mainstream journalists even when they are strikingly obvious, should consider the concept of access.

Every person listed on Epstein’s flight log could have been asked to explain themselves by The New York Times or Washington Post, but they weren’t. Because that’s not allowed.

However those organizations can forgo good journalistic practices to push COVID fear and propaganda all day long, because that will only gain them more access in the end.

Thus, mainstream media is controlled by the threat of losing access.

Does it make sense that a person should know all of the questions they are going to be asked before coming on a show? Does it make sense that they should be allowed to fully prepare those answers? Doesn’t that give a deep opportunity to deceive?

Why is this accepted as “ethical journalism” when in reality it can protect powerful people?

This is why I believe we must point out the ways in which mainstream media has no incentive to tell the truth, and point out the ways in which mainstream journalism works.

We must also illustrate the ways in which the mainstream media is obviously wrong or misleading on certain subjects.

It is often too difficult to prove EXACTLY what is true, because that can be incredibly hard to know, but to critique the MSM in ways that reveal their deception can help people begin granting less legitimacy to MSM, and start embracing more uncertainty.

I do believe more and more people are seeing how corrupt mainstream media is, and perhaps we are getting closer to a tipping point. As a result, even The New York Times is trying to convince their audience they are ‘independent journalism.’

Further reading: After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted here. 

A false flag alien invasion refers to the idea that governments, or those who exercise tremendous power over governments, would somehow stage an extraterrestrial invasion of some sort.

This would include the appearance of multiple unidentified flying objects (UFOs) in the sky or on the ground, as well as “beings” that would most likely be some sort of artificial intelligence or people convincingly ‘dressed’ up in some form.

According to theories, these craft and beings would then begin to initiate attacks. Perhaps there would be some type of destruction akin to 9/11, something smaller, or maybe even something bigger. Who knows, it’s all just theory. It may be as simple as letting people know the phenomenon is real (which has already begun) and pushing a threat narrative.

It would be similar to the ‘global war on terror’ that we’ve seen for years, where powerful government organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) fund, create, carry out and in some instances stage terrorist attacks.

Our world has been inundated with false flag attacks for decades, and there are many examples that go beyond terrorism. This allows the perpetrators who created or skewed information (propaganda) around these attacks to propose the solution and be ‘heroes’ under the guise of goodwill. The main purpose of these attacks when it comes to terrorism, for example, is usually to extract resources and install a puppet government that will bow to the will of another.

What would be the purpose of staging an alien attack? Some say it would be to justify the introduction of space based weapons, and to heighten the national security state by increasing surveillance measures in multiple ways.

William Binney, a former high ranking intelligence official with the NSA stated that the agency’s goal was “total population control.” With everything that’s been going in our world, it sure seems that way. Terrorism, pandemics, and more global issues are all being created and capitalized on to put more control and wealth in the hands of already powerful people who have a certain vision for the world.

This type of proven track record of false flag deception has been exposed for years. It’s one reason why many people believe we may see the same thing when it comes to UFOs, especially given the fact that it’s become a hot subject within the mainstream.

For example, earlier this month the head of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office drafted a report suggesting alien vessels could be sending out search probes throughout our solar system. There are dozens of examples where the existence of UFOs and their possible extraterrestrial origins have been legitimized.

I recently wrote an article regarding ‘credible’ individuals speaking out about the possibility that governments are trying to reverse engineer extraterrestrial technology that’s come into their possession.

Many decades ago, the mentor of Wernher von Braun, Hermann Oberth, the founding father of rocketry and astronautics, also known as the ‘father of Spaceflight’ stated his belief that: 

“flying saucers are real [and that] they are space ships from another solar system. I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries.”

He wrote these words in and article titled, “Flying Saucers Come From A Distant World.” It was published in The American Weekly, on October 24, 1954. At the time academics like Oberth were well aware of the UFO phenomenon.

Oberth later repeated that:

‘the UFOs are a kind of sentinel, here simply to observe and report; because a humankind which is as gifted as inventors and researchers as we are, yet has remained politically and morally on our stage of development, constitutes a threat to the entire cosmos.’

Apparently, Braun was the one who first warned of a false flag alien invasion. This was expressed by Carol Rosin. Rosin was the first female corporate manager of Fairchild Industries (you can read more about her here), a space and missile defence consultant who worked with various corporations, government departments, and intelligence communities. She worked closely with Wernher von Braun shortly before his death, specifically on the subject of space-based weapons.

This claim is corroborated by Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, as expressed in a Wikileaks dump a few years ago. The source for that email dump, found here, should be up again soon, but it made headlines everywhere at the time. They were part of the John Podesta email dump.

Mitchell expressed that “our nonviolent ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space.” He also expressed how himself and his colleague, Carol Rosin “who worked closely for several years with Wernher Von Braun before his death” have been working on the “Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space.”

It’s interesting he said this, because this claim was also made by US Air Force Colonel Ross Dedrickson. Dedrickson was responsible for maintaining the inventory of the nuclear weapon stockpile for the United States, he had a long stint with the US Atomic Energy Commission from 1950 to 1958.

Shortly before his passing, he told the world that the US tried to detonate atomic weapons on the Moon for scientific purposes in the early 1960s, and that this project was halted by extraterrestrials who would not allow us to detonate any nuclear weapons in space. It’s intriguing because a declassified report by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center from June 1959 shows how seriously the United States was considering the plan. They wanted to investigate the capability of weapons in space.

According to Rosin, a misleading threat narrative would be attached to the UFO phenomenon for the purpose of building space based weapons.

I’ve also heard this claim within the UFO community come from “Project Blue Beam.” It’s the idea that the ‘powers that be’ would simulate an invasion using advanced holographic technology, but I haven’t found any credible sources for this claim. And being a researcher in the field for more than 15 years, the phenomenon is quite real and has been documented since antiquity and before. There are many examples, I placed a few in this article. I don’t think they had holograms hundreds, and even thousands of years ago.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, anybody who has studied ufology and sifted through the evidence and lore knows that it is an extremely vast topic that leaves no aspect of humanity untouched.

What we are most likely to get from government is a simple, extremely watered down and sanitized version of disclosure – something that will most likely not be an accurate version of truth. This may include a false alien invasion perception or threat narrative that’s beamed into the consciousness of the citizenry through various forms of propaganda.

At the end of the day, I believe as mainstream UFO disclosure continues to ramp up exponentially it will simply be used to justify heightened security measures, like space based weapons. Or, as I’ve mentioned in previous articles, it could be used to debunk the extraterrestrial hypothesis and fuel more foreign conflict by blaming it on another country.

But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there are aspects of the phenomenon that are indeed indicative of a threat? I don’t know, but based on my many years of research in the field the opposite view seems to be more prevalent. It’s just a shame that we’ve come to the point where government can simply not be trusted at all. Their track record for deception is just too great, and they seem to capitalize on manipulating human consciousness using chaos, fear and propaganda.

What’s happening now within the mainstream is quite clear, governments are acknowledging the phenomenon and are setting up ‘official offices’ to try and help explain and study it. In my opinion, these actions represent offices of narrative control and propaganda, no different from what we’ve received on various other topics. They’ve been studying the phenomenon for years, this is quite clear, so why tell the citizenry it’s only now beginning?

It concerns me that so much evidence, research and discoveries that have been made over the past several decades regarding the UFO phenomenon are being ignored, while other recent cases seem to receive all the attention. I wrote about this in an article I published in February titled, “The Recent “UFO” Craze In Mainstream News & How It Detracts From A Very Real, Very Mysterious Phenomenon.”

Based on my research, the majority of real and mysterious complex phenomenon in this field is not predominately indicative of any type of threat.

Personally, I believe a false flag alien invasion would be extremely hard to pull off and I don’t think the resources and cooperation that would be required to do it exists. Perhaps if it were to happen, an isolated incident would occur and then would be beamed out on all mainstream media platforms, striking fear into the hearts of the citizenry. And just like that, people would believe that the UFO phenomenon represents a threat.

When one goes beyond studying the behaviour of these objects and into stories of actual supposed extraterrestrial encounters, things become a little cloudy. The literature and lore from all places, including modern day abduction accounts, simple contact experiences, indigenous stories and more suggest these beings, or at least some of them, are concerned about us, care about us, and want to see us and all life on our planet thrive. At least this is one perspective out of multiple.

For example, the 1994 case in Zimbabwe where more than 60 school children witnessed an object as well as beings during recess at their school. This was an interesting case, given the fact that at the time all 60 children drew the exact same pictures while recalling the event, and told the exact same stories. Some of them experienced telepathic messages about Earth’s future and where we will be if we don’t turn our behaviour around. This type of perspective is one that will probably never be shared, despite that tens of thousands of experiencers have shared it. The Amaury Rivera incident is another one I’ve written about.

Share

Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Release the tension in your body. Place attention on your physical heart. Breathe slowly into the area for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

This article has been updated to provide more resources for the reader to further their research in to Near Death Experiences, if interested.

Researchers at the University of Southampton spent four years studying more than 2,000 people who suffered cardiac arrest. They gathered data from 15 different hospitals from the UK, US, and Austria. The study was conducted in 2014.

They found that nearly 40 percent of people who survived described some type of ‘awareness’ during the time they were pronounced clinically dead, before their hearts were restarted.

One remarkable story came from a 57 year old man who, despite being unconsciousness and dead, recalled watching the entire process of his resuscitation.

According to the authors, in a press release by the University of Southampton, “The recalled experience surrounding death merits a genuine investigation without prejudice.”

Dr. Sam Parnia, the lead author of the study who is now a professor of Medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center explains,

“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating, but in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped. The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for. He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”

He goes on to explain the significance,

“This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions, occurring either before the heart stops or after the heart has been successfully restarted, but not an experience corresponding with ‘real’ events when the heart isn’t beating.”  

Many people describe very specific details of what happened to them during cardiac arrest. They describe conversations people had, clothes people wore, events that went on 10 or 20 minutes into resuscitation, where certain people are located in a room for example and what they are doing. This is not compatible with brain activity.

It may be that some people receive better-quality resuscitation, and that, though there’s no evidence to support it, they did have brain activity. Or it could indicate that human consciousness, the psyche, the soul, the self, continued to function.

“When you die, there’s no blood flow going into your brain. If it goes below a certain level, you can’t have electrical activity. It takes a lot of imagination to think there’s somehow a hidden area of your brain that comes into action when everything else isn’t working.”

– Dr Sam Parnia

Of approximately 2000 cardiac arrest patients, a staggering 330 survived and 140 experienced some type of awareness during the time they were clinically dead and being resuscitated. Estimates have suggested that millions of people have had vivid experiences in relation to death but the scientific evidence has been ambiguous at best. These experiences warrant further investigation.

Parnia explains,

“These observations raise a question about our current concept of how brain and mind interact. The historical idea is that electrochemical processes in the brain lead to consciousness. That may no longer be correct, because we can demonstrate that those processes don’t go on after death. There may be something in the brain we haven’t discovered that accounts for consciousness, or it may be that consciousness is a separate entity from the brain…All we can say now is that the data suggests that consciousness is not annihilated.”

The evidence of some type of awareness or consciousness existing separate from the body is actually quite compelling. When I write about NDE research, I’m often reminded of remote viewing, especially in the case of the 57 year old man mentioned above who described watching his resuscitation.

Remote viewing is the ability to describe a remote geographical location, in detail, regardless of one’s present location and proximity to the place or object that they are describing. The phenomenon is indeed real, so real that it was used by the U.S. intelligence community to “spy” on others, albeit in a psychic manner. You can learn a bit more about it here if interested.

If NDE research interests you, you can also look at the work of Dr. Bruce Greyson, who is formerly the editor of the Journal of Near-Death Studies.

In March of 2021, Dr. Greyson published his much anticipated book, After: A Doctor Explores What Near-Death Experiences Reveal About Life and Beyond. The book challenges our everyday ideas about our how minds and our brains interact, and offers key insights on how we can begin to live a more meaningful and fulfilling life.

In 2009, Dr. Greyson co-authored The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation. This book is written by a team of experts who presents the history, recent developments, and controversies in the study of near-death experiences.

I thought the video below would be an appropriate end for this article for those who are interested. It’s a video of Dr. Eben Alexander, a Harvard trained brain neurosurgeon for more than two decades. He is also the author of the best‐selling book “Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife.” In the book he looks at the past two and a half years of his life spent in trying to reconcile his rich spiritual experience with contemporary physics and cosmology. He is convinced that his spiritual experience is totally consistent with the leading edges of scientific understanding today.

Dr. Alexander never believed in the existence of an after life, or the soul. That all changed when he was in a coma for seven days caused by severe bacterial meningitis and claims to have had a memorable journey into the after life. Are all of these legitimate experiences and proof of something more, or are they simply just hallucinations created by our own biology?

A couple of quotes from the lecture:

“There are a lot of scientists around the world who realize that when you start getting into the mystery of consciousness, which in essence is the only thing anyone of us truly knows exists, and trying to see exactly what consciousness is, it’s kind of like asking a fish what it’s like in the water. We are so close to it that there’s no way to really separate it out. I assure you that the only thing you’ve ever really known is your own consciousness.”

“We believe that there is this external world out there, the material realm. That’s the realm that materialist science will try to tell you is the thing that exists, but it’s really right at the heart of the deep enigma of quantum mechanics, that our modern society has wrestled with for more than a century now trying to understand. Basically what the results of those experiments have been screaming, is that consciousness is primary and fundamental in this universe, and that is a very important thing to understand.” 

Share

Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Release the tension in your body. Place attention on your physical heart. Breathe slowly into the area for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

In high school I learned about the propaganda used during wars. I recall some of the more harmless posters used in the US that contained messages attempting to convince US citizens to buy bonds, or trade their silver in for bullets.

These posters were used as propaganda to help the US public agree with the need for the war and all it was costing.

I also learned about propaganda used by other countries, including Russia and Germany. This propaganda though, was apparently the only kind that was bad. Why? Because it was coming from ‘the enemy,. In our own country, we are taught that only foreign governments do bad things.

This is the same sentiment no matter what country you live in.

In this piece I want to present the idea that propaganda tunes populations into an illusion of reality, but not reality itself. This has many consequences.

This reality is rather obvious. And I’d bet that aside from wanting to gain control over mass public opinion, countries use propaganda so heavily on their citizens because if they don’t, another country will.

Using propaganda gives countries control over their citizens and aligns them under one narrative, even if it’s not factual. In a world built on dominating and competitive worldviews, the cost is too great for most countries to not use propaganda, so they do. Hence we see a race to the bottom dynamic at play here.

Arguments in favor of propaganda include the idea that when it comes to life or death, getting the public on your side is important.

But what happens when propaganda becomes the everyday tool for powerful interests to simply maintain their power? When it isn’t a question of life or death, but a question of powerful figures maintaining, and even growing, their power?

Richard Stengle is the founder of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC). He also served in Obama’s administration as the under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

He had this to say about propaganda:

“Basically every country creates their own narrative and story. And my old job at the state department was what people used to joke as the chief propagandists job. I’m not against propaganda. Every country does it, and they have to do it to their own population.”

When you begin to open up to the idea that propaganda is a tool for powerful folks to get the public on their side about an idea, without telling them the truth, you start seeing the problem.

Further, it feels inherently undemocratic doesn’t it? If powerful people can withhold truth or sway public opinion with deception, does the voter truly have all the information necessary to cast a meaningful vote?

Of course not, but those in power believe the common person does not have the capacity to understand truth, and therefore propaganda becomes the means by which public opinion is shaped.

As pointed out in this study out of Cambridge University by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page called “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens”

“When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

This suggests there isn’t a democracy in the United States. Not just because propaganda is shaping public opinion in a way that makes people’s votes uninformed, but also because there are groups of individuals who control politicians that the voter apparently put in place.

It concluded:

“The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.”

The theory that citizens and their desires are represented through the democratic process is not supported by reality.

There has been a critique of this study as seen here. But anyone who takes a close look at how our society truly operates will likely conclude that Page’s & Gilens’ findings are not far from the truth.

It pains me to see how obvious this reality is, yet still see the intellectual elite of the United States, who write for publications like The Atlantic, New York Times, and Washington Post, continue to cry out that US democracy is under threat.

What democracy? What world are these folks living in that they cannot see the reality of the system they live within? Is it too painful to explore the notion that the once wonderful democracy of the US has long been gone?

Time and time again history and common sense suggests that people are given the option to vote as a means to uphold the illusion that they have a say. It keeps them invested in a system that doesn’t help them thrive.

In reality, the system is not designed to allow the ordinary citizen to have much say, unless of course their perception is shaped by the propaganda of that country.

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” – Edward Bernays, in his book Propaganda

We currently live in a space between worlds whereby many are waking up to the reality of propaganda, all while the system of propaganda is strengthening its hold on every last bit of power it has.

It’s a tricky place to be in because the commitment to centuries of propaganda has resulted in a loss of trust in societal institutions. Now, the general public has no reason to trust their governing institutions. They are becoming too wise, en masse, to accept the illusion their government is pulling over their eyes.

Government is then turning around and pointing the finger at every possible target but themselves, all while creating an infrastructure to snuff out dissenting voices.

Look at the creation of companies like NewsGuard. They are an elite backed ‘fact-checking’ and platform rating system for news. NewsGuard claims to create transparent, accountable, trustworthy ratings for thousands of news outlets.

But take a close look at their ratings and all is predictable: the mainstream gets near perfect marks, while everyone in the alternative faces harsh and unfair criticism.

I have exchanged many emails with John Gregory at NewsGuard. I imagine he’s a decent guy in real-life, but speaking to him about the business of news is like talking to a wall. There is zero room for nuance or complexity.

NewsGuard makes this claim on their website about an article we wrote in 2020:

The article in question was titled: ‘Fact-Checking The Fact-Checkers About Coronavirus & Vitamin C Treatment – Is It Really “Fake News”?’

In it we explored the clinical trial launched by Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, and explored the fact that fact-checkers were claiming that vitamin C tablets don’t help stop viruses. But in China they were not talking about tablets, they were talking about high dose vitamin C injected intravenously.

All we did was report on what was happening in China, and made no claims. Yet NewsGuard said we were claiming ‘Vitamin C protects against COVID-19.’ How can people give credence to fact-checkers who can’t even get basic facts right?

It is more reasonable to think NewsGuard’s intention is to sew doubt about our platform than it is to arrive at truth.

The irony is, propaganda and fake news are often one in the same. In some cases governments create events and stories that are completely fabricated. In other cases they will completely change the context or mislead in order to get the end result they want. Fact-checkers and mainstream media follow along with their every move.

Aside from infrastructures of censorship, powerful figures are also calling those waking up to the deception “mentally ill” or “domestic terrorists.”

This document from the Department of Homeland Security in the US indicates quite clearly where things are headed.

According to these documents, creating content that points out the insanity of our current financial system is also now “misinformation,” and you could be labelled as a domestic terrorist.

This is a subject we have spoken about since 2009, and continue to today. Are we really not allowed to discuss the destructive nature of central banking? Or the authoritarian future possible through the creation of CBDCs?

This form of censorship truly took off when people swallowed the fabricated story that Russia interfered with the US elections causing Trump to win. Smart people bought that story. With that one lie, a host of other subjects are now un-questionable. This is why we must stand behind principles associated with free speech, not politics.

Interestingly, Richard Stengle, who made the comments above about the need for propaganda is one of the creators of Hamilton 68, a propaganda dashboard created by the political establishment to suggest dissenting views were “Russian disinformation.” The problem was that they used a fabricated list of 600 Russian Twitter accounts to make their point.

Yoel Roth, the former Twitter head of Trust & Safety at Twitter stated:

“Hamilton 68 accused legitimate American accounts of being Russian bots… There is no evidence to support their statements.”

Did the advent of fact-checkers, Big Tech and government collusion, and outfits like NewsGuard work?

Well to be utterly transparent, my business, Collective Evolution (which The Pulse birthed out of), was valued about $22M USD in 2015. We had 14 full time employees and could afford to pay multiple freelancers for content. We owned a retreat center and were building a personal development school. We were about to expand as well.

What pains me today is how much brands like ours have been forgotten about during all of this. We’re an incredible case study for how powerful censorship has been, and yet those now paying attention to the censorship phenomenon don’t even know we exist.

Instead, the reality of censorship is only granted to the more ‘high-end’ scientists and academics who were silenced during COVID.

Because knowledge of censorship and its effects are now so great, independent media can gain a lot more support by readers – this is good. We see this with outlets like the Racket, The Free Press, Russel Brand, and Kim Iverson – all gaining much public support.

But it again makes me wish we got taken down during a time where so many acknowledged the reality of censorship. Now, it feels like we’re yelling our story into the wind.

Folks that write for or put full trust in outlets like the Atlantic, Washington post, New York Times etc. often struggle to see the big picture of what’s happening. They believe in the system before them, and act as maintainers of the illusion created through the propaganda they bought into.

They might even give a pass to the type of behavior seen in the above video with Richard Stengle. The end portion showcases a man making a comment about how alive and well the US propaganda is, and how that narrative has destroyed aspects of the world. Stengle chooses to not even acknowledge the statement, and instead make a joke before abruptly ending the panel discussion.

This is a classic approach. Either people will claim something is not worth platforming, and that talking about certain ideas is ‘dangerous’. Or they will claim it’s shameful, ‘anti-american’, or “far-right” to discuss them.

They then convince the masses it’s OK to never answer questions about good evidence. Instead, there is an insult you can throw at any question that challenges propaganda and the status quo.

How will these people open up? That’s anyone’s guess. But I trust that over time people eventually do see the truth. After all, having been at this for 15 years now, to see major academics, scientists, and journalists now fully aware of what’s going on is a HUGE step.

I am not inspired much by tiny changes that generally maintain the status quo. I’m inspired by change that would truly re-shape the way our world functions in order to benefit people and the commons.

It is my feeling and observation that if we cannot see how things are truly functioning in our society, we cannot come up with a reasonable solution. We must be willing to platform conversation, dissenting views, and debate about different ideas openly and in good faith.

This is not just a mental exercise either. Being able to attune with our hearts, bodies and expand our minds is a crucial step in effectively making sense of our world. I believe we have to reliably expand our consciousness beyond the frame of our existing view of the world, and be open to seeing things differently.

Our courses: Mastering The Art of Critical Thinking (paid) and The 5 Days of You Challenge (free) are helpful resources for exploring what I mentioned above.

Questions I like to leave readers with are:

What stops people from truly engaging? It’s not that they are stupid, or brainwashed, that is a lazy answer. I feel it’s more important we understand the conditions behind why we close off.

Are we afraid of not be accepted by our friends and loved ones? Are we afraid of how our worldview might have to change? Are we afraid of what people might think of us?

Does it produce a nervous knot in your stomach to engage with ideas you don’t agree with? What other sensations occur in our body when we hear things we don’t agree with?

My hunch is most people are so uncomfortable with the idea of having to delve into uncomfortable feelings in their body that they avoid questions like this all together.

Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Release the tension in your body. Place attention on your physical heart. Breathe slowly into the area for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

First off, let me say that I hold no ill will against transgender people, or anyone for that matter. I believe everybody should be treated with love, respect and understanding. It’s completely fine for anybody to be whatever they desire. Who or what someone chooses to be should not impede on their access to the same rights and freedoms that everybody else has. But we should be able to have discussions, like the one below, while simultaneously pushing for equality and inclusion.

When I was very young, maybe about four or five years old, I used to watch my mother put on makeup, and I wanted to try doing the same thing. It wasn’t the only thing I imitated as a child, I was naturally curious and it’s not uncommon for children to do this.

For a short period of time, I used to try taping her earrings to my ears and sometimes even tried putting on her makeup and lipstick. At that time it was fun pretending to be a girl. I laugh when I think about it now, and I remember my parents doing the same when I did this in the past.

But times have changed, and in some cases if a child were to do this today they might be encouraged to ‘play that role,’ so to speak. Parents may sit down with the child and ask if he wants to be a girl, and if it were me at that age, at that time and in that moment, I could have said yes. I wouldn’t have truly understood what they were asking.

Who knows, maybe some parents today would encourage the child (if it was a male like me) to continue dressing like a girl, and ‘being a girl,’ whatever that means. Perhaps they may even go as far as being taken to a doctor and offered medical treatment like hormone blockers that could affect that child for the rest of its life.

I bring up this topic because more adolescents these days, with no prior history of gender dysphoria, are presenting themselves at gender clinics.

Gender dysphoria is defined as the distress caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and the one assigned to them at birth. I would imagine this is very different from what I did and experienced as a child. I don’t ever remember being confused about my gender, or feeling like I was confused.

A 2022 analysis of insurance claims by Komodo Health found that approximately 18,000 US minors started taking puberty blockers or hormones from 2017 to 2021. The numbers are increasing every single year.

Surveys that have attempted to measure prevalence of this phenomenon have found that approximately 2% of high school aged teens identify as “transgender.”

In 2021, approximately 42,000 children and teenagers across the US received a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria.” This is more than triple the number in 2017, and we are likely to see the same trends when data from 2022 and beyond is released.

Overall, the analysis found that at least 121,882 children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria from 2017 through 2021. In the US, the number of private clinics that focus on providing hormones and surgeries has grown from just a few a decades ago to more than 100.

As with other medical treatments, there are health related complications that come with these medications and treatments. Medical treatments can include puberty blockers, sex hormones, and surgeries.

There are those, for example, who refer to themselves as “detransitioners” or “retransitioners.” Some of these people claim that early treatment has caused them harm. We will get to a few examples later in the article. We do know that long term research on these treatments is severely lacking.

Two recent studies (see here and here) suggest that as many as 20-30% of patients may discontinue hormone treatment within a few years due to various medical complications.

An article written by investigative reporter Jennifer Block, published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) outlines one story that highlights the consequences of these decisions that are now coming to light, and there are a plethora of them.

“Chloe Cole, now aged 18, had a double mastectomy at age 15 and spoke at the AAP rally. “Many of us were young teenagers when we decided, on the direction of medical experts, to pursue irreversible hormone treatments and surgeries,” she read from her tablet at the rally, which had by this time moved indoors to avoid confrontation. “This is not informed consent but a decision forced under extreme duress.”

Chloe, according to her, was indoctrinated, affirmed, and set on an irreparable path at the age of 15. Now she finds herself abandoned by the community and the doctors that led her over the edge.

She started her transition at 12 years old, puberty blockers and testosterone at 13, and had a double mastectomy at 15 years old. She is now a strong advocate against gender ideology. You can watch an interview with her and Jordan Peterson here to learn more about her thoughts, experiences and opinions.

When a female takes testosterone, the permanent effects of the hormone can be seen in months. Voices drop, beards sprout, body fat is redistributed. Sexual interest explodes, aggression increases, and mood can be unpredictable.

Are teenagers even capable of fully grasping what it means to make the decision to become infertile while still a minor? While their brain is still developing? Are they, and the doctors who provide this medication aware that there are still many health safety issues and concerns with transitioning?

We are now starting to see examples of this pop up everywhere, but there doesn’t seem to be a grounded enough discussion on the matter as it has become rather political.

Several studies have estimated that 60 to 90 per cent of children who identify as transgender no longer want to transition by the time they’re adults.

Is this not a fact worth noting before we send people unquestionably on an irreparable path?

Sadly, any attention or awareness brought to this is considered “politically incorrect.” All we hear are cries for inclusion and equality, which is great, but another side to this saga seems to be completely unknown by the ‘mainstream’ (for lack of a better word) portion of the citizenry.

Another story I recently came across was from an article published in The Free Press by Jamie Reed, a 42-year-old St. Louis native, a queer woman.

The article is titled “I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle.” For almost four years she worked at The Washington University School of Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases with teens and young adults who were HIV positive. Many of them were trans or otherwise gender nonconforming, so she could relate.

In 2018 she started as a case manager at The Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital.

In her article she details her experience in the medical field, working with adolescents who wanted to transition, and how easy it was for them to do so. What struck me is that most of these people had many comorbidities: depression, anxiety, ADHD, eating disorders, obesity. Many were diagnosed with autism, or had autism-like symptoms.

A report last year on a British pediatric transgender center found that about one-third of the patients referred there were on the autism spectrum.

Many also claimed to have illnesses they didn’t really have. According to Reed,

“The doctors privately recognized these false self-diagnoses as a manifestation of social contagion. They even acknowledged that suicide has an element of social contagion. But when I said the clusters of girls streaming into our service looked as if their gender issues might be a manifestation of social contagion, the doctors said gender identity reflected something innate.”

Is it a coincidence that the exponential rise in prevalence of this issue goes hand in hand with the rise of the mental health crises we are seeing in today’s youth? Should we really be making it so easy, without question, for one to transition and simply believe that it’s natural, normal, and the result of something internal or biological that we have yet to discover? Perhaps if there are biological differences, have we considered environmental factors, like pesticides and other endocrine disruptors that are heavily present in our environment? We’ve seen this with frogs.

For example, a study published in 2010 explains,

“The herbicide atrazine is one of the most commonly applied pesticides in the world. As a result, atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water. Atrazine is also a potent endocrine disruptor that is active at low, ecologically relevant concentrations. Previous studies showed that atrazine adversely affects amphibian larval develop- ment. The present study demonstrates the reproductive conse- quences of atrazine exposure in adult amphibians. Atrazine- exposed males were both demasculinized (chemically castrated) and completely feminized as adults. Ten percent of the exposed genetic males developed into functional females that copulated with unexposed males and produced viable eggs.”

Is this a biological issue, or a mental health issue? Or a little bit of both? Or is it completely normal, and not an issue at all? Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t mean that all who want to transition are mentally ill! That’s not what I am saying, but in today’s society it’s sad that we can’t even discuss this possibility despite a plethora of evidence showing that some of it may be true.

Think of the contrast, the mainstream is incredibly quick to label those who don’t trust government as mentally ill, yet won’t even question whether it’s the case for folks that are making irreparable decisions around their body.

Reed goes on to explain,

‘To begin transitioning, the girls needed a letter of support from a therapist—usually one we recommended—who they had to see only once or twice for the green light. To make it more efficient for the therapists, we offered them a template for how to write a letter in support of transition. The next stop was a single visit to the endocrinologist for a testosterone prescription. 

That’s all it took.”

Sure, I wouldn’t question or kick up a fuss if no harm was being done, but this is not the case. There are no reliable studies showing this. There are so many experiences and examples, especially from the centre that Reed worked at, where patients prove how false these assertions are. 

Reed brings this up in her story,

“Many encounters with patients emphasized to me how little these young people understood the profound impacts changing gender would have on their bodies and minds. But the center downplayed the negative consequences, and emphasized the need for transition. As the center’s website said, “Left untreated, gender dysphoria has any number of consequences, from self-harm to suicide. But when you take away the gender dysphoria by allowing a child to be who he or she is, we’re noticing that goes away. The studies we have show these kids often wind up functioning psychosocially as well as or better than their peers.” 

All this being said, at least 20 people, including parents of patients and patients themselves, have given accounts that directly challenge the key claims made by Reed.

When it comes to safety and efficacy, in North America various organizations, like The Endocrine Society, support medical interventions for transgender people. They claim that they are extremely safe and effective, and backed by years of research.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) is probably the dominant organization. Various medical associations base their guidelines on recommendations from this institution.

According to WPATH,

“WPATH recommends that young people have access to treatments after comprehensive assessment, stating that the “emerging evidence base indicates a general improvement in the lives of transgender adolescents.” And more globally, WPATH asserts, “There is strong evidence demonstrating the benefits in quality of life and well-being of gender-affirming treatments, including endocrine and surgical procedures,” procedures that “are based on decades of clinical experience and research; therefore, they are not considered experimental, cosmetic, or for the mere convenience of a patient. They are safe and effective at reducing gender incongruence and gender dysphoria.”

But, like we see with many other medical interventions, this sentiment isn’t the same across the globe, as Block points out in her BMJ article,

“Internationally, however, governing bodies have come to different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of medically treating gender dysphoria. Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which sets guidelines for care, determined last year that the risks of puberty blockers and treatment with hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits” for minors. Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care, a monitoring agency for the country’s public health services, issued similar guidelines, calling for psychosocial support as the first line treatment. (Both countries restrict surgery to adults.)

Medical societies in France, Australia, and New Zealand have also leant away from early medicalization. And NHS England, which is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services, recently said that there was “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision making” for minors with gender dysphoria and that for most who present before puberty it will be a “transient phase,” requiring clinicians to focus on psychological support and to be “mindful” even of the risks of social transition.”

Multiple systematic reviews have also found that the strength of evidence for the conclusions that hormonal treatment “may improve” quality of life, depression, and anxiety among transgender people was “low,” and it emphasized the need for more research, especially among adolescents.

There is no shortage of doctors and organizations who are expressing the devastating effects that puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical modifications can have on children’s developing bodies, regardless of how ‘politically incorrect’ these truths may be.

We are entering a dangerous phase in society where these types of sentiments can only be discussed behind closed doors, are unable to be shared within mainstream media and academia, or perhaps even posted on social media.

Transgender people have existed since ancient times. A wide range of societies had traditional third gender roles, or otherwise accepted trans people in some form. A precise history is difficult because the modern concept of being transgender, and gender in general, did not develop until the mid-1900s.

For example, around 5000 to 3000 B.C., Gala, described as androgynous or trans priests of the Sumerian goddess Inanna, spoke their own dialect and took on feminine names. Around the 18th century, the Itelmens of Siberia recognized a “third gender” called “koekchuch” to describe individuals who were assigned male at birth, but expressed themselves as women.

There are countless examples.

There’s nothing wrong with this, everybody should have the right to do this and not be condemned in any way shape or form. It should simply be viewed as normal in today’s society.

But this is not the case, sexual and gender minorities (SGM)—including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people—experience significant discrimination and stigmatization in many places around the world, including many human rights violations.

What’s different now, however, are medical interventions, why they are happening, how easy it is and the lack of rigour that goes into investigating the phenomenon of why children and adolescents want to transition in today’s society.

As Reed mentioned above, social contagion is never discussed and is instantly dismissed as one explanation. I do believe that pop culture, celebrities and more have all been made examples of for the sake of inclusion. Sometimes I wonder what type of influence this has on the prevalence of gender dysphoria. What about children’s cartoons, shows and the idea that these communities will be receiving more ‘representation’ within the mainstream. Could this influence prevalence? Is it fair that this representation is happening without a proper discussion about the points brought up in this article? What’s going on?

When I finished my degree and then applied to teachers college, I remember reading in the application that if I identify as an ethnic minority, my chances would be greater of receiving an acceptance. This was because of the lack of representation in our schools. This lack of representation was blamed on ‘institutional racism’ despite no evidence showing that racism was the actual cause. Everybody just accepted it.

Meanwhile, I was sitting there thinking that giving me an advantage based on my race is in itself, racist.

All of these thoughts, issues and more and how they relate to gender dysphoria are perhaps better saved for another article.

Thanks for reading. I would love to hear your perspective on this issue in the comments section below!

Share