Connect with us

When A Relationship Ends

Published

on

The OfficeI just finished watching the finale episode of the Office. If you guys don’t know the show, I strongly suggest you to watch it. It is a fantastic documentary-style comedy TV series that makes you laugh as much as it makes you fall in love with the realism of the characters and their stories. If you have ever grown to love a tv series and its characters, you probably know that watching a finale can create heart-warming feelings of nostalgia. I actually felt proud of the makers of this wonderful series, proud of all of the actors that have made the show feel so real, and all I could think of was “well done.” I felt grateful for all the participants of this creation to have put together all of their talent, skill and passion for us all to enjoy and remember.

advertisement - learn more

I could keep going about this series but that’s not entirely the point I aim to make with this blog. After the show was over, the good-feeling, gratitude and nostalgia that I felt merged with the heavier feeling of nostalgia that I was feeling about a current ending that I have experienced recently: the ending of a relationship.

We were best friends, we went through a lot together. Drama, laughs, cries, craziness, confusion, weirdness, fun, unconditional love… to the point were we became like family. It definitely wasn’t the typical “romantic” relationship with all the passion and role-playing, but I’m sure you guys know this isn’t really meant to be a constant anyways. Wasn’t perfect, but it was the perfect recipe for growth in many ways – and our separation continues to make me grow.

But the point of this blog isn’t to attempt to describe the way our relationship has been and how it has ended either. After watching the finale of the show, something “clicked” within me that has lifted a weight over my heart. As much as an on-screen story cannot really compare to how we feel about loved ones (and please don’t take this comparison seriously) something has pushed me to use the lighthearted nostalgia I felt at the end of the show as a metaphor for the wonderful memories of my past relationship. Sure, my feelings about my past relationship weren’t so light hearted. They included resistance to my emotions, tension in my heart, fears of further loss and a feeling like I had to walk on eggshells. My response to the ending of the series however, was loving and compassionate, grateful for the experience and with a pleasant overview of the bigger picture: it was an awesome experience.

And so I asked myself: why should the two reactions be different? Why should one be such a struggle while the other is simply appreciative? Sure, one is a real-life story and the other is not, but taking the comparison literally isn’t my point. Considering the fact that both have been a wonderful experience in their own respective way, I feel that resisting or resenting the end of a relationship is not that different from resenting the end of a wonderful movie with a valuable lesson, or the cast for moving on to other projects. Of course, going through intensities after the breakup was a part of my learning experience – a part of my story. I have grown through it and discovered a lot about myself; unresolved issues and losses from the past, fears and perceptions of love etc. But today, as I felt feelings of nostalgia, I noticed I was making it heavier for myself. It was a nostalgia tainted by resistance and fear, twisting reality by solely focusing on and aggravating the loss.

AppreciationBut you know what? The truth is that in my heart, I feel nothing but love for all that was, and now more than ever for what is. Beyond the mind’s experience of loss and missing, there is only love and openness. Similar to how it feels to honor a cast for having put together such a brilliant story that has engaged me till the end, I do feel the same way deep down about my past relationship, about the two awesome “co-stars” we were to this chapter of our lives. We have been programmed to associate a parting of the ways with so much negativity, hatred, devastation and the belief that it is an end to love… that we forget it is just a transformation of roles.

advertisement - learn more

“Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because it happened.” – Dr. Seuss

If anyone reading this is going through some form of loss, I know how challenging it can be. Strangely, this breakup has brought me as deep as reflecting on and experiencing emotions of deep loss and grieving related to death. But no matter what loss is experienced, what I have learned is that to find the love in it quicker, we need to give up resisting the process. Grieve, cry, love, hurt… but don’t make yourself harden by it (like I’ve done several times), let yourself soften by it. Don’t just think of the love that was, feel the love that is. See what is left after all resistance and resentment is gone… You may find that it isn’t what happens that causes so much suffering, it’s what we say to ourselves about what happens. 

I know the end of a TV series can seem like a ridiculous comparison, but think about it: how would 2 cast members from a series that no longer airs react if they saw each other again? Would the connection and love be any less? Would the memories become an awkward subject? Of course not! Now maybe some drama or mind stories still interfere between some exes and that’s alright, but I can assure you that in our natural state, seeing an old friend you’ve once had an intimate relationship would be a wonderful, drama-free and love-filled experience. No hard feelings or walking on eggshells. Same goes if a loved one is no longer in physical form. The form may no longer be accessible but the powerful connection and love between souls is still there. True love does not end.

“There is no such thing as a “break up”, relationships transform, that’s all. Breaking up is just a structure in the mind crumbling away, a story being shattered. And so when two people part ways, if they have held onto the idea of structure, it will feel like something is breaking. When your relationships are not surrounded by your labels and ideas about it… what is there to break? Relationships transform, but love and connection is never broken.”

Instead of dwelling solely on the perspective of loss, I now chose to let myself feel it as it comes but also keep this higher, more loving and allowing perspective. It represents a lot more of how I truly feel, as opposed to when I over-think and define change. Right now, I feel love. Love for what I am learning, love for myself, love for him, love for the memories, love for now, love for what is to come, love for life. It is actually quite exciting to step into a new chapter of my life, and I am looking forward to all the new “co-stars” I might meet. I know nothing real can really be lost; only the form in which love appears changes. Remember, we’re all “actors” here. We all play roles, we’re all playmates. It is helpful to remember this, drop our masks once in a while and look into our soul… we will find that our soul is the same essence that dwells in everyone else. 

“In every moment of our lives, there seems to be two different versions of reality taking place. One, is the surface reality and it is where who you think yourself to be exists as the main character in the movie of your life. It is in this surface reality where you interact with the other characters, make choices, and advance your storyline. Deeper than this surface reality, yet always existing within it, remains a spiritual reality. This reality remains peaceful and unmoved by the actions and reactions of the surface reality. It views the characters in the surface reality as various messengers delivering the wisdom of the spiritual reality, so the characters can learn exactly what each has been brought to learn in every scene of life’s vivid movie. It is from this spiritual reality where one might imagine the soul resides, with one’s lifetime serving as an interactive way for the soul to impart its wisdom to a world of characters. The characters we think we are deliver soul wisdom and create experiences for one another, and reap the rewards by becoming more conscious. To become more conscious, is to realize what you are, underneath the surface of form, and beyond all thoughts and ideas.” – Matt Kahn

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

FBI Sued for Failure to Report Known 9/11 Evidence to Congress

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 victim family members have announced a joint federal lawsuit against U.S. Department of Justice for not acknowledging evidence about what happened on 9/11.

  • Reflect On:

    Why has the US government continuously ignored credible evidence? Why do they constantly deem it a 'conspiracy theory' and use character assassination and ridicule tactics instead of just countering the evidence?

Nearly 20 years after 9/11, the tragic event has served as a catalyst for the mass awakening of millions of people to facts about our government, or ‘the powers that be,’ that they previously were unaware of. Furthermore, every year after that event has brought even more awareness and new information to the forefront, serving as a mass awakening tool. It has helped so many people understand that not everything presented to us by our government is accurate. When it comes to 9/11, many believe it was an event created by the powers that be in order to justify the invasion of Iraq by the western military alliance, otherwise known as ‘false flag’ terrorism. This narrative has been supported by many academics trying to bring awareness to the truth of the event as well as multiple political figures from around the world, including those within the United States.

The evidence that something fishy happened on 9/11 is very strong, and this is why the majority of American citizens alone don’t believe the official explanation provided by their government, which is evident if you look at the latest polls. Over the past few years, this subject has been under investigation by thousands of architects, engineers and physicists. Researchers have even been publishing papers in peer reviewed academic journals emphasizing that what we really saw, apart from planes hitting the towers, was a simultaneous controlled demolition.  For example, a paper titled “15 Years Later, On The Physics Of High-Rise Building Collapses” in the European Scientific Journal concluded:

The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.

This is just one of many examples suggesting it was a controlled demolition, but the key takeaway there is the “far-reaching implications.” Full disclosure on what happened that day, if a controlled demolition was involved, would be very impactful. Just think about what that means… Furthermore, it’s quite clear that the majority of people around the world have already accepted this conclusion. What does that say about our government and the entire western military alliance? What does that show us about what these people are capable of? What else have they done? What else are they going to do? What is the extent of their deception and for what purpose?

In more recent news, The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 victim family members Robert McIlvaine and Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli announced a joint federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI. The lawsuit is for their failure to perform a congressionally mandated assessment of any evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission related to any factors that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Initiatives like this are important, because as mentioned earlier, there is more than enough evidence showing that something fishy happened, and that a controlled demolition was involved. Donald Trump has even made some comments on 9/11, suggesting that bombs were involved in taking down the World Trade towers.

advertisement - learn more

This current lawsuit is being brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 702, 706, and the federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. 1361.

The complaint cites the failure of the FBI and its 9/11 Review Commission to assess key 9/11-related evidence that the FBI can be shown to have had, or been aware of, regarding:

  1. the use of pre-placed explosives to destroy World Trade Center Buildings, 1, 2, and 7;
  2. the arrest and investigation of the “High Fivers” observed photographing and celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11;
  3. terrorist financing related to the reported Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers;
  4. recovered plane parts, including serial numbers from all three crash locations;
  5. video from cameras mounted inside and outside the Pentagon; and
  6. cell phone communications from passengers aboard airplanes.

This is evidence relevant to the 9/11 Review Commission’s and the FBI’s compliance with the mandate from Congress, which should have been assessed by the FBI and the 9/11 Review Commission and reported to Congress. The complaint also cites the destruction by the FBI of evidence related to the “High Fivers.” Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has joined in bringing the counts that involve the evidence of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition and evidence related to the “High Fivers,” while the other plaintiffs are party to all counts. (source)

A news conference was held after the filing near the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington, D.C. Prior to this,  the non-profit Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Manhattan, requesting that he present to a grand jury the extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center high rises on 9/11. The petition cited conclusive evidence, providing proof of explosives and incendiaries employed at ground zero to bring down the twin towers as well as the WTC building #7.

Every time I write an article on this subject, I love sharing the following quote by Edward Bernays, the founding father of public relations:

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. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. (source) 

Mark Twain is another great figure who shared this point of view, stating that:

The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception. (source)

These quotes sum up what I believe 9/11 was all about. George Orwell once said that “in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Since he offered those words decades ago, we have seen deceit become a pervasive and global problem, where the general public really has no clue what is happening around the world. The truth is, we live in a world of secrecy, and many prominent figures throughout history have been trying to tell us this for years. Even President Theodore Roosevelt warned us of the secret government, revealing that “behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”  (source)

Are these the perpetrators behind 9/11? Has there really been a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism?

Something to think about.

The Takeaway

How long has this type of ‘false flag terrorism’ been going on? Today, it seems that every time a ‘deceptive’ event is pulled off, it simply serves as a tool to wake up even more people. Transparency is here, and more than enough information is available for those who are curious and willing to actually take a look. As time goes on, the collective population is learning to think for themselves instead of simply believing what is told and presented to us. Despite the fact that speaking out against such things can bring character assassination and ridicule and is often casted off as fake news, it’s important to follow our hearts and really look into things that no longer resonate with us. The truth is available, and it will continue to come to light as we move through 2019 and beyond.

 

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Vietnam Demands Monsanto Pay Victims of Agent Orange For Cancer & Birth Defects

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    More than 4.8 million people in Vietnam have been exposed to the herbicide and over 3 million of them have been suffering from deadly diseases. Vietnam is again demanding that Monsanto (Bayer) be held accountable.

  • Reflect On:

    Things here are quite obvious, the information in the article is just a tidbit. The only thing making these corporations not accountable is their ownership and stranglehold on the government. They own and influence government agencies.

Agent Orange studies were mandated by Congress in the 1980s. These studies were headed by Dr. Frank DeStefano, and Dr. Coleen Boyle of the CDC, who are now in charge of vaccine safety studies at the agency.  Frank and Coleen ended the Agent Orange studies two years early, emphasizing that “no link” would be found between illnesses being reported by injured veterans and Agent Orange. The early termination of the study is what allowed the US Department of Veterans Affairs to deny any connection between Agent Orange and medical problems, preventing veterans and their families from qualifying for fair compensation. The Boyle/DeStefano team’s deception was outed by Admiral Zumwalt, who went to the President and laid out the science in a classified report (which has now been declassified):

“Without exception, the experts who reviewed the work of the Advisory Committee disagreed with its findings and further questioned the validity of the Advisory Committee’s review of studies on non — Hodgkin’s lymphomas .”

“a decision which should have been based on scientific data was reduced to vague impressions”

[One impartial review team’s results were] “a stunning indictment of the Advisory Committee’s scientific interpretation and policy judgments”

“1987 Followup Examination Results,” described statistically significant increases in health problems among Ranch Handers including all cancers”

“The work of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards, as documented in their November 2, 1989 transcript, has little or no scientific merit, and should not serve as a basis for compensation or regulatory decisions of any sort.”

advertisement - learn more

This is one of many examples of fraud that’s come out of the CDC, and it’s a huge problem that many from within the agency, even as of recent, are trying to expose. One of the latest examples is known as the ‘Spider papers.’ A group called the CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER, put a list of complaints in a letter to the CDC Chief of Staff and provided a copy of the letter to the public watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).

We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency.  It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.

The Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA) recently told Reuters that more than 4.8 million people in Vietnam have been exposed to the herbicide and over 3 million of them have been suffering from deadly diseases. Agent Orange was one of many herbicides used by the U.S. military as a weapon during the Vietnam war, and Monsanto was contracted by the government to manufacture it for the Department of Defence. According to Monsanto:

“The use of Agent Orange as a military herbicide in Vietnam continues to be an emotional subject for many people. Asian Affairs Specialist Michael Martin notes, ‘[a]t the time the herbicides were used, there was little consideration within the U.S. military about potential long-term environmental and health effects of the widespread use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.” (source)

Below you will see pictures courtesy of Reuters of agent orange birth victims.

Millions upon millions of gallons of this stuff was dumped over millions of acres of land in Vietnam and other areas. Even today, countless people have been exposed to the herbicide and many of them continue to suffer from deadly diseases. The US government still maintains that the main objective for the spraying was to kill all of the forest in North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops along with any crops that might be used to feed them.

The millions of dollars that have recently been awarded to victims of Monsanto’s herbicides in America made noise across the world. There are currently more than 10,000 pending cases for herbicides causing cancer, and as a result, Vietnam likely thought it was finally time to seek justice for the victims of Agent Orange. Again, the biotech firm had supplied the US military with the chemical during the Vietnam War. The Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA) has written a letter to a US court asking that it restart a class-action lawsuit by Agent Orange victims against American chemical firms, including Monsanto, which the Eastern District Court of New York dismissed in 2004, claiming a ‘lack of evidence’ and asserting that ‘herbicide spraying… did not constitute a war crime pre-1975’.

Last month a jury in San Francisco awarded $80 million in punitive damages to Edwin Hardeman after the court found that Roundup, Monsanto’s infamous glyphosate-based herbicide, was a “substantial factor” in causing non-Hodgkins lymphoma cancer. In a similar case in August 2018, Dewayne Johnson was awarded $289 million after developing cancer from long-term exposure to Roundup. However, after months of legal drama, the terminally ill cancer patient agreed to a reduced payout of $78 million.

Despite the information shared earlier in this article, Monsanto is STILL denying the damage linked to Agent Orange.

“It can, in my judgment, be concluded, with a very high degree of confidence, that it is at least as likely as not that the following are caused in humans by exposure to TCDD: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chloracne and other skin disorders, lip cancer, bone cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, birth defects, skin cancer, lung cancer, porphyria cutanea tarda and other liver disorders, Hodgkin’s disease, hematopoietic diseases, multiple myeloma, neurological defects and auto-immune diseases and disorders.

In addition, I am most comfortable in concluding that it is at least as likely as not that liver cancer, nasal/pharyngeal/esophageal cancers, leukemia, malignant melanoma, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, brain cancer, psychosocial effects, and gastrointestinal disease are service– connected.”  (source)

Admiral Zumwalt’s report is used by veterans seeking compensation. Zumwalt’s son was exposed to Agent Orange and died of lymphoma in 1988.

Below is a picture of one of many birth deformities believed to be caused by Agent Orange.

 Below is a photo from Vietnam circa 1961-1971. Credit: Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. Collection: Agent Orange Subject Files/The Vietnam Center and Archive/Texas Tech University. The land on the right has been sprayed, and the land on the left hasn’t.

The Takeaway

The fact that Monsanto is just starting to be held accountable for the damaging effects from their herbicides is unbelievable, and the fact that they have not yet really been held accountable for DDT and substances like Agent Orange and the damage they have caused and continue to do is outrageous. What we can really take away here is the connection between big corporations and the United States government. It shows how powerful these corporations are, and how they sit above the government and influence policies and decision making. We do not live in a democracy, but more so a ‘corporatocracy.’ If you follow the money, corporations like Monsanto (now Bayer) sit above the government, and then the big banks sit above the corporations. This is exactly how the decision making process goes and it’s something that definitely needs to change.

At the end of the day, we are the ones who purchase these products, which is why awareness is key to stopping these powerful corporations from causing so much damage to our health and the environment.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The Perversion Of Wikipedia: Skepticism As A Tool For The Censorship Of New Ideas

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, a supposed resource for the open sharing of wisdom and knowledge, is violating its own policies and non-profit status by favoring donors' worldview through exerting undue editorial influence.

  • Reflect On:

    If we can't trust Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, does that mean we can't trust anything we hear and read about?

Those of us who make a habit of challenging our current worldviews in order to uncover deeper truths and expand our understanding of reality, will have probably come to realize by now that much of the ‘skepticism’ out there that is supposedly founded in ‘science’ is nothing more than the preservation of the mainstream perception that is constantly being promoted by our hidden authorities and their minions.

It is likely that every one of us has encountered frustration in dealing with the ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’ type of skeptic among family and friends. Some hold it as a badge of honor that they refuse to be ‘fooled’ by suggestions that the world is not exactly as it seems, or that there is anything substantial going on behind the scenes, as long as the mainstream media continues to ridicule it and use labels like ‘unproven pseudo-science’ or ‘debunked conspiracy theory.’

Now, this is not to dispute that some skepticism is healthy. Not at all. One should not believe everything one hears indiscriminately, and all claims should be evaluated based evidence, coherence, logic, and common sense. When skepticism is in balance with an open mind, it helps us develop discernment, and enables us to build and expand a coherent worldview that begins to incorporate and make sense of more and more of the subtle mysteries the universe has to offer.

However, an extreme brand of skepticism that is not open to possibility until it becomes self-evident is damaging to human inquiry and the flourishing of new ideas. Joe Martino and I discussed this skepticism in our latest episode of ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ on CETV, and went on to examine how this philosophical position is at the heart of the censorship efforts of mainstream media and the now co-opted social media giants, indiscriminately labeling ideas and analyses of world events outside of the mainstream perception as ‘fake news’ and characterizing it as ‘dangerous’ and something the public must be protected from.

Below is a clip from that episode exploring how dogmatic skepticism is holding us back. Become a member on CETV to watch the full episode of The Collective Evolution Show.

advertisement - learn more

In the full episode, we go on to discuss specifically how Wikipedia has become one of the latest information sources to fall under the control of the mainstream authority. We talk about how instead of being ‘the people’s encyclopedia’ and being open to all ideas, it has adopted the very strict skepticism of the mainstream. Among other things, it systematically denigrates those scientists, researchers and medical professionals that promote alternative modalities to Western medicine.

Scientific Materialism

Some will say ‘I’m a scientist. And therefore I’m a skeptic.’ In some ways, this makes sense–a real scientist does not come to any conclusions unless the evidence in their experiments bears them out. However, it often represents someone who is not open to possibility, and will not seriously consider anything that is not proven and established, meaning what they have ‘seen’ with their own eyes.

When this type of person says (usually informally) that they are a ‘scientist,’ what they really mean is that they ascribe to scientific materialism, a philosophical position founded on the belief that only the material world, the world perceived by our senses, is what is real. We don’t even need to get into the fact that quantum physics has long demonstrated that this position is no longer tenable in the real world, and that non-material forces are exerting influence on the world all the time.

In a banned TedX talk entitled ‘The Science Delusion,’ biologist Rupert Sheldrake performs a brilliant dissection of scientific materialism and all the questionable assumptions it is founded on, and is clear to distinguish between real ‘science,’ which is exploration and experimentation designed to expand knowledge, and the philosophical dogma of scientific materialism which, in mainstream discourse, is considered ‘science.’ No wonder it was banned. Watch this one, it is well worth your time.

Now it must be said, anybody refuting scientific materialism is pulling the rug out from most of the skepticism used by mainstream forces to control the narrative. And so, as you might expect, whenever the mainstream media has the opportunity to comment on who Rupert Sheldrake is or the value of his work, they are not likely to be very complimentary.

Wikipedia On Sheldrake

In an article entitled ‘Wikipedia’s Assault on Scientific Progress: The Case of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake,’ Gary Null makes a very persuasive case not only that Wikipedia attempts to marginalize Rupert Sheldrake as a ‘pseudoscientist,’ but they exhibit a draconian control over the editorial content of Sheldrake’s Wikipedia page, quite against their own stated policies.

Sheldrake’s original Wikipedia biography, created in October 2002, was limited to two sentences and a link to his personal website: “Rupert Sheldrake (1942-) is a British biologist and author of several books. In his 1981 book A New Science of Life he put forward the hypothesis of formative causation which basically suggests that memory is inherent in nature.”

That’s it! Today, his biography has grown to 9 major headings and 12 subheadings. Instead of identifying him as a biologist — only noting this title in the past-tense — the article falsely identifies Sheldrake as a “parapsychologist” in the lead paragraph. Although he conducts experiments in telepathy, he approaches the topic from a biological viewpoint, in keeping with his scientific training. Reviewing the many thousands of edits made to his biography during the past 16 years is a lesson in how brutal and vicious the Wiki wars spawned by Skeptics can become.

Sheldrake’s Wikipedia “Talk” page begins with the warnings:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don’t take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.

The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article.

Here we observe Wikipedia’s own Committee showcasing flagrant bias in identifying Sheldrake’s scientific research as “pseudoscience.”

Wikipedia’s Violation Of Its Non-Profit Status

The concept of Wikipedia, the people’s encyclopedia, a resource for the open sharing of wisdom and knowledge, where respect for opposing points of view was maintained, is what made Wikipedia popular and trusted to begin with. However, the potential profits that would be possible from this trust and Wikipedia’s popularity seems to have become too tempting for its owners and of course Big Business to resist.

This letter written to the IRS by Neal S. Greenfield, lawyer for Dr. Gary Null, in which he explicitly details the ways in which Wikipedia has blatantly violated their 501 (c)(3) non-profit status, as well as their own stated values and objectives, will certainly help you to see Wikipedia in a different way than what it pretends to be.

Of note in the summary on page 1 is the contention that ‘Wikipedia has selectively permitted pay-to-play editing and institutional conflicts of interest, particularly where generous donors are concerned.’ It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. We are coming to realize that our entire economic and political systems are founded on the corrupt influence of the powerful and wealthy. The maintenance of their power is founded on keeping people ignorant, which is the brute impact of scientific materialism and the skepticism that follows from it.

The Takeaway

Every day there seems to be new information out about another previously trusted source of information that has shown itself to be unworthy of trust. But rather than rue the destruction of the naive innocence of humanity, we should bless these revelations as stepping-stones to achieving a higher discernment. Certainly, the majority of humanity, when released from these corrupting influences, will be able to be trusted to act in a way that is ultimately for the benefit of all. This higher discernment will allow us as a collective to separate the wheat from the chaff, and create a world where truth, transparency and the open exchange of ideas will be supported.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod