Before you begin...
Australia’s Safe Schools program was originally promoted as an anti-bullying campaign. Aimed at making schools feel more safe, particularly for children within the LGBTQI community, Safe Schools was about encouraging equality and acceptance within the education system, which is crucial for children to really become kind, compassionate people.
However, many parents are concerned with the contents of this program, and have suggested that the program is “sexualizing” children to a certain degree and introducing them to sex and porn at far too young of an age.
--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!
If this is, in fact, an issue, it’s not about being homophobic or transphobic. To be very clear, CE as an organization supports the LGBTQI community and encourages self expression and equality, and does not condone bullying whatsoever. Of course, there are benefits to this program, because it was designed to make children feel safe in school, and that’s truly incredible. The question we’re debating here is, are some aspects of this program inappropriate?
Let’s take a deeper look at the program, and then you can decide for yourself whether or not it’s appropriate.
Details of Australia’s Safe Schools Program
Implemented in 2013, the Safe Schools program has grown into a four-year federally funded program to the tune of $8 million in Australia. It was inspired by the clear need to decrease bullying and inspire schools to become safe spaces for those who are attracted to the same sex, are transgender, or anyone else who falls into the LGBTQI community. Teachers are trained, and then they can either teach the entire eight-part lesson plan or parts of it to their students, depending on what the school agrees to roll out.
Many people supported the program because it was expected to decrease bullying and mitigate transphobic and homophobic behaviour, while others staunchly opposed the very idea of the program, particularly those who fall into the “far right” side of the political spectrum, but that’s not what we will be discussing here. In this article, we will be focusing on parents’ concerns regarding specific content, because the inspiration behind the program itself was clearly well-intended and justified.
One Victorian mother filmed herself while discussing her concerns about the program, which has since gone viral. She explains that she is neither transphobic nor homophobic, but simply concerned about what her kids are being taught in school.
She explained that the children are being taught that there are 63 different genders. That’s a lot of different genders that go far beyond the original “boy” and “girl” descriptions, which concerned this mother. The program also teaches gender theory, stating that gender is only a theory and that science cannot depict your gender.
Although this is inclusive and teaches children that it’s okay to ‘identify’ with a gender outside of the traditional “male” and “female” classifications, some question whether this confuses children’s identities.
Another thing to reflect on, why are we giving so much power to our gender in the first place? Whether you’re male, female, trans, or whatever else, at the end of the day that’s not who you truly are. For example, my name is Kalee and I am technically a woman, but I’m also a human being, and underneath it all I’m just a soul living out my human experience.
Our genders don’t actually separate us, they’re an illusory difference that doesn’t actually reflect our inner being and who we truly are. Perhaps this obsession with defining our genders actually represents a deeper desire to explore who we truly are. Instead of focusing on our outer identities, perhaps we can start reflecting on who we are as individuals, going beyond the physical level.
Perhaps the biggest concern here is whether or not the program sexualizes children. It encourages masturbation, as teachers argue that children as young as 12 are having sex and thus they need to be educated on “safer” options like masturbation. The program explains to kids different households tools they can use as dildos, one of which is an electric razor. It’s not difficult to imagine how that could go wrong.
A lot of parents had no idea what exactly the program included because children were asked not to discuss the contents of the classes outside of school. Naturally, this upset parents because it discludes them from their children’s education. However, it’s also easy to imagine how the need for a “safe space” is important, as some parents aren’t as accepting of their child’s sexual preferences, genders, etc.
A lot of parents feel their 13-year-olds are simply too young to be learning about things like anal sex and masturbation. Plus, even if parents were okay with the curriculum, they weren’t made aware of its implementation, which means teachers essentially stripped them of their ability to have the “sex talk” with their kids first.
Lastly, the program allegedly directs children toward pornography and shows them how to hide it from their internet browsing history, as one mother explained. Porn is another issue entirely, and it’s sort of ironic that an “anti-bullying” campaign would encourage the use of pornography when this is known to provoke sexual violence and distort reality and our expectations when it comes to sexuality.
How All of This Relates to Porn and Sex Culture
If you’ve never considered what the issue is with watching porn, that’s completely understandable. We live in a society where sex often becomes fickle. It’s encouraged and normalized, making it commonplace to have casual sex with multiple partners.
To understand this concept, check out the following excerpt from an article written by Brett and Kate McKay called “The Problem With Porn“:
Pornography is such a polarizing issue, that it’s easy for people to take extreme sides when approaching it. Oftentimes, religious people, while very sincere in their beliefs, brand porn as vile filth that turns good men into sexual perverts and unclean lepers. I’ve sat through plenty of church sermons where porn is approached this way. However, such a approach hardly helps men rationally think through the issue. Rather it transforms porn into an even more desirable forbidden fruit, pushes porn consumption into a secretive underground fetish, and prevents men from being honest in their need for help.
The other extreme sees porn as just a healthy expression of sexuality. Pornography is heartily encouraged in order to help people discover what pleases them sexually, no matter how graphic or violent the material is. The people in this camp will argue that as long as consenting adults are involved and no one gets hurt, then anything goes. However, this approach fails to recognize the detrimental effects porn can have on an individual, on women, and on society.
There’s no shortage of issues within the porn industry: child pornography, violence, associating pain with pleasure, rape, pedophilia, disconnection, objectification, and more. Even the U.S. government has recognized the addictive nature of porn and the issues associated with watching it. The state of Utah tried to issue a bill in response to these concerns, stating pornography is “a public health hazard leading to a broad spectrum of individual and public health impacts and societal harms.” You can read more about that in our CE article here.
When it comes to modern sex culture and porn, we went from one end of the spectrum, suppressing our natural instincts and sexual nature because of religion and patriarchy, to the complete opposite, running wild with it and often setting the goal to sleep with many partners. There’s is of course nothing inherently wrong with this; but our actions allows us to reflect and become more aware of our deeper soul desires, challenging us to not simply act from the mind in an unconscious state.
We witnessed a massive shift during the feminist era in regards to our sexuality and our ability to express it freely, and we’re experiencing another shift today. We’re becoming more comfortable with our sexual preferences and more accepting of the LGBTQI community, which is awesome! However, as with every issue that touches upon people’s core beliefs and values at the mind level, opinions vary widely and intensely. Does science depict our gender, is it a choice, or is it entirely dependent on an inherent feeling within us?
I believe that’s up to interpretation, but I also have to ask if it really matters if your opinion differs from another’s and if it’s worth arguing over? The most important thing here is to be accepting of other people and learn to love their differences. If you’re not transgender, how can you argue with their feelings? If you’re not attracted to the same sex, how can you argue that it’s a “choice”? We have no idea what it’s like to walk in another person’s shoes, and thus non judgment of others’ actions is the best way to begin to understand them.
When it comes to Australia’s Safe Schools program, it’s clearly a controversial subject, and for good reason. We shouldn’t be teaching kids to watch porn, but we should also recognize the sheer necessity of creating anti-bullying programs. Bullying is not an experience we want to encourage, and children and adults alike can benefit from becoming more aware of our actions and how they affect one another.
We’ve obviously come a long way in regards to accepting the LGBTQI community, but we still have a long way to go. At the end of the day, we are all fundamentally connected to one another, and we are so much more alike than we are different. We all deserve compassion, love, forgiveness, and kindness; things like sexual preference and gender shouldn’t make a difference when it comes to the way we perceive and treat other people!
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
The Bigger Pandemic Is The Financial Crisis – What’s The Solution?
Before you begin...
During COVID, it is no secret that the world’s economy has suffered. Regardless of what markets might say or what PR comes from any current administration, the average person is not doing well. People are losing jobs, savings, their business, and their houses.
In response, we consistently hear the same rhetoric: “It will recover,” “we need more jobs,” “we’ll build, back, better,” “Raise minimum wage.” And while some of these things are going to be helpful in the short run, it’s truly the long run that we have to be discussing.
We need to start thinking outside the box.
In this week’s Setty Report, we seek to explore a solution to our existing global financial problems. But in order to get there, we have to first understand what the problem is, and why we can’t solve it with ‘inside the box thinking.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
French Space Agency Releases Information About UFOs: 600 Cases Over 64 Years
- The Facts:
The French counterpart of the UAP Task Force who reports to the France's Space Agency offers a detailed analysis of 600 UFO cases over 64 years.
- Reflect On:
Why, after decades of study, encounters and what seems to be an official ridicule campaign are governments admitting that the phenomenon is very real?
Before you begin...
Reporting to France’s Space Agency (CNES) is a little-known unit that investigates the unidentified aerial phenomenon and makes its findings public. GEIPAN stands for Groupe d’Études et d’Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (unidentified aerospace phenomenon research and information group)
While everyone is focused on the American version of the study, which will contain over 120 events, GEIPAN has released a report that covers over 600 recorded incidents by pilots over a 64-year period. The paper concentrates on 290 of these incidents when the unidentified aerial device had (or may have had) an impact on flight safety.
While the study has received little attention, there are several data points that are essential in establishing or verifying particular aspects of the phenomena. It will be fascinating to see if the DNI’s report to Congress has comparable results, or if they will disclose these findings in the public realm.
1952 & 1954 — The Peak Years
The distribution of the 600 cases by year reveals that 320 instances (53%) occurred over a 16-year period (from 1946 to 1960), with 275 cases (46%) occurring between 1950 and 1957. The year with the most instances (83 cases) was 1952, followed by 1954 with 40 cases. The years 1952 in the United States and 1954 in Europe are regarded as the two peak years for UAP sightings.
There is no discernible seasonal trend in the distribution of these 600 cases per month. July has the most instances (75) compared to the other months, and April has the fewest cases (29). The remaining 10 months had between 42 and 56 instances, which does not appear to be a substantial difference.
Witnesses failed to indicate the time of day in 38 cases (6 percent). Out of the remaining 562 occurrences, 305 (54%) occurred at night and 257 (46%) occurred during the day.
A Global Phenomenon
The 600 instances are almost universally dispersed. They are positioned over continental zones (564 in total), encompassing 56 nations, as well as above marine zones (36 cases). The American continent (North, Central, and South America) had 376 cases (58 percent), with North America having 298 instances (Canada and USA). 108 instances have been reported above Europe, with 33 of them occurring in French airspace.
Witness Credibility — Pilots Only
The UAP sightings recorded by military pilots are the most common among the 600 occurrences documented during a 64-year period: 251 instances (42 percent ). Commercial pilots reported 233 instances (39%), while private pilots recorded 105 cases (18 percent ).
When the latter section of the time range investigated (1990 to 2010) is included, the outcome is completely different. The commercial aircraft instances are the most frequent of the 70: 49 in total (70 percent ). Military pilots reported 12 instances (17 percent), while private pilots reported 9 cases (13 percent ). This, I believe, is related to the secrecy that armies throughout the world have taken when it comes to disclosing UAP sightings.
A thorough study of the distribution of military aircraft cases by year reveals that 75% of them (189 instances) happened during a 14-year period (from 1946 for 1959). The majority of these instances were military cases from the 1950s, and numerous official records from that time period were declassified in the years that followed (U.S. Air Force Projects Sign, Grudge, and Blue Book).
In 141 cases (24%), almost a quarter of the 600 cases, the phenomenon was observed from two or more aircraft in flight.
There were two or more eyewitnesses in 415 incidents (69 percent). The pilot or co-pilot was the lone witness in 185 incidents (31%). The findings reveal that in more than two-thirds of the 600 cases, there were two or more witnesses.
Flight Characteristics & Radar Detection
The distribution of incidents by flight phase reveals that the vast majority of sightings happened when the aircraft was in cruise flight. It should be noted that the pilot has more time to look at the sky during this phase of flight because the aircraft is frequently on autopilot. Pilots, on the other hand, focus their attention on flying and flight instruments throughout the other four phases of flight.
Radar-Visual (RV) sightings are classified into three types: (1) detection by ground radar, (2) detection by airborne radar (AR), and (3) detection by both ground radar and aerial radar (AGR). When ground control checks but does not detect any targets on the radar display and cannot corroborate the visual sighting, a fourth category (NR) occurs.
Among the 600 cases chosen, a radar check (positive or negative) was performed in 278 (46%) of them, and the findings are as follows:
Positive radar detection (GR+AR+AGR) 162 cases (27% of 600 cases)
Negative radar detection (NR) 115 cases
It’s worth noting that the proportion of positive radar detection (27%) is precisely the same as the result of a prior research of 300 instances.
The visual observation of the event was verified by both airborne and ground radar in 34 (21%) cases.
Example: On a landing approach, the co-pilot of a Caravelle spotted five or six lights off the right wing tip that followed the aircraft on a parallel track. He inquired with the air traffic controller if there were any other planes on final approach. ATC provided a negative response but confirmed that there was a radar echo on the right of the aircraft that followed it. The lights vanished off the right wing tip and reappeared off the left wing tip. The pilot activated the autopilot and examined the on-board radar, which revealed an echo to the left.
Simultaneously, the air traffic controller reported that the unknown echo had moved to the left of the Caravelle. (Case: 1352, France 1979)
Radar-visual cases are very important and interesting for two reasons: (1) they confirm the visual testimony of the pilot and/or the crew by a technical record of the phenomenon; (2) and sometimes they give technical measures like speed, altitude or trajectory of the UAP.
Example: The crew of a B-757 noticed a black cigar-shaped wingless object below their aircraft off to the right, around 15–20 miles away. Tacoma’s NORAD/WASD (Western Air Defence Sector) HQ has an unclear track. It looked to be motionless at first, then surged in a burst of speed for 20 to 30 seconds before coming to a complete halt. It lingered for one and a half minutes before accelerating again in a burst of speed. This was done many times during a four-minute period, after which the target vanished. The calculated speed was between 1000 and 1400 mph.
(Case:1266 USA 1995)
Pilots classify the things they see into two categories: “light” points and “objects,” which have a “solid” appearance. UAP reported by pilots and crews is described as having a material or three-dimensional, solid aspect in over three-quarters of the instances (74 percent). UAP is described as solid, although it is most commonly reported as “objects,” which come in a variety of forms. The most commonly reported forms are round (or elliptical) with a metallic appearance (sphere, silvery disc, etc). Meanwhile, several additional forms were noticed, some of which were quite odd and contradictory to traditional aerodynamic designs.
Examples: Two yellow objects shaped like hamburgers (Case 1149, USA 1980); a black cylindrical object 24 feet long and nine feet wide (Case 1123, Italy 1979); a giant triagle-shaped with intense lights joining the edges (Case 1113, Chile 1978); a long brown cigar-shaped object (Case 1050, Portugal 1976); an airliner fuselage without any wings or tail and with potholes lighted from inside (Case 1347, France 1985); an elliptical shape, flat below and slightly domed on the upper part (Case 1245, Sahara 1965); a large elliptical object looking like a metallic mushroom, which at times appeared to be translucent and seemed to have a transparent glass-line dome (Case 556, Australia 1954).
In more than two third of the 600 selected cases (474 cases — 78%) the witnesses have reported only one UAP.
In 117 cases (20%), pilots reported sightings of two or more UAP. In 12 cases, groups of more than 10 UAP were observed at the same time.
A pilot recorded the lowest estimated altitude as 500 feet. Major Joe Walker, who was piloting the X-15 rocket propelled aircraft on a test flight at more than 2000 mph when his rear view movie camera caught five disc-shaped cylindrical objects flying in echelon formation, reported the greatest UAP height of 246,000 feet. (Case 854, April 1964).
Interaction cases are those in which the UAP appears to react to the presence of an aircraft. Interactions between UAP and aircraft were observed in 299 instances (almost 50%). These cases are about the following events: (1) UAP conducts manoeuvres to approach, chase, or escape from the aircraft; (2) dogfights with military aircraft; and (3) UAP circles or performs manoeuvres near to the aircraft. This category includes reports of electromagnetic impacts on aviation systems.
The phenomena approached the aeroplane on a collision path in 78 occasions, and there was a near-collision with the aircraft in six more. The pilot was required to take evasive action in 31 occasions to avoid colliding with the UAP, including three cases (all commercial aircraft incidents) in which passengers were wounded during the move.
In 59 of the incidents, the UAP circled or moved close to the aircraft. This sort of occurrence has the most reports (20 cases) of suspected electro-magnetic impacts on aviation equipment, particularly for commercial (8 cases) and private aircraft (8 cases).
In terms of events that may have an influence on flight safety, the most common kind reported by commercial pilots is “UAP approaches aircraft on a collision course,” with a total of 38 instances. The pilots claimed that the “UAP circles aircraft and/or moves close to aircraft” in 24 occasions. Pilots most commonly reported claimed electromagnetic impacts on their aircraft systems during this sort of occurrence. In 15 cases, the pilot had to take evasive action to avoid a collision with the object that resulted in passengers injured in three cases.
Example: The three crew members of a B747–300 saw an extremely rapid white rocket-like object overflowing their plane between 200 and 400 feet above in the opposite direction. The item, which they characterised as cylindrical, lacked a wing. There was no TCAS warning. The object flew just above their head. It was close enough that the flight officer lowered his head, fearing it might strike them. It was white and spherical in form. There was no apparent smoke or flames coming from the item. ARTCC observed no radar echo in the aircraft’s opposite direction. The National Transportation Safety Board has reached no judgments on the identify of the object, but the matter is considered closed. (Case 1293, USA 1997)
Private aircraft instances with potential influence on flight safety account for the majority of the cases, accounting for 34 of the 65 cases in which pilots reported claimed Electro-magnetic impacts on aircraft systems: Instances involving private aircraft account for 54% of all cases (compared with commercial aircraft cases: 15% and military aircraft cases: 27%).
The most troublesome element of UAP contacts appears to be situations in which permanent or transitory electromagnetic impacts occurred on aircraft systems during flight, either directly or indirectly as a result of the relatively close presence of one or more UAP.
In 81 of the 600 chosen cases, claimed electromagnetic interference was seen and reported (14%). Everything from radios to weaponry was impacted.
Readers should remember this information and realise that studies that have gone to great efforts to assist us in figuring out the nature of the UAP enigma already exist.
They’ve been studied by reputable organisations staffed by qualified scientists and professionals.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Fact Checkers & Big Tech Censorship Are Tearing Apart Society
Before you begin...
Journalist Laurie Clarke published an article in the British Medical Journal examining hundreds of millions of pieces of content that Facebook has removed in an attempt to stop ‘covid misinformation.’ As a result of censorship, we are seeing a breakdown of important dialogue. Here is our deeper written analysis of her piece.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
A 5000 Year Old Aboriginal Cave Painting of The “Wandjina.” Known As ‘The Sky Beings’
Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much...
Engineers Develop A Device That ‘Literally Generates Electricity Out of Thin Air’
A new study published in Nature entitled “Power generation from ambient humidity using protein nanowires” has discovered an interesting way to...