Connect with us

General

Why We Are All Economic & ‘Globalization’ Slaves: The True Reason Behind The 40-Hour Work Week

Avatar

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

(EV via anonhq) Economic slavery, or wage slavery, refers to one’s total and immediate dependence on wages to survive.

advertisement - learn more

Although people throughout history have had to work to get by, we now live in a culture where we are led to believe we have economic freedom, when unbeknownst to most citizens, we are in fact bound in servitude.

-->Watch a free sneak peek of our new course: Our latest course focuses on how to improve your critical thinking and become more aware of bias. Click here to check it out!

We automatically accept a 40-hour workweek with meager hourly pay as normal, even though many work overtime and still struggle to survive. There are also those who make enough to live comfortably but are unable to request less hours—you either work 40 hours a week, or you don’t get to work at all. We submit when told what to wear, when we have to arrive and depart, when we’re allowed to eat, and even when we’re allowed to use the restroom. How is it we have come to allow this?

The 40-hour-work week came about during the Industrial Revolution in Britain when at one point workers were putting in 10 to 16 hour days and began to protest. Working situations for Americans began to worsen as well, and by 1836, labor movement publications were also calling for a 40-hour workweek. Citizens in both situations were so overworked, an eight-hour day was easily accepted. This system is unnecessary now, if it ever was, but we still accept it due to the effects of our capitalist society.

There are many contributing factors that have led to our current economic system and continued acceptance of the 40-hour workweek, three major factors being consumerism, inflation, and debt. First, it’s important to understand exactly what inflation is, how it works, and how it leads to debt.
Inflation:

To put inflation simply, let’s say the U.S. government needs money for whatever war they’ve decided to wage this year. They ask the Federal Reserve for a loan, and the Fed agrees to buy bonds (sort of like IOU’s) from the government in the amount of the requested loan. The U.S. government then prints up a bunch of pieces of paper that say “Treasury Bond” while at the same time, the Federal Reserve prints up a bunch of little pieces of paper that we know as money. A trade is made between the government and the Federal Reserve—the bonds for the money—and the U.S. government directly deposits this newly printed money in a different bank, which in turn, takes its cut in fees and interest. Voilà, money has been created out of thin air.

advertisement - learn more

—Find out why we are living in the most important time in our history.

Although this process takes place electronically now (only 3% of money is in physical form, the other 97% exists in computers) the problem either way is that it depletes the worth of the dollar. At one point in time, currency was worth gold. That was what gave money its value, but now the value of money is trusted to the Federal Reserve who has no moral objections to reducing that value by printing more money (basically legal counterfeit). For the cost of printing, the Federal Reserve creates money that the U.S. government has promised to pay back—money that didn’t even exist in the first place.

It works like this with private bank loans to citizens as well. Each time a transaction of this sort happens, it reduces the value of actual currency, and thus we have inflation. One dollar in 1913 required $21.60 in 2007 to match its value. That’s a 96% devaluation since the Federal Reserve came into existence. How does this lead to economic slavery? By the debt inflation has caused.

DEBT:

Since money is created through loans, that means it’s created through debt. Money equals debt, and debt equals money. So the more money there is, the more debt there is, and vice versa. What this means is, if somehow the government and every citizen in debt were able to pay back those loans, there would not be a single dollar in circulation.

Interest plays an important role in this equation as well. When you take out a loan and the bank gives you money that technically doesn’t exist, they also expect you to pay additional interest with it. If the money loaned is coming from the Federal Reserve, where is the money for the interest supposed to come from?

The answer is nowhere.

That means no matter what, the nation will never be able to get out of debt, and that is exactly the purpose of this meticulously orchestrated system. Like a toss of the coin, somebody somewhere will always go bankrupt to make up for the interest that is being paid with even more debt. And so, as the nation sinks further in the hole while the cost of living increases, surviving in the economy becomes more difficult. This desperation to survive, coupled with the fact that we were born into this system, is ultimately what causes us to accept the 40-hour workweek without a moment’s thought.

So now we understand the element that forces us to accept our predicament, but how does the 40-hour workweek benefit banks and corporations? After all, studies show that the average office worker gets less than three hours worth of work done in an 8-hour work shift, and according to reports, US corporate profits are soaring while wages are declining. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that productivity has increased at a 2.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter, while hourly pay only increased 1.3 percent in the third quarter, and this has been the basic pattern for some time—it adds up after a while. Corporate profits are at their highest level in at least 85 years, so why aren’t we being paid more, working less, and providing additional jobs to those who need them? This brings us to consumerism.

CONSUMERISM:

Consumerism is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as: the belief that it is good for people to spend a lot of money on goods and services. At one point in time this belief may have rang true, but with the current capitalist system and cost of living, consumerism has begun to have negative effects on our society, especially when you take inflation and the increasing debt into consideration. The more we buy, the more we feed the corporations and banks who are in turn pushing us into economic slavery.

Since the 1800’s and the Industrial Revolution, “consumers” have been spending increasing amounts of money on frivolous purchases. This over-indulgence has been nurtured and fed by the corporations using commercialism (the attitude or actions of people who are influenced too strongly by the desire to earn money or buy goods rather than by other values—Merriam-Webster) as a tool. Psychological insinuations have been planted into society’s subconscious for generations through consumer advertisements which have ultimately led to certain habits and beliefs. Some examples are:

“Buy now pay later” – The General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) started this mindset when it was established in 1919 and began to promote giving loans to people who bought cars. Americans eventually started to use the new credit plans on just about everything.

“Keeping up with the Joneses” – Commonly thought to be the beginning of the American consumer culture, this mindset began when GM introduced the yearly automobile model change. People wanted to have the latest model each year, and soon this idea spread out. Most of us, whether we want to admit it or not, are familiar with this mentality. Rather than keeping our old toaster that works perfectly fine, we want the new retro-style stainless steel model because it looks swanky sitting on our kitchen counter.

“1929-1945 Depression and War” – Soon after The Depression came WWII, during which advertisers promised products to be available when there was peace. As a result, customers (consumers) were eager to take up spending immediately after the war was over.

“Peace” – When the war ended, consumer optimism and economic growth accompanied victory.

“Charge it!” – Credit cards were first promoted through the Diners Club—a charge card company that services affluent and well-traveled individuals from around the world. Other companies followed suit and started advertising credit cards as a “time-saving device” rather than a way to spend money that wasn’t actually there.

“Bigger is better” – During the 1970’s, companies began to send credit cards out by the masses to those who had not requested them. While Americans had already been developing the idea that “bigger is better”, the credit card boom ended up exploiting that idea. Now people had the means to obtain extravagant items they couldn’t before, even though it put many in colossal debt. Congress soon had to regulate the credit card boom, and ban sending cards to those who never requested them in the first place.

Companies in all kinds of industries hold a huge stake in the public’s penchant to be careless with their money, and they encourage this habit of casual or non-essential spending when they can. For example, in the documentary The Corporation, a marketing psychologist discussed a method she used to increase sales that involved encouraging children to nag their parents to buy toys. Studies showed that 20% to 40% of purchases of this sort resulted after children nagged their parents.

“You can manipulate consumers into wanting, and therefore buying, your products. It’s a game.” Lucy Hughes, co-creator of “The Nag Factor”.

The 40-hour workweek is the ultimate tool for corporations to sustain this culture of over-indulgent spending. Under our current working conditions, people are forced to build a life in the evenings and their days-off. We find ourselves more inclined to spend heavily on entertainment and conveniences because we rarely have any free time. When we do have time to ourselves, it’s usually fleeting, and we eventually find ourselves neglecting those activities which are free—walking, exercising, reading, meditating, sports, hobbies, etc.—because they take too much time.

While having extra money comes at the sacrifice of personal time for some, for others they not only are robbed of their personal freedom, but they struggle to make ends meet on top of it. The “perfect” consumer works full-time, earns a fair amount of money, indulges during their free time, and somehow just makes it by each month. However, even those who don’t earn fair wages sometimes find themselves wasting small increments of money on unnecessary items for the wrong reasons—a cup of Starbucks here, a McDonald’s cheeseburger there, and those really cool fuzzy dice hanging from the rear-view of your 1993 Honda Civic.

Any way you look at it, we have become an unhappy, mindless, over-worked society. We buy silly items for a few moments of happiness before getting bored and moving on. We feel a need to keep up with fads, or to fulfill our childhood vision of what adulthood would be like. We hide our insecurities, avoid issues, and replace psychological needs with material items. By keeping society’s free time scarce, people will pay more for convenience, gratification, and any other relief they can buy.

Keeping America unhealthy has become extremely profitable for big-business, and so far their efforts have paid-off beautifully. Our society has been transformed into an industry fueled by economic slavery, and consumerism is a key factor in this corrupt system—one the people have direct influence over. Consumers are the only ones who can stop consuming.

Sources:

Cain, David. True Activist. Dec 7, 2014. (http://www.trueactivist.com/your-lifestyle-has-already-been-designed-the-real-reason-for-the-forty-hour-workweek/)

Ethos. Dir. Pete McGrain. Cinema Libre Studio, 2011. Documentary

Graph supplied by: (http://economagic.com/)

Jones, Shannon. World Socialist Web Site. Dec 4, 2014. (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/04/wage-d04.html)

Mt. Holyoke College Research Study. American Consumerism and the Global Environment. 2009. (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~kelle20m/classweb/wp/index.html)

Zeitgeist: Addendum. Dir. Peter Joseph. GMP LLC, 2008. Documentary.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Chris Sky Enters Big Chain Stores Without Mask & Films It: Non-Compliance At Its Best

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Chris Sky, a social media 'influencer' has gained a lot of attention lately due to the fact that he is demonstrating non-compliance when it comes to the variou covid measures that are being put in place.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there such a large group of people, who see issue with governmental measures, taking action to stop them? Does it show we don't agree on our collective approach? Does it show we don't agree on the threat level of COVID-19?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Is non-compliance a solution? Of course it is, what other way can a citizenry function against what are perceived to be tyrannical authoritarian measures that are imposed on them? What’s so difficult about non compliance today is that we have a population that’s completely separated on what’s happening. On one hand, you have a large group of people who believe that COVID is extremely dangerous, this includes a number of people, doctors scientists and journalists. On the other hand you also have a very large group of people, doctors, scientists who believe that the measures being used to combat COVID are not warranted given the fact that it has a 99.95 percent recovery rate, and strong protection from antibodies, for example.

What separates the two camps seems to be the amount of censorship that journalists, doctors and scientists are receiving for presenting peer-reviewed science, information, data and opinions that in many ways completely contradict what we are being told by our governments and mainstream media. This group may even be in the majority.

There are countless examples of censorship. For example, A letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

It was published Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute. He received so much backlash and hatred for his discovery that he has now quit is work on COVID. Even the (at the time) executive editor of the British Medical Journal published a piece explaining how “science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. There are many examples, especially when it comes to “alternative treatments.”

Why is it that a government scientist, or a scientist who ‘agrees with the narrative’ gets all of the attention and virality they want, but when some of the world’s leading experts in the field share data and science contradicting this information they are censored? Mainstream media is a major source of information for people. It’s one reason why so many people, including healthcare professionals, are completely unaware of important information pertaining to the pandemic when it comes to al’ things covid such as  the vaccine, as well as the effectiveness of masks and more.

Lockdowns are another great example, despite a wealth of science and data showing that lockdowns do nothing to stop the spread of covid and may actually kill more people than covid, not many people are aware of this perspective. When the mainstream does address, it, they simply label it as a “conspiracy” and as a result, mainstream media watchers repeat this rhetoric, especially when you try and have a conversation with them. At the end of the day things aren’t as black and white as they’re being made out to be, which strongly suggests, in my opinion, that people should be able to free to choose what they would like to do and that governments should be making recommendations, not mandates.

Below is a video of Chris Sky, in conjunction with BlockTalkTO. Chris Sky is leading by example when it comes to non compliance, showing that the ‘mandates’ being put in place are unconstitutional and don’t have to be followed. Be sure to check out his Instagram account, he’s also had multiple encounters at the airport showing and explaining that one doesn’t have to comply and that one supposedly can’t get in trouble for doing so.

Why This Is Important: As tensions rise due to such a deep level of division and confusion, many notice the mental health effects of this reality. Since it’s not customary in our mainstream culture to have tools of physiological regulation, we tend to lack the capacity to do much more than simply survive day to day. We might avoid looking at information that might challenge narratives that are effortless to receive –  like that of mainstream media.

As a society, we are failing to have appropriate conversations about ‘controversial’ topics. Even information that is backed by a tremendous amount of evidence, if it conflicts with what one believes, it doesn’t really register. This happens to all of us on both “sides.”

For example, The COVID pandemic is bringing a stark reality into question that suggests governments may be withholding clinically proven effective treatments for COVID, contributing to the needless deaths, all while favoring the rollout of a highly profitable vaccine. Many people can see this and begin asking questions about intentions of leaders. While at the same time, many could not fathom the possibility that governments would do such a thing, and so it’s labelled a conspiracy and the topic is avoided entirely – regardless of looking at the evidence. Can you see the division this could create?

The Takeaway: So, what are we to do when we are forced into measures that may not be in our best interests? In my opinion, given the fact that so many agree with them, and so many don’t, it seems freedom of choice is the best answer. For example, if you take the vaccine and believe it’s safe and effective, that’s great. But why should you care if I take it. If you are vaccinated and protected, why do you have to worry about me, the one who is not?

Throughout history, society has been subjected to an enormous amount of propaganda. Human beings are good people, and we, for the most part, would not agree to measures that we believe are dangerous and are not good for the whole. This is why when measures may not be in our bests interests, the only way to convince the masses to adopt them is to manipulate their consciousness.

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. (Propaganda)

This is why non compliance, in a peaceful manner, is such a revolutionary act and always will be. Any mainstream media articles you read about Chris Sky will no doubt be used to ridicule him, but he is a very brave person setting a great example that begs the question, what are we supposed to do when governments try to mandate measures that are not backed by a large majority of people. Is this really a democracy?

 Society must have controversial conversations in a meaningful way. We are not getting anywhere by taking authoritarian actions that harm the well being of general society and our ability to stay connected as communities. Mainstream culture is expecting everyone to side with the idea that fringe ‘conspiracy theories’ are undermining truth in society, yet mainstream culture does not want to take responsibility for its role in this phenomenon via censorship and corporate favoritism.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Harvard & Stanford Medical Professors Strongly Condemn “Vaccine Passports”

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 6 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard medical professor and vaccine expert alongside Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford are two of many experts in the field condemning the idea of "vaccine passports."

  • Reflect On:

    Are we seeing basic freedoms and enjoyable experiences within life become inaccessible for those that don't wish to participate in extreme COVID measures? What is this fear driven approach saying about our general view of life at this time?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

What Happened: Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard medical professor, epidemiologist and vaccine expert alongside Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, (two founding members of The Great Barrington Declaration) a physician and professor at Stanford Medical school recently published a piece in the Wall Street Journal condemning the idea of vaccine passports, a measure that seems to be gaining traction in multiple countries.

These vaccine “passports” would allow those who have been vaccinated to travel without being subjected to quarantine measures, and perhaps go to concerts, enter certain restaurants, schools, sports arenas, and other public buildings that those who are not vaccinated will not be allowed to enter, it appears. It looks like these passports are going to be digital, once you’ve received your shots, you get a phone app or a document that you will flash to gain entry. Who knows what freedoms previously enjoyed will be unavailable to the unvaccinated? We have yet to see how this will all roll out.

According to the professors,

Covid vaccine passports would harm, not benefit, public health. The idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. Covid vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those who’ve been infected are already immune. The young are at low risk, and children — for whom no vaccine has been approved anyway — are at far less risk of death than from the flu.

 The public has lost trust in officials in part because they’ve performed poorly — relying on lockdowns to disastrous effect — and in part because they’ve made clear their distrust of the public. Trust, after all, is a two-way street. Coercive vaccination policies would erode trust even further. Even well-informed people may legitimately wonder: Why are they forcing me to take this shot if it’s so good for me?

Vaccine passports are unjust and discriminatory. Most of those endorsing the idea belong to the laptop class — privileged professionals who worked safely and comfortably at home during the epidemic. Millions of Americans did essential jobs at their usual workplaces and became immune the hard way. Now they would be forced to risk adverse reactions from a vaccine they don’t need.

Keep in mind that these two professors are not against vaccination. In their article they make their belief quite clear that vaccines are very important and have saved millions of lives.

If you’re interested in learning why so many people, doctors and scientists will not take the vaccine, I recently wrote an article that goes a little more in-depth into that topic, which you can read here.

Why This Is Important: I recently wrote an article about Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine doctor with a hefty following on YouTube. In one of his most recent videos he makes the same point as the professors above regarding prior infection.

I’m not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you’re naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you’ve naturally recovered from it, my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better then a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know.

As I’ve pointed out before in several of my articles, there are multiple studies hinting to the point these doctors are  making, that those who have been infected with covid have immunity, and may have immunity for decades. There are studies that suggest infection to prior coronaviruses, which prior to COVID-19 circled the globe infecting hundreds of millions of people every single year, can also provide protection from COVID-19. Keep in mind, the estimated number of people infected is, like other viruses, highly likely to be much more than the numbers we seen have from testing.

According to a new study authored by respected scientists at leading labs, individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.” This is just one of many examples, I thought I’d put it in here for reference.

Furthermore, we must keep in mind that the COVID-19 has a 99.95-99.97 percent survival rate for people under the age of 70, and 95 percent for people above that age.

The Takeaway: There has been wide scale disagreement amongst global citizens about the measures being taken with regards to COVID-19. On one hand, greater control, health surveillance and centralized power is being pushed in accordance with keeping people ‘safe’ from a virus with a very high survival rate. On the other hand, people are feeling as though their personal experience and everyday view of this virus and what health effects it is really causing don’t line up with the extreme measures. We have a split in our global community whereby many citizens’ desires and will are not being represented by the government and their decisions, and they feel as though by not participating in extreme measures, they will lose access to living life to the fullest. Furthermore, lockdowns may be responsible for more deaths than COVID.

Can we truly accept that controlling everyone’s lives and what they can and can’t do is the best thing to do with an extremely low mortality virus? Does this indicate the level of fear we have towards life? The issues with our general health? If the worry is straining health care systems, are we seeing the limitations of how our rigid social infrastructures can’t be flexible and maybe it’s time to look at a new way of living within society? Perhaps a new way built on a completely different worldview?

Things clearly aren’t as black and white as government and mainstream media is making them out to be, this is quite clear as we see a great deal of division among people, doctors and scientists. On top of this, there is an extreme amount of censorship taking place on science and opinions that oppose government and mainstream narratives. When this is the case, I believe it becomes even more clear that the correct thing to do would be for health authorities to simply make recommendations rather than impose mandates on the population.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Ontario, Canada To Enter Third COVID Lockdown Issuing A Stay At Home Order

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 4 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Ontario, Canada is set to issue a province wide stay at home order and shut down of all non essential businesses for at least one month.

  • Reflect On:

    Do lockdowns have any effect on the spread of covid? Are people aware of how many people will die and have died as a result of lockdowns?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

What Happened: Today, Ontario’s premiere Doug Ford will announce that the province will issue a stay at home order and lockdown of non essential businesses. This comes after the province eased lockdown measures allowing retail stores, restaurants and more to operate at a limited capacity.

Why It Matters: All this comes after months of data has been published in various peer-reviewed journals from multiple countries suggesting that lockdowns are not effective at stopping the spread of COVID. Furthermore, many outline how lockdowns have already, and will kill many more people than COVID due to starvation, lack of access to health care, and other reasons.

Based on my research, it seems a large number of experts in the field have been creating awareness and expressing these catastrophic effects, yet they never get any mainstream media air time and are largely ignored, unacknowledged and in many cases ridiculed for their perspectives. Meanwhile, political doctors, or scientists who agree with the narrative we are getting from government health authorities receive all the air time and attention.

One narrative is being completely shut out while the other spreads like wildfire, and this is further reinforced by the fact that many peoples only source of information is mainstream media.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, mainstream media can make the majority feel like the minority and the minority feel like the majority.

If you’d like to read some of the science I refer to regarding the harms of lockdowns, you can refer to this article, this article as well as this article that go into more detail.

Another important question is, do we even have to comply? Many instagram influencers, like this Chris Sky, seem to be leading the way showing how non-compliance seems to be the way to go.

The Other Side: Let’s look at the other angle, the science and data showing that lockdowns are effective in stopping the spread. What’s one hundred percent certain is that things aren’t black and white, and that one perspective, which is the perspective that’s not presented by mainstream media, is being deemed a “conspiracy.” This is leading to a society that is failing to have appropriate conversations about controversial topics because one scientifically validated side is being treated as heresy.

Furthermore, as tensions rise due to such a deep level of division and confusion, many notice the mental health effects of this reality. Since it’s not customary in our mainstream culture to have tools of physiological regulation, we tend to lack the capacity to do much more than simply survive day to day. We might avoid looking at information that might challenge narratives that are effortless to receive –  like that of mainstream media.

The COVID pandemic is bringing a stark reality into question that suggests governments may be withholding clinically proven effective treatments for COVID, contributing to the needless death, all while favoring the rollout of a highly profitable vaccine. Many people can see this and begin asking questions about intentions of leaders. While at the same time, many could not fathom the possibility that governments would do such a thing, and so it’s labelled a conspiracy and the topic is avoided entirely – regardless of looking at the evidence. Can you see the division this could create?

The Takeaway: This is one key challenge facing the collective today. We’re in a time where simply relying on mainstream media and pharmaceutical companies to tell us what isn’t and what is, is not leading us to an accurate understanding of what’s happening in our world. Mainstream culture is responding to differing ideas by shutting down and censoring information.

At the same time, think of how tough it would be for a collective that doesn’t have many tools to navigate stress and trauma to begin looking at narratives that might push us to question our tightly guarded worldviews. If someone is being asked to open up to government conspiracy, they are being asked to put everything they trust and know on the line – do we have the capacity and resilience to do that?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!