Connect with us

Alternative News

Researchers Show What Spanking Your Child Can Do To Their Personality & IQ

Published

on

It’s natural to wonder how we became the person we are and where, or when, our insecurities and fears first took root. More often than not, we turn to our childhood for answers and try to determine when certain seeds were planted that inspired doubt or hesitancy in our personalities. As we grow older, we come to better understand our childhood environment as we get to better know ourselves and our family relationships. We may come to realize that certain habits of our parents marked on our home and shaped how we handle the world today. Simply put, how you were raised directly impacts the person you become, whether you recognize it or not.

advertisement - learn more

Some new parents may harbour fears about this very fact. In some cases, they don’t want to be like their own parents, but they also don’t want to spoil their child. New parents seek all forms of alternatives, all forms of raising a child in the best possible way they can, and when it comes to punishment in particular, there are plenty of schools of thought. You may say to yourself that you were hit as a child and turned out fine, but that was your norm, and it’s difficult to pin down just how it affected you. Research suggests this kind of punishment does leave a mark, however.

The late Dr. Murray Straus dedicated his life to better understanding the negative effects that corporal punishment has on the psyche of a child and how it can affect them as an adult. Having authored hundreds of scholarly papers and 15 books, including Behind Closed Doors and Beating the Devil Out of Them, he is an internationally recognized sociologist and founded the very field of family violence research. Dr. Straus was the co-director of the Family Research Laboratory and a professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire. 

Spanking and IQ

A relatively new study by Straus explores the link between spanking and IQ. Supported by the University of New Hampshire and presented by Straus, along with Mallie Paschall, a senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, to the International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma in 2009, it reveals a troubling trend. “All parents want smart children. This research shows that avoiding spanking and correcting misbehavior in other ways can help that happen,” Straus says. “The results of this research have major implications for the well being of children across the globe.”

The duo studied samples of 806 children ages two to four and 704 children ages five to nine and then retested both groups four years later. The IQs of children between the ages of two and four who were not spanked ranked five points higher compared to those who were spanked in their same age group. Children who were five to nine years old that were not spanked were 2.8 points higher in IQ four years later compared to their spanked counterparts.

“How often parents spanked made a difference. The more spanking the, the slower the development of the child’s mental ability. But even small amounts of spanking made a difference,” Straus reveals.

advertisement - learn more

Nationally

Straus and colleagues collected data on corporal punishment in 32 nations among 17,404 university students who experienced spanking when they were children and found lower national average IQ in nations where spanking was more prevalent. Those whose parents used corporal punishment on them even into their teen years showed the strongest link between the behaviour and their IQ. Their data determined two explanations for the relation of corporal punishment to lower IQ:

  1. Corporal punishment is extremely stressful and can become a chronic stressor for young children, who typically experience corporal punishment three or more times a week. For many it continues for years. The research found that the stress of corporal punishment shows up as an increase in post-­traumatic stress symptoms, such as being fearful that terrible things are about to happen and being easily startled. These symptoms are associated with lower IQ.
  2. A higher national level of economic development underlies both fewer parents using corporal punishment and a higher national IQ.

This research doesn’t surprise me. When a parent chooses to discipline in the form of abuse or aggression, it can only display to the child poor conflict resolution skills, as the outcome for ‘bad behaviour’ is only determined by the abuser and implemented physically rather than by verbally engaging the child and helping them to realize why their acts were not appreciated or accepted.

According to Straus:

The worldwide trend away from corporal punishment is most clearly reflected in the 24 nations that legally banned corporal punishment by 2009. Both the European Union and the United Nations have called on all member nations to prohibit corporal punishment by parents. Some of the 24 nations that prohibit corporal punishment by parents have made vigorous efforts to inform the public and assist parents in managing their children. In others little has been done to implement the prohibition. . . .

Nevertheless, there is evidence that attitudes favoring corporal punishment and actual use of corporal punishment have been declining even in nations that have done little to implement the law and in nations which have not prohibited corporal punishment,

Personality

A study published in the Journal of Family Psychology by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Michigan claims that children who get spanked are more likely to “defy their parents and to experience increased anti-social behavior, aggression, mental health problems and cognitive difficulties.“

And this study was more comprehensive than most. Researchers explain “it is the most complete analysis to date of the outcomes associated with spanking, and more specific to the effects of spanking alone than previous papers, which included other types of physical punishment in their analyses.” This study is based off of a meta-analysis of 50 years of research involving over 160,000 children.

The analysis focuses on what most Americans would recognize as spanking — an open-handed hit on the behind or extremities. When any parent chooses to spank their child, more often than not his or her intention is to create long-term obedience, but in reality, it only creates immediate obedience. “We found that spanking was associated with unintended detrimental outcomes and was not associated with more immediate or long-term compliance, which are parents’ intended outcomes when they discipline their children,” says Elizabeth Gershoff, an associate professor of human development and family sciences at the University of Texas at Austin.

Undoubtedly, parents only want what’s best for their children, so their intention of course isn’t to cause long-term harm through what they’ve always believed to be an appropriate form of discipline. That’s why it is vital for all parents to recognize the impact they could unknowingly be having on their offspring.

“The upshot of the study is that spanking increases the likelihood of a wide variety of undesired outcomes for children. Spanking thus does the opposite of what parents usually want it to do.”

— Co-author Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, an associate professor at the University of Michigan School of Social Work

Most people would say that there is a clear distinction between physical abuse and spanking, but both were associated with the same detrimental child outcomes in the same direction and nearly the same strength. As Gershoff explains, “our research shows that spanking is linked with the same negative child outcomes as abuse, just to a slightly lesser degree,” and “no clear evidence of positive effects from spanking and ample evidence that it poses a risk of harm to children’s behavior and development.”

Another problem with spanking is that the cycle of harm is most likely to continue. The study explains that adults who were spanked as children were more likely to support physical punishment for their own children.

Unfair Situations

Researchers with Tamagawa University and the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology in Japan published a paper in the journal Nature Human Behavior that describes possible implications for those who suffer from depression relating to unfair situations. As reported by Medical XPress:

In the study, volunteers were asked to play a video game in which rewards were offered—some of the volunteers were given more than half of the rewards, some were given less than half, and a third group got the same as other players. As the volunteers played the game, the researchers watched blood flow in the brain courtesy of an MRI machine. The researchers focused on the amygdala and hippocampus because they have been associated with  in people. They report that the way those brain regions responded when players felt the game was unfair toward them offered a reliable means for predicting depression levels in those people a year later—and that was regardless of whether the volunteer had scored as a pro-social person versus an individualist on a test before playing the . They also found that among the brains of volunteers who received more than their share, they could only predict depressive levels in pro-social people.

I find this information to be relevant because, from the perspective of a child, when an adult resorts to physical punishment to amend an issue, the child is likely to feel that something took place that wasn’t right or fair in regards to how a person is to generally be treated. While I agree more research should be done to investigate these suggestions, I think we inherently know that abusing a child, in any way, is wrong, and we don’t need research to prove this.

“It is time for psychologists to recognize the need to help parents end the use of corporal punishment and incorporate that objective into their teaching and clinical practice. It also is time for the United States to begin making the advantages of not spanking a public health and child welfare focus, and eventually enact federal no ­spanking legislation.”

– Dr. Murray Straus

Gentle Parenting 

What does this approach look like?

Rebecca English wrote an article in The Conversation that provides some tips for parents looking to take a different approach to discipline.

Below is an excerpt from the article.

Here are a few steps that parents take to encourage a partnership with their children:

  1. They start from a place of connection and believe that all behaviour stems from how connected the child is with their caregivers.
  2. They give choices not commands (“would you like to brush your teeth before or after you put on your pyjamas?”).
  3. They take a playful approach. They might use playfulness to clean up (“let’s make a game of packing up these toys”) or to diffuse tension (e.g. having a playful pillow fight).
  4. They allow feelings to run their course. Rather than saying “shoosh”, or yelling “stop!”, parents actively listen to crying. They may say, “you have a lot of/strong feelings about [the situation]”.
  5. They describe the behaviour, not the child. So, rather than labelling a child as naughty or nice, they will explain the way actions make them feel. For example, “I get so frustrated cleaning crumbs off the couch.”
  6. They negotiate limits where possible. If it’s time to leave the park, they might ask, “How many more minutes/swings before we leave?” However, they can be flexible and reserve “no” for situations that can hurt the child (such as running on the road or touching the hot plate) or others (including pets). They might say: “Hitting me/your sister/pulling the dog’s tail hurts, I won’t let you do that.”
  7. They treat their children as partners in the family. A partnership means that the child is invited to help make decisions and to be included in the household tasks. Parents apologise when they get it wrong.
  8. They will not do forced affection. When Uncle Ray wants to hug your child and s/he says no, then the child gets to say what happens to their body. They also don’t force please or thank you.
  9. They trust their children. What you might think of as “bad” behaviour is seen as the sign of an unmet need.
  10. They take parental time-outs when needed. Before they crack, they step away, take a breath and regain their composure.

The bottom line is, we are the ambassadors for our children. They look up to us, they depend on us, and they can only assume we will make the best possible decisions for their safety and happiness. I believe we owe it to them to do our own research and to be proactive in creating a dialogue with them, gauging their reactions and responses to discipline, and, most of all, being patient. Being a parent is an endless process of growth and transformation for you and your child, so let’s make it a beautiful one.

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

‘Targeted Individuals’ Activist Getting Stonewalled In Seeking Anti-‘Organized Torture’ Legislation

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Tomo Shibata, who has asked 9 California legislators to introduce a bill that specifically criminalizes 'Organized Covert Torture,' has uncovered evidence of undue influence from the perpetrators over the legislative process.

  • Reflect On:

    How can those of us within the awakening community take the efforts of Dr. Shibata and use them to help us all better understand the truth about 'Organized Covert Torture' in a way that we are empowered to put an end to it?

In a previous article, “New California Bill Proposal Aims To Protect ‘Targeted Individuals’,” I described how Dr. Tomo Shibata proposed a bill to members of the California legislature entitled ‘The Organized Torture Act,’ which seeks to criminalize many of the types of attacks that are clandestinely made on targeted individuals.

Now, it appears that Dr. Shibata is getting stonewalled by the California lawmakers she has approached to introduce the bill. And it is Dr. Shibata’s belief that the very forces she is fighting against, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center intelligence contractors in coordination with local law-enforcement officials, are influential in dissuading these politicians from introducing the bill.

What Is ‘Organized Covert Torture’?

This article by Ramola Dharmaraj explains the genesis of Dr. Shibata’s bill proposal and helps us better understand the attacks that ‘targeted individuals’ are facing:

This proposal was made, Dr. Shibata states, on the basis of complaints to human rights groups from high numbers of residents across California from various cities including San Diego, Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Palo Alto, and others, of “organized covert torture” whereby, in lieu of outright abduction, victims are kept under constant control of the covert torture organizations by organized stalking, sustained surreptitious monitoring, cyberstalking, and stealth physical assault and battery with radiation weaponry such as microwave/radar surveillance weapons. Different sources offer varying estimates, running into hundreds of thousands, of the numbers of organized covert torture victims often labeled “Targeted Individuals” within the USA and around the world.

It may be hard for some to believe that this phenomenon is real, let alone affecting hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of individuals on the planet. But that is why this is such a diabolical process. It is designed to appear to outsiders as though it is not happening at all, while some of the tactics are not fully hidden from the victims themselves, when the desire is to inflict a sense of helplessness and paranoia upon the victim.

What is beyond doubt, for those who have researched into this matter, is that technology does indeed exist to remotely target individual people with invisible weapons that cause physical pain as well as debilitating mental and auditory stimulation (source).

advertisement - learn more

This form of torture and human experimentation has the most power when the general public does not believe in its existence. This is why the awakening community must stand behind victims and give their stories credence, as I outlined in a previous article ‘Targeted Individuals Need The Awakening Community To Believe Their Stories.’ And this may be one reason why Dr. Shibata is working tirelessly to get this bill proposal introduced in the California legislature, since just the introduction of the bill (let alone the passing of it into law) will bring it into the public domain and give this issue the legitimacy it desperately needs.

The Culprits

However, ‘legitimacy’ is the last thing that the perpetrators of organized covert torture want. This is why Dr. Shibata believes that these perpetrators are playing a direct role in overtly and covertly discouraging California State legislators from introducing ‘The Organized Torture Act.’

In Dr. Shibata’s email to me (which is the source of all the quotes from her in this article), she specifically points to local law enforcement in concert with Fusion Centers as the most visible culprits of ‘Organized Covert Torture’:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center intelligence contractors “empower frontline law enforcement…to understand local implications of national intelligence, thus enabling local officials to better protect their communities.” (source)—the Fusion Center’s rationale for the organized surveillance and covert torture operations of those who are wrongfully named as criminals and/or terrorists without any due process, as per Former FBI Special Agent Geral Sosbee’s testimony.

Dr. Shibata believes that these intelligence contractors could “empower” police groups as a front organization to mind-control the California legislature:

The police have very strong lobbying groups at the California state legislature. The Fusion Center intelligence contractors could help police lobbying groups in becoming so “strong” in influencing the California legislature, by deploying the following technique: covertly manipulate those who exert the most influence on the target-legislators, who might introduce the bill to prohibit organized covert torture, in order to safeguard the excessive privileges of the police/intelligence contractors to torture targeted individuals.

And indeed, her experience dealing with legislators bears this out.

Stonewalled By Legislators

In total, Dr. Shibata has asked 9 California legislators to review the bill proposal and introduce it to the legislature. But any such bill is required to go through an ‘analysis’ by the Public Safety Committee Counsel since the bill proposes an amendment to the Penal Code. This analysis, according to Dr. Shibata, ‘exerts considerable influence on the voting outcome of the members of the committee.’ Since the committee majority approval is needed first before the bill is introduced to all members of the legislature for voting, Dr. Shibata believes that the opinions of this counsel have resulted from the undue influence of police lobby groups that front the intelligence operations behind covert organized torture.

She cites her experience with legislator Shirley Weber as a case in point. In an email from Dr. Weber’s Legislative Director Anthony Dimartino, Dr. Shibata was made aware that Weber’s office received the following advice from Assembly Public Safety Committee Deputy Chief Counsel Sandy Uribe:

1. The acts of organized covert torture and organized stalking, which the proposed bill prohibits, are already proscribed by the current Penal Code. There is no need for an addition law.

2. The incident, where a civilian complained about his inner ears injured by the police’s ongoing act of using an ultrasonic weapon at him, shot and killed a rookie female police officer in Davis, CA (20-minute driving distance from Sacramento) on January 10, 2019, would discourage the legislature from voting favorably on the proposed bill. The location of the incident is so close to the California capitol that this incident would considerably influence the voting results of the proposed bill.

Dr. Weber decided not to introduce the proposed bill upon receiving this advice. Yet, Dr. Shibata finds the advice highly questionable, and refuted it as follows:

Assembly Public Safety Committee Counsel Deputy Chief Uribe’s above advice prejudicially interprets the proposed bill text and the recent police officer’s murder incident in the light that is most protective of the excessive privileges of the police to torture targeted individuals. Please note that the police abuse discretion vested in them and elect not to enforce the existing laws against organized covert torture and organized stalking. The socio-legal context of the proposed legislation parallels that of the anti-domestic violence legislation, because the police abused their discretion vested in them and did not enforce the pre-existing law against battery in domestic relations, prior to the anti-domestic violence legislation. Just as many police officers themselves committed domestic violence at home back then, many police officers commit organized covert torture themselves today, along with the Fusion Center contractors and under the supervision of the FBI, as per Former FBI Special Agent Geral Sosbee’s aforementioned testimony.

The anti-domestic violence legislation established the rule of law in domestic relations and drastically reduced the killings of husbands by the battered wives at home. The proposed bill will establish the rule of law surrounding organized covert torture and thus will substantially prevent the killings of the police officers by the civilian victims of organized cover torture by the police, as exemplified by the aforementioned Davis police shooter, who had a violent criminal record. Indeed, L.A. law enforcement officers fire electronic weapons remotely at prison inmates, which the ACLU describes as “tantamount to torture,” according to CBS News. Therefore, the recent Davis police officer’s lethal shooting incident only casts light on the urgent need for the rule of law surrounding organized covert torture, instead of discouraging the legislature from voting against the proposed bill.

Another legislator Dr. Shibata asked to introduce the bill was Ed Chau, the chair of the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, and a former judge and an engineer, who has successfully authored bills against the technological invasion of privacy and is already aware of one of the most sophisticated technologies used against targeted individuals, “synthetic telepathy,” which is known to have been researched by the University of California at Irvine and funded by the Army (source). The task of preparing an internal report to Chau on the proposed bill was delegated to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee Consultant/Attorney Nichole Rapier Rocha. In a phone conversation with Rocha, Dr. Shibata found out that Rocha had received unsolicited advice from Sandy Uribe similar to the advice she gave Dr. Weber’s office, which led Dr. Shibata to ask the following question:

Why did super busy Sandy Uribe go out of her way to identify/trace which influential staffer at the legislature was still reviewing the bill proposal for potential recommendation and further to “warn” that influential staffer of the said “problems” of the bill proactively?

While Ed Chau has not yet decided whether to sponsor the bill, the following legislators have already declined: Assembly Member Reginald Jones-Sawyer, Senator Nancy Skinner, Senator Jim Beall, and Senator Chris Holden. Their refusal to take up the challenge, according to Dr. Shibata, is partly “due to their apathetic complicity in leaving thousands of victims, in California alone, continuously and indefinitely exposed to irreversibly maiming torture and slow-kill murder.” But she also has seen telling signs of infiltration within legislators’ committees and the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry in discouraging these legislators from introducing the bill.

Aside from Assembly Member Ed Chau, those legislators who have yet to make a decision are Senator Steven Bradford and Senator Holly Mitchell. Whether or not the tremendous effort made by Dr. Tomo Shibata to get this bill introduced to the California legislature will come to fruition rests in their hands. Time is short, as the bill introduction deadline is February 22, 2019. If you would like to show your support for Dr. Shibata, please try to let your opinions be known to these three remaining California legislators or go to Dr. Shibata’s GoFundMe Page.

The Takeaway

While her proposal to introduce legislation may not be accepted this time around, the time and effort that Dr. Shibata has put into this enterprise has still afforded us the opportunity to see a little more deeply into the mechanisms of control behind organized covert torture and the complicity between politics, law enforcement and intelligence that is needed to keep it in place. Her work is helping to bring the phenomena more into public awareness, and it is through growing awareness and our commitment to uncover the truth that we will one day end these kinds of operations.

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

YouTube Will Stop Recommending Videos Of 9/11 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ To Users

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    YouTube has decided to change its algorithm for recommending videos by excluding certain videos such as those they feel 'make blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.'

  • Reflect On:

    Can we see through the deception and come to know the truth about mainstream media's efforts to promote a false narrative and create within us a disempowering perception about our world?

Heartwarming, isn’t it? Social media giants like YouTube are willing to sacrifice advertising profits in order to ensure that their cherished viewers are deterred from seeing content that YouTube deems dangerous and potentially damaging to their viewers’ mental and emotional health. They’re doing this even though these viewers have demonstrated that they want to see this content. It’s just like having a Big Brother around to help steer us onto the straight and narrow path, isn’t it?

Examples the social media giant cited include videos “promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”

Now, we can talk about any of these examples cited above for wildly different reasons, but let’s stick with the 9/11 theme. While there is no denying that it was a ‘historic event,’ what is implied by this phrase is that 9/11 has an established, well-proven historical account based on the government’s explanation of what happened and supported by the ‘official’ report cobbled together by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). For YouTube, this report is seen as the authoritative ‘last word’ on what happened in New York City on September 11th, 2001.

I could spend pages detailing how many 9/11 ‘conspiracy’ videos, like ones done by the Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, are much more coherent, objective and evidence-based than the NIST report or mainstream media coverage on the subject. But no need, as this is fairly self-evident for anyone who has done a modicum of research into the subject.

What is important to note here is to read the phrase ‘making blatantly false claims’ as really meaning ‘making claims that deviate from the official, controlled mainstream narrative.’ In this regard, the takeover of social media companies by the global elite, as with the prior consolidation of traditional media companies, has been done mainly to try to continue to have a stronghold on how human beings interpret past events, in a way that advances their agenda.

Understanding ‘Recommended’ Videos

Now, to be specific, YouTube is not simply deleting videos they don’t want on their platform (well, they’ve done that too, but that’s another story). They are changing the process by which YouTube ‘recommends’ videos to users based on that viewer’s preferences.

advertisement - learn more

‘Recommended’ videos are those videos that YouTube makes available to the viewer alongside whatever video they are watching, using artificial intelligence to come up with a selection most likely to tempt viewers to continue watching after they are done with the video they are engaged with.

Guillaume Chaslot, a former Google engineer that helped build the artificial intelligence (AI) used to curate recommended videos, said the goal of YouTube’s AI was to keep users on the site as long as possible in order to promote more advertisements. What’s the ‘problem’ with this, according to YouTube? This algorithm encouraged some people with a penchant for ‘Conspiracy Theory’ (to use the famed psy-op label coined by the CIA) to go down a dangerous rabbit hole of misinformation, delusion and potential violence.

Andrew Mendrala, supervising attorney of Georgetown Law’s Civil Rights Clinic warns that the previous YouTube algorithm is “an echo chamber. It’s a feedback loop. It creates an insular community that is continually fed misinformation that reinforces their prejudices.”

Chaslot agrees with this sentiment, saying that when a user was enticed by multiple conspiracy videos, the AI not only became biased by the content the hyper-engaged users were watching, it also kept track of the content that those users were engaging with in an attempt to reproduce that pattern with other users. In a thread of tweets he recently posted, Chaslot praised the change that actually prevents flagged videos from being included within the recommended selection. His comment about this change should give us pause:

“It’s only the beginning of a more humane technology. Technology that empowers all of us, instead of deceiving the most vulnerable.”

Humane? Censorship and controlling information have been couched in many terms recently, but to call this change ‘humane’ feels like the height of hypocrisy. It truly strains credulity to imagine that a corporation like YouTube actually cares about the ‘most vulnerable’ people in society.

Mainstream Rationalization

Let’s call this most recent change in policy by a social media giant what it is: a small step in a subtle, ongoing effort to control the minds of people and reinforce mainstream perceptions rather than letting people sift through a variety of opinions and think for themselves.

There is little the public can do about the policy change itself because YouTube is a private company with legal rights to decide what is broadcast on their platform. But it is the rationalization that we hear in the mainstream for justifying this change that is hard to endure. YouTube claims that the change “strikes a balance between maintaining a platform for free speech and living up to our responsibility to users.” Here’s how a Guardian article frames the mainstream narrative on this particular subject:

YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms have faced growing scrutiny in recent years for their role in hosting and amplifying political propaganda and abusive content that spark real-world consequences and can lead to violence.

In 2016, the conspiracy theory that became known as “Pizzagate” – a popular rightwing fake news story alleging that the Comet Ping Pong restaurant was linked to a child sex ring involving the Hillary Clinton campaign – motivated a gunman to fire a weapon inside the restaurant.

It’s amazing how often this one stooge firing a weapon inside Comet Ping Pong–quite possibly a staged event–is pulled out in mainstream media to try to discredit any investigations into Pizzagate. This technique is used often to bring fear and ridicule upon people following alternative narratives in an attempt to sway the public back to the mainstream perception.

Mainstream Projection

Then the mainstream parades out people like Mendrala, who will make claims that providing viewers more of what they are interested in creates an ‘echo chamber’ and a ‘feedback loop.’ In reality, these comments are pure projection, as this is what mainstream media has been and is desperately trying to continue to be: an untouchable, self-perpetuating Ministry of Truth. As George Orwell wrote in his novel 1984:

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

Accordingly, we see how the mainstream media has been working in alliance with the social media giants to ‘control the present’ by incrementally removing certain content from view as we move forward, a slow and patient high-tech form of ‘book burning.’ In controlling the present, they then control the past–i.e. they get to say what events in the past mean, creating a controlled interpretation of the past that then informs us about who we are and what life is about. This then allows them to control the future, which enables the gradual acceleration of the program to enslave humanity.

The Takeaway

Our ability to see through the mainstream deception is going to be our greatest asset in averting the agenda of global elite enslavement. While they do have the power and the wealth, we have the numbers, and we have the truth on our side. If together we truly aspire to awaken to know the truth, it will set us free.

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 Dangers of 5G to Children’s Health

Published

on

Mobile and wireless technologies are a ubiquitous feature of modern life. Most U.S. adults own smartphones, a growing proportion are “smartphone-only” Internet users and over a fourth report being online “almost constantly.” As for children, a 2014 survey of high-income nations reported that almost seven in ten children used a mobile phone, and two-thirds of those had a smartphone, usually by age 10. As described by Nielsen, it is now as common to see “a kid with a smartphone in their hand” as it was to see “a kid playing with a yo-yo in the years before the digital age.”

The enthusiasm with which the public has embraced each new mobile and wireless technology—most of which have never undergone any appropriate safety testing or standards development—suggests that consumers rarely stop to consider the health implications of the infrastructure shoring up their ability to browse, stream and download anytime and “on the go.” Consumers are not entirely to blame for their lack of awareness—it is not easy to disentangle the technologies’ health risks in the face of the telecommunications industry’s steady and calculated disinformation efforts and a captured Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that “follows the script of fabulously wealthy, bullying, billion-dollar beneficiaries of wireless.”

…powerful 5g (fifth generation) networks and technology are about to subject everyone, on a continuous basis, to unprecedented forms and amounts of mandatory irradiation – without prior study of the potential health impact or any assurance of safety

Now, however, a global 5G “frenzy” is upon us and is coming into full force. The rollout of “blazing fast” 5G technology will “dramatically increase the number of transmitters sending signals to cellphones and a host of new Internet-enabled devices.” The time is ripe for greater grassroots awareness of the undisclosed tradeoffs between convenience and 5G’s potentially catastrophic health effects. Far from a simple “next-gen” upgrade, powerful 5G (fifth-generation) networks and technology are about to subject everyone, on a continuous basis, to unprecedented forms and amounts of what retired U.S. government physicist Dr. Ronald Powell calls “mandatory irradiation”—without “prior study of the potential health impact” or any assurance of safety. Considering that young people (with their smaller body mass and developing brains) are particularly vulnerable to radiation, the Environmental Health Trust has termed 5G “the next great unknown experiment on our children”—and the entire human population.

Early warnings

In fact, the “giant uncontrolled experiment” on children and adults has already begun, despite an urgent international appeal by tens of thousands of scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens calling for a halt to 5G deployment. In 2018, telecom carriers in the U.S. and Europe began rolling out 5G technology in dozens of cities. Focusing (for now) on “dense urban and high-traffic areas” in the U.S., AT&T began positioning its 5G infrastructure in major cities in eight states, and Verizon started offering 5G home broadband service in “select neighborhoods” in a handful of cities.

…health problems such as insomnia, miscarriage, memory problems and other neurological issues, and there are widespread reports of annihilation of insect and bird populations

advertisement - learn more

For the most part, health concerns have ranked as a tiny footnote in the midst of the massive hoopla about 5G’s speed and capacity, although trade magazines admit that there may be “some objections” to 5G due to “concerns over potential health risks.” In both Europe and the U.S., however, individuals living and working in proximity to newly installed 5G towers and antennas are telling a different story. Many have immediately started experiencing health problems such as insomnia, miscarriage, memory problems and other neurological issues, and there are widespread reports of annihilation of insect and bird populations.

In response to complaints from fire fighters subjected to 5G antennas, the International Association of Fire Fighters has gone on record as opposing “the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity…is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.”

United Nations whistleblower recently drew attention to 5G’s dramatic impact on health in a widely circulated series of comments about 5G’s “seemingly overnight” rollout in Vienna, Austria. Describing 5G as a “silent war,” she commented:

“…Children are the most vulnerable to 5G depredation because of their little bodies. Friends and acquaintances and their children in Vienna are already reporting the classic symptoms of EMR [electromagnetic radiation] poisoning: nosebleeds, headaches, eye pains, chest pains, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, tinnitus, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, and cardiac pain. They also report a tight band around the head; pressure on the top of the head; short, stabbing pains around the body; and buzzing internal organs.”

Above and below

One of the novel dangers introduced by 5G technology is its reliance on high-frequency millimeter waves (MMWs), a bountiful and not previously commercialized portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. While 5G’s enthusiasts are quick to promise support for literally billions of devices, there is one catch—the shorter millimeter wavelengths cannot travel as far as the lower frequencies used for earlier generations of mobile technology. Thus, while there were about 300,000 wireless antennas on U.S. cell towers and buildings as of 2016 (a doubling since 2002), 5G will require “exponentially more”—millions of small cell towers every 500 feet “on every street corner.”

…Even in the home environment, 5G technology (will) blast through walls and cribs, making a mockery of the notion that ‘your home is your castle in which you are supposed to be safe

Organizations concerned about the health hazards of wireless radiation note that “Right now, you don’t have to live next to a cell tower….but once they have these [5G] cell antennas everywhere, you won’t be able to [move away].” Unfortunately, the “nowhere to hide” aspects of 5G are even more serious, because ground-based 5G systems will be supplemented by satellite-based systems. In March, 2018, the FCC approved the initial launch of over 4,400 low-Earth-orbit 5G communication satellites, to be followed by thousands more over the next two years—with the eventual result being 11 times more satellites orbiting the Earth than currently. The satellites will send “tightly focused beams of intense microwave radiation at each specific 5G device that is on the Earth,” while each device then sends “a beam of radiation back to the satellite.”

In practical terms, this means that in crowded locations such as airports, individuals’ bodies “will be penetrated by numerous beams of radiation as they walk or as other people walk around them with their 5G smartphones.” But even in the home environment, “5G technology [will] blast through walls and cribs,” making a mockery of “the notion that ‘your home is your castle’ in which you are supposed to be safe.”

More than skin-deep

Scientists, doctors and experts from around the world have issued repeated warnings about 5G’s risks, drawing on published research on MMWs as well as thousands of studies showing the harms caused by other mobile and wireless technologies.

In this context, industry and government claims that 5G technology is safe are completely disingenuous. In fact, the health effects of MMWs are already quite familiar to the U.S. military and defense agencies around the world. The U.S. has at its disposal non-lethal crowd control weapon systems (euphemistically named Active Denial Systems) that use millimeter waves to penetrate the skin of targeted individuals, “instantly producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes them to flee.” In research commissioned by the U.S. Army “to find out why people ran away when the beam touched them,” they discovered that targets “feel like [their] body is on fire.” Researchers also have warned that “the same parts of the human skin that allow us to sweat also respond to 5G radiation much like an antenna that can receive signals.”

Moratorium urgently needed

When the FCC endorsed the transition to 5G in 2016, then-Chairman Tom Wheeler (a former telecom industry lobbyist) vowed “to allow new [5G] technologies and innovations to evolve and flourish without needlessly prescriptive regulations.” Thus, even though 5G represented a radical shift in technology, the FCC proposed no further safety studies, instead continuing to rely on its “outdated, excessively permissive, and thus widely criticized, radiation-exposure guidelines that…are based primarily on a 30-year-old analysis…many years before the emergence of most of the digital wireless technology in use today.” A recent government study by the National Toxicology Program—which determined that cell phone radiation causes cancer—deemed the three-decade-old guidelines “unprotective.”

…children who began using either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20 had more than a fourfold increased brain tumour risk.

5G poses risks to all life on the planet—people, animals, insects and plants. However, it is clear that fetuses and children are among the most vulnerable members of the human population. Even prior to 5G, Swedish researchers concluded that “children are indeed more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure at microwave frequencies” and reported that children who began using “either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20” had more than a fourfold increased brain tumor risk. Describing brain cancer as “the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg,’” the researchers also observed that “no other environmental carcinogen has produced evidence of an increased risk in just one decade.”

The UN whistleblower states, “People’s first reaction to the idea that 5G may be an existential threat to all life on Earth is usually disbelief and/or cognitive dissonance. Once they examine the facts, however, their second reaction is often terror. We need to transcend this in order to see 5G as an opportunity to empower ourselves, take responsibility and take action.” Some of the actions that people have taken include signing the International Appeal; learning about the multiple reasons to be concerned about 5G radiation and telling others; talking to legislators about why rushing legislation that streamlines the deployment of 5G small cells is a bad idea (and also raising the awareness of legislators and state utility commissions about the risks of smart meters); and changing their relationship to their devices, including using wired rather than wireless Internet connections (or turning off WiFi routers at night) and adopting other simple steps.

5G promises to create an even “denser soup of electrosmog,” with incalculable health effects. In fact, any sane person who examines the evidence must concur with the authors and over 40,000 signatories of the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space, who agree that the rush to blanket the planet with 5G “constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.”

Republishing Guidelines

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

 

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

CETV

 

The all-new CETV brings together the leading voices in the truth and consciousness realm to a single platform for the first time ever. 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.