Connect with us

Alternative News

Mass Shootings: The New Manifestation of an Ancient Phenomenon & Their Link to Psychiatric Drugs

Published

on

This article has been posted here with the permission of Greenmedinfo.com. For ore information from then, you can sign up for their newsletter HERE.  You can find the author’s bio at the bottom of the article.

advertisement - learn more

Individuals perpetrating unspeakable acts of violence is not a new phenomenon. What’s new, rather, are the altered states of consciousness induced by antidepressants and other psychotropic drugs well-documented to promote homicidal and suicidal behavior in susceptible individuals.

Although semi-automatic weapons have enabled the infliction of mass casualties at an unprecedented scale, massacres perpetrated by lone individuals are not new phenomena. Rather, these tragic and inexplicable events may represent an incarnation of a more ancient phenomena called “running amok,” formerly believed to be a culture-bound syndrome isolated to certain societies.

The Resemblance of Mass Shootings to Running Amok

Used in colloquial verbiage to indicate an irrational individual wreaking havoc, the linguistic origins of “running amok” stem from the description of a mentally perturbed individual that engages in unprovoked, homicidal and subsequently suicidal behavior, oftentimes involving an average of ten victims (1).

Although it was not classified as a psychological condition until 1849, amok was first described anthropologically two hundred years ago in isolated, tribal island populations such as Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Laos, where geographic seclusion and indigenous spirituality were hypothesized to be cultural factors implicated in this culture-bound syndrome. In his eighteenth century voyages, for example, Captain Cook recorded Malay tribesman randomly maiming or executing animals and villagers in a seemingly unprovoked, frenzied attack (1).

Culturally-encapsulated explanations localized blame to spirit possession by the “hantu belian” or evil tiger spirit of Malay mythology, which was believed to have been the source of the involuntary, indiscriminate violence that characterizes amok. In native cultures, sacred healers of the folk sector operated under cultural ideologies where illness was believed to be of supernatural origin, so amok was tolerated as an inevitable element of the cultural experience and offenders were brought to trial (1).

advertisement - learn more

As Western expansion encroached on remote cultures, incidence of amok decreased, reinforcing the biased view that so-called primitive cultural ideas were responsible for its pathogenesis. Meanwhile, episodes of violence in Western civilizations began to escalate, culminating in the unparalleled modern statistics where shootings have become so frequent that those unaffected become numb and desensitized to their devastating effects, and all live with the threat of an impending shooting as an everyday reality. Formerly considered a rare psychiatric culture-bound syndrome, researcher Dr. Manuel Saint Martin (1999) argues that amok is also prevalent in contemporary industrialized societies (1).

Resurgence of this Ancient Construct in Modern Shootings

Saint Martin postulates that the escalating frequency of mass homicides in industrial cultures in the past quarter century represents amok, citing that attackers often have a history of mental disturbance and that modern-day episodes involve similar numbers of victims (1).

He likewise disputes classification of amok as a culture-bound syndrome, since it seems to appear cross-culturally, and argues instead that culture is the mediating mechanism that determines how the violence manifests (1). For example, Jin-Inn Teoh (1972) claimed that amok appears universally but that its mode of expression in terms of weapons and methods used are culture-specific (2). Furthermore, John Cooper (1934) postulated that its affiliation with suicide, a practice transcending arbitrary cultural boundaries, disproves the classification of amok as a culture-bound syndrome (3). Cooper further highlights that amok may be an indirect expression of suicide, induced by the same psychosocial stressors that produced suicide in contemporary cultures (3) In essence, the author contends that amok is a product of mental illness, which has similar etiology and psychosocial precipitants worldwide (3).

In his comparison of amok to modern-day shootings, Saint Martin advocates prevention by identification of individuals with risk factors and treatment of underlying psychological conditions (1). In addition to coworker, neighbor, friend, and family observations of susceptible individuals, Saint Martin states that physicians are uniquely positioned to collect data regarding those vulnerable to amok, since, “Many of these patients preferentially consult general and family practitioners instead of psychiatrists owing to the perceived stigma attached to consulting a psychiatrist, denial of their mental illness, or fear of validating their suspicion that they have a mental disorder” (1). However, the arsenal of tools wielded by the conventional allopathic doctor, with their magic bullet remedies and treatment algorithms, often falls short.

Addressing the Root Cause: Psychiatric Drugs Engender Violence

Although amok explains the deep-seated human tendency to engage in acts of violence, it does nothing to explain the recent increase in frequency. While many argue that access to semiautomatic weapons explains the explosion in mass shootings, one long-neglected element of the conversation is that the recent rise in mass homicides coincides with the greatest use of cognition-altering psychiatric drugs ever observed in human history.

Oftentimes, shooters are branded as bad apples, a narrative that allows for the rationalization of such heinous crimes and marginalizes assailants as social deviants and mentally deranged anomalies. However convenient this rhetoric is for imparting meaning to the unfathomable, it does nothing to prevent future incidents or to understand the trajectory of events or the biological and psychological variables that enabled individuals to perpetrate these tragic acts of terrorism. It enables the system and society to wash their hands of any culpability and critical analysis of how people can commit unspeakable violence.

Due to media distortion, the story line disseminated in public spheres diverges dramatically from the conversations played out in the academic sector and these questions remain largely absent from the mainstream dialogue. A perusal of the academic research, however, reveals that psychotropic drugs may be contributing to the epidemic of mass shootings. In 2011, 26.8 million adults in the United States used pharmaceutical drugs for mental illness (4). Two years later, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) found that nearly 17 percent of American adults filled at least one prescription for a psychiatric drug.

Psychiatric drugs, many of which are based upon the flawed serotonin theory of depression, send almost 90,000 people to the emergency room yearly as a result of medication side effects ranging from delirium to head injuries to movement disorders, and one in five of these visits culminates in hospitalization (4). This figure is an underestimate, as it excludes visits to the emergency department secondary to drug abuse, self-injurious behavior, or suicide attempts (4).

Preliminary reports from the Las Vegas shooting that left at least 58 people dead indicate that the alleged killer was prescribed Valium, a sedative-hypnotic drug classified as a benzodiazepine (5). Relevant to this insight is a meta-analysis of 46 studies published in the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, which illuminated that, “An association between benzodiazepine use and subsequent aggressive behaviour was found in the majority of the more rigorous studies,” especially in those individuals with an underlying propensity toward anxiety and hostility (6). In addition, a prospective cohort study of nearly one thousand Finnish subjects published in the journal World Psychiatry demonstrated that current use of benzodiazepines elevated risk of homicide by 45% compared to controls (7).

Data compiled from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adverse event reporting system similarly highlights that use of some antidepressant medications is disproportionately related to an increased number of violent events (8). The authors report that, “Varenicline, which increases the availability of dopamine, and antidepressants with serotonergic effects were the most strongly and consistently implicated drugs” in case reports of “homicide, homicidal ideation, physical assault, physical abuse or violence related symptoms” (8).

Psychotropic Drugs and The Absence of Informed Consent

At the epitome of this discussion is that deleterious side effects of psychotropic drugs are ill-publicized and patient do not receive sufficient information about the devastating sequelae that can result from their use. Little of the public knows that in 2004, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a black-box warning for antidepressants, advertising that they are associated with suicidal ideation and behavior in two to three children out of every hundred who are administered these drugs (9, 10). In fact, a meta-analysis of 372 randomized clinical trials entailing nearly 100,000 subjects elucidated that the rate of suicidal thoughts and action was double in those patients assigned to receive an antidepressant compared to placebo (11).

Notwithstanding the tendency of psychotropic drugs to predispose individuals to homicidal and suicidal ideation is the evidence that antidepressants elevate risk of death and cardiovascular disease, which is often not shared when a physician dispenses a slip from their prescription pad. A meta-analysis of 17 studies published in the journal of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics found that in the general population, antidepressant medications increase all-cause mortality (death from any cause) by 33% and the risk of cardiovascular incidents (heart attacks and strokes, for example) by 13% (12). According to researchers, “The results support the hypothesis that ADs [antidepressants] are harmful in the general population” (12).

Also rarely discussed with patients is the potential of psychotropic drugs to distort emotional affect. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have mind-numbing effects, as demonstrated by their ability to blunt emotions and produce apathy, disinhibition, and amotivation similar to a frontal lobe lobotomy, all of which would be consistent with a mindset that might predispose an individual to homicidal behavior (13). As a corollary, SSRIs are known to induce serious movement disorders, including akathisia, dyskinesia, tardive dyskinesia, dystonia, and parkinsonism (14). Pertinent to this discussion is akathisia, a form of severe agitation also induced by antipsychotic drugs, which can cause suicide and violence (15). Further, almost one in ten admissions to hospital psychiatric units have been attributed to antidepressant-induced mania or psychosis (16).

Moreover, it is often not disclosed that antidepressant therapy can exacerbate the severity and chronic nature of depression and lead to poorer outcomes. For instance, one retrospective study of nearly 12,000 patients in the Netherlands revealed that 72 to 79 percent of those who were treated with antidepressants during their first depressive episode experienced relapses (17). It is telling that despite record high rates of antidepressant use, prevalence of depression continues to soar.

Lastly, meta-analyses, which compile data from placebo-controlled trials, indicate that the differences in levels of symptoms resulting from SSRI use “were so small that the effects were deemed unlikely to be clinically important” (18). Further, a meta-analysis involving 6,944 patients participating in 38 studies underwritten by drug manufacturers found that “Antidepressants demonstrated a clinically negligible advantage over inert placebo” (19). This is all the more shocking, since the efficacy of the drug was likely artificially inflated. Researchers state, “This analysis probably overestimates the antidepressant effect because placebo washout strategies, penetration of the blind, reliance on clinician ratings, use of sedative medication, and replacement of nonresponders may penalize the placebo condition or boost the drug condition” (19).

It is incumbent upon physicians to provide patients with true informed consent as to the potential disastrous consequences of consuming mind-altering psychotropic drugs, to identify at-risk individuals and mobilize support, and to provide alternatives where applicable. For instance, luminary Dr. Kelly Brogan, who has been a pioneer in debunking mythologies of conventional psychiatry, recently published the success of her holistic protocol incorporating mind-body techniques, dietary and lifestyle interventions, detoxification modalities, and targeted supplementation in producing dramatic clinical remission in a patient with bipolar disorder with psychotic features, panic disorder, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (20).

Other Risk Factors for Amok and Mass Shootings

Compounding the effect of skyrocketing prescription rates for violence-promoting psychotropic drugs is the unprecedented social isolation that accompanies the digital age. The common thread uniting amok and contemporary mass shootings is what is branded mental illness, which is often inextricably intertwined with social alienation in a chicken-or-egg scenario.

In the anthropological curiosity known as amok, dimensions such as grief, acute loss, and interpersonal stress are intimated to be contributing factors (1). For instance, an 1846 Malay incident was concluded to be caused by an elderly mans bereavement of his wife and child, while the offender in a 1998 Los Angeles incident suffered financial bankruptcy (21). Furthermore, individual characteristics, such as predilection to aggression, and recurring cognitive themes such as persecution and revenge are speculated to constitute instigating elements (1).

Undoubtedly at play in mental illness is that we are divorced from our nuclear families, proverbial islands adrift from the quintessential tribe and support system to which we are evolutionarily adapted. Social ostracism was historically the ultimate ancestral punishment, as an individual was ill-equipped to survive when banished from a community. Moreover, admissions of psychiatric disorders are met with derision and social stigmatization, and the mobilization of social and professional support needed to contend with mental illness is radically deficient. Therefore, many individuals are deterred from seeking professional help.

Initial narratives by amok witnesses chronicled two forms characterized by differential causative factors: “The more common form, beramok, was associated with a personal loss and preceded by a period of depressed mood and brooding; while the infrequent form, amok, was associated with rage, a perceived insult, or vendetta preceding the attack” (1). Many of these traits can be reconciled with the diagnostic criteria for modern psychiatric disorders such as depressive, mood, psychotic, dissociative and personality disorders, as well as paranoid schizophrenia (1). Some argue that psychiatric classifications are not reproducible or diagnosable with objective biomarkers, and therefore do not constitute objectively delineated and non-overlapping categories, but they do have utility in their ability to describe and operationalize behavior in recognizable terms.

According to Saint Martin, “Viewing amok from this new perspective dispels the commonly held perception that episodes of mass violence are random and unpredictable, and thus not preventable” (1). However, the modern medical infrastructure has failed to support these individuals with anything other than pill-for-an-ill psychotropic cocktails and psychotherapy, rather than undertaking a holistic, root-cause resolution approach consistent with the precepts of personalized medicine. Instead of deferring to this standard of care, which has proven inadequate, we would be wise to use these societal tragedies as impetus for revolutionary reform and the heralding of evidence-based natural approaches that address the underlying causes of mental illness rather than applying symptom-suppressive chemical band-aids.

Going Forward: Making Sense of Devastation

In summary, the behavior exhibited in modern mass shootings bears uncanny resemblance to amok, indicating that indiscriminate violence has long been intrinsic to the human psyche. It is fundamental to recognize, when drawing parallels between the two constructs, the role that social isolation, collective disillusionment, violent proclivities, and mental instability play in precipitating this behavior in order to generate effective solutions. More recently, the widespread use of psychotropic drugs no doubt contributes to the rising incidence of mass shootings, yet it is a topic mainstream media outlets fail to broach.

However, the prescribing of these pharmaceuticals is only symptomatic of more upstream causes of psychological imbalance, many of which remain to be elucidated. Fundamental, though, is the profound disparity between the circumstances to which we are evolutionarily accustomed and the modern-day stressors we encounter, such as micronutrient deficiency, toxicant burdens, a genetically engineered and irradiated food supply, and a deeply-entrenched sense of dissatisfaction and loss of social connection.

This is not meant to catalogue excuses for such egregious and monstrous behavior, or to rationalize the very worst in humanity. Nor is it meant to represent an exhaustive survey of all the multifaceted socioeconomic, psychosocial, and geopolitical variables that contribute to acts of mass violence. But rather, this article serves as a commentary on some of those little-discussed instigating variables and the pharmaceutical industry-promulgated predecessors to such tragic events. It also attempts to paint a portrait of how massacres are not isolated to the modern era, and that by using critical analysis of the historical patterns of amok we can garner insight into shared risk factors such as detachment of an individual from the fabric of society and lack of supportive resources or constructive coping mechanisms.

By finding common psychological threads, and exploring their physiological origins, as well as unearthing novel variables such as psychotropic drugs which contribute to the never-before-witnessed frequency of fatal massacres, we can take productive action to prevent their recurrence. We can transform our righteous indignation into meaningful change. Although it is tempting to abdicate all blame and to employ the bad apple narrative, this does nothing to prevent the recurrence of these home-grown acts of terrorism, but rather, represents a society-wide coping mechanism and means of distancing oneself from some of the sources of these ultimate acts of unimaginable aggression.


References

1. Saint Martin, M.L. (1999) “Running Amok: A Modern Perspective on a Culture-Bound Syndrome”. Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1(3), 66-70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181064/?tool=pmcentrez

2. Teoh, J-I. (1972). “The changing psychopathology of amok”. Psychiatry, 35, 345–351.

3. Cooper, J. (1934). Mental disease situations in certain cultures: a new field for research. Journal of Abnormal Sociology and Psychology, 29, 10–17.

4. Hampton, L.M. et al. (2016). Emergency Department Visits by Adults for Psychiatric Medication Adverse Events. Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry, 71(9), 1006-1014. doi:  10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.436

5. Harasim, P. (2017). Las Vegas Strip shooter prescribed anti-anxiety drug in June. Retrieved from https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/las-vegas-strip-shooter-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-in-june/

6. Albrecht, B. et al. (2014). Benzodiazepine use and aggressive behaviour: a systematic review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 48(12), 1096-1114. doi: 10.1177/0004867414548902

7. Tilhonen, J. et al. (2015). Psychotropic drugs and homicide: A prospective cohort study from Finland. World Psychiatry, 14(2), 245-247. doi: 10.1002/wps.20220

8. Moore, T.J., Glenmullen, J., & Furberg, C.D. (2010). Prescription drugs associated with reports of violence towards others. PLoS One, 5, e15337.

9. Friedman, R.A. (2014). Antidepressants’ Black-Box Warning — 10 Years Later. The New England Journal of Medicine, 371, 1666-1668.

10. Harris, G. (2004). F.D.A. Links Drugs to Being Suicidal. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/health/fda-links-drugs-to-being-suicidal.html

11. Hamad, T., & Racoosin, J. (2004). Relationship between psychotropic drugs and pediatric suicidality: review and evaluation of clinical data. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/2004-4065b1-10-TAB08-Hammads-Review.pdf

12. Maslej, M.M. et al. (2017). The Mortality and Myocardial Effects of Antidepressants Are Moderated by Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 86, 268-282.

13. Garland, E.J., & Baerg, E.A. (2004). Amotivational Syndrome Associated with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in Children and Adolescents.  Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 11(2), 181-186.

14. Gerber, P.E., & Lynd, L.D. (1998). Selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor-induced movement disorders. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 32(6), 692-698.

15. Shear, M.K., Frances, A., & Weiden, P. (1983). Suicide associated with akathisia and depot fluphenazine treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 3, 235–236.

16. Preda, A. et al. (2001). Antidepressant-associated mania and psychosis resulting in psychiatric admissions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62(1), 30-33.

17. van Weel-Baumgarten, M. et al. (2000). Treatment of depression related to recurrence:10-year follow-up in general practice. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 25, 61-66.

18. Moncrieff, J., & Kirsch, I. (2005). Efficacy of antidepressants in adults. British Medical Journal, 331 (155). doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7509.155

19. Antonuccio, D.O., Burns, D.D., & Danton, W.G. (2002). Antidepressants: A Triumph of Marketing Over Science? Prevention & Treatment, Volume 5(25).

20. Brogan, K. (2017). Resolution of Refractory Bipolar Disorder With Psychotic Features and Suicidality Through Lifestyle Interventions: A Case Report. Advances in Mind Body Medicine, 31(2), 4-11.

21. Burton-Bradely, B.G. (1968). The amok syndrome in Papua and New Guinea. Medical Journal of Australia, 55, 252–256.

About the Author

Ali Le Vere holds dual Bachelor of Science degrees in Human Biology and Psychology, minors in Health Promotion and in Bioethics, Humanities, and Society, and is a Master of Science in Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine candidate. Having contended with chronic illness, her mission is to educate the public about the transformative potential of therapeutic nutrition and to disseminate information on evidence-based, empirically rooted holistic healing modalities. Read more at @empoweredautoimmune on Instagram and at www.EmpoweredAutoimmune.com: Science-based natural remedies for autoimmune disease, dysautonomia, Lyme disease, and other chronic, inflammatory illnesses.

A Quick Important Notice:

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

Reader Email: Is Trump Legitimately Working To Take Down The Deep State?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A reader sent a passionate email after reading one of my articles. This email contained many important questions about how we look at Donald Trump (and others like Hillary Clinton) that I felt would allow me to give clarity and nuance to my message.

  • Reflect On:

    Is it necessary to ignore one person's character flaws in order to get behind efforts to take down the Deep State? Is it important to identify a 'savior' here, or can we see it as more of a collective awakening within which we are all participants?

The following email came from a reader who brought up some very important concerns about Donald Trump and his role in fighting for justice on behalf of women (combating sex trafficking, for example) and taking down the Deep State. I thought that it would be worthwhile to publish my response to this email since I thought that many readers may have similar concerns and questions, and Sharine graciously consented. Below, I have broken up her email into several sections so I can respond one section at a time, but please note that her words were all sent in a single email:

Hi Richard!

My name is Sharine and I am fairly new (summer 2018) to the Collective Evolution site. I became a member last month.

Today, I read your article “Many Insiders Believe Military Tribunals For Deep State Will Happen Any Time Now,” and I have some questions and concerns that you may or may not have time to address, but I feel compelled to share anyway!

First, I feel that I grasp a basic understanding of the Deep State, mostly from reading on CE and watching both David Wilcock’s “Disclosure” interview and Joe Martino’s video about the illusion and the cycle of the cabal in politics.

Second, I want to disclose that I am a cis-gender female survivor of sexual assault at the age of 52, sexual harassment throughout my whole life, and an attempted rape at the age of 15. This is important to my concerns.

advertisement - learn more

That said, here goes:

Why would enlightened beings set up our world so that men as hideous as Donald J. Trump and possibly Brett Kavanaugh would be the people I am to trust to take down the Deep State and begin to cripple the cabal?

R: First off, the contention that Donald J. Trump is ‘hideous’ is a matter of opinion, and when you say ‘possibly’ Brett Kavanaugh, I take you to mean he is ‘possibly’ hideous (rather than ‘possibly’ someone you should trust). Nonetheless, let’s focus on Trump for this question: is it likely that Donald Trump has had sex with prostitutes, been unfaithful with partners, acted and spoke in a ‘macho’ way at times, lied in business and in relationships, cheated on his taxes and otherwise did many unethical and illegal things in business? Yes. Some people may feel this makes him hideous, fair enough. But we have to look at the context.

In the article you read, we were discussing a Deep State that indulges in sex and slave trafficking, human mind-control and experimentation, the sexual abuse, torture and murder of children, as well as war, genocide and mass disease creation in the world. Assuming, as I do, that Donald Trump does not do any of these things, and his greatest crimes are those mentioned above, then if we call him hideous then have we left ourselves with any proportionate adjective to describe perpetrators within the Deep State?

To your main question about enlightened beings, who I take to refer to higher-dimensional positive beings that are fostering human evolution from a higher density, I would say: Why not Donald Trump? If it were some kind of perfect Jesus-type character, would we not feel somewhat disconnected from any positive actions that would be brought, and simply have a new idol to follow? True, some people do idolize Trump, but that is the unhelpful extreme in the other direction, because we have to move past idolatry and see ourselves as all being in this struggle together, each having to acknowledge our own darkness and inadequacies while not giving up our push towards enlightenment. In having a fallible, flawed person leading the charge to take down the Deep State, we may not have an ‘inspiring’ leader at the helm, but it becomes much easier to look past him and see the takedown of the Deep State as the fruits of the collective efforts of thousands, if not tens of thousands of patriotic men and women of integrity, an effort ultimately grounded in the collective consciousness of humanity as a whole.

I want the demise as much as any loving human, but that’s a big, nasty, jagged, bright “red pill” to swallow. It’s like saying it’s okay that Trump is an admitted sexual assaulter and racist, misogynistic homophobe but it’s not okay that Clinton turned a blind eye to sex trafficking (or whatever it is CE claims about her) because he’s going to save the day.

R: I would challenge your assertion as ‘fact’ that Trump is an ‘admitted sexual assaulter.’ I don’t think Trump has ever admitted to being a sexual assaulter. As far as being a racist, misogynistic homophobe: I haven’t seen any evidence that Trump is either a racist or a homophobe. Is he misogynistic? A misogynist is defined as “a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.” I don’t get the impression that Trump is this way at all. Certainly, he may have long been an egocentric, macho, privileged white male who puts himself above woman, but I believe this stems from personal insecurity rather than an actual hatred.

Whether or not you have to be ‘okay’ with who Donald Trump actually is, is your own personal matter. You don’t have to be ‘okay’ with Donald Trump in order to want the Deep State taken down, even if you do believe as we do that Trump is serving a role (certainly not leading) this takedown. In the bigger picture, though, our destiny as human beings is to be ‘okay’ with whatever IS, with the TRUTH, and seek not to resist the truth, but fight against those whose agenda is to hide the truth.

Which brings us to Hillary Clinton. I have to say that personally I am ‘okay’ with Hillary Clinton, because as a matter of spiritual practice I believe that everything is as it should be in our world for the evolution of humanity to be served. That said, I strongly believe that revealing the truth about who Hillary Clinton is will serve that evolution, and if this truth is revealed then it will be plain as day that she needs to be removed from our society. It is only because of the immense power of the Deep State that Hillary Clinton is not in jail right now.

If the Deep State was not protecting her, you or I could have her indicted on several crimes simply based on the information that’s in the public domain, let alone the hordes of more sensitive information that is hidden. Just off the top of my head, evidence is out there demonstrating that she allowed diplomats to be killed at the Benghazi embassy because they were beginning to resist the gun trafficking operation there, leaked confidential information on an illegal private server to China which led to the death or incarceration of at least a dozen CIA officers embedded there, illegally took over the Democratic National Committee in order to defeat Bernie Sanders who otherwise would have won the nomination, was involved in (not necessarily ‘running’) a pedophilia operation in Washington, and is highly implicated in the staggering number of murders of people who were investigating the Clinton Foundation, which itself is well known to be linked to illegal activities.

Didn’t Clinton inspire women and men all across the USA to stand for things like universal healthcare and other good stuff, while Trump inspires hatred and anger?

R: Clinton may have inspired some women and men in her rise to power as a woman in American politics, but I don’t believe she cared about inspiring people except to the point that it got her elected and gave her power. There are many women in politics who fight for the truth and are positive role models, such as Cynthia McKinney and Tulsi Gabbard, whom I have written about. To equate supporters of Clinton as supporters of women and non-supporters of Clinton (or supporters of Trump) as non-supporters of women is one of the most egregious and sinister points of perception that has been carefully crafted by mainstream media, and easy to fall prey to. Plain and simple, I believe Hillary Clinton is a modern-day Lady Macbeth. I believe her whole public face is an act and a deception, that she is part of the Deep State and guilty of some of the most horrific crimes imaginable to humanity, including the sexual abuse, torture, and murder of children.

As for Trump inspiring hatred and anger, it is important to observe that since Trump came into office intent on helping a huge alliance of patriots take down the Deep State, all the Deep State flunkies in politics, Hollywood, and mainstream media have done is everything they can to invoke anger and hatred upon him. Earlier in his presidency, there were over half a dozen celebrities who all suddenly tried to seed the idea of Trump getting killed into the minds of people (you’ll recall the Kathy Griffin photo below among others). Who is truly inspiring anger and hatred here? If you can separate Donald Trump from the campaign to demonize him that has been relentless and ongoing through mainstream media, you may find that Donald Trump himself is not inspiring as much hatred and anger as it seems.

Isn’t the cabal in existence to restrict and eventually deny freedom and well-being for women, vulnerable populations, the poor, the Earth itself and its inhabitants?

R: They are not in existence to restrict and deny freedom as such, but only to the extent that it serves our evolution. That is why their ultimate plans of world domination will fail. From the point of view of the higher realms, when it gets to the point that the cabal no longer serves our evolution, then it is time for them to disband. But their disbanding is not going to happen if we stay asleep as a collective. Humanity must act, and take back its power through an awakening of consciousness.

I guess what I’m saying is, the physical world matters, too, so why would the forces of light and love in the Universe demand that I overlook abuse and corruption by one person, but not another? I’m confused.

R: I agree that the physical world matters too. The forces of light and love are not asking you to overlook one thing and not another; there is no need to overlook the ‘truth’ about either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but rather to separate the ‘truth’ from the propaganda and deception. In a way, it is a good practice of consciousness to embrace some ambiguity, because human life is filled with ambiguity and we need to embrace it rather than gravitating towards one polarity or the other. The idea that Donald Trump is a deeply flawed man who has done things in his past that would not endear him to women, and the idea that in his current position of considerable power he would like to do what he can for the freedom, safety, and standing of women in society are not mutually exclusive statements. There’s ambiguity, but not contradiction.

It seems to me that this premise is asking me to dismiss the very real-world fact that my teenage brother’s best friend tried to rape me in my own home, when what he did was wrong. His negative energy caused darkness in the Universe, just as it is wrong for Trump to openly mock a disabled person, and a woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted, and a female reporter who was simply asking him a question, and on and on.

R: It’s important to notice where you may be building a chain of assumptions on a flawed premise. You use the word ‘dismiss’ here, and nobody is asking you to dismiss something real that happened to you. You have the freedom to hold its ‘wrongness’ for the rest of your life. That being said, your only hope of healing from this event will be through forgiveness, and rising above the power you may still be giving to this event. I recently interviewed Anneke Lucas, a survivor of the horrors of Satanic ritual and sexual abuse within an elite Belgian pedophile network between the ages of 6 and 11. In the interview she is beautifully able to express and exemplify the need for forgiveness and acceptance in a healing process that is anything but a ‘dismissal’ of the experiences she went through. CE will be broadcasting this 4-hour interview in November and it may be one of the best and most elegant explorations into the healing process available for women who have been sexually abused.

In terms of the wrongness of things that Trump does, like openly mock a disabled person (which seems to have been presented out of context by mainstream media, but no matter) it is important to make a distinction between condoning and accepting. By standing firm in your principles you do not condone those acts which go against those principles, and when it is something that is directed at you personally it is important to take actions that appropriately show that you do not condone such behavior. However, to not accept that it happened, (whether it involves Trump openly mocking a woman who has been sexually assaulted, or your brother’s best friend’s attempted rape) by continuing to be angry and upset about it, or feeling that punishment needs to be meted out in order for you to let go of the power it has over you, is self-defeating. When you hold Trump’s words and actions to have emotional power over you, that is what you are doing.

Are you saying that disabled people ought to be made fun of? That Dr. Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh’s other accusers — and women like me — are lying? That women should be “negged”? That taking away a woman’s right to care for her own body is a good thing? Because I don’t know how this is light and love on any plane of existence. And if it is, can’t we also say that the cabal is okay, too? War is peace? Hatred is love? Rape is consent?

R: Of course I am not saying that disabled people ought to be made fun of. Having said that, I truly believe our course of action as evolving individuals is to work towards a greater sense of self so that we become immune to insults and slights. In my article ‘Let’s Discard The ‘Right’ To Be Insulted By Free Speech,’ I make the point that being insulted or made fun of does not say anything substantial about us, it only says something about the person saying the insult. Each of us having this clear perception is what will virtually put an end to ‘disrespectful’ speech.

Putting yourself in the same group as Dr. Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh’s other accusers is a dangerous leap, as it shows how you may be projecting your story onto other people and then suffering when they are not being believed. Do I think Dr. Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh’s other accusers are lying? On the strength of the evidence I’ve seen, yes. Either lying or having had their minds tampered with. Do I think you are lying? No. There is ample evidence and reasons to believe that Kavanaugh’s accusers were brought forward by Deep State forces to created a narrative out of either sketchy or even non-existent memories. There is no reason for you to lie and no reason for me to doubt you.

I assume I don’t need to answer whether I think women should be “negged” or whether taking away a woman’s right to care for her own body is a good thing. As far as us saying the cabal is okay? Yes, at the highest level we must accept that they are here to play a role in our evolution. And having said that, our evolution is now hinging on our capacity to defeat them and remove them from power. And that includes rejecting their Orwellian Doublespeak perception-benders like ‘War is peace,’ ‘Hatred is love,’ ‘Rape is consent’ and use our discernment of the falseness of these slogans to lead us to the truth.

And in the end, then, what are we working toward, if not for true peace and love on our shared home, Earth?

R: True peace and love on Earth is certainly our goal, but in a deeper sense our goal is evolving towards that by choice, rather than having it given to us. Otherwise, we would have stayed in the Garden of Eden and not eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I wrote a 7-part series on Lucifer that goes into this matter in much greater depth. In our journey back to love and peace, then, the darkness is our ally, and helps us return to unity with greater freedom, and a greater ability to create a future world in our highest shared image.

Thanks for your consideration. I won’t bother you again!

Sincerely,

Sharine

Dear Sharine, thank you for your honest and heart-felt questions and the opportunity to respond to them. The time and space I have had to answer your questions is limited, and it’s difficult to say things in writing that are better served in a one-on-one conversation. I sincerely hope that I have not missed the nuance of some of your points, nor that I appear to be marginalizing the suffering that you have gone through in your life. I believe the healing of women who have suffered abuse at the hands of men will be one of the pre-eminent beacons for our collective evolution.

I wish you all the best of healing, light, and learning in this journey we are sharing together.

Richard

The Takeaway

It is important for each one of us to recognize when we are making assumptions that deviate from the truth, and thus lead to incorrect conclusions. Our battle is not truly a political one, though it is manifesting in the political arena. Our battle is one of consciousness. There is no need to hoist any particular person in the public eye into the role of ‘savior,’ or dismiss their human flaws in order to get behind their efforts to bring about the revelation of truth.

Our own awakening to the truth that lies beyond false perceptions is how we must participate. And part of this awakening involves acknowledging our pain, both our individual pain and our collective trauma, and recognizing our part of the responsibility in how we create and maintain this pain within ourselves. The brave act of healing, founded on forgiveness and a simple acceptance of that which is, inevitably will help us see the truth more easily and naturally, and will ground us in the creation of  a life of ‘true peace and love on our shared home, Earth.’

A Quick Important Notice:

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

Some Cities Now Threatening Jail Time & Fines For Kids Over 12 Who Go Trick-Or-Treating

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Some cities in Virginia have reminded the public of the laws associated with Halloween night. Children over 12 caught trick or treating can be fined or receive jail time.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we robbing the innocence of children and their fun with laws like this? Is this truly a law we want to have in place? Will it lead to even more liberty loss? Are these laws a result of the fact they are happening in 'The Bible Belt' of America?

Halloween has adapted over the ages from once being an ancient Celtic celebration of Samhain (marking the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter or the “darker half” of the year) to being ‘Christianized’ in the west as a time that begins the three day observance of All Saints’ Eve (Halloween), All Saints’ Day (All Hallows’) and All Souls’ Day, that dates between October 31st to November 2nd. This trifecta is a time intended to remember the dead, including martyrs, saints, and all faithful departed Christians.

Of course today, most in society have strayed far from the intended traditional sense of the day to a more commercialized, fun having approach.

We now choose to participate in Halloween as a family friendly time, dressing up and going door-to-door in our neighbourhood and accepting candy, otherwise known as trick or treating. Aside from the chemicals laden in the candies that are dished out, this time of the year can be pretty harmless for a child, given they are accompanied by an adult and not trotting around in a dangerous area.

Times, Laws, & Guidelines For Halloween in Hampton Roads Virginia

HrScrene is a website considered to be a hub for the people who reside in the Hampton Roads area in Virginia that keeps residents up to date on any happenings in local cities or important information news and even information. Earlier this month, hrScene notified Virginia of the local guidelines that residents are expected to abide by on the night of Halloween.

Each of the nine city’s guidelines explicitly state that no child above the age of 12 is allowed to participate in trick or treating and that no child can trick-or-treat after 8pm. A child of 13 years of age is allowed to accompany a ‘younger child’ but cannot participate in anything remotely similar to trick or treating, including dressing up if you’re living in Newport News,

Sec. 28-5. – Prohibited trick-or-treat activities.

advertisement - learn more

(a) If any person beyond the seventh grade of school or over twelve (12) years of age shall engage in the activity commonly known as “trick or treat” or any other activity of similar character or nature under any name whatsoever, such person shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting any parent, guardian or other responsible person having lawfully in his custody a child twelve (12) years old or younger, from accompanying such child who is playing “trick or treat” for the purpose of caring for, looking after or protecting such child. However, no accompanying parent or guardian shall wear a mask of any type.

In Portsmouth, if any child under the age of 12 is out trick-or-treating after 8pm, they can be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor, a fine of not more than $500, while most of the other city’s will delve out a class 4 misdemeanor, a fine of no more than $250.

(b) If any person shall engage in the activity commonly known as “trick or treat” or any name whatsoever after 8:00 p.m., he shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

In the City of Hampton, on the night of October 31st, if you’re under the age of 18 it is considered unlawful to be out past 10pm an in some cases 11pm.

It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of fourteen (14) years to be present on any street, road, alley, avenue, park or other public place in the city, or in any vehicle operating or parked thereon, between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., unless accompanied by his/her parent or guardian or unless such minor is on an emergency errand or legitimate business directed by his parent or guardian or is engaged in a lawful employment or going directly to the place of such employment or returning directly to his place of residence from the place of such employment.

It shall be unlawful for any person over the age of thirteen (13) years but under the age of eighteen (18) years to be present on any street, road, alley, avenue, park or other public place in the city, or in any vehicle operating or parked thereon, between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., unless accompanied by his/her parent or guardian or unless such minor is on an emergency errand or legitimate business directed by his parent or guardian or is engaged in a lawful employment or going directly to the place of such employment or returning directly to his place of residence from the place of such employment.

Perhaps one of the worst city codes is that of Chesapeake, if you’re over 12 years old and/or 12 years old and still trick or treating after 8pm, you can potentially be confined in jail for up to six months.

Sec. 46-8. – Trick-or-treat activities.
(a) If any person over the age of 12 years shall engage in the activity commonly known as “trick or treat” or any other activity of similar character or nature under any name whatsoever, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25.00 nor more than $100.00 or by confinement in jail for not more than six months or both.

(b) If any person shall engage in the activity commonly known as “trick or treat” or any other activity of similar character or nature under any name whatsoever after 8:00 p.m., he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $10.00 nor more than $100.00 or by confinement in jail for not more than 30 days or both.

If you’d like to read the full list, click here.

Will This Actually Be Implemented?

Naturally, this information has a lot of parents and other young adults rearing in confusion. Since when was a 13 year old not considered a child, or even a 16 year old for that matter? Who decided that it was unacceptable for young people to participate in the most known Halloween tradition of trick or treating?

In my first year of college, a friend and I decided that instead of going to a party the night of Halloween, that we could instead go trick or treating. We threw together some form of a costume and trotted from door to door and were always met with happiness. We assumed this was because we were adults, not a likely sight to see on a doorstep reciting, “trick or treat!”

In none of the codes does it include what would happen in a scenario where a teenager with an intellectual or developmental disability went trick or treating. It also doesn’t mention whether a minor is expected to have a form of ID on them. Does this put children at risk of being interrogated and being fearful of law enforcement rather than allowing for a child to get a sense of community by witnessing their town coming together to celebrate Halloween?

Law enforcement of York County assured a mother who recently moved to the area that they will not be arresting anyone the night of Halloween, further confirming the lunacy of these laws.

I decided to question why these laws would be implemented to begin with. Virginia does fall into the ‘Bible Belt’ an “informal region in the Southern United States in which socially conservative evangelical Protestantism plays a strong role in society and politics. Christian church attendance across these denominations are generally higher than the nation’s average,” according to Wikipedia’s definition. Christians seem to be divided when it comes to whether or not they should celebrate Halloween,  but Thessalonians explicitly states,

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

And then I thought to myself, well, perhaps these areas are considered ‘unsafe’ and known for teenagers wreaking havoc on the night of October 31st.

According to the article These Are The 10 Most Dangerous Cities In Virginia For 2019, published October 11th 2018, 3 of the 9 cities enforcing these laws (Portsmouth, Norfolk, Newport News) are considered ‘dangerous’. The basis of criteria they used to determine which city was most dangerous was violent crimes per capita and property crimes per capita.

Portsmouth made the top of the list by being number 1 with property crimes and number 2 with violent crimes. But when it comes to the night of Halloween, the worst they’ll give out to a child trick treating after 8pm or one trick or treating over the age of 12 is a class 3 misdemeanour.

The worst penalty, in my opinion, is that of the city of Chesapeake. The law suggests a child could actually go to jail if they don’t abide by the codes being enforced which would lead me to assume it’s probably not a safe place to live except that this article, Is Chesapeake Virginia A Safe Place To Live? actually uses the word ‘boring’ to describe the nature of the town, or more so, fighting that notion.

The Takeaway

The issue isn’t so much about these ordinances but rather what route our youth are being led to. Media today is exposing our children to a world that is hyper-sexualized and overtly emotional. The internet often pokes fun at millennials with memes giving examples of how awkward they were when they were 12 or 14, and how today’s youth is skipping that stage and going right into adulthood.

We don’t have to look hard to see how the innocence of a child is being hijacked by societal ‘norms.’ These codes being enforced is alarming because it’s exposing how obvious this governmental objective truly is. Should we have to fight for children to be children? Halloween is just the beginning and it’s up to us on whether not we’d like to participate in the robbing of our children’s innocence.

A Quick Important Notice:

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

A Jury’s $289 Million Verdict Against Monsanto Might Be Overturned By The Judge

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dewayne Johnson was the defendant in the first lawsuit to go to trial alleging glyphosate causes cancer. He ended up winning and was awarded nearly $300 million. Now, the judge is threatening to overturn the decision made by the jury.

  • Reflect On:

    How can corporations like Monsanto get government regulatory agencies to constantly approve products where an uncountable amount of research and science has proven them to be harmful to human health, as well as to the environment?

Not long ago, school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson became involved in the very first lawsuit to go to trial alleging glyphosate causes cancer. The case made global headlines when the jury at San Francisco’s Superior Court of California deliberated for three days before finding that Monsanto had failed to warn Johnson and other consumers of the cancer risks posed by its weed killers. We’ve seen the same issue with similar substances like DDT, which was sprayed for years before it was finally banned decades ago. The unfortunate thing is that DDT is still highly present in the environment and in our soil, and is a catalyst for many diseases. Are we seeing the same thing with Glyphosate?

The court ended up awarding $39 million in compensation and $250 million in punitive damages. It’s also vital to mention that Monsanto, now a unit of Bayer AG following a $62.5 billion acquisition by the German conglomerate, faces more than 5,000 similar lawsuits across the United States.

Grounds For Reversal?

Now, just two months after jurors made the decision in favor of Johnson, who is dying of cancer, the judge suddenly has an issue with the amount and might overrule the decision. Again, Johnson is one of the thousands of cancer patients that are taking Monsanto to trial. The judge is apparently calling for a new trial, and she has now granted Monsanto a request for a JNOW on a tentative basis. A JNOW is a judgement notwithstanding the verdict. This is basically when a judge in a civil case overrules the jury’s decision.

This is extremely confusing, isn’t it? What prompted the judge to do this, and did Monsanto have anything to do with it? And even if the judge denies Monsanto’s request to drop the $250 million fine, the Court would grant a new trial on the grounds of ‘insufficiency of evidence’ to justify the award for punitive damages–this after the evidence was found to be quite sufficient at the time.

Even the jurors are speaking out, according to CTV news:

Jurors who found that agribusiness giant Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer contributed to a school groundskeeper’s cancer are urging a San Francisco judge not to throw out the bulk of their $289 million award in his favour, a newspaper reported Monday.

advertisement - learn more

Stock Drop

Shares in Bayer, which bought Monsanto as mentioned earlier, dropped immediately after the original decision and hasn’t risen since. It’s still trading at approximately 30 percent below its pre-verdict value. The statement given by Bayer after the initial decision does its best to restore confidence in their product:

The jury’s decision is wholly at odds with over 40 years of real-world use, an extensive body of scientific data and analysis…which support the conclusion that glyphosate-based herbicides are safe for use and do not cause cancer in humans. (source)

This statement strongly goes against the statements made by thousands of scientists across the world.

“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides… Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.” – R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691

Keep in mind that the use of glyphosate rose 1500% from 1995 to 2005, and that 100 million pounds of glyphosate is used every year on more than a billion acres. (Cherry, B., “GM crops increase herbicide use in the United States,” Science in Society 45, 44-46, 2010) (source)

Years Of Activism

The alarming thing is that for decades, scientists, activist groups and environmental/health awareness groups have been creating awareness and presenting the science explaining how and why Monsanto’s glyphosate (the main ingredient in their Roundup herbicide) causes cancer, among other diseases. Despite the fact that this has been happening for years, the political stranglehold these corporations have on governmental regulatory agencies has prevented this information from being taken seriously.

If the truth was widely known it would result in an unfathomable drop in profit for Monsanto’s products which contain glyphosate, but mostly in North America. Many countries have completely banned the ingredient and other Monsanto products, due to clear links to diseases like cancer and kidney disease, for example. In fact, most of the products manufactured by Monsanto and other giant North American biotech companies are completely banned and illegal in many other countries.

It makes you wonder how such a substance can go through the review process, whatever it is, and still be approved for use. Monsanto has been sued many times; in fact one lawsuit unearthed documents showing how Monsanto misled regulators and scientists to speed up approval for the development of genetically modified foods. You can read more about that here. So, the science itself becomes subject to fraud when power and money are applied. Roundup herbicide is over one hundred times more toxic than regulators claim. And a new study published in the journal Biomedical Research International showed how Roundup herbicide is 125 times more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate studied in isolation. You can read more about that here.

We are talking about clear hormone disrupters and clear catalysts for cancer. Decades of science and scientific fraud that’s been exposed has forced the World Health Organisation, a major hub of the establishment that seems to regulate the shady industry of health, to finally admit that glyphosate, like cigarettes, processed foods and meats, is carcinogenic.

Clear Injustice

This judge’s reversal will end up having enormous financial and reputational repercussions for the corporation, and it seems obvious that she has been influenced by power and money. The truth is, if you take the scientific evidence, as well as clear evidence of scientific fraud and corruption by these corporate and government agencies (who are constantly in collusion with one another), there is no jury on the planet that would not reach a guilty verdict. That’s because the evidence is quite clear, which is why if this decision was going to be reversed, it would have to be the Judge over-ruling the jury’s decision.

This verdict proves that when ordinary citizens, in this case a jury of 12, hear the facts about Monsanto’s products, and the lengths to which this company has gone to buy off scientists, deceive the public and influence government regulatory agencies, there is no confusion.”  Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the organic consumers association

At the end of the day, we are the ones using these products and we are the ones voting with our dollar. That being said, it completely goes against our free will and interests for products to be approved that are obviously completely unsafe. It’s unfortunate that those who choose not to use these products or be near them, still end up with it in our system. The fact that Monsanto can still somehow fight this and provide evidence means our work is not yet done.

The Takeaway

The work of many brave activists has brought awareness to the severe health risks of glyphosate and Roundup, but to honor all their efforts we must continue to spread awareness about these corporate crimes until the time comes when these chemicals have been removed from all corners of the Earth.

A Quick Important Notice:

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

EL

We Need Your Support

 

Censorship is cutting our revenue in a big way. If just 5% of people seeing this supported our Conscious Media Campaign, we'd be able to fund a TRUE investigative team INSTANTLY. Your support truly matters! Help support conscious media.

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.