Connect with us

General

What Many Of Us Fail To Realize About The Gun Control Debate In America

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Mainstream Media will take great pains to tell us what the gun-control debate really consists of, in order to advance their agenda. They truly fall short in expressing what is in the hearts and minds of truly concerned citizens.

  • Reflect On:

    What are the real issues underlying the right of American citizens to bear arms and the decision of many Americans to do so?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

As I was reading a March 12th article in The New Yorker entitled “The Gun-Control Debate After Parkland,” a subscription pop-up appeared rather serendipitously, leading with the line “Fighting Fake News With Real Stories.” I had to pause to contain my amusement. The very reason I had searched for this article was to get a clearer picture of how the mainstream media (a.k.a. the ‘Real’ Fake News) was characterizing the gun-control debate in the wake of the ongoing publicity being given to the recent school shootings in America.

advertisement - learn more

Let’s get one thing straight here: mainstream media has long been run by a small but powerful elite group of people with a loosely coherent set of agendas, and the fundamental role of media for this group has always been to advance their agendas. How they do it is actually quite subtle, nuanced, time-honed. While Donald Trump may label them as “Fake News” based on their disproportionally negative bias towards him, in truth their duplicity is far more subtle and sinister. It is nothing short of mind-control and the maintenance of a cultural perception of reality.

--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!

It is instructive to look at the gun-control debate as an example of how our perception is being limited and controlled. One of the tools used constantly in mainstream media is to frame an issue within a simple black-or-white polarity. The average mainstream reader does not know the issue is actually being framed in a very limited way—they believe they are reading about an issue as it is, supported by facts.

In Margaret Talbot’s New Yorker article, the driving question is whether there will finally be tougher gun-control legislation getting through Congress, presumably with the ultimate goal being the disarming of the entire civilian population. The polarity of the debate is struck this way: in one corner we have gun-control advocates, those ‘reasonable’ people who obviously care about the nation’s children and grieve every time word gets out that one or more have been killed in a ‘senseless’ (read: preventable) school shooting. In the other corner we have gun-ownership advocates, an eclectic collection of citizens who seem to think that their perceived right to own a gun trumps the significance of the occasional unfortunate death of one or more of the nation’s children. Surveys and statistics are conveniently used to shore up this distinction. A 2017 Pew Research study is employed to tell us that ‘half of all gun owners say that gun ownership is essential to their identity,’ leaving us to obviously conclude that gun owners have a deficient sense of self.

And of course, no mainstream gun-control debate article is complete without bringing in a tried-and-true narrative about the NRA, the presumed voice of gun-ownership advocates (even as the article concedes that most gun-owners are not NRA members). The NRA and its powerful political lobby is cast as the sole reason gun control legislation is so weak in the United States. And again, based on ‘scientific analysis’, the article purports to be able to objectively characterize the NRA (and by extension most proponents of gun ownership) as out of touch with reality, and willing to say anything to promote their cause:     

The organization’s leaders and members used a remarkably consistent series of words to describe their identity: “law-abiding,” “peaceable,” “patriotic,” “freedom-loving,” and “average citizens.” Their opponents were “un-American,” “tyrannical,” “Communist,” and “élitist.”

advertisement - learn more

However, the reality is that the NRA has little or nothing to do with the debate on gun control that is in the hearts and minds of thoughtful citizens. In fact it isn’t really a debate, as much as it is a potential conversation—too seldom waged, amid the distraction and fiery rhetoric promoted by mainstream media. And the conversation centers around this question: Is the nation better served by having an armed citizenry?

Some might wonder what possible argument could be made for the benefits of an armed citizenry. Well, the most obvious first step is to investigate why the people of the United States of America were afforded this right in the first place. There is an abundance of testimony from the founding fathers indicating that the Second Amendment’s ‘right to bear arms’ is predicated on the ability and will of the citizens to preserve their freedoms and have ultimate control over the power of their government. This quote from Jefferson touches upon that sentiment:     

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

The founding fathers were clearly aware of the propensity for governments to become tools of outside power and ultimately tyranny. This is why they built into the constitution a clear statement that it is the right and duty of citizens to resist all attempts on the part of government to limit and control the liberty and self-determination that had been bestowed onto the general population.

If we are to have a serious, balanced conversation about gun control, it will not come by foisting words and images of shattered children reeling from horrendous incidents—incidents which, by the way, often contain remarkable inconsistencies that give credence to the idea that the incidents themselves may have had the hand of this same powerful elite group behind them. But that is the subject of a whole different article. Suffice it to say that any serious conversation around gun control must involve determining whether or not the citizens of the nation are dealing with a tyrannical authority. A survey of ardent gun owners would likely yield the answer ‘yes’ more often than not.

Naturally, the elite does everything in its power to prevent this question from even being considered by the general population. Their efforts are aided by the fact that it is very uncomfortable for many people to consider that their government is not there to serve and protect them. Nonetheless, it is no coincidence that Talbot’s piece, like most other mainstream articles on gun control, don’t even broach the subject of government tyranny. And that is of course because mainstream media is controlled and operated by those very tyrannical forces whose modus operandi is to stay hidden and invisible, all while pulling the strings behind government and media to control what certain events mean (like school shootings) and how people should think about them.

Mainstream media thus earns the moniker ‘Fake News’ for one simple reason: they are not even attempting to convey the truth. Rather, they promote the narrative that fits their agenda. And make no mistake, their agenda here is gun control. Why? Because their goal is the unfettered enslavement of the population. As our founding fathers were so aware, ‘to disarm the people…is the most effectual way to enslave them.’ (George Mason, June 14th, 1788) 

As a consequence, it is no surprise that most mainstream articles on gun control only see the light of day if they are advocates for increased limits on gun ownership. Pay attention to how they subtly try to persuade us that any decent and civilized person should be in favor of removing all guns from the citizenry. Talbot’s slant is to indicate that the Parkland shooting may have finally changed the country’s mood to get serious about gun control. But she has a word of caution:

Still, gun-control advocates might not want to place too much hope in any single moment, even this one. They will have to play a long game, made up of many moments.

Interesting how Talbot inadvertently reveals the game that the powerful forces behind mainstream media have been playing all along.

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

General

Fact Checkers & Big Tech Censorship Are Tearing Apart Society

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 1 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

Journalist Laurie Clarke published an article in the British Medical Journal examining hundreds of millions of pieces of content that Facebook has removed in an attempt to stop ‘covid misinformation.’ As a result of censorship, we are seeing a breakdown of important dialogue. Here is our deeper written analysis of her piece.

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

General

The Quantum Eraser Experiment: What Happens In The Present Can Change The Past

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read
Image: Shutterstock

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    At the quantum scale, what we do in the present can impact what happens in the past. This is shown through what's known as the quantum delayed choice choice, or quantum eraser experiment.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are factors associated with consciousness directly intertwined with physical material matter at the quantum scale? What does this mean when it comes to our physical material world in relation to our thoughts, perceptions, feelings and emotions?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

One of the founding fathers of quantum theory, Max Planck, who is often credited with originating quantum theory – a feat that won him the Physics Nobel Prize in 1918 – once stated: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as exiting, postulates consciousness.”

Fast forward to today and there are a number of experiments in multiple fields showing that Planck was right. Consciousness is fundamental and it is directly intertwined with what we call physical material matter. You cannot explain consciousness in terms of the existing fundamentals like space, time, mass, and charge. As a result, the logical thing to do is postulate whether consciousness itself is something fundamental to the existence of reality.

A classic experiment used to examine the role of consciousness and its relationship to matter is the quantum double slit experiment. In this experiment, tiny bits of matter (photons, electrons, or any atomic-sized object) are shot toward a screen that has two slits in it. When there is no measuring device placed at the screen, the tiny bits of matter act as a “wave” and creates an “interference” pattern on the other side where a wall is placed to catch the pattern. Because there was no measuring or observation device used to see what slit the matter went through, we cannot know what path it took. When the pattern on the wall is examined to see what path it took, it represents a wave of possibilities, meaning the matter (particle) went through both slits, and one slit, and interfered with itself, which should be physically impossible. Welcome to the wacky world of quantum physics – anything and everything is possible.

The kicker is, when an observation device is set up to observe what slit the particles go through, the particle then only goes through one, thus collapsing the wave pattern and forming a pattern that is representative of the particle only going through one slit. In other words, the behaviour of the matter changes when we decide to measure  or observe it, the particles act as they are aware they are being watched. 50 percent of the time the particle will go through one slit, and the other 50 percent of the time it will go through the other and form a two slit pattern, just as if they were balls lobbed through one slit or the other.

Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it…We compel (the electron) to assume a definite position…We ourselves produce the results of the measurement. (M. Mermin, Boojums All the Way Through: Communicating Science ina Prosaic Age (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990, referenced by Dr. Dean Radin, From A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays explaining how this experiment has been used multiple times to explore the role of consciousness in shaping the nature of physical reality

If this isn’t already mind-altering enough for you, one physicist, John Archibald Wheeler, pondered what would happen if we don’t interfere with the photons on their way through the slits? What would happen if we didn’t set up a measuring device to observe what slit the matter went through, and instead, what if behind the back wall there were detectors? One detector is focused on each slit, and just before the particle lands on the screen after it has passed through the slit device, the detectors are pulled away. When no one could detect which slit the photon had gone through, there was a wave pattern, but when the detectors were in place, there was no wave pattern. Similar to observing the particles before they went through the slit. No observation produced an interference pattern, and observation formed a one line, one slit pattern.

If they collapse to a state of particles from a wave at the moment of detection, after they have gone past the slit device, this means that even though they went through the slit unobserved and should produce a wave (interference) pattern, the very act of observing, still, instantly transforms them into particles and collapses the wave function.

This begs the question, how could these detectors interfere with something that had already happened? It would mean that what happened in the present changed the past. The very act of detecting the particles after they go through the slit determines how they went through the slit, either as a wave or as particles. How is this possible?

Like the quantum double slit experiment, the delayed choice/quantum eraser has been demonstrated and repeated multiple times. For example, physicists at the Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, and the findings were recently published in the journal Nature Physics.

In 2007 (Science 315, 966, 2007), scientists in France shot photons into an apparatus and showed that their actions could retroactively change something that had already happened.

“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance, but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” (source)

To make the experiment easier to understand, Wheeler used a cosmic scale explanation. Imagine a star emitting a photon billions of years ago, heading in the direction of planet Earth. In between, there is a galaxy. As a result of what’s known as “gravitational lensing,” the light will have to bend around the galaxy in order to reach Earth, so it has to take one of two paths, going left or going right. Billions of years later, if one decides to set up an apparatus to “catch” the photon, the resulting pattern would be an interference pattern, as explained above in the double slit experiment. This demonstrates that the photon took one way, and it took the other way. A “wave” of possibilities, but the way it took has not been defined.

One could also choose to “peek” at the incoming photon, setting up a telescope on each side of the galaxy to determine which side the photon passed to reach Earth. The very act of measuring or “watching” which way the photon comes in means it can only come in from one side. The pattern will no longer be an interference pattern representing multiple possibilities, but a single clump pattern showing “one” way.

What does this mean? It means how we choose to measure “now” affects what direction the photon took billions of years ago. Our choice in the present moment affected what had already happened in the past.

Below is a great video of Wheeler explaining.

My mind is blown just writing this article, I can’t stop thinking about it and what it could possibly mean, and how factors associated with consciousness are, in more ways than one, intertwined with what we perceive to be our physical reality. I recently published an article regarding consciousness and how it might be fundamental to the creation of our physical material world. You can read that here if interested.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ― Nikola Tesla

Why does all of this matter? Because it’s one of multiple experiments showing a strong connection between consciousness and physical matter. What does this mean at the classic physics scale? What does it mean with regards to the way we think, feel, perceive? What does it mean when we are talking about solutions to problems we are facing on our planet? If human consciousness could be so fundamental with regards to the ‘creation of our reality’, why aren’t we talking about it more? What impact would changing the way we look at our world have on the human experience? What would happen if we started to see things in a different light?

We tend to believe in our culture that we are beings where everything in our world is happening to us, as opposed to us being intimately connected to everything in our world. How might that knowing change the nature of our choices?

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

General

Dr Byram Bridle Speaks For 100 Colleagues Afraid To Share Science About COVID Vaccine Concerns

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 2 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr Byram Bridle and two other physicians spoke at a news conference on Parliament Hill about their experience being censored or harassed as a result of sharing their medical opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Reflect On:

    Do we as citizens truly want our scientists and physicians to be silenced and censored?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

Why are scientists and experts in this field scared to share concerning science regarding COVID vaccines? Just ask Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist from the University of Guelph who recently released a detailed, in-depth report regarding safety concerns about the COVID vaccines. The report was released to act as a guide for parents when it comes to deciding whether or not their child should be vaccinated against COVID-19. Bridle published the paper on behalf of one hundred other scientists and doctors who part of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, but who are afraid to ‘come out’ publicly and share their concerns.

Bridle has stated about the Alliance,

In fact the reason that we (Canadian COVID Care Alliance) exist is sad. We exist because we’re like minded in the sense that we all want to be able to speak openly and freely about the scientist and medicine underpinning COVID-19, and we don’t feel safe to do it  anywhere else other than within our own private group, where we feel safe.

Below is our detailed report on the news conference held on Parliament Hill on June 17th, 2021. It was organized by Canadian MP Derek Sloan who has received hundreds of concerned communications from Canadian citizens about the censorship of scientists. Bridle and two other physicians spoke at the conference.

A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

The more important questions to ask are: who is deciding what’s misleading? Who decides what’s false?

Some of the most renowned scientists and expert in this field have been subjected to this “fact-checking,” and they’ve been outspoken about how much of this fact-checking is flat out censorship. You decide.

To note: HealthFeedback.org, a fact checker, has attempted to refute some of Bridle’s claims. You can read more about them here.

 

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!