May 2020
This is for those of you that are confused by all the conflicting narratives around Covid-19. Its aim is not to convince anyone of anything or come to a concrete conclusion. It is an invitation for people to have more acceptance when it comes to opposing beliefs, to look back into history, understand the nature of cycles and move beyond conflict. It is said that history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
This is also an invitation for self-inquiry and to ask yourself what you really truly know to be fact before you defend a belief. It is an invitation to understand the importance of diversity and for us to remain unified in this diversity.
In 1974 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi predicted that the world was moving towards an Age of Enlightenment. He is reputed to have said that in the early 2020s problems would start to reduce and the beginning of a Golden Age would become more apparent. He predicted that this shift in collective consciousness would be a similar process to a phase transition in chemistry (when a substance shifts from one state to another). To illustrate what is meant by this we can take the boiling point of water as an example. As the temperature of the water rises not much changes to the naked-eye. However, as we reach boiling point there is great turbulence on the surface until the water eventually evaporates and turns to steam. The phase transition is complete. The shift has given rise to something new, to something lighter.
I want to invite you to ask the question if we are potentially on the brink of, or perhaps even in the midst of, a phase transition? Could these rapid changes we are currently seeing in society and widespread upheaval be the turbulence of a paradigm shift that leads us towards a brighter and lighter future?
For many of you this may be getting a little esoteric, but bear with me and for now let’s keep an open mind to a theory of positivity. Vedic Astrologers (known as Jyotishis) tell us that in September of 2020 there is a major planetary shift, which will last for about 10,000 years. In Vedic knowledge there is a concept known as Yugas (cycles of life and humanity). You can think of these as 4 seasons of existence that range from our lowest (Kali Yuga) to our highest potential (Satya Yuga). To understand the basic framework you can read more here – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga. There are differing opinions as to how long these Yuga’s last or exactly which Yuga we are currently in today.
However, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has clarified that if collective consciousness rises quickly enough we can shift into Satya Yuga very quickly from any of the other Yugas. This, if correct, provides a framework for the potential for humans and society to evolve and change quite quickly. You can also think of it like the hundredth monkey effect. Now, as explained with the phase transition, this does not mean that there may not be turbulence or societal unrest, possibly for an extended period of time. However, it does provide us with a deeper understanding of our potential orientation and personal responsibility to support this rise in collective consciousness by nurturing our own spiritual growth.
Amidst all the wild conflicting narratives and speculation around the current pandemic there is one key learning that stands out to me. This is that we are so quick to judge and adopt a paradigm of right and wrong. We search for a black and white answer or cling to a binary belief as to who is correct and who is mistaken. I think we could stand to learn from Eastern philosophy amidst this divisive chaos of left and right-wing propaganda surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic.
From a Vedic perspective we can understand reality as two-fold. The absolute and eternal fundamental nature of our existence (or pure consciousness) and the relative ever-changing nature of existence (the physical world). It is only when we embrace the paradox – the validity and inseparability of both – that we can reach unity and come to a true understanding of the nature of reality.
We also have the concept of Yin and Yang. We live in a world of opposites and opposition, yet unity and harmony comes in stepping back and having the awareness to understand that both merge into a harmonising cycle. This is what it truly means to be open minded in my opinion. To see beyond the binary and divisive illusions of reality. An evolved mind is one that is comfortable with paradox.
Now, coming back to cycles and the importance of understanding history, I feel this is a very important time for us to reflect on historical events and timeless ancient wisdom. This is a perfect time to look back into our past, too see where historically we have made mistakes, and with a deeper more holistic understanding of human nature question where we really stand in terms of human evolution and the highest potential of beings on this planet.
Is it possible that we need to drastically and fundamentally change in order to live in greater harmony with others and our natural environment?
One of my favourite quotes of all time comes from Ram Tzu (Wayne Liquorman) and I feel is relevant to share at this point.
“Bring me your dearest held beliefs and with any luck you’ll leave without them.”
As a human race we are so quick to forget and so quick to defend our most tightly held beliefs. Our egos are so strong and our attachment to being right and proving others wrong prevents us from even asking questions. Questioning a deeply held belief is a painful and traumatic process for the ego. However, it is a growing pain for our spirit. The egoic attachment to prove oneself right and avoid any potential of being wrong manifests itself in its most extreme form as fascism, totalitarian control, racism, censorship, suppressing freedom of speech and other such negative societal tendencies.
The danger of seeing the world in black and white divided into two opposing camps of right and wrong prevents us from ever really accepting reality and finding truth. The ego doesn’t like the middle ground. It struggles to integrate. The true nature of reality is rarely this or that. It is normally both and. It is only when we transcend opposites that we can get closer to knowing truth. We must embrace the unifying comfort and simultaneous discomfort of not knowing with absolute certainty while also having dearly held beliefs. This is why the wisest and most knowledgeable tend to be the most humble and continue to ask questions. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. We are collectively going through a process of being less wrong and more right. The nature of life is to grow.
Now to bring this back full circle to the concept of history and cycles is one of the main reasons I am writing this. I am inviting you to investigate and understand the origins of the current systems that are at the foundation of our current society before you label anyone as a conspiracy theorist or having lost their sense of judgment for suggesting an alternative to the mainstream narrative around the Covid-19 pandemic. I ask you to just entertain for a moment that there may be a lot of truth in what people are saying, but in some aspects they may be totally wrong. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. It is generally only through history that we really know the truth, but even then it is actually only our personal experience that will ever give us 100% certainty over the reality of events. This is why knowledge requires personal experience while beliefs should always be susceptible to change.
In this instance I want to invite you to look at how the system of modern medicine and pharmaceutical companies evolved. I am not here to comment with any definitive certainty on motives and by bringing attention to this it does not mean I am pushing any of the more far fetched so-called conspiracy theories. I want us to understand more deeply and consider how it may not be in the best interest of humanity and evolution if there is ever a monopoly in one industry or area of society.
I want us to question the suppression of alternative viewpoints or methods unless perhaps these can be shown to cause harm without a shadow of a doubt. Given the Hippocratic oath of “first do no harm” there may be grounds to prevent malpractice in the field of medicine. However, even in this case we are moving into questionable territory and I would personally suggest we should seek to have more faith in our own discernment rather than allowing others to control our access to information and freedom to share knowledge.
For me I personally work in alternative treatment for cancer and know people who have had to close their practice due to their success rate in curing people with cancer and scrutiny from the authorities. I almost certainly know situations like this to be true as this example comes from my personal experience. I say almost certain as I didn’t personally witness it, but I have met him and have no reason to doubt his story. The man I am referring to is Dr. Tsuneo Kobayashi who successfully treated over 20,000 cancer patients, many of whom went into long-term remission. Kobayashi is close with the integrative oncologist Dr. Thomas Lodi that I currently work with. You can find out more about Kobayashi here:
https://www.japaninc.com/mgz_winter_2005_medical_maverick
I am not here to say conventional medicine is bad or that one side is fundamentally wrong or evil. There is normally good and bad in any situation and as humans we are far from perfect. I actually personally would not be alive without the miracle of modern medicine and the amazing skill of orthopaedic surgeons. However, I do believe the modern pharmaceutical based approach to medicine has it’s limitations and may be fundamentally influenced by corruption, which we will come to later. I have my own personal biases and opinions, but it is not my purpose here to push that on anyone.
I am inviting you to look back into history to gain a deeper understanding of the roots of the monopoly and financially driven motives that may potentially still dictate and underpin our medical system and modern medicine today. I think it would be healthy to question if greed, power and control are still present in our current systems. I think we have the right to question whether these negative aspects of human nature are still at play today in this current pandemic situation and if financial gain should ever be knowingly and intentionally put over human health.
With that in mind I am inviting you to question the mainstream narrative around a vaccine as the only solution to this current pandemic and the influential pro-vaccine voice (and funding) of Bill Gates. I’m not telling you what to think. I’m just asking you to question it with a balanced mind and an understanding of the origins of modern medicine. Bill Gates is not a doctor or medical professional, but rather the ex-CEO of Microsoft, a tech company that Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson declared was a monopoly in 1999. And not just any monopoly, but the very worst kind: one that uses its power to squash would-be rivals before they’re even out of the gate. I believe this is a fact. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Further to this point, if we look at the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine it begs the question if this really is the best solution for this pandemic and whether the Covid-19 vaccine should be mandatory.
Data from the CDC’s interim Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Report for the 2019 -20 flu season shows that the flu shot was effective in 50% of cases for Influenza B and 37% for Influenza A. This is the closest example we have to give an indication of the potential efficacy of a Covid-19 vaccine. This is without even considering the potential side-effects of this option. If you want to quickly educate yourself on some of the issues and side effects surrounding vaccines you can get a quick insight here with regard to the MMR vaccine:
For me personally when we look at the risk/reward of a rushed to market and inadequately tested vaccine in this situation it would be a no-brainer to refuse. From my perspective it definitely raises questions as to our approach in this particular situation and it seems fair that we should be able to have a choice if we want to receive a vaccine or not. Don’t get me wrong. I am not fundamentally against the concept or theory behind a vaccine in all circumstances, especially if it could be produced without toxic adjuncts and underplayed side-effects. I am simply more in favour of greater awareness and freedom of choice.
Coming back to the importance of understanding history and how applying ancient wisdom may help us move forward I want to take us back to 19th Century France for a moment. Most of us are aware of the rivalry between the two famous French scientists Louis Pasteur and Antoine Béchamp.
The two rivals had almost completely opposing viewpoints as to the cause of infectious disease. Pasteur posited the Germ Theory of Disease, which claims that there are external germs or pathogens in the environment that seek to infect the human body and cause disease. In order to cure the disease you must kill the germ. You can think of it as more of a war on disease paradigm. This theory (yes, it is still a theory) is what lays the foundation to modern medicine and why I will continue to ask you to keep an open mind.
Béchamp on the other hand had a slightly different perspective and this fuelled great controversy between the two. He argued that a diseased or weakened body will attract the same germ or pathogen and that it is fundamentally the terrain rather than the germ itself that causes the disease. It is rumoured that Pasteur admitted on his death bed that Béchamp was in fact correct.
I have a slightly different perspective. The fierce opposition between these two viewpoints overlooks the obvious truth that transcends their whole conflict. If we stepped back for a moment and saw the blatant battle of two egos and their desire to prove one concept as fundamentally right or wrong, perhaps we could have come closer to the truth a long time ago.
I think it is quite clear that there are pathogens that exist in our environment, which have the potential to cause disease. However, whether that disease actually manifests when it comes into contact with the host depends on the health of the terrain. For example, you can plant a seed in fertile ground and it will sprout. If you plant the seed in unfertile ground it will not. In other words, neither theory is fundamentally correct or incorrect. It is both simultaneously. Wim Hof and his ability to resist sickness when injected with certain pathogens defies the current understanding of modern medicine around infectious disease and serves as proof to this unified theory.
Our bodies are host to trillions of viruses and bacteria and our external environment contains even more. If we ever think that modern science will fully understand the scope of this under a microscope we are collectively suffering from either an inflated ego or delusion (probably both).
Many do not realise that it is still Pasteur’s Germ Theory that is at the very foundation of modern medicine and underpins our approach to treating infectious disease whether correlated to bacteria or viruses. Correlation as we know does not always mean causation.
The conventional approach almost entirely disregards the equally valid terrain theory of Béchamp. This works very nicely for the pharmaceutical companies who wage a war on disease with pills and medications that will supposedly eliminate our sickness while simultaneously creating more sickness and more fear around contracting a disease.
If we take a more fundamental and holistic perspective on infectious disease, it doesn’t take a genius to see through this narrative and understand that we must implement measures to improve the terrain, and, in some cases, also take measures to eliminate the germ. In the context of this current pandemic we can understand the terrain as how healthy our body and immune system is versus the relatively mild Covid-19 virus that primarily seems to be deadly to those with underlying health conditions, or in other words, those who have an unhealthy terrain.
We can take this one step further and look at this as two opposing forces. We have on one-hand modern medicine’s continual war on disease, which is a fundamentally fear-based paradigm. This war will only end once all diseases or disease-causing pathogens have been eradicated from the planet at which point we will be able to live healthy and happy disease-free lives. We only have to look at the issues surrounding antibiotic resistance, almost all prescription pharmaceutical drugs and vaccine injuries to see the flaws in this narrative and the direction this path will lead us down.
On the other hand, we have the terrain theory, which can be viewed as a love-based paradigm. Through nurturing and strengthening the body we can create an environment where we are immune to the fear of disease invading the body. When we unify and accept these two opposing belief systems and paradigms we can integrate this knowledge to build a foundation based on love with a healthy and balanced fear for those naturally occurring threats in life. Remember, a more complete understanding should not be denying or suppressing one or the other, but rather integrating both aspects to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
I hope this perspective makes you question our approach and response to this pandemic and question the mainstream media narrative when we are dealing with a virus that looks like it will have a fatality rate of around 0.1 to 0.37% based on the latest figures, which is in the range of a severe flu (influenza).
I believe we should also question the motives of organisations like the WHO who ridicule, squash and suppress any advice or narrative, which suggests that we may be able to transcend this situation from a place of love and take measures to naturally heal our individual and external terrain.
We as a society are quite sick on many levels and so is our environment. We are constantly acting from a fear-based paradigm of conflict and opposition rather than love and acceptance, which further damages our internal and external terrain on both a physical and energetic level.
As a society we are for the most part still operating from this fear-based paradigm and continually waging war against ourselves and our natural environment. We buy into the concept of scarcity and separation that drives these negative and divisive tendencies of human nature. This in turn can lead to the monopolisation of industries, one-sided narratives and making profit at the expense of others.
This does not mean I am against capitalism necessarily. It is only capitalism that comes at the expense of others that in my mind needs questioning. If we question this it may lead us to a more evolutionary paradigm of conscious capitalism – an empowering framework of self-responsibility to create financial freedom with products and services that directly benefit others and the world around us. It’s time to transcend the scarcity paradigm of us versus them. By raising our collective consciousness, we can begin to tap into our intuition and discern ways as to how we as individuals and as a collective can prosper through service to the greater good.
If we fear that we may be proven wrong, if we fear losing to competition, on whatever scale that may be, to the point that we squash others this is where the sickness begins. If this sickness spreads to the point where we are literally prepared to kill our fellow human beings or destroy our environment for personal gain, this is where our systems collapse and become almost psychopathic.
Could this pandemic create the wide-spread awareness we need to signal the end of destructive capitalism as we know it? Does it have the potential to be the catalyst required for this shift to take place?
The seed of this self-centred, ego-based and scarcity-driven nature of humanity is mirrored in the commonplace inability, or lack of willingness, to listen to or acknowledge other people’s points of view. There is always a lesson, even if the other person may be partially wrong.
This is why I began by calling for us to question our beliefs and have a greater understanding and compassion for the viewpoints of others. The more open we are and the more we can accept other’s viewpoints, the faster we can evolve and transition into a better society.
The less we resist ourselves and each other the less turbulence there will be during this phase transition to a “new-normal”. However, in moving beyond opposition and resistance that does not negate the possibility for standing up for what we believe to be right. Perhaps we should just also be more aware that perhaps we are wrong in some respects.
Coming back to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, he was not necessarily one to make lots of predictions. However, he did speak of creating world peace and said that in the next Golden Age, or Age of Enlightenment, we would see individual nations become stronger, cultures become richer and that in diversity there would be greater unity.
This to me begs the question of whether we perhaps need to re-evaluate our political systems and the opposition of liberal and conservative ideals? Is the liberal concept of huge and highly powerful centralised organisations like the Word Health Organisation, United Nations, European Union and the potential for a One World Government really what is meant by unity and how we will achieve world peace? Is the liberal perspective that places so much responsibility on international organisations avoiding our individual responsibility? Is fighting against conservative beliefs and nationalist tendencies a fear-based paradigm that may ultimately go against what is best for humanity and our collective spiritual growth?
This may sound like I am coming across as right-winger. Quite the opposite. I’m not really even political and I am simply trying to illustrate a point. What I am asking us to consider is if fighting against any opposing value is the best way to make progress and find peace whether in ourselves or in the world? If a militant right-wing politician calls a spade a spade do we have to automatically contradict them if we identify as a liberal?
By embracing love and acceptance as a foundation rather than fear and division, by transcending opposites and finding unity in diversity, maybe we can move forward more smoothly through this paradigm shift and lay the foundations for an abundant, prosperous and unified society?
Do you think that perhaps we can envision a better future than the current Agenda 2030 outlined by the WHO? If we take all the resources and knowledge on this planet and funnel them towards common interests that truly benefit all rather squash, suppress and deceive to benefit a select few can we make more progress?
I understand this is getting into the realms of an idealist utopian view. I don’t claim to know how to solve all the world’s problems and corrupt systems. I am just inviting us to question and perhaps those a lot smarter than me will find a solution.
In other words, I am wondering if during this time of lockdown and deep reflection that many of us are going through, can we as individuals and as a society gain enough self-awareness to reconnect with and deeply trust our intuition, so that we can better navigate what almost seems to be a spiritual war of deception versus discernment.
To me it seems only fitting that Maharish Mahesh Yogi said that the most important quality for a human being was discernment. This certainly rings true at what could be a pivotal yet potentially confusing and disorientating point in the trajectory of the human race.
On that note of discernment, I am going to leave you with a post by Dr. Jack Kruse to digest in your own time and make up your own mind as to whether we could improve our current healthcare system and the nature of modern medicine.
Jack Kruse has been another teacher in my life in the field of health and wellness. He has given me a much deeper understanding of science yet also highlighted the lack of holistic understanding in conventional medicine. He outlines the origins of our current pharmaceutical industry, the FDA and highlights the deep-rooted issues in the cancer treatment industry, which is why this post resonated with me personally.
We need to understand that the current pharmaceutical paradigm is a very successful business model and that very few businesses have a primary motive of reducing their number of customers. I felt a need to share this in light of what I see as a possible lack of awareness around the current pandemic and the agendas potentially still at play in modern medicine.
I’ll let you come to your own conclusion. The real answer is probably not black and white, but from my perspective the mainstream narrative seems at best more grey than it does light.
Post Text Copied Below Incase Removed by Facebook:
Gates + Fauci + WHO + CDC = Rockefeller 2.0
It all began on May 15, 1911. The Supreme Court of the U.S. finds John Rockefeller and his Trust guilty of corruption, illegal business practices, and racketeering. As a result of this decision, the entire Rockefeller Standard Oil-Trust, the world’s largest corporation of its time, was sentenced to be dismantled. But Rockefeller was already above the Supreme Court and did not care about this decision. He decided before his trial if he lost he would create another monopoly using aspects of his oil chemical empire. He chose medicine because of the tight links of drugs to chemical manufacturing.
The Flexner Report was a very useful tool commissioned by oil magnate John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller had made a massive fortune with Standard Oil and was setting his sights on gaining a monopoly in the drug and pharmaceutical industry. However, first, he had to get rid of the competition, which consisted of natural non-allopathic healing modalities – naturopathy, homeopathy, eclectic medicine (botanical and herbal medicine), holistic medicine, etc. Hemp was also a threat to his plans since cannabis has, in some cases, a tremendous medical benefit – it can be used to alleviate pain for numerous diseases and even has anti-cancer properties for nausea and vomiting. How did Rockefeller deal with this? By means of the Flexner Report.
Enter Abraham Flexner on the Rockefeller Payroll: Rockefeller paid Abraham Flexner to visit all the medical schools in the US at that time. He released the so-called “Flexner Report” in 1910, which called for the standardization of medical education and concluded there were too many doctors and medical schools in America. Rockefeller then used his control of the media to generate public outcry at the findings of the report – which, by means of the classic elite strategy of “Problem, Reaction, Solution”, ultimately led Congress to declare the AMA the only body with the right to grant medical school licenses in the United States. This suited Rockefeller perfectly – he then used the AMA (which may be better called to the American Murder Association due their widespread use and endorsement of vaccines, drugs, chemotherapy, and radiation) to compel the Government to destroy the natural competition, which it did through regulation of medical schools and education.
Flexner Report Promotes Standardization of Medical Education
We know that monoculture crops are not as resilient as a diversity of crops. Same goes for thought. With all the hundreds of different healing modalities out there, why would we want to narrow it down to one system, if we were truly interested in health?
After the Flexner Report, the AMA only endorsed schools with a symptom-driven paradigm and drug-based treatment curriculum. It didn’t take long before non-allopathic schools fell by the wayside due to lack of funding. Thus, Rockefeller had his monopoly move from the oil industry to drugs, and Big Pharma and Rockefeller Medicine were born – and has only grown bigger and more problematic since the 1910 report. Rockefeller, the AMA, and Big Pharma are now all key aspects of the NWO (New World Order) in medical care, but it all started with the Flexner Report.
In 1913 in order to disperse public and political pressure on him and other robber-barons, Rockefeller uses a trick called “philanthropy”, whereby the illegal gains from his robber-practices in the oil business are used to launch the Rockefeller Foundation. This tax haven was used to strategically take over the healthcare sector in the U.S.
The Rockefeller Foundation was the front organization for a new global business venture of Rockefeller and his accomplices. This new venture was called the pharmaceutical investment business. Donations from the Rockefeller Foundation went only to medical schools and hospitals. These institutions had become missionaries of a new breed of companies: the manufacturers of patented, synthetic drugs.
This was also the time when the first vitamins were discovered. It soon became clear however that these natural molecules had life-saving health benefits and that they were able to prevent many chronic health conditions. The first books appeared with research, subsequently abandoned, about the health benefits of vitamins. These newly discovered molecules had only one disadvantage: they were non-patentable.
Thus, in its first years of existence, the pharmaceutical investment business already faced a mortal threat: vitamins and other micronutrients promoted as public health programs would prohibit the development of any sizable investment business based on patented drugs. The elimination of this unwanted competition from natural micronutrients, therefore, became a question of life and death for the pharmaceutical business.
1918
The Rockefeller Foundation uses the Spanish flu epidemic – and the media (that the Foundation already controlled by this time) – to start a witch-hunt on all forms of medicine that were not covered by its patents.
Within the next 15 years, all medical schools in the U.S., most hospitals, and the American Medical Association all essentially became pawns on the chessboard of Rockefeller’s strategy to subjugate the entire health care sector under the monopoly of his pharmaceutical investment business.
Disguised as a “Mother Theresa”, the Rockefeller Foundation was also used to conquer foreign countries and entire continents for the pharmaceutical investment business – just as Rockefeller himself had done a few decades previously with his petrochemical investment business.
You need to be aware of the origins of paradigms.
For more details you can watch the video below.