Hey Aspasia,

It took me a while to reply as I was traveling from the beautiful Hawaii back to the continent :-)

I’ll try to be brief.


So, here we are, the truth-seekers, driven to let go of illusions, working to reclaim and integrate parts of our soul, and seek the true expression of ourselves. Sometimes, mistakenly, we compromise the pursuit of that truth by allowing energies in, such as manipulation. That’s ok. It happens once in a while. However, when we repeatedly (and consciously) do so we give consent to more deception to undermine our integrity, which may eventually result in dulling one’s discernment. A heavy price to pay, in my opinion.


The article presented here to hundreds of visitors as “groundbreaking”, “informative” and “illustrating the inevitable” is definitely one of the deceptive materials posing as truth and evoking strong emotional reactions. These materials usually create trauma (they connect to preexisting apocalypse programming), distraction, energy drain, waste of time by getting people to go down a rabbit hole. They take you out of the present moment and make chunks of your energy unavailable to you in the NOW. They also spread like a wildfire! Hahaha!


How to recognize such materials? Each of us has our own ways of discerning. I usually ask myself these questions:

  • Do I feel the intention behind what’s written?
  • Are there any NLP manipulative tactics employed in the transmission?
  • Is the information trying to impose a belief system by using emotional hooks? What is it doing to my energy?
  • Can I fact check the contents?
  • Is it important for me to get to the bottom of this (is there sufficient evidence to determine whether the assertion is T or F? is it worth it? and do I even need to determine its truthfulness)?

The “Uninhabitable Earth” article is such a wonderful classic example of misinformation (as I mentioned in my previous post). It raised tons of red flags for me just based on how the information was presented. I felt no need to fact check it because:

1) The climate sciences are full of contradicting theories (global warming vs. ice age, etc.) and with multitude variables there is simply no way to foretell the future.

2) The sensational tone in which the “facts” were presented eradicated the trust that I initially had because of the OH recommendation.

For those who still trust science: I found that the article had been reviewed by a panel of 17 scientists to validate its scientific accuracy. It was given a rating of minus 0.7 (scale 2 to -2) – falling under the category of low scientific credibility. To wit:


“The reviewers found that some statements in this complex article do misrepresent research on the topic, and some others lack the necessary context to be clearly understood by the reader. Many other explanations in the article are correct, but readers are likely left with an overall conclusion that is exaggerated compared to our best scientific understanding.”

Detailed analysis can be found here:




Why am I “harping” on it? It is not about this particular piece of writing, it’s just one of many. It is to point out how we outsource our authority and get disempowered by allowing unexamined claims to become our stories. That is something worth pondering. What do I believe about this reality? Where do these beliefs come from? How do I know they’re true? Once that loosens up, there is more space for the new awareness to come in.


Aspasia, you say that we should be alarmed and tell the story. Absolutely, yes! But let us tell the true story. The truth can stand alone and doesn't require colourful fiction to be convincing. Perhaps in the future we could also discuss issues such as human trafficking, contemporary slavery, global genocide, 5G and other harmful technologies, etc. Climate is just one of many important topics, but surely most vague because of its divinational nature and the tremendous/contradicting body of work.    


You also wrote:

“Also, relying on ones own subjective experience can be very misleading, often ungrounded and lost into conspiracy theories.”


Isn’t the subjective experience ALL there really is?