Part 1: What are we, really? Or, ending the fear of death.

What are we?

This is the fundamental question at the root of all existence. The beasts don’t have the capacity to self-reflect the way we humans can. So let’s use that capacity to explore this fascinating question. You might find this will relax you more than you think.

First, I need to talk about something called chunk size because that will help you understand. Here is a great little clip illustrating the concept. (Yes, it was originally designed for kids but watch it anyway because it demonstrates the idea better than any of the other videos I’ve seen.)

So first we have to start with the proper chunk size. Now, on the human scale, we are individual people living in a sensory material world, along with other people, plants and animals. Obvious, right?

Let’s go deeper.

On a cellular level, we are made up on individual cells. Is a cell a human? No, but are we just cells? No, we are interesting arrangements of cells.

Let’s go even deeper.

We (and all our cells) are made of molecules. So on a molecular scale, we are interesting arrangements of molecules. And molecules themselves are interesting arrangements of atoms.

Can we lose some of our atoms and still be “us?” Yes, clearly. But how many? Which ones? At this chunk size it’s not obvious anymore what is us and what is not us.

So what “are” we? It becomes obvious we are not just material components – we are interesting configurations of components. So we can then posit or infer some level or plane of reality that “contains” the patterns – a substrate that contains the information on arrangements, configurations, purposes, and similar information.

If this sounds familiar, it is similar to Plato’s theory of Forms or Ideals. Makes more sense now, doesn’t it?

Now let’s consider what would happen if all our atoms and molecules just stopped. Would we still be us? Or even alive? So we realize we are not just inert matter. There is another component: energy. Movement, motive force, the spark of life, the divine spark, call it what you want, it amounts to the same thing.

So we can now infer a third level of reality: a substrate that movement, energy, intent, and motive force exist in.

These levels are related according to the Hermetic Law:

That which is above is like to that which is below; that which is below is like to that which is above.

Hermes Trismegistus

Similarly to the way sound waves create patterns in sand sprinkled on a surface, the energy-level emanations create patterns in the material substrate or material world.

Sound vibrations bring patterns to chaotic arrangements of salt particles

Now let’s take this to its conclusion: what would happen if all our atoms and molecules were taken out of their current configuration and all the motive power governing their movements were re-appropriated to other uses?

You may experience a kind of clinical curiosity about the idea. It’s interesting, not threatening. Seems like a mechanical process.

Well, this is actually a description of what we call death.

Now do you see why all the gurus, mystics, saints, shamans, high priests, ascetics, and wise men are and have always been, completely unafraid of death?

Death is just a rearrangement.

So – and here’s where it gets really interesting – what if it were possible to continue to exist on the energy and pattern/form substrates after your physical components had been re-arranged and re-appropriated?

This subtle and complex idea – not easy for most people to understand – has been spread to the majority in more basic terms: Westerners call it “heaven” and Easterners call it “liberation.” They are both echoes of the same actual concept: existence after physical vessel rearrangement.

And when you think about it that way, you might notice how you feel about death now. A bit different, is it not?

From here, what can we infer about the universe itself? And “God?” And what can we do with this understanding?

That will be in the next post.

I am a hypnotist and can solve many problems people have – social anxiety, imposter syndrome, health habits, mindset, peak performance, and I can probably help you too at Http://

How, Exactly, is Fake News Fake?

Over the last 4 years the term “fake news” has been used – some say overused – to disparage the mainstream media and its message. Some say it’s just an insult designed to distract from negative but accurate reporting. Others say the term correctly describes how the mainstream media are no longer trying to present news accurately. Instead, they are attempting to shape the narrative by biased and hostile stories. As a hypnotist, I agree with the second group because I know what techniques the media are using and how they work. In fact, I don’t think the statement goes far enough: I would say that ALL news reporting is fake news.

Let’s start with the well-documented bias of mainstream media. 90% of the mainstream media vote and donate to liberal candidates. This is a major issue because humans are highly advanced primates. That means humans are subject to the same largely involuntary responses to threats as any other animal. And there’s no question that the current president threatens the media – he attacks their credibility at every opportunity, points out their mistakes and bias, and insults key figures in their camp. It appears that he would end their messaging hegemony if he could, destroying their livelihoods, careers, and mission. So the media react to these threats the same way other primates do – by defending their territory and attempting to assert their dominance. They simply are not able to prevent those perceived threats from affecting their coverage, in some ways drastically.

So, given that the majority of the media are biased, how does this manifest in their stories? How does this bias warp the news coverage to the point where the label “fake news” is appropriate?

The first major way the media spreads disinformation is by story selection. Certain media outlets simply won’t cover major stories that negatively affect the narrative they promote. The site Ground News does a good job exposing this. It lists each major story along with which side’s media outlets covered it. There are many blind spots in coverage according to the political stance of the outlet.

So why don’t people just read outlets from different sides of the spectrum? The news industry has realized that they get more attention, clicks, and revenue by pushing outrage. They push and frame stories that emphasize how bad the other side is and how threatened their own (good) side is. The more anger or threat that people experience this way, the more they return to the same site later to seek reassurance that the “bad guys” aren’t winning. It is, in effect, an addiction protocol.

“Here’s how you are being threatened by the bad guys about X. Oh and since you came back for reassurance on how we are winning the war about X, here is another story about feeling threatened about Y. And when you come back to find out how we are winning the war over Y…”

The combination of these two methods is even more powerful. CNN has ignored the media stories about Joe Biden’s son Hunter was given an enormous monthly payment ($83,333 per month) to be on the board of a Ukrainian energy company and photographed smoking crack and falling asleep with a crack pipe in his mouth.

CNN and MSNBC ignored these stories entirely, except to mention in passing that the Republicans were attacking Joe Biden’s family. That means that those viewers stuck in the outrage addiction cycle for those two networks were denied relevant information about the election. Tens of millions of Americans never even knew that the son of a presidential candidate was a crack addict who had been given huge amounts of money by Ukraine for no apparent reason other than his father was Joe Biden.

That’s relevant information for voters, is it not?

So story selection combined with outrage addiction create silos or bubbles in which no external context can penetrate. This is destructive to the unity of the country. It allows for propagandized stories to be perceived as real by those within the bubble. But it’s not the only tool the media has to fake the news.

The second aspect is selective editing to change the context. This can be omission of relevant information, inappropriate comparisons, labeling based on a biased subset of information, or any number of other techniques. The prime example of this is the “fine people hoax,” which Steve Cortes, Joel Pollak, and Scott Adams have all done great work exposing.

Here’s how the hoax was perpetrated. There was a protest march in Charlottesville, VA, that was somewhat ambiguously billed as a “Unite the Right” rally. It was actually a neo-nazi march, although some attendees apparently didn’t realize that until they got there, and didn’t participate in the march once they arrived. A few were there to defend the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee and the renaming of a park named after him. In a speech after the event, Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides” of the debate on whether or not to remove statues of founders or other historical figures. In other words, he was saying good people can disagree about keeping or removing statues. However, the media claimed Trump was referring to both the neo-nazis and anti-nazi protestors as fine people. The outrage-inducing implication of this was that the president of the United States said Nazis were fine people.

But, of course, that didn’t happen. Because less than a minute later Trump said “And I’m not talking about the neo-nazis and white supremacists, because they should be condemned totally.” So this wasn’t a case where the media were simply misinterpreting an ambiguous statement – it was a case where the media deliberately spread a malicious lie that wasn’t even slightly ambiguous. Once that narrative took hold early on in Trump’s presidency, it became a defining reference point. Millions interpreted genuinely ambiguous events that happened later in light of that fake story. The hoax became a setup for confirmation bias – it became the background context for his entire presidency. And all because of the media’s deliberate spread of falsehood.

More examples of deliberate media hoaxing include:

  • The ludicrous claim that Trump said to inject bleach to stop COVID
    Reality: the statement was about injecting light into people’s veins, not bleach
  • The claim that Trump is responsible for all 200k+ US COVID deaths
    Reality: Every other country had many COVID deaths too, so how many would another leader have had? The original estimate was more than 2,000,000 deaths for the US. Compared to that he is doing a lot better.
  • The claim that Trump is a Russian puppet
    Reality: A team of Democrat-donating lawyers with the highest levels of funding and access spent two years on it and found nothing actionable
  • The claim that Russia hacked the election in 2016 but the 2020 elections were perfectly secure
    Reality: If Russia was able to do it in 2016 than others could have done it in 2020

Unfortunately, the use of these techniques has become the norm for media outlets. But once you have read this and understood how the techniques work – story selection, outrage addiction, and context manipulation – you will begin to see them everywhere in the media. You’ll be able to check Ground News or a similar site to see what stories are being swept under the rug. You may begin to assume that context is always being withheld, and look for what is missing before judging a story. And you might even get in the habit of catching the outrage cycle right as it starts, and move things in a more emotionally balanced direction instead. And as you do those going forward, it will help you see through the media’s fake news.

Nothing “Is” A Thing, Or How You Can Benefit From Turning Things Into Processes

Nothing “is” anything.


There is no such thing as a thing.

Come back when the drugs wear off.

Things don’t exist; all is process and flow.

What are you, some kind of nihilistic Postmodernist?

The exact opposite.


What do you feel right now?

I am confused.

You ARE confused? Or do you currently experience confusion?


But they ARE not the same.

Keep up the semantic games and I’m going to be angry.

Will you BE angry? Or will you experience anger?

OK, now I AM angry.

You not ARE angry. You FEEL anger.

Why does this matter?

Words function as labels or containers to “pour” thoughts and meanings into. How we employ words changes our experience.

Give me an example.

Which do you prefer to confront: a problem or a challenge?

< Goes inside and considers this > A challenge because it seems to inspire. A problem seems more permanent.

Now, what is easier to change: being angry or feeling angry?

< Goes inside and considers this > Feeling angry.

Do you understand why yet?

BEING angry seems… solid. Locked in. But feelings seem to change on their own, by their very nature.

That’s a good start, because feelings are processes, not things.

Feelings are things! I can feel anger!

For how long?

Usually not all that long.

Let’s take another example. Are you in a relationship?


Can you feel things about your relationship?


Can you think about your relationship and experience feelings about those thoughts?

I do that all the time.

What if we consider that your relationship is not a “thing,” but instead consider it as two people who RELATE?

I… that’s…

Can you experience feelings ABOUT relating?

It’s harder. I can’t pin it down to think about it, because it seems like it’s undefined.

Can you think ABOUT relating, and experience feelings ABOUT those thoughts?

< Goes inside and evaluates this >  Not really. It seems too undefined, like it doesn’t exist.

Are you sure that it does exist as a thing?

Not as sure as I was before.

Can you enjoy the moment while you relate?

Yes, but somehow I don’t think I would realize it at the time.

You would just enjoy being in the moment?

Yes, I think so.

How would your experience with your significant other change if you related to them instead of were in a relationship with them?

I wouldn’t overanalyze or have so many meta-thoughts. Less fear and anxiety. Less angst.

The mind can easily think about things or nouns. It has difficulty thinking about flows or verbs.

I can think about verbs. I can think about running.

Only when you reduce it to a specific example or “snapshot,” which turns the verb into a thing/noun. A pure flow cannot be analyzed, only experienced in the moment.

That’s… hard to know.


Again, why does this matter?

 What would happen if you turned all the “things” in your mind back into processes or flows?

I wouldn’t think about them.

What would that mean?

Well, I couldn’t feel bad about anything.


Because I couldn’t feel anything about anything, because there wouldn’t be a “thing” to feel about.

Would that be an improvement?

Are you kidding? It would remove anxiety and depression because those are feelings about mental “things.”

Well done. More in the next session.