I find your videos intensely interesting. They express a world view which is entirely opposed to what I believe, which I find very intriguing. Now that's all well and good, I like the general idea behind your videos of self improvement and how we are all one. The problem I have with your videos is they are incredibly lacking in explanation. I understand that you may not need to explain things which don't seem relevant at the time, and there are obvious time constraints on internet videos, but some of your glossing over is plain lazy and actually damages your argument.
One major problem I had with this particular episode (which is merely an example of a wider problem) is that you hurl information at the viewer with such speed that there is no time to process it. The main instance of this was when you said "The magnetic field of the Earth should look like this, but it actually looks like this." I'm guessing that the average viewer has no way of interpreting diagrams of magnetic fields, especially when they are compared to an entirely different diagram with a different scale which is super-imposed onto a flat, rectangular map of the Earth. Citing complicated diagrams and not explaining them in any way makes the viewer infuriated by not being told what I am looking at and why it means what it means. Science, for all you will say it is full of left-brained, male, mumbo-jumbo, at least presents you with the evidence in a way which can be understood so you can see the logical steps. You don't have to agree with Science, but you must at least realise that it's pretty good at explaining stuff. Even using your line of reasoning, it's convinced a race of right-brained female people to be left-brained men, it must be doing something right.
You also obviously haven't done as much research as you think you have. The Polar Flip hypothesis is relatively well known. It isn't hidden away, NASA acknowledge it, as do the vast majority of people who don't believe in climate-change. To use some anecdotal evidence (which Cayce's 'visions' were based on) I saw a BBC documentary (it could have been BBC, I can't remember, but I'll say it was on the BBC) about climate change and there was a big thing where someone from NASA (it could have been NASA, I can't remember, but I'll say he was from NASA) talked about polar flips and how they had happened in the past and how they will probably happen in the future.
In conclusion, I like your programmes, but they lack too much for me to really engage with them in a meaningful way. You are so convinced by these ideas that you don't feel you have to make them (which are pretty damn complicated) accessible to the layman. It's a real problem.