The suppression of ideas and the closing out of debate

The suppression of ideas and the closing out of debate

by Jon Rappoport

April 18, 2017

Let’s start with an extreme case. A case that has been roiled in emotion for decades. A case that triggers people into making all sorts of comments.

At quora.com, there is an interesting Q and A. The subject is the Nazi holocaust.

The question is: Why is holocaust denial a crime in some countries?

One answer is offered by Olaf Simons, who states he is an “historian at the Gotha Research Centre.” Here is an excerpt:

“Anyone who tells you it [the holocaust] is ‘not real’ (because he has found something to support his doubt) is manipulating you with a political agenda.”

That’s quite a far-reaching assertion. It’s obvious that a) someone might come to the conclusion that the holocaust didn’t happen and b) he has no political agenda. Whether that person’s conclusion about the holocaust is true or false is beside the point. And even if that person did have a political agenda, why should his comments about the holocaust be suppressed?

Olaf Simons takes his argument further: “Holocaust denial is different. It is telling you that all the historical victims are actually cheating the public. It denies families the right to mourn the loss of grandmothers and grandfathers, mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones. It is an attempt to deny Jews the right to remember their collective history – and usually the right to have a Jewish state as a consequence of this, their history. All the Holocaust denier has to do is claim his right of free speech and tell the Jew, who has lost his family, that he is simply a liar. That is the point where we as societies must intervene…”

Doubting or denying the holocaust “denies families the right to mourn” their loss. I’m talking about a person who claims the holocaust didn’t exist. A person who would make an argument against the holocaust by presenting what he believes is evidence. This approach is against the law in Germany and other countries. I fail to see how such an argument denies victims the right to mourn.

Because you believe you are a victim, because you know you are a victim (use any formulation you want to), someone else who claims you’re not a victim actually prevents you from mourning your loss?

I think we can look at groups all over the world, down the long trail of history, who have been persecuted, and we’ll see that no one prevented them from mourning, even in the most dire of circumstances.

In fact, there were occasions where someone denying the persecution ever happened would have been the least of the victims’ worries—because the violence against them was continuing for decades. And still they mourned.

There is, of course, another reason given for banning holocaust deniers. Their speech, even if not intended to provoke, could incite others to commit crimes against the victims.

This is the “one thing leads to another” argument. On that basis, countries and organizations could ban all sorts of language. The slippery slope has no limit.

And on a lesser note, if, for example, I started a site based on the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, and that site became popular enough, a social media giant might ban me or lower my exposure, because I was spreading malicious gossip against the US government, and by implication, giving succor to terrorists. Or I was denying the families of people killed on 9/11 the right to mourn—the right to “mourn properly.”

There are all sorts of reasons for denying the right to free speech.

And there are all sorts of reasons for closing out reasonable debate.

Look at what has been happening on American college campuses. A group wants to bring in a controversial speaker, so students (and paid agitators) riot. College is supposed to be the place where all sides of an issue can be aired and analyzed. Instead, we get violence. What are these college students learning? What are they not learning?

They’re not learning the power of their own minds. If they were, why would they be angry? Why would they be afraid to listen to a person with whom they profoundly disagree?

If someone wants to stand at a podium in a college hall and say Donald Trump is the greatest president in the history of the United States, so what? If someone wants to say Hillary Clinton is a genius and Bernie Sanders is a fool, so what? If someone wants to say college students should stage a revolution by refusing to pay off their loans, so what? If someone wants to say all college freshmen should study Karl Marx and only Karl Marx, so what? Is the sky going to fall?

Suppose a professor tells his students, “You’re all assigned to go to the talk tonight and listen to a speaker who is going to argue that Donald Trump is exactly what American needs now. Take notes. Come to class tomorrow prepared to argue rationally, for or against. And I don’t want you spouting generalities. I want specifics. I want thought.”

Suddenly, many students are going to realize they can’t argue rationally. They don’t have the tools. And that makes them nervous. They move into the role of agitators, because they’ve got nothing else. Suddenly, they’re against free speech.

Instead of making people smarter and sharper, instead of bullet-proofing them against propaganda and anti-logic, instead of educating them so they’re immune to slogans and obvious fallacies, instead of educating them to live in a society where free speech is elevated beyond shouting matches, we are seeing myriad excuses for disallowing free speech.

There is no limit to the excuses. Tomorrow, someone is going to dream up a new one.

Numerous players these days are saying political content on the Internet has to be monitored. They have their covert agendas. But beyond that, there is no reason to monitor political speech. If people can’t deal with competing politics, they need to fortify their IQ. They need to become smarter. That’s the answer.

If we live in a sewer of propaganda, we need to climb out of the sewer.

I could go on with the topic of free speech for another 10,000 words, but I’ll end off, for the moment, with this. Look for the “special case” argument. The strategy: a group has been oppressed, and they deserve compensation and justice, AND part of justice is ensuring that language is never used to criticize the group, because they are special, owing to the amount of persecution that has been visited on them. This particular group is different. They must be served. They must never be discussed in terms that, even vaguely, could be construed as negative.

No free speech in that case.

But wait. There is another group, and it, too, is special.

And another group.

And pretty soon, free speech is walking around with canes and crutches and sitting in wheelchairs and tubes are hooked up to it.

Even worse, people are focused on the issue of free speech as if it consists of nothing more than nasty remarks; and the burning question is, who has a right to be nasty, and in what situations, and for what reasons?

Whereas, the intent and hope for free speech was that it would rise higher and elevate into conversation that actually sought the truth, and examined basic principles on which that truth would stand.

In a free society.

Where fear of an idea didn’t exist.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Advertisements

41 comments on “The suppression of ideas and the closing out of debate

  1. In theory free speech sounds good, but when you add the power of corporations and billionaires money behind it, then the ‘power’ gets squashed on one side and elevated on the other, in a supposedly equal ‘free’ market place. The 1 percent gain power and influence via their megaphone of corporate press, buying off of politicians who only say and do what they want, and everyone else is relegated to the back of the bus, in terms of free speech.

    Republicans got rid of the equal time rule, which is clear evidence of 1 percent power at work.

    • truth1 says:

      Nice post, Green Road. When we hear “Free Speech,” we often think of individuals, yet still many call attention to equal access and other such ideas.Since free speech is not necessarily effective speech, there is a big difference between the two. Banning someone is only the most obvious want to censor or forbid certain ideas. But the reality is that a newspaper might not be willing to run certain ads with a serious message. We see facebook, Google/Youtube/Wordpress censor and make general communication more difficult and confusing.

      Book publishing requires publicity and that is controlled. If you are someone status quo does not like or even fears. you could end up fired/laid off, harassed, ridiculed and much more. How is speech free when it can be snuffed out so easy. And when there are so many controlled outlets spewing out nothing but crap and lies, almost like tsunami, what impact can a little guy really make? His hands are tied.

      Free speech means or should mean, free from negative intolerant consequences. Respect for well throughout reasoning, even if it does point a harsh finger at some aspects of our world.

      To me, your post really nailed this and in good concise manner, unlike me. True benevolence does not fear careful examination. True benevolence also has diligence and integrity to it. A good cause does not fear reasonable examination. Unfortunately, we do have ill willed people who are not reasonable and just want to overthrow and destroy and rule with despotic force.

      Do we ban the press who lies? do we expose lying politicians? Its a good idea but it probably won’t work. The prevailing political winds have been around a long time and gather and incredible amount of power and control. Hence, we are not free and we have little to no free speech.

      • bob klinck says:

        “Do we ban the press who lies?” The critical issue is who gets to define the “lie”. Anyone who volunteers for the task is not to be trusted.

  2. truth1 says:

    A superb article defending free speech. Free Speech is a threatened species. And too many people are now intellectually challenged and clogging up the machinery. But I am going to flip that coin over on its other side and threaten the status quo with a subject nobody likes to talk about.

    In the Bible, specifically Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there were some ideas, that if expressed, brought the death penalty, although it was often ignored. To suggest pagan worship and “other gods” was supposed to be greeting with a public stoning. Outrageous some say! Maybe! Many not!

    Today in our world, running silently like a sub beneath the waters, is an ocean of fetish and devotion to a god, real or not, who delights in the worst of human atrocities. A god and his religion, specifically Satan/Lucifer, that many adhere to in government, CIA and other intelligence operations, child trafficking, weapons and drug trafficking, Mind Control programming, human sacrifices galore and cannibalism and blood consumption, rape/torture of children and adults on a mass scale and a means to control its united secret membership, securing power and control of the whole world.

    As well, Satanism promotes and encourages lying, deception and hatred of morals, principles and reason. It seeks naked power, void of morals or reason.

    Paganism was rife with the very same sorts of things that Satanism is plagued with. So this is the question. Is there a bridge too far? Is there a thought, idea, or concept that is so threatening, that mere mention of it should bring the death penalty? I would say there is. Yet in saying that, I am well aware of the great dangers.

    That under-current of Satanism runs the world now. We could frame it as morals and principles vs total anarchy and hate. But fear not. I know that only God can save anyone now. I am not suggesting that anyone act against Satanism or evil other than disagreeing with them with sound logic.. The world belongs to those devoted to Satanism. Its out of control. For which reason I say, that way back at one time, banning paganism with death, was a great idea. But ignored long enough, now we might better appreciate why somethings are a bridge too far. We learn the hard way that ignoring sound just principles and morality are really bad ideas that do deserve death to any to that promote them.

    I only know this! Marxism in all forms, hates principles and morals. It always resorts to wanting free speech, and then wanting to deny free speech to others that oppose it. It hated morals and principles and humans. It was naked power and overthrow of all decency and usher in the ever popular genocide of the vanquished. And it is near to completion in its goals to eliminate the human race, a sort of self-hatred, really. Laugh now the hand-writing is on the wall for any who have eyes to “see” and ears to “‘hear.”

    • Deanna Clark says:

      OR maybe it would be better to promote truth and goodness. Your viewpoint assumes a total depravity of human free will…and reminds me of the little boy who came home to announce he was chosen to play the part of Adam in his parochial school play. His mother congratulates him, saying, “How wonderful!!” But the boy replies, ” Not really, THE SNAKE HAS ALL THE LINES!”

      I’m certain Total Depravity was named a heresy of at least one old Church….and let’s not forget the good Christians have had many chances to really care. Wearing their little gold crosses, they crossed the street to avoid the unwashed in many countries. Marx should never have had an audience if Christians had been Christian. For proof, let’s remember that even during the insane Terror of 1789 France, the statues of St. Vincent de Paul were left standing.

      The story of Adam was true…from a hilarious book by Jean Kerr, “The Snake Has All the Lines”.

      • truth1 says:

        Promoting goodness and truth are excellent suggestions. But what I suggest is that our opposition with their opposing view, it not of good intent. negotiations always turn out good when both sides negotiate in good faith. Problem is, Good faith is rare. Most have devious intents when negotiating.

        “Marx should never have had an audience if Christians had been Christian.”
        I absolutely agree with that statement. Many Christians were false shepherds and sold out. But such a statement is also a little bit of a cop out. How did so many human beings allow so much to rot and fester to what it is now? There is more than enough blame for everyone.

        The big difference that I see, is that some had a price and just a few did not.

        And a big thanks to Jon R for allowing what most would consider a very loaded comment by me earlier. A lot of places would have shot me down on that one.

    • Bunny says:

      “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful”- Seneca The Younger

      Actually the “pagans” developed philosophy and rational thinking.

      • artemisix says:

        Indeed, AND a psychology support system to maintain democracy and free speech. The 4 primary virtues were to be practiced DAILY. Hubris is a word unknown to many, but in ancient Greece it was very nearly the greatest of all sins. Acting as if you were a god, lording over people and things, hoarding resources.They had some checks and balances that ensured no one person or family gained TOO much power. Ostracism, which only lasted 10 tears, and a BRILLIANT judicial system, that had NO LAWYERS, or judges and was UNRIGGABLE. Not saying perfect, but compared to OUR current system……..

  3. Oliver Manuel says:

    Thank you, Jon, for using your keen analytical mind to ask and your communication skills to encourage the public to question everything they have been told is true, especially when told that some “facts” are politically correct and must NEVER be questioned.

    • Oliver K. Manuel says:

      Jon, I admire you for having the intellect, the courage and the stamina to keep pointing out the matrix of deceit that engulfs humanity today.

      Do you think Donald Trump has any chance of dismantling this structure?

  4. H. Kelly Taylor says:

    I remember Abbie Hoffman being asked if one had the right under the first amendment to yell fire in a crowded theater. He replied”Fire!” Once limits are applied to free speech there is no free speech because limits are arbitrary. When did anyone ever really yell fire and so endanger public welfare? Where does it say in the Constitution that free speech is confined to a designated place? Where does it say you need a permit to assemble? All that regulation is unconstitutional bullshit and needs to be refuted.

    • Deanna Clark says:

      The law against yelling “fire” is to prevent a stampeed and resulting loss of life…compare it to traffic lights. “Fire!!!” is not an opinion, but implies a categorical imperative to act and save one’s life.

    • truth1 says:

      There is well meaning in your words, but I would suggest that deeper thought would recognize that there is speech that is dangerous. If I lie to start a war, should I be accountable for it. I damn well should be, But no one in power will ever have to answer for it. With free speech comes serious responsibility. And if some foment rebellion and overthrow without good justification? They should be accountable to the law as is sometimes the case. the problem of course, is that evil power always manages to get to the top and abuse any sort of enforcement against those who criticize it.

      But I do believe there are crimes of speech that threaten a harmonious society that may not be perfect but may represent as good as we can get. Perhaps that should be protected. But perhaps we are way post that, too.

      • artemisix says:

        There are laws against slander, libel, genocide, war crimes and fraud. They are NOT used against the elite because the justice system is corrupt and spineless. Adding MORE laws will help in what way?

        • bob klinck says:

          I recall that in the 1970s the leader of the Communist Party of Canada publicly denied the reality of the Holodomor — the deliberate starving to death by the Soviet regime of millions of (primarily) Ukrainians in the 1930s. I didn’t believe him, but I was still curious about the evidence he might advance. I certainly never thought he should be prosecuted for misrepresenting, or even for lying about, an occurrence open to historical investigation.

  5. middleway says:

    That which is in a position of dominance fabricates history and orchestrates destiny. Without a complete understanding of our history and common origins, we remain vulnerable to think-tank social constructs and divisive manipulation. Until we fully comprehend our past and the constructs that have kept us divided, there is little chance humanity can avoid its imminent trans-human / singularity destiny. Only true knowledge tempered with love can lead an undivided humanity to joy.

    • arcadia11 says:

      fortunately, a complete knowing of our predicament is available in the present.

      • truth1 says:

        Except for the extreme imbalance of power, where our military could be used against us or in exchange with another nation’s military, they switch so that the militaries do not have have to put down their own people.

    • artemisix says:

      Character. The general population does not have the character to ACT on their knowledge. And if they did, the whole world would be different.

    • bob klinck says:

      “Until we fully comprehend our past and the constructs that have kept us divided….” What a pipedream. We could never “fully comprehend” what has happened in our society in even the past day, only in part because our sources of information are contaminated.

  6. Larry says:

    Your blog entry scared the living crap out of me, Rappoport.

    I hate you!

    I’m sorry.

    *whimper*

  7. H. Kelly Taylor says:

    My reference to Hoffman’s “fire” illustrates the “special circumstance”, the case where free speech is denied because it is dangerous. If you believe an anti-stampede law is written for public safety, you’re mistaken. It was written to create a precedent for censorship. The “fake news ” hysteria and the russo-gate flimflam point the way to expansion of the sedition laws. We are very close to a point where criticism will be treason. As to the influence of the rich, anyone with half a brain knows that virtually everything that is published and praised is in debt to the status quo. That is why so-called critics are always calling Dickens sentimental and Erskine Caldwell maudlin. As to the Citizens United ruling, no one believes campaign finance is free speech. It is bribery and corporations are obviously not people. Such a decision testifies to the state of the Supremely Corrupt Court.

  8. anti-social media says:

    A social media page will ban you for having heretical thoughts outside hivemind groupthink?
    A live murder video will remain up for hours though.
    I just updated Fakebook with a report of how I walked across the room, looked out the window, farted and scratched my balls. (not really)

  9. Very good article, Jon. I feel there are many other examples of invalid “circular reasoning” you could highlight.

    Do I sense the “political tide” changing?

    My latest “offering” will hopefully provide additional food for thought with this topical excerpt:

    “….In a sense we (for lack of better terminology) clairsentients refer to the exact same source. It is called many names: inherence, anthropomorphic field, crossing over, never world, Akashic Records, speaking in tongues and so on and so on. Just as dimensions are graded, source is aggregated too. Thus most, at best, can only tune into a part picture, an aspect of what is or what was. If I might select the “First World War” as an analogical example, detailed inspection of manoeuvres at the Battle of the Somme gives little or no insight as to grand macro global politics behind the war. If anything, from the insular micro perspective over thought certainly distorts wider judgement. The same can be said of my field. The path I travel is a precarious one as far as truth is concerned. Such is the hazard, many fail to realise that proof is always negotiable, whereas truth is not. Indeed this, given the present aggravated state of humanity, highlights the will to be right transcends determinate reason.

    That is why the same old die hard, time tested untruths have stuck like barnacles to a rusty hulk. Just about everyone, including psychics, are so well adapted to “systemic now”, rigged, cracked, erroneous fundamentals are relied upon as though there were a verbatim authority. Demystification is hard, because it takes a big heart to undermine that which is branded “obviously true”, particularly in light of the consensus will to be right. For instance, “MILABS” is nonsense; a conspiracy involving evil, twisted reptilians’ hell bent on destroying the human race. The truth is so far adrift of that illusion; it is almost the reverse of what is being projected. Therefore, courtesy of cultural propaganda, the illusory image persuades belief (for that matter, is science illusory?). The problem is anything harking from the “other side” is, but for contextual analysis of “hearsay”, beyond proof. From the material perspective, everything located outside verifiable “3D” theoretically doesn’t exist….”

    https://exopolitician.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/live-dna-light-readings-deep-historic-extra-terrestrial-field/

    Best
    OT

    • truth1 says:

      Well, I don’t think the “hell bent on human destruction is so far out or crazy. How else would you describe vaccines, GMOs fracking, and so many other diabolical things amongst us? Not to mention, Sadistic Mind Control programming and human sacrifices and rape/prostitution having become institutionalized and systemic so that a disaster, when it happen. draws all the government spooks like vultures, to prey on a carcass that is still breathing. Organs bring good money. We are just commodities to them.Maybe the truth is just a little too hard to take for many. But to not accept the reality of it, is even worse.

      We just have to ask, how in the hel11 did we get to this point? Any answers. Answers might reveal a way out. but running from the truth will not. For what its worth. listen, no matter what, you can count on the governments going the extreme. Governments are the tools of the elite psycopaths who really do want to kill us all, The Georgia Guide stones? Look it up!

      • You think and behave like a human. You look for the first thing to blame, any cause will do, without understanding the issues.

        I outline the issues in various places on my website. You fail to do me the courtesy of reviewing with an open mind. Be content with ignorant pap, but understand you know nothing nor ever will.

        • truth1 says:

          Ozzie, a number of people here have made posts that got their points across well. If you are so smart, can’t you do the same? I have been to your site, but you should be able to concisely who my the path or convince me you have something more to consider. Instead just insult and an aire of superiority. Let’s just say I am not impressed.

        • truth1 says:

          Occams razor suggests the most obvious or simple explanation is usually the correct one. I agree with it!

  10. Greg C. says:

    The issue is bigger than mere censorship or free speech. What we are seeing is the rise of a new secular orthodoxy, where heretics will be burned at the stake (figuratively, I hope). Where the priestly class can excommunicate you for contradicting the creed. The result is “thought stopping” – something I’m familiar with, because I grew up with it in a cult religion. Where you are always monitoring what you think, ready to pounce on anything that is out of bounds, possibly even leading to sacrilege or heresy. We have just about arrived at that point already. We saw what amounted to an inquisition of the press against Trump, who spoke his mind relatively freely, rather than toe the line. The real problem is having a powerful, self-appointed arbiter of Truth with a capital T, who cause people to shudder involuntarily when they brush against a thought that might lead them off the straight and narrow. Self-censorship is the ultimate goal.

    • truth1 says:

      I was in a cultic like religion for 10 years, JWs. They told everyone what to think and deviate and out you went. I went in 1990! best thing that ever happened and I am much wiser for it.

  11. Michael says:

    Either you get to the point of saying to yourself “I am free, or you dont’, freedom means not interfering with others in freedom, to be just and moral, as a natural expression of that. Without having to think about it. But it also means not interfering in your own freedom. You don’t sacrifice your freedom, because others don’t like what you have to say, or that there is “dangerous speech”.

    There is no such thing as “speech that is dangerous”, words only hurt because you let them, or ‘WANT” them to, ideas conflict with what is predetermined in your head…a parasite needs an excuse yah know.

    Someone calls you an idiot, an asshole, or whitey a nigger, a spik, or a pollock, a whap, or a fag or a mick…the words don’t hurt at all. There just words. “Sticks and stones…”

    You as a victim allow them to sink in and then you wrap yourself up in some sentimental emotional pretense, that you have rights, and there should be handicap parking close to the front of the store, and if you’re not handicapped and have a permit, then you can’t park there, and right beside that parking stall, is pregnant mothers with children, and beside that stall is one-eyed black people with a peg legs; and right beside the peg-leggers, well, what about the veterans, ya know, they need a spot too, and beside that…. Bullshit; special interests set up minor tyrannies all around its ideas… And there you are minding your own business, sitting in the numerous empty handicapped parking spots…sitting and watching assholes come up and YouTube your sin and broadcast and virtue signal to a left leaning world.

    “Freedom”…sometimes you are gonna have to fight for it. 

    When I look at the pope, I am equal to him, and because I’m Irish…I’m a little more than equal to him, lol…the same goes for the queen of England, a president, the Dalai lama, a movie star or even god himself. 

    Personally I don’t believe in him (God), I thing he’s an asshole for the nonsense so far…

    To get my attention, my respect; you need to earn it, and I have a high standard, most of the people in the handicap zone, are way to fat to fly…they need to walk to the store from the far end of the parking lot, and stop shoving Twinkies in their mouth.

    But I am no less than anyone. But I am more sometimes…because I want to be more.

    Harmonious society.. that’s not freedom. That’s a big group…yes a big self-censoring group, virtue signaling group… “Why can’t we all get along?” 

    That such an interesting point… “self-censorship”, it means more than just speaking or writing or expressing your ideas, and thoughts. It also means how you walk, and live and act…whither you run from a fight, or stand up to weak assed oppressors.

    I agree with you Greg..

    And when you self-censor, the future starts closing down, because you have predetermined it through self-censoring..this can’t happen, and that can’t happen, that’s not allowed because it’s dangerous speech; life becomes drudgery, safe and oh so very fucking small.

    • truth1 says:

      Michael, I don’t know your religious background but in the Bible, there is very dangerous speech that can easily destroy if you leave it unchecked. ignore serious slander and you will find out quickly just how dangerous it can get. All life is walking a balance. try to avoid the line between and you end up on one bad extreme or the others. Gutless cowards always choose was seems safe only to fall prey to tolerance of evil. You will soon see where that you and all the world, too.

    • bob klinck says:

      “I am no less than anyone.” The equal of the best scholar, linguist, musician, composer, athlete, engineer, philosopher, philanthropist…. I’m sure that we all want to make your acquaintance. “Equality” is the religious faith of the dunce.

    • truth1 says:

      Another word for freedom is tolerance. tolerance can also be indifference. Indifference can lead to destruction.

      • arcadia11 says:

        that’s a bit of a stretch, t1, as freedom and tolerance are not synonyms.

        • truth1 says:

          Then you are the naive one, Sir! Tolerance means anything goes. no right or wrong, everything is OK. You need to learn to tolerate those who like to rape, steal, live off welfare, and are religiously intolerant. When did you say you were born?

  12. simonsmith221simon smith says:

    The problem with the suppression of truth is that it will have a knock on effect to other areas of science, history and technology etc. By denying truth, the powers that be maintain a grip on power, but for all their ambition, they necessarily limit human endeavor and may find that eventually instead of ruling over planet that will go ‘out there into the universe’, will be ruling a planet divided into plots of real estate and governed by fictional ideologies over a spiritually stunted people.

    • artemisix says:

      Lets hope not.
      Not if i can help it.

      • truth1 says:

        Well, here is the problem. to not act against lies will be your demise. To act too sensitively (ban too much) will also cut deep and close to the bone and creates a prison around you. Its a delicate balance between one and the other. It is cowardice to not try to walk that delicate balance. You will end up on side or the other anyway. so you might as well try the balance. We let the liars and we are paying now! See? You can’t avoid the consequences either way.

  13. Reblogged this on Random Thoughts from My Mind and the World and commented:
    Truth doesn’t hide behind the skirt of regulation – or does it?
    Great article by John Rappoport on the suppression of speech for political agenda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s