by Scott Creighton
Back in 1642, a man died in his home in which he had been under house arrest for the previous 9 years. His crime? He argued and taught a theory that this planet revolved around the sun and therefore wasn’t the center of the known universe. Obviously, that man was Galileo Galilei and he was tried and convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633.
Galileo was given a choice: recant and renounce your theory in public or be crucified. He chose the former and thus, the first “debunking” of a scientific heresy was born.
“Galileo Galilei was brought before the Inquisition for heresy, but abjured his views and was sentenced to house arrest, under which he spent the rest of his life. Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions” Wiki
There are a number of issues that are considered heresy today. You simply aren’t allowed to speak of them without being shamed, shunned or even excommunicated from various societal communities.
- 9/11 Truth
- JFK assassination
- Global Warming scam as mechanism to impose global control on industrialization
- Election fraud via electronic voting machines
- War crimes committed by Bush and Obama
- The advancement of the New World Order as “globalization”
- The history of the corrosive effects of free market enterprise
- The CIA’s fascist efforts across the world since it’s inception
- “ISIS” as a proxy army run by CIA against Assad government
- Vaccines may cause autism in a certain percentage of children
- The privately owned central bank system at the core of the Global War OF Terror
- The One Party “democracy” here in America
- Criminal Israeli policy toward Gaza and the West Bank and their crimes against humanity
Some might say that I am drawing a false equivalency by comparing what happened to Galileo to what is going on today, but I think I’m not so far off.
Back then, the Roman Catholic church had it’s “experts” as well who all stated, the vast MAJORITY of them, that the church’s opinion on the science was the valid one and that Galileo’s writing presented a direct threat to the stability of the community and thus it posed a threat to the “national security” of the country. After all, without a strict adherence to the doctrines of the church, the people would regress to an animal state, observing none of the church’s laws and chaos would ensue. There would be rape and pillaging and people mating with sheep and society would crumble under the weight of … the truth. So of course, for the Greater Good, Galileo had to recant under threat of torture and murder and thus, the first debunking of a scientific theory was born.
It’s a funny thing about heresy and, more to the point, anathema: they can have a drastic effect on the advancement of science like nothing else can. Not even your glorious “free markets” can do that.
Is it really so surprising that the vast majority of scientists back in those days spent so much time and effort proving the universe revolved around the Earth? Even if they weren’t crucified for agreeing with Galileo’s theory, they would be excommunicated and professionally shunned so they would end up destitute paupers begging on the side of the road.
And THEN they would be crucified.
Today we have a similar system in place, minus the Crucifixion part of course.
In fact, with “the internet of everything” and the soon to be implemented “cashless society”, the system of repression they are setting in place is potentially far, far worse.
While the message has always been “you better get your mind right, boy”, today they are actively constructing a system that will be able to monitor and categorize your discussions, comments, Tweets, “likes”, page views and even your thoughts so they will be able to determine if your mind really is right, or if you’re just going through the motions: going along to get along.
Speaking or writing heresy is one thing: quietly thinking it is another. Thought-crime in other words.
“It’s not enough to fear Big Brother… you have to love him.”
Scientists who question the orthodoxy of man-made Global Warming are denied grants and professional advancement.
Architects and engineers who question the official collapse story of 9/11 are labeled “terrorist sympathizers”.
Teachers who simply raise questions about various American Gladio operations are fired from tenured positions along with other professors who speak out against Israel’s policies toward the people of Gaza and the West Bank.
And of course you have comments like this one left yesterday on my article about Robert De Niro being forced to cancel a showing of an anti-vaccine documentary during a film festival he started himself (De Niro is the parent of a child with autism):
“I have done an amazing amount of research over many years, but i have not come across any study besides the one done by the doctor from England who admitted the study was not performed scientifically and he had made up most of the data. He has since been stripped of his degree. The only other citations I have found are all opinion pieces and not based in scientific reality. ” aerwynflynn
Anathema or the “exclusion from the society of the faithful because of heresy“, is a very real thing in our global society today. Having run a website like this one for the past 8+ years and signed my real name to my work, I can certainly attest to that. So can people like James Tracy, Cynthia McKinney, Phil Donahue or Norman Finkelstein just to name a few.
We are being conditioned to accept the notion that we must have faith in our leaders and the global system they are currently working on creating and if we don’t, if we ask questions about the events that are shaping our lives and our futures or we ask questions about the orthodoxy of the “science” that forms the foundation of various Geo-political agendas they are pursuing, then we are labeled as heretics, as “conspiracy theorists” and cast out from society to fend for ourselves.
What’s more frightening is the normalization of the notion that it’s acceptable to silence those who raise questions about such topics in the interest of “national security”
When informed debate is no longer in the interest of the Greater Good, you have to be concerned.
Take yesterday’s article for example.
When I posted it, I didn’t do so because I come down on the vaccination debate one way or the other. If I had to admit now which side I agree with the most, I would say the anti-vax position because I don’t believe anything should be mandated by the government for purchase from private businesses. Especially when the legislation enacted to do that gives those same for-profit companies blanket immunity from lawsuits resulting from harm caused by those products. I also know for a fact that any company is going to do cost benefit analysis of their product and if it causes problems in a small percentage of their clients then they would weight that against the cost of fixing it and the lawsuits rising from it, and if they profit more from keeping things the same, that’s what they do. Since they are immune from being sued, I guess that makes their choice easier, doesn’t it.
And there are trillions of dollars to be made once Big Pharma gets laws making vaccines mandatory across the country.
I also know for a fact that vaccines have been used for extremely nefarious purposes in various other countries in the past and you cannot deny that.
But in the end, I am single and do not have children. So I don’t know if I would vaccinate them or not and thus I can’t say 100% that I am against them. I am against them being FORCED on people, on children, by for-profit companies and the fascist governments that work for them. But beyond that, I am neutral.
That said, yesterday’s article wasn’t about the vaccine debates. It was about silencing debate and how medieval that makes our society look.
Take for example another quote from that same commenter yesterday. Look at the vitriol and hostility she uses to make her argument. It’s not science-based. It’s emotional. Almost hysterical.
“I hope you all understand that all this VERY I’ll informed “Anti-Vaxx” movement puts everyone’s child at risk. You do realize that what you are really saying is that you would rather your child be DEAD or be horrifically paralyzed than possibly (yet has been proven safe over and over again so remember there is no risk) be diagnosed with autism.
That is the most heartless, terrifying, hateful things to even think about your own child. What good and loving parent would prefer the death of their child? And how inhuman do you really need to be to feel no shame or remorse if you cause the death of someone else’s child?” aerwynflynn
Such is the level of discourse something this important in our country is reduced to. How shocking is that? What are we to expect later? Burning conspiracy theory witches at the stake? Exorcisms to drive the radicalization demons from the extremists?
And don’t think it’s just this one slightly off-center reader who resorts to this kind of breathless fear-mongering to silence debate. It’s the standard go-to propaganda from the peddlers of the status quo as well:
“Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik wrote that the prestigious Festival was “sullying” its reputation by hosting the film. “Careless actions such as those of the Tribeca Film Festival don’t contribute to ‘dialogue and discussion,’ as the festival’s PR would have it; they just spread misinformation and pseudoscience and undermine public health,” he wrote.” Huffington Post
Having an open discussion about the facts surrounding PRODUCTS that are being FORCED into your child’s body is now considered “undermining the public health”?
What’s the message here: “Just give Junior the damn shots and shut up if he gets autism. It’s for the Greater Good.”?
My point with the article was to show how commonplace it’s become for our society to ban various ideas if they are deemed too “dangerous” for the status quo.The Huffington Post was practically cheer-leading this censorship. What’s next for them? A good old fashioned book burning party and “progressive” bake sale?
The person leaving the comments I cite above drives home the point that such censorship is not born of scientific debate but rather an emotional appeal, perhaps even a hysterical emotional attachment to that notion of the Greater Good.
How much of our scientific evolution was stunted by the Roman Catholic Inquisition, you think? From 1542 to 1858, the Roman Catholic Inquisition crushed almost all scientific advancement. As many as 75,000 cases were brought before them resulting in 1,250 death sentences and countless instances of recanting ideas, theories, studies and teachings.
One of those was the notion that the sun was the center of our solar system and the earth orbited around it along with the other planets. That idea was “debunked”… along with various other theories.
How long do you think the great Corpocratic Inquisition will last? What heresies will it eradicate in the meantime and how many more will suffer the modern day anathema of the Internet of Everything information age?
House arrest? If we’re lucky.
With all the advanced technology and the knowledge that comes with it available to us, I ask myself how will history judge us as a nation and as a people, as we run full-speed into what appears to be the next Dark Ages.
Please help keep us up and running if you can.
Speaking truth ABOUT power since 2007
(For my mailing address, please email me at RSCdesigns@tampabay.rr.com)