Many topics are not freely debated these days. Society has been polarized to the extent that certain topics are considered taboo. To bring them up is met with resistance, often descending into ugly dissertation and name calling. This is especially true when the topic for discussion is the shape of the Earth.
Many people believe that the subject has been decided long ago, but when asked for proof, they have nothing but CGI images and NASA’s proclamations on offer. Or they put forward Copernicus, Erasthones or other scientists or philosophers who supposedly decided the subject long ago. Or they put forth evidence such as ships disappearing from the bottoms up when sailing over the horizon. If this is disputed due to the law of perspective, they come up with excuses like refraction and tell us we can’t trust our senses.
From an early age we are taught to respect our elders and not to question authority. We are well positioned to accept our indoctrination and blend in with the crowd. Our indoctrination is reinforced by a system of rewards and punishments. Repeat what we are told, we will receive good grades as a reward. Question what we are told and we are likely to receive failing grades. This mechanism of educational rewards and punishments appears to be spilling over into academic and scientific debate.
Accredited scientists are the ones who conform to their indoctrination. They receive doctorates, academic rewards and accolades. They publish articles (or should I say they are able to get their articles published). They make up the peer review panels for scientific research. It is all carefully controlled so that a contrary idea never gets any traction in the scientific community. All merit goes to the conformists.
Scientific funding also goes to the conformists. If you want to fund your project to prove that humans cause climate change, the coffers will be open to you. If you want to study virology and vaccines in a positive light, the money will flow. It doesn’t matter that these topics are known to be pseudoscience, researchers keep their mouths shut and go where the money is. This mechanism is well covered in RFK Jr.’s book The Real Anthony Fauci. Claim something contrary to the prevailing “wisdom” and your funding suddenly dries up. This has the effect of quashing scientific debate, just as intended.
So back to the shape of the Earth debate. For most there is no debate. We were taught the heliocentric model as if it is a proven fact. It is not, but in public indoctrination centers it is the only theory put forward for consideration. If a competing theory exists, why isn’t it presented for investigation? Do we not trust children to think for themselves? Would thinking children be disruptive to society? Apparently that is what the social engineers fear. Perhaps they are afraid of us finding them out for the frauds they are. When we find out they are lying to us about this most fundamental issue, we may turn our critically thinking minds to questioning other narratives we have been told are factual.
As long as we are complacent and go with the flow, TPTB are safe. They need not fear discovery and retribution from ignorant and complacent masses. But this state of affairs appears to be changing. People are beginning to question the narratives and long held beliefs. Many are leaving their indoctrination behind and are investigating truth for themselves. They are exercising their long dormant critical thinking skills. Whether they get things right or not is irrelevant. The fact is they are throwing off the propaganda shackles, and the trying is what’s important. Truth is a powerful motivator. When one truth is discovered that is contrary to the narrative, it tends to open doors of the mind such that others will be investigated. The “defenders of the status quo” are terrified that this is happening. They are resorting to extreme tactics like banning TikTok and making antisemitism illegal. Free speech is their greatest enemy. They must suppress the First Amendment at all costs.
It is obvious to me why the social engineers behind congress want to ban TikTok. I find it to be a great platform for open debate. Don’t get me wrong, some of the discussions on TikTok are absolute train wrecks. The language can be atrocious at times, and I have concern for many who have a hard time putting a clear and understandable sentence together. Perhaps some are just lazy and don’t care if they can be understood as long as they get their points shared. Then we have others who seem to think of themselves as gate keepers. Some are there to defend the official narratives. They take on a smug persona, and act as if you are just ignorant and uninformed if you don’t accept what the academics tell you to think. How dare you try to think for yourself. Don’t you know you aren’t smart enough to think critically? Where is your PHD?
One tactic used is that of discrediting the speaker when his or her ideas can’t be effectively debated. You see this often when someone has authored a well thought out book that goes contrary to the preferred narrative but makes sense, so the critic finds some flaw in the speaker’s character and holds that up as proof that that the speaker lacks credibility. Critics that use this tactic have no integrity. They can’t debate the points made, so they resort to inserting something into the argument that is not relevant to the conversation. Character assassination is used often in these kinds of on-line debates. The intent is to dissuade the novice from considering a particular source credible. It does nothing to dissuade a knowledgeable person who understands the tactic. But it may be effective against those unfamiliar with the person in question and the subject at hand. It seems no one wants to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist.
Then again there are very intelligent, well spoken and respectful people posting on TikTok. They come from all cultures, which I think is part of TikTok’s strength. I am encouraged to see many young people questioning “official” narratives on TikTok. Any topic is fair game. It is refreshing.
An example of a powerful truth teller on TikTok
The author of this linked article, Eric Carlson, had this to say: “The more I dig into history, the more I come to realize that the history we are taught falls somewhere between a manipulation of the truth and a complete lie.”
I agree with Eric. The more I investigate the given narratives, the more holes I find in them. History has been crafted by the social engineers to put us in a certain mindset. For example we were given the story that we entered WWII to defeat the Nazis, Mussolini and the imperialist Japanese. But wait, what was the Balfour Declaration all about? Did the Allies win WWII so Palestine could be handed over by the Britts to the Zionists? Was this the deal? Is this the reason millions of Allied soldiers died fighting Christian Germany? Did we fight the Germans to make the world safe for godless Bolshevik Communism? Hitler wanted to kick the Bolshevik Communists out of Russia. Roosevelt and Churchill were keen not to let that happen. They teamed up with “Uncle Joe.”
Were American soldiers even aware of the history of the Bolshevik Revolution, who was behind it, and how the Bolshevik’s treated Russian and Ukrainian peasants? If they were, would they consider it patriotic to kill Germans in support of the murdering Bolsheviks? Why did General Patton say we went to war on the wrong side?
Is there any forensic evidence at all to support the Holocaust narrative? Is it even possible that the Nazis could have murdered concentration camp workers in such large numbers as is claimed? Are Christian Germans actually cold blooded murderers that would gladly participate in mass, industrial scale murder? I don’t believe they are. But the propaganda in books, movies and the mainstream media have succeeded in brainwashing an unsuspecting public. The term Nazi conjures up feelings of hatred and dread. It is applied to anyone the media wants to demonize having the desired effect. Nazi was a term made up by the western press to denigrate National Socialists. It is commonly used in the lexicon to this day.
A healthy society depends on free and open debate. But today the censors are ganging up against unrestricted, honest discourse. They use the funding carrot to promote conformity, and they pull funding to punish dissenting voices. Gatekeepers are in the business of “debunking” any ideas that contradict the preferred narratives. And they come out swinging when someone questions the authorities. In fact it is already illegal to question the Holocaust in 19 nations. Monika and Alfred Schaefer were both jailed in Germany for exercising their God-given right to free speech. Is this the plan here in the U.S. with the passing of the antisemitism bill? What’s next?