Thanks to Gregg Prescott at in5d and to Waking Times
All 3 of them represent important pillars of our current economic and social arrangements, and, all 3 are topics of TED presentations surrounded by controversy, with many people claiming censorship by the revered idea broker.
TED, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ‘Ideas Worth Spreading’ has inspired the world many times over with the quality and variety of their conferences, speakers and topics. They, of course, reserve the right to choose their content accordingly. However, a common thread in these 3 talks, intellectual revolt against mainstream thought, does make them suspiciously ripe for suppression by a larger media establishment already guilty of enforcing our status quo with a heavy regimen of triviality, propaganda and fantasy.
None of these ideas are violent, none are offensive nor profane, and all are reasoned and intelligent. And, although they may not appeal to everyone, there is certainly no physical harm to be done from sharing these ideas.
Take a look at these worthwhile presentations, 3 TED talks the establishment would prefer you to miss.
Graham Hancock – The War on Consciousness
The works of author and explorer Graham Hancock regarding our ancient history, the nature of consciousness, Ayahuasca, and altered states of consciousness, offer an essential examination of our culture.
Recently, his captivating TED Talk, “The War on Consciousness,” a sober and intelligent argument for the liberation of the human mind, was deliberately removed from You Tube by TED curator Chris Anderson.
“Graham Hancock’s talk, again, shares a compelling and unorthodox worldview, but one that strays well beyond the realm of reasonable science. While attempting to critique the scientific worldview, he misrepresents what scientists actually think…” Chris Anderson, [TED]
After some debate between Hancock and Anderson, this presentation was not fully re-posted to TED’s site, but rather subjugated to a new, unseen basement corner on TED’s site, canceling it’s record of views and limiting it’s future visibility.
Is Hancock sharing ideas worth censoring? Decide for yourself…
Rupert Sheldrake – The Science of Delusion
Along with Graham Hancock’s, TED also removed the recent talk by author and bio-chemist Rupert Sheldrake.
In the bold debate about the nature of human consciousness, Rupert Sheldrake stands out for questioning the standing dogmas of modern science and for bringing us his fascinating theory of Morphic Resonance regarding the collective memory and the habits of nature.
In the following TED presentation, he discusses 10 scientific dogmas that should be questioned to support our evolution. After TED published this, they then reviewed it and moved to hide it.
Do you find Sheldrake’s TED presentation to be of value, or should it’s visibility be limited so that the public isn’t subjected to ideas that some people feel should not be heard?
Rick Hanauer – Rich People Don’t Create Jobs
This third presentation, by entrepreneur Rick Hanauer, is surrounded by controversy because after it was recorded, it was passed over for publication by TED. Stating that allegations of censorship are false, and that TED merely favored better presentations over Hanauer’s when deciding what to publish to their hugely popular website, TED publicly released the talk after suspicions were raised.
Discussing the idea of income equality and the forces behind job creation, Hanauer challenges the advantages the wealthy are given in society, and points out the social class system we have. His ideas are simple and clear, yet many people feel that this talk was intentionally censored by TED because of the threat these notions put to the existing pecking order in our world.
It seems unlikely that TED could possibly have anything to gain by shelving this 5 minute discourse, but, either way, the controversy exists, and Hanauer’s presentation certainly does challenge one of the establishment’s sacred cows of the economy. That the middle class is dependent on the wealthy for job creation.
Should Rick Hanauer’s non-partisan talk about the merits of taxing/not-taxing the rich be given equal weight in the arena of popular ideas?
While popular with the public, these 3 talks do challenge fundamental aspects of the status quo, and in outstanding, thought-provoking style. The controversy surrounding them is about who in the public should be arbiter of ideas and about who should get to define the box we collectively think within.
So, decide for yourself. Should these ideas be pushed to the back-bins of our collective human conversation? Would the establishment indeed have something to fear if these ideas were to become mainstream? Are we, as a culture, brave enough to freely entertain ideas?
Either way, the present established world order does indeed have plenty to gain by keeping the people of the planet in the dark about ideas that can lead to a revolution in human thought and behavior.