browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

Censorship and the Self-Appointed Stalkarrazi

Posted by on June 2, 2013

In early 2013 there was an uproar around the fact that Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake had given presentations at the TED talks which were then removed from the archive of the TED talks website. It was ostensibly because of allegedly “unscientific” approaches but, as Hancock revealed it had more to do with one or two individuals whose personal ideology was threatened by the implications of the well-presented talks. In essence, they were being censored and TED was bowing to the pressures of the ideology police, who storm troop around the Internet, behaving like guerrilla skeptics.

This issue of censorship is close to my heart, and TED’s reaction to Hancock’s consciously presented and rational discussion of plant shamanism is similar to the defensive reactions of Maya scholars and the mainstream media to my efforts to reconstruct ancient Maya astronomy and spiritual teachings connected to 2012. Beyond mere censorship (as occurred to me many times on the scholarly Aztlan e-mail list and in news outlets that I gave interviews to), baseless and sometimes vicious attacks have occurred. These happened on various websites such as Youtube, Amazon, Wikipedia and, as I experienced, in peer-reviewed academic journals dead-set on defaming and distorting me personally and my work professionally.

I’m afraid this problem is much more pervasive than TED. A perhaps tacit agenda to mitigate progressive and open investigation of controversial topics is clearly pervasive in all domains of status-quo protectionism. I won’t say this is a conscious “conspiracy,” for there is little consciousness among the self-appointed “stalkarazzi” (those who wait around you, like stalkers, for a chance to pounce on anything you say or do). Rather, it’s the age-old dynamic between closed-minded fear-based ignorance and open-minded, courageous and conscious investigation of the fringes of the known. Wikipedia is a particularly effective breeding ground for axe-grinding scientific materialists who are threatened by larger cognitive perspectives and who cannot engage in fair and informed debates. See my exposé:

It’s a sad testimony to the current state of the discourse. I can’t help thinking that much of this irrational and reactive behavior is somehow being stimulated by the opening up of the public forum via the Internet and social media networks. In these arenas, anyone can say anything. Granted, a vast amount of what transpires is barely even legible but there are also intelligent, courageous, informed, and progressive voices who are moving the discourse forward precisely because they are not repeating the talking points of the undiscerning status quo puppets. Where else is progress going to occur?


Comments are closed.