Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-82) (Figure 121.1) observed: ‘The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial.’
Figure 121.1: Ayn Rand, a libertarian icon
Copyright expired
Rand made this point because she knew that the ‘right to disagree’ was constantly under threat from the State. A classic historical example would be the censorship of the astronomer Galileo (1564-1642) by the Roman Church. Galileo’s proof that the Earth revolved around the Sun was suppressed by the Church, not on the basis of mathematics but simply because it contradicted orthodoxy. He was forcibly denied a platform to present and debate his thesis, precisely because it was potentially convincing.
This is not to say that all forms of State-sanctioned censorship are morally wrong. Laws governing defamation, for example, are almost universally accepted. Nonetheless, everyone is still at liberty to disagree and provide a rational basis for their revocation.
Danger lurks, however, when, as in Galileo’s case, an honest, contrary view is denied rational consideration. Such censorship is abhorrent to scientists and any other honest researchers. As soon as a scientist or academic publishes a research paper, his or her head is automatically raised above the parapet of existing knowledge, ready to be blown off by superior evidence or reasoning. This is exactly how it should be. Regardless of whoever is right or wrong, the accumulation of objective knowledge continues.
Unfortunately, intellectual censorship is not a mere relic from Galileo’s time. There are many contemporary examples. One infamous case concerns the Holocaust (genocide of European Jews from 1941-5). There are libraries of overwhelming evidence of mass extermination by Nazis during World War Two. Even so, those who dispassionately dispute this (or the extent of it) surely have a right to their views. Let them raise their heads above the parapet so that the world can witness the logical outcome. Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt objected to legal censorship of Holocaust denial, stating that: ‘I don’t want politicians making a decision on what can and cannot be said. That scares me enormously.’ It ought to scare us all. At present, Holocaust denial is illegal in many European countries, regardless of its basis.
The ‘9/11’ disaster (see Article 119) is another case in point. Here, though, rejection of the State’s version of events is not explicitly outlawed. However, despite the contrary views of thousands of eminent scientists, engineers, architects, airline pilots and emergency medical staff, the U.S. government and corporate mainstream media have spent the past eighteen years denying a platform to these many learned dissenters. Instead of inviting mature debate, politicians and media sources have resorted to cheap ridicule, using phrases such as ‘outlandish conspiracy theories’. If the official version is true, then why the concerted reluctance to allow public challenge?
Perhaps the most disturbing present example of intellectual censorship stems from the subject of man-made climate change. It is telling that those who reject this belief are labelled ‘deniers’, which is designed to imply ‘deniers of truth’. On this subject, there is no doubting the State’s point of view: the argument is settled, and further debate is unwelcome. There is also no doubting that those who reject it are sidelined by government and media. Former British biologist and popular television personality Dr David Bellamy (1933-2019) (Figure 121.2) was banished years ago by the State broadcaster, the BBC, for his inconvenient views. I cannot recall a serious scientific debate on national mainstream media on the subject of man-made climate change. Why not, I wonder?
Figure 121.2: David Bellamy, who, sadly, passed away earlier this month, claimed that global warming was a natural cyclical phenomenon, and that people are being taxed vast sums in the name of a non-existent problem. These words sounded the death knell for his distinguished career in science broadcasting.
Copyright © 2019 Rex Features
The current poster girl for the multi-billion-dollar climate change industry is a Swedish schoolgirl called Greta Thunberg (Figure 121.3). All around the world, she pontificates on climate science, while at the same time complaining that her (basic) education has been rudely interrupted. It is unfortunate that poor Greta lacks the acumen to realize that being largely uneducated necessarily disqualifies her from making serious pronouncements on complex scientific matters.
Figure 121.3: Is it not clear that Greta is just a convenient political puppet, given limitless publicity purely because she supports a political narrative? If she believed that man-made climate change were a myth, I would wager that hardly anyone would know her name.
Copyright © 2019 Babylon Bee
Consequently, the world is free to ask: if the views of Greta and her ilk are not their own, then whose are they? This young girl is a disturbing example, not of education, but of indoctrination by State and corporate media for their own ends. Such activists are what I can only call ‘vegetarian dogs’. That is, it is obvious who is – and who is not – making the choice.
Today’s young people should, therefore, tread warily. If any subject matter is considered by authority to be discouraged from open debate, then its veracity should be considered suspect.
Copyright © 2019 Paul Spradbery
