“The “TED talks” organization, once founded on the idea of spreading good ideas, has become the new priesthood of status quo dogma. The TED organization doesn’t want you to hear the really important, breakthrough advancements in scientific thinking, and to enforce that intellectual ignorance, it has resorted to censoring and suppressing two of the most important scientists our world has ever produced.
This is being accomplished by a cowardly board of “anonymous scientific advisors” who have seized control of TED’s talks while hiding behind a curtain of anonymity. These “scientific advisors” no doubt represent the interests of Big Pharma, biotech and the corporate-dominated “science” sellout community that’s desperately trying to crush any real revolution in scientific understanding.
While TED is positioned as trendy and cool, it’s actually just another vehicle of idea suppression that has joined with other dark forces which are attempting to keep humankind ignorant of the reality of consciousness, free will, spirituality and the fact that our cosmos is far more than physical “stuff.” TED gladly features scientists who unveil technologies that will be used to enslave humanity, but the organization doesn’t want you to hear about advances in understanding that can set you free.”
This is an oddly bold and bias statement in my opinion. If TED was truly controlled by people like big pharma- than why did I recently see a talk stressing the failure of the current medical system in treating diabetes; a widespread and largely income-based treatment approach. The talk focused on using real whole foods and touching on concepts such as true happiness as a way of treating (type II) diabetes, not through insulin, expensive blood sugar monitors, hospitalization, or any other current medical-based approach. If I’m not wrong, this talk was a direct threat to the pharmaceutical and medical frame-work that exists.
I understand where your concerns lie, and I am sure there is some influence from some hidden key players, but this bold assertion concludes that every TED talk was precisely weighed through the “anonymous” people and their current power paradigms, which I somehow doubt.
Link to diabetes talk~ whether you are interested in the medical field or not I suggest watching this! It gives a powerful talk about how the medical community continues to fail miserably. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMhLBPPtlrY&list=FLiS133ujv_OAxlCRr-9PYIg&index=52
@timeisoutofjoint, Can I first say that, although NaturalNews does have a lot of objective, alternative news- it is not a solid news source. If used in adjunct with other sources, maybe you could use it in an argument. But I read the article and it uses a lot of loaded words to impose an opinion on you, does not provide facts to back up assertions, and it uses 2 talks (one about a “war on consciousness” and the other about “the god delusion”) that TED deemed controversial to totally discredit a great movement of spreading ideas.
I have seen many more world-changing, beneficial talks on TED that were not censored, as opposed to these two talks which I have seen, that don’t necessarily provide new work towards a better tomorrow. They bring up good points, but I believe TED took them down because they didn’t have the facts to back up their assertions.
And the way you wrote your post, seems very very similar to the language used in the Natural News article which makes me feel like you read it, got all antsy in your pants about it and regurgitated the info without some real critical thinking. But that is an assumption on my part.
You know CE blatantly copied our design, mission plus the article you linked is almost a copy paste too? :/
Rupert Sheldrakes talk is alright, but he isn’t a hard scientist and shouldn’t talk hard science.
The reason his talk was censored was because his explanation of how physicists deal with the speed of light blatantly shows he has little knowledge of the field. If I was TED I wouldn’t have censored it, but I would have put a disclaimer that his talk is full of holes.
@gimmesomesalt, Maybe the language seems similar because it’s a passage taken from the article itself lol. Have you read the article?
Anyway the post it’s an open provocation. Just to remind everybody that no source of info it’s 100% secure. I will continue to watch TED talks, but I was surprised by this article. Just wanted to share with you and read your opinions.
@timeisoutofjoint, my bad I realize this now, hence the quotes and exactly same words lolol. Apologies but I look silly now anyway. Read the article, well, skimmed, to their “evidence” sections. Because I read an article from Collective Evolution about the same thing and I very much distrust these “alternative news” like CE and Natural News because these individuals who are not objective journalists (they are extremely biased) take so much opinion and present it in a way to be fact, and people eat this shit up.
Again I apologize for making an ad hominem attack on you without realizing you were quoting the introduction.
Some time ago the logos of various MNCs started appearing in the TED Talks. That’s when my suspicions began. Huge funding means strings attached, and ideological subversion is a logical consequence. Even the quality, the out-of-boxness of the talks is going down and down from what I’ve seen recently, and the TEDx talks are coming way better than the official TED ones. There are several TED Talks in the pile that are downright misled or misguided in many arenas. There’s even one TED Talk talking about the dangers of simplifying neuroscience that debunks another TED talk that was recommending 8 hugs a day to be happy. I feel this would have been the right way forward. I can’t comment much on the detractors of Rupert Sheldrake’s talk. It was too short for details : I found better content in his longer talk titled “Science Set Free” at Electric Universe conference.
But out of the 10 things he talks about, if anyone has anything to passionately, intuitively and clearly debunk then they should come forward with a talk of their own! Explain clearly how the speed of light is or is not a constant. Tell me why it’s perfectly logical for all the constants to keep on changing, and why G needs to averaged. Explain clearly how the feeling of being watched, how the reach of mind outside the human brain is total junk. Explain clearly how the real-life eyewitness out-of-ordinary experiences of practically every family on this planet can be totally explained away while staying within the confines of institution-accepted science. Prove conclusively how all animals apart from man are not conscious, sentient beings and convince us why we should completely ignore the overwhelming observations in real life that tell us the opposite. If anyone wants to prove each and everything he’s saying as totally false, then DO IT PROPERLY, SCIENTIFICALLY. Don’t be a bloody high priest and banish the Talk! There’s scores of WAY WORSE Ted Talks out there (incl nearly all the ones with speakers from US military or govt) that deserve to be taken down way more than this one. No Sir, there was clearly a reason other than scientific accuracy for removing these talks.
People take it too seriously, there’s some good stuff though. If people really believe exactly of how stuff is portrayed then It wont be TED’s fault, but their own. It’s like going on a Mcdonalds diet and crying of how fat you got.
The Rupert Sheldrake talk is fucking great.