Posts Tagged ‘Speaking the Truth in Love’

Graham Hancock ~In Memoriam Giordano Bruno

In Memoriam Giordano Bruno
By Graham Hancock

In memoriam of a great free thinker, Giordano Bruno, burned at the stake in Rome 414 years ago today, on 17 February 1600. Bruno was a proponent of the Copernican ‘heliocentric’ model of the solar system in which the earth and other planets orbit the sun (whereas it was wrongly believed by the Church and other authorities of the time that the sun and the planets orbit the earth). In his courageous advocacy of the heliocentric model, as in many other things, Bruno was correct and he was killed, quite simply, for speaking this truth aloud and refusing to be silenced by the voices of orthodoxy. His life, and his death, should serve as reminders to us that those who think outside the box, though no longer burnt at the stake, face great risks, persecution and vilification even today and often pay a heavy price for speaking their truth. Yet ultimately, in the longer picture of centuries and millennia we can see that it is precisely those outside-the-box thinkers who allow human society and human knowledge to advance for the benefit of us all.

For his out-of-the-box thinking and his courage in speaking his truth, Bruno suffered an eight-year ordeal at the hands of the Roman Inquisition. Tortured and tormented in the Vatican dungeons, he stood accused of heresy on several counts, including his claims that stars are other suns, such as our own (they are), that they are orbited by planets (they are), that these planets are likely to be populated by intelligent beings (21st century science is just beginning to catch up with this idea), that the earth itself is a planet (it is), and that the symbol of the cross was known to the ancient Egyptians (it was, in the form of the ankh, or crux ansata, symbolising the life-force).

Ordered to retract these and his other “heresies” or face death by burning, Bruno courageously stood firm. Fired by his convictions, he defiantly told his accusers that he had neither said nor written anything that was heretical, but only what was true. When his sentence was passed, Bruno bravely stared at the cardinals lined up in front of him and calmly told them: “Perchance your fear in passing judgement on me is greater than mine in receiving it.”

On the morning of 17 February 1600, Bruno, garbed with a white shirt, was taken to the Campo de Fiori, the Camp of the Flowers, a small piazza not far from the Roman Pantheon. There, he was securely tied to a wooden pole around which were stacked planks of wood and bundles of sticks. “I die a willing martyr”, he is said to have declared as the fire was being lit all around him, “and my soul will rise with the smoke to paradise.” A young protestant, Gaspar Schopp of Breslau, who had recently converted to Catholicism and thus enjoyed the favours of the Pope, was an eyewitness to the burning, and reported that “when the image of our Saviour was shown to him before his death he [Bruno] angrily rejected it with averted face”. The truth is that a Dominican monk had tried to brandish a crucifix in Bruno’s face while he suffered in the flames. Poor Bruno, his legs now charred to the bone, mustered enough strength to turn his head away in disgust.

A few days earlier Bruno had written his own epitaph:

“I have fought…It is much… Victory lies in the hands of Fate. Be that with me as it may, whoever shall prove conqueror, future ages will not deny that I did not fear to die, was second to none in constancy, and preferred a spirited death to a craven life.”

Giordano Bruno

Photo by Santha Faiia. This statue of Bruno, created in his honour in the 19th century, stands on the exact spot of his death in the Campo de Fiori, south of Piazza Navona in Rome

[Laura Bruno here — no relation to Giordano, btw … This Graham Hancock Facebook post came to me via Dean Scarpinato, who also included the following video and song:

This little video of mine was greatly inspired by Bruno. Please watch. If you’ve seen it b4 please watch again. It is heartfelt.]

Jon Rappoport ~ Hope in the Holiday Season

Here’s an insightful (and dare I say hopeful?) article by Jon Rappoport, which goes along quite well with today’s earlier book review of “The Fifth Sacred Thing.”

Hope in the Holiday Season

Jon Rappoport

Untold millions (billions?) of people across the world are waking up to official lies, cover stories, and conspiracies.

These people are crossing the bridge, so to speak, to see what’s on the other side.

The question is, do they stay there once they’ve crossed over, or do they try to retreat back to their former positions as ordinary citizens with dimmed perception?

It’s quite a trick to a) maintain the status of “normal person” while b) seeing through the enormous ruse.

In fact, in the long run, it’s impossible.

Therefore, the retreat backwards involves self-induced mind control. In other words, the enlightened person un-enlightens himself. He re-educates himself to accept all the lies he saw through.

He “rejoins the church” he once quit. And he does so with a fervor.

Not long ago, I spoke with a college professor who detailed that journey:

“About ten years into my career as a teacher, I became aware that I was educating my students into a whole series of official stories that were egregiously false. So I began to expose the lies in my classroom.

“This led to a clash with officials at my school. I realized my neck was on the line. I had to make a choice.

“I decided to survive. I went back to accepting what I knew was false. The process by which I did this was…you could call it self-administered brainwashing.

“I’m certainly not proud of it. But that’s what I did…”

The teacher went on to tell me he knew a number of other professors at various colleges who’d done the same thing. They weren’t proud of it, either, but they’d made their bed.

In our society, our culture, the see-saw is swinging back and forth. People are discovering truth, and then they are denying its implications.

In some cases, these people work for companies they know are part of the problem. Others work for government agencies. Others are in the military or the police. They’re caught in the middle.

This is one reason why we live in a Surveillance State, one reason why psychiatrists have become far more important authority figures, one reason why dependence on government is being pushed as never before.

The intention is to drive people back into their lives as obedient citizens, as opposed to free people who are seeing more and more of the truth.

Television, of course, plays a central role in this effort. Aside from what is laughingly called the news, the endless proliferation of crime dramas and sports coverage fulfills the desire for well-defined outcomes:

Good triumphs over evil. The good guys arrest the bad guys. One team wins, the other team loses. It’s clear-cut. Simple. With relatively few exceptions, things resolve the way they’re supposed to.

If the fictional hero is “fighting against the establishment,” it’s revealed he’s really battling “a rogue element.”

So the television audience can rest easy. It’s all okay. The authorities are on the side of the angels.

People caught in the middle tend to see retreat as their best option. They first looked for some stable platform on which they could stand, in order to send the old order to its demise, but not finding it, they opted for safety.

However, the itch and discomfort and the moral crisis don’t dissolve. They remain.

It is in this tension that new ideas and new solutions are born.

We are brought up to believe that if something is wrong, there is a prescribed solution; if not, nothing was really wrong.

This is the big lie. This is a prominent piece of mind control. It’s successful because official bodies are full of prescribed solutions. They appoint themselves princes of solutions. They breathe and excrete solutions every day.

Promoting and bringing about a wider gulf between the rich and the poor is another official strategy designed to force people to fall in line. Those on the edge of sinking into poverty are less likely to step out and defend conspiracy researchers and citizen reporters.

So it’s all the more unusual and forceful that we are seeing this relentless building wave of anti-establishment research. It means that people all over the world are fed up with the status quo and the official scenarios put in place to protect it.

There was a time, 30 years ago, when the best way I could get information out was to give lectures, have them taped on audio cassette, and send the tapes to friends and allies.

Fortunately, that time has passed. Now, thousands and thousands of researchers are being read, seen, and heard online.

On some days, it doesn’t seem like we’re winning. But we are.

Keep it up. Find ways to cross that bridge from official stories to the truth and stay there. No one said it would be easy. It’s always tempting to sink back into a trance.

But we do have an inherent desire to see things through. It’s strong. It’s compelling. It’s real.

Some years ago, a painter friend sent me the following note. Its implications are universal:

“I used to be a house divided. I knew the work I wanted to do wouldn’t become popular in the marketplace. I was torn in half. I knew how to please the powers-that-be. But then it occurred to me: what would happen if I catered to the dominant culture and still failed to prosper? That would be the ultimate irony. If I went my own way, to the hilt, and did the work I wanted to do, I would have freedom, and the joy of looking at what I had produced. I wouldn’t go to sleep every night wondering what the hell I was doing. I would know.”

That spirit is very hard to kill. In the long run, it’s impossible to destroy it.

It keeps resurfacing, like a dream that is more real than waking life.

Jon Rappoport (link to original article)

Julian Assange Letter to Actor Who Plays Him In a Movie

“Those who lack the wisdom to unite in the face of a common enemy always end up being conquered.”
~ Proterrian

However you feel about Julian Assange, this is a powerful letter that asks questions of each of us — how do and how will our actions affect others, including the greater population of the world? How might the ways we portray others undermine the potential freedoms of an awakening population? Assange is respectful, but firm in his assessment of how each person’s choices and responsibilities have ripple effects beyond those they may initially consider. In this case, he explains: “Feature films are the most powerful and insidious shapers of public perception, because they fly under the radar of conscious exclusion. … This film is going to bury good people doing good work, at exactly the time that the state is coming down on their heads.”

A well-crafted letter with layers of questions we might each do well to ask ourselves, this is an excellent example of what I call “speaking the truth in love.” As Jessamyn West put it: “A religious [or spiritual] awakening which does not awaken the sleeper to love has roused him in vain.” I am heartened whenever I see compassion, respect and acknowledgment of the gray areas and onion layers of consciousness, because it’s not all black and white. Thank you, Julian, for modeling boundaries, respect and love for all of humanity.

Julian-Assange-and-Benedict-Cumberbatch1

Above: Julian Assange and Benedict Cumberbatch

Julian Assange’s letter to Benedict Cumberbatch

On October 9th WikiLeaks published the first letter from Julian Assange to Benedict Cumberbatch regarding “The Fifth Estate”, a Dreamworks movie about WikiLeaks set to open in the UK on Friday 11 Oct, and in the US on Friday 18 Oct. The press release about this letter is here. The letter was sent to Benedict Cumberbatch after he made overtures to contact Julian Assange in January this year, immediately before principal photography commenced.

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013
From: Julian Assange
To: Benedict Cumberbatch
Subject: Message from Assange

Dear Benedict,

Thank you for trying to contact me. It is the first approach by anyone from the Dreamworks production to me or WikiLeaks.

My assistants communicated your request to me, and I have given it a lot of thought and examined your previous work, which I am fond of.

I think I would enjoy meeting you.

The bond that develops between an actor and a living subject is significant.

If the film reaches distribution we will forever be correlated in the public imagination. Our paths will be forever entwined. Each of us will be granted standing to comment on the other for many years to come and others will compare our characters and trajectories.

But I must speak directly.

I hope that you will take such directness as a mark of respect, and not as an unkindness.

I believe you are a good person, but I do not believe that this film is a good film.

I do not believe it is going to be positive for me or the people I care about.

I believe that it is going to be overwhelmingly negative for me and the people I care about.

It is based on a deceitful book by someone who has a vendetta against me and my organisation.

In other circumstances this vendetta may have gone away, but our conflict with the United States government and the establishment press has created a patronage and commissioning market – powerful, if unpopular – for works and comments that are harmful to us.

There are dozens of positive books about WikiLeaks, but Dreamworks decided to base its script only on the most toxic. So toxic is the first book selected by Dreamworks that it is distributed to US military bases as a mechanism to discourage military personnel from communicating with us. Its author is publicly known to be involved in the Dreamworks production in an ongoing capacity.

Dreamworks’ second rights purchase is the next most toxic, biased book. Published and written by people we have had a bitter contractual dispute with for years, whose hostility is well known. Neither of these two books were the first to be published and there are many independent authors who have written positive or neutral books, all of whom Dreamworks ignored.

Dreamworks has based its entire production on the two most discredited books on the market.

I know the film intends to depict me and my work in a negative light.

I believe it will distort events and subtract from public understanding.

It does not seek to simplify, clarify or distil the truth, but rather it seeks to bury it.

It will resurrect and amplify defamatory stories which were long ago shown
to be false.

My organisation and I are the targets of political adversary from the United States government and its closest allies.

The United States government has engaged almost every instrument of its justice and intelligence system to pursue—in its own words—a ‘whole of government’ investigation of ‘unprecedented scale and nature’ into WikiLeaks under draconian espionage laws. Our alleged sources are facing their entire lives in the US prison system. Two are already in it. Another one is detained in Sweden.

Feature films are the most powerful and insidious shapers of public perception, because they fly under the radar of conscious exclusion.

This film is going to bury good people doing good work, at exactly the time that the state is coming down on their heads.

It is going to smother the truthful version of events, at a time when the truth is most in demand.

As justification it will claim to be fiction, but it is not fiction. It is distorted truth about living people doing battle with titanic opponents. It is a work of political opportunism, influence, revenge and, above all, cowardice.

It seeks to ride on the back of our work, our reputation and our struggles.

It seeks to cut our strength with weakness. To cut affection with exploitation. To cut diligence with paranoia. To cut loyalty with naivety. To cut principle with hypocrisy. And above all, to cut the truth with lies.

The film’s many distortions buttress what the prosecution will argue. Has argued. Is arguing. In my case, and in that of others. These cases will continue for years.

The studio that is producing the film is not a vulnerable or weak party.

Dreamworks’ free speech rights are not in jeopardy – ours are.

Dreamworks is an extremely wealthy organisation, with ties to powerful interests in the US government.

I must therefore question the choices and motives behind it: the opportunism, fears and mundanity; the unwritten rules of film financing and distribution in the United States; the cringe against doing something useful and brave.

I believe that you are a decent person, who would not naturally wish to harm good people in dire situations.

You will be used, as a hired gun, to assume the appearance of the truth in order to assassinate it. To present me as someone morally compromised and to place me in a falsified history. To create a work, not of fiction, but of debased truth.

Not because you want to, of course you don’t, but because, in the end, you are a jobbing actor who gets paid to follow the script, no matter how debauched.

Your skills play into the hands of people who are out to remove me and WikiLeaks from the world.

I believe that you should reconsider your involvement in this enterprise.

Consider the consequences of your cooperation with a project that vilifies and marginalises a living political refugee to the benefit of an entrenched, corrupt and dangerous state.

Consider the consequences to people who may fall into harm because of this film.

Many will fight against history being blackwashed in this way. It is a collective history now, involving millions of people, because millions have opened their eyes as a result of our work and the attempts to destroy us.

I believe you are well intentioned but surely you can see why it is a bad idea for me to meet with you.

By meeting with you, I would validate this wretched film, and endorse the talented, but debauched, performance that the script will force you to give.

I cannot permit this film any claim to authenticity or truthfulness. In its current form it has neither, and doing so would only further aid the campaign against me.

It is contrary to my interests, and to those of my organisation, and I thank you for your offer, and what I am sure is your genuine intent, but I must, with inexpressible regret, turn it down.

Julian Assange

Read the press release about this letter HERE

Read the Wikileaks Memo Highlighting Inaccuracies in the film HERE.

View an advance version of the Fifth Estate Script HERE

Link to video: The Fifth Estate trailer: watch Benedict Cumberbatch as Julian Assange in the Wikileaks thriller