Letter from Rob Simpson

Posted February 10, 2017 at 5:30 am by

In the SJ Update Mail­bag today we have this let­ter from Rob Simpson…

A few days after our first screen­ing of a new and chal­leng­ing doc­u­men­tary series called DEEP SPACE, I was informed that “pub­lic reac­tion” was so neg­a­tive that the for­mer­ly enthu­si­as­tic plan to screen the entire series over the com­ing months is imme­di­ate­ly cancelled.

Evi­dent­ly, for some vocal mem­bers in our com­mu­ni­ty, look­ing into DEEP SPACE was just too much to consider.

Way too much.

I fore­warned every­one who was think­ing of attend­ing that the DEEP SPACE series pulls togeth­er only the scat­tered bits of evi­dence we pos­sess, in order to help us ask bet­ter ques­tions in future.

Bet­ter ques­tions get us bet­ter answers.

Evi­dent­ly, DEEP SPACE offers too much to think about in these con­tentious times.
And so, they have pres­sured the library to not offer THIS kind of pro­gram for thought­ful analysis.

I know we have a lot on our plates to process these days.
​I am cer­tain­ly feel­ing it.

But, has it ​now ​become fash­ion­able to block what ​infor­ma­tion ​people​ ​​are exposed to?

Adopt­ing an “I don’t want to hear about it” atti­tude should be a per­son­al deci­sion. Must we attempt to con­trol and restrict oth­ers thoughts, as well?

Thought­ful and brave analy­sis is in short sup­ply these days.

Is this a des­per­ate attempt to be com­fort­able in our old age?

Have we real­ly grown too rigid or fright­ened to see the changes ​fly­ing at us from all directions?

Most mil­len­ni­al kids sure see what is in the wind. ​I know mine do.

Rather than just not attend the screen­ings, some in our com­mu­ni­ty advo­cate “Killing the mes­sen­ger” when they don’t like what they are hearing.

His­tor­i­cal­ly, has killing the mes­sen­ger ever been a good idea?

There will be no stop­ping ​what many are call­ing “dis­clo­sure”.
Decades of repressed infor­ma­tion is now explod­ing into our consciousness.

Deny­ing new infor­ma­tion is futile.
It is cling­ing to ​the past… ​an imag­i­nary past.
It may be tem­porar­i­ly com­fort­ing, but is it useful?

Well, yes… for those who wish to main­tain a sta­tus quo.

And espe­cial­ly use­ful to those who wish to stay in power.

====================
SO… can we han­dle the truth?
Can we ana­lyze new infor­ma­tion with­out freak­ing out?

Nobody likes to hear of things like OPERATION PAPERCLIP (just one of the ear­ly points made in DEEP SPACE.)

​What was that?

After WWII, OPERATION PAPERCLIP (and oth­er activ­i­ties we don’t talk about) was a clas­si­fied US policy.

We cov­et­ed the tech­ni­cal advance­ments of Germany.
They were work­ing on things we had­n’t even dreamed of.
​​And we​ sure​ did­n’t want the “Ruskies” to ​acquire it.

​And so we gave no-ques­tions-asked asy­lum to the best researchers the Nazi regime had to offer.

Are we to pre­tend that thou­sands of hard-line Nazi sci­en­tists were not giv­en asy­lum in top lev­els of our mil­i­tary research facil­i­ties and mil­i­tary industries?

All for a good cause, right?

But, are we to pre­tend they have not exert­ed a philo­soph­i­cal influ­ence over our post WWII mil­i­tary and gov­ern­ment? …even when the evi­dence is in our faces?

Are we to pre­tend we did­n’t hear Pres­i­dents Eisen­how­er and Kennedy issue pub­lic warn­ings in the 1960’s about the secret influ­ences being exert­ed at all lev­els of government?

Heck, decades ear­li­er even Pres­i­dent Wil­son gave us a sim­i­lar warning.

And ear­li­er still, so did Pres­i­dent Lincoln.
(Ever won­der why the warn­ings always involve the world banks?)

Secret​ soci­ety influ­ences are noth­ing new to our democracy.

Do we owe it to our­selves to become aware of it?

Or should we just let them go about their business?

===============================

This new​ ​​library pol­i­cy is not so much about our library, as it is a shift in our cul­ture. The library is just a reflection.

To be fair, I have been encour­aged by the library to “go pri­vate” with the DEEP SPACE series. That way, our library won’t be impli­cat­ed with “endors­ing” game-chang­ing information.

But, I am at a loss. I have always thought that dif­fi­cult rev­e­la­tions are best han­dled ​in com­mu­ni­ty…​ with friends and neigh­bors to help us process and​ ​​fur­ther research things.

The library seemed like a good place for that​ to happen.
And for 6‑years of Con­sci­en­tious Pro­jec­tor screen­ings, it was.

But, 6 years ago, we col­lec­tive­ly weren’t quite so seething with rage, fear, and anger. ​(The tools of soci­etal control.)

Times have changed.

Appar­ent­ly at this crit­i­cal junc­ture, we now must be iso­lat­ed in our pur­suit of ​non-main­stream ideas.

​Of course, ana­lyt­i­cal think­ing is not for everyone.
And it is one’s priv­i­lege to engage in it.

Does it all just come down to the icon­ic Jack Nichol­son line from a movie:

“You want the truth​?​ You can’t han­dle the truth!”

I hate to think that THAT is the truth.

It’s up to you now​ as an individual.
Car­ry on.
Stay cen­tered in love.
(what­ev­er that means to you).
That is where hope lives.
It is also where solu­tions await us.
And stay awake.
The offi­cial nar­ra­tive is falling apart.

To quote mid-20th cen­tu­ry jour­nal­ist Edward R. Mur­row as he con­clud­ed each broadcast.…

“Good night, and good luck.”

Rob

You can support the San Juan Update by doing business with our loyal advertisers, and by making a one-time contribution or a recurring donation.


Categories: Letters, People
One comment:

One comment...

  1. Thank you for an excel­lent expli­ca­tion of a trou­bling turn. Cen­sor­ship is a dis­tress­ing and dis­turb­ing direc­tion for our library to take, for the library board to take in a time when libraries nation­wide are reaf­firm­ing their respon­si­bil­i­ty to be our first line of defense in keep­ing the flow of infor­ma­tion to their com­mu­ni­ties strong and uncensored.
    My expe­ri­ences work­ing in a uni­ver­si­ty library from 1966 to 1980 gave me an inti­mate under­stand­ing of the pow­er and need for open exchange dur­ing the Viet­nam War years. I did not walk-off when urged to do so in sol­i­dar­i­ty with stu­dent demon­stra­tors, my peers and com­rades. I said to them then that if the library staff were to strike, it would effec­tive­ly result in cen­sor­ship because the full resources of the library would not be avail­able to the uni­ver­si­ty com­mu­ni­ty. I hope anoth­er venue can be found and I will cer­tain­ly use social media to get this mes­sage out.

    Comment by Denise Acsay on February 10, 2017 at 7:01 am

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

By submitting a comment you grant the San Juan Update a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate, irrelevant and contentious comments may not be published at an admin's discretion. Your email is used for verification purposes only, it will never be shared.

Receive new post updates: Entries (RSS)
Receive followup comments updates: RSS 2.0