Carl Sagan on scientific tyranny

This link is to Fakeologist and a video that is very brief, a minute or so of Carl Sagan interviewed by Charlie Rose not too long before his death in 1996. In the clip, Sagan is warning us of scientific tyranny, what happens when the public has no basis in science.

Of course, that is fait accompli now. Covid was the worst expression of such tyranny, a complete hoax with a fake virus and a testing process guaranteed to imitate a spreading disease.

But it is not the first. AIDS was such a hoax, as is climate change. As a commenter notes over at Ab’s site, “…the charlatans who have emerged are now from the scientific [and medical] community and there’s nobody in the political or religious community to call them out now.” Did you notice during Covid that we had no support, nothing from any sector to help us through that mess, to boldly decry the use of junk science to imprison us. Churches, schools, medical authorities and facilities were all dead to us.

All we had were dissenters, like Ab and I and others, people who cannot reach the general public.

16 thoughts on “Carl Sagan on scientific tyranny

  1. You remind me of something I just heard from Mike Stone at Virlieogy — ‘we are trying to raise the bar in scientific inquiry’. I really respect that. To me it was never a question of simply ‘oh, viruses don’t exist’. Or even ‘the earth is not a spinning ball hurling through space’. It’s why can’t we even discuss it. That’s not science. That’s not education. Authoritarianism and Adultism, that’s what we are dealing with at a socio-psychological level. I’d be happy to be wrong all damn day, just give me experts and leaders who actually deserve the titles and I’ll listen. Until then, I’ll remain with the dissenters, even if they sound like looney tunes to the vast majority.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The actual Christ doctrine does not exist in the Christian church. This is how it is lost on the general public. The deception is a perfect 180.

    We fear reading anything except the Bible. It’s a beneficial exercise to wonder “why.”



    1. Do you mind if I ask what specifically is the Christ Doctrine? I was force fed the Roman Rite as a child but never heard of this doctrine. Is it like the Q source- a sifting of canonical text to save just the cream filling?


      1. I can only share what my own sincere experience entailed. Out of curiosity, for some reason, I read the book of John in the New Testament, as if it were “Infinite Jest” by David Wallace, with no expectations. Being that I had the luxury of not growing up with the RCC indoctrination, I probably had an easier go at it. I really didn’t understand religion as I (perhaps) do today. I’m always open to being duped. Anyway, reading John to me to Genesis, that took me to Matthew, that took me to the parables of Christ, which took me to Leo Tolstoy’s “What I Believe,” which took me to Norm MacDonald, which took me back to Leo Tolstoy, which took me to a birdseye view of the Gospel aka the Doctrine we’re talking about. It seems you can come at the text from any angle, and for some deviously clever reason, whatever you put into it is what you get out of it. I do not claim to understand it, nor do I try to hock it off on people. But I have found actual tried-and-true practical application to it. But like I said, what I put into it is what I get out of it.

        Try reading The book of John. I dunno what will come out of it for you, but Good Luck and wind at your back, my friend.



  3. Seemingly on our side but secretly conspiring against us. 😉
    He was “allowed” to give us a taste (for nefarius reasons) but no real sustenance.
    I quoted “allowed” because we all know that the media is controlled and unless this network was hacked into…

    ~Baahd Wolfie


  4. “Without education we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.”
    G.K. Chesterton

    WordPress’s hocus pocus taking its toll again.


    1. Very nice! Good quote and apparently this writer spoke out against the big-nosed Tribe of Tricksters, always a good sign because it takes courage.

      On the topic and title: “scientific tyrrany” is an oxymoron. Science is the art of knowing, i.e. truth seeking, which is going against tyranny.

      Rephrase into Scientism Tyranny and Carl becomes the hypocrite. Before Star Wars, Elrond Musk and the modern cronies of “space travel”, I think few people have inspired more normies to be fake space followers as Sagan, before my time.


      1. Yeah, agreed on Sagan, and his successor in scientific fraud, Neal DeGrasse Tyson. I did not want this post to be a forum on Sagan, as he did say some useful things, as in “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”


        1. Yes, understandable, he is just a pawn on the playboard.

          And Scientism is imho just a form of Statism, itself I see as the extension of the Power of the Church, with the same figureheads (priests = media, bishops, cardinals, pastors etc. the many layers of Govern-Mind).

          Highly “secularized” countries, as in Europe (Czechia I’ve read somewhere is the most “””atheist”””, but the western parts of Holland, where I am from have the same). The Scientimist Church has taken over from the earlier organized religions.

          This also means they have to keep their narratives protected and would not allow real scientists to debate them, and if it happens they are ridiculed/demonized (Germar Rudolf who courageously spoke up against the Hollowcost Story is still a prime example I see).

          In my current project of the Curious Mystory of María Juana, documented at Fakeopedia and later today the first 14:44 María Juana Madley released at I address the very origins of

          Roots of Reformation – the deliberately created schism in Europe revolving around the Bible/Catholic Church
          Conscious Cosmovision – the notion that the Earth is not at the center of the solar system and certainly not flat, established 500+ years ago!
          Creativity Enhancers – the start of the New World “drug” (a naturally occurring plant is not a drug, which should be a derivate) trade
          **New World Orders **- the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) was literally the New World Order document greatly surpassing the much more talked about Balfour Declaration (1917) as geopolitical agenda

          which in the end lead to the Scientism Tyranny of today.

          Read more at Fakeopedia, where I maintain links and in the box at the right you find access to the different audios I am releasing:

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Vaccines also fit into their scientific tyranny and junk science they love to push on us. Of course, mass vaccination campaigns don’t happen by coincidence or accident, either. They’re simply more convenient ways of reducing population numbers across the board without having to resort to physical violence or maybe to achieve that goal (not to mention they’re hugely profitable for the pharmaceutical cartels that bill the population for their poisons). The COVID-19 scare was just the most recent example of such campaigns waged against mankind under the guise of promoting “health & safety”.


    1. Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

      David Deming of the University of Oklahoma discussed this question in 2016. he examined the confusion regarding what is meant by an “extraordinary claim”. And he concluded that “Ideas, theories, or observations that are merely novel are not “extraordinary,” nor do they require an “extraordinary” amount of evidence for corroboration. Science does not contemplate two types of evidence. The misuse of ECREE to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the progress of science in establishing comprehensive and systematic bodies of reliable knowledge.”

      Here’s the abstract:

      In 1979 astronomer Carl Sagan popularized the aphorism “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). But Sagan never defined the term “extraordinary.” Ambiguity in what constitutes “extraordinary” has led to misuse of the aphorism. ECREE is commonly invoked to discredit research dealing with scientific anomalies, and has even been rhetorically employed in attempts to raise doubts concerning mainstream scientific hypotheses that have substantive empirical support. The origin of ECREE lies in eighteenth-century Enlightenment criticisms of miracles. The most important of these was Hume’s essay On Miracles. Hume precisely defined an extraordinary claim as one that is directly contradicted by a massive amount of existing evidence. For a claim to qualify as extraordinary there must exist overwhelming empirical data of the exact antithesis. Extraordinary evidence is not a separate category or type of evidence–it is an extraordinarily large number of observations. Claims that are merely novel or those which violate human consensus are not properly characterized as extraordinary. Science does not contemplate two types of evidence. The misuse of ECREE to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge.


      1. Thank you, this is insightful.

        Hume precisely defined an extraordinary claim as one that is directly contradicted by a massive amount of existing evidence. For a claim to qualify as extraordinary there must exist overwhelming empirical data of the exact antithesis.

        This takes the floor away under Sagan (as representative of this popularization but especially as key figure in pushing the Space Travel Hoax).

        I’d add:

        “simple claims do not need extraordinary evidence, yet should be simply to debunk”

        1 – the “hardest” “evidence” the space travel pushers present to support their claim that “people really landed on the Moon” is their 378 kg of “moon rocks” and “regolith”
        2 – the fact that not a single new and unique mineral has been described from those supposedly outerworldly “hard evidence” means that those samples never could have come from the Moon, with her wildly different circumstances than on Earth.

        If a simple scoop of sand in an unusual Earth environment already provides new and unique minerals (deep oceans, highly radioactive environments such as Ramsar, Persia, or just any unique place with abnormal conditions not surveyed before), then the Moon, with their supposedly 4.5 billion years of independent geohistory, should have done the same, but to the extreme.

        And yet the number is zero; only minerals “later also found on Earth” or “can be artificially created from other minerals”. 0 unique minerals formed on the Moon, from 6 entirely different locations, rrrrright.

        so in short:

        Simple claim : Moon rocks prove mankind went to the Moon and back
        Simple evidence to the contrary : No unique minerals were found, so those rocks cannot come from the Moon ; your “strongest” evidence is simple evidence of the antithesis (namely that those missions were faked on Earth).


  6. Today we grasp the double meaning in Carl Sagan’s comment about the moon landing. He said, “But if you turned off the byplay between Mission Control and the Sea of Tranquility, with its deliberately mundane and routine chatter, and stared into that black-and-white television monitor, you could glimpse that we humans had entered the realm of myth and legend.” Interestingly, Carl died of a fast moving bood disease only months before the first popular web browser appeared. Just saying.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s