See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Suppression of Science Within Science
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bauer1.1.1.html
Published: Dec 17, 2009
Author: Henry Bauer
Post Date: 2009-12-17 06:41:52 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 236
Comments: 15
I wasn’t as surprised as many others were, when it was revealed that climate-change "researchers" had discussed in private e-mails how to keep important data from public view lest it shake public belief in the dogma that human activities are contributing significantly to global warming. I wasn’t particularly surprised because just a few weeks earlier I had spoken at the Oakland Rethinking AIDS Conference about the dogmatism and strong-arm tactics that are rampant in a seemingly increasing range of fields of medicine and science. PowerPoint presentations of most of the talks at the Conference are available at the Conference website. Here’s a slightly modified, more readable, text version of my own talk. The theme in a nutshell: For several centuries, modern science was pretty much a free intellectual market populated by independent entrepreneurs who shared the goal of understanding how the world works. Nowadays it’s a corporate enterprise where patents, pay-offs, prestige, and power take priority over getting at the scientific truth, and the powers-that-be have established knowledge monopolies. I had met Peter Duesberg in person only at the Conference, but I had been quite familiar with him from many videos. What had always stuck in my mind was his expression of surprise, astonishment, sheer disbelief, as he told what happened to him after he questioned whether HIV could be the cause of AIDS: I had all the students I wanted . . . lab space . . . grants . . . . elected to the National Academy. . . . became California Scientist of the Year. All my papers were published. I could do no wrong . . . professionally . . . until I started questioning . . . that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Then everything changed. What happened then was that he got no more grants; his manuscripts were rejected without substantive critiques, just that "everyone knows that HIV causes AIDS"; Robert Gallo, who earlier had talked of Duesberg’s distinction as a leading retrovirologist, now publicly called him dishonest on scientific matters. Defenders of the mainstream view have even held Duesberg responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of South Africans and have described him as the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier. What had Duesberg done to bring about that radical change? Absolutely nothing. He was doing science just as before: gathering data, documenting his sources, making his analyses, presenting his conclusions for comment by others. Of course Duesberg was surprised that suddenly he had gone from lauded leading scientist to discredited crackpot. Of course Duesberg was surprised, because his experience of suddenly being sent beyond the pale was obviously an aberration. Science isn’t like this. Science is done by the objective self-correcting scientific method. Peer review is impersonal and impartial. Arguments are substantive, not ad hominem. This experience must be unprecedented, unique. Or, perhaps, shared just by other AIDS Rethinkers, because questioning that HIV causes AIDS is just too outrageous, and quite justifiably it puts AIDS "denialists" outside the norms of scientific behavior and discourse. You wouldn’t find anything like this in other, more normal fields of medicine or science. Well, actually, you would. You do. Duesberg and AIDS Rethinkers are not alone in this. Duesberg’s experience is not unique, it’s even far from unique. For example, there’s The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press, 2001) in which Bjørn Lomborg discussed global warming and pointed out, documented by >500 mainstream source-references, that Kyoto-type policies would not reduce warming enough to avoid such major consequences as sea-level rises. Therefore it makes sense to devise adaptations that will be needed in any case, a much better investment than trying to reduce global CO2 emissions. A rather unremarkable economic argument based solidly on calculations from mainstream data. So Lomborg was surely just as surprised, astonished, disbelieving, as Duesberg had been, to find that his scholarly discussion placed him beyond the pale of civilized scientific discourse. The Chair of the International Panel on Climate Change asked, Where is the difference between Lomborg’s view on humans and Hitler’s? An Australian columnist agreed: Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence – it is a crime against humanity after all. An American environmentalist seconded the notion, writing that there should be "war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg." Of course those comments were not made in the scientific literature, which doesn’t countenance that sort of character assassination. Or so one might hope. Hope in vain, it turns out, because a book review in Nature (414: 149-50) held that Lomborg’s text employs the strategy of those who . . . argue that gay men aren’t dying of AIDS, that Jews weren’t singled out by the Nazis for extermination. . . . So global-warming denialism is as much beyond the pale as AIDS denialism. Except that – and perhaps you’ve noticed – Duesberg has never denied that AIDS exists, he just has a different explanation for what caused it. And Lomborg doesn’t deny that global warming is occurring, he doesn’t even question that human activities are contributing significantly to it, he is just making a cost-benefit argument. Of course, both HIV/AIDS and global warming are matters that involve not just science but public policy and large public expenditures. You wouldn't find anything like this in a pure science like astronomy or cosmology, would you? Yes, you would. Yes, you do. Take cosmology and the Big-Bang theory of the origin of the universe. Halton Arp was a respected, senior American observational astronomer. He noticed that some pairs of quasars that are physically close together nevertheless have very different redshifts. How exciting! Evidently some redshifts are not Doppler effects, in other words, not owing to rapid relative motion away from us. That means the universe-expansion calculations have to be revised. It may not have started as a Big Bang! That’s just the sort of major potential discovery that scientists are always hoping for, isn’t it? Certainly not in this case. Arp was granted no more telescope time to continue his observations. At age 56, Halton Arp emigrated to Germany to continue his work at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. But Arp was not alone in his views. Thirty-four senior astronomers from 10 countries, including such stellar figures as Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, Amitabha Ghosh, and Jayant Narlikar, sent a letter to Nature pointing out that Big Bang theory * relies on a growing number of hypothetical . . . things . . . never observed; * that alternative theories can also explain all the basic phenomena of the cosmos * and yet virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology go to Big-Bang studies. Just the sort of discussion that goes on in science all the time, arguing pros and cons of competing ideas. Except that Nature refused to publish the letter. It was posted on the Internet, and by now hundreds of additional signatures have been added – just like what happened with the letter the Group for Rethinking AIDS had sent to Nature, Science, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine, all of which had refused to publish it. At a mainstream conference on "Outstanding questions for the standard cosmological model" – there was not even a mention of the stunningly outstanding question of those anomalous redshifts. So the non-Big-Bang cosmologists organized their own separate meeting – again, like AIDS Rethinkers, or like those who question the mainstream dogma about how to cope with global warming. For some reason, non-Big-Bang cosmology is as much beyond the pale as AIDS "denial" which isn’t denial or global warming "denial" which isn’t denial. Then there’s that most abstract of fundamental sciences, theoretical physics. The problem has long been, How to unify relativity and quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics regards the world as made up of discrete bits whereas relativity regards the world as governed by continuous, not discrete, fields. Since the mid-1970s, there has been no real progress. Everyone has been working on so-called "string theory," which has delivered no testable conclusions and remains a hope, a speculation, not a real theory. Nevertheless, theoretical physicists who want to look at other approaches can’t find jobs, can’t get grants, can’t get published. (Read Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics.) You begin to wonder, don’t you, how many other cases there could be in science, where a single theory has somehow captured all the resources? And where competent scientists who want to try something different are not only blocked but personally insulted? Well, there’s the matter of what killed off the dinosaurs. Everyone knows that the dinosaurs were killed off 65 million years ago when an asteroid hit the Earth. Everyone knows that, that is, except the paleontologists, whose specialty this sort of question is supposed to be. The asteroid theory had been developed by Luis Alvarez, Nobel Laureate in physics, and his son Walter, a geologist. Paleontologist Dewey McLean had earlier developed a detailed theory based on volcanism – it had long been known that tremendous volcanic activity, the "Deccan Traps," had occurred at the relevant time. Do you think Alvarez engaged McLean in civilized, substantive discussion? Or would you be surprised to hear that at a conference, Alvarez said to McLean in private: "I’ll wreck your career if you persist." And Alvarez did indeed contact McLean’s university and tried to block McLean’s promotion – I know that for sure because I was Dean of Dewey McLean’s College at the time. Of course, there’s always been resistance to change in science, as in other human activities. But this degree of suppression of minority views and the use of gutter language and character assassination makes it seem like a new phenomenon. At least it has seemed so to the people who have found themselves suddenly ejected from mainstream discourse and resources. Arp, Duesberg, Lomborg, McLean and other "denialists" of various mainstream theories are surprised because it isn’t supposed to be like that in science. Lomborg doesn’t know that "AIDS denialists" are treated rather like "global warming denialists." Arp doesn’t know that AIDS and global warming "denialists" have it even worse than those who question the Big Bang. McLean doesn’t know that "denialists" about AIDS, Big-Bang, and global warming also have their careers threatened. Everyone who experiences personally this sort of thing imagines it’s a unique experience, because science isn’t supposed to be like this. But science nowadays IS like this: Disagree with the conventional contemporary scientific wisdom and you won’t get grants, won’t get published, will be compared to Holocaust deniers. And it really wasn’t always this way. Nowadays "science," "pure research," has become cutthroat in the extreme, and there’s much corner-cutting and sheer dishonesty in science. For example, NIH newsletters routinely name specific individuals who are being barred from seeking grants for some specified period because of some act of dishonesty. There was no need, in the good not-so-old days, for a federal Office of Research Integrity – a designation that George Orwell would have relished. But now we do have such an Office, and at colleges there are Centers for Research Ethics, and publishers put out journals like Accountability in Research – there’s a burgeoning young academic industry devoted to telling scientists how to behave properly. That’s what science has come to. Genuine science, the search for better understanding, has been hijacked by self-interest and vested interests and is now captive to knowledge monopolies and research cartels: A single theory exerts dogmatic control over grants, publications, jobs, promotions. WHY?? How did this happen? In a follow-up piece, I’ll describe how we arrived at this New World Order in Science. December 17, 2009 Henry H. Bauer [send him mail] is Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences and Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies at Virginia Tech. His books about science and scientific unorthodoxies include Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method (1992), Science or Pseudoscience (2001), and The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (2007). He currently writes an HIV Skepticism blog.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#1. To: Ada, earthchild, Original_Intent, Christine, SonofLiberty, Jethro Tull, HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, X-15, James Deffenbach, gengis gandhi, IndieTX, Horse, noone222, randge, RickyJ, bluegrass (#0)
(Edited)
Of course, there’s always been resistance to change in science, as in other human activities. But this degree of suppression of minority views and the use of gutter language and character assassination makes it seem like a new phenomenon. At least it has seemed so to the people who have found themselves suddenly ejected from mainstream discourse and resources. But science nowadays IS like this: Disagree with the conventional contemporary scientific wisdom and you won’t get grants, won’t get published, will be compared to Holocaust deniers. The church of corporate science (Big Science) desperately needs to be questioned and found wanting, needs its own version of the Protestant Reformation. Since Big Science is the religious voodoo backing the Materialistic cult and used to run cover for the Luciferian elite, attacking its formerly unassailable credibility is key, one of the bigger keys to unlocking the minds imprisoned in the media-Matrix. Fortunately, the web of deception is vulnerable to the winds of change and Climategate may be the beginning of the end for the empire of lies that undergirds the political tyranny of the oligarchic elites. Even if the MSM is stonewalling, as always, on the Climategate story, the leak in the dike will inevitably continue to expand. Funny how the healthy, test-it-all, keep-the mind-open skepticism that created the scientific revolution and all of its good fruit, has become verboten when aimed at the Church of Corporate Science. One of the most effective mind-control techniques ever devised was to create a class of "experts" that cannot be questioned, nor their pronouncements parsed for logical fallacies, without the shout-down of: "What do you know? From which (corrupted) institution did you get your (brainwashing and corruption) credentials? You have to be a scientific "expert" to have a voice. Shut up and go back to your programming, serf!" Unless you have learned the specialized "logic" taught to the scientific priesthood, you may NOT point out the nakedness of the Emperor. Never mind how well you understand Nature and its laws by direct experimentation, to the point of even creating inventions based upon those laws that actually work, unless you can speak double-speak party-line like the trained seals can, you are not in the game and not allowed to raise objections that might break the trance of the masses. Why is learning to lie convincingly (without doubt or guilt, with a total sense of entitlement) the core of expensive "education" in ALL the professions and why is learning to reason so much harder then lying convincingly that even intelligent people choose the easy way to success: learn to lie, in lock-step with your pack or tribe, in the jargon of your chosen niche? Corruption is so much easier than creation, I guess it's just the path of least resistance and by now, we all know where that leads! 8=>
I would say you pretty well nailed it. Controversies and suppression of new, and often valid, ideas is part and parcel of the history of "science". In fact it seems to have become intense, I believe intentionally so, in the Post WWII era. Harvey was ridiculed when he came up with the theory of the circulatory system. He was lampooned in the press and villified in the journals of the day. Now several hundred years later medicine is to no small degree based on his discoveries. Alfred Wegner, a lowly Meteorologist and explorer, dared to suggest that the continents move - he called his theory "Continental Drift". This was met with derision, invective, and insult. Why he wasn't even a Geologist. Harummmmmphh! Of course he was proven correct and we now have the branch of Geophysics called "Plate Tectonics". Apostates to the "true faith" are ever so villified by established interests who made their careers propounding and pontificating upon whatever the established theory of the day was. Of longer debate, and enduring interest because of its broad implications, is the battle between the advocates of Scotsman James Hutton's Uniformitarian School of Geology and the French Geologist George Cuvier. Uniformitarianism, the Geology of Hutton - for the uninitiated, is the theory that geological processes operate uniformly over long periods of time and that catastrophes are localized events having no great impact upon the Earth's geologic history. Alternatively Catastrophism, put forward by Cuvier, argues that large scale geologic changes can occur in a very short period time, days or weeks, resulting in very large changes in the Earth's surface and environment. Uniformitarianism, if you have studied any geology, is the accepted dogma. I say dogma because there are both legends in human history as well as a growing body of evidence which tends to suggest that the discredited Cuvier was quite right. The battle is still ongoing but their are intriguing bits that do not fit the Uniformitarian dogma, and thus are ignored, ridiculed, or buried. Just to cite one example: The ruins at Tiahuanaco, near Lake Titicaca on the Altaplano (High Plateau) have multiple anomalies. Lake Titicaca has the only known species of fresh water Seahorse. There are quays and docks sitting there high and dry - near the continent crossing canals that appear to have once stretched across the continent. One problem Tiahuanaco is now about 2 miles above sea level. And yet much of it appears to have been built AT sea level and then when the Andes were suddenly upthrust everything took an elevator ride into the sky. This occurred about the same time that the semi-mythical island continent of Atlantis sank into the ocean in, as Plato put it, a day and a night. Time coincident with that the rock isthmus stretching between Europe and Africa, now called the Straits of Gibraltar, appears to have collapsed thus flooding the dry basin we now call the Mediterranean (and there are ruins at depths greater that 200 feet deep even today). So there is evidence suggestive of a worldwide catastrophe that changed the surface of a large amount of the planet. Catastrophism is a big no-no for another reason. Darwin. Darwinian evolutionary theory, the dominant dogma today despite mountains of contradictory data, depends to no small degree on the Uniformitarian concept of gradual verrrrrrrrrrry sloooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww changes in the Earth's crust and surface. So, a shift to Catastrophism upsets the Holy Darwin Apple Cart and therefore the evolutionists are busy fighting. Herein lies the crux. Eugenics, as practiced by our elite Bankster Criminals and Psychiatrists, relies upon Darwinian Materialistic mechanology as its justification and proof. Upset Uniformitarianism and you upset Darwinism and in turn pull the rug out from underneath the Materialists who use Social Darinism, and eugenics, as justification for their predation upon mankind: They are "superior beings", as proven by their Great Grandsire's ability to steal a lot of money, and we, because we are not of the monied class, are inferior beings and in any event we're all just animals anyway and it is OK to cull the animal herd of "useless eaters". There is a lot more I could say but the upshot is that a lot of our current scientific manipulation seems to have another dark element. An element of control of the society by controlling what people are allowed to know and how they are taught to think of the world in which they live. Never forget, as James Burke put it, "what you see is to no small extent determined by what you know, and when that changes everything changes". The controllers do not want major scientific breakthroughs or technologic advances, such as cheap power, as that would upset the status quo which they are manufacturing, through knowledge control, to suit their own psychotic ends. When you control what people know you can to some degree control how they will think, see, and feel. You control their view of the world and how they react to it. That is why our psychotic would be masters oppose new ideas and scientific breakthroughs - they see it as a threat to their control of the society and the world.
Thanks for the excellent essay, Original_Intent! Informative and to the point, as always. At this time, I would settle for breaking the thrall of the Church of Science and eroding its credibility. The truth, in geology, biology, history, physics etc. is WAY TOO MUCH for the sleeping mass mind to accept. You touched on several controversies but when we as a species are finally allowed to discover/re-discover ALL of the mysteries, most deliberately obfuscated, the comprehensive picture will literally be mind-blowing. Small steps, Ellie. Let us begin by getting people to feel empowered enough to call bulls#!+ when Glowbull swarming, vaccination, the Big Lie that created Big Pharma and weapons of mass distraction lies are fronted on the MSM and by shills even here in the neuronal nexus that is the Internet, supported by the "authority" of the Church of Big Science. We desperately need more people to say, with emphatic spontaneity: "You lie!", when confronted by lies in "scientific" clothing. Then, the discovery, exploration and integration of the truth about both the outer world and the inner world, that is true science, can return to being the most fun game in this Universe to play! And when you include the science of metaphysics, the game with the most gifts for our species and all others with which we share this gorgeous planetary being. One last case in point (I hope!): I have been surprised with how effectively the totalitarian agenda has co-opted ecological thinking. I began looking for which essential truth has been twisted into a big lie, a tool for exploitation. The latest Yes magazine has a cover story, "Be a Climate Hero" with an empowered woman on its cover, smiling with a smug, monobrain certainty that she knows enough to judge people. That she has seen enough "information" to be convicted, once and for all (anti-science attitude there, dearie!) that anyone who begs to differ and point out the agenda behind the climate scam is a "denier". How drearily predictable the trotting out of that meme has become! In addition to the blatant appeal to the egos of the non-thinking, mind- controlled sleepers-who-think-that-they-are-awake, giving them their marching orders, literally, based upon the coverage of the duped protesting at Copenhagen “We must have global crap and raid NOW! Give us our NWO shackles now, hurry before the fire sale of the Earth is over!”, if the MSM is telling its story straight for once, this article in Yes demonstrates that the climate diversion taps into and exploits a deep knowing that our relationship to the Earth’s fertility and abundance is abusive, that the corporate gang’s current MO is not sustainable for much longer. No doubt empowered by being on the side (perhaps in ignorance) of the globalist scammers from all tribes, this cover woman's eyes betray the particular arrogant self-righteousness that is mainly characteristic of one tribe. The answer, the easy answer, is more divide and conquer, dividing the true “heroes” who align with the global tyranny’s agenda, from the “deniers”, those callous selfish people who, in the name of freedom, reject the “necessary” restrictions needed to “save the planet”. Back to the point: the power and appeal of the climate-gate agenda, in the face of common sense and the facts, comes from a deeper truth that has been shamelessly co-opted by the control freaks on top. Intuitively and objectively, we have been raping the planet in numerous ways, or I should say, global corporations and governments have been, supposedly at our demand and in our name, using 19th century mechanistic technological paradigms, enhanced by 20th century sophistication to control the market for human necessities. This gives ammunition to the population cullers, claiming that the poor earth cannot sustain the population when it is no more than the knowing over-exploitation of the ecosystem using primitive, brute force, linear approaches that serve the concentration of economic and political power that is pushing the limits of sustainability. Put more simply: it is not the population per se that is exceeding the carrying capacity of the Earth. It is the brain-dead, over-centralized, low-tech-on-meth industrial over-harvesting by our current economic ways that is un-sustainable, as blind human persistence rapes the Earth into unconsciousness (metaphorically only). Reorganizing our civilization, allowing all suppressed knowledge and technology to be employed in voluntary cooperation from the bottom up instead of top down, will allow every species to co-exist in greater numbers than our present insanity allows. We are just playing the game wrong, nothing more. The fact that we have been lead by the nose into playing the game wrong is the elephant in the room. Apparently, after years of 24X7 mind-control programming, it is the path of least resistance to automatically condemn ourselves and all of our brothers and sisters to total slavery than to simply open our eyes and see the patterns of social control and order looming over our heads, to see the evil crust directing this horror show and upon seeing it clearly for what it is, to say: “No more! Freedom is my birthright and I will have it now!”
Thank you for the kind words. That is a mindset which is of relatively recent vintage - coming from the enlightenment of the 17th century. With figures such as Voltaire, and Diderot pushing the "humanist" atheistic primacy of cold reason, which was never cold and not always reasonable, we had thrust upon us a new secular religion called science. Even today we can find advocates of this narrow viewpoint - which has become the new orthodoxy, and was regarded as radical at its birth. Taken to its illogical extremes we wind up with such as the "Less Than Amazing Randi" and the Septical Enquirer crowd - with their hatred of all viewpoints not in conformity with their narrow minded materialist viewpoint. They remind me most of the mindset of the bureaucrat that closed the U.S. Patent Office in the 1880's because everything that could be invented had already been invented. Of course that was long before Kittyhawk, Rural Electrification, and Project Apollo. However, the Skeptical Enquirer Crowd was poured in the same mold. It is not that science, and the scientific method, are not without value. No, they are of great value, but their primacy has gone from inquiry to a staid controlled orthodoxy which will not admit, without great furor, new ideas. Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that the orderly conquest of knowledge of the workings of the universe was rarely as orderly as misrepresented in mainstream histories. It is one of the more amusing sidelights that those making the biggest breakthroughs and advances were often considered cranks and kooks by their contemporaries. The materialist, absolutist, viewpoint now espoused by such mediocrities as the "Skeptical Enquirer" crowd, and their relatives in the Atheist community, is one of tunnel vision supported by invective and vituperation. They treat science, and the scientific method, as though it were an absolute and not what it truly is: A means of gathering, analyzing, and explaining observations about the world in which we live. It is nothing more, and nothing less. To rely on it solely is a dead end. One thing history shows is that advances have been often inspired by flights of fancy and inspiration. Neither is part of that great, but limited, tool called the "scientific method". The worship at this altar by those who reject other means of exploring and understanding reality demonstrates only their limitations. Most definitely. The problem we run into though is that through manipulation, and dumbing down of the school curriculums, one of the greatest crimes of our age, is that the false assumption that the common man cannot make great leaps or think great thoughts has been created. With no teaching of logic or philosophy, the bowlderizing and slanting of history, the person "educated" in one of those indoctrination centers called Publik Skools is not even aware of what they have been deprived of. It is only the natively curious intellects who strike out on their own to rediscover the world that break free of this intentionally planned Matrix of limited skills and thought. It is as was postulated by Thorndyke in the 30's - taught as their masters would have them taught they have not even the symbols or tools to think other than their masters would have them think. That people do break free from this Matrix is much to the discomfit and irritation of those who would rule by keeping others ignorant - even to the point of being ignorant that they are in a totalitarian thought controlled society. Orwell was much too conservative in even his darkest moments in 1984. Bradbury captured some of it in "Fahrenheit 451". Combine the two and you reach a closer approximation of the planned society which such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and their ilk have in mind. Think the worst excesses of Hitler and Stalin with Psychiatrists and Psychologists running mind control and you get closer to the hell which they would bring. Psychiatry has never been able to help any one, they cannot cure but instead their hellish treatments (such as drugs, lobotomies, and frying people's brains with electricity) make people worse. One thing they can do is manipulate and control, and given free reign to do so their psychoses are dramatized to a hellish degree. So, yes people must be brought up the line, truly educated, and be willing to stand up and name a lie, a lie. Science is not an absolute and should never be treated as one. It is one means of learning, and nothing more. The common man is quite capable of taking part in this discussion, but must first be given the tools to even know that it is a conversation worth taking part in. More of the mind control Matrix used to guide and control what people "know" and thus what they think. "Ignorance is Strength". Popular culture, and magazines such as "Yes" are Popular "Culture", is used to implant memes and thought patterns, to disinform, to reinforce the propaganda already catapulted. Music is another venue often overlooked - but just read the content of popular "Hip Hop" songs and the memes of hatred, violence, and worship of ignorance are so strongly apparent as to strike one with force. It is no wonder that young black men become violent upon a steady diet of such vileness. It inspires hatred and that is its intent. The same manipulative elements are present in other popular music although often more subtle - but the assumptions it speaks of are the fabric of the popular culture. That perverse stew called "Heavy Metal" is a mixture of hatred, perversion, death worship, and darkness. I ride public transit a lot and pay attention to the people around me. The two groups that most evidence a seething anger and hatred are those who, often turned up to annoying levels despite using headphones, listen to Rap and Heavy Metal. Asking them to turn it down in respect to other riders is to provoke them to near violence. The Bus drivers have become afraid to do so. A profound observation that will be lost on too many. Yes, it is a game, but not a fun one. There are other games to play and many many with a much brighter outlook. The first step is to refuse to play the game which the psychos are trying to force upon us. A game consists of freedom and barriers. I prefer one with a bit more freedom than our psychotic would-be masters and mistresses would have us play. Yes the mind control programming, which most cannot even see, is ever present and combined with the dumbing down has been sadly effective. I would not be a slave, and would not wish others to be enslaved. Too many cannot even see the evil and too many others are fearful to look. So, the first step is simply to alert those who can and will look, and then to try to wake others. I think William Wallace had the right idea - you can kill me but you cannot take away the thirst for FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!
Oops! Meant to keep youse guys in the conversation.
#11. To: wudidiz (#10)
Exactly. One picture is worth a thousand words and this amplifies the points nicely.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestFor several centuries, modern science was pretty much a free intellectual market populated by independent entrepreneurs who shared the goal of understanding how the world works. Nowadays it’s a corporate enterprise where patents, pay-offs, prestige, and power take priority over getting at the scientific truth, and the powers-that-be have established knowledge monopolies.
#6. To: HighLairEon, christine, Ada, earthchild, SonofLiberty, Jethro Tull, HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, X-15, James Deffenbach, gengis gandhi, IndieTX, Horse, noone222, randge, RickyJ, bluegrass (#1)
#7. To: earthchild, Original_Intent, Christine, SonofLiberty, Jethro Tull, HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, X-15, James Deffenbach, gengis gandhi, IndieTX, Horse, noone222, randge, RickyJ, bluegrass, ada (#6)
(Edited)
#8. To: HighLairEon (#7)
(Edited)
At this time, I would settle for breaking the thrall of the Church of Science and eroding its credibility.
We desperately need more people to say, with emphatic spontaneity: "You lie!", when confronted by lies in "scientific" clothing.
The latest Yes magazine has a cover story, "Be a Climate Hero" with an empowered woman on its cover, smiling with a smug, monobrain certainty that she knows enough to judge people. That she has seen enough "information" to be convicted, once and for all (anti-science attitude there, dearie!) that anyone who begs to differ and point out the agenda behind the climate scam is a "denier". How drearily predictable the trotting out of that meme has become!
We are just playing the game wrong, nothing more. The fact that we have been lead by the nose into playing the game wrong is the elephant in the room.
Apparently, after years of 24X7 mind-control programming, it is the path of least resistance to automatically condemn ourselves and all of our brothers and sisters to total slavery than to simply open our eyes and see the patterns of social control and order looming over our heads, to see the evil crust directing this horror show and upon seeing it clearly for what it is, to say: “No more! Freedom is my birthright and I will have it now!”
#9. To: christine, Ada, Dakmar, Big Meanie, Esso, 2big2fail, Cynicom, IDontThinkSo, abraxas, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, gengis gandhi, IndieTX, Horse, bluegrass, noone222, X-15, Jethro Tull, CadetD, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, all (#8)
#10. To: Original_Intent, HighLairEon, all (#9)
Replies to Comment # 10.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.