The New Tyranny, Mind Control, Education and Islam

The Irish Savant reports on a longstanding project to dumb down the American masses by subverting public education.

The evidence is that for years now, education in America has increasingly focused not on instilling useful skills, a capacity for critical thought, or the love of knowledge, but on indoctrination in political correctness. Thus, reports the Savant:

Using techniques developed by Pavlov to program dogs America's children are getting the full globalist/NWO/One-World Government treatment. The kids learn how race and gender are mere social constructs, their brains absorb the wonders of diversity and the borderless world while traditional ideas on morality, art, religion and the family are systematically undermined and belittled. And sorry, it's not just in America. Similar projects have been underway in just about every White country.

One small example of just how far this craziness has gone is that one US university, Wayne State, has eliminated a required course in mathematics to make way for course in "Diversity." Duh.

The objective of this seeming madness, the Savant concludes, was revealed by Lord Bertrand Russell, an English mathematician, philosopher, Nobel Prize winner, and grandson of Prime Lord John Russell. Of education, Russell concluded in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society:

“It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries.

Fichte* laid it down that, education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished...”

But though we may have come a long way toward the dystopian future of which Bertrand Russell warned, the brainwashing of the masses for submission to the NWO seems far from fully effective.

Look, for example, at all those damned ordinary Americans, blacks and Hispanics included, turning out for Donald Trump.

Trump with black pastors at his office in New York. Source

What, then, if we may speak for the elite, is the solution?

Why not Islam?

Islam is centuries ahead of the NWO when it comes to shaping the human mind, which suggests the reason for the current push to Islamify the West.

Muslim protesters, London, 3 February 2006. Source

No need to reinvent the wheel. As the Muslims say, "Europe is the cancer Islam is the answer." Just be sure that MI5 and the like control the Imams and Mullahs, then leave the rest to Allah and human gullibility.

 ———
* Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762 – 1814). German philosopher who was among the most significant ideological influences on the Nazis.

Is "Bad Science" an Oxymoron

View full size

By Alfred Burdett

Having written on occasion about scientific fraud, scientific data manipulation and outright scientific nonsense, I was invited by its creators to comment on a poster entitled Bad Science, the psychology behind bad research, offered as a resource on the ClinicalPsychology.net website.

"Scientists," states an introduction to the poster, "are some of our most trusted members of society ... [but] many scientists are not as trustworthy as we would like to believe. By engaging in various kinds of scientific misconduct, such as falsifying or fabricating data, scientists are getting the results they want without the honesty and integrity that we expect of the scientific institution."

As a scientist of almost 50 years standing, it's news to me that scientists are among the most trusted members of the community. Personally, I would trust a scientists no more and no less than I would trust a banker or a politician. And that is surely not being unduly cynical, for as everyone knows, when their work impinges on important economic or political questions, scientists can be remarkably responsive to the interests of those funding their work, whether it be the tobacco industry, the drug industry, the arms industry or a government with an agenda on climate change, HIV/AIDS, the psychiatric treatment of political dissidents, or the use of tactical nuclear weapons in populated areas. So it seems to me that the people at ClinicalPsychology.net are proceeding on the basis of a questionable assumption.

There is no question, however, that data falsification (are falsified data, truly data at all in the scientific sense?) and data fabrication are not activities to be encouraged, so when ClinicalPsychology.net tells us to read their "infographic" to find out how to fix the problem, we are prepared to read on.

However, what we find is little in the way of the promised account of the "psychology behind bad science" or effective means to "fix the problem," but mainly a series of assertions about the prevalence of scientific fraud. "Shady scientific research is rampant" we are told, which sounds bad, but what does it mean. Well for one thing, "One in three scientists admit to using questionable research practices," which include "dropping data points based on gut feeling," and "changing the results or design of a study due to pressure from a funding source."

So now we begin to have some idea what they are talking about, but it nevertheless remains vague. What, for example, does it mean to drop a data point "based on gut feeling"? Presumably it means that the scientist believes that they have a plausible justification for dropping the data point in question: "I noticed some crud in that tube when I was adding the reagents," or "the rat that died looked sick before we began feeding it GM corn." Adoption of such rationalizations for the selection of data is not considered acceptable practice but it has a venerable history in science, and while few would condone it, the question of whether it constitutes "bad science" is less clear than many might suppose.

Scientific knowledge is not a collection of facts, it is a system of laws, principles and patterns which allow us to infer from a given set of facts another heretofore unknown set of facts, including facts about past, present or  future. Thus science as a process of discovery is concerned, primarily, not with any specific facts, but with ideas about the relationships among facts in the observable world. Because there is uncertainty about all particular observed facts, there is no overwhelming reason to reject a good idea because it is inconsistent with some observation that "gut feeling", i.e., some plausible argument, suggests is false.