The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (8 page)

It is probably worth relating at this point that the protection of the mainstream view is also self-policing to a very large extent.
 
Most research of a scientific nature, indeed most research of any kind is usually funded by either government or more often by private commercial interests.
 
In either case, scientists will not receive research funding unless they are prepared to produce results that reflect the desired outcome of the paymaster.
 
This may be a cynical view, but it is one which has been proven to be absolutely true over the long term.
 
Indeed, given the circumstances, it would only be remarkable if the truth was the diametric opposite of this.

There is a large group of people out there who do not believe anything that contradicts their own, already-established world-view, despite what evidence can be brought to bear that shows it to be incorrect.

'No credible evidence’ and 'where is the proof?' are the constant weapons used against whatever argument is put forward.
 
This is an almost classic position for a 'sceptic' or 'skeptic' if you prefer and as well as being used by those who automatically gainsay anything and everything that does not match their belief system, is a classic tactic used by professional shills and gatekeepers in their attempts to prevent the real truth from seeping into the mainstream.

If you have never encountered the term ‘shill’ before, this is someone who is an agent of disinformation, someone who deliberately plants or promotes false information or provides false evidence to discredit so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ in order to deceive and deflect from the truth.
 
For example they may inhabit Internet forums to hijack discussions or even have their own TV/radio shows to spread false ‘truths’ that have the appearance of being anti-establishment in order to apportion the blame away from those really responsible.
 
They are usually paid handsomely for doing so and all shills worth their name, or at least their paymasters, know that 'proof' is an illusion and use this to their advantage at every given opportunity.
 
The problem with this constant demand for proof is that as any first year student of philosophy will tell us, absolute proof of anything is a completely unattainable goal.
 

By way of an example, if someone is shot in the chest and dies how do we know that it was the actual bullet entering the body that killed them?
 
Stupid question you may say perhaps, but in reality the best we can hope for is to say that on the greater balance of probability it was the bullet that killed them.
 
Other possibilities, no matter how negligible are that they were killed by the utter shock of being shot before the bullet could inflict any physical damage or that they were killed by a blood clot to the heart at exactly the same time as the bullet hit and which was subsequently destroyed by the bullet, creating an impression that it was the bullet impact that caused death.
 
Highly unlikely obviously, but not impossible and that is the key issue.
 
All this may be a little tenuous perhaps, but the point I am attempting to make is that 100% absolute, cast-iron proof of anything is an illusion.
 
What we all believe to be true is based purely on our own personal experience and belief system and also what we believe to be the balance of probability – sometimes an exceptionally high 99:1 and sometimes 51:49, but I do not believe that 100:0 is ever possible, in-line with the basic tenets of philosophy.
 
However most people’s lifetime of programming does not allow them to consider or even be aware of this fact.

This pre-programmed mind-set is exceptionally prevalent in academia also.
 
Supposedly ‘intelligent’, well-educated members of the scientific, political, commercial, media and educational communities possess opinions that have been moulded by decades of propaganda from primary school through University, backed up by the self-over-estimation of their own intelligence, influenced in no small measure by society’s misleading norm that presents ‘knowledge’ as synonymous with ‘intelligence’.
 
To try to break that programming by offering up strong circumstantial evidence and alternative, considered hypotheses about anything that contradicts their mind-set, is often an impossible task.

For example, in recent ‘research’, performed by Chris French BA PhD CPsychol FBPsS FRSA of Goldsmith’s College, University of London (impressive credentials eh?) he determined that; “Those who trust authority are less likely to believe in conspiracies and those who distrust authority are more likely to believe in conspiracies.”
 
Money and time well spent there, then Chris.

Obvious really is it not?
 
If anyone distrusts authority then it is common-sense to assume that they are less likely to believe what they are told by them, but is not this all really missing the point?
 
Surely the real question should be not under what circumstances are people more or less likely to believe in ‘conspiracies’, but whether or not those ‘conspiracies’ are supported by credible evidence.
 
However in the fantasy-world according to the likes of Dr. French, ‘conspiracies’ are obviously not real, they exist only as a result of a fault in their believers’ psyches.

According to French also, believers in conspiracies were “more likely to be delusional” than those who did not believe in them.
 
French defined ‘delusional’ as for example those people who answered ‘yes’ when asked questions such as ‘do you believe you are being tracked by your mobile phone’?
 
Again, is that not a circular ‘proof’ of what is after all only his opinion, or is it just me who is marching out of step?
 

There is no attempt made to even consider the question of whether it is possible to be tracked by mobile phones or even whether it is actually happening, which are the real issues to my mind, but then I do not have an impressively long list of letters after my name, accompanied by a position at one of the world’s premier seats of education, so it naturally follows in the mind-sets of these people (and indeed most people per se, who have been conditioned to believe that educational qualifications equal intelligence) that it must be my logic that is faulty.

When French was confronted on his illogical views by a well-known so-called ‘conspiracy’ researcher and author, French told him that there was ‘no evidence’ for what this researcher was saying in his many well-researched books on the topic of a global conspiracy to impose a ‘New World Order’.
 
The response to this by the said researcher was to ask if he had ever read any of his books (which by the way contain an absolute mountain of evidence to support his assertions) and was told ‘no’.
 
How very typical.
 
These people are not interested in circumstantial proof or evidence if it goes against their set-in-stone mind-sets or presents a viewpoint that contradicts their unassailable opinions and yet they will openly accuse their detractors of exactly the same tactics.

In my experience, people who refuse to look at both sides of the argument have no high moral ground or even credibility at all.
 
I have met dozens of these people over the years, people who have only ever seen the view of reality as propounded by the mainstream and yet dismiss one’s own position as being ‘ludicrous’ or ‘crazy’ despite the fact that I am the one who has looked at two sides of the coin in order to formulate my opinion and not simply just one side, as they have.

There is a famous organisation known as the ‘Sceptics Society’ devoted to ‘promoting scientific scepticism and resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition and irrational beliefs’.
 
It is an assumption among most people that it is ‘healthy’ to be sceptical, but I believe that to be untrue, if not downright misleading.
 
It is healthy to question and research controversial issues, but that is not the same as scepticism whose adherents maintain a fixed position and then filter-out all evidence that does not fit that stance.
 
They will always attempt to find another means of explaining away something that challenges their immutable beliefs and it is almost irrelevant whether or not that argument is illogical or contradicted by the evidence or not, just so long as it allows them a ‘get-out clause’ to maintain their fixed view.

In any case, we should ask who decides what is ‘pseudoscience, superstition and irrational beliefs’?
 
The answer is that they themselves do, of course and so we find ourselves back within the circular logic-trap again.
 
They devote themselves to protecting the so-called scientific and societal norms and received wisdom, to which they cling with almost touching loyalty and vociferously attack anyone who dares to question them and/or put forward an alternative viewpoint, no matter how well-researched or pertinent it may be.

“That’s what a closed mind does for you.
 
You don’t research to discover anew; you research to confirm your current beliefs.
 
Most of academia is another religion, another belief system repelling all boarders.
 
Academia often condemns and ridicules religion when it is one [itself] and operates in the same way.
 
What unites all religions?
 
Concrete minds.”
 
David Icke, geopolitical researcher

Unfortunately, all of academia has almost completely abandoned the core principles of good science in their disturbing quest to make money at all costs for their corporate paymasters, ultimately the Elite bloodlines.
 
Rather than asking pertinent questions of nature and relating and accurately interpreting the answers provided by the data, these ‘scientists’ plot the desired outcome based on pre-determined criteria and then defend it at all costs, even if this necessitates the misrepresentation, falsification and distortion of data and thus results, to achieve their ends.

“The downfall of ‘science’ is upon us.
 
Eroded by the intellectual dishonesty of those who promote GMOs, pesticides, vaccines and fluoride in the name of ‘science’, the reputation of science itself has lost tremendous ground over the last few years.
 
Even though I am scientifically educated, I believe today's misappropriation of ‘science’ for corporate greed is perhaps the most destructive, pathological force that has yet been unleashed upon human civilization.”
 
Mike Adams, Natural News, January 2011.

To say that this approach to research is entirely unscientific is an understatement of some magnitude.
 
It would appear to be that in all disciplines, Elite, corporate profits, personal prestige and maintaining the ‘illusion’ are far more important than accurate conclusions.
 
Whether we are discussing archaeology, astronomy, mathematics, anthropology, physics, biology, chemistry, history or virtually anything else you can name, the huge majority of scientists and academics will do whatever it takes to defend their pre-determined positions and protect their own livelihoods and interests and of course, those of their employers, ultimately the Elite families when traced to the top of the pyramid.
 
No wonder it is virtually impossible to penetrate the barriers erected by medical professionals with the real facts about vitamin D, sunscreen lotion and cancer for example.
 
These ‘scientific-thinkers’ have already had their ‘beliefs’ instilled by the Elite-owned pharmaceutical cartel’s propaganda and they will steadfastly defend those beliefs even to the detriment of the health and well-being of their patients and the human race as a whole.

Today's scientists unfortunately, are not even trained to be truly scientific thinkers.
 
They are often just indoctrinated followers of a particular vested interest’s own private cult (usually the Elite’s, when traced back to source).
  
For example, some ‘scientists’ belong to the Cult of Pharmacology and they believe (or so they would have us believe) that pharmacological solutions are the answer to all health issues and that natural remedies are mere ‘quackery’.
 
Whilst others belong, for example, to the Cult of Climatology, where scientific evidence proving that global-warming is not human-caused or linked to CO2 emissions, is ignored or replaced with ‘facts’ that are not allowed to be questioned and are repeated ad nauseum by the controlled media and complicit corporate interests, until we poor, deluded souls assume that they must be true.

Science rarely advances based entirely on new research, new ideas and data.
 
Instead, these new discoveries often founder against an impenetrable barrier erected by the established scientific community in protection of their own positions and at the behest of their all-powerful masters.
 
Sometimes, new ideas may be consigned to the background for decades or even centuries before finally being seriously considered by the scientific community as worthy of being adopted as ‘truth’ and so the cycle continues on.
 
A classic example of this was the ruthlessly enforced ‘Earth as the centre of the Universe’ belief that was eventually replaced with the current sun-centric solar system model but not before many scientists and philosophers were condemned and even killed for their unacceptable belief that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
 
Indeed it appears to be the case that ‘new’ ideas, provable or not, are only accepted once the surrounding infrastructure is adjusted accordingly over time to accommodate them within the controlled paradigm.