The psychopolitics of "peer-reviewed" research

A recent article published by Collective-evolution.com highlighted how many so called “peer-reviewed” academic journals are filled with biased conclusions. Focusing mostly on the debate pertaining to climate change, the article highlights how research is motivated by politics opposed to real science. This topic has also made its way into the world of peer-reviewed journals with an article entitled “Bias in research,” where it is asserted that researchers tend to neglect their original findings in favor of one that reflects their original hypothesis. Thus, indicating a bias on the part of the researcher. Simundic, author of the article, also suggests that peer-reviewed journals are more likely to publish positive rather than negative findings in their publications. This means they are more likely to publish findings that support their worldview while neglecting those that negate it.

This writer had a professor in the Social Work program at Oklahoma’s Northeastern State University that suggested fudging the results of research is o.k. because people are not aware of their own biases. In this case he was referring to racism. He was suggesting that people do not know how racist they are, or what the definition[s] of racism is; therefore, it is ok to manipulate the results to reflect the view of racism the field of social work holds. Which is all white people have white privilege and are part of a social system which benefits them alone.

Racism is embedded deeply in peer reviewed research in fields like sociology, social work, psychology and other liberally tainted academic endeavors. This is partly because these programs are dominated by left-leaning professors who are pushing their own biases into the world of research. It has gotten so far out of hand that academic journals are actually suggesting that the English language is a tool of oppression and western imperialism.

Obviously, the purpose of this is to guide society to a certain end, collectivism. Most people would be surprised to learn the communist connections to such a strategy no matter how obvious it may be. It is the natural tendency of people to normalize things in their own minds because facing certain truths creates a discomfort that we do not know how to face. In this case, the possibility that everything taking on a title of official research may be tainted with a communist agenda is something that must be considered.

In the book “Brain-washing A synthesis of the Russian text-book on Psychopolitics,”  which is allegedly the words of Joseph Stalin’s number one enforcer Laventia Beria, such an assertion is made. Mostly dealing with the credibility of psychology and psychiatry, Beria says to rebut any criticism of these false healing methods ̶

“technical appearing papers should exist as to the tremendous number of cures effected by psychiatry and psychology, and whenever possible, percentages of cures, no matter how fictitious, should be worked into legislative papers, thus forming a back-ground of evidence which would immediately rebut any effort to actually discover anyone who had ever been helped by psychiatry or psychology.” “Brain-washing A synthesis of the Russian text-book on Psychopolitics,”

Again, this quote focuses primarily on psychiatry and psychology and the creation of fake research which justifies the drugging of millions of Americans. There is plenty of research existing which rebuts the existence of mental illness as an actual, biological disease as well. The larger point that is being revealed is that the research in so called peer-reviewed journals, which is so often used to create, and influence policy and legislation, is often fake and motivated by politics and researcher bias. Whether you believe the conspiratorial side of this is up to you. Though, how can watch as millions of school children proclaim a support for socialism and not believe the communist conspiracy, is beyond me.

Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Galatians 6:7-8

In a social work research class that I attended years ago; a professor suggested that sometimes it is ok to fudge the results of a survey because the respondents may not know their own biases. Yes, he really said this. Unfortunately, the example he used revolved around the issue of racism. He said that the people responding do not know their own levels, or the definition[s] of racism therefore, it is ok to manipulate the results to reflect what social workers tend to believe is a racist society. This is an example of bias in research, in my opinion. This social work professor is reflecting his own left leaning political views on his students while teaching them that is ok to manipulate survey results to reflect this bias. Left leaning politics are well known to dominate academic fields such as sociology (Wills, Brewster & Gerald, 2018), creating conflict between many religious/conservative students and professors (Wills, Brewster & Gerald, 2018).

In this case, the research revolved around an invalid assumption. Even if the professor didn’t suggest that research can be manipulated, assuming America represents a racist society can influence the design of his research. Introducing any conclusions into a research project that may contain a biased position is considered immoral (Simundic, 2013). Editors and publishers of scientific research  have a responsibility of detecting biases because of the effects it has on the results (Simundic, 2013). Today, many research projects in the field of sociology are started with a pre-assumption of a racist nation rooted in white supremacy. It has gotten so far out of hand that even the English language is now being viewed as a tool of oppression (Pac, 2012) and is being taught as such in some Universities, like The University of Washington Tacoma, for instance. This is an example of the consequences of making invalid assumptions when designing research questions. An individual’s biases can subconsciously affect the design.

Because of personal bias, scientific research is facing a crisis in credibility (Ioannidis, Stanley & Doucouliagos, 2017). Because good policy and practice are dependent upon the results of research (Ioannidis, Stanley & Doucouliagos, 2017), it is imperative that all types of bias be considered, and efforts made to control it.

One method of controlling bias is ensuring that the data collected is only read if there is an obvious change in the perceived relationship between the subject being studied and the variable (Simundic, 2013). It is difficult to not let personal beliefs get in the way. “Some researchers tend to believe so much in their original hypotheses that they tend to neglect the original findings and interpret them in favor of their beliefs” (Simundic, 2013). Even when it comes to academic journals it is likely there is bias influencing what is being published. According to Simundic (2013), journals are more likely to publish articles which represent “positive findings” opposed to negative ones. This most likely means they are publishing results which reflect the overall beliefs of the publication. It is unlikely as an example, that a social science journal focusing on social justice issues will publish anything that shows Americans to be anything other than “racially biased” because the issue of social justice involves the justification of redistributing wealth.

In 2017 an article entitled “Peer-reviewed science losing credibility as large amounts of research shown to be false” hit the alternative media. The author highlights how political views are shaping the data of research opposed to actual results. The main issue being discussed in the article is climate science; however, it can certainly be argued that my former professors’ political views were shaping his opinions and observations of social research dealing with racism. To make the claim that people do not know how racist they are asserts that that he alone is the one who defines such terms. That is most definitely an invalid assumption that is reaping consequences across the country.

Ioannidis, J., Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, H. (2017) The power of bias in economic research. The economic journal: The journal of the British economic association. 127(605) pp. 236-265 Retrieved from https://watermark.silverchair.com/ejf236.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_

Pac, T. (2012) The English only movement in the U.S. and the world in the twenty first century. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology. 11(1), pp. 192-210 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1163/156914912x620833  

Simundic, A. (2013) Bias in research. Biochemia medica. 23(1) pp.12-15 Retrieved from https://www.biochemia-medica.com/en/journal/23/1/10.11613/BM.2013.003/fullArticle

Walia, A. (2017, March 1) Peer-reviewed science losing credibility as large amounts of research shown to be false. Collective-evolution.com. Retrieved from https://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/03/01/peer-reviewed-science-losing-credibility-as-large-amounts-of-research-shown-to-be-false/?fbclid=IwAR3Bs4SSvC4Wv0bLBJSb_iaTWI0aLUEa9oRpcBOzgROay6bmYwbk3QlHchY

Wills, B. J., Brewster W. Z., & Gerald, R. N (2018) Students religiosity and perceptions of professor bias: Some empirical lessons for sociologists. The American sociologist 50(1) pp. 136-153. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/article/10.1007%2Fs12108-018-9388-y

Political Theater: Trump vs. The Left and the unnoticed approach of the police state

Joseph Goebbels once said that a lie repeated often enough would be accepted as truth. Perhaps then, if the truth is continuously repeated, it too will be accepted for what it is. Sometimes, the truth does not sit well in the minds of men. It forces us to face discomfort and accept realities that we otherwise might ignore to satisfy our own sense of reality. Living the lie allows us to disregard our personal responsibilities to the world around us while providing us with a false sense of security that tends to diminish when faced with the realization that we have been deceived. Nothing could demonstrate this idea better than the political circus that is our government.

Since the election of Donald Trump America has been treated to a non-stop, relentless propaganda campaign designed to discredit and unseat the man as a duly elected president. Many of his diehard supporters have come to believe that he is singlehandedly waging a battle for freedom against an entrenched “deep state.” The more the left rallies against him the more his supporters love him. In fact, sixty-two percent of his voters have said that it wouldn’t matter what he did, they would still support him. This is disturbing as it shows an unwillingness to face the truth.

While the attention of the country has been focused on the impeachment drama, a Trump vs. the Democrats soap opera, the nation is in fact, taking a draconian turn to the left and no one notices. It isn’t that they don’t notice ̶ rather, it is a refusal to come to grips with the idea that things may not be what they seem. While one side portrays the president as someone who absolutely must be removed from office because he colluded with the Russians, or engaged in “quid pro quo” with Ukraine, the other side shows him as a man who can do no wrong. A brilliant tactician who is engaging in a game of four-dimensional chess who at any moment will take down the deep state and restore America to greatness. Sometimes, when things seem too good to be true, they are.

Carrol Quigley, a former professor from Georgetown University and author of the book “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time” is quoted as saying the American political system should give the impression that there are two parties working against one another when in truth, they are pursuing the exact same policies. It should also be noted that Quigley was one of Bill Clinton’s professors.

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies. (Quigley, 1966)

Attorney General Barr recently released a memorandum, to little fanfare no less, to U.S. attorneys across the country detailing his plan to create a pre-crime detection system in the Justice Department. According to Joe Wolverton II of The New American Magazine, this system will enable social media companies to share their collected data on individuals who are displaying a potential for violence with federal agencies in an effort to stop mass shootings before they occur. The key words being used here are “disrupt those who are mobilizing for violence.” In other words, Facebook, Google, Twitter and other social media platforms will be sending what you say to the federal government if they think you are acting in a threatening way. This is kind of like passing a national red-flag law without having to pass it. Donald Trump can safely back away from his support for red-flag laws and still get what he wants as a matter of policy.  The fact that this initiative wasn’t publicly announced should show American’s that the impeachment sideshow is just that, a distraction from the fact that two political parties are working together to suppress our liberties and subvert the constitution.

This slow and steady advancement of the police state is a perfect example illustrating Quigley’s quote. First, it was the Patriot Act under Bush. We had to surrender some of our liberties to keep us safe in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks. Then, under Obama, it was the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011, where the war on terror was gradually being moved to the American home front. Slowly and ever so incrementally, the image of Islamic terrorism is being replaced, and everyday patriotic Americans are being viewed as potential threats.

The theatrical production being presented to America is vote Trump or get socialism. The truth is that we are going to end up with the same no matter which way we vote. The trick is getting us to accept it. People will argue that Trump has done so many wonderful things and the economy is booming ̶ but the truth is that the government doesn’t control the economy, the federal reserve does. The economy is something that can be manipulated to go one way or the other, it has no consequential effects in the long game of transforming America. The Left and the Right can continue to have false debates on non-essential issues, keeping the American people trapped in their ideological boxes while steadily advancing an agenda most of us aren’t paying attention to. The only way we could possibly reverse course is to come to grips with the idea that things may not be what they seem and stop declaring that we would vote for a president no matter what he does.