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.
No comments:
Post a Comment