“Manufacturing Consent in Science: the Diabolical Twist”

Image: http://41.media.tumblr.com

For those of you who still partake of the main-stream media, and take as truth everything pandered by their “scientific experts”, I would advise you to become a little more skeptical (a little less gullible) of these so-called “scientific experts”, who continually claim, on every single issue, that “the science is settled!”

Most of these corporate shills, masquerading as scientists, can be seen, day and night, on broadcast and cable ‘news’ shows, or The Discovery and Science channels. These “scientific experts” are simply the paid stooges of the structural elite; their only real goals and concerns in life are making more money, getting fifteen minutes of fame, and acquiring meaningless/worthless awards, which are handed out like Halloween candy these days: Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, as just one example!

Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

In the famous 1988 Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman book, Manufacturing Consent, the authors explore how media distort the news and employ propaganda, in order to bring about consent/consensus in the population.

This is nothing less than the creation of reality.

I want to extend that concept here, particularly as it applies to science.

From so many directions, official science is shaping our future—that’s why it’s vital to understand the manipulations involved.

It’s one thing to say media collaborate to sell a false picture of reality, a picture which is then bought by the masses. It’s quite another thing to say media collaborate to pretend there is already a consensus of the best professional minds on a given scientific subject—when there isn’t.

I’ll start with a theoretical example. Let’s say three researchers at a university examine data based on US moon missions, and they conclude that a small set of new conclusions are true. I’ll call this set X.

The researchers publish an article in a journal, and a healthy debate ensues in professional circles. Is X correct? Are there flaws in the research?

However, a powerful public agency decides that X is dangerous. X could lead to inquiries about contractors, investigations into cost overruns, missing money, and, worst of all, flawed engineering of space-capsules.

Therefore, this powerful agency goes on an all-out propaganda campaign, tapping its press sources, culminating in a new study that concludes X is entirely false.

The press basically trumpets: “Experts agree X is false. X was the result of shoddy research. The original researchers made numerous amateur mistakes.”

Notice that, in this case, the press isn’t simply distorting the news. It’s announcing that a superior consensus already exists among the best scientific minds.

It’s lying about a consensus that doesn’t exist among scientists who, up until that moment, were having a healthy debate.

The press is presenting the false consensus as if it were real and widespread, when it isn’t.

And at this point, all relevant scientists get the message: keep quiet, don’t debate for another moment; otherwise grant monies will vanish, demotions will occur, peers will lay on heavy criticism, excommunication from The Club will follow.

So these scientists do keep quiet—and then a consensus among them comes into being overnight, by implied threat and coercion.

This is basically what happened in the arena of energy-production via cold fusion. Wikipedia adequately summarizes the surface of the situation: “The most famous cold fusion claims were made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. After a brief period of interest by the wider scientific community, their reports were called into question by nuclear physicists.”

Not just called into question; defamed, derided, mocked, slammed over the head with a sledgehammer.

A superior consensus was invented, despite the fact that many scientists were intensely interested in the Pons/Fleishmann findings. They tried, in vain, to point out that the failed efforts to reproduce those findings resulted because researchers were altering Pons and Fleishman’s methods.

No dice. Cold fusion was labeled a giant error and even a fraud. The official door was closed.

In my research leading up to the publication of my first book, AIDS INC., in 1988, I reviewed the period of the early 1980s, when many researchers were coming at the question of the cause of AIDS from different angles. But then, suddenly, in the spring of 1984, the US government officially announced, at a televised press conference, that a virus called HTLV-III (HIV) was the cause.

The science was shoddy, to put it mildly. It was bad science and no science. But no matter. Overnight, all the monies that had gone into discovering what caused AIDS were diverted into the question: How does HIV cause AIDS? Any scientist who failed to see the handwriting on the wall was shoved out into the cold.

The press closed ranks. The consensus (though it was manufactured in the blink of an eye) was trumpeted around the world.

The big news headline wasn’t just false and distorted. It was false-and-distorted about a consensus that, until a few seconds ago, didn’t exist—and only existed now because researchers went silent and accepted dogma and folded up.

For years (and even now), the basic news about climate change/global warming is: there is a consensus. The science is settled. The scientists agree that the science is settled. The scientists agree that the scientists who agree are correct. This, despite the fact that you can still find impressive lists of scientists who don’t agree at all. But they are shut out of the news.

The same construction of consensus applies to the safety of vaccines.

The same construction of consensus applies to the “overwhelming success of the practice of modern medicine.”

Predatory corporations who spray poisonous pesticides all over the world and cause birth defects need special protection and cover? Invent, overnight, and broadcast, a consensus that a basically harmless virus is the cause of those tragic defects.

I can assure you there are many scientists who don’t, for a second, believe the Zika virus is the agent of destruction. But they are keeping their mouths shut now and rolling with the tide.

However, that tide is turning. In many arenas of science, journalists and researchers with no allegiance to official bodies have emerged.

A different species of handwriting is being inscribed on the wall.

What can the mainstream press do about it?

They can only deploy the crass tactics I’ve mentioned here.

A massive and stunning re-education is taking place among the population. No school is running it. No agency is sponsoring it. It’s happening from the ground up.

It turns out that living as a cipher and a unit in the sticky web of fabricated consensus isn’t nearly as attractive as it once was.

More and more, major media are using the consensus strategy to invent the news—and people are rejecting it.

Without realizing it, the press is committing professional suicide. An article that was once headlined, “Three dead horses found in a field,” has become, “Scientists agree that the three dead horses were a coincidence.” And people are laughing the press out of court.

The ongoing scandal surrounding the film, Vaxxed (trailer), is a good example. The press assures the population that pointing out a connection between a vaccine and autism is absurd, because scientific experts agree there is no such connection.

But the film features a long-time researcher at the Centers for Disease Control, who confesses that he and colleagues falsified a 2004 study in order to exonerate one such vaccine.

The film’s subject is false consensus.

And the press can do no better than repeat, over and over: the consensus is real and valid.

The CDC researcher, William Thompson, is essentially shouting, “I was part of the consensus. Don’t you get it? I was a card-carrying member of the club that invents fake consensus. And now I’m telling you that. Don’t fall for this notion that the best minds agree. The best minds conspire to concoct agreement out of thin air.”

The media are collapsing into their own swamp.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe…

Source: Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

P.S.

Aussie Attorney General: “If the [climate] science is settled, why do we need research scientists to continue inquiring into the settled science?” | Watts Up With That?

8 thoughts on ““Manufacturing Consent in Science: the Diabolical Twist”

  1. Speaking of settled of science, here is a headline I’m pilfering the “The Watts up With That” website:

    “Aussie Attorney General: “If the [climate] science is settled, why do we need research scientists to continue inquiring into the settled science?”” — by Eric Worrall

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/19/aussie-attorney-general-if-the-climate-science-is-settled-why-do-we-need-research-scientists-to-continue-inquiring-into-the-settled-science/comment-page-1/#comment-2195074

    The article then prompted this slightly impertinent comment:

    Norman Pilon April 20, 2016 at 9:13 pm

    So if the science is settled, funding to the advocates of the current consensus should be reduced. And so it should.

    My guess is that if and when the allocation of funds takes the logical turn and reductions begin to loom in earnest, the “consensus” will suddenly shift.

    Whereas what we have now is the settled issue of “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming,” what we will then be facing will be “catastrophic global climate science uncertainty.”

    Thus the biggest, most imminent threat to mankind will remain just what it is: climate.

    But the threat will now be framed roughly in this fashion: if the world were to keep getting hotter from here on in, if the heat that we have keeps getting hotter, then we might perhaps reasonably expect that hurricanes will get worse, snowmobiles will disappear, hot wars will be hotter, California will remain prone to cyclical droughts, some butterflies will disappear, another ice age may be triggered, heavier snows may fall, and so on ad infinitum, precisely as the previously settled science had proven; but if the world were to keep getting colder from here on in, if the cold that we have keeps getting colder, it might be that hurricanes will get worse, motorcycles will disappear, hot wars will have to be fought under colder conditions, California will remain prone to droughts, some other species of butterflies will disappear, another ice age may well be triggered, heavier snows may fall, and so on ad infinitum, but for precisely reasons different from those the previously settled science had shown to be the case. We, the climate experts, just don’t know!

    Therefore, with mankind’s fate hanging in the balance in this way, with our fate depending upon our knowing which of the two possibilities will most likely prevail over the course of the next one hundred years – significant global warming or global cooling — our funding must at a minimum continue as before, but preferably be significantly increased.

    Anyone who doesn’t agree with this is a flat out tin-foil-hatted denier, either bought by the snowmobile industry or the motorcycle lobby, or possibly even both, because 99% of all of the world’s top climate scientists (already on the payroll) strongly agree, uh, on a great many things.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Love it! I added this link to this post.

    I don’t know if I heard or read this, but somewhere I remember receiving info stating that the powers that be are starting to lay off meteorologists and other scientists who deal with this issue, since the science, of course, is settled.

    Have your heard or read about this, Norm?

    I am really getting bad with certain aspects of memory. I read so much that I can’t always remember where or when I read what.

    Like

  3. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your memory. With the amount of reading you do, no one can possibly remember every source. I know I don’t. And sometimes I read something that seems to be making an impression on me, and 5 minutes later I’ve already forgotten what it was about. Turns out not much of an impression was made.

    But, yes, I’ve caught notice of hints of the beginning of public funding cuts in things that I’ve read and now also, like you, can’t recall where. Maybe it will come back or later today I’ll do a Google, and I’ll stumble again on the original sources.

    I’ll let you know if I come across anything definite.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Ah, thank you Google. If not exactly this article, then one that bore an almost identical headline:

    CSIRO confirms up to 350 job cuts, with climate research bearing the brunt

    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/04/csiro-confirms-300-job-cuts-with-climate-research-bearing-the-brunt

    And then even in this article, the ‘climate scientists’ begin to backpedal in earnest:

    Andy Pitman, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales, questioned whether the nature of climate change had been fully understood.

    “[Questions about climate change have] been answered in the same way that Galileo answered the structure of the universe when he used the first telescope,” he said.

    “We have considerable confidence in how average climate will change globally and to a degree over Australia. What we don’t know is how extremes will change, how cyclones will change in intensity, how much heat waves will intensify, which are exactly what you need to know in order to adapt.”

    So you see, we know but we don’t know and we need money to find out. Of course, they are right about needing money to fund their research. Unfortunately, the funding only goes to one side of the debate, which is settled but not. Now if the skeptical scientists, who have different notions about the mechanisms behind noted cyclical variations, got an even share of the funding, then I’d say “fund the science by all means.” But as it stands, I say take the trough away if only in an attempt to make the science honest again.

    If you Google the string, “funding cuts to climate research,” a few other references come up . . .

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Thanks, Norm!

    This wasn’t the article I had read, but the info was the same!

    You wrote,

    “But as it stands, I say take the trough away if only in an attempt to make the science honest again.”

    I agree completely! With all the fraud being exposed in scientific research these days, how much worse off would we be if they took an extended hiatus, in order to get their shit back together?

    From the first time I heard about this issue, I was skeptical. And as the years have passed, my skepticism has only increased.

    And yet, there are awake, aware individuals who still buy into the official global-warming/CO2 narrative.

    And what I don’t understand is, these same people go on and on about how we can’t trust what he hear from the msm (and we cannot), and yet “the science is settled” narrative comes primarily from the msm.

    If I hear the broadcast and cable news and science channels pushing something, then I immediately mark that narrative as being flawed or false.

    And then I investigate, and my intuition almost always never fails.

    I’m sure you sense something like this, as well?

    Thanks again, Norm, for finding this!

    Like

  6. “And what I don’t understand is, these same people go on and on about how we can’t trust what he hear from the msm (and we cannot), and yet “the science is settled” narrative comes primarily from the msm.”

    Indeed, it is a curiosity and irony. But then that’s “we” are as human beings: most, if not everything, that is in our heads comes to us at second and third hand. By and large, experience teaches us that much of what we got in this manner and that gets translated into our everyday practice is actually quite reliable. Furthermore, it saves us the trouble of having, so to speak, to reinvent the wheel, and that really is what makes humans so adaptable to their environment. On the other hand, this seemingly genetically programmed gullibility has it’s downside: sometimes what we take at face value is simply a lot of hokum that, as it happens, no one has ever bothered to test or verify, and unfortunately, it is certainly impossible for one individual to scientifically investigate all of his assumptions about the world and, on the other hand, “virtually” impossible for a group or even an entire society, whatever the means at hand.

    And then, of course, there are the deliberate lies, politically motivated or self-serving.

    So none of this, really, should be all that surprising. Each one of us is a repository of contradictions and mistaken assumptions. Occasionally, through sifting information or by the good luck of our own reason, we alight upon our follies, seeing them for what they are, and then the tough work of trying to purge ourselves of them is upon us. I find it both frustrating and enlivening. It is most certainly humbling. But as the years of experience accumulate, I feel myself incrementally increasing in my wisdom. And that’s kind of satisfying. And I also have the impression, perhaps a false one, that people, on the whole and taken together, really are becoming less ignorant of themselves and our world.

    Like

  7. You wrote,

    “And I also have the impression, perhaps a false one, that people, on the whole and taken together, really are becoming less ignorant of themselves and our world.”

    This is what I sense as well. But this sense has only recently come to me, since I have spent the better part of the last decade being anything but optimistic.

    I’ll be posting an article that shows only 6% of Americans now trust the mainstream media. And the stats come from the Pew Institute, which I trust more than most other polling entities.

    I guess this is what troubles me with the folks I am referring to here. These are people I have learned a great deal from and respect, greatly. And yet, on this one issue, it seems they are responding in the same old manner you describe above.

    But I also know that I once held to almost all of these lies. And the weaning out process has taken years, and it is still in progress.

    You’re right, all of this is “frustrating, enlivening and humbling.” And even when it gets difficult, I would never want to go back to where I once was!

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.