Yes, I fully agree with Doug's half-bright assessment of the Madelaine, a mad and vengeful little person. Joseph P. Farrell has fleshed out the conflicts of the last 1800 years which stems from the fundamental breaks in church doctrine between eastern and western Catholic Churches. Madelaine's personality probably mirrors the conflicts on-going between western and eastern churches. Clearly the western church and western governments are in the center of a mental breakdown, while Russia is now just recovering from 75 years of their Utopian nightmare. The west is now entering their version of it.
"Peer review" is one means used by the state-science establishment to enforce Correct Orthodox Doctrine on publishing science ideas and studies. The peers are are indoctrinated, (or 'educated') in the orthodoxy, which as climbers they can be trusted to defend, regardless of logical problems, contradictary evidence, and absurd unproven claims. In short, the peers make sure that published studies conform to orthodox expectations.
Do peers hold secret meetings and plot to suppress unwelcome facts? Maybe, I wouldn't know, never having been a peer. But as uncritical believers in orthodox dogma, the peers can be counted on to neudge away studies that criticize unsound dogma and to advance studies that fashionably announce "new findings" that align with old dogma. For if they advance unwelcome ideas, they will themselves be subjected to all kinds of troubles, from lost funding, lost appointments or tenure to getting passed over for lucrative prestigious opportunities within the establishment. Outside the establishment, the only opportunities are entrepreneurial and difficult.
The Nobel Prize is always awarded to the most fashionable of "scientists", since the board is comprised of fashionatas devoted to proper group think and "consensus".
Science has been off the rails, in many fields, for decades and longer. The reason is widespread scepticism of and vieled hotility toward reason. This sounds exaggerated, but I could find a lot of quotes by famous scientists that support this mind set.
Doug and Matt, the USA bombed the Chinese embassy because it had been used as a secure communications base for Serbian military activities. In addition, Serbia shot down a high tech American aircraft with the latest secret enhancements, the damaged parts of which were temporarily stored on Chinese grounds, I have read. The Chinese were able to reverse engineer the Tip Top Secrets, thereby enhancing and advancing their own aircraft years sooner than DC wanted. The USA always maintained the hit was an accident.
I guess Israel wasn't setting a new precedent with the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Syria. That makes it worse, doesn't it? An accident is bad. But, an attack on the sovereign territory of a country? Ok they were doing espionage there, I get it. But, this is par for the course. CIA station chiefs work out of American embassies.
Don't overlook Ecuador's police invasion of Mexico's embassy to get Jorge Glas, former Ecuadorian VP who is an official Ecuadoran target; the surrender of Assange to British star chamber types by the Ecuadorian embassy. We're headed for war with trouble on a great many fronts at once.
Nomad Capitalist covered a great hospital in Malaysia six months ago. One of the reasons I want a Plan B outside the US is to try to leave the US healthcare/insurance racket.
Yes, I fully agree with Doug's half-bright assessment of the Madelaine, a mad and vengeful little person. Joseph P. Farrell has fleshed out the conflicts of the last 1800 years which stems from the fundamental breaks in church doctrine between eastern and western Catholic Churches. Madelaine's personality probably mirrors the conflicts on-going between western and eastern churches. Clearly the western church and western governments are in the center of a mental breakdown, while Russia is now just recovering from 75 years of their Utopian nightmare. The west is now entering their version of it.
"Peer review" is one means used by the state-science establishment to enforce Correct Orthodox Doctrine on publishing science ideas and studies. The peers are are indoctrinated, (or 'educated') in the orthodoxy, which as climbers they can be trusted to defend, regardless of logical problems, contradictary evidence, and absurd unproven claims. In short, the peers make sure that published studies conform to orthodox expectations.
Do peers hold secret meetings and plot to suppress unwelcome facts? Maybe, I wouldn't know, never having been a peer. But as uncritical believers in orthodox dogma, the peers can be counted on to neudge away studies that criticize unsound dogma and to advance studies that fashionably announce "new findings" that align with old dogma. For if they advance unwelcome ideas, they will themselves be subjected to all kinds of troubles, from lost funding, lost appointments or tenure to getting passed over for lucrative prestigious opportunities within the establishment. Outside the establishment, the only opportunities are entrepreneurial and difficult.
The Nobel Prize is always awarded to the most fashionable of "scientists", since the board is comprised of fashionatas devoted to proper group think and "consensus".
Science has been off the rails, in many fields, for decades and longer. The reason is widespread scepticism of and vieled hotility toward reason. This sounds exaggerated, but I could find a lot of quotes by famous scientists that support this mind set.
Doug and Matt, the USA bombed the Chinese embassy because it had been used as a secure communications base for Serbian military activities. In addition, Serbia shot down a high tech American aircraft with the latest secret enhancements, the damaged parts of which were temporarily stored on Chinese grounds, I have read. The Chinese were able to reverse engineer the Tip Top Secrets, thereby enhancing and advancing their own aircraft years sooner than DC wanted. The USA always maintained the hit was an accident.
I guess Israel wasn't setting a new precedent with the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Syria. That makes it worse, doesn't it? An accident is bad. But, an attack on the sovereign territory of a country? Ok they were doing espionage there, I get it. But, this is par for the course. CIA station chiefs work out of American embassies.
Don't overlook Ecuador's police invasion of Mexico's embassy to get Jorge Glas, former Ecuadorian VP who is an official Ecuadoran target; the surrender of Assange to British star chamber types by the Ecuadorian embassy. We're headed for war with trouble on a great many fronts at once.
Nomad Capitalist covered a great hospital in Malaysia six months ago. One of the reasons I want a Plan B outside the US is to try to leave the US healthcare/insurance racket.
https://youtu.be/TCIOkNgKmOE?si=ednM3GOjTRwIgW4q