How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression

New article from DebunkingSkeptics.com.

"Just look at us. Everything is backwards. Everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religion destroys spirituality." - Michael Ellner

Pseudoskeptics are not just wrong and fallacious in their reasoning and approach to investigating the paranormal with outright rejection of anything that doesn't fit into a materialist orthodox paradigm. They've also, knowingly or unknowingly, engaged in deceptive mind control by hijacking critical terms to mean their OPPOSITE, including the very term "skeptic" itself. And they've hid what they truly are (suppressors of new ideas) by pretending to the opposite of what they are. Let me explain.

As mentioned earlier, a skeptic doubts, inquires, questions, ponders, etc. But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. They attack, ridicule, discredit and suppress anything and everything that challenges the materialist reductionist paradigm. But don't take my word for it. Just look at any article by James Randi, Michael Shermer, or Skeptical Inquirer, for example, and you will see that there is no questioning of what they are told, doubt or pondering of possibilities at all. All they do is ridicule and attack anything related to paranormal and psychic phenomena, holistic medicine, and conspiracies. That's not what skepticism is. The founder of the term itself meant this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic
In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]

And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

"One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."

Now, take Michael Shermer for example. He is a professional skeptic who runs a Skeptic magazine, which makes him a prominent skeptic in the movement. But does he do any of the above? Does he doubt or question authority or orthodoxy? Does he ponder possibilities and the mysteries and wonders of life? Does he engage in a nonjudgmental open search for truth? No. All he does is try to debunk and discredit anything related to the paranormal. Just look at EVERY article he writes and you will see that. Yet he is one of the "big name skeptics!" What does that tell you?!

So you see, these pseudoskeptics hijack the term "skeptic" so that it can't be used against them. By calling themselves "skeptics", they cast themselves as THE "skeptics" who question everything with critical thinking and doubt. And if you are a skeptic or critical thinker, then you will agree with them, so they hope.

Similarly, they've done the same with the terms "reason, rationality, logic, critical thinking, scientific" as well by hijacking them to fit their agenda, so that they support their agenda of discrediting anything related to paranormal, holistic or conspiratorial evidence.

In essence, what they've done is put themselves in a position of "ultimate authority" on reason, rationality, logic, critical thinking, etc. so that if you call yourself those things, then you must agree with them and their position. As such, being "reasonable and rational" means to AGREE with them. And "critical thinking" can only be used to reject what they reject, never to critique the pseudoskeptics themselves, according to their paradigm, for they are "the critiquers".

Thus, they've made it so that "critical thinking" and "skepticism" can't be used against them, because they are THE "critical thinkers and skeptics". It's a very sly form of mind control that obfuscates the terms and attempts to shield them from "criticism" by putting them in the highest position of criticism.

As such, the term "skeptic" now refers to the one who suppresses and attacks the questioner, rather than the questioner himself. In other words, the new "skeptic" is someone who debunks a "skeptic" by wearing the hat of the person they are out to debunk, in effect impersonating them! It's a highly deceptive form of role reversal that is sneaky and deceptive.

Fortunately though, the true skeptics, critical thinkers and freethinkers see through this BS and call them on it. And that's the purpose of this page, to expose this mind control and hijacking of terms to mean their opposite.

Now, I may be speculating here, but this whole movement of hijacking important words to mean their opposite, and militant suppression of new ideas, seems way too calculated and organized to be due to simple sheer human ignorance and narrow mindedness alone. Instead, it's more indicative of an agenda, such as a disinformation or mind control campaign. This isn't to say that all pseudoskeptics are disinfo agents. But some might be, either knowingly or unknowingly. You have to remember that we are all mind controlled to some degree, one way or another. Even if these pseudoskeptics are not knowingly involved in a disinfo campaign, they are likely to be mind controlled themselves by a disinfo/thought suppression campaign.

It's a definite possibility, since after all, this world has more dark secrets than one can imagine, and most things are not what they appear to be. I don't want to jump to any far out conspiratorial conclusions here. I'm just asserting the possibilities, like a true skeptic does. Either way, there is no question that they have hijacked terms and pretended to be the opposite of what they are.

By hiding behind the mask of critical rational thinkers and skeptics, they've hidden the fact that they are suppressors of new ideas that challenge old paradigms, thus making themselves look forward and progressive, rather than backwards and suppressive.

Now, this form of hiding what you are by pretending to be the opposite of what you are is nothing new. It's a classic form of mind control. MIT professor of linguistics and media critic Noam Chomsky talks here in this video about how the mainstream media in America hides its conservativism for big business interests (which own them) by pretending to be a "liberal voice" for the people.



This forum poster hit the nail on the head about how and why the mainstream media trick us into thinking it is the opposite of what it is:

http://www.happierabroad.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8460
"The mainstream media often are "liberal" on the "wedge" or "social" issues, such as gay rights, abortion, school prayer, etc. This gives them cover to be absolute reactionaries when it comes to the important issues of preserving vested corporate and governmental interests. The great triumph of the oligarchy in the U.S. is to have used the media that they own to convince voters to vote almost exclusively on these wedge issues, and never to vote their own financial interests because the media prevent them from discerning those interests."

Now this is not suprising given the state of affairs in this world, which this quote eloquently sums up:

"Just look at us. Everything is backwards. Everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religion destroys spirituality." - Michael Ellner

The lesson here is that we all need to wake up and stop believing what people SAY, and start judging them by their ACTIONS. After all, actions speak louder than words, and talk is cheap. We've been lied to and deceived too often in the past. It's time we stop believing everything we are told, even by those in established positions of authority, and start thinking for ourselves. Seek the truth, and you will be closer to finding it.

It is my hope that many more will join us in this journey of truth and liberation from fear mongering, mind control, thought suppression, and limited thinking. Not only is it more liberating, but it is far more exciting and interesting as well. If you are accustomed to living in fear and conformity, then try the opposite for once. Try living in truth, and you will see that it is much more exciting and soul fulfilling. Once you've tasted that, you will never want to go back. Once you go up in consciousness, you will not want to come down.

It is my hope, therefore, that someday you will look back on this article and say "Hey you know, what I read there was right all along!"

Related Info:

Debunking PseudoSkeptics - CSICOP, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc

Why James Randi, Michael Shermer and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics!

Skeptical Inquirer Attacks 9/11 Truth Movement, Avoids Vast Body of Scientific Evidence

They Are the Ones Who Are Not Skeptics

I have seen the light! [Satire]

Circular Rationalism

JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"

911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!)

Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories

F U Brian Deer, Steven Novella, David Gorski, PZ Myers et al! [Updated]

Sometimes it just needs to be said. :)

Brian Deer lies, Steven Novella, David Gorski and PZ Myers parrot lies.

---

Truth On Alleged Fraud In The Study Of Autism Cases Revealed

These libelous accusations are based on the flimsiest possible construct. Deer claims fraud on the basis of differences between the case histories in the Lancet study and the children’s private medical records which Deer obtained under questionable circumstances. Since the team at the Royal Free Hospital never had access to the children’s private medical records, it was impossible for them to know what was in them and, therefore, impossible for them to fraudulently report something different.

Wakefield & MMR – BRIAN DEER CANNOT TELL US WHERE THE FRAUD IS

Here is another example of Deer’s evidence of “fraud”.

“Professor” Brian Deer implies in his recent publication in the British Medical Journal that Child 1 may have had symptoms of an autistic condition aged 9 months – well before the MMR vaccination:

“One of the mother’s concerns was that he could not hear properly—which might sound like a hallmark presentation of classical autism, the emergence of which is often insidious.”

But what Deer fails to disclose is that review of the additional GP records (not available to the Royal Free team at the time of writing The Lancet paper) shows that Deer failed to mention the entry documenting his mother’s concerns about Child 1’s hearing, her additional concern was about a discharge from Child 1’s left ear. This concern is not suggestive of an incipient developmental disorder but of an ear infection. But “Professor” Deer decides in his inuendoed non expert opinion it did. But this would have been sufficient reason for his mother to express possible concerns about Child 1’s hearing. Here we have an example of Deer’s selective reporting of results that were not available to the authors of The Lancet paper at the material time. Throughout his reporting, Deer appears to rely selectively on such “facts” that support his premise that Wakefield perpetrated a fraud.

Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent;
BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts

"Remember, Dr Wakefield has been accused of completely fabricating his findings about these same children in his 1998 paper, but these documents reveal that fourteen months before Dr Wakefield's paper was published, two other researchers -- Professor Walker-Smith and Dr Amar Dhillon -- independently documented the same problems in these children, including symptoms of autism."

"The British Medical Journal's accusations against Dr Wakefield -- that he fabricated his findings -- are therefore false. The mainstream media accusation that Dr Wakefield's findings have "never been replicated" is also blatantly false."

Dr Wakefield demands retraction from BMJ after documents
prove innocence from allegations of vaccine autism data fraud

"The BMJ, in essence, has been caught pulling off what may be the largest scientific fraud ever perpetrated by any medical journal in the history of the world. It grossly misrepresented the facts in falsely accusing Dr Wakefield of fabricating the clinical trial data that led to his landmark study being published in The Lancet in 1998. The innocence of Dr Wakefield has now been established by these newly-released documents."

"The first document describes 7 of The Lancet children and was written by Professor John Walker-Smith in December 1996, 14 months before The Lancet paper was published. Professor Walker-Smith prepared this document in an exercise that, in his words, “was totally unrelated to Andy Wakefield”. The document was a report prepared for a scientific meeting, and was based upon Professor Walker-Smith’s own independent assessment of the children’s condition."

Dr Andrew Wakefield answers critics in video interview,
says BMJ has been hijacked by false journalism

"To debate with the conclusions of a physician is one thing; to outright destroy the career and reputation of a man engaged in what can only be called "unpopular" but important scientific investigation is the action of a dogmatic, unscientific institution which can tolerate no real questions at all.

That's not science. It's dogma. And in its desperation to vilify Wakefield, the BMJ has proven to the whole world, once and for all, that the vaccine industry is so afraid of the weakness of its position that it must resort to publishing false accusations in the name of science in order to try to fend off real scientific skepticism.

In seeking to destroy Dr Wakefield, in other words, the British Medical Journal, we will shortly observe, has only succeeded in destroying its own credibility. This story continues in the weeks and months ahead..."

---

The new documents (PDF):

NO FRAUD, NO HOAX. Here's Proof.

Studies That Support Wakefield

BMJ Must Retract

Evidence of Professor Walker-Smith

Wakefield Response to BMJ

http://vaccinesafetyfirst.com

Download ZIP Archive (Rapidshare)

---

---

The Robert Scott Bell Show - 01/09/11

The Gary Null Show - 01/27/11

"[Dr. Gary Null] is doing the very best investigative journalism on this topic anywhere in the world. His four-hour "deconstruction" of the BMJ, Brian Deer and the barrage of false claims against Wakefield stands as perhaps the single most important investigative piece that has yet been produced on this topic. It makes the BMJ's own report by Brian Deer look like a late-night tweet from a drunken blogger." ~ Mike Adams, NaturalNews

---

Skeptics eating up Big Pharma crucifixion of Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The funny thing is, let's assume the allegations against Dr. Wakefield are true. What they have shown is how easy it is to get bad science published! It's like, congratulations, you've proven Wakefield's a fraud. You've proven financially motivated doctors can get their crackpot quackery published in an established journal. Now imagine what a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical giant can do! How about sending some of that skepticism the other way?!

'Don't investigate the finanical incentives of drug companies, investigate the financial incentives of small fries like Dr. Wakefield!', 'Don't investigate the intellectual honesty of the pharmaceutical industry, investigate the intellectual honesty of small fries like Dr. Wakefield!' - It's completely backwards!

'Don't believe the anti-establishment conspiracy theories, believe the pro-establishment conspiracy theories!' - That should be the new slogan of the Skeptics Society!

I'm sick and fed up with these corruption denialists and their cult-like obsession with defending the bullies and attacking the victims. It's so pathetic.

"The little dog deserved it, the big dog says so!"

---

Some things 'skeptics' would be more concerned
about if they were real skeptics:

Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines

Flu vaccines judged ineffective

Publication Of Flu Vaccines Studies In Prestigious Journals Are Determined By The Sponsor

Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science;
thousands of clinical trials invalidated

False Foundations of Science: Can Vaccine Studies Be Trusted?

New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent;
cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

Elsevier

Corrupt Census Company and UK Publisher Spins Science:
Doctors Poisoned by Medical-Media Monopoly

Did Reed Elsevier interfere in the editorial decisions of Neurotoxicology?

Why James Randi, Michael Shermer and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics!

SCEPCOP
YouTube.com
June 10, 2010

Why James Randi, Michael Shermer, the CSICOP crowd, and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics.





Related Info:

How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression

9/11 Truth: They Wanted War, And They Got It.
Sources

May 1, 2005: London Sunday Times Publishes ‘Downing Street Memo'

CIA Assassination Program Revealed: Nothing New Under the Sun

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

9/11 Heroes Ask for Medical Attention; Receive Nails for Coffins Instead

Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories

Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

ScootleRoyale
Skeptic Denialism

Debunkers, man-made global warming advocates and skeptics in general like to call their opponents "deniers". This word has of course been deliberately chosen because of its holocaust connotations. It's interesting though because in many ways it is they who are the deniers. In May of 2009, I coined the term "thermite denier" as an alternative name for 9/11 debunkers. And considering how blatantly obvious it is that high-tech thermite played a role in the destruction of the World Trade Center, and how deeply deluded you would have to be not to see it, I think the name is more than justified.

It has now been exactly a year since the publishing of the paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", and over the past year the debunkers have gone through all kinds of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that we are wrong.

The most common debunker response is the claim that the red material is simply primer paint. Such criticism is completely ignorant of simple facts about the material. There are a few basic reasons why the chips are unlikely to be paint. For one thing, they do not contain Zinc in any significant amount. They also do not dissolve in paint solvent and do not soften when heated. When a 1mm x 1mm chip was heated using an oxy-acetylene torch (see first video below), it flashed brightly and ejected a hot particle. Various paint samples were also heated using the torch and they simply turned to ash.

There are also a number of much more conclusive reasons why the material cannot be anything other than a high-tech explosive...

1. The particles are on the nanoscale. The bright particles below are consistently 100 nanometers in size and are seen intermixed with plate-like particles 40 nanometers thick.



2. They're intimately mixed in a sol-gel matrix with organic components.



3. When heated to around 400-450°C, the chips ignite and undergo an energetic chemical reaction.



4. Upon ignition, molten iron spheres form on the surface. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, the trigger temperature of around 400-450°C could not possibly melt the iron. The fact that we see these spheres implies a temperature increase of more than 1000°C during the reaction.



5. The material is potentially more explosive than TNT and RDX.



Below are two videos of chip ignitions ...



Another common criticism relates to the chain of custody of the samples. Debunkers try to cast doubt on Jones' findings by pointing out that his samples weren't professionally handled or hermetically sealed, as they would be in a real forensic investigation. While this is true, it's not as if the government has done any better. We're doing what the government should have done. We shouldn't even have to be doing this. You can criticise Jones' methods all you want but it's still better than anything the government has done.

There were four samples used in the study, one of which was collected minutes after the second tower collapsed, before any cleanup work began. This sample contained red chips and iron microspheres in it just like the others, destroying a tired old debunker claim that the samples could have been contaminated by cleanup work.

Also when one understands just how advanced this thermitic material is, the idea that it could have been added to the samples is ludicrous. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan can't even make this stuff! There are only a handful of military labs in the world that can make nano-aluminium, one of the key ingredients of the material. And because of the way the particles are intimately mixed, the nanothermite could not have been made by simply crushing ordinary thermite into extremely fine particles - a top-down approach. The nanothermite, like all nanotechnology, is manufactured using a bottom-up approach - building it up molecule by molecule in the same way skyscrapers are built up beam by beam. So again, we're talking about a very sophisticated manufacturing process. There's no way this could have been made by anyone in the 9/11 truth movement and added to the samples.

The mental gymnastics that debunkers go through would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. In order to convince themselves that there is no conspiracy surrounding 9/11, they come up with an entirely baseless and even more ludicrous conspiracy theory of their own. They effectively accuse ordinary citizens and scientists of fabricating evidence, even though those citizens and scientists have nothing to gain from doing so and physically couldn't even if they wanted to, yet they find the idea of a corrupt government fabricating evidence ridiculous! I think it's they who need the tin foil hats to be honest!



Another point I have heard raised is the fact that Jones only has four samples - peanuts compared to the total amount of dust produced. Interestingly though, that fact actually supports our side if you think about it. When you consider the enormous amount of dust produced in total, if there was only a small amount of this stuff in the towers, the probability of it appearing in Jones' relatively tiny samples would be equivalent to the probability of taking a small sample of hay from a haystack the size of a city and finding one of the few needles hidden in the giant haystack in that small sample. The fact that we find this thermitic material in not just one of the samples, but in all four, suggests this stuff was everywhere.

Regardless of how it was done or who was responsible, just by looking at the hard scientific facts it is obvious to anyone not living in denial what happened to the twin towers on 9/11. They did not collapse due to damage and fire as we have been led to believe, but were in fact demolished using a high-tech explosive. A common response at this point is to try and cast doubt on the demolition theory by asking questions like 'How exactly was this thermite used?', 'How did they get it in the buildings without being seen?', 'How did they stop it from going off when the planes hit?' and 'If the buildings were demolished, where were the bright flashes and loud bangs?'. These are all very good questions that we all would like to know the answer to. But the fact that we don't know exactly how the towers were blown up, doesn't negate the evidence that they were blown up! A criminal investigation will answer those questions. Denying the evidence on the basis of personal incredulity is a logical fallacy, something skeptics are supposed to avoid.

One thing's for sure though, Al-Qaeda didn't blow the towers up!

See also ...

New Video: Evidence

Steven E. Jones in Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009

Niels Harrit - Vortrag über Nanothermit im WTC-Staub

Related Info:

Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

Reply: Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!