We Must Become The Media And The Scientists!

There has been a movement at the grassroots for years, if not decades to develop a new alternative source for media, since the traditional media is considered so biased, and over ninety-percent of it is controlled by a fraction of one percent of the public, that also happens to be among the richest people in our society. I can't speak for the vast majority of the people that agree with this movement and believe that the alternative media is far better than the traditional media, even if people have to sort through some incredibly bad alternative media outlets to get to the best ones; but one of the most important reasons to support this effort is because the traditional media routinely rigs elections by simply refusing to cover candidates they don't support, and since they can't win without name recognition that can only be obtained through the mass media that enables them to pre-select the choices we pick from.

There are of course many other problems, including that the traditional media gets their funding from advertising from for profit organizations, many of which are involved in incredibly obvious fraud, or epidemic levels of environmental damage, and connections to war profiteering.

However creating grassroots media isn't enough; we must also become our own scientists, and learn to recognize when the so called scientific experts are selling out their own beliefs or letting their ideology corrupt alleged scientific claims. This is especially obvious when someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who I usually consider very reliable and scientific, says “Michael Shermer is a beacon of reason in an ocean of irrationality.”

Really? Has Tyson read much of Shermer's work or fact checked it?

If he had and he was being sincere I find it extremely hard to believe that he would conclude Michael Shermer is scientific at all, except when the scientific process supports his existing beliefs or ideology. If I thought it was just one or two honest mistakes then Tyson's review might not be so absurd; and if it was just Tyson's review it might not be a big deal; however this is part of a pattern of behavior where lots of so called reputable academics that are usually credible make seriously flawed endorsements, either to skeptics like Michael Shermer, or ideologies or political agendas that are obviously seriously flawed, assuming they actually checked their facts, which almost certainly is not always the case.

Anyone that reads enough non-fiction books and checks some of the mainstream reviews of them might suspect that there are some that are being done for propaganda purposes or to help sell books; and in many cases there are many that are also taken out of context to sell books like a previous review cited by Philip Zimbardo, who also has a professional relationship with Michael Shermer, as I previously pointed out in Human Research Subjects.

One of the most incredibly obvious claims from Michael Shermer that can't possibly be considered remotely sincere is a common claim which he has repeated several times, that "Markets are moral."

How does he come to this conclusion when markets, in their current form are being used to suppress wages around the world and create a state of virtual slavery in many sweatshops, and dumping an enormous amount of pollution in the backyards of the poor while corporation make an enormous amount of profits from activities that re literally killing people?

He simply declines to discuss this issue at all in his book "The Mind of The Market" and other articles where he makes this seriously flawed claim; and as I pointed out in Mind of the Market: Is Michael Shermer a Skeptic? Scam artist? or Idiot? he also cites a Christian charity "World Vision" as a success without acknowledging obvious fund raising flaws that I was able to recognize without even doing any research; but once I Googled it at the time I found that it was being exposed for it's fraud as his book citing it as a success was going to press. Since then there have been many more scandals exposed by his so-called success story, some of which are listed below.

This book also argues that the current economic system is the most efficient based on scientific principles, and he supports the fiscal ideology of Milton Friedman; however as Naomi Klein points out in "The Shock Doctrine," even though she doesn't mention Shermer's name, the fiscal ideology of Milton Friedman is seriously flawed, and is based on oppression and has proven to be a disaster around the world wherever it's been put into it's most extreme practices, over the opposition of the majority of the public. Unlike Michael Shermer, she does go into many of the details and scientific facts with plenty of sources, instead of relying on credentials, or the false claim that Shermer's work is scientific.

Some of his claims are incredibly obvious like in The Left’s War on Science February 2013 where Shermer cites a book by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, and writes, "On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is 'everything natural is good' and 'everything unnatural is bad.'”

However there are good reasons for many of these concerns which are clearly based on science; they really haven't figured out how to dispose of nuclear waste; fossil fuels do make Climate Change, which is the leading term favored by most scientists who agree with these progressives, worse; and dams really do disrupt ecosystems, based on reliable scientific research. When it comes to the problem with wind power killing birds, most progressives that I know of still favor it, and scientific research supposedly shows that if they use bigger turbines with more torque and less speed it's less likely to kill more birds; and what is rarely mentioned is that burning fossil fuels also kills all kinds of animals and humans through pollution.

Another thing he neglects to mention, which many environmentalists often mention, is that conservation is one of the most effective, if not the most effective way to cut pollution; however, like many other corporate propagandists he's far more concerned with his fiscal ideology than with science.

Perhaps you might agree with him not, my criticism? Fine, of course that's my point; you should become the scientist and do your own research, starting with the basics. In many cases the so-called experts don't even get the basics right so we should recognize that and be skeptical about their claims when this happens, although when it comes to more complicated science many of us will have to rely on the best so-called experts, that actually get the basics right to make our decisions.

I've also routinely recommended that ridicule not be used to come to scientific conclusions, and I try to avoid it but it helps when so-called scientific people come up with arguments aren't so ridiculous, making it hard; and this is even worse when Shermer defends Trump, as he has a few times including one before the election, as I pointed out in my previous article about him.

His defense of Trump in Who Cares if Trump Is Religious? Trump might be the least God-fearing president to occupy the White House in centuries. That's a great thing for America. By Michael Shermer April 16, 2017 is incredibly ridiculous in many ways although I would have to agree that Trump isn't nearly as religious as he claims to be. Actually I doubt that many if any politicians are as religious as they pretend to be; but in order to get elected they have to put on an act, although Trump's act is incredibly bad.



However Shermer has a history of taking Trump's promises at face value without acknowledging the fact that he makes as many if not much more contradictory claims as any other politician, making it virtually impossible to predict what he's going to do. But in Trump's case, even though I don't trust his faith in religion any more than Shermer does; he's obviously bending over backwards to cater to the wishes of the religious right with his support for moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, as he promised before Shermer wrote this article, although it wasn't clear until recently that he would do it. He's also done what he could to break down the separation of Church and State by supporting religious vouchers and nominating Betsy DeVos, to be Secretary of State, and this should have been clear before he wrote this article.

But that should be besides the point, Trump's history has been so absurd and insane for decades, that I hardly thought it was necessary to debunk him or pay any attention to him for years. During the campaign I was far more concerned about Clinton since she does a better job, at times, pretending to be progressive, and the media was rigging the nomination for someone so incredibly corrupt; at least it seemed obvious that Trump was out of his mind and people should easily recognize this.

What kind of "beacon of reason" would repeatedly come to his defense and argue that he may be the best option, even if he does hedge some each time the subject comes up?

I still try to avoid resorting to ridicule but can't they come up with a better argument than this to make the temptation resistible?

The credibility of mainstream scientists, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, should also be looked at skeptically when considering The Big Bang which is a Political Theory Disguised as Science, as I explained in another previous article where I pointed out that the scientists that probably have the most credibility on this subject are almost certainly Fred Hoyle among others including Halton Arp who said, “After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility.”



By making this argument, as I pointed out in the previous article, leaves the scientific community to obvious arguments from people of various beleifs, including religeous people who notice that so-called scientists aren't scrutinizing their own theories saying simple things like "First, there was nothing then, it exploded and formed the cosmos" ~ Carl Sagan "Dr Sagan, what exploded" ~ 10 yr old "Everything was compressed into a single point •" CS "Where did that single point (containing all matter/energy in the known universe) come from" 02/04/2018

In response to one of Neil deGrasse Tyson's lectures Michael Drew Prior provided a much more rational explanation saying, "This is ludicrous. Pure wild speculation. If there were ever truly nothing, that situation could never change--there would be nothing to change it. A situation of true nothingness never existed. The universe, all that exists, is eternal. Probably every bit of matergy (matter and energy) that exists now has existed eternally--but possibly not. Even if all the matergy was formed from something else at the big bang, that 'something else' still should qualify as the universe at that time. Meaning that the universe is eternal, tho constantly changing in big and small ways."

Michael Shermer is cited most often for his alleged scientific credentials most often because of his skepticism of claims of the paranormal, supernatural, fringe conspiracy theories, or alien visitation, much of which we do need good rational skeptics to research and expose; however that isn't what he does; nor is it what most other high profile skeptics do, including Joe Nickell, Zahi Hawass, and many more that all follow the same pattern of behavior, most of the time. One good claim that they do often make, though is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I can't come up with what I would consider extraordinary evidence for a complex theory about many unsolved mysteries, without going through an enormous amount of detail, which would allow for a higher chance of mistakes; however there is extraordinary evidence of a major unsolved mystery that raises doubts about the official explanation for how our civilization first developed, which opens the door for alternative theories to consider, until we have evidence to confirm one of these theories.

This extraordinary and simple evidence is the megaliths that were moved by ancient civilization thousands of years ago



So called experts like Zahi Hawass or Michael Shermer routinely resort to appeals for emotion and even temper tantrums when confronted with arguments like this that they can't explain. One of the leading researchers that attempted to explain this away by replicating it, Roger Hopkins, also made numerous appeals to emotion and ridicule at times; however he also participated in experiments that would explain it, and for a while tried to argue that he had proved it could be done. However he was eventually confronted with enough evidence to come to the conclusion that he couldn't replicate the moves, and couldn't explain how they were done, although he still remained skeptical of many of the fringe claims that have been made to explain it.

I'm not aware of many if any major unsolved mysteries where there is as clear cut evidence to prove that the official explanation is at best incomplete or at worst completely false, with the possible exception of Crop Circles; however there are many more stories about mystics, like Edgar Cayce, Uri Geller, UFOs or other conspiracy theories where a closer look indicates that even if there's good reason to be skeptical of a lot of the claims and enough reason to rule out many fringe beliefs, there may not be enough evidence to completely rule out the possibility, if not virtual guarantee that there are unexplained phenomena surrounding some of these mysteries.

When Michael Shermer, Joe Nickell, Zahi Hawass and other pseudo-skeptics make incredibly bad blunders like this they give some people the impression that the opposing views, often people like Giorgio Tsoukalos, Erich von Däniken and David Childress seem like credible sources by comparison, if they're the only ones being presented by the traditional media; however they also make their own share of incredibly obvious blunders!

This is why the public needs to become their own scientists, at least enough to understand the basics, so that if they do have to rely on so-called experts for the truth they can do a better job picking the experts they chose to trust. My own conclusions is that none of the high profile so called experts from the mainstream media have much if any credibility. Although they often get some things right; these things have to be confirmed independently through more reliable sources.

I don't know for certain how to explain many of these unsolved mysteries; however after looking at enough of them and recognizing that the official version of truth is increasingly becoming as absurd and insane as many fringe conspiracy theories there's little or no doubt that we need to rethink many of these things and this needs to involve real rational skeptics that are open minded enough to consider different possibilities when the evidence supports it instead of resorting to the same manipulation tactics that demagogues use. Ironically, even though Michael Shermer is supposedly a skeptic of irrational conspiracy theories he's repeatedly come to the defense, at least partially of one of the most irrational conspiracy theorists, Donald Trump. Even if he does hedge on some of it this is hardly the behavior of a "beacon of reason," and recommendation from scientists that claim otherwise are highly suspect.

I've come up with my own theories about some of this starting with evidence that proves that the political establishment is controlled by a small percentage of the public in one of my most recent articles, Which version of the "Deep State" is the real thing?, which shows reliable sources to indicate that media coverage is controlled by a small percentage of the public although evidence of alien technology or ancient aliens isn't quite as strong. Another one Researching Poor, Slaves, Prisoners, To Benefit Ruling Class With Alien Technology? also starts with more credible evidence to show that there are research experiments being used on people without full consent, before moving on to theories that aren't quite as conclusive. Additional sources are provided in these articles so you can come to your own conclusions.

Additional reasons why we need to "Become The Media And The Scientists," at least to some degree including the fact that the mainstream media has led us into one war after another; and that they've provided enormous amount of propaganda to convince us that an economic system that ships subsidized cotton half way around the world so they can take advantage of sweatshop labor and force working people to complete with each other while the wealthy take all the profits is efficient. Some of the so-called scientific experts like Michael Shermer are constantly providing the propaganda to make this seem rational as well. Several other so-called rational skeptics, including Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, have also supported this irrational economic system, wars based on lies, including the Iraq invasion or both.

Relying on so-called experts when they have a history of deceiving us is incompatible with the democratic process!



The following are some additional articles on the subject, including more stories exposing World Vision and a few of my own past articles:

Michael Shermer, we hardly knew ye, critique by Jerry Coyne 08/29/2010

What I Believe (about Markets and Morals): A Reply to Jerry Coyne & My Critics by Michael Shermer reposted on Jerry Coyne's Blog 09/01/2010

A Conversation with Michael Shermer about Trump, Transhumanism, and the Future of Our Species 07/26/2017

Trump and the Post-Human Rights Agenda: Jayde Lovell, Michael Shermer and James Felton Keith 02/03/2018

Michael Shermer "Why Markets are moral" as reported in "Science Matters: Humanities as Complex Systems"

Should I donate to World Vision? 07/27/2017 A few years ago, I spoke at length with an African professor here in the states who worked for several years in World Vision's child sponsorship program. He also comes from a poor village and his sister was a sponsored child. I asked him what he thought of child sponsorship in general. He said flatly, "It's terrible." I was shocked by his bluntness; prior to that, I did not have strong views on the matter and I expected a more nuanced and conflicted response. He went on to describe his first-hand experience in how, despite well-marketed individual success stories, the model can undermine family unity, displace parents, and distort culture. I personally do not have enough information to make such a concrete statement about child sponsorship, but I take this gentleman's perspective very seriously. We have stayed in touch. He is but one person I have met with this view and my own research has edified by concerns: child sponsorship is not a program model I personally feel comfortable supporting. ........ In summary, there is legitimate cause for concern with regard to World Vision's work and approach. It is not a mistake to raise thoughtful concerns. The real disservice to World Vision's employees and donors would be to shelter them.

Obviously, child sponsorship has left me baffled 01/09/2014 ..... Then this year's card arrived. You can see the drawing it featured. The image resembles some of Obvious's previous works - but from several years ago. The thing is, Obvious is now 17 years old and other illustrations from him have been strikingly different and noticeably more advanced. .....

Liberia: World Vision scandal puts spotlight on efforts to stamp out aid corruption 10/10/2009

Exclusive: Aid charities reluctant to reveal full scale of fraud 07/14/2015

World Vision charity named in sex-for-aid allegations 02/18/2018

Coca-Cola Partners: World Vision

World Vision Celebrity Supporters & Events

Michael Shermer: I’m Not Endorsing Donald Trump 03/04/2016

What Michael Shermer Wants, and Does Not Want, to Believe—on Pseudo-Skepticism and the Multiverse, part 1

The Debunker: A Pseudo-Skeptic By Any Other Name

There's no doubt that research is happening on people without full #Disclosure according to reliable sources; but if #ConspiracyTheories from Corso are even partly true it must be related & it's much bigger possibly including #UFOs #AncientAliens 05/18/2018

Human Research Subjects

Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment

Are Michael Shermer and Philip Zimbardo trying to be secular cult leaders?

Shermer's The Mind of The Market 02/17/2008