Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

by Jon Rappoport

March 8, 2017

“Science plays a larger and larger role in running the world. But much of it is misleading science, slanted, cooked, biased, stepped on, false, and invented out of thin air.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

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 in the population.

This is nothing less than the creation of reality.

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 space shuttle missions, and they conclude that a small set of new conclusions is 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 the shuttles.

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/suddenly 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.

But 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 NOW a consensus among them comes into being, by implied threat and coercion.

This is basically what happened in the arena of energy-production via cold fusion. Wikipedia adequately summarizes the superficial 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. Some of these scientists tried, in vain, to point out that 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. THEN a consensus hardened—through coercion and intimidation.

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(s) 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. There was no single published paper that meticulously laid out proof of HIV as the cause of AIDS. 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.

Predatory corporations, who spray poisonous pesticides all over the world and cause birth defects, need special protection and cover? Public health agencies that recommend giving vaccines to pregnant women, and increase the risk of babies born with defects? Solution: invent, overnight, and broadcast, a consensus that a basically harmless virus is the cause of those tragic birth defects.

I can assure you there are many scientists who don’t, for a second, believe the Zika virus is such an agent of destruction. But they have kept their mouths shut, and have chosen to roll 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 an unconnected 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 such a vaccine, the MMR, which does increase the risk of autism.

One of the film’s subjects is false consensus.

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

The CDC researcher and whistleblower, William Thompson, essentially said: I was part of the fake 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.

Bottom line: the media are collapsing into their own swamp.

The swamp they manufacture.

For decades, the press, government agencies, the UN, and a whole host of think-tank, foundation, university players, and financiers have been fronting for a consensus which they falsely claim is already established: planned societies.

They frame this consensus as technology/science—as if science itself dictates that the future must consist of interlocked organizations which insert citizens into slots. Slots where they live, where they work, where they socialize.

Abstract patterns, imposed on humans.

This has the flavor of science, but on reflection, not the substance. “We can make the top-down organization of society look scientific, as if we’re following physical laws. We can sell this as science.”

Really? Is a chart detailing how thousands of slaves will transport huge blocks of stone to chosen sites, where monuments will be built, scientific? Of course not.

In the modern world, this fakery is called technocracy. Technocracy may employ methods such as technological surveillance, but the overriding plan for organizing society has nothing to do with science. It has to do with control.

And when you see it that way, the supposed consensus falls apart.

Who wants to live in an assigned slot “for the greater good?”

Up close and personal, who wants to give up his freedom?

Review your understanding of Marxism. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” It, too, was sold as a scientific analysis of human society. It was imbued with the flavor of science, as if this Marxian principle had been discovered, just as molecules and atoms had been discovered.

And it too was promoted as an already-existing consensus among the wisest and the best and the brightest.


power outside the matrix

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


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. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Advertisements

14 comments on “Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

  1. gail007 says:

    Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

    “Science plays a larger and larger role in running the world. But much of it is misleading science, slanted, cooked, biased, stepped on, false, and invented out of thin air.”

  2. RunProgram says:

    I was taught, no, had drummed into me, “the scientific method” in third grade. We had a science teacher that rather insisted that we learn it inside and out. Fast forward to college – had a molecular biology professor who, along with his curriculum, had us go to the science library and start reading articles pertaining to molecular biology. We were required to not just read them, but had to critique them, tear them apart, find their flaws. You find out pretty quickly that a lot of so called “science” is bluff and male bovine processed fodder. Real science is work and most of the time, it takes a good amount of time to make real progress. The other thing missing from most “science” is a self declared statement of falsifiability. It’s the “this is what I think is going on, but I might be wrong if x, y, or z is true” admission. It seems most “science” today is conducted under the dazzle them with faux brilliance and then further baffle them with bull you know what. In a way, we are wallowing about in an modern version of the dark ages. Makes me wonder what we could have accomplished, and may some day accomplish, without the control freaks and constrained, manufactured reality consensus.

  3. jmilamdeal says:

    All that is claimed as settled science isn’t settled at all, but simply propaganda, and threats against any scientist who tries to rock the boat. If they do, they may be thrown overboard and not get a grant, or monies will dry up.

  4. sean says:

    So I’m much more easily swayed when a consensus, even fake, is sold because I don’t want to loose my status, money, power and career. Because I value the gravy train over truth and justice and prosperity. .. So the media is sinking in there own swap, this gives me more hope about this world.

    • John says:

      How many people today just go along collecting a check in a job they know is hurting society ? How many people willfully toe the line and place their fellow citizens in peril by refusing to expose corruption? It is a huge majority of society which has been bullied into submission by the deep state and the retribution it might bring upon them if they dare speak up against tyranny.

      Hey, I understand people got to eat and get by. What can you do 😦 …

  5. Désirée L. Röver, medical research journalist says:

    Crystal clear chain of events!

    As far as I am concerned in Western patent medicine it all starts with a forced consensus.
    Scientists and doctors have been educated in flawed principles as if these were God’s Honest Truth…
    In reality they are the truths of Edward Jenner and Louis Pasteur.

    Nature concurs with Pierre Antoine Béchamp, Royal Raymond Rife, Gaston Naessens, Enderlein and many other, sometimes forcefully silenced scientists and researchers who discovered that the environment determines the shape and behaviour of microbes…

    So Western medicine should be about the improving/repairing the quality of the internal milieu, not about the microbial witch hunt in countless laboratoria resulting in all sorts of deranged pathogens…
    Before he died Pasteur seems to have admitted this: “Ce n’est pas le microbe, C’est le milieu.”

  6. John says:

    “The 97 percent of scientists concur on climate change” BS mantra is one of those fake consensus science decrees I imagine is one of the things you might be talking about here. A line the useful idiots on the left and their MSM liberal ideologues use often.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

    Real science in fact is never settled, it is open to debate and new evidence all the time. That is something the useful idiots on the left and their Marxist ideologues do not wish to comprehend. The game is now all about promoting group thought and shutting down people who disagree with their view on how the world should operate.

    Collectivism verse individualism, ” settled science” verse critical thinking, Utopian liberalism verse reality, moral relativism verse logic, declared political “truth” verse actual facts and evidence. All the above are at stake right now within a society of people being groomed and conditioned to “think” in one way. The technocratic way which is always looking out for the “greater good.”

    See the new fascist left is no longer open to anything which will pull them out of their insulated bubble of safe spaces. According to the leftist view, there are no lessons we can learn from the past and they also tell us the future is filled with doom. A future of doom unless we listen to the technocrats and change our whole way of life. We must become part of a collective borg run by a police/surveillance state technocracy. All of us to exist according to which the technocratic globalist elite deem is truth and which their statist media keeps parroting. All based on some collective consensus that nobody dare disagree with.

    A technocracy which stamps their collective authoritarian belief system on every single individual. Any new ideas or innovation contrary to the statist view must be eradicated. This is the world the globalists envision. The only way to stop this vision from taking hold is to stand up for the individual and individualism in general.

    For liberty can never be nor will ever be defined by the collective, true liberty is individual liberty.

    “Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty.”
    -Calvin Coolidge-

  7. Great article, Jon.

    My two questions are as follows:

    If it turned out the “preposterous” suggestion that Wikileaks was a “CIA cooperative” front, might that raise questions as to, ultimately, what the CIA has become?

    What is the “consensus” on gravity?

    Best
    OT

  8. Well said. Incredible how many are now standing up to the bullying and lies. The house of cards falls gently down…

  9. groet says:

    Hello Jon,

    Thank for the manufacturing consent in science article.

    Corrupted Science is about buying conclusions which have the aura and credibility of rock bottum scientific truth whereas in reality the bias has been designed to distort and misrepresent the real thing in order to enhance long term propaganda in the eyes of a non critical public audience which is satisfied with only the notion a professor has produced a scientific result.

    Corrupted and bought Science is the entrance for the manipulators and the gullible and stupid journalists will spread the corrupted bogus science results in order to brainwash the masses.

    HPV vaccinations and research to improve these vaccinations will be funded and designed to gradually destroy global girl and woman populations fertility in order to reduce global population growth and transform it into shrinking numbers.

    The time lag between HPV vaccination shutting off 10 to 15 year young girls fertility chances and the actual wish to reproduce in their postponed thirties will virtually erase any possible link between the subsequent vaccinations and the decreasing birth rates.

    Shrewd planning and distribution of research on the Human Pappiloma Virus and the connected vaccinations amongst research institutes all over the world will enable the powers that be to gradually turn off reproduction except the reproduction capacities of a limited number of chosen people. This is eugenicism. This is selection of people and souls destined to die. This is selection of obedient people in order to do the work and production for the elite.

    Vaccinations are key in this war on global population.

    Woman and pregnant woman are key in attaining this population reduction goal. The medical industrial complex is prepared to increase the number of interventions aiming at the female populace.

    This is why midwifery’s compulsary introduction and incorporation in the hospitals is instrumental to increase the number of interventions under the pretext of enhancing reproduction chances whereas in fact the hidden goal and practice will gradually kill girls to womans reproductive capacity.

    This strategy has all the demonic features of the satanists. Unaware and aware criminal scientists are busy trying to develop the effective biotechnological engineering tools to secretly participate in this global programme in order to earn their scientific glory and montly paychecks.

    Groet,

    Jan Ligthart

  10. henry says:

    Some kids do well in school. They realize that if they use their brains more than their muscles, they could have an easier life. So, they go to a university where they meet people who are smarter than they are. If they can learn enough to convince the professors that they are capable of adding something to a field then they will get a credential that opens doors for them. If they cannot convince the professors that they have acquired the professor’s knowledge then they don’t get the credential and they must get a dead end job that pays less money. There is subtle pressure on the student to not show interest in ideas that the professors don’t agree with.

    Graduates find them self in a box. Smarter and more experienced people create the parameters of the box. The student has paid a lot of money and time to get into the box. If they upset the power structure, they may lose their accreditation and find them self with lots of debt and no job. So, any information that could get them in trouble must be discarded. They may not do this consciously. They take the wisdom of the pyramid of experts as an article of faith. If conflicting evidence might be true then the whole pyramid might have to be restructured. That will take much time and energy so it is easier to ignore the inconvenient facts. If they play along, they may rise in the pyramid. They may reason that once they get to the top, they can make real changes. The few who get to the top seldom make real changes because they want to stay at the top.

    Any ideas that do not come from the pyramid are ridiculed. All the experts agree so some non-expert (idiot) should not even be listened to. Their reasoning goes like this: I’m a smart person who has spent much time looking at these matters. If new set of facts are true, I would know it. But, since I don’t know it, it must not be true. Their lack of knowledge is use as proof that the knowledge is false.

  11. Bud says:

    […] As to science the peer (pal) review is what lets the whole game down, excludes the innovative and bolsters the bull…

  12. Sara says:

    Next to go…spinning ball earth + outer space.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s