By Ronald Glenn
MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network, held its 40th symposium this weekend from August 6 through 9 in Denver, Colorado. The “battle” within the “scientific” ranks over the study of unidentified flying objects has the question of pseudoscience at its core in the same way as does ESP, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot.
For me, pseudoscience is the attempt to make claims that sound scientific even if they do not actually maintain the standards required by the scientific method. The MUFON symposium is a convention of individuals giving the appearance of the study of space aliens and such sightings on earth; they pretend it is science at its best, not a circus at its worst. For many this is fun; to others it is fraud masked as delusion.
The point is that scientific debate, regardless of the subject matter involved, always begins with the professionals who are the experts in a given field of study, usually with teaching professionals at universities public and private. If the public gets involved, it is often at the point in which the opinions of these professionals begin to affect public policy, even to the point that judges and politicians make decisions and pass laws based on which group of experts they believe.
I can remember, for example, seeing a discussion back in the 1970s on William Buckley’s show Firing Line. One of his guests said that the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion on demand, was based on questionable science concerning the development of the human fetus. These errors have helped claim the deaths of fifty million babies in America since 1973.
In 2009, America faces life and death issues directly related to science and the questions of pseudoscience and outright fraud on the American public, done with the intention of persuading politicians to vote for a destructive, leftist agenda. There is, believe it or not, Communist science, which is used to undermine the concepts of the American republic. The following are the topics which I believe are currently the most important, with the potential of being the deadliest to America and its way of life:
The government of the United States has a say in every drug prescribed in America. The effects of these drugs and how they are used are a part of the lives of millions of Americans, accounting for billions of dollars in revenue for drug companies.
If there is currently an example of infighting among the scientific community with a direct bearing on current American politics, it is the war over vaccines. Here, the United States government is preparing over a 100 billion doses of swine flu vaccine which are supposed be injected this fall. Inoculations have become a part of the Homeland Security state, since epidemics are under their jurisdiction.
If the government makes vaccines mandatory, then the American public would be subject to fines and arrest for defying the order. Question: How safe are the vaccines? The debate over the safety of vaccines only came to light for many when the debate over autism began this decade, but the battle over vaccines is long and ugly and getting uglier. And, remember, the last round of swine flu vaccines, some three decades ago, resulted in numerous deaths.
In my lifetime, I have had less than five vaccines. Personal choice. Soon, however, it may be possible that a child will be expected to receive almost a hundred. Yet if the public has a hard time with the issue, with vaccinations being an active subject of discussions in mommies groups and among parents from coast to coast, why do we think politicians know better? Whatever the truth may be, the public is likely to have less and less say about what happens to them. Should the government control health care and all the costs associated with it, I can’t see much of a stretch in forcing a vaccine upon people by rationalizing that it saves the money of dealing with a particular illness at a later date. Sure, some might insist that they’d refuse, and some might even find solace in leaving public health decisions to the federal government, but such sentiments may be moot when there is a nurse at your door with a needle, accompanied by a soldier with an M-16.
The left loves the idea of dictating how you care for your children, and depending upon how much control the federal government grabs in terms of education–on top of healthcare–it may ratchet up the nanny state behavior more and more.
Note: if you wish to hear two opposite medical views on the subject, listen to Dr. Dean Edell (a shill for the Establishment) and Dr. Stanley Monteith. (a questioner of government motives).
Following the presidential election of 2008, the American Government is apparently capable of deciding whether a person is crazy by judging the stickers he glues onto the rear bumper of his or her car. Advocating the murder of an unborn child is fine and dandy, but supporting Ron Paul — look out.
There has always been suspicion in the general population that psychology and psychiatry are both in bed with pseudoscience. How many people in this country, after all, have been released from the hospital as cured who and up back in the hospital a week or month later?
Yes, there are obviously people who are in need of psychiatric help. We see these people every day in major cities, talking to themselves or screaming at an invisible person. One gentleman here in Philadelphia likes to shadowbox with streetlight poles, and try to scare his reflection away as he gazes into store windows.
But the current administration and Congress, however, show every sign that they will start evaluating America’s mental health by determining whether a person has right-wing delusions. These consist of obvious acts of insanity, such as disliking President Obama’s policies, questioning his honesty, protesting taxes, admiring Ron Paul, finding alternative use for tea bags, or mistrusting the Federal Reserve. We must diligently hope that professionals within the psychiatric medical community will speak out against political government abuse of the mental health system, but their voice is not enough.
It should frighten us all to think that Nancy Pelosi has a say in deciding who the American government decides is sane. If we used her as a model, as a minimum we would never stop having plastic surgery, making misleading statements, and wasting trillions of dollars of other people’s money. If we used Barney Frank as a model . . . well, I think that may be better off left unsaid.
More seriously, all Communist nations use the mental hospitals under their control as a way to suppress opposition. The public thinks this is a “scientific” basis by which society has dangerous undesirables put away. This is going to be easier and easier to do in a society that drugs an increasing number of its children to make them behave better under the direction of the public school systems. People who have been taught to accept drugs as children will not be so dead set against government psychiatric political judgments.
Those who are not associated with this field of study cannot imagine the invective generated by studying the cultural and genetic origins of humanity. The Marxists have had their hands in this for generations, mainly because they fervently preach culture and class as an interpretation of everything that has ever happened or will happen. The politics of anthropology solidly revolve around race because the concept of race implies biological determinism, that we are who we are because of how our racial type evolved.
There are noted anthropologists who even deny race exists, and that all human behavior is determined by culture. The importance of this lies in the political realities of how these ideas are used and accepted to guide public policy. As an example, I have read in numerous liberal publications over the years that the “Eve” theory of evolution is a fact, stating that all human beings originated from the same mother. However, contrary to this, for decades many anthropologists have argued for a multiple regional theory of evolution, by which humanity evolved separately in different regions under different conditions.
This matters because the American government is deeply concerned with social engineering in our schools and the airwaves, claiming it knows what “truth” should be disseminated. There is no more fundamental truth about the human character than what is believed about its origins and its relationship with the current human condition. Religious aspects aside, the “Eve” theory fits right into the leftist need to emphasize we are all brothers and sisters. We all come from Africa, so thinking “white” is obviously a historical error. We are all the same. (Which is mysteriously forgotten when the left endlessly accuses conservatives of racism and wants them politically dismissed .)
More practically, this works against public health. Obesity is a great example. What makes us think that one diet fits all? After all, the effects of particular foods could differ greatly depending upon the genetic makeup of individuals. A great example of this is in our Native American population — a number have become unhealthy when adopting the American diet, whereas Native Americans who kept a more traditional diet have done much better.
President Obama is the most race-conscious president in American history, and it is not completely due to his own personal experience. His educational experiences were assuredly influenced by the theories of class and culture that want to promote a line of human evolutionary development that fits into their world view. Is this pseudoscience? That classification is probably unfair, but we must not forget that physical anthropologists are discussing what happened 100,000 years ago. It is naïve to believe that there are not mistaken ideas about that era touted as indisputable fact.
Speaking of mistaken ideas touted as indisputable fact, there may be no greater pseudo-scientist than former Vice President Al Gore, but the just science inherent the idea of global warming is all over the Internet. My addition to this discussion is to point out that we need to keep on eye on those scientists who oppose the government line. What happens to the careers of those scientists who oppose global warming will tell us a great deal about what happens to anyone who poses a “threat” to government public policy.
Furthermore, in looking at all of the above, we must always remember that a huge portion of scientific research is government funded. By necessity, this has to affect how science will act, since finding out something the government does not want to know is bad for business.
Ronald Glenn has worked in real estate and law for more than twenty years. He now works in Philadelphia, and lives outside the city with his wife. Ron has been writing for America’s Right since January 2009.