The Psychopolitics Of “Peer-Reviewed” Research
A recent article published by Collective-evolution.com highlighted how many so-called “peer-reviewed” academic journals are filled with biased conclusions. Focusing mostly on the debate pertaining to climate change, the article highlights how research is motivated by politics as opposed to real science. This topic has also made its way into the world of peer-reviewed journals with an article entitled “Bias in research,” where it is asserted that researchers tend to neglect their original findings in favor of one that reflects their original hypothesis. Thus, indicating a bias on the part of the researcher. Simundic, the author of the article, also suggests that peer-reviewed journals are more likely to publish positive rather than negative findings in their publications. This means they are more likely to publish findings that support their worldview while neglecting those that negate it.
This writer had a professor in the Social Work program at Oklahoma’s Northeastern State University that suggested fudging the results of research is o.k. because people are not aware of their own biases. In this case, he was referring to racism. He was suggesting that people do not know how racist they are, or what the definition[s] of racism is; therefore, it is ok to manipulate the results to reflect the view of racism the field of social work holds. Which is all white people have white privilege and are part of a social system which benefits them alone.
Racism is embedded deeply in peer-reviewed research in fields like sociology, social work, psychology and other liberally tainted academic endeavors. This is partly because these programs are dominated by left-leaning professors who are pushing their own biases into the world of research. It has gotten so far out of hand that academic journals are actually suggesting that the English language is a tool of oppression and western imperialism.
Obviously, the purpose of this is to guide society to a certain end, collectivism. Most people would be surprised to learn the communist connections to such a strategy no matter how obvious it may be. It is the natural tendency of people to normalize things in their own minds because facing certain truths creates a discomfort that we do not know how to face. In this case, the possibility that everything taking on a title of official research may be tainted with a communist agenda is something that must be considered.
In the book “Brain-washing A synthesis of the Russian text-book on Psychopolitics,” which is allegedly the words of Joseph Stalin’s number one enforcer Laventia Beria, such an assertion is made. Mostly dealing with the credibility of psychology and psychiatry, Beria says to rebut any criticism of these false healing methods ̶
“technical appearing papers should exist as to the tremendous number of cures effected by psychiatry and psychology, and whenever possible, percentages of cures, no matter how fictitious, should be worked into legislative papers, thus forming a back-ground of evidence which would immediately rebut any effort to actually discover anyone who had ever been helped by psychiatry or psychology.” “Brain-washing A synthesis of the Russian text-book on Psychopolitics,”
Again, this quote focuses primarily on psychiatry and psychology and the creation of fake research which justifies the drugging of millions of Americans. There is plenty of research existing which rebuts the existence of mental illness as an actual, biological disease as well. The larger point that is being revealed is that the research in so-called peer-reviewed journals, which is so often used to create, and influence policy and legislation, is often fake and motivated by politics and researcher bias. Whether you believe the conspiratorial side of this is up to you. Though, how can watch as millions of school children proclaim support for socialism and not believe the communist conspiracy, is beyond me.
Article posted with permission from David Risselada