Selective Skepticism / Establishment Defenders
PseudoSkeptics are highly selective with their skepticism. Not only do they not question their own beliefs, but they never challenge or apply skepticism to the status quo. Instead, they have a fanatical allegiance to it, evidenced by their behavior. A true skeptic examines all sides, including his own. But pseudoskeptics only point their skepticism at what they don't believe in, which everyone else does too. So what makes them different than anyone else then? Only one thing: The SIDE they're on. In this case, they are on the side of authority, orthodoxy and materialism. That is why their skepticism and critical examination is ONLY directed at anything and anyone that challenges the status quo, but NEVER at the status quo itself. In essence, that makes them "establishment defenders" (or establishment whores), not real skeptics.
That is why you will never see James Randi, Michael Shermer or the CSICOP crowd apply any skepticism, criticism or condemnation toward orthodoxy or establishment. They hold that side to be blameless and infallible, not overtly, but by their selective skepticism. And they take on faith anything that the establishment says as true, without the need for evidence or critical inquiry. You can see this in ALL their publications, writings, interviews and speeches. Thus they are the farthest thing from objectivity, logic, freethinking, unbiased mindsets, or true skepticism, for they hold the programmed mentality that "authority = truth".
Now, is that the mark of a freethinker, truth seeker, or true skeptic? I don't think so.
This is why not only are they against all validity of the paranormal, but also against all claims of conspiracy as well, which are not even paranormal in nature. In their view, anyone that challenges the system or the agenda of the elite, is automatically discredited, regardless of whether their claims are true, credible or backed by evidence. And this includes former high ranking government officials as well.
Others have noticed this selective skepticism and establishment allegiance in their behavior as well. As one person wrote me:
- "The original definition of skeptic was a person who questions ALL beliefs, facts, and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today's common definition of skeptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion."
Likewise, writer and author Robert Anton Wilson observed:
- "They're never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them. They're actually dogmatically committed to what they were taught when they were in college, which was about 1948-53, somewhere in that period. If you go back and study what was being taught in college in those days as the latest scientific theories, you find out that's what these people still believe. They haven't had a new idea in 30 years, that's all that happened to them. They just rigidified, they crystallized around 1960."
Similarly, an insightful YouTuber eloquently hit the bull's eye with this comment:
- "What skeptics fail to understand is that skepticism involves being skeptical of your own position, it does not mean just being skeptical of that which you do not believe in, otherwise we are all skeptics and that renders their use of the term "skeptic" meaningless. A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as well. Since the Randi crowd do not employ skepticism in this respect then they are fairly termed pseudo skeptics and demean the term skepticism."
For those of you who have followed the work of Randi, Shermer or CSICOP, ask yourself this: Have you ever seen them criticize anything of the establishment, including crimes, murders, lies, conspiracies, evil plots, etc?
I'll bet not.
Consider the following documented facts and let me ask you:
Do they ever speak out against the senseless killings in the Iraq War for power and profit?
Nope.
Do they ever admit that the US Navy was wrong to fake the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 (which has now been exposed) which resulted in the deaths of 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, making the war and their deaths a FRAUD?
Nope.
Are they outraged with the fact that the CIA has been involved in drug trafficking for many years, which even some in the mainstream media have reported? Or the CIA assassinations of foreign leaders who refused to abide by US policy?
Nope.
Are they outraged that the EPA lied after 9/11 that the air was safe to breathe, which caused thousands of First Responders to develop cancer from the toxic air and slowly die?
Nope.
Are they outraged that upper levels of government have concocted secret plots to sacrifice innocent lives to stage terrorist activities and blame it on others to start wars, such as Operation Northwoods and Operation Dirty Trick? (Google them for more info)
Nope.
Do they speak out against the thousands of people that die from pharmaceutical drugs every year?
Nope.
But will they go ballistic if ONE person allegedly dies from alternative treatment such as homeopathy?
You betcha!
So, what does it say about them then if they have no problem with lies and evil plots that result in the death of millions, yet have a big problem with the death of a few if alternative medicine is involved?
It tells you that they are one sided with an axe to grind, rather than fair, honest or objective. They are fanatical defenders of establishment and orthodoxy, holding that side to be blameless. As such they are totally blind to the faults of authority, or deliberately ignore them at least. Their critical thinking and skepticism can ONLY be directed at anything AGAINST the establishment, and NEVER at anything FROM the establishment.
Tell that to the pseudoskeptics. And when they deny it, challenge them to produce a publication from a media skeptic or skeptic organization that openly condemns or criticizes the above crimes of the establishment (elite or shadow government, whatever you want to call it). When they come up empty handed, then you've got them. From that point, it does not matter if they continue in their denial, for the facts speak for themselves.
Now, is that true skepticism to you? Is that objectivity, logic and science? Is that the mark of a freethinker independent of authority or bias? Or is that fanaticism from a programmed mind who has given up his intellect to become an intellectual slave of authority?
You tell me.
A REAL skeptic is able to apply skepticism to ALL SIDES, including their own. They do not hold one side to be blameless and the other to be always wrong, like the Randis, Shermers and CSICOPers do. Fanatics are always one-sided, independent free thinkers aren't.
The ability to independently assess all sides, including your own, is the mark of a true freethinking at a higher level of consciousness. These folks clearly do not fit the bill.
You gotta remember that "actions speak louder than words". Anyone can claim to be a skeptic or critical freethinker. But if their ACTIONS do not show the hallmark of one, then they aren't. And by their actions, the Randis, Shermers and CSICOPers aren't.
To elaborate more on the above:
After 9/11 the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) was ordered by the White House to lie and report that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. So thousands of rescue workers and first responders went to Ground Zero to help clean up the rubble and look for survivors. However, the asbestos from the dust was indeed very toxic and poisonous, and as a result, thousands of rescue workers have died and many more are already slowly dying and developing cancer today. In short, this was a government lie that resulted in thousands of deaths and dying people, reported even on mainstream media websites. Yet pseudoskeptics do not condemn this at all, and when I brought it up in my forum (see this thread), none of them expressed any sadness or condemnation toward the government for this lie which cost the lives of thousands! It was very sad and sickening. So you see, that is what fanaticism does to you, and why I am against it in all forms and extremes, especially when it's falsely done in the name of "skepticism" or "science".
One of their biggest hypocrisies is that they preach out against all alternative medicine and remedies, calling them dangerous "quackery", yet they say NOTHING about the thousands of people who die every year from prescription drugs or by the incompetence and scandals of the pharmaceutical companies! If they really cared about saving lives, you'd think they'd speak up wouldn't you? But NO, they could care less about saving lives, or even about truth for that matter, cause deep down, they are all about protecting establishments, including the pharmaceutical and medical establishments. Thus, they are the farthest thing from truth-seekers you can imagine, and the ultimate con, making them just as bad if not worse as any charlatan out there!
This medical doctor, trained and licensed in nutritional supplements, noticed the same pattern regarding Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch.org
- Is Dr. Stephen Barrett fair in his analysis of nutrition research and those involved in the nutrition industry?
- "I have not read every single page on Quackwatch but the ones I read give me the impression that in many cases Stephen Barrett, M.D. has done good research on many of the people involved in the alternative health industry, and has pointed out several instances of inaccuracies and scams (for instance, Hulda Clark and her pitiful book "The Cure for all Cancers"). However, I hardly came across reports on his website regarding some of the scams or inaccurate promotion and marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry. Why is this? Why has Stephen Barrett, M.D. focused almost all of his attention on the nutritional industry and has hardly spent time pointing out the billions of dollars wasted each year by consumers on certain prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical drugs? If he truly claims to be a true consumer advocate, isn't it his responsibility to make sure the big scams are addressed first before focusing on the smaller scams? It's like the government putting all of its efforts going after the poor misusing food stamps while certain big companies cheat billions of dollars from consumers with hardly any governmental oversight.
- Why is there no review of Vioxx on Quackwatch? Why is there no mention on quackwatch.org of the worthless cold and cough medicines sold by pharmaceutical companies and drug stores? Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted each year by consumers on these worthless and potentially harmful decongestants and cough syrups. Why is there no mention on quackwatch of the dangers of acetaminophen use, including liver damage? There are more people who die and are injured from Tylenol use each year than there probably have been in the last decade or more of supplement use. If Dr. Barrett had focused his career on educating people in reducing the use of useless and dangerous prescription and nonprescription drugs (even just one, acetaminophen) he would have helped many more people than attempting to scare people from the use of supplements.
I guess if someone dies and allegedly alternative medicine might have played a role, they're very vocal about it. But if thousands or even millions die due to false government propaganda, lies or false flag operations (e.g. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident), then they don't care and say nothing about it. Gee what integrity! Their behavior in this regard is inhumane and sociopathic, as if they had no conscience or were too brainwashed to have one.
Another example: There are many films and websites showing that the official 9/11 story is rifled with more holes than Swiss cheese and scientific improbabilities and impossibilities. Where is their skepticism toward that? These skeptics claim to be champions of science and logic. But when scientists like Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan present hard scientific evidence that thermite and thermate were found in the WTC dust, and even publish them in peer reviewed scientific journals, what do they do? They ignore it, completely, because it goes against the establishment and official story. What kind of skepticism is that? They don't care about evidence, at all, period.
And in the JFK Assassination, where is their skepticism when the Warren Commission purposely ignored all evidence pointing to a conspiracy and J Edgar Hoover used his FBI powers to thwart a proper investigation? Where is their skepticism at the story where Oswald performs an impossible timing of shots? There is a mountain of evidence about this that has been written for years. Yet the skeptics just ignore and deny all of it, without really looking at it, because to them, the official story is Gospel Truth and not to be questioned.
In fact, if Robert McNamara hadn't admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident never happened (a total fraud in other words), these skeptics would still believe that it was a real event, because to them, everything official is right. And if Watergate or Iran Contra had not been officially admitted to, they would have said they didn't happen.
If you don't believe me, ask these pseudo-skeptics to name ANY lies or falsehoods committed by the government or CIA, that has not been reported as official. They will admit to Watergate and Iran Contra of course because those scandals became official, but ask them to name a conspiracy or government lie that did not become official. They can't and won't, because they are uncomfortable challenging the establishment. Is that the mark of a real truth seeker? Not!
You see, even if the government lies, presents a story with no evidence, or kills innocent people to further their agenda, these media skeptics will NEVER denounce it, because to them, the establishment is always right and those opposed to it are always wrong.
You can check this out yourself. Look up James Randi's newsletters in his archive at Randi.org or in CSICOP's article archive or any of Michael Shermer's publications and see if they've ever critiqued anything held by establishment orthodoxy. And ask yourself: Where is Randi and Shermer's skepticism when it comes to atrocities committed by the government throughout history up til now? Where is it toward CIA assassinations and covert operations? It's simply not there. Even if the government lies, covers up something, or murders innocent people in false flag operations, Randi and Shermer and their crowd will have no problem with it. Why?
To them, authority is always right, only dissenters are wrong. To test their attitude toward dissenters, go to the JREF Forum or the Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forum and post a dissenting view of any kind. You will immediately receive mocking, insults, ridicule and a jeering tone from the posters. And if you insult them back, you risk becoming a troll and getting banned from the forum. They can mock you, but you can't mock them back. It's a double standard.
We can only conclude one thing. They are fanatics in their allegiance to orthodoxy. Such people will place their beliefs over the value of human life and truth itself. Expecting them to be horrified over government atrocities would be like expecting Christian fundamentalists to be horrified over the atrocities committed by the God of the Old Testament against innocent children and pregnant women! In the case of the latter, they are so fanatical about God being infallible, that they forget their own conscience and reason, which is scary, for it means they've sunk into a state that can lead to a total disregard for human life, dehumanizing themselves and becoming sociopathic monsters.
Obviously, that's not skepticism. It's not logic, science, rationality, or even common sense. In fact, it's nothing but religious faith-based belief that government, establishment and authority are infallible and are above all criticism and skepticism. If that's not religious fanaticism then I don't know what is.
