We are only on this planet for a drop in the bucket of time. I enjoy the speculation of what was going on hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago. At the end of the day, capture the moments that count and enjoy what God gave us with respect and content.

Excellent article btw.

Expand full comment
Dec 11, 2023·edited Dec 11, 2023Liked by Arjun Walia

Really great analysis Arjun, of exactly how scientific research should function in order to most efficiently drive the acquisition of human knowledge, and how today, it does not. i myself had worked in experimental lab research, as a research assistant, and have my name, as 4th author, on one influential study in J of Brain Research which for a time was well cited.

Since i went to uni in the 1970s, what stands out for me now, in hindsight, about the whole unrestrained research-for-growth-of-knowledge idea -- is that it's kind of a deliberate set-up to influence public opinion, rather than evolve the body of human knowledge. For example, in the 70s, in the study of the brain, there was a lot of emphasis on laterality differences -- how the two essentially independent hemispheres could effectively function together as a whole to give us our singular consciousness. Today however, there is no longer any interest in lateralization of function between the hemispheres but rather there is a revival of functional localizationalism (identifying which neural structures are active in both hemispheres) using the more recently developed functional magnetic resonance imaging procedures. So all that focused research on laterality, over several decades, all came to naught. This seems to be the case in many areas of research, where when the focus of interest switches over to new directions, all of the previous research becomes irrelevant.

Also as a research assistant, i discovered that some well accepted effects, could sometimes be reversed by manipulating some previously not considered variables, suggesting the effect was not based on the new conclusion it was implied to demonstrate. However, since a lot of continuing research was now taking "the effect" for granted and building upon it, these questions about its fundamental validity, were just swept under the rug. Also some important effect like this that might come into question would likely have been discovered, by either someone already well respected running an ingeniously designed experiment, or by someone who made their name by doing this -- and it was sort of secretly discussed among colleagues and competitors alike -- along the lines of "letting this great experimental ingenuity itself die, would be catastrophic for the whole field." Thus it seems to me that research is often more about maintaining the integrity of the research process itself, and also evolving it and demonstrating its inherent value, rather than about what this research methodology is aimed at discovering.

Many people in the know also say, in regards to what is being taught in universities and researched at the public level, that it is several decades behind what has already been discovered and technologically implemented at the secret black budget operations in many 1st world nations. This involves things like antigravity and time travel. So the real function of research that the pubic is aware of, is not about being cutting edge at all, but more like maintaining an illusion of full-out, no holds barred pursuit to answer important questions of our times, while in truth it is the exact opposite -- intended to hold back and discount and discredit (the 1989 Fleischmann and Pons Cold Fusion discreditation debacle being a prime example of this) since the guys who know the truth and have the goods, never want us to have it as well.

Another example of how this works is the Smithsonian Institute which maintains an air of high respectability for science, yet has been reputed to have also been tasked with maintaining the status quo on many important issues for 'them' at all cost, e.g. it has been reported that some Smithsonian flunkies destroyed once numerous artifacts, which unequivocally demonstrated Europeans were on North America well before Columbus.

Then of course there are the secret societies and their agendas for our perceived course of evolution of science. Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) has been called the father of empiricism (which is epistemologically fundamental to the scientific method). Bacon was a medieval British Parliamentarian and acquired a lot of influence and numerous titles, becoming Queen's Counsel to Elizabeth I and Attorney General to King James I, but although it can't be said with absolute certainty that he was a Rosicrucian (since it is a secret society) there is significant evidence that he was the "Imperator" (leader) of the Rosicrucian Order in both England and the European continent

( https://www.amazon.ca/Rosicrucian-Enlightenment-Frances-Yates/dp/0415267692/ ). The Rosicrucian movement became public in the early 17th century and is known to operate within and under the guise of traditional religions of the time, and use them as well as high posts of public office (as in the case of Bacon) as a means of influence as well as, an operational façade.

The Rosicrucians share certain secret rites with the Freemasons and are known to be highly invested in magical practices. Their capabilities should be taken seriously and i recently watched an interesting documentary about the 17th century Dutch Rosicrucian painter, Johannes Torrentius (on Amazon Prime: Mysterious Masterpiece: Hidden in Plain Sight) whose only surviving painting exhibits qualities that can't be explained by science. He himself said he didn't paint it, but that it painted itself under an aura of humming bees. The Rosicrucians are also known to have been responsible for erecting the infamous Georgia Guide Stones which claimed that the world's population should be reduced to 500 million.

Lastly, in light of all this, it seems likely to me that the real agenda that is being played around climate change is that they indeed do "own the science" and will not have any dissention on that issue from anyone. Maybe why "own it" is because if they can control the weather (which it is known they do have the ability to manipulate globally now), if they can control it most of the time -- it will 'become' for all intents and purposes, "climate" that they are controlling. Somehow they do still seem to need us -- maybe because humans are conscious creator beings, able to create the planet they want -- but they also need us to believe we are the ones responsible for climate change, not that it is them, so they have to have this illusion of "independent scientific validity" and that's all it is -- a bunch of manufactured BS to keep up the illusion that the climate is changing for worse due to greenhouse gasses, so we won't see that it is them directly making it hot and dry, which is what they seem to need for their ideal planet hosting an alien lifeform.

Expand full comment