Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics
Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers 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.
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.
-----
Jime's comment: In general, pseudo-skeptics are ideologues and propagandists for the mainstream orthodoxy, because current orthodoxy is materialistic and, therefore, support the pseudo-skeptics' ideology and the atheistic faith. What motivates pseudo-skeptics is a monumental uncritical faith in materialism and naturalism (and a hatred and hostility to everything related to God, religion or spirituality in general), and they hold to that faith even in the few cases where orthodoxy is contrary to it (for example, the big bang is accepted by mainstream science as the best supported theory about the universe' origin. But many pseudo-skeptics, specially the propagandists for atheism, realizing that an absolute beginning of the universe suggest a possible non-physical and trascendental cause of it (and therefore, makes plausible the idea of God), have intented to reject the absolute beginning of the universe and speculate, without any evidence at all, about multiverses. They WANT to believe in multiverses, even if such theory has not empirical support at all. This is more evidence of the ideological nature of pseudo-skepticism and materialistic atheism and specially of the evident self-delusion of these individuals who see themselves as rational, free-thinkers and "brights".
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.
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.
-----
Jime's comment: In general, pseudo-skeptics are ideologues and propagandists for the mainstream orthodoxy, because current orthodoxy is materialistic and, therefore, support the pseudo-skeptics' ideology and the atheistic faith. What motivates pseudo-skeptics is a monumental uncritical faith in materialism and naturalism (and a hatred and hostility to everything related to God, religion or spirituality in general), and they hold to that faith even in the few cases where orthodoxy is contrary to it (for example, the big bang is accepted by mainstream science as the best supported theory about the universe' origin. But many pseudo-skeptics, specially the propagandists for atheism, realizing that an absolute beginning of the universe suggest a possible non-physical and trascendental cause of it (and therefore, makes plausible the idea of God), have intented to reject the absolute beginning of the universe and speculate, without any evidence at all, about multiverses. They WANT to believe in multiverses, even if such theory has not empirical support at all. This is more evidence of the ideological nature of pseudo-skepticism and materialistic atheism and specially of the evident self-delusion of these individuals who see themselves as rational, free-thinkers and "brights".
0 comments:
Post a Comment