Comment: While we understand the motivation of people like James Corbett in their efforts to expose the truth behind the 'terrorism threat', if we have learned anything in the last ten years (since 9/11) it is that attempting to enlighten the masses via 'politics' doesn't really work. Because people have been so completely programmed to believe, and believe in, 'authority' in general, the task of disabusing anyone of their belief in authority or 'officialdom' is rather difficult. But when you take the battle one level further down to the domain of politics, it becomes virtually impossible.

Politics is closely associated (or dissociated) in many people's minds with nationality, nationalism, family and ultimately, their own identity. Try to convince an American, for example, that American governments have been a force for evil rather than good in the world, and you immediately challenge in him (or her) a whole host of very personal and dearly held beliefs that extend as far as their childhood experiences of 'mom and Apple pie'.

Lay out to your British friend all the reasons that the 'Great' in Great Britain is not really deserved and he may suddenly be reminded of his grandmother telling him, in harrowing detail, how much she suffered during the London 'Blitz'.

And just try telling the average member of the Jewish diaspora or, if you're feeling particularly brave, an Israeli Jew, how Israel is an apartheid state that was established on stolen land and, needless to say, your point will be entirely lost on him. In fact, he'll only really be there in body, because, at the first inkling of criticism of this type, his mind and emotions will be instantly propelled back to Nazi Germany or, perhaps, some mythical BCE event in the Arabian desert.

Here's a pertinent excerpt from Barbara Oakley's book Evil Genes

A recent imaging study by psychologist Drew Westen and his colleagues at Emory University provides firm support for the existence of emotional reasoning. Just prior to the 2004 Bush-Kerry presidential elections, two groups of subjects were recruited - fifteen ardent Democrats and fifteen ardent Republicans. Each was presented with conflicting and seemingly damaging statements about their candidate, as well as about more neutral targets such as actor Tom Hanks (who, it appears, is a likable guy for people of all political persuasions). Unsurprisingly, when the participants were asked to draw a logical conclusion about a candidate from the other - "wrong" - political party, the participants found a way to arrive at a conclusion that made the candidate look bad, even though logic should have mitigated the particular circumstances and allowed them to reach a different conclusion. Here's where it gets interesting.

When this "emote control" began to occur, parts of the brain normally involved in reasoning were not activated. Instead, a constellation of activations occurred in the same areas of the brain where punishment, pain, and negative emotions are experienced (that is, in the left insula, lateral frontal cortex, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex). Once a way was found to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted, the neural punishment areas turned off, and the participant received a blast of activation in the circuits involving rewards - akin to the high an addict receives when getting his fix.

In essence, the participants were not about to let facts get in the way of their hot-button decision making and quick buzz of reward. "None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones." {...}

Ultimately, Westen and his colleagues believe that "emotionally biased reasoning leads to the 'stamping in' or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associationg the participant's 'revisionist' account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. 'The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,'" Westen says. Westen's remarkable study showed that neural information processing related to what he terms "motivated reasoning" ... appears to be qualitatively different from reasoning when a person has no strong emotional stake in the conclusions to be reached.

The study is thus the first to describe the neural processes that underlie political judgment and decision making, as well as to describe processes involving emote control, psychological defense, confirmatory bias, and some forms of cognitive dissonance. The significance of these findings ranges beyond the study of politics: "Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,'" according to Westen. 

To the above we would add that, other than it being a painful process, the reason a person does not change their fundamental beliefs when confronted with conflicting information, even if that information can be proven to be true, is that there isn't enough motivation or 'reward' for them to make the effort. If there were, they would 'bite the bullet' and do it.

Politics is now a dead end street. The entire political debate has long since been co-opted by (sometime paid) hysterical shills and noise makers. But, for argument's sake, let's say you try anyway, and succeed in initiating someone into the political reality-based community, what will you have achieved? At this point in time, at this point in human history, with a sixth extinction looming, knowing that Henry Kissinger (for one example among many) is a degenerate ape, an inveterate liar and a psychopathic nut job to boot, will do nothing to stave off the encroaching cyclical cosmic catastrophe that threatens the very existence of man and ape alike.

While some readers have theorized that Sott.net's recent change in focus from politics to the coming earth changes etc. was a protective measure due to the dangers posed by exposing political skulduggery, let us just say that this is not the case. In fact, it is our understanding that the powers that be are only too happy to have those with a penchant for truth-telling should, on the eve of major earth changes, waste their energies on efforts to correct an historical slate that will soon be wiped clean anyway.

The time for wrangling over the rights or wrongs of politics, modern or historical, has passed. It's time (or rather long past time) to focus our efforts on bringing into sharp relief the fact that the clock is ticking down on human life on planet earth. At stake are not just our political persuasions, cultural identifications or childhood memories, but rather the entire past, present and future of all humankind. Of course, convincing people of this view of reality is unlikely to be a walk in the park. Unlike politics, or political history with its phony dialectic, there is no earthly authority to which anyone can align themselves, or appeal, to save their buns from cosmic catastrophe. And the great cosmic mix-master cares not if you are a Republican or a Democrat. As such, spreading the word about the strong (and growing) evidence for an approaching extinction level event on earth is much more likely to provide the required level of motivation for the masses to break their programming and awaken to reality.

Comment: Still think smoking is to blame for lung cancer? Folks, the truth is revealed here: they are blaming the victims for their own evil...

Comment: While it is true that being morbidly obese or severely underweight can shorten a lifespan, the jury properly should still be out on smoking. In fact, if Dr. Ioannidis' principles were applied to smoking studies, it's likely that 99% of them would have to be thrown out.

See Let's All Light Up!