School boards refusing to acknowledge and correct the bad science they are teaching in their curriculum. It's an interesting video about the teaching of Evolution.
Errors in Science Books (SCSU)
21 Nov 2024
Are these errors in your textbooks, too?
Are your teachers educators or bureaucrats? Will they teach whatever the state says, even if it is not true?
Get these questions answered by bringing these facts to your school board.
rachel wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:29 pm
School boards refusing to acknowledge and correct the bad science they are teaching in their curriculum. It's an interesting video about the teaching of Evolution.
Errors in Science Books (SCSU)
21 Nov 2024
Are these errors in your textbooks, too?
Are your teachers educators or bureaucrats? Will they teach whatever the state says, even if it is not true?
Get these questions answered by bringing these facts to your school board.
School boards don’t decide what gets taught.
That authority lies with the state’s education department.
Schools function merely as executive bodies, implementing the state’s educational agenda. In effect, they serve as vehicles for advancing the state’s broader ideological or propaganda aims.
rachel wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:29 pm
School boards refusing to acknowledge and correct the bad science they are teaching in their curriculum. It's an interesting video about the teaching of Evolution.
Evolution is a very clear case of systematic brainwashing - for decades - or maybe a century ? I guess atheism is the best philosophical foundation for the Elite to rule - they all believe anything as long as "science" is mentioned, and they are profoundly materialistic as they have opted out of anything spiritual. Going to school is therefore akin to a religious act as despite not "believing" atheism is as much a religion as any other - the religion of "unfaith" of sorts.
-
Its humbling to not know - but it is an important lesson to accept. It is mostly this hubris of not accepting we as humans can not know something that lead us into belief, because what we can not know also has this uncomfortable side-effect that nobody can prove wrong someone who claim to have this lost knowledge (known unknowns that is - according to Rumsfeld).
-
-
The tyranny of change that evolution calls for is of course not observed in reality where animal species do not change any more than humans are growing two thumbs for better text messaging. In order to fabricate the impression of change, one of the many axis explored by the Elite masons is to exploit animal species creation and extinction - not only 1200 dinosaurs species have been invented but many other extinct species too - and possibly quite a few (not) living ones. Many of these species are just inflation of specific animal/insect species, with more versions of the same animals - at other moments there could be total inventions*.
- Paul Belloni Du Chaillu was a French-American traveler, zoologist, and anthropologist. He became famous in the 1860s as the first modern European outsider to confirm the existence of gorillas (wiki)
— * Gorillas could be a double benefit invention - both a missing link AND a fake animal species, thus working i favour of evolution with double effect - and its an animal with a recent discovery date despite archeological digs finding million year old gorilla bones,,, A popular film and fiction animal too
@Unreal
Thanks for sharing your perspective—it's an important discussion, and I’d like to expand on some ideas you touched on.
For me, atheism, as it’s often discussed today, isn’t really atheism at all. What we’re really talking about is materialism—a framework that seeks to answer the "how" things behave but leaves the "why" completely untouched.
Materialism tries to explain what happens, how it happens, and how it behaves. But it offers no answers for why any of it exists in the first place. Worse, it often dismisses the "why" as irrelevant or even mocks those who ask it, as though seeking deeper meaning is foolish. This attitude reduces everything to mechanics—like a machine that runs without a purpose. And yet, even the "how" materialism claims to explain is full of gaps, assumptions, and currently mostly outright lies.
For instance, take the space program. We speak of planets and galaxies as though we’re standing on them, observing them firsthand, but the truth is we have no direct knowledge of these things. All we have are models—interpretations of reality based on limited data. Some of these models, like those describing the Moon and Sun’s movements, are useful. They predict phenomena with great accuracy. But that’s all they are: predictive tools. They don’t tell us the ultimate nature of reality, and pretending they do is misleading. We don’t truly know what the Moon is made of, how it got there, or even what its ultimate purpose might be—if it has one.
The same pattern plays out in other areas. Look at "climate change". Scientists often extrapolate data—drawing a line through a few observations and projecting it far into the future, often with manipulated numbers. Or think about COVID. Early on, there were models predicting catastrophic death tolls based on simplistic assumptions and false input, which fueled panic. Again, models can be helpful, but they’re not reality—they’re abstractions. And in many cases, they’re tools for control.
What’s fascinating is that this materialism, which claims to describe the physical world, has morphed into something even more abstract. It’s become what I’d call immaterialism. It doesn’t even stick to observable material reality anymore. Instead, it builds entire narratives—entire realities, really—that exist only as ideas or images. It’s like a dream, constructed by a small group of people (the elites, if you will) who shape how we see the world. They tell us, "This is how things are," and most people accept it without question. But how much of it is real? How much of it is just invention?
Take the planets, for example. We don’t truly know what’s out there. All we have are models, simulations, and interpretations of light and data. Or think about the classic "burning ball of lava" explanation for the Earth. We say it’s logical and fits the model—but where did that lava come from? How did it form? Who went on? These are questions we can’t answer, and yet we pretend as though we know.
The reality is, we don’t. And that’s where the fascination lies—not in pretending we know, but in admitting that we don’t. There’s a mystery to existence that no model or abstraction can ever fully capture. Materialism doesn’t address that mystery, and immaterialism turns it into something artificial—a story imposed on us rather than discovered by us.
Atheism, then, is the wrong word for what we’re describing. It’s a false dichotomy. Theism seeks to answer the "why," while materialism ignores it entirely. What we’re left with is not atheism but a kind of fabricated immaterialism, where reality becomes a construct—a controlled narrative that we’re told to accept without question. To me, that’s the real issue: not just that materialism fails to answer the big questions, but that it creates an illusion, a dream, and expects us to live within it.
And any power structure outside the realm of immaterialism needs to be destroyed; the Catholic church and Islam.
Thankyou Panertos. That is a valuable post, as are your recent contributions to Cluesforum https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p ... 0#p2417620
I find the Richard the Fourth youtube channel particularly helpful in bringing together and articulating some of my thoughts. He is still a realologist unfortunately so one has to gloss over any comment on such things as, er, some recent "child murders". [a greater third rail one could not imagine..]
I watched this one before the previous video, I figured they might be an interesting start to a thread. This one is about manipulation by a small informed minority. And look, the UK Government Climate Police Traitors are on him.
We Are Sheep (Ep.4 - Be Informed)
27 Nov 2024
Knowledge safeguards us from manipulation.
When you search or watch videos related to topics that are prone to misinformation, such as the moon landing, you may see an information panel at the top of your search results or under a video that you're watching.
Information panels show basic background info, sourced from independent, third-party partners, to give more context on a topic. If you want to learn more, the panels also link to the third-party partner's website.
These information panels will be shown regardless of what opinions or perspectives are expressed in a video.
Information panels may not be available in all countries/regions and languages. We're working to bring information panels to more countries/regions.
Great Video @rachel - really informative. Especially striking how a small informed minority is proven to come out on top of the unknowing majority. I'd say this is a message most should hear, and why the opinion police is onto this video.
The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains, oh, about 80 percent of what goes on in Washington.
Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so.
I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn’t anyone in the media ever mention this?
But when I lifted this hood, it incited more hate mail than from anything I’ve said on TV or written. Could it be that this rhetorical missile hit way too close to home?
How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.
Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.
How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.
That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.
Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.
The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.
This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.
But if you’ve built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion dollar grant.
Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.
Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.
Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If that’s the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.
President Trump should tell these “scientists” that “you’re fired.” And we taxpayers should demand our money back.
