[Video] The Authoritarian View of Knowledge: Peer Review

[Lamprecht]

Granted, this video does not explicitly talk about the "Holocaust" but the parallels are quite undeniable. In debates, revisionists are often attacked for not having "Peer reviewed" and "authoritative" sources. If you talk to enough people, some will respond simply:
"If the Holocaust is a lie, why do virtually all 'experts' claim that it is not? Why did so many Nazis get convicted of gassing Jews in war crimes trials if the gas chambers are a lie? The experts say it is true, therefore it must be!"

This is a great example of the 'Authoritarian View of Knowledge' which is essentially just an appeal to authority. Also, revisionist works are peer reviewed, mainly by other revisionists.


Bitchute mirror: https://www.bitchute.com/video/zR38CtjD__o/

Sources are cited in the comments on the Youtube page. Some other good articles by 'Alternative Hypothesis':

Peer Review, Replication and Publication Bias
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/in ... tion-bias/ or https://archive.is/DQIGN

Expert Speech
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/in ... rt-speech/ or https://archive.is/NQAOK


Interesting quote by Sociology professor Dr Robert Hepp:

Occasional experiments that I have conducted in my seminars convince me that 'Auschwitz' is ethnologically speaking one of the few taboo topics that our 'taboo free society' still preserves. While they did not react at all to other stimulants, 'enlightened' central European students who refused to accept any taboos at all, would react to a confrontation with 'revisionist' [denial] texts' about the gas chambers at Auschwitz in just as 'elementary' a way (including the comparable physiological symptoms) as members of primitive Polynesian tribes would react to an infringement of one of their taboos. The students were literally beside themselves and were neither prepared nor capable of soberly discussing the presented theses. For the sociologist this is a very important point because a society's taboos reveal what it holds sacred. Taboos also reveal what the community fears. Sometimes fear of perceived danger takes on the form of ticks and phobias that remind us of obsessive neurotics. However, it cannot be denied that numerous taboos have a function that preserves individuals from danger, and even where taboos are a part of an individual's make-up, it is difficult to ascertain if the fear of the one rests on the power of the other, or vice versa.

Some related threads:

Debating: Responding to arguments claiming there are no "reliable/respected sources" denying the holocaust?
viewtopic.php?t=12190

The "Revisionists are not peer reviewed" argument
viewtopic.php?t=5610

Youtube Debate / peer review
viewtopic.php?t=9110

[Hannover]

Lamprecht:

Interestingquote by Sociology professor Dr Robert Hepp:

"Occasional experiments that I have conducted in my seminars convince me that 'Auschwitz' is ethnologically speaking one of the few taboo topics that our 'taboo free society' still preserves. While they did not react at all to other stimulants, 'enlightened' central European students who refused to accept any taboos at all, would react to a confrontation with 'revisionist' [denial] texts' about the gas chambers at Auschwitz in just as 'elementary' a way (including the comparable physiological symptoms) as members of primitive Polynesian tribes would react to an infringement of one of their taboos. The students were literally beside themselves and were neither prepared nor capable of soberly discussing the presented theses. For the sociologist this is a very important point because a society's taboos reveal what it holds sacred. Taboos also reveal what the community fears. Sometimes fear of perceived danger takes on the form of ticks and phobias that remind us of obsessive neurotics. However, it cannot be denied that numerous taboos have a function that preserves individuals from danger, and even where taboos are a part of an individual's make-up, it is difficult to ascertain if the fear of the one rests on the power of the other, or vice versa."

That reminds me of this quote from: 'Propaganda', by French social philosopher Jacques Ellul:

"Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action."

Which connects with this expression as applied to those who contrived the truly ridiculous and now faltering 'holocaust' storyline:

"Once they lied, they must continue to lie."

And then to a variation of a classic:

‘O, what a tangled web they weave when first they practise to deceive’

Only lies require censorship.

- Hannover

[Lamprecht]

Hannover:

That reminds me of this quote from: 'Propaganda', by French social philosopher Jacques Ellul:

"Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action."

Interesting stuff.

American-Jew Edward Bernays wrote a whole book about this in 1928, also titled "Propaganda" - from his book:

‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

‘We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society....

‘Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world....

‘Sometimes the effect on the public is created by a professional propagandist, sometimes by an amateur deputed for the job. The important thing is that it is universal and continuous; and in its sum total is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers....

‘The systematic study of mass psychology revealed to students the potentialities of invisible government of society by manipulation of the motives which actuate man in the group.... So the question naturally arose: If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?

‘The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits....

‘No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the people expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion....

‘Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of making the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life.’

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.275553 or https://archive.is/taLV2

[Otium]

More on academics.


Article Version: https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2020/06/25/on-trusting-academic-experts/ Archive: https://archive.vn/9ydKQ

That Ryan Faulk video is fantastic. There's a part two also:



Also, on Bernays see this recent video by Morgoth's Review:



Book by Bernays read from in Morgoths video: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61364/61364-h/61364-h.htm

[Lamprecht]

The following text is from an article in the peer-reviewed academic journal Nature, widely regarded as one of the most prestigious cited, and read of all academic journals.
The authors are arguing for the field of genetics and genomics to accept eight "principles" that are "scientifically grounded and antiracist" and that editors and peer-reviewers should evaluate article submissions based on these criteria. I guess the scientific method just isn't enough anymore

Taking an antiracist posture in scientific publications in human genetics and genomics https://www.nature.com/articles/s41436-021-01109-w

From its earliest days, the field of human genetics has had a complex, and at times troubling, connection with racist ideologies. Although the modern field of human genetics and genomics has come a long way from those earlier errors, systemic racism remains ingrained in its institutions and practices. Although a variety of efforts are needed to excise systemic racism, we focus in this commentary on the work that must be done in scientific publishing in genetics and genomics. We propose eight principles that are both scientifically grounded and antiracist that we hope will serve as a foundation for the development of policies by publishers and editorial boards that address the unique needs of the field of genetics and genomics. Publishers and journals must go beyond mere policies, however. Editors and reviewers will need training on these policies and principles, and will benefit from resources like rubrics that can be used for evaluating the adherence of submissions to these guidelines.

The obvious goal here is to prevent open discussion of the genetic differences between human populations with different evolutionary histories, just as honest inquiries and findings relating to the "Holocaust" narrative cannot be published at all.

---

According to 34 "Historians" in France, in response to revisionist content:
"One must not ask oneself how, technically, such a mass-murder was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened" (Le Monde, February 21, 1979, p. 23)

Steven Some, Chairman of the NJ Commission on [mandatory] "Holocaust Education" also said:
"These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures" (Newark Star-Ledger, 23 Oct. 1996, p 15)

[Hektor]

The following text is from an article in the peer-reviewed academic journal Nature, widely regarded as one of the most prestigious cited, and read of all academic journals.
The authors are arguing for the field of genetics and genomics to accept eight "principles" that are "scientifically grounded and antiracist" and that editors and peer-reviewers should evaluate article submissions based on these criteria. I guess the scientific method just isn't enough anymore

Taking an antiracist posture in scientific publications in human genetics and genomics https://www.nature.com/articles/s41436-021-01109-w

From its earliest days, the field of human genetics has had a complex, and at times troubling, connection with racist ideologies. Although the modern field of human genetics and genomics has come a long way from those earlier errors, systemic racism remains ingrained in its institutions and practices. Although a variety of efforts are needed to excise systemic racism, we focus in this commentary on the work that must be done in scientific publishing in genetics and genomics. We propose eight principles that are both scientifically grounded and antiracist that we hope will serve as a foundation for the development of policies by publishers and editorial boards that address the unique needs of the field of genetics and genomics. Publishers and journals must go beyond mere policies, however. Editors and reviewers will need training on these policies and principles, and will benefit from resources like rubrics that can be used for evaluating the adherence of submissions to these guidelines.

.....

Why has that even be stated, if they are so sure that "studies in genomics" - or genetics in general, will never lead to "racist" conclusions?

Such statements are merely attempts of setting the playing field by consensus and authority.