There several areas in which Academia stubbornly clings to orthodox dogma, regardless of a growing body of compelling evidence to the contrary.
Academia empowered civilization, and it liberated people from religious straightjackets. But Academia has a problem. Instead of being rewarded for recognizing “truth” (or at least, a better or simpler explanation), all too often academics are rewarded for defending orthodox ideas. That intellectual bias presents major obstacles to progress in many areas.
After sifting through a ton of chaff on YouTube, I’ve managed to put together rather nice collections of videos on a variety of such topics. Here is a summary list.
- Shakespeare – There is no way that an illiterate burgher from a small town in England wrote the most beautiful, far-reaching, and poetic works in the English language. The historical evidence for this fact is now overwhelming. There are terrific arguments for many other candidates, which in itself suggests that we are
seeing the result of a formal or informal collaboration, of some kind.
- YouTube U – Mostly about the Electric Universe (electro-magnetic, actually), which does a lot better job of explaining astronomical AND quantum-level observations than current theories, WITHOUT a lot of additional unprovable assumptions. Topics include a way of envisioning magnetic fields that resolves wave/particle duality at the microscopic scale, the physics of plasma (the 4th state of matter), bio-electricity, an exciting “4th phase” of water when it is near a hydrophilic (water loving) surface, and the ways in which cells operate as liquid crystals.
- True History – Global evidence of advanced civilization predating ours, wiping out everything but astonishingly large, astonishingly precise megalithic architecture.
- Tau vs. Pi – Tau (two times Pi) is constant that makes sense, for a change, so much math that was previously mystifying becomes something you can understand.
The remainder of this article has additional discussions on these and other topics, with links to additional articles.
The Good News
Before we get to the litany of the bad news, there is some very good news: Some folks are beginning to get it. In actual fact, there are some very smart people who have already “gotten it” to far stronger degree and better-expressed manner than I, and who are beginning to get others to see it:
- In his lecture, recorded on YouTube, Gary Schwartz puts forth the “Five Finger” test—five principles that, together, tell you when it is responsible to accept a theory as true (discussed below)
- He participated in the 2014 International Summit on Post-Materialist Science, Spirituality, and Society and, in conjunction with others present, published the Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science at OpenSciences.org
The Five Finger Test
Schwartz identifies five factors to take into account in order to reach a responsible conclusion:
- There is a theory.
- There is research.
- Others have reached the same conclusion as you, regarding the way in which the theory explains the findings. (Not conclusive, but it improves your confidence.)
- Personal experience accords with the theory. (There is no direct evidence that would cause you dismiss the theory.)
- There are no reasonable/responsible reasons to dismiss the conclusions reached in the first four steps. (In particular: There are no alternative theories that meet the same criteria.)
The most important takeaway from his lecture, I think, is that if you can’t establish factor #5, the only responsible conclusion is that it is an open question.
If alternative theories exist that cannot be disproved,
the only responsible conclusion is that it is an open question.
His example is particularly instructive. He identifies three reasoning mechanisms that neuroscientists use: correlation (what do you observe when something is happening), stimulation (what happens when you stimulate a portion of the brain), and ablation (what happens when you remove part of the brain). The conclusion reached from those findings is that Brain creates Mind.
He asked for a show of hands. Who finds that reasoning persuasive? I certainly did. Sitting at home, I put my virtual hand up in the air.
The he took a look at electrical engineering, from his younger days when he used to repair vacuum-tube TVs. He showed how the same three reasoning mechanisms applied to the TV, and asked, “Are we are justified in concluding that the TV creates the signals?”
The answer, obviously, is “No”. Because we know there is an alternative explanation that is the real truth—the TV is an antenna device. The tests you can perform explain what you can observe, but they do not explain where the signals originate. So when the same set of reasoning mechanism is applied to the Brain and the Mind, the only responsible conclusion is that it is an open question.
His example was pretty relevant, for me. I continually remind myself not to take credit for my ideas. The fact is, I have no idea where they come from! As I wrote in The Path to Creativity, the only way I know to get an answer is to keep asking a question. Then, one day an answer literally springs to mind. It could be that some background mental processes are at work. Or maybe I’m just tuning the antenna! Or possibly, it is a mixture of both. (It feels that way. Some answers are simple extensions of what I know, or fill in gaps. But when I have been investigating an area, at times brand new answers will arrive!) All I know for sure is that I am grateful for the answers! The question of where they come from must remain open, until more is known.
That principle of knowing when to recognize when a question is open would make a huge difference in Academia. By extension, it would help civilization and humanity, as well. Because all too often, the Quackademics (Ok. I said it. I apologize!) wind up holding on to theories long beyond their useful years—like someone who can’t give up an old car that no longer runs.
This article points out several critical instances in which resistance to new and better ideas is, unfortunately, the norm.
The Power of “YouTube U”
I have to admit, I love a good mystery. Like most people, I also find myself identifying with (and therefore rooting for) the underdog. So I find myself on the opposite side of orthodox academia in a fair number of cases, listed here. (That academically over-protective clan has been labeled “Quakademia”, by some. But not by me. I’m above that sort of thing. Yes, truly. I am. Well, okay. I might slip up once in awhile.)
Fortunately, these days there is important, readily-available antidote to academic intransigence, in the form of YouTube videos—a collection of lectures that I have dubbed “YouTube University”, and of which I have only scratched the surface.
Now, I have to admit that there is a fair amount of cruft out there. There are a ton of videos that set of my BS-detector pretty quickly, and which don’t get much more than a cursory glance. For many, in fact, I go no further than the title.
But in and among the trash, there are shining gems, mostly in the form of lectures and Ted Talks given by people who really know what they are talking about, and who can explain things clearly. I admit that I have become addicted to those lectures! To say they are intellectually stimulating is an understatement.
In fact, about half of the issues I raise in this article became apparent to me through YouTube videos—and the other half (Medicine, Shakespeare, and Egyptology) have been informed by them!
Precession of the Equinox
Current science explains the precession of the equinox in terms of the earth’s “wobble”, despite having any particular evidence that is actually wobbling! The evidence that does exist, on the other hand, argues against it.
As explained in Precession and the Pyramids, a much better case can be made for precession as a result of a companion star that our sun is circling—a situation that is now understood to be the norm, in the universe. (In fact, a star that does not have at least one companion turns out to be exceedingly rare!)
The facilities medical colleges use are paid for by drug companies. So doctors are trained in drugs and surgery. And when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So doctors are always recommending drugs and surgery, even when better options exist—some that are decades or even centuries old, but which doctors never heard of.
Example: Chiropractic Traction Maneuver
I had a pain in my knee. It turned out to be the result of slightly torn cartilage that had moved around, creating an overlap. That overlap produced a painful pressure when weight was placed on the legs.
I went to an Orthopaedic surgeon. Those guys fix sprains and strains, torn ligaments, and broken bones. In short, they are terrific. I can’t count the number of times they got me back on the playing field.
But when it comes to this particular situation, they immediately leap to “arthroscopic surgery”. They insert a tiny microscope through a small incision, and look around. They see the flap. So far so good.
The next part is the problem. They insert a small nibbler and clip away the flap. Voila! Pressure removed. Problem solved! Right? WRONG? It was the start of MUCH BIGGER problems.
It turns out that cartilage only grows when you are very young, and your body is flooded with growth hormone. It grows at that time, because it needs to keep up with the growth of your bones. So in effect, that particular surgery removes healthy tissue that does not grow back.
Lacking cartilage, your bones now come into contact with each other when there is weight on the leg. That contact is painful, to start with.
Perhaps more importantly, there is a slight growth of the bone every time it happens. Eventually, there is a small mound at the site of contact. And as the mound grows, the distance between the bones shortens, so it becomes more and more difficult to prevent further bone growth.
The bottom line is that you are set up for a lifetime of arthritic pain!
But guess what? There is a much safer alternative that doctors never even consider! You lie down while a chiropractor grasps your ankle. They give your leg a short, sharp tug and wiggle it as they do so. The tug creates a millimeter of space for part of second, before the tendons pull the leg back into place. The wiggling can help to reposition the cartilage.
That maneuver is known as “chiropractic traction”. Would it have worked? We’ll never know. But if we tried it every day for a month or two, there is at least a chance that the flap would have plopped back in place, eliminating the problem without surgery, and without removing any cartilage.
Learn More: Healing the Knees
Example: Cure for Poison Ivy
Here’s another one. And it’s pretty astonishing. Go to a doctor for a severe case of poison oak, poison ivy, or poison sumac, and you’ll find that they are still prescribing antibiotic shots, antibiotic drugs, and antibiotic creams.
Now, antibiotics are harmful! They kill good bacteria, as well as bad bacteria. In some cases, that may be a good idea. If bad bacteria wildly outnumber the good ones, it can be worthwhile to kill everything and start over.
But first, note that a course of probiotics should definitely be prescribed afterward, and too few doctors do that. Second, and more important, note that antibiotics are entirely unnecessary for poison oak, ivy, and sumac!
For 30 years or so, the U.S. Forest Service used a cream that breaks the bond that the poisonous sap forms with your skin. That sap is called urishol. It bonds with your skin, and normal soap—even strong soap—doesn’t even come close to washing it away.
Your skin reacts to that oil, creating itchy blisters. You scratch, and the oil is transferred to your fingers. You touch yourself somewhere else, and the oil is transferred there. So it spreads. That spreading looks like an internal reaction, but the oil transfer is entirely an external mechanism.
TecNu is a lotion that made it to store shelves in the 1980’s. (There is now a cream version, as well.) It breaks the bond between urishol and the skin, the way soaps do with normal oils. You gently rub into your skin for a couple of minutes, and then rinse it off with cool water. Bingo! Problem solved.
If there is any itching the following day, you may need to repeat the procedure. And if your bottle has been on the shelf for a year a more, you probably want to go get a new one or get a cream. (The active ingredients seem to have a tendency to settle, so an older bottle isn’t as effective as a newer one.)
As for me, this lotion is a godsend. Your system gets more sensitive, with repeated exposure. So every time I encountered poison ivy (in the East) or poison oak (in the West), it got worse and worse until finally it was coming at my eyes!
Off to the doctor, to get an antibiotic shot and prescriptions. A week or two later, the problem is “cured”, but of course I now have undiagnosed issues in the future from the antibiotics!
With TecNu, on the other hand, the problem is solved in a couple of days! And with the oil gone, there is only a mild itching sensation that is easily ignored—much easier to deal with than the intense itching you experience when the oil is still present.
Example: Cancer Cure
Johanna Budwig’s solution for cancer, summarized nicely in the YouTube video, She Turned 2 Simple Ingredients into a CURE FOR CANCER. But note the unfortunate title, which ends by saying, “…and then the government did this”. But while the information presented in the video is an excellent summary of Budwig’s work (and far easier to digest than her book), there is absolutely nothing in it about anything the government did. It does mention that Big Pharma ignored her—but only makes sense, given that there is no way to generate a profit from her findings.
For government and medicine to ignore her findings, however, is another matter.
Evolution and the Aquatic Ape
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that mankind evolved from an aquatic ape, rather than a chimpanzee. In her brilliant TED talk on the subject, Elaine Morgan cites a litany of characteristics from a 1960 paper written by Alister Hardy, all of which are unique to aquatic mammals:
- Our naked skin (6:24)
- Our upright posture and “bipedal” walk (8:22)
- The fat layer under our skin (8:56)
- Conscious control of the breath—a necessity for speech (9:58)
- Our streamlined physique—good for diving and swimming (10:32)
To that list, I’ll add a few more:
- Instinctive breath-holding
Human babies instinctively hold their breath under water. (Is that unique among mammals? I don’t know.)
- Our Teeth and Digestive tract
Our teeth have a “tearing” canine suggestive of flesh-eaters, rather than consisting purely of molars, like mammals that feed solely on vegetation. At the same time, our digestive system is a bit too long for a consistent diet of red meat. (The meat takes so long to get through that it tends to putrefy.) But perhaps the solution to the apparent dilemma is that we evolved on a diet of fish and vegetation. So maybe we really are pescatarians, as well as fruitarians.
- Our Multi-pyramidal kidney system
This isn’t something I know anything about. But it was mentioned in a comment on the YouTube copy of her talk, so I looked it up. Here is a scholarly paper that shows how our kidneys are structured in the same way as marine mammals.
- Our Nose
As Warren NZ. commented in the YouTube version of her talk, our noses point down, while other apes have flat noses. So their noses would immediately be flooded if they began swimming, while ours are pointing backward, away from the stream of water.
- Our Lymph system
To my mind, this may be a key piece of evidence (do other mammals have one?). It is an interesting system, because it operates on the basis of squeezing muscles. (Without a heart to pump fluid through the system, it instead consists of a series of short tubes, connected end-to-end. When the tubes are squeezed, one-way valve at the end of each tube allows fluid to move up to the next tube.) Interestingly, that system has to move against gravity, with fluid moving from our legs and feet, and up through the torso–when we’re standing. Now then, cold water produces a muscle squeezing action that moves the lymph. And when we are diving headfirst into water, we are in a somewhat inverted position, which makes it that much easier for the lymph to flow.
- Our Idea of Paradise
Another great argument from David Attenborough’s video podcast on the subject comes from Sturla Molden: “If you were to pick your paradise, what would you choose? The shorelines of a tropical island, where you could catch fish and go for a swim? Or the endless grasslands of a savannah or an arid semi-desert? There is really no competition. Humans do not go on holiday to places like Kasakhstan, Western Australia, Sahel, the Great Plains of the American Midwest, China’s Gobi desert…”
But perhaps the best part of her talk is the way she castigates academia for becoming a priesthood. She finishes her talk by citing the lesson taught by Richard Dawkins on how to treat a priesthood:
It turns out that many English departments and their chairs are endowed by the group that manages tourism in Stratford von Avon. They make millions, and they require adherence to their orthodoxy.
The problem is that the historical evidence simply does not support the proposition that town burgher and part-time actor from Stratford had anything whatsoever to do with authoring the plays!
Tau vs. Pi
Quick question: You have a circle of radius R. How big is the circumference of the circle? Let’s put it another way: If you have a wheel with radius R, how long a path will that wheel travel on the ground, before the same spoke comes back around to the same position?
Give up? I bet at this point you either a) Struggled to remember high school geometry, or b) Have long since given up on attempting to recall such things, you kept reading to find the answer. Well let me tell you: The answer is DEAD SIMPLE. All you need to know is one constant.
Now, if you’re like me, you memorized Pi (π) to at least a few decimal places, way back in the day. And you remember it now, because at the time it seemed like it should be useful. But here you are, trying to answer a simple question about a circle’s circumference, and even though you know that number (3.14159, or 3.14 for short), it does you no good, because for the life of you, you can’t recall what Pi has to do with anything about a circle.
Enter a very simple constant: Tau (τ). It happens to be 2 times Pi, or 6.28, for all practical purposes. And guess what? If you know that constant, things are easy. Because Tau = one turn of a circle. So if your wheel has radius 2 feet, then the wheel will trace a track exactly 2 * 6.28 feet long on the ground, when it rotates one full revolution.
But it gets even better! How far will the wheel travel in a quarter turn? Dead simple: (Taur)/4. In a half turn? (Taur)/2. In a 3-quarter turn? 3(Tau*r)/4.
Get the picture? The relationship is easy to define, and remember, because Tau is a constant that makes sense. It’s a usable, memorable constant.
Now, I am a huge fan of usability. “Usability” is perhaps the most important design principle there is. Usability makes things happen much more easily and much more rapidly than they otherwise would. So I am all over a constant that makes things simple!
But academia? Heck no. Pi was good enough for their grandparents. It’s good enough for them…
- Tau Day — Michael Hartl’s excellent website on the subject
- The Way of the Tau (why Tau is better than Pi)
Astrophysics and Cosmology
With this theory, the actual shape of a magnetic field looks like two bowls placed back to back. The video demonstrates that when you place a magnetized pin adjacent to the fields, you get the familiar picture of a magnetic field flowing out one end and looping around down to the other—but the fact that pins or iron filings in the field arrange themselves with the orientation we see does not necessarily mean that the actual magnetic fields are shaped in that manner. With the “inverted bowls” theory we get the exact same orientation of filings and so on—but we get a huge increase in explanatory power in other areas.
The evidence suggests that collections of magnetically-active produce an hourglass field, and that the individual particles respond to that field by producing the kinds of arrangements we see in galaxies and solar systems.
At a quantum level, meanwhile, the shape of those fields nicely explains the particle/wave duality of light and other electromagnetic flows.
The electromagnetic theory of the universe, in short, explains physics at level of the cosmos and at the level of quantum “particles” (which probably aren’t particles at all, but rather packets of electromagnetic energy). And it can be demonstrated in laboratory experiments at the level of normal reality. In short, it’s explanatory power is immense.
That theory also dispenses with need for the concept of “gravity” (a theory which predicts things nicely, but which does not necessarily explain anything, since no one has any idea what gravity is—other than “a curve or bend in space-time” (another model with great mathematical predictions, but which does not really explain anything, since no one knows what it really is).
And along with gravity, the theory dispenses with other “patches” that have been added to the patchwork quilt of astronomical physics: black holes, “dark” matter, and “dark” energy—all of which are “dark” because they have never been seen! (Nor will they be seen, in all likelihood.
Interestingly, the curvature of light around the sun was the “proof” of Einstein’s theory of gravity—but that curvature could easily be induced by the sun’s magnetic field on photons which are, in essence, point magnets.
One thing the electromagnetic theory does not easily explain is the equivalent attraction of a large mass and a small mass (for example, a tennis ball and a bowling ball). It would make sense that a larger mass has a stronger magnetic field, so the rate of attraction should be greater for the larger mass. One possible answer is that the difference between a tennis ball and a bowling ball is negligible, compared to the mass of the earth. So it may be that early experiments simply were not precise enough to measure the difference. But if the electromagnetic theory holds, there should be some difference, however slight. In other words, the basis for the theory of gravity may well be a measurement error! (This is conjecture, I hasten to note. I reserve the right to change my thinking in a nanosecond…)
- The Primer Fields, Part I (starts slowly. Bear with it. It gets mega-interesting 1/3 to 1/2 way through)
- The Primer Fields, Part II
- The Primer Fields, Part III
Solar Physics and The Electric Universe
For decades, academics have been operating under the theory that the sun is a fusion reactor—despite the fact that their own observations show that the interior of the sun is cooler than the surface (which makes no sense, given their theory). During those decades, science has consistently failed to create a fusion reactor in the laboratory.
The SAFIRE project, meanwhile, operated on the theory that sun is a ball of electric plasma. In a short five years, they managed to create a miniature sun in the laboratory. Not only did the process create heavy atomic elements in the process, but they found that with only 7% of the expected energy input, they got 100% of the expected energy output! (They have since morphed into a new organization, Aureon Energy, whose goal is to use that principle to generate energy.)
Egyptologists love to claim the pyramids as part of the culture they study. But why, then, are there no records of how they were built? The Egyptians described everything else at length—how to make beer, medical procedures, and so on. Why did they write nothing on the construction of the pyramids, or any of its components?
Then, too, if the Egyptians built the pyramids in Egypt, who built the other pyramids and monolithic constructions all around the globe—in Bosnia, South America, India, and Maylasia to name just a few of the more prominent sites.
The worst part of this observation is the sneaking suspicion that Egyptologists have been hiding any and all evidence that does not support their orthodox dogma, as indeed archaeologists working around the globe have been doing for a century or more, lest their careers been ruined by their vindictive peers.
They call it the “Stone Age”—mostly because all that remains is made of stone. So they think that the only tools available to people at the time were stone tools! But that conclusion ignores a ton of evidence that has surfaced over the last 40 or 50 years.
The evidence of advanced civilization is overwhelming, much of which has come to light recently enough that archaeologists can be (perhaps) excused for not knowing about them:
- Huge structures around the world, made of perfectly-fitted, smoothly finished massive blocks—blocks so large we could not move them today.
- The smooth finishes on those blocks. (Perhaps as a result of melting with a crystal-or-glass equivalent of a fresnel lens?)
- The keystone cuts that join those blocks on sites across the globe. Those cuts, in the shape of an “I” or bowtie, are filled with molten metal to keep blocks together. Some metal joins have even been found!
- Megalithic Softening of Stone, Part I
- Megalithic Softening of Stone, Part II
- Video showing megalithic “keystone cuts” (slots for molten metals that held stones together)
- Fresnel lens melts stone
- Fresnel lens melts metal
Standing Stones, Stone Circles, and Ley Lines
In The Megalithic Empire, Mick Harper makes a great case that “ley lines” (straight-line alignments of significant man-made landmarks) are the remnants of megalithic trade routes:
- The man-made mounds and “standing stones” are landmarks along the ley lines (anything tall enough to be visible while near the line, to serve as a landmark towards the next marker or junction)
- Stone circles as junctions along ley lines, used to get your bearings for the next stage of your journey.
- The tradition of “leaving an offering” at such junctions, in order to repay the person who gives travelers directions to the next stop on their journey.
To those observations, I would add:
- The ability to take a personal sighting at a stone circle, using the sun at dawn for example. Such a simple “Solar compass” would let you set your direction, so every day you wake up you can easily get your bearings for which direction to travel.
- Given a magnet floating in a bowl, the way the Norse used, it would also be possible to find your bearing at any time of day, by marking it on a wooded protractor. You could then lining up the straight edge to true north, and the mark would point your way.
- If you stay in one location for an hour or so (say, to have lunch), you could also use the solar shadow method to find true north, and then use the protractor to get your bearing.
In his talk (but not in his book, alas), he also makes the case for seafaring trade routes:
- Early light houses, in the form of beacons with fires)
- Man-made harbors with shallow shores that allow a boat to beached at low tide and floated
out again at high tide.
- Shallow fish ponds near those harbors, where ravens can feed.
- The tradition of the “crow’s nest” on sailing ships as a place where crows actually nested, and the expression “as the crow flies”, to mean the straightest-possible path to a destination.
Such observations may well explain why there are pyramids all around the world, and could explain the actual purpose of the huge obelisks in Egypt
As I write this, I’m watching a BBC broadcast where some archaeologists have gotten permission to a dig at Stonehenge. They find a skeleton of a person with severe disease. Their conclusion? “People must have come to this place to be healed.” And of course, the bluestones used in the construction must therefore have been some sort of religious icon that was revered for its “healing” properties.
That conclusion is yet another example of generating a mountain of conclusions from a molehill of facts—and of ignoring alternative explanations and contradictory evidence in the process.
For example, they discover, that the person with the bone disease lived with it for many years. Given the small sample (one whole skeleton) and the fact that the person lived so long, isn’t it more likely that the skeleton they found was that of a caretaker?
After all, in a society without literacy, it would be necessary to have someone at the “junction” who could tell a traveler which one of the saracens points the way to their destination! So someone with impaired health could make their living by guiding travelers, and in the process passing on news from people who came from a particular location to others who were headed that way. That sort of occupation would explain the tradition of leaving an “offering” at such waystations.
Their conclusion also flies in the face of the fact that there were stone circles and other circular formations all over the British Isles. Were all of them healing centers? If so, why did none of them include the magical bluestones? If not, why build them? And what on earth did a circle of standing stones have to do with healing, anyway.
Then they find someone killed by an arrow. Oh! Two samples. Well! That’s enough, then. We’re obviously justified in concluding that stone circle was some sort of primitive hospital, aren’t we? (Of course not. I’m being facetious—or sarcastic. Take your pick.)
Of course, they did find the remains of about 60 bodies. But that’s not very many, really, for a waystation that may have been in continuous use for several thousand years!
- The Megalithic Empire – 10-minute talk by Mick Harper
- A Megalithic Trade Route – the full 56-minute talk by Mick Harper. Spectacular.
- The Megalithic Empire (book) – more details on the land routes, but missing the terrific information on sea routes contained in his lecture.
Advanced Gears and Astronomical Models
The Antikythera Mechanism is a device so advanced that the author of this particular video thinks it must have been left by aliens. That is not a theory I subscribe to, but the nature of the device is fascinating.
For one thing, the ability to create the device requires technological sophistication. As the gears turn, they predict the movement of the planets for different dates.
But perhaps an even more significant observation is that, to make such a device work, you must understand that the planets rotate around the sun. If you don’t, it is still possible to create an accurate mathematical model, but that model is much too complex to reduce to a mechanical device.
I confess to thinking this one was done and dusted. Only a crackpot could disbelieve it. But when I saw this video, and examined their arguments, I began to rethink my position. Then I encountered other intelligent analyses.
To be fair, a good number of the points of attack on the moon landing seem to have been thoroughly debunked. But not all of them, as far as I can tell. Nowhere near all of them, in fact. To be entirely accurate, only a few of the questions about the moon landing videos have been answered to my satisfaction.
I am not the ultimate arbiter, of course. It’s not that I am the best possible judge of the matter. But I’m reasonably intelligent, and have no skin in the game. It doesn’t really matter to me whether we did or didn’t go. What does matter is the degree to which propaganda can become substitute for truth. That is one problem we cannot afford to ignore.
Copyright © 2017, TreeLight PenWorks