August 21, 2021

Knowledge means alignment upon objective reality based on laws of the universe. It requires standards of rationality, which means accounting for all elements of related realities through evaluation with openness and accountability. What a laugh; maybe in Alice and Wonderland.

Knowledge only exists where there is a process which is highly visible for producing it. Corruption is the opposite—knowledge originating out of nowhere which cannot be questioned due to its infallibility and perfection. The process shows the difference. No process; no knowledge.

Rational persons make sure realities can be evaluated openly and accountably. There is no secret replacement for rationality. Persons who evade open and accountable evaluation do not have the purpose of producing knowledge. There is no reason to seek darkness besides the promotion of corruption.

When the media at all levels rejects criticism of the technical position they take on such subjects as global warming with no concern for the realities involved, they are not in the knowledge business. Knowledge requires accounting for all criticism. Power mongering requires rejection of all criticism.

They pretend that they are taking journalistic and administrative positions, but they shaped the global warming assumptions of society by bringing corrupt science to the surface and preventing criticism of it. Shaping science that way is more than journalism; it's replacing knowledge with power mongering motives.

Correct journalism would be to make sure all elements of a technical subject are visible for evaluation, which particularly means allowing criticism to be visible. Instead, journalists do the opposite. They choose sides and prevent criticism of their position.

There is a large, peripheral media around the "mainstream media." What the peripheral media does is primarily a lot of complaining as a rudimentary form of criticizing. The complaints are aimed at social structures and activities. That whole platform of activity would not be possible in a knowledge-based society. All of the subject matter would already have been discussed and evaluated, so further criticism would be much more intellectual and evaluative than the rudimentary complaining.

Where it matters is in the real and relevant criticism that is not allowed—in mainstream media or peripheral media. The most important examples are global warming, renewable energy and electric vehicles. Those subjects are being exploited to an extreme, and exploitation allows no real or effective criticism.

There is a procedure that is highly visible in those examples. When anyone tries to criticize, what they are saying is totally irrelevant. The only thing relevant is supporting the exploitation. To properly align upon an exploitation, there are very strict rules. The terminology must be just right, so there is no implication of corruption involved. Significant explanations must carry suitable authority as a substitute for objective reality, because authority is already screened and approved for being compatible with the exploitation purposes. Non authorities are free, uncontrolled agents who have nothing to lose in attacking the exploitation.

There have been—years ago—knowledgeable authorities producing some real and valid criticism on those subjects, but only off to the side, where the material disappears as if it didn't exist. Within science, significant criticism of the developed consensus results in an inability to get grants or publish and sometimes getting fired. (How The Firing Works)

Under knowledge-based conditions, there is no such thing as authority. All realities have their own value independent of the source. If the lowest dregs say something relevant, it would be accounted for as relevant or irrelevant, true or untrue. None of the realities related to global warming, renewable energy or electric vehicles are accounted for. They lie in obscurity and in conflict with the promoted propaganda. To not find out is a conflict with knowledge-based existence. No one wants to find out in the overwhelming ocean of propaganda. The motive of not wanting to know is what defines a non-knowledge-bases state of affairs.

It seems strange how much certainty incompetents have in being right when promoting their errors. That reaction is a compensation for not being right or competent. It takes a lot of effort to work against objective reality. That effort creates a strange degree of visibility for corruptness. The extreme effort that corrupters produce in trying to prevent criticism of their exploitation is a measure of their being wrong.