"Scientific American" the Un-Science Mag

A couple years ago I canceled my subscription to "Scientific American" because the editor wrote they were going to become proponents of Statist ideology. He didn't word it that way, but his intent was clear. I had subscribed to keep up with scientific news, and was now being told that only science that supported the Statist agenda would be covered.

In the June edition of the mag: "After eight long years in exile, scientists have been enthusiastically welcomed back into the White House." Our Dear Leader was mentioned as being one of ten people "who have recently demonstrated outstanding commitment to assuring that the benefits of new technologies and knowledge will accrue to humanity." This all has to do with 'climate change' previously known as 'global warming' (which had to be changed because of increasing scientific evidence that temperatures are static or cooling).

The praise went on, "He wiped away science-averse policies." No, Scientific American, he wiped away science based policies.

I also quit reading "Time" magazine in the eighties when it's founder Henry Luce died. They too had a editorial stating they were going to present news through the Statist filter. I was just beginning my shift from being a Marxist at that time, and even then I was interested in straight reporting, not editorialized reporting.

Is a society really free when most of the media, even science media, deliberately filters and even lies to maintain, even grow an ideology? When it refuses to report and inform and let the people determine for themselves how to read, accept or reject what's reported? Keep the people ignorant, they'll be easier to rule.