Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies (AIAS)


-quick links-

ECE Principles
ECE Principles II

-external links-


AIAS Coat of Arms

Home » General statements » Journalistic Freemasonry in Science

Journalistic Freemasonry in Science


Freemasonry has been essentially eliminated from some parts of public life in Britain, notably, no Labour M.P.'s are Freemasons This followed an exposure of their activites by Stephen Knight. The same kind of freemasonry exists in science publishing. In the case of ECE theory it is well known that journal editors have been heavily lobbied and harassed in order to prevent the publication of the theory. This goes back to about 1992, so over fifteen years the activity has failed completely. The ECE theory and its precursor work has simply become more well known and well tested. Journal editors in modern physics seldom if ever read a submitted paper. The Institute of Physics has recently admitted that it uses completely untrained secretarial staff to censor papers. The same is true of arXiv. Both have author blacklists. The overall aim is the opposite of what it should be. Instead of encouraging new ideas they are bluntly censored. Careers and funding depend on journal publication. In science an anonymous per review system was introduced in the early nineteen forties. Before that, papers were not peer reviewed. The effect of this has been to put power into the hands of editors and referees: the masonic elite. Dave Feustel asked for a list of journals which have either tried to censor ECE theory or block the right of reply. These include:

  1. Physical Review system
  2. Science
  3. Acta Physica Polonica
  4. arXiv preprint system
  5. Institute of Physics system
This is a dismal record of prejudice against new ideas, as also commented upon by Prof. Dunning-Davies of Hull University in support of Stephen Crothers. In my work I often had to reply to articles which appeared in print entirely without warning. All the rules had been broken, a preprint shoudl eb sent by the editor to the author for reply, well in advance. A reply should not be refereed, it is the comment that should be refereed. This is because a reply is a defence which must be judged by scientists, not editors and referees. A summary of these battles for B(3) is given in the Advances in Chemical Physics reviews of 2001 on the Omnia Opera, reviews which are well read. Recently, a more sinister aspect has appeared in which editors who promote new ideas, such as Prof. van der Merwe, are harassed and dismissed, even though they may be among the most eminent of scientists as van der Merwe certainly is. This is reminiscent of the methods of a totalitarian regime. The journalistic world is tightly grouped by e mail, and so it is relativiely easy to censor ideas and to pressurize those that do not conform. In my unique experience of over 700 refereed papers and books produced mostly on my own, I found that the referee system works only rarely, there were long delays, one line reports, editorial intolerance, no comprehension of content. In contrast, feedback to my work has always been good, AFTER publication took place. Vox Populi Vox Dei. Lately, systematic harassment has begun to appear, and this has been dealt with effectively so far. However one always needs to be on the look out for fresh attempts to attack and distort.
Legislatures must look long and hard at what they are funding. Being free of the masonic dead hand themselves, they must not fall into the trap of directing public funds to freemasons of a more subtle variety. They should not be too imrpessed by big prizes such as the Nobel prize, which is not really meaningful any longer. It is controlled by the same people who control the journals and funding. In great contrast the Civil List pension is democratic, occurs very rarely, and is voted in by a Parliament which has removed masonic influence to a large extent.

Civil List Scientist

cc Welsh Assembly and IWA

Posted: 2007-09-30


� Copyright 2000 - 2020 AIAS
|Contact Us|AIAS License|About us|