Seek Truth From Facts Foundation brings together a stellar group of authors, journalists, historians and researchers, who collectively offer one of the finest bodies of works on the Internet.

Science and Cultural Conversion: Creating the environment of science in ordinary life

By: Dr. T.P. Wilkinson

At the outset of any serious discussion or investigation it is useful, if not always necessary, to introduce some definitions. This is particularly the case if the terms one intends to use are endowed with a broad range of connotations that vary significantly from the usage proposed by the investigator. Also once an investigator has reached a certain stage of life and professional development it becomes difficult to adequately summarize those experiences which in reflection underlie the style and substance of argument as well as the perspective taken.

The overall theme of this conference interests me because my intellectual progress has been in comparative cultural history. Hence my question here is also one of comparison. My approach to the history of science is a cultural historical method. By culture I mean “instructions for performance”. In other words, “culture” is the body of normative activity by which people ascribe “knowledge” or a sense of value to their experience. However, since meaning (and value) are not immanent, culture can only comprise statements of what ought to be considered knowledge or ought to incite a sense of value. Culture is supposed to instruct us how to experience knowledge and value but it is always incomplete. That means that the range of possible and future experiences and hence perceptions far exceeds any normative prescriptions, regardless of how detailed and precise they may be. We never respond to everything. Rather perception and hence response is always selective. A change in the selection, whether intentional or accidental, can always lead to recognition of something to which there is no prior instruction for responding. Under such circumstances the response may be random or accidental.

Culture, in the broadest sense, therefore is a result of the history of responses and their establishment as normative, i.e. prescriptive behaviours. Knowledge comprises the body of possible responses which are deemed to be appropriate when confronted with any configuration or selection from the entire perceptual field available. By value I mean concretely the judgement that any response is deemed an appropriate answer to the basic question, what makes life worth the trouble it takes to live it? Since our mortality poses certain concrete limits on how long we may live and under what conditions this question remains central to human existence regardless of the cultural context in which we find ourselves. To that extent we might posit it as a universal question. At the same time the immeasurable variety of conditions under which humans interact with the world also includes the possibility of indefinite cultural forms through which we arrive at least tentatively at answers to this question. The comparison of these forms and their historical situation has become increasingly interesting as a result of the contacts between peoples and cultures intensified in the course of time. This comparison is also one way of approaching another phenomenon which we can call cultural conflict. By that I mean the conditions under which peoples responding to the world in accordance with differing instructional matrices face each other.

By conversion I mean any transformation in cognition and thus in the basic process of knowing and valuing. Conversion is also a change in the structure of knowledge. “The structure of “knowledge” is the structure of semiotic transformation, of culture which maintains semiotic behaviour, of redundancy systems which maintain culture and of social institutions, which maintain redundancies.” (Peckham, 1979, p. 181)

By “science” I mean, “the most complete model of semiotic hierarchy from configuration to termination of explanatory regress. The completeness is indicated by the immense control over nonverbal, nonhumanly produced signs which modern science has developed, but because, as in this instance, unpredictable consequences are made possible by scientific instruments.” (Peckham, 1979, p. 153)

A detailed exposition of these definitions and their bases can be found in two books, Explanation and Power (1979) by Morse Peckham and Science as Power (1988) by Stanley Aronowitz. Further elaboration of my definition and application of the concept of conversion can be found in my book Church Clothes: Land, Mission, the End of Apartheid (1997). The second revised edition was published in 2024.

In Science and Civilisation in China (1978, abr. C A Ronan), Joseph Needham presents the question of East-West scientific relations by discussing two paths of scientific development: invention and transmission. Needham arrives at the conclusion that for most of recorded history science in China was more advanced than that in the West. Although in some cases there is evidence to attribute transfer or transmission, there is just as much, if not more to indicate that the transmission was from East to West and not the other way around. Needham does not rule out independent invention or multiple independent invention of the same idea or technique. He proposes one explanation for the emerging discrepancy between scientific development in the West and that in China lies in the relationship between the scientific enterprise and Chinese society as a whole. The Chinese philosophical and sociological conditions were ambivalent with respect to science. A scientific establishment linked to the State never emerged in the way it would in the West.

However, Needham does not question the particular character of modern science itself. In his terms of reference, he has to assume its status. So, he contrasts the extensive application of scientific method in the West with its far more restricted use in China, particularly distinguishing the Confucian disdain for empirical experiment (labour) with the natural world from the Taoist preoccupation with such fields as alchemy. Nevertheless, within the timeframe of Needham’s research he concludes that China was not “behind” but at least parallel if not more advanced than was the West. Then a period of relative stagnation appears to have begun from which China only recovered in the last century. That recovery would appear the result of massive transmission from the West, facilitated by education and training of Chinese scientists in Western establishments. The rapid rate at which Chinese science and technology has not only recovered by exceeded the developments in the West has led to speculation about the trajectory such scientific advance would take. This concern coincides with speculations that China’s industrial and military strength will necessarily turn it into a global hegemon, possibly replacing the US.

I believe these speculations are largely misguided. They are informed by the so-called realist school of Western political science which posits the direction of the State in instrumental terms, not unlike the instrumentalism characteristic of the Western scientific view. A more fundamental question ought to be asked and for this the definition of culture I have introduced is very helpful. Simply stated the central question is how does knowledge become culture? Or how knowing becomes doing and by whom? Peckham asks “how does behaviour control behaviour?” To address this, he offers the term “sciencing” rather than Science. If meaning is not immanent, i.e. our explanations of the world are not isomorphic with the phenomena subsumed by that term, then it is inevitable that we all engage in what the behaviour of “sciencing”.

The core of that behaviour is semiotic transformation. We see the world as signs when we distinguish anything from its ground. In order to perceive we must select and this selection is controlled by interests. Any selection obviously leaves a residue that has not been selected. We see a crowd for instance but when we are looking for a particular person such as a friend, we eliminate from our perceptual field those attributes which we consider inconsistent with those ascribed to the friend in question. She has red hair and we pay little or no attention to those in the crowd with brown, black or blonde hair. The possibility that from a certain distance or under certain light conditions the colour red might not be distinguishable only occurs when we fail to see the expected red-head in the crowd. At that point we may recategorize the traits that distinguish our friend in comparison to others in the group. Thus, we randomize our response in the hope of finding a preponderance of selected qualities that appear coherent with the image of the friend we want to find. In fact, this trivial example shows that our friend, the biological entity, is not identical with the category of attributes with which we attempt to find her. This is also what makes deceit and disguise possible. It is also an indication of the function of culture and the process of sciencing. Our interests in finding something narrow our search behaviour within a framework of expectations (instructions) as to the appropriate find. Yet the incompleteness of the framework and the indeterminacy of the perceptual field create the potential for randomness—creativity, if validated within the framework; deviance, if not.

My point is that the question of superiority or inferiority of Western vs. Eastern science is a pseudo-problem. Sciencing is a model of knowing that has developed throughout the human species. The difference between Western and Eastern science does not lie in whether one part of the world applied “scientific method” more than the other. The difference is to be found elsewhere. That is what I propose in cultural historical terms.

Joseph Needham gives a clue as to the significant distinction when he remarks that archaeological finds throughout the regions where China was active trading uncovered no permanent establishments, such as fortresses or fortified towns. Instead, what has been recovered were goods, especially porcelain, heavily traded (and used as ship’s ballast). All of the permanent structures found to date were erected by Westerners, like the Portuguese. Although China was engaged in global trade well before the “Columbian era”, there are no remains of Chinese settlement or colonization to be found. This evidence suggests that China was focused on social and commercial objectives while the West was focused on occupying territory and subjugating peoples.

The Western isthmus of Eurasia was truly on the margin of human civilization. It was sparsely populated and poor in terms of natural resources. It was also geographically isolated. The terrain was sufficiently inhospitable that it was never absorbed into the steppe empire of the Mongols. Its primary civilizational source lay in Egypt and the Mediterranean basin.

This began to change with the consolidation of Latin Christendom. This was partly the result of the Islamic revolution which drove Christian latifundistas across the sea into the Latin peninsula, forming what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church. The Church became the primary social and ideological institution of the West. The claims to universality—hence catholic—were not unchallenged. Christianity was primarily a Greek religion which coexisted with other religions throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. Greek Christianity was governed by autonomous ecclesiastical organisations that had emerged in the principal cities of former Greek colonization. In order to impose papal supremacy—the rule of Rome, the Latin see—these refugees from North Africa enlisted the Germanic “barbarians” who had been enemies or tributaries on the northern borders of the Roman Empire. These mercenary armies constituted the striking force of the Crusades, the principal aim of which was to subdue Islam and establish control over the Middle East pivot. The purpose of this conquest was ideological, e.g. recovery of the purported “Holy Land” from the infidels, along with the subjugation of the autonomous Christians. However, the underlying material motivation was to seize control over the hub of East-West trade and eliminate the Islamic intermediaries. This remains one of the central objectives for Western control over the Middle East.

To justify the Crusades and the subsequent “Columbian era”, Catholicism turned the a priori assertion of its universality, dogmatically enforced by the supreme papacy, into a mandate to spread the Faith. The ecclesiastical ministry devoted to this expansion became known as Propaganda Fidei. The mission of the Church was to expand its power through multiplication of adherents, to Christianize (Catholicize) the world. It should not be surprising that a minority seeking to dominate huge territories and large populations should establish itself as the standard for the world it aims to conquer. Nonetheless faith in conquest can falter with the material conditions to obtain it.

To overcome this discrepancy between the ambitions of the Latin Papacy and the limited resources at its disposal, strict organization and ideological control was necessary. All resources had to be dedicated to the “mission”. Propaganda Fidei began as a clerically-guided military operation. The Papacy had raised armies to affect its rule over the secular dominions in the Latin peninsula (the Swiss Guard of Vatican City is a legacy of that tradition). Propagating the Faith beyond the seas required more force and manpower. Hence the Papacy delegated the operations to Christian princes who were especially rewarded by honours and due share of the spoils. The global mission fell to the Spanish and then was shared with the Portuguese. Once the “Catholic” forces of Aragon had defeated the Western Caliphate in Iberia, driving the “Moors” back into North Africa, Spain received the commission to Christianize the world. Spain subsequently established dominion over Central and South America, except for Portuguese Brazil, and extended it into the Pacific archipelago named the Philippines. Portugal expanded southward through coastal Africa, entered the Indian Ocean and erected forts and factories to support its naval operations through the Malaccan strait into the South China Sea.

The underlying motive for these operations was to circumvent Islamic control over the land and sea routes for East-West trade. Unexpectedly the Spanish conquests provided a massive inflow of wealth in the form of precious metals and raw materials. The Portuguese for their part proved to be the vanguard of a series of maritime invasions which while yielding little in territory engendered a tradition of state-sponsored piracy which shifted control over the Indian Ocean basin to the Atlantic powers for subsequent centuries. The leverage needed to overcome numerical superiority and the traditions of trade in the region came from three tactics: unparalleled ruthlessness, religious fervour, and military technology.

The term “shock and awe”, made popular again by the US invasion of Iraq, was already an essential part of the Iberian strategy, accompanied by the doctrines of Latin Catholicism. First, there was violent disruption of extant trading relationships by soldiers who were unknown to their targets. Then followed the installation of a clerical bureaucracy to pacify the natives. This was a tandem strategy. On the one hand, the populations attacked were traumatized. Then in the wake of the massive disruption of their socio-cultural infrastructure, a new highly centralized system was installed, backed by the military force of the invaders. The conversion of peoples to Christianity, while never total, followed two principles: recruitment of marginal groups and destruction of the traditional institutions and practices. In retrospect, one can see that where the spiritual arm failed, the military victories were temporary. One of the key techniques for capturing the “souls” of the population was the creation of ecclesiastically-controlled schools and hospitals. Together this strategy became known as the “Church militant”. Having created significant minorities dependent upon allegiance to the invaders institutions, a system of indirect rule could emerge. Thus, the invaders lack of manpower was augmented by people protected by Christendom, who in turn provided the rationale for power consolidation. This system survives today in many of these former colonies where Christian-Catholic elites continue to dominate the ideological and social institutions long after Europeans abandoned the colonial project.

The defeat of Spain and Portugal by the Anglo-Dutch alliance after the so-called Glorious Revolution, replaced the agents of conversion but barely altered the strategy. The instrumentalization of science, embodied in Catholic dogma, with its promise of salvation, would be replaced by capitalism, a secularized form of Latin ecclesiastical organization. Instead of salvation profit maximization became the termination of the new explanatory regress. In the post-imperial era the Western business corporation succeeded to the ecclesiastical mantel. Originally creatures of the Protestant states, with their “democratic” ecclesiastical forms, the business corporations then became “liberated” from state control. The State became the guarantor through its monopoly of war. The adherents to the Latin dogma were replaced or converted to sycophants of a new form of Catholicism, bureaucratic capitalism. Meanwhile the Church became subsidiary to the industrialised states. As a result, although conflict emerged between the adherents to the original Catholic ideology and its product, salvation, and the corporation’s ideology of profit-maximisation, the withering centralized monarchies were overwhelmed by a wave of bourgeois revolutions which ultimately undermined the Catholic dominions overseas. In their place emerged states ruled by “democratic” oligarchies operating within a corporate ideology, retaining the ecclesiastical infrastructure where it contributed to stability (pacification).

Instead of cultural or scientific transmission, i.e. the sharing of knowledge through mutual exchange, societies were restructured to coincide as closely as possible to the structure of knowledge defined by the conquerors/ colonizers. However, this process was not confined to the imperial efforts beyond the seas. By the end of the 19^th century, industrialization had reached a point where the organization of useful knowledge (common sciencing) had been subsumed and appropriated through the gradual (yet no less forced) efforts of industrial combines and cartels. The resistance to this process was fierce. The owners of these great industrial enterprises fought with both private and state violence to prevent the emergence of counter-organisations of labour intent on preserving their interest in the means of production and the sciencing processes. On one hand, this conflict can be seen as the emergence of class struggle. On the other hand, it was also a struggle over the control of knowledge structures and the institutions that maintain them. In this sense the claims that Marxism is a science was by no means specious or anachronistic. The war against labour (arguable a continuing one) was not only an attempt to maintain the extraction of value from the labour process against demands for decent wages and working conditions. It was also a fundamental war against those whose labour was a source of knowledge waged by those whose aim was to establish a “scientific monopoly” of the structures of knowledge.

Taylorism was only one aspect of this counter-insurgency. At the same time new or reformed universities and research centres were being founded to extend the bureaucratic control over sciencing to all aspects of society. This culminated in the Progressive movement in the US, a largely corporate funded effort to replace political struggle over knowledge production with the contesting of “experts”. Those experts were housed in the new ideological institutions legitimated by the so-called social sciences. By 1913, through the work of direct corporate action and indirect efforts by philanthropic foundations (tax dodges), the centres of knowledge production had been transferred from the labour force to a new class of ideological institutions mainly located in universities.

A good example of how this occurred can be seen in the success of the Rockefeller (Standard Oil of New Jersey) interests operating through the General Education Board. Under the guidance of Dr Flexner, the entire structure of medicine (first in the US) was redesigned to follow the imperatives of the petrochemical/ pharmaceutical industry (also largely controlled by Rockefeller interests). The GEB led a very successful campaign to discredit and decertify (prohibit practice) of medicine by anyone who had not graduated from GEB-sponsored medical schools. These schools were established with curricula focused on the chemical engineering model of the human body (later to be augmented by the genetic model). Thus medical expertise and competence in the healing arts was made dependent upon mastery of this form of “scientific medicine” to the exclusion of all others. Paradoxically, John D Rockefeller remained an adherent of traditional medicine while his lieutenants crusaded against it throughout the country. The Baptist millionaire understood well the application of “mission” to science and the need to convert the population from its primitive beliefs to create an environment hospitable to the expansion of his empire through petrochemical/ pharmaceutical enterprises.

Protestant missionaries had successfully augmented the colonization process in Africa by means of so-called medical mission. Perhaps the most famous of those was Dr Schweizer, who successfully combined the Protestant faith with the propagation of Western medicine. How did such mission proceed? While there is no doubt that many Western medical innovations cured illnesses in the colonies (to the extent they were available to the local populations), medical missionaries saw their duty in the eradication of local and traditional healing arts and their practitioners. It was not their duty to end the conditions of colonization which created many of the health problems they ostensibly aimed to combat. In other words, preventive medicine would have required an intervention to oppose the conditions created by colonizers and corporate exploitation. This remains a central conflict in medical practice today, where the interest in industrial medical technology (and the profits derived from it) is far stronger than the forces for changing living conditions by which so many illnesses originate or are aggravated. Most recent events indicate that this power remains unabated.

What remains to be considered in this brief history of scientific conversion is the microcosm in which such technological power is incubated. Bruno Latour, in his study of Pasteur, argued that Pasteur did not cure the anthrax problem simply by discovering techniques for suppressing the pathogen. What he was able to do was to persuade the State—through alliance with agricultural industry—that the way to combat anthrax and other diseases effecting livestock was to convert the farm into a laboratory. By transferring the practices by which Pasteur had isolated the anthrax pathogen in the laboratory to the farm he could reproduce the same results that he had obtained in his research. Thus the answer to anthrax pestilence was dependent upon the changes in farming and animal husbandry to conform to the protocols of his laboratory. These traditional practices were to become “scientific”. The farmer was to be subordinated to the rules of laboratory practice. Hence to the extent a farm was remodelled as a laboratory, laboratory methods could be used to control the production of food. This also meant that any practices which could not be subsumed by the new “scientific farm” model had to be discarded—regardless of efficacy. The environment had to be transformed into one which could be controlled by scientific instruments applied by experts trained in their use.

The laboratory is a highly selective environment organized on the principle that the subject of investigation can be isolated from the totality of known and unknown factors that comprise the world as a whole. Assuming that one can isolate the subject of investigation from the environment as a whole also extends to the investigator himself. It is assumed that the investigator is an independent observer of laboratory phenomena. However this is clearly not the case. Operating a laboratory presumes that the investigator has learned all the instructions and procedures which qualify him for laboratory work. These instructions and procedures are by no means objective or neutral—except by definition. In fact, Latour shows that everything in the laboratory is susceptible to control by factors that have little to do with an objective identification of the subject of research, e.g. colleagues, education, sources of funding, career interests, and other social factors. The belief that these factors are irrelevant to the validity of laboratory results is ideological. Even the selection of observers and their qualification precedes any certainty in the determination of what counts as proper research. Within any discipline there is constant conflict between investigators as to who is really qualified and what constitutes acceptable research activity. These conflicts form the subject and purpose of the redundancies used to maintain the structure of scientific knowledge, e.g. journals, conferences, publications, academic appointments, research grants, etc. The ideological institutions, especially the universities, research centres as well as corporate and state departments charged with funding and policing them, are the backbone of the modern scientific enterprise—the bureaucratic structure of knowledge.

The 20^th century might also be characterized as the era of Big Science. Just as the rest of society was subjugated by industrial and financial cartels, the production and structure of knowledge became concentrated in the centres of Western power. Two world wars accelerated this process. The requirements for waging global war turned the ideological institutions, e.g. universities along with other research and teaching entities into centres for promoting the war efforts. While ostensibly waging war against dictatorial-tyrannical regimes, the demands of modern industrial warfare bent supposedly “free inquiry” to submit to the State. The long-term impact of this change can be seen in the fallout from the Manhattan Project. At that time the US atomic bomb program (and the clandestine biological/ chemical warfare projects) was arguably the largest research and development undertaking in history. The complex and extensive work devoted to developing and eventually deploying this super-weapon entrenched “Science” in every conceivable aspect of society. At the same time the dictates of national security required that anyone seriously involved in the project (knowingly or not) accept the conditions of loyalty oaths and security clearances. The sheer volume of investment largesse, spread throughout the universities, was more than ample inducement for compliance.

In order to enjoy legitimacy and a share of the loot given to those working directly with the armaments budget, pressure was exerted to extend primarily quantitative and instrumental methods in the physical sciences even to those disciplines traditionally considered qualitative, like the humanities. Political warfare, amplified after 1945, gave a substantial boost to the social sciences. Whereas they had originated in the attempts to restrain the labour movement at the beginning of the 20^th century, social science research became an integral part of Western counter-insurgency strategy, supporting US efforts to absorb the newly independent former colonies into a new system of domination led by US corporate management. This was in fact the purpose for which the previous foreign interventions by US corporations were replaced by a national agency composed of professionals from those same corporations, leading the effort—the CIA. That agency would become one of the largest conduits for resources and expertise intended to make the world safe for US-led capitalism.

The US wars in Korea and Vietnam, not to mention countless smaller wars throughout the world, have killed proportionately more people than those who died from US campaigns in World War II (perhaps even more than the total loss of life from that war). Much attention has been given to the apparently futile efforts of the US to stop the spread of communism. Less attention has been given to the scientific efforts devoted to political and cultural warfare. Remarkably a Harvard academic published an article what was then the leading liberal journal, The Nation, explaining the underlying elements of US strategy. He wrote that it was an essential objective of the US war effort to decimate/ depopulate the countryside (in Vietnam) because only this would produce the surplus population needed to convert the rural majority into an industrial workforce. While the official US rhetoric described the war effort as a battle against communist tyranny, the institutional author of the war, the CIA, was pursuing a deliberate policy of social engineering. To do this it employed the State, using military cover, and the available battery of social sciences. This included what might be called the first iteration of functional AI, the Phoenix Information System, to develop population profiles and kill lists. The progeny of that system is unabashedly deployed for the same purposes in occupied Palestine.

Already in the wake of World War I, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, coined the term “public relations” as a euphemism for full-spectrum psychological warfare for profit and power. He applied the rhetoric of his uncle’s psychoanalytic method in a way analogous to Frederick Taylor’s principles of scientific management. Although he used the inadequate term “unconscious” to denote the target of his operation, what he meant was the cultural environment that provides the context and rules for controlling human behaviour. The “science” of public relations is based on modelling human semiotic transformation and then selecting those elements in culture which can be freely manipulated to alter the responses in the manner prescribed by the model. For this Bernays and his successors recognized the paramount function of new mass media. First the cinema and then the “market” itself could be organized to overdetermine the responses of masses of people in the ways deemed most desirable to corporate or State interests. This was a deliberate abandonment of the assumption that humans are capable of rational sciencing. Instead human rationality was to be undermined by the exploitation of desire—another word for the hesitation in response arising from incoherence within daily life. The public relations strategy is to substitute the individual’s capacity for empirical cognition with barrages of pre-fabricated, temporary sensations that relieve the extreme tensions induced in the first phase of the operation. Thus, cognition is reorganized as continuous consumption. The actual thought, with its dangerous potential for disruptive randomness is to be suppressed and replaced by “reconstituted thought product”.

If we return to the political warfare dimension, then it is fair to compare this strategy and the technology deployed to that first developed by the Latin Church, e.g. auricular confession, the sacraments, the liturgy, the cult of saints, and of course the Holy and Universal Inquisition. Just as the Papacy deployed all these technologies for stabilizing papal and ecclesiastical power, the business corporation deploys the arsenal of public relations to expand and maintain corporate power.

This has all been aided by the Western conflation of Science with Truth. So while I began with the definition of science as the model for knowing, what we really should consider is Science as a model for controlling human behaviour. The distinctive quality of Western science has been its focus on the domination of humans by separating them from Nature, from their lived environment from which they are alienated constantly by the mediation of bureaucratic, scientific institutions.

This brings me back to Needham’s question. I believe it should be restated as “why did China not adopt the Western model of science?”

Since I am only a novice in the study of Chinese history and thought, I can only render some tentative propositions.

I suppose that while China at no time in its history exhibited an approach to knowing or sciencing less sophisticated or innovative than that which emerged in the Western isthmus, it did not develop the scientific institutions derived from Latin Catholicism, either in material or intellectual terms. Chinese thought never wholly accepted the division of Man from Nature. Nor did a unified scientific establishment tied to State power emerge to successively impose its models upon Chinese society.

Perhaps more importantly, China was not absorbed by a “mission” to convert the world to its image, either ecclesiastically or culturally.

Hence, the pernicious elements of Western embedded ideology (technology) have only had a very selective and largely superficial impact on Chinese culture to date. Despite the rapid industrial modernization of the past 80 years, one can easily imagine that an archaeologist digging another five hundred years from now will only discover the remains of Chinese products sold around the world, next to whatever remains of the Western crusading obsession.

Dr T P Wilkinson (Wei Santang)

Senior Research Associate

Center for Africa Studies (CEAUP)

University of Porto

Portugal

Share

Refer a friend

###

Remember, this platform and all the other Big Lie Propaganda Machine’s MSM Mossad-CIA-MI6 foghorns are horrifically shadow banning and censoring the China Writers’ Group, for a good reason. They want to keep you brainwashed and ignorant. FB, Google, et al. now buy censorship AI algorithms from companies specialized in making the truth disappear. “Subscribing” and “Following” are a smoke-and-mirror illusion. The only way to guarantee access to all of us is to proactively go to www.seektruthfromfacts.org and once there, regularly click on each member’s icon (per the below) to keep up with our work! Your soul’s sanity and survival depend on it…

###