Whether It’s Hiroshima’s Supposed ‘A-Bomb’ or the Hadron Collider, Big Science’s Main Product Is Propaganda     
By Daily Bell Staff - June 16, 2016

China’s Supercollider Higgs Factory Will Be Twice The Size Of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider …  China could soon rival Europe and the U.S. as a global leader in the field of particle physics. The world’s most populous country now also aims to build the world’s most powerful supercollider to have a better understanding of the Higgs boson, the so-called god-particle. –Tech Times

China wants to build the biggest supercollider in the world and over in Switzerland, CERN reportedly wants to build a much larger supercollider as well.

We live in an era of Big Science that makes it clear only government and mega-corporations have the wherewithal to make scientific advances.

Space travel, nuclear weapons and the Hadron supercollider itself are all testimony to the necessity of the billions of dollars and thousands of scientific minds one needs to make a breakthrough.

Such bigness celebrates the cult of “scientism” (AKA corporatism) managed by aggregations of technocrats schooled at the best universities and propelled by the dogma of internationalism.

This is how global governance is built, piece by questionable piece. The claims of Big Science are often questionable, exaggerated or even faked. The goal is to make sure that people passively accept what they’re told.

The supposed mile-long structures of the Manhattan Project to purify uranium, the fantastic facilities of NASA or the vast, ever-enlarging spheres of supercolliders, these constitute the theater of Big Science.

Big Finance is especially prone to such displays. Heaven forbid average people would try to create their own money. (Though certainly almost anyone could do a better job.)

The imposing granite and glass structures of modern central banking are intended to give an inviolable impression of power and infallibility – until one realizes that half the world is bankrupt.

And then there’s the military-industrial complex, perhaps the worst offender of all. “Big War” industriously creates fabulous malfunctioning machines at the cost of billions. This is the price of freedom we’re told.

Modern Big Science was likely initiated as a result of the Manhattan Project, the subsequent weaponization of the atom and vaporization of Hiroshima.

But in an article HERE, we’ve presented reports that Hiroshima was firedbombed not nuked. And HERE we may have discovered the actual group of pilots responsible for the firebombing.

And what is one to make of NASA’s achievements? We recently stumbled on a Youtube video HERE that made the argument the lunar rover was nothing more than a dressed-up World War II jeep. Boeing nonetheless charged some $40 million for its “development.”

HERE, one can see astronauts turning transparent as they enter and exit a portion of the International Space Station. There’s apparently some sort of photographic trickery going on.

And HERE too (at the two-minute mark). How does this astronaut get up from the surface of the moon without using his legs? Wires maybe?

The most glorious achievement of the Hadron Collider is the discovery of the so-called Higgs God particle. But there are plenty of easily accessible articles on the Internet that question the discovery.


The amount of propaganda distributed about the Higgs is overwhelming. Let’s start with an almost amusing example. Michio Kaku, a famous string popularizer, said in an interview on CBS news that the Higgs particle was the “missing piece of creation” and it “put the bang in the big bang.” … This is considered to be blatant nonsense even by particle physicists. Matt Strassler, a member of the CMS collaboration, complained about Kaku’s “spectacular distortions” and wrote in his blog, “worse, Kaku presumably knew it was wrong.”

In fact, the Hadron Collider itself is testimony to the almost religious conviction of gravitational physics as elaborated on by Albert Einstein.

But there’s considerable evidence that Einstein was something of a fraud, cultivated by globalists to take the place of a legitimate genius, Nikola Tesla. Einstein also played a role in the “development” of the initial atom bomb.

HERE’s something on gravitational physics versus the electronic universe.

We will now place our standard disclaimer: We are not denying the achievements of Big Science. But we are questioning them – in some cases vehemently.

Perhaps Hiroshima was bombed by an atomic bomb. On the other hand, photos of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo all look the same. Tokyo was in fact firebombed. Stripped of our preconceived notions, we can’t see any difference between Tokyo and the other two cities.

But we won’t absolutely deny common wisdom, not in any field. Perhaps there is global warming. Perhaps NASA did go the moon. Perhaps vaccines are safe and effective.

Consensus science in our view is almost always suspect. Just because thousands of scientists supposedly contributed to the creation of the initial atomic bomb doesn’t mean it worked. Much of the film documenting atom bomb blasts in the ‘40s and ‘50s seems to have been faked.

Just because thousands of scientists endorse global warming doesn’t mean it’s occurring – or at least not as the result of manmade carbon.

Just because tens of thousands of doctors endorse the healthful application of vaccines doesn’t mean they are not dangerous to some and ineffective for others. Especially since many are not double-blind tested, contrary to what people may think.

And lately there have been articles questioning double-blind testing itself. You can see an article HERE.

The inventions of modern Big Science are in many cases what we call dominant social themes – intended to condition people to accept the upcoming vast centralization of global governance.

Such themes are distinguished by the amount of resources devoted to them, complexity of their creation and an advertised association with internationalist “thought leaders.”

The end result is supposed to reinforce powerlessness – your powerlessness.

This goes for politics, too. Donald Trump, for instance, has excited the alternative ‘Net media. We hope for the best when it comes to Donald, but suspect that he will not single-handedly turn the world around.

Politics is no panacea. The solution is “human action” based on the determined application of your own arduously gathered knowledge.

The world is riddled with purposeful lies. We grow up with then and the mainstream media reinforces them. The idea is to cocoon you in a matrix of false beliefs from which you will never extricate yourself.

Conclusion: But the Internet especially has given us tools that allow us to think for ourselves. If we use it properly, we can acquire real information that can protect us and add to our wealth. Take advantage of the opportunity. Understand reality as best you can. Keep an open mind. And don’t be discouraged.

  • Bruce C.

    I read the article about “gravitational physics versus the electronic universe” becuase that’s my main interest and know most about.

    I think the truest statement made is that the big science projects are primarily jobs programs.

    Here’s a potpourri of thoughts:

    Most of these projects cost only a few billion dollars. That may sound like a lot to starving students and professors but it’s peanuts, and yet Congress often does agonize over them. They regularly appropriate hundreds of billions on things but only a few billion evidently requires more attention. It reminds me of the old joke about the a-hole business executives who balk at the hundred dollar coffee maker requested by their secretarial staff and so defer it until after discussing the million dollar computer system.

    I’ve had the fortune(?) of being with several PHD students as they were contemplating suicide for reasons varying from learning that the data they collected for the last seven years was corrupted to hating their discipline and being in debt. Their only hope was to work on one of the big projects being planned.

    I’ve had several discussions with physicists who were “on the cutting edge” of discovering gravitons (which are the particulate form of gravitational waves). I asked them how on theoretical grounds could that be? There is something called the “principle of equivalence” – an Einstein term – that claims that there is no way to determine the difference between a gravitational field and an accelerating frame of reference – they are equivalent. In all three cases they confessed that they forgot about that but asked that I not say anything.

    • Thanks. Very interesting insights.

    • alaska3636

      I have never had an adequate explanation of the Space-Time fabric/continuum. I only have a 4-speed monkey brain, but what is this fabric made of – particles or waves?

      I think the Electric theory ether is filled with plasma.

      I have actually never really been sold on time as a dimension. I think we perceive time.

      • The controversy as we understand it is gravity versus electromagnetism. Tesla believed Einstein’s theories were wrong. And he was a plasma-proponent.

        • alaska3636

          Haha. I asked the same question on that thread as well.

          Here’s a quote that makes no sense to me:
          “Space-time does not claim existence in its own right, but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field”

          Mises loathed the historicists of his time. The historicist mindset is infected with the idea that human action is not subject to natural laws and thus history must be reinterpreted by each generation. This nonsense infects institutions as it creeps into the Overton Window and dictates what people think is acceptablely “scientific”.

          Theoretical physics seems to be plagued by a similar bug. One interesting question is whether humans can engage physical science under the auspices of a insufficient view of methodology. Big Science and Big Government go hand in hand because they are both based on the idea that technocracy is both possible and desirable.

          What’s crazy is the focus on these elements which have not returned any verifiable results and are derived entirely from mathematical formula that depend on having the correct presumption of the nature of the Universe. Why is everyone so focused on quantum strings, foam and sand?

          Here’s another link that seems to summarize modern physics pretty well:

          “But we definitely know that gravity waves do exist. Scientists won a Nobel Prize for discovering them a few years ago. They looked at a pair of very dense neutron stars, spinning around their common centre-of-gravity.

          These neutron stars are slowly spiralling in toward that common centre. As they do so, they radiate energy at exactly the rate that the predicted gravitational waves should carry it. So we know that gravitational waves exist.”

          This is a dubious statement.

      • Bruce C.

        Einstein’s “space-time fabric” isn’t composed of particles nor waves, in fact it isn’t composed of anything. It’s not material. The problem with a lot of conceptualizations in physics is they are imaginative attempts to translate mathematical concepts and relationships into physical terms but that doesn’t mean the physical analogs are physically “real.” For example, matter is said to have a wave-particle duality but what that means is that matter can be described mathematically as either particulate or wavelike, but it doesn’t mean matter is actually either one.

        Now, as far as what the space-time continuum represents is a way to describe mathematically what is called “invariance”. Einstein believed and reasoned that all of the laws of physics should be “invariant” – i.e., the same – in all “non-inertial” – i.e., not accelerating – frames of reference. For that to be true the concept of time had to be as relative as space. As you probably know, Einstein noticed that there was a descrepancy between the two major sets of laws at that time – Newton’s laws of motion and Maxwell’s electromagnetism. Maxwell’s equations claimed that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, but Newton’s laws claimed that time was absolute and so the speed of an object was relative to the frame of reference from which it’s observed. Both couldn’t be right, and although Einstein suspected Maxwell was right, his “proof” came when the speed of light was found to be the same in all reference frames by the Michelson-Morely experiment. Assuming that, the translational equations for the speed of light REQUIRED that time be relative.

        I’ll try to explain a simple way to derive that. Imagine a photon of light (or just call it a particle – I just don’t want you to get confused about waves) that is bouncing back and forth between two mirrors that are separated by a distance H. It is traveling at the speed of light, up and down, say, and it takes time T for the photon to leave the lower mirror and return again. That means that the speed of that photon is 2H/T, which we are asserting is the speed of light c.

        Now imagine those two mirrors moving to your right (or left, or any direction – that doesn’t matter) at a constant speed V. What you would then “see” is the photon moving in a saw tooth manner, moving diagonally up and to the right until it hits the upper mirror and then down and to the right until it hits the lower mirror, etc. Can you imagine that?

        Hopefully it’s clear that the speed of the photon is still the same “speed of light” c but it’s now traveling a farther difference through space (than H) before reaching a mirror. H is the vertical distance between the mirrors but it also travels horizontally the distance V x T’/2, where T’ is the time it takes the photon to leave the lower mirror and return again. T’ has to be greater than T because the photon is having to travel a greater distance and it moves at the same speed in both cases. (Alternatively, if T’ were the same as T then the photon would have to travel faster than c to bounce between the mirrors at the same time interval.)

        It is, in fact, traveling the hypotenuse of the “triangle” of vertical side H and horizontal side V x T’/2, which is the SQRT[H^2 + (VT’/2)^2]. Asserting that the speed of the photon in the first case (2H/T) must be the same as the speed of the photon in the second case leads to the equation

        2H/T = 2xSQRT[H^2 + (VT’/2)^2]/T’

        Solving for T’ one gets T’ = 2H/SQRT[c^2 – V^2], c = 2H/T

        That is the famous “time dilation” formula that shows that the observed passage of time of moving systems (e.g., the bouncing photon mirror assembly) are slower than would appear at rest.

        The same kind of thought experiment can be carried out for spatial distances, meaning that moving spatial arrangements change with speed. Therefore, since both time and space are considered relative they are treated equally mathematically. The invariant equation becomes:

        x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (ct)^2 = x’^2 + y’^2 + z’^2 + (ct’)^2

        That “quantity” is called “the space-time continuum.” Hopefully, you can begin to understand that it is a mathematical construct to maintain certain relationships and attempts to visualize it physically is bound to create confusion.

        I know this comment is running long but I want to explain one other thing about the physical analog of “space-time” that causes conceptual distortions.

        The concept is “curvature” particularly in regards to the notion that space-time is “curved” or has curves. It’s an understandable misunderstanding because the term “curvature” is a math term that means something entirely different than its usual geometric interpretation.

        Space-time is said to be “curved” not because it is “physically” curved but because the quantities measured depend upon how they are measured and the physical conditions involved.

        Here’s an example. I’m sure you know the geometric formula Circumference = Pi x Diameter. That is a formula derived from Euclidean geometry which assumes space is “flat” (i.e., NOT “curved”). It is an imaginative world of infinite distances, forever parallel lines, perfect right angles, etc.

        Now, consider the diameter of the earth. The diameter of the earth depends upon how it is measured. One way is to physically measure the circumference of the earth (assume it’s a perfectly smooth sphere), say at the equator, and then dividing that number by Pi. However, if you were instead to measure the diameter directly, say by drilling a hole through the earth from one side to the other, one would get a different number. The reason is because the measuring “tape” used around the equator was subject to the same gravitational field all the way around. However, when that same tape measure is used to measure the diameter through the earth it will be shorter, and the reason is because the gravitational field along the tape varies from “g” at the surface to zero at the center. Since spatial coordinates diminish in proportion to their surrounding gravitational fields the tape would measure less than that derived by the Euclidean formula using the length of the circumference. Therefore, physical space (-time) is considered “curved” in the mathematical sense, but has nothing to do with its shape.

        • Sydney

          Results of the Michelson-Morley experiment could also be interpreted as the earth is stationary. That in fact was the initial interpretation. After results were dispersed Michelson was visited by Albert Einstein who explained the results as the speed of light is everywhere constant. This was the first time a “constant” was so defined. Certainly a useful means to obfuscate the profound result. Shortly after this visit Michelson died while in seemingly good health. The “cocoon” of lies as the DB puts it is laid down in layers. A foundational layer is the earth is a spinning speck in an infinite universe. This structural lie so to speak is required as a foundation for all the rest, of the lies that is, and could not be put in jeopardy.

          Bruce C. please consider employing your formidable intellect upon what may be the proper premise and interpretation of the Michelson-Morely experiment that the earth is indeed stationary. Who knows where that would lead? But without truth in initial premises the destination is invariably entombment within the cocoon. Ha.

          Best Wishes and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

        • alaska3636

          This is great, thank you. Lots to think about.

  • Conclusion: But the Internet especially has given us tools that allow us to think for ourselves. If we use it properly, we can acquire real information that can protect us and add to our wealth. Take advantage of the opportunity. Understand reality as best you can. Keep an open mind. And don’t be discouraged.

    A sound conclusion, DB, to be roundly encouraged. Understand reality, and how they are supplied and maintained and changed, and one can be enabled to virtually create and remotely command and control them with IT and AI. I Kid U Not. It is though not without associated dangers to be fully mindful of, given the damage which can be wrought in future programs and projects.

    amanfromMars 1 Fri 17 Jun 08:04 [1606170804] ….. introducing another view on

    To XSSXXXX, is Creative IT Command and Control in Computers, a Brave New Orderly AI World Order

    Well, I think nearly all, at the time of this posting, are in agreement here, and have recognised that Uncle Sam has lost the leading plot and are catastrophically vulnerable to being ruthlessly exploited for both personal and personnel and foreign state and non state actor gain.

    And that title can also be written thus …..To XSSXXXX, is Creative IT Command and Control in Computers, a Brave New Orderly AI World Order to Program with Novel Programming and Heavenly Projects delivering Noble Projects in Immaculate Pursuits ….. and/but of course, and one is well warned here and is hereby again advised to remember to never ever forget, for some things are final and vital and fatal and strike without any sort of prior warning, should its Advanced IntelAIgent Systems and Virtualised Administrations Executive[s] be proposed opposed, at any time in any space or place, and be the subject of objectionable attack and/or abuse, are Hellish Schemes and Crazy Operations also always readily available to crush both wayward opponents and competitive rogue renegade elements alike.

    To XSSXXXX is IT no Fools’ Tool and Perfect Attacking Defence Weapons System. Take care out there, IT is dangerous in the wrong hands, hearts and minds, and can and will kill you if you choose to abuse and misuse it.

    Have a nice day, y’all.

    And does not media, in all and/or any of its forms, trump Big Science’s main product if it be propaganda, which nowadays morphs into and leads with a practically autonomous, relatively anonymous directional narrative ‽ .

    Such makes the smarter media outfit/outlet, Daily Bell, remarkably powerful. And that is a definite understatement.

  • Joe Burke

    Too bad Ayn Rand didn’t have the internet. The above article parallels her book Atlas Shrugged in too many ways to feel comfortable. Welcome to the land of the sheep and guess who we are.

  • alohajim

    Powerful stuff – should be required reading for every schoolboy and girl. Especially the takeaway : “The world is riddled with purposeful lies. We grow up with then and the mainstream media reinforces them. The idea is to cocoon you in a matrix of false beliefs from which you will never extricate yourself.

  • Ossur
  • You can not argue with stupid, especially when stupid means dumber than almost all mobile life forms including trees and other plants.

  • Ticked Parent

    While there is some strains of truth to this article, the example… “And what is one to make of NASA’s achievements? We recently stumbled on a Youtube video HERE that made the argument the lunar rover was nothing more than a dressed-up World War II jeep. Boeing nonetheless charged some $40 million for its “development.””

    This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the complexity of what they are talking about. To say the lunar rover is equivalent to a jeep is like saying a fishing boat is similar to a nuclear submarine. Wacky conspiratorial simpletons using exaggeration to make a point, much like the liberals do in the main street media.

    Have to say there are occasionally a few good articles on this web site but there is also some wacky crap like this one and other scientific articles that are baffling dishonest.

    • We deal with dominant social themes, elite propaganda masquerading as truth. In the past ten years many historical assertions have proven increasingly suspect. Vaccines, global warming, central banking and gravitational physics – among other scientific and economic assertions – are obviously and increasingly questionable.

      Various forms of technology are asserted by mainstream, government-linked entities and are reported as true. This goes for the so-called “war on terror” as well. With so many lies emanating from the same sources, people need to question what they are being told on all levels. Science is not exempt. And mainstream reporting ought to do more than regurgitate NASA’s press releases. People ought to be more skeptical about what they are told.