Exploiting Bias for Global Control

How we see the world determines what we’re willing to see—including how we see ourselves.

Please consider the following journey in a psychological context. It’s not about anyone being “right or wrong.” Instead, by relating mistakes I’ve made through biased thinking, I hope to encourage others to consider how our beliefs might influence our acceptance of inconvenient facts or allow others to taint our thoughts.

Prior to putting myself in a wheelchair, (via a spinal cord injury in 1997), I enjoyed a twenty-year career in the railroad industry in various problem-solving positions. After my accident, I studied Neuroscience to understand my condition. Eventually I became an amateur liaison between researchers and non-profit funding sources with the goal of promoting clinical trials for acute and chronic SCI.

In 2002, I questioned the medical worth of embryonic stem cells. My situation—disabled in a wheelchair, well-informed regarding research issues, and unconcerned with politics or religion—made me an attractive witness for moral opponents of ESCs and human cloning. Despite my worldview neutrality, I accepted invitations to voice my concerns because so many fates hung in the balance, including my dreams of walking, my wife’s quality of life, and the lives of billions through the future of healthcare. My activism led to my speaking before government committees, to the Press at the White House, in debate at the NY Academies of Science, on CNN, and on A.M. ‘talk radio’ as a White House surrogate spokesperson.

Much of my life between 2002 and 2006 involved corresponding with Conservative biotechnology advisers, including members of the President’s Council of Bioethics, congressional staffers, scientists, and international pro-life leaders. My participation in their discussions allowed me to glimpse how intelligent minds promote worldview agendas.

In 2004, Republicans won majorities in the House and Senate. Bush won a second term, and the BIO/Pharma stem cell agenda rolled onward—a situation much akin to our failure in 2010 to enact eco-reforms despite having a supposedly pro-green Democrat in the White House, a Democratic majority in Congress, and a catastrophe in the Gulf to serve as an eco-wake-up call.

Also in 2004, a strong majority of Catholic voters in California supported a pro-cloning ballot initiative [Prop. 71] despite its vehement condemnation by a Catholic Bishop…a crucial point that later revealed a key to our eco-stalemate: the readiness of politicians and social organizations to betray their purported values in response to corporate pressures, grass root defections, or effective PR (see Obama attacks China for fostering Green Energy and The Triumph of Climate Politics).

By March of 2005, I realized that only a paradigm shift in how the public perceived biotech issues might allow society to lay aside its worldview differences to consider why the biotech, pharmaceutical, non-profit, and basic research industries would lead us intentionally down primrose research paths. Mapping the financial stakes, i.e., “follow the money,” offered the only logical course.

Before the ’04’ elections, I too had allowed myself to be lulled into an “us vs. them” mentality by becoming so focused on my stem cell battles—along with unearthing scientific facts to support my contentions—that I ignored everything else, including extensive deregulation of off-shore drilling by the Bush Administration…actions that seeded the Gulf Disaster. The elections began to open my eyes.

The passage of CA Prop. 71 represented a crushing defeat to the Conservative stem cell coalition through grass root defections. Within weeks, my supposed allies backed a pro-cloning compromise (called ANT/OAR) to save face and retreat from the stem cells war. And yet, prior to the passage of Proposition 71, these same organizations had denounced ANT/OAR as morally unacceptable.

[In retrospect, I’m struck by disturbing similarities between the timing and possible motives behind the ANT/OAR proposal and ‘pro-green’ initiatives that sabotaged the Copenhagen Summit and blocked eco-reforms on the heels of the outrage in the Gulf.]

Over the next two years, I continued my activism but studied my allies to learn how human nature affects society through worldview bias. I came to consider a staggering possibility: The stem cells debates might be a colossal sham. Yes, rank & file members of both parties believed in their causes. However, I had cause to suspect that President Bush and Republican leaders worked behind the scenes to promote industry’s ES goals. I based my suspicions on the following points:

  1. All of Bush’s appointees to the NIH, FDA, and Cabinet health-related positions were industry-approved advocates of ESCs/cloning.
  2. Bush appointees to NIH made it their first and unstinting priority to prioritize ESC basic research over non-hematopoietic adult stem cell/cord blood R&D. For both of his terms (a situation that continues), adult stem cell and cord blood researchers were denied funding again and again when they sought to move to clinical trials that threatened the long-range goals of BIO and Pharma or the the world’s medical status quo.
  3. A pro-life member of Bush’s Cabinet reportedly ordered the FDA to shut down an Atlanta cord blood clinic when he learned a cord blood treatment had begun to reverse the paralysis of a patient dying of ALS. (for more on this, see www.cures1st.blogspot.com.)
  4. Those who ushered me around the country to testify to government committees (or to speak to Conservative groups) consistently tried to dissuade me from addressing the financial motives for society being pushed in the ESC/cloning directions—and yet without presenting the incentives for industry to steer publicly-funded Science away from practical paths to cures, my words fell on deaf ears regardless of my research facts.
  5. I repeatedly urged Conservative leaders to publicly question 1) the medical practicality of ESCs & human cloning, and 2) industry motives for urging society to mortgage its medical future on cells specifically designed to not function safely in post-natal humans.  They refused, claiming that the public wouldn’t understand common sense explanations and that only by focusing on moral issues might they win the debates…a doomed strategy certain to deepen social mistrust by fueling the public’s impression that its sick and disabled might suffer or die for the religious beliefs of others.

[Note: Several of my contacts who refused to reveal practical realities concerning stem cells, which might have swayed public opinion in their favor, now exhibit no hesitation as members of the “Cornwall Alliance” toward distorting and discrediting the factual science of climate change.]

By itself, point #4 should have rung my alarm bells in my head. For example, while addressing a few hundred affluent conservatives in Washington DC, (in March of 2005) I was interrupted and told to cut my speech by half, which prevented me from placing stem cells in an economic context. For months, I assumed the program had gotten off schedule, and it made better sense to shorten my presentation than offend Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist or a Supreme Court justice. Only later did I consider how my audience might have reacted to a presentation that mapped the financial ties between basic science, pharmaceuticals, stem cells, and their personal finances.

In 2003, the top ten drug companies in Fortune 500 made more profits than the other four-hundred and ninety corporations combined. And yet, who did I think had invested their fortunes in pharmaceutical stocks…the average man in the street or the millionaires listening to my speech? In retrospect, I’m sure that they understood the stakes involved in stem cells perfectly—that I was the most clueless person in the room. How could I have possibly imagined that George Bush and the GOP would derail plans so intrinsic to the financial health of Pharma and BIO? It’s simple: I believed an illusion that I wanted to believe—that leaders from at least one side of our polarized society were on ‘my’ side even though their purported agenda differed from mine.

I came to question whether national Conservative leadership ever meant to win the stem cells debates, or if its purpose was to incite the worldview passions of Liberals and Conservatives alike to safeguard the financial goals of powerful special interests. In fact, I believe this strategy lies at the root of Man’s global paralysis concerning energy and climate change, i.e., the casting of a factual, black and white issue as a matter of worldview ‘opinion’ to divide society and entrench the status quo.

In 2006, I continued my activism despite knowing my actions were doomed to fail. By that time, I had realized I would never walk—that the paralyzed are too valuable as we are…poster advocates for industry goals and sources of profits. If I could make the slightest difference in anyone’s life, however, I had to try. The final straw came late in the year when a Conservative columnist wrote scathing editorials denouncing the existence of global warming—a reality I had experienced firsthand while living in America’s Northeast and hiking the Appalachian Trail.

I saw then that the charade that had confused us over stem cells was being re-enacted to promote fossil fuel profits for decades to come without the slightest regard for Earth’s climatic balance or the future suffering of the human race. Proposition 23 was a perfect example. Aided by the Conservative rich and the institutions they control, Big Oil, Coal, and their political pawns seduced the public by playing on its economic fears, unwillingness to change, worldview bias, and determination to believe whatever it wants regardless of facts.

Until we find the courage to face unwanted realities by not interpreting or filtering information to conform with our egos, convenience or bias, those with the means to taint our thoughts will continue to lead our planet and species toward certain climatic ruin.


Twice a surrogate ‘stem cells’ spokesperson for the GW Bush White House, J. Perry Kelly ended his association with the political right over its distortion of global warming. Having witness the psychology of worldview exploitation firsthand, he spent four years crafting “Quantum Fires: The Sibyl Reborn,” a psychological thriller.

Note: Advertisements and “possibly related posts–automatically generated” that may follow this post are NOT part of the Quantum Fires blog or presented by its author.



~ by James Kelly on February 25, 2013.

One Response to “Exploiting Bias for Global Control”

  1. Great story. You are pretty good man, don’t lose your faith, good luck!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: