.......beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
2 Peter 3:17
"If your mental image of the scientist is the morally pure, unbiased 
guy
in a white lab coat measuring chemicals in a flask, you need to catch up
to the 21st century. There may be many rank-and-file scientists who
approximate that image, but the Big Science Cartel
is a huge unelected political force wielding significant power over
public policy. And because any thought of creation or intelligent design
has been scrubbed from the classroom for decades, the remaining cadre
of outspoken scientists and their leaders are mostly atheists and
Darwinists with left-leaning, globalist intentions.
One egregious example was when leading scientists published an attack on the Covid lab-leak theory in The Lancet
when Donald Trump was president, calling it a conspiracy theory without
evidence. Now, well after the damage was done, the probability that
Covid-19 began in the Wuhan Lab is becoming accepted by government
agencies and leading secular journalists (see Nature, 2 March 2023). The scientists were willing to lie in order to keep Trump from winning a second term.
Misinformation is hard to define, but usually means untrue statements
stated or repeated carelessly without regard to the facts. (In
practice, it usually means statements that disagree with the “experts,”
the scientific consensus, or the Democrat Party.) Disinformation, by
contrast, is spreading falsehoods intentionally in order to achieve a
political goal: the Big Lie propaganda tactic used by Soviet communists and exemplified in the novel 1984. There’s a degree of overlap between the terms.
Big Science and Big Media are now advocating disinformation for the
common good (where they get to define what “the common good” means).
It’s OK to lie for their version of truth, they ironically believe. This
utilitarian view of public policy grew out of several influences.
1. One is the greed for government funding, as lobbyists and and
journal editors began to realize that Democrat Party politicians, not
Republicans, were more likely to divert citizens’ tax dollars their way
without demanding accountability.
2. Another influence is the decline in a theistic view of the world,
with its insistence on absolutes and on human exceptionalism. Belief in
absolute truth promotes scientific integrity, whose motto is “follow the
evidence wherever it leads.” That’s a moral value that has no
foundation in atheism.
3. Another major influence on Big Science is the evolutionary view of
world history, where the fittest survive not because of truth, but
because of power. With Yoda Complex
purring, the elitist big cats in charge of scientific priorities view
the mass of humanity as herds of particularly interesting mammals, mere
pawns in evolutionary games. They employ evolutionary “game theory” to
empower themselves (the “cooperators”) against their opponents (the
“cheaters”). In this view, whatever strategy works is morally good.
The
idea of a conscience went out with Darwin. Now, the powerful fell they
can take control of the evolutionary steering wheel.
Are nudges sinister psychological tricks? Or are they useless? 
Actually they are neither (The Conversation,
25 Dec 2023). Articles like this make us wonder if the elitists read
our material, because we have criticized “Nudge Theory” on several
occasions as methods for political manipulation in lieu of honest debate
(5 Jan 2022, 29 July 2022).
Maybe they feel obligated to issue a rebuttal. Three professors
(Elkins, Hoffman and Chuah), like self-appointed
misinformation-checkers, have arisen to preach the post-truth. They say,
To recap, a “nudge” is about making a socially desirable decision easier or more attractive. That is all.
Oh, is that all? These three profs are completely blind to their
elitism. Who decides what is a “socially desirable decision”? It’s the
elitists in power! They can “nudge” the public to wear masks, lock down
and take the jab by whatever means necessary. The profs claim this does
not limit anyone’s free will. But hidden in their text is the clear
presumption that experts know best; they know what is “good” for the
rest of us.
The elitists are the nudgers,
the public the nudgees.
Christian nationalists are enamored with Putin, even if they oppose Russia, new research from Northeastern professor says (Northeastern University,
9 March 2023). This is such a misinformation-dripping, anti-Christian
big lie, it’s hard to fathom how a university could print it as a
‘science research’ article. Most Christians could probably not find one
other Christian that is “enamored with Putin.” Putin is despised by
Christians! Putting the term “nationalist” with “Christian” is a smear
tactic, intended to target anyone who wants their country to be
successful. And associating Putin with other conservative leaders is intended to taint all conservatives with Putin’s deserved bad rap."CEH