from sherry Jacksons website:
sherrypeeljackson.com/

and a warning for those steeped too heavily in academia foregoing independant critical thinking (not mentioning any names! ;) )


QUOTE
" Why doesn't my accountant or lawyer know this?

If your accountant or lawyer does not know about the income tax hoax it is because they were not taught.

I went all the way through high school, college and IRS training without this knowledge.

The colleges and universities teach only what the textbooks contain. These same colleges and universities receive large sums of money from foundations - some of which may be directly or indirectly owned by the owners of the Federal Reserve banks.

Concerning text books: There was a CBS 20/20 special hosted by Sam Donaldson that proved outright fraud and deception in the textbooks of primary and secondary schools. One example was given where there were over 100 factual errors in the textbook.

The most disturbing revelation from this show, however, was the fact that one high school history book contained three lines twice about George Washington, but six and a half pages of information on Marilyn Monroe.

Since when did Marilyn Monroe carry more clout than the founding fathers? (Answer) Since those with the cash to pay for the books started manipulating the content of the books


3. Why as the media not telling us about this issue?

It has been stated that it only requires about 5% or 6% ownership in a large corporation to significantly influence that corporation. Rockefeller is one of the original shareholders of the Federal Reserve.

In July 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9% of the stock in CBS and the bank gained interlocking directorates with ABC in 1974.

Through other companies, it appears that "the powers that be" control the major television stations, as well as the major newspapers and radio stations. In other words, the power of the air. "

remember this is an award winning IRS agent that blew the whistle
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Fri 8 Aug 2008, 13:48, Reply)

OK - this is the last one because I have to do some work.
First: Independent critical thinking is what I'm paid to do. I'm expected to publish a certain amount every year, and one of the main criteria for publishing is that a paper needs to be independent, critical and to add something new to the body of existing thought. Correspondingly, students who show no independent thought or criticism get much lower marks than those who do - to the extent that a critical and independent essay that happens to be wrong may score just as highly - or higher - than one that's correct in every detain but simply trots out the same old same old.

Second: textbooks are written by academics. That is - by those people whose reputations are based in their being established independent researchers. We don't get paid to push a particular line - God knows, in my line of work, there's plenty of people who would pay for that - we get paid based on sales. We aren't puppets.

In response to your third point: you say "it has been stated..." By whom? There've been plenty of cases in which journalists have wanted to break news against certain powerful people's desires. So what? If things get gagged, then they can just go to a rival network. Hell: if someone launched a class action about income tax, it's even possible that a public-interest or foreign agency might notice - the BBC, say. Crazy, huh?


Right: work. I have to write a critical and independent paper.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 8 Aug 2008, 14:02, Reply)

christ
that's depressing to think you are in a position of influence over students

"textbooks are written by academics. That is - by those people whose reputations are based in their being established independent researchers. We don't get paid to push a particular line"

pfffft!!

FFS

here's what a small random search pulls up

For sale: US academic integrity
By Ibrahim Warde

mondediplo.com/2001/03/11academic
QUOTE
In November 1998 the University of California at Berkeley signed a controversial agreement with Novartis, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant and producer of genetically engineered crops. In exchange for $25m to its Department of Plant and Microbial Biology

I could trot out numerous simliar links between big Pharma/ Industry and numerous Universities and research departments
- that have had their research influenced with atotal lost of objectivity

(even the case of the Dr working for the cancer research institute who was found to be in the pay of a famous drug company making anti-cancer drugs! - publicised not long ago)

I thought it was obvious

apparently not
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Fri 8 Aug 2008, 14:13, Reply)

You've lost me.
I don't see why getting commercial backing for research such as this should be a problem. It has nothing to do with what gets taught.

Moreover, one controversial deal doesn't tell us anything at all about academic integity as a whole. In the contract, there ought to have been all kinds of academic integrity clauses - and if there weren't, then that's foolish. Generally, there are.

Trust me on this. (And if there's anyone out there who wants to pay me to tell my students that GM and animal-human hybrids are OK, gaz me. It's what I tell 'em anyway, but the spare cash would be nice...)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 8 Aug 2008, 14:22, Reply)

now I'm convinced you really are just taking the piss
www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/newman20020725

"In June, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.

The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts. Drug company gifts and "consulting fees" are so pervasive that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 from companies whose work they judge. Isn't that comforting?"
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Fri 8 Aug 2008, 14:28, Reply)

But medical research is so expensive...
... that it's difficult - nay, impossible - to do it without commercial support. You want new drugs? Fine. They have to be paid for. Medical research, it has to be said, is not representative of the bulk of research. And commercial fnding pays for lab time: it doesn't replace salaries (not in the UK, anyway).

Look: I accept that there is scope for a problem here. But all reputable journals ask for a statement of conflict of interest. If you're found to have deceived anyone on that, your career'll never recover.

Just for clarification, btw: in respect of the earlier post, there's a difference between a textbook and a monograph. The former describes the current state of play within a particular area of research; the latter is research in its own right. In fairness, you might get an advance for a textbook - but, all the same, anyone worth his salt will not be buyable - not least because he knows he'll be laughed at by his peers for writing a textbook that isn't supported by the current state of research.

And noone would write a textbook if they didn't think it necessary. It's simply too boring a task when compared to the real research.

Which reminds me - must contact some publishers. I've got a textbook of my own half-written, and I need an incentive to finish it.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 8 Aug 2008, 14:36, Reply)

I know practically fuck all about any of that shit
but I do know that you keep banging on about the US. We aren't in the US, I couldn't give a shit what they do with their taxes tbh, they can go spend it all on porn for all care.
( Firkinfedup was right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo, Fri 8 Aug 2008, 17:34, Reply)