Thread by @goddeketal

🧵THREAD: You've probably seen this meme more times than you can count over the past few years. But it's not that simple.

Having secured numerous funding proposals myself, I'll shed some light on the somewhat unsettling reason why almost all scientists support the current thing. It's more of a systemic problem than you might think. ⬇️⬇️⬇️

2/ I'm convinced only a few scientists are actively corrupt. In the past, university funding and stable positions were the norm. Today, most scientists rely on external private or public funds to conduct their research.

This means that scientists constantly need to secure new external funding to conduct their research projects. Projects typically last 3-4 years. Project finished? Secure new funding if you want to continue as a scientist.

I've never written a research proposal in the US, but I've done several in the EU. My success rate is over 50%, even though the typical approval rate for funding is only 1-3%.

3/ To succeed, one has to consider the following:
▪️The reputation and respect of the research institutes forming the consortium in the proposal.
▪️The credibility of the scientists involved, judged by their major publications and past successes.
▪️Addressing all essential aspects of Agenda 2030.
▪️Clearly aligning with the EU's main goals and priorities.

4/ I see the last two aspects as problematic because they condition scientists.

Believe that a consortium should be chosen based on quality rather than gender equality and inclusion? Then you won't get funded.

Don't include strategies to combat man-made climate change in your proposal? You won't get funded either. The list goes on.

5/ NGOs, such as @gatesfoundation, directly fund those who support their agenda. But the primary concern is that gov. agencies also ensure that critical scientists are sidelined by exclusively funding those who comply with Agenda 2030, thereby suppressing scientific freedom.

@gatesfoundation 6/ Horizon Europe's "Climate Action" program has already made up its mind, naming man-made climate change and CO2 as the culprits. Not a single funding opportunity lets scientists challenge this so-called "root cause." You'll only see a dime if you toe the official line.

7/ Want some examples? Hold on tight, it's going to be extremely wild.

EXAMPLE 1: One EU funding opportunity titled “Gender-roles in extremist movements and their impact on democracy” claims that we “have witnessed a rise of identitarian (alt-right), reactionary, and other extremist politics, arguably strengthened by the pandemic and the isolation it created.” So, if you've been questioning the plandemic and believe that there are only men and women and not 80 different genders? You won't stand a chance of getting the funding. What's worse, millions in taxpayer money are wasted to pay "scientists" who will then produce studies proving how bigoted you are.

8/ EXAMPLE 2: The EU funding call “Supporting national, regional and local authorities across Europe to prepare for the transition towards climate neutrality within cities” aimed at making European cities climate neutral, which is an euphemism for “carbon neutral”. There are two bureaucratic key-words that are mentioned: Smart Mobile Strategy and 2030 Climate Target Plan.

The EU Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy is an initiative presented by the European Commission that encompasses an Action Plan with 82 initiatives aimed at guiding the transformation of the EU's transport system. This strategy is a component of the European Green Deal, targeting a 90% reduction in transport-related greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The EU 2030 Climate Target Plan proposes to elevate the EU's ambition on curtailing greenhouse gas emissions to a minimum of 55% below 1990 levels. This plan is a pivotal step towards the EU's overarching goal of achieving climate neutrality (net zero greenhouse gas emissions) by 2050.

Sounds great. However, “dismantling of the European Industry” and “implementing 15-min cities” would have been a more accurate description.

So if you are a scientist who understands the importance of energy/electricity on the economy, or if you are even pro nuclear power (as a ‘clean energy alternative’), forget it. You won’t have any chance to get funded.

9/ In conclusion, it can be asserted that this particular belief system has seamlessly integrated with credentialism. Such integration has made feelings of guilt a necessary criterion for ascending the societal ladder, placing individuals susceptible to such guilt—who are more predisposed to the tenets of wokeness—at the forefront of key institutions, spanning sectors like medicine, climate, gender, and energy.

The fact that scientists are largely dictated on what is deemed right or wrong ultimately promotes nothing but scientism, stifling critical thinking in the process.

Moreover, those entrusted with educating your children at universities have secured their positions primarily because they remain largely uncritical on pivotal societal issues, aligning seamlessly with the 'woke' governmental narrative.

The trend is deeply alarming. While universities were once bastions of enlightenment and innovation, recent years have seen them transform into hubs of mass indoctrination.

Thinking outside the box is our safeguard against complacency. If we fail to challenge the status quo, we risk descending into a dystopia reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.

10/ The procedures nowadays to secure funding, and the associated promotion of climbing the academic career ladder, are among the main reasons why there are professors like @dr_grzanka who are no longer capable of defining what a woman is, let alone having a grasp of scientific methodologies (h/t @MattWalshBlog).

Unfortunately, I don't see a short or medium-term solution to this misery, as the entire bureaucratic apparatus is overrun with individuals infected with the woke mindset virus. So, it falls upon us, as citizen journalists, to enlighten the public about alternatives to mainstream narratives. Challenge accepted!

I hope I was able to provide you with some interesting insights into how scientists obtain funding these days. If you liked it, please feel free to hit the follow and notification button on my profile.

Thank you!
Simon 🙏