Nicolas Hulscher Discusses the Journal Cartel

Is there a journal cartel? Nicolas Hulscher says yes and claims it is rife with corruption in this post on X:

The Fall of the Journal Cartel

Most of the major publishers, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Sage Publications and Taylor & Francis, have formed a cartel under the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers.

The Cartel controls two-thirds of global journal publications, controls the narrative, enforces unpaid peer reviews, restricts manuscript submissions, and delays scientific progress—all to protect their multi-billion-dollar profits. This resulted in a recent class action lawsuit against the Cartel for “tremendous damage to science and the public interest.”

Nearly half of medical journal editors have financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Moreover, 59% of peer-reviewers for major medical journals received more than $1 billion from drug companies from 2020 to 2022.

The widespread corruption embedded within the nearly closed system of the Journal Cartel operates in a way that resembles a high-entropy state, as described by the second law of thermodynamics.

According to this principle, isolated systems naturally progress toward greater disorder, a state of entropy that ultimately becomes unsustainable and leads to system collapse.

In the case of the academic publishing industry, the compounded effects of internal corruption, lack of transparency, unethical censorship, and growing public awareness act as catalysts, pushing the system toward inevitable instability. Consequently, unless radical structural reforms are introduced, the Journal Cartel will face eventual collapse under the weight of its own entropy.

The Cartel’s unsustainable global monopoly on science will fall in due time, in accordance with natural laws. Until then, we can and will continue to battle against them and publish with journals outside the Cartel’s influence in our best attempt to advance scientific knowledge and protect public health.

Truth always prevails in the end.

Continue ReadingNicolas Hulscher Discusses the Journal Cartel

New Converts to Free Speech

Andrew Doyle:

For all new converts to the free speech cause…

If you want to argue that a TV host shouldn’t be fired for his words, your case would be stronger if you hadn’t spent the last ten years cheering on the censorship of your political opponents and celebrating when they got murdered.

Continue ReadingNew Converts to Free Speech

The Fear of Shame Leads to Tyranny

Unfortunately, decent people often cower to avoid strategically-imposed shame. This allows loud unruly minorities to inflict censorship and tyranny. Eli Steele presents an illustrative article written by his father, black conservative Shelby Steele:

Eli Steele: "Before Charlie Kirk, my father spoke at countless universities and colleges, often for nominal pay, and the verbal abuse he suffered was beyond the pale. It is a sign of how much our culture declined, from screaming to the bullet."

Excerpt: The Loneliness of the "Black Conservative"

by Shelby Steele

"I realized that I was a black conservative when I found myself standing on stages being shamed in public. I had written a book that said, among many other things, that black American leaders were practicing a politics that drew the group into a victim-focused racial identity that, in turn, stifled black advancement more than racism itself did. For reasons that I will discuss shortly, this was heresy in many quarters. And, as I traveled around from one little Puritan village (read "university") to another, a common scene would unfold.

"Whenever my talk was finished, though sometimes before, a virtual militia of angry black students would rush to the microphones and begin to scream. At first I thought of them as Mau Maus but decided this was unfair to the real Mau Maus, who, though ruthless terrorists, had helped bring independence to Kenya in the 1950s. My confronters were not freedom fighters; they were Carrie Nation-like enforcers, racial bluenoses who lived in terror of certain words. Repression was their game, not liberation, and they said as much. "You can't say that in front of the white man." "Your words will be used against us." "Why did you write this book?" "You should only print that in a black magazine." Their outrage brought to light an ironic and unnoticed transformation in the nature of black American anger from the sixties to the nineties: a shift in focus from protest to suppression, from blowing the lid off to tightening it down. And, short of terrorism, shame is the best instrument of repression.

"Of course, most black students did not behave in this way. But the very decency of the majority, black and white, often made the shaming of the minority more effective. So I learned what it was like to stand before a crowd in which a coterie of one's enemies had the license to shame, while a mixture of decorum and fear silenced the decent people who might have come to one's aid. I was as vulnerable to the decency as to the shaming since together they amounted to shame. And it is never fun to be called "an opportunist," "a house slave," and so on while university presidents sit in the front row and avert their eyes. But this really is the point: The goal of shaming was never to win an argument with me; it was to make a display of shame that would make others afraid for themselves, that would cause eyes to avert. I was more the vehicle than the object, and what I did was almost irrelevant. Shame's victory was in the averted eyes, the covering of decency."

Continue ReadingThe Fear of Shame Leads to Tyranny

Two Flavors of Free Speech

Before we have a debate about a topic--here, "free speech"--we should decide exactly what we mean by "free speech," which encompasses far more than the First Amendment. Excellent point by Geoffrey Miller:

Constitutional free speech is grounded in clear rights, laws, precedents, & principles, centered around retraining gov't from meddling in public discourse. We should strongly protect constitutional free speech, and be very wary of gov't censorship -- whether directly, or through gov't collusion with Big Tech, social media, or AI companies.

However, cultural free speech is much more complicated, nuanced, and subject to renegotiation -- which is what we've been seeing over the last ten years, and especially in the last week.

Civilized people accept thousands of informal restraints on cultural free speech. For example, we use the power of informal social rewards and punishments to discourage

- kids from lying

- spouses from dissing each other

- journalists from acting like propagandists

- teachers from indoctrinating students

- companies from violating traditions and trust

- people from burning our flag

- sociopathic trolling on social media

- comedians from making false & incendiary claims

- politicians from demonizing their opponents to incite political violence among their supporters

All of these are restraints on 'cultural free speech', and they could be seen as micro-versions of 'cancel culture', but they're widely supported, and they're not directly related to gov't censorship or First Amendment law.

Yes, the First Amendment helps establish and reinforce the social norms around cultural free speech, and cultural free speech helps reinforce the willingness of citizens, politicians, & judges to protect our First Amendment rights.

But I see a lot of people, on both Left and Right, confusing the two forms of our civilization's commitment to free speech.

Continue ReadingTwo Flavors of Free Speech