A Richeliean Appeal is a contention which is declared correct by means of power or celebrity held on the part of the claimant. This includes instances where ‘consensus’ is declared by those influencing the consensus itself. As well, it can involve a Richeliean skeptic who encourages and enjoys a form of ‘social peer review,’ empowered via politics or a set of sycophants who are willing to enact harm to a level which the Richeliean power holder himself would not personally stoop.
Malevolence of the Richeliean Appeal
If you conduct research inside an issue of contention, or have a child who has been cognitively impaired through the incompetence of medical or pharma oligarchy, or had your health damaged by processed food, or have developed a new medical device, supplement or treatment, or have even innocently shown interest towards a subject which is forbidden access by Social Skepticism, then odds are you are highly familiar with the Richeliean Appeal. A Richeliean Appeal is a form of the Appeal to Skepticism, a tactic of intrigue, malevolence, fear-intimidation, high-school style social chiding or the implicit threat which is tendered to intimidate a specific person or group. It is usually implied by those who are impressed with their own celebrity, title, or social position they hold inside of a club. Many times it comes in the form of a threat to have a social clique bully a prematurely identified victim en masse. You will see this practiced by that tiny malevolent minority who hang out on social media and undertake harm on people who think differently. They have no idea that they are a joke to the great majority of Americans, and perform a great service to swing the mind of Americans away from the very movement they espouse. Anger is a sign of losing, even if framed inside a chucklehead diversion.
Hint: Weak ideas require enforcement by childish intimidation and clique bullying. Strong ideas launch movements on their own gravitas.
Social Skeptics enjoy such a perch of bully-tactic power, and use it fully to enable authority on subjects which would stand under a condition of plurality were they to be deliberated solely on ethics and evidence alone. The term is derived from the coercive behavior of Armand-Jean du Plessis, better known as French Cardinal Richelieu (1585 – 1642 ad), heralded as the father of the modern totalitarian state, Duvalism (the dispensation of the State as equal in status to God), socialized power and the modern secret police.¹ ² It is the tandem god set (Ω • ⊕) in which the Richeliean Skeptic enjoys free unmerited power, combined with a lack of being held to accountability.
The reason that Social Skeptics abet and aspire to celebrity, is the heady power of Richeliean Appeal it affords them.
Any entity, be it person, organization or nation which derives prurient satisfaction in the cruel or public punishment of those unlike themselves, or even those who have committed an offense, is an entity of an unaccountable and malevolent nature. Such, as well is the nature of SSkeptic power used as a battering ram on those who disagree with their religion.
Social Skepticism appreciates many of the neutral to dark techniques employed by Armand-Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, during the secretive development of his reign of power in the French court, in its own efforts to seek consensus and consolidation of power. The issue is not that everything enforced by Social Skepticism is necessarily incorrect, nor that every enforcement action itself is necessarily wrong. Rather, it is the subterfuge by which the enforcement is dealt, coupled with the intermixing of both questionable and correct conclusion alike – the failure of the ethics which declines to distinguish between the two – which renders the approach a rogue action on the part of those seeking to consolidate power. A Richeliean Appeal can be enacted supporting a contention which is correct, or possibly incorrect. The essence of a Richeliean Appeal is that, ‘correct’ is only a designation enabled by the power of the claimant. Since the claimant is in power, or has the power to harm, therefore the contention is correct by power. This includes the power of the mob or a set of sycophants willing to enact harm to a level which the Richeliean power holder would not himself personally stoop.
Richeliean Appeal to Skepticism
/Appeal to Skepticism : coercion/ : an inflation of personal gravitas, celebrity or influence by means of implicit or explicit threats of coercive tactics which can harm or seek to embarrass a victim one wishes to be silenced. Coercive tactics include threats to harm family, contact employers, ridicule, tamper with businesses, employment of celebrity status to conduct defamation activities or actions to defraud, or otherwise cause harm to persons, reputation or property. This includes the circumstance where a Richeliean skeptic encourages and enjoys a form of ‘social peer review,’ empowered via politics or a set of sycophants who are willing to enact harm to a level which the Richeliean power holder himself would not personally stoop.
Richeliean Appeal to Authority
/Appeal to Authority : coercion/ : a contention which is considered correct by means of social power or celebrity held on the part of its proponent. An appeal to consensus made by a group which influenced or measured the claimed consensus. An appeal to an authority who is notable at least in part for authoritarian or coercive measures they have employed to maintain power. Also an employment of coercive tactics which include censorship or propaganda-charging the media, establishing a large network of internal spies or sycophants, forbidding the discussion of specific matters in public or publishing of one sided science studies, patrolling of public assemblies or media forums or seeking to harm or defame who dare to disagree.
/Argument : locution : coercion/ : given a sufficient quantity of statements of merit, actions or associations on the part of an individual, a case can be made that one of those things either serves to condemn that individual or runs anathema to the essence of all their other contentions (apparent hypocrisy). An exploitative coercive argument which proceeds along the lines of the Richeliean quote: “Give me six lines written by the most honest man and I will find in them something to hang him.”
The tactics employed by Social Skepticism which create the environment enabling the Richeliean Appeal currently include:
- informal organizations never held to public or peer accountability – imputing no liability to corporate sponsors
- staffed by a variety of non-science persons who volunteer time extra-professionally
- claiming to represent correctness or the well being of the people
- organized and personal public and celebrity ridicule tactics, attacks, defamation and tortious interference
- attempts to blackmail, approach employers, publicly humiliate or anonymously harass
- ‘investigators’ pretending to do scientific inquiry
- academic celebrity promotion, agent, and publicist employment
- scientific method masquerades, pretense of representing science
- propaganda one liners, catch phrases, weapon words and circular recitations
- domination of education unions and systems
- enforcement of informal professional penalties for dissent
- funded legal intimidation of those who dissent
- squelching of free speech through warnings to media and celebrity intimidation
- enlisting the aid of government agencies to enforce data screening
- proselytization of children and intimidation of teachers
- screening and qualification of those allowed into science and technical academia
- media forum and publication channel policing, fabricating, intimidation and monitoring and
- intimidation, monitoring and control of scientists and researchers
A Richeliean Appeal is Not Tantamount to Peer Review
By teaching that skepticism is the privilege sword of a closed group acting outside science, Social Skeptics labor under the fable that they are enacting a form of social peer review on behalf of science. Well, let’s dispense with three ideas right off the bat:
A. Social Skeptics do not represent science, nor are they practicing scientific method,
B. The critical assessments of Social Skeptics are not congruent with, nor do they stem from the same ethic as does peer review, and
C. Peer review is issued inside of a discipline of expertise. A Richeliean Appeal to SSkepticism is issued regardless of the expertise of the ‘reviewer.’
Peer review results in the following categorical dispositions, enacted by an actual expert under qualified ethical circumstances:
- to unconditionally accept a manuscript or a contention,
- to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways,
- to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission,
- to reject it outright.³
A Richeliean Appeal, in contrast, involves only
- a prejudicial desire to dispense with a person or a subject
- an aspiration to political power and celebrity influence of popular opinion
- a focus on mechanisms of control and policing
a desire to enact harm on opposing persons and ideas. A willingness to look the other way when such activity is encouraged or effected by allies.
The idea in the mind of Social Skeptics that they are applying some kind of “peer review” by critiquing you or applying ‘critical thinking’ on various topics is fallacious in both its application and is justification. Scientist issue peer review inside of preparation for journal publishing or even after, through their credibility and status inside a scientific discipline.
SSkeptics like to contend that they are not conducting peer review because you are not their peer. The simple irony is that, in the vast majority of instances, they are not your peer, in ethic, expertise, experience, acumen nor discipline status. Do not let them play this trick.
Social Skeptics wish to emulate this status falsely and solely through the power enabled by the mob, and their celebrity status acquired therein. This is why you observe Social Skeptics continually clamoring for attention and celebrity status/noteworthiness.
Take such aspirations as a warning sign of those seeking the power of The Richeliean Appeal.
¹ Armand-Jean du Plessis, cardinal et duc de Richelieu. 2015. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 12 October, 2015, from http://www.britannica.com/biography/Armand-Jean-du-Plessis-cardinal-et-duc-de-Richelieu
² New Advent: Armand-Jean du Plessis, Duke de Richelieu; Retrieved 12 October 2015; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13047a.htm
³ Wikipedia: Scholarly Peer Review; Retrieved 12 October, 2015; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
I have been bullied with these methods in peer review of many of my scientific papers, all along my career. It was just a nightmare all the way. Wished had had this text when I started to explain to editors what was going on.
[…] is even more unethical is when proper research is blocked or never completed because social skeptics, health organizations […]