Recently, an article appeared in "Wired.com" magazine regarding the entomological branch of science on the topic of honey bees, and the queen bee in particular. This post would also serve as an excellent continuation of a previous thread: "The Cult of Science" and you might be well-served to read or reread that thread as a backdrop for this topic.
However, the article in question, "Royal Jelly Isn’t What Makes a Queen Bee a Queen Bee" is so over the top with obscure Orwellian doubletalk that it deserves its very own analysis from the perspective of meta-scientific discernment. So let's dive into this syntactical labyrinth of doubletalk that is automatically accepted as truth and celebrated as an elite "scientific" "discovery" about the nature of the queen bee—or is it?
Of course, the scientist who claims to have shocked the world of entomology with a complete reversal of the accepted "theories" of how a queen bee is differentiated from the genetic pool of so-called worker bees implies an attempt to gain notoriety in an arguably obscure area of research. (Warning: reading said article will likely induce cognitive dissonance, headache, and confusion).
The claimed "shocking" revelation is simply a reversal of the logic used to deduce the previous "scientific" premise: i.e. the exclusive ingestion of Royal Jelly in the hive by a single larvae determines the development of a queen versus the workers that only ingest the "common" honey, etc. Obviously, this leads the logical mind to associate Royal Jelly as a causative factor in the development of a queen from an otherwise identical gene-pool. Here the "great discovery" reveals that is not what the potential queen bee eats (as previously thought), it is that she doesn't eat what the worker bees eat! Really!! So begins the story—once upon a time, in a laboratory far far away...
Decoding The Matrix
Thus, on its face, the entire "discovery," while somewhat useful to the very few who are interested in such trivia, appears to be a common strategy of tenured scientists to gain more funding, etc. Nothing new there, to be sure. But all that is a post and thread for a different time. In this topic, the emphasis is on the language used in the article, a typical scientific narrative which raises conceptual inconsistencies to a level of babble.
Learning to question every word and phrase, rather than blindly accepting it because it has the air of authority, is key to discerning the language of the matrix. While a small book could be devoted to exposing the twisted syntax of this one article, the following are just a few inconsistencies and subterfuge passed off as truth. Decoding the hype is a natural byproduct of developing the art of discernment on a metaphysical level of perception. To save space, select quotes will form the heading preceding a brief comment.
New research suggests we had it backward: It’s what future queens aren’t fed that matters:
This opening statement presumes to adequately qualify the supposed significance of this "new research." Here, we have a negative unknown quantity that is supposed to render all previous theories erroneous. However, later in the article the researcher confesses that even though the larvae that produces a queen bee feeds exclusively on Royal Jelly (while all other classes of bees do not) this paper refutes that theory on the basis of lack of evidence (a double negative). Hence, the "suggestion" that the only obvious proof for such a transformation is the observed fact that the potential queen bee is NOT eating what the worker bees eat in their respective larval stages of development, rather than what they are eating. Proof enough, and pretty shocking so far! (not). But quickly, the article makes a spectacular leap from this seeming scientific non-sequitur to the true dilemma implied by this feigned entomological mystery thriller. Yet, in another statement, diet is a factor.
Slight Of Hand
We’ve known for a while that bees’ diet is involved in building different kinds of bee bodies. Science is still figuring out just how that happens:
Indeed—how does that happen! We won't broach the subject of how the ancients new such things tens of thousands of years ago in the archives of human experience. For this topic it is more instructive to see how the hype is woven into a seeming coherent, authoritative thought, when it is actually quite the political exercise that has little to do with science (the process of deductive reasoning confined to sensory verification).
It seems that the researcher in question is actually riding the coattails of a subject of considerable vicious debate among mainstream scientists—epigenetics. For those who are wondering, epigenetics involves the reverse of the genetic propaganda in that it presents evidence that DNA is a two-way street. That is, DNA responds to environmental circumstances and adapts by switching different gene configurations accordingly (even instantaneously). Perhaps, you an see how difficult it is to stay on topic in the midst of such confusing babble. So being true to our purpose of analyzing the so-called scientific language used to "wow" or is that to numb the mind, the following are some really amazingly bizarre statements for you to ponder.
The article goes on to flaunt a deliberate, if not a pathetic pun, stating that the researcher in question "has delivered a stinging rebuke" to those who fools who believe in the myth of a substance in Royal Jelly responsible for switching genes on or off to produce a queen bee. (ouch!) Perhaps, we can say that you are what you research! Oh, it gets more entertaining. Here is a short list of truly bizarre words and phrases used to elaborate on this, shall we say, much to do about very little for personal gain.
[This research] is a wonderful example of an evolutionary invention...
It may surprise you that evolution actually invents things. But that would imply that evolution is actually a sentient being that has deterministic powers beyond specie "selection" as a mindless byproduct of random chance—no, we won't go there for now. But here is one to ponder...
honey bees found a clever solution to a challenging problem:
Not bad for an organism with a microscopic brain. What else is stated here? Did "evolution" invent it or did the lowly bee-brain "cleverly" solve a problem that "science" cannot fathom? Perhaps, it is implying that bees and evolution are synonymous; or that bees are the children of mommy and daddy evolution. That seems to work. Oh but there are more nuggets of anthropomorphic projections (the type that are supposedly anathema to scientific principles). The researcher in question is also quoted as follows:
I think … the idea of royal jelly is so appealing, people haven’t really questioned it.
Clearly, the mind is a dangerous thing. Thousands of scientists and others who are interested in said phenomenon have been relentlessly questioning "it" for decades. Perhaps, the researcher in question is self-projecting. Where is the scientific precision in these statements? The painfully obvious fact is that a bee larva that feeds on Royal Jelly to the exclusion of all other bees in the hive develops into a queen. But the researcher presumes "appealing" and "unquestioning" to be synonymous with "obvious." Now, here is another fascinating scientific muse we are expected to "unquestioningly" accept. The researcher is quoted as stating:
We are dealing with 500 million years of animal evolution so there is much to discover:
Notice the use of "we" rather than "I" as the ego shifts from authoritative dominance to excusing the entire institution of science for its failures—and the researcher by default. After all, having to discover the secrets of a half billions years of "evolution" in a few seconds of geologic time is not expected by any rational mind. Yet, reading between the lines, it is implied that there is nothing that "science" can't figure out EVENTUALLY. One might also muse that such would the case for everyone—so much for the "stinging rebuke." But wait. There actually is a stinger lurking in the smoke and mirrors after all...
But now you can have a lot of fun telling people where their royal bee goobers came from:
Goobers, indeed. After slogging through that mountain of manure, confused, distracted and suffering from a good case of cognitive dissonance, the now vulnerable reader receives the intended corporate inoculation. In a few short paragraphs, the remainder of the article slams the Royal Jelly industry, East Asia, health food stores, and every person who ever purchased that product (idiots all). Clearly, this is not about seeking truth. Rather it is about weaponizing knowledge. The fine-print states that truth and knowledge are not synonymous in the world of science.
Clearly, this "announcement" in the name of science is a Trojan horse. An attack has been organized, funded, and disseminated through institutional channels of authority on a target industry that seems to be guilty of controlling too much market share in the business of medicine. The researcher and the article's author conclude that what they contemptuously term "magical properties" of Royal Jelly has now been irrefutably proven through "science" to be a hoax and a fraud, bilking innocent people of their hard-earned money (of course, there is no evidence of physical harm, nor is there a list of lethal side effects). We can only fall on our knees and be thankful that such brilliant entities dedicate their lives to protecting the common folk from the snake oil, or is that bee gel hoaxes.
Hopefully, you enjoyed this little rant. The point of all this is to always question everything. Take nothing for granted, especially the most obvious of all—your language. In our current shift into greater awareness, the ability to decode the hype and the matrix programs are becoming easier every day. We only need only question every source, every motivation, and every word used to "think" for us. Knowledge is a powerful and wonderful thing when it is founded on universal truth. But using it to enslave minds is an inexcusable affront and insult to the human spirit. Let us simply declare our refusal to be deceived, manipulated, and led by the nose into another pen of ignorance. Just say NO!