"Made to keep ideas that disagree with the statuesque..."

Of course, everybody loves their ideas "statuesque!"

Your take on peer review is interesting. Browsing Nexus Magazine just now, I take it that you wish articles about UFO encounters, ancient astronauts, faking the death of Hitler, the Illuminati and the world-crushing evil of the Bilderberg Group would appear in American Heritage and other such publications--despite the fact that none of these theories have the slightest shred of evidence to support them?

This is not factual at all.

How many people do you personally know who have been "verichipped" against their will? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Have you actually seen one of these chips with your own eyes--not on Nexus, not on YouTube videos, but in real life?

Your characterization of the peer review process is utterly wrong. I was once the editor of a peer-reviewed journal. It had nothing to do with censorship. There were no rules on "statuesque" content, no omniscient overlords breathing down our necks, no secret handshakes or bizarre rituals where people stand around in robes and drink the blood of babies. There was one rule, and one rule only: "Is this factual? Can it be backed up?" We had a staff whose sole job was to check the truth and accuracy of assertions made in articles. I can guarantee you that Nexus Magazine has no such staff.

Tales of secret societies and evil people trying to microchip the universe cannot be backed up factually. This is why conspiranoid garbage like this Nexus article doesn't make it into peer-reviewed journals...because it's bullshit.

I don't suppose you have ever considered that possibility?