Why deny the obvious?

From a new age website:

"Einstein was more than a genius, he was also on a very
determined mission, as a Star Child incarnated by an advanced entity
from a higher density. His mission was never achieved, nor was it even
begun, as the parameters necessary to support what he was to initiate
were never properly in place. This is a common outcome for mercy
missions on 3rd Density worlds, one which the Einstein entity had
encountered before, and he wasted no effort on grieving. Einstein was
prepared for his mission by his place of birth - brains, education,
and the warm support of family - the typical Jewish cradle. This was
not a missing parameter. Einstein gained fame for his radical
postures, disturbing in their logic. He was respected and feared by
opponents clinging to comfortable old explanations, and was certainly
well positioned to disseminate new concepts. This also was not a
missing parameter. "

The results obtained by the British eclipse expeditions of May
1919 were announced at the famous joint meeting of the Royal Society
and the Royal Astronomical Society held on November 6, 1919. The
meeting has been described in a very interesting way by Abraham Pais
(Subtle is the Lord, 1982), who identified the day of the joint
meeting as "the day on which Einstein was canonized." Pais was
obviously very pleased with his comparison of the meeting to a
Congregation of Rites at which a candidate is considered for
canonization in the Catholic Church, and compared various participants
at the meeting to counterparts in the Congregation of Rites, using as
his reference The New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Pais's statement that he was canonized has since been outmatched
by A.I. Miller (1996, Insights of Genius: Imagery and Creativity in
Science and Art, p. 90), who states that he was deified.

Henri Tajfel (a concentration camp survivor) and John Turner
originated "social identity theory" in the 1970's. It involves three
primary principles: 1) categorization - that we automatically assign
people to groups, 2) identification - that we identify with specific
groups, thus creating ingroups and outgroups, and 3) comparison - that
we then compare these groups. This act of comparing, and the resulting
judgements of inferior (outgroup) and superior (ingroup), is allegedly
a significant source of our personal self-concept and self-esteem.
Social identity theory claims this is valid for all groups, from those
as simple as competing schools, to those as complex as nations or
ethnic group. The following is an excerpt from a paper on social
identity theory entitled "Indoctrination and Group Evolutionary
Strategies" by Prof. Kevin MacDonald:

Social identity theorists propose that the primary affective
mechanism involved in social identity processes is self-esteem and
that, indeed, the need to achieve a positive self-evaluation via this
social categorization process functions as a theoretical primitive.
Individuals maximize the differences between in-group and out-group in
a manner that accentuates the positive characteristics of the
in-group. They do so precisely because of this (theoretically)
primitive need to categorize themselves as a member of a group with
characteristics that reflect well on the group as a whole and
therefore on themselves individually. For example, Gitelman ,
describing Jewish identity processes in the former Soviet Union, noted
that Jews developed a great curiosity about Jewish history "not merely
from a thirst for historical knowledge, but from a need to locate
oneself within a group, its achievements, and its fate. It is as if
the individual's own status, at least in his own eyes, will be defined
by the accomplishments of others who carry the same label. 'If
Einstein was a Jew, and I am a Jew, it does not quite follow that I am
an Einstein, but...."

Further, people easily adopt negative stereotypes about
out-groups, and these stereotypes possess a great deal of inertia
(i.e., they are slow to change and are resistant to countervailing
examples). Resistance to change is especially robust if the category
is one that is important to the positive evaluation of the in-group or
the negative evaluation of the out-group. It would be expected that
people would be more likely to change their categorization of the hair
color of out-group members on the basis of counterexamples of a
stereotype than they would change their categorization of out-group
members as stupid or lazy or dishonest.