-
- It's not for nothing, our current adoption
of Dr.Frankenstein as the poster child for modern science. As a symbol
for scientists' hubristic race into the far reaches of the preternatural,
he cannot be improved on. The story of Dr. Frankenstein perfectly
describes the beginning, the middle, and the end of a surrealistic
scientific mindset which has parted company with reality. What is
so unfortunate for us is that we are now all minor characters in this cautionary
tale, without speaking parts in this unfolding tragedy, yet doomed to undergo
the worst results. We are reduced to playing the role of "superstitious"
villagers, muttering in our huts while the midnight oil burns on, up at
the well-fortified castle.
-
- In the original novel by Mary Shelly, when we first meet
poor Dr. Frankenstein, looking back over his life, he is very
very sorry. It would be hard to imagine a more remorseful man than Dr.
Frankenstein at the end of his life. He hadn't ever considered that his
scientific curiosity possibly lead to any trouble whatsoever. In the following
excerpt he describes the compelling motives which inspired his scientific
career in the first place : "Whence, I often asked myself, did the
principle of life proceed? It was a bold question, and one which has ever
been considered as a mystery, yet with how many things are we upon
the brink of becoming acquainted, if cowardice or carelessness did not
restrain our inquiries? Treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer
a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest
mysteries of creation." ( It's useful to remember that Dr. Frankenstein
was a chemist, and thus a brilliant exponent of "Better Living Through
Chemistry." )
-
- In comparison to what scientists are up to
these days, Frankenstein's monster looks like a child's toy. (Exactly
like a child's toy, sad to say.) In the face of ever more frighteningly
stupid scientific experiments and their results, we plaintively ask ourselves
"What on earth can they be thinking of?" And in order to understand
how so many scientists fell into their present condition of dangerous lunacy,
we have to go back to the origin of their mentality. Unless we
are willing to try to fathom the rudiments of the scientific process, all
our complaining will meet with stony and haughty silence. Scientists will
never listen to or speak seriously to those who have no idea what science
even is. Yet we had better find some way to communicate with
the heedless proponents of modern science, since they are determinedly
dragging all of us behind them into a very dark future.
It is, I believe, critical at this time for all of us to make
an effort to understand the basic underpinnings of scientific thought.
In order to make our case against this increasing madness heard
at all, we must learn their lingo: because they are, as a generality,
fatally deficient in basic human wisdom. They are quite unable to speak any
language based on common sense. They are of course utterly clueless about
this. Unless we comprehend the ABC's of their language, as far
as scientists are concerned, we are merely a howling mob of drooling
and ignorant peasants milling aimlessly at the foot of the castle. Furthermore, through
understanding, we can possess ourselves of the most powerful
secret weapon. All the intellectual ammunition we will ever need to effectively
take aim at their present activities lies hidden in their own definitions
of the scientific process. Therefore, let us start with the fundamental
question. That is: what exactly is science, according to scientists
themselves?
-
- Naturally, this question has as many answers as there
have ever been scientists. Nevertheless, at the core of all the explanations is
what scientists, to be scrupulously fair, are most fiercely and justly
proud of: the scientific attitude. This could be loosely described as "The
Disinterested Study of Everything." The essence of the scientific
frame of mind is to ask a question without imagining that the answer is
already known. This is much more difficult to do than it sounds, which
is easily demonstrated by just trying it. In fact, it is so hard to think
new thoughts that the few people who have really done this in history
have come up with astonishing results. Things like "The earth
is actually a round spinning globe revolving around that blindingly bright
fire up there which is really a star."
-
- The following quote is from "The Pleasure of Finding
Things Out" by Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in physics, and
one of the 20th century's best examples of eccentric scientific genius:
"The question of doubt and uncertainty is what is necessary to begin;
for if you already know the answer, there is no need to gather any evidence
about it." So far, so good: science begins by doubting what
we think we already know, just in case what we think we
know is incorrect. What could be more rational and intellectually wholesome?
It just means sorting out what we really know from the brainfull of second-hand
information we all carry around and use as a basis for what we are pleased
to call thinking.
-
- Taking the scientific attitude then as the basis
for their thinking, the next part of the definition of science is the scientific
method. In Dr. Feynman's words: "Well, being uncertain, the
next thing is to look for evidence, and the scientific method is to begin
with trials." Trials in science are very like trials as we think of
them in the legal system, in that they are supposedly designed to look
impartially for evidence. It is well worth pausing here to consider
this very useful parallel. We can stop and reflect for a moment on whether,
in a courtroom trial, our legal system always supports weighing the
evidence with perfect impartiality, and seeks only the truth and nothing
but the truth, so help us God. Perhaps our conclusions about just
how wrong things can go in our present legal system of trials will indicate
to us certain similar problems inherent in the system of scientific trials.
But to continue with Dr. Feynman's description: "After we look
for the evidence, we have to judge the evidence. There are the usual rules
about judging the evidence; it's not right to pick only what you like,
but to take all the evidence, to try to maintain some objectivity about
the thing..." He goes on to explain that this means not depending
on authorities and previous conclusions, but allowing the evidence to speak
for itself without being influenced by anything or anyone at all. He makes
it very clear that in the pure scientific method, no authority can
be considered a source of information. He says: "As long as
it's possible, we should disregard authority whenever the observations
disagree with it. And finally, the recording of results should be done
in a disinterested way....Disinterested here means they are not reported
in such a way as to try to influence the reader into an idea that's different
than what the evidence indicates." So there we have it: a pure
scientist's very simplified definition of pure science. And, of course,
our question if we are non-scientists can only be: how did the human race
come to get in so much trouble from this gloriously rational and noble
effort we call science?
-
- There are a couple of reasons which stand out immediately.
The first is that what Dr. Feynman is describing as science is what Dr.
Feynman was actually doing in his life. By no means are all scientists
of such a pure and unsullied intellectual disposition as he was.
Scientists come in all the usual psychological flavors as the rest of us:
from the patently psychotic, to the crudely self-serving jerk, to
the average well-meaning person limited in scope, to the brilliantly innovative,
and on up to the saintly scientific giant. And no matter where scientists
actually exist in this spectrum of talent and consciousness, they
far too often indulge in a serious form of self-deception. Scientists
of all kinds have the same tendency to create self-images which reflect only
the most idealistic versions of "the pure scientist".
This is an important root cause of much of the present scientific hubris
and endless folly: the blind, completely unquestioned and
dangerous ego-inflation of hordes of second-rate scientists.
-
- Another cause of our predicament is the great abyss between
pure scientific theorizing and the practical applications which inevitably
follow. For example, on the one hand, we have the discovery of the inestimable
blessings of anesthesia, quickly followed by the widespread benevolent
use of it. On the other hand, this discovery was also quickly put to use
in a program of inhumanly cruel lobotomies performed on very
unwilling victims. And to this day, the ability to use anesthesia
in order to cut body parts out of unconscious human beings, whether
they need it or not, is a huge problem. Medical science is still,
on the whole, punchdrunk on the power to yank out bits and pieces
of human bodies at the first opportunity. The discovery of penicillin is
yet another good example of how science immediately both uses and begins
to misuse the same potential benefit. We all know by now that we are at
the end of the antibiotic road and facing the next pandemic without a hope
from this overused, bankrupt, and now actually harmful "benefit".
There are endless examples of these types of scientific discoveries being
applied so badly and foolishly as to be of immense harm to humanity in
the long run.
-
- What we can understand from this is that pure
scientific attitudes and methods are worlds apart from the applications
of science, which are after all the main business of science in daily life.
Not only that, but it's easy to see that the pure scientific attitude
and method is almost never applied to the possible results in practical
applications of scientific theory. Yet is this not in itself quite astonishing?
Scientists whose business it is to find uses for science seldom
ask the very first obvious impartial and disinterested question. Which
is, of course: is this intended application of any real lasting value
to humanity? In other words, it is really useful at all? What would the
downside, misuse, or possible harm of this application consist of in the
long run? Right here is the most shocking obvious truth of so-called practical
science at its very worst. Impartial, disinterested questioning, evidence,
and fair trials do not even exist, when it comes to the basic
question of whether or not human beings will in fact benefit from
any new gadget, drug, technique, or practice. This most
fundamental of all questions is barely ever honestly asked. Therefore
we can prove right here that there is not much real science at all behind
the so-called practical products of science these days. Applied science
is endlessly delivering all sorts of finished products to humanity without
ever investigating, using the scientific attitude and the scientific method,
whether they are beneficial or actually harmful. And as absurd as
this situation really is, humanity is letting science get away with
it, by and large. How could this be possible?
-
- The widespread abuses of science
are possible because the scientific establisment has very cleverly and
deliberately blurred the line between pure scientific thinking and a
huge leap across the Grand Canyon into the realm of applications. Establishment
scientists will have you believe that any questioning as to the value of
their offerings is the same thing as tormenting poor innocent Galileo all
over again. If we ask for proof of the real benefits and risks of
any new scientific line of goods, we are immediately accused of harboring inquisitional
tendencies, of being "nothing but" religious fundamentalists,
New Age health fanatics, or an uneducated mob of the unwashed trying to
set fire to the castle again. This is quite an effective bit of dust-throwing
too. Practical science has stolen the image of the giants of
scientific theory, and postures dramatically and endlessly from atop its
cheap plastic pedestal. Nevertheless, let us call it simple common
sense to try to discover the real value of a thing before it is created,
and certainly before we buy it and apply it to our lives.
-
- Human beings can do so many things which even the
most cursory self-reflection reveals to be unwise. And even the pure
scientists seldom ask the metaquestion: "Is this experiment reasonable
in the larger scheme of things?" Here we can refer back to our
prototypical Dr. Frankenstein:
"After days and nights of incredible labor and fatigue, I succeeded
in discovering the cause of generation and life; nay, more, I became myself
capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter." Dr. Frankenstein
found himself capable of bestowing animation on lifeless matter? The plot
thickens wildly at this point in the book. And oh dear, how very up-to-date
this sounds. Are we there yet? Scientists have, as usual, not bothered
to question whether or not our present social consciousness would make
the applications of this power safe to use. Here is a sobering and telling revelation
from Dr. Feynman's book, in which he describes what he "discovered"
about this issue during walks he took with the great
mathematician John Van Neumann: "And the one thing Von Neumann gave
me was an idea that he had which was interesting. That you don't have
to be responsible for the world that you're in, and so I have developed
a very powerful sense of social irresponsibility as a result of Van Neumann's
advice. It's made me a very happy man since. But it was Van Neumann who
put the seed which grew now into my active responsibility!" (Italics
and exclamation point Dr. Feynman's, not mine.) You can see how tickled,
how marvellously unburdened he is, by this daring thought of perfect
freedom from all social responsibility. Yet if we had this same
cavalier, utterly irresponsible attitude toward those people our own lives
impact strongly, such as our families, we wouldn't even be decent
human beings. So what is the difference then? Just that normally
the bad results of scientific experiments are suffered by those whom
the scientist does not know personally. This is certainly the most disingenuous
and intellectually dishonest excuse for scientific irresponsibility
that one can imagine. If what we do actually harms others, then how
are we to avoid being responsible, whether we know their names and love
them personally, or not? This is a thoroughly self-serving and unscientific
conclusion by scientists, and it causes tremendous misery to humanity.
Scientist feel free to unleash their pet monsters on humanity because
they consider science to be refreshingly taking place in a zone beyond
mere petty humanistic concerns.
-
- The many
modern scientists our Dr. Frankenstein model has given birth
to lately (cloned in test tubes, of course) arise from a simple unremarked
twist or two given surreptitiously to the original idea of science. This would
be a good point at which to restate the original premise of
all these essays included under the title "The Golden Road to
Unlimited Totalitarianism". The basic idea here has been that
all forms of totalitarian darkness, no matter in what field of human endeavor,
arise from the original creative energies of Goodness, Beauty and Truth.
In this case, there is no such thing as bad science without the preliminary
fabric of truth woven throughout history. Pseudo-science, and most
science today is only that, requires honest scientific achievement
as a foundation. If the great and genuinely noble scientific saints never
existed, there would be no useful material laying around to abuse.
Without the prior existence of Truth, lies and distortions have nothing
to work with. In fact, the path from a Galileo to our current
crop of scientific nightmares-in-broad-daylight has only a few bends
in it. It is helpful to cast a skeptical eye on these
twists and turns, which constitute the contribution of modern science
to The Golden Road to Unlimited Totalitarianism.
-
- The scientists' part of the totalitarian
path is necessarily paved with gold. Scientists need money. Since
there are almost no disinterested sources of funding on this planet, even
the first step a scientist can ever take- the initial stage of pure
questioning and pure doubting- is already perverted beyond repair. Most
scientists are not free to ask questions which arise solely from an
unbridled, free-ranging scientific attitude. They will only receive funding
for asking questions whose answers have a useful application in maintaining
and expanding the current multinational corporate-government-academic
paradigm. What could be more totalitarian in the first place than to corrupt
the essence of the scientific attitude before it begins? This is a
serious left-hand twist given to the search for truth, and it's usually
fatal. Most honest scientific inquiry is methodically strangled
at birth these days, starved for lack of the oxygen of funding. Scientists
are usually forced to limit the search for truth to a narrow band
of utilitarian and potentially profitable questions. Why are
scientists not marching in the streets in outraged protest against this
basic corruption of their very essence? The answer, of course, is that
they themselves have become intellectually compromised the moment they
accepted the bait of gold. The totalitarian dictate on this planet
to Make Money Or Else is so overwhelming by now, and assimilated
at such an early age, as to pass practically unquestioned into the subconscious
of the entire species. In a society where so many successful people must
begin by prostituting their better selves, hardly anyone, including scientists,
questions the "necessity" and "common sense" of selling
one's soul for a living. It's just "the way it is", isn't it?
-
- The next step, after agreeing consciously or otherwise
to prostitute the essence of the scientific model of intellectual effort,
is to fiddle with the evidence. Let's say that a major drug cartel, excuse
me, I mean pharmaceutical company, is paying a team of scientists to prove
that the corporation's potentially profitable new product, a combination
of flouride, cyanide, and genetically engineered orange juice, is perfect
for brushing human teeth. Naturally, if the scientists wish
to continue to be employed, in order to pay their house mortgages
and succeed in feeding their families, evidence for the company's desired conclusion
had better be found. Evidence to the contrary had better not be found.
This will not ever be stated in any rude overt way, of course, therefore
delicately allowing all concerned to pretend that some sort of science
is actually underway. And this example of scientists strolling up and down
the streets of commercial enterprise, in fishnet stockings and short tight
leather skirts, is the common picture. Of course, they say they are "providing
a service", and humanity, on the whole, agrees. We have collectively
not yet had the courage to notice that prostitution as a way
of life, in science and everywhere else, is incredibly foolish, dangerous
to physical and mental health, and spiritually deadly. In short, that it
might give rise to that sad end, in scientific terms, of extremely
"Bad Results."
-
- Here is another snippet from Dr. Feynman's book, in which
he is displaying some sense of responsibility, despite his other disclaimers
to the contrary: "...I believe most assuredly that the next
science to find itself in moral difficulties with its applications is biology,
and if the problems of physics relative to science seem difficult, the
problems of the development of biological knowledge will be fantastic.
These problems were hinted at for example, in the book by Huxley, Brave
New World, but you can think of a number of things." Yes, indeed,
we can all think of a number of things, and more day by day. And if the
storyline of Brave New World can be considered to contain mere
hints, then we can only shudder, and wonder about what might be visited
upon us next.
-
- All our hand-wringing about this is not strengthening,
but only an exercise in futility. Faced with runaway bio-illogical experimentation
as we are, what remains is to brace ourselves for the consequences. Public
outcry is always good, but its effectiveness depends on quality
and quantity- on the sheer persuasiveness of the yells. Alas, the majority
of citizens conceive of scientific advancement in just such terms as the
scientific establishment's expensive public relations departments decide
they will. The human race does not yet collectively demand any say-so whatsoever
in accepting or rejecting whatever science wishes to do to us. Scientists
are profoundly horrified at the very thought of the unscientific
having a vote at any step along the scientific way. In short, scientists don't
question their right to impose their conclusions on the rest of the
human race, and this imposition is the very definition of totalitarian
activity. Even the best scientists unconsciously (or quite deliberately)
consider themselves above and beyond criticism by the inferior subspecies
all around them: that is, those untrained in the scientific method. This
fabulous unquestioned egotism so far has successfully rolled right
over all forms of accountability. Scientists can never "Question
Authority", since as far as they are concerned, their version of the
scientific method, however impure, is the essence of all authority itself.
Nevermind that they themselves, hiding behind historical scientific
idealism, are turning tricks for a living. The public does not perceive
the current subjective mental state of scientists; that is, what scientific
attitudes and minds are really wearing these days. The mind of
the average corporate/academic/governmental scientist is dolled up in spiked
heels, provocative see-through clothing, a big-haired platinum wig, greasy
red lipstick and inch-long fake eyelashes. But we the public are of
course presented with the physical images of no-nonsense, trustworthy,
scrubbed and kindly faces above starched white coats. And above all else,
we don't see, and don't want to see, what scientists actually do while
they are in bed with money and power interests. We already know, for example,
(although we try very hard not to think about it) that it often
involves kinky sadistic torture of animals. We collectively refuse to know
any unpleasant details, and persist in blocking out of our minds what this
might actually involve. What we don't know won't trouble our conscience
in the daytime, or keep us awake night, and that's what matters. "Progress
is Our Most Important Product", isn't it? The point of
this is that the essence, the very model of the pure scientific attitude
and method, is the last thing in the world scientists are applying right
now to the field of science itself. Nothing about either the questions
routinely being asked, and equally routinely not being asked, or the methodology,
is being questioned or doubted. In short, the most unscientific people
on the planet these days, according to their own definition, are the scientists
themselves. After all, no other field of human effort even pretends to
apply this particular form of intellectual rigor to itself. Each form
of human labor and creativity has its own set of basic ideas
(however temporary or long-lasting) to work from, and judging science by
the definition of science itself is only reasonable. And by its own definition,
science barely even exists at this point. The vast majority of scientists
have accepted the fate of becoming mere paving stones in the Golden Road
to Unlimited Totalitarianism. Science has devolved to become a mockery
of itself, spelled "$cience."
-
- The basic psychological trick behind modern $cience's
ability to successfully peddle the strange fruit of its uncontrollable left-brained
lusts is embarrassingly simpleminded. All they have to say to people
is "You will profit from this!" and nothing more need be said.
At that point you will buy the cell phone, and your future brain cancer
along with it, no questions aked. What this says about the public mentality
and the public conscience is not consoling. We are collectively eager
to be sold any sort of experimental snake oil under the sun. If we were
not so greedy for gain and comfort ourselves, we wouldn't be passively,
thoughtlessly accepting every idiotic "new and improved"
product of modern science. The image of a mouse with a human ear growing
out of its back is greeted with a thrilled guilty grimace, quickly followed
by a "I wonder what's in it for me?" Only we fringe-folk worry
about the mouse, and the cascading recombinant consequences of such
obvious folly. Science does not bother it's pretty little head with
the tiresome dictates of common sense. It now has one law: "If
it can be done, and we wish to do it, it will be done." What
if we non-scientists applied such a rule to our own lives? A small
percentage of humans actually do follow this policy. They are referred
to, technically, as psychopaths. Of course their experiments are usually
confined to a relatively few victims, they are not overtly funded
by large corporations, and above all else, they do not follow the standard
scientific method. When experiments are carried out on large numbers of
the population, funded by government and corporate wealth, and accompanied
by the requisite version of the scientific method and consequent paperwork,
we change the wording from "psychopathic crime" to "valid
scientific experiment". Simple.
-
- Precisely such an experiment, carried out in the most bizarre
combination of total stealth and broad daylight, is the vast spraying program
in progress we observant and infuriated lab rats refer to as Chemtrails.
What on earth is being done to us here, and why? Thousands of concerned experimental
animals, that is, citizens, have been keeping accurate and detailed
records of the times, dates, apprearances, and peculiarities of this relatively
new phenomenon in our skies. We also have been registering and recording serious
physical problems resulting from being used as unwilling subjects
in this enormously expensive "clandestine" operation. No
one ever asked us if we were willing to be sickened by breathing unnatural
and unhealthy additives to our air. Not only that, but all efforts to discover
what this actually is, and what the purpose of it might be, result in our
being treated as a pack of bothersome hallucinating maniacs. This is a
clear and present danger to the very notion of citizenship, is it not?
A generation of lab rats, on the other hand, has no rights and is
naturally never consulted as to its ratty opinion.
-
- The scientific establishment has decided once-for-all
that it has the inalienable right to own life and death and all
natural processes in between. While the human race is too busy earning
a living to worry about anything else, scientists are, as we know, quietly
patenting human genes. Future health and future diseases
( human lives, in other words) are already being bought and sold in
the genetic-slave marketplace. Some subhuman corporation out there potentially
now owns your child's life, or death, twenty years from now, and no idea
of the consequences of this has crossed many people's minds yet.
-
- The scientific establishment
on this planet has not a smidgeon of willingness to consider a single consequence
of any of its actions beyond legally getting away with the claims of its
end product. Since it also conveniently owns legions of lawyers, this is
no great feat of legerdemain. It is lawless, heartless, fatally corrupt,
and utterly unscientific in all respects. And because human beings on the
whole are currently somewhat indifferent to all but the thought of
immediate personal gain, what goes on behind the scenes in science does
not much bother us as a nation. Even the increasingly untested, crookedly
tested, and therefore dangerous offerings in the marketplace are not causing
widespread alarm. Not a single human being really knows yet what the results
of eating genetically engineered food are going to be. Surprise: there
was no honest, impartial and disinterested study over a long period of
time. Nevertheless, the fight against this preposterous piece of an
inevitable global doomsday scenario is not going very well. We are
quite certain that once again, somewhere down the totalitarian road,
Dr.Frankenstein is going to be very very sorry, as usual. He had no idea, etcetera,
etcetera.
-
- It amounts to this: the air we are obliged to breathe,
the water we have to drink, and the food we must eat, are all the viciously
perverted products now of totalitarian science. We are eating, drinking
and breathing serious darkness, and there seems to be little if anything
we can do about it. We retreat as best we can to what is left of our
natural world, and the remaining blessings of nature- but for how
long? There is little clean air left, almost no pure water, and Frankenfood
genes are jumping the fences all over the planet. The multinational corporate
government of Earth has just about bought and paid for the last particles
of the natural world. Next they will zero in even more effectively than
they have on whatever parts of independent human nature are still
at large. Nevertheless, I suggest that there still are many options
available to human consciousness, and that this intensification of darkness
should only make us stronger.
-
- The destiny of an individual soul is never
darkness, provided the individual soul chooses to live in the light
and love of the original creative energies. Physical bodies are an easy-come,
easy-go proposition and always have been. We can't be overly attached to them
without caving in to fear. No one and nothing can destroy our everlasting
body, our immortal spirit, except ourselves. Not even the worst case scenario-
the temporary loss of our planet itself to wholesale totalitarian control-
can alter the ultimate destiny of any who make an effort to live as human
souls while surrounded and under attack by an inhuman system. And to be
a human soul means to refuse to passively accept totalitarian forces. It
means to fight back, in whatever way is possible for us personally, to
the last breath, without hatred and without fear. As Winston Churchill
said: "I don't hate anybody, except Hitler, and that's professional."
He not only kept his sense of humor at the darkest moment in
human history, and it was one of his more effective weapons.
-
- Furthermore, we haven't lost this planet yet. The time
is short, and getting shorter. Nevertheless, as long as we are inhabiting
these bodies, there is still time to inform ourselves, time to arm
ourselves with information and understanding, time to struggle against
everything that would destroy humanity, time to speak up and speak out,
time to laugh at the preposterous inanities and spiritual short-sightedness
of the dark forces, time to play, time to relish our friends and families,
time to pray without ceasing, and time to meditate and deepen our thinking.
That is, as long as we are here, there is still time to live in joy,
as souls. And then afterwards, as a result of the practice,
it's really easy.
-
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|