The Golden Road To
Unlimited Totalitarianism
- Part 5
Dr. Frankenstein I Presume?
By Diane Harvey
   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. 

This Site Served by TheHostPros