Our Israeli correspondent MC returns with an essay on the elevation of science to Science, a corpus of dogmas that cannot be questioned.
Welcome, everybody, to the age of the Intellectual Gangster. The age in which we are browbeaten into submission to the intellectual consensus. The place where, if we try to break free, the bully boys are waiting to accuse us of that major perversion: thought. One must not think, one must ‘just do it’ where ‘it’ is the acceptable prescribed behavioural formula.
Deviation from this formula is punishable by exclusion, by verbal and physical violence, by imprisonment on trumped up charges, and finally by elimination.
The formula comprises of a set of shibboleths: climate change, tolerance, evolution/crypto-eugenics, white humiliation, male humiliation, ‘modern medicine’, human deification/celebrity worship, redistribution of wealth by forcible taxation/theft, and probably many others.
Now, I am not saying that any of these are necessarily right or wrong, it is just that they are not open for debate or question.
When the ‘AIDS’ tsunami broke in the mid-eighties, we were all going to die unless we used condoms etc. One could write a book on the ‘madness of crowds’ syndrome once again invoked by AIDS hysteria. A virologist named Peter Duesberg nailed the myth very early on. He diagnosed AIDS as a lifestyle-related issue amongst a specific (and protected) community. The related African version being the same symptoms brought on by malnutrition. Dr. Duesberg lost all credibility within the establishment, and if he had not been tenured he would have lost his job. Almost thirty years down the line, he is mostly vindicated, medically and scientifically, but he remains unforgiven for his dissent.
The mature human mind/body is a wonderfully resilient bit of biological engineering, it is self-sustaining to a remarkable degree, and, if kept free of poisons, and well nourished, can reasonably be expected to last three score years and ten without serious overhaul. GM, eat your heart out!
The first poisons introduced into the environment were innocuous, things such as soap, teething powders, sleeping draughts etc. Soap contains molecules that are hydrophilic at one end, and hydrophobic at the other end, when in contact with water and (chemically) soft matter (dirt), the hydrophobic end buries itself in the ‘dirt’ and so physically attacks it structural integrity.
Of course soap molecules do not know the difference between ‘dirt’ and the natural oils that keep our skin functioning. So whilst cleanliness may well be next to godliness, soap is an active chemical with a disruptive effect on the skin. But, our bodies are beautifully engineered, and can cope with soap under normal circumstances. But the marketing guys got clever, and started ‘enhancing’ the soap with other, not so mild additives, and at the same time started intimating in the media that ‘body odour’ could be overcome by their product. By implying that we are the last to notice our own odour, they created an almost universal market based on fear.
In the early fifties, the word ‘science’ was re-defined. The root meaning of the word is ‘knowledge’, but the redefined meaning was ‘physical knowledge’. Suddenly, and at a stroke of the intellectual pen, a whole swathe of unexplained but demonstrable natural phenomena were recast as ‘not science’. This was a momentously illogical and unscientific step to take. Essentially, from that point on ‘Science’ became a religion.
In essence, this step was taken to ease the scientific dilemmas caused by the inability of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution to explain the origins of life (as opposed to the origins of species after life had begun). Having redefined the word ‘science’, any opposition to consensus (physicalist) science could be shouted down as ‘not Science’.
Consider one example. The assumption of Science is that the brain is an electro-chemical computer that evolved from a single cell which mutated billions of times over millions and millions of years….
We can thus ask the question how is the colour red represented chemically in this computer? What chemical compound makes the brain ‘see’ red? We know that the brain does see red. The science is hidden from us, but Science dictates that there must be a physical/chemical explanation.
However, the redefinition of science into Science disallows an abstracted red to exist. It must be a figment of our imagination and therefore cannot be discussed in Scientific circles (while it is avidly discussed in crypto-scientific circles).
Science and technology have put a man on the moon, but they cannot put a man at the bottom of the sea. Search the pages of a crypto-zoology site and you will find another place where Science inhibits science. There are well documented sightings and credible historical reports of ‘sea monsters’, and occasionally, remains are washed up on the beaches which confound explanation under the accepted doctrines of evolutionary science, but rather than investigate the truth (or untruth), Science hides the evidence.
In art there is gangsterism as well. The difference between art and craft is well known, but there now exists a ‘terrorism’ in art, where ‘shocking the senses’ is more important than the intrinsic ‘spirituality’ of art. Good art identifies with the innate spirituality in mankind, but in a physicalist world there is no room for Donne, so panties on a bed end must suffice. The terrorism here is that we must participate in the charade or be doomed to exclusion.
In modern society there is an intense pressure to conform, If we want to rule the Queen’s navy then we must never (well hardly ever) think of thinking for ourselves at all (with apologies to Gilbert). So we must polish up the handle on our big brass door until it sparkles with conformity.
Every day we are bombarded with the devices of conformity, those exceedingly ugly outside television screens which flash at us at road junctions. The TV has an off button, even it rarely used. The horrible electronic hoardings hold us captive.
These things have two objectives. One is to make us part with our hard earned pennies, and the other is to so bend our minds that we remain passive in spite of intense provocation. The neo-opiate effect of video stimulation constantly takes us through cycles of terror and tranquillity.
These intellectual gangsters try to propagate the myth that they are ‘revolutionaries’ and original thinkers, but it is slavery which is the norm. And there has only been one real revolution. It happened two thousand years ago; the modern leftist intellectual thug is actually a reactionary iconoclast, trying to tear down the huge leap of civilization that happened in the wake of a resurgence of Judeo-Christianity in the midst of the pagan Roman (fascist) culture.
The real revolutionaries were Jews named Peter, Paul, James and John, who, with their supporters spread the ‘gospel’ of a strong moral code derived from Torah, along with the idea that you ‘do as you would be done by’ which also has its roots in Torah. These revolutionaries to were viciously persecuted by the same reactionaries who today, 2000 years later, are finally smothering the last vestiges of this Judeo-Christianity; Muslims, whose religio-political philosophy is based on Ba’al worship; and the ‘socialists’ (Fascists) who differ very little from the pagan Roman rulers of that far-off province.
“There is nothing new under the sun,” said a wise ruler a few thousand years ago. The behaviour of mankind has only once changed for the better, and those who changed then prospered and became the finest civilisation the world has ever seen. But it was not good enough for those who want to rewrite the rules in their own image (and for their own benefit). Those who want to take this world back to barbarism: the Lenins, the Stalins, the Maos, and the Camerons, the Merkels and the Obamas, and those hidden ogres who pull their strings.
So we live in the age where the counter-revolution thunders around us: mind warfare and the huge howitzer effect of the visual media raining down their deadly video bombshells, telling us that the very thing that brought us health, wealth and the pursuit of happiness is not what we really want. That in reality we want cradle-to-grave CARE, so that within the shade of its (red or black) flag we’ll live and die.
And die many will. The gangsters will see to that!
MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.