Our Israeli correspondent MC returns with an essay on the elevation of science to Science, a corpus of dogmas that cannot be questioned.
Intellectual Gangsterism
by MC
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.
This isn’t so much stating a valid point as wrapping a bunch of anti-science ideological axe-grinding up in an otherwise true observation. Basically it comes down to the science clashing with MC’s religious beliefs, therefore the science, rather than the ideological religious beliefs, have to go. Climate change has a lot of room for debate… But evolution? AIDS!?!? Really? Come on… What that really says is: If I don’t understand it, it must be wrong, and anyone who says otherwise is an intellectual “gangster”. Its [a deprecated] way to justify ones own ideological beliefs by using the topic of the left and its rigid belief system as an intellectual gum wrapper to package an argument with little truth to base it on.
You’re damned right evolution and AIDS! The whole point of the article is that there are other theories and very valid arguments against the mainstream conclusions (which should NOT be conclusions at all), and they are not argued against with science, but with mockery, personal attacks and media collusion.
Excellent article! Every word!
I don’t think you’ve understood the article at all.
What don’t I understand? I graduated in Chemical Engineering in 1972, I have studied the AIDS debate for some 12 years, since an (otherwise healthy) friend was prescribed AZT and it killed him in 9 months. There is a huge debate about AIDS, read the original 1986 paper by Duesberg for a start.
The assumption behind the idea of AIDS is that a virus produces a reverse transcriptase which then replicates itself back into the DNA of the cell which then undergoes binary fission replicating both itself and its viral complement. AZT was supposed to be a reverse transcriptaze inhibitor (RTI) but in effect it inhibited everything and killed the cells (and the victim with it). But $55,000,000 buys a lot of speculation about an assumption!
“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.”
Dear Adam, you have come along right on cue to close down the debate, is “Basically it comes down to the science clashing with MC’s religious beliefs, therefore the science, rather than the ideological religious beliefs, have to go” an Ad Hominem attack do you think? could you be an ‘intellectual gangster”? Or maybe you have just fallen for the pork.
As for climate change, well where do I start? University of East Anglia?
Would you like a copy of the source code that was used to get the ‘hockey stick’? It produces the same ‘Al Gore’ graph when fed with random data…
What do these issues have in common? Big taxpayer bucks to be had as long as one propagates the consensus (mythology).
I was saying to the original commenter that he had not understood what you had written, MC.
btw on the subject, kind of, have you ever read “Davo’s Little Something’ by Robert G. Barrett? An awesome Aussie writer!
Yes, so was I, but the replies are sorted in time order, so you got pole position…….
You have to follow the vertical lines….
MC,
I am not “closing down” the debate, just pointing out that your putting a large portion of your argument on quick sand for one reason or another. Actually I do understand the point that your trying to make, but the issue here is that your conflating “intellectual gangsterism” with being pointed out as being wrong. The point the article is trying to make is fine. I agree. This happens often. The EXAMPLES, however, are many of those of someone either misconstruing what science is saying, or just plain being wrong with respect to evidence.
Lets take Peter Duesber’s claim as an example. He states alternately that “lifestyle” choices brought about AIDS. The first HUGE flaw in that is that it does NOT explain why AIDS had such a strong correlation with African Immigrants, or why it suddenly appeared. People have been boozing and “getting high” since the dawn of time. It goes back to well before modern civilization, and yet symptoms like AIDS dont appear until the 80’s. It also does not explain why its strongly correlated with sex, and VERY strongly correlated with gay sex. All of these MUST be accounted for with the above theory, which falls apart when one admits that all of the contributing factors have existed for millennia before AIDS showed up. Im sorry, but the Duesberg argument does not work. It does not account for what we see. When he does, then I will be happy to read is findings.
Next on the list:
“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.”
I assume you are referring to things such as super large squid and such. Science does NOT hide the evidence of such things. As a matter of fact, articles ROUTINELY appear in Science, Scientific American, and Science News when such a creature is found. Its a BIG DEAL and attracts marine biologists from around the world to study them. A major drawback is that such extraordinary creatures are RARE and often are destroyed beyond recognition by the time they are found and brought to the surface. Extraordinary things are hard to study, so it will be quite some time before they appear in the tree of life proper. You cant just airbrush something into the domain of scientific knowledge with a simple picture. Think of all the Photoshops out there, hell, even things like the Loch-Ness monster which is an obvious trickery of camera perspective and a hoax. Theres no “hiding” going on. That sounds like something from a truther site. Simple matter is that they’re rarer than rocking horse manure and as such they can only seldom be studied.
As for climate change Al gore is NOT a Scientist. Can I state that more clearly? NOT A SCIENTIST. Al Gore is detested in the scientific community as a loud mouthed charlatan. Same goes for Lord Monkton, both of whom are just opposite sides of the same big bucks for opinion coin. There is still plenty of debate in the scientific community about the scale and impact of CO2 on global temperatures, and there will be for some time due to the nature of the system and its complexity.
The real issue I had is that things that are flat out wrong are typically ridiculed and not that open for debate since they’re, you know, wrong. If it flies in the face of evidence, its drummed out of town by many counter publications. If its right, then it gains traction. Big example of this is a scientist doing study of glass fracture, which he found that much of the theory of why fracture takes place in amorphous materials is not quite right. He also had good data to back it up. Needless to say, he was listened to, and much debate is now taking place. Im an engineer that works often with glasses and ceramics, so Im intensely interested in what future findings will come.
The real issue here is with the parts of science that resonate with ideological opinions such as eugenics, enviro-marxism, and religion. People often mistake the loud shrieks of the ideologues latching onto the arguments to either push or refute them absolutely as “closure” of the debate by science. You instead choose to point the finger at science instead of where it actually belongs, and THAT is my issue with this article.
And MC, theres a bigger issue here rather than just principal. If conservatives cannot accurately pinpoint the issue with the left and how it abuses science to push its agenda, we WILL lose the argument. Outside of conservative circles arguments such as these against science rather than the left intellectuals using them to gum-wrapper their agenda are viewed as silly, and rightly so. It transforms the debate into an echo chamber on each side. Rather than point out why the left is wrong, people instead try to attack science, and that is a very steep, slippery, greasy slope to be on. Its highly counter productive, and is a fools errand at such a late time as this now in western civilization.
Really Adam, re-read the article, and try to forget your ‘Science’. The article is about the ‘debate’ that has been removed from many areas of the modern plastic lifestyle.
It is your belief that ‘Sea Monsters’ are giant squid. thus you close down the debate :-
“The real issue I had is that things that are flat out wrong are typically ridiculed and not that open for debate since they’re, you know, wrong.”
Was Semmelweis really wrong when he was told that he was, you know, wrong? Many times in history has the Scientific consensus has ridiculed what later turned out to be scientifically sound…..
One of the ways that scientific hypotheses are supposed to be evaluated is by their explanatory and (especially) predictive skill. Let’s look at some of the hypotheses you dismiss as “anti-science”:
AIDS:
The HIV (viral infection) hypotheses predicted that the epidemic would spread beyond the homosexual population into the population at large.
The “Overloaded Immune System” (Duesberg) hypotheses predicted that the AIDs epidemic would remain confined to the population whose lifestyles included the Immune stressing behaviors. (FYI, the behaviors at issue are intravenous drug usage and, especially, unprotected anal sex – sperm act like aggressive parasites and semen contains a powerful immune suppressant. Regular introduction of such material into places inside the body that are not adapted to deal with such threats results in significant stress on the immune system.)
AIDS remained confined to the at-risk population.
Score: Duesberg 1, HIV 0
The HIV hypotheses predicted that HIV vaccines would prevent AIDS.
The Duesberg hypotheses predicted that HIV vaccines are irrelevant to the development of AIDS, since HIV (and all retro-viruses in general) are little threat to one’s immune system, even if they do manage to hid out in small quantities for long times (their survival strategy).
The only thing that HIV vaccines have been successful at is inducing HIV antibodies – ironically, causing one to test “positive” for AIDS since many AIDS tests simply look for these antibodies.
Cumulative score: Duesberg 2, HIV 0
Evolution:
Darwinian theory hypothesizes that evolution occurs by random mutation and natural selection. A straight-forward prediction of this hypothesis is that speciation occurs continually and the number of species is (mostly) continually increasing. This prediction is illustrated by the numerous depictions of the “Tree of Life” universally included in biology texts of the early 20th century, which showed more and more branches of life arising as time progressed.
As knowledge of the fossil record improved, however, we find that isn’t what happened at all: The Cambrian Explosion (540 mya) produced most animal phyla in a very short time. Since then, the number of species has mostly declined as numerous examples from then have become extinct.
(The claim that “Punctuated Equilibrium” is an explanatory theory for this is bogus, since it is simply a name for what happened, not an explanation.)
This is only one of a number of problems where the Darwinian hypothesis falls short of a satisfactory explanation of the known data. It is not an argument FOR the Darwinian hypothesis to attack other hypotheses – every hypothesis must stand or fall by itself (in real science, that is).
Also, I note that supporters of Darwin have a strong tendency to pretend that the only alternative is Creationism – a logical fallacy (false dilemma, or “Black or White” fallacy). In fact, there have been many hypotheses offered (Francis Crick had one of his own, for example), but there hasn’t been a rational discussion about them, thanks to the practitioners of “Science as Religion” as described in Bodissey’s article above.
Now, what about the above observations is “anti-science”? I would claim that to simply put down certain beliefs as “heretical” is, in fact, “anti-science”. (The Wiki article Bodissey links about Duesberg calls him an “AIDS Denier” – a modern form of “heretic”.)
As an engineer, I have to care what works in the real world – I can’t afford to put unfounded faith in hypotheses which have no (or little) predictive skill. Those have no utility when it comes to building things which work.
Kudos!
MC, just one little bother. The Roman state, Kingdom, Republic, and Empire, was not fascist. Fascism is a 20th century ideological monster. One of many.
Disagree, nothing new about 20th century fascism, only the names, the policies are as old as Babylon and Assyria. Two tier system, patricians and plebians, give the plebians bread and circuses (Strength through joy?) and they will be happy . Even the name Fascist is from the Fascii of Rome.
Mussolini based his fascism on the ancient Roman version, have a quick read of Griffiths excellent book of that name. But always remember that Roman History was written by Romans, have a look at the New Testament, especially Acts where Paul is about to be judicially murdered but claims ‘citizenship’ here is history written by the conquered.
Why is this happening? How can we remove the shibboleths from our thinking? …and become Enlightenment persons again? …and resume healthy independent thinking? Viz. rational, logical, reasoned.
I blame mostly dead postmodern philosophers that went viral in our education system. Without this brain cancer we could manage the Muslims and crypto socialists.
Great article. Thank you. [A few minor disagreements]
Give us your thoughts as to what to do.
Remember that Judeo-Christianity has been disemboweled from within having withstood the enemy at the gates for 1400 years and more. Personally, I am deeply suspicious of any kind of organized religion where rabbis, vicars or priests ritualize worship into a meaningless mess.
My strategy would be to divide and rule, To make the various enemy factions fragment, the one dragging down the others; the coalition which oversees our destruction is very loose, and full of internecine struggles because everyone who fancies themselves wants more than their share of the various ‘pies’ that are just not available in adequate quantity.
Split the Muslim Brotherhood from the Democrat left, force the palsy welsy Republican rinos towards the Tea Party let us see clear water between the parties, it can be done, because the enemy did it in reverse.
When good men do nothing.
I appreciate that this is probably not the answer you are looking for, if an answer at all. The fact is good men do do and it seems to me the answer is still nothing.
With T.V and the internet you can very quickly generate a huge amount of exposure for any given subject. In my opinion the most obnoxious of which is the race debate or should I say, the lack of… That I am not allowed to use the word ni**er because of the colour of my skin is a perfect example of how the intellectual gangsters have twisted the debate and seemingly stopped critical thought dead in its track’s.
The mantra that education is truth seems to be nurtured in the modern western system. A dangerous sentiment when you fail to define truth and leave it flexible, exactly what has happened with Aids. That mantra becomes even worse when you replace education with Science.
The only defence we really have is to be open minded and listen to the other side – opinion is the tool most often used to both program and divide and the trick is to make it your own, and not the one prescribed by the gangsters.
MC, welcome back after your recent near-complete absence; I see your brain has not been idle, whoever designed it! A few caveats nevertheless, as you’d expect:
1) Paras 9-10. Darwinism, neo- or otherwise, may not have explained the leap from non-life to life (so far), but, to quote the Australian satirical singer Tim Minchin, every mystery that has been explained by science has turned out not to be magic.
2) Para 14. Sea monsters? Evidence, please. The Victorians were mystified by corpses of giant squids, which we now know live at great depths and pressures.
3) Para 15. “Gangsterism in art”. Well, there are a great many naked emperors around today, and irrespective of their preferred media (beds, sharks) they fail to move me (and, I suspect, most people) as Rembrandt, Caravaggio or Rodin do. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Yet Beethoven shocked and puzzled his contemporaries, especially with his late works, which challenged audiences and his fellow-composers
for decades. I don’t “get” abstract art, so was puzzled why I liked Pollock until I found out he was painting fractals.
Para 16) Gilbert and Sullivan. Pleased you enjoy them; George Bernard Shaw, clever satirist that he was, especially of English pretensions, didn’t appear to appreciate their irony directed at the same targets. I’ve a friend whose grandmother was GBS’ secretary, so Shaw-worship was the norm; she says it took her a long time to realise he was fallible.
Paras 19-20) “One real revolution”. A while back, I followed a link you gave here to your own site, concerned with Jewish theosophy (=”knowledge of God”), if I’ve understood it correctly. We might have a debate sometime over whether intellectual inquiry into the nature of the supposed Creator is useful, when he should surely be approachable by the humblest and least clever.
So I’m only a bit surprised by your assertion that the “revolution” was the foundation of Christianity. I’ve argued here that the Enlightenment was a more beneficial (though not “great”!) leap forward, and won’t repeat myself. I will, as a sceptic from a Christian culture, rush in, maybe foolishly, and mention the Enlightenment ‘s effect upon your own Judaic people. A leading light, as you probably know, was Moses Mendelssohn (grandfather of the composer). Do you fell more comfortable with, and identify with, his heirs, or the Hassidim, with their silly costumes and closed minds, who rejected secularism?
Mark, you are quite as entitled to your opinion, as I am mine, what neither of us is entitled to do is to close down the debate based upon our own opinions, in saying that “the science is settled” the IPCC showed a terrible ignorance of science as opposed to their Science. The creation event is worthy of scientific enquiry, whether a big bang or an alien being (a ‘god’). But that enquiry must be based upon science not Science.
Do scientist not wear lab coats as silly costumes? do not some scientists have closed minds? some even reject Intelligent Design out of hand as mumbo-jumbo?
http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/moore.htm
Here is a write up on a ‘Sea Monster’. I came across this when I happened to be following up a reference to ‘Sea Monsters’ in the log of one of HM Ships, no naval officer (and I was one) would spoof a ship’s log, it is a legal document…..
I too was somewhat bemused, but like the possible human and dinosaur footprints co-existing at Paluxy River it is of no interest to Science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
btw GBS also advocated the humane ‘gassing’ of surplus or useless population groups, now where have we heard that before?
I didn’t know about the proposed “gassing”, MC, but I did think I’d made it clear that my friend became aware of some of Shaw’s many blind spots.
I wasn’t trying to close down the debate, just challenging some of your own assumptions in the hope of continuing it, and I’m disappointed with your non-engagement with my arguments, eg over religious obscurantism and self-imposed apartheid; neither of these is exclusive to Jews, but I’d have appreciated your responses.
Mark, that you had not heard of GBS and gassing says it all, this scion of socialism was an out and out Nazi, had he been of the ‘right’ we would have heard all about it. This is where the debate get shut down. Marx and Engels were both highly anti-Semitic and racism in the form of a huge superiority complex is at the heart of Socialism.
Now I don’t want to live and die under either a red flag or a black flag (or even a green flag).
Jews are mostly harmless, black hats and all, I am not expert on that area of Judaism, I work with people who are just trying to survive, people who bear the brunt of day-in day-out Jihad. People for whom PTSD is never ‘post’.
In Sderot we have few jobs, and consequently low wages. No other country/race group would tolerate Hamas/PA on their doorstep, yet we are stigmatized by socialist insanities, the hateful ‘superior’ racism of of the left, who play the double standards game so ruthlessly.
But Chasidic Jews are off topic, sea monsters and scientists are not.
Not quite off topic; I was contrasting them with secularised Jews, who as much as “Christians” like me are children of the Enlightenment, which I think was a greater advance in civilised thought than the life and teachings of Christ (though it likely could not have happened without them).
Men always have religion. If they do not worship one god or many, they raise up constructs of the human intellect and worship them.
The modern religion is numbers. Men worship numbers and do so blindly. I prefer they worship Baal.
MC is correct in his view that the secularists see Science as a pursuit of truth. This is dangerous. If I possess a truth and you do not acknowledge it, then you are a heretic. History shows me how the human race has dealt with heretics.
Science is a pursuit of knowledge. Under this paradigm, if I possess some knowledge and the knowledge you possess differs, then in pursuit of knowledge we share, tolerate our differences, and seek to increase our knowledge together.
I have seen science pursued in this fashion in my lifetime, but not in the last twenty years. The men who worship themselves have made a god of Science, turned it into a religion, and it now pursues the One Truth as they decree it.
May James Hansen writhe in Hell.
It’s not so much intellectual gangsterism as it is the expression of the dogmas of the new state religion. Leftism has superseded Christianity as the prevailing religion of the United States. Anyone resisting is subject to the new Inquisition.