Science is Just a Weapon to Be Used Against Your Political Enemies

Use it or have it used against you.

Three points right off the bat:

1. Science is subordinate to politics.

2. Science has always been used by the political powers of the day to promote a certain worldview that is amiable to their interests.

3. Science is also employed retroactively to discredit the preceding regime.

By “science” I mean the scientific theories that are in favor among the political elites. There are always alternative theories out there at any given time with similar or even better explanatory power to the models currently in use. The science is only settled in the sense that political power has blacklisted those who do not adhere to the dictates of the reigning orthodoxy. This phenomenon is not particular to our time, although our time could fairly be characterized as a particularly totalitarian period, a veritable scientific dark age where dogma and repression reached hither-to unseen levels.

Now, all successful revolutionary and even reactionary movements have employed science as a cudgel against their opponents. Check for yourself what successful revolutionaries have done upon coming to power. Issuing new calendars, raising up new gods and casting down old ones, and adopting new scientific theories while discrediting old ones - it is a historically observable fact that when old political systems are overthrown, their science gets replaced with a new one. Also, a savvy political elite has never had any problems jettisoning older theories that they promoted for more useful ones when the time comes to implement the next stage in their agenda. No one can argue in good faith that this didn’t happen before, and, if you pay attention, you will notice that it is happening again right now!

The reigning Liberal regime justifies its victory over the ancien regime in large part by pointing to the advances in science that it has presided over. And while there have certainly been new technologies developed in this time, the real story is the power consolidation process in which political elites selectively picked and chose from the plethora of scientific theories available to them at the time with the ultimate goal of propping up their claim to power.

Maybe I have convinced you by now that morality is relative and not a firm foundation to build a worldview on. The next step is to convince you that the science isn’t set in stone either.

Take Darwinism, for example. Darwin would have been seen as just another quirky nut if his theories weren’t seized upon by the progressives and capitalists of time to justify their hold on political power. The same thing happened previously with Newton and his promotion by the Whigs of his time, actually.

But, with Darwin, we even got an entire corollary theory called ‘Social Darwinism’ created to explain the legitimacy of the current elite by using and abusing Darwin’s findings. They claimed legitimacy on the grounds that life was all about survival of the fittest and so the capitalists were only following the dictates of mother nature when destroying the older system and reforming the peasants into proletarians who worked for slave wages in their Mordor-like factories. Get in the assembly line or die, prole!

Funny enough, the Nazis didn’t like Darwin. In popular memory, they are regarded as being Nietschian-style cold-hearted mad scientists with a penchant for creating mechanical mass-killing contraptions - an attitude that carried over into their scientific worldview. But this is simply not the case. They actually rejected Social Darwinism on the grounds that it was too materialistic and all-too typical of the mindset empirical philosophy peculiar to the eternal Anglo. The Germans preferred a theory that made allowance for the existence of a species-specific soul and divine blueprints in nature inspired by God. I wish I could tell you more, but these texts are in German and remain largely untranslated, for obvious reasons.

Actually, it is unclear how and why we can still continue believing in either the macro or micro theories of evolution now that we have discovered DNA, which provides us with a far superior theory of the development of life. But, as usual, I digress.

Another example that some people are familiar with is the case of Lysenko, whose theories on the effect of the environment on what we now call ‘genes’ was promoted by Stalin as an alternative to theories that relied on heredity as the main explanatory factor. The Soviet authorities declared these other theories to be ‘bourgeois’ and decided to come up with an alternative, eventually settling on Lysenko.

Why?

Well, because the Soviets believed in ‘nurture’ over ‘nature’ and so didn’t want to plant their fields with seeds that used racist, bourgeois science to increase yields. And then they lied about the poor results, naturally. Actually, to be fair, Lysenkoism was simply ahead of its time and his theories were rediscovered and rebranded in the West in the form of epigenetics after the collapse of the USSR. Turns out that the environment really does play a factor on genes, just not in the way that the Soviets thought.

But the point remains - science is used and adopted selectively to suit a political agenda. And challenges to reigning scientific dogma are rightly perceived as potential political threats.

There’s a reason that the Catholics burned Giordano Bruno. It was for his alternative scientific models. [And because he was a mystic steeped in Hermeticism]

In his particular case, it was because his findings undermined the Hebrew fairytales that Rome’s priests had built their entire political project on. Being an esoteric and not a secular scientist as he is often portrayed as by modern-day atheists, Bruno also believed in and quoted Greek legends about a time before a moon existed in the sky. But the legend of the Pelasgians is a topic for another time and I only bring it up to segue into my next point.

See, I had an argument with my podcast partner the other day about the moon because we simply got tired of arguing about the war and had to argue about something. My partner said that the moon was created when a comet collided with earth, tore a chunk away, which coagulated (or whatever the term is) in orbit and formed the moon 6 million years ago (or whenever). And I argued that the moon was originally a satellite of Saturn that, during a period of celestial upheaval, somehow got knocked out of its original orbit and then attached to the earth.

The proof?

Well, neither of us really have any proof. These are just two theories and I’ve found that it is always other, non-scientific factors, that convince someone to accept a given scientific theory or not. Me, I have an ax to grind against the modern scientific establishment, and seeing as I see science as just another field of battle subordinate to political interests, it is in my interests to throw as many pies in the face of the reigning scientific dogma (often referred to as THE SCIENCE! by its devotees) as possible.

My logic is that when/if people with my views take power, they can point at the scientific theories accepted and promoted by the previous regime and adopt alternative theories which are equally plausible (or ideally even more so) to retroactively portray Liberals as backwards neanderthals.

And hey, I’m no scientist and wouldn’t ever want to work in academia.

Therefore, when presented with a plausible alternative to reigning scientific dogma, I adopt it purely on the grounds that it angers mainstream scientists, and could be used in the future to discredit the legitimacy of the previous regime. Again, if given the choice between two plausible theories … well, why not?

Actually, if you just think about it, we already have a lot of material to work with without getting into any alternative theories related to alternative medical theories (terrain v germ theory), the Electric Universe model, and so on. After all, THE SCIENCE! now denies even basic biology because it runs contrary to the political agenda.

So, our new science textbooks would read something like this:

The savages who came before us believed that a man could identify as a woman and even menstruate if he convinced enough people around him to share in his delusion! Truly, a barbaric and dark age!

But then I would go on to expand of the criticism of the previous reigning ideology. I would attack them on all fronts. Unfortunately, I’d go into that battle alone, because people just aren’t quite at the level where they’re willing to doubt the dogma of the reigning religion of our time.

The next chapter of the new textbook would read as follows:

The superstitious peasants believed their overlords and thought that injecting themselves with heavy metals and ‘science jizz’ (technical term from that time) they would be invulnerable to ‘viruses’ - a discredited and debunked pseudoscientific theory promoted by large pharmaceutical companies to terrorize the population. From what our historians can tell, the inoculation voodoo practice originated from a Turkish superstition that made its way over to New Arabia (sometimes referred to as the UK or ‘nightmare island’) and spread from there.

Or:

Despite lacking any tangible evidence whatsoever, the regime promoted charlatans who promoted theories related to ‘black holes’ that could only be proven to exist in feverish mathematical fantasies cooked up by utterly deranged so-called scientists working with unproven and unfalsifiable givens and spinning out their theories into a veritable voodoo theology.

People get really mad when I deny that black holes exist or make the claim that the earth is hollow and expanding, or assert that virology is a pseudoscience and deny the existence of Charlemagne and the so-called ‘dark ages’. Lol.

Like, believe me, I can see why you might raise an eyebrow to such outlandish claims, but I don’t get why you would get mad. Maybe it’s just the company I keep - we try to one-up each other with outlandish theories and think it’s all good fun. I mean, how is it NOT fun to tell people with a deadpan expression on your face that the Great Wall of China was built in the early 20th century? Try it. Ask them to find one piece or art or reference to the wall that predates the 20th century. Marco Polo? The court eunuchs? The Jesuits? The Russians? Bueller? Anyone see Bueller?

Frankly, I think the burden on proof is on YOU, the believer in THE SCIENCE! seeing as you’re so much smarter than me on account of you knowing THE SCIENCE! gooderer!

**

People don’t know why they believe what they do and that’s because people are simply told what to believe and thats what they then go on to do. It has always been this way and it always will be this way. And there is no limit, really, to what you can get the peasants to believe in.

Consider: nowadays, a solid chunk of the population no longer believes in X and Y chromosomes and, I got news for you, buddy, soon they will be in the majority and we will be dusty SCIENCE!-denying fossils. That should make anyone pause and consider how much allegiance the current orthodoxy deserves from them. In fact, the people of the West may soon go the way of the dinosaurs if we continue believing in THE SCIENCE! of the ruling class which asserts that there are 72 genders and that actually everyone is secretly gay.

The only real counter-argument I will accept to my position that science is simply a weapon just lying there waiting to be used against one’s political opponents is that I am putting the cart before the horse. Which, fair enough, because none of this is possible without a change in power - and by that I don’t mean a new president, but an entire political overhaul.

What I would point out though, in my defense, is that the only way for the alternative science or history or spiritual communities to have their ideas taken seriously is if they are hitched to a successful political project. Specifically, no one will ever give the anti-vaxxers or Electric Universe or hidden history researchers or empirical mysticists a fair shake unless a political movement adopts and promotes their views upon taking power to use as a cudgel against the previous regime.

That is the indisputable history of science. It has advanced one revolution and demonization campaign at a time. Them’s just the rules. Win the game fair and square or by hook and crook, and then you can get the population to believe in just about anything.

Here, I’m also tempted to take a moment to point out that “progress” is an illusion and yet another spook in people’s minds.

Case in point: the internal combustion engine trades speed and the ability to cover large distances for safety and localized production. As far as trades go, a few hundred thousand deaths worldwide yearly on the road is a price that I’m willing to pay. Most people are too. But even if it is a trade-off that you and I would take, a trade-off it remains.

Progress doesn’t exist, there are only trade-offs.

The ancient Greeks understood this, and used it to justify their idyllic laziness. But we seem to believe that the radical restructuring of our society, a process that is ongoing even now, is synonymous with progress. People on the interwebs are all in a huff, trying to organize some sort of resistance to the next stage of “progress” envisioned for us by the globalist elites on the grounds that it is simply a blatant power grab and a radical redistribution of resources.

They are right to do so, of course.

But how do you think the current status quo came to be? The exact same process took place to get us where we are today, only, the peasants have no recollection of it! The political elites have always been rearranging society to prioritize their interests and then calling this progress!

Anyways, point made.

Moving on.

Here are the three points I made in the beginning of the article again:

1. Science is subordinate to politics.

2. Science has always been used by the political powers of the day to promote a certain worldview that is amiable to their interests.

3. Science is also employed retroactively to discredit the preceding regime.

The most useful corollary to these points is to realize that attacking the established scientific models used by the regime is actually an attack on the political legitimacy of the regime. And seeing as we are culture-warrior-guerrillas, we ought to expand the scope of our intellectual insurgency.

But first, we have to realize just how flimsy the science behind THE SCIENCE! of today really is and stop worshipping it.

One last fun example: dinosaurs.

Totally made up, folks! The story of how the old dino-enthusiasts just made up everything as they went along to make money selling bones for millions of dollars to collectors is absolutely hilarious and worth diving into.

But, as far as fake science goes, I loved my dinosaur toys growing up as a kid and I’ll teach my kid that they were real and that they were awesome! Just like the trolls and goblins and elves that used to inhabit the world as well.

Only when we realize that THE SCIENCE! of the current year is a house built on sand will we be able to escape the mental prison that we keep ourselves in by fearing to propose alternative models. To those who do summon up the courage to deny THE SCIENCE! I would encourage them to choose alternative models based on this one very important principle.

Ask yourselves: does it sound cool?

Because if it does, it’s already got more of a claim to legitimacy than the vast majority of the settled SCIENCE! of our day.

So just roll with it.