Progressives Worship the Cult of Science

It's very simple, really.

A word came into my head today; 'Scientism.' Scientism is the dominant ideology in the Western world today.

The suffix 'ism' signifies that this word is describing the principle under which society ought to be organized. For example, 'Communism' means that society ought to be organized into communes; 'Monarchism' means that society ought to be organized under the rule of one person; 'Fascism' means that society ought to be organized into a tight community serving a common purpose; et cetera.

Scientism means that society ought to be organized according to the wisdom of Science. Scientists regard science as the sole legitimate source of practical and intellectual guidance in this world. There is a hierarchy among scientists, with those at the top of the hierarchy possessing the strongest authority on all matters of science. The highest professors of science pass down decrees about what does and does not constitute science, and their loyal followers take up these new creeds eagerly. This hierarchy is both formal and informal, as there are some Scientists who belong to Schools, and some who belong to no organization. Those Scientists that belong to Schools are the most popular and widely known, and so they have the greatest authority in Sciencedom. Effectively, professors are priests in the church of Science, which has locations around the world and is represented at Universities, Colleges, High Schools and Government. A society that is organized according to the wisdom of Science will be a Scientific theocracy.

-----------------------------------------
The connection to the modern 'Progressive Movement' in Anglo-American politics is clear. Progressives seek to organize society according to the most efficient, organized, and well-balanced methods of government. They promote reproductive rights, eugenics, genetics, psychology, 'reform' of criminals, social insurance, and much more in an attempt to create a society that is as productive as possible.

The word Progressive signifies the real function of the movement and the various Progressive parties around the world. Progressivism aims to organize society around the principle of Progress; gradual, deliberate change.

The Progressive Parties of the world are trying to create a radically different society from the one that we are familiar with. They are trying to stage a massive, absolutely penetrating and total revolution, one that leaves no thought unturned, no custom unravelled. Their goal is to erase all of our history, so that we can begin anew in the utopian society that they intend to create.

What distinguishes the Progressives from other totalitarian ideologues is their dedication to Liberalism. Communists were anti-Liberal; they did not desire a society organized around liberty. Italian Fascists were anti-Liberal; they wanted to organize society according to the principle of martial unity. German National Socialists were anti-Liberal; they wanted to organize society according to the principle of race. Only the Progressives sought to protect liberty in their utopia.

To this end the Progressives have been attempting to manage society and our democratic institutions. Progressives are aggressively anti-bigotry, and have little to no tolerance for prejudices of any sort. Even innocuous misconceptions are not tolerated in a society that has become increasingly anxious and self-doubting as a result. The Progressives aim to eliminate any and all impediments to equality, they aim to eliminate all disabilities so that society can be born again, in an egalitarian state of brotherhood and liberty. They are extremely severe in pursuing these goals; liberty is the last part of their revolutionary program, instituted after the enemies of the revolution have been destroyed. Science is the main tool of the Progressives in their revolutionary program to remake society into an enlightened Republic ruled by a technocracy.

It is no mistake that Progressivism has been described in a way that echoes the language of the French Revolution. The French Revolution was itself a massive campaign of rapid social change. It replaced the Ancient Regime with a society that treasured those immortal values; Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. It initiated an entire nation into the secret cult of the elites. Replacing the Catholic Church with the Temple of Reason and the Temple of the Supreme Being, the Revolutionaries taught Rationalism to the emergent proletariat of Paris.

Rationalism. The ordering of society according to the principle of the intellect. The Cult of Reason taught to the Parisians the value of education, and of knowledge-power. It liberated their bodies for ever by liberating their minds; it taught them that they could be free, and no King was ever able to repress them again. It taught that all men have equal access to the truth, that they can pursue truth under their own power, without recourse to priests or gods. It taught them that the secrets of the divine dwelt within themselves. It taught them that they were Little Kings.

Progressivism as a political program in the 20th and 21st century is a slow wave of the French Revolution. It is also the broadest wave of the Revolution, having encompassed the globe and insinuated itself into every corner. It is the French Revolution at its highest crest. It is nearing the completion of its quest for global reach. It is eroding the resistance of Communist China, and breaking into the last 'rogue nations,' nations that refuse to open themselves to liberation and Liberalization by the Progressives. When that moment occurs, if it occurs, then the New World Order dreamt of by Revolutionaries will come to pass. The Five Superpowers of the United Nations will assert themselves as the Directory of the world government, as they will finally be united under one banner. At that time, the institutions of the post-Revolutionary status quo will be installed. No matter what happens next, no matter who emerges as the supreme executive power of the world government, the Revolution will be secured on a global scale.

------------------------------------------

The global revolution is, I think, inevitable. However, it is not inevitable that the Progressives shall win it. Other parties may win. It is up to us to decide whose side are we on, but first we must decide what we want to govern society. Do we want society to be ruled according to God? According to money? According to justice? According to liberty? According to equality? According to fraternity? According to unity...?

If you side with the Progressives, and you desire a perfect, technocratic democracy, then the Cult of Science is your friend. The Cult of Science is but one of the many cults that belong to the Church of Reason.

If you side with freedom, then you ought to support the Cult of Liberty. This cult also belongs to the Church of Reason, for Reason and Liberty cannot be divorced from one another.

Science is the means through which the technocratic, perfect democracy is possible. Progressives are the only social movement today that is moving towards a defense of liberty. Do not fear their scientism; they worship Reason above all else but they do not have to be your enemy. They are agents of Lucifer, the enlightener. If you hate Lucifer, then you hate also the fruits of his Cults. If you hate Lucifer then you hate Liberty, and Democracy, and Reason, and Science. Think carefully before you take up arms against Him.

I have never heard of it before, but I like it. Now I have something to write in the religion box other than a question mark. This term has been around for a while though en.wikipedia.org...

Reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Democracy and Liberty are not friends of each other. Furthermore, one must have at least a minimum of laws in place or Liberty turns to Anarchy.

This much has been proven by the past.

Lastly, you are saying that progressives and liberals are about strict equality?

Umm…Affirmative Action anyone? Yep. That sure is a shining example of equality.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Science is the means through which the technocratic, perfect democracy is possible. Progressives are the only social movement today that is moving towards a defense of liberty. Do not fear their scientism; they worship Reason above all else but they do not have to be your enemy. They are agents of Lucifer, the enlightener. If you hate Lucifer, then you hate also the fruits of his Cults. If you hate Lucifer then you hate Liberty, and Democracy, and Reason, and Science. Think carefully before you take up arms against Him.

The rise of credentialism is directly linked to the Progressive movement:

Speculation about the fall-off in popular political participation in this century abounds. One theory assigns blame to the ever-present reformers who concluded that too much raw democracy was ruining the country. In response there arose among the middle and upper classes a strong Progressive movement designed to destroy the city political machines and the patronage and corrupt practices on which they thrived. The movement involved such radical proposals as a merit system for public employment; the use of trained accountants and auditors to keep the books in order; anti-nepotism laws; universal suffrage coupled with foolproof voter registration systems and various other safeguards against electoral fraud. These proposals coincided with the rise of social science as a legitimate field of scholarly endeavor and the rise of credentialism as a panacea for many ills. Doctors, lawyers, architects, teachers, and engineers, among others, would henceforth be credentialed by colleges and universities and licensed to pursue their professions or vocations. Eventually, licensing boards were set up for hairdressers, barbers, morticians, cabdrivers, the building trades, and so on. So why not credentialed public employees?

www.brookings.edu...

The licensing schemes set up to grant people the permission to do what they have a fundamental right to do to begin with is hardly a defense of liberty. Further, "technocratic" would be the adjective form of "technocracy" which would be the noun. The suffix -cracy is a derivation of the Greek suffix -kratia which means "power, might; rule, sway; power over; a power, authority", so their is a contradiction of terms when you state; "Science is the means through which the technocratic, perfect democracy is possible". Democracy is a derivation of the root word demos, and the suffix kratia. Demos means people and as I just demonstrated -cracy means rule, or power over. So, make up your mind. Either it is technology that will rule, or it is the people who will rule. One or the other it cannot be both.

Indeed, the rise of big government coincides with the rise of technological advance, and the Federal Communications Commission was created to regulate the technology of radio, the Department of Motor Vehicles were created to regulate the technology of motor vehicles, the Federal Aviation Administration created to regulate the technology of mechanical flight, to name just a few. As new technologies develop progressives find new excuses to expand government and to regulate the daily lives of individuals...hardly a defense of liberty.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson.

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny” Thomas Jefferson.

Science is not about wisdom. It's about what is most probable or improbable. What can be proven or disproven. Scientists on the other hand, are a different matter.

The connection to the modern 'Progressive Movement' in Anglo-American politics is clear. Progressives seek to organize society according to the most efficient, organized, and well-balanced methods of government. They promote reproductive rights, eugenics, genetics, psychology, 'reform' of criminals, social insurance, and much more in an attempt to create a society that is as productive as possible.

In other words, they want to control every aspect of my life, even more so than they do now. No thanks.

ETA: Well said as usual Jean Paul.

When it comes to democracy and scientism it is not everyone voting on who is leader, but people discussing, learning, understanding and voting on the things they care about. Sure there will still be tough ones like abortion, but there is also a lot of cultural variation around the world. Some laws are global, some are not. While there is people there will still be problems, it is understanding and looking for the best solutions where it is at, not some dictator who cannot keep up with it all and comprehend what exactly is going on in his area.

One thing I have a hard time with democracy and voting is getting given a piece of paper with up to 100 names at times, many of who I never heard of. You are pretty much required to watch the tv and read the newspapers every day for a good month or two to know who you are voting for and what they stand for. Sometimes they have a sausage sizzle there which helps make the trip worth while. I prefer to have my voice heard on stuff I know about rather than stuff I don't. You do not ask a brain surgeon how to build a nuclear reactor.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


Sounds like the concept of scientistic belief described by Wolfgang Smith;

Cosmos and Transcendence: Breaking Through the Barrier of Scientistic Belief

In the present work, Wolfgang Smith presents an insider's critique of the scientific world-view based upon the sharp but often overlooked distinction between scientific truth and scientistic faith. With elegance and clarity he demonstrates that major tenets promulgated in the name of Science are not in fact scientific truths but rather scientistic speculations - for which there is no evidence at all. Step by step the reader is led to the astonishing realization that the specifically 'modern' world is based intellectually upon nothing more substantial than a syndrome of Promethean myths.

Amazon.com

It seems their faith in science if based upon a bunch of unproven theories that they hold to as articles of faith. And they criticize me for believing in an invisible man in the sky.


They criticize the Church for being too dogmatic but, the most dogmatic church out there is the church of science; people who buck the system loose their jobs, are censored from scientific journals and are attacked violently by their peers who seek to destroy anything that contradicts with the established dogma.

reply to post by FortAnthem

They criticize the Church for being too dogmatic

On the question of god, some see it as the easy answer for everything they do not know, just blame god. With science and time we will prove more and more about the interactions of nature and life. I see god as everything, you, me, the trees, sky, stars, atoms, universe, ect... Everything is the only answer that fits with the one. If that mean infinity or eternity, maybe time will tell.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Lastly, you are saying that progressives and liberals are about strict equality?

Umm…Affirmative Action anyone? Yep. That sure is a shining example of equality.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Swear to god, if I have to explain this to one more person...

Here's a link to the internet: http://

Freakin' use it

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Swear to god, if I have to explain this to one more person... Here's a link to the internet: http:// Freakin' use it

Einstein once cracked that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time. I can't speak for anyone else, but I tried the link you provided and got a pop up box telling me the URL was invalid and could not be loaded. If other people are experiencing this as well, this might explain why you keep having to "explain" whatever the hell it is you think your 'splaining. You got a lot of 'splainin' to do!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You misunderstand me, friend.

First comes the technocracy, then comes the democracy. The intelligensia must run the revolutionary machinery in such a way as to lay the groundwork for a true democracy. When their task is completed, the state apparatus is dismantled, and the public finds that the machinery of democracy has already been constructed, and that the loss of the state has brought not chaos, but peaceful anarchy. For, without the state, there are no more archons left in the realm. The People are sovereign over themselves at that point. This is why Progressives endorse social engineering schemes; they are trying to produce a race of superhumanly-civilized people through education and psychological conditioning. If man's conduct towards his cousins can be improved upon, then anarchy isn't such an unappealing scenario.

Science can and should be tested in the classroom. Do yall have such bad science classes that labs don't exist anymore? I am not trying to be an ass, it is a serious question. From the time I hit jr high, till the time I graduated, 3/4 of the time was spent on labs, where we tested the things taught ourselves. And to be honest, the last 2 years of my highschool was at a really ghetto school. It was a BOCES school for those familiar with the ny school system. Made me so bored I went to school two days a week on average and still passed.

I don't see science as ever being a self-contained belief or religion on it's own.
Scientists may do wicked things, but they don't do so in the name of science, they use science in the name of some other ideology or religion.
Everybody uses science.
Take the US fundamentalists, they like science when it comes to broadcasting, weaponry and oil-drilling.
But they don't like science when it comes to evolution and condoms.
So everybody uses and funds the science that suits them.
Science itself is neutral, and will remain neutral.
The church used science long before rationalism.
They just didn't want to share it.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


My friend, with all due respect, I don't think I am misunderstanding you at all. I am simply disagreeing. What I am disagreeing with is the notion that some "progressive intelligentsia" intent on "social engineering" will bring about a stateless society. As history repeatedly demonstrates this social engineering intent on bringing us towards a stateless society always comes first with a leviathan state. As if a leviathan state will just go quietly into the night once this product of social engineering is accomplished. It is a Machiavellian ideal, and the problem with Machiavellian ideology is that it is premised on the mistaken notion that the end justifies the means.

No matter how you slice it, the means always justify the end, and when is operating under the mistaken notion that the end justifies the means, i.e. social engineering programs, then as long as that end has not been achieved, (which is quite possibly never), then the end has not yet happened, even in spite of evidence to the contrary. What I am saying is that the Machiavellian never accepts the end if that end means his means resulted in failure. Murder, rape, theft, and genocide all become justified under this Machiavellian ideal, just as long as the intention is good. Pray tell, how can genocide come with good intentions?

I think we both want the same thing, which is a population capable of self government, we just have very different ideas of how to obtain it.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I would not say you are disagreeing with SmedleyBurlap, just a different piece of the puzzle. With the intelligentsia it will open the door to free energy and enhanced technology. Like systems to discuss like ATS, but more inclusive and comprehending of the issues. The stateless and moneyless society is not going to happen overnight, but with small surgical steps to target the problem and implement the solution in a natural and timely way. Gradually forced labour will be replaced by mechatronics. Gradually accounting will be replaced by automatic transactions, gradually the people will take the role of the state.

You are right in that the means does not justify the ends, we are all in this journey together. This process will naturally evolved if allowed too. The other main option I see from technological convergence is cybernetic servitude as the powers exert and expand their control. The two main branches are the light and dark sides of the force with many possible outcomes in between. So the question is human self determination a worth while endeavour for this universe?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The rise of credentialism is directly linked to the Progressive movement:

Ya, I don't like this at all, credentialism does sucks and I would put that in the Progressive column, that is very fair IMO. I am in such a bad mood tonight, now the very notion of credentialism has enflamed my mind,,,

It's like computers, you would think that someone would come along and apply human principle to the side we interact with. If you want to uninstall a program why can't you literally type in one place,

"PLEASE UNINSTALL ALL OF PROGRAM "X" "

"PLEASE UPDATE PROGRAM "D" "

"SHOW BROWSER ICON"

etc...

Often times credentialism is designed with a codified knowledge base - me thinks they make the "dogma" so dense in an attempt to protect their specialty.

CREDENTIALISM - a step TOO far in the wrong direction (turning into a marathon these days)


JPZ, hope you are well

reply to post by Janky Red


I am well brother, and was fashioning a reply to kwakekev, when I stopped to take a break and refreshed the page, and saw you had entered this thread. I am sorry if I am the one who sparked off your bad mood. Damn that stupid credentialism! Always good to see you, Janky.

Science exists only because of those who pay for it.
They also decide what will be researched and what will be created from that work.
In the US the DoD funds more scientific research than all other sources combined.

In practice, this means that instead of conveniences to make life better for the average person we get Star Wars technology, drone aircraft and voting machines that are rigged.
The internet we all love so much is the greatest information gathering tool ever devised by man. We are constantly feeding our government information on ourselves
Tasers, LRAD systems, and other police goodies keep us from protesting the way we should.
Biotechnology is being spread at the expense of the family farm while creating unknowable effects on the environment and man.
All these are the "wonders" of science too.
I used to hold great hopes for mankinds' quest for knowledge but when the elites control our scientific establishments the products created give them greater destructive powers and controls over the everyday lives of the public.
Science is only as good as those who fund it.
One more reason to feel the future is bleak.

reply to post by kwakakev


My friend, I am not only most assuredly disagreeing with Smedley, now I am disagreeing with you as well. Look, technology is a fine thing. The wheel was one hell of an invention, and remains as important today as it was when it was first fashioned. However, technology is merely the tool, and a poor craftsman will not get any better with new and improved tools. Skill is not defined by the tool belt a person wears, skill is the mastery of those tools, as well as the ability to solve the problems, with or without the tools.

As far as free energy goes, it would be nice if we could all understand what it is precisely you mean by free energy. Presumably you mean the latter and not the former, but it is unfortunate that you placed me in the position where I had to presume in order to grant you beingness. This unfortunate event tends to underscore one of the fundamental problems that people - all people including the so called "intelligentsia" - face, and that problem isn't money, or costly energy, or states, it is language.

The problem with language is that it tends to dictate the way we perceive reality. As Alfred Korzybski aptly put it, "the map is not the territory, and the word is not the thing defined". We can't build a home on a map, and we can't spell out the word banana and expect to gain sustenance from that spelling. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, an acre by any other word would be enough land to build a home upon, and a banana by any other name still needs to be peeled. As much as I admire Aristotle, his insistence that a true definition gives essence to the thing defined is lacking in actual reality. The possibility of finding a language that can effectively describe an essence of a thing is unlikely. E=Mc2 is of a language that may very well be the purest, most honest language we know of, and that is mathematics, but does this definition describe the essence of mass and energy? Really? How many people can easily recite E=Mc2 but when pushed on the matter, will admit they have no idea what that really means?

The problem is not that people are stupid monkeys that merely imitate what they see and hear, the problem is language. We - all of us - are too damn lazy with language. Now consider what I just said. Is it true, or am I just reifying? Was I being honest? No, I wasn't. In all honesty, it seems to me that we - all of us - are too damn lazy with language. This may be true, or it may not. It is merely a postulate, and until I can fashion a viable hypothesis to test this postulate, it remains merely a postulate. This is not total objectivity, because I am who I am which means no matter how objective I try to be, I will inevitably come from a personal point of view, which means I am inherently subjective...at least within this body of mine.

That said, it seems to me that we could all do better by delaying our reaction long enough to consider what it is we are reacting to, and by attempting to understand this reaction from as many angles as possible given the time frame before we finally respond. This is only part of our attempt towards objectivity. The other part of objectivity would be somehow tapping into that "collective consciousness" allowing each of us to expand our own subjectivity. When we can finally hear what others are thinking, rather than rely upon listening to the language others use to relay what they are thinking, then we will get better at communication. This will also clear up much of the problems that come with language. When we remove the barriers that language creates, simply by "reading" other peoples minds, then our capacity for thinking is strengthened,

This ESP I am alluding to also speaks to a larger problem, and that is our love affair with secrets and lies. It is unlikely that as long as we are insistent on lying and keeping secrets that we will naturally evolve into psionic beings. If and when we ever achieve the ability of ESP, then lying and secrets become obsolete. As long as we cling to secret and lies, our resistance towards ESP will remain great. So, here is the problem; we rely on languages that facilitate lying and secrets, as well as ambiguities in order to "communicate" but never truly communicate because of our reliance on language.

There is no technology that will fix this problem as it is a problem of the mind and soul. It has something to do with what we are lacking, and there is unlikely ever to be a microscope powerful enough to show us this lack. If we are ever to discover this lack, it will be through intuition. Now, language being what it is, we can, for all intents and purposes define intuition as a technology, but such technology will not be delivered to us by any so called "intelligentsia", it will be a tool we make and fashion for ourselves, at our own pace, in our own time, and will only master the skill of using that tool when we master it.

This will be our journey - or it seems to me to be the case - towards self government. Learning to effectively communicate with each other, which I am guessing means learning to let go of our love affair with secrets and lies.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


There is one other option if you want to give up on science, revolt big time and pull the whole system down. This will send us back into a barbarian culture as all social infrastructure grinds to a stop. Some pockets maybe able to hold on to some tools and bits of knowledge to help start the civilisation process all over again. The Earth has already been there and it sounds harsh, brutal and sucks pretty bad.

I know science has it political issues, just like the government, industry and PTA meetings. The main strength with it is that it is based and searches for the facts as best it can with the scientific method. It is not stuck in concrete like many other ideologies with its ideas, they adapt and grow as we continue to understand. Money and power has been a corrupting influence on science. When all our basic needs can be easily meet reality becomes important, knowledge and understanding becomes valuable.