The Cult Of Science, Politics & Religion

[Redruth]

the scientific, political & religious cult is filled with elitist snobbery and lip-flapping know-it-alls, who clammer to retain status, to keep plaques on their walls and their acceptance into the right parties, clubs and cliques. if one includes the transfer of money and influence of power, then one starts to see the depth of deception and corruption. the scientific and political communities are cults like any other, made of the masses, but also including fringe groups (similar to religion & spirituality) who are often ostracized from the mainstream for their nonconformist views.

 

through the use of these spellbinding cults, as well as many others, we are kept under control and in submission and perhaps the greatest trick of it is, that most of us are completely unaware that there is anything wrong with the lives we are led to lead. however, the truth is we are being led to slaughter. we are being drugged, poisoned, manipulated, murdered, brainwashed and buggered in both ends. our innocence is being stolen and most of us literally don't know the difference anymore.

 

if we knew how little we actually know, if we were given a glimpse of the true significance of all that surounds us and that is inside us, we would likely melt in our shoes.

 

 

nothing is as it seems

 

 

 

 

[eugene]

in before..oh fuck it.

[ghOsty]

[lumpenprol]

whoah, blast from 1988!

 

I somewhat agree with you Troon, well at least when I hear Richard Dawkins speak.

 

Science is fucking awesome, but only as a tool. People who are smug in their scientific certainty, certainly suck.

[syd syside]

Science > Politics > Religion imo (in terms of susceptiveness to manipulation/corruption). Which is why I find the notion that I should surrender my skepticism regarding Islam and instead should conform to the natural order of liberal understanding, disturbing.

 

I dig your general assessment of the situation though. It's difficult to claim objectivity on this matter without coming across as a self-righteous asshole. I can't ignore my thoughts though, and lately I have found liberal hatred of our western values to potentially be roooted with a more Soviet/communist point of view.

 

History

Allegedly written in 1912 by Israel Cohen, a British Jewish Communist, the text first gained public notoriety on June 7, 1957, during a debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, when Rep. Thomas Abernethy of Mississippi read a reputed quotation from it into the Congressional Record:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Racial_Program_for_the_Twentieth_Century

 

We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negros. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.^[3]

 

--

 

Would be interested to know if there was anyway to verify this or not.

[lumpenprol]

hehe you got me with the last two words.

 

Now it's communism? thought it was arabs.

[Braintree]

whoah, blast from 1988!

 

I somewhat agree with you Troon, well at least when I hear Richard Dawkins speak.

 

Science is fucking awesome, but only as a tool. People who are smug in their scientific certainty, certainly suck.

 

It's those people that think of science as an entity rather than a method.

[syd syside]

hehe you got me with the last two words.

 

Now it's communism? thought it was arabs.

 

 

hehe you got me with the last two words.

 

Now it's communism? thought it was arabs.

 

Communist ideology is not far off from Islam (at least in terms of both justifying killing people/members who don't agree or behave in a conformed fashion). Just for a second let's examine some things I read last night. I didn't post any of it because I felt that the evidence for it was weak at best. But I think its also healthy to let new possibilities grow a bit before you totally discount them.

 

For example have you heard of the Fabian Society?

 

 

This video is annoying, everything about its production informs me that I should probably not venture into any kind of conclusive viewpoint. But this also makes you wonder. If media delivery and marketing are independent from the actual legitimacy of information, than who is to really say what is true? Our journalistic institutions may provide for some re-assurance, but it's still a stretch to therefore put authoritarian faith in them.

 

The Western socialist left detests the United States and its capitalist economic structure, and seeks to facilitate that structure's downfall by any means necessary -- including the formation of whatever alliances will further that ultimate objective. One seemingly unlikely alliance that the socialist left has forged is its alliance with radical, fundamentalist Islam, which emphatically and unambiguously rejects virtually everything for which the socialist left claims to stand: the peaceful resolution of international conflict; respect and tolerance for other cultures and faiths; civil liberties; freedom of expression; freedom of thought; human rights; democracy; women's rights; gay rights; and the separation of church and state.

 

There could be no stranger bedfellows than Western leftists and Islamic extremists. Yet they have been brought together by the one overriding trait they do share -- their hatred for America; their belief that the U.S. is the very embodiment of evil on earth and must consequently be destroyed.

 

As Osama bin Laden told a CNN interviewer in 1997, "We declared jihad against America because America is unjust, criminal and tyrannical." This pronouncement does not differ at all, either in substance or tone, from the declarations of the West's radical left, whose ill will toward America is similarly detectable in the following excerpt from an al Qaeda manifesto:

"America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads

an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by the people via legislating laws that contradict the way of Allah

and permit what Allah has prohibited. This compels the other countries to act in accordance with the same laws in the same ways . . . and punishes any country [that rebels against these laws] by besieging it, and then by boycotting it. By so doing [America] seeks to impose on the world a religion that is not Allah's."

While Western leftists make no similar religious references, they do contend, like radical Islamists, that the United States is determined to overrun other nations and dominate the world.

 

 

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=291

 

The internet is the sharpest and deadliest double edged sword that humanity has tampered with imo.

[Fred McGriff]

to me this theory sounds like someone is trying to point the finger somewhere other than at themselves for the cause of their unhappiness.

[pcock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usTT3RuWu_g&playnext=1&list=PLDA9820EB64560DF4

 

 

 

SCIENCE. HAS IT GONE TOO FAR?

[syd syside]

to me this theory sounds like someone is trying to point the finger somewhere other than at themselves for the cause of their unhappiness.

 

I agree.

 

Which is why I hate talking/posting this kind of "loose" conspiratorial nonsense. You aren't gonna figure it out and basing world views from these perspectives can define how you live the rest of your life.

 

If a conspiracy did have merit and was true, I think the efforts and safeguards would have been in place to conceal it immediately. So popular conspiracies seem like something that is less likely to be true because by the nature of concealing/manipulation from a starting point, you'd want as few people as possible to be looking into it.

 

And I find a lot of the anti-American/socialist views come from one main source. Noam Chomsky. At least a couple years ago I was consumed by his way of looking at the West. It was through discussion off the internet with two old school hippy/liberal friends (from the 1960's generation) who argued that Noam purposefully omits information to manipulate or manufacture something overly biased against the west.

 

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html (this seems like a pretty substantial amount of lies and manipulation, at least it puts Chomksy into question because he seems to avoid confronting these accusations)

 

If one were to create anti-US propaganda, what better way to deliver this reputation than with the book, Manufacturing Consent, which argues the US government controls the press. So you essentially kill two birds with one stone by sho I know Chomsky refers and establishes the intent of the US Government to manufacture consent. But this argument does not appear to be continuously supported through time. And it's a rather important aspect.

 

Not to mention his expertise is in Linguistics. Who would be better at manipulation of language for philosophical goals than Noam and his friendly face and soothing voice. I mean seriously, even if you are totally opposite to Noam in terms of politics, how could anyone hate the man? I wish I could communicate like that .

 

I mean just look at him. He's like the Teddy Bear of liberal politicians.

 

 

Aesthetically he is 100% intellectual.

[awepittance]

hehe you got me with the last two words.

 

Now it's communism? thought it was arabs.

lol. Compson's gone off the deep end big time. now he's using Bin Laden quotes to make some point about the 'american left'

[LimpyLoo]

 

Not to mention his expertise is in Linguistics. Who would be better at manipulation of language for philosophical goals than Noam and his friendly face and soothing voice. I mean seriously, even if you are totally opposite to Noam in terms of politics, how could anyone hate the man? I wish I could communicate like that .

 

I mean just look at him. He's like the Teddy Bear of liberal politicians.

 

 

Aesthetically he is 100% intellectual.

 

 

Okay now I understand why everyone makes fun of you

[syd syside]

 

hehe you got me with the last two words.

 

Now it's communism? thought it was arabs.

lol. Compson's gone off the deep end big time. now he's using Bin Laden quotes to make some point about the 'american left'

 

 

I'm not making any arguments in favor of this though. I'm just running through the hoops needed to reach a conclusion. It's more about building a framework that better identifies. If you outright reject something off the bat, you are putting yourself in a position that seems inherently more biased than if you approach each conspiracy in a vacuum initially.

 

It's like the God argument. You can't disprove or prove it. So you are basically left in a position where you have to say, I don't know...

 

And through that attitude of "I don't know" you are bound to be more open to unique ideas/theories, than taking each theory and comparing them with probability estimates. The longer your mind is consumed by something the harder it is for it to ignore it or let it go.

 

I remember where my head was at when I was watching dozens of Chomsky interviews or readings, and so during that period it was unthinkable to me there was anyone more intelligent and well versed than him. So for a bit I just stayed in that one zone. Even though I was still lacking critical evidence. Not to say he is off the mark either. I really just don't know. Right now I am pretty moderate / right wing I would say. But, I don't like political labels.

[Redruth]

 

If a conspiracy did have merit and was true, I think the efforts and safeguards would have been in place to conceal it immediately. So popular conspiracies seem like something that is less likely to be true because by the nature of concealing/manipulation from a starting point, you'd want as few people as possible to be looking into it.

 

 

 

there are many different angles to this. something true can be made to seem absurd, with aim at deflating its credibility. this happens all the time and is happening, egregiously in relation to religion and spirituality currently. extraterrestrial and paranormal activity are also good examples. many of the different angles shift and play against each other. science plays against religion / spirituality and against et's and paranormal ability. religion then plays its fake, false identity in support of politics, armed warfare and the justice systems. there are many many more examples of this type of interplay within every important theme of our lives. basically anything that is advantagous for humans to control for the accumulation of power and wealth will have a false identity and a true identity and if one hopes to remain awake, one must know the difference, not just glom them together.

 

the internet is a brilliant tool for deception. effective in all the same ways as tell-lie-vision, however it is much more interactive

all-consuming and multidimensional. its applications are potentially infinite

[syd syside]

 

 

If a conspiracy did have merit and was true, I think the efforts and safeguards would have been in place to conceal it immediately. So popular conspiracies seem like something that is less likely to be true because by the nature of concealing/manipulation from a starting point, you'd want as few people as possible to be looking into it.

 

 

 

there are many different angles to this. something true can be made to seem absurd, with aim at deflating its credibility. this happens all the time and is happening, egregiously in relation to religion and spirituality currently. extraterrestrial and paranormal activity are also good examples. many of the different angles shift and play against each other. science plays against religion / spirituality and against et's and paranormal ability. religion then plays its fake, false identity in support of politics, armed warfare and the justice systems. there are many many more examples of this type of interplay within every important theme of our lives. basically anything that is advantagous for humans to control for the accumulation of power and wealth will have a false identity and a true identity and if one hopes to remain awake, one must know the difference, not just glom them together.

 

the internet is a brilliant tool for deception. effective in all the same ways as tell-lie-vision, however it is much more interactive

all-consuming and multidimensional. its applications are potentially infinite

 

 

Wow excellent point. The pillars of logic do seem to be nicely distributed amongst all different ideologies or beliefs/cults. One would be wise to venture down as many paths as you can and take notes. When I was in my liberal/anti-war point of view just 6-8 months ago (about) I noticed how I really wasn't very interested in proving my belief wrong (Iraq war was a bad idea/lie/and a disaster) so I therefore just avoided doing research about it (apathetic). Since then I haven't changed my views tremendously, but I do hold more sympathies with the Christian / Conservatives now. I may still disagree overall, the fact that I jumped through the hoops, I could see there was way more logic and reasoning than what I presented to myself before.

 

I can also re-examine initial experiences with exploring this path and if I am experiencing something very different, I know I've made some kind of new framework for reality/truth. It's the same as when you suddenly get a really cool idea from out of the blue. You can't really explain why the internal change is affecting the external world, but it does. And its pretty exciting to experience.

[Ivy Zemura yvI oo ii oo]

Yeah as if Science and Religion are even comparable

 

Religion is shit

[Guest Iain C]

 

Communist ideology is not far off from Islam (at least in terms of both justifying killing people/members who don't agree or behave in a conformed fashion).

 

 

Fuck, he figured it out.

[MisterE]

science and religion can be compared in that with both, the 'masses' typically have two choices

a) believe the authorities in the field

b) don't

 

most of the people out there have no thorough or real grasp of the science behind.. er... science. so they totally have to take the word of the scientists. same with religious people putting blind faith in churches/preachers/the pope, etc.

 

this means that both can be used to manipulate the masses, because both have supreme authorities who claim to have access to the 'real truth'. in both cases the masses just don't know and at the end of the day they have to take someone's word, or don't. it means there is huge potential for corruption, abuse, and manipulation with both.

 

or do you think there isn't any money in science? how about politics, which has a symbiotic relationship with science? do you think politicians who must appeal to the largely ignorant masses are above corruption? are scientists?

 

i'm not trying to say that religion isn't arguably worse than science (although i think it's a bit one-sided to not even try to look at any possible positives that may have came out of religion over the course of human history), i'm just pointing out that yes, they are very comparable, in some very important ways.

[Guest Iain C]

I think you're actually spot-on there MisterE

[syd syside]

science and religion can be compared in that with both, the 'masses' typically have two choices

a) believe the authorities in the field

b) don't

 

most of the people out there have no thorough or real grasp of the science behind.. er... science. so they totally have to take the word of the scientists. same with religious people putting blind faith in churches/preachers/the pope, etc.

 

this means that both can be used to manipulate the masses, because both have supreme authorities who claim to have access to the 'real truth'. in both cases the masses just don't know and at the end of the day they have to take someone's word, or don't. it means there is huge potential for corruption, abuse, and manipulation with both.

 

or do you think there isn't any money in science? how about politics, which has a symbiotic relationship with science? do you think politicians who must appeal to the largely ignorant masses are above corruption? are scientists?

 

i'm not trying to say that religion isn't arguably worse than science (although i think it's a bit one-sided to not even try to look at any possible positives that may have came out of religion over the course of human history), i'm just pointing out that yes, they are very comparable, in some very important ways.

 

If a scientist makes a bunch of bullshit up, he will be criticized in his community. A religion is too abstract with differences by comparison.

[MisterE]

you may or may not have a point there but it doesn't negate my point that they can at least be compared. if you say things aren't even comparable then you are trying to say that there aren't any similarities at all, and that there shouldn't even be any discussion including both things or comparing them in any way. it's bullshit.

 

peer review is not above corruption either. it's like you were willing to admit that one scientist may be bought, but no way could two or more. why not?

[LimpyLoo]

peer review is not above corruption either. it's like you were willing to admit that one scientist may be bought, but no way could two or more. why not?

 

This sounds like the beginning of an "evolution is a hoax" argument.

[chim]

The real scary truth? No one is in control.

[doorjamb]

science and religion can be compared in that with both, the 'masses' typically have two choices

a) believe the authorities in the field

b) don't

 

most of the people out there have no thorough or real grasp of the science behind.. er... science. so they totally have to take the word of the scientists. same with religious people putting blind faith in churches/preachers/the pope, etc.

 

this means that both can be used to manipulate the masses, because both have supreme authorities who claim to have access to the 'real truth'. in both cases the masses just don't know and at the end of the day they have to take someone's word, or don't. it means there is huge potential for corruption, abuse, and manipulation with both.

 

or do you think there isn't any money in science? how about politics, which has a symbiotic relationship with science? do you think politicians who must appeal to the largely ignorant masses are above corruption? are scientists?

 

i'm not trying to say that religion isn't arguably worse than science (although i think it's a bit one-sided to not even try to look at any possible positives that may have came out of religion over the course of human history), i'm just pointing out that yes, they are very comparable, in some very important ways.

nope, sorry. Religious "authorities" have no verifiable, sound claim to that authority. The phrase "scientific authorities" is meaningless; science has no authorities, only experts in various fields of inquiry. Further, no true scientist ever claims to know anything to be absolute fact; hence why we still say "the theory of gravity" and not "the law of gravity." Science is, as someone already said, a method of inquiry based on interpretation of evidence and postulation of explanatory hypotheses. Religion is bald assertion.

 

also no one is saying that some sort of duplicitous conspiracy within the scientific community is impossible, but it would be less likely to succeed since research and postulated evidence are made available for review and the world is full of nosy nitpickers with nothing to do evenings. Religious claims don't apply to the real (perceivable) world and are therefore immaterial (pun intended)