The Faustian Face of
Modern Science
“The glad tidings
of salvation are to be taken to those who have not yet heard them. Satan is
determined to place God's people in a false light before the world. He is
pleased when their lives reveal defects, when they cherish objectionable
traits of character. These traits of character he uses in his service. He tries to keep God's people in a
continual state of uncertainty by bringing in false theories and false
science. He seeks to deceive them as he deceived Adam and Eve. He would
lead them to depart from God, their true Counselor, and accept his
spiritualistic sophistries. With these sophistries clothed in the garments of
light, he seeks to deceive if possible the very elect.” {TDG 325.1}
The Faustian Face of Modern Science,
Part 1, 7-18-09
The Faustian Face of Modern Science,
Part 2, 7-25-09
The Faustian Face of Modern Science,
Part 3, 7-25-09
The Faustian Face of Modern Science,
Part 4, 8-11-09
The Faustian
Face of Modern Science: Understanding the Epistemological Foundations of
Scientific Totalitarianism
- by Phillip D. Collins, June 11th, 2009
Scientific totalitarianism is certainly not
a new topic in the halls of political science and history. Given its bloody
legacy of democide (i.e., state-sanctioned genocide, mass murder, and
politicide) and its prolific spread throughout the world, scientific
totalitarianism remains a preoccupying sociopolitical phenomenon of the 20th
century. Yet, few researchers have examined the epistemological foundations
of scientific totalitarianism. In turn, an understanding of scientific
totalitarianism's epistemological roots elucidates an occult conception of
science, which edified the sundry Weltanschauungs of sociopolitical Utopians
(e.g., socialists of either the communist or fascist ilk). In light of this
core epistemological commonality, all forms of sociopolitical Utopianism
could be considered the manifestations of a trans-historical occult
counterculture movement.
To understand the occult conception of
science, one must first establish a working definition for traditional
science. The word "science" is derived from the Latin word
scientia, which means "knowing" or "knowledge." Thus,
there is an epistemological dimension to science. After all, epistemology is
etymologically derived from the Greek word episteme, which also means
"knowing" or "knowledge." In recent years, science has
been couched in the epistemology of radical empiricism, the theory that all
knowledge is derived from the senses. Within such epistemologically rigid
parameters, the gaze of contemporary science has been firmly fixed upon the
ontological confines of the physical universe. Whether the modern scientist
realizes it or cares to admit it, radical empiricism is the epistemological
nucleus of the occult conception of science.
Yet, science has not always labored under
such epistemological rigidity. In Confession of Nature, Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz establishes the centrality of a supra-sensible God to science.
According to Leibniz, the proximate origins of "magnitude, figure, and
motion," which constitute the "primary qualities" of corporeal
bodies, "cannot be found in the essence of the body" (de
Hoyos,"The Enlightenment's Crusade Against Reason"). Linda de Hoyos
reveals the point at which science finds a dilemma:
The problem arises when the scientist asks
why the body fills this space and not another; for example, why it should be
three feet long rather than two, or square rather than round. This cannot be
explained by the nature of the bodies themselves, since the matter is
indeterminate as to any definite figure, whether square or round. For the
scientist who refuses to resort to an incorporeal cause, there can be only
two answers. Either the body has been this way since eternity, or it has been
made square by the impact of another body. "Eternity" is no answer,
since the body could have been round for eternity also. If the answer is
"the impact of another body," there remains the question of why it
should have had any determinate figure before such motion acted upon it. This
question can then be asked again and again, backwards to infinity. Therefore,
it appears that the reason for a certain figure and magnitude in bodies can
never be found in the nature of these bodies themselves. (Ibid)
The same can be established for the body's
cohesion and firmness, which left Leibniz with the following conclusion:
Since we have demonstrated that bodies
cannot have a determinate figure, quantity, or motion, without an incorporeal
being, it readily becomes apparent that this incorporeal being is one for
all, because of the harmony of things among themselves, especially since
bodies are moved not individually by this incorporeal being but by each
other. But no reason can be given why this incorporeal being chooses one
magnitude, figure, and motion rather than another, unless he is intelligent
and wise with regard to the beauty of things and powerful with regard to
their obedience to their command. Therefore such an incorporeal being be a
mind ruling the whole world, that is, God. (Ibid)
Thus, Leibniz concludes that “corporeal
phenomena cannot be explained without an incorporeal principle, that is
God" (ibid). In fact, the ontological plane of the physical universe
cannot be considered a subsistent form of substance per se. It is underpinned
by an immaterial order. The manifestation of sensible objects within
corporeality is the result of the unseen interchange of transcendent
principles outside of the temporal spatial realm. Rene Guenon recapitulates:
The truth is that the corporeal world cannot
be regarded as being a whole sufficient to itself, nor as being isolated from
the totality of universal manifestation: on the contrary, whatever the
present state of things may look like as a result of "solidification,"
the corporeal world proceeds entirely from the subtle order, in which it can
be said to have its immediate principle, and through that order as
intermediary it is attached successively to formless manifestation and
finally to the non-manifested. If it were not so, its existence could be
nothing but a pure illusion, a sort of fantasmagoria behind which there would
be nothing at all, which amounts to saying that it would not really exist in
any way. That being the case, there cannot be anything in the corporeal world
such that its existence does not depend directly on elements belonging to the
subtle order, and beyond them, on some principle that can be called
"spiritual," for without the latter no manifestation of any kind is
possible, on any level whatsoever. (213-14)
Deriving immaterial universals (e.g.,
mathematical axioms, God, etc.) from the sensible world is known as
abstraction. The Apostle Paul demonstrates abstraction in Romans 1:20:
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Thus, while
traditional science concerned itself with the natural world, it
simultaneously recognized and acknowledged the reality of universals. Herein
is this researcher's working definition for traditional science. The
rejection of universals, on the other hand, paves the way for the occult
conception of science.
The rejection of universals began with
nominalism, a philosophical doctrine that was formulated in the Middle Ages.
Nominalism originated with William of Ockham, who was born in 1290. Ockham
confused ideas, which inhabited the Intellect, with the subjective images
that inhabited the imagination (Coomaraswamy, "The Fundamental Nature of
the Conflict Between Modern and Traditional Man--Often Called the Conflict
Between Science and Faith"). As Aquinas made clear in Summa Theologiae,
images only capture things in their singularity. Ideas, on the other hand, capture
things in their universality:
Our intellect cannot know the singular in
material things directly and primarily. The reason for this is that the
principle of singularity in material things is individual matter; whereas our
intellect understands by abstracting the intelligible species from such
matter. Now what is abstracted from individual matter is universal. Hence our
intellect knows directly only universals. But indirectly, however, and as it
were by a kind of reflexion, it can know the singular, because even after
abstracting the intelligible species, the intellect, in order to understand
actually, needs to turn to the phantasms in which it understands the species.
Therefore it understands the universal directly through the intelligible
species, and indirectly the singular represented by the phantasm. And thus it
forms the proposition, "Socrates is a man." (Pt. I, Qu. 86, Art. I)
Ockham failed to make this distinction,
thereby reducing ideas to mere impressions on the imagination stemming from
sense perception (Coomaraswamy, "The Fundamental Nature of the Conflict
Between Modern and Traditional Man--Often Called the Conflict Between Science
and Faith"). This epistemological confusion led Ockham to reject
universals (ibid). Although Ockham still believed in God, he denied the
objective character of God (ibid). Thus, God became an unknowable abstraction
fraught with ambiguities.
Such a nebulous conception of God leads one
to regard faith as "blind." Yet, true faith is not blind. The Greek
word for "faith" in the New Testament is pistis. The term was also
invoked by Aristotle and connotes forensic proof. Forensic proof is
evidentiary, not blind. Likewise, many of the Apostles made evidentiary
appeals for the faith. For instance, in Acts 2:22-36, Peter makes three
evidentiary citations in defense of the faith. He cites Jesus' "miracles
and wonders and signs." He cites the empty tomb. Lastly, he cites the
fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Thus, Peter's apologia was premised
upon evidence or, as the term pistis connotes, proofs.
In addition to casting faith in a rather
derisive light, nominalism led to the bifurcation of epistemology into what
is quantifiably or empirically demonstrable and what is believed (ibid). In
turn, this bifurcation is a slippery slope towards the belief that all things
quantifiable represent the totality of reality. Suddenly, all of those
entities that defy quantification (e.g., the "good," the
"beautiful," dignity, God, etc.) are relegated to impotent and
ambiguous subjectivism. Such epistemological rigidity underpins scientism,
which mandates the universal imposition of science upon all fields of
inquiry. The modern mind, chronocentric as it is, might consider such an
imposition favorable. However, it is very dangerous. Michael Hoffman
elaborates on this danger:
The reason that science is a bad master and
dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not
objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does
not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism
has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data,
such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its
own agenda, be it Darwinism or "cut, burn and poison" methods of
cancer "treatment." (49)
When extended beyond its legitimate fields
of application, science becomes a rigid template to which even the most
complex of entities, like man, must conform. The scientific outlook
acknowledges no moral master. It gives no assent to moral or esthetic
judgments. In the words of B.F. Skinner, it "de-homunculizes" man,
a being that was originally "defended by the literatures of freedom and
dignity" (189-91).
Nominalism rode into epistemological
dominance astride the Protestant Reformation. The father of the first
Reformation, Martin Luther, was actually an unconscious agent of
secularization. Under Catholicism, the truth had become the province of
priests and other self-proclaimed "mediators of God." However, Luther
made the mistake of adopting nominalism as one of the chief philosophical
foundations for his doctrines. In The Western Experience, the authors write:
[S]ome of Luther's positions had roots in
nominalism, the most influential philosophical and theological movement of
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, which had flourished at his old
monastery. (450)
By the time Luther's ideas were codified in
the Augsburg Confession, nominalism was already beginning to co-opt
Christianity. Nominalism's rejection of a knowable God harmonized with the
superstitious notions of the time. Misunderstanding the troubles that beset
them, many peasants made the anthropic attribution of the Black Death to
God's will. Following this baseless assumption to its logical conclusion,
many surmised that God was neither merciful nor knowable. Such inferences
clearly overlooked the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which represented the
ultimate act of grace on God's part. Nevertheless, the superstitious populace
were beginning to accept the new portrayal of God as an indifferent deistic
spirit. Nominalism merely edified such beliefs. Invariably, nominalism would
seduce those who would eventually convert to Protestantism.
Christians should have had more than a few
philosophical misgivings with nominalism, especially in light of its
commonalities with anthropocentric humanism:
Although nominalists and humanists were
frequently at odds, they did share a dissatisfaction with aspects of the
medieval intellectual tradition, especially the speculative abstractions of
medieval thought; and both advocated approaches to reality that concentrated
on the concrete and the present and demanded a strict awareness of method.
(424)
Suddenly, Christianity was infused with
materialism and radical empiricism. There was an occult character to both of
these philosophical positions. Radical empiricism rejects causality, thereby
abolishing any epistemological certainty and reducing reality to a holograph
that can be potentially manipulated through the "sorcery" of
science. Materialism emphasizes the primacy of matter, inferring that the
physical universe is a veritable golem that created itself. Despite their
clearly anti-theistic nature, these ideas began to insinuate themselves
within Christianity.
With nominalist epistemology enshrined, man
was ontologically isolated from his Creator. Knowledge was purely the province
of the senses and the physical universe constituted the totality of reality
itself. Increasingly, theologians invoked naturalistic interpretations of the
Scriptures, thereby negating the miraculous and supernatural nature of God.
The spiritual elements that remained embedded in Christianity assumed more of
a Gnostic character, depicting the physical body as an impediment to man's
knowledge of God and venerating death as a welcome release from a corporeal
prison. Gradually, a Hegelian synthesis between spiritualism and materialism
was occurring. The result was a paganized Christianity, which hardly promised
the abundant life offered by its Savior.
Luther's unwitting role in the
popularization of such thinking suggests an occult manipulation. There is
already a body of evidence supporting the contention that occult elements had
penetrated Christendom and were working towards its demise. Malachi Martin
states: "As we know, some of the chief architects of the
Reformation--Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Johannes Reuchlin, Jan Amos
Komensky--belonged to occult societies" (521).
Author William Bramley presents evidence
that supports Martin's contention:
Luther's seal consisted of his initials on
either side of two Brotherhood symbols: the rose and the cross. The rose and
cross are the chief symbols of the Rosicrucian Order. The word
"Rosicrucian" itself comes from the Latin words
"rose"("rose") and "cruces"
("cross"). (205)
Luther's involvement in the Rosicrucian
Order made him an ideal instrument of secret societies. Michael Howard
reveals explains the motive for this manipulation:
The Order had good political reasons for
initially supporting the Protestant cause. On the surface, as heirs to the
pre-Christian Ancient Wisdom, the secret societies would have gained little
from religious reform. However, by supporting the Protestant dissidents they
helped to weaken the political power of the Roman Catholic Church, the
traditional enemy of the Cathars, the Templars and the Freemasons. (54).
However, occultism was not the only belief
system benefiting from the Reformation. Luther's also acted as an effective
apologist for oligarchical interests. Many of the secret societies supporting
Luther acted as elite conduits. While Luther was already ideologically aligned
with the elites in many ways, he officially became their property in 1521. In
this year, the papacy's secular representative, Emperor Charles V, summoned
Luther to a Diet at the city known as Worms (Chambers, Hanawalt, et al. 449).
Luther was to defend himself against a papal decree that excommunicated him
from the Church (449).
At the Diet, Luther refused to recant any of
his beliefs (450). This led to the Emperor issuing an imperial edict for the
monk's arrest (450). However, Luther was rescued by the Elector Frederick III
of Saxony (450). Frederick staged a kidnapping of the monk and hid him away
in Wartburg Castle (450). The regional warlord of Saxony had much to gain by
protecting Luther. Frederick represented a group of German princes that
opposed the influence of the Church and its secular representative, the
Emperor (450). These elites would use Luther's teachings to justify defying
the ecclesiastical authorities and establishing their own secular systems. In
the end, the Reformation reformed nothing at all. It caused a division in
Christendom and paved the way for Europe’s secularization. Howard states:
Indirectly the Reformation gave the impetus
for the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century, which centred on
Newton, and led to the founding of the Royal Society after the English Civil
War. (148)
The "Scientific Revolution"
facilitated by the Reformation led to the popularization of nominalism, which
was radically scientistic and occult in character. Commensurate with this
paradigm shift was the rise of the rise of the Enlightenment. Not
surprisingly, the writers of Encyclopédie, which was edited by Enlightenment
thinker Denis Diderot, "praised Protestant thinkers"
("Encyclopédie," Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia). The same secret
societies that managed the dialectical conflict between the Protestants and
Catholics played a prevalent role in the Enlightenment. Reiterating this
contention, atheist scholar Conrad Goeringer states:
[S]ecret societies and salons, lodges of the
Freemasons and private reading clubs would become the focal points for the
sedicious and "impious" activists of the Enlightenment. Masonry
required that novitiates pass through a series of degrees, accompanied by
symbolic ritual, whereupon the secrets of the craft were gradually unfolded;
the metaphors of masonry, the remaking of humanity as early masons had remade
rough stone, soon served as a revolutionary allegory. This became the new
model of revolutionary organization — lodges of brothers, all seeking to
reconstruct within their own circle an "inner light" to radiate
forth wisdom into the world, to "illuminate" the sagacity of the
Enlightenment. So pervasive and appealing was this notion that even
relatively conservative and respected members of society could entertain the
prospect of a new Utopia, "or at least a social alternative to the
ancient regime...." ("The Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and the
Illuminati")
The Enlightenment, which acted as the
crucible for all modern sociopolitical Utopianism, represented the
codification of Gnostic occultism as revolutionary doctrine. The new gnosis
was science, which Enlightenment thinkers believed should be universally imposed
upon all fields of inquiry. For the violent, revolutionary wing of the
Enlightenment (e.g., the Illuminati, the Jacobins, etc.), the universal
imposition of science included governance. Herein is the conceptual basis for
all scientific totalitarianism.
In the context of governance, science
invariably becomes an oppressor. The scientifically regimented state must
jettison the concepts of freedom and dignity because they defy
quantification. G.K. Chesterton elaborates on the folly of applying the scientific
method to governance:
The thing that really is trying to tyrannize
through government is Science. The thing that really does use the secular arm
is Science. And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing
schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the
creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statutes, and spread
not by pilgrims but by policemen --- that creed is the great but disputed
system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics.
Materialism is really our established Church; for the Government will really
help it to persecute its heretics. Vaccination, in its hundred years of
experiment, has been disputed almost as much as baptism in its approximate
two thousand. But it seems quite natural to our politicians to enforce
vaccination; and it would seem to them madness to enforce baptism.
In the scientifically regimented state, the
citizen becomes little more than an amalgam of behavioral repertoires whose
every thought, feeling, and idea is the product of external stimuli. From the
scientistic vantage point, the populace's motivations can be calculated and
systematized, thereby allowing those few conditioners who are accountable to
no moral master to develop economic and technological stimuli that can
produce the desired patterns of mass behavior. Such a societal model is known
as a Technocracy, which Frank Fischer defines as follows: "Technocracy,
in classical political terms, refers to a system of governance in which
technically trained experts rule by virtue of their specialized knowledge and
position in dominant political and economic institutions" (17).
Aldous Huxley also posited such a societal
model, which he dubbed a "scientific dictatorship":
The older dictators fell because they could
never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough
miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will
really work with the result that most men and women will grow up to love
their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good
reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.
(116)
This societal model is exemplified by Henri
de Saint-Simon's physiological interpretation of the state, which extrapolated
radical empiricism to "the altogether new field of social
relations." Adherents of Saint-Simon's philosophy contended that
"the key to diagnosing and curing the ills of humanity lay in an
objective understanding of the physiological realities that lay behind all
thinking and feeling" (Billington 212). Following this physiological
interpretation of governance to its logical ends, Saint-Simon developed the
precursor to Marx's "scientific socialism":
Believing that the scientific method should
be applied to the body of society as well as to the individual body,
Saint-Simon proceeded to analyze society in terms of its physiological
components: classes. He never conceived of economic classes in the Marxian
sense, but his functional class analysis prepared the way for Marx. (213)
Friedrich Engels described Marx's theory as
"scientific socialism" because both science and Marxism bestowed
epistemological primacy upon observable phenomenon ("Scientific
socialism," Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia). Thus, radical empiricism
provides the epistemological basis for all modern forms of scientific
totalitarianism.
Interestingly enough, radical empiricism was
embraced by many members of the Bavarian Illuminati. In his outstanding tome
Perfectibilists: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati researcher
Terry Melanson reveals that the complete works of Venetian author and
reformer Paolo Sarpi constituted recommended reading for Illuminati initiates
(475). As is evidenced by his own epistemological ruminations, Sarpi was a
radical empiricist:
“There are four modes of philosophizing: the
first with reason alone, the second with sense alone, the third with reason
and then sense, and the fourth beginning with sense and ending with reason.
The first is the worst, because from it we know what we would like to be, not
what is. The third is bad because we many times distort what is into what we
would like, rather than adjusting what we would like to what is. The second
is true but crude, permitting us to know little and that rather of things
than of their causes. The fourth is the best we can have in this miserable
life.” (Qutd. in "How the Venetians Took Over England and Created
Freemasonry")
Numerous researchers have demonstrated the
ideological continuity that binds the Illuminati and communism. For instance,
Melanson exhaustively details the revolutionary résumé of Filippo Michele
Buonarroti, who provides a “direct line of influence from the Illuminati to
the French Revolution to the Communist League of the Just” (134). Not
surprisingly, all of the planks of Marx’s Communist Manifesto virtually
mirrored the objectives of the Illuminati. Likewise, both the Illuminati and
communism shared the same epistemological predisposition: radical empiricism.
Again, it is with radical empiricism that one finds another occult element of
sociopolitical Utopianism. This epistemology stems from the Gnostic derision
of pistis.
Moreover, radical empiricism arrives at
conclusions that are inescapably mystical in character. An exclusively empirical
approach relegates cause to the realm of metaphysical fantasy. This holds
enormous ramifications for science. What is perceived as A causing B could be
merely a consequence of circumstantial juxtaposition. Although temporal
succession and spatial proximity are axiomatic, causal connection is not.
Affirmation of causal relationships is impossible. Given the absence of
causality, all of a scientist's findings must be taken upon faith.
Ironically, science relies on the affirmation of such cause and effect
relationships.
That such mystical elements pervade radical
empiricism comes as little surprise. Modern science, which finds its
epistemological foundations in radical empiricism, has all of the elements of
a myth. Self-avowed "shaman of scientism" Michael Shermer has
proposed that the scientist should assume the role of the modern mythmaker:
" . . .because of language we are also storytelling, mythmaking
primates, with scientism as the foundational stratum of our story and
scientists as the premier mythmakers of our time" ("The Shamans of
Scientism").
As mythmakers, modern scientific
materialists have sought to supplant the traditional religious systems of the
past with their own theocratic order. This new configuration of society
demands a new myth. Rene Guenon eloquently synopsizes: "Thus it comes
about that there has grown up in the 'scientistic' mentality. . .a real
'mythology': most certainly not in the original and transcendent meaning
applicable to the traditional 'myths,' but merely in the 'pejorative' meaning
which the word has acquired in recent speech" (151).
According to the late Joseph Campbell,
science functions as a cosmological myth: "[T]he second function of a
mythology is to render a cosmology, an image of the universe, and for this we
all turn today not to archaic religious texts, but to science" (116).
The image of the universe as rendered by science is an inherently mutable
one. Matter, from the scientistic vantage point, is malleable and can be
manipulated through the gnosis of science. Comenius articulated this
scientistic vantage point in his 1668 tract entitled, The Way of Light.
Interestingly enough, the manifesto was
dedicated to the British Royal Society, which was, arguably, a Masonic
institution:
Virtually all the Royal Society's founding
members were Freemasons. One could reasonably argue that the Royal Society
itself, at least in its inception, was a Masonic institution - derived,
through Andrea's Christian Unions, from the "invisible Rosicrucian
brotherhood.” (Baigent, et al, 144)
The significance of this fact comes into clearer
focus when one considers the fact that Freemasonry originated with "a
network of Humanist associations" throughout early-Renaissance Italy
(Martin 518-19). These early humanists, who would eventually co-opt the
operative Mason guilds in the late 1500s, transplanted the concept of gnosis
(i.e., special knowledge, not standard epistemological knowledge) within the
ontological confines of the physical universe:
Whether out of historical ignorance or
willfulness of both, Italian humanists bowdlerized the idea of Kabbala almost
beyond recognition. They reconstructed the concept of gnosis, and transferred
it to a thoroughly this-worldly plane. The special gnosis they sought was a
secret knowledge of how to master the blind forces of nature for a sociopolitical
purpose. (519-20)
Famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell
reiterated this theme of mastering the "blind forces of nature,"
emphasizing science as the new gnosis that could achieve such an end:
The way in which science arrives at its
beliefs is quite different from that of medieval theology. Experience has
shown that it is dangerous to start from general principles and proceed
deductively, both because the principles may be untrue and because the
reasoning based upon them may be fallacious. Science starts, not from large
assumptions, but from particular facts discovered by observation or
experiment. From a number of such facts a general rule is arrived at, of
which, if it is true, the facts in question are instances. Science thus
encourages abandonment of the search for absolute truth, which belongs to any
theory that can be successfully employed in inventions or in predicting the
future. "Technical" truth is a matter of degree: a theory from
which more successful inventions and predictions spring is truer than one
which gives rise to fewer. "Knowledge" ceases to be a mental mirror
of the universe, and becomes merely a practical tool in the manipulation of
matter. (13 - 15; emphasis added)
The manipulation of matter is a consistently
recapitulated theme among sociopolitical Utopians. This theme gains greater
significance when one ponders the etymology of the term
"Technocracy." Not surprisingly, most sociopolitical movements
throughout history have sought to instantiate technocratic forms of governance.
"Technocracy" is a very interesting appellation to assign such a
form of governance. It is attached to the Greek word techne, which means
"craft." Simply defined, "crafting" is the skillful
creation of something. Hence, expressions such as "outstanding
craftsmanship" or a "master of the craft." In the context of
sociopolitical Utopianism, "crafting" is the skillful creation (or,
more succinctly, re-sculpting) of reality itself. The "special
gnosis" of science has provided the means through techne. Mark Pesce,
co-inventor of Virtual Reality Modeling Language, elaborates: "The
enduring archetype of techne within the pre-Modern era is magic, of an
environment that conforms entirely to the will of being" ("Ontos
and Techne"). Commenting upon techne's role in manipulating matter,
Pesce writes: "Each endpoint of techne has an expression in the modern
world as a myth of fundamental direction--the mastery of matter. . ."
(ibid; emphasis added).
From this distinctly occult vantage point,
technology, which represents the practical application of science, is a form
of sorcery for manipulating and mastering matter. Modern science views matter
as the primary substance that constitutes the fabric of the physical
universe. In turn, modern science views the ontological confines of the
physical universe as the totality of reality. Thus, he who has mastered
matter through the gnosis of science has mastered reality itself. Reality
becomes a malleable lump of clay to be molded by the omnipotent fingers of
the scientific adept. Of course, such an adept would qualify as a deity.
After all, shaping reality was originally the province of God. According to
semiotician Elizabeth C. Hirschman, man's apotheosis lies at the core of
science as a cosmological myth:
The rise of Science as a cosmological
mythology in the 1500's set up a struggle with the prevailing metaphysical
doctrine of Christian theology, which... has never been resolved as a
cultural discourse. At its core, the conflict centers around the usurpation
of god-like powers by man. Armed with such supernatural abilities, humans can
manipulate and alter life in ways that are reserved by Nature/God. The first
cultural myth encapsulating the is conflict was, of course, the Faust legend,
in which a medical doctor (i.e., scientist) sold his soul to Mephistopheles
(i.e., the Devil) in exchange for knowledge and power belonging to God. (21;
Emphasis added)
The Faust legend echoes the theme of Genesis
3:5, where the serpent promises Eve that "...ye shall be as gods."
The Apostle John identifies the serpent as Satan in Revelation 20:2. Not
surprisingly, Satan was an object of veneration for early sociopolitical
Utopians, particularly those of the Enlightenment. For instance, a picture of
Lucifer (i.e., Satan's original angelic persona) adorned the title page of
the first edition of Diderot's Encyclopedie (Goeringer, "The
Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and the Illuminati"). This veneration of the
Devil under his original angelic title constitutes the religion of
Luciferianism. Like some varieties of Satanism, Luciferianism does not depict
the devil as a literal metaphysical entity. Instead, Lucifer symbolizes the
cognitive powers of man. He is the embodiment of science and reason. It is
the Luciferian's religious conviction that these two facilitative forces will
dethrone the "superstitious" institutions of God and apotheosize
man.
However, Lucifer would assume yet another
title. The term Lucifer, as translated by St. Jerome from the original Hebrew
Helel ("bright one"), shares the same meaning as Prometheus who
brought fire to humanity ("Lucifer"). The mythical character of
Prometheus was central to the Utopian vision of early socialist
revolutionaries. James A. Billington explains:
A recurrent mythic theme for revolutionaries
-- early romantics, the young Marx, the Russians of Lenin's time -- was
Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods for the use of mankind. The
Promethean faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general
belief that science would lead men out of darkness into light. (6; emphasis
added)
Of course, such a messianic view of science
is vintage scientism. One of the earliest exponents of this scientistic
Weltanschauung was Sir Francis Bacon, who coined the famous aphorism:
"Knowledge itself is power." According to Carl Raschke, this dictum
is thematically underpinned by Gnostic occultism: "The well-known maxim
of Bacon, nam et ipsa scientia potestas est ('Knowledge itself is power'), is
often commemorated as the credo of the new science, but it also suits quite
precisely the magico-religious mentality of Gnosticism" (49).
Bacon was a member of a secret society
called the Order of the Helmet (Howard 74). The organization's name was
derived from Pallas Athene, the Greek goddess of wisdom who was portrayed
wearing a helmet (Howard 74). Although regarded as an innovator of science by
orthodox academia, Bacon's studies mostly embraced occultism. In his youth,
Bacon was "a student of Hermetic, Gnostic, and neo-Platonist philosophy
and had studied the Cabbala" (Howard 74).
Allegedly, Bacon was also a Grand Master of
the secret Rosicrucian Order (Howard 74). The Rosicrucians were closely
associated with Freemasonry (Howard 50). In fact, a Rosicrucian poem written
in 1638 voices the organization's close ties with the Lodge (Howard 50). It
reads, "For what we presage is not in grosse, for we brethren of the
Rosie Crosse, we have the Mason's Word and second sight, things to come we
can foretell aright. . ." (qutd. in Howard 50). In other words,
Rosicrucians knew the "inner secrets of Freemasonry and possessed the
psychic power to predict the future" (Howard 50).
In 1627, Bacon published a novel entitled
The New Atlantis (Howard 74). The pages of Bacon's book were adorned with
Freemasonic symbols, such as "the compass and square, the two pillars of
Solomon's temple and the blazing triangle, and the eye of God, indicating his
association with the secret societies who supported his Utopian
concepts" (Howard 75). The novel "describes the creation of the
Invisible College advocated in Rosicrucian writings" (Howard 74). This Rosicrucian
mandate for an "Invisible College" was realized with the formation
of the Royal Society in 1660 (Howard 57).
Fischer synopsizes Bacon's "Utopian
concepts":
For Bacon, the defining feature of history
was rapidly becoming the rise and growth of science and technology. Where
Plato had envisioned a society governed by "philosopher kings," men
who could perceive the "forms" of social justice, Bacon sought a
technical elite who would rule in the name of efficiency and technical order.
Indeed, Bacon's purpose in The New Atlantis was to replace the philosopher
with the research scientist as the ruler of the utopian future, New Atlantis
was a pure technocratic society. (66-67)
Not surprisingly, the socialist
revolutionaries of the Promethean faith sought to tangibly enact their own
conception of Bacon's New Atlantis. Sociopolitical Utopians, their various
ideological permutations notwithstanding, have always strove to establish a
"pure technocratic society." Sociopolitical Utopianism is, in turn,
derivative of Gnosticism. This derivation is illustrated by sociopolitical
Utopianism's rejection of pistis, which the early Gnostics considered
inferior to gnosis.
Yet, the sociopolitical Utopian's derision
for cognitio fidei led revolutionaries to conclusions that were even more
radical than those of traditional Gnosticism. For traditional Gnostics, the
transcendent held primacy over the immanent. The sociopolitical Utopian, on
the other hand, re-conceptualized transcendent objects of faith as objects of
immanent experience. This re-conceptualization began with the Gnostic desire
to draw knowledge that was commonly associated with the transcendent
"into a firmer grip than the cognitio fidei, the cognition of faith,
will afford" (Voegelin 124). The resultant Weltanschauung, however,
bestowed metaphysical primacy upon the ontological confines of the physical
universe. Thus, sociopolitical Utopians attempted to transplant objects of
faith within the finitude of human knowledge and experience. In this sense,
the sociopolitical Utopian qualifies as a new Gnostic whose immanentist
impulses find affirmation in scientific materialism.
One object of faith that this modern
incarnation of Gnosticism sought to draw into human history was the Eschaton
(i.e., the End of Days): "In place of an Eschaton which ontologically
transcends the confines of this world, the modern Gnostic envisions an End
within history, an Eschaton, therefore, which is to be realized within the
ontological plane of this visible universe" (Smith 238; emphasis added).
Herein is the conceptual basis for the Utopian vision of a "heaven on
earth." It is premised upon Gnostic epistemology and, as such, is
inherently occult in character. Its adherents spawned secular revolutionary
movements that, sociologically, behaved like religions:
In this century, with the presentation of
traditional religious positions in secular form, there has emerged a secular
Gnosticism beside the other great secular religions--the mystical union of
Fascism, the apocalypse of Marxist dialectic, the Earthly City of social
democracy. The secular Gnosticism is almost never recognized for what it is,
and it can exist alongside other convictions almost unperceived. (Webb 418)
Secular Gnosticism has manifested itself
throughout the 20th and 21st century in a myriad of forms. Of course, the two
most prominent examples are the ideological kissing cousins of communism and
fascism. Other variants include neoconservativism, neo-liberalism, secular
progressivism, and technoprogressivism. While many of these secular Gnostic
permutations have superficially feuded with each other over the years, they
all have shared a core dialectical commonality: the Utopian vision of
"heaven on earth." In turn, this vision is couched in the
anthropocentric dictum of Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all
things." This dictum echoes the promise of the serpent in Eden:
"...ye shall be as gods." In The Hypostasis of the Archons, an
Egyptian Gnostic text, the serpent in Eden is portrayed as humanity's
benevolent "Instructor" and "incognito savior" (Raschke
27). Meanwhile, the Hypostasis caricatures Jehovah as "the archon of
arrogance" (27).
Gnosticism's veneration of the serpent and
misotheistic view of Jehovah bespeaks the perennial ambition to usurp the
throne of God. The aspiration to achieve apotheosis was a defining feature of
the Mystery cults of pagan antiquity. It is also lies at the heart of
Gnosticism. While Gnosticism's origins with the Ancient Mystery cults remain
a source of contention amongst scholars, its promise of liberation from
humanity's material side is strongly akin to the old pagan Mystery's variety
of "psychic therapy" (28). In addition, the Ancient Mystery
religion promised the "opportunity to erase the curse of mortality by
direct encounter with the patron deity, or in many instances by actually
undergoing an apotheosis, a transfiguration of human into divine" (28).
It is interesting to recall Billington's
observation that the young Marx venerated Prometheus as the allegorical
embodiment of science (6). Science, according to the Promethean faith, was
the new lantern of salvation that would "lead men out of darkness into
light" (6). Given this Promethean reverence for science, it is
interesting to recall that Engels described Marx's theory as "scientific
socialism" ("Scientific socialism," Wikipedia: The Free
Encyclopedia). Again, Engels' selection of this appellation was predicated
upon the common epistemological foundations of Marxism and modern science:
radical empiricism. Saint-Simon's functional class analysis, which
"prepared the way for Marx," stemmed from the extension of
"radical empiricism into the altogether new field of social
relations" (Billington 212-13). Herein is the epistemological foundation
for all modern totalitarianism. In turn, that epistemological foundation
stems from the Gnostic rejection of pistis. Thus, Gnostic occultism
constitutes the epistemological heritage of almost all modern socialist
totalitarian regimes.
Returning to Marx's preoccupation with
Prometheus, it is interesting to recall that the mythic figure's name shares
the same meaning with the term "Lucifer," as translated by St.
Jerome from the original Hebrew Helel ("Lucifer"). Marx's possible
flirtation with Satanism is an often overlooked, yet controversial topic. It
is not this researcher's contention that Marx was a Satanist in the
traditional sense. In all likelihood, Marx probably denied the existence of
Satan as a literal metaphysical entity. Yet, it is important to remember that
the Luciferian conception of Satan is premised upon the same existential
contention. From Marx's neo-Gnostic vantage point, Lucifer or Prometheus was
probably rendered immanent by the cognitive powers of man. Ultimately,
whether or not Marx was a Satanist is irrelevant. Essentially, one needn't
accept the existence of Satan if one accepts the principles embodied by the
Fallen One. In his poem "Human Pride," Marx expressed the
Luciferian aspiration to achieve apotheosis:
With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full
in the face of the world, And see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall
will not stifle my ardor. Then will I wander godlike and victorious through
the ruins of the world And, giving my words an active force, I will feel
equal to the Creator. ("Human Pride"; emphasis added)
Ironically, Promethean revolutionaries,
whose Weltanschauung was heavily informed by Marxism, murdered millions of
the very species that they sought to apotheosize. Marx's words, when given
"active force," apotheosized the State. The State, in turn, subordinated
the individual to the collective. The individual could no longer lay claim to
any intrinsic value. Instead, meaning and purpose were only found in the
group. Thus, Marxism actually devalued humanity. Again, it is extremely
ironic that such devaluation stemmed from an anthropocentric belief system.
Yet, such contradictions proliferated the Weltanschauung of the Promethean
radicals and still persist in the minds of the modern purveyors of socialism.
Chesterton enumerates the various internal contradictions of the
revolutionary Weltanschauung:
All denunciation implies a moral doctrine of
some kind and the modern skeptic doubts not only the institution he
denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book
complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then
writes another book, a novel in which he insults it himself. As a politician
he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then as a philosopher that
all of life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman
for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles
that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a
lie and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie.
The man of this school goes first to a
political meeting where he complains that savages are treated as if they were
beasts. Then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes to a scientific meeting
where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern
revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is forever engaged in undermining
his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on
morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.
Therefore the modern man in revolt becomes practically useless for all
purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to
rebel against anything. (41)
Thus, when the modern revolutionary tangibly
enacts his Utopian vision, it automatically qualifies as a dystopian
nightmare for others. Promises of unlimited freedom begin to fade as the
apotheosized State confiscates the citizenry’s wealth in the name of
socioeconomic egalitarianism and imprisons dissidents. In the name of
facilitating evolution, a theory that the orthodoxy of science has deemed
infallible, those members of the human species who fail to meet the
arbitrarily established standards of biological and genetic purity are
expunged through eugenical regimentation. Fanatical as they are in their scientism,
modern revolutionaries view man himself as a quantifiable entity. The
irreducible complexity of humanity is overlooked as man is gradually
transformed into a paint-by-numbers schematic. Society, by extension, is also
considered a quantifiable entity. Thus, modern revolutionaries work to
install their own bowdlerized form of democracy: the democracy of “experts.”
By virtue of their own purported scientific and technical expertise, these
policy professionals calculate and systematize the motivations of the
populace and develop economic and technological stimuli that can produce the
desired patterns of mass behavior.
The final and most tragic casualty of this
form of governance is not the political dissident or the marginalized
“dysgenic.” Ultimately, the final victim of scientific totalitarianism is the
human soul. Man, from the scientistic vantage point, is little more than
amalgam of behavioral repertoires. He is a tabula rasa whose value depends
entirely upon the final portrait rendered by the brush strokes of his
“enlightened” conditioners. If he cannot or does not conform to the
paint-by-numbers template of the “experts,” he is deemed a product of
retrograde evolution. Because man’s soul defies quantification, the content
of his character is appropriated absolutely no currency in the scientistic
Weltanschauung. Again, it is indeed ironic that, in their hopes of
apotheosizing the human species, modern revolutionaries devalue man. This is
the Faustian face of modern science: the inhuman human race.
Sources Cited
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Pt. I,
Qu. 86, Art. I, in Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Ed. Anton C. Pegis
(New York: Random House,1945), I.
Baigent, Michael, Richard Leigh, & Henry
Lincoln. Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Delacorte Press, New York, 1982.
Bramley, William. The Gods of Eden. 1989.
New York: Avon Books, 1990.
Billington, James H. Fire in the Minds of
Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith. New York: Basic, 1980.
Chambers, Mortimer and Barbara Hanawalt et
al. The Western Experience. 1974. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
Chesterton, G.K. Eugenics and Other Evils.
1922. G.K. Chesterton's Works on the Web. Ed. Martin Ward. U. of De Montfort
3 April 2000
◦Orthodoxy. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday 1959.
Coomaraswamy, Rama. "The Fundamental
Nature of the Conflict Between Modern and Traditional Man--Often Called the
Conflict Between Science and Faith." 2001. Coomaraswamy Catholic
Writings. 26 August 2005.
de Hoyos, Linda. "The Enlightenment's
Crusade Against Reason." The New Federalist 8 Feb. 1993
“Denis Diderot.” Wikipedia: The Free
Encyclopedia 8 June 2009
Fischer, Frank. Technocracy and the Politics
of Expertise. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1990.
Goeringer, Conrad. "The Enlightenment,
Freemasonry, and the Illuminati." American Atheists 2006
Guenon, Rene. The Reign of Quantity and the
Signs of the Times. Trans. Lord Northbourne. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin
Books Inc, 1953.
Hirschman, Elizabeth. "Legends in Our
Own Time: How Motion Pictures and Television Shows Fulfill the Functions of
Myth." The American Journal of Semiotics 17 (2001): 7-46.
Hoffman, Michael. Secret Societies and
Psychological Warfare. Coeur d'Alene, Idaho: Independent History &
Research, 2001.
"How the Venetians Took Over England
and Created Freemasonry." The American Almanac 29 November 1993
Howard, Michael. The Occult Conspiracy.
Rochester, Vermont: Destiny Books, 1989.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World Revisited.
New York: Bantam Books, 1958.
"Lucifer." Answers.com
Martin, Malachi. The Keys of this Blood. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1991.
Marx, Karl. "Human Pride."
Marxists.org
Melanson, Terry. Perfectibilists: The 18th
Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati. Walterville, OR: TrineDay, 2009
Pesce, Mark. "Ontos and Techne."
Computer-Medicated Magazine, April 1997
Raschke, Carl A. The Interruption of
Eternity: Modern Gnosticism and the Origins of the New Religious
Consciousness. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1980.
Russell, Bertrand. Religion and Society.
Oxford University Press, London, 1947.
"Scientific Socialism." Wikipedia:
The Free Encyclopedia 5 November 2007
Shermer, Michael. "The Shamans of
Scientism." Scientific American. 13 May 2002
Skinner, B.F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity.
New York: Bantam Books, 1972.
Smith, Wolfgang. Teilhardism and the New
Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
Illinois: TAN Books, 1988.
Voegelin, Eric. The New Science of Politics:
An Introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
Webb, James. The Occult Establishment. Open
Court, 1976.
About the Author
Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for
The Hidden Face of Terrorism. He co-authored the book The Ascendancy of the
Scientific Dictatorship, which is available at www.amazon.com. It is also
available as an E-book at www.4acloserlook.com. Phillip has also written
articles for Paranoia Magazine, MKzine, News With Views, B.I.P.E.D.: The
Official Website of Darwinian Dissent and Conspiracy Archive. He has also
been interviewed on several radio programs, including A Closer Look, Peering
Into Darkness, From the Grassy Knoll, Frankly Speaking, the ByteShow, and
Sphinx Radio.
In 1999, Phillip earned an Associate degree
of Arts and Science. In 2006, he earned a bachelor's degree with a major in
communication studies and liberal studies along with a minor in philosophy.
During the course of his seven-year college career, Phillip has studied
philosophy, religion, political science, semiotics, journalism, theatre, and
classic literature. He recently completed a collection of short stories,
poetry, and prose entitled Expansive Thoughts. Readers can learn more about
it at www.expansivethoughts.com.
Conspiracy Archive Newsletter:
PERFECTIBILISTS: The 18th Century Bavarian
Order of the Illuminati, by Terry Melanson
The Ascendancy of the Scientific
Dictatorship, by Paul & Phillip Collins
Memoirs Illustrating the History of
Jacobinism, by Abbe Barruel
Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the
Revolutionary Faith, by James H. Billington
America's Secret Establishment: An
Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones, by Antony C. Sutton
Quick Links
Aftermath News
Bavarian Illuminati info
Conspiracy Sites
Freemasonry Watch
Infowars
Jeff Rense
Nicene Truth
Oracle Broadcasting
Raiders News Network
Red Ice Creations
Vyzygoth
..Home Articles NWO New Age Paranormal
Commentary Blog Contact
Comments by Ron and others:
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron
Beaulieu
To: AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: [AdventistHotIssues]
Qualification to my previous reply to the Faustian Face of ModernScience
Satan is
the arch opportunist. He undoubtedly made hay of the reformation, but that
did not make the reformation a non-entity or a paradigm of little importance.
It led to the true Adventist reformation which was to be a continual
reformation from bad to good. And so it did amongst those Adventists who
would not be influenced by the bad.
Yes,
Luther and Melanchthon were men of God no matter how Satan and evil men used
their influence for evil. God uses some evil to effect good and Satan uses
most good to effect evil when it prospers his cause of destruction and
murder. He was indeed the first murderer and destroyer and is mad at his task
seeking all whom he might devour.
Ron
----- Original Message
-----
From: George
Jordache
To: AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com
Sent:
Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:20 AM
Subject: Re:
[AdventistHotIssues] Qualification to my previous reply to the Faustian Face
of ModernScience
And according to Ron, to me and to you
Rob, Luther was a brave man of God! We need to study his life because a new
reformation is on the rise!
George
--- On Thu, 8/13/09, rob sterbenc <sterbenc@telus.net>
wrote:
From: rob sterbenc <sterbenc@telus.net>
Subject: [AdventistHotIssues] Qualification to my previous reply to the
Faustian Face of ModernScience
To: AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 5:15 AM
Dear Forum
Despite the writer's objections to Martin Luther's
approach he still was a man of God, according to Ellen White.
Thanks - RS
|
----- Original
Message -----
From:
Ron Beaulieu
To: AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:39 AM
Subject: Re: [AdventistHotIssues] Qualification
to my previous reply to the Faustian Face of ModernScience
Rob and George,
Based on my last comment on the article,
the following opinion of the writer of that article is foolish in his own wisdom.
Satan has exploited elements of some good and all evil to advance his cause.
However, this does not obfuscate the continuum of good that derived from the
Reformation.
It is interesting to me at least, that
the paradigm that undergirded the "Enlightenment," has led to all
the ills of society and the destruction of the earth and the very air we
breathe and the water we drink and are much constituted of! So much for
the Enlightenment of Darkness! Satan has "used" everything possible,
both good and evil, to promote his perversion of everything God intended for
man!
"In the end, the
Reformationreformed nothing at all. It caused a division in
Christendom and paved the way for
Europe's secularization. Howard states:
Indirectly the Reformation gave the impetus for the Scientific
Revolution of the seventeenth century, which centred on Newton, and led
to the founding of the Royal Society after the English Civil War. (148)
The "Scientific Revolution" facilitated by the Reformation led to
the
popularization of nominalism, which was radically scientistic and occult
in character. Commensurate with this paradigm shift was the rise of the
rise of the Enlightenment. Not surprisingly, the writers of
Encyclopédie, which was edited by Enlightenment thinker Denis
Diderot, "praised Protestant thinkers" ("Encyclopédie,"
Wikipedia:
The Free Encyclopedia). The same sort of secret societies that managed
the dialectical conflict between the Protestants and Catholics played a
prevalent role in the Enlightenment."
----- Original
Message -----
From:
Ron Beaulieu
To: AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:47 AM
Subject: Re: [AdventistHotIssues] Qualification
to my previous reply to the Faustian Face of ModernScience
Satan exploited the Enlightenment of
ALL TRUTH from the beginning by admixing truth with error. This did not begin
with the most recent Enlightenment by any means! When he cannot persuade, he
then employs totalitarian FORCE! And we are soon coming to the crescendo of
that FORCE!
"The Enlightenment, which acted as
the crucible for all modern
sociopolitical Utopianism, represented the codification of Gnostic
occultism as revolutionary doctrine. The new gnosis was science, which
Enlightenment thinkers believed should be universally imposed upon all
fields of inquiry. For the violent, revolutionary wing of the
Enlightenment (e.g., the Illuminati, the Jacobins, etc.), the universal
imposition of science included governance. Herein is the conceptual
basis for all scientific totalitarianism."
----- Original
Message -----
From:
Ron Beaulieu
To: AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: [AdventistHotIssues] Qualification
to my previous reply to the Faustian Face of ModernScience
This article gives new and deeper meaning to
Ellen White's branding of science as false science! That false science
includes the spiritual as well as the material. rb
"The Enlightenment, which acted as the
crucible for all modern
sociopolitical Utopianism, represented the codification of Gnostic
occultism as revolutionary doctrine. The new gnosis was science, which
Enlightenment thinkers believed should be universally imposed upon all
fields of inquiry. For the violent, revolutionary wing of the
Enlightenment (e.g., the Illuminati, the Jacobins, etc.), the universal
imposition of science included governance. Herein is the conceptual
basis for all scientific totalitarianism.
In the context of governance, science
invariably becomes an oppressor.
The scientifically regimented state must jettison the concepts of
freedom and dignity because they defy quantification. G.K. Chesterton
elaborates on the folly of applying the scientific method to governance:
The thing that really is trying to tyrannize through government
is
Science. The thing that really does use the secular arm is Science. And
the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed
that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really
is proclaimed not in sermons but in statutes, and spread not by pilgrims
but by policemen --- that creed is the great but disputed system of
thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics.
Materialism is really our established Church; for the Government will
really help it to persecute its heretics. Vaccination, in its hundred
years of experiment, has been disputed almost as much as baptism in its
approximate two thousand. But it seems quite natural to our politicians
to enforce vaccination; and it would seem to them madness to enforce
baptism. (Eugenics and Other Evils)
In the scientifically regimented
state, the citizen becomes little
more than an amalgam of behavioral repertoires whose every thought,
feeling, and idea is the product of external stimuli. From the
scientistic vantage point, the populace's motivations can be calculated
and systematized, thereby allowing those few conditioners who are
accountable to no moral master to develop economic and technological
stimuli that can produce the desired patterns of mass behavior. Such a
societal model is known as a Technocracy, which Frank Fischer defines as
follows: "Technocracy, in classical political terms, refers to a system
of governance in which technically trained experts rule by virtue of
their specialized knowledge and position in dominant political and
economic institutions" (17).
Aldous Huxley also posited such a societal
model, which he dubbed a
"scientific dictatorship":
The older dictators fell because they could never supply their
subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and
mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work
with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their
servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good
reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be
overthrown. (116)
This societal model is exemplified by
Henri de Saint-Simon's
physiological interpretation of the state, which extrapolated radical
empiricism to "the altogether new field of social relations."
Adherents
of Saint-Simon's philosophy contended that "the key to diagnosing and
curing the ills of humanity lay in an objective understanding of the
physiological realities that lay behind all thinking and feeling"
(Billington 212). Following this physiological interpretation of
governance to its logical ends, Saint-Simon developed the precursor to
Marx's "scientific socialism":
Believing that the scientific method should be applied to the
body
of society as well as to the individual body, Saint-Simon proceeded to
analyze society in terms of its physiological components: classes. He
never conceived of economic classes in the Marxian sense, but his
functional class analysis prepared the way for Marx. (213)
Friedrich Engels described Marx's
theory as "scientific socialism"
because both science and Marxism bestowed epistemological primacy upon
observable phenomenon ("Scientific socialism," Wikipedia: The Free
Encyclopedia). Thus, radical empiricism provides the epistemological
basis for all modern forms of scientific totalitarianism.
Interestingly enough, radical
empiricism was embraced by many members
of the Bavarian Illuminati. In his outstanding tome Perfectibilists: The
18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati, researcher Terry Melanson
reveals that the complete works of Venetian author and reformer Paolo
Sarpi constituted recommended reading for Illuminati initiates (475). As
is evidenced by his own epistemological ruminations, Sarpi was a radical
empiricist:
"There are four modes of philosophizing: the first with
reason
alone, the second with sense alone, the third with reason and then
sense, and the fourth beginning with sense and ending with reason. The
first is the worst, because from it we know what we would like to be,
not what is. The third is bad because we many times distort what is into
what we would like, rather than adjusting what we would like to what is.
The second is true but crude, permitting us to know little and that
rather of things than of their causes. The fourth is the best we can
have in this miserable life." (Qutd. in "How the Venetians Took
Over
England and Created Freemasonry")
Numerous researchers have demonstrated
the ideological continuity that
binds the Illuminati and communism. For instance, Melanson exhaustively
details the revolutionary résumé of Filippo Michele Buonarroti,
who provides a "direct line of influence from the Illuminati to the
French Revolution to the Communist League of the Just" (134). Not
surprisingly, all of the planks of Marx's Communist Manifesto
virtually mirrored the objectives of the Illuminati. Likewise, both the
Illuminati and communism shared the same epistemological predisposition:
radical empiricism. Again, it is with radical empiricism that one finds
another occult element of sociopolitical Utopianism. This epistemology
stems from the Gnostic derision of pistis."
----- Original
Message -----
From:
Ron Beaulieu
To: AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: [AdventistHotIssues] Qualification
to my previous reply to the Faustian Face of ModernScience
This passage relates to the god of forces
in Daniel 11:38. Satan will use this "mastery of the blind forces of
nature" to perform his fake miracles as did Pharaoh's magicians. rb
Dan 11:38
|
But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god
whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with
precious stones, and pleasant things.
|
"Whether out of historical ignorance
or willfulness of both, Italian
humanists bowdlerized the idea of Kabbala almost beyond recognition.
They reconstructed the concept of gnosis, and transferred it to a
thoroughly this-worldly plane. The special gnosis they
sought was a
secret knowledge of how to master the blind forces of nature for a
sociopolitical purpose." (519-20)
----- Original
Message -----
From:
Ron Beaulieu
To: AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:23 AM
Subject: Re: [AdventistHotIssues] The Faustian
Face of Modern Science
Rob,
Yes, the article ties it all together
doesn't it?!
Ron----- Original Message -----
From: rob
sterbenc
To:
AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com
Sent:
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [AdventistHotIssues] The Faustian Face of Modern
Science
Dear Ron and Forum,
Wow!!!
A most mentally
stimulating and challenging article to read! Indeed it exercises
the mind like an advanced philosophy
course all bundled into one article.
I am surprised that the
author did not indicate a degree designation, like Dr., Ph.D. or M.A.
or anything like that after his name;
perhaps he did not want to put it in.
For all of us Christians,
this is a very good article to read to strengthen, and develop more fully our
ability to defend our faith
against specious reasoning. One reading
of this segment would not do justice to it. The reader would have
to go over it
several times to get a clearer picture of what the
writer and his sources had intended to communicate philosophically.
Definitely, this is an educational article, and wonderful
reading. The NWO is using science against the public to serve
their
own agenda, to enslave the nations, and to use false
science as a psychological weapon against the masses, as they have
already done to a great degree through Darwinist evolution.
Thank you Ron
for this astounding
reading.
- RS
|