Posts Tagged ‘morality’

Science and Slavery

24 July 2020

“What does the science tell us?”

This is one of the most ubiquitous phrases in modern rhetorical prose. For all intents a purposes, it did not exist as a phrase 30 years ago. What happened?

As the mask wars rage on on Facebook (and Twitter also, I imagine) I yearned for a better understanding of the underlying situation.

Human Rights

First up, the Draft Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights got published, with a request for comments. I wrote a response on this blog, and emailed a copy to the State Department. They published it! So I sat down and read all the comments. They were for the most part not salutary.

Quip about Facebook

Then I heard this. I can’t remember now who said it: “Facebook’s product is people using Facebook. What keeps people using Facebook? Arguments!”

The Codevilla article

Next, I ran across a long essay entitled America’s Ruling Class by Angelo M. Codevilla, originally published as an article in The American Spectator in 2010. Codevilla served as a U.S. Navy officer, a foreign service officer, and professional staff member of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the United States Senate. He was working as a professor in international relations when he wrote the article. In the essay he posits the existence of a “Ruling Class” dedicated to the secular laws of science, and a “Country Class” desperately attempting to remain true to the higher laws of their faith.

The menace of Socialism

Most recently, I witnessed various exhortations and exchanges on the subject of Socialism and Marxism. We have the fact, for instance, that the original organizers of BLM are proud of their training in Marxist ideology. There are in fact many persons who think what this world really needs is more Marxism, or Socialism, and less Capitalism.

Talking past each other

And finally I realized that the “two sides” in most of these arguments were talking past each other. They had come to base their lives and world views on different sets of assumptions, and each saw the other’s assumptions as inferior.

The scientific/secular world view

I was brought up to value scientific and secular thought over “religious ideas.” I was never taught any explicit set of moral values. It took Ivan Illich, a Roman Catholic priest, to remind me (in his book Deschooling Society) that secular systems were experiencing possibly unintended negative outcomes in broad sectors of society. They had no moral compass.

At the time I was reading that book, we were also living through the Vietnam War. I had also read Hersey’s Hiroshima. While I learned of the civil rights struggle through magazine articles, I also sat on a high school “Biracial Committee” created as a response to racial violence at my school. I was very aware of negative outcomes!

The adults around me were oddly quiet about what was going on. I don’t think they had a clue what to say, and so remained silent.

And in this way a generation was spawned which lacked any moral education. Brought up without religion, we were taught to value empirical knowledge over faith, rational thought over belief. We thought we were right. But the “negative outcomes” raged on.

The faith-based world view

I was impressed by the convictions of the faithful, if not their behavior. Faith seemed to lead some to indulge in terrorist acts (Ireland, the Middle East). And I learned that even Nazi soldiers had believed that God was really on their side.

I had studied the history of India. It seemed their faith had not saved them from nearly endless warfare, either. Except, perhaps, for the legendary Ashoka, who had taken up Buddhism after witnessing first hand the appalling suffering caused by warfare. Ashoka had created a little bright bubble of peace and happiness on the Indian continent. It had lasted for, maybe, 50 years, yet is remembered to this day.

I also briefly studied the history of Indochina, with similar results. And I got a taste of what had been going on in the Islam world when I read a biography of T.E. Lawrence, and his own book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

I never really looked into the Enlightenment, the intellectual movement that set the stage for the “revolutions” of the late 1700s. But it seems that their emphasis on “freedom” came from the fact that the rational ideas that were being advanced by science were being opposed by a powerful and dominating church. When science finally won that battle, freedom no longer seemed that important.

Yet at the time of the Declaration of Independence, faith in God, as well as the freedom to believe as one wished, were both still important among thinking men. And we should recall that religion had always offered its own brand of freedom, the promise of a life in heaven, free of the cares and sufferings of earthly life.

And so the faithful continued to believe in the value of freedom, and placed it higher than the rationality of science and its technologies.

Fight to the death?

Codevilla saw a world almost hopelessly divided between an immoral minority who had gained power by gaining control over the production of many of the things people need and want, and an honest majority who kept the world running even as their resources were slowly diminished.

The Left – Right (Democrat – Republican) dichotomy was a falsehood, maintained for show, and based on a former struggle (over slavery!) that seemed distant and forgettable. The real dichotomy of freedom versus bondage went unrecognized, brushed off as an unimportant detail. In the world of the ruling class, slavery was inevitable. In the world of honest people, no means could be found to improve the situation. The fake dichotomy of left-versus-right was being constantly reasserted, burying the real dichotomy on a battlefield of vapid political discourse.

A synthesis

What I had learned about faith, morals, and intellectual freedom was both interesting and upsetting. And it would have remained that way if I hadn’t stumbled upon Hubbard’s synthesis offering a solution to the moral problems of science and the rational problems of religion. Hubbard had discovered, by rational means, the existence of immortal life in every human being, and by extension, in every living thing.

In so doing, he had become convinced that freedom and morality remained very important factors in life. And that we needed to apply those principles in all sectors of life, including the sciences and related secular endeavors.

Freedom, for the first time, became a rational idea. Not only could it be applied directly to the problem of spiritual liberation, but it could be seen as an essential factor in living, alongside barriers, and purposes. These were the three basic elements in all games. And play was at the core of human happiness. Freedom became a moral and ethical imperative because happy people were productive people. It explained why both slavery and total permissiveness are unworkable. They both result in no game, no happiness, and no production; death.

Exploring the intersection of science and spirit

Beyond the rarefied confines of Scientology (available for all to see on our own TV channel), lies the rest of the world, still struggling to make sense of it all. In exploring ways that I could connect with people to let them know that the problem has been solved, I have run into many different groups and individuals somehow making progress under their own steam. They are a proud and defiant lot, and most would rather die trying than admit they should have paid more attention to Hubbard.

Psychology and psychiatry

Meet the science-comes-first students and healers of the psyche! By ignoring the obvious (that the psyche isn’t physical) they have lost their place in the annals of history as a vanguard into a new age and ended up, instead, a pitiful footnote. But they are still trying.

The medical school at the University of Virginia has had a Division of Perceptual Studies since the 1960s, where Ian Stevenson did pioneering work in the field of past life recall in children. That work continues.

Jeffrey Mishlove has become a sort of intellectual overseer in the field of parapsychology, which has been widely studied for many years.

Kelly Brogan is a psychiatrist who leads the way into the brave new world of drugless health care. Watch out for her! Meanwhile, psychologist Linda Lagemann has defected to the world of Scientology where her work exposing the lack of morals in the “science” of mental health has been very valuable.

Remote viewing

Courtney Brown and his viewers at the Farsight Institute have managed to validate some of Hubbard’s most esoteric findings, though they have missed their chance, perhaps, at attaining true freedom. Maybe next life?

Experiencers and Consciousness

Former astronaut Edgar Mitchell saw fit to assist in the formation of a few different initiatives in this direction. His Institute of Noetic Sciences studies various aspects of consciousness and has a New Age feel to it. His Foundation for Research into Extraterrestrial and Extraordinary Experiencers has collected and analyzed the stories of people who have been interacting with “higher levels of consciousness.” Their findings so far are very interesting. There are many who may wish they hadn’t overlooked this work while they still had time to get prepared.

Modern headlines – a loose application of basic principles

Here are a few recent stories from CalMatters, an independent news organization, with my comments.

California is burning through 46 million masks a month as hospital systems and frontline workers face shortages

Can you imagine how many masks hospitals and clinics go through? They have to dispose of them every few hours. No one ever figured out how to reuse hospital masks. Too late now. The biggest mask manufacturers are in China. That seems a little ironic to me.

Speaking of China: Lovers of freedom see China as a huge problem because of Communism. While lovers of science marvel at what China has been able to achieve – by hook or by crook – technology-wise. But now that U.S. multinationals are heavily invested in China (and Chinese are heavily invested in the U.S.), we are bound together like Siamese twins who can’t learn how to be friends.

Schools opening for child care raise questions — and lawsuits

Many lovers of freedom don’t want to send their kids back to school. If kids have to wear masks and can’t interact physically, those parents would rather home school. These people widely feel that the primary purpose of compulsory schooling is daycare so both parents can work, while their children get indoctrinated into the dogma of secular science.

Meanwhile, the lovers of science want their kids in school so they can learn to be good little scientists while both parents work so they can afford their nice house and car and maybe someday college….

California college students appeal for more financial aid

One of the most amazing things that happened in my lifetime was the dystopian nightmare of college loans. Loans were offered to less fortunate students in the rather cynical (I think) belief that with the higher-paying job they could get after finishing college, they’d be able to pay back the loan.

The loans helped tuition prices spiral out of control. Someone was getting rich – not sure who. And more kids than ever were getting exposed to the message that devotion to secular science beats a life based on fundamental moral values. The result has been an explosion of criminal behavior in the new ruling class. You can still start a business and be prosperous without going to college. But you can’t join the new ruling class without going to college.

Planned Parenthood and PR

19 September 2015

An incident in Pullman

In the early morning of Friday, 4 September 2015, someone threw an object through a window in the Planned Parenthood center in Pullman, Washington, which started a fire. By the time the Fire Department arrived, the building was basically destroyed inside. An announcement the next day confirmed it was arson. A $10,000 reward has been offered for any significant information that could lead to the apprehension of the arsonist. The above are all the actual facts about this incident I have been able to collect.

Birth Control and Morals

In the late 1800s, when Margaret Sanger was born, advocating the use of birth control was considered an obscenity, as it was thought to encourage people (women in particular) to commit immoral acts (sex out of wedlock, etc.).

For reasons I have yet to delve into, the young Margaret Sanger was very involved with Socialism as it particularly applied to the liberation of working-class women. Birth control was a necessary component of this liberation, and the subject she decided to devote the rest of her life to.

The hypocrisy in all this, of course, was that the well-to-do had always had access to birth control methods and abortions, and were for sure no bastions of morality, yet were supporting the anti-birth control ideas of Anthony Comstock and others.

Sanger was only one of many during those days who saw this gap between the PR and the reality of the situation and thought something should be done about it.

As Eugenics became more popular in the early 1900s, Sanger latched onto the movement when it was formally organized in the United States in 1921. The modern eugenics movement was given its name by Francis Galton, a member of a well-to-do British family of gun manufacturers and bankers who also happened to be Quakers. By all accounts, Galton was a child prodigy. He developed into what I would describe as a Public Relations person for various ideas and movements he saw as advantageous to his group. He was, among many other associations, a Freemason. (This all per his Wikipedia article.) Though seen by most today as simply a brilliant person, he worked within a context that many today question as, frankly, a bit criminal. And one example of that was his interest in twisting Darwin’s work (Darwin was one of his cousins) to justify a blood-based system of selective breeding for humans, Eugenics.

The idea that people could be bred for character traits is not new. That it was never scientifically substantiated was not important to those who saw it as an idea that was in their interests to promote to the general population. That it cannot be scientifically substantiated, as it’s basically false (character is not determined by genetics), still does not deter some from supporting it.

The extent that Sanger really believed in it is not known to me. She acted like she did. But here we enter the world of Public Relations.

It’s a Public Relations World

PR is used to influence the opinion of target publics by causing events to happen and using news of them as a way to forward the PR message. An ethical PR Officer will never deal in lies. However, we do not live on a very ethical planet.

The general public is susceptible to PR because the average individual is very limited in what information he can personally collect and evaluate. Thus in asking the average person to make any decision outside of his immediate sphere of influence, he will fall back on “trusted” sources for the data he needs. And if those sources lie but he never really finds out about it, then he will make a certain number of decisions based on lies. That these decisions may later come back to haunt him is something he possibly never considers.

The PR surrounding Planned Parenthood

On 5 September, The Stranger (a Seattle weekly alternative arts and culture newspaper) published an article about the fire in Pullman under the headline: Anti-Choice Terrorists Burn Down Planned Parenthood Clinic…”

This headline is a falsehood, but definitely conveys a PR message: Anti-choice people are terrorists. However, the anti-choice people who demonstrated there about a month earlier were totally peaceful and their action included children (of course all this was just to further their own PR message).

If you look at this fire as a PR event (which it might well be), then it would have been in the interests of the pro-choice people to have caused it (as they are the ones now using it for PR purposes). This is one of the ironies of a situation where people are not able (or willing) to verify the facts of an event as it is reported to them. A self-inflicted event of this character has a name: False Flag. The term apparently comes from a tactic in naval warfare of flying a flag not actually yours until you can get close enough to the enemy’s ship to bombard them. In modern political PR, it refers to an event that harms your own side so that you can make an excuse to attack someone else by blaming them for the event. The classic False Flag event of this century was 9/11.

Planned Parenthood has had PR problems since Margaret Sanger opened the first clinic in New York City in the early 1900s. At that time what she was doing was actually against US law. So she had to convince a court that what she was doing was legitimate medical work, which she eventually managed to do.

The opposition to birth control, and abortion in particular, though high-minded, always stunk of hypocrisy. I see no reason why moral considerations about this subject would lead rational people to go out and burn down (or shut down) a health clinic. So I smell something deeper going on here.

To give some numbers: The current death rate in the US is about 2.6 million per year. The current abortion rate in the US is about 1 million per year.

I consider this a pretty big number. Though on a global scale it’s not that big a deal. About 60 million people die every year world-wide. About twice that many are born every year. Some more world-wide estimates: Annual deaths caused by…War, 120,000; Fires, 270,000; Drownings, 370,000; Malnutrition, 460,000; Violence, 500,000; Falls, 693,000; Suicide, 800,000; Traffic accidents, 1.2 million.

So: You want to fight death? Why pick abortion? It’s only one of many many things that kills people, and sicknesses do most of it.

When I went past Pullman Planned Parenthood today (I go past it all the time; it’s right next to Safeway) there were a few dozen little notes stuck on the fence that got put up around it since the fire. They were notes of support, like “we’ve got your back” and “thanks for your help after I was assaulted,” more or less obviously from women. So, what is this? I thought. Is this some heartfelt action from the local community, or just more PR?

notes on the fence

Notes on the fence – Planned Parenthood Pullman – 20 Sept 2015

When does life start?

Per our best data so far on how things really work, abortion kills an animal, whereas death after birth kills a person (who usually detaches and goes about looking for another baby to pick up). You may think this is still a matter of conjecture or superstition; I consider it a pretty solid fact. So on a moral level we are talking about the relative rights to life of an animal living inside its mother versus a person living under its own power, even though with considerable assistance.

My feeling is that this is not the moral question of the age. It’s too bad there is no agreement yet about what a person really consists of. Until this point is settled (if the Powers That Be will ever allow it to be settled), we have what amounts to a PR battle between camps who could serve their own interests much better by working on other issues. Obviously, someone’s interests are being served by keeping this battle alive. But that is a subject for another day.

one of the notes

One of the notes.