Summary of Posts on Science and Scholarship

Theory and practice in a world of scarcity and fear

I was raised to be a scientist, until a series of paranormal experiences (1, 2) changed my studies from science to business. Eight years of idealism and disillusionment later, another paranormal experience landed me on the energy industry’s leading edge. We had the world’s best heating system and the world’s best engine for powering an automobile in our stable of technologies when we were wiped out.

I survived those three years of adventures because of my youth, idealism, and spiritual training. As I began recovering from that odyssey, I resumed my science studies, but generally on the fringes. A dozen years later, after one of Bucky Fuller’s pupils called me a comprehensivist and I did not know what he was referring to, I resumed my scientific studies in earnest, but it was generally popularized science, which is adequate for what I am doing. I have approached science with a radicalized, comprehensive perspective, and I have had plenty to say about the process and state of science. All branches of science have been corrupted, to one degree or another, like everything else, and biomedical science is considered the flimsiest and most corrupt branch of science, even by science‘s defenders.

I also studied scholarship, and it suffered from many of the same problems that science did, of conflicts of interest and ideological fixation (1) that have badly marred the discipline. In Noam Chomsky’s political coming-out essay, he wrote of the responsibility of intellectuals to challenge ruling-class deceits, but his subsequent political writings have often shown their failures to do so, and his writing partner Ed Herman did even more on that issue and how the media operates.

This post will summarize my many posts that deal with science and scholarship. In 1991, I met the former astronaut, Ivy League professor, and political activist Brian O’Leary. I was taking Brian to give a speech to a new-science organization on the need for a new science. That was the same conference where I discovered that a corporate hit man had belonged to that organization, as he helped maintain elite control over humanity. Five years after I had my first paranormal experience, which ruined me as a mainstream scientist before my career ever began, Brian had a similar experience while performing the same exercise. Until then, he smugly drank the Kool-Aid of materialism, which is the religion of mainstream scientists. It also ruined Brian as a mainstream scientist and he began exploring the fringes. Within five minutes of meeting Brian, we were discussing Sparky Sweet and free energy. Brian was an advocate of scientific investigation of the paranormal. The year after I met Brian, he hosted a UFO conference and nearly died immediately afterward, after rejecting an “offer” from the American military to join classified UFO projects. The incident shortened his life, and the closest that he came to publicly disclosing it was in his last book.

Less than five years after I met Brian, he published his first free energy book, and I became his biggest fan. In it, he described what he called the Suppression Syndrome, and his first category of suppressing scientific discoveries was the scientists themselves, as they protected the paradigms that they were indoctrinated into and that fed them. Free energy is a key area of that scientific denial. After Brian published his first free-energy book, he became the Paul Revere of Free Energy, riding the world, and he approached the tops of the world’s leading academic, scientific, and “progressive” institutions. After five years of riding, Brian and I had an epic note-trading session. I asked him how his ride went, and he gave me a brief litany of the reactions that he received, which were nearly all crazed reactions of denial and fear. Their objections were weak at best. Brian then openly wondered if humanity was a sentient species, and I sadly understood. Mainstream scientists can be quite obtuse when the subject of free energy is broached. The technologies that people close to me observed (1) would upend orthodox physics.

Unfortunately, the free-energy field itself is stuck in a state of arrested development, focused on scientists and inventors, when they are only a small piece of the puzzle. I have traced the connections between free-energy physics, free-energy inventors, mainstream science, and the global elite.

With that kind of experience under my belt, I began exploring science and scholarship. Today’s science has great promise and great limitations, with amazing blind spots. All dominant ideologies are based on scarcity, and mainstream science has not escaped that trap. All dominant ideologies have their cheerleaders and attack dogs (1). The heretics still burn. Ideally, science and scholarship pursue the truth, but reality always falls short of the ideal, and the failures can be spectacular in science and scholarship. Pursuing the truth is far from easy in today’s world, and escaping orthodox assumptions is a key to learning to think comprehensively. Not many have accomplished it.

Even the best intellectuals have difficulty escaping the ideological straightjackets of our times. The worst of them lie incessantly and engage in criminal activity. Their Orwellian abuse of language is part of it.

I have written at great length on fraudulent biomedical research and the worthless, deadly, and lucrative interventions of Western medicine. The foundations of Western medicine can be surprisingly flimsy and the dynamics of its corruption are obvious. Western medicine is a racket, but I found that the sociologies of all of the rackets are similar.

My writings can delve into a great deal of detail on the topics that I have investigated. My generalizations are based on deep study, and I will provide more examples. The West has a great deal of mythology that its ideologies are based on, but which most people accept as truth, mainly because they were fed it while young. For instance, the USA is an empire that pretends that it is not one, and that mythology largely only fools Americans.

I have long picked a bone with scientists who argued that humans were peaceful before the rise of agriculture and civilization and that Homo sapiens had little or nothing to do with the extinctions of the world’s megafauna and our fellow human species. That peaceful pre-agricultural or pre-civilized human past was a dogma in anthropology for most of the 20^th century, but the weight of evidence has finally shown that position to be wishful thinking. The prehistoric human past was extremely brutal. There has even been a strange nostalgia for the lives of medieval peasants in recent years. Hobbes won that fictional debate with Rousseau. That romanticization of the human past has served to obscure real human progress in a reduction of violence over the Epochs and how much more humane societies have become over the human journey, especially since industrialization. Similarly, there has been a cottage industry in science and academia that denied that humans drove the megafauna to extinction, as they invoked climate change, bolide events, and others that I came to call the “Anything but Homo sapiens” hypotheses, as they defended prehistoric humans. Again, the weight of evidence has finally revealed those voices to be grasping at straws. The USA’s “settler” past has been similarly romanticized. This kind of behavior seems to be a human universal, of defending one’s in-group (or its ancestors) to the end, no matter what the crimes were.

Another area where I have weighed in repeatedly is on the subject of atmospheric gases and Global Warming (AKA Climate Change). The mechanics of how greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation and warm Earth were not controversial in the least until Global Warming began to alarm climate scientists in the 1980s. The mechanics of Global Warming are not difficult to understand. Then a hydrocarbon-industry shill named Fred Singer, who was already notorious for helping cover up acid-rain damage, began challenging the idea of Global Warming in the 1990s, which sparked the “debate” that still exists. I have found that only the scientifically illiterate, shill scientists like Singer, and those grinding a political ax (primarily right wingers) deny that Global Warming is a real or manmade or dangerous phenomenon. I live with the reality daily. It is 84 degrees in my office at home as a write this in the Seattle area, and today it won’t quite reach 90 like it did yesterday, but such days have become common in recent summers. When I moved here in 1997, we might have gotten one such day in a summer, but this summer has seen several 90-degree days, and I thought we got off easy this summer. Recent summers were far worse, with weeks of unbroken 80-and-90-degree days. Of the 12 years since 2013, eight have been in the top-ten years of 80-degree days, and eight have been in the top-12 90-degree days since consistent recordkeeping began in 1894. And that is trivial compared to what happened in 2021, with shattered records, as if Seattle became Phoenix.

The biggest risk to humanity that I see from Global Warming is epic crop failures in which billions of people die, which could trigger a nuclear war. To accept Global Warming is not to support the “solutions” by elites such as Bill Gates. It seems that the scientifically illiterate deniers of Global Warming are partly reacting to people such as Bill Gates, but denying elite solutions is not the same as denying reality.

Another issue that I have weighed on in recent years has been the trans craze. I see it as the normalization of mental illness and another windfall for the medical racket. It is really simple: mammals cannot change their sexes. Sex in mammals is determined at conception, and while there are genetic anomalies in humans that can blur the line (and such people are usually sterile, so they will not give rise to a new kind of human), that is not what the trans craze is about. The trans craze is an attempt to defeat biological reality with ideology, vocabulary, and medical procedures. To “transition” minors with “affirmative care” is a medical atrocity that will take its place with lobotomies and eugenics in the grim annals of Western medicine.

I have written at length on what I have learned in my lifetime so far, and the learning never ends. In what I call the Fifth Epoch, seeking the truth will take on new relevance and science will bear only a faint resemblance to today’s version of it. All dogmatic ideologies will die their deserved deaths, as controlling what people think will no longer be important.