Whither (to where?) Science

Not religion or personality cults but manipulation of the system by the elites through digital technocracy and hijack of science, ought to be the discourse

science

Leo Tolstoy, regarded as one of the greatest and most influential author-philosophers of all time, had, as early as in 1900, forewarned humanity about future instances of likely weaponisation of science and technology. He wrote, ‘If the arrangement of the society is bad (as ours is) and a small number of people have power over the majority and oppress it, every victory over nature will inevitably serve only to increase that power and that oppression. This is what is actually happening.’ Aldous Huxley (English philosopher and author of the timeless epic, Brave New World, written in 1931), who opened one of his essays with these words (of Tolstoy) half a century later, added, ‘And what was happening then has gone on happening ever since. And since’. By now the scope and speed of these victories, as we still call them, have often wreaked havoc on humanity. We know so much and are getting to know more and more. We do not know how to control the use of what we know : never has the technical power to oppress, to destroy, to manipulate been so immense—it is happening now. How advances in science and technology applied to human beings by their ‘rulers’ (who are actually puppet stringed by the elites) might affect the lives, the thoughts, the feelings, the very instincts of individuals, is a concern whose importance can hardly be overemphasised!

The ‘weaponisation of science’ that Tolstoy, in no uncertain terms, refers to, can have various manifestations. In its most obvious form, it involves the use of science to produce outcomes that are outright harmful to humanity (such as the Manhattan Project—a program of research and development undertaken during the Second World War to produce the first nuclear weapons viz., the atom bomb). This however, excludes scenarios where harmful outcomes have resulted entirely accidentally or owing to pure misadventures and not from premeditated scheming (such as the Stanford Prison experiment or Vladimir Demikhov’s organ transplant experiments). There is a second extremely devious and cunning form of ‘weaponisation’ of science, as well. While perhaps nothing can be more pure and golden than science in its truest form, yet more often than not, all along the course of civilisational history, it is the exploitative intent of the proverbial ‘men behind the machine’, that has been shaping many a interpretation and application of the machine (science, in this context). This form of an extremely sophisticated and cold-blooded manipulation of science is nothing short of a virtual ‘hijack’ of the ‘system’ of science. Here, what is done is that facts are interpreted with partial truth and honesty, paving the way for narratives that are steeped in great fear or alarm (the interpretations being legitimised through the agency of various instruments such as so-called mainstream ‘experts’, journals, media and various national and international regulators and organisations). Oftentimes, there might be the apparent presence of hard evidence even (such as people dying), that would seem to further corroborate and justify the fear-alarm narrative. In reality however, the deaths for example, might be resulting from a critical combination of various factors other than the one the narrative emphasises on or subscribes to. Let us now briefly dwell on two such contemporary narratives that perhaps illustrate this second kind of ‘weaponisation (hijack) of science’.

The first narrative relates to the tremendous importance accorded, in recent times, to the alarm of the so-called climate change while the second advocates an extremely heightened concern related to public health crisis such as the occurrence of pandemics. The proponents (led by many elite billionaire globalists) of climate change alarm draw upon a known fact (viz. the post-industrial world’s dependence on fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum, natural gas etc. as the principal source of energy) to generate scare and advance recommendations (agendas) that are often conflicting and contradictory (because of being commercially and politically self-serving), as explained subsequently. It is also well-known that this dependence on fossil fuels (i.e., carbon containing fuels), has over time, led to the release of increased amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (called the carbon footprint) triggering a greenhouse effect, that has definitely contributed significantly, to the elevation of the earth’s temperature with its attendant deleterious consequences such as extreme weather phenomena, rise in sea-level, drought etc. As such, the most logical approach to tackle this energy challenge is to look for viable alternatives to fossil fuel such as renewable sources of energy (sunlight, wind, water, geothermal, ocean, bioenergy etc.) and nuclear energy (which however, is not renewable). That the proponents of climate alarm (which includes many global-elites) are very much on the same page with regard to the solution, is hardly surprising because the systemic infrastructure needed to bring about this shift to renewable sources of energy, is perhaps already largely under their control. Much as the control of fossil fuel based power plants and oil companies by the elites, since around the middle of the 19th century and who, by the way, until being bitten by the climate change bug recently, were in complete agreement with large-scale dependence on fossil fuels. With regard to the climate alarm however, one of the solutions that the modern global-elites recommend (alongside the tapping of viable alternatives to fossil fuel) is an immediate and complete shift to carbon-free energy sources such as electronic batteries (lithium batteries). In other words, we need to go more and more digital (work from home, online shopping, education and health services delivered virtually etc.) and induct electronic vehicles (EVs) into our transportation system! And therein lies the justification that they posit to reset our current pattern of lifestyle across the globe through suitable policy changes (mandates) in the social, political and economic spheres. What should perhaps not escape our notice is that this reset could as well serve as a public behaviour modification exercise to bring about a societal transition from democracy to autocracy (dictatorship), globally. The digital stranglehold that such reset provides (through unbridled access to big-data, analysis of the data and centralised surveillance capability), to the global-elites (particularly, the digital big-tech giants such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon etc.) serves as the bedrock of digital technocratic control! As was pointed out earlier, the model of climate alarm (the hypothesised problem–reaction–solution) is fraught with half-truths and contradictions that actually stand out as chinks in the armour, if only one had the insight to spot them. While there can be no denial of the fact that industrial activities powered by fossil fuel do contribute to greenhouse effect, yet before summarily arriving at the conclusion that climate change effects are something novel (i.e., as if happening for the first time) and can be tackled by, among other things, everybody going more and more digital (i.e., using carbon-free sources of electricity such as lithium batteries); few other aspects must also be taken into consideration. First of all, at this point of time, there is simply not enough provision (source) of carbon-free energy (chemical elements like lithium), for people across the globe to adopt the carbon-free ‘green’ (read digital) way of life. Second, as of now, unless viable alternatives to fossil fuel become a reality, going more and more digital translates to an increased dependence on electricity only (which is produced from coal, a fossil fuel) since the batteries of the digital devices (mobile phones, personal computers, servers etc.) need frequent charging. Third, a sincere consideration of the history of the earth’s geologic evolution would immediately reveal that it is replete with periodic episodes of major climate changes and their consequences (submersion of land by rising sea-level, extreme weather phenomena, drought etc., that often resulted in the extinction of different species of animals including human ancestors) right from the prehistoric times (such as the greenhouse climate of the Mesozoic era—252 to 66 million years ago)—i.e., much before the advent of the industrial epoch. Curiously enough, for reasons that are not difficult to understand, the proponents of the climate alarm seem to carefully avoid discussions on these gaps that pepper their narrative. To conclude, what should then be the correct approach to the issue of climate concern? It has to be one of consensus reached not by the peddling of hype and false alarm that is actually self-serving for a few (the global-elites) but through honest and sincere collaboration among the various stakeholders (such as civil society, subject experts who are not biased or driven by agenda, politicians etc.). Also, it is high time that the globalism driven template of so-called development (streak of ruthless, unplanned urbanisation and the obsession for rendering everything ‘smart’—smart city, smart village etc.), is opened up to scrutiny and review, in right earnest. For, there still exists a distinct difference in the degree of deterioration of weather conditions between urban and rural areas—the rural weather being far more pleasant. Felling of trees, filling up of natural water bodies (that act as protective natural sinks), blasting of hills etc., are usually the means by which this new age urbanisation (in the garb of development), is ushered in. The hallmarks of such so-called smart, express urbanisation are crass consumerism (characterised by excessive use of automobiles, ACs, digital devices etc.) and unplanned constructions (rendered possible by mindless depletion of the green cover and filling up of water bodies). Both of these factors perhaps play a crucial role in heating up the local environments in urban centres (a phenomenon referred to as urban heat island in climate science), resulting in frequent extreme weather phenomena, such as, heat waves, cold waves, cloudbursts, flash floods etc. Strangely enough, proponents of the climate change alarm (the elite globalists, in particular) seem to display a cold indifference towards this issue (viz., impact of ruthless urbanisation on the environment), as well. The fact that urbanisation opens up massive commercial and other opportunities for the elites (such as large scale migration of population from rural to urban centres, resulting in freeing up of rural, agricultural land that the elites can now easily acquire or the abundant availability of human resource in the cities that can be exploited to the hilt), might be the reason behind their indifference. Last but not least, while the billionaire-globalists are only too happy lecturing the rest of humanity on eschewing fossil fuel usage; ironically enough, they find nothing wrong with the oil guzzling transcontinental flights in private jets (powered by fossil fuel!) that they themselves undertake frequently—for business and pleasure alike.

The second narrative pertains to the rather frequent occurrence of pandemics, in recent times. On the one hand, we are being cautioned and intimidated by authorities (governments, non-governmental global organisations, mainstream academia and science represented by a large section of scientists, researchers and journals) about the possibility of pandemics, while on the other, these very authorities, in the name of prevention of diseases (i.e., in the name of science) are embarking on extremely risky adventures of creating dangerous, novel pathogens (the infamous ‘gain of function’ research that involves rendering pathogens that are normally incapable of infecting humans, pathogenic to humanity—using advanced molecular biology techniques and cutting edge digital technology). The devious justification being offered is that all this is needed in order to be future-ready for novel pathogens that might emerge in the scene. The story does not stop there. The investigational hearings and depositions related to various aspects of the Covid pandemic (such as the origin of the virus etc.) that have taken place in the US Senate, over the last few years, have revealed many alarming facts, thanks to the hard work of few honest lawmakers, bureaucrats and unbiased, independent media commentators (journalists). However, for reasons (public interest?) best known to it, the elite controlled mainstream media has very meticulously refrained itself from uncovering these inside stories (read truth). Anyway, it has now become evident that the stringent safety criteria (biosafety level specifications) that need to be fulfilled in such research labs (be it in the US, Europe or China), if at all such endeavours are deemed acceptable (which is not the case, legally)—are not being adhered to. Now, how is this possible? How can those conducting (researchers on ground zero) and sponsoring (government organisations such as the National Institutes of Health, USA, Wuhan Institute of Virology, China etc., possibly at the behest of the global-elites) such ‘apparently’ dangerous research, afford to be so careless? Is it because the end product of such research in itself (the genetically modified pathogen) though ‘novel’ is not at all as lethal as it is touted to be and as such does not really pose that serious a risk to humans? Is it thus a case of the initiators (sponsors) being supremely confident, right from the beginning, that under no circumstance, would the project backfire on ‘them’ (so very probable in the setting of a pandemic) since nothing truly harmful would occur as a result of being infected with such a ‘modified’ pathogen. As such, the deaths taking place could perhaps be the result of a combination of various other factors, rather than the virus itself. Some of the factors being, peddling of tremendous fear to discompose the public into a panic overdrive (excessive medical care seeking attitude) resulting in excess (often, unnecessary) hospitalisations, too aggressive and at times erroneous protocols (that translated to rigorous isolation, over-diagnosis and over-treatment, in many cases) and inflating the death count by linking each and every death to the publicised cause with blatant disregard to the fact that in every country, a significant number of deaths  occur daily from a variety of other causes as well (such as traffic accidents, cancer, cardiac and neurologic diseases). Further, during the so-called Covid pandemic, while the global-elites themselves (and through the agency of various instruments at their disposal, including a brigade of social influencers) left no stone unturned in painting a dark picture of impending doom for humanity, a careful review of their own conduct however, tells an altogether different story. Not only were many of them found to flout Covid-related  health regulations with glaring impunity but also, zealously expanding and advancing their commercial and other agendas (even during such a perilous period), remained business as usual for them. In other words, they themselves were not at all petrified the way they expected the rest of the world to be. How is that possible? The precise answers to these searching yet basic questions will perhaps never be known. However, the so-called ‘novel’ attribute of the ‘engineered’ pathogen, was (and would be in future also, for sure) put to full use as a justification to impose harsh mandates (wonderful tools of public behaviour modification to curb democracy and freedom) under the pretext of disease prevention. The hijack of science (medical science, in particular) is not confined to the scenario of pandemics only. With regard to other diseases also (infective, metabolic, degenerative etc.), a clear attempt to bring more and more people (even if asymptomatic) under the purview of treatment interventions, is underway. This is being done by relegating the importance of symptoms and signs (to diagnose disease) to the back seat and encouraging reliance on investigative findings (biomarkers etc.) instead—particularly, among people who are otherwise asymptomatic! And guess who all are shaping this shift ? A big section of scientists and academicians, of course, belonging to prestigious universities and institutions, and who, also regularly publish in the so-called renowned journals! Never mind the fact that many of them have ties to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, creating potential conflicts of interest.

terrorism hijack

But then what is actually achieved through this kind of devious weaponisation (hijack) of science as illustrated in the examples above. The human civilisational history, in essence, is a script of control (manipulation and exploitation), such that, in every society, monarchy or nation, it has always been a select few (wealthy and powerful) who have ruled over the masses using suitable instruments of control such as ethnicity, religion, wars, terrorism and more recently, science. Monarchy, feudalism, democracy and capitalism, successively provided the turfs for these instruments of control, to be played out. This scheme served particularly well during the ancient, medieval and greater part of the post-industrial modern period i.e., almost up to the middle of the twentieth century. Significantly enough, in the early part of the twentieth century (around 1910), Lenin had cautioned, that the capitalistic system of economy unless well regulated would lead to massive concentration of wealth in the hands of few players leading to the establishment of monopolies. This in turn, would pave the way for the formation of powerful vested interest syndicates and cartels, across the globe. That was, in fact, the first version of the globalism (spearheaded by the globalists—a group of billionaire capitalists) that is so rampant all around us, today. The highest stage of such unregulated capitalism is imperialism, Lenin asserted. That he was spot on in his assessment was more than proved by the course of contemporary events of that period. However, the scale of devastation and the burden of logistics and resource mobilisation that the two World Wars entailed, perhaps led the global-elites to search for alternative instruments of control (other than wars etc.), to unleash on humanity, what is often referred to as ‘neo-imperialism’. By the end of the Second World War, the importance and esteem of the power of science and technology had gotten firmly entrenched in peoples’ minds. The stage was thus set for the scope and appeal of science to be hijacked, if so desired by the powerful forces, on a number of crucial issues related to economy and politics! Soon, early trends of scientocracy and technocracy (use of science and technology to manipulate people) began to emerge. Needless to say that among the masses, only the initiated few noticed it. By the mid-eighties, advances in digital technology and molecular biology techniques had reached such a level that instances of narratives (particularly related to climate science and public health, among others) being cast along preferred lines of powerful vested interest groups, became possible. And in the last one or two decades, the phrase “trust the science” was very systematically and cunningly, introduced into the common parlance as a legitimate statement rather than the mind-control propaganda that it actually is. For, first of all, there is no set canon that defines “the science”,—true science is a dynamic and constantly evolving set of experiments and conclusions. Second, by definition, “science” is meant to be scrutinised and continuously tested, not “trusted”. Third, much of the scientific papers being published in recent times (in mainstream journals) are industry-sponsored propaganda, solely aimed at commercial and other dark (political) interests. Fourth, true science can never be biased towards one system (the western scientific model, say) while being prejudiced against the others (such as non-western, traditional systems). Thus, in fact, the need of the hour is a collective rejection of this absurd and cunning concept of “trust the science” by the educated citizenry. But alas, that is not happening. All this has conferred enormous additional power to ‘those who seek to control’, in the name of science i.e., the global elites (digital technology giants, big pharma, big mainstream media, big bankers & asset managers, oil majors, automobile manufacturers et al.), who often collaborate in tandem, globally. They could now, at once, cunningly influence crucial policy-decisions in an effortless way (without having to resort to logistically difficult and complicated options such as wars, terrorism etc.) and succeed in drawing full cooperation of the innocent, gullible public having great faith in the truth of science.  Providing funding (directly or indirectly) to various projects (related to education, healthcare, environment etc.), globally as well as in the country of interest, is yet another powerful method of influencing policy-decisions (in a self-serving way), that the elites employ. It is perhaps not difficult to envisage the implication of all this for citizens of a free and democratic polity. Democracy and freedom get transformed into a sophisticated form of autocracy and dictatorship powered by science (digital technology, in particular)! However, so that the common people remain clueless about the actual instruments of manipulation and oppression being used (viz., scientocracy and technocracy), their focus and attention is kept distracted to other issues such as religion (perhaps, the most important distractor), caste, language etc. through the promotion of appropriate quasi political or quasi religious ideologies (such as Hindutva etc.) and dispensations (such as, right-wing political parties). Sadly, the majority of the educated, intellectuals, activists and politicians, fail to spot this red herring and end up foolishly contributing to the build-up of more and more conversations around these fault lines (religion, in particular) instead. As a result, the actual instrument of oppression (technocracy) gets out of focus and therefore, remains conveniently concealed. If only, even for a moment, we could sincerely reflect as to what really pervades and overwhelms our day to day thoughts and activities—is it religion or is it digital technology (the controlling influence of digital technology over office work, shopping, small/medium business, education, healthcare, banking, travel, entertainment, subsidies and citizen facilities, biometric attendance, airport check-ins, news media, social media shaping social and cultural trends—the list can go on)? The answer would surely dawn on us as obviously as spotting the proverbial elephant in the room! For far too long now, the import and centrality of religion in our lives (in the true sense of the words) has been largely supplanted by digital technocracy. As such, for powerful global forces, seeking to manipulate us, digital technocracy and not religion would be the most effective and hence the most preferred instrument of choice. Real-life events happening around us, also prove as much—a fact that ought to be readily discernible to anyone who can connect the dots. Yet there we are (the civil society, including the intellectuals and the activists), refusing to shun the ‘religion’ narrative, thanks to the wonderful manipulation and persuasion along that direction (which ensures that the discourse around religion remains in the crosshairs), carried out by the mainstream media and the political quarters (both government and opposition included), at the behest of the elites.

This brings us to the concluding section of this article where we cannot but ponder as to how a virtual hijack of a system of knowledge (such as science), at all becomes possible. The explanation perhaps is manifold. Ever since the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century, societies across the globe have steadily but thoroughly been sucked more and more into a vortex of crass materialism, driven by capitalism. This shallow and mindless consumerism is characterised by an insatiable desire for more wealth, more food, more lust and more fame (including self-promotion), than is necessary to lead a truly contented life of peace and meaningful existence. As a result, over time, almost all sections of the society in general and the so-called educated middle and upper-middle class in particular, have been engulfed by an unprecedented wave of moral corruption, decadence and irrationality, resulting in a profound fall of the human intellect characterised by an inability to distinguish right from wrong or the reasonable from the unreasonable. This cripples our judgement and sensibility (i.e., the capability for critical thinking and the ability to connect the dots) on a number of fronts such as social, political, emotional, academic/scientific etc., and renders us into inadequate citizens who are at once narcissistic (selfish) and socially apathetic (unconcerned)—ideal candidates for powerful forces to unleash control upon! With regard to the manipulation of science to peddle alarming narratives that advocate profound public behaviour modification (i.e. control), leading to the trammelling of freedom and democracy, the following can perhaps be said. A big section of scientists, academicians and researchers—being part and parcel of the same decadent society, fails to be the exception and often ends up actively colluding with powerful mischievous forces, for the lure of wealth or fame, thereby providing the requisite hiatus to hijack science. Of perhaps even greater concern is the passive support that such hijack receives from a big section of the so-called educated middle and upper-middle class, who though not actively colluding with cunning forces, nonetheless end up bolstering their position by adopting a dogmatic stand of support for authoritative mainstream narratives that claim to be backed by science. With regard to ‘authorities’ (governmental and non-governmental regional or global organisations and mainstream experts) they seem to nurture an unflinching faith that almost always overrides sensibility and reason. In their defence, they put forth an extremely flimsy argument. Even if individuals can be manipulated, authorities and organisations can never be, they affirm. Strangely enough, they fail to grasp the fact that an organisation is only as strong or as weak as the individuals who represent it and a group of individuals can just as easily be corrupted and manipulated as a single individual! Now, this lack of sensibility in thought (and consequent action) of the so-called educated middle and upper-middle class, possibly results from an inability to shoulder the falsely inflated ‘sense of empowerment’ that a sudden windfall of wealth (money) and crass materialism confer (being able to first afford, often through easily available bank loans and then effortlessly flaunt by way of social media—private cars, flats, air-travels, foreign trips, otherwise minor achievements etc.). The resulting moral corruption and detachment from reality (a state of mass psychological deviation that includes both an illusion of wellbeing and a delusion of grandeur), breed an unquestioning obedience towards the ‘mainstream’ (the ‘system’ represented by authorities and so-called mainstream experts), among the middle and upper-middle class. This acts as the second crucial lacuna that facilitates the hijack of science. There might be still other factors at play, as well.


So, finally, is there a way out? Not unless, the so-called educated, claiming to be science-loving, middle and upper-middle class sections of the society, once and for all decide to break open their cocoons (envelope of perception) of crass materialism-driven illusion of happiness and celebrity-like status (so conspicuously evident in their social media footprint). However, this can only happen if the children and youth of the middle (including the upper-middle) class section of the society are carefully groomed (both within the family and in schools and colleges) to attain the immensely crucial philosophical understanding about life, alongside conventional education. No magic pill or express mechanism can possibly bring about such enlightenment overnight. It can only happen through a systematic cultural revolution, envisioned by the society and supported by the government. A societal endeavour, formulated by the so-called educated, wherein the children and young adults are encouraged to undertake, in addition to conventional education, reading of extra-curricular books and articles that underscore moral principles and spur true intellectual growth, watching plays, films and TV serials that convey social messages, listening to songs with lyrics and tunes that are soulful, engaging in more and more social (including sporting) interactions etc. In case, there is a dearth of such contemporary books, articles, poems, lyrics, films or plays, we might have to look to the yore for such substantive resources. This and only this can, if at all, deliver humanity from the abyss of moral decadence (point of no return almost) it has plummeted into! Perhaps only then can morality, sensibility and logic, in the true sense of the words, get instilled among the educated section of the society. And only such balanced citizens would not fight shy of questioning some of the mainstream narratives that have outright gaps and contradictions writ large on them, however much they might seem to be steeped in ‘apparent’ science (such as disproportionately stringent disease prevention mandates, vaccines being rolled out without the necessary safety trials, climate alarm narratives that are clearly biased and so on). Further, the educated and the intellectuals have to raise difficult questions in public. They have to be mentally prepared to face the risks of embarrassment and scrutiny from the establishment. These traits in an educated/intellectual are neither symbols of bravery nor are markers to be lauded, for, one cannot call oneself educated/intellectual without these markers. Academia cannot merely be about teaching, attending conferences and publishing to push forward one’s academic career. It is a world of processes wherein we are to continually try to defend and expand human freedom and resist exploitation and violence by the dominant, in the name of religion, science or whatever else. Come, let us all unite in this noble fight to stop the hijack of science. Long live the golden true science!

Dr Sujoy Prasad Bhattacharyya is a concerned citizen

Support Countercurrents

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.
Become a Patron at Patreon

Join Our Newsletter

GET COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX

Join our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Get CounterCurrents updates on our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Related Posts

Are we too smart for our own good?

Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (1904-2005)—who, I’m told, was a very smart person—concluded, late in life, that high intelligence may be a lethal mutation. In this article, we’ll explore some reasons for…

Revolutionising the Self 

Bindu Art School in Chengalpattu, a couple of hours by road from Chennai in South India, was set up in 2005 in the Bharatapuram leprosy colony. It was started by…

Join Our Newsletter


Annual Subscription

Join Countercurrents Annual Fund Raising Campaign and help us

Latest News