Official Culture Reprise VI: Moving Away From the Psychopath’s Dream (3)

 “No science is immune from the infection of politics and the corruption of power.”

Jacob Bronowski, English scientist

The reader might be tempted to think that I’ve invested in my own belief system by placing the all the world’s problems at the door of the essential psychopath. While it is true that I think the majority of our struggles have at their root a great psychological component it could also be said that beyond this “nuts and bolts” cause is the more profound conundrum of how we perceive reality and the human constructs we have erected around it. One might say, at heart, all of our problems are ultimately of a spiritual nature.

The very word “Spirituality” – rather like “conspiracy”- will have loaded connotations for all of us. For some it means all that is outside science and therefore, to be distrusted. For others it has religious or New Age connotations. Still more cite indifference or become uncomfortable at the mere mention of the word. Most people however, while not necessarily believing in a religious God, do place value on the idea of our existence having purpose where getting along with others is a prerequisite for the betterment of one’s life. Some would say this has more to do with reflecting insecurity and fear of death rather than any true belief in a Universal purpose, but this misses the point.

The key principle enshrined in the notion of spirituality is one of establishing growth which moves toward harmony in oneself and thus as a natural consequence, those we meet in our daily lives. It need be as simple as that, although in practice is anything but. But when things begin to slowly – usually very slowly – change, then so does the external world. But Or as the ancient Taoist mystic Lao Tzu succinctly put it: “When you accept yourself, the whole world accepts you.” Self-acceptance only comes when we have divested ourselves of the majority of conditioning however, and that is something that the controllers of our world definitely do not want to see.


The Scientific Super-Highway. But what’s fuelling the car? Where’s the map and where the hell are we going?

It is this quest for self-knowledge, self-acceptance and a parallel analysis of world events can represent a science of the soul. Yet, sadly, one of the most distorted domains in society which could have been at the vanguard of creative solutions in its widest sense – is science. Far from an acceptance that it’s inherent remit is that orthodox science doesn’t know but is always striving toward that end, like so many of our disciplines it is simply mirroring the disconnection to spiritual realities in a way that has wrought destruction across the collective mind of humanity.

Since psychopaths naturally adopt a world-view that is often strictly materialist and without true creativity they restrict the science which could push the envelope for new discoveries. This is especially true in the fields of depth psychology, the analysis of dreams and what Łobaczewski calls: “the human instinctive substratum.” To do so, would be to diagnose the system itself and thus represents a threat to psychopathic control. Science as it stands today is both the remedy and the disease, the latter manifesting as intellectual tyranny and corruption. But to explore the human condition and new fields of inquiry – not least the problem of ponerology – means to step outside what science considers sacrosanct, where boundaries are set not by true science but by the beliefs seeded within in its hallowed halls.

Historian and metaphysician Laura Knight-Jadczyk explains the corruption in this way:

“Psychopaths, once in positions of power and influence, forbid areas of science that they know are dangerous to their position. It’s a natural progression to apply this to the study of consciousness. They promote their own inner landscape (materialism) via science and project it onto humanity at large, effectively blocking the means by which they can be identified as abnormal. By creating such a semantic barrier, they can inhibit and shape our ‘genetic potential for diversification of thought and conduct’ in their direction of their choice. We lose the necessary tools with which to discover the true origins of pathology, and the true potentials within normal humanity. By denying the existence of the ordering principles of consciousness, they deny the existence of any potential order to which we can strive.” [1]

Nuclear Physicist and consciousness explorer Thomas Campbell explained this “semantic barrier” in the following terms:

Much of what was considered mystical a thousand years ago is considered science today and much of what is considered mystical today will be clearly understood by a future science. As our current accumulated objective knowledge reaches its limits and begins to dissolve into the seemingly unknowable, what lies beyond our presumed theoretical reach is defined as mystical. Such presumptions well up from our beliefs about objective reality; thus what appears to be mystical or unknowable from the view of Western culture simply reflects Western cultural beliefs and the limited understanding of contemporary science. […]

To the bacteria in the intestine the source of digested food descending from the stomach would seem mystical. The economic, social and physical circumstances and processes that indirectly result in a particular food being deposited in the stomach would be beyond mystical. The causal mechanisms that drive and order these apparently mystical events and processes are necessarily invisible to even the most brilliant intestinal bacteria. The forces and relationships that govern the growing of wheat as well as the making and marketing of bread falls beyond the bacterium’s ability to imagine, and therefore forever lies beyond the largest reality it can possibly comprehend. Do not be too surprised to find Homo sapiens in a similar situation. [2] 

This must also bring us back to the authoritarian personality and the problem of belief-traps where:

“… A human brain that is calcified in a belief system – believing it because their social group, peers, family, also believe it – literally experiences pain if they try to open their mind and think in a limitless and unbiased way. The same thing must happen to a person trying to understand the different social constraints that are accepted as perfectly normal in a different cultural group. The implications are truly enormous. It can also explain why science is so corrupt. This is, essentially, a look inside the brain of the authoritarian personality.” [3]

If the plasticity of the human brain and our societies are as creative and as flexible as many scientists believe, then it follows, that there is, as Knight-Jadczyk suggests: “… a genetic potential for diversification regarding thought and conduct born into every single human being, a potential that permits growth in any direction whatsoever, that can be inhibited and/or shaped by society. The question is how?” A perusal of Knight-Jadczyk’s vast body of work provides a rich library of possible answers.

peanuts-medicales“Peanuts” by Charles Schultz

Crucial to the development of a truly creative humanity forging networks of change must come from a science that is authentic and not afraid to push the boundaries. If it can maintain the highest standards necessary to embrace innovation and open minded research into new areas of exploration, we might hope to take the perquisite baby steps to the next stage of conscious evolution – though it may be somewhat non-linear in its manifestation.  We may remember the example of the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and climate science as a whole, which exhibit obvious cases of bias, fraud and politicisation. Then of course, there is the belief in the scientific method or technique as an arm of humanist and transhumanist philosophy which incorporates some unsavoury views of the nature of humanity.

As a result, science is in crisis.

In Ocotber, 2013, CBC News ran a report which concluded that: “‘terrible science’ is polluting the global pool of knowledge.” The article summed up the problems scientific journals are facing which is a massive rise in fraudulent science. After an extensive investigation into the state of peer-reviewed scientific journals science journalist John Bohannon, who has a PhD in molecular biology and is a visiting scholar at Harvard University’s program in ethics and health: “concluded [that] ‘a huge proportion’ of the journals were not ensuring their papers were peer reviewed.” Worse still, the peer review event itself was often at fault. [4] 

The report gives the example of the Ottawa-based International Journal of Herbs and Medicinal Plants where “Bohannon submitted a revised version of the paper without correcting any of the flaws, it was accepted,” along with a: “scientific paper about a new anti-cancer compound [which] was accepted by more than half of 300 scientific journals it was submitted to in the past year, despite having obvious and serious scientific flaws.” If the peer-review procedure is failing then, as Bohannon stated, those with: “… fraudulent scientific credentials and publication records ‘are slowly filling university departments and government offices, making important science-based policy decisions.’” [5]

In the same month, Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times followed up with report on what scientists at the Thousand Oaks biotech firm Amgen had discovered, which was shocking. They had: “… set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology,” and at the end of their investigations: “… only six could be proved valid.” What the research team was by no means unique. The report mentioned a similar study from Bayer HealthCare in Germany who found “… that only 25% of published papers on which it was basing R&D projects could be validated, suggesting that projects in which the firm had sunk huge resources should be abandoned. Whole fields of research, including some in which patients were already participating in clinical trials, are based on science that hasn’t been, and possibly can’t be, validated.” Michael Eisen, a biologist at UC Berkeley and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute stated: “The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they’re investigated further.” [6]

In December of the same year, The Economist added their voice to the concern that science was losing its way with a short piece highlighting the unreliability of science journals this time attacked by Randy Schekman, one of the 2013 crop of Nobel prize-winners for physiology or medicine. During the week of the prize-giving Dr. Schekman chose to announce that his laboratory he runs at he runs at the University of California, Berkeley: “… will boycott what he describes as ‘luxury journals’. By that he meant those commonly regarded as the most prestigious, such as Cell, Nature and Science. He levels two charges against such journals. The first is that, aware of their pre-eminence and keen to protect it, they artificially restrict the number of papers they accept—acting, as he put it in an interview with the Guardian, a British newspaper, like ‘fashion designers who create limited-edition handbags or suits…know[ing] scarcity stokes demand’.

The Doctor described their behaviour, as: “… more conducive to the selling of subscriptions than the publishing of the best research.” He went even further describing how all-compassing the problem appears to be, arguing that: “… science as a whole is being distorted by perverse incentives, especially the tyranny of the ‘impact factor’, a number that purports to measure how important a given journal is. Researchers who publish in journals with a high impact factor … can expect promotion, pay rises and professional accolades. Those that do not can expect obscurity or even the sack, a Darwinian system known among academics as ‘publish or perish’.” [7]

This was underscored by The American Society for Microbiology which recently questioned if modern science was “dysfunctional” stating that: “At the heart of the problem is an economic incentive system fuelling a hypercompetitive environment that is fostering poor scientific practices, including frank misconduct.” [8]

science1The Mark of Scientific Materialism

  “If the people hear voices dissenting from the scientific priesthood, the corporations immediately send out their scientists to harass and discredit the other scientists.  Their methods, results, and even their credentials are called into question.  Many have been denied tenure, lost their funding and even their jobs after publishing results casting doubt on the wisdom of genetic engineering.  This has created a climate of fear within the scientific community and confusion without.  The vast majority of scientists who are willing to speak out are either retired or of retirement age.  They have nothing to lose.  This is all too reminiscent of the historical relationship between the Pope, the kings & queens, the bishops & priesthood and the people.”

Dr Nancy Swanson, The Corruption of Science, The Institute of Science in Society.

The ponerisation of science was also covered at a more recent symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in April 2015. An article by Chief Editor Richard Horton of the respected medical journal The Lancet painted a very bleak picture indeed:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics. National assessment procedures … incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct. Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive. The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system. [9]  [Emphasis mine]

This makes it very easy to understand why Big Pharma and the medical establishment is generally a friend to science, insofar as it directs innovation into a one-way system of share options and cash cows. It also explains why climate science suffers from the same systemic ailments and why the greed of corporatism determines the fate of scientific discoveries which do not conform to official culture. Anything that serves to disrupt that relationship – regardless of the possibility to positively change the fortunes of societies around the world – is entirely irrelevant. Just like any field of research dependent on grants and fearful of career obscurity, scientists play the game and keep mum.

Science is the slave to the current materialist paradigm, come what may.

The same can be said of academia, education and the mainstream media, indeed, any outgrowth of the official narrative which has entrapped our social systems.

Since we have so many of these reports surfacing in the MSM which focus on funding and the poor quality of science journals there is a much deeper reason why this discipline is undergoing a serious decline. Rupert Sheldrake offers some answers in his 2011 book: The Science Delusion (a veiled swipe at evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion) where he questions many of science’s basic ‘truths’, revealing them to be a mixture of assumption and ideologically-based conjecture. He lays out ten core beliefs of modern science, listing some of the fallacies that illustrate the “little picture” mentality and why, as it chases its own tail, it forces the rest of us to do the same:

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots”, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activity of brains.

3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the Universe suddenly appeared).

4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works. [10]

What effects do such a system of beliefs have on mass consciousness? I suggest it acts as a prison as unyielding, dogmatic and valueless as any religious militancy. Moreover, it serves to reinforce a pathological disconnection to our supra-ancient spiritual heritage whilst providing the mechanisms to propagate and ingrain the idea that we are soul-less machines adrift in a cosmic ocean of dead matter – a perfect vision of the psychopath’s worldview. Thus, the post-Renaissance swing to extreme materialism in orthodox science has been a disaster for the development of human potential.

Neither Campbell nor Sheldrake can be termed pseudo-scientists without significant scientific pedigrees. One works for NASA as a Nuclear Physicist and the other a biochemist with a doctorate and double honours from Cambridge University.

It is possible to be a scientist and be open minded and to embody the “the spirit of enquiry.” Isn’t this the definition of true science?

This is where self-awareness, applied knowledge that is networked can become a true marriage of science and “Spirit”. After all, science has already proven that energy is not created and nor does it die, it merely transforms. So, what implications can we draw from this principle? If applied to the latest consciousness studies so far, it indicates that not only does consciousness live on after death but indicates a multi-dimensionality to the concept of Self also suggested by cutting edge science of quantum physics and long since believed in both ancient oral traditions, Western religions and the alchemists of 18th and 19th Centuries.

The above barely scratches the surface of what we are talking about here. It seems during the creative outpouring and frenzied activity of the Industrial Revolution and the later arrival of Darwinism and Malthusian thought of the 19th Century, a catastrophic fracture took place in the minds of man which took the innovations of Natural Selection and consequent discoveries, inverting them into simplistic applications which only told half the story and thereby reducing the human condition to a veritable machine that existed in an ontological abyss, devoid of meaning and purpose. Organisms, including man, were operating on instinct alone and a biological determinism which consigned the idea of a separate individual and collective consciousness to the bin of irrationality.  What if matter was conscious and conscious matter? That the illusion was that there was any separation?


Reductionist Science: An Ivory tower?

Such a hypothesis was discarded along with other potentially creative discoveries or they were exploited by psychopaths and integrated into their predatory worldview away from the knowledge of worlds beyond the five senses and the intelligence within Nature and Cosmos. Economics and politics were brought into the yoke of science along with those personalities which thrived on greed and exploitation. As such, it was inevitable that science would manifest this psychological contagion. Learning, discovery and the joy of creative networking for the good of humanity became subsumed into the leviathan that was the emerging military-corporate complex. Suppression and deflection was carried out by the same authoritarians and social dominators who continue to rise up the ranks of fundamentalist Islam, Orthodox Judaism and the Catholic Church. The religion of Science has the exact same spellbinders and schizoidal workers acting as thought police who brook no deviation from the text book of reductionism.

True science is the method by which humanity can escape from this endless treadmill of unnecessary suffering. It is the spirit of discovery where the accrued knowledge of experience provides wisdom to the coming generations. This fosters greater and greater discoveries that we can apply in order to know our “Spirit-Reality” and the ocean of multi-dimensional probabilities. The science of matter is all but understood. The science of the bigger cosmic picture and our place in the Universe is embryonic, just as the first esoteric scientists found that the cosmos is reflected in each and everyone of us. First we must step out of the reductive sandpit and embrace science beyond what materialists often call a reductio ad absurdum. This describes an approach which would see energy spent disproving such a proposition by showing that its inevitable consequences would be absurd. This is another example of how double speak and paralogical discourse determines the game, ensuring that at no point should science claim new ground, where it becomes personal, individual and worst of all that the networking of truth leads us to explore areas considered “para-normal” or “anomalous”.

The lessons of history also tell us that information, knowledge and the very essence of history from the Bible to World War II has been an exercise in suppression, distortion and disinformation. With the betterment of humanity playing a central part in their philosophies, inventions and ideologies, the most significant minds have been co-opted, assassinated, corrupted or their reputations destroyed so that the human gene pool remains not only amenable to psychopathy but fully embraces the slow march of total replacement, without so much as a whiff of awareness.

Now, THAT is scary.

The survival of the fittest and natural selection takes on a more sinister value in this context.  Since psychopaths have no capacity for higher thought and abstraction it is not hard to imagine what quality and perception such a survival would mean. Making sure the most diverse forms of intelligence, creativity and capacity for cooperative innovation in humanity are eliminated means that eventually the whole human organism suffers, and this is the legacy we are living with in the 21st Century: great expressions of power and predation with no concept of how it can be used to benefit humankind.

Imagine what could have been achieved if such a “Natural Selection” had not taken place? Imagine if science had been used to develop human societies and pursue practical solutions, freedom, creativity and explorations into the unknown for the benefit of all?  We would have no serious health issues, a truly creative education, a natural level of population with no recourse to brutal and deceitful depopulation practices, no environmental pollution, no cancer or auto-immune diseases, no despots, no pornografication of the mind-body complex, no poverty or homelessness and a proper relationship to the animal kingdom and Nature as a whole. Economies would be adjusted according to what works best for the nation, region and locality while free energy would redefine the very concept of globalisation.

The implications are so enormous it is difficult for such potential to fit inside our heads.

The question is, will the pendulum swung back to the centre?



[1] p. 243; The Apocalypse: Comets, Asteroids and Cyclical Catastrophes (2012) Kindle Version
[2] p.118; My Big Toe: Awakening: Volume I By Thomas Campbell. Published by Lightning Strike Books, 2003 | ISBN-10: 0972509402
[3] ‘The Golden Age, Psychopathy and The Sixth Extinction’ 2011, By Laura Knight-Jadczyk,
[4] ‘Bogus science paper reveals peer review’s flaws’ CBC News, October 14, 2013.
[5] Ibid.
[6] ‘Science has lost its way, at a big cost to humanity’ Researchers are rewarded for splashy findings, not for double-checking accuracy. So many scientists looking for cures to diseases have been building on ideas that aren’t even true. Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2013|Michael Hiltzik
[7] ‘What’s wrong with Science’ And Nature. And Cell. A Nobel prize-winner attacks elite journals, The Economist,| Dec 14th 2013.
[8] pp.7-8; The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry By Rupert Sheldrake. Published by Coronet, 2012 | ISBN-10: 1444727923.
[9] ‘Offline: What is medicine’s 5 Sigma?’ By Richard Horton The Lancet, |
[10] ‘Has Modern Science Become Dysfunctional?’ American Society for Microbiology, March 27, 2012 “The recent explosion in the number of retractions in scientific journals is just the tip of the iceberg and a symptom of a greater dysfunction that has been evolving the world of biomedical research say the editors-in-chief of two prominent journals in a presentation before a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) today.”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s