Lest we Forget Anne Glover…

As 2014 draws to an end and Anne Glover disappears back to her monastery, there is a danger that what she said and her actions will be forgotten. So here I record just a few of her strange ideas and remarks with the intention that they will haunt all scientists who, now and in the future, through their Will to Power, seek to establish Scientific Government. Her comments also serve to remind the sane that science and technology are too important to allow scientists and technologists – with their scientific and technological determinism, their reductionist and fragmented minds, and their Enlightenment notions of progress – power to influence the course of development of science and technology, and that if they are so allowed, this will inevitably lead to yet more horrific episodes in the human story, for these have and always will be a consequence of the Will to Power. And so …

From the European Academy of Sciences and Arts Spinoza lecture delivered on 19 November 2013 (http://www.eppa.com/sites/default/files/news/news/attachment/Spinoza%20Lecture.pdf):

1. “We are all entitled to our own opinion but not to our own facts.”

Spoken like a true devote of any Abrahamic religion – no room here for heretics with different facts.

2. “In an ideal world in which policies were based on peer reviewed scientific data, policies would evolve but would not change from one government to the other.”

Spoken like a true totalitarian – in a totalitarian system of government policies evolve but do change significantly with time for they are the prisoners of dogma, and thus comes forth that which is all too familiar …

From the FT article: Finding an element of trust

“We trust industry where it suits us: in the toothpaste we use, the pizza we buy or the car we drive.”

Spoken like someone who demonstrates little understanding of the grim facts of business – we do not trust industry, but look to government to impose regulations on industry because we know that they cannot be trusted. The evidence is clear, and can be found in history books and news and current affairs programmes. There are a countless number of examples, stretching back in time from the present to the early days of industrial capitalism, both high-tech and no-tech, where lack of trust has been fully justified.

Here is just one small and topical example: on January 1^st 2015 VAT regulations in the European Union are changing. In inter-country business-to-consumer transactions, VAT has so far been payable at the rate in force in the country where the business supplying the product or service is based. It will in future be incurred at the rate in force where the EU end-consumer resides. Why is this change being made? The answer is that many major players in the online retail industry deliberately establish their head office in any country offering the best possible VAT rates. And the reason they do this is that directors of these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. And at times this drives companies into unethical and sometimes dishonest business practices, and you will be surprised how easy it is to create such a culture within a company. And I note here, that this is also the case in university science, engineering and technology research departments, where unethical practices and behaviour are the norm. So please – no more nonsense about trusting industry when it suits us. Where money and profits are involved, we need law and its enforcement, for trust does not work. And the same comment applies to scientists, engineers and technologists working in research departments in both the public and the private sector – the Will to Power! We should not trust scientists, engineers or technologists or the organisations that employ them. We need law to make these people and organisations accountable for their actions, and we need investigative journalists and artists willing to expose their collective delusions and their hidden agendas.

In the demise of Anne Glover as a Chief Scientific Advisor, we may have won a small victory, but the war against the madness of science and scientists has not been won. And the comment made by the President of the Royal Society about Anne Glover’s demise serves as a further warning: “Scientific advice must be central to EU policy-making , otherwise you run the risk of having important decisions being unduly influenced by those with mixed motives.” And this, it would seem, was said as though scientists do not give advice with mixed motives! More nonsense from the deluded scientific mind!

My message to all scientists, engineers and technologist who seek power and want a technocratic form of Scientific Government – Soviet style government – is to form a political party and stand for election and then we will be able to see just how extreme and nutty you actually are.

To conclude my 2014 blogs, I look to the future, with the observation that the quest to find an entirely new approach to considering science, engineering and technology in policymaking remains and can be formulated thus: how to achieve the benefits without scientists, engineers and technologists destroying humanity. We have already drifted far too far along the path to destruction and it is now time to begin to walk a different path. And until scientists, engineers and technologist fundamentally change and reject the foundations upon which their practise is based, they should expect to experience an increasing storm of rejection. And this is something for all you deficit model and all we need is better communication thinkers to take note of.

My promise to you for 2015 and beyond is to begin to raise such a storm.

What’s on Anne Glover’s Mind?

If you want to know what is on Anne Glover’s mind, to peer into that mind so dominated by science to the exclusion it seems of everything else, then you can now do so by virtue of the word-cloud that I have created.

Taking the content of interviews, speeches and articles, I pasted all the words into an online word-cloud generator and found, not surprisingly, that the word evidence stands out as being the one most often used. Policy and science also have a high frequency of occurrence.

Creating word-clouds can be interesting, for it gives insights into people’s obsessions and also throws up some surprises, which was the case with Anne Glover’s word-cloud, for, among the dominant words that I expected to see, was one that I did not. And that word was “people”! Being intrigued by this, I delved into the raw data (words) to see what evidence there was for Ann Glover’s apparent interest in people. This proved to be a revelation.

At the same time that I created this particular word-cloud I also generated one for the Transition Movement by taking words from their web site (www.transitionnetwork.org). Here I also found that the word “people” had a very high prominence. The word was used here in the way one would expect for such a movement: people as our fellow human beings, members of communities; people that the movement seeks to involve in the construction of a sustainable world; those that, with encouragement and support, are empowered to make changes in the world, to make it a far better place than it would be if such matters are just left in the hands of those with political power and Chief Scientific Advisors (or former ones).

So Anne Glover, in her words, shares the same interest as the Transition Network? I regret to inform you that this is not the case. What Anne Glover means by people is – others. The concern and interest that Transition Network have for people, as our fellow human beings to be empowered, and to be respected as human beings and treated with great humanity, is simply not evident in Anne Glover’s words, and for this reason I modified the input text, replacing “people” with the word “others”.

And the above is one of the reasons why we need to drive scientific types out of government and to deny them access to power, because they do not think in terms of humanity – they see human beings as machines, and this is one of the fundamental flaws in Western science and one of the reasons why, as I discussed last week, people should turn against a science based on this philosophy.

About this matter I will say more in future blogs. For the moment though I close by saying that the priests and priestesses of science, engineering and technology, need to be rendered powerless by sending them back to their monasteries. Society must now find a new way of dealing with science, technology and engineering matters in policy making, without giving these vested interests any power at all. And do not expect to find ideas for such in the minds of scientists. The responses from the scientific world that resulted from Anne Glover’s demise are truly frightening and serve to remind that battle against the cold inhumane logic of these outdated Enlightenment thinkers is only beginning. It is a battle that humanity cannot afford to lose.

Power belongs in the hands of ordinary people and their democratically elected representatives, and not in the hands of Chief Scientific Advisors who choose to work secretly, which, if you care to look, is how those who conspire to obtain power by deception operate.

And for making us aware of all the above and the need for a new approach to addressing matters of science, engineering and technology in policy making, we should thank Anne Glover, for she serves as a warning of the dangers lurking unseen inside the minds of scientist, engineers and technologists, and others too, who, working together, are seeking to establish their theocracy, their new world order – the rule of science and reason, which will, without any doubt, turn out to be yet another crime against humanity.

And as for the word-cloud, known as What’s on Anne Glover’s Mind, you can see this at the following web link (there may be a delay loading and you will need to accept the running of Java): http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/8394472/What%27s_on_Anne_Glover%27s_Mind%3F

Should People Reject Western Science in its Present Form?

Anne Glover Science: In an ideal world, in which policies were based on peer reviewed scientific data, policies would evolve but would not change from one government to another.

Reality: In a totalitarian system of government policies evolve but do change significantly with time for they are the prisoners of dogma, and thus comes forth that which is all too familiar …

This week I reflect upon the question: should the peoples of the world reject Western science – aka Anne Glover science – in its present form? The answer is that they are already doing so, and more should follow their example. And based on what Anne Glover is on record of saying, the faster they do this the better, for she will ultimately be seen as one of the most dangerous people that ever lived, for she, and other scientists, seed, through their fragmented and reductionist thinking, a human catastrophe the likes of which … But you do not believe this, nor do you want to hear about this matter. You never do. If anyone has said in 1933 what the Nazis would do, no-one would have believed them. You will therefore not believe what will flow from words spoken by foolish scientists here in the year 2014.

It is fear of people turning against science that is one of the factors that underlies all the initiatives that I mentioned in my blog from a few weeks past. People no longer trust scientists, and there are many high profile scientists, those that I call the nutty professors, who well illustrate why we should not trust scientists, not to mention the actions of industry (and their unholy alliances with the scientific communities) who have used science in the pursuit of profit, and in doing so, have left a legacy of toxicity, environmental degradation, over consumption … The list is quite long!

Those in power, the establishment, are worried and are seeking to placate the public through a number of measures, often based on the notion of better communication, but which do not satisfactorily address the deep rooted problems that exist within Western science – deep flaws that cannot be corrected without reinventing science through the development of new philosophical foundations and new beliefs and values, quite different in nature to the ones upon which Western science is based.

Those who have managed to read to this point, or have not become outraged already by the above heresy, might have noticed that I posed the question in terms of turning against European (Western) science, not turning against science as an intellectual means of understanding more about nature and the universe. I know this might come as a surprise to many Europeans, given that they are Europeans, but there are many ways of undertaking science, for science (and also engineering and technology) are culturally determined. Put simply, Western science – in which I also include engineering and technology – reflects the values and beliefs of European culture, which could be summarised as making a virtue of living life like a plague of locusts. It is also fundamentally Abrahamic in character, and hence is bound up with sole truths which are divinely reveal to humanity – in the past by God, but now by science (which is a God substitute).

European scientists, engineers, and technologists are living the values of beliefs of the period known as the Enlightenment. That is roughly 1600 to 1820. Do not therefore be fooled by the apparent modern look to science – it is a case of 21^st century knowledge and technology, 17^th century values and beliefs. And it is this observation which partly provides the answer to the question previously posed, in earlier blogs, concerning scientists, engineers and technologists – why so smart yet so dumb? Anne Glover, now the former Chief Scientific Advisor to the previous President of the European Commission, through her naïve comments, serves as an exemplar of this phenomenon. But she is not alone, as was clearly revealed by the worms in the woodwork that emerged to support the notion of having a Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission. These worms are advocating technocracy (another form of theocracy) – the rule of science and reason. Scientists are very keen to impose this on the world, and naively believe that ethics will prevent this from becoming yet another European horror story: why so smart yet so dumb?

The science, engineering and technology that we see in the world today, are European in character, and those in the developing world, those who have for far too long been subjected to the imposition of European culture, should recognise this, and begin to develop science, engineering, and technology based on their own cultures. This is something that I have being working on for the past 30 years and its now time to pull together the various threads to show peoples in India, China, and other places what they are doing by accepting this Western model and how they could develop a much more powerful and sophisticated approaches based upon their own traditional cultures. And in doing this not only can they develop approaches that are based on harmony with nature (rather than control, conquest and domination which is the European way), but also unleash on Europe the forces of creative destruction, and in so doing bring to an end European cultural dominance in the world.

If the world is to ever achieve a sustainable way of living, European culture, which is at the source of the problem of sustainability, has to be changed. The force of creative destruction is one of the ways to achieve this and to create the circumstances where Europeans will have to stop being European. This is how the unbreakable chains that bind Europe (otherwise known as Prometheus) to the rock of the past will be smashed. This is how to set Europe free and to render ineffective those like Anne Glover who are the personification of the Prometheus syndrome.

The modern scientist is the embodiment of the Will to Power.

More to follow in future blogs …

Anne Glover Science – for those situations when Nazi Super Science is just not evil enough

So, with the abolition of the post of Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission, one scientist’s Will to Power is thwarted, and Anne Glover will have to return to her monastery. But this is not the time for celebration, for although one tiger is back in the cage, there are many more of them stalking the world, pursuing their ambition to impose the rule of science and reason, which if you will care to recall, had is last major outing in the world in the 1930s, with its main proponents being Stalin and Hitler. But we have short memories and we have already forgotten the major role that the scientific mind played in the creation of the perverse systems of government that both these tyrants gave birth to. We have not learned the lessons and we still do not recognise the danger lurking in the minds of scientists like Anne Glover, with her secret activities and her open disdain for politicians and democratic institutions such as the European Parliament.

With the above in mind, this week I continue with the technique called de-familiarisation – making the familiar seem strange – that I wrote about last week. So now I introduce to you Anne Glover’s science: for those cases when Nazi super science is just not evil enough. I invite you now to enter the scientists’ very dangerous world of delusion and denial.

This place of delusion and denial is one, where it is believed, the world can be known in an objective manner. Science provides the means to do this in a way that is devoid of any values and beliefs that the observer may hold. The observer and the observed system are independent: one does not affect the other. Reality exists and is independent of the observer – the observer by observing discovers the truth – the sole truth. And from this value based statement flows the nonsense that Anne Glover and other scientists speak, both through their words, and also through their silent narrative, which is …

“The world, the universe, nature, our lives, can only be properly understood through science, and all other ways of knowing the world are inferior and irrelevant.

“Anyone who does not agree with scientists and rejects science is suffering from a deficit. These “others” need to be re-educated, and science, as the all knowing and all powerful way of revealing the sole truth, will appropriate art for the purpose of communicating with these “others” to correct this deficit – which is defect in the mind – to make such people, normal, for the rejection of science is wholly abnormal.

“Science is the only way that the human condition can be improved, and this will be achieved through the application of science for commercial ends, and, in creating even more prosperity for Europeans through this process, those in less developed parts of the world will also benefit as the crumbs fall from the table of the already over prosperous. This is the natural order of the world at work, the product of evolution, which made Europeans the dominant culture in the world.

“Science will also solve all the problems of humanity, bringing forth a golden age, when science and reason will rule, and everyone will live wonderful lives, free from disease, poverty, injustice, prejudice, oppression, and so forth, for self-evidently these are all problems that only science can solve, and in doing so we will make Europeans even more prosperous.

“Scientists can redesign nature to make it better than that which evolution has produced. Through science we can gain control over the natural world. We will become the masters of nature. People too will be improved. All the variety in humanity that nature produces – all those disabilities than make people different from the normal – will be corrected, or eliminated. Science will create the perfect human being – a normal human being. Science will also produce enhancements to human beings, giving people more powerful eyes, better brains, more robust limbs, and so for. Science will extend human life far beyond that which evolution has determined to be our natural lifespan. We will create the super-human.

“Only science can deliver the above, which is why politicians must do what scientists tell them. Science is too important to be ignored. It provides the basis on which the people, the “others”, will be governed. It is all for the greater good, which is why we cannot allow the “others” to stand in the way of progress. This is a matter that is too important to allow people, the “others” to decide upon.

“Fortunately the European Union provides the perfect forum to implement this change in the nature of government, for like the Soviet Union, it is modelled on the idea of technocracy, where experts rule and the people, the ruled, the others, do as the experts tell them: When people are allowed to choose they choose wrongly.

“And thus will come about the ideal circumstance: policies will evolve, but will not change significantly from one European Commission Presidency to another.”

The above is a manifestation of the Will to Power. It is an evil that is destroying humanity, and will in the end lead to all those things that have shown Europeans and their culture to be one of the most violent and destructive forces in humanity’s still brief history. It will ultimately lead once more to:

A totalitarian system of government where policies evolve but do change significantly with time for they will be the prisoners of dogma, and thus will come forth that which is all too familiar …

Anne Glover and her science are an evil that will ultimately enslave humanity in a cold and barbarous system of living where defective machines – aka human beings – will be decommissioned when their economic utility has expired. The conditions that will bring this about are those that will result from the social, economic and political circumstances that will prevail as an unsustainable civilisation begins to adapt itself to an environment where there are too many people, not enough resources, and increasingly violent and murderous conflicts founded in Abrahamic ideology and dogma (i.e. conflicts among the seven Abrahamic thought systems that I mentioned in a previous blog). It is already happening and society is blind to this, which is why I now write that which will appear in my next blog …