"Science" - The Matrix of Masonic Mind Control
November 29, 2013
Philip Collins explains how the Illuminati took
control of science and determined our assumptions
about the nature of reality.
Scientists play the game or risk persecution.
This article summarizes the thesis of Collins' book, (left.)
"The ruling class seized control of science and used it as an 'epistemological weapon' against the masses."
by Phillip D. Collins
April 27, 2008
As antiquity gave way to modern
history, the religious power structure shifted to an autocracy of the
knowable, or a 'scientific dictatorship.'
Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of science and used it as an 'epistemological weapon' against the masses. This article will show that the history and background of this 'scientific dictatorship' is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry.
The Epistemological Cartel
In The Architecture of Modern
Political Power, Daniel Pouzzner outlines the tactics employed by
the elite... Among them is: 'Ostensible
control over the knowable, by marketing institutionally accredited
science as the only path to true understanding' (Pouzzner, 75).
The word 'science' is derived from the
Latin word scientia, which means 'knowing.' Epistemology is the study
of the nature and origin of knowledge. The ruling
class has bribed the 'bookkeepers' (i.e., natural and social
Meanwhile, the masses practically deify the 'bookkeepers' of the elite, and remain 'ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.' The unknown author of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars provides an eloquently simple summation: 'The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?' (Keith, Secret and Suppressed, 203).
In Brave New World Revisited , Aldous Huxley more succinctly defined this epistemological cartel:
The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries.
Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work' with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown (Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 116).
This is the ultimate objective of the elite: an oligarchy legitimized by arbitrarily anointed expositors of 'knowledge' or, in Huxley's own words, a 'scientific dictatorship.'
The New Theocracy
How did the 'scientific dictatorship' of the twentieth century begin? In earlier centuries, the ruling class controlled the masses through more mystical belief systems, particularly Sun worship. Yet, this would all change. In Saucers of the Illuminati, Jim Keith documents the shift from a theocracy of the Sun to a theocracy of 'science':
Since the Sun God (and his various relations, including sons and wives) were, after several thousands years of worship, beginning to fray around the edges in terms of believability, and a lot commoners were beginning to grumble that this stuff was all made up, the Illuminati came up with a new and improved version of their mind control software that didn't depend upon the Sun God or Moon Goddess for ultimate authority (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78).
Priests and rituals were soon supplanted by a new breed of 'bookkeepers' and a new 'methodology of bookkeeping.' Keith elaborates:
As the Sun/Moon cult lost some of its popularity, 'Scientists' were quick to take up some of the slack. According to their propaganda, the physical laws of the universe were the ultimate causative factors, and naturally, those physical laws were only fathomable by the scientific (i.e. Illuminati) elite (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78-79)...
It must be understood that this new institution of knowing is a form of mysticism like its religious precursors. Contemporary science is predicated upon empiricism, the idea that all knowledge is derived exclusively through the senses. Yet, an exclusively empirical approach relegates cause to the realm of metaphysical fantasy. This holds enormous ramifications for science...
The British Royal Society: (Satanists Remove God from the Universe)
The new secular church and clergy of
the elite originated within the walls of the British Royal Society.
The creators of the Royal Society were also members of the Masonic
Lodge. According to Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln in Holy Blood, Holy
Grail: Before the advent of the British Royal
Society, (1660) science (i.e., the study of natural phenomena) and theology
(i.e., the study of God) were inseparable.
Of course, this conclusion was antithetical to the doctrine of the scientific dictatorship, which contended that 'the physical laws of the universe were the ultimate causative factors' (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78-79). Metaphysical naturalism (i.e., nature is God) had to be enthroned. Meanwhile, God's presence in the corridors of science had to be expunged. To achieve this, the Royal Society created a Gnostic division between science and theology, thus insuring the primacy of matter in the halls of scientific inquiry (Tarpley).
THE DARWIN PROJECT
In the article 'Toward a New Science of Life,' EIR journalist Jonathan Tennenbaum makes the following the statement concerning Darwinism:
Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons (Tennenbaum).
Given Darwinism's roots in occult Freemasonry and its expedient promotion of an emergent species of supermen, this is a fairly accurate assessment. Charles Darwin acted as the elite's apostle, preaching the new secular gospel of evolution. Darwinism could be considered a Freemasonic project, the culmination of a publicity campaign conducted by the Lodge. Evidence for this contention can be found in controversial Protocols of the Wise Men of Sion....
following excerpt from the Protocols, which reads distinctly like a
For them [the masses or cattle] let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim [the masses or cattle] will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of it will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.
Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism [emphasis added], Marxism, and Nietzsche-ism (reprint in Cooper, 274-5).
It was the grandfather of Aldous Huxley, T.H. Huxley, who would act as the 'official spokesman for the recluse Darwin' (White, 268). Many years later, Aldous would propose a 'scientific dictatorship' in Brave New World Revisited. Whether Aldous made this proposition on a whim or was penning a concept that had circulated within the Huxley family for years cannot be determined. Given the family's oligarchical tradition, the latter assertion remains a definite possibility. Yet, there may be a deeper Freemasonic connection, suggesting that the concept of a 'scientific dictatorship' may have originated within the Lodge.
Jim Perloff - Darwin is an Illuminati Scam
----------------- Darwin - Stock Picker
First Comment from Dan:
Science can't even tell us our own history 9,000 years ago. When I minored in Anthropology we were told that agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. This was absolute doctrine. Any student who merely questioned this order of development was ridiculed as an idiot and insubordinate. I never questioned it.
Anthropology isn't a science, because the 'study of Man'  amounts to hypothesis, like Psychology (and Darwinism), so it is 'subjective' whereas Science claims to be 'objective'.
As for the 'agriculture pre-dates Civilization' doctrine, that began to change after 1994 with the excavation of a large mound in the desert near the Turkish/Syrian border. It turned out to be a circular temple of huge stone slabs, many elaborately carved animals and human figures. The site was in use for as long as 3,000 years, and it is 11,000 - 9,000 years old. [2,3] There are no signs of either agriculture OR settlement, so now they're telling us religion pre-dates agriculture AND Civilization. Personally, this is what I had intuitively assumed before I enrolled in Cultural Anthropology 101.
If Science can't tell us whether agriculture or religion pre-dates architecture, how can they tell us the 'Origin of the Species', or whether the Universe started with Big Bang, or is an infinite continuum?
If the scientist takes offense and says, "but Anthropology isn't a Science", my reply is "then why didn't Science correct the Anthropologists?"
The scientist is liable to respond, "that's not my department".
[2,3] Gobelki Tepe