Phillip Collins joins us to discuss Contingent Divinity, which will be discussed in a section of the Collins’ brothers forthcoming book, tentatively titled, Invoking the Beyond.
Category: Scientific Dictatorship
Electronic communication and rapid transportation make possible a stifling world government. Techniques such as genetic engineering, psychoactive drugs and electronic control of the brain make possible a transformation of the species into docile, fully-obedient, 'safe' organisms.
- A philosophical critique of the fallacies and dogma of scientism
- Corroboration of the latter: climate alarmism has no philosophical, let alone scientific basis; it amounts to petty totalitarianism of would-be Philosopher Kings, at best
- Nikola Tesla in his own words
- Jon Rappoport on the Trilateral Commission’s secret influence – then (Carter) and now (Obama)
- Short article about Masonic Muslims during the 19th century (with good sources for further study)
- New study: Laid to Waste: Depleted uranium contaminated scrap in Iraq
- Good point on why the media deliberately downplayed (or ignored) the amply-documented monstrous deeds of convicted baby-killer extraordinaire, Kermit Gosnell, but fell over themselves to report on hyped reports of dead babies in a “septic tank”
- New book on Mormonism and masonry; meanwhile, previous studies have already documented the overt influence of the occult (alchemy, divining, kabbalah, astrology, hermeticism, antinomianism, divinization, rosicrucianism, “white magic” and the efficacy of witchcraft and sorcery – to name a few).
by Phillip D. Collins ©, Sept. 9th, 2006
Anatomy of a Weltanschauungskrieg
Historically, humanity has divided somewhat evenly into two diametrically opposed camps: those who subscribe to a spiritual, theistic Weltanschauung and those who do not. The philosophical milieu of ancient Greece illustrates this division. In the theistic camp, one would find the likes of Socrates and Plato. In the atheistic camp, one would find Democritus and Protagoras. While the more deistic philosophies of both Lucretius and Aristotle might present some exceptions to this division, one could convincingly argue that deism is little more than a camouflaged form of atheism.
Since the inception of the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung, numerous permutations of this philosophical camp have emerged. Materialists, behaviorists, physicalists, functionalists, secular humanists, and Marxists are just a few of the resulting variants. To be sure, the countless theoreticians of these anti-theistic and anti-spiritual camps have had their occasional epistemological feuds. Yet, all share the same core metaphysical convictions: matter holds primacy and the ontological plane of the physical universe constitutes the totality of reality itself.
Of course, the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung adamantly opposes most, if not all, religions. However, most contemporary movements that have ostensibly eschewed a spiritual outlook have sociologically behaved like religions. Communism and fascism are two such cases in point. How does one explain this paradox? It is this researcher’s contention that the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung was spawned by an older religion. This religion is purely occult in character and, because it acted as the progenitor for the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung, it remains deeply embedded within the ostensibly secular mind. Thus, even the most stridently secular movements are conceptually predisposed to religious thought and behavior. Ultimately, the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung is designed to relocate the Eschaton of Heaven and Hell within the ontological plane of the physical universe. Simultaneously, it relocates God within man himself. The final result is a control ideology devoted to the transformation of prima materia and a secular religion devoted to the apotheosis of man.
by Paul and Phillip Collins ©, March 21st, 2006
The New Theocracy
In many ways, epistemology is like an economic system. With all the right theoreticians in all the right places, one can arbitrarily bestow epistemological primacy upon those paradigms that are most socially and politically expedient. In such a climate of epistemological suppression, academic and institutional barriers prevent competitors from accessing the ideational marketplace. Meanwhile, a self-proclaimed cognitive elite monopolizes the economy of popular thought. This oligopoly of knowledge, in short, amounts to an epistemological cartel, promoting its anointed ideologues and squelching cognitive dissenters.
Within the traditional theocratic power structures of antiquity, state sanctioned priesthoods constituted epistemological cartels. The Pharisees that engineered the crucifixion of Jesus Christ provide a stellar example. The Mystery cults of Mesopotamia supply another. In both cases, an elite few exercised rigid control over the knowable. In so doing, they maintained the socioeconomic dominance of political oligarchs. Within their authoritarian economy of thought, ideas like “liberty” and “human dignity” were appropriated no currency.
However, it was a state of affairs that would inevitably change. As the ruling elite’s religious institutions began to lose credibility with the masses, it became apparent that the oligarchs would have to adopt a more secular system of control. The result of this transformation was the emergence of what Aldous Huxley called a “scientific dictatorship.” Huxley explains:
by Phillip D. Collins ©, Feb. 10th, 2006
As the mists of antiquity gradually receded and history welcomed modernity, the old theocratic power structures were gradually supplanted by secular theocracies governed by science. No doubt, the chronocentric impulses of the contemporary mind compel many to consider this shift an advancement in “political, social, and cultural evolution.” However, although these new theocracies are veiled in secularism, it must be understood that their new state-sanctioned epistemology is a form of mysticism akin to its religious progenitor. This truth is illustrated by radical empiricism’s rejection of causality, which stipulates the investment of faith in the purported results of scientific research. Likewise, the new state-sanctioned metaphysics is equally mystical in character. Accompanying radical empiricism is materialism, the metaphysical contention that matter holds primacy.
by Phillip D. Collins ©, Nov. 17th, 2005
One of the many dialectics that has divided humanity throughout history is spiritualism against materialism. As is typically the case with dialectics, the competing ideational entities involved in the conflict are not dichotomously related. Instead, they represent variants of metaphysical irrationality. One elevates the soul to the detriment of the physical body. The other elevates the physical body to the detriment of the soul. Invariably, the synthesis of these two results in cynical nihilism and the primacy of some authoritarian Gnosticism. It was just such a dialectical climate that Christianity successfully circumvented.
In the present cultural milieu, which is experiencing a resurgence of Gnosticism, one of Christianity’s primary goals should be to re-establish the human body as an object of reverence and avoid the morbid preoccupation with death that is intrinsic to the polar extremes comprising the aforementioned dialectic. Otherwise, Western civilization shall become a culture of death. If this sounds like an exaggeration, then one need only consider the case of Terri Schiavo. The state-sanctioned murder of Schiavo is a direct corollary of America’s descent into cultural nihilism and Gnosticism.
Via the Bruce Collins site: “Paul and Phillip Collins are the authors of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship. Paul D. Collins has studied suppressed history and the shadowy undercurrents of world political dynamics for roughly eleven years. Paul has authored another book entitled, The Hidden Face of Terrorism. Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism. He has also written articles for Paranoia Magazine and B.I.P.E.D.: The Official Website of Darwinian Dissent. They both write articles at www.conspiracyarchive.com.”
Talking about, among other things, their new article Psychologizing Subservience: The Era of Psuchikos Man.
The means [toward utopia] - dictatorship of the proletariat, hidden or open rule of the technocrat, the cultural engineer, the planner, Robert Owen, H. G. Wells, Etienne Cabet, B. F. Skinner - is often, indeed usually, quite definitely the work of an elite.
by Erik G. Magro ©, Aug. 16th, 2005
The Victorian Age in England was a time of dramatic changes, new inventions, the Industrial Revolution, and an introduction to new ideologies, all of which would transform the way significant portions of society lived and thought of life forever. The overwhelming external changes in daily life during this period would match in intensity the nature of changes happening in the internal lives of the public. Charles Darwin, as a naturalist, helped usher in this change after a long voyage to the South Seas where he observed several widely unknown species. In 1859, a year after his return, he presented his observations in a book, The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In it he deduced from their widely diverse natures a common thread that linked all species to a single ancestor; the Theory of Evolution as he called the phenomenon soon became a household word and stirred up massive controversy and debate, still resounding today. The implications of Darwin’s theory created a deep divide in culture, a conflict of natural versus supernatural order. Not only did it offer an alternate account of the genesis of life from the Old Testament, but it also gave a sense of moral freedom from the divine Creator and His judgment; it became a cause unto itself in society among leaders in political and industrial circles, effecting science and academia. Darwinism, as the collection of theories was called, changed the course of man’s history forever.
In the immediate aftermath of unleashing the evolution theory to the public, the common man was faced with a choice of how to look at life and live it. Among those exposed to these choices were some of the most important men in the business community, men who could, with their influence of wealth and power, determine the lifestyles of the middle class population by means of their product prices, work policies, and wages in the factories they owned. A staunch supporter of evolution, Herbert Spencer, developed the social application of Darwinism, which was highly influential on the practices of such powerful moguls. The ideology was known as Social Darwinism and made use of the models Darwin used to describe evolution in nature, namely, survival of the fittest and natural selection. These orders of development were the philosophical basis that publicly justified the methods factory owners were already applying in their businesses to stay competitive. As leaders of industry, they believed they had the right to impose whatever treatment they saw fit for those below them on the social ladder.