The Age of Transition and Scientism Fraud

scientismBy Jay Dyer

Ours is the great transition age. For the masses, the glowing assumption is that the transition and transformation age we are undergoing is the work of a long, evolutionary process of “natural” “progress.” Wandering about their bubbles, these presuppositions never go challenged or examined, having dobbed their cafeteria plate lives from a long string of newsbite phrases and empty slogans overheard in establishment schooling. “We are evolving,” and “We live in an era of change,” and numerous other advertising blurbs that underlie modernity’s plastic ideology actually form the basis for most of humanity’s worldview. Yet are any of these assumptions actually true? Are we in living in an era of “progress” and “human ascent”?

I answer in the negative and the reasons for my dark assessment are many. Listening to a recent interview between someone of a truly skeptical bent with a figure in the scientism/skeptical crowd, I was irked to hear a bevy of fallacies and incongruences and unexamined assumptions that will here be analyzed with scalpel-like precision. As mentioned above, what precisely is meant by the terms “evolution,” “change,” “progress” and “Nature”? According to those in the ranks of establishment scientism, these are givens, terms of brute factuality and reason, all of which mystically coalesce to give us the “best possible model” of the world under the new grand narrative mythos of “science.”

What is meant by “evolution”? According to modern scientism, the observation of small-scale changes in a species that appear to aid in the species’ extension into the future through reproduction is the basic understanding of evolutionary adaptation. Thus, because certain breeds of animals can be bred with fitter members of the species, we can extrapolate that large-scale aeons of time resulted in the origins of all life from a single amoeba. When it is pointed out that aeons – millions of years – of adaptation and change are not observed, the reply is that bacteria purportedly adapt under conditions of pressure. Thus, it follows that all life mutated under conditions of pressure to “evolve” into what we see today.

On the surface, this has an appearance of being reasonable. Almost no one denies micro-evolutionary adaptation and change, that within the mechanics of various organisms there resides the DNA programming to adapt to environmental circumstances. Where the bait and switch comes is the dogmatic assertion that from this observation, it is certain that all life originated from a single cell millions of years ago, following billions of years of “Big Bang” expansion. The evidence for these theories nowadays is, of course, taken as dogmatic fact, with any dissension on these matters scorned and mocked. Why? Because religion is irrational and “unscientific” and cannot be tested. Yet can these assertions be tested as scientific?

Destroy them with Weird Psyience!

Destroy them with Weird Psyience!

The reply is that they are proven by carbon dating and observing various UV rays that appear to “expand” from the presumed “singularity” point. There are numerous problems with these claims, but the most glaring will suffice in illustration. First, carbon dating is notoriously unreliable, with examples of testing on recent artifacts showing outrageous time stamps for items that are manifestly not ancient. Further, the carbon dating itself works on the assumption of millions of years of evolutionary, chaotic flux, which begs the question. In other words, if your testing methods already operate on the assumption that matter is aeons in age, then the results of the tests are obviously predetermined.

Second, the appearance of light expanding from some locale is only as coherent as the assumption that it comes from some point of singularity, of which there is absolutely no observable evidence. As you point these facts out to those enmeshed in the religion of scientism, many will admit these are “theories,” but they are “the best models we have.” Says whom? Why does the scientism crowd never admit they are subject to biases and greed (for grants)? How is it that science or the lab is magically averse to the failings of the rest of human endeavors? “Ah, well, yes, it is subject to those things, but that is the beauty of science, we are always changing and adapting our theories to fit the evidence,” the general response comes.

To a degree, this is true. Science does posit new theories and does refine its previous analyses as new data emerges. Yet as I’ve pointed out many times, for this methodology to be consistent, they would have to also conduct scientific experiments into the question of the empirical scientific method itself, as well as its governing assumptions. This is never, ever done, aside from one establishment-funded study that tried to implicate lab bias into a ridiculous Marxist framework. On the contrary, there is a motivating impetus to not conduct this kind of investigation, because it would expose much of scientism’s fraud and deception, where we would discover the scientific establishment is the servant of the same master as the banking, economic and entertainment fields, all of which operate under the (fallacious) umbrella of consensus reality.

The scientific establishment is a hierarchy that operates just like any other corporation of government entity, where knowledge is apportioned on a need-to-know basis. Biologists are afraid, for example, to speak on the matter of physics because they aren’t “physicists,” while mathematicians are afraid to speak on the matter of astronomy because they aren’t “astronomers.” This ridiculous segmentation of knowledge (and there is nothing wrong with specialization) is itself also predicated on the presupposition of scientism, that reality is not a meaningful, coherent universe, but a random, chaotic mutation of accidental consequence. “It just is,” becomes the scientistic refrain, and if you don’t accept that premise and consider any other options, you are a fool.

What begins to become clear is that this is a weighted game that has nothing to do with discovering what is true, objective and “factual” in the “natural world,” but rather a realm of gatekeepers that demand adherence to a predefined set of orthodoxies that determine who is a “scientist” and who is worthy of “peer review.” Furthermore, scientism is entirely grounded in an old, outdated epistemology known as empiricism which has been dissected, refuted and annihilated so many times by cogent philosophers and logicians its continued existence is ironically miraculous. Of all the persons who ought to adhere to their much-touted “logic” and “reason,” these fools are the most irrational, incoherent and nonsensical of all, as they perpetually melt under the 100 degree flame of foundational presuppositional inquiry (and that’s a lab test I’ve done many times that appears to always hold true).

Scientism is your friend!

Scientism is your friend!

Arrogantly assuming they know, when in fact they do not (having a gadfly appearance of knowledge), scientism likes logic when it suits, quickly to discard and dispense with such rigors when the heat comes. “All human knowledge comes through sense experience” begins their assumptions, yet when pressed as to whether this proposition itself is a fact of sense data (which it obviously is not), universal claims suddenly dissipate and this great commandment is hailed as an obvious given. It’s a new maxim, a new commandment from the gods of the Enlightenment, and you daren’t ask such questions. Yet if science is so groundbreaking and revolutionary in character, why is it so afraid of these basic questions of epistemology?

The general reply at this stage is that science cannot, should not and will not answer such absurd “metaphysical” questions. Now wait a minute here – on what basis did this suddenly get shelved into the “metaphysical” category? Says whom? By what standard does the individual scientist know that asking questions of this nature are “metaphysical,” as opposed to questions concerning lab data? You begin to see how many and multifaceted the mere assumptions are for scientism to operate. Despite the fact that their starting point is a foundational contradiction, the rest of the world is expected to gaze in awe upon the entire edifices that are constructed upon these fallacies, with rational inquiry unwelcomed. This, you see, is the role of philosophy, and is quite clearly the reason true philosophical inquiry it is hated by scientism (as Tyson recently demonstrated).

Also crucial to note is the structure of scientism and the establishment, whose fraudulent bases are continuously exposed openly, with the public becoming none the wiser. This year alone papers were produced from peer review that give the appearance of black holes being both impossible and non-existent, as well as existing. “Dark matter” pervades our universe, yet, wait, no it’s back to ancient conceptions of aether. Quantum physics is real, yet wait, it is pseudo-science theory. In other words, “science,” like all the other industries, operates under the public’s naïve assumption that it is a unified, governing body of non-biased, neutral geniuses, engaged in the noble endeavor of furthering the “progress” of human “knowledge.” Again we see those amorphous, undefined, inchoate terms.

Simple philosophical questions should come to bear on these multitudes of theories, and were “scientists” better trained in logic and metaphysics(which they are not), we might avoid many of these ridiculous pitfalls. For example, if Einstein’s relativity is true, there is no fixed point of reference from which to determine which stellar bodies are orbiting which, nor the theory that the universe expanded from a single, compressed atomic mass. This preposterous notion is a clear signpost of the irrationality of scientism, as is the popular theory of how planets formed – that random chunks of space dust got caught in orbits, started spinning, and over billions of years, like bellybutton lint, congealed into a sphere from which life happened to spring forth from primal sludge. Truly it is the case that only academics could believe such fairy tales which are far more laughable than religious creation narratives.

And so the age of transition is not the transition into the era of utopian scientific progress, transhumanism, technological immortality and United Nations kumbaya most think, it is the age of transitioning away from all traditional forms of culture. It is the age of transition into a new global mythology that is created and manufactured in the same way the culture industry creates cultures in various regions and nations. It is a scientific dictatorship that is not scientific, but dogmatic, fascist and hierarchically structured on a need-to-know basis that blatantly hides, obfuscates and rejects actual data and information about human origins and life, only to be replaced by the most preposterous theories of primal sludge, lint ball planets and imagined aeons of unobserved billions of years, meaninglessly exploding forth from the universe’s (Fantasia level) singularity point.

This is not progress, these retarded theories are a regress into explanatory models with no explanatory power. They need to be called out for what they are – replacement mythologies – that are rehashed forms of ancient atomism, dressed up in scientistic garb. It is time to reject these phonies, liars, dupes and establishment hacks, and recognize they suppress real science and inquiry for the purpose of control. Their control is not about human progress, but the Orwellian opposite, the dysgenics plan of destroying man. We need only think of the Lancet, Oxford’s most prestigious medical journal, whose editor recently stated in a matter-of-fact tone that half the world’s scientific literature is fraudulent:

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“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.” (source)

This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more.

It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. “Credible” medical journals continue to lose their tenability in the eyes of experts and employees of the journals themselves, like Dr. Horton.

He also went on to call himself out in a sense, stating that journal editors aid and abet the worst behaviours, that the amount of bad research is alarming, that data is sculpted to fit a preferred theory. He goes on to observe that important confirmations are often rejected and little is done to correct bad practices. What’s worse, much of what goes on could even be considered borderline misconduct.

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” (source)

You can read more from Jay Dyer at his site Jay’s Analysis.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

18 Comments on "The Age of Transition and Scientism Fraud"

  1. Thank you to Jay for calling out the Science and Academia Frauds. There are a lot of them and it pays well.

    Thank goodness for Jay’s clear, cool, penetrating and brilliant mind. We need more like him!

    Richard Wilcox
    “Reporting from Tokyo”

  2. Having just been on a crash course the last few days catching up on the latest findings on the theory of an electrical universe on The Thunderbolts Project Youtube channel, I’m freshly familiar with what polite scientific discourse looks like. It starts with a general recounting of what the current accepted theories are, then moves on to unanswered questions about the current theory, then to why observations do not match current theory, then to how observations do match the new theory. This is how science works when it works properly. Politics, turf wars, and career defense do interrupt this process, but never forever, as there is always a new generation of scientists eager to knock their predecessors off their pedestals. “Science advances one funeral at a time” — Max Planck

    Evolutionary theory is a particularly interesting case in point. I’ve divided the arguments into three camps: The “Nobody did it” camp believes it’s all random mutation; The “God did it” camp believes a higher power, overseeing the entire universe, masterfully designed everything; and the “We did it” camp allows that individual organisms have greater leeway in designing themselves than science currently understands or religionists would ever acknowledge. If you’ve never heard of this theory of self-design it’s because the other two camps, religionists and scientists, deny it could exist, the former because it takes away power from “God”, and the latter because it doesn’t fit current theory. (See _Quantum Evolution – How Physic’s Weirdest Theory Explains Life’s Biggest Mystery_ by Johnjoe McFadden for more on this)

    There have been major scientific revolutions in the past and there will be more in the future. We are fortunate to be able to observe one going on right now as the theory of an electric universe gains ground. I’ve been pleased to have my open-mindedness tested by this theory, comfortably letting go of much of what I “know” about how the universe works in favor of what stunning, astounding observations from our accelerating space exploration program is showing us about what is actually out there. If you love science and real answers, take a look at what’s going on in electrical universe theory — it’s bigger than the revolutionary realizations that the Earth isn’t flat, or that the sun doesn’t orbit the Earth.

    • The Electric Universe Theory fails to understand that the ‘plasma’ of the sun, is the building blocks of all there is. Keshe Foundation actually defines this Plasma in his book “The Structure of Light”.
      At magneticwaterscience we show how these bars of light or the suns plasma form a 4 sided pyramidal structure that Democritis called the “atom” and is the building block for the entire universe and its most basic pure form is WATER. Thales said ‘everything is water’ and Democritis simplified the theory by stating what water is comprised of, namely the Suns Plasma being bars of energy which form matter by coming together in the simplest format being 6 bars forming a 4 sided pyramid or an ‘atom’.
      With this understanding of the EU and Plasma we have built more than 30 devices that turn water into crude oil and crude oil back into water just like the Earth does to underground water. The Electric Sun is a ball of water with continual ‘lightning strikes’ for “light”. Electricity is water to, just like Thales said.
      Keep going Tom, soon you will understand what the ancients knew but science has buried.
      The EU theory is kindergarten entry level of the New Atomic Model.
      The Periodic Table of the Elements is utter nonsense for the Atomic structure and should be renamed, The Periodic Table of Stableised Magnetic Resonant Field Patterns of Water.

      • On the contrary, the Electric Universe Theory INCORPORATES plasma physics into its model.
        And you are a scoundrel for trying to spread that lie.

        • Well Willy, your scoundrel comprehension skills failed to understand that I said the EU FAILS to UNDERSTAND the nature of the plasma and that the suns plasma is the building blocks for EVERYTHING (all their is). And in so, obsoleting and eliminating the particle theories of electrons and protons as building blocks. I did not say it did not incorporate it. I said it did not understand what it is. Unless of course you wish to send a link as to what Thunderbolts define “Suns Plasma” as.

          The EU does not know what ‘electricity’ is. If you do please explain Lord Kelvins “thunderstorm’.

          The EU does not understand what the Plasma structure is. Keshe ‘s books have come 15 years after the explanation I have given as to how ‘plasma bars’ form Matter and energy as we know it.

          The EU does not understand the Aether as so knows not the intelligent design behind the universe. Einstein was responsible for removing the Aether against Tesla’s better judgement.
          They promoted with nobel prizes fanciful imaginative theories against laboratory inventions.
          Name calling is not scientific, nor is lack of comprehension skills.

          • William Burke | August 16, 2015 at 9:09 pm |

            Glad we cleared that one up!

            So “The Electric Universe Theory fails to understand” means what YOU meant to say, but didn’t, not what it would generally be taken to mean. By people who use English honestly, I mean….

          • Lynn Eykamp | August 16, 2015 at 10:29 pm |

            You FAIL to say (or give a link) as to what the EU says what ‘suns plasma’ is.
            Please do it in plain english if you can.
            would be glad if you cleared that one up too

            Are you having a bad day at the alphabet troll office agency? Bored with life so you abuse posters with data and experiments to back up what they say/mean as a way to earn your daily troll wage?

            Could you for once in your life actually contribute to a debate like explain what ‘plasma’ is according to the Electric Universe theory?” As a paid up member of thunderbolts forum I couldn’t find it.

            If not I and the rest of the world will see you for what you are. If not a troll then just another internet armchair critic based upon other internet armchair critics opinions. Good luck with that.

          • William Burke | August 16, 2015 at 10:41 pm |

            I don’t speak for the EU people. You’ve obviously mistaken me for someone who does.

  3. “This is not progress, these retarded theories are a regress into explanatory models with no explanatory power.”

    This is precisely the “crux of the biscuit”, as a friend of mine used to say. The Big Bang, like “Global Warming”, is new age religion disguised as science. One day our descendants, if we have any, will be deeply amused at these abuses, which are essentially no different from the Salem Witch Trials.

    • And Further, the EU theory hasnt a clue as to how the sun makes and emits such large quantities of plasma. It knows not what ‘light’ is, if it did, it could also explain why a match gives off light. And of course your witch trials will give evidence of where all them electrons come from at a coal fired power station without ‘restructuring matter’ from such a huge vacuum suction action around the spinning magnet generators giving us the answer as to what is electricity and why its similar to an acid/lead vessel.
      Do you have anything positive to say or are all you posts just negative diatribe?

  4. nice one sk 1961

  5. The ‘peer review’ process is all about statusquo – publish the current dogma or perish.

  6. If your micro understanding of the atomic structure is wrong and you use this model to understand the sun and the universe it follows that there will be flaws in the theory. The EU has no understanding of magnetic fields that are symbiotic with gravity quote “Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015

    August 16, 2015 by sschirott

    In the theoretical sciences, it is commonly assumed that the role of
    gravity is settled. But as Richard Feynman observed, “There is no model
    of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.”
    If you want to buy the first gallon you will have to come to Australia. There exists at magneticwaterscience videos of making water burn like petrol with a few seconds of DC current from a battery, turning water into oil and burning it and running any liquid through a magnetic field turning it into drinking water, even fresh concrete into water (stones and all) But you need to ask nicely and with reasons why I should give you the password to something politically incorrect and not in the interests of national oil hegemony security. We have been doing this water into oil and the opposite and equal reaction for 20 years and some dozens of devices exist to do it many ways. We are not going away unless we are removed.
    Having sent Thronhill an email explaining this science of electromagnetically restructuring water and matter I got no reply. It upsets his pet theory too.
    Thronhill knows his theory is incorrect but he expects academia to fix it for him not some inventor in Oz.
    As stated before, EU theory is kindergarten stuff but its better than the fantasy of the periodic table. The atomic structure has no protons or neutrons in no imaginary nucleus. These particles do not exist as part of any atom. read more at website

  7. Man o Man! I love this essay.

  8. “certain breeds of animals can be bred with fitter members of the species”? The author demonstrates very clearly a significant failure to understand evolutionary theory. Individuals exhibit small changes from their forebearers, and if those changes benefit the individual, that individual will have more reproductive success than relatives without the beneficial change. I am not familiar with evolutionists arguing that evolution aids in the “extension” of the species. The opposite is in fact the case, as species pass out of existence over time. According to the author, scientists believe that evolution has perpetuated species, so it seems to follow that a human being is the same species as it’s most ancient ancestor. Feel free to provide a source for that interpretation of evolutionary theory.

    • Evolution is a Myth not a theory. The lack of understanding a Myth is not a failure, it is a virtue. The human Brain is 10 times larger than is needed. Evolution mythology does not make changes that are not used nor needed. Mans understanding of DNA and self replicating genes is barbaric to Frankensteinian. To use bacteria as gene splicing vectors is why by the 5th generation the seeds are deformed weeds. They label genes as “junk” because they clearly dont use the other 90% they was given to them by (insert favorite deity/alien here)

Leave a comment