Part 6: The assault on science and the great climate scam

Part 1: Letter from New Zealand
Part 2: The world is in good hands
Part 3: Sovereignty – who actually owns this nation
Part 4: Wheels within wheels
Part 5: The Venetians and the concept of oligarchy
Part 6: The assault on science and the great climate scam
Part 7: Atonalism and the assault on society
Part 8: Understanding is half the battle
Part 9: The resistance
Part 10: Who rules the world – further reading



Again, heavily Schiller Institute:

One of the greatest advances in science was exemplified by Nicholas of Cusa who did precisely what your humble blogger has been trying to do for years – getting people to see that there is no conflict between real science, the desire to explain natural phenomena and the metaphysical. The metaphysical does not necessarily refer to deity – only to the province of the mind and spirit and both have been shown to exist in Man, often inexplicably overriding the strictly physical.

For example, why do hedonistic pleasures, which should deliver, in perpetuity, gratification, not do that?   Why do such things pale in the end and fail to satisfy with time?  It’s a spiritual question.

Thus the vast majority reading this would guffaw at the metaphysical but be assured it is a quite ancient concept and in no way divorced from the physical – just look at the human being himself as a combination of the physical, the mental [reasoning] and the spiritual [hope, fear, belief, love, anger] and each can strongly influence the other.

This was where Cusa was coming from but the Venetian Aristotelism was having none of that. Bear in mind the oligarchical, irreligious duplicity of the ancient Venetian families, as covered in the previous post.

Galileo’s fame was established when he used a small telescope to observe the four largest moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, and the phases of Venus. He reported these sightings in his essay The Starry Messenger, which instantly made him the premier scientist in Europe and thus a very important agent of influence for the Venetian Party.

This entire telescope operation had been devised by Paolo Sarpi, who wrote about Galileo as “our mathematician.” In 1611, a Polish visitor to Venice, Rey, wrote that the “adviser, author, and director” of Galileo’s telescope project had been Father Paolo Sarpi.

In 1609, Kepler published his Astronomia Nova, expounding his first and second laws of planetary motion. Nonetheless, in Galileo’s Dialogues on the Two Great World Systems, published in 1633, Kepler is hardly mentioned. At the end, one of the characters says that he is surprised at Kepler for being so “puerile” as to attribute the tides to the attraction of the Moon.

In the Art of Thinking Well, Sarpi starts from sense perception and sense certainty. Galileo’s epistemology is identical with that of Sarpi.

For Galileo, the trial before the Inquisition was one of the greatest public relations successes of all time. The gesture of repression against Galileo carried out by the Dominicans of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome established the equation “Galileo = modern experimental science struggling against benighted obscurantism.”

That equation has stood ever since, and this tragic misunderstanding has had terrible consequences for human thought. Lost in the brouhaha about Galileo, is the more relevant fact that Kepler had been condemned by the Inquisition more than a decade before.

During the first half of the 1700’s, the most important activities of Venetian intelligence were directed by a salon called the conversazione filosofica e felice, which centered around the figure of Antonio Schinella Conti. Conti was a Venetian nobleman, originally a follower of Descartes, who lived for a time in Paris, where he was close to Malebranche.

Conti went to London where he became a friend of Sir Isaac Newton.

Newton’s real interest was not mathematics or astronomy. It was alchemy. His laboratory at Trinity College, Cambridge was fitted out for alchemy. Here, his friends said, the fires never went out during six weeks of the spring and six weeks of the autumn. His sources were books like the Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum of Elias Ashmole, the Rosicrucian leader of British speculative Freemasonry.

In his Opticks, he asks, “Have not the small particles of bodies certain powers, virtues, or forces, by which they act at a distance. … How those attractions may be performed, I do not here consider. What I call attraction may be performed by Impulse, or some other means unknown to me.”

Conti understood that Newton represented the ideal cult figure for a new obscurantist concoction of deductive-inductive pseudo-mathematical formalism, masquerading as science. Venice needed an English Galileo, and Conti provided the intrigue and the public relations needed to produce one, first through the French networks of Malebranche, and later, Voltaire.

The Conti conversazione was also sponsored by the Emo and Memmo oligarchical families. Participants included Giammaria Ortes, the Venetian economist who asserted that the carrying capacity of the planet Earth could never exceed three billion persons. Ortes was a student of the pro-Galileo activist Guido Grandi of Pisa. Ortes applied Newton’s method to the so-called social sciences.

He denied the possibility of progress or higher standards of living, supported free trade, opposed dirigist economics, and polemicized against the ideas of the American Revolution. The ideas of Conti, Ortes, and their network were brought into Great Britain under the supervision of William Petty, the Earl of Shelburne.

The Shelburne stable of writers, including Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, and other exponents of British philosophical radicalism, all take their main ideas from Conti and especially Ortes.

Venice ceased to exist as an independent state after its conquest by Napoleon in 1797 and the Austrian takeover of the lagoon under the Treaty of Campo Formio.

But the influence of the Venetian oligarchy over culture and politics has remained immense to the present day, both directly through its own cultural operations like the European Society of Culture (SEC) and the Cini Foundation, but more significantly, through such British-led institutions of the international oligarchy as the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and Prince Philip’s World Wildlife Fund.

The Venetians knew that ideas were ultimately more powerful than guns, fleets, and bombs and it is more efficacious to control the way people think. You can then control the way they respond to events, no matter what those events may be.

It was therefore vital to the Venetians to control philosophy and especially science, the area where human powers of hypothesis and creative reason become a force for improvements in the order of nature. The Venetian Party is implacably hostile to scientific discovery, suffocating it by using formalism and the fetishism of authoritative professional opinion.

Thus we have today the Climate Scam where the fetishism of authoritative professional opinion has been put forward as unassailable fact on which to build rafts of political measures, with the blessing of the key oligarchs themselves.

The Venetian Party has created, over the centuries, a series of scientific frauds and hoaxes, [Natural Selection and Climate Science are two which spring to mind], which have been elevated to the status of incontrovertible and unchallengeable authorities. These have been used to usurp the rightful honour due to real scientists, whom the Venetians have done everything possible to destroy.

An example here is Gallileo over Kepler, the latter having been subsequently shown to be more accurate in his hypotheses.

The method is pure Venetian, propagandists par excellence and depends on weasel words and buzzwords, constantly presented in a soft light and opposing words presented as strawmen and in a negative light.  In a most unscientific manner, the scientific community is invited to laugh at or mock the non-favoured concept s and the pseudo-concepts enshrined in Royal Societies and the like.

Hence, for example, Gallileo mocked Kepler – his model of the solar system circular, whereas Kepler’s was elliptical.  Yet Gallileo today is the one most of the world remembers.

This was the concept behind the Royal Society.  There is a certain gravitas to the English which leads many nations to believe that we are staid, methodical, standing no nonsense and our word is to be accepted as the last word on an issue.  The seemingly ultra-conservative Royal Society, which is actually no more than a politicized body propping up pseudo-concepts taken as the new gospel by modern Man, was vital in the whole show of the Enlightenment farce – gradually these dinosaurs of Science were forced to give ground to the new thinking and people cheered on.

Propaganda by the instruction manual.

The indoctrination of the modern mind is so complete that Cusa and Kepler’s systems are so twisted round that the metaphysical elements are excised and the only study allowed is to observe from our place here on earth and to detail what we see.  Cause and consequence are mentioned in passing but must never dominate the pseudo-science because it would cause scientists to do as Kepler did:

He lived in an era when there was no clear distinction between astronomy and astrology, but there was a strong division between astronomy (a branch of mathematics within the liberal arts) and physics (a branch of natural philosophy). Kepler also incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason.

“Reason” today is a much abused concept and that is directly attributable to the philosophe of which Voltaire and others were guilty. In a more political sense, whcih has been the theme of these posts, it suited the Venetian Great Work of Ages quite well.

One final question

Who killed Marlow and why?

11 comments for “Part 6: The assault on science and the great climate scam

  1. January 10, 2010 at 16:33

    Bravo old boy!!!!!

    That was a mammoth task which would frighten the most committed blogger to write……..

    Would love to know more about these other scientists who placed God at the center of their work. And would also be interesting to know more about the actual findings of these men…..

  2. January 10, 2010 at 17:09

    Fascinating stuff.

    Last week I came across this interesting article on climate change.

  3. January 10, 2010 at 17:20

    Hi James, as a firm climate change sceptic this interests me. It just goes to show that control is so much more important than truth. And very concerningly, control is not as hard for some people to exercise as it seems – just look at Tony Blair who, with three words hid the destruction of proper academic work in the UK. The three words? “Education, education, education!”

    Then of course there’s “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” where the crime is either speeding or self defence.

  4. January 11, 2010 at 00:54

    Thanks all and yes, I saw it, Cherie.

  5. January 11, 2010 at 18:27

    I found the bit about the media interesting, but the I would wouldn’t I? 🙂

  6. swaami
    January 11, 2010 at 23:55

    Brilliant.
    And Tesler, Laithwaite (mag lev), Shauberger (vorticular water power) and so many others. Where technology REALLY is today I’d love to see. All the patents that have been sat on, research grants withdrawn.
    If anyone is interested I could post a load of links about some of the above – and electric universe theory – a final blow to gravity and the ‘big bang’ rubbish we’ve all been spoon fed – NASA laughably tried to discredit.

    • Robin Nigel.
      March 28, 2017 at 01:05

      Swammi,

      I have just come across James’ website. Could I ask you for information regarding electric universe theory? I wrote an article for my profession using works from the 7 Liberal arts and the likes of Aristotle -the scientific method using the 5 senses. I never got it published but I am thinking I need to revise my work as my profession has been severely attacked in the UK for not being able to back up its claims. A certain Professor in the South of England is behind this attack with a particular journalist who also claims to be a physicist..no names mentioned here of course. Can you help?

  7. January 12, 2010 at 00:40

    Post away. Others do too and would be interested.

  8. January 13, 2010 at 08:38

    Interesting post. I heard Galileo only got in real trouble when he wrote a book he used two characters arguing the theory’s pros and cons. He had made enemies.

    The stupid backward character was enough like the Pope for his enemies to convince the Pope he had intended it.

  9. Distant Relative
    May 17, 2017 at 11:20

    Appropriate for the “Great Climate Scam” perhaps?

    “WEATHER MODIFICATION: PROGRAMS, PROBLEMS, POLICY AND POTENTIAL: UNITED STATES CONGRESS”
    Prepared at the Request of Hon. Howard W. Cannon, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
    United States Senate. 1978

    Read online https://archive.org/details/weatificat00unit (786 pages)

    [Previously posted under another article.]

    • May 17, 2017 at 12:03

      Yes, thought that was linked to somewhere.

Comments are closed.