New Yorker's Scientific Illiteracy in Attacking Ron Paul

The Republican Party has often been the party of science and technology. Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of Sciences and earned a patent on shipping technology. The creationist Democrat William Jennings Bryan twice lost to the Republican William McKinley. Dwight Eisenhower was perhaps the most forceful Oval Office advocate for science and technology of the last century. By the nineteen-seventies, Republicans—particularly Richard Nixon—had begun to view scientists as agitating liberals. But through the Cold War, Republicans often backed the greatest scientific and technical schemes: from missile defense to the ARPANet. Now, tragically, science has been made partisan, and the tech world, with its liberal Silicon Valley center, is headed that way. In 2003, Nicholas Lemann, writing for The New Yorker, asked Karl Rove to define a Democrat. "Somebody with a doctorate," Rove said. "What was Daniel Bell's phrase? The information class." The divide, however, is not total. The Democrats still have their Bryans, and the Republicans still have their McKinleys. In the spirit of giving the most pro-science and pro-tech members of the G.O.P. their due, here's a ranking of the six remaining Presidential candidates ... – New Yorker

Dominant Social Theme: When it comes to science, Republicans simply do not respect the creative aspirations of big government, nor the insights of the bureaucrats that work for it. Ron Paul is a real crackpot in this regard.

Free-Market Analysis: Late last week, in a blog called "Notes on arts and entertainment from the staff of The New Yorker," this august and once-witty magazine launched an astonishing attack on libertarian candidate and US Congressman Ron Paul, casting him as a scientific ignoramus.

In fact, the attack was larger than that, painting the entire Republican Party as "anti-science" and then going through the various candidates one by one to show off their scientific quackery. When it comes to the mainstream media, we live in depressing times.

There is nothing surprising about this. Western elites have in the past hundred years perverted every aspect of human culture from art to finance to medicine. There is seemingly only one goal for this handful of sociopathic zealots, and that is to establish their New World Order. Everything else is subordinate.

The Anglosphere power elite that wants to run the world apparently has three disparate goals as regards "science." None of them have to do with researching the truth, only with establishing whatever is most suitable to its propagandistic purposes.

First, it wants to establish that most, if not all, top science of note must originate with some sort of government support. This is because via mercantilist central banking the powers-that-be can control government and thus research its initiates.

Second, it wants to establish that whatever is invented or discovered is superior to what came before. This explains the apparent suppression of ancient civilizations and their intriguing technologies. It is somewhat puzzling to maintain that human beings have been around in their current form for 50,000 years but only made scientific strides in the past 500 years. But that is what we're supposed to believe.

Third, the elites want to control science in order to make it an adjunct of the one-world government they are apparently intent on building. They do this by ensuring that some kinds of science are pursued while other avenues are not. Science is about control and supporting the petrol-dollar not about making breakthroughs that will upset the established order.

One big example of controlled science has to do with the hypothesis of the electric universe, which we have written about numerous times. Just search the 'Net with the terms "electric universe" and "Daily Bell" and see for yourself.

There seems almost no doubt that a fundamental force of the universe is "electrical" rather than based on the weak force of gravity. But you will see almost NOTHING about the electrical universe in mainstream Western science. Instead, you will read interminable lay-articles about black holes, white dwarfs and string theory.

The theory of the electrical universe explains much that conventional gravity physics cannot. But the powers-that-be are intent on funding boondoggles like CERN with its fantastical multibillion dollar tube that is supposed to allow us a glimpse of hyper-tiny particles that will prove the existing theory.

It really is incredible. One can apparently replicate the spirals of the galaxy and numerous other galactic facilities simply by applying electrical current to particulate matter. Nebulae and other phenomenon can be formed by electrical charges. Not by gravity.

That such incredibly simple observations are seemingly ignored or relegated to "crackpot" science is not a comment on their validity so much as on the decayed and corrupt status of government-sponsored science. Unfortunately, the New Yorker article promotes the meme of such Big Science with enthusiasm.

It is par for the course, but this attitude has significant ramifications that go far beyond this article.

As part of its snide approach, the story's analysis cycles through the entire gamut of Republican candidates with an unspoken itinerary that involves contrasting the ignorance of Republicans with the friendliness of big-government Democrats.

The article lays into Newt Gingrich for "abolishing the Office of Technology Assessment" and compares this to the move by Republican President Richard Nixon to abolish the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Here's an incredible statement: "Gingrich gets extra credit for sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi to talk about global warming." Nancy Pelosi? She is a scientist? Apparently, Gingrich is the most "science friendly" Republican candidate, from the New Yorker's point of view!

Huntsman, we read, almost edged out Gingrich for top Republican science-friendly Republican. Why? A recent Huntsman tweet about global warming was "the single most pro-science action of any of the candidates."

So Huntsman is "pro" the science of global warming. What the New Yorker doesn't bother to point out is that literally thousands of emails have by now established that global warming is nothing but an elaborate hoax.

The power elite is determined to implement the lie of global warming in order to create a kind of global carbon currency, and thus the New Yorker – a mainstream elite mouthpiece – supports it. But that doesn't make it good science. Or Huntsman scientifically literate for supporting it.

Mitt Romney comes in within the top three scientifically friendly Republican candidates because of his "connections to Silicon Valley, and the right view on the most important tech issue of the day: the nefarious Stop Online Piracy Act now working its way through Congress. It's a dangerous sop to Hollywood, which Romney opposes."

Well ... Okay. SOPA is a terrible bill. But attributing its proposal to Hollywood is like attributing War World II entirely to Hitler – when modern history shows quite clearly that Western banks and powers-that-be funded the German military machine almost right up until the advent of the war. There's more to it.

Romney also comes in for criticism regarding evolution, a hypothesis with a good many holes and little established science. The magazine's writers come perilously close to labeling him with the dread "D" word, as in "denier."

Finally we get to Ron Paul. The New Yorker starts off promisingly, proposing that "libertarianism is a good policy for Internet regulation." But things go downhill from there. "Libertarianism is not, however, the right philosophy for science," the New Yorker portentously announces. "There are projects, and types of basic research, that the private sector won't fund and that non-profits can't fund either. These efforts need government."

Say what? In our humble view, this might go down as one of the single-most stupid statements in the history of modern journalism. Exactly what has government discovered? When has a bureaucrat announced a scientific breakthrough? When was the last time Washington DC upset the latest, inaccurate scientific consensus?

Even the atom bomb was constructed by government after the theory had been developed PRIVATELY. Government certainly has a reputation when it comes to science. But it's hardly a good one. Government has no investment in scientific breakthroughs.

Government is all about the status quo and has rightly developed a reputation for RETARDING scientific thought. Even a scant reading of human history will bear this out. Government is about power not research. (The only investigating that government types really want to do is of other human beings who might harbor the thought that the current needs to be changed.)

This terrible statement is followed up by an even bigger whopper (if that's possible) as the New Yorker scribes ask the portentous question, "Do we really want someone in the White House who has said, 'It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they've been using?' "

To which we answer, Good Lord, yes! Global warming is nonsensical. Scientists cannot predict the weather two days out, much less ten or twenty years. The models are flawed, the science is political and the goals are transparently oligarchic. For the New Yorker to use global warming as a standard of scientific literacy is ludicrous.

The article rounds out the roster of its scientific commentary with Bilderberg-favorite Rick Perry who, we learn, is skeptical about both "evolution and climate change." (Horrors.) However, the magazine does commend Perry for forcing young girls to receive the dubious and even deadly vaccine for the HPV virus. (Nothing like jabbing little girls with a potentially deadly vaccine to bring out the approval of the authoritarians at the New Yorker.)

Rick Santorum comes in last. Apparently, his statement to Perry that "the climate does indeed change over time" and that "it's crazy to think that man is 'somehow the tip of that tail that wags the whole dog' " is seen by the arch New Yorker scribes as the height of rube-ism.

The New Yorker was always a socialist publication but in the past its politics have at least been couched in a larger literacy – and humor above all. Seeing these kinds of articles in the New Yorker only reminds us what has been lost as the elites further push their media properties to conform to political lines.

Conclusion: In the modern age, it is increasingly evident and obvious that the information contained in the West's most prestigious publications will be increasingly untrustworthy. Fortunately, we live in the era of the Internet and electronic communication can serve as an anodyne, especially if the Internet Reformation continues and expands as we think it may.