Technocracy: Expertology As the New Priesthood

As I write this, I literally had a wealth of information at my disposal sitting in my unpublished drafts for a number of years. The main reason for my lack of publishing was mainly rooted in the level of intellectual acumen of the public mind. I felt this type of established proven knowledge could not be introduced to the public audience simply because it may not be registered properly. But now, with the rise of the aftermath of the covid-19 and the peculiar policy initiatives of various nation states, the public mind, I feel, is somewhat able now to comprehend the scamdemic of this entire post covid world.

Backdrop: the Divine Authority of Science

It should be clear by now, as a foregone conclusion, that many people elevate the status of a scientific outlook, the process, and method, as the ultimate Divine authority, While negating the religious connotation of the term yet retaining the sentimental fervor of it within the discipline, usually under the capacity of social acceptance or rejection of people. This usually translates into religious language employed in the field of science like “climate denier” for example, as if someone who questions the data is akin to questioning the existence of the Divine. This syndrome persist in most people in the world, this includes the Muslim public and various Muslim academic authorities. In other words, the concept of science, is perceived as the ultimate epistemic authority that dictates the absolute epitome of right and wrong, and truth vs false.

Science As a Tool

What science actually is, is ultimately an epistemological tool to help us, as humans, to understand the logic of how things function in the observable world and in our environment. I will purposely omit the pre-modern tools from which modern science literally comes from, like alchemy, astronomy, astrology, and other religiously connotative methods used in pre-modern and ancient eras to determine the function of the observable universe via empirical means. That may very well be a blog post of its own within this series, but something I don’t wish to perform currently.

The Basis of Science

The basis of science is known as “the scientific method”. It is based on a process, a protocol if you will, based on objective means of analyzing data, usually many times over to prove the theory to be true. Usually, the evolution of this process is made by someone in the field positing a hypothesis (which is akin to an independent ijtihad in Islam) which is an educated guess, and when this guess acquires a form of critical mass within the community, it then elevates it into a theory, and then that theory is put through vigorous testing in order to finally prove or disprove it, typically divorced from political, economic, or religious interests, at least that is what is suppose to happen. The remainder of this article will furnish the proven historical and authoritative proof that this has been violated so surreptitiously, that the medical establishment and its crony peer-reviewed system is one thing, and science is something else altogether.

Science At Its Root is Open Source

The very fundamental root of science is that anyone, obviously with the knowledge-base ability is FREE, as in the meaning of liberty, not free as in pricing, to acquire the data, replicate it within their own environment, in order to produce the yielding result. Science at its very basis can only operate effectively at its core if it remains in this state of open source. The moment a piece of science enter into the realm of proprietary solution, it transforms the epistemic authority from one of objective analysis of raw data to one of priestly authority rooted in blind faith. Proprietary solutions at its very root is ultimately de-humanizing by nature in a social construct. For example, in relation to software, the very nature of software analytics in measuring the security vs vulnerability of a functioning piece of software, if it confides in an open source context, merits its integrity on other scientists (in. this case, programmers, computer scientists) auditing the source code to prove its security or the lack thereof. This proof of work concept is known as “Security through auditability”. In other words, a software processed under an open source method is proclaiming to anyone “here I am, test me”. When software is converted through proprietary means, what happens is that the method for testing security and vulnerability is transformed into what is known as the methodology of “Security through obscurity”. In other words, when a software is proprietary, there is no means of anyone auditing it to test the veracity of that product, rather people must blindly accept that what the producers of that proprietary software say it is with no ability to actually test their claim, hence security through obscurity, which ultimately translates as “trust us, simply trust us, it is what we say it is”. This same process happens in science as well, in all its sub-categories whether medical or otherwise.

Faults Embedded within Science

Yes, you have read this correctly. There can be “faults” within the scientific process. This does not mean that the process is faulty. So what exactly is my point I am making one might ask? As I say to everyone interested in the topic, I have a typical standard phrase.

The science is only as good as the data behind it

Ali Boriqee

What this means is that the actual product itself i.e. the “scientific conclusion” or the result thereof, is only as good as the data that was collected to form the conclusion in the first place. Hence what is truly built on a house of cards is data itself. Because to acquire data is built on the construct of subjective realities. In other words, data acquisition and even data analysis is subjective, not objective. Yes, one can harden data collection and analysis as objectively as possible, but at the end of the day, the method of weeding out what is irrelevant or fa toring in what is relevant ultimately resides within the human capacity of their own judgment, which is subjective by nature, not objective by nature.

a. the method of how the data was collected, which is subjective

b. how the data was interpreted, which is subjective

c. the dimensions and environment in how the data was collected, which is subjective.

d. the particular choosing of data sets, factoring or eliminating other data sets, is also guess guess, subjective, by nature.

e. humans i.e. human error and a collective of humans can make mistakes. That is only focusing on the positive side of the human factor. There is no need to factor in the malicious factor into the equation as the current paradigm is rampant with this malicious factor and will as well be highlighted further on during the course of this read. The mere climategate scandal is itself enough of a citation to prove the point above, not counting prior scientific malpractices of the industry to this scandal or thereafter.

The Fantasy of Science vs the Reality

One of the greatest deceptions is that modern day science is passed off as this objective entity of pure empirical deduction. 

The reality of science is that it is controlled by way of harnessed and focused efforts of highly efficient foundations and institutions on specific areas via funding. A fresh off the university press “science grad” does not do his/her own work. They have to be employed and that employment requires work towards a typical field of study for purposes having nothing to do with their own particular scientific ambitions that they once “dreamed of”. Yes, they do go into a field of their liking. However, what we are referring to here is that a science grad does not simply declare that they want to focus on a particular area. Their world comes crashing down when they realize that money talks, and dreams walk. Most scientists who are truly altruistic in their perception of life don’t realize that for the most part of the scientific industry, science first undergoes a weaponization phase for years, and sometimes decades, before it is then rendered towards the lower strata of public consumption.

Science is highly compartmentalized so that each level of clearance is based off “need to know”. The entire technological race was based off the controlled geopolitical framework of the cold war and highly researched studies have come out in explanation to this. 

Snap Back to Reality. Science Is Ultimately Directed

In Jerry E. Smith’s book “HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy”, writes on page 103

       “Research can be sabotaged in other, less obvious ways. For example, studies of EMF health affects are rarely followed up, even when they point to significant risks. Dr, Eugene Sobel of the University of South California has linked EMF exposure to three-to-fourfold increases in risks of Alzheimers disease in four different worker populations. Dr. Anthony Miller of the University of Toronto has found that when both electric and magnetic fields are taken into account, EMF exposures on the job are linked to a leukemia risk up to 11 times higher than expected. In both cases, interest in funding further study has been less than overwhelming. 

   With good reason. Scientists trust a result only after it has been independently replicated. Studies that had not been repeated were ignored by the NAS-NRC (National Academy of Science-National Research Council) EMF panel. So without funding for replication, Sobel’s and Miller’s work can be ignored”

HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy

He further rights

  “Of course, lip service is paid to the need for follow-up. The President of EPRI declared that Dr. Genevieve Matanoski’s results on cancer among telephone line workers ‘clearly warrant further study’. Yet, when Matanoski, of John Hopkins University, sought funding for such research, EPRI’s checkbook stayed closed.”

    Criticizing the powers-that-be is not considered a smart career move. You can find yourself labeled an ideologue, or even a purveyor of “junk science”-when, in fact, this better describes those who want to shut down EMF research.

     Bioelectromagnetics researchers believe they have little to gain by taking part in public disputes. Many honest researchers just keep their heads down and get funding wherever they can. Other talented scientists have quietly left the field.

       The practice of not having one’s findings not rock the boss’s boat is hardly a new situation. Over a century ago, in 1873, Lord Jessel wrote:

     ‘Expert evidence….is evidence of persons who sometimes live by their business, but in all cases are remunerated by their evidence…..Now it is natural that his mind, however honest he may be, should be biased in favor of the person employing him, accordingly we do find such bias.’ “

The Epistemic Authority of “Experts”

In today’s world where topics are weaponized into emotive responses, people are trained to deify the “expert”. This was not so the case as per classical Islamic society and in traditional American society prior to the rise of the modern epistemicological cartel.

In 1923, the important decision of Frye v. United States was delivered. This is the starting point concerning the admissibility of evidence. It comes from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. It involved the admissibility of polygraph testing, which was ruled inadmissible as it had not gained general acceptance. It remained the leading test of admissibility for 70 years.

In 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence were enacted. These were modified following the Supreme Court decision in Daubert and later by the decision in Kumho tire, which clarified that all expert evidence, not just scientific evidence, is subject to the rules laid down in DaubertDaubert was a civil case involving an allegation that the drug Bendectin, manufactured by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc, caused birth defects. An interesting scientific issue I encourage the readers to dig on their own.

Rule 702 governs admission of expert evidence, and following Daubert currently states:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Daubert was apparently heavily influenced by the Philosopher of Science Karl Popper’s theory of falsification. For a critique of this from a Philosopher of Science, see – Susan Haack – Evidence matters.

Daubert remains the leading case on expert evidence in the US and has significant impact on common law jurisdictions outside the US.

Since the above was relating to, and spoke of directly to, science, and in particular, scientific epistemic authority as “evidence”, we can continue.

You will find that the bulk of marketed “science” of the mainstream defies most, if not, all of the foundations for the proper procedure to determine or arrive at evidence-based knowledge and proof listed above in the court ruling. What we have today is simply an epistemic authority by cartel. That is currently the operational procedure of authority in the topic of science today. Actual researchers in the realm of science, are impeded to provide honest objective research without the fear of the cartel-based state narrative response of scrutiny and antagonism.

The Epistemicological Cartel Forewarned

Dr. Muhammad Ghilan in an interview with the Sultans in Sneakers podcast, in his typically naive attempt at classifying this discourse tried to classify the massive global protestation of the governance policies that classifies this covid-19 era as a scamdemic, he classifies this very protestation as “a crisis of epistemic authority“, when the reality is, is that what humanity is suffering from is a crisis of an epistemic cartel.

The famous British Lord and imperialist philosopher for the power elites, Bertrand Russell in 1931 said in his book, The Scientific Outlook, on page 247, he says:

The latest stage in the education of the most intellectual of the governing class will consist of training for research.  Research will be highly organized, and young people will not be allowed to choose what particular piece of research they shall do.  

[my personal commentary: Now, that’s a fact, because I know guys who are in research.  Some leave it because they feel so stymied when they get up against something that doesn’t jive with what they’re supposed to with these repeated experiments. They find out other things.  And if they push it, they’re gradually eased out the door, because they’re not supposed to know the higher sciences.  And this is what Russell is explaining here]

Continuing on, Russel says

They will, of course, be directed to research in those subjects to which they have shown special ability.  A great deal of scientific knowledge will be concealed from all but a few.  There will be arcana reserved for a priestly class of researchers, who will be carefully selected for their combination of brains with loyalty.

[My own interjection: What is this “loyalty to who?” that Russel is referring to? The only plausible explanation here is loyalty to the system. Their betters. The party, as Orwell called it.]

One may, I think, expect that research will be much more technical than fundamental.  The men at the head of any department of research will be elderly, and content to think that the fundamentals of their subjects are sufficiently known.  Discoveries which upset the official view of fundamentals, if they are made by young men, will incur disfavor, and if rashly published, will lead to degradation.  Young men to whom any fundamental innovation occurs will make cautious attempts to persuade their professors to view the new ideas with favor, but if these attempts fail they will conceal their new ideas until they themselves have acquired positions of authority, by which time they will probably have forgotten them. The atmosphere of authority and organization will be extremely favorable to technical research, but somewhat inimical to such subversive innovations as have been seen, for example, in physics during the present century.  There will be, of course, an official metaphysic, which will be regarded as intellectually unimportant but politically sacrosanct.  In the long run, the rate of scientific progress will diminish, and discovery will be killed by respect for authority.

This is literally how the scientocracy operates currently in today’s world. By due right of their expertise, they have the Divine right to rule without question, and govern how things must be and what people must do, again, without question. This is what the technocracy movement came with in the 1920s, a rule by expertology.

The Thin Line Between The Fomenting of an Expert Cartel vs Proper Epistemic Authority

The typical Quranic verse comes into question, typically what is oft-cited

فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

Qur’an 16:43

“So ask the ahlul-dhikr if you do not know”

The usual rendition of “ahlul-dhikr is commonly referred to in English parlance as “Those who know of the matter” i.e. the people of knowledge. While most of the Islamic literature points to the religious caste, it is not bound solely on that body of folk, it is universally applicable to any field craft of epistemology in which one has gained sufficient mastery over the topic at hand.

Generally, all people naturally by their very nature apply this method of living in common day practice. We don’t derive our own ideas haphazardly, we seek expert opinions of whom we rely on for our solutions of what to do or not to do.

The true deception here lies at how to render this expert knowledge. Do we sanctify it to deified levels of authority, or do we properly behave like human beings and treat the individual expertise as an “ijtihad” as it is suppose to be rendered as, and a conglomeration of the same view WITHOUT dispute as ijma (consensus), and the disputation of evidence (i.e. khilaf) as reducing the said “ijma” as merely “jumhur” or “a group of scholars held a view”.

What the typical believing muqalid (blind follower) of the state narrative conceives in this topic is that “ordinary people who don’t know what they are talking about, are trying to dispel those who know what they are talking about”, and then when they come across scientific authorities that dispute their views, they render this evidence as “pseudo” “invalid” and a myriad of other debilitating ad hominem attacks because they have been told, by their masters, that it is faulty, and contradicts science, when in reality it just contradicts their own theories that they erroneously believe to be science.

This reminds me of the issue whereby the sanctity and veracity of an expert was weighed, in the court of law, by none other than Supreme Court Judge Griere, who stated that:

… experience has shown that opposite opinions of persons professing to be experts may be obtained to any amount

In other words, in the world of epistemic knowledge and sciences, an expert in a field who professes a view, which is known as an opinion, or ijtihad, or a hypothesis in pure science, one can find a plethora of other equally valid expert opinions who opine otherwise.

Let us review a classic topic from a mainstream narrative account. Climate change! Great. In this link here http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

This post goes on to question the “validity” of the Oregon Institute of Science and medicine which came out with a petition as far back as 2010 (if my memory serves me correct) in which they gathered over 31,000 scientists globally who signed a petition expressing their opposition that climate change is due to anthropogenic means i.e. humans are thee direct cause of it. The entire post aims to critique this because it does not correspond to the mainstream narrative. Let us quote here an interesting statement they themselves have stated. Aside from the fact that they just made up how they think that this petition was formed and how this petition was conducted, let us look at what they said.

According to the data on the petition site, only 12% of those who signed the petition are indicated to have affiliation with atmosphere, earth, and environmental science. But there is no indication how many work in the field of climate science?

Well, one would naturally conclude that someone who would have an “affiliation” with these genres within the field would naturally have some form of capacitative roll in it, but I digress.

If we are to accept this 12% as is, 12% of 31,000 is a staggering amount of qualified experts who disagree with the narrative. However, let us be generous with this lobotomized mainstream pundit institution above and let us help them by obstructing that percentage in half by reducing the amount of scientist who are “active” participants in the field, reducing the percentage to 6% rather than 12%. Further, let us be extra generous by reducing the “trolls” who this institution believes have as well signed the petition. Let us reduce the real numbers to 1%. One percent of 31 thousand is no insignificant number. That is over 300 ACTIVE climate scientists who oppose the mainstream cartel. That amount of disputation is well worthy to be considered extensibly a valid ikhtilaf (scientific difference of opinion) in ANY scientific discipline that reduces the alleged “fact” of climate change into merely just a theory, and not an actual fact that the mainstream cartel would have you believe. Hell, let us go further in helping this cartel-based institute by reducing that number by 2/3 to simply 100. 100 climate scientists who disagree on the premise that climate change is the result of anthropogenic means is itself no small number. Even a collective of 50 scientists is enough to dispel a “consensus” on the matter, but I digress! We don’t actually need a collective of 31 thousand scientists to create an epistemic valid difference of opinion to reduce the claim of climate change into a theory, nor do we not even need 3700 scientists for that, nor do we need 300, nor even a 100. As long a a group of scientists are opposed to it with their own scientific outlook, the idea of consensus flies out the window.

The New “Science” is Ultimately Faith-Based

Anyone with a brain can test the waters regarding the faith based system of modern medicine for example. Just encourage anyone going in for a flu shot to ask their doctor “are you sure that shot contains what it’s suppose to contain“? They will be unable to assure the patient with proof. It is only assured off of faith. It’s a faith based system like religion. The reason for this is because

1. The doctor is not fully equipped with the knowledge of the substances which are produced in military laboratories and guarded by the military. This fact speaks volumes in and of itself. 

2. Even if that particular doctor is more exceptional than the average doctor and does know the scientific chemical properties of substances, that doctor does not have the mechanical tools to even extract the vaccine at the clinic or his office, or even the hospital, in order to determine the contents of the stuff. 

The fact this stuff is created in highly classified locations, guarded by military, and where doctors employed in such institutions cannot divulge anything to the public is enough to understand the priestly occupational paradigm of this matter.

3. As if that is not enough, this is all considering that such medical prescriptions are “open source” products, which we have highlighted above. They are not. These vaccines are typically not open source, meaning they are released under proprietary jurisdiction. They are not even auditable. So even if your local doctor had the directed multi-million dollar lab to have the equipment necessary to inspect the product, he is legally prohibited to audit the darned product. Even worse, to audit the product would mean to jeopardize his/her involvement in the entire profession altogether.

All of the above facts should alert someone who was gifted with a mind to think that the entire advocacy of the medical cartel in today’s environment is all purely faith-based. We simply have to “believe”, and thats it. That is all that is required of us. Even the Islamic religion does not mandate this type of pure blind faith (taqlid) on epistemic authority such as this. There is some level of discernment and tahqiq) verification process that even a general lay person (muqalid) is mandated by the religion. Even in the field of science, if a person is not entirely sure about the advice of his or her doctor, they are typically motivated to acquire a secondary opinion. This is normative human behavior and general conduct in how we interact with and conduct ourselves in the face of epistemic authority, that this new scientific establishment is now labelling as “anti-science” and the typical ad-hoc labels the mainstream employs.