Environmentalism, or ecologism,
is a failure both as a science and as an ideology. It fails as a science because
it cannot show “anthropogeneity” to be true, whereby mankind can actually alter
the course of natural reality, nor can it define what it actually means by “nature,”
and by “science.
As for its alarmism – is CO2 the
great monster of our time that is being set loose by avaricious mankind for
short-term gain, with dire results for all life on this planet? Or, is this all
a great con-job by certain avaricious members of mankind for long-term gain? Evidence
is shown to support both sides. This raises a problem with logic. If there are
two contradictory types of evidence for one assumption, then the assertion that
only one side of the argument is “true” is a lie. More crucially, “science” can
hardly be “settled,” when it continually offers two opposing answers to one
This renders environmentalism
nothing more than weak sociology – that is, a process of rhetoric, through
which a drastic change of society is the desired outcome. In other words, a
social science. And it is weak because it has no inherent verity – since it continually
needs the support of rhetoric and political will in order to promote itself. In
other words, environmentalism is merely sociologism, or a process to bring
about revolution – that is, a “liberation” from all perceived wrongs of the
past. Thus, environmentalism is pure ideology; and nothing else. (As a reminder,
ideology is a form of speculative thought that seeks to justify a particular
But is environmentalism a strong
ideology? Hardly. It is nothing more than a jumble of contradictions.
First, environmentalism cannot
define its own terms. It seeks to protect “nature,” but what is this “nature”
that needs political salvation? Nor can it define what is means by “science.” Both
these terms are continually invoked, as if they have a self-evident definition,
which is not the case.
In the twenty-first century, “science”
only means two types of paradigms – the Cartesian and the Neo-Darwinian. There
is no third.
The Cartesian, or mathematical
approach, states that “nature” is a construction of human reason (where mathematics
is the mode of explanation). This is not because “nature” in itself is mathematical,
but because human reason is mathematical. For Descartes, “nature” has no meaning
outside the human mind. Thus, “nature,” only exists as a projection of reason. “Nature”
does not inherently contain meaning, let alone truth. It possesses only matter
and energy, which do not exist for a higher purpose. Only reason gives them that
Since “nature” has no being
outside the human mind, what do activists want to protect outside the human? Random
matter and energy? Thus, things like, “climate catastrophe,” do not exist in matter
and energy. Rather, they are projects onto matter and energy by human reason.
This destroys any premise that
environmentalism might want to offer as an explanation – for “nature” has no
explanation. “Nature” is an idea – a function of human reason.
Next, there is Neo-Darwinism, which
is concerned with the flow of genes, through the structure of evolution; that
is, the mutation of genes and then their selection. Genes are, thus, packets of
information (codes). This process of transmitting information into the future may
be observed by way of an organism’s traits (the phenotype).
Once again, there is no “nature” as
such – because everything essential happens at the genetic level, in which
animate matter is nothing more than a container and delivery system for genes.
Whatever might be termed “nature” shows itself to be nothing other than a
continually evolving environment for genes to replicate in. This “environment”
is essentially time, in which information will create the conditions that it
needs to replicate – regardless of what mankind might or might not do, like releasing
In effect, Neo-Darwinism has no
need for “nature,” because the phenomenal realm is always secondary to the micro-evolution
of genes. Whatever destruction the phenomenal world might undergo, the genes
will eventually reconfigure (recode), and keep replicating. And after
destruction takes place, over time, complex life forms will once again evolve.
Thus, there is no “nature” to destroy, because macro-ecology is nothing but a
process of time. Whatever effect man might have on macro-ecology, micro-evolution
remains unaffected. And it matters not at all whether CO2 is the great villain
In fact, whatever “harm” mankind
might be doing is ultimately part-and-parcel of the process of evolution, in
which humanity is dutifully playing its role. If that role is one of “harm-bringer,”
then so be it. Evolution will simply deal with it, reconfigure, recode and replicate.
Thus, the Cartesian paradigm denies
environmentalism its rationale (“nature” is a construct of human reason). And Neo-Darwinism
refutes environmentalism’s anthropogeneity, in that mankind can never alter the
process of evolution. This means that environmentalism’s reliance on “science”
is a sham. The alarmist claims about the loss of biodiversity, the collapse of
ecosystems, and various extinction scenarios are meaningless in science as it
is understood and practiced today.
This leaves only the projection
of human emotion upon matter, energy, information, and time. In other, environmentalism
is pure hysteria that has good political currency at the moment. But can any
sort of economic, social, or cultural stability be built upon a lie?
Since environmentalism cannot
claim any sort of “ownership” over science (Cartesian or Neo-Darwinian), anytime
it uses scientific vocabulary, it contradicts itself. In the end, it possesses
Lastly, there is the question of
humanity within nature. For Descartes, nature is formless and meaningless without
human reason, which means that man creates the nature that he needs. For
Neo-Darwinism, humanity is the subject of evolution, in that evolution creates
mankind and will uncreate him in the flow of time. Thus, man can affect nothing
in the process of information and time, no matter what he might get up to in
the Destruction Department.
But environmentalism does have a rather effective weapon – mythology – through which it is now seeking to convince everyone that “nature” is “alive.” (Cue James Lovelock and his totem, “Gaia”). This endeavor also is bound to fail, because paganism was defeated long ago and thus can contribute nothing to the reality of human life in the twenty-first century.
The vain attempt to parse
paganism as “ancient philosophy” is just wishful thinking, because paganism, as
a vanquished paradigm, can no longer answer the fundamental question of life. And
that question is this – How can I be free? Paganism was always about slavery
(which is why it crumbled very quickly), for all it possessed was fear in the
face of the incomprehensible. The habit of humanity to rely on reason can no
longer be paganized, despite the efforts of universities and their
Environmental Studies programs. Once the mind knows something, it cannot
suddenly unknow it.
All this leaves environmentalism no real recourse but politics and the will of the state. But this is tyranny, which has failed every time it has been tried (though it does bring short-term misery). In effect, environmentalism is about defeat and failure – and thus it has no hold in the future.
The photo shows, “Metallic Tractors,” a print by James Gillray, London, England, 1801.
I believe that it is very important – in fact, the
most important thing for all citizens – to know and understand that they are
indeed being deceived and manipulated by the state and state actors (climate
activists, left wing educators, mainstream media, etc.) into believing
It is not a conspiracy theory, it is real. There is a wide-spread deliberate deception being imposed upon the people of the world to force them to spend money, to pay taxes – all in exchange for nothing. Then be worried sick and ridden with guilt about “destroying the planet.”
Believe me, they are laughing at you. They are mocking you, and they are making a mint in the process. This is not a joke. We all need to look around and take it in. This is indeed what is happening.
People with integrity need to stand up, be
counted and have the courage and will to speak the truth. They need to speak
the truth, and also demonstrate the truth. For you will face the accusation, as
I have, of …“what do you know. I have a PhD. I am an expert. I know better, so
shut up and believe me, DENIER!!!!.” To which they have now also added. “It’s
the law! So, pay me my CO2 taxes, peasant.” They are sick – every last one of
The fact that I am a qualified professional, with
decades of experience, building some of the most technically complex buildings
imaginable, is neither here nor there. I am brushed off like a fool; as we all
are. We are all being taken for fools. We are having the wool pulled over our
eyes. We all need to wake up to that fact and do something about it.
To this end I have conducted several
experiments, so that I can demonstrate to people, live if necessary, that fake
climate alarmist scientists are teaching lies, plain and simple. An entire
industry is living like a horde of parasites on the back of a whale – and we
the people are that whale.
Wow, some claim, I am sure some of you may be
So, let’s delve, briefly into my experiments,
which can be found on YouTube. There will, of course, be more.
1 – CO2 Cause’s Lighting Incandescent Filaments to Dim
If we were to believe the lies that Carbon
Dioxide is the cause of global warming, via its mechanism of back radiation,
then adding CO2 gas to a vacuum chamber, which within contains a tungsten
filament, should cause the temperature of the filament to rise.
An electrically heated straight tungsten filament
contained within a vintage vacuum bulb glows brightly at approximately 2000K.
It emits some of its radiation in the IR wave bands which CO2 most strongly
absorbs and so it would be expected that any back-radiant heating effect would
be maximal and self-evident. Unfortunately, as we will see later, it is not.
This can be seen in the CO2 spectral absorption graph, where its absorbance in 4 to 5 micron wavelength (light bulb spectra) is far in excess of the strength of its absorption in the 14 to 16 micron wavelengths (more earth Spectra).
Many people do not know that CO2 absorbs strongly in the shortwave IR part of the spectrum. This is one of the reasons that the CO2 gas in a bottle experiment is misleading, because the CO2 gas in the bottle is absorbing radiation, DIRECTLY emitted from the light bulb, in a wavelength, which the Earth just does not emit, because it is far too cool to do so. I elaborate on this in my book,Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science. There are other reasons as to why that experiment and others like are it misleading. Back irradiance from a gas as a form of heat induction is just plain wrong, as I can show.
Therefore, we would expect the CO2 to absorb well
this radiation being emitted, by the filament, be warmed by it, send the IR
back to the filament, which would in turn become hotter and then glow more
brightly as a result.
So, how to go about proving if this back
radiant effect is all powerful, or if in fact, other far more dominant factors
are at play. What perhaps is actually occurring?
To this end, I have had constructed the twin
vacuum chamber, portable comparison experiment, so that I can compare two
different states of heat loss with each other and show this effect live, if
The schematic of the experiment is shown below,
along with a picture of it.
Cooling Experiment Schematic
I may in future, make single chambers, as those
are more affordable, lighter, easier to use and far more portable. Everyone,
who wants to fight back against the lies of the alarmists, should have one of
these. Alarmists cannot argue against it, without making themselves sound like
the idiots that they are. And believe me, they do try.
Briefly, you can see that this arrangement allows me to evacuate two chambers, so I can make a comparison between two straight tungsten filaments, one in a vacuum and the other with a gas added.
Filament Cooling Experiment Photograph
To the see the experiment in action and an
explanation of how it works, click this link.
I conducted several different comparisons to record
the differences between the two, which can be seen in this video. The main
comparisons are between the Vacuum bulb and the filament in carbon dioxide from
0 Bar and 0.7 Bar.
This is the picture of the filament at 0 Bar, a
Frame Exposed Tungsten Elements in a Vacuum 0.0 Bar – Bright
You can see this is equally bright across the
entire length of the filament – i.e., the filament is clearly very bright. It
is bright top, middle and bottom.
So, what happens if I add a small amount of Carbon Dioxide to the filament? Are the filament surfaces “globally warmed” by the CO2 thus experiencing an increase in temperature as a result of back radiation, as all the experts say it would do?
Well, actually, no. No such warming occurs. To think it could, is actually quite silly. That is what an ignorant child, who can be brainwashed by deceptive agenda-ridden teachers, could be misled into believing. Just as people are misled into believing CO2 causes surface temperatures and ocean temperatures worldwide to rise.
Frame of Exposed Tungsten Elements in a CO2 Gas 0.7 Bar – DIM!!!
The comparison is stark and evident, isn’t
it? It is noticeably far less bright.
At 0.7 Bar CO2 it can be seen that
the bottom is now not even glowing at all, with the middle dimmed visibly to a
faint red glow, and the top glowing much less bright. The thinness of the
filament is more evident. In the first picture, the filaments look thick
because of the brightness of the light. The filaments are approximately 0.005mm
So, we can concretely say that the addition of CO2 gas had no “heating effect” on the filaments at all. The cooling effect, however, on the filament is entirely evident. The cooling and convective effect could never be overcome by an IR emissive gas, even if we pretended to ourselves that the tiny amount of back radiance did cause some sort of heating.
From a radiation steady-state-temperature point of view, the effective surface area for cooling of the filament cage has increased. There are millions upon millions of molecules in this chamber and this energy is now being spread among them; whereas previously this was not the case.
As the gas is emissive, the molecules would be emitting the radiation in all directions. In effect, creating a filament/gas body which has a larger number of molecules and therefore a larger surface area for emissive cooling, compared to just the filament on its own.
This increase in 3-dimensional surface area for cooling could never be overcome by an IR gas, no matter how many thousand times more powerful, as supposed greenhouse gas, it was. The addition of the IR effects of the gas could never overcome conduction cooling losses, convective cooling losses, or the increase in radiation losses due to having a larger 3D emissive area for cooling.
It is an idiotic thing to even think it could, yet this is the kind of idiotic backward thinking, twaddle talking alarmists expect everyone to believe. Correction, FORCE everyone to believe. In short, they are all a bunch of brown-shirts, whether they know it or not.
Increasing the current would make the filament
hotter, adding Trillions and Trillions of CO2 gas molecules, which could never
replicate that increase.
Any country which has a CO2 reduction law, a
carbon-pricing mechanism, CO2 taxes of any kind, Carbon Levies, or pays
subsidies to fake CO2 offsetting companies, and so on and so forth, is imposing
Why wouldn’t an untrustworthy government do
such a thing? Of course, they would. To
have the chance to take someone’s money and have nothing to give back in return
is a dream for them.
I actually sent letters to many politicians, mainstream television media outlets and radio news stations in the UK. None of them brought this information to the public. Why would they? They are raking in money from the scam. Why would they want to stop the money flood? It was only Principia Scientific International and now also the Postil, who were willing to publish such news. They have the guts to stand up – so should we all.
Here is a final comparison from this experiment,
zoomed out so you can see both. The difference is obvious to all. The left is
with a vacuum the right is with CO2 inside at 0.7 Bar. This is an
indisputable fact. Yet I have actually had many politicians and
fake alarmists dispute it. That on its own tells you all you need to know. They
are desperate to ignore the truth and cling to their lies.
No 2 – Temperature Test Comparisons Small Chambers
I received hundreds of troll comments, most of which I deleted; some claiming to be professors, experts at NASA, and all sorts of nonsense. Whether they were true or not, I have no idea.
Although some from their links did seem genuine in their claims of expertise, but what they were claiming was not. I received the same sort of nonsense claims from politicians also, as I have been sending out letters telling them, they need to repeal CO2 tax laws, and that the “Climate Crisis” is nothing but a lie.
Their crazy claims ranged from, “You didn’t
leave it on long enough for the tipping point to occur,” to “The base is shiny.
It’s affecting the experiment,” to even, “Light bulbs don’t emit IR!” (Yep, the alarmists trolls will lie pathologically
But we all know – many politicians are nothing
What you see, in the comparison picture above,
is the truth. Nothing can change that.
We all need to be brave and understand we are
being lied to. That’s right, kiddies, Santa is not real.
In order to further progress my claim and
provide further evidence that we are being lied to, I have conducted a series
of temperature tests, again using light bulbs and my vacuum chamber, some gases
and a thermometer.
What I did, is that I performed some simple comparisons. In these smaller chambers, I placed a thermometer against the surface of the bulb, to measure the surface bulb temperature and then left it there with a camera watching it, to record the temperature. I evacuated the chamber and performed a baseline comparison with the bulb in a vacuum.
I then performed a comparison with Argon and another with CO2. The results were not surprising to me, but they do surprise every climate alarmist, or anyone who has been fooled into believing them. When I ask, they all expect CO2 to be the hottest. Why wouldn’t people think this?
They have in some instances grown up, being force-fed the lies that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which “induces warming,” via the fake mechanism of “back irradiance.” They think this is the gospel truth. It is not. It is Satan’s lies, and the alarmist preachers are nothing but false prophets and con-artists disguised as saviours.
To help understand the tables – RT (Room Temperature) indicates the temperature which a free-standing digital temperature probe indicated to be the room-temperature. The starting temperature was indicated on the digital probe inside the vacuum chamber, as I activated the light.
This probe touches the side of the bulb, and it reads the highest temperature, which is the bulb glass. This is not perfect; and, in due course, I will get better thermometers. But this is sufficient to show that the concept of gaseous back radiant induced heating just doesn’t work.
In each instance, the chamber was evacuated
first, pressurised and then the light activated.
In the first test, I used a Vintage Squirrel
Cage bulb, and pressurised the gases to 0.5 Bar. In the second test, I used a
Spiral Vintage bulb, and pressurised the gases to 0.6 Bar. The result is
similar in both instances. (My squirrel cage bulb blew L)
You can see here that in both tests, the bulb surface
temperatures were cooler than in the vacuum, than with CO2 added. In the first
test, after 20 minutes, the Vacuum achieved a maximum temperature of 69.1, and
in the second test 63.6. CO2 on the other hand achieved a maximum temperature
of 63.3 and 59.2 with the different bulbs respectively, which was amazingly,
The addition of CO2 gas had no warming effect,
only a cooling one. And when I compared Argon to CO2, I found that Argon
resulted in warmer conditions and faster temperature rises than
CO2, despite the fact that Argon is not a “Greenhouse Gas,” which is actually
fake and misleading terminology.
Now amazingly, I still had troll comments about
these tests too. One of the most common troll comments was that my experiment
was too small and that I should use a much taller tower in order to get more
back radiance from the CO2.
Yes, this really is how ignorant some people are. They will say anything and grasp at whatever silly straw they can, to hold onto their lies. They are in effect “pathological.” They are not scientists. They aren’t being reasonable. They are suffering mental health issues. They are in denial; and thus, they are the Deniers. Deniers, who refuse to acknowledge the truth, even when they see it.
No 3 – Tall Tower Chamber
But I wanted to see if they were right or wrong.
I got a chamber which was 2.6 times the height of the smaller chambers – just
to see what happens. Would I be proved wrong?
Would the extra CO2 induce more back radiance, like all the fakexperts
The difference is stark, obvious, undeniable
and indisputable. This is how it is.
The difference between how a greenhouse works
and the lies being preached by deceivers in schools, colleges and universities
looks as stark as this:
The Lies They Teach
What Truth Looks Like:
This and so much more is elaborated upon in my book. Everyone, everywhere needs to arm themselves with as much knowledge that they can get their hands on, against the deceivers of the state, to repel their lies and take direct action against them.
The climate of corruption, around the money-flood, which fake activism has instigated, has corroded all forms of government, especially democracy. The pernicious deceit and lies need to be purged out of all corners of society.
Any scientist who tells you CO2 induces GMST to rise is nothing but a charlatan, a two-bit actor reading out his lines and playing a part in an act designed to con you.
CO2 does not act like an insulating blanket. It
does not induce warming of the surface, which means that the radiation
greenhouse effect and all its preachers are just pure pompous ridiculous self-serving
fraudsters and fools.
I have more experiments in the works and I will
broadcast the results of those when they are completed.
It is clear that “True Science” is being denied us and our children by the state which we have entrusted to look after, and educate, us. We all now know that we need to take that power back and demand that the lies stop, and we need to throw the faker politicians out of power.
I would even go as far as jail the ringleaders and fine any organisation found to be engaging in such despicable deceptions and frauds. Oh, and if the silly cry-baby climate protesters don’t like that, they can face the water cannons; and I’m pretty sure those crusty sensitive snowflakes will find jail enjoyable too. It’s what they deserve.
I had never heard of Geraint Hughes before but upon opening this book for the first time, I know he understands the lies we are being fed and seeks to debunk them one by one.
The first myth Hughes debunks is the nonsense about how a greenhouse actually works. For most young people, like myself, we were taught in school that back radiation heats the greenhouse, that the glass of the greenhouse returns the sun’s heat to the ground thus increasing the temperature however. But this is an unscientific falsehood.
A greenhouse actually works due to convection.
A strong convection current within the greenhouse creates a cycle of warming and cooling. The sun heats the earth which causes the air close to the ground to heat up and rise, it is trapped by the glass where it cools and falls back to the earth where the cycle repeats. Knowing this is the lynchpin of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
The ‘greenhouse’ analogy completely falls apart already just knowing this, but Hughes continues to pick apart every lie the Alarmists use. The mission of the book is achieved step by step exposing the shocking truth that mainstream science claims about the Greenhouse Gas Theory are pure junk science garbage.
Most books I’ve encountered that focus on climate science are daunting to read. They require an understanding of physics and thermodynamics in order to carefully follow what we are being told.
Within the first 25 pages of Black Dragon I gleaned more insight into these issues than I found in my five years of senior school studying GCSE Physics.
Hughes makes the task easier by completely breaking down the science and equations he is using so that anyone can understand them. He then explains the physical application of this science and how it in no way relates to the Greenhouse gas Theory – which he repeatedly disproves.
Since I am a college undergraduate currently studying Bioscience – Chemistry, Biology and Psychology, one thing Hughes debunks really fascinated me; Hughes beautifully exposes the ubiquitous Climate Change in a Bottle experiment. The ridiculous Bill Nye ‘the non-science guy’ video of this is found here.
My old science teacher actually used this experiment to ‘educate’ us about Climate Change, but it completely misses out some glaringly obvious things that would affect the results.
For example, the experiment completely neglects the fact that the density of both Air and Carbon Dioxide are different and the specific heat capacity of both these gases is different, which would affect the rate at which these gases absorb IR.
Now, is this deliberate deception or simply the product of incompetence and misunderstanding among ‘experts’?
For me, the whole Climate Change narrative seems to be a case of the more you look, the less you see. What I mean by this is the more you focus on what you are being told, it reveals itself as completely wrong. Cautious (skeptic) minds need to take a step back and view it objectively – then everything becomes a lot clearer.
The whole section on Venus was interesting to read. Those spouting alarmist nonsense would have us believe Venus’ high temperatures are caused by a runaway greenhouse effect. But Venus’ temperature is due to its natural structure and formation, however, the interesting thing about this section isn’t the debunking myth about Venus but what we learn about Venus itself.
Throughout the book Hughes makes insightful and interesting points with strong evidence to prove why the various (sometimes competing) theories on Greenhouse Gas are incorrect.
One of the key things that will stick with me is that difference between Oxy and CO2 gas planets, Oxy or oxygen gas planets and Carbon Dioxide gas planets have very different temperatures for one simple reason – how emissive the abundant gas is.
Oxygen is far less emissive than CO2, therefore Oxy planets have higher temperatures, because of this it is impossible for CO2 to be the cause of global warming and Climate Change. While this isn’t the most comprehensive book I have read on the subject (it is quite short, just 152 pages), it is one of the most informative.
Given the rumors, Russians often wish all those theories about our
super-soldiers and X-Men skeletons were true. Alas, the Soviet Union only went
as far as trying to make immortal politicians (not as cool – but still cool,
Not long before the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, a clandestine
society emerged in Russia. Its members would conspire to meet in safe houses
where they summoned volunteers to take part in blood transfusions. Creepy,
right? You may be forgiven for thinking this was a sect or a religious cult,
but in fact, the organization was run by a very sane Bolshevik higher-up,
Alexander Bogdanov (real name Malinovsky), close Lenin ally, co-founder of the
party and noted scientist behind the Socialist Institute.
“The great visionary”, as he was called by followers, was trying to
unlock the secret to immortality.
Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’ had found great favor with readers in the
Russian Empire, including Nicholas II himself. This fascination carried over
into Socialist times. The meanings of blood and sacrifice enjoyed mystical
fervor in a country that had just lost two million people in a war the likes of
which the world had never seen in scale or efficiency of brutality.
“Why couldn’t they just resurrect him?”, wrote many in army circles
about the 1924 demise of Vladimir Lenin. The idea that a figure of such
colossal stature could die was unfathomable.
Lenin appeared to have been worn down by stress, exhaustion and
malnutrition – all leading to a whole bouquet of symptoms afflicting nearly
every old-school ruling class Bolshevik barely in his mid-thirties. They
haven’t even had time to properly start ‘emancipating the world from capitalist
tyranny’. Something had to be done.
It is no secret that Russia at the dawn of the Bolsheviks was a highly
experimental country. No stone was left unturned in the search for the perfect
Russian – including the famous sex reforms.
Given blood’s mystical allure, some scientists of the time also
theorized that the person’s entire personality, soul and immune system were
contained in their blood.
Bogdanov was such a scientist. Not only that – he was a polymath and an
avid stargazer with a deep fascination for Mars, which he envisioned as a sort
of socialist utopian society of blood brothers. These ideas laid the
foundations for his novel, ‘The Red Star’, about a scientist who travels to the
Red Planet, and finds out that the Communists there had almost attained
immortality, all thanks to this culture of blood.
Lenin was disappointed with Bogdanov’s preoccupation with fantasy and
sci-fi, leading to a rift between the two, Lenin believing that Bogdanov was
making people chase foolish dreams instead of focusing on the work of forging
the Revolution. But Bogdanov was too useful at the time, being the second
figure in the party – the man directed the Bolsheviks during Lenin’s exile.
Even so, their camaraderie could not have survived their differences:
Lenin advocated for dialogue and cooperation, including participation in the
Duma – Russia’s legislative body. Bogdanov wanted no part in it, leaning even
further left than Lenin himself had.
Together with his friend, Leonid Krasin, Bogdanov set up a military wing
under the RSDLP’s Central Committee. Money from its expropriations would
be distributed to the various organizations controlled by Lenin and Bogdanov.
The latter was furious that more money seemed to be going to Lenin’s cause.
Bogdanov would soon be expelled from the Workers’ Party. The two were split
on their interpretation of Marxism, and Lenin’s works had begun to reflect
that, calling out Bogdanov for his “bourgeois” outlook. At that point, even
Lenin’s family thought he could’ve taken it down a notch. But the Bolshevik was
having none of it – even banning Bogdanov’s novels from being read in the
Bogdanov, on the other hand, thought of Lenin’s ideals as those of ‘absolute
Marxism’ – “the bloodsucker of the Old World,” turning followers vampire, chief
among them Lenin. Bogdanov had lost his party, his job and his credibility
while exchanging literary jabs with people he considered his comrades.
After the devastation of WWI, however, a glimmer of light had appeared:
“science can do anything” was to be the mantra of the 1920s-30s.
Mikhail Bulgakov had then just published his brilliant piece of sci-fi
satire – ‘A Dog’s Heart’, which talked about transferring a dog’s soul into a
human subject, another telltale sign of the times. It became obvious that
science was beginning to take inspiration from fiction. With Bogdanov as the
Bogdanov cared not for what we know about blood today – from blood groups
and the Rh blood system to a whole host of other factors. His science was
fraught with danger, with him as the most frequent guinea pig.
The blood would be taken from patients, poured into a sterile container and
mixed with an anti-clotting agent, before the transfusions took place. They
would have to be fast as well, to prevent bacteria forming.
Bogdanov’s fan base grew as this borderline-mad experimentation began to
show signs of progress: Bogdanov himself was said to have begun looking 5-10
years younger, while his wife’s gout also began showing signs of improvement.
People couldn’t believe their eyes!
It wouldn’t take long before Stalin himself would be bitten by the science
bug, leading him to call upon Bogdanov and his experimentation, even suggesting
he join back with the party he was expelled from by his predecessor.
Stalin was certainly no Lenin, and believed he needed every edge if (when)
the next World War was going to take place. No money was spared to find a
military application for the transfusions.
The Institute for Blood Transfusion was set up in 1926 on the leader’s
orders. Bogdanov becomes director. This fascination with the idea of blood
brotherhood expressed in his Martian sci-fi novel would finally begin to bear
Tragically, the mad scientist and sci-fi Bolshevik had not had enough time
to properly study the effects of his rejuvenation procedures. We had no idea
about erythrocytes or plasma or any checks and practices in place today for a
Bogdanov was very interested in whether a person’s entire immune defenses
were also transferred through blood. It seemed that a young man suffering from
tuberculosis was the perfect candidate to test that theory.
A liter of blood was exchanged between the patient and the ‘doctor’.
It didn’t help that Bogdanov had been comparing his own blood to that of
Dracula – immune to human afflictions. That twelfth transfusion would become
his last. In the space of three hours, both started to suffer a steady
deterioration: fever, nausea, vomiting – all signs of a serious poisoning.
However, Bogdanov decided to keep the transfusion under wraps. On that
excruciatingly painful day, he’d felt even worse than the poorly Kaldomasov –
the tuberculosis sufferer. He refused treatment nonetheless in a vain attempt
to understand what had happened.
Bogdanov’s kidneys gave out in 48 hours, resulting in death from a hemolytic
reaction. His last words, according to Channel 1’s interview with close
descendant and economist Vladimir Klebaner, had been “Do what must be done. We
must fight to the end.” He passed on April 7, 1928, aged 54.
But what of the student? The 21-year-old had lived. The doctors couldn’t
tell why, even after another last-minute transfusion had failed to save
Bogdanov from death. It would later become apparent that this final procedure
wasn’t the culprit (both he and Kaldomasov were type O) – but the 11 preceding
ones had been, creating antibodies in Bogdanov to the degree that even the
correct blood would have been rejected. That’s all we know.
Stalin was very angry. Having pledged tens of thousands of rubles toward
Bogdanov’s blood institute, the Soviet leader began now to think that all
scientists were charlatans and extortionists.
In the end, however, it was thanks to Bogdanov’s work that Soviet hematology got a much needed push forward.
The photo shows, “Ivan the Terrible and his son,” by Ilya Repin, painted in 1885.
The bestselling novelist, Dan Brown, has decided to slay yet one more dragon.
Previously, he was busy destroying Jesus, Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church, saints, sanctity. This time, he has far bigger fish to fry…Move over Nietzsche!
In Origin, Brown wants to kill off God, by way of science, because religion is all “a hodgepodge of ancient fictions, fables, and myths,” which science can oh-so easily take apart and sweep into the dustbin of superstition.
This is such a 19th-century argument which keeps getting recycled.
The argument itself is impossible to sustain in the light of history, let alone philosophy, but that has never stopped people like Dan Brown.
The idea that modern-day Christianity is a hangover from simpler times – when people were, well, simple-minded enough to believe all those “fictions” cobbled together from ancient myths – was developed by men such as Hermann Usener, Gerald Massey, and James Frazer.
Of course, by “religion,” Brown really means Christianity. It is highly doubtful that he will ever write any novels that will seek to destroy…say…Allah, Mohammad, Islam…As is common knowledge, Christians and Christianity are an easy target, so let’s have at it – there’s serious money to be made!
But to say, as Brown does, that science will kill off God is being terribly simple-minded – because “religion” and “science” are contrived and monolithic constructs designed by hucksters to elicit the “correct” response – that the former is false and the latter is true.
To set God and science against each other is nothing but a rhetorical trick meant only to benefit Brown’s novel. God and science have never been mutually exclusive, as is often, but wrongly, assumed. Rather, science and God complement each other.
It is in fact Brown’s novels, including Origin, which are “a hodgepodge of ancient fictions, fables, and myths.”
But we should not forget that he’s in the money-making business, and slander and stereotypes pay quite well.
On his way to the bank, however, he will corrupt many minds and waylay many souls with his piffle, as he proselytizes for his own god (Science) and his own religion (Scientism)
To say that science is the only explanation of everything is to diminish science and humanity. Science understands its limits, for it can only serve humanity in a particular way.
Thus, science knows that love is far more than a chemically-induced function of the brain. To say science negates God is to say that mankind needs finite answers that are good forever.
What a terrible wish for the future! As with so much of our culture today, Brown is content drowning in the roils of Presentism – that the past is eternally wrong (because it was not progressive), and the present is eternally right (because we have benefited from progress and thus have achieved all the right answers forever, so what we determine is good and right – is good and right forever).
Here it is important to note that religion has never sought to kill off science, while ever since the Enlightenment, science has always seen itself as a rival of God and has sought all kinds of ways to get rid of him. Here, we should not trundle out old Galileo. The reality of what actually happened is far different than what is popularly repeated, including in Brown’s Origin.
The modern-age is marked by countless attempts to delete God from the memory of man, because God is decried as being harmful, while science is proclaimed to be beneficial – hence the justification that atheism is the true future of mankind – because science is eternally right and God is eternally wrong.
But in the various attempts at this deletion lie endless cruelties and tragedies. Thus, by promoting this narrative of deletion, Brown includes himself in those horrors, because without God he cannot say why they were wrong.
Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao were not Godly men – but they were deeply and profoundly scientific men who sought to create a materialist paradise.
Indeed, Brown’s entire writing career has depended upon offering various arguments for precisely a “better” world without God, and so his arguments are finely aligned with those of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and so many others.
Further, to say that science alone best serves humanity is to establish tyranny. History is littered with scientific societies that sought to make life better for mankind, but ended in total murder.
It is estimated that in the last century communism (the ultimate commitment to life lived by the dictates of science) killed nearly a 100 million people. That statistic alone should stop the purveyors of scientism, like Brown, dead in their tracks. But it never does.
Origin is thus a hodgepodge of the wildest conspiracy theories, made plausible by the guise of fiction. It’s a clever marketing ploy, really – make people think they’re being “intellectual,” as they wallow in distorted and dumbed-down history, so they can then get through life “enlightened” and scientific.
Now, let’s dispense with the plot (spoiler alert).
Robert Langdon (Brown’s ubiquitous hero) is invited to attend a lavish premiere of a video presentation in Spain.
This video will cure the world of God, and humanity will at last be free to put all its trust in science. In other words, humans don’t need God any more – everyone is too grown up now to actually believe in such fairy tales (see Usener, Massey, Frazer above).
The creator of this earth-shattering revelation is Langdon’s former student, the fabulously rich and brilliant computer geek, Edmond Kirsch.
But, true to form, the video is never shown, because Kirsch is killed by a navy admiral who heads a sinister cabal of arch-Catholics (Catholic-bashing never goes out of style for Brown), who have made it their life mission to keep people ignorant and therefore in the pews. It’s all up to Langdon once again.
The narrative moves all over Spain, with many long-winded, and mistaken, explanations of intellectual stuff, until Langdon finally gets the job done.
As for God, well, it seems that Kirsch’s video revealed that life on earth is not the result of some designing, eternal mind (God), but came about through natural laws.
That’s all?! This is the earth-shattering revelation?! The word, “bathos” comes to mind. This is supposed to kill God and finally haul ignorant humanity into the bright, clear truth of science? The Pre-Socratics were saying this back in the 6th-century BC!
But, wait. Aren’t laws designs? When we say life happened because of laws, then we are admitting life is actually designed. The Pre-Socratics had figured this out as well.
Now, this is where things get interesting.
Brown’s character, Kirsch, has based his God-defeating argument on the work of a physics professor at MIT, named Jeremy England.
Brown summarizes England’s work in this way – that the “physical principle” responsible for creating life (aka, natural laws) makes God useless. (See comment above about dumbing things down).
At this point, fiction segues into reality – because, in fact, there really is a scientist named, Jeremy England, and he has spoken up and written a very elegant refutation of Brown’s presumptions, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The title of this refutation says it all – “Dan Brown Can’t Cite Me to Disprove God.”
The real Professor England, at MIT, does indeed teach physics – and (the ultimate take-down) does indeed believe, not only in God, but in the God of the Bible.
And the supposed “brilliance” of Edmond Kirsch is destroyed by the real Professor England (who truly is brilliant) by one simple observation: “There’s no real science in the book to argue over.”
This raises another obvious question – do people really read Brown’s half-baked musings as actual fact? They must. (The education system has a lot of explaining to do).
But let’s not rush into things…the words of H.L. Mencken come to mind, “No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
In actual fact, science offers glimpses into the never-ending complexity of the natural world and the cosmos.
To reduce everything down to the level of “science” vs. God is to vastly misunderstand science and God, and sledgehammer both into great globs of dull-wittedness to amuse the hapless.
Professor England then proceeds to mirror Ludwig Wittgenstein when he describes the true nature of scientific inquiry (a description far more compelling than anything Brown can come up with in his entire novel).
England tells us that scientific explanation is about a choice of language – what words, what register, to use in order to describe, quantify, and analyze.
Then England waxes wonderfully Wittgensteinian: “The language of physics can be extremely useful in talking about the world, but it can never address everything that needs to be said about human life.”
Let’s recall Wittgenstein in the Tractus: “…even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.”
Humans live not by quantification and description – they live by morality, which alone can meet the problems and challenges of life. Science is mindless when it comes to morality. It’s like asking a lawnmower to create a majestic wedding cake.
The problem with science is that it can never answer the question, “Why?” When people like Brown force it to answer this question, science disappears and Scientism enters in – this is better than that – secularism is better than God – half a loaf is better than Heaven. And thus tyranny begins.
Rather, “Why” – is the search for the good, it is the cry of the conscience – it is not the quest for comprehension.
“Why” – is the search for moral clarity, which is that quiet strength, urging us to compassion and love.
Science knows nothing about living, because it cannot understand why we must live.
Currently, the West is possessed by a suicidal hunger. Its itching ears yearn to hear the siren-song of “progress” and “science,” which will lead to some brave new utopia.
Only the return of morality shall exorcize the West and perhaps yet save its soul.
A “science-run” society is nothing other than control by an elite, a priestly class of scientists who always know better than we do, and therefore can tell us how to live and what to think.
Scientism also emboldens the state to legislate behavior and implant, through relentless propaganda, state-sanctioned agendas, which people become used to and then demand as their natural preference.
It was Jacques Ellul who pointed out that propaganda does not flow down from the top. Rather, propaganda is what the people themselves demand. This is the truly frightening aspect of science – people demanding their own enslavement because they’ve been conditioned to think such bondage is the path to a bright future.
In a Godless world, only the Marquis de Sade makes sense – the perpetual satisfaction of all urges, no matter what the cost. In fact, de Sade is the only man in history who fearlessly explored what it truly means to live in this world without God. Even Nietzsche, in the end, balked at that,
To live by the logic of science is not liberty, not progress, not life. Rather, it is submission to the worst form of slavery, namely, a life “beyond good and evil.”
As for God, here is Professor England’s profound observation, which brilliantly destroys Brown’s agenda: “To me, the idea that physics could prove that the God of Abraham is not the creator and ruler of the world reflects a serious misunderstanding – of both the scientific method and the function of the biblical text.”
Brown’s currency is pedalling in falsehoods. How much longer are we going to put up with such privileged elite, who live in their mansions and still have the need to tell us how to live – and even what to believe?
Perhaps in answer, Professor England, asks a far better question: “Do we need to keep learning about God? For my part, in light of everything I know, I am certain that we do.”
The photo shows, “An Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump,” by Joseph Wright of Derby, painted, 1768.