Last modified on January 25, 2022, at 16:02

War on Science

The cult of Faucism.

The War on Science is the Leftist expropriation of natural science to promote crackpot social science, political, and economic theories. It is conducted through media, academia, and the administrative state by statists to foster a technocracy akin to an atheistic cult. The war on science essentially uses perverted and junk science to foster totalitarian control.

Winston Churchill warned in his famous Finest Hour speech,

"But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.'[1]


See also: Scientific racism

The Age of Enlightenment ushered in an era of secularization and blind faith in science as the final arbiter of truth. This atheistic approach is responsible for some of the most horrific crimes in history. Among them were the holocaust and segregation.


See also: Eugenics

The liberal American Medical Society provided this summary:[2]

"The publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 led to the rise of the eugenics movement in Europe. Eugenics supporters believed that races could be improved by selective breeding. The Nazi Party adopted this belief and began a campaign against the Jews. Many physicians joined the Nazi Party because they needed jobs."

Many genocides have been committed in the name of Eugenics, most notably the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler was a strong believer in eugenics and evolution and believed that Jewish people were closest to apes, followed by Africans, Asians, non-Aryan Europeans, and finally, Aryans, who he believed were most evolved.

Pat Milmoe McCarrick and Mary Carrington Coutts, reference librarians for the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at Georgetown University, were more succinct: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide." [3]


See also: Evolutionary racism and Social effects of the theory of evolution

Evolution establishes a "scientific" rationale for racism by extending the "great chain of being" to humanity. Just as animal species are ordered into a hierarchy according to development, so too the "races of men" are described as being more or less developed than others.

Evolutionists then extend the doctrine of survival of the fittest to humanity. Pulitzer Prize winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper's Magazine:

Fear of spreading an epidemic was used to segregate suspected infectious disease carriers from the rest of society.
While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.

Dawkins deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of. . . an insane and unscientific eugenics theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period, the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.

There is indeed historical precedent in the Spanish Inquisition for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science."[4][5]

Joseph Stalin was greatly influenced by the work of Charles Darwin.[6]

Dr. Josef Mengele's evolutionary thinking was in accordance with social Darwinist theories that Adolph Hitler and a number of German academics found appealing.[7] Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the "unworthy life" branch of evolutionary thought.[7] Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with Nazi death camps and the Holocaust.[8] Mengele obtained an infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at Auschwitz-Birkenau.[8]


So-called "Jim Crow laws" were for the most part state and local public health ordinances,[9] such as segregated bathrooms, based on science. Hard sciences such as eugenics and racial biology were used to justify mistreatment of Blacks.[10] It was the social sciences that overthrew the natural scientists' "facts" in the Supreme Court.[11]

President Franklin Roosevelt's Georgia Warm Springs Polio Rehabilitation Center, founded by Franklin Roosevelt in the 1920s before he became president, maintained a Whites-only admission policy. This discrimination was sustained by a scientific argument about polio itself - that Blacks were not susceptible to the disease.[12] The center continued to practice racial discrimination into the 1960s until it was finally struck down by a federal Appeals Court ruling and changes made in the Civil Rights Act.

Then there's the notorious government-funded medical research in the Tuskegee Institute syphilis experiments.

Modern times

With the replacement of God by science, courts and legislators have looked to psychiatrists, psychologists, physicists, chemists, and with the growth of technology, mathematicians and computer scientists for guidance. Even the legal field has taken a backseat to the political power of natural scientists. This of course often puts public policy at odds with others in scientific fields of study, such as economists and historians.

Increasingly, natural science has become a cudgel wielded by leftists in the sociological field and political science, not to "save the planet" or species, but in an abusive drive for political power and control for themselves. After all, they claim to be so much intellectually "superior" than the rest of humanity.[13] Fake research also played a role in the promotion of the sexual revolution of the 1960s.[14][15]


Economist Thomas Sowell observed:

The Marxian contribution to economics can be readily summarized as virtually zero. Professional economics as it exists today reflects no indication that Karl Marx ever existed...The development of modern economics has simply ignored Marx. Even economists who are Marxists typically utilize a set of analytical tools to which Marx contributed nothing... In professional economics, Das Capital was a detour into a blind alley...[16]

Global warming

Climate cultist Greta Thunberg wearing an Antifa terrorist organization T-shirt.
See also: Global warming, Climate change, and Climategate

"Global warming" began as an anti-capitalist movement in the 1980s to oppose President Ronald Reagan's defense modernization program, which ultimately bankrupted the Soviet Union. Anti-capitalists attacked the booming auto manufacturing,[17] oil drilling and refining industries as responsible for the destruction of the planet. This leftwing socialist sentiment was taught in schools and universities, where faculty salaries are dependent on statist largesse and who feared Reagan's budget cuts. The Soviet KGB, known for its propaganda campaigns such as the AIDS virus being "invented" by the Pentagon, mounted one last-ditch effort to save Communism and fight capitalism.[18]

Of course, the theory of Russian influence and meddling in American politics was dismissed by the Left as "utter lunacy" at the time. As the Soviet Union collapsed, a Nobel Prize was awarded to give some credence to the theory which was widely held to be a hoax. In President Bill Clinton's Reinventing Government study, NASA began promoting the theory with satellite photos to avoid post-Cold War budget cuts.

A September 2019 article in the The New Yorker by Jonathan Franzen unwittingly observed how the "climate apocalypse" was born out of the death rattle of authoritarian socialism in the Soviet Union. Thomas D. Williams of Breitbart comments:

The science about global warming became “became fully clear” in 1988, Franzen relates, and back then there may have been a chance to do something about the future of the planet, whereas now, no such sunny scenarios exist.

Instead, it is better for the world to “accept that disaster is coming, and begin to rethink what it means to have hope,” he proposes.

Climate apocalypse, he declares, “will take the form of increasingly severe crises compounding chaotically until civilization begins to fray.”

No such climate screed would be complete without demonizing your enemies, and Mr. Franzen’s is no exception, and he decries the Republican Party’s position on climate science as simply “evil.”

The only realistic way to approach the necessary zero net emissions, globally, in the next three decades would involve a centralized, authoritarian power capable of using coercive measures to deal with the critical state of emergency, he notes....

But even if this should fail to happen, he continues, “there’s still a strong practical and ethical case for reducing carbon emissions” and this goal “would be worth pursuing even if it had no effect at all.”[19]

Genetically modified foods

With science being the ultimate arbiter of truth, and lawmakers and courts on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean bowing to their claimed "superior" knowledge and wisdom, and their final judgement, yet it remained a mystery how scientists in the European Union banned genetically modified foods as dangerous and unhealthy while American scientists exonerated genetically modified foods of all defects and claimed they are an improvement over natural foods.[20]

But the explanation is quite simple: natural scientists have given cover to EU politicians to ban competitively priced U.S. food imports and protect European farmers.[21] Here, once again, economic science trumped natural science. To hold together the European Union as an economically viable experiment, natural scientists were only too willing to prostitute themselves to government research grants.

The Left has been criticized for its opposition to genetically modified foods which stifled research into what could be used to feed the growing population of Africa.[22] The environmental organization Greenpeace led the anti-science movement.[23] Liberals believed it was an agenda to place agricultural production in the hands of a few corporate giants like Monsanto through seed patents and deny small farmers control of production.

Science cults

See also: Scientism and Faucism

Scientism is the religion of worshiping science as a source of explanations about the universe. It is based on their faith that science will provide answers because Scientists have a declared "objective" point of view.[24]

Believers of Scientism deny the existence of God, and instead worship pseudoscientific methods. They seek to use what they claim to be as "science" to replace God as the source for infinite knowledge, and the foundation of society. Scientists generally think of themselves as being Gods while practicing their scientific rituals, because they think they are coming up with answers. However, they really just pretend that they are God to feel superior to the faithful.

Worshipers of Scientism also believe that science should replace traditional morality, so that they can do whatever they want as long as it is dictated by "science".[25]

During the CCP pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed to be the physical embodiment of truth.[26]

Doubling down on error

Given the record of excesses and abuses, natural scientists and their advocates are in the awkward and embarrassing position of arguing that alleged "pure science" has, at times in the past, been colored by ideological trappings. So, scientifically speaking, there is no legitimate claim that today's science cannot likewise be prejudiced by non-scientific and unscientific factors, as well. Nevertheless, it appears science advocates have doubled down on a flawed premise.

In 2017 Eric Armstrong wrote in New Republic:
"in the modern liberal mind, whether someone can be called a science-denier has taken on a scope limited to a small subset of scientific concepts: climate change and evolution. In essence, if you accept these concepts, you are pro-science; if you deny them, you are anti-science. True as that may be, this myopic view ignores a wide world of science, some of which is at odds with many beliefs popular on the left. The time has come for Democrats to remove the beam from their own eyes, so to speak. Taking up the mantle of scientific liberalism—that is, adopting an evidence-based view of reality in pursuit of progressive policy—would serve both the strategic purposes of the Democratic Party in the menacing face of Trumpism, as well as the existential interests of humanity.[27]
Armstrong goes on to criticize leftists who believe in homeopathic cures, then puts himself at odds with the best minds of science in the European Union by claiming genetically modified foods are completely healthy, and finally adopts Thomas Sowell's argument of the difference between liberals and conservatives in relation to nuclear power - that liberals seek perfect solutions while conservatives see only trade-offs.[28]

The pursuit of science as the font of all wisdom and knowledge gave the human species nuclear weapons and the constant overhanging threat of complete destruction. More recently it gave us the opioid crisis. Science itself, without morality, is not a solution to problems, and can threaten life on this earth.[29]


Left-wing pro-abortion activists ignore and deny the numerous scientific evidences that the unborn are fully human, preferring instead to advance their pseudoscientific ideology.[30][31] In 2019, a University of Chicago researcher found that 96% of biologists believe that life begins at fertilization.[32][33]


See also: Social experiment

The most recent leftist manifestation of the War on Science is the teaching that gender is a social construct.[34] In the field of gender studies, social scientists now preemptively dictate how natural science is taught. Cultural Marxists invaded and took over the American academic world well before the Soviet Union collapsed and the international communist revolution supposedly came to an end. The guiding light no longer dwells in the Kremlin, but within the hallowed halls of American academia.

Nowhere did this "change you can believe in" become more pronounced than in the politicization of gender psychosis under President Barack Obama.[35] Using "science" as a basis, Obama signed Executive Order 13672, barring discrimination in hiring against persons suffering with gender dysphoria in federal employment and among government contractors, and allowing them to use restroom facilities of another gender in federal buildings and in the places of employment of government contractors.

Facebook, which is an NSA surveillance contractor and receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money,[36] was among the first to make a company-wide shift in policy.[37] Facebook recognizes 58 genders,[38] although there is little or no science behind it.[39] 20% of all Facebook users are under 25 years of age, and 45% are under 35 years old.[40] The implication is clear, using no science, far leftists seek to raise a generation that consider gender a matter of choice, not biological science.[41]

Transgender athletes

A fake news "scientific" poll by a Progressive group claims 98% of straight men - black, white, Hispanic and Asian - will not date transgenders allegedly because of "hate."[42]

In May 2019 the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed the Equality Act with unanimous support from Democrats. Democrat 2020 presidential election frontrunners have pledged to prioritize the bill's passage if elected.

The Equality Act would make "gender identity" a protected category under federal anti-discrimination laws, which would force public schools to expand female athletic teams to include biological males who identify as transgender girls.

"Many states have sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination laws, and all of them still have women's sports. Arguments about transgender athletes participating in sports in accordance with their gender identity having competitive advantages have not been borne out," House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said.

Democratic California Rep. Katie Hill called it "fear-mongering about transwomen playing in sports."

“The myth that trans women have a ‘direct competitive advantage’ is not supported by medical science, and it continues to stoke fear and violence against one of the most at-risk communities in the world,” Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar wrote in a letter to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, urging him to investigate USA Powerlifting for barring male weightlifters from female events.[43]

A paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics found that "indirect effects of testosterone will not be altered by hormone therapy. For example, hormone therapy will not alter bone structure, lung volume or heart size of the transwoman athlete, especially if she transitions postpuberty, so natural advantages including joint articulation, stroke volume and maximal oxygen uptake will be maintained."

The paper concluded that male athletes who identify as transgender women have an "intolerable" advantage over their female competitors. The authors cited research showing that "healthy young men did not lose significant muscle mass (or power) when their circulating testosterone levels were reduced to [below International Olympic Committee guidelines] for 20 weeks."

Climate apocalypse

See also: Climate alarmism
Official poster for the Green Leap Forward in the style of Socialist realism.

Green New Deal

Main article: Green New Deal

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is an effort to hijack natural science and the elimination of fossil fuels as the basis of legislation to create a basic income, a federal jobs workforce, reparations for the descendants of slaves, and Medicare for All.[44]

In the 116th Congress, Democrats introduced legislation for slave reparations, a guaranteed income, and Medicare for All as way to reduce carbon emission. The legislation claims, for example, slave reparations will reduce global warming by 2 degrees Celsius.

Socialism vs. sanity

See also: 2020 Leftwing riots

A study, which conducted six experiments with 3,399 participants, was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. It concludes Americans stop caring about causes when protesters riot.

Using a handful of conservative and liberal causes, including the Black Lives Matter movement, animal rights, and the pro-life movement, researchers examined how different protest actions influence support for the various movements. (In their report, they refer to the pro-life movement as the “anti-abortion movement,” suggesting the authors are not conservative.)

Researchers found that highly disruptive and extreme behavior at protests backfires, increasing support for the opposite cause.

“We found extreme anti-Trump protest actions actually led people to not only dislike the movement and support the cause less, but to be willing to support Trump more,” said Matthew Feinberg, the corresponding author of the study and an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the University of Toronto. “It was almost like a backlash.”

The study’s authors describe their conclusion as “an activist’s dilemma.”

“Taken together with prior research showing that extreme protest actions can be effective for applying pressure to institutions and raising awareness of movements, these findings suggest an activist’s dilemma, in which the same protest actions that may offer certain benefits are also likely to undermine popular support for social movements.”[45]

Nuclear power

Eric Armstrong points out nuclear power plants produce zero greenhouse gases, whereas liberals have warred against the expansion of nuclear power plants for 50 years.

Since its commercialization in the 1970s, nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths. Nuclear reactors have caused the lowest number of fatalities per unit of energy generated when compared to fossil fuels and hydropower.

New Atheism Movement

See also: New Atheism Movement

According to PZ Myers, the intellectual roots of atheism is science (See: Atheism and science). Myers claims people can "find enduring meaning in science and evidence-based reasoning." Myers complains that science was stolen to bolster rationalizing prior bigotries.[46] Myers conflates humanism with atheism while in the same breath criticizing Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins for looking at "everything from a political perspective." Myers claimed that people drawn into the New Atheism Movement "rather than being enlightened about the unity of humanity, they instead learned that bastardized evolutionary theories could be weaponized to justify all kinds of abuses."

Animal research

Image from a PETA fundraising effort. The group claimed, "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses." [1]
Main article: Animal rights

The Leftist war on science sometimes is used as fads in marketing campaigns. For example, a common hairspray product bares a label, "Not Tested on Animals." While this type of liberal "feelgoodism" is common, it's no consolation to the casual observer that a major manufacturer boasts of using human guinea pigs to test its products.

Burrowing a little deeper, one would discover that it is illegal to test products with various combinations of chemical compounds on human beings before approval by the FDA, this isn't Nazi Germany after all. The product actually is tested on animals first before fragrance is added, allowing the manufacturer to label their product in such a way to accommodate leftist virtue signalling.

How leftists can use hairspray, look in the mirror, and take pride in the fact that the same scientific method that Dr. Mengele employed was used to develop the product, science has yet to explain.

Toxic masculinity

The official position of the American Psychological Association is that naturally generated testosterone produces anti-social behavior (at least in Western, predominantly white societies), treatable by surgery, drugs, and female hormone replacement (see Transgenderism).

Coronavirus treatments

See also: Coronavirus treatments

Several liberal Democrat governors resisted the FDA approved hydroxychloroquine treatment for the Chinese Communist coronavirus global pandemic out of denialism, endangering the lives of the people of their states.[47][48] The Washington Post has been accused of politicizing science and turning hydroxychloroquine into a political Rorschach test.[49][50]

Mask mandates

See also: Mask mandate

Studies made about the use of face masks have confirmed that they are both ineffective for protection against COVID-19 and can cause negative health effects (including through the rebreathing of some of the mask wearer's own carbon dioxide and of bacteria transferred through exhalation onto the inside of the masks); of particular concern is young children being forced to wear face masks due to mask diktats imposed by politicians and public officials for political, rather than medical, reasons.[51] Among the side effects listed from wearing face masks include lowered blood oxygen levels, impeded breathing, headaches, adverse skin reactions (including acne breakouts), yeast infections, dental issues, growth of bacteria, mold and fungi on the interiors of masks, ear protrusion in children, allergy issues, shedding of fibers or micro-plastics by face masks, altered behavior, stagnation of emotional and intellectual development in children and affectation of mental health.

A study by researchers at Brown University found that mean IQ scores of young children born during the pandemic tumbled by as much as 22 points while verbal, motor and cognitive performance all suffered as a result of lockdown. The study of 672 children born before and after the CCP pandemic began in March 2020 found that “[w]ith limited stimulation at home and less interaction with the world outside, pandemic-era children appear to have scored shockingly low on tests designed to assess cognitive development.”

As Michael Curzon notes, all of these factors were exacerbated by lockdown measures which kept babies and young children away from other children, as well as mask mandates. “Children born over the past year of lockdowns – at a time when the Government has prevented babies from seeing elderly relatives and other extended family members, from socialising at parks or with the children of their parent’s friends, and from studying the expressions on the faces behind the masks of locals in indoor public spaces – have significantly reduced verbal, motor and overall cognitive performance compared to children born before, according to a new U.S. study. Tests on early learning, verbal development and non-verbal development all produced results that were far behind those from the years preceding the lockdowns.”[52]

A Brown University study released in November 2021 found that social distancing measures and face masks are suspected of causing young American childrens’ cognitive development to drop by a staggering 23 percent.[53]

Critical race theory

See also: Critical race theory

Critical race theory (CRT) is a Postmodernist construct based on Critical theory that teaches that race is not genetic. Instead, race is a social construct and a basis for political struggles in the fight for racial justice. In some schools, critical race theory is camouflaged as culturally relevant teaching (CRT) or culturally responsive teaching (CRT).

Further reading

See also


  2. Barondess, Jeremiah A. (November 27, 1996). "Medicine against society: lessons from the Third Reich". The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 276, no. 20, p. 1657(5).
  3. McCarrick, Pat Milmoe and Coutts, Mary Carrington et al. (June 1995). "Introduction". Eugenics, Scope Note series, no. 28. Georgetown University/The Joseph and Rose Kennedy Institute of Ethics/National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature website. Retrieved from October 13, 2004 archive at Internet Archive on September 18, 2014.
  7. 7.0 7.1
  8. 8.0 8.1
  9. The Jim Crow encyclopedia, edited by Nikki L.M. Brown and Barry M. Stentiford 2008.
  10. American nightmare: The History of Jim Crow, by Jarrold Packard, St. Martin's Press, 2002.
  11. How a Psychologist’s Work on Race Identity Helped Overturn School Segregation in 1950s America, By Leila McNeill, October 26, 2017.
  12. Race and the Politics of Polio: Warm Springs, Tuskegee, and the March of Dimes, Naomi Rogers, PhD. American Journal of Public Health, May 2007.
  13. Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent, S Kanazawa - Social Psychology Quarterly, 2010 -
  14. Exposing the fraudulent research that sparked the sexual revolution. LifeSiteNews. July 24, 2019. Retrieved July 24, 2019.
  15. See Alfred Kinsey.
  16. Thomas Sowell, Marxism: Philosophy and Economics (Taylor & Francis, 1985) ISBN 0043201717, p. 217.
  17. The legacy of the global Cold War economy can be seen in that the losers of World War II - Germany and Japan - as of 2019 remain the world's largest auto manufactures. Germany and Japan were allowed to rebuild their economies around the automobile - provided the two refrained from competing in the global aircraft industry. World War II proved the military doctrine of the superiority of airpower - whoever controls the skies controls the ground. While Germany and Japan do produce aircraft, including military aircraft, it is strictly for their domestic markets and not for export. Germany and Japan certainly have the manufacturing and technical capabilities to compete with Boeing, Airbus, Northrup Grumman, and others, but by previous trade agreements are prohibited. By contrast, the United States, UK, France, Italy and others have ceded much of their domestic auto markets to German and Japanese manufacturers. The fraud of the global warming hoax can be seen in the disproportionate lack of pressure on Germany and Japan to cease auto exports, as has been applied throughout the rest of the West.
  21. EU GMO ban was illegal, WTO rules Published 12 May 2006.
  27. Are Democrats the Party of Science? Not Really, By ERIC ARMSTRONG, New Republic, January 10, 2017.
  28. Reality is Not Optional: Thomas Sowell's Vision of Man and Society, by Dr. Edward Younkins, The Social Critic, Fall 1998.
  29. Simple logic concludes that it takes faith in men like Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un, Adolph Hitler or the Ayatollah will not one day launch a nuclear weapon, for a person to reject God, religion, morality, and argue that science is the best hope of survival of the species.
  30. Williams, Thomas D. (November 5, 2017). Abortion Lobby Denies Science Concerning Beginning of Human Life. Breitbart News. Retrieved January 7, 2019.
  31. Freiburger, Calvin (January 4, 2019). Liberal ‘fact-checking’ site claims it’s ‘problematic’ to call abortion a ‘cause of death’. LifeSiteNews. Retrieved January 7, 2019.
  32. Berry, Susan (July 11, 2019). Study: 96% of 5,577 Biologists Affirm Human Life Begins at Fertilization. Breitbart News. Retrieved July 11, 2019.
  33. Adelmann, Bob (July 22, 2019). Recent Poll Reveals 95 Percent of Biologists Say Human Life Begins at Conception. The New American. Retrieved July 22, 2019.
  34. Munro, Neil (October 30, 2019). Left Embraces ‘Science Denialism’ to Bolster Transgender Claims, Says Science Writer. Breitbart News. Retrieved October 30, 2019.
  35. Physiological evidence exists suggesting Barack Obama's domestic partner, Michelle Obama, may have undergone a sex change operation at some point.
  41. Bokhari, Allum (April 23, 2017). 5 Scientific Facts The ‘Science March’ Has Yet to Acknowledge. Breitbart News. Retrieved January 8, 2019.
  51. 47 studies confirm ineffectiveness of masks for COVID and 32 more confirm their negative health effects at Life Site News