“It is our country, the Russian world, which has repeatedly in history opposed those who today claim to be the masters of the world,” declared Vladimir Putin on November 28, during a address to participants of the XNUMXth plenary session of the World Council of the Russian People. “We are against a dictatorship, a hegemony,” said the head of state. “It is our country which today is at the forefront of global justice,” he assures.
“Without a sovereign Russia, there is no possible world order,” he continued, pointing the finger at the West. Faced with a “vast and diverse” country, whose “diversity of cultures, traditions and customs” constitutes in his eyes a “huge competitive advantage”, Vladimir Putin warned against a West, which according to him “in principle , does not need a country as large and plurinational as Russia, with its traditions, its cultures, its languages”.
Westerners “are against all the peoples of Russia”
Westerners, or more precisely Western elites, whose worldview he castigates. “They consider Russia to be a prison of the people,” he said. “Russophobia, other forms of racism and neo-Nazism have practically become the ideology of the Western ruling elites,” said the Russian leader. An approach, according to him, not only directed against the Russians, but also “against all the peoples of Russia”.
“Any interference from outside – or any attempt to generate religious conflicts – will be fought,” warned Vladimir Putin. “We will fight against terrorism as an instrument in the fight against us, we will react,” he insisted. “We will not allow Russia to be divided, which must be one,” the Russian president further assured.
It is often used as a weapon against people who reject not science in principle but rather one or another leading scientific proposition, whether it be the COVID-19 vaccine, climate change , nutrition (low-fat or low-carb diet), to name just a few. My goal is not to defend or deny any particular scientific position, but to challenge the model of science that the most ardent proponents of science seem to base themselves on. Their model makes science seem almost identical to what they mean by, and attack as, religion. If so, we shouldn't listen to them when they lecture us about the need to heed science.
The most obvious problem with the call to “believe in science” is that it is unhelpful when renowned scientists – that is, bona fide experts – found on both sides (or all sides) of a given empirical question. The dominant parts of the intelligentsia might prefer that we didn't know, but there are dissenting experts on many scientific questions that some blithely declare are "settled" by "consensus", i.e. beyond all debate. This is the case with the precise nature and likely consequences of climate change and certain aspects of the coronavirus and its vaccine. Without real evidence, credentialed mavericks are often accused of having been corrupted by industry, with the tacit faith that the scientists who express the established position are pure and incorruptible. It is as if the quest for public funds could not in itself bias scientific research. Furthermore, no one, not even scientists, is immune to groupthink and confirmation bias.
Thus, the chorus of “science followers” pays no attention to accredited mavericks, unless it is to defame them. Apparently, according to the believers' model of science, truth descends from a centuries-old Mount Sinai (Mount Science?) through a body of anointed scientists, and these statements are not to be questioned. Dissenters can be ignored because they are not among the elected officials. How did the elected officials achieve their exalted position? Often, but not always, it is through the political process: for example, appointment to a government agency or the awarding of prestigious grants. It may be that a scientist has simply won the adoration of the progressive intelligentsia because his or her views easily align with a particular political agenda.
But this is not science; it's religion, or at least it's the stereotype of religion that "followers of science" oppose in the name of light. The result is dogma and, indeed, accusations of heresy.
Ahriman leads us to ancient Persia, to an old civilization more respectable than the society of commercialism and predation that the West has spread throughout the world. It is no wonder that the Americans, the chosen people of Ahriman, want to bring down Iran, a country where the ancient wisdom survives in the "hikmat ilâhîya" of Iranian Islam. The “hikmat ilâhîya” is the flower of the thought of the thousand-year-old mystical community, it was the object of the quest of the Iranian philosopher Sohrawardî.
The myth of a rebellious and fallen entity is almost universal. Lucifer, the Kumarbi of the Hurrians, the Phaeton of the Greeks, the Loki of the Germans, the Gukup Cakix of the Mayas express the same myth.
Ahriman inspires false religions and science without conscience. He is the instigator of the scientistic religion which will be imposed by the new world order. “The 21st century will be religious or it will not be. The famous phrase, wrongly attributed to André Malraux, is more likely a watchword of the lodges working to establish a new religion and a synarchy of robotic men.
The Egyptian-Greek apocalypse, written in the late Greco-Roman period, probably in Memphis, by a prophet of the school of Thôt-Hermès, announced the fall of humanity into the dark age: "Men will prefer darkness to light, and death to life… A painful divorce will separate the gods from men, and only the black angels will remain! »