Science is on the Side of Free Humanity!

I recently became aware of a piece on the internet by a certain Phil D.Collins, entitled: "The Ascendency of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating the Occult Origin of Darwinism", available at: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy.htm

Now, while I might agree with Mr. Collins' analysis of the origin of Darwinism in particular, I cannot, in good conscience, agree with his analysis of science as a whole, which seems to be part and parcel with the arguments of various Illuminati-supported French revolutionaries (such as Maximilien Robespierre's vapid arguments against the rigorous scientific method promulgated by Lord and Lady Lavoisier), who saw in the nascent modern science of the day a potential source of though independent of the political needs of the Illuminati (as Robespierre himself said, the scientific method seeks to constrain liberty of thought). Indeed, I would argue that the scientific method, when rigorously applied, CONSTITUTES liberty of thought, as it submits opinions to the discipline of observable facts to ground society's discourse in reality, as opposed to the Illuminatist ideal of total freedom for mandated lies to win out over observable reality. (As Groucho Marx once said (and, having seen their films, I believe the Marx Brothers to have been on to a lot of the crap we're trying to sort out these days): "Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?") And that's the basis of my argument here: when you're grounded in reality and truth, you have true freedom of thought: only lies require police repression for their support (as lies, unlike truth, enjoy no stronger basis for their support). And you can see this in recent US history: it was through objectivist science that the lies of 9/11 were exposed, and the rulers who sought to depend for their political support upon the idea that, in Lower Manhattan on the morning of September 11th, 2001, steel columns weighing up to 1700 lbs per linear foot exhibited density equal to that of air were forced to depend upon the arguments that the search for truth and justice were insulting to the families of those murdered on that day, and that those who disagreed with the obvious scientific impossibility of the official account of those events were either twisted fantasists or Islamist terrorist sympathizers.

Now, I know that Alex Jones is a man of rigorous science, and that, when he speaks of the "scientific priesthood" as part of the oppressive apparatus erected by the Illuminati over the remnants of free humanity, he speaks of the prostituted element of the scientific establishment which brought us the global warming hoax, the Mr. Ivins-as-sole-Anthrax-mailer hoax, the 7WTC-fell-due-to-insignificant-fires hoax, the H1N1 flu virus hoax, and all the other hoaxes through which propaganda disguised as science seeks to fool free humanity on its own strength, or to discredit science itself by virtue of the false association of demonstrable lies with legitimate science.

In other words, I'm here defending science at its best (and even legitimate science at its worst!) against blatent corporate-sponsored academic fraud serving as Illuminist propaganda.

(P.S.: I hope to post more regularly as the horribly hot and humid weather in my locality, which has been wreaking havoc upon my poor computer, breaks over the next few days.)