Good question.
Science is Modernity's attempt to democratize knowledge of the Universe, which was once reserved for the few. By attempting to grant the many an idealized access to its repository, Science has encountered a double wall that sets hard limits on its ambition: a) it has idiotized itself as an institution, limiting both the quality and quantity of actual new knowledge that it can and will produce (constantly bumping, like a child, into "discoveries" of facts that Philosophy and Spirituality had long stated); and b) it has run into its own epistemological frontier. Ironically, the latter happened on the very same day that Science's brutish, ridiculously materialistic version decided to pursue its method further. This rabid version of Science, like a zombie, keeps going even when declared dead upon that fateful day of reckoning, by ignoring the fruits of its own labor: early Quantum Mechanics experiments proved the limits/expiration of the old paradigm, whose beaten and ...

We must stop analyzing Power from the lens of political ideologies. It is absurd. Doing so is like seeking to understand the budgetary difficulties of a city's government, through the analysis of the graphic designs of the local sports teams' mascots. As Michael Tsarion would say, ideological allegiances mean nothing behind the lodge door: at a certain point in their careers, most politicians, corporate leaders, academic luminaries, government officials, military officers, etc. tend to join the elitist clubs, the occultist lodges, the knightly orders, and so on. Their loyalty belongs to whichever brotherhood/fraternity/order they swore an oath of allegiance to first; this loyalty comes before country, or party, or religious sect, or geographic location, or ideological leaning, or even family. This loyalty is owed, in practice, first and foremost to the brethren of their order, as well as to their order's agenda. Pursuing this agenda supersedes their personal career objectives: it is an ...