Beware politicized, ‘consensus’ science, author Michael Crichton warned
by Alison Despathy
At the statehouse this past session, a majority of Vermont legislators took a brazen, controversial and unconstitutional step away from representative government towards technocracy–defined as rule based on an elite of “technical experts.” Despite the outpouring of Vermonters’ warranted opposition to S.5, many elected officials blatantly ignored the pleas of their constituents. Vermonters’ concerns were trivialized by their representatives and excuses were made by elected officials in their attempt to justify the need for S.5- a bill plagued since its inception by deceit, agendas, discrimination, an inability to serve and a lack of transparency.
This shameless act by elected representatives reflects both the dilemma and assault that Vermonters face at this time. This technocratic trend gained traction during the Covid response and this pattern continues in the statehouse and should concern all Vermonters. Regarding S.5, our elected officials have ignored their oaths and have chosen technocratic “expert rule” and the highly coordinated Energy Action Network players–which includes industry bound to sales and shareholders and Non governmental organizations (NGOs) with agendas– as their sole guide and priority. For those legislators who chose to represent their constituents, this does not apply to you and thank you for your service.
The emphasis on technocratic “expert guidance” as the primary driver for decision making and policy creation over the needs and best interests of the people shifts Vermont away from a Constitutional Republic based on representative democracy. Instead, the technocratic framework prevails and cherry-picked data, ‘experts’ and social engineering plans become the driving forces for legislation and policy shifts. The narrow-minded focus on forced implementation of specific policy designed by special interest groups and industry claiming to hold truth, data and the righteous path trumps any and all common sense discussion for solving problems by and for the people as intended and designed. This is the real issue.
In the Lancet Journal, on December 12, 2020, Richard Horton published an article entitled, Offline- The Coming Technocracy, He specifically stated that, “Technocratic governments are crisis governments. And most western democracies are in crisis and will remain in crisis for several years to come. The grip of scientists will tighten around the neck of governments.”
This constant crisis mode triggers many elected officials to overstep their boundaries as they are swept up in the wave of propaganda and fear related to the current crisis. Decisions are made that compromise and circumvent the guaranteed rights of the people. Fear interferes with clarity of thought and critical thinking. This is a vicious cycle that erodes our Constitutional Republic and free society as crisis states are used to manipulate policy and people.
Politicized science in the form of “consensus science” is used to steamroll impulsive and heavily debated legislation often driven by fear and misinformation fueled by propaganda. Keeping in mind that the entire point of science is the attempt at the discovery of truth, and the ongoing dispute and debate is essential to reaching truth. Science is never settled and science has been wrong more often than not. The weaponization of science, in particular “consensus science” is used by politicians and governments to drive “the right kind of change” typically with end goals characterized by the opportunity to increase taxes and fees, justify mandates and excessively regulate and control sectors within society.
Regardless of personal opinion on the climate crisis, make no mistake, this situation is abused by many in order to justify actions that are clear government overreach and bring danger to the people, Both industry and NGOs utilize crisis, consensus science and propaganda to impose their goals which are NOT oriented towards representation or service of the people. Vermont has just lived through this with the passage of S.5 and despite its initial study phase, there is no acceptable outcome of S.5– it charges the people and businesses more for a product that is essential for many and coerces the thermal sector into the highly gamed carbon market.
Michael Crichton, a prolific author with plots often based on the risks of science and technology, is best known for his book Jurassic Park. His quote from a lecture he gave at the California Institute of Technology on the incompatibility of science and consensus sheds light on the problem with technocracy and politicized science.
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped dead in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels: it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet because you are being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Not only does this technocratic path violate the people by those sworn to represent and serve them, it also has broken trust and resulted in an intense groundswell activation by the people of Vermont. Vermonters have taken the time to call, write and reach out to their representatives because of justified concerns and repercussions related to S.5. Responses to the passage of S.5 despite widespread opposition have ranged from fervent anger, shock, disbelief and sadness. Rightly so, this legislation is an attack on Vermonters, Vermont businesses and the entire heating sector– an attack that stemmed from the collusion of organizations with targeted goals working in conjunction with industry set on their services as the answer.
The reality is that many legislators have been played by the “Network” – the Energy Action Network- a private, exclusive, highly coordinated and collaborative partnership of stakeholders working together for their own special interests NOT for the people of Vermont, This network which was based off of the Rockefeller Foundation and Deloitte Network Design Model was specifically structured to implement targeted plans related to climate and energy policy in Vermont. Many legislators have fallen prey to the fierce propaganda and the well-oiled Energy Action Network machine. Joseph Goebbels- Hitler’s deranged and insane propagandist stated, “Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.” Hopefully legislators can decipher truth from propaganda as they work for Vermonters. Hopefully they will choose representation of the people.
Baron de Montesquieu’s quote on tyranny summates the past legislative session at the Vermont statehouse. He stated “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” Securing our Constitutional Republic based on democratic representation will be a priority for Vermonters as the hive-mind super majority chooses technocracy, propagandized mob mentality and an elite class of ‘experts’ to heavily influence policy which compromises the very foundation and intention of our country. What we are witnessing here in Vermont is a failure of our line of defense- the failure of our elected legislators tasked with representing and protecting the people of Vermont. This past session many legislators chose agendas, industry and technocracy over the people of Vermont and democracy. Hopefully this trend of the super majority does not continue.
The author is an educator and clinical nutritionist living in Danville.
Categories: Commentary
I think that the key word is “politicized”. When “experts” are conveniently cherry-picked by the parties, it’s never a good sign. It’s also absolutely nothing new. The really damning evidence for this politicization to me has been how there are only two points of view allowed these experts: either one party line or the other. Perhaps it’s a sign of our limited voting choices, being effectively only a two-party nation. There are more points of view out there that never get heard without major party backing.
“false dichotomy
noun
A situation in which two alternative points of views are presented as the only options, whereas others are available.”
Recognizing a logical fallacy requires paying careful attention to what is being said.
e.g. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Nevermind that I’m not married.
I guess what I find the most disconcerting is the total disregard that these “public servants” have for the constitution that each of them has a sworn oath to defend. They have adopted an attitude that whether a bill is constitutional or not, ” we’ll throw it at a wall, and see what sticks”. Add to this the attitude that they are so much smarter than us, and will always do what THEY deem proper regardless of their constituent’s wishes, and you have a self proclaimed uberclass of self righteous dolts, and there is nothing scarier that an over educated idiot with power. In my opinion there should be consequences for writing, sponsoring, and/or voting for a bill which is deemed to be “unconstitutional, and I don’t mean at the polls after the damage is done.
At best the phrase, “scientific concensus” is an oxymoron. At worst it is a phrase being used to promote single perspectives and is meant not as truth, but as pure propaganda. It is meant to quell all dissenting voices rather to engage in an open and free debate. It is meant to insure that the opposing voices are given no voice, and are in fact censored. To abrogate the responsibility of open and free debate as well as heeding to opinions of the people to captured NGOs is to deny government for and by the people.
‘Consensus’ is “Group Think” … the Nazi’s had Group Think … Communist China has Group Think. Individual sovereignty – humans have the right to freedom of religion, freedom to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness” – is thrown out the window – for “the good of the whole”. Do not be tricked into the elite “technical experts” who are being brought to you by Pfizer & funded by the DoD (depopulation agenda; signed in 1992 by Nancy Pelosi at the United Nations Earth Summit) … These technocratic entities that seek to violate all human sovereignty do NOT have your best interests at heart. Next thing you know, they will be telling Vermont farmers to euthanize their cows — like they just did in Ireland (and Ireland obeyed ! ). For the good of Ireland, of course. Erin go Braugh ? Not so much. Perhaps 1/10th is the “consensus” the United Nations came up with at their Earth Summit in 1992
“Mark my words: the government is as corrupt and self-serving as ever, dominated by two political factions that pretend to be at odds with each other all the while moving in lockstep to maintain the status quo.”
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/06/no_author/traitor-to-the-constitution-the-u-s-government-is-the-real-criminal/
Re: “The emphasis on technocratic “expert guidance” as the primary driver for decision making and policy creation over the needs and best interests of the people shifts Vermont away from a Constitutional Republic based on representative democracy.”
The question to ask yourselves, and the authoritarian government politicians you know, is why anyone believes ‘expert guidance’ and individual self-determination aren’t compatible?
Not only does the private sector have access to ‘expert guidance’, the private sector is more accountable for implementing it. When the government imposes ‘expert guidance’, and it turns out to be bogus advice, there is no recourse. When the private sector does so, redress of grievance is available in the courts. This is why the private sector is so much more careful – unless, of course, the private sector isn’t really private, but part of the cronyism that is so pervasive today.
Vermont is all-set to implode. “They’ve” been working on it for years. It’s “their” test case state, very easy to manipulate within “their” Marxist Agenda.
What we have is a global criminal syndicate running a fraudulent, corrupted, illegimate form of government. If it wasn’t for the blackmail, extortion, collusion, and grand psyops, the government would operate much differently than it is today. What we have is a group of criminals committing crimes to cover up decades of crimes. The timelines are converging into a grand explosion and implosion of criminal conduct spanning over decades. Those who fail to grasp the reality of facts are lost in the wilderness and will likely perish as millions have all ready. Time is running out for the evil ones and the ignorant ones.
The supermajority are clearly being driven by a false doctrine including but not limited to pride, the love of money and lust.
Speaking of Michael Crichton, he wrote a novel pretty much based on your quote title “State of Fear”. Appropriately named eh.