Collectivism, secular humanism, scientific positivism (scientism) and centralized state power — Part 1: A most dangerous admixture by Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

Exclusive for
Article Type: 
Published Date: 
Friday, August 14, 2015

One of the great books of the 20th century was Richard Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences.[1] I once had a fellow medical student tell me as I was discussing the dangers of communism that it mattered little what a person believes—ideas, she informed me, were personal and benign. Weaver shatters this dangerous idea in his scholarly book. He demonstrates that it matters very much what people think because they behave and design their lives according to the ideas they hold dear.

I have observed a very dangerous trend in a collection of ideas, some very old and some surfacing fairly recently, that if we analyze and study their history and content carefully, are destined to lead to a great deal of personal anguish, despair, misery, and even bloodshed. The newer ideas I will discuss last. First, I will consider briefly four concepts that have been responsible for the creation of more misery and mass death than any preceding set of philosophies in history. The four concepts listed in the title of this article, collectivism, secular humanism, scientific positivism and centralization of state power, are capturing the imagination of not only the intellectual elite but also millions of less aware and naïve youth, and what I refer to as the growing number of intellectually stuporus and distracted older inhabitants of an otherwise civilized world.

Many in the West, especially within the United States, are so distracted by various forms of entertainment—busy communicating on social media, obsessed with sports events, and chatting incessantly on cell phones—that they are completely unaware of the dramatic changes in the political control of the world that have occurred within the past century, and especially in the last 30 years.

Those holding revolutionary ideas concentrate all of their waking hours on designing the new world order, as it has come to be called. This obsession with redesigning the world according to their personal belief system is far beyond the revolutionary personalities of the past, sitting in a smoke-filled coffee houses plotting student revolutions while listening to bad poetry. Today, these men and women make up the intellectual elite, who also just happen to be some of the wealthiest and most powerful political and economic players in the world.[2,3] Their blueprint for eventually redesigning the world goes far beyond the crude scribblings of a Marx, Lenin, Hitler, or Mao. These social engineers have included all aspects of human interaction within their system of rule and their blueprint entails economic, political, educational, medical care, military, population control, corporate manipulation, and control of human behavior. In essence, the blueprint seeks to control all aspects of human activity.

Collectivism: Rule by Intellectual Elites

The rise of collectivism, also known under a number of its manifestations—socialism, Marxism, communism, fascism, Fabianism and corporatism—is taking the intellectual and political world by storm. These nefarious ideas are all at their core enemies of individual freedom and hold the view that the individual is a superfluous concept that impedes the betterment of humankind by interfering with gnostic political and social designs. I use the term gnostic, as per Eric Voegelin, the political philosopher, to mean rule by elites who are convinced they possess superior knowledge (gnosis) that entitles them to redesign the world according to their own set of blueprints.[4]

The collective itself, often referred to as “the masses,” “society,” or the "people” is an illusory concept that allows the elite to move and control individuals in ways that would otherwise be impossible in a truly free world. In essence, individuals become nothing more than chess pieces to be moved about a grand chessboard specially designed by the elite intellectuals, who are most often hiding in the shadows rather than as elected officials. From within the shadows, these intellectuals spend their lives carefully mapping out just how the new collectivist societies will take shape and exist under their eventual control. These shadowy enclaves can be intellectual think tanks, tax-exempt foundations, special non-governmental entities, or highly secretive organizations. In fact, they exist as all of these manifestations. The most powerful arms of the new collectivism are the bureaucracy, the media, the educational system, the judicial system, and the banking cartels—all of which interact in an intimate way. A great many of these ideas, especially as expressed for eventual creation of a new society, arose from the Jacobin clubs in France during the French Revolution.[5]

The Soviet Union was the world’s first introduction to a self-contained collectivist system. François Furet, in his monumental study, The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century, describes this system as thus:

When the Soviet regime appeared under Stalin at the beginning of the 1930s, it had no historical precedent. Nothing like it had ever existed. Never had any state in the world taken as its purpose to kill, deport, or enslave peasants. Never had one party taken over an entire state. Never had a regime controlled an entire social life of a nation and the lives of all of its citizens. Never had a modern political ideology played a similar role in the establishment of a tyranny so perfect that those who feared it had nonetheless to hail its foundations. Never had a dictatorship possessed so much power in the name of a falsehood so complete and yet so compelling.[6}

Within communist countries, each with a fully operational collectivist system, the government elites always speak in the name of the "people,” even though no one actually consults any member of the population at large or individually. For example, the term “enemies of the people” is used, in fact, to refer to enemies of the government or merely someone who expresses some level of displeasure with the government. Stalin made the term “enemies” so ill-defined that it could apply to virtually anyone, even the most obsessed party faithful.[7]

When the elite speak in such deceptive language outside of a communist system, for example in the United States, using terms like “the society demands free health care," one must ask, which individuals exactly were asked if that was indeed what they desired as individuals? Societies are made of a heterogeneous mix of individuals each carrying different desires, needs and special case situations. Societies, as collectives of individuals, do not have a central mind or necessarily hold unified beliefs, at least beliefs more often imposed on them. Only the individual knows what is best for their particular situation. Yet it is interesting to note that even in totalitarian, oppressive regimes, such as the Soviet Union, Cuba and China, as Furet states, “The greatest secret is that even the worst tyranny needs, if possible, the consent of the tyrannized and if possible, their enthusiasm.”[8]

The arrogance of the intellectual elite is not satisfied with merely ruling over their subjects, they also demand enthusiasm for the “plan.” For example, in the former communist Soviet Union, it was, and in communist China today, it is, a crime against the “people” to show a “lack of enthusiasm” for the ruling elite’s plan. It has been observed that in communist systems one must not only be subservient but should also show enthusiasm for their oppressors’ beneficence. Millions went to the gulag in the Soviet system and in communist China for the “crime” of a lack of enthusiasm. Thomas Molnar, in his book, Utopia: The Perennial Heresy, expresses this idea thus:

Wielders of such force must be shown proof that their subjects, candidates for perfection, live in a permanent state of enthusiasm… Under Communist regimes, for example, the individual may not simply retire into silence; he must enthusiastically speak, write, approve and proclaim louder than the next fellow.[9]

The French communist Victor Basch, when asked about the mass killing in the then new Soviet state expressed an excellent example of this puzzling enthusiasm. He proudly defended the Soviet mass killing by comparing it to the French Revolution:

Our revolution too caused the blood of thousands of innocents to be shed: nonetheless, if we democrats were to be asked, if you had the choice, which would you choose, the Revolution along with its crimes, or no crimes and no Revolution? How many of us would choose the second?[10]

Such sentiments are possible when one sees society not as individuals, families or even communities but as a mass collective of inhuman “things” that must be used to attain ideological goals. It conforms to Stalin’s statement that the death of one man is a tragedy but the death of a million is a statistic. Progressives still think in terms of the latter in formulating socialist utopias.

Another set of terms often used in conjunction with collectivism is “social utility” or “the greater good.” Once again, it is the ruling elite who will determine who is exercising or meets the requirements for sufficient “social utility” to justify their continued existence and what meets the criteria for “the greater good” of the collective (society).[11] Certainly there are instances in which these terms are useful and appropriately applied in a free society, but in a completely different context and always under control of those subject to the various social plans or programs. For example, in a free society water purification is done knowing that the main agent used, chlorine, is toxic to human health—especially to some individuals. Yet, for the greater good—that is, preventing cholera outbreaks and other infectious diseases—everyone’s water is purified with chlorine. Individuals not wishing to be exposed to the toxic effects of chlorine can use bottled water, filter their water, or use other water purification methods.

As the power within the collectivist system becomes more concentrated, the determination of the “greater good” and “social utility” become less obvious or even outright contrary to common sense. In addition, relief from the proposed program becomes impossible because of the absolute power of the ruling elite. An example of such collectivist thinking surfaced during the debates on fluoridation of drinking water, a practice that was clearly out of the realm of real and present general health dangers—that is, preventing tooth decay. I remember reading a demand expressed in a widely circulated newspaper by a dental student that everyone in the United States should be made to drink fluoridated water. School systems in some areas of the country required all grade school students to take a fluoride pill before class began. We are now hearing similar cries for nationwide forced vaccination of the entire population for what are considered rather mild infectious diseases—such as measles and chickenpox. This is all done supposedly for the “greater good.”

The individuals who are harmed by these vaccine programs, for example, are considered expendable and the reason given is that some individuals must be sacrificed for the good of the collective (society). The irony is that in this case we are not speaking of a risk of mass death, as with cholera epidemics or even smallpox, but rather a risk to extremely small numbers of individuals. Further, there are a number of other, much safer ways to protect these vulnerable individuals, such as isolation and nutritional methods.

More obvious abuses of individual rights have presented themselves in cases of abuse by the federal bureaucracies and in a growing number of instances, by state agencies as well—these abuses are being perpetrated by such bureaucratic agencies as the EPA, TSA, FCC, FEC, FTC, IRS, asset forfeiture laws, zero-tolerance laws, structuring laws and homeland security.[12,13]

What we have learned is that the bureaucracy, which is most often immune to public and even congressional oversight, can write laws outside the legislature that have the full force of legislated laws, and can even operate as their own prosecutors and judges. Massive, ever-growing bureaucracies are intrinsic to collectivist political regimes.[14]

As the power of the elite intellectuals increases with greater centralization of political power, risk to the individual also increases exponentially—not only to available personal options, but also as regards risks of imprisonment and financial ruin. Not only is private property at risk, but also one’s bank account with the new rules allowing the bureaucratic agencies to secretly withdraw fines from one’s bank account without any judicial order or notification. The structuring laws that allow the federal agencies to charge citizens with a crime for withdrawing their own money from their bank accounts is one of the more outrageous bureaucratic laws. The list of abuses grows daily and the restrictions on personal freedom have grown exponentially. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a major architect of collectivist societies, expressed this need for greater social planning in his book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technocratic Era, when he says:

Technological developments make it certain that modern society will require more and more planning. Deliberate management of the American future will become widespread, with the planner eventually displacing the lawyer as the key social legislator and manipulator… How to combine social planning with personal freedom is already emerging as the key dilemma of technocratic America, replacing the industrial age’s preoccupation with balancing social needs against requirements of free enterprise.[15]

Further, Brzezinski recognizes a possibility to individual control of human behavior by scientific methods: “Accordingly, both the growing capacity for the instant calculation of the most complex interactions and the increasing availability of biochemical means of human control augment the potential scope of consciously chosen direction, and thereby also the pressures to direct, to choose, and to change.”[16]

One of the most important protections for individual freedom, the right to free speech, has been seriously eroded over the past several decades. Of special concern, for example, is that some scientists are now calling for the ostracism or even imprisonment of those who do not accept the theory of global warming (“climate change”).[17,18] Likewise, teachers and scientists who express doubts about the validity of Darwinian evolution have not only been denied tenure, disinvited to speak at scientific meetings and had their papers rejected by scientific publications, but several have received death threats.[19] One editorial comment in a science magazine suggested that universities screen biology students for belief in Darwin’s macroevolution and those that express doubts should be urged to transfer into other studies outside science. The book by Dr. Jerry Bergman, Slaughter of the Dissidents, cites a number of such cases and the tactics used by the Darwinists thought police.[20] Basically, the idea is that the elite determine what ideas are to be accepted and which are to be rejected and all scientists and educators are expected to follow the dictates of the elites. This is intellectual collectivism.

Dr. Miguel Faria also warns of the specific methods used in medical journals to censor and control ideas:

I would not be fully addressing the importance of freedom in contradistinction to censorship in medical journalism if I did not mention there is a persistent double standard in the presentation of socioeconomic and political issues in the major medical journals. It seems that physicians with “progressive” political leanings, often the editors themselves, do not really want to limit religious or political discourse per se in the medical literature, but only limit those with whom they disagree (e.g., conservatives) who have the temerity to express a contrarian view to that deemed politically correct.[21]

Robert Conquest in his analysis of the post-Soviet world states: “The worst of this is, of course, that there is a strong tendency to silence those who disagree with one or another accepted beliefs, so that colleagues or others unwilling to face all the fuss and abuse can hardly even raise their objections.”[22] Further he states: “In all Marxist states, alternative views were suppressed, in academic as well as society as a whole. And this led, of course, to mental enslavement and degeneration of thought.”[22]

Conquest reminds us that Lenin, the ultimate designer of the Soviet collectivist system, had written that “his aim was not to refute their arguments but to destroy his opponents.”[23]

We are now seeing a similar assault upon dissent and opposing views being waged by the intellectual elite against all who disagree with the scientifically couched collectivist plans of the left. We are told that the scientific basis of their various plans, such as vaccine safety, fluoridation and climate change, have been settled and no further discussion is warranted or should be accepted.

One of the most powerful aspects of real scientific progress is that nothing is finally settled. For over one hundred years it was taught and believed by every neuroscientists that brain cells do not regenerate and that the number of neurons are fixed soon after birth. This also appeared in all science textbooks and was taught as dogma to all students at every level. To challenge this firmly held belief was to be met by scorn—after all, every neuroscientist knew it to be true. Thanks to some neuroscientists with thick skins and dogged determination we now know that brain cells can regenerate even in centenarians. Such examples of scientific dogmatism abound in the history of science.

Recently, we have witnessed an attack on some of the most fundamental pillars of true science, the importance of dissenting views in advancing true scientific understanding. It is by debate and re-analysis of long held ideas in science that the creative forces that move scientists toward truth and new understanding occurs. Without such debate, science would quickly become fixed dogma. Unfortunately, that is just what we are witnessing. Almost daily we are told that we need no more debate or further study of sacrosanct scientific ideas such as climate change, vaccine safety, autism causation, evolution, and cancer treatments—as if we have reached the end of such study and have in our hands the final, unassailable truth. The left saw this willingness of the majority of educators to accept imposed scientific dogma as a great weakness to be exploited primarily by attacking institutions and individual educators in the universities and colleges with contrary or dissenting views, knowing the unchallenged, imposed dogma of the collectivists would capture the imagination of our youth during their formative years.[24]

Critical to this system of collectivist central planning outside of science is control of individual ownership of private property or its outright confiscation as with asset forfeiture laws and eminent domain laws. It is accepted by our scholars of history and culture that private property ownership by individuals is central to freedom. Jean-Pierre Hamilius, writing in the journal Modern Age, explains what happens when private property, the essential element of freedom, is lost:

Where such private property does not exist, the state or the ruling clique can determine exclusively who is to write, publish, and teach; what is to be said, written, printed and published, and what is not.[25]

In essence, a loss of private property also means a loss of our most fundamental freedom—that of free and unfettered speech. Criticizing our government, according to our founders, was one of the most critical of these freedoms as it keeps our government honest. Yet, because of the increasing merger of corporations and government (corporatism) as well as the scientific community, we are now seeing an expanded loss of freedom of expression, which also means an even great restriction of this most fundamental protection of our persons—the right to dissent, the right to disagree.

In a previous paper I demonstrated how the leftists were even suggesting that those who rejected the new paradigm or social blueprint were victims of a mental illness.[26] These architects of the new scientifically designed society use a multitude of methods to silence their opponents—such as excluding their papers from major publications, rejecting them as speakers at forums and scientific meetings, preventing their reaching tenure, personal attacks in the media and in professional literature, and accusing them of nefarious motives in holding contrary beliefs and theories—even implying that they are responsible for the death of thousands and therefore should be treated as criminals or deranged and publically dangerous individuals.

In undergraduate schools, students are taught to concentrate on memorizing certain “accepted facts” and not to engage in critical thinking or ask critical questions. Dr. Faria points out that in a great many ways the American educational system is beginning to resemble the old Soviet system with the Goals 2000/School-to-Work/Careers/Workforce scheme—a disguised system of government regimentation and indoctrination for a collectivist mindset.[27]  More recently, we see another expression of this idea in the Common Core system. By using this method of “teaching” one is better able to regiment what the populace is allowed to learn and know. When we examine the textbooks of early America, we quickly see that critical thinking and discussion of issues was encouraged.

Secular Humanism and Scientific Positivism

These two arms of the new thinking must be discussed together as they are necessary to understand how the whole system operates and was born. Secular humanism is a philosophical system that denies the existence of God and teaches that because man is on his own he alone must design a society that allows collective progress toward specific goals. Most leftists and even some rightist collectivists assume that by using human intelligence and organization of society, they can create a political system and a society that is both humane and “progressive.” In its essence, this system is positivist.

Positivism was a philosophical system designed by August Comte (1798-1857), who, as an understudy and secretary of Henri Saint-Simon (1760-1825), came to believe in the secular humanist dream of evolutionary personal and societal progress by utilizing human derived intellectual skills in organization, reasoning and political regimentation through central planning of society. In this positivist view, society passed through three stages: a child-like stage of religious belief (the fictitious state); a middle age stage of metaphysical belief (abstract state) and finally full maturation with faith in scientific progress and organization of society (the positive state).

Initially, the socialists rejected science and even saw it as one of their many enemies, but over time they came to understand that it was the one thing that could supply the philosophic support it so badly needed. Marx was the one who truly understood this by creating a “scientific” economic and philosophical system that used much Darwinian language as its foundation. By linking his philosophy with science, he created the impression that it had the same irrefutable strength as pure science itself. To resist Marxist historical determinism was the same as resisting the laws of gravity. Robert Conquest says: “Marx was seen, and saw himself, as the ‘Darwin of society’: as the originator of a historical science to match Darwin’s biological science. He provided his certainties in terms of proven theory.”[28]

The inevitability myth of human evolution within a socialist system convinced the collectivists that indeed what they were seeing was the obvious operation of irresistible historical laws similar to the unfolding of new scientific laws of nature. Further, they viewed the discovery of these new laws as a way to bring about progressive organization of human society directed by the intellectual elite. According to these elite intellectual seers, life itself was a demonstration of this principle of progressive human perfection as one implemented progressively greater organization of society with the goal of eventual perfection of man himself—something similar to the omega point of Telhard de Chardin (1881-1955), but less mystical. The concept of the new Soviet man, as conceptualized by Lenin, brought this idea to fruition.

Henri Saint-Simon envisioned a society in which scientific planning would replace historical Christianity with a priesthood composed of engineers, scientists, and other planners. Comte went further than his mentor, Saint-Simon, to design a whole system of social control based on the idea that only science could determine truth and that outside science and things determined by the scientific method, there was nothing of use for the new collectivist society. The early work by Auguste Comte and Henri de Saint-Simon was followed by other notables of this philosophy such as Jan Christian Smuts (1870-1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), Edward Bellamy (1850-1898) and a growing list of other movers and shakers of society.[29]

Armed with this powerful system of exposing the intricacies and, most importantly, the organization of social systems by using the scientific method, the new intellectual hierarchy of elites set about dismantling the last vestiges of the first two stages of man, the religious and the metaphysical, which refused to die on their own. If we examine the writings of the main characters of the French Revolution and all succeeding collectivist systems, we see that they emphasize the need to dismantle all that existed in society before the implementation of a scientifically planned society—the positivist society. It is also interesting to note that Lenin became a revolutionary, not because he had read or understood Marxism, but rather because he had been influenced by the scientific positivism of Auguste Comte and because it “entailed a historical and economic program that was all encompassing.”[30] Alexis de Tocqueville commented on the danger when man considers himself a god:

When man mistakes himself for God, he is sounding the death knell of human freedom. For, when man comes to believe that he is God, he falls to worshipping himself. And when man worships himself, his human idol is not the individual human being: it is the collective power of corporate humanity…the idolization of collective human power turns all the idolaters into slaves.

In his book, Utopia: The Perennial Heresy, Thomas Molnar notes Feuerback's statement that “The turning point of history will be the moment when man will realize that his only God is man himself, Homo hominum Deus.”[31] The act of erasing the previous system of social organization based on individual freedom, representative democracy, the rule of law, and a respect for tradition without violent revolution and the immediate implementation of a totalitarian police state, requires a slow process of education through propaganda and altering political institutions without the public being generally aware—at least until it is too late. We are in this latter stage now. The historian Will Durant recognized the importance of tradition to a free society when he wrote:

The institutions, conventions, customs, and laws that make up the complex structure of a society are the work of a hundred centuries and a billion minds; and one mind must not expect to comprehend them in one lifetime, much less in twenty years.[32]

In his book, The New World Order, H.G. Wells, a disciple of world collectivism, states what is to be done quite succinctly: “It is the system of national individualism and uncoordinated enterprise that is the world’s disease, and it is the whole system that has to go. It has to be reconditioned down to its foundations or replaced.”[33]

So, what will be the result of this replacement of a society of free individuals and substituting it with a highly controlled, centrally planned society of the collectivist dreamers? In his book, Between Two Ages, Brzezinski sees the Soviet model of central planning of society and control of people as a model we should copy, but without the mass killing and the gulags. He says: “Yet though Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy for both the Russian people and communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was…a blessing in disguise.”[34] In further explaining such a frightening statement, he defines what such a state would look like:

As the first state to have put Marxist theory into practice the Soviet Union could have emerged as the standard-bearer of this century’s more influential systems of thought and as the social model for resolving the key dilemmas facing modern man…. The tragedy of communism as a universal perspective is that it came both too early and too late.[35]

Brzezinski then laments that the problem was that “conservative bureaucratized doctrine” ruined the dream, unable to either see or admit that a powerful, centrally controlled bureaucracy is essential to the working of any collectivist system. Catholic historian Christopher Dawson explains what happens when these scientific positivists come into power:

The situation may conceivably arrive in which specialists exist solely to provide expert advice to the politician and the journalists, and no one is left to criticize the official ideology which is imposed on the community not so much by deliberate propaganda as by bureaucratic control of education, information and publicity.[36]

Again, Brzezinski confirms that this is in fact desirable and beneficial to the universal happiness of the collective when he writes:

Relying on scientific growth to produce the means for dealing with social ills, it would tap the nation’s intellectual talent for broad target planning and exploit the existence of doctrinaire groups by using them as social barometers and as sources of novel ideas. Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the stepping stones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society.[37]

One should keep in mind that it was Brzezinski who played a major role in choosing Obama as the most effective presidential candidate to carry out the role of the charismatic personality. After six years of the Obama presidency, Brzezinski once again stated on television that Obama was doing an excellent job as president and we should all support him.

Read Part 2: Centralization of power.


1. Weaver RM. Ideas Have Consequences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1948.
2. Cuddy DL. The Power Elite. Oklahoma City, OK: Bible Belt Publishing; 2013.
3. Brzezinski Z. Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1976.
4. Voegelin E. The New Science of Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1987.
5. Brinton C. The Jacobins: An Essay in the New History. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 2012.
6. Furet F. The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1999, p. 148.
7. Ibid., p. 280.
8. Ibid., p. 186.
9. Molnar T. Utopia: The Perennial Heresy. Sheed and Ward, NY,1967, p. 7.
10. Victor Basch quoted in Furet, op. cit., p. 302.
11. Blaylock RL. National Health Insurance (Part II): Any Social Utility in the Elderly?, September 26, 2009. Available from:
12. Sekulow J. Undemocratic: How Unelected, Unaccountable Bureaucrats are Stealing Your Liberty and Freedom. Brentwood, TN: Howard Books; 2015.
13. Blaylock RL. The Mystical Nature of (Collectivist) Bureaucracies., January 13, 2015. Available from:
14. Mises L. Bureaucracy. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund; 1972.
15. Brzezinski, op. cit., p. 260.
16. Brzezinski, op. cit., p. 10.
17. Owens E. US college professsor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers., March 17, 2014. Available from: [Last accessed on 2015 Aug 14].
18. Faria MA. Liberal Orthodoxy and the Squelching of Political or Scientific Dissent., August 19, 2013. Available from:
19. Klinghoffer D. At Emory University, Darwin’s Bullies Smear Commencement Speaker, Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins. Available from: [Last accessed on 2015 Aug 14].
20. Bergman J, Wirth K. Slaughter of the Dissidents. Volume 1. Port Orchard, WA: Leafcutter Press, 2011.
21. Faria MA. Religious morality (and secular humanism) in Western civilization as precursors to medical ethics: A historic perspective. Surg Neurol Int 2015;6:105. Available from:
22. Conquest R. The Dragons of Expectation: Reality and Delusion in the Course of History. New York, NY: WW. Norton & Co; 2005, p. 50.
23. Conquest R. Reflections on a Ravaged Century. New York, NY: WW. Norton & Co; 2000, p. 112.
24. Blaylock RL. Managed Truth: The Great Danger to Our Republic. Surg Neurol Int 2011:2:179. Available from:
25. Hamilius JP. The intellectuals as gravediggers of freedom. Modern Age 1977:21(2);131.
26. Blaylock RL. When rejecting orthodoxy becomes a mental illness., August 15, 2013. Available from:
27. Faria MA. Cuba in Revolution — Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). Macon, GA: Hacienda Publishing, Inc.; 2002, p. 175.
28. Conquest, Reflections on a Ravaged Century, op. cit., p. 36.
29. Wood P. Technology Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. Mesa, AZ: Coherent Publishing; 2015.
30. Conquest, Reflections on a Ravaged Century, op. cit., p. 90.
31. Feuerbach L. The Essence of Religion. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; 2004, p. 84.
32. Durant W. The Story of Civilization. Volume 1: Our Oriental Heritage. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster; 1954, p. 48.
33. Wells HG. The New World Order. London: Secklet and Warburg LTD; 1949, p. 17.
34. Brzezinski, op. cit., p. 134.
35. Brzezinski, op. cit., p. 123-124.
36. Dawson C. Dynamics of World History. Wilmington, DL: ISI Books; 2002.
37. Brzezinski, op. cit., p. 253.

Written by Russell L. Blaylock, MD

Dr. Russell L. Blaylock is President of Advanced Nutritional Concepts and Theoretical Neurosciences in Jackson, Mississippi. He has written numerous path-blazing scientific papers and many books, including Excitotoxins — The Taste That Kills (1994), Bioterrorism: How You Can Survive (2001), Health and Nutrition Secrets (2002), and Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients (2003). He is Associate Editor-in-Chief and a Consulting Editor in Basic Neuroscience for Surgical Neurology International (SNI).

This article may be cited as: Blaylock RL. Collectivism, secular humanism, scientific positivism (scientism) and centralized state power—Part 1: A most dangerous admixture. Hacienda, August 14, 2015.  Available from:

Copyright ©2015 Hacienda Publishing Inc.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (8 votes)
Comments on this post

Evolution and the Bible

This two part article is a must read for those attempting to unravel the meaning of the terms cited in the title as well as and the interrelationship of these terms with authoritarianism and freedom. Dr. Blaylock makes excellent points about freedom of expression and the suppression of ideas, particular those that go against the zeitgeist of the times. He writes:

“One of the most important protections for individual freedom, the right to free speech, has been seriously eroded over the past several decades. Of special concern, for example, is that some scientists are now calling for the ostracism or even imprisonment of those who do not accept the theory of global warming (“climate change”). Likewise, teachers and scientists who express doubts about the validity of Darwinian evolution have not only been denied tenure, disinvited to speak at scientific meetings and had their papers rejected by scientific publications, but several have received death threats. One editorial comment in a science magazine suggested that universities screen biology students for belief in Darwin’s macroevolution and those that express doubts should be urged to transfer into other studies outside science.”

And it is worth recounting that contrary to what people are led to believe, the Catholic Church does not oppose science, even the study of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Below is an interesting article on the subject:

Evolution and the Bible are perfectly compatible
By Michael J. Kavanaugh

As a believer in God’s biblical revelation and as a person who accepts the Darwinian concept of descent with modification -- another name for evolution -- I disagree with Elizabeth Herron’s contention (“Evolution and the Bible,” Telegraph Oct. 25, 2012) that one cannot accept both the truth contained in the Bible and the reality of evolution.

Herron’s belief that the Bible “discredits” and “contradicts” evolution is based on a false understanding of the purpose of Sacred Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible claim to be a scientific text, given to us by God to explain the intricacies of genetic variation, the effects of environmental changes on living organisms, or the process of DNA replication. Rather, the Bible is a description of God’s intimate relationship with the human race, our failure to respond in a loving way to God’s goodness and greatness and the divine offer of salvation.

As to her claim that there exists an “absence of transitionary fossils” I would recommend the book “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters” by geologist Donald Prothero. Among the transitional fossils he discusses are Sahelanthropus tchadensis, an upright-walking chimp-like hominid, Pizosiren portelli, a “walking manatee,” and Gerobatrachus hottorni, a toothed amphibian that shows the common origin of frogs and salamanders.

No scientist claims the fossil record is complete. And while many creationists steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the reality of these transitional fossils, Herron’s assertion that no transitional fossils have been identified is completely erroneous.

As to the length of a biblical “day” I would remind Herron of the passage from the second letter of Saint Peter which, in the third chapter, explains that, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” The “days” mentioned in the creation accounts of Genesis are not necessarily the 24 hour periods she wants to understand them to be. True faith and real science do not contradict each other. Each seeks truth, but each uses a different means to arrive at that end.

In an address to university teachers and students in Cologne, Germany, in November 1980, Pope John Paul II, referring to the work of Saint Albert the Great (d. 1280) who was renowned for his early work in chemistry, biology and botany, said, “For there can be no fundamental conflict between a reason which, in conformity with its own nature which comes from God, is geared to truth and is qualified to know truth; and a faith, which refers to the same divine source of all truth.”

Father Michael J. Kavanaugh is pastor of Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Macon, The Macon Telegraph, Nov. 8, 2012

In Triumph — the Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church (2001), a 2000-Year History, H.W. Crocker (Chapter 17, “Religion’s Retreat”), has written an excellent account of the subject of the compatibility of science with religion, at least within the teachings of the Catholic Church since the time of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Christianity clashes with science only with the literal interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible, particular in this age when everyone has opinions whether informed or not on every subject.

Capitalism: The ultimate weapon of individuality!

I prefer to view the history of collectivism and the indefatigable energy of the individual as mission obstacles of the collective state. The proven anti-state.

The effort to ban the individual into irrelevant obscurity by replacing their uniqueness with the membership and limitations of groups is especially illuminated by François Furet's excerpt:“The greatest secret is that even the worst tyranny needs, if possible, the consent of the tyrannized and if possible, their enthusiasm.” Celebration of membership even by the "leisure class" (the idle) is justified by the state with rewards (government dependency) for remaining idle, while success is punished by withholding the fruits of group compliance and through the taxation of "excesses." Also in our current system it is not just the underachievers that are rewarded, the complexity of our tax laws promotes the illusion that it is everyone else that is paying the price of government. Moreover, even the very method of income taxation is at the very forefront of establishing wealth envy and quantifying the illusion of income inequality. Economic grouping places the rewards of the virtues of frugality, industry, thrift, ingenuity, and prudent risk taking on the moral equivalency of greed or even theft. The Fairtax would remove the state's carrots and sticks and replace them with the good (or bad) results of the judgment of the individual. Yes, the state is even attempting to remove the very useful lesson of failure from the quiver of the individual experience. The control of one's treasure is the very bedrock of self determination (and Capitalism.) The decision of the individual is weighted with the responsibility of the consequences. The consistent and protected rules of the transaction transcend all belief systems by promoting fairness from the perspective of the individual parties. It allows for all beliefs to come together for their own self interest as they perceive it. It allows all parties to analyze their decision on any scale of morality or science that they find beneficial. It truly promotes the common good on the microscopic level.

It is quite evident that the statists would not want a free market as it removes the "superior" judgement of the state from options of the individual. Neither would it promote a Fairtax as that would relinquish state control and empower the individual. I have purposely neglected tainting the ideology of the statist as Democrat or Republican. The state as it exists in Washington today has remained fairly constant on its course toward mass control irrespective of party majority. This is quite evident in national politics with the (self)interjection of Mr. Trump. Both parties object to his unbridled existence with equal fervor as they have common fears. It is quite comical to see pundits at opposite ends of the political spectrum writhe and whine that Donald Trump's accomplishments are outside of the realm of the body politic. True enough. He fails every analysis of political metric except one. As the polls are showing, his views reflect those of the people . . . THAT could never be allowed. They have every right to be at DEFCON1.

The survival of the individual will ultimately involve deflating the state using its own rules against it. It will never happen allowing the state to perpetually procreate using its own progeny. It's the "kook" fringe that will revive The Constitution and the liberty of the individual it was written to protect. A much more hopeful outcome.

Capitalism or collectivism?

This is an excellent comment expounding on the economic aspects of this paper by Dr. Russell Blaylock that successfully unravels the inherent relationships of collectivist and secularist "isms." Defense of free-market capitalism is important because despite the demise of Soviet communism, we have found that socialist-collectivist philosophies and the associated mentality they foster are still expanding their tentacles of envy, class warfare, and the dependent underclass. I thank the author and the commentator for their astute observations.

Diary of Dreams performs at the 2016 M’era Luna festival in Hildesheim, Germany. M’era Luna, “one of the biggest dark music events in Germany,” is held each year on the second weekend in August. Close to 25,000 people attend the festival annually to hear gothic, metal and industrial music performed on two large festival-style stages.