Collectivism, secular humanism, scientific positivism (scientism) and centralized state power — Part 2: Centralization of power by Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

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

The essence of all revolutionary systems and their eventual political manifestation depends on gaining, extending, and retaining power. Direct action, as we witnessed in the French Revolution and the revolutions that followed, such as National Socialism in Germany, fascism in Italy, and Soviet, Cuban, Southeast Asian and Chinese communism, brings centralized political power to the fore rapidly and necessitates equally rapid consolidation of power into the hands of the elite designers of the collectivist blueprint.

Despite the differences between the relatively non-violent gradualists of the Fabian school, for example, and the violent revolutionaries of the communist states, they share one thing in common—a desire to force the public by various means to see the new society as a flourishing, happy country, beset by dangerous subversives—to destroy the truth as far as possible, and to uproot or prevent independent thought. In other words, we have two centrally directed programs occurring at once—one to essentially brainwash the subservient and passive public into seeing the new system as humane, compassionate, progressive and efficient, and a second one that deals with the recalcitrant resisters who are still able to discern illusion from fantasy and truth from the lie.

The former of these requires powerful propaganda tools utilizing all avenues of mass communications—books, magazines, television, radio, movies, and most important the educational system.[1] These same tools of mass communication can also be used to deal with the “enemies of the people,” by portraying them as the enemies of progress, intellectual throwbacks, dangerous near-do-wells, and even outright terrorists that must be eliminated. Their writings can be rejected by major outlets of the popular press, important events can be ignored by the media, dissenters can be denied academic positions in the most prestigious of  universities and they can be portrayed as racists, anti-Semitic, conspiracy theorists, poorly educated, religious fanatics, and in general “haters.”

It was soon realized by such communist collectivists as Edward Berstein, Antonio Gramsci, and the Fabian socialists, that the formula of lightening-like destruction of the old order and its rapid and brutal replacement with a police state would not work in the West; rather a better tactic was gradualism, disguised in such a way that few would recognize the true nature of the transformation until it was too late.[2,3] This would require extensive political and educational organization, expertly applied propaganda, and discipline of its members. It would also require infiltrating all aspects of the society to be replaced, especially education, the media, literature, and most importantly, the scientific world.[4] It has been noted that most scientists are squarely on the left in their political understanding and thus are more prone to accept such collectivist plans than the general public. They are also more likely to be secular humanists.

The greatest weapon of the totalitarians, as I mentioned, is the idea that collectivism and consolidation of power among the few intellectuals who truly understand what needs to be done, will require considerable support by science. The world to be created will be a technocracy and thus must be scientifically planned in all its intimate details—at least that is the illusion.[5] The term scientism has been coined to describe this use of the veneer of science that in its true essence is manifested as raw political power.

The silencing of dissent, as stated previously, has become the mantra of the collectivist left in our own society. In their minds, debates are not only useless but dangerous, as they just might convince the unenlightened masses that their collectivist nostrums are false and dangerous to freedom. We have heard this expressed among proponents of global warming (climate change), the flurodationists, the educational left (NEA), mandatory vaccination proponents, the population control bureaucracy, the evolutionists, and the proponents of the new rising technocracy. In each case, we have a massive use of propaganda urging the silencing of those who dissent or who have alternate ideas.[1]

In order to control ideas one needs powerful central control of science and education, something that we are witnessing the growth of daily. Our educational institutions, by law, for example, have removed the competing idea of creation from our educational institutions. In some school systems, the courts have even ruled that even questioning evolution is a violation of the law and shall be banned. Is that what we really want to tell our youth about how science is done—that we use the law to prevent competing ideas from being expressed and that we are not even allowed to demonstrate the weakness of the anointed theory? This is reminiscent of the period in the Middle Ages when the teachings of Galen’s ideas of anatomy and physiology were held with an iron hand, and Igaz Semmelweis (1818-1865) was harassed and punished for questioning hospital unsanitary practices that were responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of pregnant women throughout Europe and England.

While such intrusions of central control by government into the field of science are disruptive of true scientific progress, when applied to other areas—such as education in general, politics, international finance, the ever-expanding bureaucracy and the merger of the corporate world with government—the dangers become much more pronounced and could spell the death of human freedom itself. C.S. Lewis asks the question: “The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be. Have we discovered some new reason why, this time, power should not corrupt as it has done before?”[6]

Questioning Life Itself

Biological science has been on the road of reductionism for over a century. The idea was that in order to better understand biological processes we first must understand the mechanisms operating on a microscopic and even submicroscopic level. Using reductionism we have learned a great deal about how biological organisms function on a minute by minute basis. Biochemistry, physiology, genetics, and biophysics have provided us with a more complete understanding of life. Now, the very idea that life is something special and different from non-life is being attacked. William E. Carroll, Research Fellow in Theology and Science, Blackfriars University of Oxford, discusses this new idea in his article, “Does a biologist need a soul?”[7]

Linked to and preceding this new paradigm has been an attack on the idea of free will and the previously held appreciation that we exist as truly thinking individuals. The purpose of these two attacks is to complete the elimination of the first stage of historical understanding as elucidated by August Comte (1798-1857)—that is, religion and a belief in God. In essence, this makes man, and all “living” things, just another piece of complex mechanical matter.

This latest assault on our previous understanding comes from Ferris Jabr, an associated editor of Scientific American. He compares living humans as being nothing different than elaborate mechanical statues, that rather than just carrying out crude movements are more refined and coordinated. Carroll also quotes Rodney Brooks, director of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT, who stated: “Evolution has shown us that we are nothing more than ‘a highly ordered collection of bio-molecules.’ ” Interestingly, this statement first requires a belief in evolution in order to accept the idea that we are just a “collection of bio-molecules.”[8] Paul Churchland instructs us that we should accept that we are nothing more than purely physical processes derived from evolution.[9]

Again, this shows the necessity of belief in evolution in order to assume all sorts of other “scientific” nonsense and why the collectivists are so intent on not only protecting Darwinism as an ideology, but also insisting that we all show enthusiasm for the theory, much as we observed with the Marxist/Leninist rulers of communist states. A lack of enthusiasm for a protected theory by a scientist can land one in hot water.

I have noticed a tremendous increased use of the terms “evolution” and “conserved” in scientific publications and a number of lay scientific books. In many cases these terms are interjected when they not only have nothing to do with the theme of the article in question, but more importantly, are in no way provable. My experience with medical writing suggests that most scientific journals require some level of evidence when the author makes a scientific statement—yet I have never seen a reference number next to such loosely used terms. If we are not independently thinking individuals and if we have no free will, but rather are merely evolved, complex reflexive life-forms, then our personal wishes, our imaginations, or deeply held beliefs, our faith in God, and our very behavior are not freely and individually determined but are merely physical phenomena controlled by natural forces beyond our control.

Taking it one step beyond this shocking idea is the new idea that life itself is not exceptional or that it is not outside the material and mechanical world—that is, living organisms are merely manifestations of non-living material that operate in a complex organization that gives the impression of something special and outside the material world. In essence, it is denying the existence of the soul, the very basis of all religions. Daniel Hansen has observed, “Yet our real essence is seen in the soul, not in the soul’s wardrobe.”[10] Reverend Joseph R. Sizoo (Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of New York) further defined an important difference between theology and religion: “What people want today is not theology, but religion, and there is a vast difference. Theology is the expression of an experience which men have with God; religion is that experience.”[11]

Reverend Sizoo provides us with an example of this experience in telling the story of Helen Keller’s first instructions about God from Bishop Brooks in which she then replied—“I knew Him all along only I did not know His name.”[12] The good Reverend was also aware of the change in people’s attitude concerning religion when he wrote: “After years of personal interviews and conferences I have come to believe these are the three kinds of religion in the world today. There is the religion of the grandfather, the religion of the father, and religion of the son. The grandfather’s religion was an experience; the father’s religion is a tradition; and the son’s religion is an inconvenience.”[13]

T.S. Eliot makes an important observation on religion when he writes:

To justify Christianity because it provides a foundation of morality, instead of showing the necessity of Christian morality from the truth of Christianity, is a very dangerous inversion: and we may reflect, that a good deal of the attention of totalitarian states has been devoted with a steadiness of purpose, not always found in democracies, to providing their national life with a foundation of morality—the wrong kind perhaps, but a good deal more of it. It is not enthusiasm, but dogma, that differentiates a Christian from a pagan society.[14]

Combined, the idea of life as not special and that humans have no free will, puts individuals within society in a very precarious and dangerous position—mainly, at risk of absolute rule by elites. If life is not special, terminating that biological organism during an abortion, mass killing, or via euthanasia is not as shocking as it would be if life were a special gift of God. Such otherwise shocking acts would be merely terminating a non-living mechanism, no more shocking than crushing a car in a junkyard that is no longer fully functional. Abortion would no longer demand our outrage, since the developing baby is no more of a special “miracle” than would be the growth of a crystal.

And that we have no free will and a mind that does not really make decisions of itself, but rather merely reacts reflexively to stimuli, means that control by organisms that function on a higher level—that is, the intellectual elite—would make perfect sense. Regimentation of these mechanical devices we call people, would also make perfect sense as their personal desires and wishes are of no real consequence and are most likely selfish and possibly harmful to the collective. Like Marx, this new scientific paradigm would justify collectivism and its central control, rather than leave decisions to individuals that, in truth, according to this new paradigm, would be incapable of making rational decisions, but rather would most assuredly make all kinds of irrational decisions based on emotions and other irrational neural impulses. Only the ordered and specially trained minds of the elite could scientifically design a society that would supply the greatest happiness to the greatest number of these “units” efficiently—that is, to the members of the collective utopia.

Religion, under such a paradigm, would be illogical, as one would be praying to a non-existent God for individual wants and needs and hence would be wasteful and distracting. Under collectivism, it is the state, as ruled by these elites, that would supply what one needs and would direct these mechanical units in a more efficient and benevolent collective organization. Notice I said, “what one needs” and not what one desires. Only the elite, in such a paradigm, could know what you need since your untrained and poorly organized mechanical brain would be incapable of making such decisions in a rational and logical manner that conforms to the collectivist system. What people need would require the use of the latest scientific and technological systems to make such determinations.

Such an ordered and regimented society is better envisioned by studying the various collectivist systems that have and still exist in the world—the Soviet system, National Socialism, Fascism—and have been visually demonstrated in a number of movies, such as “Divergent,” “The Maze Hunter,” “The Hunger Games,” “1984,” and “The Gift.” Yet, none of the movies or present collectivists governments have truly demonstrated the horror of a centrally controlled system that looks upon its collective masses as mere machines to be regimented and controlled—as determined by the elite—eventually even terminated. Until now, the subjects living under such controlling systems as communist states have been viewed as truly human and as recognizably “special life,” no matter how unrestrained in their previous lives.

Under these previous collectivist systems, the elite mold opinions and direct the activities of the collective by various coercive methods and by propaganda, fully recognizing that the individuals to be ruled have free will and independently thinking minds. Despite their declarations of humanity, the left collectivists (and this includes what many refer to as right collectivists) cannot exercise a sense of true humaneness in the face of such a new view of life (as mechanical and material) and that accepts the idea of the human mind being devoid of free will. Why show compassion to a machine—would one worry about one’s vacuum cleaner being happy?

Rather than attempting to force conformity of thought, or by utilizing special psychological and brainwashing techniques to control the collective, the new totalitarians will use neuroscience to control the physical brain as discussed by Dr. Jose Delgado in his book, Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society.[15] New developments in neuroscience not only imply that the human personality and resulting behavior are purely based on brain mechanisms and further that control of the decisions we seem to make independently may, in fact, be an illusion. A careful assessment of these studies suggests they are based on a prejudiced worldview and not the actual science.

Several intellectuals have posited that science cannot demonstrate the presence of the soul, and therefore it not only does not exist, hence, no further attempts to discover it should be attempted. If one were to imagine a world in which all things were made of non-ferromagnetic materials and suddenly a magnet was discovered—scientists in that world would conclude that talk of a mysterious “force” within that bar of metal was ridiculous since no evidence of its presence could be found by the finest scientific instruments. It would appear as being no different than any other non-magnetic metal bar.

Only those who still believe that life is a precious gift of God and that the soul truly exists will be saved from the degrading effect of this new “lifeless” paradigm. The implications of accepting the non-existence of free will and an independent mind and further, that there is no difference between living things and mechanical things, are terrifying as stated and should not be taken lightly. To imply to the general public that our best scientists have endorsed this by careful study and experimentation would be a lie of the proportion to the lie of stating that collectivism is a rational and humane system. Such a declaration of scientific confirmation would become the main support of such a lie.

In war soldiers are made to accept the idea that the enemy is not human and the same way of viewing others is accepted by the criminal in interacting with their victims. Depersonalizing the intended victim is also suspected to be at the core of the psychopath’s personality. They do not see others as truly human and possessing important or special value. As one psychopathic young man, who had tortured and slaughtered his friend, stated, “it was as if I were playing a video game and he wasn’t real.” If we accept the idea that life itself is not real in a special or exceptional sense and that people have no free will of their own, then those possessing absolute power—that is, the power elite—will feel no remorse in murdering millions, denying millions more their freedom or creating a society of fear. Why would one feel bad about abusing mere machines?


While most in the world either remain asleep or have been won over by a prolonged and massive campaign of collectivist propaganda, the world has undergone a radical change in its political structure and our culture has been so radically altered that it is almost unrecognizable. When I watched and listened as conservative pundits several years ago, one after another, with a look of complete shock on their faces, announced that America was now socialist, I couldn’t help but be amazed that they had been so clueless for so long.

Virtually my entire adult life, and this includes my college years, I have read, studied and listened to expert after expert explain how America was headed down the road to socialism or some form of fascism (corporatism or corporativism). The evidence these analysts of world ideologies presented was overwhelming, yet most either never listened to or read these words of wisdom or they chose to ignore it as nothing more than fringe thinking and fear mongering.

While my fellow university students were busy drinking, partying and enjoying sports of various kinds, the world was rapidly moving toward totalitarianism. In the beginning, most of these nefarious changes were being done below the radar screen, but as we neared the turn of the century the speed of this monstrous vehicle of death began to pick up.

The public—happy to be engrossed in sports, delving in the lives of celebrities, partying and more recently, spending all of their waking hours blabbering on various forms of social media—remained unaware that anything was amiss and when it was forced upon their attention, they merely shrugged their shoulders and assumed it was just politics or the sign of the times. Those who tried to ring the alarm bells were treated as right-wing loonies, paranoid personalities, or just bored with “normal” life—that is, being addicted to social networking.

The political crowd assumed everything bad was nothing more than politics as usual and that if we could only get Republicans in office and have a change of the pPresidential guard, all would be well. The dramatic changes in our culture were mostly completely ignored, as if all was well with our basic social structure. Every new, leftist nostrum and assault on our traditions was accepted with good grace and even enthusiasm. It was difficult for most to see the various patterns of totalitarianism that were coalescing everywhere as part of a larger plan that involved a total restructuring of the world after the ideological principle of the French Revolution. To most, these were separate incidences that were not to be taken as harbingers of something more dangerous and all encompassing.

Those who saw the danger to the culture and its full implications were dismissed as enemies of change and the new thinking, and as alarmists wanting things to stay the same for either nostalgic reasons or based on some personal benefit. Conservatism, which in its early days was carefully elucidated by men like Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk and Frank S. Meyer, among others, began to change. The new conservative was concerned only with economics; all other things were distractions—especially the religiously based moral issues. As Dr. Miguel Faria stated in one of his papers:

Faith and religion provide an invisible support to the moral code, encourage discipline, and promote civility. Its influence on moral conduct and overt behavior is certain. Without the prop of religion and our churches, crime would certainly increase, and then the state would have the usual reason or excuse, or even pretext, to step in, to pass more laws against the law-abiding citizens, and to suppress more liberties, all in the name of combating lawlessness and crime. I find Judeo-Christian ethics and teachings beneficial to the survival of Western Civilization and a just bulwark against anarchy on the one hand and the rise of socialism and tyranny on the other.[16]

We are now experiencing the effects of not following this sagacious advice. The new conservatives, who are only concerned with economic issues, should now see that because of their blindness, all of us are paying the consequences. Within this maelstrom of degradation and destruction of the previously existing world we are now seeing new ideas from the scientific segment of society that will prepare the world for something that has never been seen in history—the conception of most of humanity as non-life entities without the capacity of independent thinking and free will that, as a result, have no arguments that can protect them from the elite monsters that are determined to rule all.

Total regimentation of society by a self-appointed elite of all wise individuals are now poised to bring this hell to all of us and unfortunately, most are responsible for this because of their inattention, lack of self-discipline, and willingness to abandon the foundation of all humane impulses—a belief in God and an appreciation that human life is a gift from that God.[17] Saint Paul the Apostle tells us in Romans 1:20 & 22: “For the invisible things of Him from creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse…Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools.”

Read Part 1: A most dangerous admixture.


1. Bernays E. Propaganda. New York, NY: Ig Publishing; 2005.
2. Blaylock RL. Managed Truth: The Great Danger to Our Republic. Surg Neurol Int 2011:2:179. Available from:
3. Bernstein E. Evolutionary Socialism the Classic Statement of Democratic Socialism. New York, NY: Schocken Books; 1975.
4. Conquest R. The Dragons of Expectation: Reality and Delusion in the Course of History. New York, NY: WW. Norton & Co; 2005, p. 15.
5. Wood P. Technology Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. Mesa, AZ: Coherent Publishing; 2015.
6. Lewis CS. Is Progress Possible? Willing Slaves of the Welfare State. In: God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman Publishing Co.; 1970, p. 316.
7. Carroll WE. Does a biologist need a soul? Modern Age 2015:57(3);17-31.
8. Brooks R. Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us. New York, NY: Pantheon Books; 2002, p. 172-73.
9. Churchland P. Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1984, p. 21.
10. Hansen D. Beneath the Surface. In: The Best Christian Writing 2001. J. Wilson, L. Woiwode, editors. San Franciso, CA: Harper; 2001.
11. Sizoo JR. Make Life Worth Living. New York, NY: Macmillan Company; 1938, p. 6.
12. Ibid., p. 25.
13. Ibid., p. 7.
14. Eliot TS. Christianity and Culture: The Idea of a Christian Society and Notes Toward the Definition of Culture. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace & Co.; 1967, p. 47.
15. Delgado JMR. Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers; 1969.
16. Faria MA. A defense of Western culture and civilization without apologies., November 16, 2015. Available from:
17. Blaylock RL. God or Man as Final Arbiter of Moral Law., December 7, 2014. Available from:

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 2: Centralization of power. Hacienda, August 14, 2015.  Available from:

Copyright ©2015 Hacienda Publishing Inc.

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

A gentle Critique!

This is an excellent paper that tights in and exposes the interconnections of collectivism and centralized State power with secular humanism and scientific positivism (scientism) as part and parcel political philosophies of the progressive movement.[1] Despite the confusing noises obfuscating and discombobulating this topic in political circles, Dr. Russell Blaylock makes it clear that these progressivist philosophies are hostile to individualism, personal freedom, and natural laws associated with Judeo-Christian religion. Even the dogmatism of scientism itself is in direct conflict with the unfettered methodology of the science it claims to support. It would be difficult to find a more eloquent and instructive paper on this subject.

I would like to make several observations on this erudite paper. While I agree that Galen personally was a dogmatist,[2] his views of medicine became accepted, unquestioned dogma only centuries after his death during the Middle Ages. Galen espoused scientific investigations in both anatomic dissections (animals) and physiologic experimentation. It was practitioners who followed him that took Galen’s precepts as final truth and fossilized science and progress for over a millennium.[3]

The term “rightist collectivist,” at first sight seemed to be an oxymoron, and I was not sure whether the reference referred to this paradox or to “fascists,” the accepted popular conception of the "right," or to some other group. (In my conception of the political spectrum the extreme right is anarchism.) Dr. Blaylock’s best explanation in my view is that it refers largely to neoconservatives, mostly former Trotskyites, who still believe in the welfare state and other left-wing policies, but supposedly are “conservatives” because of their hawkish foreign policy. I believe then with this caveat of clarification that this characterization has a real basis.

Dr. Blaylock cited several movies in which collectivist systems have been “visually demonstrated,” but he asserts that they did not fully “demonstrate the horror of a centrally controlled system that looks upon its collective masses as mere machines to be regimented and controlled.” I have not seen the other movies cited, but the magnificent film 1984, at least the version with John Hurt and Richard Burton (1984),[4] paint a very distressing picture, not only of the regimentation and hapless subjugation of the individual to the State, but also the utter destruction of personal autonomy and the will, in forcing the individual to submit to the “collective will,” making citizens mere machines to be trampled by the State.[5,6]

These are minor points of clarification that I think will further enhance the academic arguments in (and understanding of) this well-written tour de force treatise.


1. Blaylock RL. Collectivism, Secular Humanism, Scientific Positivism (Scientism) and Centralized State Power — Part 1: A Most Dangerous Admixture. August 15, 2015. Available from:
2. Faria MA. Another medical journey to ancient Rome and Roman medicine with medical historian Plinio Prioreschi, MD, PhD. Surg Neurol Int 15-Jun-2015;6:104. Available from:
3. Faria MA. Vandals at the Gates of Medicine. Hacienda Publishing. 1984. p.177-183.
4. Orwell G. 1984. Review available at:
5. Faria MA. Liberal Orthodoxy and the Squelching of Political or Scientific Dissent., August 19, 2013. Available from:
6. Blaylock RL. Regimentation in medicine and its human price (Part 2)., March 20, 2015. Available at:

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.