The Truth About Markets, Pillar of Capitalist Ideology

Capitalists long ago learned that they could profit by manipulating both supply and demand to create or sustain “shortages” that would enable them to get higher prices. Capitalism created the advertising industry to boost demand above what it might otherwise be. At the same time, each industry organized to control supply (via informal agreements among producers, mergers, oligopolies, monopolies, and cartels). Social conditions and changes beyond the control of capitalists require them to constantly adjust their manipulations of demand and supply. In reality, markets are useful institutions for capitalists to manipulate for profit. In ideology, markets are useful institutions for capitalists to celebrate as somehow ideal-for-everyone pathways to optimal efficiency.

Source: The Truth About Markets, Pillar of Capitalist Ideology –

If the progessives and activist left are so radical let’s see them challenge the core social darwinist ideology of Darwinism…

This is hardly anything we didn’t know twenty years ago, and yet nothing changes. The design argument is somehow transparent but the proponents of ID (intelligent design) have spoiled their case, even as the Darwinists continue their ostrich fantasy of random natural selection. It is a remarkable deadlock. The design argument is very telling but its proponents over and over spoil their case by grafting their thinking onto Biblical theology and that doesn’t work. A true design argument needs a Kantian discipline, and, ironically, a born-again secular humanist framework, something Dawkins-dominated secular humanists could never manage. Here’s the crux: world history shows design and the emergence the Israelite ‘monotheism’ (parallel to Buddhism) a design as in the eonic effect sense but this won’t work with the degenerated theism of later monotheism. Cf. Decoding World History here.
The issue of design being ‘intelligent’ is ambiguous. It could be right, but we can’t prove it, and the standard of proof of the design inference is too loose to be trustworthy, the more so as the already theistic proponents cheat at all points on rigorous arguments.
Meanwhile Marxists, secular humanists, radical activists uphold the whole idiotic Darwinian ideology/pseudo-scientific terrified if they dissent one iota they will be canceled in the ugly domination of the Dawkins/Darwin racket. And it is a racket and the racist imperialist Darwin, more than Spencer, is the real perpetrator of the social darwinist legitimation of racism imperialism and, yet capitalism. We never see how the capitalist brand enforces the ideology via the universities, science orgs and biology pros, but that backdrop is clearly there: social viciousness is all too useful for keeping capitalism in place.

Losers on both sides, and especially sad with the Marxists who follow Marx’s hypocritical embrace of Darwinism after he realized his initial skepticism was going to be a problem, starting with the idiotic Engels who no doubt twisted his arm here. Marx was a coward on the subject he saw through from the beginning.
To be clear: the design argument is strong but you can’t use it to prove the existence of God.
The left’s confused embrace of Darwin shows how it is really party to the ideology it preaches against.

I consider this simple argument as a final nail in the coffin of Darwinian unguided evolution.

Source: Species Pairs: A New Challenge to Darwinists | Evolution News

Why Are Science Reporters So Credulous?

As a secular student of evolution and the ‘design’ issue I am repeatedly astonished at the rote endorsement of Darwinism in the press, in academic and finally biology fields. It is also suspiciously clear that much of this is outright deception, lying, and disinformation at work. The reality is that any dissent on the natural selection issue(s) can be dangerous to careers and woe to those who don’t conform. The flaw in Darwinian statistics is utterly basic, and yet generations of students get their statistical reasoning cashiered with the Orwellian double think of natural selection. It is almost impossible to penetrate this stultified mindset.
This includes the so-called ‘left’ which routinely exposes much of the deception in capitalist promo/ideology and many other issues yet never dares to critique Darwinism, a cowardly and disgraceful minus in their credibility.
One might argue that as with Dawkins the fundamentalist Darwinians are fearful of the theological obsessions on the right and that the design argument is crypto-theological propaganda, but that is less and less true, if it ever was: one can affirm the presence if design in nature without buying the theology at all. There is universal failure all around to consider the issues in a Kantin vein where the attempts to use design to prove the existence of god were scotched long ago. It is important to consider design in nature because the issue is finally a scientific one.

If, or when, design should overtake blind Darwinian processes as the favored explanation for biological complexity, what Nicholas Wade calls the “temple of science” would really and truly be rocked. Regarding the origins of that complexity, protecting “their sources’ interests” explains why reporting about evolutionary biology needs such intense scrutiny.

Source: Why Are Science Reporters So Credulous? | Evolution News

The confusion over natural selection voids this thesis…//Evolution Tells Us We Might Be the Only Intelligent Life in the Universe

There is something almost ludicrous, if not grotesque, about the hold of natural selection on scientists, and its associated sectors, here the singularity mythologists–or scientists? While the question of alien life remains unresolved it would seem that it is abundantly present throughout the cosmos. We still don’t know, but we can’t conclude anything on the basis of the pseudo-science of ‘evolution’ based on natural selection. The hold of that theory in the face of almost endless critiques and exposes remains a puzzle of science as we know and a warning that ideology can take hold of core science and corrupt it.
Evolution is a general term, and is not equivalent to ‘evolution by natural selection’. Evolution remains the great unsolved challenge for real science as the question of alien life remains up in the air. But we must suspect that evolution is a teleological process present throughout the cosmos.

Are we alone in the universe? It comes down to whether intelligence is a probable outcome of natural selection, or an improbable fluke. By definition, probable events occur frequently, improbable events occur rarely—or once. Our evolutionary history shows that many key adaptations—not just intelligence, but complex animals, complex cells, photosynthesis, and life itself—were unique, one-off events, and therefore highly improbable. Our evolution may have been like winning the lottery…only far less likely.

Source: Evolution Tells Us We Might Be the Only Intelligent Life in the Universe