The socialist haunted world: relativity, fluoridation and climate change as socialist plot

Fluoridation, relativity and global warming: all part of the long running socialist agenda

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk… ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children’s ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I… no, no. I don’t, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.

– Dr. Strangelove or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

The socialist haunted world: our modern demons

One of Carl Sagan’s greatest books is “The Demon Haunted” world, an exploration of the different forms of pseudo-science and the reasons for why so many people believe in such things as ESP, ghosts and creationism.

He feared that the world was being increasingly taken over by “superstition” and a medieval world view. Hence the title of his work: many people seem to be turning to a pre-scientific world, where the invisible forces of Satan worked in concert to lead Christians astray and cause all sorts of grief and mischief.

Said Sagan, who sadly passed away many years ago:

I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.

The demons Sagan feared are stirring.

Belief in pre-scientific concepts such as ghosts, witches, ESP, psychic abilities and hell are still prevalent. The new millennium is here, and the demons that haunt us seem even more relevant.  But it is not just the demons of the medieval world that stir.

For over one hundred years another “demon” has haunted the imagination of conservatives, free-market advocates and libertarians: the demon of socialism and Marxism.

Behind every advance in science or development in public health policy, there have been those who have seen the dreaded hand of socialists, Marxists and atheists.

Since the earliest decades of this century, conservatives, cranks and religious fundamentalists have seen signs of their activities everywhere. They fear the socialists are going to “steal” their power, wealth, status and control. How so?

Let’s begin with the opposition to Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The over 1920s to 1940s: special relativity as a Marxist plot

Academic Jeroen van Dongen recently published a review of “Einstein’s Gegner” by German academic Milena Wzeck (in German, thankfully we have van Dongen’s review).

Van Dongen details how Einstein’s theory was met with a wall of disbelief and hostility by some members of the scientific establishment, and was subject to attacks in the popular press and by conservatives.

Indeed during the 1920s they went so far as to establish “think tanks” in opposition and held rallies against Einstein and his theory. “Anti-relativists” established the “Academy of Nations” in 1921, publishing papers refuting Einstein theories and awarding prizes to themselves:

“Anti-relativists… built up networks to act against Einstein’s theory in concert. This led to some success. For instance, the clamour about the theory in Germany contributed to the Nobel Committee’s delay in awarding its 1921 prize to Einstein and to the particular choice of subject for which he finally did receive it: his account of the photo-electric effect, instead of the controversial theory of relativity.”

In fact, Einstein was so concerned by the vitriol of their attacks that he cancelled speaking engagements fearing an assassination attempt.

Initially Einstein and other scientists tried to engage them, but without success:

“Their strong opposition was not due to a lack of understanding, but rather the reaction to a perceived threat… Anti-relativists were convinced of their own ideas, and were really only interested in pushing through their own theories: any explanation of relativity would not likely have changed their minds.”

Sounds familiar?

All the tropes of the contemporary denial machine can be seen in the anti-relativist movement: the “think tanks”; the conferences; the threats and intimidation we’ve seen against climatologists such as Michael Mann in the US and Phil Jones in the UK; the publication of papers and books denouncing the science; and the outliers and gadflies with scientific credentials who have taken exception to the science.

But this was not the end of the opposition to Einstein’s theory.

It took a much darker turn.

The Nazi war on science: special relativity as a “political issue”

The politics of relativity became even more fraught when the Nazi’s rejected Einstein’s theory, dismissing it as “Jewish Science” whose foundations lay with Marxist thought.

Let’s take one example, an extract from an article written by a prominent member of the pro-Nazi scientific elite, Johannes Stark.

Stark was actually a recipient of a Noble Prize for his work on electromagnetism. However he was forced to retire from his position at University of Würzburg in 1922 for his persistent attacks on Einstein’s theory. When the Nazis came to power, Stark become prominent once again. [1]

In his essay “Respect for Facts and Aptitude for Exact Observation Reside in the Nordic Race” (published 1936) he makes the following claims:

“There have been repeated attempts in lectures and books to present the theory of relativity as the grand capstone of centuries of progressive scientific development, which began with Copernicus, Galileo and led, via Kepler and Newton, to Einstein. No!.. Einstein is not the pupil of these men, but their determined opponent..

..This theory could have blossomed and flourished nowhere else but in the soil of Marxism, whose scientific expression it is…”

And:

“Thus, in its consequences, the theory of relativity appears to be less a scientific than political problem…”

And finally:

“…In this manner, assisted by adversity in the newspapers and lectures from professional chairs, this purely scientific theory… grew into a physical world view.

..The few who were of different opinions were disregarded.” [2]

Note the smearing dismissal of “theory” in the same way today’s denialists dismisses “computer models”.

Also note how the theory of relativity is framed not as a scientific question, but a “political” issue.

Party politics and political orientation determines the value of a theory. The pseudo-science of “race” and the prejudices of the author allow them to wave away the solid, empirical basis for relativity.

Again, sound familiar? [3]

The 1950s to 1960s: fluoridation as a socialist plot

For those of you who have seen – and remember – Stanley Kubrick’s satirical masterpiece “Dr Strangelove, or how I stopped worrying and grew to love the bomb” there is a character called General Jack D. Ripper, a military officer who is firmly convinced “communists” are behind the fluoridation of water in the US (see above quote).

However, there was a genuine “anti-fluoridation” movement that thrived not only in the US, but around the world. Individuals actually believed “communists” where behind this and it was all part of a massive conspiracy. It is worth quoting the Wikipedia entry on this:

“Water fluoridation has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories. During the “Red Scare” in the United States during the late 1940s and 1950s, and to a lesser extent in the 1960s, activists on the far right of American politics routinely asserted that fluoridation was part of a far-reaching plot to impose a socialist or communist regime. They also opposed other public health programs, notably mass vaccination and mental health services…”

And:

Some took the view that fluoridation was only the first stage of a plan to control the American people. Fluoridation, it was claimed, was merely a stepping-stone on the way to implementing more ambitious programs. Others asserted the existence of a plot by communists and the United Nations to “deplete the brainpower and sap the strength of a generation of American children”.

In fact, it was not until the late 1990s that most Americans started drinking fluoridated water, that’s how powerful this “conspiracy” theory was:

“…In the case of fluoridation, the controversy had a direct impact on local programs. During the 1950s and 1960s, referendums on introducing fluoridation were defeated in over a thousand Florida communities. Although the opposition was overcome in time, it was not until as late as the 1990s that fluoridated water was drunk by the majority of the population of the United States.”

Of course, to today’s ears these charges sound fanciful and ridiculous.

However, they are manifestations of deep-seated sense of anxiety and a loss of control.

The 1990s to early twenty-first century: global warming as a socialist plot

“The word ‘government’ actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity… How many of you think that the word ‘election’ or ‘democracy’ or ‘vote’ or ‘ballot’ occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it — now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything.” – Christopher Monckton

“He [Maurice Strong] set up the United Nations Environment Program, out of which came the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the whole idea of climate as a vehicle for shutting down industrialization.” – Tim Ball

I think by this stage we can see a pattern emerging over the last 100 years, as conservatives, cranks and individuals with libertarian leanings have reacted to the findings of science and the need for government policy with hostility, contempt and fear.

Again and again they dismiss the science as conspiracy orchestrated by the socialist “demon”.  Everywhere they turn, they see the workings of the “Evil One” of Marx and socialists in manipulating science, government and public policy.

The tragedy is that these conspiracy theorists slow our response to climate change. The “battle for fluoridation” took almost forty years to play itself out.

The concern is that we may not have that much time with climate change.

Loss of power, status and control and a conspiratorial worldview: the sources of denial

We can point the finger at the likes of Exxon, the Koch’s and the conservative think tanks for fostering “climate change skepticism. But I think the roots of denial are much deeper than that.

As the above examples show, the fear that other “forces” are going to diminish the power, status and authority of individuals (and by extension the industries they work for or the companies they run) fuels denial.

It explains why behind every new scientific discovery – from evolution to relativity – religious and social conservatives react with such alarm. Many of those who opposed Einstein’s theory felt their status and achievements where being swept away (Stark).

Others, whose fears were grounded in ignorance and fear, recast their concerns as a political issue. Thus, those opposed to fluoridation where already anti-communist, and therefore assumed what they did not like must have it’s roots in communism.

However, another key feature of all these movements and their reactions to science was a conspiratorial world view.

Conclusion

The demons are stirring.

They have taken flight, and haunt the imagination.

The enemies of the Enlightenment have targeted the science of climate change, evolution and evidence based medicine. For four hundred years they had been pushed back and kept at bay.

But they’ve returned, and taken on new forms to soothe the anxieties of denialists everywhere.  Where some of see the empirical evidence for climate change, others see a shadowy cabal of socialists intent on controlling their bodily fluids, freedoms and wallets.

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

[1] Nazi culture: intellectual, cultural and social life in the Third Reich, By George Lachmann Mosse, University of Wisconsin Press 1966 page. 198

[2] Ibid pg. 213

[3] I rush to say that I do not attempt to equate today’s “deniers” or climate change sceptics with Nazis (viz Godwin’s Law), but how even the most commonly accepted and robustly tested scientific hypothesis have been politicised in the past.

15 thoughts on “The socialist haunted world: relativity, fluoridation and climate change as socialist plot

  1. Tony Abbott and especially Nick Minchin would certainly fit into this lot. For them, however, I fear it’s mostly ignorance rather than that they orchestrate propaganda.
    The deeper and deeper you look into history, the more you find local if not continental ages of Enlightenment that eventually crumble when religion fights back. It’s staggering to look at how much damage fear does.
    I’m most blown away by Monckton and Minchin being taken seriously when they say stuff like this; it would be as bad as Hubbard being given serious consideration for all his volcano and clam preachings, or if Rudd went on TV to talk about how he had seen the Easter bunny last year sneaking through his house… it’s just insanity.

  2. Gareth says:

    Great post, WTD. Minchin? I can only think of Tim.

    And don’t imagine that the fluoridation issue has entirely played out – it’s still alive and well in parts of NZ…

  3. Watching the Deniers says:

    Thanks for comments – a few typos but have been fixed.

    What amazes me is just how long this communist conspiracy “meme” has existed. The topics change (fluoridation, climate change etc.) but is essentially the same argument, using the same faulty logic and dubious reasoning.

    I’m hoping that by comparing the comments made by Monckton et.al. with those same ravings from the last 100 years illustrate the absurdity of their arguments. One hopes😉

  4. Anarchist606 says:

    Brilliant article. I’m going to post a link to it from my site shortly…

  5. Anarchist606 says:

    Also – totally recommend this site: http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/home which has archives of material pointing to the impending communist plot that never appears…

    Plus a shameless plug…

    Understanding the Mind of the Denialist
    http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2009/12/understanding-mind-of-denialist.html

    How Cognitive Bias Works in Global Warming Denial
    http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-cognative-bias-works-in-global.html

  6. manuelg says:

    Depressingly, one of the seemingly rarest things in the world is someone who finds value in the Conservative viewpoint, but does not apply conservatism outside its fruitful domain – anxious and irrational reactionary conservatism.

    My guess is that these “nonesuch” Conservatives do exist and are hidden in plain sight, because they identify and associate with liberals, radicals, socialists, and progressives – because really-existing disciplined intellectual debate can only be found in those circles, and those associations are the only ones that allow an honest conservative to test and challenge their own ideas.

    [Perhaps, but see https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/behind-the-great-firewall-of-denial-the-conservative-debate-on-epistemic-closure-and-climate-change/ for some examples of constructive and intelligent conservatism. ~ WTD]

  7. nyscof says:

    Just F.Y.I. Modern science indicates that ingesting fluoride does not reduce tooth decay; but does contribute to fluoride’s adverse effects.

    Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth as it was thought to be when fluoridation began. As such, fluoride is a drug with side effects.

    Using the water supply as a vehicle for drugs (or nutrients) isn’t very wise as too much of anything is a bid thing and dose is based ons thirst – not need.

    Over 2700 professionals, including more than 260 dentists, are asking congress to stop fluoridation, long promoted to prevent tooth decay, because it is ineffective and harmful to health.

    7,000 EPA scientists agree and, protected by their unions, are asking for fluoridation to stop because the scientific evidence shows that some people will be harmed by fluoride, even at the low levels added to water supplies.

    for more info http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      More special pleading, and lots”facts” with no evidence. So far I’ve seen:

      – Creationists tell me evolution is a lie
      – Climate change sceptics tell me climate science is a lie, but evolution is true
      – 9/11 “truthers” tell me the government orchestrated the Twin Towers fall
      – Climate change deniers call 9/11 Truthers nuts
      – Truthers call creationists nuts…

      RE your post, this is more “science by petition”.

      “Just F.Y.I. Modern science indicates that ingesting fluoride does not reduce tooth decay; but does contribute to fluoride’s adverse effects.”

      Modern science? Really? Drugs? Really?

      “The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay and is considered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as “one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride#Cavity_prevention

      But really, what does modern science know?

      All this sounds like climate change denial. Petitions that state “over 7000 X” and “over 250 Y”. It also mimics vaccine denial to a tee. It’s also by this stage rather boring.

      I’d direct you New Scientists special on “Age of denial” to take a hard critical look at you muddled thinking:

      http://www.newscientist.com/issue/2760

      Let’s be honest. It is a silly position that runs contrary to the science.

      Have a nice day!

  8. marg says:

    I guess everyone has their opinions about causes of climate change. Are we talking pollution by plastics, deforestation, chemicals, sunspots, or what? Of the main air pollutants, 5 are fluoride based. Does anyone mention them?

    How can anyone promote contamination of our water and food with a poison as lethal than lead and arsenic and in the same breath be concerned about climate change.

    Australian councils dump over 400 000 kilos of hexafluorosilicic acid into town water supplies. 1% of that is ingested, the rest goes down the drain and out to sea. The cost is over $60 million dollars a year. The stuff comes from phosphate fertiliser factories in China. It arrives in 1000 kilo bags and since it is not tested except for fluoride content, nobody really knows what is going into our water.

    from Wikipedia – Hexafluorosilicic acid releases hydrogen fluoride when evaporated, so it has similar risks. It is corrosive and may cause fluoride poisoning; inhalation of the vapors may cause lung edema. Like hydrogen fluoride, it attacks glass and stoneware.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid

    For the record, if I drink ‘fluoridated water’ I suffer an extreme asthma attack within 6 hours. (have tested it several times) I think I am not alone. I think medicating water is criminal.

  9. I used to work with the SA EPA in air quality etc and am aware of numerous of pollutants, locally. The last issues I was involved in were the potential for acidic dust and the potential PVC vapour from polluted ground water.

    Other related work was on local water quality. From house boat pollution, agricultural run-off, decreasing flow/rising salinity, to sea-grass loss and increasing fresh water insecurity; I was aware of a number of climate/environmental/health related issues.

    Fair call to be concerned about what we put into drinking water that ends up entering the environment and what it may do to the ecosystem.

    I’m sorry that you feel fluoridated water has induced asthma attacks – you shouldn’t just test it at home, but in all sensibility, discuss it with a doctor; for all you know, it could be anything in the water supply (it is not just H2O and fluoride in the water) or even psychosomatic. It’s not enough to “test it several times” at home and assume others must also have the same effect. This is the same baseless hype as the ‘info’ anti-vaccination groups propagate. The vast majority of people are better off for vaccination as is the general dental health from fluoride in our water supply. Using you logic, I could simply same, “I don’t have a problem from drinking fluorinated water, so I assume no-one does.

    However, WHO etc suggest that it is beneficial. The science tells us that it’s favourable to the public. If it is generally dangerous to do so for either human health of ecosystems that it pollutes, then this must be brought to light via correct methodology, not just a personal test devoid of chemical analysis.

    What I find disturbing is statements such as;
    “I guess everyone has their opinions about causes of climate change.
    and;
    “How can anyone… be concerned about climate change.

    Like much of your comment, it devalues scientific confidence, which is based on reason and evidence, not just personal feelings or crude home tests.

    It doesn’t matter what any individual’s opinion is on climate change; the evidence is robust, supported by many independent lines of evidence and data and is so apparent that even tribal communities in Africa and the tundra regions of northern America are beyond a doubt that the way of life that they have been used to for millennium is no longer viable with how their local environment has changed.

    Without understanding climate change and being ready to meet the changing world, water security, food security, energy security, ecological and urban resilience are all reduced. That is based on a wealth of evidence. What this post is addressing is baseless propaganda spread to devalue the conclusions any sensible person would otherwise reach. In short, yours is a personal example of the point being made here.

  10. […] subject and inflated it beyond all measure. It doesn’t help that fluoridation does indeed have a deep murky socialistic conspiracy past, noting the Chinese fluoride paranoia expressed by Jason […]

  11. alan says:

    This might help you reach a conclusion, it is citated and needs research before rubbishing.

    http://fwunk.com/system/files/u53/file_attachments/theeffectofflourideonthepinealgland.pdf

  12. Nice post. Brings back memories of reading “Merchants of Doubt”: http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

    I’ll make a prediction:

    As communism fades from memory, and the cold warriors slowly die off, at some point the denialists will change their tune. No longer will global warming be labelled a socialist plot, but rather an Islamic terrorist plot to destroy the civilized, industrialized, carbon emitting world. Both “issues” dovetail perfectly for your run of the mill red neck.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: