Bohr and Einstein had two perspectives or worldviews, closely related but differing in some small areas.
If one of the two of them had been much more powerful than the other, the more powerful would have eliminated his opponent, and physics would have hardforked, with the less powerful view being not just suppressed, but negated, made untrue in the 'common' worldview.
At that point every interpretation made by the 'winner' would have a ~50% greater chance of being skewed away from any 'original' reality relative to the system which had two views. It would still be a productive science, but it would have objective internal contradictions ~50% more frequently and those would be detected less easily, or after a longer while.
Just as physics reflects a constructed worldview, and the main goal of any individual physicist is to validate his or her own history or perceptions, so too does politics or nationalism reflect constructed worldviews which are neither entirely true nor entirely untrue. The big difference between physicists and nationalists is generally just in their education.
This page, and sub pages, will have links to websites discussing a post WW2 project meant to prevent indigenous interests around the world from threatening the global colonialist power structure.
MKUltra https://www.mcgilltribune.com/mind-control-mcgill-mk-ultra/ is widely considered the prototype of 'mind control' type projects, but the evidence suggests that there was a much bigger project, a real Weltanschauungskrieg project, whose existence was kept secret by 'exposing' MKUltra. In other words MKUltra and similar projects were bones thrown to the public so that the public would believe a certain class of project had been exposed.
The real project, despite overwhelming evidence of its existence, has not been exposed yet.
https://cognitive-liberty.online/psychological-warfare-weltanschauungskrieg-the-war-of-worldview/ This page gives a very low level definition, not exactly what is being referred to on this page. There is little or no information online about how a group can use worldview manipulation strategically, something the Nazi's mastered locally, and which was then adapted by their western 'foes'.
Many people have difficulty perceiving certain classes of worldview. This lets one group's actions with regard to worldview manipulation go under the radar of another group https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3127830/uk-provides-model-handling-racial-inquality-government-report It is important to know that any group will initiate hostile 'worldview' projects once they are cognizant of such projects directed against them, and that Western Europe, particularly Britain, is especially vulnerable to such retribution.
1) Capitalism vs Communism?
Perhaps one of the most significant example of Weltanschauungskrieg is the framing of the global landscape as being 'capitalism vs communism' when in fact capitalism and communism are on the same side, opposing sovereign indigenous development around the world.
Reframing the world's development this way allowed developing countries to cooperate in the extermination of indigenous groups and interests, while appearing to fight one another. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1406941?seq=1
An interesting, and odd, example of something similar is in the article https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-diplomat-josep-borrell-i-should-have-indulged-my-desire-to-argue-a-little-more-a-536b51ee-d687-4e05-b7af-e57a35c1249f
"DER SPIEGEL: You are a Catalan, but you reject the region’s independence from Spain. Lavrov identified that as a weakness."
The article seems out of character for Der Spiegel, but it shows the way people and groups are manipulated by 'bigger worldviews' which aren't really bigger. In this case the Russians 'retreated' to common sense and the 'European' did not want to follow.
2) The U.S. vs Europe
It has always been in the U.S.'s interests to have a weaker Europe. Noam Chomsky explains this a bit in this documentary http://uselesseaterblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/power-principe-iii-apocalypse.html The big winner from WW2 was The U.S., not any other country.
The UK of course consists of genetic descendants of various European groups, Basques for example, and the U.S. is similarly descendant of the UK in terms of Worldview as well as a significant part of its population.
Europe has realized, too late probably, that the survival of their individual groups, nations, is at odds with the survival of those descendants of Britain which exist within the British bubble or Weltanschauung i.e., Australia, the U.S. etc.
Europe is consolidating from East to West as Asia grows stronger, and its possible or likely this consolidation may never reach Western Europe. The so called 'European Union' is a clever 'fake it til you make it' attempt to do an end run around this trend, an attempt to impose a synthetic unity that might have existed naturally in a different world, and hope that it holds up.
The British are caught between their history and their remaining aspirations. They seem to be betting heavily on their 'union' with the U.S., Australia etc, and the preservation of the Weltanschauung which was cleverly globalized.
The famous British motto 'Who dares wins' has become a sort of anchor wrapped around them. Britain, like all countries, is a great nation with a cloudy history. To pull off their 'who dares wins' today would require simply adapting to the times, global reality, but they have such a history of imposing themselves on other societies that they probably will not 'dare' to adapt sufficiently quickly.
As with the United States, Britain has a very rough path ahead. A vigorous global lockdown is one possible way for them to cheat death for a few decades, and undo much of what threatens them, if their actions lead to an increase in tribal sovereignty.
To this day there are hundreds of thousands of people, employed by various governments, whose job is to maintain false worldviews and reduce the influence of those who challenge them. The United States, for example, has a sizeable 'psy war' project which trains young people to believe the derivatives of false sciences. The young people involved are taught to believe they are using deception to promote the truth, a silliness that can only be maintained in a coercive environment like the military.
"The command originated in 1950, when the U.S. Army developed the Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR) Division of the Army General School at Fort Riley, Kansas. The U.S. Army Psychological Warfare Center and School, which included operational tactical units and a school under the same umbrella, moved to Fort Bragg in 1952. The center was proposed by the Army's then-Psychological Warfare Chief, Robert A. McClure, to provide doctrinal support and training for both psychological and unconventional warfare. In 1956, the PSYWAR Center and School was renamed the U.S. Army Center for Special Warfare/U.S. Army Special Warfare School. The school was tasked with developing the doctrine, techniques, training, and education of Special Forces and Psychological Operations personnel."
The cognitive progression used on trainees is a lot like that in any gang. First they are taught that the main part of their work involves doing 'x' small bad act to promote 'y' good outcome. Then they are gradually walked into their real purpose, which they have been conditioned to ignore, to not see.
Any melting pot country which is trying to consume indigenous and foreign peoples will have some variation of this type of project. It is not unique to the U.S., but the U.S. is by far the most aggressive consumer of conquered cultures and so is also the biggest market for propagandists. When the Soviets were in their expansionist phase they briefly probably surpassed the U.S. in legitimizing worldview deceit as policy at a very local level. An important historical difference is that the core culture of the Soviet empire, Russia, was a largely consolidated, established nation, and so was able to 'retreat to its own territory' as its ambitions failed. The U.S. has no such legitimacy as a nation, no place to retreat to as it decays, and the biggest strategic concern for other countries is the defensive reaction of the 'ruling' part of the United States as it enters its death throes.
Of course the public position of the United States is that it is a legitimate nation, but the nations it conquered are not, and of course the U.S. 'worldview' is based on expanding, or providing a protective layer for, the British or Western European presence in frontier indigenous territories.
Note that as the inaccurate worldview decays it becomes more and more necessary to enforce it locally. This was a key in the Western success in dismantling the Soviet Union, and it is a key in the current deterioration of the United States into the 'new' Soviet Union. So as the imposed worldview loses ground to simple truth, countries like the United States are forced more and more to employ their 'psywar' tools domestically, until a critical threshold is reached at which point almost anybody is able to counter the entire agenda of that psywar with very little effort, and heavy police action becomes a constant necessity.
Unfortunately the U.S. has a vast domestic police force with a lot of expensive tools, so the decay is likely to be messy.
3) Here is a very local example of a worldview conflict between a couple who have a small child https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgtde4vk9jc
a) It starts with some sort of argument between the two parents. At this point 3 people involved, two parents and a baby. A pretty common scenario, one of the parents takes the baby so now that parent is 'two' against one.
b) The 'one', outgunned, enlists family to join the conflict. Now there are several against two.
c) Next, some of the family, in this case a brother of the mother, go to the territory of the father, who is holding the child, and try to provoke him by hanging wanted posters around his house.
d) Now there are perhaps dozens of police involved from two countries. Eventually simultaneous raids on numerous houses, etc.
This is a simple dispute between two people who probably should have waited til adulthood to have children. There was never any real danger to the child, despite some fiction about a potentially deadly intolerance for baby formula. So one of the couple assembled a crew to alter the perception of the situation by provoking the other. Then police got involved, and of course their job is largely creating criminals, so what started as a private dispute is now official.
Should a parent kidnap a child to 'win' an argument, or whatever the motive? Of course not. She got married because she saw dollar signs. He got married because she is very attractive. Both are made for each other, neither is dangerous to anybody, including the child. But now there is a long tv show that 'proves' a small sliver of the worldview of one person inaccurately, at the expense of the other.
Ultimately the 'victim' parent kidnaps the baby from the 'kidnapper' parent, with probably dozens of people involved in one way or another. A small child is obviously best with its mother, but nobody benefited in this case, including the child.
4) This is a very 'local' or low level example of manipulating worldview, but it is widespread across melting pots.
Police announce they are vacating drug convictions because a cop lied about some arrests.
A previous article on that cop tries to imply that officials investigated themselves and found the misconduct.
"The review of Detective Franco’s cases began last summer, when the district attorney’s staff noticed major inconsistencies in the detective’s statements and the underpinning evidence in his casework, Mr. Henry said."
But there are more holes in the police version than a person can easily keep track of.
A prosecution obviously cannot be based on one cop, by him or her self, claiming to have seen a drug transaction. All cops work in groups, but drug cops much more than other cops.
The fact that at least two of the fictional drug deals led to guilty pleas suggests that there was more fabricated evidence than the NYT has reported.
That particular guy has been a cop since 2000 and his salary has been above $100,000 since 2016, not counting the benefits package NYPD provides, which is worth roughly as much as the salary at times.
Obviously he worked with a lot of corrupt cops, and he was the one least prepared for the eventuality of a scandal.
How many corrupt cops is his prosecution covering up?
The clear goal in pursuing this corrupt cop is to promote the view that corrupt cops are rooted out. 50 or a hundred years ago most people would have believed that. Today, many younger people might try, or want, to believe that police are rooting out corruption when they arrest a single drug detective, but very few older people believe that. If you polled 5000 people in NY about whether the corrupt cop in this case was being crooked on his own, less than 5% of those over 30 would say he was.