Somehow your post is worse than your original comment. It has the same content, but is long-winded and states well-known generic truisms like “there are sometimes dishonest ideologically charged crap passing as science”. Your article would benefit with actual evidence or at least more elaborate examples.

In other words, I do not criticize the content, I agree with the idea. I just find the article rambling, with statements like “However, venal influences are nevertheless far from nonexistent, and a fascinating question is under what exact conditions researchers are likely to fall under them and get away with it.” Yes, it's a fascinating question, now can you answer it? And saying “far from nonexistent” is the same as saying “it exists”, and this could be said of so many things, it yields little new information.

You say macroeconomics is bunk. But how exactly? How do you know it's bunk, can you give me an outline, or direct me to some other high-level review of its fiasco? How to proceed from that? I remember how a comment on LW explained in a few paragraphs how praxeology works and how it ultimately makes Austrian economics decidedly unempirical. It was amazing, and something like that would greatly improve your article. Or sociobiology: what should I know about sociobiology to avoid getting into the trap of unsound theories? What are good examples of ideologically motivated fraud?

Also, Moldbug's article on CS is great for your emotional health, and I really-really liked it, but its arguments are crap. Type theory is bunk because Benjamin Pierce wrote 2 books — how the hell is that a good argument? And currying is such a simple concept I have no idea what he complains about, it can be explained on a piece of paper to anybody who knows 1 year undergrad discrete math. And lambda calculus, which underpins functional programming, is so simple, you can learn it from a Wikipedia page in half an hour. Also, his argument against research in, say, Haskell can be easily refuted by the following argument. CS research is supposed to be impractical, because it's scientists wandering in dark territories, trying to bump into something very good. If they do, this goodness trickles down to the practical programming. Now witness how mainstream languages gradually move towards functional programming.