Ads Top

Reason and Science versus Anti-Reason and Superstition: Which Will Prevail in 2020

Written by John (the other John).

Two thousand years before human rights were ever considered as a right to the masses in Western Civilization, the very foundation of Western philosophy was born, which are the concepts of: doubt, skepticism, critique, challenging and questioning the established norms and customs. In essence, not accepting the official undisputed conclusions at face value. For example:
  • Was the earth the center of the universe?
  • Was the earth flat?
  • Were earthquakes, volcano eruptions, violent storms caused by temperamental angry gods?
  • Should the people have a say in government?
Basically, what philosophers began to challenge was the blind acceptance of conclusions at face value without possibility of another explanation. But this new form of doubt did have its pitfalls, being that the superstition du jour went beyond strict compliance, in that the mere thought of questioning these principles alone would cause unfortunate events to occur by angering the gods. As such, this led to thought suppression by the powers of the day for those challenging the dogma of the day. No one dared to “dig deeper” into these questions to discover whether there was another reason for these events.
Hence, this robotic obedience to ritualistic repetition essentially created a warehouse of supernatural “truths” for the faithful that controlled their everyday life. We can only speculate, but: at best, the ancient leaders did this out of lack of knowledge; and at worst, they did this to keep the people subservient.

Enter Western philosophy (particularly in ancient Greece) under Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, whom  introduced the concepts of logic and reason, and thereby challenged the established superstitions of their era. With this increased level of skepticism, this in time brought about the end of mysticism.

Not Just Irrationality, but rather it is Anti-reason in 2020

But today (2,500 years later), the pre-Socratic form of anti-reason has made a comeback and has infiltrated our systems. And with this power, these anti-rationalists again use the threat of violence to prevent critique and challenges to some of the below issues of the day:
  • Identity issues:
    • “racism” (with its subcategories: , “white supremacy”; “white fragility”; “white guilt”; “critical race theory”; the founding of America, etc...)
    • Gender (with its subcategories: misogyny; LGBTQ, etc...)
  • Climate change (i.e., is this caused by fossil fuels; is this caused because the global population increased from about 1.6 billion people in 1900 to about 7.8 billion people in 2020; is the warmth effecting other planets in the solar system [hence, not caused by humans], etc...)
  • When does human life begin (i.e., abortion; do human rights begin upon conception; does the unborn baby’s human right to life supersede the mother’s right to choose, and vice versa, etc...)
  • Economic systems (Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Communism vs. etc...)
  • Religion (are some religious beliefs incompatible to the human rights espoused in the US Constitution; is “wokeness” a religion, thus making it subject to the 1 st Amendment’s anti-establishment clause; etc…)
  • Are the Bill of Rights inviolable rights?
    • can a mere majority un-do those rights? (ex. freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, due process, bear arms, etc…)
    • can these rights be violated by private actors (ex. corporations, big-tech, media, etc…)
can a mere majority un-do those rights? (ex. freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, due process, bear arms, etc…)
can these rights be violated by private actors (ex. corporations, big-tech, media, etc…)

The basic premise of the modern anti-rational movement is that America is an awful country, so negative conclusions are formed first, and then justifications are concocted later. But being that America is the greatest nation to ever exist, the leadership of its opponents had to knowingly apply anti-reason, lies, and ad hominem attacks to support its position to the masses. And similar to pre-Socratic tyranny, if anybody dare apply logic, reason, and skepticism to the anti-American conclusions, then this is declared “off limits” and enforced with Jacobin-like violence. (And with big-tech being in our homes 24-7, we cannot even think these thoughts since it will anger the modern day “woke” gods [who reside at the modern day Mt. Olympus known as Silicon Valley], who will in turn torment us for our evil thoughts).1

The most notable example that borders on outright hysteria is the illusive (yet omnipresent) allegation of “systemic racism”, in which at best this shares the components of aether (an invisible immeasurable yet all-pervasive substance that cannot be identified nor proven), but they act certain that it exists; and at worst, this is an outright fraud. Whichever version is occurring, the gist of their diktat is that any failure or shortcoming by any one specific non-white person (as opposed to a whole group) is due exclusively to “racism”, and any other suggestions (ex., single parenthood, lack of effort, high crime areas, less focus on academics, focusing on grievances instead of excelling, entitlements, admiring bad role models, etc…) are gagged under threat of violence and/or economic ruin since these truths are confined inside of a woke no-go zone.2


1. The leadership of the anti-rational movement is actually very intelligent and rational, but they know that their on-the-ground minions are very irrational, impulsive, envious, and violent, thus they can easily be fooled/bribed into intimidating others into obedience.

2. Imagine a scenario in which scientists are experimenting with pharmaceuticals (ex. to cure Covid) and a certain occurrence results in this trial stage (ex., one person out of a sample of 10,000 people gets a heart attack). The scientists then abruptly end the experiment and conclude that this drug was the cause, and that nobody is allowed to question their conclusion under threat of violence. But here, the scientists are forbidding others to factor that this person who got the heart attack: is severely obese, he eats 50 Big Macs a day, he smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day, he drinks 10 bottles of whiskey a day, he does not exercise, he snorts 10 lines of crack a day, and then he injects heroin into his veins to relax.

As ridiculous and negligent as this example is, this is similar to the conclusions drawn by “wokeness” with “racism”, in that they not only ignore the “elephant in the room” that caused the result, but they instead focus on some fictional/unordinary cause for certain events as if it is the rule (instead of the exception), and they censor/forbid any critique of their conclusions or any other plausible explanations for the result, thereby they can streamline their pre-determined narrative.

So which will prevail, reason or anti-reason? The results of the 2020 US Presidential election may unfortunately answer that question. If anti-reason prevails, that will cause a major setback to humanity, and a major victory for tyranny.
Powered by Blogger.