Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 39:06 — 44.8MB)
There is a crisis in human thinking at the root of the alleged pandemic and the loss of freedoms across the globe. If vigilance is the price of freedom, then we can only expect our freedom to diminish. Because there is no vigilance being practiced by the populous in our culture. For the vast majority there is not even an awareness of the problem. Unconscious living dominates and freedom is taken for granted.
To make matter worse truth is discounted in modern western culture. This is the result of a philosophical trend that began with the publication of “A critique of pure reason” by Emmanuel Kant in 1776.
Jiddu Krishnamurti once said “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”. While I disagree with Krishnamurti on many things I agree that western culture is profoundly off the rails of reality! This is a natural and unsurprising consequence of the philosophy of Kant that has been so enthusiastically promoted since 1776. The implication of which is that knowledge of reality is impossible and that no one can really know anything. This trend must be reversed. We must return to an age of reason.
I have been studying philosophy and thinking techniques for a few years now and it is clear to me that the more I learn, the more I see that what I have come to regard as basic thinking skills (such as logical deduction and inference) are beyond the cognitive ability of large numbers of people. This will have far reaching, disturbing, and profoundly negative consequences. Below, I outline a few examples of where I see repeated failures in thinking.
1 – You can’t prove a negative and it is irrational to attempt to do so
While discussing the existence or not a something recently with a friend I was told that the… “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Let’s unpack this little mind bomb.
It is true that if you have no evidence of the existence of a thing, that you do not actually have any proof that it doesn’t exist. But what is going on here is an implicit attempt to prove a negative. While it is true that if you have no evidence you do not have evidence of absence, the point is that evidence of absence is impossible!
What does it mean to prove a negative? it means the attempt to ‘prove’ that something does not exist. For example, we have all heard some one say ” You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist therefore he probably does. Or the same for Proving that Unicorns don’t exist, or that Father Christmas doesn’t exist!
But it must be remembered that evidence, proof, reason, logic, only pertain to things that exist. The non-existent is nothing, the void, the zero. A non-existent thing cannot leave its mark on reality – anywhere. There can be no evidence offered in support of any claim regarding a non-existent thing.
Don’t be confused by the idea of proving you weren’t at the scene of the crime because you have an alibi. This is offering positive evidence to disprove a false claim by offering positive evidence of something. Similarly, I can offer you proof that my car isn’t red by showing you that it’s blue. This is disproving a false claim with positive evidence. The car exists and it has a colour. This is very different from attempting to prove that I don’t have a car, which would be attempting to prove a negative. What evidence could possibly be produced in support of a claim of non-existence?
The concept of proof rests the law of identity. A is A. And the concept of proof only pertains to that which exists.
We must remember that it is the person claiming the existence of a thing who carries the burden of proof. In other words, to be taken seriously, the one making a claim that something exists must offer evidence of its existence. If no evidence can be brought forth, then the claim of the things existence cannot logically be accepted. And, therefore, should be rejected.
It is crucial to bear in mind that anyone seeking to prove anything or know anything must assume the most fundamental premise that existence exists as an objective absolute, independent of any consciousness. In other words A is A, things are what they are. Without this premise proof is impossible. The concept of proof has its genetic roots in the law of identity. The philosophy of Ayn Rand is a great place to start with this crucial component of your education.
2 – The inability to think in terms of fundamentals
To think in terms of fundamentals you must observe cause and effect. You need to identify the primary or the starting point in any sequence of events. Today, few people seem to be aware of what is a primary and what is an effect in the really important issues of our time!
In pursuit of health most will visit their medical doctor and accept a prescription for a drug that will help alleviate their symptoms. Few will grasp that the doctor is attempting to treat the symptoms or downstream effects of some underlying problem. As long as the symptoms are successfully alleviated the result is considered to be good. It certainly is good for the corporation that manufactures the drugs, but it isn’t good for the patient, who has not had the underlying cause of the ailment dealt with.
We could take this one stage further and acknowledge that the current alleged pandemic all rests on two fundamental assumptions.
- That the alleged causative agent exists
- That the alleged causative agent actually causes the symptoms or illness that it is claimed to cause.
Neither of these two fundamentals have been proven, yet very few seem to be concerned about that fact. Even more bizarre is the fact that anyone who does rationally and logically suggest that these fundamental issues be proven is considered a lunatic conspiracy theorist. This is how dysfunctional the humans in current western culture have become.
Furthermore the normal process for the isolation of a virus involves growing the alleged viruses in a cell culture as per John Franklin Enders experiment in 1954. This process, if you examine it carefully and logically, isolates nothing. It is a sham isolation process. Yet this process is held up by virologists everywhere as the standard for isolating viruses. This is just one example of how our culture right at its heart has departed from the rails of reality. The result is that the whole world carries on with the myth of viruses and contagion theory. Conveniently, this theory perfectly suits the political agenda of the parasite class.
3 – Secret societies are the perfect organisational structure for evil
This is another one that surprised me when I first noticed that most other people I spoke with could appreciate what I was saying.
There are three characteristics of Freemasonry that are not disputed by its members.
They are not particularly controversial in and of themselves, but their implications are enormous.
- It’s a Russian doll structure of fraternities within fraternities or circles within circles that in principle maintain secrecy between levels. Those lower down in such a structure have no direct knowledge of what goes on at those higher levels beyond what they are told. To ascend up the hierarchy, to the 33rd degree, towards the core of the web, you must be invited (vetted)
- Swearing an oath of allegiance under penalty.
The point is that this organisational structure used by freemasonry can only serve nefarious purposes, deception, concealment, unknowing, evil, naughtiness, or crime. On the other hand it is fairly easy to see that virtue, goodness, benevolence, justice, kindness, service, etc (all things pro-life) do not benefit in any way from secrecy.
It may well be the case that you have just never considered this issue and may have no knowledge from which to draw. But I challenge you to think it through and see what you think. Please offer any rational counter argument below.
This should be obvious (after a little thought perhaps) to a mind that can grasp implications, see a slightly bigger picture, and is thinking logically. The point is that few people seem to grasp implications such as this.
4 – Racism and the British ‘royal’ family
Racism is said to be discrimination according to race.
How do we distinguish one race from another? By genetics.
It is in the genes. When a Chinese person has a child with a Caucasian the resulting mixed race child will have a mix of genes from each parent and the genetic mix will result in the mixed race appearance. What is causing this mixture – the genes. Two different genetic codes come together to form the child of mixed race. Genetics define race. Although you will find it hard to get verification of this in any dictionary. I wonder why? They usually like to invoke cultural differences to the point of obscuring the obvious genetic reason.
My point is that very few people recognise that the fact of one genetic line assuming superiority over others is racism. I would suggest (in reason) that one genetic line kept pure and unmixed over the ages – or selectively mixed – claiming to rule over others is racism. Therefore the English royal family are racist. [Philip overtly racist!]
Yet, very few people make this connection which to me seems relatively easy to do.
Once again a failure of thinking, of dot joining, of logically concluding.
5 – Tax on Corporations is only paid by corporations
On Monday June 7th 2021, the BBC told how the G7 meeting scheduled for Friday 11th June would address the issue of a global corporation tax. It has been decided that the whole system of corporation tax needs to be made fairer. The implications is that those pesky evil corporations will start to pay their fair share of the tax burden.
The point that should be fairly obvious is that corporate tax is a business operating cost. Whatever product or service that the corporation offers incurs costs in bringing it to market. The costs of a business are assessed and prices are set accordingly. The customer pays the appropriate price to cover all the costs so the enterprise can earn a profit and justify its existence and the efforts of those involved.
Business costs are passed on to the customer. That ultimately means you and I. We (the customers) pay the operating costs of the business producing the products or services we buy. Corporations do not pay tax. Even if it is called a profit tax, and applied after all the sales are accounted for, all the costs paid, and the profits calculated. And we haven’t even touched on the many ways in which accountants can show a zero profit on paper!
So no doubt, at the Cornwall G7 meeting (June 11th to 13th 2021) they will all have a good old laugh behind the scenes at their brilliant new way of squeezing even more taxes out of the common people.
I observe that errors in thinking are not only common, they are rife. Few of the people subjected to a modern education have ever achieved (let alone retain) an ability to think logically. This is a massive red flag for the future of our freedom in western culture.
The price of freedom has been said to be vigilance. But most people in the west are not even conscious of the fact that their freedom is being lost and that they are being duped into giving it away. The level of awareness of the common man or woman in our civilisation is woefully inadequate for avoiding exploitation and tyranny. Consequently, freedom will be lost. How can it be otherwise? Plan accordingly!
This may seem a rather depressing conclusion. However the truth is always as asset. Ignorance is never bliss. If you know that there is a tsunami coming, it may still be bad news, but that knowledge means you have a possibility to survive.
Please feel free to join the conversation and leave a comment below.
June 9th, 2021
Hi Nigel, I feel your despondency but the masses don’t respond to well reasoned rational presentations. They were indoctrinated by a drip feed of subtle “entertainment” and state propaganda. Logical argument won’t cut it because they don’t know what logic is.
They were programmed through theatre, and that is the easiest way to gradually shatter their false beliefs.
I would suggest the Larken Rose video titled “The Jones Plantation”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk
The short book of George Orwell’s titled “Animal farm”.
And three movies titled:
• Brotherhood of the bell – 1970: Glenn Ford (The best in my opinion)
• Wag the dog – 1997: Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Nero, Anne Hecht
• The village – 2004: Joaquin Phoenix, Adrian Brody, William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver
Hope this helps
Nigel Howitt says
Thanks for the comment and the film suggestions Ross.
I prefer to consider it a realistic appraisal of the situation rather than despondency. But I know what you mean. The fact that reason will not work with all the unthinking masses is something I came to understand some time ago now. But I remain optimistic for the long term. Most people just need more suffering before they begin to think. Some never think and die after a lifetime of suffering. But in the long run human beings will once again discover that being rational is the only solution to human problems. It would be nice if that happened within our lifetimes, but frankly, that looks unlikely.