I continue to be amazed that so many people get drawn into trap-debates in which somebody pretends not to understand the obvious or to believe the absurd.
These things cannot be debated, because when an antagonist has adopted this level of dishonesty; then evidence and logic will be ineffectual.
Meanwhile, the real debate ought to be conducted at a higher level- the metaphysical level of assumptions; where it might be understood how it is that the obvious is being-denied, or the absurd is being-asserted.
I first saw and recognized this tactic when Bertrand Russell debated F.C Copleston concerning the existence of God. Russell's main tactic was repeatedly to claim that he did not understand what Copleston meant by his questions and concepts relating to God; despite that these issues had been mainstream human discourse for millennia.
Russell was - dishonestly - debating from assumptions that ruled-out any possibility of coherent argument at the level of generality capable of addressing the question. He was forcing discussion down to a level of technical micro-specialization that - however resolved - left the main question untouched.
We can see exactly the same tactic used every day in the mainstream Big Lie, globalist policies relating to the birdemic and its peck, climate, mass immigration and all the rest.
Because the obvious is being denied, and the absurd is being propagated - debate is forced down to the level of technical-micro-issues; where only specialists can operate - and where the conclusions are too small scale to affect the broad policies - and where the debate can be moved back and back interminably.
For instance, the birdemic phenomenon has almost nothing to do with whether the germ (if indeed it is A Specific germ, rather than a fluid and broad class diagnosis of many germs) was lab-created. That the inferred viral structure must have been lab generated has been known since very early 2020.
But, after a period of denial and shut-down; the debate moves on to where it was done, who did it, why they did it - and then, the structure was itself not discovered from isolates; but merely inferred on the basis of computerized predictive modelling and from non-rigorous methods of clinical sampling...
My point is that this debate can run forever - and in the end we are no closer to acknowledging the obvious fact that the birdemic was obviously (obviously from Day One) a deliberate sham, and the actions 'against' it were political not medical, and did vastly more harm than even the imputed good; and that the peck was unnecessary, ineffective and harmful.
The simple obvious question is why certainly-harmful measures were coercively applied worldwide; without any coherent evidence of need in the first place; and absent evidence that they would, even theoretically, have any significant compensatory benefit.
We now get the same crude tactic applied on a global scale when people claim not to understand what is 'a woman', or understand why real marriage is between a man and a woman. Or they simulate the conviction that Of Course men can change into women, and vice versa; and can reverse the process... at will.
And therefore, people have a fundamental human right at any time, and fluidly, to assert any sexual identity and have it universally recognized with sanctions against those who disagree or err.
Or when people demand 'evidence' that open-ended mass immigration from alien and hostile cultures will be lethal for the host nation. Evidence!
Or affect not to comprehend why it is A Bad Thing that the most intelligent, wealthy and healthy women choose to reproduce at about a quarter of the minimum replacement level. This fact tells us some horrific home-truths about our civilization; but only if we can recognize mass reproductive sterility and extinction as A Bad Thing.
This simulated dumbness is therefore a powerful tactic when used by those with power.
It also blends and synergizes with psychological sickness; because there are those who really do not comprehend what it means to ask "Does God exist", and who really do not understand the difference between men and women... and so forth.
As Rudolf Steiner tellingly remarked; atheism is an actual sickness. It is a profound denial of purpose, meaning and genuine relatedness in our-selves and the world; that cannot but do actual harm to thinking, discerning, understanding, basic social functioning - and indeed to merely biological surviving and reproducing.
Thus; in a world where atheist assumptions are built-into all public discourse; we have an actually sick world.
In sum we have, on the one hand, a sick mass world in which thinking, discernment, understanding - the ability to learn from experience - are all self-crippled; and on the other, top-down - active and dominant demonic powers who are expanding and increasing the damage by deliberately dishonest denials of the obvious that demand proof, and assertions of the absurd demanding disproof...
And where proof and disproof are placed in a context where the most important issues are relativized and subdivided out of existence; and where proof and disproof have zero acknowledged meaning and no necessary implications...
This is a very infuriating topic for me. We are in an age when you have to argue for the most obvious things and be a hero only not to assent with the most ridiculous nonsense. There has not been an age like this in all the history of mankind, not even in the most degenerate ages.
Human reason is a very faulty tool to search the truth when it is not grounded in intuition and common sense and tradition. You can use reason to prove anything.
The Orthosphere had a post about Socrates that explained this well. If we cannot accept anything without rational proof, all the foundations of society dissolve. Because many things are known to be true without knowing the proof Demanding proof is a disingenuous move to avoid accepting rhe obvious
@xxxx "There has not been an age like this in all the history of mankind, not even in the most degenerate ages."
I agree, and that this is why the lessons of the past, and predictions based upon those lessons, no longer apply.
You may be interested by an old post about how this often works: https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-not-argument-for-going-with-flow.html
I remember a couple years ago when you wrote about the despair as well as incoherence that plagues the modern (atheist) mind and how no issues (such as mass migration) can be addressed properly until there is a mass awakening. I had difficulties understanding what you meant but as time passes the truth about what you wrote about early has hit home.
There is soon an election in my home country. There must be a profound spiritual sickness behind the way people still continue to discuss micro issues, in the same way as usual, while ignoring or denying the obvious at the same time as the material and social conditions around us degrades rapidly. Maybe people are more pessismistic and there is less "hype", though no one seems willing to confront what really is in front of them.
@AB - "people still continue to discuss micro issues, in the same way as usual, while ignoring or denying the obvious at the same time as the material and social conditions around us degrades rapidly"
It really is astonishing. Hysteria about nothings and lies; deliberate ignoring of immediate threats to life, health and happiness.
The modern atheist mind supposedly wants only to have excitement, comfort and freedom from suffering in this mortal life - yet consistently chooses and supports those whose actions are bringing a swift end to all of these.
"Because the obvious is being denied, and the absurd is being propagated - debate is forced down to the level of technical-micro-issues; where only specialists can operate - and where the conclusions are too small scale to affect the broad policies"
This is a very accurate and timely comment about the nature of the obfuscations and lies globalists use to avoid the issues.
In fact it was exactly this point that came up in this telling conversation between Dutch politician Thierry Baudet just last week with Dutch politicians pushing thd Great reset.
"Its happening before our eyes, but the hypnotized masses just can't be convinced. You can't manage to say anything against these people, the destruction keeps being wrought. I try my best to stop it, but I will probably not succeed and that breaks my heart.
That's the problem with micromanagers. Micromanagers like you can only consider the smallest consequences of large issues. That leads to the paradox of thinking. It might be a good idea to give some subsidies to a specific sector because of looming bankruptcies. But the end result is a bigger state. Only when you address issues from a helicopter view, is there any point to micromanagement."
Dutch MP Thierry Baudet: 'If You Mean To Destroy A Great Civilization'
Post a Comment