by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, Popular Rationalism, reposted with permission

Dr. Karl Popper (public domain)

(May 25, 2023) — Sir Karl Popper, arguably the world’s most influential Philosopher of Science, wrote extensively in defense of ways that scientists and those concerned with scientific endeavors should interact. As a graduate student, I made a point to read everything Popper wrote. One of my favorite pieces is his work, “The Open Society and Its Enemies” in which Popper provided arguments in defense of the open society against its enemies.

Popper found that the basis of the march toward authoritarian and totalitarian political movements was based partly on “historicism”, which I will describe in plain terms. Historicism, for Popper, was a view that held that the future of society was fated by the way things were established in the past, that is that the range of possible futures of society was restricted by the way things were, are and have always been, as if traditions – merely by being tradition not only held intrinsic value but also held a monopoly on virtue. These views, Popper would say, amount to teleological historicism.

Popper is not saying all things traditional have no virtue. His astute observation was about the abuses of the longing for a return to a false, better “good old day” by those seeking Totalitarian rule over the masses. Following the prescriptions of those citing precedence as the only compass for the future, Popper argued, would canalize the future that must inexorably unfold, somewhat mystically, into a certain future based on some unknown, unspecified universal laws leading to a benign idyll where everyone conforms some undefined pre-defined fate.

In this way, Popper was a proponent of liberal democracies over fascist regimes, and, equally, over the Communist agenda. In other words, Western Culture as we know swung on a hinge of ideas of self-determination, individual rights, freedom of expression, and rational discourse, and Sir Karl played a major role in shining a light on the dark vs. light paths forwards.

The Current Open Society and Its New Enemies

If one listens to globalists like Justin Trudeau and Tedros Ghebreyesus, there are, on the surface, laudable goals, such as ending poverty worldwide and raising those who are impoverished and far less fortunate. Reading their edicts in detail, however, they offer a hodgepodge of irrational, unfounded utopist claims that given the detachment from reality lead to totalitarian means to their ends. The irrational basis of their assertions is, ultimately, self-defeating.

On their websites and various sources, they claim:

  1. Everyone agrees with their goals.
  2. Social justice demands total equivalence in means of living for all people (“equity”).
  3. Any personal advantage for any reason is injustice incarnate (privilege).
  4. Anyone who disagrees with the above is racist, and genderist, and is defending their special, unwarranted privileges.

Anyone paying even a modicum of attention knows that the globalists have chosen public health as the means to overrule national governments of all forms via WEF and WHO Guidances, which are now being considered “Rules”, agreed to via the IHR treaty terms, which have recently been updated to erase any pretense of respect and regard for the autonomy of individual nation-states.

Even if one agrees with their goals, anyone who supports Democracy as an ideal one must fight against their means of control. This is not a should. It’s a necessary condition for one to logically say that they hold the ideals of Democracy.

As a Scientist, I’m best suited to address the abuses of logic and reason as a place in which their overreach and disenfranchisement of electorates in the area of Science. This was the battleground via which they overtly chose to steal individual liberties and freedoms, at a magnificent cost in terms of economics and human life.

Undaunted by their failures, the response of the socialist/collectivists has been to overreach even further into the operations of autonomous states with edits to their IHR treaty that cannot possibly stand the test of time. These include edits to the IHR treaty to remove or change certain words and phrases that ensure respect for the autonomy of individual countries and governments.

These were expertly outlined with surgical precision by John Campbell. The audacity of these unelected persons to grab global total power is astonishing and will of course be rejected by any means necessary by freedom-loving persons around the world.

See the video and read the rest here.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.