Reason is downhill from perception

How is perception under attack in an erronormative society? The denial of perception is the denial of Aristophilian culture and one of the deadliest myths that exist which has claimed countless innocent lives- a myth we call the "Myth of Truth". Perception denial manifests itself from the aristophobic conspiracy theory that there is such a thing as an unbiased person.

By logical deduction, if there is such a thing as unbiased people, then the things they believe are closer to truth (if not truth itself). In conjunction, it is commonly assumed that since there is such a thing as unbiased people, it logically follows that those who are intelligent are better capable of ridding themselves of their biases. In turn, a hateful false dichotomy is created between truth and religion, wherein truth is assumed to be anything that intelligent people believe and religion is assumed to be anything that intelligent people don't believe.

Consequently, gullible (and sad) individuals are easily swayed by the words of those in which frustrated journalists and disgruntled academics portray as intelligent and credible. Case in point, any Western nation can easily be convinced of starting a war by merely accusing the victim nation's leader of anything related to the weaponized use of gas, such as the infamous conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had WMDs - a deadly fabrication concocted by fringe Neocon extremists who are responsible for the deaths of over half a million civilians and over ten thousand western troops in the 2nd Iraq War; it should be noted that such deliberately false accusations are a norm rather than an aberration as evidenced by the bloodbath known as the Arab "spring" .

Given the death toll of the Myth of Truth, it is important to accept the following:

  • There is no such thing as "unbiased"
  • Everyone has a worldview
  • Every worldview is a type of religion - atheists don't exist
  • Every religion has a "god" - a person or a group of people (real or fictional) that serves as a leading guide that cannot be criticized
  • Every religion has its priests - a class of people who claim to report the truth about history, news, and the world in an "unbiased" fashion
  • Every religion has at least one foundational dogma that cannot be questioned or investigated - a dogma that gives authority to a god and its priestly class
  • Every religion attracts those whose core pre-existing ideas are justified or promoted by that religion
  • Regardless of whether that intent is acted on, everyone reacts with deadly intent when confronted with a critique of their god or any questioning and investigation of their foundational dogma
  • Therefore, there is no such thing as a religion of peace or a pacifist.
  • It is only possible to interact with our own perception of reality, and not reality itself
  • Religion and politics do not mix... because there is no distinction between the two. The only time this old expression is trotted out is to silence those who dissent against the religion of the majority.

To further clarify, all ideas, observations, and logical deductions (i.e. the building blocks of all religion) are the output of a brain with pre-existing biases, preferences, and anathemas that are determined by the thousands of genes that were selected by a particular environment. Basically, the inability to directly interact with reality is not a bug, but a feature of the human brain - one that is evolutionarily advantageous.

In truth (pun intended), all reason and logic is subject to the limitations of religion. Almost every instance in history where a discovery or logical deduction contradicted the discoverer's religion, either resulted in the denial of the discovery, a religious re-interpretation of the discovery, or punishment. In other words, the aristophobic persecution of Galileo was not an exception, it is the rule - even to this day; he will forever be remembered as an Aristophilian hero.

It is a sad truth, but those who write our stories, record our history, report the news, and preach their religious sermons in academia are ultimately zealots (and not necessarily in the negative sense). In recent years, they have become angrier and more vitriolic as they are consistently exposed as being nothing more than pretentious priests for an almost-dead religion. With great regret, their days are over and they will obviously be left behind by the march of history. Predictably, they react with the typical screeching of disenfranchised aristophobes. No one wants to live out the rest of their lives observing their own irrelevance, but that is sadly the struggle that aristophobic academics are currently going through. It is important to generously grace these unfortunate individuals with the same compassion we would give to those who suffer from mental illness.

View all articles