Wokeism’s misplaced blames

The woke movement preaches an unquestionable dogma of white privilege and white guilt. The dogma ignores the cultural and historic diversity of the so-called “white race” and overlooks the truly privileged class because these people are racially diverse.

And it’s easier to take the lazy route of thoughtlessly lumping white people together into their fictitious monolithic camp of genetically evil abusers who must be shamed, silenced and conquered through political force and eventually all other available means including violence and possibly white genocide if their emotions run high enough.

To question the broad-brush treatment of “white privilege” constitutes an unpardonable sin called racism. With this knee-jerk programming of thought, they are able to forbid all meaningful discussion of race issues throughout the Western education system.

Even so, their ironic racism deserves everyone’s examination because it can potentially open our eyes to a truly privileged class, a group that dominates human society and probably always will unless some future generation learns to identify them and educates themselves to recognize and avoid their mass manipulations of society.

I suspect that identifying the truly privileged class within each country might be quite helpful over the long haul, though silencing them and discriminating against them would be a foolish mistake if the goal were to diminish their grip on global power.

“But why do they even exist?” we might ask ourselves.

At least from the infinitely limited perspective of human materialistic science, the world is fundamentally unfair. Gazelles provide “necessary” food for lions. Sparrow hawks must eat smaller birds to survive, we are told.

It’s hard to disagree.

Such seems to be the dark side of Nature’s balance between predation and cooperation (symbiosis). Science is beginning to believe that symbiosis actually dominates Nature while competition/predation plays a subordinate role. This reversal of emphasis is the start of great things for humanity, I think. Humanity has suffered enough from the error that Nature is dominated by the “survival of the fittest” or the survival of the best breeders. The era of “survival by symbiosis” will hopefully take root and shift us away from hatred and war.

But within the darkness of Nature’s lethal competitions, none of us seems to have been given a choice as to where we would be born or what species or subspecies we might inhabit when we find ourselves alive and conscious on Earth.

And so from birth we humans have not escaped the unfair competition inherent to Earth’s ecosystems. (Nor have we missed out on her networks of symbiosis.)

In this context, the woke movement seems to be a well-meaning attempt to fight Nature’s unfairness from a materialist’s anti-spiritual perspective. Wokeism is a resistance to the unfair birth circumstances on Earth. It uses woke racism to fight a heavily exaggerated version of white racism that would have been accurate 75 years ago, I think.

Unfortunately the woke movement has targeted the wrong group of people entirely.

A more appropriate target would be the truly privileged. But who are they?

Here are some of their lucky cultural and metabolic traits…

1. strong wills from early childhood

2. outlier courage (which is a low baseline of anxiety and fear, I suspect)

3. the gift of stable high mental energy for sustaining purpose over decades while imposing their wills upon others

4. the uncommon form of “intelligence” (for lack of a more accurate term) that enables them to mentally navigate complex cause-and-effect scenarios and make predictions that tend to come true with the help of their high mental energy and sustained physical activity over decades and generations…

People with this combination of rare metabolic and cultural advantages are the actual privileged class in today’s societies around the globe. But they are not primarily white people by any stretch of the imagination.

They are instead a racially diverse group that constitutes a tiny percentage of the top 1% of wealthy, politically powerful people in every country. They are outliers, born for dominance just as lions are born to dominate their niche.

Nature does this sort of thing routinely on Earth. No one is to blame.

The woke myth that the privileged people belong to their oversimplified version of a “white race” is a bad joke that sets humanity up for another round of racist genocide. It’s not as if two wrongs ever made anything right. 

Of course the woke folks mean well and have tried to deny their racism by redefining the word “racism” as something that the (by definition) “oppressed” people of color can’t possibly participate in. You have to be white to be a racist, in essence.

No one can reason with them on this because to the woke mind, reason, statistics, science and religion (or spirituality) represent inferior sources of truth. They believe that the individual’s “lived experience” is the ultimate source of truth, perhaps the only source.

This little Jedi mind trick is the bedrock foundation of a woke brainwashing technique that begins with school children and continues through the university level in parts of the US. 

I’m hoping that the woke movement will quickly become a dark history lesson about how easily childhood brainwashing took place back in the day within modern school systems.

As such, Wokeism could become a valuable cautionary tale.

If, however, it continues to grow exponentially, our children and grandchildren will live in a modern version of the dark ages where objective reality, logic, reason, fairness, science, spirituality, and honest statistics will take a backseat to “lived experiences” and the self-destructive emotions of victimhood expressed subjectively by woke individuals, many of whom have suffered unspeakable wrongs within Earth’s apparent unfairness.

Below is an informative interview of a professor, Peter Boghossian, who was driven to resign by woke colleagues and students of the university where he taught. The interviewer claims to be neither conservative nor liberal, which should be irrelevant but isn’t. The professor claims to be politically “liberal but not progressive,” if that matters to you. Personally, I think it shouldn’t matter because both sides of politics desperately need to hear the views of the other side and learn to respect them.

It’s a bit shocking to me to realize (and personally own) just how malleable the human worldview is, especially when the mind is seized and controlled from childhood as it is to some degree for all humans I guess, like it or not. Wokeism demonstrates that we don’t have to be part of a “primitive” culture in a stone age to undergo dramatic brainwashing to the point where we advocate anti-reason while believing we’re somehow not promoting evil.

Humans can be made to see North as South and subjectivity as objectivity.

For example, the woke community sometimes claims that science is racist. Talk about a radical retreat from reason.

But, wow! As flawed, biased, and illogically dogmatic as science remains today, and as much as the aging “scientific” dogma of genetic evolution via random mutation and natural selection has been used as justification for some of the insane racist genocides of the 20th century, the fact still remains as clear as mountain water that science and spirituality together are the only paths that humans have found toward wisdom, truth, love, understanding, fairness and peace.

Fair love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD


Conspiracy Theory in Top Science Journal, Nature

Every anchor and talking head on TV “news” uses the term “conspiracy theory” to discredit the people and ideas of the one genuinely stupid political party…

That party is always the Democrats if you’re watching Fox “News,” and it’s always the Republicans if you’re watching any other TV “news” outlet. Of course, we each are fortunate enough to have landed in the political party of truth and goodness, probably since birth.

Talk about blind luck.

The two parties agree on very little, but they hold two fundamental truths in common: 1. the other party is flat wrong about everything. 2. the other party is a conspiracy of idiots.

Beyond that socially acceptable conspiracy theory (made kosher by Hilary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” rhetoric) we’ve all been conditioned to feel embarrassment and shame if we find ourselves believing or even exploring a conspiracy theory.

Once a theory has been tarred and feathered with the voodoo adjective “conspiracy,” most intelligent people assume it’s a false theory. They make this leap of faith with absolute emotional certainty, knowing that only weak-minded, gullible people believe conspiracy theories.

Smart people don’t waste time looking at the bogus data behind a theoretical explanation that includes more than one person trying to do the same naughty, secretive thing at the same time. Naughty, secretive people always act independently and alone in the real world. Obviously.

This heuristic is so useful, efficient, and socially acceptable, we carry it around like a cell phone. “Conspiracy theory? Don’t insult my intelligence.”

Unfortunately, those intellectually uninformed PhD’s at Nature, the world’s top scientific journal, must have missed the memo.

Here they are with the audacity to expect us to believe that a theoretical conspiracy exists on the part of those government organizations who provide money to scientific researchers. We know this kind of stuff is impossible, but these gullible geeks at Nature think the research funders are censoring things and forcing researchers to change their results for reasons that are political and unscientific…

Health researchers report funder pressure to suppress results

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02242-x

A few quotes from the article in Nature:

A survey of public-health researchers has found numerous instances of trial results being suppressed on topics such as nutrition, sexual health, physical activity and substance use….

The survey, published in PLoS One1, involved 104 researchers from regions including North America, Europe and Oceania….

the findings bolster those [findings] of previous studies, such as a 2006 survey of government-funded health research that also found many instances of requests to ‘sanitize’ results and block or delay their publication.

A 2016 inquiry into the delayed publication of research commissioned by UK government agencies identified cases in which publication was “manipulated to fit with political concerns”. More recently, the British Medical Journal reported four instances of politicization and suppression of science in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It’s all a bunch of conspiracy-theory hogwash, right? But I wonder if the CIA really did have anything to do with making the term “conspiracy theory” popular. Here’s how it really went down:

Imagine it’s 1964 and you’re 19, living in the USSR and working for the SVR, the Soviet’s equivalent of the CIA.

In colloquial English training class your eyes land on a strange new term, “conspiracy theory.” You look it up. An idea pops into your head.

You feel brilliant and powerful rushing to tell your boss.

“Comrade, I am thinking we must make the Westerners feel all the shame in this ‘conspiracy theory’ thing of theirs.”

“What you want, Boris? You see I’m buried here.”

After explaining yourself to the whiskered gnome, he loves your idea.

“Boris, you most brilliant monkey of everyone!” He brings out a shot glass, pours himself a finger of Vodka. “Our existence will be taboos for no discussion. The Americans will no dare thinking we are here — what you said — a real thing.” An iniquitous mirth comes over him. He chuckles and you beam at the floor between your feet.

The Spring brings your fifth field assignment, a big one. You jump a freighter, shiver in wet, cold darkness for almost 4 seasick weeks, then emerge squinting into the morning sunrise to jump the rail and swim past the Statue of Liberty toward your mission. You must infiltrate the CIA.

The ice in your young veins can do this. You can do anything for the great cause of the Motherland.

But it turns out that life is not so bad in the US. Thin-crusted Pizza. Ice cream. A person need not fear hunger in such an oddly selfish world.

You decide you must become a double agent. It’s the one way to be sure you will always have food… fit for a king!

During the second week of routine interrogation for the lowest security clearance, you spill the kidney beans and tell your new American Comrade, Nate, all about the Soviet’s nefarious plans to attach emotional disgrace and shame to the term “conspiracy theory.”

“They think it will help them remain invisible in the West,” you explain to the interrogator who must have cut himself shaving this morning and now has a piece of white toilet paper stuck to his pointy chin. The thinnest, softest paper imaginable. Everyone has it. No such paper ever wiped a bottom in the Motherla… in the USSR.

The door bursts open and the head of the CIA marches in, his eyes fixed on you. You look at Nate who seems frozen.

“You came up with that, did you, kid? What is it… Boris?”

Your head nods without consent.

“Comrade Boris…” The chief leans across the white table and puts a hand on your sweaty shoulder. “CB, we’ll call you, then.” He straightens back and folds his arms. “You’ve just earned yourself mid-level clearance, my boy.” He turns to the interrogator. “Nate, get CB some clothes fast and take him over to meet Smith at the Times. This morning. Tell agent Smith to make this man a reporter on the fast track. And tell him I want to see “conspiracy theory” plastered on every page that even remotely alludes to the Kennedy assignation. You got that?

“Yes, Sir,” Nate says, then looks across the table at you with a brand new expression on his narrow face. Respect.

Lumping all conspiracy theories together in a trash can will obstruct your search for truth because no such binary heuristic can guide you accurately through a complex system like this world, a place where symbiosis dances with predation to a tune by Yin and Yang.

Conspiratorial Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

 

 


Love notes to Google and Facebook from John Steward Mill

“All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”—John Stuart Mill, All Minus One: John Stuart Mill’s Ideas on Free Speech

“We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.” — John Stuart Mill

“Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil; there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood.” — John Stuart Mill

“Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is anyone who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.” — John Stuart Mill

“The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depends on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong; reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand.” — John Stuart Mill

“Yet it is as evident in itself, as any amount of argument can make it, that ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present.” — John Stuart Mill

“For while everyone well knows himself [herself] to be fallible, few think it necessary to take any precautions against their own fallibility, or admit the supposition that any opinion of which they feel very certain may be one of the examples of the error to which they acknowledge themselves to be liable.” — John Stuart Mill

“… the present age … has been described as ‘destitute of faith, but terrified of skepticism…'” — John Stuart Mill

Two days before the election, my daughter asked me who would win. I told her I had a premonition. Biden would win, then Trump would do a recount and win, then Biden would do a recount and win, and that would be the final decision.  So far we’re on track. I don’t much care.

In my humble and yet infallible opinion, democracy in the US is a thing of the past. We seem to have an unelected shadow government that probably overlaps with the anonymous private stockholders of the FED. These people make the big decisions and the big mistakes, as best I can tell.

So I don’t let myself waste emotions and time on politics.

But freedom of speech is another matter, an entirely greater issue than the question of whose aged puppet lives in the White House for a few years.

The gatekeepers of science journals and the censors of the internet probably do more harm to humanity and the Earth than our shadow government ever could. They do it by silencing and marginalizing the outliers and politically incorrect voices of society, gagging those who disagree with the latest cultural dogmas and the so-called settled science, a term reflecting convenient ignorance of the history of science.

If only these powerful unelected leaders of ours would read and embrace John Stuart Mill’s love notes to them.

And where the devil is Monty Python when we need ’em, anyway?

“John Steward Mill

Of his own free will

On half a pint of shandy

Got particularly ill.”

Socrates showed us that to have a worthy opinion, you need to engage in debate with those of opposite opinion. That would mean listening to those who trigger you, those who upset and disgust you, and those who would ban and outlaw your worldview for the “greater good” of their own. Long ago, the people in charge understood this…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Today, more than ever, having a reliable opinion means listening to those whom you instantly recognize as liars. You know they’re lying because their so-called facts contradict the true facts delivered to you by those you trust.

But we all trust our sources mainly because they agree with our own opinions. Might as well admit it. This human tendency is never wise. Scientific breakthroughs, for example, struggle long uphill battles against the reigning dogma of the day and its intrenched adherents whose grant money depends on status quo research.

Both sides of every question must be openly spoken and debated, but the fact is, in today’s PC-controlled world, discussing controversial issues has become nearly impossible. You’re often not allowed to speak. For instance…

If you doubt CO2 is the major cause of climate change,

if you think that the currently lower COVID-19 death rates despite rising infection rates cast doubt on the wisdom of a renewed lockdown,

if you doubt that the complexity of our genetic code could be the sole product of random mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection in a mere 13.8 billion years,

if you doubt that advanced human technology came about for the first time on Earth in the last 12,000 years, starting with about 300,000 years of hunters, gatherers and drooling troglodytes,

if you doubt the wisdom of preaching depressing, nihilistic “scientific” materialism to children as if it were anything more than an untestable assumption of religion-phobes,

if you think the COVID-19 virus might have originated in a research laboratory,

or if you have an opinion about UFOs that differs from the mainstream media’s casual reports, then…

Well-intentioned gatekeepers and the shadowy power heads will silence you, cancel your account, lie about you, discredit you, or at least keep your voice confined to an AI info bubble limited to people who already agree with your ridiculous ideas.

And many of your neighbors will thank the control freaks for their disservice to truth and human awakening.

So this is my plea for open-minded discussion and the questioning of every “indisputable truth” however painful it is to question. We must all place our sacred cows under the spotlight of sincere discussion.

Love through listening,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Please send this to a Monty Python fan or to a young person who has no mnemonic for Western philosophers.

 

 


“East-German Reporting Style on Campus”

It’s my opinion that US politics is a fraudulent brainwashing machine owned and run by six US corporations who control the mainstream media (both sides) and make money using group hatred, so I don’t give political views in public and try not to care about the window dressings, i.e., which set of untrustworthy politicians wins.

Ironically, this approach is black-and-white thinking on my part, fueled by my unbalanced desire to avoid confrontation. Nevertheless, pursuing this flawed view is the lessor of two evils for me. I can either mind meld with the mainstream political hatred or reject the whole mess as a bogus nightmare not worth the exasperation. I maintain that we simply cannot identify accurate political data with any certainty. It’s not possible.

More mature people might partake in mainstream politics without the enveloping disgust, loathing and outrage. I salute you all if such saints really exist.

But I do publically wonder how so many of us believe that winning the political war is more valuable that freedom of speech.

Here’s an academic, Jonathan Haidt, who has a vivid explanation, though he talks like he’s negotiating with a suicide bomber. It’s a fear-based reaction that makes perfect sense once he describes his academic work environment

After hearing how uniquely harmful social media is to middle school children, and being a kid at heart, I decided to turn off my “like” buttons. “Likes” give me a dopamine rush that influences the way I write on the topics I’m exploring. It’s subtle but powerful. I don’t want to censor myself by writing for “likes.”

I appreciate all the “likes” you’ve given me over the years. And I “like,” no, I LOVE your artwork, your writings, your poetry, and the photography you post. I fully intend to keep clicking your “like” buttons and commenting on your blogs as always, but as you might expect, with 7,082 followers, I can take in only an insignificant fraction of the remarkable blog posts you create each week.

Just know that I love your work.

My comment section will remain open below. If you know a joke, please share it. We’re all too serious these days.

Here’s something Eddie Murphy (Edward Regan Murphy) told the kids in his audience way back in the 1980s. (This isn’t word-for-word.)

A bear and a rabbit were taking a dump together in the woods. The bear said to the rabbit, “Does cr#p stick to your fur?” The rabbit said, “no.” So the bear picked the rabbit up and wiped his butt with it.

Hmm. Somehow that was hilarious when Eddie Murphy told it. “It’s all in the delivery,” my son used to tell me.

Cheers,

Talmage