When I was a young fellow, that is back in the 40s and 50s of last century we were taught to think for ourselves. The concept of blindly accepting the opinions of others was not encouraged. We understood that science for example was not black and white, that there were arguments on both side of any concept, that the most basic dictate was still open to discussion. As abilities expanded even the most dogmatic ideas could be improved upon without violence, without excommunication, without hatred and fear being levied against one.
This also included the arts – what writers were trying to say, what painters were trying to depict etc., and the ability to actually listen to and hear others’ opinions. For example, what was Shakespeare trying to tell us about the Shylocks of the world?
Yes, there have been times when I have accepted ideas because they seemed logical and I temporarily forgot my education:
THINK FOR YOURSELF.
A lot of my younger friends think I am crazy, and they are welcome to that opinion of me. I try to get them to think it out, to listen to their inner voice (instinct) and question why that inner voice is trying to talk to them. Regretfully most of them turn to their hands and check the latest propaganda on their “smart” telephones. Maybe the phones are smart in what they can do, but their use for everything takes away from thinking things through. How many people use their phones to confirm what they want to know and do not check the other side? Instinct is being drowned out by propaganda.
I listen to my instinct because I believe it is telling me to think it out. The recent flu plandemic was a perfect example of that. It simply did not make sense to me and all my self-preservation reactions told me to stay as far away from the nonsensical dogma as possible. I was ostracized by my so-called peers and family. I am “unjabbed”, did not get the flu and my immune system works very well thank you.
So, today the increasing panic of “climate change” is another example of my not believing a word of the propaganda being spouted from all and sundry. Well, maybe not quite as I think the climate may be slowly changing again as it has for millions of years. Arrogant men and women tell us that we can change that mostly by stopping the use of fossil fuels. I am not religious in any way, in fact if anything I believe in mother nature and she is a very black woman with massive maternal instincts, and I have to wonder why fossil fuels exist and why we “found” them. If we use them is one question but the major one is why are they there and why did we find them?
“If the bee disappears off the face of the earth, man would only have four years left to live.
Albert Einstein
The idea that removing the major building block to life on earth to obtain “Zero Carbon” is so ridiculous that I am amazed those who promote it haven’t been laughed at publicly.
Here in Canada, we have a gaggle of some 338 politicians at the federal level who we pay to think, and lobbyists pay them to not think and we the people of Canada lost the battle for their minds. The use of fossil fuels must stop is the cry, and yet physical destruction of the earth in the form of industrial pollution – mining effluent, toxic herbicides etc. running into our lakes, rivers and aquafers, and the pollution of the very electrical nature of life by 4G and 5G is absolutely acceptable.
“A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.” —G.K. Chesterton
I hear that we are the only species that can think, and I do not believe that. I grew up with horses and dogs in my life and I know that they can and do think, that they are aware of human emotions, can understand them and try to make us feel better. Once a dog or horse has established a bond with a human that bond is very powerful. What I also know is that humans have been taught not to think, but to simply go along with the crowd.
I always like it when I find people who think for themselves and can acknowledge that they may have been wrong. For example, Judy Curry:
Do I like her simple because she has some of the same ideas that I do about climate change? No, I like her because she accepted that thinking things through, and examining all available data is what a scientist should do. In her case it changed her thinking.
Science is a non-static concept. There will be ideas come up in the future that will maybe send us in a completely different direction, and perhaps the only real question should be: “Who benefits”? Hopefully even those new ideas will be challenged as they should be, not silenced by powerful morons whose profits could be depleted by non acceptance/compliance.
Maybe one day real debate will come back, specially in the field of science. Until then we must rely on those courageous people who say:
“I disagree”
Jeremy
“You can’t wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.”
Navajo saying
Jeremy Arney's Blog 