Empiricism vs Rationalism

“How was it possible, being so young, that we could have been in possession of such knowledge and secrets? And I again have to think of “the memory of the blood,” of the Eternal Return and the invisible guides who lead us from somewhere beyond.” – Miguel Serrano

One of the most effective masks of civilizational degeneration has been the rapid increase in the quantity of scientific research over the last few centuries. It is often cited as evidence of “progress” that the people of the modern era ”know so many things that the people of earlier eras did not”. Actually, that such a claim is even taken seriously is evidence of how low modern thinking has intellectually sunken.

The vast majority of people alive today do not have the ability to understand the technical language of a scientific research paper. As such, they do not know its conclusions; rather, they merely trust the source. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that the general society of today knows more than the general society of an earlier era. It is more accurate to simply say that they place their trust in different sources.

Alex Jones, professional confuser

The telling measure is how much the experts know. And the difference between most of the past and the last few centuries comes down to the difference in the type of knowledge that the experts are dealing with. We distinguish between empirical knowledge, derived from observation, and rational knowledge, derived from logic.

The Conspiracy of Fact

“Lucky are those who have the happy knack of being able to forget most of what they have been taught.” – Adolf Hitler

While empirical knowledge has always existed, the empirical knowledge in ancient times was based on trivial observations that anyone could make. This contrasts starkly with modern empirical knowledge, which is based on observations typically requiring exorbitant setups, including everything from particle accelerators and space probes to simulation ecosystems and global questionnaires, with the vast quantities of data processed by supercomputers running specialized software.

Empirical science is defined as conclusions verified by evidence from repeatable experimentation, so I ask: how practically feasible is it for every expert in every generation to repeat those experiments that supposedly produced certain conclusions? For each expert would have to build all their own equipment, program all their own software, and do all their own data collection in order to properly repeat the experiment. This virtually never occurs in reality, and not only because experts lack the skills involved to do all of the above from scratch. Experiments are expensive, meaning that whoever controls the money controls which experiments get done, and hence which conclusions everyone else - lacking the funds to repeat the experiment - must either assume to be valid or else be called “unscientific”. Is this science? Or plutocracy?

Can a 9/11 sceptic get funding to build a life-size replica of the World Trade Centre to see if flying aeroplanes into two buildings will cause three buildings to fall? And the ‘Holocaust’ sceptic is in many countries forbidden by law from investigating the allegations of ‘Holocaust’ asserters.

“The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.” – Protocols of Zion

And, for the sake of argument, let us assume that an expert exists who possesses both the full range of skills and the vast financial means (not to mention the personal ignobility necessary to perform procedures such as animal testing) to repeat any scientific experiment he wishes. How many experiments would he actually get through in his lifetime? It is clear that he will at best be able to test a tiny fraction of the official compendium of empirical knowledge. This is the truth of empirical knowledge in reality: even the experts do not, on the whole, really know its conclusions. Empiricism, being fundamentally materialist, reduces expert and non-expert alike to source-trusting intellectual slaves.

The situation is even worse in the media, be it mainstream or alternative. Due to overpopulation and unnecessary social complexity, we live in a world of factual excess, meaning that there are far more facts available than we can process even if we did nothing else 24/7. This means that, at any given time, we are aware of only a tiny fraction of the forthcoming facts of news. As such, those who wish to deceive us can use a wholly factual presentation to do so, simply by reporting some facts and omitting others. Nothing they report need be false for the overall picture to be misleading. For example, by feeding us only stories of chaos and incompetence in a particular place or by a particular denominational group, they can instill correspondingly negative prejudices towards that place or group. This is how ZC propaganda has encouraged its audience to look down on so-called “Third World” countries and peoples (and forget that almost all the damage done to the world over the last several centuries was done by the so-called “First World” countries and peoples).

External link: People Who Read the News More Likely to be Islamophobic, Study Finds

“The literate millions … are rapidly becoming intellectually more lazy and therefore more credulous than ever — and not less so; — more easily deceived, more liable to be led like sheep without even the shadow of a protest, provided the nonsense one wishes them to swallow be presented to them in printed form and made to appear “scientific.” … It is, we repeat, by far easier to enslave a literate people than an illiterate one, strange as this may seem at first sight. And the enslavement is more likely to be lasting.” – Savitri Devi

The Superiority of Truth

“It’s amazing how lacking in logic men are. The people most devoid of logic are the professors.” – Adolf Hitler

Rational knowledge is different. It is based not on evidence, but on proof. Thus, whereas empirical conclusions can only ever be demonstrated to be false (via contrary evidence), rational conclusions can be demonstrated to be true (via rigorous proof). Only rational knowledge is genuine knowledge in a positive sense, and this has been well known by epistemologists from every ancient civilization. The only genuine science is formal science, such as mathematics, whose conclusions can simply be followed through step by step for logical consistency, without the mediation of materialism beyond the stationery on which the proof is written. In this sphere of knowledge, experts really can know the knowledge presented by other experts because it is purely a matter of reiterating the reasoning. (In an Aryanist society, only formal scientists would be referred to as “scientists”. Those currently called “empirical scientists” would be referred to as “technology theorists”.)

Rationalism can be applied to discredit dubious empirical claims, while rational truths are themselves invulnerable to empirical attack. This makes rationalism the best weapon against empiricism. 

The 9/11 sceptic has no need to rebuild the World Trade Centre and demolish it again when he can demonstrate how the official story cannot be true. And the ‘Holocaust’ sceptic is not rattled by people who demand that he prove the ‘Holocaust’ did not happen, because he knows rationally that it is impossible to prove a negative (can someone prove that Daleks did not fight in WWII?), in other words it is not up to him to prove that the so-called ’Holocaust’ did not happen, but for ‘Holocaust’ asserters to prove that it did happen! But since it is illegal for anyone to independently investigate the ‘Holocaust’ in Germany where it is alleged to have occurred, it is in fact impossible to prove that it happened. Therefore nobody needs to believe them.

Nor is there evidence that Daleks weren’t involved, so should we suspect that Daleks were involved? Come to think of it, there’s no evidence that far-rightists weren’t involved! Rationally, we should first suspect anyone who promotes the notion of others (but never themselves) being guilty until proven innocent, whether it is Jews talking about the ‘Holocaust’ or Jews/Gentiles talking about ‘Third Worlders’.

Even more importantly, it must be rationalism, not empiricism, that is the basis for all ideological thinking. Any ideology dependent on empiricism is subject to devaluation at any time by new empirical results. Ideology must be based solely on truths that are true for all time, which only rationalism is able – and will ever be able – to supply.

“Hitler is simply pure reason incarnate.” - Rudolf Hess

In current times we face the threat of Zionist academics who seek to invade even subjects such as morality with empirical “science”. Should they succeed in convincing the world to believe that answers to such subjects can be determined empirically, then Jews – controlling empiricism by controlling money - will have given themselves fiat over moral rectitude, opposition to which will become “unscientific”. To prevent this, we must restore the authority of rationalism, the first and most fundamental gate towards the Aryan triumph of the spiritual over the material.

“You are rightly fearful of us, and of the noble truth we represent, for this truth dooms you and your profane dishonourable world.” – David Myatt

They will not fool us.