RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Gab@StFerdinandIII - Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands.  Cults everywhere:  Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from.  It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 


Scientism - Recent Articles

Alexis de Tocqueville – a critic of the irrational Enlightenment

Rationalism leads to a centralised state and totalitarianism.

Bookmark and Share



de Tocqueville (1805-1859) toured America in the early 19th century to discover why Americans were imprisoned far less than Frenchmen, and why American society seemed more civilised and refined in both governance and matters of criminality, than in France.  He wrote extensively on his experiences, expressing concerns that people in ‘modern democracies’ would allow their freedoms to expire and become defunct, as they were born along, in the popular modern philosophy, by ‘events’ or ineluctable phases of ‘development’.  As de Tocqueville wrote, new kinds of slavery follow, when reason becomes insolent.  In the madness of Corona ‘scientism’, when freedom all over the globe is being crushed to fight a 99.85% survival rate virus, when fascism is now being implemented on once free peoples, this observation from 200 years ago is more appropriate than ever.


Even in the 19th century it was clear to de Tocqueville that ambitious social engineering was fully in train.  Elites and ‘experts’, unimpressed with individual and social liberties promised full emancipation and equality for all, as long as the ‘all’, followed the experts’ certitudes and rectitude.  To achieve these grandiose dreams of full equality, a truncated and corrupted view of history, human nature and science was necessary.  An endless amount of ‘Enlightenment’ dogma and irrationality poured forth to provide the justifications; Marxism, Darwinism, Materialism were of especial importance.


de Tocqueville would be classed as a modern ‘liberal’ informed by Aristotle, and he clearly recognised the fanatical religiosity of the Enlightenment and knew it would end up in the destruction of individual rights and freedoms.  de Tocqueville recognised that the Enlightenment philosophes despised Christianity and medieval Catholic heritage and culture.  Yet their own atheist-humanist religion sounded like a holy crusade, with egocentric prides offended by God, with an equally hateful ‘parvenu pride’ expressed towards the average human. 


de Tocqueville believed that reason and liberty are indispensably united, yet often in conflict.  Intellectual integrity requires freedom, and freedom demands the use of reason.  Excessive reason or rationalism, is however, the enemy of freedom.  Political rationalism assumes that there is only ‘one way’ to settle matters and that individuals must be relieved of responsibility to achieve the ‘right, rational’ path.  Political rationalism as given by the Enlighteners demands that the individual give up the right to act, judge and assess for themself.  There is to be no negotiation with the framework of political rationalism.  Only acquiescence and compliance are needed.


In his critique of the Enlightenment, de Tocqueville correctly identified that rationalism is entirely partisan and largely irrational since it ignores all other aspects of the human condition including the immaterial, spiritual, emotional, cultural and historical.  It assumes that all people are children, irresponsible, naughty, ignorant, dependent, a burden.  In order to achieve ‘systemic’ equality and ‘justice’ it is thus necessary to organise these hordes of children and usher them in the right direction, with ‘accepted’ ideas and attitudes.


The Enlightenment as de Tocqueville rightly assessed, would lead to the belief that people are beasts.  Freedom is one of the main factors of separation of people from animals.  Once freedom is removed, it is much easier to render the human as a just another beast, and lead, punish, slaughter or use them in the same fashion.  de Tocqueville saw this centralising tendency within government with the rise of the physiocrats in the late 18th century, as epitomised by August Comte.  Material interests inform centralised plans, and is called ‘positivism’, or ‘progressivism’.  Declamations on material progress, health and safety, social justice, and white supremacism are examples of such doctrines.  They result in unlimited government and interference, evident with the Corona dictatorships being erected in many countries which support the already obese and intolerant state and its endless array of agencies and regulators.


When the atheist-humanist French Revolution failed and ended in an orgy of violence, blood, war and Christianophobia and destruction, the general mass agitated for a ‘saviour’ and turned to the ‘state’ to make society ‘safe’ and ‘peaceful’.  As de Tocqueville noted the regime had already exchanged the role of ‘sovereign’ to that of ‘guardian’ in the early 19th century, embarking on various programs of ‘equality’ and ‘justice’.  He knew that the parsimonious philosophies of the ‘rationalists’ were at odds with the irreducibly complex and variegated flows of normal life.


Democracy in America contains de Tocqueville’s experiences in America.  The problem statement he was endeavouring to understand was why were there far fewer crimes and imprisonments in America than in France?  When you parse through his observations and listen to his own conclusions, there are two reasons.  The first is the limited form and freedom supporting nature of US governance.  The second is the local support and affiliation with churches and from that, the extension of Christianity into societal, political, and economic affairs. 


Culture was and is King.  In 19th century America there was a belief in self-development, morality, Christian ethics and limiting the power of tyrants and government.  None of that applies today in most of America.  Government is uber alles, elections are fraudulent, state power omnipotent, people are viewed as undeveloped sheep, and the full-throated, Orc-like animus against the Churches and Christianophobia only accelerates. 


Semmelweis reflex. Rejecting truth due to your worldview.

Perfectly apt in the world seized by the madness of the Corona religion.

Bookmark and Share




 Amended from source.

There are parallels between Semmelweis in 1847, and the Corona Medical fascism in 2020-2021.  In both cases the ‘establishment’, the ‘media’, and the vested interests who profit from the reigning paradigm, or in the case of Corona, the now redefined word ‘pandemic’, attacked, slandered, abused and in many cases, including Semmelweis, murdered any who opposed the ‘consensus’ viewpoint.  With the unenlightened narrative around Corona, a mild disease with a 99.8% survival, the ‘scientific consensus’ demands that everyone, even those not at risk, be stabbinated, but not just once or twice.  Every government and agency is now openly planning for 5 years of stabbing and in some countries (Canada, Australia) have pre-ordered enough pharmaceutical concoctions to jabbinate every person twice, in the next 5 years.  If this does not strike you as odd, given the chance of death for someone under 60 is 7/10000 of 1%, than you are a brainwashed fool.


Born Semmelweis Ignác Fülöp in what is now the Hungarian capital Budapest, he was educated at the universities of Pest and Vienna, and received a medical degree from the latter in 1844. In July 1846, he was appointed assistant to Johann Klein, professor of obstetrics at the Vienna General Hospital. Semmelweis immediately proceeded to investigate the cause of childbed fever—“over the strong objections of his chief, who, like other continental physicians had reconciled himself to the idea that the disease was unpreventable.”


The First Division was staffed by male doctors and medical students, and the death rate from childbed fever there was several times higher than in the Second Division, where only female midwives were involved. “Why the difference?” wondered Semmelweis.


From May 1847, Semmelweis ordered all doctors and students in the First Division to wash their hands and brush their fingernails in a chlorine solution before they attended the mothers in the maternity ward. He didn’t know that the wash was actually killing germs; chlorine wash was simply the best way he knew of to remove the strong offensive odour of autopsy tissue from the doctor’s hands.


The result was astounding: “During the last seven months of the year, only 56 women died, of the 1,841 delivered in the First Division. In 1848 … the First Division had a puerperal death rate of 1.2 percent, and the Second Division of 1.3 percent, virtually equal.”


Semmelweis’s conclusions contradicted the prevailing establishment consensus that the disease was unpreventable. Furthermore, his solution implicated the doctors involved.


He ruled out possible causes such as overcrowding—the number of deliveries annually was about the same in each division, usually between 3,000 and 3,500.  Also the climate was the same for both, likewise any supposed ‘bad air’. Different birthing positions, diet, and ventilation also all had no effect.


But there was one very important difference. Doctors in the First Division performed autopsies each morning on mothers who had died the previous day, and they then came directly from the dissecting room to the delivery room to attend to births. Midwives, who attended Second Division births, were excluded from the dissecting room. Semmelweis also noted that childbed fever was rare in women who gave birth away from the hospital, e.g. at home with the help of a midwife or private doctor, or even with self-delivery on the street. “How could these dissimilar events be significant?” he pondered. And, “Why did the babies of mothers who had died also frequently die of a similar fever, and have similar autopsy abnormalities?”


Semmelweis’s conclusions contradicted the prevailing establishment belief that the disease was unpreventable. Furthermore, his solution implicated the doctors involved. If he was correct, then the doctors who assisted mothers giving birth without first decontaminating their hands were inadvertently responsible for those same mothers’ deaths.


Semmelweis’s theory that cleanliness was the key was therefore rejected and ridiculed by his older contemporaries. His position at the hospital expired in March 1849, and Prof. Klein refused to renew it. Frustrated, Semmelweis abruptly returned to Pest in 1850, and for the next six years was director of obstetrics at St Rochus Hospital there. His chlorine-water measures reduced the maternity mortality rate here to 0.85%. However, Vienna (where the deathrate was still 10 to 15%) remained hostile to him, and the editor of the Viennese Medical Weekly (Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift) wrote that “it was time to stop the nonsense about chlorine hand wash.”


Finally, in 1861, Semmelweis published his principal treatise on the cause and prevention of childbed fever. A major objection was that Semmelweis could not produce a demonstrable cause for his conclusion. The Austrian medical establishment rejected his proposal of unobserved “minuscule and largely invisible amounts of decaying organic matter”. But this didn’t disprove that there really was a statistically proven phenomenon of transmissible fatal disease. The chlorine hand-wash did reduce maternal mortality, even though no one knew why at the time. It was unreasonable for them to reject the existence of the phenomenon just because a cause had not yet been discovered.


As time went by, Semmelweis became angrier, more dejected, and more stressed. In 1865, he was detained in a mental hospital against his will. When he tried to leave, he was severely beaten by the guards, bound in a straitjacket, and imprisoned in a darkened cell. Two weeks later, at the age of 47, he died from a septic wound, probably caused by the beating.


Shortly thereafter, Louis Pasteur confirmed the existence of microorganisms. This offered a theoretical explanation of Semmelweis’s observations; his ‘cadaverous particles’ were in fact bacteria. Sir Joseph Lister, Bt., ‘the father of modern surgery’, learning of Pasteur’s work, began applying antiseptic procedures to the practice of surgery, resulting in a dramatic fall in post-operative deaths from infection. Lister’s ideas, too, were greeted with skepticism and it took nearly 30 years for ‘Listerism’, or antiseptic surgery, to become accepted medical practice. Lister himself acknowledged: “Without Semmelweis my achievements would be nothing. To this great son of Hungary Surgery owes most.”


The Semmelweis reflex is the informal name coined for the tendency of people to deny new evidence or knowledge that contradicts established beliefs or their worldview. As Semmelweis experienced, long-held ideas can remain entrenched despite potent evidence to the contrary, and people can and do persecute those who challenge the consensus, even when the consensus is wrong.




Follow 'The Science' they scream. Which 'science'? From who and why?

Is there only 'One Science' to rule them all?

Bookmark and Share


Follow the science.  The problem is which science?  Scientism of philosophers?  Scientism of those funded by large industrial concerns in pharmaceuticals, ‘green’ energy, carbon-credits, or those institutes funded to push Darwinism, evolution, climate-change, transgenderism, or vaccinology?  Is there only ‘one’ correct science?  What happens if you view the data, the context, the reality of the topic differently and reach different conclusions than the reigning philosophical dictators?  Is there a ‘Hegelian dialect’ to merge the different threads into a new theme?  Is there a bi-directional conversation and exchange between the differing viewpoints to produce a new synthesis of ideas and proofs?  Or, is the ‘oppositional’ science which runs contrary to the political-institutional and financial interests shut down, destroyed, pilloried, defamed, ridiculed and effaced?  That is where we are with the Corona ‘pandemic’, the ‘climate catastrophe’, Darwinism, and basic human biology.  There is nothing scientific about it.


Notes and links from the above URLs

Whistleblowers Expose Corruption in EPA Chemical Safety Office

Leaked Audio Shows Pressure to Overrule Scientists in “Hair-on-Fire” Cases

The Disappearing Male

Episode 339 – Meet Paul Ehrlich, Pseudoscience Charlatan

Stupid Conspiracy Theorists! Chemicals Aren’t Turning The Frogs GAY!!

Episode 094 – You Are Being Sterilized

Episode 121 – Know Your Toxins: BPA

Shanna Swan: ‘Most couples may have to use assisted reproduction by 2045’

Summer Reading List

Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race

Sperm Count Culture War

New World Next Week covers EPA whistleblowers