Rene Descartes was a pious Catholic, who in the 17^th century postulated two main ideas regarding faith and reality.  The first was to be sceptical of settled truths and claims of accepted knowledge including Biblical and Christian but extending to all spheres of human interaction with the world at large.  The second was a belief, imitating the late 6^th century philosopher-mathematician Pythagoras, that life and matter, were best explained and decomposed into, mathematical patterns.  Math argued Descartes echoing Bacon and many others, could be decomposed into the computational and repeatably patterns.  What those were exactly and how they worked he never bothered to calculate or express. 

Descartes famous dictum ‘I think therefore I am’, does not add much in value. 

A critical thinker would re-join yes, but ‘how’, and ‘why’?  Why do you have a brain, a nervous system, and receptors for stimuli connected to the same?  How and why do you process information?  How did you learn to speak impelled by thinking?  Why would you just ‘be born’ with the complexity required to think?  Descartes does not bother to investigate.  Where is the ‘reason’ in the approach to understanding?  It is missing.  Far from leading to philosophical ‘reason’, I think therefore I am, leads to the opposite – a declaration of faith in scepticism though that is never defined, and a belief in mathematical certainty, though it takes reason to establish such principles, which are entirely material and abstract.  Where is life and the immaterial a ‘reasonable’ man would ask?

Descartes' concepts were not new in the 17^th century and they do not help the average man or woman live a better life.  Reality uses mathematical principles and ‘laws’ but the material is irreducibly combined with and impacted by the immaterial which cannot be measured nor calculated.  Descartes whilst somewhat innovative, was no more the ‘Father of Philosophy’, than St. Thomas Aquinas was the ‘Father of Theology’.

But in today’s world, in the age of the Cult of Corona, we have a new Cartesian philosophy: ‘I Jab therefore I am’.

This is the essential philosophy of the post-thinking world.  A world now riven into 2 layers, one the Fascistic state-institutional layer, driving the narrative of an all-consuming plague which will devastate the planet though not a single factual claim can support that premise; and below this layer, the people’s cult of Corona, a religious expression of belonging, of being important, of following in a herd and for many, finally finding a purpose and a reason to exist. 

‘I Jab therefore I exist’ is a corollary to the irrational ‘I Jab therefore I am’.  The cult of Corona is a new religion married to state fascism.

Cartesian philosophy, supposedly an ‘ode to reason’ is firmly premised on the irrational, and this leads ineluctably to a society, where thinking is optional.  ‘I think’, should generate a host of rational inquiries, which would lead to the immaterial and God.  Can ‘thinking’ just ‘evolve’?  Do ‘natural processes’ act on bacteria forcing a ‘selection of traits’ which culminates in a brain?  If you can ‘think’, how is that possible, given you did not exist until conceived?  How did conception occur and how would a ‘natural process’ produce thinking and speech and the creativity to allow Descartes to write on vellum, seated at a table with quill and ink?  Why would such impossible irrationality be considered as ‘reasonable’?  Descartes’ philosophical starting point is the equivalent of a runner halfway through a race realising that ‘I run, therefore I am’, and declaring himself fully rational and alive.  Why am I running, did I train, did I prepare, how did I acquire the skills and even the clothing to do so?  The runner would know that his race’s starting point and purpose occurred far in advance of his philosophical musings halfway through the race.  Descartes like much of modern society, has missed most of the race, and most of the point.

In the age of Corona, the Jab is now reality.  Consider the irrationality in taking external toxins and metals, along with experimental synthetic mRNA into your body, substances that you cannot pronounce or spell, do not understand and which must as all drugs do, impact your own natural systems and immunity.

·       The stated death rate is 0.3%, including the massive data fraud on the dead which constitutes some 90% of the total

·       This means a low infection to death rate of 0.15%

·       99.7% of the population, including 95% of the over-75s will not die or even be really very sick from Corona

·       Under the age of 60, the chance of dying from Corona is less than that of dying in a car accident

·       Other treatments including Vitamins, Ivermectin and Zinc exist which are cheaper and less intrusive than the drugs

·       These experimental drugs have killed some 50.000 worldwide (estimate based on self-reporting deaths which will be less than 10% of the total); and 2 million injured.

·       Pharma companies cannot be sued or held liable for death or damage and the drug trials still have 2 years to run

Given the above what would a ‘rational’ person do?  They would avoid anyone ill with the virus, use common sense and ignore pleas to ingest unproven cocktails.  What do we see?  The opposite.  The rush to drug entire populations with synthetic mRNA which self-replicates and which will have long term health affects yet unknown, is neither ‘reasonable’ nor ‘rational’.  It is irrational and unreasonable and at the institutional level fascistic.  You do not inject healthy people with drugs.  The Nuremberg code was developed to prevent state actors from harming the innocent.  Yet here we have the Corona-fascists forcibly injecting populations, causing death and misery, and the average person calls for more, demands to be injected and then considers himself to be ‘following the science’. 

Stupid is not science.  Fascism is not freedom.