What Despotism Is - The Despotism of Western Science and Academia
Foreword
Humorously, 'despotism' is but one of the many English noun-words that have sufficiently valid definitions, but the definitions do not closely agree with what the users want the words to mean. For many social media users of today, there is sizable concern about governments regulating what the users are permitted to say, and too, some social media users claim that politicians like John Kerry are wanting to pass laws that regulate social media while also nullifying the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech. Are any of the claims true? Let's take a brief look at a few related topics.
Despotism
The short 1946 video Despotism by Encyclopedia Britannica (now public domain) can be viewed at https://archive.org/details/Despotis1946. Reportedly (allegedly) the film was required to be shown in public schools up until around 1967 when it was banned (roughly of about the era of when public schools shifted from permitting students to think, to demanding that students only memorize 'ear to mouth' words).
The film's topics are rather simplistic, but adequate enough to convey a valid topic: when a person or organization acquires full authority, it is also when human rights, knowledge, and intelligence plummet.
Full authority, is named despotism and tyranny.
Definitions of Despotism
"Despotism: 1. absolute power or government; autocracy; 2. tyranny; any absolute control." (The Winston Dictionary, ©1943)
"ABSOLUTISM 1. The state of being absolute; the system or doctrine of the absolute; the principles or practice of absolute or arbitrary government; despotism."
"DESPOT 1. A master; a lord; especially, an absolute or irresponsible ruler or sovereign. 2. One who rules regardless of a constitution or laws; a tyrant."
"DESPOTISM 1. The power, spirit, or principles of a despot; absolute control over others; tyrannical sway; tyranny." (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary)
According to the definitions, western science and academia are despots. Governments mandate that no other sources of 'authoritative' information are accepted nor permitted in society. Regardless of the fact that western science is extraordinarily ignorant of most everything in Creation, and regardless of the fact that academia is merely a puppet of popular science beliefs, still are citizens demanded to believe in and to accept academia as the sole teacher. But doesn't that also mean that the governments themselves are despots for forcing despotism? And if yet another organization repels the despotism of science, academia, and governments, would that not also render the organization itself to be despotic? Ah, but the humor of human childishness has no limit.
Nevertheless, for the moment let's focus on the despotism of science and academia before we then begin comparing them all other despotic ideologies.
From the video: "Young people cannot be trusted to form their own opinions. If this is about open-mindedness, it's nonsense." The video spoke against forcing students to mindlessly accept whatsoever Academicians and books might claim, but, today, that is precisely what Academicians do; force students to believe in and to accept as true truth anything an Academician or book claims to be true truth.
Most everyone on earth will point at a science book and truly believe "It must be true. I saw it in this science book right here."
Most everyone on earth will point at an academic book and truly believe "It must be true. I saw it in this academic book right here."
True event: as a pre-teen I had mentioned to an adult female that a book's claims could not be true. The adult female hatefully replied 'It has to be true! Publishers would never publish anything that isn't true!' The adult female's logic was obvious: she would say and believe anything that Sciencians and Academicians claimed to be true truth, and, never would nor could the adult female cross-light the absurd contradiction of what she had just stated. If all books are true, then all Christian books are true, all atheist books are true, all Satanism books are true, and all totalitarian books are true.
It is symptomatic of severe separatus mentes alogicus to believe that all books speak true truth.
Examples of Despotism Within Science and Academia
Spend an hour searching old newspapers at the Library of Congress. Within the newspapers will be found countless thousands of articles of how scientists have claimed that the world would end within a few years due to rising oceans, famine, ice age, and on and on and on. 100% of all of the scientific claims were false.
The 1990s science of 'the world is going to end because of El Nino' was false. The 1990s science of 'the world is going to end because of the solar radiation that is excessively heating all planets in the solar system' was false. Today's science of 'the world is going to end because of CO2 causing global warming' is also false. Whensoever a Sciencian opens their mouth, already it is known that what they say will be false.
If thousands of years of countless trillions of trillions of claims of the world ending were false, then why is today's claim of the world ending suddenly true truth? The normal human is gullible enough and ignorant enough to believe anything that his owner despot tells him to believe.
Science and academia used to claim that the continents had always been in the exact same position that they are today. Now science claims that the continents had once been one big continent upon the identically same sized planet. Somehow the Sciencians truly do believe that planet Earth just magically appeared from nowhere with the identical same size and shape as it is today, and, of course, although the separatus mentes alogicus scientific claims are outrageously absurd, still almost everyone on earth believes the absurdity to be true truth because 'expert' scientists and books said it is true.
It is too late to deny it now: the scientific belief has already been written in academic books. If the general public is not intelligent enough to have recognized the pathological science upon the first moment of having heard the science claim, then the general public would still not be capable of rationalizing the other screamingly obviousnesses of planet Earth even if told.
Another example is of sensory perceptions. Most every adult on earth will repeatedly give a very specific attention to a very specific sensory perception. However, the sensory perception is not recorded within any scientific literature, nor academic literature. If the entirety of human history has not recorded the sensory perception, then it obvious that the people did not mentally analyze the sensory perception as it occurred. The sensory perception proves that over 99% of everything that science, biology, and academia say about sensory perceptions, is severely flawed. You can prove it yourself; all you have to do is to be self-aware while sensing sensory perceptions. It really is that easy.
Science always changes because science was never correct in the past, nor will science ever be true truth in the future. More accurately, Science does not exist; scientists exist, and all scientists are normal people with normal intelligence, and always will the scientists make huge blunders because they simply do not possess the ability to rationalize accurately.
Most everyone on earth accepts and worships science as a lord despot. Even highly religious people will deny their religions if science says that the religions have errors.
Worshipping normal people as infallible lords is dumb, really really dumb.
A recent example of despotism is John Kerry Video - Anti-First Amendment - Despotism. The 2008 article Scientific Method enters into an explanation of why the common 'scientific method' is inherently false even by science's own standards and beliefs.
Despotism Is A Mental Problem
Today, many politicians hatefully speak against the right of life, and, the wanna-be despots believe that it is okay for them to be the lord gods of whom choose which law supersedes which law. The behavior and mental patterns prove that despots have a mental problem because they believe that the laws which protect human life are unjust and ought to be replaced with their own tyrannical laws.
History books whine about Stalin and the era of Russia's rulers all being way too old. One of the shared behaviors of the old people in office was that they wanted everyone else to bow down and submit to whatsoever the senile old men wanted. Similar is occurring in the USA.
Quick: name an elderly federal-level USA politician in office who can speak calmly, intelligently, and does not mumble, stutter, and/or repeatedly say words like "it" and "uh". Laughably, there are none known (or at least none known to me, although, admittedly, I personally know of very few federally employed politicians). 75 year old King Charles III is able to give speeches while speaking coherently and with connected thoughts. (Even when he repeatedly uses a naughty word in a sentence, he does so with style. :D ) 66 year old Texas governor Greg Abbott speaks level, calmly, and intelligently (Xunzi would give honor to Abbott). But at the USA federal level, all known old politicians' speeches (males and especially the females) are a mish-mash of incoherent ramblings accompanied with a desire and demand to be the lord over everyone else.
Age alone does not mandate behavior, but one's own inner personality does further exhibit itself as a person ages.
Despotism is a severe mental defect by both the despot as well as the fool who permits another man to be their lord and master.
Despots Despots Everywhere Despots
In my region, and of the public school teachers that I knew when growing up, the count summed to 100 known teachers, 99 of which believed and behaved and demanded that they are the sole authority over everyone's lives: despots each and every one of them.
The percentage is similar for most all other government 'equal opportunity hand-out jobs', like the state prison guards believing that they literally have authority over everyone including citizens on the streets, and that they can boss-around anyone they want: imbecile wanna-be despots.
Dog catchers, dump truck drivers, tax collectors, policemen, deputies, college employees, and of all the rest, in some regions about 99% believe and behave with the full conviction that everyone else ought to bow down to and obey everything that the government employees demand: wanna-be despots.
Yes, there are regions where the government employees are predominately good and decent people, but the regions are usually of smaller towns and rural regions. In my own region, when installing and servicing security systems in law enforcement offices throughout numerous different counties, most all of the officers and clerks were good folks, but the big cities too often seemed to attract the worst of the worst.
A funny comparison: While at a sheriff's department in a north county, as I serviced their security equipment I over-heard a female deputy smilingly say that the wanted bad guys must be in a black car. A male deputy smilingly replied that the bad guys were indeed driving a black car. You could walk up to any deputy and have a meaningful and friendly chat. The rural counties are not quite 'Mayberry', but there is relatively little crime, and a lot of it is due to the government employees caring about the local citizens: mutual respect. However, in another county (which included part of a major city), the common rural behavior was that if a sheriff's car was seen coming down the road, the first thing that the residents did was to go into their homes and get a gun. Crime committed by deputies and prison guards was (and likely still is) common and frequent.
Similar is for federalists: the bigger the population, the more that the government employees tend to 'go-despot' on other people.
All Despots Are Alogicus Schizophrenic
In 2007 George W. Bush pushed to ban incandescent light bulbs, ignoring the fact that LED, halogen, and fluorescent lighting are knowingly and purposefully physically damaging to a lot of people's eyes and body. Instead of people living in homes of 600 to 900 square feet as was common in the 20s to 80s, people now live in homes of 1,000 to 2,000+ square feet, which require hundreds of times more electricity to heat and cool than what using LED light bulbs could possibly ever save.
How large is Bush's house?
The 2015 PDF of "U.S. House Of Representative Committee On Science, Space, And Technology Hearing Charter" states "On June 2, 2014, EPA proposed the Clean Power Plan with the intent of regulating carbon emissions from existing source electricity generating units.1 Under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA proposes that states formulate implementation plans to limit carbon emissions.2 The Clean Power Plan would require states to meet requirements for carbon emissions from electricity generating units.3 EPA proposes that states meet these requirements through four building blocks: improving the efficiency of coal steam electric generating units on an average of six percent, using combined cycle natural gas units up to a 70 percent capacity factor, constructing more zero and low-emitting power sources, and implementing energy efficiency measures to limit annual electricity demand by 1.5 percent annually." (emphasis mine)
And, of course, today the EPA's website states "Finding Environmentally Friendly Vehicles the SmartWay": just like all other alogicus agencies, the EPA's laws and claims change daily, always contradicting what they claimed the day before.
The EPA also continues to invent the insanely asinine claim that consuming a hundred watts of energy to produce one watt of electricity for an electric car is somehow cutting CO2 (i.e. battery production, mining, machinery, maintenance, efficiency losses, etc etc etc). Apparently, as evidenced by the EPA writings, no EPA government employee is intelligent enough to do 3rd grade math.
And, of course, many people today are racing to buy electric cars while also claiming that using more electricity — and filling the atmosphere with diesel and coal fumes while mining and processing materials — will cut CO2 emissions.
And, of course, far more electricity is being consumed and wasted from cell phones than what could possibly be saved by using LED light bulbs. Oh, but no politician is wringing their hands about the approximately 50-billion watts of electricity being used by cell phones and other wireless devices in the USA.
A recent 2022 Biden law is reported to require that light bulbs emit a minimum of 45 lumens per watt; not light that is safe for human eyes, but merely to glare at a measureable scale. Give them time, and the politicians will eventually begin prohibiting light bulbs entirely (except for themselves of course).
How large is Biden's home? How large are all other politicians' homes?
The trend is obvious: just like science, politicians change their minds and laws, always contradicting what they had claimed to be true truth the day before, and, in all instances, the new laws always make everything worse.
If a 45 watt LED lightbulb saves you 15 watts as compared to a safe 60 watt incandescent light bulb, then, do you believe that your home will need less electric heating in winter? No, of course not, the heater will have to run longer to make up for the loss of incandescent heating, and the alleged savings of electricity are a farce. In summer, the 15 watts saved might help reduce the need for air conditioning, but what about all of the wireless gadgets in your home that are consuming more than 15 watts? Why not turn them off? Oh, but that would require mental analyses, of which will never happen amongst the general public.
In future years the politicians will continue to pass new laws that fully contradict the old laws, which proves that none of the current laws were based upon facts, nor upon intelligent reasoning. Politicians pass laws willy-nilly, apparently to merely feed their lust of being a despot. Meanwhile the citizens suffer pain, rising costs, and health problems that never would have occurred if the politicians had not passed insane laws.
As one person opined: all candidates for office ought to be forced to pass a 3rd grade arithmetic test before being allowed to run for office. At present, it appears that over 99% of the candidates would be banned from office.
According to some reports, if CO2 drops much more, plants will begin dying, and once the plants die, so will all animals, including humans. Greenhouses are known to purposefully pump CO2 into the greenhouses so that the plants can grow larger and more healthy. Eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere is an act of terrorism, sadism, and psychopathic genocide upon all living beings. But is that not what the politicians are doing right now today? And is not the greater public going right along with what the despots demand?
And what about the history of mankind dating back several thousand years, of burning wood for heating? Hundreds of millions of people burning wood throughout each winter — hugely more CO2 than what could be expelled from a gasoline engine — and not only did the world not end, most all continents' trees and other plants continued growing abundantly. Why did we not all die from too much CO2 two-hundred years ago? Where was the global warming? Where was the ice age and famine? Where was the flooding from the oceans rising? There was none because the politicians' science-based 'global warming' always has been and always will be a lie.
If a person truly does believe in CO2 causing global warming, then fine, but, is the person still living in a large home, using wireless devices, buying new cars, and not turning off electrical appliances when not in use? Does any politician or other federal employee live in a small home while eliminating unnecessary power usage? Well heck of course not. The typical person has almost tripled their energy consumption while somehow believing that saving a mere 15 watts with an LED light bulb will save the world: separatus mentes alogicus.
It is easy to be a despot when the citizens are not intelligent enough to think for themselves, nor able to pass a 2nd grade arithmetic test.
And how did the citizens lose the ability to think for themselves? "...people cannot be trusted to form their own opinions. If this is about open-mindedness, it's nonsense."
Federal Despotism Dictates Which Science and Academia Must Be Believed
As mentioned previously, most every adult on earth has repeatedly given very specific attention to a very specific sensory perception. The sensory perception is real, and the sensory perception has been firsthand experienced by countless trillions of people throughout time, but, today's despotic governments only permit citizens to believe in science, the identical same science that claims that the sensory perception does not and cannot exist.
Here we have two sources of information; science and personal firsthand observations. Science claims that the sensory perception is impossible. Personal firsthand observations prove that the sensory perception is real. Science claims that firsthand observations are necessary within the scientific method, and yet science schizophrenic-dementia-like demands that all firsthand observations are 'subjective' and thus inadmissible as evidence because the low intelligence alogicus scientists themselves are mentally unable to self-observe the sensory perception.
Example: years back I mentioned within a high IQ forum that I could see more colors than what science claimed to be possible. The high IQ people called me names, hated on me, and said that I was a liar, all because the high IQ people believed that if it were possible to see more colors than normal, then their science-almighty would already know about it. Some years later, after some Sciencians found the reference, the Sciencians magically 'discovered' that some people actually do see more colors than what normal people are able to see, and, the Sciencians gave their 'discovery' a new name: tetrachromacy.
Now, if the federalists get their way, and they make it a federal crime to not believe in science, then anyone who knows more than a low IQ Sciencian will be arrested, fined, and possibly jailed for life. The high IQ forums people had already proven how alogicus people gather into dog packs and attack; it would be far worse if/when it becomes illegal to speak of any information that is not controlled and permitted by politicians.
And as other articles on this website have mentioned, if an article does not agree with the current socially-approved science, then search engines may block the article from search results. The Olfactory Smell article is one example, of which for years was purposefully black-listed by search engines because it did not agree with the current science. Only when the article was rewritten with the appearance of it accepting popular science as the sole truth, did search engines then begin permitting it to be shown in search results. Back when I did professional SEO for numerous websites, I witnessed similar results countless times, and today, unless you know how to work around search engines' prejudices, you will only be shown garbage websites over 90% of the time, all of which parrot each other's claims that science and academia are the only sources of true truth.
As the top photo shows, a scale of despotism can be graded as whether information is controlled or uncontrolled. Modern despotism demands that all information must be controlled by Sciencians and Academicians. As amply illustrated in the John Kerry Video - Anti-First Amendment - Despotism article and video, some (or many) politicians are in fact pushing to forcibly prohibit any information that does not come from a government-approved source, of which, of course, will be the government-controlled and the government-mandated government's version of Science and Academia.
Two quick questions to ask oneself: if the First Amendment states "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", then [1] why are you not permitted to not believe in organized religion-like science and academia, and [2] what other sources of information are available to you that are not government-controlled science and academia?
Religion: "The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due... a system of faith and worship... the religion of idol worshipers... strictness of fidelity in conforming to any practice, as if it were an enjoined rule of conduct." "Cult: 1. Attentive care; homage; worship. 2. A system of religious belief and worship. (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary)
You might be free to believe or disbelieve in any religion you want, except science and academia, of which are mandated to be believed in and worshipped by all known governments.
Science, Academia, and Politics are not Alone
All ideologies and cults have always claimed to be the sole masters of information. Some ideologies have held a few good ideas, but as a whole, each was a despot when demanding that their beliefs must be believed and followed. Each ideology has its own set of information, and as the top photo illustrates, he who has full control over information, is a despot. And there is the folly and humor of the English language: even when a person rejects despotism, the act itself is defined as being despotic.
Whether funny or deeply disturbing, it is a very common behavior of almost everyone on earth to believe in one book while not believing in another book. The people say 'no, your book is not true, but my book is true'. Books, books, books, everywhere there are books, with each book claiming to be the sole source of truth, but, do not the books' claims of being the sole truth, make each book's ideology a despot? :D Ah, the rabbit hole...
Despotism is the norm for all forms of lower life forms: the herd follows and will do whatsoever the pack leader demands, even when the pack leader tells the herd to murder each other (i.e. The Milgram experiment), murder men, women, and little children (i.e. 'police actions' in other nations), and to commit suicide (i.e. submit to drugs and devices that are known to cripple and kill people).
Despotism is not the mere act of a singular politician or anyone else declaring themselves an emperor, a king, or a god; despotism is the act of mentally defective animals themselves giving and accepting another person's authority over one's own life.
Sum
Within the English definition of 'despotism', so might some people interpret Nature as a despot. Nature rules man, man cannot rule Nature. No one can leave the laws of Nature, not so much as for a second, even if the person wanted to. However, Nature has a grand sense of humor: if you attempt to disobey the laws of Nature, then your punishment will be your own self-created product of your own misdeeds. Bad behavior creates bad personal suffering. What goes in, comes out. Nature commands it, and there is no other option.
Perhaps the one saving grace of Nature, is that it is not human, and thus, Nature cannot fulfill the definition of despotism that relies upon the act of despotism being committed by a living person. Once man is removed from the definition, that which exists is valid, and not 'despotic'.
The fun here is that regardless of what despots claim and do, none of the individuals are able to escape the one ruler that is above them all: Nature.
If you dislike despotism, then self-learn, and self-attain self-information while simply ignoring what other people are doing. Become one's own despot. (But do not tell anyone named Pilate that you are your own king!)