At the point where this rationalisation begins an important figure stands and that is Francis Bacon, 1561-1626. It is difficult to describe in a nutshell what an enormous impact this philosophy of science of Bacon has, not only on science, but on the image of humanity as a whole. Bacon puts an end to the prima philosophia, the old insight that the human being is human for that very reason, because he is a thinking being, that represents the spiritual aspect of being human and where in the thinking itself lies the principle of truth. The prima philosophia is set aside by Bacon. Instead, he brings the subjectively thinking human being to the fore and asks him, for the sake of objective science, to please keep his mouth shut at last. Nature reveals truths in its details. By reducing these details to laws by means of induction, whereby the human mind is suitable only for this and not for other functions it might have, objective science arises. This becomes modern natural science. The deduction, as initiated by Aristotle in empirical science (thinking based on general laws and descending to the understanding of extensive details) became obsolete, except in romantic figures like Sherlock Holmes.
He was, of course, a genius, this Bacon, and he succeeded in making it clear in a very vivid way that man is actually not a thinker at all, but a subjective creature that has thoughts. Those thoughts are his subject's hobbies. He does not call these thoughts 'ideas', but 'idols'. These subjective idols prevent an objective science. So look at the facts, keep silent inside and focus exclusively on finding scientific correlations of the facts revealed by the facts themselves.
That this has a positive side may be clear, but the negative side is also clear, namely that the spiritual truth experience of the human being, which he can have in objective thinking, is radically removed. This process of removal starts there and goes on step by step. Thus the human being becomes a biological creature, to be ruled by an 'elite', the herd and the bad shepherd, the hireling. For they themselves are largely disturbing factors, these sheep. And so it is important that every distinguishing power that man has, and through which he has a certain independence, is first made unimportant, then ridiculous, to possibly even be forbidden one day - just as a sheep must remain in the flock, otherwise it gets lost. The shepherd knows the way. But here there is no good shepherd, he is a hireling.
Of course, that's done with 'good intentions'. Discrimination among people is not a good thing. If you feel like being a Christian, then that also has a supernatural background, because for Christ there is no discrimination. But you can push this so far, that you can no longer see any difference between people. All people are equal, yes. But in fact you have to say: all people are equivalent. Because of course they really are not identical. There is a tendency not to be allowed to see that anymore. You may observe less and less for instance, what the gender of a human being is. There will come a time when determining whether you are dealing with a man or a woman will be seen as discrimination. It is a self-evident reaction to the ban on discrimination that those who believe they are being discriminated against will make demands. I won't continue with other examples, but of course we know the painful examples of discrimination, which are based on the fact that people are treated unequally. But you should be able to see that both this and that exist, people are different but equal. Because the inequality is so great, there is also the possibility of prohibiting discrimination.
To differentiate is a function of thinking.
The use of protocols, for example in medicine, also indicates a suspicion of independent thinking. When you look up an NHG standard (standards for general practitioners) for a particular disease, you find an unreadable large document where the scientists have gone to great lengths to discuss all eventualities and to record the research and treatment possibilities. This is what the doctor has to follow, and in this way the human being's mental powers of discernment are gradually crippled. Something that is no longer used atrophies, deteriorates and eventually may disappear altogether. But we still have the smartphone and google and all kinds of apps, which make up for that... so that you don't even notice that your own direction is being taken over.
It is ridiculous and possibly forbidden in the future to use your power of judgement for the riddles in society. We have a coronacrisis and there are people who from the beginning, or only later, with their discernment, cannot understand why such a drama is being made of this virus.
They should not. The WHO has established that it is a tragedy and all other thoughts are like rumors that must be eliminated. Look what's in the WHO papers.
RCCE ACTION PLAN GUIDANCE
preparedness & response
'Set up and implement a rumour tracking system to closely watch misinformation and report to relevant technical partners/sectors. Make sure to respond to rumors and misinformation with evidence based guidance so that all rumors can be effectively refuted. Adapt materials, messages and methodologies accordingly with help of the relevant technical group.'
It is not the intention that people form their own thoughts about this drama. It has been established that it is a drama. Period.
But of course there are people who do. What do we call them then? They are people who wonder why something that is not or does not have to be a drama is turned into a drama. They can substantiate that with other scientific research than that which is put forward. They can do that by comparing the numbers with numbers of earlier serious and less serious infectious diseases, which have spread all over the world. They then ask themselves, why is an admittedly unpleasant but not very serious viral infection turned into a global tragedy and are such high prices paid?
That question, if you ask it, makes the diagnosis ready for you: namely, you are a conspiracy thinker. Don't ask yourself this question, this is ridiculous, this is against the government, against your fellow man and so on.
But on the basis of this lies the fact that the thinking, the independent thinking of the human being must be removed.
We may have the spectre of a future culture in which humans are accompanied by robots that do all kinds of work. But there is a much more terrifying spectre, and that is that man himself, the living warm-blooded human, capable of love, is degraded to an undifferentiating robot. The power of discernment is provided by a pre-programmed technique that delivers preconceived thoughts and thought patterns.
That is why conspiracy thinking is dangerous, because it is based on a drive of the power of differentiating, which is the power of thinking of the individual.
Conspiracy thinking 2 by Mieke Mosmuller