1. Questions for rationalistsWhy do so many members of a community swallow irrational beliefs?
  2. How does dogma prevail so often untested?
  3. Corruption, perhaps? Paid for and promulgated by special interests?
  4. Are the intermediaries to blame?
  5. What is meant by intermediaries?
  6. Are intermediaries always unpaid blatherers- ecstatic fetishists sated only by auditory self-titillation; or are they paid indirectly?
  7. Can we really surmise that fear draws disciples of the blatherers into auditory addiction?
  8. What if humorists could gather and medicalize the behavior of blatherers?
  9. Isn’t medicalization a process where behavior is described as being part of a pattern of behavior, and tautologically described as caused due to being part of the pattern described?
  10. Why humorists?
  11. Are those who have medicalized behaviors in the past untrustworthy?
  12. How many patterns of behavior did medical authorities conclude were maladies twenty years ago?
  13. How many exist today?
  14. Have we (mankind) biologically fundamentally changed so much in twenty years, or has our environment changed so much as to facilitate manifestation of these newly described maladies?
  15. Why not use medicalization for political change, since supporters of false medicalization are the same group as those who defend the status quo of growing neo-fascism?
  16. Is it too utopian or just too good to be possible to haul off certain corpulent blatherers off to treatment for compulsive truth twisting or obsessive fear mongering?
  17. Why is the quasi-philosophical author, Ayn Rand, dead but still selling at record levels today?
  18. Could it be that her tenets are selectively understood by those obsessed with the dogma of laissez faire ?
  19. Could one of these diehard dogmatics be an Australian media magnate?
  20. Are rationalists helpless when challenged by pervasive propaganda?
  21. What if the dogma driving a juggernaut of mass discipleship in said dogma could be challenged?
  22. What if the nucleus of misunderstanding could be lanced like a puss laden boil?
  23. Has Ayn Rand addressed the issue of misinformation or disinformation?
  24. To what does she ascribe empowerment of irrational thought?
  25. Is she correct in her assertion: “By its nature, the overtly irrational cannot rely on the use of persuasion and must ultimately resort to force in order to prevail.” ?
  26. What? Does the author assume mankind is rational, or is she describing a utopia removed from the influence of history and or written history?
  27. Could Ayn Rand’s above statement be more of an epistemological analysis focusing on irrationality and its inevitable demise over a long period of time?
  28. What about superstition? Or is the continued promulgation of superstition always accompanied by advocates with axes to grind and dogs in the fight?
  29. How would Ayn Rand address the success of anti-trust legislation in eliminating monopolistic tyranny?
  30. Why indeed do dogmatists align so often with non-secular institutions?
  31. Is Ayn Rand simply wrong, or does the statement “By its nature, the overtly irrational cannot rely on the use of persuasion and must ultimately resort to force in order to prevail ” lead us to a closer examination and exploration of what “force” is involved in the promulgation of contemporary neo-fascist thought?
  32. Is the “force” behind promulgation of neo-fascism a grass roots movement, or are there misguided leaders whose dogmatism confuses their ability to reason?
  33. Should the front lines of the reformation of modern mindlessness be focused on its honest, yet misguided leadership, or in assault on irrationality by addressing the hordes of the misguided?
  34. Or should the misinformation be ignored and the validity of rationality be promoted?
  35. Shouldn’t we as rationalists address all of these issues systematically instead of forever jousting independently? Does not such jousting get instant media misrepresentation and served up as fodder for scorn?
  36. Or should we surrender to the inevitability of the commercialization of fear?
  37. Can the head of the monster juggernaut of neo-fascism be found and slain?
  38. Are we back to jousting with windmills if this “head of the monster” is seen as irrationality?
  39. Or, could rationalists navigate through the trap of theological protectionism to expose neo-fascist thought as dogma enabled and dogma as irrational?
  40. Could anti-government sentiment be tapped into after the real forces that govern (special interests) be exposed?
  41. Could we learn from politicians such as Huey Long and strategists such as Lee Atwater ?
  42. Which tactic works better in the long run, the honest digging of dirt, or the shameless assault through lies?
  43. Does the tedium of organization for reform dissuade most rationalists due to their inherently passive nature?
  44. Should reform be abandoned and revolution be considered and strategized?
  45. What about wine and cheese parties, beer bashes, and cocktail parties, or just java jams to counter all these teabag orgies of misguided simpletonnery? After all, when this country was founded beer and bourbon consumption per capita was higher than it is today.
  1. Frank Povah

    Food for thought, Austin. I’d take issue with 19, however. Said diehard media maggot is not an Australian – though he is Australian born. If I remember aright, he became a US citizen so he could get round your media ownership laws. If home is where the heart is, I presume he’d prefer to live in a counting house or bank vault.

  2. Raymond L. Atkins

    I think, Austin, that the answer to all 45 questions lies in the simple fact that human beings believe passionately in those things that they wish to be true and behave accordingly.

    1. A good creed to live by but hard to accomplish with all the contribution hands out.

Comments are closed.