Our society is currently being governed by very low-level intellects, ill-willed, ill-natured, malevolent, malignant, baleful, wretched, despisable, contemptible, lecherous, roinous, ruinous, grievous, virulent, shitten, vile, paltry, corrupt and reptilian sophists. The manner in which these pestilential sophists; the politicians, the intelligentsia, the entertainers, and the media engage with the society have the same intention to deceive society for selfish means. The same devilish program they adhere but these individualized groups employ different methods in the grandiose display of their depraved and rotten beauty. A beauty that only means to hide a devious impetus to gain influence over society to the detriment of society to implement an authoritarian control over society.
Sophistry in Context
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of Sophistry is “specious but fallacious reasoning; employment of arguments which are intentionally deceptive.” Definition two, “the use or practice of specious reasoning as an art or dialectic exercise.” These are the definitions that I was referring to in the above Chief Thoughts. I believe that United States politicians (politicians the world over), the entertainers, the intelligentsia, and most egregiously the mainstream media are disseminating the duplicitous reasoning for their own harmful and selfish gain.
I use the word sophistry to hopefully explain what I believe that the “elite” class and their lackeys are imploring, that they are engaging in when they propagandize narratives, when they conject their lies. I am by no means comparing their deceitful idiocy to that of the classic sophists whose genius (in my humble estimation) was derided by Plato in his work Sophist. Benjamin Jowett wrote in the Introduction to Sophist from The Dialogues of Plato, “The Sophist in Plato is the master of the art of illusion; the charlatan, the foreigner, the prince of esprits-faux, the hireling who is not a teacher, and who, from whatever point of view he is regarded, is the opposite of the true teacher. He is the ’evil one,’ the ideal representative of all that Plato most disliked in the moral and intellectual tendencies of his own age...” (1471).
As a caveat, similarly to many other words in the English language (see woman and gay) they become more malleable or pliable over time. The meaning is completely changed as the use changes. Sophist or sophistry is no different. Before Plato’s harsh denunciation of the sophists before him, sophist was not a derogatory term. It was a word generally used for a teacher or a professor or someone adept in some field of knowledge or endeavor.
Plato’s comedic but brash indictment of the sophists was outlined by seven methods of argumentation (I will deduce that all seven are some symptom of the first definition of sophistry from the OED) that he surmised the sophists would engage. Their sophistry was not only based upon the philosophies that they espoused but also in the fact that most sophists took alms, more aptly payments, similarly to the simony of the Franciscan Friars, for the philosophies that the sophists touted as grand societal or universal imperatives. Plato, rightfully so, understood that meant that the philosophies that made these philosophers known in their respective communities, were inherently corrupted. The sophists must wrap their contingencies in language and thought processes that would not only lend propense to the sophist but delight and satisfy the audience. The audience would be greatly influenced, manipulated to the sophist's position if the words were pleasing. All but Socrates before him (despite Plato’s criticism of Socrates’ own perceived sophistry) did not engage in payment for his philosophedom.
Sophist is a fabricated conversation between Plato, Theodorus, Theaetetus
Socrates, and an Eleatic (a person from the ancient city of Elea, it is known as Castellammare della Bruca in modern Italy) Stranger about the nature of philosophy and the philosopher. Plato begins with a conversation between Theodorus (a pupil of Protagoras and tutor of Plato) and Socrates;
“THEODORUS: Here we are, Socrates, true to our agreement of yesterday; and we bring with us a stranger from Elea, who is a disciple of Parmenides and Zeno, and a true philosopher.
SOCRATES: Is he not rather a god, Theodorus, who comes to us in the disguise of a stranger? For Homer says that all the gods, and especially the god of strangers, are companions of the meek and just, and visit the good and evil among men. And may not your companion be one of those higher powers, a cross-examining deity, who has come to spy out our weakness in argument, and to cross-examine us?
THEODORUS: Nay, Socrates, he is not one of the disputatious sort–he is too good for that. And, in my opinion, he is not a god at all; but divine he certainly is, for this is a title which I should give to all philosophers.
SOCRATES: Capital, my friend! and I may add that they are almost as hard to be discerned as the gods. For the true philosophers, and such as are not merely made up for the occasion, appear in various forms unrecognized by the ignorance of men, and they ’hover about cities,’ as Homer declares, looking from above upon human life; and some think nothing of them, and others can never think enough; and sometimes they appear as statesmen, and sometimes as sophists; and then, again, to many they seem to be no better than madmen. I should like to ask our Eleatic friend, if he would tell us, what is thought about them in Italy, and to whom the terms are applied.
THEODORUS: What terms?
SOCRATES: Sophist, statesman, philosopher.”
Plato through Socrates satirizes the sophists by likening their mortal frame to gods, a clear denunciation of the pompousness and arrogance in which the sophists not only view their own proselytizing but also engages with their ticketed audience. He also infers that the sophist believes that their philosophy or the words thrust from their lips are a decree that is naturally and imperatively grafted upon society because they understand it certainly and hitherto demands the same of their adherents. The acolytes must succumb to the sophist's divine messaging. Theodorus denies the demeritorious title of “god” but still embraces the divine quality of the philosopher who I surmise Plato identifies and believes is a title he deserves. The philosopher is only a prophet, an augur, and his philosophy is just god’s charitable message, a righteous guide for mankind.
Furthermore, Plato through the three terms “sophist, statesman, philosopher” makes a clear distinction that a sophist and a philosopher are two distinct vocations. As I have mentioned above, sophist and philosopher, before Plato, were essentially synonymous but now antithetical to one another. Statesman (politician) is sandwiched betwixt the other two because Plato understood that it is in a statesman, that I surmise is a corrupted figure (see Plato’s Statesman, a critique of the role of the individual within the state and vice versa), must possess an inlying deceptive character. The statesman must use flowery language to manipulate the public to agree and zealously believe in the laws that are only beneficial to the statesman so that the statesman can gain or retain office. The statesman must deceive to persuade the public to their standing to hide a more surreptitiously malevolent temper. Plato's Statesman is not entirely about the corruptible politician. That's my prejudicial supposition.
Theodorus and Socrates defer the inquiry to the Eleatic stranger. The Eleatic stranger represents a foreign thought process interjected into a new environment that for some reason should be considered despite the Stranger’s ignorance of the society in which he has either migrated or is a visitor. Still, the Eleatic stranger humbly responds;
“STRANGER: I prefer to talk with another when he responds pleasantly and is light in hand; if not, I would rather have my own say.
SOCRATES: Any one of the present company will respond kindly to you, and you can choose whom you like of them; I should recommend you to take a young person–Theaetetus, for example–unless you have a preference for someone else.
STRANGER: I feel ashamed, Socrates, being a new-comer into your society, instead of talking a little and hearing others talk, to be spinning out a long soliloquy or address, as if I wanted to show off. For the true answer will certainly be a very long one, a great deal longer than might be expected from such a short and simple question. At the same time, I fear that I may seem rude and ungracious if I refuse your courteous request, especially after what you have said. For I certainly cannot object to your proposal, that Theaetetus should respond, having already conversed with him myself, and being recommended by you to take him.”
The Stranger’s initial response should be atypical for anyone of mild intelligence. An intelligent and wise person is slow to speak and quick to listen. Socrates insists that the Stranger not only speaks but speaks to a young-person not only to demean the ignorant thought-process of the Stranger, only ignorant because of the environment, despite philosophy traversing borders, but because the Stranger is suggested to engage with the inexperience of youth. This is a commentary on the sophist's need to engage with the young, inexperienced, and impressionable minds who unwittingly, if only because of lack of experience with different thought processes, cannot challenge what the sophists posit. They would have also paid to be in the presence of the sophists and ingest their deceptive deleterious meanderings cloaked in beauteous avenant language. G.B. Kerferd in the essay Plato’s Noble Art of Sophistry writes, “It has been supposed that Plato is here recognizing two classes of wrong doing (by the Sophists) one of which springs from ignorance and is the surviving remainder of Socrates’ doctrine that all wrongdoing is due to ignorance, while the other class, dissension of the soul, springs from a conflict between the parts of the soul and is to be treated not by instruction but by virtue” (87).
Conversely, Plato, through the Stranger, highlights the sophists’ want to speak discursively at length regarding their philosophy not for any other reason but for pedantic self-gratification. The Stranger takes up his offer not to delight in his own self-aggrandizement (at least for now) but at the behest of Socrates and Theodorus who flatter the Stranger and are seemingly awaiting their chance to rebut the hisnthought processes.
This is the context in which I speak of sophistry. A sophist is someone who is want to only espouse their sentiments or enact a program for their own benefit and must necessarily cloak it in beautiful or pleasing imagery and must direct it and gain influence over the youthful, ignorant, or morally destitute mind for validation and acceptance.
I will not attempt to enlist any of my own scholarship to elucidate a greater understanding that Plato has already outlined in Sophist as well as the scholars quoted in this section. I am only attempting to outline the context in which I am using the word sophistry. I truly suggest you read the Sophist for a greater understanding. It is quite humorous and entertaining but even greater, enlightening.
Sophistry Applied to Current Society
THE INTELLIGENTSIA
This is not a criticism easily wrought. Perhaps I am not intelligent enough or genius enough for this criticism to have any merit but it will be a criticism nonetheless. This is an attack on the supposed (I still believe they are but they have been absolutely compromised so that makes them more idiotic than the politicians and the population that the politicians and the media have ensured are retarded as all hell and actually validate those other groups) the most intelligent in our society.
I must say that I understand that there are plenty of doctors, scientists, and academics who are being censored. This is not for those who believe wholeheartedly in the Hippocratic oath and are not dissuaded from its practice by the scum who are preventing them to perform the duty to humanity that they willingly undertake. This critique is for those who during the soon-to-be-tried Nuremberg trials 2.0 will profess as a repeat of history that they were "only following orders," and were "only following the science available at the time. (Even though they were not. They were only declaratively stating 'trust the science')"
The Intelligentsia consists of the Universities, the Public Intellectuals, and the Doctors/Scientists.
The Universities hurt my heart because I, like most students who enter or have entered universities, have been enraptured by the lure of greater knowledge. We are lured by the mirage that this society actually wants to invest in minds. But silly us, no silly me, I fell for the propaganda.
Universities not only are the doorway to greater knowledge they are also supposed to be the gateway to better-paying jobs (there is no longer a well-paying job in this society). The price of the Universities and them thinking that they still have the moral authority or can give the hope that any person who walks on their campuses will have a better life after they leave that grove is absolutely false.
Especially considering the critical theorists rhetoric that has infiltrated and infested the elementary school, high school, community college, college, and the university has absolutely ensured that the graduates do not recognize the society that they live in and that they must understand all of society through a broken lens.
These critical sophists use their post-modernist bullshit to hide the mid-life crisis of these affected professors who must infest the minds of the youth because their peers denied their grad school thesis in the 60s and 70s. Their caustic, noxious rhetoric, rhetoric that students are putting themselves into a massive amount of debt to endure when they should not even be engaging with the confusingly despicable rhetoric for free. This a priori dribble is what has also infested every occupation in society to hide that companies are not paying a livable wage that most graduates must use to pay for the propaganda that the universities are still valuable to society.
THE POLITICIANS
What more can be said about the politicians who “govern” American society? For anyone who has been paying attention over the past 25 years (much longer but even more egregiously lately) they are only engaged in sophistry. In fact, it is their sophistry that maintains their standing in society as it hides, I do not understand why it hides it is evident, their noxious behavior. These politicians no matter their political party but for my argument specifically the “Left” and the Democratic Party grandstand on their soapboxes to exploit the sentiments of a public not only dumbed down but malnourished by the intelligentsia. This sackless (as perceived by their followers) rhetoric deceives the public into believing that inaction is action, that moving your lips is doing something, because that is what the politicians not only implore but employ. The overly praised action of checking or filling in a box to vote for duplicitous scumbags is the main reason for the sophistry.
The Democratic Party and their deceitful agents and their lewd, uncunning, and frankly moronic acolytes, their worshippers, employ moralization to gain support. The moralization is the lusty rhetoric that the “liberals” or the Democratic Party successfully tempt their hypnotized voters to zealously accept. But their actions only display that every single moral word that they used to galvanize, that promised their supporters that the ailments that plague (pun intended) society would never be actualized. Their preaching, their John Edwards, Restoration pulpit proselytizing is the only action that needs to be performed. The politicians benefit from the endless coffers of the entities that are the cause of the ailments, the true poison, and pandemics in our society.
All that is happening is the herd is being led by the Judas Goat (the Democrats) up the conveyor belt to the slaughter with a smile on their faces.
The Democratic “Liberal” elite will never ever work to solve the ailments in society. They will only use “good-sounding words” as brother El-Hajj Malik Shabazz would say, to placate the anxiousness of a population they ensured were moronic. A population that was ensured to look for politicians to not only solve all of their problems (despite them not solve not a goddamn thing) but also think for them. The people are willingly fleeced.
As an aside, people actually believe that politicians, doctors, and scientists have the capability the wherewithal to save society from this scamdemic when they do not solve ANYTHING! They pass legislation before they even read it! voters vote with the same glorified ignorance. I believe that the scamdemic is being used to distract the public from realizing that the politicians are not doing anything but making authoritative decrees that do not fix any problem in society.
What does the rhetoric of these duplicitous clowns amount to? What does it amount to? The west coast of the United States is the most “liberal” place on this planet and look at its major cities? Why aren’t the people in charge being held accountable for the degradation, the deterioration of these cities? Why are they allowed to deflect blame for their governing and aren’t being held accountable to their flowery words?
Their sophistry is that good.
THE ENTERTAINERS
First, no one should be following an entertainer’s politics. They have not proven that they have the political acuity to direct anyone’s sensibilities towards any political party or movement. They are simply being used as influencers to persuade those who are idiotic enough to believe that just because someone is great at whatever entertaining field that they endeavor, from athletes to musicians, to actors and actresses, directors, producers, any of them in any of these fields need to keep their mouths shut or if they are so compelled to speak whatever comes out of their mouths should be completely disregarded. They have spent their lives honing their crafts and I do admire anyone who does what they do with excellence and great prowess but proficiency in one field does not mean that we should take your advice on all others. Despite the corruption of the intelligentsia we do need to be taking our societal cues from people who are masters in the field of discussion. For example, maybe astute political scientists should be consulted on political matters. Maybe economists should be advising on the economy, etc. (I understand how problematic that has been).
Their sophistry is not only wrapped up in flowery rhetoric but it also comes in a beautiful package. Entertainers are seen to be more beautiful, successful, talented, they have more wealth, and influence than even politicians (not in society or law but on public perception that is why politicians use celebrities/influencers to campaign for them, actually, I take that back. The lines have been blurred).
THE MEDIA
The media is only filled with fearmongering propagandists. This is what happens when conglomerates are allowed to purchase all media apparatuses and “journalists” and “editorialists” are beholden to the stockholders of the multinational corporations that pay their salaries. Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry have all of their bases covered. They pay the coffers of the politicians which means the government and the Food and Drug Administration, the media companies through advertisement revenue, every group of the sophists is invested in their stocks so they do not question that Pfizer is allowed to conduct its own trials and use its own information to get products approved. No one in the media is investigating any of these statistics and percentages from the pharmaceutical companies regarding this plandemic, everything from infection rate, adverse jab side effects, to hospital capacities.
The media uses its sophistry to convince an infantilistic and moronic public, as ensured by all of the sophists, the intelligentsia by their lessened education standards and completely dumbed down, cretinous curriculum based solely on theorizing, the scientists, and doctors also by theorizing, but also speculation, and PRACTICE. The politicians that continue to fund them, the entertainers who are promoted by conglomerates with their moronic, unsophisticated art. The media constantly is at war with our consciousness and our sensibilities, especially during this scamdemic. They tell society that as long as they comply with every mandate that all the sophists promote that good day are ahead. When the media should be at the fore of informing the public and not censoring any information or using simple ideas that have become their sloganeering to manipulate the minds of a retarded public. “Experts say” that the media must turn off any inclination for the public to think critically.
We are on the cusp of flu season and the media is already trying to implant in the heads of the population that the coming deaths during the season will be because of a combination of the flu and the virus without investigating how that will be determined. They still have not determined or revealed how they tell what variant someone has if they test positive. They are not investigating how much more or less communicable the flu is than covid and why last flu season the influenza virus was a blip. They praise social distancing and lockdowns for the flu's disappearance but cannot explain why covid still surged whilst the flu was inconsequential. This is ripe for investigative journalist but since the media has been infested, with the corrupt “knowledge” obtained or provided from the intelligentsia, but by the conglomerates. The media is filled with detestable scum who will soon decry “our paymasters would not let us do our jobs.”
The media is being intentionally deceptive by not only censoring information but not even investigating information and only accepting what all of these sophistic institutions and governing bodies are handing down to them. The same and only institutions that are benefitting from what is being mandated. No one is investigating the conflict of interests.
Maybe this is all this society was supposed to be as outlined by the most sophist documents which have alone alluded to an idealism that it has never undertook. All of my constant criticism of this society, its history, and its institutions is more fallacious than the sophistry that is being imposed because I am trying to hold those in control of society to words that they never enacted so that means they were never true.
THE ADDENDUM
I apologize to those who read and follow the scriptures. I miss spoke when I quoted from Proverbs in the above Chief Thoughts. I meant to say that I was quoting from Proverbs chapter six verses 12-19 in the King James Version of the Bible. Here is the verse again:
12 A naughty person, a wicked man,
Walketh with a froward mouth.
13 He winketh with his eyes,
He speaketh with his feet,
He teacheth with his fingers;
14 Frowardness is in his heart,
He deviseth mischief continually;
He soweth discord.
15 Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly;
Suddenly shall he be broken without remedy.
16 These six things doth the Lord hate:
Yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
Feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies,
And he that soweth discord among brethren.
"That the hand-shaken might make their vows joyfully forever."
- Clauss, Manfred (2000). The Roman Cult of Mithras: The god and his mysteries.
The corruption of the sophists is truly being governed by demonic forces as influenced by theosophistry and they engage in all the seven abominations that are described in the above scripture. As I stated in the above Chief Thoughts video, I do not make any distinction between Theosophists, Thelemites, Satanists, or any occultists as they all, in my research, are attempting to use the influence of pagan practices and religions (the religions and practices that The Most High forbade the Hebrews to engage) to guide their spiritual or mystical investigation and understanding of the universe. As an adherent to the scriptures and as I have come to research, adherents to these “philosophies” are only adhering to theological sophistry that attempts to engage adherents to view the universe based upon a corrupted understanding. Even the perception of their spiritual and mythical practices and rituals is still based upon an understanding that is always in conflict with the scriptures. The basis of their determination is that their minds can comprehend the universe as the Most High has created it.
Again the OED denotes about theosophy, "Theosophy was revived early in the 17th century in Latin and vernacular forms, to denote a kind of speculation, such as is found in the Jewish Cabbala and is illustrated and usually characterized by the doctrine of the macrocosm and microcosm, to derive from the knowledge of god contained in sacred books, or traditions mystically interpreted, a profounder knowledge and control of nature than could be obtained by the methods of the Aristotelian or other current philosophy."
"Aristotelianism includes a concentration on knowledge either accessible by natural means or accountable for by reason; an inductive, analytical empiricism, or stress on experience, in the study of nature—including the study of humans, their behaviour and organizations—leading from the perception of contingent individual occurrences to the discovery of permanent, universal patterns; and the primacy of the universal, that which is expressed by common or general terms." Essentially, the scientific method.
What distinguishes the scriptures from Aristotelian thought is that whilst the scriptures are contingent upon faith (although they are also historical), that faith is contingent upon a belief that adherents must trust the word of the Most High and Yeshua, Aristotelian thought is only based upon experience. As I always say science and the scientific method has not figured out our minds, body, or this earth through their experience. Jewish Mysticism, theosophy, Thelema, masonry, and Satanism all rely upon occult practices that supposedly influence an experience that will elucidate the practitioner to a higher understanding of universal principals. Especially as it pertains to the spirit and proof of the existence of esoteric energies. The scriptures outline that engaging in what I will surmise and deduce is only witchcraft, is strictly forbidden.
Deuteronomy 18:10-11
10 There shall not be found among you anyone that maketh his son or daughter pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer
Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
We should not lean on our understanding of the Most-High and the universe he created. Prayer and the scriptures are our guides to a spiritual understanding.
The most heralded theosophist is Madame Helena Blavatsky. Madame Blavatsky and H.P. Blavatsky in the essay Recent Progress in Theosophy writes, “While materialism and its congener, secularism, were bent upon destroying not only theology and sectarian dogmatism, but even the religious conception of a diviner Self, theosophy has aimed at uniting all broad religious people for research into the actual basis of religion and scientific proofs of the existence and permanence of the higher Self.”
Theosophy is a direct attack on the scriptures and any follower of the Most-High engaging in the mysticism and the dark arts that would warrant someone calling themselves a diviner. Adherents to the scriptures are not searching for a more divine self. We are only following and supposed to follow The Most-High’s word and guidance as outlined in the scriptures. The Most-High does not want us to pursue some sort of divine providence. Even her want to capitalize the self is an admittance that she perceives the self as at least equal to Godliness which the scriptures completely disavowal because The Most-High is the end all be all and has no peers.
She continues under the ignorance that all religions including the scriptures are connected (the scriptures only connected to them by condemnation of the others) in which she espoused that understanding of a connection between them all would lead to some grand human enlightenment and not simply self-worship. They continue “Accepting thankfully the results of scientific study and exposure of theological error, and adopting the methods and maxims of science, its advocates try to save from the wreck of cults the precious admixture of truth to be found in each. Discarding the theory of miracle and supernaturalism, they endeavor to trace out the kinship of the whole family of world-faiths to each other, and their common reconciliation with science.”
Furthermore, she continues her argument by continually conflating the scriptures with the pagan beliefs, most likely based upon the false associations at the time that regard that Yeshua specifically is equal to Heru of Ancient Kemetic doctrine or of Dionysus or Bacchus of Greece and Roman Mythology based upon the false association, which is her want (again, science = fact). She is attempting to hide and deflect her own disdain for specifically the Bible, a valid assumption because she was making these criticisms in the West which was built with upon Christian morality. The Blavatsky's continue, “It is the worse for the public, particularly for the religious feelings of the public, that the organs of sectarian bigotry should have succeeded so well by perversion of fact, frenzied calumny, and downright falsehood, in making our cause and the society appear in such a false light during the past fourteen years.”
The Blavatskys similarly to followers of the PRACTICE of scientific study today arrogantly decry that science is the answer to the trappings of human existence on this planet whilst denying that science and the scientific method, which is the grand mode of the scientific study of her time (and ours but it is dying with this scamdemic) have been wrong and have been proven to be wrong about many things. For example, phrenology. Science as some sort of beacon of truth about the world around us is a fallacious attempt of atheists, the sophists, and the like to demean the existence of a higher power specifically the Most-High of the scriptures. Science is currently being used as a synonym for truth and no thesaurus on the planet makes that connection.
Although, in my estimation, there is not much difference between a theosophist and a Thelemite Allister Crowley who was a staunch critic of theosophy which I surmise he would have adopted himself if the practitioners in his estimation would have practiced it to his devotion to the occult. Crowley stated, “In fact, one who is helping humanity is constantly in need of a wash and brush-up from time to time. There is nothing quite so contaminating as humanity, especially Theosophists, as Madame Blavatsky herself discovered.”
I will add that Allister Crowley's obsession with the number seven is only an alusion to the seven heads of the beast of Revelations 13:1 and also the seven abominations of Proverbs 16.
I agree that humanity is contaminating and that “do what thou wilt” as practiced by Thelemites has done more harm to our society than any other thought process because the sophists have adopted that mantra. The sophists no matter how they identify have outlined above (who overwhelming follow Allister Crowley’s doctrine) should understand why the selfishness the sophistry that they engage in is necessary. Influence over society that they covet is all that is important because it ensures that their specious lies are believed and adhered to by the greater willingly.
Comments