You are currently viewing Karl Popper, father of the Woke
Deze meme is jaren geleden gemaakt door een vriend van mijn zoons. Geweldig, niet?

Karl Popper, father of the Woke

I kind-of like switching between writing in English and Dutch. English today! When I finally realised these days that George Soros is one of the pillars of that weird way of Woke-thinking in our postmodern times, I thought: now I will just see from where he got his ideas. Fact is that it’s not a good thing for any society to rely on a factless and free of critics academic and scientific base of politics, philosophy, medical world, language and a borderless censure. In Ancient Greece, Rome, Israel, China, Egypt and all other ancient societies logical thinking was the most important thing that existed and all those very high-developed societies were built on logics. So why should we, millenia later, go back in time to the Neanderthalers and even further in order to live from intuition and life experience? That is not fair for anyone. Anyway, I found Karl Popper: the philosopher who inspired George Soros and who had a whole ideology of an open society, not bothered by criticism and scepticism. Are the bells already ringing in your head? 

 

Who is Karl Popper and how did he inspire George Soros?

Mine ringed loudly and rigorously I turned to Mr. Google for some help looking for the villain Karl Popper who had done it all. Where do you think I stranded? I studied philology and specialised in linguistic sociology 25 years ago, but I’m not well trained in pure sociology and philosophy. Plus I’m as dyslectic as a door, as the Dutch say, so I can’t read book after book and have to read strategically. Well, this is where I stranded: an article about Popper’s life from Stanford University. This is the point where I solemnly state Michel Foucault was certainly not at any basis of Woke-thinking. It was Popper and before Popper a lot of others of whom a few were mentioned in the articles I read today. Karl Popper was impatient at school and dropped out at the age of 16. He went to university then in Vienna (Austria), but got inscribed years later. He became a primary and secondary schoolteacher and then got the idea to do his PhD in psychology, about which he had been reading in Freud’s books. Alas for him, because his knowledge wasn’t sufficient, but his professor Karl Bühler had a nice ‘job’ for him to do his doctorate with. Since Popper knew quite a lot about the philosophy of science and since there was a crisis in finding a good scientific method to study psychology, he let Popper work on that. A hard worker as he was, he managed to do research and write a book about it.

In order to find out what drives Georges Soros to play chess with millions and billions, we have to find by whom his example Karl Popper was influenced and how he thought. After all he is the one who wrote the book “Open society and its enemies” in 1959 already. Just before the second World War Popper went to New Zealand to teach at the university of Canterbury. When Austria was annexated in 1938, Popper became inspired to write his open society book. A society without borders. His wife fell homesick and so in 1946 they moved to London, where Popper became a professor in logics and scientific methods at the London School of Economics, where Soros would become his student a few years later. In the first half of the 20th century it was common among scientists to find a consensus about subjects where the opinions were divided in case of incommensurable (not measurable) issues. Popper however was no social person at all and so he developped a whole new theory: falsifiability. He simply stated that a scientific theory was only true provided that it could be falsified by human observation. So normally swans are white, but if someone observes a black one, that proves the theory that swans are white. Exceptions confirm the rule. He didn’t actually find that statement on his own.

 

Ideas from Kant, Freud, Einstein, Leibnitz and even Copernicus pop up

His professor in Vienna, Karl Bühler, was inspired by Immanuel Kant. And Kant was busy trying to understand metaphysics with reason. He did the possibly first deal of victim-thinking, stating that without human freedom moral behaviour and responsibility aren’t possible. If someone can’t act differently (doesn’t have a choice), their acts don’t have moral worth. So he actually says that if you don’t have the choice to act better, you can’t be held responsible for your actions. Let’s go back into history with Mr. Kant, because he lived in the 18th century and got his ideas from David Hume, also from the 18th century. He thought that empirical finding of truth was just fine and empirical means by experience. I have always thought it meant that you conduct research by interviewing or testing people – empiría in Greek means experience – but it just means that you observe a phenomenon and then you draw conclusions about it. Hume’s thinking was a reaction to Gottfried Leibnitz (17th and 18th century), whose idea of only objective knowledge being scientific was common in his era. Leibnitz said that if you observe something, you are always involved yourself and you can never be totally objective. If you want to find true universal scientific laws, you need to reason. Kant also went even further back in time: to the 15th century and Copernicus, who observed the celestial bodies. Kant now called observing scientific reasoning. Popper wrote his dissertation from the points-of-view of Kant, just as he had been taught by his professor.

But there is more. Karl Popper read among others about Albert Einstein and his ideas about criticism and scepticism. Einstein just said that if anyone could reverse his theory, it would fall and be changed for a new one. That made Popper think, because he didn’t want that to happen to his theories. Since he kept himself busy for quite some time with psychoanalytical methods, he had a theory about that: psychoanalytical methods are immune to falsification, because it is impossible to predict behaviour (in patients) with them and they aren’t precise enough to be falsified. Normally a scientific theory is formed by inducing and inference: by collecting facts and evidence and by reasoning in the meantime. Popper however didn’t believe in that and stated that not only a theory is not scientific if it can’t be falsified, but that there are also more methods to find truth and universal laws about how e.g. the human psyche functions or whatever else a person may want to know. Popper saw science as solving problems, not as observing phenomena or statements and trying to find out how they work. In Dutch we would call that ‘hbo-denken’, thinking on the level of a high professional but not academic school.

 

Non-scientific thinking, lack of democracy and blackmail

Here we arrive at the famous Woke-thinking. Popper simply says that the universal truth can only be found by … intuition and life experience! If you didn’t fall from your chair and still wish to know how he came to that conclusion, here it is: Einstein said there is no logical path leading to universal laws of science. The man probably meant that he hadn’t found that path or that he had the impression it didn’t exist, but Popper drew his conclusions about it and a century later we’re still stuck with them. Even worse: there where Popper was at least very much against totalitarian regimes, his theories turned against him and push all democracy and liberal thinking he so believed in, aside with actions by billionaires like George Soros who influence – read: force – whole countries and even continents to do what he wants or else there will be an economical crisis or they will be filled up with terrorists and dangerous immigrants, there will be child kidnapping, trafficking and abuse or whatever else these people threaten with. The WHO threatened Donald Trump he wouldn’t be able to get certain medicines if he withdrew the USA from their membership and that is just an example. Blackmail.

I am still very ill and this article cost me all my energy for at least two days. I loved doing the research for it and writing it, but now I do need rest. Next time I will go on. Only one last observation of a case of – in my eyes – blackmail here in the Netherlands this year in regard to the Covid19 crisis. The government actually paid the quite high rate of € 65,000 to a group of artists and journalists in the beginning period of the virus, so they would make videos and articles and so on – asking people to listen to the government and to keep the corona rules in mind. Last week one of them (Famke Louise), having come to the conclusion this wasn’t okay, she wanted to do something good and started together with other artists an action called “ik doe niet meer mee“: I won’t keep the Covid rules anymore. She was heroic enough to tell such on national tv, where she was lynched and called stupid by among others talkshow host Eva Jinek and a virologist, because she was nervous, couldn’t find her words and had written her message on a piece of paper she pulled out of her pocket. Everyone in the whole studio was against her and I found it so mean! Same happened a few months earlier to model Doutzen Kroes, who only asked the question why doctors don’t advise people to strengthen their immune system by eating healthy food and exercising.

Next day another artist, Ali B., had his own similar experience. He is Moroccan and most Moroccans don’t take the Covid rules too seriously, but being also Dutch he had to go against them, which was of course difficult. It was of course his own choice, but no-one knows what he may have thought. After a while Hugo de Jonge, Minister of Public Health, wanted to become the leader of his (Christian Democrat) party. He asked Ali B. to campaign for him and Ali being a warmhearted person couldn’t refuse. Now he regrets it all and many people think it is a conflict of interests he fell into. Doing such an offer to artists who are jobless because of the virus outbreak is in my eyes quite blackmailish. This kind of situations and a whole lot worse is where Popper’s thinking in the hands of a group of ruthless billionaires and fearful politicians leads to. Goodnight and see you in a few days.

 

 


donate-to-natassa-news

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follow the news by Email

 

Spread the love:

This Post Has 4 Comments

  1. D

    Please go and read the source materials you are citing here. You have Popper completely backwards.

    1. Natassa Vassiliou

      I will approve your comment, but don’t like anonymous reactions. Popper wanted a doctrine that could never fail and he made it. That is exactly what the politicians today use: they let us criticise them, but that criticism makes them stronger instead of weaker. Plus they never change anything after being criticised. So what did I get wrong then? Give your name and tell me if you really have something to say.

  2. IM

    You’ve got this completely the wrong way round. Popper was opposed to the Critical Theorists who ultimately led to wokism. (He was a Critical Rationalist.) The Open Society and its Enemies is not about no borders. It is about freedom, free speech, and open political structures within a society: most of it is an explicit denunciation and demolition of Marx and Marxism. He would have hated what is happening now.

    1. Natassa Vassiliou

      Thank you for adding information. I however already said Popper was very much against totalitarian regimes. Only the way how he thought wasn’t really scientific but more practical. Like it or not, his reasoning led to that weird fact-free Woke thinking, when it came into the hands and the head of George Soros, who got it all wrong. And yes I believe he’d turn around in his grave if he knew what his book had become less than a century after he wrote it.

Please feel free to give a nice reaction

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.