The Voice of [T]Reason
Ayn Rand wrote essays and gave lectures, many of which were published and collected by Leonard Peikoff in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought which was published in 1988, which serves as the inspiration for the title of this essay. In her works, Rand presented arguments for individualism and above all Reason, while Lysander Spooner's No Treason, published in 1867, explained the invalid nature of the US Constitution, offering a critique of the state - both of these individuals are often hated for nothing more than their promotion of the virtues of freedom and reason; or rather their portrayals in by public opinion by those which disagree with them.
It is important to note that Spooner, despite his opposition to Abraham Lincoln and the statism he brought, was vehemently against slavery. He went as far as freeing slaves and smuggling guns to empower them in their self-defense. However, popular perception often emphasizes his opposition to Lincoln, who is credited with unilaterally ending slavery, as Spooner supporting slavery, however it seems that “Honest Abe” would tell the public anything they wanted to hear in order to protect the state and his bottom line - including that he unilaterally freed the slaves because the American South was racist.
These historical nuances can be easily overlooked, but they highlight the power of public opinion and its ability to prompt intellectual dishonesty. Politicians often navigate a delicate balance of choosing which truths to present to the public and which lies to conceal, especially when they are funded by credit expansion and currency debasement, and need to ensure that enough of the mob do not figure out that they are the reason why no one can afford rent or to put food on the table, and that it is not “Greedy Capitalists” or whichever new ware they have chosen to start and blame for public suffering.
This phenomenon of public opinion shaping narratives is evident in our current times as well. For example, figures like Barack Obama are often viewed favourably, despite his carpet bombing of the Middle East for the entirety of his eight years in office. While an individual like Donald Trump, is polarising because of his controversial and often disgusting comments which are presented as sound bites by media outlets often grab attention, gain support from those who appreciate his apparent authenticity and disregard for political correctness - because he represented a, false, departure from the charming lies people have been told by politicians for as long as career politicians have existed.
In stark contrast, figures such as Ayn Rand and Richard Dawkins, who unabashedly express their thoughts and advocate for reason in their respective domains, face significant backlash as Ayn Rand is bashed for being pro-reason, capitalism and self-interest, while Dawkins is called “Islamophobic” for being against all religions, and in support of the virtues of reason. They challenge the prevailing religious and tribalistic beliefs that hinder societal progress; and are duly hated by those members of society unwilling to engage in introspection, self-reflection and particularly avoid Reason.
This brings us to contemporary issues, where it seems that we are witnessing a troubling trend of anti-scientific behaviour. While the phrase "trust the science" is commonly used, it sometimes reflects a failure rather than a commitment to rational inquiry. Science, with its emphasis on questioning, hypothesis testing, and evidence, should encourage open dialogue and constructive criticism. Yet, dissenting voices are often dismissed as conspiracy theorists or threats to society, rather than resulting in engaging in rigorous scientific discourse which would allow for changing of opinions and learning from any and all participants.
The individuals who were calling for inquiries into the methodology, the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines compared to other treatments such as Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin haven’t even had their fun in being correct all along, as people seem to have forgotten what people like Dr Simon Goddek were saying during the lockdowns and vaccinations. These treatments were pushed aside and ridiculed by the statist cult which makes up “The Science” today, despite evidence being presented at the time in support of them both, and their proven efficacy today; as well as ignoring the potential dangers that pushing an experimental drug and making it compulsory for many individuals around the world without conclusive or even substantive evidence to support the conclusions drawn.
The treatment of such individuals, and the push to ostracise them, to label them as crazy conspiracy theorists, and to ban them from social media platforms and silence their voices is akin to the church forcing Galileo to apologise for his statements which opposed their consensus and the public opinion of the day, particularly in seeing that both he and his contemporary counterparts were on many counts correct; while the silencers are allowed to shrink back into the shadows until they’re able to do the same to their next round of victims on their crusades against reason.
In order to combat this type of problem, I issue a call for academic integrity and reason; from not just the scientists and researchers, but everyone. It is crucial to develop reason in our own lives; and I hope that as a society we can develop private scientific institutions where researchers are unaware of the sources of their funding, with the aim of independence and objectivity. With the aim of truth, not the aim of acquiring more funding.
Additionally, as a society, we should move away from state-controlled media outlets and seek alternative platforms that promote open discussion, such as Nostr, Substack and even X.
The assault on reason and the erosion of academic integrity demand our attention. We must recognize the importance of scientific inquiry, question prevailing narratives, and strive for a society that values truth and rational discourse over blind adherence to the state or to popular opinion.
