Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Essay:The corrupting and intellectually nihilistic influence of statist religion and the liberal statheist agenda on "RationalWiki"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by LogicMaster777.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

The Anti-science of Statism and Statheism and their corrupting influence on RW[edit]

Video, appears to be a fictional dramatization (clip from "the contender")

Statism, the faith based belief in the necessity of political "States" and Statheism, a particular politico-religious movement in American political thought consisting of mainly leftist "liberal" "Atheists" who religiously worship government and its scripture as a sort of perceived "secular" "faith"(while denying that it is religious), are forms of Anti-science with a prevalent corrupting influence on RationalWiki and its rationalist pov mission. This corrupting influence can be seen in the way the articles will quote government scripture as articles of faith while engaging in a stance of criticizing "religion" for the same thing. Rationalist criticisms of the logical contradictions of governmental faith-based dogmas or even questioning whether the dogma has any evidence to prove it is true will be censored and targeted for vandalism attacks. If evidence is presented to undermine the faith-based precepts and dogmatic doctrines, that evidence will be subjected to being censored to preserve the denialist stance of Statheism. Ironically, the contingency of statheists on the site is often vocally critical of Conservapedia for the same sort of religiously and ideologically based censorship.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The origin of this Essay[edit]

Case in point: this essay. The opening paragraph was actually itself targeted for removal from the Anti-science talk page. Material which takes a rational what-can-you-prove rationalist stance toward the subject of government and politics will be targeted for removal, censorship and vandalism from RW while faith-based proclamations of governmental doctrine are tolerated and celebrated.LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Liberal Statheists rule RationalWiki with an iron fist of authoritarian censorship[edit]

This site is essentially a bully pulpit for Leftist ideology and statist religion deceptively presenting itself as "rationalism". Rationalist critical thought used to analyze statheist ideology will be targeted for religious persecutions by zealot crusaders of the government faith. The statheist admins routinely abuse and misuse their status as the "majority" to stamp out minority viewpoints through vandalism and censorship attacks.LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


From "The mission of the RationalWiki Foundation is to promote and defend science, critical thinking and public interest dialog in a free and open forum. The Foundation seeks to develop and publicize free educational and collaborative content, create community focused software, and to connect and advance the global community of rational thinkers."

The real purpose[edit]

The above citation is the "official" policy of RationalWiki. But it also has an unofficial "other" policy. And that unofficial policy runs contrary to its ostensible "official" charter and purpose. That unofficial other policy, the real policy (not the public relations one) is to to censor evidence, promote dogmatic authoritarian thinking, persecute free thinkers and to stamp out minority views in order to preserve a slanted and censored dialog. This is done to promote the agenda of the anti-science of Statheism.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


From "Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction. George Orwell created the word doublethink in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949); doublethink is part of newspeak. In the novel, its origin within the typical citizen is unclear; while it could be partly a product of Big Brother's formal brainwashing programmes, the novel explicitly shows people learning Doublethink and newspeak due to peer pressure and a desire to "fit in", or gain status within the Party — to be seen as a loyal Party Member. In the novel, for someone to even recognize–let alone mention–any contradiction within the context of the Party line was akin to blasphemy, and could subject that someone to possible disciplinary action and to the instant social disapproval of fellow Party Members."LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"According to the novel, doublethink is:

“ To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.[3] ” “ The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.[3] ”"