"Evil does seem to maintain power by suppressing the truth."
Whether or not you are (or were ever) a Star Trek fan, it is more than likely you have heard of a fellow named Spock.
Spock was a fictional character introduced in the original, 1960s Star Trek television series, played by Leonard Nimoy (1). He heralded from the planet Vulcan, a place where the inhabitants lived by logic and reason, as opposed to impulse and emotion. Vulcans took their devotion to logic very seriously; for example, Spock had a brother, Sybok, who was cast out from Vulcan for rejecting logic. Over the 3 years of the series, Spock constantly maintained his self-control, displaying emotion a mere handful of times (and even then only when he was afflicted by significant external factors, such as infection by a strange red liquid, possession by alien spores, or experiencing the physiological effects of a condition knwn as pon farr) (2).
Spock was the science officer on the starship Enterprise, where his logical and reasoned approach to problems proved to be invaluable to the decision-making processes of Kirk, the ship's captain. Spock's logical proposals were somewhat balanced by the more impulsive and emotional views provided by McCoy, the ship's doctor. Kirk lusually leaned towards Spock's logic and reason, although he also considered McCoy's impulsivity and emotion. By incorporating both (using logic to tackle problems, whilst also considering the emotional angle), Kirk made optimal decisions.
The original Spock.
Superficially, it may have appeared Spock completely lacked impulsivity or emotion, but this was not the case. Quite the opposite - he felt things deeply. However, he did not permit his feelings to supercede the light of his logic and reason. In this way, Spock possessed a near-absolute degree of self-control, and it was this self-control that allowed him to objectively analyze and perceive the truth of a particular situation more often than not, and often to great depths.
For without self-control, logic and reason cannot thrive.
The "New" Spock
Leaping forward in time by 50 years brings us to the 2000s and a new series of Star Trek films, with a new version of Spock, played by Zachary Quinto (3). Although played by a different person, it's the same old Spock...or is it?
In the new films, Spock supposedly displays the same illuminating logic and reason. However, despite there being only three films, Spock loses his self-control (often spectacularly so) several times (4,5). Moreover, even when he is not violently beating the living daylights out of someone or collapsing in a puddle of tears, the new Spock's emotionless facade seems somewhat "forced" in comparison with that of Nimoy's naturally unflappable Spock. Quinto's Spock clearly struggles to suppress his impulses and emotions on many occasions.
The new Spock.
The underlying message conveyed by this "new" Spock is that some impulses and emotions are so powerful they cannot be suppressed. Even Spock, raised on the planet Vulcan by a race of masters of self-control, cannot control the maelstrom of feelings inside of him. If Spock, the epitomy of logic and reason, can't do it, then who can? Thus, the underlying message being conveyed by the newer films is that self-control is not possible. Even more disturbingly, the films seem to question the whole notion of self-control...perhaps it is good to release emotions. Perhaps self-control is over-rated?
This remarkable transition in Spock over the last 50 years reflects a shift in cultural values. Whereas logic and reason were previously prized just as much as (or more than) impulse and emotion, the former have now been devaluedm with a current inordinate emphasis on being "in touch" with one's feelings (this is particularly encouraged for men, who are often criticized for not showing their feelings).
So, what happened - why are impulses and emotions now prized over logic and reason?
Manipulating Impulses And Emotions
The metamorphosis of Spock is just one small example of the current inordinate emphasis on impulsivity and emotion over logic and reason. There are many other examples which permeate multiple aspects of western society.
Consider politics. To anyone who has been paying attention the last several years, it is glaringly apparent that decisions made by western government officials are becoming increasingly impulsive and reactive - consider the imposition of severe measures, including mass lockdowns, enforced vaccinations, and mandated mask-wearing, amongst other measures, to a virus. Even in highly esteemed journals, it was initially (impulsively) claimed the virus would have a world mortality rate of 5-6% (6), despite reasoned analysis suggesting that 1.4% was a more accurate estimate, and that the final world mortality would (and will eventually) fall under 1% (7). Even now, after nearly 2 years of data collection from every country in the world, a rough calculation can be made by dividing the number of world cases by the number of deaths (which is not an entirely accurate way to do it, as it over-estimates mortality, but given the volume of data accumulated by now it's not too bad), which shows current mortality to be 1.8%, and declining by the month (8). This is not a trivial number, but is it sufficient to logically justify the (fear-driven) measures which many countries have adopted, measures which themselves are of questionable effectiveness and confer a substantial opportunity cost?
Consider economics. We live in a world dominated by fiat money, which is controlled by the central bankers (and their friends in other high places). Fiat is directly opposed by digital assets, particularly Bitcoin. The fiat money supply is corrupted and can be created "out of thin air" by central bankers and their policies, leading to a rapidly growing money supply and inflation. This results in short-term thinking and spending, for what's the point of saving something that loses its value every year? Bitcoin, on the other hand, is incorruptible and cannot be created beyond the existing mining algorithm, which absolutely prevents inflation. Bitcoin is therefore a pristine store of value. A pristine store of value fosters long-term thinking and saving for a better future - in fact, people who can store their value reliably tend to care more about not just their future, but also the future of others. Unfortunately, most people remain unaware of these facts, and continue to be emotionally swayed by the central bankers and friends, who constantly induce fear by maintaining Bitcoin could become worthless (9). Logically, this is exceedingly unlikely.
Consider media. Beyond television, mainstream media headlines are designed to elicit an emotional response (fear and outrage are their favourites). As an example, simply pick up a local newspaper or magazine and read the headlines. Chances are good that whatever it says, you will instinctively react to it with some sort of impulse or emotion. That is what headlines are designed to do, often to a ridiculous degree (10). Yet if one confers with more trustworthy sources and reads into a reasoned analysis of the facts, the true story is usually very different from the emotion-laden impression conferred by the headline.
After googling "today's headline," this is the first headline that came up (10). This is clearly meant to elicit an impulse or emotion (an unpleasant one, perhaps along the lines of outrage, anger, or self-righteousness), to incite a division amongst people.