Imagine that Mr. Aoi, a former community college teacher of Arbitrary Taxonomy, has just written a book (“The Color-Blind Paintingmaker”) alleging that the color “red” does not exist. Rather, it is a culturally-reinforced mass delusion, probably (according to Mr. Aoi) originating in man’s primitive desire to glorify warfare and violent sexual conquest by romanticizing blood, making it seem somehow more “exciting”. The color “red” is no more real than the color “octarine” or the “sound of one hand clapping”. The so-called “color-blind” are actually evolutionarily superior by virtue of having been born with sufficient intelligence and native reason not to fall victim to the psychologically-conditioned charade of kokkinism (belief in “red”).
-There is no real consensus on what the color “red” is supposed to be. When asked to define “red” to an akokkinist (one who believes there is no “red”), kokkinists always fall back on analogy, technical jargon or vague terminology rather than specific and concrete language. Moreover, there are many kinds of red; “crimson”, “scarlet”, “magenta” et al. Why should one red be considered the “true” red, when all are equally imaginary? If anything, monokokkinism (belief in red as a concept) is a bigger fraud than polykokkinism (belief in many specific reds).
-Many people throughout history and around the world may have claimed to have seen this color “red”, but since this is all testimony in support of a mass delusion, the testimony itself is by definition irrational. Basing an argument on such testimony is nothing more than allowing argumentum ad populam to prop up the delusional conditioning.
-Light in the wavelength of 630 to 700 nanometers has been designated by the kokkinist mainstream as “red”; however, this was decided with the a priori kokkinistic assumption that a color “red” existed. Those infra-orange wavelengths are correctly identified as “inner-green” (to differentiate from the “outer-green” band between yellow and blue). It should be noted that the emerging science of neuro-kokkinology has demonstrated that the human occipital lobe may be hardwired to react differently to inner-green than to outer-green; the evolutionary advantage of this is widely debated among akokkinists, but it clearly demonstrates that “red” is simply an hallucination.
-“Red” pigment being blended with yellow to make orange is ridiculous; the pigment being used is quite clearly green. Obviously, the production of orange rather than yellow-green in the mixing of certain pigments is due to the physical properties of the inner-green versus outer-green pigments themselves, not some imaginary color worn by gift-giving Christmas elves.
-In “color-blindness tests”, the testers know what the answers are supposed to be. Obviously, they (either unconsciously or in active collusion with the kokkinist majority) give clues to those tested; those who accept such clues and answer “correctly” are rewarded with potentially superior or more exciting public job opportunities—thus reinforcing and perpetuating the cycle. In fact, an utterly failed stage magician is making quite a name for himself in akokkinist circles by offering a million dollars to anyone who can use a “color-blindness test” to objectively prove that red actually exists (with the tiny proviso that he himself gets to control the exact conditions under which the test is administered, AND that he must not be able to reach the same result through the use of thoroughly-prepared stage magic).
Can you prove that the color red does exist, or will you join Mr. Aoi’s “Free Seers Society” (akokkinists only)? They don’t want freedom OF decoration, they want freedom FROM decoration!