Reality and truth - when theory must give way to reality

 

Claire Wolfe muses on "The consequences of avoiding reality".

Obviously the specific consequences of specific delusions are destructive enough. But what happens when some large and influential segment of the human race simply concludes that any random aspect of actual reality doesn’t count? That reality is whatever they decree it to be from moment to moment? And that becomes the everyday madhouse “truth” the rest of us must cope with.

Yeah, that’s already happened. The Soviet Union operated on that principle. Whoever’s running the Biden administration seems well along that road. Academia … OMG. But it’s way bigger than that. It’s global — and it’s ours and our descendants to deal with.

I drew a chart of potential long-term consequences of chronic, civilization-wide (or at least society-wide) reality-avoidance. Of course, this is not only pure speculation, but speculation upon the broadest generalities. Consider it food for discussion, not actual projection.

. . .

So what do you think?

Long term (really long) where are we heading?

And what’s the best thing you and yours personally can do while we’re on the road to that eventuality? Or to avert that eventuality?

There's more at the link, and I highly recommend that you take the time to click over to Claire's place and read it.  Her seven "alternatives" are interesting and thought-provoking.

The biggest problem I see with her alternatives is that too many people today insist that they have/know/see the truth, and nobody else does.  It's like the Thirty Years War, which was perhaps the worst (but far from the only) religious war in Europe:  "Our vision of God is the right one, and we're going to kill you unless and until you believe it too!"  Nobody could/can prove, beyond doubt, that their vision was/is correct, and so the killing never stopped until the survivors were too exhausted, and their countries too destroyed, to continue.  I won't say sanity returned (it remains conspicuous by its absence until this day), but insanity could not persist because there was no longer enough blood to feed it.

Looking at the things that divide us in America today, I'm irresistibly reminded of the old conundrum of "What happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object?"  Both sides, left and right, are convinced that they know the truth, and they're right, and that therefore (by definition) the other side is wrong.  Both sides are determined to root out that wrongness, by hook or by crook, and impose their vision of rightness on the "other".  Neither side is willing to surrender, or compromise, or allow genuinely democratic elections to decide the issue.  It's all about a fight to the death.  Our Founding Fathers would recognize the symptoms, and I suspect they'd shake their heads sadly, and wonder why we hadn't learned anything from their own internecine struggles.

Far too many people have taken a stand on principle, and in the process have ignored pragmatism.  Realpolitik was founded on the principle that "politics is the art of the possible".  Otto von Bismarck put it like this:  "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best."  Sadly, today his sanguine wisdom is forgotten.  Extremists insist that what they want must be attainable, that anything less would be an intolerable surrender to "evil" or "dark" or "wrong" forces.  We hear far too much nonsense about "my" or "our" truth, and not nearly enough about "the" or "real" or "objective" truth.  The former is, of course, a matter of perception, while the latter is a matter of fact - but nobody will admit that their perceptions, their opinions, don't necessarily represent fact or reality at all.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had, a long time ago, with a very holy man.  He was genuinely committed to his Christian faith, and was probably a far better person than I - but the very depth of his commitment rendered him incapable of seeing that reality sometimes didn't conform to his perceptions.  I put this example to him:

"You've captured a terrorist who's planted a landmine somewhere on a network of farm paths and dirt roads.  In six hours, tractors towing trailers filled with young children will be driving slowly down those paths and roads, taking the kids to school.  If one of them hits that landmine, there'll be dead, maimed and dismembered kids spread all over the road like strawberry jam - and there's no way of warning them not to use the roads before then;  no telephones, no radios, no nothing.  You have to find and lift the landmine before they reach it;  but the terrorist is a hard-liner who refuses to tell you anything.  The only way you might get that information out of him is to torture him, even though that might not be successful.  What are you going to do?"

He said frankly that due to his faith, he could never torture anybody.  I pointed out that by taking that stance, he was condemning children to death and/or dismemberment, and he acknowledged that;  but he said that even so, he could not torture somebody.  He fell back on the old saw that "Two wrongs don't make one right".  He was correct in that, of course.  I didn't deny that torture would be morally wrong:  but I insisted that it would be at least equally, and probably more, morally wrong to allow those kids to die without trying every - every - possible way to save them.  Effectively, the irresistible force had just met the immovable object.  You had to choose one evil in order to avoid another.  You had no choice but to choose - and to fail to choose was itself to make a choice.  He couldn't make a choice.  He stood firm on his Christian principles, and said he could not go against them, no matter what the cost.

I had to admire his consistency.  Personally, I don't think I could have stood as firm.  I've been faced with some really hard decisions in my life, and I'm sure some of my responses were morally wrong, to the point of grievous sin . . . but that's something I'll have to take up with the God in whom I believe when my time comes to be judged.  I fear his justice, but I hope in his mercy.  I suppose that's all anyone can do.

In politics in the USA today, we're faced with that same choice.  Those who've stolen power have given more than abundant evidence that they'll never surrender it.  They demonstrated, during the Trump presidency, that they'd resort to any underhanded method they could think of to block everything he tried to do;  and now that they've stolen power, I have no doubt they'll do anything and everything they can to retain it.

Those who expect "free and fair" elections in future are living in a fool's paradise.  The powers that be stole the November 2020 election in the most blatant display of fraud and dishonesty anyone could wish to see.  It was so blatant that it can't be denied, no matter how much they try, and their lackeys in the mainstream media do so.  That being the case, why do you expect them to do anything less in 2022 or 2024?  They won't back down of their own accord.  They'll have to be backed down - and that will almost certainly involve means over and above voting, because they'll never permit or recognize the result of an honest vote.  They've already employed dishonest means to go beyond democracy in their quest for power:  consider the undermining of our justice system, just for a start.  Relying upon "justice" in a manifestly unjust system is a recipe for disaster.

In so many words, the whole COVID-19 pandemic response has been yet another attempt to steamroller us into doing things their way, to force us to "knuckle under" and not resist.  It's largely succeeded in some states, but not in others - and not enough to clear the way for them to take over all power and keep it.  That's why they keep hammering away at the pandemic;  because they dare not admit that they've been lying, and that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died as a result, or will suffer health consequences for the rest of their lives.

Unless and until Americans recognize the reality of our situation, we won't find any solution to our current imbroglio.  It's as simple as that.  That's the reality we face.  It's one of Claire's options . . . but I don't see that there are, in fact, any other options if we want to save and sustain our Republic.  We must uphold and defend what is demonstrably, objectively real, rational and true, irrespective of our political opinions.  Any other way leads to our inevitable ruin, and the triumph of untruth, dishonesty and oligarchy.

Peter