How Can the Truth Prevail?
Where is it, anyway?
This sign is surely telling the truth!
More and more people are talking about “the Truth,” but do they actually know what they are talking about? Forgive me about being the academic I used to be, but I’ll make sure that I’ll express myself in common terms. My readers need a certain level of sophistication, anyway, so I haven’t encountered complaints about my vocabulary preventing reading comprehension.
On June 30, 2022, I published an article on the subject, but my site was new, so hardly anyone read it. I also seem to write about problems 3-6 months before they become widely publicized or even fashionable (Too Little, Too Late?). Here is the article, quite a bit updated.
Where can “the truth” be anchored?
If the “thruth” exists, it must be of moral nature. Nobody is truly “red-pilled,” unless they know right from wrong, good from evil, and their own personal angels and demons. Rising above being defenselessly exposed to them also seems to be a requirement for becoming an independent, well-meaning, and responsible human being. Without those, life is probably not worth living.
More than ever, the eternal question is begging for an answer that would work towards a world in which life is worth living:
“What is considered ‘moral,’ ‘good,’ or ‘unethical,’ a ‘sin,’ or a ‘crime’?”
Are such terms possible to define without assigning values to them or, preferably, assigning them to values?
After all, the current mode of mass manipulation is traveling on the wings of the idea that the individual must be willing to be sacrificed for the masses (often fraudulently referred to as some sort of “community”). The lie relies on the traditional assumption that three human lives are worth more than two. In what sense can that be true? Who can determine it, and on what basis? Or humans amount to no more than mere numbers in an equation that uses only rule-of-the-thumb calculations? “Usefulness” and “functionality” have definitely become the slogans on the technocrats’ banners.
The self-proclaimed “authorities” have even assumed the right to make people’s lives miserable in the name of “saving lives”:
This is obviously an abuse of power and a criminal act, but those in power have never bothered about such little things.
Can the truth be known?
According to the last classic philosopher, Immanuel Kant, good and bad cannot exist without the Divine showing the way. Gnostics, philosophers or not, have always gone against that argument, but haven’t been able to convince the rest of the world that it is possible for the person to reach ultimate knowledge or at least, “wisdom.” They have also been persecuted for going against the principles of the actual world order currently in charge. This time, they seem to have the upper hand, and look at the results: humanity has never been closer to extinction.
What about “pure reason” and “common sense”?
Freemasons were not the first, but definitely the most influential ones today, to spread the fallacy that “humans are born good.” The assumption is ingeniously evil, because it suggests that it is essential towards identifying “God-given rights” without acknowledging a Divine authority per se; in this ideology, “pure reason” (rationality) replaces the infinite and inscrutable Divine with a faint rational projection.
The Age of Enlightenment elevated the person’s “conscience” to the highest platform of moral authority, which of course, is nonsense for anyone who can still think more or less clearly. After all kinds of diverging theories, the one that I find the most convincing (various “schools in Psychology” have adopted the stance) is the one that states that “conscience” evolves during the period of primary socialization, while the child is still not completely self-aware. As a result, the child assumes the “values” of his/her immediate environment (which translates to “family” most of the time) and judges good and bad based on that. For instance, a child who grows up among highwaymen, respects the “family,” but has no respect for outsiders’ lives and possessions.
Both Pure Reason and “common sense” involve the premise that they are the tool that justifies their prevalence, which is an irreconcilable contradiction that destroys the foundations of their arguments.
How about Divine Guidance?
Another popular answer to the initial question is that only Divine Guidance can assist humans with a clear vision of right and wrong.
So, if there is Divine Guidance regarding good and evil, it can be studied and its principles must be acquired and employed by the person after he/she reaches full consciousness, which until recently, happened around the age of five, but nobody knows if it ever happens to the latest breed of humans.
Most truth judgments based on early-childhood memories are not readily accessible for most people, which, around 2000 AD, even resulted in a new method in psychological “treatment” that wanted to install and ingrain, or even condition, new premises into the person’s “subconscious” (which is not much else but the automated functioning of the person’s psychology, amounting to probably no less than 98-99% of human existence) and called itself “Cognitive Therapy.” Of course, the problem with such a “therapy” is that ultimately, someone has to make the decision about good and evil for the “patient.” Considering the many religions around the world, chances are that even those “therapists” who accept the idea of Divine Counsel diverge in their conclusions, which leads to further internal conflicts in the patient’s self-image, not to mention the irreconcilable difference between the outcomes among such “patients.” Therefore, during such “therapy,” it is the blind leading the blind (not to mention that primary conditioning usually returns 2-3 years after the “therapy” is declared successful; the conditioning must go on through the subject’s lifetime).
According to Kant, only Divine Guidance can help out people to learn about the true nature of good and evil. Otherwise, people choke in their own muck and sometimes can even be proud of it… If you look around these days, maybe more often than sometimes…
Divine Guidance and religion
Assuming or even acknowledging the existence of the Divine doesn’t require religion, only common sense, although common sense cannot replace the Divine. Yet what can come next?
Discussing ethics or moral standards in a secular world must be grounded on establishing a common denominator between the profane and the divine. With religion used for justifying and maintaining the established order, it used to be easier, although never easy. Breaking with the standards was usually criminalized, because social stability was valued higher than individual rights. The principle was enforced even when it represented obvious nonsense that even the judges knew was make-belief for the masses (e.g. in the case of Galileo).
Some things never change, eh?
Cultural standards
Cultural standards that would validate truth, value, and moral judgments must be rooted in the prevalent ideology of a culture. Such ideologies have always been used in civilizations to justify the power of the rulers and the “well-deserved fate” of the disenfranchised. Successful ideologies usually managed to convince the masses that they deserve to be used and exploited, although it sometimes took a period of Stockholm syndrome for people to start defending and even protecting their oppressors, as it happened during the “covid” psy-op:
In the US, the last widely-proclaimed ideology was the “American Dream,” but even according to George Carlin, it’s called a dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.
When it comes to canonizing “moral” or “criminal” standards, the age-old question always sticks out of the baggage, at least for those who can think outside the box:
“Who is going to watch over the watchers?”
Once enforcers are given any type of power, the same power can be abused against anyone.
What about laws?
So, what can be the most functional basis for passing and enforcing laws in an ideal place, where both laws and their enforcement serve the well-being of the people without hurting some of them or violating the individual’s life?
In tribal cultures, evil, stupid, and ludicrous are sometimes denoted by the same word. In theocracies, bad, criminal, and evil, often overlap. Modern western cultures can’t even agree on how to write a book of law: they either rely on “Roman Law” that tries to collect all possible situations in its legal codes (which is impossible) or on “common law” that leaves the decision to tradition (which, of course, keeps changing, especially these days, when cultures are forced to mingle to the point of extinguishing each other). Laws at least have one thing in common: they support the maintenance of social equilibrium and, consequently, are always partial towards those in power. Religious Canon Law has also been used to the same end in several cultures, but its contents changed according to the way it served the powerful.
Holy texts?
There are well-known “holy texts” all over the world, but above every single one of them, there are plenty of parties claiming authority. Where can someone, who is honestly interested, learn about Divine Guidance? That would be the most essential part in a person’s life, in case there is a life after life in which the Divine finally prevails.
Any solutions?
Humans experience everything from a subjective condition of perception. Human society can be manipulated as long as the population perceives the individual experience as limited to the physical world of the five senses. The average man clings to human labels such as race; ethnicity; sexuality, and such as though it is the sum total of a person's identity. Those who do not identify with this limitation, are the ones who perceive "God" or relate as a part of universal consciousness; their identity is tethered to infinity, and cannot be manipulated into these fictional limitations.
As for the "truth," everyone's experiences being subjective; each person has their own unique experience, yet we all come from a place of "oneness." If many people begin to realize this, it will remove the primary method of manipulation employed by the world's Elites. Everyone will clearly see them as frauds.
A new era of enlightenment will occur when we can see that compulsory collectivism doesn't work and voluntary cooperative society does.
IMO, the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) (simplified version here: https://zeroaggressionproject.org/mental-lever/zero-aggression-principle/) and its twin Voluntaryism (https://voluntaryist.com/) is a good basis or foundation to work from. It's not perfect, of course, but is eminently workable in most aspects and cases. Gotta start somewhere. If perfection is demanded before starting, then it never starts - the endless black hole of intellectual objectivism.
When attempting to formulate a foundation, the reality of universal subjectivity arises. I like to run with Spiral Dynamics (https://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en/) as it attempts to model the 'evolution of consciousness.' In the SD model, scope of awareness broadens as capacity, experience and 'wisdom' increases. A theoretically ideal human interaction foundation would allow for every level in the SD model to be equitably represented and playing field opened. Seems to me that the NAP/ZAP covers most of the bases.