What Can "the Truth" Change?

If anything, it can change your decisions

Is this sign telling the truth?

---

What does it mean “to know”?

Nobody is truly “red-pilled,” unless they know right from wrong, good from evil, and their own personal angels and demons. The acceptance of being defenselessly exposed also seems to be a requirement for becoming an independent, well-meaning, and responsible human being.

So, are all those proud people who claim to be looking for the truth serious or just want to feel superior over the totally ignorant?

The “truth” is also a great tool for manipulators. People can be easily influenced as long as someone convinces them that their knowledge makes them special; “smarter,” “more honest,” “more well-meaning,” or just plain superior than many, or most, others.

The “truth” is often mandated

When the truth is mandated, it’s human nature to embrace the Stockholm syndrome in which the victims justify their captors’ actions and defending them, perhaps because they feel they would lose whatever little is left of their dignity by not doing so or to justify their own inability to do anything about their imprisonment.

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 or one:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-fallacy-of-saving-lives

Do humans amount to nothing 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. It’s not an accident that the scam of “democracy” is being pushed on people:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-about-democracy

Such abuse of power is a certifiable a criminal act, but those in power have have never bothered about such little things, because they make the laws for themselves.

How far can laws represent “the truth”?

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. Promoters of the false hope that the globalist criminals could be tried is a good example of “law in action”:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/how-far-can-you-expect-the-globalist

What does it take to search for the truth?

In my experience, people are often more interested in “being right” than in the truth. After investing significant amounts of resources in their current positions, they are more than willing to lie to themselves and to everyone around only to stay in control and to come out “winning.”

The truth is usually inconvenient, because the person becomes responsible their truth judgments. The truth is also unprofitable, because it’s impartial; it makes sense only for those who are able and willing to take a perspective that is larger than instant gratification or the frames of justifying a lifetime of lies.

Life experience, benevolence, and a certain level of mental capacity are also necessary for being able to handle the truth (at least as much of it as one can comprehend at a time), which further limits the number of feasible candidates of real truth-seekers.

More challenge is presented by the fact that evaluating information in a consistent manner requires deductive thinking:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-formidable-tool-at-your-disposal

The alternative

The alternative is offered by the system and those who fail to follow the difficult path, inevitably default to it.

For the latest brand of “authorities,” the only “truth” their subjects must accept is compliance through conforming to an environment in which all forms of cultural identity are erased, which eliminates the chance to form stable communities, and makes mob-creation by single slogans easier than ever before. It is easy to rule over isolated people, especially after they are deprived of any remnants of human dignity by canceling their cultural tradition and subjecting them to constant humiliation by various threats (e.g. forcing them into debt or threatening them with the loss of their jobs in case of non-compliance), as it happened during the muzzle, “testing,” and injection mandates.

Yet there is comfort, consolation, and even some delusional sense of security in the warmth of the pig-stye. Those, combined with the pleasantness of being redeemed from personal responsibility for one’s decisions present an enticing mode of existence, in which everything is blissful, and the one submitting to it don’t even have to worry about owning anything, including an identity and personal possessions, because they have exclusively become their owners’ assets and property and are treated as such:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/government-property-in-action

So, what about “telling the truth”?

According to a saying, attributed to Mark Twain, “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh; otherwise, they’ll kill you.”

Even as a young boy, I wanted to have a good sense of humor, but felt like a failure most of the time. In my attempts, I was either too serious to be funny or too funny to be serious, so after a while, I gave up on trying to be funny. As a teenager, I already realized that “the truth” cannot be told, because human cognition cannot catch up with the complexity of the world in flux or even with itself. Nobody, including me, is an Oracle for “the Truth”:

This doesn’t mean that cognition is useless. For that matter, certain things can be quite certain, until something better comes along.

I specific situations, one can be right and wrong. Such clarity is rare, but the truth of the moment doesn’t become relative only because people fail to understand it.

These days, the most persistent part of the truth is that the globalist technocrats announced already quite a few times that they want to eliminate most of the world’s population and turn the rest into cyborg slaves. They are keeping their promise by using “health” edicts and the “climate-change” racket, which is bringing the world closer and closer towards their proclaimed objective. If their enablers and enforcers realized they won’t be spared, either, the plan would stall and it might even fail. Alternatively, introducing a gold-based currency would render the globalists irrelevant, because they are holding the world captive by controlling the worldwide money flow with their worthless fiat money. Of course, the gold is missing for that sort of thing:

The truth cannot change a thing: only those in power can, but they do that only when they can be convinced it is in THEIR best interest. My favorite limerick matches the situation:

Here lies the body of Anthony Clay,

Who died maintaining the right of way.

He was right, dead right, as he spread along,

But he is just as dead as if he had been wrong.

In plain English, severe doubt can prevail regarding the power of being right or wrong.

Those living without a moral compass lose their ability to distinguish between lies and the truth. Those who don’t respect others, have no respect left for themselves, for which they tend to compensate with a sense of superiority. What’s the point in telling the truth, when nobody listens? What’s the point in listening, when one cannot change a thing?

Lies are easier to recognize than the truth

The technocratic scheme is doomed to collapse, but I’m afraid it will come only after most of its objectives have been reached:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/how-will-the-globalists-game-end

Creating a construct from factual element, while ignoring the whole picture, is also an option:

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-big-pharma-bought-the-federal-7fa

Claiming that Big Pharma bought the Federal Government is true, but the globalists control both, and using their global investment firms (mostly Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street), they have bought up everything that makes a difference; they own production and distribution, and they determine governmental policies by controlling the money flow. They surely use governmental powers to terrorize people all over the world:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/state-sponsored-terrorism

Useless “solutions” abound and give people something to hope for or even something to do:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/do-not-comply-no-kidding

People are constantly told they are winning in order to paralyze them. Here is one against the final threat, the CDBCs:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/popular-uprising-against-the-cbdcs

Steve Kirsch is promising less here, but the result is the same:

https://kirschsubstack.com/p/why-covid-litigation-is-our-best

Using the word “we” in order to create a phantom “community” is a cheap shot, but it works on the simple-minded…

In reality, chances are extremely meager that people can do anything:

Can people agree at all?

As someone who speaks five languages and lived in several different cultures, I can attest to the fact that every culture has its own characteristic segmentation of the human experience. Moreover, since the early 1990s, no serious cognitive scientists questioned that humans think in concepts, not in words. Still, words and their collocational arrangements speak for themselves, when it comes to a specific culture.

As the human mind is struggling to describe open systems by forcing them into closed systems (cognitive models), a large chunk of reality is always lost or is already obsolete.

What I can see the main problem here is when opposing ideas are presented, they are all frozen in certain terminologies, dogmatically applied. As long as some conceptual thinking cannot take over (based on problem-specific communication), there will be no consensus between the conversing parties and finding common denominators leads nowhere either, because people are stuck in their religiously-held dogmas that prevent them from thinking openly, while they expect the other party to use their terminologies.

Sadly, most people cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance even when they are honestly searching for the truth.

Ever since I turned 17, I noticed a huge paradox in people’s communication. On the one hand, it looked like it's impossible even for two well-meaning and intelligent persons to fully agree, but on the other hand, I noticed that if I kept talking to such people long enough, differences boiled down to implications and terminologies and, fundamentally, it was possible to arrive at a consensus.

If people can agree, usually depends on the problem being discussed. The short answer is “no,” most of the time, but here is the explanation.

Most problems are not exclusively logical, so they cannot be solved by logic alone. Truth judgment usually happens at the cognitive level from which it originates or it is overwritten by a higher level:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-makes-you-think-you-are-right

Ultimately, in order to agree with the possibility that I can “tell the truth,” I’d have to be a gnostic, but the simplicity of human cognition rules out gnosis, that is, full knowledge of anything. In fact, when people communicate with each other, they usually use culturally-encoded models that function only within their culture, and even there, functionality is severely limited.

In order to set up a discussion, the criteria in the following article must be met first:

Veritas Vincit: The truth sets you free

The Truth cannot be defeated. You can be killed, but you have already won, if you are on the path. You are not where you are from; you are where you are going.

Mass manipulation starts shortly after birth and most people don’t even notice until their personal space is violated. By that time, they cannot do a thing. Even before that, the best choice they have is to stay out of the spotlight. Free Will is possible to exercise only for those, who have something larger to live for than mere survival:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/i-have-solved-the-question-of-free

The Truth, once encountered, is powerful enough to change lives and set a direction, but only for those who manage to retain their dignity and make the inconvenient choice between pretending to live forever and striving for it.