It can all be whittled down to perception.
But what determines perception? Information.
And so, the #1 threat, in my opinion, is the control of information by various powers, and the villainizing of anyone who dares to think or ask any questions that might undermine the established narrative.
Now, I’m in trouble here, ’cause I sure do enjoy me some thinky-thoughts!
Call me an extremist, but… I have this weird idea that, by thinking, it is possible to learn.
Lately, though, asking questions seems to be automatically associated with issuing a challenge, or even cause for personal offense.
All thoughts are to be suppressed if they transgress collectivist ideology. Examples of this reality abound: (see– Movie Review Platform Letterboxd Hides All Reviews For Matt Walsh Documentary “What Is A Woman?”)
(Political commentator Matt Walsh’s documentary has been called anti-trans/transphobic propaganda that is spreading hate and has even been equated with ‘genocide’, all for asking the question, “What is a woman?”, for which Walsh is now receiving death threats).
Questions and criticisms have become a big no-no.
Apparently, skepticism makes me something of a radical separatist by today’s ever-changing standards.
There is a war already being waged, and Truth is at the center of the battlefield.
To be an advocate of the truth is to be an extremist.
In a new national poll commissioned by [NY] Times Opinion and Siena College, only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely. The poll found that 84 percent of adults said it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.
Granted, it could be argued that this problem is on the part of individuals who are choosing not to exercise their freedoms, rather than it being a failure of the system itself.
However, I myself have been the target of various accusations and insults over the years—merely for asking questions that were perceived as “radical” or “phobic”—so, I can say from experience that this goes beyond just a feeling Americans have, and this is evidenced in various Big Tech corporations’ unrestrained de-platforming of any dissenting facts or opinions. There is a concerted effort to silence anything that contradicts a specific kind of idea: it’s death by fact-check.
Of course, there are legitimate grounds for moderating public discourse. But regardless of whether or not a person is likeable, when the leader of the country is denied a voice while hate speech and literal terrorist groups are simultaneously permitted to continue having social media accounts, something is very wrong.
“And despite the Taliban’s brutality and dishonesty, two Taliban spokesmen have Twitter accounts, including Zabihullah Mujahid, who boasts nearly 320,000 followers. Mujahid has posted dozens of videos that have been viewed millions of times. Quite a platform for the Taliban to have, and it doesn’t cost them a dime.”
It’s important to note that being continually involved in the funding of foreign military operations is an unusually common practice of the USA (unusual, at least compared to every other country in the world). As for whether or not such financial aid is something you think this country should be extending is, again, a belief which will be determined by the information you’re receiving.
This control of information has massive ramifications because of its wide ranging effects on many different areas, like our political affiliations, our understanding of history, our understanding of the sciences, our perception of current events, or even our perception of ourselves (i.e. identity politics). What we think we know to be true about the cause or origin of a certain thing will influence our conclusion or proposed solution.
Many stories we accept from various media outlets are contrived in a number of ways, such as:
- the censorship of the truth
- the circulation of disinformation
- the over-reporting of lower priority news as an element of distraction (i.e. celebrity drama)
- the under-reporting of high priority news (i.e. discovery of high profile people’s involvement in sex trafficking rings)
- the exaggeration of details to elicit emotional responses (i.e. the Capitol “insurrection”)
- the downplaying of details to preserve credibility (i.e. “mostly peaceful” protests)
- the redefining/reclassifying of words (i.e. “man” & “woman” have somehow become complicated concepts)
- inventing new terms/phrases in an attempt to add unnecessary emphasis or credibility to a given point (i.e “ultra-conservative”)
And so on…
This meddling with the facts is to meddle with human knowledge, which has exacerbated an already bizarre state of affairs where many people have embraced the relativist idea that there is such a thing as “your truth v.s. my truth”, rather than THE truth (upon which we all agree, whether it matches our personal preferences or not) resulting in a society that is polarized to the extreme. Sadly, we are divided by deception.
The liberty of free speech entails not only the freedom to speak, but also the freedom to be heard, by necessity. To say, “I believe in equality” out loud in the middle of an empty field would be meaningless; a statement on civil affairs is only efficacious in the context of a conversation between two or more people (i.e. “We The People”—WE; plural). So, if your honest words are suppressed or misrepresented, it’s effectively like standing in that field by yourself—you may as well be alone if no one can hear you. The way information is filtered and controlled determines everything (i.e. believing abortion is permissible due to disinformation which reduces human life in the womb to something non-human; **interestingly, the overturn of ‘Roe v Wade’ took place after I had already written this.)
If the truth is obfuscated without our awareness, we are deceived to some degree.
If we are deceived, extraneous factors control our decision making process.
If our decisions are controlled, then our sense of “choice” is effectively an illusion.
If choice is illusory, then free will is moot, because it pertains to nothing.
If free will is not real, then we are not free.
If freedom itself is only a pretense, goodbye democracy.
Freedom is indispensable to any democratic society, but when the truth is made inaccessible, freedom is ultimately lost, which is incompatible with democracy.
We need truth. Truth anchors us; it shields us.
———addendum———
As an extension of the way information is controlled, I could expand this answer in the following way: I’d say the problem typically starts with the youth. There has been a very drastic shift in societal values as far as the upbringing of kids goes, where suddenly children are being exposed to things that, as little as 10 years ago, would have been considered wildly inappropriate (and even criminal) to let them witness. Kids are encountering provocative images and ideas at earlier and earlier ages, right down to the preschool level:
And in other instances, the “lessons” being taught to kids are downright pornographic, or some might even say demonic:
I’m not accusing all LGBT people of such perversion, because (unlike a lot of folks) I don’t feel the need to lump all people into the same category of guilt by association, in order to make my case. But if anyone believes this shameful behavior is acceptable, then you’re culpable as far as I’m concerned.
Noteworthy dictators throughout history have realized much of the success of their reigns depended on the support and compliance of the upcoming generation, which is why they’ve worked to shape minds while they’re young and malleable—see how the Hitler Youth Turned a Generation of Kids Into Nazis. [2]
This compromise of values is what ultimately comes from dishonest handling of information.
I don’t know about you, but I will not be complicit in the mental destruction of kids, so there’s no need to ask me, “Are you suggesting that teaching kids about transsexuality is like teaching them to be Nazi’s?” No, I’m not suggesting it, I’m saying it to your face: both situations are absolutely abominable evils. If borderline pedophilia is the chosen method of “teaching” children about tolerance and acceptance, then I have no problem drawing that parallel. The allowance of such inconceivable indecency would mean that it is not only democracy coming under threat, but all of civilized society in general.
When young one’s become the targets of a collectivist ideology and are taught what to believe, rather than being trained how to think critically as individuals, this sets any society off in the wrong direction for the future of democracy, because they’re no longer making decisions on the basis of rationality or morality—in fact, they’re no longer “deciding” anything at all, at that point—they’re just emulating what they’ve been conditioned to do based on what they’ve seen and heard time and again in the echo chamber of politically correct doublespeak in which they were raised, according to whatever version of “your truth” the culture of that current time dictates it to be.
Can you see how humanities course of action depends on what we have determined to be true?
Once the lie of “progress” gains enough momentum, it becomes self-sustaining, fueled by a person’s own prejudice against anything that contradicts the underlying belief, because it’s all they’ve ever known.
It goes something like this…
→ The current generation of youths receives propaganda instead of an education
→ When school curriculum includes falsehood, the human psychological tendency towards “conformity” will likely reinforce falsehood
→ A perceived consensus of beliefs gives the impression that this falsehood is authoritative
→ When “authority” itself serves as the object of truth, critical thinking is inhibited
→ Unstimulating mental development naturally causes children to seek fulfillment by other means
——(In a flowchart, the possible outcomes may diverge at this point; my focus is modern America)
→ America has created a predominantly consumer-based environment to satisfy wants and needs of a stimulation-hungry populace
→ Part of consumerist culture is the constant demand for entertainment
→ Part of on-demand entertainment is the immersion in technological luxuries
→ Availability of luxurious resources gets people accustomed to convenience
→ The convenience of instant gratification fosters complacency and entitlement
→ Complacency—together with a misinformed, self-centered populace—generates more ignorance
→ which is fueled by disingenuous media
→ which is used to support a highly profitable military complex
→ which is manipulated to be in service of corrupt political agendas
→ which are in service of corporate/banking interests that subvert the democratic process
→ which are exempt from any judiciary consequences for crimes that others are imprisoned over
→ Democracy is supplanted by an Authoritarian Technocracy
As far as I’m concerned, the above outline is not a “threat”, per se, but rather is the present situation we are actually faced with now. Many Americans have been conditioned to actually hate their own country, while many others are simply disillusioned with the current status quo. Admittedly, much of our system’s integrity has been thoroughly compromised, which has not gone unnoticed by foreign powers and it may have ranging consequences depending on some crucial decisions we have to make. For anyone who might still fail to appreciate the gravity of the situation and remains unconvinced that our culture and government have become mutual contaminants, just look at what other countries think of us:
AT THE PRECIPISE OF DOMESTIC & INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT, HOW DO WE RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM? IS THERE STILL HOPE FOR DEMOCRACY?
Sure, there’s always hope. It all depends on how honest people are willing to get, how involved people are willing to be and whether or not they’re ready to take on responsibility, no matter how great the cost. In that context, there are a number of solutions.
(Possibility #1: Optimal)
→Once said corruption is recognized, this undermining of democracy causes a loss of confidence in the system
→ Complacency is replaced with activism (i.e. asking questions, investigating the facts, spreading the truth despite negative reactions, active resistance against oppression)
→ Awareness increases, creating the necessary number of participants in the movement
→ Entitlement is replaced with preparedness to make personal sacrifices
→ Citizens unite out of necessity for revolution
→ Being armed citizens makes defense of their cause sustainable and formidable
→ System ceases to function without the consent and contribution of its majority
→ Democracy is restored to its intended balance which fosters peace and relative unity
Unfortunately, the current trajectory leads me to believe we’re more on track with the following:
(Possibility#2: Poor)
→ The corruption is detected by some people (A), but not by others (B)
→ Group A loses confidence in the system, but group B on the other hand remains loyal to the lie
→ Group B becomes incensed with group A’s obstinance (hindering “progress”)
→ Divergent views of Truth leads to divergent morals
→ Conflicting moral values leads to increasing tension
→ Group B’s moral degeneracy leads to dissent/rebellion against institutions (i.e. destructive outbursts, civil unrest and disobedience, disregard for established laws, etc.)
→ As in the previous scenario, Group A makes efforts of activism (asking questions, investigating the facts, spreading the truth despite negative reactions, active resistance against oppression, etc.), however, if they are unable to gather the necessary number of participants from Group B for the movement to be sustained, then…
→ Group A’s failure to draw enough “converts” to their side leaves them at the mercy of the electoral, legislative and judicial branches to rectify the situation, otherwise…
→ Both Groups are faced with the (hopefully avoidable) possibility of civil war to restore balance, or they may resign their fate and accept that…
→ Democracy will be replaced with anarchy and persecution
(Possibility #3: Worst case)
→ Said corruption is not detected by anyone in the following generation
→ All are fully indoctrinated and controlled by the system
→ All firearms are confiscated to permanently secure control
→ All nations of the world converge into a single entity under a unified, tyrannical regime
→Tyranny prompts greed, and greed creates imbalance of supplies and goods
→ Infighting begins as food and other resources become scarce
→ The resulting power struggle due to shortages pushes us toward bio-chemical warfare and a potential nuclear holocaust
→ Cannibals roam the streets in a post-fallout world on the brink of extinction
→ The Antichrist emerges from the fire and ashes
→ Everyone dies
→ The world burns with the heat of a thousand suns
Now, I’m not a fan of the third option, personally. Fortunately, I wouldn’t call myself a seer of the future. And while I do fancy neatly arranged outlines like this, the reality of it isn’t so cut and dry, of course; the actual flow of events will differ, perhaps by some combination of the above options, or none at all.
But regardless, the justice system needs some major adjustments—not to mention congress or the senate—if not a complete restructuring that accounts for the voracity of powerful lobbyists and other “persuasive” entities.
Too often, conflicts of interest are permitted (i.e the FDA-Pharma revolving door). [3]
Too often, the more affluent class is granted leniency from crimes while the less-valued persons are met with the most strict level of discipline. [4]
Too often, we see strong indicators that this is no longer a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, based on how Americans are spied on… [5] lied to and manipulated [6] and robbed of their livelihoods. [7]
Too much of the system is occupied by crooks in service of even bigger crooks all to their mutual benefit and the citizens inevitable detriment, because somewhere along the way, what was potentially good was infiltrated by some unseen conspirators. Now, it’s ultimately run (mostly) by criminals with legal immunity whose innocence is proven solely by how many dollars exchange hands with the right people to keep the machine running smoothly while the sheep enjoy the circus show they’ve arranged to keep us preoccupied. This must stop. This must change.
But we need the Truth back.
We must rescue truth from the pits of relativism, nihilism, collectivism, globalism; every –ism which denies unique individuals from accessing their latent potential.
The truth is the cornerstone to having a moral center.
It is the foundation of all meaning in life.
It is the difference between knowledge and ignorance.
It is the sacred element which distinguishes human consciousness from the minds of animals.
As the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates once said, “…the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others”, because, “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.”
So, are we searching for the truth or not?
How important is the truth to you?
If it’s inessential, how do you know what you think you know?
Are we really free? And what is freedom, for that matter?
These are questions we must ask.
Blackletter 