Redefining Truth: If You Can’t Persuade Them, Force Them!

The truth does not show up conveniently when summoned: most often, it must be pursued.  It takes thought and research and more thought and conversation to approach an understanding of the truth; and even then, truth can be elusive.

Truth is even more difficult to nail down when there are loud voices in the world in control of the microphone deliberately pedaling falsehoods, lies that go largely unchallenged by the masses and media.  All this can be complicated by half-truths, little white lies, and the always troublesome and unavoidable ambiguities plaguing human existence.

For example one might say “Americans are likeable.”  For him, that is truth.  However, his truth rests on his experience.  He likes the Americans he has met; and therefore, he concludes Americans are likeable.  If that same man could meet all Americans and track those he likes and those he dislikes, if the dislikes outnumber the likes, he would have to change his definition of truth and conclude that Americans are actually unlikeable.  However, this would not be a capital “T” truth, would it?  It would still be his truth, a subjective conclusion based only on his preferences and experiences.  Go to the next man and demand he conduct the same study, and he might conclude Americans are likeable. Or he might conclude Americans are little different from others, a mix of likeable and unlikeable. It’s still one man’s subjective opinion, but likely one registering a bit closer to the truth than conclusions drawn by the former individual.

The point is we are fallible.  We are driven by emotion and preferences, biases, experience, and subjectivity.  In the human realm, there is no such thing as hardcore objective analysis.  Even our science is corrupt.  Yes, we can travel in space and rebuild a human heart.  We can ‘do’ all manner of ‘things,’ but have we achieved any more understanding of the nature of love down through the centuries?

One of the most glaring examples of human fallibility in the present day involves the argument over global warming, now called “climate change.”

Most of those controlling the microphone insist that man-made global warming is an established truth, and that the debate is over.  Never mind that 31,000 scientists signed a contradictory statement not long ago.  Ignore the fact that global warming alarmists fudged the data and conspired to perpetrate a hoax.  Those in possession of truth need not resort to fraud. Those who deceive—arguing with manufactured ‘facts’—- have no case.

Believe only those with the microphone?  Accept an unproven ‘truth?’  Submit to the will of those with an agenda?  Let’s agree it would be gullible and ill-advised to surrender in that manner, complying with the purpose of all this rancor and artificial crisis: the creation of a global system for the transfer of cash from developed nations to the third world.

Forcing man-made global warming as settled science is pushing an unproven theory to drive the uninformed to advance a so-called altruistic goal promoted to conceal the real agenda—international theft orchestrated by a global governing body!  (There are those who rightly fear global government with the taxing authority to take all you have for no other reason than it can.)

So often, fallible, emotional beings possessing above average intelligence appear incapable of determining truth.  According to some, the best and the brightest, after years of work, gave us ObamaCare (and look how that is working out.)  Our efforts are feeble at best, prompting someone like Pontius Pilate to ask the most pertinent and perennial question: “What is truth?”

For many decades, a certain message has been preached.  It claims to be the truth, allowing an assumption of the moral high ground.  This message suggests Americans should feel guilty for being successful.  It is a message Barack Obama has exploited in order to realize wild success, both financial and political.  Ironic, isn’t it: the chief critic of American success profited enormously from the successful system he condemns?

The message asserts the following:  Americans are greedy, racist, selfish, prideful, dominated by ‘crass consumerism’ and addicted to ‘conspicuous consumption.’  American exceptionalism is a myth, an excuse for nationalism, a myth accommodating imperialism, global exploitation, and self-indulgence.   Corporate greed is our original sin: a lust for personal pleasure and material wealth. Americans are awash in an orgy of hedonism financed by the essential unfairness and exploitive nature of capitalism.

This is the problem, it is said, day in and day out, on most of the major networks, on the pages of most of the major publications, and through hundreds of thousands of websites worldwide.  The capitalists are pigs, and America is the largest sty.

Industrialization in the developed world creating all this wealth is polluting and warming the planet; and so, people in the developed world must minimize their carbon contributions and essentially pay reparations to the third world (or so the argument goes.)  Otherwise, humanity faces extinction.

The Left gets two-for-one with these arguments: it condemns capitalism on the one hand, while posturing to care more about humanity and the planet than anyone else.

What is the truth? No matter who is making an argument, we must always ask: what is the truth?

Obviously, the debate over man-made global warming is not over.  The massive divisions within the scientific community demonstrate there is no final conclusion; and therefore, no one really knows if the earth is warming, or if human activity is the chief contributor.  That is the fairest thing one can say.  However, we do know that climate science is very young and incomplete. And we do know the earth has not warmed in the last 15 years, so the claim industrialization is pushing us to extinction is rather thin.

Opposing armies of scientists have not settled this question, but it remains troubling to find lead scientists in Great Britain and America conspiring not long ago to present doctored research, emailing those findings worldwide, and claiming an end to the debate.  It is also very troubling hearing from people like Dr. Lawrence Torcello at the Rochester Institute of Technology.  He wants government to jail people who deny man-made global warming is a serious problem, another instance of the thought police not only controlling the microphone, but working to criminalize any dissent.

It is one way to make sure the debate is over: simply imprison the opposition, very Stalin-like. So much for academic freedom.  When you consider the big money being made by global warming fanatics, and the persecution executed against ‘deniers,’ the goose-stepping march to conformity is brought into stark focus.

Thus, we see the proponents of man-made global warming theory resorting to fraud, threats, power plays, and propaganda to make the case their science is superior, which is not reliance on science at all of course.

Truth and credibility tend to go hand in hand; and so far, the people insisting total conformity to their global warming agenda possess neither.

Next time: a little more on why Americans should never apologize for success.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >

Comments

  1. MuslimLuvChrist says:

    Global warming is such a farce, they now have to call it “climate change”

Speak Your Mind

*