Wokal Distance cut another thread. It starts here.
I'll carry on from there with mild editing.
Each side has a story they want you to believe. So they take the available information, slice it up and edit it into clips, soundbites, and images; then they cherry pick the bits they like and reassemble them in a way that tells the story they want you to hear. Editing allows them to add or remove information, change the context, and decide which facts they want to FOCUS on (IE: using closeups to show one thing while leaving other things out of the frame). This is how the same facts can be used to tell two VERY different stories.
Here are two tweets about Trump preparing to go to the hospital. The first account says Trump might not even be able to walk to the helicopter. The second says Trump is completely fine, and this is just Trump the master showman. Continuing on with our two narratives, here we have two blue checks attacking the credibility of Trumps doctor because he's a DO (osteopathic doctor) and not an MD (allopathic doctor), followed by two doctors claiming DOs (osteopathic doctors) are actually great doctors.
And of course the supporters follow right along in spreading these two utterly different takes on reality. A man on the left claiming Trump is "gasping". A Trump supporter on the right is shocked at how Spry Trump looks and thinks he could do cartwheels. If you want to know how bad it got, there was actually a moment when people were getting their information off of tik tok from Claudia Conway the 15 year old daughter of Trump 2016 campaign manager Kellyanne Conway.
That's what happens when doctors, who should respect the privacy of patients and not do armchair diagnoses, put out absurd hot-takes which get 100K retweets. They light the credibility of the medical establishment on fire in exchange for the warm glow of retweets and likes. So why is this happening? Why are we seeing one set of information give rise to 2 entirely different narratives, narratives which tell utterly different stories? The answer is that this is postmodernism.
Modernist thinking said there objective truth exists, that there are statements which are true regardless of what anyone thinks. Modernism also believes in science, individual rights, democracy, and due process of law. You see, science, democracy, and due process of law all depend on the idea that there is an objective truth that is out there which we can know to be true, and that we can create processes, like science, like the legals system, which can help us get to the truth. But this is Post-Modernism.
Postmodernism denies that there is objective truth. Postmodernism says that the only thing we are able to fully grasp is our own experience. That's it. Postmodern thinking says that since everyone of us has biases so deep that we can never get around them. That means that we can't ever get to the objective truth about reality. We can only see what we are trained to see through the interpretive lens that we get from our culture. It also believes that there is no lens which is better or more true then any other lens.
Postmodernism says the lens that says Trump is healthy is no better or worse than the lens that says he isn't. The lens that says science is the best way to know truth is no better or more true then the lens that says feelings and emotions are the best way to know truth. Postmodernism also says that who decides what is true is about power. The postmodern philosophers say the person who determines what a society thinks is true is a person who gets to have a tremendous amount of power. That is partially true. However, they go further.
They think that because the person who determines what society thinks is true gets power, that anyone who claims that anything is true, is only doing that as a way to try to access the power that comes with deciding what is true. In other words, they think anyone who claims to know the truth is only making that claim so they can get power for themselves. This means they trust nobody, and consistently accuse other people of hiding their true motives. As such they dismiss any claim they don't like as just another lie meant to control people.
The result is exactly what we see in this thread. Everyone thinks that they can use whatever lens they want to interpret whatever facts they want and come to whatever conclusion they want. Whoever says otherwise is accused of having ulterior motives. They act like truth is a matter of opinion, and the goal is to get "your truth" to be declared the official opinion of society.
This is nonsense. Reality is what you run into when your beliefs are wrong, and it does not care about "your truth" or "official opinions." We need to bring back the idea objective truth and start acting like serious people again. If we don't, if we keep going like this, we are going to run into reality very quickly, and it is NOT going to be fun for us.
The answer, of course, is to bring it back to the immediate and viseral. If they claim that reality is subjective, shoot them. Then argue that they didn't get shot because you don't feel like you shot anyone, and your feelings are as valid as their sucking chest wound. Keep that up; don't let them call for help, because they don't need it because they weren't shot and that's valid because you feel it is and that's as valid as their shitting their pants and crying for Mama as they bleed out is.
Not politic, but I've run out of fucks to give and it destroys the premise in a manner both the subject and the observers cannot ignore and will not forget. Substitute with stabbing, beating, throwing off heights, or any other visceral and immediate confrontation with objective truth--the laws of physics in particular--and don't let them get out of it; smear their faces in that bullshit until they--metaphorically or not--choke on it.
Lather, rinse, repeat every time they get back on that bullshit until they stop doing it, they stop being around you, or they stop being.
Here's the real value of knowing about this, and that means I tap the sign yet again.
You can reliably use Post-Modernism as a sign that you face someone that is, at the least, friendly to the enemy and unfriendly to you. They usually are flat-out enemies and when proven so you are free to dispose of them appropriately.
Why?
Because this philosophical bullshit is all an elaborate way to redefine gaslighting as morally neutral at worst, and justified in the main. Using classic DARVO Rhetoric, they project upon their targets what they explain as standard operating procedure to enact upon designated targets- both individual and collectives. You can see it when you listen to their rally speeches, you can see it when they confront their enemies on campus and on the campaign trail--Dems do this routinely and have for over 30 years, and so do their European counterparts--and you're now seeing it in corporate training seminars and public school classrooms.
The long-term effect is that a country that relies on a heavy technical infrastructure will see it decay and collapse within 20-30 years, as we've seen in South Africa, because those put in charge of it will be incapable of properly managing it and ensuring that it continues to work as intended. Actual improvement? Not on the table. As the Supreme Dark Lord is want to say, such a country will be lucky to retain indoor plumbing.
That is the consequence of tolerating this heresy--and yes, it is heresy; insert "Burn Heretics" here--instead of suppressing it by all means available (not necessary, available) and putting the leaders down for good (be it prison or the grave; I don't care which).
The objective reality here is that unreality is a fundamental aspect of Empire. It cannot attain power without it. It cannot sustain power without it. It cannot flit from host to host like the parasite it is without it. Those in thrall to it, and becoming its Thralls in turn, are akin to the sorcerors who think they can wield power forbidden to Man and not be yoked by them instead despite all the warnings given because they already gave themselves over to unreality in their hearts, and unreality is Rebellion born of Hubris.
Empire is falling because unreality cannot sustain itself when oppossed by reality. Stand in what is real--in what is Real, in Him--and you cannot lose. You can only die.
