Give Reality a Chance

The language of political correctness is a suffocating foetor which blots out rational thought and reasonable discussion, and reduces men to exclusively political creatures, helpless as individuals and only feeling a false sense of power when united with others who are equally helpless and ignorant. Politics is an area where there is not only strength in numbers, but reality in numbers – the only reality that exists for those who are committed to the collective as the basic unit of human existence.

But there is something worse than PC language -- or, at least, something more tiresome and inane -- and that's “cop language” -- that robotic, multisyllabic (by people who may have, at best, sixth-grade verbal skills), mealy-mouthing hodgepodge bereft of all meaning and designed (by politicians, government lawyers, and “agents of social change”) to protect the Regime's foot soldiers against any and all accusations of prejudice, bias, stereotyping, etc. In other words, to make sure that whatever the police say doesn't serve to ruin the chances of a successful prosecution and conviction. So these hapless cops are reduced to using words they were not brought up using, and are only vaguely aware of their meaning, in order to convey “information” which has absolutely no information value to the media, the public, etc. and which basically requires a translator to figure out what they're talking about. (Is it any wonder more and more of them have decided the hell with it, just shoot first and avoid all the humiliating convoluted verbiage? Take desk duty for a week or two; it's worth it.) (And you think they talk that way to each other down at the station house, when there are no news cameras around? Forget about it.)

But there is something even worse, and that's the language the media are, apparently, required to use whenever discussing a criminal case. Regardless of the strength of the evidence – often overwhelming – the “perp” is always “the accused” and their actions are always “alleged” right up to the point of conviction, if not beyond. Now... this may be technically correct if you're a law school graduate, but hey, we're talking about the media here, OK? I remember when the radio guys in Buffalo used to describe burglars as “yeggs” (when's the last time you heard that word?), and that was way before anything like a trial. But hey, all of the listeners knew what “yeggs” were – it has a lot more cachet than “the accused”, to which the average citizen would have responded, “Whattaya mean 'accused'? He did it, ya dopes!”

Add to which, the right to “a prompt and speedy trial” has been totally overtaken by politics, legalistic red tape, and “sensitivity” -- so that, in the aftermath of a crime, victims suffer or recover, evidence is endlessly discovered, debated, and quashed, people die, babies are born, and yet the “accused” remains “the accused”, for months or even years, like a character out of Kafka. There may be some legal systems in the world – past or present – where this is considered normal, but ought it to be considered normal for us? Hard to imagine. I'll bet that a great sigh of relief comes from the law enforcement and judicial community every time a “perp” either takes their own life or has it taken by the police – “At least that's one long, drawn-out ordeal we don't have to go through.” (And did you ever notice that when the accused-to-be winds up dead, they are no longer the accused? Then they are referred to as the one who committed the crime. That is, they are tried and found guilty by the mere fact of no longer being available for trial. Interesting, huh?)

Case in point. One year ago a strange little rat-like creature walked into his senior high school in a Pittsburgh suburb with a handful of kitchen knives and proceeded to stab everyone within reach until he was finally subdued. The victims, 21 in number, all survived, and they are, of course, in various stages of recovery, physical and psychological. (And by the way, where were all the football jocks while this was going on? Where were all the guys who spend every Saturday morning at Master Kim's Tae Kwon Do? It's hard to believe someone can stab 21 people in a row, over quite a few minutes, without someone stepping up and taking him out before the number gets that high.)

But at any rate, we have 21 eyewitnesses, namely the victims, and probably scores more. And yet the media still have to bend over backwards and tie themselves in knots, describing this guy as a “suspect” and his act as “alleged (by the authorities)”. All of the events are preceded by the words “authorities say”. (I imagine the victims “say” the same thing – or would if asked.) Either that or they make it sound as if the knives, acting alone, caused the wounds. The knives are assumed guilty, even if the person who used them is not.  (Kind of reminds me of "gun control", now that you mention it.)

OK – so a guy is “suspected” of doing something dozens of people saw him do (and they all agree – there are no dissenters), and his acts, from which 21 people are still recovering, are “alleged”. Which means – what? They might not have happened? In which case, was everyone stabbed by someone else (or by each other, or themselves), and they just imagined that it was this one guy who did it all? Or maybe they only imagined they'd been stabbed; better check with the local hospitals to see whether there were any actual, visible wounds or just a bunch of babbling hysterics claiming they had them.

I don't want to seem cynical or crabby about all this, and I certainly don't take the event lightly (any more than I take so many other events that have become typical of government, i.e. “public” schools). It's just that we've drifted so far from any objective concept of reality that we have difficulty describing real, traumatic events when they actually happen – as if everything has now been relegated to a fantasy world, a parallel universe of elaborate animation and skilled voice-overs, from which it has to be reclaimed if we're ever to get our thinking straight. It actually reminds me of the film “Inception”, where there are so many layers of “reality” that one loses track of which is the real, or basic, or original one. As one layer of programmed fantasy is piled on another, each layer becomes the “reality” for the next layer, and so on. It gets to the point where even the characters lose track.

But does this really reflect the everyday experience of most people? I mean, don't we basically all get up, have breakfast, go to work, drive, shop, etc.? Isn't that our baseline? Well... I would be willing to claim that there are people out there whose real baseline (as far as they are subjectively concerned) is television – or computers – or the Internet – or video games. They may have physical existence in the same world as the rest of us, but their consciousness dwells elsewhere (or nowhere, as the case may be). The perceptual/psychological world where you live is your reality, in other words; what other people think is of very little relevance unless they somehow attempt to penetrate your world (or you mistakenly stumble into theirs). (And you'll notice how the friendships and bonds formed within these fantasy worlds often turn out to be stronger and more enduring than the relatively dull, ho-hum relationships people have in the “real” world.) (There was a meme some years back in which a guy would come home from work and his wife would spend an hour telling him what happened on all the “soaps” that day. Nothing about her actual here-and-now existence – maybe because there was nothing to tell, which is sad.)

So I suppose in some worlds – in some parallel universes – those 21 people didn't get stabbed, after all. And the “alleged” perpetrator simply showed up for school and attended classes as usual. Maybe that's what the media are trying to do – reduce the pain by, somehow, reducing the reality value of events. If something only “sort of” happened, or if there's an equal chance that it didn't happen... well, maybe that doesn't make it OK, but it makes it less bad. How are we supposed to judge events that almost didn't happen, and the people who almost didn't make them happen? Judgment is based on reality, on facts – or so we've always been led to believe. But if even core reality is just a point of view – just subjective, and prone to all sorts of bias and prejudices... if the best we can hope for in the way of reality is some sort of agreed-upon, politically-based momentary “position” which can be altered with no effort... something with no more lasting significance than a “sound bite” or a “screen capture”... why, then, we have the perfect makings of a slave-state populated by mindless serfs. Who, of course, attend public school and read, or view, the mainstream media.

Maybe that's what it's ultimately all about. Wean us away from this “reality thing” so that we become purely social, political creatures like bees or ants. If that's the agenda, then I'd say it's already well under way.

The Life of Brian

People who are surprised, dismayed, depressed, outraged, etc. about the Brian Williams kerfuffle have either forgotten, or they don't want to admit, that “journalists”, especially at the highest, rarefied levels, are a bunch of fantasists. Not only do they “spin” the news to conform to their agendas, but when that's insufficient they make things up out of whole cloth. And this extends beyond the news per se, to their persona and reputation, as shown by the Williams incident. And it's not even that they're consciously making things up, although that happens as well. On some profound level, they have a radically different concept of “the truth” from the rest of us. For them, truth is not an absolute – not a characteristic of reality -- but a political construct, and it can be infinitely manipulated in order to meet political ends. Another way of putting this is that the truth is whatever they make of it – whatever they declare it to be. And the higher you climb up the media totem pole the more intoxicating power you have to define what is true for millions of your fellow (if inferior) humans. If you can define what is true, you have defined reality, and thus the entire basis for action (or the lack thereof). And the “media”, after all, stand, by definition, between events and the reader/hearer/viewer. If we were all omniscient, we wouldn't need them – but this is not to say that they are omniscient, only that they would like us to believe that they are. They would like us to believe that the only facts that exist in the world are the ones they choose to present – and that nothing else is worth bothering about... that nothing else really exists.

Now, this is is not to say that there is never any factual basis for “news” stories; there may be some facts – some real events – hiding in there somewhere... some tiny kernel of “ground truth”. But that is only the beginning – a mere seed, which can only be brought to full fruition by assiduous spin, interpretation, analysis, coloring, shading, and filling in the missing pieces. Did you ever notice that, as messy as life can be, the “news” is never messy? It's clean, clear, and immediately understandable, with no pesky ambiguities or loose ends. There is a reason for this. Messy facts are thrown into the journalistic mill, and everything that might cause doubts or skepticism is excised... and the parts that are guaranteed to stampede the public into another orgy of dependence and begging directed at the Regime are magnified.

Try this experiment. (I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating.) Take any issue of any daily newspaper, put it away for a year, then take it out and read it again. Notice how many of the stories turned out to be distorted, half-baked, or wildly inaccurate? How many were simply the product of hysteria? How many were just plain false – and intentionally so? Now think about today's paper (or this week's news magazine, or tonight's TV news). The same thing will be discovered a year from now, and so on. So what are we being fed on a daily basis, and by whom, and to what end?

Journalists pride themselves on being “agents of change” -- like public school teachers, librarians, and social workers. They are meek, humble public servants just trying to do their job on behalf of “the people”, and to help foster “an informed public”. Right? No. They are part of the vast propaganda apparatus that the Regime uses to keep us both fearful and reassured at the same time – aroused and soothed... outraged and comforted. And let's admit, it's a delicate balancing act, and guys like Brian Williams got where they are because they are good at it. Every tone of voice, every facial expression, is designed to lift us up on some emotion or other, and then to set us down – gently, but not so gently that we forget to retain some degree of anxiety. This has to do with both content and mode of presentation – the message and the medium, if you will. The story has to be compelling, and you have to have good hair.

The bottom line is to make people so dependent on government that they will react with outrage and hostility if anyone dares to suggest that it might be otherwise. And part of this strategy is to build a dream world – a world of heroes (presidents) and villains (“terrorists”)... of looming threats (measles!) and miracles by which to escape them (vaccines!)... of nasty, ill-smelling, babbling foreigners (Islamists!) and all-American heroes (the military, police, etc.)... of blighted ignorance (pretty much any foreign country except the English-speaking ones and Israel, plus Islam and Catholicism) and wise men (and women) who are dedicated to its eradication (Congress, professors, scientists and, of course, journalists).

But, but – you might say – what about journalism school, the training ground for all these people? Don't they teach ethics and objectivity? And how about logic... questioning... skepticism? Isn't their highest goal to turn out skilled seekers after truth? Well, I don't know. Maybe some do, or at least try to. All I know is when their graduates spread out across the land, and the world, like a plague of locusts, they all seem to have an agenda, and it has less to do with the truth than with arranging things into a preconceived set of ideas – a “vision”, if you will, not of the world as it is but as it ought to be (which is, for some reason, completely secular and almost invariably more collectivized and more totalitarian, with crushing pressures to conform – for the ordinary citizen, that is, as opposed to the ruling elite). Start with a vision of the world, then do everything in your power to make it happen – not a bad idea if you're, say, in a science or engineering field... or even the social sciences... or even theology. But journalists, AKA “reporters”, need to be satisfied with the facts, and if they indulge in analysis this needs to be made crystal clear at the outset. And yet isn't it easier – and more effective – to editorialize non-stop, and make every news report a kind of call to arms against enemies, real or imagined – or if not a call to arms, then its opposite – a call to relax, not worry, shut up, and stop thinking? And don't they delight in pitting various segments of the public against each other, then writing it up as such a terrible, regrettable development? It's all about social control – about the great carrot and the great stick.

“If the salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted?” If journalists have ceased to seek after the truth and to pass it on, then who can we rely on? Only ourselves? But what is the scope of any one person's perceptions and daily experience? The failure of journalism leaves us in ignorance and darkness regarding the events of our time – events which can have a life-and-death impact. We can retreat into the immediate – into what's right in front of our noses – and drown our epistemological sorrows in “games and circuses”, or we can seek out one of the few remaining truth tellers (you will know them by the fact that they have been banished from all the establishment media). It's depressing... but it's preferable to being brainwashed (even though those who are seem happier than we).