Phyllis Beveridge Nissila
Today’s discussion is aimed at helping the mind ward against so-called “post truth” aka “post-reality,” politics. Post-truth politics is “a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts: feelings and emotions are more important than truth and facts.” (source)
Post-truth politics is a relatively recent term for, well, the same old emotion vs facts-based “arguments” that are often and very easily riddled with fallacies and rife with obfuscations, rhetorical run-arounds, spins, and flat-out lies that have been attributed to politics and politicians from the get-go. But as a quotable concept, it was coined ten years ago.* Post-truth politics infect every party, era, and nation.
What with 24/7 news, real and manipulated; social media where emotions easily run amok in the fast-paced, often personality-driven and peer-pressuring atmosphere of memes and tweets; and seven-second “arguments,” my encouragement today is to not forsake common sense and self-evident truth. This two-pronged antidote to mental confusion and frustration, not to mention cognitive dissonance, will help keep you calm, rational, and able to escape the mental manipulators and psy-ops meisters who wield fear, and other distracting emotions, to offset facts.
By boosting your mental immunity, you will then be able to better access higher-level critical thinking–and calm your nerves.
There are others, however, who would say that conceps such as self-evident truth and common sense are now old-fashioned; we’ve evolved beyond such black and white thinking.
They maintain that truth is relative, changeable, tribe-specific–there’s a truth for you and one for me and the twain shall not necessarily have to meet. Enter, then, the danger of might equalling right.
For example, and to the subject of political reality in the United States and my re-post below, people may think very differently about such things as our Judeo-Christian foundation, as put in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Of course, relatively few people think we have “evolved” away from our core beliefs, but, unfortunately, those very few seem to have been (and to be) in many seats of power in government and in education, particularly in the past thirty or so years.
They have a different view of how America should operate–their hue and cry is that we should fundamentally transform to a socialist state.
Big-government, totalitarian-styled socialism comes up more and more in coversations in Congress, classrooms, and around kitchen tables, especially among the young who have perhaps not learned the bloody history of virtually every iteration of such socialism that has been tried (and failed). And they seem to get angrier and angrier as time goes on when their plans don’t quite work out the way they want.
The trouble is, our core beliefs about God-given (not man-allotted) freedom can get in the way of the pro-socialists (including the so-called Democrat Socialists) who would grant us, ultimately, only the freedoms they deem we ought to have. But with such core truths hard-wired into the traditional culture of the U.S., it is difficult for them to push the notion that what Americans have believed since 1776 is a lie.
Thus, it has been necessary for them, line upon line, institution upon institution, community organization effort upon community organization effort, to ever-so-gradually change the thinking about our founding documents, principles, truths, beliefs, and realities–the very basis of our representative republic form of democracy.
Not to mention the hit common sense has taken as a consequence.
In light of all this, I was inspired to re-post a discusion on another relatively new term, “reflexive law,” part of the new-think that has been seeping into the national conversation by those who want to fundamentally transform us. The discussion explains how this can happen, i.e., how truth can slowly devolve into a lie, in this case the lie that the Constitution, aka, the Supreme Law of the Land, is now to mean the Ever-Changing-as-Desired Law of the Land, aka, a “living document,” versus what it is: established law, ammended as needed.
What? How’d that happen?
If you trace the origins of this lie, it isn’t hard at all to see how it has happened–by clever wordsmiths, Constitution-deniers and haters, and socialists. My re-post traces this long, gradual effort to where we are now.
I was inspired to offer this mental immunity booster after reading “Common Sense and Self-Evident Truth in a Post-Truth World,” by Robert Curry, in yesterday’s American Thinker, which is a treatment of a similar theme.
I was also inspired by very recent events concerning certain facts and realities now surfacing about the alleged coup against the present administration. Conspiracies are not always theories. Sometimes they are factual.
Truth may be obfuscated for a (frustrating) while, it might be hidden, but it always comes out.
So see what you think.
And carry on.
“Reflexive Law”: On How to Trash the U. S. Constitution and Get Away With It—for Now
First posted 9/16/16
Ever wonder how come certain members of the government seem to be getting away with overstepping their powers as defined in the United States Constitution, aka, the Supreme Law of the Land? [1]
Come to think of it, how about other legal side-stepping that seems rampant in the Beltway? [2]
I mean, aren’t there LAWS against that sort of, well, lawlessness?
And what about this notion that slips into conversations on radio and television talk shows, “news” programs, and in university classrooms, about the Constitution being some kind of “living document,” adaptable and changeable?
I mean without due process?
I mean, wasn’t it signed, sealed, and delivered to the citizens of the United States a couple of centuries ago?
WE’RE NOT IN KANSAS (or Alabama, or Texas, or Michigan, or…) ANYMORE…
While those who have been observing the judicial mayhem referenced in the introduction are still shaking our heads and, with dropped jaws, watching Constitutional mandates trashed over and over again by those who should know better, ivy-league educations and all, I ask you to consider one possible reason for this outrage: the very definition of “law” has been changing—and “new” precedents based on it, piling up.
And precedence is everything when it comes to formulating a new system of governance.
What the law means today may no longer be what most people think it means, in other words, it depends on what the definition of “law” is.
We all assume it is, well, law: a norm/value/standard/code of conduct that has been decided upon and settled, once and for all (with strict guidelines for amending, as needed).
In our Western culture, the legal milieu is based on a Judeo-Christian world view with the belief that our rights and freedoms are given us by our Creator, as in God, not “the created,” as in men/women/random governments–other cultures run on the whims and notions of whomever can seize power and change the law at will.
At least until the next coup.
But it’s not safe to assume that even in America we are, well, safe, anymore, our Constitution, writ in blood, sweat, and tears, notwithstanding, because there are those who don’t agree so much with all those freedoms—for us, that is.
And some of them would like to change it to serve a different world view.
So, how? Hmmmmm…
Consider a possible approach, below, and see if it sounds at all familiar, an approach that starts with a few changes–perhaps most significantly, the law, i.e., how it is now to be (re)defined.
But first, some prep.
HOW TO TRASH THE CONSTITUTION, STEP # 1: continue reading…
~~~~~
*”The term ‘post-truth politics’ was coined by the blogger David Roberts in a blog post for Grist on 1 April 2010. Roberts defined it as ‘a political culture in which politics (public opinion and media narratives) have become almost entirely disconnected from policy (the substance of legislation)’.[19][20] Post truth was used by philosopher Joseph Heath to describe the 2014 Ontario election.[citation needed] The term became widespread during the campaigns for the 2016 presidential election in the United States and for the 2016 ‘Brexit” referendum on membership in the European Union in the United Kingdom.[10][11] Oxford Dictionaries declared that its international word of the year in 2016 was ‘post-truth’, citing a 2,000% increase in usage compared to 2015″[9].
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
pnissila 
How to Boost Your Immunities, 2020 Edition, Part 10–Hold Fast to Common Sense and Self-Evident Truth vs “Reflexive Law”
Phyllis Beveridge Nissila
Access all articles in this series here
Today’s discussion is aimed at helping the mind ward against so-called “post truth” aka “post-reality,” politics. Post-truth politics is “a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts: feelings and emotions are more important than truth and facts.” (source)
Post-truth politics is a relatively recent term for, well, the same old emotion vs facts-based “arguments” that are often and very easily riddled with fallacies and rife with obfuscations, rhetorical run-arounds, spins, and flat-out lies that have been attributed to politics and politicians from the get-go. But as a quotable concept, it was coined ten years ago.* Post-truth politics infect every party, era, and nation.
What with 24/7 news, real and manipulated; social media where emotions easily run amok in the fast-paced, often personality-driven and peer-pressuring atmosphere of memes and tweets; and seven-second “arguments,” my encouragement today is to not forsake common sense and self-evident truth. This two-pronged antidote to mental confusion and frustration, not to mention cognitive dissonance, will help keep you calm, rational, and able to escape the mental manipulators and psy-ops meisters who wield fear, and other distracting emotions, to offset facts.
By boosting your mental immunity, you will then be able to better access higher-level critical thinking–and calm your nerves.
There are others, however, who would say that conceps such as self-evident truth and common sense are now old-fashioned; we’ve evolved beyond such black and white thinking.
They maintain that truth is relative, changeable, tribe-specific–there’s a truth for you and one for me and the twain shall not necessarily have to meet. Enter, then, the danger of might equalling right.
For example, and to the subject of political reality in the United States and my re-post below, people may think very differently about such things as our Judeo-Christian foundation, as put in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
Of course, relatively few people think we have “evolved” away from our core beliefs, but, unfortunately, those very few seem to have been (and to be) in many seats of power in government and in education, particularly in the past thirty or so years.
They have a different view of how America should operate–their hue and cry is that we should fundamentally transform to a socialist state.
Big-government, totalitarian-styled socialism comes up more and more in coversations in Congress, classrooms, and around kitchen tables, especially among the young who have perhaps not learned the bloody history of virtually every iteration of such socialism that has been tried (and failed). And they seem to get angrier and angrier as time goes on when their plans don’t quite work out the way they want.
The trouble is, our core beliefs about God-given (not man-allotted) freedom can get in the way of the pro-socialists (including the so-called Democrat Socialists) who would grant us, ultimately, only the freedoms they deem we ought to have. But with such core truths hard-wired into the traditional culture of the U.S., it is difficult for them to push the notion that what Americans have believed since 1776 is a lie.
Thus, it has been necessary for them, line upon line, institution upon institution, community organization effort upon community organization effort, to ever-so-gradually change the thinking about our founding documents, principles, truths, beliefs, and realities–the very basis of our representative republic form of democracy.
Not to mention the hit common sense has taken as a consequence.
In light of all this, I was inspired to re-post a discusion on another relatively new term, “reflexive law,” part of the new-think that has been seeping into the national conversation by those who want to fundamentally transform us. The discussion explains how this can happen, i.e., how truth can slowly devolve into a lie, in this case the lie that the Constitution, aka, the Supreme Law of the Land, is now to mean the Ever-Changing-as-Desired Law of the Land, aka, a “living document,” versus what it is: established law, ammended as needed.
What? How’d that happen?
If you trace the origins of this lie, it isn’t hard at all to see how it has happened–by clever wordsmiths, Constitution-deniers and haters, and socialists. My re-post traces this long, gradual effort to where we are now.
I was inspired to offer this mental immunity booster after reading “Common Sense and Self-Evident Truth in a Post-Truth World,” by Robert Curry, in yesterday’s American Thinker, which is a treatment of a similar theme.
I was also inspired by very recent events concerning certain facts and realities now surfacing about the alleged coup against the present administration. Conspiracies are not always theories. Sometimes they are factual.
Truth may be obfuscated for a (frustrating) while, it might be hidden, but it always comes out.
So see what you think.
And carry on.
“Reflexive Law”: On How to Trash the U. S. Constitution and Get Away With It—for Now
First posted 9/16/16
Ever wonder how come certain members of the government seem to be getting away with overstepping their powers as defined in the United States Constitution, aka, the Supreme Law of the Land? [1]
Come to think of it, how about other legal side-stepping that seems rampant in the Beltway? [2]
I mean, aren’t there LAWS against that sort of, well, lawlessness?
And what about this notion that slips into conversations on radio and television talk shows, “news” programs, and in university classrooms, about the Constitution being some kind of “living document,” adaptable and changeable?
I mean without due process?
I mean, wasn’t it signed, sealed, and delivered to the citizens of the United States a couple of centuries ago?
WE’RE NOT IN KANSAS (or Alabama, or Texas, or Michigan, or…) ANYMORE…
While those who have been observing the judicial mayhem referenced in the introduction are still shaking our heads and, with dropped jaws, watching Constitutional mandates trashed over and over again by those who should know better, ivy-league educations and all, I ask you to consider one possible reason for this outrage: the very definition of “law” has been changing—and “new” precedents based on it, piling up.
And precedence is everything when it comes to formulating a new system of governance.
What the law means today may no longer be what most people think it means, in other words, it depends on what the definition of “law” is.
We all assume it is, well, law: a norm/value/standard/code of conduct that has been decided upon and settled, once and for all (with strict guidelines for amending, as needed).
In our Western culture, the legal milieu is based on a Judeo-Christian world view with the belief that our rights and freedoms are given us by our Creator, as in God, not “the created,” as in men/women/random governments–other cultures run on the whims and notions of whomever can seize power and change the law at will.
At least until the next coup.
But it’s not safe to assume that even in America we are, well, safe, anymore, our Constitution, writ in blood, sweat, and tears, notwithstanding, because there are those who don’t agree so much with all those freedoms—for us, that is.
And some of them would like to change it to serve a different world view.
So, how? Hmmmmm…
Consider a possible approach, below, and see if it sounds at all familiar, an approach that starts with a few changes–perhaps most significantly, the law, i.e., how it is now to be (re)defined.
But first, some prep.
HOW TO TRASH THE CONSTITUTION, STEP # 1: continue reading…
~~~~~
*”The term ‘post-truth politics’ was coined by the blogger David Roberts in a blog post for Grist on 1 April 2010. Roberts defined it as ‘a political culture in which politics (public opinion and media narratives) have become almost entirely disconnected from policy (the substance of legislation)’.[19][20] Post truth was used by philosopher Joseph Heath to describe the 2014 Ontario election.[citation needed] The term became widespread during the campaigns for the 2016 presidential election in the United States and for the 2016 ‘Brexit” referendum on membership in the European Union in the United Kingdom.[10][11] Oxford Dictionaries declared that its international word of the year in 2016 was ‘post-truth’, citing a 2,000% increase in usage compared to 2015″[9].
Share this:
Like this:
Related