When What Cannot Be Still Is

Those that can set public life’s contours astonish us with their innovative fantasy to launch idiocies they market as genial. This confirms the insolent impression that we are badly governed. If that fits, then it is because we elect the wrong people to control our destiny, whereby what we get is what we deserve.

Our condition –made worse than it needs to be- is additionally impaired by endorsed imbecilities that, albeit ruinous, are nevertheless, fashionable. That last trait explains why, what is approved as correct and proper although it does not work, has support. Once an idea, whether in practice it holds water or not, is accepted as an expression of virtue, the claim converts into an energy that, with the help of the suggestible, keeps tottering edifices standing. In practical politics, what counts is not whether it works, but rather what those that can say what the consensus is colport.

This method puts myths ahead of facts, and then, it converts illusions into irrefutable facts. It can mean the suicide for a career to challenge the doctrine that an accord between those that control the MSM, “educated” opinion, and the celebs, proclaims to be true. What the mutually anointed insiders can do is to convert their fantasy into a proven maxim, and that into a “law” that is pretended to be so self-evident that it may not be questioned. With that, we attain a consensus of all those that “count”. Anyone who does not voice agreement, let alone the “fools of falsehood” who challenge an approved article of faith, are blasphemous. They will be stigmatized as apostates that have vacated their place in civilized society.

All societies provide a bullhorn to the practitioners of some professions. Besides politicians, PhDs, actors, recognized artists, those whose views are spread by modern technology, populate the elite. “Opinion makers” is the term that expresses the power and influence of these men of words. The foregoing categories have an adjunct. We find it in big government’s personnel. Attentive readers discover that a component deserving inclusion is missing: it is that of the “practical men”.

A weapon of the men of words is that, they can promote their obedient members to fame. Our shared desire for accolades assures that the limelight shed will seduce some men of deeds. Those that dance to the opinion makers’ tune will be promoted and receive the hot air that lifts the career balloon. Thereby, the clan of the opinion makers is welded to that of the decision makers. The benefits are mutual.

Through the control of who will see what on TV, what is read and taught, elites hold effective instruments of power. They not only determine who is allowed to play in the sandbox of politics, but those in charge of the public-address system can create the impression that “everybody agrees” with this, or “we firmly reject” that. You need to parrot approved views, and for that, the reward will be the label of being a wise and an original thinker. Once unapproved views are expressed, there is censure and pressure to conform; to play a role in public life, to publish, and to be allowed to teach, “going along” is a prerequisite.

The enshrinement of the dogma-of-the-day is an expression of its advocates’ ability to enforce conformity. Those that contradict it or evince only tepid enthusiasm will lose jobs, assignments, reputations, and will be “forgotten”. However, the loudly recited views within the flock are more than reactions to feared negative sanctions. If pressure alone would hold the tribe together then there would be more dissenters.

A further factor that accounts for the clique’s cohesion is a very human one. One of man’s evolutionary advantages is the ability to cooperate. Teamwork hinges on sharing the ways of our crowd. If you crave the approval of your peers, if you wish to be invited back into the talk show, if you want to place essays, then conform to the views of the band, and the membership in a troupe than can make or break you is secured. Since “everybody” in your circle shares the opinion that you, too, accept as paving the way to man-made heaven, it will seem that no reasonable person could take another position than the one professed by you and your ilk. This makes conformity not only voluntary but also into a vehicle to “belong” to the right crowd. Plainly put, at first one nods to get along, in time one sustains enthusiastically because it must be right what “everybody” that matters to you affirms.

The foregoing ads up to a tightly enforced system of values and articles of faith. The mechanism that imposes sanctions on those that drift off “the Party line” is crushing. This apparatus for the implementation of correct behavior works efficiently within countries and internationally. A sign of that is the global campaign against Trump –admittedly aided by some of his tweets- or the curses thrown at Mr. Orbán, and Poland. NGOs, the UN, especially the EU, ritually condemn whatever ignores their postulated rules of “good behavior”.

Achilles had a heel (it is more famous than Achilles is) and the self-contained elites that are now beleaguered have apparently inherited it. They might enforce their rules, they can proclaim fantasies to be truths and, temporarily, they can prevent the general perception of facts. However, what they cannot do is to make underlying reality conform to fancy daydreams. Denying reality will not make it go away, however, it will temporarily keep the deceived from needing to deal with it.

Let these abstractions be completed with a practical illustration of what happens when the conventions of the parallel universe collide with things as they are –but should not be. We see how pleasing fiction is undermined by the brutal facts, and how that makes the propagators of a fairy tale resort to a new ruse to hide an original falsehood. All for a good cause: the great humanitarian project must keep rolling.

Migration is, for the political class, in its present form, a disturbing phenomenon. Dogma says that multiculturalism, open borders, inclusiveness and the adjustment of the majority to the ways of migrants is an ethical must that decent folk affirm. For the mass beyond the elite’s “gated community”, migration means the surrender of its way of life, paying for those unwilling to integrate, and the criminality of those that openly disrespect the host’s values, laws, and faith. A clash ensues, which exemplifies the encounter of a fragile theory with a hard reality denied by a doctrine.

Criminality, and the flaunting of the laws -from refusing to purchase train tickets, to attacks on women, “no-go-zones- is what the common man associates with migration. The defensive reaction of the challenged, governing class reflects a doctrinal conviction. It is that, since all migrants exercise a “right” and are all “good” for they are victims of bad systems, what is happening cannot be even though, it seems to exist. Are not all people created equal and therefore alike, are we not innately virtuous? That shrinks the crime wave into a minor symptom of adjustment. As such, it must not to be allowed to become a theme associated with illegal migration. How does one accomplish that?

Easy: filter the information fed to the immature crowd that would otherwise be unable to comprehend it. A way to deal with imported felony would be to “import” selectively. Beyond that, compliance could be enforced and recalcitrance not met by opening “sanctuaries”. Conclude by repatriating criminals even if they disapprove.

Alternatively, if the problem is not to be sidestepped due to the fear of losing membership in the Club of the Decent, then the impression of a “wrong reality” that does not fit the right theory needs adjustment. This is done by twisting, altering and suppressing the news until they are “fit to print”. Dare one say “fake news”?

The trick that puts the rabbit back into the magician’s hat is to proclaim the violence of protection seeking guests against their hosts, to be a local matter. That limits national exposure; therefore, no “dots” are created, so there is nothing to connect. Second, if there is an “event”, deny that it is a hate crime. Invoke psychological problems –the suspect is traumatized, unaccepted by Islamophobe society and is provoked by unbelievers. This will serve well until Islamists claim discrimination because mental illness is attributed to its “soldiers” at “war”.

The technique of the last deception -call it “steering those needing guidance”- is most effective, which explains its spread in the US and in Western Europe. The ploy is to acknowledge the event but to disguise the criminal. For that, the vocabulary has to be changed. Thus, illegal migrants became migrants and then refugees. At least in Germany, migrants used to be “guests” and are now “more recently here than those of us that had arrived earlier”. Perusing America’s and Europe’s press, one witness how criminals metamorphose into something they are not. Here the swindle.

Let us suppose a crime happens. Say, a woman is pushed off her bike and raped. If a wanted notice is issued, it should contain the language used, and refer to physical traits. If that data points to a group whose criminality contradicts left-green-liberal doctrine, then the suspects will be described as “men”.

It is getting worse. A major city’s police are under orders by a leftist city government to avoid to mention the nationality, geographical origins, the race and the name of suspects because it confirms “prejudices”. On photos, blots are to make the origins of villains unrecognizable. (The approach is gaining support.) In a pending rape case, there is DNA evidence but, to protect privacy, only the information regarding the gender of the person may be retrieved. (All that could be proven is that it was –suspense- a MAN. Radical feminists may rejoice.) Equally ridiculous is when a killer invokes Allah and the authorities state that “a terrorist connection” is unproven.

The upshot is the expected. The more opaque the reference to what all know to be true is, the more convinced people become about the real attributes of offenders. Unintended, this criminalizes entire groups, while it undermines the credibility of government. Undaunted by that, the elite continues on its course that attempts to “fool the fools” with nonsense that is only believed within the magic circle of the “respectable”; these are known to operate in sound proofed spaces. Accordingly, the power elite’s insiders persist to profess with a stiff upper lip that, what cannot be because it should not be, does not exists, and in case that it still is, it is insignificant and as such, to avoid confusion, it is to be concealed. Doing that might be bad policy; believing that it works is more than naïve, it is dumb.




Comments are closed.