Writing for Americans, unless
for their entertainment, is a challenging undertaking. One
reason is that many, especially of the younger generations, no longer have a
concept of objective truth.
For them
“truth” is simply a bias reflecting one’s race, gender, upbringing or
predisposition. Emotion
overwhelms fact. Biases are not considered to be equal. Some
are worthy and some or not. The biases of white people are defined
as “hate speech,” “white supremacy,” and “hate crimes.” Today
America has many self-hating whites, especially in the media and Democratic
Party.
Another reason is that many Americans
confuse an explanation with a justification. An explanation of an event is seen as a justification of the
event. For
example, if one provides an explanation of slavery the assumption is that the
writer approves of slavery. A defense of a disapproved category is
taken as a demonstration of your own unworthiness. For example, if you defend
white people from the propagandistic accusations leveled at them by Identity
Politics, you are a “white supremist.”
Yet another reason is that some races
and genders have succeeded in defining any criticism of themselves as an
expression of bias. For example, criticism of Israel’s mistreatment of the
Palestinians or of the Israel Lobby’s power makes one an “anti-semite.”
Similarly, if you criticize a black person, you are a racist and your argument
is dismissed as an expression of your bias. If you criticize a woman, you are a misogynist,
and your criticism of a woman proves it.
If you express skepticism of false flag
events, you are dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist.”
Another reason is that American patriots
regard criticism of US policies, especially wars, as anti-American and as
taking the side of the enemy against one’s own country. To prevent a recurrence of the Vietnam war protests, when
Washington invaded Afghanistan and Iraq the Bush regime came up with the
slogan, “Support the Troops.” If you criticized the wars, you weren’t
supporting the troops and were aligning yourself with the enemy: “You are with
us or against us.” When President Trump met with President Putin, CIA
director John Brennan accused Trump of treason. When US Representative Tulsi
Gabbard met with Assad of Syria, she was accused of supporting dictatorship. ( If
her critics had accused her of meeting with Assad because she was a bimbo who
didn’t know any better, her critics would have been dismissed as
misogynists.)
In a world
such as this, honest ordinary language is risky as many are not attending to
the cogency of the analysis but looking for indications of racism and sexism. Exposure
of government deceptions gets one branded “anti-American” with the result that
people cling more tightly to the lie that deceives them.
It has always been the case that readers
look for writers who reinforce their beliefs by telling them what they want to
hear. The
king kills the messenger who brings unwanted news. Consequently there are few
messengers. The
result is a dysfunctional democracy in which the agendas of those who control
explanations dominate.
For the
most part, readers of this website are different. They are a self-selected
group who are motivated to escape being controlled by official explanations. To
their purpose I lend my knowledge and experience. The
website has a devoted readership as your response to my March quarterly appeal
testifies.
A few of you are impatient for solutions,
but there can be no solutions until there is recognization of the problems. Moreover,
every solution can be interpreted as favoring some interest group with its
advocate being dismissed as a servant of the favored group. For
example, President Reagan’s solution to stagflation was accused of being a
scheme for the rich. The
people have to find solutions, but first they must be informed. As
this article makes clear, that is a difficult enough undertaking.
