Distrust as the most reasonable default position

Normally, I use the image above for actual video - or, sometimes, audio rants. But a rant is a rant,regardless of form. And so some of mine will be in text form, if you don't mind (not that I wouldn't put them out even if you did). So this will be a rant - just me voicing my opinions, even with some reference materials linked below.

So what is it all about? It is about the world, and yes, about me - inevitably so, and about the world, as to me the world is only what I perceive, much like to you the world is what you perceive. But since we are not ephemeral beings and we exist in the world of objects - or at least so I believe, as an objectivist - we have to define certain markers in the sea of concepts that float in our mind that correspond to objects that exist in the real world and interactions between these objects. And the rest of what I intend to discuss here will be discussed through the lens of objectivism. And when it comes to the discussion of the abstract, the mythical, when it comes to outright fiction I typically make it quite clear that it is the abstract, the mythical, the fictional that I am presenting.

So why is it that I have chosen objectivism? Is there a reason for that? Could an argument be made both in favor of objectivism, and in favor of relativism, or in favor of mysticism? Yes, without a doubt one could argue in favor of any of these paradigms, and many more. But there is a reason for why I favor objectivism. I will get back to my reasons later.

Of the many societies in the world today we will focus on the so-called Western societies - if for no other reason, then because they are amongst the most economically powerful, if not the economically powerful. These are also societies where, at least on paper, liberal ideas of the Enlightenment are codified as both the legal norm as well as the cultural preference. So the West is a society - and it largely is one society as culturally, business-wise, etc. the countries comprising it are largely one and the same, with some restrictions - where you can expect to be treated equally, regardless of your innate characteristics such as your race or gender or political views, where your basic human rights are respected, where empirical facts matter and religious beliefs and prejudices are relegated to one's personal choice but are no longer to be basis for societal norms or laws. That's what we were told we should expect.

But is it what we get? Let's take a look at a couple of things. As you may have heard a member of the US Supreme Court is about to retire. The President is faced with a choice of nominating, i.e., presenting to the Congress for consideration, a new candidate. And already he is on record stating that his choice will be a Black woman. By the way, linked below is an article in The New York Times, one of the country's major mainstream publications, by Walter Dellinger, a legal counsel to President Bill Clinton, in which the author extols the current President's decision to appoint a person to the country's highest court based on that person's gender and race.

So what is this about? Haven't we been told time and time again that a person's race doesn't matter, that that is not what you should ever use in assessing a person's worth? Or is it? Or are we expected two mutually contradicting, if not outright mutually exclusive things to hold true at the same time? How can this be?

A cynic might say that lying has been a tool used by everyone from a corner store merchant to kings and presidents since time immemorial. An rose glass wearing idealist might say that it is OK to go a bit overboard in trying to do good and compensate for the wrongs of the past - even if that takes you into the absurd territory. Both may have a point - but ask yourself, do you honestly believe that those in charge of setting policy on the level of whole provinces or even countries, with all the expertise available to them, are not able to spot racism in policies of this sort? And even if nonsense of this sort makes it into the open by some accident - how believable is it that it is just by accident that we have the same sort of nonsense all over the place, from racially rationing medical treatments to discriminating against Asian Americans in college admissions, on account of them ostensibly being unfairly successful? Is all of that by accident? Is that believable?

But, many an ordinary citizen would say, sure, there is some weirdness out there, there are lies being told, there are parts of our life that make little sense - but overall we have a society that seems to run OK, there is food at a local grocery store, there roads are mostly maintained, there are no bodies rotting in the street, those in charge at least keep things running, more or less - so what's there to panic about? And this perspective may seem reasonable if we decide not to consider the dynamics of what is happening. And this brings us to the crux of what I am trying to say, which is that we live in the time of massive deception, and perhaps never before has this deception been as much of a threat to our very survival. And that until our society changes drastically your best bet is to distrust everything you hear from the societal mainstream, be that government officials, the academia or voices of the mainstream media or mainstream entertainment.

So what has been happening over the last few centuries in the West? The technological progress led to improved communications and emergence of unified elite which by now can be fairly characterized as global elite. Competition between various powers in the Western world caused multiple wars, culminating in the two World Wars, after which the elites came to a realization that the power of weaponry has reached a point where direct "kinetic" warfare makes little sense - simply put, if you practice it, you may make the planet, or some parts there of, unlivable, but even if it does not come to that, the victor is likely to gain nothing but some toxic scorched earth territory which will be more of a liability than an asset. So conflicts, while still relevant, are best fought out by way of economic expansion, industrial espionage, ideological subversion, etc. The sort of subversion Yuri Bezmenov spoke of back in the day seems to very much be part of our reality now.

At the same time, globalization - to which the elites got an earlier access and introduction than ordinary citizens - afforded said elites the freedom to no longer be beholden to, and thus no longer fear the wrath of, ordinary citizens of their respective countries. With sufficient protection gained through political or financial influence, one can enjoy comfortable life in hiding, such as that enjoyed by Nazi war criminals Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele in Latin America. And yes, Eichmann was eventually captured by the Israeli intelligence - but that was in contravention to the emerging global elite's preferences, and only after many years of living in very shallow hiding, with law enforcement in many countries pretty much failing to do anything to apprehend him. But no, ultimately it did not work out for Eichmann - he was eventually captured, tried and executed in Israel. Not so for Mengele who never faced the music. So back to present day: we have the same system in place now, only on steroids, and a member of the global elite is almost guaranteed the necessary level of protection and obscurity both while committing offenses against the laws of any particular country and in the unlikely event these activities come to light.

To summarize the last two items of the discussion: we have an elite that is global and insulated from consequences of their actions to the degree hardly before imaginable. These elites also know that "hot war" is off the table and thus psychological, ideological and financial warfare is what they are forced to resort to.

And so this is what we have now. It is not new. After the JFK assassination a congressional committee determined there was a "probable conspiracy". Did we get a proper investigation? No, it is still a "lone wolf did it, lone wolf is dead, nothing to see here" as far as the mainstream narrative goes. Yes, a US President can be murdered in public - and that can be buried! Imagine what they could do to you or I!

They run deception on multiple levels. There is outright deception (remember the "fiery but mostly peaceful" riots of 2020?), but they can also run it on a deeper level in many ways - by playing with definitions, for example. The CDC redefined what a vaccine is - to make it possible for the mRNA COVID preventatives (highly ineffective ones, too) to pass. The vaccine has been redefined as something that provides protection against a disease - in contrast to the prior definition which was, something that provides immunity. And of course even in their application of this particular definition the powers that be proved to be selective - for instance, I have yet to hear them declare Vitamin D, which is proven to protect against COVID-19 symptoms, to be a COVID vaccine.

Let us consider another big lie of today - the official story of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On account of a story that is laughably incoherent we started a "war on terror" - and as a result, world-wide the flying public is asked to take their shoes off, and we also fought several wars - including the one in Afghanistan, where we spent almost 20 years replacing Taliban with Taliban at the great cost in life and treasure. And has anyone responsible on the part of he elites been held to account? Not so far, not as far as I know.

So here's a few kinds of deception going on. Is that all? Of course not. They lie through every dollar in your pocket by way of it being fiat currency - something the value of which the elites can redefine continuously (same for other fiat currencies such as Euros, British Pounds Chinese Yuans, etc.)

So sure, you might say, the elites lie and deceive, they are global, they are insulated - by why would they try to do serious harm to us ordinary citizens? What's in it for them? OK, let's take a crack at that. They may have a desire to increase their power by suppressing the freedoms of global citizenry. Some of them may be under an impression that preservation of natural resources trumps civic or even human rights. Some may even think that the global population is in desperate need of reduction and choose to use their power in pursuance of that objective. Can I prove with certainty any of that is afoot? No. Nor do I need to. All I need to state is that I am under no obligation to trust anybody, specifically unaccountable elites, and neither are you.

Let me restate that - deception by the elites carries with it extreme danger, and it is for this reason that I have personally adopted the doctrine of distrust be default towards any utterance by the societal mainstream as it is currently constituted. It is not to say that I would never trust any of their pronouncements - it is just that I am going to assume they contain deception until evidence emerges proving otherwise. I believe this position to be most reasonable at this point in our societal evolution.

Is it fool proof? Of course not. As a Jew growing up in the Soviet Union I remember stories of Jewish families in the areas captured by the Nazi Germany who chose not to evacuate as they believed Germans to be civilized and believed warnings about the Nazis killing Jews to be nothing but Soviet propaganda. Their distrust of the Soviet propaganda ended costing many of those Jews who chose not to evacuate their lives. So assuming that everything you hear from mainstream sources is false, all the time is a mistake. As is trusting it in absence of proof.

So I advice distrust. I also believe we need to reform our society in such a way that an insulated elite that we have now would cease to exist in its present form. I advice everyone to acquire he knowledge necessary to judge for themselves. I advise everyone to be self-sufficient and reasonably prepared for emergencies.

And think of it this way - even if my fears are overblown, what harm can possibly come from marrying power to responsibility or from citizens becoming more educated and less susceptible to propaganda and psychological influence?

References

Why Biden Is Right to Nominate a Black Woman for the Supreme Court
Dr Walter Dellinger, The New York Times, 3 February 2022

The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels
Stefan Molyneux, 3 August 2016

What is Fiat Money?
Corporate Finance Institute

Claude Frederic Bastiat
New World Encyclopedia

REVEALED: Every single US state is being advised to consider ethnic minorities as critical groups for vaccination with HALF prioritizing black and Hispanic residents over white
Frances Mulraney, DailyMail.com, 20 December 2020

Yes, the CDC changed its definition of vaccine to be ‘more transparent’
Megan Loe, KHOU-11, 4 February 2022

HSCA Final Assassinations Report
History Matters

What does a COVID case make?
@borepstein, 22 January 2022

79,000 Australians have suffered an adverse reaction to COVID vaccine shots, as admitted by government and mainstream media
@borepstein, 3 January 2022

COVID vaccines, unlike all others
@borepstein, 19 January 2022

Medical racism in New York City
@borepstein, 6 February 2022