What is "Truth
The question came to my mind after engaging in a heated, though one sided discussion with my ultra liberal uncle regarding the topic of Zionist
bankers backing Hitler and the Nazi regime. For the record, I do not believe elite zionists represent the Jewish community in any sense and do not
even believe in the Jewish faith themselves, but in fact hide behind this religion so that when critics call them out they can label said critics as
“anti-semitic” and thus society follows suit. Effectively canceling any form of meaningful opposition or criticism. Long story short, it ended
being labeled an anti-semitic white nationalist (see how that works?).
With that, it brought an interesting philosophical question to my mind:
What is “truth
Based on the Merriam-Webster definition:
a : the body of real things, events, and facts
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
c : the body of true statements and propositions
(Seems even they have a hard time defining that without actually using the word itself…)
Still, it seems pretty vague to me.
Is it what you can read in a book? Is it something you watch in a documentary or news broadcast? Is it what you learn in an establishment approved
education centre by an instructor with an acceptable level of verifiable credentials and degrees supporting their authenticity? Though who
authenticates those credentials? Who authenticates those who authenticate the credentials? So on and so forth.
How do we know the information we receive from these outlets are in fact, “true
”? Do we accept things as true when there is a satisfactory
level of social acceptance of a given topic’s validity based on what we have been conditioned to believe about said topic? If enough seemingly
reliable sources verify a topic in a seemingly logical manner, does that constitute truth? When enough people hold a similar belief about a given
topic; is that "truth
Because as far as I can tell, when it comes to the vast majority of historical knowledge we rely solely on written accounts, photographs, videos and
testimonies from witnesses. However, can all of this not be distorted and manipulated to serve one agenda or another? Could EVERYTHING you have not
personally witnessed or experienced yourself possibly be wrong? How do you know? Because reliable individuals or institutions told you so? How do you
The short answer: You don’t.
Let me break it down for you in a simple, hypothetical conversation regarding World War 2. Now I’ll be clear, I am not doubting World War 2 took
place. I'm am personally certain it happened, I’m simply using it as an example as it’s an incident most people are aware of and accept as
Person 1: Are you sure WW2 took place?
Person 2: Of course it did. I was told about it by relatives, I’ve read about it in books and learned about it in school… My grandfather was a
tank operator in The Battle of Arracourt. It obviously happened….
Person 1: Okay, but how can you verify that information conclusively? Were you there to witness it yourself? Did you personally experience the events
Person 2: Obviously not… But my grandfather wouldn’t lie… He has the medals and marks to prove it… I’ve even seen the tank he operated. It
Person 1: Alright, we can at the very least assume your grandfather did operate a tank during The Battle of Arracourt, but does that confirm the
entirety of events that occurred during WW2? Was he involved in every battle? Did he personally witness the concentration camps and the widespread
death and destruction?
Person 2: Obviously not, that’s impossible…
Person 1: Right, so ultimately your grandfather can only confirm what he experienced within his immediate sphere of influence during his time serving
in WW2, correct? Are you sure the tank you saw was in fact the tank he operated and not a replica? Are you sure your grandfather actually experienced
what he claims and didn’t fabricate the story or simply hallucinate it?
Person 2: Yes… but. This is stupid! We’re done here.
Really, you could replace “WW2” with a number of topics to the same effect.
Which brings me to my ultimate point: NO ONE
can tell you what is or isn’t true. No one. The truth is what you choose for yourself.
The only exception would be if the individual or outlet has been proven time and again to spread misinformation, ala, CNN, WaPo, NYT, etc.. Even
certain alternative media sources (Though most are discredited for not having enough evidence rather than simply spreading disinformation. Lack of
evidence is not evidence of lack.). The response then is to simply use your common-sense. Still, the choice is ultimately up to you
I’m reminded of a phrase from an old video game I enjoyed as a kid:
“Nothing is true. Everything is permitted”.
I never really understood what that meant until now.
On a final note, I would like to wrap this up by pointing out a massive double-standard in the scientific community and the like, in regards to fringe
topics such as the paranormal, the existence of extraterrestrial life, evil and clandestine powers controlling our world, etc.. It seems when it comes
to these topics, the same rules no longer apply. Because for the most part there is a near equal amount of evidence by acceptable societal standards.
You have photo and video evidence, eye witness, first and second hand testimonies, in some cases physical evidence (though it is often quickly scooped
up and suppressed), written accounts and documentaries. However, because these topics are not “socially accepted”, all of a sudden none of this is
enough to verify any phenomenon is taking place at all. All of a sudden, everyone needs that DEFINITIVE PROOF before coming to a general consensus as
to whether or not these topics are even worth investigating let alone be believed. Though I ask you, do you
have proof that WW2 took place?
Were you there to witness it yourself? If not, then how do you 100% know for sure?
Once again, you don’t. So with all of that said; No one has the right to tell you what can or can’t be believed. No one can tell you what
an acceptable truth. Anyone who does, or worse, ridicules you or DENIES
you the ability to investigate or discuss is
in fact a FASCIST
. What’s the bottom line definition of a fascist?: Someone who controls what you can or can’t do; What you can or can’t
say. Someone who controls your FREEDOM
Of expression or otherwise.
edit on 14-8-2017 by HorizonFall because: (no reason given)