The old-fashioned notion of truth and facts died some time ago. The philosophy of relativism took them out. Discussion of this philosophy can (and has) filled myriad tomes but it is the idea that “everyone has their own truth” and if you try to impose your truth on another person then you are hypocritical or judgmental. You will be accused of clinging to dogma, and will be assured you are on the wrong side of history. And worse.
Lots of people of differing political stripes hold to this philosophy. The difference between Authoritarians and almost everyone else is that you can have a polite, interesting discussion with everyone else. Authoritarians will add it to the list of “isms” you are guilty of and form a hate mob to remove you from their presence.
Relativism does not make sense. Relativism says, “There are no absolute truths.” Yet this statement itself is an absolute truth. Therefore, relativism cannot be true. Pointing this out will not make you popular. If you really want to argue keep asking the relativist important moral questions like why it is that beheading people who believe incorrect things; why throwing healthy newborns off a second story balcony and only raising the ones who live; or why holding people as slaves is wrong. After all, those practices are perfectly right for the moral relativist who believes in them.
Relativism is a popular philosophy because people will go to great lengths to justify their behavior.
So what do you have when you no longer have truth, facts, right or wrong? You have narrative. It isn’t truth, it’s competing narratives. It isn’t right or wrong, it’s different narratives. Narratives are well-named because, for Authoritarians, the task of asserting, supporting and believing in The Narrative is all-important. It is one of the tenets of their religion.
Thus they utilize cult-like mechanisms to reinforce The Narrative. Every news story will support it. Every comment. Every political speech. Every YouTube video, social media post, or Tweet. Facts only matter if they support The Narrative, otherwise they are ignored or better yet, disqualified.
Authoritarians will surrender their own relative morals to support The Narrative lest the wrath of the Authoritarian mob descend upon them. This often involves pointing out a different victim who will not uphold The Narrative. Those who do not support The Narrative must be culled from all influence lest their toxic Competing Narrative gain traction.
Blocking, unfriending, getting opponents banned from social media, disinvited from speaking engagements, having them fired, or tossing them into jail are all perfectly acceptable, moral, and right things to do. Authoritarians haven’t quite gotten to the bloody stage of enforcement where violence and death are meted out on miscreants, but history would suggest they will.
This is very cult-like behavior, which is why I believe that the reasons people become and remain Authoritarians can only be addressed if we examine why people join and leave cults, and how they recover from the brainwashing they endure.
Narrative is not just the latest business buzzword that substitutes for story or product pitch, but now that it has become more popular it is also being used in that context. It is a major pillar in the Church of Social Justice, and used to justify many SJW abhorrent behaviors. We use it in our comic because the religiosity of the term needs to disappear back into the Big Bin of Bad Ideas that people can’t seem to help delving into from time to time.
The BBOBI, a regular pandora’s box. Nice post. No reasoning with rabbits, though.
Just prepare for the shift and try not to get harvested along with them.
Sorry I couldn’t respond yesterday; I was exhausted after doing extensive research for tomorrow’s post. Thank you for the compliment 🙂
Some rabbits escape, not all are doomed to be eaten by either Reality or the monsters they are making. I also strongly believe in inoculation: muggles, who are completely unaware of the tactics that SJWs use to rule the culture, can nevertheless be made aware of the ludicrousness of what is being forced upon them. Even if they don’t stand up to fight for their freedoms themselves, they can be awake enough to not pull those who do, down.
Your advice to prepare and try not to get harvested is also apt. Everyone should listen to mobiuswolf.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point. I admit, I have more or less given up on the muggles.
On the bright side, rabbit fur makes a nice hat.
Heh, kind of funny– the other article I’ve got open right now is also about Authoritarianism, but it’s in the much-abused form of the “F-test” and other such junk science. Amazingly, in that test format, “authoritarian” always ends up meaning “those guys over there”– even when the only authority they’re appealing to is reality, and facts, and are even willing to use a scientific method to establish the shared definitions and facts.
I only mention it because this line kind of hit close:
Blocking, unfriending, getting opponents banned from social media, disinvited from speaking engagements, having them fired, or tossing them into jail are all perfectly acceptable, moral, and right things to do.
If you’d like to read it:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting article. I wrote about the “sleek barbarians” a while ago, here:
I read the Crisis Magazine article from your link. You are right, it has a certain academic quality that makes his opinion feel wobbly. Both sides claim the other is authoritarian. I gave examples supporting why the SJWs are the *actual* authoritarians.
All those arguments I have with Codex the Editor must be having an effect on me. Huh.
I like his last line, though. I share his concern, except that I think the “authoritarians” we need to be wary of are the ones ready to bludgeon and gag us in the name of “tolerance.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kind of explains why the name-callers are so hot on there not being objective truth, since looking at what’s going on would suggest who is actually a risk for rising on the F scale.