What do you know? Know for sure? Know on a level that you would stake your life and those of your loved ones upon? Sound pretty dramatic, huh? Sure there are plenty of others that you encounter through the course of a day who claim to be experts on a variety of topics that they are not shy on pontificating upon. But you sometimes have to ask where are they getting their cocksure attitudes from? Years of study based upon a personal regimen of directly uncovering the facts of a particular phenomena through direct observation? Well, in most cases their expertise is based upon the same source as most of our own. That being a remote unseen echelon of authority that delivers what are commonly referred to as facts. The trouble is that facts change so frequently according to whose team is in charge. A good example is that of those taken with what was once literal gospel taken as fact in the nearly two millennia old heyday of the Catholic Church. At one point the indisputable source of all topics both esoteric and secular. This central authority was dismissed over a period of decades and overtaken by an agnostic view based upon the proposition that all facts must be mutually provable on any part of the planet or at least subject to an observable plausibility for any deviation of same. Case in point, the water in the toilet flushing in opposite directions depending upon which hemisphere one might live in. This parenthetical proposition itself is another good case in point in the argument of how indeed can it’s author be so sure that his proposition holds water? The answer being that the amalgamation of knowledge past on counts as verifiable experience in this world or should i say culture. The argument then shifts to, ‘A’, “Am I getting the right dope?” or ‘B’ am I a dope to be believing this stuff?”
If you take someone living a very rural agricultural bound existence, chances are they actually have more directly verifiable experience of the physical world than any of us super-sophisticated ‘City Slickers’. What we rely upon for absolute veracity in an argument is a technology that records both sound and visual artifacts from life in some highly sophisticated ways. The initial methodology of producing these mediums providing absolute veracity of an event captured based on the limitation of that medium. If it is in the photo or movie then it must be so! “Call Northside 777!” Right? But along the way organizations that were able to produce these productions in the most sophisticated forms of their era introduced the element of highly believable faux realities using both dramatic artifice of actors and models and the mechanical facility of the day to change the pictures both still and moving to bend that reality to an abstraction of what might have initially been in front of the camera or associated recording device. Whatever the interlocutor, the fact that it can be modified by individuals or teams of same working for gigantic internationally powerful organizations that can modify the mediums to look and say anything that they find useful to their bottom line throws one’s ability to trust what they may have had a hand in producing into doubt as being absolutely truthful. If one is honest, they realize much to their horror that their store of knowledge is really not their own but a borrowed commodity. One that is essentially the same on the larger talking points but completely variable depending upon the factor of all too often devious interests of commercial and political agendas. How are we confident that for example we live in the “Greatest Country in the World?” Is it because we individually have been to all the other countries and on certain categories of observable custom and practices have come to that conclusion independently? Of course not. We get this information from a collective entity. In the current sense of same of this era, maybe a newspaper, or a book, but now most probably, the Internet via your phone or tablet. The reality is that your sense of the world is spoon fed to you in a way that your category of lifestyle has interaction with the physical world. If you are a cattle rancher in the nature driven wilds of Rocky Mountains, it is geared one way. If you are an urban dweller whose experience of life is primarily at the whim of institutional governmental intercession it is dramatically different.
So with a society that walks around en masse within their home environment at a respectful distance behind their own hands holding a smart phone it is pretty obvious that most believe what the system as configured for their area tell them to. The judgements being made by these people who intuitively realize that their sources of information may be tainted by forces beyond their own perception may not be as advertised tending to look for consensus by virtue of a numerical count of sources that are supposedly at odds with each other that still basically have agreement on larger points of order. The problem being that the structure of the medium that is governed overall by a central command of entities and standards that they set and sometimes arbitrarily change can filter and block. The appearance to the unwitting consumer of the ‘reality’ delivered being the best most trusted information available. The current election cycle is unprecedented in the regard of the fact of never have been so many seemingly wide polarities of opinion that have unilaterally weighed in with extreme vitriol against one political candidate. A person that some two years ago was absolutely ‘hunky dory’ with the same entities who he seemed to be a member of? How odd? Whatever could such a person possess that is such a threat to the larger amalgamation of same that individually owe their virtual existence to a select group of organizations that transmit media that they would all form a posse? Might I be so bold to suggest, the suppression of some very unwelcome truths?