It has always been accepted that, while subjective views of the world mean that reality may differ for different people, there exists, beyond the subjective reality, an objective reality, most of the time at least. Certain things were to be accepted, by all but the insane, as objectively true or real, and other things were regarded as untrue or unreal. Real included measurement of time, age, race, sex, and a million other things. Unreal did not have to be defined but would include direct “untruths” such as two men dressed up as a pantomime horse. These were “two men dressed up as a pantomime horse” (i.e. true), but were not “a horse” (i.e. false, or untrue).
It was never suggested that two men should not dress up as a pantomime horse and pretend to play the part of a horse on stage —or, indeed, in the street—, simply that two men dressed up as a horse are not a horse! That remains true even were the two men to sincerely believe (e.g. if insane) that they really were a horse.
Now it is true that there might be grey areas, particularly as to the future: it was true, in 1902, to say that people could not fly in heavier-than-air machines; by 1904, the same statement was untrue. There are other obvious examples. “Britain has a huge empire.” True in 1914, 1918, 1939 and even in 1945, but today (2018) not true.
Have we now moved (in the “West”, mainly) to a situation where objective reality is taking a back seat? Wishful thinking (eg the middle-aged woman who thinks that she still looks young) has always existed, but now it is sufficient merely to assert your wish for it to be superficially taken as representing fact: the male person or (far more rare) unfortunate freak of birth who “identifies” or “self-identifies” as female. Not only is such a wish-turned-“fact” to be taken seriously today (in, say, the UK) but anyone saying that a man who has had “gender re-assignment” surgery is still not, in reality, a woman, is accused of being “a bigot” uttering “hate speech”.
So it is that feministic women (with whose outlook I myself generally have little in common) and indeed many other women, and who object to women having to share exclusive facilities such as sport changing rooms, bathrooms etc with so-called “trans-women” (which might mean, eg, young girls having to undress and shower alongside middleaged –and even surgically unchanged– men posing as women, in effect), have been labelled “TERFS“, meaning “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists”; and all because the said “TERFS” are unwilling to accept as true an evident untruth.
In the Netherlands, a man of 69 wants to have his age “reclassified” officially as 49, apparently for reasons of vanity, though it has been suggested (see notes below) that in fact he is making a satirical “propaganda of the deed” attempt. All the same, how telling it is that some dimwits commenting actually support the idea that a citizen should be able simply to choose an age at whim. A moment’s thought can surely show that such an idea must lead to chaos in a developed society! Examples (scarcely necessary, surely? Perhaps they are, in an increasingly mad society…): someone of 50 wants to get the benefits available to pensioners, so “self-identifies” as a 70-y-o. Or someone aged 50 wants to be allowed to join an age-restricted-on-entry organization such as the Army, or the Boy Scouts. It’s all just so ridiculous.
Then we have the whole race question. Sometimes I can do nothing but shake my head at the mentality of those who believe or want to believe that, say, a Chinese born in the London is “English” or at least “British” rather than Chinese, or that a Jew born in Paris is “French”. Even the hardcore multikulti dimwits and maniacs find it hard to go along with the corollary, i.e. that an ethnically English person born in Peking or Calcutta is thereby a “Chinese” or “Indian”! But of course now the individual can “self-identify” anyway, so that we have cases such as the mentally-disturbed (?) and certainly very odd woman who, in the swamps of American politically-correct academia, simply cosmetically changed her appearance to look a little like a light-skinned “African-American”, then built a whole minor academic career on how bad whites are and how oppressed blacks are in the USA; not that there is not at least some truth in that, but that is a big and complex question, not something black and white (no pun intended). She was exposed in the end, mainly because she had claimed to be partly-black and was not. That was a few years ago. Today, I wonder whether her plea that she was simply “self-identifying” would save her from disgrace.
Another case. Barack Obama. Obama’s mother was white (mainly British –English, Welsh, Scottish– and Irish, with some German and Swiss aspects), his father black African. In his days of political prominence, no-one in the msm wanted to think or speak of him other than as “black”, because his superficial articulacy meant that it “proved” that a “black” man could be suitable (as it at first appeared) to be President of the United States. I do not recall one instance of Obama described accurately as “America’s mixed-race President”, but only as “America’s first black President”…
There is a whole academic milieu in which it is regarded as axiomatic that “race is a social construct”. Such people have effectively lost touch with reality, as have those who have apparently almost convinced themselves that the Romans were black!
It brings to mind the “Russian” Revolution which was partly-Russian in its first upsurge in Spring 1917, but simply a Jewish Bolshevik coup d’etat in October 1917 (old calendar). Updated to 2018: we still see in the UK and elsewhere the fiction that the Jew “oligarchs” who stole Russia in the early 1990s (Berezovsky, Abramovitch etc) are “Russians”!
In fact, there are numerous other examples of where people, including the highly –superficially– educated prefer implausible unreality to reality. One, widespread in the UK, is that the country (and Europe as a whole) can accept unlimited millions of immigrants without any diminution in employment, pay, State benefits, pensions, road and rail services, school accessibility, NHS service etc etc.
I have thought a little about where this strange and widespread distortion of reality might have originated. There is the shifting of the ground of reality caused by theoretical physics over the past century. Then there is, more concretely, the “black propaganda” of the two world wars: in WW1, the British atrocity stories (Belgian nuns raped, babies stuck on German bayonets, bodies rendered down to make soap etc). Most of those stories were “recycled” more cleverly in WW2, so that, even today, many of the simpler people in the UK still believe that Jews were made into soap, their hair used to stuff Wehrmacht greatcoats (oh, yes, the German Army loved to stuff its cold-weather clothing with unwashed and lice-ridden hair from Jews!), their skin made into lampshades or tanned into leather upholstery for armchairs… and that is before we even get to the fabled “gas chambers” or the Munchausen-like tales of Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and hundreds of other proven fakes. The cartoon below illustrates well the situation.
The story about the Emperor’s new clothes has become everyday reality in the UK and across the “West”: fail to at least pretend to believe that the “holocaust” narrative is true in all its details and numbers etc, fail to offer lip service to racial “equality” (eg IQ averages etc), fail to agree that a surgically-altered man is a woman, fail to praise the migration-invasion of Europe, fail to believe that Jews are a wonderful benefit to every nation, and you may well be in serious trouble, especially if you have or need a job or profession. You may even (like Alison Chabloz) find yourself convicted and sentenced accordingly.
Another example is the way in which the basically undemocratic and indeed tyrannical EU matrix is supported by and beloved of millions of deluded people (who often think themselves some kind of intellectual elite) and who regard the EU as a liberal bastion, despite its refusal to honour popular voting, despite its mediaeval-style “holocaust” “denial” laws and its other repressions.
No wonder that the msm is not believed, politicians are not believed, “fake news” becomes a major factor.
In any event, there is no doubt that unreality and the worship of falsity is in the ascendant. Lies are exalted and that means that Evil is exalted. This can have but one outcome.
The above does not purport to be a comprehensive listing of all the instances or situations where people prefer comforting lies (unreality) to the more bracing truth (reality). One might cite, though, to provide two connected examples, academic award inflation and UK university degrees. These are important topics.
Originally, England had but one University (Oxford, founded, in origo, 1096). Later, Cambridge (1209) and others were founded: St. Andrew’s (in Scotland, founded 1413) and (in Ireland), Trinity College, Dublin (1592). Further university expansion occurred in later centuries, particularly in the 19thC.
These expansions of university education were all driven by reality, the need to provide better-educated leaders and specialists in government, industry, science etc.
The next great university-education expansion occurred after WW2. The so-called “red brick” universities. Snobs or people concerned about standards (usually the former), such as Kingsley Amis, proclaimed that “more will mean worse”. There is still debate about that, but the old phrase “six of one and half a dozen of another” probably covers it.
Even at that stage, meaning the 1960s, university expansion in the UK was still partly driven by reality, the more complex post-WW2 society needing more people with high or higher levels of education. In fact, standards were still fairly high. Anyone who looks at the old “O” and “A” Level papers (and “S” Levels, a fortiori) from the 1950s and 1960s, even 1970s, then compares them to today’s equivalent papers can see that most UK school exams have, indisputably, become easier over the past 60 years.
The cracks in the university system which started to show in the 1960s widened thereafter. Tony Blair, the fount of so much badness in the UK, finally cracked the whole system open by allowing virtually any institution to call itself a “university” and to issue (mediaeval concept in any case) “degrees”. Now, pretty much any Tom, Dick or Sharon can get a “degree” at “uni” in some such subject as Hotels and Hospitality, Travel and Tourism, Gender Studies, Third World Studied etc. The more traditional subjects have also been dumbed-down hugely, so that about half the students now (since about 1997) “achieve” a “First”, and hardly anyone gets less than an Upper Second. As for getting a Third or a Pass degree, or even failing the exams, well, short of absenteeism or mental breakdown— impossible. Result? Degrees are now almost worthless and you only have to look at some Oxbridge graduates to see that the problem is not confined to those attending the less-prestigious institutions.
Still, most people like the unreality better than reality: students have an easier life and almost all “achieve” high marks, their teachers like the fact that they “achieve” such high numbers of high-achieving students, the institutions like the same, as does government. The statistics look great! Only thing is, this is largely unreality, a mirage.
Update, 23 November 2018
Below, a thread from Twitter which exposes the contemporary madness richly. For some of these lunatics (and I have seen nonsense of this sort on Twitter etc even from an NHS psychiatrist, one who espouses the “race is a social construct” garbage), reality does not exist except as a subjective wish-list. For them, if an African man of 70 wants to be a European woman of 30, then fine, that’s what he —sorry, “she”— is, and anyone dissenting is “guilty” of “hate speech” or “hate thought” (?) and must be punished. Even George Orwell could never have foreseen this!
Another aspect (again, see the thread…and read the whole thread by clicking on one of the tweets below) is that truth alone is not enough for many, but has to appeal to people via a kind of “support the self-styled victims” argument, as in “don’t discuss whether men can just decide that they are women, but discuss whether their doing that makes [real] women victims” (etc).
Update, 27 November 2018
The depths of the socio-political madness can be gauged by a look at some of the tweets above, such as the one by tweeter “AnarchoCatgirl”. In the old joke, if she is interested, I believe that I can offer her London Bridge at a very reasonable price!
In fact, it is interesting that it is mostly the firmest feminists who have bridled at this whole “transpeople” nonsense and reality-distortion. Feminists may not know much (in some cases) but they do know what is a woman and what is not a woman:
Update, 13 December 2018
Looks as though others are in agreement with me: see this, written in typically-convoluted Jewish-academic style, and from a different ideological direction than my own, but attacking the same sort of madness:
Update, 16 December 2018
The madness continues. Sometimes I feel that the only way to deal with these and other issues in the UK will be “non-peaceful” somewhere not far down the line. It may or may not be so, but I myself feel it strongly. Does that mean that it is true?
More Twitter reaction. I shall add to this as I notice relevant bits of news and comment.