Taking the red pill

Updated on 4.17.23

There was report that the use of the term "Red pill" will get you in bad odor with the new master class in DC.   

What are they so afraid of?



Original post on 3.8.23

Everyone has heard the expression of getting "red-pilled". Those who take the blue pill want to stay in the dream world that the powers-that-be want to keep people in. As long as they are in the dream world, they won't ever know the truth, and will be forever under the control of the tyrants.

Allow me to segue into a deeper discussion. After all, what is real? That very question is asked by the character Morpheñus in that film. It seems that this kind of discussion can be another which would cause people's eyes to glaze over. Perhaps you can say that there are those who don't want you to see with your own eyes, but would rather project a world that they want you to see. That is what the film used as a plot device.

But this happens in the real world with propaganda. Typically, the leadership of an unfree country will not allow free expression of ideas. There is rampant censorship. Such should not be possible in the USA, but it is on display today in the halls of government. There is an increasing drive to censor those who say things that are not considered to be true. But what is true and not true? How will this be determined? In a free society, it is from the bottom up, not the top down. The leadership is not allowed to determine what is said and not said. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law". But certain politicians are now saying quite openly what cannot be said, and this isn't legally possible, if the Constitution is to be obeyed. Senators Schumer and McConnell have had their say, and that time is over. Now it is the opposition's turn.

There is a way to determine truth in a court room. Such isn't perfect, nothing conceived by man is perfect, but it gives the best opportunity to get as close to truth as humanly possible. It is an adversarial system. For any controversy, both sides get to tell their side of the story. An impartial jury hears the case, and there's a judge to keep the proceeding within the bounds of the law. When the Congress forbids the discussion of information, it is preventing the adversarial system that the courts employ. They'd prefer their own interpretation, which has to be taken as truth. Should a one-sided system be trusted? In the court of public opinion, doesn't the opposition have the right to present their side of the controversy? If it cannot, then how is this country a free country?

Seeing is believing, it has been said. If one is dedicated to the truth, then what harm could there be in viewing anything on a video? There can only be harm if only one side is permitted to show what that side wants to be seen. If the other side has no say, what assurance does anyone have that all the facts are being shown? The Democrats and their allies on the GOP have had their say. The other side now has a chance to speak, but these people object. That alone should raise suspicions about their commitment to the Constitution and rule of law.

Their objection on the basis of security does not appear to apply. That was their rationale for keeping the tapes secret. If nothing else is proven, they have haven't proven that these tapes caused any harm to security. In fact, their claims of security appear to have been cast aside. Now the dispute is over actual content. If the full discussion proceeds, their favorite interpretation will suffer a fatal blow. The Democrats know this, and this is why they object. It is a lot easier to win a game when only one side is allowed to play.

One could stride deeper into this. There is plenty of room for discussion on the basis of such topics as epistemology-- the study of knowledge. How does anyone know what they know?

It has been my opinion from the start that this was no insurrection. As you peel away the onion of obfuscation, and get to the core of the matter, it should be asked how this peaceful demonstration got out of hand. If it is asked, it is my opinion that we'll find that there were interested parties who wanted there to be a disturbance so it could be used to discredit the political opposition. The disturbance was misrepresented as an insurrection, and no evidence to the contrary was allowed to be discussed. This is very suspicious. This is the kind of thing that could be observed in the former Soviet Union and Hitler's People's Courts.

How do I know this? The shortest way of saying it is that you have to connect the dots. It can be shown over and over again that these people do not care about the truth. This case is no different. The thing that they are really afraid of is that people will know the truth, and the truth will truly set the USA free again. Like the Matrix in the film, the powers-that-be cannot have the entire population red-pilled. That will be the end of their power, and perhaps the end of them as well.