In a sense, we are a “nation of cowards,” as Attorney General Eric Holder put it. But our cowardice extends beyond race (although race is foremost because it proxies as class for the Left). It extends to every subject tainted by our current politics. From the minimum wage to women serving on submarines. From the two-state “solution” to religious symbols on public buildings. Anyone who dares speak a word challenging the conventional wisdom is smeared with one or more myriad epithets and pushed to the margins of society.
Case in point: Arkansas State Rep. Jon Hubbard, who had the gall to write frankly about race:
The institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.
By no means is this a defense of slavery. But the PC mob jumped on “blessing in disguise,” implying without providing context or further evidence that Hubbard had revealed his true racist colors.
Case in point: Todd Akin, for saying this about pregnancy resulting from rape:
It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.
Insensitive to rape victims? Hardly. God’s honest truth about rape’s physical trauma on women and likelihood of early miscarriage? Definitely.
As for “legitimate rape,” even well-paid liar Eugene Robinson understood what Akin meant: forcible rape, as opposed to consensual sex that is later called rape.
Case in point: Christine O’Donnell, for pointing out in a senatorial debate that the words “separation of church and state” don’t exist in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The law students in attendance booed and jeered her. The joke was on them. ABC News couldn’t help reporting:
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But it does not specifically state that there should be a “separation of church and state” as has been popularly construed.
Knee-jerk reactionaries infer O’Donnell must support theocracy, which is absurd. As author of the universe, God has a proper role in government, which “separation of church and state” precludes.
I could fill reams of paper with more examples, but you get the point. What are these fears of the truth a symptom of, that they provoke such heated backlash? Why are so many of us such “cowards” when it comes to confronting the facts honestly?
Our fear of the truth stems from our desire to author our own existence, to not bow to the tyranny of nature. Truth is self-evident. If you let it, it will reveal itself. That confrontation is more painful for some than others. As Pascal said, “[Man] conceives a mortal hatred against that truth which blames him and convinces him of his faults.”
A regime can suppress the truth if it is energetic enough. It must saturate society and be ever on offense against those who would spread the truth. The regime must be totalitarian. Anything left in its natural state for too long will become a testament to the truth, exposing the humanist project’s failures.
And fail the project will. The regime will grant itself more power to correct its mistakes, but that will fail, also. A return to a state of nature is inevitable. As the regime unwinds and reality crashes on top of us like a tsunami hitting the shore, we will suffer the horrible consequences of hubris.
Don’t fret too much, for there’s a silver lining. When the tyranny lifts off our eyes, when the artifice and lies are dead, we will finally see the truth, clearer than ever before and than it ever will be.