Truth

A Many Worlds Entity
By Steven J. Grisafi, PhD.

What is Truth? Simply put, truth is consensus. Does the truth matter? Most persons when asked that question would reply in the affirmative. But if we ponder the question thoroughly most persons I believe would recognize otherwise. We would all be reluctant to admit that only that which is consistent with our laws, be they either secular or religious, would matter. Both our secular and religious laws reflect how we view ourselves and our society. Only that which is consistent with how we view ourselves is important to us. So truth is wholly dependent upon our point of view. Truth is how we wish to define it to be.

Different societies will hold different truths. The more divergent the societies are from one another, as measured by the practices of their cultures, the more divergent their truths will be. This I view as evidence that no society can sustain itself as multi-cultural. Eventually it must fragment. Until it does the society is unstable and harmful to its peoples who are compelled to live together. Under such circumstances fragmentation is the best course of action to take. But why could we not all define truth in the same manner? It can be done for those instances when all persons comprising the society have had similar experiences. But for greater divergence of the course of experiences endured by the various peoples comprising the society the more difficult it becomes to define truth in a manner acceptable to all viewpoints. Excessively divergent viewpoints are best served by the society’s fragmentation.

A conversation Vice President Harris had with a student recently was very interesting. The student lamented that it appeared to her that members of Congress were not listening to her, or similar voices, that opposed that extra one billion dollars of financial support to Israel for their “Iron Dome” aerial defense. The response of the Vice President was to say that in America nobody can stifle the opinion of the student and that in America we formulate policy through the use of debate. What the Vice President would not say to the student is that, while she hears the woman’s opinion, she won’t say to the woman that she disagrees with that opinion. I ask you: Is that truly the development of policy through debate? The Vice President acknowledged that the student has an opinion and the right to express it. But the Vice President was not willing to admit her difference of opinion and defend her difference of opinion through argumentation. In essence, her policy was pre-determined and would not be altered by further discussion. The student had the right to express her opinion but that opinion would have no bearing upon the development of policy.

Although unpleasant to admit, one may argue that the current structure of America is harmful to its peoples, all of its peoples. The implosion of Yugoslavia led many political leaders in the Western World to argue that the Bosnians, Croats and Serbs should each have their own nation. Nobody anywhere in the world would dispute the assertion that the Belgians, the Dutch and the Germans ought each have their own nation. So why is it that Europeans would scream “RACISM!” if someone, such as myself, should assert that Black Americans ought have their own nation separate from White Americans?

The distinction between the Belgians, the Dutch and the Germans is purely cultural. All three share a common European heritage marked by Christianity. Black Americans do not share the same cultural heritage of White Americans. Unfortunately, they have now asserted their cultural distinction by professing America to be multi-cultural. Sixty years ago the argument was made that “Separate But Equal” is never equal. Such is the case when the separate parts are not autonomous. What must be done is division of the totality of the United States into separate autonomous nations each comprising a single cultural entity. This is exactly how Europe developed to become what it is today, from the collapse of the Roman Empire, to the schisms of Christianity.

I recognize that certain influential demographic groups within the United States, such as American Jews and Taiwanese Americans, would unequivocally oppose any such division of the United States. All others ought contemplate more fully the current situation. I suppose that neither American Jews nor Taiwanese Americans could ever be persuaded of the advantages of any such division of the totality of the United States because of their special need to maintain American superpower status to protect their special interests. Yet, I tend to think that Korean Americans have sufficient confidence in the ability of the political leadership of South Korea to reconcile and re-unite with North Korea that they would not vehemently oppose modifying the political structure of the United States. What all who could be persuaded need to recognize is that most of the seemingly political disagreements raging amongst the American people have more that merely cultural distinctions breeding the current animosity.

Consider, for example, the disagreement regarding abortion and a woman’s right to choose. The Catholic Church has long held the steadfast tradition of opposing abortion. It has also long held the steadfast tradition of opposing the death penalty. Many perceive the two viewpoints to be based upon a tradition of respect for human life. Within American politics there appears to be one political camp that strongly opposes abortion but actually welcomes the use of the death penalty. Many view these two positions as contradictory. But the viewpoints would only be contradictory if the basis for such judgment were the sanctity of human life. As regards both political camps neither has as its basis the sanctity of human life. For both it is more a pragmatic means to achieve a desired result.

The Catholic Church has long understood that those who populate the Earth dominate the Earth. Both opposing political camps within the United States recognize the validity of this dictum and seek to exploit it. Black Americans seek to persuade demographic groups that have experienced discrimination in the United States that their members ought to view themselves as something other than “White.” It makes no difference what that something other than “White” is so long as they stand in opposition to those who identify as “White.” Nearly all persons of one political camp oppose abortion, but accept the death penalty. Within the other political camp most persons oppose the death penalty but accept a woman’s right to choose. For those who oppose abortion their viewpoint serves as a means of avoiding what they fear as the diminution, and eventual vanishing, of their influence and cultural heritage. Their fears are not unfounded, precisely, because of their foolhardy viewpoints. If one watches and listens closely one will see instances where it is apparent that Black Americans recognize this fear some White Americans have and taunt them with it. Often you will see instances where Black Americans assert that their children (not all children) are the future. In modern America the notion became established that any individual of mixed ancestry becomes labeled with that of the most derogatory component of the mixed ancestry. We have all heard the reference to “just one drop of blood.” One can find African-Americans, who identify solely as Black American, but who are undoubtedly of mixed ancestry, and also having fairer skin complexion than many persons who claim to be solely of White ancestry. So, by having promoted the ludicrous position expressed by the phrase “just one drop of blood,” White Americans condemned themselves to their own demise by rejecting anyone of mixed ancestry. To compensate for this, they must now seek to maintain strong population growth by opposing abortion, but also welcoming the death penalty.

Whether we want to admit it or not the opposing political camps in modern America bear the distinction of race as their basis. We ought to accept this. We ought to work with it because that basis carries with it cultural distinctions. A nation is a people of a single culture and heritage. We must accept this. During the years, from approximately the end of World War I to the beginnings of the the War in Vietnam, America tried to develop a single culture based upon a universally accepted heritage. We failed. It is time to accept our failure and replace it with a better alternative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *