Solipsism – The Procrustes Complex

Sadly, in the age of celebrating differences, the mythical figure of Procrustes haunts – and at times possesses us – still. There are many who,  given the authority, would craft legislation to “help” mould every human being into what they consider the preferable way to be, in some masturbatory exercise of dictatorship.

For most, that implies ostracising or forcing out anyone who doesn’t conform to their version of an ideal reality.

From white supremacists envisaging white ethno-states or religious fanatics expecting everyone to bow to their personal sky goblin, to those on the far left, unable to tolerate one iota of dissent towards their gender-less utopia – it seems quite a few nowadays have wet dreams of total control over  others.

There are a few false assumptions I have noticed (or even made some time ago).

“My world view is a hundred percent correct”

Anyone who is unwilling to learn more or nuance their positions is in a dangerous situation where their mind is concerned.

Being informed is very murky. We are limited by our background, surroundings (how often we discover new environments), time (there are only 24 hours in a day and most are taken up by subsistence) and biases (prejudices, political affiliation, religion etc).

When people call for radical changes, they sometimes don’t stop to think they just might be wrong – take Alex Jones’ audience for instance.

Nobody has the whole truth – we are left sifting through information, much of which is false or inflated.

“Everything disputing my narrative is fake/ staged”

There is no atrocity some people won’t dismiss, tolerate, rationalise in their own minds, with enough mental acrobatics and frantic imagination, to support the idealised version of their chosen system. That has been proven throughout history.

Recently, this story came out – in order to downplay the suffering of families detained and separated at the US border (including those with a legitimate claim to asylum), some are now starting to claim all recorded footage is scripted to appear more dramatic than it is. Anyone with half a brain can imagine how traumatising this is, just by putting themselves, for one millisecond, in those people’s shoes. Part of the public, apparently, is waiting for the media to either agitate or soothe them with interpretations, although the facts are very clear.

Once their minds are made up that each and every little fact must fit into their narrative, their own eyes and logical processes are not enough anymore. Mind you, there are still people who claim the Holocaust footage was a film production.

In the 80s, ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov detailed the complex methods of psychological subversion, part of which involved the media. It’s plain to see that these methods needn’t be used towards drawing people to the far left; the right makes use of them as well. He mentioned something very interesting – years prior, he had shown foreign diplomats around in detention facilities for dissenters, including for their children. Paraphrasing, he recounted they would not believe what their own eyes were seeing, choosing to interpret it in a light favourable to the USSR. It’s the same now with comments such as “detention facilities for immigrant children are really just like summer camp” – made beside photos of cages where children are crowded into, sleeping on mats on the floor. Nothing ever changes for those who simply want to believe they are right – the truth is far too difficult to accept.

This trend is downright dangerous.

Whereas it’s very true that the media can and does stage things sometimes, rejecting everything they report in contradiction with a certain narrative can lead to outright rejecting real and pressing matters. “It’s not happening” is not something history looks back on kindly.

“My sources are always honest; other sources are always deceitful”

Connected to the point above – placing one’s trust in sources thought to be 100% accurate in their reporting and intentions is a big mistake.

Again, the (hopefully forgettable someday) example of the 2016 US presidential elections can be given, when both sides were telling truths ignored by the opposition, as well as lies or omissions ignored or undetected, in equal measure, by supporters. The picture they were painting of their chosen “champions” was highly inaccurate and more appropriate for football stadiums.

Overtime, things have emerged regarding pundits’ reasons for passionately supporting one candidate or another – such as  “big money” sponsorship or hidden agendas to lead their audiences down a radical path, which no one saw coming to begin with.

“Whoever doesn’t agree with me can go to hell”

I think it’s sound to avoid political discussions with one’s family or close friends, when issues are likely to arise. After all, if or when shit breaks out, that’s who you’re left with and all you have. Not your favourite news commentator or your Facebook group passing memes around. Political extremism, unless one is chained by it for life, often comes and goes, much like an outbreak of hepatitis.

Disengaging with someone simply because of how they vote is not warranted – especially when you consider the fact that voting never changes much, except on the surface. Trends will come and go, but you and these people will (hopefully) emerge out of them someday.

And it can be shitty to interact with someone who is obviously duped by exaggerated, false narratives – but one has to keep in mind the person was not born that way and will, most likely, not die thinking that way either.