History: Truth or Fiction

The purpose of the Society’s Building Blocks blog is “Critically Thinking About Things That Change Society” and it’s been a rather depressing task in the 21st century to witness all the absurdities coming to the forefront of our society that are destroying our culture and the core foundations of our country. Now I’m going to address something that can certainly change how people think of our current events far into the future.

How will historians actually write the events of this recent Presidential election?

Will they blindly parrot gaslighting like this…

“Kamala Harris. Yes, she lost. But she made a valiant attempt to recast herself as a moderate. She emphasized middle class issues, like housing affordability, she stepped back from some of her earlier hard-left positions and she campaigned with principled conservative Republicans, like Liz Cheney. But it wasn’t enough to outrun her previous California liberal views or Joe Biden’s tragically liberal presidency. Still, Democratic candidates without hard-left baggage can find in her approach a winning formula for the future.” The Year in Moderation, 2024 Edition

You really do have to respect the amount of intellectual effort it took to spin that web of moral bankruptcy, it’s Orwellian.

Kamala Harris recast herself, aka she openly lied about herself and everyone knew she lied. Even Dave Cieslewicz, the author linked above, stated before the election in September 2024 that, “Harris spent the next few weeks recasting herself as a cheerful moderate“. Critically thinking people ask the logical question of “why would a true moderate need to recast herself as a moderate”? The answer is simple, a true political moderate wouldn’t need to recast herself but a lying political extremist progressive hack would need to. The truth is that Harris is an extreme progressive, Cieslewicz knows that’s true, Harris’s false moderate facade was a bald-faced lie, and Cieslewicz still seems to think that recasting herself (lying) was “valiant” and somehow a “winning formula for the future“ candidates?

Seriously?

Cieslewicz also openly acknowledges that Harris avoided hard questions and in-depth interviews, but his response to that kind of behavior is, “Yeah, I don’t care. I just want to beat Trump.”. Well now, that appears to be pure Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). This appears to be a textbook example of how those that support the Democratic Party and those that are are suffering from some level of TDS openly condone a common immoral thread weaving itself through lots of unethical rationalizations, the ends justifies he means.

Side Note: What’s surprised me after the November election and my analysis of the election is, regardless of everyone knowing that Kamala Harris’s campaign was a complete gaslighting lie, over seventy-five million voters chose to vote for her anyway. You can’t fix that kind of blind sheeple’ish stupidity, it’s cultish.

Something else in the Cieslewicz quoted text above; it appears to me that Cieslewicz’s idea of being principled¹ and mine are on two different planets. In the quoted text above, the author calls Liz Cheney a “principled conservative Republican” but nothing could be further from the truth.

Liz Cheney is far from being a principled conservative Republican, or principled at all. Liz Cheney was/is consumed by her irrational hate for Donald Trump and that hate caused her to flush critical thinking and logic and drove her to abuse her power on the January 6th committee and engage in illegal witness tampering and suppression of relevant facts in an ends justify the means effort to Get Trump. Cheney showed the world her moral bankruptcy and a complete rejection of right and wrong. Even though Cheney was openly advocating for the false propaganda narratives supported by the Democratic Party, which I’m sure is why Cieslewicz called her principled, her behaviors and actions don’t make Cheney a principled conservative Republican, they make her an unprincipled immoral hack regardless of her party affiliation or political views.

Lastly, in that Cieslewicz quoted text above; Cieslewicz chose to label views that are clearly way, way out in left field, extreme California progressive views, as “California liberal views”. This is utter nonsense, there is nothing “liberal²” about California’s progressive views, if anything they’re illiberal³.

In conclusion; it’s my opinion that if history is presented to future generations in the manner that Cieslewicz wants to present it, then future generations of youth are going to be indoctrinated with irrational biased nonsense and shown that lies are valiant, and therefore virtuous, instead of being taught that actual facts, truth, and integrity are what we should be striving for as responsible adults. I think the rationale behind this single Orwellian styled paragraph from Cieslewicz is signature significant; signature significance posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant.

Feel free to opine in a comment below and tell us what you think of Cieslewicz’s signature significant paragraph or what you think of my criticism of Cieslewicz’s signature significant paragraph. I have thick skin so let’er rip but if you’re new here please read the Comment Policies before commenting.

¹Principled: acting in accordance with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong.

²liberal: 1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas. 2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

³illiberal: opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior.