History writes what it’s authors would have to be the final chapter-often incomplete, revised, and with a specific agenda in mind-but those who have an actual participation in events maintain the memories of their experience and are a wellspring , a stele to the truth that will “out” at some point.
Never before in the history of mankind have we had the ability to independently research and verify that we do now-and never before the responsibility to ferret out the truth-to recognize and reject lies and revisions that litter not only archival history but current events as well, which are history in the making.
This access availability also carries with it the potential to expose and create liabilities, in doing so measures are often taken to blunt such an occurrence.
An example would be the denial of FOI requests, or silence emanating on an individual, organizational, or governmental level.
The media at times plays a role in this, either knowingly or unwittingly-one need only look at party centric media sites and do a little fact checking to know this is true and has led to what are referred to as spin doctors.
People, governments, and organizations lie and propagandize for a reason-to avoid responsibility, to avoid being held to account, and to affect a course to their liking.
The burden the nations must accept is to pursue and acknowledge the truth in all things- not only that “icons” can have feet of clay but in many instances do.
It isn’t easy to wade through lies, propaganda, and revisions that favor those who indulge in such things, but it is entirely possible to the degree that whatever roadblocks are thrown up enough of the truth can be seen to know which the wind is blowing.
In the political arena it seems that with the candidate of their choice people are inclined to ignore or discount what they find questionable, in doing so they have given tacit consent and pave the way for more of the same.
An excuse often offered is voting for the lesser of two evils, like opting to have an arm or a leg cut off as a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils-maybe that works, but to me it seems little more than a form of coercion. Nor would I necessarily refer to it as “voting one’s conscience”.
To ignore what is questionable related to AIM and it’s leadership will and has led to more of the same, and served to embolden them even more-that too might work for some, but seems little more than another example of coercion, of choosing which limb to amputate.
Our responsibilities transcend ourselves as individuals, they encompass the nations and our children-something we should consider before we embrace the party line, the party lies, the party revisions and propaganda, before we elect to ignore or discount what is questionable.
In doing so we will lose nothing, but have a great deal to gain, the least of which would be individual sovereignty, which in time can translate to sovereignty for our communities and the nations at large.
A matter of choice as are most things.