Make Reality Great Again

So, reality is the original resistance: it is what objects to our subjectivity:

I might be able to ignore it, change it, misinterpret it for a while, maybe because of a certain simplifying "theory" or a preconceived ideology.... In the long run, however, such an object will assert itself, unless I simply turn away from it; it will make its presence felt, it will disturb me.... it will be in the way (Pieper).

Having said that, it is obviously much more difficult to ignore "objective objects" than "objective subjectivity." In other words, if you imagine that cars or bullets or hurricanes aren't real, then Darwin will take care of you pretty quickly. But especially in the modern world, you can spend your whole life in denial of human nature (which is what we mean by "objective subjectivity," more on which as we proceed).

Note that one way to get rid of those annoying objective objects is to posit a wholly subjective subjectivity, whereby "perception is reality."  

But if perception is reality, then of course there is no such thing as reality, precisely. You may be tempted to regard this as a "bug" when it is very much a feature for those who wish to believe it; it is why the left is so pervaded by losers, misfits, cranks, perverts, vegans, feminists, ideologues, psychopaths, and spiteful mutants in general. The left will always be with us, because it is a collective defense against vertical reality (objective subjectivity). 

It reminds me of how viruses evolve to be less deadly. It's the same with vertical parasites. Nazism, for example, lasted only twelve years. It was an acute version of what can only survive if it is a more chronic illness; nor can a civilization persist if the disease afflicts the majority. We are in the process of finding out why, and tonight Brandon will make his case against the millions of dangerous fanatics who reject the mass delusions of the left. In the inverted world of his handlers, those of us who are in touch with reality are the extremists, and they're not wrong.

Pieper notes that a comprehensive philosophy must deal with "everything that is given, within as well as without" -- in other words, the world of both objects and of the subject who apprehends them. We have various sciences to investigate the former, but the latter -- the subject -- obviously requires a different approach, since it is the one doing the science. 

It reminds me of the Israeli saying that We don't believe in miracles. Rather, we only depend on them. Likewise, science may not believe in the soul, but surely requires it. Call it what you want, but it is that immaterial power through which the mind abstracts essences. If it doesn't exist, then I'm not conveying meaning and you're not comprehending it. 

Nevertheless, this is the founding principle of the left. This is not to suggest that leftists are capable of drawing out the implications of their own beliefs, for if they were, they wouldn't be leftists. Rather, this is a pre-political orientation to reality that then determines politics as one of its entailments.

This may sound polemical, but it is actually a banal truth, nor do leftists ever stop telling us about it. To cite an obvious example, any idiot can claim that a man is a woman. However, doing so requires an underlying philosophy to justify the claim. 

This philosophy is only the latest version of a very old form of sophistry called nominalism, which denies essences. Once you deny essences, then anything can be anything, which is incredibly convenient for people who do not or cannot acknowledge reality.

You can see this in Matt Walsh's What is a Woman?, when he poses the question to that pompous and prickly professor who refuses to answer and accuses Walsh of the sin of "essentialism." Essentialism is the pre-postmodern superstition that posits an intelligible world of abstract categories such as trees, minerals, and women. Conversely, nominalism is the anti-philosophy that says each thing we encounter is radically individual, that there is no objective order in the world. It's not actually even thinkable, but people think it anyway.

At the extreme opposite end of nominalism is an assertion such as, oh, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" yada yada, because this assumes a rational (because created) universe with intelligible truths about the subjects inhabiting it. 

In other words, human nature is real, and is accompanied by certain intrinsic rights. It may sound liberating -- and it is -- but like any essence or form, it's actually a limit; therefore, if you don't believe it, then you are free to believe anything. The rest is history -- the history of the left, which is in turn parasitic on the timeless rejection of the subjective real.