A friendly fight in the schoolyard. Boys, establishing who is the strongest among them.
The boys wrestle and punch and wrestle some more. One hour and some chaos later, a winner emerges.
The winner declares: “I am the strongest! I am the toughest! I am the best fighter in class.”
But then, a father complains. He doesn’t complain about the boys fighting. He complains about his son coming in third.
This father has political connections. So the next day the teacher decides: “You boys are allowed to fight, only these two are not.”
The two boys banned from the fight are of course the winner and the runner-up of the last fight.
The remaining boys still fight. But guess what: the father’s son wins!
The “winner” struts, prances, and declares: “I am the strongest! I am the toughest! I am the best fighter in class.”
But is he really the strongest?
No. He is only the strongest of those allowed to compete.
This is how censorship manipulates what is believed to be true.
To say that a proposition is true implies that it has proven itself to be “most likely not wrong” in a “fight” with all other statements.
There is an eternal battle royale for the truest possible sentence about a matter. Ideally, we call “truth” whatever claim currently ranks number one.
One might ask: What if it weren’t the strongest kids who were barred from the fight? What if kids were held back, let’s say, for their own protection? Other reasons, surely moral and benevolent?
It doesn’t matter. And there’s the rub with censorship: By selectively taking out even one fighter, you undermine the claim to the trophy for all.
Naturally, the equally evil twin of censorship is propaganda. And propaganda tells you what you should believe to be true. Censorship forbids you to say that two plus two equals four. Propaganda tells you that it equals five.
If even one statement is prohibited, no statement on that matter is credible.
The Apostle Paul writes on spiritual matters:
Extinguish not the spirit. Despise not prophecies. But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
We could, and maybe should, apply similar rigor to everyday truths, to common knowledge.
If even one possible answer to a question is verboten, by default every other claim’s credibility is damaged.
Don’t trust teachers or politicians who pick winners. Don’t trust the NGOs that tell teachers who should win. Or what truth is banned from the fight because it could win.
And the new consensus struts, prances, and declares: “I am the strongest! I am the toughest! I am the best fighter in class.”
But is it really the truth?
No. It is only the truest of those allowed to compete. Quite possibly and frequently not even that.
Prophets were never the ones agreeing with the consensus. Our age has prophets too. It gives them ugly labels like “conspiracy theorists” or “deniers,” and censors them.
Being censored does not make a statement true. But it makes all others less likely to be true.
Examine all things. And hold fast to that which is likely less wrong.
Keep writing, Wegner!
Writing these essays is only possible with your support. Become and stay part of my work!
Please choose your voluntary reader contribution:
Latin Prayer: my app for praying in Latin
The Rosary, the Mass, the Vulgate and the prayers of the Church — Latin and English side by side, line by line, much of it with audio, so you can hear how it sounds. Free, no ads, for iPhone and Android.
Email Notification
When there’s a new post, you’ll get a short email — at most once a day. Free, and you can unsubscribe anytime.
Der Essay A Friendly Fight von Dushan Wegner ist auch online zu lesen: https://www.dushanwegner.com/essays/a-friendly-fight/, und auf dushanwegner.com finden sich noch viele weitere Texte, Bücher und sogar T-Shirts zum Thema!
