Posted by Eeyore
Below, is an explanation of this video by the translator, Ava Lon. Thank you very much for this difficult work, and Gates of Vienna for the edit and format.
This is 7 minutes long part of a longer video, from Krzysztof Karo? – the very Polish writer, who informed us about Spinelli and his role in the creation of the European Union. The entire video is about the semantic changes uttered by the -as he calls them- Neo-Marxists, in order to appropriate the language, the debate and finally be able to create the narrative.
They reach this goal by starting by a premise (a false premise) that Truth cannot be known at all, it is only described by our imperfect language which can vary from one person to another, and therefore causes the Truth to be un-knowable or creates many Truths. [if you’re confused already, please keep in mind that 2+2=4, no matter how you say it, in what language, and how poor your grammar might be]
If the Truth depends on language, nothing seems simpler than modify it by modifying the language, on purpose. Who decides how the Truth will be modified, or rather: what will be called the Truth once the necessary changes have been performed?
Jürgen Habermas, belonging to the second generation of Frankfurt School philosophers, after suggesting the nonexistence of objective Truth and the possibility therefore of molding it at will, answers this question by proposing a collective solution in the endeavor of deciding what the Truth is, or rather what it should be.
The process in which the Truth is established is called the Discourse, according to the Communicative Action Theory -known in Poland as the Discourse Theory and this is the name used in the argument of Krzysztof Karo? in this video, ‘discourse’ being the key word- [and Discourse, unlike a normal discussion, doesn’t admit dissent], and the consensus that is reached in that process isn’t reached by presenting better arguments, but rather by pressuring everyone to abandon their views and adhere to the consensus.The difference between this and a compromise is that in a compromise everybody gives up something in order to agree on a common ground. In the Neo-Marxist Consensus Discourse certain positions are entirely given up and the person whole-heartedly takes the Truth established by the discourse and its consensus as HIS OWN [just like in Orwell’s 1984, it wasn’t enough to just ACCEPT the Big Brother, you had to truly LOVE him].
Once everybody agreed what the Truth is (in every particular case), doubting, criticizing, speaking about different possibilities, or even just asking questions about that Neo-Marxist “revealed Truth” is sowing discord, enmity and hate speech.
I thought this was very important in the light of the sentencing of ESW in Austria, where clearly the truth was not a defense, and anyway, the court seems to have had already some sort of consensus about what the truth was.