When centrism beconess "alternative reality"

A response to one of Rick Moody's valuable digests on resisting Trump.

I want to reiterate how much I appreciate this service. Also, to respond to a particular article about losing our mind on the left. I think it is particularly important for two reasons, tending somewhat in opposite directions:

1) it seems to me that spreading "alternative realities" serves only the adversary. It may feel good at the moment, but it helps to prepare one of the fundamental preconditions of totalitarianism, that reality is a matter of the will.

2) Another way of denying basic reality is simply to line up all the perspectives and allegations - from left to right and select only the "center" as trustworthy. In other words if an assertion is far enough out of the mainstream consensus, it must be crackpot.   Although this may usually be true, it is not always true, and it is another way of saying that reality — like faith — is a matter of the will. However rarely, it is nevertheless true that "sometimes the tin hat fits."

I am afraid that most of us who  [unlike Michael Moore] were surprised at the Trump victory fell into this trap to some extent. Habitual centrists tend to view Moore as a crackpot, don't they?  In my opinion, the arbiters of fact, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Los Angeles times can be trusted in the facts that they report  [most of the time - see below about Gary Webb]. They are not quite so trustworthy and the facts they decide are not "fit to print."

My own deeper experience of this, from 30 years ago, has to do with CIA cooperation with international drug trafficking. [I am afraid this is still going on: the price of heroin continues to decline and right now it is never been cheaper. Meanwhile, truckloads of manufactured heroin roll from Afghanistan across the big, new, four-lane bridge I saw being built by the USA from Afghanistan to Tajikistan in 2006].

In the '80s,  The Times &al. did not exactly suppress this kind of news, but it did minimize it, relegating it to the back pages. In my opinion that is because it's was so explosive. Powerful interests do have a say. Even the extremely circumspect report of the Kerry subcommittee on the subject, which corroborated the outlines and many of the details of this malfeasance, was reported briefly and then forgotten. There was simply no appetite to kick this hornets' nest.

Then there is the more recent case of Gary Webb ["Dark Alliance"]. The three great newspapers pilloried him as an irresponsible crackpot. Sadly, it appears that he was unstable, and he ended up taking his own life. But that does not obviate the fact that the three major newspapers all misreported the contents of his book. "Dark Alliance" gave the details of the findings behind the Kerry Report. [I considered them rather old news, because I was involved in researching the subject in the early '90s, and most of it was right in the congressional report.] The Times &al, reported that Webb had alleged that the CIA had deliberately targeted African-American communities. That was 

not true.

These communities, themselves, said so — loudly — but Webb had never alleged that. It was a conclusion from his work drawn by the people themselves. At most, Webb documented what might be called "depraved indifference" on the part of the CIA. I believe the rather hysterical reporting of the three major newspapers arose out of their own interest in defending their previous coverage of the matter. They had dropped the ball. They never exactly lied, but they prescinded from the more explosive leads. So,Webb had to be a crackpot.

All this is a long way of saying that we would be well advised to keep a skeptical eye on the arbiters of centrist consensus. As we used to say, "just because you're paranoid does not mean They are not out to get you!"