Alt-Facts ? How did we get here ?

For a long time Truth was handed down in Tradition, worked out over centuries from contemplating transcendent realities, but now, liberated from the past, it is our own subjective perceptions, though a mere crack of lightning in the night of history, that we look to illuminate the truth.

Colgero uses Marcel Lefebvre's historical analysis :

 
“Subjectivism... claims that reason constructs the truth. Things are no longer what they are, but what I think. Historically, the main figures in the development of subjectivism were:

Luther (individual inspiration of Scripture)
Descartes (the cogito knows only itself)
Kant (things are unknowable in themselves)
Rousseau (truth is public opinion or general will)

This ends up in this:

The thought of the individual is going to be dissolved into the public opinion, that is to say, in what everyone or the majority thinks; and this opinion will be created by the techniques of group dynamics organized by the media, which are in the hands of the financiers, politicians, etc.

Subjectivism, by exalting freedom of thought, results then in the crushing of thought.

...the reign of individualism; the basic unit of Liberalism is the individual. The individual is an “absolute subject of rights”, without countervailing duties binding him to his Creator, superiors, or fellow creatures. Ultimately, however, it leaves the individual alone, isolated, and without defense against the crowd which swallows him.”

Rather than liberating individuals from older religious worldviews , the ego is now dependent on the public to inform it’s perspective, which itself is cut off from historical wisdom.

As Donoso puts it:

“The supreme interest of that school [The general Liberal Western tradition]  is in preventing the arrival of the day of radical negations or of sovereign affirmations; and that it may not arrive, it confounds by means of discussion all notions, and propagates skepticism, knowing as it does, that a people which perpetually hears in the mouth of its sophists the pro and the contra of everything, ends by not knowing which side to take, and by asking itself whether truth and error, injustice and justice, stupidity and honesty, are things opposed among themselves, or are only the same things regarded from different points of view.”

Cologoro adds,

“So we are forced to take one or the other “side” of the debate, when what is really necessary is to understand one’s fundamental assumptions.”