Being open-minded doesn’t mean you can never come to a decision about what is true. You don’t stay open-minded about something once you come to a conclusion, and this is true even for people who claim it is a virtue to stay open-minded about everything. These are the ones we used to call liberals, and what they really mean is that they think it’s morally wrong for you, the conservatively-minded person with common sense, to have convictions from which you will not budge; but when they accuse strongly grounded conservative people of being closed-minded, they are lying to themselves about their own convictions, and that makes them hypocrites. They are just as fixed in their beliefs as the people they accuse, which, by coincidence, covers everyone who doesn’t agree with every single thing they say. In the past few years, these open-minded people have increasingly conflated the conservative common-sense mindset with the NAZI mindset of WW2 Germany, and this is ironic, considering that their marching orders and the tactics they use to disrupt nations are exactly the same as the ones used by Hitler’s SS. The billionaire funding them even joyfully worked with real NAZIs during WW2 to hunt down Jews for deportation to the death camps. (“The happiest time of my life” in George Soros’ own words.)

Perpetual open-mindedness (POM) is not an honest search for truth because there can be no conclusion. You can never come to a settled decision on what might be real. (Propaganda meme: The journey is the important thing, not the goal.) For the perpetually open-minded the world is always in flux, and this is apparent in the rhetoric of the socialist left that never seems to come to a solid conclusion about their made-up words. (Propaganda memes: Gender is not biological. Normal is a hurtful term.) The only thing to which this does not apply is what they choose to hate: Conservatives are the enemies of democracy who must be stopped; Trump is a bad, bad, very bad man who deserves to be beaten; Christianity is a recidivist religion that must be controlled by the state; white people are all racist even when they are not being racist and are the source of all oppression; men, also the source of all oppression, are too manly and must be feminized; Q people are dangerous while being at the same time comically deluded and probably terrorists, etc., and they call them all NAZIs without having the slightest notion of what that acronym actually means.

This idea of perpetual open-mindedness did not spring into existence overnight. It has deep roots, and it was promulgated by the people who controlled the wealth of the world, not because they thought it was a good practice, but because it gave them a tool they could use to manipulate everyone else. Not to step on anyone’s toes, but Star Trek is a perfect example of the kind of propaganda they have used to convince people that objective reality doesn’t exist. In Star Trek shows, every belief is held to be valid regardless of whether it’s true, even though the entire universe bears witness that this is nonsense. The fact that the laws of the physical universe remain the same for everybody in every frame of reference is enough proof that there is a basic objective reality that doesn’t change because of anything one does or thinks. (Thinking you can float will have exactly the same consequence as not thinking you can float if you step off a precipice.) Now, if there is an objective reality of cause and effect in physics, it stands to reason that there might also be an objective reality of cause and effect for things like moral choices, and this is supported by the philosophical observation that free will springs directly from the way the universe is constructed at the quantum level. Randomness is built into the universe right at the bottom of everything, which means there can be no such thing as inevitable fate in the fabric of reality, only cause and effect that can be predicted within a statistical probability.

The concept that subjective reality can be just as valid and true as objective reality was a difficult thing to get people to swallow until the early 20th century, when science came to the rescue. The promoters of this kind of “individual truth” found support for the idea in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which shows how different observers might not agree on the timing of an event depending on their motion relative to each other. In a philosophical slight-of-hand, the wise masters of the intelligentsia stretched this idea to cover unrelated issues and declared that moral truth (the truth that governs choice) is not objectively real. Suddenly, goodness and badness were equivalent, and no one had to worry about consequences. (Sound familiar? This is what the Satanic blood-letting cultists believe. “Do as thou wilt.”) The irony of this conclusion is that Einstein never implied that not being able to agree on the timing of an event changes the reality of the event itself. Even more ironic is the fact that the theory itself was an attempt to explain the constant speed of light, which is the same no matter how it is measured or how fast the one measuring it is moving. It was an attempt to explain a basic tenet of physics, that the laws of the universe are fixed to be the same for everyone in every circumstance.

Added to this was the observer-created reality proposed by 20th century quantum physicists to explain the weirdness of quantum mechanics (for which they still have no satisfying explanation), and the destruction of objective reality and truth was complete. Not only can truth be different for observers looking at it from different perspectives, truth can be whatever you say it is, and reality itself can be different for different people. How we think about things is as important as what we think. People captured by this idea have failed to realize that a different experience of reality does not necessarily mean that reality itself can be different for each individual, as if the laws of the universe can somehow change from one location to another.

Science matters because it greatly affects the general consciousness of humanity. It produces a worldview that can be cleverly manipulated to justify concepts that support the people in control of institutions and governments. This is what has been happening since the explosion of science in the late 19th century (not to suggest this kind of manipulation is new). Perpetual open-mindedness was put forth as a virtue, and the idea of subjective reality was popularized in the media. (Propaganda meme: Cubism.) Everyone was encouraged to “believe the science” without realizing it was a trick. The meaning of scientific theory, which was proposed afterwards, became fact by political agreement, and this was promulgated in books, magazines, television shows, movies, and newspapers until nearly everyone believed it. (Propaganda meme: Musical theme of the show, “The Big Bang Theory.”) People were hardly aware they were being spoon-fed a narrative concocted by people who wanted to control them, and the worldview built around the physics of the 20th century primed them to accept a restructuring of everything by people they don’t even know. (Propaganda meme: New World Order. Not George Bush’s idea. It’s been printed on U.S. money for decades in Latin.)

Now, having said all that, it is not my opinion that all open-mindedness is bad. An honest search for truth always begins with an open mind, but there is a difference. It is not the kind of ever-questioning mindset that will pass by truth to stay on the road of open-mindedness. It is the kind that shuts down inquiry when truth is found. This is not becoming closed-minded in the end. It is coming to a conclusion about what you believe to be true. It is not passing the house after walking home because getting there was the purpose. There is nothing wrong with that. A journey with the end of achieving a goal is better than a journey that never ends. One is a solid way to build a life. The other is the very definition of insanity.