Quid est veritas?

The famous question of Pilate to Jesus: what is truth? Now, we Christians answer that by saying Jesus is the Truth…and that is true and sufficient for all events. But as we are no longer a Christian civilization, perhaps we need to expand on it a bit more? For the heathen…and, maybe, a lot of those who call themselves Christian but live as practical pagans.

The basic issue of truth has been rolling around in my head a lot lately, but Team Pudding Brain setting up a Disinformation Governance Board gives the matter urgency. To absolutely no surprise to you or anyone on our side, there are already Never Trump squishes trying to explain or explain away this board – which cannot but have a nefarious purpose of suppressing dissent. The way NT writes it up, there is a need for someone to clamp down on “misinformation”, though when pressed they’ll admit that a board inside the Department of Homeland Security isn’t the best place for it. There is, naturally, no best place for it – there is no place for it, at all.

We know that when the Left says “misinformation” what they mean is anything they disagree with. It is why they say “misinformation” rather than “lies”. Keep in mind that Leftist fact checkers will take someone which is 100% true and call it “partially false”, based on what they say is the relevant context. Meanwhile, bald faced lies by the Left are held to be “mostly true” because once you think about the whole situation, that Leftist lie speaks to a larger truth. You see how it goes: anything we say is false, anything they say is true…and so even when we say factually true things, we’re spreading “misinformation” and that has to be stopped. Now by Pudding Brain’s Cheka inside DHS.

But the larger problem we have is that a lot of people don’t know what truth is any longer. We’ve been conditioned for decades to think that divorce (ie, breaking a promise) is ok and that we have to tell “little while lies” just to get on in society. It was under Bill Clinton that this was rammed home. It would have eventually been rammed home by the Left but Clinton gave it urgency because just about everything he said was false…but as it was all in the service of the greater good (ie, advancing the Left) we all had to be taught that some times lies are good.

There is a poll out there were people were asked questions like “what portion of the population is gay?” and “what portion of the population is white” and the overall results show that people haven’t a clue about their own nation. The question about gay was very revealing in that the “vote” for gay was about 20 percent when the actual gay number is 3 percent. People are walking around thinking that one in five are gay. But, who can blame them? Turn on popular culture and it is shot through with gay characters. It seems that every move and TV show has to have a significant number of gay people in it when, in reality, most Americans might personally know one or two gay people because there simply aren’t that many out there (for myself, I personally know two gay people – and one of them is only distantly known via a second party mutual friend). People think America is barely majority white when the reality is that we’re seventy percent white. People think that twenty percent are millionaires when it is less than one percent.

And this is all because the people have been lied to and they have been conditioned to accept and repeat lies.

Here I would like to point out that a lie does no have to be false. In fact, a lie can be entirely factually correct and still be a lie. Like this:

Here are your facts. Jack went to the store where he pulled out a gun and shot the clerk and stole fifty dollars. He then went home and had a beer and told his wife he loved her.

Here is your news report: Jack came home from the store and after having a beer, told his wife he loved her.

There is nothing false in the news report, but it is a completely false story all the same. It is a fact that the most effective lies adhere as close to the truth as possible in order to transmit the lie. Recently, Marjorie Taylor Greene was accosted by an MSMer who tried to ask her why she brought up the possibility of martial law to prevent Biden from becoming President. She stopped and asked the MSMer to read the actual text (all the while refusing to confirm it was even her text – my bet is that it isn’t, but she didn’t want to get drawn into an argument on that level). Once she really pressed, the MSMer (not facing the camera while he did so) read the whole text and thus we found out that it wasn’t MTG saying we needed to go to martial law, but someone saying that some people are talking like that. And some people were – but some people talking about a thing doesn’t equate to anyone advocating for a thing.

But there was the MSM, trying to slander MTG into being an insurrectionist. And the lie was merely the MSM not reporting the whole text – they just latched on to a word and then started asking everyone “why was MTG advocating martial law?”. Now, MTG ably destroyed the MSMer – calling him a liar to his face – but you can bet on it that if any of the video is shown in the MSM, it won’t be the parts where MTG calls the MSMer a liar or the MSMer having to admit that the text doesn’t verify MTG calling for martial law. Whatever gets into the MSM show will, by selective use of words and facts, work out to the MSM viewers being told that MTG favored martial law to stop Biden. And it will have the true things in it that MTG was part of a text thread where martial law was mentioned…and that will sound oh, so ominous! But it will also be a lie.

I think our first step here is to define a lie – and it isn’t just the statement of a falsehood. It is the attempt to deceive which differentiates a lie from the truth. And while it is possible to deceive someone with an outright falsehood, the reality is that the most effective deceptions use truth as their foundation. It is the difference between an adult pulling a toddler’s leg by asserting the Moon is made out of green cheese and the con artist trying to sucker the unwary out of their money. The adult isn’t really trying to get the kid to believe the Moon is made out of cheese…but the con artist is definitely trying to get the money. This is why Trump grandly saying that Mexico will pay for the wall (implying to the unwary – or the malicious – that Trump was saying Mexico will cut us a check for wall construction) wasn’t an attempt to deceive, but Obama saying “if you like your doctor, you can keep him”, was. Trump was trying to drive home a rhetorical point about the necessity and benefit of the wall…Obama was just bald faced lying to save his political bacon because if he had come out and told us what ObamaCare was going to do, he would have lost the 2012 election. Obama lied to fool us into keeping him in power, Trump exaggerated to make a point – there is a gigantic difference here.

“Safe, legal and rare”: remember that? This was the supposedly centrist Democrat answer to the problem of abortion in the 1990’s. It sounded so good, but it was an attempt to deceive. And it by and large worked. It sounded so right. “Hey, I don’t like abortion, but as long as it is rare, then I’m ok with it.” Democrats went with that angle because saying “federally funded abortion on demand to the moment of birth” (their actual position at the time and now) would have been politically disastrous. But it has been lies like that which have kept the Left in power because the lies, which all contain aspects of truth, are so relentlessly hammered home by the MSM and popular culture, help people make a coward’s bargain. That bargain is: I’ll pretend you’re not lying, if you’ll leave me alone.

But that bargain never works, long term. The trouble is that the liars never stop lying: they just see if you’ll swallow the next one as readily as the last. And I think the Left has gone too far – and the trans issue seems to be the dam buster here. Trying to get people to agree that men can get pregnant and that kids are old enough to decide if they should transition was just a step way too far. But even with the rising pushback here, we have a long way to go. Many other lies have been very firmly implanted into the American mind. People – large numbers of of them – believe complete drivel because it has been endlessly and slickly imparted to them in popular culture for decades.

To take an example: Columbus. Once such a hero that we named our capital city after him, he’s now nearly universally despised, and by extension every explorer, pioneer and colonist despised with him. Most people, if you query them on the subject, will at least go along with some concept of Columbus and his successors being bad. Never mind that they recently dug up 1,000 female skulls in Mexico and, after first thinking it was a mass grave of Cartel victims, discovered it was instead a 1,000 year old site of mass female human sacrifice. Had Columbus and the Conquistadores not come along, that stuff would have just kept on going.

So, too, with all of it – there is no indication that my Irish ancestors, left alone, would have set in motion a train of events which got me to sitting in my air conditioned home in the desert with a pool out back and a pantry stuffed with food that I didn’t have to sweat in the fields to obtain. Sure, there were probably some ancestors back there who were hung for stealing a sheep and I am firmly against hanging sheep thieves…but the bottom line is that absent the Limey bastards, I wouldn’t be living nearly as well as I do today. So, thank God for the colonists!

But we can’t even have that discussion these days because the lies have been so deeply implanted that most wouldn’t know what you were talking about and a determined minority would seek to socially destroy you for pointing out relevant facts which place the Current Narrative in a bad light.

We have to get back to truth – the real truth. Telling the story which places all relevant information in the public square in a timely manner so that people can react properly to events. To do this, lying – intentional deception – is going to have to be punished. The liar,when caught, can’t be allowed to give us a “my bad” and move on. There has to be pain involved. Lots of pain. So much pain that people might start to think that honesty really is the best policy.

Hey, its either that or get ready for a future where you die of easily treatable diseases as your doctor in his ignorance throws up his hands – not knowing the simple treatments because after a century of lies, it was decided that being a doctor doesn’t require knowledge of human physiology. But he’s dead certain that men can get pregnant.

19 thoughts on “Quid est veritas?

  1. Cluster May 2, 2022 / 8:51 am

    I often wonder why people even worry about trivial shit like this. People should focus much more on their lives, their family and their community rather than busying themselves with worrying about “racial divisions” or “gay rights”, etc.. If people would just make their home, their neighborhood and their community a little better place to live, then imagine what good things could happen.

    But this is what the agenda media and the ruling class want us to think about, large macro issues, so we don’t realize how fucked up everything is at the micro level. And Truth will always reveal itself through natural market forces, just like the economy. If free speech is truly allowed, the natural forces of supply and demand will always eventually expose the Truth.

  2. Amazona May 2, 2022 / 2:04 pm

    If you believe the hysterics, Columbus stormed ashore and led his band of assassins on a rampage to kill native peoples. In fact, he never set foot on the North American continent. He kind of did an explorer’s version of Chevy Chase looking at the Grand Canyon in National Lampoon’s Vacation, pointing at it and saying “there it is” and moving on to look for his real goal

    You are right is pointing out that a lie is a purposeful effort to convince someone of something you know is not true. Passing on something you believe to be true is not a lie even if it turns out it was never true at all—you said what you believed to be true, and there was no effort to deceive.

    What amazes me these days is the blatant shift on the Left from trying to pass off partial truths as fact to out-and-out lying, out-and-out inventions the speakers have to know are lies. Scarborough is a perfect example of this, as is Adam Schiff. These people KNOW they are making it up, but they don’t care, because their job as they see it is to convince as many people as possible that they are giving them the real facts

    Look at all the claims that Trump is a liar—yet I never hear of a lie he supposedly told. It is always assumptions of purposeful effort to deceive based on filtering what was said through a determination to spin it as a lie—which is, in and of itself, a lie.

      • Amazona May 3, 2022 / 3:17 pm

        Oh, are you still playing the ” ‘pay for’ only means writing a check” game? So so yesterday, but then that’s all you guys have.

        If a guy keys your car and you mutter “he’s going to pay for that” do you mean he will literally have to write a check for a paint job on a 2004 Aztec? What about if he gropes your girlfriend (if you ever get one)—–how does he “pay for” that? In some places he would get punched in the nose, but where’s the dollar sign?

        When a criminal “pays for” a crime does he actually have to reimburse someone, or society, or does he “pay for it” by being punished?

        You people live in such an odd, constricted little world, where some words have to be taken with one absolute inflexible literal arbitrary meaning and other words have no meaning at all. So “pay for” can only mean “write a check” but “insurrection” can mean “being obnoxious” and “woman” doesn’t mean anything at all. A world where saying “be peaceful” means “incite to violence” and a “safe abortion” means a human being dies.

        And you wonder why we have only contempt for you.

      • Cluster May 3, 2022 / 6:59 pm

        They’re gender fluid but not word fluid

  3. fieldingclaymore May 3, 2022 / 3:34 pm

    Did he actually win the popular vote in 2016 but for the millions of illegal votes?

    • Retired Spook May 3, 2022 / 4:55 pm

      Did he Hillary actually win the popular vote in 2016 but for the millions of illegal votes?


      • Retired Spook May 3, 2022 / 5:21 pm

        Hillary won the popular vote in 2016. If you subtract the number of illegals who voted for her, did she actually win the popular vote? What part of that makes no sense?

    • Cluster May 3, 2022 / 7:00 pm

      That’s not how a Republic works. Fucking moron

    • Amazona May 3, 2022 / 7:53 pm

      The real issue is that no one knows who won how many votes. We can guess, we can speculate, about who got the legal votes and who got the illegal votes but we can’t know for sure because once they got merged they couldn’t be separated for an accounting.

      That is why when there is proof that votes have been illegally cast the state cannot, in good faith, “certify” any vote tally. To certify is to attest to accuracy or correctness, and once it is known that X number of people voted in a time frame not allowed by a state’s constitution, for example, but those votes have been folded into the total, the total is irretrievably tainted and no one can say with any accuracy who got how many of the legal votes and who got the illegal votes. Ditto for knowing that some people made multiple deposits in multiple drop boxes, against election rules. Once those ballots were admitted to the total and counted, they contaminated the whole and none of the results can be verified as accurate. (This is why strict allegiance to rigid rules on ballot counting must be maintained. Suspected ballots have to be sequestered until they can be examined and a determination is made about their legitimacy.)

      As for “popular vote” that is just a phrase developed to appeal to the ignorant end emotion-driven. It SOUNDS like it means something substantial and it fools the gullible who seek something they can parrot in hopes it will make them sound knowledgeable. But it doesn’t. Even if it were a legitimate and quantifiable figure, it is irrelevant when choosing a president. It would be more legitimate to decide based on how many counties a candidate won, instead of acting as if a small handful of cities should be able to swing a presidential choice over the mass of the rest of the country.

  4. jdge1 May 3, 2022 / 4:14 pm

    How strange we have the unprecedented leak of Justice Alito’s opinion indicating R v W will be overturned. Given that it was leaked to Politico, a liberal leaning biased newsfeed, it seems likely this was an attempt to undermine the actual vote yet to be rendered. Of course, an “investigation” has been ordered, but that will not alter the course of events generated from the leak. Given the nature and timing of the leak it was almost certainly an inside job. I personally have little doubt there was a concerted effort from powerful members of the left side political structure purposely to garner this information ahead of time, in attempt to throw a wrench into the final vote. Will it succeed? I tend to doubt it. While we are certain to hear all kinds of hate and animosity from the left over this ruling, should the final vote suddenly shift, I believe there will be a far greater cry from the masses over yet another unconstitutional usurpation of power. The justices would be in a dangerous situation.

    The original incorrect ruling of R v W was based on known, easily refutable lies. It was correctly assessed that once this ruling was rendered, it would lead to abortion becoming commonplace, almost to the point of being set in concrete. We started with phrase (lie) of safe but rare abortions in the first trimester, pushing forward to taxpayer funded abortion up till birth, and still pushing forward where some state legislatures are now attempting to allow infanticide weeks after birth.

    It seems to me highly plausible that the recent consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, is at play with R v W being overturned and many more positive events at the near horizon. Positive that is, if you believe and trust in God. For all others, beware.

  5. Amazona May 3, 2022 / 7:59 pm

    It looks like fielding uncovered an old list of insipid questions and thought that maybe, this time, they might not sound so inane and might even let him posture as a serious person.

    Yeah—but no. Still insipid, still superficial, still unserious, still kind of sad

    • Cluster May 4, 2022 / 8:58 am

      Trump endorsed candidates swept the field the yesterday. The America first agenda is coming back with a vengeance

      • Retired Spook May 4, 2022 / 9:21 am

        I’m curious as to your take on the Arizona governor’s race. I’ve seen Kari Lake interviewed several times in the last month or so. She seems really sharp and easy on the eyes too. (yeah, I’m sexist, what can I say; she’s a babe — but an intelligent, articulate babe.)

      • Amazona May 4, 2022 / 10:41 am

        I’m impressed with her, too. Maybe not for all the same reasons, but still……

      • Amazona May 4, 2022 / 11:02 am

        Trump endorsed candidates swept the field the yesterday.

        Let’s hope this extends to his support of Harriet Hageman. The Left’s frantic support for a Republican in the House tells us all we need to know about the true Liz Cheney and their fear of a strong competent Constitutionalist, Harriet Hageman.

        Please support Harriet —she’s running against the whole Democrat Party right now.


  6. Retired Spook May 4, 2022 / 9:16 am

    Jeff Childers has an interesting and well-reasoned analysis of the leaked draft from the S.C.”

    Keep in mind that a draft decision is NOT a final order and can change, even substantially.

    — Some drifting democrats disgusted by their former party’s pandemic overreach and jab mandates are now feeling politically homeless in the wake of the Roe Draft. To them, I would say: remember that the Supreme Court also didn’t find that mandatory vaccination was unconstitutional. Don’t be surprised that the same Court didn’t find that preventing states from legislating about abortion is unconstitutional. The Court is being consistent.

    We’re going to have to claw our bodily autonomy back for ourselves. In the short and maybe medium terms, that effort is only happening on the right.

    — The Roe issue is just what the Democrat party was looking for. Based on the near-hysterical messaging during the last 24 hours, it’s clear that the Democrat party will use the abortion issue to invigorate its lethargic base for the 2022 midterm elections. The developing argument seems to be that since Congress needs to pass a federal law protecting abortion, Democrats need an even bigger majority to pass that law.

    If that happens, if the Dems do expand their majority, you can expect a federal vaccine mandate in about ten seconds, followed quickly by permanent mask mandates.

    — Get ready for another summer of mostly-peaceful Antifa protests over abortion.

    — The Supreme Court issued a statement yesterday in which Chief Justice Roberts confirmed the Roe Draft’s authenticity, and ordered an investigation into the identity of the leaker.

    — I’ve been working through the Roe Draft. It’s nearly 100 pages long, making it more of a small book than a traditional legal opinion. It probably needed to be that long given the weight of the decision and the fact the Court is reversing itself after only 50 years. The length could be why so many pundits and politicians are misstating what the decision actually says. Shockingly, a lot of people seem to feel free to forcefully opine about the draft decision even though they haven’t actually read the damned thing.

    For example, Joe Biden and many “experts” are claiming that the decision “affects a wide range of other rights,” such as same-sex marriage and LGBT rights. This is clearly wrong since the decision explicitly says:

    And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to case doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

    The actual gist of the decision is: usually, whenever the Court finds a new IMPLIED right in the Constitution, as opposed to an explicit right, it is very careful and cautious. Normally, decisions finding implied rights look back through history to prove that the particular right has always been recognized to exist under the common law. But in Roe v. Wade, the Court bypassed that traditional analysis and blithely overlooked the fact that a right to abortion has never been historically recognized; in fact, just the opposite, it’s generally been criminalized.

    So, Roe v. Wade essentially did the OPPOSITE of what the Court always carefully does when finding an implied right. Instead of merely recognizing a long-observed right, the original Roe decision REVERSED an historic antipathy toward abortion. In other words, the draft decision explains that Roe v. Wade created a brand-new right, which is not the Court’s role but should have been reserved to Congress.

    Ultimately all the Roe Draft would do is defer the decision over abortion to the federal government and the states. Since Dems control the White House and the House of Representatives, and narrowly control the Senate, they could conceivably pass a new law anytime. The vaccine mandates prove the Biden Administration is not shy about issuing questionable executive orders, so Biden could possibly order an abortion mandate pre-empting state laws anytime he wants.

    If you are strongly pro-choice, remember that Democrats COULD pass federal abortion protections anytime — they could’ve already done it — but, I predict they will NOT pass any such law, because they prefer to use the issue as a political catalyst. Instead, they’ll complain about Republican obstructionism and whine that voters need to give them even bigger majorities in Congress.

    Let’s see if I’m right.

    • Amazona May 4, 2022 / 10:46 am

      Democrats COULD pass federal abortion protections anytime but I think this would immediately run into serious legal challenges because to do so would open the same can or worms that Roe did. That is, violation of the 10th Amendment, and unconstitutional assumption of state authority.

      So while such a law might feed the ravenous beast of abortion ghouls, it would bounce back on them by giving yet another opportunity to lecture them on the real reason for overturning Roe, and create more discourse on state sovereignty.

Comments are closed.