Home Society What To Do with the Idea of “Truth” in a Culture That...

What To Do with the Idea of “Truth” in a Culture That Regards Deceit as Realpolitik?

32
Screenshot of the Pentagon video where the lecturer is describing the “VMAT2” gene (religious fanatics gene)

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

A video posted as a Comment to yesterday’s article on Gumshoe shows that Christine Ford has so far received $535,000 from a Go-Fund-Me campaign. That’s what people have contributed to her efforts to defeat a Supreme Court nominee.  There was a discussion of people becoming “paid witnesses”.

A moment after I watched it, a friend sent me a video about Julian Assange. In the Assange video, we see a clip from a Pentagon scientific meeting where a lecturer describes the “VMAT2” gene. That gene is said to be expressed in persons who are religious fanatics (“who may go into a mart and blow people up”). On the screen we see MRI scans that compare the brain of a religious fanatic with that of a normal person.

My first thought was: Is that lecturer’s graphic presentation honest?

One Way To Pin Down the Truth: Sworn Testimony

When I was young, it was considered settled — that is, not up for grabs – that controversies about factual matters could be resolved by applying certain methods – specifically, sworn testimony and scientific proof.

In regard to a court case, especially a criminal court case, it was felt by the public that if an eyewitness was available, the guilt or innocence of the accused might be established. We would tend to downplay, of course, a self-serving witness. Thus, the mother providing an alibi for her accused son was not as believable as a stranger vouching for the presence of the accused in a location other than the crime scene.

Sworn testimony was highly valued.  Most people think the credibility of it is related to the threat of imprisonment for committing perjury. Sure, that counts for a lot. But in the olden days the testifier, who was assumed to believe in God, was really putting herself in line for punishment from God if she lied under oath.

How little this matters anymore! On September 27, 2018, both Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh raised their right hand to God and swore to tell the truth, for the purpose of establishing Kavanaugh’s suitability to become a high court judge. When they gave varying stories about an alleged sexual incident (from many years ago), hardly any of their critics made any reference to the solemnity of their oaths.

In one article about the testimony, more than 80,000 members of the public offered an online comment. They typically relied on other ways to ferret out the truth, such as by comparing Ford to Anita Hill, or by invoking the #MeToo movement as evidence for the credibility of a woman’s complaint of sexual assault.

Anther common theme was to interpret the motives of the various senators who would vote on the outcome. Example: “Democrats want to kick the hearings down the road, in hopes that the November 6 elections will be anti-Trump” — meaning that candidates for the Bench should not be appointed by President Trump in 2018.

Another Way to Pin Down the Truth: Scientific Evidence

Again, when I was young, it was not even questioned that there was a way to resolve controversy about facts in nature. “Science” could perform tests and come up with the true answer.

That was easy when the mode of measurement was already standardized. Want to resolve the controversy between those who say water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit and those who say 210? Easy, we’ll just stand around the cauldron, equipped with a thermometer and wait to see what happens.

In the Assange video that I mentioned, a Pentagon scientist showed two brain scans, supposedly comparing a religious fanatic and a normal person. The speaker seemed to expect that we’ll take this to be like comparing a non-boiling cauldron and a boiling one. “The proof is right before our eyes.”

But as with the Ford-Kavanaugh matter, there are interested parties standing behind the presentation. The Pentagon lecturer is almost certainly a proponent of the military stance that terrorism is something that his organization must fight.

When a Pentagon audience member said, in the film, that a person with the VMAT2 gene is one who would blow up a public place, I had only to think of Jahar Tsarnaev and all the false information that has been written about him. Some writers have said he was “radicalized,” when honest investigation shows the real Jahar to be about as un-radicalized as you can get.

Indeed, Elias Davidsson, in an Amazon review of the book Terrorism in Cyberspace by Gabriel Weimann, has shown with his own careful analysis of  that author’s “documentation” that the alleged sources of radicalization (such as the “al-Qaeda magazine Inspire”) exist only as part of the propaganda for the war on terror.

So What To Do?

The Post-modern generation may think the two sources of truth I mentioned are outmoded.  Of course they are NOT outmoded. They are perennial, we need to keep them forever — as there is no replacement for them. As far as science goes,

we employ our own senses to observe what is going on in nature. If we observe properly we will come up with the true answer. How could that be replaced?

In regard to the practice of having someone swear under oath — the thing that is happening is that the testifier is being subjected to extra-close scrutiny by the members of his society, his neghbors. This is a natural, sensible thing to do when the stakes are high.  Humans are great liars, we do it all the time, but when honesty is crucial – such as when an accused’s life is at stake – we need to lean hard on the testifier.

Don’t let him or her get away with lying! Punish the perjurer. In my September 30, 2018 article at Gumshoe, I recommended that the public now start to hound Justice Clarence Thomas off the Bench. He can’t be prosecuted for the crime of perjury as the time limit has passed.

Strictly speaking, he can’t be impeached for bad behaviour since the bad behavior did not occur during his time in office. But now that it seems clear that Anita Hill, in 1991, spoke the truth about his sexually harassing her, and he denied it under oath, the public can go for his jugular.

Alternatively, Justice Clarence Thomas could confess and apologize and resign.  The thing to look at here is not “Would this mean there will be fewer liberal votes among Supreme Court judges?” The thing to look at is: if we don’t restore the cultural value of honesty, as soon as possible, we will be up the Famous Creek without a paddle. We desperately need our paddle.

I say: stop treating the lying of the powerful as realpolitik (by saying “She did it because such-and-such a factor demanded it.”). Just treat lying as lying.

Nature has equipped the human being with a wonderful spectrum of emotions that suit various occasions.  The relevant one here is: anger toward liars. We have always used that anger to great effect.  The receiver of the anger has a corresponding emotion: shame.

That method can’t work unless you use it, you know. So use it!

The Lies of Science, and “the Helpful Institutions”

Around 2005, I found out that Alan Cantwell, MD, and others had proven that the AIDS epidemic was man-made. I also saw that the autism epidemic has been deliberately engineered by malicious people using vaccinations for that purpose. Because Cantwell was also into investigating the dishonesty of the cancer field, I started to research that.

To my astonishment I learned that various successful cancer cures were available in normal medical practice in the early 20th century. Then some powerful people, behind the scenes of course, found ways to put those cures out of business. The result, of course, is that millions of people have suffered and/or died unnecessarily.

I am certain that my research on this is accurate. You can find it in my book Consider the Lilies: A Review of 18 Cancer Cures and Their Legal Status. By “legal status” I mean “Will the doctor who uses these good cures be punished?”  Yes, he will, by losing his licence, by being smeared as a quack, by being sued, sent to jail, or even killed.

I won’t attempt to put my case here. Rather, I will quickly mention the role of the “helpful institutions.” The following is a boast that appears in the so-called “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” that appeared in 1905 (likely not a product of Theodore Herzl’s movement to form a Jewish homeland, but part of The New World Order):

“In all ages [people] have accepted words for deeds. They rarely pause to note, in the public arena, whether promises are followed by performance. Therefore we shall establish show institutions.”

A big part of deception today, practised by the powerful few against the masses, consists of organizations – some governmental, some private charitable foundations – that seem to have the motive of helping but really have the motive of harming.

In my Lilies book, I identified these private organizations as deliberately conducting harm, despite their sweet appearance: the American Cancer Society, the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and the March of Dimes (in relation to polio).

I listed the following governmental groups as practicing deliberate harm: the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the CDC (Center for the Prevention and Control of Disease), and the AMA (American Medical Association). Also, the NIH (National Institutes of Health) controls almost all cancer research by controlling the funding for it. NIH will never reveal the hidden cures.

Conclusion

The title of my essay here is “What To Do with the Idea of ‘Truth’ in a Culture That Regards Deceit as Realpolitik?”.

As regards the medical profession – and I have elsewhere said the same of the legal profession – it won’t do for us to assume that the organized profession has “good” in mind.  I am not implying that it has mainly the interests of its members in mind – that would be acceptable, as the AMA and ABA are in fact trade unions.

Rather, their leaders are working hard, behind the scenes, to harm us all. Their allegiance is neither to their members nor to ”humanity.” Anything but! They are part of the plan of our hidden rulers to deceive us with “show institutions.” They delight in our suffering with cancer or our judges doing the wrong thing.

Earlier I said that we can’t afford to give up the old way of coming down hard on liars. Weeding out the liars is the way to go, not giving them a free pass.  In regard to the show institutions, the weeding out of liars must begin with a recognition that these institutions are in fact well-planned show institutions.

To decline to make that recognition is an unforgivable mistake, a sign of moral laziness and intellectual timidity.

In sum, the answer to my question What To Do with the Idea of ‘Truth’ in a Culture That Regards Deceit as Realpolitik?”  is: Reinforce that idea of truth. Bring it back. Celebrate it.

Tossing it out the window is one of the most hilarious things we have ever done.

— Mary W Maxwell, LLB is the author of Fraud Upon the Court: Reclaiming the Law, Joyfully.

 

 

SHARE

32 COMMENTS

  1. My preference would be for Judge K to be a really big man and show his love of country by withdrawing from the nomination now, on the grounds that this TV shindig is divisive and it degrades the Court. There’s no need for him to join SCOTUS. He did not earn it, no one ever “earns” it.

    His nomination arose from the Federalist Society. I am a member of FedSoc and often attend their meetings, even by phone from Australia. Plenty of fine constitutionalists are in FedSoc. (Although, really, how fine a constitutionalist can you be if you shutta you mouf about 9-11?)

    Gumshoers, including me, are satisfied that Ford lied (and that she may be a puppet of Deep State). Of course, one can never be 100% sure. I believed for a while that Judge Roy Moore in Alabamahad not touched a 14-year-old-when he was 32 (as he had his whole career ahead of him, so wouldn’t have risked it). Two current lawsuits might sort it out.

    Why rush to put K on the Court? The votes by 100 senators will not be proof of either person’s truthfulness. The vote will be seen, correctly unfortunately, as “political.” That is very unAmerican. In fact it’s shocking.

    Come to think of it, I’d like Trump to withdraw from 2020 election – because too many Americans are outraged by him, and saddened by his words. I realize the media are at fault for mis-portraying Trump, but most citizens don’t know that.

    We need a leader that Americans can trust, a president who, we all expect, would happily die for the Constitution. On the Republican side, I nominate Ron Paul and Rand Paul — let them run as a di-umverate. Yay!

  2. “My preference would be for Judge K to be a really big man and show his love of country by withdrawing from the nomination now, on the grounds that this TV shindig is divisive and it degrades the Court.”

    Shouldn’t the emphasis be on going after all the divisive people that have degraded this process?

    As you stated, “we can’t afford to give up the old way of coming down hard on liars. Weeding out the liars is the way to go, not giving them a free pass.”

    • Yes, sorry, Terry, I did mean that we should keep pursuing this.

      Of course the sort of thing of going at the deceivers is basically what Gumshoe does all year long.

      Not only would I want Ford weeded out, I would want all those interested parties who stood behind her to BE NAMED and get their share of the whippings.

      And if Kavanaugh lied, I want that dealt with, too. But mostly my Comment was: “Please everybody, stop with the mad chase around the Capitol.”

      I am truly sad that well-meaning young women are staging protests — as though any time a woman says a man harmed her, The Word of God says rescue her and punish men. Yuck.

      It has taken decades to find out that Anita Hill wasn’t lying. No need to go the other way and say throw Kavanaugh out. I’d love it if he would asked to be considered for the NEXT slot instead of this one, to get the pressure off.

      The media is in control of the pressure. Each time you turn your cell phone on, the Kavanaugh matter lights up. It’s fierce.

      Long live Gumshoe, but we are only the teeny-tinest force.

    • Dear Fish, Thank you for the destroy-the-church item. When I went to that page I also found a reminder of that very important KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov. He set out to destroy a culture of virtue. He said:

      “[The main methods] were to “corrupt the young, get them interested in sex, take them away from religion. Make them superficial and enfeebled […] destroy people’s faith in their national leaders by holding the latter up for contempt, ridicule and disgrace […] cause breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty, sobriety, self-restraint, faith in the pledged word.”

      “Superficial and enfeebled” woo-hoo.

      • Earlier, theoreticians whose ambition was to destroy “Western” (read Christian) civilisation advocated “let us corrupt women” (Bakunin) because, presumably, that is the shortest and surest way to degrade a people.

  4. Recently I said Brice Taylor talked about Sen Patrick Leahy, D-VT.

    Wrong. It was Cathy O’Brien in The Trance-formation of America. The full text is at Archive.org. Here is a snippet for what it’s worth. (When the Dems are “in power” Leahy is chair of the Judiciary Committee. He vets judges.)

    “Most of my traumatic encounters with Leahy were alien-themed, but be
    often relied on my Catholic upbringing to drive his points into my mind.

    “From my perspective, Leahy was unquestionably one of the most intelligent criminals of this entire Shadow Government. His carefully contrived chameleon-like characteristics provided him the latitude of appearing to share the beliefs of whomever he was masterfully manipulating.

    While he appeared publicly to oppose Byrd on Senate Appropriations issues, they actually worked together in their shared world dominance efforts. Again from my perspective, Leahy was a loner who had his own agenda and answered to no one knew. Everything he did was for a deeper purpose.

    • Yair. I can relate to that even though I was then, as now, a “strange type” who could not be relied on to follow the mob.

  7. This is from Thursday night before the Friday vote in the Senate:;
    October 4 at 8:21 PM
    Charles Ludington, Lynne Brookes and Elizabeth Swisher attended Yale University from 1983 to 1987 with Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. [They write]:

    “We were college classmates and drinking buddies with Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. …

    “In each of our cases, it was his public statements during a Fox News TV interview and his sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that prompted us to speak out.
    …[W]e each believe that telling the truth, no matter how difficult, is a moral obligation for our nation’s leaders. No one should be able to lie their way onto the Supreme Court. Honesty is the glue that holds together a society of laws. Lies are the solvent that dissolves those bonds.”

    • Sorry, I omitted this key paragraph:

      We each asserted that Brett lied to the Senate by stating, under oath, that he never drank to the point of forgetting what he was doing.

      We said, unequivocally, that each of us, on numerous occasions, had seen Brett stumbling drunk to the point that it would be impossible for him to state with any degree of certainty that he remembered everything that he did when drunk.

      • So they enter his mind and make a subjective conclusion that it would be impossible for him with any degree of certainty that he remembered [subjective conclusion] everything he did when he was drunk.
        Seems that the Ludington, Brookes and Swisher have never been pissed and actually remembered where they parked the car the night before. They are BS.

        Clearly

  10. YOU ASKED FOR IT, Sen. PATRICK LEAHY

    In a comment above I held back from quoting Trance-Formation as to Leahy’s bedroom preferences. But it is now 2pm in Washington DC and Leahy has just given his vote on Kavanaugh saying that K’s reaction to Ford’s testimony “was an insult to survivors of sexual violence everywhere.” OK then, Senator, how about this survivor, Cathy O’Brien and her child Kelly. If you think she is slandering you, sue her. I quote the book Trance-formation (1995), at archive.org:

    I delivered the documents and message as ordered. Leahy then proceeded to explain that he was aware that my death was imminent due to my groundwork participation in NAFTA, and that subsequently Kelly would be traded to the West Coast pornography operation….

    Leahy signalled Kelly with his hand, thus switching her into total silence and submission. Leahy began undressing. His pale skin looked even whiter against the white eyelet sheets, which seemed to accentuate the perversity of his pedophile actions with my daughter that I was forced to watch.

    His torturous abuse complete, Leahy ordered Kelly and me to follow him downstairs to his “torture lab”. It looked more like a NASA lab. His access to the latest advancements in electronic/drug mind-control technology was consistent with his ability to use it. I was immediately strapped to a cold, chrome and stainless steel table by the two guards.

    Leahy began reciting, ’’Cross your heart and hope to die, Stick a needle in your eye”. A wirey “needle” was pushed slowly into my right eye while Kelly was forced to watch. This entire ordeal was directed for trauma purposes primarily at Kelly.

    [Come on, Patrick, sue her. You need to clear your name. Do it for Vermont! And while you have the floor, right now in Congress, and the MSM, tell everyone u r innocent. Hurry!]

  11. At 4.04pm, K is confirmed. There was quite a lot of noise from the Gallery throughout the voting. It ended 48-50.
    If Alabama had done the right thing and put me in the Senate, I’d have been in the 48, a Repub saying “No thanks.” But then, if I were a senator, Doug Jones would not be there casting his No vote. So it would come out the same: 48-50.

    Anyway, if I had my feet in the Senate several days ago I’d have tried to talk my fellow Repubs out of having a vote at all, as we will soon be seen to have caused a disaster.

    It is disgraceful that a vote on cloture on Friday was 51-49 in favor of not letting the Dems have more time to deal with the decision. What Repub worth his salt could agree that half the senators of the US should be deprived of time to debate a matter that was getting into hysterical condition on the street? We are not supposed to be a Westminster-parliament.

    Also, with a 48-50 vote, it can never again be said that we have an independent Third Branch. Recall that my case, Maxwell v Trump, was denied, at District Court level, partly on the grounds of PQ, the political question – as are all war-powers cases. That is, the Judiciary says it can’t make decisions on cases that ought to be decided by the political [elected] branches. But now SCOTUS is seen to be one of the political branches. Its various rulings are predicted in advance by which Party nominated them. God help my poor country.

    (For the record, my objection to K has naught to do with the sex allegations.)

    • Mary, the Reality Check video by Ben Swann embedded in this article sums up your valid concerns for post-truth/post-constitutional America

      https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/10/05/is-judge-brett-kavanaugh-the-constitutionalist-youre-looking-for/

      BTW – did anyone notice in the latest X22 video “History In The Making, Ready For Arrests, Tribunals & Pain – Episode 1682b”

      At 15:40 ++
      “[DT:] Under my leadership the United States has accelerated efforts to defeat terrorists. Working with coalition partners we have decimated the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.” [REALLY??]

      • Thank you, Fish. i quote from your 21Wire link:

        “Kavanaugh was one of the individuals tasked with [the PATRIOT ACT’S] drafting. He has been definitively credited with the line, “…the new law will update laws authorizing government surveillance.” And just this one line is rather problematic in itself.

        “If he is the constitutionalist he has claimed to be on several occasions, then he would know that the Constitution already prohibits the government from broad, warrantless searches of this nature. This is not a protection that can simply be ‘updated’.”

        Ding!

        • I return to my original assertion: no one gets to be anyone in the “establishment” without being compromised. One cannot even get a “degree” or certification without licking the boots of the secretocracy. There are many examples of ordinary honest people who have been, and are, relegated to “persona non grata” status for no reason other than that they were not card-carrying members of the “NWO” ideology.

          Kavanaugh’s maybe yes, maybe no, adolescent indiscretions are of no consequence except to give a clear signal to everyone that the Synagogue has the means to create a maelstrom of publicity to wreck anyone who does not comply. Kavanaugh is snookered; even his wife could not offer much support unless she is one of the heroic women that are never referred to these days.

          In my opinion, Kavanaugh represents no more than the “lesser of two evils” only because he has not publicly endorsed the sacrifice of innocents

  12. Addendum:
    Anyhow* why the hell are we ‘Strayans fixated in some sort of “cultural cringe” on the theater being played out in blardy yanky land? The con men keep telling us how wonderful the Yank’s Constitution is because it was modeled on the irrational French Revolution but ‘Straya’s Constitution came way after that… some wise men pruned it somewhat so that the “Government” can’t impose itself on the people without the agreement of the people (via referendum) and the “Crown”. There’s much crookedry in there because the “Government” pretends that it is the people and the “Crown” (supranational bankers centered in the “City of London”) always and only approve what suits their purpose.

    Practically all “politics” is a theatrical production choreographed by wonderfully cunning puppeteers. They know full well that perversity is best served as an ingredient rather than a dish. As one of our ‘Strayan philosophers put it about 40 years ago: “It’s no use giving me a dish of poison and expect me to eat it. No! you’ve got to put the poison in a nice pie and perhaps I’ll eat the poison because I’m attracted to the delicious pie”.

    As we might say in ‘Straya man-made laws are not worth two knobs of goat shit but they can hurt if they hit.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.