“You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.”
“These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”
If you know Liberals (and I do), then you know that the modus operandi of Liberals is to lie regarding their stated goals and ambitions. Furthermore, they’re well known to employ lying in all facets of Liberal apologetics, regardless of topic, circumstance, or situation. Lying is not only morally and ethically acceptable, but encouraged as a matter of course in defense of the Faith.
Liberals know they must lie, otherwise, the Statist objectives they wish to accomplish could never be accomplished by popular choice throughout a free society. Why?
Because, under normal circumstances anyway, no rational individual would ever voluntarily choose to live in the conditions facing us now in the United States (a mere precursor to authentic Liberalism, but Liberalism in its infancy is still misery), any more than a rational individual would voluntarily choose to join a centrally managed, dictatorial, city-state surrounded by walls designed to keep individuals inside the compound versus outside.
Liberalism breeds and encourages social and economic misery in the form of government tyranny, strife, cultural depravity, crime, violence, unemployment, economic bankruptcy, national shame, fear, loathing, envy, race and class warfare, just to name a few.
I visited such a bastion of Liberalism in the early 90’s, just a short time after its Wall was (forcefully) opened for the first time since the cultists built it in 1961. I saw the graves of individuals so desperate to escape Liberal tyranny they risked their lives to leave it, but lost the gamble.
Today, we’re going to look at one of the ways in which Liberals “justify” lying to non-believers to advance the goals of the cult. I’ve affectionately labeled this doctrine, “The Doctrine of Plausibility”, because of my good friend, The Statist, who first fatefully offered it in an attempt to defend another Liberal caught in the act of lying for his Faith.
The “Doctrine of Plausibility” basically states the following:
“If any claim may be plausibly claimed as True, then it may claimed absolutely True regardless of supporting evidence.”
From an interview in March of this year:
In a newly published interview, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Reid if he had any regrets from his decades in office. Bash focused in on Reid’s claims during the 2012 election that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for ten years: “So no regrets, not about Mitt Romney about the Koch brothers. Some people have even called it McCarthyite.” Reid responded with a shrug, “Well, they can call it whatever they want. Um…Romney didn’t win, did he?”
During the 2012 election cycle Romney released tax returns for 2010 and 2011. Democrats hoping to embarrass Romeny [sic] and to emphasize his wealth demanded he release additional returns. It was in the midst of this constant media drumbeat that Sen. Reid claimed a former investor in Romney’s company, Bain Capital, had told him Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. Reid first made the claim in an interview with Sam Stein and Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post.
Two days after the interview was published, Reid repeated his claim on the Senate floor, saying, “The word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes because he hasn’t.”
In fact, Romney had paid taxes for all 10 years and the 10 years before that. Price Waterhouse Cooper examined Romney’s taxes from 1990-2009 and found that he paid taxes, state and federal, every year and that he paid an average 20% federal tax rate for those years.
At the time Reid made the claim, fact-checkers quickly concluded he was lying. TheWashington Post awarded his claim 4 Pinocchios, stating, “it appears he has no basis to make his incendiary claim.” Even Politifact awarded Reid a “Pants on Fire” ruling.
But Senator Reid refused to retract his lie at the time, and obviously he’s not ashamed of it even now. Reid clearly believes his lies helped re-elect President Obama in 2012. He may be right about that. The claim certainly received plenty of attention in the final months before the election. Perhaps someone in the media will ask the president if he approves of Reid’s McCarthyite tactics on his behalf.
Reid sees his false witness against Romney not as an immoral act of lying against a fellow human being to deliberately destroy his aspirations toward public service, but rather as a moral act of attacking a threat to the cult of Liberalism. When the religion is threatened, societal norms don’t apply.
When confronted with the lie, Reid is not only unapologetic, but by taking credit for Romney’s election loss affirms his innocence through the “victory” of the lie:
“Well, they can call it whatever they want. Um…Romney didn’t win, did he?”
Reid is unwaveringly loyal to the cult when the threat to Liberalism (i.e., Romney) is identified. Reid is first a Liberal in all facets of life and therefore is free not only to lie if questioned about some threat to the cult, e.g., some contrary evidence to a goal of the cult, but he is also free to proactively forward a lie (questioned or not) to protect the same. As long as the End can be interpreted as the protection, succession, furtherance, etc., of the movement, the Means by which that End is accomplished is justified…a very common tactic encouraged by any cult. See also the Islamic doctrine of “Taqiya“.
Reid admits to the lie and is not ashamed. Not all Liberals are so inclined, although all true Liberals will employ lying anywhere, anytime, for whatever reason in order to defend their Faith.
My good friend, The Statist, in a discussion on multiple topics, including Harry Reid, unveiled the Doctrine of Plausibility in this exchange:
Why don’t you just admit to being a liar for your faith? Why aren’t you taking pride in lying against your neighbor like the Grand Wizard, Harry Reid?
Harry Reid is proud he lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes
The Liberal responds:
“How would we know whether Reid lied about romney paying no taxes since romney didn’t release his tad [sic] records for the years in question.
Besides, it would have been huntsman that lied since he was Reid’s source.”
The target of the Liberal must prove he did not commit the sin, else he’s guilty. We won’t know whether Reid lied until Romney disproves the accusation.
Furthermore, according to the Liberal, even if it turns out (which it later did) that Reid was indeed bearing false witness against his neighbor, Reid has clean hands because he was going on the word of someone else and therefore is blameless. Because the Liberal did not originate the lie neither then can he be criticized for acting as it’s wellspring, even when he’s acutely aware the claim has no evidence attached to it (if Reid had the evidence of Huntsman’s claims, he certainly would’ve produced the documentation).
I respond (incredulously):
“How would we know whether Reid lied about romney paying no taxes since romney didn’t release his tad [sic] records for the years in question.”
Because there was no evidence for the claim?!?
“Besides, it would have been huntsman that lied since he was Reid’s source.”
And Reid’s use of a liar makes him a liar. Reid bore false witness against his neighbor.
And thus was The Doctrine of Plausibility then revealed to the world:
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Plausibility: It is virtually certain romney was paying very low effective tax rates, compared to the average middle class citizen because of the numerous deduction loopholes available to his class of investments.”
So, regardless of verifiable evidence, i.e. mere “plausibility”, the Liberal is justified in making any claim he wishes based solely on the plausibility of the claim. Because the Liberal has zero evidence for his claim does not nullify the truth of the claim. If the claim is plausible that’s enough to make it true, regardless of the lack of supporting evidence.
Should we accept this dogma of Liberalism? What about the actual truth value of the claim itself when no evidence exists? Should that be a consideration? I would argue, yes.
Before we get into that, however, let me just point out another, mildly clever technique Liberal’s deploy that involves a sly attempt to reformulate the original argument from the original lie to a new argument and either a new lie or even the truth:
The original argument from Reid: “The word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes because he hasn’t.”
Notice the new argument from our Liberal: “It is virtually certain romney [sic] was paying very low effective tax rates…”
Suddenly Romney’s sin has changed! Whereas before the sin (as per Reid) was paying no taxes, the sin as per my Liberal friend now concerns the amount of taxes. Why is the new argument deployed in favor of the old? The answer is at best speculative:
The new argument is possibly deployed in order for the Liberal to prepare for the possibility that the lie he’s forwarded will be identified and proved as such. The problem with this analysis is, however, that the Liberal psyche is such that he cannot lie nor can he be factually wrong, since lying (morally unacceptable) and being factually wrong (intellectually deficient) is inconsistent with the self-identification of his super-human nature as a Liberal. The Liberal, by virtue of his faith and adherence to Liberalism is both morally and intellectually superior to non-Liberal humans, hence, the idea of committing a moral infraction or being intellectually deficient would be contradictory to the Liberal’s existential self-identification as a superior human being.
Alternatively, since this exchange occurred over several days, it could be that my good friend, The Liberal, decided to review the available evidence and discovered that he could not honestly continue to forward the lie any further…?
Pfffft…naaaah, it’s never bothered any Liberal to continue lying in the face of Truth, so…
Regardless, on to the truth value of “plausibility”. In life and logic, there are three possibilities when it comes to determining the veracity of any proposition:
“True”, “False” and “Null” (“null” meaning “undetermined”, “nothing”). There are no other possibilities for truth.
What is the actual truth value of a claim that is “virtually certain” and/or “plausible”?
Consider the following claim:
“It is plausible/virtually certain that tomorrow the sun will rise in the morning.”
Is this claim true, false, or nothing?
The sun has been rising for millennia has it not? Because of this we say there’s a good chance (plausibility) that it will rise again tomorrow do we not? The answer is ‘yes’, and therefore the proposition is true, but only in-so-far as its plausibility is true. But that which is plausible is still only plausible, it is not true, hence, any proposition’s mere plausibility is just that. In terms of reality it is nothing.
Can we claim it as true that the sun WILL rise in the morning? No, not until it does. Until then we have no evidence that it will. We have no evidence with which to make any absolute truth claim about the sun rising until it already has risen. All that’s true is the plausibility of the proposition, and plausibility is nothing until proved, at which time, the proposition transitions out of mere plausibility into being true.
That which is plausible is not true, but only plausible. That which is true is no longer plausible, but true. Never the twain shall be synonyms of one another.
Hopefully, you get the point that the Liberal’s use of the Doctrine of Plausibility is something about which to be extremely concerned. It’s used as a justification for any number of Statist goals today:
“It is plausible that Iran will not use a nuclear weapon, therefore, we’ll give them one.”
“It is plausible that you sympathize with the opposition party, so we are imprisoning you.”
Just keep the following in mind when you consider the possibility of the continued rise of the cult of Statism:
If they think it’s plausible, not only will they claim it’s true, but also they’ll act on it.
These are Liberals. And this is Liberalism.