The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewC.J. Hopkins Archive
Manufacturing Truth
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If you’re one of the millions of human beings who, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, still believe there is such a thing as “the truth,” you might not want to read this essay. Seriously, it can be extremely upsetting when you discover that there is no “truth” … or rather, that what we’re all conditioned to regard as “truth” from the time we are children is just the product of a technology of power, and not an empirical state of being. Humans, upon first encountering this fact, have been known to freak completely out and start jabbering about the “Word of God,” or “the immutable laws of quantum physics,” and run around burning other people at the stake or locking them up and injecting them with Thorazine. I don’t want to be responsible for anything like that, so consider this your trigger warning.

OK, now that that’s out of the way, let’s take a look at how “truth” is manufactured. It’s actually not that complicated. See, the “truth” is … well, it’s a story, essentially. It’s whatever story we are telling ourselves at any given point in history (“we” being the majority of people, those conforming to the rules of whatever system wields enough power to dictate the story it wants everyone to be telling themselves). Everyone understands this intuitively, but the majority of people pretend they don’t in order to be able to get by in the system, which punishes anyone who does not conform to its rules, or who contradicts its story. So, basically, to manufacture the truth, all you really need is (a) a story, and (b) enough power to coerce a majority of people in your society to pretend to believe it.

I’ll return to this point a little later. First, let’s look at a concrete example of our system manufacturing “truth.” I’m going to use The Guardian‘s most recent blatantly fabricated article (“Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy“) as an example, but I could just as well have chosen any of a host of other fabricated stories disseminated by “respectable” outlets over the course of the last two years. The “Russian Propaganda Peddlers” story. The “Russia Might Have Poisoned Hillary Clinton” story. The “Russians Hacked the Vermont Power Grid” story. The “Golden Showers Russian Pee-Tape” story. The “Novichok Assassins” story. The “Bana Alabed Speaks Out” story. The “Trump’s Secret Russian Server” story. The “Labour Anti-Semitism Crisis” story. The “Russians Orchestrated Brexit” story. The “Russia is Going to Hack the Midterms” story. The “Twitter Bots” story. And the list goes on.

I’m not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan Cook, Craig Murray, Glenn Greenwald, Moon of Alabama, and many others). The short version is, The Guardian‘s Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed “Russians”) on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding’s earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on … well, absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous “intelligence sources.” After actual journalists pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece (employing the subjunctive mood rather liberally), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had never published it.

By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and disseminated by other “respectable,” “authoritative” outlets, and it was making the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of critical thinking), Politico posted this ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian‘s story was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump … well, probably, it had been planted by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and “leftists” who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion of Assange.

At this point, I imagine you’re probably wondering what this has to do with manufacturing “truth.” Because, clearly, this Guardian story was a lie … a lie The Guardian got caught telling. I wish the “truth” thing was as simple as that (i.e., exposing and debunking the ruling classes’ lies). Unfortunately, it isn’t. Here is why.

Much as most people would like there to be one (and behave and speak as if there were one), there is no Transcendental Arbiter of Truth. The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that that “truth” is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.

Nor are there many truths (i.e., your truth and my truth). There is only one truth … the official truth. The truth according to those in power. This is the whole purpose of the concept of truth. It is the reason the concept of “truth” was invented (i.e., to render any other “truths” lies). It is how those in power control reality and impose their ideology on the masses (or their employees, or their students, or their children). Yes, I know, we very badly want there to be some “objective truth” (i.e., what actually happened, when whatever happened, JFK, 9-11, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Schrödinger’s dead cat, the Big Bang, or whatever). There isn’t. The truth is just a story … a story that is never our story.

The truth is a story that power gets to tell, and that the powerless do not get to tell, unless they tell the story of those in power, which is always someone else’s story. The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative. They either parrot the truth of the ruling classes or they utter heresies of one type or another. Naturally, the powerless do not regard themselves as heretics. They do not regard their “truth” as heresy. They regard their “truth” as the truth, which is heresy. The truth of the powerless is always heresy.

For example, while it may be personally comforting for some of us to tell ourselves that we know the truth about certain subjects (e.g., Russiagate, 9-11, et cetera), and to share our knowledge with others who agree with us, and even to expose the lies of the corporate media on Twitter, Facebook, and our blogs, or in some leftist webzine (or “fearless adversarial” outlet bankrolled by a beneficent oligarch), the ruling classes do not give a shit, because ours is merely the raving of heretics, and does not warrant a serious response.

Or … all right, they give a bit of a shit, enough to try to cover their asses when a journalist of the stature of Glenn Greenwald (who won a Pulitzer and is frequently on television) very carefully and very respectfully almost directly accuses them of lying. But they give enough of a shit to do this because Greenwald has the power to hurt them, not because of any regard for the truth. This is also why Greenwald has to be so careful and respectful when directly confronting The Guardian, or any other corporate media outlet, and state that their blatantly fabricated stories could, theoretically, turn out to be true. He can’t afford to cross the line and end up getting branded a heretic and consigned to Outer Mainstream Darkness, like Robert Fisk, Sy Hersh, Jonathan Cook, John Pilger, Assange, and other such heretics.

Look, I’m not trying to argue that it isn’t important to expose the fabrications of the corporate media and the ruling classes. It is terribly important. It is mostly what I do (albeit usually in a more satirical fashion). At the same time, it is important to realize that “the truth” is not going to “rouse the masses from their slumber” and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly “wake up,” “see the truth” and start “the revolution.” People already know the truth … the official truth, which is the only truth there is. Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.

And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this story.

As for Julian Assange, I’m afraid he is done for. The ruling classes really have no choice but to go ahead and do him at this point. He hasn’t left them any other option. Much as they are loathe to create another martyr, they can’t have heretics of Assange’s notoriety running around punching holes in their “truth” and brazenly defying their authority. That kind of stuff unsettles the normals, and it sets a bad example for the rest of us heretics.


C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can be reached at or

Hide 158 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Your truth, my truth and the official truth may be bullshit. But the truth is real or there could be no lies.

    • Agree: Nicholas Stix, renfro
    • Replies: @follyofwar
    , @Dube
  2. The beauty of truth is that it remains true regardless of the anger, angst, fear, and retribution the powerful may engage.

    I am unwilling to merely cave to extortion, bribery, assaults (even by police), betrayal, lies, railings about my patriotism, lurid misrepresentations *lies) about my private life, hints about drug use . . . etc. Merely to prove my loyalty or anything else for that matter, on the matter of truth.

    There is a certain wholesomeness and freedom in standing on actual truth. I can only but be disappointed that one’s hold to truth, should be to cause for others to engage in destroying others lives.

    I guess that is why Kant was never a rich man and Christ was murdered.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @renfro
  3. JLK says:

    The problem is only getting worse, because most MSM organizations are in bad financial shape. They can’t afford to buck the will of the government, offend their subscriber base or anger any powerful lobby or potential corporate advertiser.

    Of course one of the reasons they have lost revenue over the years is that consumers are unimpressed with their product and are voting with their feet.

    I wonder how long it will be before a German-style “media tax” is proposed to keep our intrepid fourth estate from dying out altogether.

  4. MarkU says:

    Any article which starts off with a pseudo-philosophical argument that there is no such thing as truth, that all is somehow relative, does not deserve to be read.

    Why should I bother to read something, which according to the authors own arguments, cannot possibly be regarded as true.

    I am an individual who believes that true statements can be made, that indeed some things are true simply by definition ( eg water is a compound composed of hydrogen and oxygen molecules) Reality is something that exists regardless of belief.

    My advice to the author is to leave out the pseudo-intellectual garbage next time, because while that stuff might fly with people steeped entirely in humanist claptrap, no-one with a sensible scientific education is ever going to take him seriously.

    • Agree: JLK, lavoisier
    • Replies: @El Dato
    , @renfro
  5. Good piece. I think there’s another layer, though.

    The truth or falsehood of individual facts about the physical world can often be determined with near-certainty. But when it comes to history, or “news” about current events/ politics, reality is much too complex to address directly. Too many individual facts to be comprehensible, let alone useful.

    We must pick, choose, emphasize, or ignore particular elements, and arrange them into some kind of structure, in order to form a useful narrative. Or in the case of “news,” the legacy media oligarchy largely performs this function for us — we simply passively accept/ adopt their narrative. Or, in many cases, “choose” between the closely-related variants of that narrative offered by the “liberal” vs. “conservative” press.

    This process of abstraction, simplification, and organization inevitably involves data loss. So no narrative is “true” in the same sense that individual facts about the real world are true. But some narratives incorporate large amounts of “facts” that are demonstrably false, and some are more useful/ descriptive/ predictive than others. No one engaged in this process is “objective.” They — or we — are all in some way part of the story. It should be self-evident that some narratives are more useful to the perceived interests of owners of major media outlets than others, and that these will assume a much more prominent place in their coverage than ones that are deleterious to those interests.

    Ideally, most people would take these factors into account when evaluating the “news,” and maintain a much more skeptical attitude than they typically do. But there are several factors that prevent this.

    One is simply time/ efficiency. These individual narratives, taken together, support — and are supported by — our overall worldview. There aren’t enough hours in the day to be constantly skeptical about everything, especially since the major tools of distortion involved in constructing mainstream narratives tend to be selection bias/ memory-holing, with obvious lies about known facts (like the Guardian story referenced here) used only sparingly. It’s simply not practical to to constantly consider potentially “better” narratives, and to reevaluate one’s worldview based on these.

    And which narrative we believe often has more to do with perceived social pressure/ social acceptability than with “truth.” As you put it,

    Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.

    Mass media pushing a common narrative creates an artificial perception of social consensus. Creating, or even finding, alternative narratives means fighting the inertia of this perceived consensus, and potentially suffering social costs for believing in the “wrong” one. The social role of narratives is largely independent of their “truth” — if what you’re “supposed” to believe is highly implausible, that actually gives it higher value as a signal of loyalty to the establishment.

    It’s probably best to maintain a resolutely agnostic attitude toward most “news” items, unless one is particularly interested in that particular event. “Why are they pushing this particular story?” “Why now?” and “What are they trying to accomplish here?” are often more useful questions than “Is it true?”

    It’s not a new issue — only exacerbated by the advent of mass visual media:
    “Propaganda” — Edward Bernays (1928)
    “The Free Press”– Hilaire Belloc (1918)

    • Agree: JLK
    • Replies: @RobinG
  6. m___ says:

    “The article”, there are some molesting secondary conclusions suggested. Glenn Greenwald, a hero? What a laugh.One foot in the system, one foot in the air, won’t do.

    There is a hidden power button to propell truth, action, and that is dear Hopkins where your courage sinks into your shoes, and line up all the others mentioned. Coordinated subversive action, steered by sustained ehics, is not where our “heros” like to thread.

    What makes an exception for Assange, is what we call format and content, and a thorough understanding of digital technology and elite systemics both. A superior mind, AND a pair of balls. Could it possibly be partly genetic?

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  7. Tulip says:

    Unfortunately, overarching and overshadowing the realm of bullshit is the realm of truth.

    “Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided—that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by iron and blood”

    Iron and blood–that is the terrible truth against which the bullshitters bullshit in vain.

    Lies get good people killed. Truths keep good people alive. In the old days, follow bad advice and your polis may be ended, your men killed, and your women and children carted away as slaves and concubines.

    The coin of truth is iron and blood.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  8. FB says:

    This article left me nonplussed…not Mr Hopkins’ best work to be sure…

    Still…an interesting bit of a sidetrack here with regards to scientific paradoxes which this author tries to harness in a misguided attempt to convince us of his proposition that there is no such thing as objective truth…

    Specifically, he mentions Schrödinger’s cat…a paradox having to do with quantum mechanics…the weird science of tiny subatomic particles that defy logic…hence the paradox of the cat being both alive and dead at the same time in Schrödinger’s thought experiment…

    Now scientific paradoxes have been around for thousands of years…Zeno of Elea came up with some of the most enduring classics more than 2,000 years ago…and there have been many more since…they have served many useful purposes in separating truth from error in the evolution of scientific knowledge…

    But since these brain teasers have been around for so long…is there a way to compare how ‘powerful’ or ‘useful’ a modern one like Schrödinger’s cat is…compared to say Zeno’s Dichotomy Paradox…where, in going from point A to B in a straight line, you decrease the distance between each successive step by half…so do you ever get there…?

    It took more than 2,000 years to solve Zeno’s paradox, with the invention of calculus, which proved that yes it would take an infinite amount of steps to reach point B, but the sum of those infinite steps is a finite number…a very useful bit of mathematics that is in fact the technological foundation of our modern world…nothing in our world would be here today if it wasn’t for calculus…the car, electricity, airplanes, big buildings etc…

    Now what about quantum physics and its weird propositions like particles existing in two places at the same time…which made even Einstein scoff…

    We all kind of take for granted that quantum physics, developed in the first decades of the 20’th century, is some kind of massive breakthrough in human knowledge…but is it really…?…how has this knowledge been harnessed…what actual applications do have to show for it…?

    The objective truth is that there is not that much to show for it really…but that isn’t stopping people from trying to establish this as some kind of ‘truth’…here is the Smithsonian trying to talk it up, but as you can see, this hardly seems earth shattering…even if you take it at face value…

    In fact if you look at some other ‘scientists’ and academics responding to this very simple question about the actual usefulness of quantum physics…one can discern a kind of defensiveness…such as this essay in Forbes…What Has Quantum Mechanics Ever Done For Us?

    This guy is clearly reaching…in fact foolishly so…all of this is in fact very debatable…the fact is that building an MRI machine does not require application of quantum mechanics…same for semiconductors and all the other stuff…yes quantum physics lets us better explain this stuff…but that’s about it…

    Here is one guy claiming that X-rays would not be possible without quantum mechanics…which is flat out bullshit, because Roentgen invented the X-ray machine decades before quantum mechanics was even formulated…

    So while all this has little to do with Hopkins’ essay about the elusiveness of truth in the political sense…we see in fact that in the scientific world there seems to be a similar tendency to turn truth on its head…

    • Replies: @The scalpel
    , @wayfarer
  9. I get what Hopkins is trying to do here, but redefining terms (i.e., “truth”) doesn’t do what he thinks it does.

    The truth is not ‘what most people think‘; it’s not ‘what we are told to believe‘; it’s not ‘the official narrative‘.

    There is a useful cautionary tale embedded in Hopkins’ piece, but he doesn’t tease it out properly.

    Take this excerpt:

    The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that that “truth” is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.

    With significant caveats, it is a reasonable description of the way the political world works: if the political class decides that its interests are best served by declaring that a specific narrative X is ‘true’, it will obtain immediate compliance from about half the livestock, and can then rely on force (peer pressure; subsidy or taxation; state coercion) to get an absolute majority of the herd to declare that they accept the ‘truth’ of X.

    If X is objectively false, too bad.

    Try to run a legal argument based on the objective falsity of a thing that the political class has deemed to be true: you’ll be shit outta luck.

    This is highly relevant where I am sitting: here are two examples – one really obvious, one a bit less so (but far more important because of its radical implications).

    Obvious Example: Drug Dogs

    Recent research has shown that drug sniffing dogs give false positive signals between 60% and 80% of the time – i.e., in terms of identifying people who are in actual physical possession of drugs at any point in time, drug sniffing dogs perform worse than a coin toss.

    Note that this is before considering that the dog’s handler is often pointing the dog at a target that the handler thinks is likely to be carrying drugs. (Although in reality, drug dogs are paraded around at concerts and in public spaces, sniffing every passer-by).

    However there is an Act of Parliament (capitalise all the magic words) that asserts that a signal from a drug sniffing dog is sufficient to qualify as what Americans call “probable cause” – i.e., reasonable suspicion for a search.

    Does anyone think that evidence should be admissible if it results from a search conducted based on ‘probable cause’ derived from a method that produces worse outcomes than tossing a coin?

    Judges will tie themselves into absolute epistemological knots to get that evidence admitted – and they will refuse to permit defence Counsel from adducing evidence about drug dog inaccuracy… because since the defendant actually did have drugs in their possession, the dog didn’t signal falsely.

    In other words, the judge conflates posterior probability with prior probability; the prior probability that the dog is correct, is 10%-40%; this should not suffice to generate probable cause (or ‘reasonable suspicion).

    More Interesting Example: ‘Representative’ Democracy

    In general, Western governments assert that their legitimacy stems from two primary sources: some founding set of principles (usually a constitution – written or otherwise), and ‘representativeness’ (including ratification of the constitution by a representative mechanism, for those places with written foundational documents).

    The Arrow Impossibility Theorem[1,2] and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem[3,4], both show that there is no way of accurately determining group preferences using an ordinal voting mechanism.

    What this boils down to, is that representativeness is a lie – and it’s a lie before any consideration of voting outcomes; it’s a meta-problem (the problem that ordinal voting cannot do what it is claimed to do – viz., accurately identify the ‘will of the people’/’social preferences’/’what the people want’).

    Beyond the meta-problem, there is also the actual counting problem: no government has ever been elected having obtained the votes of an outright bare majority, i.e., 50%-plus-1 of the entire eligible franchise. (It’s more like 25-35% for most parliamentary systems – for US presidential elections in the full-franchise period, the winner is voted for by 29% of the eligible population; you would be horrified to look at US Senate results).

    So when the new unhappy lords (and their Little Eichmann bureaucrat enablers) promulgate laws based on assertions of legitimacy because of a constitutional Grundnorm and/or the representative nature of government… both of those things are pretty obvious furphies; they are objectively not ‘truth’ and no amount of heel-clicking and wishing will make it so.

    Which brings us to a key legal aphorism that has a jurisprudential history going back four centuries: Ratio legis est anima legis, et mutata legis ratione, mutatur ex lex – which dates from Milborn’s case (Coke 7a KB [1609]).

    The reason for a law is the soul of the law, and if the reason for a law has changed, the law is changed.

    What this means – explicitly – is that “no law can survive the [extinction of the] reasons on which it is founded“.

    American courts re-expressed this as “cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex” (the reason for a law having ceased, the law itself ceases) – e.g., in Funk v. United States, 290 US 371 (1933) in which Justice Sutherland opined –

    This means that no law can survive the reasons on which it is founded. It needs no statute to change it; it abrogates itself. If the reasons on which a law rests are overborne by opposing reasons, which in the progress of society gain a controlling force, the old law, though still good as an abstract principle, and good in its application to some circumstances, must cease to apply as a controlling principle to the new circumstances.

    (Emphasis mine)

    Again: try running this argument in a court: “The asserted basis for all laws promulgated by the government, is provably false. Under a doctrine with a 4-century jurisprudential provenance, the law itself is void.”

    See how far you get.

    So Hopkins makes a good-but-obvious point – power does not respect either rights or truth; as such it does you no good whatsoever to have the actual truth on your side. He should have made the point better.

    References (links are to PDFs of each paper)

    [1] Arrow (1950). “A Difficulty in the Concept of Social WelfareJournal of Political Economy 58 (4): 328–346

    [2] Geanakoplos, John (2005). “Three Brief Proofs of Arrow’s Impossibility TheoremEconomic Theory 26 (1): 211–215

    [3] Gibbard (1973). “Manipulation of voting schemes: a general resultEconometrica 41 (4): 587–601.

    [4] Satterthwaite (April 1975). “Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare FunctionsJournal of Economic Theory 10: 187–217.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @fnn
  10. C J Hopkins, despite some good quotes and insights above, regrettably falls into the trap of peddling Derrida-tier relativistic nonsense, playing a word game about ‘truth’, as if ‘truth’ was not real merely because most people have strong incentives to avoid being devoted to it

    Where you stand depends upon where you sit, etc., Karl Marx’s dictums about economic and power positions shaping consciousness, and of course the century-old classic:

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

    from Upton Sinclair (1878-1968). Hopkins more or less repeats Sinclair when he says

    Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.

    Despite selling-out truth to the relativism devil in some passages, Hopkins nevertheless creates some quotables, including the particularly insightful:

    The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative.

    The following notion of Hopkins is seen now and then in the alt-sphere, but always bears repeating

    It is important to realize that “the truth” is not going to “rouse the masses from their slumber” and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly “wake up,” “see the truth” and start “the revolution.”

    And of course Hopkins, like many on Unz, gets royally and totally duped by the CIA media framers selling the in fact plain-as-day hoax of CIA-Mossad fakers Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden, a trio helping to destroy and even murder real dissidents … further proving that the ‘fake dissident leaker’ scam of the CIA and friends, is one of the most successful scams ever by the powers-that-be

  11. @Tulip

    The coin of truth is iron and blood.

    That’s absolutely, 100% wrong.

    Iron and blood are the tools used to force people to accept what isn’t true. (Another way to tell: it was uttered by a fucking politician – a cunt who wanted to live in palaces paid for by the sweat of other people’s brows).

    Truth does not need violence to propagate itself: in a completely-peaceful system of free exchange, bad ideas (of which lies are a subset) will get driven out of the market place because they will fail to conform to ground truth.

    Falsehood requires violence (arguably it is a form of violence: fraud is ‘violent’ because it causes its victims to misallocate their resources or to deform their preferences and expectations).

    In a very real sense, truth does not need friends: all it requires is an absence of powerful enemies.

    • Replies: @Tulip
  12. RobinG says:
    @James Forrestal

    Occupation of the Ameican Mind
    Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States

    This film shows a great example of propaganda in action. Free to watch now and this link also includes a short version and a trailer.

    • Agree: Jett Rucker
    • Replies: @Wally
  13. Mr. Hokins, I am afraid is positing a position so as explore the methods by which one comes to know truth. In my view, the posit is correct even if a tad messy. However, I disagree with his conclusion. That outside of human influence — there are absolute truths, whether see them clearly through the fog inside or outside of the cave of human power dynamics.

    There’s a scripture reference that goes something like this,

    Now I but see dimly, but then I will see clearly — face to face.

    I think beyond human coercion benign or otherwise — truth exists as intrinsic.

  14. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    When I tell any Truth, it is not for the sake of Convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those who Do.

     William Blake, 1810

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
  15. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    All information is propaganda, but …

    All propaganda is information.

    – Me

  16. QUOTE: ***…there is no “truth” … or rather, that what we’re all conditioned to regard as “truth” from the time we are children is just the product of a technology of power…***

    So, presumably, THIS is not a truth either?

  17. I love how all the commenters on here think they are great philosophers. And how they think blabbing about “truth” whatever that is on some trivial insignificant little website, is somehow, I don’t know, anything at all.

    And I like how none of them discuss the important part of the article, that all the media lie to us, especially the Guardian. And also the un-fleshed-out implication that the things we think are “true,” like “the free market” or other such complete lies, are also false. I mean, you believe that those Guardian stories are lies but the free market is true. I believe the technical term for you is schnook.

    • Replies: @Hebraic Hypocrite
  18. polistra says:

    The distinction is simple. We can’t know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11 or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts.

    But we CAN know the truth about our own situation, our own neighborhood, and our own families. The current riots in France are a concrete ASSERTION of local truth against the blatant and condescending official lies. The majority of France is getting poorer and suffering more from migrant crime. Macron insists that starvation is necessary to serve Gaia, and crime is necessary to serve Juncker. The people would prefer to have a leader that serves France.

  19. @Kratoklastes

    Just some quibbles with one question attached. The smallest quibble is your mumpsimus. Try “….mutatur *et* lex” next time. (Latin efficiently use its word for “and” to mean “also” – not to forget “Et tu Brute”).

    As to how decisive the quoted maxim or the later American version would be, I would be confident of finding more decisions where courts had said, in effect or actually, “nonetheless this remains a statute of the national/state legislature and it is only the legislature elected by the people which has power to repeal or amend it”. It would of course be a nice one for a moot court (as a notional appeals court) to consider whether a jury verdict in a witchcraft trial under some 17th century statute should be upheld if the only thing wrong with the trial was that witnesses swore to facts which we now, as moderns, know were impossible.

    My question/quibble relates to your objection to the use of sniffer dogs to establish probable cause for search because it is no better than a coin toss. That seems fallacious if, according to your figures, the dogs sniff 500 people and get excited by 10 of them of which 3 are correctly identified and 7 are false positives. By contrast, how might a coin toss work? I’m not sure exactly what you have in mind but one way would be to say that we expertly/rationally estimate that, say, 10 or 3 of 500 will be drug carriers so we are going to choose those 3 or 10 by some random system of coin tossing – perhaps tossing a coin 3 or 10 times on to a roulette type wheel with 500 numbered landing zones….

  20. “If you’re one of the millions of human beings who, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, still believe there is such a thing as “the truth,” you might not want to read this essay.”

    Hmmm. The truth is falsifiable. Interesting.

  21. The scalpel says: • Website

    Scientific truth is limited by two unresovable factors – assumptions, and hidden variables. For example, we might drop a brick in a vaccum and believe that it falls at 9.8 m/s squared. Here, we make the assumption that the force of gravity is constant. And for most of history we were unaware of the hidden variable of relativity to the speed of light.

    So, assuming (LOL) that we are able to eliminate all assumptions and account for all hidden variables, there is a scientific truth. That is ASSUMING we are not just a simulation in someone elses computer!

    Given all this, still, we can approach an approximaion of truth that some can agree on. Here is where the trouble starts….

    • Replies: @FB
    , @HallParvey
  22. DFH says:

    What is truth? – John 18:38

  23. Here’s an interesting story (at least to me). Some time this week or last a 1st Grade teacher was terminated because she told her class that Santa was not real.

    While I have no idea why a 1st Grade Teacher would so engage, it is very clear that coercion in establishing truth is no small matter as demonstrated by this “small matter”.

    Though the proper response would have been for Santa visit the class (an emergency visit) and extract a most sincere apology and voluminous “mea culpas”. But then again maybe she is a sadistic woman who simply wanted to torment vulnerable young minds.

    But the system whether its the postal service or elementary schools and their parents say Santa is real and therefore truth be told . . .

    Santa Claus is real.

    Side note: I hope I got that story correct.

    • Replies: @MacNucc11
  24. T. Weed says:


    “All we’re taught is false!”
    (Rimbaud saw in flash of light)
    Hence the Swindles and Assaults–
    What’s wrong, and what’s right?

    Folly then to hope for change!
    For all the lies that still get told
    –Why do we find it strange?–
    Are the same damned lies of old

  25. FB says:
    @The scalpel

    LOL…and then there is the ‘observer effect’ also…especially in good old quantum mechanics…in the end scientific truth does boil down to what ‘some can agree on’…

    • Replies: @HdC
  26. Tulip says:

    Strength is the production of force over distance. That is to say, force is a quantifiable, physical phenomenon that, deconstruct it as much as you want, will hit you like a tsunami whether you believe it or not.

    Force only works because there is a real world that transcends philosophical bullshit and marketing.

    The subjective piece is will: victory is attained when the enemies will to resist is crushed. Through the repeated use of physical force, eventually any enemy can be worn down and vanquished.

    The world is finite, desire is infinite, and for every desire and appetite, there is a will. As multiple wills will that they attain their infinite desires in a finite world, there will always be a conflict of will, which will always ultimately be resolved by force. Which means ultimately, despite the rich imaginations and appetites of humans, and their related striving, physical force will ultimately rule the day, and conquer, condition, and constrain the mental life of mankind.

    Of course, desire and appetite will not take no for an answer, and in their frustration, they will imagine, fantasize, and conceptualize rationales for why this is not so. This is the nature of our desires, and in good times of prosperity and peace, they may even bend our reason in the direction of these appetites and fantasies, until the instincts for self preservation and endurance rust, and are even forgotten. But like the moon revealed by a passing cloud, the perpetual war of human existence will inevitably reassert itself, and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream when they should have been preparing.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  27. What is truth?

    Truth is a word.

    After reading the article and the aggregate comments, I am strengthened in my belief that the physics analogy of Schrödinger’s cat is among the most useful (and notwithstanding the otherwise valid criticism of it in the comments). In the same way that the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, does not purport to define a given word, per se, but rather gives a detailed description of how the word has in fact been used over the years and centuries.

    I refer to my version of Schrödinger’s cat as counter-sense words or oscillating-contradictions.

    Oscillating contradictions and cogno-linguistic manipulation

    The primary means by which corporate supremacy, for example, is achieved and maintained in practice is via the maintenance and use of a small arsenal of about two dozen critical counter-sense or yo-yo-like words/terms that are asserted or claimed to mean either “X” or “Minus-X” at the option of the decision-maker.

    Among the most important and sui generis (in a class of its own) is the word person which is held to mean a living, breathing being of conscience (literally a being of equity) with the rights, powers and privileges of such being (“X”), or else it can mean a corporate entity which is a notional/inanimate item of property to be bought and sold and otherwise traded for profit in the stock and financial markets (“Minus-X”).

    By way of example/demonstration of the ongoing cognitive manipulation process, if someone had managed to hit the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court with a blast of truth-ray just before they announced their decision in Citizens United, here is what we may have got instead:


    We here at the Supreme Court are part of what can be fairly and broadly referred to as an arm of the entrenched-money-power. 

    At certain times and under certain circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the masses that corporations be natural-persons-in-law with the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person or living being of conscience. 

    At other times and other circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the masses that corporations be items of property that can be actively bought and sold and traded for profit in the stock and financial markets.

    Your laughable naiveté is manifest in your expectation that you are going to receive a definitive answer from this Court, or even that it is possible for us to give you one. Among the foundational purposes of this Court is to actively prevent that question from being answered definitively at all. The instant we give a definitive answer, the game is over.

    Whatever answer we give you must perpetuate the systematized delusion that the same concept (corporate personhood) can mean either X (a living being of conscience), or minus-X (an item of property), depending on the ever-changing needs of the decider. 

    So our current answer is that a corporation is a natural-person-in-law with the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person, except when it isn’t. We’ll let you know next time whether that situation has changed in the meantime.

    Essentially all counter-sense words/terms follow that same template.

    Notwithstanding that the respective concepts are logically and objectively mutually exclusive, the judges of the Courts (and the broadly-defined financial-world/social-control-structure) maintain that it can be either or both, and we’ll let you know if and when it becomes important.

    So a corporate person has a right of free speech when giving money to influence political parties, but not to object to itself being sold as a piece of property in the stock and financial markets or when it is acquired in a merger or takeover financed by its own assets. If a corporation has the legal capacity and rights of a natural person, then how can it be owned as the legal property of another? The purpose of the Courts is to ensure that that question is never presented in that way.

    After person, the remaining most significant counter-sense or yo-yo-like words are (surprise surprise) essentially all money-and-finance-based, and the most important among these is the word principal and its role in facilitating illegal front-loading or ex-temporal fraud (interest illegally and unlawfully compounded in advance).

    Is the amount of principal the actual or net amount advanced by the creditor and received by the debtor for their own use and control?

    Or is it the amount that the debtor agrees that they owe regardless of the amount received?

    Is the amount of principal a question of fact? Or of the agreement of parties?

    [Here is the premise / offer that is referenced immediately below:]

    Lender (e.g., typical second-mortgage lender): “I will loan you \$10,000 at 20% per annum provided that you sign and give to me a marketable security that claims or otherwise purports to evidence that I have loaned you \$15,000 at 10% per annum, plus an undisclosed and unregistered side-agreement and cheque (check) back to me for a bonus or loan fee of \$5,000 as a payment from the nominal proceeds.”

    In the process example used above, what is the principal amount of the loan? Is it \$10,000 because that is the factual net amount invested by the creditor and received by the debtor for their own use? Or is it \$15,000 because that is the amount that the debtor is required to falsely agree that they have received and owe as a condition of the loan? Or is it \$20,000 because that is the total cash-equivalent/money assets (\$15,000 mortgage + \$5,000 cheque) that the debtor has to give to the creditor?

    Is it a noun/fact? Or is it an adjective/opinion merely pretending to be a noun? All debt and therefore money in the world today depends on the answer to that question that theoretically cannot exist.

    Principal is a special type (and most significant form) of counter-sense word or oscillating contradiction where dictionaries normally only give one sense, while commercial practice defines the contrary. It would be very difficult to put the Whatever-the-debtor-agrees-that-they-owe sense into a dictionary, because the fraud against meaning (as well as the criminal law) is manifest in spelling it out, and ever more so in more specialized financial dictionaries.

    So virtually every legal, financial, accounting, and ordinary English dictionary and/or regulation defines it to the effect “The actual amount invested, loaned or advanced to the debtor/borrower net of any interest, discount, premium or fees”, while virtually every financial security in the real world at least implicitly incorporates the fraudulent alternative/contrary meaning.

    This in turn allows the academic world to function on the rational/factual definition, while the markets maintain a wholly contradictory deemed or pretended reality, while both remain oblivious to the contradiction.

    Thus principal means the nominal creditor’s actual and net investment, unless it doesn’t.

    With this class of counter-sense word where there is a necessary and definitive answer, the real job of the judges of the Courts becomes to make certain that the question is never officially asked, and under no circumstances is it to be definitively answered.

    With just one of these words you can theoretically steal the Earth. With a financial system that is relatively saturated with them, such becomes child’s play. With these rules a group of competently-trained chimpanzees otherwise pulling levers at random could do as well as the so-called wizards of Wall Street.

    And significantly, these oscillating contradictions enable the judges to be self-righteous in the extreme on behalf of the entrenched-money-power, while looting the little people of the product of their labour.

    As in: You have received the principal amount (\$10,000) and you are going to pay back the principal amount (\$15,000) plus the ever-accumulating (and super-leveraged) interest upon it according to your contract, while the meaning of the word oscillates between fact and opinion – between a noun and an adjective – according to what the judge needs it to mean (or accommodate) at any given instant in time.

    It seems impossibly obvious in this simple example, but with several of them orchestrated simultaneously or sequentially, anything can truly be made to mean anything.

    A partial list of the most critical oscillating-contradicitions includes: loan, credit, discount, interest, rate-of-interest, agreement, contract, security, repay, restitution, etc., all of which mean either “X” or its conceptual opposite “Minus-X” at the option of the entrenched-money-power whose vast financial fortunes are founded on such cogno-linguistic arbitrage.

    Here are what I believe to be four essential tools needed to triangulate reality via congo-linguistic parallax. The first two are mine, and the last two are from the American and English Courts, respectively.

    1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic. We perceive reality very largely as a function of the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone inherently believes and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it. The greater reality is that, above a certain base level of perception and communication, you have to have the words and language by which to say something before you can think it.

    2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of the entrenched-money-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional schizophrenics who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things. They suffer a cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity that renders them incapable of perceiving reality beyond labels.

    3. Their core business model or modus operandi is the systematized delusion:

    “A “systematized delusion” is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.” Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).


    One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L.

    I have long since abandoned my search for truth, per se, since I came to realize that the best I can ever do is to constantly strive to move closer to it. With apologies to the physicists, Truth is the Limit of Infinite Good Faith.

  28. The Scalpel says: • Website

    “…which will always ultimately be resolved by force.”

    Right there is where you lost the plot. That statement is just your opinion and it cannot be proven true. The rest of your argument falls victim to this logical error.

    “…and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream when they should have been preparing.”

    Also, just your opinion. For example, the “dreamer” might die still comforted by his/her dreams, while the “prepper” might waste his life witing for the “inevitable’ that never arrives.

  29. Truth shall set you free.

    For the First Time Since 9/11, Federal Gov’t Takes Steps to Prosecute the Use of Explosives to Destroy WTCs
    In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11 truth, a United States Attorney has agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Centers.

    The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).

    After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that they will comply with the law.

    Some good documentary films here to watch for free:

    Heres a couple more. Occupation of the American Mind is very good. All of John Pilgers films are great.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  30. @Wizard of Oz

    My question/quibble relates to your objection to the use of sniffer dogs to establish probable cause for search because it is no better than a coin toss. That seems fallacious if, according to your figures, the dogs sniff 500 people and get excited by 10 of them of which 3 are correctly identified and 7 are false positives.

    Yeah. The concepts of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value might be very helpful in assessing this.

  31. Wally says:

    “This film shows a great example of propaganda in action”.

    Indeed, if Jews and their shills can’t get the public to believe the fabricated & impossible ‘holocaust’ story, then they can get them to believe anything.

    speaking of believing anything:

    Jew Supremacist ADL Gives Apple CEO Tim Cook Its First Courage Against Hate Award:

  32. Of course truth exists.
    The proble is twofold:
    – how do we find the truth ?
    – as long as most people seem unable to separate facts from emotions, moral judgments, political convictions, in short, from subjective things, getting at the truth is next to impossible.
    Science has been defined at that about which intelligent people should be able to agree.
    Another definition of science is something like ‘in science the experiment decides what is truth’.
    Now the word experiment is clear in subjects as physics, but do experiments exist in history, even recent history ?
    Was poison gas used in Syria and Iraq, and, if it was, who did it ?

    The sad truth, yes truth, is that in history experiments hardly ever accomplish anything, if the result does not suit us, we reject the result.
    Already during WWII a Red Cross commission examined the Katyn mass graves, at Neurenberg Germany got the blame, just in 1990 or so did Putin admit that Stalin did it.
    Mass graves in NE Anatolia have been examined by international experts, they found that those lying there were mainly Muslims, not Armenians.
    The result of course was laughed away.

  33. utu says:

    Paul Karl Feyerabend: Truth itself is a rhetorical term

    “Scientific “facts” are taught at a very early age and in the very same manner in which religious “facts” were taught only a century ago. There is no attempt to waken the critical abilities of the pupil so that he may be able to see things in perspective. At the universities the situation is even worse, for indoctrination is here carried out in a much more systematic manner. Criticism is not entirely absent. Society, for example, and its institutions, are criticised most severely and often most unfairly… But science is excepted from the criticism. In society at large the judgment of the scientist is received with the same reverence as the judgement of bishops and cardinals was accepted not too long ago. The move towards “demythologization,” for example, is largely motivated by the wish to avoid any clash between Christianity and scientific ideas. If such a clash occurs, then science is certainly right and Christianity wrong. Pursue this investigation further and you will see that science has now become as oppressive as the ideologies it had once to fight. Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer.”

    “The purpose of education, so one would think, is to introduce the young into life,and that means: into the society where they are born and into the physical universe that surrounds the society. The method of education often consists in the teaching of some basic myth. The myth is available in various versions. More advanced versions may be taught by initiation rites which firmly implant them into the mind. Knowing the myth, the grown-up can explain almost everything (or else he can turn to experts for more detailed information). He is the master of Nature and of Society. He understands them both and he knows how to interact with them. However, he is not the master of the myth that guides his understanding.”

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  34. El Dato says:


    There is truth, there is non-truth, there is maybe-truth (there are whole systems of logic and belief calculi filling library sections for dealing with that) and then there is “the take”, “the interpretation” or “the presentation”. Remember the Liberty!

    That said I don’t understand people like Luke Harding who shits all over his own profession by exhibiting shocking lack of ethics and writing what he wants to be believe or wants others to believe. He is apparently also ego-centric (“Mafia State: How One Reporter Became An Enemy Of The Brutal New Russia” – I don’t think you are that important, Luke.) Maybe he once wrote good stuff, I don’t know and I don’t want to find out.

    • Replies: @El Dato
  35. El Dato says:
    @El Dato

    After the Guardian has done its part to advance UK Worker’s Paradise by linking The Orange Usurper to the MSM-uncontrolled, cat-equipped Dark Lord in (now luckily imperially managed) Embassy to Literally Antiprogressive Sauron of the East, the push for “The Trump-Putin Link” is going on:

    Roger Stone pleads the Fifth, snubs Senate Democrats’ invitation to testify

    Democrats have accused Stone – who worked for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2015, but was let go in August, a year before the 2016 election – of having direct communication with WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, and therefore knowing in advance that the whistleblower website had obtained the private emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta and intended to publish them. Stone has denied the allegations.

    WikiLeaks published thousands of Podesta emails in the month preceding the 2016 presidential election, revealing the inner workings of the Clinton campaign. Democrats have denounced WikiLeaks as a “Russian intelligence cutout.”

    In recent weeks, special counsel Robert Mueller has sought to charge author Jerome Corsi with perjury over his reported communications with Stone about WikiLeaks. Mueller’s investigation of Democrat claims that Trump’s campaign had “colluded” with Russia in 2016 has focused on Stone, Corsi and radio host Randy Credico, all in an apparent effort to show people supposedly associated with Trump knew the WikiLeaks dump of Podesta emails was coming.

    Does anyone still talk about the actual content of the maildump as opposed to its provenance or who wanted to engineer what?

    Also, from 2012:

    Many journalists (and liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of their society’s power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it. By putting his own liberty and security at risk to oppose the world’s most powerful factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial dissidents and insurgents – they’re persecuted, demonized, and threatened, not befriended by and invited to parties within the halls of imperial power – and he thus causes many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants to power, and courtiers.

  36. anon[178] • Disclaimer says:

    Truth is a determination that has no false examples.

    Hypothesis: All persons who animate governments are honest..
    by experience G and employ of government A is dishonest
    result the hypothesis is wrong.

    Hypothesis: No government is honest..
    there are no examples of a honest government, therefore the hypothesis stands>.

    but the hypothesis is not a truth unless and until someone
    devises a method to proven that at least one government somewhere is honest.LOL.

    However, if the articles presented on this website were subjected to the method of hypothesis it would not be long before the series of hypothesis could be used to debunk the misleading propaganda.

    Hypothesis:: MBH directly ordered the murder of Khashoggi
    can anyone offer an experience which can be verified that
    can be used as evidence to challenge the hypothesis?
    If not it stands until proven wrong.

    It does not matter what the articles say, unless they can offere

  37. @redmudhooch

    ” In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11 truth ”

    With events as Sept 11, Pearl Harbour, the holocaust, FDR’s possible guarantee to Poland in August 1939, FDR’s probable deal with Stalin in 1933, the flying boat accident in Scotland, 1943, from memory, there was a body too many, the JFK murder, the Hammarskjöld accident, the Liberty accident, the Ton Kin Gulf incident, Assad’s and Saddam’s use of poison gas, there is no and will never be a relentless pursuit of truth, as the truth may be leading to falls of governments, politicians in jail, a country changing overnight from champion of peace and democracy to a rogue state.
    Speeches as Chrustjow’s in the sixties, exposing Stalin, very exceptional.

    It has never been explained who was the unknown body in the 1943 Scottish flying boat accident, if this was Hess, then wo was the man in Spandau, and what would he have told had he not been suicided ?
    In the mid nineties a member of the British cabinet stated in GB parliament that the 1941 Hess documents, in fact, I suppose Hitler’ peace offer, still were a threat to GB national security.
    Pearl Habor, the 1946 Senate investigation, ten members, six Democrats, four Republicans, three different conclusions based on the same evidence.
    The Democrats of course did not see how FDR had deliberately provoked Pearl Harbour, they were in the majority, so their report became truth.

    Now, is there no objective truth about Pearl Harbour ?
    Of course there is, since 1946 many then unknown, or hidden facts, came to light.

    So again, also in matters with a high political importance, truth exists, but as political importance is becoming more important, the forces that at any cost want to hide the truth become more powerful.
    Time helps them, witnesses die, of natural causes, or otherwise, documents are ‘lost’, such as the 1937 Frankfurter diary.

    Public interest wanes, just a third of those living in Europe seem to know about the holocaust any more, despite remembrances, several times a year, monuments with huge numbers of names, trials against concentration camp guards, obligatory visits of heads of states to holocaust musea, new reparations sources, such as now the Dutch railways.

    • Replies: @Anon
  38. @EliteCommInc.

    How do you know that Jesus ever existed ?

    • Replies: @Agent76
    , @Wally
    , @ploni almoni
  39. @TimothyPMadden

    ” I refer to my version of Schrödinger’s cat as counter-sense words or oscillating-contradictions. ”

    Schrödinger’s cat was just a joke, has or had nothing todo with truth
    Just an illustration of how weird, incomprehensible, quantum mechanics is.
    Here we see what what a British scientist said is truth, I deliberately use this word to sow confusion now, ‘I do not think we explain anyting, we just describe’.
    Quantum mechanics is Alice in Wonderland: anything goes.

    The last addition to apparent untruth, or lie, is entanglement.
    It cannot be understood, that is, related to existing experience.
    Einstein proved that the highest possible speed in the universe is the light speed, 300.000 kmh per second.

    Yet, there is little doubt any more that when a particle is split in two, each part flying away with the speed of light, measured to a stationary observer, remain in instant communication.
    This has been proved over small distances, say fifteen metres, but a scientist as Richard Feynman expects that even over light year distances exists.
    The fascinating aspect may be that this makes possible communication with every advanced civilisation in the universe

    • Replies: @TimothyPMadden
  40. The success of dogs to detect illegal drugs as provided in the example is 30% . Which means the dogs were wrong 70% of the time.

    Having been wrong seventy percent of the time one might contend that the use of dogs is ineffective because 70% of the time there is no probable cause. In determining a threshold for usefulness a thirty percent success rate is generally considered a failure.

    Why not just toss a coin – where the success rate is fifty fifty (really intended to indicate fairness) – and if we are unwilling to toss a coin, it seems that we ought to be less willing to rely on dogs (based on the example) whose failure rate is 70%.

    The truth: law enforcement continues to argue for the use of dogs to detect the presence of drugs as probable cause for detention, despite the fact that dogs have a failure rate of 70% (based on the provided example).

    As for physics and truth — what is claimed true today may soon be as wrong as what was true fifty years ago now wrong. The truth regarding physics has generally relied on the predictability of a particular phenomenon.

    dark matter

    Even in the field of science the power politics can has trumped the data even the field of physics.


    But then perhaps, fairness, coin tossing and physics operate differently in the US than elsewhere in the planet.

  41. Bruno says:

    I v read three articles of you. That is true. Or at least attributed to you. All are bullshit. That’s an opinion with a high chance of being true. I will never read any article when I see your name. That’s probably true too.

  42. An interesting take on our times. I’ve been thinking about National Mythology and its relation to Truth. We see it at play now with the death of Bush Sr. and Senator McCain. As Mao might say, Truth comes from political power and political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

    One flaw in this paradigm is power shifting around and taking the “Truth” with it. I’ve taken to calling our current situation Epistemological Warfare, aka the War on Truth.

    A world without Truth is is essentially insane. Take a good look at the statues.

  43. wayfarer says:

    Thanks for sharing your science and engineering expertise, FB. It’s always quite interesting to hear your point-of-view.

    Zeno’s Paradox

    • Replies: @FB
  44. @utu

    ” But science is excepted from the criticism. In society at large the judgment of the scientist is received with the same reverence as the judgement of bishops and cardinals was accepted not too long ago. ”
    Science consists of theories not yet proven wrong.
    Science thus just exists because of criticism.
    What the judgment is of a scientist, no idea.
    Such as that he thinks his dog is more beautiful than his neighbour’s dog, a neighbour who is not a scientist ?
    Political and moral opinions of scientists have no more value or significance than similar opinions of non scientists.
    One just can hope that opinions of scientists are more consistent than those of non scientists

  45. @jilles dykstra

    Thank you for that, but I think that you have misinterpreted my meaning. I was trying to invoke the uncertainty principle as applied to language.

    If I agree to loan you \$500,000 provided that you give me a mortgage claiming that I have loaned you \$1 million, plus interest on \$1 million, then what is the principal amount of the loan?

    Is it a question of objective fact (\$500,000)?

    Or is it a question of agreement of parties (\$1 million)?

    At its normal highest level of precision, the nominal financial system operates in fact of the “basis point” or 1/100th of 1%.

    My essential point is that everything else is virtually meaningless if the things being measured are subject to change by the subjective interpretation of the observer / decider.

    Otherwise, I simply don’t have the physics background to comment with any degree of certainty on the mathematics of quantum mechanics.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @jilles dykstra
  46. Anonymous [AKA "ZeroTwoNiner"] says:

    There is such a thing as truth. Like for instance 9/11 was a Zionist op
    and nature decreed a Man should procreate with a Woman.

    This author has stared too long into the abyss.

  47. utu says:

    If I agree to loan you \$500,000 provided that you give me a mortgage claiming that I have loaned you \$1 million, plus interest on \$1 million, then what is the principal amount of the loan?

    Is this how contracts are written?

    • Replies: @TimothyPMadden
  48. wayfarer says:

    seeking truth, on the spacefaring soul’s infinite journey …

  49. Agent76 says:

    Jul 9, 2015 The Century of the Self

    Such Material is Made Available to Advance Understanding of Ecological, Political, Human Rights, Economic, Democracy, Scientific, Moral, Ethical, Social Justice Issues, Teaching, and Research.

    Oct 16, 2006 Catapult The Propaganda George W Bush succinctly explains his job.

  50. Agent76 says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Can you prove differently? The Bible is a detailed and historically accurate book. I challenge you to at least read the New Testament since Jesus died and said it is finished with his last breath and that means the old law was finished. AKA Old Testament.

    This is a intellectual approach if this is what you are seeking.

    Aug 6, 2013 Evolution Vs. God Movie

    Hear expert testimony from leading evolutionary scientists from some of the world’s top universities:

    • Peter Nonacs, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA
    • Craig Stanford, Professor, Biological Sciences and Anthropology, USC
    • PZ Myers, Associate Professor, Biology, University of Minnesota Morris
    • Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, UCLA

  51. fnn says:

    Beyond the meta-problem, there is also the actual counting problem: no government has ever been elected having obtained the votes of an outright bare majority, i.e., 50%-plus-1 of the entire eligible franchise. (It’s more like 25-35% for most parliamentary systems – for US presidential elections in the full-franchise period, the winner is voted for by 29% of the eligible population; you would be horrified to look at US Senate results).

    California Democrats have “solved” that problem with their new “ballot harvesting” law:

    Young Kim was ahead by 8,000 votes on election night and even attended freshman orientation in Washington DC only to lose to her Democrat opponent weeks later.

    The new voting system in California is so bad that Democrat TJ Cox, who was down by 6.4% on election night in California’s 21st district ended up defeating GOP incumbent David Valadao three weeks later.

    Precinct 38083 in Orange County, California had a 120% turnout – 465 registered voters and 561 ballots cast in this precinct.

    Ballot-Harvesting for Dummies

  52. There is truth, and then there is perception(what we perceive to be the truth).

    • Agree: Agent76
  53. @The scalpel

    That is ASSUMING we are not just a simulation in someone elses computer!

    All of our “truths” are simulations in our own heads. Virtual realities if you will. Pale reflections of a scientific reality that we as a people are only recently beginning to comprehend.

    And even then only a few and not necessarily denizens of any university system. It’s difficult to maintain a grasp, however tenuous, on reality when you are surrounded by a sea of falsehood, superstition and deliberate lies whose purpose is to gain a personal advantage.

  54. HdC says:

    I disagree.

    Scientific Truth is what can be reproduced by independent researchers.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    , @The Scalpel
  55. @Agent76

    You do realize that God invented Evolution.

    • LOL: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Omegabooks
    , @Wizard of Oz
  56. @TimothyPMadden

    It seems impossibly obvious in this simple example, but with several of them orchestrated simultaneously or sequentially, anything can truly be made to mean anything.

    So, Clinton was right, after all.

    These things depend to a great extent on the ambiguity of words and the individual understanding of their meanings. “Thou shalt not kill” would seem to be an unambiguous statement, yet it seems to allow for slaughtering the enemy, when ordered by a ruling authority.

    Or, maybe not. It’s all in the interpretation, isn’t it, Bill?

    • Replies: @TimothyPMadden
  57. With logic, C.J. Hopkins appears to extol the remarkable Wikileaks expose, and canonize Assange as Saint Lawn Mow Julian.

    Prior to Assange’s Fox News Network interviews on the Sean Hannity Show, I too considered the former as a hero on path to secular martyrdom.
    In addition, I became more skeptical when learning about Pamela Anderson’s, the wife/significant other of a rich Jew, eh-hem, visitations with the ZUS (almost) “Most Wanted,” Julian Assange.

    A cordial question for C.J. Hopkins:

    Is it blasphemous against the relativity of “truth” to ask a question as to why Julian Assange Wikileaks apparently did not include transmissions of Israeli & US/KSA officials’ exchanges during periodic Gazan “mowing of lawn”? Please refer to “Independent” article below?

    With or without a response comment, thanks Mr. Hopkins, yours TRULY…, Chuck Orloski.

    • Replies: @renfro
  58. Anon[853] • Disclaimer says:

    Wonderful how practically the whole of mankind, even those unable to read, will always turn right at that sign post.

    I believe (note my choice of verb: “believe”) that both truth and Truth do exist.
    Truth we have known it’s beyond our thether since Descartes and German idealism.

    truth is basically the application to everything of Aristotle’s 3 logic laws (non-contradiction, transitivity,…).
    truth is antithetical to human needs thus to human nature.
    “Philosophy” and “self-consciiusness” are the names of the mental handicaps

  59. Anon[853] • Disclaimer says:

    The point being that having the mental make-up of your average mainstream media journalist (or NGO representative,…) would mean relatively comfortable survival for God knows how many centuries or millennia, while having a truth-seeking, hypnosis-resistant, independent mindset would mean being cast out and dying.

    So you see this extraordinary (only from our standpoint) ability of the normal mind to be truth-indifferent and truth-unaware, and employ criteria and parameters changing by the issue and the moment, adapting real-time to immediate or long-term convenience.
    Same as regards the stunning speed and lack of inner psychological friction in how all the underlings’ minds instantly adapt to changes in orders and “truths” poured upon them from high on. They are like cables in an audio system: just carrying what signals the sources give them — considered of as a high quality as little the signal changes (“noise”) they cause.
    Noise-producing transmitting cables are “trolls” wbo “disturb the community”, “instil uncertainty”, “divide”,…

    You, Hopkins, seem to have great distaste for the élite and their journalistic troops. However, they are nothing but the most skilled at doing what the general population does everyday, both in the exercise of their duties and jobs and in their relations and relationships.

    A “love story” doesn’t substantially differ from a front page of The Guardian or the WaPo. Nor does running a successful business.
    Self-deception and its inner voice reassuring all actors that whatever they are doing they are doing for the good of the most / due to lack of choice is the lubricant that keeps the gear workiing fine.
    Anyone with a mind unfit to such system is destined to loneliness and anxiety — if not angst.

    • Replies: @Anon
  60. S says:

    Regarding the ever more common and brazen ‘manufacturing of truth’, by our ever growing in power establishment media, I’m reminded somewhat of the ‘manufacture’ of Comrade Ogilvy by the journos at the Ministry of Truth.

    One wonders, though, if as in Brave New World they will maintain a vault or archives containing all the world’s unadulterated original source history and literary manuscripts for the perusal of the ruling ‘World Controllers’, if only so they can keep their lies straight?

    ‘It was true that there was no such person as Comrade Ogilvy, but a few lines of print and a couple of faked photographs would soon bring him into existence.’


    Part 1, Chapter 4 – 1984

    There were occasions when Big Brother devoted his Order for the Day to commemorating some humble, rank-and-file Party member whose life and death he held up as an example worthy to be followed. To-day he should commemorate Comrade Ogilvy. It was true that there was no such person as Comrade Ogilvy, but a few lines of print and a couple of faked photographs would soon bring him into existence.

    At the age of three Comrade Ogilvy had refused all toys except a drum, a sub-machine gun, and a model helicopter. At six — a year early, by a special relaxation of the rules — he had joined the Spies, at nine he had been a troop leader. At eleven he had denounced his uncle to the Thought Police after overhearing a conversation which appeared to him to have criminal tendencies. At seventeen he had been a district organizer of the Junior Anti-Sex League. At nineteen he had designed a hand-grenade which had been adopted by the Ministry of Peace and which, at its first trial, had killed thirty-one Eurasian prisoners in one burst. At twenty-three he had perished in action. Pursued by enemy jet planes while flying over the Indian Ocean with important despatches, he had weighted his body with his machine gun and leapt out of the helicopter into deep water, despatches and all — an end, said Big Brother, which it was impossible to contemplate without feelings of envy. Big Brother added a few remarks on the purity and single-mindedness of Comrade Ogilvy’s life. He was a total abstainer and a non-smoker, had no recreations except a daily hour in the gymnasium, and had taken a vow of celibacy, believing marriage and the care of a family to be incompatible with a twenty-four-hour-a-day devotion to duty. He had no subjects of conversation except the principles of Ingsoc, and no aim in life except the defeat of the Eurasian enemy and the hunting-down of spies, saboteurs, thought-criminals, and traitors generally.


    ‘Comrade Ogilvy, unimagined an hour ago, was now a fact…and when once the act of forgery was forgotten, he would exist just as authentically, and upon the same evidence, as Charlemagne or Julius Caesar.’

    Part 1, Chapter 4 – 1984

    Winston debated with himself whether to award Comrade Ogilvy the Order of Conspicuous Merit: in the end he decided against it because of the unnecessary cross-referencing that it would entail.

    Once again he glanced at his rival in the opposite cubicle. Something seemed to tell him with certainty that Tillotson was busy on the same job as himself. There was no way of knowing whose job would finally be adopted, but he felt a profound conviction that it would be his own. Comrade Ogilvy, unimagined an hour ago, was now a fact. It struck him as curious that you could create dead men but not living ones. Comrade Ogilvy, who had never existed in the present, now existed in the past, and when once the act of forgery was forgotten, he would exist just as authentically, and upon the same evidence, as Charlemagne or Julius Caesar.

  61. @utu

    Hi: Oh yes – absolutely!

    The mortgages registered at the Land Title Registries are total fiction. It is all mind-bogglingly criminal but the bank solicitors believe that they are compensating through nominal “disclaimers” written into the financial securities. Here is brief excerpt:

    “As it was in 1880, the driving force and modus operandi of the system remained [in 1990], as it remains still, the all-or-nothing principle of contract law.

    Every time a bank lawyer goes before a civil / commercial Court they are saying in essence, in defence of any given illegality presented or claimed by the nominal debtor as a defence: “Look your honour, is this particular practice legal?”

    “If you tell me No, then the contract / security is wholly void and essentially all financial institutions everywhere will become instantly insolvent and collapse, and the legal profession as a body, including and especially you and me, will be held liable for the legal, financial and criminal law consequences.”

    “And if you tell me Yes, then we will take it as policy and compound our frauds / felonies with yet another new and escalated round of leveraged racketeering activities until we ultimately own and / or control virtually everything on Earth.”

    The entrenched-money-power has in fact both systemically and systematically employed that rule / principle to loot the equity of the masses for at least the past 300 years.

    Meanwhile, however, the owners and management of the private financial institutions and their solicitors nominally compensated for, and advanced the process of normalizing, their ever increasingly brazen criminal / racketeering activity (and general illegality – both civil (regulatory) and criminal) by adding and / or expanding general / blanket illegality disclaimers (which are themselves illegal and unlawful) to their financial contracts / securities while also adding more specific disclaimers corresponding to specific criminal law violations, such as in respect of the aforementioned s. 347 of the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate or criminal rate of conversion) – also a designated enterprise-crime or racketeering offence, and automatic (strict liability) money-laundering offence under ss. 462.31(1) and under the international treaties:

    [The net loan was \$2 million at 9% but the security had been falsified by omitting to disclose a \$100,000 kick-back to the purported lender, so as to claim \$2.1 million at 7.75%. In law it is called a false-document and constructive forgery.]

    NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of any Statute [law] relating to the rate of interest payable by debtors [e.g., s. 347 of the Criminal Code, s. 6 of the Interest Act, etc.], this contract [and security] shall remain in full force and effect whatever the rate of interest received or demanded by [the bank / nominal creditor].

    4.1 If the Interest Rate [Capitalized and referenced fixed rate of 7.75% per annum] stipulated herein would, except for this clause, be a criminal rate or void for uncertainty or unenforceable for any other reason, then the interest rate chargeable on the credit advanced or secured by this mortgage will be ONE (1.00%) percent per annum less than the rate which would be a criminal interest rate calculated in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and principles [i.e., 60% – 1% = 59% per annum].

    [The clause says in essence that the bank has complied with the federal securities law by declaring the real / net advance, and that the rate of interest defined by the required payments is 7.75%. Provided, however, that should it be discovered or raised as an issue that either or both declarations are false [which they are in fact], then the debtor agrees to amend the agreement to 59% per annum on the amount secured regardless of the amount actually advanced!!!.]

    Now, an ordinary sane man or woman may well ask: “But that’s crazy isn’t it?”

    And the answer is: “Yes. Yes it is.”

    A typical financial security in Canada (and ever increasingly the rest of the world) today is constructively and / or prima facie (on its face) offensive to domestic and international laws / treaties against one or more (and normally most) of falsification of an account, fraud, GAAP / IFRS-fraud, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, embezzlement, constructive and actual forgery / making-false-documents, uttering false / forged documents, omitting material particulars from valuable securities, receiving / converting payments or partial payments of interest at a criminal rate, mail fraud, laundering proceeds of crime, and racketeering / wagering.

    And all nominally justified by disclaimers to the effect that the parties know and understand that the agreements and securities are illegal and criminal, but if such should be discovered or raised as an issue, then either (1) they simply don’t care, and / or (2) they were just kidding.

    But members of the broadly-defined financial law community are incapable of seeing it, by reason of cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity. You can take the most obviously and transparently fraudulent and harmful practice on Earth, and as long as those who traffic-in and profit from it agree to label it as “Not-Stealing”, they become functionally incapable of perceiving its wrongful and harmful nature and substance.

    But doesn’t that make them profoundly dangerous?

    Yes. Yes it does.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @utu
  62. As Orwell said in 1984 the truth is covered up by the state and history is rewritten daily by the powers in control and in our case , the Zionist kabal that controls every facet of America, the MSM , the MIC , the currency ie the Zionist owned FED and IRS, everything is ran by the Zionists, and as the truth is the enemy of the state, rest assured we will never be told the truth in the Zionist controlled plantation know as Oceania aka America.

  63. @HdC

    And it will be reproduced by “independent researchers” with the same blind spots and biases
    Those who fail to reproduce it have merely introduced an outside variable: they always exist.

  64. MacNucc11 says:

    She would have gotten away with saying Jesus is not real but not Santa Claus. Santa Claus sells toys and other stuff.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  65. By way of clarification to my last post – the bank had violated the criminal interest rate law by converting the \$100,000 “loan fee” in advance and contrary to GAAP and IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards). So its solicitors added a disclaimer that provides if the bankers get caught, then the borrower agrees to increase the interest rate almost seven-fold to 59%! That’s. Just. Nuts.

  66. Anon[853] • Disclaimer says:

    At the same time, it is important to realize that “the truth” is not going to “rouse the masses from their slumber” and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly “wake up,” “see the truth” and start “the revolution.” People already know the truth … the official truth, which is the only truth there is. Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.


    You call “chains” what to them are support and grounds needed to live a sustainable life of the mind.
    You are a very good writer, satirist, and political opinionist, and it shows nearly every time in what you write (including your plays).
    You are a good philosopher, but it doesn’t show in your blog writings.
    You want to preserve their accessibility I gather, and at least have some of the readers read them till the end.

    But seriously, if there is no truth (we leave Truth aside, here), how can someone proclaim that there is no truth? How can this statement be true?

    Second, I have never seen you wishing for the extinction of the species. The species is a social species. There is a nature-determined leaders/normals ratio, and there is the fear & hatred both the leaders and normals have to feel regarding the ones possessed of integrity and a mind of their own.
    If you don’t like this, you should either hope for the species’ extinction, or a upset in the élite composition. But just as the normals don’t change much generation by generation, what tells you the new élite would be the élite you wish we had?
    The nature of the normals and élite are interlocked, either can change if the other doesn’t.

    On top of all that, you tend to deny that this system mirrors the unaware desires of the most — and so it’s real democracy in its being anti-democracy.

    Yes the only truth is the truth proclaimed by power, but why? Because the Functional, or Normal, are so against searching for their own truth, and so enraptured by admiration of the powerful, that they want nothing but to conform, and show their conformism.
    It’s not like they are more sincere to themselves than they want the élite to be to them. There’s consistency, and efficiency.

  67. denk says:

    George Carlin
    *What the US produces in abundance, is bullshit and bombs. It can’t produce a toaster worth shit, it can’t furnish 80 million of its citizens with adequate health care, it can’t keep all of its citizens productively employed, but it sure can bomb the shit out of other countries and it sure can pump out bullshit to justify it. *


    • Agree: ChuckOrloski
    • Replies: @denk
  68. FB says:

    Thanks wayfarer…enjoyed the video…

    Btw…give nice hug to Lilly for me [I hope I am remembering her name correctly]…

    • Replies: @wayfarer
  69. The Scalpel says: • Website

    You mean like Newtonian physics for 200 years?

  70. @Agent76

    Spinoza already explained that old hebrew could not be understood any more.
    The bible is not a translation, it is an interpretation.
    Hebrew does not have the letters a, e, o, u, o, i
    It does not have capitals, f and F.
    It does not have dots …., it does not have comma’s ,,,,, there are, as in Roman, no different signs for letters and figures, 7 in hebrew is VII.
    There is no objective way in Hebrew to see where a setence ends, thus also not where one begins, because also distances between letters, or figures, do not exist.
    A quite interesting Parisian atheistic rabbi gave as an example that moving the end of a presumed sentence three symbols forward turns the significance of the sentence 180° degrees around.
    The famous statement by Jesus something like ‘throw your crutches away and walk’ can legitimaly be translated, interpreted ‘throw your literature away and walk’.
    The Torah was never meant to be translated, was never meant to be read by others than rabbi’s.
    It was and is just some help for rabbis to prepare a synagogue speech.
    If you’re interested google Francine Kaufmann, author of ‘Pour Relire “Le Dernier des Justes”‘, 1987 Paris;
    She lectured in Paris, in French, about Torah interpretations, with the mentioned rabbi she gives quite a few amusing examples of differing interpretations.
    About evolution, wrong word, there is change of species.
    The problem is that now nobody understands how species change
    As to Jesus, any proof he ever existed ?
    Same question for King David, Mozes, whatever.

    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    , @Agent76
  71. @TimothyPMadden

    ” If I agree to loan you \$500,000 provided that you give me a mortgage claiming that I have loaned you \$1 million, plus interest on \$1 million, then what is the principal amount of the loan? ”
    A good question is half the answer.
    This question is so muddle headed I cannot answer it.
    In order to answer I’d have to specify all possible interpretations of your question, and answer anyone of them.
    Waste of time, and no purpose

    • Replies: @TimothyPMadden
  72. @TimothyPMadden

    What is dangerous is comments like this.
    Those that already have trouble understanding money issues may try to understand you comment, what is impossible, because it cannot be understood.
    It amazed me for a very long time how relatively simple abstract concepts as truth, and subjective judgments, as well as money, can cause such confusion.

  73. @jilles dykstra

    JillesDykstra inquired: “As to Jesus, any proof he ever existed?”


    Uh, is there any proof George Orwell ‘s Big Brother existed?

    Uh, did either Orwell or Big Brother “manufacture” Double think?

    Thanks, J.D. Let me know what you think?

  74. renfro says:

    I can only but be disappointed that one’s hold to truth, should be to cause for others to engage in destroying others lives.


  75. renfro says:

    Any article which starts off with a pseudo-philosophical argument that there is no such thing as truth, that all is somehow relative, does not deserve to be read

    It is comical that the author declares there is no truth while telling us its ‘true’ that there is no truth…lol

    • Agree: ChuckOrloski
  76. renfro says:

    why Julian Assange Wikileaks apparently did not include transmissions of Israeli & US/KSA officials’ exchanges during periodic Gazan “mowing of lawn”? Please refer to

    I wondered about that too…..perhaps he laid off it because he was already going to be in a dangerous position without increasing it by having Mossad teams sent to assassinate him.

    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
  77. @WorkingClass

    As Lionel Nation is fond of repeating in many of his daily YouTube videos: Tolstoy said that history would be a wonderful thing if only it were true.

  78. bournite says:

    Does this author actually believe his collection of nearly random assertions will shake anyone’s notion of “truth”? Nothing is demonstrated by any of his content. If someone testifies in a court of law that you committed a crime, when the fact is someone else did it, the conception of “truth” will likely be very dear to you. This is probably the worst article I’ve yet seen on Unz. It’s a lame screed about anti-Trump propaganda.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  79. How hopelessly ironic that Julian Assange, an Australian national, may spend years in prison (not counting those already spent holed up in the Ecuadoran Embassy) for committing no crime, while Bradley Manning, an active duty Army private, committed espionage against the US when he leaked top secret documents to Assange, who legally published them. Bradley was sentenced to many years in prison, but had his/her sentence commuted by Obama as he was leaving office. Of course, it sure didn’t hurt Bradley’s cause when he/she decided she was a transsexual after being sentenced, and then became known as Chelsea.

  80. Omegabooks [AKA "DL."] says: • Website

    So, if there is no truth since as we all know only the elites get to construct the truth, right, then how can it be that God does not exist (the author of this post is an atheist, no?) is the truth when as we also all know the elite who construct the truth hate God and Christ HAVE BRAINWASHED EVOLUTIONISTS AND RATIONALISTS FOR CENTURIES THAT THERE IS NO GOD???

    As with the evolutionist “rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks” crapola, this “God is not truth and tells no truth” crap is just more circular reasoning. Honey, if evil exists, then so does good. If Satan exists, then so does God. Period. End of Story.

  81. Cyrano says:

    The truth is like the dinosaurs – magnificent, simple, used to rule the earth and now –extinct. Lies are still evolving, with vibrant DNA, superior lies winning over inferior ones in the evolutionary race, but still just midgets compared to the dinosaurs.

    • Replies: @Anon
  82. Omegabooks [AKA "DL."] says: • Website

    BINGO! You know I just love explaining to atheists that their evolution construct is as bogus as their “there is no God” construct.

    • LOL: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  83. wayfarer says:

    Lily is doing just fine, thanks for asking, FB.

    A wily orphan kitten showed up unexpectedly at my trailer several weeks back. Scared, seeking shelter, and no doubt hoping to find a place to call home.

    This one’s real smart and friendly as well, with lots of personality. She’s camouflaged like a leopard shark, so I call her “Sharky.”

    She’s a keeper!

    Hope all of the cats in your world, are loving life too.


    • Replies: @FB
  84. @jilles dykstra

    It is actually a simple concept – the solicitors simply do not grasp the difference between commercial law jurisdiction and criminal law jurisdiction. “Deny Everything” has become engrained in their DNA.

    They directly violate multiple provisions of the criminal law, and of the international treaties to which they are enjoined, and then provide multiple disclaimers that expressly provide that if the criminal law offences should be discovered, then they simply don’t care.

    What part of “NOTWITHSTANDING any statute [law] …this contract [and security] shall remain in full force and effect” do you find to be not understandable?

    Look at it this way – If the solicitors who provided for it and drafted the securities were already in a psychiatric institution, then they would not be getting out anytime soon.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  85. @bournite

    Lasch demonstrated that already in the Nixon era truth no longer mattered in the USA
    Christopher Lasch, ‘The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations’, 1979, 1980, London
    Whyte showed that even USA college graduates understood so little of money that they were unable to oversee their own finances
    William H. Whyte, ‘The organisation man’, New York 1956, Penguin 1961
    But there seems to be improvement with regard to money
    Juliet B. Schor, ‘The Overspent American, Upscaling, Downshifting, and the New Consumer’, 1998 New York
    That an article appears here over the concept truth, also hopeful.
    The creationists here, a surprise for someone living in a country where Muslims are the largest religious group.
    For those really interested in how the concept truth evolved
    Felipe Fernández-Armesto, ‘Truth, A History and a Guide for the Perplexed’, New York 1997

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  86. @renfro

    Regarding absence of Wikileaks exchanges involving Israeli studs, renfro intelligently surmised: “I wondered about that too…..perhaps he (Julian Assange) laid off it because he was already going to be in a dangerous position without increasing it by having Mossad teams sent to assassinate him.”

    Hey renfro!

    Did not consider such an (original) intimidating scenario for Assange. Thank you!

    Nonetheless, after sloppy 9/11 went down minus a real investigation, and subsequently, I suggest there was no space whatsoever between Mossad & CIA, and I don’t think even Pamela Anderson could come between them!

  87. Agent76 says:
    @jilles dykstra

    If you are a reader you should be intrested in the number one selling book of all times. It has murder, sex, cheating, and scandal, and so much more. I hope you give it a go if knowledge is your thing as is it is mine. By the way both of parents are atheist to the tenth degree. I had a near death experience and seeked him out and found my faith in answered prayers. Be blessed!

  88. utu says:

    ECT and strong anti-psychotic drugs may fix it.

  89. RobinG says:

    The Bible is a detailed and historically accurate book.


    • Replies: @Agent76
  90. @HallParvey

    Hi! I get it now – you are referring to Bill Clinton and his famous response to the impeachment committee or whatever that: “It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.”

    I did not actually see it at the time as I did not have a television set (still don’t) but I heard about it from many of my friends at the time.

    I have always been a kind of anti-conspiracy-theorist who tells people to calm down and look for a more logical explanation, but many of my friends at the time were convinced that Mr. Clinton was in fact sending a signal to the powers-that-be that if they did not back off, then he was going to give away the whole game.

    I thought at the time that that was a little much, but I am not so sure anymore!

    Thanks for that regardless as I had forgotten all about it. Tim.

  91. Wally says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Didn’t Roman historians write about Jesus?

    I’m curious, were / are there official Roman records of his execution?

  92. @jilles dykstra

    No I get no pleasure from fooling anyone. I try to educate people to see things that have been carefully mis-labeled to make them seem to be something that they are not, and positively not the things that they are.

    The current generation of these people have had hundreds of years behind them, and all the money in the world, to work at their craft, and they are very very good at it. No offence intended to you, or to anyone who may experience cognitive dissonance when exposed to objective facts that seem to wholly contradict what they had previously thought to be an unshakable reality.

    To borrow the words of Mr. Royce (I think) to the initial overwhelming negative response to the then new 1907 Rolls Royce Silver Ghost – If you liked it right away, then it would already be dated.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @cassandra
  93. cassandra says:

    Can you prove differently? The Bible is a detailed and historically accurate book.

    Well, now that that is settled, we can begin the discussion.

    What a handy syllogism for proving all sorts of things I never would have suspected. For instance, I can’t prove that Zeus doesn’t exist, so Zeus must exist.

    Houston, we have a problem.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  94. @Wally

    Hi: This is just from memory as I cannot find the citation (am currently on the road), but there is a book titled (I think) A Criminal History of Mankind. It was published in the 1980’s (I think) and I read it in 2016 or so. In it the author reproduces what is claimed to be the equivalent of a Roman “All Points Bulletin” or APB to be on the lookout for Jesus, and gives a description of a short, balding (male-pattern-baldness) slightly heavy / overweight man with a red / ruddy complexion. In short, what one would have expected instead of the way he is portrayed as a tall blue-eyed Arian in so many modern renditions.

    As I recall the book was generally well documented and you can likely find it in index at the back (otherwise it is about 700 pages and may take some time to locate).

    It is in the same chapter as the account of the Appian Way – a 200 kilometre long road leading to Rome where, in a single act of reprisal, the Romans crucified 6,000 slaves who had joined in an insurrection. Basically one on each side of the road every few hundred meters to send a message to everyone else. Fun bunch of guys those old Romans.

  95. Art says:

    We all know the reason “Truth” does not have chance in the MSM, it is because Jews control it. Only favorable half-truths can be published.

    Poor Mr. Hopkins – he is a slave – he has lost his freedom – he cannot say the truth in this article. He cannot say “Jew.”

    If he uses that word – he will lose his livelihood in the publishing world.

    He is harmed. How sad! How sad for the best thing that has ever happen on this Earth – America.

    Think Peace — Do No harm — Art

    p.s. Does the US Jew have an inkling of the damage he has done to America.

    • Replies: @anon
  96. Cam says:

    What is happening today is that, with the populist wave which unsettled the political establishment in the West, the liberal-democratic Truth (the Big Lie with a Leftist or Rightist twist) that has served as an ideological foundation for this establishment is also falling apart. And the ultimate reason for this disintegration is the failure of the ruling establishment to maintain its ideological hegemony by manufacturing the consent of the voting public… What those who bemoan the “death of truth” really deplore is the disintegration of one big Story more or less accepted by the majority, a story, which used to bring ideological stability to a society. But one thing is clear: there is no return to the old ideological hegemony. The only way to return to Truth is to reconstruct it from a new cognitive interest in universal emancipation.

    For when all the boundaries between God and Satan collapse and we have no way of telling: a democratically elected President from an unaccountable tyrant, a diabolical madman from the leader of the free world, a free and civilized nation from the fearful and enslaved masses, a time of peace and security from a permanent state of emergency, the consensus of educated experts from a foolish mass delusion, the cold hard truth from a fabricated web of lies, a conspiracy theory from an official government pronouncement, a fanatical Islamic terrorist group from a US proxy army in the Middle East, the ruling political class from a degenerate criminal cabal, the corporate media’s propaganda machine from free and independent journalism, liberal-progressive language policing from a fundamentalist brainwashing cult, or a mass surveillance state of centralized social control from freedom of speech and the open-ended exchange of ideas – when we can no longer disambiguate these opposing forces, or collapse the agonizing tension between these twosomes, then we have crossed the critical threshold, and the situation is ripe for collective uprising and a non-violent populist insurgency

    At this historical moment we are all beset by the unsettling ambiguity of this spectral, in-between liminal space, where what we thought was the Truth is suspended as we are plunged into the empty/pregnant void, an absence of meaning that eludes all our programs of mastery, an anarchic abyss that slips through the grasp of all our schemes and strategies, and resists reduction to any human justification or rational explanation. It feels like the world as we know it is falling apart at the seams, but don’t despair the situation is perfect. For when there is no necessary order to secure the Truth or guarantee the meaning of the world as we know it, then the field of possibilities is wide open, and what is called the Truth is once again up for grabs. There is no such thing as the emergence of human freedom without this passage through madness, but by exposing the Truth as a Big Lie at least we’ve achieved the conditions that make a different – and hopefully better – world possible.

  97. @jilles dykstra

    In 1950 a French Semitologist named Andre Dupont-Sommer published a translation of a Dead Sea Scroll which clearly described a historic Essene leader who was crucified in 69 BC by the Jews. He was criticized by everyone, Jesuits and scholars, for “jumping the gun.” The existence of the person in the scroll is corroborated by the Yeshua Toledot or anti-Jesus propaganda in the Talmud which dates from a century before the Gospels. In fact, this anti-Jesus propaganda dates from 69 BC because it takes place in the reign of Queen Salome who died shortly thereafter. While the Gospels may not be literally true as to the time and circumstance, the substance of the matter is not false either. In fact, Pilate’s unanswered question: “What is truth” is a rhetorical treatment of exactly this question, namely, how true is the Gospel if it knows that what happened actually happened a hundred years earlier than when the Gospels say, before the Romans even arrived in Syria. The reason is that until the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, the possible meaning of what happened was not clear to anyone, not even the Essenes, who were the only ones concerned by it. Even they had to adjust what they thought about it all in a big way after that event. But their subsequent treatment of it made the evening news, and made it of interest to others. The whole matter is discussed in the “Second Coming of the Judeo-Zoroastrian Jesus of the Dead Sea Scrolls” much of which you can read on Amazon for free.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  98. nsa says:

    This is a very interesting question. The finest history ever written is The Twelve Caesars by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus. The famous Penguin edition is translated by none other than the poet, Robert Graves, and serves as the basis of his popular novels I, Claudius and Claudius the God. If JC existed at all, it would have been during the reign of Augustus (27BC – 14AD). There is no mention of JC in the Augustus chapter and no reference to JC in the whole book. There is a short one sentence reference to a “Chresto” stirring up the jooies in Rome in the Claudius (41 AD -54AD) chapter, which the chrissies have fastened onto as an allusion to their hero. Most historians dispute this interpretation. The first reference to chrissies appears in the chapter covering Nero (54AD – 68AD): “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief”. Again, there is no definite reference to JC anywhere in The Twelve Caesars, and there are only a few references to the troublemaking chrissies, but quite a few references to the troublemaking jooies. For example, in the Vespasian (69AD to 79AD) chapter, a paragraph is dedicated to Vespasian crushing a jooie rebellion after the Governor of Judea was murdered by the jooies in order to fulfill a prophecy.
    For those few interested, the Suetonius history presents an obvious contradiction. How is it possible to have references to Christians, but no references to JC? Hmmmmmm……….

    • Replies: @CamFree
    , @ploni almoni
  99. anon[256] • Disclaimer says:

    p.s. Does the US Jew have an inkling of the damage he has done to America.

    do you have an inkling how little he cares?

  100. Anon[129] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Your overflowing brain lacks discrimination. What possible reason is there to believe that Hitler would choose a flight to Scotland by Hess as his method of delivering peace proposals to Britain? Isn’t the truth more like Hess resenting being sidelined by Bormann’ s growing influence on Hitler and a mad attempt to reestablish his relevance?

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  101. @HallParvey

    Of course God invented Evolution. If you were eternal, omnipotent and omniscient wouldn’t you be lonely and bored? As we know about those “made in His image” we know he would have set off evolution so he could watch and be entertained. It had another advantage too. Being omniscient He would have known that we would invent the Problem of Evil and start whining about Him so He could be content knowing that Evolution was a way of letting it all hang out with results out of His hands.

    Another thing we know in the same way. How ridiculous to suppose such a Being would be content to create just one universe. Would we, made in His image, have the patience? Of course not. There must be trillions to the power of trillions of universes. We just got one of the moderately interesting one’s probably.

  102. @Omegabooks

    And how do those atheists show their gratitude for your taking the trouble to impart your superior wisdom? Do they cover their mouths and pretend to smile when yawning?

  103. @jilles dykstra

    Thank you for drawing Felipe F-as book to my attention.

    A thought which your reference to college students and their finances reminded me of. I suggest that the widespread innumeracy afflicting nearly all nations, like the relatively trivial fact that our memory for people’s names tends to be poor and to decline early, is a function of evolution by natural selection working on people living in primitive hunter gatherer circumstances. I have read that there are tribes whose language only has one, two and many for dealing with the numerous. And how often would it have been necessary or even useful to use numbers greater than ten at most? Maybe “how big is their raiding party?” but “maybe bigger than our fighting group but we can surprise them” would have been the answer. As for calculation, there is reason to believe that astronomy and trigonometry were always for specialists.

  104. @ploni almoni

    How one can assert anything based on old stories, read
    Robert Eisenman, ‘The New Testament Code, The cup of the Lord, the Damascus convenant, and The blood of Christ’, London 2006
    A hopeless book, after 200 pages one sees but one good place for it; dustbin.
    But one never knows, so I persevered for all its 1300 pages.

    Interesting in this respect also is
    Wilhelm Kammeier, ‘Die Wahrheit über die Geschichte des Spätmittelalters’, 1936- 1939, 1979, Wobbenbüll
    The writer argues that the whole history of christianity was invented in the Middle Ages.
    He specifies in great detail on what this history is based, the oldest book a copy made in the 12th or so century.

    But one thing does not lie: the earth archive.
    Ceasar’s propaganda was believed until the 19th century, THE great debunking instrument: the spade.

    That Paul created christianity as a secret agent of the Roman emperor, simply see him as MSM of two thousand years ago.
    If Jesus existed, with Mozes, and other biblical people, I do not know, and will never know, I suppose.
    At the same time, does it matter ?
    Christian ideas still are quite important in the world.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    , @Art
  105. @TimothyPMadden

    I meant that what you write is so incomprehensible to me that I’m unable to respond

    • Replies: @TimothyPMadden
  106. @Wally

    Wally, yes the famous Roman historian Tacitus in his “Annals”. He writes that Christianity was a distinct religion from Judaism. That Christianity originated in Roman Palestine. That Christians trace their origin to a man known as The Christ(name Jesus not mentioned) and that the ” ultimate punishment” was inflicted on The Christ on the authority of Praetor Pontius Pilate. Tacitus held positions of high authority in the Roman government including Governor of Anatolia, and was a member of an official agency tasked with studying and advising the government on forgein religions. He had access to primary sources and is not known for repeating hearsay or inaccuracies, as Herodotus is notorious for doing. Tacitus also writes of the official persecution of Christians, including over The Great Fire, where one of Nero’s cruel punishments was nailing Christians to crosses. Modern historians consider the account by Tacitus to be reliable confirmation of the existence and execution of Christ. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity, but wrote favorably of Celt and German resistance to Roman domination.

  107. @Wally

    You do not seem to comprehend that, as far as I know, no old book is older than say the year 1000, in the original.
    When anyone mentions a say third century writer, hardly ever is explained that what can be read now is something written, say, in the thirteenth century, presented to us, the ‘we’ of then, as a copy, or already a copy of a copy.
    It has been demontrated that these copyists did not simply copy, but changed what they thought necessary.
    Old writings simply fall apart, considerable parts of the Dead Sea scrolls literally were blown away, when someone began to exxamine them on a flat roof somewhere in the ME.
    But there is one peculiar Dead Sea scroll, the one written on copper sheeting, specifying where the temple treasures had been hidden.
    The importance of money demonstrated in the best possible way, in my opinion.
    When you read detailed descriptions about the political rows over the Dead Sea scrolls, I for one lost any illusion that examining these fragments was aimed at finding the truth.

  108. @cassandra

    I can’t prove that Zeus doesn’t exist, so Zeus must exist.

    Try out NEW! God & Son brand deity. Our new special Israelite formula performs miracles – watch Rabbi Goldstein scour your bank account clean* using our patented goyische kopf method.

    *not intended for removal of original sin stains

  109. CamFree says:

    The Historical Jesus: An Open Secret. The basic presupposition of critical-historical scholarship on the figure of Jesus over the last few hundred years is that the world-shattering impact of this 1st century Jew’s brief public career was soon domesticated by the early Christian communities, who found the radical challenge of his life and teachings almost impossible to live with.

    The central task of historical reconstruction, then, is to dig beneath the mythic and supernatural encrustations that were built up around Jesus and then ossified in the developing streams of early the Church (e.g. the Virgin Birth, the ‘only begotten’ son of God, substitutionary atonement, the pre-existing Logos, the Second Coming, etc.) in order to re-activate the “historical Jesus” – the earliest memory of this Galilean sage as he lived and breathed prior to his subsequent inscription within the New Testament canon.

    Now, in contrast to much modern-day skepticism about the historical reliability of the Christian gospels, the case to be made here is that the earliest memory of this Nazarene trouble-maker has indeed survived the historical process of oral and written transmission in the 1st century. For (as we shall see below), the recorded parables of Jesus are so distinctive in their underlying structure and so memorable in their paradoxical shock and offense, that it is now clear that the unique signature of this itinerant Nazarene Jew’s characteristic oral voice-print is embedded within the narrative core of virtually all the parables of Jesus that have been handed down to us.

    Or more specifically, the linguistic DNA of the author of those teachings attributed to this itinerant Nazarene and preserved in the early gospels traditions is still intact today. For within the very heart of all the parables of Jesus that were remembered, retold and written down by his followers at the early dawn of Christianity is one and the same peerless and incomparable linguistic structure, where the evocative strangeness of Jesus’ mad-capped stories on the kingdom of God contain a shattering event that haunts and provokes us with a simultaneous promise/threat or invitation/challenge.

    So, what would the parables of Jesus look like if we stripped away all subsequent Christian interpretation and embellishment, extracted them from the accumulated doctrinal lumber built-up by the confessional theologies of the Church over the past two millennia, and started to retell the story of Jesus’ proclamation of God’s kingdom be unleashed in its first, disturbing, immediacy?

    Here’s the briefest possible summary:


    Good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37: the agents of neighborly love, i.e. the devout Pharisee & Levite priest, are exposed as morally and religiously bankrupt; the morally and religiously bankrupt, i.e. the half-caste Samaritan, is an agent of neighbor love.

    Prodigal Son Luke 15:11-32: the younger wayward son, who is lost in rebellious exile from home, is saved with the father’s homecoming feast, the older dutiful son, who is saved in righteous obedience to his father’s home, is lost in rebellious exile from the homecoming feast.

    Vineyard Workers Matthew 20:1-16: the privileged status of those who started work at daybreak is the source of their envy and their sense of injustice; the envy and injustice of those who started work just before sundown, is the occasion for their privileged status, (when both groups receive equal pay from the vineyard owner).

    Pharisee and Tax Collector Luke 18:10-14: the self-righteous Pharisee, who is saved in as a Temple insider – is lost, just as the sinful Tax Collector, who is lost as a Temple outsider – is saved.

    Two Sons Matthew 21:28-32: the acceptance of the first son is a refusal to work in the field, and the refusal of the second son is an acceptance to go work in the field.

    The Friend at Midnight Luke 11:5-8, where: the refusal of a friend becomes the acceptance of stranger, while the persistence of a stranger is the faithfulness of a friend.

    Shrewd Manager Luke 16:1-8: where: a shrewd business manager has condemned his employer as a fraud, as this fraud is praised by his employer as a shrewd business manager.

    Unjust Judge Luke 18: 2-8: we see: the refusal to back down of a fearless judge is a merciful delivery of justice, just as the merciful pleas of the widow for justice are a fearless refusal to back down.

    Unforgiving Slave (Matthew 18:23-35): an occasion for judgment is act of forgiveness, an occasion for forgiveness is an act of judgment.

    Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-21, Gospel of Thomas 63): the wisdom of working to secure one’s future is foolish hoarding, the foolishness of an unsettled and uncertain future, is wisdom and security.

    Final Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46): those who know God’s name are damned in never serving the poor, while those who serve the poor are saved even though they never knew God by name.

    Great Banquet (Luke 14: 16-24, Matthew 22:2-14, Gospel Thomas 64): the ones who to get in are the ones who are expected to be left out; while the ones who are left out are the ones who are expected to get in.

    Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31): the rich man who is glorified in this life is destitute and without hope in the afterlife, just as Lazarus who is destitute and without hope in this life is glorified in the afterlife.

    Wedding Feast (Matthew 22: 1-14): the outsiders are in, just as the insiders are out.

    Treasure in the Field (Matthew 13:44) finding is losing and losing is finding.

    Pear of Great Price (Matthew 13:45-46): looking through many is finding one, selling many is buying one.

    Father’s Good Gifts (Matt 7:9-11, Luke 11:11-13): the suggestion of false gifts is an affirmation of good gifts, while the affirmation of good gifts is the suggestion false gifts (compared to the good gifts of the Father)

    Talents (Matthew 25:14-30): the risk of losing what has been given is to save one’s life, to save what has been given is to risk of losing one’s life.

    Slave at Duty (Luke 17:7-10): an occasion for grace is a demand for good works, while the occasion of good works is a confession of grace.

    Faithful and Wise Slave (Matthew 24:45-51, Luke 12:42-46): to be a slave in the master’s absence is to possess all the riches in his presence, while to possess of all the master’s riches in his absence, is to be a slave in his presence.

    Waiting Slaves (Mark 13:34-37, Luke 12:35-38): a promise is a threat as a threat is a promise.

    Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-12, Matthew 21:33-46, Luke 20:9-19, Thomas 65-66): a time for fruitfulness is an occasion of violence, while an occasion for violence is really the time for fruitfulness.

    Sower (Mark 4:3-8, Matthew 13: 3-8, Luke 8:5-8, Gospel of Thomas 9): just as abundant sowing leads to widespread scarcity, the scarcity of a few seeds in good soil leads to widespread abundance.

    Weeds and the Wheat (Matthew 13:24-30): a cause for division is a time for union, and what is a cause for union is a time for division.

    Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9): what is expected to be fruitful is judged to be barren, and a judgment of barren-ness is an opportunity for fruitfulness.

    Seed Growing Secretly (Mark 4:26-29): manual labor is natural growth and natural growth is the manual labor.

    Lost Sheep (Luke 15:4-7) and the Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10): the one that is lost is more valuable than the many that are saved.

    Children Playing (Matt 11:16-19, Luke 7:31-35): the funeral song is too sad for those that want to play the wedding dance, and the wedding song is too happy for those that want to sing the funeral dirge

    So, contrary to much modern-day skepticism about the historical reliability of the Christian gospels, and even some recent attempts to deny that Jesus even existed as a historical person, buried in the radical dawn of the early Christian tradition there is a characteristic deep structure embedded in the parables of the Jesus that were recorded in the synoptic gospel texts and handed down to us.

    And while this unique pattern of paradoxical connections within the underlying structure of Jesus’ most memorable teachings has remained buried beneath Church traditions for nearly 2000 years, by re-activating the mind-bending event that these traditions harbor prior to his subsequent inscription within the New Testament canon, we not only demonstrate the historical existence of this itinerant 1st century Nazarene, but also confirm that the earliest memory of this Jesus has indeed survived the historical process of oral and written transmission with the original signature of his historical voice-print still intact.

    Moreover, this new perspective can – and does – provide us with the best available evidence for a retrieval of Jesus’ authentic message and his original intentions in announcing the coming of the Kingdom, while offering a novel insight into the interior life of this radical Jew and his intimate access to his own experience of God.

    By unsettling the binary oppositions that constitute the very form and content of human language, Jesus’ discourse of radical paradox is a skilful means for a piercing through our protective defences and exposing the defects in any system that attempts to legitimize the status quo or justifying the “way things are” by interrupting our pre-given horizons of meaning with series of subversive reversals in the expected story-line at its deepest level that put language under pressure and puts into question our taken for granted assumptions about reality.

    And not only do we stand right before the historical person of Jesus when reading those enigmatic and mind-bending parables that were remembered and written down by early Christian communities, the paradoxical poetics of Jesus’ parables – which interrupt our conventional expectations and de-stabilize fixed identities, also embody a deeper internal discord than the teachings of any other religious founder or tradition.

    Simply put, Jesus’ central proclamation of the kingdom of God is a world with a void of meaning at its core, or as the Dom Crossan states, “he who finds the meaning loses it, and he who loses the meaning finds it…” In other words, these profound paradoxes can never be properly resolved, their spectral un-decidability is something we have to learn to live as they continually decentre us and put us into question while exposing us to the disruptive novelty of the event that is harbored in Jesus’ call for the coming of God’s kingdom.

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
  110. @jilles dykstra

    That is fair enough. Thank you for your honesty.

  111. wayfarer says:

    WARNING: Contains Content That Some May Find Truthful.


  112. @nsa

    Because the references are not references to Christians. Christos means “Messiah” or “anointed one” so when Tacitus talks about “Chrestiani” these are insurgent anti-Roman groups whose leaders were touted as “Messiahs.” So, Jewish Messianists set fire to Rome, an act of terrorism, but not Christians, because as we can see from the Gospels, the Christians are actually pro-Roman, and instead, they are anti-Jewish establishment. The most telling example of a revolutionary messiah was BarKochba in 130 who was actually endorsed as Messiah by Rabbi Akiva. The Bar Kochba people killed anyone who professed to follow another Messiah and Jesus Christians would have been internal enemy number one.

  113. @jilles dykstra

    False logic. Just because you can assert nonsense and lies based upon “old stories” does not mean you cannot also assert truth on the basis of old stories. You say that Robert Eisenman is nonsense. This is true, and it is obvious from what he writes, how he writes, and what he writes about himself. He is a fraud, and his purpose is to create confusion because that is his chaotic and narcissistic nature. He says his parents were “assimilated Jews.” What does that mean, really? What would you expect him to say about Christianity? Religion, like politics is the promised land of the con man, but that does not mean that everything is false and that there is no statesmanship or good religion or philosophy. You have to be discriminating in your thinking and not swallow everything.

  114. The ruling class trains and hires people like C.J. Hopkins. If you don’t agree with the police state views at first there’s always an alternate half-wit to reinforce the same material by flipping the mirror. The Soviets sent dissenters to psychiatric hospitals just like in the US. Look, today’s ruling class uses technology to keep the brainwashed masses in online gulags. “Men of peace” like Chris Hedges visit you weekly. It’s always the ones you least suspect. Don’t be a commie. Slaves who refused to believe they were free. Soon another memorial will be dedicated to the victims of communism perhaps by another Bush.

  115. FB says: • Website

    Oh man…that is such nice news W…I hope you can provide this little gal with the home that she is looking for…that’s the thing with cats, they choose you…kind of like women…LOL…[and there’s not much you can really do about it after the fact]

    PS…I’ve included a link above to a brand new blog I’ve started…you may enjoy my first entry…!

    • Replies: @wayfarer
    , @Vendetta
  116. Reference:

    Welfare by Mink and Sallinger

  117. Art says:
    @jilles dykstra

    If Jesus existed, with Moses, and other biblical people, I do not know, and will never know, I suppose.
    At the same time, does it matter?
    Christian ideas still are quite important in the world.

    The facts are that Christianity as practiced by Europe and America has advanced all of mankind. Clearly not perfectly, just a gradual steady better.

    Factually true or not, the story portraying Jesus’ idealism – is a practical beneficial model to live by.

    Think Peace — Art

  118. @Wizard of Oz

    Try “….mutatur *et* lex” next time.

    Ordinarily I would absolutely agree – but that’s not what is written ina US judgement that cites it, which is a New Jersey Supreme Court case (Fox v Snow, 76 A. 2d 877 [1950]).

    I admit that I was being lazy – Fox v Snow is bookmarked because it contains both formulations of the concept… I copied the text of the ‘maxim’ from there and pasted it without reading it.

    In mitigation, I offer that my copy of Coke’s Reports[*] Vol IV (which is where the original text is) is in a scanned-image PDF that is not amenable to searching.

    Scalia cited Milborn’s case in his dissent in Rogers v Tennessee 532 U.S. 451 (2001), whereupon his minion obviously copied the text from Milborn more diligently.

    I need better minions (however in future I will get the magic dead-language incantation right).

    Weirdly: Fox v Snow also uses the “cessante/cessat” formulation, although differently (its text reads Cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex – they add the ‘et’ – which makes the odd usage of ‘ex’ even stranger in their rendition of the ‘ratione‘ form. Since it was ‘Joizee‘ in the 50s, maybe they had shit minions too.

    [*] It’s actually called The reports of Sir Edward Coke, knt. [1572-1617] in English, in thirteen parts complete; with references to all the ancient and modern books of the law, and as befits a 19th century edition, it’s in the public domain having been scanned by Google’s All-Seeing Eye back before Google became evil.

    Milborn’s case (Trin 29 Eliz. ) starts in Vol IV, Part VII, p62… it’s actually a very interesting case: whether a locality can be ‘amerced’ – held accountable – for failing to fulfil its obligation to keep the countryside safe, if the crime (a robbery) occurs at night (it actually happened some time before dawn). {Spoiler: Nope.}

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  119. wayfarer says:

    Extremely interesting, “The Adventure Begins.” Learned so much, in so few words.

    Living next to MCAS Yuma, I’ve been quite curious as to the basic mechanics of these machines, in general jet aircraft but in particular the combat aircraft.

    I dream of a world where machines are fundamentally simple, robust, and standardized.

    Will be following your future work, FB (a.k.a. Juliett Golf Oscar).

    • Replies: @FB
  120. Dube says:

    But the truth is real or there could be no lies.

    Nice return of the kickoff at #1, WorkingClass.

  121. cassandra says:

    The current generation of these people have had hundreds of years behind them, and all the money in the world, to work at their craft, and they are very very good at it. No offence intended to you, or to anyone who may experience cognitive dissonance when exposed to objective facts that seem to wholly contradict what they had previously thought to be an unshakable reality.

    I agree 100%.

    I get excessively impatient with people who say about their political opponents, “How can people be so stupid!” The question should be, how can people possibly maintain any mental integrity in the face of such never-ending media propaganda?

    According to Barbara Honneger,
    in February 1981 CIA Director William Casey said,

    We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false

    Propaganda seems now to be more than just a tool of political manipulation, but a routine exercise to test and maintain political power.

    Every time I delve into any major issue, I’ve found the mainstream narrative to be entirely misleading. Issues include not only the “American Pravda” issues that Ron Unz has discussed, but also the Climate Change story, the Russian collusion myth, Russian geopolitical plans, Putin and Trump’s relations, and even Charlottesville (why did the MSM start calling the episode an “attack” straight from the gate without evidence?)

    And cultural deceptions: the existence of Jesus and Mohammed, the notion that religious beliefs are generally benign (at least Islam and Judaism have core doctrines antogonistic toward outsiders), and that unrestricted multiculturalism is intrinsically beneficial. And of course, that culture not chromosomes determine gender.

    There’s also the overriding notion that the elites behave like enlightened despots wishing to improve their societies, as exemplified, for instance, by neoliberal economics, with austerity “reforms” and global trade pacts written by corporate lawyers.

    There are problems if not outright lies with what’s told on all these subjects, and I find my worldview on ever-increasingly shaky grounds.

    Fortunately for myself, I have an interest in fundamental science and mathematics, so I actually enjoy the cognitive dissonance this situation produces and find it quite stimulating. It does make me a somewhat annoying Thanksgiving guest to have at the table, though.

  122. @Anon

    You are speculating needlessly about Hess’ “resentment” and “desire to restore relevance.” Hess flew to Scotland, he said he had peace proposals. The people who told Chamberlain and Churchill what to do, the people behind WW II, did not want to hear of peace proposals. Their desire was to destroy this threat to themselves and they did want peace. Simple. After the war they did not want Hess talking about Hitler’s desire for peace so he remained in solitary until he died, in what, 1992. You may not lack discrimination, but you have an agenda.

    • Replies: @Anon
  123. Agent76 says:

    I dare you to read it. Scared you might learn something? How has that been working out? LOL back at you. How old are you child? I have great grand children that use lol.

  124. FB says: • Website

    Glad you liked my first blog post dubya…I plan to cover both the civilian and military aspects of aerospace technology…and that includes some space stuff too…

    Being there in Yuma you can see some of that stuff up close…I think the flight tests on the Osprey tiltrotor are done there…an interesting machine, but perhaps a little too complicated…

    Hugs and slow blinks to Lilly and Sharky…

    • Replies: @wayfarer
    , @The scalpel
  125. cassandra says:

    This entire blog, like the article is a bit disjointed, not because of the contributors, but, I suspect, because the truth is as well. Truth isn’t quite the same thing to a politician, to a historian, to a philosopher, to a theologian, to a scientist or to a mathematician. As we’ve seen here, discussions often begins by first establishing the common arena in which truth will be discussed. It’s as if the concept of the truth is an abstraction that can be applied to different forms of what passes for human understanding.

    Here’s a finding on what truth is like in pure mathematics. (Apologies for my oversimplified, mangled explanation; see for a more comprehensive discussion.)

    There’s a famous result proven by Kurt Godel, that applies to any logical system based on axioms, that can be manipulated by numeric rules which can be combined to determine the truth or falsehood of other propositions (think equations, or geometry).

    No matter what set of axioms (“fundamental truths”) you choose for your system, either you’ll find that you won’t be able to determine whether some propositions are true or false (system is incomplete), or, you’ll need so many axioms that you’ll be able to prove that propositions that contradict each other can both be proven true.


    There; and you thought that propaganda made it difficult to find political truth 😉

  126. @Kratoklastes

    You remind me of the kind of old fashioned lawyer’s jokes and jibes I came across in youth through knowing a famous, classically educated, judge born in 1886. He had known Chief Justice of the High Court (Australia’s highest appeal court) Sir Samuel Griffith whose prestige was no doubt essential to the error which his ignorance or pretentiousness made permanent currency for later judges and high flying silks.

    Sec 51 of Australia’s Constitution sets out in a large number of paragraphs most of the powers conferred on the Commonwealth (federal) parliament. But it became commonplace, even customary to refer to them as placita, with abbreviation pl. for placitum. E.g. “If the Court pleases the appellants argument rest firmly on interpretation of placitum (xy)”.

    My old acquaintance liked to sneer in a genial way that it was all down to the learned Griffith’s lack of enough Latin to recognise that the “pl. XIV” or whatever in the Medieval Year Books from which most Common Law case law was first derived stood for “Plea number XIV”.

  127. wayfarer says:

    Lots of routine V-22 Osprey ops.

    There’s one maneuver I find particularly interesting, and that’s the slow, low, and silent approach of an F-35 Lightning practicing a gun-and-run.

    Don’t even hear the thing coming, until it’s right there, just overhead. As if it glided in, under next to no power. Then punching out, with a howling turbine all wound-up to full-tilt after-burner, rattling windows, loosening trailer rivets, setting off car alarms and barking dogs.

    Most people around here don’t pay any attention, as they’re so used to these foaming at the mouth, combat aircraft.

    Lily’s used to it, but Sharky seems to be finding it all, rather novel.

  128. This is a Western derivative and limited scope, and of not much consequence or depth.

    The Buddha discovered Truths. They are eternal and describe The Reality we live in

  129. @cassandra

    “Objective facts”. LMAO! More! More!

    • Replies: @cassandra
  130. CollDoll says:

    i roundly disagree with this statement: The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative.

    of course there is a third alternative and most people belong to it. It is those who are indifferent either because “I don’t care” or because “there is nothing i can do.” this is the large majority of the populace. Hopkins indirectly acknowledges this when he writes:

    At the same time, it is important to realize that “the truth” is not going to “rouse the masses from their slumber” and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly “wake up,” “see the truth” and start “the revolution.”

    People already know the truth … the official truth, which is the only truth there is. NO the slumbering masses do not already know. That is why there is and needs to be Hopkins, Greenwald, etc. etc. to provide the alternative truth.

    • Replies: @cassandra
  131. cassandra says:
    @Poupon Marx

    “Objective facts”. LMAO! More! More!

    Glad you enjoyed it! Now your turn: tell us what gives you cognitive dissonance so we can get a good laugh from that.

  132. cassandra says:

    People already know the truth … the official truth, which is the only truth there is. NO the slumbering masses do not already know. That is why there is and needs to be Hopkins, Greenwald, etc. etc. to provide the alternative truth.

    Actually, a lot of this makes more sense using the word narrative in place of truth. It may seem to be a strange distinction, but it seems to be that we hold our political knowledge more in the form of stories about, and impressions of, circumstances, than as a collection of “facts”.

    Propaganda seeks to tell us stories that leave us with some impression that we carry on afterwards for further accumulation and reinforcement. For example, seeing a cartoon of Putin as an octopus, or with blood-drenched teeth, facilitates acceptance of a later characterization of him as a brutal dictator. Gradually, but sooner than you might think, you’re uncritically adding every derogative you read to this collection of negativity, which eventually becomes so entangled within itself that it becomes difficult to understand any other.

    Presenting counter-narratives to pop such a bubble is guaranteed to fail, as we can see by witnessing all the political battles between people who try to present their worldview to their opposition, and then feel frustrated when their sincerest efforts fail to be persuasive.

    What does produce activity IMHO is a counter-narrative so limited that it provokes no contradiction, and yet is discordant enough to trigger a reevaluation, i.e., a “red pill”. At one time, I had been inclined to take the Economist’s line that economic reform benefited the Philippines, citing examples of prosperous hyacinth farms beginning to dot the landscape. But elsewhere, I came across stories of how such corporate “prosperity” was ejecting rice growers from their lands, and driving the women of the families of these formerly self-sustaining farmers to the sex shops of the Southeast Asian mainland. It’s interesting to note here that there was no contradiction between the facts in both stories; none were contested. The real collision was between the conflicting impressions that the narratives left, which forced me to form a more inclusive impression that respected both pictures.

    History is replete with such “supplementary facts” which do not contradict mainstream or “elite” narratives directly, but which do produce an impression at odds with the mainstream, whose incorporation can shift the narrative of our understanding seismically. For that reason, its study can be very subversive to mainstream promotions.

    I hope this explanation in term of narratives and their impressions makes the point, that “Truth”, as commonly used, isn’t really a very helpful concept for discussing psychological, political and propagandistic beliefs. The notion of truth just isn’t, well, truthful.

  133. @cassandra

    I have found that the term “systematized delusion” as defined in the law dictionary is the most universally appropriate description of process. A false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion.

    It occurred to me in the early 1990’s that “They always get you at the door”.

    Are you in the game?


    Then you lose.

    The administrators are simply not that bright (they probably could be, but have chosen not to be) and can only function according to a template or pattern of behaviour that we have all been programmed to call “policy”.

    A full appreciation, however, requires an understanding of the de facto doctrine or doctrine of necessity. De facto means “in fact, and for the time being”.

    Assume, for example, that you are the driver of a car, and that you have just come to a stop at a traffic-light-controlled intersection, and where there is a “No Left Turn” sign above the red light signal, and others elsewhere in the intersection. But before the light turns green, a police officer arrives and gets off his motorcycle and takes a position in the middle of the intersection and directs you to turn left.

    The question is: Do you obey the sign and drive straight forward when the light turns green?, or do you follow the officer’s direction and turn left?

    Legally, you have to turn left, even though the “No Left Turn” sign is otherwise legal / legitimate, because you are following the same authority “in fact and for the time being” as represented by the police officer.

    Notwithstanding the presence of the legal “No Left Turn” sign, the driver is complying with the policy of the authority (Crown) as administered by its officer(s) “in fact and for the time being”, and so there is no offence.

    With respect to nominal speed limits on the highway, it is the actual and announced policy of the Crown (or state government in the US) that drivers are encouraged to exceed the posted limit by a reasonable amount in the interests of traffic flow.

    That policy is then administered by the RCMP, for example, as agents of the Crown and “for the time being”.

    But if a given officer chooses to issue an offence ticket to a given driver, because such driver has, in the opinion of the officer, exceeded the posted limit by an unreasonable amount, then they will claim and charge the driver simply with exceeding the posted limit.

    That is fraud and maladministration on the face of it (also technically and in fact racketeering). At its most basic level, the Crown is not supposed to be engaging in such carny-level bait-and-switch con games. Such things are presumed to be beneath the dignity of the Crown to engage in.

    Procedurally, what the government and the courts are doing under the nominal speed limit laws is the same as charging the first driver, mentioned above, who follows the police officer’s directions to turn left, with failure to obey the “No Left Turn” sign.

    But further than that, the most salient aspect of the racketeering-based-enforcement model is that it is such an obviously legally and ethically defective system, yet the same socially caustic, corruptive, and corrosive system has remained firmly entrenched throughout most of the world since shortly after the invention of the automobile.

    We must consider at least the bare possibility that the racketeering-based corrosive system is in place domestically and globally as policy and for its own sake.

    Finally, to complete the model, assume that the real reason the police officer is standing in the middle of the intersection directing you to turn left, is because his brother-in-law has just opened a new store on the cross street and needs customers.

    That, in a nutshell, is how the whole world works. Everything that the people think is being done by law is actually policy, and it is the private policy of the administrators and is most often the diametric opposite of what the law provides. Is that clear?

  134. Anon[385] • Disclaimer says:
    @ploni almoni

    You don’t make it clear whether you accept the Dutchman’s nonsensical idea that Hitler might choose to make a serious peace proposal to the UK by sending Hess, flying himself, to Scotland. Assuming you understand the absurdity of that fantasy I understand you to be saying that Churchill ought to have insisted on taking Hess’s peace proposals seriously. But why? On what possible reasoning? It would have been folly to take Hess’s mission seriously except to ensure that he was treated in a way which allowed him to give up whatever he might know that was of interest to MI6.

    Thus, prima facie, you have nothing sensible to say on the subject and your careless grammar where you say “Their desire was to destroy this threat to themselves and they did [sic] want peace” makes no sense and only contributes confusion as to whether you have anything intelligible to say on the subject. Despite all that I invite you to say where you get the curious idea that Chamberlain and then Churchill had people who told them what to do about some decisions or policies that you have not identified or defined and whom you believe they actually obeyed for some reason. Who? When? Why? On what issues? On what evidence? What did Churchill say about Hess and his mission? What did Martin Gilbert, WSC’s biographer say?

    • Replies: @anon
  135. You have revealed your agenda, your malevolent desire to do harm, and so much more.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  136. The scalpel says: • Website

    Didn’t see you started a blog! Bookmarked. Looking forward to learning more

    • Replies: @FB
  137. FB says: • Website
    @The scalpel

    Thanks doc…yeah, I figured I’d hop on the digital bandwagon LOL…I’m hoping to add stuff as time permits and I hope some will suggest topics that they would like to hear about…btw, I’ve read all of your articles with rare enjoyment…keep up the good fight…

  138. @MacNucc11

    Laughing ——

    I think Jesus outsells Santa Claus as Santa remains real for “western societies” but Jesus is real everywhere.

    Having to rely on Rudolph has its drawbacks.

  139. Anonymous[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @ploni almoni

    Who is the “you”? And what are the “revealing” words? You aren’t referring to the article’s author are you?

  140. APilgrim says:

    Light is the presence of electro-magnetic energy. Darkness is the absence thereof.

    Sound is the presence of phonon energy. Silence denotes its absence.

    Iesus saith vnto him, I am the Way, the Trueth, and the Life: no man commeth vnto the Father but by mee.

    A most remarkable Biblical claim: ‘The Truth is a person’. The Gospel of John, Chapter 14, Verse 6,

  141. APilgrim says:

    Roughly 1/3 of humanity begs to differ, with this relativistic drivel, IMHPO.

    “In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not.”

    Bible, King James (1611 Authorized Version), Gospel of John, Chapter 1, Verses 1-5,

  142. APilgrim says:

    Christianity is, by far, the largest Jewish Sect.

    1/3 of Humanity considers themselves to be Christians.

    Christians believe that Jesus Christ, a Semite Jew, IS THE TRUTH!

  143. APilgrim says:

    Communist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims a long time ago, many generations ago, my family consisted of Sephardic Jews”

    • Replies: @anon
  144. APilgrim says:

    Foundational Truth, for practicing Christians does not begin with matters such as:

    2 + 2 = 4
    V = IR
    F = MA

    The recent Alaska earthquake measured 7.0 on the most current scale.
    The average terrestrial temperature is changing or stable.

    So, C. Hopkins does not posit much of interest, to Evangelicals, in this essay.

  145. Anon[413] • Disclaimer says:

    When did truth rule the planet? Before mankind appeared? Before it developed language and/or reason?

    • Replies: @APilgrim
  146. APilgrim says:


    That is about when, according to Judeo-Christian, Muhammadan & Mormon doctrine.

  147. APilgrim says:

    Progressives offer divisiveness & vindictive political turmoil.

    They will produce unemployment & economic collapse.

    And they are accelerating toward disaster, by the minute.

    President Trump does business. Democrats do mortal combat.

  148. anon[997] • Disclaimer says:

    > “One of the things a lot of people don’t know about Puerto Rico….is that a long time ago, many generations ago, my family consisted of Sephardic Jews”

    perhaps (((your family))) was involved in the slave trade

    • Replies: @APilgrim
  149. anon[997] • Disclaimer says:

    So what?

    its good for all groups including jews and hispanics to accept responsibility for their role in the slave trade instead of just whites taking all the blame

    for example, South America took 20x as many slaves as North America did but do you ever see any TV history shows mentioning that?

    • Replies: @APilgrim
  150. anon[997] • Disclaimer says:

    What did Martin Gilbert, WSC’s biographer say?

    be sure to trust (((martin gilbert)))

  151. APilgrim says:

    No living American had any part in the Black Slave Trade. None of us have any responsibility for ancient history.

    • Agree: Nicholas Stix
  152. Vendetta says:

    I’m not finding the blog link you referred to, could I trouble you to post it again?

  153. FB says:

    Did you try clicking on the word ‘website’…anyway you can find it here…

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All C.J. Hopkins Comments via RSS
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?