The Quiet Conservative April 10, 2010
The Third Deadly Liberal Sin: Truth
This continues our series on the Seven Deadly Liberal Sins. The first of these: Homophobia, ran
June 18, 2009. The second: Christianity, ran October 18, 2009.
This one is a bit esoteric in the dogma of Liberal sins. But it is important to understand how this sin
underpins the entire mentality of Liberalism. For, truth must be destroyed or perverted, so as to enable
all other things liberal to advance. Hang on as we try and make things a bit more concrete:
What is truth?
Well, you respond, that's easy. Everyone knows what the truth is. Your five year old knows what the
truth is. Your ninety year old grandmother knows what the truth is. The truth is...the truth. It's the
opposite of a lie. It's what really happened. It's facts. You know, the truth.
The dictionary says truth is honesty and "the state of being the case: fact." or "a judgment, proposition,
or idea that is true or accepted as true." Well that's what we said already. Therefore, we must know
what truth is, because we said it, and the dictionary (Webster's) confirmed it for us.
So how come there's more than one truth? How come you see Democrats on the floor of the
Congress and in the White House say one thing, and the Republicans say another, and the pundits say
another? Is there one truth or many? Or, is truth merely who talks the loudest and last?
The first thing to know about "truth" is that there is more than one kind, and only one kind. Which is a
bit of a head scratcher in the first place. There is Subjective Truth, Relative Truth, Objective
Truth, and Absolute Truth. A whole lot of people over a whole lot of time made a living off of
coming up with ways to define what we take for granted, and are so easily deluded into thinking we are
confident in our ability to discern.
The Correct answer is Absolute Truth, for those wanting to know the answer to the quiz as to what
kind of truth is there, if there is only one truth. Absolute Truth means God. That is the essence of
truth. That is the incorruptible standard. It is the summation of all of reality without
misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or omission from the Alpha to the Omega. Without that absolute,
all truth becomes relative and malleable. It may be the core reason why Liberals hate Christianity so
much (Second Deadly Sin) and fanatically support the homosexual agenda (First Deadly Sin).
Christianity identifies with the Absolute Truth and with that, the lies promoting the Progressive agenda
are exposed on the false constructs of reasoning. Christianity is the devotion to God and the
Progressive agenda is opposed to the Absolute Truth. Progressives do not want an incorruptible
standard on which to base reason. Progressives want a standard that can be molded on outcomes with
facts being altered to ensure that outcome.
Objective truth, facts viewed with dispassion and in context, is as close to Absolute Truth as a human
can achieve. The slogan I would have before all others comes from John Adam's defense of British
soldiers after the Boston Massacre: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
Objective truth has no agenda, is not concerned with who does, or does not, feel comfortable or
offended, and does not support a position because the person wants that position supported. It is what
it is.
This objective standard precludes as much as possible subjective truth and relative truth. Which, when
viewed against the standard of Absolute Truth- and the closest we can come with objective truth,
means the last two truths don't mean much of anything at all. "Subjective" and "Relative" mean
whatever you want them to mean, with the understanding of the intent of truth or reality.
Subjective Truth means experiential facts. When your parents made you eat vegetables and do your
homework before watching television or playing a video game, you felt harshly treated. They were
picking on you. It was true to you, even though objectively they might have been doing these things so
you would be healthy and succeed. Your parents loved you. They were working from the belief that
without vegetables and without schoolwork you would end up an out of shape, unhealthy,
unemployable ward of the state. Both you and your parents worked from a position of 'truth' and both
based their reality on what they were experienced. But both you and your parents viewed the same
truth very differently.
Relative Truth is similar. When the Democratic Congressman walked through the Tea Party crowd to
vote on the health care bill, the claim was that black congressmen were called "nigger" and
Congressman Cleaver was spat upon. Video tape disproved the spitting incident with Congressman
Cleaver talking to a man who had been screaming "kill the bill" through cupped hands, and possibly
spraying spittle when screaming "kill the bill." Congressman Cleaver never stated he was spit upon,
and video tape showed a uniformed officer following the Congressman just steps behind showing no
concern to intervene or arrest the Tea Party protester. The congressman does wipe his face after
finishing talking to the man and walking away, but accidents and purposeful actions are not the same.
Now over a week later, no video tape or audio tape has surfaced with any recording of the slur
"nigger." And, there were plenty of video and audio recordings being made at the time by
Congressional staffers, the media, and the crowd. The protesters were, however, decidedly hostile to
the intent of the lawmakers and were emotional at their perceived impending loss of liberty. The press
has reported, and multiple pundits affirmed, the negative racial charges without proof. It didn't matter
if it happened, it should have been true in their eyes as happening. If the word "nigger" had never been
spoken, it must have been unspoken in the minds of the Tea Party activists... at least in the minds of
those who reported on it. It was true without being factual. Similarly, in the 2004 presidential
reporting from CBS News it was the Relative Truth that destroyed Dan Rather's career and reputation
with "fake but accurate" reporting with forged Texas Air National Guard documents.
Relative and Subjective Truth. Is this the "truth" in your definition? Truth as defined by your own
personal standard of wanting something to be so? It should be, if you think about it. These two forms
of truth are now the main source of reasoning for much of the country. Subjective and Relative Truth
are integral to the foundation of the liberal agenda, the media (especially the media), culture
(Hollywood, fiction writers being published, television), the government, and the courts. Both versions
of truth have no binding fidelity to Objective or Absolute Truth.
With all four truths, when we talk about them and how they differ, we are talking about the intent to
find a truth and the desire for the truth. In this, we allow for the desire for honesty, facts, and
common intellectual grounds of an Absolute and the lesser Objective Truth. People who talk about the
"truth" seek a positive definition and, whether they define it or not, goodness in the sense of right and
wrong, good and evil, a positive and negative.
But what about evil intent? What about people who have no desire for truth in any of the four forms?
What about people who seek to lie and distort purposefully? This is where the Subjective and Relative
Truths become useful tools for those who would influence people for their own purposes. This is
where the danger of not having an Absolute Truth as the ideal and the Objective Truth as the
obtainable come into play. Using facts out of context or omissions to content can turn truth into lies.
When Dan Rather and Mary Mapes present the forged Texas Air National Guard memos, were they
misguided? Was the "fake but accurate" a relative truth of: they knew it was true but couldn't prove it
until they had the documents that supported their position? Did they believe the documents were true
because they wanted to so badly? Or was it of evil intent when they knew the documents were fake,
but worked to have just enough verification of the documents so they could present them while
avoiding the consequences, while not seeking enough verification to show they were obvious forgeries?
Were they purposefully trying to sway the election to John Kerry and prevent a second term For
George Bush by using their media forum to lie?
They were caught even before they went off air, as people who worked with computers recognized
computer word processing on the documents when the documents themselves would have necessarily
come from the era of typewriters. A quick overlay showed the documents were processed exactly the
way they would have with the modern Microsoft Word. Something no typewriter could have done at
the time. In the example of the Black Congressman being called "nigger" walking through the Tea
Party Crowd, was this an example of perceiving the word being yelled because they believed the crowd
would say it? Or were they purposefully lying to discredit the crowd? To date there is no evidence it
happened, but does that matter to people that do not have a fixed standard of truth? What if the intent
was to deliberately provoke an incident to discredit the opposition, and if it did not occur to make it up?
That is evil intent to lie.
There is only one truth. Fox News has made a reputation of having both sides of an issue on their
shows at the same time to talk about the issues. If they have a Republican, they have a Democrat. If
they have a Conservative, they have a Liberal. They call if "Fair and balanced." But, this is a
disservice. There are not two sides to every issue. That makes truth Relevant or Subjective to the
people who speak and hear. Those two truths are the number one tool used by people with evil intent
to lie and distort the Objective Truth.
There is an objective truth in every issue and that is as far as we can come. In complicated issues, if
they are examined, there is still only the objective truth. How that truth is dealt with can have
proponents and antagonists, but the truth is just that, the truth. When people hear two sides, neither
might be approaching the objective truth, but only speaking of parts they wish to promote. Add in
people with evil intent and you have degraded the standard to simple advocacy of opinion. To give
them their due, at least Fox News presents multiple sides of that advocacy. The rest of the networks
make no attempt to do even that. They present only enough relative truth or subjective truth to
promote their agenda. These purported news organizations then purposefully omit or even suppress
anything that interferes with that agenda.
It isn't just the press. When the President was asked a simple question such as 'Are we taxed enough?'
he launched into a seventeen minute non answer. That isn't good intent at reaching the truth or a
subjective or relative version of it, it is evil intent to obscure and avoid the question. When a politician
or "political strategist" appears on a program and, regardless of the question, launches into "talking
points" (pre-prepared position statements regardless of relevance to the actual question) they are
engaged in evil intent. They do not seek to illuminate or move closer to Absolute Truth or the
obtainable Objective Truth, they seek to only indoctrinate without foundation. While this is true across
the political spectrum in the current state of our society, it is predominantly from the Left that this has
been used. For, they have the greatest desire for influence, power, and control at the expense of others.
When the President was asked when life began during the campaign, this supposedly intelligent man
would not answer. That was because to answer truthfully, would have shown his intent was not for
the good. His intent was not towards the Absolute Truth. No answer could have satisfied relatively or
subjectively, because he was asked to make an assertion of quantifiable fact, not of subjective value.
Faced with an answer that could be evaluated objectively, he avoided answering at all.
When leading politicians said that the Health Care Bill was deficit neutral, that was not objectively true
either. From global warming to the job statistics, objective truth is the enemy of agenda. It is what it
is. When pursuing your agenda at the cost of all else is what you are engaged in, then truth itself must
be destroyed or perverted. During the health care debate Liberals talked of individual examples of how
the bill would help people. They spoke this way because they did not want to be evaluated objectively.
The Republicans spoke mainly of objective facts yet frustratingly these facts did not matter.
Sometimes force beats truth, although it cannot alter it. The Liberals had the numbers, the facts did
not matter.
But, you cannot destroy or pervert the Objective Truth as it is a fixed standard, faithful to the Absolute
Truth. You can only destroy the recognition of that standard. And so we have found ourselves at that
present point in today's society. We recognize homosexuality as healthy, normal, and as natural as
heterosexuality even though it is not. We demand homosexuality is an identity even though it is a
changeable behavior. We say man is responsible for global warming even if we have to distort or
downright fake the data to prove it. We talk about the right to abortion while denying the existence of
the humanity of the unborn baby. We destroy our economy and decry capitalism even while
demanding the prosperity and privileges it provides. We demand tolerance to the point of passing hate
crimes legislation and attempting to suppress freedom of religion to force social conformity. We pass a
health care bill we demand is deficit neutral, but knowingly cook the numbers submitted to prove our
case. We say we will provide health care to new tens of millions of people with better service and
more coverage, but without increasing cost or degradation to existing services.
We are, as a society, becoming mired in our own contradictions of reality. This downward spiral is
actively assisted by Liberalism. It is their standards of relative and subjective truth that is causing this.
For, they are of evil intent. Should society revert to an objective standard of truth geared towards the
Absolute Truth, no segment of Liberalism would survive. They are aware of this. They have weeded
out of education any recognition of this. They have used television and the movies to promote only
relative values and subjective truths for decades. The newspapers have eliminated the line between
editorial and news to blend the two into propaganda.
Absolute Truth, God, and the lesser human obtainable Objective Truth, are a deadly threat to Liberals.
This most nebulous of the Progressive sins is the Father of Lies and the underpinning of our decay.
Truth is the third of the Seven Deadly Sins to Liberals.