Posted on March 31, 2022



Senseless Consensus

Truth is not up for a vote


Daniel Clark



The front page of the March 18 New York Post called out the 51 government intelligence officials who had signed onto a statement attributing the discovery of Hunter Biden's laptop to "a smoke bomb of disinformation pushed by Russia." This letter, issued two weeks before the 2020 election, gave the liberal media exactly the excuse they were looking for to bury the story, thereby shielding Joe Biden from very credible accusations of influence peddling, a conspiracy of silence that undoubtedly helped him become president.

In a remarkable concession that should have nullified the whole document in the mind of any good journalist, the signatories added, "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump's personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case." So they had suspicions, but no facts. That has become standard operating procedure, for as we all know by now, you don't need facts when you've got consensus.

Take "climate change," for instance. Al Gore told us in An Inconvenient Truth that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels cause the earth's temperature to rise, whereas the ice cores he referenced say the exact opposite, that it is increases in the temperature of the earth that precede rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Those who point this out, among the many other inconsistencies in the "climate change" hypothesis, stand accused of violating "the scientific consensus." Specifically, we're presented with the completely unsupportable statistic that 97 percent of "climate scientists" believe in manmade global warming. From this, we are to presume that the remaining three percent are wrong, based not on the facts, but only on there being so few of them. Besides, you're simply not supposed to question Al Gore. He's thuper thmart, you know.

The former veep tells us that the debate is over, because the consensus has spoken. Even now that decades' worth of doomsday predictions have proven false, one must not question the experts who made them. News reports on the subject show no journalistic skepticism about whether the earth is threatened by mundane human activity, but instead only ask what to do about it, including whether we need to eat insects in order to reverse the trend. One might as well discuss what size umbrella is needed to shield oneself from dragon droppings.

"What we know now about Iraq" is that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Really? In addition to finding hundreds of chemical munitions, we recovered an extensive paper trail detailing his chemical weapons program. We found large quantities of the chemicals that are combined to produce sarin. We found binary warheads specifically designed to blend those chemicals into sarin while in flight. We found missiles capable of delivering those warheads. The Duelfer Report includes a section revealing Saddam's clandestine network of mobile chemical laboratories. UNMOVIC gave a presentation to the UN Security Council demonstrating that he kept dual-use equipment at missile sites, and that these sites were quickly dismantled at the onset of the invasion. One of Saddam's secret recordings features his son-in-law, who headed his WMD programs, bragging that, "We did not reveal all that we have. Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this."

All of that amounts to nothing, because there is a consensus that is determined never to acknowledge it. Early on, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix unilaterally changed his mission, from holding Saddam accountable for material breaches of the terms of the 1991 cease fire, to searching for something called a "smoking gun," an undefined entity whose existence or nonexistence was purely up to his own subjective determination. Liberal talking heads immediately translated "no smoking gun" into "no weapons of mass destruction," a conclusion that is easily, factually refuted. No serious person could possibly believe that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq, and yet it has become "what we know."

A cynic might observe from these three examples that perception is reality, insofar as once a narrative that is based on a lie becomes accepted, the effect is no different than if it were true. Notice that the initial New York Post report is only taken to be true now that The New York Times has affirmed it. That's because most other media are derivative of the Times, making it the leader of the consensus.

Those who control most of the media don't always win, however. If thy did, they would never have seen the need to rebrand "global warming" as "climate change." They wouldn't have to hire weaselly linguists to come up with a new euphemism for abortion every few years. Nobody would fondly remember Ronald Reagan today, because their relentless campaign of slander would have succeeded in defining him. Saying something louder and more often than the opposition is not a foolproof plan for victory.

The most effective weapon against them is the moral authority that comes from being on the side of truth. That means the people on our side need to be willing to tell the truth, even when it is not immediately advantageous. It is important to recognize, for example, that there never was any plan to make Mexico pay for a border wall. There was no secret rule or cherished tradition that relieved Senate Republicans of their constitutional duty to vote on Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination. The Arizona election audit conducted by Cyber Ninjas was not a sincere effort to root out voter fraud. It should come as no surprise that those who supported the alternative, truth-free narratives about these issues were not treated as credible when it came to Hunter Biden's laptop.

Let the liberals be the ones to make the case that consensus nullifies reality. Let them claim that all things are subjective, by huffily declaring "my truth" at every opportunity. Let them argue that two plus two can equal five, that the United States was founded in 1619, and that a man is a woman just as long as he says he is. If we are going to join them in assuming the power to create our own truths, then what conclusion are onlookers to draw, but that the majority truth must be the one to prevail?

In fact, objective truth exists even when it is very unpopular. Not long ago, it was the consensus on each side of the aisle that massive amounts of frivolous deficit spending had no detrimental effect. Several trillions of dollars later, our federal spending has become a major contributor to runaway inflation. The consensus across the political spectrum that had denied this is now powerless to make it untrue. It turns out that the truth cannot be voted down after all, nor can it be petitioned out of existence by a group of 51 experts.



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar