What Does Truth Really Mean In 2017?

The forces of American shitlibery have decided that they are now the arbiters of “truth.”  They are astounded by the many “lies” of President Trump, the “lies” of his “propaganda outlets,” or even more nefarious foreign “propaganda” such as RT.  Is there anyone on social media who deviates from the liberal/neocon narrative? Twitterbots!  Putin shills! This goes double for the Alt-Right, which is completely beyond the pale. At least according to the Shitlib who with complete seriousness is constantly asking the question:

Should that even be allowed?

Apparently departing from the Cultural Marxist narrative is now to step outside of the zone of “Truth,” a concept which our elites are free to redefine depending on the exact cultural context of time, place and whatever their agenda happens to be at that very moment.  One must be very diligent in researching elite opinion in the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., to be sure that one’s perception of reality is in fact “Truth.”  Be sure you’re consulting the right journalists, lest you fall prey to “fake news.”

The Washington Post and other narrative enforcers have an army of “fact-checkers” ready to deploy Talmudic arguments to confine any narrative-deviant utterance to “lie” status.  Hillary Clinton herself during a debate with Trump implored these “fact-checkers” to analyze all of Trump’s statements.  She kept calling him a liar and relying on these mythical arbiters of “Truth” to back her up instead of actually engaging and debating him.

It’s all a bit presumptuous, no? I like to think that in our corner of the political universe, we at least allow for the possibility of good faith on the part of our opponents.  We allow for pathological altruism—which is to say that some liberal White people are actually too nice. It’s kind of a compliment!  I certainly wouldn’t assign good motives to everyone on the Left, but I’m not about to label any argument I don’t like as a “lie” and ask my “fact-checkers” to sort it out.

What perhaps these journalists and politicians are really saying when they point to Trump and scream about “lies” is just an expression of hatred.  Perhaps it’s a hatred of nationalism, which is an implicit threat to their political/ethnic interests.  For example, here’s Roger Cohen from the New York Times this morning:

Trumpism is a collective gaslighting at Twitter speed.  It is founded on the principle that velocity trumps veracity—perfect for the President’s manic personality […] It seeks to achieve dominance through a series of meaningless but cumulatively manipulative statements.

Mr. Cohen and his compatriots’ real resentment is the threat to their traditional hold on the media that Trump’s Twitter missives represent, and which the internet (with all of its real-talk) more broadly represents. But of course he’s not going to say that; so instead, in so many elegant words, he is just screeching “Liar!”  And if you read on, he transitions to another nuanced argument:


Admittedly, Trump’s unconventional stratagems are puzzling until one sees that each Tweet is part of a larger puzzle.  In that sense, Mr. Cohen gets it right.  But that hardly means that Trump’s larger designs are somehow a “lie”.   Again, what hubris our critics have!

Speaking of hubris…

“Truthiness” is a neologism coined by Stephen Colbert, then a decent and sometimes funny satirist at Comedy Central meant to mock the self-assuredness of Fox News style Bush-era conservatism.  Wikipedia explains:

The concept of truthiness has emerged as a major subject of discussion surrounding U.S. politics during the 1990s and 2000s because of the perception among some observers of a rise in propaganda and a growing hostility toward factual reporting and fact-based discussion.

In other words, Colbert mocked the GOPe for their laissez-faire attitude with facts.

Nowadays, its the Left that has a loose interpretation of “Truth”. They tell us:

My arguments are “fact-based” and yours are “propaganda.”

To quote the Youtube philosopher Stefan Molyneux: “that’s not an argument”.  Actually, it’s more like circular logic:

“I’m right because I’m right, therefore any supporting arguments are facts.  You’re wrong because you’re wrong, therefore any of your supporting arguments are propaganda.”

Now that Colbert has come out as a rabidly partisan anti-Trumper, is it fair to say that we need to ponder the truthiness of this whole concept of “Truthiness”?  Because we are now saturated in a media environment which operates under its arrogant precepts.

Follow Malcolm Jaggers @malcolmjaggers; contact him via email


Malcolm Jaggers
the authorMalcolm Jaggers


  • Colbert had a line, something like “reality has a liberal bias,” that his fans just loved and would quote all the time back during the Bush era. That’s how certain they were (and are) of their worldview, that it represents objective reality. Meanwhile they’re completely oblivious to their own brainwashing.

  • The msm has been completely taken over by the jews, other than token opposition on Fox it’s less intellectual Pravda. It’s flagrant,shrill amateur propaganda. They’re so amateur they’re making fools of themselves even in LCD America

  • On election night, after it was clear Trump would win, Colbert had a meltdown and had the nerve to ask his audience how American politics got so toxic. This coming from a guy who starred in a TV show whose sole purpose was to defame conservatives, and basically half of America, The Daily Show.

    These shitlib fucktards are not just stupid and talentless, they’re downright despicable.

  • This article was a little all over the place. Sometimes simply spoken articles with more substance are best.

  • Jewish-controlled courts in Canada have already rendered their verdict about the Western concept of truth: “Truth is no defense.”

    Jews care about control for their benefit. That trumps everything in their minds. “Is it good for Jews?” The truth is not good for Jews so they ban it as hate.

    E. Michael Jones elaborates about the Western origins of truth and logic and how Judaism and Jews are contrary to Western civilization and whites at a very fundamental level.

    • Kevin MacDonald has also written extensively about how dissenting viewpoints have often been violently opposed within Jewish communities.

  • Colbert is a another goy jester for Jewish interests. He has a writing staff of around 20. He’s just reading a script. He’s a total fraud shucking and jiving for the Jew.

  • Technology requires discovery of causal laws. Such laws are “truth” in a meaningful sense. Some of this technology is encoded in our DNA by evolution. In every case they are discovered through experiment — mutation and selection in evolution and more deliberated variations in what is known as “science”.

    Jews go into a moral panic whenever they are excluded from any country anywhere that is “white” for one principle reason:

    It provides a control group.

    In the social sciences, having a comprehensible “proposition” that governs a people can provide the equivalent of a testable hypothesis so long as this “proposition” includes the operations by which the experiment is to be conducted. All empirical science boils down to such operational definitions.

    Moreover, there is the issue of consent of humans being subjected to experimental conditions.

    Centralization of power and wealth in the public and private sectors, while making words virtually meaningless with lawyering. renders it impossible to have anything approaching “truth” exposed the social sciences; you can’t provide meaningful operational definitions in proposing social experiments and the centralization means there is no experimental variation, let alone control groups.

    And all that ignores violation of consent of experimental subjects.

    The Alt-Right is attacking all of the key attributes of truth and social technology in an autoimmune response to what Jews have done to us: The Constitution is bad. Individual choice is bad. Now even TRUTH is bad.

    Grow up.

    • Jews go into a moral panic whenever they are excluded from any country anywhere that is “white” for one principle reason: It provides a control group.

      Jews like living in white countries because white countries have a high standard of living and because a large percentage of Jews can pass as white. The reason why Jews can’t tolerate the existence of a single non-Jewish white ethnostate then all whites would want to go there, and Jewish control of the white world would collapse. Whites would realize that Jewish control was a burden. They would realize that letting Jews skim off the cream of what white societies have to offer was a burden and not in their interests. Without control of the white world, Jews would be (literally) a parasite without a host, and they would have to find a new host, which would set them back considerably.

      • Do I have to spell it out for you?

        Having a control group is the way science empirically distinguishes correlation from causation. This then leads to the discovery of causal laws. This then leads to technology. Control groups in social experiments, like all exclusions in all of science, excludes confounding variables, leading to the discovery of social truth.

        Yes, there would be many whites who would want to go, immediately, to such a control group.

        However, there are enormous numbers of whites that are Holocaustians and would find such a control group abhorrent.

        It is only after the control group showed what it was capable of (ie: an “economic miracle” while the rest of Western civilization is in an economic depression) that some of those Holocaustians would start to question whether it was such a great idea to nuke all control groups.

        After a while, you might then start to get the rest of them to wake up. By that time, it wouldn’t be a matter of all whites moving to that little control group. It would be a matter of all Jews moving to Israel.

        • Do I have to spell it out for you?

          What is happening to whites is like an experiment without a control in some ways, certainly, but this analogy misses part of the picture. A scientist doing an experiment without a control is a fraud, trying to win acclaim for discovering something that is not really true. The difference with Jews is that they are not just doing this so they can win acclaim, or the like. It is about their group interests.

          • You think you’re telling me anything? Come on, Ed.

            I already spelled it out for you. It’s not about me being confused about Jewish motives.

            It’s about around nearly 1 billion white people being confused. Stop being obtuse.

      • Their total control has become so obvious it beggars belief the majority aren’t on to them. There’s a new NRA ad out banging on about them,them,them, really funny

    • Centralization of power and wealth in the public and private sectors, while making words virtually meaningless with lawyering. renders it impossible to have anything approaching “truth” exposed the social sciences;…

      I post comments about false flags and hoaxes sometimes. The word “truth” always comes up in that context. Centralization and secrecy give the power to deceive the public to those in control. I am convinced that there have been major deceptions going well beyond the social sciences. The “Holocaust” is the most important example for the alt-right, but there are others.

    • The Alt-Right is attacking all of the key attributes of truth and social technology in an autoimmune response to what Jews have done to us: The Constitution is bad. Individual choice is bad. Now even TRUTH is bad. Grow up.

      Is the alt-right really attacking TRUTH? I did not get that from the article. It is about different sides of an argument preferring their own set of facts, with their own priorities. Come to think of it, your last statement does not follow from the paragraphs that precede it. I think you had better “spell it out” for me.

Leave a Reply