In a recent Fireside Chat — my weekly podcast for PragerU, half of which is dedicated to my taking questions from (mostly) young people around the world — a young man in his 20s asked how he was supposed to figure out who is telling the truth and who isn’t. He was undoubtedly speaking for millions of his peers. Given the opposing positions one encounters on almost every issue, how is one supposed to figure out which position is right, and which one may not only be wrong, but a lie?
In addition to obvious suggestions — such as finding individuals and institutions whom you trust, studying both sides of issues, learning as much as possible and using common sense — I offered what may be the single most important indicator of who is more likely to be lying.
It is not a perfect indicator of who is telling the truth — there is no perfect indicator — but it comes close.
With rare exceptions, the party that calls for censorship is lying. People who tell the truth can deal with dissent and different opinions. In fact, truth-tellers welcome debate.
If this theory is correct — and I cannot imagine a valid argument against it — it means that in virtually every instance of a Left-Right difference, the Left is lying.
There is no important area of left-right difference in which the Left — not liberals; the Left — does not call for shutting down dissent.
Take the university. Everyone knows how difficult it is for a visiting speaker to offer non-left-wing views on a college campus. Conservative speakers are often either not allowed to appear in the first place, canceled after being invited or shouted down while speaking.
That is an almost perfect indicator that the leftist ideas that dominate campuses are false.
Now let’s take another example, an area that until very recently one might have said is the very home of truth — science, specifically medical science.
The left-wing California State Assembly recently passed a bill, signed into law by California’s left-wing governor and approved by the state’s left-wing medical establishment, that any California physician who spreads “medical misinformation” or “disinformation” could lose his or her medical license.
Now, why was this law passed? Was there, for the first time in California history, some outbreak of doctors “misinforming” their patients about medical matters, thereby causing them harm?
Of course not.
The law was passed to stifle all medical dissent on issues related to COVID-19.
So now, any physicians who suggest that patients in the early stages of COVID-19 might benefit from taking hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin (both along with zinc) could lose their medical license. Even if these drugs were completely useless in preventing serious illness or death in COVID-19 patients — and many reputable doctors around the world believe they are indeed effective — these drugs are among the safest medications in the world. Both are on the World Health Organization’s list of the most essential drugs in the world. There was no scientific or moral justification for threatening the licenses of doctors who prescribed them for COVID-19.
There are, however, two primary explanations for the medical establishment’s ban on doctors prescribing or merely speaking well of these two therapeutics. One is that former President Donald Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine as a potential lifesaver, and if he promoted anything, the Left opposed it — even if it could save lives. The other is that if these therapeutics were acknowledged to work, the vaccinations would be rendered largely unnecessary and Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson would lose a great deal of money. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health and state medical boards essentially work for Big Pharma.
Based on the rule that those who censor are almost always lying, we must come to the frightening conclusion that the American medical establishment has been lying to us. That includes the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the Association of Children’s Hospitals along with the American Association of Pediatricians. The latter two advocate, almost alone in the world, “affirmative” transgender care, such as puberty blockers in minors and mastectomies on perfectly healthy girls who say they are boys.
In its suppression of scientific dissent, the American medical establishment mimics the medieval Church’s treatment of Galileo.
The Left — in medicine, Big Tech, the mainstream media and in schools from kindergarten through graduate school — not only censors anyone who denies that “men give birth,” but smears their reputations, labeling them as haters, bigots, “anti-science” and inducers of teen suicide.
Truth is a liberal value, and it is a conservative value. It has never been a left-wing value. From Vladimir Lenin and the Communist Party to the contemporary university, the Left has always suppressed dissent.
And for good reason. If dissent is allowed, the Left loses its power.
And the Left knows it. Colleges know that one conservative speaker can undo four years of indoctrination in 90 minutes. And the medical establishment knows that a few dissenting physicians can undo its entire credibility.
That was my response to the young person who wanted to know which side is lying: the one that censors and suppresses dissent.
The Left.
Liberals are the Left, Dennis. You’re always trying to make a distinction. Stop the BS. That might have been the case 20 years or so ago. Today, Liberalism and the Left are synonymous.
I have to disagree. I’m completely politically conservative but my beliefs encompass many classically liberal values, e.g., freedom of expression, equal treatment under the law, reason, ratinality, etc. The Left, however, is something completely different. Conflating the two is inaccurate and benefits the Left by allowing it to mask its evil, totalitarian, agenda under the cloak of a completely acceptible philosophy. We should instead work tirelessly to de-conflate these two distinctly different things.
Sorry, but I just don’t see the difference any longer. Can you even imagine cutting the sexual organs off of children? I can’t even believe this is a conversation.
While, I agree with you in theory and would describe myself the same as you. The problem lies in outcomes.
“Liberal thinkers,” can know longer hide behind that label. As a Liberal thinker, I vote one way to maintain Liberalism. When the facts are clearly, that one side has become totalitarian against classical Liberalism, they can no longer justify voting the way they do.
Just ask RFK or Naomi Wolf. Voting Democrat now means voting against true Liberal ideas and the Constitution. There is no way around it. So I agree Dennis P is wrong. He needs to start to demand that his so-called Liberal friends, start to own the reality of their votes and what it produces. He gives them cover. Democrat policies need to be clearly and firmly thrown in their faces. You can’t spend your life fighting with the people you love, but facts do need to be pointed out, calmly and truthfully!
Anne – if you listen to Dennis on a regular basis, he absolutely condemns those Liberals that vote for Democrat candidates and what those votes produce. He rightly states that today’s Democrat party votes in lockstep for leftist policies since the party has moved leftward. There is a definite distinction between Liberals and Leftists, but unfortunately most Liberals have been conditioned to fear the Right more than the Left and find it hard to vote for Republican candidates regardless of the outcome of Democrats winning: leftist policies. This does not excuse their behavior and they should be held accountable for voting this way, which Dennis regularly states. I don’t believe Dennis is wrong, here, as we need to sway the opinions of the centrists and lumping them in with Leftists is a disservice to that cause.
Denis does make the distinction between Liberals and the Left. In the 6th paragraph, he states: “There is no important area of left-right difference in which the Left — not liberals; the Left — does not call for shutting down dissent.”
And he is absolutely correct. I don’t remember Conservatives trying to shut down speakers whom they don’t agree with.
Sadly, there seem to be fewer and fewer true Liberals around – they’ve all shifted to the extreme, i.e. the Left. The classic Liberals of the John F. Kennedy era bear no resemblance to the Left of today.
If you witness a crime, the criminal wants your silence, the victim needs your voice. This will never stop u til the censors are terrified, we need names, trials and gallows.
Since Covid, I no longer believe what anyone says about anything. Especially if they’re an “expert” or work for the Government. Our entire Government should be hanged for Crimes against Humanity. Some for doing it, and some for allowing it. They’re all traitors no matter what “political party” they are.
Those wedded to truth do not use propaganda tactics, such as smearing others, claiming things they cannot prove, & are not often found to have led everyone astray repeatedly about political matters. The also are not given to blaming their opponents for what they, themselves, have done. They do not blame without proof or expect you to trust them. I have know a number of very honest people & none have ever asked me to “Trust them”. They KNOW that trust is earned, never given. They do not bear false witness & are scrupulous about distinguishing what is opinion & what is true as far as they know. They do their research before they make statements on a subject. Good research requires finding good sources that often prove true, conform with what other good sources report, conform to what you know of the matter, conform to what you might expect people to do who have certain proclivities or ideologies. It is especially good to find three reliable sources that agree closely on a matter.