People ignore facts that contradict their false beliefs.

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

The more people there are who ignore facts that contradict their beliefs, the likelier a dictatorship will emerge within a given country. Here is how aristocracies, throughout the Ages, have controlled the masses, by taking advantage of this widespread tendency people have, to ignore contrary facts:

What social scientists call “confirmation bias” and have repeatedly found to be rampant,* is causing the public to be easily manipulated, and has thus destroyed democracy by replacing news-reporting, by propaganda — ‘news’ that’s false — in a culture where lies which pump the agendas of the powerful (including lies pumped by the billionaire owners of top ‘news’media and of the media they own) are almost never punished (and are often not even denied to be true). Thus, lies by those powerful liars almost always succeed at enslaving the minds of the millions, to believe what the top economic-and-power class want those millions of people to believe — no matter how false it might happen actually to be.

Recently, a particularly stark example of this came to my attention. On 15 September 2017, an article that I wrote for the Strategic Culture Foundation, and which was titled by a true statement that I had only recently discovered to be true, was republished at a news-site that I consider one of the best around, “Signs of the Times” or “SOTT” for short; and a reader-comment there, simply rejected that title-statement and the entire article, because it contradicted what the person believes. This commenter entirely ignored the evidence that I had provided in the article, which proved the statement to be true.

No matter how irrefutable the evidence is, most people reject anything which contradicts their deeply entrenched false beliefs, and this reader-comment crystallized for me, this phenomenon of “confirmation bias” — the phenomenon of ignoring evidence that contradicts what one believes.

The article was titled “Liberalism doesn’t respect a nation’s sovereignty.” I never knew that fact until I researched it, but I found, after looking through (and my article quoting key documents from) the history of the matter, that it’s actually the case: that liberalism (as it’s understood and defined by the scholars of the subject, and as it’s based upon the key formative documents of the historical tradition, “liberalism”) rejects a nation’s sovereignty. This fact shocked me to discover; so, I wrote an article documenting it, and SCF accepted it, and it then became republished at a few other sites, including SOTT.

The reader-comment at SOTT which for me personified confirmation-bias, was (in its entirety): “This is a rather new twist blaming liberals for invading countries. I’ve always associated liberalism with the left wing and democratic, progressive politics. I’ve always associated conservatism with the right wing, big business, militarism and invading other countries. Trying to move the goal posts, are we?”

That person never clicked onto my article’s links documenting the case, nor even read the quotations given in the article itself from John Locke and from Adam Smith, who were key founders of “liberalism” as that tradition has come down to us. He instead ignored all of that evidence, and stated — entirely without evidence of any sort — that I (and SOTT, and SCF, for publishing it) were “Trying to move the goal posts.”

I (a Bernie Sanders voter, and a lifelong progressive and opponent of conservatism) am “Trying to move the goal posts” — how? By pointing out the manufactured phoniness of ‘liberalism’? By pointing out a key way in which liberalism was designed by its aristocratic sponsors (in this case by the aristocrats who sponsored Locke and Smith), to be an ideology that would encourage conquest, empire, and discourage democracy (which is based upon the sanctity of national sovereignty — based upon the lack of imposition of government by or on behalf of anyone who isn’t a resident on the land). Liberalism, I show there, was designed for Empire, not for democracy. That reader simply refused to consider the evidence.

People who insist upon deceiving themselves disgust me. Anyone who blocks out the key relevant facts and persists in believing the lies they were raised with, or became fooled into believing, doesn’t harm only themselves by the lies they believe; they vote on the basis of the lies they believe, and thus these people who refuse to be open-minded destroy democracy, and invite control of the nation by the aristocracy (who sponsor the proponents of those lies). People who refuse to question their own beliefs, become increasingly putrid pools of their own false beliefs, which have been created and nurtured and sustained and become larger and larger pools of lies, by constant repetition from the media and lobbyists of the rich and powerful, so as to enable the exploiters to enslave the masses, via those constantly repeated and embellished lies.

Such self-‘justifying’ fools, who refuse to clean-up their conceptual pool that’s been increasingly polluted by lies, are enemies of democracy, no matter how much they may consider themselves to be ‘liberals’. They don’t even know the reality of what liberalism is. One thing that it definitely is not (as my article documented) is progressivism (which is utterly opposed to foreign conquest and to the entire imperial project of imposed rule, regardless whether by outright invasions or else by coups).

Thus, we have two dominant ideologies against progressivism: One is conservatism, which everyone recognizes to be against progressivism and for Empire and constant conquest, profitable war for the arms-merchants and for the ‘news’media owners who also benefit from stirring up invasion-fever, not only like William Randolph Hearst did but today like they all do. The other is liberalism, which hides that it’s actually conservative — hides this, by being ever-so-sweet toward certain ethnicities or other groups that are being oppressed domestically, and by vociferously condemning conservatives for what is actually nothing more than the blatancy of conservatism’s favoritism toward the aristocracy.

An authentic democracy cannot be based upon a “demos” (a public) that is overwhelmingly composed of suckers — manipulated fools. Only by means of the tiny aristocracy plus the huge mass of their suckers, does a democracy degenerate into a fascism. (For example, something like this can be supported overwhelmingly by the political Party that dominates the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, state capitals, state legislatures, and runs the U.S. White House, in this ‘democratic’ nation — ‘democratic’ according to the propaganda; but if this were really a democracy, then none of those politicians would be able to win public office.)

* A well-established central finding of psychological research, concerning “confirmation bias” or “motivated reasoning” (which are two phrases referring to people’s tendency to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of any contrary facts), is that individuals evaluate whatever they read or hear according to their pre-existing ideas about the given subject. Specifically, psychologists have found that people tend to pay attention to whatever confirms their existing ideas, and tend to ignore whatever contradicts those pre-established beliefs.

For examples, the following studies are available online:

“Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs,” in the July 2006 American Journal of Political Science, reported: “We find a confirmation bias – the seeking out of confirmatory evidence – when [people] are free to self-select the source of arguments they read. Both the confirmation and disconfirmation biases lead to attitude polarization … especially among those with the strongest priors [prior beliefs] and highest level of political sophistication [the highest degree of exposure to, and involvement in, the given subject-matter that the study was dealing with].” Prejudices were stronger among supposed experts than among non-“experts”: The more indoctrinated a person was, the more prejudiced. “People actively denigrate the information with which they disagree, while accepting compatible information almost at face value.” Moreover, “Those with weak and uninformed attitudes show less bias” (and this is actually one reason why the best jurors at trials are generally people who are not personally or professionally involved in any aspect of the given case – they are “non-experts”).

Sharon Begley’s article in the 25 August 2009 Newsweek titled “Lies of Mass Destruction: The same skewed thinking that supports a Saddam-9/11 link explains the power of health-care myths [such as that Obama’s health plan had ‘death panels’]” summarized the study in the May 2009 Sociological Inquiry, “‘There Must Be a Reason’: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification,” which had surveyed, during October 2004, 49 conservative Republicans who admitted they believed that Saddam Hussein had caused the 9/11 attacks. This study found that 48 of these 49 extreme conservatives were utterly impervious to the overwhelming factual evidence which was provided to them by the presenters that contradicted this false belief they held.

A study concerning not political conservatism but merely resistance to new technologies is James N. Druckman’s “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies,” which was presented at a technological conference in 2009. He reported that, “factual information … is perceived in biased ways … (e.g., there is motivated reasoning).” “Facts have limited impact on initial opinions.” Moreover, “Individuals do not privilege the facts. … Individuals process new factual information in a biased manner. … Specifically, they view information consistent with their prior opinions as relatively stronger, and they view neutral facts as consistent with their existing” views.

“Motivated Reasoning With Stereotypes,” in the January 1999 Psychological Inquiry, found that, “When an applicable stereotype supports their desired impression of an individual, motivation can lead people to activate this stereotype, if they have not already activated it. … People pick and choose among the many stereotypes applicable to an individual, activating those that support their desired impression of this individual and inhibiting those that interfere with it.” Similarly, another research report, “The Undeserving Rich: ‘Moral Values’ and the White Working Class,” in the June 2009 Sociological Forum, found that John Kerry had probably lost the 2004 U.S. Presidential election to George W. Bush at least partly because white working class voters overwhelmingly believed that Bush was like themselves because he behaved like themselves, and that Kerry was not like themselves because his manner seemed “snooty.”

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • kimyo

    please help us understand what you’re trying to say.

    which, if any, of these politicians practice ‘liberalism’:
    bush1, bush2, clinton, obama, sanders, warren, trump, mccain, ron paul, rand paul, jfk, lbj, truman, fdr, macron/holland/sarkozy, merkel, berlusconi/monti/renzi.

    if none of the above, kindly provide your own examples.

  • Shiggity

    Overall I believe it’s a sign of the acceleration period we’re living in.

    Science and mathematics are not only progressing faster than they ever have, *the rate of progression is speeding up*. We’re inside a double exponential curve.

    If you’re behind by 36 months on *any* modern subject, I hate to break this to you, but your beliefs are now most likely ‘false’ / obsolete / you’re spreading misinformation by talking about them.

    The ability to *constantly* be changing your beliefs is extremely rare and difficult. It requires inward reflection in addition to CONSTANTLY updating your knowledge base.

    Societal changing technology is now coming out at a rate of ~5-7 years. The elders of the US are freaking out as they rightfully should, their minds can’t handle this. Human minds weren’t really built to handle that.

    • NikitaBPierce


      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !dw362d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleDailySolutionUpdateWorkFromHome/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!dw362l..,….

    • cstahnke

      I don’t agree. In fact knowledge is slowing down and has been for decades check out David Graeber’s essay “Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit.” What has increased is information and information sources. General knowledge even basic science is slowing down. Unless it is related to some way to make money technology and technological breakthroughs are currently suppressed particularly if it threatens profits of major corporation like alternative energy or transportation schemes that are categorically rejected by the State (I include the media in the State). As for non-technical areas, I see little sign that critical thinking in the truly big issues even exists even in Academia where it certainly did exist in my youth. All we have now is tribalism and a complete abandoment of Western Civilization’s “Great Conversation” as Mort Adler used to put it. We are unable to talk together unless we already agree, again, about the truly deep issues like what is real, what is the good life and so on. Without those discussions to underpin our arguments there’s no point in discussing anything.

      • HilaryRFoust


        Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !dw314d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNewNetJobsDealOpportunities/earn/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!dw314l..,.

  • Steven Jordan

    Why People Can’t Agree on Basic Facts

    http://time.com/4946513/twitter-facts-fake-news-neuroscience/

  • hyperbola

    Does anyone really believe in what religious fanatics like “psychologists” have to say?

    Sigmund Freud, Psychoanalysis, and the War on the West
    “We are bringing them the plague.”—Sigmund Freud, on his way to America in 1909[1]
    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/24/sigmund-freud-psychoanalysis-and-the-war-on-the-west/
    Sigmund Freud did not base psychoanalysis, which he championed to the entire Western world, on scientific premises…. Freud was on a Jewish mission. Jewish professor of psychiatry Thomas Szasz of New York University writes that “one of Freud’s most powerful motives in life was…to inflict vengeance on Christianity.”[10] Other Jewish scholars such as Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter noted the same thing, adding that “though it is sometimes forgotten today, Freud’s work was profoundly subversive to the cultural underpinnings of European Christian society…There is evidence that some of the impetus for the creation of psychoanalysis lay in his hostility to Christianity.”[11] Jewish scholar Peter Gay of Princeton was even more specific,…..

    Gerald Warner: Impact of politically correct Britain – The Scotsman
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/gerald-warner-impact-of-politically-correct-britain-1-3128346
    ….. Political correctness is cultural Marxism. The term was coined by Anton Semyonovich Makarenko, Lenin’s education guru and favourite wordsmith (he also invented the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat”). From the beginning, Marxists recognised there was a lot more involved in imposing totalitarian social control than nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. In Hungary in 1919, during the short-lived but murderous Communist dictatorship of Bela Kun, his deputy “commissar for culture”, Georg Lukacs, introduced a programme of “cultural terrorism” under which he imposed pornographic sex education on schoolchildren, promoting promiscuity, denouncing the family and encouraging pupils to mock their parents and religion. The question Lukacs posed was: “Who will save us from Western Civilisation?”….. Four years later, Lukacs was one of the founders of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, from which emerged the obscenity known today as Frankfurt School Marxism, dedicated to the destruction of civilisation. Max Horkheimer, its sometime director, followed up Lukacs’ experiment by grafting Freudianism onto Marxism. In this he was followed by Herbert Marcuse, an admirer of the Marquis de Sade, who expressed his belief in “polymorphous perversity”. ……

    • kimyo

      Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test

      Largest replication study to date casts doubt on many published positive results.

      In the biggest project of its kind, Brian Nosek, a social psychologist and head of the Center for Open Science in Charlottesville, Virginia, and 269 co-authors repeated work reported in 98 original papers from three psychology journals, to see if they independently came up with the same results.

      According to the replicators’ qualitative assessments, as previously reported by Nature, only 39 of the 100 replication attempts were successful.

  • ICFubar

    I’m not certain if most establishment figures have any personal ideological set beliefs at all other than as public cover for the seeking of their own self interests, as obfuscation and diversion of their naked greed for wealth and power. This idea negates liberalism or conservatism as a driving force in their operations but does offer the public some means of seemingly and falsely qualifying this class’s modus operandi. The ruling class with its money and influence has made good use of modern psychological understandings of what makes individuals and the public ‘tick’, reminding me of the famous Edward Bernays quote from his book entitled “Propaganda,” and to which much further knowledge and understanding of the processes of the mind have been added to in the intervening years.

    To quote: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.

    Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of the country…We are GOVERNED, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of…We are dominated by a relatively small number of persons….who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” – Edward Bernays –

  • Kansas_Voter

    “All lies and jests
    Still a man hears what he wants to hear
    And disregards the rest”

    “The Boxer” – Simon & Garfunkel, 1969

  • cstahnke

    I’ve tried working against conformation bias but, after a while you grow weary of jejune arguments that dominate all sides of any argument and have to stand back and center in what you’ve found to be true. I’ve done extensive research on a number of issues and disciplines and found by general view holds up under, so far, all scrutiny. Now there are some arguments I respect because they stem from deep philosophical ideas and those I will be open to and I can sense them like an old sailor can sense the direction of the current. There is too much information to take all of it seriously.

    In place of my approach, many take a simpler approach because they lack the skills to take in a lot of contradictory information and evaluate it based on some overriding principle of philosophy. The vast majority of people in this country and elsewhere rely on tribalism ONLY. And since the intellectucal attainment of the average person in this country is ever lower then trialism is everything. What we say here makes little difference unless a lot of tribal leaders take up what we might say.

  • Mencken’s Ghost
  • SupernaturalCat

    “The more people there are who ignore facts that contradict their beliefs, the likelier a dictatorship will emerge within a given country.”

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7G13luhyeGY/Uh5__YlyE_I/AAAAAAAACUM/bS6oo8wq5K0/s1600/zombie-apocalypse-from-overclockers.jpg

    • SusanAGirardi


      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !dw405d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNewNetJobsFitOpportunities/earn/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!dw405l..,.

    • LisaHDover


      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !ra324d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNewNetJobsStationOpportunities/earn/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!ra324l..,…