Monday, August 9, 2021

UPDATED: Noble Lies Or Ignoble Lies?

Let me begin with a pair of observations I came across this morning. Each in their own way raise the question of whether the motivations behind the demands of our social "guardians" (do a "Ctl+F guardian") are noble or ... ignoble. Plato's guardians weren't supposed to enjoy wielding power over others, nor necessarily to enjoy telling the "noble lies" that induced compliance with the order of the Republic. But a growing number of thinking persons harbor suspicions about our social and progressive guardians--and their motives. So, to follow from the Platonic metaphor, if our guardians have noble motives for their lies, presumably their lies would also be noble. But if their motives are less than noble--self serving, venal, in one way or another--would their lies then be ignoble? At best?

The first observation is from well known blogger Richard Fernandez--An Epidemic of Mandatory:

The official narrative has shifted from “we can beat the coronavirus” to “we can coexist with it but only if you follow our shifting instructions very carefully.”

Shifting instructions? Are the shifts required by new information, or are they required when lies are discovered?

The second is from Peter Van Buren:

It’s Not Just About The Masks

We have not just lost our minds, but given them up voluntarily.

It was never just a mask, it has always been a way of thinking. “Mask” is just shorthand.

I got dumped from my volunteer work at the Hawaiian Humane Society for choosing not to wear a mask outside while walking their dogs. Neither science, the CDC, nor the state requires a mask outdoors, and I’m fully vaccinated. Some staff bot saw my naked face and informed me of their “policy.” I asked why they had such a nonsensical policy, and her only answer was “it is our policy.” The conversation ended like an ever-growing percentage of conversations in America now end, with her saying, “Do I need to call security?” I didn’t enjoy it, but I think she did.

He thinks she enjoyed wielding power and control. One suspects he's absolutely correct--the heart of a Karen.

Dr. Robert Malone has been prominent in raising this issue of the "noble lie". Increasingly he is open about some of the motives that may lie (!) behind the lies of the liars. For example, recently he pointed out the extent that Fauci's actions have served the financial interests of Big Pharma. That seems to be a broad hint of sorts--in our world public officials who benefit the financial interests of others don't often do so from pure motives, and Fauci is by all accounts quite wealthy.

However, and interestingly considering the source, there's an article out at Slate that delves fairly deeply into this whole issue of the noble lie:

The Noble Lies of COVID-19

Do we want public health officials to report facts and uncertainties transparently? Or do we want them to shape information to influence the public to take specific actions?


JULY 28, 2021

However, I notice that the title as it appears on my browser tab is: "Anthony Fauci and the US government's noble Covid-19 lies." And that gives you a very clear idea of the focus of this article at a liberal outlet.

I won't bore you with the details. In summary, the authors examine four examples of what they dissect as possible noble lies:

1. Fauci's mask dance, with varying masks of the truth that this pillar of the Covid Regime is--and for many years has been known to be--pointless.

Following the discussion of Fauci's mask dance the authors offer this general overview of the risks involved for society:

When experts or agencies deliver information to the public that they consider possibly or definitively false to further a larger, often well-meaning agenda, they are telling what is called a noble lie. Although the teller’s intentions may be pure ... the consequences can undermine not only those intentions but also public trust in experts and science. ... More than anything, these examples [of lies perpetrated in the name of the Covid Regime] illustrate the destructive potential of such lies.

2. The second lie--noble or ignoble, you be the judge--was Fauci's open admission that he had knowingly played fast and loose with actual scientific data. The real question, not raised by the authors, is whether this second lie was truly intended to serve the interests of public health or whether it was told in the service of a political agenda that was only remotely--if at all--related to public health:

When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85.

... Do we want public health officials to report facts and uncertainties transparently? Or do we want them to shape information, via nudges, to influence the public to take specific actions? The former fosters an open and honest dialogue with the public to facilitate democratic policymaking. The second subverts the very idea of a democracy and implies that those who set the rules or shape the media narrative are justified in depriving the public of information that they may consider or value differently.

3. The third example of lying centers around efficacy of the gene therapy vaccines, and is still ongoing. I find this section rather inadequate.

4. However, the authors go into considerable detail regarding the fourth and final example of a "noble lie": the claim put out by government agencies--as recently as June 4--that  "hospitalizations were rising in adolescents." The authors forthrightly point out that this was an "obvious error"--or, rather, since they quickly point out that the CDC knew better--it was an obvious lie:

Numerous commenters immediately pointed out that the “rise” in hospitalization statistic promoted by the CDC was out of date the moment it was highlighted and raised questions about why the CDC would promote a dated statistic, when the organization had access to up-to-date information.

Why, indeed!

The authors proclaim themselves sympathetic to the "noble" goal of injecting all healthy young people with an experimental medication with alarming and wide ranging side effects. They also openly pillory the vax hesitant as "irrational" "anti-vaxxers"--a characterization at odds with the backgrounds of the most prominent opponents of the Mandate Regime: Yeadon, Bhakdi, Vanden Bossche, Malone. So read this next paragraph with a critical eye:

Together, these are all information choices made by government agencies and/or officials about vaccination of young adults. Amplifying out-of-date statistics and building a model to support vaccination that has questionable assumptions work to support rapid deployment of two doses of mRNA to all healthy kids aged 12 to 17. That may be the CDC’s policy pursuit, and one we are sympathetic to. However, distorting evidence to achieve this result is a form of a noble lie.  Accurately reporting current risks to adolescents, and exploring other dosing possibilities, is part of the unbiased scientific exploration of data.

Whether or not this lie--the authors are clear that it is a lie--is noble depends on the true motives of the perpetrators. Do you trust your government? If the intent of the perps is other than purely scientific, then lying about the science can hardly be "noble"--if it ever could be so considered. But it might be a lie that is considerably less than noble--venal, self interested, ideologically motivated by political considerations. There are many valid reasons to be concerned about the motivations of people when they have been shown to be serial liars.

The authors conclude with a balanced assessment that is also damning of the current Covid Regime:

Public health messaging is predicated on trust, which overcomes the enormous complexity of the scientific literature, creating an opportunity to communicate initiatives effectively. Still, violation of this trust renders the communication unreliable. When trust is shattered, messaging is no longer clear and straightforward, and instead results in the audience trying to reverse-engineer the statement based on their view of the speaker’s intent. Simply put, noble lies can rob confidence from the public, leading to confusion, a loss of credibility, conspiracy theories, and obfuscated policy.

Noble lies are a trap. We cannot predict the public’s behavior, and loss of trust is devastating. The general population is far too skeptical to blindly follow the advice of experts, and far too intelligent to be easily duped.

Yes, and it also can expose the illegitimacy of a regime that is already on shaky ground.

Via CTH, here's a pretty articulate doctor who thinks we're being lied to, and he doesn't seem to regard those lies as "noble":


  1. Mark, I actually read a SWC piece this morning that was linked from Julie Kelly. You've probably already seen it, but I thought it was very good, especially this graph:

    "What is obvious now in hindsight is that the Biden Justice Department prosecutors sought and obtained felony charges in many cases based on almost no meaningful review of actual evidence about what happened; it used fear and hysteria to justify doing so. Now they are being pressed to provide the evidence that is supposed to support the felony charges they brought, and are unable to do so in the timeframe required by law. So they are abandoning the cases on the best possible outcome available—the least serious of all federal crimes, “petty” misdemeanors."

    1. Right. That's what I was saying. But do you have links to Kelly and SWC? I somehow am not seeing that.

    2. Apparently, they don't need evidence. Or maybe in some cases they have it:

    3. Sorry. Just saw your response:

  2. I'll bet that "it might me a lie that is considerably less" was meant to be "it might *be* a lie that is considerably less".

    From Denninger today, on other lies/ wishful thinking:
    < We keep hearing, that we can take all these "measures" to stop Covid. But those claims are lies.
    How is it, that Covid-19 managed to get transmitted, to and among deer, for example? Because it did. I assure you, as someone who has lived where deer are for a good part of my life, they're not very interested in people. They certainly don't get within six feet of you, unless you just shot one....
    So how did 40% or more of them get infected over the last year, and what does this say about whether "social distancing" and "masks" can possibly work?
    Deer, of course, are outdoors in high-airflow environments, and do not interact with people.

    That they're infected en-masse means, this virus is all over the place, and transmitted all over the place, indoors and out, no matter what you do.
    All the so-called "mitigations" are worthless. This is now established fact, yet *nobody* is admitting it.
    How many lies do the so-called "experts" get?

    ... Narrow immunity will be evaded, and runs the risk of OAS, ADE or both. What we attempted to do was futile, and was not going to work.
    I didn't need *a degree* in virology -- just the ability to read, and not try to set aside decades of knowledge on viruses and how they, and vaccines for them, work (and, in the case of coronaviruses, not work.)
    You simply have to accept, that we all will get the virus. >

    1. Yep. And here's a link to an article that's a bit technical but informative--and meant for a general audience:

  3. The Dr. Stock video (via CTH) is excellent (at the end of the post). He is smart, articulate and forceful - and came armed with backup information. Links to all in the CTH article. We could use more like him.

  4. re the Dr Stock video, at 5.41 he says:

    "people who have recovered from Covid infection actually get no benefit from vaccination at all, no reduction in symptoms, no reduction in hospitalization, and suffer 2 to 4 times the rate of side effects..."

    What does he mean by "no reduction in symptoms, no reduction in hospitalization"

    Does this mean if you recover from Covid you still can get re-infected? I had thought once you have Covid, your antibodies would protect you from being re-infected.

    Or is that not 100% certain?


    1. Dunno whether this is the answer you're looking for. Just this evening I read an article by a guy who had Covid, recovered, then got vaxxed with his whole family. That was last year. Just recently basically he and his whole family got it again. Having had it twice, he said it was unpleasant again.

      What happens is that when you get vaxxed after having the disease, the injection messes with your immune system just as if you had never had the disease before, screwing up the natural immunity that you had from the first infection.

    2. Ok, he's saying "no reduction..." in the context of recovering and then being vaxxed. Got it, thanks.