Belief By Persuasion, or "Birds of a Feather Flock Together"
by Bobby Garner
August 7, 2002

If you love truth, and hate lies, then you are my kind of people, but before you agree to anything, you should understand that we are dealing with truth here. If that perplexes you, then welcome to the world of deception 101. In our New Age Utopian world, black is white, red is green, Communism is dead, the war on terrorism, will protect our freedom, and the economy is recovering.

I would like to make some relevant points in regard to the art of persuasive writing and/or speech. I usually choose not to practice that art for very good reasons which I would like to elaborate on. Number one among them is the fact that I absolutely hate lies. Lies are derived from nothingness. They are baseless, empty promises designed to bilk you out of something of value which you would not part with otherwise. That is also the definition of fraud, by the way. Every Christian, Muslim, every other religion, and Agnostics even, claim to hate these things. A liar knows that if he fails to persuade you, he will be exposed, so he is practiced, and very good. Few would deny that fact, yet we virtually demand to be persuaded on nearly everything that is presented to us as a new thought, or idea. We have come to expect this, and in fact we reward those who are most effective at it with our votes, and by other means. In the classical sense that poses a contradiction, which in order to arrive at the truth of the matter, must be resolved. A contradiction arises whenever two things, each generally held to be true according to existing standards of truth, yet are found to be mutually exclusive. That is to say, if one of them is true, then the other one is patently false. That is the essence of a contradiction.

So, the question may be stated thus; "Is the practice of the art of persuasion a good thing to be encouraged, or is there an evil side to be avoided?" It is that question which I would like to address as briefly as possible. So, please indulge me as I digress for a moment into a little old fashioned persuasive argument. Hopefully, we will answer the first part of the question in the process of arriving at a satisfactory answer to the latter part. We begin by attempting to establish "common ground".

I suppose everyone has his own method of determining when someone is lying. Most of us, including myself at one time, tend to reject everything which does not set well with us for whatever reason. We have no experience in the particular area, it is an unfamiliar topic, it is offensive, or in personal contact situations, the facial expression and/or body language doesn't seem quite right, or some mixture of these and assorted others. Whatever your own criteria may be, it boils down to one thing, to believe, or not believe, that is the definitive question which separates the truth from the lie, in the view of most people. It is that method of determining truth, which represents the focal point of this discussion. First, allow me to point out some facts with which you surely will agree. 1) Liars lie. 2) Liars are untrustworthy. 3) When you believe a lie, you always loose something. 4) When you have believed a lie, you did so because it sounded like the truth, or maybe it was because you were unable to disprove it. 5) Perhaps you had confidence in the person. 6) Invariably, it was something you wanted to accept, so you were willing to overlook certain warning signs.

Now, with that ground work established, we may make some relevant observations. 1) Every lie must be whetted with at least a little truth. Because, 2) the liar hopes that you will "believe" him. Therefore 3) the nature of the truth involved must be chosen carefully, mixed to just the perfect degree, and stated perhaps as a nearly direct quote, with some obscure inference to the contrary, which hopefully you will fail to notice. For example, Satan's, question to Eve, "...hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden?" Genesis 3: 1 That was the first statement by the serpent, and it was a lie, but it sounded pretty good to Eve so she responded in essence; Well, yes, he did say something like that. We know it was a lie, because Satan is a proven liar, and liars lie. They cannot even tell the truth on purpose and get it right. 4) What God actually said at Genesis 1: 29, is "Behold, I have given to you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which there is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall serve for meat." Then at 2: 16, 17 - "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

You can study the rest of the account for yourself. The relevant point to be made here is the necessity for a liar to confuse the issue with a certain amount of truth. The liar needs for you to believe, otherwise he will be shamed and discredited as a liar if he fails and you don't believe. Moreover, he will fail to get whatever it is he wants from you. That being so, he must be persuasive. To that end, the successful liar, has studied the methods of persuasion and has learned them well, and has developed the skill to apply them flawlessly. Therefore, I submit that as an experimentally provable fact, if we do not know that bag of tricks equally well, we will be suckered more often than not.

Hopefully, if you can accept what I have just stated so far, then we know the answer to the question. Yes, persuasion can be used effectively to present an argument as I have just done. further, if you are willing to assume that I do not have an evil intent, then we see that, yes persuasion can be used for both good and evil. This brings us to the crux of the matter. If it works equally well for both good and evil, how do we defend against the evil and yet be open to receive the good? This gets us back to the contradiction. Persuasion can be used for good, but those who practice it best are up to no good. We virtually demand to be persuaded to accept a new idea, and yet we know that it is the most effective tool that the lair has. How do we break out of this problem?

What is always needed in a situation like this, is a different frame of reference. Look at the frame of reference as the angle from which we tend to view things. Any contraction is always caused by the frame of reference which produced it. In the field of magic, we call this illusion. In that case, the frame of reference is the set of circumstances which has been established by the magician, which is not valid in the real world, but it looks OK on stage. In the field of science, that required new frame of reference is represented by the discovery of a new universal physical scientific principle which explains the previously existing contradictory phenomena, in such a way as to disprove the validity, of the former frame of reference.

Therefore, to solve this contradiction, we need a fresh new way of viewing the world around us. As in the case in focus here, we must find a suitable alternative to persuasive argument. One which is not incumbered by this persistent problem which renders it unreliable. Actually, such a method does exist, and has been known for millenniums. It is lying in wait for a fresh new discovery.

King Solomon, King of ancient Israel, is an historical figure, of renown the world over irrespective of religion. He is said to be the wisest man who ever lived. Yet much of his writing is either ignored, or soft peddled as too highly symbolic to be of any practical value. I recently referred to the concordance of the most popular English Bible, and found only seventeen references to knowledge.. Not a single one mentioned any of Solomon's writings which are generally accepted as the Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. Under wisdom, I found seven entries, and only one referred to Solomon's work. For understanding there were sixteen entries, with six of them located in Proverbs. This is a deplorable situation and one which in my honest opinion is largely responsible for most of the social ills in the world.

Solomon wrote prolifically on the value of wisdom and understanding, and demonstrates convincingly that knowledge is the key to both. ( check Proverbs Chapter 2 for starters) Knowledge is the antonym or opposite of ignorance. If we allow knowledge, along with the wisdom and understanding which enures from the attainment of it, to be our new frame of reference for judging truth, is our ability to distinguish between the truth and the lie, enhanced, or impeded? To pose the question a different way, "Can we more effectively resist being lied to from the vantage point of our own accurate knowledge, as opposed to placing the burden of persuasion on the other fellow, who frequently lies?"

One of the most frequent arguments against knowledge comes from Christians who point to Jesus' usage of the words "BELIEVE in me" as evidence that you really don't need to bother with knowledge. But is it reasonable that a man of that stature, would expect you to substitute belief for knowledge, wisdom, and understanding? Or, does the context suggest belief in him as an extension and the natural conclusion of an accurate knowledge of him. I think one would be hard pressed to prove that he did not expect us to be knowledgeable of him and his purpose. It is totally unreasonable to suppose that Jesus Christ would prefer that we be ignorant, and merely believe. How do those who wish you to simply believe in Jesus, distinguish themselves and their argument from those whose interest is best served if you just believe their lies without question?

Ask yourself, "Would the world be a better place if people were wiser, and more understanding?" If you answered yes, then buckle up and contribute your fair share! Educate yourself, because it should be obvious by now, that no one else is going to do it for you.

In summery, the only suitable alternative to persuasion is to simply state the facts, which admittedly places the onus on the hearer to decide if it is true or false. However, for it to work, everyone must agree that the burden of proof is on the hearer. Stop demanding that the speaker persuade you that what he is saying is true, because we have seen and experienced the effect of that method much too often, and it is not a pleasant ordeal.

Bobby Garner is a researcher on the phenomenon of One-Worldism with an emphasis on the methods and techniques employed in it's attendant deception without which the New World Order cannot happen. He may be reached via E-mail at bobby@congregator.net. He welcomes your comments. Visit his website www.congregator.net This article my be posted in it's entirety on any website provided this statement remains attached.