"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been
bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has
captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to
ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend
to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)"
by:
Carl Sagan
(1934-1996), Astro-physicist
Source:
"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection," Parade, February 1, 1987
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Two of the world's greatest problems are the impossibility of anyone seeking the truth on any subject when they believe thar they already hav it and the zeal with which deceived people defend their deceptions.
 -- Dave Wilber, St. Louis     
  •  
    Hence is the case with those who cannot differentiate between Democracies and our Constitutional Republic. The "bamboozle" of redefined terms throughout American history has educated a populace who does not know the language of their founders (as they spoke the words), because the words themselves have been redefined without telling the student the original meanings. This transition is slow, but is generally permanent until society comes full circle on the freedom to slavery to freedom cycle... Man, as a human being, and a creature made from its Creator, desires freedom and has to be indoctrinated to choose otherwise. The repentance of thought is often impossible as men would rather accept their own convoluted sophistry than by acknowledging a better way -- it appears that pride is often stronger than reason and logic. Oh, that we had men like our founders today, who humbly looked throughout history to accurately depict and understand things for how they worked and did not work -- and that they gave us a government that could work, if we would only let it.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    I wouold like to give this billions and billions of stars ;-)
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Very thought provoking! It reminds one of the old saw, "The victorious write the books" (and thus do the bamboozle) I don't think that is totally true. Losers write books also but fewer read them, thus the more people are influenced by the victors point of view. Nothing succeeds like success. Some can differentiate between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. A Democracy is a government where the power resides with the people. A Constitutional Republic is a geographic entity in which a written document or constitution describes the nature of the government. The nature of that constitutional government can be written to set up any type of government from Aristocracy, Oligarcy, Dictatorship etcetera. The term constitutional republic is a general term and democracy is a specific term. Totally different "animals",
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
     -- Anonymous, Reston, VA US      
    The current bamboozle is "man made global warming". It's mainly a bunch of socialists who have found a way to control the country, what you can eat, wear, drive, where you can live, etc. It's an easy Hoax to sell since bad news gets the media coverage. No government grants go to a scientist who says that everything is normal. Bad news sells and gets the funding.
     -- jim k, austin     
  •  
    The report issued by "Thousands of leading scientists" was actually issued by 60 or so Climatologists and was remarkably edited by the UN boys in order to give the (falsified) analysis we were shown. Many of those same scientists asked for their names to be removed from the report as a result. Its a hoax alright and Jim K hits the nail on the head.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    I give Logan's comment five stars. The founders of this country had very little nice to say about democracy. It is telling enough that the word "democracy" is not found a single time in the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation or the US Constitution. ...and Mike's billions of stars? That's funny! I can't believe I'm actually giving Carl Sagan five stars, but hey, even a clack that's broken is right twice a day.
     -- Bryan Morton, Stuart, FL     
  •  
    Bryan the Declaration was adompted by majority vote, in fact it was unanimous as was the vote for the Constitution unanimous as well as was its ratification by all of the states, that is democracy. The Constitution initally provided for representatives to be elected by the people, that is democracy. Later the Constitution was amended by all of the states to say that Senators shall be elcected by the people, that amendment and those elections are all an act of democracy. The election of the Electoral College is an act of democracy. There are hundreds of Constitutional Republics in the world, some of the constitutions call for one party rule and dictatorship like North Korea for example. One Pres. candidate memoans the Russian invasion of the democratic country of Georgia and our current President is trying to establish democracy in Iraq and the Middle East. So what gives with people trying to tear it down in this our very own country. Lets get over this and move on. We are a "government of, by and for the people" a democracy.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Sad, but true - though I am a believer that truth eventually rises to the top regardless of the bamboozlers - It amazes me how we are so easily bamboozled into thinking what we are told to believe in - does the public really know the true intent behind the Georgia conflict? and the role America played? Hay guys, when you light a fire it gets warm are you really that dumb????? show me one just scientist that has put his name to the fact that the North Pole ice core samples are incorrect as they show an increase in the cyclical events of climate change - they may be going up and down but the ups and downs are going further up than they are going down. Jim and Carlton you are being bamboozled by right wing fanatics - if the media gets any further right it will fall of the table - the Rush Limbaugh's of this world are nothing but hate mongers - change is inevitable it is the only thing that is. Just reason with yourself and think without the bamboozlers, think, just think, please. Love you guys (just don't ask me to go fishing). Have a great weekend, your vegetarian (I don't eat dead flesh), liberal, friend, Robert
     -- RobertSRQ     
  •  
    Most people need to beleive that what ever it is that they are doing is correct. The thought that they may be wrong is the greatest violation to their senses that they can endure. It is worse to them then the wrong action itself. When someone with greater insight says, wait a minute, that might be wrong, those acting falsly will fight and even kill to perpetuate the lie, out of their need to beleive that they are right, rather then actually being right. On the other hand some take the position that, if I am doing something wrong, please enlighten me, because I would rather do it right. These are the meek, the peaceable, the ones willing to grow and advance. They will raise them selves, as well as the whole human condition. I prefer the latter.
     -- Ken, Milford Pa     
  •  
    Awesome! Science has always had to battle the customs and prejudices of the day whether they be religious, political, or personal. Catching a glimpse of truth among 'billions and billions' of commercials for make-believe takes discernment and the willingnes to be wrong. Sagan always considered the vast possibilities of the cosmos -- it is very humbling. The hard part is realizing that we have been and continue to be bamboozled -- the trick is identifying it. The tactic for most ruling juntas is to convince us of a terrible 'problem' then present the miraculous 'solution' when in actuality it's the solution they are trying to 'sell' and the problem contrived to force the issue. Whether the 'problem' be eternal damnation, the end of the world, bank runs, guys in turbans, rising tides, guns, plants (!), you name it, the 'solutions' involve the surrendering to the 'authority' usually by bombarding us with propaganda and eventually by force or intimidation. The end result is the same. A seeker of truth is no stranger to controversy.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Why the bamboozle? Follow the money. PT Barnum knew there's a sucker born every minute and so does Al Gore. Why is the bamboozle always morphing into a slightly different argument? It's not global warming anymore. That is so passe. Now it's global climate change (like climate hasn't been in constant flux for billions and billions of years). Well the global temperature has not increased since 1998. In fact it has so inconveniently fallen. There is a paper at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Cardell et al. (2007)] which shows that C02 levels have not only increased but accelerated since the 1990's. Yet the global temperature has fallen. They are at a loss as to why their model (which showed temperature increase even without increase in CO2) cannot predict current temperature. Let me help them out. When the data do not support the model, the model is wrong. The model was also wrong in the 1970's (the previous bamboozle) that predicted an ice age by the mid 1990's. We sure are lucky we all started driving SUV's.
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
  •  
    BTW, speaking of illogical bamboozles, 55 men appointed by their state legislatures or governors hardly represent a democracy. In a democracy, 51% of the people can vote away the rights of the other 49%. Stop calling the US a democracy -- sometimes votes of 2/3 or 3/4 or unanimous decision are required -- and by people who are not popularly elected. Even one man (the president) can veto a majority vote. If we were living in a democracy Al Gore would have been president. Ignorance of sovereignty and the rights of man keep this bamboozle going -- and it is the ruling class that wants you to think you have 'a vote.' Give it a $%@ rest!
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Waffler, can you please provide me a source (or, even better, sources) where the founders specifically purported "Democracy"? I have provided you multiple sources where they condemned "Democracy" and sought to stay as far away from it as possible -- even while creating a system of government of "We The People". I dare say you will not find any, but good luck!
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    A perfect explanation of why religions exist.
     -- Jack, Green, OH     
  •  
    An historical note for those of the public school bamboozlment, the English language employs different parts of speech, such as noun, verb, adjective, etc. A democratic process does not necessarily make a democracy. The Constitution established an antibamboozlementarianism (-: you know I'm enjoying this;-) which has been done away by extreme bamboozlocity. The USA (Union of Socialist Amerities) is not a government of We The People as, it is aloof therefrom and does not represent them. The Warren Court legislated a new nation when it declared the government to have inherent rights (it became a living creature capable of standing on its own). The new de facto bamboozlers captured the home of the free by eliminating inalienable rights with license. The court, legislators, executors, media, etc. further the divine ascension by declaring all policing forces (the executive branch) to have no responsibility to (protect or otherwise) We The People but only to secure government property. The new devine ascension is further intrenched when in takes over religious/private ordinances, like marriage and, performs such other religious actions as caring for the poor. The theocratic oligarchy allows the oppressed to elect some oppressors (sometimes frequently) to add an air of legitimacy to the grand bamboozlocracy. Ahh, the bamboozle seems to be working except for a few of those who understand sovereignty and love freedom and liberty. Carl's quote gives a new spin to Lenin's 'A bamboozlement told often enough becomes the truth.' well said Ken(s)
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Jim k, Austin- Best and shortest explanation for man made global warming yet. If we were a democracy then George Bush would still have won the election. The recount would have had to be done because of the closeness of the election and it would have been done in every state and precinct. All the absentee ballots would have had to have been opened and counted. Since 60 percent of absentee ballots are Republican on average it would have given Bush a good lead. Absentee ballots are only opened to settle a close race and are only counted when they would make a difference in a state's winner. So how much Bush actually won by is unknown (that is because we are not a democracy Waffler). If any one doubts this look it up. If my memory is correct only Florida had its absentee ballots counted for the Presidential race in 2000.
     -- warren, olathe     
  •  
    Hope none of you are upset if you just found out that all those absentee ballots you sent in have never been opened.
     -- warren, olathe     
  •  
    Bush calls it a democracy, McCain bemoans the Russian invasion of Georgia not because it is a republic (they are a dime a dozen) but he says it is a democracy and I think you can read between the lines that he means that this is a precious thing. When an entity steps on a free and self-willed (democracy)people in this way some sensitive souls like McCain and Bush see it as a crime against humanity. Now if Georgia were only a republic and ruled by some dictator or oligarch its crushing may not seem so tragic. Logan I told you above and you did not listen, I will tell you again in capitals; THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENCY are democratic institutions. All are elected by the people. Archer is incorrect that 51% or 50.1% are not democracy. Archer Logan opened this discussion and wishes it to continue so you take a f^%$ rest. Logan I think you would be better writing to Bush and McCain and ask them what they mean about their love of democracy. I am not going to have any influence on your choices of words. I suggest you read Ken, from Milford above. (Democracy: in pure form a government where all power is vested in the people; In practice a government where power is vested in representatives elected by all of the people.)
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Ken I think "climate change" is a Bush or conservative invention, rather than using the former "global warming". It is similar to Logans attempt to use "republic" in place of what ever one else calls "democracy". Other examples of this kind of soft lying or changing the argument is Bushs "time horizon" instead of the former "deadline" etcetera. The classic is the change of "estate tax" into the dreaded phrase "death tax". The "death tax" phrase was intentionally created by a wealthy California family intent on getting out from under the tax. Conservatives or at least those opposed to estate tax thought it cute and effective so they changed the lexicon in order to try to change the tax laws It is a way of taking over a perceived competitors thoughts or position (intellectual property) without giving them any credit by simply changing the name.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    You need to research the origin of the phrase "climate change" Waffler. I think you will find that it started in the halls of the UN with the IPCC.
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
  •  
    Waffler, I didn't ask if Bush, McCain, or the Russians support or deplore Democracy -- I asked you to give me a source (even better, sources) where our founders specifically addressed "Democracy" as their intended form of government. I have given you multiple quotes from our founders showing their spite for "Democracy" -- even while they purported a Constitutional Republic wherein the affairs of the government would be handled by the voice of the people. Do you see something that doesn't add up here in your argument? You are defenseless here son... You can give me a thousand current definitions of Republics and Democracies and you'll still show your ignorance, because all of us here have constantly said that current definitions have been redefined... How do you explain that our founders expressly did everything in their power to steer away from "Democracy" while purporting a system of government wherein the people would vote -- and they actually said they had succeeded in their endeavor -- a government that was not a "Democracy" but was still governed by the voice of the people. Get with the times here son.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    I don't care what you asked me Logan. I asked you to talk to McCain and Bush. The Constitution is what it is, what the hell is in a name, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. A society run by the will of the people 51% is called a "representative democracy". If you wish to call it a republic keep on trucking dude. I again implore you to read Ken above and get real Logan, get real. What the hell do you think voice of the people means Logan, stop being a an hole here. We are in absolue agreement here. I tell you what look up and choose a foreign translation for the word "democracy" and we will use that to describe the government of the United States of America. The word republic means only any government that is not a monarchy it does not describe a government run by the voice of the people. Please quit addressing me directly on this issue.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Ken you may be right but for years it seems to me the term being used was "global warming" and it seems when Bush got on board the term he used was "climate change" and it appeared to me to be a subtle or begrudging acceptance of the issue but with a different nuance. Of course the phrases do not mean the same thing. Climate change is much more ambiguous than is the phrase global warming. Intionally creating ambiguity is an interesting phenomenon. The word "republic" is ambiguous while the word "democracy" is much more clear and descriptive. Creating amibiguity is a big step towards bamboozelment and fuzzy thinking.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    What do the initials IPCC stand for? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 1998 global temperatures started to decrease. For the first six or seven years the global warmists put this down to just statistical noise. By 2006 it was becoming clear even to them that this was not just noise but a downward trend. At this point there has been no global warming for a decade. Up to 2006 Bush rejected anthropogenic global warming/climate change out of hand as not being supported by enough data to determine whether it existed or not, and rightly so. By the time he finally jumped on the bandwagon for political reasons, the terminology had already morphed into global climate change. You are right that the phrase climate change is more ambiguous and for very good reason: it is not very easy to panic the public over global warming when there is in fact global cooling.
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
  •  
    Waffler, Waffler, Waffler -- simply because the concept behind republics and democracies are ambiguous to you, don't be so naive that they are ambiguous to everyone else. Thank you for proving my point... You cannot provide me with sources of what our founders said concerning "Democracy", nor can you tell me your arbitrary majority number wherein your praised "Democracy" can legitimately rape women, kill children, or take away in one fell swoop all of man's rights. You have side stepped the issue from day one, and now you are incapable of providing me with sources from our country's founders supporting your claims. You justify your present by redefining America's past. If you would like me to stop addressing you concerning the topic, then stop speaking untruths and nonsense about it (although, by not speaking nonsense, it may silence you entirely -- and that would sadden me -- I enjoy bantering with you). I will plan for future retorts.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    Much of industry Ken ( and yes they to imploy scientists) are also pushing for a change in the way we do thinks viz a viz climate change/golbal warming. It is not government versus the private intelligentsia or industry. The world is all in this together. I don't think there is more than about 10 regular contributors to this site. This does not a ground swell of public opinion, or of scholarship make. You sound like those guys who are holocaust deniers.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Logan lets just stay with "voice of the people" as the form of our government as an understanding between you and I. It works great for me. To you that means a "republic" I guess, and to me it means a "democracy". But since you seem to go ballistic over words just stay with the above prhase and all will be at peace.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    It has been said that words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen -- the enunciation of truth. While society and its majority may overpower and redefine the absolute, truth still maintains its potency (even when purported by a severe minority) -- and it appears here that the truth cannot be denied. No substantial/real argument has been made in furthering the asinine idea that we were intended to be a "Democracy", when going back to the words of the founders. We are a Republic (Article 4 Section 4), or at least we were intended to be -- which meant something completely different than a "Democracy" when spoken by the founders than what "Anonymous" (I have to say "anonymous", because he has asked me not to address his alter ego persona of Mr. Fort Smith from Arkansas) has repeatedly used from modern day sophists to justify his present by redefining the past. I cannot use another "word" for the idea of a Republic, as the founders spoke, because there is no other word that describes this system of government. Once the basic definitions of the premise of our government have been redefined, what better way is there of divorcing the people from actual ideas, philosophies, and beliefs of their founders? If the idea of a Republic, as meant by our founders and not modern-day sophists, bothers Anonymous -- that is fine -- I do not care about a difference of opinion. I do, however, decide to have a little fun at his expense when he uses modern day terms to redefine history. I am a little surprised that with how much everyone disagrees with him on this site (even the "10 regulars") that he has singled me out, even over Mike or Archer, to cry about not addressing him over a particular issue. Can he not substantiate his side? Can he not find a founding father who supports his claim as well? Can he not give me his arbitrary number? I have purposefully not addressed him on several threads when I speak of Republics, wherein he has retorted with an indirect comment. I'm not quite so passive aggressive in my comments (except for this particular log maybe). I apologize to the rest on the blog who are reading these comments, this is all all a little childish; it is one thing to argue ideas, philosophies, etc. which I love to do (and which this blog is a wonderful source to provide) -- but it is another thing when someone doesn't want to be spoken to and is crying because he feels verbally picked on.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    Mr. Logan obviously has an emotional problem which is beyon my expertise. He and I have agreed that the government of the United States of America is a VOICE OF THE PEOPLE GOVERNMENT. He cannot move on cannot move forward. What is the saying about people who keep doing the same thing expecting a different result result: they are insane! Mr Logan obviously perceives his purpose on this earth, like Sysphus of old who pushed a huge bolder up a hill time after time for all eternity just to watch it roll back down again, is to promote the use of the word Republic and denergrate the word Democracy. His efforts reach far beyond what any sane individual would succomb to. Unfortunately Sysphus was a Greek myth and he was and is stuck in his rut for all time. Mr. Logan can get off of his treadmill if he chooses. He indicates right up until the present and inability to do so. It is sad very sad.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Waffler, you do not have to put words into others' mouths to make your point. I find it interesting that your arguments' basis is that 'Logan agrees' (even when he doesn't) or 'most people know' (even when they don't) or other versions of 'truth-by-consensus.' It is remarkable to observe your group-think in action -- and your unconsciousness of it. Every argument you make is in defense of external authority backed by what you consider to be the 'majority of the people.' There is no single 'Voice of the People' -- there are millions of VOICES. Over and over you treat the collective as a single entity that is always right and deserves our obedience. But truth be told, Waffler, you merely speak as an individual but expect your words to be regarded as the 'voice of the people' or a 'great spirit' expounding to mediocre minds. However, you do not speak for the people -- you speak for the ruling class which bombards the people with the sound bites and jingles of the day to further their totalitarian goals. People on this site speak only for themselves (whether or not they believe otherwise), and their words are backed only by their own capacities for reason and diligence. A nation of laws is not a nation governed by the loudest chorus, it is governed by Nature. The 'people' do not rule, individuals must command themselves or else be ruled by those who convince tem of their 'authority' to do so (usually by fear and intimidation). Our country is based on the individual rights and corresponding responsibilities of each living breathing human being. Somewhere along the line certain individuals discovered how to get groups of individuals to obey them, pay them, or work for them. This eventually results in despots and socialism. When the individual gives up his reasoning power and merely succumbs to the masses because they are arrayed against him, he is counted among them (even though given the chance he would go his own way as originally desired). Those that embrace this kind of slavery are treated well while those that challenge the 'authority of the masses' (or more specifically those that control them) are ridiculed. Waffler, you respect only power, not truth, and therefore, you treat power as truth with little more knowledge than what you were told to believe. And even though you cling to the group as your strength, you are alone without an original thought of your own. The group does not care about you -- only individuals can. Talk about sad and lonely -- a pretty heavy price to pay for giving up one's individuality.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Archer Mr. Logan said he believes in a governmetn by the "Voice of The People". Lets drop it. I stopped reading your post after I got to that phrase. You all are just blowing (writing) a bunch of hot air. In all societies or groups the Voice of the People or group or club is 51%. Cut the s*&$. You are so deep in it it is pathetic. As far as insanity you are beyond him. There is no "collective" because the make up of the 51% per cent changes constantly with any given issue.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Waffler, most simply, the government of the Constitutional United States of America is not based on the voice of the people. The government of the Constitutional United States of America is based on law. PS, Archer, said very well.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    I've accepted that the US is not a democracy and neither is Israel. In horror and deep sadness, I've also seen the light that Israel and traitors in the US did 9-11--not Islamics. Every war seems to have been a bamboozle. ReDiscover911.com
     -- Ed, Kansas City     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2019 Liberty-Tree.ca