The right to lie and the ban on discussions

How slanders and fake news are used by political elites. And not only in Russia

At the end of September, a few days before the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the post of judge of the US Supreme Court, a scandal of incredible force erupted in America. Psychology professor Christina Blasey Ford accused Judge Kavanaugh of nearly raping her at a party 36 years ago when she was 15.

Dr. Ford could not remember the place, time, or details of the incident, but she had no doubt that it had ruined her life. She demanded that the FBI investigate the attack, which would automatically prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed until the November election. When the FBI nevertheless conducted a short investigation and Ms. Ford's accusations were not confirmed, the Democrats were unanimously indignant. “How can you approve a rapist for life?” they said.

And now the offender of Mrs. Christina Blazey Ford has finally been found. According to a Senate Judiciary Committee report released last Saturday, the man who kissed Christina Blasey Ford in 1982 did exist. His name is obscured in the published report and we will refer to him as N.

According to the report, N “revealed that when he was 19, he went on spring break to Washington and kissed a girl he believed to be Dr. Ford. He testified that the kiss took place in the bedroom of a house that was located 15 to 20 minutes from Van Ness Subway, that Dr. Ford was wearing a bathing suit under her dress, and that the kiss ended when a friend jumped on them as a joke. N said the kiss was initiated by a woman and that he was not trying to be violent.”

This is strikingly similar to the details that Ms. Ford herself described. She said that she was wearing a bathing suit and that she was able to get away from Brett Cavanaugh because his buddy Mark Judge jumped on them. She also claims that the case was in Montgomery County, that is, not far from the Van Ness metro station.

Of course, in Dr. Ford's description, everything looked much more dramatic and was not a kiss, but an attempted rape.

When she came out of the upstairs closet at a party, Kavanaugh attacked her and pushed her into the bedroom. To drown out her screams, he turned up the volume of the music playing in the room. She miraculously managed to escape, but this episode broke her life.

"I had academic failures," Dr. Ford told a Senate hearing, "I had a very hard time making new friends, especially boys, and I had academic problems."

She was haunted by claustrophobia, anxiety and panic. She had PTSD. All her academic failures were connected with this horrific event. All her failures in her personal life were the result of this terrible evening. Because of him, she was even afraid to fly.

However, Ms. Ford never told anyone about this horrific incident until 2012, when she began remodeling her home, which led to complications in her family life and she had to see a psychotherapist.

It was there that Ms. Ford admitted for the first time in her life that in her youth she almost became a victim of rape. True, she told the psychotherapist that she was attacked by four (not two) and that it was in the mid-1980s, and not in 1982. It was strange that the woman, whose life collapsed because of this horrific incident, could not remember exactly when it happened for up to three years.

Nevertheless, Ms. Ford's testimony was received with great sympathy. Senator Diana Feinstein asked her at the hearing: “Do I understand correctly that this is the reason your house has a second exit? Claustrophobia?"

Ford: "Right. Our house looks unaesthetic from the side of the road.”

And all of us, simple and uncouth people, could not understand: what, in fact, is ugly in the second door, and does it really disfigure a three million dollar house in the exclusive Palo Alto area?

And now it turns out that everything was not so scary. That the incident actually had less of an effect on Dr. Ford than she claims. The Senate found at least one other person who also kissed Ford, whom he did not know well, in the summer of that year.

In addition, witnesses interviewed by the Committee stated that Christina Blasey Ford had an active social life in college, was surrounded by men, went to parties, drank and used drugs. Perhaps these circumstances influenced her academic failures much more than the terrible case of the rapist Kavanaugh. Who wasn't Cavanaugh at all.

So let's recap.

For several months, Democrats have tried with all their might to block the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the post of a justice of the US Supreme Court. Everything was in vain.

And now, a few days before the end of the hearings, allegations of rape rained down on him.

A certain Jeffrey Catalan stated that in August 1985, Brett Cavanaugh attacked his friend on a yacht in the port of Newport. After a short investigation, it turned out that Kavanaugh had never been to Newport, and that Catalan himself pathologically hates Trump. Catalan was forced to confess that he had lied. Despite this, CNN still hasn't updated its story about Catalan's allegations.

Another accuser of Brett Kavanaugh was Judy Munro-Leighton. She took credit for an anonymous letter saying that Kavanaugh brutally raped her in the back seat of a car. During the investigation, it turned out that Judy: a) is a left-wing activist, b) is more than a dozen years older than Kavanaugh, c) lives in Kentucky. She was forced to admit that she lied.

Another accuser of Kavanaugh was Julie Svetnik. She claimed nothing less than that Kavanaugh was a member of a gang that drugged the girls and raped them. As it quickly turned out, none of Kavanaugh's friends could remember any Julie Svetnik. It also turned out that Svetnik is a hysteric, a liar and a lover of fake lawsuits.

Back in 1994, she filed a lawsuit against the railroad, in which she demanded $420,000 in lost profits. She positioned herself as a model who fell, broke her nose and lost her contracts due to this. The person she listed as the millionaire and advertising agency owner who signed her up was a penniless ex-lover of hers.

Another accuser, Deborah Ramirez, said that thirty-six years ago, Brett Kavanaugh took off his pants in front of her for a bet at a party. She, however, at that moment was so dead drunk that she did not remember who it was, and called her friends with the question: “Was it Brett Kavanaugh?” Friends said no, but after six days of consulting with Democratic lawyers, Ms. Ramirez finally remembered that it was Kavanaugh and said so.

All these insane and shameful accusations, like two drops of water, resembled an epidemic of accusations of witchcraft, fell on the head of Brett Kavanaugh after the first accusation was made by Dr. Christina Blasey Ford.

However, already at the Senate hearings, it became clear that her accusations had serious problems.

First, Dr. Ford kept changing her testimony. She confused the approximate place, time, details and number of participants in the party. At first glance, this is not very important, but only at first. The fact is that some of the changes in her testimony were constructed in such a way that they made it difficult to verify them. For example, The Washington Post, Dr. Ford, reported that the party took place near the Montgomery County Club. However, as soon as she was shown a map in the Senate hearing that it was a 20-minute drive from her parents' house to the club, she immediately changed her testimony, stating that the party took place "somewhere along the road."

The fact is that 20 minutes is too long a distance to cover on foot, and Dr. Ford, who, according to her, escaped from the rapists without keys, without money and without a purse, had to be given a ride. The new version of Dr. Ford made it difficult to verify her words.

Secondly, it seemed incredible that a woman who survived an attack that broke her whole life could not pinpoint its exact location. This could only happen if Dr. Ford continued to go to other parties after this party (which, as we now know, she did). If this party had really been a fateful one for Dr. Ford, the only one or the last, she would surely remember all the details well.

In addition, Dr. Ford told a lot of lies about the most obvious things: those that were already happening before the eyes of all America.

For example, she refused to fly to the hearing under the pretext that she was afraid to fly. The blame for this, according to her, was also Brett Kavanaugh, because of which she suffered from claustrophobia. However, at the hearing, it turned out that she flies a lot and regularly, that her CV lists Hawaii, Costa Rica, the South Pacific Islands and Polynesia as places where she surfs.

Dr. Ford's testimony, which eloquently described how she "eventually mustered up the courage, with the help of her friends, to get on the plane," backfired on her.

After the hearing ended, Ford's credibility problem got worse. So, Dr. Ford, being a professor of psychology, stated that she did not know how a lie detector works and that she did not prepare anyone to test on it. However, the Committee had at its disposal the testimony of her boyfriend, who said that Ms. Ford, in his presence, prepared her friend and former FBI agent Monica McLean for a polygraph test.

In other words, her testimony from the very beginning was not reliable. This is what the testimony of an experienced manipulator and sociopath would look like, convinced of his ability to present himself as a victim in any situation, turn any incident into a global catastrophe and attribute all his failures to this.

And now it turns out that she was wrong about Cavanaugh.

So what do we have?

In 1982, Christina Blasey Ford huddled at a drunken party with a boy. It was a completely ordinary event for her - so much so that she did not remember where and when it happened. She didn't even remember who that boy was.

In 2012, after 30 years, Ms. Ford had family problems, and she was even forced to see a family therapist. On the occasion of the impending feminism, being a professional psychologist and probably an experienced manipulator, she presented herself as a victim and told a terrible story about four villains who almost raped her.

Six years later, it turned out that history can be used for political purposes. Perhaps, as is often the case with people of a certain psychological make-up, Ms. Ford convinced herself that she had been irreparably wronged and that Brett Kavanaugh was the offender. In any case, she did not fail. She became a celebrity. Gigantic career prospects opened up before her.

Over $700,000 has already been raised to help her, which Dr. Ford accepted, lamenting, as always, the deprivation and danger she is exposed to because of her heroic step. In fact, her deprivation was that she and her husband moved from their three million home in Palo Alto to another three million home that she owns on the coast in Santa Cruz (which does not have a second door). For Judge Brett Kavanaugh, by the way, they also raised money on GoFundMe. He refused this money.

But Dr. Ford herself is not the problem. The problem is that the Democrats enthusiastically accepted her accusations.

Exactly the same thing happened as in France in 1634, when the abbess of the Ludon monastery accused the confessor Urbain Grandier of bewitching her. Or, to take an example more familiar to Russia: in 1952, another doctor, Dr. Lidia Timashuk, wrote her famous letter about the killer doctors who healed Comrade Zhdanov.

It's not about this or that person's attempt to present themselves as a victim of a sorcerer - it's about an interest group who suddenly find themselves interested in their narrative.

Within a short time, Dr. Ford received saint and martyr status from the liberal media. Her testimony was deemed “credible,” not because it was actually true, but because any attempt to verify it was immediately branded as sexism, fascism, and Trumpism. The truth of these testimonies was forbidden to be discussed. The discussion itself testified to the political unreliability of the discusser. To doubt them was like in the days of the Inquisition to doubt the words of the Bible.

You say - what's the difference to us?

They have a democracy there in America. They have left media and they have right media. They have elections, they have a Senate, they have a Supreme Court, but we have nothing: only Crimea is ours.

The answer is that the difference is very big.

Because America is not Argentina, Sweden or even Germany. This is a country that, in the view of the Soviet intellectuals, was a shining beacon, a shining beacon.

Residents of the USSR listened to the Voice of America and knew: the Voice of America was true, but the Soviet television was a lie.

And now no sane person can say that. We see examples of left-wing bias all too often in the American media. We see too often that discussion is forbidden where it is most needed. Too often we see that instead of facts, we are presented with fake news and that the consensus in society is not achieved through the search for truth, but, on the contrary, due to the prohibition of this search.

“Look, there is no truth anywhere. Fake news is also in America,” Russian propagandists tell us. And when Russian propagandists say this, it is a lie, because they say this to justify their own lies, and because God grant us American freedom, American elections, American economy and American problems.

But the shadow of leftist discourse is creeping over America.