Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: This is Charles in Las Vegas. Charles, thank you for waiting. Great to have you here. Hello.

CALLER: (garbled audio throughout) Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call. I heard you the first time in 1989 driving from Lake City to my plane in Florida. I fell in love with your voice and more importantly, with the content that comes out of your mouth. So, yeah, I was telling Snerdley that you have low-information voters, but you also have high-disinformation voters.

RUSH: Wait a minute. You say low-information voters and high-information voters?

CALLER: Yeah, the high-disinformation voters are the one that had what the Soviets used to call “disinformacia,” disinformation, which is false information that comes from the Soviets to the populations, and that disinformation was spread out throughout the Soviet empire. (audio glitch) Ronald Reagan used to say that it’s not that liberals are ignorant. It’s that they know a lot of things, but they know a lot of things that are not so. So all this stuff about global warming, about how the Democrats twisted truth, is what the untrust used to call the Stalinist School.

RUSH: Charles, I’m having a real hard time, here. It’s almost impossible to understand you. It’s not your fault. It’s my hearing. I’m having trouble deciphering what you’re saying ’cause of my hearing loss. Your phone sounds very distorted, and I’m just not making out your words. But Snerdley has up here that you wanted to talk about, you have a mixture of low-information voters and high-disinformation voters who get the wrong information on stories from the media, right? That’s basically your point? So what is your point after that?

CALLER: Well, the point is you have these two classes of voters. The one says that doctors (unintelligible) headed, those are the high-information voter. They have information, but the information they have about the Republicans, about what you say is not right information; it’s information that has been falsified. It’s what Leon Trotsky used to call the Stalinist School of Falsification. In socialism, it’s a crime against humanity (unintelligible)

RUSH: All right. Charles, I hope the audience understood, because I didn’t. It’s not your fault. It’s my hearing.


RUSH: Okay, folks, you know, I sit here, I never want to be in a situation where I don’t understand what somebody’s saying because of my hearing. And that’s where I was with the last caller, so I have asked staff who had no trouble understanding his words what he was saying. Here’s the consensus, and the opinions here run the gamut, but we have a consensus. His point was, in addition to the low-information voters, we have an added element to the problem. We have otherwise thought to be intelligent so-called high-information voters, smart people, who were disseminating BS to people, to the low-information voter. And so the low-information voter is not simply low-information because the person is low-information. He’s low-information because of what he’s being fed by the high-information people that are spreading a bunch of BS.

His example after Trotsky and Stalin was the global warming crowd. You have a bunch of people who are scientists, they’re thought to be — and this is part of the game, by the way — brilliant, science, uncorrupted by politics. That’s what everybody thinks and it’s not true, but they think it is. So these people in their white coats, they run around, they talk about all this so-called science in global warming. The low-information people lap it up without questioning it because they don’t question the credibility of these so-called high-information people who are simply engaging in a massive disinformation campaign. Economists do it. Now, this assumes that the high-information people know they’re lying.

Like the global warming crowd, the true believer of science global warming crowd. It’s a good question. Do they really believe this stuff, or are they knowingly engaged in a disinformation campaign? Like the professor at Penn State, Michael Mann, famous for the hockey stick graph, which everybody accepted as incontrovertible proof of warming since the Middle Ages, or explained the Middle Ages warming period and warming sense. So the question is, is this guy knowingly full of it and is simply motivated by politics, or does he believe his own stuff? The same with economists. You know, the anti-capitalist economists. There’s never yet been a successful socialist economy, and yet there are gobs and gobs of socialist economists who are constantly singing its praises, and they are singing these praises to low-information voters who are just eating it all up without questioning it because they don’t question the credibility of these economists or scientists.

His point is you have a lot of accredited high-information people who may not be. I mean a global warming advocate is as wrong as anybody could be about anything, folks. It’s a hoax. There is no manmade global warming. It has been thoroughly debunked. The fact that it’s a hoax has been proven, by them. E-mails that were uncovered at East Anglia University in Great Britain show that they worked together to perpetuate the hoax, that they lied about data, that they eliminate data that contradicted their political belief. So you’d have to assume from that that they are political advocates disguised as scientists who are purposely engaging in misinformation. I think that was his point. I think that was the point he was trying to convey. And it would be easy for me to sit here and say, “I’m sorry, you figure it out. I couldn’t understand it.”

I’m a man of pure context, and I was trying to understand him within the realm, okay, something happened on the program today that’s made him call. What is it? Something has inspired him. What was said earlier that he’s reacting to? And that’s what I couldn’t figure out. So I was asking while I’m trying to listen to him, is this guy just calling off the wall, bouncing off nothing, or is he bouncing off something said earlier? So I was unable to attach a context to what he was saying. When you had written up there in the description of the call you have low-information, high-information, I thought that meant he was gonna talk about the kind of people listening to this program. It’s not what he was talking about at all. He was talking about the kind of people who are in the world.

So I was all off-base trying to attach a context. This is what people that can’t hear have to do. When you can’t understand what somebody’s saying, you try any number of ways to translate it to yourself, and that’s what I was having trouble doing. I just could not relate what he was saying to anything that had happened. So then he was off the wall and I had to do my own inquiry in the break, say, “Okay, what was he talking about?” I think now, having asked some people, that was basically it, and it’s a good point, by the way. It’s not just the low-information people that are the challenge. It’s also the so-called — we call ’em high-information by virtue of reputation. But in truth, are they high-information, or are they simply disinformation specialists? And he was right. I mean, the Soviets and other communist countries are absolutely specialists at this.

But I guess he was distinguishing between uninformed people versus deliberate liars, and a lot that passes for low-information is actually disinformation. He was basically saying our work is doubly cut out for us because it’s not just that we’re dealing with people that aren’t able to understand things. It’s that they’re also being lied to by people who they think have automatic credibility.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This