When Lies Work Better Than Truth
After documenting transactional empathy (Part 1), Stage 2 moral reasoning (Part 2), and asymmetric hypocrisy (Part 3), one question remains: How does this actually work in practice?
The answer is documented. It’s called the “firehose of falsehood,” and it’s a propaganda technique pioneered by authoritarian regimes. Specifically, Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
In 2016, the RAND Corporation published a report analyzing Russian propaganda techniques. They found a systematic approach that prioritizes volume and repetition over truth and consistency.
The same techniques are now being deployed in American politics.
This isn’t speculation. It’s pattern recognition based on documented behavior.
The RAND Corporation’s Putin Playbook
RAND identified key characteristics of modern authoritarian propaganda:
1. High Volume, Multiple Channels – Flood the information environment – Make fact-checking impossible through sheer volume – Use all available media simultaneously
2. Rapid, Continuous, Repetitive – Get your narrative out first – Repeat it constantly – Don’t worry about contradictions
3. No Commitment to Objective Reality – Truth doesn’t matter – Consistency doesn’t matter – Only winning the moment matters
4. No Commitment to Consistency – Offer multiple, contradictory explanations – Let people choose whichever they prefer – Overwhelm rather than persuade
Let’s examine whether these techniques are being used in America.
Technique 1: Accusation in a Mirror (Projection)
The Method: Accuse your opponents of what you’re actually doing. This pre-emptively delegitimizes their accurate accusations against you.
Putin’s Version: – Invades Ukraine – Accuses Ukraine of being Nazis – Claims self-defense while bombing civilians
American Version:
Election Fraud: – Trump attempts to overturn 2020 election – Files 60+ frivolous lawsuits – Pressures state officials to “find votes” – Organizes fake elector scheme – Then claims Democrats stole the election
Pattern: Accuse the other side of the exact thing you’re doing, so when they accurately accuse you, it sounds like “both sides.”
Technique 2: Firehose of Falsehood
The Method: Offer multiple contradictory explanations simultaneously. The goal isn’t to make people believe one—it’s to make them stop trying to figure out what’s true.
Putin’s Version:
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (shot down over Ukraine, 2014): 1. “Ukraine did it” 2. “It was a false flag” 3. “The plane was already full of corpses” 4. “It was shot down by Ukrainian fighter jet” 5. “Actually it was meant to hit Putin’s plane” 6. “CIA did it” 7. “It was a Ukrainian missile”
Seven contradictory explanations. The goal: overwhelm, not persuade.
American Version:
Melissa Hortman murder (Minnesota State Representative, 2025): – Initial (hours after): “Leftist BLM activist killed her” – Next day: “False flag by Democrats” – Week later: “Who? I’m not familiar with her” – Never: Condemnation of the actual right-wing extremist who killed her
Renee Good shooting (Portland, 2026): – Initial: “She ran over federal agent” – Video shows: Agent shot her while she was stopped – Response: Keep repeating original story – Goal: Some will believe the lie, others will just be confused
Pattern: Multiple contradictory narratives, no commitment to truth, only volume.
Technique 3: First-Mover Advantage
The Method: Get your narrative out first, before facts are established. The first story people hear becomes the baseline, and corrections are seen as “changing the story.”
Putin’s Version: – Invade Crimea (February 2014) – Immediately claim “protecting Russian speakers” – By the time international investigation starts, narrative is set
American Version:
Charlie Kirk vs. Melissa Hortman:
Charlie Kirk (killed September 10, 2025): – Within 24 hours: Medal of Freedom announced – Narrative set: Hero, martyr, voice of young conservatives – First-mover advantage: Before any investigation, the story is established
Melissa Hortman (killed October 8, 2025): – Three months later: “Who? I’m not familiar with her” – No immediate response = no narrative control – Opponent fills vacuum: “Leftist killed her” (false) spreads unchecked
Pattern: Rapid response for allies, delayed/no response for opponents. First story wins.
Technique 4: Flooding the Zone
The Method: Create multiple crises simultaneously so fact-checkers and journalists can’t keep up.
Putin’s Version: – Invade Ukraine – Interfere in elections – Poison dissidents – Launch cyberattacks All at once. Which do you investigate first?
American Version:
January 2026 (single week): 1. Venezuela military action threats 2. Iran nuclear facility strike considerations 3. Greenland purchase renewed 4. Renee Good shooting in Portland 5. Minneapolis protest crackdowns 6. Multiple policy reversals
Pattern: So many things happening that journalists can’t thoroughly investigate any one thing. The volume itself becomes the strategy.
Technique 5: Creating Alternative Reality
The Method: Create a completely different narrative that contradicts video evidence. Repeat it so often that your supporters believe it despite proof.
Putin’s Version: – Ukraine: “We’re denazifying Ukraine” – Reality: Bombing civilians, targeting hospitals – Russian state media: Shows only the alternative narrative
American Version:
Renee Good shooting: – Video evidence: Agent shoots woman in stopped car – Official statement: “She ran over federal agent” – Supporters: Believe official statement over video
Iranian vs. Minneapolis protesters (same week, 2026): – Iranian protesters: “Patriots fighting tyranny” – Minneapolis protesters: “Insurrectionists threatening democracy” – Same action: Protesting government – Different labels: Based solely on whether protesters support or oppose Trump
Pattern: Reality doesn’t matter. Only the narrative matters.
Technique 6: Weaponizing “Fake News”
The Method: Attack the arbiters of truth so that when they fact-check you, your supporters dismiss them.
Putin’s Version: – Labels independent media “foreign agents” – Imprisons journalists – Result: No trusted source to verify facts
American Version: – “Enemy of the people” – “Fake news media” – Attacks on fact-checkers – Result: When media fact-checks Trump, supporters dismiss it as “biased”
Effect: Once you destroy trust in shared reality arbiters, all other techniques work better because there’s no agreed-upon method to verify truth.
Why It Works: The Psychology
Here’s the crucial question: Why do these techniques work?
The RAND report explains the cognitive mechanisms:
1. Cognitive Load – Too much information to process – Brain takes shortcuts – First explanation heard becomes default
2. Source Confusion – Can’t remember where you heard something – Multiple sources saying similar things blend together – Volume creates false sense of credibility
3. Illusory Truth Effect – Repeated exposure makes things seem true – “I’ve heard that before” feels like validation – Trump’s 30,000 lies benefited from repetition
But there’s a deeper psychological mechanism that makes it work specifically in partisan politics: Blue Lies and Tribal Truth.
The Missing Piece: Blue Lies
Research from University of Toronto psychologist Kang Lee identified a crucial concept: “Blue lies.”
Types of lies: – White lies: Selfless (protect someone’s feelings) – Black lies: Selfish (benefit yourself at others’ expense) – Blue lies: Told on behalf of your group, against another group
Blue lies are simultaneously: – Selfless (serve the group) – Self-serving (harm the enemy) – Group-strengthening (increase tribal bonds)
From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug.
Why Trump Supporters Accept His Lies
Research from University of Colorado Boulder asked Trump supporters why they support him despite documented lies. The answers reveal the mechanism:
“Moral Flexibility” – Different Standards for In-Group vs. Out-Group:
When shown Trump’s false statements: – Republican response: “It’s OK if it’s not true because it sends the right message” – About Biden: “Every statement needs to be based on facts”
When shown Biden’s false statements: – Democratic response: “It’s OK if it supports a generally true message” – About Trump: “That statement needs to be factual”
Both sides do this. But Republicans do it more systematically and more extremely.
“Belief-Speaking” vs. “Fact-Speaking”
Research analyzing 4 million congressional tweets identified why 75% of Republicans view Trump as “honest” despite 30,000 documented lies:
They distinguish between two types of honesty:
Fact-speaking: Statements that match objective reality
Belief-speaking: Statements that express deeply held tribal truths
Example: – Trump: “A caravan of migrants is invading our southern border” – Fact: No evidence of “invasion” – Republican voters: “It’s true because I believe immigration should be stricter” – Judgment: Trump is being “honest” about his beliefs, even if the facts are wrong
This is why fact-checking doesn’t work:
Researchers found that Trump supporters know the statements are factually false but support them anyway because they express a “deeper truth” aligned with tribal values.
Quote from research: “People are OK with politicians not telling the truth because they see it as morally justified.”
Escalation of Commitment / Cult Dynamics
UC Berkeley research on Trump support identified psychological mechanisms that bind supporters to leaders even when caught lying:
1. Small Escalations – Start with small commitments – Gradually increase stakes – Identity becomes tied to the group
2. Sunk Cost – “I’ve invested so much in supporting him” – Admitting you were wrong = admitting you’ve been a fool – Easier to double down than admit error
3. Social Identity – Fear of letting the group down – Fear of being rejected by the group – Group membership becomes core identity
4. Habituation – First lie is shocking – Tenth lie is expected – Hundredth lie is normal – By 30,000 lies, you don’t even notice
Berkeley Professor Jennifer Chatman: “A person’s immense loyalty is a result of small escalations of personal commitment… They fear that defection would let others down, or that they could be rejected by this group with which their identity has become deeply connected.”
The Existential Threat Narrative
Research found Trump backers have “oversensitive dispositions to detect threat from human out-groups.”
When you believe your group faces an existential threat: – Normal rules don’t apply – Lying becomes justified – Defeating the enemy > telling the truth – Anything is OK if it serves the cause
Former Republican Congressman Denver Riggleman: “The Republican Party sees itself as part of an epic cause and… in their battle, anything is okay, including lying.”
Why This Works for Republicans More Than Democrats
The asymmetry exists because of different group psychology:
Republican Coalition: – More authoritarian personality types – Higher threat sensitivity – Stronger in-group/out-group distinctions – More willing to accept blue lies for the tribe
Democratic Coalition: – More diverse (harder to unify) – More educated (more fact-checking) – More individualistic (less tribal) – Less willing to accept lies even from own leaders
This isn’t about intelligence. It’s about values: – Do you value tribal loyalty or factual truth? – Do you value defeating the enemy or honest discourse? – Do you value group cohesion or individual honesty?
Republicans have increasingly chosen: Tribal loyalty, defeating enemies, group cohesion.
That’s why Putin’s playbook works.
The Asymmetric Lie: Billionaires as Working-Class Champions
This brings us back to the question from Part 3: Why can Republicans be hypocrites and get rewarded while Democrats get punished?
The Facts: – JD Vance: Yale Law, venture capitalist, worked for billionaire Peter Thiel ($10M in backing) – Trump: Literal billionaire, gold toilets, never worked blue-collar job – Vance in 2016: Called Trump “a total fraud exploiting working people” – Trump campaign funded by at least 12 billionaires
Yet: Trump won 40% of union households.
Why?
Because for Republican voters, tribal truth > factual truth.
The tribal truth: “Trump hates the elites I hate”
The factual truth: “Trump IS the elite”
What matters: The tribal truth
Research shows Democratic candidates need actual working-class backgrounds to be credible. A working-class background gives Democratic candidates a 5-7 point bump with working-class voters.
Republican candidates don’t need this. They can be billionaires funded by billionaires and still be seen as working-class champions.
Why the asymmetry?
Democratic voters: Still value factual truth enough to punish hypocrisy
Republican voters: Value tribal truth more, so factual hypocrisy doesn’t matter
This is the mechanism Putin’s playbook depends on:
You can only successfully deploy the “firehose of falsehood” if your audience values tribal loyalty over factual accuracy.
What This Means
These aren’t random lies or normal political spin. This is a systematic deployment of documented authoritarian propaganda techniques that work because of specific psychological mechanisms:
The Techniques: 1. Accusation in a mirror (projection) 2. Firehose of falsehood (multiple contradictory stories) 3. First-mover advantage (control the narrative before facts emerge) 4. Flooding the zone (too much to fact-check) 5. Creating alternative reality (deny video evidence) 6. Weaponizing “fake news” (destroy truth arbiters)
The Psychology That Makes It Work: 1. Blue lies strengthen tribal bonds 2. Moral flexibility (different standards for in-group/out-group) 3. Belief-speaking vs. fact-speaking (tribal truth > factual truth) 4. Escalation of commitment (can’t admit error without losing identity) 5. Existential threat (anything justified to defeat enemy)
The Result: – One coalition values tribal truth over factual truth – Lies work better than honesty for mobilizing that coalition – Fact-checking becomes irrelevant – Shared reality dissolves
This isn’t “both sides lie and voters are stupid.”
This is “one coalition has adopted a psychological framework where lying for the tribe is morally superior to telling the truth, and that framework enables authoritarian propaganda techniques to work.”
That’s not the same thing.
Next in Part 5: What This Means for Democracy – When shared reality dissolves, can democracy survive?
Part 4 of 5 in the “Do Unto Others” series
Sources and Documentation:
RAND Corporation Research: – “The Russian ‘Firehose of Falsehood’ Propaganda Model” (2016) – Christopher Paul and Miriam Matthews – Available: rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
Psychological Research: – University of Colorado Boulder: “Moral flexibility” study (Poskanzer et al., 2024) – University of Toronto: “Blue lies” research (Kang Lee) – UC Berkeley: Trump supporter loyalty dynamics (Chatman) – Northwestern University: Congressional tweet analysis (4 million tweets, 2011-2022) – Political Psychology research: “Processing political misinformation” (PMC5383823)
Blue Lies Research: – Greater Good Science Center, UC Berkeley – “Can the Science of Lying Explain Trump’s Support?”
Fact-Checking Data: – Washington Post Fact Checker: “Bottomless Pinocchio” category created for Trump – Trump made 30,000+ false/misleading claims during presidency (Washington Post database) – PolitiFact analysis: Republicans receive more false ratings (2010-2024, pattern holds even removing Trump)
Working-Class Candidate Research: – Center for Working-Class Politics – Working-class candidates get 5-7 point bump with working-class voters – Analysis of candidates 2010-2024
Trump/Vance Background: – Vance: Yale Law School, Mithril Capital (Peter Thiel), $10M backing – CNN KFile: Vance 2016 quotes calling Trump “fraud,” “America’s Hitler” – Trump 2024 campaign: 12+ billionaire backers – Union household vote: 40% Trump (CNN exit polls)
Event Documentation: – Charlie Kirk: Medal of Freedom announced September 11, 2025 (within 24 hours of death) – Melissa Hortman: Murdered October 8, 2025, Trump “not familiar” response January 2026 – Renee Good: Portland shooting January 2026, video evidence contradicts official account – Iranian vs. Minneapolis protesters: Same week January 2026, opposite characterizations
Former Officials: – Denver Riggleman (former R-VA congressman): Quote on “epic cause” justifying lies – Multiple Trump administration officials documented in “Beyond the Big Lie” (Bill Adair, 2024)
Fact-Checking Invitation
If any facts in this article are inaccurate, please provide sources and I will correct them immediately. This series is about documented patterns, not partisan narratives. Every claim is checkable. If something is wrong, show me the evidence.
Even that's Odd 
Leave a comment