Thursday 15 December 2022

Is there a place where the Establishment speak truthfully to each other?

Many people realize that They lie to Us; but there is a residual belief that there are places, times or situations in which They tell the truth to each other. 

Such ideas have various levels. It used often to be said that the mainstream newspapers were dishonest; but the 'in house' media such as the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and Economist were basically honest - because (supposedly) in such places They were talking to each other - and the information exchanged need to be valid... 

This may have been true at some point in the past; but has certainly not been true since around the millennium; since when such journals are as deluded as, or even more so than, the rest. 

It seems clear that now there is just as much manipulation and brainwashing going-on among the Establishment; than there is of the masses by the Establishment. 

Yet there is a residual hope that we may discover "what They are really up-to" by examining off-the-record or internal communications; perhaps leaked, illicitly recorded or hacked memos, conversations, or accidental revelations... 

The image is of Machiavellian thinkers who, among themselves, deal with solid facts and reliably tested mechanisms; make explicit plans, and then objectively monitor their outcomes with rigour. 

And who only then invent lies in order to keep these secret and make them more effective.  

This leads to the assumption that when the secret communications are discovered and published, the resulting 'gotcha' will reveal the truth, will undeceive the masses, and thereby undermine and thwart wicked plans.  

But such excited hopes rest on the assumption that They are ever honest; when in reality liars nearly-always lie primarily to themselves - and indeed, self-deception is the basis of other-deception. 

(Furthermore - which is another matter - such hopes rest on an assumption that the masses care mainly about truth, are capable of recognizing the truth, and will adjust their evaluations accordingly.)  

I began to realize that this was a false model as a result of my own inner dealings with bureaucracies and those who head them. I worked in both Regional and District levels of the National Health Service Public Health services; and was a member of a university senior academic committee (Senate); and an editor in a multinational publishing corporation. 

In all of these, expedient untruthfulness was normal, expected, and insisted-upon. Everybody on the inside lied (but deniably - that was the skill of it) to each other, and they lied to their audience. They just lied All The Time!

I also had multiple experiences (and experiences of friends and colleagues) in relation to the conduct of science - which I know had once been a haven of honesty and truth seeking. 

Again, it was clear that - however things had been in the middle 20th century - by the millennium, the relationship between science and truth had been severed and discarded; and - exactly as with other bureaucracies - expedient and deniable untruthfulness was normal, expected and insisted-upon. 

Such experiences gave me the clue that nowadays - no matter how high-up and secret the level one is dealing-with in the Establishment; there is no place or occasion when it is the practice to be honest and where (which is necessary to this) honesty is enforced, and dishonesty exposed, repented explicitly, and sanctioned. 

We ought therefore to be wary of assuming that the latest revelations give us a window into how things really are - whether these come from leaks and hacks, private documents, recorded interactions or whatever. 

These covert sources may reveal Establishment attitudes that They would prefer to keep secret; but then again these attitudes may be faked inter-Establishment bragging, posing, virtue-signaling, or manipulations - rather than genuine revelations of motivations. 

In a world of pervasive dishonesty - truth is not available in public discourse, nor in private discourse among the Establishment

Truth is not Their currency. 

And whatever is connected bureaucratically to the System, shares System imperatives - of which one is that interactions must be untruthful in-line with the currently-dominant ideology. 

And this applies to all the major churches - including those institutional Christian churches that are employers, have workforces, gather in public spaces, have property, pay taxes (or claim exemptions) etc. - just as much as it does elsewhere. 


Poppop said...

Incidentally, you are the first individual I ever read to use the word "rigour" as a synonym for the word "glee".

Two decades ago as I came into my middle-age years, I thought I was oh-so-informed and had it all figured out as I tucked into the Wall Street Journal. Then that venerable newspaper was "purchased" by Murdock and overnight the paradigm shifted. I had never found myself interested in low-brow tabloid publications, and the new WSJ was no exception.

So they (I will not capitalize whom Satan himself deems expendable) have burning it all down for a while now.

Mia said...

Connecting to the prior post a bit, God took me on a very personal journey to see how our church enables and lives lies. It's one thing to hear "racism is a sin" from the pulpit, another to see the *actions* of the church bureaucracy.

I won't offer details that will sound very familiar to you, but the real kicker for me was the *participation* in the lie. They *could* have said "We don't like this, but we have to do it for insurance purposes." Just like they *could* say "There are antichrists running for office, but we can't say who they are because we would lose our tax status and the money is more important than the truth."

Instead they stood up in the sanctuary saying "The #1 priority of children's ministry is safety." Really?! Well, yes, really, because we've never had a meeting about how to say more effectively bring children to Christ, but we have had a meeting about fake food allergen safety! And our personal God laid that all out for me so nicely with my background in both insurance and extreme allergies, it's really remarkable.

It also makes me ponder how I came to change my metaphysical assumptions, because a synchronicity like the above would have been seen as coincidence before. But when I did change assumptions, it was due to an accumulation of evidence- though you could also frame it as the accumulated absurdity of material explanations. And the tipping point was an extremely direct observation of life/death/post-life that materialism can only hand-wave away ("You were too stressed/emotional to be objective, can't trust your senses- except all the times you sensed God was not there, you can trust that!").

But I have always cared about and sought coherence, so perhaps that is the real unshakable assumption. Ever since I was a child I observed a frightening lack of concern with coherence among most people, whether religious or atheist. Anyway, a meandering comment, but perhaps you can make sense of it!

Bruce Charlton said...

Karl has left a new comment

"In Huxley's Brave New World, the witty and urbane World Controller Mustapha Mond invites the heroes into his office to tell them how his concern for the welfare of humanity obliges him to deal with them. In 1984, the Inner Party member O'Brien invites Winston Smith into his office to tell him why and how he is going to crush him."

Bruce Charlton said...

@Mia - Thanks! - Interesting comment.

whitney said...

When O'Brien is interrogating Winston he asked him whether he believes in God and Winston says no and that's the end of the discussion of God but I have always think how differently that book would have gone if he had said yes

Guy Jean said...

Speaking of lies, a commenter on another blog pointed me to Solzhenitsyn's (is that how you spell it?) "Live not by Lies"

Bruce Charlton said...

@GJ -