Animals
-
-
The beach files -
Interesting people - unforgettable faces -
Burma (Myanmar) -
Armenia -
Tadżykistan
The philosophy of truth and deceit; part I – ‘The question of morality’
The Philosophy of Truth and Deceit; Part I – “The question of morality”
Even though I ask the question of morality, what interests me the most is the philosophy of truth and deceit. Perhaps to some people ‘truth’ means everything and nothing at the same time, and perhaps the question itself about what is the truth simply doesn’t make sense? For that reason I prefer to change this very difficult question: ‘what is truth’ into a few questions which might be a little bit easier to answer. Those are: ‘what conditions must be met for a particular statement or information so it could be considered real’, ‘can truth, the same as cheese or wine have its quality’, ‘are people ready and worth to get to know the truth’, and ‘can the same information told in exactly the same way be seen by different people as truth or false’. Also: ‘should the truth be necessarily experienced empirically, and if it shouldn’t, does it mean that truth tends to bend itself towards hypothesis’?
Introduction
In my article I will try to find answers to very difficult questions? I want to find the meaning of truth, what are the different shades of truth and how people react when they hear the truth. Is truth a virtue that lies in human nature, or perhaps truth is inconvenient and hard to accept? Perhaps people feel better and safer living in a constant lie, and perhaps they are not able to live any other way? If truth could be tasted, would it be sweet or maybe bitter; and would it put a smile on someone’s face or maybe it could even cause a heart attack? I’m also wondering what is people’s general approach to those who speak nothing but truth. Are they liked and could they count on gratitude of the public, or they become lonely, hated, poor, ridiculed and even treated with contempt? Do people telling the truth risk their health or even their lives, and why the truth is so hard to accept? Does truth pay off or it is rather the quickest way to losing everything? Can truth be read from body language, or maybe body language can be also misleading because it can be falsified?
Truth and the question of morality
According to the definition, ‘truth’ is a presentation of certain events in accordance to actual facts, but as life keeps on showing me, all events are seen from many points of view, and that’s why given facts maybe real, or not, depending on every observer’s private point of view. Then, such ‘truth’, no matter how consistent with our conscience, needs verification of third parties and evidence that would ultimately help us determine whether the self created ‘truth’ is just a hallucination of our own reality, and it’s compatible with the real facts. As long as the above does not happen, ‘truth” is only the truth of the witness and not the truth based on facts. Especially that kind of ‘truth’, in the hands of a sophisticated regime may just be a convenient shadow covering notorious lies. Following that path, the closest relatives of a lie are: hypocrisy, hope and manipulation; and all those dark qualities of a human nature are linked together with an unbreakable chain of duplicity. A lie however is never safe too, because its biggest enemy is a moral person who wishes to present certain events in accordance to the real facts.
Continuing on that trail even a lie and truth interweaving each other all the time are never totally safe too, because morality has many types. There is a morality of a hyena, morality of a vulture, morality of a wolf, morality of a sheep and morality of a viper. To some extent each of those animals represents a wide range of human natures and each one acts according to their moral standards, at the same time shaping their own picture of ‘true events’ and ‘truth’. Therefore how real is the statement that truth is extremely confusing, and that it is a real luxury in the times of universal manipulation? If so, this means that even the “truest truth” of all arouses suspicion and even greater lack of confidence, but also fear associated with learning the truth! In that case the wormed fruit of honest truths are conspiracy theories, which are the breeding farms of even worse lies; and as a result they breed corruption built on the evil foundation of manipulation with truth, which paves the way to hell.
“Sometimes people do not want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusion to be destroyed.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
Based on the above I put a thesis that the so-called ‘irrefutable evidence’ recognized by court might be in fact only a hypothesis, which to a greater or lesser extent might stand fairly close to the actual events. The sentence itself, or if someone prefers the phrase: ‘pleasing justice’ is in many cases not really justice but only a way of pleasing the existing laws, what doesn’t mean that a particular judicial verdict based on laws of a certain regime is fair and therefore truthful. The very word ‘justice’ leads back my interest towards the word ‘morality’, but being more precise I would like to concentrate on different forms of pseudo-morality.
As my example I’m going to discuss rape, which is a global plague and exists in all cultures of the world. Let’s imagine that we can move one person in space and time to various countries around the world. Still however, because of assimilation to the surroundings it is a person of a different culture who has to obey different laws, and each time he was brought up by the ‘moral standards’ of that country. All the incarnations of the same person combines one fact: every time our character is a detective but also a husband, a father of three children and a mortgage payer. His job is to solve a rape case, and he always wants do it as well as he can, taking into account local laws but also his morality, which requires him to honestly search for the truth.
Let’s see then how much is worth the morality of a seemingly righteous man, and whether he is able to fight for the truth:
Example no 1
Our character is a detective assigned to a rape case in Saudi Arabia. Young girl aged 16 was raped by her neighbour in a side street, when she went to a local shop to buy milk. She was raped because she smiled to someone she knew, and whilst improving her hair she pulled back her shawl, what gave an impression of sexual invitation. Photos from the case show clear evidence that she was beaten and mutilated with a knife, and the victim also complained of pain in and around her genitals.
According to Sharia law which is in force in many Muslim countries, women are to blame for rape unless they are able to introduce four male witnesses, and only Muslims who would be ready to testify against the violators. The most prominent Muslim clerics compare uncovered women to meat, which is left on the street to be eaten by cats. According to Australia’s top imam Sheik Halali Tajudd, Muslim rapists terrorizing Western women are innocent, because raping them is their right given to them by Allah, and according to Sharia law for ‘inappropriate behaviour’ and for ‘inappropriate clothing’ women should be raped.
The Koran states very clearly that women are ‘Avrah’, what in Arabic means ‘external genitals’, and for that reason if they are uncovered and exposed to men in any way, it is like leaving meat in a park. Is it a fault of a cat that he ate meat left uncovered in a park – asks the Muslim cleric? Meanwhile the raped woman insists that she is innocent, but it doesn’t help because the Islamic system is based on Sharia, which at its core imposes brutal corporal punishment and guilt judged in advance. According to Sharia law that woman was ‘halal’ of the rapist. The same was with ‘prophet’ Mohamed, who used to rape his slaves because they were his spoils of war. Those raped women were also his ‘halal’, and his gifts from Allah.
The Philosophy of Truth and Deceit. What is morality?
The whole case of course freezes blood in people’s veins, but to Muslims it is just ‘another day in the office’. Because of the law based on Islam our detective is not able to do anything, even though (let’s assume) he is honestly sorry for that poor girl. Investigation of that rape shows me very clearly, that in this case justice exists only to satisfy the system, and not the rape victim. This means that no-one is even interested in the truth. The rapist is not going to prison or to court because he’s just ‘a cat who ate a piece of meat left outside’, and the genuine victim gets 100 lashes. In the eyes of Saudis the ruling was as fair as possible, despite the obvious fact that the rape took place. No one has any doubt about it, but with such law, is morality of those who make those laws, or the truth itself worth anything? Those who created that law have morality of wolves, the rapist has morality of a vulture, and the victim has morality of a sheep. As a result the truth doesn’t have any value at all, and our detective who honestly wanted to fight for the truth would put himself in a very dangerous situation if he stood up to the system. At the same time we should also note that in this case a sentence in accordance with truth and conscience could be too dangerous for the ‘sacred’ Sharia law, because it would mean a political and religious earthquake, which Saudis are not prepared for. The truth here would have fatal consequences for the Islamic regime based on Wahhabism (to put it mildly: the ultra-radical version of Islam).
“When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom profit that loses.”
Shirley Chisholm
Example no 2
This time our detective is assigned to a rape case in a small English town of Rotheram, although it could be just as well Birmingham or any part of London controlled by the left-wing Labour Party, and thus conquered by Muslims. Rape of British women and even children is so common in those areas that if the police really wanted to bring things to order, it would have to arrest majority of Muslims. However, the police commander receives a fax from the Labour Party that he is not allowed to do anything to stop the rapes, to not to offend Muslim voters, because to a very large extent the existence of Labour depends on Muslims.
As per instructions police does not interrogate the Muslim perpetrators but the English rape victims instead, and convinces them to refrain from giving evidence to not to cause ‘racial clashes’. Apart from that all the victims come from very poor families and they live in council houses provided to them by the Labour Party. Instantly the victims are also contacted by a Labour MP, who tells the raped women about difficult situation in the housing market, but on the other hand he also tells them that he will do anything to help them to stay in their flats, but only on the condition that they would make a deal with Labour and remain silent. The same Labour MP also calls our detective and advises him to destroy all evidence concerning those rapes, what he under the threat of dismissal, defamation and ruining his career of course does as instructed.
This time we are dealing with the same kind of crime, but there is one big difference. This time it happened in the so-called ‘civilized country’, where morality and justice are better, but just on the surface. The same as in the previous example in Saudi Arabia, this time the victims in England are not only rape victims but also the victims of the system, and ultimately because of those terrible crimes they are the only ones who suffer from the beginning right to the end. However, if our political detective acted according to his morality and if he arrested the Muslim rapists anyway, and then if he publicized those cases so crimes like that would not happen for a long time, than sooner or later he would be fired because of his hostility towards the Marxist regime …. even though that by telling the truth he could save innocent women and children. Unfortunately just as it was in the case of Saudi Arabia, also in England our detective decided to give up without hesitation for his own benefits, which could be achieved only by not entering into conflict with the Marxist apparatus.
In this case the law has morality of a hyena, the rapists have morality of vultures, the police officer has morality of a viper, and the victim still has morality of a sheep. This tells me very clearly that the truth is inconvenient, and for many the truth is harmful. In the world where sooner or later sheep have their throats cut anyway, truth is also very unprofitable. From the lawmaker’s point of view, who are nothing more than hyenas, the victim will be always just a carrion. For that reason it doesn’t make any sense to resurrect a dead issue, especially that death can become a source of profit, just by sweeping the truth under the carpet.
After comparing example no. 2 with example no. 1 I’ve come to an opinion that morality of English people who generally consider themselves to be superior to others is not better than morality of Arabs, even though they like to criticize them so viciously. The English morality is only better on the surface, because the official law in England concerning rape is really different than the one in Saudi Arabia. However, when we look more carefully just at the end of the whole case, then regardless of the cultural and legal differences between the two countries, the English morality and Arabic morality in relation to sheep with slit throats fit together like a hand into a glove. This is exactly what I meant before, by saying that the closest relatives of a lie are hypocrisy, duplicity, manipulation and corruption. In those two systems there is simply no place for truth and no-one even wants to ask for it, especially the a close relative of truth is justice, and that one could seriously shake the whole system built on a lie. Lie in this case, the same as in the previous one is only an illusion of security, and the art that English people have mastered to perfection: ‘When Muslims spit into English people’s faces, the English just smile and pretend that it’s raining!
“In times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
George Orwell
Example no 3
In the eternal war zone of Africa the tragic tradition is that Negroes and Muslims kidnap young girls, and force them to convert to Islam and then to marriage. Such situation occurred in a rat hole called Chibok in southern Nigeria, where the extremist terrorist organization Boko Haram kidnapped 276 young girls from a Christian school, and then sold most of them to the fighters for Islam for $12 each. Some people might think that this is not a racial issue but only a problem with Islam, but in my opinion the inferiority of the Negro race and the inferiority of their pseudo-culture, especially driven by Islam is their common problem.
For example in Kenya and in other parts of Africa there is such custom where a Negro kidnaps a young girl, ties her up and rapes her until she becomes pregnant, so the girl’s father could agree to marry her. In the Congo and in Sierra Leone, but also in many other African countries which have been ravaged by war, rape is a way of life of the army, police and civilians. Just in the Congo alone there about 400,000 rapes per year, what means that this is the number of children born in the Congo each year purely because of rape, and many of them are HIV positive from birth .
In the example no. 3 it is very hard to even raise a question of morality, but I believe that despite the huge differences in the level of civilization, technology and economy, based on the given examples the relationship between rapists, victims and police is exactly the same as in England or in Saudi Arabia, because they have exactly the same moralities. Regardless of whether it is an Islamist of Boko Haram, a policeman from Somalia or a lone Negro from Kenya hunting for an easy rape object, every time the attacker has morality of a hyena because he attacks those who are unable to fight, defenseless victim has morality of sheep, and police and politicians have morality of a viper and a vulture.
The fall of morality
For that reason all women from the above mentioned countries (victims of rape or not) should reflect on their expectations with regard to the real guarantees offered to them by the ‘justice system’, and more importantly they should also ask themselves whether the current ‘justice system’ is not more than just a collective hallucination. Experiences from the past should therefore provide the best image of justice with regard to the future crimes and criminal hot spots, based on race and culture. That truth based on experiences should always provide guidance, without blind faith in the manipulative system.
It seems that places so different from each other geographically and culturally like England, Saudi Arabia or Nigeria would put a victim in a different light, because of different laws or lack of those laws. In spite of those differences in each case it turns out that the law treats an offender better than a victim. In England rape victims are threatened because of political correctness, in Saudi Arabia victims are ‘guilty’ because of Sharia law, and in Africa victim doesn’t have any rights because the law is based on lawlessness. What’s interesting, reporting such crime to the police would automatically exclude women from the society.
The obvious truth is that whatever the system, the victims were always victims and they should be comforted in some way and that a violator should be punished, but for various reasons it is also true that regardless of the cultural and racial circles of those crimes the truth is silenced. This means that in order to maintain the illusion of security and the fiction called justice, the virtues such as morality or truth are the biggest enemies of states and their societies. Besides, people don’t want to hear the truth because truth would cause panic, fear of the unknown, and probably also financial losses of the ruling class.
The worst thing about being lied to is knowing that you weren’t worth to know the truth.
I could give more examples of that kind from the US, France, Germany or the nearby Sweden. Over there the problem is based on the same, politically correct terms as in England, but it might be even more extreme. Therefore in my understanding victim is not a victim only ones, because first a woman is a victim of rape and then she’s a victim of the system. In my opinion moral and fair in such case would be only revenge in a form of murder with cold blood. Only a cold blooded execution of the criminal and legislative element of morality of hyenas and vipers would fulfill the ultimate truth, and it would help to transition the victim’s morality of a sheep into a predator of morality of a wolf.
Are you like Dorian Gray?
Unfortunately many of us are like Dorian Gray from the philosophical novel by Oscar Wilde. Dorian Gray was young, handsome, eloquent, nice on the surface – but with a soul so disgusting and narcissistic, that on the way to unsurpassed perfection and pleasures he was capable of the worst deeds. Sometimes it is about a weak soul susceptible to bad advisers, and sometimes the lack of morality comes from simple indifference, because the stomach is full and the glass is always full. Does humanity have to be like that?
TAGS
