The philosophy of truth and deceit; part II – “Political lies as a way of manipulation of logical thinking”
The philosophy of truth and deceit; part II – “Political lies as a way of manipulation of logical thinking”
If people believe mainstream media and they don’t bother to question the words of the political apparatus of power, it means that such nation has ceased to fight for its rights and has become a nation of subjects. Every sentence of the political elite should be discussed and should be a subject to open and reasonable criticism, because otherwise the political elite could lie at will without taking any responsibility. People live according to the established order and they don’t want anyone to destroy that order; to simply maintain their illusion of safety and justice. Most people think that they are able to think logically, but unfortunately they don’t realize, that: logic of the political elite is transmitted to its nation in a manipulative way!
Despite so many factors dictating us a common belief that everything is a lie, there are still things that are commonly known as obvious truths. They are undeniable truths, visible to everyone, regardless of education, origin or culture. Still, even so we still enjoy lying to ourselves, we like finding excuses, euphemisms and generalizations in relation to certain activities. No one would deny that grass is green or that snow is white, although even that is not entirely true because dry grass is brown and snow on the road is black. The obvious truth is also that Warsaw is the Polish capital and the capital city of England is not Paris. On the other hand truth of that kind doesn’t have any value, and that’s why I would not even call it truth. The above examples only function in sentences as confirmations or denials of basic knowledge, while truth needs to be analysed. Truth should be never confused with an ordinary statement, which fills a sentence to describe activities performed by the subject. The fact that Kate cleans her red bicycle is just a statement, the eye-witnessed activity being performed by a particular person. However, once again a statement of such type does not require analysis, and for that reason it should not be included in the criteria of truth.
Half truth + half truth = whole lie
In contrast to the above, admitting truth in political matters requires great courage, especially that it could mean admitting to living in a lie throughout the one’s entire life. Naturally admitting the truth doesn’t only completely destroy someone’s artificial sense of security, but what is even worse, it leads to degradation of one’s intellectual level in case of honest believes in obvious lies. Thus admitting the truth, even in obvious but very important issues is a great challenge for people and a major step forward, whilst for others it may be a cause of depression. Lies and emerging from lies laziness and apathy result in lack of action, what means that they are very convenient, because they don’t force to any challenges and they lead to mental vegetation. They also give faith in the sense of political changes, which deep inside tell us that they don’t make any sense, that they are harmful and they lead to destruction of something which we should find priceless. Despite that we still prefer to lie to ourselves by excusing our apathy with a lack of interest in politics, as if it didn’t have any influence on us…..but it does. It is therefore just another, temporarily convenient lie acting against the self-deceiving voters. However, a constantly self-deceiving nation does not realize that by lying to itself it creates a political soap bubble, which one day would either explode or engulf that nation to such an extent, that it would surely suffocate it to death. Either way the result of collective denial of truth or lack of willingness to search and fight for it would always be fatal for the nation of great pretenders.
„There’s plot in this country to enslave every man, woman and child. Before I leave this high and noble office, I intend to expose this plot”.
President John F. Kennedy, 7 days before his assassination
Manipulation of logical thinking
If people believe mainstream media and they don’t bother to question the words of the political apparatus of power, it means that such nation has ceased to fight for its rights and has become a nation of subjects. Every sentence of the political elite should be discussed and should be a subject to open and reasonable criticism, because otherwise the political elite can lie at will without taking any responsibility. People have that mental feature that they usually operate by using simple sentences, which limit their lives to simple functions, such as for example: let’s do shopping, let’s watch TV or let’s pour another beer; but hardly anyone ever wonders how to grow hop and how it has to be processed to produce beer. I also suspect that not many people have wondered how to cultivate hop in their own garden. When we order a pint of beer we don’t ask questions, and we believe that this is the drink that we pay for, and without demanding any evidence we also believe that it doesn’t have any harmful substances. This is because people are good and honest by nature to a certain degree, and that’s why they want to treat their political elites in exactly the same way. Of course we could ask such questions but what for, if they would only give birth to even more questions which would require a much deeper verification of our own accusations. First one half of a nation would have to prove itself that what they say is true, and the other half that it’s a lie, and each of those populations would have to find their own thesis or hypothesis proving their ‘irrefutable evidence’. I therefore conclude that if people blindly believe the information which they can’t investigate, such as: global warming or the solar system; it is much easier for them to accept our leader’s policies, and it doesn’t matter whether they have double or even triple depths or not.
“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.”
Edgar Allan Poe
In my opinion understanding truth in the sense of assuming that something is real is connected with the fact, that people live according to the established order and they don’t want anyone to destroy that order. Typically, a country is ruled by a president or a prime minister, and this is what people want to believe in. They want to believe that their leader wants all the best for them, and that he works in their business. It is very hard for people to get used to the ‘other truth’, that perhaps someone else has the real power, and that president or the prime minister is just a fake puppet master. If this was somehow possible than the full acceptance of the new reality would take years. Besides, most people think that they are able to think logically, but unfortunately they don’t realize, that: logic of the political elite is transmitted to its nation in a manipulative way!
What is logic
According to the popular definition logic is the ability of sober reasoning, drawing conclusions and justifying statements. On the other hand, for political reasons the muzzle of democratic freedom forgets to mention that logic should be also based on analysis of one’s reasoning, and someone else’s ability to draw conclusions. In politics this should lead to forcing the elite in power to reason their statements and decisions as valuable, honest and resulting from logical thinking. Manipulation with logic is very easy in both trivial and difficult issues, both in private matters and professional. Those are all commonly known mistakes which frequently arise from failure to listen, lack of concentration, laziness, generalization, ease at swallowing propaganda, and from pretending that we are experts at something what we have absolutely no idea about. For the political apparatus of power human nature is a magical sphere where their dreams come true, because it gives them unlimited monopoly on fraud and deceit.
The first example I’m going to give is deductive logic, which takes into account reasoning based on theories and reliable hypotheses. To some people specific arguments may sound like ‘irrefutable evidence’, and for that reason deduction is often considered to be the kind of logic which leads to truth. This is the logic that uses accurate and specific theories and formulas, and which with the help of common sense leads to precise conclusion. However, in my opinion this kind of logic even without a will of falsification does not guarantee us the truth. Because of its closed criterias it may be even harmful. That’s why I deny deductive logic as the one which guarantees the truth. Logical reasoning in this case is perfectly possible if a certain generalization is true, but on the other hand logical reasoning is also possible if it only looks real … but it is in fact false.
- All dogs have a very good sense of smell. Your dog Azor is a dog, that’s why deductive logic tells me that Azor who is a dog has a very good sense of smell.
This kind of reasoning is very logical and often true, but in my opinion the drawback of deduction lies in its quick generalization, what means that despite of correct inference our statement is not always true. In this case Azor is 18 years old, he is chronically ill, he sneezes and he coughs and if that wasn’t enough for Azor, his lady owner uses very strong perfumes. This means that all those things taken together have led to huge weakening of Azor’s sense of smell. Even though the conclusion itself is very reasonable and logical, this example is showing us that even if deductive logic leads us to a precise conclusion, it does not necessarily mean that it is the truth?
- History puts the Nazis in a very bad light and Jewish media doesn’t let us forget about all the terrible crimes they committed. Therefore based on the mainstream history and our conscience, deductive logic leads us to a consistent and correct conclusion that every Nazi is definitely a very bad man, and Nazism is the worst system of all.
An average person does not take into account that Oscar Schindler saved a lot of Jews and Erwin Rommel (Desert Fox) enjoyed a positive recognition and respect not only in the eyes of his allies but also in the eyes of his enemies, including Churchill. To this day there are streets in Germany named after him. Moreover, in the current political circumstances when native Europeans are an ethnic minority in European cities, perhaps Nazism is the system which would bring balance. Once again, deductive logic which leads us to a precise conclusion, in my opinion does not always guarantee the truth because in this case we limit ourselves only to history. According to experts in the field of logic, its deductive kind is the one which leads to precise conclusion, but according to me it is not the case, because in my understanding the word ‘precise’ refers not only to accuracy, but also to being in accordance with facts and the circumstances after those facts.
As we can see by the example of Nazis, deductive logic has led us to a logical and apparently truthful conclusion, but after a more careful consideration of the current events we start to see our conclusion to be the truth of quite a low quality. History is written by the victors, and the Allies were no better than the Nazis during the war – and after the war.
As we can see deductive logic also can’t guarantee us truth, and not only because of a message itself or a manipulative form of communication, but also because of consumers’ reasoning. The consumers often don’t even make the effort to ask for a detailed explanation, in order to make the final opinion which would be the most compatible with truth. I believe that logic focuses too much on logical reasoning rather than on search for the ultimate truth, what means that subject feels satisfied as long as he can fulfill his logical reasoning, but not necessarily the truth. The exceptions here are only in the types of information which are obvious to such a point, that they insult our intelligence, such as deductive inference that: “Every woman has breast. This means that the neighbour’s wife has breast too because she’s a woman.”
Another example is inductive logic, which takes into account specific information, on the basis which a subject builds his own generalization of events within the limits of his observation. The conclusion may be quite possible but not necessarily truthful. I call this kind of logic the intuitive logic, which is a life saving help for politicians, especially that people as a nation (not individuals) necessarily want to believe in something, and they usually conclude the easiest and at the same time perfectly logical, but not necessarily the true version of events. Inference based on inductive logic is based on repeated experiences, generalizations, created routines and the generally accepted, popular habits and observations. In the process of logical reasoning they form explanations, and thus theories which can be real or false.
- The use of condoms is very popular because it protects against sexually transmitted diseases, and it prevents unwanted pregnancies. Many women use them around the world. Our inductive reasoning could tell us that Anna is not pregnant and does not have venereal diseases because she probably uses condoms.
However, inductive reasoning is wrong because we don’t suspect that Anna is a virgin, who also wants to become a Catholic nun. Anna has therefore never found herself in a situation to get pregnant. This means that in this example condoms have nothing to do with her condition. On the other hand Anna could lie to us, because it is possible that she avoids pregnancy through using condoms, or maybe Anna simply can’t have children and she doesn’t need condoms, even though she has a boyfriend.
- When the CIA and Mossad blew up the World Trade Centre together to then cash in on the numerous wars and destabilization of Muslim countries, America officially began the war on terror. Since then the terrorist Judeo-American government has started propaganda involving the creation of an enemy which simply didn’t exist; and not just so American people could live in fear and give up themselves easier to an absolute control, but also so that Muslim countries could lay in ruins, to favour Israel. The official story served by Jews to the brainwashed Western societies is a good way of showing inductive reasoning, which in this case is based on poor intelligence of Western nations, and acceptance of absolutely anything. Once the Two Towers collapsed (blown up from the bottom by the way), President Bush and his British partner in crime Tony Blair created a story, that poor Saddam Hussein from poor Iraq had ‘weapons of mass destruction’, and of course the only thing the he apparently desired was to blow up America and Britain to the sky.
“You can run away from the truth but you will never hide from it.”
Inductive logic of the infinitely naive American and British societies prompted them two major things: first, that their governments were telling the truth, and that secondly it was necessary to take away the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ from Saddam, or destroy him because only such move could keep them safe. The American and British nations which have absolutely nothing to say and which live in the myth of democracy, could not have concluded that the source of the whole problem lied in their own countries, and not in Iraq. Even if Saddam would have had such weapons, it would have had nothing to do with attack on the West, if the provocation which was the propaganda of war had not come from America. Thus ensuring security of the West was irrelevant of whether Saddam had weapons or not, especially that countries such as Pakistan, China and Russia have nuclear weapons and the West accepts that without living in fear or panic. Besides, eventual plane crash with a skyscraper had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, but nations of sheep really wanted to believe what the government was telling them. The propaganda of fear grew to the point of collective hypnosis. A lot of Muslims are indeed proven terrorists, what means that in this case inductive logic was satisfactory on the adopted assumptions, and later on a logical conclusion that Saddam could have had those weapons and wanted to blow up America, because he was a Muslim.
Coming back just to plane itself, why the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ were not installed on that plane, if apparently it was such a great opportunity for Muslims to weaken America? Unfortunately Americans did not reach the sufficient level of intelligence to ask that question, although this time it is my own generalization based on my own observations of that nation. (By the way, in the 90s during the reign of Saddam Iraq was as a safe country for European tourists, and all the hostile to each other minorities used to live in peace thanks to the strong hand of Saddam.)
In science there is a constant relationship between inductive reasoning (based on observation) and deductive reasoning (based on theories). Both those methods of logical inference only bring us closer to the ‘truth’, but they don’t guarantee it.
Another form of logical reasoning is called abductive logic, which differs from both deductive and inductive reasoning. Abductive logic is based on incomplete observations and incomplete evidence, which create an incomplete picture leading to the most probable string of events. Abductive logic is therefore reasoning based on studies and tests, and generally available hypotheses. Abductive logic is therefore used in those cases which lack clear explanations. It is used by detectives, judges and doctors, so everywhere where the verdict or diagnosis is not always certain, but based on the gathered information it is most likely to be true. In other words abductive logic is intuitive reasoning involving educational guessing, based on evidence of average quality, by creating the most rational hypotheses.
I also call abductive reasoning the logic of Sherlock Holmes.
Unknown perpetrator shot a woman in her own home.
1. There is no sign of forced entry. This means that the victim probably knew the killer and she let him into the house.
2. The main suspect is her husband, which according to the testimony given by the neighbours, the victim lived in separation with him, but they still saw each other occasionally and they often argued.
3. According to the evidence that the police was able to gather, it appears that the victim owed the suspect certain amount of money.
4. According to the testimony of the victim’s friends, the victim lived in the suspect’s house, what he might not have liked.
5. There are a lot of fingerprints of the suspect in the victim’s house and his personal belongings, but also traces of his semen in the victim’s vagina. Neighbours testified that the victim sometimes screamed as if she was going to die.
6. In the victim’s house there are also empty bullet shells, which match the suspect’s gun.
7. It was raining on the night of the murder, what left clear tire tracks in the driveway, matching the suspect’s car.
8. In front of the victim’s house police found an empty bottle of whiskey, and they also found paint from the suspect’s car on the victim’s fence, what might have made the suspect aggressive and push him to murder.
9. Both the neighbours and the grieving friends testified without any doubt that the suspect liked drinking, he was a bad driver, he always had a shotgun in his car, and in the opinion of the victim’s friends the suspect was in general quite aggressive.
10. In addition, in the night when the murder took place the suspect wasn’t seen by anyone, what means that he doesn’t have any alibi, and on top of that the suspect bought a plane ticket to Argentina for 6 am for that unfortunate night.
Considering all the evidence the police and the judge who sentenced the suspect to death had both no doubt that the perpetrator of the murder was brought to justice. Although no one saw how the suspect pulled the trigger, abdactive reasoning based in this case on collecting evidence led police to the most probable picture of events. The police was also fully professional and showed logical thinking, because when they put the whole puzzle of evidence into one piece, there was no doubt that it was the victim’s husband that was the murderer. This also means that the police felt satisfied with seeking the truth, and didn’t want to look any further.
But does logical thinking based on evidence and rational reasoning always lead to the truth? Well, let’s see who really killed that woman and why.
“So many women meet wrong men because wrong men say the right words.”
Unknown perpetrator shot a woman in her own home (the other side of the mirror)
1a. Keys to the victims’ house had her husband, but also her cleaner and her gardener, whose job was also to fix small things around the house. The victim didn’t tell anyone about them, and the neighbours never saw them.
2a. The main suspect is the victim’s husband, but actually the victim didn’t live with the suspect in full separation. They rarely saw each other because of the suspect’s work and they sometimes argued loudly, because the wife wanted to have her husband at home more often. On the other hand the neighbours heard the suspect only when he was shouting, but never when he was giving her a full body massage.
3a. The victim owed the suspect some money but it wasn’t a fortune worth killing for. The good husband to his wife helped her to pay for her college, and they already agreed about the repayments.
4a. The suspect never liked the victim’s friends and he threw them out of the house a few times. After several loud arguments between him and his wife, it seemed to her friends that he wanted to throw her out of the house too.
5a. The suspect actually lived on and off in the place of the murder, and that’s why there are a lot of his things over there and naturally his fingerprints too. When he appeared at home once a month the wife was screaming at night …. out of joy.
6a. The suspect was a member of a hunting club, he had a shotgun certificate and used a very popular rifle used by hunters. Of course every time he went to work he used to leave his gun at home.
7a. It was raining quite often, that’s why his tire tracks have been there for a long time.
8a. The suspect liked whiskey but the victim liked it too. Once, when the victim got drunk and she started arguing with her husband, she kicked him out of his house and she even threw a bottle at him, when he was opening his car. Because the suspect was driving after a few glasses of whiskey and he was upset by his wife, he scratched his car over the fence. When he finally left, the victim was still alive and she was doing very well.
9a. All of the above is true. The suspect liked to drink, he was a bad driver, very often he was driving with a shotgun because he had the right to do so. Once he even gave his neighbour a black eye, because he was putting his nose into someone else’s business.
10a. The suspect was a loner and no one liked him, so he replaced social life with lonely trips to exotic countries.
I’m sure that this time my readers have serious doubts if logical reasoning based on abductive inference leads to the truth? In the second part of the murder case all the evidence and testimonies made by the witnesses already stand on a slimy ground. My readers are now wondering if despite the whole puzzle showing evidence against the victim’s husband if he is the actual murderer? Perhaps it was the gardener who killed, because he also had keys to the victim’s house? Such hypothesis is also very reasonable!
So let’s find out who really killed that woman.
Well, we didn’t know that the cleaner and the gardener were married, and only by an accident that woman (cleaner) learned that her husband (gardener) was sleeping with her boss (the victim), when the husband of the victim (the suspect) was in delegation, and when she (the cleaner) cleaned other houses. At this point, did the gardener still have a motive to kill the beautiful victim, who gave him so much pleasure? Well, the ugly cleaner was insanely jealous of her husband (gardener), and after the suspect was kicked out of his own house by the victim, and after he was thrown a bottle of whiskey into his face and after he scratched his car over the fence, he went quickly to the airport to catch the flight to Argentina, which he planned for a long time. Moments later the cleaning lady entered the victim’s home, she grabbed the suspect’s shotgun and she killed her husband’s lover (gardener’s lover). Meantime the neighbours heard a gunshot, and they instantly rang the police to report that the victim’s husband ‘ran away in a hurry’. Soon after the innocent man was arrested and sentenced to death. The gardener went through honest pain when he found out that his lover was found dead, but soon after he was also found dead in his own home, because he had epilepsy and drowned in his bathtub. According to the police the gardener (victim’s lover) got drunk with whiskey and he drowned in his bathtub, while his wife (cleaner) went shopping with her friends. According to the testimony of his wife (cleaner), the fresh wound that he had on his head was caused by a fall from the stairs, which could have been the result of epileptic seisure. Now we at last know that the motive of this crime was jealousy and betrayal. However, based on the evidence and testimonies it was not known to the police, nor to the judge, nor to anyone apart from the woman (cleaner) who murdered. The crowd of neighbours, on the other hand, was ready to lynch the suspect, as no one liked him anyway. Abductive logic can therefore lead us to tragic lies and enormous harm of many.
My example describing abductive logic could be always shown in different details, because all those characters are just pawns, and that’s why each one of them can be sacrificed without any regret. In the opinion of the players (chief banker & chief media tycoon) all those pawns wear number “0” on their backs anyway. Let’s imagine that our murder scene is a chess board representing the ruthless global market. The victim, the suspect and the witnesses are all nationals of two randomly chosen neighbouring countries, while the police and the judge are the governments of those countries, which are occupied by internal enemies, whose only task is to act against their citizens. This means that if a country A attacks country B in any way, the public gets information satisfying logical thinking based on artificially created, seemingly credible evidence. The public however never gets to know the truth, while the internal enemy still remains and feels fulfilled.