"'In view of the tensions, instabilities, and falsehoods that have become so prevalent, the judgment was that an announcement at this stage would be premature and might well have unfortunate consequences.'" (p. 249)
We will learn that the cybercosm is not only withholding information but also preparing a historical deception. Thus, its moral authority on the matter of public announcements will be entirely discredited. But, before reaching that stage, what are the rights and wrongs of public announcements? When Krishnamurti and some of his friends first heard that "Gandhiji has been shot dead!," the first question that one of them asked was: "Was it a Muslim or a Hindu that shot him?" The riots would have been even more extensive and violent if it had been a Muslim so, if it had been a Muslim, would it have been right to withhold that information? We can think of many situations where the truth would be a problem.
11 comments:
There's the question of credibility. Besides, what people do with accurate data is their problem, really.
Kaor, Paul!
Your comments here reminded me of how here, in the US, there is increasing anger and disbelief in the bungling policies of "Josip" and his Democrats. About 70 percent of Americans don't believe in his absurd claims that his "Build Back Better" bill, pouring another two trillion inflated dollars into the economy will make inflation "transitory" or magically resolve supply chain disruptions.
Also, I don't believe, if Gandhi's assassin had been a Muslim, it would have been possible to hush that up. The chaos and instability in India, as the Raj neared its end, would have made such a hushing up even less likely.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Withholding the information would have been impossible which makes the question of whether to withhold it impossible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly, but you did raise the question, so I gave the obvious response.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That was an easy answer but the question remains valid across a wide range of examples. In Ireland, clerical paedophilia was concealed in order to protect the Church.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I've said it before, the best way to protect the Church would have been, while also taking steps against false accusations, to expose the rot all at once. That is, anyone accused of pedopnilia would have been suspended from any offices or positions of trust while investigations proceeded to determine the the truth of such charges. Because there have been cases of false accusations by the malicious.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I agree with that. We can probably think of other examples where there is a dilemma about whether to tell the truth.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Good! We can agree on something once in a while! I had the late Cardinal George of Chicago as one example of a falsely accused clergyman or bishop. His accuser eventually confessed to having lied.
Ad astra! Sean
One of the merits of the American system of government is that it leaks like a sieve. It’s just terrible at keeping secrets. This has drawbacks, but it is positive on balance, IMHO.
As an aside, that indicates the basic fatuity of conspiratorial thinking, which sees well-kept secrets everywhere.
Secrets that are very well-kept but nevertheless fully known by the conspiracy theorists!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
On balance, I agree it's better that the US Gov't be so terrible at keeping secrets. It helps to control and lessen corruption and abuses of power.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment