People Are Inclined to Believe Only the Truth They Want to Believe
By: David Deschesne
Editor/Publisher
Most people belittle the news media for lying to them. In many cases the mainstream media is lying to them in order to promote an authoritarian government agenda of which they think they will inhabit its hierarchy.
While people say they want the truth to be reported, many don’t really mean it. That is, they only want the truth reported that they consider to be the truth.
Most people in society today are too busy and involved with their work and hobbies to be able to spend any significant amount of time studying and researching the topics they have formed opinions and beliefs on. Instead, they rely on television “news,” mainstream print media, radio D.J.’s, marketing agents and now their Facebook peers to educate them on a topic. That education isn’t always accurate and is oft-times misleading. However, as people form in their minds opinions based upon these skewed facts they begin to envision what they believe the “truth” to be on any given topic. If a media outlet, or even one of their friends espouse a position that is contrary to what they believe, they have been trained to reflexively brand that entity or person as a “conspiracy theorist” or as lying.
Groupthink is an interesting attribute of the social organism. When groups of people gravitate together they tend to do so with people who share and reinforce their views and mindsets. This tendency is then capitalized on by other groups who seek to control societies by controlling the debates of the various groups. Governments, religion, news media and even marketing agents all use groupthink to sell their version of reality. Whether it’s convincing people to accept their own slavery to the corporate oligarchy that owns and operates government, or promoting a particular religious doctrine as the “truth” over all others, all the way down to tempting consumers to purchase a particular electronic gadget, even if it is inferior quality or its effects are detrimental to their health and well-being.
I’ll now break down this use of groupthink and a subjective acceptance of “truth” with some examples.
Government
Government has been in the business of lying to its people ever since there was government. Julius
Caesar blamed Christians for the fire that burned Rome; Hitler set fire to the Reichstag in order to blame the Jews; and the U.S. government allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor (the Feds knew weeks in advance, and the day of the attack that it was going to happen, but allowed it to happen anyway). The Feds then put out the narrative that it was a “surprise” attack in order to convince the American people to participate in a war that created untold billions of dollars in profits to the corporate chieftains who now run the U.S. government. (Okay, Hitler was bad and needed to be stopped. But, where do you think he got the financing to build his empire and massive army to begin with?)
A more modern example of U.S. government capitalizing on groupthink is its involvement in the atrocities on 9/11 in order to blame a concocted Muslim terrorist story and push a hyper-advanced spy grid on the American people called the USA PATRIOT Act and REAL ID.
The World Trade towers were brought to the ground with controlled demolitions—not burning jet fuel—in broad daylight in front of a television audience of millions of people. Yet, the government and its lackeys in the mainstream media prevailed in promoting their message—one that defied all laws of science and physics. To this day, many people still believe the “official” story, but a larger group of breakaway researchers is gaining traction at debunking the government’s false narrative.
People have been duped by their governments since time began because the word from the officials is the “official” story—even if it’s not entirely true. It rarely is.
Religion
Groupthink occurs outside of government as well and religious groups are not immune to it.
One of the world’s oldest religions, Hinduism presented its version of the truth in the Bhagavad-Gita. But that didn’t stop a group of people from breaking away from that religion and forming their own called Buddhism based upon a narrative they deemed to be the truth.
The melting pot of religious ideas consisting of Judaism, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity created a whole slew of new “truths” around the time of Christ. There was the original Judaism. Then, the Gnostic Christianity which had several sects sharing divergent viewpoints, some of which leaned toward Judaism and some toward the more conventional Christianity. Some went off on their own, believing the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are two different gods and that Christ came to save us from the God of the Old Testament. Zoroastrianism and Mithraism were then said to influence the formation of the Christian narrative into the story many Christians accept today.
Later, there was an ideological coup in the Christian community which created the universal—or Catholic—church that by force set down what the “true” word of God was by authorizing a collection of existing writings as the “Bible” and discarding all other Christian beliefs that did not conform to its dogma.
In the 1500s that “truth” was challenged by Martin Luther and the subsequent Protestant Reformation saw a large group of people break away from the Catholic version of truth to adopt their own.
Today, that group of Protestants has also fractured into some 20,000+ different religious ideas. The primary Protestant religious doctrines are; Methodist, Baptist, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Unitarian, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormon, followed by a litany of “non-denominational” and quasi-denominational groups. Each group has its own religious doctrine and each claims its version to be the truth—with all other religious beliefs in error. There’s nothing new under the sun.
The purpose of this part of my editorial is not to determine which religious doctrine is true, but rather to elucidate how societies fracture into groups and individuals then gravitate toward the particular group that they believe to be presenting the truth.
News Media
Governments and religions have to sell their versions of truth in order to attract followers and the for-profit news industry is no different. If you’re a newspaper publisher and you want to present truth that is contrary to what your readers want to believe, you will find yourself losing money very quickly.
For example, the New York Times recently adopted a policy of opening up its pages to more diverse opinions on Global Warming and Climate Change. NYT readers, who are predominantly non-thinking socialists who believe every lie and pipe dream the corporate government chieftains sell to them, were not so ready for a presentation of truth on Climate Change that they did not agree with.
The Times had recently hired Bret Stephens as an editorial contributor. Mr. Stephens does not readily believe the hyperbole about Climate Change being promoted by those in government who would financially benefit from a Carbon Tax and/or Carbon Credit trading scheme.
When Stephens wrote an op-ed on Climate Change showing how it was based upon contrived data and a misreading of statistics, furious readers contacted the Times to cancel their subscriptions. While what Stephens was writing may have been the truth, the irate readers were only interested in reading about “truth” when it reinforced their belief system.
From newspapers to church pews there’s not really a lot of difference. If you’re relying on your adherents to help pay the bills, you better tell them what they want to hear—whether it’s the truth, or not—or they will punish you by taking their money elsewhere. Truth is not a profitable business to be in.
Marketing
Marketing relies almost exclusively on groupthink and identifying groups of people most likely to believe your advertising pitch. Then, once identified, capitalize on those perceptions by offering them products at a nice profit.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with that idea. The animal kingdom uses the same tactics to attract mates (or to repel aggressors) and perpetuate the species. But when it’s a false narrative or perception about a product that has been built up solely for the purpose of financial gain, the use of groupthink becomes malevolent.
I will speak to a topic I am well-versed on and that is sound systems.
As many of you know, I’ve been in the commercial sound system field for thirty years. I’ve built many speaker systems, I’ve taken as many apart and I know about the components that go into those boxes. I know their specifications and what their replacement cost is. What I have found is a particular speaker manufacturer sells their products at a grossly inflated price, more with hype than with actual content.
What follows is simply my observation based upon years of researching speakers systems, how they work and how they are composed—a background most consumer speaker purchasers do not have. What I’m saying is the truth from an objective standpoint based on my experience. I will not name the manufacturer, but suffice it to say they have created the perception in the minds of consumers that they are the “best” speaker system on the market. I’m sure most of you who have heard their hype will know who I’m talking about. However, professional touring groups never specify this brand of speakers for their front of house sound systems—and for good reason.
These wildly popular speakers are constructed using small, under-sized, underpowered speaker components placed in a well-built, sleek-, stylish-looking box. They then rely heavily on electronic processing and box tuning to compensate for the shortcomings of the components. What you end up with is a mediocre speaker system that costs comparatively little to actually build, does not always meet the same specs as its competitors and is priced two or three times higher than the nearest competing speaker manufacturer’s design.
So, why do some people pay over $1,100 to buy a speaker system that performs no better than a $269 system from a competitor? Marketing, that’s why. They’ve been convinced to pay more and since they didn’t invest any time or energy learning about the specs of all the products and doing an objective comparison of the specs, they gladly shell out more money and are as happy as clams. One school here in The County recently paid $5,000 for a set of these speakers for their portable P.A. system when a $500.00 system would have worked just as well. Habit, perceived prestige and bragging rights also plays into the equation.
Whether it’s Bose, or Apple, or HP, Ford, Chevy or GM, consumers are daily barraged with marketing gimmickry and tactics designed to tempt them into purchasing one particular product over another, even if it’s higher-priced and not as good as its competitor, or predecessor. Truth in marketing is an illusion. This illusion is created by the magicians in the public relations and advertising agencies to convince an uneducated public to spend their money in a given direction. The old adage; “A fool and his money are soon parted” has never been more true.
Arriving at the Truth
So, in a world composed of predators attempting to sell their version of truth, how does one arrive at the actual truth?
The first step is to isolate yourself from groupthink. It’s okay to be involved in groups for the social intercourse they offer, but it can be very difficult to keep an open mind in the arena of ideas while still being a member. I said “difficult” but not impossible. Be tactful and respectful.
Secondly, you want to shut the television off and do as much independent research as you can. When it comes to a product, educate yourself on construction techniques, specifications and overall performance. This comes from reading the technical specifications—not advertising and marketing literature. As for history, most of us weren’t alive during the event we study, so reading a wide array of source material and finding the common thread is a very helpful way of determining the truth of the matter
Finally, be skeptical but curious as well. Instead of saying, “That isn’t true!” try saying, “That’s an interesting point,” then see if it can be supported.
These three basic rules may not immediately bring you to the truth of a topic, but they will help isolate you from succumbing to the knee-jerk ideologies of others who have spent far less time researching a topic they believe to be true.
