A Specious Argument

Consider this article for a moment.

I find it curious that an editor for a major newspaper would write something like this.  But then, the Christian Science Monitor is a tattered remnant of the intellectual powerhouse that existed in the seventies and eighties.  Where once it was the most thoughtful and sophisticated of any paper, it is now a happy colored "USA yesterday".  This article drives home the point.

What the article said is that the diplomatic world is a cynical and jaded mess.  Diplomats use each other and journalists like toilet paper, there is only the trust of thieves.  This being the case, us lowly proles must be kept in the dark about this, because somehow we are to unsophisticated to realize that the world is a strange place that is run by deceitful people.

Mr. Yemma gives us an example of a British diplomat (now there is a trustworthy sort).

“When I was a diplomat, I generally had no problem passing information back and forth with colleagues,” he says. “It was a secure system. You could speak freely.” Which requires trust. His job was to try to “build a picture of the world, the likely consequences of actions, and to understand all the perspectives.” You can’t do that if everything you know is automatically made public.

So what Mr Yemma and his diplomatic buddy want us to believe is that only the priesthood of the diplomats, grown out of the fertile soil of privilege of the upper classes and their tokens, are capable of understanding the whole truth.

What Mr Yemma is saying that the only the other priesthood, the journalistic-whores, are worthy of recieving this information and digesting it into the mindless pap that we proles so enjoy.

What Mr Yemma is saying is that truth is only appreciated by others.

The masses can wait for their orders.