Table of Contents
Chapter 24, part 4 appears
in this issue.
Chapter 25: Mons, Belgium
Carla was already sitting and waiting demurely when Raymond Graves arrived ten minutes ahead of schedule, at a quarter to midnight. He came like a lamb to the engagement, with no need for her to worry about supporting sound or invisibility.
I see you have produced significant results, Raymond.
‘I have done my utmost for you, Quo.’
That is very clear. We are most grateful for all your labours. Would you care to sum up your achievements in your own words, please ...?
‘Well, I have seen the true thoughts of many great people this week. Specifically, I have observed my immediate boss; a total of five of my seven team colleagues; ten out of our identified group of twelve senior politicians and heads of agencies and academic bodies; and two of my three higher superiors in SHAPE.’
Raymond, that is excellent. If I include yourself (for your own true thoughts are already well known to me), I calculate that we have gained a total of nineteen full insights out of a possible twenty-four. An extremely good effort!
And the findings are fascinating, Raymond. I can see that you too are intrigued and a little concerned by them. Let me reward all your hard work by showing you how we can now proceed to draw some conclusions ...
We use a little technique known as “Truth Delta Analysis”.
We take an Issue — in this case, the enlargement of the European Union — and we break that issue down into its component issues ... in this case, ten of them; one for each country applying to join the Union.
For each of these, we separately establish a particular Individual’s true view: what he or she really believes, or would prefer to see as an outcome. We assign to each of those true views a starting value of 100.
Then for each one, Raymond, we look at the Pressure Points. There will always be factors working against a person’s basic moral instincts on any issue.
For example, let us suppose that our individual is an elected representative of a national parliament or assembly. And that, for specific reasons associated with military stability and cash aid programmes, and being in possession of some unpublished supporting evidence, he or she feels strongly opposed to the admission of one particular country to the EU.
The following examples of pressure points might then work against that initially strong position:
We can then look at the relative potency of each of these pressure points, Raymond, and give them each their own value, but ensuring that they add up to a total of precisely 100.
Claims by the applying country, that its relatively poor standards of healthcare and education will be dramatically improved after joining, have captured all the headlines and public opinion throughout the continent.
The Arms Industry in the individual’s home state (with factories in his or her own constituency) stands to gain major new business from the admission of the applying country.
The members of our individual’s own political party naturally hold a broad range of opinions on this issue, and the party itself has publicly come out in favour of the admission of that particular country.
Our individual is keen to run for high office in the party in the near future.
There have been clear hints from “friends” that if his or her true views are publicly expressed, they will be ridiculed in the press.
And he or she has received an ill-disguised threat that much worse will happen if any of the supporting “evidence” is ever revealed ...
Then we can consider the individual’s resistance to each pressure point.
If, in fact, he or she can and will resist any of them completely, then the resistance factors will equal the values of those pressure points, and they will be wiped out.
If the individual is being swayed to some extent by a pressure point, its resistance value will be between zero and the pressure point’s value.
But if he or she has in fact been completely malpersuaded by a particular pressure point, the value of the resistance to it will be zero.
Then we add up each resistance value and obtain a total, and we take that away from the maximum pressure points total of 100.
Now at last we have our Truth Delta — the extent to which the individual’s real position is about to be swayed by the actual net effect of all the pressure points.
And, Raymond, if an individual is being heavily persuaded, that truth delta might be as much as 75 or higher ...
We then subtract the truth delta from the Real Truth value of 100 ... and we see the New Truth. But if that new truth is less than 50, we have an Inversion! The new truth is in fact an Untruth.
And our individual comes out in favour of that country’s application for membership!
‘That is amazing, Quo. With a technique like that, everyone could analyse their own personal level of integrity, on any subject!’
Indeed they could, Raymond. Given sufficient honesty ...
But let us return to your findings. We have recorded nineteen full observations, including that of yourself. We have already computed, for each of those nineteen people, the pressure points and the truth deltas for each of the sub-issues. And we have summed it all up, to observe the overall extent of Untruth.
In every individual, there were inversions. In some, there were very many. Since we are discussing here the main, over-arching Issue, we are watching carefully for a predominance of sub-issue inversions in each person.
The concerns you have been feeling, Raymond, as your research progressed, turn out, of course, to be very well founded. We have simply applied some science to the raw data, and we agree with your own instinctive conclusions.
Inversions are, in fact, rife.
On the overall issue of enlargement of the European Union, fourteen of our nineteen subjects — almost 75%, Raymond — have been denying their heartfelt position and have been publicly presenting an Untruth.
‘I really do not know what to say, Quo.’
Say nothing, Raymond. Return to your home and your work, and pursue your goals with the great integrity you have always possessed.
And please do not over-analyse yourself ... for nobody is perfect. Be true to your most important beliefs. Ensure it is only the less important ones which are ever compromised.
You will now lose all your newly-learned skills of empowered collection. You will forget all the private thoughts of the distinguished people you have observed. Those people may be flawed, but they too, remember, are only human. They too are doing their very best in this most difficult world.
You will, of course, provide your honourable colleagues with a balanced and honest conclusion from your “special policy tour” ... using only the information you have gathered naturally.
And finally, Raymond ... we have noted with great interest that you hope to return to the USA later this year, at the expiry of your present contract ...
‘Yes, indeed, Quo. I have a mind to enter politics ...’
You have a mind that may turn out to be very well equipped for that challenge, Raymond. We wish you luck and success. And, who knows, perhaps one day we may encounter you again ...
To be continued ...