faith or loyalty when pledged in a solemn agreement or undertaking.
“a token of troth”
Have you ever wondered, along with myself, why in some controversial situations involving either the judiciary, bureaucracy or academia, while the popular opinion rails for the righting of a obvious wrong against what seems an inadmissible proof, that no headway can be made against what seems insurmountable ‘establishment‘ or the mainstream media (MSM) opposition? Often the call goes out from social media seeking back-up from influential persons of those above institutions; judicial authorities, government authorities and high academic achievers … but all we get, in the main, is an eerie silence.
Take the contradiction of the Thomson/Jackson accusations. The former gets humiliated, charged, trial-by-media, is publicly eviscerated … while the latter, it seems, is still swanning around with her “magistrate fiancé” after even being found culpable for questions to be answered in a court of law by the very inquiry that she had used to bring down Thomson, who, by the by, is now acquitted of all major charges and left with a “guilt” of small-change offences. What gives? Or the now “dual citizen” controversy , where it seems it is left to either social media outrage to get any sort of investigation motivated, or left to the people involved to go about their own sometimes duplicitous ways of justification. Where is the official oversight?
And of course, we had the former PM of this country being remorsesly hounded by a completely “in-step”, group-think, group-voiced MSM. With barely a dissenting or protesting voice from higher judiciary, academia or independent politics – just the howling cries of “not-fair, not-fair” from us on social media. Yet even our deafening outcry brought forward little constructive defence for an innocent party. What gives there too?
I have many times raised the suspicion of a conspiracy. Perhaps dwelt on the idea of secret meetings at “The Club”, or some other private gathering where an exchange of conversation aligns opinions and action to be taken or not – as the case may be. But this is not necessarily so, there may not need to be any meetings, no conversations, not the slightest collusion on discussion or exchange of tactics. Perhaps all the time what has always been “in-situ” is a structure I can name as a “Convenient Troth”.
An “agreement” in kind has been nurtured for many years in many of our most revered bureaucracies and institutions. A kind of accepted “nod” toward each-other that in the case of required back up, “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine” … and “One doesn’t ‘peach’ on a fellow”. Perhaps it is more complicated than such a simple notion, but in the end, I do believe that an “understanding” exists that a path will be cleared, positions granted and glittering prizes awarded to them who “play the game”. The rules being unwritten, but clearly defined, the boundaries unmarked, but clearly aligned on the social-grid of class and education. There need not be any conspiracy, for there already exists that embarrassing but consensual camaraderie that can wince shamefully at one’s lack of courage, but at the same time salve ones conscience that one is part of a greater, more “noble confederacy”.
Consider these several quotes from a very astute early twentieth century social economist:
“In the communities belonging to the higher barbarian culture there is a considerable differentiation of sub-classes within what may be comprehensively called the leisure class; and there is a corresponding differentiation of employments between these sub-classes … The occupations of the class are correspondingly diversified; but they have the common economic characteristic of being non-industrial. These non-industrial upper-class occupations may be roughly comprised under government, warfare, religious observances, and sports.”
“The habit of distinguishing between the interests of the individual and those of the group to which he belongs is apparently a later growth. Invidious comparison between the possessor of the honorific booty and his less successful neighbours within the group was no doubt present early as an element of the utility of the things possessed, though this was not at the outset the chief element of their value. The man’s prowess was still primarily the group’s prowess, and the possessor of the booty felt himself to be primarily the keeper of the honour of his group.”
“Those members of the community who fall short of this, somewhat indefinite, normal degree of prowess or of property suffer in the esteem of their fellow-men; and consequently they suffer also in their own esteem, since the usual basis of self-respect is the respect accorded by one’s neighbours. Only individuals with an aberrant temperament can in the long run retain their self-esteem in the face of the disesteem of their fellows.” (Thorsten Veblen: ’Theory of the Leisure Class’).
That certainly applies in a convenient troth.