I want to add something a post but it's more about politics, and is a sidetrack to the topic discussed there. It's something Brazilbernd wrote >>46382 I'm gonna quote it here:
>But a sensible guess is that, as Party members weren't all killed in 1976 and it didn't "start from a clean slate", it changed its worldview until believing in what it does at the present. Instead of conscious liars, it's easier for the current leadership to sleep peacefully at night knowing they have the most advanced scientific mindset contiuous with the great scientific thinkers of old. It might be hypocritical and inconsistent but ruling ideologies are hypocritical and inconsistent all the time.
Being hypocritical and inconsistent is the salt and pepper of politicians. There are two views about facts and the truth:
1. facts are constant, the truth changes (kinda: what we believe to be true changes shape as we learn the hard facts);
2. facts change, the truth is constant (kinda: the truth is solid, and we get closer of knowing it as we sort out what the facts are and what aren't);
Politicians opted with a third choice:
3. facts change, truth change - and this process is constant.
They get couple of facts and they base an image into that which they sell as truth on one day, then as others show that there are other facts, or the facts are different, the politicians just say that in the light of recently acquired facts the truth is something else. And they feel consistent because this process of flip-flopping is what constant.
This is also consistent with science, as science goes through ages by shedding skin of untruth that claimed to be truth for a while. It's really easy for politicians to refer to science or use it to back themselves with it.
I also want to add more, but that maybe belongs to a philosophy thread.

>>46283
>this year's election
When that will happen?