by Anwar Khan
Certain knowledge about things inaccessible to the senses has always been a challenge to man. It has especially become so in our times—those of the fake news days. As news of the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey hit the waves, it was another field day for the alternative media folks to provide “analysis” and “conclusions” on the issues related to this sad event. As always, it ranged from the erudite to the outlandish. One particular Youtube video I was sent went so far as to claim that the whole event was an elaborate hoax, staged in a studio. The speaker “proves” this to be the case based on some pictorial anomalies, videography technique, and appearance of symbols and numbers of occult nature, according to him, indicating the fingerprints of some secret society. The video was watched by many and if the comments section was any indication (which is disabled now), his judgement on the issue was beyond a reasonable doubt. All the while the casket of the slain ambassador was being afforded state funeral, attended by his wailing family.(1)
While the space that the internet affords the voices we call the alternative narrative (a collective of blogs, radio shows, websites, researchers, writers and activists who challenge the false narratives and lies of the corporate media) is undoubtedly one of the most cherished developments, as it add tremendously to the richness of the information we receive, and advance our understanding of the world, this democratization of information also has a down side. It has caused a phenomenon we may call “information clutter” where on any particular issue many different claims can be made without anything ever being proved. This has resulted in utter confusion among many whose loathing and distrust of the corporate media has caused them to turn to the alternative narrative for information but only to find many varying and often contradicting information on the same subject matter. The average person has never been this overwhelmed by data before at any point in history and this has lead to a paradoxical state of affairs: an information surplus but a coherence deficiency.
The so called “truther movement” is a sobering example. Currently there are at least half a dozen groups fighting ferociously among themselves regarding whose take on the collapse of the two Trade Towers on 9/11 is most congruent with reality. The proponents of direct energy call the thermate folks “disinformation agents”, the mini-nuke fraternity call both “controlled opposition”. The no-plane theorists call everyone else “shills” while itself being labelled “kooks” by all the other factions for taking poetic license to a whole new level. The hubris of each group holding fanatically to their theories and failing to form a consensus on the least common denominator amongst the leading theories has done tremendous harm to the “truther movement”, and has arrested to a great degree the potential it once had to achieve a great deal more than it has thus far—in the process disillusioning many of this movement’s veterans. Some may say the beauty is in the detail, such that it is of essence to know “how” things are done. But this is more a case of looking at the finger and neglecting the heavenly glory, a state of affairs most desirable to Cass Sunstein—the government wizard in charge of fighting “conspiracy theories”.
In the light of all these divisions, squabbles, name-callings, all and all mistrust of each other in the leading alternative narrative movements (hereafter AN), we need to ask ourselves if it is, in its current state, offering any substantial diagnosis to our miseries – or is it just another instrument in the orchestra? Is the AN playing any decisive role in the collective awakening of the masses, or is it only adding to their confusion and bewilderment? Are we any closer to dislodging the corrupt centers of power that is taking humanity to the slaughter-house, or is it that, the AN, unknowingly acts as a ventilation for the frustrated, providing an illusion of freedom yet really constituting an inextricable part of the matrix? Clearly, the answers to these questions are not simple. What constitutes the alternative narrative? How do we measure success or failure? What exactly is the “purpose” of the AN? These are all valid rejoinders. Leaving philosophical hairsplitting for another day, let me take a bold stance and claim that I believe that as a whole the AN has failed to live to its potential, excepting certain noteworthy exceptions within it. We have won a few minor battles but winning the war is increasingly becoming a farfetched idea.
As a Muslim who lived through 9/11, I can assure you that today myself and 12 million other Muslims in the U.S. have never been more restless about our future. Islamophobia in the US and in Europe has never been this existentially threatening. A nuclear war with Russia has scarcely ever been so real. The Palestinian Question—a moral blemish on global conscience since 1947— has never been this removed from political priorities (the silly UNSC resolutions notwithstanding). Since the 13th century Mongol invasion, the Middle East has never been in such an extreme state of confusion and disorder (many would argue that this is on the whole far worse). ISIS and Co, despite some setbacks in Syria and Iraq, are not going anywhere any time soon. (They will metamorphosis into something much more sinister, just like how Al Qaeda turned into ISIS, reminding us of the truth of Einstein’s ‘energy cannot be destroyed’ theory). On a deeper level, the human condition has never been in such disarray; our minds have never been so confused; our nature never so badly manipulated; empathy never in such low supply; apathy never existing in such high quantities. And most pertinent to our discussion here, the alternative narrative has never been this divided amongst itself.
It is wholly possible, nay most probable, that the current divisions in the AN is to a great degree the machinations of Cass Sunstein and Co. After all the likes of his are experts in how to infuse genuine movements with co-intel, disinformation agents, gate-keepers and controlled opposition infiltrations to arrest the momentum in forming vehicles of genuine change in society. As Lenin said, “the best way to control an opposition is to lead it”. That is a reality as old as humanity itself and it is here to stay. But I wonder if Sunstein and his ilk would enjoy this much success had the AN had some sound principles to abide by, some intellectual framework underpinning its quest, some axioms binding all the different voices within it, rather than just their mistrust of the military-industrial-media complex?
Therefore, I will not— for a change—put the focus on the enemy’s strength and cunning. Rather, I will place it upon our weakness and failures. Moreover, I will assume—to the extent possible—that most people within the AN are genuine about their desire to reach to the bottom of the issues but are mistaken about some judgements, which have arisen from certain defective conceptions. This is usually the case when sound intellectual principles are missing from the cognitive process. In my own lifetime I have seldom interacted with a truth-seeker, activist, writer, researcher, radio-host within the alternative narrative except that I have been left with a bitter taste in the mouth. Part of it was my own shortcomings, perhaps for projecting my sensibilities onto others. But mostly it was my witnessing that many of the characters in the AM lack sound intellectual and logical principles which would enable them to grapple with the ever more sophisticated mind-rape that we are treated with, and are often clueless in finding coherence within the noise.
Towards that end, I would like to offer one potential solution that can address the increasing divisions, dissensions and resultant information clutter that is undermining the work of the AN and impeding its purpose and potential. I believe the AN needs to “standardize” its epistemology—the investigation of what justifies sound belief and distinguishes it from mere unsupported opinion— or risk being a collection of such a cognitive spectrum (which it currently is) where it is impossible to find two people of similar belief, a recipe for information clutter, confusion and ultimately failure to change our collective disposition.
Standardization is mainly an accident of centralization. The AN, on the other hand, by its very nature is decentralized, and staunchly independent. Each person within it operates on individually driven principles and motivations. They are bound together by some abstract concepts perhaps and nothing more at times. The voices within are so various and multifaceted that the very idea of brining them together in some shape or form sounds like an exercise in self-delusion. Maybe. But we also see an indisputable harmony and synchronicity within it that is driving many of its relative achievements. (Here I am a Muslim writing from a Muslim-centric point of view for the Saker, a platform dedicated to “stopping Empire’s war on Russia”. This is not just convergence of conveniences. There are things that bring us together on a deep level). Could it be that some agreed upon driving principle might be able to mitigate the many disappointments and dissensions that has plagued the AN? I believe it can if we standardize (not to be mistaken with homogenize) certain important principles in what we might call our “epistemology”, in order to make it less hackable by… well everything under the sun.
Every field has a “quality standard”, against which various bodies within it compare, judge and improve their trade. This encourages production of the best possible product. Shouldn’t the AN have a similar standard, in order to check the quality of its output? You may say what we are dealing with is conceptual and not material so standardization may not necessarily apply. I could not disagree more. Concepts (and conclusions) also have a quality standard. It is called logic: the validity or lack thereof of reasoning in statements. It is an unassailable achievement of us humans (some say gift from God) to come up with a mode of communication that calls out invalid reasoning entering communication.
People often say “mathematics is the only language shared by all human beings regardless of culture, religion, or gender. Pi is still approximately 3.14159 regardless of what country you are in”. Yes, but this applies even more fundamentally to logic. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C, is the same regardless of what country you are in. We often forget that mathematics is a branch of logic and not vise versa. But logic only will not help us for our purpose here. It only serves us with the proper arrangement and logical entailment of statements, not necessarily of their meaning. What we need is a framework that provides meaning beyond the mere arrangement and entailment of statements. What we need is hikma(‘wisdom’ in Arabic)—the science which investigates the nature of things as they really are, to the best of human effort. (2) As grandiose as it sounds, I truly believe that this form of traditional philosophy can provide a sound standard of epistemology, guiding us on how to organize our thinking, and to separate the political wheat from the political chaff.
In my days of studying classical Islamic sciences, we spent a great deal of time studying Aristotelian logic, Arabic grammar and rhetoric before we delved into metaphysics, with theology being the crowning jewel. This method—study of logic, grammar and rhetoric—is called the Trivium in the West. The trivium (which means “intersection of three roads” in Latin) along with the Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy) constituted the liberal arts curriculum. This time tested way of learning was discontinued—barring some exceptions— in the US and European public schools in the early decades of the 20th century, mainly due to the influence of the Rockefeller run General Education Board and its European subsidiaries. In our times it is mainly taught in private schools and religious seminaries, in watered-down incarnations.
This curriculum was the cream of hundred years of human experience and analysis of “knowing”. The purpose of this approach to learning was to free the mind of incorrect beliefs, and to understand reality to the extent afforded by the human intellect. Theology was the premier study (before the Enlightenment pushed it to the back rows of intellectual human inquiry). One had to be equipped with all the right intellectual tools to avoid faulty judgements before arriving at Revelation, (after which the intellect was subservient to it in some degree)(3). Grammar was the systematic method of gathering raw data of a similar nature into a body of knowledge. When that gathering is complete we call it a subject. Logic was the method of bringing full understanding to that body of knowledge by systematically eliminating contradictions within it. Rhetoric was to communicate the result of grammar and logic to ourselves and to others with wisdom and persuasive appeal. The purpose of all this learning was to arrive at hikma.
The purpose of this needed detour is to point to the challenges of arriving at hikma in the absence of the prerequisite learning to learn process—which the Trivium really was— that is missing from many amongst us, even in the AN who pride themselves with their ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the absence of an education system that prepares us for understanding reality, we all need to re-asses if we are intellectually geared to not only detect the lies and half-truths of the MSM, but also the faulty reasoning and judgements from the AN that often gets a free pass? Perhaps some of us need to revisit what makes for sound education (which is the opposite of schooling). This is not to say that to get to the reality of things, one necessarily has to systematically study these disciplines. Many people have the God-given ability to see things for what they are. But in our times that very ability is manipulated on so many levels that the need to study epistemology is greater than ever.
Revisiting epistemology
Epistemology comes from the Greek episteme (knowledge) and logeo (to speak). It means the theory of knowledge: the study of the nature, sources, and validity of knowledge, or in other words how you know what you know. There are two components to it, (1) knowledge, and (2) how one arrives at it. Let us examine both.
Knowledge (ilm) is when a perception of something takes place in the mind. It divides into two parts: conception (taṣawwūr) and judgement (tasdiq). Conception is a perception of something that is free of any judgement. For example, we imagine the person of John without affirming or negating anything in relation to him. If we affirm or negate anything in relation to him – in other words predicate – for example, we say, “John is tall”, then we call this judgment. Now if this judgement is based on a conviction that is firmly rooted in the heart and also congruous to reality, we call it certainty (yaqīn), as in the statement “9/11 is an inside job”. If the judgement is based on a conviction that is firmly rooted in the heart but not congruous to reality, we call it compound ignorance (jahl murakkab), as in the statement, “They (Muslims) hate us for our freedom”. If the judgement is based on a conviction but not firmly rooted in the heart such that it maybe uprooted with some skeptical remarks, it is called immitation (taqlid), as in the statement, “Trump will fight the establishment”. If a judgement is not based on conviction at all – and therefore lacks any firmness in the heart – it is called conjecture (zann), as in “Russia hacked the US elections”. Therefore conjecture is the weakest of judgements.(4)
Now let us see what is usually said about the second component of epistemology—how we arrive at it, or the causes of knowledge. Again, here we are drawing on the shared rational tradition of medieval Jews, Christians and Muslims, much of which was inherited from the Greeks. It is not peculiar to any one group.(5)
Causes of knowledge are three things: (a) sound senses, (b) Reason, (c) unanimously agreed upon report.(6)
The senses, the notion that hearing, seeing, smelling, taste, and touch, causing certain knowledge does not require much comment. But if for any reason you are in doubt, touch the nearest flame to remove it.
Reason is a cause of certain knowledge also. And whatever of it is established is self-evident, requiring no demonstration, just as the knowledge that the whole of a thing is a greater than the part of it. There are three modes of rational judgements: they are either characterized by necessity, possibility or impossibility.
1)Necessity is that whose non-existence the mind cannot conceive, for example 1+1 equal to anything other than 2
2)Impossibility is that whose existence the mind cannot conceive, for example a number being odd and even at the same time.
3)Possibility is that whose existence or non existence the mind can equally conceive, for example the Loch ness monster.
Unanimously agreed upon report (UAUR), something established by so many different chains of narration, such that it is inconceivable that all of the narrators would have been able to come together to agree on a falsehood.(7) For example the historical reports of a certain Alexander of Macedonia, or that there is a place called Madagascar. Unanimously agreed report also causes certain knowledge. Most of what an average person “knows” through the media—print and electronic—are assumptions of UAUR. In our age—the age of information warfare— the abuse and manipulation of this cause of knowledge is one of the main reasons of our political realities. Therefore, getting UAUR right is the most important pillar of a sound framework for the AN to start unclogging the information clutter which is an obstacle in valid judgements.
This brief prefacing on epistemology was to bring us to the forefront of the investigation on how we know what we know. It is a succinct analysis of the subject matter from a body of knowledge that is quite voluminous. The idea being that to be able to apply hikma to phenomenon we experience, we need to be standing on a solid ground which is not particular to us as individuals but rather universal to all.
Now let us move to some axioms—derived from the conceptual framework stated above—that I believe can further help the AN in separating the wheat from the chaff. Axiom is a statement that is regarded as established or self-evidently true. But here it is given a more liberal application, which is to say that it has some room for slight disagreement (with emphasis on ‘slight’), a confession of my fallibility if you will. The list here is, again, not exhaustive by any means but a starting point which should be further examined and added to as the AN consensus see fit. Am I asking for a Philadelphia Convention(8) to ratify the AN constitution? Perhaps I am. I will leave the preamble to the wordsmiths among you. I will go straight to the articles:
The 4 (for now) Articles of Hikma for the Alternative Narrative
(I) Anyone or any group that denies 9/11 being an inside job/conspiracy can not be part of the solution, and therefore not part of the AN. 9/11 being the watershed event of our lives that changed the world as we knew it, is the perfect litmus-test of our moral courage, intelligence and integrity. Our judgement of it being an inside job is corroborated by all the causes of knowledge, leading to a level of certainty that only a fool or a fraud will deny.
(a) While the AN may accept contributors who are silent on the issue (some may have legitimate reasons), the AN should never accept those who explicitly deny it, or subscribe to some half-baked, mainstream approved soft conspiracy theories.
(b) Any theory on 9/11 which directly or indirectly absolves state actors from responsibility— even if its subscriber hold the official version as a lie—should not be adopted by the AN as a strategy, and not necessarily as a final judgement on the ‘impossibility’ of such a claim. What is even worst is to ascribe the actions of 9/11 to ‘non-human entities’. This undeniably pushes the subscriber into a state of awe from which it is difficult to see the playing field level, as the antagonist is perceived bigger than life, and thus any action futile. This conveniently serves the Empire.
(c) Anyone maintaining the inside job narrative of 9/11 yet whitewashing Israel from participation in it cannot be part of the AN. (9)
(II) AN needs experts in their respective areas. Jack of all trade, ace of none cannot be a motto to live by. Mainstream academia, politics aside, have some very erudite experts in their areas of study, and this is something the AN can learn from them. A commentator on Russia should ideally know Russian and lived in Russia. A commentator on the Middle East should ideally know at least one Middle Eastern language and lived amongst its people. An occultist— the increasing favorite of the New Age conspiracists — should be able to interpret ancient Egyptian texts, among others, and not just sleuthing happily on Youtubistan, peddling other people’s ideas. Usually speaking, a mainstream academic will put many AN commentators to shame with their ability to deeply understand the subject matter, especially with research and bibliography (AN researchers love to quote Wikipedia on most affairs). It is an entirely different matter why mainstream academics choose to serve the Empire with their scholarship rather than fight it.
AN media, especially radio, suffers from adding to the information clutter by broadcasting opinions of all and sundry without checking their qualifications first. Have you found yourself listening to some show where the guest covers topics such as UFOs, Free Masonry, Muslim Brotherhood, and GMO in half an hour?
(III) While the role of the occult in today’s political, economic and social realities is a subject that demands close scrutiny, and most certainly not be dismissed out of hand, the way it is often blown off proportions by many in the AN conveniently serves the interest of Empire in more than one way. Some—like the Zeitgeist films—connect major modern political realities to secret societies (that also happen to be behind the creation of religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism according to them), whose roots go back to ancient Egypt. The AN will do itself a world of good to stay away these New Age conspiracists who seek to fill the spiritual vacuum created by modernity by subscribing to unsubstantiated and shoddy conclusions, which not only fail the UAUR and Occam’s Razor test, but fail many other heuristic tool available to us. The same would apply to the subscribers of any idea that puts the levers of global institutions of influence in the hand of alien entities— the Reptilian Agenda being one of them. While AN should not adjudicate the claim as ‘impossible’, it does violate the principles of hikma on many levels and should be courteously discarded. This is not the same as denying the truth or role of the Anti-Christ or Dajjal in our political and social realities. It should ideally work as a spiritual element that pierces the modern material dialectics of our realities today and not necessarily as a notion that determines our strategies.
(IV) “Islamic terrorism” is a reality created and sustained by the Empire and not something that exists independent of it. Islamophobia is the desired reaction. Russophobia — the latest trend — is from the same sources. Those subscribing to it or help maintain this narrative should not be part of AN.(11)
Conclusion
I know I am being naive perhaps to (a) suggest a rather simple solution to a very complex situation, and (b) being slightly presumptuous that my “axiomatic” musings will somehow set us on the path of deliverance from a divisive state which would have left many a great mind clueless. But as long as basic conceptual shortcomings exist in any area, someone will try to point them, not necessarily believing it will lead to heavenly glory but rather to correct a flaw. Again, what is mentioned here is intended to start a process. It is not an end in itself. I intended to raise more questions than provide answers. This is the reason I have not mentioned other important issues that also have a direct bearing on the subject at hand, like what do I mean by the term “Empire”? Is it the American Empire? Anglo-Zionist Empire? Jewish Empire? Illuminati/Free-Mason Empire? Or a combination of some or all of them? I will leave that for our Convention to determine. So by a raise of hand, who is attending it?
Notes
(1) While the claim that the assassination of the Russian ambassador was a “hoax”, is not impossible, it is highly improbable and badly misinformed. For the simple reason that it violates, among other things, the law of parsimony or Occam’s Razor: among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Occam’s Razor, while not being an indisputable proof, is nonetheless a very useful heuristic tool to understand phenomenon. It is within the framework of hikma.
For the assassination to be a hoax, Turkish and Russian authorities would have necessarily cooperated quite intimately because this did not take place in some back alley in the dark of the night. It was in a state institution, in front of TV cameras, and many witnesses. Since the event took place in Turkey, she would have been naturally more involved. Turkey already suffering from falling tourist numbers due to many terrorist attacks this year, is risking decimating her tourism industry entirely— a significant 15% of her GDP— with this hoax (if the place is not safe for high level delegates it can not be that safe for average foreigners surely). Tourism lose means a tremendous hit to the economy. Which can send the ruling AKP party to the cleaners in elections and result in their ouster even before it. Who wants to be removed from office for a hoax that is achieving nothing more than “sending occult messages” to whom it may concern on “who rules the world”?. Also, it effectively means the acting ambassador will be living the rest of his life in some house in the Siberian expanse, or going through at least 10 major plastic surgeries to change his entire face, or a combination of both. It would have been easier for the Turks and Russians to actually assassinate him than go through the myriad problems associated with hoaxing it. Also, if it was a hoax, the Americans—the nemesis of the Russians — would have tried to point to it somehow. Unless they are also part of it — which is another assumption of this claim— in which case the whole Putin vs US narrative is a hoax itself. Anyone holding that cannot possibly be enjoying life. Therefore this theory has more assumptions than Joan Rivers’ plastic surgeries, and thus cannot possibly be that useful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAMSLCfaD4M
(2) This is the same slogan raised by philosophical trends since the Enlightenment, but who, in actuality, are doing nothing more than serving positivist scientism, and deliberately stifling the bigger questions that was the Principale Propositum of the philosophical inquiry.
(3)“Reason is subservient to Revelation”, this is in a very specific sense and the truth of revelation does become established purely through reason (the rational entailment implied by a miracle occurring at the hands of someone claiming prophethood) but that once the revelation is proven true, not everything in scripture can be strictly reduced to something which has a linear logical structure – although this isn’t to say that it is ever “irrational”.
(4)While this particular passage is from Islamic sources(the examples being replaced with modern ones), this understanding of knowledge is by no means peculiar to Islamic scholarship only. Invariably there are similar definitions by Greek, Christian and some Jewish (Maimonides being one of them) scholars of hikma.
(5) Wolfs, The Philosophy of Spinoza, II, 133.
It is noteworthy that Muslims were studying Greek didactic philosophy and producing commentaries on Aristotle (that was then translated into Latin from the Arabic for teaching in European centers of learning in medieval times) because in the rational traditions of the Greeks, the Muslims saw an opportunity to refine the intellect in understanding shared concepts. Wisdom derived from it was for all. As the Prophet of Islam said “wisdom is the lost property of the believer, where ever he/she finds it, he/she may claim it”.
(6)Illumination—knowledge derived through a hyper-spiritual state— is also a valid source of knowledge, but particular to the recipient only. What is known through it may not be generalized.
(7)That historians Plutarch and Diodorus mention this monumental figure, whose name and exploits are also available in Sassanian and Sanskrit historical sources of the time; not to mention the cities that still exist by his name (Alexandria), with Hellenist architecture still surviving today in places he is purported to have conquered; and ethnic groups that are known to be of Greek origin (for example the Nuristanis of Afghanistan) in the midst of other homogenous groups. All these factors make the invention of Alexander inconceivable.
(8) The 1787 meeting that ratified the US Constitution.
Interestingly there is another AN convention taking place in Philadelphia where some brilliant ideas are being presented. But I often wonder if such events— in the absence of a basic intellectual framework around which to build a consensus upon— is nothing more than reinforcing common held beliefs of unfalsifiable nature, usually accompanied by self-congratulatory air of being “liberated”, and ultimately glorification of the ego, more than providing any strategy to overcome the Empire.
http://www.freeyourmindconference.com/
(9) This excludes Alex Jones as being part of a genuine AN. I promised I will not take names but this was a must. Other than his efforts to whitewash Israeli involvements in 9/11 and other conspiracies, Alex Jones violates our epistemology on so many levels that it is a disgrace to see this man become the face of the AN.
(10) One of the reasons I was attracted to the Saker was his undeniable expertise on the subject matter he dedicated his writing: Russia and military affairs. The Saker also seems to be one of the few in the AN who is consistently rational with his judgements. That is to say he is willing to suspend judgement till the very last minute, and entertain many competing theories without necessarily accepting them. This is deductive reasoning in action. He avoids pontificating on issues outside his area of expertise. Another example is Sibel Edmonds. I like her measured approach to Big Brother and whistle blowing issues and staying within her range of expertise, without unnecessarily delving into the occult and other unrelated issues. I should also mention James Corbett of thecorbettreport.com and Kevin Barrett of Truth Jihad. Their style of AN journalism should be a guide to those who want to go that route: reasonable, courageous, and relevant. Finally I should mention Sofia Smallstorm of http://www.aboutthesky.com/ who is doing some tremendous work on chem-trails and nano technology. There are many unsung heroes of the AN who deserve mentioning and salutations for their services. We own them a heartfelt thank you!
(11)I know this will infuriate many, but I believe Russia Today’s news, unfortunately, often fails this test. RT talks shows and documentaries are definitely a breath of fresh air, a most important contribution to the AN. But RT news (especially online) does not live to this expectation (sometime I feel as if they are two different organizations). RT news has been consistently peddling many uncorroborated news items, most dealing with refugee crimes in Europe and Muslim “brutalities” in general— something that is increasingly becoming RT news’ mainstay. The latest being this news item: “A 30-year-old woman has been beheaded in a remote Afghan village for visiting a local market alone, without her husband, local media report citing officials. The people behind the beheading may have links to the Taliban.” Other than the total irrelevance of such a random piece of news (there are thousands of such crimes daily), this is also fake news, reported by the USAID funded Tolo News — an operation of Saad Mohseni, chairman of the Moby Group and as far as I am concerned a CIA asset. Not only did the Taliban have no relation to this event (I am no fan of Taliban but I know that killing a woman in such an unwarranted manner in a tribal society where reprisals from her family and tribe can spell the end of Taliban operations in the area, is not a very smart strategy), the incident itself is most certainly fake news. There is no word from the victim’s family, no name, no interview, just a “confirmation from the provisional governor’s spokesperson” (who conveniently has a dog in the fight as this means more money extorted from the government for “security” operations) and “confirmed by Sar-e-Pul women’s affairs head Nasima Arezo”, (whoever she is) who most probably was informed by the governor’s office, without any further access.
https://www.rt.com/news/372124-afghan-woman-beheaded-husband/
I know it might be new to some people but killing women— as if they are cucumbers waiting to be chopped at any time— is not a favorite pastime in Afghanistan. Soros affiliated news organizations would like you to believe that but it really is not the case. Yes, there are the sad incidents of “honor” killings but not quite as many (every 15 seconds if you are following the MSM) as they would like you to believe. I can assure you that. I work in Afghanistan. And if such barbaric practices still take place, we need to be thankful to the American war in Afghanistan which has destroyed most traditional institutions like the tribal Jirgas(meetings) which used to settle “honor” related issues, often humanely. A far cry from the vigilantism that prevails because of the security situation.
Why is RT peddling sensationalist uncorroborated news (just like the MSM) that is disparaging the name of Islam and Muslims, while at the same time challenging other false premises of the Empire, is something that I would love to be enlightened about. AN has to be the vanguard against fake news, its raison d’être. It cannot participate in it.
Many, many thanks for your article, Anwar Khan. Long, long overdue. As an ex-teacher and now a practising homoeopath, I totally concur that the root of people’s ignorance lies in the Rockefeller dominated “education” system that birthed around the beginning of the 20th century. As a highly disturbing parallel development to this one may add the complete subjugation and corruption of the health system by, once again, Rockerfeller at around the same time. Hence the almost infinite and useless “expert opinions” that abound in today’s society with regards to health issues – coming from both modern allopathic medicine and lay person alike. Many thanks to the ‘net, including wikipedia, run by an ex-porn king. Society is indeed, at a very low point in knowledge.
Yuri,
Your welcome. I am happy you found it useful. You are absolutely right. The demise of education went hand and hand with that of medicine. And interestingly the Rockefellers played leading roles in both. I am happy you have taken the homeopathic path my friend. You might find this book a very interesting read on traditional medicine.
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Sufi-Healing-G-Chishti/dp/0892813245
Dear Anwar Khan
I am not surprised that you are aware of homoeopathy.
Thanks for the reference – most appropriate and most timely!
I have now for many years wanted to understand more about the tradition of Sufism, and here you are.
Best Regards
Yuri
Too many intellectual meanderings to arrive at the point: anyone denying that “Islamic terrorism” is a reality created and sustained by the Empire and not something that exists independent of it”, cannot be part of AN. All news about Muslim brutalities must be considered ‘fake news’.
Carrying that logic further, RT, by relaying news about beheadings in the Muslim world and “peddling many uncorroborated news items, most dealing with refugee crimes in Europe and Muslim ‘brutalities’ in general” is ‘disparaging the name of Islam and Muslims’, therefore cannot be part of AN (the more “that is increasingly becoming RT news’ mainstay”).
Wizoz,
Intellectual meandering is preferable to a staright point to no where.
I challenge you to prove that that particular “beheading” story is true. I am not saying that RT is intentionally spreading fake news, but it often mentions news items that are most probably fake without double checking the sources. In this case Soros affiliated media. You can’t criticize Soros, which RT often does rightfully, and then cite them in other instances. It doesn’t work for your credibility. RT is a great asset and we should hold it responsible to play to its potential.
“anyone denying … must be considered … cannot be part of ”
That’s absolutist thinking, where one conclusion excludes all the others. It’s more realistic to assign a probability to each of your beliefs. Anyway, it’s quite possible for “Islamic terrorism” to be both created by the Empire and also independently include original, home-grown terrorism. This is how classic “divide and rule” works: once you’ve managed to make one side actually attack the other; well, then there’s been a real attack which, all by itself, justifies a response. The justification is independent of the original trick.
Ted 99
“That’s absolutist thinking…” Not intended it to sound absolutist. I think I tried to make it clear in many other places the need to be entertaining of many possibilities. I recommend a second reading perhaps.
You are absolutely right about independent, home-grown Muslim terrorism. No one can deny it. It exists in abundance now, AFTER the empire decided to willfully create it and create a whole industry around it. Obviously the gullible will fall for it when all they see on their TV sets is Al Jazeera (another tool of empire) depicting Al Qaeda and the Wahhabis as “the only resistance to American military”(which was a calculated Al Jazeera strategy to recruit Muslim youth to “jihad”). Surely enough many followed suit thinking “if they are fighting the American military, then they must be legit”. Muslim extremism after the Empire created this Frankenstein is not debatable. And this has been in the making for at least half a century. I recommend my article on the role of Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism in this equation for further reading.
/who-are-the-sunnis-a-lamentation/?inmoderation
sorry forgot to mention my name in the above comment.
Anwar Khan
Sorry for not being more clear; the “absolutist thinking” I meant to apply to WizOz’s statements. Maybe it comes from relying too much on “logic”, where a statement is either true or false, no other values permitted. But in reality, we don’t know for certain, we can only assign a probability.
Well, a statement cannot be but true or false (the ‘tertium non datur’ rule) when it refers to an event (in that specific case a crime) that happened or did not happen in present or in the past (and that can be ascertained that it happened or did not happen – irrespective of the ‘motivation’). The incertitude whether a person is guilty of a crime is due to insufficient information, not because there are more ‘probabilities’. But if caught ‘in flagrante delicto’ there are no more ‘probabilities’.
The ‘probability’ refers to statements made about events that did not yet happen, to what Aristotle called the ‘future contingents’ (for example, the sentence ‘tomorrow it will rain’ is logically neither true nor false) where the rule of the ‘tertium non datur’ is not applicable.
Taking a human life is a crime, period. What motivated it can only bring mitigating circumstances for the perpetrator if it can be demonstrated that the person committing the crime was not at the moment of committing the crime in the full possession of his mental and ethical capacities (which is not the case with ISIS, or with various other jihadists who consciously acted invoking the Quranic injunctions to kill infidels and apostates). And even in that case, a sentence would be nevertheless manslaughter.
You can’t challenge me to prove whether that particular “beheading” story is true. The onus of proof sits with “Nasima Arezo, (whoever she is)” and “the governor’s office who informed her”, not with RT and least of all with me or whatever recipient of the news. There is nothing intrinsically doubtful about their statements (Muslims do kill infidels, apostates, transgressors quite frequently). You can’t deny that beheadings happen under the rule of “ISIS and Co”, that you seem reluctant to see it “going anywhere anytime soon”, just because the beheading in Afghanistan ‘probably’ did not happen.
The credibility of an information is not dependent on the moral qualities (or lake of them) of the source (Soros or whoever). If you have had a less “limited exposure to the classics” (as you say) you would have probably heard that Seneca’s maxim: “I shall never be ashamed of citing a bad author if the line is good”.
WizOz
“a statement cannot be but true or false”
Yep, that’s a requirement of “logic”, it’s a system with only two values. A larger system could admit a third value, call it “nonsense”. For example in:
This statement is false
the truth value is both true and false at the same time; that is, it violates your initial assumption. So it’s not a part of “logic”. But on the face of it, it’s a grammatical, syntactically correct statement. On the internet, when you are reading endless screeds of stuff, you can inadvertently let this slip by. Clever communicators (or rather, miscommunicators) can exploit this.
There are a number of logics where the law of excluded middle (and meaning of ‘true’ or ‘false’) breaks and are useful — used in particles physics, even.
see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic
Non-classical logics (and sometimes alternative logics) is the name given to formal systems that differ in a significant way from standard logical systems such as propositional and predicate logic.
http://korzybskifiles.blogspot.com/2013/06/aristotles-non-aristotelianism.html
Aristotle’s Non-Aristotelianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. By contrast, in Boolean logic, the truth values of variables may only be the integer values 0 or 1. Fuzzy logic has been employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false.[1] Furthermore, when linguistic variables are used, these degrees may be managed by specific (membership) functions.[2]
Search on non-aristotelian or non-classical logic
It can also be argued that A implies A can be replaced with A implies Not A, since A must be defined in terms of Not A, forming a duality or pair where one cannot meaningfully exist without the other. Consider a paper with a line drawn across it, dividing the space in two, so that the upper half has no meaning without the lower, and the idea of ‘upper is not lower’ is a limited perceptual concept dependent on where one is focusing attention, and where either half completely implies the other, but one can only see either half by perceiving the whole and both halves. Up or down is just the orientation of perception within a preconceived context of space-time coordinates — and is purely relative.
Any logical system is based on assumptions of presumed axioms and rules (including those concerning division) — not absolute or ‘true’ without that context. One should be aware of that context and its boundaries, as well as the possible other contexts and systems and unities which can exist. This goes far deeper than mere linguistic paradoxes.
You are talking of the classic sophism known as the ‘Liar’s Paradox’ which troubled the logicians since the Greeks, through the Scholastics, to the mathematical logicians. In the Muslim world it was known as ‘The Calif and the Philosopher’. It violates the first principle of logic, the principle of non-contradiction, as formulated by Aristotle: “It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect.”
But the ‘truth value’ of news is given by the truth of the event reported. A piece of news is true if it reported an event that happened in reality as it was described in the report. It is not true if it reported an event that did not occur, in other words is a lie (or ‘fake news’). It is the reporter who tells the truth or lies.
“This statement is false”.
Which statement would that be? ‘This’ ought to point to some actual statement which can be examined for the logical or factual truth of its content; but I see no such statement.
“Which statement would that be?”
Same sort of thing:
1. The statement immediately below is false.
2. The statement immediately above is false.
Oops. the statement below should be “the statement above is true”. I need to polish up my logics.
It’s supposed to recursive or self-referential. Like saying ‘I am [at this moment] lying’ — which is about the same as ‘I am telling the truth’ — which somehow seems to be easier to swallow as not self-contradictory although it’s the same form.
Being able to make a grammatically correct statement — or question — is supposed to be a valid representation of a thought, but it does not confer logical validity in itself.
see paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
“Vicious circularity, or infinite regress
“This statement is false”; if the statement is true, then the statement is false, thereby making the statement true. Another example of vicious circularity is the following group of statements:
“The following sentence is true.”
“The previous sentence is false.”
”
Casting logic and concepts into linguistic from introduces the problems and traps of language on top of those of logic, thinking, and being. So that statement in logical terms would be like A implies (or is equivalent to) Not A — which is non-classical (non-Aristotelian), where A is some assertion or state.
And then it gets hairy. With computers, for instance we hit things like ‘weak bits’ which are read by the disk’s head differently at different times, and ‘not a number’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaN (and several similar ideas), or undefined or indeterminate numbers.
and see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined_value
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined_behavior
In politics, however, we see much simpler ambiguity such as US ‘democratic’ coups, and ‘national interests’, ‘war on terror’, and ‘world community’ — terms made up just to deceive which may mean nothing at all (refer to nothing — no referent).
Good stuff for free! ….
https://analepsis.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/69249454-chandler-semiotics.pdf is a free book on semiotics by David Chandler.
http://www.theviciouscircus.com/images/pdf/GD324/SemioticsForBeginners.pdf 10 pages for beginners
Longer — 250 pages is https://mthoyibi.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/semiotics-for-beginners_the-basics_daniel-chandler.pdf
Korzibsky’s work on general semantics and abstraction levels is also good to look at.
And there much more about semiotics (the study of signs and their meaning, basically) on the web, which will stand you in good stead when talking about truth and knowledge.
I just got a copy of
korzybski Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics
900 pages
from
https://www.uploady.com/#!/download/yRMOyEy9lfx/2mO5uMUx7yR0nb1_
by viewing the PDF and then downloading it from the browser viewer.
I got it free, maybe also from other places. (He died in 1950)
Wiz Oz
Questions for you: Person A kills person B who is about to kill person C. Is killing person A a crime? And, further, if one was to kill in complete self-defence, i.e. in order to prevent oneself from being killed – is that a crime?
Typical fallacious question. Fallacia plurium interrogationum.
RT never was alternative narrative, an imposter at best.
RT/Sputnik are only very limitedly real (not fake) news (I think in as far as the Russian government tells, forces them to tell the truth).
It was and is in many ways just like the rest of the JM$M, and a lot of their reporters have no doubt the same kind of ‘education’.and ideas.
You won’t find Alexander Dugin or Solthenitsyn on RT/Sputnik, but easily lots of disinfo (agents). Worst thing (which they briefly didn’t) is that they delete all but the PC trash comments. It’s a joke. But that was probably also the reason they were able to spread at least some truth, and weren’t bombed, blocked, banned, or something. So overall they probably did do (a lot) more good than wrong. Hopefully they’ll soon change for the better – now that it is possible. (I just read Jim Stone still does trust ‘KGB agent’ Putin entirely – Jim blunders now and then, he’s only one man of course, he can’t know everything)
I actually think Alex Jones’ Infowars is virtually the only overall credible media, but I can see why Anwar Khan might dislike them, they’re very sloppy about ‘Muslims’. Although far better than RT/Sputnik on a lot of main issues. They, like RT/Sputnik,can’t/couldn’t (or prefer not to) tell the truth (directly) about everything either.
“Select 9/11 Truth Links” to gather a bunch of sound, juicy grapes in this vineyard of the truth. As you say, the Saker is rational; that is why he favours the rational cause of buildings collapsing on 911: thermite (not thermate as in your 3rd para, above). To favour any other cause flies in the face of physical science, which has advanced mightily since the days of Aristotle, the Trivium and the Art of Rhetoric. Aristotle was one of the supreme biologists of all time, but he was no physicist. Plato was a better physicist, and Plato’s emphasis on mathematical physics bore fruit in the Renaissance and the theory of acceleration in free fall, by Galileo and Newton. You are muddying the waters by conflating all 911 Truthers as equal, and caricaturing them as being equally vituperative one to another. For a calm, objective, rational explanation of the truth behind 911, follow the Vineyard link to “Architects for 911 Truth”. But you will need to adopt a modern scientific approach to truth (ie, to correspondence between theory and physical fact: you will need to learn the difference between thermite as a substance and thermate as a word; you will need to learn the distinction between military grade nano-thermite ordinary commercial thermite; you will need to be able to calculate, from Galileo, the time it takes for building of a certain height to collapse in free fall; and most of all, you will need to respect the opinion of experts who may well know nothing of Aristotle nor the Trivium, but spent their careers learning the practical properties of materials and how to demolish steel-reinforced buildings. Aristotelian logical arguments and ancient Greek rhetoric are powerless in the face of human obduracy because “none are so blind as those who will not see”. But, believe it or not, physical truth rolls on regardless.
“The truth rarely, if ever, convinces its opponents; it simply outlives them” — Max Planck, physicist.
Dr.N.G. Maroudas,
Correction. It should have been thermite not thermate. Thank you.
“the rational cause of buildings collapsing on 911: thermite…to favour any other cause flies in the face of physical science”. I may or may hold that to be the case, but I am not sure Dr. Judy Wood and a long list of other Ph.Ds (in physical sciences) will agree with that statement of yours. I am not sure your “physical sciences” argument is as settled as you seem to think based on the fact that so many other “physical scientists” are coming with so many other “physical science” arguments for their respective theories. I am not a scientist so I can’t claim anything categorically. I have my opinions on the matter but they are far from certain. The whole idea of the article is to be a little more skeptical of our “certainties” to be able to see the bigger picture. I am afraid you missed it.
Your “bigger picture” which you say I “missed”, is a fuzzy fog of generalities which surround the reader with a warm, comforting, semi-mystical “cloud of unknowing”. In this comforting state of dolce saper niente (sweet knowing nothing) the non-scientific reader puts Dr.Judith Woods and her Star Wars “Directed Energy” on the same level as a man who has learnt how to detect nano-thermite by using a metallurgical microscope, or a man who has earned his living by wiring up explosives to demolish buildings neatly and can recognize with a single glance what was happening to those buildings on 911.
As for the comment below, Steven Jones was quite right about “cold fusion”. I never heard of Steven Jones, but I pooh-poohed that wildly hyped report in “Nature” as soon as it appeared some decades ago. Cold fusion research was not “shut down”: it simply cannot give reproducible results. So I think Steven Jones (whoever he might be) is showing his common sense again this time when he advocates thermite as the most probable cause of building collapse on 911.
I’m highly suspect of the thermite theory and one of the main advocates of that theory, Steven Jones. He was instrumental in covering up and shutting down the research on “cold fusion.” And did a hostile take over of a 9/11 truth site denying the original owner of the website access. Also I can’t see how thermite alone could be responsible for the WTC 1 and 2 rapid destruction.
Simple, really. You plant thermite on sufficient number of supports, set it all off simultaneously (takes bit of expertise for this from what I read), and you suddenly have no support sufficient to hold the building up — (electronically) controlled demolition. Nano-thermite can react very quickly in the manner wanted, yielding tremendous energy in as short a time as it’s engineered to (can be much faster than the ordinary thermite).
I have long suspected that RT has two or more factions in it — meaning one of them is disinformationalist or western oriented. A standard tactic of ‘the enemy’ is to infiltrate.
As for epistemology (adding to and restating some of what you said), I advocate the method of running alternative narratives in a sort of matrix or table (mental or otherwise) as complementing or competing explanations or reporting, and assigning (roughly) probabilities to each.
Space aliens bring down the towers is in the matrix, but with a very low probability. Givernment insiders is very high probability, but in a breakdown of that different factions or persons within the government would eqch have separate probabilities. (This could be set up like a standard truth table as is used in mathematical logic). The same sort of approach can even be used with different logical systems, such the non-excluded middle, inductive, deductive, and abductive logic, and so forth.
Results of different narratives or explanations might yield very similar conclusions — whether Israel government was involved, or a secret subgroup in Israel or it’s intelligence, or a non-state radical group, or even just some people who happened to be Israeli, or perhaps no Israelis at all, would at some point become largely irrelevant for various conclusions (something like how it doesn’t make much difference what fruits you put into the punch — you still end up with fruit punch to serve to your party guests). Matrix thinking can be very powerful — similar to relational databases, or how different companies’ car will still take you to where you want to drive to.
As with programming, sometime you want to work bottom up, sometimes top down, and sometimes from the middle out — as long as the needed functions work right and are assembled properly when you are finished. This does not have to be linear, and ‘black box’ sections, where you don’t know how you got from here to there, can be quite usable.
One may have a ‘thin slice’ intuition of a thing and then have to go back and justify it — but only as one possible explanation in the matrix, avoiding confirmation bias, becoming attached to limited possibilities, and unwarranted assumptions. When a decision needs to be made, then one can look at the various probabilities of conclusions, try the actions indicated, and then evaluate the results and ‘debug’ and adjust strategies from there.
Nice site for a bit more is http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEM.html
(Principia Cybernetica tries to tackle age-old philosophical questions with the help of the most recent cybernetic theories and technologies.)
Blue,
That is a very useful and quite informed comment. Thank you!
My approach to epistemology is a bit traditional because of my (limited) exposure to the classics. But I have no reason to believe that modern cybernetic theories are any less applicable. After all the fundamentals can’t be that different. (please use Anwar Khan name for this comment instead of Anwar Mangal. Thank you)
Chaff?
I just listened to the show ‘By Any Means Necessary’ which Sputnik carries.
https://sputniknews.com/radio_by_any_means/201701241049936619-will-the-resistance-stop-trump-or-has-trump-already-won/
Will the Resistance Stop Trump Or Has Trump Already Won?
from the 24th.
The woman on there crows about ticking off Trump people attending the inauguration by locking hands and blocking them. Wonderful — just what we need — more division and anger.
But then she goes on to talk about suig Trump for violation of emolument clause.
I looked it up.
http://constitutionus.com/
She talked about two of the mentions of emolument…
The clause from section 9 is from article 1 specifically dealing with the legislature. Not the president.
The other clause mentioning emolument is in part 2 section 1 — the president, and says:
7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
“from the United States’ — his government paid salary. He can’t get a raise during his time in office — the salary can be raised only for the next president.
The entire suit is nonsense, which is what Trump said. This woman is a lawyer — and she didn’t even look up the pertinent text — or she is just telling lies. And the show just lets her go on and on and spread this garbage to all the listeners. Eugene Puryear and staff didn’t bother to look at the constitution either. They pissed me off! (epissedemology) CREW. is lying too.
… Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washington#Allegations_of_partisanship
Soros funded…
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7309
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/22/sure-trumps-foreign-customers-are-a-problem-but-lawsuits-arent-the-solution/#29ca493171d0
[To argue they have standing to sue] “The CREW lawsuit likewise says the organization has been forced to consume “time, resources and efforts” to monitor Trump’s many business activities.”
(Ask me why I now consider the ‘progressives’ an enemy… With Fronds Like These, Who Needs Anemones).
This was not an alternative narrative; it was a lie — a scam — almost had to be deliberate, or the product of such stupidity, gross negligence, and bias it might as well be. From the ‘alternative media’.
This stuff is everywhere, and not a challenge to the lies of the MSM but their own lies, and discredits the alternative media — I have to wonder with this so blatant if it’s part of a CIA disinformation campaign.
OK — cross another show off the list I listen to. I’m not going to spend an hour listening to a show and then another hour or two fact checking everything they said. Did someone say ‘better to keep your mouth closed and be thought to be a liar than to open it and prove it? Something like that….
Like Chomsky said, the first thing to wonder about when someone says something is ‘is it true?”. (Are they lying?!)
I was just thinking that we do need a little (or a lot) of Aristotle and the same time as we need a little (or a lot) of Plato in figuring out who and what to believe and who not as we contemplate the rapid fire events of the world. I would mostly agree with Mr. Khan in his assessment of news coverage on RT – but news coverage anywhere is presently underwhelming to me. It must be that cynicism has jaded my gullibility receptors but I, and I think many, are becoming much more ‘wait and see’ than we were in the past. Not only that, but here we are able to indulge in such an attitude, for not only are articles and other online informative writings at our fingertips, but equally important to me are the comments. As Blue has exampled here, accessing information about the claim concerning emolument and presenting a proof discrediting same in the instance he describes forms an entire argument with which it is impossible to disagree. ( Very Aristotelian. ) But also, this is Blue, and I myself to myself say, ah yes, Blue has made informative comments in the past. I will think about this. (Very Platonic.)
It is as the article describes, separating the wheat from the chaff. I very much love that image, because I think of the physical exertion involved – you take the pan, face away from the breeze, let the grain lift and fall. . .
There’s lots here to digest and discuss. Many thanks to author and commenters.
Mr khan You are a very knowledgable person, really an exemple of what muslims should have been today, looking forward to read more of you kind sir.
In your article you speak about the ravage of the Rockfeller sponsored education system have done to the common people, and since most education systems in the muslims worlds are just pale copies of the european one, and since i trust your judgement more than mine, i would like to know if you can recommand us some books on how to, at least, prevent some of the damage done in our “scooling system” and give our future generation à “better” start than us. Thank you in advance.
As for Russia Today, peoples need to remember that every news outlet just tell what their audience want to listen to. in the case of RT, most of it’s audience is mostly westerners. And what westerners want to listen to ?? they just want some confort in that they were alaways (ans stil are) the shining beacon of humanity and that all their problems are just because the envious Muslims hordes are raping their womens and the filthy asians are stealing their jobs.
use RT for just what it is (i never see them on TV, nor any news channel BTW) just a Firefox browser addon that give me the main headlines of what is happening in the world. nothing more.
My warmest thanks from a fellow Muslims in Algeria.
Riadh,
I am happy you found it useful. Thank you.
“i would like to know if you can recommand us some books on how to, at least, prevent some of the damage done in our “scooling system”
On the subject of schooling in the U.S. and how it has been calculatedly developed to dumb us down. I suggest you look into the books by John Taylor Gatto. He has written extensively on the subject. He also has many YouTube videos.
On the Trivium, please refer to Sister Miriam Joseph’s classic book “the Trivium”
You are absolutely right about modern Muslim schooling being mere mirrors of the western models, and therefore suffering from the same symptoms. We need to revisit the traditional madrasa system (not the modern empire run “soldiers” of God factory) which gave us the Ghazalis, Rumis, Fakhr Razis, Ibn Sinas. It requires a very serious turn about from the modern western institutions that, ironcially, run Muslim societies. At the head of it the financial and banking institutions.
“Separating the Wheat from the Chaff”
You’re saying that there are too many voices, too much clutter. Too many is better than too few. Too few, and we have to gulp down the mainstream narrative. Too many, and we have to work harder to find out what’s really going on.
So it comes down to shortcuts. Are there any strategies for cutting down the workload?
One would be: find an authority who has proved reliable in the past, then it’s a good bet to be reliable in the future. We have to go on the authority’s reputation, which unfortunately is susceptible to the “ad hominem” attack. You see a lot of that online.
Another would be: among the various explanations you see, prefer the simplest ones which explain a lot. For example, the term “AngloZionist”. Very short, and explanatory of very many situations.
Look for contradictions. If two explanations contradict each other, they can’t both be right. Unfortunately, they can both be wrong.
Anwar,
Thank you for this amazing piece of writing.
Yes. 9-11 is the “test” – a person is either “awake” and alert to what “they” (PTB/Empire) are unfolding. Or not – still asleep, still mindlessly consuming corporate media and controlled information.
Yes. I am sometimes disappointed in RT and Sputnik, esp when even THEY use terms such as “Russia’s ANNEXATION of Crimea. I shudder. I think they need to hire people who in the old traditional media were “desk editors” – to ensure oversight of narrative.
Yes. So much FAKE news. Soros! One of the reasons that there is not the “pure” AN that you wish for is that firstly there is no-one funding the construction of such a cogent AN. And those who ARE truth-seekers are blindsides and distracted and trolled by the Agents of Soros who are paid to distract and divert and confuse the AN.
Thank you again for the work you have put Into this article.
White whale,
Your welcome! I am happy you found it useful.
By mistake I replied to this article late last night Pacific Time under Ramin Mazaheri’s “Is Your Hate Intelligent?” article. Gives me a chance to correct the author’s name!
This thread deserves 300 comments.
For starters let’s go back to the Saker comment Dec 20 which caused 276 comments.
There, the video in question “proving” the hit was a fake was posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWHsU9DtvMg
by anonymous commenter. But it is now removed, “no longer available” on youtube
Almost everything is suspected by most alert people, so it is no disgrace that one commenter said “must watch”.
But then an anguished commenter next said “Why is this being ignored?” as though it was clearly the truth.
I answered:
“It’s not ignored. It just brings up 100+ more questions that cannot be answered in a day or two.
Besides the question about the you tuber himself possibly doctoring video, the main question becomes:
etc,etc ”
in this comment of mine: /a-few-initial-short-thoughts-on-the-murder-of-the-russian-ambassador-to-ankara/#comment-306127
The voice in the you tube video was familiar to me. But I didn’t know the name until I chanced upon a followup by the same person debunking what was supposed to be pall bearers out of doors very lightly carrying the presumably “empty” casket into the funeral service. Now I can’t find that video, but the voice of the researcher was the same, and this time his name was attached:
Ole Dammegard,
A couple of years earlier I had seen some of his stuff on false flags in Scandinavia, and thought “Maybe. Even probably. He seems to know his stuff, and be against the right bad guys.”
But before this article by Anwar Khan, in seeing both these “Ole” videos I was thinking, “No, the Russians involved in such BS? I highly doubt it.”
When the questions (such as “Why not at least weigh down the casket with sand bags inside, instead of making the whole pall bearing look phony?” )are multiplying faster than rabbits, one smells a rabbit hole trap.
Why would Ole do that? Error? He’s paid by the enemy and is consciously in complicity with a nefarious agenda? He’s gone off the deep end? Some other bizarre explanation?
At some point you just have to say, “I don’t know, but there are more important things to look into, where, for example, the questions are not multiplying THAT much faster than the answers!”
Epistemological rigor would be an enormous anti-empire strategic asset if that could be organized. Great article. Much more to say on other parts of it, but I’ll separate them out and say part of them later.
By the way, Ole was the bored “Here we go again, I mean GIVE me a break!” voice on one of the sitreps posted by Scott (If my memory serves) just a few months ago, regarding a supposedly Muslim immigrant terror incident in Europe. I recall no objections to it.
So this is challenging. Too challenging to make up your mind quickly, in many, many cases, and I see that a lot of commentors here realize that.
Bro 93,
It seems you beat me to that hoax video. Good job!
Last time I checked the link still worked. Atleast the one I provide in the ‘notes’ section of the article.
Appreciate your informed comments here.
Are you people ok??
Kidding me,??
You can not see the hoax with the Russian ambassador and False hoax in Berlin. Same dates !!!
Have you never seen an actual blood pool from bullets??
Never shot a rifle?? Or a pistol…
Do people among you really still believe there was a bomb in Boston Marathon instead of a smoke bomb??
Wake up ignorant, you don’t have the luxury anymore to sleep..
We Kurds and Muslims are awake but still support orthodox Christian struggle and understand the Antlanticists in Russia as well…
Biji Islam, Rum/orthodox Christians, Kurdistan, Russia
The three religion, Judaic, Christian and Muslim have the same origin, and that origin is based on discrimination the sense of superiority thus intolerance of other opinions and.because dominated by an autocratic god.” Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. ( Matthew 10;14-16 ) The Roman Catholic church the most brutal and unforgiving. So extremism will be found in almost i all religion. Although Islam itself means peace. in the case here present the Muslim terrorists are mostly the product of the empire..The empire has mobilized, armed, trained them and are steering them into these horrific crimes. 2000 years of religions have not been able to fundamentally change human nature. Not only because hardly anyone actually practices his religion but because the insufficiencies mentioned above. It is time to step over religions and go directly to the Divine Source.
bernie,
“It is time to step over religions and go directly to the Divine Source”. How do you suggest we do that?
I would gently suggest a different meaning to the biblical quote by Matthew. It is rather an exhortation to a view of reality that does not prize (family) harmony or social imperatives over truth seeking. I love the exhortation that I do not come to bring peace, but a sword! The sword refers to the intellect, to discrimination, to bringing intellectual understanding to life. As those who follow that path know, there will be losses, people, groups, beliefs left behind in the process of truth seeking. It is not always easy. and true peace is not inaction in the face of injustice, it is what comes with a long practice of ethical principles and a fire in the belly. It is not the peace of dullness and withdrawal, but peace as integral and informing our lives.
I´m no biblical scholar, but certainly in buddhism we must confront the difficult to understand story of Gautama buddha leaving his wife and child to go off in search of ultimate reality. I come to a similar conclusion. We can only serve one master.
By imposing the concept “God’ on any philosophy you condemn it to the problems you identify. By doing so you are in the arena of faith where anything goes. Welcome to the patriarchal Tower of Babel. If you can’t see this, you can’t see anything clearly, much less logically.
The concept of Love has no such problems and it is not imposed by force or faith. If you can’t see that then you can’t see anything realistically.
Long before the logicians arrived we used metaphors and stories that had logic ingrained. I use the metaphors or a Love Army and Love Bower, and the stories of Love and War. In this 99% brain dead culture it is a rare individual who can integrate metaphor and logic.
Jesus made a dent in the Empire but was soon made into a Christ of power. He preached love. Does anyone even notice or care anymore? Love is a philosophy and much more. Good luck with trying to use God to stop war. Ten thousand years of evidence cannot convince those who are convicted against their will.
If we want to win this thing, it’s time to stop mollycoddling the weak minded enablers of empire and develop a real philosophy based on what Jesus was talking about: namely, love in action.
What ‘love’ did the Christ preach? Certainly not the ‘luv’ of the hippies. Not the “love trumps hate” of the ‘Love Army’ Will Conquer Trump”.
“Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God (ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου) with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”(Matthew 22: 35-40).
Love is not a ‘thing’ but an action.
But who made Jesus into a Christ of ‘power’?
“18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20).
“These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John, 17:1-3).
You should know that the English use of ‘power’ conflates two Greek words:
1. δύναμις: “potency”, “potential”, “capacity”, “ability”, “power”, “capability”, “strength”, “possibility”, “force” .
2. ἐξουσία: authority, conferred power; delegated empowerment (“authorization”), operating in a designated jurisdiction, power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases; leave or permission; the power of rule or government.
Fear of God (of his power) is the beginning of Wisdom. Wisdom leads to love, which leads to the Holy Spirit.
Over in the Moveable Feast Café I begin to lay out the Trivium/Quadrivium methodology:
/moveable-feast-cafe-2017-01-23/#comment-315184
But Right Now, I have to buy groceries.
However, “I’ll Be Back.” https://youtu.be/WgPePk3kGZk
Given the clutter of the AN landscape in virtually every field of inquiry and the active participation of “known unknowns” (and sincere but mistaken zealots) in propaganda from all sides and the cross-cultural/human “need” for a level of certainty in belief to maintain our sanity, what would you say to assigning a “P” value to various theories, based on statistical modeling?
The probability of competing concepts could be assigned a “P” value based on shared mathematical “truths”. Unless P=0 it is possible but unlikely. If P=1 it is certain. Everything in-between is open to discussion based on evidence.
At the very least I suspect widely held, but demonstrably false ideas could be shelved and energy and effort could then be focused on the next issue.
My template for this concept is the vaccination/ global warming dichotomy…two subjects I have studied carefully. I see the strongest anti-vaccine advocates embracing global warming theory and the need to halt human development while failing to recognize that the “science” behind that which they seek and that which they oppose are created by the same interests.
The cognitive dissonance engendered precludes any progress on either file. In science and mathematics we can establish baselines and shared “truth” that will enable progress. Otherwise it is all opinion and as dear deceased friend and truth-seeker was fond of saying, “opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.”
Nice read. I fully agree. Sputnik Online also disparages all things Islamic or Muslim , it seems. Ive written to them about it.
‘Migrant crime’ in Europe is becoming a tired angle to play. You mean to tell me that in any New Years Eve celebration their are not many women groped or fondled? Times Square in New York experiences many rapes and attempted rapes every year. So do celebrations around the world.
The perception that Muslims have a monopoly on crime, rape and terrorism is a misguided one, and dangerous too.
Sputnik and RT, please think long term.
Your comment is borderline FOS. What Sputnik writes is just journalistic opinion, though these days it is some of the best.
Germans know what has changed in their nation. And, as a rule Germans do not ‘grope’ or otherwise cause mayhem, until allowed by the state.
‘Muslims’ have nothing to do with it though you mention them by name. ISIS/ISIL/AlCIAda terrorists do.
They are no more Islamic than the Crusaders or the Conquistadores were Christian.
So, what actually define a ‘Muslim’?
This discussion needs to continue on for awhile so thanks for starting it, A. Khan. I regret that I must be excluded from your forum because IV is a sticking point for me or perhaps a red line? There is Wahabi sponsored terrorism which uses a mutilated form of Islam as its theoretical basis. Now, how much Western intelligence agencies interface with or sponsor this, is unknown but not unknowable.
As a historian, I doubt very much that the West was the source of Wahabi thought as every religion has developed over time its non consensus branches. This one happened to be seized upon by State/Tribal leaders to use to their advantage at the time and continues to this moment.
My problem is that I have friends on both sides of what I call the Narrative Divide. What “really” happened in the case of Sandy Hook ?( very easy to get consensus on this as most of us at our age have had experience with mentally ill, violent men needing medication or isolation permanently from society.)
What happened at PingPong Pizza and is Infowars to blame? That was a bit more difficult to speak about without talking about how perceived electronic reality can be manipulated . It is very possible that this news was staged unlike the news that is just “made up”. This is a crucial difference since you have a gunman, an “incident” and supposedly an arrest record and witnesses. True? but is it the whole story?
All fake news is not the same–it exists within a context. Cui bono? Also, in ancient times they tried to deal with observer bias ( with cameras we only have one observer at one instant in time) by requiring two eyewitnesses in order to, say, make a death sentence. In the case of Islam one man’s word equals the word of two women and I am not even sure if women’s testimony was allowed in capital cases.
The Russian hacking claims—that was easier since I was speaking with academics and just presented the Occam’s razor of a student drive, downloaded information leak as well as the word of Julian Assange. It did not change their minds but it shook their foundation which is what a cogent argument can do. The psychologist in the group working for Silicon Valley corporation flew into a rage though when I looked at him and said, ” That is just not true” to a statement he made that Hillary lost because the Press was against her.
Information is in the hands of what I call “crazy makers” with an agenda. It is important that people just do not give up trying to perceive “truth” and not succumb to the cynical power brokers who claim, “Truth is what we make it.” Also, there is an intellectually based truth and there is emotionally felt truth–unfortunately people mostly take action based on the latter for good or ill. There is a great divide between head and heart in the land.
I do not think that calling on Aristotle and circling the wagons around a wall of our AN criteria is the answer although it might be helpful in your discussions on this site. Perhaps you can comment using your
techniques as controversial stories occur?
@AK — Absolutely outstanding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A few thoughts on points you have raised :
appearance of symbols and numbers of occult nature, according to him, indicating the fingerprints of some secret society.
A fertile ground for wild imagination indeed. Yet, if you had time to review the last few years of Miles W. Mathis’ essays, you would see that he (Mathis) certainly demonstrates that this is indeed their practice, beyond doubt.
democratization of information also has a down side. It has caused a phenomenon we may call “information clutter” where on any particular issue many different claims can be made without anything ever being proved.
IMO the proliferation of information has not caused this problem. It is simply another strategy used by the propagandists. “Blackout” (control of media) formerly ensured that the truth was never known, or was known to so few it didn’t matter. As this strategy failed (although attempts at it continue), they switch to the “Whiteout” technique (as with 9/11 — earlier the Kennedy assassination). This (as you note) is to circulate so many conflicting versions that recognizing the true one becomes like trying to recognize one snowflake in a blizzard. Different strategy, same result.
many of the characters in the AM lack sound intellectual and logical principles which would enable them to grapple with the ever more sophisticated mind-rape that we are treated with, and are often clueless in finding coherence within the noise.
I would suggest that your explanation (that they lack sound intellectual and logical principles) is indeed an accurate description of the problem they present, but the underlying cause of this is that, eschewing reason, they are promulgating beliefs.
Beliefs, by nature, are impervious to facts (which the believer will deny), reason (which he will declare inapplicable or counter with false “facts”) and even to personal experience (which he will rationalize away). Belief is a realm unto itself. That is why propagandists of all kinds deal in it. Emotional excitement (and certainty) is always more appealing than the uncertainty that reasoning involves. To someone convinced that all Canadians (or Moslems, or people who ride bicycles) are evil, nothing you can point out to him will have any effect. (The mini-essays that Scott Adams has posted on Persuasion and Cognitive Dissonance over the last month or so are invaluable). A few :
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153559105081/a-lesson-in-cognitive-dissonance
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/139541975641/the-trump-master-persuader-index-and-reading-list
I believe the AN needs to “standardize” its epistemology—the investigation of what justifies sound belief and distinguishes it from mere unsupported opinion— or risk being a collection of such a cognitive spectrum (which it currently is) where it is impossible to find two people of similar belief, a recipe for information clutter, confusion and ultimately failure to change our collective disposition.
This reminds me of the days when the four schools of Islamic Law were being formulated. Your prescription suits the people who accomplished that perfectly. But those men were the intellectual elite of their people.
Sadly, although they tend to be intelligent, the AN community overall are not people of that calibre (although more than a few here in Sakeri-stan are, or could be). So might I — with all possible respect (and, actually, genuine admiration) — suggest that your prescription is not broadly applicable. Not enough people (overall) are capable of independent reasoning (one early study in England found that to be 13% of the population). When you are considering the mass — the aggregate of everybody who wanders in from the street — you are dealing with people hardwired for belief, and for following strong, confident, alpha-male leaders. It has always been this way, and likely always will be.
And this is the way matters are playing out — or tending to. As everyone eventually links to everyone else, the leaders emerge more and more obviously. Saker, Shamir, Meyssan, Stone, Mathis,et al. What complicates this is the necessity of corporate sponsorship to reach the mass market. This is almost too obvious to mention. Alex Jones, for example, is a valuable force in AN. But no one can say anything less than polite and respectful about the Jews there. This is not a blind spot (Alex is not stupid) — it is a corporate mandate. The people who sponsor him know from MSM viewership figures that straight “party line” propaganda is a non-starter. So they settle for attracting an audience with some of the truth while trying to steer attention away from other aspects of it. So the outrages committed by the culturally unassimilable “refugees” get 24/7 coverage, but why they are imported, who is importing them, and to accomplish what end are generally “off limits.” (Symptoms, OK; causes, no). So such sites appear valuable — but only in contrast to ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN, which even Joe Sixpack increasingly sees is reeking pile. And they are.
On the other hand, once such an agreement as you describe is reached by a critical mass of “alpha male” AN leaders, the crazies, subverters, disinformationalists and true believers will increasingly come to be seen in their true light, just as the AN bright lights have distinguished themselves in comparison to what else is “out there.” Because, in following them, the educable among the believers will be to listen and learn. Once the alpha consensus solidifies . . . who knows ?
That, at any rate, is how I think this is accomplished.
FWIW (if anything)
For an alternative approach, take a look at Bayesian inference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
Skipping all the mathematical stuff, there is an “informal” description of what it is:
“If the evidence does not match up with a hypothesis, one should reject the hypothesis. But if a hypothesis is extremely unlikely a priori, one should also reject it, even if the evidence does appear to match up. For example, if one does not know whether the newborn baby next door is a boy or a girl, the color of decorations on the crib in front of the door may support the hypothesis of one gender or the other; but if in front of that door, instead of the crib, a dog kennel is found, the posterior probability that the family next door gave birth to a dog remains small in spite of the “evidence”, since one’s prior belief in such a hypothesis was already extremely small.
“The critical point about Bayesian inference, then, is that it provides a principled way of combining new evidence with prior beliefs, through the application of Bayes’ rule … “
The AN, as you call it, surely is a cyclone of stories and opinions, making it difficult indeed to see clearly and to find one’s way to as much of the truth as is accessible to us. One old filter I used was support for the Iraq War. Anyone who called for or endorsed that unspeakable crime was not worth listening to about anything that mattered. Along with it was 9/11 itself, to the effect that anyone not open to some sort of deep state involvement was also not worth my time. A more recent filter I am using concerns war in general as waged against human beings and the natural world. If the primary thrust of one’s outrage, whatever other issues one wishes to address, is not directed toward wanton human slaughter and ongoing ecocide, then I am not interested in what else is being said. More recently, I have added the filter of Russophobia, since this form of hatred has again gone viral (I lived through the Cold War) and has infected so much of public discourse. Lastly, I spend no time with aggressive atheists or fundamentalist believers, both of whom exude an arrogance and close-mindedness that can blind one to things other than spiritual. Thanks for getting into a serious but subtle topic.
I agree with (and have myself used) all of your “filters” to detect the “spectral lines” of falsity. I mistrust all statements which endorse the Bush regime on 911, which approve of mass homicide and ecocide, and which reinforce the present atmosphere of Russophobia which has characterized the twilight of the Obama regime and is currently spread over the whole of western Europe from north to south. The “endorsing war” filter warned me that something had gone seriously wrong in Europe when “the irresistible armed might” of NATO started dropping bombs on Serbia – the first since Hitler, and more bombs than the Luftwaffe dropped. Another filter is “cui bono” e.g. when a consortium of oilmen in the Bush regime advocate 911 as a reason to invade oil-rich Iraqi, or when a banker’s son heads the Camoron regime to invade gold-rich Libya. These simple criteria filter out a lot of the misinformation that bombards us from the info world.
Anwar Khan and all the contributors a sincere thank you from an isolate ….
Historical convergence is apparent in the replies, and animates my own activities and plans.
I have returned to University at the age of 60, to research a neglected and obscure collection of documents, only to find that Australian universities are in intellectual shambles. Managers have encouraged a lousy bunch of pseudo-intellectuals, harassed and harangued, the remaining. Fraud has become the new curriculum and I cannot see our Secondary or Tertiary system reviving anytime soon, there are now several missing generations of scholars while teaching in schools is now universally at a poor Primary level (with teachers to match) – the formal channels have been all but destroyed. University libraries now dump books to make space for sleeping pods (I am not making this up).
If Australia is typical of formal Western education it is over in the humanities they are beyond internal redemption anything that happens will be external to them – which brings me to the point.
The need for a proper electronic university (I am not talking about the sad open university courses), creating a massive digital library from what already exists, and what can be obtained. To attach to this courses and lectures and to publish as a means of accreditation – that is compile student’s work into volumes and allow that to be accessed as a portfolio of achievement. To also publish scholarly journals and other works without every touching paper.
Epistemology has to be the centre-piece and I had my own project in this area, but my plan was small baby steps, until I read this article and its replies.
It seems to me that the one practical task is to bring scholarship fully within the means of communication, to archive and distribute works of intellect, to pay authors and lecturers their due through micro-cash fees (extremely small amounts from many people), and run courses from basic secondary to the highest tertiary levels, and over see the lot on basic intellectual principles alone.
Around this base of disinterested learning connections to political and culture activities naturally arrange themselves outside the ‘walls’ of scholarship.
If anybody is interested in discussing such a project greg.schofield@histmat.org
Greg Shofield,
I am happy you have come out of your isolation Greg. Like the Persian saying “mountain doesn’t reach out to mountains, but man does to other men”. “Man” meaning humans, for the more gender sensitive amongst us.
You have brought up a very interesting issue: proper electronic university. I am by nature “old school”, buying books, stacking papers on my desk,(damn, I sometimes find myself writing real letters to people),seeking out masters of any trade I want to acquire, even if it entails traveling. So on a philosophical and aesthetic level, the idea of electronic learning is not something that makes me too excited. Having said that, the realities that we live with in our times will have the last say in these matters, not our desires. And when that happens we would rather love to see qualified, sincere and real people doing that than half-wits and zombies.
You might want to elaborate more on this issue, the goals, risks, opportunities, challenges etc, so we can get a better idea and perhaps give a better judgement. (off the bat it sounds a very decent idea). May I recommend you write something up here at the Saker in an article form?
all the best
Anwar, I too am a bibliophile and I will be until I die, an books will be with us still, but printed because they are already loved, not on first acquaintance.
Publishers are currently inhibiting the spread of literature, by the comparative pricing between print and electronic, monopolisation by corporate entities of large sections of publishing and nearly the whole book distribution network; in fact the list of restrictive and anti-cultural practises becomes ever longer once the present industry is closely examined, let along what has bee happening in education with low-grade textbooks and the exclusion of quality :—: print publishing has exhausted its prime advantage that it has held with pride since Gutenberg.
Electronic literature is never out of print, the cost of producing one item is exactly the same for making millions copies. Electronic literature also has potential absent from print, multi structured, tedious aspects can be automated, customised use etc.,.
In the thesis I am writing, I have a lot of maps, only some will appear in the main text, an appendix will give the coordinates etc,. but in the PDF there will be attachments files that can be loaded into cartographic software (free such as Qgis and Google-Earth for instance). I am hoping to include a TEI version of the historical manuscript used, and the Latex that produced the MS appendix. Within the PDF the appendices will be attached separately (as they have a use by themselves). The thesis may be read, but also plugged-into existing systems, the projects of others and corrected, refined by them.
This is I believe the future of scholarly publishing that includes all those things that can further scholarship that often never see print. And if a world library is ever created the context fro every reference can be found immediately. Mimicking books can only go so far, exceeding the possibilities of print lie at out feet.
For example, a 500 page book, returning $1 to the author until they die (or having died to their estate until their 80th year), 20 cents to the publisher for the first decade (20% of the royalty amount), and 5 cents for the retailer (5% of the royalty amount for each sale), means a huge potential market and for many non-fiction writers a huge increase in royalties and living standards for $1.25 per copy (even this sum can be reduced through self publishing and cooperative retailing). A journal article may only give 5 cents to the author, a journal of 20 articles plus editor reviewers getting 20% for a decade = $1.20 per issue.
The actual numbers are not important, but the disproportion with print is the critical idea; print is incapable of this sort of economics, and excluding University or being wealthy, access is practically denied to most people due solely to expense.
Tens of thousands of serious non-fiction works are presently in circulation at this moment in Torrents, this is aside from those providing works for free, Internet Archive, and Google’s free out-of-copyright collection. The “illegal” Torrent is actually doing a service for humanity, and should be supported the current copyright system and corporate intellectual ownership is against the public interest; Authors should be paid but not those that leech of them; if we do not get a sensible price system, then piracy will thrive.
This response to corporate copyright and where gouging a small base readership is rife. The Torrents shows that basis for such reading is much wider than academia, much much bigger than any non-fiction print market allows. We are talking about the tens of millions of enthusiasts some with, and some without, University level education. It also shows the desperate need to create a fair pricing system that benefits the author above everyone else. Hence the price is the (R) royality for life + 20%R publishes cut for 10 years + 5%R per sale.
There are technical restrictions which need to addressed, companies are slowing down the development of scholastically useful formats. Reading has to be better (see getremarkable.com due in August – it overcomes the handwriting barrier, plus read anywhere and annotate, far too expensive unfortunately).
Then there is having legal protection, which is one country in the world willing to have and police fair electronic copyright that includes a fair pricing system, and support a world wide micro payment system like Webmoney (I hope Russia is listening!). Otherwise such a library would have to created underground which is another restriction.
The reason why there is no fully functioning electronic library is a result of corporate ownership of our intellectual culture, nothing above is inherently hard to do, and very little of it is actually new. But imagine having just gathered together the world’s literature, all the languages, all the obscure works and all the important ones, the crazy and the scholarly, organised on established principles of librarianship and browser-able, but also customisable for different uses.
Borrowing books as free reading tethered to the internet site with referencing and quoting, but without annotation. A reader downloads to buy, annotates at will and organise needed, the the right to gift copies to friends, but not resell, or make access to copies public. No DMR, but receipt number included. This was exactly like book copyright used to be, but now the new library acts as the retailer, funding themselves in the process.
The one big library should be a generational aim of our time, but it needs library type access (searching has its place, but will never replace hand cataloguing), a modern ISBN identity system that can be attached to anything and never duplicates, better more flexible formats etc.,.
The library is the University to which everything else is bolted-on; we need one that the people of the world can access and seek out wherever else they need. It does not solve the epistemological gap, but it does make it solvable.
I want to see new scholarship, of scholars who may live anywhere on earth, who may never have seen a traditional university, to study and publish and make a living for themselves writing, teaching and researching. Books won’t do this any more than manuscripts could compete with the press (thousands receiving exact copies within weeks, instead of a few hundred over years), we can make knowledge available to millions in a micro-second, but this is the work of many hands and many minds.
I am only surprised by the fact that it has not been undertaken already as a project until I remember the corporate forces working against it — it needs one country on this planet to take a lead to do it properly, but this does not stop it being commenced in underground fashion, the necessary software to begin is already developed and free.
Anwar forgive the length and rambling manner, please do not feel obliged to reply.
Greg Schofield,
I am obliged to comment ( and I am happy about it) because what you are suggesting is quite profound. I often find myself in utter rage when I want a book, published not too long ago, selling for 500$, simply by the machinations of the publishing industry. No economics logic dictating it whatsoever. It is beyond a shame.
Again I really encourage you to write an article on this subject and have it published here. I see no reason why Saker wouldn’t love to help in this matter. The comments section is really not a place for such an important idea. The Saker readership is very dynamic and resourceful. I am sure you will get the moral and technical help you are seeking.
All the best!
Thank you Anwar I will take your advice at the first opportunity, You and blue have been very encouraging.
Greg
To fair extent, if you want to know where the electronic university is, you are sitting in it.
The irony of our times is that everything is developed that is needed but it has not yet converged into a single intellectual force (not a monolithic one, but a variegated organic whole).
I come to this site everyday, I have about fifteen others I visit as well every morning — it is however not quite a newspaper, which is how I am more or less using my browser. And while this and many other sites are doing great things, I cannot systematically examine similar things, I miss much more than I see. For instance I missed South Front for a long while. Other sites get lost etc. Convergence gathers like with like, topic with topic etc, going from one to the other is a visit a group, all its members belonging to other groups that have different associations.
In other words simply by browsing and following my nose I gather sources simply because they are plonked together for some reason. The search engine will remain, but we need something more organically structured, and it need not be anything automated.
Instead of sites in isolation, imagine a newspaper stand, I go to the stand and see that 99% of them have no interest for me, so I go with what I am already familial with someone who has the same interests edits it and through that I go to the articles from sites (like information clearing house). But instead a few newspapers have many to choose from, and as I read my tastes change etc.,. I return to the newstand and browse for something new.
But look hat is needed to allow me to do this, a lot of editors putting in a lot of effort, a single place to go, a catalogue of papers, and writers thousands of writers. For this to actually converge, bring everything we know have to a higher state of development, there has to be a flow of money to these hard working people, who I want to keep doing their stuff.
The problem is not in the existence of talent, that is rich indeed, but in the amount of effort that can be expected from them as a group. at the moment generosity fuels it and also restricts it.
What happens when the restriction is removed? what happens when things are very very cheap, marketed to millions, but no longer free. When no middle-man gets anything, but the workers in the field are paid. To my mind the whole thing begins to converge into something at a whole new level which to me has been obvious for decades.
Stuff can be free, like yesterdays newspaper, things can be burrowed without cost through library’s free access can remain in place, with few and non-onerous caveats, but the leading edge is talent and work be allowed to earn, that parasites be extinguished and everything made as affordable as possible, and that after periods longer and shorter everything becomes free within the public domain.
What needs to be done is has already commenced as you point out, but what needs to be done next is an entirely new problem. I call it the great intellectual convergence, not in agreement but in physical technology and economic underpinnings. I believe all of it is sitting there ready to go (technically) but the relations of production are corrupted and exhausted, they need to be pushed into the dustbin — it is already overdue.
This can be used as a good argument for unconditional basic income, and also for socialism with state, and world, supported intellectual production and distribution. Also an argument against capitalism where everything must turn a profit, and many things are behind pay walls (to the detriment of all the poor who are increasing in numbers). Consider how many of the great intellects and artists have been sponsored in one way or another, and would never have produced anything without patrons. And yet, if no patron was found who was willing to give support to those ideas he favored, the work could not be done. What has the world missed from these repressed geniuses because his work and knowledge did not favor the elite?
blue the sentiments I share, I have had the good fortune to meet established and recognised great minds, but far many more whose abilities were clear, but never had the opportunity to demonstrate what they could achieve.
The times allow solution undreamed by the past. The irony is that an actual free market in the products of intellect is in the context of this world — socialistic. And yes a secure basic income would unleash invention and application beyond the scope of foresight. when they got ride of Tenure for academics arguing that many rested on their lurals contributing little— it was obvious to me at least it was money well spent if 9 out of ten did nothing at all, just to allow one to work without fetters.
What I see now is cowed and managed ‘intellect’ who believe consensus means ‘true’ and controversy is wrong, who publish masses of dribble because career is judged by number not quality. This is a crisis of culture and intellect, the result of three decades of farcical fascism (what used to be called social fascism), under the the dictates of the financial sector.
Their back can be broken, but first it has to be broken in the imagination, the organic intellectuals of our period, who crave literature but do not have it, and do not know where to look for it, must be given sensible access to the archives of culture.
Thank you for your insightful and stimulating comment.
Greg
I enjoyed this article more than any I have read in a long while. It brings a refreshing approach of academic intellectual rigor lacking in almost all public discourse.
However, the author disappointed with this “another example is Sibel Edmonds. I like her measured approach to Big Brother and whistle blowing issues and staying within her range of expertise, without unnecessarily delving into the occult and other unrelated issues. I should also mention James Corbett of the corbettreport.com’
I ‘m afraid he has fallen into the error of making a judgement based on academic values, without checking reality. Without both, our knowledge is lacking no matter how solid our theories of epistemology. Knowledge contains validated facts after all – in fact it’s what knowledge as opposed to deduction and opinion is.
Both Edmonds and Corbett are violently anti-Russian and anti-Putin. They make wild accusations based on a highly selective and biased interpretation of facts when it come to assessing the situation in Ukraine – and no facts or evidence at all when it comes to President Putin.
Corbett wrote of events in Ukraine of the “Holodomor” from the perspective of pure Banderistas. This is that the Holodomor only happened in Ukraine – no mention of Russian starvation and suffering at the same time is brought in to balance. Moreover it was presented as an instrument of deliberate Russian masochism, trying to destroy Ukrainians on a racist basis, instead of the insane piece of policy it was. With regard to Vladimir Vladimirovic, he is flatly accused of being a gangster, a thief of taxes, having salted away billions in US$, having yachts in Cyprus and so on. Not a shred of evidence is ever presented.
I used to read the Corbett report, and I did a fair bit of research on pedophilia in the UK following the Savile revelations, which I submitted to him as part of a report. He used it without any credit whatsoever !!!
I put up with this, but following the joint vilification of the most moral of leaders to be found anywhere, I withdrew my support and have not found reason to re-establish it. The last I heard of Edmond’s, she was bemoaning the fact that she could not publish Paul Craig Roberts because of his admiration for Putin, and in fact was running out of anyone she could publish, because they are all “caught up in the brainwashing of the man”.
Sad, that the author of so good piece of work has failed to do his own homework – it does perhaps illuminate that we must needs link the abstract academic to practical checking and validating before we can sure we have truly applied the principles of epistemology.
Isabella,
I am happy you found the article useful. At least somewhat.
As for “both Edmonds and Corbett are violently anti-Russian and anti-Putin”. Can you please provide some evidence for this because that is not the sense I get from reading them. Goes without saying that one can’t read everything that people publish. But even if we hypothetically hold them to have something against Putin, does that necessarily disqualify them? Also was this particular sentiment of their’s a while back or continues to be the case? We need some evidence for such allegations.
“I used to read the Corbett report, and I did a fair bit of research on pedophilia in the UK following the Savile revelations, which I submitted to him as part of a report. He used it without any credit whatsoever !!!”
If that’s true then it is unbecoming of him. I don’t have any delusions about people. People win our respect in one aspect and yet disappoint in another. That’s how it is. But does that necessitate crossing them out entirely given they don’t engage in something that can’t possibly be forgiven?
“Sad, that the author of so good piece of work has failed to do his own homework – it does perhaps illuminate that we must needs link the abstract academic to practical checking and validating before we can sure we have truly applied the principles of epistemology”.
Isabella, you got to be realistic, one can not read EVERYTHING out there. I do sufficient reading to be able to make a fair judgement. I am not infallible– assuming your points are really the case, which is not proven yet.
Cheers
I”m sorry Anwar, but I cannot go back and search through all Corbetts writings – re the Maiden, that would be a couple of years ago now. Also, I believe maybe the video of Edmonds rants with Corbetts agreeing nods may be available on YouTube. Someone kindly supplied it to me via a comment at Russia Insider – that was more than 6 months ago. I didn’t save it.
It would be a waste of precious time for me to go rummaging through what feels like a rubbish bin in order to find pieces of excrement – not a pastime I’m happy with :-) I have enough on my plate just now as it is.
I can only give you my word that such do exist, I have seen / heard them for myself. I would not otherwise have come to the judgement of them I have. That I can promise.
Enara,
I am pleased you found it useful.
Yes, what you are suggesting is indeed an axiom: those who created the problems in the first place cannot be trusted to solve them. Mad Dog fits thats perfectly.
You are most welcome to Afghanistan! We saw off Alexander, Genghis Khan, British Empire, the Soviets, I am sure she will survive the Cowboys. Proud nations do not bow their heads easily.
What kind of terminal, exceptionalist infantilism does it take to name people ‘Mad Dog’ and military adventures ‘Desert Storm’, let alone have such people in power?
I think that the US as a whole suffers from what can only be termed ‘intelligence envy’.
Alas that they have the power to obliterate invidious comparisons.
But is this not the definition of barbarism?
Franz,
“But is this not the definition of barbarism?”
You nailed it.
Enara,
Thanks for sharing the video. I never heard of it before. But to be honest with you I could not watch it past 15 minutes,( but I did skim through it). I found the musical score unbearably depressing. The aesthetics where very crude and very post-modern, which can be forgiven if the message is one of importance. But it wasn’t. It was in line with the run of the mill Soros inspired (and most probably funded, especially the awards nominations. Ironically, her second film was about the Green Revolution in Iran, an intimately Soros project) “liberation of Muslim woman” crocodile tears that I find intolerable. Not because there is no woman suffering in Afghanistan but because I have consistently seen, over the past 15 years, a constant stream of Western film makers and their Fifth Column House Negros documenting the Afghan woman and her suffering to win cheap awards and advance their film making career (They invariably never return back to their subjects) It is a very feel-good and controversial free subject to win adulations in Sundance, especially because it reminds the Western audience about the superiority of their cultural and social institutions. I was recently interviewed in Afghanistan by another of these House Negro film maker about the same subject( and when available I can share it with you) about the same subject. My views are the same about her efforts and Hana Makhmalbaf’s: why are you film makers not documenting the war machines in Afghanistan that directly is responsible for the suffering of the Afghan woman? Why not expose the belligerents and the various industries that benefit from war? Afghanistan has been in constant war since the Soviet invasion. Almost 40 years!! How will women achieve their rights and rightful status in society when insecurity and vigilantism is the rule of the land? Why not put your efforts to expose war, the Absolute Evil, which opens doors to all the other forms of human depravity? To her credit, the film maker interviewing me said “because we can’t sell that story”. There you go.
I work in the education sector in Afghanistan. I am intimately aware of the challenges that women face. I don’t take it likely. We are working hard to overcome them. But these efforts will all fail if the war machine is not stopped. Simple. I know when something profound is being said and something for cheap adulation is being said. Afghan Women “liberation” is the latter.
Having said that, I found the little actress absolutely amazing!
I am sorry if I brought too much emotion in my rant.
I was intrigued to see the cliche crocodile tears and caught a glimpse of the famous Buddhas which were destroyed by CIA/ISIS in order to incite the West into a murderous mood against the ‘barbarians’. (Much like 9/11 was.) Aleppo and Palmyra and their, treasures which CIA/ISIS has wiped from the face of the earth in Nazi ‘destroy-all-culture’ style.
It all makes me spit at the monumental hypocrisy and endless stupidity of the masses in the West.
Oh, it is really a pity that you only gave it the opportunity to 15 minutes of footage plus some skimming!
As any cinephile would advice you, you will never be able to judge a film unless you watch it, without previous prejudices, till the end. I you had done that with “Buddha collapsed out of shame” you would had discovered that almost the most important of the script is pronounced in the final sentence said by Abbas ( “Baktay, die yourself, because otherwise you will not be free!” ), you would have discovered that there is not much music in the rest of the film apart from the beginning, and so, not a film to be judged by its soundtrack, in fact it is more a documentary than a film since you can not get such little children, almost babies like “Baktay”, performing all the time, but at most you will be able to give them some instructions and then film their reaction, phisical and emotional to a given situation. Being so young, so little, most probably you will find the kind of absolutely fascinating expressions of espontaneity coming from both, but especially from Baktay. I say this about this film being almost a documentary because in Afghanistan you hadly would find those children who are raised expresely to be actors/actresses, as happens today in the West.
You are saying that the film does not reflect the main problem in Afghanistan, “war”, and I will say you that it is in its whole about war, hence the sad notes of the first minutes of footage when the explosion of the Bamiyan Buddhas takes place. Of course, war is not explicit in the film but implicit, in the poverty the children Abbas and Baktay live with her mothers ( notice that they both have no fathers, implicitly died in war? ) living in such a dangerous and inhospit place as those caves. War is implicit in the “transparency” of and indiference towards Baktay, as a female child, for most of the adults, especially men, in the village. War is terribly implicit is the plays of the older children with Islamic attire, as well as war is implicit in the scene when a military helicopter passed through the sky changing the mind and play of the children to more violent and nihilistic, if possible. War is implicit in the lack of adequated schools, having to teach in the open air or the lack of place for all. War in implicit in the scene where two men with not so rich appearance are interchanging a huge ammount of money in a village of poor surrounding ( coming from an obscure origin, perhaps opium trade? ).
But what is most valuable and beautiful in this story is Baktay´s attitude, her courage, stubbornees and determination to learn and know and definitely her overcoming of fear in a society where as a female has everything against and lost since childhood. This is what makes of this film a chant to childhood and the freedom inherent to every human being which with all of us are born and which is soon robbed from and obscured inside us by certain so called “education system” and unfair and unadequate oppressive government.
Also, is giving a testimony, through Abbas and Baktay´s natural friendship and solidarity born amongst children from being neighbors and pertaining to the same social class ( both suffering from the same poverty and isolation ) and how this natural tendence amongst children is almost erased from those older children who play the talibans ( most probably, and by their attire, school-boys of certain kind of madrasa?).
It is from Abbas´ reading that Baktay discovers that there is world of fun and enjoyment in knowledge, hence her determination to go to school. It is the flame of knowledge switched on in an intelligent soul what makes her overcome in solitude the dangerous path from her cave-home to the seller of school material and also what impells her to become a business woman going to the village to sell what she has for to be able to buy her kittab and kalam. But what is really a pleasure to watch the natural sparks coming from this child about what is unfair and her willing to claim for her rights, as when a man break two of her eggs while passing and he goes after him claimming why he has done that and for the eggs to be paid, or when the men who are interchanging so much money and then she is able to see how easy they could buy her eggs and give her the small ammount of money needed for her school material.
Well, Anwar, you said that you worked in Afghanistan, and now you are saying that you teach there, then, I do not know if you are favourable to the Taliban( which seemed to me you implicitly were telling ), but I hope that you are not of the opinion of some here who think that the issue of Trivium and Quadrivium must be only an issue of “alpha males”, whatever that expression could mean, since for me no man who disrespect women in any way has anything of “alpha”, if any kind of moral superiority is meant.
If you want a healthy development for your country, you should include women in it and you should count with them in full sharing of rights and obligations. If no, you will have no future, and you will have no peace, because there always will be women like Baktay, courageous, stubborn, determinated, implacable who will not bow their heads so as to some mean men could step over them.
You might have seen the film in its wholeness, comrade….If I recommended the film to you it was because you seemed to me one of those scholars who love the curious individual who always is willing to learn and discover. And so, I thought you would have enjoyed the scene when really adorableBaktay returns one after another time to the male-school teacher to ask for to be teached“stories of the man who was sleeping under the tree” ( well, she already has such desire to know that she asked the teacher for her to be left stay in his schools for God´s sake ). The teacher answer unpleasntly if what she wanted to know was that the man was sleeping, assuming Baktay being stupid, since that was implicit in her previous request. The little child then asked “what happened with the walnuts”, obviously wondering why the walnuts fall from the trees. You would have found so marvellous as I did it if you would have seen the film without prejudices.
So, not so much for any Soros´ campaign, and definitely not about crocodile tears in this film, in fact, this poor little baby, Baktay, cry very few indeed, only when the older boys seem to go to dilapidate her, and when after such an odyssey to arrive in school, nobody let her some place to sit.
Thanks for this Enara.
I sometimes despair at so much casual dismissal at the very real plight of girls in poverty-stricken parts of the globe.
Sadly, the comments here rarely reflect any objective awareness, and typically dismiss genuine female solidarity across the globe as ‘crocodilians’ or ‘feminists’ – apparently ‘represented’ in the Saker’s article by someone – American -wearing a furry pink ‘vagina’.
The same thinking calls such Trump protesters ‘ socialists’ , even though they represent nothing but their own narcissism and have no more commitment to wealth/redistribution – the basis of social justice – than the limousine liberals who sponsor them. (They certainly call them ‘lefties’ at Breitbart….)
So it is important to the young and not-so-young female victims of war-induced and sometimes culturally-sanctioned violence that this reality is not either hijacked/perverted for political purposes (like the now-notorious ‘right-to-protect’) or buried in indifference/dismissal.
You made me want to see this film :-)
A very informed and well thought analysis of the information overload available on the internet. Epistemology is the starting point for a rational understanding of our world. I hope that it becomes the starting point for all who seek to understand our world. Unprovable claims and lack of logical analysis of so many important events has created confusion and division which often leads to frustration and inaction, all to the benefit to the perpetrators of wars and injustice. So sad.
The fundamental problem for Epistemology, or at least its classical version, is that “Objective reality” doesn’t “simply exist”. Parmenides challenged the young Socrates, and much later Bishop Berkeley and, later David Hume laid waste to it. The dogmas, narratives, histories you’re talking about in the essay are very high level, but to get at what I think is the most salient question regarding what’s going on, we need to start much deeper; in the sub-basement, so to speak.
I have a favourite anecdote that I trot out whenever I can. It may not be quite as effective with readers unfamiliar with American baseball, but the meanings of “Balls” and “Strikes” is easily googled, and any number of substitutes from other sports or day to day events can be substituted.
Three Umpires are having a few beers after a baseball tournament, and sure enough they fall to discussing the difficulties of making calls.
After the typical back ‘n forth, one declares that “Look, there’s balls and there’s strikes, and I calls ’em the way they are“. The second, a little less sure, counters: “Well, I agree that there’s balls and there’s strikes, but the best I can do is call ’em the way I sees ’em”.
Let’s stop here, and note that there is an un-crossable chasm between those two statements. The first has claimed direct access to “objective reality”, whereas the 2nd understands that “objective reality” is at arm’s length, and what he’s getting is nothing more than his interpretation, a kind of “approximation” of what appears to be happening “out there”. That interpretation necessarily includes not only the limits imposed by the idiosyncratic bio-mechanics of his senses, but crucially involves the equally idiosyncratic downstream processing of the undifferentiated sensory data into categories and meanings enabling him to make the call. He’s saying “That looked like a strike” and he is explicitly not saying “That was a strike”.
The third Umpire, having listened to their continuing in this vein, (dis)solves the dilemma when he declares: “Sure, there’s balls and there’s strikes, but they ain’t nothin’ ’till I calls ’em”. In other words, the 3rd Umpire posits an “active” subject, one who has an active role in creating the reality he’s describing. In fact, it goes further as the 3rd Umpire’s position implies that objective reality is dependent on an active subject not only for its description, but for its very existence. In this, admittedly new sense of “existence”, the flood of raw, undifferentiated data is indistinguishable from no data at all. IOW, if you’re gonna have a world of experience, Subject and Object are necessarily co-dependent, and neither can exist without the other.
Put a slightly different way, “Objective Reality” is the product of a “Subject”, and vice versa. This is the Epistemology of Edmund Husserl, and so far as I know (ahem!) its basic tenets have not been gainsaid.
To bring this rant back to your essay, indeed, many of us may be searching for some narrative to make sense of a confusing world, but all of us already have layers upon layers of narratives running continuously to make sense of the world for us. In fact every sentient being does. We started building them before we were born (though things really picked up after that) and we are in every salient sense the sum of those layers of narratives running in our heads. Whether we’re human, or a pet dog, or a wild boar, any meaning we ascribe to our experiences and any conclusions we draw from them are directly traceable to an underlying narrative explaining them to us. These narratives may be traced to feelings/emotions/instincts, but they go all the way up to the Theory of Everything. If you’re tired, a narrative tells youwhere to look for a place to rest, perhaps a seat, and (nota bene!) it finds one for you. If you’re listening to a symphony, even for the first time, a narrative is forming from the relations amongst the receding notes already played and projecting them into, and onto, notes yet to be played. It is this sweeping narrative driven by our experience of the recently played notes projecting and forming our understanding of the upcoming notes that makes a melody from a flood of undifferentiated sounds. When an unexpected (think of why it’s “unexpected”!) note appears, it is “unexpected” precisely because the narrative we were building from the notes was going elsewhere. If it was simply a mistake, we drop it out of the narrative (perhaps lowering our opinion of the performer/composer) but if the composer’s intent was to shock us a little and take us on a new narrative, we may well be delighted and quickly adjust to follow him on his new path. One can’t help but think of the famous 4 note opening of Beethoven’s 5th, and then how he takes those opening 3 Gs and an E-flat, using timing, cadence, loudness and harmonic derivatives to take us through a series of unexpected, but supremely organic twists and turns to build a musical narrative that remains one of the powerful pieces ever written. And all of it from 4 simple notes.
Musical narratives attract us at a pretty primitive level of course, but the problem is scalable to the abstract.
Imagine facing east at dawn, watching sunrise with Tycho Brahe, Pacal Votan, and Pythagoras. The raw data is (for the sake of argument) identical for all of you, yet the narratives you each will use to describe the event are utterly irreconcilable. The universes described, or at least the cosmologies, are irreconcilably different and any metaphysical implications drawn from them will have almost no point of contact. Surely, Tycho et al aren’t simply idiots, or dishonest. The Tychonic System was the mathematical equivalent of Copernicus’ (as well as Ptolemy’s), but his Sun circled the Earth. The Mayans and ancient Pythagoreans thought the opposite, but all were extraordinarily meticulous observers of astronomical movements who developed consistently accurate models to predict future movements. We call the latter two “early astronomers”, but judging by what they wrote, they had completely different ideas of what they were doing. So it probably was with the builders of Giza, Stonehenge, Chichen Itza, etc. Though we have little idea of what it is that they thought they were doing, but whatever narrative drove their extraordinary investment in these structures, they were clearly doing something very important to them.
BTW, a particularly charming example of utterly incompatible narratives running simultaneously to humorous effect is the movie The Gods Must be Crazy.
On some levels, one can think of these narratives as software sub-routines running at various levels that constantly check the data and report anomalies, or things we have to be aware of. They’re running at the animal flight-or-fight level, but they’re also telling us the appropriate response to a question, or a questioner, the appropriate behaviour in a social situation, who to vote for, the correct answer to a complex math problem, or why your car won’t start. That’s the way we built the world we live in. My point in all this is that, somewhere along the complexity continuum from amoeba to homo sapiens, narratives rather than raw sensory data start to drive the experiential bus. For most of our day to day life, we don’t live in the “real world”. We are participants in a matrix of narratives, some of which are private, and some of which are at least partially shared with others.
When confronted by some new event, or series of events, that can’t be accommodated by any accepted running narrative, we start searching for/creating a narrative that covers the event(s) in question. The crucial thing to understand here is that we always, except in the very rarest of cases, seek a narrative that is compatible with the set of narratives we already have running. A totally new narrative that casts doubt on countless layers of others, is naturally rejected prima facie. The subject, quite naturally recoils. Whether that’s an American citizen watching the WTC towers fall inexplicably, or a Newtonian physicist confronting Maxwell’s equations, the reaction is the same. The immediate human imperative seems to be “Save the narrative at all cost”. Very few of us are a Kepler, who was absolutely staggered when he realized that planetary orbits were elliptical, also immediately knew that a universe that supported elliptical orbits is an utterly different place than one he inhabited where orbits were circular. His honesty caused him to throw all of his supremely well developed circular-orbit-narratives out, and his genius allowed him to build a new model that accommodated elliptical orbits.
Because we live through narratives, humans are easy to manipulate. A good salesman knows people don’t buy products, they buy stories. “Your life will change in A, B & C wonderful ways” is the pitch. When he judges that the narrative he’s been pitching has been internalized, he asks “Will that be cash or charge?”. TPTB know this well.
So, if you happen to be planning to go scot-free after committing a spectacularly public murder on the scale of 9/11, you’re probably also clever enough to know that you better come up with a narrative that’s compatible with the ones already generally running, one that the majority of the public will internalize readily, even gratefully. In the case of 9/11, the official narrative further benefits from the unacceptability of the downstream corollaries of opposing narratives. That is, if I was a normal, tax-paying American citizen who suddenly realized that my government colluded with criminals and murdered 3000 of my compatriots, I would find myself faced with a difficult decision. It means my life narratives, in which I (literally!) have invested my entire life, will have to change dramatically. Layers upon layers of supporting social & cultural narratives would have to go – baby, bathwater, bathtub, bathhouse, almost everything. Unlike following Beethoven on his next intriguing twist of the famous 4 notes, I’d be looking at the Either/Or of renouncing my citizenship or becoming a revolutionary. Either way, it means tossing my career, my family life and my accumulated treasure, everything that I and my world was, over the wall and, perhaps, going Che Guevera. Most humans will do anything to avoid such a catharsis. Like Ptolemy and his followers, a normal person will create as many epi-cycles and retrograde motions as needed to keep the vested layers of narratives plausible. In this case, plausible = tolerably liveable. And so they do.
Sorry about the length of this, but there’s so many rabbit holes one can go down on this subject …
Sorry about the length of this, but there’s so many rabbit holes one can go down on this subject …
Yep – the old ‘is God in the Quad?’ question is bound to do so.
So why posit it at all?
My answer to the Husserlites – knew a few – was ‘go stand in the motorway inthe middle of rush-hour and close your eyes.’
Because if ‘perception is all’ then no perception should ‘disappear’ those pesky objects – in this case, rush-hour traffic. Magic!
Funny, no one was willing to put it to the test.
Meanwhile, let’s just work with some ‘assumptions’, like the law of gravity, eh?
But they they would disappear for you, but not for them, who then exist in some new alternative world…
But yes, we do have to reach some decisions about what the practical assumptions are, for life our alternative world. The lesson here is to be aware that there are fuzzy edges to what we can know and not get trapped in beliefs, narratives, or echo bubbles — especially someone else’s. It’s like the expert knowing where to kick the broken machine — and then kicking it.
If your “Husserlite” friends indeed thought that “perception is all” then they utterly misunderstood Husserl. He had no such teaching, and he wouldn’t have taken up your challenge either. Objects, physical or ideal, were as much a part of the system as the Subject.
Sorry, posted prematurely…
If your “Husserlite” friends indeed thought that “perception is all” then they utterly misunderstood Husserl. He had no such teaching, and he wouldn’t have taken up your challenge either. Objects, physical or ideal, were as much a part of the system as the Subject.
To continue along the lines of your “answer to the Husserlites”…
Husserl’s concern was to explicate the immutable laws governing the perceptual processes involved whereby we recognize the lethality of speeding red Toyotas as quickly as that of green Cement Trucks or white Mercedes and stay away from them.
Excellent post.
As for “Sure, there’s balls and there’s strikes, but they ain’t nothin’ ’till I calls ’em” we can look to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
…
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results
…
and gainsaying it can be found in the criticisms and alternative sections in that wikipedia article.
But then there is also ‘I call balls and strikes as I like the player or team, or as one of the managers pays me to’ — the deliberate lie. And this is currently very problematic: When one decides, for whatever reason, this or that team should win, nowadays we drift from umpiring into ‘journalism’. Epistemology gets even tougher.
“… physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured”
Indeed, but it is critical to remember here that the lack of “definite properties” is simply our inability to address the systems themselves. In other words, high-end Physics has found itself standing arm in arm with Epistemology at the edge of the same logical chasm.
To my knowledge, the most fine-grained attempt to explore the chasm systematically was Husserl’s, however much Eimar thinks she might have “refuted” him.
From the Copenhagen Interpretation one comes to David Bohm’s work, whose Physics flirted with panpsychism – where mind and matter were on one continuum…. another rabbit hole… :-)
My own thinking now is that the physical and non-physical is a continuum, and that consciousness is the base of reality, comprised of relationships among dualities or multiplicities where the ‘physical world’ is a subset, broken off the total through perceptions, according to species, culture, etc. — which limit and distort whatever interactions and individual or group have, each living in their own, albeit with degrees of sharing, their own ‘subsetted’ reality system.
It’s like teaching kids about subtraction and saying 3-7 has no answer because they haven’t been taught about negative numbers yet, and 7/3 is only 2 with remainder 1 because they don’t know about fractions.
So there are things we can’t handle because we are stuck in time and 3-dimensional space — and invent various occult or ‘spiritual’ models, like the ‘astral plane’ or ‘heaven’.
Energy — which is not well defined — is simply the interactions of ‘physical’ objects collapsed into the spacetime coordinate system we are equipped to deal with, but which don’t exist in that system until the spacetime interaction occurs, and ‘energy’ doesn’t exist as a thing divorced from the larger system which we don’t perceive. Movement is still a mystery which have ‘gotten used to’ but is inexplicable within only our spacetime reality system. So is gravity and various other forces which can not understand but only describe.
In political terms, things like the ‘deep state’ is some set of interactions of all the various people which we abstract into an ‘entity’, but is actually a pattern of individuals, each acting according their local condition and perceptions, like how in a flock of birds each bird interact with the ones close to it, but have no idea they are forming a wedge shape as a whole as perceived by a person looking at them. The birds are not operating at that particular level of relationships.
We create such things as sociology or economics to explain how people interact and form patterns in masses which individuals are not aware of, except as abstractions. For the most part if I buy some chicken at the store it’s not to ‘increase aggregate demand’ but to get some dinner, and I’m not responding to some ‘invisible hand’ any more than to get some benefit from the great chicken god which wants people to raise and eat chickens to increase the number of chickens in the world.
To mount a boycott of some product for political purpose then there has to be some group engaged in political, higher level, abstraction process, and getting people to identify as being related with that group. The ‘energy’ of such political action does not exist until such abstract relationships are formed and they interact together and with whatever other abstract entity, such as a government, is created or perceived. Such groups and abstractions are not physical or ‘real’, but ideational or ‘psychic’ — or on some continuum where mind and matter meet.
Here we have to delve into ontology a bit: what is real and what does exist mean, and what does exist? Is the noosphere real? Is the ecology and environment real — or just an abstraction composed of the individual interactions of all elements as we perceive them, as patterns? Well, there is some level of reality, apparently, but it’s not, and cannot be, well defined.
Similar with nations, parties, movements, ideological groups, and the danger is in limiting our thinking to exclude individual people or areas or subsets. IF there are only ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ then how can we form coalitions? The question of granularity, and stochastic processes arise. Steel workers or teachers are conservative and liberal in different areas — and at different times, and there are innumerable ways to classify subsets of the total population, and for people to identify with various groupings, and find commonality with others. We may well have scant ways to see how this works out prior to interactions. “Trump supporters” — well, people voted for Trump for all sorts of reasons, people who wer at odds with voters in many ways, and there may be no common reason but simply a convergence at that particular time. One votes against war with Russia and another votes because he lost his job, and another because she was offended by Clinton, Albright, and Steinem trying to box her into a feminist identity, or opposes abortion.
Or some, like me, voted for Trump because I’m deplorable! ;)
“… consciousness is the base of reality…” If you haven’t, read Bohm!
“In political terms, things like the ‘deep state’ is some set of interactions of all the various people which we abstract into an ‘entity’, but is actually a pattern of individuals, each acting according their local condition and perceptions…”
I am in full agreement. I would only add that those “interactions” occur between “various people” who are themselves driven by narratives”. What we see from a distance, whether of the “deep state” or of a flock of birds, is not an aggregate of the random motions of individuals, but an aggregate of individuals acting out their slightly differing narratives.
And this is how the “coalitions”, “movements”, “parties” etc form. That is, at the socio-political/cultural level, it is the interactions of narratives, competing & cooperating with each other that creates the flow of .
At the next level of abstraction, we have the creator-propagators of the narratives that drive those individuals. In the case of birds, we have no problem with the idea that it’s some primordial mix of DNA and learned behaviour, but with humans? Well, Shamir calls the next level the “Masters of Discourse”, but when we go there we find another hall of mirrors.
Who’s narrative drives the “Masters”? Do narratives simply spring up autonomously as an organic result from the interactions between “Masters”, or are they created at a higher level still? And so on…
What does become apparent when one looks at the socio-political-cultural world as a world of interacting narratives (rather than simply individuals), is that small, tightly cooperative groups can gain extraordinary control of the individuals in the “flock”. If the bird at the head of that wedge is aware of his position, and has cooperative immediate cohorts, they can turn the wedge any which way they want it to go, knowing all the other individuals’ running narratives will cause them to follow.
Isn’t that what is breaking down now? The leading bird wants the wedge to turn in a certain direction, but the flock is breaking up, losing its formation and becoming chaotic.
A refutation of the Copenhagen interpretation – by some folk who know a bit about physics:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0604173.pdf
Most helpful. Explains, for example, why the obvious philosophical implications of quantum physics have been ferociously resisted by mainstream scientists who insist that we simply do the math. Here is one refreshing exception:
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf
Your last para reminds me of Public Opinion versus An Enemy of the People. Ibsen’s play was recently staged at the Chichester Festival Theatre, England; a member of the audience said it didn’t sound like something written a century ago – it sounded topical. In both eras, that “damned, solid, compact majority” refuse to face a disastrous truth because to do so will upset their lifestyle. Hollywood filmed this play but refused to release it because it was too near the knuckle; for instance, the Enemy of the People proposes to escape from persecution by sailing to the USA but his wife refuses saying, “I would hate to travel 3,000 miles to find myself in the same place”.
@Erebus —
Outstanding quality essay. Bravo !
@Erebus —
Outstanding essay. Bravo !
And thanks.
And thank you for your kind thoughts, and your comments elsewhere in this thread.
Objective truth is best tested in the crucible of political economy and world history. Hindsight is 20/20. Ideas, discoveries, and political systems need time to ripen to reveal their truer aspect for all to see.
An African proverb says knowledge without wisdom is like water in sand.
In esoteric thought knowlege is water held by a container, like a pair of cupped hands. It will take the shape of that container until it is spilt, or else slips through your fingers.
Mr. Khan, your article deserves much more attention than I can presently give, however, long ago in Western civilization we turned outward and created a multitude of new problems for ourselves, in addition to solving some others, most of which concern mainly Princes and Priests.
Here, I believe, is where began our fruitless search for an all encompassing epsitemology, which set the scene for the abandonment of truth, begining long before the so-called Enlightenment. If what you are saying is we need greater wisdom to navigate this complicated world then I wholeheartedly agree. If on the other had you are saying we need something more useful, to replace the Rockerfellar doctrine, then I have to ask myself what is your purpose. By their very nature the internet and alternative media are the tools of those who bare ‘light,’ so be careful for what you wish.
Continuing in this vein, is not the Rockerfellar system of education simply another creation of the consciousness which created the vastly superior, but also quite limited containers we call the trivium and quadrivium? Think about it for a moment, they are merely containers. Necessity and truth are two different things.
For myself, I search out paradox and begin my work there.
The choices have become this stark in these our interesting times. I wonder if the drive of Islam and also of Aristotle are the same which possessed Abraham as he held the knife over his son Isaac. Was he tested by God or was he merely confronted by new circumstances requiring a new epistemology, a perfect understanding of which commanded him to kill his own child, because it was ‘God’ who commanded it?
And now Mr. Khan, I will hit hard. Please understand I do not wish to single you out or be cruel. We must all live together. I understand this and do not wish to undo what has already been done. We will all need to find a way to move forward together. On this we agree.
I have noticed the Rockerfellar’s and their minions have recently flooded my homeland, and media more generally, with people who, like you, dismiss ‘conspiracists’ in one way or another and make only oblique references to the crime of all crimes, or at least one of them, making no obvious committment one way or another. They too put distance between invented personas such as the so-called troofers and themselves.
The reasons for their discomfort are obvious and also understandable, Mr. Khan, but we are all under pressure. All of us are targets. Do you agree?
These ‘refugees’ from Imperialism, some of which are genuine collaborators and will tell you directly because they feel safe in the bosom of Leviathan, all have ideas about how my reality can be fixed. My first objective should be to stop blaming Islam, they always seem to say.
The carefully vetted upper caste Syrians who have been placed in social housing ahead of my sick and desperate friend, now waiting 15 years, who did not stand with their neighbours when Rothschild-Rockerfellar (RR) sponsered jihadists invaded their land, all happened to be in agreement with the RR agenda on a great many things, while on the other hand some of them suspect I am a Trump supporter.
Your subtlety and intelligence nothwithstanding, any new epistemology which does not take truth into account, something which is vastly superior to knowledge, will be just as poisonous as what you seek to replace.
There is so much more to say Mr. Khan but do you understand my concern?
Anwar Khan, certainly you are correct that a sound epistemology is necessary if one is to correctly interpret events. Where we have film of alleged physical events surely any investigation must begin with a close visual inspection. It cannot begin with mockery of the conclusions of others who have attempted to perform such an examination unless one performs a superior review of the visual evidence.
With physical events for which we have such visual evidence we must allow the evidence to lead us. There is sound reason why police investigators do this.
In the Russian plane crash in the Sinai all plane parts– even the heavy engine– sit lightly upon the sand. So far as I know the law of gravity concerning heavy falling objects contracts this. The crash of MH17 has the same fatal flaw. All the heavy parts are right next to a road and don’t even dent the soft farmland.
If one looks first at state of the art dummies at http://www.waldomason.com/#!gallery/cox7 and then looks at Anna News The Plane that Never Crashed an objective person must have doubts about this crash. Anna News is embedded with the Russian/Donbass fighters and arrived at the crash site within 20 minutes. The CNN footage shows an explosion on the ground with no falling plane. Ditto the Ukrainian footage.
I believe that as part of a sound epistemology one MUST begin with an examination of the physical evidence available, that one may not ignore it because it suggests a discomfiting conclusion or one that “sounds” crazy. One cannot grow in knowledge by excluding from consideration whatever is outside one’s present worldview.
Nor do we know to what extent those whom we would like to admire are operating under compulsion.
Regarding the Russian ambassador, since citizen investigators base their conclusions on meticulous examination of the film footage, perhaps we might at least glance at their findings. Personally I find the matter inconclusive, but I find it part of the estate of adulthood to be able to bear uncertainty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CklO1ftpL30
Thank you for a sincere and thorough article.
Mr Khan I wish I didn’t have to work today, but I do.
Before I go, I’d like to express a desire by email, if not by further newer contributions from you in the future on this same general subject, a desire to follow up in much more depth. Saker has my email.
Right now I have no time to expound in detail but I will just write a series of short bullet points for you (or anyone else….just address me in the Moveable Feast Cafe, on any of it.
1. Trivium/Quadrivium methodology is sound, basic and has stood the test of millenia. Look how often people never even get past Step 1, Grammar. Words, vocabulary, i.e. what the heck they are even talking about. Before they are clear on that first part with their interlocutor, they are (usually) charging forward into their logical arguments and expressions of those arguments in # 2 Logic and # 3 Rhetoric, or expression. Maybe 90% of the time they/we are talking past each other, because they/we are not even on the same page with each other on the words they/we are using and what they/we mean by them.
2. No matter how much we know, we are fools unless we realize that what we don’t know infinitely outweighs what we do know.
3. Most of what we truly know, we know by negation. We know contradiction/falseness. 911 official story is a great example.
4. “Occult” simply means “hidden”. And there is plenty hidden. More is possible to be known if what is hidden is de-occulted, revealed. I only believe in discussing the occult in order to de-occult it, not to keep it occulted. The high priests of Empire want to keep it occulted. Opponents of Empire who want the occult to stay occulted aren’t serious.
5. The biggest obstacle to de-occulting the 911 occult ritual —–the 93 in my handle is the key…………….or anything else that is occulted by occult practitioners (bankers, sleight of hand artists, spooks, social engineers, etc,etc) is the deception promulgated by the occult pratitioners that “Occult” means “evil”, so you shouldn’t look into it, because doing so will empower evil. That is a New Age deception, promoted by those who want to keep their mind control methods hidden. My sense is that that deception works on most people, including mr Khan. Which we can discuss in an open, relaxed way, here, or privately…anyone’s choice. Because it’s no disgrace to have bought into that deception. Most people have bought into it. Including myself, in the past. No more, and I’ll be happy to explain why, and how that came about.
6. Your link to the people in Philadelphia is something (the Free Your Mind Conference) that has been organized by Philadelphia resident and researcher Mark Passio. He borrowed “Free Your Mind” from the instruction by Morpheus to Neo in The Matrix Trilogy of films.
7. Passio produced a DVD entitled “The Matric Trilogy Decoded” which I have. He gives away almost all of his research, but I don’t see that one available free on the internet. For those of you that think you’ll have nothing to do with the occult, you are almost certainly wrong. It is all around you. Even if you studiously avoid Hollywood films for the crap most of it is, you probably watched The Wonderful Wizard of Oz when you were a child. The book by that title was wiritten by an expert in the occult, Frank Baum. A free glimpse into what you may have missed, imbedded in the movie is available in Passio’s lecture on the film:
https://youtu.be/NbM3ccmw-lA?t=22
Everything I Neeeded To Know In Life, I Learned By Watching The Wizard Of Oz
8. I agree with Penelope AND Anwar Khan in the contradictory sense that both the ambassador assassination (no blood) and the “hoax” video by Ole Dammergard (way, way too many far fetched, unanswered questions) are suspicious. But I agree with Penelope more, because she suspends final judgment, as do I. It hard to suspend judgment for a long time, but doing otherwise, I feel can be a serious error.
9. I think there are other errors in Mr Khans article, as I am certain there are in most of the things I have said or written in my life. But that’s no big deal. That’s the human condition. The question is whether we are getting more aware or more hidebound. Moral direction has to do with getting more aware, and less rigidly hidebound.
10. The biggest obstacle to changing direction to increasing awareness is the Ego. Passio’s greatest strength, in my humble opinion, is his stated ability over the last decades to utter one of the most powerful sentences in the English language with far greater regularity than most people’s egos could ever permit them to utter it: “I Was Wrong.” There’s where progress lies.
11. After his decoding 911 ( 5 + hours, full version, ………Passio 911……….search it) sunk in, quickly and deeply, I might add, I took his advice and went to his podcasts and watched all 196 of them during 2016.
http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/podcast?start=150
Go to the bottom of the Page #1, not # 47 at the top.
I think I know some things in more depth than he does, where he’s wrong on (Hamilton, music, a few others…..) but check out Podcast #1 first before you go away thinking you know and he doesn’t on the subjects covered there. It’s right up the alley of this fine article by Anwar Khan.
I wish I had time for more in this one sitting, but I’m late to work! Cheers.
Bro 93,
Thank you for your insightful comments. I agree with most of your points. They are valid in many ways. I don’t know much about Passio. I will look into the links you have provided.
As for the occult or hidden, there are things we can agree to disagree. As a Muslim, I do belief in the Unseen. The “hidden” is a manifestation of that reality. The problem with understanding the nature of the hidden is that there is a lot of subjectiveness that goes in it. While it may be binding on the recipient of that particular understanding, it cannot be necessarily generalized to others. I do not deny that people can have–through Illumination–access to the hidden, but it is limited to them. It is not binding on others to have that particular understanding. Generalization the particular has infinite problems.
Thank you very much! I really enjoyed reading this post and learnt a lot and agree totally with your points of view.
To all the commentators,
I would like to use this post as a response to some of the comments on the article. Ideally I would have liked to answer to each post. Alas! how time determines everything.
First of all let me thank all of you for taking the time for making some very insightful and lengthy comments. Quite a revelation for me to see the analytical prowess of the the Saker readers! But it seems that I have also opened a can of worms. It seems people don’t want to be messed with when it comes to epistemology. It’s personal after all. The idea that we re-asses the very framework that has determined our lifelong cognition of phenomenon will not get you too far. I knew what I was getting myself into.
While I was pleased that many comrades here presented some very interesting epistemology inspired models and frameworks, I felt it was more in line with something you would publish in MIT’s computational linguistic journal than a medium intelligible to (no not lay Joe Sixpacks) a person of sound cognitive ability. The references were quite technical in nature not something that will inspire your rank and file. Not that I am suggesting that we bring our intellectual standards down to accommodate them. But our scientific and mathematical language will not get us anywhere. We need to make it more humane.
I will briefly answer to some of the comments here. Apologies if I missed something.
Simon Wagstaf— “In science and mathematics we can establish baselines and shared “truth” that will enable progress. Otherwise it is all opinion and as dear deceased friend and truth-seeker was fond of saying, “opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.”
Yes but some assholes are cleaner than others. Is there no other epistemological framework that can bring people of high intelligence, medium intelligence, and sound nature (even if not technically savvy) together? Perhaps we have not examined all the options diligently.
Dennis Leary—– “By imposing the concept “God’ on any philosophy you condemn it to the problems you identify. By doing so you are in the arena of faith where anything goes”
Where did I mention God in our epistemology?
Terenam 13—- “There is Wahabi sponsored terrorism which uses a mutilated form of Islam as its theoretical basis. Now, how much Western intelligence agencies interface with or sponsor this, is unknown but not unknowable”.
Dear friend, I would say this is very known. Yes, Wahhabism as a religious orientation has historical parallels much before Western intelligence agencies existed. While the fountainhead always existed in the margins– having no say in the direction the Muslim world was heading– the agencies that carved out the waterways for this fountainhead to find access to fertile land is not debatable. Please read the 2 part article that I previously wrote here for further clarification.
/who-are-the-sunnis-a-lamentation/?inmoderation
Talks-to-Cats—- “So might I — with all possible respect (and, actually, genuine admiration) — suggest that your prescription is not broadly applicable. Not enough people (overall) are capable of independent reasoning (one early study in England found that to be 13% of the population). When you are considering the mass — the aggregate of everybody who wanders in from the street — you are dealing with people hardwired for belief, and for following strong, confident, alpha-male leaders”
Talks to Cats, your comments were very interesting and quite informed. Thank You. While I agree, sadly, with your assessment of the situation, it still does not take into account that we, as an AN, have done our due diligence in making sure that internal contradictions and intellectual shortcomings are ridden from the narrative to give it a fair chance at resistance. It is a different matter entirely how the masses will relate or react to it.
And finally, what happened to our axioms? I couldn’t find any additions to the 4 suggested. Ok you may have problems with them, but that should not discourage you to suggest some. You never know which of these will be ratified by our convention!
cheers.
If you find it productive and instructive to the ‘moderately’ intelligent, one of whom I cherish my claim of being, comment on the influence of the ancient Hasahashin sect on the ‘modern’, drug-addled, Anglo-Zionist practice of assassination by drone and exploding cigar (greetings to Sigmund Freud, the fraud and humbug!).
That should read “moderately sound cognitive ability” not sound cognitive ability
You wrote ” Is there no other epistemological framework that can bring people of high intelligence, medium intelligence, and sound nature (even if not technically savvy) together? Perhaps we have not examined all the options diligently.”
Hmmmm. A website specializing in comparing epistemological frameworks and tracing their origins and identifying their historical support and mouthpieces. Brilliant. Know thy enemy (and friends). Trace evil to its epistemological roots. Same for “good”. Expose the top axioms and their genealogy/patrons. Now you are talking about a very powerful Wiki concept I think. But it’s a lifetime work, even if you could collect the right folks for the job.
I love the idea of exposing the epistemological roots of commonly accepted worldview frameworks, be they good or evil. The good is generally buried under multiple layers of modern BS, and the evil under layers of plausible deniability, and both faded from time. Reminds me of namebase, but centered on history of fundamental ideas. That would be a powerful tool, especially for drilling down into the historical meat from modern assumptions.
Doug Mayhew,
Kudos! Very interesting point. Now we are talking solutions.
The key principle that must be followed is honesty about the grounding of one’s comments. It really comes down to that. If you know something on the basis of personal knowledge, say so. If you read it somewhere, say so. If you are guessing, say so. If you are looking at patterns, say so. Overstated claims are the poison that afficts the alternative media.
But really, Saker should not be propped up as a good example for the alternative media. He is highly intolerant of alternative views, he constantly appeals to authority in various ways and generally he reads to me like a propaganda mouthpiece for Putin. He is useful only because he offers a fairly well informed and considered point of view different from the ‘mainstream media’ and because one can glean from his screeds a sense of what the Putin faction wants us to think and thus one can try to reverse engineer what their intentions are.
This topic is important. It should be pursued elsewhere, on a different site. Perhaps on Global Research, if some way could be found to allow comments? Washington’s Blog perhaps? Somewhere else.
The thrust of the article is well aimed, but the enemy is not a new one.
The oligarchical world view of “law of the jungle” invades the top axiomatics of science, politics, art, music, and yes, journalism. It aims to justify the “justice of the stronger” over the weaker, in opposition to the Platonic & Promethean ideal of all men being created equal in the precise sense of possessing human creativity to make important contributions which matter, in the context of the nation state backing him/her in precisely that way.
In other words, the battle revolves around the difference between man & the animals. If man is merely a collection of animals, politics axiomatically becomes merely the calculus of barbarism & warlords; justice of the stronger. In journalism, same thing, it becomes a mud slinging contest. People’s intelligent is insulted. You can thank people like Cass Sunstein for applying the theory of behavioral economics at a world-scale. But it backfired, because as Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people some of the time… however, comma…
A poor yet profoundly wise person can witness the feel of this world-view in the form of, “yeah, yeah, truth and beauty and love your fellow man, bleah, bleah, bleah, but don’t stop cleaning my toilet!”
People getting fed up is only the first step. Now the masses need creative interventions, not the anger of the lynch mob. My personal favorite weapon of choice is hard-hitting raw satire. Embarrass & expose the fake news roots to death, and those who promote it, systematically and viciously.
In one’s spare time, study great minds of history, science, math, geometry, and turn off the noise like TV and pop culture. It is mostly psy-op tinged crap anyway, carefully formed into addictive brain-candy with little nutritional value. The litmus test is, does a given show or material empower folks, or dis-empower them? Does it make them more creative, more able to ascertain truth, or merely more brainwashed along party line bias and owned by petty cultural perversions?
Being able to distinguish truth is one thing, but it’s worse; synthetic personalities and lifestyle “choices” are being shoved down kids throats through the likes of George Soros, with the outcome that they are more susceptible to propaganda these artificial synthetic false identities implanted earlier. Then if you challenge it, you are targetted as being politically incorrect. It’s a systemic attack on core human identity itself. The result is, fake human identities are created which only accept the axioms which they were designed for from the outset. Culture, weaponized. So before a lesson in logic, folks need a cultural re-awakening, that their sense of self is partially synthetic as a poisoned culture import.
Ironically, the ISIS head choppers who constantly complain about the corruption of western pop culture since before the Muslim Brotherhood, are quite correct with such concerns. But going around chopping heads off isn’t the remedy, it is yet another synthetic self-identity profile created by the powers that be to redirect this anger for their own purposes.
Oh, and don’t forget video games & social media nonsense sucking the young folks hours away, remote control cultural identity brainwashing operations run via server farms. My pessimistic side suspects it will end only when the collective ignorance catches up in the form of economic collapse.
My optimistic side says people generally want to do important things, and will act when things get real, but I hope it’s not too late.
In the meantime, folks in the know need to prepare themselves to act as thought leaders to guide people safety to the exits when fire breaks out in the theater.
Valuable comments, DM!
I agree with almost all of them, while simultaneously abhorring the notion that consensus proves anything.
I recently started reading Dmitri Orlov’s Shrinking The Technosphere. It’s a delightful book, but the going is extremely slow in the beginning 30 pages or so, because every other page I found myself rolling in laughter and having to take a break.
Here’s a favorite paragraph, on page 8, that your writing reminded me of:
Chapter 1 The Technosphere Defined
Its Hapless Denizens
“People who currently inhabit any of the economically developed, industrialized parts of the planet have very little contact with nature. Most of their time is spent in climate controlled environments sealed off from the elements. Bipedal locomotion–a hallmark human trait, alongside the opposable thumb–is decidedly out of favor. Now people move mostly on wheels, and when they do perambulate it is mostly across the parking lot or along supermarket aisles. When they do step off the pavement, the linoleum or the wall to wall carpeting, it is usually onto a well marked “nature trail” from which they can observe nature without running the danger of actually touching any of it. Sealed off from nature, their bodies and minds are deprived of key natural inputs, and they develop a wide variety of ailments, from allergies and autoimmune disorders to autism and early-onset-dementia.”
He deals with MSM later, and Alternative Media but just thinking, the above paragraph may go a long way toward explaining the collapse of consciousness, morality and cognitive powers that put us into this mess!
With some rebellious exceptions, humanity is mostly out of its ever-loving gourds. True or Not True???
Experiencing the beauty of nature is a valuable experience which city-dwellers would benefit from. But there is a hidden axiom embedded there, that man returning to a primitive context is the solution to man “finding his roots”, etc and thus progress via enrichment of one’s spirit, etc.
I am always suspicious of nature-themed philosophy because the new-age framework it is built on is an artificial construct which assumes man is essentially an animal, that was taken out of his ideal jungle framework, and forced into the modern alien urban environment, which on the surface appears a completely right assumption, especially looking at urban decay, rise of all manner of ailments related to modern life, crime, etc.
But let’s put these things in their correct place on the rank of development. Let’s not throw out the positive aspects of civilization with the bad ones, we fought too hard for them. The “go back to nature” argument is a Trojan horse precisely because it tricks the unwitting to accept precisely this idea, throwing out not only the bad aspects of modern society, but also all the cultural achievements of the past 2000 years.
We are not going to get to a more highly developed society by “going back to nature”. That species of assumption is bait placed deliberately at very important fork in the road of the question of utmost importance: What is the difference between man & the animals, i.e classical culture & human creativity/abstract thought, etc.
You can trace this nature idea up through the hippy / new age British occult line of philosophical influence. Baby boomer’s were hit hard by it, they all wanted to go off and re-join nature (often literally), and few of them noticed that they are being philosophically herded to political slaughter via this axiom. Such beliefs rendered them politically impudent in the the sense that they were fooled into rejecting the very cultural traits upon with mankind has depended for advancement. The rock/drugs/sex counter culture was a chief example of the same ideological swamp.
In other words, I think man living in harmony with nature and feeling it’s beauty is a fine thing, but as soon as this is used as a lever to suggest man should “go primitive”, I reject this strongly.
It is a good thing to be reminded of Aristotelean logic and the Trivium and Quadrivium. Certainly, logical errors in arguments should be pointed out. Trained as a mathematician, I appreciate that and spend a lot of time reading mathematical arguments. Despite the weirdness of quantum phenomena, the underlying mathematics is impeccable.
But in both daily affairs and geopolitics I tend to be more Sherlockian. For instance, Hillary would have us believe that she used a private server for convenience. However, due to empirical evidence, I accept that she was using a private server to hide her activites, at the very least, or to engage in crimes at the worst.
Since I have been attacked by jihadists and am virtually a prisoner in my home, only going out twice a week to get food and supplies, due to constantly being stalked and photographed by them, the stories of them that I read seem reasonable. I have no doubt that Mr. Khan could show me why my gut reaction of fleeing danger violates a logical axiom, but I am also of the “prudence dictates” school. I accept that these extremists are recruited and used by governments but I also believe they have their own cultural and personal objectives, leading to a marriage of convenience with the authorities. That could turn out to be a fragile bond in the near future here in Europe.
There are subcategories of truth. For instance lawyer truth is postulated on which side has the the deeper pockets. Journalistic truth is postulated on gulling the maximum number of the politically naive (this goes on a scale of recognizing that something is political of 1 for Americans to say 6 out of 10 for the French). Psychiatric truth is postulated on people believing that wearing a white coat and prescribing medicines with industial level side effects will help them deal with their “social disease”.
You are right to be ‘Sherlockian’. Reporting on daily affairs, geopolitics resembles a police investigation which gathers evidence about crimes, misdemeanors, transgressions of the law.
The evidence is presented, in most legal systems, to a magistrate (in France Juge d’instruction, judge of inquiry) responsible for conducting the investigative hearing that precedes a criminal trial. In this hearing the major evidence is gathered and presented, and witnesses are heard and depositions taken. If the juge d’instruction is not convinced that there is sufficient evidence of guilt to warrant a trial at the end of the proceedings, no trial will occur. This process differs somewhat from the grand jury hearing in the Anglo-American system, under which the grand jury need find only probable cause in order to return an indictment for trial. In the Anglo-American system, it is easier to sway the opinion of the jury using verbal tricks (fallacies) and get free obvious criminals, or indicting innocents.
That is the meaning of ‘historia’. Herodotus wrote his ‘investigation’ in order to establish who bore more guilt in initiating the Greco-Persian war.
While I agree, sadly, with your assessment of the situation, it still does not take into account that we, as an AN, have done our due diligence in making sure that internal contradictions and intellectual shortcomings are ridden from the narrative to give it a fair chance at resistance. It is a different matter entirely how the masses will relate or react to it.
Most highly esteemed AK : perhaps we are not disagreeing ?
On the other hand, once such an agreement as you describe is reached by a critical mass of “alpha male” AN leaders, the crazies, subverters, disinformationalists and true believers will increasingly come to be seen in their true light, just as the AN bright lights have distinguished themselves in comparison to what else is “out there.” Because, in following them, the educable among the believers will be to listen and learn. Once the alpha consensus solidifies . . . who knows ?
Such agreement (I hope, as you do) will be reached by those capable of reaching it. Once that happens, and the leading AN writers’ is written from this perspective, reflecting and reinforcing it in the minds of readers, crazy deviations from it will appear to be crazy deviations and not alternative construals.
This might be accomplished with a sort of summit conference. Or, just as well, “on the fly,” as people who matter adopt and incorporate each others’ insights into their own work.
Anwar Khan says, “And finally, what happened to our axioms? I couldn’t find any additions to the 4 suggested. …………..”
First of all, I wasn’t very warm to the idea of collecting axioms at all. What for? To exclude possibilities that contradict the set axioms? Let chips fall where they may and absurdities discredit themselves with their sheer daftness and self-contradiction, would be my inclination.
Look at the Empire’s axioms: mind-numbing consensus. Fear of being out of step with its “self-evident truths” and being ostracized through public ridicule, individual disapproval, civil penalties (being sued or prosecuted) or state or theocratic murder (the death penalty for whistleblowers telling the truth??……..having your head lopped off in KSA for having a thought or behavior of your own choosing…………..). Are axioms conducive to knowledge, freedom, and love, or are they chains, a straight jacket, Mind Control??
That’s what I wonder.
Now, in terms of the 4 axioms proposed in the article, I’m pretty warm to # 1 (“Anyone daft enough to swallow the Empire 911 Official Story is either stupid, cowardly or evil.” is the way I would put it. But this axiom is not eternally valid. As more time goes by 911 ages, gets grayer, less relevant. Although it may still be the most relevant “smelling salt” for the dead asleep 15-16 years after the fact. Although it does have competition with an even older “false flag” : The JFK assassination.
# 2 Experts. Yeah, sure, but so what?? You’re in litigation. Both sides have their expert witnesses. Naturally, they are chosen to arrive at opposite conclusions. The competing agendas of power and control of the hypothetical plaintiffs and defendants are the levers moving the thoughts and lips of the expert witnesses. Power and control locking horns. Truth??? I’d summarize it as “Don’t go off half-cocked. Sample inputs from a wide, varied, eclectic assortment of independent sources available for consultation. Including your consultant on the occult. That one right there could save you 8 years of uncertainty, on 911, for example. I know that one for a fact.
# 3 Speaking of the occult, I submit that this whole axiom is a fallacy of composition. The service of the cause of truth is arrived at by de-occulting the occult, revealing the previously hidden by steps, until there is little or none of it left that gives an oligarchy dedicated to global control a power differential for enslavement of others who have no idea what mind control they are being subjected to. Don’t make rules about keeping it hidden and forbidden to discuss. Out with it! All of it, into the light of day. And the 911 occult ritual failing is as perfect an opportunity to get started on that worhtwhile project for human freedom, as anything else has been, at any time, in history. . If this is not done, with Axiom # 1, and the occultic ritual aspects of 911 are to be ignored, that’s a more fundamental cause for disqualification than ignoring the Mossad/Israeli massive evidence.
#4?? I understand where Anwar Khan is coming from. Those who concentrate on muslim culprits are missing the capo di tutti capi, the Empire Godfather, in favor of punishing the easier to catch Arab hitmen being paid peanuts. The stooges, the patsies being turned out on an assembly line by KSA, etc. And KSA is not the top, by any means. Your getting closer with the British, with London, but probably not with anyone publically known. There is a system higher than any person in the system. And they are all slaves of it.
I get it. #4 is about as good as # 1. But I’m not excited about these axiomatic “rules of behavior” for the Empire Resistance. Particularly #2, and # 3 for the reasons given above.
Along those lines, rather than additional axioms proliferating in a conference where everyone anti-AZ Empire from around the world is thrown a bone or two, I’d much prefer reducing it to ONE axiom:
# 1The Truth Will Set You Free.
Or rather a series of statements that all bear directly on that principle, with nothing forbidden to be discussed in a free market place of ideas dedicated to the search for truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
Some corrolaries that I say are under axiom # 1:
1. Truth exists. It is superior to opinion. Your opinion or hope may be that the aircaft you constructed will fly. Truth (correct understanding of the laws of aerodynamics) will determine whether your opinion or hope is sound or fallacious.
2. Discovering truth is a lot of work, however it is possible. If it weren’t, why bother with any of this??
3. Natural Law exists. Eternal, immutable, omnipresent boundary condtions exist, throughout the Universe. Recognition of Natural Law, abiding by Natural Law makes truth and freedom possible. Without it there would be no Truth to seek in the first place.
3 in 1
1 axiom, 3 parts.
Everything else derives from the axiom that “truth exists and can be discovered”. (It’s just a rather long voyage.)
Including why there is a tendency on earth towards Empire of Fear and Control.
And why Empire is psychopathic, and why the psychopaths are slaves themselves, motivated by their knowledge of the constraints of Natural Law, but enslaved by their resentment of those constraints that actually allow truth and freedom to be possible.
And how all of their psychopathy is caused by deep, deep self-loathing and lack of care for anything except a dark care for greater control, motivated by the impossible attempt to be God. Their fear of death and their absolute lack of love.
Yes. Truth exists, even if we can’t see it directly, we can know it.
It’s fun to break this thing down to kindergarten behaviors, because it’s the same thing. Some kids build stuff with the blocks using creative thought, “constructionists”, and other kids try to steal them from them, and knock over the creations when they get upset. Then plotting, telling other kids to steal or knock down the creative works, hah.
You can picture also the “lord of the flies” scenario where respective groups form around these two types of leaders, etc.
Anwar Khan, by what right do you demand that nobody can participate in the AN if they absolve Israel of its alleged “involvement” in 9/11 without mentioning a single proof?
Is that the major basic tenet of your totalitarian and dictatorial Muslim Arab thinking?
The idea Israel has to be blamed for 9/11 regardless of there being any hard evidence or proof is unacceptable on all counts. It is understandable that all Arabs and Muslims hate Israel, wish it ill and want all Israelis dead, regardless of what any Israeli had done to them, simply because they are commanded to do so by the Islam.
However, by what right do you impose that kind of thinking on anybody outside of the Arab and Muslim world? Whatever is currently going on in the ME, is neither the reason nor excuse for Muslim/Palestinian/Palestine first activists to subvert, infiltrate and hijack any and all political movements in the US, be it the 9/11 truth movement, or the AN media.
Anonymous
http://911missinglinks.com
This will prove without a reasonable doubt that Israel participated in it. To say the least.
You are lucky you are writing this crap at the bottom most of the comments section or else you would have been taught a lesson by the Saker community. This ain’t yahoo news.
Right there in this remark: “The idea Israel has to be blamed for 9/11 regardless of there being any hard evidence or proof is unacceptable ….” That’s the key point.
For those of is who are part of/ and participating in this “AN” ….. There is ample, weighty, compelling evidence of “who” and some of the “why” behind 9/11.
That is why 9-11 is the gate test. Those participating in the AN and (perhaps the wider search for all truths) have researched, evaluate, debated and come to the realisation of 9-11.
To quote One of Them who played his assigned patsy role so exquisitely: You are either with us or against us!
Still, how does all of it relate to Israel?
I don’t think that those who believe that Israel is complicit in 9/11 ever did any serious research, conducted any investigations or evaluations, or even engaged in any real debate with anybody who questioned their ready made convictions that Israel just had to be involved in 9/11, and to hell with the evidence or anything else that contradicts or stands in the way of their assumptions!
If I were to go by the way I was treated , then it just proves my point.
The “crowd” does not like dissenting views, or those who ask inconvenient questions.
The never liked Israel before 9/11, so that is why it has to be complicit in 9/11.
Follow the money trail. (WTC hideously expensive re-do to comply with code avoided, turning a huge net loss into a huge insurance-paid gain. Airline shorts . . .). Qui bono ?
Also, as regards to Israel, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Israel was involved in 9/11 no matter what, Israel must have perpetrated it no matter what?
Is that how Jews are generally treated in Muslim societies, and by the legal systems in Arab/Muslim countries?
Muslims want to kill all Israelis, so since they are Jews, so they lets implicate them and them kill them?
Is that how Jews are generally treated in Muslim societies, and by the legal systems in Arab/Muslim countries?
Muslims want to kill all Israelis, so since they are Jews, so they lets implicate them and them kill them?
So why is it that Israel is unable to convince — even to bribe — Jews living in places like Iran to leave and come to Israel ????
Rules of civility here prohibit a more vigorous response.
What?
The majority of the Jews living in Muslim countries did come to Israel.
The only reasons Jews are able to live more or less bearable lives, in places like Iran is precisely because the govt doesn’t want to turn their loss into Israel’s gain as already happened before.
Iran was under sanctions for almost 30 years, so they didn’t want to bring any more sanctions or bad PR on them.
Dear Sir
“The majority of the Jews living in Muslim countries did come to Israel.”
There was a time when most Jews left Christian lands to find refuge in Muslim lands. This has more to do with the politics of the time than anything else.
“The only reasons Jews are able to live more or less bearable lives, in places like Iran is precisely because the govt doesn’t want to turn their loss into Israel’s gain as already happened before.”
The Jews of Iran, Iranian Jews are represented in parliament. They have more or less the same rights than their fellow Iranians (shia Muslims).
The Iranian govt provided for a protected status of all minorities in Iran (other than the bahai because it considered them more a political invention of the British than a religion) because of the teachings of Imam Ali and it tried to mould a polity in the image of his caliphate. That compassion of Ali to all his subjects shines through here. It’s not about loss or gain.
” Iran was under sanctions for almost 30 years, so they didn’t want to bring any more sanctions or bad PR on them.”
If you look at all the other actions they (the Iranians) take, they are guided by principles. Not PR. That’s how Obama and the West works. So it’s not about PR.
Whatever else may be bad or wrong with theocratic Iran, why maliciously malign them where it’s not due.
The majority of Jews in Iran remain there because it is their ancestral home. They have been there for well over 1000 years, living in a climate of mutual respect with those around them.
They know only too well what life in Israel is like for non-Ashkenazim.
Kindly peddle your zionist propaganda somewhere else.
Well I read somewhere an interview with an Iranian Jew who was a member of their parliament on the eve of Iranian elections in 2009.
He said that basically Iranian Jews have nothing and nobody to vote for.
I found disturbing, is that one of the I. Jews in parliament proposed a measure that would equate the blood of the Jew with that of Muslim, i.e. the way things stood was that the blood that was donated by the Jews to the blood banks was not considered of the same value as the blood donated by the Muslims.
So much for equal rights and protection.
As far as I know, the only time Jews in Iran had equality with Muslims, was when Iran was ruled by the Shah.
The Shia extremists who overthrew his regime did not like this.
I would only modify the use of the word epistemology in the title by the phrase “multiple diversity forensic epistemology” – to cover: use of multiple, correlated sources – and – forensic epistemology: painful legal-quality attention to the legitimacy and provenance of what we will be comfortable to assert as facts”
Dear Anwar Khan
It’s nice to see You are keeping up the good work. Unfortunately, Epistemology is not my forte.
I would however ask you to reconsider, in times of leisure, this system and belief as well: Since the 13th century Mongol invasion, the Middle East has never been in such an extreme state of confusion and disorder (many would argue that this is on the whole far worse).
I have heard this time and time again from Sunni Muslims. For me as a Shia, the end/destruction of a caliphate (be it a Muslim one) that in its history oppressed the Ahlulbayt by a heathen force (later the ilkhanate was Muslim) was a welcome destruction. Most of these invaders in history have assimilated into the lands that they invaded and contributed to the culture of that place making history so much more interesting.
Even if you don’t consider it from my “sectarian” point of view, the caliphate was more or less nominal by then and corruption was rife. The Muslims back then considered the Mongol horde the scourge for their sins.
Kind regards
Partisan of Ali (alayhi salam)
“Since the 13th century Mongol invasion, the Middle East has never been in such an extreme state of confusion and disorder (many would argue that this is on the whole far worse).”
This belief? This is a fact.
Don’t see how Shiism came into the subject? The article is about epistemology.
Ws
“This belief? This is a fact.”
Debatable, and goes to the questioning of a belief that is treated as fact
You are right, this should not have a sectarian angle, but just as the initial invasion of Lebanon freed the Lebanese from the Palestinian check points, so did the horde provide much needed respite, both led to chaos that later had unforseen outcomes
Will stay out of this one, I am ignorant and prefer simple problems
Thank you Mr. Khan. Your description of Islamic education was eye opening. It is very much like the Tibetan buddhist monastic curriculum in the development of logic and studies in perception.
I´m not sure if I agree with your conclusions. I think it may be grounded in a newtonian sort of view, rather than a more fluid view of reality. I don´t think we need certifications, institutions, etc at this point. The strength of web journalism is in its diversity and multi perspectives. Health in any ecosystem is in diversity. Any news or opinion site can be blackmailed or bribed or tricked into providing false content, and so change from trusted to untrustworthy overnight. Or by a slow, insidious process.
Personally, within a day of the 9/11 event, I had found the Northwoods document online, and have kept up on the differing analyses. It does not bother me that they do not cohere, or have a consensus. Part of an education is to understand that we know very little, directly and surely. We need to assess our belief systems and actions continually as we develop and mature. This process takes time and consideration, cannot be put on a syllabus and completed by a deadline. I trust that people who want to develop their minds and educate themselves will do so, and can only do so with free access to competing philosophies.
Having said that, the commodification of all aspects of life in a hyper capitalist environment is pretty toxic. Children are bombarded with an either/or way of thinking that is simplified and easy to manipulate. The media, as in TV and online fare, contains many destructive messages, and most people simply do not realise how powerful it can be.
I have struggled with knowing that most of what we read is propaganda, yet being drawn to read and take in data for analysis and decision making. Its a paradox we must live with. In my life, seeking the divine first has been key. Without a moral centre, beings don´t develop in some ways. As I move through life, and try to realise my spiritual practice, I note that my intuition has developed. The statement that `ask and you shall receive´ has become a metaphysical reality. So, a spiritual process can make our senses more acute, and allow us to discriminate between the versions of what is presented to us.
Thanks again for the thought provoking article on a timely subject.
Peace be to you
If I may add another “axiom” to the conditions under which a proper discussion may take place, controversial as it may be.
I believe that until the serious revisionist history of the WWII with respect to the Germans and Hitler’s plan for the Jews is not openly discussed and if necessary revised officially, there can be no serious critique in the West and of the West. The “extermination of the Jews”, the six million killed and the gas chambers as instruments of killing, need to be seriously examined. Because so far what serious scientists and engineers have found is that the gas chambers could not have been used for those purposes, the number of six million dead is inflated exponentially and there was no plan for extermination. Furthermore, the Red Cross never reported any of these horrors and the Secret Services of the British, who broke the German code, also did not find any references to this “unique” historical event. The records of Auschwitz concerning the dead, were taken to the Soviet Union, and were opened to the public a few years ago with the number of the ill dying being something like 30,000 while under German control. The official number of those who died at Auschwitz has been dropped from four million to one million. The terrible killer of typhus also arose as a result of the bombing of German railroads thus preventing medical and food provisions from arriving at Auschwitz.
I think that it must be recognized that it is this myth which is the keystone or foundation stone for the “goodness” of the West – and the sooner it is dislodged the better.
There is no critical self-reflection in the West and it is taken for granted that all the horrors that their governments perpetrate is “for the good”. And this idiocy is well planted in the “Holocaust” myth.
Thank you, Anwar for a valuable education.