Most people believe that the second world war is over. In some points, they are right. Very right. There is no "major" fighting in the majority of the countries throughout the world. However, there are some aspects of the wars that are still active today.
One of the biggest developments in World War II, and the events leading up to it, is the adverse effects of the little thing we like to call; "Intelligence." The field of intelligence is a wonderful thing, and a very deadly thing. For a country to be strong in it's intelligence, means that it is a potentially strong in dealing with everything any other country has to offer. What I'm getting at is similar to the saying: "The pen is mightier than the sword," which I whole heartedly agree. Intelligence is what wins wars. Knowing where your opponent is... why, and how. It is also the best defensive tools any tactician, politician, military or civilian, anyone really can benefit from "knowing."
Let's back track a little: www.dictionary.com describes the word intelligence as:
in·tel·li·gence
-noun
| 1. | capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. |
| 2. | manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit. |
| 3. | the faculty of understanding. |
| 4. | knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information. |
| 5. | the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information. |
| 6. | Government.
|
knowl·edge
–noun
| 1. | acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things. |
| 2. | familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job. |
| 3. | acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature. |
| 4. | the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension. |
| 5. | awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune. |
| 6. | something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities. |
| 7. | the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time. |
| 8. | the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited. |
The definitions do seem similar, but one is actually understanding something as fact, and the other is the capacity to understand something as a fact. The old saying "knowledge is power" could be quickly challenged. In reference to the Method of Doubt; how do I know what I receive as information is actually true or not? How do I know that the people I employ actually present an accurate representation of what is happening out in the world? What really is more powerful? Intelligence, or knowledge? To that I answer firmly:
"Intelligence is power, only when deceiving Knowledge."
If you control the "sources" of "facts" in which knowledge is supposedly "based," even if it is untrue, you embed a false knowledge on those who read it. This is called "counterintelligence."
coun·ter·in·tel·li·gence [koun-ter-in-tel-i-juh
ns] Pronunciation Key–noun
| 1. | the activity of an intelligence service employed in thwarting the efforts of an enemy's intelligence agents to gather information or commit sabotage. |
| 2. | an organization engaged in counterintelligence. |
In other words, if I obscure your "knowledge" of things, then I technically have the upper hand even if I don't even know the "truth" of it myself. When these three things come together, and presented to a group, this coherently affects the mass psychosis of the entire group, especially if they do not know better, this is effectively called "Propaganda."
Well... what is it?
prop·a·gan·da [prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key –noun
| 1. | information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. |
| 2. | the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. |
| 3. | the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement. |
Propaganda. It's first major debut in the world would have to be the Nazi regime. I don't really have to explain the side-effects of propaganda used well. I say "well" because it worked, didn't it? It achieved a goal even if it was brutal. In Germany amidst that time, if you disagreed, you were killed. Simple as that, meaning you feared into viewing the propaganda, which, in turn, was fearing in and of itself. But that is the life you live now.
How is this the life I live now?
Maybe I'm way off base, but it's very similar, is it not? Right now a big topic is Iran. The Iranian president saying the holocaust didn't happen, Israel needs to be wiped out. That guy. This is what you're told by your local media.
What they told you:
What really happened
Well, that doesn't prove anything, does it? I'm trying to counter one point of intelligence, from another point of intelligence that doesn't have any merit to you. A common practice from your major media networks... except, since it's from a major news network, and thrown in your face until you puke... you begin to conform to it. Those who resist while the majority begins to become brainwashed from constantly being told the same thing, are inevitably called traitors for not "supporting" your country.
So let's ask a more specific question, does Ahmadinejad really hate jews?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=25781
If he really hated jews, why would he be, supposedly "hugging" a jew in this photo? Who is Aljazeera? Most Americans have no clue what an Aljazeera is. How do you know that this media source is reliable. You don't, and can't... but the photo is pretty convincing isn't it. The photo could be a fake. Highly unlikely, but still a plausible argument. You can now see how the Method of Doubt is turning everything into an annoying conversation. However, this is exactly the mentality of the naive American. You are told to believe what only the major networks say, what your government says, and to deny all others because they are not American, and their intelligence isn't as superior to the Americans.
And what about this Holocaust thing.
Well, the Iranian president just answered that. But wait... how do we know the translator is actually telling the truth? Ahmadinejad made a pretty good argument, didn't he? We are all human. 58 million civilians were killed (which is pretty accurate), yet only one "race" was singled out. To skip the controversy in that subject alone, I'll let you decide.
So, how do we separate the bullshit from the real stuff?
That's the hard part. With the lack of Investigative Journalism that resides in the world nowadays, it's hard to have a clear picture. When your media groups are either "really right-wing" or "really left-wing" it's hard to distinguish if what someone is telling you is actually the truth and not their skewed report of bias in their leftish, or rightish favor. How do you combat that? Research. Civilian investigative journalism. Blogsphere. Open mindedness. Your politics and lefty-righty stuff doesn't exist in the realm of "truth," because the truth does not take sides. Civilians have to take control of the media that "serves" you. Right now they serve the political agenda, and not you. Which is why the blogsphere revolution has occurred.
Comparing past and present is the best way of separating bullshit. The boy who cries wolf too many times will find that no help comes to him when the wolf is actually there.
you be the judge, and you decide.
www.foxattacks.com
No comments:
Post a Comment