This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is the End Game of Wikileaks Internet Censorship?
- Afghanistan
- Bank of America
- Bank of America
- Barack Obama
- Bear Stearns
- CDS
- Department of Justice
- Fail
- Federal Reserve
- goldman sachs
- Goldman Sachs
- Great Depression
- Iran
- Iraq
- Israel
- Main Street
- Merrill
- Merrill Lynch
- Money Supply
- New York Times
- Newspaper
- North Korea
- SmartKnowledgeU
- Transparency
- Washington Mutual
- World Bank
F. William Engdahl’s first book, A
Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, discussed
the roles of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Ball and of the USA in the 1979
overthrow of the Shah of Iran. Engdahl claims that Brzezinski and Ball used the
Islamic Balkanization model proposed by Bernard Lewis to accomplish US policy
goals in Iran. Not coincidentally, Brzezinski was a key figure in US
President Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign and played a key role in helping
former US President Jimmy Carter get elected. In 2007, he released a book that exposed the massive dangers of GMO
foods called, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of GMO.
One of F. William Engdahl’s latest
articles is titled “Wikileaks, a Big Dangerous US Government Con Job”. In this
article, Engdahl implies that Wikileaks is
a US government-run propaganda and disinformation operation with an end goal of restricting
freedoms on the internet. Here are some of the key excerpts from this article.
"A closer look at the details of what has
so far been carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international
media such as the New York Times reveals a clear agenda. That agenda coincidentally
serves to buttress the agenda of US geopolitics around the world from Iran to
North Korea.
It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true. A discontented 22-year old US Army
soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning, a low-grade US Army intelligence
analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the military, a disgruntled “computer
geek,” sifts through classified information at Forward Operating
Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email
communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a
day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In
addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera
video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war
logs from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true.
A discontented 22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning,
a low-grade US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the
military, a disgruntled “computer geek,” sifts through classified information
at Forward Operating
Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email
communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a
day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In
addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera
video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war
logs from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
"Manning
then is supposed to have tracked down a notorious former US computer hacker to
get his 250,000 pages of classified US State Department cables out in the
Internet for the whole world to see. He allegedly told the US hacker that the
documents he had contained "incredible, awful things that belonged in the
public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington,
DC." The hacker turned him in to US authorities so the story goes. Manning
is now incommunicado since months in US military confinement so we cannot ask
him, conveniently. The Pentagon routinely hires the best hackers to design
their security systems.
[Assange]
selects
as exclusive newspapers to decide what is to be leaked the New York Times which did such service in promoting faked propaganda
against Saddam that led to the Iraqi war, the London Guardian and Der Spiegel.
Assange claims he had no time to sift through so many pages so handed them to
the trusted editors of the establishment media for them to decide what should
be released. Very “anti-establishment” that.
The New York Times even assigned one of its
top people, David E. Sanger, to control the release of the Wikileaks material.
Sanger is no establishment outsider. He sits as a member of the elite Council on Foreign
Relations as well as the Aspen Institute Strategy
Group together with the likes of Condi Rice, former Defense Secretary
William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, former State Department Deputy
Secretary and now World Bank head Robert Zoellick among
others. Indeed a strange choice of media for a person who claims to be
anti-establishment. But then Assange also says he believes the US Government
version of 9/11 and calls the Bilderberg Group a
normal meeting of people, a very establishment view.
Most important, the 250,000
cables are not "top secret" as we might have thought. Between two and
three million US Government employees are cleared to see this level of
"secret" document, [1] and some
500,000 people around the world have access to the Secret Internet Protocol
Router Network (SIPRnet) where the cables were stored. SIPRnet is not
recommended for distribution of top-secret information. Only 6% or 15,000 pages
of the documents have been classified as even secret, a level below top-secret.
Another 40% were the lowest level, "confidential", while the rest
were unclassified. In brief, it was not all that secret.
What
is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks
fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a
long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet.
Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks
server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken."
"The process
of policing the Web was well underway before the current leaks scandal. In 2009
Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe introduced the Cybersecurity
Act of 2009 (S.773). It would give the President unlimited power to
disconnect private-sector computers from the internet. The bill "would
allow the president to ’declare a cyber-security emergency’ relating to
’non-governmental’ computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the
threat." We can expect that now this controversial piece of legislation
will get top priority when a new Republican House and the Senate convene in
January.
US Department of Homeland Security, an agency
created in the political hysteria following 9/11 2001 that has been compared to
the Gestapo, has already begun policing the Internet. They are quietly seizing
and shutting down internet websites (web domains) without due process or a
proper trial. DHS simply seizes web domains that it wants to and posts an
ominous "Department of Justice" logo on the web site. See an example
at http://torrent-finder.com (My note: Do click on this link. It's worth checking out.)"
On the
political front, I agree with Engdahl’s assessment of Assange’s leaked
government cables. In the cables I have seen discussed in various newspaper articles thus far, there is nothing more than the occasional embarrassing
quote, nothing top-secret, and nothing remotely damaging to any US allies
revealed in any of these supposedly top-secret government cables.
And regarding Assange’s threat of leaking thousands of confidential documents
contained in a 5 gigabyte drive regarding a big US bank believed to be Bank of
America as an “anti-establishment” act, I’m not buying it. According to a Forbes
interview, Assange stated that his leak would “give a true and representative
insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will
stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume.” I say, so what if this big leak
Assange is in possession of pertains to Bank of America and if it reveals
documents that result in the demise of BofA? If this is how this drama plays
out, this event would ultimately be more pro-establishment and pro-elite than anti-establishment. The
demise of BofA would only mean that JP Morgan, as they have already done with
Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, would have yet another opportunity to stamp
out their competition, swoop in like vultures, and pick up BofA’s carcass for
pennies on the dollar. Or perhaps Goldman Sachs will be given this carcass to
pick clean. Either way, if this
happens, it consolidates power for the elites at the top and could not have worked
out any better if Assange was a paid employee of Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan. Remember
that BofA bought up Merrill Lynch when Merrill Lynch failed, so an acquisition of BofA would translate
into a delayed acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
In
the book, “The Great Depression of the XXI Century,” Tanya Cariina Hsu wrote:
“In
1907, J.P. Morgan, a private New York banker, published a rumor that a
competing unnamed large bank was about to fail. It was a false charge but
customers nonetheless raced to their banks to withdraw their money, in case it
was their bank. As they pulled out their funds, the banks lost their cash
deposits and were forced to call in their loans. People therefore had to pay
back their mortgages to fill the banks with income, going bankrupt in the
process. The 1907 panic resulted in a crash that prompted the creation of the
Federal Reserve, a private banking cartel with the veneer of an independent
government organization. Effectively, it was a coup by elite bankers in order
to control the industry."
"When
signed into law in 1913, the Federal Reserve would loan and supply the nation’s
money, but with interest. The more money it was able to print, the more
"income" it generated for itself. By its very nature, the Federal
Reserve would forever keep producing debt to stay alive. It was able to print
America’s monetary supply at will, regulating its value. To control valuation,
however, inflation had to be kept in check.
The
Federal Reserve then doubled America’s money supply within five years, and in
1920, it called in a mass percentage of loans. Over five thousand banks
collapsed overnight. One year later, the Federal Reserve again increased the
money supply by 62 percent, but in 1929, it again called the loans back in, en
masse. This time, the crash of 1929 caused over sixteen thousand banks to fail
and an 89 percent plunge on the stock market. The private and well-protected
banks within the Federal Reserve system were able to snap up the failed banks
at pennies on the dollar."
If this
sounds familiar, it should. This
seems to be the blueprint by today's banking elites for today’s banking industry as well. During the Bank Panic of 1907 and the Great Depression,
JP Morgan was one of the biggest beneficiaries of a panic that many
historians claimed they, along with the Federal Reserve, helped to manufacture (JP Morgan is alleged to have helped engineer both the Panic of
1907 and the Great Depression while the Federal Reserve helped engineer
the Great Depression). If the future scenario
regarding Wikileaks's release of incriminating big bank documents plays out anywhere close to the one I presented above, Julian Assange would, in essence, be performing a massive favor for the most favored private banks
of the Federal Reserve system. One must remember that during this manufactured global monetary crisis, not all banks are created equal and a handful of banks are hand picked for survival and prosperity at the expense of hundreds of others. Just because Wikileaks threatens to release incriminating documents on a big bank that could make it look bad, this should not be naively or blindly interpreted as an anti-establishment act.
Admittedly, like millions of others, I was fooled by Wikileaks's intent in the beginning. But the more and more I research them, the more it seems as though Wikileaks is cooperating with governments and banks rather than serving as their adversary or as their watchdog to increase transparency. Now, if Mr.
Assange releases cables that expose detailed correspondences between the US
Federal Reserve and JP Morgan regarding silver price suppression schemes or how
Goldman Sachs deliberately releases misinformation about gold prices, or if he
releases diplomatic cables exposing secrets between the US and Israel that have
been concealed from the public, I might start once again believing that the goal of Wikileaks is to provide greater transparency
about government and banker actions. One thing I have learned over the years about the shadowy world of banking and politics is that if something appears to be a great coincidence, it usually is not, and that things rarely are what they seem to be on the surface.
About the author: SmartKnowledgeU is a fiercely independent investment research & consulting firm dedicated to helping Main Street avoid the fraud of Wall Street.
»
- advertisements -
asdf
You are misreading that portion of the entire sentence and paragraph. I was metaphorically speaking as a person who is acting with the masses while internally convincing myself that my actions are based upon individual thought via critical thinking.
A self deluded mind always believes it thinks clearly and independently. A critical mind understands this is rarely the case and carefully examines him or herself for internal and external biases and hidden influences. A critical mind is never free of conflicts and delusion. But a critical mind is at least aware of the phenomenon and works to counter it. Question everything....starting with yourself.
The entire paragraphs reads as follows.
I agree with your comments on critical thinking.
I think a better way of phrasing it would be "You think you know the source of your thinking."
In order for "you" to know what "you're source of thinking" is, you have to assume the concept of "I" is objectively experiencing reality AND "I" is creating thought-stuff; consciousness demands people think those two things are true, because in part, it helps people have a continuous sense of "I" (those two things I mentioned help memory construction which gives us continuity of "I" through time). You have to assume that thoughts and ideas have a beginning and an end; looking at nature though, nothing is linear and nothing really ends, everything is just transmuted.
That "truth" which our consciousness would like us to believe (in quotes because our consciousness demands us to believe it is truth, when in reality, it's a biologically/chemically constructed paradigm to help us preserve our genetic material) does not jive with what's actually happening (outside of the construct) based on neuroscience.
The concept of "I" is not objectively experiencing reality, and it is not creating thought-stuff. The "I" is a construction that is simultaneously experiencing another construction in order to give us semblance of "reality." So where do thoughts come into this? Well, I like thinking about whether our brains are pushing information out or taking information in and how that feedback loop works. Are we the source of our own ideas? What about ideas during dreaming when our subconscious is alive and ideas seem to be created from that soup?
Check this book out, Ego Tunnel by Metzinger, it's really amazing (review below).
http://www.naturalism.org/metzinger.htm
With all that said, it should shove you into a state of generalized agnosticism (Robert Anton Wilson), humility, and less clinginess to thought narrowing systems (ideas like Republican and Democrat for instance). This will cause one to start asking more questions - always a good thing!
Cheers,
I'm lots of fun at dinner parties!
Very well explicated TAR, and very Cartesian, sans the divine source.
I often find it interesting to draw inspiration from natural patterns, and when viewed in this, say, "natural light" (of reason), one might ponder the "I" of conciousness as manifesting at the barrier between the two constructs you reference (the inner biomechanical and outer realities). Most interesting things and emergent properties in this universe occur at the boundary layer, where complexities arise.
One can go further with this line of thinking, by drawing parallels to money as the next frontier of natural boundary communication (money being thought of in this sense as a store of energy and information through time between individuals).
Btw, you would be welcome at my dinner parties any time.
-RR
//One can go further with this line of thinking, by drawing parallels to money as the next frontier of natural boundary communication (money being thought of in this sense as a store of energy and information through time between individuals). //
Funny your bring that up, I've been doing a lot of thinking about that.
I wrote a bit about the topic of money here
http://type1.tumblr.com/post/556147003/true-cost
and here
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/492672-mike-mezzadri/29766-removing-the-grip-of-centralized-currency
Let me know your thoughts if you do read
Some quick feedback...
True Cost contains some quality thinking. That said, I would ask what such an energy based monetary system would look like in the real world... and how "productive capacity" would be quantified in such a system.
The fundamental issue with finite money is that people are, at times, irrational, and short-term focused, as are the governments which represent them, and such systems limit overall economic flexibility. It should be noted that (at least from my perspective) the fiat/fractional reserve system we have in place would function quite well if it were maintained properly in conjunction with sound fiscal management. The upshot of such a system is [should be?] a better living standard for the majority of the populace, as a function of ease of transactional liquidity and capital formation, and the ability to course correct (read: fire off a shot in the air to stop the herd from stampeding). The downside is the tendency toward systemic instability if abused, which it always seems to be. There is also the issue of monetary (wealth/energy) distribution which must be dealt with from both a corporate and individual perspective, which oftentimes flies directly in the face of fairness, but is a requirement for any healthy capitalist ecosystem. Left to its own devices, money, like energy, which begets mass, will generate its own gravitational field which pulls in more of its own. Without a proper countervailing redistributive force, the entire system suffers lower output. I do realize that this concept is anathema to many here, but it is not my goal to be popular.
Sound money, it would seem, requires sound minds, and it would seem that for the vast majority of the population, this is a long ways off.
-RR
"from my perspective) the fiat/fractional reserve system we have in place would function quite well if it were maintained properly in conjunction with sound fiscal management."
As long as it wasn't predicated on growth (without coordinated stops- not perpetual grwoth on this finite planet of ours). THE question, then, is whether fiat/fractional could work in a non-growth environment/envelop: my limited awareness has me thinking that it could not, despite any level of realized/practiced "soundness." Essence is essence...
Hmmm ...
/the fiat/fractional reserve system we have in place would function quite well if it were maintained properly/
I'm under the impression that fractional reserve banking will only work assuming growth can happen ad infinitum, so I agree with you there Seer. There's the rub, that point right there, the banking system requires a growth curve which is not possible given finite inputs (over a long enough time-frame).
It ought work the other way around, the systems' boundaries should determine the metasystems.
This assumes that there is nothing to be gained from the inherent dynamism of a system.
The simplistic example I often use is one of a closed box with 5 balls inside. Assuming perfect conservation of energy between the balls and the borders of the box (no environment drag, friction, gravity, etc.), and no ability to exchange energy with each other (meaning they pass right through each other unaffected) the balls, given an initial velocity push, will bounce off the walls according to their starting energies and directional vectors indefinitely. Such a system will have some definable number of states, or configurations at any given time.
Now take the system above and allow the balls to exchange energy with each other, meaning that they will bounce off each other when they collide. Such a system is inherently more complex than the original system and capable of greater dynamism.
I would tend to think that even in a finite system, the orders of complexity and the facility of energy exchange within that system can have a tremendous impact on the potential of that system.
Interesting thoughts, Seer. Can you expound further on why you believe fiat/fractional and zero growth are mutually exclusive?
It certainly, imo, lays bare the the fundamental challenges of such a system, but I'm not sure I agree that it would be unworkable.
RR
Hey RR,
Check out this vid series
http://type1.tumblr.com/post/634978513/pt-1-economic-analyst-helmut-creutz-on-why-the
I just ordered the book though I'm old school so I didn't select the Kindle version you linked to.
I bet you are. :>)
I have pretty much given up discussing these subjects in those settings. Many people are locked into their belief systems and will fiercely defend the most nonsensical and illogical stuff to the point where I no longer see the point in even bringing it up.
I'm extremely open minded and willing to change my view when presented not with "evidence" but simply reasonable doubt about my view. It is wishful thinking to hope others would be so flexible. I'm willing to learn from others. I'm not willing to be bludgeoned over the head by others in their desperate attempt to validate themselves and their beliefs.
As I say below, once you are smitten by a belief that belief controls you.
I agree.
Ideas spread like disease, but are much harder to get free of once you're smitten. If only they could be as fickle as relationships!
//once you are smitten by a belief that belief controls you.//
Well maybe after seeing Inception, that meme has been entered into mass consciousness haha ..
Interesting that you mention Inception because I'm in the middle of a ZH article that will use that movie as a central theme.
I refer you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity
The issues with critical thinking, in my experience, are manifold when confronted with a systemic, concerted, disinformation campaign that has been underway for any length of time. In the case of the United States, there have been several historical studies that argue the underlying purpose of public education has not been to produce an informed, critical electorate, but rather a docile work force trained to accomodate the needs of industrial hand-labor in factories: taught not to question authority, do as they're told, comfortable with fragmentary information, and unable to employ critical reasoning.
When following WWII a large percentage of this population's children were able to enter college (courtesy of the GI Bill) and were given even a low level of training in critical cognitive skills, the result was a disaster from the pov of those in charge: anti-consumerism, counter culture, etc. That each of these lead to disaster is only part of the story; more to the point, this is why 40+ years later we still have talk about liberals (hippies) by people who are too young to even have potentially met one.
In the years after this period we have seen massive calls for education reform, each time resulting in a poorer quality of education, while at the same time, an infiltration of "business models" at the college level, resulting in college students who have no more critical thinking skills or training than their high school dropout fellows (and this is at the graduate school level, forget about undergraduate).
"Critical thinking" is a buzz word used to describe logical training, but the amount of traingin given and the expectations placed on students result in very little actual ability emerging from that training. Couple the defective training with an education culture based on making students happy (high grades, little effort, feel good courses without content), a bias in favor of conformity that has been taught since birth by the parents, and rampant contradictory information + the ghetoization of information on line (people read what they already agree with) and the misinformation of many news sources (esp. Fox news which has been shown to consistently misinform its viewers) there should be little surprise that critical thinking is in decline.
Clearly there is an attempt to reserve these skills for those in charge, the self-reinforcing "elites." It is a design that can only result in disaster; the question is simply when?
Begging to differ with you but singling out FOX betrays your bias and lack of critical thinking. There is not a single day that I turn on any broadcast or cable network that I don't hear mouthpieces repeating anything but erroneous or biased information handed to them by politicians and consultants with a financial or social agenda. Fox is just the flip side of Pacifica Radio or Link TV. They are all biased but they provide different points of view that are valuable in debate. Biased, limited or no investigative journalism is a plague now as it was at the beginning of our New Republic's experiment. The difference now is that government has grown so large and oppressive that it differs little from King George III's elite privileged and ignorant dictates.
All of our national and international media are biased. That is not the issue; the issue is systematic misinformation of people who consume this media.
Here is a recent example of analytic coverage of this question. Fox News ranks lowest. This isn't a bias, this is what the study found.
I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it. Here is the study itself, so you can read it:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/6...
When we start confusing someone who looks at the statistical studies that find fact and says it "betrays your bias" and is a sign of not thinking critically.
This report and several like it are information you could find with a search in 30 seconds. This issue is as close to fact as we are going to get these days. (yes, there is bias in everything, there are statistical methods to reduce it, which these appropriately peer-reviewed studies employ). That you didn't bother to look it up shows your claims about my comments are nothing more than projection on your part; either you are a toll looking for an argument, or you are a fool. Don't waste my time again.
"Fox is just the flip side of Pacifica Radio or Link TV"
Really?
I'm not naive enough to think that the "flip side" is not without passing distortions, but... one need only follow the (larger pools of) money to find the greatest deceipt.
"School has become the planned process which tools man for a planned world, the principal tool to trap man in man s trap. It is supposed to shape each man to an adequate level for playing a part in this world game. Inexorably we cultivate, treat, produce, and school the world out of existence."
- Ivan Illych, Deschooling Society
http://ournature.org/~novembre/illich/1970_deschooling.html#chapter7
great concept you introduce : 'the ghettoization of information'. Illich talked in 1970 about using tech to develop 'learning webs'. it's a shame that although technology has caught up to his idea, those 'webs' primarily serve to entrap people in their own echo chamber.
"Yet whereas the Promethean majority of would-be spacemen still evades the structural issue, the emergent minority is critical of the scientific deus ex mach ina, the ideological panacea, and the hunt for devils and witches. This minority begins to formulate its suspicion that our constant deceptions tie us to contemporary institutions as the chains bound Prometheus to his rock. Hopeful trust and classical irony (eironeia) must conspire to expose the Promethean fallacy."
there's definitely no shortage of erioneia here at the hedgegrow, that's for sure. it's the hopeful trust that i personally find so hard to find in others and summon in myself these days. i wonder sometimes if that is also part of the design of the trap, the final tripwire if you will.
Nice post CD... Nice job of putting your finger directly on the sore..
Well said CD. I am in agreement as well with another poster here that the masses will, to paraphrase, keep bumbling along in their blissfull ignorance. That is as well one of the cornerstones of the edifice that has been built. I am beginning to not care whether it was planned that way or is a result of basic human nature. History seems to prove that it does not matter.
Agreed:
The American people can start with a complete boycott of the airline industry for its unregulated X-ray program of every man, woman, and child. Where the hell are the conspiracy theorists when there is reality staring them right in the face? Do you want to be exposed to X-rays every time you fly-well you got it, and you go willingly.
The wiki-leaks thing is an egomaniacal project from a disgruntled Euro and nothing else. Activists should turn their attention elsewhere and do some good.
Where the hell are the conspiracy theorists when there is reality staring them right in the face?
The conspiracy theorists don't bother with it because, as you point out, it is right in your face and doesn't need to be pointed out.
Yet no action is even taken to on even this, the low hanging fruit. More energy is expended worrying about the things over which we have no control, and for which money.power (lots of it) keep the best secrets.
Probably irrelevant, but: Clapham, do you use a cell phone?
@CD, very well put. However, the problem is, what percent of the masses think critically?
I would not wish to hazard a guess what percent of the masses are critical thinkers but personal experience indicates the number is low. Too many people equate intelligence and education with critical thinking. This is a critical mistake (no pun intended) in their thinking and also very self flattering.....which explains it's wide acceptance. I have found, generally speaking, that the higher the education level the more likely it is that the person is trapped in very narrow thought patterns and processes.
Unfortunately among the intelligent and highly educated, non critical thinking is almost always disguised by the sheer volume of information passing down the narrow thought corridor. Thus the educated person is convinced by the volume of information they are processing that they are engaged in critical thinking when in fact they are simply a very efficient CPU.
Most people don't recognize that a comupter is hostage to it's software. It all depends upon the programming, applications and input. A person is no different and in many cases more easily fooled into believeing they are thinking something through when in fact they are following a well worn, and very narrow, path.
Beautifully put, CD! This is why the MSM is so dangerous. They provide so much information -- 99% of it meaningless -- that people are overwhelmed by it. When there is so much too much to process, it's no wonder that we end up unable to sort through what we're being shown. Since abandoning television and radio five years ago, my thought process has clarified remarkably. Still too much out there, but I'd like to believe I'm getting better at tuning out the more obvious "filler" content. Thanks for all your work here.
A fine duo of posts CD.
I also moot, that formal education, programs us to believe that well reasoned conclusions can and should be made efficiently and as a matter of course. Lack of conclusions are equated to indecision and other negative connotations. The ease of jumping to the wrong conclusions is ignored, not surprising since the tendency of the mind for subjective and lazy thinking is ignored. Formal education seems to legitimise our biological programming to reach our conclusions quickly, thus encouraging overly simplistic views of the world.
Apart from self-awareness, the other critical skill which is interestingly neglected by formal education, is the eternal need to establish the relevant context. So I agree with you, the worst critical thinkers can be found even among the educated. You can't teach 'em anything because like you say, they equate intelligence and education with critical thinking.
Those who are truly good at critical thinking would be more aware of how often there is an insufficiency of available info to reach a correct, or even 'informed' conclusion, or to recognise that the info that they have is typically just assumption or received wisdom. This lack of critical thinking does indeed make it easy to control the masses.
I like Engdahl; he presents fresh views and ideas. He challenges assumptions and received wisdom, and he has his own view of the greater context.
We all expect a clampdown of the internet, because regardless the thought process employed along the way, too many of us now are anti-establishment. Whatever the ultimate truth about wikileaks, it is logical in principle, for the establishment to try to hijack dissent, through 'false prophets.'
CD, you're a valuable resource here at The Hedge.
I always used to think I was a critical thinker. I used to think I knew what Cognitive Dissonance actually WAS. After all, I majored in it way back in College. (Interestingly, I evolved into a hard-core behaviorist.)
Turns out I was exactly what you have just described: receptive to only that which locked into a predisposition in my mind. Over the last two years, I have made a mighty effort to remedy that inclination. Knowing the Truth now is more important than ever.
Anyway, It's really hard. As I'm sure you know, actually TRYING to be intellectually honest requires a great deal of effort and, sometimes, pain. Not just to you, but also to those close to you. I have never been so conflicted. It's difficult to *not* throw out the baby with the bathwater and just settle on "there is no truth at all!" That would be so much easier, and I find that many of our esteemed thread contributors end up that way.
Just thought I'd say all that. No particular reason. Peace.
Thank you for exposing yourself. It takes real courage to challenge yourself and an even larger dose to actually follow the process of what is essentially rejecting a (large) portion of your self, you ego, your identity. It is very painful and a never ending process.
Reminds me of something I heard some time ago that goes like this. Why are we all born as individuals and spend our entire lives and ultimately die desperately trying to be the same as everyone else? This applies internally as well as externally.
You second point is something that's rarely discussed but so very important to those who begin to strike out on the path of self discovery that is required for anyone seeking the truth. Inevitably you're going to leave others behind who are content to remain within the illusion and are deeply disturbed to see you "changing" for what they perceive to be crazy and upsetting reasons.
We are all reflections of what other people wish us to be. This is part of being the chameleon, of getting along by going along. This process occurs at work, with friends and most importantly with spouses and loved ones. When someone begins to work internally, one is in effect jeopardizing everything they are leaving behind in the old world.
This is the final act of courage required to be truly free. Do not despair if this appears to be an insurmountable roadblock. Rarely does this barrier fall the first time it's assaulted. There is only one way to measure your own results. To your own self be true.
CD, your comments are usually the first thing I look for here on ZH after I read an article. And I think your contributions—such as the multi-part piece on critical thinking you did over the summer—are just fantastic.
But when I see you start a comment with a sentence like, "Thank you for exposing yourself," I'm forced to stop and point out...
That's what she said.
Some ideas seem to transcend the idea of propaganda, but paraphrasing the propaganda of Lao Tzu....
He know knows others is wise. He who knows himself is Enlightened.