Sunday, October 16, 2005

Al-Zawahiri's Struggle: The Little Bloody Book

It has always been interesting to me that Hitler, and Marx, and Mao carefully wrote down the course their ambition would follow, and no one took them seriously until they were well on their way to accomplishing their design.

Like a hurricane projecting its own course and land fall, Terrorist Murder Leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri has laid out a step by step plan for world wide domination. To ignore his threats would place world leaders once more in denial and appeasement mode. As the disaster in Louisiana should have taught us – we ignore such threats at our own peril.

I’ve spent the afternoon reading al-Zawahiri’s demented letter to al-Zarqawi. Like Mein Kompf and the Communist Manifesto, Zawahiri’s letter is full of silly leaps beyond reason and down right falsehoods. But it is also like them in displaying a determined, albeit twisted, mania to exercise control over the human soul by seizing military and political power and establishing a super state to propagate a malicious dogma and impose it on the world.

I offer here some quotes and commentary:

Al-Zawahiri links his cause to the will of God and outlines the violent establishment and subsequent goals of a super state under the control of his ideology.

1. “. . . what is now the place of the greatest battle of Islam in this era and what will happen, according to what appeared in the Hadiths of the Messenger of God about the epic battles between Islam and atheism. It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established . . .”

2. “. . . the battles that are going on in the far-flung regions of the Islamic world. . . are just the groundwork and the vanguard of the major battles which have begun in the heart of the Islamic world.”

3. “. . . our goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet and if we expect to establish its state predominantly- according to how it appears in us-in the heart of the Islamic world. . .”

Zawahiri then lays out a series of steps to accomplish the enslavement of man:

4. “The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.”

5. “The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans. . . “

6. “The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.”

7. “Fourth Stage: It may coincide with what came before; the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.”

Zawahiri then goes on to explain how to exploit the masses – many of whom he intends to slaughter after they have served their purpose. Like the monsters that followed Marx – the masses are only the tools for assent into power.

8. “The Muslim masses-for many reasons. . . do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American.”

9. “If we look at the two short-term goals, which are removing the Americans and establishing an Islamic amirate in Iraq, or a caliphate if possible, then we will see that the strongest weapon which the Mujahedeen enjoy – after the help and granting of success by God – is popular support from the Muslim masses in Iraq, and the surrounding Muslim countries.”

10. “The collision between any state based on the model of prophecy with the Shia is a matter that will happen sooner or later, This is the judgment of history, and these are the fruits to be expected from the rejectionist Shia sect and their opinion of the Sunnies.”

11. “Indeed, questions will circulate among Mujahedeen circles and their opinion makers about the correctness of this conflict with the Shia AT THIS TIME (emphasis added).”

12. “. . . questions will circulate among Mujahedeen circles and their opinion makers about the correctness of this conflict with the Shia at this time.

a. Is it something that is unavoidable?”

b. Or, is it something [that] can be CAN BE PUT OFF (emphasis mine) until the force of the Mujahed movement in Iraq gets stronger?”

c. . . . is the opening of another front now in addition to the front against the Americans and the government a wise decision?”

d. And can the Mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq? Has any Islamic state in history ever tried that?”

e. “and do the brothers forget that both we and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other AT THIS TIME (my emphasis) in which the Americans are targeting us?”

Al-Zawahiri is confident that America will soon desert the Iraqi people; a hope buoyed by many Democrat politicians and the mainstream media. He is confident that the terrorists will then be able to impose their will on Iraq and thence the world. He makes reference to the communist successes in Vietnam. Success which equaled the murder of millions and the perpetuation of slavery!

13. “The Americans will exit soon, God willing, and the establishment of a governing authority as soon as the country is freed from the Americans – does not depend on force alone.”

14. Things may develop faster then we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam – and how they ran and left their agents – is noteworthy.”

15. “. . . despite all this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma.”

These last words about the “hearts and minds” of the masses outline the same strategy followed by all the tyrants and mass murders of the past. Seize the people in their ignorance; by the power of fear and hate, color them with prejudice, and imbue them with fanaticism, and when all else fails, kill, kill kill.

It is against this great evil, self declared and mapped out by its mad leaders, that we are called upon to contend. Let us learn from history – apply reason and the light of truth – and stand in defense of freedom


lysis_verus said...

Yeah Lysis, the Neo-Cons have a plan for world domination as well. You just replace all the silly 'Jihad' and 'Spread of Islam' palaver with disingenuous 'freedom' and democracy'palaver and you get the same thing. World Domination! Its called the Project for a New American Century. (Google PNAC and you can find it all) Basically, it calls for a Pax Americana paid for with the blood and treasure of the American Sheeple. Now having said that, I'd prefer OUR world domination to THEIR world domination. (And as an aside, do 'they' really have the power and resources to dominate?) These days the breathless paranoia displayed on this and other forums fuels a new Red Scare type mentality. I'm sure those in the military industrial complex are quite pleased to have a reason to go on sans a Soviet Threat. 'Look Ma a new Boogey-Man Osama-Sadamma and a new Patriotic Cause' (eg someone new to hate) The War on Terra!
Let's get about what we're doing. Most Americans (including you, Lysis) just *have* to be the good guys in the white hats. Everybody wants power and influence, that's human nature. But that includes the USA as well. Wrapping up in the flag an playing Boy Scout won't pass muster in the court of History. ~LV

lysis_verus said...

Addition: I just re-read my post and I must add I meant to say "Let's get real about what were doing" in the 2nd Paragraph My apologies, typos are one thing but whole word missing obfuscate the point. ~LV

Anonymous said...

Lysis Posts:
"Let us learn from History . . . "

Is Lysis' view of history teleological; "processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose?"
Is history "progressing" toward some end?

If so, what end whould that be?

If not, please explain why there is not an end to history?

If, as you imply, in *Mein Kompf* and other examples, that history repeats itself; then what is that pattern of repetition? Is it a reliable or random pattern or in any way predictable?

What is an historical "fact?"

By what kind of objectivity (truth) could an historical fact be publically verified? Whose historical interpretation IS TRUE and RATIONAL and how does one keep free from INDOCTRINATION into a FALSE history? (See Al-Sawahiri's book vs *Project for a New American Century*)
Is there a difference between HISTORY and SCRIPTURE; besides both being stories told for puposes of edification? And, what IS the purpose of history? What should it be????
Just curious . . .

A_Shadow said...

Dang, here I am jumping on board with the New World Order and there's a PNAC too?? Gosh, so many conspiracy theories to hold onto.

Chenney and Rumsfield are rumored to run the American branch of the NWO, who runs PNAC? I'm just super curious about all of the certifiable facts that Google has on the issue.

Don't get me wrong, Google finds the facts, but there's a lot of crap to be found as well.

The funny thing about comparing the Red Scare to the current times is that they are completely identical UNTIL you get to the enemy. No, I'm not pointing out the obvious fact that "rag heads" are the same as the "red". I'm pointing out the difference between a super power that entered into an ACTUAL arms race with us so that they could attempt to bully us (and the world) and between a terrorist group that ACTUALLY attacked us in an attempt to bully us and the world.

Wierd. It was much the same. Both of the threats were (and are) quite real. Or did I dream up the attack on our embassies, the U.S.S. Cole, London, New York, the Pentagon...

Right, definately a figment of our imagination, silly me. All of the above were created by our friendly neighborhood NWO to confuse us and control us.

Am I the only one that finds the logistics of such an organization to be a farce? Not to mention that they'd let Chenney (who's practically on death's door) and Rumsfield help run it? Am I the only one that thinks that stretching it just a LITTLE bit too far?

C'mon, sensabilities people.

As to the latest of the Anonymouses (anonymousi?):

History runs in cycles, it's an observation more than a fact. There's no documented proof of it to be sure, but you'd be an idiot to think that you can't see that issues correlate. Cycles require a single stream of events, one thing leading into another. History no more exists in a vacuum than my big head, that's a fact.

So with these two inferrences, it is easy to learn from history because undoubtably you will run into SIMILAR events later. There are an infinite number of combinations, but only on the most minute scale. There are always going to be enough events in common to correlate and compare two events.

Take the allies fighting Germany and the allies fighting Iraq as an example. In each case the wars were fought in defense of another (save the second Iraq war as it was declared pre-emptively). In each case the allies were victorious and in each case the leader was defeated (save the first Iraq war where we left the man in power). In EACH of the first cases, we did not extend our reach far enough to prevent the second case. We left Saddam in power the first time, when we shouldn't have. We let the French tax the life out of the Germans and then looked away as the Germans built their world conquering army.

You don't see a correlation there, a possible cycle? We're not supposing to say that they are the same events, but they are similar enough to contrast and extrapolate the events, to give a good guess at what may come. To "learn" from history.

History does lead in ONE direction. It heads in the direction of the singular flow of time (which, at last check, still only flowed one way, the laws of physics depend on it in many areas). So each event leads to another. Is there an end? Quite possibly, but that's a similar question to asking about the ends of space. If you give either answer it doesn't really matter as you can no more prove one than the other, only reason them. But like any race you can put up a finish line. Usually those "finish lines" correspond to events. We would signify that Hitler's coming to power started off WW2's proverbial race. In that example the "race" "ended" when Hitler was removed from power (by him self with much attrition by the Russians) and a new "race" began.

Linear history coming to a definate end.

What is a historical fact? Hitler is dead. Prove it wrong. WW2 is over, prove it wrong. Saddam is out of power, prove it wrong. Bush is the current president, I was born, Alexander ruled the Middle East... Etc... So forth ad nauseum. History is full of facts, but if you want to get into details it gets fuzzy. If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Achielles exists, many people would like to talk to you. Troy the great city is even but a rumor and a theory, but we have so much documentation on it. Wierd, huh? Is it possible to have some questions and also answers at the same time, duh. You can have a fact and yet have a related question.

Historically, it is still disputed whether or not Alexander had homosexual tendancies (something that modern historians conjecture constantly, him and all the Romans, oh yeah, and the Spartans, and the...), but we know that he existed.

So what was the exercise in asking those questions? I hope that I've answered them to the best of my abilities.

I hope you find enough to "chew" on for a little while.

Lysis said...

First to Lysis Verus points: As I think even LV admits – there is a difference between spreading liberty and spreading a dark age, religious fanaticism such as radical Islam or Communism.

The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes. Check out France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Japan, Germany, Kuwait, and South Korea. Nations liberated by the United States. Compare them to those in eastern Europe and else were dominated by the USSR Compare them to the disasters that are still North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and Tibet, nations “liberated” by Communists. It is recognizable truth and history – that those who have been liberated by the U.S. enjoy freedom and peace – while those under the sway of “the Reds”, including those still under the totalitarian dictators of China, are being murdered, oppressed, and denied even the most basic human rights by the monsters that control them by force.

L.V. – We should have been scared of the Reds. The Cold War was a necessary struggle. Those who lost it died and were and remain enslaved; those who, by the sacrifice of America and the West and were liberated from the murderous grasp of the Communists owe those who feared and fought the Reds their lives, liberty, and happiness. The Communists, like the radicals Islamists, had a step by step plan for world wide domination. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pot, and Ho; all had obscure beginnings as intellectuals and terrorists – they grew in power and murdered millions and pushed the world to the brink of nuclear destruction. The evil they hatched continues to contaminate the lives of the peoples of China, Vietnam, South Korea, and Cuba. Once again I ask you to compare the abominable suffering caused by communism to the freedom and prosperity brought by the efforts of the United States.

When we took the advice of the “cut and run” crowd in Korea, we sowed the seeds of an international terror state. The people of North Korea starve while their maniac monarch seeks to intimidate the world with atom bombs and seeks to pass WMD to terrorists. In Vietnam we cut and ran. Millions died and continue to die in the most repressive atmosphere the Communists can imagine.

Once again L.V. cannot you see the difference between the fireman and the arsonist (after all, they both deal with fire) the policeman and the murderer (after all, they both carry guns) or the spread of freedom and the maintenance of slavery (after all, both raise armies)? L. V. finds a similarity and then claims all such things to be the same. Thinking people are capable of discerning between good and evil.

Americans must continue to fight, one way of the other. Either we will defeat radical Islam on our terms in Iraq and beyond or fight them on their terms where they choose. They have their strategy, we would be fools to ignore it and desert our own.

In answer to Anonymous who sights and questions: You ask some great question; I will give some possible answers.

1. Q - Is Lysis View of History teleological? A – My definition of History is “a research into past human actions.”

2. Q – Is history a progress toward some end? A – I don’t believe History is directed by any other force that the humans acts that make it. But I do believe those actions have predictable reactions.

3. Q - Does History repeat itself? A – The actions of history are random but “cause and effect” is constant and justice and right and wrong universal throughout History. Therefore the effects of some causes are predictable and good and evil will always be recognizable.

4. Q – Is there an end to History? There is no end to history as long as humans act. Note that History has, by definition, already happened.

5. Q – What is a Historic fact? A Historic fact is something that actually happened. Many history books are short on them.

6. Q – How are Historic facts verified? They are verified as are the facts of most incidents, say in a criminal investigation, by witnesses, physical evidence, and corroboration from independent unbiased sources, examined by reason.

7. Q – When is history true? A – History is true when it discovers what actually happened. Perspective on incidents of History does not change the right or wrong, the justice or injustice, of those events.

8. Q – What is the purpose of history? A – The purpose of history is to enable us to know the truth, and that truth can make us free. Consider Orwell’s 1984. We are made free from ignorance and the hate and prejudice ignorance brings. We are freed from those who would manipulate our present by pushing a perception of the past; who would misrepresent past deeds to gain power by lies.

9. Q – Is there a difference between History and scripture? A- Some scripture purports to present history. Like all history such claims must be verified as outlined above. Much Scripture is by way of moral exhortation. If it exhorts one toward virtue it has a value; if it pushes toward injustice or misbehavior it can be studied to give insight, but should not be accepted as directing truth.

I thank all who have posted above. I have learned a lot from reading your comments and have put out these ideas in hope of being further instructed.

Lysis said...

Shadow thanks for you insight and your passion. I was writing my post while you were posting yours. I agree there are plenty of verifiable facts out there to stave off the “ministers of truth” that would manipulate the past to control our futures.

lysis_verus said...

Shadow. PNAC is not a 'conspiracy'. It is a published plan for 'benign domination' of what Brezinski (demo) and Kissinger (rep) call the Grand Chessboard (eg resources, geography of the Middle East and South Asia). Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy (and dozens more) are believers in this plan and use their influence within and without the structures of government to carry it out. You really should look things up and add to your knowledge base. Just because you don't know about something Shadow, it doesn't cease to exist or make it a 'conspiracy'. Also, I did not mention anything about NWO. It is very easy to find the reliable info on this stuff, the conspiranoid stuff aside. Or are you trying to launch and Ad Hominem attack against me (as is typical of your 'debate' style) by lumping any mention of this PNAC document and its precepts to the lunatic fringe. Good luck with that. You lose, your arrogance is palpable. But let's remember that Arrogance leads to Hubris and Hubris draws forth Nemesis. In that regard you make an excellent Bush supporter.

The Red Scare was a domestic phenomenon that went to far. Tell me Shadow and Lysis, can we fight tyranny and terrorism abroad by instituting and adopting forms or degrees of it as home?

C'mon sensibilities people.

Tell me, are you in favor of McCarthyism? Japanese Interment? Killing Kent State students? Waco? Perhaps you are. But those all share the shameful similarity of government over-reacting to emotionally driven situations. These actions led to deaths of American Citizens (you know, those people the Govt. was supposedly established to protect) I'm not talking about the Soviet Union or Al Qaeda, I'm talking about our response to them.

Sorry Shadow, your Pablum answer wasn't chewy at all.

Lysis, the lust for power is still lust for power. World Hegemony even with benign intent is STILL Hegemony. Even if you intend to use your hegemony for good. Tolkien wrote an extended treatise on this subject in novel form, The Lord of the Rings. Acton's power corrupts axiom. So, tell me then Lysis. Are cops always incapable of being murderers and criminals? Are firemen always incapable of being arsonists? Thinking people are capable of recognizing the dangers of blind faith in politicians or Government and its employees.

Lysis said...

Lysis Verus – I hope my responses bring you a fraction of the pleasure your posts bring to me. I could never think of the challenges you present. Dealing with them gives such satisfaction.

I believe I am for “benign domination” if it means the bad guys are kept at bay and everyone else left to be free. Here in my little town we have that; murders are arrested, bad cops fired and confined, robbers collared, and the rest of us are safe and free. Go Brezinski and Kissinger, go!!!!

As for the Red Scare – if you mean black listing and the banning of political parties, activities our constitution put and end to, I am not for that. If you mean the arrest of spies, the build up of military strength, the winning of the space and the arms races; I don’t believe those things went too far.

Japanese Internment was stupid and bigoted, and American was justly shamed by it; and has done its best to pay just compensation. That doesn’t mean that defeating the Japanese, the Nazis, or the Communists were any less necessary or less justified.

The killing at Kent State was a horrible mistake; an accident which was as much the fault of the protestors as it was the fault of the young guardsmen who over reacted and disobeyed their orders. If you imply that such was the policy of the Guard or the American government or people –“You really should look things up and add to your knowledge base. Just because you don’t know about something L. V. does not make it shameful government over-reaching.

As for Waco and the Elian Gonzales debauches; I blame those disasters on the political expedience of the Clinton administration and the incompetence of Janet Reno, not on an evil plan to dominate the world.

I will point out that almost no one died in the internment camps, (camps, I have already said, were evil) the terrible loss at Kent State was four killed, and as for Waco, the wackos that laced their compound with explosives and forced their children to remain at gun point hardly equate to the millions murdered by Communists and the thousands killed by al Qaeda.

Who has a lust for power? Not me I assure you. George Bush? He’ll be out of a job in three years and off to write his memoirs and do talk shows. (Maybe support Laura in her run for President!) That sounds a lot more like Frodo that Sauron to me.

Bad cops are capable of being criminals, firemen of being arsonists – and when they are, they are evil and thank God we have good cops with guns and good firemen to save us from the flames. Your way would be to do away with the proven good for fear of some concocted evil.

The only blind faith I see in this stream of posts is the neo-lib assertion that; if I may paraphrase Gollum, “They be nice to us if we be nice to them.” A good way to get your throat slit in your sleep or your freedom swallowed up in the dark of the night.

Anonymous said...

Linus Pauling once remarked that his early interests in History and Social Science dwindled because he found them to be, "Soft" Sciences. "Too many lies and liars and not nearly enough evidence." He found that in "hard" science evidence and truth were more plentiful.

Karl Popper, speaking from the standpoint of science, denies in the name of OBJECTIVITY that there can be any universal historical laws, and asserts that all interpretations in history are SUBJECTIVE, that is, express an INDIVIDUAL point of view or a cultural preference. "Each generation has its own troubles and problems therefore its own interests and its own point of view; it follows that each generation looks upon and RE-INTERPRETS history in its own way. Although history has no ends, we impose these ends of ours upon it; and although history has no meaning, we give it a meaning."

Lysis Posts:
"History is true when it discovers what actually happened."

Without the "hard" science benefits of control groups and *EXPERIMENTAL* verifiability History is a WEAK step-sister to any kind of objective truth seeking.

There are those who treat History as a MEANS to an end and not as an END.
For these "Historians" Argument ALWAYS precedes so as to reveal TRUTH from some Historically analogous situations to some present condition.
This isn't truth and this isn't science -- as common as this bogus methodology is.
Argument from historical analogy is using History as a MEANS to justify some unrelated political END or agenda -- this kind of argumentation is more like a "scripture chase" between competing religious factions -- using history for purposes of propaganda, I think, DISHONORS the discipline.

The greatest Historians and Histories are written not as a means, but for the VALUE of the story, the Metaphor -- which is better than TRUTH and certainly more edifying.
For example, Michael Shaara's Pulitzer prize winning *KILLER ANGELS* never purports to be ACTUAL "true" history, but it excells by being a great STORY well told.
What ACTUALLY happened at Gettysburg cannot be known!!!!

Lysis said...

Anonymous, you are so funny. You present a stream of argument condemning History as unscientific without presenting a speck of scientific evidence. You lap up the lies of the opinionaters without an iota of observable, empirical support. You use Popper and Pauling in an attempt to prove a point by the very discipline you call DISHONORUS.

Who is Linus Pauling? What proof do you have that he ever said anything, except some Historical document that you choose to believe.

As for Karl Popper; what is the science he speaks from but so many theorists bumbling along with nothing constant but mathematics, changing the theories of their physics and biology with every rotation of observation, and claiming empirical truth as their kingdom as if they saw more than through a glass and darkly. What kind of objectivity is that?!

All interpretations are SUBJECTIVE; including Pauling, Popper’s, and Anonymous’s. I flatly deny you claim that History has no meaning, and I use the history of science as proof.

Since you have no proof, you are bound by your own skepticism to deny your own stance. Quit trying to impose your opinions on the truth.

History, a weak stepsister indeed! Cinderella will get the prince in the end!!!!

There are those who treat science objectively as a MEANS to an end and not as an end. For these scientists, argument ALWAYS precedes so as to reveal TRUTH from some scientifically analogous situation to some presently observed condition. This isn’t truth and it isn’t History.

[Can’t you see how you use the methodology you call bogus to argue your bogus position?]

Using Science for purposes of propaganda, I think, DISHONORS the discipline.

Writing stories is called fiction, whether it seeks to explain the movement of the stars, the evolution of man, or to stick one’s agenda on the truth of things which actually happened in order to impose that agenda on the present.

By the way, much of what actually happened at Gettysburg is known!

Anonymous said...

"Our written history is a catalogue of crime. The sordid and the powerful, the architects of time. The mother of invention, the oppression of the mild the constant fear of scarcity, aggression as its child.

Sooner or later just like the world first day
Sooner or later we learn to throw the past away.

History will teach us nothing."

Silver Lining said...

To the anonymous who is quoting Sting. While admittedly impressed that you know that song, you should quote the whole thing if you want it to be in context or tell us where you got it from wouldn't you say?

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

For my part, I will try to comply with Silver Lining’s request. I take the following quote from the movie the Emperor’s Club. A great movie; which I highly recommend to tired old history teachers needing to be reminded why they do what they do; and to young ones seeking inspiration.

“Not to know what happened before you were born is to be forever a child.”

I wish I knew which Greek or Roman said it. If you can help me here I would appreciated it. No matter who said it, I have long thought it true.

As children we pulled the covers over our heads and wished the monsters away. It was never the covers or the wishing that kept us safe; it was mom and dad, the policeman working the all-night-shift, and the pilots in the jets that roared overhead. It would be so wonderful if covering our heads and wishing the evil away worked in the real world; but it does not.

It is sad that those who most take for granted the sacrifice that makes dissent possible are the very ones who indulge in disrespect and ingratitude for that sacrifice. How childish they are!!!!

Anonymous said...

Lysis Posts when querried about historical facts:
"They are verified as are the facts of most incidents, say as a criminal investigation, by witnesses, physical evidence and corroboration from independent unbiased sources examined by reason."
My response:
"Without the 'hard' science standards of control groups and experimental verifiability History is a 'weak sister' to any kind of OBJECTIVE truth seeking." (Or does Lysis think that control groups and EXPERIMENTAL verifiability exist for History?)

Lysis was so outraged by the "weak sister" comparison that he "forgot" to read the WHOLE sentence. I compared the objectivity (verifiability) standards of SCIENCE with the standards of HISTORICAL verifiability offered by Lysis, and found them to be "weak" when compared to the "control groups and experimental verifiability" of "hard" science. . . When experimental evidence is placed against Lysis' "independent unbiased sources" the guaranteeable objectivity of the former is obvious. (See Pons/Fleischman and Cold Fusion)

Lysis Posts: "I flatly deny your claim that History has no meaning."

*I* claimed no such thing! Popper claims "subjective" meaning for History.

Science cannot verify its own validity -- how absurd to think that it could -- (see Hume's paradox)
Is it good History to smear people you know nothing about? See Lysis' gratuitous Pauling and Popper comments -- type in the names then pretend that History has not found these names to be important. This is the kind of Lysis' spin/history I most abhore.

Lysis Posts:
"Much of what actually happened at Gettysburg is known!!!"

Well, Duh!

And would it be safe to say that much of what is not known about what happened at Gettysburg is unknown?

I just looked at pictures of the graves at Gettysburg cemetery of 3,500 unknowns that don't figure for Lysis MUCH!!!!

Anonymous said...


Science only remains "truth" until the next discovery.

Can we say then that Science is subjective?

RealFruitBeverage said...

Dear Anonymous,

I think you fundementally mistunderstand Hume's Paradox. Either that or you need to clarify what you mean by validity in the context of this paticular conversation.

You stated, "Science cannot verify its own validity -- how absurd to think that it could -- (see Hume's paradox)"

I think that in the context of this blog validity is not the rigorous truth function of symbolic logic. I think it also need be pointed out that Hume's assertion wasn't that science wasn't valid it is that the knowledge that which science provides is done so via a postiri(sp) (to use Kant's lingo). Valid knowledge to Hume need not be such that it is rooted solely in "logic". Rather there are alternate methods to verify truth, or knowledge. I think Godel's incompleteness proof, and the works of Post really shed light to this concept.

In reality even Math or any second order logic scheme for that matter is not as "hard" a science as we think it is.

I think a better terminoligy is complellingness(sp, is that even a word?) of evidence and methodology for confermation of assertion, or proof. Does physics, chemistry, heck even biology have more compelling methodologies and evidence than history? I would tend to say yes. Does this inherently mean that the proofs or assertions that history makes are less reliable or for that matter subjective in nature? I think you have to do a case by case on that one. I think to call one field of study soft compared to another really does a diservace to our ability to use all our facilities as humans to expand our relm of knowledge.

But all this talk is of no real worth as epsitimilogical discusion bore me and I'd rather contemplate how good looking I am.

Sparta Lives!
Die well, Tempt Fate!

Silver Lining said...

I think of RFB every time Hume is mentioned, and look, he posted. Remarkable! Hope you are very very well.

Anonymous said...

Alter Anonymous Posts:
"Science only remains "truth" until the next discovery."

The rsponse:
"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know. There's not a scientist alive who hasn't suffered from that one so much that he's not instinctively on guard. That's the main reason why so much scientific information sounds so dull and so cautious. If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific informantion, giving it a flourish here and there (spin), Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you. It does it often enough anyway even when you don't give it opportunity.

"When I think of formal scientific method an image sometimes comes to mind of an enormous juggernaut, a huge bulldozer -- slow, tedious, lumbering, laborious, but invincible. It takes twice as long, five times as long, maybe a dozen times as long as informal (historical) techniques, but you know in the end you're going to get it. There's no fault isolation problem in (nature or the universe) that can stand up to it. When you've hit a really tough one, tried everything, racked your brain and nothing works, and you know that this time Nature has really decided to be difficult, you say, "Okay Nature, that's the end of the nice guy," and you crank up the formal scientific method." -Robert Pirsig

No credible spokesman for science speaks about scientific "TRUTHS".

That water boils at sea-level at 100 C sometimes is talked about as "truth", but technically for science, it is a phenomenon that has an extremely *high probability*, ie; "certainty" (thank you RFB)-- a degree of certainty is gained each time an experiment confirms the result.

The Hume paradox I was refering to was the "tabla raza" hypothetical of a person born without any of the five senses and what such a person would know. "If one starts with the premise that all our knowledge comes to us through our senses, one must ask, from what sense data is our knowledge of causation received? In other words, what is the scientific empirical basis of causation itself? Hume's answer is none."

I think the degree of certainty History offers when compared to "hard" science is "soft"!

History as an END and not used as a MEANS to find truth is an expression of mankind's highest endeavor -- I said as much in my original blog -- which was ignored -- probably because it got in the way of so much unabashed bashing by Lysis!!!!

Lysis said...

Anonymous; your romanticizing and spinning has revealed some foolishness.

What a tiny world you choose to think in. Your “enormous juggernaut” is a little bug crawling about the feet of knowledge with only is miserable little senses to guide it. How powerfully can Pirsig’s “cranked up method” be when it relies on senses solely confined to a narrow band of physical stimulus? The thesis of Pirsig’s ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE is that the analytical mind only has a limited view and relying on it alone leads to insanity.

If science can’t speak of truth (doesn’t recognize it) how can it facilitate our search? “Your” science gives up before the fight (like many democrats in Congress): talk about a weak sister with a soft head!

I would suggest you should not be too critical of those who lose the thread of original posts. Someone may scold – HYPOCRACY, HYPOCRACY, HYPOCRACY!

RFB; as is often the case your point cut right to the chase. Sense input is too limiting, and you have always been very beautiful on many levels!!!!

a quiet listener said...

"Not to know what happened before you were born is to be a child forever. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge."

-Marcus Tullius Cicero
Orator and statesman of Ancient Rome

a quiet listener said...

i have a good deal of time to listen to the radio at work as i mix chemicals to make, cast, clean, cut, grind and polish ceramic bars only to see the fruits of my labors smashed to bits in the instron testing machine...

since i work with boring old people (i'll admit i'm rapidly becoming one of them having left neverland) we only listen to boring radio. as i was listening to npr yesterday it was the noted 2000th death of American soldiers in Iraq. i thought it sad that each death cannot be equally important. to thoe who oppose the war they gleefully see these numbers only as arguments to throw in the face of others feigning extreme sorrow and bolster their criticism of the war. instead of honoring those who'd lay down the lives in the ultimate sacrifice for us they choose to disrespect them further by diminishing the success brought about through their sacrifice. on the same day the iraqi's approved their new consitution and liberty and freedom began to take hold democrats chose to only see the negative of the war and focused almost entirely on the death count.

Anonymous said...

Lysis Posts:
"The thesis that the analytical mind only has a limited view and relying on it alone leads to insanity."

Evidently that is YOUR thesis for the book, but I assure you that isn't THE thesis -- please don't slander the book just because I quoted from it (that is what your "thesis" endeavors to be)

Lysis Posts:
"Your enormous juggernaut is a little bug."

It's not MY juggernaut; it's OUR juggernaut.

Technology (applied SCIENCE)is what our society and country does BEST! Technological "wonders" will undoubtedly be our niche in History. Look about you Lysis -- we all are living in a cocoon of science and technology . . . and you think Science is a "little bug?"
I too have reservations about the veracity of science and technology -- I think its cocoon makes us weaker not stronger. But, science/technology is such an enormous juggernaut now that it is hard to see around the edges to perceive ANYTHING else. But abandoning reason and analysis cannot be the option.

I am just as much a Romantic as you are -- be proud of it!

Analysis, Lysis, is how you earn your daily bread!-- however much of that curriculum is not analytical, throw it out!
Analysis is really the only thing that separates teaching History from teaching Witchcraft. Analysis is the very essence of REASON -- reason and analysis comes to us from the Greeks -- otherwise teach Alchemy witchcraft and Astrology!!!!

". . . lose the thread of original posts" Hypocrisy?

I would like to respond, but I don't know what I am being chided for.

Anonymous said...

"however much of that curriculum" can be misinterpretd from my intent.
Please substitute *whatever* for *however much*.

Lysis said...

To “quiet listener”: thank you for finding out whom I was quoting. I was hoping it would be Cicero. I think I have come to appreciate him even more that I do his “master” Plato. I believe Cicero has had more influence on our government than any other philosopher. Surely Lock and Jefferson owe him their inspiration.

As to “quiet listener’s” second post; I am deeply touched by your observations. Sadness is mingled with fear – as I realize that those who howl their condemnation of the war for freedom are playing into the hand of the murderers who would take that freedom from us, and maintain slavery around the world. How comforting to know that there are American Heroes who love liberty and “Mercy more than life!”

To Anonymous: thank you for your comments. They are always so well thought out and challenging. I disagree with your positions, but they are stimulating, and I look forward to seeing your posts.

I am interested; what is Pirsig’s thesis? Can you quantify it and lay it out by comparisons to some objectively verifiable standards; to some control groups and provide some experimentally verifiable hard science? Perhaps we need some guaranteeable objectivity here before you accuse me of slander.

Anonymous, are you really so impressed by OUR technology? I can almost hear Darth Vader scolding you, “Don’t be so proud of this technological terror you’ve created. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared to the power of the Force.” I am rather confident that our life-times will see technology that will make the most “wonderful” of today look like the horse and buggy by comparison. That is unless Osama drags us back to the Dark Ages. I appreciate your doubt as to the value of such technology. I add my doubts as to its greatness. Perhaps once we break out of this cocoon and fly high, we will see around it and glimpse some truth.

I agree with you entirely that analyses and reason are the foundation of learning the truth through History, which is why I champion its study as an excellent path to the truth that will set us free.

If I chided you for wondering from “the thread of the post” it is just that I would really like to hear what you think about Al-Zawahiri’s plans for world conquest.

Ares said...

Well, I've been sitting here quietly listening (sound familiar?) and I just have to ask a couple of questions to the group at large concerning history.

1) What happened when Napoleon tried to conduct a land war in Asia?

2) What happened when Hitler tried to conduct a land war in Asia?

These here are only a couple of examples to add to Lysis' original post. I would then ask how one can really doubt the validity of whether or not these things really happened. If you cannot doubt them, then why is it so hard to doubt that Al-Zawahiri's letter is out of the same mold as Mein Kompf and the Communist Manifesto and that since many of their leaders have already stated their desire to run us out of Iraq why we should doubt their desire to do so?

Now, as an aside to Lysis. I have an aquantance (sp?) that feels that we, in effect, should not fight a pre-emptive war under any circumstances. Not here in Iraq or even in such a war as WWII. you have "added arrows to my quiver" on other occasions and I would appreciate one here as well on why we must have pre-emptive wars.


Lysis said...

Dear Ares:

Alexander fought a land war in Asia, so did Genghis Khan. Both did rather well. I would argue that Bush the first won a land war in Asia in 100 hours (with the help of Schwarzkopf) and that from the “First Emperor” who established the Chin dynasty, to the Huns that pored out of Asia to threaten Europe, to the British who ruled India for three hundred years – and were driven out by peace and justice - there have been many successful conquerors of that content. What one should gather from history is that wars are won or lost, not based on were they are fought but based on HOW they are fought.

About Medicine Blog said...

He is confident that the terrorists will then be able
to impose their will on Iraq and thence the world.