everything you read

  On two separate occasions in the past few weeks, individuals responded to links I posted or blogposts I wrote with the phrase, “Don't believe everything you read on the internet.” This seems to be a phrase used frequently in sloppy attempts to disqualify or to otherwise call into doubt the veracity of the posted material, as I have seen it used to this purpose on other sites throughout the interwebs.

  While it is true that one should use caution when accessing the Terrestrial Interconnectivity Matrix, and that one should be critical of anything found thereon, I would like to ammend the aforementioned phrase to read thus: “Don't believe everything you read.” Just because something is printed on a physical medium does not mean it is true, unbiased, or based on solid and irrefutable evidence. Having studied statistics in college, I know that numbers can be skewed in most any direction to support most any sort of point. Having argued often with religious and social conservatives, I know that opinions are shaped by a myriad of influences from all types of media, and that opinions based on Fear Of The Unknown are more dangerous to the wellbeing of society than those based on rational and open-minded contemplation.

  The most effective way to foster open-mindedness and rational thinking is to read a breadth of differing opinions about a given subject, doubt the veracity of all those differing opinions, and then form one's own conclusions about the subject at hand based on the subtle truths that the mind inherently gleans from exposure to the differing viewpoints. No subject is completely black-or-white, and anyone attempting to portray it as such is likely trying to obfuscate certain aspects of that subject with which he or she agrees by damning those aspects with which he or she does not agree, so as to gain power or advantage.

  Throughout the millenia, strategists from unconnected regions and different time-periods have all pointed to one fundamental truth of warfare, or struggle: “Know your opponent” (see here, here). Refusing to read a book written by a presidential candidate because one cannot stomach that candidate's viewpoints, or dismissing an argument off-hand because one does not understand the argument, violates the fundamental rule of Knowing One's Opponent. To underestimate another person's viewpoints or opinions is to set oneself up for disaster, as one's personal biases will invariably fog up the mind and prohibit the effective application of one's own forces.

  Read everything avaiable, but doubt it all. No person and no organization is infallible, and nothing is set in stone.

  Open the mind. Defend liberty. Fight injustice.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp