The Logical Structure
Every political reality, whether that of the Establishment or that of the Earth worshippers, has a similar logical structure. This is shown below.
Let: T = Underlying assumptions or Truths
D = Deductions based upon these assumptions or Truths
C = Conclusions based upon Deductions and Truths
There is very little difference between Deductions and Conclusions. It is primarily a matter of degree. While Truths are assumptions or postulates, Deductions are derived from the Truths and Conclusions are derived from Deductions.
The main point that we will develop in this paper is that attacking Deductions and Conclusions will have virtually no effect upon the Listener, because they are based upon deeper assumptions or Truths that have not been changed. Because they have not been changed the Listener will either revert immediately or never really change his behavior. The best-case scenario in this case is that the Listener will change one small belief, which will inspire him to examine his implicit belief structure. However the likelihood is that his unchanged underlying assumptions will continue to pollute the barrel.
A concrete example:
Let: T1 = USA protects CA Countries from Muslim/Communist/Terrorist Attack
T2 = USA raises the Standard of Living/Annual Income of the country
T3 = Communist countries are dictatorships
T4 = Democracies based in Freedom
T5 = USA is Democracy
D1 = T4 + T5 = USA based in freedom
T6 = Dictatorship -> No Freedom
D2 = T3 + T6 = Communist Countries -> No Freedom
D3 = T1 + T2 = USA friend of CA Countries
C1 = D1 + D2 + D3 = USA defender of Freedom
Problems with attacking Conclusions, instead of Assumptions
There is no reason to attempt to attack the conclusions or even the deductions of the above logic system because they are based upon underlying assumptions, which are the root structure. It would be like chopping off the top of the weeds without getting to the roots.
Anyone who ‘knows’ that the US is raising the average annual income of these ‘underprivileged’ countries, also ‘knows’ that this is good for these countries because they ‘know’ that more money means more happiness. Further anyone who ‘knows’ that Communist countries are dictatorships, which restrict personal freedoms, also ‘know’ that Communism is bad because we all ‘know’ that freedom is good. Finally anyone who ‘knows’ that the USA is a bastion of personal freedom, also ‘knows’ that the USA fights to protect these freedoms. Adding these deductions together it is easy to ‘know’ that USA is fighting Communism to defend freedom.
Therefore it is futile to attack this proposition, the conclusion, because its foundation is too strong. Instead of attacking the conclusion, it would be more persuasive to examine the underlying assumptions, which support the conclusion.
These questions might be asked. Does every citizen’s annual income rise or is it just those who are aligned with the international capitalists? Does the quality of life rise with the annual income, or is this monetary number a misleading figure? For instance a self-sufficient farmer or tribe with no money is better off than someone with more money but who is unable to afford the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter.
The next set of questions would be addressed to the assumption that the USA is a free country and that because of this that we support freedom around the planet. Does the evidence support our role as supporter of freedom? If so why does the US government support so many dictatorships globally? Does the US support the freedoms of foreign cultures like it does its own? Does the US support the freedom of its citizens equally or is ‘freedom’ skewed towards the wealthy even in the USA?
The final set of questions would be addressed towards the assumption that Communist countries are dictatorships that restrict personal freedoms. What was it like starving to death freely in China and Russia before the Communist revolutions restricted the rights of its citizens in order to provide food for all? Were every citizen’s rights restricted equally or did the rights of the peasantry increase with a corresponding fall in the rights of corrupt international corporations to exploit the local population?
Another point is that arguing or discussing Conclusions and Deductions without examining underlying assumptions, many times means that the Speaker, hoping to persuade, has inadvertently adopted the underlying assumptions of the Listener. More later.
Always Some Truth behind Propaganda
If the Corporate Empire, with the US supplying its Military force, is not fighting Communism to protect personal freedom, what was the Cold War all about?
There is always some Truth behind the Propaganda, else there is nothing to base the misinformation on - nothing to hold onto. One truth behind the Corporate/Communist conflict is that the exploitation of the Natives throws them into the arms of the Communists to seek protection.
Another truth is that the US Government fights to protect freedom. But the freedom of who? - The freedom of International Business to exploit indigenous populations. Another truth is that Communism restricts freedom. But the freedom of who? Communism restricts the freedom of International Business to exploit the working class.
Simultaneously Communism tends to fight to protect the rights of the worker, which restricts the freedom of International Business to make obscene profits. Accordingly the Corporate Empire fights to restrict the freedom of the Natives to Organize for power. Because of these conflicting aims, it is easy to see why the Corporate Empire has major conflicts with the Communist movement.
Relativity of Verbal Truth
We just saw an example of the Relativity of Verbal Truth. The unrefined statement that the US Government protects freedom and the Communist governments restricts freedom is true if referring to Corporations and false if referring to the Native population.
This example leads us to the Claim that:
(Behind every Falsehood is Truth) And (Behind every Truth is Falsehood).
This is because any verbal statement, which could be called True or False, is inherently based in Polarity, is relative rather than absolute.
This means every truth has a true and false component, just as does every falsity. We will indicate these relations symbolically in the following way.
T = Tt + Tf
F = Ft + Ff
In this case the lower class, t&f, indicate refinements or modifications of the upper case T&F. We will call the upper case, T&F, fat or unrefined statements, while the lower class, t&f, will signify lean or more refined statements.
This logical structure is shown below. Note that a series of leaner truths and falsehoods are the foundation of the fat truths, T, which are the foundations of the deductions, D, and conclusions, C, of this logical structure.
Any Logical chain based on a falsehood has no logical foundation
This leads us to the observation, assertion if you will, that any Logical chain based on a falsehood has no logical foundation. Thus only one of the four possibilities is passed as true, while the others are false. This is indicated symbolically below.
t1 + t2 -> D1 <- T1 + T2
t1 + f2 ≠ D1
f1 + t2 ≠ D1
f1 + f2 ≠ D1
Example:
T1 = A + B + C + D
T1 = (USA) (protects) (countries) (from Communism)
Altho it seem a simple sentence there are quite a few ambiguities hidden here.
We will start with the words USA = A and countries = C, which are both broken up into management and labor, i.e. business & workers. This is indicated symbolically below.
C = countries = Business + Workers
CT + CF
A = USA = Business + Worker
AT + AF
Using just the true components, CT and AT, our initial Truth = T1 is restated below.
T1 = USA Business protects Foreign Business from Communism
T1 = AT + B + CT + D
Note how the revised Statement has an entirely different connotation. Now let’s restate our Truth using the false components.
T1 = American Workers Protects Foreign Workers from Communism
T1 = AF + B + CF + D
Nearly everyone would laugh at the above statement - calling it absurd - naive unrealistic. However note that this false statement is implied in our original fat truth although no one would ever say that this variation is at all true.
More Reductions
Now let’s reduce our truths a little further.
AT = ATT + ATF = USA Big Business + USA Small Business
CT = CTT + CTF = Foreign Big Business + Foreign Small Business
Now our first truth T1 becomes ->
T1 = ATT + B + CTT + D
= USA Big Business Protects Foreign Big Business from Communism
Note what happens when we substitute the false components in our original statement. As mentioned earlier, all it takes is one false component to spoil the original truth. Hence each of the following statements is false.
T1 ≠ ATT + B + CTF + D
≠ USA Big Business Protects Foreign Small Business from Communism
T1 ≠ ATF + B + CTT + D
≠ USA Small Business Protects Foreign Big Business from Communism
T1 ≠ ATF + B + CTF + D
≠ USA Small Business Protects Foreign Small Business from Communism
While the Propaganda Masters attempt to link all Americans into the fight against Communism to protect freedom, in reality when the fat truths are reduced, it is easy to see that only Big Business is protecting other Big Businesses and that it has nothing to with the Worker or even Small Business. While the attempt is to link everyone in the fight against Communism, the reality is that only the Big Business is really invested in the struggle - At least according to this model.
While we could argue these points, it is really unnecessary because we are just using these statements to illustrate our claim that every word has both true and false components. When the false components are employed at any place in the statement, the fat statement is turned false. Similarly when all the true components are employed the fat statement is reduced into a more accurate lean statement. The actual truth or falsehood of the above statements is not the issue, they are only meant to illustrate these points.
Generalization Fallacy
This leads us one of the favorite techniques of the Propaganda Masters. This is called the Generalization Fallacy. Simply stated: Each word refers equally to everything in its category/group.
Word = ∑elements
For instance the word USA refers to the group of people who live inside a certain boundary. But the attributions to the USA never affect everyone equally. On trivial levels there are peace loving Americans and war loving Americans, who have almost diametrically opposed agendas. Then there are all the different economic classes who have widely varying motivations and roles in the movements of the US Government. The Rich minority has a disproportionately large influence on the international behavior of the USA. Thus while the Americans as a whole are the sum of all economic classes, in reality the working classes have very little influence on the government operation. They don’t have the time to invest. They are too busy making a living.
USA = Rich + Middle + Poor
Thus all the events that occur to or are initiated by the USA do not affect all groups equally. Even each group itself is broken down into smaller and smaller groups.
Therefore this diagram has no real meaning because of the diversity of Americans. Any action that the USA takes or that happens to the USA is confined to a select subset of Americans. Further even this subset is affected in varying degrees.
Hence generalizations about Americans or the USA are quite misleading and should be avoided at any cost. Further the use of generalizations of this nature is a warning sign that either fuzzy thinking is going on or that Propaganda is being generated. Modifiers are necessary to trim down these fat concepts to make them more digestible.
The Illusion of American Democracy
Let’s reduce the fat concept of American Democracy. We start with a broad statement of Representative Democracy, which determines the American government.
T1 = (Americans) (vote for) (Representatives = Government)
A B C D
Remember that each of these words in the above statement have both true and false components.
A = AT + AF
= eligible voters + ineligible voters
Further the true component can be broken down again.
AT = ATT + ATF
= Eligible voters who vote vs. eligible voters who don’t vote
Hence the ‘Americans’ we are speaking of in the above statement are the select subset of Americans who actually vote. It doesn’t include the apathetic, those who have given up hope, felons, children, or those who belong to the Communist party, who are ineligible to vote. So the fat word Americans has been trimmed by modifiers to refer to a smaller group with its own parameters.
______________
Now let’s trim the fat word, Representatives, which we’ve called C.
C = CT + CF
= Representatives chosen by the Power Elite +
Potential representatives chosen by popular vote
______________
Let’s restate our original truth, T1, with its trimmed true components.
T1 = (Americans who vote) (choose between)
(Representatives chosen by the Power Elite = Government)
T1 = ATT + B + CT = D
______________
Let’s restate this original fat truth, T, with its false components, which makes it false.
T1 ≠ (Eligible Voters) (choose between)
(all potential representatives chosen by popular vote).
T1 ≠ ATF + B + CF = D
Are Russia and China American-style Democracies?
With these leaner truths in mind, let us examine the Communist dictatorships of first China and then Russia.
T2 = (Chinese who vote) (choose between)
(Representatives chosen by the Power Elite = Government)
T3 = (Russians who vote) (choose between)
(Representatives chosen by the Power Elite = Government)
Because of the isomorphism between these three truths, T1, T2 and T3, we can make these deductions, D, and conclusions, C.
D1 = (Chinese, Americans, and Russians) (vote for)
(Representatives chosen by the Power Elite = Government)
C1 = China, Russia, and USA have the same form of government.
Of course this conclusion of equivalent governments is based upon the suspected isomorphism between the way that each of these countries choose their leaders.
This loose way of defining representation leads to many nations being included as Democracies, when commonly it’s thought otherwise.
A very tight way of defining representation could exclude Americans from the list of representative Democracies because of our electoral college, which could and did lead to a President, who was elected with less popular votes than his challenger.
Home The Firing Process I. Verbal Truth Previous Next Comments