Every day events happen all around us in every corner of the world and how we perceive the event can depend on where we happen to be standing at the time. But no matter where you are standing or what your individual perception happens to be the real truth of the event exists. In today's world it is becoming harder and harder to recognize the real truth of an event after being inundated with other peoples contradicting perceptions and opinions. A lot of people form their opinions on what others "say" about an event instead of examining the actual event itself. The advent of instant and global communication capabilities has energized this behavior to the point of minimizing the actual facts of an event and turning the focus to what people think about the event and there is a world of difference between these 2 different viewpoints. The whole process has basically turned into an adversarial free for all amongst warring groups who each think their perception is correct. The truth of an event no longer matters as long as one group "wins" the debate usually by any means necessary. This has a tendency to skew the actual facts and twist the reality of what really happened in the first place. What's worse is this leads to a situation where future perceptions get built on top of fallacies instead of fact.
I like to think of it as aggregated facts. You aggregate to simplify future calculations or actions. An aggregate can serve as a break point that verifies all previous calculations are correct up to this point. However, if the aggregate is not accurate any future calculations or decisions built using that faulty aggregate end up being false.
One example would be the ongoing conflicts involving the US and Iran. Just about anytime this subject is addressed people start skipping back in history to see who wronged who first and it is inevitable that someone will mention the US removing the Iranian president in 1953 and because of this the US is always wrong in relation to Iran. They are in effect setting a break point at this event and using it to justify their later arguments and opinions. The problem with this assertion is that the people never investigate in depth what actually happened in 1953. They just automatically assume the US committed some grievous act and then they build their subsequent arguments using that assumption. I don't know all the facts of that particular situation but I have not been able to find anyone who really does. The facts I have found point to the British objecting to the Iranians nationalizing their oil industry. An industry that the British contributed substantially to building. This entire region was once under British control. The British went as far as setting up a naval blockade to prevent Iran from exporting or importing oil related cargo. It is then assumed that the CIA did "something" to make this problem magically disappear by removing Mossedegh. My question is what exactly did they do? Did they threaten to invade? Did they go around killing Mossegdegh's family and friends? Did they just payoff the entire upper hierarchy in the Iranian government at the time? Well whatever happened was ultimately enacted by the Iranians themselves. So who were the Iranians who benefited from this action and there had to be a hell of a lot of them to overtake the entire government without starting a nasty civil war. What sword of Damocles was the US holding above the Iranians to force this action? And why should this event have any meaningful impact on US-Iranian relations today? The Iranians are in the situation they are now because of their own actions and shortcomings. The same applies to the US and the problems we are facing as country. The progressive revolutionary leaders in 1979 are the ones responsible for the Islamic madhouse they created. They were more interested in sticking it to the US than they were about changing the way their country was run and that gave the hard line Islamic party all they time they needed to take control. And to top it off the most educated and successful Iranians, the ones who could have contributed much to Iranian society, left the country in droves before the militant islamists ruined the country. I don't really care what the US did or did not do in 1953 but the 1979 destruction of a country is all on the Iranians themselves and as soon as they are willing to admit that and stop their "Death to America" national holidays the sooner they can go about fixing their system. The same will apply to the Egyptians and any other repressed country who often use incomplete and misleading aggregated historical "facts" to explain why they are in their current situation and who is to blame.
The real culprits in creating chaos are those who call themselves Progressives. They are never without a complaint or criticism but usually come up short on any solutions to the problems they are bitching about. They blindly support anyone who believes as they do and anyone who will help them stick it to the "Man". From the French politico's in the 30's who practically guaranteed France would fall to Germany by interfering with military organization efforts to the knot headed college students in the 50's running around campus waving Mao's little red book around while Mao himself was in the middle of killing an estimated 30 Million people. And then you have all the knuckleheads running around with Che Guevara t-shirts spouting Marxist slogans and pimping for Castro and all of the revolutionary changes he enacted in the paradise known as Cuba.
No comments:
Post a Comment