Categories
Uncategorized

The Basic Guide to Truth-Hunting

by Abdul Hussain (H/T Justine, a.k.a @textonscreen)

Hello everybody

I would like to start off this article by thanking Twitter user @textonscreen for actually giving me the idea of writing a blog post about posting the truth, stifling the truth, and looking for the truth, at least from a political standpoint, so my thanks go out to the Twitter user in question for this idea, alongside Ethan Serone (Twitter: @nine11inreverse), Twitter user @chrisrulon, also known as Not Dov Zakheim/Dead Patsy, Richard B. Riddick (Twitter: @richardbriddic2), and everyone else for inspiring me to write this blog post.

Now, politics is one of the biggest hot-button topics that your Average Joe would not like to discuss, especially when it can offend certain groups of people, and in some cases, it can lead to people getting sacked from their workplaces.

  • Politically Aware Dude: “Israel is the genocidal capital of the Middle East”
  • The Boss at the Hypothetical Workplace: “YOU’RE AN ANTI-SEMITE, YOU’RE FIRED!”

This example, whilst is hypothetical in this context, is an actual phenomenon, whereby genuinely being for the truth can lead to someone, or a group of people becoming a victim, or becoming victims of a smear campaign, with the intention to shut down critical thoughts. Real life, mainstream examples include campaigners with anti-Israel tendencies like Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters being accused of “anti-Semitism” solely due to calling out Israel for their attacks on Palestinians and supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/08/04/pink-floyds-roger-waters-called-anti-semitic-ahead-of-d-c-concerts/?utm_term=.0c818e99cf87 & http://www.middleeasteye.net/in-depth/features/wish-you-weren-t-here-62877686), and lesser-known, at least to the mainstream audience, examples such as Canadian university professor, and Kevin ‘Truth Jihad (Twitter: @truthjihad)’ Barrett’s “False Flag Weekly News” sidekick, Anthony ‘Tony’ Hall, getting “suspended without pay” for just allowing one to question the world events, like the Holocaust and the World Trade Center “terrorist attacks” under the guise of “denying the Holocaust and being a conspiracy theorist” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/tony-hall-suspended-lethbridge-1.3793294).

This in turn would make one wonder why people would smear in order to shut down criticism, and this phenomenon is not restricted to politics or religion – it also extends to the gaming scene, and in the world, outside of the aforementioned scenes. Besides stifling the positive aspects of free speech, it also comes down to people wanting to be in control of narratives and agendas that they push, always with nefarious intentions, and such people are genuinely fearful of the backlash that they rightly receive as that would mean dismantling their nefarious approaches to worldly events and they would risk losing the support they have. On the other hand, people who are genuinely honest have nothing to fear, nor do they care about “gaining followers and likes” and “gamifying” their fame or social media status, unlike those who are desperate to have a “high score” in social media ratings, even if it means “throwing their own credibility and integrity under the bus” – id est: compromising on perspectives to please people; a sycophant, or one who has sycophantic tendencies. That said, there are those who use certain truths about certain world events whilst posing as whistleblowers or “brave figures”, like the NSA spying saga, to entice the politically ill-informed into supporting such people, but when pressed to deal with, or talk about major world events with severe repercussions, they either fail to be present, they will smear those who question them, and/or worse, they enable themselves to push deceptive and destructive agendas for their (de-facto) superiors (https://t.co/lNtxVJ1kXa) – they’re referred to as “limited hangouts”, mainly due to their limited offerings of truth to the general public whilst actually being deceptive – https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Limited_hangout & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout. To make matters worse, there are political figures who talk about “doing what is best for the country”, and talk about repealing the worst acts that have become law, but when they become significant figures, and eventually become an officially installed political figure in any political system, like becoming a Member of Parliament, or becoming a Prime Minister, or President of a country, they end up “breaking promises” and end up adopting the worst policies imaginable, thus not making them trustworthy at all.

With all of this in mind, when it comes to educating the general public, or the less politically informed people, on political events at least, it can genuinely be hard to make them see things from your perspective, and it can be even more difficult to make the general public see the truth surrounding any particular event, so hence, there are three main perspectives that we need to look into when it comes to truth-telling, and dismantling dishonesty and disinformation: the liars, which is mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the honest giver of information, and the intended recipient, or recipients, of information.

The honest givers of information need to:

  • Try to be cool, calm, and collected (or in Arabic terms, have “sabr”) when it comes to providing new information – name-calling and immature dismissals are going to be a common response, or a common type of response made by unaware recipients of new information, as the unaware recipients of information, just like the human race as a whole, usually do not psychologically and physically respond to change in a welcoming manner, and will defend themselves and their views at first – exempli gratia: “conspiracy theorist”, “you’re spouting nonsense”, et cetera;
  • Make sure such information is confirmed to be legitimate and truthful;
  • Encourage, or at least try to encourage the recipient or recipients of such information to process such information;
  • Failing encouragement, leave the recipients of such information alone, and give them time to process such information. If the recipients are honest, and truly see where the giver is coming from and finally sees the truth, they will happily thank the honest givers of information, and will eventually want to look into events with a truly critical slant, with the sole intention of crushing any disinformation and lies, and finding the truth. However, if the intended recipients continue to resort to childish dismissals, insults, and smearing tactics, then the honest giver of information has every right to assume that the intended recipient is dishonest in his or her intentions.

The honest recipients of information need to:

  • Try to be cool, calm, and collected (or in Arabic terms, have “sabr”) when it comes to receiving new information – this can be done by trying to refrain from angrily ridiculing the honest givers of information, although this can be easier said than done;
  • Ensure that any new information that is received is legitimate – this is done by researching and questioning such material or information, and checking its legitimacy. This is usually done by conducting Internet searches for such topics, checking if any solid evidences are provided, like video footage and photographs, and checking to see if it is legitimate – usually, each visual element would be consistent with each other in terms of lighting, proportions and shaping, et cetera;
  • Be patient, and persevere when it comes to analysing such information, as complex subject matters, like politics, is not a subject that one would successfully excel in overnight, and everyone is bound to make mistakes;
  • After processing new information, if you, the recipient of such information, is legitimately satisfied with such information to the point that any previous world views you have that were worse, or more primitive, than now, are phased out in favour of supporting the views shared by the honest givers of information (exempli gratia: Person A says to Person B that Person LH is a limited hangout, and Person B researches on that, and now truly accepts that as fact), then congratulations – you have finally succeeded in shattering your original world views, but the journey does not stop there. However, if the you, the recipient of information, is still in a legitimate state of denial, be patient and persevere in trying to find the truth, but if you, the recipient of information continues to resort to smear tactics and name-calling, then do not be surprised if the honest givers of information suspect that you are dishonest in your intentions, especially when name-calling and smearing tactics are common tactics that are implemented in all walks of life, including the world of politics, with the intention to shut down any attempts for people to critically think in any situation

Whether you are a recipient or a giver of truthful and honest information, the journey does not stop here, as this is an ongoing process whereby the aforementioned processes are a “rinse and repeat” type of process, and as mentioned earlier, legitimately silenced and oppressed voices always are the most truthful of voices, so remember to factor this in your research or hunt for the truth.

Good luck, and Godspeed!

3 replies on “The Basic Guide to Truth-Hunting”

Hi,

I was wondering if you could possibly contact me, as I have some very important information that I’m certain you’ll want ti know about. Please, this is extremly important, and I don’t know who else to turn to with this…

Thanks

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s