Saturday, November 30, 2019

Patrick Armstrong Asks A Question.

Patrick wrote today and important piece. I would say a metaphysical (almost) one.  In it he essentially asks and answers the question of WHY people like him (it relates to me in a sense too) do what they do. The piece is titled: 
It is one of those must read pieces and here is the answer (crucial part of it) to the question of why do what Patric, Bernhard from MoA, The Saker or I do. 
So what’s the point of writing? I already agree with you, you already agree with me. Our readers are here because they also agree. Writing becomes a mechanical operation, moving along a pre-determined course. No minds are changed, no minds are even engaged. But there is one big and important difference between the two solitudes which leads us out of the my bubble/your bubble stalemate. The well-informed person will be less often surprised than the poorly informed person. There is an objective reality and people who actually do have a pretty good take on things, see that reality more clearly than those who don’t. In short, those who actually are well-informed will be less often surprised than those who aren’t. Surprise is the clue: it is both the consequence and the evidence of ignorance.
It is absolutely crucial point. Consider this blog. OK, you read this blog, so let's consider this one as an example, in the end it is the only one way for me to heap the praise on myself, otherwise, as Russian saying goes--did not praise yourself today, consider the whole day wasted(c). This blog, now in a sixth year of its existence, was and remains relentless from the very inception in its warnings about reality being not what it is being presented by people and institutions which Patrick effectively described as being surprised in a non-stop manner:
But the readers and writers of the WaPo/NYT/Economist/Guardian bloc were surprised. They are certain that Assad gasses his own people when there’s no reason to; they believe that Qaddafi “bombed his own people“; they laughed when Trump said he was taped; they called Milosevic the “butcher of the Balkans“; they expect the Russian economy to collapse; they’re confident that the JIT is an honest investigation; they expect the protests will weaken Putin; they believe the “world community” recognises Guaid√≥; they are confident the West would be happy if Putin weren’t sowing discord; they expect that the next world problem will be managing China’s decline; they know where to find democracy in Hong Kong. And, especially, they were confident that Mueller will find a bombshell to blow up Trump. They remain believers in Browder’s story. The devotees of the establishment media bloc are almost always surprised by the way things turn out. That, by itself, shows that they are poorly informed about reality. Everybody is surprised some of the time but the poorly informed are surprised all of the time.
Bingo, I write for years now that not only WE (as an alternative media) are better in our OODA due diligence, but that Western establishment is utterly incompetent and that is why it is surprised non-stop. I called it few years ago a permanent Chalabi Moment. Mind you, Patrick Armstrong was an analyst in Canadian Defense Ministry, Larry C Johnson or Philip Giraldi were bona fide CIA officers, Colonel Patrick Lang is a Vietnam War combat veteran who availed his blog as a platform for many people whose military-intelligence backgrounds and experiences are genuine and proved viable throughout the years  by giving in general a top-notch analysis and providing good reliability of their forecasts. And here is the point--for people who involve themselves into such activity as assessing and forecasting anything, the first requirement for them, if to put it in a layman's lingo, is to be right, correct in their "predictions" at least once in a while, forget being consistent. That requires knowledge of the subject. In the end, one has to have his facts straight and this is not easy and requires a lot of professionalism,  labor and honesty--qualities completely lacking in the Establishment media and think-tankdom.

We (I say we because I do not separate myself from what, say, Patrick Armstrong and Strategic Culture Foundation do) simply know better. Let me demonstrate Patrick's point about people seeking out truth on this blog's example--from the inception I literally did not use any technologies other than my posts on a discussion boards to attract attention to my blog. None. I referred to some of my post through links on a discussion boards at Unz Review, plus I posted couple of them at Colonel Lang's blog. My blog became more or less known largely through the "word of mouth". Here is how it went since 2014. 
Blog started at December 2014
In other words, Armstrong is spot on when stating:
But people do change and our audience is growing. How can that be happening if we change no minds? Because the individual makes the first step on his own. So this is the reason why we write and speak and – religious allusion again – testify. People we’ve never heard of, disgusted by the strident one-sided nonsense, surprised by some unexpected reality they bump into, stop passively believing, begin to doubt, search around and find us. Our writings then show them they were right to doubt and lead them to a better appreciation of reality. We don’t persuade them, they persuade themselves; we don’t convert them, they convert themselves. But we reinforce their conversion and show them that there is more reality (less surprise) on our side. Once gained to our side, they won’t leave. It’s conversion.
But in the end, we are simply better, because we know more, much more about things we are talking about. Moreover, most of us know our own limitations but we know where to seek competent opinion on matters we don't know about. BTW, while at it, this blog is well over 2 million original views now and, as I stated before, practically nothing was done to promote it, people simply started seeking it out mostly by the "word of mouth". Of course, publishing books helped too. Recall what I stated almost five years ago:
My assertion stands and it is now supported by an overwhelming body of empirical evidence. 

No comments:

Post a Comment