Yesterday, a friend in the United States forwarded me a message. It's all traditional characters, and I'm too lazy to translate, so let's take a look at it.
The latest release of the 911 confidential file by the US government. Referring to Israel and Jews several times, a Jewish real estate tycoon contracted a lease for the entire Gemini Building on July 24, 2001, buying $3.55 billion in heavy insurance regulations that included terrorist attacks, and later received $4.55 billion in damages, making him the biggest beneficiary of the 911 terrorist attacks. He usually had breakfast every morning at one of the top restaurants in the World Trade Center, except that he did not appear in the morning of 9/11. The Israeli government's 49% company, a few days before 9/11, was paid for early default compensation. None of the 4,000 Israelis working at the World Trade Center on the day of 9/11 died, and all received advance messages for a collective evacuation. Nineteen armed hijackers passed through security companies at three airports, the same Jewish company. On the day of 9/11, three young Israelis were filmed in a van near the World Trade Center site, and later they returned to Israel at a rally to admit that they had gone to the United States to document the terrorist attack...
Is this a rumor?
If it is a rumor, why is there no clarification?
If it is clarified, why is it clear and not clear?
It is better not to clarify but not to clarify. The truth may take more time to precipitate.
If anyone knows the truth of the matter clearly, he may wish to give us a link so that we can also understand it. It is said that 911 was done by bin Laden, but almost all of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and what is the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel?
Friends told me that the official U.S. account is that Jews accounted for 15.5 percent of the 911 victims' surnames; Jews accounted for 10 percent according to the victims' religious beliefs. The Cantor Fitzgerald company, which had the largest number of deaths, had 658 employees killed, and a survey of 390 of them found that 49 were Jewish. Among the 911 dead were 5 Israeli citizens.
The question is, who do we listen to? The question is, whose claim is more credible?
The old saying that the truth is more and more clear, the old saying that the media has a self-purifying effect, the old saying that as long as the press is free and everyone comes out to speak, naturally those rumors will not stand.
Now it is found that when the information is fully flowing, these claims in the past are not very valid, and people are more and more caught up in the clouds of five miles, and even the simplest fact cannot be determined, and everyone has to believe what they are willing to believe.
Proud Americans may need to reflect on why the credibility of their loudspeakers has declined. Those Western media in China that were once able to call the wind and rain and even set the agenda should also reflect on why their influence on China's youth is getting smaller and worse, even completely contrary to their expectations, and even ridiculed and become a laughing stock.
The questions we need to think about together are:
When fact-based journalism and wish-based facts fight, how do you make people respect the facts more?
When wish-based news and wish-based news fight each other, how to change people to think about the authenticity of news from their own vital interests?
It should be noted that this change is almost equivalent to changing human nature. First, do we need this change? Second, what kind of facts can this change be achieved with?
In today's world, those thinkers based on reason are more and more lonely, and they cannot guarantee that their rationality is the rationality after shielding the channel of interests, just like the uncertainty principle in physics, that is, when your subjective projection appears, the measured result is inaccurate, and the so-called objectivity is discounted.
The new team of professional diplomats on biden's team is suffering from this kind of regurgitation, and what they call a "rules-based international order" bad? What is good in their mouths is certainly good in their subjective certification, that is, in their interest. But the problem is that their rules are not fairness and justice, but are more or less of a gang rule, and the rules-based international order mixed with their interests are measured in this world of a community with a shared future for mankind, and how can they win the trust of other countries and other countries to persuade other countries?
One would argue that this is not a matter of relationship between factual judgment and value judgment?
Yes, indeed.
In a torn society of divided ethnic groups, in a world where people's interests are conflicting and conflicting, how to separate the two when value judgments have a significant impact on factual judgments and cannot be changed? Who's talking about who's talking? Is a small mouth not qualified to speak? Whoever is louder listens to whom? Do you have to accept the result of harming your own interests if you are quiet?
Generally speaking, facts refer to the reality of the existence of anything itself. Value refers to a special relationship between facts and people, objects and subjects, that is, whether the existence and attributes of objects are consistent with the scale and needs of subjects. This flower is red, it is a factual judgment, this flower is beautiful, it is a value judgment.
The complexity of the world is often reflected in the fact that the division between facts and values has only relative significance, and objective values themselves constitute certain facts. The difference between the two is actually the difference between the object fact and the subjectivity fact of the object itself. The difference between factual judgment and value judgment is not mainly whether a certain fact is the content, but whether it is mainly based on the facts that state the object, or whether it is mainly based on the facts that state the subjectivity. One side directly states that the facts of subjectivity are rumors, and the other side is more direct in saying that the facts of subjectivity you have stated are rumors.
What's wrong with that? Sister-in-law Ah Qing and Old Lady Sha got into a fight.
The more complicated situation is that neither Sister-in-law Ah Qing nor Mrs. Sha believes that the content of the other party's factual judgment statement is a statement of the object of the statement itself, pointing each other to the conspiracy theory.
You conspiracy theories!
You're the only conspiracy theorist!
You conspiracy!
At this time, both sides were getting farther and farther away from the facts, and the two ships sailing in the darkness were already hidden in the darkness as far as the facts themselves were concerned.
The ancient Chinese people have long noticed this phenomenon, saying that when it is false, it is true and false, and when it is false, it is also true.
In this way, there is no objective thing as it is, and even the laws of physics do not exist? Of course not.
Scientific facts are based on the existence of evidence, and there must be a set of normative methods and principles on this matter, and we cannot talk about it with chickens and ducks.
Because chickens talk to ducks, because people's interests are different, all kinds of more bizarre statements about the relationship between Jews and 9/11 are understandable. If someone boasts that he has a way to easily clarify this matter, I am not skeptical, but if he expands the results of the war, he thinks that he has a way to persuade those who look at the Jewish capital in the background of the Israeli Zionist murderers with wrong eyes, then it is inevitable that he will not be able to measure up.
(After breakfast on October 11, 2021, it was written at No. 8, Nanluoguxiang, Dongcheng District, Beijing, and I wrote three or five hundred words yesterday, and I just added some content)