*Teknikully logic can't substitute hard work

Unfortunately, many people don't seem to understand this.

Earlier this week, we showed you two examples of just ordinary people on the left engaging in *Teknikully arguments. Today, we will show you how the same kind of mind-virus of the overabundance of confidence and the anemia of knowledge can lead even socialists astray.

Jacobin author and professor of er… logic … who wrote a book called, “Logic for the Left” tweeted out the following tweet in response to many leftists being skeptical of the Xianjing situation, as we have already pointed out in this episode. Given that the US has a deep history in engaging in atrocity propaganda, every single person should view all news reports with a critical eye. However, the Professor of logic, who teaches students..er.. logic in a fancy university was unable to use logic and reasoning to engage in the proper skepticism.

The Professor of Logic, did not even bother to check if the tweet from a random user on the internet was correct. Instead, they were accused of committing logical fallacies. After many interactions with different people, I realized that many people educated in bourgeoise institutions seem to suffer from an overabundance of confidence and an anemia of knowledge.

In case, there is any doubt, The Grayzone debunks the entire State Department narrative in their most recent article. The issue that bothered me is that despite being allegedly on the…er…left and also being well-versed in er..logic… the Professor of Logic has not sufficiently understood the problem. I suspect many people in the USA, also have not had enough history to sufficiently understand the problem. Therefore, let’s walk through the problem: For 100+ years, New York Times has been er… pro-Hitler and Mussolini… and wildly wrong. Therefore, “journalists” on the left, should do the hard-work of fact-checking them before accepting a single-claim.

My evidence of New York Times being wildly wrong:

They called the Nazi euthanasia program Aktion t4 “Economy in Sterilization”

They have also called Mussolini “a new hope”

Here, the New York Times, claimed that “Fascisti in America to fight Radicalism.”

Unfortunately, World War 2, did not cause any majors structural changes in New York Times. Therefore, we have:

In 2009, they called an American Rancher who had Guarani slaves er..

Branko Marinkovic, the head of the UJC, who tried to assassinate Evo Morales and start a race war is merely a:

and also claimed that Evo Morales was reverse-racist against..er..

In 2019, the New York Times, even admitted that they get pre-approval from the USG before publishing articles.

With my examples, I hope one notices a pattern: New York Times always writes from the point of view of the corporate actor. They always write from the point of view from the wealthy corporations. They never write from the point of view of the poor people in other countries.

The second pattern one must notice is that all of these are er…. really distorted and/or inverted as to give you a completely wrong impression of the situation. Therefore, if I see a New York Times’ article, I will read it critically and try to fact-check to make sure they have the basic facts correct. For example, if they run an article, where a lady claims she realized that she was part Uyghur because of er… prominent cheekbones…

and that her grandmother was “half-Uyghur” (meaning she is 1/8 Uyghur, if true)

and that she never knew her “half-Uyghur” grandmother’s (1/8th for her) “family” (fourth cousins)

because of er…. intermarriage

I would be skeptical because she is essentially claiming that “race-mixing is genocide.” I’d be suspicious enough to fact-check every link from New York Times. At that point, if all of them (100%) led me to a Christian Extremist Adrian Zenz, I would be even more suspicious and I would check his data.

However, this analysis is not happening from almost any progressive media outlet. If it were merely just one writer for Jacobin, I would not be troubled. We have a bigger problem, since the organization created by OUN member Yaroslav Stetsko praised them two years ago and it never caused a moment of self-reflection on their methods.

But, ultimately, one must realize that no matter how smart, how progressive and how knowledgeable, there is no substitute for the plain, old hard work. It is the least that one can expect from a “respectable” leftist outlet. Unfortunately, no one in the respectable left seems to be willing to put in the hard work, despite everyone begging them to be more responsible with their huge platform.