# News & Current Events > Coronavirus SARS-CoV2 >  How Do You Know What You Know? - Larken Rose

## CCTelander

Another excellent video from Larken Rose. Enjoy.









> How do you know what you know? That question is a lot more important than most people assume, and the recent ridiculous spectacle surrounding Covid-19 is a shining example of that.

----------


## CCTelander

Bump

----------


## CCTelander

Big scary bear bump.

----------


## PAF

> Big scary bear bump.


I'm clean out of + Reps for you.

The "correction catching up to the rumor" and 'the damage that has already been done" are SPOT ON.

----------


## CCTelander

> I'm clean out of + Reps for you.
> 
> The "correction catching up to the rumor" and 'the damage that has already been done" are SPOT ON.



Larken never fails to deliver.

----------


## PAF

> Larken never fails to deliver.


If only more would take the time to listen rather than just gloss over... can you imagine?!?!

----------


## CCTelander

> If only more would take the time to listen rather than just gloss over... can you imagine?!?!



I know right? I mean, it's not like the guy is a god or some kind of guru or anything. Hell he doesn't even want that kind of following. But what the guy IS, and everyone who has any first hand knowledge of what he's been achieving unanimously agrees, is massively successful. You'd think that alone would get people curious enough to pay attention and actually act on his suggestions. At the very least throw a few bucks his way so he can keep doing it. Regardless, and in spite of the fact that this lockdown $#@! has just about put me out of business, I'm joining his channel and maintaining it for as long as I can afford it. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

And give Candles In the Dark a try. I've heard nothing but good about it as well. Gonna try it myself.

----------


## shakey1

There are more things in this world that we don’t know than what we do.

Question everything.

----------


## CCTelander

> There are more things in this world that we don’t know than what we do.
> 
> Question everything.



Absolutely.

----------


## jkr

zerohedge

----------


## Jenard Butler

Question anyone who hasnt been banned from YouTube.

----------


## CCTelander

> Question everyone anyone who hasnt been banned from YouTube.


 FIFY

----------


## bv3

Hmmmm.

Sometimes people need an explanation for the psychological anxiety they experience.  Whether the explanation has any actual relationship to that anxiety doesn't really matter.  I like this fella and his river.

The same way that Climate Change is used to screen the anxiety caused by National Financial insanity.  It prevents the fear from engendering a response to the actual threat, and marshals it in a way that is useful "addressing" the perceived threat.

----------


## CCTelander

> Hmmmm.
> 
> Sometimes people need an explanation for the psychological anxiety they experience.  Whether the explanation has any actual relationship to that anxiety doesn't really matter.  I like this fella and his river.
> 
> The same way that Climate Change is used to screen the anxiety caused by National Financial insanity.  It prevents the fear from engendering a response to the actual threat, and marshals it in a way that is useful "addressing" the perceived threat.



I'm not sure I precisely understand what you're saying here or how it applies to the video in the OP. Could you elaborate a little?

----------


## bv3

> I'm not sure I precisely understand what  you're saying here or how it applies to the video in the OP. Could you  elaborate a little?


Lets say that in Bruin Town there has been, in fact, a string a  violent attacks by an unknown perpetrator.  When 'news' of the presence  of a big scary bear spreads, this 'news' synthesizes neatly with the  anxiety of the townspeople, which is real and has been engendered by the  actual string of violent attacks.  A narrative is born of the truth and  a half-truth, "Big scary bears exist, and have attacked people.  A big  scary bear is attacking townspeople right now."  Predictably, the Towns  People want to stop the bear, and fortunately the mayor has the  solution! "Big Scary Bear attacks could happen to anyone, and there is  nothing a single person can do about it.  We must work together to stop  this Big Scary Bear, I propose a tax increase to fund a Scary Bear  Patrol."

  Now, of course it isn't a Scary Bear attacking people in town,  but the Mayor's nephew.  While the Scary Bear Patrol beats the bushes  around town for the "bear," the nephew continues to attack people.   Casualties mount.  "The Bear Patrol," bruits the mayor, "is  underfunded.  It falls on those of us able to give more, to do just  that.  We Must Stop This Bear, or it will attack us all."  So the towns  people pay more to the Bear Patrol, but the attacks continue unabated.

Thus,  the psychological anxiety experienced by the Towns People is given an  explanation that has no actual relationship to that anxiety,  simultaneously inhibiting a response to the real threat while harnessing  it in a way that is useful to "addressing" the perceived threat.  By addressing, of course, I mean exploiting that anxiety for gain (financial, political, ideological et al). 



I  would add that a certain level of this anxiety seems to be ever-present  in just about anyone.  For they that know how to marshal it? A fertile  source of mischief for the rest of us.

Plug in fiscal lunacy for violent attacks, and climate change for the scary bear.  The Fed?  I suppose that would be the nephew.
People,  young people in particular, know they are $#@!ed.  They don't know  precisely why, but they know it none-the-less.  Our deplorable position  is the result of financial criminality, but to explain the anxiety that  we feel at being so-very-$#@!ed we are given a Narrative: Climate  Change, Racism, Plague, etc (the particular half-truth changes quickly,  because they have to.  If they don't change the program frequently,  people may well get wise--though I doubt it).  So the  fear-at-being-$#@!ed (and anger) is elided from the actual threat, and  marshaled into something useful for "addressing" the perceived threat  and that useful thing being more, and more centralized, control.

Sometimes the Scary Bear is a black man, sometimes white, sometimes weather, sometimes plague, sometimes statues.  But if I were running a multi-trillion dollar scam I guess I'd find as many Scary Bears as I could.

I am not sure I precisely understand what I am saying either.

----------


## CCTelander

> Lets say that in Bruin Town there has been, in fact, a string a  violent attacks by an unknown perpetrator.  When 'news' of the presence  of a big scary bear spreads, this 'news' synthesizes neatly with the  anxiety of the townspeople, which is real and has been engendered by the  actual string of violent attacks.  A narrative is born of the truth and  a half-truth, "Big scary bears exist, and have attacked people.  A big  scary bear is attacking townspeople right now."  Predictably, the Towns  People want to stop the bear, and fortunately the mayor has the  solution! "Big Scary Bear attacks could happen to anyone, and there is  nothing a single person can do about it.  We must work together to stop  this Big Scary Bear, I propose a tax increase to fund a Scary Bear  Patrol."
> 
>   Now, of course it isn't a Scary Bear attacking people in town,  but the Mayor's nephew.  While the Scary Bear Patrol beats the bushes  around town for the "bear," the nephew continues to attack people.   Casualties mount.  "The Bear Patrol," bruits the mayor, "is  underfunded.  It falls on those of us able to give more, to do just  that.  We Must Stop This Bear, or it will attack us all."  So the towns  people pay more to the Bear Patrol, but the attacks continue unabated.
> 
> Thus,  the psychological anxiety experienced by the Towns People is given an  explanation that has no actual relationship to that anxiety,  simultaneously inhibiting a response to the real threat while harnessing  it in a way that is useful to "addressing" the perceived threat.  By addressing, of course, I mean exploiting that anxiety for gain (financial, political, ideological et al). 
> 
> 
> 
> I  would add that a certain level of this anxiety seems to be ever-present  in just about anyone.  For they that know how to marshal it? A fertile  source of mischief for the rest of us.
> ...



Thanks so much for the clarification. I understand what you're saying now and, quite frankly, can't disagree with a word of it. Excellent post. Thanks again.

----------


## CCTelander

Scary bear bump.

----------


## CCTelander

Just a quick reminder that while the whole COVID-19 farce is what sparked Roes's comments in the video, the same principles apply to many other situations as well.

----------


## Slave Mentality

> Lets say that in Bruin Town there has been, in fact, a string a  violent attacks by an unknown perpetrator.  When 'news' of the presence  of a big scary bear spreads, this 'news' synthesizes neatly with the  anxiety of the townspeople, which is real and has been engendered by the  actual string of violent attacks.  A narrative is born of the truth and  a half-truth, "Big scary bears exist, and have attacked people.  A big  scary bear is attacking townspeople right now."  Predictably, the Towns  People want to stop the bear, and fortunately the mayor has the  solution! "Big Scary Bear attacks could happen to anyone, and there is  nothing a single person can do about it.  We must work together to stop  this Big Scary Bear, I propose a tax increase to fund a Scary Bear  Patrol."
> 
>   Now, of course it isn't a Scary Bear attacking people in town,  but the Mayor's nephew.  While the Scary Bear Patrol beats the bushes  around town for the "bear," the nephew continues to attack people.   Casualties mount.  "The Bear Patrol," bruits the mayor, "is  underfunded.  It falls on those of us able to give more, to do just  that.  We Must Stop This Bear, or it will attack us all."  So the towns  people pay more to the Bear Patrol, but the attacks continue unabated.
> 
> Thus,  the psychological anxiety experienced by the Towns People is given an  explanation that has no actual relationship to that anxiety,  simultaneously inhibiting a response to the real threat while harnessing  it in a way that is useful to "addressing" the perceived threat.  By addressing, of course, I mean exploiting that anxiety for gain (financial, political, ideological et al). 
> 
> 
> 
> I  would add that a certain level of this anxiety seems to be ever-present  in just about anyone.  For they that know how to marshal it? A fertile  source of mischief for the rest of us.
> ...


You successfully described the rise of all government power in the history of humans.  No $#@!.  If only more people could think for themselves like this...

----------


## CCTelander

> You successfully described the rise of all government power in the history of humans.  No $#@!.  If only more people could think for themselves like this...



As much of a pain as it is at times, it's kind of up to us to help them get there. There's quite literally nobody else to do it.

----------


## PAF

> As much of a pain as it is at times, it's kind of up to us to help them get there. There's quite literally nobody else to do it.


I second that.

----------


## Ender

> There are more things in this world that we don’t know than what we do.
> 
> Question everything.


Absolutely.

*Question Everything* is what I teach my students.

----------


## CCTelander

> Absolutely.
> 
> *Question Everything* is what I teach my students.



Good advice.

----------


## devil21

> Lets say that in Bruin Town there has been, in fact, a string a  violent attacks by an unknown perpetrator.  When 'news' of the presence  of a big scary bear spreads, this 'news' synthesizes neatly with the  anxiety of the townspeople, which is real and has been engendered by the  actual string of violent attacks.  A narrative is born of the truth and  a half-truth, "Big scary bears exist, and have attacked people.  A big  scary bear is attacking townspeople right now."  Predictably, the Towns  People want to stop the bear, and fortunately the mayor has the  solution! "Big Scary Bear attacks could happen to anyone, and there is  nothing a single person can do about it.  We must work together to stop  this Big Scary Bear, I propose a tax increase to fund a Scary Bear  Patrol."
> 
>   Now, of course it isn't a Scary Bear attacking people in town,  but the Mayor's nephew.  While the Scary Bear Patrol beats the bushes  around town for the "bear," the nephew continues to attack people.   Casualties mount.  "The Bear Patrol," bruits the mayor, "is  underfunded.  It falls on those of us able to give more, to do just  that.  We Must Stop This Bear, or it will attack us all."  So the towns  people pay more to the Bear Patrol, but the attacks continue unabated.
> 
> Thus,  the psychological anxiety experienced by the Towns People is given an  explanation that has no actual relationship to that anxiety,  simultaneously inhibiting a response to the real threat while harnessing  it in a way that is useful to "addressing" the perceived threat.  By addressing, of course, I mean exploiting that anxiety for gain (financial, political, ideological et al). 
> 
> 
> 
> I  would add that a certain level of this anxiety seems to be ever-present  in just about anyone.  For they that know how to marshal it? A fertile  source of mischief for the rest of us.
> ...


You basically summed up Chapter 1 of Albert Pike's book "Morals and Dogma", which is the how-to manual of crowd manipulation.  How to harness and direct the power of the crowd.  There's a reason it was given to every mason throughout most of the 20th century.

It's not light reading but here's text version
http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apike01.html

Audio version starts here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkri...ature=emb_logo

----------


## jmdrake

> Question anyone who hasn’t been banned from YouTube.


Because he didn't explicitly say Dr. Fauci was Chuck.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Absolutely.
> 
> *Question Everything* is what I teach my students.


Yet so many who go to the universities just memorize what they've been told, so they can regurgitate it on an exam and gradulate.

----------


## Ender

> Yet so many who go to the universities just memorize what they've been told, so they can regurgitate it on an exam and gradulate.


Exactly. My group actually calls the public school system: The Regurgitation System

----------


## Dr.3D

> Exactly. My group actually calls the public school system: The Regurgitation System


That would explain why so many college graduates have so much trust in government.    They never learned to question authority.

----------


## Ender

> That would explain why so many college graduates have so much trust in government.    They never learned to question authority.


Yep.

When I tell my students "Question Everything- even ME." it blows their minds- they've never been allowed to think like this & move out of the Matrix.

----------


## CCTelander

> Exactly. My group actually calls the public school system: The Regurgitation System



You know, mother birds nourish their young via regurgitation. Just sayin'.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> When I tell my students "Question Everything- even ME." it blows their minds


That seems to lead to a paradox.  Should they question your admonition to question everything?  If so, maybe they shouldn't question everything.

----------


## Ender

> That seems to lead to a paradox.  Should they question your admonition to question everything?  If so, maybe they shouldn't question everything.


We all should. 

I tell them to QUESTION EVERYTHING, even me. It's amazing to see how their genius begins to flow.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> That seems to lead to a paradox.  Should they question your admonition to question everything?  If so, maybe they shouldn't question everything.


It's not much of a paradox, since it is not necessary to adopt the admonition prior to questioning it.

If the  admonition is accepted, then they should. If the admonition is rejected, then they shouldn't.

No contradiction is involved in either case.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> It's not much of a paradox, since it is not necessary to adopt the admonition prior to questioning it.
> 
> If the  admonition is accepted, then they should. If the admonition is rejected, then they shouldn't.
> 
> No contradiction is involved in either case.


But if one accepts the admonition, it follows that he should question his acceptance of the admonition (i.e., maybe he made a mistake in his reasoning that led him to the conclusion that he should accept the admonition), and whatever the result of that questioning is should likewise be questioned, _ad infinitum_.  It's like a child who continues to ask "Why?" when you're trying to explain something, or like the Tortoise in Lewis Carroll's "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles".  If you should really question everything, how can you ever come to a conclusion?  

Putting it in an educational setting, if a history teacher were to tell his students to question everything, does he want them to question whether there really was such a thing as the War of the Roses, which he has just lectured on for 50 minutes and which was the subject of a reading assignment?  Does he really want them to spend time questioning the accuracy of all of the books in the library that claim such a war occurred?  Or does he want them to accept it as a fact and move on to the next chapter?

----------


## Intoxiklown

> Absolutely.
> 
> *Question Everything* is what I teach my students.


That logic is why I'll be at the Pearly Gates still bragging on my father for sending me to a private school that was based on a Classical Education curriculum. It's surprising how many people have a difficult time grasping the method when I explain it when asked (most people hear private school and immediately assume it's a religious place, so when when they hear otherwise they ask me what the difference is.), especially when I tell them that most of our tests weren't reciting memorized data from the texts but instead trying to disprove it from every angle you could. Some get offended when I just point blank say, "My education was geared to insure I was as critical and objective as possible on top of working to know the why of something and why it was correct". 

Good on you for demanding that from your students. Sincerely.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> But if one accepts the admonition, it follows that he should question his acceptance of the admonition (i.e., maybe he made a mistake in his reasoning that led him to the conclusion that he should accept the admonition), and whatever the result of that questioning is should likewise be questioned, _ad infinitum_.


Questioning the admonition and then accepting it (on the one hand) and subsequently questioning the acceptance of the admonition and then accepting the acceptance (on the other hand) - and likewise for additional iterations - amount to exactly the same thing. Given that whatever reasoning upon whatever evidence resulted in the original acceptance, the same reasoning upon the same evidence must necessarily result in accepting the acceptance - and likewise for additional iterations. There can be no combination of (non-contradictory) reasoning and evidence that will result in acceptance of the admonition that does not also result in acceptance of the acceptance (or in acceptance of the acceptance of the acceptance, and so forth).

That one's reasoning may be erroneous or that new evidence may be adduced is always the case *[1]*. The discovery of errors or new evidence subsequent to the original acceptance of the admonition may require a reexamination _of the original acceptance_ - and this may, in turn, result in a reversal of the original acceptance. But this does not obviate that, given whatever reasoning upon whatever evidence, an original acceptance of the admonition necessarily implies subsequent acceptance of the acceptance (and the acceptance of the acceptance of the acceptance, and so forth).

Hence, there is no infinite regress.




> Putting it in an educational setting, if a history teacher were to tell  his students to question everything, does he want them to question  whether there really was such a thing as the War of the Roses, which he  has just lectured on for 50 minutes and which was the subject of a  reading assignment?  Does he really want them to spend time questioning  the accuracy of all of the books in the library that claim such a war  occurred?  Or does he want them to accept it as a fact and move on to  the next chapter?


A teacher who admonishes his students to "question everything" is admonishing them to refrain from accepting what he (or the textbook) is saying solely because he (or the textbook) is saying it. Sometimes, people (and textbooks) are wrong *[2]*. Such errors cannot be repaired (or even recognized as errors) if their sources are never interrogated.

The admonition "question everything" is not an admonition to "reject everything" - nor does it forbid the _ad hoc_, tentative, provisional and/or conditional acceptance of a thing without further interrogation. And in any case, the dictum "question everything" does not lead to endlessly recursive cycles (indeed, as argued above, it does not lead to any recursion at all, except in a trivial and/or casuistic manner).



*[1]* Indeed, this is a significant part of the justification for the admonition to "question everything."

*[2]* Max Planck would not have become the "Father of Quantum Physics" if he had not questioned one of the most fundamental principles of "classical" physics (namely, the assertion that any given amount of energy exists as an infinitely divisible continuum). Likewise, the ruins of the ancient city of Troy would never have been discovered (or at least recognized as such) if those those who searched for it had accepted the prior verdict of historians (namely, that Troy was just an element of Homeric myth and had never actually existed).

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The admonition "question everything" is not an admonition to "reject everything"


I agree.




> nor does it forbid the _ad hoc_, tentative, provisional and/or conditional acceptance of a thing without further interrogation.


I have to disagree there.  If one tentatively accepts something (like the War of the Roses actually happened) _and never bothers to make further inquiry_, then he hasn't questioned whether the war really happened.  There is only a limited amount of time in a class session or in the time an entire course takes.  If a student is supposed to question _everything_, he'll never get beyond the first lecture.  Nor will he have time later in life to question everything his teachers ever said or everything he ever read in books (even assuming he could remember it all).

The plain fact is, there isn't enough time to question everything, and not everything is worth questioning. Just as you need to know when to pick your battles, you need to know what to question.  If a history prof says that the 21st Amendment became law when Utah ratified it, I'm damn sure not going to waste my time trying to find out whether he's lying or mistaken and see it was really some other state.  It's OK to be skeptical, but not about everything.  Life's too short for that.

----------

