WEB POSTED 2-16-2000
|Half-truths, lies and deceit:
the tools of the wicked
In my recent articles, I’m stating that the wicked critics, who twisted with lies, half truths the words of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, and all manner of deceit fought against him, are still at it, as they try to defeat his servant, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan.
They lost then. They will lose now.
Remember, the very wicked want Minister Farrakhan dead. They hope some “Judas” type will do to him what they want. Read the 3rd edition of “This Is The One,” pages 223-225. There is an article there that takes up the ultimate aim of the very wicked and their strategy. Study it with the greatest care.
I’m continuing from my last article, from a chapter written 32 years ago from “This is The One” on their deceit.
“Another example involves being vague or using a word in a vital area that hides the true meaning. Using loaded language—emotional language—to establish a point, for which the speaker has no proof, is another fallacious device. Name-calling is an example of this. Some speakers simply avoid facts that have direct bearing on the subject. On the other hand, he may bring in things that have no bearing on the issue.
“The reader may have seen speakers—especially preachers—repeat a thing over and over to try to win his point. But repetition is not proof of truth. Sheer noise is used by some. Personal attacks rather than attacks on what the other has to say, is still another device.
“Agreeing with another’s conclusion while denying the base of that conclusion, even though it necessarily flows from the premise put forth by the other, is a fallacy. Playing on the imagination and feeling of the listeners by appealing to what may be popular is fallacious. Or, he may knock down an argument that the other has not put forth. Or, again, he may ask the other a loaded question: Have you stopped stealing yet? Have you stopped beating your wife?
“We’ve seen speakers in debates take advantage of the fact that an audience, or most in the audience, may not have enough knowledge to see that one speaker may be taking advantage of the other, because of the lack of knowledge on the part of the audience on that subject. One man may say such and such cannot be true because, ‘We have never heard of that before.’
“For instance, uninformed people at one time said that the telephone was impractical because ‘we all know you can’t talk over wires.’ Another example that is used to cause those in the know a hard time was that knowledge of the atom was not widespread. So, when talk of cracking the atom came up, people who were not in the know said, ‘Of course you can’t crack an atom; how can you possibly crack something that you can’t see?’
“It is hard enough when the audience, or most of it, are not in the know on the subject. One of the speakers may have a hard time, though he may be very much in the know. This means he will have to work harder than the other. But when the other is also not in the know, then, we really have a problem.”
That is to say, that the deceivers might win that battle.
“The Random House Dictionary defines fallacy to mean:
‘A deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.; a misleading or unsound argument; deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness. In the science of logic a fallacy is any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.’
“The American Heritage Dictionary defines fallacy in this way:
‘An idea or opinion founded on mistaken logic or perception; a false notion; a statement or thesis that is inconsistent with logic or fact and thus renders the conclusion invalid; the quality of being in error; incorrectness of reasoning or belief; the quality of being deceptive.’
“Sophistry means a:subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning; a false argument…. (Random House)
“And it is further defined:
“A plausible but misleading or fallacious argumentation; faulty reasoning. (American Heritage)
“From dictionaries and other ‘word books’ it is clear that there are but slight differences between the words sophistry and sophism. Both words refer to argumentative techniques that stress form rather than content. Both point to:
“False arguments intentionally used to deceive, (Funk and Wagnalls Modern Guide To Synonyms)
“Websters New Dictionary of Synonyms says that:
“Sophism and sophistry and sophistical imply, as fallacy and fallacious do not necessarily imply, either the intent to mislead or deceive by fallacious arguments or indifference to the correctness of one’s reasoning provided one’s words carry conviction; the terms, therefore, often connote confusingly subtle, equivocal, or specious reasoning. Sophism, however, applies usually to a specific argument of this character, sophistry often to the type of reasoning employing sophisms.
“It is clear that the type of thinking or reasoning indicated by these words (fallacy, sophistry, etc.) is dangerous when employed to build programs to cope with this complex problem of ‘race’ in and out of America.
“Let us take a good look at the words critic, criticism and criticize, as used here, and based on definitions given in several dictionaries.
“Critic: ‘one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter, as a work of art or a course of conduct, involving a judgment of its value, truth, or righteousness, an appreciation of its beauty or technique, or an interpretation: one skilled in judging the merits of literary or artistic works, one concerned or adept in any analysis of the work of others involving critical judgments, or one whose profession is to write criticism—one who judges the merits of anything by some standard or criterion; a skilled judge of literary, theatrical, or other artistic creations—a person who forms, and expresses judgments of people or things: a person who forms and expresses judgments of the qualities and comparative worth of books, music, paintings, sculpture, plays, motion pictures, etc., especially one who writes such judgments professionally.
“The word implies that the critic, makes an effort to see a thing clearly, truly and impartially so that not only the good in it (or whoever may be under study) may be distinguished from the bad, and the perfect from the imperfect, but also that it as a whole may be fairly judged or valued.
“And according to Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms:
“Criticize in its basic sense does not carry fault finding as its invariable or even major implication; rather it suggests a discernment of the merits and faults of a person or a thing. In ordinary use, however, the word does commonly imply an unfavorable judgment or a pointing out of faults and is probably the term most frequently used to express this idea. (This is usually done openly, publicly.)
“Criticism (when meaning a discourse, essay or a report presenting one’s conclusion after examining a work of art, literature, etc.) usually implies an author who is expected to have expert knowledge in his field, a clear definition of his standards of judgment, and an intent to evaluate the work under consideration.”
I hope the above [and my recent previous articles] contributes to our efforts to understand the deceitful talk against Minister Farrakhan—which is against the rise of Black people and all oppressed people the world over.
“This Is The One” is now out of print. I’m working on the next edition, which will include my observations on Minister Farrakhan’s “more than a vision” experience of September 17, 1985.
More next issue, Allah willing.