Читать книгу Lies with Long Legs - Prodosh Aich - Страница 5

We actually wanted to know more precisely about “Indogermans”, “Indoeuropeans” and “Aryans”. Who they are, since when has their existence been known, how has it become known that they really did exist, who discovered them, and how, why and for what purpose? Many (hi)stories are told, explanations given and general perspectives are offered, but all these appear to be questionable. They don’t correspond to so many things we observe in our environment and in our world. Therefore we have to put more questions. In the beginning our queries appeared to be simple. Obviously they are not. We have been in search of answers for more than the last five years. We do not find them. No, that would be incorrect. We do find answers, but they are hardly convincing. There are answers, but with lots of catches. The answers lead us immediately to more questions, time and again. It is, as if we had opened the Pandora’s Box with our simple straightforward questions, leading to a seemingly unending chain of questions.

A barrage of questions floods our minds. Much too many contexts still need to be explicated, both in the sphere of “high politics” today as also in the daily life of the common people. Intrigued, we find ourselves asking whether categorisations such as “Indo-Europeans” and “Aryans” are related to the oppression – indeed, the hunt – of foreigners (aliens) in affluent countries. Isn’t it necessary to look into the circumstances under which foreign people are hounded in the rich countries? Are only foreigners being hunted? All foreigners? What is “foreign”? How is it perceived? Where does the foreignness begin? How does a “foreign race” get defined? Can there be persecution of “foreign races" without the concept of “race” being made a basis for social categorisation? What is race? Who has invented “races” and when and in which context? How can “human races” be related to each other, compared and ranked? Again, many stories are told.

Stories abound regarding “the others”, “the strangers”, “the foreigners”, “the aliens”, on their culture, history and backwardness. Is there a relationship between the persecution of foreign people and the speedy transport of all kinds of tales and reports about “the others” carried by the “most modern“ means of transport, through “media” of all kinds? Stories, which are eagerly, consumed everywhere? Consumed? Simply consumed? Or do the stories also create an inner feeling of superiority in us? Being superior to everybody else? Over their poverty, their mishaps and disasters, their inability, their incompetence, their corruption, their arbitrariness in life. Does it not give one a feeling of superiority when compared to social groups like political refugees (or to those who only pose to be so), other refugees and migrants, (both undesirable and useful), people without shelter and those who are labelled as work shy, people who live on social welfare, etc., etc.? Don’t we feel better when we look down to such groups? Are we not better? Haven’t we achieved more than others? Aren’t we the civilised ones? Shouldn’t we feel proud, proud of our achievements?

Since when are we being taught that the quality of human beings could be discerned by their physical appearance such as: big – small, strong – weak, fair – dark, blue-eyed – non-blue-eyed, white – black and the many other so called racial features? What is “race”? Since when has mankind believed that there are different human “races” with different qualities? Under what circumstances did the tale come about that the “Aryan race” is superior to all other “races”? And when was the tribe of the “Indogermans” and/or of the “Indoeuropeans” discovered? Discovered or devised? Did the “Aryan race” really exist, or the "Indogermans”, or the “Indoeuropeans”? Or were they just wishful and useful fantasies? Since when have categories like: “We” and the “Others” been in existence?

Don’t we have to ask, isn’t it essential to know, for example, how rich countries became rich? How come that rich people always become richer, also within the rich countries? Why do the rich states hunt the militarily inferior states? Why do the rich states hide more and more behind different fronts like, for example, NATO, “International Community”, and commonly prey upon weaker states and other cultures? “International Community”? What is hidden behind this facade? The United Nations? The Security Council of the United Nations? NATO? What is it, this NATO? Which states have created the “International Community”? What for? Is it based on “International Law” or can it be derived from “International Law”? What is “International Law”? Why are these states not content with the United Nations”? Isn’t it essential to ask whether there is a relationship between the bombing of weak states and cultures by the “International Community” on the one hand and the hunts of foreign people within the territories of the “International Community” on the other hand? And then: Who hunts whom within the territories of this “International Community”?

Inevitably we wonder how the youth feels when “celebrities with bodyguards” urge “decent people” to show their “faces” in public and to organise a “revolt of the decent ones” against violence within our societies. In the 21st century? Would there be similar appeals in Germany, for example, if the Neo–Nazis there did not desecrate synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, but still go on hunting people of “inferior races”? Or if synagogues and Jewish cemeteries were also to be desecrated everywhere within the “International Community” – or even more so for that matter?

One is amazed by the variety of inflated explanations for such infringements that are created by the “media“. There is an ever-ongoing competition amongst celebrities to invent the most stunning, most striking and the most marketable slogans to win public image. In all kinds of areas. What a wonderful strategy! Don’t they talk about “occupying” themes? Unisono? Occupying themes? Or do they intend to occupy eventual answers as well? Do we have a chance to get a word in edgewise in the midst of “media“ blast in order to ask ourselves, in Germany for example: what had there been before the events “Hoyerswerda”, “Solingen”, or wherever else, could happen? Had there been “a revolt of the decent ones”?

Do we still remember, what the German lady film director Doris Doerries proposed on the occasion of “a revolt of the decent cultural celebrities” in the Hamburg–Thalia–Theatre after the murderous affair in Rostock? Her programmatic proposal? She explained that “looking away” has nothing to do with “decency” but rather with fear. We are afraid of being confronted with rowdies. Therefore, Doris Doerries proposed that we, the “decent” people, should always wear a visible sign in public (that day the celebrities wore a purple band), so that we would all know that we are not alone against rowdies. In all public places. This is what Doris Doerries proposed live on TV. Overwhelming applause. This was after “Rostock”. Do we really recall when “Rostock” happened? What happened there? Why do we forget events more and more? Faster than ever? Why is our memory getting shorter and shorter?

And now we are summoned by “celebrities with bodyguards” to show our “face” in public. Have civil courage. In 2002. Ten years after “Rostock”! Due to this cultural development and influence how should we be able to enquire what was there before Rostock happened? Before the “jokes on Turks “ started making the rounds? Before the “foreign workers” began being called “guests”? Before the “Reichskristallnacht”, before Hitler came into power, before “Mein Kampf”? Before the First World War? Before “colonialism”? Before the age of the “enlightenment”? Endless questions, no answers, of course. We are usually averse to questions, so we are not expected to put questions like these, are we?

But we may not stick to the rules of this game. We are learning and practising to ask questions. For example: Is today’s daily violence something new? We don’t mean the daily hounding of “foreigners” alone, but also of socially weak groups like children, the disabled, the needy and women. What are the fundamental traits of this culture? Why is it given such varied names every now and then? Who are the inventors? Why do they make up new names for the same culture and try to hammer them into our brain through the omnipresent media? Are they perhaps afraid that we could see through the fundamental traits of this culture? Are we able to do it? Or are we too stupid? Had we been stupid in the past, why this incessant hammering? Why is so much effort being spent on “political education” while simultaneously keeping back essential “political information”? Are we perhaps not so stupid? And therefore, the target of this uninterrupted brainwashing?

Why do we ask useless questions about the past? Is it not more important to try to grasp the direction of the speedy evolution of our time and contribute to make it a revolution? Is it not more important to put “marks” on the stages of development and label them by “names”? Don’t we get enough new names for this culture time and again? Is this exercise of inventing adequate names not lagging behind the development of culture and civilisation? We have not followed this path and internalised the rules of this game. We rather ask questions such as: Is it something new, this daily violence that confronts us? Why these daily violent attacks and abuse on foreigners, on strangers, also on weaker members of the society like children, women, the poor? What are the pillars, what are the fundamentals of this culture, which have been identified and labelled by clever and dynamic minds—of course well paid—over and over again? Why is the full power of the modern media being used to drum into our heads every new label of this new culture? Are these “scientists” pressured by this speedily developing culture trying to find new names to characterise its new phases? Do they manage to keep pace with the “progress” of this name giving ritual? Can we even remember all those names?

We can recall quite a few, however: Christian, occidental, European, industrial, western, post-war–, democratic, modern, humanistic, formed, solidarity–, leisure-time–, information–, risk–, media–, open, global, television–, Internet–, information–, interactive, fun-, media-, knowledge culture, etc. etc.. How can this ritual of attributing so many names to a single society and culture be interpreted? Is it an expression of a special fantasy, special accuracy or does it only express embarrassment and helplessness; a search for identity; or a desperate attempt to veil the essential characteristics of this culture and to try to divert the focus onto superficial changes caused by technological developments? Who is afraid that we would eventually find out for ourselves the fundamentals of this society? Are we not able to identify them? Are we too stupid and need help? Had it been so, why this continuous storming of our brains, and why is so much effort being made for “political education”? Are we perhaps not stupid? Is this the reason why we don’t get political information, but only political “education”? We must leave these questions unanswered.

We have started our search. Our means and ability are modest. So we have begun with simple questions. Who is telling us (hi)stories? How did the narrator get hold of his tale? Our questions, though so simple, seem to work like dynamite. We are also persistent and refuse to be fed the usual answers. Here is the report of our search and on our findings. We present them in detail in order to launch a discussion. And to learn how to ask questions more efficiently. Increasingly more efficiently. Perhaps we can find out ways not to be overwhelmed by the “scientists”, the narrators and the media in our daily life any more.

*****

Our daily life is organised by “information”. Worldwide. A continuously increasing flow of „information“ leading to more and more consolidated social and political order. „Information“ is brought to us not only through the so-called print and electronic „media“, but also by our environment, by the family, by educational institutions, etc. Quite extensively. But, where does „information“ come from, where is it generated, where is it produced, who puts it into circulation, what are the channels, how fast does it reach us from its source? Can we really find out? Is it important to know all the facts?

Apparently we do enjoy being the consumers of „information“, 24 hours a day. We long for knowledge. Knowledge? When do we find time for reflection, thinking and rethinking? Reflection and rethinking? Is this necessary? What is it good for? The warnings of „media“ critics like Neil Postman that we might be “entertained or informed to death” don’t actually help us. Wouldn’t it be a carefree, painless, entertaining, cheerful and beautiful death? What could be wrong about it? But we cannot escape the facts even if we wanted to. Escapists only exist in “reality shows”. Do we really have to get out, do we really have to consume all the information that thrown at us?

The communication network is global and extensive. The quantity of “information” increases day by day and its transmission becomes more and more complicated. Due to the speed of technological developments in the field of data transfer the flow of „information“ is becoming more and more unmanageable. Global “information” is provided unbelievably fast, 24 hours a day. We spend precious time learning to use the latest technical gadgets. Do we realise that we are caught in the “information trap”? Can we spring this trap and be free? How?

We don’t have any standard recipes. If we had found any, we would not have presented them here. That would have been contra-productive and irresponsible. But we are surely trying hard not to get caught in the “information trap”. We trust that our mutual efforts and the continuous exchange of experience would keep us away from this trap. We build our research on that perspective.

We do not know exactly where “information” about people, places, institutions etc. is produced and which pieces of “information” are distributed and reproduced. Why are they produced and why are they made available to more and more people? Do we have any idea about the total amount of „information“ that is produced? Or which parts are factually made available to us? Are we able to judge the quality of „information“? In our daily life we are swamped by „information“. We can see the flood coming, we are able to foresee the impact and yet we cannot escape it even if we really wanted to. And if we escape once we still find ourselves caught in the flood—indirectly. Why should we buy this “flood of information” and waste our resources and precious time? And don’t we know that each piece of „information“ is produced with an objective? Don’t we really know that?

And what is „information“? Is “information” everything that is supplied by the “media”? Does it differ? In it’s content, and quality? How can we learn to differentiate, to evaluate “information”? Is „information“ just “news”, an “answer” to a query, an “instruction” or even an element of “knowledge” or a mixture of everything? Where are the answers? The vendors of the information-industry won’t give the answers. They have no intention of doing so. We can turn to “references”, of course. Are they helpful?

What are the “sources of reference”? Are they all the same or are they different perhaps? Since when are they available? Who are their publishers? Who compiles the catchwords? Are all possible catchwords included? Are there omissions? What is omitted? And how can the authors of the “references” be sure that their knowledge is correct? Are they independent or do they have to depend on saleability only? Which are the sources of their knowledge? Do they check the quality of their sources? How do they know whether the assumed sources are dependable or are they just set up? Are the “makers” of “sources” related to the “information-industry”? Or even a part of it? We do not presume to find answers to all these questions. But we do think that we all should try to search for answers. We all together. Is there any alternative to fighting the very present danger of becoming an irresolute tool, a virtual robot of the “information-industry ”?

“Information” does not drop from heaven. It is produced and then offered to us for use. The range of the carriers, usually called “media”, is wide. So it seems. We have maintained earlier, probably without provoking the slightest contradiction, that „information“ is canalised. The network of the „media“ is becoming increasingly dense. And this density is labelled as progress. The denser the “Communication” of a country, the more “advanced” its society. This is the message and we tend to accept it. We normally do not give many thoughts to the messages, to their carriers, to the media. We fixatedly accept the prepared contents; debate them with meticulousness and passion. That’s it. We are seldom strong, curious and persistent enough to reflect about the carriers, their routes, their producers and the “information-industry”. And what would happen, if the „information“ was devised, false or forged? Wouldn’t we be mislead intentionally? Who would gain from misinformation, who would lose? What about “power”, about exercise of “power” by “manipulation”? Who administers “power”?

The increasing rush of our “jet age” life seldom gives us enough time to first check the sources, the quality of the sources of “information” and only then look into its contents. According to our research this has become common practice everywhere—at universities, in publishing houses and in the editorial rooms. It is believed that “reliable” human beings or institutions interact with “reliable” counterparts only. And we are all trustworthy people! Aren’t we? Should there be any room for scepticism then? What is more: should we go around doubting everyone and everything? Where would such an attitude lead us? Nowhere? Would there be no movement, no progress? Movement seems to mean progress. Movement is a must. And we all know that only “a rolling stone gathers no moss”. Nobody in a “modern” society would like to gather moss.

So we have learned to internalise values based on trust and intuitive wisdom. We know that there are serious agencies and there are other agencies. There are serious sources and there are other sources. There are serious reference books and there are others. There are serious scientific publications and there are others. Who spreads this philosophy? How does one differentiate and identify the serious ones? Do we have time to put such rudimentary, superfluous and silly questions? Doesn’t everybody take for granted, for example, that the German Press Agency (DPA) is more serious, more dependable than non–German Press Agencies, like Tass, Tanjug, Terra and others?

There are a few other agencies, almost as reliable as the German one, of course, like Reuters, AP, AFP perhaps. Naturally they co-operate, exchange information and reports, (unverified of course). For economic reasons there is a concentration on certain geographical areas, as well as a division of work and labour. Rationalisation is unavoidable. Serious News Agencies must earn enough money to maintain serious staff. Consequently, one has to be very practical and wise. Agencies, which belong to „us“, are serious and reliable. If they were not serious and reliable, they wouldn’t belong to “us”. A simple equation. The same equation applies to all areas worldwide. Well-known reference books must be serious, otherwise they would not really be known. Renowned publishers are, well, we already know. Scientists publishing extensively must also be wiser. This is the basic equation. The one who fails to accept, will “gather moss”.

As mentioned above, we are being bathed in, almost drowned by an unmanageable quantity of “information” at an increasing speed. And there seems to be no end to it. Though mankind experienced quite a number of “quantum leaps” in regard to exchanges of observation, experience and opinion – the invention of the script, printing, film, telegraphy, radio, telephone, television, internet, digitalisation – do we still have a chance nowadays to distinguish between a forgery and the original? Do we reflect on an issue like this? Can we spare the time? Has it not become increasingly difficult to track back and determine the reliability of a source? To separate the wheat from the chaff? Are we conscious of our malady? We are unable to cope with the status quo. Therefore we try out unusual tracks and put unusual questions. More and more questions. We are searching for answers and getting almost none. Not in the reference sources, not in the so-called scientific books. We do not know whether we shall ever get reliable replies to our queries. But this fact alone, that we have began to formulate unusual questions, is helping us to decrease the pressure put on us by the machinery of the “might-media-manipulation”.

*****

Obviously, before the “script” was invented our ancestors did mutually exchange observations, experiences, findings and opinions. How dependable were they? The “Linguists” and experts of “Communication” do not tell us anything about this question. How can they find out? There is no “evidence”. And after all, it is a non-question for current scientific discourses. We are not to “gather moss”. Fortunately we live in a highly advanced age, with the highest developed culture of all times. Shouldn’t we “be happy and don’t worry”?

In comparison to the times of letters and printing the diligent “scientists”, however, fail to tell us anything about the reliability, the accuracy of knowledge transfer in that pre-script age. But we too have not yet raised this question unambiguously. And the rule is: no questions, no answers. The basic rule of the market. No demand, no supply. In spite of this market mechanism we often get more answers than questions, don’t we? Is anything wrong with our ways of perception? What does it mean if answers are given before the question is put?

In regard to our question on the reliability of mutual exchanges of observations, experiences, findings and opinions by our ancestors in the pre-writing period, we have to depend on our common sense and imagination alone. We assume that the initial communication of our ancestors must have been based on face-to-face exchange of sounds and gesticulations. Everywhere. All over the world. Whether sense organs other than eyes and ears were also used, we would not like to talk about because it lies beyond our imagination.

There cannot be any doubt that sound, gesture and gesticulation of human beings have always possessed only a limited possibility of variation. Different species have different means of communication and different possibilities of variation. If cats all over the world can communicate with each other without being supported by “meticulous modern scientific studies”, human beings should also be able to do so. The fact is that they always did, and they still do it today. Without being supported by “Linguistics” and/or some allied “sciences”. When did these sciences actually emerge?

We further imagine that our ancestors observed their environment in an increasingly differentiated manner, that they did use sounds, expressions, gesture and gesticulation for mutual exchanges and in the process gradually reached the level of written “Literature and Art”. We can also imagine that this was a long and toilsome journey, which would not have been possible without the mode of face-to-face exchange. Different observations, perceptions, interpretations and opinions were continuously exchanged, reviewed, adjusted and mutually agreed upon. Continuously. Everything was saved in the brain and stored in our memory. External-memory-devices were not needed in this phase. Also in our time the face-to-face mode of exchange is mainly being practised in everyday life. Without major and long lasting misunderstandings. So people have always been able to communicate their urges, feelings, needs and thoughts without the support of “modern sciences”. The quality of this mode of exchange has obviously been convincing and efficient. It has led to a vast accumulation of comprehensive knowledge. At some stage in this development a need for an external memory must have been felt. A need for an external “back up” for the memory. However, it was to be saved as copies only, and not as substitutes for the audio visually supported memory.

All mutual exchanges—whether experiences, observations, opinions, fantasies, reports on events, or lies, false stories and so on—do influence us, change us. We grow through them, in whichever direction. In the face-to-face-mode we listen to each other, look at each other without any intervening technical device. We register the accentuation of the language and modulation of the voice, and we observe the emotions on our partners’ faces and their gesticulations. We are accessible to immediate questions and can demand clarification. Thus, no other mode of exchange can provide a higher degree of accuracy, and it is guaranteed that the exchanged contents are not distorted and remain authentic.

When did we start to tell lies deliberately? When did we start forging? We do not know. And we won’t get distracted by fruitless questions like: since when have we been lying, since when have we been forging, since when have we been taking someone for a ride to meet our selfish ends, when and where was forgery detected and made public for the first time. We focus our attention on the fact that often distortions are caused by the ”malice of the object”, which can be detected only under scrutiny. Knowing this one may also be tempted to smuggle in similar ”mistakes” without getting noticed and take advantage of it. Why not? This conclusion leads us to a simple question. How big is the risk of forging? Is it calculable? Can it be estimated? Is there a probability that it will not be detected at all; or that forgery is detected but not the forger; or that forgery is detected too late and neither can the damage be repaired, nor the forger be accounted for? Unless the forger is caught on the spot, how can we find out whether something has been forged or has just become distorted by the ”malice of the object”, so to speak? Even if the ”malice of the object” can be ruled out, how do we decide whether it has been caused by a mistake or intention? Assuming that a forgery is detected early enough and there is a suspect: Aren’t there too many chances of escape without being harmed? As a last resort, loss of memory, ”black-outs”, can be claimed as it has been by so many local and international politicians as well as celebrities representing ”western democracies”. Who does not remember such recent ”blackouts”? Suspicion may sustain for a while. But does it really matter? New events will distract our attention. Where is the risk?

We all know one of the ”fundamental laws” of our times: whenever someone gains something, someone else suffers a loss. Whenever social goods are ”distributed”, the probability of unjust distribution is extremely high. This we know too well. We are not eager to examine for how long this has been going on. Why should we? We would be barking up the wrong tree. Therefore, we stick to ”distribution” itself. Whatever is sought after is soon going to run short. Often there are unintentional distributional mistakes. Are we not tempted to take a distributional advantage by manipulation, which might have occurred through the ”malice of the object” as well? Where is the risk? No one will deny that lies and forgeries have been practised widely for centuries with an increasing tendency, supported by an unbelievably rapid growth of marketable technologies.

The technology of digitalisation, for example, makes it possible to manipulate without being detected and enables to make any number of copies of an original and copies of copies without a loss in quality and without any difference from the original. Is this a tremendous cultural achievement? Are we not made believe that it is? Doesn’t this technology open up the floodgates to forgery? This technology dissolves any object in digits, a document, a picture, and a sound, which can be written again and again and converted into the document, the picture, and the sound. Of course some digits may disappear along the way, or some new digits may also appear. In the end there is a final product which is unique and ultimate. It has only to be beautiful and sellable. Is this progress?

Let us come back to the script. With its introduction as a means (Medium) of exchange (communication), we have lost most of our “visuals” and with it also the modulation of voice which carry special colour and emotions and thus the chance to clarify issues at hand and to reach common assessment. Is it important to know where script was used initially? Or to know how it developed? “Modern scientists” are fascinated by questions like these. But isn’t it a cul-de-sac, a blind alley, or just therapies to keep one busy, a typical trait of the “Guinness- Book-culture”? Or even worse? Is it an effective technique to distract our minds from essential issues? Assuming that it could be established beyond any doubt, where, when and by whom writing was first introduced: would this be a benefit to mankind or just a waste of energy and time that could perhaps better be applied later to gain a real growth of knowledge? We take an example.

We all know that the earth existed for some billions of years and mankind for some hundred thousand of years before Moses made us believe in “his God”. The Christian chronology depends on his story only. We all know as well that man as a “social being” has gone much beyond simple reactions to the impulses of nature: making experiences, remembering experiences, reflecting on them, anticipating and predicting social and natural events, storing environmental features in memory, exchanging this knowledge with contemporaries to check and refine their knowledge. These mutual exchanges mark the beginning of science. And this science has a long history of growth. Therefore we utterly fail to comprehend why “modern scientists” are so obsessed with making us believe that real science is “modern science” only. It is based on “experiments”, characterised by their repetition in the laboratories. This “science” has been in practice for about 300 years. It began in Europe and now covers the world. This lab-based science culture did not creep up on its own. Not only is it wrong. It is also a deliberate, man-made turning point.

We just cannot imagine that the protagonists of “modern science” have not always been aware of the fact that their activities were based on the meticulously accumulated activities of our ancestors. And that every experiment pre-supposes the availability of reliable knowledge. Logically there cannot be any hypothesis without a thesis, just as there is no thesis without a fundament of reliable knowledge. How is it that, despite this, “modern scientists” regard only their own activities as “truly scientific”, and consequently denigrate all former scientific achievements? And this is being done in spite of the tremendous accumulation of knowledge through the ages, based on observation, perception, interpretation, evaluation, replacement and continuous critical inspection of prior assumptions in the light of real life. Not in labs!

How has it been possible for this false premise, this forgery, to be successfully marketed all over the world? An interesting question and an important one as well. Yet, we must leave this question unanswered. But we ascertain here that this caesura introduced by protagonists of “modern science” is false and problematic as well. It excludes one major field of human experience, the metaphysics. The established culture of “modern science” is even worse. Whatever goes beyond the horizon of “modern scientists”, just cannot exist and therefore does not exist. On the other hand, we know that the capacity of comprehension of the “modern scientists” depends much on prevailing market conditions.

*****

Let us go back in time to when our ancestors begin accumulating knowledge and “storing” it in their brains. As alert observers (empiricists) of their environment, they soon notice that there are occasional mistakes while activating their “brain-memory”. So, what to do? They must have tried many ways to make sure that once the knowledge is gained, it is also saved effectively for future. We can comprehend, appreciate the fact that they must have tried out various techniques of memory storage within their scope, starting with collectively practicing to improve their memory to a point of nearly flawless recall. They must have constructed mental crutches, composing realistic stories based on various areas of knowledge and referring to many events metrically versifying strings of facts for easier storage and recall, creating recognisable sound-signs and finally developed external memory storage on long-lasting materials. And, ultimately, signs become symbols, graphical representations, drawings, the alphabet, words and writings.

The variety of „media“ having different ranges and qualities handed down by our ancestors tells us about their apprehensions regarding a possible loss of acquired knowledge, accumulated by face-to-face communication, and, therefore, saved it in as many exterior-memory-storage as possible to support brain memory. They also send us the distinct message that no “exterior memory” is a substitute for “mind memory”. The concept of “signs” in writing to indicate different sounds (phonetics) is a further message for us never to forget the danger of the sound getting lost whilst using “external memories”.

There is no doubt that the invention and development of writing facilities as a medium of language are important cultural achievements. Writing has made possible the storage of accumulated knowledge outside the human brain—though never as accurately as in mind. Thus the limitations of space and time are overcome for intellectual communication. The quantity of experience and their appraisal is thus enlarged. The range of human perception and experience has been enriched. But only as an intermediate complementary to face-to-face communication.

Where there is light, there is shade. As we communicate more and more by writing, it seems, the extent of face-to-face communication is gradually on decrease. Thus the opportunities of immediate verification and correction of erroneous communication are also getting systematically reduced. We know from our daily experiences that it is often difficult to put ideas into words, though they are clear in our minds. Even more so, when they have to be written down as a communication for others. In face-to-face communication we can mutually observe the reactions and make sure that intended messages are received without distortions. In cases of doubt we choose different words, change the sentences, resort to gesticulation and repeat at times the whole process. We provide additional explanations. We end the process of exchange in mutual understanding. Face-to-face communications are far less prone to misunderstandings.

The probability of circulating a false story convincingly in a face-to-face communication is extremely low. We remember “Pinocchio” whose nose enlarged whenever he lied. While reading we have to depend upon our ability to decipher and comprehend that the meaning is clear and therefore should be easily understandable. But what happens if some false messages are relayed deliberately? Long or short, we see no noses when reading. And our impression is that we get accustomed to “long noses”. We prefer mediated (passive) communications to direct encounters. We begin to willingly accept whatever is being communicated. Soon the fictitious, the virtual world might become our home rather than the real world.

It is not our purpose to reconstruct the process how the dominance of the external memory has grown and the importance of the “mind–memory” has been diminished. We recall only the “quantum leaps” of this evolution, as already mentioned, the invention of script, printing, film, telegraphy, radio, phone, television, Internet, digitalisation. And we also think of the negative aspects of these “quantum leaps” also. They teach us that the external memory is never a copy, but only a translation of the original. And the profiles of a translation are always more blurred than copies and the profiles of copies are more indistinct than the original (except for digital copies). There is no need to emphasise that the translations from copies and the translations of translations become more and more faulty, even without conscious forgery. Just due to the nature of the matter or caused by the “malice of the object”.

We have repeatedly used the expression “quantum leap”. We withdraw this term, which has been taken from the nuclear physics, with an excuse. We had intended to indicate an “unexpectedly giant leap” in the course of a development, and not the behaviour of quanta during nuclear fission. We don’t know anything about it. But using such “terms” leaves marks; it is pretty and impressive but also a bluff and a forgery of idea, isn’t it?

Let us now turn our attention to the unexpected “giant leaps” and let us not be distracted by the “Guinness–question”: how large is large really? The leaps mentioned by us refer to the quantities and possibly to qualities of “storage rooms” and “transport carriers” of knowledge and not to a great leap forward in knowledge level. And we must admit that we don’t know anything about the jumps in knowledge. Why don’t we? This is a non-question for “modern science”. We are children of “modern science”. And the topics, which are not dealt with, are forgotten and buried sooner or later.

Now is the time to apologise for having mentioned a news agency called “Terra” earlier in this chapter. “Terra” never did exist. We admit that we played a little mischief in order to demonstrate how easily a “non existing something” can be brought into circulation in a world of virtual reality. Do we have the time to uncover lies and forgeries? Do we still have that consciousness that makes us recognise that a mountain is nothing more than a stable deposit of different layers of large stones? We must also withdraw our unintentional bluff that: It is not our aim to try to reconstruct here how the dominance of the external memory has increased at the cost of mind-memory and is still increasing. We know nothing about that as well. No research has yet been done on substitutes of mind-memory and on their consequences. This process has been marketed as the “humanisation of work”. These facilities have superior selling qualities than that of training programmes to increase the efficiency of “mind-memory”. What do we know about the functioning of our mind-memory? How far has research discovery advanced in this field? What is the extent of knowledge of neurologists, of brain researchers about the brain substance? Brain substance? Can the composition of the brain substances be analytically described and reproduced in labs? How does it function? What can it accomplish?

We cannot neglect the fact that knowledge is directly derived from perception, from discovery vis-à-vis within the immediate environment and from its analysis. The need of storage occurs only after knowledge has been acquired. But the human head as a “store” has always been there independently from our knowledge. In other words, the functioning of the mind-memory does not depend on discoveries of the bio-chemical composition of brain or on invention of “new technologies”. And language belongs to the realm of technology. The script is also a technology. “External memory” is not a discovery. It is an invented tool. A set of technologies might lead more readily to discoveries, to knowledge, but the invention of technologies is never a scientific activity. In fact, invention presupposes accumulated scientific knowledge. We think that a clear distinction between science and technology is necessary for judgement and evaluation of our realities. This distinction alone can lead us to insights into the interrelationship between science and technology. It has been important for us to realise that language, writing, printing and the Internet are mere transport facilities for accumulated knowledge. These facilities become useless when science withers, wastes away, decays and nothing-worthwhile remains to be transported. Who will gain if mere trivia is being transported hence and forth? The shooting of “grouse” on computers would then become more entertaining.

It is important to realise that mediated communication is never a substitute for face-to-face encounters. And the rapid growth of “media institutions” and “media transport”, which we have characterised as an uncontrollable “flood”, makes it impossible for us to understand, evaluate, and check the contents because there just isn’t enough time. We also miss people with whom we could discuss directly on the mediated deliveries. We cannot get rid of the impression that there is a continuous hammering to get things into our head, that the “media” themselves are the major message and not the contents they transport. The printing press, the transistor radio, the television, the Internet, the mobile phones are the messages, not “democratisation”, for example, and not the achievement of “democratic” order. We all know that this development is not a “godsend”, and by using them many people earn a lot of money, and establish their power base. How? Mainly undercover, in secrecy. Ownership is camouflaged. Profits are hidden. Can that be good? Can this be accepted?

Be it as it may, it seems to be taken for granted. Why should an individual in a democratic society become concerned about how a rich person has come to his riches? Isn’t the fiscal secret one of the most important achievements of personal freedom in a “democratic” society and protected like a sacred item? Isn’t one of the most commonly used blanket phrases: “It’s my personal business?” Doesn’t this prevent us from becoming a nation of ugly “social enviers”? Stop us from alarming the bosses and drive them out of the country to some tax paradise? Who will benefit, if they have to desert?

We, however, want to take “our rule” (Democracy) seriously and demand from our rich compatriots a precise account of their wealth. What had been the “price” for that and who paid the price ultimately? And we are not ready to accept that – day in and day out – we are brain-washed with “information” that is not checkable, not verifiable. But how can we achieve that goal? What do we have to do?

We do not know everything that could be done in order to escape the dangers of brainwashing. However, we can tell what we have undertaken and what we have learnt in this process. Only this much is given away in advance: We are becoming increasingly comfortable with this stratagem. We only took small steps in the beginning: reading. For a long time many established and scholarly scientists have convinced us through their books that the contexts are extremely complicated in a democracy – no sorry – in a “representative parliamentary democracy”, in industrialised and “modern” societies. The matters are supposed to be so complicated that we as common people cannot look through the interdependencies and are thus unable to comprehend what is happening. Does it make any sense spending our limited life span trying to understand what is happening around us and with us? Why shouldn’t we as common people just learn to trust those “super-brains”, the elite, who have been trained with great effort? This elite has developed exceptional intelligence and excellent training. It has gained total understanding and an overall view of our society, thanks to our financial aid. Amongst them there are “critical scientists” with their “critical books”. Don’t they take care of the grievances in society, and don’t they evaluate the grievances and tell us exactly what is to be done? Is it not better to trust them than trying to control them? Doesn’t it make us carefree and happy learning to trust?

The “scientists” have not convinced us. Our initial enthusiasm about the description of grievances has vanished. We are familiar with these grievances as well, and to our surprise, we know a lot more details from our own practical experiences than the “scientists” do. Why do the scholars of all colours keep themselves busy on general levels? Why are they shy of plain and straight language? And there is this wretched practice of quotations. It has not only strained our nerves, it has also made us suspicious that many scholars deal with problems, circumstances, social interdependencies about which they have not learnt from their personal encounters and experiences at all. While reading them we feel that they are rather fed with written assessments and possible experiences of scholars of past generations. We are surprised to note that those writing “scholars” were and still are more credulous than we are. They do not question their predecessors about the how and where. All they want is to make us believe that they are knowledgeable and are experts. We cannot refrain from concluding that “social scientists” have always felt comfortable with their ability of blind trust in the printed words. Their motto, if the printed word did not carry truth, it wouldn’t have been printed at all.

We cannot get rid of the impression either that many publications in “social sciences” are not based on precise observations and on their description, but on prior publications on the topic. Not all of them, but a lot of them. And how much is “a lot”? How can we estimate this? We have not come across any critical reviews of citations yet. We are confronted with quotations, only as parts of former publications supporting the “writing scholar”. Without any critical distance from the sources. Is it necessary? What would be the price? Does it not require time? Isn’t time also money? If someone like us should have doubts, why not let him check? Is there not enough “bibliographic information”? Is the “bibliography” not up to the mark? Well, we have doubts. The “bibliography” only indicates books which have eventually been consulted. A complete bibliography on the topic is never supplied! And why are certain publications excluded? How can we know? Would it be too much to ask “modern scholars” to give us exactly all this „information“? And why don’t they check the quoted texts? Is it not possible that mistakes be made while copying? Is it not possible for the quoted excerpt to be out of proper context? And, after all, anyone who approaches celebrated scholars with so much scepticism has to learn to believe. The alternative to believing is time consuming and tiring: Go to the library, search the catalogue, borrow the book, find the quotation, careful proof reading, word by word. The book might not be available; it might have to be borrowed from some other library far away.

So, in practice, we don’t know precisely, how systematically the selection of books is made. The only systematic thing in the selection is that recent publications are mostly included. Obviously in the conviction, or rather in the belief that the latest publication must have consolidated the relevant prior publications.

After this excursion into the working methods of the so-called scientists we should now turn to their books. The books are supposed to have been written for readers like us. We have not understood everything in them. But we have got the essential message. We should let them make us believe that it is more convenient to leave the thinking to “scholars” and the doing to learned “professionals”. This is confusing. If books, even the intelligent ones, are written for us, shouldn’t we then be able to understand them?. And if we understood them, why aren’t we as good as the writing elite in that field? Why should we leave the thinking to them, if we can comprehend what they write? Do they keep something back? Are there errors in our reasoning?

Then the language of many critical scholars has also strained us immensely. It is complicated, encoded, uncommon, and foreign. It is shallow with a narrow range of topics. Anyway, the message has reached us, though it has missed its goal. It has failed to make us believe that without their aid we won’t ever comprehend the complicated circumstantial contexts of a “modern liberal democratic society”. No, not because they do not have answers to our questions. No! They have simply failed to explain, how rich people become rich, how already wealthy people become wealthier and the needy majority increasingly poor. And there is so much of secrecy. On one hand almost all written documents are kept beyond our reach, documents which display the activities of our “Deputies” (Representatives) in the parliament and in the government, and on the other hand the flood of information and (hi)stories whose authenticity is doubtful. So, we have to ask questions. Always new questions. The following ones for example.

How does the elite become an elite? Are they elite by birth, or do they become elite by training? If by training, how do they get access to the centres of training? By social heritage or by acquired intelligence? How do they find topics for their diploma and doctoral thesis? How are candidates being selected for a doctoral thesis? What is the cost of a thesis? Paid by whom? Who patronises the elite? How much do they earn? Who employs them? What is the main activity of the elite—to advise their employers or enlighten the public? Are they allowed to utter their opinion in public? And even if they were permitted to do so, could they express anything publicly, which would contradict the interests of their “masters”? And are there means to educate and to enlighten the “common people”? How does it happen? Through „media“? Who are the owners of „media“? Do these owners also have specific and particular interests? Do the „media“ publish everything? Are they able and willing to do that? Do they select items? According to which criteria? And so on, and so forth.

There seem to be endless questions. In practice, we have detected that there are many different kinds of questions. In theory we all know about that. And in practice we have learnt to identify questions that lead to knowledge and questions that distract from knowledge. An eye–opening practice indeed. We have learnt gradually to put precise questions. We have frequently consulted reference books, whenever the stock of our own memory was exhausted. Later we have started to wonder, how are reference books actually compiled? Who determines the catchwords? Are there also omissions? Why? According to which criteria? Does publisher want to earn money only? Does the publisher also have his own ideas about morality and values? Does he combine these with money making? How does he know that he has listed all important catchwords? How can he be sure? Whom does he call for consultations? Researchers? Scientists? Do they also have their own ideas about moral? Would there be reference books without scientists, without scholars? Are we back to the elite?

For two reasons we have spent time on “reference sources”. Whenever we do not know something, we turn to references, get an answer and feel “informed”. We accept it. We are convinced. We do not have any alternatives. Very seldom do we ask: who has written down all that? From where and how do the authors of the texts obtain the information? Have their writings also been edited, revised, patched, shortened? Why is there more than one “source of reference”?

The second reason is even more serious. Since when had there been demands for references? How did it develop? Do “reference sources” also exclude some keywords? Isn’t it that all media“ always have limited space for publication? Isn’t there that all important cost–benefit–ratio to consider? Are there other reasons also to exclude keywords and thereby also fields of knowledge? Was the first publisher of a “reference” conscious of the fact that he was also standardising the answers to key questions? Thus ultimately standardising them too? The exemplary battle against the “references” in the “internet” is quite tough. The publishers of the printed “references” accuse the “internet” publishers that they take short cuts and shorten explanations in order to compete. We are led to believe that these criticising publishers are more concerned about our knowledge than about their profits. Have they not fought exactly in the same manner to win the market? The “war” reports should not divert our minds from the consequences of standardisation by “reference sources”. Standardisation? Standardisation or exclusion of fields of knowledge?

Who are the writers of sellable texts for the publishers? And where do they get their knowledge? Knowledge? Aren’t we back to the elite? What if they are wrong? If their sources were inadequate? If they are deliberately misleading us? What is going to happen with those excluded areas of knowledge? Is it not common knowledge that all sorts of short-lived stories are presented to us which then vanish into thin air in next to no time? The Germans may very well remember the gentlemen Kanther, Koch and Kohl and the many tricks of financing political parties in a “representative democracy” or we all may remember Viet Nam, Iraq, Somalia, and Kosovo. Don’t we hear daily from the political elite and other namesakes that they are constantly “occupying” topics and “selling” ideas to us? Are they ashamed of doing this, just a little bit? Do we have even the slightest indication, in spite of the growing number of “talk shows”, that the elite in any country, elite in any field, are inhibited while they talk of “selling” ideas? Is there anything today which can not be bought?

No one will deny that after the invention of the script, after this first big leap in the area of communication, a lot of changes have taken place. There is diversity with a quantitative growth of „media“ on a high technological level. But do we also possess measuring or verification rods in order to judge, whether the variety and increased number of the „media“ do transport more „information“? Or do they deliver the same “information” in many different wrappings? We should all be able to recall also cases of “disinformation”, of misleading information, provided our memory has not been damaged already by the “freedoms” within the “information and media society”. We shall not embarrass Germans or Europeans reminding them of their illegal practices of financing political parties or of corruption. We shall not ask how often their top hundred-odd celebrities became victims of slips in their memory (black-outs) whenever their illegal activities were exposed and they were publicly asked to explain.

We may not even discuss, for example, the reaction of Roman Herzog on television while holding the high office of President of the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany. As we may recall the public disclosure by the obnoxious right wing extremist Dr. Gerhard Frey, Chairman and Financier of the Neo–Nazi–Party (DVU) immediately after Professor Theodor Maunz, the most celebrated German expert in Constitutional Law, expired. Both had been clandestinely meeting every week to discuss the legal constitutional fights of DVU against the German democratic government. Roman Herzog told the reporter that he almost exploded on hearing the news. The reporter didn’t ask any further questions during that television report. Did the reporter know that Dr. Roman Herzog had been an academic assistant to the same Professor Theodor Maunz, already as a young senior law student and later became his colleague for many years? Did the reporter know that the most used commentary of the German “Grundgesetz” (Constitution) carries the names Maunz-Herzog as authors and that all constitutional experts in the Federal Republic of Germany still keep Theodor Maunz in high esteem? How many top „media“ people know that Theodor Maunz was also one of the most renowned constitutional experts in Adolf Hitler’s “Third Reich”? He contributed to the establishment of the primacy of the “Fuehrer–Prinzip” (principle of absolute leadership) overriding the Constitution. Despite all this, one of the top German reporters was content with that hypocritical reaction of Roman Herzog posing on television that he “was about to explode” on getting the news of Maunz meeting the Chairman and Financier of the Neo–Nazi–Party (DVU). Assuming that the reporter did not know much about the “Mr. Hyde” side of Dr. Maunz, shouldn’t he have at least enquired, tried to find out whether Roman Herzog was still fit to continue as the topmost Watchman of the Constitution, since he had miserably failed to detect the real political conviction of his mentor and colleague, Theodor Maunz, for so many years? Naturally no public pressure was put on Roman Herzog, the uppermost guardian and protector of the Constitution of the new German Republic. We won’t know whether there would have been public pressure against Herzog if all facts were made public. Anyway. Roman Herzog himself left this high office soon. Voluntarily. Only to become the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. No, we do not wish to raise all these issues. They are so out of date. Who would be interested in chronicles like these?

But we have to raise a few more questions in the context of „might-media-manipulation“. What is the correlation between the expansion of „media“ and the progressive decrease of our memory? Should we overlook the monotony every morning, when we see the same kind of headlines in our dailies despite the diversification of media institutions? Can we just ignore the disappointment that more media did not lead to more detailed and varied information and news? Just accept it that all newspapers, magazines, the radio and television are fed by the same agencies, same sources? But then, if all “eaters” are cutting their share from the same cake – advertisement budgets or multinational corporations – where could any alternate programmers with a different and fresh line of thinking come from? Why would anyone risk veering away from the status quo in the media? No wonder that the “Guinness-principle” holds – more rapid, more thrilling, more entertaining and better in technical quality. All that counts is the ratio of consumers. Is there a demand for complicated historical background of events? Are such (hi)stories also entertaining? And, are we not addicted to entertainment? Entertainment does not need memory. Memory only burdens. Don’t we spend enough time already on our fight to overcome the travails and tedium of daily life?

We may also not recall the “freedom of the press” during the Gulf War. We hope, we have not completely forgotten, how powerful those daily press conferences from NATO headquarters were, while the “humanitarian action in Kosovo” was on. We were to believe that the “military action” was inevitable if human civilisation was to be saved and that NATO was only dropping “bomb–carpets”, which were intelligent, sophisticated and civilised enough to distinguish between “Milosevics” and innocent Yugoslav children and women. We may still remember those press conferences from the “White House” during the “Campaign” against international terrorism in Afghanistan, another “unavoidable military attack” to destroy the evil. There too we were to believe that US bombs do not kill human beings, but only the “bin Ladens”. Well, there were a few “collateral damages”. Collateral damages? Moreover, the civilised “international community” never drops bombs. Those were only punishing “air-strikes” to restore freedom and peace. Enduring peace. And what has really been achieved? This will become evident later in Iraq or in Syria, in Somalia or in Sudan or in Iran or in North Korea. And then?

Do we still remember what happened in the “Gulf War”? Do we remember its end? Our “mind–memory” does not seem to have any capacity left for the “Gulf War”. This has apparently been deleted as trash. Today we may be prejudiced enough to think at best that the Iraqi children born after 1990 are responsible for Saddam Hussein still being in power. In spite of the “Gulf War”. How are we otherwise to understand the continuous missile and bomb attacks on Iraq by the British and US forces? Are these attacks approved by resolutions of the United Nations or by any proforma decisions of the “civilised International Community”?

Can we still recall what happened on the Falkland Islands? Or the military coup in Chile? Or the defoliation of the Ho–Chi–Min–path, dropping tons of dioxin because democracy and humanism in Asia were at stake? Who was behind the ”Six-Days-War”? What happened in the Congo and how was the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjoeld, killed? Who killed the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh after he had nationalised the oil industry in Iran? Who was John Foster Dulles and which policies did he pursue? From which blue sky did the fugitives in Palestine fall, who are confined in camps even today since 1948? What happened in Hiroshima and in Nagasaki? Who fought the second and the First World War? What happened in the so-called colonies? Why is “America” called America? How was the name of this continent before it was named “America”? What was the name of the people there before the Christian-European butchers did the whole job? Or in “Australia”, or in “New Zealand”? Do we still know how many “fugitives” left Europe in the last 500 years and what they did do in the whole world? Were they refugees? If we had had answers to all these questions, would we have looked at the “modern pioneers of a campaign” against world evil with different eyes?

Does anyone still remember the following anecdote? A journalist asked the Foreign Secretary of the “USA” John Foster Dulles, if he had only one wish, what would that be? “Free flow of information” was the answer. The journalist did not ask for further clarifications. But we are mulling over the answer. What did John Foster Dulles really mean? Is it not a well-known fact that anything that flows, flows in one direction only? Don’t we have too many of these “John Foster Dulles”? They have successfully erased our memory on the long and elaborate UNESCO–discussions on media–monopoly. Those years in the seventies and early eighties.

Well, never ending questions arise whenever we reflect upon the interrelationship between “media growth” and “collective amnesia” in “modern societies”. Reflect upon high-level-politics as well as upon the vagaries of everyday life. And we know: We are, what we know. And we only know what we have been told.

If the tale is consistent, if it does not cause uneasiness, if it does not obviously contradict our previous experiences, we accept it, categorise and save it on the “hard disk” of our mind. Naturally stories from far afield are accepted more willingly. And if the stories are new? We get accustomed to them. Mostly we do not even have enough time to ask, who the narrator is, how the narrator got hold of his story, how he earns his living, what could be the after-effects of the story, who will benefit, whom it will harm, and a lot more.

These are the reasons, these are the backgrounds that made our search for answers to our rather harmless questions so difficult, so complicated: who the “Aryans” are, the “Indogermans” and the “Indoeuropeans”? Who they are, since when has their existence been known, how has it become known that they existed, who discovered them, and how, why and for what purpose? But we have made progress in our search. With the help of our unusual questions. And as it seems, we have banged on Pandora’s Box and it is open now.