0124 Does the bombastic, entertaining, yet earnest Alex Jones speak fiction to fact? Or fact to fiction? Or both? Or neither?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
0125 This look at his most recent book<\/em> suggests that the terms, “fact” and “fiction”, are inadequate. Terms that are much older, yet still explicit abstractions, are preferable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To me, the Latin terms, “ens reale<\/em>” (mind-independent being) and “ens rationis<\/em>” (mind dependent being), apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0126 I will not be the first to falsely accuse Alex Jones of being what he is not<\/em>, when I say that Jones works in the vineyards of scholastic thought<\/em>. He intuitively senses and exposes illusion and delusion. Plus, he strives to identify a nomenclature to describe how Klaus Schwab casts his sorcerer’s spell<\/em> in an act of persuasion<\/em>, just like that serpent in the third chapter of Genesis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The scholastic world of the high middle ages<\/em> (roughly 1100 to 1600 AD) rocks with controversies concerning how to distinguish (and perhaps, separate) ens reale and ens rationis<\/em>. The schoolmen struggle against manipulative influences <\/em>that bring these two types together, alchemically mixing them, in order to precipitate novel (mind-dependent) mind-independent beings<\/em> (D). D can become the next A. Such is the nature of original sin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0127 The Greimas square is an act of persuasion<\/em> that does not fit what anyone currently imagines is an act of persuasion<\/em>. Yet, Alex Jones smells it. He sniffs out a rhetorical pattern<\/em> that seems credible, yet defies practical reason. This is his charism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0128 A little philosophy goes a long way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, this look at The Great Reset<\/em> may seem to be a revelation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not unlike Jones’s book.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 0124 Does the bombastic, entertaining, yet earnest Alex Jones speak fiction to fact? Or fact to fiction? Or both? Or neither? 0125 This look at his most recent book suggests that the terms, “fact” and “fiction”, are inadequate. Terms that are much older, yet still explicit abstractions, are preferable. To me, the Latin terms, “ens reale” (mind-independent being) and “ens rationis” […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[173,280,11,6],"tags":[292,39,296,102,295,293,285,291,106,290,294,111,216],"class_list":["post-6004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-greimas-square","category-intimations-of-political-philosophy","category-our-current-lebenswelt","category-the-science-of-original-sin","tag-alex-jones","tag-category-based-nested-form","tag-contemporary-issues","tag-economics","tag-fourth-industrial-revolution","tag-future","tag-geopolitics","tag-great-reset","tag-greimas-square","tag-klaus-schwab","tag-lawfare","tag-original-sin","tag-politics"],"yoast_head":"\n