Middle Nation Livestream Excerpt: Epistemological Sovereignty

All of this is part of what we're talking about now, which is the epistemological sovereignty.

Mhmm.

We're setting our own terms Mhmm. For how we engage with topics, how we engage with issues, how we engage with our own societies and with other societies. Mhmm. Defining our own sources and structures of knowledge Yeah. Rather than outsourcing that Mhmm.

To the West and assuming or or taking upon ourselves their frameworks, their understanding, their sources of knowledge, their definitions of knowledge, and so on.

In in words, we we are building our own we are equipping our viewers in developing their own tools of expression with this challenge.

Not just expression. Yeah. Understanding.

Understanding.

Much more our own way of understanding. Yeah. According to our own epistemology, our own sources of knowledge.

Yeah.

The way the way that we As Muslims. Identify as Muslims. The way that we identify and know what the truth is

Mhmm.

And then apply that in our understanding of the world. Because without this, there's no I mean, the the the the three core objectives of Middle Nation is, as everyone should know by now, economic sovereignty, political independence, and the decolonization psychological decolonization of the Muslim world and Muslims in general and the global South more broadly. Mhmm. And really, all of this, each each one of those three relies upon epistemological sovereignty. Without epistemological sovereignty, your mind is gonna remain colonized.

Yeah. And your economy is gonna remain colonized, and your politics are gonna be going to remain colonized. Because you've you've already colonized your mind if you are outsourcing your own understanding of the world and your own sources of truth and your own sources of knowledge, you're outsourcing all of that to the West and you're adopting their frameworks, their definitions, their understanding, their terminology, their philosophy, their ideology, and all of that. Even if you change the language, you know, even if you're even if you're putting it in Bahasa Melayu or you're putting it in Swahili or you're it in Arabic or you're putting it in Turkish, it's the same ideas. It's western ideas.

Yeah.

And and you have to understand that they put all of their ideas together to serve themselves. They put their philosophies together to to to serve themselves. And the way they did they defined everything is based upon or grew out of it originated from their kufr. And their kufr is what has has determined their framework for understanding the world and and approaching the world. So if we adopt their mentality and we adopt their frameworks, then we are inadvertently adopting a a a a Kufr influenced approach to the world, a a Kufr influenced paradigm no matter how Muslim we are, no matter how Islamic we are, no matter even how much iman we have.

Mhmm. If our if if our mentality is firmly rooted in western terminology, western frameworks, then we are going to misunderstand the world and we will be subject to the the colonizers permanently. Exactly. Even even if we even if we become you know, like, for example, people talk about the and I talk about how how westerners are basically going extinct. European yeah.

Europeans are basically going extinct.

Uh-huh.

It's not as much the case in America, but the French are going extinct, the Germans are going extinct, the the the the English are going extinct, and this is making them all very paranoid. And and we, you know, understandably, they're an endangered species. And we talk about how well, Muslims are gonna take over these places because we keep having babies and we and not to mention also migration. Yeah. But, you know, we are productive in terms of having children.

And so it's not inconceivable that at a point in the relatively, you know, near to mid future, For example, Muslims will be a majority in France or Muslims will be a very large minority across Europe. But what difference will that make practically? Obviously, it makes a difference. So that law makes all the difference in the world in terms of your iman. But in terms of structures and the way the society is run and the way the economy is run and the way it interacts with the rest of the world, you might still have a French mindset.

Mhmm. You'll still have a German mindset. You'll still have an English mindset. You'll still have a Western mindset, which is Kufr based.

We started by defining the what is Islamic world politics we contrasted it with the secular understanding of realpolitic.

Ah.

Okay? So in secular realpolitic, it is put forth that decisions are often presented, you know, as nonideological. When in fact, secular real realpolitic does involve ideology, often prioritizing profit

Correct.

And and market control and economic growth even though it is often perceived as amoral or without ideology. So because it's

Amorality is an ideology. Yeah. Exactly. It's already an ideological position that you can remove morality from policy. Mhmm.

That's already an ideological position. So it's you are serving an ideology, but you wanna pretend.

It's objective and

Yeah. Because and see this is the thing is that and this is another reason why we have to work on our own epistemology. Because it's part of the the deceitful and dishonest epistemology of the West that morality is subjective. Mhmm. And so so that's a judgment that you're making already.

That's a shakonic judgment that you're making, in fact, that morality is subjective. Mhmm. And therefore, morality should be removed from all practical discussions. Okay. That's a you're you're taking a moral position by taking an amoral position, which is to pretend that morality is subjective and therefore not practical and should and and shouldn't factor in to to policy making.

Yeah.

The the this is this is a philosophical epistemological position that you're taking that's that's based on a lie, that's based on a a deceit, is based on dishonesty, a a satanic belief that morality is is relative, which is the same thing as saying that it's subjective. Exactly. It's relative. It's one person says this is good, another person says this is good, Another person says it's bad, another person says it's bad. Mhmm.

And and and but but, you know, you have reasons. This is the thing. See, in the West, they have reasons for why they are this way. They have reasons practical reasons for why they are this way. They have historical reasons for why they are this way, but we are not this way.

Yeah.

We cannot be this way. That that's fundamentally contradictory to who we are Yeah. As a people, as a nation. You you can't do without learning the seerah because you will you because in the Sira, in the in the story of Rasulullah in the lifetime of the prophet in this the the early days of Islam, you find all the archetypes. You find all all the archetypes of of Kufar, you find archetypes among class, you find archetypes, obviously, among the the Muslims, all the different types of people who made up the Sahaba, and all of the different situations that they faced, all the different types of resistance that they faced, all of the different tactics that that they faced, the different strategies of Kufar, and then the different strategies and tactics that the Muslims used to face those challenges.

And this just keeps getting repeated. Like, look at what what they just did with the with the Palestinian representatives who are gonna come to the UN, and the The United States barred them from coming. They they they canceled their visas. So not allowing them to come to the United Nations. Well, this is very similar.

I mean, it's not an exact parallel, but tactically, it's the same as the Quraysh not allowing Yes. The Muslims to make to to to Makkah. Mhmm. Because you are trusted, The United States, you're trusted with the UN headquarters. Mhmm.

You have been entrusted with that to prove to the world that you're supposed to be an objective, non biased, impartial Mhmm. Actor. Mhmm. That everyone is gonna be safe to come to the United Nations.

Yeah.

Everyone will be allowed to participate in the international processes. Mhmm. You have been entrusted with that duty as the custodian of the United Nations in the same way that Quraysh was entrusted with the custodianship of the Kaaba. Mhmm. That you are going to allow anyone and everyone to come and worship at the Kaaba.

And then you rejected, you refused to allow the Muslims to come. When they did that, they completely lost their credibility. When when when they refused to allow the Muslims to come and make umrah, they already lost. That was already the defeat of Quraysh. Mhmm.

And the knew it. When they refused to allow them to come, now you have discredited yourself. You have delegitimized yourself to such an extent that you don't even deserve to be the custodians of the Kaaba anymore. Because you are now politicizing who you will allow and who you will not allow

Exactly.

To come. Exactly what The United States is doing with the United Nations Mhmm. And the and the Palestinians. And the

whole world is watching.

And the whole world is watching and you've lost it. I mean, not, you know, not that you haven't already lost credibility to to us Mhmm. But to to everyone else. You you are it's like you're on a mission to lead to delegitimize yourself, which is exactly exactly what they are Mhmm. In my opinion.

They are on a mission to to delegitimize themselves. They are on a mission to discredit themselves as an international actor. As because they are no longer a global superpower, and they're trying to withdraw from the rest of the world. Mhmm. But the point is that the Sira is so informative that you really you really should refer to the Sira, you know, and obviously, I'm not, you know, making some kind of a that is on the same level as Quran and sunnah.

No. But the sunnah takes place within the context of the sunnah. Uh-huh. They're learning the sunnah takes place within the context of the sunnah, the timeline of the sunnah. Mhmm.

And and you you will not fail to learn from the experiences of the early Muslim of the early Muslims in their confrontation with the Kufar. The treaty of Hudaybiyyah is a is a marvelous example of realpolitik in in so many ways. Like, for example, what I just said. Recognized. Quraysh has already lost by their own actions.

By their own actions, they have lost because they have delegitimized themselves and they have discredited themselves, and they have made themselves unworthy of the position that is the only thing that really gave them any status. Yeah. They gave them special status. Exactly. And now they've they've they've they've lost it by their own actions.

They've lost it. So agreed to the treaty almost as a as a mercy to them that he knew that over the course of that year Mhmm. Because they said very weekly, you can come next year.

Yes.

This is this is so pathetic. I mean, remember even when I read it the very first time. When I read the the the first time when I was still a new Muslim, and I read that that was the what the Quraysh did. Okay. You can't come this year, but you can come next year.

Mhmm. It was like so pouty and so, you know, it was so pathetic. You really lost your status. And the new, you've lost your status. And between now and the and the time that we come back again, we will be nothing but more powerful and you will have done nothing but erode.

Yeah. And then we will not conquer you, we will absorb you. By the time we come back, we will just absorb you. Mhmm. And this again is very similar to what's going on right now with Palestine.

Yeah.

And with so called Israel. Mhmm. That's what's happening. They're being surrounded, and they will be absorbed.

Okay. Exactly. I mean okay.

This is what I mean again. I'm sorry to interrupt. This is what I mean By the lessons that you can learn from the seerah Mhmm. Because it just keeps happening. The same sorts of patterns keep happening.

And you and and and so many the the lifetime of Rasulullah and the seerah is endlessly informative for you. I don't think that you can really be even a very good first of all, you can't be a good geopolitical analyst unless you're Muslim. Mhmm. Period. Mhmm.

You cannot properly understand geopolitics and cannot properly analyze what's going on in the world unless you're a Muslim and you are informed by Quran and Sunnah. Mhmm. And second of all, even if you are a Muslim who is informed by Quran and Sunnah, if you are not familiar with the there will still be some some flaws Yeah. In your analysis. Okay.

Just very

briefly, very very briefly, the parable of the babies is that a man sees a baby floating down the river and the baby is obviously going to drown. Then he sees another baby and another and another and another. So he rushes into the river like any normal person would. He rushes into the river and starts trying to save the babies. Mhmm.

But there's too many. Then he sees another man on the shore of the river or the riverbank, and he shouts to that man, please come help me save these babies. And the man starts to walk away. And so the man in the river starts to shout at the man on the river bank, where are going? You have to help me save these babies.

And the man responds, that's what I am doing. I'm going to where the babies are being put in the river. Mhmm. I'm gonna try and solve the problem at the the the source of the problem. Now both of those men are doing something helpful.

They're doing something useful. They're trying to solve the problem. Both of them are. The one who's in the river is doing the immediate thing, but he will inevitably fail to save he will save some babies, but he will lose many. Many will die as a result of the strategy that he is using.

The other one is ultimately going to solve the problem completely. But while he's doing that, babies will drown. Yeah. While he's doing that, the the reality of the problem is ongoing. Mhmm.

And so it's a judgment call. Which one do you think is ultimately the most useful?

Yeah. Based on your capacity and the strata from

Right.

The society you're from also.

Right.

Okay. We have a question from

And I and and the sorry sorry. This is what I I want to say about that. I don't criticize anyone who who is taking the position of getting in the river to save the babies. I don't criticize anyone who does that. It's a it's a the human moral thing to do.

But don't criticize the one who's going down, who's going upstream to try to solve the problem because he's not taking your approach. This is where I have a problem. If you're gonna get in the river and try to save one baby at a time by being a so called activist, for example, by doing relief work, what have you. All of this is noble work. But don't now denigrate when someone else is taking a different approach that is ultimately going to solve the problem once and for all.

Our leaders obviously know more, have more information than than the people on the ground have. Even have more information than knowledgeable geopolitical economic Mhmm. Political analysts have. They have they have confidential intelligence, and they know about long term planning, and they know everything that's going on in the back channels. They know everything that goes on in the back rooms.

They know everything that goes on diplomatically. We only know what is released to the public. We only can know that.

By virtue of the strata that they're from.

Yeah. So so as far as I'm concerned, it it's the obligation of anyone with any intelligence to recognize the limits of our own knowledge, the limits of our own information. And like I've said before, you can see what a leader is doing, what a government is doing, what a state is doing, and try to figure out how what they are doing could have can can have a positive outcome. What is a plausible, not not idealistic, not unrealistic, but a plausible positive outcome to the actions that they are taking. And very often, this isn't hard to figure out because very often they tell you, this is why we're doing what we're doing.

Mhmm. But even if they don't tell you, this is why we're doing what we're doing, you can try to figure that out yourself and see what's a plausible positive outcome for why they're doing it, and then the comes in where you say that's probably why they're doing it. It's probably not because they're evil. Mhmm. It's probably not because I have all the information and therefore based on all of the information that I have, the thing that they're doing has no justification.

It's it's incredibly simplistic Mhmm. To make these kinds of to to pretend that that that the leaders of the Muslim world, the leaders of the Muslim countries, the leader of of any country Mhmm. But especially in the Muslim world, to believe that that that the leaders of the Muslim countries are just evil

Mhmm.

Or that they are just happy being subordinate, that they're happy being subjugated. No one wants that. Especially if you're a leader. Yeah. Especially if you are a prominent person.

Especially if you're a king. You're a prince, you're a king, you're an emir, you're a sultan. You don't wanna be subordinate to anyone. If you if you I mean, if you just just like everyone understands the truism that that power wants to have power. Power wants to consolidate power.

Power wants to spread their their power and influence. Yeah. They wanna grow stronger. Nobody wants to grow weaker. Yeah.

No one wants to be under someone else. No one wants to be humiliated. So you should you should you should put that out of the of the scenario. You should put that out of the equation when you're trying to understand why a leader is doing what they're doing.

Yeah. Abu Ghar's narrative serves as a reminder that effective leadership especially within an Islamic realpolitic framework, requires a robust understanding of practical realities and strategic action. Mhmm. And while immediate moral action might feel right Mhmm. It can have immoral consequences or lead to greater harm in the long run.

Leaders must then be able to make, you know, distasteful or seemingly contradictory decisions in the short term if they are necessary if if if they are necessary in order to achieve long term moral outcomes.

Right. Because because Abu Dharr was was an incredibly brave, strong, courageous, fearless individual. Yet, when he asked to appoint him to a position of authority, denied him that and told him it was because he was weak. Mhmm. And as talked about in that video or that podcast about realpolitik, weakness is not a term that you would generally associate with Abu Dhabi.

Yep. Because he was incredibly forthright and and he he wasn't scared of anybody. Mhmm. But his weakness was his inability to compromise, his inability to hold his tongue, his inability to discern when it was good to be to to to to speak out and good to be silent, and good to sort of trust in what what the Muslim leadership was doing Mhmm. And to not just as you said, get the get the sort of instant moral gratification that sometimes you have to have patience.

And I think his weakness was maybe in in a lack of patience.

So it is crucial for us to counter narratives that portray Muslim and Arab governments as sellouts for engaging with Western or Zionist powers. Such criticisms often ignore geopolitical complexities and immense international pressure these pressures these leaders face. And Zionist propaganda aims to deepen divisions within Muslim communities by exaggerating or even distorting, you know, these motives of these governments. So this is very, very crucial for us to understand. And as you were talking about, you know, in order to consolidate their own power and their own security in order to pursue, you know, positive actions, positive outcomes.

There are certain things that they have to certain actions that they have to take.

Yeah. And and what what bothers me about this and what I find very hypocritical about this is that everyone understands this in their own life. Everyone understands this on a personal individual level because you do it. You do the same thing on your job. How many times have you held your tongue on your job?

How many compromises have you made on your job? Because you have to take care of your family, you have to pay your bills. So you're able to to grit your teeth and deal with people on the job who you can't stand, deal with people who are backstabbers, be nice to them, be nice to your boss who's who's a terrible person, be nice to your colleagues, some of whom are terrible people, and hold your tongue because you have to take care of your own. You have to take care of your family. You have to pay your bills.

You don't wanna lose your job, and so on. You you all do that. Everyone does that. And and and like I've talked about before in terms of, like, for example, blaming the Arab leaders for quote unquote not doing enough for Palestine. This is why I always bring it back to what have you done for Palestine.

Because the fact of the matter is every single one of us could have done more than we have done, but we are all limited by our actual commitment and our willingness to face the consequences of certain actions. And that's called being a rational, mature, wise person. You are not in a position to throw yourself into destruction for the sake of a of a moral cause. Because that's in and of itself an immoral action, in my opinion. Because if you are a moral actor and you are in pursuit of moral outcomes, and then you destroy yourself, then you are removing from the battlefield someone who is acting morally or someone who is pursuing moral outcomes.

So taking an impractical approach, taking an unrealistic, idealistic, self destructive approach to pursue moral outcomes is itself an immoral action. And Allah also tells us to not throw ourselves into destruction. So my point is everyone does it. Mhmm. Everyone does it in their own life.

Mhmm. But but you you impose idealistic standards, idealistic demands upon people who have immensely more responsibility than you ever will. Immensely more accountability, immensely more people who are dependent upon them making the right decisions than you ever will. But you want them to behave negligently. You want them to behave haphazardly.

You want them to behave rashly. Whereas you won't even do it for the for the for the for the comparatively minor interests of being able to pay your rent, your personal rent, or being able to pay for school or medicine or what have you for your family. The the the compare by comparison, it's incredibly minor. But you are wise not to make those sacrifices. You're wise not to throw all of that away.

Mhmm. But when the leaders do do things that are tactically serving long term solutions, long term resolutions to the Palestinian issue, it's dissatisfying to you because you want them to do what you won't do on the job, which is, you know, throw the copy machine out the window and Yeah. Break your computer and shout at everybody and tell everybody what you think of them, which you would what what you're looking forward to doing on your last day of work. But you want them to do that now. You want them to all act rashly Mhmm.

Now, even though millions of people are depending upon them not doing that. Mhmm. Millions of people are depending upon them making rational long term decisions. Mhmm. I'll just say another thing, even though it's not not necessarily related to epistemological sovereignty, although it also kind of is.

I will be accused of being of defending the Arab rulers or defending the Muslim rulers. Yes. Guilty as charged. I defend them because they're part of our people, and I defend our people. I defend the Muslims, and they are from the Muslims.

I'm defending the ummah against our enemies, and that includes the leaders of the Muslims. Why do you think that it should apply to everyone except for our leaders? Yeah. Do you think that everyone's honor should be defended? Why when when the told us that the that the reputation and the honor of your of a Muslim is sacred, that applies to everyone except for a head of state.

While you're saying things about the the the Muslim rulers that if if you lived under Sharia, if you lived in the time of the Sahaba or the Khulaf of Rashidim, and you said it about any Muslim on the street, you'd be lashed for the slanders that people are saying. Mhmm. But you think somehow the fact that these that these people have status, and they have responsibility, and they have power, that means that they are ineligible for being defended, for having their honor defended and their reputation defended. That that that the rules against slander don't apply to the rulers, where you're mistaken. Mhmm.

They're from us and we and we defend ourselves. And if you're someone who will attack them, especially if you're living over there in the West, you don't take this conflict seriously. You don't take seriously the conflict that we're in as an ummah. And you don't as I've said many many times, you're not clear on whose side you're on. And you're the last person that I would want standing next to me if I ever got into a fight.

Because it means that you're you're not even reliable. You're not even someone who will defend your brothers. Yeah. Or you think that if someone has power, then suddenly they're no longer your brother. When you should be happy that you have brothers who have power, were it not for having a real grasp on relative power as it really exists, not the narrative that the West gives.

You would not understand that, for example, America is no longer a global superpower. It is a regional power. It's a regional hegemon. If you're just following the narrative. If the narrative is your source of information about how the world works is based on Western narratives, then you wouldn't understand the reality that America has been downgraded as a power.

And you wouldn't understand, for example, what's going on right now in Indonesia with the protest because ten years ago, fifteen years ago, twenty years ago, the go to assumption would be that the CIA has organized this, the NED has organized this, and they're they're they're going to overthrow the government, color revolution and so on. But the relative power between say China and The United States, vis a vis Indonesia, America has nothing.

Yeah.

America has nothing. So even if they are involved through some people have claimed the George Soros Yeah. Funded organizations, but if this is true. Even if they are involved, it's a it's it's a it's an example of a bad habit that is dying hard because you have nothing to gain. America can gain nothing by disruption.

And I think that for myself, what I see is even more signs of American weakness and victory for the Muslims and for the global South in that America has now been reduced from being a global bully to being a nuisance. Yeah. That's all you can do now is just be annoying. You can just be an irritant now in most parts of the world.

Yeah. Just a fly that needs to be swatted.

Well, I mean, can you can you can harass. You can annoy. You can be an irritant, but you cannot really gain anything from that.

Yeah.

That's the difference between a nuisance and a bully. A bully is getting something out of it. He can bully you into something. Mhmm. But America doesn't have that muscle anymore, at least not in this region, to bully anyone into anything.

You can annoy and you can irritate and you can be a nuisance, but you have nothing to gain from that in all practical ways. This the the entire region of Southeast Asia is free with the with the exception possibly of The Philippines. But, you know, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, this the the region is Singapore Mhmm. Is functionally free from domination. Mhmm.

It's not free from connections and relationships and, you know, mutually beneficial relationships and so forth. Mhmm. But in terms of domination, it's free Yeah. From America. And you and you and you're not gonna get it back.

Mhmm. And and I think that this is why I sort of doubt personally. I actually doubt that America is involved in what's happening in Indonesia. I doubt it. I I I think that norm normally what happens is there is a legitimate I know this isn't the topic, but but I'll just say something about it anyway.

The normal timeline, the normal pattern Mhmm. Is for there to be a legitimate grievance Mhmm. That the people get riled up over legitimate grievance. Mhmm. The government cracks down on the protesters, and then the the intent or the intention behind the protest changes and it reacts to the crackdown.

And and it has followed this pattern. And then in reaction to the crackdown, they start calling they start just calling for the toppling of the government because they because they've suffered violence at the hand of the security forces and so on. Mhmm. In this case, they had very specific grievances

Mhmm.

That were legitimate. Mhmm. And now the government has basically accommodated them in what they demanded, what they opposed rather. Yeah. What they opposed, the government has repealed.

Mhmm. And now everything should stop. In terms of protest, this should stop. If if you have if you have any sense in Indonesia, I think you should stop. And we have to watch it very closely to see.

Because otherwise, I think the government would be entirely justified in cracking down fully on anyone who who insists to continue protesting after your demands have been met. Mhmm. Then that would be very suspicious on my in in my opinion. Mhmm. But my point is that in terms of the relative power index, this is part of what makes me doubt American involvement and what's happening in Indonesia because you really have nothing to gain.

So if they are involved in it, it's just a bad habit that is that they're having a hard time getting rid of because it it it's a very short term disruption that they can cause, and they can't gain anything by it. You're never gonna get into you're never gonna get China out of Indonesia. You're never gonna get Indonesia to sever their relationship with China. It's not gonna happen. And I also don't think that the a nationalist in GFC even want that to happen.

The entire way that I that I approach geopolitics in all of my analysis is from an Islamic framework. What we need to do is now explain, I suppose, that framework. But part of that is what we're doing now with epistemological sovereignty where we talk about, for example, being witnesses as opposed to being analysts. Mhmm. Because we are so firmly rooted in what we understand, what we know to be the truth that that's the that's the whole perspective that we are coming from.

The whole vantage point that we're coming from is from the Islamic vantage point because it is the true vantage point. And and just trying to explain, for example, why the West behaves the way it does. This is important for us. This isn't really important for them when they do geopolitical analysis. They their geopolitical analysis of any particular country's behavior or any country's policies and what have you is always a very superficial way of looking at it.

They don't look at, for example, their belief system, their their moral system, and their their civilizational trajectory, their civilizational origin, and so forth. Whereas that that is integrated into and that is incorporated into our analysis of the West and any policies that the West enacts or any policies that they take, any actions that they commit or any actions that they will not commit and so forth, and how they behave and how they manage their societies and so on. We we're we're we're analyzing that from a belief versus disbelief perspective because it's the only way that it can be understood. It's the only way that it can be understood. And in fact, you know, the the the whole concept of objectivity, which is of course what a witness has to be.

A witness has to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth without bias, without prejudice, without considering their own personal benefit or personal detriment. You have to tell the truth no matter what it is. And frankly speaking, the only way to be objective and the only way to tell the truth is to do it from an Islamic perspective, is to do it from the vantage point of Islam. The only way to do it is to be a Muslim. You simply are in unequipped to do it if you're not a Muslim.

You're unequipped.

Your lenses will be skewed all the time.

Right. Because because you have been taught that objectivity is something that it isn't, or you've been taught that something that is incredibly subjective is objective. Mhmm. Just like we were talking about earlier with with realpolitik being non ideological and amoral and pretending that that is not ideological. You've been taught that being amoral is to be objective because morality is subjective.

Well, is a lie. This is deceit. This is dishonesty that that they have made you believe to where now you are you're completely lost in your ability to to actually be truthful because you have been lied to from the beginning about the the the whole framework is false. And so you operate within within an entirely false framework. So how can you how how can your analysis be be accurate?

Yeah. Because it's because you you imagine that you are unbiased when you are the most biased Mhmm. In your perspective.