THE VALUE OF INDUCTIVE REASONING

Inductive reasoning is the art of reasoning from the particular to the general. Inductive reasoning is very valuable because it cuts through the failing of not being able to see the forest because of wandering about the trees. Far too many people get overly focused on details without grasping the larger question of what the details really mean. There are many examples of this. The 09/11 incident is a good one. The complete story is immensely complicated. However, certain key points stand out. The buildings came down in what appear to be a controlled demolition. Such a demolition would require planting explosive charges within the buildings at the stress points of the support beams. Innumerable witnesses heard explosions going off within the building. Normally buildings do not collapse when planes crash into them. This time they did. Thus, inductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that the buildings were indeed blown up from within. Now we come to the question of who did it. 09/11 conspiracy theorists love to argue over passenger lists, who was really on the planes, what the Arab hijackers really could have learned down at Florida pilot school, etc. All good questions of themselves but completely irrelevant to the real issues. Two major commercial buildings in the heart of New York City, a heavily Jewish city, were blown up from within. How could this have happened, without the knowledge and consent of the Jews? Someone shut down all of the security agencies and air force defense systems. Whoever did that had to have a pervasive, controlling influence within all departments of the U.S. government. Someone had to be able to write a whitewash report afterwards so that all the real questions could be evaded. Who, and who alone, had the power to do all these things? Someone had to benefit from the attacks. The Arabs, who supposedly launched the attacks, in no way benefited from them. Quite the contrary, it was the 09/11 attacks which motivated the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Who benefited from that? Why, the Zionists, of course. All these inductive considerations lead to the inevitable conclusion that the Zionist Jews perpetrated 09/11.

Let’s take a second example – Pearl Harbor. The ten or more Pearl Harbor investigations arguably generated more tons of paper than the 09/11 investigation. The attack continues to be a political hot potato to this day. Dozens of academics continue to argue that there is no “smoking gun” to implicate Franklin Roosevelt. These apologists ignore the circumstantial evidence against Roosevelt – and the inductive reasoning that flows from it. Roosevelt pursued precisely the policies leading to Pearl Harbor which one would expect from a man planning a set up. He had failed to provoke Hitler into war in the North Atlantic. His “back door” to war was to provoke Japan in the Pacific. To do this he rejected all Japanese peace offers, insisted that Japan clear out of China and cut off all Japanese access to oil and iron ore, thereby condemning Japan to economic strangulation. Roosevelt then transferred the Pacific fleet from a relatively safe base at San Diego to a more vulnerable position at Pearl Harbor. Next, Roosevelt kept the Pearl Harbor commanders in the dark about the increasing war tensions. He did not send the base translations of intercepted Japanese diplomatic communiqués. Over and over again, he denied the base necessary reconnaissance planes and repair parts. Roosevelt, two weeks before the attack, removed the absolutely essential aircraft carriers from the base while leaving the obsolete and expendable battleships. Then, when, the attack occurred, he pretended to be “surprised”. He waxed eloquent about “a day which will live in infamy”. Anyone employing even the most elementary principles of inductive reasoning can see what happened.

Let us take a third example: The Holocaust Hoax. Superficially, the evidence for the claim of six million Jews killed in “gas chambers” is overwhelming. There is the Nuremberg Trial which accepted the claim as a proven fact; there are thousands of testimonies by survivors; there are the films documenting terrible conditions in the camps at wars end; there are the Germans who testified at Nuremberg as to the reality of the extermination; there are the photographs of crematory ovens and the cans of Zyklon B, etc. How can it not be true? But inductive reasoning and very simple considerations raise grave doubts. All around the globe the Jews have passed laws making Holocaust Denial a crime. Why? Common sense would suggest that only people who know they are lying pass such laws. Another obvious problem is: too many survivors. A real extermination produces few survivors. Yet so many Jews miraculously survived the Nazis that one may legitimately ask: How? The Germans were fighting a war on several fronts simultaneously during World War Two. Their forces were stretched to the limit. Where did they get the men and resources to simultaneously murder six million Jews? Finally, the countless billions in reparations the Jews have milked from the story plus the moral cloak it has provided them give them an enormous incentive to exaggerate their losses. Thus, inductive reasoning tells us that the story must be a whopper, without even delving into the technical impossibilities of the “gas chambers”, the inconsistencies of the witness accounts, the kangaroo nature of the Nuremberg court or the body disposal capacity of the crematory ovens.

Inductive reasoning does not mean that research is unnecessary. It is always useful to learn more. But piling fact upon fact is useless unless facts are analyzed to common sense conclusions. Thousands of pages of documentation are only useful if they support “two plus two equals four” bottom lines.