The battle between truth and power

Leave a comment

julian-assange-arrest-london-ecuador-embassyThere is no better picture than this to illustrate the titanic battle between truth and power that we are experiencing.

It perfectly captures both sides: truth, on the side of one fragile and sick man, and power, on the side of the countless and faceless minions and bureaucrats, who are only there because they have the power to suck your wealth and resources by force, and because they would like to keep doing so.

The picture reminds me of Galileo. He was imprisoned in the 17th century by the Church, whose power and authority Galileo questioned. He spend the rest of his life as a prisoner, in very poor health and completely disillusioned. The same fate awaits Julian.

The picture also perfectly captures how utterly helpless power is against truth. No matter how many faceless minions and nobodies you send after this small man, even an army, he will triumph.


Adult fairy tales and the Mueller investigation

Leave a comment

The Mueller investigation is over and, as everybody knew, the Trump-Russia “collusion” turned out to be a lie. The whole narrative was so absurd from day one that nobody with any adult cognitive facilities could have believed it.

The tax-funded Finnish broadcasting company YLE here in the idiot belt was one of those who did not and still cannot exhibit signs of any adult cognition on this matter. In another journalistic masterpiece, this institution continues to peddle the childish collusion narrative and claims that the “real findings”, showing that there was collusion between Trump and Putin, have been kept secret and are still to come. They keep putting out stories after stories still trying to convince people that the story is true. What an embarrassment and disgrace.

This tragicomic episode has taught me several things.

The first lesson I learned is that journalism in the West no longer exists. The said Finnish national broadcasting corporation (and its Danish equivalents) kept informing the public, day after day, that it has been “proven” that the “Russian state” and Trump have conspired to hack the US elections. These are direct quotes from an article published by YLE. Sometimes a “Russian invasion” was imminent, other times Putin was waging “hybrid war” against Finland and other great nations here in the idiot belt that are so epic in their character and so rich in their natural resources that everybody in the world must be looking to invade them.

How ironic is it that the YLE and its reporters therefore “colluded” with the hoaxers to try to reset the voting results in the US, exactly as the alleged “Russian troll factories” allegedly did.

YLE, you are the troll factory here.

Accusing of “Russians” and “Russia” of all evil is called racism. There was no Aryan race; there is no Finnish race that is superior to anybody else. There is no Danish race that is better than anybody else. Suck it and move on.

I was once in a job interview, in which I was asked what I think were the main differences between children and adults. Is it that childern’s imagination is more lively, more creative? But consider the following. I have read fairy tales to my kids with some success. They listen attentively and, if the story gets too scary, react with what I can report is real fear . Sometimes they didn’t want me to continue, even if the story was nothing out of ordinary. How could it be that children are so totally immersed with such ridiculous stories? Is it their imagination?

Here is your answer. The Russia-Putin collusion was an adult fairy tale. It has a good guy (we) and a bad guy (Vladimir), and a totally absurd narrative between the absolutely good and absolute evil that has no connection with any reality. If you ever wonder how children can believe such fairy tales, just look at YLE and its reporters. They are adults, yet they are like children.

And it is not only an adult fairy tale, it constitutes literal unreality. It has been us, the West, that has destroyed and pillaged the world (thus, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela). We are still trying. Who saved Syria from total collapse? This is a question that the Finnish people, being lied to so long by YLE and others, simply cannot answer.  The answer has become un-cognizable.

“Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent,” wrote the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. We cannot cognize what exists outside of our own cognitive bubble.

French people are revolting every week, while Macron is deploying the military to create a new “EU renaissance”. But no reporting on the issue. Fictions and falsehoods prevail, adult fairy tales.

How ironic is it that these champions of democracy, say Finland and Denmark, decided to declare some random dude who nobody knows in Venezuela as the President of that country, while accusing Russia of alleged collusion against the US democracy? Who is colluding against which democracy? I’m confused. Is it accepted or not? The level of hypocrisy is so blatant that there is simply nothing else here except a tragicomic death spiral into complete absurdity.

The hypocrisy is astonishing. Danish people here are all for everything green and environment, everything is “ecological” and clean. Yet they continuously flight to exotic locations, produce more garbage per person per year than anybody else, live in luxury, bump and sell oil like there was no tomorrow, and drive bicycles most of which are motorized. An adult fairy tale.

I revolutionized logic with the new doctrine of cynical logic. It is very simple logic. Cynical logic asserts that if huge resources are poured into producing some belief, thus to “manufacture consent” to use Noam Chomsky’s term, you must immediately assume that the exact opposite is the truth. Only falsehoods must be advertised and continuously supported, truths support themselves. The Mueller investigation is an example of how you apply cynical logic. If YLE says, over and over, that the Russians are coming, or that the Trump colluded with Russians, you assume the exact opposite must be true – and in this case, it is. The same with the Danish greenness, or our love for dear democracy, or the claim that Finnish is a monkey language.

Let me conclude by reporting what we all knew and know is the reality here. Because journalists don’t do their job, this work has falled upon ordinarly people like me and millions of others. The Mueller investigation was an attempt to cancel the voting result in the US by the opposite campaign. The hoax story was generated form an earlier movie script, and presented to the intelligence agencies as evidence, which then used it to spy on Trump’s campaign and its staff. The idea was to find something, no matter how little, to ensure that Hillary would win the election. The problem for the plotters was that Hillary lost.

YLE, please get off the air.

Who did you vote? Guaido?

Leave a comment

The EU Parliament urges EU member states to recognize Guaido as Venezuela’s president.

The same people who for the last two years have bombarded us every day with the horrors of purely imaginary “Russian meddling of the US democracy”, with sanctions imposed every month against Russia for this horrible crime, now grace themselves with the task of selecting the Venezuelan president.

The sense of hypocrisy at display here is rather total.

There’s simply nothing left beyond this point. We are looking into emptiness, total emptiness. Lack of any principle, any value, any humanity. What’s left is the inhuman bureaucracy, which amounts to nothingness.

No doubt we will turn Venezuela into another Libya. 

On medieval linguistics and medieval buildings

Leave a comment


(A street in Siena, Italy)

A good thing about working in Italy is that you can just take a train and see some of the most extraordinary places on Earth. These pictures, taken with my phone, are from Siena and Firenze. They have a distinct  “medieval” feel in them, and in this connection the term has positive meaning. It was a rich experience. But sometimes the implication of “medieval” is negative.

Last year, I submitted for publication two works that were concerned with my hopeless battle against what I perceive as harmful medieval tendencies in human thinking, one article (in Finnish) and one book (in English). As you know, the whole field of Finnish linguistics still lives in the medieval world.



When a scientific work is submitted for publication, it is first evaluated anonymously by the peers, meaning researchers who are experts on the topic the article addresses. The existence of this procedure made it possible for me to see what linguists working within the medieval context would really say when confronted with my argument. This is because I submitted the article for the leading linguistics journal in Finnish. Here is what they said.


(Duomo, in Siena, at the top of the hill)

The first and foremost principle of medieval thinking, as I have documented here numerous times, is that substance (truth or falsity) has no relevance. What matters is who the writer is and which school of thought s/he champions, Protestant or Catholic, Freudian or Chomskian.

Thus, after the reviewer of my article complained that s/he was not “motivated” to engage with me on any of my arguments (truth or falsity of my claims), s/he proceeds to analyze me as a person. The reviewer speculates, for example, that I am “not a linguist” and not familiar “at all with the literature”. To remedy this, the reviewer suggests that I should read. That pretty much summarizes the whole evaluation. It reads like a personal insult.



But it is not an insult; it is the norm. As I have explained, in the medieval system the value of any scientific contribution depends solely on the amount of “illumination” radiating form the author; thus, evaluation of scientific work can be based solely on the personal qualifications of its author, not truth or falsity. Complete “lack of motivation” on the subject matter is thus not a problem for evaluating a scientific argument. It suffices to gossip about the author’s identity.

But you can see that this just proves my point, doesn’t it? My argument in the paper was precisely that (a) this is how medieval science works and (b) this is how linguists in Finnish conduct their research. And voila!

The second reviewer proposes that I should review my own manuscript. That is so far out there that I cannot and will not say anything.


(Duomo in Firenze, this is a gigantic structure that no picture can depict. You have to stand there yourself.)

If you are interested in reading about their comments in more detail, you can find the manuscript here. My discussion of the reviews is in the last chapter. Unfortunately, the text is in Finnish. The journal proposed that I make changes to the paper and then resubmit it, but I have no time to do it now — and there were no subject matter points in the reviews to begin with — so I will post it here instead. It will be published later in some way.

But, as I did not find any subject matter arguments against the points I presented, only personal insults, all this only reinforces my point. The emperor has no clothes.

cameringo_20190113_125658.jpg(Bridge in Firenze. I spend hours here.)

A side matter: I haven’t updated this blog for a while. This is because I am engaged with matters that are technical and complicated, to me at least. I will write updates if and when something gets published. I am working with a hypothesis that language comprehension uses the same Merge (recursive computation) as production. I believe that this is true. The complication comes from the fact that, to prove that this idea has any wings, I have to show that it actually works, by writing a computer program that instantiates the model. And it’s not very easy thing to do. But in the 17th century science, contrary to the medieval science based on personal insults, I have to have a rigorous empirical proof.

My long visit to Pavia

Leave a comment


I am working in a research project here at IUSS, Pavia, Italy. Here are some pics from this place. Nice, isn’t it? This is certainly something else than Denmark or Finland. If you happen to visit (this is close to Milano), come to say hello and discuss Finnish with me.


The project I am working on has to do with parsing. I’m using Python (which is a programming language) to see if certain cognitive science/linguistic ideas work or doesn’t work. What I think I am doing is imitating certain aspects of what the brain does when we read/listen to language.

Testing a hypothesis empirically is one thing, but implementing it in a Python code is something different. If you know what programming is like, you already know what I mean. The problem is that the computer understands nothing, so everything has to be formalized to the smallest detail. Every logical step has to be there. On the positive side, programming is very relaxing, because you can always see, with complete rigor, if your ideas work. Here’s an example. Few days ago, I asked the parser to parse the following sentence:

“The claim that the elections were rigged was rejected.”

Simple? You already know what this sentence means? There was a claim that was rejected, and the claim was about elections. But my parser gave the following ‘logical’ solution:

(1) [The claim that the elections] were rigged.

The sentence means some ‘claim was rigged’, and it is not clear what the claim is. The claim that the elections?? The correct parse is this:

The claim that [the elections were rigged]

where it is the elections that were rigged, not the claim. My point is that without this program, it would have never crossed my mind to think that my assumptions would entail (1) as a plausible meaning/parsing of this sentence. Yet it did, because this alternative followed logically from my assumptions. Humans do not think logically. But I like this, because when the computer does something like this, it is always it and not me who is correct. So it’s all like mathematics–unambiguous, logical, clear.

It took me one day and several discussions to fix the issue. It is not trivial, because sometimes you have to do as my parser did in (1), as here:

(2) [The claim from the administration] was rejected.

See? Now it is the ‘claim’, and not the ‘administration’, that is rejected. Why is that? I leave this for you as a home work assignment.

At any rate, I will be posting something about parsing here. The project is not just about writing a parsing application, which would be an applied project, but our main goal is to see if the parsing perspective could help us solving certain open issues in the overall linguistic theory. I have assumed for some time now that this must be the case, and will explain my reasons in a later post.


Incident manufacturing in real time

Leave a comment

If you read history, you have certainly noticed a pattern. Whoever hopes to start an unjustified military campaign against somebody else must first create an “incident”.

For example, when the Soviets wanted to attack Finland, they first created an incident in Manila in Novermber 26, 1939, where, it was alleged, the Finns started the war by shooting at the Russians. The event was staged. Four days later, the Soviets attacked Finland in “defence”. Read More

Unsolved problems of Finnish: floating of null pronouns?

Leave a comment

I decided to post here certain problems of Finnish I’ve been unable to solve. If you can solve them, write your solution to this blog or send it to me via email, and you’ll get it into the annals of Finnish syntax research. You don’t need to tell me the answer, especially if you are not a native speaker, but some idea of how we could proceed to find the answer, even in principle.

The first challenge is to find out if it is possible to float an empty pronoun in Finnish.

Let’s formulate the problem more precisely first. The problem can be stated as follows. In Finnish, under certain conditions a subject pronoun can be phonologically null.

(1) Pekka sanoi että __ uskoo Merjan valehtelevan.
Pekka said that __ believes that Merja lies.

Here, the subject position of the embedded clause is empty, but the consequence is that it must refer to the same person as the matrix clause subject. Hence in (1), the person who believes that Merja lies must be Pekka. If you use an overt pronoun hän ‘he’ instead, it can also refer to a third party. Let’s designate this type of special null pronoun as “pro” (from pro-noun).  (Notice that in English, it is not possible to do (1), but in Italian it is; in Italian, the null third person pronoun cannot be controlled by the matrix clause antecedent, however.)

The second preliminary to this problem is the fact that in Finnish, being a “free” word order language, arguments can be floated like adverbs. Thus, the following is possible:

(2) Pekka sanoi että tämän kirjan lainasi __ kirjastosta Merja.
Pekka said that this book.acc borrowed __ from.library Merja.nom

The grammatical subject Merja ‘Merja.nom’ has been floated to the clause-final position, whereas the direct object is in the subject slot. This is why the word order in Finnish finite contexts is “free”. 

The problem: is it possible to float (in the sense of 2) also null pronouns (pro in 1)?

Because pro is phonologically null, it becomes hard to construct an experiment that could detect such movement, if it were possible. Yet it is near certain that either such movement is possible or it isn’t, so there could or should be a way. I can’t find it.

Can you?