In Orwellian Doublespeak truth is a casualty. Doublespeak, a term attributed to George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984, is where government disinformation is masked by accusing truth tellers of the exact same thing government is doing, and reinforced with censorship. Censorship is the mechanism by which only one single point of view is allowed by government, which has the power to control media, and in the most extreme cases even jail and execute dissident citizens. (Do a search on Stalin's "road of bones" for just one example in history of this sort of genocide).
How do governments arrive at such a crossroads? There is more than one path, but it boils down to power falling into the hands of an extreme minority of a population. This can occur by fascist revolution, where fascism is defined as where economic and military power becomes the predominant focus of government, and individual liberty is quashed in various ways by government.
Ironically the shift from free democracy to fascism is also sometimes the result of increasing prosperity, where wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands over time. Concentration of wealth, concentration of power being essentially the same thing, becomes the primary locus of power. These situations, where the shift to fascist control is gradual, are a slippery slope.
And these shifts, being gradual, are not recognized for what they are by a significant portion of the population who want nothing more than "good old days" to continue indefinitely. And who can blame us for wanting that? But these shifts, once started, are unfortunately difficult to reverse. In the early stages it's the "pretty lie" that we have a material and emotional investment in believing.
In either case, fascist revolution or gradual increasing power in the hands of an oligarchy, the rise of a despotic genocidal leadership is a high likelihood. The rise to power in Germany of Hitler is the example we are the most familiar with, but there are hundreds of examples through history. It can almost be said that despotic genocidal leadership is not aberrational.
It must also be noted that in the gradual shift to fascism those with the most power may be mostly hidden from public view. It has been suggested that some of this group believed Trump, however distasteful his personality, could be controlled, which would have exerted control over a very large and fractious part of US population (those the most damaged by massive wealth disparity).
If that is true, it would also be likely these powerful people underestimated (or simply did not understand) the extent of Trump's personality disorder. Most of us have no training in this, but it was no accident that hundreds of medical professionals published material clearly stating that Trump's personality problem does not end with distaste...rather, that he is clinically insane.
So let's at least hope these powerful "supporters" of trump have been mostly disabused of any previous ignorance on this potentially disastrous problem. It's bad enough to be on the slippery slope, let's at least not grease the slide.
Mind you I'm not suggesting there is such a thing as "absolute and irrefutable truth" that we mere mortals can be in possession of. I'm suggesting the opposite, that "freedom of opinion", and the freedom to debate opinion, is the bedrock foundation of free democratic societies. Debate, between scientists and other thought leaders from philosophers to statesmen (and women), is the fabric upon which individual liberty and freedom of speech are supported and held.
From my point of view, with my avid interest in the causes of health, I've followed the progression of opinion among scientists from the early stages of the pandemic. And again from my point of view, there has been massive and very successful censorship of public debate between scientists who specialize in public health, virology, and epidemiology; from the pure researchers to the "boots on the ground" clinicians (many of whom wear both hats).
Why is it my opinion censorship of public debate has been so very successful? Because I rarely speak with anyone who has not been completely taken in by the official government line on this matter. And I know for a fact none of the thousands of experts with different views have been invited to speak on mass media outlets. And when some of these voices have "leaked out" there are massive efforts in the public media to discredit these scientists and clinician/scientists. I know this because they have managed to be heard via the global internet, which thankfully cannot be completely controlled by governments as yet.
Below is but one of thousands of examples of this sort of "breakthrough" in differences in point of view in the ongoing debate over public health via the global internet.
Dr. Sam: The Myth of "Safe and Effective"
https://youtu.be/b2_rSQjqGj8
I really like this doctor and found her video interesting and educational. Thanks, Dave.
ReplyDeleteShe is in the large and growing group of health care professionals who hold fast the idea "the cause of health" is not technological, a point of view supported in many ways from many angles. Illustration of these ways and angles is the only point of my blog...happy you like "Dr. Sam".
Delete