What if?

 

One must ask themselves: “What if?” when it comes to the highly agitated issue of COVID-19 and the new generation of vaccines, given all the conflicting information being disseminated by contending authorities.

Why question? Because the principals, deeply embedded in this pandemic, are certainly not beyond reproach. Some might rightly liken the lot to an incestuous cabal, given their history and known associations. It’s not just a matter of “following the money,” it’s predominantly following their sinister agenda and nefarious ideology.

Recall from last week’s column, “fear as representing False Evidence Appearing Real.”

Quoting from an article titled “Giving an Appearance of Solidity to Pure Wind,” that appeared in the 2016 January-February issue of The New Oxford Review, “Back in 1948, British novelist George Orwell penned his seminal work Nineteen Eighty-Four…to say that the central purpose of Orwell’s work was to warn against National Security Agency-style tactics or an oppressive society under a totalitarian government is to fail to fully convey Orwell’s message. Yes, Orwell opposed all forms of tyranny, but he was more concerned with how ideologies proliferate.

“One of his most important insights was the role language plays in shaping our thoughts and opinions. The term Orwellian does not mean anti-authoritarian. Neither does it refer to mass surveillance by an intrusive government. Properly used, Orwellian means the deceptive and manipulative use of language.

“In his essay Politics and the English Language (1946), Orwell observed that ‘political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.’

“In other words, certain political language (propaganda) uses words and phrases to hide ugly truths. He foresaw how politicians would misstate and mislead in order to stay in power, using words to distort more than to inform, not to convey meaning but to undermine it.”

“A Shot of Hope,” for instance.

William Lutz, author of the book Doublespeak (1989), defines doublespeak as language designed to mislead while pretending not to. Lutz articulates that the goal of doublespeak is “to distort reality and corrupt thought.”

“Manipulating language in such instances can be terribly corrupting in a society and mislead all of us,” warns writer and part-time social media strategist Jonathan Adrian.

“The technological advances of the last century have given those in power the ability to propagate their narratives and engage in fear-mongering to an extent never before seen in history,” suggests the Academy of Ideas November 29, 2015 post I referenced last week. “However, despite the unnerving situation we find ourselves in, there is an antidote to the power of propaganda and fear-mongering: that being, knowledge.”

As we have witnessed, Big Tech deliberately censors anyone bringing up logical questions or making fact-based statements concerning vaccines …if they go against the authorized narrative. This should be of grave concern.

As stated in last week’s column, “Fear hath torment,” does the repressive mantle of fear conjoined with Big Tech’s censorship— thought control— allow the unencumbered pursuit of knowledge?

Forewarns Academy of Ideas:

“Plato rightly stated that ‘ignorance is the root of misfortune,’ and as long as we remain ignorant of the fact that all too often those who claim to protect us from fear are actually manipulating our fears for their own benefit, then we will be contributing to the misfortune of the world through our ignorant compliance.

“The philosopher Voltaire stated that ‘Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.’ To avoid being an individual who can be convinced of absurdities, one must become an active truth seeker instead of an all-too-common passive propaganda receiver.

“An important step in becoming an active truth seeker is the realization that, when evaluating the claims of those in power, skepticism is warranted and even necessary.

“Very often those who rule do not have the best interests of the public at heart; for as Russian political prisoner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) put it, ‘political genius lies in extracting success even from the people’s ruin.’”

Solzhenitsyn exhorts, “We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more, we had no awareness of the real situation.”