The particular Battle for Control of The mind

‘If you want a image of the future, imagine a shoe stamping on a human face—for ever. ‘

In his classic dystopian novel  1984 , George Orwell famously published, “ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. ”

This stunning image served as a powerful symbol for totalitarianism in the 20th Century.

But as Caylan Ford recently  noticed , with the advent of digital health passports in the growing biomedical security state, the brand new symbol of totalitarian repression is “ not a boot, but an algorithm in the cloud: emotionless, impervious to attractiveness, silently shaping the biomass. ”

The new forms of repression will be no less real for being digital rather than physical.

These new digital security and control mechanisms will be no less oppressive for being virtual rather than physical. Contact doing a trace for apps, for example , have  proliferated   along with at least 120 different applications in used in 71 various states, and 60 various other digital contact-tracing measures are already used across 38 countries.

There is certainly currently no evidence that contact tracing apps or even other methods of digital surveillance have helped to slow the spread of covid; but as with so many of our own pandemic policies, this does not seem to have deterred their use.

Various other advanced technologies were used in what one writer has called, with a nod in order to Orwell, “ the particular stomp reflex , ” to describe governments’ propensity in order to abuse emergency powers.

Twenty-two nations used surveillance drones to monitor their populations for covid rule-breakers, others deployed face recognition technologies, twenty-eight countries used internet censorship plus thirteen countries resorted to internet shutdowns to manage populations during covid.

A total of thirty-two countries have used militaries or even military ordnances to impose rules, which has included casualties. In Angola, for example , police shot and killed many citizens while imposing a lockdown.

Orwell explored the power of vocabulary to shape our considering, including the power of careless or degraded language in order to distort thought.

He articulated these concerns not only in his novels  Animal Farm  and  1984   but in his classic essay, “ Politics and the English Language, ” where he argues that “ in case thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. ”

The totalitarian regime depicted in  1984   needs citizens to communicate in Newspeak, a carefully controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual’s ability to think or articulate subversive concepts such as personal identity, self-expression, and free may.

Using this bastardization of language, finish thoughts are reduced to simple terms conveying just simplistic meaning.  

Newspeak eliminates associated with nuance, rendering impossible concern and communication of colors of meaning. The Celebration also intends with Newspeak’s short words to make talk physically automatic and therefore make speech largely unconscious, which further diminishes the possibility of genuinely critical thought.

In the novel, character Syme discusses his editorial work on the latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary:

By 2050— earlier, probably— all real knowledge of Oldspeak [standard English] will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have already been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron— they’ll exist just in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but really contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of The Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like Freedom is Slavery when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of believed will be different. In fact , there will be no thought, as we understand this now. Orthodoxy means not thinking— not needing to believe. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

Several terms of disparagement were frequently deployed during the pandemic, phrases whose only function had been to halt the possibility of critical thought.

These included, among others, ‘ covid denier, ‘ ‘ anti-vax, ‘ and ‘ conspiracy theory theorist’. Some commentators can doubtless mischaracterize this book, plus particularly this chapter, providing a few and similar terms— ready-made shortcuts that save critics the trouble of reading the particular book or critically appealing my evidence or quarrels.

A brief comment on each of these may be helpful in illustrating how they function. The first term, ‘ covid denier, ‘ requires little interest.

Those who sling this charge at any critic of our pandemic reaction recklessly equate covid with the Holocaust, which suggests that antisemitism continues to infect discourse on both the right and the left. We want not detain ourselves with more commentary on this phrase.

The epithet ‘ anti-vax, ‘ deployed in order to characterize anyone who raises questions about the mass vaccination campaign or the safety and effectiveness of covid vaccines, features similarly as a conversation stopper rather than an accurately descriptive label.

When people ask me whether I am anti-vax for challenging vaccine mandates I can just respond that the question can make about as much sense in my experience as the question, “ Dr . Kheriaty, are you ‘ pro-medication’ or ‘ anti-medication’? ” The answer is obviously contingent and nuanced: which medication, for which patient or patient inhabitants, under what circumstances, as well as for what indications?

There is clearly simply no such thing as a medicine, or a vaccine for that matter, that is certainly always good for everyone in each and every circumstance and all the time.

Regarding the term “ conspiracy theorist, ” Agamben notes that its indiscriminate deployment “ demonstrates a surprising historical ignorance. ” For anyone familiar with history knows that the particular stories historians recount retrace and reconstruct the actions of people, groups, and factions doing work in common purpose to achieve their particular goals using all obtainable means. He mentions three examples from among countless numbers in the historical record.

In 415 N. C. Alcibiades deployed his influence and money to convince the Athenians to embark on an expedition in order to Sicily, a venture that will turned out disastrously and notable the end of Athenian supremacy. In retaliation, Alcibiades opponents hired false witnesses and conspired against him in order to condemn him to death.

Within 1799 Napoleon Bonaparte broken his oath of fidelity to the Republic’s Constitution, overthrowing the directory in a hen house, assumed full powers, plus ending the Revolution. Days prior, he had met along with co-conspirators to fine-tune their own strategy against the anticipated resistance of the Council of 500.

Closer to our own day, he mentions the March on Rome simply by 25, 000 Italian fascists in October 1922. Prior to this even, Mussolini ready the march with three collaborators, initiated contacts with all the Prime Minister and powerful figures from the business world (some even maintain that Mussolini secretly met with the California king to explore possible allegiances). The fascists rehearsed their occupation of Rome by a army occupation of Ancona 8 weeks prior.

Numerous other examples, from the homicide of Julius Caesar to the Bolshevik revolution, will happen to any student of history. In most these cases, individuals collecting in groups or celebrations to strategize goals and tactics, anticipate obstacles, then act resolutely to achieve their particular aims.

Agamben acknowledges that this does not always mean it is always necessary to aver in order to ‘ conspiracies’ to explain traditional events. “ But anyone who labelled a historical who tried to reconstruct in detail the plots that triggered this kind of events as a ‘ conspiracy theory theorist’ would most definitely end up being demonstrating their own ignorance, otherwise idiocy. ”

Anyone who mentioned “ The truly great Reset” in 2019 had been accused of buying into a conspiracy theory theory— that is, until Planet Economic Forum founder plus executive chairman Klaus Schwab published a book in 2020 laying out the WEF plan with the helpful title, Covid-19: The Great Reset .

Following new revelations about the lab leak hypothesis, U. T. funding of gain-of-function analysis at the Wuhan Institute associated with Virology, vaccine safety problems willfully suppressed, and coordinated media censorship and govt smear campaigns against dissident voices, it seems the only distinction between a conspiracy theory and credible news involved six months.

Republished from the author’s  Substack


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *