Tuesday, July 4, 2023

Western Governments Are Demanding Adherence To Approved Narratives – Not The Truth

Western Governments Are Demanding Adherence To Approved Narratives – Not The Truth




On 21 January 1950, Eric Arthur Blair died of tuberculosis. He was only 46. If that headline ran in a 1950’s newspaper, it would barely raise an eyebrow. However, if you used the pen name of this 46-year-old fellow, most people would nod knowingly. The name under which his books were published was George Orwell. 



Orwell’s most famous (and often talked about) book is simply entitled 1984. Even if you have not read it, you most certainly would have heard social commentators speak about it, particularly during the last three years. But although we would readily agree that the scenario detailed in 1984 has become eerily commonplace, the question which often goes unanswered is what compelled Orwell to write such a work in the first place? Well to answer that question, you have to understand the political influences that were present in the world during Orwell’s short life – particularly Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. In fact, his famous slogan “2+2=5” which appears in 1984 is actually based on a Stalinist rallying cry, boasting that the goals of the first five-year plan had been achieved ahead of schedule – in only four years. But to Orwell (regardless of whatever political messaging Stalin was trying to get across), the slogan represented the absurdity of political falsehoods and lying propaganda. His beliefs were cemented during his time fighting in the Spanish Civil War after he became disillusioned with elements within the resistance forces that he felt wanted to replace the fascist government with an authoritarian regime of its own. In fact, summing up his experiences, he wrote: “What I saw in Spain and what I have seen since of the inner workings of left-wing political parties have given me a horror of politics.” It was these experiences that provided much of the political satire of 1984



However, some years before the release of 1984, Orwell had already incorporated the 2+2=5 slogan into his writings. In a 1939 essay, he wrote, “It is quite possible that we are descending into an age in which two plus two will make five when the Leader says so”. In his role at the British Broadcasting Corporation during the Second World War, he also said, “Nazi theory, indeed, specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the truth’ exists…. If the Leader says of such and such an event, ‘It never happened’ – well, it never happened. If he says that ‘two and two are five’– well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs – and, after our experiences of the last few years [the Blitz of 1940 and 1941] that is not a frivolous statement.” In short, Orwell adopted the slogan to demonstrate the authoritarian tendency to suspend reality. A fact we are starting to become all too familiar with. 

Orwell’s influential masterpiece resonates today because of one of the key foundations of his book: part of the logic of the ruling power dictates that consolidating that power requires a strategic approach such as interfering with the way that its people think. 


Usually, there are two tools to achieve this: fear and allegiance. This principle was on full display during the height of the COVID-era. Western governments used the fear of the virus to manipulate people into a pre-determined action (vaccination, largely against their will) and once they manipulated the population into believing the government narrative (“safe and effective”), they demanded their allegiance to the cause

Once this allegiance was secured, social power was turned against the unvaccinated population who were shamed with the charge that they were not showing allegiance to the government (and thereby the nation as a whole) by refusing vaccination. 

As stated above, after living through the twin menaces of Stalinism and Nazism, Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning of what life will become in the face of unaccountable governments. 


New legislation is currently making its way around the world, ostensibly todeal with the problem of misinformation and disinformation and now, it is Australia’s turn. Recently, a new draft Bill was introduced into Parliament referred to as the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023. The key concern, accordingto the Bill is that “misinformation and disinformation poses a threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as our democracy, society andeconomy.” The Bill goes on to define these terms:-

· Misinformation is online content that is false, misleading ordeceptive, that is shared or created without an intent to deceive but can cause and contributeto serious harm. 

· Disinformation is misinformation that is intentionally disseminatedwith the intent to deceive or cause serious harm. 

· Serious harm is harm that affects a significant portion of theAustralian population, economy or environment, or undermines the integrity of anAustralian democratic process. 

Not surprisingly, the Bill provides exemptions for the government and its mouthpiece (otherwise known as mainstream media). According to the accompanying fact sheet, the following content is excluded:-

· Content produced in good faith for the purposes of entertainment, parody or satire; Professional news content;

· Content authorized by the Australian or a State, Territory or Local Government; and Content produced by or for an accredited education provider.

You might immediately note what is missing from that list – freedom of religious expression. 


Is this by accident or design? I would say the latter. As the spirit of antichrist (being a forerunner to the diabolical Antichrist) spreads throughout the world, the concept of truth has fallen on hard times. Two thousand years ago, Pilate cynically asked, “what is truth?”. All these years later, the whole world breathes Pilate’s cynicism. The problem we have now is that Western governments around the world are demanding an adherence to collective truth under the umbrella of a government approved narrative – which is not necessarily truth but the product of cultural consensus built on emotion. It is a dangerous thing to build groupthink on the whims and feelings of mankind because the heart is deceitfully wicked. 








No comments: