What happens when you spread disinformation about disinformation?
Let’s see what her highness Jacinda Ardern has to say about that:
One day it will be our job to try and understand how a group of people could succumb to such wild and dangerous mis- and disinformation. And while many of us have seen that disinformation and dismissed it as conspiracy theory, a small portion of our society have not only believed it, they have acted upon it in an extreme and violent way that cannot stand. We have a difficult journey in front of us to address the underlying cause of what we have seen here today.
I want to draw attention to one oddity in this wholly bizarre statement.
What does political disagreement have to do with false information?
Disagreement on matters of concern to the res publica has been a central feature of politics as long as humans have lived together.
Political disagreement isn’t a disease or disorder.
It’s not a virus waiting to be stamped out by stunning and brave Experts.
Disagreement is a natural fact about human beings. We don’t think identically like robots in a factory or ants in a hive.
But just you wait! The charlatans at Te Pahuna Matatini have a new report on “mis- and disinformation”.
That’s an ugly and awkward phrase, which is proper for an ugly and awkward thought, as well as the ugly souls believing it.
The document is as badly argued and poorly reasoned as you’d expect from academic mid-wits selected for their gullibility and compliance with government-accredited goodthink (which you should NOT confuse with intelligence).
This State-sponsored campaign to whip up the bogeyman of “misinformation” deliberately muddies up the boundary between facts and expertise, and questions that belong to the space of norms and values.
Misinformation now means any disagreement with government approved decision-making
The healthy debate necessary for any serious democratic or republican system is a matter of truth and falsehood, decided by The Experts.
Convenient that truth itself has come to mean, not what is the case, but what the State decrees… for today.
If it changes tomorrow, your duty is to change your allegiance… and forget that you believed we were at war with Eastasia yesterday.
Dangerous times we’re in now.
If we were to hypothetically elect a sane government, the first step on the agenda would be the end of funding to this despicable outfit.
If that thought, in favor of the people and against the slide to totalitarianism, makes me a right-wing extremist, so be it.
Here’s what you should remember. If a future government were to dismantle this system of government-funded information warfare, my “right-wing extremism” would evaporate like ice in a furnace. That particular illusion doesn’t exist without a sustained diet of State propaganda.
I’m no danger to anyone but myself. I don’t believe in, much less advocate for violence or violent means in politics. That’s a losing game for everyone.
I do believe in the power of the word to shape minds and influence hearts.
So does the government, which is no doubt why they’re looking for a monopoly on that power.
Which is the real threat to our society: me, the private citizen invested in the future well-being of the nation… or the sustained diet of State propaganda?
I’ll give you a hint: it’s not the person opposed to totalitarian rule by idiots.
Here’s the punchline:
If you disagree with any of these moves from the State, from the specifics of the mandates to the general idea of your own government using mass psychological warfare against the population….
… You are not guilty of factual error.
And I want everyone on our side of the fence — those who do want to resist, or even have that nagging suspicion that things are not right — to understand this one point:
Your goal is not to provide more and more accurate facts.
In a time when fact is settled by politicians and mass media, that means jack. You can talk all day about the over-counted death tallies, the medical malpractice, the lies about masks and jabs, and it doesn’t matter.
The real agenda is about good and evil, right and wrong, and what moves people into action.
The government’s message depends on blurring the line between truth and value.
Your goal is to remind everyone that political disagreement isn’t about facts. Starting with yourself.
We can and must disagree, and not allow our disagreement to be framed as misinformation.
Until we get our heads around this, we can’t even begin to turn this around.
If you liked this or think this message needs to be seen more widely, hit that share button.
Re "One day it will be our job to try and understand how a group of people could succumb to such wild and dangerous mis- and disinformation."
I think she must have been talking about herself and similar.
And also all those who believed the vaccines were "Safe and effective".
Yo. Where should I start with your writing? I just got done with the Larry Underwood conversation, but there's a lot of catching up to do for me to feel caught up on how you got to where you are now.
I have questions, but they're all piquant superficial curiosities out to prove I'm here, so maybe just point me to what you think is best and I'll start back there and worm my way up.
There's probably more than one answer, so any is fine.