The last three years have generated some interesting folk-sayings, such as the difference between a conspiracy theory and news being about six months, and “misinformation” being truth that those in power want to suppress. From the latter insight I think it’s possible to develop a screening test to assist those who are confused about what Latest Thing they should suspect of being a deception.
I’m thinking here of the way that many people have (as my church treasurer recently dropped in conversation) “stopped believing anything in the news,” and yet find themselves still on board with particular issues they presumably came to believe before their BS filters were fully functional. That’s true for us all – I, in particular, failed to comprehend during my working career just how deeply my own medical profession had been subverted by the pharmaceutical and food industries, even though I was aware of it in principle. Mea culpa.
And so, for example, there are many who reject the whole woke thing and recognise how complicit governments are with it, but assume the NHS is on their side in advising serial COVID boosters. Or there are those who’ve dismissed COVID as, in some form, a scam, yet are carefully avoiding plastic straws because of deadly climate change destroying the world’s poor. Or they’ve clocked that polar sea ice is recovering and extreme weather not increasing even on the IPCC’s own evidence, but still want the Mad Dictator Putin to be assassinated to save democracy. Or they have begun to understand how the Military Industrial Complex works, but are convinced that gender diversity is strength. And so on.
I suggest that the simplest tool to raise initial suspicion, and hence to focus independent investigation, is to see on what grounds people in general, and/or those in relevant professions, are cancelled for dissident views. For not all aberrant beliefs attract cancellation, and even more significantly, cancellation is not a general cultural, but a partisanly ideological, phenomenon, except where it produces a tit-for-tat response from those it targets.
How one labels the ideology that has developed cancellation as a weapon is still a moot point, partly because of the apparent wide disparity of reasons to cancel people. But most of us have come to identify the loose affiliation conveniently called “They” (as an understood descriptor, rather than a confusing gender pronoun), whether we emphasise the Deep State, Big Business, Big Philanthropaths, Big Science, Big Social Media, Cultural Marxism, the WEF or whatever. Disparate as these powers seem, it’s a fact that they all appear not only to support cancellation in principle, but also to endorse each others’ chosen demonisations. In my personal view, it’s because they’re all puppets of the same Demon, who would dearly love to cancel the entire human race, but that’s not part of my argument here.
This phenomenon of solidarity in cancellation demonstrates a shared underlying ideology. So you can be pretty sure that if a vicar is cancelled by his Bishop for questioning Transgender indoctrination in his church primary school, then BLM, social media and any passing climate scientists will chime in with “Good Riddance to Anti-vaxxers.” This seems to explain why the Progressive Left, which one might expect to despise the fraudulent track record of Big Pharma, is adamant in rejecting even the possibility that mRNA vaccines are less than 100% safe and effective, even as they acknowledge fatal myocarditis as a genuine side effect.
As I have suggested, not all aberrant beliefs are cancellable. Nobody has their PayPal account closed for believing in a flat or hollow earth – or both together, come to that. I suspect that even if an accredited scientist believed that America faked the moon landings, he might be mocked, and even lose some eputation in his chosen field, but he would not be cancelled, though I guess it would be fair game for NASA to sack him. So on issues not affecting this fuzzy ideology, you can be as mad as a fish, and escape censure. As many have realised, you can even keep your Facebook account if you threaten death to Israel or call for all Russians to be asset-stripped or jailed.
But dissidence with respect to COVID origins, public health measures, treatments or “vaccines” will get you cancelled whether you’re a Pfizer victim or a Nobel Prizewinner, and that ought to raise your antennae to investigate just what those cancelled were saying, as they were probably over the target. And is that cancelled activist really a violent Neo-nazi, or was he just exposing official corruption in covering up rape-gangs, seeing that the victims have been denigrated as well? Why do all the independent journalists in Donbas get sacked or fined when they expose Ukrainian war-crimes? These people may all be shills, but their very cancellation should make you look carefully behind the BBC headlines.
Notice how climate change, although bracketed with other scams by many sceptics, retains for even many COVID dissidents exemption from suspicion. It cannot just be the relentless propaganda that is to blame, because that is remarkably similar to the scaremongering over COVID they have seen through. They may not have noticed that the scaremongering comes from the exact same sources, from the mainstream press to the UN and WHO via the WEF and globalist governments, but why question one and not the other?
My own experience helps me understand why global warming often gets such a free pass. I’d more or less taken the warming thing for granted before 2019, because of the claimed consensus of “97% of scientists,” and therefore because I assumed the dissidents insisting we should “think for ourselves” on WUWT were disgruntled laymen or paid by oil companies. But in 2019, when writing my e-book on propaganda and deception, it was the lies told about dissidents, and their silencing through cancellation, that encouraged me to look further. When you think about it, it’s not only odd that questioning the validity of climate predictions cost the popular TV botanist David Bellamy his entire career, but that the dissident scientists tend to be those who through retirement or independent means are no longer dependent on government or industry grants. The common “cancellation trick” of calling such people psycho-geriatrics ought to be a signal to heed what they say.
But although the Club of Rome, back in 1970 when the world was cooling, had already decided to use climate change as a weapon to change the world order, in public consciousness (including mine) the narrative and the whole apparatus was set up before the purity of science began to be discredited in other fields. Even now most doctors have failed to appreciate the way their profession, its regulators, and the research programme informing it has sold out to Big Pharma, as this important (and inspiring) video from cardiologist Aseem Malhotra demonstrates. That is despite the work of those like John Ioannidis, the most cited medical scientist alive, and Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of the BMJ. Note that Ioannidis was effectively cancelled over his evidence on COVID – we still await the disappearance of Doshi, but it cannot be long delayed.
The Climate Science industry was quicker off the mark than the medical profession in discrediting its dissidents like Judith Curry and Willie Soon, perhaps because in the public view Big Oil, unlike Big Pharma, had no “science saving lives” fig-leaf, and so could be used to smear the innocent with impunity. Since Big Oil is at the forefront of profiteering from green energy, it is happy enough to be a pantomime villain all the way to the bank. The irony is that fossil fuels have saved more lives than pharmaceuticals ever have, as Malhotra notes in passing.
I am pretty certain, then, that cancellation is a good proxy for “We have something to hide,” and therefore shows us where to find truth, though it may – possibly – produce false positives as to one underlying ideology. For example, what are we to make of the way that, in the cosmological physics field, it became difficult to get a job unless one was on board with String Theory. As I understand it, the Large Hadron Collider has more or less killed String Theory, so I’m not sure what the prevailing power dynamics are now.
Decades before this, cancellation was a feature in evolutionary biology, most notably in the crushing of those questioning the sufficiency of Neodarwinism because they might encourage the Creationists. Perhaps this is just the time-honoured scientific practice of packing the academy with those who agree with you, as the Mutationists and Structuralists were unceremoniously muscled out when the Modern Synthesis gained ascendancy in the 1930s.
But it is interesting that both String Theory and Neodarwinian Evolutionary Theory carry hidden ideological baggage in seeming to remove the need for God from the Universe. It’s hard to imagine anyone getting cancelled for fundamental disagreements over quantum computing or linguistics. So once again cancellation seems to be the result of ideology, and my tool remains useful in looking for truth.
Maybe the ideology in these last two instances is not the same as that behind Critical Theory or the Rules Based World Order. But then, it may conceivably point to the same Demon.