The Battle For Your Mind

If you are reading this then I must presume you are awake. But are you fully sentient? Do not be tempted to respond too soon. Are you alert to the various ways in which you are being watched, analyzed, force-fed algorithmically-curated content, and constantly manipulated psychologically — almost every minute of every day? Do you understand that your behaviors can be swayed in real-time when you click on Like, post an image on Instagram, search for information at work, or use map apps to plot the fastest route through traffic to your destination? You are? Then consider the upshot of these activities….

As we dispense with the need for privacy, ceding to a few powerful entities that now control our individual and collective experiences, relationships, and transactions, the right to own and utilize our personal data for almost any commercial purpose, we are willingly surrendering the capacity for independent thought. Instead of choosing data sources and collating information in uniquely individual patterns when making up our minds, we are allowing others to do that for us.

In the system of representative democracy, we are comfortable giving others the right to represent our views in the parliament. But in the playground of all human activities, there is another battle going on. This battle is not just being fought for what you think, but how you think. Allow me to show you what I mean…

Our Right to The Truth

On August 27th, 2020 an open letter to political leaders in Belgium’s Le Soir and La Libre Belgique newspapers accused the World Health Organisation of creating a pandemic of false information. The letter claimed the coronavirus outbreak a fake emergency and called for an open debate on this and related matters. Although the letter was allegedly from health care professionals most of the signatories were from education, law, economics, and journalism.

Nonetheless, I personally approached this letter with a degree of enthusiasm, having also argued on Australian television that unnecessarily draconian measures were being imposed on the public and that lockdowns, at least on the scale envisaged, were unnecessary.

But I stated those views in March. By the time anxiety and panic, arising particularly from the initial epidemiological uncertainty had gripped the community at large, the prospect for a forensically targeted approach that protected those most vulnerable, such as the elderly and those with pre-existing respiratory conditions, had already passed. The horse, in this case the virus, had bolted.

In the blink of an eye, governments of differing persuasions right around the world were being encouraged to impose a range of authoritarian rules and regulations. For the first time in history, a healthy populace was forcibly quarantined. From that point, it was clear the risks to public health had changed to such an extent that exit strategies would demand socio-economic sacrifices on a scale not previously experienced.

I was convinced that we were witnessing the beginning of an unprecedented phenomenon: the conscious dismantling of the social fabric and economic bedrock underpinning modern society.

What initially stimulated my curiosity in this letter was the outright denial of the gravity of the situation, the necessity of public health measures being taken to contain it, and the demand for a comprehensive inquiry. Presumably, if the evidence being presented was accurate, then the arguments could apply to any case in which a state denied its citizens the freedom of choice to take personal responsibility for their hygiene and to permit medical professionals to bear the prime task of disease palliation.

The letter raised two critical questions. Was the pandemic knowingly weaponized for a political or commercial purpose? If so who stood to gain materially, and was there any concrete evidence indicating collusion between the WHO and third parties?

Certainly, there have been instances in the past where the WHO acted too hastily. For example in 2009 the H1N1 swine flu outbreak was declared a pandemic. A study in September the following year showed that the actual risk of serious illness resulting from that outbreak was no higher than what might be expected from the annual seasonal flu.

Today’s pandemic is certainly different in a number of important respects and it is highly probable that the WHO acted on the basis of better safe than sorry. For that it can be forgiven.

The letter starts by implying politicians were not sufficiently informed prior to the commencement of what (in hindsight) appears to be disproportionate measures. It goes on to suggest there is no longer any medical justification for emergency policies, and that these risk doing more harm than good. The letter ends by demanding an end to crisis management measures and an immediate restoration of all civil liberties and sound democratic governance.

Personal Reflections

Upon first glance, I applauded this letter, excited by a group of eminent citizens speaking truth to power. I subscribed to the implications that the cure to this pandemic would be worse than the virus itself. It is reasonable to suppose that the collateral damage from such hasty and confused autocratic reactions to the pandemic will be severe and enduring — most notably on four counts:

1. The mental health of society — woven on a fragile thread linking hope and trust, along with the emotional maturity and social well-being of individuals and families, will deteriorate. Instances of petty crime, destitution, child abuse, suicide, and domestic violence will increase, as people try to cope the best way they can with issues like idleness and isolation that can so easily descend into anxiety, depression, and distress.

In 1948, the WHO defined health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or other physical impairment. It is clear that quarantining an otherwise healthy population under a cloak of conflicting medical and epidemiological advice, and political posturing does very little to bolster public health as so defined.

2. The economic recovery is likely to be prolonged, painful, and partial. Stretching over a decade, further pandemics are forecast as zoonotic transfers become more commonplace and a warming climate releases not just methane, but prehistoric viruses which have been trapped under the ice and permafrost for millions of years.

Further disruptions can also be expected from a variety of sources, such as half-hearted attempts to reform capitalism, extended geopolitical tensions arising from China’s developing support against the backdrop of America’s moral decline yet military hegemony, a dismantling of the fossil fuel industry in a bid to rapidly decarbonize the economy, increasing rebelliousness from youth with mounting civil disobedience followed by an inevitable escalation of police force and citizen surveillance, automation of the workplace aided by machine super-intelligence and augmented reality, etc. Most informed commentators conclude that the impact on business and productivity from this perfect storm of disruption will be profound and inevitable, killing off many antiquated business models for good.

3. The industrial-era social contract between employees, industry owners, and the state, based upon the promise of work, security, housing, health, education, and a range of other services, in return for performance and compliance, is dead. The pandemic amplified and accelerated flaws in the deepest veins of this tacit contract to such an extent that public trust in officialdom and our most venerable institutions has turned sour, while representative politics has been found severely wanting.

Citizens have become disengaged even in issues directly concerning them, while cynicism is still increasing exponentially. Meanwhile, it looks likely that the nature of any new social contract, given the volatile conditions we have created and now have to deal with, will highlight democratization of the economy, with shared obligations and responsibility replacing entitlement of all kinds.

4. There is growing recognition within the community that we are being gamed by the corporate media, along with a technological elite that promulgates fear and paranoia for profit. The crucial influence of media dynasties, like Rupert Murdoch’s empire for example, along with behemoths like Facebook and Google, routinely misuse data to surveil users, incite cruel behaviors, exploit frailties and addictions, and transform information into propaganda.

Recent documentary movies like The Social Dilemma, The Great Hack, The Bleeding Edge, and Miss Representation all open windows onto worlds of deception and exploitation in which power is routinely abused to sell products, market ideologies, and sway the outcome of otherwise democratic elections.

Although these four factors are fairly depressing, the pandemic has brought with it a beacon of hope in the darkness. At last, we have a chance to reconfigure our most life-critical systems, including public health, in ways that are regenerative. We now know for certain that the capitalist framework, although unworkable for the majority, can be redesigned in ways that are far more equitable. And we have an opportunity to recast governance as a way to engage citizens in all matters that directly concern them. But I digress…

The underlying ostinato of the open letter concentrates on the violations of health and human rights and the damage being inflicted on the global economy. Little compassion is shown for the victims of the disease, or their grieving families. The focus is well and truly on economic damage.

Measures taken to combat SARS-CoV-2, the signatories demur — including the wearing of masks, physical distancing, obsessive attention to basic hygiene, isolation, and mandatory quarantine for some groups, are condemned as running against mainstream science too. I found myself in total agreement with the points being made.

[By this time I am thoroughly convinced by the tenor and content of this letter — blown away by the consistency with my own former arguments.]

Early in the pandemic, once the opportunity for more targeted and forensic strategies had gone, these measures were understandable. There was still confusion about the nature of the virus and the prediction by the WHO that it would claim millions of lives in the absence of herd immunity, a vaccine, or a reliable treatment, had to be taken seriously.

But as time wore on a different picture emerged. The course of the pandemic seemed to follow that of a normal wave similar to a flu season. The use of the PCR test, which produced many false positives, was unreliable, not intended for diagnostic use, and did not automatically indicate active infection anyway. Imposed lockdowns did not lead to a lower mortality rate. Logically it seems that climatic conditions (weather, temperature, and humidity) as well as the amount of air pollution, and growing immunity are likely to reduce the waves of infection still further.

[The arguments for a different strategy seem compelling and go on and on…]

Only people with weak immune systems should be subject to social distancing. Masks and excessive hygiene will eventually weaken our immune systems. Most people already have a congenital or general immunity to influenza and other viruses. Even in high-risk groups, the chance of infection is low so strengthening natural immunity is a more rational approach through exercise in the fresh air without a mask, nutrition, stress reduction techniques, and nourishing social contacts.

[By now my emotions are running high.]

The official narrative, that lockdowns and all the associated measures of mask-wearing and social distancing were necessary, actively prevented alternative views from being expressed. Indeed, anyone with a different opinion was ignored or ridiculed. This, of course, aligned with my own experience after all the hate mail I received for expressing unconventional views publicly.

[I am now convinced there is no real emergency. In spite of a lack of consistency in approach by different governments, there must be another explanation motivating these lockdowns, I reason.]

What a timely letter. I sense we are witnessing the bending of public health systems to suit more political agendas. Now perhaps is the time to admit what pass as conspiracy theories. They might help explain everything. Or will they?

Alternatives Left

On 8th September I was trawling the web when an article by Jacques Valentin on some obscure website, caught my eye. It was a critique of the Belgian letter. I start to read but am now slightly confounded as Valentin takes an entirely different view, refuting much of the evidence I had taken at face value.

[I am now not so sure what to think.]

With 10,000 deaths in a population of less than 12 million, Belgium has suffered horribly. I knew that but it had not entered the equation when I was reading the letter. In fact, the mortality rate is exceeded only by Peru and the recovery rate is just 16.55 percent.

Valentin also takes issue with the lack of compassion shown in the letter for the victims and their bereaved families, a factor I was fully prepared to gloss over.

[I was beginning to feel disturbed by my chilling indifference to evidence that would normally have affected me deeply.]

Valentin goes on to dismantle the logic of the letter I had accepted so unequivocally. The authors have avoided citing figures for the number of lives lost to the disease. Their reference to the flu is a brazen lie. Unlike flu, the population does not have antibodies to this virus. Without lockdowns to contain it the disease could easily have infected 60 percent of the population. In spite of that, the rate of hospital admissions for COVID-19 is far greater to the flu, as is the mortality rate. In France, public hospitals in Paris, which were saturated with sick patients, openly acknowledged that they would have been overwhelmed if the lockdown had been decided just one day later.

[By now I am devastated. How could I have been so gullible?]

I went back to the letter, hoping to find evidence to prove Valentin wrong. But I could not find a shred of evidence that he was mistaken. In fact, the more I read and reread the letter the more I realized how had veered off-track initially. Upon closer scrutiny the letter has no interest in scientific evidence or medical results, nor does it seek to honestly establish what health measures did or did not help treat the disease.

Too late, I now realize that this is simply a partisan attack against the lockdown policy by a group representing the financial aristocracy whose prime motivation is to restore the economy as soon as possible…

[But wait. That sentence… Something about that sentence is not right.]

Suddenly it hits me. The language and expression being used here is code for a radical socialist view. Perhaps that is not a bad thing. It would certainly explain Valentin’s distaste for the contents of the letter. I had always imagined that my views transcended the orthodox “left-right” divide.

[Now I find myself in a dilemma. Was the letter accurate, or is Valentin’s perspective a more believable version of the truth?]

The Truth About The Truth

Here you have an unembellished example, from my own experience, of the battle for our minds. Two contrasting views, both of which caught my attention, posing as the truth. Both beguiled me into trusting the foundations of their arguments. On the surface, it seems I was initially snowed under with dubious or discredited information. But how would I know that had I not found Valentin’s refutation? And why should I now believe Valentin’s version simply because it served to overturn my original feelings? Who is right and who is wrong?

Why would I allow my attention to wander to such an extent that my heart began to rule my head? Why did I not fact-check my sources earlier? What prevented me from seeing through the opacity of the letter, or did my original feelings betray the truth after all?

[The situation is complicated, and that is the problem. In reality, truths are blended with half-truths and false evidence, underscored by particular belief systems, all wrapped up in a language aimed to convince and win over the reader. But in both documents!]

The open letter spares us nothing as it lists a variety of erroneous arguments claiming that nothing can or should be done to halt the spread of this deadly disease. On the other hand counter claims from Valentin spring from a deep mistrust of authority and their motives.

After scratching around I discovered that Valentin’s piece was published on the World Socialist website. So asserting that the letter pushes policies that preserve the fortunes and privileges of a parasitic ruling class while refusing to base itself on scientific knowledge, was his intellectual coup de grâce. Valentin’s guard only slips when he starts to use this language that betrays his ideological position.

In the final analysis, both documents record the truth as they perceive it. While the letter demands the adoption of policies known to spread the virus, Valentin’s insistence that it contains nothing of value is problematic. Both sets of authors are susceptible to the pressures imposed by differing groups, ideological perspectives, and cultural mindsets. Both accuse the other of betraying the science. And both deride the groups of experts brought in to determine how best to proceed in such unprecedented circumstances.

Neither of the two documents represents the total truth. That remains somewhere in between the cracks. This is why linear thinking and ideologically-driven solutions should not be allowed to carry the day when determining the best possible futures for humanity.

How are you persuaded? What do you believe to be the truth? Is it possible you are being misled as I was in the ways I have shown here? Who will win the crusade for your mind? Where can you turn for the truth in an age when everyone believes their opinion is as good as any other? Be careful how you answer….