It's not really whether opinions turned out to be accurate or not. It's about the government censoring them. Have any of the Justices had a phone call or visit from the FBI suggesting they not talk about something for the good of the nation? They may have ice water in their veins and don't consider that coercion. But the nerds who run the algorithms have likely smoked weed or know that the FBI can make life expensive and unpleasant. "We just want to talk with you about how your platform may be costing American lives, but no pressure. Just a friendly chat but don't forget, lying to us about anything is a crime."
Let us consider what Mattias Desmet said about totalitarianism: he described the psychological state of people under mass formation well (and thus won the assent of many) but importantly he stated that the origin of totalitarianism lies in the mechanistic thinking of the population: we, the people.
Can there be any doubt now that the origin of totalitarianism lies in the state's censorship/propaganda campaign against the people, such that only the government narrative is valid? This is why Murthy v Missouri is so important, and it's dismaying that so many believe that censorship of "wrong" information can be allowed, without thinking that giving the government the power of determining correct information is in itself, irregardless of the quality of that information, the road to a world where narratives instead of reason rules, wherein reason and its function of weighing arguments sleeps, and monsters arise.
I ain't no expert but a key ingredient in totalitarian systems and your term "mechanistic thinking," whatever the particular narrative, seems to be fear. Fear of saying the wrong thing emerges from punishment and subsequent aversion. BTW "irregardless" isn't a word. Regardless or irrespective are good substitutes. :)
And you're right, irregardless isn't a word, irregardless of how I use it. Must be the beer I had. :)
However, further investigation tells me that irregardless is indeed a word. But irregardless of that, I side with you. Strike it.
BTW, "mechanistic thinking" is Desmet's term and one might say that his entire book is a theme on mechanistic thinking. I think he's misguided. Totalitarianism arises from censorship/propaganda, which induces mass formation, deliberately, through a conspiracy to do so (which conspiracy Desmet denies; see chapter 8 of his book.)
I'd go further and state that the thrust of what's been happening is censorship for the purpose of total control through one accepted "true" narrative, and for whatever reason, Desmet's work served to cloak the true operation. It served to confuse and divide the medical freedom movement as well (see the Breggin versus Malone debate) and delay accurate insight into what happened, and what's happening now. By putting the focus on we, the people, and taking the focus off the conspirators, his theory helped allow the conspirators to operate in the background.
Now perhaps we can see what's really happening. One narrative to rule them all: the ring of power.
Saw what K Jackson had to say and wow - persuading the mentally challenged ideologically possessed members of the court presents a challenge I never imagined could exist in the USA.
You were so articulate at the press conference. You are such a natural teacher…always helping people see the truth by presenting clear and logical information, history, and analysis
It's not really whether opinions turned out to be accurate or not. It's about the government censoring them. Have any of the Justices had a phone call or visit from the FBI suggesting they not talk about something for the good of the nation? They may have ice water in their veins and don't consider that coercion. But the nerds who run the algorithms have likely smoked weed or know that the FBI can make life expensive and unpleasant. "We just want to talk with you about how your platform may be costing American lives, but no pressure. Just a friendly chat but don't forget, lying to us about anything is a crime."
Let us consider what Mattias Desmet said about totalitarianism: he described the psychological state of people under mass formation well (and thus won the assent of many) but importantly he stated that the origin of totalitarianism lies in the mechanistic thinking of the population: we, the people.
Can there be any doubt now that the origin of totalitarianism lies in the state's censorship/propaganda campaign against the people, such that only the government narrative is valid? This is why Murthy v Missouri is so important, and it's dismaying that so many believe that censorship of "wrong" information can be allowed, without thinking that giving the government the power of determining correct information is in itself, irregardless of the quality of that information, the road to a world where narratives instead of reason rules, wherein reason and its function of weighing arguments sleeps, and monsters arise.
I ain't no expert but a key ingredient in totalitarian systems and your term "mechanistic thinking," whatever the particular narrative, seems to be fear. Fear of saying the wrong thing emerges from punishment and subsequent aversion. BTW "irregardless" isn't a word. Regardless or irrespective are good substitutes. :)
Exactly. The creation of a fear narrative.
And you're right, irregardless isn't a word, irregardless of how I use it. Must be the beer I had. :)
However, further investigation tells me that irregardless is indeed a word. But irregardless of that, I side with you. Strike it.
BTW, "mechanistic thinking" is Desmet's term and one might say that his entire book is a theme on mechanistic thinking. I think he's misguided. Totalitarianism arises from censorship/propaganda, which induces mass formation, deliberately, through a conspiracy to do so (which conspiracy Desmet denies; see chapter 8 of his book.)
I'd go further and state that the thrust of what's been happening is censorship for the purpose of total control through one accepted "true" narrative, and for whatever reason, Desmet's work served to cloak the true operation. It served to confuse and divide the medical freedom movement as well (see the Breggin versus Malone debate) and delay accurate insight into what happened, and what's happening now. By putting the focus on we, the people, and taking the focus off the conspirators, his theory helped allow the conspirators to operate in the background.
Now perhaps we can see what's really happening. One narrative to rule them all: the ring of power.
Supreme Irony, but no surprise that the government’s pronouncements were utterly false at every turn.
Saw what K Jackson had to say and wow - persuading the mentally challenged ideologically possessed members of the court presents a challenge I never imagined could exist in the USA.
You were so articulate at the press conference. You are such a natural teacher…always helping people see the truth by presenting clear and logical information, history, and analysis
Also
Many thanks
You are a patriot and hero
Dr K
I love what you and your team are doing here. I will lose faith in our country if the Supreme Court doesnt stand up for our First Amendment
God speed