1984 Is Not The Future

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

The Guardian ran an article yesterday by one of its editors, David Shariatmadari, that both proves and disproves its own theme at the same time: “An Information Apocalypse Is Coming”. Now, I don’t fancy the term apocalypse in a setting like this, it feels too much like going for a cheap thrill, but since he used it, why not.

My first reaction to the headline, and the article, is: what do you mean it’s ‘coming’? Don’t you think we have such an apocalypse already, that we’re living it, we’re smack in the middle of such a thing? If you don’t think so, would that have anything to do with you working at a major newspaper? Or with your views of the world, political and other, that shape how you experience ‘information’?

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

Shariatmadari starts out convincingly and honestly enough with a description of a speech that JFK was supposed to give in Dallas right after he was murdered, a speech that has been ‘resurrected’ using technology that enables one to make it seem like he did deliver it.

An Information Apocalypse Is Coming. How Can We Protect Ourselves?

“In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America’s leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason, or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality, and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.”

John F Kennedy’s last speech reads like a warning from history, as relevant today as it was when it was delivered in 1963 at the Dallas Trade Mart. His rich, Boston Brahmin accent reassures us even as he delivers the uncomfortable message. The contrast between his eloquence and the swagger of Donald Trump is almost painful to hear.

Yes, Kennedy’s words are lofty ones, and they do possess at least some predictive qualities. But history does play a part too. Would we have read the same in them that we do now, had Kennedy not been shot right before he could deliver them? Hard to tell.

What’s more, not long before JFK was elected president America had been in the tight and severe grip of J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist campaign, in which lots of reality was replaced with rhetoric, something Kennedy undoubtedly had in mind while writing the speech. JFK was not just addressing future threats, he was talking about the past as well.

But the writer slips into a much bigger faux pas right after: injecting Trump into the picture. It’s fine if someone doesn’t like Trump, but naming him there and then, in an article about ‘information apocalypse’, also means confusing objectivity with regards to your topic with subjectivity concerning your political ideas. While the Kennedy speech item relates to -advancing(?)- technology, a valid part of the apocalypse, mentioning Trump has nothing to do with that apocalypse, at least not objectively. Back to David Shariatmadari:

The problem is, Kennedy never spoke these words. He was killed before he made it to the Trade Mart. You can only hear them now thanks to audio technology developed by a British company, CereProc. Fragments of his voice have been taken from other speeches and public appearances, spliced and put back together, with neural networks employed to mimic his natural intonation. The result is pretty convincing, although there’s a machine-like ring to some of the syllables, a synthetic stutter. Enough to recognise, if you already know, that this is a feat of technology, not oratory.

We like to think of innovation as morally neutral. We empower scientists and engineers to range freely in the hope they might discover things that save labour and lives. The ends to which these are put aren’t the responsibility of the researchers. The agile robots produced by Boston Dynamics might look like they could cheerfully pin you up against a wall and snap your neck, but do we really want to close off this avenue of research? After all, they might equally be capable of performing life-saving surgery. The methods used to resurrect JFK can also help people with illnesses such as motor neurone disease – like the late Stephen Hawking – that affect their ability to speak.

It’s certainly true that we are so ‘geared’ towards progress, we ‘conveniently’ forget and ignore that every next step carries its own shadow side, every yin comes with its yang. ‘Progress’ and ‘innovation’ – and related terms- ring so positive in our eyes and ears it borders on -wilful- blindness. That blindness is set to play a major role in our future, and in our acceptance as gospel of a lot of ‘information’.

“Dual use” of technology is not a new problem. Nuclear physics gave us both energy and bombs. What is new is the democratisation of advanced IT, the fact that anyone with a computer can now engage in the weaponisation of information; 2016 was the year we woke up to the power of fake news, with internet conspiracy theories and lies used to bolster the case for both Brexit and Donald Trump.

Ouch! See, he does it again. This is not an objective discourse on ‘information disinformation’, but a way to make people think -through a method he’s supposed to be exposing- that ‘fake news’ led to Brexit and Trump. That’s a political view, not a neutral one. Yes, there are many voices out there who connect ‘fake news’ directly to things they don’t like, but that’s just a trap.

And as I said, it may have to do with the fact that the writer works for a major newspaper, which of course he wants to, and wishes to, see as some kind of beacon against fake news, but if he lets his own personal views slip into an objective treatment of a topic this easily, it automatically becomes self-defeating.

There is no proof that Trump and Brexit’s success are down to fake news more than their opposite sides, ‘fake news’ is everywhere, and that very much includes the Guardian. The coverage of the UK government accusations against Russia in the poisoning case proves that more than ever.

You can be anti-Trump, anti-Brexit and anti-Putin all you want, but they don’t define fake news or an information apocalypse, any more than ‘commies’ did in the days of Hoover and McCarthy.

We may, however, look back on it as a kind of phoney war, when photoshopping and video manipulation were still easily detectable. That window is closing fast. A program developed at Stanford University allows users to convincingly put words into politicians’ mouths. Celebrities can be inserted into porn videos. Quite soon it will be all but impossible for ordinary people to tell what’s real and what’s not.

That is am almost bewildering line. Does the writer really think ‘ordinary people’ can today tell apart what’s real and what’s not? If his paper had honestly covered his country’s, and his government’s, involvement in the wars all over the Middle East and North Africa over the past decades, would his readers still be supportive of the politicians that today inhabit Westminster?

Or does the paper prefer supporting the incumbents over Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, because it owes its reputation and position and revenues to supporting the likes of Theresa May and Tony Blair? Yeah, I know, with a critical view, yada yada, but when has the Guardian labeled any UK politician a war criminal? Much easier to go after Farage, isn’t it? The question is: what part of this is fake, and what is not?

What will the effects of this be? When a public figure claims the racist or sexist audio of them is simply fake, will we believe them? How will political campaigns work when millions of voters have the power to engage in dirty tricks? What about health messages on the dangers of diesel or the safety of vaccines? Will vested interests or conspiracy theorists attempt to manipulate them?

This appears to make sense, but it does not really. We are way past that. ‘Ordinary people’ have already lost their capacity to tell truth from fiction. Newspapers and TV stations have long disseminated the views of their owners, it’s just that they now have -newfound- competition from a million other sources: the blessings of social media.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/9d704c92639f40060b7085377d111998%20%281%29.jpg?itok=HlBp-VTT

The core issue here is that 1984 is not some point in the future, as we for some reason prefer to think. We are living 1984. Perhaps the fact that we are now 34 years past it should give us a clue about that? People tend to think that perhaps Orwell was right, but his predictions were way early. Were they, though?

Also: Orwell may not have foreseen the blessings and trappings of social media, but he did foresee how governments and their media sympathizers would react to them: with more disinformation.

Unable to trust what they see or hear, will people retreat into lives of non-engagement, ceding the public sphere to the already powerful or the unscrupulous? The potential for an “information apocalypse” is beginning to be taken seriously.

This is a full-blown time warp. If it is true that people only now take the potential for an “information apocalypse” seriously, they are so far behind the curve ball that one must question the role of the media in that. Why didn’t people know about that potential when it was an actual issue? Why did nobody tell them?

The problem is we have no idea what a world in which all words and images are suspect will look like, so it’s hard to come up with solutions.

Yes, we do have an idea about that, because we see it around us 24/7. Maybe not with images as fully fabricated as the JFK speech, but the essence is manipulation itself, not the means by which it’s delivered.

Perhaps not very much will change – perhaps we will develop a sixth sense for bullshit and propaganda, in the same way that it has become easy to distinguish sales calls from genuine inquiries, and scam emails with fake bank logos from the real thing.

David, we ARE all bullshitters, we all lie all the time, for a myriad of reasons, to look better, to feel better, to seem better, to get rich, to get laid. It’s who we are. We lie to ourselves most of all. A sixth sense against bullshit and propaganda is the very last thing we will ever develop, because it would force us to face our own bullshit.

But there’s no guarantee we’ll be able to defend ourselves from the onslaught, and society could start to change in unpredictable ways as a result. Like the generation JFK was addressing in his speech, we are on the cusp of a new and scary age. Rhetoric and reality, the plausible and the possible, are becoming difficult to separate. We await a figure of Kennedy’s stature to help us find a way through. Until then, we must at the very least face up to the scale of the coming challenge.

We are not ‘on the cusp of a new and scary age’, we are smack in the middle of it. We haven’t been able to separate rhetoric and reality, the plausible and the possible, for ages. What’s different from 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, is that now we are faced with an information overload so severe that this in itself makes us less capable of separating chaff from wheat.

So yes, that perhaps is new. But bullshit and propaganda are not. And labeling Trump and Brexit the main threats misses your own topic by miles. You could make an equally valid point that they are the results of many years of bullshit and propaganda by old-style politics and old-style media.

Maybe they’re what happens when ‘ordinary people’ switch off from an overload of bullshit and propaganda forced upon them by people and institutions they grew up to trust. And then feel they were betrayed by. A sixth sense after all.

 

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Uncola

Hanging out with my offspring over spring break has impregnated my brain with an article idea I’m not quite ready to give birth to yet. It somewhat corresponds to what this post is referencing (i.e. – in relation to the piece about JFK’s undelivered final speech and the current technocracy).

It called to mind Marshall Mcluhan’s “the medium is the message”. Our devices plug us into a grand neural network. The Centralizers use social media platforms to reward ideological conformity that gives rise to specific orthodoxies that set the table for rewards and punishments in three dimensions.

Advertising really does work. Media, in all of it’s various forms, provides the context that adds realism to the dreams of the hive mind. Virtual is the new reality.

The implementation is two-pronged: the planners mold consensus to give the dream consistency and, simultaneously, denigrate any competing realities.

Take, for example, millennials. Why might they favor rainbow ethnicism over cultural pride? Because the electonic hubs stimulate the advantages of the former while, at the same time, criminalizing the latter.

It’s a double whammy.

It’s effective in political massaging as well. Corrupted government agencies and the mainstream media absolved the criminal activity of Hillary Clinton, while concomitantly undermining Trump on various fronts, ranging from female genital grasping to Russian collusion.

The messaging wars are not meant to be won. They are meant to be continuous. Thusly, reality is bent until inverted into Mirrorworld where down is up, up is down, dark is light, left is right, and lies are true. Abracadabra alakazam, presto chango, bibbidi-bobbidi-boo.

Uncola

Like this:

comment image

James the Wanderer

That’s a metaphor everyone should take to heart – nothing is truly private and controlled once it’s on the Internet, and that includes resumes, arrest records, medical records, Emails and chat conversations – and nudie selfies you sent to only one person, ever.

rhs jr
rhs jr

To put it in simple language, TPTP running America are Satanic liars to the core and the Useful Idiots ate it up. 1984 would be America now if Harpy had been elected. But alas we did not escape. TPTB’s Chem-spraying has started the Ice-Age which will cause crop, economic, civil failures and tyranny (1984?). Then wars, plagues & deaths. Revelation is the Operable Book of the Times. By God’s Prophecy and Grace, the Humble in Christ will inherit the Earth and it will become a better place in the future. PS: I believe the Church Age was wrong. People built large buildings, hired preachers and pianist, all of which consumed time and money and produced nothing; then sent their kids to public schools which turned them into communist. Rather, people should have built Christian Community Centers (towns) which were self supporting but linked across the country and globe in a trade system that established fair prices (not owned by Central Bank Oligarchs). The Christian Centers would serve the purposes of education (esp children), community meetings (esp weekly church) and entertainment, food preservation, thrift stores, repair shops and small business offices, food and livestock markets, etc. When somebody wants to recreate the Rothschild’s Illuminati World of today, show them a rope.

bigfoot
bigfoot

Well said, rhs.

Maggie

After all of the discussion of Socratic method, I dug out my old Greek binders and notebooks and gave myself a review on philosophical thought and thinking. It is the sort of thing one does to exercise the mind when one realizes one’s mind doesn’t want to learn new things or rethink old ones.

Now I’ve punished my mind by forcing a re-read of the Iliad, which is about a really, really long war near Troy. (Did you ever wonder why Odysseus had to take the long way home? Surely he could have convoyed with the others?)

There is a duality about man’s nature which is, ironically, twofold.

Inner man contemplates and understands. Outer man acts. Odysseus returns from the long war, experiences a literal and figurative journey through hell and back and returns to find his beloved has successfully fought off the advances of every young stud in his kingdom. The faithful wife adored; the king fully restored from being Noman in the cave of the Cyclops. Is he “no man” because he is without kingdom and sword or is he “no man” because he is without Penelope? (we will disregard his obvious dalliance on the island)

Why did women give up my God-given right raise and educate my own children the way I wanted too? Bitches.

Public Schools are a disaster and have been since the 1970s. Young people read this title and think it is about a story written in 1984 and wouldn’t have a clue if they hadn’t seen an Anime version of it on YouTube. I am going to say something very Unfeminist: as a matter of fact, I want to figure out how to use the symbols available again so I can put the logic symbol for NOT over Feminist and start adding it to my dialog.

One of the reasons for the dystopian worlds in 1984 and Brave New World and Anthem and Fahrenheit 451 and others (a good discussion of the era that inspired these philosophical offerings) is the lack of interest by many characters at all in children. They are rarely seen and never heard.

One pastor said sternly to the congregation where I sat playing tic-tac-toe and giggling with my cousin, “The Lord wants us to think about others, but you two girls back there need to think about your mothers.” He was right… my mother and aunt were coming toward us from the front pews to take us outside and whoop our butts.

Children need mothers to teach them how to be humiliated in public without needing a safe space. Feminists screwed that up.

Joey Jo Jo Shabadoo
Joey Jo Jo Shabadoo

They need fathers, too … especially to administer loving justice to boys …

bigfoot
bigfoot

I’ve seen it with my own eyes, Maggie, the mother, the devouring mother, wants most of all to cut the legs off her children so that that won’t wander away and leave her without without the fruits of narcissism. Love? Who in that scenario even knows what that is, least of all the children.

Anonymous
Anonymous

“A sixth sense against bullshit and propaganda is the very last thing we will ever develop, because it would force us to face our own bullshit.”

Speak for yourself.

Fleabaggs
Fleabaggs

Public schools were implemented to undermine the family unit and inculcate youth with worldly values. Instead of parents being the final athourity the teachers were. It was gradual like the slow boiled frog. The nanny state grew out of that and the new deal. Until 30 years ago home schooling was almost a criminal offense. TPTB don’t care now because most of the population has been Sheepleized.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading