For å forstå hvordan man kan skremme hele verdens befolkning til å godta et verdensomspennende diktatur, så må man ha innsikt i hvordan hjernen er konstruert, hvordan den påvirkes av frykt, og hvordan frykt hindrer oss i å tenke rasjonelt. Disse tre bøkene er en særdeles god innføring i nettopp det. Alle tre bøkene er like mye rettet mot leg som lærd:
“Life today for citizens of the developed world is safer, easier, and healthier than for any other people in history thanks to modern medicine, science, technology, and intelligence. So why is an epidemic of fear sweeping America?
The answer, according to nationally renowned health commentator Dr. Marc Siegel, is that we live in an artificially created culture of fear. In False Alarm, Siegel identifies three major catalysts of the culture of fear–government, the media, and big pharma.
With fascinating, blow-by-blow analyses of the most sensational false alarms of the past few years, he shows how these fearmongers manipulate our most primitive instincts–often without our even realizing it.False Alarm shows us how to look behind the hype and hysteria, inoculate ourselves against fear tactics, and develop the emotional and intellectual skills needed to take back our lives.” https://www.adlibris.com/no/bok/false-alarm-9780470053843
Dennne boken som er skrevet i 1956 er mye mer relevant i dag enn da den ble skrevet. Den kan lastes ned gratis på zlibrary: “Since 1933, when a completely drugged and trial-conditioned human wreck confessed to having started the Reichstag fire in Berlin, Dr Joost A M Meerloo has studied the methods by which systematic mental pressure brings people to abject submission, and by which totalitarians imprint their subjective “truth” on their victims’ minds. The first two and one-half years of World War II, Dr Meerloo spent under the pressure of Nazi-occupied Holland, witnessing at first-hand the Nazi methods of mental torture .on more than one occasion.
During this time he was able to use his psychiatric and psychoanalytic knowledge to treat some of the victims. Then, after personal experiences with enforced interrogation, he escaped from a Nazi prison and certain death to England, where he was able, as Chief of the Psychological Department of the Netherlands Forces, to observe and study coercive methods officially.
In this capacity he had to investigate not only traitors and collaborators, but also those members of the Resistance who had gone through the utmost of mental pressure. Later, as High Commissioner for Welfare, he came in closer contact with those who had gone through physical and mental torture.
After the war, he came to the United States, where his war experiences would not permit him to concentrate solely on his psychiatric practice, but compelled him to go beyond purely medical aspects to the social aspects of the problem. As more and more cases of thought control, brainwashing, and mental coercion were disclosed — Cardinal Mindszenty, Colonel Schwable, Robert Vogeler, and others — his interest grew.
It was Dr. Meerloo who coined the word menticide, the killing of the spirit, for this peculiar crime. His knowledge of these totalitarian procedures has been officially acknowledged; he served as an expert witness in the case of Colonel Schwable, the Marine Corps officer who, after months of subjection to physical and mental torture following his capture in Korea, was made to confess to having taken part in germ warfare.
It is Dr Meerloo’s position that through pressure on the weak points in men’s makeup, totalitarian methods can turn anyone into a “traitor”. And in this book he goes far beyond the direct military implications of mental torture to describing how our own culture unobtrusively shows symptoms of pressurising people’s minds.
He presents a systematic analysis of the methods of brainwashing and mental torture and coercion, and shows how totalitarian strategy, with its use of mass psychology, leads to systematised “rape of the mind”.
He describes the new age of cold war with its mental terror, verbocracy, and semantic fog, the use of fear as a tool of mass submission and the problem of treason and loyalty, so loaded with dangerous confusion. The book is written for the interested layman, not only for experts and scientists.” https://www.adlibris.com/no/bok/the-rape-of-the-mind-9781615773763
“Disordered Minds offers a compelling and timely account of the dangers posed by narcissistic leaders, and provides a stark warning that the conditions in which this psychopathy flourishes – extremes of social inequality and a culture of hyper-individualism – are the hallmarks of our present age. ‘An excellent account of how malignant narcissism is evident in the lives of the great dictators, and how the conditions in which this psychopathy flourishes have returned to haunt us.’ Dr Kieran Keohane, editor of The Social Pathologies of Contemporary Civilization.” https://www.adlibris.com/no/bok/disordered-minds-how-dangerous-personalities-are-destroying-democracy-9781785358807
Jeg har kun lest fire av bøkene under her (de som kan lastes ned gratis, og kan anbefale dem), men alle de andre virker veldig interessante. Gå inn på linkene under bøkene for å lese mer om dem før du eventuelt går til innkjøp av dem.
“The body pushing The Great Reset happens to be the World Economic Forum and its charismatic German leader Klaus Schwab who is calling for a return to Marxist principles, claiming that capitalism has empirically failed. Professor Schwab has just released a book titled The Great Reset and has dedicated a large portion of the official WEF website to such articles as “Does capitalism need some Marxism to survive the Fourth Industrial Revolution?”. It is truly a terrifying notion that a man as educated and powerful as Schwab would use his supposedly independent economic organisation to push for a return of the deadliest social experiments of the 20thcentury.” https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6178243325001
«The specific role of the father as a transference prototype is not so simple as it seems to many fathers. Father is not merely a toy with whom the child can occasionally play. The child needs to identify with this giant who lives with him and with Mother; he wants to become familiar with the giant, he wants the giant to become part of his world. The child wants more than this—he wants to be gratified by Father so that he can love Father as much as he does Mother.
But the child will transfer some of its love and emotional investment to Father only if it sees something of Mother in him. Father can do the same things Mother does—he can feed the child, can solace him, can take care of him—and thus the child can maintain a feeling of gratitude and affection toward this third person.
This transference of feelings can only take place, however, when the relationship between the parents themselves is tranquil. How can the child identify with and love his parents when they are in constant conflict with each other?
This picture is, of course, something of an oversimplification. There are mothers who behave like cold, distant fathers, and fathers who behave like warm, cuddling mothers. There are grandparents or adoptive parents who can take over. There are many mother or father substitutes. But this is not my point. My point is that in every situation there must be some individual who can become the conditioning prototype for the child’s relationships with new beings.
This first person is most likely to be the father, and it is he who changes the child’s biological dependency into a psychological relationship. When there is no father figure, or if the father is too weak or too busy or is denying and tyrannical toward the child, the result is that the child’s relationship with and dependence on the mother remains strong and lasts too long.
Consequently, the child’s need for social participation and for gregarious ties with others may become to him a consuming need. As an adult he may be willing to join with any social group which promises him support and reassurance. Or his unconscious resentment against the father who did not help him to grow up into an immature adult and become independent may be diverted into a resentment against other symbols of authority, such as society itself. Either way the child may be headed for maladjustment and for difficulties. Either way the child may grow up into an immature adult.
In the building up of man’s awareness of an independent self and the establishment of his ability to have easy, relaxed relationships with his fellow men, the father, as the natural chief and protector of the family, plays an important role. He cuts the cord. He may condition the later pattern of dependence and independence. His potential psychological dominance can become a blessing or a curse, for the child’s emotional attitude toward its father becomes the prototype for its attitudes toward future leaders and toward society itself.»
Utdrag fra: Joost A. M. Meerloo. «The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing».
«In his strategy of criminalization, the totalitarian dictator destroys the conscience of his followers, just as he has destroyed his own. Think of the highly learned and polished Nazi doctors who started their professional life with the Hippocratic oath, promising to be the helping healer of man, but who later in cold blood inflicted the most horrible tortures on their concentration-camp victims.
They slaughtered innocents by the thousands in order to discover the statistical limits of human endurance. They infected other thousands as guinea pigs because the Fuhrer wanted it so. They had lost their personal standards and ethics completely and justified all their crimes through the Führers will. Political catchwords encouraged them to yield their consciences completely to the dictator.
The process of systematic criminalization requires a deculturation of the people. As one of Hitler’s gangmen said, “When I hear the word ‘civilization,’ I prepare my gun.” This is done to consistently arouse the instinct of cruelty. People are told not to believe in intellect and objective truth, but to listen only to the subjective dictates of the Moloch State, to Hitler, to Mussolini, to Stalin.
Criminalization is conditioning people to rebellion against civilized frustrations. Show them blood and bloody scapegoats, and a thousand years of acculturation fall away from them. This implies imbuing the people with hysteria, arousing the masses, homogenizing the emotions. All this tends to awaken the brute Neanderthal psyche in man. Justify crime with the glamorous doctrine of race superiority, and then you make sure the people will follow you.
Hitler knew very well what he was doing when he turned the German concentration camps over to the unleashed lusts of his storm troopers. “Let them kill and murder,” was the device. “Once they have gone so far with me, they must go on to the end.”
The strategy of criminalization is not only directed toward crushing the victims of the totalitarian regime, but also toward giving the elite hangmen—the governing gang—that poisonous feeling of power that drags them farther and farther away from every human feeling; their victims become people without human identity, merely speaking masks and ego-less robots. The strategy of criminalization is the systematic organization of the lower passions in man, in particular in those the dictator must trust as his direct helpers.
Under the pressure of totalitarian thinking, nearly every citizen identifies with the ruling gang, and many must prove their loyalty by murder and killing, or at least expressing their approval of murder and killing. The boredom of Totalitaria’s automatic patterns of living leads the deluded citizens to welcome the adventure of war and crime and self-destruction.
Each new act of torture and crime makes new bonds of fidelity and unscrupulous obedience, especially within the leading gang. In the end, driven by crime and guilt, the ruling members have to stick it out together because the downfall of the system would bring about the downfall of the entire gang, both leaders and followers.
The same thing holds true in the criminal world. Once a man has taken the first step and rejected the laws of society and joined the criminal gang, he is at war with the outside world and its moral evaluations. From that point on, the gang can blackmail him and subdue him.
In Totalitaria, the vicious circle of criminalization of the citizenry, in which the means become ends in themselves, grows into a cynical conspiracy covered with the cynical flag of decent idealism. The country’s leaders use such simple words as “the universal campaign of peace,” and the citizens rejoice and take pride in these words. Only a few among them know what deceptive deeds lie behind the flowery phrases.
Blood becomes a magic fluid, and shedding someone else’s blood becomes a virtuous and life-giving deed. Unlimited killing, as it is practiced in totalitarian systems, is related to deep, unconscious fears. The weak and emotionally sick in any society kill out of fear, in order to borrow, in a magic way, their dead victims’ strength and happiness—as well as, of course, their material possessions.»
Utdrag fra: Joost A. M. Meerloo. «The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing» 1956
Relatert lesing:
“Dobbeltenkning i romanen 1984:
For det første er en av de viktigste måtene som regjeringen opprettholder kontroll over befolkningen, konseptet med dobbeltenkning. Dobbeltenkning er kraften til å holde to motstridende meninger samtidig. De er to motstridende oppfatninger på samme tid av samme person.
I Oceania er befolkningen utdannet i dobbeltenkning så de vet hvordan man aksepterer motsetninger og forstår deres praktiske eksistens. I det kontrollerte samfunnet i romanen 1984 er ikke tegnene på en totalitær regjering skjult. Totalitarisme blir det undervist om, og folket både godtar og avviser det samtidig. Dette gjenspeiles i regjeringens tre slagord:
«Krig er fred. Frihet er trelldom. Uvitenhet er styrke.»
Det endelige målet med dobbeltenkning er å få befolkningen til å tenke på denne måten automatisk. Regjeringen vil at folket venner seg til å holde to motstridende tanker i hodet uten å innse at de er motstridende. Skjer dette i virkeligheten?
Mange studier har vist at hjernen vår støtter motstridende ideer. Ideen dreier seg om Festingers teori om kognitiv dissonans. Teorien hans sier at det er mulig for oss å ha dissonante ideer. Festinger sier imidlertid at det er mekanismer i hjernene våre for å ignorere eller løse den dissonansen. Dobbeltenkning vil være en måte å rasjonalisere dissonanser på og være i stand til å eksistere med dem.
I virkeligheten bruker vi dobbeltenkning mer enn vi forestiller oss. Regjeringene utnytter dette og bruker dobbeltenkning til en viss grad. Et klart eksempel er fiendskapet vårt mot terrorangrep. Imidlertid utfører samtidig mange land handlinger av samme art og selger til og med våpen til disse terroristgruppene. Vi må være ekstremt forsiktige. Rasjonaliseringen av motsetninger er en automatisk prosess, og vi kan utføre den prosessen uten å innse det.
Et annet viktig aspekt av regjeringens kontroll i 1984 er kontrollen med tanken. For å oppnå tankekontroll forsøker regjeringen å endre språk slik at tanken blir praktisk i stedet for nyttig som kan brukes til argumentasjon. Faren er at folk tenker for mye, det vil ødelegge dobbeltanken, og dette vil føre til regjeringens ødeleggelse. Hvis vi følger Sapir-Whorf-hypotesen, foreslår Orwell at ved å bytte språk kan vi forandre det menneskelige sinnet.
For å oppnå tankekontroll reduserer Oceania-regjeringen språket til dets enkleste form, og gjør det til et helt pragmatisk språk. På denne måten mister synonymer og antonymer sin betydning. Det er ikke lenger interessant å formidle nyanser av ord som fører til avgjørelser og tolkninger. Antonymer genererer frykt, og konflikt baner vei til rasjonalitet. Et eksempel på dette kan være å fjerne ordet “krig” fra ordlisten og bare snakke om det når det gjelder mer fred eller mindre fred.
Leksen vi kan lære av dette nye språket er at språk kan være farlig i livene våre. Språket er i stand til å forandre oppfatningen og tenkningen vår. En politisk diskurs kan således virke svært forskjellig avhenging av ordene som brukes til å beskrive den. Når en politiker prøver å sette ord som “demokrati,” “konstitusjonell” og “fred” mot ord som “angrep” eller “krig,” forsøker de å få sympati fra borgerne sine. Av denne grunnen er det viktig å utforske begrunnelsen bak hvorfor folk bruker et bestemt språk.
Til slutt, i romanen 1984, ser “Store Bror” alltid på og kontrollerer alt. “Store Bror” ser på innbyggerne overalt, til og med i deres egne hjem. Selv innen familier blir barn utdannet til å vokte foreldrene sine og fordømme dem hvis de begår en forbrytelse. Et viktig aspekt ved kontroll er manipulering av informasjon.
For Oceania kan regjeringen omskrive fortiden for å opprettholde regjeringens stabilitet. I romanen er Sannhetsministeriet dedikert til å forandre alle skrifter, aviser og bøker til fordel for “Store Bror”. Hvis “Store Bror” sa at sjokoladerasjoner skulle gå opp og det er faktisk mindre nå enn før, ville “Store Bror” endre data for å få det til å se ut som om sjokoladerasjonene faktisk økte.
Vi er ikke immune mot manipulering og kontroll av informasjon. Massemedia, inkludert fjernsyn, radio og aviser, har vanligvis partier og regjeringer som endrer informasjon for å påvirke meningene våre. Derfor krever all informasjon vi mottar at vi tenker kritisk om det vi leser.
Til slutt, i romanen 1984 utgjør Orwell et veldig interessant dystopisk samfunn med store paralleller til det nåværende samfunnet vårt. Det er viktig å reflektere over disse parallellene og se de potensielle feilene i samfunnet vårt. Hvis vi ønsker å unngå å utvikle oss mot en orwellsk verden, er det viktig å opprettholde en kritisk holdning mot mekanismene som påvirker og overtaler oss.” https://utforsksinnet.no/romanen-1984-av-george-orwell/
«The formulation of big propagandistic lies and fraudulent catchwords has a very well-defined purpose in Totalitaria, and words themselves have acquired a special function in the service of power, which we may call verbocracy. The Big Lie and the phoney slogan at first confuse and then dull the hearers, making them willing to accept every suggested myth of happiness.
The task of the totalitarian propagandist is to build special pictures in the minds of the citizenry so that finally they will no longer see and hear with their own eyes and ears but will look at the world through the fog of official catchwords and will develop the automatic responses appropriate to totalitarian mythology.
The multiform use of words in double talk serves as an attack on our logic, that is, an attack on our understanding of what monolithic dictatorship really is. Hear, hear the nonsense: “Peace is war and war is peace! Democracy is tyranny and freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength! Virtue is vice and truth is a lie.” So says the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s grim novel, 1984.
The words we use influence our behavior in daily life; they determine the thoughts we have.
In Totalitaria, facts are replaced by fantasy and distortion. People are taught systematically and intentionally to lie. History is reconstructed, new myths are built up whose purpose is twofold: to strengthen and flatter the totalitarian leader, and to confuse the luckless citizens of the country.
The whole vocabulary is a dictated set of slowly hypnotizing slogans. In the semantic fog that permeates the atmosphere, words lose their direct communicative function. They become merely commanding signs, triggering off reactions of fear and terror.
They are battle cries and Pavlovian signals, and no longer represent free thinking. The word, once considered a first token of free human creation, is transformed into a mechanical tool. In Totalitaria, words may have a seductive action, soothing or charming their hearers, but they are not allowed to have intrinsic meaning. They are conditioners, emotional triggers, serving to imprint the desired reaction patterns on their hearers.
Man’s mental laziness, his resistance to the hard labor of thinking, makes it relatively easy for Totalitarian dictator to bring his subjects into acceptance of the Big Lie. At first the citizen may say to himself, “All this is just nonsense—pure double talk,” but in the very act of trying to shrug it off, he has become subject to the power of the inherent suggestion.
That is the trick of double talk; once a man neglects to analyze and verify it, he becomes lost in it and can no longer see the difference between rationale and rationalization. In the end, he can no longer believe anything, and he retreats into sullen dullness.
Once the citizen of Totalitaria has accepted the “logic” of his leaders, he is no longer open to discussion or argument.
Something has crept into our mechanized system of communication that has made our modes of thinking deteriorate. People too casually acquire ideas and concepts. They no longer struggle for a clear understanding. The popularized picture replaces the battle of the pros and cons of concepts. Instead of aiming at true understanding, people listen to thoughtless repetition, which gives them the delusion of understanding.
Communication has an even more infantile, magic character for the citizen of Totalitaria. Words no longer represent intelligible meanings or ideas. They bind the citizen of Totalitaria to utter dependence on his commander, much as the infant is bound to the word pictures of his parents.
Politicians seeking power must coin new labels and new words with emotional appeal, “while allowing the same old practices and institutions to continue as before … The trick is to replace a disagreeable image though the substance remains the same. The totalitarians consequently have to fabric a hate language in order to stir up the mass emotions. We all have experienced how the word peace doesn’t mean peace any more, it has become a propagandistic device to appease the masses and to disguise aggression.”
The verbocracy in totalitarian thinking and the official verbosity of demagogues serve to disturb and suffocate the free minds of citizens. We can say that verbocracy turns them into what psychology calls symbol agnostics, people capable only of imitation, incapable of the inquisitive sense of objectivity and perspective that leads to questioning and understanding and to the formation of individual ideas and ideals. In other words, the individual citizen becomes a parrot, repeating ready-made slogans and propaganda catchwords without understanding what they really mean, or what forces stand behind them.
This parrotism may give the citizen of Totalitaria a certain infantile emotional pleasure, however. Heil, heil!—Duce, Duce!— these rhythmic chants afford him the same kind of sound-enjoyment children achieve through babbling, shrieking, and yelling.
The abuse of the word and the enshrinement of propaganda are more obvious in Totalitaria than in any other part of the world. But this evil exists all over. We can find all too many examples of it in actual conversation. Many speakers use verbal showing off to cover an emptiness of thought, to stir up emotions and to create admiration and adoration of what is essentially empty and valueless. Loudmouthed phoniness threatens to become the ideal of our time.
The semantic fog in Totalitaria is thickened by the regimentation of information. The citizens of our mythical country have no access to sources of facts and opinions. They are not free to verify what they hear or read. They are the victims of their leader’s “labelomania”—their judgments are determined by the official labels everything and everybody bears.
The urge to attach too much meaning to the label of an object or institution and to look only casually at its intrinsic value is characteristic of our times and seems to be growing. I call this condition labelomania; it is the exaggerated respect for the scientific-sounding name—the label, the school, the degree, the diploma —with a surprising disregard for underlying value.
All about us we see people chasing after fixed formulas, credits, marks, ranks, and labels because they believe that if one is to have prestige or recognition these distinguishing marks are necessary. In order to obtain acceptance, people are prepared to undergo most impractical and stylized training and conditioning—not to mention expense— in special schools and institutions which promote certain labels, diplomas, and sophisticated facades.
The urge to attach too much meaning to the label of an object or institution and to look only casually at its intrinsic value is characteristic of our times and seems to be growing. I call this condition labelomania; it is the exaggerated respect for the scientific-sounding name—the label, the school, the degree, the diploma —with a surprising disregard for underlying value.
All about us we see people chasing after fixed formulas, credits, marks, ranks, and labels because they believe that if one is to have prestige or recognition these distinguishing marks are necessary. In order to obtain acceptance, people are prepared to undergo most impractical and stylized training and conditioning—not to mention expense— in special schools and institutions which promote certain labels, diplomas, and sophisticated facades.
Dissension and disagreement become both a physical and an emotional luxury. Vituperation, and the power that lies behind it, is the only sanctioned logic. Facts contrary to the official line are distorted and suppressed; any form of mental compromise is treason. In Totalitaria, there is no search for truth, only the enforced acceptance of the totalitarian dogmas and clichés.
The most frightening thing of all is that parallel to the increase in our means of communication, our mutual understanding has decreased. A Babel-like confusion has taken hold of political and nonpolitical minds as a result of semantic disorder and too much verbal noise.
Totalitaria makes the thinking man a criminal, for in our mythical country the citizen can be punished as much for wrong thinking as for wrongdoing. Because the watchful eyes of the secret police are everywhere, the critic of the regime is driven to conspiratorial methods if he wants to have even a safe conversation with those he wants to trust. What we used to call the “Nazi gesture” was a careful looking around before starting to talk to a friend.
The criminal in Totalitaria can be an accidental scapegoat used for release of official hostility, and there is often need for a scapegoat. From one day to the next, a citizen can become a hero or a villain, depending on strategic party needs.
Nearly all of the mature ideals of mankind are crimes in Totalitaria. Freedom and independence, compromise and objectivity— all of these are treasonable. In Totalitaria there is a new crime, the apostatic crime, which may be described as the obstinate refusal to admit imputed guilt. On the other hand, the hero in Totalitaria is the converted sinner, the breast-beating, recanting traitor, the self-denouncing criminal, the informer, and the stool pigeon.
The ordinary, law-abiding citizen of Totalitaria, far from being a hero, is potentially guilty of hundreds of crimes. He is a criminal if he is stubborn in defense of his own point of view. He is a criminal if he refuses to become confused. He is a criminal if he does not loudly and vigorously participate in all official acts; reserve, silence, and ideological withdrawal are treasonable.
He is a criminal if he doesn’t look happy, for then he is guilty of what the Nazis called physiognomic insubordination. He can be a criminal by association or disassociation, by scapegoatism or by projection, by intention or by anticipation. He is a criminal if he refuses to become an informer.
can be tried and found guilty by every conceivable ism—cosmopolitanism, provincialism; deviationalism, mechanism; imperialism, nationalism; pacifism, militarism; objectivism, subjectivism; chauvinism, equalitarianism; practicalism, idealism. He is guilty every time he is something.
The only safe conduct pass for the citizen of Totalitaria lies in the complete abdication of his mental integrity.
The continual intrusion into our minds of the hammering noises of arguments and propaganda can lead to two kinds of reactions. It may lead to apathy and indifference, the I-don’t-care reaction, or to a more intensified desire to study and to understand.
Unfortunately, the first reaction is the more popular one. The flight from study and awareness is much too common in a world that throws too many confusing pictures to the individual.
For the sake of our democracy, based on freedom and individualism, we have to bring ourselves back to study again and again. Otherwise, we can become easy victims of a well-planned verbal attack on our minds and consciences.»
Utdrag fra: Joost A. M. Meerloo. «The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing». 1956
Det første stadiet avhenger av tillit i situasjonen og troverdige intensjoner fra overgriperens side, en tilstand som har blitt skapt av overgriperens kunstferdige selvbilde og hans innsmigrende propaganda. Når han har oppnådd denne tilliten vil overgriperen begynne å undergrave den, skape situasjoner og omgivelser der offeret begynner å tvile på sin egen dømmekraft. Til slutt vil offeret stole fullstendig på overgriperen for å mildne sin egen usikkerhet, og for å prøve å gjenopprette sin egen virkelighetsoppfatning som i realiteten er blitt som overgriperens.
2. stadium
Det andre stadium, forsvar, er en prosess der overgriperen isolerer offeret, ikke bare fra hans egen identitetsoppfatning, men også fra verdiene til hans likemenn. Ofrene vil tro at deres meninger er verdiløse, diskrediterte og merkelige. I politiske sirkler vil de bli kalt konspirasjons-teoretikere, dissidenter eller mulige terrorister. Som en konsekvens vil ofrene trekke seg tilbake og slutte å uttrykke seg av redsel for å ha latterlige oppfatninger og for å bli straffet.
Dette stadiet kan sammenliknes med Stockholm-syndromet. Stockholm-syndromet binder ofrene til den aggressive og blir en slags «foreldre».
Begge disse metodene blir hamret inn i offerets overlevelses-mekanisme for å gjenvinne og opprettholde kontroll.
3. stadium.
Det siste stadiet er depresjon. Et liv under et tyrannisk styre driver ofrene inn i en tilstand av total forvirring. De er fratatt all verdighet og selvbevissthet. De eksisterer i et informasjons-vakuum som bare blir fylt med det overgriperen mener er relevant.
For det første er en av de viktigste måtene som regjeringen opprettholder kontroll over befolkningen, konseptet med dobbeltenkning. Dobbeltenkning er kraften til å holde to motstridende meninger samtidig. De er to motstridende oppfatninger på samme tid av samme person.
I Oceania er befolkningen utdannet i dobbeltenkning så de vet hvordan man aksepterer motsetninger og forstår deres praktiske eksistens. I det kontrollerte samfunnet i romanen 1984 er ikke tegnene på en totalitær regjering skjult. Totalitarisme blir det undervist om, og folket både godtar og avviser det samtidig. Dette gjenspeiles i regjeringens tre slagord:
«Krig er fred. Frihet er trelldom. Uvitenhet er styrke.»
Det endelige målet med dobbeltenkning er å få befolkningen til å tenke på denne måten automatisk. Regjeringen vil at folket venner seg til å holde to motstridende tanker i hodet uten å innse at de er motstridende. Skjer dette i virkeligheten?
Mange studier har vist at hjernen vår støtter motstridende ideer. Ideen dreier seg om Festingers teori om kognitiv dissonans. Teorien hans sier at det er mulig for oss å ha dissonante ideer. Festinger sier imidlertid at det er mekanismer i hjernene våre for å ignorere eller løse den dissonansen. Dobbeltenkning vil være en måte å rasjonalisere dissonanser på og være i stand til å eksistere med dem.
I virkeligheten bruker vi dobbeltenkning mer enn vi forestiller oss. Regjeringene utnytter dette og bruker dobbeltenkning til en viss grad. Et klart eksempel er fiendskapet vårt mot terrorangrep. Imidlertid utfører samtidig mange land handlinger av samme art og selger til og med våpen til disse terroristgruppene. Vi må være ekstremt forsiktige. Rasjonaliseringen av motsetninger er en automatisk prosess, og vi kan utføre den prosessen uten å innse det.
Et annet viktig aspekt av regjeringens kontroll i 1984 er kontrollen med tanken. For å oppnå tankekontroll forsøker regjeringen å endre språk slik at tanken blir praktisk i stedet for nyttig som kan brukes til argumentasjon. Faren er at folk tenker for mye, det vil ødelegge dobbeltanken, og dette vil føre til regjeringens ødeleggelse. Hvis vi følger Sapir-Whorf-hypotesen, foreslår Orwell at ved å bytte språk kan vi forandre det menneskelige sinnet.
For å oppnå tankekontroll reduserer Oceania-regjeringen språket til dets enkleste form, og gjør det til et helt pragmatisk språk. På denne måten mister synonymer og antonymer sin betydning. Det er ikke lenger interessant å formidle nyanser av ord som fører til avgjørelser og tolkninger. Antonymer genererer frykt, og konflikt baner vei til rasjonalitet. Et eksempel på dette kan være å fjerne ordet “krig” fra ordlisten og bare snakke om det når det gjelder mer fred eller mindre fred.
Leksen vi kan lære av dette nye språket er at språk kan være farlig i livene våre. Språket er i stand til å forandre oppfatningen og tenkningen vår. En politisk diskurs kan således virke svært forskjellig avhenging av ordene som brukes til å beskrive den. Når en politiker prøver å sette ord som “demokrati,” “konstitusjonell” og “fred” mot ord som “angrep” eller “krig,” forsøker de å få sympati fra borgerne sine. Av denne grunnen er det viktig å utforske begrunnelsen bak hvorfor folk bruker et bestemt språk.
Til slutt, i romanen 1984, ser “Store Bror” alltid på og kontrollerer alt. “Store Bror” ser på innbyggerne overalt, til og med i deres egne hjem. Selv innen familier blir barn utdannet til å vokte foreldrene sine og fordømme dem hvis de begår en forbrytelse. Et viktig aspekt ved kontroll er manipulering av informasjon.
For Oceania kan regjeringen omskrive fortiden for å opprettholde regjeringens stabilitet. I romanen er Sannhetsministeriet dedikert til å forandre alle skrifter, aviser og bøker til fordel for “Store Bror”. Hvis “Store Bror” sa at sjokoladerasjoner skulle gå opp og det er faktisk mindre nå enn før, ville “Store Bror” endre data for å få det til å se ut som om sjokoladerasjonene faktisk økte.
Vi er ikke immune mot manipulering og kontroll av informasjon. Massemedia, inkludert fjernsyn, radio og aviser, har vanligvis partier og regjeringer som endrer informasjon for å påvirke meningene våre. Derfor krever all informasjon vi mottar at vi tenker kritisk om det vi leser.
Til slutt, i romanen 1984 utgjør Orwell et veldig interessant dystopisk samfunn med store paralleller til det nåværende samfunnet vårt. Det er viktig å reflektere over disse parallellene og se de potensielle feilene i samfunnet vårt. Hvis vi ønsker å unngå å utvikle oss mot en orwellsk verden, er det viktig å opprettholde en kritisk holdning mot mekanismene som påvirker og overtaler oss.” https://utforsksinnet.no/romanen-1984-av-george-orwell/
“In this episode Professor in Clinical Psychology at Ghent University in Belgium, Mattias Desmet, explains the phenomenon of Mass Formation. Desmet holds a Master’s Degree in Statistics and after studying the public COVID-19 statistics, he realised that the mortality of the virus was highly exaggerated.
Yet, when people pointed it out publicly, the narrative did not seem to become more balanced. He has studied totalitarianism and realised that the world was experiencing a Mass Formation, which is a condition where people are hypnotised and have a very narrow focus on just one problem.
They go into a collective, totalitarian state of mind, and do not realise that they are losing everything. The group will also feel extreme anger towards those who do not go along with their narrative and almost religious rituals.” https://www.antijantepodden.no/p/ajp043?s=r#details
Hver helg når jeg spiser frokost så pleier jeg å se en film. I dag så tok jeg en reprise på 12 edsvorne menn (12 angry men) fra 1957 med Henry Fonda i hovedrollen, som jeg ikke hadde sett siden den gikk som mandagsfilm på NRK i 1984,85 da jeg var 14, 15 år gammel.
“Filmen handler om et jurymedlem (Henry Fonda) som må prøve å overbevise de 11 andre medlemmene om å la en drapsmistenkte frikjennes, fordi tvilen bør falle han til gode. Den tiltalte har etter alt å dømme tatt livet av sin egen far og alle jurymedlemmene, unntagen en, mener saken er opplagt. Det hele utvikler seg til en lang, og til tider voldsom, diskusjon om vedkommendes skyld. Etterhvert som intensiteten stiger avsløres det at flere av jurymedlemmene har basert sin oppfatning på fordommer de har overfor kriminelt belastet ungdom. Og etterhvert som disse fordommene kommer til syne utover kvelden begynner stadig flere å tvile på vedkommendes skyld.” https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_edsvorne_menn
Filmen er en fantastisk god analogi til tiden vi nå lever i, der en mann eller kvinnes higen etter sannheten kan smitte over til andre. Der propaganda og indoktrinering en gang hadde et kvelertak på flertallet så løsner det grepet nå fordi sannheten og higen etter den sprer seg som ild i tørt grass. Og grunnen til det, er fordi vi, som Henry Fonda, har en samvittighet som tvinger oss til rope opp når vi ser at det er noe galt og si ifra at slik vil vi ikke ha det.
Og der en mann og kvinne tør å heve røsten der han/hun ser urettferdighet og ondskap, selv om den røsten ikke når inn til så mange i første omgang, så vil den sakte men sikkert, litt etter litt nå ut til mange, og til slutt så vil den overvinne løgnene og propagandaen.
Mange av oss har i lang tid tatt ett oppgjør med urettferdigheten og ondskapen som vi ser overalt rundt oss, og nå begynner vi virkelig å høste fruktene av vårt arbeide og engasjement. Jeg vil si at vi nå nærmer oss det 77 minutt i filmen 12 edsvorne menn.
Her om dagen så snakket jeg med far min om Hviterussland og situasjonen der. Far min hadde som vanlig sittet pal foran TV og sugd til seg propaganda fra TV2, NRK og CNN som en junkie som ikke kan få nok av dopet sitt.
Jeg spurte hvilke andre informasjonskilder han hadde sett på som ikke gjentok hverandre som papegøyer, men det var da ikke nødvendig i følge han. Jeg foreslo at han burde ta en titt på Steigan og se hva han hadde å si for noe om situasjonen i Hviterussland, men det falt ikke i smak. Steigan må du vite var jo en gammel kommunist i følge far min, slik at det far min hadde sett det trumfet artikkelen til Nistad som ligger ute på Steigan. Uten at far min hadde lest artikkelen så visste han altså at Nistad sin artikkel ikke var verdt fem flate øre, mens propagandaen han hadde tatt til seg den var hundre prosent objektiv.
Far min er overhodet ikke et særtilfellet, han er standaren. Utfordrer man informasjon som ikke stemmer overens med hva han tror på da går han på person med en gang i stedet for sak.
Han og alle andre som TROR blindt på den ensidige informasjonen mainstream media formidler, er i egne øyne eksperter, ikke bare i utenrikssaker, de er eksperter i alt som har med samfunnet å gjøre, ikke fordi de har lest hundre eller tusenvis av artikler og bøker om disse samfunnsemnene som ser på dem i fra forskjellige vinkler, men fordi de har sett ett to minutters innslag på NRK eller TV2 nyhetene, mens de av oss som har satt seg inn hvordan verden er, som 24/7 tar til oss allsidig informasjon og som klarer å se i gjennom propagandaen, vi er amatører og idioter i forhold til dem.
Vi lever altså i en verden, der de som vet lite eller ingenting om den verden vi lever i ser på seg selv som eksperter, og i følge dem selv så behøver de ikke å dokumentere at de har rett, de behøver bare å si at de som ikke er enige med dem, de er dumme eller konspirasjonsteoretikere, så har de alt på sitt tørre.
Kritisk tenking, innhenting av fakta, årevis med research kan i følge dem ikke måle seg med et to minutters TV innslag de har sett.
Og de skammer seg ikke det minste over å bruke hersketeknikker uhemmet for å beskytte sin dogmatiske tro som hverken har noe med koranen eller bibelen å gjøre, deres tro og bibel er TVn og det den formidler, og de forventer faktisk at de av oss som gjør vårt ytterste for å se forbi indoktrineringen og propagandaen skal skamme oss fordi vi gjør en hederlig jobb og ikke tror blindt på to minutters TV innlegg. https://steigan.no/2020/08/farlig-utvikling-i-hviterussland/
“All propaganda undergraver viktigheten av logikk. Dette er den grunnleggende egenskapen som skiller propaganda fra andre former for kommunikasjon. Avgjørelser bør tas gjennom nøye vurderinger. De bør tas etter å ha hørt alle argumenter og fakta fra alle sider i en debatt, der man veier opp det positive mot det negative. Propaganda oppfordrer oss til å omgå alle disse hensynene.
Evnen til å skille mellom budskap som kun sikter seg inn på det emosjonelle og reell argumentasjon og fakta gjør oss i stand til å ta informerte valg. Det er menneskelig å ha følelser, men å la dem ta kontrollen slik at de overstyrer fornuften kan være farlig, særlig når de manipuleres av utenforstående som ikke har våre beste interesser i tankene.
Konklusjonene vi trekker gjennom fornuften behøver ikke alltid å bli sanne eller riktige, alikevel har det å engasjere seg i logisk tenking en rekke fordeler. For det første blir vi i stand til å forklare andre hvordan vi kom til en gitt konklusjon. De kan synes at vårt resonnement er overbevisende, eller de kan se feil i logikken vår og avsløre disse feilene for oss. Dette gir en annen fordel: muligheten til å endre konklusjonene våre i lys av nye bevis. Når fornuften guider oss, er våre konklusjoner ikke statiske, da kan perspektivene våre vokse og utvikle seg.
Når vi tar ansvar for hva vi tror på og hvordan vi oppfører oss, trenger vi aldri å si at vi ble lurt, manipulert eller fanget i en bølge av lidenskap. Vi kan forklare feilene vi har gjort og forsvare handlingene våre hvis de er basert på logikk og ikke bare på følelser. Ved å praktisere uavhengig tenking, oppførerer vi oss som ansvarlige individer i en verden dominert av propaganda.” https://olehartattordet.blogg.no/en-meget-god-beskrivelse-av-propaganda.html
“Bruker vi mindre tid på hjernenyttige aktiviteter fordi vi kaster bort mer og mer tid foran fjernsynet, eller er det noe med seeraktivitetens iboende natur som gjør skade ? Svaret er begge deler.
En vanlig, våken hjerne lager beta og gammastråler, men studier viser at bare noen få minutter med tv-titting gjør at alfastrålingsmønstere blir dominerende i hjernen. Alfastrålingen er assosiert med avslapping, mottaklighet for suggesjon, sløvhet og til og med hypnose. Du tror kansje dette er noe positivt siden de fleste ser på TV for å slappe av, men dette er den verste tilstanden å være i når man blir utsatt for reklame, nyheter – ja etthvert TV-program som markedsfører skaperne og produsentenes verdier og oppfatninger.
Gjentatt TV-eksponering forsterker denne alfatilstanden. Hvis hjernen din er vant til å bruke fem timer daglig på å se på TV (det er den gjennomsnittlige tiden husstander i USA og Storbritannia bruker på fjernsyn hver dag), så begynner den med å streve med å generere andre mønstre. TV-tittingen hjelper deg kansje med å sovne om kvelden, men er skadelig for hjernen din på et høyere nivå.
Den venstre hjernehalvdelen, ansvarlig for kritisk tenking, slås av når vi ser på TV og gjør oss mottaklig for hjernevasking. Som Jim Morrison sa i An American Prayer: “Vet du at vi allerede styres av TV ? ” Når vi ser på TV foregår det veldig lite analyse i hjernen av innkommende informasjon og vår følelsesmessige respons blir avstumpet – ikke bare overfor vold, men også for ting som burde vekke medfølelse. Gjentakende visning av sultofre og borgerkrig i land i den tredje verden er et godt eksempel.
TV og barn: Barn er spesielt sårbare for fjernsyn fordi hjernen deres utvikler seg raskere enn voksne hjerner. Studier viser at det er veldig skadelig å utsette barn under to år for TV, og at det å se mye på TV korresponderer med dårlige akademiske prestasjoner senere i livet. Programmer som Sesam stasjon er gode læringsverktøy for barn på tre år eller mer, men de kan være skadelige for yngre barn. Dr. Dimitri Christakis sier at “Sesam stasjon ble ikke laget for så unge barn, men de blir sett av så unge barn fordi foreldre tror at det som er bra for en treåring også er bra for en toåring.” Små barn samhandler ikke med fjernsynet, ikke en gang med pedagogiske programmer, slik de gjør i den virkelige verden.
Eksperimenter gjennomført av Herbert Krugman i Advertising Research Foundation har fått ham til å beskrive TV-titting som en ” gå i søvne aktivitet”
Mullholand-Eksperimentet: Dr. Thomas Mullholand ble i sitt berømte eksperiment i 1970 den første vitenskapsmannen som fant en fysisk reaksjon på fjernsynstitting. Han brukte en elektroencefalografi (EEG) til å måle hjerneaktiviteten til ti barn mens de så på selvvalgte favorittprogrammer. Han ventet å finne høye nivåer av betabølger siden barna var engasjerte og begeistrede, men i stedet målte han først og fremst alfabølger – som er assosiert med minimal hjerneaktivitet.” https://olehartattordet.blogg.no/1455044525_skru_av_fjernsynet.html
Jeg har sett filmen på nytt i dag og den er mye mere relevant nå enn den var for ett år siden da jeg skrev bloggen, og det sier veldig mye med tanke på at den var rimelig bra relevant i fjor også. Jeg vil gå så langt som å si at det er en perfekt beskrivelse av hvordan tankesettet til folk flest er i dag når det gjelder å adlyde myndighetene blindt. Denne filmen må sees av så mange som mulig!
Filmen “Await further instructions” fra 2018 tar opp de mest aktuelle problemstillingene vi i den frie verden i dag står overfor. Kan sees i sin helhet her med engelsk tekst.
Filmen viser på en særdeles og utmerket god måte hvordan:
De fleste tror blindt på myndighetene og at de kun vil det beste for oss.
Hvordan media påvirker oss.
Hvordan vi blir manipulert til å la følelsene styre oss, mens kritisk tenking og kritiske spørsmål blir sett på som en trussel, og følelsesbaserte avgjørelser blir sett på som det eneste fornuftige.
Hvordan gruppepress påvirker oss.
Hvordan selvstendighet blir sett på som en trussel.
Hvordan isolasjon påvirker oss, splitter oss, gjør oss redde og fiendtlig innstilt overfor hverandre.
“All propaganda undergraver viktigheten av logikk. Dette er den grunnleggende egenskapen som skiller propaganda fra andre former for kommunikasjon. Avgjørelser bør tas gjennom nøye vurderinger. De bør tas etter å ha hørt alle argumenter og fakta fra alle sider i en debatt, der man veier opp det positive mot det negative. Propaganda oppfordrer oss til å omgå alle disse hensynene.
Evnen til å skille mellom budskap som kun sikter seg inn på det emosjonelle og reell argumentasjon og fakta gjør oss i stand til å ta informerte valg. Det er menneskelig å ha følelser, men å la dem ta kontrollen slik at de overstyrer fornuften kan være farlig, særlig når de manipuleres av utenforstående som ikke har våre beste interesser i tankene.
Konklusjonene vi trekker gjennom fornuften behøver ikke alltid å bli sanne eller riktige, alikevel har det å engasjere seg i logisk tenking en rekke fordeler. For det første blir vi i stand til å forklare andre hvordan vi kom til en gitt konklusjon. De kan synes at vårt resonnement er overbevisende, eller de kan se feil i logikken vår og avsløre disse feilene for oss. Dette gir en annen fordel: muligheten til å endre konklusjonene våre i lys av nye bevis. Når fornuften guider oss, er våre konklusjoner ikke statiske, da kan perspektivene våre vokse og utvikle seg.
Når vi tar ansvar for hva vi tror på og hvordan vi oppfører oss, trenger vi aldri å si at vi ble lurt, manipulert eller fanget i en bølge av lidenskap. Vi kan forklare feilene vi har gjort og forsvare handlingene våre hvis de er basert på logikk og ikke bare på følelser. Ved å praktisere uavhengig tenking, oppførerer vi oss som ansvarlige individer i en verden dominert av propaganda.” https://olehartattordet.blogg.no/en-meget-god-beskrivelse-av-propaganda.html
Etter 9/11 så ble demokratiet amputert, og folk godttok det i stor grad fordi de var redde akurat som nå. Og den redselen skaper en farlig holdning.
I sin bok “False alarm, the truth about the epidemic of fear” så sier lege og professor Marc Siegel:
“In my life, treating my pasients, and in studying fear, I have found that one effective treatment for fear is to replace it with another emotion, like caring. If a person, develops a passion that takes him beyond a self-absorbing cycle of worry, this passion can be used to breed the antithesis of fear, also known as courage.”
Dette er helt fraværende hos folk flest i dag, mot er en mangelvare, mens egoisme, redsel og feighet det har blitt den nye standaren. Lærerene tenker mer på seg selv enn elevene, leger er mer redd for seg selv enn pasientene, og journalistene og politikerne er de verste av dem alle som fyrer opp under denne frykpornoen. Og de fleste foreldre er villige til både å tvinge barna sine til å gå med munnbind og gi legemiddelindustrien tillatelse til å gi dem en vaksine som man ikke vet effekten av. Hvis ikke dette er feighet av verste sort, så har ordet feighet mistet sin betydning
Går man mot strømmen og taler i mot diktaturet som nærmer seg med stormskritt, så blir man møtt av flygende aper som pga av sin uvitenhet støtter opp om nedbrytningen av demokrati og frihet fordi de ukritisk tar til seg propaganda. De indoktrinerte og uvitende ser på seg selv som kunnskapsrike gode og rettferdige.
Det er helt absurd og se at på noen få måneder så har svært mange godtatt den samme tilstanden som nazistene innførte under okkupasjonen i 1940, det vitner om en utrolig historieløshet og ekstremt manglende selvinnsikt hos disse selvhøytidlige hyklerne, som hvis de hadde levd i Norge under andre verdenskrig, ville stått på nazistenes side. Det er bare i den grad folket er godt informert om nasjonale og internasjonale hendelser og kan tenke uavhengig og kritisk om disse hendelsene at demokratiet er en effektiv styreform.
Hvis flertallet av borgerne ikke klarer å forstå at de blir utsatt for propaganda som media og politikerne formidler, så kan i verste fall demokratiet smuldre opp og erstattes med et diktatur. Og hvis flertallet av borgerne også er historieløse, så kan et slikt diktatur oppfattes som demokrati.
Den kvinnelige legen i videoen “Human 2.0” ? A Wake-up call, Carrie Madej, plukker totalt fra hverandre påstandene til faktisk.no som sier at den nye Moderna vaksinen ikke kan skade vårt dna, og dokumentasjon på det hun sier ligger selvfølgelig også ved. Makkverket til faktisk.no kan du lese her
I utprøvinga av den nye vaksina til Moderna har de kun brukt data fra fire pasienter av 45 medvirkende noe som overhodet ikke er nok til en statistisk analyse, istedet har de brukt data fra mus for å komme til fase to og det er jo en himmelstor forskjell i fra mus til mennesker:
“Phase I clinical trials simply test the safety of a drug or vaccine in a small number of healthy volunteers — usually brave and naïve college students — while Phase II trials are responsible for testing its effectiveness in a larger number of subjects.
Such a hyped-up and exuberant response to a Phase I trial is rare and nearly unheard of, even in the extraordinary setting of Covid-19. This is especially the case since so little information is gleaned from an investigational drug in Phase I that has many more hurdles to overcome before it successfully gets to market.
In fact, 77 percent of vaccines for infectious diseases make it through Phase I, but only 33 percent make it through the entire process overall. Moreover, upon examining Moderna’s non-peer reviewed press release, the actual data on the vaccine’s success is even more flimsy.
According to the document, of the 45 patients who received the vaccine, the data on “neutralising antibody data are available only for the first four participants in each of the 25-microgram and 100-microgram dose level cohorts.”
In other words, that means that when it comes to finding out whether the vaccine elicits an antibody response that could potentially fight the coronavirus, they only had data on eight patients. That’s not enough to do any type of statistical analysis and it also brings into question the status of the other 37 patients who also received the vaccine.
Moreover, when it comes to determining whether the “neutralising antibodies” were clinically effective against the coronavirus, the only data Moderna alluded to were from mice.
Not only are there huge differences between mice and men, but history also proves that success in animal models is often not replicated in human studies. This is especially the case for Moderna’s messenger RNA vaccine, which would be the world’s first to ever reach the market if it passes clinical trials.
If the undeserved investor and media hype for Moderna’s messenger RNA coronavirus vaccine allows it to overtake all competitors around the world, then we may be left with a potentially more dangerous and unknown vaccine that many of us may not even be able to afford.
So let’s have an even playing field here. Let’s base our excitement and exuberance on the actual facts and evidence and data rather than our labile emotions and feelings.
We are all in this together, and that includes poor people in America and poor people in poor countries around the world who deserve an eventual coronavirus vaccine that is safe, effective, and — last but not least — affordable.”
“AstraZeneca innrømmet feil – nå stiller eksperter spørsmål ved vaksinens effektivitet
Nyheten i forrige uke om at AstraZeneca og Oxford Universitys felles koronavaksine kan være opp mot 90 prosent effektiv ble møtt med jubel i markedene.
Men siden de foreløpige resultatene ble offentliggjort har AstraZeneca innrømmet at de gjorde en vesentlig feil, ved at noen av forsøkspersonene ved et uhell fikk en mindre vaksinedose.
En gruppe fikk først en halv dose og deretter en hel. I denne gruppen har vaksinen vist seg å være 90 prosent effektiv. I en større gruppe, som fikk to fulle doser, var effektiviteten 62 prosent.
Nå har eksperter begynt å tvile på effektiviteten til vaksinen, skriver The New York Times.
Vitenskapsansatte og industrieksperter sier at den innrømmede feilen og en serie andre uregelmessigheter i måten AstraZeneca i utgangspunktet avslørte datene på har gjort dem mer skeptiske til resultatene som er fremlagt. Blant annet er man usikker på om de lovende resultatene også reflekterer data fra eldre forsøkspersoner.
“De siste ukene har vi fått oppløftende vaksinenyheter fra flere produsenter. Nyhetene tas godt imot, men professor Terje Ingemar Traavik advarer mot å ha for stor optimisme rundt vaksinene.
Nå reagerer professor i virologi og genøkologi, Terje Ingemar Traavik. Koronavaksinene som nå søkes hastegodkjent kan bidra til at færre får alvorlige sykdom eller dør av koronaviruset. Han mener imidlertid at myndighetene unnlater å fortelle hele historien.
– Når vaksinerte personer infiseres med viruset kan de fortsatt skille ut virus og smitte andre. Vaksineprodusentene har ikke hevdet noe annet, og nylige fagfelle-vurderte forskningsartikler understreker dette, sier Traavik til TV 2.
Folkehelseinstituttet skriver på sine hjemmesider at hensikten med vaksinasjon er for å forebygge sykdom, eller å gjøre sykdomsforløpet mildere uten å bli utsatt for alvorlig bivirkninger.
– Men de vaksinene som nå søkes hastegodkjent bidrar ikke til å hindre smittespredning, sier Traavik.
Han forklarer at en ideell vaksine skal beskytte den enkelte mot sykdom og samfunnet mot smittespredning.
– Man har oppnådd et av tre ideelle målsetninger knyttet til en vaksine. Det handler om at folk ikke blir alvorlig syk, sier professoren og legger til at vaksinen ikke stopper eventuell smittespredning.
– Man burde stille spørsmålet om vaksinen vil stoppe pandemien. Man burde understreke at 90-95 prosent effekt gjelder hindret sykdomsutvikling, ikke virusspredning, sier han.
Han mener at det ikke er avklart om vaksinene gir alvorlige bivirkninger.
Dr. Madej nevner Matrix filmene som gode eksempler på transhumanisme, men filmen Upgrade fra 2018 med Logan Marshall-Green i hovedrollen er et bedre eksempel og en skremmende realistisk advarsel mot transhumanisme.
“Politicians are dreaming of a “Manhattan Project-style effort” to develop and distribute a coronavirus vaccine “for most Americans by year’s end.” To accomplish this dramatic cut in vaccine development time, “the program will pull together private pharmaceutical companies, government agencies and the military.” Normal vaccine development time is significantly longer.
Fourteen potential coronavirus vaccines are vying to be selected as the winner of “Operation Warp Speed.” Government will shield pharmaceutical companies from liability for damages that their vaccines may inflict. Taxpayers will reimburse companies for development costs for vaccines that don’t make it to market.
If you’re cheering the government for cutting red-tape, think again. Liability shields for crony capitalists and no cost for failure policies guarantee errors will be made. Without market safeguards significant injuries to human beings are highly likely. Errors will be exacerbated if medical tyranny prevails with legal mandates requiring the COVID-19 vaccination for employment and travel.
Haven’t we learned there was no such thing as efficient food distribution in the Soviet Union? Haven’t we learned there was no such thing as a safe East German Communist Trabant automobile? There is no such thing as efficient and safe, centrally planned pharmaceutical development. As we will see later in this essay, the last time government sought a “warp speed” vaccine, dead and paralyzed vaccine recipients were the tragic consequences.
Limits on Liability
Pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, have benefits and costs. We don’t have to resolve our cognitive dissonance by denying the benefits of vaccines or denying the harm they can do.
Faced with “challenges to vaccine orthodoxy, scholars, commentators, and public health officials are quick to characterize dissent as mere propaganda of ‘anti-vaxxers,’” writes law professor Efthimios Parasidis in his Boston University Law Review article “Recalibrating Vaccination Laws.”
Parasidis wrote his essay a mere three years ago. Could he have imagined what is happening today, just a few years later? A group affiliated with the FBI is labeling those who question the vaccine orthodoxy as a “threat to national security.” In a similar vein, California State Senator Dr. Richard Pan claims that those demanding an end to lockdowns and those who question vaccines “have the same message: We want you to get sick.” Demonizing dissenters is rhetoric straight out of a totalitarian playbook. People who threaten “national security” and who “want you to get sick” will be ideal “devils” for politicians to blame when their own policies fail.
Parasidis wrote that such tactics obfuscate safety and legal issues, “Focusing contemporary vaccine policy debate on anti-vaxxer rhetoric detracts from adequate consideration of important vaccine-related issues.” In his article, Parasidis points to both “the health benefits of vaccines” and “the shortcomings of the legal framework governing immunizations.”
The shortcomings of the legal framework to which Parasidis refers stem from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act).
The Vaccine Act granted pharmaceutical manufacturers broad legal immunity from lawsuits for vaccine injuries. Further, Parasidis writes, “once a vaccine is approved and made available to the public, a manufacturer does not have a statutory obligation to actively collect and analyze safety and efficacy data, nor are manufacturers obligated to update vaccine formulas in light of new scientific advancements.”
On top of the protections in the 1986 Vaccine Act, vaccine manufacturers have received additional liability protections under a February 2020 declaration by Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services. Azar claims his authority to make such a declaration is granted by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).
Azar’s order makes “immune from suit and liability…to all claims of loss,” for all those who “manufacture, distribute, administer, prescribe or use” any treatments or vaccines. Administer a rushed-to-market vaccine to healthy individuals at no particular risk from COVID-19 and the government will shield you from liability. Lobby to make the vaccine mandatory and government will shield you from liability.
Noted vaccine advocates and developers such as Dr. Paul Offit have expressed alarm that “warp speed” developers might ignore standard vaccine development safeguards. “Remember,” Offit cautioned, “You’re giving this vaccine, likely, to healthy people — who are not the people typically dying from this infection.”
Liability shields warp decision-making and increase risk. Having to pay insurance premiums provides incentives to reduce risk. Think of insurance premiums on cars. Insurance premiums might help us decide against the sports car we have been coveting for years in favor of a sedate sedan. High insurance premiums for drivers involved in crashes or caught driving drunk or frequently speeding help those drivers make needed behavioral changes.
If the government indemnified us from damages from driving, risky driving would become more common. Those taking added risks would fool themselves with an illusion of competency. They might be indignant when charged with endangering others.
Libertarian law professor Richard Epstein has explored the problem in limiting liability. Writing about the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he explained why “the best way to deter future spills is to expose drillers to the full costs of any mistake and not let any company without proper insurance near an oil derrick.”
Let’s rewrite Epstein’s observations: the best way to ensure vaccine safety is to expose pharmaceutical companies to the full costs of any mistake and not let any company without proper insurance near a human body.
Epstein was adamant:
“The legal system should never allow self-interested parties to keep for themselves all the gains from dangerous activities that unilaterally impose losses on others—which is why the most devout defender of laissez-faire must insist, not just concede, that tough medicine is needed in these cases.”
As Epstein explained, insurance companies are the best regulators:
“A tough liability system does more than provide compensation for serious harms after the fact. It also sorts out the wheat from the chaff—so that in this case companies with weak safety profiles don’t get within a mile of an oil derrick. Solid insurance underwriting is likely to do a better job in pricing risk than any program of direct government oversight. Only strong players, highly incentivized and fully bonded, need apply for a permit to operate.”
Epstein’s logic applies to the Vaccine Act. Pharmaceutical companies are highly incentivized to produce the safest vaccines when they are subject to the discipline of obtaining insurance coverage.
Those advocating in favor of liability shields say that protecting public health requires this waiver. Without the waiver, they claim, too few vaccines would be produced.
The case against liability shields is not a case against vaccines; it is a case against the distorted production of vaccines. Limits on liability override the risk-reducing incentives provided by having to pay insurance premiums and thus result in vaccines that are less safe than they would otherwise be.
Swine Flu Lessons
In his book, The Myth of Scientific Public Policy, economist Robert Formaini challenges the view that elite experts can evaluate public policy objectively “while remaining neutral on troublesome ethical issues.”
Formaini looks at lessons we should have learned from the 1976 swine flu outbreak. The outbreak began at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The flu outbreak was not unusual; it was winter, and in the close quarters of army barracks, respiratory illnesses and flu were common. Formaini writes, “The outbreak may have passed unnoticed except for a bet between two doctors about the nature of the disease.” Throat cultures were sent to multiple health organizations; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found swine flu.
The CDC asked Congress “for a $134 million program to vaccinate virtually every person within the United States.”
Formaini writes, “Private drug companies did not want to make the vaccine unless they were statutorily protected from liability from torts.” Congress granted such protection despite warnings from some such luminaries as polio vaccine pioneer Dr. Albert Sabin. Sabin “castigated the rush to vaccinate everyone and urged that vaccines be stockpiled for ‘high risk’ groups.” Sabin also derided “scare tactics” used to get people to vaccinate.
Within months, a swine flu vaccine was produced and approved. The CDC failed “to alert the public to any serious potential side effects other than a possible case of ‘mild’ flu.” Even a mild flu can lead “to fatal complications” for “high-risk groups.”
Within days, 33 people who received the vaccine died. Health officials refused to acknowledge the connection between the vaccine and the deaths. “Walter Cronkite chastised his media colleagues” for covering the deaths. Vaccinations continued, and an alarming number of Guillain-Barré syndrome cases, a known potentially fatal side effect of flu vaccines, appeared.
Shortly after that, the CDC director resigned, and government shelved the vaccination program.
Formaini raised pointed questions that should be asked again today in the rush for a COVID-19 vaccine. Among those questions were:
1. Why did “experts immediately decide” that “universal vaccination was the only option?”
2. “Why were the drug companies released from liability if the ‘risks’ were so small?”
3. “Why was disengagement so difficult when the program’s consequences began to materialize?”
4. “Who ought to have been liable for this policy?”
Today’s experts are like the experts in the 1970s who were full of hubris and overconfidence. Policy analysts who later examined the 1976 swine flu concluded among other things:
1. “There was overconfidence by medical specialists in theories ‘spun’ from ‘meager evidence.’”
2. “Conclusions were reached ‘fueled by conjunctions’ with pre-existing ‘personal agendas.’”
3. “There often was ‘premature commitment’—deciding more than had to be decided.”
4. There often was “insufficient questioning of scientific logic and implementation prospects.”
Distorted decision-making was driven by “rent-seeking” by public officials during this crisis where “the heads of bureaucratic departments or agencies,” sought expansion of “their personal empires within the government.”
Reading Formaini, it is easy to see the same mistakes of 1976 repeated in 2020. In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius observed of politics, “All of this has happened before. And will happen again—the same plot from beginning to end, the identical staging.”
Biochemical Individuality
The late biochemist Roger J. Williams is famed for his study of the implications of biochemical individuality. His research explains the importance of understanding that “real people exhibit individuality and in a sense are always exceptional people.” Biochemical individuality explains why, for some, a coronavirus vaccine may help to maintain health; for others, it may prove deadly.
In his essay “Individuality and Its Significance in Human Life” contained in the Liberty Fund book Essays on Individuality, Williams writes: “Concerning the ubiquity of individuality, we can, I believe, accept without danger of contradiction the categorical statement that every human individual (even in the case of identical twins) is distinctive and different.”
Yet, in medicine, often only lip service is paid to individuality. We like “the idea of distinctiveness,” yet, as Williams observes, we are “all the time being ignorant about the character of the differences and perhaps even assuming they are inconsequential.”
Williams explores startling differences in our organs: “Although the textbook picture of the human stomach, for example, is well stereotyped, there are enormous variations in shape and about a sixfold variation in size.” Even the position of the stomach in the body may vary by up to eight inches.
Similar differences in size and position are found in livers and intestines. Should we be surprised, Williams asks, “that people exhibit individuality in their eating?”
Williams explains that “Each individual has a highly characteristic breathing pattern,” and “has a distinctive heart action.”
“Endocrine glands vary widely from individual to individual.” Williams adds that “our entire nervous system is subject to the same wide variation, which is not only anatomic but physiological as well.
If you’re thinking all these differences even out and most people are average, you would be wrong. The chance that we have an average anatomical makeup, according to Williams, is only about one in 1024.
Physiological individuality is also the norm. For example, there are up to “100 fold variations in the taste sensitivity of different individuals for such common substances as sugar [and] salt.” Nutritional needs vary up top fivefold for vitamins, minerals, and amino acids.
In short, Williams writes, “Whether we consider heart action, brain waves, circulation, breathing, the endocrine functions, the blood, temperature regulation, or a multitude of other facets of physiology, the story is the same—abundant evidence of individuality involving differences of great magnitude.”
Biochemical individuality has great significance for the administration of drugs or vaccines. Since body chemistries differ among individuals, reactions to pharmaceuticals also differ.
According to Williams, “Some specific chemical reactions may be taking place 10 times as fast in one individual as in another.” Consider that “Using objective tests 10.5 percent were intoxicated when the alcohol blood level was 0.05 percent, whereas 6.7% were sober when the alcohol blood level was eight times this high or 0.4 percent.”
There is no “normal man” for which a particular reaction is guaranteed.
Williams emphatically rejects the assumption of “every recognized treatise in the fields of biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, and physiological psychology… that normal man, the prototype of all humanity, is the primary if not the exclusive object of study—he, above all is to be fathomed and understood.”
Caution is warranted. Previous attempts to develop “SARS coronavirus vaccines” led to “pulmonary” issues in animal testing. Vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) led to enhanced disease response among infants and toddlers. “Frequent hospitalization” was the result; an unacceptable result since RSV illnesses are usually mild. Despite “expert” assurances to the contrary, medical research suggests receiving a flu vaccination “may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference.”
The Greater Good?
Some might say, yes, mandatory vaccines may harm some, but the greater goal of protecting public health is worth the price. This “greater good” mindset led to the famed New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty covering up Stalin’s atrocities. Duranty was fond of saying, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”
In 2009, during another swine flu outbreak, in their essay, “Does the Vaccine Matter?” Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer report of doctors challenging the medical orthodoxy about flu vaccines and antivirals. They provided evidence that “flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu.”
Vaccination may have unintended psychological consequences as well. Brownlee and Lenzer observe a connection between vaccinating and “breeding feelings of invulnerability, and leading some people to ignore simple measures like better-than-normal hygiene, staying away from those who are sick, and staying home when they feel ill.” Feelings of invulnerability lead people to eschew responsibility and become potential breeding grounds for disease.
Biochemical individuality explains why, for some, a coronavirus vaccine may help to maintain health; for others, it may prove deadly. Biochemical individuality also explains why there is no one best way to a healthy immune system. Some thrive on keto diets, while others thrive on vegan diets. Others seek a middle ground in a Mediterranean diet.
For some, perhaps those in crowded urban environments, taking a COVID-19 vaccine may seem like a wise choice. Individuals choosing to be vaccinated deserve the safest possible vaccine, a vaccine for which insurance companies insuring vaccine manufacturers will provide liability protection.
For those who wish to avoid a COVID-19 vaccine, fundamental natural rights guarantee that freedom. No individual should be forcibly injected with a vaccine because of policy mandates from self-interested and zealous “expert” decision-makers.
Williams is clear: “Among the myriad of potentialities with which every individual is born, there still are an infinite number of possibilities of development—provided this ability to order one’s own life exists.” “In medicine,” Williams writes, “recognition of the scope and importance of individuality is indispensable to progress.”
“Medisinen hadde svært gode resultater i laboratorieforsøk mot koronavirus. Derfor ble det igangsatt flere studier med pasienter. – Overveldende resultater – Resultatene er overveldende. Nå har vi over 17 randomiserte kontrollstudier med over to tusen pasienter. Ivermectin er et såkalt bredspektret legemiddel med antivirale og betennelsesdempende egenskaper. Den er regnet som en trygg medisin med lite bivirkninger, og den japansk-amerikanske forskergruppen bak ivermectin fikk nobelprisen i medisin i 2015. Dr. Kory forteller at flere av studiene viser at ivermectin har forebyggende effekt mot covid-19. – Studiene viser at hos folk som tar ivermectin forebyggende, er sjansen for å få covid-19 lik null. Den blokkerer viruset og hindrer det i å fornye seg i cellene. Fall i dødelighet I tillegg hevder han at studier gjort i flere land viser kraftig reduksjon i dødelighet der ivermectin er blitt gitt til svært syke pasienter. Han viser til analyser av data fra blant annet Paraguay og India der medisinen er blitt tatt i bruk, også på sykehus. – Der ser man et dramatisk fall i dødelighet etter at ivermectin ble tatt i bruk. Vi ser at ivermectin er svært effektiv hos innlagte pasienter blant annet fordi den har betennelsesdempende effekt.” https://www.tv2.no/a/11975167/?fbclid=IwAR0riRJbQ8XfR7zqPFxVpnuchxVoligNJMcMy-WBFfrZLb8l9wVpDI6LXSk
Broadly defined, transfection is the process of artificially introducing nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) into cells, utilizing means other than viral infection. Such introductions of foreign nucleic acid using various chemical, biological, or physical methods can result in a change of the properties of the cell, allowing the study of gene function and protein expression in the context of the cell.
In transfection, the introduced nucleic acid may exist in the cells transiently, such that it is only expressed for a limited period of time and does not replicate, or it may be stable and integrate into the genome of the recipient, replicating when the host genome replicates.
“New Fluorescent Substrate Enables Quantitative and High-Throughput Examination of Vesicular Monoamine Transporter 2 (VMAT2) Considering the continuing interest in VMAT2 as a drug target, as well as a target for the design of imaging probes, we have developed a fluorescent substrate well suited for the study of VMAT2 in cell culture. Herein, we report the synthesis and characterization of a new fluorescent probe, FFN206, as an excellent VMAT2 substrate capable of detecting VMAT2 activity in intact cells using fluorescence microscopy, with subcellular localization to VMAT2-expressing acidic compartments without apparent labeling of other organelles. VMAT2 activity can also be measured via microplate reader.” https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cb400259n
Synthesis and Discovery of Arylpiperidinylquinazolines: New Inhibitors of the Vesicular Monoamine Transporter Methamphetamine, a human vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) substrate, releases dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine from vesicles into the cytosol of presynaptic neurons and induces reverse transport by the monoamine transporters to increase extracellular neurotransmitters. (APQs) are potent inhibitors of reserpine binding at recombinant human VMAT2 These compounds are bio-diaster-eo-selective and bio-enantio-selective (opposite or mirrored life selective). Novel APQ ligands have high potency and may be useful tools for characterizing drug-induced effects on human VMAT2 expression and function. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00542
“The polymer, known as a Pedot, has exactly the properties needed to interface electronic hardware with human tissue without causing scarring while also dramatically improving the performance of medical implants.
The versatile Pedot polymer was also recently discovered to be capable of transforming standard house bricks into energy storage units, due to its ability to penetrate porous materials and conduct electricity.
The latest research used a Pedot film with an antibody that stimulates blood vessel growth after injury and could be used to detect early stages of tumour growth in the body.
Pedot polymers could also be used to help sense or treat brain or nervous system disorders, while versions could theoretically attach peptides, antibodies and DNA.
“Name your favourite biomolecule, and you can in principle make a Pedot film that has whatever biofunctional group you might be interested in,” Dr Martin said.
The researchers made a polymer with dopamine, which plays a role in addictive behaviours.
Several companies and research institutions are already working on technology to connect brains to computers, with Elon Musk’s Neuralink perhaps the closest to achieving a commercial product.
The startup plans to reveal more details about its brain chips later this month, which could one day provide “full-bandwidth data streaming” to the brain through a USB-C cable.
Mr Musk has made several claims about Neuralink’s technology, stating earlier this year that it “could extend range of hearing beyond normal frequencies” and even allow people to stream music directly to their brains.
Such technology is essential for humans to compete with advanced artificial intelligence, according to Mr Musk. Last month he warned that humans risk being overtaken by AI within the next five years.”
“Proposals to the Neural Engineering System Design program (DARPA-BAA-16-09) are due April 14, 2016. The program seeks to develop implantable neural interfaces to connect the human brain with the digital world.
Specifically, the NESD program aims to develop an implantable neural interface able to provide unprecedented signal resolution and data-transfer bandwidth between the brain and electronics. The interface would serve as a translator, converting between the electrochemical language used by neurons in the brain and the ones and zeros that constitute the language of information technology. The goal is to achieve this communications link in a biocompatible device no larger than one cubic centimeter in size, roughly the volume of two nickels stacked back to back.
The program stands to dramatically enhance research capabilities in neurotechnology and provide a foundation for new therapies. Among the program’s potential applications are devices that could compensate for deficits in sight or hearing by feeding digital auditory or visual information into the brain at a resolution and experiential quality far higher than is possible with current technology.” https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/bridging-the-bio-electronic-divide
“Mad Scientist Laboratory welcomes back returning guest blogger and proclaimed Mad Scientist Dr. James Giordano and newcomer Mr. John Wallbank with their timely post exploring a way forward from the systemic decoherence wrought by the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic.
With our post-industrial, digital age mindset, we often focus exclusively on the scientific and technological solutions to any given problem or crisis. Dr. Giordano and Mr. Wallbank remind us that cognitive coherence is what binds us together and is the key to resilience, enabling us to transcend adversity, confusion, and conflict. Sustaining this cognitive coherence will be essential in weathering an increasingly disruptive Operational Environment — Enjoy!” https://madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil/256-the-covid-crisis-and-beyond-systemic-biosecurity-lessons-to-be-learned-about-decoherence-coherence-and-hope/
“Biostasis is the ability of an organism to tolerate environmental changes without having to actively adapt to them. Biostasis is found in organisms that live in habitats that likely encounter unfavorable living conditions, such as drought, freezing temperatures, change in pH levels, pressure, or temperature. Insects undergo a type of dormancy to survive these conditions, called diapause.
Diapause may be obligatory for these insects to survive. The insect may also be able to undergo change prior to the arrival of the initiating event. Biostasis is also used as a synonym for the terms cryostasis or cryonics. Cryonics is medical procedure concept that may be used for individuals who are terminally ill, in the future. The patients are frozen in what is know as cryonic suspension.
The patients are suspended so that when technology advances, they can be re-animated and their disease can be cured or treated, accordingly. Medical biostasis can be put to use in humans to help repair brain damage. There is evidence that suggests, in the next decade medical biostasis procedures can be performed by trauma surgeons by 2026….. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PHaXZAKdA0
“Biostasis is investigating novel applications of polymer chemistry, protein engineering, and deep cell activity monitoring to alter the time course of pathological processes associated with tissue damage and infection to delay the onset of irreversible damage. Researchers are investigating approaches that are not dependent upon reducing temperature and that scale from preservation of simple biological therapeutics such as antibodies and enzymes to whole cells and tissues.
The program seeks to generate proof-of-concept, benchtop technologies and experimentally validate them in simple biological systems. DARPA will work with federal health and regulatory agencies as the program advances to develop a pathway for potential, future human medical use of successful Biostasis technologies. By the end of the program, DARPA hopes to have multiple tools for reducing the risk of permanent damage or death following acute injury or infection. Biostasis technologies could also extend the shelf-life of temperature-sensitive therapeutics, such as blood products, enzyme preparations, and drugs.” https://www.hdiac.org/podcast/biostasis/
“DARPA created the Biostasis program to develop new possibilities for extending the golden hour, not by improving logistics or battlefield care, but by going after time itself, at least how the body manages it. Biostasis will attempt to directly address the need for additional time in continuously operating biological systems faced with catastrophic, life-threatening events. The program will leverage molecular biology to develop new ways of controlling the speed at which living systems operate, and thus extend the window of time following a damaging event before a system collapses. Essentially, the concept aims to slow life to save life.” https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2018-03-01
Dr. Amy Jenkins joined DARPA as a program manager in the Biological Technologies Office (BTO) in June 2019. Her interests include the development of platforms for combatting infectious disease threats as well as novel manufacturing methods to enable rapid response.
Prior to joining DARPA, Jenkins was a senior scientist at Gryphon Technologies, where she contributed to development of programs targeting infectious disease threats within BTO. Previously, Jenkins studied the virulence factors of, and antibodies targeting, multi-drug resistant bacterial pathogens at MedImmune. She also served as a National Research Council postdoctoral fellow at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where she studied virulence mechanisms of biodefense pathogens.
Jenkins received her Doctor of Philosophy in chemistry and chemical biology from Cornell University and her Bachelor of Science in chemistry and biomolecular science from Clarkson University. https://www.darpa.mil/staff/dr-amy-jenkin
Part 2 of ‘Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?’
Ufrivillige prøvekaniner – Her har jeg tatt et tilbakeblikk på svineinfluensavaksinen og dokumentert hvor mange som ble syke av den.
Vitenskapen er det beste verktøyet vi har til å finne sannheten med, men hvis de som bruker dette verktøyet ikke har rent mel i posen, så vil dette verktøyet bli deretter, i verste fall så kan det brukes til å fremme usannheter og propaganda. Vitenskapen vil være særlig utsatt for dette når økonomien sitter i førersetet, og når vitenskapsmenn og kvinner vet at de kan miste jobben hvis de ikke viser til resultater som støtter det oppdragsgiveren forventer seg. Og at forskningen mere og mere har blitt et verktøy for politisk og økonomisk vinning og ikke et verktøy for å finne sannheten, det finnes det dokumentasjon på i bøtter og spann: https://olehartattordet.blogg.no/nar-forskning-blir-et-verktoy-for-politisk-og-okonomisk-vinning.html
This book argues for a rather simple but possibly dangerous idea: you possess the same right of self-defense, and the same right to defend others, against government agents as you do against civilians. The moral principles governing self-defense against civilians and government agents, even agents who act by virtue of their appointed status and within the law, are the same. The main way I will argue for this position is to show that the reasons to think otherwise are unsound.
This book has straightforwardly dangerous implications. If I am right, this means that when a police of cer uses excessive violence against you or tries to arrest you for a crime that should not be a crime, you may defend yourself. It means that agents working within government may sabotage their colleagues or superiors who act unjustly. It means that you may lie to government agents who would use your information in unjust ways.
This is a book about self-defense and the defense of others. You engage in self-defense against the bully when you ght back as he pushes you. You defend someone else against the wouldbe mugger when you stop him as he tries to rob his victim. If, on the other hand, you beat up the bully or mugger a year later when they’re harming no one, you aren’t defending yourself or anyone else. You’re exacting revenge or in icting private punishment. That’s not what this book is about. Self-defense and vigilante justice are two different things.
Note that while I am arguing that certain forms of defensive action are permissible, the state is almost certainly not going to agree.
Many philosophers and laypeople seem to believe that when we react to political oppression and injustice, our options are limited to voice, exit, or loyalty. Some think that we have obligations to participate in politics, protest, engage in political campaigns, and push for social change through political channels. Others think that such actions are merely praiseworthy. Most think that we have the option of keeping quiet or emigrating to another country.
In general, they tend to assume or conclude that when a government issues an unjust command, behaves unjustly, or passes an unjust law, we may only comply, complain, or quit. Usually, we should obey that law, or if we break the law in protest, we should be prepared to bear the consequences of doing so, including accepting punishment. They typically tend to agree that we may not get back against government agents, especially agents of a democratic regime.
Consider the question of defensive assassination or defensive killing. Andrew Altman and Christopher Wellman say, “Surely, it would have been permissible for somebody to assassinate [Joseph] Stalin in the 1930s.”5 But if so, is it not also permissible to take similar action against a government of cial if it is the only way to stop them from harming the innocent? If you may assassinate Adolf Hitler to stop him from invading Poland, are you also permitted to do the same to a president in order to stop him from invading the Philippines, or ordering the genocidal slaughter and forced relocation of an ethnic group? If you may kill a Gestapo agent to stop him from mur- dering innocent people, may you do the same to a police of cer who uses excessive violence?
As I noted, philosophers and laypeople often assume or argue not. They assume or argue that in liberal democ- racies, only nonviolent resistance to state injustice is per- missible. They assume that we must defer to democratic government agents, even when these agents act in deeply unjust, harmful, and destructive ways. This view is puzzling.
The prevailing view is that when it comes to government agents, defensive violence, deception, destruction, and subterfuge are governed by different moral principles from those that govern defensive vioence and subterfuge in other contexts.
This presupposes that it makes a difference to the permissibility of lying to, deceiving, sabotaging, or killing an aggressor in selfdefense or the defense of others that the aggressor is wearing a uniform, holds an of ce, or was appointed by someone who was in turn elected by my neighbors. According to the prevailing view, my neighbors can elimi- nate my right of self-defense or the defense of others by granting someone an office. This is especially puzzling because almost everyone today recognizes that the law and justice are not the same thing; laws can be deeply unjust.
Instead of exit, voice, or loyalty, this book defends the fourth option: resistance. I’m using “resistance” to cover a wide range of behaviors. It includes passive behaviors such as noncompliance—that is, strategically breaking the law or ignoring the state’s commands whenever you can get away with it.
It also includes more active forms of resistance, such as blocking police cars, damaging or destroying government property, deceiving and lying to government agents, or combating government agents. My view is that such forms of resistance are often justified, even in response to injustice within modern democratic nation-states, most of which have relatively just governments overall.
The standard view, which almost everyone of every ide- ology seems to accept, is that government agents are surrounded by a kind of magic moral forcefield. They enjoy a special or privileged status when they commit unjust ac tions. The standard view holds both that government agents have a special permission to perform unjust actions—actions that we would judge evil and impermissible were a nongovernment agent to perform them—and that these agents enjoy a special right against being stopped when they commit injustice. Government agents somehow may perform unjust acts, and we’re supposed to stand by and let them.
Maybe “let them” is a bit strong. Most people believe we may complain when government agents act badly. We may demand that other government agents punish their colleagues for their colleagues’ bad behavior. Some philosophers go further: they think that when government acts badly, we are morally obligated to protest, write let- ters to newspaper editors and senators, and vote for better candidates.8 But, they think, we’re not supposed to stop injustice ourselves.
We don’t think that way about private injustice. If an attacker tries to harm you, no one would say that you have no right to ght back. You aren’t required to lie down and take it, and then hope the police will later capture the attacker and bring them to justice.
Some political philosophers and laypeople would scoff. They claim that they have a far more constrained and reasonable version of the “government agents are magic” view. They deny that all governments, government agents, or political actors enjoy special permission to perform unjust actions. They deny that we must stand back and let government actors behave unjustly. Rather, they say, “In our modest view, only democratic governments, agents, and actors are surrounded by a magic moral force eld that both removes their normal moral obligations and at the same time requires the rest of us to let them act unjustly. Of course, nondemocratic governments and their agents enjoy no such privilege.”
For various reasons, people think that when governments and their agents perform unjust actions, we’re supposed to let them do it. They allow that we may, or perhaps demand that we must, complain afterward, but they say we must not stop them ourselves.
Thus, many people subscribe to what I call the special immunity thesis. The special immunity thesis holds that there is a special burden to justify interfering with, trying to stop, or fighting back against government agents who, acting ex officio, commit injustice:
The Special Immunity Thesis
Government agents—or at least the agents of democratic governments—enjoy a special immunity against being deceived, lied to, sabotaged, attacked, or killed in self- defense or the defense of others. Government property enjoys a special immunity against being damaged, sabotaged, or destroyed. The set of conditions under which it is permissible, in self-defense or the defense of others, to deceive, lie to, sabotage, or use force against a government agent (acting ex officio), or destroy government property, is much more stringent as well as tightly constrained than the set of conditions under which it is permissible to deceive, lie to, sabotage, attack, or kill a private civilian, or destroy private property.
In contrast, I reject the special immunity thesis in favor of the moral parity thesis:
The Moral Parity Thesis
The conditions under which a person may, in self-defense or the defense of others, deceive, lie to, sabotage, attack, or kill a fellow civilian, or destroy private property, are also conditions under which a civilian may do the same to a government agent (acting ex officio) or government property.
The moral parity thesis holds that justifying self-defense or the defense of others against government agents is on par with justifying self-defense or the defense of others against civilians.
IN DEFENSE OF MORAL PARITY
The main conclusions of this book are simple:
The special immunity thesis is false.
The morality parity thesis is true.
I defend the view that government of cials (including the of cials of democratic governments, acting ex of – cio) do not enjoy a special moral status that immunizes them from defensive actions. When government of cials commit injustices of any sort, it is morally permissible for us, as private individuals, to treat them the same way we would treat private individuals committing those same injustices. Whatever we may do to private individ- uals, we may do to government of cials. We may respond to governmental injustice however we may respond to private injustice. Government agents are due no greater moral deference when they act unjustly than private agents are due.
The moral parity thesis holds that democratic government agents, property, and agencies are as much legitimate targets of defensive deception, sabotage, or violence as civilians are. The principles explaining how we may use defensive violence and subterfuge against civilians, and the principles explaining how we may use defensive violence and subterfuge against government agents, are one and the same. Government agents who commit injustice are on par with civilians who commit the same injustices.
