Tags

, ,

We live surrounded by ubiquitous “fake news” that we try to neutralize by consulting other “fake news” outlets .  While access to pluralistic information is refreshing – how do we separate the wheat from the chaff? It’s quite a balancing act between BBC, CNN, RT, DW, CCTV, Aljazeera, Telesur — which we read with healthy skepticism and pour them into a colourful cocktail of contrasting selectivities. The internet has mercifully broken the monopoly of the MSM and other leading sources of corporate propaganda, which on-and-off incite us to hate other nations, enjoy “good little wars” and buy the latest, most sophisticated, momentarily interesting gimmicks. Alas, we also live surrounded by “fake history” — or deliberately incomplete history — where what we assume is a chronology of past events, is frequently anachronistic, out of context, amalgamating causality with spurious comparisons. Maturity helps us to understand that the ideological narrative is intended to make us acquiesce to a certain world order, whose quasi-religious authority sometimes has to be propped up by penal law, because dissenting views are viewed as “codes” for reprehensible independent thinking and dangerous thought-processes that deserve being criminalized and suppressed “for the good of society”. Objectivity in historical writing, what Leopold von Ranke once termed “wie es eigentlich gewesen“, is an elusive chimera. Parallels to 1984 are, of course, too easy to make, and it would even appear that Big Brother has already won, because most people quietly exercise self-censorship, do not challenge the simplifications and do not seem to fret being turned into useful robots and consumers.  It is comfortable to be politically-correct and swim in the mainstream.  Thank God for whistleblowers who give us at least the chance to correct the caricatures of fake news and fake history, but there is no cure for those who do not think they are sick, and no solution necessary for those who do not see a problem.

Advertisements