EDITO – And vice versa!
In the salons I frequent; what am I saying, “frequent”?, frequented; some topics are no longer successful. At the risk of being called irresponsible, conspiratorial, anti-Semitic, pro-Russian without having been able to discuss the substance of the subject (even, paradoxically, only on the surface), it is henceforth taboo, sacrilege, blasphemous to dispute the official version.
Yes. Unfortunately, this is now the case in the country that claims freedom of expression: dialogue has become impossible. Reprehensible, even, downright, concerning so-called “ultra” sensitive subjects.
Under these conditions, the only way to discredit the official message at a lower cost is to do as she does: oppose real lies. Opposing real lies in response to the false truths she conveys to justify her position: the assertions she knows are 100% fallacious.
Let’s take a few examples.
Last week, at a private dinner I attended, the topic of Ukraine came up in conversation. Without any reservations, a well-meaning person at the table believes that Putin is a criminal, and that if we voted for Macron, it is so that he makes warlike decisions against Putin.
One of the critical minds retorted: Damn! And respect for the Minsk agreements? Wouldn’t we have a share of responsibility in this conflict? And above all, was this position against Russia voted in Parliament? »
A series of questions swept away with the back of the hand: Putin is like Hitler: a danger to democracy. I never would have considered having to face such a situation for my children.. »
The critic : ” And the historical position of France? For a long time, it was a nation at the forefront of diplomacy. Have we forgotten that French was the official international language of diplomacy? Are we aware that making such decisions affects our own future? »
This ultra-sensitive subject requires debate. And yet no: this debate is not successful.
Worse ! It is even banned.
Similarly, no mention was made during this cenacle, neither about vaccination, nor about the OPECST report on side effects.
Goodbye! The guests have all their vaccinations up to date, are happy and proud to be vaccinated, because ” it saved them a serious form » ; a serious form of Covid-19 which they did not fail to contract two or three times, nevertheless, this despite the flagship slogan of the Ministry of Health accepted without question: “ All vaccinated, all protected. »
So there is no doubt about it either. Not the slightest question about the evolutionary, not to say changing, communication of the government. Nothing about the fact that the health policy in the unique form of a vaccination solution has in no way proven that it has stopped the contamination or the transmission of the virus.
Never mind, we fall back on the argument of avoiding the severe form.
Do we have proof? No. These are placed in the rank of the oblivion of common sense, consecrating there the belief in science and in the sacrosanct word of the government. The argument from authority helping: I heard it in the media of course “. These people therefore feel legitimately well informed.
Unfortunately another situation of the same ilk. Yesterday, during another discussion, came the use of lies. The lie that some people use wonderfully, in order to prevent others from coming to call them “criminals”.
Eh yes ! Remember. It is criminal not to get vaccinated, because otherwise you could infect your mother-in-law or grandmother.
Sentenced without having done anything. Condemned for asking me questions about science? Doomed for informing myself with the critical spirit that I was taught at school from a young age.
But is it moral to be able to agree to use lies to avoid being vilified or judged?
« Yes. Of course I am vaccinated! And luckily I had my fourth dose when I had the Covid: it saved me from having a serious form. »
This is the typical lie one can hear on the subject.
But it goes further with this one: “Yes, I have a vaccination pass. But the dose ended up in the shoulder of lamb. »
Why these lies?
Because it is more and more difficult to demonstrate discernment and courage, as the situation has become mentally violent. Thinking differently has become difficult. Impossible, even, when one is faced with those who decide what to think, to think without having sought to understand or know.
Adversarial reversal and reversal of the burden of proof are used in turn to try to bring the rare lost sheep into the official discourse. common discourse. Until The Economist which reports a study which (it is the one who says who is) supports outright that ” the vaccine has saved 20 million lives. »
« It’s a lot ! », tell me my acquaintances. ” Are you aware of technological progress?. »
No one questions the reliability of the study. No one questions its authenticity, its methodology, the assumptions that led to such a conclusion, despite the fact that the “vaccine” has demonstrated neither its effectiveness against transmission, nor its effectiveness against contamination, nor its effectiveness against severe forms.
And above all, no one is asking “THE” question that there is clearly reason to ask first, for a critical mind, in these times when neuromarketing, influence, media manipulation are more active than ever, and where the lie is king; namely the question of the actual existence or not of this so-called study.
Where are the criticisms that lead to a contradictory debate? Ranked among conspirators, conspirators, anti-Semites. Holocaust deniers. Soon terrorists?
Am I going to have to go to lunches like many, not daring to say what I think? Which is however strictly contrary to my values.
I’m wondering : ” Is it still possible to wonder? »
Worse still… I would almost come to wonder if I’m normal? Sane to ask me questions?
« Impossible is not French “, goes the saying. But these are indeed true lies which are used to cover the false truths of some who control well-meaning.
See also: True lies and false truths: the new standards of propaganda