What Happened This Year (2022)? When I scan the horizon, I am not looking for particulars. I am always trying to look behind the scenes. And since I don’t have a viewer to take me there, I rely on guessing what’s going on.
We want to thank Mary Maxwell for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Not very satisfactory, but for me it’s always the important thing: What are the Big Planners getting up to? Are they worried that we dissidents are outing them? Who are the deciders? Are they stalled by disagreement with one another?
The following 2002 happenings made the mainstream news (that is, in the English language which is the only language I can read): war in Ukraine, big protests in Brazil and Sri Lanka, warnings of financial collapse and food shortages (blamed on Covid), an uptick in talk of further need for flu shots, and a lot of violent crime in US including a school shooting in Uvalde. Much money was allocated to alleviate climate change. There was constant rehashing the event known as the “Jan 6” invasion of the Capitol in 2021, and excitement about New York state’s prosecution of a former President for tax fraud. Millions of immigrants arrived, with apparent blessing of the government.
Simultaneously, the dissident press was revealing what it could about the pandemic, such as the illegality of the mandates, the concealment by media of thousands of deaths from vaccines, and the amazing arrival of dictatorship in Canada and Australia as part of the Covid scene. In the conservative press, there was quite an uproar about the FBI deeming parents “terrorists,” for arguing at school board meetings. There was also opposition to teaching “critical race theory” in school. The intervention to help Ukrainians was seen as a US war-stoking move. A movie entitled “2000 Mules” was said to prove the rigging of the 2020 election.
It is worth noting that the two levels are operating on parallel (the mainstream and the dissidents) and each has quite a different picture of reality. For the mainstream, “climate change” is mentioned as if it is settled science. For the dissidents, climate change is a hoax — the planet is cooling, not warming up. For the mainstream, most folks who invaded the Capitol, on Jan 6 did so in hopes of preventing the inauguration of Joe Biden on Jan 20. Dissidents see the Invasion as a performance designed by Insiders, aimed at discrediting Republicans and causing Americans to believe the end of democracy has now occurred.
Investigating
I suppose the conflicting realities could be subjected to honest investigations — e.g., climate change, the origin of Covid, and what the Jan 6 participants were actually doing. However, the right to “investigate” is widely considered the prerogative of government. Thus, the mainstream side of the aforementioned arguments can find itself “proven” by investigations, while the ideas put out by dissidents are spoken of as fanciful.
The government position is parroted by the media. Indeed, the media appears to work for the government. Thanks to television, the media enters most homes every day, for hours. If the government wants something to be conveyed, it will appear on the six o’clock news, for free. If it’s a cultural matter, it may also appear on the front cover of magazines sold near the check-out counter at supermarkets, or be conveyed through comedy shows or the words of songs.
At this point let’s ask: What are other ways (non-government, non-media) that the matters in controversy could be investigated? Please believe me when I say that in my youth in the 1950 and ’60s, it was absolutely normal to look at institutions other than government to investigate, or at least offer an authoritative opinion on, any matter about which there was major disagreement.
Here are six such institutions: science, academia, religion, civil rights groups, professional societies, and media itself, when it was called journalism — proudly labelled The Fourth Estate. Of course, we were also happy to submit a problem to Congress or the courts. Additionally, the population would listen respectfully to a public intellectual, a person whose rationality and humanity had been established in a previous case or two.
In short, the outcome of an investigation, in the olden days, couldn’t be dead-sure predicted, as it can today. I judge that the very predictability of outcomes, when matters are put to Congress or the courts, should alert us to the fact that those two groups are not doing their jobs!
Those Other Institutions
Maybe we could bring those six groups back to a position of trustworthiness. If they were able to turn out a good product in the 1960s, who’s to say that they can’t do so again in the near future? First, the membership of those groups would have to clean out the infiltrators, the traitors, the bribed, and the many individuals who seem mentally unable to reason. (There are necessarily a lot of those, as children in the last one or two generations did not get trained to reason, as part of their education!)
What of science? Most people graduating with a science degree in US, who want to make a career of it, must connect to a salary. That means industry or academia. If asked to solve a controversy, it is only natural that they will have one eye on the likely reaction of their employer. They will self-censor. I self-censor a lot myself — “you hafta.” If the scientist works in research, she will need to bring in the grants. But, as she well knows, grants are mainly given where government or industry want certain results. Does she want to demonstrate that the climate is cooling, not warming? The grant office will not respond.
What of academia? In 1999, I was conducting a survey of the persons (including myself) who had made submissions to the Australian Senate as to the question “Should we sign the MAI?” (Multilateral Agreement on Investment). That was a treaty that would have handed a lot of power to globalists. If I recall correctly, at least 98% of the submissions gave arguments for NOT joining such a treaty. Surprisingly, one of the pro-treaty submissions came from the Association of Vice Chancellors. (Australian term for university presidents). The only reason I could think of was that Australian universities get major income from foreign students, so maybe that gives them a pro-globalist sentiment. But maybe that’s not the reason. Anyway, Australia typically accepts a UN’s recommendation, regardless of whether Aussies want it.
What about religion? Of the three most populous religions in the US at the moment, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, none seem to be “for the people.” None have made a stink about the creeping totalitarianism. They seem to say “Render everything to Caesar because, hey, everything is Caesar’s anyway, isn’t it?” If you are looking for an easy, bribery-type explanation, you might say that the churches, synagogues, and mosques need to maintain the value of their real estate by not losing their tax-exemption on land. But I think it is weirder than that. I think the religious bosses are mind-controlled. Referring, again, to the Olden Days, oh those halcyon olden days, a preacher put “principles first.” Nothing less would do. Ay-men.
What about Civil Rights Groups? Oh dear. A group that has the word “rights” in it, no longer fights for people’s rights? There were two groups you could go to and truly expect results: the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International. If they joined a lawsuit as amicus curiae, the court had better pay attention: the ACLU or AI would lay out the law. Who lays out the law today? Not them. Anyway, they can dodge by not taking cases that would require them to, say, question the official story of 9-11. And if a prisoner has been suffering for decades, on an unfair conviction, it used to be AI’s role to spring him. Not now. Especially if he is a “terrorist” imprisoned on a provably bogus charge. “Let’s not go there. It could harm national security.”
What about professional societies? The two most famous professional societies, the AMA and the ABA, are doomed from the start. They claim in their mission statements that they are the upholders of medicine and the law — two great gifts to mankind. Yet they are also a guild for their members. If a conflict of interest arises, which principle will prevail — the good of mankind or the good of the members? Clearly the latter. “It goes without saying,” right? But even aside from that, there is the somewhat hidden fact that it is government that controls those two professions. If Caesar lost that control, lawyers and doctors would be able to do great things. Their hands are tied by, respectively, the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association. The AMA has achieved its dominance over every physician in the US by using a state-by-state method to win control both of licensing boards and medical schools. The ABA gets to squash mankind-minded lawyers by tricky wording in the Higher Education Opportunity Act. Although I implied that the four institutions above (science, academia, religions, and civil rights organizations) can make a comeback, there is no hope for ABA and AMA. Off with their heads! They ruin the two professions, structurally.
What about journalism? Finally, to the Fourth Estate. The thing a journalist needs most is free speech. How do humans mainly differ from animals? They can talk. Hence, they can exchange knowledge. (“This river has rhinos in it.”) They can en-lighten one another and en-courage one another. After a while, Homo sapiens invented writing. From that point, it became possible to teach widely, to think by rules of logic, and to develop ideas imaginatively. Debate flourished in books and papers. As we all know, along came Rupert Murdoch (so to speak), and that was the end of journalism. Media became a propaganda tool par excellence. Quite possibly it has actually altered our brains. But this can be corrected. Journalism is self-correcting, isn’t it?
Free Speech, Anyone?
Recall my dividing the events of 2022 into those seen by one side and those seen by the other. I claimed that media-government has acquired new reign over America (to our very great detriment, I believe). I pointed to the problem whereby if some people observe a wrong, and want the matter investigated, the media and government will speak una voce in their interpretation of facts (“Trump’s election deniers got violent on Jan 6”), and also in their solutions (“Imprison those white supremacists now”).
Luckily there is such a thing as the alternative press. Admittedly, much of it is owned and occupied by You-know-whim — but not all of it. The Internet was open to dissidents from the medical profession (e.g., Peter McCullough), the clergy (Bishop Carlos Vigano), the legal profession (Serene Teffaha), academia (oops, I can’t think of one), and so forth.
Thanks to this, we are not in the Room 101 situation that Winston Smith was in, when Big Brother’s minion, O’Brien, was able to get Winston to give up all hope and switch off the reasoning portion of his brain. (“Do something for the sake of honor? Hey, not me, thanks.”)
Lately there is even the hint that new debate about free speech will arise, as it should. We have seen, just this week, that the DoJ gave Twitter the names of people it wanted blacklisted. This opens the question: what is Twitter, and more importantly, what the hell is the DoJ?
I conclude by suggesting that we look into the matter of the “lockout” of our investigatory tradition that has occurred via the marriage of media and government. We need search no further than the last four words of Amendment 10 in the Bill of Rights:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
The post A New Use for the Last Four Words of the Bill of Rights appeared first on Granite Grok.