Freedom of thought

At some point along our journey as a communicating species, we became aware of the power of now, that we live in a moment where the truth of that moment shapes the future but that this same truth loses its potency, especially when that moment has passed. Many government information systems utilize this, from the official secrets acts to time limited disclosure documents, only admitting the truth long after the event. Whilst we live in a materially focussed world, there is an inherent understanding that something as intangible as the thoughts and ideas from these truths can fundamentally change the direction the world takes.

Our political playground is one such area, if you can confound the truth and add urgency to a decision you can mislead a parliament or republic very easily, knowing that these same parliamentary and governing representatives will be bound to the process and will respect and follow decisions they subsequently know to be incorrect or were made on false information. This is more evident in modern times although there are glaring examples from the past that we now know to have been a deliberate misleading of the path of governments and peoples, so called “false flag” operations.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident is accredited with starting America’s involvement in the Vietnam war, even though the incident used to justify this involvement was shown to be false – Commander Stockdale, who was ordered to retaliate against the North Vietnamese, is quoted “We were about to launch a war under false pretences, in the face of the on-scene military commander’s advice to the contrary.” If you are not familiar with it then I would recommend reading or viewing the numerous documentaries.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 on the basis of weapons of mass destruction is one of our more recent attempts to mislead the general public for political ends – in spite of the clear absence of any evidence in Iraq, George W Bush gave a speech days before the invasion stating:

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.”

Tony Blairs UK government were also fed similar mistruths in order to obtain their approval for the invasion, though I suspect Tony Blair would have unilaterally committed UK troops without Parliamentary support. So why ask for permission? The same could be said for America’s involvement in Vietnam – the action was already planned, with or without a justifiable cause. I could go on with numerous further examples.

I don’t believe that our ruling elite need the permission of the general population in order to enable military or other actions globally, covert operations occur quite regularly without popular support, which is generally why they are kept covert! So why put so much effort into winning the “hearts and minds” of people who won’t actually be involved in such action?

There is an intangible and as far as I know unmeasurable force that comes from populations who believe that the actions of their country are justified, it not only promotes the narrative or agenda of the action taken but adds to the energy driving that action. This doesn’t just apply to war, I know the examples I have chosen above are military, it applies to everything from the criminalizing of homosexuality (it was classed as a sexual offence until 1967), to preventing women from voting (in 1918 women over 30 were finally able to vote). I don’t believe that women voters or gay rights have posed a threat to national security anywhere, although the pressure to remove such unlawful restrictions and national outrage began to, before the laws were changed.

So what is this odd interaction between government action and national approval? I had naively thought it was to prevent criminal action against world leaders once they’ve left office, but there are already mechanisms in place to protect them once they leave their post. Deep down I suspect it has to do with something that we cannot measure, a facet of consciousness that is linked to large populations that can actually be harnessed to enable change or to prevent it.

I know this a big leap, bear with me.

Studies on random molecular alignments of salts in solution as they form crystals highlights that for a global change within these systems only 1% of the structure has to align, crystallization initiated and continued following thet initial alignment. The same models have been used to study ice formation as temperatures drop – it is not instantaneous across the entire liquid, alignment is needed first and then change follows across the whole. These principles seen in nature are known to be psychologically impactful in human beings too – a comedic example being the “floating stick” task for team building that amazes groups time and again. Alignment of thoughts with actions is critical to bring about change in populations from a national perspective all the way to small organizations.

I believe that the actions of our governments, especially now, engage with these principles to bring about the change they want, even when it clashes with the natural flow of what the general population desire or need. The media has always been a useful tool to disseminate the information and ideas, whether it is the truth or not. The great news for the media is that it is headline news when they spread misinformation and also headline news when they discover that they were misled – one of those very rare win-win situations.

The biggest stumbling block for societal changes are the free thinkers, those who do not believe either the media, corporate or government narratives, they do not rely on the mainstream media to reach a conclusion, they use other sources for information and they trust their instincts. These same groups are driven to find the truth and disclose it upon a now confused population who may be forced to choose between two differing ideologies. Who CAN they trust? Now unsure of what they should be doing or believing in, the alignment needed for change cannot happen and you end up with a sort of information anarchy. In many ways, this is where we find ourselves at the moment especially in developed, western nations.

Free thinking and free thinkers represent a dichotomy to national interests, they represent true innovation, creativity and the pioneering spirit that has spearheaded advances in everything from the sciences to philosophy. Yet they also represent resistance to undesirable change, an uncontrollable breaking mechanism that challenges our leaders. You find them in history books, idolized in mythology, in religious texts and even in comics. Societies need them to progress and often to support recovery after disastrous decisions are made by the leading elite.

At the moment, many of these free thinkers are being silenced wherever they raise their voices, or ridiculed in the hope that the people who hear them will ignore what they say. The mainstream media continue to represent the narrative of the ruling elite, online media outlets and platforms are doing the same and going as far as de-platforming or censoring anyone whose views do not comply. A symptom of our current democracies is the absence of anything actually democratic, free speech and free thinking are under threat with censorship being the weapon of choice. A quote often used and most appropriate comes from Tyrion Lannister, an enigmatic character from the Game of Thrones book A Clash of Kings, Tyrion is depicted as a philosophical free thinker in challenging times:

“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

Well written George R.R. Martin.