Welcome
to the Era of the Great Disillusionment
By Jonathan Cook
April 30, 2020 "Information
Clearing House" -
This is a column I have
been mulling over for a while but, for reasons
that should be immediately obvious, I have been
hesitant to write. It is about 5G, vaccines,
9/11, aliens and lizard overlords. Or rather, it
isnt.
Let me preface my
argument by making clear I do not intend to
express any view about the truth or falsity of
any of these debates not even the one about
reptile rulers. My refusal to publicly take a
position should not be interpreted as my
implicit endorsement of any of these viewpoints
because, after all, only a crazy tinfoil
hat-wearing conspiracy theorist sympathiser
would refuse to make their views known on such
matters.
Equally, my lumping
together of all these disparate issues does not
necessarily mean I see them as alike. They are
presented in mainstream thinking as similarly
proof of an unhinged, delusional,
conspiracy-oriented mindset. I am working within
a category that has been selected for me.
Truth and falsehood are
not what this column is about. To consider these
topics solely on the basis of whether they are
true or false would distract from the critical
thinking I wish to engage in here especially
since critical thinking is so widely discouraged
in our societies. I want this column to deny a
safe space to anyone emotionally invested in
either side of these debates. (Doubtless, that
will not deter those who would prefer to make
mischief and misrepresent my argument. That is a
hazard that comes with the territory.)
I am focusing on this set
of issues now because some of them have been
playing out increasingly loudly on social media
as we cope with the isolation of lockdowns.
People trapped at home have more time to explore
the internet, and that means more opportunities
to find often obscure information that may or
may not be true. These kinds of debates are
shaping our discursive landscape, and have
profound political implications. It is these
matters, not questions of truth, I want to
examine in this column.
Social media and
5G
Lets take 5G the new,
fifth-generation mobile phone technology as an
example. I am not a scientist, and I have done
no research on 5G. Which is a very good reason
why no one should be interested in what I have
to say about the science or the safety of 5G.
But like many people active on social media, I
have been made aware often with little choice
on my part of online debates about 5G and
science.
Like TV presenter
Eamonn Holmes, I have inevitably gained an
impression of that debate. To a casual
viewer, the debate looks (and we are
discussing here appearances only) something like
this:
a) State scientific
advisers, as well as scientists whose jobs or
research are financed by the mobile phone
industry, are very certain that there are no
dangers associated with 5G.
b) A few scientists (real
ones, not
evangelical pastors pretending to be former
Vodafone executives) have
warned that there has not been independent
research on the health effects of 5G, that the
technology has been rushed through for
commercial reasons, and that the possible
dangers posed long term to our health from
constant exposure have not been properly
assessed.
c) Other scientists in
this specialist field, possibly the majority,
are keeping their peace.
Business our new
god
That impression might not
be true. It may be that that is just the way
social media has made the debate look. It is
possible that on the contrary:
- the research has been vigorously carried
out, even if it does not appear to have been
widely reported in the mainstream media,
- mobile phone and other communication
industries have not financed what research
there is in an attempt to obtain results
helpful to their commercial interests,
- the aggressively competitive mobile
phone industry has been prepared to sit back
and wait several years for all safety issues
to be resolved, unconcerned about the
effects on their profits of such delays,
- the industry has avoided using its money
and lobbyists to buy influence in the
corridors of power and advance a political
agenda based on its commercial interests
rather than on the science,
- and individual governments, keen not to
be left behind on a global battlefield in
which they compete for economic, military
and intelligence advantage, have
collectively waited to see whether 5G is
safe rather than try to undercut each other
and gain an edge over allies and enemies
alike.
All of that is possible.
But anyone who has been observing our societies
for the past few decades where business has
become our new god, and where corporate money
seems to dominate our political systems more
than the politicians we elect would have at
least reasonable grounds to worry that corners
may have been cut, that political pressure may
have been exerted, and that some scientists (who
are presumably human like the rest of us) may
have been prepared to prioritise their careers
and incomes over the most rigorous science.
Looney-tunes
conspiracism
Again, I am not a
scientist. Even if the research has not been
carried out properly and the phone industry has
lobbied sympathetic politicians to advance its
commercial interests, it is still possible that,
despite all that, 5G is entirely safe. But as I
said at the start, I am not here to express a
view about the science of 5G.
I am discussing instead
why it is not unreasonable or entirely
irrational for a debate about the safety of 5G
to have gone viral on social media while being
ignored by corporate media; why a very
mainstream TV presenter like Eamonn Holmes might
suggest to huge
criticism a need to address growing public
concerns about 5G; why such concerns might
quickly morph into fears of a
connection between 5G and the current global
pandemic; and why frightened people might decide
to take things into their own hands by
burning down 5G masts.
Explaining this chain of
events is not the same as justifiying any of the
links in that chain. But equally, dismissing all
of it as simply looney-tunes conspiracism is not
entirely reasonable or rational either.
