Sanitising to death our future generations

[Click here for an audio version of this blog entry.]
George Orwell's dystopian classic, Nineteen Eighty-Four, while a work of fiction had, as most in the genre do, a basis in the reality of the time when it was released.

Covid-19 and the new rules of engagement: Are they here to stay?

Published in 1949 when the world was still coming to terms with the true horrors of Nazi Germany — not to mention those of Stalin's Russia — the idea of an all-powerful, one-party state brainwashing its people, exerting almost complete control over the media and (continuously) rewriting history to suit its narrative wasn't quite fiction. 

The technological means of doing this portrayed in the novel were somewhat far-fetched for the period, but the concept certainly wasn't.

Not quite Orwellian, but it doesn't bode well

Seventy-one years later, the all-seeing telescreen depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four seems rather primitive. 

For sure, the surveillance under which we find ourselves in the twenty-first century may appear less obvious, less personal — although the likes of Alexa and other artificial intelligence talking directly to us is, in a way, now happening — and less centrally controlled, yet only the naïve believe that we're not being profiled. 

It may be mostly by private companies for purely marketing reasons rather than a sinister state, but it's taking place nonetheless.

In a democratic society with free elections, that this happens isn't inherently the worst thing in our lives. We can, after all, opt out, even if the practice of actually doing so is a tad more difficult than the theory. Some of us are in too deep. 

What's more, not having at least a smartphone these days puts one at a distinct disadvantage in practically every corner of the world across a range of diverse sectors, both socially and professionally.

Nonetheless, the hope is that as long as we allow free speech, robust debate and ensure that we clearly know the sources of the content we engage with in our virtual world, we can avoid an Orwellian-style manipulation of the masses. (As alluded to above and noted in a previous post, we're well into this battle.)

From a Western perspective, the lack of meaningful independent regulation of the not-quite-so-innocent FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google) aside, I am — believe it or not — on the optimistic side that we can preserve our somewhat free society.

'The result will be an overly sanitised population of hypochondriacs, where our own natural defences will be rendered practically useless. And our actual lives will be numbed to the point of nothingness.'

I take this view in relation to my peers and older generations, where there appear to be sufficient numbers of sceptics and critical thinkers to thwart would-be brainwashers. You can't teach an old dog new tricks and all that.

One is less optimistic, however, for the younger generations. 

Indeed, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, it was the children who were shown to be most loyal to the Party. They would even go as far as to rat out their own parents to the Thought Police if they displayed even the slightest disrespect to Big Brother, the omnipotent, omnipresent, unquestioned leader.

Snowflakes all around us

Watching how many of today's children appear to have taken gung-ho to the biosecurity measures aimed at combatting the spread of the coronavirus, one can't help but think of the over-zealous youths in Orwell's classic. 

For sure, it can be said they're simply mimicking, harmlessly, the adults closest to them. There are, though, some worrying points to note.

Should, as seems likely, the new health protocols remain in place for some time, children may come to accept them as normal. 'What's wrong with that?', you ask. Well, for one, considering there's much debate in the scientific community as to the efficacy of mask-wearing in controlling viral contagion, it's unsettling to think that their use will become widely accepted.

Ditto with the over-the-top use of alcohol gel and sprays in public. (Although, I must admit, before coronavirus arrived I had something bordering on addiction to using alcohol-based gels where they were available solely because I love the smell.)

The net result is that we're killing the good with the bad in terms of microorganisms on our bodies, in the same way that those who overuse antibiotics can do more harm than good to their internal defences.

Effectively wrapping ourselves in cotton wool means that when we inevitably face a threat, viral or otherwise, our bodies — and minds — are at risk of simply submitting. 

We're taking the fight out of our species. But hey, whaddya know, there's medication available, at a not-too-extortionate price, that will see you right.

On top of this, social distancing is instilling in our children the idea that a fellow human is a potentially lethal viral infection personified. Thus it has ever been, of course. 

Where there are humans there are diseases to be spread, from a mild cold to a deadly flu and everything else in between. Yet, we got on with our business and took the risk to socialise. The current approach being enforced upon us amounts to 'stop living in order to live'.

We appear to be well on the way to creating an overly sanitised population of hypochondriacs, where our own natural defences will be rendered practically useless. And our actual lives will be numbed to the point of nothingness. 

That virtual sex scene between Sandra Bullock and Sylvester Stallone in the 1993 movie Demolition Man doesn't seem so ridiculous now.

It's not quite a dystopia in the strict sense of the word. We could call it, sticking to the Greek origin, a ukalostopia — a no-good place. 

Our misinformed do-gooders at the wheel are driving us to an insipid future. It's time to take back control while we still can.
__________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

Conservative liberalism: The new 'cool'?

'I'm blue, da ba dee da ba daa ...' Those of a certain vintage will remember that pop hit from the late 1990s. What exactly the blue referred to in the song, I'm not sure, but with the passing of a generation since it was a chart-topper, it could be well worth re-releasing today.

Is where their paths cross the key to progress and the new cool? (Image from iqoncept.)

This time around the blue, from a UK and Ireland (don't mention the Blueshirts) perspective in any case, would refer to conservatism. Or conservative liberalism if you will — you can insert the appropriate colour these political philosophies mean to you.

The tune could become an anthem, cheesy as it is, for those of us growing increasingly tired of the noisy, disproportionately influential comrades of, what we'll call here for simplicity's sake, the radical left and the many otherwise centrist folk who seem spellbound by it.

Not-so-free radicals

These radicals claim to represent balance, fairness, free speech and freedom in general — broad liberal values as they are — yet they are doing anything but that. 

The discourse that dominates mainstream media and much of social media, particularly Facebook, as well as academia across the greater English-speaking world is one which aims to consign much of our essential history to the rubbish bin while encouraging malignant groupthink with its associated identity politics.

This either reinforces racism where it may exist or creates it where it doesn't, under terms dictated for the most part by middle-class whites, ignorant of the racism in their very own conduct.

To go against this implies that one is a racist, white supremacist, homophobe or what have you. 

If you're not part of the witch hunt, ergo, you are a witch. I guess 'non-whites' who also speak out about or merely question the motives of the denounce-and-destroy brigade are seen as some sort of choc-ices — if one is allowed to refer to such a term these days. 

The list of proscribed phrases and views grows by the day. Anything can be twisted to fit the 'you're a racist, etc.' narrative. As one commentator put it, 'being colour-blind is now being racist'.

Indeed, much has been said and written, with good reason, about the Orwellian nature to all of this. There is only one accepted line and woe betide all those not following it, the Thought Police are watching. Room 101 for correction awaits or face being cancelled. In practice, both tend to be the fate for nonconformists.

Thankfully, however, the Party isn't in total control just yet. Dissenting voices of reason, of openness, of inclusiveness, still have a platform, ever smaller as it is becoming.

'Where once there were no limits on the "coolness" of being left, especially for the under-40s, now it's becoming cooler to be right.'

That being said, all but the complete ignorant accept that we have many inequalities to overcome. While equality of opportunity may be an impossible ideal to achieve, much more can be done to close the large gaps that continue to exist.

Conserving the centre

The broad central motorway of dialogue, learning, understanding and tolerance is the safest route to travel to arrive at a fairer society. Veering too far to the left or right, as history has shown us on umpteen occasions, only leads to catastrophe.

Considering the highjacking of the centre-left by radical, intolerant elements and their practical dominance in the humanities at universities and, by extension, mainstream media, it's in the more conservative- and liberal-leaning quarters where the conditions for progress appear to lie. The middle ground has held firmer there.

Rather than capitulate to the extremes as has often happened, now more than ever we must defend our position. 

As George Orwell put it, 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' Diverse opinions now appear to be accommodated more so in old-school liberalism than on the left and its many cheerleaders these days.

For sure, far-rightists are equally as dangerous but they don't get the same sort of adoration as their counterparts on the other end of the spectrum.

What's more, we now have people from minority groups who are running scared of these radical leftists, the very people who claim to represent them. 

For example, a number of gay friends have told me they've become embarrassed by the militaristic factions 'fighting their cause'. They've told me it was better back in the day when 'what they got up to' was a more clandestine affair. There's also some pushback from a number of prominent African Americans.

So where once, apparently, there were no limits to the coolness of being left especially for, to put a rough age bracket on it, the under-40s, now, I like to think anyway, it's becoming cooler to be right.

To do so means you're swimming against the tide, a rebel very much with a cause — to stand up to the leftist mob that is hellbent on destroying free speech and independent thought.

The blue moon is rising. Sing it loud and sing it proud.
___________________________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".