The Abyss Between What Is Said and Known To Be True...

The Big Speech Of Mon Mothma And It's Echoes To Now

Nerd Alert! Yes, I am a geek and love Star Wars.

The Empire vs. the Rebellion.

I think the latest episodes of Andor have been good. A couple of times I thought to myself that this is indeed what I had been thinking when the idea was floated of creating a Star Wars live-action television show. The meddlesome rebels, stealing ships, credits, plans, and anything not nailed down by the Empire.

And also, we are seeing the tyranny which predicated the rebellion to begin with. Particularly to that was the Mon Mothma speech that the Imperials failed to pull the plug on soon enough. If only the resourceful officer from Forrest Gump had been present during her speech.

I thought that certainly it would appear that the writers were referencing something in our reality when Mon Mothma said the crisis was the “capture of reality.” That people truly did not see the truth before their eyes, that they were subject to tyranny.

These two points stuck out for me:

The distance between what is said, and what is known to be true has been an abyss.

Of all the things at risk, the loss of an objective reality has become dangerous. The death of truth is the ultimate victory of evil.

Sound familiar?

No doubt, everyone thinks they have the exclusive take on reality. Even as I sit here, I could be going full Dunning in believing I have some special insight into reality. So instead of giving you certainty, I will ask questions. And would urge you to make your own decisions, or make no decision at all. Weird that I am called a callous, horrible, uncaring person when I deliver that information to those on X in the context of medical decisions. I am a fascist for daring to say that people have purview over interventions they wish to allow concerning their body.

Here are some questions: feel free to think of some of your own.

Does reality need to be constantly reinforced with a narrative?

In the face of reality, is censorship needed? Would Mon Mothma’s response be that the Empire should place greater censorship on the news? If she had demanded that, what would that suggest about the power she wielded, as well as which side she was on?

What was the response of the Empire to hearing the speech? During debates, which side is more likely to block, censor, and otherwise prevent any dissent from being aired?

How does propaganda gain a foothold?

What is the definition of an armed insurrection? A mostly peaceful protest?

Would fascists allow others to call them fascists?

If the government is lying to you about one thing, could it also lie about other things?

What is reality? What is being said to be reality? Can you prove it?

When tyranny infringes on people’s lives, is it straight out forcing people to do things against their will, or is there some “good” reason associated with it? What is coercion? What is forced aside from the mythology of the Star Wars universe?

Which sounds more like fascism, allowing dissenting views, aka misinformation, to be spoken, or for information to be censored? Historically speaking, are fascist societies more open or closed to outside or dissenting ideas?

Is fascism the extension of government or the reduction of government?

What does it say when certain narratives are the same across both governmental and private enterprises?

What does it say when the government and large corporations are in cooperation with one another?

A Long Time Ago In A Far-Off Galaxy— And Here And Now

What is said…and what is.

Back in the eighties, there was a spin on what is. You listened to the media then and caught Conservative talk radio, and you were introduced to bias. Two sides of whatever the news stories were. But now the media does not merely spin on what is. It makes up what is. And the two narratives have diverged to a point where it’s almost as if different stories are being told at times.

In one world, a random citizen was deported to an El Salvador Prison and not given due process. In another world, an ex member of a foreign gang who also beat his wife stayed in this country since 2011, never received citizenship was finally sent back to his home country.

And you can almost know where the two sides of the narrative will fall on a given subject.

Like the two approved sides of the narrative for vaccination in the context of measles. One side is attacking antivaxxers by being callous and uncaring by letting children die from the upcoming superspreader event of measles that will culminate is measlesgeddon.

And the conservative side is, the fault was the policy that allowed unvaccinated illegal immigrants who came into our country and caused the outbreaks to begin with.

Both sides are ignoring the truth that measles is a mild disease, and vaccination is not necessary to begin with.

The truth about misinformation is that it doesn’t need to be censored because it will simply fail to stand up against the truth. You can live your truth, think the truth is relative, demand that other people adhere to what you identify as the truth, but in the end, sorry, but no, the truth will prevail. You can “live it” all you want, but it won’t make it so.

And that’s also an indicator of bad information. When they frame it by saying that it is misinformation, and that to dignify it with debate is a childish notion. If truth is truth, then why should it be denied the stage aside from misinformation? Truth will make mincemeat of misinformation. It only has half-ass logical fallacies to hang it up with. Appeal to experts, bandwagon, tu quoque, sunk cost, the list goes on.

Not to mention research papers sponsored by those with an agenda to make sure their curation of truth is what sees the light of day.

I can’t tell you how many times on X, when given a “research paper” op ed, or article on masking, the “data” and arguments do not stand as they are all based on logical fallacies. Or failing that, estimates predicated on models. How many times in an objective research paper does the first paragraph say something along the lines of “As you know, during COVID-19, millions died, and one of the best ways to mitigate it was through the use of masking.”

They frame, and then reframe, which often is a strawman attack.

Noting that before “the vaccine” for measles was introduced, only 500 people a year, including children, died in the US is framed as “So you are okay with 500 children dying.”

Not only is it an abyss of what is being said, but what is being heard.

Don’t fall into the trap.