Julian Assange
570 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
570 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
It is interesting to hear people talk about the current situation, giving their opinions on the numbers, the evolution and future predictions, the government measures, the vaccine, the masks… From these opinions, « camps » emerge, with « pro » and « anti » people. Divisions thus appear, even among those who a short time before were united around a common interpretation of the world and the will to change it(1).
Knowing however that a majority of the population receives its information mainly from the governmental agencies that are the mass media, the divergences are most often only reactions varying only according to the personality traits of each one(2) Either one will receive the same information from the news, which will go through a personal filter and give rise to an opinion.
The Ministry of Information conceals, censors, lies, entertains, focuses, gives contradictory information… It is impossible in this context for opinion to be free. As Hannah Arendt said: » Freedom of opinion is a farce if information about the facts is not guaranteed and if the facts themselves are not the subject of debate « (The Crisis of Culture, 1961). However, we could try to reconcile those who still have the capacity to accept that the truth is constructed and not received as it is, by asking certain questions that do not divide and should bring them to an agreement, remove doubts and show that the subject undoubtedly lacks something to be able to think and construct opinions freely(3). In sum, these questions should not lead to the conclusion that they were not worth asking:
- Why has the State, since the beginning of the Covid-19 episode, systematically and categorically refused to question its position with regard to all the proposals, information and testimonies that go against the official prescription? Thus, since the beginning of Covid-19 in Belgium, many appeals, white cards, open letters, have been written by health professionals, without ever being followed by a debate and without influencing the government’s line of action.
- Why are agreements and negotiations with multinationals kept secret when the decisions that are taken have a huge impact on our lives and therefore require total transparency? People need to know whether the choices made on their behalf are in the common interest or in the interest of a few multinationals.
- Why does the work of the expert groups remain shrouded in opacity(4)?
- Why can’t we have a debate on the saturation situation of hospitals, which, according to some, is only due to political measures taken in the past (reduction of health budgets, numerus clausus, devaluation of care professions, etc.) and to the total absence of work on prevention. If this is true, we are not in the presence of a real pandemic with a high lethality which is one of its characteristics.
- Why are the supposed beneficial effects of containment not weighed against the dramatic consequences that these same measures will cause?
- Why would the State reveal itself today as a power at the sole service of the public good, including health, when for decades it has not prevented or organized: poverty, the intensive use of pesticides, educational inequality(5)Air pollution, the intensive use of the car, junk food, the decay of public services, the privatization of the media, two-tier health care, global warming, etc. From this comes the idea that it would be active only within the framework of a growth society that privileges a few individuals to the detriment of the mass, the vaccine route in the current episode of Covid once again suggesting that business as usual is being continued?
- Why do politicians and their experts delude us for months with the idea that it is possible to defeat a virus, when it is simply impossible(6)?
- Why is the only solution for governments the vaccine, when transparency is non-existent (see point 2) and the vaccine seems to be part of a single commercial logic?
- Why are those who have a different view of the situation than the official one systematically slandered, dismissed, censored?
All these unanswered questions, which are not exhaustive, show that no real debate is taking place. In the current madness, we are left blind if we listen to the mainstream media. The latter and the governments prevent the issues discussed here from being debated. They want to create, as always, the illusion of consensus. Behind the will to form a chimerical » Nation of citizens in solidarity » (Macron), as in the era of » We are all Charlie » and its solemn speeches(7), lies the injunction to servile conformism: » Work, consume, shut up, we’ll take care of you « .
Alexandre Penasse
