So another Editorial arrives and with it, the task of choosing the subject matter. Where, which, who, and what are but some of the interminable questions asked and even worse, answered. Now you have to reach some sort of compromise on what is to be the subject. Ah, the loose agreement that will change radically, not just a bit, over the next seventy-two hours as news, views, and opinions surface and are relayed. Nearly there, now comes the time to edit and the comments flow thick and fast. Several frantic hours later, there it is, the finished version. Just add the visuals, video, and audio if required and publication waits.
A very difficult and quirky subject has recently arisen in many fields related to it both directly and indirectly. Much has been discussed and formulated in the past with serious and eminent experts declaiming the answers which are the taken as gospel and no further serious debate is entered into. Much worse is the fact that if you are ‘Joe Public’, you are expected to follow the stated position and not question it. If you do, you are instantly dismissed and demeaned because you are not an ‘expert’ and so whatever you say is literally rubbish. I find myself like so many others in the position of questioning my own sanity because it has become abundantly clear to me that I must have no opinions or thoughts on any matters of importance that are contrary to the prevailing one. Importance to what? Well me and everyone else because they will affect my lifestyle, standard of living, access to data, information, services, and freedom to think for myself so that I can base my decisions first and foremost on what is applicable to me. Then I can evaluate how to make it fit with the accepted narrative so that the outcome benefits us both. We all face this daily and deal with it so our lives can continue. So it’s not an impossibility. Our very survival depends in large part on our ability to not only adapt our environment to suit ourselves but our ability to adapt to it and the many facets of it so that in essence we move along relatively smoothly.
So what’s the subject? Where to start? Economics, genetics, artificial intelligence, food, energy, security, liberty, freedom of information and the media, human rights, the list goes on. It’s is definitely not the subject that is the problem or else all of them are and it becomes intractable so let’s just give up and die. It is the very oppressive, nasty, brutish, and mostly quasi-legal squishing of any opposing views or data that is so disturbing. The Internet has shown this clearly with the major search engines like Google and Bing filtering all but the propagandized version that they allow you to access. Wikipedia openly perverts the true hard facts with supposition based as data and further enforces the given information as being factual. Social Media filters content not only according to legal statutory necessities but also for political and commercial reasons, most of which prevent the true hard data from coming out. It is fair to say it requires diligence and application to ferret out the real data/facts and most people do not have the time or resources to do this even if they are aware that they need to. There is less and less access to hard won and correlatable, quantified data which can be independently verified if needed. This has made it nigh on impossible to have a reasoned discussion without being called a fringe lunatic, a conspiracy theorist, uninformed, or uneducated. Since when did anyone have literal right to censor my speech or thoughts on any subject whatsoever as long as I don’t overstep the legally proscribed boundaries (even these are being altered to back up the prevailing agendas to the detriment of free speech and contrary opinions).
We have always had differing opinions and interpretations of all the subjects available to us and apart from the cold hard verified facts and data, it has mostly resulted in healthy discussions (often heated as ego’s and reputations/funding were at stake) that have historically shown a very beneficial pattern overall. By constant re-appraisal of a subject, we come to formulate differing ways to answer the questions raised as well as formulating those questions in the first place. This has led us down an increasingly complex and ultimately productive path that we have piecemeal put together over millennia and has time and again proved its worth in times of crisis, let alone finding a solution to whatever is the problem/s we were facing at the moment in time. The same is true now. Only by the endless asking for answers to everything that confronts or ails us do we proceed to overcome that particular hurdle. Our entire civilization is founded on this principle which has been debated at length from ancient times (the Greek and Roman philosophers) as well as by those in every field of human endeavour and interaction.We remember quotes from famous people in all fields and pay homage to the great thinkers of the past who strove to free humanity from the confines of tyranny and subjugation (the ‘Founding Fathers’ and the USA’s Constitution, Voltaire, Kant, Lao Tzu, Marx and Engels among many) as well as the savants of science and religion and the literary and artistic greats of our common history. If this is taken away from us then we will have to radically rethink what our present and future holds in store for us.
The crises facing us are not insurmountable just because the present power players say so. Their withholding of the data and hard facts makes it appear as if they are right when that is nowhere near the truth. The differing solutions on offer are not only far more pragmatic but inclusive as they take into account factors otherwise excluded like contributory issues and consequential results arising from implementing the so-called ‘answer’. For example,the consideration of culture and religion can make it easier for the people affected to embrace the changes instead of opposing them (as long as they are beneficial). The inclusion of data that does not follow the line, the so called ‘exclusions’ or ‘anomolous’ data not following the narrative fully, only partially, but having unforseen effects whose causation is only partially understood, increases the overall perception of the issue and allows for a broadening of it in the greater context. This clearly opens the way to see the questions, the results, and the ‘answers’ derived from this data with greater clarity and less subjectivity. Our ‘common sense’ and logic lead us to acknowledging this as beneficial yet we do not encourage or promote this aspect of problem solving (it is referred to but seldom implemented).
Our very essence of humanity is being called into question if we cannot on a personal level as well as collectively rely on a fairly free flow of information/data that is reliable, verifiable (independently) and quantifiable, as well available. Without it, apart from the political overtones of human rights, we face a future that will be increasingly sterile and heading for stasis where only the prevailing accepted version of information and data is obtainable and many avenues are closed to us. All civilizations eventually end (usually with a bang/whimper) and by preventing the ‘free’ flow of information, we will speed up the process,thereby attaining stagnation and quickening our demise.
To boldly write what is never written.
© The International OutsiderC0.Reg.No SC715702 . All Rights Reserved. Design by HTML Codex
by 
