The Cow Goes Quack
“Approved Messaging Only”
I’m sure many have heard the term “Orwellian” being thrown around at some point. There’s a high probability that many will have noticed an uptick in this terms use ever since our global society threw itself into the arms of a pandemic. When something is described as “Orwellian”, it usually refers to a situation, idea, or societal condition that the famous writer, George Orwell, identified as being fundamentally corrosive to the welfare of a free and open society. If something is Orwellian, it’s likely presenting a distorted rendition of the truth in order to manipulate people into believing that some “thing” is something else entirely.
Throughout human history, we can see many examples of how propaganda, disinformation and the denial of truth have all effectively been used as powerful tools to manipulate the masses. We often look back on these times in history and wonder how people could’ve been so blind to the tactics of their manipulators. We analyse events through the lens of hindsight and boldly declare that we would never fall prey to such obvious tactics. But we also forget that the very nature of propaganda is to be believable. Propaganda jumps in bed with our world view and uses convincing pillow-talk to distort that view into something that can be weaponised. This happens slowly. So slowly, in fact, that one could assume the distortion took place naturally; evolving by itself and on its own terms. Let me say it again: the function of propaganda is to be convincing. In order to be effective, propaganda has to be believable and acceptable. This is why it’s distributed in small doses. Tiny amounts of seemingly insignificant shifts and changes that appear to be harmless or even necessary. This often leads to people not only accepting propaganda but campaigning for its protection and expansion. Like an ingenious parasite, it is able to creep into the host and convince the host that it should be protected at all costs. Looking back at distant and recent history one can see that in times of escalated conflict, propaganda is both loud and obnoxious. It can be so obscenely grotesque that it loses the appeal which made it so attractive in the first place. The sad reality is that once propaganda reaches this stage in its lifecycle, it’s too late to retreat. When propaganda has matured enough to reach this point, it has often been integrated with social customs and norms to the extent that it is considered to be “culture”. People look around and see others being targeted by the system because of their religion, ethnicity, sex or sexual orientation, and don’t think twice because that’s “just how it is”. It was the culture of society in recent history to legally discriminate in accordance with race, and still is. Not so long ago, it was the culture of the time to slaughter people of a certain ethnic lineage in an attempt to have a more “hygienic” society. Anyone choosing to rise up against this dominant culture was viewed as a radical fanatic that should be silenced because they threaten the progress of the culture they criticise. Today, however, things aren’t so obvious.
Propaganda is a lot more strategic and subtle in its present-day execution. It’s more difficult to pinpoint any sole perpetrator because the claws of manipulation are so systemically spread throughout our culture that its grip is both firm and unmoving. Players have managed to accomplish this kind of widespread manipulation through the incremental policing of opinions and calling it fact-checking. One example would be a fact-check I came across in the first few months of 2021. Across a video interview with US president, Joe Biden, there was a banner labelled “False Information”. The video publisher was exposing the fact that although the interview was setup to look organic and casual, Joe Biden was reading scripted answers off of a “teleprompter”. The fact-check claimed that this was fake news. When you click on the banner to see why, it states that after further investigation it was determined that Joe Biden was reading off of a television screen and not a teleprompter. And thus we have the strategic sleight of hand dealing a distorted truth to the public. The machine used was irrelevant because the issue raised was the fact that the “organic” interview was a farce. Joe Biden wasn’t only reading portions of answers, but his entire dialogue was pre-approved. The “journalist” wasn’t allowed to deviate from the approved talking points as there was no room for independent answers. That was the issue, not the machine used. However, this “false information” banner is all most people will see and remember. They then lump this criticism of Joe Biden into the box of “fake news” and move on. This example may seem harmless to some, negligible to most, but the problem is the principle. Examples like these, no matter how seemingly small in weight, accumulate over time. When events like these happen more frequently, they take up more space and weight in our lives. This builds our perception of the world around us. And thus we have a well constructed world view, built one brick at a time.
People need to understand how powerful language is. The strategic use of language is able to have us believe a lie without directly speaking to it. The omission of certain phrases can distort meaning and misrepresent the truth entirely. By disallowing access to certain information, people can easily subscribe to a way of thinking that is in no way a reflection of objective reality. Imagine, for a moment, you had never seen or heard a cow for yourself in-person. You then come across an article which outlines why “cows go quack”. This article states that although many people used to believe that “cows go moo”, scientists have since determined that this is not the case. Due to their unique physiology, cows are only capable of producing “quacking” sounds, and do so out of the need to find their herd. These short vocalisations are a lot more effective in covering longer distances, however, the farther they travel, the more distorted they become, giving the false impression of a “moo” instead of a “quack”. The article then outlines how a radical group of farmers and scientists are challenging this recent scientific breakthrough. The article makes it clear that these challengers are not to be taken seriously. They are simply bigots that cling to old world views and are trying to place obstacles in the way of progress. The article then presents you with a choice. Are you going to be someone that champions scientific progress and growth? Or are you going to to be a bigot? You’re free to choose. This all sounds perfectly reasonable. Naturally, many people want to be viewed as champions of progress. People that put obstacles in the way of that progress are bad. Perhaps we shouldn’t listen to their ideas. This all sounds perfectly reasonable. Maybe it’s in the best interest of progress to prevent them from sharing their beliefs. We must avoid the risk of their misinformation convincing others. This all sounds perfectly reasonable. After all, we want to move forward as a society and that can only happen if we protect progress. This, again, sounds perfectly reasonable. We must fight to keep disinformation at bay. We must ensure that our children aren’t exposed to the same false information that we once thought was acceptable. This, too, sounds reasonable. We know more today than we did yesterday. We’re informed now. This means we have to keep radicals out of our schools. This is a threat to our democracy. We have to make sure we put the right people in place to educate our children the right way. This all sounds perfectly reasonable…
And just like that, whether or not cows go quack is irrelevant. The debate has transformed from considerations on animal sounds to open attacks on democracy and our progress as a society. Inquiry is disallowed, debates are considered dangerous and education gets weaponised. And the mantra of “perfectly reasonable” continues to play out in our heads. That’s the hook. It’s all perfectly reasonable.
Remember, when something is Orwellian it’s identified as being fundamentally corrosive to the welfare of a free and open society. We are only able to have a Free and Open society if there is free flow of ideas. Information needs to be accessible in order for people to build considerations that expand beyond their echo chambers. When information is withheld or access to it revoked, you isolate people from the complete truth. Anything that claims to embody the spirit of progress cannot do so while actioning censorship. Leaders and manipulators claim to represent the truth. They do this by isolating specific streams of information, which happen to be technically true, but remove the context. This gives them the ability to misrepresent the world in ways that suit their agenda. They convince themselves that they are “fighting the good fight” because what they’re saying is true, albeit without context. When being presented with solutions that refuse to acknowledge the trade-offs, people need understand that they are at the mercy of a sales pitch, not a cost-benefit analysis. Context is everything. Context, alone, is able to flip the narrative of a death from “murder” to “self-defence”. Context sets the scene. In most cases, context determines what happened and its reasons for happening. It is the function of context to challenge lies. Without it, we are unable to determine up from down and even right from wrong. The inability to see in darkness is the context that allows us to appreciate the light. Modern-day “fact-checkers” claim to be the gate-keepers of truth. The proprietors of context. The first line of defence against misinformation. Yet, in practice, we see something else entirely. The policing of thoughts and opinions. The prosecution of beliefs that deviate from the dominant narrative. “Truths” that claim to be self evident yet require persuasion and coercion in order to be believable. This is the intellectual sleight of hand that is currently breaking our collective psyche; forcing us into the prisons that it claims to be liberating us from.
One could argue that promoting ideas of “unity” through methods of segregation is one of the most neatly Orwellian tricks out there. And people believe it. We’re told that the problems we face are far too large for any individual to correct. No single person could action any kind of repair. We therefore require a systemic overhaul. We are told that in order to come together we must faction and categorise our society by means of race and class. This segregationist proposal is championed by the same people that claim to protect the world from segregation. It’s astonishing. They would have you believe that the only chance we have at remedy, or redemption, is to lobotomise society as a collective. To convince the public that the same segregationist tactics they openly criticise is the only true solution that will move us forward. Any disagreement is labeled dangerous. Choosing to remain silent means you are, by definition, the manifestation of violence. If you’re not part of their solution, you’re part of the problem. War becomes peace, freedom becomes slavery and ignorance is the only true strength.
