9 October 2022 | Totalitarianism is when the authorities determine what is (scientific) truth and censor everything else. In a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum, a high ranking UN official declared this totalitarian approach to be guiding the actions of the UN. She also reported on the toolbox which the UN employs to force its truth on the world. Some governments are even going further, already. They are making it a punishable offence to deviate from the officially decreed truth.
At a panel discussion in New York, the transcript and video of which were published by the World Economic Forum on 30 September, Melissa Fleming, Undersecretary-General for Communications at the UN in New York, said the short but very remarkable sentence:
“We own the science.”
And she did mean what she said. The discussion was about “how regulators and social media platform operators can work together to increase online safety.”
Moderator Adrian Monk of the World Economic Forum asks Fleming: “What was the toolkit that you came up with to try and start to detoxify, or de-pollute, this kind of information sphere?” Fleming’s answer:
“Travel to where the disinformation also travels. We need to find where people are searching and get there first, but not with a kind of boring 50-page document, but content that is produced in an engaging form, that travels well digitally and works on social media.
Another really key strategy that we had was to deploy influencers, influencers who have huge followings but really keen to help carry messages that were going to serve their communities. And they were much more trusted than the United Nations telling them something from New York City headquarters.
And finally, we had another trusted messenger project, which was called Team Halo, where we trained scientists around the world and some doctors on TikTok. And we had TikTok working with us. And these scientists who had virtually no following to start with, got verified ticks. They started bringing people in their community into their labs, into their offices, and answering their questions, engaging with them. It really took off and many of them became kind of like national media go-to advisers.”
Later (from min 46:30) comes the continuation, in which Fleming, with the unwavering conviction that she is doing the right thing, reveals the totalitarian attitude with which the UN goes about the world’s business:
“We partnered with Google. For example, if you Google climate change, you will, at the top of your search, get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled climate change, we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. You know, we own the science and we think that the world should know it and the platforms themselves also do. But again, it’s a huge, huge challenge that I think all sectors of society need to be very active in.”
CNN has no problem with a UN truth
In the nearly hour-long discussion, between Monk, a political scientist, a renowned CNN journalist and Fleming, no one even came close to conceding that there are no incontrovertible truths in science. Fleming and the CNN representative could not agree more that it was important to spread the UN approved truth and to suppress everything not conforming to it. Yet it is as clear as day to any thinking person who deals with such issues professionally that there is never one, incontrovertible truth in science. With climate change and corona, two issues, mentioned most in the discussion, it should be even clearer, at least in September 2022,
All sorts of brave assertions have been sold to the public as incontrovertible scientific consensus: vaccinations make you immune and are completely harmless. Those who are vaccinated do not pass on the virus. When enough people are vaccinated, the pandemic ends. Face masks don’t work. Face masks do wonder. And so on. Anyone who said otherwise was discredited as an anti-scientific blitherer and – if it was a scientist – thrown out of the circle of respectable researchers and declared a charlatan.
In the meantime, the scientific consensus is that the official truth and its messengers were wrong and the critics had it right in many respects. With climate change, the scientific narrative is not changing quite as fast, but just as dramatically. Before the string of ever warmer record years began about 25 years ago, there were scientific institutions and groups warning of a new ice age. Where would we be today if 40 years ago the truth ministries could have excluded all scientists from the circle of serious researchers who publicly doubted that mother earth would get colder?
Doctors are no longer allowed to contradict
During the covid pandemic, it became common practice in Germany and other countries for doctors who provided information about possible vaccine damage, or who expressed an opinion on masks or medication that differed from the official opinion, to have to deal with their professional organisations or the public prosecutor’s office in a very unpleasant way.
In some countries, this has gone so far that laws have already been passed or are on the way that explicitly prohibit doctors from deviating from the scientific consensus established by the authorities.
For example, on 30 September, the governor of California signed a law declaring it unprofessional conduct for doctors to tell their patients anything that contradicts the “scientific consensus” (held by the UN). If they do, they risk their licence because of this Assembly Bill 2098. In Australia, a similar law, which will apply nationwide, is in the works.
Truth is hierarchical, with the UN truth at the top
On 9 October, Twitter removed a tweet by Florida’s top health official, Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, for violation of its rules. In the tweet, he had shared his recommendation against vaccinating young people because of too many cardiovascular complications relative to a modest benefit. When a health authority is censored for a health recommendation because it contradicts the UN’s health recommendation, just because the UN has a censorship agreement with social media, and the state has not, then we are moving towards the UN health dictatorship feared by many.