The people who speak truth or who speak of truth are dangerous. They must be dealt with. Swiftly and ruthlessly. For centuries that has been the motto of all those who hold power, as those with power are the ones who have the most to lose because of these truth speaking silly people. Hence, these whistle-blowers, these protesters, these moles or however you would like to call them have been burned alive, crucified, dissected, dismembered and tortured in many innovative and unimaginable ways. Nevertheless, this has not deterred them. This has never deterred them. On they go blabbering true nonsense at the cost of being subjected to different types of horrors. Most of the times they are ignored and forgotten. Sometimes considered martyrs and followed. That is the most they have been able to achieve ever.
Since the West began leading the advancement of human race they have made some great discoveries in each walk of life. One of their greatest discoveries, in my opinion, is the new way they have found to deal with the aforementioned individuals. In the West and in the East these people were like a cancer. They never stopped appearing and they would live on even after having been erased from the earth. So, the traditional method of hostility didn’t seem to work and then with time comes this great western discovery: you don’t need to kill the people who speak truth. You just need to let them speak. And you listen. And you amuse yourself with what they have to say. By this time the whole population has already partially discredited them. Everybody is already thinking that you are exceedingly liberal for letting them speak, and the fact that you let them speak somehow seems to prove to the people that they are not speaking the truth. Because traditionally people who speak the truth are persecuted. The collective mind of the populace believes it firmly, consciously or subconsciously. If you are not persecuted, you must be lying. If you are welcomed to speak freely, especially by the one against whom you intend to speak, you are surely lying, because your opponent cannot be so insane that he lets you speak. That proves two things as I already said 1. You are a liar. 2. He is not scared, and hence, honest. This strategy works so well that its mechanism stumps the ones who can see through it, even if occasionally. It hacks the brain of the population because it acts exactly opposite to what population expects. It has the element of surprise!
You think that this does not happen? Let me give you some examples. These are just examples of people whose version of reality was uncomfortable for some great power. I am not claiming that they stood for the truth. I am just saying that their presence was a problem for some giants and they were neutralized using the method mentioned above.
Julian Assange, the man behind Wikileaks, did something unprecedented. He leaked, on mass scale, information that jeopardized some very powerful people. He was persecuted at the beginning. Just for a while. Then what happened? He was left alone. He was even interviewed by some media. He got asylum in an Ecuadorian embassy. Do you think under pressure of the only remaining “superpower” he would not be extradited? Or the CIA could not reach him? They easily could. If CIA reached Laden, if Mossad reached Eichmann, they couldn’t reach Assange because he was under Ecuadorian political asylum! He was not reached because such persecution would have made him into a hero. Or a villain. But he would have become important. What he said might be considered truth. But not doing anything they simply let him fade away. Nobody cares about what Assange does or says today. And the Superpower in question is a great democratic country which respects its diplomatic relations with a militarily weak country like Ecuador which is not even taken into account in most of the world affairs.
Julian Assange has even won several awards in the West. So, we know that all those countries actually welcome him. However, the very same countries openly support the USA in its international policies. Does it sound laughable?
Edward Snowden, the guy who became extremely famous in a day, was kind of “most wanted” for some time. He was considered a world threat. The world was following him closely. Everybody was curious if what he said was true. Nobody gives up everything in a day to invite a constant threat to his life forever. However, with time Snowden has been largely forgotten. He also received several awards in the same West that supports US in its wars and politics. How closely are you following Snowden’s whereabouts and his statements now?
Recently, I saw the documentary Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill. It was very poignant. It seemed to be telling some kind of truth. At least it’s arguments were very logical. I would go so far as to say I was moved to tears watching it. I recommended it to almost everyone I know. One of my very intelligent friends asked a very logical question though: if the film speaks so strongly against the US government how come it was nominated for the Academy award? It was then I realized while telling him that this is the new strategy of the West. They let Scahill and the ones like him speak. The ones who speak feel like they did something. People think the country is a true democracy (which instantly proves Scahill a liar!), and everybody has achieved something. Except the ones for whose welfare the film was made. The attention is never drawn to them. What really happened seems to be a parody of a scene from the film where Jay Leno laughs Jeremy Scahill away. Jeremy Scahill made the film, American government let him go on with it, Oscars gave him a nomination, American war policies remain unchanged and the people keep dying.
After these three examples (there are many more! But all of them cannot be included in this single text), we can more or less understand what this effective method of dealing with the truth is and how efficiently it works! To conclude I would share a quote whose source has become anonymous for me with time, but I remember having read it somewhere. The words might not be exactly as I read them, but they intend to convey the original meaning: “Jesus was crucified in his times for saying what he said. Today we would have simply invited him to a dinner and laughed him away.”
– Madhuvan Rishiraj
LAMPS OF DESERT 