In essence, knowledge acquired through self-education and an open mind are necessary to overcome the stranglehold of liberal supremacy and AIPAC over the discourse, ontological state, and minds of a nation and society. And once a discourse, ontological state, and mind are able to absorb and process quality knowledge and wisdom, good taste and “soft power” follows from such a condition. Moreover, there are confines, limitations, and red lines to discourse and thinking in any society, despite freedoms that are supposed to be guaranteed by the laws of a nation such as the First Amendment, UN Charter, and so forth.
Thus, the challenge for any thinker or writer in any society is to recognize what the confines, limitations, and red lines are to discourse and thinking in their society, and then transcend those confines, limitations, and red lines through knowledge acquired by self-education and an open mind. It has been said that a mind is like a parachute, in the sense that it works only when it is open.
Overcoming the confines, limitations, and red lines of discourse and thinking in a society are necessary for truth. In turn, truth is necessary for the culture, essence, and viability of a free society. There are certain public figures and liberal organizations who justify the confines, limitations, and red lines of discourse and thinking as countermeasures against “disinformation” or “misinformation.” There is nothing wrong with combating or counteracting “disinformation” or “misinformation.” But who is it that gets to decide what constitutes credible and legitimate information and what constitutes non-credible and non-legitimate information?
I have seen a comment on Twitter hidden on a thread by Twitter’s engineers because the person who posted the comment suggested that Netanyahu’s aerial bombardments of Gaza this past summer will cause psychological trauma to Gaza’s children. Who hides the fact that children can be traumatized by an aerial bombardment? Thus, when we hear campaigns about “disinformation” or “misinformation,” we need to look at who is behind such campaigns. Perhaps the better course of action is to let the information out, and then people should decide for themselves what information is credible and truthful and what information is not credible and truthful.
As mentioned on numerous occasions, power was once defined by militaries and money in a bygone modern age. Now, in a postmodern age, power is defined by information as well as the use of information in shaping perceptions and thus social realities. If one does not overcome the confines, limitations, and red lines of discourse and thinking, then we are living a lie. As George Orwell once said: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” No one wants to live a lie. Thus, in order to live with dignity and truthfully, it is perhaps a moral obligation to identify what the confines, limitations, and red lines are to discourse and thinking in a society, and in turn transcend those confines, limitations, and red lines in order to preserve freedom and space for everyone in the public sphere.