Science And The Rise Of Totalitarianism
The cancellation of Professor Norman Fenton’s presentation at the UK’s NHS Health and Care Analytics Conference indicates a deeply disturbing increased level in the censorship of science.
The gravity of current developments is onerous. It is important to recognize parallels from the past and understand the initiating factors — including intolerance of ideas threatening state-approved ideology — that eventually allowed the rise of totalitarianism.
The National Health Service’s correspondence with Professor Fenton reveals this degradation. His scheduled presentation had nothing to do with the recent pandemic; the grounds for his dismissal claimed his views on vaccines may be distracting.
…the conference organising committee has just been alerted to the controversy around vaccinations on your Twitter account and fear that this may distract from the conference. They have asked that we not proceed with the planned session on Bayesian networks.
After receiving this notice, Professor Fenton wrote;
I was canceled not for the content of my talk but because I had done other work raising concerns about covid vaccine safety.
The NHS organizers openly admitted that an unacceptable perspective on a scientific topic — designated incontestable by authorities — is grounds for ex-communication.
This denial of participation is solely because of Professor Fenton’s willingness to appraise and discuss subject matter deemed controversial. However, no one who has examined his cautious analysis of data during the pandemic has presented evidence disputing any of his findings.
Scientific integrity doesn’t matter to conference organizers — in the same way, truth didn’t matter to censors in the past.
The efforts to expunge all scientific data and opinions countering government and news media narratives on the pandemic and vaccines — bear a strong resemblance to known undertakings applied in pursuit of totalitarianism. Today’s compromised ethical standards in controlling science reverberate with the initial restrictions on thought that permitted the ultimate brutality of previous regimes.
A repressive act against an accomplished scientist is analogous to the Nazi party’s initial marginalization of researchers and academics who interfered with their quest for absolute authority.
Referencing past historical similarities is appropriate and relevant as today’s scientific climate is strikingly similar to the atmosphere in early 1930s Germany. Although some observers recognized the dangerous implementation of fascism, no one predicted that the Nazis and their collaborators were about to murder an estimated 17 million people.
From the beginning of the twentieth century until 1933, German science had been held in great respect, responsible for breakthroughs in chemistry, medicine, and physics. As Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power, they exerted control of free expression in science and experimental processes.
Early indications of a repressive order were the cancellations of presentations and denunciations of great innovative thinkers. In 1932, Albert Einstein left Germany with a price on his head. The Nazis were interested in eliminating any competition outside of party doctrine, and their agenda was quickly implemented. Many of the brilliant German scientists of the era were purged from the system well before the beginning of World War II as the fantasy of a superior race dominated nationalistic rhetoric. Renowned physicists, doctors, and researchers were incarcerated; if they had the means, they fled Germany because they were not allowed to work or were in fear for their lives.
State financial support actually increased for those scientists willing to bend to the Nazi government’s priorities. These included Nobel prize winners and leading academics; they had no problem criticizing and ejecting colleagues who refused to follow the new order. Many of them continued their work up until the Allied victory over Germany. The Nuremberg doctor’s trials revealed a new low in the level of scientific depravity and human experimentation.
The end of the war was both a military victory and a corporate takeover. Top Nazi scientists were recruited by the United States in a morally bankrupt attempt to ensure technological superiority. When news of this program, dubbed Operation Paperclip, reached Albert Einstein, he wrote to President Truman.
We hold these individuals to be potentially dangerous carriers of racial and religious hatred. Their former eminence as Nazi Party members and supporters raises the issue of their fitness to become American citizens or hold key positions in American industrial, scientific, and educational institutions. If it is deemed imperative to utilize these individuals in this country we earnestly petition you to make sure that they will not be granted permanent residence or citizenship in the United States with the opportunity which that would afford of inculcating those anti-democratic doctrines which seek to undermine and destroy our national unity.
The employment of former Nazis was not limited to scientists; the CIA turned a blind eye to atrocities by recruiting former Gestapo and SS officers in their blind pursuit of destroying the Soviet Union.
The course of authoritarian development is always reinforced by a narrow-minded and ethically depraved intelligence community. The empowerment of special forces and secret police is a necessity in enforcing dubious proclamations and mandates. These ruthless forces disseminate coercive propaganda and subvert challenging thought, particularly from the scientific world. Eventually, they will murder dissenters.
The justification for totalitarianism includes the spurious claim that rulers have a right to control all human activity in order to prevent dangerous outcomes, even if this includes censorship, terrorism, and violence. Because historical eventualities are ultimately dependent on ideas and knowledge, powerful regimes know the import of manipulating and containing scientific discourse.
The Nazi Party justified the suppression of information by promulgating a fantasized racial purity to scapegoat Jews and other minorities. The reign of Stalin’s version of communism, which pretended to be cleansing Russia of monarchists and capitalists similarly sacrificed truth to gain control. Although these tactics seemingly were for different reasons, they both were ploys to eliminate reasonable criticism by intellectuals, particularly academics, and scientists.
This is a dangerous syndrome, and the increasing control of thought and speech alerts us to the possibility of an impending cataclysm. Crushing voices of dissent is a necessity for any bureaucracy seeking absolute power. It is a verifiable symptom of the rise of a totalitarian state.
With the recent deterioration in freedom of intellectual expression, it is imperative that the potential for further decline is recognized and disrupted.
It is a precarious mistake to ignore the outrageous and dangerous marginalization of concerned medical practitioners, brilliant researchers, and experienced analysts like Norman Fenton, Robert Malone, Mattias Desmet, David Martin, Karen Kingston, Peter McCullough, Vandana Shiva, Paul Marik, Mary Talley Bowden, Pierre Kory, Jay Bhattacharya, Jessica Rose, Brian Hooker, Geert Vanden Bossche, John Campbell, and Meryl Nass. This is only a partial list of the hundreds of thousands of other doctors, scientists, and concerned citizens — including those who signed the Great Barrington Declaration — whose open minds threaten an establishment boldly disparaging their views and wisdom.
Today’s circumstances permitting this repression are in plain sight. Pirates and profiteers continue to rule by corrupting leaders and their countries. Meanwhile, inhabitants of the Earth battle over boundaries, resources, and religious views; degrading enemies and dismissing ethical values.
The vast majority of scientific work is directed towards serving profits and power rather than applying knowledge to build a better world. This twisted logic serves the desires of an elite class; the duplicitous continue to thrive and dominate.
History will record that in the early 2020s reasonable scientific voices were silenced in the name of government policies based on corporate preferences. If the perilous nature of this current coercive betrayal of democracy is recognized, there is an opportunity for a reversal.
The horrific crimes of World War II were committed not long ago; survivors of the worst atrocities are still alive to remind us of how quickly intellectual persecution can turn to violent oppression. Their accounts are a reminder that resistance to recalling the past needs to be overcome.
To never forget isn’t a passive slogan of remembrance; it means never again allowing the worst of humanity’s conduct. This concept demands recognizing and defying the elements of emerging totalitarian stratagems. An effort to prevent the present situation from devolving into extremely inhumane and destructive behavior — must include the examination of present similarities to historical trends.
Yet mainstream media shames free thinkers who dare mention Nazi atrocities and downplays the repercussions of censorship.
Attempts at humiliation in the guise of news reporting reveal the subjugation of journalism to government and corporate dictates. Press attitudes affirm an ominous climate where science is compromised, allowing corrupt ideology to flourish.
Authorities will fight in every way to repress scientists who question the self-righteousness of the state. They are counting on hesitation and silence from those who are becoming aware of the disorder and deceit.
The response to the rising tide of totalitarian behavior will determine the next chapter in this precarious epoch. To reverse this mindset, the noble battle to support open scientific dialogue must be as relentless and loud as possible.
Speaking out against the madness and abuse is the only recourse.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Originally published on the author’s Substack
One of our country’s most important freedoms is that of free speech.
Agree with this essay? Disagree? Join the debate by writing to DailyClout HERE.