Inception is a fascinating movie. At the outset of the film this question is posed, “What’s the world’s most resilient parasite?” The answer, “An idea. A single idea from the human mind can build cities. An idea can rewrite all the rules.” Now, take an idea with all its power and manufacture it in someone’s mind. This is what inception is. It’s suggestion. It’s targeted brainwashing. The implications are enormous and that’s only when applied to a single individual, but if the same ability were used on the masses the power wielded by the “idea giver” would be astronomical. Of course, there’s no such thing as Inception’s dream machine with serums and mapped out mental environments, but I would submit that the net result of inception does occur in our world—en mass and at the societal level.
Recently, a group of eye-opening emails were released by the Daily Caller, originating from users of the site known as Journolist. One of the users, a Washington Post writer, calls on other reporters to engage in arbitrarily attacks, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares…call them all racist.” Now, understand, he’s encouraging completely baseless assaults. He’s not even sure that Barnes and Rove should necessarily be the targets, nor does the charge need to be racism if there’s another taboo held in lower regard. He’s simply saying that who ever gets in the way of his political conquests should be accused of the most damaging assertion imaginable, and he’s prompting other journalists to taint their work with such fallacies. This is a prime example of societal inception –a false idea intentionally implanted in to our culture’s thinking.
Another Journolist email, this one from a writer at the Baltimore Sun, found that certain members of the media needed scolding because they were throwing too many potentially damaging questions at Obama. He suggested that they “use the power of the (journo)list” as a “warning against future behavior of this sort.” Not only is this a slap in the face at the notion of a free press, but it’s also a decided effort, through the media, to manufacture the false claim that Obama is surrounded by less controversy than he actually is. This constitutes another blatant misperception that was fabricated and fed to the public.
Also, you may remember the controversy over hacked emails from a number of scientists connected to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Essentially, this organization provides scientific ammunition to policy makers in various governments; which, in turn, use the recommendations to enact enormous amounts of extravagant environmental regulations. They’re existence is predicated on the premise that manmade global warming is an indisputable fact. However, the correspondence revealed that the temperature data wasn’t necessarily definitive. One researcher privately admitted, “We can’t account for the lack of warming.” If that’s true then why haven’t we heard any skepticism from the IPCC except through emails that were never intended for public eyes? Why hasn’t there been any comment from the IPCC questioning the absolute truth of global warming theory? The public expects scientists to be objective observers who crunch data and draw unbiased conclusions. If there is room for doubt but no doubt is expressed then I believe that, that is another form of societal inception.
Another scientist threatened to have a colleague “ousted” because of his skepticism of global warming theory. And yet another, referring to publication on the subject, said, “I will keep them (meaning the skeptics) out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is.” If the scientific community so broadly accepts the theory then why does dissenting opinion need to be muzzled by expulsion? Perhaps this is just another false notion that has been allowed to linger. Perhaps warmist theory doesn’t enjoy as much consensus as the public has been led to believe.
Several months ago, on Capital Hill, protesters of the health care bill were accused of hurling racial insults at members of congress. One congressman claimed that a racial slur was shouted, in chorus, 15 times. Another seconded the accusations along with a staffer. In the months since, the media has combed through the videos from that day, trying to confirm or deny the accusations. One blogger even offered $100,000 to anyone with a clip that showed the allegations to be true. Well, as it stands currently, no one has come forward to provide any proof. The fact is, the five videos recording different angles during the time in question show nothing inappropriate…much less racially charged. Out of all five videos not a single one confirms any of the serious charges that were leveled against the protesters. In other words, in all likelihood, the accusations from the congressmen were entirely made up. But when the claim was originally made the media along with the blogs couldn’t wait to report the story. It reminded me of the Richard Jewell fiasco. I even saw it mindlessly linked on facebook by more than one person. And all it did was pollute the flow of information in an attempt to unjustly discredit an entire political movement.
Much like the heroes of Inception, I imagine that the peddlers of these manipulations feel their actions are justified because they somehow help to accomplish a greater good—their candidate gets elected or their grant money gets secured for another year or they distract the public’s attention from an unpopular piece of legislation. But, when looking back, they see the disregard for ethics and truth in government, journalism, and science; perhaps they’ll realize that they’re the ones who’ve been manipulated the most. Perhaps they're the ones who’ve fallen prey to inception.
