|
The
Minister of Propaganda and Information of Third Reich, Joseph
Goebbles, believed that if a lie were repeated enough it would end
up becoming the truth. This was how it was a few years before the
war, with the Fuehrer energetically indicating the route to take,
like a lighthouse beam amid that sea of extended arms seemed to make
the minister sound right.
But time has made it a
point of showing that this theory was wrong. A lie cannot become the
truth. The most it can do maybe is cunningly hide it under a disguise,
giving it the appearance of the truth, that is to say, wrapped up in a
second lie. And actually it is this kind of lie, dressed up as the
truth that manages to survive for a long time, if it were continually
inculcated by people as being something certain and useful. So much
more if the inculcators and inculcated do not go to the trouble of
really understanding in depth what they have in their hands, only
judging the fruit by the appearance of its beautiful skin.
Today it seems
bewildering to us how most of the Germans from the 30’s could be so
easily deceived. Could it be that they did not notice the size of the
disgrace hidden behind the swastika? How could they be so unaware of
the hate and the desire for revenge so badly camouflaged by conceited
exhortations?
The fact is that for the
Germans then, the seductive external appearance of the Nazi ideology
was enough for them. Their inflated egos with national pride did not
leave space for any kind of deep analysis at all. Their own collective
indolence smelted them into an inert, docile mass, easily manipulated
in any direction. The majority really believed that, after Goethe,
Wagner and so many others, they were witnessing the birth of one more
genius of humanity, in their fatherland, to the world. It was common
belief that the economic difficulties and the humiliations of the
Treaty of Versailles would shortly be things of the past. Whoever did
not share these opinions, therefore those that were not convinced by
the party institutionalized propaganda, were considered as blind,
ignorant and unpatriotic thus, unworthy of belonging to the Aryan
race. In short they were distrusted, so the government, the people and
the press made sure that any ideas contrary to the established order
could never be made public.
Naturally a hoax of this
size could never happen again today. With our intelligence,
perspicacity and good sense we are absolutely prepared to immediately
expose any attempt like that one. Still more, we count on the
retrospective vision of mistakes from the past that maintains us
immunized against a relapse, right?
Let us leave the Germany
national-socialists and advance a few decades. The year is 1967, the
month December and the eyes of the world are turned toward South
Africa, attentive to surgeon, Christian Barnard's, speech that has
just implanted a heart in his patient's chest, it is the heart of a
person who had just died. And the unimaginable happens: the heart
beats! On the donor’s death, the donor allowed another person to
continue living a little longer here on Earth!
In the news conference
Dr. Barnard is patiently answering the journalists' questions about
the subject. Until, at a certain point, one of the more daring
reporters asks a disconcerting question. It is something about the
doctor's possibility of having infringed some natural law, or law of
God, with his surgical intervention.
Dr. Christian Barnard
bears a wide smile, but does not answer. He did not need to. The
contempt and the scorn revealed in his smiling expression were more
than answer enough. And effective too, so effective that never again
did anyone have the courage of disturbing him again with
transcendental impertinences of this nature.
And so, exclusively based
on supposed external successes, conveniently ennobled by thorough and
coercive propaganda (just like the original teachings of Goebbels),
the transplants of organs are quickly disseminated around the world.
New techniques are developed, courses are made and specialists are
trained. The inevitable voluminous medical treatises appear about the
subject and other human organs are transplanted and euphoria spreads.
Somebody innovates and presents the first multiple transplant. And the
press shows, unceasingly cheerful (?), transplant patients, wearing
their invariable static smiles, enjoying a healthy, new life close to
their relatives. Governments start donor-organ campaigns, massively
supported by the population. Nobody wants to lose the opportunity of
doing something so simple, noble and politically correct as donating
his or her organs.
The pressure increases to
such a point that the act of donating organs, seen as altruist,
becomes compulsory in many countries, including Brazil. In Germany
during the 30’s, the Star of David sewn on their clothes identified
the pariahs of society. In Brazil, in the 90’s they are recognized by
the sentence “not an organ or member donor” stamped on their identity
cards.
The pioneer operation of
Dr. Barnard opened ground to consolidate the lie of the century, that
the transplant of organs is a useful intervention and does not cause
damage to either donor or receptor. The great difficulty of rejection
and the countless postoperative problems are presented as details of
no importance, unpleasant temporary obstacles. But rare are those that
see these as clear warning signs of nature, and practically nobody
seems to be worry about the possible psychic and spiritual damage that
come about from such operations. And, nevertheless, these damages
exist! And they are very serious, both for the donors and receptors of
organs!
Goebbels counted on the
Ministry of Propaganda to deceive a nation for a decade. Dr. Barnard
just needed one press conference to deceive the entire world for
thirty years. What difference is there if both were always convinced
of the nobility and justice of their causes, corroborated in their
eyes by unquestionable popular support and voluntary government
propaganda in their respective periods? A crime is always a crime,
independent of its motivation.
Transplants are indeed
crimes against the laws of nature, and all those that participate in
these macabre experiments have their share of blame, be they doctors,
donors, receptors or simple sympathizers for other people’s causes.
The supposition that to
donate organs is a noble and altruistic act, and that the transplant
is a fantastic conquest of science, does not constitute an extenuating
circumstance for that crime, but make it more serious, since it
contributes in making the crime socially acceptable and indefinitely
practiced. Whoever shares this belief, shows that they accept any kind
of novelty that appears in front of them without thinking about it,
and all that is needed is for it to be beautifully presented. It is
the trademark of incapacity or the indolence of thinking for one’s
self and analyzing about such subjects with the seriousness they
require.
|
