Actually Savannah, you have hit on a very important point here. Not just bookstores, but also libraries and archives.Posted by Savannah (here)
I was concerned about the closing of book stores and the move to digital. It gives them the power to change history without burning books. They just go in a rewrite it. They seem to have changed a lot of trivial things such as slogans and product names to see how the world will react.
For years, in the archival and library professions, there has been this INSANE frantic rush and push to digitize collections and then destroy the originals or store them for "preservation" in secured locations inaccessible to the public. Those few in the profession who dared question this obvious insanity were shut down VERY quickly. The drivers and funders of this agenda were the Carnegie, Mellon, Ford, and most especially, Gates Foundations.
Scholarly articles about this are hidden behind paywalls, but there is one remaining open access reference I could find referring to this drive here and the relevant quote is:
This is mainstream discourse, so something like a discussion of the Mandela effect would be dismissed outright in that arena, but it is interesting to juxtapose the mainstream agenda to digitize and then either destroy or lock away originals from public access with this phenomenon. The mainstream occurrences tend to support alteration of digital data, but of course do not account for the Memory alteration aspect, which is a whole other can of worms.The growing urge to digitize and then discard the books in libraries is also based on the ideology of replication. There is nothing wrong with digitizing books and newspapers as long as it never becomes a pretext to destroy the originals. They are the real matter of which real history is made.




Reply With Quote