- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
by critical thinker
Monday, Apr. 29, 2002 at 5:44 PM
Readers familiar with the 'wry wit' of Noam Chomsky will certainly be able to identify with this magnification of his 1991 "Media Control" speech, which, in much detail, shows how one aspect of *Rollback* was, and continues to be stage-managed. For those who wish to understand how Unaccountable Power plays its games, so to undermine new strategies of *Rollback*, this article should be on everyone's list to read!
errorTHE SPECTACULAR ACHIEVEMENTS OF MEDIA CONTROL:
An Exercise in the Crucial Arts
Anti-copyright Chuck d 1994-'97; Nonsilent Press
See detailed Notes via link
The Horrid Plague
Save the Children!
The Building Crisis
Parade of Enemies
The Fight for Kids' Freedoms
Reasons for the Emotional Outcry
Representing the Kids
"After the free love and truly radical movements lost their momentum we moved to a business-run society at a remarkable level. Organizations and individuals now seeming to assert kids' rights are professionals with interesting stakes in their latest endeavors."
SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!
The biggest scare in this era has revolved around that still seemingly limitless resource of people's ignorance and fear --sexuality. Especially when the sexuality of young people was involved.
In the mid 70's the reincarnations of Dr. Kellogg [discussed earlier] latched onto a new series of manuevers that would further weaken a lot of what the late 60's and early 70's had wreaked way too much of--independent thought. This was quite successful; they came from the old "tried and true" method of fear of sex and laced it with a bit of revamped homophobia...
The strategy was to approach the whole matter through the more subtle and effective means of propaganda, to turn the public against the inappropriate beliefs that some of these people held --like, the one that says kids aren't arbitrarily incompetent and irrational compared to adults. Or the one that claims that the young people could form fully genuine--but nontraditional--bonds with adults they liked. The public had to be turned against these inappropriate beliefs, presenting them as harmful to the "Common Interests."
The Common Interests are those of "us" (who wish to finally go towards the light at the end of the tunnel)--the helpful professionals, the newly-progressing feminist, and the gay and lesbian consenting adults. That's all "us." We want to be together and have things like Harmony and Family Values and working together.
Then there's those suspicious adults who like being around the children in the "wrong way"--those CHILD MOLESTERS out there who won't stop forcing themselves upon the "weak and immature."
"The strategy was to...turn the public against the inappropriate beliefs that some of these people held --like, the one that says kids aren't arbitrarily incompetent and irrational compared to adults. Or the one that claims that the young people could form fuly genuine--but nontraditional--bonds with adults they liked."
The first directive was around the [mystified] "chicken hawks" who were making "chickens" pose in front of their cameras so that they could record their "abuse"; this breaks up all those hopes that we had for a continuing Harmony. So we've got to stop them so that we can all live together and protect our children.
The [influence] professionals and the concerned mothers all have the same interests. We can work together and work for Family Values and Harmony, liking and trusting each other, but we have to make sure that these "kiddie pornographers" don't come in and wreck what we've got going.
That was the message essentially. A huge amount of effort was put into presenting it. This is, after all, the Business Community in general, so they control the media and have massive resources [and can make sure that prejudices towards misunderstood groups remain prejudices]. And [this] has worked very effectively.
Some people who're now catching on in part call it the "child abuse hysteria," and are trying to say how it has gotten out of hand and that some of our hard-worked-for rights are beginning to be victimized as a result of it. Canada's law banning all positive images and textual accounts or arguments of even legal sexual acts is a case in point. (7)
It's vital to realize that such hysterias have been promoted over and over again to keep people on the Proper Track. Such ruses have worked very effectively by mobilizing community opinion in favor of vapid, empty concepts like Family Values. Who can be against that? Or Harmony. Who can be against that? Or, as in the child sex abuse hysteria of the day: "Save the Children!" Who can be against that?
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the
In fact, what does it mean if somebody asks you, Do you want to save the people in Iowa? Can you say, Yes, I want to save them, or No, I don't want to save them? It's not even a question: it doesn't mean anything. The point of public relations slogans like "Save the Children!" is that they don't mean anything. They mean as much as whether you want to save the people in Iowa.
Of course there was an issue. The issue was --Do you support our policy? But you don't want people to ponder that issue. That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. It's crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about.
So you have people arguing about Saving the Children? "Of course I don't not support them." --then they've won. It's like Family Values and Harmony. We're all together, empty slogans, let's join in, let's make sure we don't have these weirdos with their talk about intergenerational intimacy or kids' ability to figure out what they want and that sort of business.
That's all very effective. It runs right up to today. And of course it is all carefully thought out. The people in the public relations industry aren't there for the fun of it. They're doing work. They're trying to instill the right values. In fact, they have a conception of what freedom ought to be: it ought to be a system in which "mature" people are trained to work in the service of the masters (the people who own the society)--and keep the naive and incompetent children and others in their proper place.
The young people ought to be deprived of any form of genuinely constructive organizations where [dissident] adults might build honest and lasting bonds with them, because such bonds just cause trouble. The "not yet fully human" people ought to be sitting in front of the TV and having drilled into their heads the message, which says, that in their time of to life --childhood--they have to engage in play (not too serious) and watch adults doing incredible things, and
be outside of the adult world pretty much while attending school and children's activities.
That's all there is in childhood. Kids may think in their own heads that there's got to be more that they can do than this stuff, but since they're watching the tube and learning to be good consumers of every latest fashion, they assume they must be a little strange to think they can be different from how other kids are imaged. And since there's no deeply powerful organization (that's absolutely crucial) that speaks about what they must keep secret--such
as that old one called masturbation [discussed earlier]--they never have a real way of finding out whether they are weird and they just assume it, because it's natural.
They might get together with a friend or two and do some "sex play" but not seeing anything really honest on TV or other imagery--just those scary cases of kids getting raped all the time --it's easy to think you're wierd [and need therapy].(8)
[G]oing back to the business community, the last genuine victory for kids and other problem groups was during the 60's and 70's.
After the free love and truly radical movements lost their momentum we moved to a business-run society at a remarkable level. Organizations and individuals now seeming to assert kids' rights are professionals with interesting stakes in their latest endeavors.
On the other front, the movement often called the *underground*--which lost much of its momentum due to intrigueing circumstances--had uniquely genuine potentials where the oppressed people had control of their own voices amongst a radical milieu that was set up to challenge society on a broad scale.
One of these independent voices was CHIPS (Cooperative Highschool Independent Press Sydicate) which got together with FPS, an independent publication put out by Ann Arbor Youth Liberation during the early 70's[, for a whopping TEN YEARS].
Today, their literature is very hard to find, but if you do an Internet search, you'll find that a smattering of U.S. libraries do carry it and that some are open to all ages. Once you find these rare publications, you can take a read of what they were doing. What they're saying is a little different than say, one of these slickly produced "for kids" magazines you find everywhere in public libraries.
But that's how it is today. The independent voices' reach into mainstream consciousness is virtually nil and structures for kids' viewpoints outside of corporate-controlled limitations--like those that fashionably deal with environmental issues or [topical ideas of] drugs and violence-- are
virtually nonexistent. (10)
It's a long way at least structurally from the ideal. Existing young people's media are controlled by a sub-adjunct to the mainstream, which are a corporate monopoly. And they all have the same point of view--tho a little more "snazzed" up to fit the "childhood" paradigm.
[The first scare]
The public wasn't allowed to see or know too much about what the media systematically reported of these "depraving" and "dehumanizing" "records of abuse" which were supposed to be on par with the mafia, even having their own private chicken hawk-ferrying jets. Instead of any responsible words that could've helped the ignorant understand [a tiny minority better], the public got savory glimpses (properly censored) for their thriving imaginations, along with juicy "investigative" reports that significantly helped to fan the flames of people's ignorance and fears.
It was necessary to constantly ram these stories through the public mind along with "appropriate" visions for Change and Child Protection initiatives.
Such initiatives sometimes amounted to open censorship in mainstream bookstores; there had been a book by the name of SHOW ME! which had appeared all across the U.S. and had been quite accessible. People certainly got to have a look through it from time to time in 1975 when it came out; and they might've certainly talked about it with a shopping companion.
This book was a creative attempt to help parents speak to their prepubescent young about sexuality, and the idea of feeling good about one's body. Actual speech by young people was used, as well as their parents, and even people who feared sex. As well, the explanatory section was written by the noted Swiss psychiatrist Dr.Helga Fleischhauer-Hardt. Finally, Will McBride, a well-known photographer, had succeeded in bringing out the participants'
believable feelings. (12)
But the mainstream press chose to tote the book as a manual on "how to have sex with kids;" so it quickly disappeared once the bookstores got a whiff of the consequences of defying the lies and misinformation about it. A few booksellers probably tried to defy the mounting emotional outcry fanned by the propaganda, and probably had similar results to those more recent stores "caught" (and prosecuted) for carrying audio recordings deemed
This too takes extensive propaganda. We have seen a lot of this kind of thing in the last twenty years. People like Judianne Densen-Gerber and Phyllis Schaffly got involved in such opportunities [for example, millions of dollars were handed out by Walter Mondale in the early days], finding a niche in the weaknesses of the gay and lesbian (or androphile) movement --the movement that had in general, just gotten subtracted from mental illness status in 1972, bringing some real progress to their efforts.
The androphiles weren't the only targets of this, of course. Smaller freedom-seeking groups like the nudist movement were being pressured by these emotive strategies until they learned to bow more often than not to the Proper Values.
As long as most people are marginalized and distracted from the actual challenge of trying to understand a minority of the population, and have no way to articulate their empathetic sentiments --or even know that others share them, people who question the current just assume that they're the only ones with the crazy thought, view, or experience in their heads. (...)
People who said they weren't so sure about all this information they're getting would've liked to look into the matter themselves and share their opinions, but they feel intimidated. Maybe they tell themselves that they'll wait until something positive comes along in these Legitimate sources of information before telling someone about their true feelings; but something positive never
To a certain extent, then, that ideal was achieved, but never completely. There are groups which it has as of yet been impossible to destroy. The Free Speech guarantee has enabled a few of these in the U.S. to remain trying to spread their views and ideas. In Canada [due to laws against positive text argument], that's now impossible for certain kinds of views to be publicly expressed, like those considered to "harm" women and children.
For example, a lesbian publication by the name of "BAD ATTITUDE" was banned there because it depicted "degrading acts" upon women.
After years of pounding home these same images, it can get kind of monotonous for career-builders and spectators everywhere. The rabble have short attention spans, so you can't let the waves of hysteria subside if you want people to keep needing your services. So you need something more... something heavier and more ominous that will bring the desired
effect repeatedly back up to par. Thus the idea of the "pedofile" " baby-rapers" making up a central foundation of mutually-hated White Male Dominance. (15)
But remember, much of the aim of the mechanisms behind these hysterias, such as the magazines which publish such views, or the professionals who counsel so many sex abuse "survivors," is to uphold their own reservation in the actual Establishment. So whether the "child-saver" extremists (or "femi-nazis") are wittingly or unwittingly serving the interests of Real Power by distracting the bewildered herd with their impassioned calls against Patriarchal White Males (old and young) doesn't matter as long as people are kept on the
Proper Track. (16)
It has been necessary to allow such distractions to become official and well-understood.This is true on every other topic. Pick the topic you like: student illiteracy, inattention, school violence, drug abuse, youth gangs, drop-outs --whatever it is, the picture of the challenges truly facing young people that's presented to the public has only the remotest relation to reality.
Despite all this, genuine dissident culture has survived. And it's grown on quite a lot of new levels since the 1960's. In the 60's the genuine dissident culture first of all was extremely slow in developing. There was no alternative to compulsory schooling until years after sustained youth protest. People didn't start taking kids fully seriously even after years of protest against the draft and anger at the system. When it did grow it was a very narrow
dissident movement, mostly youth and an assortment of marginalized radicals. By the 1970's, that had changed considerably. Major organizing had developed: the homeschooling [and unschooling] movement, the independent youth press, legal projects, sexual freedom groups. They were all continuing the kind of independent thought that had begun in the multi-tiered protests of
the 60's. (17)
"Still, there had been a few inappropriatly honesty-prone people who...realized that people could possibly be duped on broad, connected terms, and they kept their projects open to all kinds of discussions that weren't acceptable in the larger culture."
There is so much potential at our fingertips [to solve the serious problems which the Next Generation will be facing] since we are the richest nation for its size on Earth. We have millions holding university degrees and such --but nobody's really doing anything about these challenges and nobody's really preparing the Next Generation except in cute or topical ways. Ways that keep the children in their acceptable places and subserviant to the imposed status quo interests.
So, in such circumstances you've got to divert the bewildered herd, because if they really start seeing deeply what's going on --that the potential we have to change things is not being promoted at all, only deliberately careful chess moves to conform to a larger set of Shared Values-- they may not like it, since they're the ones suffering the most. Just having them watch the Superbowl or playing video games or calling in to radio stations about their favorite songs may not be enough. You have to whip them up into a fear of enemies.
"All these great advancements on legal terrain against views that
virtually dare not be defended and that were never actually understood
to begin with. That gives relief --we were saved at the last minute."
In the 1930's Hitler whipped them up into a fear of Jews, Gypsies, gays, and political dissidents. You had to crush them to protect yourselves and the Next Generation's chances for making lasting Changes for a Brighter Future.
We have our ways too. Over the last few decades, every year or two, some major discovery is made at home. There used to be the one which all by itself was readily available: sexual perverts, especially the homosexual variety. But the "gays" have lost their attractiveness as an enemy, and it's getting harder and harder to use that one now that they've done their bit of progressing towards Harmony.
So, some new variations have had to be conjured --something that could still be drawn from the perpetually available ignorance and fear regarding sexuality. So it has been "kiddie" pornographers, "snuff films," "child stealers," "sex rings" at day care centers, "Satanic ritual violence," abuse "survivors" now molesting and the descriptionless pedophile who is everywhere, lurking not only among nonconforming neighbors, family members and loved
entertainers, [and priests], but in newly-recalled "memories." They've got to keep coming up one after another.
You frighten the population, terrorize them, intimidate them so that they're too afraid to let their kids out of their sight and they tremble with hysteria over the thought that any non-professional --you've got to have professionals no matter what-- relating to their kids might be a potential child-rapist.
Then you have these magnificant victories over the swine pedophiles (who now include kids themselves) such as the new [laws across the US that allow] authorities to keep a convicted "rapist" in prison for life even if their sentence runs out. Or the law in [all] states where convicted pedophiles must register with the police when they re-enter public life; this may not sound that bad until you find out that it is now considered a "public service" to let the frothing public have their addresses --which have led to increased hysteria-based violence and vigilante activity. Or take the laws that are banning even imagined images of "inappropriate" conduct (Mike Diana's alternative press-defended, but Florida-punished conviction is a case in point). (20)
All these great advancements on legal terrain against views that virtually dare not be defended and that never were actually understood to begin with. We were saved at the last minute.
That's one of the ways in which you can keep the bewildered herd from paying attention to what's really going on all around them --keep them diverted and controlled. The next one that is trying to come along now is the operation where the pedophile is central to the theme of fascism, in the mystification about Patriarchy's method of getting what "he wants" regardless of more powerless males' and females' victimization.
For this to become understood in the minds of the right people --the bewildered herd-- it's going to require efforts from the [well-funded faction of the] so-called anti-authoritarian feminist movement (both womyn's and men's) where you are seeing more and more of its "leaders" calling for the right of [largely therapeutic indoctrinated] sexual abuse "survivors" to be heard instead of the "ulteriorly-motivated" pedophiles.
"People like John Crewdson or Andrew Vachss can't go on their stage
if their target can fight back. That's much too dangerous. But if you're
sure that they will be crushed, maybe we'll knock that one off and
heave another sigh of relief."
At the same time that these survivor's
movements were arousing great horror with their harrowing experiences, survivors of a different sort were making court testimony about their harrassment, threats, and torture at the hands of a different kind of abuser.
Together with parents and upright lawyers, they compiled sworn affidavits of precise and systematic abuse by police detectives, officers, and other law enforcement professionals. These survivors refused, initially, to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in accepting the Conclusion that they had been sexually violated.
Among the threats and torture methods used on these survivors by professional "child-protectors," were detainments, solitary confinement, and threats of rape at local juvenile detention centers. To substantiate this last one, "Michael," 13, states that n.y.p.d. detective Robert W.Maginnis "threatened to beat me, [and] take me to Spoffard [Bronx juvenile jail] where six guys his size would hold me down and fuck me up the ass." He also
implicated two Bronx Assistant DA's in his abuse, stating that one, while repeatedly calling him "queer" and "fag" also threatened to tell people at his school that he was gay. (23)
Even the famous Los Angeles Police Department got caught in the act, when one of its employees dangled two boys, ages 12 and 13, over an oceanside cliff by their ankles. (25)
All these strategies were used to try to get the "needy child" to finally share their "best kept secret." The man who performed this last deed of assured "comfort" was named Detective Lloyd Martin, and he never got punished for this kind of professionalism; in fact he remained with the l.a.p.d.'s "Sexually Exploited Child Unit" for many years afterwards.
These unusually explicit affidavits of police brutality are probably unique in their detail about how the "Official Guardians of Protection" systematically carry out their important work. And it provides an insight surrounding the abuse of young people at the hands of the Real Power.
Certainly these accounts could have brought an would interesting twist to the furor that was at the time motivating "conscious" circles to get organized so that they could "meet the challenge" with strong opposition. Yet the U.S. media were not interested. This material was suppressed entirely, without a word, in the national media, where more than a few "lightheaded and cold-blooded" "advocates for children" sang praise to "pedo squads" and
their "rapid response" to the burgeoning social ill facing Conscious Americans everywhere.
"Few ask whether such media exposure might have offered [these kids]
some protection from contemplating these alternatives."
These unprepared survivors were not encouraged by soothing legions of professionals to sue the cities where they'd been victimized, and there were no new laws made to help them prosecute their tormentors; rather, they were pretty much forced to continue living quite silenced in the System of Things, and get used to knowing who was the Boss.
Young people staggering from these kinds of situations have often chosen drug abuse, crime, and suicide as their outlets; yet much of the evidence about the background for why they choose such outlets does not appear in the U.S. media. And few ask whether such media exposure might have offered them some protection from contemplating these outlets.
This tells you something about the way in which a well-functioning system of
consent-manufacturing works. In comparison with the revelations of the straightforward abuse that the above kids endured, the much more vaguely-defined and less-straightforward (yet accepted) idea is not even nearly as much of a scandal when one considers what's going on. Besides that the Shared Interests get off scot-free --there is this unwavering trust that the vaguely-defined label of sexual abuse is the CAUSE for all manner of social problems and difficulties later in life, regardless of the true nature of the crime. But "Child Protectors" have their job to do.
A critical look behind the scenes of these intrigueing circumstances may be quite interesting to those seeking an authentic remedey among all the shiney lures. Taking a look at who many of the most widely-heard voices are you might get a crucial understanding of what is happening.
THE FIGHT FOR KIDS' FREEDOMS
A few remarks about the final one. Let's finally turn to that. Let me begin with the many studies and polls taken for the past twenty or so years concerning the abuse of young people. These have some interesting insights. In studies and polls taken which ask about what people would like to do in order to obtain justice for abused young ones, people often made two kinds of responses. There were the extreme ones of publicly promoted vigilanteism which led to beatings or killings, or burning down the homes of the guilty, and
the more considered ones that said we should prosecute to the fullest extent under the law.
If people were to follow the latter advice, we remind ourselves of this vaguely-defined term as it is now understood. There would be sexual, physical, emotional and psychological abuse; and we would have to prosecute not only the law enforcement officials "doing their jobs," but also we'd have to prosecute and sue school officials who uncritically promote so-called "learning disabilities" which got us stigmatized and dependent upon the pharmaceutical industry; or principals who paddled us years ago and teachers who may've humiliated us after catching us having sex in the bathrooms. We'd even need to search out the playground supervisors who let our peers bully us and many more. (27)
Why doesn't anybody come to that conclusion? The reason is that people either don't know about it or never considered it. In a well-functioning propaganda system, people wouldn't know or wouldn't have seriously considered what I'm talking about when I list that range of examples.
If you bother to think about it a bit or look into it a little, you find that those examples are quite appropriate, especially when you see for what the [consensually-oriented] pedophiles are getting long punishments for.
Of course, Concerned "Child-Protection" advocates and their supporting Business Community won't spend too much time looking at their hypocrisies because, the truth is, Real Power backs their version of truth. Meanwhile, American 14-year-olds and their adult lovers who live on this side of the Canadian border will be prosecuted, harassed, subject to official torture techniques, and often persecuted to the full extent of the law, while the
14-year-olds and their lovers on the Canadian side are allowed to pursue their physical delights without fear of State-backed reprisals.
You never get to hear anything on the talk or investigative shows, or in the universities about these kinds of inconsistencies. In fact, few are allowed to know what's going on when such modern nations make these kinds of decisions about lowering or doing away with such age-of-consent laws.
And no one has called for the full prosecution of the media or the Rightful Leaders for scaring young people into this belief that all manner of slightly affectionate or friendly touch (such as a hug, or a pat) might result in their being raped by some wierdo --in what amounts to just plain psychological abuse.
The voices that are allowed to be understood are those which tout the Desired Conclusions.
Report this post as: