|
No Evidence Required
One of the most depressing discoveries that I
ever made about people, in general, is their apparent lack of ability to think
clearly or deeply.
As a result, they are easily led like sheep into
believing whatever they are told - particularly if they are told something often
enough.
But one of the most astonishing aspects of this,
in my view, is how people will continue to believe what they are being told even
though this might be completely contrary to the evidence that sits in front of
their eyes on a daily basis.
For example, we are continually told that women
have always been treated worse than men and, further, that this continues to be
the case; and most of the public seems to believe this despite the fact that
there is not a shred of evidence to support such a conclusion. On the contrary,
the evidence supports the complete opposite.
Throughout history!
But, in this piece, I just want to focus on four recent
examples where this sort of thing occurs simply to expose what often seems to be
going on.
The first example is a
report in the Daily Mail informing us that the UK's top soap opera,
Eastenders, is going to portray a step-father as a child-abuser.
Here is the first sentence in the report ...
EastEnders is about to tackle the taboo subject of child abuse with a hard-hitting storyline involving teenager Whitney Dean.
Notice the use of the word 'taboo'.
The Daily Mail is telling us that, for some reason or other, we
do not talk about child abuse.
And yet, the media and the government have been putting
child-abuse at the top of the agenda for about 20 years now, not only when it
comes to talking about it, but also when it comes to legislating on matters to do
with it.
Indeed, the country seems to have been in a permanent state of
hysteria over the issue.
So, why does the author of the report suggest that the issue of
child abuse is a 'taboo' subject when, quite clearly, it is not?
And my answer to this question is, "because, as a piece of effective
propaganda, it works."
Another example comes from a recent BBC programme which took a
comical look at TV adverts from around the world. And it was, indeed, quite
amusing.
I cannot remember the 'subject' areas, but in the first half of
the programme nearly all the adverts portrayed men as idiots. In the second half
of the programme we were presented with adverts from the 1950s and 1960s that
sold domestic products to women (e.g. washing-up liquid).
These adverts were described as 'misogynistic', but there was
nothing remotely misogynistic about them. The targets of
the adverts were, of course, women - who were seen happily prancing around the
kitchen as housewives - delighted that their product was so effective at doing
the washing - but there was nothing misogynistic about them at all! There
was no attempt to demean women, or to "put them in their place". These
were just simple adverts being targeted at those people - women - who, in those
days - did most of the domestic chores. The audience in the
studio, however, clearly bought into the notion that these innocuous adverts
were offensive to women - judging by the way in which they sighed and laughed
(tentatively) over them - but - hold on a moment! - the adverts in the first
half of the programme were almost entirely sexist - with men being demeaned and
ridiculed quite obviously throughout. But no-one
had noticed. Tell me somebody. How is it possible that a TV
presenter can get away with foisting on to the public the notion that women are
the ones being demeaned and ridiculed in adverts when, in front of their very
own eyes, lies evidence for the opposite conclusion? And my
answer to this question is, "because, as a piece of effective
propaganda, it works."
My third example refers to another programme from the BBC and it
is one that I have already mentioned elsewhere. And so I will simply quote my
own piece ...
One programme, for example, was about the life of a Medieval woman called
Christina. Apparently, she lived in an age when women were very badly catered
for indeed.
And yet; we discovered that this woman lived to be 60 years old and had - if
my memory serves me correctly - some three or four children. She ran two or
three successful businesses and managed to leave them to her eldest daughter. Meanwhile, both her
husband and her brother had died during the nationwide famine of the period.
(She later married a younger man.)
Tell me someone. How is it that this woman survived if she was so hard done
by? - given that her brother and her husband did not.
How did she manage to bear and feed her offspring throughout all this, eh?
How did her life in any way whatsoever provide evidence to
suggest that women were hard done by compared to men?
There was no answer at all to these questions throughout the
programme.
Nothing! Zilch! Just the repeated sentiment that women had it worse.
Here, we have an entire programme which is presented to the
public as containing evidence for the view that women faired poorly in the
Middle Ages compared to men, but no evidence for such a claim is actually
presented in the programme to support this contention. On the
contrary, the evidence suggested the complete opposite! So, what
is going on? And my answer to this question is, "because, as
a piece of effective propaganda, it works."
My final example is taken from a piece of mine called Fantastical Lies.
The extract below refers to the utterly empty-headed rhetoric that was parroted
by UK politicians up and down the country following the 7/7 bombings on the
London Underground. Another fantastical lie currently being perpetrated by western politicians is that "we will not give in to terrorism by changing our way of life". Even the Queen has been parroting this nonsense - under their 'guidance'.
And this notion that our way of life is not going to change is so patently ridiculous that it beggars belief that politicians can actually endorse it.
Al-Qaeda is very definitely having an effect on the lives of people - a massive one - particularly in America.
For example, America and the UK have gone to war!
I would call that a fairly big effect.
There are also 1800 dead soldiers and thousands more have been injured. 140,000 thousand or so troops are being shipped and maintained in Iraq. 'Homeland Security' is being beefed up at huge expense and everybody's civil liberties are gradually being sat upon. As just one example, going to an airport is now like dealing with a major obstacle course.
The Muslim and Jewish communities might see their lives change if inter-hostilities increase. The laws are going to change further; e.g. the introduction of ID cards. Tourism to a targeted city is likely to go down. And if there are more attacks on big cities, people might decide to abandon them; especially if they have children.
House prices therein might collapse. The price of oil is likely to soar. [This has now happened.] This will affect the prices of most commodities, meaning that the poorer will be hit. Pensions will also likely be affected.
The effects of terrorism could be almost endless.
So what is all this nonsense about our way of life not changing as a result of terrorist actions? How
can the politicians actually get away with making ridiculous statements that are
so very clearly false; particularly when just about everybody with
a pair of eyes must be able to see the falsity for themselves? And
my answer to this question is, "because, as a piece of effective
propaganda, it works."
But, don't ask me why!
There is almost something supernatural about this phenomenon
whereby propagandists can make the most unbelievable of claims - claims that are
absolutely and so very obviously false - and, yet, the public
swallows it!
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yawn. Very interesting Angry Harry. But what,
exactly, is your point?
Well, Junior, my point is this.
It doesn't matter what the facts are.
It doesn't matter what the truth is.
It doesn't even matter if all the evidence in front of
the public's collective face says something that completely contradicts
what they are being told, they will still fall for it.
Provided that the person or the people who are making the bogus
claims have an air of credibility, they can say almost anything that they like,
and they will be believed by the public almost regardless of any amount of
evidence to the contrary - particularly if they make the bogus claims often
enough.
And, quite clearly, the professional propagandists (politicians,
feminists, and even the Queen, etc etc) know it.
Thus, it seems to me that MRAs can present to the unthinking
public all the evidence that they like in support of their case. The problem,
however, is that the public does not listen to the evidence and it does not look
at the facts. It simply listens to those who seem to have credibility - and it
believes them.
|
