Addicted to Distraction:
Psychological consequences of the Mass Media
A complete online book by Bruce G Charlton
2014, University of Buckingham Press, UK
What follows is the corrected draft version of this book, which differs in a few details from the paper/ Kindle published version. It is about 26,000 words - so for convenient reading I would recommend that you should copy and paste it into a word-processing file that can be printed-out.
Available to download on Amazon Kindle
amazon.co.uk - http://tinyurl.com/kcamlqr
amazon.com - http://tinyurl.com/oc5perv
Endorsements:
In this groundbreaking study, Bruce Charlton sheds brilliant light on fundamental features of our current situation. He develops Marshall McLuhan's insight that "the medium is the message" into a deeply illuminating account of the mass media as a self-sustaining techno-cultural system that absorbs the whole of human life into a virtual world of willfulness and unreality. Like Plato in his Myth of the Cave, he calls for each of us to turn away from flickering images and toward realities. We need to heed that call. --James Kalb: author of The Tyranny of Liberalism and Against Inclusiveness
Addicted to Distraction by Bruce G Charlton is a brilliant, pithy, and incisive analysis and condemnation of the modern mass media and its semipurposeful agenda of permanent revolution, permanent hysteria, and permanent chaos. His comments are as cutting as the scalpel of a surgeon performing an autopsy, and his insights a bright and clear as the merciless lights in an operating theater. Can a fish drown? Can it even notice the waters in which it lives and moves? No more than can we notice the totalitarian relativism of the modern mass media. The Mass Media is a roaring, grinding attention-grabbing machine which operates with no set purpose; except the purpose to subvert, uncreate, mock and destroy. It does not matter what the media destroys. Pointless subversion is the point of the media, and the medium is the message. By all means read and understand this book ... and then go out by yourself into the calm and silent wilderness for a year. --John C Wright, author and Nebula Award finalist
Addicted to Distraction by Bruce G Charlton is a brilliant, pithy, and incisive analysis and condemnation of the modern mass media and its semipurposeful agenda of permanent revolution, permanent hysteria, and permanent chaos. His comments are as cutting as the scalpel of a surgeon performing an autopsy, and his insights a bright and clear as the merciless lights in an operating theater. Can a fish drown? Can it even notice the waters in which it lives and moves? No more than can we notice the totalitarian relativism of the modern mass media. The Mass Media is a roaring, grinding attention-grabbing machine which operates with no set purpose; except the purpose to subvert, uncreate, mock and destroy. It does not matter what the media destroys. Pointless subversion is the point of the media, and the medium is the message. By all means read and understand this book ... and then go out by yourself into the calm and silent wilderness for a year. --John C Wright, author and Nebula Award finalist
Reviewed by Gerry T Neal : http://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/a-cave-of-our-own-construction.html
*
Corrected draft version
Addicted
to
Distraction
Psychological consequences of the modern Mass Media
Bruce G
Charlton
The medium
is the message
Marshal McLuhan, 1964
Although more than 99% of what he wrote was (in my opinion)
either wrong or nonsense, Marshal McLuhan (1911-1980) was nevertheless the
first to see clearly that the key fact, the primary reality about the Mass
Media is not the vast multitude of its specific contents; but rather its form
as a whole, its unifying nature as a phenomenon, its underlying
operating-principles.
McLuhan therefore defined the subject of the Mass Media,
drew a line around it, made it an object for study.
This whole book can be seen as, in a sense, an unpacking and
elaboration of McLuhan’s pregnant phrase: “The medium is the message” –
therefore it seems appropriate that it be dedicated to the memory of that
maddeningly-inconsistent volcano of creativity.
Contents
Introduction
Mass Media –
Singular or Plural?
We live in the grip of delusion
What is the Mass Media?
What is the
problem?
Opinionated
Relativism
Permanent
Revolution
Does the Mass
media have a Leftist bias?
The intrinsic function is just… to grow
The paradox of
Mass Media control
The Mass Media
will destroy social cohesion
Opinionated
Relativism v communism
Chaos begets
chaos
Participation is
primary
Mass
Media addiction
System-language
of the Mass Media
Oppositional
ideology of PC
Acknowledgement
of reality
Product of, and
therapy for, modernity
Blind the
people...
First-strike
framing
From hero to
antihero
Pervasive
demonic perspective
Negativism – a
tool for self-cure
The modern Luddite
How the Mass
Media learns to do harm
Social Media = Mass Media
The Mass Media
versus religion
The purpose of
modern life: to feed the Media
Can you handle it?
Environmental
overload makes simple minds
The savage triviality of Mass Media
morality
The need for
eternal vigilance
How to cure an addicted society
Escaping the
colonization of small talk
Withdrawal and
detox programme
Who needs withdrawal and detox?
Postscript: the
Jimmy Savile affair
Notes
and references
Introduction
Stimulated by the horrific revelations of the Jimmy Savile
affair at the BBC, with its implications of wholesale Establishment corruption
and a sustained Media cover-up; this book diagnoses the fundamental problem of
the modern world as addiction to the distractions of the Mass Media.
The Media just grows and grows, and progressively takes-over
control of all the functionally useful social systems from politics to
religion, from education to the arts.
Yet the Mass Media is a system like no other – it has no
function of its own, so it can just keep growing. It has no positive aim for
society, and regards all knowledge just a matter of opinion. Therefore the Mass
Media subverts all that is useful, and everything that gives meaning and
purpose to life.
Since the Media works like a drug, the first step is
withdrawal, and a ‘detox’ programme. Having escaped addiction, we may become
free of the lies and lunacies of life in the Media bubble, and return to the
realities of direct personal knowledge, actual experience and common sense.
Mass
Media – Singular or Plural?
I will refer to the
Mass Media (capital letters) as singular
when I mean the inter-linked communication system of all the media – including
print, broadcast and internet media considered as a whole.
For example, when
saying the Mass Media has grown, I
mean the system as a unified network of communications both within and between
each of the specific media.
And I will refer to
the mass media (lower case letters) as a plural
when referring to several or many different types of media as a group of
different modes of communication.
For example, when
saying the mass media have grown I
would mean that each of the specific components has grown – that newspapers,
radio and TV have grown in their own right, in terms of their specific internal
communications.
So I mean the whole
system if the ‘Mass Media’ is written as the singular and with capitals; versus
meaning a collection of specific type of medium when using plural and in lower
case – ‘mass media’.
You are deluded
How can I convince
you that you are deluded?
Well, it won’t be
easy because you are not alone; you a part of a folie a billion, a mass delusion, induced by the Mass Media.
You are, in fact,
subject to the most pervasive and effective propaganda in the history of
humanity; a propaganda which has people not noticing the evidence of their eyes
and ignoring the evidence of their own experience.
We allow, we
encourage, we demand for this to happen because we are inside the Mass Media and addicted to it; and although it destroys
all that makes meaning, purpose, and relationship possible; the Mass Media then
takes our alienated, adrift, self-loathing and lonely selves and offers
distraction, consolation, absorption, fragments and glimmerings of pleasure and
self-forgetfulness...
And yet the Mass
Media has no person in-control, no group of persons, not even an interest
group. The destructiveness of the Mass Media operates equally – or more –
against the participants: the journalists, broadcasters, editors, hype-ers and
spinners, public relation professionals and advertisers and propagandists...
All are dragged-down just like everybody else by their own destructiveness.
We live in the grip of delusion
Most thoughtful
people would acknowledge that they may have been misled by the Mass Media, and
some of them have the insight that the Media has some kind of overall tendency
or trend – but hardly anybody recognizes the sheer depth and inter-connected
comprehensiveness of the falsehoods they themselves live within.
Because once inside
the Mass media (and almost everybody is inside it nowadays, in the West) then
wherever they turn the delusions are confirmed – the only consistency available
is the consistency of delusion – and the Mass Media provides the ‘facts’ and
the ‘reasoning’ by which we talk with other people.
Step outside the
Mass Media bubble and there isn’t much space to stand; and you find you have
little to say to anybody – and little to do but disagree and argue with them.
Step outside the
Mass Media and you become boring, annoying, crazy – because we live in a world
where common sense and personal experience are regarded as having not just zero
validity; but are dangerous, and evidence of wickedness – evidence of a mass
killer/ vigilante mentality: because outside the media bubble is perceived to
be the domain of wild, solitary sadists, muttering lunatics, and populist,
redneck lynch mobs.
So I don’t suppose
I shall persuade you of the reality of the Mass Media, and it would do you
little good if you were persuaded;
indeed the only people who would benefit are religious people, and among them
mostly Christians (because the Western Mass Media is built on anti-Christian
foundations).
If you do recognize
the problem and come to acknowledge that you personally suffer the disease of
Media Addiction that I describe, and that your mind has been subverted and
hijacked – then the situation is not hopeless: I have some constructive
suggestions near the end of this book about how to cure yourself.
And it will need to
be a self-initiated self-cure. Because you won’t find many people who will want
to or be prepared to assist your cure; and, at least, until you are
self-diagnosed and at least partly-cured and moving in the right direction, you
would not be likely to recognize real help – even if or when it was offered to
you.
What is the Mass Media?
A mass medium is
any mode of communication in which there is a uni-directional amplification from one (or few) to many.
Of course there is
a grey area between small scale and mass communication – perhaps a very large
arena – such as the Greek or (especially) Roman amphitheatres where an orator
could be heard by thousands, could be regarded as a type of mass medium.
Later there were
written communications, manuscripts, books; then printing and advances in
transportation – there are now postal systems, newspapers and magazines;
electronic media such as the telegraph, telephone and television; the internet
with a proliferation of personal computers; and most recently social media
whereby ever-more have a mobile phone and communicate ever-more of the time
with open-ended numbers of other people.
Modern life in
developed countries therefore is ever-more focused upon mass media – they take
up more time, more energy and more attention. Indeed the Mass Media is the
focus of life for most people; it provides the material which is discussed,
which is reacted to; and it provides the framework within and by which this
vast potential volume of material is filtered, prioritized and interpreted.
So this is, and
these are, the Mass Media.
In practice the
many mass media are one ‘mass medium’: a single vast and vastly interconnected system of communications.
(Those who wish to
understand more of what I mean by ‘system’ are referred to the ‘Technical
Appendix’ at the end of this book.)
And the modern
internet-based and social media (such as Blogs, Facebook, Twitter) are
participative – so the information-processing of the Mass Media now includes as
many human brains as are at any point involved in any of the communications
which flow back and forth among the nodes of the Mass Media.
In effect, the mass
media have over the past few decades greatly amplified themselves by co-opting human minds to expand memory
and processing power, and to provide more communications.
Clearly – by all
appearances – the mass media dominate modern societies; yet because the mass
media are the water in which we swim, they are almost invisible to us as a
medium, and we only notice the specific ‘informational’ content of the
messages.
Yet aside from
specific content, the medium – in
other words the single, inter-connected, densely communicating system of the Mass Media – is itself the main message.
The medium is the
main message in the sense that the reality of such a vast communication system,
and the principles of its operations, is overwhelmingly more important than the
distinctions and differentiations between the informational content of the
communications.
The overall fact of
this massive communications system is more important than the details of the
communications.
The fact and the
size and the pervasiveness of the Mass Media in modern society has an
intrinsically subversive effect – especially on religion, on all transcendental
values (‘goodness’ – including truth, beauty, virtue), and indeed the Mass Media intrinsically and regardless
of its specific content is subversive of all values.
So, the modern Mass
Media is destructive of Good; or, to
put it another way: the modern Mass Media is intrinsically evil
In a nutshell, the
Mass Media is of its essence a distraction from... everything. A distraction
from all reality – except for the
reality of the process of distraction.
Thus the Mass Media
is intrinsically an agent of nihilism
– the erosion of all belief to the point of belief in nothing.
Or, to be exact,
belief in almost-nothing – the media creates a framework through which no-thing
being viewed is really real; and only the frame itself is unchallenged; and yet
that frame is unchallenged only for as long as that frame is being actively
used.
So the frame itself
can be and often is regarded at one time as a way of evaluating other things,
and at another time as a thing to be evaluated: back and forth.
So a newspaper
might at one time run an article arguing that marriage is obsolete, another
about how marriage is so important that the legal concept should be extended
beyond traditional bounds, another about how a rigid institution of marriage
produces great misery, another on how lack of strong marriages cause societal
breakdown, another documenting some celebrity’s betrayal of marriage, and another
about the judgemental smugness of those in traditional marriages...
Behind such
apparent contradictions are real contradictions – or, the only unity and
consistency is destructive: the Mass Media will use any stick to club its
target; and then will attack the remnants of that club with other sticks –
picking-up and putting down sticks such that there is no coherence in the use
of sticks but only in the act and actions of clubbing.
At any moment, the
particular Mass Media frame may itself be discarded and replaced by another
frame, without explanation or justification except the imperative to maintain
effective distraction.
In a world
dominated by the Mass Media, everything is grist
to the media mill, everything is up for exploitation, for hyping or for
destruction, for building-up and tearing-down – and in the long run there will
be more destruction than creation because destruction is so much quicker,
easier, simpler and has more scope.
So, on this ground
also – the Mass Media is evil in tendency.
And since everybody
is addicted to the Mass Media such awareness is unbearable – we yearn for
escape from awareness of nihilism and into distraction; which is to say we ‘escape’
back-into the Mass Media; deeper and deeper into that which caused the nihilism
in the first place!
What
is the problem?
It may seem
all-too-obvious that the Mass Media has an agenda, and that it manipulates us.
Because the amount
is so vast, everybody is necessarily selective with respect to the media they
attend to; and, in being selective, they try to take only what is good (or, at
least, accept what they like) and
reject the rest.
But the modern Mass
Media is something new under the sun – it is the ruling social institution in
the modern world, yet it does not rule in the same way or with the same kind of
objectives as did previously dominant social systems like The King, The Church,
The Dictator, The Party...
The problem of the
modern Mass Media cannot be solved by being more selective because it is the nature of the Mass Media that is by far
the main problem – its quantity and its rules and practices – not its specific
contents.
The Mass Media
affects us by its ‘system properties’ – that is by its attention-grabbing
ability, its addictiveness, its pervasiveness; its whole way of evaluating and
presenting stimuli to which, by continual practice, we become assimilated…
So, selecting-among
the content of the Mass Media does not work in solving the problem; the only
thing that works is radically to cut-down
our exposure.
As shall be seen,
the Mass Media rules by default: by distraction, by addiction, by filling our
minds – unrelentingly pouring-in ever-more media-selected stuff.
It is the effect of
the media on minds; the way that minds are engaged by media, but passively
dominated by media – it is this expanding colonization of the mind which is
significant.
The constant
turn-over, the flow of content, the mechanism of input and replacement – this
is the special and new aspect of the modern Mass Media.
Perpetual motion
and the expectation of motion in perpetuity… That is the message
So the Mass Media
rules without any positive strategy; taken
as a whole it not only lacks direction but by its actions the Mass Media
subverts then demolishes any long-term directionality.
But this negative
agenda is not to be mistaken for a ‘neutral’ agenda – because the negative
agenda displaces any possible positive agenda.
The long-term
objective of the Mass Media is therefore almost-wholly destructive – indeed, it is hard to see how it could be otherwise.
The Mass Media acts only to react, creates only in order to dissolve, builds
only to tear-down.
What follows, then,
is a description and an evaluation of this unprecedented entity that is the
modern Mass Media: this everyday paradox – the dominant ruling form of social
organization which nonetheless functions as the primary agent of dismantling
all forms of dominance – the only cross-system and cross-societal mode of
communication; which is yet, intrinsically, a mechanism of societal
disintegration.
Opinionated
Relativism
I need to devise a
name, a term, for the ‘disintegrating’ ideology of the Mass Media.
The first and
primary name is Relativism; because the primary fact of Mass Media evaluations
is that they are in practice
relativist: nothing is regarded as fixed or sure over the long term, no fact,
opinion or interpretation is allowed to stand for long unchallenged.
The Mass Media
operates on the basis that there is no fixed, objective reality but instead
only approximate or personal realities, or that ‘what counts as truth’ changes
or differs between times, groups and individual persons. This might be supposed
to mean that the Mass Media is relaxed about differences in opinions (since
these are just expressions of something which is labile).
But, almost the
opposite is the case. Although the Mass Media is Relativist in practice – its ‘theory’
(its implicit assumption) at any given moment of time is absolutist.
Indeed, to challenge, to argue-against the over-powering reality of any
particular Media evaluation – such as the guilt of somebody the Media currently
wants to depict as guilty, or the saintliness of someone the Media wants to
depict as a saint – is to be revealed as objectively evil.
Therefore, in the
Mass Media world where everything is Relative; nonetheless Opinion becomes
everything (for the time being, at least...). Because, instead of there being
an underlying reality – above or beyond or behind personal opinion – relativism
is left with only opinion: therefore opinion is everything.
In the Mass Media,
Opinion takes the place of Reality. Opinion is treated as Reality; yet because
Opinion is not reality, Opinion can be – and is – changed whenever it is
expedient to change it.
Thus all Mass Media
evaluations are absolute while they are
being expressed; but fickle – and may be held briefly or for long periods –
but subject to revision or reversal at any time.
Like the
legendarily-moody actress Elizabeth Taylor, the Mass Media has a whim of iron.
In the Mass Media,
therefore, anything – anything – can
be treated as overwhelmingly important, urgent, desperate, demanding of action
NOW – while it is being put forward.
The need for:
famine relief in an African country; sacking of a celebrity for making a ‘gaffe’;
honouring a sports hero; celebrating of a Royal Wedding or the Olympics or a
pop star funeral; imprisoning a sexual offender or alternatively awarding him a
knighthood; the wonderfulness of a particular new car or computer; taxing ‘carbon’;
or subsidizing an opera house...
The Mass Media can
whip-up a frenzy of absolute imperative ‘objective’ necessity over anything or
nothing; then discard it in a moment and move on; perhaps never again to
mention it, or perhaps to harp on the matter recurrently for years and years...
Anything is
possible, nothing is fixed in value, the calibration of value is arbitrary,
value is disconnected from importance.
So the Mass Media
is almost-always opinionated; but, over a remarkably short time-span, any
‘Fact’ may become reframed as merely an Opinion, and that Opinion may therefore
be abandoned.
Permanent
Revolution
Opinionated
Relativism is – in essence – just one way of achieving that old Communist idea
of Permanent Revolution – which evolved into a populist or anarchist Leftist
notion of ‘perpetual opposition’.
In other words, the
idea that that the true revolutionary – such as the avant garde artist or radical
intellectual – was intrinsically subversive;
and would always be in revolt against whoever was in power, changing sides as
necessary to achieve this.
(This is how the
word ‘subversive’ came to have its current positive and approving meaning for
modern intellectuals.)
The ideology of the
Mass Media is therefore simply a modern type of Leftism: more specifically New Leftism.
By New Left I mean
that the ideology of the Media is that of the post-1960s evolution and
development of communism, socialism, progressivism and (US) Liberalism – the
Leftism of Political Correctness.
The Old Left was mostly focused on the
economy – Marxism was mostly an economic theory. Thus its analysis was based on
an economic category of Class; and its tools were economic things like
nationalization and redistribution of wealth. The most favoured group was The
Proletariat, which was in practice essentially the native male working class of
manual labourers, especially as represented by Trades Unions.
But the New Left is
in practice almost indifferent to the
economy; and instead focuses on a rainbow of identity politics, ‘Human Rights’,
‘the environment’, anti-racism, feminism and (most of all) promoting the sexual
revolution.
Consequently, the
New Left has ‘switched sides’, and turned-against the native class of male
manual labourers; and now strongly favours women, other ethnicities, the
unemployed and economically inactive, and newly arrived immigrants.
The qualitative
transition from Old to New Left demonstrates that there is no stable, long-term
positive ideology to the Mass Media – and even the most fundamental values and
principles may at some point be discarded or reversed.
And although
relativistic, the Mass Media ideology is not
tolerant. Whatever is being asserted now
is absolute, and opposition is not considered reasonable.
Yet, despite this
totalitarian intolerance of dissent at any given point in time; what has been
treated in this absolute manner can very rapidly be dropped and replaced with
some other, equally ‘absolute’, priority.
So in practice
strong opinions are cycled and re-cycled, promoted then vilified, suppressed
then revived, turned upside-down, combined and split into fragments...
This churning is not just typical of the Mass
Media – which has been well known for many decades; but is also characteristic
of modern mainstream (Leftist) politics; demonstrating that it is currently the
Mass Media which dominate politics, and not the other way around.
As said before,
over the long-run, all is grist to the Mass Media mill; no topic is sacred or
fundamental; everything is up-for challenge, discussion, mockery, analysis,
criticism – anything may be discarded and replaced with something else, or not
replaced at all.
This behaviour is,
of course, profoundly negative and subversive – in particular the relativistic
ideology of the Mass Media has been subversive of traditional and orthodox
forms of religion (especially Christianity – since this has been dominant in
the West); and also subversive of ‘tradition’ – in all its forms: subversive of
traditional socio-political order (traditional hierarchies and specialisms);
subversive of traditional concepts of truth, beauty and virtue; and perhaps
especially, subversive of traditional sexuality including marriage and the
family.
Furthermore, the
Mass Media has been subversive of the Old Left values and institutions – of
Trades Unions and Labour Parties, of rational central planning and
nationalization, and especially subversive of the tradition of Christian and
Ethical socialists characterized by modesty, frugality, earnest toil and
puritanical sexual ethics.
It should therefore
be emphasized that despite its fanatically-opinionated campaigns in favour of
this, that or the other; relativism is indeed, over time, a profoundly negative
ideology –indeed relativism sooner-or-later undermines any positive agenda
which may emerge – even its own ideas such as the dictatorship of the
proletariat which at one time seemed so terribly important to such a lot of
people in the Mass Media.
In sum, the Mass
Media is an agent of Permanent Revolution. And the Mass Media dominates
modernity. Consequently our society is in a permanent state of revolution.
Permanent
revolution means that the Mass Media has no positive goal or aim – there is no
long-term plan to structure society in some permanently-sustainable way; indeed
whatever is was or may in future be
achieved, exists only to be dismantled and replaced when expedient.
This is, indeed,
the primary and essential difference between the Old and New Left – the Old
Left intended to make Heaven on Earth – Utopia. And then stop – and maintain
utopia (because who would want to change utopia?). And this justified the
humanly unprecedented ruthlessness of the Old Left – the End was so wonderful
that any Means were justifiable in trying to reach it.
But when utopia
showed no signs of arriving, the revolutionary impulse began to feed off
itself; and revolution succeeded revolution in an iterative cycle aimed at
destroying the forces opposed to revolution – but without any genuine or stable
long term purpose.
This is precisely
how the modern Mass Media works. Over time, it identifies, mocks, subverts,
weakens, destroys and finally inverts and reverses any group or person that
opposes revolution – but with no goal. No stable, explicit, long-term aimed-for
state of affairs which is being implemented.
And this is done
via the Mass Media ideology I have called Opinionated Relativism: a relativism
which at any specific moment and on any specific topic denies its own
relativism – but over time keeps on discarding its previous convictions as mere
opinions.
Thus the Mass Media
truly is a negative, destructive, meaningless, purposeless thing.
Yet the modern
world is utterly dominated by this thing: this Mass Media thing is, indeed, the
most powerful thing in the whole world.
Does
the Mass media have a Leftist bias?
When people ask
whether the Mass Media has a Leftist bias; the only rational response is to
suggest that they un-ask the question: because that question contains false
assumptions, implies a false framework.
Properly understood
the Mass Media is Leftist bias, it is
the core of Leftism, and has been since the mid-1960s at least, and is
ever-more-so.
The standard model
by which people try to understand media bias is a government which tells the
media what to say and vets what it says in all minute particulars: something
like Stalin and The Party dictating what got written, and what was not written,
in Pravda.
That obviously isn’t
what happens in the modern world – it would of course be impossible, such is
the utterly vast volume of material being generated; and stupid people suppose
this means that the media and government are independent the one of the other.
Ha!
The Mass Media is
not biased to Leftism, it is Leftism;
so of course, Leftism must come from within the media: the bias is generated by the Mass Media.
What we have is
(almost) the opposite of Stalin and Pravda.
Indeed, the power
of government, and government officials, is now essentially the power of
informers: they can ‘shop’ people to the Mass Media; and the government role is
to enforce punishments on people chosen by the Mass Media.
But government
cannot go against the Mass Media, because anyone who does will be picked-off
for exemplary punishment.
If no specific
person is responsible, then somebody will nonetheless be picked by the media
for public punishment, to serve as an example (this is happening at present,
all the time, all through the world, in large and in small).
Nobody is immune –
everybody in public life who wants to stay in public life is afraid of the Mass
Media.
(Well, everybody
within the system of worldly modernity, anyway; but this now has an extensive
reach. The state of deferential terror towards the Mass Media notably includes
the heads of the major Western
ostensibly-Christian churches, who very obviously fear to depart from the
media Leftist agenda, and live in continual trepidation about having a target
painted on them by the Mass Media. This has eliminated traditional Christianity
– that is, real Christianity – from
the leadership of all the major denominations.)
The Mass Media
choose and label the targets for exemplary punishment, and various groups
(judges, tax officials, police, officials, astroturf mobs, real mobs... it does
not much matter which) will enforce punishments of one sort or another – from
harassment via investigations, up to vandalism, violence, prison and murder; and
the media gives the whole process a positive interpretation.
That which happens
outside this and/ or against the agenda of the Mass Media loop is ignored,
mentioned then flushed down the memory hole, reframed, vilified, distorted,
lied about, subjected to invented slurs...
Oh! the
possibilities are endless!
Leftism is the Mass Media, and the Mass Media is
Leftism, inseparable, the same thing: this of course means that Leftism (in its
modern form) depends utterly on the continuation of the Mass Media (depends on
itself!), stands or falls with the Mass Media.
The Mass Media is
the enemy of reaction, and cannot – as a whole – be subverted or exploited for
reactionary purposes.
While the Mass
Media is growing, the forces of ‘reaction’ can sometimes win a battle on a
micro-issue, but overall and over-time will lose the war.
Conversely,
anything which significantly damages the reach or grip of the Mass Media net
damages Leftism – even if restrictions go against freedom, democracy, balance;
even if directed against reaction; all things which tend to limit the Mass
Media will ultimately tend towards reaction...
The intrinsic function is just… to grow
The mega-large and growing Mass Media system therefore is an
irresistible drive towards Leftism.
But what constrains, what limits the rate and extent of
growth of the Mass Media? The answer relates to the functionality of social
systems.
The modern world is full of social systems with a variety of
functions; for example government, the military, police, religion, the legal
system, education, the health service and so on.
All systems resemble living things in that – in order to
survive – they must have the property of maintaining their own existence, and
as such they have a potential to grow. This applies to social systems – they
act like creatures that seek the resources they need to stay alive, to grow, to
reproduce. They do this because if they do not
do this, then they soon disappear, get displaced – because the rest of the
world is filled with systems that are tending-to, ‘wanting-to’ expand;
pressing-upon, displacing, adjacent social systems.
The Mass Media is a social system like no other; and the difference accounts for its intrinsic evil:
that is to say its intrinsic tendency towards destruction of Good (destruction
of truth, beauty and virtue).
The Mass Media is a social system of communications –
indeed, all systems (as systems) can
be regarded as being made of communications: communications between processing units. These units are what process the
information in the communications – and for the Mass Media, the main processing
units are humans minds – although some processing is nowadays done by
computers.
But the other social systems have a basic, core, extrinsic
and unifying social function that is clearly useful: the police and military
are for maintaining the distinctness and cohesion of society by use of
intra-social and inter-societal coercive force; the legal system is about
arbitrating disputes by formal mechanisms, the health services are about
alleviating suffering, promoting health and increasing life expectancy; the
educational system about transmission of knowledge and so on.
Whether these systems actually do what they purport to do,
is another matter. But all the social systems have a relatively clear and
valuable and well understood social aim.
However, the Mass Media does not have a specific social
function; and therefore its default function is merely that of all systems (and
living things) namely to survive, grow, reproduce... to expand itself. That is,
to expand its own system of communications; because it seems that the Mass
Media does not have any extrinsic goal, nor any unifying useful function (since
‘amplification’ is not an intrinsic function, not an end – merely a means to the end of other social systems).
Therefore, the Mass Media succeeds by growing its own system
of communications – and fails when this growth fails to happen, as when
expansion reverses into contraction, shrinkage, reduction of the volume of Mass
Media communications.
But why is the growth of the Mass Media intrinsically, on
the whole, evil? Surely the balanced understanding is that some aspects of the
Mass Media are good and others are not? Surely the sensible way to think about
the Mass Media is to say that even if the mass of it is bad, even if 99% of it
is bad, then that still means that 1% is good, and that is a lot of stuff! The
conclusion from this would be that (somehow) the proportion of the good stuff
in the Mass Media should be increased, at the expense of bad...
In other words, it seems like good sense to consume plenty
of mass media (to take advantage of the increase in available knowledge, and to
stay au fait with current affairs) but to filter the Mass Media more
effectively: to keep the good and discard the bad.
This superficially seems sensible, and has a grain of truth
– yet it fails to capture the reality of the situation. The Mass Media has been
around long enough for us to know by experience how it actually works and what
actually happens (in contrast to what we might assert could and should work and
happen). The fact is that hopes to filter, and plans to discriminate between
good and bad, are soon swept-away by sheer volume; and then the Mass Media
exerts its own effect – it distracts from good intentions, and the
addictiveness of the Mass Media weakens the ability to discard.
The Mass Media is like alcohol – if consumed in large enough
quantities it becomes the focus of life, and gets a grip on the mind and the
body so that ever more is wanted to maintain the stimulus, and ever more is
required to avoid withdrawal effects. At some point cravings push aside all good
intentions of selectivity, restraint and limitation.
Because there are no
functional constraints on Mass Media growth; so the Mass Media lacks a
purpose, and therefore tends to take the short-term-beneficial line of least
resistance; and grow and grow as far as it can, in whatever direction it is
growing. Why not? Since the Mass Media isn’t trying to achieve anything nor
fulfilling any necessary role, then there is no rationale for its eschewing
short-term expediency in favour of longer-term goals – so the Mass Media doe not eschew short-term expediency and the
Mass Media ‘long-term’ is measured in hours and days rather than years or
decades.
Differential growth of any system is intrinsically
destructive in a zero sum world, because beyond a certain point, growth of
one system can only be at the price of another. This applies especially to ‘cognitive
processing time and effort’ in the human mind (there is only so much
concentration, so much thinking time, to go-around).
In the earliest times of the Mass Media the other social
systems supposed that they could use
the various mass media simply in order to amplify their own communications: for
example, government could amplify its propaganda – and reach and influence more
of the public, science could popularize its results, the arts could ‘reach’ a
much wider audience, and so on.
But pretty soon, the Mass Media began to dominate all the
other social systems; its own internal logic of growth in communications began
to invade and to dominate the other social systems; and this penetration
inevitably was destructive of whatever functions these other systems had
previously done – it had to be: anything other than the core function of a
social system is a corruption.
Deviation from the social function is a corruption except
for adhesion to those ‘higher laws and principles’ necessary for social
cohesion. This is typically a religion. All social systems thus – for the
functional cohesion of society – ought to adhere to the over-arching religion,
as well as to their own internal aim.
For example, if a student was admitted to university because
of a bribe then this is a corruption away from the educational function; but if
a student is expelled from university because of immoral behaviour according to
the prevailing religion then this is not corruption, but simply putting
religion hierarchically above education – in effect a social assertion that
there are things more important that educational considerations.
The Mass Media has now displaced religion as the
over-arching, all-including system. But while a religion potentially unifies
society, overall the Mass Media attacks its components and subverts society.
Thus the whole world is subject to the all-embracing,
all-including attention of the Mass Media. But not to any aim, not in pursuit
of any positive purpose, not for cohesion nor for any higher good or goal –
merely for the Mass Media to fuel its own expansion.
The
paradox of Mass Media control
The paradox of Mass Media control/
lack of control is that on the one hand:
1. The Mass Media is Leftist
The Mass Media is the source and
enforcement of Leftism in modern societies; as the Mass Media has expanded in a
nation, so that Nation has moved Leftward; in modern societies the degree of
religious devoutness correlates with degree of detachment from the Mass Media
(the most devout religions and denominations being those most insulated from
the Mass Media); and thus the Mass Media is overall and overwhelmingly Leftist
in both its form and content: its biases, omissions, inclusions, selections,
emphases, distortions, inventions and lies.
(Leftism is in the first place
anti-Christian and pro-secular, secondly destructive of tradition and the status quo ; and by this account all mainstream modern political parties
are parties of the Left, in varying degrees; including ‘conservatives’ and
libertarians and free marketeers and parties of business.)
2. Nobody controls the Mass Media.
That nobody (no particular,
identifiable human or group) controls the Mass Media is clear from the fact
that it is not the kind of thing that can be controlled: it is un-control-able.
This has become undeniable since the
advent of 24 hour media, and then the internet, and then social media – so that
most people now carry the always-active Mass Media with them as a mobile phone;
accessible and demanding at any and at all times.
Such changes expanded the Mass Media
by (who knows...) a thousandfold? over the space of two decades – and yet the
Leftism of the media has become both 1. more extreme and 2. more pervasive and
comprehensive.
It is surely inconceivable that any
control system could have been both scaled-up a thousand-fold, while at the
same time becoming more effective in its blanket enforcement of an
ever-more-extreme monolithic Leftism.
So there is indeed a paradox – if the
Mass Media is assumed to be the expression of a Left world view that is located
outwith the Mass Media. Because in this case as the Media expands then you
would expect Leftism to be diluted, or that the Left would lose control of the
growing Mass Media.
However, there is no paradox if the
Mass Media itself intrinsically and spontaneously generates the Leftist world
view; because then as the Media expands, so does Leftism.
Any other kind of pan-societal,
pan-national institution would require an identifiable, indeed explicit,
command and control system (management) in order to fulfil its function; any
other institution would require a set of formal regulations and procedures to
enforce conformity.
But since the Mass Media is intrinsically
Leftist, then the bigger and more influential the Mass Media becomes, the more
Leftist the Mass Media becomes.
Growth of the Mass Media = Leftward political trend.
The
Mass Media will destroy social cohesion
The Mass Media is the set of
interconnected communication systems that link-together the atomic,
individualistic, alienated populations of modern nations; and the nations of
the world.
Indeed the Mass Media is the only thing which links people in the
modern world (in The West religion is banished from the public sphere).
But communication is not cohesion;
not necessarily so – or else wars and conflict would have become extinct as the
Mass Media grew through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – when in fact
the opposite happened.
The Mass Media is therefore a form of
communication which operates to destroy cohesion.
Thus there can be only one possible
end-point for Mass Media expansion, which is the destruction of society itself.
The Mass Media is the cake which
bakes and eats itself: a cancer which grows and grows to kill the host who
sustains it.
Opinionated
Relativism v communism
Because the Mass Media is
short-termist and non-functional, it is necessarily a road to social ruin; yet
the ‘opinionated relativistic’ way of thinking which is inculcated by the Mass
Media is itself unable to perceive this happening.
And if understanding does happen to
emerge nowadays, it will be swept away and replaced by some other ‘opinion’
long before it could have any beneficial effect…
Therefore the destructiveness of the
Mass Media includes destruction of the ability to perceive the reality and
cause of that very same destruction!
In the world of the modern Mass Media
we have entered and become entrapped-by a very advanced state of nihilism
(nihilism = denial of reality = belief that ‘reality’ is unreal): and a
nihilism far beyond anything achieved by communism.
Communists tried their best to remake
Man by propaganda, regarding Man as a Blank Slate to be written over anew; to redefine
language to enforce current priorities (Orwell’s ‘Newspeak’), crudely to
airbrush from photographs and erase from historical records the ‘disgraced’
former leaders so they became Non-Persons.
But the world of communism had, by
our standards, a minuscule Mass Media; they simply could not continuously colonize the minds of the population – in the way achieved by the
modern Mass Media.
Old style communism could not
overcome the solidity of people’s
minds; could not overcome their basic motivations, hopes and memories.
But the modern Mass Media has
achieved this!
The modern Mass Media achieve more
totally than communism, and barely perceptibly, what communism savagely but
inefficiently attempted.
On a daily basis,
almost effortlessly, the modern Mass Media successfully implements: Airbrushing
of (i.e. eliminating all reference to) disapproved facts and persons; Potemkin
Villages (i.e. fake-functional facades in front of shambolic hovels – most
modern bureaucracies, NGOs, charities, universities and scientific projects are
nothing but Potemkin villages);
manufactured Stakhanovite pseudo-heroes (but now most typically women or ethnic
minorities); Shows Trials (of the politically incorrect) with biased procedures
to generate pre-determined guilty verdicts; invented enemies analogous to Emmanuel Goldstein and The
Brotherhood from Orwell’s 1984 – such as the Media-constructed White
Supremacist conspiracies; Guilty-until-proven-innocent one-sided legislation such as Hate Crimes and causing Offence to ‘minorities’;
differentially-applied-or-exempted taxes and laws; massive over-proliferation
of unknown regulations so everybody is in breach all the time, and exemption is
by grace and favour of politically-zealous officials; ideologically-loaded
Newspeak such as attaching ‘-phobia’ or ‘denialist’ to opposition; forced
self-incriminating confessions as the price for retaining one’s livelihood or
personal safety... and so on and on.
A thoroughly
Leftist society is now accomplished more effectively, more comprehensively and
with much less resistance by Mass Media rule than under the heavy hand of
communist government.
Especially so since
the spontaneous or self-organized forms of human civil society (family, church,
locality, union, guild, profession... all potential organized sources of
resistance, all dissident groupings) have been dismantled and de-fanged by
subsidies, regulations, infiltration and co-option far more comprehensively
than ever was achieved by confiscations, suppressions and violence.
For as long as communism initially
maintained a residual positive and constructive agenda, aiming at an ideal
society, it was constrained. But the modern Mass Media have the luxury and
freedom of no strategy except destruction.
Any positive agenda articulated by
the Mass Media is merely an expedient; temporary, manipulative; an
increasingly-cynical pose and ploy.
Where are the
Masterminds?
But where are the Mass media
theorists and intellectuals?
Where is the Mass media organization,
the Party, commissars, the secret police?
If we are being oppressed, then who
or what exactly is doing the
oppressing?
We may tend to assume that somewhere,
above and behind the confusions and delusions propagated by the Mass Media, are
some clear heads, some calculating intelligences – or at least some gangsters
who are manipulating the rest of us for their selfish-short-termist ends – yet
themselves being un-manipulated...
We may tend to assume that no
matter how full of meaningless mush may be the minds of the Mass Media
audience; the minds of the creators remain lucid, above the fray. A case of
hard-nuts leading mush-heads...
But the Mass Media is not some
kind of an old-style management system, in which the managers manipulate the
rest of us into doing things that benefit the managers’ ideology as well as
gratifying their personal desires. No, the minds of the Mass Media creators are
even mushier than the minds of those whose heads they daily fill with mush.
The Mass Media managers are not
hard-nuts, they are mush-heads like everyone else; but in the managers the mush
is rotten. It is therefore a case of
mushheads leading mushheads – the difference being that it is rotting-mushheads (the elite) who are
doing the leading – and it is the rot which ramifies through the mush like
fungal hyphae.
(That is, indeed, the nature of
modern management: not to manipulate the masses, but to infect the masses.)
So the modern Mass Media achieves
pan-national communication – but it is not cohesion that is the result; it is
the communication of a pandemic; the cohesion of shared sickness – a universal plague.
Chaos
begets chaos
The plague is Opinionated Relativism,
and the rot is inversion of The Good.
The Mass Media retains morality,
indeed the Mass Media becomes more and more moral in the sense that nothing
matters to it except moral issues.
But not one cohesive morality, not
even an explicit morality (because to be explicit would be to reveal incoherence);
rather multiple moralities – the one being used to attack the other, until all
are subverted and weakened, and each regarded as only relatively and
contextually and temporarily true and therefore prone to overthrow at any
moment – and therefore easily eroded by mere expediency, short-term advantage.
The whole of the Mass Media becomes
consumed by goodies and baddies, churning morality games with evil –
building-up and breaking-down, switching identities; at one moment accepting
traditional morality, then inverting it, then pointing to that inversion then
denying it...
Anything you can get-away-with for
the momement is acceptable – and inconsistency is disregarded, because whatever
is fills the mind here and now, and whatever was is displaced by
what is.
The great insight is that this
characteristic media generated-and-sustained state of un-patterned churning is not strategic – not, that is, some
kind of clever ploy leading to some particular and planned state of affairs.
The purpose of the morally-focused
and morally chaotic maelstrom of the modern Mass Media is more of the same; ever-more, and ever-more of the same – which is
growth in communication, engagement of people with this growth of
communication, filling-up and absorbing the minds of as many people as
possible, by whatever means ‘works’.
The Old Leftists (Labour parties,
Socialists, Fabians, Communists), aimed at a particular social organization
(especially State ownership and control with egalitarian goals).
My impression is that the few Old
Leftists who still exist, are operating on the belief that the lunacies of
Opinionated Relativism and political correctness will eventually subside, so
that they can take-over. The socialist and communist parties suppose that they
will, sooner or later, hijack the Mass Media and run it to benefit themselves.
In the mean time they patiently wait...
The revolutionists imagine that they
can use the Mass Media to gain
specific societal ends, which – once achieved – will be stable.
Such beliefs are grossly mistaken.
Evidence? What group could have been
more favoured by the Left over a whole century or more than that various
described as The Workers, the Proletariat, The People?
Yet in the Mass Media dominated
Opinionated Relativism of modernity, what group could have been more
comprehensively made into Non-Persons than The Workers?
By ‘workers’, I mean the specific
types of person who were in the past being referred to by The Workers – which
were the native, male manual labourers that grew, built and made the essentials
of life.
That group who are now –
mostly-covertly but increasingly overtly – just-about the most ignored or despised, attacked and exploited group
of people in modern Western nations – under the Media-dominated world of New
Opinionated Relativism.
Insofar as they get any
consideration, the male working class are lined-up behind (but in practice seen
in opposition to): women; immigrants; people of colour; and those who do not
work but are unemployed or beggars; ‘liberal’ middle class welfare bureaucrats
and poverty professionals; and upper class ‘activists’ in the Media, national
and local government; journalism; education; the arts and so on...
(Instead, and for the past several
decades, probably the single most valorized group among the revolutionary
Leftist parties of the UK have been... religious terrorists based in the Middle
East whose primary motivation is the extermination of Israel! A more extreme
inversion of Old Left priorities could scarcely be imagined!)
And clearly, whatever they may
believe or imagine about themselves, the Old Left have in fact been
infiltrated, subverted and ‘turned’ to become something utterly different –
something the old Old Left would have loathed and rejected!
Such is the fate of all who try to use systematic subversion, inversion and
destruction of social institutions to create some solid and lasting benefit for
themselves and their cause. The same fate as awaited legions of Party officials
in the Soviet Union – to be consumed by the raging revolutionary fires which
they themselves ignited and fuelled.
In a world of moral inversion, there
are, indeed, no winners – there are only the losers of today versus the losers of tomorrow.
Participation
is primary
The modern
Mass Media is not in its essence propaganda: it is participation.
It is engagement with the Mass Media that is
pernicious; engagement is what fuels and sustains the Mass Media; and
engagement is primarily what the modern Mass Media does. It grabs and holds attention; and provokes strong reactions
which are shared; and in their turn provoke more engagement and more reaction.
Those who suppose they are manipulating the Mass
media for their own ends (such as the Old Left) will be the biggest losers.
They are indeed ‘hopeless cases’, since they refuse to acknowledge their own
addiction, and therefore live in an intractable state of delusion.
Engagement with the Mass Media leads to more
engagement – which is dependence; dependence on the Mass Media confers power on
the Mass Media; and power confers authority.
It is being subject to the authority of the Mass Media which is the prime evil.
Propaganda is secondary – because Mass Media
propaganda is on behalf of some other social system – with the Mass Media
(merely) serving as an amplifier. But even with propaganda, all forms of
effective Mass Media propaganda ultimately depend-on dependence; or else propaganda
is simply ignored or avoided.
Nowadays, the propaganda is so objectively absurd,
trivial, false – so obviously contrived, so
obviously manufactured and laboriously squeezed-out – that it would be expected
that such surely would be ignored or
avoided – yet not so!
This crude and incoherent modern Mass Media
propaganda is more effective than ever propaganda was before; for the simple
reason that dependence on the Mass Media is greater than ever before. The
public mind is colonized and shaped apparently regardless of content.
To show that the Mass Media is evil is therefore
not so much a matter of pointing at the specific content – although indeed most
of that content is objectively evil, in that it attacks truth, beauty and
virtue; propagates lies, ugliness and vice – but that the modern media is
primarily evil in terms of its vast
capacity to engage and enforce cognitive participation.
(And by so doing, forcibly to empty the mind of
other things – as any thing that occupies space and expands, pushes-out another
thing.)
The psychology of the Mass Media is such that
consumption is perceived as participation – at a psychological level (and no
matter what the objective facts of the matter): consumption feels like engagement; and if it is
perceived and feels like engagement, then it is therefore, cognitively-speaking, engagement.
Thus the Mass Media affects human psychology just
as if it was real social engagement with real people.
(The reality of the individual consumer having
negligible impact on the provider – which is a necessary predicate and
consequence of media being ‘mass’ – is therefore psychologically irrelevant.)
In this respect, the Mass Media is like modern
democracy – it is intrinsically manipulative since it creates fake engagement –
a low reward, low cost, high volume (near-ubiquitous in the population)
engagement.
The kind of dependence is harder to notice and just
as difficult to cure (and to stay cured-from) as the kind of high reward, high
cost, low volume (rare in the population) addiction characteristic of the major
drugs.
So, how do we resist? ...Or rather, the proper
question is: what do we resist?
And the answer is resist engagement.
We need to cut-down on the volume and the
participation of Mass Media consumption, to
the point that we are so much less dependent upon it that we can begin to
perceive it from the outside.
Most people are inside the Mass Media, as a fish is
inside the ocean – the typical citizen swims in the water of the Mass Media,
drinks it and extracts oxygen from it, and cannot perceive it. The media has
become his ‘reality’.
He prefers some parts of the water over others, of
course, and therefore prefers to swim in some places and avoid others – but
that is the sum of his choices. His preferences have all become within-media
preferences.
But he is unaware-of, forgets-in-practice, that it
is all water he is now living-in; it
is all the Mass Media; and that he has been spending so much time in the water
that he has ceased to recognize, or ever return to, the dry land of real
reality; or even to remember that it exists distinct from Media representations
which purport to be reality.
Perhaps only in his dreams does he do this; but
then dreams may themselves become permeated by the Mass Media.
We need – we must – cut-down our participation in
the Mass Media to at least that point where the dry land of real-not-media
reality is again recognized as the primary
reality – when we again become aware that in entering the Mass Media we are
leaving real reality behind and taking a swim.
Mass Media
addiction
To summarize so far; Mass Media
addiction has been bad for many decades and continues to get worse since the
advent of the internet and social media (these having amplified the Mass Media
by orders of magnitude, rather than displacing it as some commentators and
pundits once assumed or hoped). The Mass Media controls society, but nobody (no
person or specific group of people) controls the Mass Media.
Most people in modern societies
cannot completely stop their exposure
to the Mass Media, because the Mass Media is unavoidable.
Most people must use the Mass Media for work, for education, for family
organization... it shouts for attention from every computer screen and
communication device, from posters and bill boards, in the conversational
topics of the people around us.
Therefore people cannot kick
their addiction to the Mass Media as they might kick an addiction to heroin or
cocaine – by never touching the drug again.
Rather people must do as they
would in a diet; they cannot stop
eating food altogether, but they must reduce their consumption of food and eat
different food. Likewise, modern people must reduce their consumption of Media
and selectively-consume different Media.
But diets are very hard to
stick-to, because we must eat, and therefore are tempted at every meal to break
the diet.
Likewise, to diet our
consumption of the Mass Media is to continue to use but to limit and select
Mass Media; and this exposes people to temptation at every engagement. It is
difficult to stick to this rule, and easy to lapse.
All we can do is cut-back and
cut-back until (with luck) a point is reached when we begin to emerge from
under the cloud, become somewhat independent again – but even this is a
constant fight against being distracted, attracted, drawn-in and again
addicted.
Withdrawal must begin again, and
again.
The
most profound truths, the most lasting experiences, our most precious memories
are swept away like a drop of crystal water in a daily torrent of polluted
outflow. If you unresistingly, enthusiastically consume the Mass Media – it is like standing in the path of a
massive effluent pipe with your mouth wide open.
But
the fact that most of the output of the Mass Media is a pollutant is not the worst problem; the worst problem is that
the mode by which the Mass Media
communicates become habitual – until
it becomes very difficult to think in any other fashion.
Even
if the Mass Media was emanating the purest springwater – the sheer volume would
drown-us.
The
worst problem is that by consuming such a lot of the Mass Media for such a lot
of our lives, we are entrained to its
cognitive mode: the mode of permanent revolution; that mode becomes habitual,
normal – and eventually unavoidable.
It
becomes our engrained practice – as individuals – to be absolutist in our
opinions, intolerant of opposition and dissent; yet to swap and change and
invert our opinions in line with fashion and expediency, on the basis that we
regard nothing as permanent and true; and ‘reality’ as something manufactured,
not discovered.
Ultimately,
such is his state of dependence; modern Man cannot think otherwise, but only in
the way that the Mass Media thinks.
System-language of the Mass Media
How the Mass media ‘thinks’ is a
product of its operation as a system (for further explanation
concerning the meaning of ‘system’, see the Technical Appendix to this book).
The Mass Media is a system, and
each system has a distinctive language with a vocabulary (lexicon) and
grammatical rules (syntax); its names have connotations (positive or negative)
such as equality and democracy (positive) or prejudice and authority
(negative).
Languages have selection
criteria – with inclusions and exclusions. In the Mass Media the exclusions
include all possibility of fixed objectivity – such that everything is in
practice and sooner or later a matter of opinion, a personal point of view; and
the rules are those of emotions – attention, excitement, interest, boredom,
happy and sadness, admiration and disgust, hatred...
Truth versus falsehood have been substituted by that which makes me feel
good versus feel bad – about myself,
or about my situation.
The Mass Media is therefore
necessarily a flickering kaleidoscope of impressions that provoke interest and
evoke feelings; the Mass Media is therefore essentially
relativistic – but not in terms of philosophically asserting the validity of relativism. Indeed, the Media actually
does the opposite; it treats whatever is the topic of the moment as being of
total and permanent and overwhelming reality.
But relative in terms of the
expectation built-into its cognitive style. We know that however supposedly
important something may be, we will very soon get fed-up of thinking about it,
will welcome a change of theme, will soon be thinking of something else
entirely – and quite likely have forgotten that we ever pretended to care about
whatever it is that is obsessing us as-of-now...
Even when the Mass Media is asserting objectivity, then in practice
(and without any justifying theory) it can be, and usually will, in a moment be
undercut by simply stating something else.
(Those amazing words “Now
this...” were noted by Neil Postman as being used to join-up anything and
everything; whatever happens to be featured ‘news’ on any particular day!
Indeed, the phrase can be reduced to just ‘now’: And now: an earthquake in Indonesia; and now: a religious leader
protests against a raunchy dance; and now: inflation hits double figures; and
now: a football manager is sacked; and now: a miracle cure for cancer; and now:
a dog who drinks beer...)
Every statement – no matter how
apparently serious, important and significant for action – is thereby
retrospectively re-framed as opinion – and confronted by another opinion. The
Mass Media presents only opinion, and everything is treated by it as opinion –
as and when necessary.
Opinions can – in principle – be
ranked by the hierarchical authority of the opinionator; then re-ranked by
another criterion; and again and again.
While being presented, each and
any opinion displaces all alternatives; then something else is presented, and that overwhelms all alternatives.
Every-thing is absolute, total –
and then it isn’t; and something else
altogether is now dominant – completely. Then something else.
No proportion but apparently
total conviction; no rational linear cohesion, no over-arching cohesive
unification – but only arbitrary linear sequence.
Oppositional ideology of PC
Yet although lacking the power
(or will) to generate social cohesion, and indeed doing the opposite and
promoting social disintegration; the media is not without its over-arching
principle of operation.
As already described, that
over-arching principle is Opinionated Relativism which is, in practice, the
same thing as New Leftism or Political Correctness; and this is not a
centripetal (centre-seeking) system but a centrifugal (centre-fleeing) anti-system.
In other words, the ideology
which connects (but does not bind) all the strands of the media is the ideology
of permanent revolution, of perpetual opposition.
Perpetual opposition to what?
Opposition ultimately to reality
itself, to the categories of the natural, spontaneous, traditional,
common-sensical, legitimate and authoritative. Opposition, indeed, to any other
actually-existent principle.
Thus the very cognitive
structure of the Mass Media makes any concept of reality meaningless – because
reality becomes an object to be discussed, rather than the structure of
existence.
‘Reality’ is put into quotation
marks: made into an object for examination, discussion, challenge, using and
discarding – then maybe taking-up again.
The modern Western Mass Media,
as it now operates, is not a tool which could, in principle, be used to
propagate a specific desired political state of affairs; rather the modern Mass
Media is of its essence a Leftist phenomenon, the Leftist phenomenon – a phenomenon, that is to say, of
opposition.
Reality is, properly, something
we may have opinions about; but
reality is not itself a matter of opinion.
Once our cognitive processes
have been entrained into the habit of entertaining opinions about whether
reality is really real, or ‘really’ something else – then we are in the state
of nihilism.
Acknowledgement
of reality
If modernity believes in nothing; and if modernity
has lost any sense of the reality of the real; then what would it take to
restore a sense of reality to
mainstream public discourse?
What would it take to restore the conviction that
there is a reality; that reality is really real
whatever we may say or think about
it.
What would it take – bearing in mind that some
pretty extreme things have happened, such as two world wars and the vast
conquests and mass exterminations of communism; yet the reality of reality is
still denied (denied, not least, concerning communism).
Is anything
big enough to shock us out of our state of delusion?
The answer is no, nothing is big enough that the
modern Mass Media could not absorb it and normal unreality be resumed within an
obscenely-short number of days.
Reality cannot be restored at a population level
unless and until the Mass Media has collapsed.
In the meantime, we must work with individuals:
with souls.
At a personal level, for some people, sometimes
something happens (it need not be nasty, it could be something joyous like
marriage or the birth of your child, but often is nasty) such that reality
becomes undeniable; and that individual may make a decision to acknowledge
reality.
Reality is not a revelation – it is a grasp of the
human condition as something given
(not made by humans or human minds, not a framing device). The condition of
reality is what it is, but our response to it is a matter of will and choice.
And recognition of reality, involves recognizing that our will and choice are
being shaped and corrupted by the Mass Media.
Product
of, and therapy for, modernity
Since modernity denies the reality of the real,
then to live now is to experience alienation
– the psychological state of being cut-off from reality.
To be alienated is to have no relation with nature; to be alone in the world as an isolated,
merely subjective and contingent conscientiousness.
The Mass Media makes us alienated; and the Mass Media
also provides the two main answers to alienation: escape into distraction and
desensitization to the situation.
In this the Mass media acts exactly like an
addictive drug: a drug that itself creates a state of distress for which the
drug itself is the only answer.
The Mass Media first
distracts with deliberate inversions of the Good: ugliness, depravity and lies,
which keeps our minds off the overwhelming fact that modernity presents life as
meaningless, purposeless and (briefly) existing in an uncaring universe.
Then
the Mass Media desensitizes us to the hideous, the immoral and the dishonest.
The ratchet turns another notch. The Media addict
is drawn deeper into dependence, and into sin.
Blind
the people...
How are we drawn into Mass Media addiction?
Imagine the situation as if the Mass Media was a
purposive entity, aiming at the ruin of humanity…
What might it say?
First blind the people by teaching them to
disregard their own experience, the evidence of their senses and observations; then when they are cut-off from any
direct relationship with life – tell
them what they ought to know.
Tell people what they ought to know by the authority of specialists and professionals; then tell them that there is actually no
reality, only sensation; and ‘therefore’ they should collude in their own
manipulation by viewing life only through the Mass Media.
Or rather, to be more accurate, their subjective ‘life’
becomes a thing wholly-constructed by the Mass Media. A tissue,
paper-thin, blocking a view of all else: a tissue of lies.
And people know that this is happening, yet do
nothing to stop it happening, because to irreligious people (and almost
everybody is irreligious in modern societies – including most of those who
self-identify and profess a religion) to tear-aside the obscuring tissue and be
confronted by the real, would be to find oneself alone and insignificant in a
meaningless universe.
In such a situation, blinding by the Mass Media is
seen as perhaps the best available option: in a sense people have been brought
to the point of agreeing to its
happening.
This is a definition of hell.
Once people have ceased to be rooted in experience,
the devil’s work is done; it matters little what specific brand of nonsense is
fed to them via the Mass Media.
It is the un-realism of this content which is
key... No, it is the reality-blocking
nature of this content which is key.
Once the centrality of experience is abandoned, the
scope for error, distortion and partiality is indeed infinite in all
directions. There is just one way of being right, but no end to the number of
ways of being wrong.
Best of all for those who seek ruin and misery,
once this Mass Media bubble has been made and evolved to perpetuate itself –
although there are a few temporary beneficiaries – everybody loses in the long term.
First-strike
framing
First-strike framing is a name for what
the Mass Media does all the time with big visceral-impact (that is, gut level
impact) news stories – e.g. stories about atrocities or particularly-nasty
crimes: they ensure that the first report
is such as to structure the long-term memory of the story (regardless of the
real facts, as they may or may not emerge).
This, I call first-strike framing. Because the Mass Media aggressively gets in
its first strike to set-up and interpret the story along with the first news
report which people hear.
This operates on the well-understood
principle that strong emotions tend to become firmly linked by human memory to
the specific circumstances in which those emotions are experienced – then, when
a memory of the specific circumstances is recalled, so too is the emotion: that
emotion affects the cognitive-processing of the memory.
For example, the first report of a
terrorist bombing atrocity will create a strong emotion – a visceral response –
that will both tend to be remembered enduringly; and furthermore will tend to
become psychologically-attached to specific circumstance surrounding that
visceral response.
The media may therefore link the visceral response to the atrocity
with something of which they disapprove: Christians or Right-wingers,
usually.
This link may be made either by
speculating in detail about the implications of a “probable” guess, or else
simply by spatio-temporal association of ideas; for example simply mentioning
the causal possibility in close temporal or spatial relation to the report that
evokes strong emotion.
The memory laid-down will then
contain both the strong negative emotion, and the specific linked circumstance –
i.e. the concept of Christian or Right-winger.
Then recalling memory of the atrocity
will evoke Christians or Right wingers; while the evoking of Christians or
Right wingers will often evoke the emotions associated with the atrocity.
And all of this happens without need
for conscious awareness. An example – which I heard for myself – was the BBC
gratuitously saying during the first report that the Norwegian mass child
murderer Anders Brevik was a Christian. He wasn’t in reality a Christian; but
from that point the idea was irrevocably established. Whatever the reality,
people ‘knew’ at a gut level that Brevik was in some way a Christian, and that
mass child murder was the kind of thing Christians do.
This manipulative method was
pioneered by the Nazi minister of Propaganda – Joseph Goebbels, who developed
the technique of juxtaposing pictures of Jews with rats to create a visceral
association.
Conversely, when the event is
exceptionally shocking, the Mass Media will ‘refrain from speculating’ and on
those grounds (with that excuse) often omit mentioning the name of any Leftist
association or Leftist-designated ‘victim’ groups in the first (and most
shocking) news report (and for as long as possible) – so that this specific
circumstance is not then linked by
memory to the bad feelings evoked by the atrocity.
For example, on the rare occasions in
which an approved group cannot avoid being mentioned, it is spatio-temporally
separated from the nasty stuff, or padded-around with boring stuff – or indeed
the whole report may be made unclear and boring (perhaps by usage of extreme
bureaucratic language), so the specific circumstance is not remembered, or the
visceral impact of the actual event is played-down (in a context where the Mass
Media usually exploits such events to
the limit and beyond).
So the London looting and arson Race
riots of 2011 were filmed and discussed by the Mass Media such as to eliminate
any visual racial association and confuse (problematize) any possible spoken or
written racial association – with the consequence that most British people
never grasped that simple fact. (And indeed the worst and most sustained
episode of civil disorder since 1945 has been all-but forgotten – flushed down
the toilet by the Mass Media.)
Another Mass Media first-strike
framing strategy is to ‘problematize’ obvious links between bad news and
Leftist causes by treating common sense causality as weird, mysterious,
incomprehensible; something that (supposedly) people ‘just can’t understand’.
All this is in line with basic
psychological theory regarding memory and how it works – stuff I teach to first
year students. Once the frame is established – or once people have been made
confused – then they are resistant to change.
Insidiously, people exposed to the
Mass Media do not necessarily know why
thinking about certain groups evokes nasty emotions, they typically do not
remember where or how they made this association – and because they do not know
where this association came from – such links, once made, are very difficult to
undo even if the issue is specifically addressed.
It seems that we are very attached to
our first impressions; and the Mass Media know this, and get in hard and fast with
the first-strike, manipulate our first impressions; and that is all they really
need to do. (Even when there are later ‘corrections’, ‘withdrawals’ or even ‘apologies’
– these are emotionally insignificant.)
In practice first-strike framing is
almost impossible to detect or to resist. If we consume mass media, we will be manipulated. .
From
hero to antihero
Another Mass media ‘ploy’ – and perhaps the most
effective way in which the Mass Media operates to shape human minds – is not by
overt or didactic propaganda, but by means of its background assumptions.
In marketing terms this is known as ‘the soft sell’
– a method which simply assumes
superiority of that being marketed, or feeds selected ‘evidence’ so the buyer
will draw his own (predetermined) conclusions.
The soft sell is used when the hard sell (“Our product is the best!) seems likely to evoke ‘sales
resistance’ – such as mistrust, disbelief or argument.
And the assumptions which are most potent are
perhaps those in which the audience is induced to identify-with, and thereby to
empathize-with, a character – a human
being; whether someone ‘real’ in the news or current affairs or ‘history’; or
someone fictional in a story (or some combination of supposedly-real with
covertly-fictional).
To empathize with someone is to see as they see,
feel as they feel, be motivated as they are motivated: to identify with them.
(It is the same as the old meaning of sympathy,
which can refer ‘to resonating in harmony with’ some thing, as well as
some-one.)
There has been, in the Mass Media over the past
several decades, a ‘turn’ from stories typically focusing on the essentially-Good hero, to stories in which the
essentially anti-Good antihero is the
protagonist. Indeed most modern Mass Media have all-but deleted all genuine (i.e.
essentially-Good) heroes from their narratives.
What used-to happen was that the reader or watcher
would be invited or induced to empathize with a Good character.
If it was a straightforward hero then the reader or
watcher was drawn to experience his pressures, temptations, sins; perhaps to
endure with courage, to resist with single-mindedness, and to triumph – or to
be defeated but still heroic.
Or, if this was a flawed hero or a growing hero,
then perhaps to experience the hero’s errors and weaknesses, and his sins – but
finally to experience repentance, and to learn from the experiences – to become
truly heroic at, or before, the end.
The ‘moral’ would be that Goodness is difficult,
maybe very difficult – but possible.
However, what most often happens nowadays is that
the protagonist is someone who is – at least superficially – bad, or bad by ‘conventional’
(traditional) standards (which may well be subverted during the course of
narrative): someone like a thief or terrorist, an assassin or bounty-hunter, an
aggressively promiscuous or sexually unorthodox practitioner – in sum a
selfish, transgressive and pleasure-seeking kind of person.
The antiheroic story invites the reader or viewer
to participate in this ‘bad’ person’s world; and the moral is typically that
this person turns-out to be not-wholly-bad after all; to have some redeeming
feature; indeed (surprise, surprise!) to be in actuality a better person than the superficially-Good characters or
initially-apparent-heroes (which are generally revealed to be nothing-but hypocrites).
The message is that overtly Good people are actually bad,
and the obvious villain is the genuine hero.
The Mass Media have always featured characters who
were basically evil (or at least primarily sinful and dominated by selfishness,
sensuality, greed, etc.) but with some Good aspects; such that they would often
attract considerable interest and sympathy; and indeed the villain may seem a
more appealing character, at least dramatically, than the one presumed to be
the hero – for instance, the clever and witty but evil antiheroic Iago is (in
most productions) more enjoyable to watch than Shakespeare’s dumb, ranting ‘good’
hero Othello.
But Iago has now displaced Othello to become the
modern protagonist; so that instead of a tragic flawed-hero there is an ironic,
not-entirely-bad anti-hero; instead
of a good (but not wholly good) protagonist, there is a bad (but not wholly bad) protagonist.
This ‘turn’ in the Mass Media is (implicitly)
addressed to a world in which the main moral problem is one of excessively-good behaviour, and where
Good people are excessively unforgiving
and intolerant of the sins of others.
While this may be a problem in some times and
places (perhaps in strict ‘puritan’ societies); this means in actuality, here
and now, the antiheroic narrative is addressed to a world that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the
actual world of unprecedented license and openly advocated sin in which we
actually live!
So, bearing in mind that all virtues may become
vices when pursued narrowly or to excess – and as often happens – the main
thrust of the antiheroic morality being inculcated by the Mass Media is
precisely what we least need
and is most likely to harm and
further corrupt us.
Also, considering that the Mass Media purports
to be teaching us – via empathy – that there is good even in the worst of
people; there is a revelatory cynicism about the highly-selective kind of
people with whom we are induced to empathize.
Empathy is routine for some kinds of bad people but
not others – yes for murderers, terrorists, thieves and liars, cowards and drug
addicts; but not for the likes of white racists. Yet – for any historical
society and for most of the modern world, murder is a far, far worse sin
than ‘bigotry’.
And by this selectivity the mass media implicitly
reveal their hidden (but correct) belief that empathy leads to tolerance and even approval.
Therefore, a Mass Media world in which artistic
depictions and ‘news’ reportage focuses on inducing us to empathize with
antiheroes, is actually a world which in practice encourages sin and vice and
suppresses real goodness and heroism.
In a nutshell, the dominant modern antiheroic
narrative generally encourages us to be
basically-evil; but with some
politically correct redeeming feature such as kindness or a passion for ‘social
justice’...
Pervasive
demonic perspective
When first strike framing, and the soft sell of the
antihero are recognized, this adds to a suspicion that nearly all (but not all)
of the mass media output – and also what passes for serious narrative High Art
in recent literature, drama, the movies, TV – is written from what could
reasonably be termed a demonic
perspective.
That is to say, the perspective of a demon – a
creature who is wholly in service to evil itself; in other words, the
perspective of one dedicated to the destruction of everything that is true,
beautiful and virtuous.
(Although in practice and in the short term, some
good things will always be retained, at least temporarily, as a base for
attacking other good things. Therefore, good-as-a-whole is almost always
attacked on the basis of promoting some specific good. As when the supposed
need for kindness in all circumstances
is used to attack other virtues such as prudence or courage; or when mercy is
applied in defiance of all justice.)
Indeed, the demonic perspective could be taken as a
brief definition of ‘modernity’ in the media – that phenomenon which got a grip
in the first decades of the twentieth century, and which finished-off the
centuries long traditions of visual arts, classical music and poetry.
I have always been aware of this demonic
perspective, and always disliked it – but for many years I pushed-down this
dislike and forced myself to swallow large doses of demonic modernism, because
this was supposed to be ‘the truth’ about the human condition; and because much
of the best work in recent art and prestige media was in this style, had this
content.
(‘Best’ from an artistic perspective. For example
the highly-rated novels of Joyce, poems of Pound, paintings of Picasso and
plays of Beckett share this demonic perspective.)
In demonic art, the standard by which the characters
are judged is worldly: status, power, and pleasure. The successful characters
are evil predators and parasites; manipulators, selfish, cruel, insensitive.
Sometimes the whole narrative is peopled by evil
characters trying to exploit one another; some succeeding, while others fail
and are crushed.
Sometimes there are also ‘good’ characters, whose
typical virtue is altruism or kindness – these are depicted as weak and
self-deluded individuals. They are the ‘prey’, or the ‘hosts’, on-whom the evil
characters feed.
We feel sorry for these ‘goodies’, perhaps. Generally
we despise them, sometimes they disgust us – certainly we do not envy them.
The ‘good’ characters are the people who cannot see
reality, who refuse to see reality, who live (and die) by illusions.
Thus the demonic perspective: the world as
predators and prey; parasites and hosts; realists and the self-deluded.
The message? You are either an envied predator or
one of the mass of despised prey.
Therefore, be a successful predator and glory in
your success; and if you can’t then despair.
The sub-text? We are all prey, ultimately.
Because, even if you succeed as a predator,
glorious in your exploitation of others for your own gratification; you too
will become prey in your turn, you too will become weak and pitiful – and so despair.
The ideal of success is (presumably) to die at the
height of your predatory success, unconscious of the future, when at your most
envied and most loathed – therefore, if you have achieved predator-hood then despair: make sure you die soon, before
you too suffer, before you too become prey.
The sub-sub text – Life is only about predators and
prey, but ultimately it makes no difference because life is short, vile, and
everybody dies.
So despair.
This is the demonic perspective in which modern Man
swims, which underpins media news and soap operas, prize winning novels and
award winning movies, which fills the theatres and the galleries.
Is the demonic perspective honest? Is it the product
of years of seeking the truth, of exhausting all possible avenues of enquiry?
Of course not! It is merely a miasma breathed-in
during adolescence; it is a pose, a lifestyle. It is the end of seeking the truth, giving-up on seeking reality, not the product of truth-seeking.
Yet the demonic perspective rules the public arena,
it is what we are taught and what we consume: it is our catechism: it is
pervasive, sophisticated, encouraged – and alternatives
to the demonic perspective are low status, dumb, wicked, forbidden,
punished...
And this milieu is induced not by argument or
demonstration, but by multiply-reiterated depiction: by millions and
billions of instances of the demonic perspective, iterated day by day, minute
by minute, apparently each confirming and confirmed by the innumerable others,
all drilling us in the ultimate lie that this is the truth: seek no further:
suck it up and despair.
Negativism
– a tool for self-cure
But if we are not to despair, then in the politically
correct era of ethical inversion, ‘disbelieving’ the Mass Media is not enough.
It is a necessary skill for
modern reactionaries to have a ‘negativistic’ attitude to the major stories: to
believe the opposite of whatever are
the main stories of the day.
Negativism is a psychological
description for a behaviour pattern characteristic of two year old toddlers and
some psychiatric patients with the condition called catatonia. Reflexly, and without needing to think
about it, they do
the opposite of whatever they are told to do.
Those who wish to escape from
domination by the Mass Media need to adopt a similar attitude of negativism
towards its major stories. We need to believe the opposite of whatever message
is being pushed. The tough matter is knowing what ‘the opposite’ actually
means...
Media negativism for
reactionaries is based on the insight that the international Mass Media is primarily an instrument of evil, and the
major such instrument.
While the great bulk of Mass Media content is mere
distraction, and only evil because it is easiest to distract with evil; all of
the major, high impact, multi-national Media stories – those that run for days
and everywhere – are primarily propaganda, of a Leftist type – whatever else
they may be in addition to this.
If a media story was not already, or could not be
made-into an instrument of Leftist propaganda, then it simply will not become a
major story.
Or if something already is (accidentally) a major
story but is not amenable to usage in the Leftist agenda; then it will be
killed as rapidly as possible, by dropping it, distorting it, replacing it with
something else, and ceasing to refer to it.
My favourite example of this was the 2000 fuel
disruption (a protest against the price of diesel, where lorries blocked access
to filling stations), which caused days of road chaos and petrol shortages
across Britain and France and even into Germany – but which is now apparently
forgotten.
The disruption was not organized by Trades Unions, but seemed to arise by spontaneous
mass action from self-employed heavy-goods drivers and hauliers – and the Left
was therefore hostile to to the protesters, and all collective memory of the
event disappeared within months.
The modern Mass Media only unleashes hype for bad things – for things destructive of traditional values (of
truth, beauty or – especially – virtue).
From the Mass Media perspective, therefore, that
which is traditionally Good is re-presented as bad; and vice versa.
People and events presented by the media as Good
are always in reality bad; and people or events presented by the media as bad
are usually (but not always) Good – and when bad people or events are not
presented as Good, then they are condemned as bad for the wrong reasons.
Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be
presented as Good by the Mass Media; then it will invariably be the case that
they also are said to be Good for the wrong reasons.
Thus, the major output of the modern international
Mass Media consists of only four categories:
1. Good presented as bad
2. Bad presented as Good
(That is to say simple inversion)
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
(That is to say explanatory inversion)
These four categories, which can be summarized as
either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high
impact modern major Mass Media stories without
any exceptions.
Therefore those who want to free their minds from
the Mass Media must first avoid as much Mass Media output as possible, and secondly
develop automatic negativistic behaviour towards the Mass Media output which
they cannot avoid.
Usually simple disbelief will suffice, and is most
efficient: after all, the Mass Media generates vast numbers of false stories
all the time.
Media stories cannot all, individually, be
evaluated. But if a more precise reaction is required, then the non-politically
correct observer merely needs to decide whether a specific story is a simple
inversion, or whether it is the explanation or ‘framing’ of the story which is
inverted – it will be one or the other.
Of course, there is seldom sufficient time or
information to infer what (if anything) actually is going-on behind the
Media distortion, hype and suppression. Also, making such inferences sounds
like, and may easily become, conspiracy theorizing.
This is why I recommend sheer negativistic disbelief
as the default; and stop at that.
The modern Luddite
Anyone who strenuously avoids the
Mass Media, and consequently develops some immunity to the propaganda of
modernity, may find themselves termed a ‘Luddite’.
The original Luddites (followers
of one semi-mythical Ned Ludd) opposed – and destroyed – modern technology
because it threw them out of work to face starvation; but the term now refers
to almost any resistance to any change.
Luddism is thus the active extension of negativism.
Disbelief is the first step; resistance to change is the second.
(Anyone who resists change, no
matter how damaging that change would be, will get called a Luddite by those
who want change - and this will happen regardless of whether opponents to
change really deserve the name or not – so why not embrace the term?)
Being a Luddite is in fact the
rational, default, response to any proposal for change in the modern world –
since almost all change turns-out bad, and almost all modern change is not even
well-motivated.
But Luddism is especially to be recommended when a
change is proposed or supported by the Mass Media. As the focus and origin of
Leftism, it is extremely unlikely that the modern Mass Media would unite and
sustain support for anything Good; and highly likely that whatever they
supported would be destructive of truth, beauty, virtue, and traditional
sexuality (continence, marriage, family, stability etc.).
Is it rational and prudent to oppose new measures
simply because of their provenance – simply because the Left are so keen on
them? Experience says: Yes. Opposition is a reasonable, sensible, default
position (pending further evaluation or being convinced to the contrary).
Indeed, it is not just reasonable but necessary in some circumstances.
Political correctness is led from the Mass Media,
but implemented via bureaucracy.
And ever since the era of economic central planning
(nationalization, five year plans and the like) bureaucracy has intrinsically
been of the Left.
What modern bureaucrats do is to make changes (necessary or not, helpful
or harmful) – indeed, it is making changes which distinguishes the modern
bureaucrat from the old style administrator (who never wanted to change
anything!).
Change
is what managers do – change is their job, that on the basis of which
they are appointed, retained and promoted.
Yet, in complex functional systems there are but
few ways to improve the system, but many ways (indeed an infinite
number) to damage the system.
For example, almost all random genetic mutations
are harmful to a complex organism – and they are often lethal; and it is only
very rarely that a mutation is adaptive and improves survival or reproduction.
Therefore change as such is almost-certain
to be harmful, except when there are strong specific reasons to assume it will
be beneficial.
Because most change is harmful and yet change is
what they do, politicians, bureaucrats, managers and the like are
systematically resistant to evaluating the results of change. Indeed they are
far more likely to want consequential harm to be hidden than they are desirous
of learning from experience.
In advanced bureaucratic systems the officially
sanctioned consequences of change are therefore managed: pre-decided,
manufactured and imposed; certainly not discovered by observation and
experience.
Therefore the rational, prudent, default attitude
for people concerned with the function of a social system must be no change, and the rational prudent
default action must be to resist change.
In other words, in the modern world, it necessary
and proper to be a Luddite – unless or until persuaded otherwise by strong
evidence in support of a specific proposal.
It should never be necessary to prove ‘beyond
reasonable doubt’ that a proposal for change will certainly lead to harm: the proper default assumption is that nearly
all significant change to a complex system is likely to harm that system’s
functionality.
Indeed we see this is not just correct on
theoretical grounds, but as a matter of common observation.
From the perspective of one who is outwith the
bubble of the Mass Media mentality and who is primarily concerned by the
real-world functioning of social systems such as law, education, medicine,
science, the military or the police; it is crystal-clear that almost all social changes proposed or implemented over recent decades
have been and currently are bad.
(This damage to functionality is, of course,
disguised by re-labelling and inversion – for example the police are nowadays
more likely to be evaluated by their success in providing employment for women
and ethnic minorities than in solving crimes and suppressing riots.)
Some good things have happened – but despite the
Mass Media; while Mass Media advocated changes has almost always been bad for
almost everybody.
Therefore, this
change, currently being proposed, under consideration now; is very unlikely (statistically speaking) to be good, and will
very likely be bad.
In conclusion: Ned Ludd for King!
How the Mass Media learns to do harm
Negativism and Luddism are necessary because the
Mass Media acts with implicit intent to do harm; to damage religion and
tradition.
In ‘deciding’ how best to damage religion and
tradition (which is its intrinsic and spontaneous aim) and destroy traditional
society, the modern Mass Media is continually floating ideas – every day
hundreds, thousands of new ideas.
But the Mass Media needs to detect which of these
ideas to pick-up and run with, to emphasize and elaborate, to spread and
sustain.
This is the work of the human minds in the elite
media; the ideological experts of the Left. And the opponents of the Left often
unwittingly assist the Left in this process.
When an idea emerges that traditionalists can show
to be almost-certainly damaging to those
things which traditionalists value – then the sharp minds of the Mass Media
(the lead writers, columnists and commentators) will notice the fact, and will
pick-up this particular idea and press it very hard indeed, with full force of
the modern Mass Media, in a sustained campaign.
The reciprocity between Left and Right means that
by the time the Left has chosen its big theme, and is pressing for
implementation of key policies – the process of evaluation of the effectiveness
of this policy in pursuit of Leftist goals is well advanced: by the time the
Left has decided on its Big Issue of the day – extra-marital sex, unconstrained
promiscuity, mass welfare, easy no-fault divorce, feminism, the environment,
diversity, mass immigration, redefining marriage, whatever it may be – by the time of incipient formal
implementation, the Left is sure that
the chosen policy will inflict enormous and ramifying damage on its enemies.
And also, by this time, the counter-rational assumption of the necessity of (this)
change has become first un-shocking then habitual via multiple reiterations in
multiple media – the default rational assumption of ‘no change’ has been
inverted – and the Mass Media has by then established that the change they
advocate is the default, and that resistance to this change is irrational or
evil.
Very swiftly the onus of proof has been reversed;
and in practice no amount of evidence for likely harm is ever deemed sufficient
to justify opposing the current Left-approved change.
To introduce radical Left-approved change it is
sufficient to demonstrate merely that harm will not necessarily happen absolutely
immediately.
And, once a Left-approved changes has been
implemented, anything short-of instant social collapse is taken as evidence of
its success (“See, the world has not ended! – We told you it was a good
idea!”).
The most recent example of this is Same Sex ‘Marriage’
– which the Mass Media floated, and soon Left-intellectuals in the Media found
that the idea evoked strong resistance from traditionalists. This resistance
was taken as evidence that SSM would be very damaging to traditional values and
life, and thus identified the issue as a suitable policy for Mass Media
support.
So the Left doubled-down on SSM, advocacy of which
was positively-depicted by multiple media channels (dramas, soap operas,
movies, novels, in polemical journalism, news reports); resistance to which was
confined to the dumb, crazed or hate-filled.
This continued until what was – in world-historical
terms – an ultra-radical, unprecedented policy with considerable potential for
subversive harm, was first normalized then made into a positively good-thing;
such that within less than a generation the issue of SSM went from being
fringe, eccentric, ridiculous, unthinkable – to a fait accompli.
This strategy has been repeated many times with
many issues over the past century – especially in the area of the sexual
revolution. Whatever happens to be the Left’s latest proposed change is
therefore not arbitrary nor a mere matter of fashion; but a policy that has
been carefully pre-selected to represent the next step down a ‘slippery slope’ to victory in the culture wars: an
entry point into a positive feedback cycle of damage to religion and traditional values.
Mega-revolutionary social change is therefore
presented by the Mass Media as if it were merely sensible and logical; while
any resistance to societal transformation is painted as confined to knuckle-dragging
Neanderthals.
Social Media = Mass Media
As I write in 2014 AD, it seems obvious that the
spread in usage of mobile phones and internet social networking websites of the
Facebook type and messaging systems
such as Twitter and the many other ‘sharing’ media, has been an
expansion, a continuation of the growth-trend, of the Mass Media which had
already been given a really tremendous boost by the invention of the internet.
Hence, the social media have turned-out to
generate, extend and exacerbate the already-established psychopathologies of
secular hedonism and atomistic alienation.
The interpersonal media are extremely addictive and
distracting; and are therefore amplifying the psychological consequences of the
modern Mass Media: i.e. addiction and distraction.
Yet, in principle, if we had not already
experienced the opposite, it might have been predicted that, by keeping people
in touch more of the time, the influence of the Mass Media would be held-back
by social media – that by people-interacting-with-people for more of the time,
and with more people, the ideology of the Mass Media would be blocked.
(Rather as many people – myself included! – used to
predict that the internet would combat the domination by ‘official’ news media,
to facilitate an informed society
where everybody discovered the real facts
behind the selection, distortion and propaganda; and formed their own opinions...
Ha! How wrong can anyone be!)
In theory, the new interpersonal media should
strengthen friendship, marriage and family relations by keeping the members
in-touch; and of course this can be done and sometimes is indeed done. Yet, in
practice these media are at the heart of a society ever more zealously engaged
in the coercive destruction of marriage and families.
In so many ways the possibilities of the Mass Media
to do good, while genuine, are in practice and on average utterly overwhelmed
by the actuality of doing evil. The overall direction of flow of the Mass Media
is downward, even while it supports
swirls and back-flow and eddies in the opposite direction.
The main consequence of pervasive social
communication media is therefore seen to be that people are out of touch with
their environment for more of the time, that they downgrade the actual people
they are with, and the actual environment that there inhabit; that they never self-remember (Me! Here! Now!); that
they are prevented from experiencing in real-time the life they are in.
In the recent past, a person sitting or walking
alone might be stimulated to look around, listen, smell, feel the air flowing
past them – be where they are. Not now. They are on their mobile phones and
inside the Media bubble. And they can and do avoid experiencing the here and
the now.
The vast scale of interpersonal mass media has an
effect which quite overwhelms the specifics of interpersonal information
exchange via these media. It hardly
matters what is said, or heard, or seen via
these media – nor who says it; the major consequence of the fact of the medium is vastly more powerful than the specifics
of communication. Form dominates content. (Hence McLuhan’s slogan: the medium
is the message.)
This fact of such a high degree of
content-indifference, explains how it is that our society has been able to
absorb such incredible changes as the internet and ubiquitous mobile phones and
vast social networking websites while – at a fundamental level – the functional
effect is so trival; indeed the net effect is trivial-izing.
We do not control these media; they control us;
they reshape our minds in the direction of the ideology of opinionated
relativism; we have instant and strong opinions on everything and everybody
which is current – and then, tomorrow, another set of strong and ubiquitous
opinions, mostly on other subjects.
So interpersonal communications media are merely an
increase in the volume of the Mass Media; they are indeed an expansion of the
Mass Media; mostly by means of adding to electronic communications and
processes the additional processing power of many millions of human brains to
generate more content and reactions; and thus to extend Mass Media
communications to occupy the non-electronic world.
So that when people do, rarely, turn away from the
Mass Media, they are likely to exchange opinions on agenda items, and from a
set of stock responses, that have been set by the Mass Media.
The
Mass Media versus religion
The modern Mass Media sets the agenda: it is the
dominant societal system by far: the Mass Media is the primary medium for
public evaluation of all the outputs of all other social systems.
Each medium is a message: the Mass Media – the
whole thing – is a message. And as the Mass Media has grown and grown, with the
advent of internet and social media technologies – the message has become
ever-louder and more invasive.
The whole entity of the Mass Media includes all
few-to-many modes of communicating such as print media (books, newspapers,
magazines), broadcast media (radio, TV, movies) and the internet media (blogs,
socialnetworking, interpersonal communications and messaging media) – all these
form a unified, vast, interconnected web of engagement...
Engagement that stands in opposition to religion,
that occupies the same ground as
religion.
And that ground is the social, public, shared system of evaluation.
The Mass Media thus occupies the ground previously
inhabited by religion, and necessarily
displaces religion as the primary social, public system of evaluation for all transcendental Goods: the Goods of
truth, beauty and virtue.
The basic insight is that the Mass Media displaces
religion. The bigger and stronger the Mass Media in a person or a society – the
smaller and weaker is religion: the one displaces the other.
And the Mass Media ideology of ephemeral
Opinionated Relativism has displaced the various doctrines of religions
(excepting those religions whose adherents are sufficiently isolated and
sheltered from the full blast of the Mass Media).
If we accept Marshall McLuhan’s insight that the medium is the message – this means
that it is not the content or subject matter, but the fact of the Mass Media as a set of communications which is primary.
Specifically, the fact that so many people are so fully-engaged by the Mass
Media for so many hours of each day.
The anti-Good effect of the Mass Media therefore
essentially comes from the fact that it displaces religion as the social
evaluation system – and replaces a
positive morality with a negative ideology that, over time and in the long-run,
sweeps away any Good – because Good must be real and lasting, and that which is
arbitrary and contingent cannot be Good.
The specific evaluations of the Mass Media are
usually pro-evil, but even when they are pro-Good it is the fact that the Mass
Media has become the major societal evaluation system which is primary. And
once the Mass Media has become the primary system of evaluation, then a line has been crossed.
The crux is that in the modern West it is the Mass
Media which makes and communicates all significant moral and social
evaluations: and that is why the
nature of the Mass Media is intrinsically to be anti-religious.
The
purpose of modern life: to feed the Media
The fundamental nature of the Mass Media can be
seen in its overall effect on the human condition; its constant, underlying,
net-tendency is by now far advanced and readily observable...
The purpose of the Mass Media, what it ‘wants’ from
humans, is not just wholesale passive consumption, but active participation in media processing; psychological
participation in the evaluations of the Mass Media, which participation itself
enlarges and expands the Mass Media.
So, the near-perfection of the Mass Media (which is
also the point of inevitable societal destruction, hence Media
self-destruction) would be when all humans were always plugged-into the system
of communications; and receiving inputs, processing information, and generating
outputs, the tendency of which was to generate ever-more inputs… A positive
feedback cycle.
The perfection of the Mass Media is not to have as
many as possible passive consumers of the media, but to use the sensory apparatus and brains of active consumers as
information processors to generate more and ever-more Mass Media.
In other words, the tendency of the Mass Media is
to co-opt the human mind, to make
each mind a part of the Mass Media; to expand the communication volume of the
system that is the Mass Media.
It is happening at this moment, to me and to you...
Take blogging for an example (since I am a
blogger). A blogger reads other blogs, and draws on the experience of the Mass
Media and of his life and experience to make blog posts which grab attention
and tend to stimulate the writing of further
communications such as comments and postings on other blogs – which are then
read by the blogger and stimulate further blogging and so on.
The blog network operates to co-opt more and more
human brains, and serves as the system of evaluation for... anything and
potentially everything.
The blogosphere can become and has become for some
the centre of life; such that the rest of life becomes implicitly subordinated
to sustaining engagement with the blogosphere – earning money to feed oneself,
doing things of blog interest, all so as to blog, read, comment – blog some
more...
But of course blogs are only a tiny part of the
Mass Media, and the more recent social media such as Facebook and Twitter
do the same kind of thing as blogs, but faster and with a wider inclusion of
participants.
The diversity of the Mass Media serves to disguise
what is going so – so that we feel that reading a newspaper is different from
attending a musical concert is different from visiting a beauty spot or from
having a human relationship – yet in the Mass Media world all these are merely
grist to the mill.
The media world is one in which
religion and holidays and other people and work and leisure and everything else
has become primarily something to
contribute to the Mass Media; in which peoples’ primary motivation in doing
anything other than consume the mass
media is that they have something ‘interesting’ to contribute to the Mass Media – photos and videos to share, opinions
to share, news to share, triumphs and disasters to share. Those with nothing to
share on these social media (or with
no wish to share) are out-of-the-loop – boring, uncool, lame, unpopular...
This is a world in which the evaluations that people make concerning
truth, beauty and virtue are themselves calibrated to promote engagement with the
Mass Media.
So whatever people do apart from the Mass Media is increasingly done on the basis of
evaluations from the Mass Media, since these things are being done (implicitly)
in order (or in hope) that they may be contributed to the Mass Media. Much of
what people do now is done so they
have things suitable to contribute to the network of other mobile phone users.
As of 2014; modern living is subdivided into
tweetable-thoughts and tweetable acts.
This is a world in which religion is grist to the
Mass Media mill, marriage and family are grist to the media mill, our surface
opinions and deepest convictions are grist... To a shocking extent, we are all hack journalists now; thinking the
thoughts and living the lives of hacks.
Can you handle it?
The world of hack journalism, the world in which we
now live, is not just unpleasant – it is deliberately nasty.
A lot of modern life is about rubbing people’s
noses in stuff that they find disgusting, repellent, sickening – this sometimes
seem like the main activity and underlying purpose of the Mass Media,
solidly-backed by the highbrow artistic establishment.
And this activity is regarded as morally-admirable:
Samuel Beckett got a Nobel literature prize for doing it better than anyone
else.
Indeed, the whole thing originated in high art in
the 19th century French-centred decadent period which developed into the
disgust expressed and evoked by James Joyce’s Ulysses; TS Eliot’s The
Wasteland; Picasso’s Cubism, and the pathological distortions of painters
such as Stanley Spencer, Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud; the poisonous dissonant
elements in Mahler, Stravinsky and Kurt Weill, and innumerable seamy and sordid
movies and Art photography since the 1960s.
The strategy is, it seems, to shock us so
frequently as to desensitize us to
the point that nothing can shock us; so that we will neither ‘judge’, nor
prohibit, nor reject evil – because then we will get-used-to evil, and then
eventually to accept and promote evil (since we have long since ceased to feel evil as evil).
The end of it all is finally to regard evil as the
only Good – since we now reflexly, and dishonestly, unmask all virtue as hypocritical, all beauty as Kitsch; and have
become so jaded with simplicity and wholesomeness that we find Good insipid and
crave the sharp stimulus of sin.
A secondary purpose is to de-sacralize that which
was sacred, so it will cease to command our loyalty. Hence the endemic parody,
mockery and subversion of religion in general but Christianity in particular.
As a doctor I have been through a very thorough
training in desensitization with respect to disease – I had to overcome my
revulsion for dead bodies, gross skin rashes, and overpowering smells in order
that I could work with patients.
Part of this was – by practice – to learn control
of one’s facial expression and vocal tone so as to prevent any observable
disgust; and since the body and emotions are linked, such habitual impassivity
also reduced the strength of feeling of disgust.
I was learning an imperturbable manner. It was necessary.
But that practice and those habits extracted a
price in terms of hardening of my
personality, especially when combined with the gruelling long hours, and even
more especially in psychiatry – where the hardening was applied to
psychological (rather than physical) factors that seemed to spill over into
other relationships.
I began to dislike the person I had become – and
that was a major reason why I stopped doing clinical work.
(This was a defect in me personally – not all
doctors suffer this excessive hardening; and good doctors develop the necessary
imperturbability while retaining empathy – my wife being a prime example. But
the difficulty of achieving this
combination of imperturbability without loss of empathy is one reason – among
several – why most people cannot practice medicine well, why the medical
profession ought to be selective with respect to personality.)
Our culture has now gone far down this path of
psychological hardening. The good reason (i.e. the legitimate excuse) for hardening
is that many people, through no fault of their own (for instance disease,
accident or other misfortune) are disgusting; and by reacting to them with
disgust, we increase their suffering.
So, blunting of the spontaneous
responses to disgust could be a defensible therapeutic attitude to society.
However, modern society is not defensible – because, instead of
training imperturbability, we practice (albeit selectively – and mostly in
relation to sexual morality) an inversion
such that whatever spontaneously evokes negative feelings such as disgust is
valorized – regarded as better than
that which is spontaneously regarded as wholesome.
Spontaneous disgust is not so
much controlled as reversed: we are trained that a feeling of disgust (above
all in relation to sex) should be followed by, suppressed by, eventually
overwhelmed by a positive evaluation. We have been trained to love disgust.
Modern culture is therefore as-if
medical students were trained to regard sickening smells as fragrant, skin lesions
as beautiful and dead bodies as in a better state than alive ones.
That
is the difference between desensitization and inversion – desensitization may
be necessary and may even be desirable, although there is a significant price
to pay; but inversion is intrinsically insane and evil.
Nowadays, mainstream culture rubs our noses in the
disgusting stuff of life, of which there is an endless supply; but we are not
supposed to notice that it is disgusting, instead we are supposed to find it
admirable and praiseworthy.
Mainstream modern culture does not merely ‘tolerate’
the disgusting, it seeks-out the disgusting, in order to celebrate and reward
it; behaving like an anti-therapeutic ‘doctor’ who poisons his patients and
spreads diseases from the twisted rationale that sickness and death are
preferable to health and life.
Environmental overload makes
simple minds
On top of the Media tendency to shock, desensitize
then invert valuations; there is a related tendency for the sheer volume and
complexity of the Mass Media to cause a reciprocal shrinkage and simplification
of the human mind.
Over the past decades, people have often supposed
that the rapid expansion of the Mass Media, and the vast informational
availability made possible by the internet, would lead to increased complexity
of human thinking: there was an idea that the human mind was being constrained
by the insufficient availability of relevant information.
Yet – so far as we can see – the opposite has
happened, and human discourse has become greatly simplified over the past several
decades.
It is primarily when our brains are ‘offline’,
including asleep, that complexity is generated – in other words complexity of
ideas does not come from the external environment but from inside the head – from the internal workings of the mind.
(See “The Sleep Elaboration–Awake Pruning (SEAP)
theory of memory”, by Bruce G. Charlton and Peter Andras; published in the
journal Medical Hypotheses; 2009; Volume 73: pages 1-4.)
This is not the whole story, of course, since such
relationships are reciprocal, and our minds certainly need input – but the usual idea is wrong that human ideas ‘come
into the brain’ from the environment, and complex thoughts therefore derive
from a complex environment. By this account old-time rural dwellers necessarily
had simple thoughts since they lived in simple environments; while modern city
dwellers have complex thoughts to reflect their complex environment.
If complexity of cognition is something put-into
the mind from outside; then the extravert, the sociable, the widely read, the
culture vulture, the traveller – one who draws stimulus from his environment is
therefore the paradigm of complex thinking.
Yet I suggest that in reality almost the opposite
is the case – so long as we compare like-with-like (that is, compare people
with similar psychological characteristics, but in different environments).
It makes more sense to see complexity as coming from within,
and this complexity being typically constrained
by the environment.
So a complex, information-rich, and
highly-stimulating environment actually causes the mind to simplify, by the
environment ‘culling’ more innately-generated complexity. Thus those most
engaged with other people and with the Mass Media would be expected to have simpler cognitive processes than they
would-have; if they had been more solitary, detached, autonomous individuals.
The paradigm of mental complexity, and
real-creativity, would then be someone who is introverted, self-sufficient,
thoughtful and contemplative; deep-not-wide-reading – narrowly selective rather
than widely experienced.
I think this can be confirmed by observation. A
clear example would be Mass Media journalism. When smart people work in
journalism (which must be the most information-dense environment in human
history) their evaluation processes become greatly simplified, down to a level
of gross stereotypy.
With sufficient ability, relevant training and
suitable experience; any amount of information of any type can effortlessly be
selected and filtered to generate a predetermined, simple output. The greater
the complexity of the input, the more relatively stereotyped is the output –
necessarily.
And when the information flow slows or stops
temporarily, and they are thrown back onto their own resources, such people are
at a loss – and their terrible simplicity is exposed.
I first noticed this among highly intelligent,
socially-engaged academic Marxists. Whatever quantity and variety of stimuli
was fed-in, and whatever the issue or question – what came-out was always...
The Class Struggle.
This model of complexity being
internally-generated, and simplicity being a selection effect of the
environment, may explain why the exponential increase in the availability of
information with the vast growth in Mass Media has been associated with an
obvious, qualitative collapse in the complexity of personal thought, private
conversation and public discourse.
More is less – when it comes to complexity.
The savage triviality of Mass
Media morality
So, the Mass Media is desensitizing, inverting, and
simplifying human thinking; but that is not the end of it!
The Media also manufactures steroid-pumped
emotional hyper-reactions to trivial stimuli.
It is now impossible to exaggerate the mismatch between some alleged (non-)
offence or taboo-hate-fact; and the resulting scale, scope and zeal of Mass
Media condemnation.
In a perverse variant of the
butterfly-causing-a-hurricane parable of chaos theory, it is apparently
believed that any remark on any topic from anybody which may (perhaps, in some way) offend some other person
or groups; can be extrapolated to being
regarded as having-caused some (possibly)
catastrophic outcome – and therefore deserves unrestrained condemnation and
punishment.
On the one side, nothing is too trivial to dominate
world Media discussion for days or weeks; yet on the other no truly abhorrent
moral offense is so serious that it cannot be ignored, hidden or re-framed into
victim-hood, or even a virtue.
Literally nothing is too trivial to become the most important thing in the world.
Perhaps a few words from an obscure teenager communicated on Twitter –
then being discussed by heads of state, government officials, highbrow
journalists, senior academics and in a million social interactions worldwide.
Literally nothing is too trivial to lead to a
firestorm of frenzied mob hatred, court cases, fines, deliberate financial
ruin, sacking, even prison.
While on the other hand, people who certainly have
done, and are known for sure to have done, horrific acts of brutal violence –
rape, torture, maiming, terrorism, murder – can be and are made into victims of oppression, deserving of sympathy; or
heroes, fighting for justice; or ordinary decent folk who are being harshly
judged for some momentary aberration under stress... or in fact anything the
media wants.
This combination reveals the utter evil of modern morality
as initiated, orchestrated and sustained by the Mass Media and those who consume it and allow it to dictate their world view
(which is, in practice, almost everyone).
This is what it is to live in a world without God,
a world therefore of moral relativism and without a conception of objective
truth. A world which has not abolished morality; but uprooted and twisted it;
such that matters of degree and proportion are now ad hoc and arbitrary.
A world where Opinion has displaced God; and where opinions
are generated and disseminated 24/7 by the Mass Media.
The
need for eternal vigilance
So, the psychological damage inflicted by the
modern Mass Media includes desensitization to that which ought to shock; a
perverse appetite for that which spontaneously evokes disgust; a simplification
and routinization of thinking processes; and a near-universal over-reactivity
to arbitrary stimuli which is both gullible and hysterical.
Yet, total resistance to the deadly influences of
the modern Mass Media is impossible in The West – because the Mass Media is
pervasive and omni-seductive.
So powerful, so all-encompassing, so alluring, so
addictive that nobody who is compelled to remain within the modern situation
ever could be sufficiently firm, conscientious, wholly unflagging and
well-motivated to avoid each and every one of its almost infinite temptations.
Fighting the enticements of the modern Mass Media
is a constant battle; and constant battle first makes us jaded, then desperate,
finally leaves us exhausted – and when our resistance has thereby been
broken-down, then the Mass Media will
get us.
Resistance to assimilation by the Mass Media, hence
to the forces of darkness, requires unceasing vigilance, un-resting alertness,
unpunctuated strength of will... in other words requires super-human will power
and resolution – therefore, since we are not supermen, all our best
efforts must in practice inevitably be backed-up by recurrent repentance.
The total success of total resistance is an impossibility;
but perpetual resistance is necessary – indeed resistance makes all the difference: all the difference
between losing and keeping our souls.
Only by refusing to give-up the resistance, despite the inevitable demoralisation of our innumerable failures, will
we be able to gain any significant freedom.
However armoured you may be, you will have chinks
of weakness – if not now, then at some time or another, sooner or later.
And the Mass Media is omni-potently set-up to
penetrate all possible chinks of weakness.
And however tiny the initial penetration of your
armour; the Mass Media has the capability (and purpose) to enlarge that breach;
and like a parasitic wasp laying eggs inside a worm, where they may hatch and
devour it utterly from within, so the Mass Media can enlarge and grow within
you until it has consumed your soul – even starting from the smallest of
beginnings.
Is the situation then hopeless?
No – at least, not for a Christian. For a Christian
this is merely a quantitative amplification of normal life, life as it always
has been.
But – whether Christian or something else – the
situation does need continual vigilance, frequent prayer, sustained attempts to
restrict and minimize exposure, and an open-ended willingness to acknowledge
and repent your own multitudinous failures to resist the Mass Media; and the
renewing resolve – despite this – to try again, starting now.
This capacity to perceive and acknowledge one’s own
faults and failures, to take responsibility and repent, is surely near the core
of the Christian life, and far, far more important than the strength of armour
or will-power.
Christianity is not, ever, under any circumstances, only a matter of following rules with
perfect obedience – and even if this were possible (and in the case of the
modern Mass Media for most people most of the time it is not possible perfectly to follow the rules of righteousness) – then
to follow the right rules for the wrong reasons or in the wrong (un-loving)
spirit is also utterly worthless.
Our recidivism, our endless failures, ought to
makes us ever-more humble and grateful for the forgiveness consequent upon
Christ’s atonement.
In general, so long as we acknowledge and repent –
and do not defend, nor justify, nor
rationalize – our failures, either to ourselves or to others; the number and
frequency of our inevitable failures is immaterial, and we will not be – we cannot be – corrupted by the Mass Media
beyond prospect of rescue at the last.
How to cure an addicted
society
Modern society is addicted to distraction – to the
Mass Media: also and related, addicted to sex, drugs, news, soaps, fashion and
celebrity.
Withdrawal from these makes people feel bad, makes
them feel (sometimes) that life is hardly worth living, that they are lonely,
that people are bored-by and disrespect them.
So is there any incentive to give-up the
addictions, and go through an unpleasant withdrawal? Only if what awaits you on the other side of withdrawal is better
than being an addict.
Only if there is hope.
To give-up addiction to distractions entails
believing that if you were not distracted
from reality, and became aware of reality; then reality would be better than
the distractions.
But if a person believes that reality is dull or
horrible, and distraction is better than reality – or if he believes that the
reality actually is itself and
properly one or another life of distraction (and so life is just a choice
between distractions, then total extinction) – then he will not attempt to
give-up his addiction.
So, to give up addiction to distraction, a person
must believe that real reality is better than the virtual realities of a life
of distraction.
People need know that reality is not a bitter pill
(nor is it a ‘red pill’!) – that reality is a deep joy.
It is not that there is ‘nothing to be afraid of’
from reality – there is plenty to be afraid of. But reality is, despite all, a
deep joy – the deep joy: reality is
the deep joy which makes-real all other joys (and without-which all other joys
are subverted into virtual realities).
In sum, although we can escape domination by the
Mass Media by withdrawal, staying free of its clutches entails having hope of somewhere
to escape to – belief in the reality of a haven; and that ‘somewhere’ must
be, in the end, religion.
However, the first step is to escape.
Escaping
the colonization of small talk
The domination of the Mass Media in
modern society is seen in the fact that it has colonized casual interaction; and typically provides the material
for ‘small talk’ between strangers and slight acquaintances – and in this
respect small talk presents some of the greatest difficulties for anyone who
has made significant progress toward curing his own media addiction.
Small talk interactions are casual,
easy, reassuring bonding-experiences precisely because they assume (without
having to argue or justify) a common basis of fact and interpretation – we can
flag-up a topic in a phrase, and then have a common basis for complaint,
praise, concern or whatever, as the theme of conversation.
Yet – because all the major Mass
Media stories suitable for casual conversation have been polluted at source
(indeed these are precisely those Mass Media stories which are most rigorously
and coercively selected, filtered and seeded with lies) – casual small talk has
become the most saturated with secular
Leftism of all societal discourse.
And this situation is irremediable,
at the micro-level – because to attempt to correct the Mass Media perspective
destroys the fact of small talk.
Such that, if someone introduces a
topic for small talk with a stranger or semi-stranger, then they do not want,
and will be bored, offended or repelled by, any attempt to ‘correct’ the bias,
selectivity and lies which they have been fed and which they now believe.
If you have ever tried to do this,
you will know what I mean; and how counter-productive this generally is; the
way that people – perfectly understandably and naturally – shrink away from ‘correction’
by a stranger, and are irritated by what they perceive to be subversion of the
friendliness of small talk by ‘preaching’.
And yet, despite its poor reception –
and despite its being often counter-productive, Christians are tempted to correct others in the context
of small talk, since it seems so wrong to allow people to persist in dangerous
or sinful misunderstandings and belief in lies.
My feeling is that small talk simply is indeed a major arena of political
correctness, and a major mechanism for spreading the sexual revolution, and the
locus for the evaluation system of secular hedonic nihilism – but that all this
bad stuff cannot be tackled by direct
correction but only by exclusion of topics.
I think we simply have to refrain from discussions of Mass Media
stories in small talk; and that this is best done by genuine ignorance – but if
(as is usual) we have indeed picked-up some awareness of current Mass Media big
stories; then we must confess the truth that we don’t really know anything about them and mistrust the sources – then (if possible) we try to deflect the small talk into the here-and-now:
the weather, harmless gossip about friends and family, health, sports, travel
experiences and holiday plans... the usual barber’s shop/ hairdresser’s stuff.
There is, of course, an indirect (and
more or less subtle) point being-made by gently but firmly refusing to participate in the ritual celebration/ condemnation stances
approved by the Mass Media – and perhaps this point may be communicated to
some people?
Most likely, however, most people
will either be mildly and temporarily irritated, or else will-not-notice that
the conversation has been deflected away-from the Mass Media.
But some good has been done, however
small, by each and every individual refusal personally to participate in the
propagation and expansion of major Mass Media stories, and their
always-evil-tending perspective and implications.
Withdrawal
and detox programme
Actually, there is really no need for anything complex in this
endeavour to cure ourselves of Mass Media addiction; since withdrawal from the
Mass Media is more like going ‘cold turkey’ from heroin (feels very bad, but
won’t kill you) than it is like suddenly
stopping alcohol consumption (which is extremely dangerous, often fatal).
Breaking-out from Mass Media
addiction and the accompanying indoctrination, (manipulation into evil) is for
many people the vital first step in recovering from the nihilistic psychosis of
modern life.
Therefore,
media detox may be a necessary preliminary to becoming a Christian; for someone
who is seeking God, but finds the way forward blocked by the own
media-inculcated prejudices and habits.
But,
as well as not killing you; the good news is that the process of withdrawal is
simple and the healing is spontaneous; because it is only the continuous high
volume consumption of mass media that is keeping us sick.
So,
at root, the detox programme is merely a matter of Just. Say. No.
1.
Do not seek out mass media.
2. Develop mental ‘blinkers’ so as not to notice or be
distracted by mass media.
3. Turn away (physically and or mentally) when you do notice and
are distracted by mass media.
4. When you fail or mess-up (and you will); then fully
acknowledge the fact of your failure; repent and start again.
Positive treatment entails:
1. Filling your mind with good things (so bad things have a
harder time getting-in)
2. Living in the present moment (self- remembering Me! Here!
Now!), take notice of experience as it happens.
3. Ensuring unstructured, undistracted solitary time – sitting,
walking, travelling, contemplating etc.
A new evaluation system:
1. Attitudes – treat the Mass Media as you would a conference of
con-men; people you know are out to exploit you, trick you: somehow, anyhow.
2. Knowledge – Recognise that the Mass Media is so dishonest
that you learn nothing true from it: there is biased reporting, gross selection
within reports, and there are made-up lies and falsehoods seeded throughout.
Thus the Mass Media is misleading in its general trend, its
specific framing, and in its fine detail. Nothing about it can be assumed
correct. And it is in practice very seldom possible to detect and discount all
of the ongoing dishonestys: the most
dangerous delusion is that you personally can filter the Mass Media, decode
and see through its biases, selections and lies to discern the truth of the
situation.
So there is no programme for quitting the Mass Media, and indeed
no ‘antidote’ is required; rather the de-programming begins to happen as soon
as you begin significantly to cut yourself off from the Mass Media.
Of course, you will still be wrong about many things – probably
about most things – but you will no longer be believing incoherent, manipulative,
nihilistic nonsense.
This is not about trying to be right about everything but about
trying to avoid the common state of being crazily and incurably wrong about all
the most important things of life.
Only after you have escaped from the toils of the Mass Media can
you, will you, begin again to think-straight – to see what is going-on in
yourself, your life and the world around you.
For many, Mass Media withdrawal is a necessary first step in
pursuit of anything better. Because so long as someone is addicted to the Mass
Media, all potential gains are swept-away by unrelenting distraction; by
recurrent episodes of amnesia or intoxication.
Who needs withdrawal and
detox?
I have suggested that the Mass Media is an
addictive drug for modern Man, and that it is necessary to undergo withdrawal
and detoxification.
But why? Withdrawal and detox are unpleasant
experiences, and to be a non-addict in an addicted world – a world of dedicated
drug-pushers, drug-seekers and drug-users – is socially isolating.
What benefits lie on the other side of the costly
process of curing Mass Media addiction?
The major benefit is to become psychologically
independent of the drug pushers. An addict needs his fix; and Mass Media
addicts need ever larger and more frequent doses of their drug which makes them
utterly dependent on the media providers.
It is not good for you to be dependent on drug
pushers such as the Mass Media, because they
do not have your best interests at heart; they will say or do whatever is
required to sell more of their drug; creating new addicts and expanding the
consumption of existing addicts. Pushers exploit
their clients; to be an addict, is to be exploited.
The exploitation involves extraction of your money
(as with advertising), of your attention, of your time... It involves shaping
your mind by social, political and ideological propaganda. It involves filling
your mind with lies, and suppressing truths; promoting Media-approved (i.e.
inverted) morals, and demonizing Media-disapproved (i.e. Good) morals.
And there are all kinds of other exploitations:
both short-term, tactical, individual-level exploitations (such as wholesale
sexual manipulation and vulnerability to predation by media celebrities); and
long-termist, strategic, socially-attitudinal Media manipulations (such as
creating a public climate in which successful sexual predators are admired and
rewarded with honours, prizes and praise).
In a nutshell, for you to be dependent on the media
is for you to be exploited by the media; in so many possible ways that they
cannot all simultaneously be defended against.
Any media addict such as you are is therefore being
manipulated – whether you realize it or not; and being induced into attitudes,
beliefs and behaviours that advantage the manipulators – whether they realize
it or not.
And that is why everybody
without exception including yourself – absolutely needs to undergo the
painful process of Mass Media withdrawal and detox.
*
The End *
Postscript:
the Jimmy Savile affair
A significant stimulus to write this book came from
the explosive revelations of the Jimmy Savile affair during 2012 and after –
and my developing understanding of the implications.
The Savile affair reveals the leading controllers
of the Mass Media in particular, and public leaders in general, as being
disgustingly corrupt in terms of what they tolerate and excuse.
Thus, I regard as a major national event the un-masking of the late Sir Jimmy Savile
(1926-2011) as a chronic, serial, wholesale, aggressively-predatory sexual
aggressor, abuser and rapist of boys and girls, men and women (including
mentally handicapped, disabled, ill and hospitalized juveniles) over a
timescale of more than half a century, and in reported numbers running into
many hundreds (with actual numbers in all likelihood being in thousands, since
many victims were incapable of understanding and reporting incidents).
The Savile affair constitutes, in my opinion, in
its totality; one of the most horrifying – and horrifically-revealing – events
in the history of England. And as a nation, the English have hardly yet begun
to digest the implications – that is, assuming we are capable of doing-so, in
such a nihilistic, shallow and distractible society as we have become.
The intense interest of this case is that Savile
was, for several decades but especially in the 1970s and 80s, massively promoted by the UK Mass Media
as nothing short of a lay saint, mostly due to his raising lots of money ‘for
charity’ and his work in ‘helping people’.
Jimmy Savile was essentially a creation of the BBC
– which is the British Broadcasting Corporation, the state-funded radio and
television network and focus of the UK Mass Media. Initially Savile was promted
as a teen idol, as radio DJ and also presenter of the TV flagship Top of the
Pops.
Later Savile was promoted in connection with young
children; and was, for instance, featured visiting children’s hospitals on
Christmas day. Later still, the BBC created a long-running Saturday evening
prime time family TV series called Jim’ll
Fix It (1975-1994) for Savile’s glorification as a patron of boys and
girls, the sick, the crippled and the handicapped - all of which categories are
noted among Savile’s known sexual victims. The purported aim of the series was
to arrange for a stream of young people to come to the studios and have their
daydreams fulfilled by Savile and his ‘team’. In practice, it seems that – all
too often – the opposite actually occurred.
Jimmy Savile was, indeed, one of the earliest
people to recognize the vast career possibilities of becoming personally very
rich, famous, powerful and protected from prosecution by well-publicized
charitable ‘giving’. The more Savile gave, the wealthier and more prestigious
he became. Until finally ‘Sir Jimmy’ was, apparently, everybody’s friend or
favourite Uncle; and his depredations were unstoppable: he was, and openly
boasted of being, a-law-unto-himself.
The media, and especially the BBC, thus made Savile
into the leading British representative of what it was to be a ‘good’ person,
held-up as an example to others.
And not just the media. Savile was awarded a Papal
knighthood to go with his British knighthood (Savile was one of the best-known
Roman Catholics in public life – despite, as we discovered, openly practising
assembly-line sex in the BBC studio dressing rooms with under-age-looking
girls); he was also apparently a close personal friend and guest of Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher; and also of the Queen and Royal Family. In other
words Savile was (so far as the masses could see) unanimously endorsed by
the establishment at the highest possible
level.
Despite being aware of his behind-the-scenes reputation,
these establishment idiots nonetheless invited Savile into their own homes to meet their own families; because now we
discover that many of these establishment figures had heard multiple reports
and complaints, and persistent and plausible rumours of his activities; and did
nothing, did not investigate, took no precautions; or else denied, and in sum
certainly covered-up what was really
going-on. It seems that the Establishment did not even use their insider
knowledge to safeguard their own loved ones!
(It is typical of the insanity of modernity that
the politically correct elite believe their own lies – even when contradicted
by personal knowledge and their own experience.)
And yet, to the unbiased eye Savile was very obviously a cold-eyed, self-promoting,
self-enriching, egotistical weirdo – with an embarrassingly inept persona; a
man who never conversed but spoke entirely
in cliches, and deflected enquiries with strange stereotypical noises and
displacement activities.
The only people whom I know who had actually met
Savile disliked him intensely; one knew him from their schooldays as being a
nasty teenager; a woman friend reported that on meeting Savile he made an
immediate, crude and sexually aggressive approach (i.e. groping) – as if it was
his habit and right to do so.
A very
obviously untrustworthy person.
So, on the one hand there was one’s own instinctive
reaction backed by personal contacts, which said Savile was nasty; and on the
other hand the Mass Media, especially the BBC, the government, the Royal
Family, numerous hospitals and prison services, and (for goodness sake!) the Vatican – all united in telling us that
Sir Jimmy was the nearest British equivalent to Mother Teresa (and I am not
exaggerating this in the slightest).
Add to this people in the police,
the legal system health service officials, educational officials who seemed to
endorse Savile despite (as we have heard) numerous reports, complaints,
incidents...
An outsider might ask if there
was any major group that was not involved, to a greater or lesser extent, in
covering-up and thereby promoting Saviles crimes?
And there we have it, in a nutshell. The necessary
relationship between Media reality and real reality is not just zero, but
potentially negative: the worse the
reality, the more the ‘establishment’ ruling elite, promoted it. The ‘lack of
discernment’ displayed by the Queen, the politicians, the Media moguls and the
Pope could not have been more extreme.
This is a perverse perfection of inversion: one of
the most (covertly) evil people that could be imagined, yet aggressively
promoted as being one of the best. And this situation continuing for decade
after decade; as the number of his victims accumulated through Savile’s long
and active life...
As I said, Sir Jimmy Savile was a creature created
and sustained by the Mass Media, and most specifically the state funded British
Broadcasting Corporation which was the primary source.
From the late 1960s, therefore, the premier UK Mass
Media organization was the origin, focus, energy, defender of the phenomenon of
Savile – which can be taken as merely the most egregious example currently
known of a general inversion of moral (and also aesthetic) values. The BBC, the
Mass Media, took this grotesquely-unpromising raw material, and made him into
the prime national moral hero, and kept this going, on-and-on, despite all they
suspected, heard, had seen and knew.
So we now know
(we no longer merely suspect the fact) that the Mass Media will take a truly
evil person (or it could be an evil organization, or an evil set of ideas) and
make him admired, dominant and invulnerable.
It has always been said, in excusing Savile (both
before and after the revelations) for his boring, inept and embarrassing
persona that he ‘gave’ millions of pounds to charity – some say forty million.
We now see that this charitable contribution was
more in the nature of a bribe than a
gift; money paid to ensure sexual access to the vulnerable children he preyed
upon, and protection money to prevent him being prosecuted (just one of the
hundreds of instances that have emerged would have meant Savile’s ruin and
probably jail time).
If we divide forty million pounds by the constantly
expanding number of probable sexual assaults over several decades; the
charitable contributions may eventually work-out to be something like a few
hundred pounds per sexual attack.
In other words, Savile’s charitable ‘giving’
functioned as a pay-off for Establishment status, a high salary, and political
protection; also sometimes as a kind of entrance fee to get access to
establishments where (as a patron) he could molest with impunity. It is likely
that Savile regarded this exchange as being good value for money…
Such ‘charity’ – rewarded by depraved and criminal
sexual gratification, personal wealth, and lavish official prestige is revealed
as licensed evil on the cheap.
But why
did this happen. Why was this all this done for somebody so wicked and
dangerous as Savile? Why was so much done to enable and facilitate vice on such
a vast scale? What reason could the
Mass Media establishment have for doing this apparently arbitrary thing? – what
did they stand to gain from it – why
not be more cautious?
The immediate cause of Savile’s
licence to abuse seems to have been the probable fact that in the BBC (and
presumably elsewhere in the Mass Media) with respect to sexual license almost
everybody was at it, to a greater or lesser extent; too many people had
something to hide – and, quite likely, it was calculated that bringing down
Savile would be to bring down the whole house of cards of Establishment sexual
corruption.
Because, following the Jimmy Saville affair and a
series of prominent prosecutions, convictions and confessions, it has become
apparent that there was what would be considered by religious traditionalists a
varied and widespread culture of endemic sexual transgression at the BBC.
The once exemplary British Broadcasting Corporation
in London had, from about the mid-1960s, seemingly become a moral cesspool, and
at times a criminal environment; involving not just the most obviously strange
and sinister Savile, but also other media personalities who were more generally
popular, and seemed to me and many others as if they were decent characters.
The fact that the most influential centre of UK
Mass Media was quite widely known (among those in the know) as a dangerous
place for children, implies that this had been an accepted fact; indeed it
looks as if sexual access is likely to have been, maybe still is, a major
motivational factor in those who work there.
I assume the same applies to other major media
institutions, who have at least tolerated – perhaps approved of this; since
otherwise the whistle would have been blown long, long ago.
The lessons I have learned from the Savile affair
are that:
1. We are unable to judge the moral worth of people
in public life from what we see on our screens. We think we can judge this, but
we cannot. Our instincts tell us we can, but we cannot. And this applies even,
or perhaps especially, to those put forward as moral exemplars. We must therefore resist reassurances that things
are alright, simply because we – the public – have not been allowed to learn
how bad they are. We now know things may be horrifically bad, and we are
allowed to know nothing about it.
2. The moral worth of people in public life is
much, much lower than we had previously supposed. Think again of all the major
Establishment figures and institutions who were complicit in endorsing and
protecting Savile… They knew, but did nothing.
We must therefore assume the worst of many, or most, people in public life – unless
specifically proven otherwise.
3. The evils consequent upon the sexual revolution
have been systematically-hidden, excused on multiple grounds, indulged, even
applauded. There must surely be a lot
of the same kind of things we do not know about in many other people,
circumstances and institutions; especially those most subject to the changes in
ethos dictated by the enforcement of
the sexual revolution. It is reasonable – indeed prudent – to assume the worst
until proven otherwise.
But those who do not want to learn from the Savile
Affair – including the many who were complicit – will not learn from it. And
they do not want the public to learn, either.
Already I detect that the whole business is going
down the memory hole – because in the modern world it is only the Mass Media
that keeps an issue alive, and the Mass Media has no interest in allowing the
implications and ramifications of the Savile Affair to be worked-through and
kept in mind
But there are
lessons; and we ought to learn them.
We should acknowledge the profound foolishness and danger of immersing
ourselves in the multiple influences from those depraved individuals in the
Mass Media and the Establishment who control and sustain public discourse.
And, having reflected, we must each of us resolve
to change our attitudes and practices in relation to the Mass Media.
To encourage such reflection, and toughen such
resolution, has been the main purpose of this book.
Technical Appendix
The Mass Media as a system
The Mass Media, as an autonomous social system, is a
relatively new thing; and (although already in existence) was only recognized
as an entity in its own right (The Media) from about the nineteen fifties, and
initially by Marshal McLuhan.
McLuhan’s catch phrase that ‘The Media is the Message’ is
the key insight here: that the form of the Mass media, its processes,
its evaluations, how it works – these are in fact the main fact about
the Mass Media above and beyond its specific content (which is, of course, extremely
various).
The various mass media are defined by communications which
go from one to many persons (or from a small group to a much larger one). In
sum, a mass medium is therefore at root a
system of amplification for
communications: such as a printed book or newspaper, a radio or TV program,
an internet blog or the social networking media such as (written in 2014) Facebook
and Twitter.
Before the Mass Media, there were several mass media – and
even in antiquity some of these reached quite a massive scale of amplification
such as the lecture, the play or gladiatorial and sport spectacles including
chariot racing. These in Roman times had reached an amplification rate of
one-to-many-thousands – thanks to the ‘technology’ of the amphitheatre or
hippodrome.
Any kind of durable writing is potentially a system of
amplification since it allows for multiple readers and copying; but the most
famous mass medium is the printed page – generally credited to Gutenberg’s
invention of moveable type around 1450.
But in these early times, the Mass Media was simply a range
of technologies for amplifying communications – and the communications
originated from social systems that had specific social functions; systems such
as government, the military, the legal system, the various arts, and
scholarship (such as theology, philosophy and science).
Early media took their functions from the social systems
they served. There was no single Mass Media, and the functions were as diverse
as informing and entertaining – for example when mass media amplified
government communications by transmitting them in writing by pamphlets or
through newspapers, they might provide information, or provide a conduit for
propaganda (i.e. communications primarily intended to shape behaviour), or
perhaps provide some kind of ethical inspiration or guidance. The mass medium
thus merely amplified the message of a functional system.
When a mass medium amplified science it was perhaps
educating via a textbook, informing via a scientific paper, or maybe popular
science (for entertainment or moral edification) in a newspaper or radio
broadcast.
When a mass medium amplified the arts (e.g. by printing a
novel or poem, by performing a play in a theatre, or broadcasting that play on
radio or television) it could be providing entertainment, or an aesthetic
experience, or moral reflection and teaching.
At this point, therefore, the various mass media had no
unified function – they were merely multiple mechanisms for amplifying the
communications of functional social systems – so it could be summarized that
they served to do something along the lines of conveying information, aesthetic
experience, entertainment or propaganda.
However, once the various mass media reached a certain size
and their communications began to cross-link; then the systems of mass media
communications began to communicate with each other; that is to refer
to, and to react to, each other. From the many separate mass media, the unity
of the Mass Media was born.
From this point the Mass Media could be considered a
separate system. It was no longer just a mechanism for amplifying the
communications from other systems, but in the Mass Media the various media
reacted to stimuli from each other – and the output from these was... more
reactions.
The Mass Media was a system of amplified and cross-linked
stimuli and reactions, and reactions which became stimuli. The system was now autonomous
– in the sense that a new system is considered to have separated-off when there
are more within-system communications than between-system communications.
So, now a newspaper runs a story – and this story could
originate from almost anywhere; discovered by the Mass Media’s own ‘reporters’,
from a press release, from a rumour; it does not really matter. And this story
is repeated in the broadcast media and across the internet and evokes reactions
from all these sources – leading to stories about the story; and any or several
of these stories about stories may lead to further reactions – and so on.
Thus while the old mass media were merely amplifiers of a
functional social system; the modern Mass Media is substantially independent of
the other social systems. Whereas the old mass media would typically serve a
social function – because it was simply telling more people what other social
systems had generated; the modern Mass Media select, re-shape and just plain
invent outputs which are ‘designed’ (intended) merely to evoke reactions from
itself.
Therefore while the old mass media had no intrinsic function
because they were not ‘a system’, but instead merely a set of amplifiers; the
modern Mass Media also has no intrinsic function but for the very different
reason that it generates outputs mainly to evoke reactions from itself.
All this is not, of course, purely technological: humans are
necessarily involved.
The constraint upon the growth of the Mass Media is that people
must be induced to participate cognitively in this process of reacting. The
system of the modern Mass Media must therefore include human minds, as
well as technologies. Somebody must read some of the newspapers and react in
some way – whether by buying, or gossiping, or voting, or rioting – and thus
provide both resources and feedback stimuli thereby to close the loop and
re-fuel the Mass Media
The point is that it may at one time have been reasonable to
summarize the mass media’s functions as (say) informing and entertaining –
since the mass media took information perhaps from science and amplified it and
got people to attend to it; now the Mass Media generates stories which it
references to science, but these stories do not have to be true – certainly the
stories do not need to be true according to scientific
criteria.
Modern Media science stories are therefore simply references
and reactions to ‘science’, and may variously be true or selected, distorted or
invented as seems most likely to provoke Mass Media responses some of which
will lead on to further Mass Media responses – of a type that engages
sufficient people in such a way as to fuel further communications (buying more
newspapers, generating advertising revenue or subscriptions or buying more
equipment or whatever).
But there is now no reason why a science story should be true;
so, of course, they seldom are true. Indeed, they are not even trying to
be true.
Similarly with entertainment. For traditional mass media to
amplify entertainments the communications generally had to be enjoyable
– to sell a lot of copies of a novel, people generally had to enjoy that novel;
to get a lot of people to watch something on TV, it needed to make people
happy, or excited or make them laugh or something...
But in the modern Mass Media, entertainment does not need to
entertain; since almost everybody is addicted to the Mass Media, just so long
as a communication compels some kind of attention, then this works just
as well as providing entertainment; and since it is difficult to entertain
people en masse and for long periods,
in the modern Mass Media there is not much entertaining going-on...
So although there remains an element of entertainment, the
modern Mass Media attract attention by any and every means: by evoking disgust,
horror, fear, lust, repulsion, self-satisfaction, pity for others, self-pity,
hero-worship, scape-goating... and then reacting to these responses, and
reacting to the reactions.
The most representative modern Mass Media event is therefore
some kind of staged pseudo-’reality’ TV show, consisting of people who evoke
strong reactions, engineered into situations designed to evoke responses –
which may then be displayed to elicit further responses; all this ramifying
through and cross-referenced in the print, internet and social messaging media.
In the UK, these include various “Big Brother” and “I’m a
Celebrity” TV series; each of which is treated by the Mass Media as a major
national event, and accorded saturation coverage.
These ‘reality TV’ shows neither entertain nor inform; but
are calculated simply to attract and engage attention by whatever means, and
evoke opinions and behavioural feedback which may be harvested and channelled
into an iterative process which serves nothing beyond its own growth in
communications.
An iterative
process which serves nothing beyond its own growth in communications – this
phrase is a reasonable summary of the essence of the modern Mass Media.
What makes the Mass Media, overall, an evil influence on
individuals and on society is firstly that these self-serving and futile communications
displace functional communications; secondly, that the form of the Mass Media
trains people in the nihilistic mode of thinking I term Opinionated Relativism,
and thirdly that forces of evil use the Mass Media as a weapon against
the Good: so the larger the Mass Media grows, the more it destroys of the true,
the beautiful and the virtuous.
Notes and
references
This book is written from a small number of sources, and a
great deal of brooding on them in light of the Mass Media addiction I share
with nearly everybody in Britain – and from which I struggle to escape; fail,
then try again.
The key figure in Mass Media studies is of course Marshal
McLuhan – and of his (mostly wrong or silly!) books the two with most influence
on me were The Gutenberg Galaxy: the making of typographic man of 1962,
and McLuhan: Hot and Cool – a 1968 Penguin paperback of excerpts, essays
and interviews edited by GE Stearn.
I also read and pondered a strange and difficult book of
systems theory by Niklas Luhmann called The reality of the mass media in
the Polity Press translation of 2000; which led to my own reflections published
in The Modernization Imperative (Bruce Charlton and Peter Andras,
Imprint Academic, 2003); and a paper on the ‘paradoxical’ aspects of the Mass
Media:
Charlton BG. The paradox of the modern mass media: probably
the major source of social cohesion in liberal democracies, even though its
content is often socially divisive. Medical
Hypotheses. 2006; 67: 205-8.
These earlier ideas provided some insights to which I still
adhere – but their basic idea that the Mass Media communications generate
cohesion in modern societies I now regard as completely wrong!
The ideas in this present book are a product of the past
half-decade when I have been a Christian; and especially of my blog Bruce
Charlton’s Miscellany where I have floated notions to gather feedback and
criticism from a small, engaged group (changing over time) who generously read
the things I write, and make stimulating and sometimes important comments.
In general terms, this book itself exemplifies the opposite
of the Mass Media method. Whereas life in the Mass Media world is about
exposing oneself to vastly greater quantities of perceptual data than can
possibly be reflected-upon; this book derives from a relatively low proportion
of informational input in relation to the amount of cognitive processing.
In other words, for what it’s worth, this book represents
the result of an awful lot of thinking-about a relatively small amount of
stuff!