The Media and Cultural Brainwashing
Jan 26, 2018 11:07:05 GMT -6
Post by Todd on Jan 26, 2018 11:07:05 GMT -6
We are complicit in our own moral destruction. We watch television and movies that are either carefully contrived to produce moral laxity and relativism, or that are already morally bankrupt. This is done in almost every presentation aired or that makes it to theaters. It is accomplished by sympathetic portrayal of various aspects of life without passing judgment on them. The tacit notion is that the behavior itself is okay, or that the belief in question is permissible; only certain politically incorrect results are to be avoided.
It works like this: the movie may tell a story about a businessman or a famous actress. The story can have as many twists and turns our ups and downs as the writers want it to have. The story will proceed to its predetermined ending, and we will be entertained. But the sex, lies, betrayals, and other moral lapses along the way that are incidental to the storyline, but that receive no overt condemnation (or condemnation improperly conceived) make them appear as if such behaviors are, if not praiseworthy, at least not blameworthy either and hence, “normal.”
We consider movies involving, but not actually about, murder, sex between “consenting adults,” situation ethics, lying, and so forth to be entertaining, but the brainwashing is subtle but ubiquitous. Years ago we spoke of such things pejoratively as “promoting evil,” as failures to provide “good examples,” as “being a bad influence,” and “teaching the wrong lessons.” Today, we just sit back and watch – when we are not blowing each other up on our Nintendo’s.
And so it is with the other issues of our time. Evolution is used in a wide variety of contexts, but always assumes the truth or facticity of the theory, which in fact has not a scintilla of evidence in its support. Climate Change (newspeak for “Global Warming”) is usually accompanied by a tacit belief that mankind and industrialization are its cause. Vengeance provides an entire genre of movies in which extreme violence seems justified in human terms, but the complaint against “taking matters into your own hands,” is not that “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord,” but “you should let the police (or the courts) handle it,” again promoting the human at the expense of the divine.
Drunkenness and drug use are often (but not always) assumed to be minor matters to be accepted or rejected as items of personal taste, and justifiably rising to the point of public concern only when injuries to others result. These examples illustrate the very nature of our failure. It reflects (or produces within us) an acceptance of relativism, eclecticism, tolerance, directionlessness, utilitarianism, and hedonism that can only be described as Secular Humanism. And although there have always been secular perspectives and humanisms of one sort or another, they have never been so unified and culturally pervasive as to engage in outright warfare against Christianity such as we see today. Nor has the church ever before been so defenseless against the onslaught. Because never has Secular Humanism been so at home in the church.
This leads to personal complacency in our outlook. We tend to look at television and movies and the media in general, as morally neutral, and generally harmless. This could not be further from the truth. But it suggests yet another use of the media in purveying, if not error, certainly meaningless yet inflammatory blather, i.e., news shows, twitter feeds, and opinion polls. These grow directly out of or contribute to both the strength of and the apparent harmlessness of the media. As a brief aside let us admonish public figures and media spokesman as follows: first, do not appeal to public opinion. This is not only a step toward direct popular democracy but elevates that which is, by its nature, ephemeral and fickle. Second, do not respond publicly to allegations no matter how ridiculous they may be. Do not cast your pearls before swine, nor seek acceptance via retaliatory sound-bites in news outlets. To do so only encourages media to “make up” news out of thin air, innuendo, and opinion, which is only very rarely factual. Furthermore, most such cases can be handled by established means i.e., court, Congress, etc.
We have already justifiably put several restrictions on “free speech.” We cannot commit libel without consequences. We cannot verbally insight to riot without consequences and we (most of us) cannot lie to Congress without consequences. We cannot lie to the government, but it can lie to us, and does so every day. And politicians themselves scarcely know what the truth is if we may judge by matching their speech to their behavior.
Perhaps it is time for us to neutralize the purveyors of misinformation. Let us, for a moment, share a pipe dream. There is no chance at all that this will ever come to pass, but in sharing it, we might illustrate the very nature of the problem. Suppose we deliberately behaved in such a way as to refuse to share any information we were not sure was true? What if we stopped passing opinion, spin, and conjecture off as fact? What if we remained silent unless we could speak truly? It used to be said, “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Why not only speak factually or remain silent?
Having given up passing fantasy off as fact, the next thing we should do would be to not deliberately expose ourselves to the lies, fantasies, and conjectures of others. This would not be necessary but for the fact that our culture has been “permissive,” and “tolerant” for so long that not only can we no longer think critically, we don’t even stress critical thinking in most college classes. [Indeed, truly critical thinking would eliminate many classes and several popular majors on college campuses across America.]
In our culture, being now what it has been becoming for over 120 years, it is unlikely that we shall “see no evil.” But as the next best option, what if we see to it that we “hear no palaver,” and “speak no palaver?”
- Todd
It works like this: the movie may tell a story about a businessman or a famous actress. The story can have as many twists and turns our ups and downs as the writers want it to have. The story will proceed to its predetermined ending, and we will be entertained. But the sex, lies, betrayals, and other moral lapses along the way that are incidental to the storyline, but that receive no overt condemnation (or condemnation improperly conceived) make them appear as if such behaviors are, if not praiseworthy, at least not blameworthy either and hence, “normal.”
We consider movies involving, but not actually about, murder, sex between “consenting adults,” situation ethics, lying, and so forth to be entertaining, but the brainwashing is subtle but ubiquitous. Years ago we spoke of such things pejoratively as “promoting evil,” as failures to provide “good examples,” as “being a bad influence,” and “teaching the wrong lessons.” Today, we just sit back and watch – when we are not blowing each other up on our Nintendo’s.
And so it is with the other issues of our time. Evolution is used in a wide variety of contexts, but always assumes the truth or facticity of the theory, which in fact has not a scintilla of evidence in its support. Climate Change (newspeak for “Global Warming”) is usually accompanied by a tacit belief that mankind and industrialization are its cause. Vengeance provides an entire genre of movies in which extreme violence seems justified in human terms, but the complaint against “taking matters into your own hands,” is not that “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord,” but “you should let the police (or the courts) handle it,” again promoting the human at the expense of the divine.
Drunkenness and drug use are often (but not always) assumed to be minor matters to be accepted or rejected as items of personal taste, and justifiably rising to the point of public concern only when injuries to others result. These examples illustrate the very nature of our failure. It reflects (or produces within us) an acceptance of relativism, eclecticism, tolerance, directionlessness, utilitarianism, and hedonism that can only be described as Secular Humanism. And although there have always been secular perspectives and humanisms of one sort or another, they have never been so unified and culturally pervasive as to engage in outright warfare against Christianity such as we see today. Nor has the church ever before been so defenseless against the onslaught. Because never has Secular Humanism been so at home in the church.
This leads to personal complacency in our outlook. We tend to look at television and movies and the media in general, as morally neutral, and generally harmless. This could not be further from the truth. But it suggests yet another use of the media in purveying, if not error, certainly meaningless yet inflammatory blather, i.e., news shows, twitter feeds, and opinion polls. These grow directly out of or contribute to both the strength of and the apparent harmlessness of the media. As a brief aside let us admonish public figures and media spokesman as follows: first, do not appeal to public opinion. This is not only a step toward direct popular democracy but elevates that which is, by its nature, ephemeral and fickle. Second, do not respond publicly to allegations no matter how ridiculous they may be. Do not cast your pearls before swine, nor seek acceptance via retaliatory sound-bites in news outlets. To do so only encourages media to “make up” news out of thin air, innuendo, and opinion, which is only very rarely factual. Furthermore, most such cases can be handled by established means i.e., court, Congress, etc.
We have already justifiably put several restrictions on “free speech.” We cannot commit libel without consequences. We cannot verbally insight to riot without consequences and we (most of us) cannot lie to Congress without consequences. We cannot lie to the government, but it can lie to us, and does so every day. And politicians themselves scarcely know what the truth is if we may judge by matching their speech to their behavior.
Perhaps it is time for us to neutralize the purveyors of misinformation. Let us, for a moment, share a pipe dream. There is no chance at all that this will ever come to pass, but in sharing it, we might illustrate the very nature of the problem. Suppose we deliberately behaved in such a way as to refuse to share any information we were not sure was true? What if we stopped passing opinion, spin, and conjecture off as fact? What if we remained silent unless we could speak truly? It used to be said, “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Why not only speak factually or remain silent?
Having given up passing fantasy off as fact, the next thing we should do would be to not deliberately expose ourselves to the lies, fantasies, and conjectures of others. This would not be necessary but for the fact that our culture has been “permissive,” and “tolerant” for so long that not only can we no longer think critically, we don’t even stress critical thinking in most college classes. [Indeed, truly critical thinking would eliminate many classes and several popular majors on college campuses across America.]
In our culture, being now what it has been becoming for over 120 years, it is unlikely that we shall “see no evil.” But as the next best option, what if we see to it that we “hear no palaver,” and “speak no palaver?”
- Todd