Why is there no outcry?

The answer is that there is an outcry but it’s being made fun of … by us.

In any full-on, massive war, such as Stalingrad in the Great Patriotic War, it was a question of where the line was drawn. Would it be Stalingrad or Gorky or Moscow or what? City by city falls, each one a strategic coup.

Or alternatively, Yes Minister’s “salami tactics”. At which point do you press the button?

To revisit Yuri Bezmenov [remembering that though he was referring to the Soviet era and America, it’s just as relevant to today’s globalized world]:

To “change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that – despite the abundance of information – no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.”

To get more specific:

This multi-stage process requires media complicity/mediocrity, control of educational policy, widespread corruption in politics and industry, and the unlimited money/credit of the international bankers.

The moment the words “international bankers” were used, how many turned off immediately? That’s because buzzwords and phrases have been used so gratuitously that they’re simply a trigger to turn people off, whether or not the people described are a problem or not. To say those two words immediately brands a person as being of a certain political hue rather than gets people to see the issue.

Ditto with identifying something as leftist or politically correct. The reason both are so rabid is that they feel they are pursuing great truths, e,g, equality, fairness and they tack on freedom – surely things anyone would want? The problem is the intergenerational shift in perception of what is right or wrong or even that there is a right or wrong.

Frankfurt School. How many turned off at those two words? If you stack the universities and schools with leftists, so that you grow up believing these people great philosophers, then what chance anyone quoting proponents of that school being quite open about the subversion of society and its demoralization?

And even the whole idea of Left. The question of the expanded State has something to say on subversion generally. Henry Makow:

It is important to understand that the goal of ideological subversion is NOT to convert everyone to the left. Leftist ideology must only be presented as a legitimate alternative for the subversion to be successful. The Hegelian dialectic does the rest, and when the economic structure deteriorates within the target nation, the subverted population – divided, dumbed down, short-sighted and reactive – will beg for the expansion of government programs.

For example, the new tolerance for the intolerable and discrimination under the guise of non-discrimination. And the real enemy pushing this change, the tireless workers for demoralization over the decades and generations are involved in massive propaganda, such that good is now mocked and destructive is tolerated as chic or demonstrating one’s sophistication.

As Bezmenov says, a slow process taking generations, each more demoralized than the previous. And why would they be actively trying to destroy their own society? Obviously they don’t think they are – they think they’re moving towards some new ideological utopia where everyone loves each other and drugs and incest, sexualization of children and gutter thinking, rather than nobility, are all part of this brave new society of enforced mediocrity and demoralization.

It’s vital that opponents are vilified. The Church is the traditional opponent of this process so it must be marginalized. The excesses such as the paedophile scandal, the reaction against “thou shalt not”, the abortion fight, the corrupt megachurch in America, based on money, the hypocrisy of many claming to be Christian, e.g. Jimmy Swaggart, the evangelical movement, Rowan Williams and so on – the purpose is to equate Church with hypocritical stick-in-the-muds.

No mention of the succour the Church actually gave over the centuries through things like hospices and that the goal is comfort and aid for the unfortunate in society. No mention of anything positive whatever. Not just the Church either but anyone who rises to influence:

Scrupulous and influential opponents are discredited, threatened or murdered. It goes very slowly, and its purpose is to eventually bring the target nation to total collapse, when efficient shifts of power structure and economy can take place.

One major arm of this multipronged attack is pornography and in particular, internet pornography. It’s something only talked about in absolute terms, by the Moral on one side and the Libertarian on the other. There is no middle ground. It is one of a plethora of issues which send people into opposed camps and into adversarial debate, rather than discussion of what is really happening.

The very language employed and the buzzwords immediately identify where you are on the debate. The very fact that I’d run a post on pornography labels me, before any of the arguments are looked at. I read a post the other day where the blogger asked why looking at filth doesn’t corrupt the censors?

That is a subtle example of winning the debate on the filth by putting a philosophical nicety. It’s a good point about censors and as you know, censorship is a hot topic and anathema to any libertarian who fails to see that he does that every day with his own kids – censors what they can and can’t do, decides what’s appropriate in so many areas, not just moral.

So, by taking a legitimate point – that adults are old enough to look after themselves, they extend that to the vulnerable as well and leave them as prey to the unscrupulous. This is part of the process of demoralization and you only need look back at Marcuse and others of that school to see it in black and white. But who looks back and does that? How many in society even know about Marcuse and his inordinate influence in the 50s and 60s?

And those inspired by the icons of that time, the Boomers, sang good ole Bob Dylan’s:

Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command; your old road is rapidly ageing.

Who would have thought at the time that today’s sons and daughters would be way beyond their parents’ influence and subject to the world culture controlled and funded by the very people who would enslave all of us?

So, by funding a Vietnam, tapping into the patriotism of the majority, there would be an opposition, mainly young and these people would generally kick against any moral code at all because moral codes are now associated with authoritarianism and oppression [don’t you oppress me] and this breaks the authority of both the Church [seen now only as thou shalt not and not as love thy neighbour] and the parent. Dylan was subtle: “beyond your command“.

Command. As a parent, do you command your children or advise them when necessary? So Dylan’s song is a strawman but very few of that era would have seen it as such.

The media is as guilty as any in the process. Just as Bilderbergers like Kaletsky and many others infest the newsprint media, key people infest social comentary. Thus we get a NYT article about some parent introducing a kid to pornography or about the new kindergarten which is “genderless” in Sweden.

There are some of us who are old enough and still recall a time of social morality who write this in reaction to such articles in the NYT:

My biggest concern with this article is the parents who allow certain pornographic sites to be available to their children – in fact, pointing it out to them so they know where to look. This is not a parenting choice – it is a criminal act. Showing sexual images to a minor IS against the law, whether it is your child or not. If this was a teacher or a coach showing these “appropriate” sites to a minor, he or she would be charged.

How many of you would agree that it is a criminal act or to go further, a crime against humanity? I’d wager not all that many these days, certainly with anyone who is Gen X or younger. Gen X is the generation where the bathwater was thrown out with the baby [I’m a cross between the two]

In the 50s and 60s, finding your father’s Playboys was the extent of your pornography as a kid or in the images some kid brought to school one day, was confiscated by the staff and the kids all joked about what the staff were doing during lunch break.

There’s always been porn – look at Pietro Aretino during the renaissance, there’ve always been the bohemians but they were a section of society. Does no one see that what we have now is saturation porn in ever part of what kids will naturally turn to each day, e.g. the internet and smartphone, the social forum and in gaming.

Saturation doesn’t point to an enlightened era – saturation points to the endpoint of a long propaganda campaign, where, to quote Bexmenov again, the aim was:

To “change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that – despite the abundance of information – no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.”

To say that kids’ exposure to wall-to-wall hardcore porn harms or doesn’t harm ignores the fact that there has been a mighty shift. Such material in the 50s would have been anathema with the majority and as for giving it to kids – those people would have been subject to the full stringency of the law. Now people look at it and can’t even avoid a yawn.

Even this post is being read by many who’ve been subverted themselves but can’t possibly know that because they don’t measure it against a point in the past. What there was at that point in the past was a basically functional society which could defend itself against enemies without and within.

How many would agree with this mother today:

Internet porn is a huge problem for parents. When kids’ curiosity used to take them to Playboy or Penthouse, it was pretty harmless, if racy and exciting to them. But now a similar, natural level of curiosity takes them to truly warped, extreme, and sometimes violent video content that can really impact them at an age when they are just forming their understanding of sex.

She’ll be mocked for that view today and pundits will write that she is supporting censorship “for the cheeldren”. How on earth can a desire to protect one’s children from harm be translated in to mockery of anyone wishing to defend kids?

These pundits will answer: “It’s because the Left and the State are seizing on any opportunity, any sub-section of society they know will bring out naturally protective instincts in people to push anti-freedom legislation and to expand the State, as in the quote above:

the subverted population – divided, dumbed down, short-sighted and reactive – will beg for the expansion of government programs

In other words, they are cynically exploiting people’s natural feelings, such as in porn itself, to twist it into an act of enslavement.”

And I’d agree 100% with those pundits – that is precisely what the enemy is doing. So it then becomes impossible to counter, for in opposing those who cry “for the cheeldren”, we have to reject the interests of the cheeldren who are being politically used by the enemy.

We’re being polarized and thrown into polarized camps, defined by the enemy, using the language established by the enemy, in order to blunt any genuine opposition to the underlying process going on.

It’s not just with internet porn, is it? It’s in every field from medicine to the courts. Positions defined by the enemy and one must be for or against. Why can’t I wish to preserve freedom for adults and at the same time wish to preserve the right of parents and the means of censoring what their kids do?

All right – censoring is too emotive? Let’s rephrase it – why can’t I wish to preserve freedom for adults and at the same time wish to preserve the right of parents and the means of determining protective limits for their kids? You see here in these two versions the power of language as a weapon.

If you think that kids constantly seeing, day in, day out, a steady diet of other kids, on film, being double penetrated or that someone teenage can be a “pornstar”, then something has happened to your moral compass. That does not mean that I am calling for you to be censored. That does mean that parents should be able to resist the onslaught of this sort of thing for their progeny and expect that some vague sort of standards of decency apply to what they’re going to grow up with.

You don’t need to go to strawman defined extreme positions here. You only need take a halfway sane reasonable middle position and then show outrage at what is actually going on at the extreme end, which is now the ubiquitous end.

5 comments for “Why is there no outcry?

  1. Jack Savage
    May 23, 2012 at 9:15 am

    To which I can only say…”Hear , hear!”

  2. Furor Teutonicus
    May 23, 2012 at 9:26 am

    XX To “change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that – despite the abundance of information – no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.” XX

    And hence, Governments just LOVE conspiracy theories. Would not mind betting that a lot of them are started by Governments themselves to “hide their tracks”.

    Or… is THAT a “conspiracy theory”?

  3. May 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Can’t disagree. Lady made a point over at my place on this topic that yes, that might be so but the responsibility, in the end, comes down to the parents.

    Yes, that’s so but look at the parents from hell today. Some of these people couldn’t make a protective decision if their lives depended on it. Solution? State steps in? Don’t think anyone around OoL would advocate that.

    Horns of a dilemma.

  4. Single Acts of Tyranny
    May 23, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    “censorship is a hot topic and anathema to any libertarian who fails to see that he does that every day with his own kids”

    Of course I know I censor what 3-year old Master SAOT can see and do. He isn’t in a position as yet to make sensible choices about possible danger (playing in the road) or reasonable choices about TV (So Peppa Pig, okay, Texas Chainsaw massacre, not so much).

    But as he gets older and more aware, the censorship will reduce and when he is an adult, I will offer him any advice and guidance he wants, but I won’t censor him.

    This is the distinction.

  5. May 23, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    But as he gets older and more aware, the censorship will reduce and when he is an adult, I will offer him any advice and guidance he wants, but I won’t censor him.

    That’s exactly the point – gradual relinquishing of the reins, at the parents’ [and kid’s] discretion, by negotiation and/or some angst.

Comments are closed.