The brainwashed and the ignorant

Children of the Revolution

The brainwashing of children 

            I am afraid this will be a somewhat indelicate post as it has to deal very largely with matters indecent; it is, unfortunately, impossible to comment on the media for very long without treating of such things.

            Readers will have been aware of the mass murder event in Toronto earlier in the 2018 in which a young Canadian citizen of Armenian extraction killed ten people and injured sixteen after leaving a Facebook message in praise of a Eurasian-American killer who took six lives and injured fourteen people last year.  The mainstream media reported both killing sprees at great length and in detail with all the coverage focusing on the killers' extensive use of social media platforms catering for so-called 'incels' – the sexually unsuccessful in a world where success is defined by promiscuous quantity rather than faithful marital quality.  The regular media – TV and radio broadcasters and ordinary newspapers – have referred to the incels as a subculture with its own habits, practices and slang, indicating that they wanted them to be regarded as something far out of the ordinary.  The truth, however, is that, while the incels' slang is indeed limited to small numbers using a very small number of websites, their values and beliefs are precisely those of the brainwashed majority.  They think nothing about body image, the objectification of the body beautiful, effective white supremacy in terms of physical perfection, relations between the sexes, or the supreme value of an active sex life that is not broadcast on television and radio and published in newspapers and magazines every single day.  They are not a minority, they are the natural (or, rather, unnatural) product of our media culture, the children of the sexual revolution; for the established media to depict them as weirdos driven crazy by the internet is nothing more than a straightforward attempt to shuffle off responsibility whilst taking a cheapshot at the new media.

            Of course it takes a strange mind to turn into a spree killer, and computer games do centre on mass murder themes, so new media are not innocent, and the television will not breed hordes of bloodthirsty youths.  Only just look at what it has bred.  If these were the only two mass-murderers driven to it by media-fuelled sexual frustration, they were far from being the only incel criminals.  British schools see 65,000 sexual assaults by pupils every single year, and our universities – and those of every developed country with a modern media culture – are faced with an epidemic of campus rape and sexual assaults; almost all of this is caused by sexualised mass media leading young men and boys to believe they should have plentiful and promiscuous sex and have a right to have it whether by force, fraud or flattery, and young women and girls to believe they ought to be gratifying their own and others' sexual 'needs' on a regular basis.  The mainstream media are keen to blame on-line pornography, but the taste for 'hardcore' or extreme internet porn is piqued by a daily diet of 'soft' porn on television, in magazines and in newspapers, much of which consists of a pornification of the ostensibly non-pornographic e.g. soap operas, who-dunnits and the presentation of news stories.  The objectification and sexualisation of the female form on every possible occasion is the result of a deep seated culture partially revealed by the #MeToo and #Time'sUp campaigns.  Political correctness demands equality, so that is balanced not by removing the questionable images of women, but by objectification of the muscular male form.  This satisfies the morally bankrupt equalities lobby who merely call for a similar number of male, female, black and white bodies on show.  When they are reminded, they will add in calls for the disabled, transgendered or less common racial minorities, or demand that viewers see as much gay sex as straight.  A Guardian columnist called some time ago for male genitalia to be seen on screen in casual rather than explicitly sexual contexts.

            There is a way back from this, and that is to recognise that going backwards is the only way forwards.  We need to stand against the revolution and reject pornography, promiscuity and perversion in favour of decency, virtue and truth.  Rather than objectifying anybody, all people should be recognised as individuals, ends in themselves, each created after the image of God and endowed with an individual dignity reflecting that. There might well be, as some suggest, such a thing as 'feminist pornography', but there is no such thing as a pornography that respects the humanity of those involved; all porn is, by definition, the reduction of the individual to an image in two physical dimensions and only one narrative theme overt or implicit. All such dehumanisation encourages the viewer, listener or reader to view others as things to be manipulated at will. That provides a rationale for everyday acts of violence, such as those committed by these 'incel' killers and by school shooters legitimise themselves in the minds of their perpetrators by the spectacles they create – they are staged to be seen, to create images like those seen on screen.  The killers direct the action, they produce the drama in which they themselves star as the manipulation of reality that they have come to regard as normal due to their use of mass media porn takes a megalomaniacal turn and the ability to make the decision between life and death becomes for them a right to make that decision.  For the media user, only he or she is real, everything else is merely image or entertainment, just something to play with and quite meaningless.  There is a spectrum running from groping and mugging people to mass shooting, driving into crowds and acts of terrorism, but all these actions, these sins, stem from an objectification of others that the mass media have encouraged and brought by degrees to depths of depravity unseen before the dawn of the televisual age. That is why CUT says Unplug your Televisions; the licence fee fuels not only the sexual assault crisis, but the wider culture of violence in which we all live. Put pressure on the media to come round to the Counter-Revolution, and boycott all media outlets that do not.

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard.

The future of British Broadcasting summary

·         As requested here is a summary of last year's study and proposal from CUT on the future of British Broadcasting. By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard

A Clear Vision for the future of British Broadcasting

In the course of the discussions leading up to the issue of the current BBC Charter the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said “Nobody's talking about dismantling the BBC”; and he was right, nobody was, but they should have been. The current Charter was the result of a failure to examine the instability of the BBC model of public sector broadcasting, and to look for a sustainable alternative. It, therefore, left the BBC conducting business as usual with little by way of change beyond having a new regulatory regime to bring it into line with other broadcasters. In our new report CUT calls for radical reform to introduce the change we need. .

The BBC achieved incorporation by making essentially fraudulent claims and has retained its status by deceit, scaremongering and self-serving propaganda campaigns. It has fought to retain its own privileges and to destroy any competition whenever it has had an opportunity, making it a barrier to development down the decades. Abolition might seem unthinkable, but the alternative – in this, the age of the internet – is chaotic collapse.

We propose:

·         That the current Charter term is used to prepare for a swift but smooth transition

·         An arts and commerce based World Service administered by the British Council

·         Measures to encourage new entrants into broadcasting for radio

·         Devolution where possible of authority for indigenous minority language broadcasting leading to increased provision and international services

·         Transfer of all BBC property to a new agency

·         Privatisation of BBC News

·         Dissolution of the drama, light entertainment and factual programming sections

·         A new public sector broadcasting service letting people see and hear just where their taxes are spent with extensive coverage of the Arts Council subsidised arts

·         Transfer of support for popular musical genres to a new section of the Arts Council

·         If this option is not taken at this stage, we propose licence fee reform:

·         Redefinition as a fee for BBC services to decriminalise non-payment

·         Relate the fee to the amount of TV content viewed via television sets and phase it out when 80% is viewed via internet-enabled devices

·         Let the BBC charge pro rata or offer variable packages for TV via the internet.

This study and proposal was sterilised by CUT in our blog in January to February 2018 however the proposals are still current and relevant to this day.

Part 1

http://clearvisioncatholics.blogspot.com/2018/01/future-of-british-broadcasting-no-1.html

to

Part 6

http://clearvisioncatholics.blogspot.com/2018/02/future-of-british-broadcasting-part-6.html

signing a consent form

Signing a consent form - make sure you do it in front of a witness!

Sign the form that is.

• BBC Woman's Hour continue to push there abnormal views of all things perverse.

Consent

With an hour's drive ahead of me last Tuesday, I switched on the car radio to see if I could find something interesting to listen to. What I found was Radio 4's Woman's Hour, and specifically a two-person discussion (interviewer and interviewee) on the subject of consent. Consent, that is, to sexual activity, this having recently become a rather sensitive topic as many men have been accused by women (and maybe by other men, who knows?) of rape or sexual assault; while the accused men themselves claim that although they had sex, the activity was consensual.

The interviewee's age was not given, but she sounded like a young woman, maybe in her twenties. She told the interviewer (also female, probably older) how she had gone with a man whom she described as “a friend” to his home, where they had agreed to have sex (they had had sex before, she said, though only once or twice) and he had then produced a consent form for her to sign. This was so that if she subsequently tried to accuse him of rape or sexual assault, he could prove that she had agreed to the activity. She had never come across such a thing before, and was a bit surprised; but signed anyway (after which, presumably, a good time was had by all).

The discussion which followed was about the nature of consent in such circumstances. For example, a woman might consent in general terms, and then the man might introduce some unexpected variation which she was not happy about but which he forced on her.

But I was still musing on the intial circumstances.

The man was “a friend”. This was not a love relationship.  It was not even an alcohol-fuelled spur-of-the-moment impulse.  It was a coolly-chosen decision: shall we go out for a drink, shall we watch a film, shall we wander round the streets looking at the Christmas lights, shall we have sex? The man's producing a consent form underlies still further the cold-blooded nature of the transaction, as does the woman's agreement to signing it (after her initial surprise).

Is this really how the majority of young people in the UK are living these days? Or even a sizeable minority of them?  Or have the makers of Woman's Hour found a relatively unusual case which it is presenting in matter-of-fact terms in order to “normalise” a view of sex as no more than one form of entertainment among any number of others?   (And if so, why? What's in it for them?)   

Happy Christmas 2018

Wishing you all a Happy and Blessed Christmas

Dear Prayer Crusaders remember to pray for your adopted celebrities this Christmas.

Pray also for all in the news and media, they often preach a different lifestyle to that of the Gospel, thus they put themselves in peril and lead others astray.

Pray for peace on earth, and that the media will not lead us away from it.

Jesus was born to save all from sin.

All anyone needs to do is accept Him and what He shows us.

Have a happy and TV free Christmas

Silicon Valley children have technology-free education

Protecting its own

An article – originally in the Sunday Times, reprinted in The Week of 1^st December – is headed “How Silicon Valley educates its children”. A highlighted quote states: “The same executives who have flooded the world with smartphones pay up to $40,000 a year to wall off their kids from their creations”.

The very highly-paid executives of Apple, Facebook, Google, and others ensure that their own children have a completely technology-free education at least during their primary school years. The children attend a school which is run largely according to Rudolph Steiner principles, with the emphasis on practical activities, much of it out-of-doors, particularly in the early years. When more formal lessons are introduced, it is by means of blackboard-and-chalk, paper-and-pencil. Children do not bring phones (nor any other screens) into school until they are aged at least 11, and even then are not allowed to turn them on during school hours. The Nannies who look after the children at home are required to sign contracts which include “no screen” clauses whereby they promise not to use mobile phones when they are with the children.

Again I quote from the article itself: “Alarming rates of anxiety, depression and loneliness among young people are being linked to screen time. For some parents – the very ones who are writing the code so perfectly tuned to poke our lizard brains and keep us swiping – the studies simply reinforce what they already know: modern technology is addictive by design”.

Not only is Silicone Valley enslaving a large proportion of the world's children and young people; it is well aware that it is doing so. The first message to be seen on every new phone and similar device should be Caveat emptor, - let the buyer beware.

By Prayer Crusader St Theresa of Avila

protect children from the media

Never give up on protecting children from the media

It's now more important than ever to give up watching the TV and at the very least keep one's children away from it. The main stream media is riddled with homosexual and LGBT manipulators, you can't trust them at all. It's the children they want and with so many reports of little children wanting gender change drugs and operations, one wonders where is all this coming from, who is influencing them? The influence is coming from many sources, it's coming from politicians, it's coming from teachers, it's coming from the health service and it's all backed-up and manipulated by the media particularly the socialist media, the BBC. We all know in CUT how the TV works and how it has been weaponized by Satan. It's all the more dangerous because the people who are in powerful positions in the media and particularly TV and film really know how to use it. If you are on holiday with your family do not let the children have access to a TV; there are some evil shows, some with explicit nudity even with same-sex angles and storylines.

The media and Gun Control

A Conversation with the Enemies of Freedom

Benedictus Dominus, Deus meus, qui docet manus meas ad praelium, et digitos meos ad bellum (Ps. CXL iii).

Blessed be the Lord, my God, who traineth my hands to the battle, and my fingers to the fight.

            The media are calling for 'a conversation' about gun control in the wake of the Parkland

shootings or, to be more precise, media types the world over are calling for America to have such a conversation. The trouble is that, whenever one attempts to converse with them, they just shout louder and louder to drown out anything and everything anybody else might have to say on the subject i.e. they use the tactic they use on all manner of subjects where they have a collective view and want to rule all other positions inadmissible – try having a conversation with them about stengthening laws against homosexual practice or abortion.  They are, however, right in telling us that it is time to reconsider the firearms question.

            The problem, which has been highly visible since the Parkland shootings, is that generations have grown up having been fed nothing but gun control propaganda from birth leaving young people, at least, unable to imagine that the alternative is preferable.  The generation of telegenic teens now protesting in front of the cameras in favour of gun control in America is at the younger end of the same generation in which over half say they would prefer socialism or communism to capitalism.  The situation in Britain and Europe where there is an even narrower range of opinion across the media, and we are accustomed to an even broader scope of State action, is naturally far worse as there are no longer any societal forces pushing back against the siren voices of statism on our side of the Atlantic.  People have forgotten what a free society looks like; and, when we present them with the argument that to have the choice to bear arms is the natural state of affairs, and that to affirm it as a natural right is a necessary safeguard to secure freedom against its enemies within as well as without the country, they reply, as they have been conditioned to reply, that they trust the State to look after them, and they want it to, and think it should have a monopoly of force and all the means it finds necessary to accomplish its beneficent ends.

            Hence we need to reconsider the guns issue, and have as much of a conversation as we can before we are silenced, not because we are wrong in principle, but because the simple arguments of old have been rendered ineffective by the force of statist propaganda pumped out by our would-be rulers in the media (as described in the earlier post Enemies of Freedom).  The time has come to put forward a more positive view of the matter, a more explicitly Catholic view, starting from first principles.

            The essential difference between the modern socialist State and the natural law State is that the modern socialist State begins at the top, with the State and its institutions, and then imposes itself upon the people as an external power regulating their lives as individuals, members of families, and members of any groups to which they might belong; such a State does things to, with or for the people, but it is not of the people, and does not provide government by the people, it provides only a politics of us and them. The natural law State, on the other hand, proceeds 'from the ground up', starting with the people as it finds them in their natural condition, as individuals born into families who form families themselves, and come together with others for various purposes.  The Catholic State then builds upon the foundation of the natural law State, and informs it at the political level  by the union it creates between Church and State, enabling the State to benefit from the infallible guidance of Church teaching in all that pertains to faith and morality. 

            The family is, in the words of Pius XII, “the primary cell of society” which means that society begins there, and any attempt to give a society a political identity as a people or nation should also begin there, and so must any attempt to give a nation a political expression, any attempt to embody it for collective action, as a State if such attempts are to respect the divine order of natural law, by which I mean to respect the fundamental truths of human nature.  All the institutions of a State that is ordered towards integral human development must respect human nature so that every individual can flourish in both the natural and the supernatural orders.  They must all, therefore, begin with families and their individual members, giving people the opportunity to exercise their abilities, capacities and virtues to the fullest extent.  That means every aspect of life in society begins with families and their members: health and welfare, education, policing, defence, food production and procurement, business, energy, transport, culture and the arts, religion, everything.  The right to bear arms is an integral element of several aspects of building and living in such a free society (in forming, for instance, a posse and a militia, or even simply choosing to eat meat), and establishing it as the basis of a Catholic State.  It is intrinsic to the rights to found a family and to hold private property as the final guaranty of those rights.  That is the positive vision we need to promote, so “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free”.  

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard.