News-Propaganda

A lot of MSM ‘news,’ I’m convinced, is not about reporting events which recently and spontaneously happened but about preparing us for that which tptb plan to bring about somewhere down the line.


When Martin Narey the Barnado’s chief proposes that children of ‘bad parents’ be taken into care immediately they are born and Middle England’s most popular and influential newspaper promptly assembles a case to persuade us of his wisdom - complete with flattering biography and one-sided speculations about the children this practice ‘could have helped’ - I worry we are being propagandised.


Melanie Phillips’s child-theft cheerleading in the same rag even hints at what I think is going on. Phillips writes of ‘the motor behind this catastrophe: the prevailing attitudes of a ruling elite which, pretending to be non-judgmental about family background, has actually smashed the traditional family to smithereens.’ Note the ‘pretending’ that I emphasised. I have no doubt this is a true assessment. But what is the implication of that? Either our political leaders these last few decades have felt themselves compelled by higher powers to lie to us about vital social questions, or they themselves consider society to be a mere laboratory for their experiments and see us as lab rats. Or, perhaps, a bit of both.


Is it inconceivable, then, that breakdown in social structures, from the family level up to the national, could be the planned effect of various establishment programs? And that state-managed replacements for traditional and organic social structures, under cover of the state being the only agency capable of correcting problems of such an awesome scale, is the goal?


In Melanie Phillips’s books there are numerous passages like the one that follows - although this is from Mary Whitehouse’s autobiography ‘A Most Dangerous Woman’ - demonstrating that the population was being prepared for and pressured into social change desired by the state, its corporate partners, and the professor priesthood. If the media, schools, and NGO’s were propagandising in previous decades for liberal causes that common sense wisdom feared would cause exactly the problems we now face, might they also now be propagandising for illiberal causes as the solution? The old familiar problem>reaction>solution strategy?


From ‘A Most Dangerous Woman’:

But things had been happening in Britain ever since the war which had been destroying our moral and intellectual defences. Various so-called ‘progressive’ educational philosophies were gradually taking hold, and although A. S. Neill’s Summerhill School was virtually a one-off case, its influence was pernicious in the extreme. James Dobson, the American psychologist, had this to say about the Summerhill philosophy

Please note how many of the following elements of the new morality can be traced to the permissive viewpoint represented by Neill: God is dead; immorality is wonderful; nudity is noble; irresponsibility is groovy; disrespect and irreverence are fashionable; unpopular laws are to be disobeyed; violence is an acceptable vehicle for bringing changes; authority is evil; everyone over thirty is stupid; pleasure is paramount; diligence is distasteful.


And, of course, it was a very small step indeed from Summerhill to ‘children’s rights’. The Children’s Angry Brigade Communique No. 1 warned its readers that ‘education can damage your mind’. It went on: ‘We are tired of being a repressed generation. Our generation is repressed by censorship laws, age regulations, school, and sadly our own parents. No longer shall we accept this repression. We are angry ... We shall not limit ourselves to non-violent acts if the school situation persists ... All sabotage is effective in hierarchical systems like schools - smash tannoys/PA systems, paint blackboards red, grind the chalk to dust.’

Barking up the same tree, but more elegantly, were the BBC and ITV schools broadcasts of the autumn of 1970, with their prevailing mood of doubt, confusion and depression. ‘Moral principles should be decided by me’ was what the children were encouraged to believe. ‘The morality of work is the morality of slaves’ they were told, while family life was invariably shown as unpleasant, mothers as selfish and incapable, the home as a place of strife and boredom, Christianity as a mixture of boring symbolism and difficult theological ideas, and Jesus Christ as a humanist.


Then throughout the 70s there was the manipulation of the family planning propaganda, which tried to persuade one and all that teenage pre-marital sex was inevitable and that the only answer was easy access to contraceptives - a hugely lucrative business. There were publications like Make it Happy which explicitly described for its teenage readers a whole range of perverted abnormal sexual practices (group sex, communal masturbation, oral and anal intercourse, etc.). There has also been the irresponsible and distorting effect of so many of the teenage magazines.


So how could ‘chastity’ and ‘fidelity’ possibly survive, even as words, in this maelstrom of atheist humanist claptrap? Especially as so many church leaders, politicians and media people lacked the courage to expose the irrationality of its so-called logic and the dangers to mind, body and spirit this posed, particularly to the vulnerable young.

It is to this class of people, the state and its experts - that destroyed a functioning society with this madness - that Martin Narey and Melanie Phillips says parents should be forced to hand over their newborns: to themselves in effect. How convenient -- and how terrifying.