[Ipce - Homepage]    [Articles & Essays - D] 

[Register by Subject - Politics - Witch hunt ...]

The spectacular achievements of media control

A serious take-off of Noam Chomsky's vital "Media Control" speech, now a book

By Chuck Dodson 1994-'97; Nonsilent Press; Anti-copyright

[* Introduction - Note]

* Part One 
o The Horrid Plague 
o Unsightly Carnage 

* Part Two 
o Save the Children! 
o Damage Control 

* Part Three 
o The Building Crisis 
o Parade of Enemies 

* Part four 
o Selective Perception 
o The Fight for Kids' Freedoms 

* Last Part Five 
o Reasons for the Emotional Outcry 
o Representing the Kids 
o Reasons for the emotional outcry? 

* For more information 

This essay may be copied and sold as long as credit is given to the author.



This is a serious magnification of Noam Chomsky's 1991 speech "Media Control, The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda" made in California and published

originally by Open Magazine Pamphlet Series; Westfield, NJ, and
later as by South End Press, Boston.

The intent of this version is to closely follow Chomsky's powerful "blueprint." For this reason, this pamphlet is careful to make the same assertions as Chomsky. 

In example, many of the undocumented assertions are assertions made in the original speech; hopefully, for those views that particularly pique you, you will take a look at the facts behind them by reading one of his books (particularly the one in note 0)

Having been greatly moved by Noam Chomsky's original speech, I "undertook a [self-instruction] course of intellectual self-defense" as I realized the various ways his message may be applied. (0)

When most Americans think about aggression in our society, our first thoughts are apt to include children being abused and/or killed by sick or outrightly criminal adults. We usually don't consider the somewhat broader context of what is going on behind the use of these issues, or the time periods in which they are most emphasized; in fact, in not seeing this we miss out on a crucial issue that comes down to what kind of society we want to live in.

Let me begin by comparing two different conceptions of one particular aspect of being aware of aggression which is fundamentally connected to free societies: 

One conception has it that the full-fledged citizens of such societies, including those soon becoming full-fledged citizens, ought to be well-informed and be able to have a serious understanding of the complex issues facing them so that they can best participate in creating policies that promote justice and sanity, and make way for meaningful democracy. 
This is regarded as a normal and fundamental part of what a free society is about, and that any attempt to limit it is an extremely serious affair, something along the lines of the most dangerous fear of all: losing our democracy to become a fascist or totalitarian society. 
An alternative conception has it that only a few people in democratic societies have the ability to 'understand things as they are', and that most of the people of such societies, young and old alike, must be taught to internalize a story or myth about their society so that they remain involved only in a non-threatening way.

This latter one may sound like an odd conception, especially next to that other one that is traditionally known for its seemingly careful vigilance, over centuries, to remain as 

"They all could've gotten on the air to do so much more good in ending the horrific plague of self-abusers!"

aware as much as it could supposedly be, and has loudly protested whenever others have tried to set limits, but it's important to understand that this latter view is the prevailing conception not only in Western democracies but in most other modern societies as well.

In fact, this conception has been gaining more and more acceptance for hundreds of years. I'm going to begin in a relatively recent period and talk about how these notions not only affect the general public's perceptions, but also, critically, the lives and sanities of the younger people whom are to take our places in this democracy of ours when we finally allow them to. I'm also going to talk about how the problem of media and other disinformation enters within all this.

Part One 

The horrid plague 

During the mid 1800's, the traditional power of the  State-backed Church was more and more beginning to lose its hold on the people's minds. Most people agree that this had something to do with the "melting pot" effect that was happening around the time of the industrial revolution. People were emigrating in large numbers from all over Europe and because of all of their suffering in the Old World, they wanted to make a better life for themselves in this New "Land of the Opportunity" as many -- in certain public domains -- were calling it.

Right around this time, several intelligent entrepreneurs began what would become multi-million dollar enterprises. One of these was a man by the name of Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, of Battle Creek, Michigan. 

Dr. [J.H.] Kellogg, along with his brother W.K., was bent upon promoting a product that he had produced during his work in the budding mental health field. Together they produced a product that was designed, like many others of the era, to help people. 

Today, the company that grew from the efforts of the good doctor and his younger brother has become a world-renowned influential corporation. But, back then, these men were unknown. They would have remained so hadn't they had a very interesting set of gimmicks -- something that could place them apart from all the other salesmen whom would all too soon begin seeing dollar signs in their kind of product. (1)

Official history tells us that today's Kelloggs' corporation owes its success to these men's original product, Kelloggs' Corn Flakes. But conscious people would wonder how such a product could've ever survived decades of ever-heightening competition without some kind of powerful marketing tactics -- some kind of gimmick. 

"This group took great pride as the more intelligent members of the community in having the ability to steer the masses onto a proper field of thought..."

Though 'forgotten' today, one of the gimmicks used to promote this nostalgic American-made product was that it was promoted as an aid to help kids refrain from the hideous and unclean social problem of the day known as "self-abuse", or masturbation.

Dr. Kellogg and others (like Sylvester Graham and his cracker) became quite successful with their greatly helpful products. These intelligent businessmen were learning about what kinds of things got their market's attention.

And, while helping society to stop the ever-creeping epidemic which was causing all sorts of suffering and unwanted deviance, they could make nice careers for themselves and their colleagues in a finally germinating mental health profession. (2) 

Imagine if modern methods of communication had been available to these friendly professionals who wanted so much to help their fellow men face this unfortunate social problem. 

Imagine if they had been able to go on television and radio talk shows like "Oprah" or "The Jerry Springer Show", or do made-for-TV docu-dramas like those appearing on HBO and PBS; 
imagine the experts getting on the air with all of their Scientific data and research. 
Imagine how they all could've gotten their helpfulness out to the all who obviously needed it -- all to benefit suffering people and end the appalling plague of self-abusers!

Certainly, enlightened audiences would listen and be so relieved that so many Trustworthy Experts were finally attending to this wrong -- which was responsible for so much pain and heartache. 

The good citizens would breathlessly follow the guidance and responsibly buy the recommended anecdotes -- self-help books, medical remedies, and even specially-designed clothing. 

Finally, in the spirit of aiding the next generation towards a healthier start (than their adults had had as kids), the well-informed public would do as they were told. 

In the morning, they would feed their children Kelloggs Corn Flakes, 
in the afternoon, Graham Crackers, and 
at night, they'd dress them in certain snugly-fitting devices other (which were designed to house their child's genitals safe and sound). 

And, when these young'uns grew up they would be so thrilled about how their society cared so much, that they would certainly pass the great traditions on.

Yet, even without the benefit of modern forms of communication, the "self-abuse" gimmick was a great success -- if our continued guilt about our secret pastime bears any witness.

It is interesting to look back at this today and study what happened. Those who participated in what became a heightened emotional outcry, in its leading and supporting roles, were members of a group of people. 

This group shared a mindset about society and how it was to be dealt with. And they took great pride in being "the more intelligent members of the community" as these "progressive" intellectuals called themselves, in having this ability to steer the incompetent masses onto a proper field of thought. By tapping into their readily available ignorance and fear the entrepreneurs were able to carry out their Charitable duties. (3) 

The State-backed Church had always managed such resources with its conveniently flexible biblical interpretations, but now that it was losing control, it was important that someone else -- with the proper authority --  regain the lost ground.

So, the leading minds realized that they had to adapt to these changes -- changes they didn't want but couldn't help; changes that were weakening the grip of the traditional State-backed Church and allowing the masses to become too independent. They had to adapt to these changes and what better way than to form a new State-backed religion based on another kind of conveniently flexible interpretation. (4) 

The clergy of this Church were always making "new findings" that had an interesting habit of becoming All-Encompassing Truth (and Policy) until, after much suffering, someone could "discover" the actual truth. 

Thus we had the terrible social problem of childhood masturbation. That worked. It worked very well. And it taught a lesson: Propaganda, when supported by the Trustworthy Leaders, and when no legitimate deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect. It was a lesson learned by the Eugenics movement in the Hitler era and many others and it has been pursued to this day.

Unsightly carnage 

In the decades leading up to the Vietnam War there had been persistent responses that had learned from the earlier successes; responses against the incompetent rabble as they decided to think for themselves in the wrong ways. Ways like the independent organization of unions against exploitation. Or the gall to question their places as in the case of women and racial minorities. 

The official response came from several directions within the rational sectors of society, but they all had one thing in mind: to tame the "bewildered herd" because "the common interests elude public opinion entirely," as the well-known progressive intellectual, Walter Lippmann and several others believed. (5) 

One of these groups was the more modern kin to Dr. Kelloggs' contribution to the germinating mental health movement. With the aid of the usual machinations of public socialization these fresh new entrepreneurs birthed their designs quite easily. 

Then, when several havoc-wreaking independent movements began coming together during the 60's and several errors on the parts of the Rightful Leaders were made, the new reincarnation was getting ready to make history in nearly the same vein as their dear old Dr. Kellogg.

Basically, the stupid masses were starting to catch on in part to what was going on. These errors were noted and studied and those making up "the more responsible members of the community" wanted to figure out how to stop having this little problem. They've got enough problems. So they took strategic steps to ensure that as few people as possible would:

1) Remember what happened 
2) Catch on to such depths again 
3) Be quite distracted from even imagining that they could or would want to approach such depths again.

This was all considered very serious that so many movements could come together. It was very dangerous to have the scapegoats -- the racial minorities and radicals -- and the victims of their Policies -- students and young people -- coming together and building so quickly into a multi-faceted force to be reckoned with. 

"The people in the public relations industry aren't there for the fun of it. They're doing work. They're trying to instill the right values."

Even those on the forefront of science had not wanted these multi-tiered movements -- such as the sexual freedom movement (even it had sprouted from all the unsightly carnage) -- to get as far as they did. 

It was considered a very serious dilemma to be coerced into changing earlier conclusions (which had taken so much meritorious work); conclusions such as the unfortunate mental illness of androphiles (gays and lesbians) or other deviations. They knew they'd have to change. The wicked masses wouldn't stand for them to so bluntly go from a democracy to an openly totalitarian state.

Finally, when they were pressured to change, conscious people should note how far they allowed themselves to be pushed.

There was just so much merciless pressure on the helpless leaders, 

what with the concerted outcry against the immorality of segregation and forcing the young men to fight an increasingly unpopular war. 
Or the women's and gay people's rights movement. 
As well as the general increasing tolerance of a radical subculture that accepted long hair, cross-race sexuality, the availability of contraceptives, domestic partnerships, and on and on. 

All this pressure coming at them from all sides, and they needed time. Time to weigh things out: like the probable consequences of this or that move. It was as if it was a chess match and some young whippersnapper had just begun attacking with bold audacity. The poor guys had to act with their Better Wisdom and, if you note, they moved their forces just barely enough to appease only the most powerful pressures.

Certain sections of the people within the mentioned liberty-seeking movements did get some changes made. And all their activism seemed to have paid off a little more. It seemed their stand against the lies and misinformation which had plagued them for so long was finally beginning to subside.

However, the Benevolent Leaders had interestingly continued their historical standards: While ripe fruits could be harvested by the newly more-accepted and influential movements, there was something entirely different waiting for their less-powerful constituents. 

And it resembled an interesting compromise from history where poor white indentured servants, who had united with the subhuman slaves (and sometimes even with the vermin indigenous peoples) in various rebellions against ill-treatment, were given tracts of land and other amenities so that they would have reason to separate from any deeper-reaching, possibly seriously dangerous platform. (6) 

In this way, the entire original justice-seeking ideal was weakened considerably. Similarly, the modern cousins to the poor white would-be revolutionaries were given a tract of land called "respectability." And the modern brethren of the status-quo found a solution they could literally swallow -- that is, if the new members stuck with the program.

Those who were betrayed by this assimilation procedure were just weak enough so that only by restarting their own movement 

(which might take decades of renewed vigor and might not even flower -- like so many movements of the oppressed)

would they possibly gain access to hope. 

It's vital to realize that the "more capable" men had this in mind when they reacted in the defense of what they believed to be their best interests. Their chess move had saved their game even though they had made a dangerous error. Luckily their opponents weren't as smart as they could've been. 

"Thus, the modern cousin to the poor white would-be revolutionary got a tract of land called respectability." 

It turned out that a lot of the "less capable" persons, having obtained their rewards, but not yet wielding perfect security, were quite willing to serve their alleged superiors. 

Remember, they'd only caught on to part of what was going on, namely their own mistreatment, and they hadn't thought that there might be any possible connection to a much deeper truth, much less felt that they could do anything about it. Perhaps they really didn't want to know -- after all, they were enculturated to believe that the basic nature of the system really was well-intentioned -- it was just sometimes that it had glitches and corruptions ...

Anyway, they had begun to see the "light at the end of the tunnel" and certainly didn't want to go off down some weird other tunnel now. 

And HUSH, YOU TROUBLEMAKERS!! -- they'd whispered indignantly when certain voices within their newly assimilating movements tried to alert people to what "the light at the end of the tunnel" might actually mean. Instilled within the prevailing leadership's minds, to the credit of the system, were the beliefs and doctrines that serve the powerful, the established mindset -- the very forces that gave them their sweet fruits after all. 

Such TROUBLEMAKERS, as these people who stray from the appropriate understandings for diverse reasons (kept non-understood), must be kept powerless; and not allowed to connect with other strayed fellows too deeply lest they create more trouble. 

Make sure they "know their place" via the use of whatever marginalizing label that can stick. And if that doesn't work, tame them in some way; so we need this new revolution in the art of democracy: the manufacture of consent. The media, the schools, parents, and popular culture have to instill the proper beliefs.

The marginalized may be allowed to spectate and once in a while voice their naive or silly or kind of deranged opinions, but most of the time they've got to be atomized, segregated and alone. They're not supposed to organize because then they might be something beyond the minority aloof.

One or two silly tunnel-goers from our ranks can be tolerated to go off in another obviously stupid direction, and maybe a few others, in reaction, may limply question, but that's what happens when you have a democracy -- certain people don't know how to act when they're given a little freedom. It's sad, y'know ...

So, you make sure they're quite isolated. If they could be something beyond fashionable rebels or isolated weirdoes, they might actually become participants if many of them with limited resources could get together to enter the political arena. That would be really threatening.

A major response was taken on the part of the Rightful Masters to ensure that this kind of thing wouldn't happen to the people I mentioned earlier who must be barred from equal standing with their fellow Americans; that is, anything truly authentic or deep-reaching that might last in order to build threatening bonds. Like bonds that might sustain the wrong consciousness or grow into alliances with the other troublemakers.

That major response has worked pretty well. Although the number of independent thinking ideals increased during the multi-faceted 1960's movements, by the 1980's, the range and influence of these ideals began to steadily drop.

It wasn't by accident. 

We're now talking about this new reincarnation from the days of Dr. Kellogg. They're spending lots and lots of money, attention, and thought into how to deal with the bad social problems of the day. They've got a whole public relations industry and many other tiers -- like various professional guilds -- all which have interests in preserving their continued business. Such business can have a tough time if too many of their gimmicks get exposed, so they have to work like chess-players and out-maneuver the bad guys.

At the height of these freedom deviations, the Established mindset set to work to find a way to counter them. Obviously they tried to counter other movements too, but were most successful with those that were weakest.

Part Two 

Save the children! 

The biggest scare in this era has revolved around that still seemingly limitless resource of people's ignorance and fear -- sexuality. Especially when the sexuality of young people was involved. 

In the mid 70's the reincarnations of Dr. Kellogg latched onto a new series of maneuvers that would further weaken a lot of what the late 60's and early 70's had wreaked way too much of -- independent thought. 

This was quite successful; they came from the old 'tried and true' method of fear of sex and laced it with a bit of revamped homophobia which would serve its purpose in two helpful ways: 

Divide the potential of the newly-progressing gay/lesbian movement 
(as well as, to a certain extent, the feminist and racial civil rights movements), and 
isolate the unwanted people so that they might return to their states of confusion and feelings of powerlessness.

The strategy was to approach the whole matter through the more subtle and effective means of propaganda, to turn the public against the inappropriate beliefs that some of these people held -- like, the one that says kids aren't arbitrarily incompetent and irrational compared to adults. Or the one that claims that the young people could form fully genuine -- but nontraditional -- bonds with adults they liked. The public had to be turned against these inappropriate beliefs, presenting them as harmful to the 'Common Interests'. 

The common interests are those of "us" (who wish to finally go towards the light at the end of the tunnel) -- the helpful professionals, the newly-progressing feminist, and the gay and lesbian consenting adults. That's all "us." We want to be together and have things like harmony and family values and working together. 

Then there's those suspicious adults who like being around the children in the wrong way -- those CHILD MOLESTERS out there who won't stop forcing themselves upon the "weak and immature." 

The first directive was around the "chicken hawks" who were making "chickens" pose in front of their cameras so that they could record their "abuse"; this breaks up all those hopes that we had for a continuing harmony. So we've got to stop them so that we can all live together and protect our children.

The professionals and the concerned mothers all have the same interests. We can work together and work for family values and harmony, liking and trusting each other, but we have to make sure that these "kiddie pornographers" don't come in and wreck what we've got going.

That was the message essentially. A huge amount of effort was put into presenting it. This is, after all, the business community in general, so they control the media and have massive resources. And it has worked, very effectively. 

Some people who're now catching on in part call it the "child abuse hysteria," and are trying to say how it has gotten out of hand and that some of our hard-worked-for rights are beginning to be victimized as a result of it. 

Canada's new law banning all positive images and textual accounts or arguments of even legal sexual acts is a case in point. (7) 

It's vital to realize that such hysterias have been promoted over and over again to keep people on the proper track. Such ruses have worked very effectively by mobilizing community opinion in favor of vapid, empty concepts like 

Family Values. Who can be against that? Or 
Harmony. Who can be against that? 
Or, as in the child sex abuse hysteria of the day: 
Save the Children! Who can be against that?

In fact, what does it mean if somebody asks you, 'Do you want to save the people in Iowa?' Can you say, 'Yes, I want to save them', or 'No, I don't want to save them?' It's not even a question: it doesn't mean anything. The point of public relations slogans like "Save the Children!" is that they don't mean anything. They mean as much as whether you want to save the people in Iowa. 

Of course there was an issue. The issue was -- Do you support our policy? But you don't want people to ponder that issue. That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. It's crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: 'Do you support our policy?' That's the one you're not allowed to talk about.

So you have people arguing about Saving the Children? 'Of course I don't not support them.' -- then they've won. It's like Family Values and Harmony. We're all together, empty slogans, let's join in, let's make sure we don't have these weirdoes with their talk about intergenerational intimacy or kids' ability to figure out what they want and that sort of business. 

That's all very effective. It runs right up to today. And of course it is all carefully thought out. The people in the public relations industry aren't there for the fun of it. They're doing work. They're trying to instill the right values.

In fact, they have a conception of what freedom ought to be: it ought to be a system in which "mature" people are trained to work in the service of the masters (the people who own the society) -- and keep the naive and incompetent children and others in their proper place. 

The young people ought to be deprived of any form of genuinely constructive organizations where adults might build honest and lasting bonds with them, because such bonds just cause trouble. 

The "not yet fully human" people ought to be sitting in front of the TV and having drilled into their heads the message, which says, that in their time of to life -- childhood -- they have to engage in play (not too serious) and watch adults doing incredible things, and be outside of the adult world pretty much while attending school and children's activities.

That's all there is in childhood. Kids may think in their own heads that there's got to be more that they can do than this stuff, but since they're watching the tube and learning to be good consumers of every latest fashion, they assume they must be a little strange to think they can be different from how other kids are imaged. 

And since there's no deeply powerful organization (that's absolutely crucial) that speaks about what they must keep secret -- such as that old one called masturbation -- they never have a real way of finding out whether they are weird and they just assume it, because it's natural

They might get together with a friend or two and do some "sex play" but not seeing anything really honest on TV or other imagery -- just those scary cases of kids getting raped all the time -- it's easy to think you're weird. (8)

Damage control 

So that's the ideal, whether it's applied to the children or the preying chicken hawks, or those that think about the wrong ideas. Great efforts are made in trying to achieve that ideal. 

Obviously, there is a certain conception behind it. The conception of freedom and equality is the one that I mentioned. The troublemakers are a problem. We've got to prevent their deluded and naive and illiterate troublemaking. We've got to distract them. They should be watching the children's channels, playing video games, or watching the Superbowl.

And you've got to keep them pretty scared, because unless they're properly scared and frightened of all kinds of devils or diseases that are going to hurt them from outside or inside or somewhere, they may start to think. Therefore, it's imperative to distract and marginalize these troublemakers.

In a totalitarian state you just hold a bludgeon over their heads, and if they get out out of line, you smash them over the head. In Palestinian Israel or Thailand you get the police and other professionals doing this, not just to adults, but kids too. 

Even though our society has had its own variations, like setting unpopular activists up for beating and rapes, or the new one about "paddling" graffiti artists in public, it isn't yet like these military states where the bludgeon is used as policy. (9) 

That's one conception of freedom and equality. In fact, going back to the business community, the last genuine victory for kids and other problem groups was during the 60's and 70's.

After the free love and truly radical movements lost their momentum we moved to a business-run society at a remarkable level. Organizations and individuals now seeming to assert kids' rights are professionals with interesting stakes in their latest endeavors.

On the other front, the movement often called the "underground" -- which lost much of its momentum due intriguing circumstances -- had uniquely genuine potentials where the oppressed people had control of their own voices amongst a radical milieu that was set up to challenge society on a broad scale. 

One of these independent voices was CHIPS (Cooperative Highschool Independent Press Sydicate) which got together with FPS, an independent publication put out by Ann Arbor Youth Liberation during the early 70's. 

Today, their literature is very hard to find, but if you do an Internet search, you'll find that a smattering of U.S. libraries do carry it and that some are open to all ages. Once you find these rare publications, you can take a read of what they were doing. What they're saying is a little different than say, one of these slickly produced "for kids" magazines you find everywhere in public libraries. 

But that's how it is today. The independent voices' reach into mainstream consciousness is virtually nil and structures for kids' viewpoints outside of corporate-controlled limitations -- like those that fashionably deal with environmental issues or drugs and violence -- are virtually nonexistent. (10) 

It's a long way at least structurally from the ideal. Existing young people's media are controlled by a sub-adjunct to the mainstream, which are a corporate monopoly. And they all have the same point of view -- though a little more 'snazzed' up to fit the 'childhood' paradigm. 

"Drawing a question mark beside the all-encompassing exclamation point of the Established Conclusions."

Take young people who become student representatives in their schools. Too often they are allowed only to participate in marginal ways like how to best carry out the programs of their adults. After the excitement of being elected to a student government wears off, it can get pretty meaningless if you're only allowed to take on superficial issues. 

No wonder so many young people are growing increasingly bored and rebellious during their forced educations. Would-be enthusiastic learners have to be kept on the proper track. At least that's the goal. 

The leading figure in the public relations industry, Edward Bernays, who came out of the Creel Commission -- the propaganda group that succeeded in turning a pacifistic population into a hysterical German-hating force just before WWI, in order to save the world -- developed what he called "engineering consent." He described this as the "essence" of freedom. (11) 

The people who are able to engineer consent are the ones who have the resources and the power to do it -- the business community with all its levels of entrepreneurs.

It's also necessary to whip up the population in support of various ventures including foreign and domestic ones. Usually the population is pacifistic, like they were before the Creel Commission got them going, or after the Vietnam experience.

The public sees no reason to get involved in such programs once they've gotten some things they've worked hard for, like advanced freedoms and freer love. So you have to whip them up. And to whip them up you have to frighten the hell out of them. 

The 'kiddie porn' scare made an important achievement in this respect. This was the pilot that had a helluva snowball effect. The propaganda made it look like there was a vast industry of callous perverts out there forcing cute little puppy tots to display their hairless crotches so that other sickos could look at them and then go out and molest, kidnap, and even kill the babies. 

The public wasn't allowed to see or know too much about what the media systematically reported of these "depraving" and "dehumanizing" "records of abuse" which were supposed to be on par with the mafia, even having their own private chicken hawk-ferrying jets. 

Instead of any responsible words that could've helped the ignorant understand, the public got savory glimpses (properly censored) for their thriving imaginations, along with juicy "investigative" reports that significantly helped to fan the flames of people's ignorance and fears.

It was necessary to constantly ram these stories through the public mind along with appropriate visions for change and child protection initiatives. Initiatives like cut-backs on the freedoms obtained, though this didn't reach the media very much in the early days of the hysteria.

Such initiatives sometimes amounted to open censorship in mainstream bookstores; there had been a book by the name of SHOW ME! which had appeared all across the U.S. and had been quite accessible. People certainly got to have a look through it from time to time in 1975 when it came out; and they might've certainly talked about it with a shopping companion. 

This book was a creative attempt to help parents speak to their prepubescent young about sexuality, and the idea of feeling good about one's body. Actual speech by young people was used, as well as their parents, and even people who feared sex. As well, the explanatory section was written by the noted Swiss psychiatrist Dr.Helga Fleischhauer-Hardt. Finally, Will McBride, a well-known photographer, had succeeded in bringing out the participants' believable feelings. (12) 

But the mainstream press chose to tote the book as a manual on "how to have sex with kids;" so it quickly disappeared once the bookstores got a whiff of the consequences of defying the lies and misinformation about it. A few booksellers probably tried to defy the mounting emotional outcry fanned by the propaganda, and probably had similar results to those more recent stores "caught" (and prosecuted) for carrying audio recordings deemed "offensive." 

This too takes extensive propaganda. We have seen a lot of this kind of thing in the last twenty years. 

People like Judianne Densen-Gerber and Phyllis Schaffly got involved in such opportunities, finding a niche in the weaknesses of the gay and lesbian (or androphile) movement -- the movement that had in general, just gotten subtracted from mental illness status in 1972, bringing some real progress to their efforts. 

These moral-crusading entrepreneurs called the gays "kiddie" pornographers and child-molesters, and then took to surfing on the crests of the tsunamis that that caused. 

The public wouldn't have made it a more important issue than other social issues facing them -- like the challenges of bigotry against racial minorities -- hadn't these kinds of people, who had obvious dibs in the whole spectacle of it all, imposed it upon them. 

The androphiles weren't the only targets of this, of course. Smaller freedom-seeking groups like the nudist movement were being pressured by these emotive strategies until they learned to bow more often than not to the proper values. 

As long as most people are marginalized and distracted from the actual challenge of trying to understand a minority of the population, and have no way to articulate their empathetic sentiments -- or even know that others share them, people who question the current just assume that they're the only ones with the crazy thought, view, or experience in their heads. 

As long as people are marginalized and distracted in this way it seems awfully crazy -- this experience or view or thought they have, and they can feel overwhelmed as they hear only the Legitimate sources' horrorific accounts after accounts. 

People who said they weren't so sure about all this information they're getting would've liked to look into the matter themselves and share their opinions, but they feel intimidated. Maybe they tell themselves that they'll wait until something positive comes along in these legitimate sources of information before telling someone about their true feelings; but something positive never comes. 

So you assume you're just sort of weirdo. Since there's no way to get together with other people who share or reinforce that view and help you articulate it, you can feel like an oddity, an oddball. So you just stay on the side and don't pay too much attention to what's going on. You look at something else, like the fashionable issues -- say the environment, or the hemp movement -- where you can interact a little. 

"People are acquiring an ability and a willingness to think things through." 

To a certain extent, then, that ideal was achieved, but never completely. There are groups which it has as of yet been impossible to destroy. 

The Free Speech guarantee has enabled a few of these in the U.S. to remain trying to spread their views and ideas. In Canada, that's now impossible for certain kinds of views to be publicly expressed, like those considered to "harm" women and children. 

A lesbian publication by the name of "BAD ATTITUDE" was banned there because it depicted "degrading acts" upon women. In the U.S., we still have that guarantee of Freedom of Speech, unless of course the speech is deemed offensive to a local community's tastes. The song group 2 Live Crew had some trouble with that one and so have many others.

Part Three 

The building crisis 

The troublemakers never do get properly trained, so this is a constant battle. 

In the 1960's there was that wave of dissidence which caught on to a part of what was going on. There was a name for that, which the previous membership of the specialized class -- the group into which so many of the post-freedom-fighters assimilated -- called the "crisis." Freedom and equality was regarded as entering a crisis in the 1960's.

The crisis was that large segments of the population were becoming organized and active and trying to participate in the political arena. Among these, surfaced ideas that hadn't surfaced too much before, such as young people starting to think independently and be taken seriously, or the sexual freedom movement. 

Here we come back to these two conceptions of freedom and equality. 

By the definition which people were starting to think about more and more, these developments for the young people were an advance in freedom and equality for the human race. 
By movement the prevailing conception, that's a problem, a crisis that has to be overcome.

This youth mindset must be driven back to their apathy, obedience, and isolation, which is their proper place. We therefore have to do something to overcome the crisis. 

Efforts were made to achieve that, "tracts of land" were distributed within the groups and around them. It hasn't worked completely yet. 

The crisis of freedom is still alive and kicking, fortunately, but not very effective in gaining Legitimacy in the eyes of those who could help. But it is somewhat effective in putting a question mark beside the imposed exclamation of Accepted Truth, contrary to what a lot of people might suppose. 

Great efforts were made after the 1960's to try to reverse and overcome this malady; one aspect of the malady was the unschooling movement. It actually got a mainstream label that has stuck pretty well. We can call it the "Fundamentalist Revolt" -- and you can pretty well understand what I'm talking about.

This 'religious-oriented' movement was what was supposedly happening around the early to mid 70's when the subculture coming directly from the 60's movements began organizing alternatives to injustices. 

One of these was compulsory schooling. The truth is that the label was meant to define and discredit a much more diverse group of people who had been able to see what was going on in part, and had gotten organized. 

School reformers and the usual suspects tried to divide up this movement -- kind of like Densen-Gerber did with the gay and lesbian -- by attacking a weak minority which would not be understood in the mainstream. They concluded that this withdrawal was more about "fear of Darwin's Scientific Views," or "fears of integration" than anything else. (13) 

There were these scared-cat puritanical inhibitions against the use of these progressive ideas, like public schooling and its "reform" movement and so on. Still, such parents unfortunately still had the freedom to "home school" if they chose to as they'd won the unfortunate right in the courts. 

The prevailing conception stuck to these ideas that the entire unschooling movement was composed of fundamentalist scared-cats. That's an important thing to instill in the minds of most people since it's very dangerous for people to be overcome by such inhibitions. It's an outlet that people might seriously consider, and that's very dangerous.

It's necessary, as many loyal servants of the prevailing conception began to tout during the events which would come (to reverse the crisis), to instill the people's respect for "Legitimate Virtues." 

That's important. If you want to have a narrow society that uses heavy doses of propaganda upon troublemakers to achieve the ends of its own elite, it's necessary to have a proper appreciation of the Legitimate Virtues and none of these scared-cat puritanical inhibitions about other possibilities. So that's the fundamentalist revolt. It's necessary to overcome that one. 

It's also necessary to completely falsify history. That's another way to overcome these scared-cat inhibitions, to make it look as if when we attack and destroy somebody, whether they're a Branch Davidian or a MOVE activist, or a pedophile, we're really protecting and defending ourselves against terrorists and monsters and so on. 

There has been a huge effort since the Vietnam experience to reconstruct the history of that. Too many people began to understand too big a part of what was going on. A lot of young people were involved decisively in these broad initiatives, including radical ideas about schooling and other truths in their lives.

It was necessary to rearrange those bad ideas and to restore some form of sanity in whatever way possible, namely a return to the recognizance of whatever the Rightful Masters do is noble and right.

If the media-business community is taking advantage of many American's continuing guilt and fear concerning sexuality by imposing the flexibility of scientific interpretation on the secret underground of their children's' sexualities, causing the kids to fear their own particular curiosities or inclination, that's done because we're defending them.

It's what "child-saver" extremists call coordinated defense against MALE PRIVILEGES which has to do with a connection to the establishment. This is an idea that has been gaining ground on some fronts of a partly-reviving alternative culture. 

Those people that are once again catching on to parts of the truth have to pick from all kinds of cure-alls being dangled in front of them. Some are authentic possibilities, others only partly, and others not at all.

As the rabble try to pick the genuine article, the quacks -- needing to make sure that they're listened to -- bring into use the hot-buttons, which generate the desired effect.
One hot-button was the "sicko child molesters" who were "kidnapping America's Children" in "epidemic" proportions. But that was exposed -- something like 99% of the so-titled "sickos" turned out to be divorced parents trying to re-acquire their human possessions. (14) 

The next hot-button that could be pushed turned out to be less deconstructable, giving increased freedom for these contemporary entrepreneurs -- again, not much different from the Kelloggses and Grahams of yesteryear --to build comfortable careers surfing on the waves of the resulting emotions. 

The same "sicko child-molesters" -- often homosexually inclined -- were preying on runaways and exploiting the "weak and immature" until they could commit their voracious appetites of mindless "soul murder" upon those they cared about. 

After years of pounding home these same images, it can get kind of monotonous for career-builders and spectators everywhere. The rabble have short attention spans, so you can't let the waves of hysteria subside if you want people to keep needing your services. So you need something more... something heavier and more ominous that will bring the desired effect repeatedly back up to par. Thus the idea of the "pedophile" " baby-rapers" making up a central foundation of mutually-hated White Male Dominance. (15) 

But remember, much of the aim of the mechanisms behind these hysterias, such as the magazines which publish such views, or the professionals who counsel so many "sex abuse  survivors," is to uphold their own reservation in the actual Establishment. 

So whether the "child-saver" extremists (or "femi-nazis") are wittingly or unwittingly serving the interests of real power by distracting the bewildered herd with their impassioned calls against patriarchal white males (old and young) doesn't matter as long as people are kept on the proper track. (16) 

It has been necessary to allow such distractions to become official and well-understood. This is true on every other topic. Pick the topic you like: student illiteracy, inattention, school violence, drug abuse, youth gangs, drop-outs -- whatever it is, the picture of the challenges truly facing young people that's presented to the public has only the remotest relation to reality. 

The truth of the matter is buried under edifice after edifice of lies upon lies. It's all been a marvelous success from the point of view that sees this equality business between youngers and olders as a threat -- achieved under conditions of a free marketplace of ideas and freedom -- which is all very interesting. 

It's not like a totalitarian state where consent is compelled via the use of open force; these achievements flower under conditions of freedom. 

If we want to understand our own society we'll have to think about these facts. They are important, important for those who care about what kind of society we live in.

"The picture of the challenges truly facing young people that's presented to the public has only the remotest relation to reality."

Despite all this, genuine dissident culture has survived. And it's grown on quite a lot of new levels since the 1960's.

In the 60's the genuine dissident culture first of all was extremely slow in developing. There was no alternative to compulsory schooling until years after sustained youth protest. People didn't start taking kids fully seriously even after years of protest against the draft and anger at the system. 

When it did grow it was a very narrow dissident movement, mostly youth and an assortment of marginalized radicals. 

By the 1970's, that had changed considerably. Major organizing had developed: the homes chooling movement, the independent youth press, legal projects, sexual freedom groups. They were all continuing the kind of independent thought that had begun in the multi-tiered protests of the 60's. (17) 

These dissident movements progressed quite remarkably through to the 1980's until the "crisis" began to finally be subverted and controlled. 

True, while people were beginning to involve themselves -- often intimately -- in the lives of suffering people elsewhere, other groups at home were experiencing set-backs due to some of the crisis-deflecting techniques which promoted the phenomenon of proper assimilation from inappropriate activities to within acceptable limits. 

Still, there had been a few inappropriately honest-prone people who weren't as easily intimidated or distracted with such illusions like that one about the "light at the end of the tunnel." They realized that people could possibly be duped on broad, connected terms, and they kept their projects open to all kinds of discussions that weren't acceptable in the larger culture. (18) 

At the same time, both wittingly and unwittingly, the larger media industry began contributing to an increased circulation of ideas which before the 60's was virtually nonexistent. While their coverage has centered expectantly on the hysteria-fanning and sport-style distraction, it has allowed millions of individuals to hear about views that were never so directly afforded them before.

In such audiences, there are certain to be people who had previously imagined that they were alone in their experiences, opinions, and suspicions. Some of these the people even have had the guts to explore, for themselves, what the brave dissidents -- even if awfully nutty-sounding -- think and say about the prevailing conceptions. 

These are all signs of the civilizing effect, despite all the propaganda, despite all the efforts to control thought and manufacture consent. Nevertheless, conscious people are acquiring an ability and a willingness to think things through. 

Skepticism about state-backed power has grown, and attitudes have changed on many, many issues. It's quite slow, even glacial in regards to an understanding of the broad and connected situation, but it's perceptible and important. Whether it's fast enough to make a significant difference in what happens in the world is another question.

Just to take one familiar example of this civilizing effect, let's look at the famous "macho" and "unfeeling" norm of what it was to be "male" in regards to his "acceptable" domestic and social role until quite recently. 

In 1960's the idea of what it was to be "male" was approximately the same on such matters as "free love" and the scared-cat puritanical inhibitions against the use of traditional education. No males, and certainly no females

(who often could be heard upholding the man's rightful place as Expert, or Patriarch of the family) 

seemed to be suffering from these scared-cat inhibitions in the early 1960's.

The responses were the same. Virtually everyone thought that the role of the man in his "rightful place" as punisher and emotionless servant of society was perfectly appropriate. Over the years that's changed. The scared-cat inhibitions have increased all across the board.

Meanwhile a gap has been growing away from traditionally-held mindsets about how men are to act when around other humans. What has happened? What has happened is that males are becoming involved with the feminist Men's Movement. 

Organization has its effects. It means that you discover you're not alone. Others have the same thoughts as you do. You can reinforce your thoughts and learn more about what you think and believe. 

These are very informal movements, not like membership organizations, just a mood that involves interactions among people. It has a very noticeable effect. 

That's the danger of freedom: if organizations can develop, if people are no longer just glued to the tube or looking at pretty pictures, you may have all these funny thoughts arising in peoples' heads: Like informal independent inhibitions against traditional views of how males must interact with each other and other "unmanly" or "cowardly" ways. That has to be overcome, but it hasn't been overcome. (19) 

Parade of enemies 

Instead of talking about the past moves by power, let me talk about their next moves, because sometimes it's useful to be prepared instead of just reacting. 

There is a very characteristic development going on in the U.S. now. It's not the first country in the world that's done this. There are growing domestic social and economic problems, in fact, maybe catastrophes. Nobody in power has any real intention of doing anything about these problems, except in topical ways that make it seem as though they intend to; this keeps the bewildered herds properly distracted while grazing at their appropriate grasses.

If you look at the domestic programs of the last ten years, such as the "education" of the next generation and how it has been prepared to make the "needed changes", you can realize that there is actually no honest contemplation of taking on these real problems -- nor serious visions of strategies beyond the usual superficial and suspect allowances of the status quo.

You know about these serious problems which the next generation will be facing -- like soaring prison populations, homelessness, alienation, health, joblessness, and so on.

There is so much potential at our fingertips since we are the richest nation for its size on Earth. We have millions holding university degrees and such -- but nobody's really doing anything about these challenges and nobody's really preparing the next generation except in cute or topical ways. Ways that keep the children in their acceptable places and subservient to the imposed status quo interests. 

So, in such circumstances you've got to divert the bewildered herd, because if they really start seeing deeply what's going on -- that the potential we have to change things is not being promoted at all, only deliberately careful chess moves to conform to a larger set of shared values -- they may not like it, since they're the ones suffering the most. 

Just having them watch the Superbowl or playing video games or calling in to radio stations about their favorite songs may not be enough. You have to whip them up into a fear of enemies.

"All these great advancements on legal terrain against views that virtually dare not be defended and that were never actually understood to begin with. That gives relief -- we were saved at the last minute."

In the 1930's Hitler whipped them up into a fear of Jews, Gypsies, gays, and political dissidents. You had to crush them to protect yourselves and the next generation's chances for making lasting changes for a brighter future. 

We have our ways too. Over the last few decades, every year or two, some major discovery is made at home. There used to be the one which all by itself was readily available: sexual perverts, especially the homosexual variety. 

But the gays have lost their attractiveness as an enemy, and it's getting harder and harder to use that one now that they've done their bit of progressing towards harmony. 

So, some new variations have had to be conjured -- something that could still be drawn from the perpetually available ignorance and fear regarding sexuality. 

So it has been "kiddie" pornographers, "snuff films," "child stealers," "sex rings" at day care centers, "Satanic ritual violence," abuse "survivors" now molesting and the descriptionless pedophile who is everywhere, lurking not only among nonconforming neighbors, family members and loved entertainers, but in newly-recalled "memories." They've got to keep coming up one after another.

You frighten the population, terrorize them, intimidate them so that they're too afraid to let their kids out of their sight and they tremble with hysteria over the thought that any non-professional -- you've got to have professionals no matter what -- relating to their kids might be a potential child-rapist. 

Then you have these magnificent victories over the swine pedophiles (who now include kids themselves) such as the new law in Washington state that allows authorities to keep a convicted "rapist" in prison for life even if their sentence runs out. 

Or the law in increasing states where convicted pedophiles must register with the police when they re-enter public life; this may not sound that bad until you find out that it is now considered a "public service" to let the frothing public have their addresses -- which have led to increased hysteria-based violence and vigilante activity. 

Or take the laws that are banning even imagined images of "inappropriate" conduct 

(Mike Diana's alternative press-defended, but Florida-punished conviction is a case in point). (20) 

All these great advancements on legal terrain against views that virtually dare not be defended and that never were actually understood to begin with. We were saved at the last minute.

That's one of the ways in which you can keep the bewildered herd from paying attention to what's really going on all around them -- keep them diverted and controlled. 

The next one that is trying to come along now is the operation where the pedophile is central to the theme of fascism, in the mystification about patriarchy's method of getting what "he wants" regardless of more powerless males' and females' victimization. 

For this to become understood in the minds of the right people -- the bewildered herd -- it's going to require efforts from the so-called anti-authoritarian feminist movement (both women's and men's) where you are seeing more and more of its leaders calling for the right of "sexual abuse survivors" to be heard instead of the "ulteriorly-motivated" pedophiles. 

"People like John Crewdson or Andrew Vachss can't go on their stage if their target can fight back. That's much too dangerous. But if you're sure that they will be crushed, maybe we'll knock that one off and heave another sigh of relief."

A critical look behind the scenes of these intriguing circumstances may be quite interesting to those seeking an authentic remedy among all the shiny lures. Taking a look at who many of the most widely-heard voices are you might get a crucial understanding of what is happening.

There are many figureheads, like Judianne Densen-Gerber or Andrea Dworkin (and friend Jeffrey Masson), and they may be quite easily discredited by those who are starting to catch on to things more. But the harder ones may often be the authors who've gotten Pulitzers for their "important" work. 

Take the Pulitzer prize-winning author of the widely-circulating book BY SILENCE BETRAYED, John Crewdson. Mr.Crewdson seems to be the same John M.Crewdson who happened to get outed in ex-CIA activist Phillip Agee's autobiographical book ON THE RUN. John got exposed by Agee as "the patsy picked to surface the [disinformational] story" that appeared on the front page of the NEW YORK TIMES, successfully perpetrating a host of lies against the activist. (21) 

Always willing to tout the Establishment Line, Crewdson seems to have surfaced another fable which is rife with the usual misinformation about the child sex abuse problem, perhaps trying to regain footing on a surfboard that ran into trouble with the likes of the anti-CIA movement. It's such a basic tactic of would-be social 'helpers' who have careers to keep pursuing. He'd written another book about the problem of immigrants, and then this. 

Such people are little different than the John Kelloggses and Sylvester Grahams, only they have the modern propaganda machine at their finger-tips. These guys and gals, who, with their ideological offensive, build up the chimerical monster, and then work and campaign to have it crushed. 

Guys like John Crewdson or Andrew Vachss and gals like Judianne Densen-Gerber or Nikki Craft, can't go on their stage if their target can fight back. That's much too dangerous. But if you are sure that they will be crushed, maybe we'll knock that one off and heave another sigh of relief.

Part Four 

Selective perception

This has been going on for quite awhile. In the 1980's the idea of "survivors" of sexual abuse was coming into vogue. These people who wore this label were most often coming directly from a therapist's office or treatment center, though in later times have come out of "self-help" retreats designed to uphold certain conclusions. (22) 

From the start of this "survivor" movement they were a hit. And quite quickly all across the U.S. the media began picking up these horrific stories. Thousands of articles, interviews, and other supportive commentary began hailing in a big way, these "definitive accounts" of the "vast system of intimidation and exploitation" carried out by "the powerful," namely an unorganized minority group of men.

And the advocates of the "survivors" soon could be heard calling out to society that it must hear ONLY THEIR VOICES and that "only the most lightheaded and cold-blooded" civil liberties practitioner would WANT to come to the "abuser's" defense.

The therapists and other concerned leaders responsible for aiding this new "progressive" movement then began getting rewards for their meritorious work, like millions of dollars in funding for their continuing honest careers -- while the courageous clients were soothed by understanding advocates who told them that they could sue the perpetrators if they wanted to.

"Lt. William Thorne went on to remark that 'We've got to crack the boy and it's not an easy thing to do.'"

More recently, this convenient idea has been reinforced by new laws which make the "Statute of Limitations" extended for a number of years, so that these "survivors" have plenty of time to "remember" their abuse. 

Now, I can see the scheme that this reincarnation of Dr. Kellogg and company has here in making this new law to make it look as though they have the public welfare in mind. 

I can also see the feelings of being damn angry about cases of actual abuse; but the mindsets and directions sprouting around it all which are steadily eroding many of the freedoms we've not gotten on silver platters, seem awfully suspect to me. But I guess this has to be expected, especially when we note who is getting the power to do certain things to certain people enabled by the real power.

That's what began happening in the 1980's. It has been interesting and it tells you something about the manufacture of consent. At the same time that these survivor's movements were arousing great horror with their harrowing experiences, survivors of a different sort were making court testimony about their harassment, threats, and torture at the hands of a different kind of abuser.

Together with parents and upright lawyers, they compiled sworn affidavits of precise and systematic abuse by police detectives, officers, and other law enforcement professionals. These survivors refused, initially, to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in accepting the conclusion that they had been sexually violated.

Among the threats and torture methods used on these survivors by professional "child-protectors" were detainments, solitary confinement, and threats of rape at local juvenile detention centers. 

To substantiate this last one, "Michael", 13, states that NYPD detective Robert W. Maginnis 

"threatened to beat me, [and] take me to Spoffard [Bronx juvenile jail] where six guys his size would hold me down and fuck me up the ass." 

He also implicated two Bronx Assistant DA's in his abuse, stating that one, while repeatedly calling him "queer" and "fag" also threatened to tell people at his school that he was gay. (23) 

More well known people leading the protection work include Janet Reno, who, as Florida State Attorney in 1987, worked "fanatically" to brainwash 17-year-old Illeana Fuster into turning against her husband and then "admitting" her own guilt; in court Illeana qualified her guilty plea by adding that she did not feel guilty, she just wanted to get it all over with. (24) 

Even the famous Los Angeles Police Department got caught in the act, when one of its employees dangled two boys, ages 12 and 13, over an Oceanside cliff by their ankles. (25) 

All these strategies were used to try to get the "needy child" to finally share their "best kept secret." The man who performed this last deed of assured "comfort" was named Detective Lloyd Martin, and he never got punished for this kind of 'professionalism'; in fact he remained with the LAPD's "Sexually Exploited Child Unit" for many years afterwards.

Another member of such "child advocacy" was a lieutenant in New Jersey who actually got quoted in a suburban newspaper. He said that 

"the big problem [that police have] is getting under-age boys to testify against their male lovers... The interrogation can be intense." 

This man, named William Thorne went still further, remarking that 

"We've got to crack the boy and it's not an easy thing to do." (26) 

These unusually explicit affidavits of police brutality are probably unique in their detail about how the "Official Guardians of Protection" systematically carry out their important work. And it provides an insight surrounding the abuse of young people at the hands of the real power.

Certainly these accounts could have brought an would interesting twist to the furor that was at the time motivating "conscious" circles to get organized so that they could "meet the challenge" with strong opposition. 

Yet the U.S. media were not interested. This material was suppressed entirely, without a word, in the national media, where more than a few "lightheaded and cold-blooded" "advocates for children" sang praise to "pedo squads" and their "rapid response" to the burgeoning social ill facing Conscious Americans everywhere. 

"Few ask whether such media exposure might have offered [these kids] some protection from contemplating these alternatives."

These unprepared survivors were not encouraged by  soothing legions of professionals to sue the cities where they'd been victimized, and there were no new laws made to help them prosecute their tormentors; rather, they were pretty much forced to continue living quite silenced in the system of things, and get used to knowing who was the Boss.

Young people staggering from these kinds of situations have often chosen drug abuse, crime, and suicide as their outlets; yet much of the evidence about the background for why they choose such outlets does not appear in the U.S. media. And few ask whether such media exposure might have offered them some protection from contemplating these outlets.

This tells you something about the way in which a well-functioning system of consent-manufacturing works. In comparison with the revelations of the straightforward abuse that the above kids endured, the much more vaguely-defined and less-straightforward (yet accepted) idea is not even nearly as much of a scandal when one considers what's going on. 

Besides that the shared interests get off scot-free -- there is this unwavering trust that the vaguely-defined label of sexual abuse is the CAUSE for all manner of social problems and difficulties later in life, regardless of the true nature of the crime. But "Child Protectors" have their job to do.

That takes us towards the next emotional outcry. I expect we're going to hear more and more about the above fabrications until the next operation takes place.

The fight for kids' freedoms

A few remarks about the final one. Let's finally turn to that.

Let me begin with the many studies and polls taken for the past twenty or so years concerning the abuse of young people. These have some interesting insights. 

In studies and polls taken which ask about what people would like to do in order to obtain justice for abused young ones, people often made two kinds of responses. 

There were the extreme ones of publicly promoted vigilantism which led to beatings or killings, or burning down the homes of the guilty, 
and the more considered ones that said we should prosecute to the fullest extent under the law. 

If people were to follow the latter advice, we remind ourselves of this vaguely-defined term as it is now understood. There would be sexual, physical, emotional and psychological abuse; and we would have to prosecute not only the law enforcement officials "doing their jobs," but also we'd have to prosecute and sue school officials who uncritically promote so-called "learning disabilities" which got us stigmatized and dependent upon the pharmaceutical industry; or principals who paddled us years ago and teachers who may've humiliated us after catching us having sex in the bathrooms. We'd even need to search out the playground supervisors who let our peers bully us and many more. (27) 

These are all cases of physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuses perpetrated upon unprepared children. If you know the facts about the range of examples, you'll know very well that non-violent, non-coercive "pedophilia" falls within that range of illegal activity. But they're not the most extreme.

Why doesn't anybody come to that conclusion? The reason is that people either don't know about it or never considered it. In a well-functioning propaganda system, people wouldn't know or wouldn't have seriously considered what I'm talking about when I list that range of examples.

If you bother to think about it a bit or look into it a little, you find that those examples are quite appropriate, especially when you see for what the pedophiles are getting long punishments for.

Let's take one that was ominously close to being perceived during the lowering of the age-of-consent laws in the UK.

Right in the middle of all the discussion about the homosexual consent law being lowered from 21 to 18 (but not 16 like for heterosexuals), the press no doubt, would've noted these laws in other places, including Canada's age of 14. 

If you had done a little looking for yourself, you could've also found that other countries, like The Netherlands or Spain, hold laws that make it possible for the age of consent to be as low as 12. Still other modern nations like Ghana and Micronesia are said to have no age-of-consent law at all. (28) 

These laws are kind of interesting to know about, especially with regard to all the righteous expert conclusions and their obedient social and cultural managers -- the Rightful Leaders -- who keep getting away with their "narrowly restricted skills of rationality."

Of course, Concerned "Child-Protection" advocates and their supporting business community won't spend too much time looking at their hypocrisies because, the truth is, real power backs their version of truth. 

Meanwhile, American 14-year-olds and their adult lovers who live on this side of the Canadian border will be prosecuted, harassed, subject to official torture techniques, and often persecuted to the full extent of the law, while the 14-year-olds and their lovers on the Canadian side are allowed to pursue their physical delights without fear of state-backed reprisals.

You never get to hear anything on the talk or investigative shows, or in the universities about these kinds of inconsistencies. In fact, few are allowed to know what's going on when such modern nations make these kinds of decisions about lowering or doing away with such age-of-consent laws.

And no one has called for the full prosecution of the media or the Rightful Leaders for scaring young people into this belief that all manner of slightly affectionate or friendly touch (such as a hug, or a pat) might result in their being raped by some weirdo -- in what amounts to just plain psychological abuse. That's just one example. There are much worse ones.

Like the idea that people under certain ages don't even get equal rights with adults when they prove that they can function just as successfully. 

In a positive light you get people like the once famous Samantha Smith or Bobby Fischer (8-year-old Canadian Chess Champion), or Maculay Culkin who are most often herded off to special private, or "professional children's schools." In a negative light you get the view that kids can and must be "tried as adults" for crime.

I personally know a guy who at age 14 (when I was 13) got tried as an adult for "Accessory to Murder" and given a Life term. He hadn't even been with the others, it turns out, but had been part of the original plan to rob a store.

Then there's the case of the internationally-reported British kids who were convicted of 

"knowingly and with malice aforethought, committed an act of premeditated murder"

upon a 2-year-old boy. The two 10-year-olds were convicted "to what is effectively life imprisonment." (29) 

Or how about the case of the boy in Wilmington, Massachusetts in 1993, who was alleged to have molested a younger girl in his neighborhood and then bloodied her nose. 

The resulting hysteria, openly encouraged by one locally popular talk radio station, had adults expressing classic bewildered herd mentalities with such ideas as 

"beating [the 12-year-old] 'til he no longer moved." 

Now, because Wilmington is such a small town, the bits of description that were given, together with free-for-all rumors, made it a certainty that this young unprepared person would not easily survive were he to continue his stay in that town. We can go on and on about this vaguely-defined abuse business.

Last Part Five 

Reasons for the emotional outcry 

Hope you'll help us circulate this to all who might be educated. Some of this is alleged to have been said before by the activist community, but the closest I know comes from Felicity Goodyear-Smith in her book FIRST DO NO HARM; out of New Zealand. 

Unfortunately she doesn't delve as deep as she could've -- partaking of a long history of official lies and obfuscation upon many before us. With this article I hope we will find a more serious understanding of the challenge before us. I welcome feedback. Please e-mail me [via < webmaster@ipce.org >]

(This address may be compromised by the usual forces which silence the scapegoated.)

That tells you how a well-functioning propaganda system works. People can believe that when we use the law upon the pedophiles (of all ages) or physically abusive people, we really observe the principle that abuses of young people should be met with prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. 

They don't see what it would mean if those principles were applied to Establishment behavior. That's a success of propaganda of quite a spectacular sort.

Representing the kids 

Let's take a look at another success. If you look closely at the coverage of the child-abuse emotional outcry since its beginnings in the mid-seventies, you'll notice that there are, by and large, a few striking voices missing.

For example, there are the young people and their now grown-up fellows who have had positive experiences with intergenerational sex. 

They of course function mostly through the few marginal outlets set up that allow such views to be heard, because their views don't survive within Establishment or "Conscious" circles. 

There've been tries, like the article by New York Men's Movement activist Jeff Beane published in "Changing Men." But his attempt was met with so much hysteria that the magazine's editors were forced to publicly apologize or else lose the "support" of the "feminist" Women's Movement, led by such distracters as Nikki Craft. (30) 

Within these marginalized outlets, which encompass platforms ranging from publications to organizations -- like the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) or the "Kanalratten" of Germany; they have voices, and they speak. (31) 

[* And see, more recently published: T. Rivas
Positive memories 
Cases of positive memories of erotic relationships and contacts of children with adults, as seen from the perspective of the former minor - 2009 - Ipce]

In years past some of the young people have marched openly and been active, in defiance of the hysterias, risking detainment, with these groups. They've written in these groups' [NAMBLA] publications, too. One young dude by the name of "The Unicorn" wrote very capable columns and debate at the age of 11 and 12 for the NAMBLA Bulletin. (32) 

Then there was Bill Andriette, who's now a spokesman for NAMBLA, and past editor of its Bulletin. Bill joined at 15, becoming quite active right away, including marching openly with the organization. But such young people have been rebuffed because official conclusion promoters have no interest in such truths. 

There's been no reaction to this in the public record further than people suspecting that these people in such organizations were not really "young" and if they actually were, must've been brainwashed or in some nasty way forced to do appearances or something. At least that's how a lot of people have imagined it.

That's kind of interesting, if you look at it. People trust the legitimate authorities so much that they can't allow themselves to imagine that such unaccountables would threaten kids with rape or dangle them over cliffs, but if the hated minority tries to defend itself by allowing the young to speak, the hated minority must be forcing them somehow.

Now, after twenty years, the media is starting to wonder what "the kids, themselves" have to say about these matters. We note that the time is perfect, now that people are "clever enough" to spot who is being threatened and coerced to appear, and who is speaking from their own voice.

Of course, the people with shared values have to be very careful because they don't want the babies to be hurt in any way. And you want to make sure they say the right words

(they don't seem to yet have been able to train patsies like John Crewdson, though I imagine they're working on that one).

Kids, those "little devils," can sometimes say the wrong things since they're kind of shy and intimidated by adults ...

So far, we've gotten a bit where the kids are sitting in a classroom-type space with the appropriate professional leading them with the admissible language; then there's a quick clip of a minority girl parroting it. 

"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."

Little by little we're seeing the media inserting kids' "voices" into their fare -- though if the children say something that doesn't fit, the professionals ignore it (or edit it out) and hope no sickos got a tape of it. I saw something like this on a local Boston talk show where a lesbian teenager blurted a quickie about having an adult lover. The subject was coolly changed immediately.

The voices that are allowed to be understood are those which tout the desired conclusions. Only a few voices of people who defend their positive experiences slip through, and when they do they're either ignored or forbidden serious attention, or censored from ever discussing such topics again.

Only within the framework of a few marginalized groups like the Kanalratten or NAMBLA, or the radical press, are such voices given serious credence. Many people of both sexes and all age ranges have made their voices heard here, but they've been largely met with silence.

This can come across as slightly suspicious if you're able to think critically about it. Why would the entire media business ignore such views when they're so charged with Protecting Children? 

Or maybe they're skeptical, because they're clever enough to realize that the pedophile will go to huge lengths, "will wait years," -- while working within the law (in the case of NAMBLA activists) for more than ten years of intense scrutiny by police, politicians, and everybody else -- just to fool us so that they can get their mouths on a kid's genitals legally. 

It may be something to think about, and you can't help wondering about these opposition voices.

Take a look at the national media and see how much you can find about the boy-love or girl-love opposition as it has been covered since the emotional outcry broke out in the mid-70's. And note the frame it has been kept in -- while the acceptable and preconceived view is always a constant. 

Note the descriptions, read between the lines, compare it with how the media frames historically hated groups. What clues can you find? ...You should be doing this already with every other subject if you're catching on at all.

Malcolm X said it exactly: 

"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."

Right from the start of the US organization called NAMBLA (with its pilot the Boston-Boise Committee), experiences outside the accepted frame have been kept carefully marginalized with a double-edged sword: 

if kids dared not to cooperate with authorities they could be detained or dealt with brutally as described earlier, and 
if they dared to speak out they'd be met with silence; 
if their older friends spoke in their absence, it was an obvious ruse to fool gullible citizens.

If you look at NAMBLA and read their position papers, you'll note that they've taken up some quite detailed and far-reaching stances in terms of the rights of young people. 

And you can start to see that they've been working for more than ten years because they don't want neither their sexual orientations laid waste or do they want kids to be stuck in the "prison garden of childhood." 

What they want is to have their views objectively perused and their experiences honestly considered. They want to educate people about the benevolent nature of sexuality in general, between all kinds of people, and they want to show how consent laws do more harm than good.

That's the wrong view and therefore they're out. We aren't allowed to openly peruse their ideas, in fact we are quite well pressured not to even covertly peruse their ideas, since in the hysteria, anyone caught with witch books can be guilty 'til proven innocent, and you might not have the energy for that. 

If you want to find out about some of these alternative views, you can either go to a university special collections library 

(in a state where readers are protected from being put on FBI lists is preferable -- i.e. don't go to Louisiana) 

or try the radical press. Such views are not easily found, but they're less controlled than mainstream sources and they say something. (33) 

This is a spectacular achievement of propaganda. 

First, that part of the voices of the very people -- the young especially -- who are directly affected by the emotional outcry are completely excluded, and 
second, that nobody notices it. 

That's interesting too. 

It takes a really deeply indoctrinated population not to notice that we're not hearing the voices of the very people whom the "Child Protectors" are supposedly protecting and not asking the question, WHY? -- and finding out the obvious answer: because the young people with positive experiences have thoughts independent of the "more intelligent members of the community"; they directly understand that the accepted conclusions are lopsided and that artificial constructs like age have little to do with reality. Therefore they're out. 

Reasons for the emotional outcry

Let's take the question of the reasons for the emotional outcry. Reasons were offered for the emotional outcry. The reasons are: 

aggressors against young people cannot be rewarded and 
aggression must be reversed by the quick resort to a tougher stand, such as 
tougher laws, 
official torture techniques, and 
increased business expert direction.

That was the reason for the emotional outcry. There was basically no other reason advanced. Can that possibly be the reason for the emotional outcry?

I won't insult your intelligence by running through the facts, but the fact is that those arguments could be refuted in two minutes by a literate young dude. However, they've never been refuted.

Take a look at the media, the liberal commentators and critics, the people who testified at the Senate sub-committee hearings on aggression upon young people and see whether anybody questioned the assumption that our trusted authorities stand up to those principles.

Have US experts opposed their own aggression upon young people and insisted on prosecuting all the people in on these violence in order to reverse it? 
Has the science or business community funded any investigations? 
Where are the made-for-TV docu-drama producers?
Did they promote an emotional outcry? 
Did they prosecute anyone to the fullest extent of the law? 

No, they've carried on generations of "professional helpfulness."

It hasn't been very pretty during these many years. You had these institutionalized human beings working long hours to keep the children on the proper track, whether recommending psychiatric hospitalizations, therapy sessions, or dividing up families whose younger or older members might decide to resist the authority of the State, such as in matters of alleged sexual abuse.

I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions, who have had to be kept on the proper track and fit into the preconceived scientific conclusions. 

Great numbers of kids called "weirdos" because of the side-effects of neuroleptic drugs like Ritalin, or "faggots" by strategic police, parents and peers. 

Myriad numbers of kids believing they must be "sick" or somehow less able than their peers because their authority figures felt they weren't behaving "normally." 

Thousands of kids each year thoroughly humiliated, intimidated and victimized into swallowing the proper conclusions that the various pleasures they felt at the hands of sincerely loving adults was "abuse" of THE WORST KIND.

We continued with this "professional helpfulness" and ended up with ample reward for the aggressors. They are given legitimacy in the press, advancements in their careers, and the power to continue to carry out their helpfulness in schools, juvenile psychiatric prisons, delinquent units, "boot camps," and other spaces being designed for young people's future "time out."

Where is this principle that we uphold? Again, it's young dude's play to demonstrate that those couldn't possibly have been the reasons for the emotional outcry, because we don't uphold those principles.

But nobody said anything -- that's what's important. And nobody bothered to point out the conclusion that follows: NO REASON WAS GIVEN FOR MAKING THIS EMOTIONAL OUTCRY. None. No reason was given for this emotional outcry that couldn't be refuted by a literate young dude in about two minutes. 

That again is the hallmark of a totalitarian culture. It ought to frighten us, that we are so deeply totalitarian that we can be driven to such hysteria without any reason being given for it and without anybody noticing some young people's requests or caring. It's a very striking fact.

A lot of talk in the gay and lesbian press and other alternative culture media have ventured upon the ideas of people remembering how they felt when they were young and some of the experiences they had. Gays and lesbians particularly, have sometimes spoken candidly of ages like 7, 10, or 12 when they had sexual feelings for adults.

Other adults often discuss memories of doing things that it is believed kids aren't competent to do, like driving cars, saving lives, breaking sophisticated computer codes, or accomplishing "incredible" physical and mental feats alone.

In one book, noted educator John Holt tells of two boys, ages about 4 and 5, whom "managed to live and survive for several years, in a large city, ...vin the midst of great poverty and deprivation -- all by themselves." (34) 

If you do a little looking into the history of this country and others you can also find that there's quite a lot about kids being quite competent. 

For instance, it wasn't uncommon for 13-year-olds to marry and raise families or head out west alone in search of fortunes. And for ages, young people have sailed oceans independently, commanded naval vessels, and governed populations. They've joined adults in wars and have often been maimed, tortured, and killed, as well as decorated right along with adults. 

For instance, in Israel (backed by "phenomenal" U.S. aid) troops regularly torture, maim and kill children who are participating in the Palestinian Resistance. Kids as young as 5 or 7 are "deterred" in this way. (35) 

Yet our benevolent mainstream press has never connected these realities of recorded and remembered history with the current challenges facing society and its spoken passion for justice. 

Instead, they continue their busy focus on the negative angle of kids' "incompetence," thus promoting more an atmosphere of bashing and destructiveness than sincere empowerment. In such a hostile and condescending image, young people become more like a burdensome "super pet" than the people they are. (36) 

Those who've caught on to these developments have often figured they were the only ones, or at least in a tiny minority. And the other people out there who've heard only mainstream accounts have been inclined to believe these statements about the abuse epidemic as totally legitimate, though sometimes wondering why no one ever says anything of what they remembered from their experiences. Together with those who did catch on in part, they say, 

"I'm alone, but that's what I think."

Suppose they knew that they weren't alone, that other people like themselves thought it, like a connected network of unschoolers, sexual freedom advocates, or a youth-run independent press syndicate. 
Suppose they knew that this was not an ulteriorly-motivated network, that in fact these people -- in their networks -- supporting the rights and freedom of younger people to be taken seriously and empowered genuinely, were in fact a sincere body.
Suppose that they knew that the various establishment devices such as the media and the Rightful Leaders had not been cooperating in the least with these voices since well before the mid-seventies. 
Suppose that people had known that these alternative positions were legitimate and did incorporate young people themselves who wanted to be heard. 

Wouldn't it be exactly the kind of thing that any rational person who genuinely cares about the young as fellow human beings would want to deeply think about and look into? 

That's what we try to do for more everyday problems facing kids: if there's an impassioned argument we try to find out what's going on and channel the high emotion towards a just solution fit for both parties.

Suppose these things had been known. You can make your own guesses, but I would assume that a lot more people would have spoken out. 

Here you have the great successes of propaganda. 

Probably few people have caught on to all of this even though they might've been tuning themselves in to "Questioning Authority" on other terms. But from the beginning, people didn't connect their experiences with these other ideas. Remember, they'd only caught on to part of what was going on in the 1960's. Therefore it was possible to proceed with the strategy without opposition.

In other countries there has been a good deal of discussion about whether compromise would work. And in the cases of Canada, Spain, France, The Netherlands, and Germany such compromises have worked to varying degrees. All these modern nations have some form of age of consent under 16. They aren't perfect yet, in terms of broader possibilities for the young's true potential, but at least they're making rational headway.

In one case, in Germany, there was a system where the judge chose to send an adult whom was convicted of nonviolent coercive acts, to the local child-love sexual freedom group as part of his rehabilitation. (37) 

These kinds of developments are interesting since they incorporate the rational approach towards a constructive future of the crime-doer. It's kind of interesting to see these developments especially when we learn that such countries have undergone much political pressure to conform to U.S. standards of "help." (38) 

These truths are not discussed in the U.S. media, and it is crucial for a well-functioning propaganda system that they NOT be discussed. That enables politicians to say that if our country did not have these tough new laws and special police "Pedo Squads" and sex abuse hotlines to help anonymous people turn in "suspicious" neighbors, we wouldn't be the foremost nation on the earth that truly cares about its young.

They can say that and no citizen would get up and say that if I had had the power, kids would've been empowered much more sincerely not only today, but twenty years ago, because there were opportunities then that I would have pursued and young people would have been really protected without driving so many to despair, violence, drug abuse, therapeutic dependence and suicide.

No citizen would say that because of the fear that was tapped into them from the very beginning. A few people said these things, like Harry Hay and Allen Ginsberg, but the number of people who took such a position is so marginal that it's virtually nonexistent. Given the fact that almost no citizen would say these things, the politician is free to make their statements. It shows that the manufacture of consent is working.

Last comment about this. 

We could give many examples, you could make them up as you go along. Take the idea that child-lovers are monsters molesting the world's children, committing "soul murder" on them that keeps them messed up for the rest of their lives -- widely believed, in the U.S., and not unrealistically. 

It has been drilled into people's heads over and over again: They're stealing the children; they're trying to taint their purity with their sickening predatory impulses; they're recruiting for the next generation of child-rapists.

All kinds of messages which resemble the messages played against scapegoats of history -- witches, native Americans, the "insane," communists, the gays -- messages so similar to those coming out of the church of yesteryear in a style that gave an outlet to people's frustrations about real problems that must not be changed, at least not as quickly as they could be changed. That's so typical of so many other emotional outcries now "understood" in every "conscious" circle today.

So why hasn't anyone "connected the dots" to begin seeing a full picture? 
Why do people keep on making the same kinds of mistakes over and over and over again?

Notice that this is not all that different from what John Kelloggs did with the the help of the "more intelligent members of the community" in tapping into church-roused fears and ignorance about sexuality, when they succeeded in manufacturing their "legitimacy" in the eyes of a public who had to stop their babies from "abusing themselves".

The techniques are maybe more sophisticated, with television and lots of money going into public relations, but it's pretty traditional.

I think the issue, to come back to my original comment, is not simply about the first images that come to our minds, like those of messed-up aggressors -- it's much broader. 

It's whether we want to live in a society that really practices justice for all of its people or whether we want to live under what amounts to a form of self-imposed totalitarianism; with the various bewildered herd factions marginalized, directed elsewhere, terrified, screaming empty slogans, fearing for the lives of their young -- and the young afraid of affectionate touch -- and all admiring with awe the Rightful Leaders who keep saving them from the ever-heightening violence. 

While the "rational" sectors goose-step on command and repeat the slogans they're supposed to repeat and justice deteriorates more and more.

We all, policing each other, end up serving as obedient enforcers, hoping that the business community is going to reward us for following their agendas. 

These are the choices. That's the choice that you have to face. The answer to those questions is very much in the hands of people like YOU and ME

For more information 

[Note: since this article is from the mid-'90's, next information might be outdated in 2010 - Ipce.]

Excellent research libraries where many mentioned rare titles including FPS (and CHIPS), PAN, and boy/girl-love movement publications include: 

the Labadie Collection, 7th Floor, of the University of Michigan's main graduate library in Ann Arbor; 
the Homodok library at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and 
Anna Blaman Huis in Leeuwarden (Netherlands).

Activist attorney Lawrence A.Stanley's book may be purchased through Ophelia Editions, P.O.Box 2377 NY, NY 10185. He also publishes [*] an informative "newsletter" titled "Uncommon Desires."

[* Anno 2010: "published" - past tense - Ipce.]

Indianner Kommune: Postbox 810361, D8500, Nuremburg Germany; phone: (010)49 911266786. Publishes "Newsletter For Our English-Speaking Friends"; hosts activist bicycle trips and involves young people in authentic empowerment.

Since 1977, Holt Associates has published wide-ranging literature on Unschooling, including the national newsletter "Growing Without Schooling." Also sells Escape From Childhood and vital books by Grace Llewellyn, as well as info challenging "learning disorders." Free catalog: 2269 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02140 (617)864-3100.

EIDOS, the huge adult sexual freedom paper: Brenda Loew; p.o.box 96 Boston, MA 02137-0096 E-mail: EIDOS4SEX@aol.com 

Victims of Child Abuse Laws (VOCAL): 7485 E.Kenyon Ave. Denver, CO 80237 or (303)233-5321

NAMBLA p.o.box 174 Midtown Sta. NY, NY 10018

"THE GUIDE To Gay Travel, Entertainment, Politics & Sex" p.o.box 593 Boston, MA 02199 ( www.guidemag.com )

[Ipce - Homepage]     [Articles & Essays - D]

[Register by Subject - Politics - Witch hunt ...]