No Evidence Required

One of the most depressing discoveries that I ever made about people, in general, is their apparent lack of ability to think clearly or deeply.

As a result, they are easily led like sheep into believing whatever they are told - particularly if they are told something often enough.

But one of the most astonishing aspects of this, in my view, is how people will continue to believe what they are being told even though this might be completely contrary to the evidence that sits in front of their eyes on a daily basis.

For example, we are continually told that women have always been treated worse than men and, further, that this continues to be the case; and most of the public seems to believe this despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence to support such a conclusion. On the contrary, the evidence supports the complete opposite.

Throughout history!

But, in this piece, I just want to focus on four recent examples where this sort of thing occurs simply to expose what often seems to be going on.

The first example is a report in the Daily Mail informing us that the UK's top soap opera, Eastenders, is going to portray a step-father as a child-abuser.

Here is the first sentence in the report ...

EastEnders is about to tackle the taboo subject of child abuse with a hard-hitting storyline involving teenager Whitney Dean.

Notice the use of the word 'taboo'.

The Daily Mail is telling us that, for some reason or other, we do not talk about child abuse.

And yet, the media and the government have been putting child-abuse at the top of the agenda for about 20 years now, not only when it comes to talking about it, but also when it comes to legislating on matters to do with it.

the country seems to have been in a permanent state of hysteria over the issue.

Indeed, the country seems to have been in a permanent state of hysteria over the issue.

So, why does the author of the report suggest that the issue of child abuse is a 'taboo' subject when, quite clearly, it is not?

And my answer to this question is, "because, as a piece of effective propaganda, it works."

Another example comes from a recent BBC programme which took a comical look at TV adverts from around the world. And it was, indeed, quite amusing.

I cannot remember the 'subject' areas, but in the first half of the programme nearly all the adverts portrayed men as idiots. In the second half of the programme we were presented with adverts from the 1950s and 1960s that sold domestic products to women (e.g. washing-up liquid).

These adverts were described as 'misogynistic', but there was nothing remotely misogynistic about them. 

The targets of the adverts were, of course, women - who were seen happily prancing around the kitchen as housewives - delighted that their product was so effective at doing the washing - but there was nothing misogynistic about them at all.

There was no attempt to demean women, or to "put them in their place". These were just simple adverts being targeted at those people - women - who, in those days - did most of the domestic chores.

...

there is just no way that the advertisers in days gone by could have insulted women

Indeed, the only way that advertisers can sell their products is if they make them appeal to their targeted consumers. So there is just no way that the advertisers in days gone by could have insulted women - or, indeed, could have portrayed them in a manner of which they did not approve - or, indeed, could have portrayed them in a way with which they, themselves, could not identify - and still sell their products to them.

Any advertising agency that even tried to demean in any way those women who were most likely to buy their clients' products would have been sacked within the hour.

you lick the bottoms of your target consumers

I have worked in the advertising industry, and I can assure you that when it comes to selling products, you lick the bottoms of your target consumers or you are soon outgunned by others that do.

I repeat. There is just no way that the adverts that were designed to sell to women of 40+ years ago demeaned, offended or patronised them.

Women would have been portrayed in exactly the way that they would mostly have wanted to be portrayed.

It is only the dishonest disinformation continually being promulgated by feminist groups - such as those working within the BBC - that has led people today to believe that such adverts from the past were 'misogynistic'.

They weren't.

And aren't.

...

The audience in the studio of this TV comedy programme about adverts, however, clearly bought into the notion that these innocuous adverts from the past were offensive to women - judging by the way in which they sighed and laughed (tentatively) over them - but - hold on a moment! - the adverts in the first half of the programme were almost entirely sexist - with men being demeaned and ridiculed quite obviously throughout.

How is it possible that a TV presenter can get away with foisting on to the public the notion that women are the ones being demeaned and ridiculed in adverts when, in front of their very own eyes, he has just presented strong evidence to support the view that it is men who are the ones being mostly denigrated?

And my answer to this question is, "because, as a piece of effective propaganda, it works."

My third example refers to another programme from the BBC and it is one that I have already mentioned elsewhere. And so I will simply quote my own piece ...

One programme, for example, was about the life of a Medieval woman called Christina. Apparently, she lived in an age when women were very badly catered for indeed.

And yet; we discovered that this woman lived to be 60 years old and had - if my memory serves me correctly - some three or four children. She ran two or three successful businesses and managed to leave them to her eldest daughter. Meanwhile, both her husband and her brother had died during the nationwide famine of the period. (She later married a younger man.)

How is it that this woman survived if she was so hard done by?

Tell me someone. How is it that this woman survived if she was so hard done by? - given that her brother and her husband did not. 

How did she manage to bear and feed her offspring throughout all this, eh?

How did her life in any way whatsoever provide evidence to suggest that women were hard done by compared to men?

There was no answer at all to these questions throughout the entire programme.

Nothing! Zilch! Just the repeated sentiment that women had it worse.

Here, we have an entire programme which is presented to the public as containing evidence for the view that women faired poorly in the Middle Ages compared to men, but no evidence for such a claim is actually presented in the programme to support this contention.

On the contrary, the evidence suggested the complete opposite.

So, what is going on?

And my answer to this question is, "because, as a piece of effective propaganda, it works."

My final example is taken from a piece of mine called Fantastical Lies. The extract below refers to the utterly empty-headed rhetoric that was parroted by UK politicians up and down the country following the 7/7 bombings on the London Underground.

"we will not give in to terrorism by changing our way of life"

Another fantastical lie currently being perpetrated by western politicians is that "we will not give in to terrorism by changing our way of life". Even the Queen has been parroting this nonsense - under their 'guidance'. 

And this notion that our way of life is not going to change is so patently ridiculous that it beggars belief that politicians can actually endorse it.

Al-Qaeda is very definitely having an effect on the lives of people - a massive one - particularly in America. 

For example, America and the UK have gone to war! 

I would call that a fairly big effect. 

There are also 1800 dead soldiers and thousands more have been injured. 140,000 or so troops are being shipped and maintained in Iraq. 'Homeland Security' is being beefed up at huge expense and everybody's civil liberties are gradually being sat upon. As just one example, going to an airport is now like dealing with a major obstacle course. 

The Muslim and Jewish communities might see their lives change if inter-hostilities increase. The laws are going to change further; e.g. the introduction of ID cards. Tourism to a targeted city is likely to go down. And if there are more attacks on big cities, people might decide to abandon them; especially if they have children. 

House prices therein might collapse. The price of oil is likely to soar. [This has now happened.] This will affect the prices of most commodities, meaning that the poorer will be hit. Pensions will also likely be affected.

The effects of terrorism could be almost endless.

So what is all this nonsense about our way of life not changing as a result of terrorist actions?

How can the politicians actually get away with making ridiculous statements that are so very clearly false

How can the politicians actually get away with making ridiculous statements that are so very clearly false; particularly when just about everybody with a pair of eyes must be able to see the falsity for themselves?

And my answer to this question is, "because, as a piece of effective propaganda, it works."

But, don't ask me why!

There is almost something supernatural about this phenomenon whereby propagandists can make the most unbelievable of claims - claims that are absolutely and so very obviously false - and, yet, the public swallows them!

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yawn. Very interesting Angry Harry. But what, exactly, is your point?

Well, Junior, my point is this.

It doesn't matter what the facts are.

It doesn't matter what the truth is.

It doesn't even matter if all the evidence in front of the public's collective face says something that completely contradicts what they are being told, they will still fall for it.

Provided that the person or the people who are making the bogus claims have an air of credibility, they can say almost anything that they like, and they will be believed by the public almost regardless of any amount of evidence to the contrary - particularly if they make the bogus claims often enough.

And, quite clearly, the professional propagandists (politicians, feminists, and even the Queen, etc etc)  know it.

 the public does not listen to the evidence

Thus, it seems to me that people can present to the unthinking public all the evidence that they like in support of their case. The problem, however, is that the public does not listen to the evidence and it does not look at the facts. It simply listens to those who seem to have credibility and who keep reiterating some point - and it believes them.

I am reminded of an old 1960s comedy film about married men starring Walter Matthau and a host of other comedians.

One of the funnier exploits, in my view, involves a husband who is having an affair with a blonde bimbo. And they are upstairs in the bedroom when the wife turns up.

She walks into the bedroom just as the man and the bimbo are desperately trying to put on their clothes; she still lying on the bed and wearing nothing but bra and panties. 

"Who is that woman?" screeches the wife - or something like that - pointing her finger at the bimbo.

"What woman?" says her husband, struggling to put on his trousers.

"That woman!" the wife shouts.

The husband turns round to look behind him.

"I can't see any woman," he says.

"But there's a naked woman lying on our bed," screeches the wife.

"Nope. I can't see any woman," the husband repeats.

And, thusly, the scene goes on for a while longer while the bimbo escapes out of the bedroom.

The end result?

The wife thinks that she must have been imagining the presence of the bimbo and that she must be going slightly mad, and the husband gets away with it.

LOL!

She discounts the evidence in front of her very own eyes.