Aldous Huxley's inspired 1956 essay detailed the vivid,
mind-expanding, multi-sensory insights of his mescaline adventures. By
altering his brain chemistry with natural psychotropics, Huxley tapped
into a rich and fluid world of shimmering, indescribable beauty and
power. With his neuro-sensory input thus triggered, Huxley was able to
enter that parallel universe described by every mystic and space
captain in recorded history. Whether by hallucination or epiphany,
Huxley sought to remove all controls, all filters, all cultural
conditioning from his perceptions and to confront Nature or the World
or Reality first-hand - in its unpasteurized, unedited, unretouched,
infinite rawness.
Those bonds are much harder to break today, half a century later. We
are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known.
Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and
molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being
subtly and inexorably erased. The doors of our perception are
carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?
It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how
most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the
public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort
to save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the
handling of information in this country. Once the basic principles are
illustrated about how our current system of media control arose
historically, the reader might be more apt to question any given
popular opinion.
If everybody believes something, it's probably wrong. We call that
Conventional Wisdom.
In America, conventional wisdom that has mass acceptance is usually
contrived: somebody paid for it.
Examples:
* Pharmaceuticals restore health
* Vaccination brings immunity
* The cure for cancer is just around the corner
* Menopause is a disease condition
* When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics
* When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol
* Hospitals are safe and clean.
* America has the best health care in the world.
* Americans have the best health in the world.
* Milk is a good source of calcium.
* You never outgrow your need for milk.
* Vitamin C is ascorbic acid.
* Aspirin prevents heart attacks.
* Heart drugs improve the heart.
* Back and neck pain are the only reasons for spinal adjustment.
* No child can get into school without being vaccinated.
* The FDA thoroughly tests all drugs before they go on the market.
* Pregnancy is a serious medical condition
* Chemotherapy and radiation are effective cures for cancer
* When your child is diagnosed with an ear infection, antibiotics
should be given immediately 'just in case'
* Ear tubes are for the good of the child.
* Estrogen drugs prevent osteoporosis after menopause.
* Pediatricians are the most highly trained of al medical specialists.
* The purpose of the health care industry is health.
* HIV is the cause of AIDS.
* AZT is the cure for AIDS.
* Without vaccines, infectious diseases will return
* Fluoride in the city water protects your teeth
* Flu shots prevent the flu.
* Vaccines are thoroughly tested before being placed on the Mandated
Schedule.
* Doctors are certain that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh any
possible risks.
* There is a power shortage in California.
* There is a meningitis epidemic in California.
* The NASDAQ is a natural market controlled only by supply and demand.
* Chronic pain is a natural consequence of aging.
* Soy is your healthiest source of protein.
* Insulin shots cure diabetes.
* After we take out your gall bladder you can eat anything you want
* Allergy medicine will cure allergies.
This is a list of illusions, that have cost billions and billions to
conjure up. Did you ever wonder why you never see the President
speaking publicly unless he is reading? Or why most people in this
country think generally the same about most of the above issues?
HOW THIS WHOLE SET-UP GOT STARTED
In "Trust Us; We're Experts," Stauber and Rampton pull together some
compelling data describing the science of creating public opinion in
America. They trace modern public influence back to the early part of
the last century, highlighting the work of guys like Edward L.
Bernays, the Father of Spin. From his own amazing chronicle
Propaganda, we learn how Edward L. Bernays took the ideas of his
famous uncle Sigmund Freud himself and applied them to the emerging
science of mass persuasion. The only difference was that instead of
using these principles to uncover hidden themes in the human
unconscious, the way Freudian psychology does, Bernays used these same
ideas to mask agendas and to create illusions that deceive and
misrepresent, for marketing purposes.
THE FATHER OF SPIN
Bernays dominated the PR industry until the 1940s, and was a
significant force for another 40 years after that. (Tye) During all
that time, Bernays took on hundreds of diverse assignments to create a
public perception about some idea or product. A few examples: As a
neophyte with the Committee on Public Information, one of Bernays'
first assignments was to help sell the First World War to the American
public with the idea to "Make the World Safe for Democracy." (Ewen)
A few years later, Bernays set up a stunt to popularize the notion of
women smoking cigarettes. In organizing the 1929 Easter Parade in New
York City, Bernays showed himself as a force to be reckoned with. He
organized the Torches of Liberty Brigade in which suffragettes marched
in the parade smoking cigarettes as a mark of women's liberation. Such
publicity, followed from that one event, that from then on, women have
felt secure about destroying their own lungs in public, the same way
that men have always done.
Bernays popularized the idea of bacon for breakfast. Not one to turn
down a challenge, he set up the advertising format along with the AMA
that lasted for nearly 50 years proving that cigarettes are beneficial
to health. Just look at ads in issues of Life or Time from the 40s and
50s.
During the next several decades Bernays and his colleagues evolved the
principles by which masses of people could be generally swayed through
messages repeated over and over hundreds of times. Once the value of
media became apparent, other countries of the world tried to follow
our lead. But Bernays really was the gold standard. Josef Goebbels,
who was Hitler's minister of propaganda, studied the principles of
Edward Bernays when Goebbels was developing the popular rationale he
would use to convince the Germans that they had to purify their race.
(Stauber)
SMOKE AND MIRRORS
Bernay's job was to reframe an issue; to create a desired image that
would put a particular product or concept in a desirable light.
Bernays described the public as a 'herd that needed to be led.' And
this herdlike thinking makes people "susceptible to leadership."
Bernays never deviated from his fundamental axiom to "control the
masses without their knowing it." The best PR happens when people are
unaware that they are being manipulated.
Stauber describes Bernays' rationale like this: "the scientific
manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos and
conflict in a democratic society." Trust Us p. 42
These early mass persuaders postured themselves as performing a moral
service for humanity in general - democracy was too good for people;
they needed to be told what to think, because they were incapable of
rational thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph from Bernays'
Propaganda: "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of
our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our
ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a
logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In
almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or
business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are
dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the
mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who
pull the wires that control the public mind."
A tad different from Thomas Jefferson's view on the subject: "I know
of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society but the
people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not
take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
Inform their discretion. Bernays believed that only a few possessed
the necessary insight into the Big Picture to be entrusted with this
sacred task. And luckily, he saw himself as one of that few.
HERE COMES THE MONEY Once the possibilities of applying Freudian
psychology to mass media were glimpsed, Bernays soon had more
corporate clients than he could handle. Global corporations fell all
over themselves courting the new Image Makers. There were dozens of
goods and services and ideas to be sold to a susceptible public. Over
the years, these players have had the money to make their images
happen.
A few examples:
Philip Morris Pfizer Union Carbide Allstate Monsanto Eli Lilly tobacco
industry
Ciba Geigy
lead industry
Coors DuPont Chlorox Shell Oil
Standard Oil
Procter & Gamble
Boeing General Motors Dow Chemical
General Mills
Goodyear
THE PLAYERS Dozens of PR firms have emerged to answer that demand.
Among them:
Burson-Marsteller Edelman
Hill & Knowlton Kamer-Singer Ketchum Mongovin
Biscoe
Duchin BSMG Buder-Finn
Though world-famous within the PR industry, these are names we don't
know, and for good reason. The best PR goes unnoticed. For decades
they have created the opinions that most of us were raised with, on
virtually any issue which has the remotest commercial value,
including:
pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, medicine as a profession, alternative
medicine, fluoridation of city water, chlorine, household cleaning
products, tobacco, dioxin, global warming, leaded gasoline, cancer
research and treatment, pollution of the oceans, forests and lumber,
images of celebrities, including damage control crisis and disaster
management, genetically modified foods, aspartame, food additives,
processed foods, dental amalgams, etc.
LESSON #1 Bernays learned early on that the most effective way to
create credibility for a product or an image was by "independent
third-party" endorsement. For example, if General Motors were to come
out and say that global warming is a hoax thought up by some liberal
tree-huggers, people would suspect GM's motives, since GM's fortune is
made by selling automobiles. If, however, some independent research
institute with a very credible sounding name like the Global Climate
Coalition comes out with a scientific report that says global warming
is really a fiction, people begin to get confused and to have doubts
about the original issue.
So that's exactly what Bernays did. With a policy inspired by genius,
he set up "more institutes and foundations than Rockefeller and
Carnegie combined."
(Stauber p 45) Quietly financed by the industries whose products were
being evaluated, these "independent" research agencies would churn out
"scientific" studies and press materials that could create any image
their handlers wanted. Such front groups are given high-sounding names
like:
Temperature Research Foundation International Food Information Council
Consumer Alert The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition Air Hygiene
Foundation Industrial Health Federation International Food Information
Council Manhattan Institute Center for Produce Quality Tobacco
Institute Research Council Institute American Council on Science and
Health Global Climate Coalition Alliance for Better Foods
Sound pretty legit, don't they?
CANNED NEWS RELEASES As Stauber explains, these organizations and
hundreds of others like them are front groups whose sole mission is to
advance the image of the global corporations who fund them, like those
listed on page 2 above. This is accomplished in part by an endless
stream of 'press releases' announcing "breakthrough" research to every
radio station and newspaper in the country. (Robbins) Many of these
canned reports read like straight news, and indeed are purposely
molded in the news format. This saves journalists the trouble of
researching the subjects on their own, especially on topics about
which they know very little. Entire sections of the release or in the
case of video news releases, the whole thing can be just lifted
intact, with no editing, given the byline of the reporter or newspaper
or TV station - and voila! Instant news - copy and paste. Written by
corporate PR firms.
Does this really happen? Every single day, since the 1920s when the
idea of the News Release was first invented by Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p
22) Sometimes as many as half the stories appearing in an issue of the
Wall St. Journal are based solely on such PR press releases.. (22)
These types of stories are mixe d right in with legitimately
researched stories. Unless you have done the research yourself, you
won't be able to tell the difference.
THE LANGUAGE OF SPIN As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Edward
Bernays gained more experience, they began to formulate rules and
guidelines for creating public opinion. They learned quickly that mob
psychology must focus on emotion, not facts. Since the mob is
incapable of rational thought, motivation must be based not on logic
but on presentation. Here are some of the axioms of the new science of
PR:
* technology is a religion unto itself
* if people are incapable of rational thought, real democracy is
dangerous
*important decisions should be left to experts
* when reframing issues, stay away from substance; create images
* never state a clearly demonstrable lie
Words are very carefully chosen for their emotional impact. Here's an
example. A front group called the International Food Information
Council handles the public's natural aversion to genetically modified
foods. Trigger words are repeated all through the text. Now in the
case of GM foods, the public is instinctively afraid of these
experimental new creations which have suddenly popped up on our
grocery shelves which are said to have DNA alterations.
The IFIC wants to reassure the public of the safety of GM foods, so it
avoids words like: Frankenfoods Hitler biotech chemical DNA
experiments manipulate money safety scientists radiation roulette
gene-splicing gene gun random
Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like: hybrids natural
order beauty choice bounty cross-breeding diversity earth farmer
organic wholesome.
It's basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word association. The fact that GM
foods are not hybrids that have been subjected to the slow and careful
scientific methods of real cross-breeding doesn't really matter. This
is pseudoscience, not science. Form is everything and substance just a
passing myth. (Trevanian)
Who do you think funds the International Food Information Council?
Take a wild guess. Right - Monsanto, DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola,
Nutrasweet - those in a position to make fortunes from GM foods.
(Stauber p 20)
CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD PROPAGANDA As the science of mass control
evolved, PR firms developed further guidelines for effective copy.
Here are some of the gems:
- dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name calling
- speak in glittering generalities using emotionally positive words
- when covering something up, don't use plain English; stall for time;
distract
- get endorsements from celebrities, churches, sports figures, street
people... anyone who has no expertise in the subject at hand
- the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just like you
- when minimizing outrage, don't say anything memorable
- when minimizing outrage, point out the benefits of what just
happened
- when minimizing outrage, avoid moral issues
Keep this list. Start watching for these techniques. Not hard to find
Look at today's paper or tonight's TV news. See what they're doing;
these guys are good!
SCIENCE FOR HIRE PR firms have become very sophisticated in the
preparation of news releases. They have learned how to attach the
names of famous scientists to research that those scientists have not
even looked at. (Stauber, p 201) This is a common occurrence. In this
way the editors of newspapers and TV news shows are often not even
aware that an individual release is a total PR fabrication. Or at
least they have "deniability," right?
Stauber tells the amazing story of how leaded gas came into the
picture. In
1922, General Motors discovered that adding lead to gasoline gave cars
more horsepower. When there was some concern about safety, GM paid the
Bureau of Mines to do some fake "testing" and publish spurious
research that 'proved' that inhalation of lead was harmless. Enter
Charles Kettering. Founder of the world famous Sloan-Kettering
Memorial Institute for medical research, Charles Kettering also
happened to be an executive with General Motors.
By some strange coincidence, we soon have the Sloan Kettering
institute issuing reports stating that lead occurs naturally in the
body and that the body has a way of eliminating low level exposure.
Through its association with The Industrial Hygiene Foundation and PR
giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane Kettering opposed all anti-lead
research for years. (Stauber p 92). Without organized scientific
opposition, for the next
60 years more and more gasoline became leaded, until by the 1970s, 90%
or our gasoline was leaded.
Finally it became too obvious to hide that lead was a major
carcinogen, and leaded gas was phased out in the late 1980s. But
during those 60 years, it is estimated that some 30 million tons of
lead were released in vapor form onto American streets and highways.
30 million tons.
That is PR, my friends.
JUNK SCIENCE
In 1993 a guy named Peter Huber wrote a new book and coined a new
term. The book was Galileo's Revenge and the term was junk science.
Huber's shallow thesis was that real science supports technology,
industry, and progress. Anything else was suddenly junk science. Not
surprisingly, Stauber explains how Huber's book was supported by the
industry-backed Manhattan Institute.
Huber's book was generally dismissed not only because it was so poorly
written, but because it failed to realize one fact: true scientific
research begins with no conclusions. Real scientists are seeking the
truth because they do not yet know what the truth is.
True scientific method goes like this:
1. form a hypothesis
2. make predictions for that hypothesis
3. test the predictions
4. reject or revise the hypothesis based on the research findings
Boston University scientist Dr. David Ozonoff explains that ideas in
science are themselves like "living organisms, that must be nourished,
supported, and cultivated with resources for making them grow and
flourish." (Stauber pg
205) Great ideas that don't get this financial support because the
commercial angles are not immediately obvious - these ideas wither and
die.
Another way you can often distinguish real science from phony is that
real science points out flaws in its own research. Phony science
pretends there were no flaws.
THE REAL JUNK SCIENCE Contrast this with modern PR and its constant
pretensions to sound science. Corporate sponsored research, whether
it's in the area of drugs, GM foods, or chemistry begins with
predetermined conclusions. It is the job of the scientists then to
prove that these conclusions are true, because of the economic upside
that proof will bring to the industries paying for that research. This
invidious approach to science has shifted the entire focus of research
in America during the past 50 years, as any true scientist is likely
to admit.
Stauber documents the increasing amount of corporate sponsorship of
university research. (206) This has nothing to do with the pursuit of
knowledge. Scientists lament that research has become just another
commodity, something bought and sold. (Crossen)
THE TWO MAIN TARGETS OF "SOUND SCIENCE" It is shocking when Stauber
shows how the vast majority of corporate PR today opposes any research
that seeks to protect: Public Health and The Environment
It's a funny thing that most of the time when we see the phrase "junk
science," it is in a context of defending something that may threaten
either the environment or our health. This makes sense when one
realizes that money changes hands only by selling the illusion of
health and the illusion of environmental protection. True public
health and real preservation of the earth's environment have very low
market value.
Stauber thinks it ironic that industry's self-proclaimed debunkers of
junk science are usually non-scientists themselves. (255) Here again
they can do this because the issue is not science, but the creation of
images.
THE LANGUAGE OF ATTACK When PR firms attack legitimate environmental
groups and alternative medicine people, they again use special words
which will carry an emotional punch: outraged sound science junk
science sensible scaremongering responsible phobia hoax alarmist
hysteria
The next time you are reading a newspaper article about an
environmental or health issue, note how the author shows bias by using
the above terms. This is the result of very specialized training.
Another standard PR tactic is to use the rhetoric of the
environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous and untested
product that poses an actual threat to the environment. This we see
constantly in the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically modified
foods. They talk about how GM foods are necessary to grow more food
and to end world hunger, when the reality is that GM foods actually
have lower yields per acre than natural crops.
(Stauber p 173) The grand design sort of comes into focus once you
realize that almost all GM foods have been created by the sellers of
herbicides and pesticides so that those plants can withstand greater
amounts of herbicides and pesticides. (The Magic Bean)
THE MIRAGE OF PEER REVIEW
Publish or perish is the classic dilemma of every research scientist.
That means whoever expects funding for the next research project had
better get the current research paper published in the best scientific
journals. And we all know that the best scientific journals, like
JAMA, New England Journal, British Medical Journal, etc. are
peer-reviewed. Peer review means that any articles which actually get
published, between all those full color drug ads and pharmaceutical
centerfolds, have been reviewed and accepted by some really smart guys
with a lot of credentials. The assumption is, if the article made it
past peer review, the data and the conclusions of the research study
have been thoroughly checked out and bear some resemblance to physical
reality.
But there are a few problems with this hot little set up. First off,
money. Even though prestigious venerable medical journals pretend to
be so objective and scientific and incorruptible, the reality is that
they face the same type of being called to account that all glossy
magazines must confront: don't antagonize your advertisers. Those
full-page drug ads in the best journals cost millions, Jack. How long
will a pharmaceutical company pay for ad space in a magazine that
prints some very sound scientific research paper that attacks the
safety of the drug in the centerfold? Think about it. The editors
aren't that stupid.
Another problem is the conflict of interest thing. There's a formal
requirement for all medical journals that any financial ties between
an author and a product manufacturer be disclosed in the article. In
practice, it never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical
journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2
Feb 99)
A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96%
of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were
studying.
(Stelfox, 1998) Big shock, huh? Any disclosures? Yeah, right. This
study should be pointed out whenever somebody starts getting too
pompous about the objectivity of peer review, like they often do.
Then there's the outright purchase of space. A drug company may simply
pay $100,000 to a journal to have a favorable article printed.
(Stauber, pg 204) Fraud in peer review journals is nothing new. In
1987, the New England Journal ran an article that followed the
research of R. Slutsky MD over a seven year period. During that time,
Dr. Slutsky had published 137 articles in a number of peer-reviewed
journals. NEJM found that in at least 60 of these 137, there was
evidence of major scientific fraud and misrepresentation, including:
* reporting data for experiments that were never done
* reporting measurements that were never made
* reporting statistical analyses that were never done (Engler)
Dean Black PhD, describes what he the calls the "Babel Effect" that
results when this very common and frequently undetected scientific
fraudulent data in peer-reviewed journals are quoted by other
researchers, who are in turn re-quoted by still others, and so on.
Want to see something that sort of re-frames this whole discussion?
Check out the McDonald's ads which often appear in the Journal of the
American Medical Association. Then keep in mind that this is the same
publication that for almost 50 years ran cigarette ads proclaiming the
health benefits of tobacco. (Robbins)
Very scientific, oh yes.
KILL YOUR TV? Hope this chapter has given you a hint to start reading
newspaper and magazine articles a little differently, and perhaps
start watching TV news shows with a slightly different attitude than
you had before. Always ask, what are they selling here, and who's
selling it? And if you actually follow up on Stauber & Rampton's
book and check out some of the other resources below, you might even
glimpse the possibility of advancing your life one quantum simply by
ceasing to subject your brain to mass media. That's right
- no more newspapers, no more TV news, no more Time magazine or
Newsweek. You could actually do that. Just think what you could do
with the extra time alone.
Really feel like you need to "relax" or find out "what's going on in
the world" for a few hours every day? Think about the news of the past
couple of years for a minute. Do you really suppose the major stories
that have dominated headlines and TV news have been "what is going on
in the world?" Do you actually think there's been nothing going on
besides the contrived tech slump, the contrived power shortages, the
re-filtered accounts of foreign violence and disaster, and all the
other non-stories that the puppeteers dangle before us every day? What
about when they get a big one, like with OJ or Monica Lewinsky or the
Oklahoma city bombing? Do we really need to know all that detail, day
after day? Do we have any way of verifying all that detail, even if we
wanted to? What is the purpose of news? To inform the public? Hardly.
The sole purpose of news is to keep the public in a state of fear and
uncertainty so that they'll watch again tomorrow and be subjected to
the same advertising.
Oversimplification? Of course. That's the mark of mass media mastery -
simplicity. The invisible hand. Like Edward Bernays said, the people
must be controlled without them knowing it.
Consider this: what was really going on in the world all that time
they were distracting us with all that stupid vexatious daily
smokescreen? Fear and uncertainty -- that's what keeps people coming
back for more.
If this seems like a radical outlook, let's take it one step further:
What would you lose from your life if you stopped watching TV and
stopped reading newspapers altogether?
Would your life really suffer any financial, moral, intellectual or
academic loss from such a decision?
Do you really need to have your family continually absorbing the
illiterate, amoral, phony, uncultivated, desperately brainless values
of the people featured in the average nightly TV program? Are these
fake, programmed robots "normal"? Do you need to have your life values
constantly spoon-fed to you? Are those shows really amusing, or just a
necessary distraction to keep you from looking at reality, or trying
to figure things out yourself by doing a little independent reading?
Name one example of how your life is improved by watching TV news and
reading the evening paper. What measurable gain is there for you?
PLANET OF THE APES? There's no question that as a nation, we're
getting dumber year by year. Look at the presidents we've been
choosing lately. Ever notice the blatant grammar mistakes so
ubiquitous in today's advertising and billboards? Literacy is marginal
in most American secondary schools. Three-fourths of California high
school seniors can't read well enough to pass their exit exams. ( SJ
Mercury 20 Jul 01) If you think other parts of the country are
smarter, try this one: hand any high school senior a book by Dumas or
Jane Austen, and ask them to open to any random page and just read one
paragraph out loud. Go ahead, do it. SAT scales are arbitrarily
shifted lower and lower to disguise how dumb kids are getting year by
year. (ADD: A Designer Disease) At least 10% have documented "learning
disabilities," which are reinforced and rewarded by special treatment
and special drugs. Ever hear of anyone failing a grade any more?
Or observe the intellectual level of the average movie which these
days may only last one or two weeks in the theatres, especially if it
has insufficient explosions, chase scenes, silicone, fake martial
arts, and cretinesque dialogue. Radio? Consider the low mental
qualifications of the falsely animated corporate simians hired as DJs
-- seems like they're only allowed to have 50 thoughts, which they
just repeat at random. And at what point did popular music cease to
require the study of any musical instrument or theory whatsoever, not
to mention lyric? Perhaps we just don't understand this emerging art
form, right? The Darwinism of MTV - apes descended from man.
Ever notice how most articles in any of the glossy magazines sound
like they were all written by the same guy? And this writer just
graduated from junior college? And yet has all the correct opinions on
social issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug, homogenized
corporate omniscience, to assure us that everything is going to be
fine...
Yes, everything is fine.
All this is great news for the PR industry - makes their job that much
easier. Not only are very few paying attention to the process of
conditioning; fewer are capable of understanding it even if somebody
explained it to them.
TEA IN THE CAFETERIA Let's say you're in a crowded cafeteria, and you
buy a cup of tea. And as you're about to sit down you see your friend
way across the room. So you put the tea down and walk across the room
and talk to your friend for a few minutes. Now, coming back to your
tea, are you just going to pick it up and drink it? Remember, this is
a crowded place and you've just left your tea unattended for several
minutes. You've given anybody in that room access to your tea.
Why should your mind be any different? Turning on the TV, or
uncritically absorbing mass publications every day - these activities
allow access to our minds by "just anyone" - anyone who has an agenda,
anyone with the resources to create a public image via popular media.
As we've seen above, just because we read something or see something
on TV doesn't mean it's true or worth knowing. So the idea here is,
like the tea, the mind is also worth guarding, worth limiting access
to it.
This is the only life we get. Time is our total capital. Why waste it
allowing our potential, our personality, our values to be shaped,
crafted, and limited according to the whims of the mass panderers?
There are many truly important decisions that are crucial to our
physical, mental, and spiritual well-being, decisions which require
information and research. If it's an issue where money is involved,
objective data won't be so easy to obtain. Remember, if everybody
knows something, that image has been bought and paid for.
Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little excavation down at
least one level below what "everybody knows."
