The Basics of Social-Mind-Control in Terms of Public Opinion—PART III

Once the issue or group is now primarily viewed in an innocent and sympathetic light, the public will now attempt to find ways to support its cause(s). This is due to the fact that sympathy alone does not make situations better. Most people realize that action, in the way of support, must be taken. To sit and watch the suffering or plight of someone and not do anything about it can actually make some feel that they are a part of the problem and not the solution. In other words, inaction actually contributes to the detriment of the group or the worsening of the issue(s). Here is also where certain manipulative language and tactics arrive. For example, in issues involving criminals, violence, addictions, etc., sympathy will of course make the victims and the victimizer switch places and excuses, reasons, and justifications will be sought after in order to explain the ill deeds that were committed. Some of the more common phrases and words that will be used are, “they are products of their environment—they really had no choice”, “what would you expect had you been put in the same circumstances with no opportunities”, “they grew up poor”, “she/he was abused as a child”, “look at who the parents were”,  “we can’t judge them until we walk in their shoes”, “this is not an isolated incident—what events took place to create this type of person”, “we shouldn’t be so fast to judge”, “how do we know that they are not born that way”, “they can’t help it—it’s natural I guess”, “you have no idea what it’s like to live like that”, “he grew up without a father or decent male role model”, “she was just in search of that father figure”,  “what do you expect when he/she was raised in the streets”, “it’s not a crime, it’s a disease/or mental disorder”, etc.

Now, I am in no way denying that we, both individually and as a society, are shaped and influenced by our backgrounds and environments. That is common knowledge. However, even these statements can be overused in a far too simplistic style with regards to shifting focus away from the relevancy/legitimacy of an issue or group. These words and phrases are tactical tools used to desensitize and distract people from the gravity and reality of something in order to inject a much different (but desired) viewpoint with the end aim of changing a society’s overall psychological paradigm. It is akin to numbing a person’s mouth with Novocain in order to perform oral surgery. The powers that be fully understand that the public will not always swallow whole new/different concepts and ideas—especially when they come into contention with concepts and ideas that are rooted in aged tradition. Therefore, slick arguments, counterpoints, justifications, half-truths, one-sided debates, embellishments, and explanations must be crafted to draw the attention away from the true issue through sympathy. As a result, while the mind is in a sympathetic (emotional) state, logic is discarded and a new/different concept, idea, or perspective is sprung upon the unsuspecting public. When a people are in an emotional state, they are less prone to use critical analysis to examine something before accepting it. When one is sympathetic and desperately willing and ready to find a way to support a cause or group, they are prone to grasp on to just about anything in order to assuage the newfound guilt within them in order to make amends for their past ignorance, hatred, and/or inaction. At this point in the process, the unsuspecting public has abandoned its former viewpoints, dislike, disgust, indifference, or even ambivalence towards the subject at hand and is just mentally centered on finding a way to lend support.

Hence, the public has now journeyed from a state of being unaware of, denying, rejecting or hating something/someone, to the toleration it/them, then arriving at a sympathetic perspective, and now are ready to lend support the best way it can. Each step of the procedure is intertwined with the next one and of course, they are all employed to bring about a major shift in the minds of a society. The next and final step is that of taking a sympathetic and supportive public and transforming it into one that becomes highly defensive of a people/issue that was once on the backburner of importance or high on the list of things/people disliked or rejected.

This is a powerful step because it takes people that are in no way connected to the group or issue at hand and involves them by convincing them that it is up to them to defend this group or issue in order to ensure its safety, survival, and newly respected place in society. In turn, the group or issue in question becomes sacred in a sense that the public now views it as endangered—a target of ill will if you please, and its security and prosperity becomes a priority—while its legitimacy is never again criticized and/or questioned. As a matter of fact, to criticize or question it would engender the wrath of the public charged with defending it. Here is where well meaning inquisitors are quickly labeled with such names/terms as “narrow-minded”, “bigot”, “fundamentalist”, “Neanderthal”, “full of hate”, “preacher of hatred”, “intolerant”, “prejudiced”, “old-fashioned”, “unprogressive”, “conservative”, “nut-job”, “ignorant,” and even “stupid.” In some instances, this may be the case. However, most of the time this occurs, these labels are used as weapons or threats within an alleged “civilized”, “progressive”, “liberal”, or “modernized” society. Accordingly, in such a society, these labels, once attached, can mar someone for life socially. It has been seen time and again where a public official and/or celebrity are labeled in such a way, and soon thereafter public support and job opportunities evaporate. Consequently, this forces people to hide their true feelings and beliefs on certain matters because the weaponry of labeling can change someone’s fortune overnight. Therefore, it can be said, that because of a such a looming threat, a significant portion of society may be silent on a matter or even feign support of it, but in reality still despise it inwardly. If the majority of a society has been duped into adhering to new/different set of norms, customs, perspectives, mores, and/or social standards, those that fall outside of these new parameters stand the risk of being ostracized and/or discriminated against once the label has been branded upon them. To reinforce this societal aspect, certain linguistic changes are then developed and used. As a result, whatever fits the agenda of those changing society is termed as “progressive”, “open-minded”, “tolerant”, “inclusive”, “humane”, “considerate”, “culturally sensitive”, “respectful”, “caring”, “peaceful”, “neighborly”, “aware”,  and even “rooted in love.” On the other hand, (again), those with opposing views are “narrow/closed-minded,” “dimwitted,” “ignorant,” “backwards”, “archaic in thought and viewpoint”, etc.

In conclusion, this writing is intended to lay out the basic steps of how societies are mentally, socially, and psychologically changed by the media and/or government (the “powers that be”). But sadly, it does not stop here. Everything changes and develops—whether for better or worse, larger or smaller, into prosperity or decay—only time tells. Subsequently, even after a society reaches its intended destination, be sure that a fresh path is laid and the process begins anew. Just be wise and observant enough to know who and what you really are and where you stand when or as it happens.

The Basics of Social-Mind-Control in Terms of Public Opinion—PART II

We've all heard the whole “create awareness” speech. Creating awareness is all about taking an (or maybe a perceived) undervalued, underrepresented, overlooked, unheard, unseen, underappreciated or even silent group of individuals and magnifying their presence, cause, suffering, issues, plight, struggle, numbers, etc. in order to gain public attention to change their situation or give them a more significant voice in society. This is where it all begins. Every group that is put upon the public stage in this manner has a set of features and/or issues that they, or those that represent them, feel need to be noticed more.  Some examples of these types of groups are people with certain abnormalities/deformities or limitations, individuals who are part of a particular little known religious sects or ethnicities, or even groups of people that are being discriminated against unintentionally. This stage is just intended to let the public know that these people and/or issues are in existence and that the existence is such that the extent of it warrants the citizenry to take notice and eventually take action. These “awareness campaigns” have agendas like everything else. But the powers behind these movements understand that, strategically speaking, very little will be done in a short amount of time. This is the first of many steps required to get momentum moving towards effective action. These occurrences will employ such statements as “they are just like everyone else”, “whether you realize it or not, like it or not, they are among us and are not going anywhere”, “there are more people like this than you realize”, “they like and enjoy the same things as anyone else”, “they all want the same things out of life that everyone else does”, “their numbers are projected to continue to grow”, “they are accustomed to living a life of fear or shame because society will not accept them”, “they live secretly among us because they fear being stigmatized and ostracized”, or even, “… are people too.” The list goes on and on. A decent number of these campaigns generally are well intentioned and really are needed to make society more equal and just. However, some of these movements are misguided and severely exaggerated in terms of the true gravity of the situation that is being presented. An issue can be made of just about anything and if the voices behind it are wealthy and/or influential enough, the people/issues at hand can receive attention that far outreaches the need for such. For example, a simple endorsement by Oprah Winfrey can make a struggling writer into the newest bestselling author. Or, someone of Bill Gates’ financial stature can compel others in his economic peer group to donate millions and even billions of dollars to causes that normally garner not very much more attention than others in the same category. Therefore, this first step in affecting society’s opinions, acceptance, and/or viewpoints is a very important one. It serves to bring into focus that which needs attention for the long-range purpose of changing or replacing certain fundamental facets of society’s character at large.

The next frequently used buzzword or catchphrase is “tolerance.” This stage begins when the group or issue of choice has been exposed and branded upon the minds of the citizenry to the point where its existence has become common knowledge. The group or issue at hand may still not be viewed favorably or overall accepted by society. However, the intention of this stage in the process is to coerce society to accept that its existence is now a permanent reality and like it or not, it has a right to exist—unharmed, unbothered, and unfortunately in some cases—free from criticism.

The reason I describe the last feature as “unfortunately in some cases—free from criticism” is because when an entity of any sort is protected in such a way, this type of existence runs counter to the tenets of a free society. One of the pillars of a free society, is one that has an unfettered right to think and express those thoughts without fear of harm in retaliation for doing so (i.e. being arrested, killed, losing one’s job, status, etc.). In theory, when a society grants unto its citizens the freedoms of thought, speech, press, and /or any other form of (thought/emotion) expression, by default, this opens the door for unrestricted criticism. Criticism can take many forms, arrive in many different degrees, and stem from an array of motives to serve a number of objectives. Some criticism is intended simply to better or at least objectively assess whatever/whoever is criticized. And of course, at the other end of the spectrum, a considerable amount of criticism is rooted in resentment, hatred, envy, and/or ignorance. No matter what the reason for the criticism, a society that exercises basic freedoms should be allowed to criticize whatever/whoever it pleases. In addition, the said society should also be trusted to decipher not only the legitimacy of the criticism but also the intent behind it.

Why is this relevant? Because often times, within the process of bringing an issue or group into a society’s consciousness through this second step, it is afforded the unfair luxury of being insulated from criticism of any kind (maybe some is permitted from those within the group or affected by the issue under scrutiny). This creates an uneven playing field and fosters prejudice and resentment. This is clearly seen when some religious groups are commonly the targets of jokes, ridicule, insults, and comments that can be deemed as blasphemous, while other religious groups are treated extremely gently, tip-toed around, and offending these groups is avoided at all cost---even with extreme measures such censorship, threatened safety, loss of employment, boycotts, etc. As mentioned earlier, it all depends on who/what is behind bringing this item or group into the forefront. A double standard of sorts takes place. Those who support the group or issue at hand freely criticize any outside entity but when criticism is received against their particular item or group, they cry discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, fear, and even hatred. Again, all of this serves an agenda (open or not), and in the push to magnify the cause or group, hypocrisy usually arises in many forms. One is amplified at the cost of the other being quieted or even silenced altogether.

Thus, the presentation of all of this as “tolerance” is a bit inaccurate. This is the case because simple tolerance is not necessarily something positive in the sense of an item or group arising out of past obscurity. In one context, to "tolerate" something/someone is to permit, allow, put up with, or even pretty much ignore its presence/existence. Therefore, something/someone can be tolerated but never fully accepted or granted genuinely equal status in terms of access and perception. The item and groups do not usually just want to be put up with or simply allowed to have a seat at the proverbial table. They also want to be fully accepted and seen as well as treated as equals (sometimes even as superiors—i.e. some religious groups). So, the whole tolerance charade is another instrument used to push the cause or group further into the consciousness of the public not only with regards to its existence but also its legitimacy—whether or not it is truly warranted. Put simply, majority, frequency, and loudness of voice do necessarily legitimize something. However, these are often used to convince society so.

At this point in the process, the item or group in question seeks not only to be seen as one of many, but desires to have any negative stigmas removed from it—no matter how unaccepted, unsupported, or unknown it was in the past. One of the most effective ways of changing a society’s attitude toward someone/something is to consistently place it/him/her/them into a context of victimhood. In other words, if you can take what was abhorred, vilified, feared, hated, misunderstood, or ignored on yesterday and only have it displayed as the helpless victim, then, despite whether or not such a presentation is true/accurate, the negative emotions associated with it will soon dwindle and all but disappear to the point where those that still hold to such emotions will then (ironically) become the ones enduring negative labels. Societies are often manipulated through such means of propaganda. This is because it is human nature to feel sympathy even when what is on display is not fully understood. Take TV shows about nature for instance. Whenever there is a cute furry animal, a newborn animal, or some sort of herbivore that is being hunted by a carnivore, we find ourselves rooting for the prey. We quickly label the wolf, bear, lion, or crocodile as evil (something about sharp teeth/fangs and claws carry a sinister attachment to the owner) and inwardly hope for the escape of the other animal simply because it is disappointing to see death—even in the natural environment of the animal kingdom. Despite the fact that every animal has an equal right to be fed, we demonize the snake for swallowing the bird, the cheetah for chasing down the gazelle, or the fox for catching the rabbit. Why does this happen? Because of the way that these particular animals are framed contextually. They are imaged as helpless, innocent victims and we are fast to become emotionally bonded with them. We can connect somehow to their struggle to survive, their fear of death, and their constant vigilance. But somehow we don’t choose to familiarize ourselves with a creature that just wants to eat what’s natural to them—as if the leopard should feel sorry for the baby zebra and go another day without food for her or her cubs. In essence, the freshly killed wildebeest is no more a victim than the hot hamburger on our plates.

It’s all about how someone/something is framed and presented. This is both a strength and weakness of the human mind—and the powers that be are well aware of this asset/flaw. This is why if a group or person is always put into a position where he/she/they is the victim, after a while whatever caused them to be viewed in a negative way will lose its potency and all that will matter is that they be viewed and treated in such a way as to remove the elements/people that victimize them. In other words, this is a powerful tool used in the method of taking a cause or group, forcing it to gain full acceptance, and shed its negative associations. Hollywood is a master at such manipulation. Two recent films will be cited to serve as examples.

First, in the movie The Woodsman, Kevin Bacon plays the part of Walter, a recently released convicted child molester who encounters many obstacles in trying to readjust to freedom as an ex-con into society. He is clearly the protagonist/victim in this movie—yes, the child molester—the embodiment of a malicious, evil predator is the hero here. How? Well, he draws sympathy because after doing his time, he has to deal with a harsh and verbally abusive parole officer who is ready to send him back to prison at a moment’s notice, a family that has abandoned him, and a set of coworkers that turn on him when they learn of his past. This is how what would normally be a character you want to see die becomes one that you sympathize with and want to overcome his challenges—in spite of his despicable past. It is the way he is presented to the audience. He is put in a surrounding where no matter how he tries to better himself—he suffers because of a stigma attached to him—never-mind the fact that this is 100% his own doing. By placing him in the midst of hatred, rejection, the absence of forgiveness, and what seems to be a set of other insurmountable odds—he, as the symbolic underdog—is rooted for because the audience (society) looks past his unmentionable acts and connects directly with his struggles (i.e. familial rejection, coworker prejudice, oppressive authority figures, etc.). Therefore, by the end of the movie, the viewer is all for just giving him another chance. All this from simply presenting him as a victim instead of what he really was—a victimizer.

As a convicted child molester, there are few other labels that have the power to permanently stigmatize a man in American society. Such people not only have deal with the life-long smear on their criminal record, but such a charge marks a man socially for life in the eyes of most law abiding citizens. To a certain extent, this is understandable—even if it is technically unfair. However, it’s one of those things that “is what it is.” Why? The reasons are that the victims of child molestation are innocent, naïve, and for the most part are forced to endure the effects of the crimes perpetuated against them potentially for the rest of their lives. Such abuse can be tied to so many emotional, mental, physical, and/or spiritual aftershocks of the victims—including those becoming molesters themselves. Therefore, it can be argued that such crimes can even be viewed as worse than murder because once a person is killed, they are gone. Whomever they are connected to eventually do move on. Nonetheless, victims of sexual crimes can potentially carry the unseen scars and traumas their entire lives and even pass on the grief and bitterness to those connected to them. In addition, often times these types of criminals cannot be trusted even after finishing their sentences because there are too many cases where they repeat these vile acts. Many believe that men which are guilty of these crimes can never fully be rehabilitated and thus, should never have the opportunity to freely work and live among regular law abiding citizens. This is the type person that the movie The Woodsman transforms into the victim.

The other movie I want to examine is the film entitled Hustle and Flow. Again, this character preys upon victims in a sexual manner but in a different way; the hero of this film is an inner-city Black American pimp named DJay, played by Terrance Howard. In this film DJay’s financial and social struggles of trying to make it in an impoverished section of Memphis, Tennessee are chronicled in juxtaposition with him trying to break into the music business as a legitimate rapper. It is an old tale of would be rappers abandoning a life of crime to become legit musical artists. The audience sympathizes with DJay and pulls for him to create a hit song and finally “make it.” Again, DJay’s victimization in terms of being poor, struggling  in taking care of a number of his women, to include an infant and a pregnant ‘employee,’ a lack of faith in him by those he is surrounded by, and really not catching any breaks in terms of someone in the music industry giving him a chance. Sure, he just wants to get out of that life—but being a pimp does not occur by happenstance. He is the product of not only his environment (or the cards he was dealt) but also of cognizant choices he made all by himself. His source of revenue is both illegal and immoral. He lives by exploiting women through convincing them that risking their health and safety by selling sex for him is mutually beneficial. This fact is easily recognized in a scene where DJay convinces one of his prostitutes to provide a sexual favor for a store owner in order to get the high-quality microphone he needs to record his music. No matter how modern Western society attempts to morph pimps into inner-city capitalistic icons and personifications of coolness, pimps use lies, manipulation, violence, fear, intimidation, and even drugs in order to get women to risk their lives to enrich them. This is nothing to idolize or make light of. Yet, this very type of person is presented as the victim in Hustle and Flow and by the end of the movie, the audience rejoices for the incarcerated DJay when he learns that his song is being played frequently on the radio.

These are just a couple of examples of how society is further influenced into changing their points of view about someone/something. Another major effect of creating sympathy is that there comes a point where the members of society question their capacity for compassion and amount of humanity when faced with this trick. Where they would normally feel hatred, indifference, disgust, etc. when confronted with the subject matter at hand, the victimization context presents the subject in a different light and then an inner struggle ensues that is intended to draw sympathy. But even if there is no sympathy present, the absence thereof can make the viewer question him/herself and soon strong feelings of guilt can begin to surface. This in turn creates doubt in the person’s mind and a mental reassessment of this person’s personal or hidden prejudices, denied dislike, concealed hatred, or even open disgust and detesting of someone or something quickly becomes scrutinized. This becomes even more forceful when the majority of society has already graduated to the point of sympathy and open support for the subject at hand—which plays into the fourth step of the process of societal-mind-control: generating support.

The final two steps will be discussed in part three of this blog entry.

The Basics of Social-Mind-Control in Terms of Public Opinion—PART I

I can remember it well, May of 2002. America was still reeling from the aftermath of September 11^th and we were all slowly exhaling, after holding our collective breaths for so long, wondering how and what this event that supposedly “changed the world” would bring in terms of significant differences in our society. It was a time when every other word out the mouths of news anchors and political commentators was still either, “Al-Qaeda,” “the Taliban,” “terrorism,” “Islamic Fundamentalism,” and even the newly formed term, “Islamo-fascism” (yes, that was a actually term that was used not too long ago). Obviously the personification and face of all of this anger, uproar, hoopla, hysteria, and paranoia was that of Osama Bin Laden. So, I found it quite odd when one day, during this time, walking through the grocery store, I saw on the cover of TIME Magazine, a photo of our over-the-hill has-been nemesis—Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein. I actually stopped and stared at the cover. He looked more Cuban than Middle-Eastern. The photo was actually of a huge mural in Iraq of his face decked out with a neatly trimmed mustache, large designer sunglasses, and one of those off-white hats with a black band around it that you see middle-aged guys wear on Caribbean beaches. It also had a sky-blue background along with Mr. Hussein sporting a loosely fitted, white collared shirt. He looked more like a tourist than a dictator—more like an associate of Ricky Ricardo at The Babalu than the guy who invaded Kuwait a little over a decade earlier. The only thing the whole scene was missing was Barry Manilow singing Copacabana in the background.

Anyway, the wording next to the picture (in all capitals) read, “THE SINISTER WORLD OF SADDAM.” This made me pause for a moment. A sudden feeling of discomfort came over me because I could not understand why this guy would warrant the cover of TIME Magazine when everyone knew that at this time, America’s Public Enemy Number 1 was clearly Osama Bin Laden. I could not imagine why this guy, from the era of the early 90’s (when I was in high school) all of a sudden became an issue--again. I thought we were engaged in an all-out-assault on Muslim Afghanis that (I hate this tired, ignorant phrase) “hated us for our freedom.” It was my understanding that Saddam Hussein was just some pesky mosquito of a dictator that was beat into submission back in the day in a military operation (I can’t quite call that a war) that lasted a few weeks. He was a political relic of sorts—a caricature if you will, of an annoying Middle-Eastern dictator that no one took seriously (i.e. Muammar Gaddafi). Sure, he popped up from time to time on the news screaming some anti-American rhetoric or refused to cooperate with UN inspectors there to check out his weapons cache—but to be on the cover of TIME Magazine—right here—right now? I made wrinkles in my forehead, scratched the top of my head, and wondered to myself—“HUH?” As I proceeded to the check-out counter, this confusion quickly faded into the back of my mind until I got home later that same day and saw something on TV that answered my bewilderment…

I was casually walking through the living room in my college days era apartment (complete with mitch-match furniture—some of which was found by a dumpster and a homemade entertainment center) when a commercial came on about a 60 Minutes episode scheduled to air that month about who else—Saddam Hussein. The TV was on for background noise but when I overheard this I stopped dead in my tracks—I thought “Saddam Hussein again? A TIME Magazine cover and now a story on 60 Minutes about this dude—again?” That uneasy feeling I felt at the supermarket earlier that day quickly resurfaced and it hit me. It was the beginning of my personal belief in conspiracy theories and thus, the start of my significant distrust of the American government. I thought about how and why two stalwart American sources of news, TIME Magazine and the TV show 60 Minutes, would both suddenly bring this fossil to the forefront of our consciousness and begin demonizing him all over again. Consequently, TIME magazine has a readership of 25 million worldwide with different global editions. It is the most highly circulated weekly news magazine in the world—also owned by the TIME-Warner Company. While 60 Minutes, on the other hand, is the longest running prime time television show in history. Since it airs on CBS, at that time, it was fully under the control and ownership of Viacom. I began to link things together. The two sources of news and information were not owned by the same company, thus, it wasn’t a two-front effort to get people watching/reading. So, why? It must have been a joint effort between the U.S. government and these two major media outlets. It is common knowledge that the media not only influences and shapes public opinion—but in some instances—it creates and sustains it. It all became clear. In an environment where anyone Middle-Eastern, Muslim, or even anti-war was becoming more and more suspect, Saddam Hussein and any unfinished/new business concerning him could easily be moved up the list of American priorities. The phobias that America was bathed in at that time made it easy to resurrect this Ba’ath Party leader in the context of being a public and international menace. Well, the story that was run on 60 Minutes during that time is described this way, “… Ed Bradley examines the effects of chemical weapons used on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988.” (http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=100005&more=ucepisodelist&episodeid=3481807). Now, I am in no way disregarding or even diminishing the seriousness of the horrific brutality that took place under his rule against the Kurdish people. But why did this story air at the same time as the cover story in TIME Magazine? Also, how was something that took place in 1988 on Iraqi soil relevant in a world that was at that time obsessed with Osama Bin Laden? It didn’t make sense. To me, when I began to put this all together, it only made sense if the government and the media were working together to remake this guy into a common American foe. At this time, deep in the back of my mind, I thought, the government was using the media to make us conscious of this guy again because in this gung-ho, patriotic, war-hawk, “with us or against us” atmosphere, they are going to go after this guy—again, watch and see. So, after sticking that mental Post-It note on my brain I watched and waited…

It did not take long for the media and the government to start trying to link Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (the Al-Qaeda network) together—even though it has since been irrefutably proven that these two men held very little in common in terms of socio-religious ideology, strategic goals or coordination, and political associations. Yet, by September of that year, CIA Director, George Tenet was testifying in front of Congress about his alleged strong evidence of a close connection between the two and a few months later in February, Colin Powell was selling this same story in a speech to the United Nations Security Council. Also, guess who again made the cover of TIME Magazine in September and December of 2002—Yep, Saddam Hussein. One was “coincidentally” another image of him in contextual setting of propaganda—as a cracking statue with a caption reading, “THE WAR BEFORE THE WAR Inside the Secret Campaign to Topple Saddam Hussein”—question is, was it really “secret?”

Why have I said all of this? I know, I know, I have a tendency to write huge essays as introductions. Yes, this little story is really not the main subject of this blog entry. It simply serves as a stark example of how the powers that be—whether they be the government, the media, Hollywood, a dominant ethnic/religious/cultural group, and/or all of the above work together to control the minds of the average citizen in terms of influencing, making, shaping, directing, or even redirecting public opinion. In the above mentioned instance, it was to gain support for a military action that would eventually evolve into a full-scale war. War is not popular. Therefore, the enemy must be demonized, used as a constant symbol of all things evil, and even at times resurrected or created. But this is nothing new. Haven’t you ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident that helped open the door for America to enter the Vietnam War?

I believe that this sort of social-mind-control occurs very frequently and involves the aforementioned parties with the intent of introducing something to the public with the least amount of resistance. The invasion of Iraq had to be sold to the U.S. first and the world later. In order to do that, the government had to craftily utilize the media. In my observations about the many ways this occurs, I also believe that every action of this sort or every step society takes has been carefully calculated and is done in a way that each amount of progress seems to be an isolated incident or the result of natural social evolution. However, the fact really is that no such thing actually occurs. These steps are all intended to take society down a path to get the citizenry to be aware of, then tolerate, next accept, and finally support and defend certain issues or perspectives that yesterday we viewed as crazy, abnormal, or even unthinkable. Sometimes, such a set of actions produce positive results, or in theory at least, tend to strongly resemble a road towards a more humanitarian and just way of thinking and living. This is displayed when one views the progress in the areas of race relations, religious tolerance, and gender equality. Nonetheless, when this same method of mind-control is applied to change a society’s views on morality, ethics, and certain established traditional norms and mores, it can be to a society’s detriment and quite possibly its decline and destruction. No societal shift, adjustment, or any other type of change is an isolated phenomenon. It is all part of larger plans to eventually have the norm be something that is far from what it is today so that agendas can be sought, priorities can be injected, and particular methods to do so will be readily accepted—and later on encouraged and defended by the very people that vehemently shunned them yesterday.

This plan of shifting views, changing minds, reversing social direction comes in five carefully constructed waves:

1. Build AWARENESS

2. Push TOLERANCE

3. Create SYMPATHY

4. Generate SUPPORT

5. Encourage to DEFEND

This 5-step plan is intended to totally change and control a society’s thought process, perspective, and even moral compass in order to drive that society down an intended road. In order to further explore each step, read the second part of this blog entry that will be posted in a short time.

Black American Parents and "Whoopins"

Someone very dear and close to me asked me a question about the perceived differences between how Black and White Americans raise their children with regard to corporal punishment (i.e. spanking). You can even hear a number of Black comedians approach this very subject (check out how "grampa" uses his belt like a samurai on the cartoon "Boondocks"). Although there was a time when both of these groups employed it, over time one group has been abandoning it, while the other has been a lot slower in following suit. So, I sat down and thought about why this has pretty much been a normal way of raising children in the Black American community to this day. Nowadays, both groups are looking into alternative and additional ways of punishment/corrective action. Nonetheless, it is still more the norm in the Black American community than their fellow White countrymen. Here was my response to him. 

As far as your question goes I believe it’s a combination of a few factors; conservative Christian beliefs, plantation practices during slavery, and a holdover from traditional African culture. Let me go backwards. I have been to pretty much every region of this continent (north, east, west, and south) and though there is much more diversity here than in Europe or Asia, one of the shared norms is the belief in corporal punishment. Kids here get spanked/beat all the time--sometimes with a cringing level of brutality, but not always. I have also heard many such stories from friends and family of mine from these different regions; an uncle from Nigeria as well as good friends from Tunisia, Rwanda, Djibouti, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Cameroon, South Africa, Morroco and a few other places. In other words, the parents here do believe in "laying the wood" to their kids (or anything else that is near reaching distance). Therefore, it stands to reason that even though cultural aspects like language and certain religious beliefs were washed away during the involuntary Atlantic migration to the West centuries ago, or beaten out of them during the “mental breaking” process (i.e. Kunta Kinte into Toby), basic things like child rearing practices and disciplinary methods remained.

Next, I would say that Black America's history of practicing a more fundamental form of Christianity would play a significant role in this phenomenon. Put simply, scriptures like the following were used to justify this form of punishment:

"He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24)

"Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

Finally, I firmly believe that the brutal practices of beating/whipping slaves to instill fear for control also permeated into (and thus reinforced) how Black Americans brought up their children with regards to teaching them to respect/fear parental authority. It is seen in a number of ways. For example, a White person would more likely use the term "spank/spanking" while Black parents tell their children that they will get a "whipping" "whoopin'" or even a "beating." Sometimes you may even hear such phrases as "I'll beat the black off of you.", "I'll tear your ass up.", or even "I'll beat you down to the white meat." Although sometimes these phrases are brought up in a comical context, if analyzed, one must ask, "Where did such terms come from?" Of course the plantation. Literally, these descriptions paint a picture of tearing flesh, scarring, and even utilizing a form of punishment intended to brand such occurrences upon one's memory in a permanent sense. In addition, it is not uncommon to hear Black Americans describe being punished in such a way where they were required to remove some or all of their clothing. This of course was intended to ensure that the tool of punishment would have no barrier between it and bare skin of the child. Why would that be so important? One could assume that even after the stinging pain faded, the welts and maybe even scars would also serve as a reminder not to again trespass. Also, where some other groups may be more prone to spank with a hand or paddle, more than likely Black parents will use a "switch" (a small but firm "whip like" branch from a tree which has been stripped of leaves) or belt. These two instruments are more like leather whips used on slaves than any other instrument of corporal punishment. I have even heard plenty of my peers tell me they were whipped with extension cords and parts of water hoses. Unfortunately, in some circles, this was the norm.  Of course this is not limited to the practices of Black Americans. Many other groups in the US use such forms of discipline. Nonetheless, in the Black American community, this has been the primary and (sadly enough) at times, the exclusive form of punishment. I can recall many times that my childhood errors were not explained to me nor was there any other form of reasoning or follow up employed--just physical pain. The language of "pain only" has been the choice means of communication between master/slave, oppressor/oppressed, abuser/victim, etc. from the beginning. I don't want to get too much off subject, but one may even be able to draw some sort of connection between this form of child-rearing coupled with the high rate of absentee fathers in our community and the abundance of violence in our community as a means of conflict resolution and gaining respect. In conclusion, to further reiterate the theory that a good portion of this practice may be a cultural bit of residue from slavery, I remember once talking to a man in his sixties about how he was punished as a child. He was raised in rural Georgia by a father, whom I am sure was the grandson or at least the great-grandson of slaves, which would actually hoist him on a tree to whip him at times. Surely this mental picture conjures up thoughts of how the masters kept their slaves in line.