This is from Sideswipe:
In Friday’s episode of New Zealand’s Next Top Model (TV3, at 7.30pm) the photo shoot in Rotorua mud pools required little clothing and plenty of mud.
Three young women went topless – the rest chose to be covered with bandeau tops or accessories. The fact that one of the naked women was just 16 years old and was in a spicy pose made me really uncomfortable.
Dominic Sheehan from the BSA says they have considered naked breasts in this time slot before with Gok Wan’s How to Look Good Naked, but no complaint was upheld. Sheehan does say how the material is presented, which includes the time slot, is relevant “Nudity presented in a salacious fashion is far more likely to be an issue than nudity presented in a matter-of-fact way,” he says.
What a great example of puerility.
This is similar to those occasions when a woman wearing nothing but paint appears on the 6pm news. Although this is indicative of a general deterioration in our society’s standards (can you imagine women wearing only paint or mud being on TV 30 years ago?), and I personally regard such displays as immoral, I am opposed to state control of television content, which is a far, far greater evil that harms everyone. Sexualised television only harms those who choose to watch it, while state censorship harms everyone by reducing their freedom.
You will do yourself and your family a great favour if you give your TV a decent burial, or at least permanently unplug the aerial. It’s not just the content, it’s the negative effects that TV has on concentration, obesity, and family conversation.
What’s behind this moral decay?
Have you every wondered why this sort of thing appears on TV? There is a body of opinion which says that since the 1930s the Socialist/Marxist Frankfurt School has been trying to destabilise Western culture in order to bring about a Communist revolution. Consider this:
Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.
To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’
The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture. (I recommend reading the entire article)
This is from an article title The Origins of Political Correctness, which I also recommend reading:
Other key members who join [the Frankfurt School/Institute for Social Research (note the Socialist/Marxist language)] around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.
Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
What do we see today? American/Hollywood-dominated television that pushes a message of sexual ‘liberation’ (which is actually being ruled by desires), environmentalism, and political correctness.
The Frankfurt method of spreading their beliefs in order to destabilise society is simple: move into the universities (colleges), where they can influence the beliefs of the next generation. Everyone knows that universities are dominated by Socialists/Marxists, as are the lower levels of state education.
Although I do not regard the allegations in the articles that I have quoted as proven beyond doubt, I am taking them as prima facie evidence, i.e. they are sufficiently convincing to be considered as fact until proven otherwise. Of course there are other reasons for the general decline in morals, but TV and movies do have a strong impact on people. E.g., when television is introduced to a technologically and geographically isolated society the levels of violence in that society rise markedly.
What do you think the issues that I have raised here (nudity on TV, the origins of this, and political correctness)? Post a comment and share your thoughts.