I’ve been passed a couple of studies (H/T Scientism) which indicate that a correlation between western TV and portrayals of small families or no families has a effect on fertility. On first pass this seem completely reasonable, and not unexpected.
The first one is on the effect of TV reception of west German TV on East German populations.
The second one is on the effects on the Indian population (note, the population crash is hitting every part of the international community – even Muslim fertility is piss poor by historical standards. Africans not being affected by this is not too surprising. I presume TV penetration is poor, plus I guess not too many African shows pushing shit there for them to mimic (but it’s an idea hint, hint.)
Now lets stop for a second and think about something here. Liberalism and all philosophy post Descartes, especially post Smith and Hume, place desires and wants as primary – reason a slave to the passions as famously stated. This all ties in with the mechanical view of humanity and the idea of extreme individualism. The desires and wants stem from the human individual who is sovereign, hence you can have shit like utilitarian ethics. Yet, when Liberals act to spread their ideas and concepts they employ role models and refer to norms – they implicitly in their actions renounce the liberal concept of the human. Isn’t that funny?
On this note, let’s look at something that bugged me, and still does – the spread of gender mainstreaming (gay marriage, female equality etc.) This report contains the following comments about tactics for spreading the liberal concept of equality:
“….is a key target for gender equality as it involves the ways in which societies transfer norms, knowledge and skills. It is crucial that the education systems and all elements of these systems (teachers, schools, textbooks, research institutes and so on) empower both girls and boys, and take care in counterbalancing the existing gender hierarchies. Media professionals can be a target here too, as they have a very powerful position in the transfer and consolidation of norms and knowledge.”
Then look at this –
How did they do this? I think we know – they pushed media role models to which people being mimetic creatures copied.
In addition to this, what do you think this dingbat was banging on about:
Tropes vs. Women? So, the pushing of Liberalism with it basic assertion of the sovereignty of the individual that is pre-societal is done by trying to control role models that people mimic.
Then of course we have economics, which going back to Smith and Hume above, and looking at Laissez faire economics, assumes that (going by Wiki here):
- The individual is the basic unit in society.
- The individual has a natural right to freedom.
- The physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system.
- Corporations are creatures of the State and therefore must be watched closely by the citizenry due to their propensity to disrupt the Smithian spontaneous order.
Now, given this bullshit and its assumption of the individual as a pre-societal “unit” the application of consumerism and all the attendant advertisement manipulation is odd, no? I mean, if we are these “units” that are separable, and pre-society, then advertisers would have no need to use celebrities to encourage us to mimic their desires. But they do, and in doing so act in direct contradiction to liberalism/ modernity’s claims.
This whole line of reasoning is applicable to democracy as well. Which is a major glitch in the matrix. Liberalism is spread (consciously) via mechanisms that directly contradict Liberalism, and it is done whilst also ridiculing any complaints that shit on TV can have a bad effect.