The Mind-Blanking Machine

The Mind-Blinding Machine

The Mind-Blinding Machine

April 22, 2004

By my crooked tooth and my financial staff

Ubu Roi, Alfred Jarry

Propaganda is to democracies what the baton is to dictatorships

Noam Chomsky

Dictatorship is "Shut up!"
Democracy is "Keep talking!"

Unknown

A few days ago, my mathematician friend Jean-Marie Souriau told me:

• You know, there are no more science programs on television anymore?
• No...
• Archimedes is disappearing. All that remains is E = m6, but only nonsense is being broadcast.

My friend Boris:

• I don't know if people will eventually realize it: television and the media in general are no longer anything but tools designed to dull people's minds.
• What do you mean?
• When Hitler discovered the power of radio, he used it intensively, carefully crafting its effects. The goal was to fan the flames of fanaticism. Today it's different. In all democracies, mafia-like groups have seized power. They control the press at every level. The motto is: "We must prevent people from thinking." People aren't stupid. We make them stupid. It's only natural that science programs disappear. Science is dangerous—it might make people think. So it must vanish. For years we've seen an ever-growing number of increasingly idiotic shows, scheduled during peak viewing hours.
• But... the ratings?
• I don't think it's the public that's asking for these shows. I believe they're deliberately being dumbed down. It's a coordinated policy. Meanwhile, media "windows" are created to give the illusion of access to information and objectivity. A small number of people are beginning to realize this.
• Yes, we saw it on April 13th with Arte's "Thema" program and the broadcast of that incredible documentary, "September 11 Never Happened."
• You saw it!
• I was stunned. So Arte, with its "Thema" programs, was supposed to make us believe there was an "arena of objectivity and freedom." You could find reports on the rise of Nazism, on the CIA's role 25–30 years ago, on Pol Pot's genocide, on the bacteriological weapons developed by the Japanese as early as the 1930s, and so on. Each time, you were tempted to think, "These journalists are objective and courageous."
• They have full freedom to discuss old stories, but nothing about what's happening right now, close to power.
• Exactly. It's a way of diverting attention. For September 11, a major blow was needed. That's why Arte was given the task, since it's a Franco-German channel and conspiracy theorists are numerous in Germany. But the broadcast was so crude that we were all left speechless. I asked readers to send me recordings. We'll find people to digitize this exemplary document and create a dossier with excerpts, exposing the disinformation techniques used.
• Do you know what you should think about the "Arrêt sur Image" program?
• That was another show designed to make viewers believe television could self-criticize. But it's yet another massive manipulation. If the journalist in charge actually did his job, he'd have plenty to analyze in Arte's April 13th broadcast. But we can doubt he'll do it: this program is part of the Arte network. You can't saw off the branch you're sitting on.
• The April 13th broadcast destroyed people's last illusions.
• Personally, I lost the last ones I had. Now the loop is complete. We know we're being lied to from every direction. There's only one thing left... the Internet.
• Have you heard of the Faure Bill?
• The one that would make web hosts legally co-responsible for the content of the sites they host, pushing them to censor content themselves. Also, electronic mail would no longer be considered private, under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Anyone could access your emails.
• Anyway, I think it's already a de facto reality. But now, this violation of correspondence would become legal. It's like anyone at the post office could open any letter at any time. We're back to a system worthy of the most advanced totalitarian corporations. But you haven't heard the best part. It's from yesterday, April 21, 2004. Someone proposed a bill stating that texts posted on websites would no longer benefit from any statute of limitations. You know, the three-month statute of limitations law from 1881 is the press's number one protection. You can't sue a journalist for defamation if they wrote or said something more than three months ago. It's a safeguard. According to this bill, that protection would vanish completely on the internet. You could sue someone for defamation based on archive documents from 5 to 10 years old—or even older. And the web host would still be co-responsible...
• It's completely insane...
• The Third World War has already begun: it's the war over information.
• And disinformation.
• Exactly. The April 13th Arte broadcast was going in that direction. Anyone who simply wants an investigation into the events of September 11 is labeled a... conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, an enemy of democracy, etc.
• In fact, the "democratic powers" in various countries realize the danger posed by the internet, in terms of uncontrolled information. It's simply our first and last space of freedom. That's why the proposed laws aim to silence this "medium" as much as possible. The internet remains free—but for how long? People who speak too much are entitled to their defamation trial. I've had mine. Alessandri had his too. There will be more.
• You weren't supposed to appear on television soon, in the show "C'est Mon Choix"?
• Yes. A journalist preparing the show contacted me over a week ago. The theme was supposed to revolve around new technologies. Someone suggested inviting me because of the ideas on artificial intelligence presented in my latest book, "L'Année du Contact," recently published by Albin Michel.
• And then?
• At the same time, another woman told me, "We're holding you for a 40-minute radio debate on 'On ne nous la fait pas,' on RMC, on Friday, April 23rd." I immediately said OK.
• And then?
• Two days later, she called back to tell me my appearance was canceled.
• It's postponed?
• No. Here's how it works: an unaware journalist thinks of inviting me, contacts me. Then when it reaches the editorial office, where the editor-in-chief knows exactly who should and shouldn't be invited—or checks and blocks it.
• But at "C'est Mon Choix," you're still going to appear, right?
• A few days ago, the journalist, visibly uncomfortable, said, "Given your very broad range of interests, we thought we'd have you comment on previous contributions at the end of the show." But I said I'd prefer to take part in the debates. Since it's recorded, it allows us to sweeten the intervention by saying, "It appeared that..."