The Mind-Blanking Machine

The Brain-Debaser

April 22, 2004

By my crooked tooth and my stick of finance

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

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

You know, there are no more science programs on television?
No...
Archimedes is disappearing. We still have E = mc², but only nonsense gets aired now.

My friend Boris:

I don't know if people will eventually realize it: television and the media in general are no longer anything but instruments designed to dumb people down.
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 masses into 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 now, we've seen a growing number of increasingly idiotic programs aired during prime time.
But... the ratings?
I don't think it's the public that's demanding these shows. I believe they're deliberately dumbing us down. It's a coordinated policy. At the same time, they create media windows designed 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 the Arte program Thema and the broadcast of the incredible documentary "September 11 Never Happened."
You saw it!
I was stunned. So this Arte channel, with its Thema programs, was supposed to make us believe there was a space for objectivity and freedom. You could find reports on the rise of Nazism, the CIA's role 25–30 years ago, the genocide committed by Pol Pot, 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, they needed a big blow. That's why Arte was chosen—the Franco-German channel, and there are many "conspiracy theorists" in Germany. But the program was so crude that we all fell off our chairs. 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.
What do you think of the "Arrêt sur Image" program?
That was another program meant 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 all sides. There's only... the Internet.
Have you heard of the Faure bill?
The one making web hosts legally co-responsible for the content 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 that the three-month statute of limitations law, dating from 1881, is the press's top 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 disappear completely online. You could sue someone for defamation based on archive documents from 5 to 10 years—or even older. And the 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 heading in that direction. Anyone who simply wants an investigation into the events of September 11 is labeled a... conspiracy theorist, an antisemite, an enemy of democracy, etc.
In fact, the "democratic powers" of various countries recognize the danger posed by the Internet in terms of uncontrolled information. It's simply our first and last space of freedom. That's why 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 Friday, April 23rd, for a 40-minute radio debate on the show 'On ne nous la fait pas,' on RMC." 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 who should and shouldn't be invited—or checks and finds out—it gets blocked.
But at "C'est Mon Choix," you're going through, right?
A few days ago, the journalist, visibly uncomfortable, told me, "Since your interests are so broad, we thought we'd have you speak at the end of the show to comment on the previous segments." But I said I'd rather...