posted 01-27-2002 10:07 PM            

Still one has to wonder, when I consider countries like Afghanistan... now there's a situation I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. There's a country that (formerly) didn't allow any TV, no radio, no music, and the list goes on and on etc. Talk about an oppressive country. The women there live with no rights, walking around under a black baroque or however it's spelled. All of these extremes were in the name of Allah? Religion? That's the way I understand it.

Talk about a case of excessive mind control and it wasn't done with television sets either.
I have a book I bought a while back that I still intend to read it's about the Taliban. My hubby read it and came away with the conclusion that the thing those people learn the most in their lives is how to fight. They grow up (young boys mostly) learning the Koran and how to fight. Here's a country that has never yet learned how to get along... which explains why they are still in the dark ages mostly. They can never get united, they're too busy fighting each other. And they don't have TV's, radios and all those neat gizmos that we take for granted here.

I sometimes wonder... what will happen to those people once they get a bit of Information- about how the rest of the world lives? Will they realize how badly they've been duped all these years by those in control?

posted 01-30-2002 12:06 PM            

My questions though, are, who actually started the Taliban/Al Queda? Who actually created it? From what I understand, it's a relatively new (10 years or so?) organization. I'm not sure of the relationship between Taliban/Al Queada, but we do know that Osama bin Laden was/is(?) an employee of the CIA.

If he or the CIA had a part in creating the Taliban and/or Al queda as an oppressive force in Afghanistan (as the CIA created the Contras in Nicaragua and other para-military groups in many other targeted countries), how can we know that anything else we hear on the 'news' about the Taliban or Al queda or Afghanistan in general is the real truth?

posted 01-30-2002 11:45 PM            

Defender... I'm hoping to find the answer to that question myself and the book that I mentioned in my last post is where I expect to find some revealing information.
Frankly I don't trust much of what I hear in the major media anymore... in my opinion they're pretty much a bunch of puppets with no real journalistic approach anymore.

And I agree TV offers mostly a bunch of garbage shows. It's one of the reasons I only watch a few things on it anymore...some for entertainment and some for education... though if I had cable I'm sure I'd find a lot more educational shows there.
It seems the older I get the more I like to invest my time into media forms that will teach me something useful.

posted 02-10-2002 11:32 AM            

No person is untouched by its powerful influence. No family lives without it. This is the media's most powerful persuasion tool...Television. Its entertaining, encourages family gatherings, and is a great social medium. On the other hand, it is very influential, has limited points of view and if it is used in excess, it can have serious negative repercussions. It has potential, but it has not lived up to it.

One of the most disturbing facts is that television is run by only a handful of people. A group of people who can fit into a small room is controlling the information that reaches hundreds of millions of people. One example of this is the giant company, GE, which owns the monster network, NBC. In Tom Morello's words (guitarist of Rage Against the Machine) "GE is a major manufacturer of US planes used to commit war crimes in the Gulf War, and bombs from those jets destroyed hydroelectric dams which killed thousands of civilians in Iraq." With that kind of sickly monstrous power behind the network, we could be exposed to basically any kind of lie...and believe it.

The media is censoring human ideals.

On one hand, television is a great form of expression, it lets one escape the trials and turbulations of everyday life etc. On the other hand, it promotes anti-social and sometimes violent behaviour, and its detrimental to a person's physical and mental health. Personally I watch very little TV, but it seems that people who watch a lot of television are incredibly defensive about its effects on their health, obviously not wanting to admit that its influencing them, and sometimes they don't even know its molding our society. Personally, I don't trust the news very much, finding that it's shockingly a one-sided view of things and has the power to make or break someone, and that kind of influence isn't right. Then comes the government, saying that they're protecting the public from "wicked" bands (like RATM) etc., but they're really trying to regulate the information reaching the public, cutting off our access to information itself. Drugs, booze and smokes are complicating things and affecting our power to think for ourselves at all.

excerpt from;
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/3440/media.html

posted 02-10-2002 11:37 AM            

quote:

---

The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one public event to which the proles [proletarians or working class] paid serious attention. It was probable that there were some millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their delight, their folly, their anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely read and write seemed capable of intricate calculations and staggering feats of memory.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTRONIC HEROIN
In the PLUG-IN DRUG, Marie Winn says that television is an addictive drug: "When we think about addiction to drugs or alcohol we frequently focus on negative aspects, ignoring the pleasures that accompany drinking or drug-taking. And yet the essence of any serious addiction is a pursuit of pleasure, a search for a 'high' that normal life does not supply. It is only the inability to function without the addictive substance that is dismaying, the dependence of the organism upon a certain experience and an increasing inability to function normally without it. Thus people will take two or three drinks at the end of the day not merely for the pleasure drinking provides, but also because they 'don't feel normal' without them.

"Real addicts do not merely pursue a pleasurable experience one time in order to function normally. They need to repeat it again and again. Something about that particular experience makes life without it less than complete. Other potentially pleasurable experiences are no longer possible, for under the spell of the addictive experience, their lives are peculiarly distorted. The addict craves an experience and yet is never really satisfied. The organism may be temporarily sated, but soon it begins to crave again.

"Finally, a serious addiction is distinguished from a harmless pursuit of pleasure by its distinctly destructive elements. Heroin addicts, for instance, lead a damaged life: their increasing need for heroin in increasing doses prevents them from working, from maintaining relationships, from developing in human ways. Similarly alcoholics' lives are narrowed and dehumanized by their dependence on alcohol.

"Let us consider television viewing in the light of the conditions that define serious addictions.

"Not unlike drugs or alcohol, the television experience allows the participant to blot out the real world and enter into a pleasurable and passive mental state. The worries and anxieties of reality are as effectively deferred by becoming absorbed in a television program as by going on a 'trip' induced by drugs or alcohol. And just as alcoholics are only vaguely aware of their addiction, feeling that they control their drinking more than they really do ('I can cut it out any time I want—I just like to have three of four drinks before dinner'), people similarly overestimate their control over television watching. Even as they put off other activities to spend hour after hour watching television, they feel they could easily resume living in a different, less passive style. But somehow or other, while the television set is present in their homes, the click doesn't sound. With television pleasures available, those other experiences seem less attractive, more difficult somehow.

"Finally it is the adverse effect of television viewing on the lives of so many people that defines it as a serious addiction. The television habit distorts the sense of time. It renders other experiences vague and curiously unreal while taking on a greater reality for itself. It weakens relationships by reducing and sometimes eliminating normal opportunities for talking, for communicating."

[p.p. 23-25, Marie Winn, THE PLUG IN DRUG; Penguin, 1977. ISBN - 0-14-007698-0]

posted 03-08-2002 08:06 PM            

http://www.liberalslant.com/j4.htm

13 Days in Captivity

By: David Jenkins - 02/23/02

...

I've made many snide remarks about the media in the past, but it's been a long time since I've been at their complete mercy and after the 13 days I spent exclusively with CNN, MSNBC and CSPAN I have no intention of taking any of those snide remarks back.

Thirteen days of so-called news without any real information is something I wouldn't wish on anybody. When the Enron hearings were coming to the headlines both the right wing and the media were practically petulant in their insistence that Enron gave money to the Democrats too. But what everybody kept failing to point out was the obvious preference Enron gave to the GOP. That coupled with president Cheney's "You can't see 'em, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah" attitude concerning the release of information concerning energy policy influences, well, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. But nobody seemed to want to talk about that. Michael Moore and James Carville seemed to be the only people with a handle on the bottom line. Yes, Enron gave money to both parties but over three quarters of it went to the GOP. In fact, Carville summed up Enron's right wing bias quite nicely. Using a baseball score to make his point he stated that if the score is 76 to 24, you sure as heck don't call it a "tie."

Things only got worse as my 13 day sentence went on. Bush posing with New York City firefighters telling them, again, that "help was on the way" while everybody smiled pretty and patri-idiotic for the cameras. Of course, there's no extra money for NYC in the proposed federal budget but wasn't that a great photo-op? No wonder Dubya's so popular! Never mind that many if not most of the cyber polls have been "freeped" while the rest of us scratch our heads wondering why nobody except us has picked up on this. Then I had the pleasure of listening to John Fund's opinion on foreign policy and terrorism on one of the "news" channels. I kept wondering like I do when I see Oliver North "Why the devil aren't you in jail?"

And apparently, based on Dubya's speeches before controlled audiences in various red zones, we are celebrating a "victory" in Afghanistan. Never mind that we haven't caught anybody on the hit list (bin Laden who?). Never mind that much of the fall of the Taliban is due to the efforts of the Northern Alliance. They were the ones actually getting dirty over there. Never mind that they also have mastered the time honored tradition of bribing leaders and other members of the opposition forces to their side. Hey, it beats getting shot at. Never mind that interim Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai is more than just a little nervous about being left to fend for himself. Seems the guy's a tad bit concerned that what's left of his country is far from being stable. I don't know what he's worried about. Rumsfeld has pledged to do his best to help Karzi establish an Afghan army when he can get some spare time. Besides, we have more important things to do in the Philippines!

That's right. The media dutifully broadcast our next stop in the war against terrorism. Ah, the bands, the waving flags, the grandeur of it all! Of course the citizens of this tropical paradise were about as pleased to see us come as the people of Pakistan were. But never mind the voices of protest! We've deployed 660 American troops to rid Basilan of about 60 murderous thugs we like to call "terrorists." I mean, we have to call them that. That's what this Crusade is all about. Never mind that the governor of Basilan, Wahab Akbar is reported to have supported this little rag tag group known as Abu Sayyaf. Never mind that there is evidence the even the Philippine army nurtured the group in the early 1990's. We needed another one of them thar "victories" to keep peoples' minds off of the Enron White House.

Between the lame jingoism that passes for journalism these days along with "freeped" poll numbers it's no wonder that Bush is so popular with the uninformed masses. Witnessing for those thirteen days just how much the media has transformed into a willing propaganda tool for the suspect foreign policies of Bush Inc. was chilling to say the least. From the convenient release of pro-military films out of Hollywood to Heartland Music's release of patriotic songs to "warm your heart with pride." From Dubya's invitation only "town meetings" to Wolf Blitzer's admonition of a viewer to "get over" the farce that was Election 2000, the media machine has become a monster that would make Joseph Goebbels proud.

...

posted 03-09-2002 02:03 AM            

I need to find out more about those alpha waves.... I was into that once, bio-feedback, but I'm not that familiar with the way TV affects the 'waves'. If I knew it once, I must have forgotten, it rings a bell though.

Good article herbivore. The 'net is way more fun in so many ways. Anymore, I don't 'watch' TV as much as I 'observe' it.
(even that may be too dangerous, depending on what you watch?)

The talk/'news' shows would almost be funny if they weren't so obvious. You never know what they're going to spin next, (well, some things you do, but the way they do it and the people they use are still interesting)... reading between the lines, you can find out some interesting things, but with Internet, in some ways, it's a little easier to filter out the garbage.

posted 03-09-2002 02:09 AM            

Why Saturday Night Live and MADTV Suck

quote:

---

http://www.subgenius.com/scoop/X0002_THE_SCOOP-_Why_Satur.html

The most amusing thing about [Saturday Night Live] is that the stuff they did twenty years ago is still funnier than the crap they're churning out today.

Why? Genuine laughter is an involuntary neural response, requiring at least minimal comfort and empathy between the performer and audience.

For most folks here in the real world, it's a struggle to get by. That's more true now than in the '70s.

And notice that [all] of the popular old SNL characters -- the Coneheads, the cheeseburger cooks, the Killer Bees, Emily Litella, Todd and Lisa, the "wild and crazy guys," etc. -- were outsiders, vulnerable and struggling. Even the Land Shark had to plead with his victims before attacking.

Not surprisingly, most of the writing staff was working class. Their world and ours connected. Even the hosts -- Ralph Nader, Julian Bond, Jimmy Breslin, etc. -- were often champions of the little guy, as were musical guests like Patti Smith, Gil Scott Heron, and Frank Zappa.

Times change.

Today's 25-year-old comedy writers were 9 when Reagan was elected. Many are Harvard grads who chose TV writing instead of getting an M.B.A. [Saturday Night Live's] network is now owned by G.E., one of the biggest, nastiest defense contractors on the planet.

Not surprisingly, [SNL's] most notable recent hosts have been Lamar Alexander and Steve Forbes -- raw meat to the old writers; royalty in the new order.

Maybe that's why disdain for women, minorities, and the poor fairly oozed from a recent show:

Although impersonations of Johnny Carson and Phil Donahue, dressed for tennis at Carson's mansion, were performed with admiring reverence, an ad parody for "Russell & Tate: Attorneys" featured stereotypical jive-talking blacks working as lawyers. Apparently the very [idea] of lower-class blacks succeeding in a white-collar career is itself a source of humor. Can racism be more blunt? Rich whites, however, are worthy of tribute.

Meanwhile, the only working-class character was a boorish housewife with distended breasts, who shouted at neighbors and insulted innocent trick-or-treaters. White people without money are portrayed as intellectually, physically, and emotionally inferior.

Female sexuality seems to be a real problem. Dressed as the Church Lady, guest host Dana Carvey mocked Madonna with the word "slut" -- how clever! -- behaving precisely like the sort of smug self-righteous goon the Church Lady once satirized. In addition, gratuitous mentions of female circumcision -- which the writers must not know is forced genital mutilation akin to perpetual rape -- appeared in several sketches as a running gag.

Yipes.

As a musical break, Dr. Dre rationalized his multimillionaire status with a chorus of "gotta get that money baby, gotta get that cash." I didn't realize George Will was writing rap songs.

So much for empathy.

I also attended a recent taping of [SNL's] rival, [MAD TV], owned by Rupert Murdoch.

It was even worse. Laugh at this:

Elderly people kept in cages like animals. A white couple patiently waiting as a stupid black southerner gives directions. A big guy shoving a midget. Partygoers openly mocking a grieving man whose wife has just died.

The working class -- the audience at home, remember -- was represented by a poor uneducated couple (southerners again, of course) so addicted to pornography that the husband works literally sucking excrement. An inspired metaphor for the abuse of unskilled labor, perhaps? Nah, just a chance to be gross.

These writers are strangers to our world. [SNL] and [MAD TV] are about as blue-collar egalitarian as an Old Milwaukee laced with Rohypnol.

If the upper-class twits producing this compost want to improve their craft, they'll have to find a way to better understand and appreciate their audience.

Maybe they should get a job.

by Bob Harris

---

Bob Harris is a political humorist who has performed at over 275 colleges nationwide.

___________________________

BTW, I'm not poor, black, homosexual, liberal, democrat, 'commie', nazi, republican, female or even a feminist or anything else the contrail believers might want to label me .... but this is not the kind of article you read every day, and IMO makes sense.

(Subtle ways that ideas and attitudes are promoted by the media/entertainment machine and how they make us feel about ourselves and others.)

posted 03-10-2002 11:50 PM            

quote:

---

http://www.thewinds.org/1997/09/disinformation.html

The Telecommunications Deregulation Bill, signed into law February of 1996 by President Clinton, generated significant opposition due to a piece of legislation tacked onto it called the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Most of the opposition to the bill resulted from fears of censorship, but few recognized that the CDA allowed for the creation of virtual monopolies in the communications arena from the purchase of multiple media outlets by large corporations. General Electric's ownership of the National Broadcasting Corporation with all its subsidiaries, for example, ensures that anything NBC airs will not run counter to GE's policies or conflict with its revenue base. The same principle would necessarily apply to Time Warner's ownership of Turner Broadcasting, Disney's takeover of ABC and Westinghouse's control of CBS.

MANIPULATORS OF THE MASSES
"Those who manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country", wrote Edward Bernays, assistant to William Paley, founder of CBS. "...We are dominated by a relatively small number of persons....

"...Media corporations, practicing 'press release' journalism, have become dependent on established sources of information available through government and corporate channels. These channels sanitize and spin the news to reflect their special interests, and downsized news organizations do not expend resources to do the in-depth investigative news gathering necessary to counter these packaged versions of the news. Therefore, stories that run counter to major corporate or governmental messages tend to be ignored or discounted." Censored 1997.

Does a larger portrait of corporate intent emerge from this? For example, would General Electric, previously one of the nation's leading manufacturers of nuclear reactors, have allowed NBC to disseminate accurate, in-depth news critical of nuclear power? Is it also realistic to think that a government bent on world dominion would allow news releases of national and international importance if that news would prove counterproductive to its political agenda?

By observing history, can we not see that governmental and media censorship is greatest when efforts at major national control are being undertaken? Walter Cronkite addressed the issue of governmental control of the press and information flow when he said, "Limitations on press freedom are imposed by the government itself despite the very clear wording of the First Amendment that there shall be 'no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.'

"The government limits freedom of information through secrecy, the almost uncontrolled use of the document classification privilege," Cronkite continued in his introduction toCensored 1996. "It limits freedom also by limiting access to news sources. The government limits freedom when it, as the courts have from time to time, forces revelation of reporters' sources, a process which can cut off valuable, perhaps unique springs of information. And there is what I consider to be the greatest threat to freedom of information: the government licensing of broadcasting."

"A 1975 study on 'governability of democracies' by the Trilateral Commission concluded

---

posted 03-10-2002 11:58 PM            

quote:

---

THE INVISIBLE HAND OF THE MEDIA

"You can change the channel but you cannot change the news."
"A national survey of fifty local television newscasts by the Rocky Mountain Media Watch, a Denver-based nonprofit group, revealed what viewers already knew," charges Carl Jensen, author of Censored 1996. "Local TV news focuses on crime, disasters, sensational visuals, weather, sports, promotions and ads -- to the exclusion of real news."

With local television stations all reporting the same news simultaneously, one claiming the title "news leader", another billing itself as the one with "total news", it is apparently becoming more difficult for the public to distinguish one from the other--or from common entertainment, according to former CIA agent, Philip Agee.

"Television news is show business," declares Agee in his book, On the Run, Lyle Stuart Inc., 1987, "designed to entertain and intentionally or not, programmed to keep people ignorant." With an observation as this written ten years ago, George Orwell's prophetic world where "ignorance is strength" no longer seems a prophetic forecast, but a present reality.

Surfing between channels, seeking a different perspective on a particular news story, or to even see a different story, one can easily observe that not only are the reports worded nearly identically, but the photography, in many cases, is identical.

A logically sardonic question could be posed as to why the waste of resources? Why not pool them into one reporting agency and charge the advertisers two or three times the standard fee based on how many news sources were eliminated in the consolidation?

The answer, other than the obvious monetary considerations, perhaps lies with Carl Jensen's assessment of Adolph Hitler's philosophy of information control--"More than half a century ago Hitler said the masses take a long time to understand and remember, thus it is necessary to repeat the message time and time and time again. The public must be conditioned to accept the claims that are made...no matter how outrageous or false those claims might be." Censored 1996.

Last month Good Morning America reported that a state governor announced the Fig Newton as his state's official fruit cookie. The comment made by the program's host, amidst much laughter was, "You'd think the Governor would have a few better things to do." With such an observation, would it not seem logical that Good Morning America would have much better items to report on?

"If, however, the public does not receive all the information it needs to make informed decisions," Jensen claims, "then some form of news blackout is taking place...some issues are overlooked (what we call 'censored') and other issues are over-covered (what we call 'junk food news')."

Why does a boxer's bitten ear receive local and nationwide coverage, but we are never told about presidential Executive Orders that affect the entire nation? Why does the case of a slain child beauty queen receive daily updates, but UN sanctions that starve millions during their "peacekeeping" operations, receive only a passing mention? One can receive minute detail on the actions of a homosexual serial killer involving a nationwide hunt for a man possibly dressed as a woman, but UN soldiers camouflaged as peacekeepers are scarcely reported?

Aldous Huxley in his book, Brave New World, observes, "The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth." A child's death is certainly a tragedy. A bitten ear is painful, yet things that affect an entire nation or the world are seldom, if ever, covered. Truth, it seems, is destined to be forever buried under a flood of "cookies".

---

posted 09-17-2002 01:14 AM            

TV dots airwaves with inaccuracies

GLENN GARVIN
TV critic

''It seems like everyone connected the dots here,'' WSVN-Fox 7 anchor Christine Cruz said during the sixth hour of the marathon coverage of Friday's bomb scare on Alligator Alley. ``It seems like everyone did what they were supposed to be doing.''

Like a lot of what was said during the coverage, that was about half right. Television reporters were certainly connecting dots -- lots of dots, some of them seemingly from another planet -- but if journalism is about facts and not hype, then they definitely weren't doing what they were supposed to do.

Friday's coverage was the source of a staggering amount of misinformation. Among the inaccurate reports:

• Several stations reported that a woman in Georgia told police three Middle Easterners were coming to Miami to blow something up. (That's not what she said.)

• Several also said cops spotted the men after they roared past a tollbooth on I-75. (One car rolled by at a normal rate of speed; the other stopped and paid the tolls for both.)

• The cops used explosives to detonate a suspicious knapsack found in one car. (They didn't.)

Channel 7 reported that explosive ''triggers'' were found in one of the cars. (There were no ''triggers'' or anything else to do with explosives.)

• Channel 7 also reported that cops were searching for a third car. (They weren't.)

It was a wretched performance -- worse yet, a wretched performance that dragged on for eight hours, terrorizing South Florida and smearing the daylights out of three medical students who can be counted on to contribute heavily to the next edition of the travel guide What Sucks About South Florida.

''This is what is wrong with local news,'' said Bill Pohovey, news director at WPLG-ABC 10, one of the two stations that kept their perspective on the story and stuck with regular programming. (WLTV-Univision 23 was the other.) ``This is why viewers get disgusted with local news.''

My only quibble with Pohovey is the word local.

The worst parody of journalism Friday was actually on CNN, where the high-paid-low-rated anchor Paula Zahn speculated, without a jot or tittle of evidence, that the three men were coming to Florida to blow up the Turkey Point nuclear reactor. Now you know why CNN promotes her sex appeal rather than her news judgment.

Local stations at least had the excuse that when you go live for six to eight hours, you've got to fill up the airtime with something -- especially when the pictures are dull shots of cops standing around empty automobiles. At best, that means stuff will get on the air without being as thoroughly checked as it should be; at worst, it means your telecast devolves into rampant speculation and hype. We had plenty of both Friday.

The most egregious offender was WSVN 7, where it sounded like the staff had to hold anchors Christine Cruz and Tom Haynes back from storming onto the causeway and personally administering lethal injections to the three detained men they'd already tried and convicted.

Over and over, the cops and public officials interviewed by the station's reporters cautioned that there was no physical evidence against the men (WSVN's false report of explosive ''triggers'' notwithstanding), they hadn't been arrested, and they weren't even being called ''suspects'' yet. Over and over, Cruz and Haynes ignored them.

''This story started as Sinister Plot,'' Cruz warned darkly. ``Now it's become Attack on Miami.''

Haynes wondered whether ''these guys, apparently on their way to Miami to do some harm to the city of Miami,'' were tied to al Qaeda. ''This looks like some loosely pulled together plot,'' he added. Later, he called them ``three men apparently on their way to Miami with some ill intentions.''

Sometimes I seriously wondered if Haynes was listening to his own station. At one point, WSVN aired an interview with the Georgia woman who reported the three men to the police. She described overhearing one man ask, ''Do you think we have enough to bring it down?'' and another answering, ``If we don't have enough, I have contacts. We can get enough to bring it down.''

posted 09-21-2002 05:13 AM            

We are really are living in the last days of Rome. Snitching is NOT patroitism...nor is racist profiling DESPITE what ridge/ashcroft/rumsfeld says it is.

Does this remind some of us who have studied history with the likes of the brownshirts and the spanish inquisition?

"They don't honor freedom like we do"--GW BUSH SEPT. 2002

Oh god.

posted 10-05-2003 12:21 PM            

To brainwash the masses requires that the owners of the system create an assemblyline structure of content to transmit to the masses via the locally owned television stations so that culture can be homogenized just as in Orwell's 1984. Watch this video that gives a small glimpse backstage on the global brainwashing machine of the power elite.

Must have Real One player.......

posted 10-05-2003 02:51 PM            

The boy's 15 but he's 16 gauge
Wants to get out of his Jesus cage
He's already torn out the last page
It's the "latest rage"

Violence for the people
They always eat the hand that bleeds
Violence for the people
Give the kids what they need
Kill your god, Kill your god
Kill your TV

The boy's purified by the quitter gods
Burning up his cross like a revelation
And his glass jaw opens
Like a puppet head

Violence for the people
They always eat the hand that bleeds
Violence for the people
Give the kids what they need
Kill your god, Kill your god
Kill your TV

This is what you should fear
You are what you should fear