Here’s the premise of the conversation.
There have been forty episodes in the conversation so far before this one. That’s a lot of questions asked. That’s a lot of questions answered. My brother has not answered every single question to the same degree of greatness – that’s just not how we operate. What has remained remarkably consistent in the series of conversations is his approach to treating each answer with care and diligence. That makes his answers worth reading and considering and to me, it’s why he should run his own channel for audio where he actually outlines these answers for listeners to hear and engage within that medium. I’m not bothered about the visual method because I’m a lot more interested in hearing and reading. If I was of the type, I’d start a petition to get Hesediah to do regular podcasts answering these questions. It should happen. Simple as that.
Previously in the conversation: There is this brilliant answer he gives to ambition, progress and success in this life. Brilliant underplays it to be fair. I talk about careful diligence in answering a question, this brother does what is always suggested in answering questions. He broke it down, analysed it, and put it back together to come up with an outstanding piece that I highly recommend people to read to get a good idea of the things they should think about when they think about success in life and the role of ambition. As for what he has to say on progress …. just read it. Go on – do that. Then just when you’ve enjoyed that answer, he gives a very fair and considered perspective on the video gaming industry. He had every opportunity to get caught up in one end of a perspective of undying love or unending hatred for the industry. He chooses neither and he doesn’t cop out in preferring a middle ground, he dissects the matter and issues a view that is sound and revealing. Go on – read it already. While you’re there and having taken in those two excellent answers, that’s just the set-up for something truly extraordinary. I asked my brother about what it is to refer to others for the sake of academia. Trust me when I tell you when you read what he’s had to say about it, you cannot emerge from it just shrugging your shoulders and thinking it’s one of those things. You’ve got to be convinced that his views demand a response – either of receiving and embracing or virulently rejecting. It’s one of those thought-provoking epic pieces of writing that won’t be embraced by the mainstream because it’s far too subversive and unsettling of the status quo. It’s also something that should not be ignored in the quest for wise living. Why are you still here – you should have read those answers already!! Go on – get to it! Then do what all good folks do when they come across good things and that’s sharing it with others and converse on the issues.
One of the advantages of having this space to share is that it’s really down to me to say what I want to say and it’s up to others to take it or not. What I subject myself to as well as gushing words of admiration for my brother’s writing is to engage in the questions he asks. He has not asked easy ones as ever, but can I match up to the high standards of writing he sets? Here goes:
Q – We both used to watch Doctor Who. Could you evaluate the programme in terms of its morality in contrast with the truth? I know there are varying levels to the topics Doctor Who deals with, the overt and the subtle. So tackle whichever layer and as many layers as you want.
Could I make such an evaluation? Am I in a position to do so? What gives me the right?
Well, nothing gives me the right, for starters, so let’s move on to the next question.
Psyche.
Dr Who. A sci-fi programme that started in England in November 1963 was taken off the screens in 1989 and then returned to the television screen in 2005 and has been a staple life of hundreds of thousands in those years. The central premise of the programme is that there is an individual, known as the Doctor, who travels through time and space in a ship that allows that to happen. As the Doctor does so companions accompany them to engage in the adventures that take place sometimes on earth and sometimes on different planets.
The programme is a product of the British Broadcasting Corporation. That organisation was apparently built on the foundation of educating as well as broadcasting. There was something inherent about the mission that sought to build, inform and instruct. How that has been done in the decades since its inception almost a hundred years ago has reflected mostly “liberal” cultural values. Unsurprisingly, what became a flagship programme for the corporation also has at its heart those kinds of tendencies.
We could have a long discussion about what is meant by liberal values. What that means for the moral content of the programme, however, is that there has been a tendency to adopt positions that would not be consistent and supportive of concepts of the truth from a godly perspective. Indeed a lot of the programme over the decades has treated faith in God as something primitive and limiting and only useful for sentiments of the heart, rather than any merit on an objective level. If you watch the programme long enough you’ll reach the conclusion that what is of worth and value is the capacity to be reasonable and rational according to the edicts of science and revert to whatever truths are espoused in the mainstream of the scientific approach.
A lot of the values that are espoused in the programme reflect a very humanist approach to what is right. This is especially pushed in the use of the companion of the alien Doctor who is usually a human. That human does wonders for the Doctor by highlighting just how better it would be for the alien Doctor to be a lot more human, like those who don’t get hung up on theistic views of truth. Anything that opposes that ethos is usually belittled and subtly demonised.
Of late, the current liberal trend that’s influenced the narratives of the programme conveys an approach to human relations that do not cohere with a biblical concept of truth. To reiterate, the tendency to advance a humanistic liberal approach to life is not a recent development in the programme. It’s something that can be traced throughout the history of the programme.
Can I be a bit more specific? Let’s look at the programme in the era where the head writer was Russell T. Davies who has recently taken the role again having done the role from 2004-2009. He was keen to present a programme that advanced relationships of different sexualities as the norm. Those who didn’t accept and embrace that were clearly not enlightened and sufficiently evolved enough to take on these “truths”.
The role of the Doctor was portrayed by a man for the first 54 years of the programme. During this time there were hints that the role could be played by a woman. It’s no big deal to some because the role is of an alien after all, so it’s not meant to be a big deal for an alien male to be portrayed by an alien female. That concept had been trialled when another one of the alien’s breed who had been portrayed by a male was then portrayed by a female. As that trial went by with little resistance, so it took place with the main character.
There was a negative response by some out of a sexist position that suggested that a woman couldn’t play the title role as effectively. What wasn’t of so much of a concern was how the notion of a man changing into a woman and vice-versa might also promote a perspective on gender transition. After all it’s just a programme. It’s about an alien. Anything goes and what’s the problem with that? What it underlines, however, is that sense that you can be whatever you want to be and there should be nothing that can stop you as long as you’re doing what’s right by you and not hurting anyone else. Do what’s right in your sight. That kind of sentiment is definitely not one that would be morally applauded from a theistic perspective.
I remember when the programme returned in 2005, I was very excited about it. I grew up in a time when I didn’t pay much attention to it when it was on the screen. By the time I was interested in it properly, it was taken off the screen and I gathered interest through reading about it and whenever I got to watch a video about it. I liked the concept of the programme, I liked some of the adventures. I found the concept of the main character and its development fascinating. So to know it was returning to the screens was very intriguing to me. The moral dimension became more and more of an issue as I saw some of the stories. By being an issue, I mean I was aware of it in adventures like one that called The Satan Pit which looked at the Doctor’s take on the role of the devil, etc. I was aware of the themes and characters like Captain Jack who was available to flirt with anyone regardless of gender. It wasn’t just issues of gender and sexuality either. I was aware and I tolerated it for the sake of the story if the story was good. However good the story was, though, I was aware that its underlying agenda wasn’t about being morally acceptable to God.
As it happens, the reason for turning off the programme wasn’t based on its moral stance, it was more about the enjoyment and the quality of the stories which I felt declined to the extent that I didn’t see the need to keep up. The moral dimension, however, is one of interest not just when it comes to Dr Who, but a number of things in culture that I consume.
Q – What are the functions and purposes of the GP, the general [medical] practitioner, in the UK? You know I’m not asking merely about the superficial here.
To do this question justice, let’s approach this in two ways. The first is what is said about the GP from their own source.
There is an overseeing body of professionals called the Royal College of General Practitioners. They have put together a helpful document called It’s Your Practice that outlines the roles and responsibilities of the GP. You read those responsibilities and it’s very impressive what a GP is set to do. The summary the GP really has a large number of functions to fulfil: manage health; prevent illness; train in general medicine; diagnose and manage medical and surgical problems; manage long-term health conditions; assess, treat, diagnose and manage illness; promote health and general wellbeing; act as a patient’s advocate; support and represent patient’s best interests to ensure the best and most appropriate health and social care; provide links to other health experts; work closely with other healthcare experts; arrange hospital admissions and referrals to specialists.
That’s a general summary for the general practitioners. Great, right? Indeed many attest to the support, help, advice and great treatment they have received from their local GP. In fact, I too can say that I’ve had occasions to be grateful for the input of a GP.
And yet …
First of all – that’s quite a lot that’s expected of a GP. It’s an extraordinary list of requirements for an individual who is to engage with a range of other individuals who they’re supposed to be equipped to assess and determine the right course of action for them. It also makes a significant assumption that the training they undergo really is for the best treatment of the patient. I cannot help but think, though, that in actuality such is the pressure on the system in which they operate that they are required to encourage dependency on medication and promote the use of a pharmaceutical industry that is more about the management of illness than its resolution. I commend those in the medical industry who make it their point of duty to genuinely discover the cause of some malady and ascertain what is the appropriate response to that not just based on a book that refers them to pain killers or pain management but a wider range of remedies. I’m not convinced, however, that this is an approach that is widely encouraged.
It’s rather like a system has been put in place that is not primarily about how can we bring healing and wholeness to those who are unwell but lets at least do enough to keep them ticking over. It’s a system, however, that has the force of law behind it. Especially in this country, the GP is a part of the governmental apparatus. As GPs in the National Health Service, they’re essentially civil servants in the health department. Their words are supposed to carry weight and force from fields that don’t really get questioned or challenged that much because as governmental agencies they’re supposed to be the authority and all are supposed to bow down to them.
Step back and think about that. They’re asked to do a lot. They’re given the power from the law and their industry to act as an authority in and of themselves. Their base of reference is rather limited, but it’s assumed they know what they’re talking about because no one else has had the time to study as long as they did and do as much as they’ve done to reach their position. Who are we to question those who have trained to be in their profession over many years? Who are we to suggest that the pharmaceutical connection that attaches them so heavily should be one that needs to be reviewed in the light of what is often derided as “alternative” medicine? We are not the experts – they are. We are not the ones to determine our own health and well-being, we should just accept what we’re told.
The system is set up in such a way and it’s strong and all-pervasive and the NHS is held in such high esteem that to even question it is to be ungrateful, unruly, disorderly and rebellious. The GPs are the frontline heroes of that system and in a sense, they are its most seriously indoctrinated victims. The expectations and pressures put on the GP are almost as ridiculous as a religious organisation expecting an individual to lead by being all the aspects that the religion demands – one person, an everyman who can encapsulate everything required in a single entity. Can you imagine such a thing??.
I’m not demonising the GP or suggesting the role is dangerous or worthless. I’m certainly not stating that they should be held in contempt and their position should be dismantled. I’m inviting people to take a step back and see what’s required of them and consider carefully if that’s reasonable and rational and helpful in the quest for the genuine health, healing, well-being and restoration of the individual and the community. If the answer you reach is in the affirmative, I welcome your considered reasoning. I’d welcome it because it’s not a conclusion I’ve reached both in considering it on the philosophical level or in practice – general practice if you will.
Q – How has propaganda shaped your life, view and understanding of the world, your decisions and your family?
If you’ve followed the conversation for any length of time, you’ll discover that my brother is, by habit, meticulous in his engagement with the answers to questions. What helps him with that is a decent amount of research and references in his pieces. In contrast, I am rarely going to go out of my way to refer to sources of authority. I might mention it from time to time, but it’s not really my thing. I take the questions to be an exploration of my own thinking and framework and reasoning on those things.
On this occasion, though, there was something intriguing about the concept of propaganda that got me taking the question a bit more seriously by at least getting in touch with a few videos that explore the topic. Such was the fun in watching the videos that I put a playlist together that you can check by clicking here.
Propaganda. The word has a negative connotation for many, but it’s really about the biased spreading of information with the intention of convincing and reinforcing a view. It is not primarily designed to do that through rational discourse that takes in all the sides to an issue, it’s there to trumpet and promote the given perspective. On a relatively simple level, we are all subjected to some form of propaganda at some point in our lives. The research in the videos highlighted how some of the success in propaganda is to ensure that its mission is completed in subtle and insidious ways. That means that being aware of propaganda taking place is not always as evident and obvious as some would lead us to believe.
All of that is a precursor to exploring the way propaganda has shaped my life and let me clear from the outset, that which follows is in no way a complete exploration and analysis of the effect and impact of propaganda on shaping my life.
Church – usually parents are the first source of propaganda. In the case of my parents, their expression of propaganda was largely around being a God-fearer which was heavily promoted in the church they were a part of. The man who was in charge of that local congregation was an effective propagandist albeit in retrospect somewhat limited in his reach. The things I took for granted about God, church and life were delivered by this man. Views and ideas were delivered with the approval of those who heard him and gave me the impression that what was being said was to be accepted. It was only as I grew a bit more and got to the questioning stage of life that it was clear how limited the propaganda efforts were. That was applicable to the gentleman and to a large degree also to the church organisation as a whole. Yet there are fundamental truths that I’ve received because of that upbringing. In as much as I’ve endeavoured to appreciate a godless approach to life, my conditioning in those formative years has made it genuinely difficult not to reach a place of finding such an approach to life at best problematic. That kind of thinking affects a lot about my life when it comes to relationships, etc. As an example, I was in a restaurant with two other people recently and the two would say that they were Christians, but their conversation had little to nothing to do about Christianity when there was an opportunity to support each other in that. My upbringing and conditioning found that bizarre.
News Media – growing up in the 1980s and 1990s I believe I was exposed to a way of seeing the world through the news media. their perspective shaped my view of the Conservative government of the day as a great evil. I grew up thinking that Margaret Thatcher was a bad person and a dreadful leader because of what I’d been fed to believe about her actions in things like the miner’s strikes and policies that didn’t consider community development. I am not a conservative sympathiser today, I recognise that a lot of what I was fed to believe about that kind of thing wasn’t the total picture of the situation, but whether on television programmes or in news reports that kind of view was a drink I imbibed to the degree that it was only when I was in my 30’s that I took a step back to at least acknowledge how heavily biased my perspective was.
How Life Should Be – So I mentioned that my parents were primarily propagandists promoting the values of the church they attended. I would argue that propaganda did me the world of good even if it wasn’t necessarily ‘balanced’ or ‘neutral’ or entertained alternative perspectives as valid. One other way, however, in which my parents were chief propagandists was a view on how life should be. My parents were very hard-working individuals, they personified the concepts of being industrial and never slacking in any effort. A splendid example to be sure. There was also the underlying narrative of two people that travelled from a poorer country than England, settled in the country and raised their children in the country so they would have a “better” life than they did. That idea of “better” was marked by excellence in education in the hope it would lead to good-paying occupation and the foundation on which to develop a financially as well as socially prosperous life. They wanted their children to avoid the hardship they had faced in their lives and did not want their children to suffer the amount of work they had to tax themselves just to make it through. Deviating from that set path was almost seen as much of a failure in life as it was to no longer attend the church they attended or scrap faith in God. As I outline the role of this propaganda in my life, I know there may be readers and contemporaries who would look quizzically to query how on earth that approach to life could be considered propaganda. After all, so the thinking goes, that’s good parenting and that is the reality all future generations should adopt to succeed in life. It is certainly propaganda to me which I observe at close quarters in the pressure that some around my firstborn daughter are applying to her to ensure she takes the path to greatest financial prosperity as set by the college-to-university-to-degree-to-great-job path. I think it’s sad to only view life through this lens, but it is a powerful lens that is handed to those around me as if to suggest these are the only contacts to see through. It’s propaganda to me. I’m not necessarily saying it’s negative propaganda … necessarily.
The impact these types of propaganda have had on my life is to colour and shape what success in life means, what meaning in life looks like, how I’m supposed to be as a man as well as a husband, citizen, etc. I believe I entered a number of slumps in my life because of how unquestioning I was to some of the propaganda I imbibed and because I never lived up to what I’d been informed, then I took a serious dip.
I even look at my approach to loving football and notice that I drank deep of the nectar of the culture in which I was developed beyond the sphere of my parents. This was the influence of the peers and the presentation of football as the sport to follow and then the team to go along with. Then as soon as I got in there, I deeply indoctrinated myself on the key elements of the football propaganda and wholly and solely sold myself out to it for many years. That’s why my emotions were heavily associated with the fortunes of the team I followed.
I must say, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed beginning to explore this issue when it comes to the role of propaganda in my life and its impact whether negative or not. I hope I’ve done justice to beginning to explore this issue. As you’ll note in some of the videos on the playlist, the nuanced nature of propaganda really does mean we’re susceptible to it – especially when we think we’re not. It’s not a bad thing to acknowledge this issue. I heartily endorse and applaud the role of propaganda in life because the reasoning and rational man acknowledges that he is not totally reasoning and rational and it’s not the highest call in life to be that. Those who believe in God acknowledge their expressed bias from the start and are keen to express that in order to reinforce that for others. The key to that, however, is in encouraging the quest for truth where that’s concerned. Where that quest is not respected or discouraged, that’s where I see some concerns about the nature of the propaganda.
By the way, happy 400th birthday to the term “propaganda”!
As I mentioned there’s a playlist with some helpful videos on the issue of propaganda – check those out for definitions, etc. Meanwhile here’s a brief list of some of those videos:
- Very useful video to help to define the term
- Another useful video for definition with the historical background.
- This video is good for seeing different techniques of propaganda
- Intriguing commentary on the nature of propaganda including how it works best when it’s insidious and operates through things like public relations
- A fascinating take on the nature of propaganda from another perspective
- Good brief lecture on propaganda giving a broad exploration before focusing on political propaganda
I don’t think it’s easy asking questions. I think it gets harder the longer you know someone and feels like you’ve asked all the questions there are to ask. My brother, you keep these questions coming that are fresh and challenging episode after episode. Many thanks for that, bro.
Here are some questions for you:
Q – What do you believe you were conditioned to aspire to when you were brought up in your family home and by external parties? What would you encourage people to aspire to? What are the reasons for your response to this part of the question?
Q – Do you believe that there will be an ultimate judgement rendered to all people who have lived by God? What are your thoughts on that approach to life in terms of it ending up either way in judgement?
Optional Question – Choose one of the following – the others will be noted for future reference
PQ – What is your understanding of the woke ideology and what is your view on it?
OR
PQ – “You need to know what it is to be a black person before you can truly understand the injustices and inequalities we face.” What is your view on this statement?
There are a lot of things you could spend your time doing, and that you spend even a small part of it on this conversation is a privilege to me, Hesediah. Thanks for your time.
For His Name’s Sake
Shalom
C. L. J. Dryden
Life With CD 
One thought on “ADBC: 41 – The Doctor Will See Your Propaganda Now”