EVERYONE is talking about the Netflix drama Adolescence, including a panoply of experts and the Prime Minister – and that was the intent. Such sudden institutional reaction to a slice of televised fiction should leave you in no doubt: Adolescence is a government psy-op.
TCW has already raised the alarm over this blatant deployment of state propaganda. As Edward Howard wrote, the manipulated message is that boys (and particularly white boys) are inherently bad, and ‘must accept their place in this society at the bottom of the scrap heap while the Establishment keeps pretending that men still have all the power’. My daughters’ high school has been sending emails to parents about the importance of this programme, and how teachers and parents should take the warnings very seriously.
But what is the real purpose of terrifying teenagers, parents and the general public about adolescent volatility? As Edward Howard explained, an obvious theme is demonising males. The notion of toxic masculinity is pushed in schools and universities, with the controversial figure of Andrew Tate as pantomime villain. This is how the establishment controls the masses – any resistance to unpopular policies is smeared by associating critics with extreme views and a vilified character (e.g. Tommy Robinson on Islam).
Thus Adolescence reinforces the idea that men and boys need discipline, as they are prone to aggressive and abusive behaviour. This links to a second and more serious implication of Adolescence: censorship. Arguably, the show is a scripted facilitator of the Online Safety Act. The official reason for heightened concern about young males is the influence of social media, allegedly luring impressionable youth to dangerous disinformation and ‘hate’. Actually, I suspect that the powers-that-be are threatened by too much truth getting out, and too much bonding and networking of truth-tellers.
A few days ago Sir Keir Starmer invited the creators of Adolescence to 10 Downing Street, to discuss the impact of ‘toxic material online’ and the ‘serious change’ needed by government.
After the meeting, Starmer’s office deemed the film required viewing for high school pupils, as it would ‘help students better understand the impact of misogyny, dangers of online radicalisation and the importance of healthy relationships’. Then Netflix helpfully made it free to British schools. Starmer found time to write an article on Adolescence in Metro newspaper (free propaganda for commuters) on the problems of boys and men, concluding:
‘There isn’t a simple solution, or a single policy lever to pull that will tackle this complicated problem. We’ll need everyone to get involved across society.’
This is not an over-reaction or opportunism by Starmer. As Kit Knightly opined, ‘we’re not getting laws passed because of TV shows, we’re getting TV shows made so they can pass laws’.
Knightly explained: ‘The studio behind Adolescence gets government funding, as does Tender, the charity that was also invited to that absurd meeting. Netflix’s finances have been a source of speculation for years, but its political associations, alongside a track record of producing content that perfectly fits a mainstream agenda, really speaks for itself. Government, charities, corporate media. It’s all one organism.’
Readers will remember the Nudge Unit launched by the Cameron-Clegg administration in 2010. It sounded benign – rather than beating people with a stick, making desirable choices more attractive by nudging through marketing and education (as well as taxes).
Adolescence is the culmination of 15 years of such behavioural psychology. Apart from emphasising that boys are bad and restricting their social media use, I believe that the nudging objective of the show is more sinister.
Note that Starmer said that there is no ‘easy answer’ to this manipulated moral panic. That’s because he cannot tell you the real purpose of Adolescence – not yet. The major policy development for which the show is priming society is military conscription.
Earlier this week I wrote on the advanced discussions in Germany to enlist younger people to the armed services. A common below-the-line comment was that conscription wouldn’t work, because most people would refuse. But this is naïve. By definition, conscripts are not given a choice.
Adolescence is sufficiently real-world to get its audience thinking what to do with all that testosterone-fuelled energy: can’t it be channelled into something useful? Well, there isn’t the manual labour nowadays, and rather than playing sport, most of the younger generations are glued to their mobile devices.
Last week a defence expert, Francis Tusa, explained how the government could build the armed forces by nudging younger people into national service.
But this will not be the two years of parade ground and overseas posting experienced in the 1950s, because the goal today is not peace. Just as Germany is projecting an armed manpower of millions, Whitehall is planning for action.
War is coming, and the pampered youth of Britain and Europe is about to be harnessed. The calling will not be ‘for King and country’ as in the First World War, but defence of modern, progressive values, for democracy, for freedom, and for equality. Brave fighters will emerge, but most conscripts will be cannon fodder. The outcome of war with Russia is already visible in Ukraine, whose male population has been devastated.
For all the scaremongering of Adolescence, the solution is much worse than the problem. I fear another doomed youth.
