WHAT IS ADBAN?

© 1972 - 2006 Media Free Times - all world rights reserved

Public Notice - an interactive position paper:

Here we are going to discuss the terms or definitions of the word "advertising" as we use it in the "AdBan"(t.m.) series:

In 1974 in Vancouver BC, to commemorate seven years of struggle for community access to media and Free Speech, a passive underground guerilla theatre resistance to media domination by the war machine, "Media Free Times - AdBan"(t.m.) issued 4000 2"X 2" adhesive stickers with the words "BOYCOTT all commercial MEDIA " in large type and "any media that costs is not free because access and control of it is restricted to those that can afford it, you pay for this pollution, dehumanization and debasement of culture" in small print. Does this imply that we condone advertising for our products and services and the abolition of advertising for all others? There appears to be a contradiction here. That is not actually the case. When we use the term "advertising" in "AdBan"(t.m.), we are referring to the process of indoctrination or propaganda especially for "toxic" products. We define "toxic advertising" as any psychological implantation of images ideologies, or artificial ignorance. The designed and deliberate creation of compulsive demand for products or services that cause bodily harm, foster or induce the creation of addictions, that weaken or poison the body or the mind and that develop states of co-dependency or submission to domination. We define addictions as any dependency that victims claim "... have made our lives unmanagable...", for many of these there exist 12 Step or other recovery programs. For example there is a program called" Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous" whose members have established that "pornography is addictive" thus the question of whether "(compulsive)sex is addictive" is answered in the affirmative. "AdBan"(t.m.) would suggest that advertising, that triggers these people should be banned and that in a civil code, the rights of any group of citizens who are made to feel “vulnerable” or “uncomfortable”, must be respected and protected from unsolicited intrusion into their environment of any kind by public media. Further, the narrow definition of advertising, as simply Ads in Public media is extremely limiting.

"AdBan"(t.m.) considers any product placement or design in any media would qualify, if semiotic messages are transmitted and are psychologically effective. Thus comic images of "hump backed animals" (cigarettes) in “Adbusters” that claim to be anti-advertising, are de-facto very sophisticated semiotic “toxic advertising”. This broader definition, would include for example, not just the commercials but the programs on television or on the internet, not just the billboards for liquor or car racing (cigarettes) but also the discarded bottles and bottle caps and cigarette packages and even cigarette filters in the gutters.On the other hand, Listings of products or services in directories or databases, the posting or broadcasting of public service announcements would not be classified as "toxic advertising", unless they violate the conditions described above. That do not seek to titillate, but rather simply to inform the public. Although it will be argued that,the nub of many businesses is the obvious advantage of exploiting personal weakness for profit, it is precisely here that there needs to be public debate and inquiry into the questionable legality and ethics of these practices. It is the purpose of “AdBan”(t.m.) to animate this process.

This does not imply that “AdBan”(t.m.) is promoting prohibition, or censorship, or the inquisition. In fact we may argue in favor of the legalization of now controlled substances and especially natures own, like the emmenagogues that are natures “herbal birth control”(t.m.). We strongly advocate that a distinction be made between free speech and commodity fetish promotion e.g.: blatant narco-peddling. The later subvert our public channels of communication. Case in point, the e.g.: pharmaceutical or porn Spam in our email, disrupts legitimate dialogue and seeds with ideological implants what would otherwise be a healthy democratic forum.

We need here to address the issue of the definitions of words or public terms that have been impacted by advertising. In the Image Associates of Santa Barbara documentary “Sugar Trap” which is, it must be noted itself loaded with product placement, but non the less a definitive work exposing the harm of the use of “Sucrose”. The narrator must explain that when the term “Sugar” is used it is in reference to the drug “Sucrose”, which is a synthetic anti-nutrient derived from the refining of sugar cane and sugar beet. What is exposed here is that, as “AdBan”(t.m.) would maintain, this type of mislabeling is blatant and criminal false advertising. “AdBan”(t.m.) would advocate that the term “Sucrose”, or some form of clear symbolic representation of the presence of “toxic”, ”addictive” or “anti-nutrient” substances, be prominently displayed on these products, instead of the word games in small print that misrepresent the actual content. It would be an idea for example for the sucrose content in tomato ketchup, which is a high as 40%, to be displayed in a color coded pie graph, visible at 20 feet, on the label. This we think should be as prominent as the product code. In fact whole sections of markets should be de marked as “anti-nutrient” product sections just as government liquor stores in Canada are clearly defined as “LCBO” outlets, under the law. Regretably, the reverse is true, in that some “trendy” supermarkets have sections for “diabetics”, or for “health food”, that under closer scrutiny still contain adulterated foods. “AdBan”(t.m.) would argue that adulterated products must be labeled as such and that on the contrary natures own "certified organic products" need not be. That the later be set as the acceptable standard. Since when does the public need to have ads placed on real food to inform them that, “this is an apple…this is an egg…” nature has it’s own "packaging design" that does not need to be adulterated.

The question of the addictions to Sucrose, or Sucrose in the form of cigarettes, or alcohol, have been hotly debated in the highest courts. The fact that Sucrose in cigarettes and alcohol is the necessary “sweetener” to foster the addiction, has not been reviewed or questioned in any public forum. Whereas even recipe books that list contents like "Salt" or "Sugar" are in fact advertising. “AdBan”(t.m.) has links to ““Junk Food” (Anti-nutrients*) Anonymous” (t.m.)with sources of recipies for meals made without "Junk *", but the public media controlled by advertising does not recognize the existence of these recovery groups …does that mean that the addictions do not exist ?

Billions of dollars in advertising, convince people that these addictions are of no serious consequence, in spite of reports by leading medical experts that they are the root causes of the major diseases in society like stroke, heart and lung disease, diabetes, tooth decay or other offshoots like drunk driving, pharmaceutical addictions. These are some of the top killers in society.

“AdBan”(t.m.) specifically recognizes that mediation is responsible for addictions for which, although there should probably be recovery programs, there are not at present. For example, War Addiction to rage and violence, or “adrenaline addiction” as it is referred to in the program “Workaholics Anonymous” is a case in point. Along these lines “AdBan”(t.m.) accepts the definition that “War is an Addiction” and although there are only a few Journalistic references on this subject, there is mention of a “War Addicts Anonymous” (t.m.) and a “War Anon” (t.m.) for “friends and family of war addicts” in the “Media Free Times” (t.m.) archives. Clearly it needs not be argued, but always is, that weapons are “toxic”."Adban" (t.m.) opposes the notion that Ideological promotion of the rhetoric, that some counrties should enjoy a monopoly of production of weapons is permisable on the grounds of "self defense" or "saving face". Even the documentary “Bowling For Columbine” that on the surface appears to denounce War, inadvertently advertises pro weapons. Advertising ("Propaganda") is very subtle indeed. Motion pictures create the realities they depict. The twin towers of "9-11" were scripted for destruction by “terrorists”, on celluloid many times before the actual event was acted out. In films like “Siege”, ”Independence Day” and “Fight Club”. In films like these and these are the mainstay of the business, for every once of anti war theme, there are many pounds of violence. A ratio of 2% significant message, to 98% violent “action” interspersed with “junk food” or “drug” implants. “AdBan”(t.m.) suggests that this “toxic advertising” is criminal violation of public trust. That there is a complicity of media in war mongering needs to be addressed in the public forum. Advertising must be regarded in the same vein as the industrial or military contamination of water and air by pollutants or radioactive fallout, to be precise as toxic electromagnetic “psychological narcotic” radiation.

“AdBan”(t.m.) likewise maintains that education and especially religious indoctrination that misinforms or mystifies the young is the equivalent of mental pedophilia. The dis-information about the availability of natural “Herbal Birth Control” (t.m.) in the form of emmenagogues, since the 16th century, as described in the book “Eve’s Herbs” by John Riddle, coupled with the rhetoric for compulsory procreation inculcated from a very early age, have generated the “Artificial Ignorance” against “population hygiene” and “Minus Zero Population Growth” (-ZPG). Most average universirty students today do not know what the these letters represent. The consequence of this prolonged ideological bombardment over several centuries, is that populations around the globe are out of control. Some, with a vested interest in “farming humanity”, would argue there is no problem here, cynically put “the greater the numbers, the greater the misery, the greater the misery, the greater the profits.” “AdBan”(t.m.) would disagree.

Artificial ignorance to create the population fodder to feed the war machines is not "profit" but "genocide". Compelling the masses to use oil, when information and distribution of non-toxic fuels like gasahol are subverted is "genocide", a term that is not to be taken lightly..."(toxic) advertising is genocide".

Support AdBan(t.m.)

For Further Inquiries please E-mail:

MEDIA ANONYMOUS WORLD SERVICES ( t.m.)(Inc.)
"Media Free Times (tm)/ Adban.org"

(c) 1972-2005 "Media FreeTimes"(t.m.)/ Heart Calm prod.comm. AKA hartcomm- all world rights reserved -The Worlds First "Multi-Media" E-periodical for Free Speech & Open Access to Public Media, established since 1972, the home of : adban.org