A cultural elite that rejects middle class values and censors debate

[financeguy]

The Right-wing authors who have written for the BBC over the past 30 years can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. John Osborne, who began as an anti-Establishment firebrand with Look Back In Anger and ended his days as a grumpy Tory, was given some airtime in his dotage.

Over the past 30 or 40 years, the Left has captured the citadels of our culture. I don't mean the old formidable communist Left, which is dead and buried, but a trendy soft Left whose world view is promulgated by The Guardian and the BBC. This is the club which aspiring members of the cultural elite are required to join.
What is fascinating is that during most of the 20th century the Left did not exert a stranglehold over our culture. Three of the four writers who are generally seen as the fathers of modernism could reasonably be described as Right-wing, sometimes dangerously so. T. S. Eliot became a devout Anglican and small 'c' conservative. The poet W. B. Yeats flirted with Mussolini, while the American writer Ezra Pound became, I regret to say, a paid-up fascist.
Two of the greatest English poets of the last century, W. H. Auden and Philip Larkin, ended their days on the Right. Auden, like Eliot, rejected the atheism of his youth, and embraced religion. Some of Larkin's political views were extremely Right-wing, and would probably lead to his being banned by the BBC were he around today.

Both Evelyn Waugh and Anthony Powell, two of our finest mid-20th-century novelists, were firmly of the Right, though neither of them had much time for the Tory Party. Waugh famously said that 'the trouble with the Conservative Party is that it has not turned the clock back one second'.

But the liberal-Left consensus, nourished by The Guardian and the BBC, believes in an ever-expanding public sector. It does not place much value on marriage. It is relaxed about mass immigration. So three subjects which concern many people are ruled out. They cannot even be addressed. It is equally hard to imagine a BBC play that grappled with the harmful effects of abortion, or showed religion in a sympathetic light.

Our cultural elite rejects middle-class values and censors debate on such vital issues as family breakdown and mass immigration | Mail Online

 

[BVS]

Wow, what a mess...

This guy should definately stay away from discussing art, or anything else for that matter.

But the liberal-Left consensus, nourished by The Guardian and the BBC, believes in an ever-expanding public sector.

Take a look around and the fact that you mention marriage next proves that you're blind to your own desire for an expansion of the public sector.

It does not place much value on marriage.

Here is my middle finger...

It is relaxed about mass immigration.

Xenophobia

So three subjects which concern many people are ruled out. They cannot even be addressed.

Yeah so where is this censorship that he mentions in the title?

 

[financeguy]

Here is my middle finger...Xenophobia

Yin the title?

It is xenophobic to even discuss mass immigration? In the words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious.

Actually I'd say he understates the case. It's not just that the BBC and similar media organisations are 'relaxed' about mass immigration, they actually propagandise for mass immigration and don't even let other views get a hearing.

Yeah so where is this censorship that he mentions in the title?

He isn't saying it's direct censorship. He's saying it's a kind of soft censorship where left wing voices crowd out other views.

 

[BVS]

It is xenophobic to even discuss mass immigration?

Well similar to our Sotomayer discussion I live in a country made of immigrants, and if it's not illegal I can't possibly see a reason to even make it an issue. Especially one that he puts so much emphasis on. The only difference I see is he's concerned about MASS immigration which leads me to believe he's scared of losing his social standing.

He isn't saying it's direct censorship. He's saying it's a kind of soft censorship where left wing voices crowd out other views.

Well I don't think he made a great case either way. It was a very disjointed poorly written article.

 

[purpleoscar]

Good article.

I feel that the internet gives many more options for getting news. TV is pretty much dominated by the left so I try and read books more. Most TV in particular is dross.

 

[financeguy]

Well similar to our Sotomayer discussion I live in a country made of immigrants, and if it's not illegal I can't possibly see a reason to even make it an issue.

I think that it is important, certainly, to distinguish between a country like the US that is made of immigrants, and other countries. Certainly, right wing American commentators like O'Reilly and Limbaugh run the risk of being accused of hypocrisy or outright racism in their approach to the issue, especially when I don't see any of them setting an example by returning to the homelands of their antecedents.

In Europe, which wasn't founded on immigrants in the way that the US was, there should, at least, be a debate on whether the citizenry actually want mass immigration or not. By and large, there is no debate.

Someone on another forum posed the question 'what benefits has Ireland had from the mass immigration in recent years?'. I was hard pressed to think of any, quite honestly. I am aware there is a potential double standard in Irish arguments against mass immigration, as historically it was the other way around, but it's not as though the country has been flooded by British and American immigrants. We owe no debt to China and Nigeria, or even to Poland. Let them look after their own. In difficult economic circumstances, charity should begin at home.

Especially one that he puts so much emphasis on.

Actually, he doesn't, he only mentions it in passing. He mentions the alleged anti-family agenda of the 'left wing cultural elite' more frequently in the article.

 

[financeguy]

TV is pretty much dominated by the left

Is this US or Canadian TV you are referring to? Is the Canadia media largely left leaning? I have the impression it is much more so than in the US.

 

[BVS]

Good article.

I feel that the internet gives many more options for getting news.

It does, but it also gives us a lot more unchecked drivel that needs to be sifted through...


So what are your issues with mass legal immigration Oscar?

 

[financeguy]

Reading the Wikipedia article on the conservative UK journalist Peter Hitchens, a glaring example of left wing attempts to censor debate on immigration presents itself:

In 2006, while a guest of the TV programme This Week presented by Andrew Neil, and featuring regular guests Michael Portillo and Labour MP Diane Abbott, the latter accused Hitchens of "being greatly admired by the BNP". Hitchens, who has condemned the BNP on numerous occasions,[18] responded by dismissively asking "Where did that garbage come from?".[19] She also accused Hitchens of being "tough on blacks", which he again dismissed.

(Bold added)

Peter Hitchens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That's what I mean by saying the left/liberal media in the UK censors debate on immigration. Where it presents anti-immigration viewpoints, it associates them largely with BNP extremists, as if to say 'If you have reservations about mass immigration, you're one of them bad racist BNP types. Shut up, you big racist."

In other words, they astutely frame the debate in such a manner that if you express reservations about immigration, you're already associated with the bad guys.

 

[BVS]

"being greatly admired by" does not equals "he supports...".

Not a very strong piece of evidence of censorship.

That would be like saying Oscar's, Rush, and Hannity's constant calling anyone outside the right as being socialist as censorship by framing and associating them with the bad guys. Yet I haven't heard a single cry of censorship.

 

[financeguy]

"being greatly admired by" does not equals "he supports...".

Not a very strong piece of evidence of censorship.

It's not censorship, it's an attempt to frame a debate before the debate even gets started.

Let's turn it around. If Hitchens said to Abbott 'you are greatly admired by Provisional IRA supporters', wouldn't that be an attempt at guilt by assocation?

 

[BVS]

Then stop calling it censorship.

It's sadly a part of politics.

That's why this author is a joke.

 

[financeguy]

Then stop calling it censorship.

It's sadly a part of politics.

That's why this author is a joke.

The BBC is publicly funded. If it was entirely private funded, you'd be on better grounds in dismissing the author's claims.

 

[BVS]

The BBC is publicly funded. If it was entirely private funded, you'd be on better grounds in dismissing the author's claims.

Well if there is any evidence that the BBC itself is doing anything of the sort through it's programming then you may have a point, but I see nothing but circular arguments. It honestly sounds to me like you guys are finding yourself in unpopular outdated beliefs and are just sore about it and searching for excuses.

 

[financeguy]

Well if there is any evidence that the BBC itself is doing anything of the sort through it's programming then you may have a point, but I see nothing but circular arguments. It honestly sounds to me like you guys are finding yourself in unpopular outdated beliefs and are just sore about it and searching for excuses.

If beliefs in the virtue of the state supporting the importance of marriage and other traditional values are unpopular outdated beliefs, then fine.

But, why is it that the Daily Mail has a circulation roughly four times the amount of the left wing Guardian and Independent put together? It seems to me that when traditional conservative opinions are presented, a large element of the public does seem to agree with them.

ABCs: National daily newspaper circulation December 2008 | Media | guardian.co.uk


That said, the moronic Murdoch rag the Sun, which is essentially soft porn and has no political views that I can discern, has an even higher readership than the Mail. This leads me to the depressing conclusion that the Sun constituency of amoral layabouts and ne'er-do-wells is larger than the Mail constituency of the middle class. I would argue that the underclass are cleverly exploited by globalists like Murdoch and, on the other hand, patronised to by the liberal left.

 

[purpleoscar]

Is this US or Canadian TV you are referring to? Is the Canadia media largely left leaning? I have the impression it is much more so than in the US.

It's the same in Canada. In Canada we have CBC which is like the BBC. The U.S. has much more conservatives in talk radio and we don't have the equivalent of Fox News here.

The artist community supports the left because many can't make money with art that people will actually pay for so they naturally want government sponsorship. My Dad knew a guy making homemovies for family and friends and getting 50k per year off the dole. Total bull!

It does, but it also gives us a lot more unchecked drivel that needs to be sifted through...

I agree the only problem is who sifts it and for what purpose? I use the internet more precisely because it allows me access to news reports all over the world and I don't have to wade through as many commercials to get to it. The downside is many people like all the pornography and organized crime so it's a double edged sword. Communication can be used for good or ill depending on the person using it.

So what are your issues with mass legal immigration Oscar?

Using the world "legal" is supposed to mean that you read the article as a guy who is against legal immigration? To my mind mass immigration and "legal" are not synonymous. Nice try Mr. Socialist in trying to reel me into a "racism" debate. .

That would be like saying Oscar's, Rush, and Hannity's constant calling anyone outside the right as being socialist as censorship by framing and associating them with the bad guys. Yet I haven't heard a single cry of censorship.

Yeah like the "Fairness" Doctrine?

 

[Kieran McConville]

Weeeelll.... I always find myself wondering why this massive leftwing apparatus seems incapable of wielding political power where it counts, on the government benches. Mass immigration, in itself, I would have thought is yet another part of the anything-in-the-name of commerce mentality which seems to run society nowadays. I thought the Right welcomed all that freedom of movement, when it came to capital anyhow.

The decline of marriage, society, culture, and racial purity can all be sheeted home to the mindset of modern government which values markets above community (at least pre 2007, jury is still out on the present and future).

There. That's my inflammatory rant.

As for The Sun, its politics are, I thought reliably populist-right-wing, just like its longstanding Australian cousins. Not ideological, just, you know, kneejerk.

 

[BVS]

But, why is it that the Daily Mail has a circulation roughly four times the amount of the left wing Guardian and Independent put together? It seems to me that when traditional conservative opinions are presented, a large element of the public does seem to agree with them.

In my observation the right needs media that speaks directly to them moreso then those that lean left. It partly has to do with the fact that some of the issues couldn't be covered by real journalist with a straight face, i.e. creationism in science class.

That said, the moronic Murdoch rag the Sun, which is essentially soft porn and has no political views that I can discern, has an even higher readership than the Mail. This leads me to the depressing conclusion that the Sun constituency of amoral layabouts and ne'er-do-wells is larger than the Mail constituency of the middle class. I would argue that the underclass are cleverly exploited by globalists like Murdoch and, on the other hand, patronised to by the liberal left.

This is a joke right? Tabloids are bought by all. I guarantee you that a big portion of your so called "pro-family" folk are buying this smut just as much as everyone else, if not more.

 

[financeguy]

Weeeelll.... I always find myself wondering why this massive leftwing apparatus seems incapable of wielding political power where it counts, on the government benches.

Social welfare benefits and the huge % of young people in the UK and France that rely on them might be an argument against this.

Mass immigration, in itself, I would have thought is yet another part of the anything-in-the-name of commerce mentality which seems to run society nowadays. I thought the Right welcomed all that freedom of movement, when it came to capital anyhow.

The decline of marriage, society, culture, and racial purity can all be sheeted home to the mindset of modern government which values markets above community (at least pre 2007, jury is still out on the present and future).

Agree completely, but not all critiques of globalism emanate from the left.

As for The Sun, its politics are, I thought reliably populist-right-wing, just like its longstanding Australian cousins. Not ideological, just, you know, kneejerk.

In the '80's certainly, but not recently. They went all lovey dovey with New Labour circa 1997 onwards. The proles had to be directed in a new way of 'thinking'.

 

[BVS]

The artist community supports the left because many can't make money with art that people will actually pay for so they naturally want government sponsorship. My Dad knew a guy making homemovies for family and friends and getting 50k per year off the dole. Total bull!

Care to explain?

Using the world "legal" is supposed to mean that you read the article as a guy who is against legal immigration? To my mind mass immigration and "legal" are not synonymous.

You're joking right? If it was illegal immigration, he would have fucking jumped on using that word. Nice dodge.

Yeah like the "Fairness" Doctrine?

You cannot be serious??? Not even Hannity uses this shit anymore. NO ONE has tried to bring it back, I've asked you at least a dozen times to try and find me one person trying to bring it back and you fail every time. Drop it, Hannity has. You never even could explain how the doctine was censorship.

 

[financeguy]

The artist community supports the left because many can't make money with art that people will actually pay for so they naturally want government sponsorship.

Too simplistic by half, to be honest.

An artistic sensibility is a way of looking at the world. Few artists are genuine believing socialists. To me, it's almost contradictory. Of course, artists may support left policies for tactical or self-interested reasons. Artists are no more or less moral than the rest of us.

 

[BVS]

Too simplistic by half, to be honest.

An artistic sensibility is a way of looking at the world. Few artists are genuine believing socialists. To me, it's almost contradictory. Of course, artists may support left policies for tactical or self-interested reasons. Artists are no more or less moral than the rest of us.

 

[financeguy]

person trying to bring it back and you fail every time. Drop it, Hannity has. You never even could explain how the doctine was censorship.

Arguably, it is indeed soft censorship because it essentially fixes the rules of the game. Of course, oligoloplistic ownership of media interests also fixes the rules of the game. I'm all for a genuine free market, if ever we could actually have one, but it demands very strong anti-trust legislation and enforcement.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Just on the matter of social welfare programs, financeguy, I'm not sure what else you would have happen? They had their origins in left-of-centre political thought, probably in some countries have acquired a more contemporary 'work house' aspect influenced from the Right, but in either case... another thing that contemporary market society does is throw people on the scrap heap, routinely.

Just quietly, without those social welfare programs, as unappetising as many of the individuals who live on the dole might be, you'd have heads on sticks.

 

[BVS]

Arguably, it is indeed soft censorship because it essentially fixes the rules of the game. Of course, oligoloplistic ownership of media interests also fixes the rules of the game. I'm all for a genuine free market, if ever we could actually have one, but it demands very strong anti-trust legislation and enforcement.

This I agree with to a certain point, but it obtained to all not just AM radio, yet no one else hated it. Rush and Hannity hated it because they couldn't cut off the voices they weren't informed enough to debate with...

 

[financeguy]

I'm generally somewhat pro-free market and anti-welfare, but one of the reasons I tend to look the other way in regard to government support for the artists is that the artist welfare scheme of the UK Conservative government in the early 90's actually fostered Britpop. A few of the musicians from that era have said that if they had been forced to go out and get a 9 to 5 job, it's unlikely they would have had the time to form bands and do music.

Of course, there is also the artist exemption scheme in Ireland, which I am sure was a help for U2 in the early years when there was not a lot of money coming in.

 

[financeguy]

Just on the matter of social welfare programs, financeguy, I'm not sure what else you would have happen? They had their origins in left-of-centre political thought, probably in some countries have acquired a more contemporary 'work house' aspect influenced from the Right, but in either case... another thing that contemporary market society does is throw people on the scrap heap, routinely.

I read some article a few years ago that the % of 18-25 year olds in the UK that were neither in employment, nor studying, was absurdly high. This was pre-recession, when jobs were available for the taking - I certainly wouldn't begrudge unemployment benefit for someone that has lost their job due to a recession.

another thing that contemporary market society does is throw people on the scrap heap, routinely.

And so does Gordon Brown style socialism. So did the Labour party in the 1970s, with its unrealistic demands for ever increasing wages and ever increasing strikes, all the time while competitiveness was reducing and entrepreneurs were screwed and thrown on the scrap heap by 70% taxes.

It is important that lessons are learned from the credit crunch to avoid boom and bust scenarios in the future.

Just quietly, without those social welfare programs, as unappetising as many of the individuals who live on the dole might be, you'd have heads on sticks.

Well, yes, but there are already heads on sticks, in Ireland, the UK, and I'd assume, Australia, because some of these unappetising individuals spend their benefits on drugs and then go out and shoot each other.

 

[VintagePunk]

Care to explain?

I'm not purpleoscar, but I'll explain.

For starters, the 50k per year to make home movies sounds to me like an urban legend perpetuated by some angry conservative. No one here receives money to make personal home movies, I can assure you.

Next, the Canadian government does subsidize arts and culture here, but for very good reason, IMO. Before these subsidies became available and our Canadian content rules for radio and television came into place, we barely had an entertainment industry. I can remember this from when I was a kid in the 70's, the music industry growing from a handful of homegrown artists (who almost always had to achieve fame in the US before they were even noticed here), to what we have now, a diverse, thriving music scene, one that could be the envy of almost any nation.

One of the main reasons that subsidies were needed to get our entertainment industries off the ground is our geographical proximity to the behemoth US entertainment industry - it's established, it's popular up here, and it's all through our airwaves. The subsidies were needed to give Canadian artists a chance to present themselves to the public, to become viable, and to allow the Canadian arts culture to grow -- to allow us to have an arts culture representative of us, and unique from the US, period.

The right tends to bitch and complain - it costs unnecessary tax dollars, let them rise on their own merit, blah blah blah - but the bottom line is, it is culturally and artistically important to Canada, and we'd be poorer as a nation without it.

 

[BVS]

Thank you, VP.

You gotta love urban legends

 

[yolland]

Someone on another forum posed the question 'what benefits has Ireland had from the mass immigration in recent years?'. I was hard pressed to think of any, quite honestly.

I'm assuming 'recent years' includes before the recession, when most of your immigrants were presumably filling available jobs at the lower end of the wage scale, as immigrants everywhere usually do.

What constitutes a 'benefit'?

That said, the moronic Murdoch rag the Sun, which is essentially soft porn and has no political views that I can discern, has an even higher readership than the Mail. This leads me to the depressing conclusion that the Sun constituency of amoral layabouts and ne'er-do-wells is larger than the Mail constituency of the middle class. I would argue that the underclass are cleverly exploited by globalists like Murdoch and, on the other hand, patronised to by the liberal left.

I'm going to agree with BVS here--I think people aren't reading the Sun (which I'm familiar enough with) for the same purpose they're reading the other papers you mentioned. It's sensationalistic, gossipy, entertaining, eye-poppingly colorful, demands little concentration of the reader...in short, the perfect light read for when you have neither the time nor the inclination for a more challenging take on the news, and as a bonus it does after all have some 'real' news, so you get to feel at least a little virtuously 'better informed' after reading it.

In the US, generally speaking there's a sharper dividing line between 'real' newspapers and what we call 'tabloids,' which are basically straight scandal rags which don't make even the faintest pretense at covering 'real' news (and are usually weeklies anyway). But, even so, for many years now the 'real' paper with the widest circulation here has been USA Today, which has little discernible political slant but, more importantly, is a colorful, photo- and graphic-packed paper (lots of 'What Do You Think?' public opinion polls), written for a lower reading level than most of our major papers, and with a far greater amount of its bulk taken up by the 'Life' (read: entertainment) and 'Sports' sections (actually pretty good) compared to the competition. So, same principle, nice easy unchallenging read, and you still get the pleasure of feeling at least a little better informed after reading it. Just not as much outright garbage as a lower-end British newspaper would have. And yes, people of all social classes and political views read it.