A cultural elite that rejects middle class values and censors debate - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-22-2009, 08:06 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:07 PM
A cultural elite that rejects middle class values and censors debate

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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'.
Quote:
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
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 08:28 PM   #2
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Wow, what a mess...

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
It does not place much value on marriage.
Here is my middle finger...



Quote:
It is relaxed about mass immigration.
Xenophobia

Quote:
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?
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 08:31 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 08:46 PM   #4
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
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.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 08:54 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:07 PM
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.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 09:00 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 09:01 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
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.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 09:02 PM   #8
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Good article.




Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
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?
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 09:24 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:07 PM
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:

Quote:
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.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 09:32 PM   #10
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:07 PM
"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.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 09:36 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
"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?
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 09:43 PM   #12
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Then stop calling it censorship.

It's sadly a part of politics.

That's why this author is a joke.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 09:50 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 10:01 PM   #14
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
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.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 10:23 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com