Part one of this post was published here yesterday.
The multimedia companies have all apparently decided that I live in some sort of multi-national, multi-cultural paradise where the standard household is led by an attractive woman doing her best to deal with her not very bright male partner and two often mixed race children. School children are brighter than either and spend their lives in their own rooms equipped with all sorts of multimedia equipment talking to their equally connected friends.
Banks apparently know more about my business or personal business and finances than I could possible work out and I’m so dumb that after years of their advertising I don’t know that I could claim back the money that they stole from me during their PPI scam.
Politically all the media is portraying and spouting the same opinions as fact, I’m unsure where they get these facts from as it’s evident that most have never left the university media studies department or the sixth form debating society, or perhaps they read a digest of the national newspapers and take it from there. Now there’s a thought, broadcast media – are they following newsprint or gossip from their people on the inside to whom they always talk ‘privately?’ Well, OK, it must be true then!
Fake and trust are the new media buzzwords, BBC News runs a reality check on it’s website, BBC the organisation that is funded to the tune of billions of pounds of taxpayers money on a yearly basis, the BBC World Service, and Media Action, does that not make it part of the governments ‘soft power influence?’ that which in another age would have been called propaganda? In the modern world, apparently not. Not that the other ‘outlets’ appear to be are much different from the BBC, one actually gives reasons why you should trust their news, yes quite.
In the early 1930s when the BBC was a trusted news outlet and the 9-o-clock news was a national institution, one evening the news announcer said there is no news this evening, a little bit like now then 24/7 with talking heads reporting what exactly?
To be honest, I’m sceptical about what I see and read in the media (unless of course I agree with what’s being said).
Today of course the reality is somewhat different. Mostly the arts and theatre publicly funded as they are take it upon themselves to push their anti-right wing, multi-cultural or left- wing credentials and they are not subtle about it either. Look at the anti-Thatcher bile that was and still is churned out, the pro E.U anti Brexit views churned out at every opportunity.
Earlier this year I went to see a well-known ‘artiste’ in a show that had been at a London venue, The show, billed as an evening’s entertainment, was totally spoiled for me because in the first half an hour the entertainment include the celebrity’s views on President Trump (anti), views on ‘Hillary (pro), views on Brexit (anti) and so on. That is not what I paid for, I paid to be entertained. Had I wanted to listen to political views the opportunities are there and are free.
But the theatre takes the biscuit. As far back as Shakespeare the theatre was used by him and others as a backdrop for their political and other views, he and they of course were rather more subtle. Getting found out in those days would cause you more pain than a ‘twitter storm’.
You don’t get much more political than modern productions of Shakespeare. Producers /directors appear to be besotted with multiculturalism, equality, diversity, and gender. You may have thought that a play written by the Bard 400 years ago would be revered and the text mostly left alone. As Ben Johnson said Shakespeare was a man for all time, and many of his plays have relevance to modern situations without the need to mess with the words, which, as I understand was recently demonstrated in a production of Anthony and Cleopatra where lines were cut from a male role being played by a woman, because ‘a woman could never have described another woman in such course sexist language’.
As Sir Stanley Wells recently said in a letter to The Times ‘….gender swapping is as old as theatre itself. What matters is it should serve the play to which it is applied rather than as too often happens be self-consciously directed to social at the expense of artistic ends’…
We are constantly bombarded by the views of celebrities. What makes the media think that the views of some actor, singer, dancer or footballer are worth anyone’s time listening to, and why should they have the arrogance to think that anyone outside of their bubble is in the slightest way interested.
My question is then, who or what is causing this explosion of left-wing views in the serious theatre? Or in the media broadcast or printed? Is it something that is dictated by funding streams provided by the taxpayer, grants and advertising space contracts come to mind?
Is the taxpayer and/or shareholder licence fee payer or ticket buyer actually funding the means by which we are being manipulated by slick advertising marketing and propaganda, using the media and arts that we pay for as a tool to do so?
The noise is deafening and ubiquitous. The task to counter ideological spouting is daunting and seemingly impossible.
The problem to me is a bag of many problems. Jumping on a band-wagon, virtue signalling for acceptance or sympathy, opportunism for financial gain, or just simply passing on the propaganda without thought of where it will lead.
Gender confusion, victimhood and the breakdown of society as we know it, was promulgated by the Fabians for Ideological reasons. It is known that many leading Labour politicians and supporters are Fabians. Yet we also know what the end game of socialism is. Instead of giving equality and fairness the ideology will steal ones ownership and responsibility.
Our heads become foggy and confused with the noise of subtle propaganda and the emotional reaction of the not so subtle propaganda. Yet it still infects and multiplies like a virus.
Multiple solutions surely should be sought.
Could I suggest one may be to attack the BBC for its illness and poison? It should be remembered though that it is not all the fine people that are left within the institution, left still with talent and some semblance of political common sense, they will have personal commitments and the need for employment. It is the institution itself that has to be dealt with.
Another is to attack the stinking hypocrisy and corruption within the Labour Party, outing Fabians and exposing it’s courtship of alien ideologies. It’s obsession with immigration for political reasons, furthering their support.
Another solution would be to grab the attention of ‘big businesses’ and bring them back to reality. Lobbying should be stopped, complaints should be made, and products should be shunned, giving reasons. They are careless about society, the effects of propaganda and the irresponsibility of jumping on ideological band-wagons. Just as they will avoid tax if the opportunity is there, they will take the easy route to conform to political pressures, without concern for right or wrong. The only way to deal with them is through money not through sense.
This all sounds a bit basic and naïve, what else can be done?
Another great article, thanks. It is good to be reminded of all the noise and the fading light.
The advertising on TV for commercial companies nowadays generally shows mixed race couples, usually the wife is white and the husband black with two or three mixed race children and all loving whatever it is that is advertised.
The advertising might be produced in order to push the Kalergi Coudenhove doctrine but I woud hazard a guess that this obsession with mixed race families is really to ensure that their products are seen as acceptable by all ethnic communities and to increase their sales.