Who stole our culture?

Who stole our culture?

Our politicians.

BvL is trying to finger the Fabian Society by introducing the toxic label 'Marxism' into the mix. But the truth of the matter is that the Fabians had little influence on mainstream politics or society as a whole, not that they were anywhere near as ambitious in their goals, which tended to be confined to ameliorating the conditions of the working class rather than campaigning for group rights for every social group. In that respect, the Fabian Society were proto-social democrats rather than cultural marxists seeking hegemonic control over society through the capture of its 'mediating' institutions.

Certainly, even on home turf, the society's objectives were quite modest and this is reflected in its achievements. The working class, which in the late 30s still comprised 75% of the population, was deeply socially conservative and patriotic, even nationalistic. The Trade Union movement, and by extension its political wing the Labour Party, were economically illiberal, being particularly in favour of tariffs and other forms of protectionism, the complete opposite to Marx’s dream of an ‘international proletariat’. That their present-day counterparts would be enthusiastic promoters of multiculturalism, open borders and equal rights for foreign workers would have seemed bizarre in the extreme to Labour voters in the 1930s. Many people in the white working class of course still feel that way today.

That said, it is of course much easier to trace a connection between Tony Blair (or David Cameron) and early 20th century British radicals than it is between them and, say, Herbert Marcuse. Yet I would propose it is the latter linkage that better explains their behaviours when in a position to project political power in the cause of social 'progressivism'.

The Fabians were corrupting the arts. How many times do we think about Charles Dickens when thinking about the industrial revolution? It was through books of fiction that these people first of all started to influence the way we think. You see this in the French Revolution with Voltaire and Rousseau. As I had pointed out previously there were two big changes that made it more into what we see today. Firstly Freud's theories on sex, which are still taught in universities today despite being utterly wrong and the second was the mode of transmission, where we go from the novel to the radio. Indeed when radio was invented it was considered by the fascist British as a military technology, and woe betide anyone who has their own radio. The radio was in the hands of the establishment and so on to the creation of the BBC, which I think is 100 years and one day old today. If we also look at the arts around 1920 we have various movements. You might like to take a look at Dadism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada for example. From about 1890 onwards art would change from trying to create beauty to more of a sort of intellectual thing. This is where art is corrupted into switching to brainwashing material. You will see this as it turns very dark. Atonal music is done for the same reasons and often used in films to inflict a sense of horror in the subject. Picasso was also part of this transformation of art. A painting he paid off his bar bill with  sold a while back for £45m. How did it appreciate much in value? Well back then this art was regarded as shitty and no one was that interested. Someone was pushing it and it was not by popular demand. The public were being led by the nose.

The Hampstead Historical Club is your lead. It's hardly front page news, indeed the comprehensive wiki page on it and its members was deleted. It's a shame because it read like a who's who in late 19th century Britain. You see what had happened with the aristocracy was their power was diminishing. The new middle class were seriously rich and beginning to call the shots on account of money talks and bullshit walks. The old feudal system had had its day. So what you got was a feeling that we should go backwards to the times when they held all the cards as the landlords. Two big examples of this were John Ruskin and William Morris. There was a connection here to the academics of Oxford, as per Ruskin being the man with the connections and the one who could make a star, which was to be William Morris as in a  household name. The idea here was the green rural life was idyllic and industry was dirty, smelly and exploitative. It was a complete lie for what their idyllic past was in reality was incredible poverty and plagues almost wiping out the population and disease in the poor sanitation etc etc. This is in contrast to the Enlightenment where pragmatism and science were the thing and this was radically improving conditions and life expectancy. All this was by-the-bye though. As with the greens of today they do not care how many they kill. After all the aristocracy had gained their power by being efficient killers. You may wonder where the Jews came in. Well these land owners in times in the past had teamed up with Jewish financiers to create the cartel known as the British East India Company. As land and farming were less profitable they used this to diversify their investments. It's quite easy then to understand how the Jews came in later on with the Frankfurt School etc. Indeed there is no definite start date for all of this. It was like a picture coming into focus. The further back you go the less clear it is until it fades completely from view. By the way, talking of leads, another you might want to look at is RCA. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA