GRATE BRITAIN
Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 09:00AM 
Whatever happened to the United Kingdom?
This might seem an odd question for me to ask but I do not think I am the only person living here who ponders this on an increasingly regular basis. Along with many others I read the daily press and watch at least some of the daily news and it is an unremitting tide of doom and gloom, of vulgarity and brutality, an era when the milk of human kindness seems scarce and the complexion of Britain grows increasingly unrecognisable. I wonder if you share any of these feelings?
There are some aspects of our national life, once taken for granted, that seem to have gone missing in action.
Take the work ethic. The wealth of the United Kingdom was built in what is known as the Protestant work ethic. This reduces down to the simple idea that no one owes us a living and that we have to get up off our backsides and go out to find work. We, not the State, must be responsible for the well-being of our families and to achieve this we must do whatever it takes, work as many hours as is necessary, to ensure enough income to secure this. There used to be a sense of shame if a man did not have a job and could not support his family. In such circumstances he may not have even chosen to have a family - but not anymore - it is now a badge of honour to sponge off the State, to cry out for State Aid, to disdain a job that is not deemed good enough. We now have generations of welfare parasites, bloated and ugly on largesse, feeding off the financial benefits that flow from the State. In recent years we have been told that we need hundreds of thousands of immigrants to "do the jobs Brits just won't do." Now I accept this is semi-spurious in the first place but the brutal truth is that far too many seek to do far too little and yet expect to enjoy the median income. In essence, the work ethic has become redundant for a sizeable chunk of people living in this country .
Take good manners. It's not so long ago when a child who was badly behaved could expect a swift cuff to the ear and a stern reproof from responsible parents. People used to show common courtesy towards each other, good neighbourliness if not next to godliness was taken for granted, and public swearing and acts of boorishness were the exception, not the rule. No longer. Too many kids now behave as they wish - without even a murmer of parental admonishment. Public swearing is encouraged by a celebrity cilture which regales itself with vulgarity and too many people have lost their lives as street violence spreads across the land. Love thy neigbour becomes loath thy neighbour and kindness is passe.
Take National pride. The United Kingdom has much to be proud of - not least the fact that it has remained a peaceful and free country longer than most other countries have even existed. The unity of the several parts - Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English - has been a triumph for centuries. Yet no longer. The so-called Celtic fringe seems to delight in a common hatred of the English, even though it parasitically feeds off the tax revenues generated by England. The value of the parts is now championed by the devolutionists as greater than the sum of the totality. History is now taught that shows how wicked the British were. We had an Empire that spread civilised values but now we are painted as savages. The Industrial Revolution founded the essence of modern capitalism but now the State re-claims the right to control and innovate as it sees fit. British inventers travel abroad and are rarely make profits in their own land, with but a few exceptions. It is fashionable to decry our Monarchy, to laugh at our great leaders over the centuries - and the lack of knowledge of Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution deepens by the generation.
How has all this happened in but a few decades?
I was a child back in the '60's (The 1960's I mean!)and even then I recall that Britain still had a certain PRIDE in itself. Something happened to change all that and I put it down to the long march of gramscian neo-liberalism through our Institutions that took on during that time. The beat generation grew up, gained positions of power, and applied their nihilism - we now live with the consequences. They reduced our glowing past to cinders, and put the grate into Britain. This was the generation that helped steal our history and replace our innate decency and ensured that modern Britain is brutal and selfish. They infest our media, our public institutions. They look after each other - radical egalitarians to a metrosexual man. They have ensured decent values have been overwhelmed by their own multiculti-nihilism - and it feels good to them. Their anthem of selfish self-loathing is "Imagine" and they dance to the UN beat. Their only problem lies in the fact that even though they have helped bring about a Britain which now lacks any sense of self value -the vacuum created has started to fill with another creed - a creed which will destroy them and us. Islam. The irony is that whilst our Judaeo-Christian heritage is slowly but surely junked - the malign pathology of Mohammad will replace it and create a hell hole from which even the Gramscian goons cannot escape.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (38)
Great post, David. You're in great form altogether! And is this new writing style a portent of things to come?
I even agree with a lot of your gripes!
But of course disagree on the causes. The lack of cohesion in today's Britain (and by the way, it is almost universal in the west, Britain is not the only country that was "robbed of its history" etc), with the resultant selfishness, vulgarity and casual violence, results from increased prosperity, new (and cheap) technology, lack of identity in smaller social - religious or geographic . groups, and in fact the growing "democratisation" of society.
People are more free now than they ever were before, but don't always have the education or upbringing to exercise their freedom responsibly, there is also the universal awareness that a state, the media etc. must serve the people rather than some abstract notion, and this often leads to dumbing down.
All that chat of a "ramscian" conspiracy is just tosh, and your arguments of "radical egalitarians" making Britain selfish with their "selfish self-loathing" (?) are just not convincing.
= "gramscian"
The comedy offered by the likes of "Harry and Paul", and "Little Britain" remains superlative.
Enjoy the good stuff Dave, or you'll become like a nagging wife, and end up in the ducking stool for a soak ;)
"but don't always have the education"
BINGO!
After 60 years of state sponsored Education.
No history relating to the United Kingdom or Great Britan for fear of offending the minorities.
Thus the British have no idea where they are going because they have no idea where they have been.
My son, taught about prohibition, Al Capone (to be revalant, Huh! ) and various British atrocities in India, bla bla.
"All that chat of a "gramscian" conspiracy is just tosh"
Except that it isn't!
The Left infest the education system, and broadcasting by the way where it serves their purpose to undermine and destroy the underpinnings of the old British society, in order to replace it with their brave new world.
Interesting post which relates more widely to all prosperous western nations David. But I have to say excellent and accurate response to it Noel. Highly accurate response. Well summarised.
I would only add that David seems to want government remedy to this whereas in fact the remedy comes from each of us. The tide of doom and gloom ebbs and flows quite freely on this site as can be seen daily - and therefore plays a part in what is being condemned.
David,
I think the answer is very simple. Particularly in the last 20-30- the family structure has fallen apart. Mothers and fathers at work, many times more concernd with career than children, no dinner-time when everyone sits around the table, too much rubbish TV, and OVER_INDULGED spoilt brats who get everything handed to them without effort expected.
Pinky Walton.
<I>"everyone sits around the table, too much rubbish TV"</I>
Correct PINKY.
Coronation Street and Eastenders have caused the social rot to set in!!
Percy -
I do not think David Vance was thinking specifically of comedy programmes when he he wrote his piece....!
Anybody who has traveled long distances by train or plane, in this age of the "Cult of the Individual" cannot help but notice how trashy and self-absorbed your fellow passengers are. It's a snapshot of Britain, in microcosm.
I rather like the last two stanzas of a poem by James Reeves, who died in 1978. They are very apposite:
'How admirable the modest and the frugal,
The small, the neat, the furtive.
How troublesome the mammoths of the world,
Gross and assertive.
Happy should we live in the interstices
of a declining age -
Even while the impudent masters of decision
trample and rage.'
All that chat of a "ramscian" conspiracy is just tosh,
How so Noel?
Do you disagree that the media does have a controlling influence and that the media is dominated by children from the sixties who grew up, gained positions of power, and applied their nihilism - ?? If you believe 1) that the media has a controlling influence then how can you disagree with David Vance, 2) do you disagree that top jobs in both media and academia and top institutions are infested with the sixties generation? If you agree to one or both situations then how can you disagree?
Why is the egalitarianism tosh?
Isn't everybody equal, not because of who they are or what they contribute but because they are there? So a recent immigrant who has contributed nothing, can claim equality of citizenship and even grow as a group and change and influence British (and Irish) laws and culture. That they do not have to assimilate, but can bring a culture with them that may be something that would resemble society in the 7th century?
Do you honestly doubt that is happening? That a man can control several wives, beat young men with whips simply because it is their culture so it must be acceptable in Britain. Things done by different people who have different customs which are seen as wrong by mainstream culture in Britain, where even the law can turn a blind eye?
People are more free now than they ever were before, but don't always have the education or upbringing to exercise their freedom responsibly, there is also the universal awareness that a state, the media etc. must serve the people rather than some abstract notion, and this often leads to dumbing down.
Make up your mind Noel, it's difficult to know where to start to sort that one out. People are free but unfree, uneducated but are aware of the state and media, and that these institutions must serve them? How many ways do you want it?
Are people more free now than they were? I don't think so. IMO only if the individual belongs to a group. We have a problem with group identity, and different groups competing from government handouts. The ony freedoms in Britain is to be free of work, shopping and sex, looks pretty gramascian to me. Infact I'd say they were control dressed up in freedoms clothes.
With all these different groups competing, the loss of the british identity, shows Britain to be a nation dividedalong ethnic and cultural lines, and like the soviet union or yugoslavia, (both multicultural societies) Britain will crumble unless she starts to stop the rot within.
>>Do you disagree that the media does have a controlling influence and that the media is dominated by children from the sixties who grew up, gained positions of power, and applied their nihilism - ?? <<
Taken all together, then of course - No, as that sentence contains a lot of total nonsense.
Firt of all, the media does not have a "controlling" influence; they have failed to foresee too many things for that idea to hold water. Their influence is, however, very strong.
>>the media is dominated by children from the sixties <<
That's true, indeed it's a biological inevitability.
>>sixties who grew up, gained positions of power, and applied their nihilism<<
How could the "sixties generation" be said to be nihilistic??
The whole point of the post, and your opinion I presume, is that they have strong ideology.
You and David should make up your minds.
>>If you agree to one or both situations then how can you disagree?<<
Where's the problem? Just because people of the sixties are strongly represented in the media, doesn't mean there has to be a Gramscian conspiracy? There isn't.
>>Why is the egalitarianism tosh?<<
Heh? I never said it was.
I said that the idea of "egalitarian radicals" trying to make Britain selfish is tosh.
In fact, if you understand the sentence, it's hilarious!
>>So a recent immigrant who has contributed nothing, can claim equality of citizenship and even grow as a group and change and influence British<<
I'm not sure what you're getting at. First of all, a recent immigrant can't claim equality of citizenship. Indeed even long-term immigrants, who have contributed a lot, have difficulty becoming citizens. Look at that guy Dodi (is Dodi the son? I mean the guy who owns Harrods)
But if anyone becomes a citizen, then yes, they should definitely be treated as equal before the law, regardless of their cultural background or any "contribution".
>>Noel, it's difficult to know where to start to sort that one out. People are free but unfree, uneducated but are aware of the state and media, and that these institutions must serve them?<<
Gosh, you didn't understand a bit of what I wrote (and how!)
First, I never said people are unfree.
Second, being uneducated (and I also never said people are uneducated) certainly doesn't mean you can't be "aware of the state and media". My 4-year old is aware of both.
Besides, I meant the awareness is among the media and state bodies.
Look, there was a time when the media (and many other organisations and authorities) felt they were a kind of normative force for promoting, celebrating and maintaining a kind of national cohesion. They were essentially didactic.
Today's media (and I'm no expert on the matter, but this much is clear) seem to take a more descriptive and neutral approach. The report things as they find them and communicate the variety of life as it exists, without promoting or judging any aspects of it.
They report on the gay community, the church-going community, the criminal community, the blogging community ....
A lot of that was filtered out in the old days.
The same attitude - tho not so strong - is increasingly to be found among public authorities and lawmakers.
ok I can't deal with that now, it may be tommorrow as I'm getting ready to go to a talk given by cheerie blair, but I'll get back to you on it.
Gosh,
I was at a not very formal talk at Queens one evening given on EU law, or something.
One of the speakers was a real shite, bumming abd blasting and said in this very Hoity Toity Voice " When I was talking to Cherie Blair about this matter......"
I was sitting beside this fella, might of been a bit hard of hearing and he shouts in a whipser to me " Who the fuck is Gerry Blair" I will never forget it til the day I die.
nice one pinky, i'll let you know how it goes....
David,
Quickie for you, in passing. Here is something to be bear in mind:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7699179.stm
These men are busy fighting and dying for this country and it's values and are part of it's national pride.
Hey Alison! Are you stateside or in Londontown?
Very strong article there by our David but has it been ghost written by Pete Moore ? It contains much more of his style and phraseology than Mr Vance's.
It is nice to see some parts of the UK still appreciate the homecoming of UK forces from the Middle East. Unlike the Sinn Fein scumbag ifnorami who are intent on wrecking the Belfast parade on Sunday with their disgusting counter demonstration.
Firt of all, the media does not have a "controlling" influence; they have failed to foresee too many things for that idea to hold water. Their influence is, however, very strong.
As gramisci said...
It could be argued that the media exists as a vehicle and tool for consumerism to grow and for society to engage in the current purchase-dominated way. If people are not consumers then they may be considered by some areas of society to be outcasts and different from the ‘norm’. It is this state of affairs where the media can be key to influencing the people it informs and instilling the thought that one must be a consumer and if not then at least aspire to be. Gramsci may argue that the way in which the media operates could equate to what he envisaged when he talked about a ‘class struggle’ and the creation of values which others must follow. It is this situation where the ideological role of the media can be seen to influence the way in which people can decode and read advertisements, features, television programmes and any text which may hold a hidden meaning; therefore creating the possibility for media to become very powerful in terms of ideological control and leadership. It could be said that the media has become the dominant class in a Western society full of semiotic and hegemonic traits. No longer can the world be seen through ones own single apathetic eye.
As David Vance says:
Something happened to change all that and I put it down to the long march of gramscian neo-liberalism through our Institutions that took on during that time.
Yet you say where is the problem????
Where's the problem? Just because people of the sixties are strongly represented in the media, doesn't mean there has to be a Gramscian conspiracy? There isn't.
Really? IMO there is, but either you can't see it or you won't acknowledge it, incase agreeing with everything David Vance says brings you over the line and into right world.
Not only is there a problem with the media but all Britains' institutions, for example the judicary, the education system et al all of them which has led to the situation described by David Vance in his post.
Look, there was a time when the media (and many other organisations and authorities) felt they were a kind of normative force for promoting, celebrating and maintaining a kind of national cohesion. They were essentially didactic.
Today's media (and I'm no expert on the matter, but this much is clear) seem to take a more descriptive and neutral approach. The report things as they find them and communicate the variety of life as it exists, without promoting or judging any aspects of it.
They report on the gay community, the church-going community, the criminal community, the blogging community ....
A lot of that was filtered out in the old days.
This isn't about just reporting, which is biased in the bbc, but in adverts etc which according to gramsci makes the media a dominant class in society.
And so it would seem you agree, with what you disagreed with in the first instance:
All that chat of a "ramscian" conspiracy is just tosh, .
And this:
The same attitude - tho not so strong - is increasingly to be found among public authorities and lawmakers.
You've got to be kidding, the public authorities are not neutral. Are they neutral in implementing a green policy? The law makers neutral? No way, those people are so out of touch that they're a complete joke......18 months for a radiographer in one of Ulsters' hospitals for downloading images of children while old age pensioners can be threatened with asbos for feeding the birds..
Today's media (and I'm no expert on the matter, but this much is clear) seem to take a more descriptive and neutral approach.
That line really is astonishing!!! It's unbelieveable...after what has been written on this blog about the bias in the BBC,
You really believe everything is neutral and descriptive and there is no dominant ideology at work???
Theres not much point in continuing - is there after that?
>>And so it would seem you agree, with what you disagreed with in the first instance:<<
Only to those who don't understand what I said in either.
>>As gramisci said...<<
>>As David Vance says:<<
>>t's unbelieveable...after what has been written on this blog about the bias in the BBC,<<
So, when Gramisci says it, or when David Vance says it, or when (choke) it's written on this blog, or indeed when it's said by some Imams somewhere, then it's good enough for our Gosh!
Gosh's arguments on this thread are utterly ridiculous. Not even the most vehement Obama disapprovers on this site - and there are many - would support the ridiculous view that just because some Iman claims Obama to be a Muslim then he must be so regardless of what Obama himself says or how he has lived his life. That view is embarrasingly stupid.
OOps
The above comment was meant for the Trolls perspective thread.
Colm: Just to play devil's advocate here - jumping into the discussion - it seems to me that Gosh might have a valid point
If Obama wass born a Muslim, (which is the key question) isn't he then an apostate if he at a later date chooses Christianity? According to fundamentalist Muslim.
Man's free choice is a key piece of Christianity, but from what I understand, free will, and choice, are not a part of Islam. In other words, an infidel may become a Muslim, but a Muslim may never become an Infidel without risking death, among fundamentalists. . Aren't apostates subject to death in Islam - as preached by the fundamental immans?
The electorate has not been able to ask many questions about Obama's early life because it is said that questions are "racist" and the MSM has chosen to play along. So, I don't know if he was ever a Muslim. But I do know that his father was a Muslim, and that he attended a Muslim school and was listed on the application as a Muslim.
Very strong article there by our David but has it been ghost written by Pete Moore ?
Why thank you Colm, nice to know one's efforts are fully appreciated. But I can confirm young Vance is the sole author. I would have steamed in with a comment but it would have been only 'hear hear'.
I have said that to understand what has happened in the UK (and the USA) over these last few desperate decades you have to read Gramsci.
Being halfway through Orwell's collected essays I can see why it's been said you have to read him to understand the 20th Century.
What's clear is that to understand all you must read Gramsci, Orwell and Vance.
Actually, Colm, she said that on the "Troll's Perspective" thread. But her comments on this thread aren't far behind.
Oopps!! I've just answered Colm's question on the wrong thread. My keyboard is a mess, anyway- I give up.
I give up.
Patty, you are voting for OBAMA???
I knew that Opera link ( with subliminal messages) would convert you :-)
>>So, I don't know if he was ever a Muslim.<<
But surely that is irrelevant. Your point is that some Muslims consider him to be one, and that they could kill him for apostasy.
>>But I do know that his father was a Muslim,<<
His father had become a professed atheist long before Barack was born. Besides, the father disappeared when the boy was 2 years old!
What Muslim school did he attend, by the way. Was it when his mother took him to Indonesia?
>>Being halfway through Orwell's collected essays I can see why it's been said you have <<
Enjoy your read, Pete. My favourites were the one where he witnesses a hanging in Burma and Shooting an Elephant.
The essay in defence of Wodehouse is also excellent, and gives some interesting insights into life in Britain during the Phoney War.
Noel,
As someone who likes to lecture others on the tone of their posts here, you are a bit of a hypocrite.
Wise up fellas! Argue your point without calling people stupid, eh?
Pinky
I said Gosh's viewpoint on this matter is stupid which it is. I did not personally call Gosh stupid. It is perfectly valid to call a view stupid if you think it is.
>>Noel,
As someone who likes to lecture others on the tone of their posts here, you are a bit of a hypocrite.
Wise up fellas! Argue your point without calling people stupid, eh?<<
What the hell's wrong here: first Gosh gets her ideas all mixed up, then Colm gets the comments mixed up; then Patty gets the threads mixed up, now Pinky gets the commenters mixed up!
David should hand out maps.
Or shit heads!
Or shit heads ??
Now pinky has just fallen off the map ;)
Now pinky has just fallen off the map ;)
LOL, mah just calling out the hypocrisy when I see it Colm.
This is always a fascinating topic for me. "What has gone wrong, and why?".
Thing is, as someone in my early forties, I can recall "the Britain that WAS"...but only just. I was only in my adolescence during the 80's, when I first became aware of...let's say, "the values of society" as I perceived them then. And yes, it seems that a great change has occurred since then, those values have shifted, and some of them have been removed and replaced by a different set of values, and in general, I don't like the way things are shifting.
But as I say, I was only a young lad when I first started to be aware of such things. Perhaps, I sometimes wonder to myself, the perceived "shift" is merely an illusion and has only taken place in my own mind?
But, No, I talk to my mother, who has been "politically/culturally aware" for longer than I have. She's seen things from a further vantage point than I have, and her opinions confirm my own: Something has radically changed since (roughly speaking) the 1960's, and in general, it's not for the better.
The thing we both struggle to understand is, what has changed? What things have been the CAUSES of this change, as opposed to merely the symptoms of it?
We both talk about the same basic ideas: The breakdown of family life, the lessening influence of the Church, etc etc. Are these the underlying causes of the current malign, or merely the symptoms? It's so difficult to tell; it all seems to have happened as part of a huge tsunami wave.
All we can do is point to examples, such as: This current Jonathan Ross debacle: it simply could not have occurred 25 years ago. No way would such a thing have been even contemplated for broadcast - not at 6pm, not at 9pm, not at any hour at all. Unthinkable.
24 years ago, the pop band "Frankie Goes To Hollywood" had their debut single "Relax" banned from TOTP and from Radio 1 airplay. It's lyrics went "Relax: don't do it, when you want to suck it to it, Relax: don't do it, when you wanna come". (The video featured a gay nightclub, as if to dispel any misunderstanding about the lyrics). If it were released today, that song would certainly not be banned, but would rather be trumpeted and praised by BBC R1, and anyone calling for banning the record would be reviled and discredited as a "homophobe" or some such nonsense, I feel sure. So yes, something has definitely changed.
Noel so far your rebuttal of David Vances arguments are nothing more than your assertion that the media has a strong influence rather than a dominant one. Thats it, that appears to be your argument.....
Any chance of seeing in your answer something -other than your own assertion, that 'All that chat of a "gramscian" conspiracy is just tosh' , the reason you gave about the media is laughable.
Colm name calling someone stupid while posting in the wrong thread.....:) Oh dear!!
Patty, exactly. It's about understanding the fundamentalist mindset, that is my point exactly.
So, when Gramisci says it, or when David Vance says it, or when (choke) it's written on this blog, or indeed when it's said by some Imams somewhere, then it's good enough for our Gosh!
Noel, why don't you google 'gramiscian neo liberalism' or 'gramiscian institutions, any key words surrounding 'gramiscian' and you will see there is HUGE debate around the issue. I don't believe for one minute DV picked up that phrase from nowhere, quite obviously its out there. Now, I don't believe either of the two of us could argue the point in any detail, but in some ways I think you should read up on the gramiscian debate before you call it tosh. It's been around for some time :)
I happen to think the idea holds water, and I've been pointing to things commented upon in this blog to back up what I see backs the point that there is gramiscian neo liberalism at play within British institutions that would account for what we see happening around us. So far, you say its all tosh, I don't think so. I don't think we have to look to far to see the evidence of it. Infact another post today on the media by Patty. All of this evidence of the media being the 'dominant' class rather than the strong influence you say it is. Show me some evidence of the fine line between strong influence and a dominant influence.
I believe the influence is dominant, so much so that the media have created its own class, perhaps you don't see that, so persuade me with your argument rather than lapse into name calling....the name calling is only proof of the failure of your argument not its strength.
And so I await Noel's argument........
Gosh
I never called anyone stupid! I am too nice to ever do that :)