The UK Film Council and its paper tigerhood

The UK Film Council is a mostly worthless entity, that exists mainly to shovel taxpayer money (without any real oversight by elected politicians) towards “transgressive”, “edgy” endlessly PC pap that is way too PC and too much pap to make a profit from actual audiences. The Cameron government has scrapped it, on the basis that in the Age of Austerity transgressives can transgress on their own account. This has led to some prize gush from the Guardian, a paper reliant on the cultural compliance bureaucracy for its survival.

Does this matter to the government? Does it hell! The Guardian is lining up “transgressive” luvie after luvie to defend why taxpayer money simply must be channeled to sustaining their tastes? I can see the kitchen conversation:

Mrs. Average: Honey, did you hear they’re getting rid of the Film Council?

Mr. Average: That’s horrible! I have the paper here with the President of the Council and its biggest beneficiaries saying how ordinary people have no taste, and need government to subsidize movies they don’t like.

Mrs. Average: Oh yes, I completely agree, we have no taste whatsoever. If McSod says he needs our money to make his latest moving biopic about how straight white people made his life hell when he was growing up, then that settles it.

What this illustrates is that the PC media actually has relatively little power when faced with a government that just doesn’t care. It can’t defend the attitude-shaping bureaucracy simply because it means proving to people that they themselves have the wrong attitudes. Not an easy sell.

What if the Age of Austerity was to also take its axe to the race attitude-shaping bureaucracy? I would suggest that the votaries of these would not be able to defend their positions to the public. You can only practice attitude-shaping on a people with their consent if they aren’t particularly aware that this is happening. It is impossible to convince people that their current values, tastes and beliefs are so defective that they need to be professionally reshaped.

So, leaving outside speculation about their committed PC-ness, why doesn’t the Cameron government do this? In essence, any right-wing party has two choices:

1. Do popular but un-pc things (e.g. cutting the attitude-shaping bureaucracy, allowing un-pc speech, reducing immigration). This gives the party votes, but leads to the Guardian and other institutions and people professionally reliant on PC excommunicating the right-wing party from the human race. Result: Government power, but no Islington dinner parties.

2. Don’t do these things. You give people no real reason to vote for you, but McSod is happy. Result: Only occasional government power, but plenty of Islington dinner parties.

I would suggest that many Tories prefer 2. to 1. They aren’t, ironically, power-hungry enough. Such an analysis suggests that a differently-manned Tory party could do these un-pc things. This wouldn’t have to be a WN Tory party, only one dominated by people with social connections primarily outside the arts world and the attitude-shaping bureaucracy (which meld over into each other). Then McSod and his cheerleaders in the Guardian could take a hike.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at 12:09 PM in British Politics
Comments (4) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 28, 2010, 04:51 PM | #

“I would suggest that many Tories prefer 2 to 1.” (—from the log entry)

What’s your take, Alex, on which choice is preferred not by the visible Tories we all see and hate but by the behind-the-scenes Tory funders, the ones who give the visibles their marching orders? After all, theirs are the preferences that count and get endorsed and aped by mere front men and stooges like David Cameroon, endorsed and aped for the simple reason that if a mere bought stooge on a leash the likes of him doesn’t ape them, doesn’t affect to have identical preferences, he’s essentially political toast without a penny in next election’s campaign coffers.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 28, 2010, 07:50 PM | #

Anyone with an interest in the matter can view the list of donors to all political parties on UK Electoral Commission website here. There is also a separate register listing donations received during the recent election campaign.

But concerning the UK Film Council, I for one say good riddance and find myself in the unusual position of being in complete agreement with the remarks of a correspondent in the New Statesman.

Posted by John on July 29, 2010, 10:08 AM | #

The UK Film Council is a mostly worthless entity, that exists mainly to shovel taxpayer money (without any real oversight by elected politicians) towards “transgressive”, “edgy” endlessly PC pap that is way too PC and too much pap to make a profit from actual audiences.

Since the term “political correct” is anything but correct and when you think about it, marketing genius and a propaganda coup and a half for the other side and no matter how much people deride it they repeat the meme that such Frankfurt School Marxist crap is “correct”, unwittingly lending it credence in doing so, I suggest instead of PC, we call it politically prescribed (or PP) instead.

Posted by alex zeka on July 30, 2010, 12:27 PM | #

Aaaa rgh comment got eaten.

Fred,

The short answer is when I referred to the Tories I meant whoever is calling the shots.

The longer answer is that the invisible Tories consist of big business and aristocratic lefties. Big business prefers 2. to 1. for much the same reason as the visibles. It worsens their party’s chances of power. but lends them social credentials. The lefties in aristocratic drag are just lefties - they actually like pc policies, because of white guilt, jewish interest, etc.

Any invisibles who are neither big business nor lefties probably have motivations similar to the ones I’ve described - being pc loses votes, but stops their London friends from cold-shouldering them.

Next entry: The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)

Previous entry: Debunking a racialist myth about the genetic variation between dog breeds

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa