What a disgusting cast of anti-British actors. It makes one wonder what on earth the old establishment were doing in the first half of the century. Perhaps the subversion came too fast and was too embedded to dislodge by the time that the likes of Moseley entered the stage?
From what I've read, it does seem that figures like Neville Chamberlain, Lord Rothermere and Oswald Mosley, who did to some extent try to resist subversive forces, were already becoming isolated in politics and the media by the 1930s. By the end of the decade they were overthrown completely.
The old establishment controlled newspapers and magasines. They did not understand the importance of the BBC. In the previous instalment, Horus explained that their main concern was loss of advertising income. Hence support for the BBC tax.
Few people listened to the BBC in the first decade. These people also read newspapers so the influence of the BBC should not be overstated in the 1930's. The war changed everything. An institution controlled by socialists, soviet sympathisers, and perverts gained enormous prestige whereas its reach increased to almost everyone in Britain. The subversion became much more effective from the 1950's onwards.
Certainly the war took the BBC to new heights in its reach and new depths in its leaning, but the number of licence fee holders did grow from about 2.5m in 1928 to about 9m in 1939. At that time, though, broadcasting seems to have sat alongside printed news without replacing it.
Many thanks for your thorough explanation. What puzzles me is the absence of purges. Once the importance of subversion is understood, why did Neville Chamberlain and his supporters keep Reith ? Why did they not change the top management and enact a large scale purge of the homosexuals, Fabians, Soviet sympathisers, Jews, and the ilk ? This passivity is astonishing.
In the same era, the Catholic Church was also passive towards infiltration and subversion. Under Pius XI several large scale enquiries identified networks of communist priests and bishops in relation with the Comintern, members of the free masonry, subversive theologians. One such enquiry was headed by the future Pius XII. Yet both popes took very little action, mostly ordering people to stop preaching or teaching subversive ideas. No purges.
In contrast the progressive adversaries have never had any qualms about purging conservatives and promoting their ilk.
That puzzles me too. The same also seems true of MI5 and MI6. Also the Foreign Office in general. There were decent factions in each of these organisations, or at least sincere anti-communists who would have readily helped with a purge. As you say, the passivity is astonishing. It seems to be the story of Britain for the last century and more.
What a disgusting cast of anti-British actors. It makes one wonder what on earth the old establishment were doing in the first half of the century. Perhaps the subversion came too fast and was too embedded to dislodge by the time that the likes of Moseley entered the stage?
From what I've read, it does seem that figures like Neville Chamberlain, Lord Rothermere and Oswald Mosley, who did to some extent try to resist subversive forces, were already becoming isolated in politics and the media by the 1930s. By the end of the decade they were overthrown completely.
The old establishment controlled newspapers and magasines. They did not understand the importance of the BBC. In the previous instalment, Horus explained that their main concern was loss of advertising income. Hence support for the BBC tax.
Few people listened to the BBC in the first decade. These people also read newspapers so the influence of the BBC should not be overstated in the 1930's. The war changed everything. An institution controlled by socialists, soviet sympathisers, and perverts gained enormous prestige whereas its reach increased to almost everyone in Britain. The subversion became much more effective from the 1950's onwards.
Certainly the war took the BBC to new heights in its reach and new depths in its leaning, but the number of licence fee holders did grow from about 2.5m in 1928 to about 9m in 1939. At that time, though, broadcasting seems to have sat alongside printed news without replacing it.
Hi Horus,
Many thanks for your thorough explanation. What puzzles me is the absence of purges. Once the importance of subversion is understood, why did Neville Chamberlain and his supporters keep Reith ? Why did they not change the top management and enact a large scale purge of the homosexuals, Fabians, Soviet sympathisers, Jews, and the ilk ? This passivity is astonishing.
In the same era, the Catholic Church was also passive towards infiltration and subversion. Under Pius XI several large scale enquiries identified networks of communist priests and bishops in relation with the Comintern, members of the free masonry, subversive theologians. One such enquiry was headed by the future Pius XII. Yet both popes took very little action, mostly ordering people to stop preaching or teaching subversive ideas. No purges.
In contrast the progressive adversaries have never had any qualms about purging conservatives and promoting their ilk.
That puzzles me too. The same also seems true of MI5 and MI6. Also the Foreign Office in general. There were decent factions in each of these organisations, or at least sincere anti-communists who would have readily helped with a purge. As you say, the passivity is astonishing. It seems to be the story of Britain for the last century and more.
The Jewish Flag!