What is “Wireless tele-Vision” for? Discuss.


David Davis

[late edit...] [ I have suddenly wondered to myself what it's for, given that the global % penetration of small handheld (or not much larger) devices that can access news, comment, blogs and the opinions of millions, is approaching a majority. ]

One the one hand, the British Political EnemyClass has created what it seems to be admitting is a monster - this says “ban television for the under-threes” (or words to that effect.) Yet on the other hand a modern repressive police state would be a more difficult one in which to manage thought-control, regulate the opinions of, and generally farm for eliciting the “correct public responses” without this machinery. I have drafted a few of my own thoughts, rather fast this morning, in response to a typical Daily Mail mob-hysteria-inducing breakfast-article.

Of course, an invented device can’t be uninvented. The Wireless Tele-vision [WT] (and quickly also with post-receive injected sound subcarrier) was a marvellous development of the pure Sound-wireless, but like all technologies it’s been stolen and corrupted, Morgoth-style, by governments for their own purposes.

In the British State’s case,  WT’s purpose was to anaesthatize and render uncurious “The Masses”, over decades so nobody would notice except the most critical, the most pedantic and the most autistic of Historians.

As a clever wheeze-or-dodge-or-smokescreen, the BBC started out as a state organ for the improvement of people’s minds and comprehension of news. But the plan was to encompass decades before revelation of real intent, so nobody would twig that its and WT broadcasting’s real purpose was…what? To divert the perception of people’s mentors and the focus of their beliefs to what Orwell called THE TELESCREENS. (They now even look like what one imagines in the book.) I know a household in Aughton, Lancashire, quite a big house, where there are ten: one in every room, and all over four feet across except the two small ones in the kitchen/diner (telescreens, not people!)

Other social developments don’t help. For example,

(1) such high tax rates that at least two members of every household have to work all their lives: even King John didn’t manage that.

(2) A level of average household education in Britain, post-”comprehensive”-schooling, that would shame even the poorer parts of Upper-JipoopooLand.

(3) Coupled with this the almost entire disappearance of books from prominent display, or even presence, in the average home. Children surrounded by books will naturally try to read them, and it does help, surprisingly.

So it’s not surprising at all that infants aged seven have spent a seventh of their lives in front of the WT.

You can’t ban the Wireless Tele-vision from being turned on. But in a sort of parallel fantasy-world you can – if not a libertarian – fire all the GramscoFabiaNazi goons that make the programmes and start again, closing down any broadcasting organisations that displease you through haveing seemed to be complicit in the “plan”. The immediate effect will be for nearly 100% of the WT-owning-population to riot, shouting that “the f*****g thing’s unwatchable now!!!”

But they’ll come round in time. Funding this transfer is OK for it’ll come out of the War Secretariat’s budget for a few years while people get used to it. In this time the Secretariat shall extract “voluntarily-offered fines”, of enormous amounts, hundreds of billions, from those political classes of jumpy-bumpy countries that have been “causing little local difficulties” for liberalism over the last few decades. That the families of the British Political EnemyClass, that deliberately used the WT as a corruption-inducer, will also be mulcted for the same “fines”, goes without question.

But of course, we can’t do that, can we. So as Lenin asked: “What Is To Be Done?”

About these ads

4 responses to “What is “Wireless tele-Vision” for? Discuss.

  1. Concerned Briton

    I used to know some people (when I was a child in the 1980′s) who did not have a TV set – and refused to have one in their houses.

    At the time, I thought they were completely mad – and given that their children were denied access to the TV which I enjoyed, I thought they were horrible people, nasty people with some kind of controlling zeal over the family.

    It was so odd to me at that age (that they did not own a TV), it was as though they were aliens from another planet. I saw no justification for their positions (although of course I never knew what those positions were at that age) and I could not possibly imagine what could be wrong with a TV.

    After a struggle and strops with my own parents, I had, after all, managed to get one into my bedroom. Peer pressure, expectancy, social norms were such that it became the “in” thing and that there was something wrong with you and your family if you hadn’t got one.

    As I have grown up and grown older (and suspect that I understand some of the background to this article here today) I have changed my position on the matter of television and have come to realise how it can be a very subversive tool that can shape society in itself.

    I find much of that shaping to be to our detriment as a people and as a nation, and the grip it has over people’s lives I find to be pretty disturbing.

    Perhaps many of us, no matter what our personal causes are, are frustrated at what we observe as being the near comatose state of vast swathes of the population – and softly condemn them for their lack of concern as this country slips down the toilet, as they would rather watch Cheryl Cole perform on X-Factor, or tune in to B-list- or even C-List celebrity entities dancing.

    For these reasons, I sometimes do daydream about how good it would be to jam the signal indefinitely and force more people to start paying attention to what I feel is being done to them, and things that can never be undone after it reaches a certain tipping point, if we are not already beyond that point.

    George Orwell was reportedly once a student of Aldous Huxley. The article here reminded me of a segment of an interview I saw the other month with Aldous, where he discusses quite a few (in my opinion) prophetic matters during an American TV show.

    It is not overly amazing or anything, but the relevant part which I recalled was relating to ‘TV’ can be found here, if anybody is interested. (David Davis might find it interesting?) :

    If it doesn’t jump to the right place, try 5:40mins (in-particular 6:15) to 9:00mins.

    What is also notable (to me) about the clip, aside from the interviewer smoking on air, which would not be done today, is how there are very few shows now, if any, which discuss important matters or ideas in this way.

    The narrative is much more restricted in this country, and nor do I really believe that much of the populace could sit and watch (or even understand) something like that any more.

    It is a far cry from “The Wright Stuff” and “Loose Women”, or even the supposedly more serious programmes like Newsnight, which is on a channel that is in my view far from impartial in what it chooses to be news and how it chooses to discuss topics.

  2. Concerned Briton

    In fact, I think the whole video is worthy of being watched. There are a lot of really great points being made in the clip.

    I have not read Brave New World and had no real idea who this man even was (probably thanks to my previous TV existence and sloppy comprehensive school education!), but I found the video to be fascinating and relevant to what I believe we are surrounded with today.

  3. Stephen Moriarty

    We gave up TV five years ago. I expect most of our friends think we are smug about it, and they are probably right, but there is no doubt in our, as it were, anti-experience, that TV is a peculiar medium.
    We are, for instance, aware of events like the Arab Spring or the Olympics, from the radio (to which we listen a great deal), but we are not captivated by them in the way that we remember being captivated by news and sports events when we had a telly.
    One thing that is missing is the narrative that TV seems to generate more than other media: TV journalists seem to need to “tell a story” to go with the pictures, a story that has a beginning, a middle and an end, and a moral. This seems to occur both within individual “stories” and over a series of reports. This might be something to do with the bifurcation of attention that TV with voice-over involves: the journalist knows that the viewers’ attention is principally held by the images and that therefore abstract “facts” are going to pass unnoticed; instead the journalist provides a narrative to accompany the illustrating moving-images.
    As Marshall McLuan said (not that I’m sure he was entirely right), “the medium is the message”. Perhaps TV is a medium that encourages a narrative, and therefore an emotionally satisfying, version of events and that this encourages in turn a Manichean world-view, in which the bias is towards the “good”: for, as Oscar Wilde wrote, “That is what fiction means.”!?

  4. Well, I’m another smug television-less person, like Stephen Moriarty. I didn’t plan to be TV-less per se; I had this crapulent little black and white one for years (bought it to go with my ZX81, which really dates me doesn’t it?) and then a variety of technicolor ones in those rented accomodation that provided them. In the late 90s I built a new PC, and put a video card in it with a TV tuner on, but because I was mostly on the PC by that point, and you couldn’t use the PC and watch telly simultaneously, my viewing dwindled away. Then I lived for a (sadly, shorter than I initially hoped) with a woman who hadn’t had a TV either, so we didn’t have one in our flat, and after that I was completely out of the habit and never got another one.

    I still like to watch movies, and download individual episodes of a few series. But the “viewing” experience when I’m in somebody else’s house and the telly is on, I find rather disturbing; a kind of relentless psychological battering, as the ads bellow and the idents swirl and they can’t just tell you a new story, it’s all picture in picture and music and swirling stuff. I can only stand a small dose of it.

    In response to Stephen’s observations, my own realisation long ago (when I still had a telly) was that the information content was appallingly low. A documentary (even a “good” one like Horizon) takes an hour to tell you information you can read in two minutes. As he says, it’s all about telling a story rather than imparting information; as such, it’s an intrinsically propagandistic medium. It can’t help it. I distrust all media these days, but television in particular.