David Robert Gibson Reviews Sean Gabb on Popular Culture


What a fine talk! – clear, persuasive, full of content and relevant asides, succinct but unhurried – I enjoyed it, belatedly alas, and conserved it upon several disk drives. My own hope is principally for a catastrophic collapse of this truly evil Champagne Socialistic-Corporatist Regime, but as you said it is a delight one cannot depend upon in short order. I take you point, strongly, that while we are waiting/a workable alternative task is *to dominate popular culture*, just as the fashionable Left have done so thoroughly this past 60 years. That Was The Week That Was and Till Death Us Do Part are early examples.

I found it instructive that you mentioned the abysmal, culturally blind failure of the apparently so dominant Thatcher 1980’s government to sponsor relatively conservative/libertarian folk like Hill, Williams, and Everett (I did not know that Bernard Bresslaw took an interest in Chris Tame’s bookshop!). They could also have brought Hughie Green out of a retirement enforced by proto-PC types at Thames Television. I do not consider that I have any outstanding talent as a scriptwriter or entertainer, so I will have to leave the public delegitimisation of this nasty Regime to others. I do so hope they can achieve it as, for examples, in the French and Czechoslovakian Revolutions that you described. The Champagne Corporatists have left open goals a plenty – the EU, variations on Quantitative Easing, hidden externalities of the consumerist system, the gross unfairness and growing fallout from mass immigration, inverted crime policies, uncontrolled profligate waste, the relentless demoralisation of decent people, and so on and on.

David Robert Gibson

7 responses to “David Robert Gibson Reviews Sean Gabb on Popular Culture

  1. The Thatcher Government would not recognise Bishop Muzarewa’s mutiracial, majority rule government in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, either. Recognition was delayed until circumstances could be engineered (widespread, effective, intimidation) that a Marxist government could come to power there.
    However, Thatcher’s Government did steer Britain, itself, away from the cliff edge of collectivist insanity and created the short-lived wealth splurge of the 80s/90s. Events such as the breaking of the Grunwick strike blockade, and the Alternative Bookshop did happen.
    After Thatcher was destroyed as a political force, and the Tories reduced to “more-of-the-same” collectivising inanity al la Ted Heath or winds-of-change Macmillan, Britain has been sliding back to the edge.
    And now, with the new US administration, and the set up in Brussels, the whole western world is pretty much at the edge. Where does it all go from here? I wonder.
    I must have a look at Sean’s video for some ideas !

  2. The belated acknowledgement that the BBC was openly biased against Mrs (as she then was) Thatchers government is at least interesting, more so was the recent Radio 4 programme i listened to about Mary Whitehouse in which the present quite unselfconsciously spoke of the guiding aim of the BBC in the 1960’s to change Britains culture into a more ‘progressive’ one.

    The cultural war is fought with a remarkable and deliberate intensity by the leftists and they don’t even really bother to hide it.

  3. Just think back to the Hanger-and-Flogger wing of the Tory Party and give thanks that the ‘Culture War’ succeeded to some extent.

    The problem with ratifying Muzorewa is that it wouldn’t have stopped the violence. ZANU and ZAPU would have cranked up their efforts, putting the British government in an impossible situation. “One Man, One Vote, Once” was always going to favour ZANU and ZAPU.

    Mrs. Thatcher conned herself into believing that that nice Christian Mr. Mugabe was “someone we could do business with”, but they don’t make spoons that long…


  4. I think i’d prefer to live in a society run by ‘hangers and floggers’ where i could actually feel safe walking around at night than a society run by ‘progressives’ where i am afraid to walk around some areas in the middle of the day.

    As for Zimbabwe, Mrs Thatcher was simply on the political scene too late to have any real impact on what was happening there, she was handed a situation that was already fucked up and simply had to make the best of a bad job.

  5. Regarding Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, you are not correct.
    The situation was completely winnable for the West, as have been many conflicts that the West has lost.
    The only reason it was not won by the West is that western sources funded the other side and ensured that they won.
    On all fronts.
    Which, having witnessed in person, is one of the reasons I have little genuine conviction that the forces of totalitarianism will not triumph in most places.
    And those who vehemently stand for freedom right now, will, I am sure, find good and sound reason to modify their position as events dictate.

  6. John B, by the time Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister the situation in Zimbabwe was totally fucked, it was far to late. The Rhodesians had put up an amazing fight against Soviet backed guerillas, Western blocakdes and UN resources being coopted by the Marxists, but by May 1979 it was far too late.

  7. You are buying a completely false impression of history. I see they are re-writing it already.
    The only place it was cut and dried, right up to the end, was in the minds of those who set the agendas in London and Washington, and to a lesser extent, Moscow or Beijing.
    It could have been stopped by the totally simple expedient of not forcing through the agenda that resulted in what has happened. Call it Marxist or whatever.
    It was in no way inevitable and was only achieved by holding the agenda on track right up until after the election in 1979.
    To repeat.
    It was in no way inevitable but was achieved at great expense and effort by those who forced the agenda through.