Friday 26 October 2012

Savile affair reveals the mass media as controlling core of the Establishment


The unfolding Jimmy Savile affair is proving to be both revealing and clarifying with respect to the nature and corruption of The Establishment (the ruling elite) in Britain.

One aspect I failed to mention in the above posting but which has become more apparent is that the police/ legal system were involved in the decades-long cover-up of Savile's strategic predatory serial paedophilia; so this can be added to the Royal Family, the Vatican, governments, health service officials, educational officials...

But the point I wish to emphasize here is that Savile was created and sustained by the mass media, and most specifically the state funded British Broadcasting Corporation which was the primary source.


The mass media (and this dates back to the late 1960s) was the origin, focus, energy, defender of the phenomenon of Savile - which can be taken as merely the most egregious example yet known of a general system of the evaluation and validation of moral and aesthetic values.

Savile was made into a lay Saint - that is the important thing to realize; the BBC, the mass media, took this thoroughly unpromising raw material and made him into the prime national hero, and kept this going despite all.

We now know (we don't just suspect) that the mass media can - and does, Savile being the concrete example - take a person, an organization, a set of ideas - and make it dominant and invulnerable; mobilizing all other subordinate aspects of the Establishment to propagate it, and to exclude and repel any potential resistance coming from outside the Establishment.

How this happens is being shown us, day by day, with the unfolding revelations on Savile.


But why did this happen. Why was this all this done for somebody so wicked and dangerous as Savile? Why was so much done to enable and facilitate vice on such a vast scale?

What reason could the mass media establishment have for doing this apparently arbitrary thing? - what did they stand to gain from it - why not be more cautious?

For a traditional Christian the answer seems obvious, the inspiration bears all the fingerprints of personal purposive evil at work in the world - evil dominant at the very heart of the Establishment: the mass media, with tentacles reaching out and controlling all significant and subordinate aspects of the Establishment. Even the legal system and its enforcement.


No part of the Establishment stands outside of this evil influence - all we are seeing at present is the in-fighting due to the internal power struggles between linked bureaucracies; the media feeding off itself; one part of the Establishment striving for dominance over others; but no challenge whatsoever to the basic ethos of the Establishment and its foundational secular Leftist ideology.

But traditional Christians ought to be able to learn from this: we see the Establishment at work, its linked nature, its core, and its motivation.

It helps to know the location of the enemy's headquarters.


Note:  It has always been said, in excusing Savile (both before - for his boring, talentless and embarrassing persona - and now after his expose) that he 'gave' millions of pounds to charity - some say forty million. We now see that this was more in the nature of a fee than a gift. If we divide forty million pounds by the constantly expanding number of probable sexual assaults over several decades; it may eventually work-out to be something like a few hundred pounds per potentially career-ending and sometimes prison-worthy act. In other words, the 'charitable giving' functioned as a pay-off for establishment protection; also sometimes as a entrance fee to get access to establishments where (as a patron) he could molest with impunity. 'Charity' which is rewarded by official prestige is not true charity at all - rather, it is an exceptionally insidious form of corruption.



jgress said...

Just a thought: If the Establishment is so all-powerful, why would they have revealed these details now and discredit themselves?

I don't think you can blame it all on a top-down conspiracy.

Bruce Charlton said...

@jgress - I covered this at the end of the article. Ruling bureaucracies (e.g. in the Soviet Union) are always infighting, denouncing each other, having purges etc.

dearieme said...

I watched the Panorama programme the other night. It seemed to me that the evidence that the suppressed Newsnight programme had had was pretty feeble. Whether this was because the case was intrinsically weak, or because Savile had had the cunning to pick on girls who would make very poor witnesses, is hard to say.

JP said...

"It helps to know the location of the enemy's headquarters."

Not sure what good this really does you when the enemy is your own general staff aided and abetted by your own officers.

What's a good soldier or NCO to do, in that case?

Bruce Charlton said...

@JP - Sticking to the metaphor, maybe drag your heels as much as you dare, and prepare for the coup (led by a rebel group of disaffected officers).

GFC said...

Dr. Charlton - thank you for your analysis on this story, particularly for those of us on this side of the Atlantic. You are doing the Lord's work.