Peter Hitchens has written a remarkable book which represents a comprehensive analysis of many of the changes and problems which have beset modern Britain. The Abolition of Britain (Quartet, 1999), subtitled "The British Cultural Revolution from Lady Chatterley to Tony Blair", describes how the Communist doctrine of "the long march through the institutions" has already happened in Britain during the post-war period, and how this represents nothing less than an on-going Cultural Revolution.

Indeed he states that "In 1965, the people of Britain ... knew what united them, they shared a complicated web of beliefs, attitudes, prejudices, loyalties and dislikes. By 1997 they were unsure and at sea. Those over forty no longer felt they were living in the country where they had grown up, and while they may secretly have held to older views and customs, they publicly accepted the new arrangements with a tolerant smile. Those under forty, for the most part, had only the sketchiest notion of who they were and of how or when their surroundings had come to be as they were ..." (p. 23)

Hitchens reminds us that these changes didn't just happen; they were the result of philosophy and policy.

Full of original, and often witty, insights, Hitchens covers all the bases: The misrepresentation of British history in order to separate a people from their roots, so they may dwell in a "void of unknowing"; the dumbing-down of the education system; the drab transformation of our rural and urban surroundings; changing sexual mores; the increase in divorce and unmarried motherhood; the Americanisation of Britain during and following WW2; the demise of organised religion; the coarsening of the popular culture; the growth and domination of a subversive artistic community; the degeneration of spoken English, grammar, and good literature; the increase in violent crime; the on-going demolition job on the British constitution and, of course, the threat of a federal Europe and a single currency.

He notes that "on almost all fronts there has been no coherent, organized resistance to the cultural revolution. The other side has lost its nerve, and no longer really believes in itself." (p. 209)

Hitchens makes an interesting point about the death penalty: "The supporters of the Silverman bill [1964] were not really concerned about the possible bad consequences of getting rid of capital punishment. Though they would not admit it then or now, the truth was that they were prepared to accept the death of innocent people, the arming of the police and greater danger to policemen and prison officers. These were all sacrifices they were prepared to make, rather than allow something they believed to be a morally repulsive punishment to continue. Serious retentionists have the same problem, that they must accept the possibility of wrongful execution as the price of their principle." (p. 295)

This reminds me of the response, I once heard, to someone who was parroting the mantra that, "It's better that a hundred guilty men go free than that one innocent man should hang." "Better for whom?"

Hitchens is especially strong in his criticism of television noting how it, above all, has enabled the changes to take place: "Of course, other forces have marched alongside television, though it is hard to believe that they could have been half so successful without its aid ..." (p. 149)

DEATH BY TELEVISION
Hitchens asks : "How have we been persuaded to make and accept these changes, not all welcome or helpful or needed or much desired? Scores of different pressures led to them, many of them rooted in the destruction and disruption of the Second World War ... Other physical changes have propelled and exaggerated these new ways of thinking. The atomization of society by new types of housing has broken up the old sense of belonging. The crazed over-use of private cars and the triumph of the supermarket over the personal service grocery, have kept us from meeting our fellow creatures as effectively as any strict regime prison, and often reduced us to the level of objects rolling along someone else's production line. Greater than all these things is television, which has replaced individual imagination with images provided and selected by others, but also, and perhaps more importantly, destroying the old forms of social sanction, a fear of the neighbours' opinion or the even greater fear of upsetting the family. Television provided new judges of our behaviour, who actually were wittier, cleverer and more open-minded than anyone we knew in person." (pp. viii-ix)

He continues: "Yet few seem to realise the power of a medium which stole into our lives while we were not paying attention. Early television was nothing like the modern force which has now displaced all other forms of culture and entertainment. Its effect on the imagination has been the motor of the new morality and the new conformism. The age of books allowed each individual to form his own picture of the world ... But the arrival of cinema, and then of television, imposed on all of us the imagination of one director or one actor. However brilliant and apposite their portrayal may have been, it drove out our own. It made each one of us more like the other, it narrowed the gaps between us and made us simultaneously less alone and more conformist." (pp.x-xi)

On the advent of colour television: "Even the most brilliant storyteller, the most inspirational teacher, the most companionable parent or older brother, could not compete with colour television's virtuosity and variety ... The pictures on the screen in the corner of the room were for the first time brighter, cleaner, sharper and more exciting than the room itself. It was harder and harder to take your eyes away from the screen. Even news bulletins became a sort of treat for the eyes, with the great capitals and landscapes of the world suddenly seen for the first time in their full, rich reality. There was no longer any need to imagine for ourselves, and the thing was so seductive that almost nobody could resist it for long." (pp142-143)

Introduced to fictional social situations in soap operas, and contrived interactions constructed by clever propagandist scriptwriters, most of us have never had any opportunity to develop defence mechanisms against this kind of brainwashing.

He notes: "Anybody who can control a major television channel can use it to pour out propaganda, but it is only this new generation which does not know how to resist it, provided it uses the right sort of codes, language and symbols." (p. 147) "We welcome into our homes the machines that vacuum the thoughts out of our heads, and pump in someone else's." (p. 258)

Hitchens has done a tremendous job in laying out, in a structured manner, the changes which have occurred, and the problems which have arisen. He helps us to frame the big picture and thereby construct a response.

What lessons can we draw from this book? Two key requirements stand out as being essential for any political movement intent on successfully changing society:

THE TWO KEY REQUIREMENTS FOR POLITICAL SUCCESS

1 - THE SUPPORT OF THE POPULAR CULTURE
Success in the political realm requires the active support of the cultural realm. If the filmmakers are undermining your ideas, if the comedians are making people laugh at you, and if the writers are pushing material subversive of your standards, then you will fail.

However, if such material is, at least, balanced by cultural expressions which are supportive of your ideas then you will have a chance to create something of lasting value. The last 40 years, however, have been marked by an almost total imbalance in the politics of cultural expression - on both sides of the Atlantic.

For example, Hitchens emphasises the one sided dominance of the cultural realm when he writes: "Culturally, Labour had been in power for years and, as a result, its leaders and supporters always seemed enraged that they were not also in control of the government." (p. xviii) He continues: "The 1979 Tory Win, though even more predictable, infuriated them. They had won control of broadcasting, of the schools, of the universities, the church, the artistic, musical and architectural establishment? How was it possible that they could not also be the government? Their rage was enormous, and increased with each successive Labour defeat." (p. 174)

The power of the cultural realm is evident by the fact that both the Thatcher administration, and the Reagan administration in the USA, could do absolutely nothing to halt or reverse the trends which Hitchens describes. They failed utterly to change the terms of debate - presuming they were even trying - because both Thatcher and Reagan had no allies whatsoever in the cultural realm. They had no filmmakers, playwrights, poets, authors, artists, TV producers, or comedians - Kenny Everett excepted ... and he only told them one joke ... "Let's bomb Russia!" - who could produce the material to boost their political and social ideas.

On the other hand, as Hitchens notes: "Millions of people in their twenties had formed their view of the Tories, and of businessmen as a whole, by tuning in to Channel Four comedy programmes in which they were mercilessly torn to pieces by Ben Elton and Harry Enfield." (p.171)

The lesson is : Without allies in the cultural realm then nothing of any lasting value can be constructed in the political.

2 - THE POSSESSION OF THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
Hitchens critique of television reminds us that whoever controls the information, ideas and images presented to the public controls both the popular culture and the political system of the country.

It is the mass media - that is to say, the main national newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio stations - which largely determine which ideas and attitudes are to be "fashionable" and "acceptable" in society.

It is the mass media which sets the boundaries for "permissible" debate, and which has the power to highlight, or suppress events, and thereby shape our perception of "reality".

For us, this mass media must also extend to include the mass marketed "fashion" and "entertainment" products of New York and Los Angeles which dominant our "youth culture", our magazine stands, and our cinema and video screens.

It is this mass media which, more than anything else at this time, works to shape public opinion and influence public behaviour. It is this mass media which has the power to craft an emotional image or story which often seems more persuasive than a contrary fact. And, politically, it is this mass media which builds the stage and seeks to direct the audience of voters appropriately.

When the overwhelming effect of this mass media and popular culture is to create a climate of indifference or hostility to the survival and advancement of our traditional cultural and national identity then we have a problem which we must deal with.

COMPOSING THE REVOLUTIONARY SYMPHONY
All change in society is a direct result of organised political action founded upon a guiding philosophy, promoting a particular policy, directed towards a specific goal.

Therefore, if we're serious in halting and reversing the societal trends identified by Hitchens, and if we're serious in reversing the suicidal direction of the nation, then we must achieve the following :

1- We must delegitimise the key political, social, and economic dogmas which sustain the present trends in our society and which chart the nation's present suicidal course.

2- We must displace the present political, cultural and media elites and replace them with people who remain loyal to Britain's traditional cultural and national identity.

3- We must dismantle their apparatus of domination - their quangos, their state-subsidized organisations, their media monopolies.

4- We must develop alternative means of communication which will create new climates of opinion, and which will give birth to, and support, new cultural expressions.

........ which, granted, is all a pretty tall order. But that, in essence, is what needs to be done. Of course, these things don't happen overnight and nobody is saying it's going to be easy.

DRAW THE LINES AND FREE YOUR MIND
But, actually, we can all do a tremendous amount to ring these changes, even if it doesn't seem very much at the time.

We can start drawing some lines: We can choose now which jokes we will laugh at, whose music we will listen to, whose films we will watch, whose businesses we will patronise, which goods we will buy, whose behaviour we're not prepared to tolerate, and whose stupid dogmas we're not prepared to humour anymore.

An example: simply switching off the television is a revolutionary act. It breaks the connection between the propaganda machine and your mind. It frees you and enables your independent thoughts to flourish.

Michael Medved, author of Hollywood versus America : Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values (Harper Collins, 1992), has put it this way: "Nearly all Americans say they want to cut down on TV viewing. Where is the best place to begin? By eliminating the time you spend on television news. Most material on the tube doesn't pretend to reflect reality, but news broadcasts do, so they are particularly, potently poisonous.

"The hour you spend each night watching local and network news could easily be redirected to reviewing not one but two newspapers in their entirety. Sure, print journalism has its own biases, but because of the way we read and comprehend it, we are more capable of compensating.

"Reinvesting your time in this way may not instantly change the world, but it can change your world and the way you respond to reality." (Michael Medved, "Television News : Information or Infotainment?" Imprimis, July 1999, p.8. Free sample issue available from Imprimis, Hillsdale College, 33 East College St., Hillsdale, Michigan 49242)

If we can't -- at this moment -- depose the people who are hostile to our traditional cultural and national identity then we can, at least, free our minds from their domination.