One of most successful British cultural exports of the last decade, Midsomer Murders draws large audiences around the world-particularly in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The long-running series is known for its quaint English village setting which provides the backdrop for classic
(if clichéd) murder mysteries.
The program made international headlines in March when True-
May was suspended by ITV. Asked in an interview to account for the
show's international success, he said his winning formula was quite
simple: keep it as English as possible. He pointed out that the series
simply "wouldn't work" if there was any racial diversity portrayed in
the sleepy village set in the fictional county of Midsomer. "We just
don't have ethnic minorities involved. Because it wouldn't be the Eng-
lish village with them," he told the Radio Times. "It just wouldn't
work. Suddenly we might be in Slough . . . We're the last bastion of
Englishness and I want to keep it that way. Maybe I'm not politically
correct. . . . I'm trying to make something that appeals to a certain audience, which seems to succeed. And I don't want to change it."
Predictably enough, an ITV spokesman immediately issued a
statement:
We are shocked and appalled at these personal comments by
Brian True-May which are absolutely not shared by anyone at
ITV. We are in urgent discussions with All3Media, the producer
of Midsomer Murders, who have informed us that they have
launched an immediate investigation into the matter and have
suspended Mr. True-May pending the outcome.
ITV was captured by the Judeo-Marxist establishment long ago,
and Jewish editorial control at ITV has been ensured for the next gen-
eration with the recent appointment of the 32-year-old Jonathan Levi
as head of ITV's arts and popular culture division. The situation at the BBC is little different.
Behind the suspension of True-May was a tacit threat: his program
needs to modify a successful formula in the interests of promoting the
multicultural ideal of Britain's cultural-Marxist (and Jewish-
dominated) intellectual establishment. This "last bastion of English-
ness" must cease, even if this means undermining the very basis of the
program's success. The apparent concern is not that Midsomer Murders
is inaccurate in its portrayal of typical rural English villages-which, to the dismay of many, are still overwhelming White, but rather that the program constitutes, in some sense, a "celebration" of this fact, and by extension, exploits a nostalgia and yearning for England as it was prior to mass Third World immigration and state-sponsored multiculturalism. This is anathema to an elite that has contempt for the traditional people and culture of England, and an incomprehension of the web of traditions and prejudices once revered by the English.
Observing the contemporary assault on the English, conservative
philosopher Roger Scruton notes that "every practice in which the
spirit of England can still be discerned seems fated now to arouse con
tempt."1 Unfortunately Scruton cannot see, or simply refuses to see,
the Jewish elephant in the room as he attempts to account for this per
nicious trend:
The forbidding of England is a strange phenomenon and one
that is hard to explain. The country was always victorious in
war, and was not impoverished even by the loss of its empire.
No outside force compelled it to relinquish its national pride and
culture. The process came from within, and seemingly without
resistance.
Scruton apparently fails to notice the pursuit of Jewish group interests manifest in the various intellectual movements that have formed the basis for what he terms the "culture of repudiation" that subjected the old virtues, customs and religion of England "to humiliating scorn by the makers of public opinion."3 He is correct, however, in observing that this "culture of repudiation" found particularly fertile soil in the cultural landscape of post-war England.
With the destruction and disruption of World War II, the austerity and chaos after that war and the manic suburbanisation of the country that came with the prosperity of the fifties and sixties, it was easier than ever for the English to be persuaded that significant parts of national existence should be altered forever. In an incredibly short time they turned England into a nation without heroes and without pride in its past. "All those features of the English character which had been praised in wartime books and
films-gentleness, firmness, honesty, tolerance, 'grit,' the stiff upper lip and the spirit of fair play-were either denied or derided. England was not the free, harmonious, law-abiding community celebrated in boys' magazines, but a place of class divisions, jingoism and racial intolerance."
While ostensibly unable to detect the etiology of his "culture of repudiation" Scruton aptly defines its conceptual outlines:
While exhorting us to be as 'inclusive' as we can, to discriminate
neither in thought, word, nor deed against ethnic, sexual or be-
havioural minorities, political correctness encourages the deni-
gration of what is felt to be especially ours. . . . We who live in the amorphous and multicultural environment of the postmodern city must open our hearts and minds to all cultures, and be wedded to none.
Into the vacuum left by the collapse of English self-confidence, a
new ideological conformity has emerged. The new empire of ideas
reaches into the most intimate areas of life, and those who do not ac-
cept it are held to be personally at fault, not just politically or philosophically wrong. It is the most fanatical system of thought to dominate the British Isles since the Reformation. Indeed, failure to conform to the new orthodoxy is held to be a moral failing and evidence of psychopathology. The effects of the culture of critique on English society have been so devastating that it is entirely fair to make an analogy with Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution in China. It has devalued objective knowledge and attempted to make many thoughts unthinkable. It has sundered many of the invisible bonds that once held English society together. The lore of the English tribe and the stories of their ancestors have largely ceased to be.
Meanwhile, under the banner of "social justice" the "oppressed"
Brown and Black immigrant communities are given complete license
(and White taxpayer-funded assistance) to affirm their cultures and
aggressively pursue their group interests. The crucial goal, with re-
gard to the native English, is to "sever young people from historical
loyalties" and instill "a 'non-judgmental' attitude towards other cul-
tures that goes hand-in-hand with a fierce denunciation of the culture
that might had been one's own.
Under the new cultural orthodoxy the traditional English virtues
are rapidly disappearing. The effect of the culture of critique on a society whose values were all open to question and whose morals were
dissolving was explosive and continues to be so. Scruton observes that
having been famous for their stoicism, their decorum, their hon-
esty, their gentleness, and their sexual puritanism, the English
now subsist in a society in which those qualities are no longer
honoured-a society of people who regard long-term loyalties
with cynicism, and whose response to misfortune is to look
round for someone to sue. England is no longer a gentle country,
and the old courtesies and decencies are disappearing.
Of course, this is merely part of a larger problem in that "The loss
of traditional virtue and local identity has occurred throughout Eu-
rope and its diaspora." The intellectual war against the traditional White family, a product of the culture of critique, is one which has had disastrous consequences for White group interests. Scruton notes that the assault on the family was part of a great cultural shift from the affirmation to the repudiation of inherited values.
Following the path laid out by these radical intellectuals, and post-structuralists like Michel Foucault, "radical feminism has set out to deconstruct the family entirely, exposing at as an instrument of male domination, and advocating new kinds of 'negotiated' union in its place."
The generations that came after the triumph of the culture of critique have often come from families that have disintegrated or are
weak, whose schools do not uphold tradition or racial pride, and
whose religious experience and understanding are non-existent. They
have instead grown up with immensely strong outside influences-
almost all of them radical enemies of White people and their culture.
Anyone who controls a major television network or movie studio (as
our hostile Judeo-Marxist elite does) can use it to pour out propagan-
da which most young Whites find impossible to resist, provided it us-
es the right sort of codes, language and symbols.
Jewish historian Norman Cantor observed that the Jewish intellec-
tual movements, which he equated with "modernism," represented
the negation of "Victorianism." He notes that something more profound and structural was involved in the Jewish role in the modernist revolution than this sociological phenomenon of the supersession of marginality. There was an ideological drive at work.
Their response was a fundamental re-examination of the postu-
lates of European thought as it had existed in the nineteenth
century. As new men, as recent outsiders, they had no personal
stake or family participation in Victorianism or professional re-
sponsibility to it. They were not restrained by prior commit-
ments from undertaking the zero-base reconsideration of phys-
ics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, and the
arts.
A central concern, in this endeavour, was to deconstruct the theo-
retical and cultural basis of English racial pride and ethnocentrism. To expunge a view that during the Victorian era was held by the English as natural and self-evident: that "When considering the human material from which English civilisation was made," it was natural to "refer to the English race, this 'happy breed of men,' whose offshore island was the guarantee of their racial purity and apartness."
It is hardly surprising in such an intellectual environment that Jews would resort to embracing "a cultural pluralism that removed the
claim for the superiority of one culture over another" and which es-
sentially "protected the Jews from Christian and anti-Semitic claims
that Judaism was an inferior religion."
Some English Gentiles were anti-Semitic," writes Cantor, "but
even those who were not were highly conscious of Jews as a distinct
group with identifiable behavioural characteristics."
Moreover, pre-war England is held in the historical memory of
Jews to be a society riven with anti-Semitism. For instance, Cantor
writes that "the thick anti-Semitism of the time, spreading slowly up-
wards from the Gentile lower classes, who competed with immigrant
Jews, to the ruling classes, was pervasive and bitter. There were se-
vere limitations on the entry of Jews to the better private schools, to Oxford and Cambridge colleges, and to the learned professions. The
Jews were made to feel alien and unwanted."35 He also claims that the
British government "was deeply concerned that Christian young men
conscripted to fight in the war were not perceived as being sacrificed
for the Jews. In addition to this general caution, high officials in the foreign and defence ministries were personally and openly anti-
Semitic."
Last year we learnt that, based on current demographic trends,
Britain is destined for a White minority by 2066-the one thousandth
anniversary of the Norman Conquest. The trend has been greatly ac-
celerated in the past decade under a Labour government where the
huge increase in migrants was the result of an attempt by certain La-
bour ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's
nose in diversity." The revelation that former Home Secretary Jack
Straw (a leading member of Britain's hostile Jewish elite) was the
ideological driving force behind a strategy to flood Britain with mass
Third World immigration was hardly surprising given his professed
enmity for the English people, whom he once declared had a "propen-
sity for aggression and violence" which they used to subjugate others.
Of course the reality in England today is quite the reverse-that, as a
result of the massive influx of low-IQ Third World immigrants,
Whites are increasingly the targets for non-White aggression and vio-
lence.
The intellectual, political and social assault on the English people is paradigmatic of the damage that has been wrought on White people generally by the socially transformative effects of the culture of critique. The English have largely abandoned the regulative ideas of their traditional society, and have been encouraged, pressured, and
legally obligated to embrace a set of ideas contrary to their group evolutionary interests. It is only in exposing the self-interested ethnic agenda running through this war on the English, and on the White race generally, that we can hope to liberate White people from the psychological grip of the "new orthodoxy," and allow them to once
again unashamedly pursue their group interests as they did during
the Victorian era.