Monthly Archives: August 2012

The BBC knows the majority of people in Britain are highly suspicious of Islam if not completely against it.

That being so the BBC has set out to change how you perceive Islam even if it means broadcasting half truths, outright lies and pure Muslim propaganda.

The BBC believes that your views on Islam are as a result of prejudice and misunderstanding….you need to be educated.

Of course the voices we hear and opinions aired must come from trusted sources….hence you will hear no non-Muslims….you will hear Islam is tolerant and peaceful…Islam is the answer…..what you won’t hear is any criticism of Islam.

In this BBC One To One programme…..

Razia Iqbal takes the One to One chair for the next three weeks to try to discover what it means to be a Muslim in Europe in the 21st century. She talks to three people, in three countries, about their identity as Muslims where they live against a context of prejudice and misunderstandings about their faith.

However look at this last paragraph in the introduction……

‘There are fifteen million Muslims in Europe. The continent looks completely different now compared to how it looked two decades ago.’

That’s not what Iqbal said, this is what she said:

‘There are 15 million Muslims in Europe who have altered the cultural and political landscape of the continent.’

Now why would the BBC alter that sentence? Could it be that someone doesn’t want to confirm your belief that Islam is slowly creeping across Europe and gradually and insidiously worming its way into our culture and slowly strangling it to death?

Islam has destroyed countless cultures and societies across history, it has turned rich, vibrant nations into deserts where science and literature are unknown and nothing but misery and slavery to an oppressive religion endure.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

‘To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.’

Muslims should be freed from their slavery to this tyranny some call a religion.

Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset.

‘Because they didn’t know better, they called it ‘civilization,’ when it was part of their slavery.’

A classic example of the BBC revisionists at work….anti-male, anti-western, anti-Christian,, anti-iconic image of western beliefs and history…attempting to undermine everything that you value about your society’s or cultural past.

Here the BBC attacks what it calls ‘One of the great icons of what it is to be a man’……The Knight.

Now from the BBC blurb you might think that this could be inclusive and wide ranging, taking in many different examples of ‘knight’ from various cultures of which there are many famous examples….Japanese Samurai, Native American ‘Braves’, Zulu warriors, Muslim warriors, Gurkhas amongst others.

But no….it is the European, Christian knight that gets the ‘treatment’.

Amanda Vickery explores the history of masculinity through six different archetypes of the ideal man, archetypes which still have an echo today.

The history of men and masculinity is now at the cutting edge of scholarship. In conversation with historians, Professor Vickery asks: Where did these ideals of how men should behave come from? How influential were they on the lives and careers of real men? And what did women make of them?

The series begins in the Middle Ages and ends in the 1950s. It explores The Knight, The Gentleman, The Lover, The Sailor, The Explorer, and The Suit.

Cultural historian Bill Burgwinkle introduces some revealing songs which suggest there was a strong homosexual subculture among knights. And medieval historian Helen Castor uncovers manuscript evidence of the struggle (personal and financial) ordinary gentlemen faced to live up to the exacting ideal.’

It turns out our ‘iconic hero’ is just an ultra violent murdering, raping, pillaging homosexual who doesn’t understand women but does it all for the love of Jesus….and is all the more conflicted because of that.

I am certain Knights were really bothered about the conflict of killing in the name of Christ just as Muslims are in the name of Allah.

But then of course the BBC always tells us that Muslims don’t kill because Allah demands it….he loves peace….so for Muslims the question doesn’t arise…hence they are not included in this piece.

And I can’t wait for the final example of ‘manhood’…the ‘suit’….another banker bashing exercise almost guaranteed….any bets on Gordon Gecko being mentioned?

This week has had the full panoply of BBC concerns laid out before us…climate change, Islam, Western manhood and imperialism and the banking crisis.

The BBC has decided long ago that these and a few other subjects are to be its main concern when it comes to ‘educating’ the British Public and inculcating in them a very particular way of thinking about the world.

The programmes as noted many times are specially selected, edited and broadcast in conjunction with other such programmes in order to mould our perceptions and make us realise that everything we think we know about our history and values is wrong and that the more we know about other cultures and their histories the more we will come to think that in fact we have much to feel guilty about and apologise for…and thence to make amends for.

One such programme is this which, if you know the recent history of the BBC and its ‘reviews’, you would have been just waiting for the inevitable denouement that you always knew was coming…in this case a defence of scientist Steven Jones’ BBC review of it’s scientific coverage in which he applauded the BBC and for which he was roundly and correctly criticised….and an attack on climate change critics.

Jones it should be noted is practically an employee of the BBC….it was the BBC who saved his career from encroaching obscurity as he couldn’t get any work as a scientist….the BBC set him up to deliver the Reith Lectures and then took him onto their books as a presenter.

Jones owes a lot to the BBC.

Jones states that the whole scientific edifice depends upon communication but that the BBC news is driven by the notion of impartiality (No really, it is)…but that notion shouldn’t be applied to science.

If a scientist were to say 2+2=4, even though that was empirically true, the BBC would have to turn to the ‘lunatic fringe’ to get a balancing comment…..this drives scientists ’round the bend’ because it is a false balance. ….what if 90% of scientists say 2+2=5?  Is the consensus to be questioned then?

Jones says it is OK to have a ‘lone maverick’ scientist stating his criticisms but many ‘deniers’ are not scientists and have a political or social agenda.

And pro climate change proponents do not?…even the scientists have agendas beyond the science.

Jones goes on to tell us that argument is the essence of science, scientists don’t lie or have an agenda….it’s just that the Media doesn’t understand scientific methods.

Unfortunately I think we understand all too well….huge amounts of money are at stake in this climate change argument as well as enormous egos and scientific careers and reputations.

Many, many scientists will have a great deal of egg on their faces if they are proved wrong about CO2.

Many, many scientists will lose a great many research grants…and after all there are only so many jobs at the BBC for hasbeen scientists.

A few days ago you may have noticed the LibDems being given a lot of airtime to complain about the Tories ‘breaking their contract’ in the Coalition. The BBC news happily repeated this lie ad nauseam throughout the day without reference to the facts.

Those facts being that there is no ‘contract’ regarding House of Lords reform…it is not in the manifesto and it was no part of the agreement with regard to boundary changes…that was part of the AV referendum deal…which the Tories fulfilled.

You may also have noticed that the BBC continually alluded to the Tories wanting boundary changes as it was to their advantage and would mean they would have a majority at the next election.

That is an outright lie…..Labour now has a massive advantage in that it needs far fewer votes to get more MPs than do the Conservatives…in fact the Tories often poll more votes in elections but lose because those votes are not translated into seats in Parliament….so the boundary changes are merely designed to even up the voting system and produce a fair outcome…something you’d think the BBC would be in favour of….it is not to generate a Tory ‘advantage’.　

Norman Tebbit has also noticed BBC trickery:

‘As for the monumental incompetence of my Conservative colleagues who have allowed Mr Clegg and the BBC to present boundary change as being proposed by the Tories solely to gain an advantage for themselves, that is simply unspeakable.’

He is of course right about Tory PR incompetence….I could go on…but how long have you got…it’s endless…and all the more remarkable because Cameron was in PR.

What’s all this nonsense about us having had a Labour government for 13 years?  I’ve been listening to the BBC since May 2010 and they’ve never mentioned this fact…never mind the below from the Telegraph:

‘Ed Miliband wants voters to believe that Labour is fit to run the economy again, but does his shadow cabinet really believe it?

Mandrake asks only because Hilary Benn, the shadow communities secretary, has appointed as his special adviser one of the harshest critics of the Labour government’s inability to regulate the banks properly and who said:

“Labour’s failure to intervene during its 13 years in power was unforgiveable and a prime reason for their 2010 general election defeat,” wrote Imran Ahmed in an article for the comrades’ weekly Tribune. “Under Labour, the Financial Services Authority was simply not fit for purpose.”

Unforgiveable?  As far as the BBC are concerned it’s unmentionable.

Was going to do a post on this bit of BBC anti-Tory class war but ‘The Commentator’ has beaten me to it:

‘Once again the BBC has decided to make a documentary exploring British youth on the right. Once again they have gone to that bastion of obnoxious Tory boys known as Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA): the home of a particularly voter-repellent sliver of the right in this country.

No doubt this will be part of BBC2’s justification against accusations of bias. By all means, make documentaries about right-wingers from state school backgrounds, but was it really necessary to find the two most Tory Boy-esque they could?

Take a look at the BBC preview for tonight’s Young, Bright and on the Right:

“Do state school children feel they have any real chance of getting on in the Conservative Party? We followed two ex-comprehensive school pupils who got involved at Oxbridge universities.

“The whole point of the Conservative Association is it gives you a chance to pretend to be a member of the upper classes for an afternoon,” says Chris Monk, a second year Cambridge University student, who is dreaming of scaling the heights of Tory politics by joining the association.”

I know dozens of Tories who have interesting backgrounds yet don’t spend their days dressing up like Sebastian Flyte in a charity shop. It’s pathetic for the BBC to target this small clique. Why not profile some girls? It’s lazy and cheap.

However for a broader perspective and straight from the horses mouth, i.e. the real conservatives have a look at this…ignore the main article, it’s tripe, and look at the comments.

Taekwondo World no 1  and a current European champion Aaron Cook was denied a place in the British team in favour of  Lutalo Muhammad, ranked 59th in the world in the weight he is competing in at the Olympics.

 Listen to this interview by Victoria Derbyshire  (3 mins 40 sec) with Aaron Cook, this is the second she has done.  The first was unsympathetic and unfriendly, this second one was exactly the same….she ends by suggesting Cook should get over this, move on and it would make him a better person!

This remember is on the day of the competition at the Olympics when Cook would no doubt be at his most emotional as something he has worked for for 4 years at least, has been unfairly taken away from him….something he will never have a chance to compete in again…an Olympics in his own country.

Derbyshire rubs it in by demanding to know if he will be supporting Muhammad…not a diplomatic question.

Read this from the Mail and it puts a whole new light on things that the BBC don’t want to know:

‘The suspicion is his success — and a tendency to publicise the reasons behind it — makes British Taekwondo look bad and being overlooked for the London Games is the payback.

The personnel on the selection panel are hardly without ties.

There is Hall, British Taekwondo’s overall performance director whose methods Cook rejected. Salim is the high performance coach directly responsible for the -80kg programme and works frequently with Muhammad.

Jennings is one of their coaches, who is also married to Sarah Stevenson, a world champion, operating very much inside the programme. Paul Green is a former international taekwondo athlete once coached by Hall. Peters is a non-executive director.

To vote for Cook ahead of Muhammad would be tantamount to an admission that going outside their programme can produce better athletes.

For what is at stake here is the livelihood of a man. Cook left taekwondo’s private club and made a success of his career and for this he should be denied a goal for which he has worked all his life?’

A selection panel with a great deal of vested interests in picking ‘their’ man.

Here is a BBC pro-Muhammad selection article  which definitely comes more from one side than the other.

Victoria Derbyshire was extremely unfriendly and insensitive…a trait she reserves for white, working class people, suspected ‘right wingers’ and Tories   who don’t bow down before the multi-cultural, pro-immigration commissars.

I don’t remember Derbyshire ever suggesting to Muslim extremists that they ‘get over’ British foreign policy and ‘move on’  because it would ‘make them better persons’.

Derbyshire never has the stomach to challenge such people and their views accepting them as unquestioningly as valid and based upon credible reasoning….because of course the BBC has the same stance towards the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the extremists.

I suppose some of the antipathy could come from the fact that Cook is a white man named Aaron whilst his rival is a black man named Muhammad…but that would just be guessing and probably entirely wrong of me to suggest.

 Update: You have to look very hard for this story….hidden away in a small ‘headline’ on the sport page.

All things considered you might have expected it to be on the front page.

‘Lutalo Muhammad did little to silence his Olympic critics after an emphatic 7-3 defeat by Spain’s Nicolas Garcia Hemme in the quarter-finals.’

Folks, we have had major problems, nearly resolved. Please bear with us. Very traumatic at the moment.