The BBC has a pretty rigid set of social and political preconceptions that people, politicians, activists, commentators and Joe Public have to conform to or be cast out into the wilderness as ‘untouchables’. The BBC is not a tolerant organisation, it does not accept difference despite its own grandiose self-proclaimed celebration of diversity.
Janet Daley in the Telegraph expands on the Left’s intimidation and bullying tactics…
In the end, what does the Left (and its army of media friends) accomplish by all this activist pressure on public opinion? In a circle of mutually congratulatory agreement, the liberal establishment may demonise the social attitudes of the majority until they are blue in the face. They may succeed – as indeed they obviously have – in making ordinary people afraid to utter their real views. But there is a dreadful price to be paid: if you browbeat people into withdrawing from the debate, then you will never know how robust their convictions are – until it is too late and you have catastrophically lost an election, or staked your professional credibility on unsound predictions.
This is the danger of the activist trap. As I said last week, if you are surrounded by a crowd of people whose opinions are identical to yours then together you can make a great deal of noise. But what you don’t hear is the silence of those outside the crowd. If parties of the Left are ever to become electable again, they will have to stop shouting and listen.
I won’t list the things we are not allowed to discuss on the BBC, the list is long, numerous and full of the usual suspects. The BBC’s worldview is extremely narrow and uninformed, it sets the parameters of debate and limits what you can say in the hope that it can limit what you think…so far so Orwellian. Of course the Internet has helped break the BBC’s stranglehold on free speech, free thought and the democratic, free flowing use of information…knowledge being power…giving strength to the arm….perhaps the Tories won a majority because of that…hard to prove but a quite probable likelihood that the BBC’s narrative was broken and the social media got its message out.
Here are a couple of examples of narratives that the BBC will not accept and in fact actively works against…the first a ‘peacenik’ who offered herself as a human shield to Iraq in 1991 but who now, after working with American forces in Iraq after the last invasion, has become a supporter of ‘liberal interventionism’ and the use of military power to maintain the peace.
The second is a female Pakistani, brought up in Saudi Arabia and now safely living the dream in Canada who talks of her conversion to the idea that free speech is absolutely essential and, well…
‘It’s important because religion.. all of it… needs to be questioned – too many humans blindly put their faith in it. It’s important because an instance from Mo’s life was used to justify the killing of 132 children in Pakistan last December.
It’s important.’
The ‘peacenik’ is Emma Sky who says in the Sunday Times (you need to read the whole thing really to appreciate the full import of what she says) that…
‘My opinions have changed…I understand more now what you can achieve with forcer. I was aware before of the problems of force, the limitations of miltary force. I have now seen first hand what it is that can be done.
I had no interaction with the American military before. I had always been concerned about the US propping up dictators in the Middle East. Now I am more concerned about disorder. Before, I was worried about state violation of human rights; now I have seen what happens when the state collapses.
I am much more concerned with order. I have come to appreciate what the US military can do, its capability. You look at the world for the last 70 years and think stability was kept by Pax Americana.
Now I have a much deeper understanding of the role that America has played in the world. When you look at American withdrawal from the Middle east, and look at the consequences of that withdrawal, you go ‘oooh’…the consequences of disengagement are tragic.’
Here she is in an interview….one thing of note is that she says the major mistake that was made in Iraq was not encouraging the notion of being ‘Iraqi’…rather there was a tendency to encourage identity politics, multiculturalism based upon religion or ethnicity…Sunnis, Shias and Kurds……which led to tension and infighting that might have been avoided….
MARGARET WARNER: You said you thought the big mistake was for the Americans and the British to try to get Iraq to reorganize on the basis of ethnicity and sect. What was the alternative?
EMMA SKY: I think the alternative was to create the sense of Iraqiness.
And you organize based on regions and towns. And so you don’t say we will have 20 percent Sunnis, 20 percent Kurds, 60 percent Shia. You actually think, we will have representatives from Basra, from Anbar, from Irbil. And that way, you’re building up geographical representation, not based on the sect and ethnicity.
Instead, we wanted to build a pluralistic society, but what this did was institutionalize sectarianism. So, there was nothing about being Iraqi. It was all about being a subcomponent.
Here is the second person who overturns the BBCs preconceived prejudices about Islam, racism, free speech and Charlie Hebdo…..
A Former Apologist on Free Speech & Tribalism
Being a Pakistani child, raised in Saudi Arabia left me feeling like I never really belonged in Pakistan. My upbringing in Saudi was too westernized for me to ever fit in, in my motherland. I have never felt more alien anywhere else, in fact. Yet I shared the same pigmentation, the same struggles with a strict, patriarchal culture, the same language, the same history…. I didn’t belong in Saudi because they have strict rules putting foreigners in their place. We have no rights there, regardless of how many years we call it home. My siblings were born there, and knew no other place, but Saudi ..they were still told at every step that they were foreigners. It’s kind of hard to feel a sense of belonging in a place like that.
In teenage years, I searched for my tribe through subculture. The place I fit in terms of interests and ideas was predominantly white. Dog collars and fishnets, were fun for self-exploration…the ‘goth’ subculture gave me a huge sense of belonging when I needed it most in young adulthood. But I was still the ‘token’ brown girl. Despite many in the ‘scene’ having similar values and ways of thinking to mine, no one really understood the struggles of belonging to a culture like mine.
When we moved to Canada, I felt like I was home for the first time in my life. Only because my city (Toronto) embraces the diversity I’ve always been accustomed to (as an expat amongst other various expats). Anyway, I digress… my point is, that these constant instances of ‘unbelonging’ everywhere helped me dismantle my tribal feelings. It took a while, and I still have feelings I recognize but try not to cave to.
She says she used to think that critics of Islam shouldn’t be so vocal and should raise matters within the community…..
How naive I was. No… Ayaan, could not take it up internally within the community. Obviously, she would be killed for even trying. Anyone that raises their voice from within – in any context…is at the very least, collectively shunned (I would soon learn this for myself). Any critic, or any challenger of Islam is shut down on many fronts. You’ll lose liberal Western support in this regard for standing up for women’s rights (bizarre, I know), you’ll lose progressive Muslim support too. You’re basically left with conservatives, anti-immigrants and conspiracy theorists as allies. This happens because many of us internalize blasphemy concepts to some degree…if we perceive someone as challenging something ‘sacred’, even with the most valid reasons, we just cannot offer support. We don’t like to hurt people’s feelings, even if that means politely tolerating homophobia, misogyny, oppression.
At large, we are taught to think of imperialism as a white-on-colour occurrence. Rarely do we acknowledge the Arab imperialism spreading throughout the Muslim world, even today.
And so on…read the whole thing…..and when you next hear the BBC piously lecturing us about white racism, Islamophobia or the evil British empire think of what this girl says and compare.
Maybe we’re not so bad, as the BBC tars us, after all.
please someone explain to me the logic of the BBC/left pandering to muslims
“when you next hear the BBC piously lecturing us about white racism, Islamophobia or the evil British empire”
what do they have to gain, there will be no room in the MBBC or the newly minaret topped houses of parliament for any of the things they profess to love LGBT presenters, women presenters, women mp’s, gay marriage, champagne ……….. right the way up to democracy itself.
Ataturk knew exactly why his religion had to be divorced from the state.
what do they think they will get, apart from stoned. (and not the good kind)
Frankfurt school ideology is all about breaking down the homogeneity of the ‘old’ institutions. Family, Class, Religion.
By championing the causes of many minority groups, the left build a general consensus against the ‘establishment’ – allying enough of those groups against the ‘c’onservative population as to make them an overall majority for constant revolution, until the end game is reached.
Muslims are just another minority to exploit against the mainstream ‘c’onservative Englishman, who is so despised by the progressive left for his failure to ‘get with the program’.
So it’s the belief that always, ‘c’onservatism is the primary enemy, and my enemy’s enemy is my friend. They are not thinking beyond the revolution.
The BBC is underpinned by Reithian values. In the book “My Father – Reith of the BBC” his daughter is quoted:
“Over lunch in the Carlton in 1935 he told Marconi (the radio inventor), how much he had always admired Mussolini for having ‘achieved high democratic purpose by means which, though not democratic, were the only possible ones’,”
Reith also kept Churchill’s warnings about Europe, off the radio up to 1939. Some may draw a similarity with more recent times.
Thatcher (and others) observed that communism and fascism were two sides of the same coin. They are both totalitarian.
Mawdudi wrote about an Islamic state:
“In such a state, no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this perspective the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states”. He also saw that it would be “the antithesis of Western secular democracy”. Islam is totalitarian political system too.
The fight between democracy and totalitarianism continues. And the BBC stays true to its founding values.
I once knew someone who was into radical politics – thinking back now I realise what a loathsome person he was. Anyway one of his favourite ‘philosophers’ was Foucault, and he was always going on about Critical Theory.
The point of the theory is that it is ‘just’ that – to deconstruct & criticise western civilisation. He knew all about the march through the institutions etc, and of the other Frankfurt theorists like Adorno. The thing is they don’t care if they bring something into being that’s much worse than the hated hegemonic West. For them it’s enough to simply destroy the capitalist (and white ) world.
This was someone I knew a good 15 years ago, and I’m sure the universities have been churning out many more like him since then.
Dan this expains all
brief description of the main report
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/siding-with-the-oppressor-the-pro-islamist-left/
full report, its long but well worth the read
Click to access SidingWithOpressor_Web.pdf
Excellent read, note the significance of the SWP, which can explain why the BBC highlights their events
so they are using them as their SD, before their SS put them down when their usefulness is over, except i doubt that they will put this genie back in the bottle that easily
I sense you meant to refer to the SA? The SD continued at the heart of the Nazi regime’s security apparatus until its collapse in 1945.
sorry yes SA 🙂
This is just a classic description of left wing Fascism but I wonder why it surprises anyone still?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_fascism
Slight off message here but…
UKIP Haiku`s work this morning is Haiku of the Season ,and I want to vote for it!
Farage Flying Free
Fastidious Forager
Fabulous Fellow
My UKIP buddies will all have to recite it-AND who gave it to us-before we discuss that Showaddywaddy/Rubettes rumpus we`re still arguing about!
Definitely my Thought For the Week….and its a meditation in itself!
Fun Felicitations
White imperialism is one of the bbc’s mantras, in particular British white imperialism, Nicky Campbell makes a regular mention of its evils during his 5 live morning show.
He and his employers hate Britain’s role in world history yet, in their re-working of history, they are happy to extol the virtues of the Roman and Norman empires and the advancements that they brought to this country.
They class both as helping to form the rich immigrant culture that has made this country, what they never mention is that they were invaders who raped, murdered and tried subjugate the local population and much of what the Normans did, both good and bad, is still felt today, but what they did is history and is to be celebrated…what Britain did was shameful
Do kids in our schools even know that the Arab culture still uses slavery today, or is it just the white’s who used slavery. I’m guessing the Africans in the news last week or the Pakistanis last year who were convicted of enslavement didn’t rate a mention in our schools.
The Pakistani girl in the piece has learnt to use her own mind to see through the brainwashing aspects of what she was being taught to believe and, as a result, has a more rational view of the world, will that change the people who try to force their strict Islamic views onto the masses? Of course not, because they can’t be wrong.
It’s the same with the left, they just can’t be wrong…on anything. They want to force their ideology onto the masses, as we have seen with the bbc who think the whole of Britain needs labour, because they are good, anything else is evil.
As we have seen with the morons rioting in London who can’t accept that more people rejected their way of life than wanted it, so they turn to violence to force their point yet it’s they who are progressive and the right who are aggressive haters? Democracy has spoken and still it isn’t good enough?
I shudder to think where this situation could end up, how long can the silent majority stand by and watch people who oppose them get spat on, get attacked in the street and possibly worse! Cameron needs to act now to stop the protagonists before it’s too late.
Apparently one of the wrong-footed opinion poll organisations was YouGov
For Christ’s sake, why would I ever tell the truth to an organisation with a name like that. We’ve seen the police hounding twitter misdemeanours, presumably with full approval of the government. They certainly don’t seem to have done anything to discourage them. Just how long before expressing the wrong opinion to YouGov will result in us being hauled off to Room 101 for ‘psychiatric treatment’?
A left wing person prefers to be classified as an intellectual, of the left but with an independent mind .
To everything, not just politics , the intellectual must approach the subject with a What Must I Think As An Intellectual mindset within the parameters of left think .
At first when they are at college into their early twenties it’s a bit hard , but a decade on and they’re so practised at it it becomes second nature , practised like someone in the army to conflict or an actor to his lines . Their independent thinking has become automated, self censored instinctively.
While young they think taking a contrary view to the masses marks them out as Thoughtful , later in life they profess understanding of the lower orders manipulated by Forces of conservatism.
Thankfully they can retreat into groupthink and catch up with elevated PPE in the Guardian, Observer , Independent and BBC .
The thing about Climate Science in Universities is that there is an awful lot of silence from Departments of Atmospheric Physics, when given questions from Departments of Astronomy.
I suppose silence could be interpreted as, a right-wing scientist who loves the science and does not want to be pushed out, while the loud scientists get promoted to highly Political Admin posts for being left-wing, because they love the politics.
But openly honest independent thinking scientists are censored by the BBC. And British Universities are not as forgiving as those in the US. MIT was regarded by the UN as the Worlds top University at the same time that Richard Lindzen was its Professor of Atmospheric Physics. The feeling is that a Professor of Atmospheric Physics from Cambridge or Oxford could not survive coming out of the closet.
Imagine my dream: The BBC forced to allow a free live uncensored broadcast of Richard Lindzen flanked by the Professors of Atmospheric Physics from Oxford and Cambridge with questions from Piers Corbyn, Christopher Booker, Andrew Montford, Christopher Monkton and any left-wing moron who dares to ask questions.
You forgot Channel 4.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw..lol@laurie penny.
dty457
The was a gem & a must see !
I bet she gets a job with Al Beeb?
BBC action plan for the duration of this parliament.
1. Present itself as the voice of the people and of immense value to the life of the country and is of great value for money. Get millions to say how much they love ‘ Our BBC’ and that the Tories must not touch it. Celeb endorsements by the bucket full.
2. Use the Tory manifesto and pledges as a stick to beat the government with at every opportunity. Find every harrowing case of ‘hardship’ in the country and claim it is all the governments fault because they cut welfare. Whip up as much anti Tory feeling as possible and show even small demonstrations as though they were on an epic scale.
3. Pack all their shows with even more lefties in the audience and the panel. Perhaps even stooping to tacitly allowing ‘direct action’ by the looney left on the show.
4. Increase the level of political correctness and Tory bashing across all drama and documentaries. Not sure if this is possible but they will try.
5. Spend 5 years building up the image of the new Labour leader. Perhaps even being involved the selection process so as ensure the new one is able to relate to people unlike the last Mad Marxist chosen.
6. Extol the virtues of the life in the Scottish Socialist Republic but don’t mention that we English pay for it! At the same time working hard to prevent an English Parliament by advocating breaking England up in to regions and telling us the localism is a good thing.
7 Working hard to persuade us to vote to to stay in the EU by scaring the pants of us with the consequences of leaving!
So pretty much just more of the same. Unless of course the Tories cut the corporation down to size!
Also, saturate all so called comedy programs with left-wing arse-holes. Hang on they’ve already done that!
Reduce the BBC’s budget to a third of its current value and mandate certain services they are required to provide (24 hr news NOT being one of them). If they choose to spend the rest on minority programming, let them. In that case, they will broadcast themselves into irrelevance as the general public will wonder what the BBC is for and refuse to continue paying.
VD has a meeting outside Parliament. 3 uber left MPs, 1 LibDem MP. bBC, it never changes.
Despite getting just one seat for 4 million votes, UKIP and its leaders have behaved well, and with good manners. This is a great credit to them, and I for one will not forget it next time at the polls..
Contrast this to the SNP and its crowing over the defeated.
The way SNP has behaved in victory, has made enemies of its potential allies. Labour on both sides of the border, will not forget it. Its also quite likely that David Cameron has some unfinished business with SNP.
I’m sure SNP will be getting a beating soon.
John Whittingdale just appointed as Minster for Culture, Media and Sport. At first sight, this does not look like good news for the Champagne Charlies in W1A.
“TV tax is worse than the poll tax” John Wittingdale.
Very good choice Prime Minister. I’m going to stock up on Cherry soda and popcorn!
According to Guido they are of the same mind …
Prepared to be persuaded otherwise and proved wrong, but on second glance I am unsure how it is bad news for the BBC to get a guaranteed income without no possibility of anyone opting out on any basis no matter what the failures in accuracy, objectivity or integrity, and oversight still conducted internally and in secret by their mates at OFCOM.
I hope everyone emails John Wittingdale to complain about the BBC 6 week broadcast for liebore during the election. Flat fee of £50 the subscription.simples.
If that £50 goes to ‘news’ and entertainment that the BBC decides is about right without fear of losing revenue or tangible, independent, public challenge, they may get the last laugh.
John Whittingdale: Best quote: “I think in the long term [the licence fee] is unsustainable. You have the question of whether or not it should remain a flat poll tax, collected through some fairly draconian measures.”- this from the Guardian ! Some unquiet in the dovecotes.
Is it worth pointing Mr Whittingdale in the direction of this site and similar? Maybe DV and/or Alan could contact him. He should also be made aware of some of the incriminating biased tweets by BBC employees assiduously collected by DB and others.
Example from Mr Hilarity himself;
I’d hate to know how this garden centre would treat UKIP-voting customers then.
Also, not too long ago, a great many Labour voters lived in houses without gardens.
If I knew where that Garden Centre was and and lived close enough I’d gather a few friends. Each of us would fill trolleys with a variety of their heaviest products, from the farthest corners of their premises. Turn up at the till in a column, call for the owner, get him to repeat his message and then have everyone walk up to him one by one and give a very polite ‘In that case – no thank-you’ and let him deal with the trolleys however he wished.
Did Al JaBeeBa collude with ZaNuLaB to keep the truth about the pre-election polls from the public (as well as never questioning Brown’s borrowing and over-spending, that is)?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3077722/Labour-knew-polls-year-Pollster-worked-party-Miliband-s-leadership-reveals-internal-data-showed-seven-points-down.html