The Heroic Andrew Pierce

This is from LBC, but it's worth highlighting.  Though there is some careful equivocation over 'racism', it's one of those rare clips in which a white British journalist stands up for the white British and puts the argument for Brexit and for Britain, and puts a globalist interloper in his place.

On this occasion, credit to LBC.  And well done Andrew Pierce!

Fan Mail 004

That’s it, I’m done - leaving the U.K. for the last time & heading south away from the coming shitstorm. My future is in the civilised EU not a small insignificant racist country like the U.K. pic.twitter.com/72zMBKVxOX

— Européen #FBPE EU Citizen (@rofden159) August 21, 2018

More On That Mythical Impartiality Thing

Like discussion of unicorns, discussion of ‘impartial media’ would make a good topic for a first-year undergraduate philosophy seminar.  We’re not sure what, if any, practical application it can have though.

On the subject of unicorns, LBC's James O'Brien doesn't want right-wingers appearing on the BBC:

"Left-wing radio commentator James O’Brien has slammed the BBC for hosting right-wingers like Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, equating it to giving a platform to people who believe in unicorns, whilst admitting “routinely” breaking BBC impartiality rules when working there."

Meanwhile, James Delingpole laments the bias of the BBC's flagship programme, Question Time:

"Just in case any right-wing questions slip through the net, host David Dimbleby is on hand to make sure that left-wing MP Diane Abbott gets her statutory 25 minutes half flirting with Dimbleby while explaining why it’s all the government’s fault, while Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg get five seconds between them to reply that actually it’s a bit more compli…"

And finally, we thought that the BBC was institutionally anti-Brexit, but Raymond Snoddy in the Radio Times thinks different, arguing that the BBC has not given enough space following the referendum to anti-Brexit arguments:

"Given Parliament has yet to take the formal decision to leave the EU, following the end of negotiations, Lord Adonis is making a strong point when, in his formal complaint, he accuses the BBC of breaching its Royal Charter, which governs everything the BBC does and says BBC news must show due impartiality. Already, he says, it has meant the BBC giving “scant” coverage to anti-Brexit marches.  

"Former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger sees parallels with the BBC coverage of the Suez crisis in 1956 – when it was found afterwards that even Panorama had “skirted around” the fundamental issues.  

"Rusbridger argued in the New Statesman magazine recently that those who still believe that Brexit would be an economic and foreign policy disaster for the UK are being portrayed by the BBC as “undemocratic extremists”. They are, Rusbridger says, allowed a voice “only if repeatedly challenged, and balanced by fervent Brexit hardliners”.  

"I believe it is in everyone’s interest that, if the UK is going to leave the EU, it should be in the light of the best, most comprehensive and accurate information possible."

Which goes to show that you can't please everybody.

The Scarlet Pimpernel

"I'm back", Nigel Farage tells us.

Notice how he suddenly decides he's 'back' when public unrest seems to be heating up.  Like the Scarlet Pimpernel, he disappears and re-appears at just the right times - for the Establishment.

We're not fooled.  The cat is out of the bag.  For so long as we have to put up with these people at all, politicians of all stripes must be judged by their deeds rather than mere talk.  It's easy to say the things that people want to hear.

And we still haven't got Brexit.

Why A Campaign For Abolition Is Necessary

We are the only campaign group that is calling for the abolition of the BBC – that is to say, our goal is that the BBC should cease to exist.  All other campaigns demand something less than this, normally one or a combination of the following:

1. that the BBC’s funding should be reformed through ending the TV licence;

2. that the Royal Charter should be revoked and the Corporation should be commercialised; or,

3. that the BBC should somehow stop being biased.

Starting with 3, we do not believe it is possible for any media organisation to be unbiased.  The goal is unrealistic.  The BBC is biased, but this is perfectly understandable: it reflects the people who work for it.  The BBC has to be defended somewhat on this point because once it tries to become ‘unbiased’, it will be playing a fool’s game in which it can’t please anybody.  We do criticise BBC bias, indeed it is at the centre of our concerns, but only on the basis that it reveals the shallowness of the Corporation’s notional goal of impartiality.  The Corporation has been set an impossible public mission that looks more and more chimeric as the technical and commercial realities of the digital age move apace.

Regarding 2, this is the subject of the latest anti-BBC petition (link - The Tim Price Petition). We have already made it clear that we do not believe this Petition goes far enough. Merely revoking the Royal Charter still leaves us with the BBC as a going concern, and the problems and potential dangers we cover below in relation to 1 also apply to this option.  Nevertheless, we are actively giving this Petition our support as a step in the right direction.  Should the Petition gain sufficient signatures for government attention or even be considered for parliamentary debate, we will be putting the case for abolition very strongly.

Turning to 1, we oppose the TV licence and we support and sympathise with all non-payers.  We believe passive resistance in particular is crucial to the eventual abolition of the BBC, but our point is that there needs to be an overarching strategic alliance for abolition, otherwise all that will happen is that the BBC will be reformed in a way that favours the elites: the worse-case scenario is a Corporation funded out of general taxation, the best-case is a commercialised Corporation funded by advertising or subscriptions, or both.  

Either 'reformist' funding scenario fails to solve the real problems.  The Corporation would be entrenched in British public life under a reformed structure, leaving us in a worse position than before.  In some ways, a fully-commercial BBC would be the worst of all outcomes because a revitalised Corporation could easily attract investment and unfairly dominate commercial broadcasting as an entirely profit-making enterprise.  This would be on the back of investments made over decades by the taxpayer, more or less at the point of a gun.

We come back, then, to the real problems, which are that:

(i). the BBC manifestly cannot fulfil its public mission;

(ii). the BBC is a subversive organisation that is undermining the country; 

(iii). the BBC is an archaic monolith, modelled on social-democratic era institutions and unresponsive to its putative market; and,

(iv). the BBC is too large and dominant.  

The 'reformers' who complain about the TV licence or BBC bias do have a point, and we are not trying to start an argument with them, but our aim shouldn't be to help the BBC by reforming it to make it run better and thereby cause even more damage to the country.  The BBC is an enemy bureaucracy and a waste of money.  Wouldn't it be better and fairer to dismantle the BBC and return the money recovered and saved to the public?  We think so.

Is abolition a realistic goal?  Emphatically yes!  We have seen with Brexit that populist campaigns can work.  Our aim is to persuade a major political party to adopt complete abolition of the BBC as its policy.  This in turn can only be achieved by creating a popular momentum in favour of abolition.

"Inform, Educate and Entertain..."

Another wholesome, serious-minded piece from BBC Newsnight: this time, they interview a degenerate B-list actor who, surprise-surprise, is against Brexit and Trump.  It's nice to know that TV licence fees and taxpayers' money pays for unbiased, impartial, high-brow coverage meant to "inform, educate and entertain"...

What Must Be Done Must Be Done: How To Abolish The BBC

Our objective is the abolition of the BBC.

To achieve our objective, it is likely we will have to persuade a major political party to adopt the abolition of the BBC as policy.

The BBC can be abolished.  Here we set out the relevant steps.  In fact, the legal process is fairly straightforward, but the government that carries out the following must be made up of strong-willed and strong-minded politicians who will need to stand firm in the face of immense pressure and opprobrium from across the political spectrum, not just from the Left but also from the putative political Right as well - much of it of the type we have seen from Remainers during and after the Brexit referendum.

The political reaction

As soon as abolition of the BBC becomes a realistic prospect, the defenders and apologists of the BBC, not to mention staff at the BBC itself, will scream, shriek and issue slander.  They will be rage-filled and psychotic because they know very well what abolition of the BBC signifies.  It is, truly, a revolutionary act.  But even many conservative-minded people will oppose the abolition of the BBC - for sentimental reasons. 

There will be appeals to patriotism from the sworn enemies of this country.  There will be appeals to tradition from people who sneer at tradition.  The Left and the unions will oppose abolition for obvious reasons and will push all the emotional buttons of their supporters.  What about the poor BBC staff?  We’re living in a fascist police state!  Look at this nice cuddly dog.  Etc., etc., and so on and so on. 

The hardest part will be facing down certain parts of the business community, whose self-appointed representatives will claim that the BBC can’t be abolished because that will harm the economy.  These people must be faced-down and told: NO!

The BBC themselves will pledge that they can change and are willing to reform.  The more savvy and sophisticated elements of both camps, the Left and the Right, will also try to push the case for reform and may unite and work together to lobby for this, using especially their contacts in the Senior Civil Service in an effort to frustrate and stymie political initiative.  Again, study anti-Brexit shenanigans for clues.  Some of these reformists’ efforts will be quite clever and subtle, and there will be people who were in the ‘abolition’ camp who will suddenly start talking about the need for slow and gradual reform instead and how abolishing the BBC would be ‘stupid’ or ‘too radical’: that’s the Fifth Column tendency, and for an analogous example of the type, look at the Flexciters and soft Brexiters who have worked cleverly to undermine Brexit. 

We will be condescended-to, ridiculed and slandered

Some of the more obvious tricks will be deployed too: those of us who insist on abolition will be portrayed as thick, ignorant white working class men, etc., etc. – the usual.  We will be assured that the metropolitan sophisticates with degrees and posh accents are really working in the interests of the country and are the only people who can run things and deal with these ‘terribly complicated’ problems, and we should hand the responsibility over to them.  You know the script. 

Our resolve must be iron

These deceptive and dishonest pleas must be coldly ignored.  Our resolve must be iron.  For the good of Britain and the British people, the BBC must be destroyed.

We are all sentimentally-attached to the BBC – this is difficult for all of us – but you don’t keep a leg inflicted with gangrene, you cut it off.  What must be done must be done.  That is that.

How To Abolish The BBC: step-by-step

1. The Royal Charter can technically be revoked by a government minister under Crown prerogative, but parliamentary pre-approval will be advisable in order to pre-empt any basis for a legal challenge.

2. Once the Charter has been formally revoked, the BBC should be taken off the air immediately and all staff should be ordered off BBC premises.  That means all television and radio broadcasts cease at a pre-determined time.  There may be resistance from some of the more militant BBC staff for political reasons: if necessary, the Army should be deployed to force shutdown of all stations and to remove staff from BBC property.

3. An Act of Parliament will then be needed to dissolve the statutory Corporation and appoint private sector receivers to break-up the Corporation and, variously, sell and lease its assets on the commercial market. 

4. Receivers should also ensure that any contractual salary and pension obligations to BBC staff are honoured, including any statutory redundancy rights arising, and this should be underpinned by the state - but only to the extent required under general law and contract.

The State, Statism and Leftism

Conservative- and patriotic-minded people often think that if only they can capture the state machinery, it can be made to work in the national interest.  This does not follow.  The state itself is Leftist by nature, and 'statism' (i.e. the habitual or dogmatic reliance on the state to solve problems) always leads to the imposition of Leftist agendas.  

Margaret Thatcher came to understand this quite late in her career, and on becoming leader of the Conservative Party, set about trying to ‘roll back the state’.  The organised opposition to ‘Thatcherism’ came from the Labour Party, trade unions, the BBC,  local government, civil servants, academia, large companies, charities, and similar, not to mention opposition from 'wet' Tories within the Conservative Party itself.  Those forces remain in place today, and if anything, have been greatly strengthened.  They are the Left.  They are the people who rely for payment of their wages on enforced deductions from your wages: i.e. taxes.  They all work for the state or other public bodies, or in the case of charities and the corporate business sector, for organisations subsidised by the taxpayer.  Their opposition to Thatcher was virulent, bitter and at times violent, on a scale perhaps never before seen against a government of modern times.  The reason for this was not really because of Thatcher's policies as such.  In fact, virtually all post-War governments, both Labour and Conservative, had implemented similar policies (albeit not to such an ambitious or sweeping extent); rather, it was because Thatcher explicitly proposed to attack, undermine, and where possible, systematically dismantle, the very basis of the Left's power in Britain.

Thatcher's friends and allies were, variously, the entrepreneurial lower middle-class, most of the provincial Tory Party, much of the ordinary working class - especially in the south of England - and socially-conservative and patriotic elements within the Labour Party, who realised the Left was descending into lunacy.  Thus, the battle lines back then were quite similar to those that exist today over Brexit.  Thatcher failed in her objectives and, if anything, the reach of the state expanded under her governments.  One problem with Margaret Thatcher was that she had been formed politically under the post-War social-democratic consensus.  Her melodramatic Damascene conversion to Austrian economics and Gladstonian liberalism was her scientific intellect attempting to find a sufficiently-powerful antidote to her essentially leftist leanings, but she could not entirely shake-off those formative influences and was not sufficiently ruthless in dealing with the Left.  Nevertheless, 'Thatcherism' is a term coined in a British context for a style of government that goes against social-democratic policies in that it minimises state intervention; supports a concomitant contraction of the state; encourages economic liberalism, government spending cuts, tax cuts, deregulation, privatisation and flexible labour markets; and that pursues a patriotic stance at home and abroad.

We are not Thatcherites - in fact, we are not even supporters of the Conservative Party - and we have different motivations to Thatcher for attacking the Left, but we agree with her method.  In order to defeat the Left, we must dismantle the state – we think the BBC is a good starting point.  It is the centre of the Left’s power in this country.

Ours is not an argument against the state per se.  That is an entirely other subject and a different debate.  For us, the point is that the state, if it exists, must be minimal, and must - so far as is possible – work broadly in the interests of the indigenous population.  We believe the two things go together: a larger state bureaucracy means more Leftism, a lesser need for self-reliance among the population, a large number of intrusive and inefficient state-run or state-subsidised services that are available not just to the indigenous British but to all-comers; whereas, a smaller state bureaucracy, means less Leftism, a greater need for self-reliance among the population, but more focused and efficient essential services directed to the needs of the indigenous British people and no other.  We want the latter, not the former.  For that to happen in Britain, we must have a Ground Zero Revolution in which the state bureaucracy, and other similar bureaus such as those in local government and large companies, are dismantled under process of law.  This is true radicalism: a return to the roots of good governance founded in communities, families and individuals, instead of reliance on large impersonal entities that are funded at the point of a gun.  This blog focuses on the BBC, but from time-to-time we may touch on the other lines of attack and how radical reform can be achieved.

To be clear, it is not that we are uncaring right-wing free marketeers who want to remove social safety nets.  Quite the opposite: we want to see a system built around the needs and interests of the British people.  We think that requires a restoration of tradition, family, community, autonomy and responsibility, in which a minimal state agrees to provide safety nets on the understanding that people learn to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for themselves, their families and their local communities.

What could replace the BBC?  We want to see public broadcasting replaced with plurality.  There is choice already, but not enough.  Most broadcasting is bland and conformist, and we think the existence of the BBC has something to do with this.  The private sector will fill the void to a large extent, but local communities and conscientious individuals could organise their own broadcasting stations, covering issues that matter to them instead of having concerns and issues imposed on them.  With digital technology, this is now possible.  The BBC itself cannot contribute to a pluralistic and democratic media environment.  It was founded as a paternalistic broadcaster, at arm’s length from the state, intended to inform, entertain and educate – and this was perfectly admirable and laudable for its time - but as society changed, the BBC lost its way and has gradually become a maternalistic general purpose busy-body agency of the state, smothering and stifling everybody, and telling everybody what is good for them.