Operation Target

Posts to this site may be sparse over the next few days as we are in the process of completing Operation Target: a mass mailing to influential individuals and organisations in specific areas of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  Below is a list of these areas - there are 396 in total, being the parliamentary constituencies in which we believe opposition to the BBC is strongest.  This is based on various data we have collected from public sources.

We aim to reduce this list down to around 100 constituencies over the long-term, but for now if your constituency is listed below, we would especially welcome you getting in touch with us, as we would like to work with contacts in as many of these areas as possible.

Thank you!

THE LIST

1. Aldershot

2. Aldridge-Brownhills

3. Altrincham and Sale West

4. Alyn and Deeside

5. Amber Valley

6. Angus

7. Argyll and Bute

8. Arundel and South Downs

9. Ashfield

10. Ashford

11. Ashton-under-Lyne

12. Banbury

13. Barnsley Central

14. Barnsley East

15. Barrow and Furness

16. Basildon and Billericay

17. Basingstoke

18. Bassetlaw

19. Beckenham

20. Belfast East

21. Berwick-upon-Tweed

22. Beverley and Holderness

23. Bexhill and Battle

24. Bexleyheath and Crayford

25. Birmingham Northfield

26. Bishop Auckland

27. Blackley and Broughton

28. Blackpool and Cleveleys

29. Blackpool South

30. Blaydon

31. Blythe Valley

32. Bognor Regis and Littlehampton

33. Bolsover

34. Bolton North-East

35. Bolton West

36. Boston and Skegness

37. Bosworth

38. Bournemouth East

39. Bournemouth West

40. Bracknell

41. Bradford East

42. Braintree

43. Brecon and Radnorshire

44. Brentwood and Ongar

45. Bridgend

46. Bridgwater and West Somerset

47. Brigg and Goole

48. Brighton, Pavilion

49. Bristol East

50. Bristol South

51. Broadland

52. Bromsgrove

53. Broxtowe

54. Buckingham

55. Burnley

56. Burton

57. Bury North

58. Bury South

59. Bury St. Edmonds

60. Caerphilly

61. Calder Valley

62. Camborne and Redruth

63. Cannock Chase

64. Canterbury

65. Cardiff South and Penarth

66. Carlisle

67. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

68. Carshalton and Wallington

69. Castle Point

70. Central Ayrshire

71. Central Devon

72. Central Suffolk and North Ipswich

73. Charnwood

74. Chelmsford

75. Chelsea and Fulham

76. Chichester

77. Christchurch

78. Cities of London and Westminster

79. City of Chester

80. City of Durham

81. Clacton

82. Cleethorpes

83. Clwyd South

84. Clwyd West

85. Colne Valley

86. Congleton

87. Copeland

88. Coventry North-West

89. Coventry South

90. Crawley

91. Crewe and Nantwich

92. Croydon Central

93. Croydon North

94. Darlington

95. Dartford

96. Daventry

97. Delyn

98. Denton and Reddish

99. Devizes

100. Dewsbury

101. Don Valley

102. Doncaster North

103. Dover

104. Dudley South

105. Dumfries and Galloway

106. Dundee West

107. Dunfermline and West Fife

108. Ealing Central & Acton

109. Easington,

110. East Devon

111. East Hampshire

112. East Lothian

113. East Surrey

114. East Worthing and East Shoreham

115. East Yorkshire

116. Eastbourne

117. Eastleigh

118. Ellesmere Port and Neston

119. Elmet and Rothwell

120. Eltham

121. Epping Forest

122. Epsom and Ewell

123. Erith and Thamesmead

124. Esher and Walton

125. Fareham

126. Filton and Bradley Stoke

127. Folkestone and Hyde

128. Forest of Dean

129. Flyde

130. Gainsborough

131. Gedling

132. Gillingham and Rainham

133. Glasgow Central

134. Gloucester

135. Gosport

136. Grantham and Stamford

137. Gravesham

138. Great Grimsby

139. Great Yarmouth

140. Hackney South and Shoreditch

141. Halesowen and Rowley Regis

142. Halifax

143. Haltemprice and Howden

144. Halton

145. Hammersmith

146. Hampstead and Kilburn

147. Harlow

148. Harrogate and Knaresborough

149. Hartlepool

150. Harwich and North Essex

151. Hastings and Rye

152. Havant

153. Hazel Grove

154. Hemel Hempstead

155. Hemsworth

156. Henley

157. Hereford and South Herefordshire

158. Hertford and Stortford

159. Hertsmere

160. Hexham

161. Heywood and Middleton

161. High Peak

162. Holborn and St. Pancreas

163. Hornchurch and Upminster

164. Hornsey and Wood Green

165. Horsham

166. Hove

167. Huntingdon

168. Ipswich

169. Isle of Wight

170. Islington South and Finsbury

171. Jarrow

172. Keighley

173. Kettering

174. Kingston and Surbiton

175. Kingston-upon-Hull North

176. Kingston-upon-Hull West and Hessle

177. Kingswood

178. Lagan Valley

179. Lancaster and Fleetwood

180. Leeds Central

181. Leeds North-East

182. Leeds West

183. Leicester West

184. Leigh

185. Lewes

186. Lincoln

187. Llanelli

188. Loughborough

189. Louth and Horncastle

190. Luton South

191. Macclesfield

192. Makerfield

193. Maldon

194. Manchester Central

195. Manchester, Withington

196. Mansfield

197. Meon Valley

198. Meriden

199. Mid-Bedfordshire

200. Mid-Dorset and North Poole

201. Mid Norfolk

201. Mid Sussex

202. Middlesbrough

203. Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

204. Milton Keynes North

205. Milton Keynes South

206. Mole Valley

207. Montgomeryshire

208. Moray

209. Morecambe and Lunesdale

210. Morley and Outwood

211. Motherwell and Wishaw

212. New Forest East

213. Newark

214. Newbury

215. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central

216. Newcastle-upon-Tyne North

217. Newcastle-under-Lyme

218. Newport East

219. Newton Abbot

220. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford

221. North Aryrshire and Arran

222. North Devon

223. North Dorset

224. North Down

225. North Durham

226. North-East Bedfordshire

227. North-East Cambridgeshire

228. North-East Hampshire

229. North-East Hertfordshire

230. North Norfolk

231. North Shropshire

232. North Somerset

233. North Swindon

234. North Thanet

235. North Tyneside

236. North Warwickshire

237. North-West Cambridgeshire

238. North-West Durham

239. North-West Hampshire

240. North-West Leicestershire

241. North Wiltshire

242. Northampton North

243. Northampton South

244. Norwich North

245. Nottingham North

246. Nottingham South

247. Nuneaton

248. Ochil and South Perthshire

249. Oldham East and Saddleworth

250. Oldham West and Royton

251. Orpington

252. Pendle

253. Penistone and Stocksbridge

254. Perth and North Perthshire

255. Peterborough

256. Plymouth, Moor View

257. Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport

258. Poole

259. Portsmouth North

260. Portsmouth South

261. Putney

262. Rayleigh Witford

263. Reading East

264. Redcar

265. Reigate

266. Ribble Valley

267. Richmond (Yorks)

268. Richmond Park

269. Rochdale

270. Rochester and Strood

271. Rochford and Southend East

272. Romford

273. Rossendale and Darwen

274. Rotherham

275. Rother Valley

276. Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner

277. Rutland and Melton

278. Saffron Walden

279. Salford and Eccles

280. Salisbury

281. Scarborough and Whitby

282. Scunthorpe

283. Sefton Central

284. Selby and Ainsty

285. Sevenoaks

286. Sheffield South-East

287. Sheffield, Hallam

288. Sherwood

289. Shrewsbury and Atcham

290. Sittingbourne and Sheppey

291. Skipton and Ripon

292. Sleaford and North Hykeham

293. Somerton and Frome

294. South Antrim

295. South Basildon and East Thurrock

296. South Derbyshire

297. South Dorset

298. South East Cambridgeshire

299. South Cornwall

300. South Holland and The Deepings

301. South Leicestershire

302. South Norfolk

303. South Northamptonshire

304. South Ribble

305. South Staffordshire

306. South Swindon

307. South Thanet

308. South-West Bedfordshire

309. South Devon

310. South Thanet

311. South-West Bedfordshire

312. South-West Devon

313. South-East Hertfordshire

314. South-West Norfolk

315. South-West Surrey

316. South-West Wiltshire

317. Southampton, Itchen

318. Southampton, Test

319. Spelthorne

320. St Albans

321. St. Austell and Newquay

322. St. Helens North

323. St. Helens South and Whiston

324. St. Ives

325. Staffordshire Moorlands

326. Stalybridge and Hyde

327. Stockton North

328. Stockton South

329. Stoke-on-Trent North

330. Stoke-on-Trent South

331. Stone

332. Streatham

333. Stretford and Urmston

334. Stroud

335. Suffolk Coastal

336. Sunderland Central

337. Surrey Heath

338. Sutton and Cheam

339. Sutton Coldfield

340. Swansea East

341. Swansea West

342. Tamworth

343. Tatton

344. Taunton Dean

345. Telford

346. Tewksbury

347. The Cotswolds

348. The Wrekin

349. Thirsk and Malton

350. Thornberry and Yate

351. Thurrock

352. Tiverton and Honiton

353. Tonbridge and Malling

354. Torbay

355. Torridge and West Devon

356. Totnes

357. Tunbridge and Falmouth

358. Tunbridge Wells

359. Twickenham

360. Tynemouth

361. Vale of Clwyd

362. Wakefield

363. Wansbeck

364. Wantage

365. Warrington North

366. Warrington South

367. Warwick and Leamington

368. Washington and Sunderland West

369. Watford

370. Waveney

371. Wealdon

372. Weaver Vale

373. Wellingborough

374. Wells

375. Welwyn Hatfield

376. Wentworth and Dearne

377. West Bromwich West

378. West Dorset

379. West Lancashire

380. West Suffolk

381. Weston-super-Mare

382. Wigan

383.  Winchester

384. Wirral South

385. Whitham

386. Woking

387. Wokingham

388. Wolverhampton North-East

389. Wolverhampton South-East

390. Workington

391. Worthing West

392. Wycombe

392. Wyre and Preston North

393. Wyre Forest

394. Yeovil

395. Ynys Môn

396. York Central

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!

Standing Up For British Heritage Peoples

An Australian politician, Fraser Anning, stands up for British Heritage Peoples and for the political order that is the English signature: social, economic and political liberty.

Would you hear a British politician say this?  If not, why not?  It’s rare enough in Australia - even there, Fraser Anning is on the fringe.  But turning to Britain, could the absence of similar voices in the front-line of British politics have at least something to do with the BBC and the wider Leftist Establishment of which it is part? 

The existence of a state media that is institutionally Leftist and hostile to the white British is a powerful force against dissent.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

Whatever else we may say on this site, it is unlikely we will ever suggest that the BBC is short of journalistic talent.  The problems that the BBC embodies and causes are mostly not due to a lack of capability, and the people who appear on the BBC’s television and radio programmes are generally among the best anywhere in the world at what they do.  The BBC’s sins are due to it being a state broadcaster and having an institutional culture that is Leftist and metropolitan and that is blind to, or ignores, provincial concerns.  This is especially so when the concerns come from the ethnic group that the BBC despises most of all, the white British, and especially from the socio-economic group the BBC hates: the white working class.

Now and then, the BBC’s journalists will put their abilities to good use.  Some time ago, Newsnight ran a series of short features on problems in northern England, and this turned out to be among the best work that programme has ever produced.  It left some of us feeling poignantly sad because we wondered how this country might be different today – and better – if the BBC, which styles itself as our ‘public service broadcaster’, had actually sought to be just that, fulfil its public mission and report critically on this country’s problems. 

Here’s another good feature recently broadcast on Newsnight, this time about problems in Sweden:

It’s painful to watch the people interviewed in that clip carefully avoid the central issue.  The reporter does some of that as well, but at least he makes an attempt at some proper journalism for a change.  Should we praise the BBC for this sort of work and undertake to abandon our campaign if they promise to ‘reform’ and ‘change’ and turn over a new leaf, so to speak?  Is it a case of ‘better late than never’?

We think not, and it’s to the above video clip that we return to explain why.  To credit the BBC for this report would be akin to praising an arsonist for setting fire to a building simply because he had the good manners to alert the fire brigade.  Imagine furthermore that our hypothetical arsonist only does the right thing after waiting for the building to be burnt out and reduced to a pathetic shell.  That analogously describes what the BBC have helped inflict on Britain.  The journalist’s work is good – we must give credit where it is due - but he has done nothing that has not already been done by scores of independent media, while people like him at the BBC were probably calling them racist and bigoted.  He is not even playing catch-up.  The BBC are just covering their backs, and perhaps also strategising a retreat and ‘row-back’ from the obvious failure of the Left’s grand social engineering project.

We are also struck by the fact that we have not seen the BBC do anything remotely similar in their coverage of Britain.  We can’t help but think that the reporter’s decision to cover problems in Sweden is an analogue, a decision taken – perhaps unconsciously – because he knows he could not portray an English town in the same way.  Britain has the same problems as Sweden and the BBC knows this very well, and if the BBC had actually fulfilled its public mission and sought to report on these issues when they were coming to light and ordinary people were complaining, the relevant problems might never have arisen in the first place.  The role of journalists, after all, is to use their critical and observational skills to alert society to problems.  Whatever else may be said about them, the BBC’s journalists are not lacking in skills or intellectual abilities: their problem is that they are beholden to hothouse social dogmas and this colours and influences their reporting.  The distortion is evident even in the above clip.

The poor policeman who appears early on obviously knew the truth but dared not state it plainly, while the reporter was slyly goading him and tried to make him look stupid.  This same reporter would call him racist and have him booted out of his job if he actually told the truth.  We wonder whether this See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil tendency found among ordinary people and petty officials like the police might have something to do with organisations like the BBC and the bullies who work for it?  The reporter then snidely concludes the feature by implying that people with concerns about Sweden – it could be equally be Britain, and that seems to be the import – are being lulled into a fake narrative.  We will certainly credit the reporter for a degree of professionalism and for attempting to fulfil his duties properly, but even he cannot entirely let go of Leftist social dogmas.

This is why we focus on the BBC.  Broadcasting is not an esoteric issue, it is a powerful tool and in the right hands can be used to do good.  The misdeeds and indiscretions of the BBC go to the root of the problems in this country.  Imagine if the BBC had done its duty over the last few decades and had reported on the problems of mass immigration and the lack of public consent for it.  Imagine if, back in the 1980s, the BBC had started reporting on Pakistani Moslem grooming gangs.  Imagine if back in 1992 the BBC had given balanced coverage to the Maastricht negotiations and the issue of European integration.  Where were the BBC reports about white displacement or the concerns of the white working class in areas of east London, the West Midlands or parts of West Yorkshire? 

Yes, we eventually heard from the BBC about these issues, but only inadequately, only through the BBC’s own warped frame of values, and only when the problems had developed into crises of such magnitude that even the BBC couldn’t any longer hide them by omission.  Likewise in Sweden.  Suddenly a sole BBC journalist turns up and interviews a few people, comes to a lot of sweeping conclusions, listens sympathetically to a white working class Swedish man he would probably sneer at and call racist in private, and we’re supposed to be impressed?   We are in little doubt that had the BBC done its job over the years, such reports would be unnecessary.  As it is, the BBC is a veritable Curate’s egg: it has got to the stage that any ‘good’ it does cannot compensate for the bad and even, as here, only serves to highlight the long-unaddressed inadequacies and smouldering grievances and resentments of normal people who look on in bewilderment and disgust at this organisation’s mendacity and hypocrisy.

That is not to exclusively blame the BBC for this country’s problems of course - there are many villains in this tale - but it is to highlight the power and privileged position of a large media organisation such as the BBC.  The BBC has let this country down and must now pay the price: it must be closed down for good.  Any shallow attempt now from the BBC to appease genuine concerns from the public should be met with the scorn and derision it deserves.  Yet we know that a large part of the public fall for this stuff.  As an indication, look at the comments on YouTube under the above video.  The praise demonstrates the power of the BBC brand and the enduring legacy of the Reithian principles: it’s not that the public really think that the BBC stands for impartiality and high journalistic principle, it’s that they think the BBC should and can stand for these things and they seize enthusiastically on any exceptional instance when, as here, the BBC does a halfway honest job.  This is dangerous because the cold reality is that the BBC no longer stands for these things, if it ever truly did, and it can’t.  It is a propaganda machine that hides behind a favourable public perception to push its insidious narratives.

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

The Black Broadcasting Corporation

This is what greeted visitors to the BBC’s History website this morning, Monday 13^th. August 2018:

At times like this, it is instructive to recall what George Orwell had to say about English intellectuals and how they regard their own country:

England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during God save the King than of stealing from a poor box.

From The Lion and the Unicorn (1941), Part I: 'England Your England'

Those words are never truer than today.

The BBC is ashamed of Britain and the British people, especially the English, and wants to erase us from our own history, rob us of our homeland, and destroy our culture.

The role of blacks and other non-white groups in Britain’s history is insignificant, assuming there was a role at all.  None of us here has anything against people who are not white, but we, the various indigenous British peoples, have the right to our own home in the world where we can have the space to be ourselves, to speak freely without fear of censure, to converse with others who understand us and share the same cultural reference points.  We, the British people, have a proud history overall which has produced a distinct culture. 

It is not too late to save Britain.  Among other things, the BBC – the Black Broadcasting Corporation – is anti-British and must be abolished.

The Revolution Will Be Televised

A serious and sensible country should build its institutions around its people.  It used to be that this was broadly the state of affairs in Britain.  We do not suggest that this country was ever perfect or that there was, at some misty point in the past, a rose-tinted golden era of peace, harmony and contentment.  We know this country’s history isn’t like quite that.  In some ways, the cleave arising from the Norman Conquest, between an Anglo-Norman elite and native Celtic-Anglo-Saxons, presaged tumultuous ethnic and class-based struggle in England that persists to this day and divides society.  On reflection, our elites seem ‘foreign’ to us – and if they are not that in fact, then certainly they act as if they are. 

We know that the white British working class were treated horribly during the Industrial Revolution, in a way that was akin to slavery.  We know that the land of the English feudal peasantry was stolen from them by legislative fiat to make way for industrialisation and urbanisation; thus, many of the well-heeled individuals who appear on your television talking about law and order are themselves the descendants of legalised thieves.  We know that working class men were used as cannon fodder in numerous wars.  We know that this country’s proud tradition of liberalism and freedom is marred by a conflicting tradition of repressive laws and the brutal suppression of dissent.  We know that today the political elite ignore us, sneer at us, and ridicule us when talking among themselves, and they continue to asset-strip this country (they call it ‘privatisation’), destroy indigenous communities and bring in cheap labour to compete with the white British (it’s called ‘multi-culturalism’ and ‘diversity’), disregard national sovereignty, and happily put this country under the governance of unaccountable international and supranational bodies.  Those who oppose them are variously demonised as racists and bigots, and other things.

Despite these problems, in broad terms we would argue that this country has a history to be proud of and traditions that should be valued - and restored, albeit in a way that looks to the future.  Our belief is that the traditions of this country were built around the needs and particular characteristics of an insular, free and rambunctious people.  We had common law, jury trials, considerable personal liberties, strong regional identities, a quiet unmartial sort of patriotism.  Later, as modernism and capitalism took hold, we developed proper money, disciplined schools, austere prisons, and so on - the country was not perfect, but its modest institutions worked.  Life could be harsh, the culture could be overly-conservative and stifling, and sometimes people were treated unfairly; but at the same time, the majority were more content, men had a clear role and outlets for their energies, women were at the centre of home life, large families were the norm; children were happy, smiling and healthy.  Nobody worried too much about ‘careers’.  Very few people were in serious debt or even contemplated taking on debt.   In most places, there was no ‘housing market’ – you bought a house to live in, or you rented from the council.  Everything made sense.    

We are not a bunch of fuddy-duddies: it is not our view that Britain should go back to the past.  Nor are we inflexible conservatives or rigid traditionalists: we value the past, but we don't want to live in it.  Yet we don't want to stay in the present, either.  We want to look to a future in which core values and common sense notions are re-evaluated and re-adopted to address the needs of the time with a mind on the long-term future.  This is what we regard as true radicalism: root and branch reform.

You return to the roots not because you want to be subversive, but because you recognise that things have over-developed and become too comfortable and perhaps evolved in an unwanted direction. The aim is to get back to the core values.  That means, and it requires, an end to Leftist institutions like the BBC that refuse to listen to or reflect the sensibilities of the British people and that rely on laziness and complacency and a dumbed-down culture to get away with it.  

We talk of revolution because that is what is necessary; but true revolution is a process of evolution: we know that we will have to fight these people every inch of the way, making sudden and large gains at times, but mostly advancing little-by-little.

But the revolution will happen.  And it will be televised.

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.