The BBC Is A Home For Radical Leftists & Racists

An excellent video talk from YouTuber, Iconoclast:

"Inform, Educate and Entertain..." Latest

Which important cultural figure does the BBC Newsnight ask to come on to discuss President Trump and American politics?  A West Coast Leftist of course.

We don’t dispute that any TV channel can interview whom they like, but the BBC is supposed to be a redoubt for the highest standards in broadcasting, not a spin-off of MTV.

Twitter Gold 008: Culture Jamming

pic.twitter.com/U4SaCr8tFf

— boycott the BBC (@boycottTheBBC) March 11, 2016

Resistance News 002

The left will not win.

— Kevin (@Kevin45498807) August 27, 2018

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.

A Word For Infogalactic

We agree with Alt Right figure Vox Day that those of us who in some way oppose the present dispensation need to create and support independent structures and digital platforms.  It's a message that coheres with an important aspect of our central case against the BBC: that the era of state information and broadcasting must come to an end.  We want to practice what we preach, and we can begin by supporting and highlighting the work of those who already do.

For this reason, where possible we now use Infogalactic as our baseline source for referencing and fact verification.  Infogalactic is an excellent information source, and we like that it is decentralised, rejects dogma, and opposes the censorship practiced by Wikipedia. Infogalactic is truth-driven and focused on reliability and verification.  For more information, refer to Infogalactic's Seven Canons.  

You will find links to Infogalactic in many of our articles.  We encourage our readers and supporters to visit Infogalactic whenever possible, and we have added a permanent link in the right-hand column.

We wish to add that we have no commercial affiliation or association with Infogalactic or its backers, and we do not gain by promoting their site and resource here - we just believe strongly in what they are doing.

BBC Impartiality: Treason Edition

Why would a so-called 'public service broadcaster' intentionally orchestrate a political discussion in public in which the audience was filled mostly with people hostile to, if not outright hateful towards, one of the panel members, and in which almost-all the questions were either loaded or rhetorical in nature, and slanted against that panel member?

We would respectfully submit that such arrangements are not indicative of impartiality and that simply allowing Mr Griffin to appear on the Question Time programme did not and could not absolve the BBC of its duty to be impartial.  Of course, our view is that the BBC cannot be impartial anyway and that impartiality is a myth, and in the case of the BBC, also a lie.  We think BBC Question Time, like the rest of the BBC's output - political and non-political - is a window into what the Corporation really thinks about the white British.

This is not a 'national broadcaster' and this is not 'public service broadcasting'.  It is pure propaganda.  It is also treason.

"A Broadcaster of Distinction": Comedy Hour

More serious news analysis from Britain's "broadcaster of distinction".  The BBC is not dumbed-down at all.  Oh no.  They're totally impartial too, we promise.

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 005: Wolf In Sheep's Clothing Edition

In and of themselves, petitions don't bring about change, or are unlikely to. They are part of a wider campaign. It's a way of raising awareness, a way of prompting dialogue with legislators and the government, and leads to other campaigning opportunities, etc.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018

We agree with non-payment campaigns, but a strategic campaign is also needed for abolition.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018

Thank you. We have the distinct impression that you do not sympathise. We guess from the slightly sneery, sarcastic tone, the arrogance & the EU flag in your profile that you are basically a lefty who just LOVES the BBC & wants more of it. We will not stop until the BBC is gone.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018

We'll be the judge of it - the flag in your profile is a clue. But our point is that ending the TV licence in and of itself will not be enough. We explain why on our site. However we know that some anti-TV licence campaigners are wolves in sheep's clothing.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018

Being a Conservative voters does NOT disqualify you as a Leftist, as anybody who has a passing familiarity with British politics will know.

Thank you for finally accepting that I should do what I think is relevant. You, likewise, should do the same. Thank you very much.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018

And we know we won't be getting any help from you! You miss our point that the very fact somebody like you can support the Conservative Party says it all and vindicates us. The Left have captured the major institutions and voluntary bodies of this country.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018

You've literally stated that you vote Conservative. That means you support them. Voting is a type of support. You didn't say that you once voted for a particular candidate who happened to be Conservative, etc.. You said you vote for them. So you support them. Case closed.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018