An excellent video talk from YouTuber, Iconoclast:
Showing posts with label anti-white agenda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-white agenda. Show all posts
Monday, 24 September 2018
Operation Target
Operation Target is concluded. In all, we e-mailed some 5,000 individuals - including MPs, MEPs, MSPs, Assembly Members in Wales, Northern Ireland and London, and local councillors at different levels. In the case of local councillors, we focused on the areas of the country where we believe opposition to, or criticism of, the BBC is likely to be strongest, and we restricted our mailings to Conservative and Independent councillors (plus SNP councillors in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales, and the various unionists in Northern Ireland).
The aims of Operation Target
We also expected that most who responded to us would oppose us – mainly because it’s the safest public position to adopt at this time, and politicians and councillors are by definition creatures of politic. Actually this expectation turned out to be inaccurate. Of the 5% who responded, the split between pro- and anti-BBC was roughly 50:50. That said, it should be added that we are including in the 'antis' those who are merely critical of the BBC in some way, mostly about bias or the TV licence system, or both; nevertheless, such people tend to be receptive to our campaign and can be considered among our soft support. That we received so many favourable responses was interesting and unexpected. We thought it would be more like 90:10 in favour of those against us.
Unfortunately, the exercise seems to have had little or no effect on the petition count, which has slowed considerably. There may be little that can be done about that, as the petition (which isn't even our petition anyway) may have reached its natural ceiling of support. This campaign is for the long haul.
Profile of supporters
Given the broad political profile of the vast majority of those we contacted, we expect that the majority are against the BBC, but most of those will not respond to us as it is not politic to publicly oppose the BBC.
Of those who did respond favourably to us, the profile was mixed, but virtually all of them were either Conservatives, UKIP, DUP or Independent.
The major points:
-Three MEPs, all UKIP, have expressed support for our campaign.
-Two leaders of local authorities have expressed support for us. One is a Conservative, the other - oddly - is Labour (the only Labour politician to back us: we will be keeping his details confidential).
-Several leaders of local authority political groups - mostly Conservative with one DUP - have expressed support.
-We have received a helpful response from the Scottish Government, which we will post up here and comment on in due course.
-Not one MP has backed us so far, and only one - Damian Green, a Tory MP, who opposes us - has given us anything approaching a helpful response.
-Not one Assembly Member in Wales or London has supported us, and only one has given us a helpful response.
-Of the local councillors who support us, around 120 in number, these are a mix of Conservatives, UKIP and Independents. The age profile is also mixed: some are middle-aged, some are elderly, some are quite young (in their 30s). Almost-all are men, but several are women.
Profile of opponents
Most of those who responded to oppose us are local councillors, and most of these are Independents, but some are Conservatives. The age profile is typically middle-aged or elderly and the gender split is 50:50.
We received two responses from MPs, both Conservatives, and both opposed - though the response from one of these, Damian Green, was a little bit helpful.
We received one opposing response from an MEP.
Among MSPs, we received no direct response but the Scottish Government has written to us (details to follow).
Among AMs in Northern Ireland, there was no response at all; only one response, opposition, was received from AMs in Wales.
We received three responses from AMs in London, all opposed, but one of which was at least somewhat helpful.
Nature of the responses received
Most of the supportive comments railed against the bias of the BBC or the TV licence system, or both. A few showed a more sophisticated understanding of things and raised the larger issue of how state broadcasting has affected the health of the nation.
Our opponents in nearly-all cases showed a credulous attachment to out-dated perceptions of the BBC based on how the broadcaster may have been in the past rather than the reality of today. We received reams of twaddle about how the BBC is a 'national institution' and 'one of the great things about this country', etc., etc. Almost-all of these responses revealed a closeted mindset that either refuses, or cannot, confront the problems in Britain and the BBC's role in these.
Some observations
The aims of Operation Target
Abolition of the BBC has never been raised as a possibility in mainstream public discourse. The primary purpose of this exercise was to raise awareness of our campaign and to get the message into the bloodstream of society. A secondary purpose was to start building alliances with prominent and influential local and national individuals who sympathise with us. A further purpose of the exercise was to raise awareness about the petition and boost the signature count.
What we expected and what happened
We expected a 4% response rate - the standard response rate for unsolicited campaigns. This expectation turned out to be more or less accurate: the response was 5%, roughly 250 replies were received.
We expected a 4% response rate - the standard response rate for unsolicited campaigns. This expectation turned out to be more or less accurate: the response was 5%, roughly 250 replies were received.
We also expected that most who responded to us would oppose us – mainly because it’s the safest public position to adopt at this time, and politicians and councillors are by definition creatures of politic. Actually this expectation turned out to be inaccurate. Of the 5% who responded, the split between pro- and anti-BBC was roughly 50:50. That said, it should be added that we are including in the 'antis' those who are merely critical of the BBC in some way, mostly about bias or the TV licence system, or both; nevertheless, such people tend to be receptive to our campaign and can be considered among our soft support. That we received so many favourable responses was interesting and unexpected. We thought it would be more like 90:10 in favour of those against us.
Unfortunately, the exercise seems to have had little or no effect on the petition count, which has slowed considerably. There may be little that can be done about that, as the petition (which isn't even our petition anyway) may have reached its natural ceiling of support. This campaign is for the long haul.
Profile of supporters
Given the broad political profile of the vast majority of those we contacted, we expect that the majority are against the BBC, but most of those will not respond to us as it is not politic to publicly oppose the BBC.
Of those who did respond favourably to us, the profile was mixed, but virtually all of them were either Conservatives, UKIP, DUP or Independent.
The major points:
-Three MEPs, all UKIP, have expressed support for our campaign.
-Two leaders of local authorities have expressed support for us. One is a Conservative, the other - oddly - is Labour (the only Labour politician to back us: we will be keeping his details confidential).
-Several leaders of local authority political groups - mostly Conservative with one DUP - have expressed support.
-We have received a helpful response from the Scottish Government, which we will post up here and comment on in due course.
-Not one MP has backed us so far, and only one - Damian Green, a Tory MP, who opposes us - has given us anything approaching a helpful response.
-Not one Assembly Member in Wales or London has supported us, and only one has given us a helpful response.
-Of the local councillors who support us, around 120 in number, these are a mix of Conservatives, UKIP and Independents. The age profile is also mixed: some are middle-aged, some are elderly, some are quite young (in their 30s). Almost-all are men, but several are women.
Profile of opponents
Most of those who responded to oppose us are local councillors, and most of these are Independents, but some are Conservatives. The age profile is typically middle-aged or elderly and the gender split is 50:50.
We received two responses from MPs, both Conservatives, and both opposed - though the response from one of these, Damian Green, was a little bit helpful.
We received one opposing response from an MEP.
Among MSPs, we received no direct response but the Scottish Government has written to us (details to follow).
Among AMs in Northern Ireland, there was no response at all; only one response, opposition, was received from AMs in Wales.
We received three responses from AMs in London, all opposed, but one of which was at least somewhat helpful.
Nature of the responses received
Most of the supportive comments railed against the bias of the BBC or the TV licence system, or both. A few showed a more sophisticated understanding of things and raised the larger issue of how state broadcasting has affected the health of the nation.
Our opponents in nearly-all cases showed a credulous attachment to out-dated perceptions of the BBC based on how the broadcaster may have been in the past rather than the reality of today. We received reams of twaddle about how the BBC is a 'national institution' and 'one of the great things about this country', etc., etc. Almost-all of these responses revealed a closeted mindset that either refuses, or cannot, confront the problems in Britain and the BBC's role in these.
Some observations
A large part of British society is legalistic and conformist. There has always been a vocal element in British society who take the view that laws and institutions should be obeyed unquestioningly. At the same time, the media are at the centre of power and influence in this country. Those two things mean that a powerful state broadcaster with a left-wing political agenda is quite dangerous to the nation.
Our opposition to the BBC is not just a matter of a broadcasting. The quality of programming is an important, but minor, consideration. This is really about power and influence: who holds it and what is done with it. Our view is that, given the technological realities, and in view of the damage done by the BBC to British society, state broadcasting should be abolished in this country for good and all media should be independent and private.
Our opposition to the BBC is not just a matter of a broadcasting. The quality of programming is an important, but minor, consideration. This is really about power and influence: who holds it and what is done with it. Our view is that, given the technological realities, and in view of the damage done by the BBC to British society, state broadcasting should be abolished in this country for good and all media should be independent and private.
Politicians and local councillors are politically-minded, so we would hope that they would think about the BBC not just as a broadcaster but as a political issue. In a way, our campaign is an acid test of the intellect and imagination. Some people can't see beyond the end of their own noses, and unfortunately, many of the elected politicians we contacted failed the test. They don’t grasp that our campaign against the BBC is really about power. They think that this is just about the BBC, they imagine us to be right-wing rotters and spoil-sports or worse, and they oppose us because they like the BBC and hold a sentimental attachment to it. Whether due to low intellect, ignorance, arrogance or an agenda of their own, or some combination thereof, they cannot see the bigger picture.
Why does all this matter? The trusting, law-abiding, myopic nature of the white British people has been taken advantage of. Consider these findings from Migration Watch:
Why does all this matter? The trusting, law-abiding, myopic nature of the white British people has been taken advantage of. Consider these findings from Migration Watch:
Migration Watch UK said the scale of illegal immigration was “considerably worse than the government admits and very little is being done about it”, in a 22-page report which notes that the number of people thought to reside illegally in Britain exceeds one million.
Looking at visa overstayers, detected clandestine arrivals (persons who, for example, arrived illegally by lorry), and failed asylum seekers who do not leave the country, the think tank calculated a gross addition of more than 105,000 people to the illegal immigrant population each year.
With only about a third (35,200) of this figure deported or leaving the country of their own accord each year, Britain has been seeing a net rise of around 70,000 to its illegal immigrant population each year, equating to 700,000 people in a decade.
Commenting, Lord Green of Deddington, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: “The scale of illegal immigration to Britain is a scandal that has gone on for too long.
“The government must not cave in to opposition attempts to ‘weaponise’ Windrush against legitimate and effective measures to tackle overstaying. These measures are supported by nearly 80% of the public, and rightly so.”
Where was the BBC investigation into immigration numbers and their effect on British society? Isn't the BBC supposed to be the 'national broadcaster'? The truth is that the BBC has for decades censored this issue by omission and has thereby helped the British state to suppress legitimate concerns. Other issues have been treated the same way: where was the BBC report on mass child grooming during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, or even 2000s? There wasn't one.
The BBC must go.
The BBC must go.
Tuesday, 4 September 2018
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!
On this occasion, credit to LBC. And well done Andrew Pierce!
Friday, 31 August 2018
Have You Received An E-mail From Us?
Thank you for reading the e-mail we sent you, and thank you for visiting our site.
We'd like to stress that the most important thing you can do to help bring about change at the BBC is to sign the latest petition. Here's the link. Please share that link with your friends, family and contacts - thank you very much.
More About Us
We appreciate you taking the time to find out more about our campaign. Here we will explain things a little bit and also set out why this issue may be relevant to you and your local community.
We know you are busy, so we will try to keep this relatively brief.
As explained in the e-mail, our campaign is for the abolition of the BBC.
We summarise why we oppose the BBC in this link. The issues we take are both with the concept of a state broadcaster and with the way the BBC itself operates. It is clear to us that the BBC cannot be reformed. Reform has been promised in the past and little or nothing has been achieved.
We demand nothing less than the total shutdown and closure of the BBC and its disposal by asset sale. In doing so, Britain would become perhaps the world's first country other than the United States without a state broadcaster - a major step forward for civil liberties and an example to the international community.
What Does 'Abolition' Mean?
In practical terms, abolition of the BBC means:
- all BBC transmissions, radio and television, to cease on a specific date and at a specified time to be decided by Parliament;
- the shutdown and closure of all BBC operations;
- revocation of the Royal Charter under which the BBC operates as a so-called 'public service broadcaster'. This can be done by a government minister (under Crown prerogative), with approval by Parliament;
- dissolution of the statutory Corporation (this requires an Act of Parliament);
- receivership, break-up and sale on the commercial market of all the BBC's assets;
- the proceeds of this sale to be placed under the custodianship of a legacy trust (two government ministers as the trustees, and administered by civil servants), which will meet all continuing contractual, statutory and legal obligations whatsoever of the BBC (including commercial debts, redundancy payments, pension commitments and so on);
- for the avoidance of doubt, abolition of the TV licence in Britain (each of the Crown Dependencies, where the TV licence also applies, would make their own decisions according to local circumstances);
- the refund of TV licence money to licence payers through time-limited claims at branches of the Post Office (and perhaps other government-approved outlets); and,
- any surplus from the legacy trust to be paid annually to support community-based broadcasting and other non-state media initiatives that Parliament may wish to assist.
What Are The Aims Of The Campaign Itself?
Our primary aim is to persuade a major political party to adopt abolition of the BBC as its policy.
Through this campaign, our further aims are to raise awareness of the problems with the BBC and build popular momentum for the cause of abolition - both to address what we regard as the evils of the BBC itself and also to abolish state media in this country for good, in the interests of all.
How Is All This Relevant To Local Communities?
The BBC is relevant to local communities in the following ways:
(i). Individuals and households are often the subject of aggressive, harassing and intrusive inquiries from the BBC's TV licence enforcement arm, TVL. The BBC can and does criminally prosecute individuals - resulting in fines, and occasionally imprisonment when the fines are not paid. This causes needless worry and distress, often for innocent people or people who simply cannot afford a TV licence.
(ii). There are consequences for the taxpayer in that the BBC's enforcement costs money, and the BBC is also subsidised in this regard by the involvement of the police (to keep the peace both during the execution of search warrants and when ensuing criminal fines are enforced through levy and seizure of goods), and through the involvement of lawyers, the courts, social workers and prisons, and others. Some of these costs - mainly the police and social services - have to be met from local budgets.
(iii). The BBC plays an important role in news gathering everywhere in the country. Stories from the BBC cascade down to local and regional press, and often local and regional journalists will pick up on and pursue the narrative set down by the BBC. This helps set the political tone in society. We believe the BBC's bias is generally towards the political Left and towards metropolitan concerns. Even if you are politically of the Left yourself, the concern we are asking you to consider here is that the bias results in important issues that affect the public being omitted and censored from public debate.
(iv). The BBC's coverage is generally London-centric and reflects metropolitan preoccupations. This bias, together with the sheer massiveness of the BBC, helps to stifle discussion and debate of problems and issues in the rest of the country. Furthermore, when the BBC does discuss parts of the country outside London and the south-east, it tends to be in a way that is negative and focuses on problems. Of course, there are problems and they need to be discussed, but the negativity reflects a patronising attitude that BBC people have to the rest of the country. The regions, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, do not have their own inimitable broadcasting. BBC regional operations are mere cost centres and branches of the BBC, and mostly, if not entirely, fronted by a series of journeymen presenters who are not from whatever is the relevant county or region and who are believers in the narrow social dogmas that prevail within the BBC institutionally.
(v). The BBC does not, or does very little to, celebrate and highlight the regional cultures of Britain and its heritage. Instead, the BBC has pursued a bland, anodyne, multi-cultural attitude to Britain and often presents white British cultures and ethno-nations in particular as 'problems' to be dealt with rather than unique and distinctive aspects of British life to be celebrated.
How You Can Help Us
If You Agree With Us, then please sign the latest anti-BBC petition. Please also share the petition link widely with family, friends, contacts and work colleagues. Please also consider assisting us in other ways, as explained in this link.
If You Want Change At The BBC, Not Abolition, then please sign the petition anyway, as that will help put pressure on the BBC. Please also share the petition link with family, friends, contacts, work colleagues, etc.
If You Disagree With Us, that is fair. We know that the BBC does have support and we obviously appreciate that not everybody will agree with us - in which case, thank you for your time.
Questions? Comments?
If you have questions or comments for us, or if anything is unclear, please feel free to e-mail us.
THANK YOU!
We'd like to stress that the most important thing you can do to help bring about change at the BBC is to sign the latest petition. Here's the link. Please share that link with your friends, family and contacts - thank you very much.
More About Us
We appreciate you taking the time to find out more about our campaign. Here we will explain things a little bit and also set out why this issue may be relevant to you and your local community.
We know you are busy, so we will try to keep this relatively brief.
As explained in the e-mail, our campaign is for the abolition of the BBC.
We summarise why we oppose the BBC in this link. The issues we take are both with the concept of a state broadcaster and with the way the BBC itself operates. It is clear to us that the BBC cannot be reformed. Reform has been promised in the past and little or nothing has been achieved.
We demand nothing less than the total shutdown and closure of the BBC and its disposal by asset sale. In doing so, Britain would become perhaps the world's first country other than the United States without a state broadcaster - a major step forward for civil liberties and an example to the international community.
What Does 'Abolition' Mean?
In practical terms, abolition of the BBC means:
- all BBC transmissions, radio and television, to cease on a specific date and at a specified time to be decided by Parliament;
- the shutdown and closure of all BBC operations;
- revocation of the Royal Charter under which the BBC operates as a so-called 'public service broadcaster'. This can be done by a government minister (under Crown prerogative), with approval by Parliament;
- dissolution of the statutory Corporation (this requires an Act of Parliament);
- receivership, break-up and sale on the commercial market of all the BBC's assets;
- the proceeds of this sale to be placed under the custodianship of a legacy trust (two government ministers as the trustees, and administered by civil servants), which will meet all continuing contractual, statutory and legal obligations whatsoever of the BBC (including commercial debts, redundancy payments, pension commitments and so on);
- for the avoidance of doubt, abolition of the TV licence in Britain (each of the Crown Dependencies, where the TV licence also applies, would make their own decisions according to local circumstances);
- the refund of TV licence money to licence payers through time-limited claims at branches of the Post Office (and perhaps other government-approved outlets); and,
- any surplus from the legacy trust to be paid annually to support community-based broadcasting and other non-state media initiatives that Parliament may wish to assist.
What Are The Aims Of The Campaign Itself?
Our primary aim is to persuade a major political party to adopt abolition of the BBC as its policy.
Through this campaign, our further aims are to raise awareness of the problems with the BBC and build popular momentum for the cause of abolition - both to address what we regard as the evils of the BBC itself and also to abolish state media in this country for good, in the interests of all.
How Is All This Relevant To Local Communities?
The BBC is relevant to local communities in the following ways:
(i). Individuals and households are often the subject of aggressive, harassing and intrusive inquiries from the BBC's TV licence enforcement arm, TVL. The BBC can and does criminally prosecute individuals - resulting in fines, and occasionally imprisonment when the fines are not paid. This causes needless worry and distress, often for innocent people or people who simply cannot afford a TV licence.
(ii). There are consequences for the taxpayer in that the BBC's enforcement costs money, and the BBC is also subsidised in this regard by the involvement of the police (to keep the peace both during the execution of search warrants and when ensuing criminal fines are enforced through levy and seizure of goods), and through the involvement of lawyers, the courts, social workers and prisons, and others. Some of these costs - mainly the police and social services - have to be met from local budgets.
(iii). The BBC plays an important role in news gathering everywhere in the country. Stories from the BBC cascade down to local and regional press, and often local and regional journalists will pick up on and pursue the narrative set down by the BBC. This helps set the political tone in society. We believe the BBC's bias is generally towards the political Left and towards metropolitan concerns. Even if you are politically of the Left yourself, the concern we are asking you to consider here is that the bias results in important issues that affect the public being omitted and censored from public debate.
(iv). The BBC's coverage is generally London-centric and reflects metropolitan preoccupations. This bias, together with the sheer massiveness of the BBC, helps to stifle discussion and debate of problems and issues in the rest of the country. Furthermore, when the BBC does discuss parts of the country outside London and the south-east, it tends to be in a way that is negative and focuses on problems. Of course, there are problems and they need to be discussed, but the negativity reflects a patronising attitude that BBC people have to the rest of the country. The regions, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, do not have their own inimitable broadcasting. BBC regional operations are mere cost centres and branches of the BBC, and mostly, if not entirely, fronted by a series of journeymen presenters who are not from whatever is the relevant county or region and who are believers in the narrow social dogmas that prevail within the BBC institutionally.
(v). The BBC does not, or does very little to, celebrate and highlight the regional cultures of Britain and its heritage. Instead, the BBC has pursued a bland, anodyne, multi-cultural attitude to Britain and often presents white British cultures and ethno-nations in particular as 'problems' to be dealt with rather than unique and distinctive aspects of British life to be celebrated.
How You Can Help Us
If You Agree With Us, then please sign the latest anti-BBC petition. Please also share the petition link widely with family, friends, contacts and work colleagues. Please also consider assisting us in other ways, as explained in this link.
If You Want Change At The BBC, Not Abolition, then please sign the petition anyway, as that will help put pressure on the BBC. Please also share the petition link with family, friends, contacts, work colleagues, etc.
If You Disagree With Us, that is fair. We know that the BBC does have support and we obviously appreciate that not everybody will agree with us - in which case, thank you for your time.
Questions? Comments?
If you have questions or comments for us, or if anything is unclear, please feel free to e-mail us.
THANK YOU!
Wednesday, 29 August 2018
Way of the World and the Future of Media
An important role of the BBC was to bind the country together by propagating shared values and providing, through its media, a virtual space in which the knowledge, science, arts and culture of Britain could be celebrated and discussed, and in which public affairs could be rigorously debated.
The BBC has failed in this mission and has become instead a propaganda outlet for a narrow social agenda. Technology is providing choice and self-empowerment and allowing us to compare the BBC's output with others and recognise its limitations and distortions. We no longer have to rely on one single source or a few sources for our information, we now have a multiplicity of sources and the BBC's lies and shortcomings are becoming painfully apparent.
The future of media once the BBC is gone will be marked by an expansion of media diversity. Some providers will be quite sizeable and focused on advertising revenues through the provision of escapist entertainment - films, sports, sensationalist news and so on. Other providers will cater to more considered tastes, aiming at viewers and listeners who want to be informed. Each type of broadcaster and media provider will be building its own virtual community: we self-identify and associate with others through our tastes and interests.
In this digital landscape of virtual interest communities, there will also be a need for the recognition of a meta-community, the basis for overall cohesion in society - embodying the civic norms and values that regulate daily life and represent the vision and ideation of Britain shared by the country's different and disparate interest groups. The BBC was supposed to be a pillar of Britain's meta-community and was meant to uphold it, but it can't and won't, and it must go. The beginnings of what might take its place are emerging, in voices on the web and in a radical political movement out in the country that aims to counter and ultimately upturn the Leftist dispensation.
Way of the World's channel represents a style of media that has emerged over the last 10 years or so in which content creators use digital platforms to broadcast a coherent polemic, and rather like the vigorous debates of the coffee shops of early modernism, anyone can comment underneath and begin a dialogue with others. In this environment, discussion is 'de-socialised' and opinion is 'de-publicised'. The truth is not handed-down to us on a plate from a Platonic broadcasting elite; instead, there is argument and debate and views and opinions become 'private' again, because we have re-learnt that views are based on interests. Emerging from this are renewed calls for a reactionary dispensation; not just a simple free market, but an older type of society that is really a complex, architectonic ecosystem with certain essential features: Borders, Independence, Culture, Families, Tradition, Hierarchy, Freedom and Identity. The "British' Broadcasting Corporation has no place in this future, nor does any state media.
Monday, 27 August 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.
Sunday, 26 August 2018
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.
Saturday, 25 August 2018
Lauren Southern and the Future of Media
A new documentary on the way from Lauren Southern. And we like the message in this trailer.
You want a product?
You can support it and pay for it, and creators take the risks. That’s how media should work.
Down that road is editorial freedom, independence – and
truth. Even if it’s only truth gained by
splitting the difference, it’s an improvement: let the viewer/listener decide.
This radical thinking scares the top-down statists because
they have a didactic mindset in which they ‘look after’ us. “Inform, educate and entertain…”
State broadcasting is finished, and the paternalist culture of so-called 'public service broadcasting' should be considered archaic - it belongs to a previous time and its structures
are functionally redundant.
Time to abolish the BBC and let a billion flowers bloom.
Thursday, 16 August 2018
Monday, 13 August 2018
The Black Broadcasting Corporation
This is what greeted visitors to the BBC’s History website this morning, Monday 13th. 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)