Share |

Thursday 3 March 2011

Dissecting the BBC's irrational Credo

There is something deeply, viscerally irrational about the BBC's treatment of any issue that might reflect badly upon multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, for some reason, has come to be hardwired into the BBC’s memeplex. Consequently, its analysis of the news and social issues is governed by an emotive hysteria that dictates that reason must be swept aside if it conflicts with its idealisation of its multiculturalist utopia. So, if anyone wishes to hear alternative viewpoints about multiculturalism, indeed voices which are genuinely critical of this phenomenon, then it is necessary to turn to other sources.

Strangely, Russian media are now more often than not more objective about social processes unfolding in the UK and other European nations than our own electronic media. The BBC today is no more reliable than Pravda was pre-glasnost. This observation, although particularly pertinent to the editorial line of the BBC, can be more broadly applied to all mainstream electronic and print media in the UK at the current time.

There are a number of irrational beliefs that from which BBC reporters rarely deviate:
  • multiculturalism is always a good thing
  • open borders (British, European and Western ones) are to be encouraged
  • there is no substance to race: it's just skin deep
  • ethnic and religious minorities never cause problems, but always 'enrich' the societies in which they reside (unless they happen to be whites)
  • there is only one race - the human race - and yet there is such a phenomenon as 'racism' perpetrated exclusively by whites (thus negating their assertion that there is no such thing as race)
  • the expression of national determination and sovereignty in non-white or Muslim peoples is always a 'good' thing
  • the expression of national determination and sovereignty in white peoples is almost always bad (unless it involves Irish republican terrorism)
  • all whites are guilty by dint of their race, and have a 'duty' to atone for their historical 'sins' through systematic abasement before other races (which remember, don't exist as the BBC believes only in the human 'race')
  • all 'blacks' (an extremely widely defined and elastic concept so that anyone swarthy can be included) are treated as innocent victims with 'rights' until proven otherwise
  • Islam is always to be referred to in a positive light, and anyone who criticises it, in a negative one
  • Equal rights for women and homosexuals must be promoted at all times, except when dealing with Muslims or referring to Islam, when the BBC's militant stance suddenly melts into the ether and hard-core cultural relativism takes hold and such 'cultural differences' are to be 'celebrated'
There are many other core irrational and harmful beliefs which permeate the BBC's mental universe and reporting, but a more considered analysis of these will have to wait for another day. However, there are alternative perspectives on the 'issues' listed above, as can be seen from the following videos. The first of these is taken from Russia Today, which unlike any BBC interview on the topic, which would feature heartfelt, shrill hectoring of the interviewee by the interviewer, is pleasantly civil in tone and balanced. The BBC is neither civil nor balanced when dealing with questions of culture, ethnicity, religion or race. The second piece is an interview with Jared Taylor, who presents his views upon the impact and future implications of multiculturalism and its associated policies in the USA. Watch both clips, and see what you think. How do they compare to the material that is produced by the BBC? Which is more balanced and objective?


  1. What follows is a comment from a regular reader - Unrepentant British Nationalist - that I rescued from deletion after reposting the above article after it was redrafted. He's posted an interesting link to a recent Rod Liddle blog post. Without further ado, I shall hand over to UBN:

    It's not just the BBC, Rod Liddle lamented on his Spectator blog yesterday that: 'The headline figure was that 60 per cent of British people (including first, second and third generation immigrants) think that immigration has been a “bad thing” for the country. This is something you are not allowed to say in print, or on television or radio, or you will be either prosecuted or set upon by some libtard idiot from the PCC.' In a reply to one of the comments left, he wrote: 'No, I'm sorry; very clear - not allowed to say. Anyone on public life who themselves expressed the view that Britain was worse off as a consequence of immigration would be out of a job forthwith. Not allowed to say. Very clear.' You can read his blog post, and subsequent comments in full here:

  2. You only need watch Sarah Montague's appalling "interview" with the leader of the Swedish Democrats, the Geert Wilders hatchet job a few weeks back on bbc 2, and the radio 4 series 'Driving on the Right' to get a clear picture of where they stand. And that's only one month's worth!

    The examples are so numerous it's almost banal to point them out.

  3. Very true Anonymous. Sarah Montague is one of the most grating and indignant examples of the BBC's 'right-thinking' commentators. I don't know why, but whenever I hear her hectoring hoity-toity tones (apparently she was once a stockbroker), she conjures up a vision of a leading member of 1984's Anti-Sex League. Granted, she may be married with three children, but I pity her poor wretch of a husband. How he managed to impregnate this pitiless, privileged, privately educated domineering harpy, I know not.

  4. Thanks, you just put me off my sandwich.

  5. Sorry about that Cygnus. Please console yourself with the thought that I too felt quite queasy whilst writing this description of Montague.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.