Share |

Monday 20 September 2010

BBC Bias paints Sweden Democrats as Devils Incarnate

We, the television licence payers of the United Kingdom, have the right to demand that the BBC executes its duty to the public as defined below:
The Agreement accompanying the BBC's Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting.
Can anyone read the above passage and honestly say that BBC news coverage fulfils these stated objectives? I would contend that it does not. By way of example, I draw your attention to its systematic abuse of language; an abuse used to tap into the British public’s conditioned reflexes of loathing that come to the fore when the terms ‘far-right’ or ‘racist’ are deployed. The BBC uses these terms in an attempt to destroy the credibility of its chosen targets, and to elicit a sense of contempt for people and organisations thus labelled in the minds of its readers, listeners and viewers.

I first became aware of this BBC tactic some eight years ago when it was illustrated with crystal clarity by its reporting of the then popular Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. Given that Fortuyn was a professor of sociology, an outspoken advocate of Dutch liberal values, a hitherto member of the Dutch Labour Party and openly homosexual, how might you choose to define his politics? Liberal? Certainly. Left of centre? On some issues, undeniably. Far-right? ‘Far-right’? Since when have liberal centrist politicians who choose not to describe themselves as ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ been classified as ‘far-right’? Well, according to the BBC, the Guardian and the majority of other mainstream media outlets, this was the appropriate label for Fortuyn. Thus labelled and demonised, Fortuyn was to die at the hands of a leftist assassin.

What ‘sin’ had this man committed to be afforded the pariah label of ‘far-right’? What egregious act had he undertaken? What sacred value had he violated? The answer is simple: he had transgressed a taboo that none in the contemporary Western world may violate without becoming an object of officially sanctioned universal hate: he had spoken the truth. This is the truth that has subsequently been spoken by Geert Wilders; by Thilo Sarrazin and by the Sweden Democrats, and whenever this truth has been spoken, the BBC has been there ready to stigmatise, distort and dehumanise. Its aim: to destroy both messenger and message; hence its ready recourse to the terms 'far-right', 'populist', 'intolerant' and 'irrational'.

The truth is this: multiculturalism is a failure; mass immigration has a negative impact on receiving societies; Islam and Western values are fundamentally incompatible. Doctrinaire Muslims are permanently ill at ease in Western societies and are spurred by their ideology to undermine their host’s social structures and norms with a view to replacing them with an Islamic alternative using whichever means, peaceful or otherwise, that they find expedient at a given time. Anyone acknowledging these facts will be described by the BBC, the Guardian and the entire political and media establishments of the Western world as ‘far-right’. It would seem that to apply rational objective standards is to be ‘far-right’. I stand ‘guilty’ as charged.

Fortuyn’s melancholy ghost stall haunts the BBC (or is it just that BBC journalists are too lazy to avoid recycling tried and tested stock phrases?). Following Fortuyn’s assassination in 2002 the BBC website stated:
Fortuyn's anti-Muslim views, calls for an end to all immigration and pledges to come down hard on crime struck a chord with voters despite the country's celebrated reputation for liberalism and religious tolerance.
Compare the above to today’s reporting of the Sweden Democrats electoral success:
The party appears to have tapped into voter dissatisfaction over immigration, says our correspondent, with the result undermining the image of Sweden as a tolerant and open-minded country.
Note how the BBC implies that any attempt by the Dutch or Swedish electorates to defend their national integrity or identity is thereby defined as innately illiberal, intolerant and narrow-minded. In what way is seeking to defend your own country against Islamisation any of these things? The attitudes, values and practise of doctrinaire Muslims on the other hand are all of these: illiberal, intolerant and narrow-minded. As this clearly illustrates, you don’t need to be Spock to realise that the BBC is essentially illogical.


  1. I noted the exact same thing this afternoon when I saw the BBC report. Much like the attitude of the Guardian one from the other day in fact - but then, they are joined at the hip, so what else can you expect?

    I was going to do a thing on it tonight, but yours is much better and now I don't need to :).

  2. Cheers BA. Glad you appreciated the piece.

  3. A group of 40 islamic youth's attacked a Sweden Democrats politician, islamists always attack in packs. He was knocked to the ground and kicked and slashed with knives. Apparently shots were also discharged and bricks thrown through the windows of his house. The chap is a Syrian christian and has since made the decision to quit politics. So this bunch of thugs got their way. I'm disgusted that this could (was allowed to?) happen in a northern european country. What will happen if a similar party gain seats here? Yet the BBC paint a democratically elected political party as nazi's. Cygnus.

  4. When I read this story on the Tundra Tabloids site I felt sick. This man has been through a hell of an ordeal, and I daresay that unlike his Muslim assailants, he, being a Syrian Christian, had genuine reasons for wishing to depart from his country of origin. It's a pity that he found himself somewhere that contains considerable numbers of depraved Muslim thugs. If the BBC does cover this story (admittedly, it's unlikely) will they attempt to portray him as having been 'asking for it'? I suspect so.

    We live in frightening times Cygnus. No person in the Western world who publicly deviates from the enforced multicultural narrative is safe any longer, as the powerful in our societies seek to destroy their reputations and livelihoods, and obviously do not do enough to protect their physical safety as this case illustrates. Yes, if any patriotic party began to make serious headway in the UK you can be pretty certain that a vicious campaign of opposition involving violence would be forthcoming.

  5. Well, if the BBC was trying to make the Sweden Democrats look bad, it clearly wasn't trying very hard. It forgot to mention that the Sweden Democrats support Israel.

    Increasing Muslim political power in Europe is Israel's worst nightmare. But most people do not actively care about Israel. So it is necessary that Zionists create the illusion that Islam is a problem for Europe as well. Geert Wilders has already been exposed as a Jew who has visited Israel more than 40 times during his career. Now look up the background of Kent and Ted Ekeroth of the Sweden Democrats. Are we supposed to believe this is a coincidence? They have already started to remove their info, but they are too late. We know who they are.

    All the far-right parties are Zionist front groups, encouraging hatred towards Muslims and converting this hatred into support for Israel. Blogs like this one, insofar as they reinforce the villification of Muslims by the mainstream media, should also be considered a Zionist propaganda source and treated with utmost skepticism. Jewish racists and white Gentile racists are pretty much natural allies against anti-racists of all races and religions.

    Let's see who else this blog links to. Richard Dawkins is Jewish and a supporter of Israel. Mark Steyn is Jewish and a supporter of Israel. All coincidences?

  6. Richard Dawkins 'Jewish'? What!? My blog "should be considered a Zionist propaganda source"!? If this is your belief, I seriously question your rational faculties. You will find nothing on this blog concerning disputes in the Middle East as they don't interest me. I want no British involvement in quarrels overseas. I want no more wars with other states and peoples, and wish to see the withdrawal of all of our forces from Afghanistan.

    I wish to see our native rights to self-determination recognised and applied in the UK. I'm interested in defending my country's integrity from the most agressive alien interlopers of whom I have direct experience, aka doctrinaire Muslims. They pose the same menace to all other European nations.

  7. The comment from Anonymous made me laugh this morning. Cheers you daft, deluded fool. Cygnus.

  8. What do you think Cygnus: was 'Anonymous' some Nazi recidivist or a doctrinaire Muslim? Then again, he/she/it could have been an SWP member or affiliate of some other hard-left fraction. There's a fag paper of difference between the lot of them. From what was written I couldn't tell. Still, such totalitarian Jew obsessives make for natural bedfellows I suppose.

    This line of his really stunned me: "So it is necessary that Zionists create the illusion that Islam is a problem for Europe as well." Such an idiotic line could not have been written by a true Englishman, surely? "Illusion"? How are you coping with those 'illusions' of yours Cygnus ;-)?

  9. Oh i'm happy with my colourful mania. I suspect the person is a far left agitator, not a muslim. The post was far more anti jew than pro muslim, and proposed that anyone who suspicious or critical of islam is a zionist puppet. Bit of mix I admit but thats not unusual from these individuals. Cygnus.


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.