Share |

Thursday 1 March 2012

Review: ‘Make Bradford British’

Those who know Bradford know that it is in England, although in some respects no longer of England, so far has the demography of the city been changed by mass settlement from the Indian subcontinent, particularly from the Muslim states of Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1994, a book entitled ‘Here to Stay: Bradford’s South Asian Communities’ was published by the Bradford Heritage Recording Unit. Its tone was celebratory, and its intent, as was clear from the title, was to normalise the presence of the settlers, and to make the city theirs. This much it had in common with tonight’s ‘documentary’ on Channel 4 – ‘Make Bradford British’ (MBB) – a title which emphasised the extent of the displacement and dispossession of native Bradfordians that has taken place since the 1950s.

Implicit within the concept of MBB was the assumption that nationality not only is not dependent upon descent and a sense of shared identity, but that it is not even dependent upon shared culture. Such an approach underscores the dystopian vision of the multiculturalists, who affirm the most attenuated concept of civic national identity, which not only excludes shared descent, community and culture, but also any concept of shared national interest in the face of predatory transnational capitalism and the growth of transnational institutions of global governance. The model of ‘Britishness’ thus articulated by MBB is one familiar to politicians such as Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and David Cameron; one which is legalistic, formalistic and without inherent content. The only thing shared by ordinary members of their ‘nation’ thus conceptualised, is the obligation to pay tax to Westminster, whereas of course the super-affluent backers of the troika of governing Westminster parties can even exempt themselves from national taxation through various offshore ruses whilst retaining their passports.

Although tonight has presented us with only the first part of MBB, its conclusion is foregone, for it has evidently been devised to highlight the officially-sanctioned and vigorously promoted terms ‘intolerance’, ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘racism’. This is being done with a specific purpose, targeting the non-Muslim, particularly the indigenous population, with a view to further inculcate and entrench a sense of misplaced ‘guilt’ amongst the English so as to secure their total surrender to the deliberately engineered ongoing mass settlement of their land. The documentary claimed that its purpose was to address the question: “Can different races, different religions and different cultures really live together.” Who asked these questions? “Diversity consultants”, who, by definition, can hardly be adjudged to approach such questions in an objective and impartial manner, given that their stated rationale for the programme was the search for a “blueprint for a genuinely multicultural Great Britain.” Who asked the British whether they wanted this? Nobody.

The narrator continued: “Multicultural Britain needs help. Some people just aren’t mixing.” Certain people are not mixing precisely because they have already had contact with each other, and what they have encountered they have not liked. If you force people together who are mutually incompatible, then there is conflict. Does Channel 4 run moralistic ‘documentaries’ attempting to bring together people who are incompatible and force them into a marriage from which there is no prospect of escape? Of course not! If it is immoral to force two incompatible individuals who display mutual antipathy to cohabit, why is it considered moral to force colonists with a strong collective identity upon the English? We do not wish to mix with them, but they have been and are being forced upon us. Who benefits from this process? Why was it initiated? Who initiated it and who supports its continuation? Will these people accept responsibility for its negative consequences, issue an apology and admit that they have been wrong? The engineers of mass immigration have deliberately unmade Britain, but the native British still exist and they know who they are.

How were the participants in the programme selected? By some form of scientific method to gain a representative sample? No. Although 111 people in different parts of the city sat the British Citizenship Test and 100 of them failed, only eight of the 100 were selected to “represent the different opinions out there”. As in other ‘reality’ programmes, they were therefore selected to generate drama, rather than an objective picture. Rashid, a 37-year-old former rugby league player and “devout Muslim” who prays five times a day, was evidently selected primarily upon the basis that he possessed an extrovert personality at clear variance with the typical qualities exhibited by doctrinaire Muslims. Nonetheless, MBB throughout referred to Rashid, Sabbiyah and Mohammed as “Asians” rather than Muslims.

The programme thus proceeded very much as predicted, but one thing that came across strongly was the division between Muslims (repeatedly referred to as “Asians” in the programme, presumably so as to generate the impression that any criticism of Islam should be considered 'racist') and the rest. Audrey, a 48-year-old mother of three, and city centre landlady of mixed English and West Indian parentage stated: “People don’t want to come into the centre of Bradford any more. It’s a ticking time-bomb.”  “The only person who isn’t going by the rules is a Muslim.” She later stated that blacks and whites in Bradford use the word “Paki" because of the way Asian people treat them: “I am totally intolerant of Asians.” People feel threatened by the massive “Paki” presence. Near to the end of the programme however, she broke into tears and admitted that she had “Asian nephews and nieces within my own family.”

Clearly, by the end of this two-part series all participants will be hugging and professing mutual respect, because what else will they be able to do given that they are exposing themselves to the full glare of the media and the scrutiny of the race relations industry? This episode of Make Bradford British attempted to portray relations between a handful of individuals as being equivalent to relationships between Balkanised “communities” and having lessons for the latter, which they quite clearly do not. To pretend that doctrinaire Islam and any other system of belief and governance are compatible is to be wilfully blind. As such, Make Bradford British is shaping up not only to be a bad ‘documentary’, but a dangerous one, for it is paving the way for further Dawah and Islamisation. When will Channel 4 or any other mainstream television company address the questions that I posed earlier in this review? “Never”, is the most likely answer. For an examination of what needs to be done politically to solve the problems raised in this documentary, click here.

Make Bradford Saudi: the agenda of the documentary makers



  1. Thanks, good review.

    I recorded the programme but decided to wait until after your review to see if it might be worth watching (seems to me it isn't), and instead I watched the BBC4 Horizon Woof! programme. Please allow me to recommend the last 20 minutes of Woof! if you can see it on iPlayer as they raise (and then in a muddle-headed, cuddly-Lefty way ignore) some points that may be relevant to, but again will be ignored by, MBB.

    I apologise now for the long comment and will quite understand a 'tl;dr' response.

    “Can different races, different religions and different cultures really live together.”

    As we know from the CAGW scam, contrived experiments produce the results required by those with a self-serving agenda, they do not show real-life truth.

    If the programme producers really wanted to know what happens then why not examine what happens in real life? There are plenty of real-life examples, all with the same, so predictable, outcome. Why not simply ask the Christian Copts in Egypt who have had their children kidnapped and raped, sometimes forcibly converted to Islam or killed?

    The answer, of course, is that real life doesn't match the ideology of the chattering class who produce the main-stream media (MSM), so they ignore what's real and simply shout their ideology louder, as if that would convince.

    It clearly doesn't always convince though it probably does influence in unexpected ways, as now whenever the MSM (especially the BBC and CH4) present their 'sanitised' stories along the lines of 'Asian people somehow unfortunately involved in a violent incident, perhaps they were cruelly offended or provoked by some horrible insensitive people (hint, hint - underclass, racists or right-wing terrorists)' I automatically think two things:
    1 - Muslim
    2 - MSM propaganda.

    I know many more people, of various backgrounds and age, are thinking much like I do because of the increasing number of people now getting their news from, and exchanging views with, less 'sanitised' sources such as trusted websites (like yours) and from RT.

    Some items in Woof! that were mentioned as facts but pointedly ignored, presumably because they didn't fit the ideological conclusion presented by the BBC (even in a programme about dogs!!):
    - animals were bred for characteristics and character affecting (violent) behaviour (what excludes humans from this?);
    - when two dogs were forced together one became 'top dog', and exerted and reinforced dominance over the other using violence and intimidation;
    - a woman was killed by a pack of her own dogs yet her death was not explained (presumably she lost her 'top dog' status);
    - when a member of a dog pack gets away with extreme behaviour without restraint or punishment, other members of the pack follow its example;
    - the 'new thinking' regarding wolf-pack behaviour is that violence (or the threat) is not necessary as those who don't fit in the pack can just leave rather than accept violence, and those who choose to stay with the pack have a family interest.

    Once again I've been influenced in ways unexpected by the MSM.

    1. Hello Derek,

      I’m glad that you enjoyed the review. Is Woof being repeated? If not, I’ll watch it on iPlayer as suggested, as it sounds as if it’s worth viewing. Contrary to the peculiar assertions of the next commenter (Anonymous number 1), your observations regarding the programme are insightful, for as you note it, as Make Bradford British, could not restrain itself from displaying its erroneous ideological presuppositions.

      Your point re “real life” examples of group dynamics between “different races, different religions and different cultures” is spot on. The programme makers and the “diversity consultants” need do nothing more than to examine the sad history of bloody conflict that such forced coexistence engenders, as well as the violent contemporary reality unfortunately experienced by the Egyptian Copts and the Christians of Iraq, to find the true answers to their question. Nowadays alas, children in the UK are no longer taught history, but are instead force-fed selected slivers of historical narrative deliberately designed to engender guilt and ethnic self-loathing (if they happen to be indigenous that is): Hitler and Stalin (both white mass murderers), Rosa Parks and black civil rights in the US, and the slave trade (but only the European one), to name but a few elements of the corrupted curriculum.

      It is interesting to see your comment regarding how you, your friends and acquaintances are now seeking out alternative news sources to the official British MSM. With respect to television news, although far from perfect, Russia Today is far better than its UK based equivalents.

    2. I only watched Woof because many of my friends and relatives have dogs so it's very likely to crop up in conversation at some point; and some parts of the programme I could relate to my experiences dog-sitting for a few days, so I am used to dogs attempting to see what they can get away with, which is easy enough to deal with by instantly enforcing established rules to maintain consistency and to ensure the dogs see me as 'top-dog' while the owners are away.

      Woof doesn't show up in my 7-day tv guide, but it is currently available in iPlayer. I wouldn't recommend the whole programme, but there were two parts of Woof that I thought were revealing and of more general interest, if one wasn't especially interested in dogs.

      Firstly, about 12 or 13 minutes in, there is the experiment which has been going on for more than 50 years to tame silver foxes. Only the non-violent ones were allowed to breed; and if I recall correctly, apparently after only three generations there was a noticeable behavioural change, again a noticeable change after eight generations, becoming progressively tamer to the current generation.

      (One can't help but wonder: if one group of humans was selected on violence towards other groups and rape/women-abusing tendencies, and a separate group was selected on ingenuity and co-operation (so violence wasn't the selection criteria) would one be likely to see different outcomes after, say, 1400 years?)

      Secondly, in the last twenty minutes of the programme, we see examples of why putting PC ideology before real life experience is such a stupid idea. The programme has examples of what many dog-owners know as fact, that if you are not clearly the pack-leader the dog may challenge, but the Beeb can't help themselves but resist. So, their message is 'just treat your dog as a playmate who likes your company, don't worry about dominance'!

      And despite recognising that wolves are pack animals who have to co-operate to set ambushes, they come out with the 'new thinking' that a wolf driven away from the pack, from hunting with the pack, and from the pack's territory will get on just as well alone - 'it's ok to be driven away, just go with it, you're no worse off'.

      I'm not surprised by the Beeb's intent, as being Lefties science and facts are only there to be cut out of context to find something supporting their ideology, but something else that could be taken from the programme is that giving in to encroachment, vociferous intimidation and violence results in a poor outcome for those who don't resist.

    3. Yes, there could well be an element of selection for certain traits at play in different human populations conditioned by certain ethical/civilisational codes and values.

      Did Woof happen to show what happened to the silver foxes bred to display aggressive traits? I have seen footage of these creatures before, and the product of this selective breeding is truly alarming, with the resultant animals being in a near-perpetual state of snarling rage. So, no similarities whatsoever with humans, eh?

    4. If I recall correctly, the only footage of the aggressive ones was at the beginning of the brief coverage of the silver fox experiment, to illustrate the selection criteria. After that it was only tame cuddly ones.

      I shall have to do a bit of research regarding the aggressive silver foxes when I get time - it will certainly make doggy-related (and Beeb-related) conversations more interesting.

  2. I only have one word for this review, reviewer and his lone fan. That word is 'wow'! I have not heard such an elaborate conspiracy theory for some time and so it is beautiful how different theories have been crow barred in to force this turkey to fly. I really enjoyed how 'Durotrigan' started by accusing the capitalist new order conspiracy then fused this with a planned Muslim invasion of the UK, because our governments are evil masterminds and that explains all the mistakes that they make. I also like how 'Duratrigan' just papers over the migration of people from the Asian subcontinent and its causes (i.e. economic migrants) and instead believes that it is a plan to enact their diabolical plan. Finally, Derek's musings indicate that he gets easily confused between people and dogs? I am not really sure what to say to that Derek?
    To conclude, the Jewish banking conspiracy, the Manchurian candidate and Diana the princess of Wales’ assassination have nothing on this inane, garrulous and beautifully orchestrated piece of lunacy. Please, please don't take those pills that the doctors offer you two; the world is a funnier place with this sort of comedy gold.
    Thanks, you have made an otherwise boring morning truly hysterical.

    1. And I have only two words for the above commentator: SMUG IGNORAMUS.

    2. "Economic Migrants "?!!? You should take a glance at the Muslim unemployment statistics for UK: 55% unemployment for men and a whopping 75% for women.

    3. Thank you for your comment ‘Anonymous’ number one. It is, as all can see, very 'insightful' with respect not only to the issues ostensibly addressed in the documentary, but also to the content of the review. It must be a rare gift to be able to discern a ‘conspiracy theory’ in every question posed, or in each social and political phenomenon described. Furthermore, it is always gratifying to see someone attack the substance of an argument using logic and countering assertions with falsifying data, rather than relying upon ad hominem attacks or insinuation about character is it not? For, after all, your riposte conclusively demonstrates . . . what precisely? That some of the immigrants in the documentary arrived because they were economic migrants? What of it? Cui bono?

      Do you not know of the 1948 Nationality Act; the importation of cheap labour to undercut indigenous mill workers; chain migration; the initial naïve belief that all immigrants would adopt the host culture; the cultural boundary enforcing mechanisms of Islamic ideology; the loss of control of the UK’s borders owing to EU membership; the abuse of asylum and human rights legislation; the existence of illegal immigration; the globalist credo in a World without borders or the deliberate policy – as revealed by Andrew Neather – of the last Labour Government to engineer mass immigration on a scale never hitherto seen so as to smash the cultural and demographic unity of the British people? There are many other elements to the complex jigsaw of factors that have created the unwholesome mess in which Bradford and the country at large now find themselves, and you either are not concerned by any of this, or are one of its advocates. This would appear to identify you as an individual ideologically aligned with the Socialist Workers’ Party, even if you are not actually a member. Some twenty years ago I remember being astonished by a number of malign individuals from the SWP and kindred groups who told me quite openly that they wished to engineer mass immigration and show favouritism to immigrant groups so as to “smash the system”, as they had the utmost contempt for the indigenous working class who were interested in creating a better life for themselves, rather than some absurd Trotskyist revolution. They saw, and see, militant Muslims as their shock troops.

    4. Uninteresting point ‘Anonymous Mar 2, 2012 02:19’, I do not follow your spurious reasoning? You appear to be arguing that the Muslims are not economic migrants as many are unemployed; surely this is a non sequitur? By that logic we could also argue that the English rugby team are failing to win the six nations and therefore their intention is not to win the six nations, this would therefore mean that they are not ‘competitors’ but instead they are planning to take over Europe and create a dystopian English hegemony! I do hope that the analogy works for you? Maybe we could separate intention and results?

    5. Thank you for your response Durotrigan, and I must say that I am honoured that you allowed my comment. I am pleased that you noted my focus on the review and your ‘subtle’ antipathy towards certain groups. Additionally, I would like to convey my appreciation for your approval of my discernment, I am very grateful for your kind words. However I do sense a little frustration and, perhaps, a little ambiguity in your phrases. I do hope that I have misconstrued your gratuitous concurrence? An example of one of those pesky little utterances is the following;
      ‘Furthermore, it is always gratifying to see someone attack the substance of an argument using logic and countering assertions with falsifying data’
      This causes some confusion as I do not recall referring to any data and upon a review of my post I feel that maybe our benevolent blogger has confused anonymous postings. Furthermore, I would like to apologise if you feel that there has been some sort of personal libel directed towards you. My only intention was to describe and encourage these ‘interesting’ ideas and the resulting ‘insightful’ posts; I do hope that you have not confused the semantic content of my original post, which would cause me some ennui as I admire your idiosyncrasies. I hoped that my post would highlight the similarity of your cogitations to some other special ideas from some special people.
      We will now consider your questions, although I must say that they appear to have been written in the state of some paroxysm. Firstly, I could not agree more, cui bono indeed, the economic migrants were economic migrants and there is no golden horde about the horizon. I have some knowledge of the 1948 Nationality Act; it is interesting that instead of looking at this act in the context of the contemporary period you seem to have moved onto your ‘interesting ideas’. You ignored the impact of Canada’s Nationality Act on the reasoning for the Act, the disintegration of the British Empire and instead assume that the reasoning was the insidious capitalist pigs. The glossing over the different cultures that may be considered as having high levels of adherence to a particular religion is astounding, rather than looking at the different cultures that tend to have Muslim majorities you have painted them as a homogenous whole group and ignored the vast differences in culture, creed, language and location. Furthermore, Andrew Neather appears to have clarified his statement and described the assertion of a plot to engineer society as incorrect; it seems that we may need to revisit your statement as quoted above in light of your ‘interesting ideas’, perhaps you are using comic irony and I must say that I would enjoy your blog a lot less if you were.
      Finally, I am not sure how you have decided that I would have any affiliation with the socialist workers party and their strange high street ramblings? I find their ideas just as ‘interesting’ as yours as they too have their portentous statements concerning the faux intentions of an adamantine regime that is determined to destroy the great people of such and such. It appears that there are some ubiquitous ideas despite of right, left or nationalist. Again I would like to express my gratitude for the expression of your pastiche of incongruous ideas and look forward to the next exiting instalment.

    6. I think that you will find that my tongue was held firmly in cheek when I was referring to your 'focus' upon content and the issues addressed, for there was none in your comment.

    7. Response to: Anonymous Mar 3, 2012 05:29 AM

      Possibly you see immigrants coming to this country to claim benefits as economic migration; most of us don't, so if the majority of Muslims are out of work and they keep telling their friends and family to come here we don't recognise them as economic migrants, but I can see you might as you demonstrated the quality of your thinking by your rugby analogy.

      A more relevant presentation of your analogy would be, 'if there were no rugby grounds to play in yet the team and their supporters kept arriving without moving on, then it would be natural and wise to suspect their intentions'.

    8. Derek:Another element of your analogy could be that the the majority of the team's members do not understand, or even intend to learn the rules of rugby!
      Our Anonymous (Mar 3), like so many others seems to be hooked on wishful thinking- as is the mainstream media, who are still intent on on 'Arab Spring' whilst failing to see the iminent Islamist Winter!
      I simply cannot understand how people are still managing to bury their heads in the sand; a trip to muslim-infested inner city areas must set even the most assiduous Guardian reader's addled mind aspin with cognitive dissonance.

  3. OK, lets first examine how the programme was presented, and even introduced.

    For over a week Channel 4 viewers have been subjected to trailers that appear to show a barely articulate white lad telling a group of Muslims that he thought Mosques were terrorist centres, a middle aged mixed race lady saying that the city is on the verge of exploding into full-on race war, a hand-wringing older lady saying that people cant help the colour of their skin, a Muslim lady (who appears to be crying without tears) asking if she will ever be accepted as British, a jocular-seeming bearded Muslim man with a broad Bradford accent and another white woman in a pub pointing out that 'They' don’t belong here.

    That trailer, probably lasting less than a minute, tells you all you need to know about the agenda of the programme makers.
    When the programme started an earnest voice warned us that it included racial words that some people may find offensive.

    Shots of devout Muslims quietly enjoying a meal together in a mosque were inter-cut with shots of young white women wearing short skirts, clearly drunk on a night out.

    The (Asian) narrator informed us that the experiment was about integration. It wasn’t. It was about highlighting the perceived ignorance of those Bradfordians who resent having to watch the cultural landscape of their home change. By the end of the first episode even the black guy, who seemed to have no issue with what others term offensive language, and the mixed race lady both appeared to be changing their minds. They started to question whether the banter that had done them no harm all their lives was in fact bad and 'wrong'. Well done to the producers for managing to place prejudice awareness into the heads of those that didn’t even realise they needed it there. Bravo.

    My biggest concern is that the MSM seems to be going into overdrive with programmes like these at the moment. In the past couple of weeks there have been at least 3. Coupled with the summit that 'Call Me Dave' arranged to tackle racism in football it seems to me that something (other than attempting to counter the the growth of the EDL) is afoot. I wouldn’t be surprised if, before the end of the year, we see an expansion or tightening of the race hate laws that so constrain free speech. What’s next? Blogs like this becoming illegal?
    It truly is disconcerting.

    1. Cygnus, what you write very much cuts to the heart of the matter; your observations are spot on.

      I concur with your concerns about a likely "tightening of the race hate laws", as it does seem that Pickles and co are gearing up for just such a move, whilst pretending to oppose multiculturalism.

  4. Thanks Durotrigan.Another suberbly articulate and insightful review; the best I have read for some time. I have recommended it to several others who I know will appreciate it.


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.