Friday 29 July 2011

The BBC, Breivik, the EDL & Islam

The BBC regards itself as a politically impartial organisation, but their behaviour in the fallout of the Breivik atrocity shows them to be nothing other than the unapologetic propaganda arm of the hard Left and Islam.

There are atrocities and there are lesser atrocities in the peculiar thinking of BBC executives. After 9/11 they went to positively surreal lengths to disassociate Islam from terrorism. They publicly asked what we had done wrong to arouse such animosity and scoured the length and breadth of Britain to produce Muslims who would denounce the airliner attacks as terrible yes, but Islamic? No, no and no again.

Just two days after 9/11 those decidedly un-impartial bosses at the BBC contrived to fill a Question Time audience with a large number of handpicked haters of America who reduced Philip Lader, former United States ambassador to the Court of St. James, to tears as they chanted anti-American slogans while the BBC moderator remained outwardly impassive, but inwardly exultant.

Much the same happened after the Islamic transport bombings in London on 7 and 21 July 2005. Question Time was again the culprit, but this time they filled the audience with Muslims in numbers totally unrepresentative of their population share, or as the BBC so disingenuously put it:

“In order to ensure a range of voices on these issues, the studio audience contained a higher proportion of Muslims in the audience than in the population as a whole — around 15% — but the rest of the audience — around 85% — included representatives of a number of other different ethnic and religious groups, including Christian, Hindu, Sikh, African Caribbean, English, Irish, Kashmiri and Turkish.”

Although we should perhaps be grateful that a handful of English people and Christians were even allowed into the BBC studio, it seems clear that the purpose of the exercise was to excuse Islam for actions carried out in the name of Islam, whilst shutting down any robust criticism by making sure any potential critics were numerically outnumbered by a hostile majority.

This brings us to their rather different attitude in the wake of the Norway terrorist attack where the perpetrator — as described ad infinitum by the BBC — was a blue-eyed, blond-haired, right-wing Conservative/Christian fundamentalist. BBC newsreader Kate Silverton went the extra mile in ensuring a Norwegian interviewee repeated the word “Nazi” three times in his description of the physical looks of Breivik — just to make sure we all fully understood her subliminal point.

To the BBC, the EDL are the Nazis reborn and thus just waiting for any old excuse to go on a murderous rampage against all the non-Aryans in their midst. How they must have salivated at the thought of getting EDL leader Tommy Robinson onto Newsnight, where the poor little lamb would be soundly taken apart and exposed by their Attack-Dog-In-Chief, Mr Jeremy Paxman.

Unfortunately for the BBC, that turned out not be the case (see video courtesy of Vlad Tepes blog). Mr Paxman’s clear intention was not to discuss why Breivik had run amok, or how such an atrocity could be prevented in the UK, but simply to associate — by any dishonest means possible — Tommy Robinson and the EDL with Breivik.

It was hopelessly one-sided. The gurning, grimacing Paxman went down all sorts of disingenuous trails in his quest to expose Mr Robinson and the EDL as being somehow complicit in the actions of Breivik, but was bulldozed by the unflappable and indefatigable Tommy Robinson who took Paxman apart by utilising a number of things in his possession which Paxman had rather foolishly neglected to bring with him. Memo to Mr Paxman, they are called truth, facts and reality. Poor old Paxo, who admits to knowing little about Islam, was publicly shamed and ritually stuffed.

But his humiliation is no cause for celebration. The result of the interview is to a measure irrelevant; it was the intention of the interview which was both shameful and potentially calamitous in the way it deliberately skirted around a monumentally important issue in order to indulge in politically-driven character assassination.

Breivik was driven to mass murder in his own mind because he felt he was no longer represented by the political process; that his opinions either counted for nothing or that he could be jailed for even voicing them. The BBC is only too aware that Breivik’s views on Cultural Marxism, mass immigration and Multiculturalism are shared by millions of Europeans and Britons, yet they wish to shut these views down in the full knowledge it will drive future Breiviks to just such a course of murderous action.

If the BBC high command were not filled with aged yet adolescent Marxist Useful Idiots, Paxman might have raised and debated the following points with Mr Robinson:

1.Do the white working class British feel alienated from the political process?
2.How many share the political concerns of Anders Breivik?
3.If it is a large minority, what can be done to politically salve them?
4.If it is a majority, ditto the above.
5.If nothing changes, could there be a similar incident in Britain?

Mr Paxman of course asked no such questions. So far removed from intelligent adulthood is he that when Mr Robinson warned that a similar atrocity could occur in Britain in the near future if we continue on our present route of Islamic appeasement, Paxman’s immediate response was to accuse Mr Robinson of making a threat!

Astonishing, absolutely astonishing. Here was a chance for the BBC to sit down and discuss a matter of supreme importance with an articulate and knowledgeable man who, unlike the gilded socialists, actually lives within a Muslim area, and who represents the views of millions of working class people the BBC class warriors profess to embrace, but unfortunately so rarely get to meet in the bijoux cafes and latte-drinking establishments of Islington, Hampstead and other such liberal environs.

There is nothing to be done with the BBC. They think the Religion of Submission is a religion of peace, and propagandise endlessly to that effect, whereas legitimate grievances exhibited by Brits who actually live cheek-by-jowl with Islam are not just wrong, but evil, and anyone who resents their country, culture and freedoms being incrementally wrested from them can be labelled as a conservative/right-wing racist, capable of murder.

Bear in mind the pre 9/11 mindset of a typical glottal-stopping, Champagne-quaffing BBC Class Warrior. They used to revere the working class and were constantly propagandising for equality for women and homosexuals (although not perhaps, Jews…) but then along comes Islam with its less-than-liberal approach to the objects of Socialist deification, and next thing you know they have disowned the working class and turned a blind eye to Islam’s appalling treatment of anyone not bearded, straight or male.

Why? What happened to them in order that this extraordinary moral and political hypocrisy could come about? My personal view is that the upper echelons of the BBC, who number only in low double figures, have betrayed their principles and their country at the altar of typically hypocritical Socialist greed and the petro-dollar.

Saudi Arabia is reputed to have invested $90 billion in the West. Ten-million quid each or even a hundred-million quid each to a handful of BBC higher-ups is peanuts to them. The BBC is the most influential media outlet in Britain, indeed the world, and is still viewed by millions of the less politically aware as a bastion of truth and decency. He who controls the BBC sets the agenda for much of the rest of the British media — and thus the dissemination (or non-dissemination) of information — so it is clearly in the interests of the Saudis to control the BBC.

How else to explain the BBC’s promotion of a religious/political ideology that should be repellent to their liberal views? Why did they appoint the controversial Muslim, Aaqil Ahmed, to head up the BBC Religious Broadcasting Department, when he had already been accused of making programmes with a pro-Islamic bias? Why does the BBC vilify the white working class as racist bigots? Why has Director-General, Mark Thompson omitted mass immigration from the public debate?

Why do National Union of Journalist guidelines seek to hide the truth in racial/religious attacks when the perpetrators are foreign, whilst committing to the destruction of “right-wing” racism? Why does the BBC require that Islam be treated more sensitively than any other religion? Why does the BBC promote Islam as a female-friendly religion of peace, but Christianity as a hot bed of imperialism, racism and murder? Why is the BBC so deeply and passionately enraged by the existence of Israel?

One could go on, but that is probably enough. Were Prime Minister David Cameron a proper Conservative, he would order his top policeman to take a long and detailed look into the bank accounts and holidaying habits of high-level BBC executives. That they have betrayed their country is unarguable, but it would be nice to know whether they had done it for money rather than through an adolescent and wholly misguided revolutionary fervour.

When Jeremy Paxman chose to take Tommy Robinson’s genuine fear of a Breivik style attack in Britain as a personal threat, he exposed his intolerant, elitist and bourgeois attitude to what he perceives as the inherently violent and racist lumpenproletariat. And he did much more than just that — he also shut down any debate on how such an attack could be avoided.

I have written before that a future religious civil-war will be preceded by tit-for-tat small scale atrocities, and now we have seen the start. By shamefully closing down a desperately needed debate in order to pursue perverse and politically-driven objectives, Paxman, the BBC and the entire political liberal/left have ensured the inevitability of potential carnage and thus have the blood of future innocents on their hands alongside those of the inevitable psychopathic perpetrator.


  1. Perhaps the reason the "liberal left" latched on to Islam and Muslims - despite its obvious contradictions to their desires in some areas - is because it is another leverage point upon which to overturn the white, western, civilisation as we have known it.

    Maybe they also delusionally believe that they will "mold" Islam like play-doh and transform it from within like they have done with the Church - by appointing people of their own cloth to Mosques and throughout Muslim organisations, in order to turn them into fellow "comrades".

    Maybe they see them as brother in arms for a socio-political one world system of life - if only they would just drop those pesky anti-gay views and the misogyny?

    (With ourselves as the 'petri-dish' of choice for fusing Islam and the West in their crazy experiments)....

    It seems that the liberal elite seek to silence this disquiet about what is taking place - via guilt by association of concerns, and by deliberately talking about the wrong things.

    It is often like them discussing the colour of an Olympian runners shoelaces rather than the race itself. They are covering the issue on the airwaves, but the focus is all wrong.

    They do it all the time, and I go further than that - they like to "interpret" the news.

    Some of us are old enough to remember when the news involved a newsreader behind a plain desk, plainly informing them of the news that day.

    No longer is this the case, we have "political analysts" and so on and so forth who give us their opinion on what has happened, what it might mean, what to "take from it".....

    That is not news reporting, it is propagandising and subtly telling people what to think - or indeed, what not to think. They don't want people to think, they want people to be told what to think.

    One writer over at the Spectator (Nick Cohen?) was trying to link the disquiet over Andrew Neather's revelations to this "conspiracy theory" that drove the killer to take up arms.

    I guess millions of Britons and Europeans are collectively having the same nightmare and same "illusions" that our nations are being stolen from us and given away? Yes, that must be it!

    They will not admit, for a moment, that they have played any part in this situation through their suppression of legitimate debate and support for immigration.

    If sensible policies had been enacted back in 1968 when an overwhelming 80% or so wanted them enacting, we would not be in this situation today. But then, just like now, they seem to want to crush any dissent from their plans.

    Thanks to Breivik - our job has been made much harder. But we should not let the liberal-elite take the moral high ground and let them use this attack to further push their own crazy ideas, for they are perhaps just as murderous in the long run.

  2. This is without doubt the best article I have read in a long, long time.Thankyou Mr Weston for telling it exactly as it is.

    I agree with Anon and also believe that the marxists have never forgiven the white working classes for fighting WW1 and not rising up against the bourgeoisie (as they were supposed to).

    Because of this we (white working classes) are regarded by marxists and the liberal elite as being "not worth saving".

    They hope to have their long awaited revolution by using muslims as the vanguard.

    It's called "holding a tiger by the tail"!!

  3. Brilliant post, nail on head.
    Nuff said

  4. About the Saudi connection.

    Media City in Salford, where al BBC are to relocate many of it's production facilities is part of a wider development of Salford called Ocean Gateway - 68% owned by Peel Holdings, the development company of billionaire property magnate John Whittaker. The other 32% is owned by a Saudi multi-billionaire, Khaled Olayan, of the Olayan Group.

    I'm so glad I no longer have the moving television screen piped in any more, so will not be contributing to any of these people's 'projects', 'vision', 'platforms'.

  5. "One could go on, but that is probably enough. Were Prime Minister David Cameron a proper Conservative, he would order his top policeman to take a long and detailed look into the bank accounts and holidaying habits of high-level BBC executives."

    Spot on. Although I believe Cameron has already had a word with the BBC, namely in the wake of 11.9.2011 and the respective BBC reporting. At first, the BBC derided the occasion in their usual arrogant self-congratulatory manner, but the next day the respective video and article had been replaced with something more suitable.

    It's nonetheless very important to expose the goings-on within the BBC and to monitor her activities closely.