The Beeb does it again

See the BBC's latest lying hatchet job on the EDL at the Gates of Vienna by Clicking Here

___________________________
Q: How can you tell a BBC newsreader is lying: A: They are conscious and looking at a camera


___________
Hat Tip: Mister Fox

Mark Damazer. BBC Gramsci Soldier on the Marxist ‘Long March through the Institutions’

By Tim Heydon

The former Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer has called for more blacks and ethnics to be present on the ‘Today’ Programme on Radio 4 and also on ‘The Archers’ (An everyday story of ethnic folk, like ‘East Enders’?).

Former Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer

Damazer said it ‘makes sense’ for the station to be more representative of Britain’s population and said he regretted not having done more in this direction when he was in charge. This follows the BBC Trust’s demand that Radio 4 do more to appeal to ethnic minorities, younger listeners and those in the north.

Damazer was responsible for getting rid of Radio 4’s Introductory morning compendium of traditional musical airs from the four parts of the UK (‘Early One Morning’ for England, ‘Men of Harlech’ for Wales etc,) almost certainly on the grounds that such references to the four nations of the country did not fit in with his vision of the new, vibrant, multiracial, multicultural Britain. (‘The BBC is not neutral on multiculturalism. It believes in it and promotes it’ – Senior BBC executive in reply to complaint by columnist Jeff Randall).

Damazer is the son of a Polish Jewish immigrant, which in the view of your writer and without wishing in any way to appear anti-semitic, goes a long way to explaining his driving desire to strip the native British of the land of their ancestors and to turn it into a multiracial /cultural nowhere. Regardless of ideological rationalisations, at root Individuals of his stamp tend to think that such an arrangement would be good for ethnic minorities, including the one to which they might belong, as ‘cover’. In supporting this agenda he is merely doing his best to advance his own ethnic interests, which is what nationalists everywhere , from Tibet to the BNP do. He cannot be condemned for it, any more than those we can, although we can take grave exception to the way such people are allowed to use their positions to spit in the faces of the majority population by self-hating members of its Liberal Left.

All the same, he and his many like in the BBC are interesting exemplars of the way Gramsci’s ‘Long March through the Institutions’ operates in destroying the ‘Cultural Hegemony’ of the majority and effectively substituting for it the cultural and political interests of minorities. Damazer has now moved on to become Master of St Peter’s College Oxford, where in the view of your writer he will no doubt continue his career of undermining the British in their own country.

Anyway, let’s have a look at who presents the ‘Today’ programme now:-

1) John Humphrys. Humphrys is plainly Welsh and proud of it.

2) James Naughtie. Naughtie is equally plainly Scots.

3) Sarah Montague. Montague is Jewish.

4) Evan Davis. Davis is a flamboyant homosexual who once appeared in a TV interview sporting a mohican haircut and wearing an assortment of chains.

5) Justin Webb. Webb appears to be English.

Occasional contributors are Stephen Sackur who is married to an Iraqi. He is clearly no more of an Anglo-Saxon than is another main occasional contributor; Tim Franks.

Bearing in mind that the ‘Today’ audience is overwhelming English and that Scotland has its own early-morning program, it is truly remarkable that the one and only presenter on it who could be described as a normal, heterosexual Englishman is Justin Webb. That the English are excluded from this flagship program is certainly no accident. The BBC is saying in effect that the English have no ownership of the land of their ancestors. The program’s almost total lack of interest in some of the most pressing concerns of the day for more than half the indigenous population at least: mass immigration and the dispossession of the English in particular - of their birthright, is reflected in this make-up.

Mark Damazer thinks that the programme isn’t representative of the population of this country. He is right, but not in the way that he thinks. And he wants it to be even less representative than it already is!

Coincidentally, a former BBC executive, Dr Samir Shah (sic. Aren’t there any native British people running this organisation?) is reported as saying that the BBC is dumbing down its output to get more ethnic minority staff on air. Shah, ex -head of current affairs, was reported by the Daily Mail (Feb 14th) as citing Radio 4 as an example of how the BBC is lowering its standards to attract a more diverse audience

One thing’s for sure. If the BBC and the likes of Damazer have their way, In the England of the future, the ethnic group which in particular will have no place is the English.

First Time Ever BBC Mentions White Murder Victims Is to Attack BNP

BBC reporter Michelle Gribbon accuses BNP of exploiting her cousin's racially motivated murder and then exploits her cousin's racially motivated murder in order to attack the BNP

Click here to read the report on the BBC's distorted and politically exploitative report at the Home the Home of the Green Arrow

_______________________
Related Link:

Racism Cuts Both Ways

Revelations from a bear pit - Part two of three

Following on from my earlier article, relating to the brutal and dishonest show trial which the BBC Question Time programme descended into on Thursday evening, I would now like to focus on some of the claims and allegations made during the show, but which were not fairly or accurately addressed largely due to the hostility of a politically stacked audience and the actions of an outrageously biased moderator.

The first of those which I was planning to address were the allegations of Holocaust denial levelled at Nick Griffin, and the subsequent claims made both on the programme and later by much of the News media, that he failed to answer these allegations. However, this point has already been addressed very eloquently by my good friend and fellow crusader the Green Arrow in an earlier article.

As the Green Arrow points out, Nick Griffin is an elected Member of the European Parliament, a position which requires him to travel to various countries within Europe, including some where the admission to having once expressed views which question the accuracy of the historical account, no matter how long ago, can render one liable to prosecution and a lengthy prison sentence. Griffin states that he no longer holds those views, however, to go into any further detail about what he once believed, and why he changed his mind, would be to put himself at significant legal risk, everyone else on the panel, with the possible exception of Bonnie Greer, who's grasp on reality (as I shall show in part three) seemed somewhat tenuous, knew that.

In the circumstances, UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw's assurance that Griffin would not be prosecuted, echoed by the staggeringly disingenuous moderator, David Dimbleby, were shamelessly dishonest. They knew full well that the risk to Griffin lay in other countries within the European Union, where the assurances of a British Justice Secretary carry as much weight as a cup of cold spit.

It should also be noted that at least two previous NuLabour Home Secretaries, who succeeded Jack Straw into that job, were once members of the Communist party. They have both made many appearances on Question Time, but have never been asked to explain why they once believed in an ideology responsible for the deaths of far more people than those who died in all of World War II , let alone in the Holocaust.

The alleged benefits of immigration

The second point I want to look at was one snarled at Griffin by an audience member of Afro Caribbean appearance, who claimed to be born in Britain, and attacked the BNP leader for failing to acknowledge the “benefits” which his immigrant parents had “brought to this country”. However, let us examine the truth or otherwise behind his assertion.

That Britain has “benefited” from immigration is a claim often made, but seldom quantified, however, is there any truth to it?.

It can not be disputed, even by the controlled media, that we have just lived through twelve years of unprecedented levels of immigration, bringing about a change in the racial demographic of this nation of a level unseen in the previous history of any European country, ever. Moreover, this was a change, which we now learn from a government insider, was allowed by the present government not for the good of the country, but for the adolescent purpose of “rubbing the Right's noses in diversity”. Quite an apt analogy, when one considers what it is that a puppy's nose is usually rubbed in.

At the end of this massive alien invasion, which we are told was of such great benefit to us, growth figures released this week reveal that Britain is experiencing the longest and worst period on recession on record, In fact, earlier this year the government admitted that our economy was in the worst shape it has ever been in our peacetime history, in fact the only time it has been this bad was at the end of the most financially crippling international war in world history.

In addition, two years after we finally paid off the debt left by that very war, we, as a nation, are now in greater debt than we have ever been in our history.

This dire state of affairs follows forty years of out of control immigration, which has escalated beyond measure since 1997. I am not an economist, but can someone please explain to me how this shows our economy to have benefited from migration?.

So if the state of our economy has not improved because of immigration in what other respects might the new arrivals have brought good news?

We are told that, as an ageing population we need immigrants to support the cost of future pensions. This argument might make some sense if we were to assume that all immigrants will either return home when they retire or have discovered the secret of eternal youth, experience shows neither to be the case. Certainly only a statistically minute number of third world immigrants leave the country when they become pensioners, and any day time journey on a South London bus will reveal one of the largest growing sections of our community, the immigrant pensioner.

They will all grow old, and most will retire here, Inevitably, this means that every immigrant entering the country today is a potential future pensioner whom our grandchildren will have to pay for.

To present this as anything other than a massive long term Liability is credit card economics, providing a brief short term benefit now, if benefit there is given the strain on other services, with the prospect of paying double later, or borrow / import more to cover the debt, thus creating further liabilities for the next generation. This is madness, pure and simple.

IN other areas, the health service is forever being held up as an example of how essential immigrants are to our society. However, the fact that there are many immigrants employed within the NHS proves only that we have employed a lot of immigrants in the NHS, it does not mean it is a good thing, or that there was no alternative. As we has seen over and over, the fact that employers, in this instance the Government, wish to import cheap labour does not mean that there is no local labour available, or that the service would not operate as effectively or even more so, were we to train our own people properly and pay them a living wage.

In addition there is also the question as to whether immigration has added to the strain on the health service, and to what degree we are importing immigrant nurses and doctors to care for immigrant patients, in the same way as we will soon be importing immigrant workers to pay the pensions of immigrant pensioners.

As I stated earlier, the claim that Britain, and indeed Europe, benefits from immigration is frequently made, but evidence supporting this claim is somewhat less clear cut, irrespective of how loudly and often it is shouted.
___________________________________________________

In the third and final part of this analysis of the Question Time ambush, I will assess whether or not there is merit to the allegations often made against the native Britons by our enemies and repeated last Thursday, namely that we do not exist.

The Henry Webster case and the BBC Censors (Liars)

Attack victim Henry Webster with his mother

Unlike the wider public, most readers of this site will be aware of the case of Henry Webster, the schoolboy from Wiltshire who was left brain damaged and suffering from life threatening injuries following a an attack on him by a gang of Asian youths, most of them students from his school. and at least one of whom used a claw hammer on him.

Henry is now suing his school for negligence in allowing the attack to take place. A significant aspect of Henry's case against the school is that they ignored the behaviour of Asian students out of political correctness. Henry and his family also believe that the assault was racially motivated. Therefore, the race of his attackers is relevant both to the attack and to Henry Webster's legal action.

However, this is how the BBC describe the attack in a report today on proceedings in court:

The assault on Mr Webster, who was then 15, involved a group of schoolboys and three car-loads of men who came on to school premises after being summoned by the boys on mobile phones.

Thirteen teenagers, and a man who did not attend the 1,400-pupil school, were convicted for their parts in the attack at Bristol Crown Court last year.

The BBC know that, given how the media in general limited the reporting of the actual criminal case, the majority of the public will know nothing of it, and from this report will have no idea that there was a racial element to what took place. Deliberately misleading and deliberately dishonest.

News censorship in this country is now all but absolute, and it is becoming frightening.

News Management

(I posted this earlier at the Home of the Green Arrow)

Various news sources are reporting a very unpleasant attack on a young girl in Manchester , who was apparently shot in the face with a pellet gun by three "males". However, as further evidence of the continued news suppression in Britain, I have attached below screen shots of the account of the crime which currently appears on the Greater Manchester Police Website (screen shot at 05:30 GMT) and a further screen shot showing how the story has been reported by the BBC.

Note the significant detail missing from the BBC account. Anyone who still believes that our news media tells us the truth is too naive to be allowed out on their own.

Greater Manchester Police Website 17:30 pm 03/01/2009

BBC News Website at 17:30 PM 03/01/2009

(screen shots were taken as experience has shown us that website copy can change!!)

________________________________________________