Tag Archives: Evil BBC

“Brown” booed by “veterans” at D-Day celebrations. And the BBC. And what to do about socialism.


David Davis

Never thought I’d see that.

A Ceaucescu moment, withal.

For libertarians, the tragic comparison between the rightly-trashed junta that terrorized poor Romania for decades, and the GramscoFabiaNazi outfit we find we’d let in while sleeping, brings sorrow, and deep embarrassment. You want to know what people in real blood-and-guts-countries like, say, New Zealand, Cuba, or Poland, or Italy, or Tuvalu, think about our plight and how we allowed it.

But the comparison does also being encouragement. It means that Brown either can’t pass any more legisation, ever in his life (a good thing, we have too much already) and will stay ot fight on, further damaging the LabourNazis, or else he will be gone in a few days.

The latter is the worse option, for then Labour could try to recover in the polls. The need is for it to be so thrashed that it could be closed down by door-kicker-inners. Libertarians of course disagree about the extent to which it could be forcibly shut down as a criminal organisation, such as PIE. But at least some effort to, in the inter-regnum between the announcement of the election result and the taking-over of the administration by the LPUK whoever other than Labour should win this time round, should be marked by some “readjustmentof the furniture and effects” at government and Council Soviet offices countrywide.

Hard disks could be sifted out and malleted on the pavements. Especially in regard to any record of pension entitlements (I still do not share Sean Gabb’s leniency in this regard: I am a  bit less positive than he is about not letting the buggers actually really really starve to death in the blown hedgerows.) There will not be time to dismantle them for the NdFeB magnets, tragic though this will be: the GramscoFabiaNazis work quicker than divisions of schoolchildren with screwdrivers….and may return….

Full and long-term degradation of the ability of socialism to re-infect the UK is worth the loss of all that Neodymium.

Paris is worth a Mass.

Industrial shredders could be trucked in. (See power stations below.)

All other serviceable computer hardware could be given to schools and charity shops. Furniture, including OKA (whatever that is) and IKEA (I know what that is) would have to be shred-chipped and burnt in power stations.

Oh, and the BBC will be shut immediately. As indeed Sean Gabb has often said. Property rights in the frequency bands used previously by the BBC will be auctioned off to whoever can pay now, and wants to use them***, so long as no (repeat no) management, “programme planning” or research staff from the old BBC are employed to fill these new slots. Technicians will be fine…for now….BBC “journalists” may have to attend “re-education facilities”, it depends.

In abolishing socialism, you have to start somewhere.

***The RSGB might pick up some cheapo, for Radio Amateurs.

Going down Gordon – does Guido know something?


David Davis

http://www.order-order.com/2009/05/johnson-and-miliband-ready-campaign-teams/

I don’t know – do you? Please tell….

But the longer Gordon Brown stays as PM, the longer Labour (and GramscoFabiaNazis in general) will be out of power, and less able to do hurt to people.

I believe that Labour will do several things on 4th June:-

(1) Rig postal voting in rotten boroughs full of poor and easily-bamboozled people who will act as fall-guys,

(2) Stuff ballot-boxes,

(3) Procure the mis-counting of ballot-papers on the night,

(4) Lose much less badly than is predicted,

(5) Get the BBC to present it as “the public sending a message of support for this government’s overall strategic policy”.

BBC License Fee: Chauffeur-driven cars = £100,000, hotels = £24 million? That’s missing the point.


David Davis

The tory-Quisling-graph takes the BBC to task over its license fee. (Again.)

The Enemy Class will not take any notice of us if we keep going on about their fripperies. Who cares if £100,000 is spent on ferrying two Enemy-Warlords from the train to the office? Small-change, and won’t convince anybody.

This is not the point, and The Enemy Class knows it. The danger is that we will miss it (the point.)

Anyway, if they dared to rub shoulders with the starving, thirsty, sweating mobs on The Tube, they’d get scragged: and even __we here__ don’t want that: not really. It’ll just make the place harder to turn into a peaceful liberty-loving libertarian civilisation than it’s already going to be.

The issue is about whether there ought to be a poll-tax-funded-State-Nazi mouthpiece at all. The entire organisation has become iniquitous, in that it’s now quite cheerfully and openly partial to the objectives of the GramscoFabiaNazis. It needs just to go, like poor Michael Martin – who, now he’s toast, looks just like he always was: a rather dim and useful idiot-fall-guy who drew convenient flak, and was ultimately for use by the real Enemies of Liberty.

No, sorry.

We should assault the structures of The Enemy Class head-on, from now on. We must question the need for these structures’ existence at all times. We must take each chance to abolish something they have made, as it comes, not waiting a second. We must never miss the chance to deliver boot-kicks to the head, until total dissolution, to anything of theirs we have managed to destroy.

They will never give up: they are incorrigibly evil and anti-human, and want a permanent-world-in-aspic, of cowed /Humiliores/ serfs slaving for a patina of /Honestiores/. They _must_ be stopped, and prevented from ever re-arising, or we are doomed. We  _must_  treat infestation by their philosophies as a notifiable and infectious disease, like malaria or the Plague. (So the Universities have got to be fixed quite soon then.)

Charles Moore often champions the BBC-license-fee-refuseniks. You can follow links to him out from here.

BBC “does not like old people” shock horror surprise


David Davis

June Whitfield (anybody old enough to remember her!?) thinks so.

Well, it’s the arm of the ZanuLieBorGramscoFabiaNazis, so what did you expect? They’re all 22-y-o-alternatively-abled-androsexdroids from “Uni”.

I actually hope they all do get really realyl quite old, and suffer from really-old-people’s diseases and conditions, like Rheumatoid Arthritis, and incontinence, for a very very very long time, and are of course refused medicine by their GPs because they are old and white, and then they might die, slowly, without friends beside them, in a NHS “hospital”.

If I’d uttered the word “Uni” in, oh, say, 1969, I’d have been killed.

DID Labour try to keep Guido off the BBC? I thought it was a !public service! broadcaster


David Davis

Obviously not.

I wonder why not?

TV licensing: what does it mean?


David Davis

Some bad stuff here. If you’re thinking of moving to Britain, then don’t. We stay here because we are either too poor to emigrate, or else we are damned if we want to be ejected by scumbags who hate us and our culture and civilisation: you don’t have to suffer the crap if you don’t need to.

Here’s the sequel. h’t Samizdata.

But you have to wonder. What was it in our makeup as a nation and culture, that allowed us to so, so, so go out-to-lunch, and be just so really, well, lazy? How did we allow this rentacrowd of evil, deliberating, GramscoFabiaNazi mountebanks, who have not got our interests at heart, no not at-all-at-all-at-all, ot get control of the mega-triodes at the BBC’s Txs?

Thanks for spotting this….


…and so today, the British Open Grauniadista-tweaking-contest Grand Challenge Cup goes to The Landed Underclass….for finding this rather fine material. Stylistico-philosphically-speaking, I have my covert suspicions that Landed and Belfry may be the same man – just using two different pub disguises, but I’m keeping quiet about that one.

David Davis

And this is good stirring stuff. I’m not surprised that the “left” is eternally whingeing that there are few outstanding, fast-responding socialist blggers: the people they’d need are all writing for the enemy.

Sean Gabb on Carol Thatcher, Golliwogs and Jeremy Clarkson


UPDATE:- From the Blogmaster of the Libertarian Alliance:-

To editors/ compilers/bloggers

Please feel free to syndicate this post, unedited please, in its entirety, wherever it pleases you to do so.

To reproduce by permission of © Dr Sean Gabb and the Libertarian Alliance

(Oh, and you can repro this while you are about it.) Nothing to do with the below really, except we invented the thing.)

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 180
8th February 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc180.htm

On Golliwogs, One-Eyed Scottish Idiots
and Sending Poo Through the Post.
By Sean Gabb

In England, one of those weeks has just ended that define an entire period. This is no consolation for those who have suffered, and who may yet suffer worse. But I have no doubt that it is worth describing what has happened and trying to explain what it means.

Let me begin with the facts.

First, it was reported on the 3rd February 2009 that Carol Thatcher, daughter of Margaret Thatcher, had been dismissed from her job as a BBC presenter for having called a black tennis player a golliwog. She did not say this on air, but during a private conversation. Even so, the BBC defended its decision on the grounds that any language of a “racist nature” was “wholly unacceptable”.

Second, demands are rising at the moment for Jeremy Clarkson, another presenter at the BBC, to be dismissed for having called the Prime Minister a “one-eyed Scottish idiot who keeps telling us everything’s fine”. Various Scotch politicians and spokesmen for the blind let up an immediate chorus of horror that has resulted in a conditional apology from Mr Clarkson, but may not save his career.

Third, it was reported on the 2nd February 2009 that the comedian and Labour Party supporter Jo Brand was being investigated by the police for allegedly inciting criminal acts against her political opponents. While presenting a BBC television programme on the 16th January 2009, she rejoiced that the membership list of the British National Party had been stolen and published on the Internet. Her exact words were: “Hurrah! Now we know who to send the poo to“. The natural meaning of her words was that it would be a fine idea to look up members of this party and send excrement to them through the post. The British National Party put in an immediate complaint, using the hate speech laws made during the past generation. According to a BBC spokesman, “We do not comment on police matters. However, we believe the audience would have understood the satirical nature of the remarks”. It is relevant to note that Mrs Brand was present when Carol Thatcher made her “golliwog” remarks, and may have had a hand in denouncing her.

Fourth, In The Times on the 6th February, someone called Matthew Syed wrote how personally oppressed he felt by words like “golliwog”, and how good it was that “society” was taking a stand against them. Two pages later, someone called Frank Skinner defended the employers in the north of England who prefer to employ foreigners on the grounds that foreigners are “better looking” and “less trouble”. The possibility that he has broken one of our hate speech laws will probably never be considered.

This is a gathering of facts that occurred or were made public during one week. But if we relax the time limit, similar facts pour in beyond counting. There was, for example, the pillorying last month of one of the Queen’s grandsons for calling someone a “Paki“. Or, to give myself as an example, there was my BBC debate of the 16th February 2004 with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, an Asian immigrant who seems incapable of seeing any issue except in terms of white racism. During this debate, I asked her: “Yasmin, are you saying that the white majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces?” Her answer was “Yes”. It is possible she did not understand my question. It is possible she would have clarified or retracted her answer had the debate been allowed to continue. Sadly for her, the BBC immediately switched off my microphone and threw me into the street. Mrs Brown was allowed to continue uninterrupted to till the end of the programme. The hundreds of complaints received by the BBC and the Commission for Racial Equality were all either ignored or dismissed with the assurance that nothing untoward had taken place in the studio. I accept that Mrs Brown might not have meant what she said. Had I made such a comment about Asians or blacks, however, I might have been facing a long stretch in prison.

But let me return to the most recent facts. The most obvious reason why these broadly similar incidents are being treated so differently is that Jo Brand and Frank Skinner are members of the new ruling class that formally took power in 1997. They can vilify their opponents as freely as Dr Goebbels did his. Any of the hate speech laws that might – objectively read – moderate their language will be regarded as nullities. The police had no choice but to investigate Mrs Brand for her alleged offence committed live on television before several million people. But they made it clear that no charges would result. According to a police spokesman, “The chances of this going further are very remote. The idea that the BNP are claiming they are the victim of a race offence is mildly amusing, to say the least”. It may be amusing. The statement itself is interesting, though, as a formal admission that law in this country now means whatever the executive finds convenient.

Carol Thatcher and Jeremy Clarkson are not members of the the ruling class. They have no such immunity. Mr Clarkson may get away with his act of hate speech because he is popular and clever, and because the main object of his contempt is only the Prime Minister. Miss Thatcher may not be allowed to get away with her act. She used a word that borders on the illegal. And she is the daughter of Margaret Thatcher. She is the daughter, that is, of the woman elected and re-elected three times on the promise that she would make the British State smaller and stop it from being made the vehicle for a totalitarian revolution by stealth. Of course, she broke her promises. She did nothing to stop the takeover of the state administration by politically correct totalitarians. But there was a while when the people who actually won the cultural revolution in this country thought they would lose. They looked at her rhetoric. They noted the millions of votes she piled up in her second and third general elections. And they trembled. As said, they won. Mrs Thatcher herself is too old to suffer more than endless blackening at the hands of the victors who now comprise the ruling class. But they still tremble at the thought of how her shadow darkened their 1980s. And if they can do nothing to her now, her daughter can be ruined, and that will now be tried with every chance of success.

It might be argued that what Miss Thatcher and Mr Clarkson said was offensive, and that they are in trouble because we have a much greater regard for politeness than used to be the case. Perhaps it is offensive to say that a black man looks like a golliwog. Perhaps it is offensive to imply that Scotchmen are idiots or that people with defective sight also have defective judgement. It might be. But it might also be offensive to millions of people that the BBC – which is funded by a compulsory levy on everyone who can receive television signals – broadcasts a continual stream of nudity and obscene language; and that it pays the biggest salary in its history to Jonathan Ross, whose only public talent is for foul-mouthed buffoonery. The British ruling class – especially through the BBC, its main propaganda outreach – has a highly selective view of what is offensive.

And it is worth replying that the alleged offensiveness of the statements is minimal. Let us forget about golliwogs and implied sneers at the blind. Let us take the word “nigger”. Now, this has not been a word admitted in polite company in England since about the end of the eighteenth century. Anyone who does use the word shows himself a person of low breeding. Whatever its origins, its use for centuries has been as an insult to black people. Any reasonable black man, therefore, called a nigger, has cause to take offence.

This being said, only moderate offence can be reasonable. Anyone who runs about, wailing that he has been hurt by a word as if it were a stick taken to his back, and calling for laws and social ostracism to punish the speaker, is a fool or a villain. And I can think of few other epithets that a reasonable person would greet with more than a raised eyebrow – “poof”, “paki”, “papist”, “mohammedan”, “chinkie” and the like. Anyone who finds these words at the very worst annoying should grow up. We can be quite sure that most of the Asian languages now spoken in this country contain some very unflattering words to describe the English – for example, goreh, gweilo, and so forth. There is no pressure, internal or external, for these to be dropped. And we know that there are any number of organisations set up by and for non-whites in this country from which the English are barred – for example, the National Black Police Association.

However, the highly selective use of speech codes and hate speech laws has nothing really to do with politeness. It is about power. The British ruling class may talk the language of love and diversity and inclusiveness. What it obviously wants is the unlimited power to plunder and enslave us, while scaring us into the appearance of gratitude for our dispossession. Because the tyrannised are always the majority in a tyranny, they must be somehow prevented from combining. The soviet socialists and the national socialists kept control by the arbitrary arrest and torture or murder of suspected opponents. That is not presently acceptable in England or in the English world. Control here is kept by defining all opposition as “hatred” – and by defining all acts or attitudes that might enable opposition as “hatred”.

I am the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. Not surprisingly, my own opposition to the rising tide of despotism is grounded on a belief in individual rights. I may occasionally talk about my ancestral rights as an Englishman, or about how my ancestors fought and died so I could enjoy some now threatened right. I may sometimes half-believe my rhetoric. Ultimately, though, I believe that people have – or should be regarded as having – rights to life, liberty and property by virtue of their human status. Anything else I say really is just a rhetorical device. This is not the case with most other people. For them, opposing the encroachments of a ruling class is grounded on collective identity – “they can’t do that to us“. Now, this sense of collective identity may derive from common religion, common loyalty, common culture, but most often and most powerfully – though these other sources may also be important – from perceived commonality of blood.

Now, this collective identity is not something that is seen at times of emergency, but otherwise is in abeyance. It is important in times of emergency so far as it is always present. People work together when they must because, at all other times, they have a mass of shared rituals and understandings that hold them together. These shared things often define a people in terms of their distinctness from others. Jokes beginning “There was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotchman” or “What do you call a Frenchman who…?” are part of what reinforces an English identity. So too are comments and gestures and assumptions that assert the superiority of the English over other peoples. To change my focus for a moment, take the phrase “Goyishe Kopf” – Gentile brains! This is what some Jews say when they do something stupid. It can be taken as expressing hatred and contempt of non-Jews. More reasonably, it is one of those comments that reinforce the Jewish identity.

What Carol Thatcher said was part of this reminding of identity. Her exact words, so far as I can tell, were: “You also have to consider the frogs. You know, that froggy golliwog guy”. The meaning she was trying to convey was: “let us consider how quaint and absurd outsiders are. Is it not nice that we are members of the same group, and that we are so clever and so beautiful?” I am not saying that I approve of what she actually said. Indeed, she would have done better for herself and the English in general had she kept her mouth shut.  Calling someone “froggy” is neither here nor there. Calling him a “golliwog” is moderately hurtful. Saying this on BBC premises, and in front of people like Jo Brand, shows that Miss Thatcher is stupid or that she was drunk. Her words, as reported, do less to reinforce English identity than make the whole thing an embarrassment.

However – her name always aside – she is being punished not because her words were crass, but because they fell into the category of actions that must at all times be discouraged. Powerful or crass to the point of embarrassment, nothing must be tolerated that might tend to promote an English identity. I say an English identity. The rule does not apply to Scotch or Welsh or Irish nationalism. These are not regarded as a danger to the ruling class project of total enslavement. They are controllable by subsidy. More usefully, they are anti-English. The various ethnic nationalisms and Islamic identities are likewise allowed or encouraged. They are not perceived as a danger to the ruling class project of total domination, and may be used against the English. It is English identity that must at all costs be repressed. The English are still the largest national group in these islands, and will remain so at least until 2040, when there may be a non-white majority all through the United Kingdom. English national ways are the raw material from which every liberal doctrine has been refined. The English are an unpleasantly violent nation when pushed too far.

This explains why words and expressions are defined almost at random as “hatred”, and why names of groups and places keep changing almost at random. The purpose is not to protect various minority groups from being hurt – though clever members of these groups may take advantage of the protections. The real purpose is to hobble all expression of English identity. It is to make the words and phrases that come most readily to mind unusable, or usable only with clarifications and pre-emptive cringes that rob them of all power to express protest. Or it is to force people to consult their opponents on what words are currently acceptable – and whoever is allowed to control the terms of debate is likely to win the debate.

And look how easily it can be done. Also during the past week, we have seen working class demonstrations in the north of England against the employment of foreign workers. “British jobs for British workers” they have been chanting. A few raised eyebrows and warnings from Peter Mandelson about the “politics of xenophobia“, and the trade unions have straightaway sold out their members and are preparing to bully them back to work. Better that trade union members scrabble to work for a pound an hour, or whatever, than that they should be suffered to use words like “Eyeties” or “Dagoes”.

I should end by suggesting what can be done to counter this strategy. I suppose the answer is not to behave like Carol Thatcher. We must accept that certain words and phrases have been demonised beyond defence. Some of them are indefensible. These must be dropped. Others that are just about permissible – Scotchman, for example – should be used and defended on all occasions. We should also at all times bear in mind that political correctness is not about protecting the weak but disarming the potentially strong, and it must be made clear to the ruling class that its management of language has been noticed and understood and rejected. A strategy of apparently casual offence, followed by partial and unconvincing apology – of the sort that we may have seen from Jeremy Clarkson – may also be appropriate.

Another strategy worth considering is the one adopted by the British National Party. In a free country, Jo Brand would be at perfect liberty to incite criminal acts against unnamed and reasonably unidentifiable people. But we do not live in a free country. There is a mass of laws that criminalise speech that was legal even a few years ago. The response to this is to invoke the laws against those who called for them. As said, people like Jo Brand and Yasmin Alibhai Brown are unlikely ever to be prosecuted for crimes of hate speech. But the authorities will occasionally be forced to go through the motions of investigating, and this can be made a form of harassment amounting to revenge. Otherwise, it is useful to establish beyond doubt that the laws are not intended to be enforced according to their apparently universal working.

There is much else to be said. But I suppose the most important thing is not to behave like Carol Thatcher. It will be unfair if she is broken by her words. But if you stick your head into a lion’s mouth, you cannot really complain when you feel the teeth closing round your neck.

All told, this has been an interesting week. Understood rightly, it may turn out to have been a most productive week.

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3