Remember those ‘survival’ dramas that were popular on TV? You know, at the start the protagonists don’t realise that a deadly virus is sweeping the globe. Only the audience knows. As people die off, struggles ensue between desperate mobs. Emergency! Will humanity be saved?
This is happening in real-time. The BBC has gone rogue and joined the mob. It’s not the only news organ to do so, of course, but this is the one that claims to be the trustworthy one. The one that checks stuff out.
As readers of this and like-minded blogs and websites already know, anti-Trump mania is now a pandemic.
As if it’s not enough that the Executive Order immigration fiasco has been deliberately misinterpreted by those that should know better and is now known as Trump’s Ban on Muslims, our MPs have surpassed even the media in their slipshod abuse of language.
If you’ve seen Parliament TV you’ll know what I mean.
Using Holocaust Memorial Day to perpetuate sly comparisons between Muslim refugees and Kindertransport as Yvette Cooper and others habitually do is offensive enough, the underhand way they always get away with this insulting and totally inaccurate conflation is a reflection of the media’s appalling lack of scrutiny. Worse still is the total absence of any acknowledgement of the reason behind President Trump’s clumsy move.
The media and the speakers in yesterday’s debate have completely airbrushed Islamic terrorism out of the equation. It has been forgotten. Not only that, but in an astonishingly cloth-eared fashion they have ignored the fact that Muslims (predominantly) have, let’s euphemistically call it ‘negative views of Jews’.
Everyone is using the Holocaust to preach the wrong lesson.
“Look what happened to the Jews at the hands of the Nazis” they say. “We must learn from the Holocaust. Muslims are the new Jews and we must take them in, or we are no better than the Nazis.”
No. If you must generalise like that you also need to admit that the Muslims have more in common with the Nazis than we do. By all means take some of them in. But vet them, Bigly.
Ed Miliband made an impassioned speech. “Does President Trump think this will make the world a safer place?” he asked, rhetorically. “No it will not” nodded the MPs in agreement. “In fact the opposite!” they sighed.
Maybe so; because it will anger the Muslims and they will attack us. Better not provoke such a thing. Make no mistake. Ed Miliband is arguing for appeasement.
|I was a Jew|
To Naz Shah, (Bradford West, Lab)Trump’s Ban on Muslims is something to do with their skin being “a few shades darker.”
AsaMuslim, Naz has put all that nasty antisemitism behind her. Her rehabilitation appears to have given her delusions of grandeur, as her performance went on and on. At the end it lapsed into pure comedy, when she recited the famous Niemöller quotation:
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Only, in a hilariously Freudian slip, she missed out the last “Not”.
“I did not speak out because I was a Jew” she intoned. That was almost as funny as one of Sarah Millican’s monologues about her nonnie.
Hansard has corrected it, but it’s still there in the video (Scroll down /r.h. sidebar and click on 18:55:09)
Check it out.
This article is a must-read. Here are the last two paragraphs:
This article is a must-read. Here are the last two paragraphs:
It might be compassion that leads the West to take in millions of Muslim refugees, but it is reckless compassion. Why isn't Saudi Arabia taking refugees temporarily until things settle down in Syria and Iraq? Do Westerners question the motivation of Islamic theocracies, as to why ultra-rich Arab nations are sending us their refugees but taking in none?
Who is really benefiting from the policy of appeasement, the acceptance of Sharia-stricken theocracies and their jihadist, hate-filled education? Some "tough love" is urgently needed if Muslims are to be motivated to change and reform.
In case you don't know about the author Nonie Darwish, she’s one of a handful of courageous former Muslim female activists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan.
I posted on twitter earlier that 'the tyranny of the majority' can morph into 'the wisdom of crowds' to 'look at our big petition and crowds in tight shot' in the wrong hands, which seems a fair description of the corrupt brain donors now mostly installed in Westminster and the BBC.ReplyDelete
Niemoller's famous quote could apply to BBC Complaints:
First I used the BBC online form, and they ignored it
Then I used the BBC online for again, and they replied it was all about right
So I elevated it to ECU, and after a few months a director said in their belief it was what the BBC thinks is correct
So I insisted on a Trust Review, and they expedited me
And then I referred it to my MP, who said the BBC is a national treasure
And so still there is exactly the same BBC #editorialintegrity as there was before
Rather backs up what I wrote a few days ago about the Holocaust Memorial Day being a mistake for the UK. It is allowing all this sort of pro-Sharia propagandising to go on.ReplyDelete
And yes, anyone who has read the Koran, Hadith and exigesis of Islamic scholars knows exactly what mainstream Islam thinks about Jews. Not just what it thinks about them, but what it wants to do about them.
Meanwhile, at the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland (also frequent BBC presenter - I used to rather like his programmes) claims that Trump's administration is deliberately pursuing a policy of holocaust denial. I found that quite disgusting. Will the BBC pick up on that "blood libel" in due course? I wouldn't be surprised.
Someone who liked my RT of this (liked the piece even more) on twitter suggested the author submit here, duly forwarded: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry2/commons-written-submission-form/ReplyDelete
Thank you Peter.Delete
Your Tweets and links to this blog are noted and much appreciated.
Happy to. I should add it has been mentioned elsewhere that this inquiry is again rather skewed away from the BBC's unique efforts as a major purveyor of fake news, and my submission will try and nudge attention their way again.Delete
Hugh Sykes at it,WATO today. Can't find a Republican to speak to the mike about the "Muslim ban" cos they are all too scared of new fascist government (not reprisals by violent snowflakes, then)! Strangely Penny Marshall (ITV last night) could - lots who really love Trump.ReplyDelete
The BBC, it should be taken into account, is not the only agent of the UK media concentrating on Trump and reporting all the negativity surrounding it with over-zealous interest. You note as such but in defending your focus on them, you claim they profess to be the "trustworthy one". If you could point me to a news agency that would claim otherwise of itself I'd be interested. Otherwise, it has to be assumed this entire exercise is agenda-driven.ReplyDelete
I'm not a fan of the BBC, it's retreating in the digital era as an ever-more transparent propaganda vehicle of the State, but it appears bias is not a foreign country to their critics either. Even at its worst, the BBC is always heads and shoulders a more objective organ than say Fox News, the American lunatics channel of choice.
It's a pity too the article ultimately descends into some frothing drivel about Muslims and Jews.
As we often have to remind people, the BBC prides itself on its impartiality, an obligation that’s embedded in its charter.
This blog makes no such claim and has no such obligation (something you and I seem to have in common.)
What exactly is the frothing drivel about Muslims and Jews? Come back and tell me, and I’ll be able to address it. Try not to be too rude.
Your response is measured and reasonable unlike Unknown's comments. The BBC is the beneficiary of a state tax that raises several billions of pounds a year and has a constitutional requirement to be impartial. But it is actually spreading direct lies. Your comments about HMD were perfectly reasonable - nothing remotely like "frothing drivel".Delete
Unknown's comments about Fox News show where he's coming from. During the election campaign they had far more balanced coverage than the BBC of Clinton's campaign, albeit they were broadly (not Megan Kelly) sympathetic to Trump.
Wait! The ban is against countries with terrorist proclivities. The press spins it as a "Muslim ban". So the BBC thinks that all Muslims are terrorists? Sounds racist to me.ReplyDelete
Someone on the Army Rumour Service website said about 6 months ago "that the migration problem the west faces is a failure of the Muslim world. Why is it that they are coming to Judao-Christian countries, overwhelmed by sovereign debt and not going to Muslim countries overwhelmed by sovereign wealth?" That is a question I now pose to anyone who is proposing an open border policy to migration. I have yet to hear an aduequate response.ReplyDelete