Out of the mouths of babes and star BBC Panorama/Newsnight journalists:
I met Danny. I was working on some film on Newsnight and Danny was in the green room. It was unusual to meet a white working class male in the Newsnight green room. It was so unusual that me and one of my mates went down there to have a drink with him in the way that you would do with somebody from the, you know, a cannibal from the Amazonian, erm, from Amazonia, or maybe a creature from outer space.
Some people were a bit dismissive of that clip.ReplyDelete
Read what Gerard Batten says about yet more to come:
I think this is a really big, really important cultural moment...it's up there with Mandy Rice-Davies' "He would, wouldn't he?", and the Sex Pistols' appearance on the Grundy show.
No working class person before Tommy has ever turned the tables on the media like this. It sounds like he has played an absolute blinder.
It shows how brave he is, returning to the fray after the attempt to starve him or harm him in prison (an outrageous episode in itself - he appeared quite broken after that).
He's not a saint, he's not right about everything but he is a remarkable man and a remarkably courageous one.
So far it seems the MSM are engaged in a full cover-up censorship of the story. Will anyone break ranks. Unlikely I think.
TR has become a key strategic battle in a 'cold' war. I came across an exposition of the concept of "the war of ideas" in:ReplyDelete
... 'Wars Of Ideas And The War Of Ideas' ... by Strategic Studies Institute, Author Dr. Antulio J. Echevarria.
Here is the blurb:
... 'Many references to "the war of ideas" have appeared in defense literature recently. However, few of them actually shed any light on what wars of ideas are. This monograph, by Dr. Antulio J. Echevarria Ii, begins by classifying several types of wars of ideas. It is important to note, as the author points out, that physical events, whether intended or incidental, can play determining roles in the ways these kinds of conflicts unfold, and how (or whether) they are resolved. In other words, because ideas are interpreted subjectively, it is not likely that opposing parties will "win" each other over by means of an ideational campaign alone. Moreover, third parties may consider the actions of the belligerents as much more important than the collective merits of their ideas.' ...
From Wiki's page on 'Wars Of Ideas And The War Of Ideas' are four categories:Delete
....' Antulio J. Echevarria, Director of Research, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College defined the "war of ideas"  as
. . . a clash of visions, concepts, and images, and— especially—the interpretation of them. They are, indeed, genuine wars, even though the physical violence might be minimal, because they serve a political, socio-cultural, or economic purpose, and they involve hostile intentions or hostile acts. Wars of ideas can assume many forms, but they tend to fall into four general categories (though these are not necessarily exhaustive): (a) intellectual debates, (b) ideological wars, (c) wars over religious dogma, and (d) advertising campaigns. All of them are essentially about power and influence, just as with wars over territory and material resources, and their stakes can run very high indeed
— Echevarria 2008 Wars of Ideas and the War of Ideas, Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College (SSI)....
(b) and (c) above are pertinent to the BBC. I believe that there is a war being waged by the broadcaster against the indigenous population of the UK.
There's certainly nothing new about "wars of ideas". We had the Kulturkampf conducted by Bismarck against Catholics in Germany and the secularist war of ideas on Catholics in France.Delete
We had the war of ideas between Parliament and King before we had a civil war.
And before that we had the war of ideas between Lutherans and the Pope's adherents.
Then there was the war of ideas between Christianity and Classical religion in the Roman Empire.
We can even go back to Egypt and the war of ideas between the monotheistic sun worshipping Pharaoh and the traditionalist followers of religion in Egypt.
There have always been wars of ideas.
2008 is a long time ago in terms of social media! :) I think that is the big technical difference now.
Social media allowed a lot of ideas to enter the political debate that were previously overshadowed or suppressed by the Press and big TV and Radio corporations.
What we've seen since 2016 is a fightback by the globalist establishment (who up till then had assumed social media was working for them). Now we see everywhere various voices being banned, demonetised, censored, slowed down and silenced.
These things are always an arms race. Populists will find ways around the bans and eventually populists can probably create their own internet (in orbit).
Anyway, I would say a "war of ideas" involves just about anything short of physical violence. But the violence of the state or the crowd is never too far away.
Can you imagine how people would have reacted 40 years ago if people were arrested and incarcerated in a police cell or received midnight visits from the police because of something they'd written to their local newspaper? It would have been inconceivable but had it happened, people would have been outraged and comparisons would have been made with Fascist and Communist dictatorship.
But now, this is happening up and down our country every week, if not every day, with the full approval of the BBC and most of the Press. Just a few hestitant voices raised in protest, or more likely polite demurral.
This is really the use of state violence, or force if you prefer, to silence dissent.
Equally people engaged in current ideological disputes threaten crowd violence if their ideas are not implemented. This happens on both sides. Some say there will be riots if we Brexit and some say there will be if we don't.
I think one point I would make is that in the UK we have always had "wars of ideas" but we have not until recently had a totalitarian war of "extermination of ideas". Oxford University for instance used to be known as the home of lost causes. That gives you the idea of a fundamental tolerance that used to exist in UK culture.
No more. The unholy PC-globalist-left alliance is intent on actually eliminating all ideational opposition, so that nothing at all is left: no statues, no books (remember they remove the books from library shelves and library databases), no TV, radio or other programmes defending the condemned ideas - nothing, nothing can remain.
Point(s) taken MB. My thoughts were more to do the waging of a Cold War using TR as a front line. The BBC and MSM use all the tools - misinformation, dirty tricks, propaganda, biased reporting etc to promote their ideas on (b) ideological wars, (c) wars over religious dogma.Delete
AS you've said often, the BBC is jam-packed with very intelligent operators, who are increasingly using their powerful positions to promote their PC ideology with impunity - using whatever methods that come to hand.
A minute or so in I think...TR expands on what's in store.ReplyDelete
It sounds like he has a lot more than has been released so far.
He's also using legal measures against his persecutors on the back of the undercover recording. Also, he has ensured the video is now in other countries as well in case of injunction.
But the most telling thing so far, for me, is that this has all been censored out of existence by the UK MSM. Here we have at the very least a story about a senior BBC journo - who has exposed numerous others with undercover reporting - being found to utter highly questionable statements about white working class men through undercover reporting...and yet there is absolutely no coverage at all anywhere so far (happy to be corrected). If I am right then that just shows you how we are not living in a free society any more. We are living in a highly managed society where free speech is allowed only in a very small, policed and patrolled area.
It's worth pointing out that if there are riots if we don't exit the EU then they will be in defence of democracy - riots to try to prevent us leaving will be against democracy.ReplyDelete
Both undesirable, but otherwise not the same thing at all.