- Joined
- Oct 8, 2020
Spunt's helpful guide to Britain for fat Americans - Learn about Anglos so you can hate them better
- Thread starter Spunt
- Start date
NerdShamer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
Reminder that being woke includes animal cruelty.
Or at the very least, confusing the occasional horse.
Or at the very least, confusing the occasional horse.
ummiball
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 2, 2020
Horses often spook at the sight of their own shadow. This doesn’t surprise me at all.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2018
We'd be better off if we were, to be honest, what with the rape gangs of peace and the troons and the gays with them being besties with the Pedophile Information Exchange in the 70s and 80s. Get some better bants, that's fucking old, and shit tier.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2020
Plus we got ridiculously lucky that the Germans had chosen to surrender rather than going for their version of a nuclear option. Never forget, we wanted to nuke them, while at any point during the war they could have killed the entirety of Southern England without breaking a sweat, they had the weapons ready-to-go the entire time. The Germans had stockpiled around 45,000 tonnes of nerve agent by around 1942, all ready and armed to go at a moment's notice - all stowed, ready to be placed into bombers.
All the while we were working on a nuke. If that nuke had been finished a few months earlier, or Germany had held out a few months longer, they would have likely retaliated with this stockpile.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
If that's true, I wonder why they didn't use it against the Soviets. I got the picture the enmity between the Germans and Soviets was stronger than between Germans and anyone else (except maybe Jews lol) and the Soviets were the first ones to reach Berlin after all.
Maybe by the time things got bad enough to consider using it, they knew it was a lost cause and using it would really hurt their terms of surrender?
NerdShamer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
Sleazy Car Salesman
Believe me when I say that I will take your money
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 27, 2021
Believe it or not a lot of it actually came down to Hitler's experience in The Great War, he refused to use gas on enemy soldiers out of a desire to have his opponents abstain from using gas on his.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2019
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2021
Ah. so is that why they hate Atheists so much? Because they've rejected "the truth" along with all other systems?
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
I don't think they care about atheist Jews and Christians, but an atheist Muslim is an apostate, which is even worse.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2021
Oh, obviously, right? JFC. I hate religion, it is the only thing I will truly sperg about, so I'm just going to shut up. Thanks for the response, though.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2017
4. The British Media
The BBC
Oi M8, you got a loicence for that opinion?
The BBC was born from that most British of things - a desperate rush by the British State to monopolise and control something before its citizens got Big Ideas about freedom or dissent.
The first ever radio broadcast in the UK was in 1920, funded by the owner of the Daily Mail newspaper. This so horrified the powers that be that by the end of the year the government banned all private broadcasting because it was not being done by the Correct People. By 1922, there were over 100 petitons by various organisations to overturn this ban and obtain a radio broadcasting loicence, so the British Government created the British Broadcasting Corporation and decided to keep all the loicences for itself, establishing a state monopoly on radio broadcasting that was to last over half a century.
The BBC was supposed to be politically neutral, a desperate charade it maintains to this day, but as early as 1928 it was censoring news about industrial unrest and reading out government statements as fact. By 1935 it was summarily deplatforming any political party it didn't like the ideas of - Oswald Moseley's British Union of Fascists and Harry Pollitt's Communist Party of Great Britain were the first, but not the last, to see the BBC's famous "neutrality" at first hand as the party political broadcasts they had paid for were cancelled at no notice with no refund. Feeling on a roll, the BBC then censored Winston Churchill himself (then an opposition politician) under orders from the British Foreign Office, who also placed a blackout on reporting its own censorship - it wasn't even 10 years old and was already engaged in meta-censorship, which frankly makes Twitter and Youtube look open and honest by comparison.
The government relented in 1955 and graciously allowed peasants to watch a commercial TV channel (ITV, which continues to broadcast lowest-common-denominator Reality TV and horrible cheap soap operas to Council Estate sofas to this day), but would not relent on the then much more important issue of Radio. As the 1960s got underway, the Beeb's stuffed suits decided that this "Rock and Roll" nonsense was not suitable for delicate British sensibilities and banned almost all music that anyone wanted to listen to from the airwaves. In response, an Irish musician called Ronan O'Rahilly purchased an old ferry and mounted a gigantic radio mast on it, sailing it in international waters as the first British pirate radio station, Radio Caroline, which illegally broadcast the hippest new sounds for only the Heppest of Cats (Daddy-O), causing many a BBC monocle to pop out in disgust (this all makes more sense when you remember that Britain is the nation that spawned Oliver Cromwell). Radio Caroline regularly got 7 million listeners in its heyday, meaning that every day, nearly one in seven people in the UK was listening to it.
Far out! (from shore)
Basically Britain was a giant Kevin Bacon film by this point. I mean it still is a giant Kevin Bacon film, but rather than Footloose it's basically more like Tremors.
"Don't move! They can detect wrongthink!"
Commercial radio wasn't allowed in the UK until 1973.
The BBC - you have no choice but to love it!
Just because the BBC now had competition didn't mean it was going to give up its stranglehold on the country that easily. The BBC's funding was reorganised, and the loicence fee changed from a surcharge on radio receivers (which at least made a vague sort of sense when the BBC was the only one broadcasting radio signals) to a "TV Licence", a separate annual charge that is somehow not a tax, even though it really is, to fund the BBC whether you actually use it or not, because it covers the use of TV sets, whether you watch BBC programming on them or not.
The BBC maintains that this is a "fee", but in the UK, non-payment of the loicence fee is a crime, not a civil debt, just like a tax. You pay it to a government-owned agency, like a tax. "But if you don't have a TV, you don't have to pay it!" is the usual response, but I don't have to pay Petrol Tax if I don't drive a car and it doesn't make it any less of a fucking tax.
The BBC are FUCKING MENTAL about making you pay the Loicence Fee, and were notorious in the days of CRT TVs for their "Detector Vans", vans with equipment looking out for the radiation that those TVs emitted, cross-referencing the results against their records until they found some helpless old lady whose door they could smash down with the Police in tow and haul off to jail (yes really). Nowadays they can't detect modern TVs that way and instead they just post blanket threats to any address without a loicence in the arrogant belief that anyone without one must be evading rather than, you know, not owning a TV.
When my aunt died, her house remained empty for over a year as the paperwork took its course and I tried to sell the place on behalf of the family. Her TV Loicence expired shortly after her death and of course was not renewed because her bank accounts were closed. So I chose not to tell the BBC the house was empty just to see what would happen. Well what happened is that eight increasingly aggressive letters arrived over the course of the year. All but the first threatened criminal charges (against what would have been a 73 year old woman with dementia), the third onwards were written in whole or in part with red ink, and those same letters all threatened that an "Enforcement Officer" would force entry to the property accompanied by Police if she didn't pay up. Of course these were empty threats (unless they did show up mob-handed to an empty house, which would have been funny, but if they did they didn't force entry, which was a shame as I would have quite enjoyed reporting the burglary to the same coppers who committed it). In fact baiting the TV licence people to come to houses with no TV set just to tell them to fuck off is becoming a bit of a pastime for the more based sections of the British population.
Their intimidation campaigns are not just against terrified old ladies. These are all genuine, unedited and unironic posters put up by the BBC Loicence people in public places.
The BBC - we'll get ours, don't you fucking worry.
What the BBC considers important - let's play a game.
The BBC, with its massive, taxpayer-funded advantage over other media, is not afraid to throw its weight around and become a propaganda outlet. But unlike in its past, the Beeb is no longer a government mouthpiece - it has its own, distinct agenda and often clashes with the government of the day, safe in the smug knowledge that any politician who dares threaten it will become its next victim.
No clearer was this bias than when bearded Communist Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party. Contrary to what you might expect, the BBC immediately turned on him. Why? Because Corbyn, being an old-school Trotskyist, believed in "No War but the Class War" and there was no room in that for dangerhairs and genderblobs, and this was therefore deemed Problematic. Like most of the hard Left, Labour has always had a bit of a problem with antisemitism, with it being closely integrated with the Palenstinian lobby and the BDS mob, and of course given its near-stranglehold on the Muslim vote. But when Corbyn was elected, this was suddenly the biggest problem ever and the BBC hounded him over it for the entire length of his leadership, and beyond, in an eventually successful attempt to have him cancelled. Take a look:
2,470 results for "Corbyn" and "Antisemitism" in the same article. How many is that? Well let's do a comparison, let's compare it to the equivalent - Islamophobia in the Conservative party. Now there's a long history of Tories hating the Muzzies that goes back to at least the 1960s. Let's see how many hits we get for the equivalent search on the BBC's site for "Conservative" and "Islamophobia", covering every leader of the Tories rather than just Corbyn (who was Labour leader for just four and a half years):
Huh, would you look at that?
Let's play a game, using Google's site search to see what the BBC wants you to think is important. I think it's reasonable to say that the more a media outlet talks about a thing, the more it thinks that thing is what you need to be aware of. So let's take a look at some of the BBC's little obsessions:
"Banksy" - 6,850 hits.
Compared to:
-"Leonardo da Vinci" 5,780
-"Monet" 5,630
-"Salvador Dali" - 1,560
-"John Constable" 1,290
The BBC is obsessed with jumped-up graffiti vandal and Bristol hipster darling "Banksy" and mentions his tedious lefty takes more than they mention almost any other artist in all of human history (he's second only to Pablo Picasso). The BBC's coverage is of course totally uncritical and often one of complete horror if anyone removes or "defaces" the crap he splatters on other people's stuff without asking them.
"Islam" 173,000
Compared to:
-"Christianity" 46,700
-"Atheism" 19,200
-"Hinduism" 11,800
-"Rochdale Grooming" 6,810
Yup, the BBC sure love the Religion of Peace (tm), giving it four times as many mentions on its website as the majority religion and established State religion of the UK.
"Greta Thunberg" - 5,130 hits.
Compared to:
-"Ed Davey" (leader of the Liberal Democrats and former government minister) 4,470
-"Tim Berners-Lee" 3,030
-"Alan Turing" 2,150
-"Malala Yousafzai" 2,070
The BBC can't get enough of Greta Thunberg. She has more than twice the mentions on the site of Malala Yousafzai. I mean, what did Malala do other than get shot in the head by the Taliban for the crime of going to school, surviving and becoming a UN ambassador advocating for (and bringing about) the education of millions women in the developing world? Pah! Saint Greta was on a boat once! And Donald Trump was mean to her, and everyone knows having Bad Orange Man being mean to you on Twitter is much worse than being shot in the head by the Taliban, as 75 gorillion dead trannies could tell you.
Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter bio has TWICE made the front page of the BBC News website:
Speaking of...
"Twitter" 4,430,000 Hits
Compared to
-"London" 4,300,000
-"Prime Minister" 274,000
-"Boris Johnson" 213,000
-"Donald Trump" 98,000
Yes, the BBC's website mentions Twitter more often than it mentions the British capital city, which is fair enough as I think the BBC thinks that Twitter is the capital of the entire world. Browse through the Beeb's site, and you will notice just how many articles were clearly written by lazy, brain-dead journos just browsing Twitter for stories. As an entirely random example, the 9th Google result for "Twitter Outrage" on the BBC site brings us this recent article about protests at the death of a jailed political activist in India.
If you read the article (which like almost all BBC articles carries no byline), you will notice that whoever wrote it "researched" it entirely on Twitter and clearly never left their desk in their comfortable air-conditioned Manchester office. In total, the article contains three embedded Tweets, and links to two others. In fact, of all the links and sources in the article, only two lead to something other than a Tweet or another BBC story (sourced from Tweets). The pictures are all from monolithic photo house Getty Images.
This is fairly typical of BBC "Journalism" these days. Why go to dangerous parts of the world and report on what is happening when you can dick about on your phone all day and call it "work"?
Speaking of that "Twitter Outrage" search, it turned up 10,800 hits. That compares to:
"Cultural Revolution" 3,130
"Killing Fields" 1,990
"Great Leap Forward" 583
"Holomodor" 95
I will leave you to draw your own conclusions on that one.
"Racism" 169,000 Hits
(Did you notice they answered their own question before even asking it? That's a Neuro-Linguistic Programming technique.)
Compared to
-"Terrorism" 143,000
-"Venezuela" 81,800
-"World War Two" 39,600
-"Holocaust" 28,100
-"Genocide" 22,500
-"Soviet Union" 20,900
I'm pretty sure the BBC is more obsessed with racism than the KKK at this point. Bear in mind that the above search also includes the entire BBC History website as well as the news channel, but clearly no historical atrocity comes close to Barry from Solihull calling a millionaire footballer a tosser on Facebook.
Let's take this opportunity to go a little deeper and look at the BBC's propaganda techniques in more detail. Let's look at a recent event. The England football team lost the final of the European championships to Italy on penalties. As (bad) luck would have it, the three players who missed penalties for England were all black, and one in particular, Marcus Rashford, has a reputation as something of a social activist. Last year he campaigned for children sent home from school during the coof to be given free food by the government, a cause to which he contributed approximately none of his estimated £10.4m ($14.2m) annual wages, for which he was awarded an MBE.
The BBC, being infiltrated by dangerhairs, has long been campaigning for censorship of social media, and a big theme in the last year has been "online racist abuse of footballers". The BBC is pretty keen to push this agenda, but much less keen to actually show you any of this alleged abuse. But trust us, it's racist. That's another interesting thing, the BBC seems to think that it is the final arbiter on what is racist and what isn't, and you shouldn't worry your pretty little heads about it. Look at the language in this article: (archive)
The graffiti is never shown, in fact no evidence of its existence is shown. There's just some obviously posed people aiming paintbrushes at an already graffiti-free wall. But the graffiti is described, objectively as "racist" no less than five times. The objective of this article isn't to make you think about whether whatever was daubed (if anything) was racist, that has already been decided for you. It's gone now, so you're not supposed to feel shock at seeing it. But you are supposed to feel shame, and feel that the local worthy (this "Shaun Campbell") character who contacted the BBC with his posed picture is a great person, and definitely not the only source of the article and the only person whose account is presented and in fact the only person who claims to have any evidence that this ever happened, which he won't show you because Reasons.
An outlier, perhaps? I only chose it because it was the most recent I could find, but let's look at another: (archive)
Another, similar incident. But this time, reading between the lines, enough people saw the original graffiti (and took pictures of it) that the Beeb can't *quite* claim it was racist. But the BBC is doing all it can to fool you into thinking that it is. Note this quote from the local Plod:
"Greater Manchester Police said an investigation had been launched after the force received a report of racially aggravated damage at 02:50 BST. Appealing for information, Ch Supt Paul Savill said: "Hate crime in any form is completely unacceptable and not welcome here in our city." It's not actually a claim that the graffiti was racist, but it is phrased to look like it is.
The article mentions racism or racial abuse six times. As well as the local Filth, It has quotes from the Mayor of Manchester, the England football manager Gareth Southgate, and even Prime Minister Boris Johnson himself, all of which mention and condemn racism. So that graffiti must have been pretty shocking, huh? What vile racial epithet did they include to warrant such a response from the great and the good? So bad that our innocent eyes must be shielded from it, lest we all join Stormfront and start the Racial Holy War? Well look what I found:
Someone drew a dick on it.
(In a subsequent article (archive) they quietly admitted: "Vandalism that was sprayed on a mural of Marcus Rashford is "not believed to be of a racial nature", say police." Well Duh.)
But it didn't matter, they got what they wanted. Something Must Be Done, after all, and you can't have a good moral panic without getting politicians involved. Labour called for "online racists" (or people who draw dicks, presumably), banned from football matches. Hence this headline on the front page, using an image of the mural that by that point was known not to have any racial abuse on it:
But clearly that article didn't have enough clicks or outrage, because less than 30 minutes later the headline was re-written to show that even the nasty, racist Tories think you're shameful for not being in lockstep with the Correct Thinking:
Both headlines led to the same article. This constant re-wording of headlines and articles is a constant menace on the BBC news site, and it happens so often and so quickly that even the Wayback machine doesn't always catch it, and if you put an article in an archive queue it may have changed yet again before it's actually archived. Even fucking Vice News leave a note when they edit an article, but that paragon of journalistic integrity the BBC doesn't bother.
"Transgender" 16,300
Compared to
-"Bisexual" 13,600
-"African American" 12,800
-"Deforestation" 8,280
-"Antarctic Icecaps" 3,570
-"Ozone Layer" 1,970
-"Stafford Hospital" (see my last post) 1,420
-"Prison Rape" 49
The BBC's coverage of trans issues is exactly what you would expect - uncritical, and with much seethe and cope. And let's see a rogue's gallery of the usual suspects that definitely don't end up in articles because they're in the same tranny discords as the journos, no idea where you got that idea from. See if you can spot your favourite:
And I'm sure you guessed that Zoe Quinn has been referenced over 1100 times on the BBC website as well, though apparently she's not as important as "Wheelchair Basketball", which has just under 2000 references. But she is clearly more important to the gaming industry than "Todd Howard" (29 hits), "Bobby Kotick" (27 hits) or even "Electronic Arts" (736).
---
Here's some more headlines, taken from a single random day last week. The BBC thought ALL these stories were important enough to make the front page of a national and international news website.
---
Was the BBC ever any good?
To some extent. It was never impartial, but it at least used to make some kind of effort with its journalism. Reporters like John Simpson and Kate Adie became famous for their bravery, infiltrating war zones to bring unique reports from situations of genuine danger. But then you had shitheads like Martin Bashir, who in 1995 forged documents to fool Princess Diana into thinking that members of her household were leaking her personal information to the press, using that as leverage to get the imfamous interview that destroyed her marriage and made all her dirty laundry public, because she wrongly thought it was all going to come out anyway. Bashir was still the Beeb's Religion correspondent until earlier this year, when he mysteriously retired for "health reasons" the day before the forgery story broke, a narrative that the BBC itself never questioned.
But even Bashir's skulduggery seems a bit high-effort for the modern BBC, because that's not a story you can source entirely from Twitter.
I've only mentioned the Beeb's news coverage here, because there's only so much I can write and research in a single shitpost. But I will point out that their 2019 "Dracula" miniseries featured black and far-Eastern nuns at a 19th Century Budapest nunnery, and a stronk female protagonist who at one point delivered a 2-minute lecture tothe audience Drac on women's rights before beating him up.
Next - the rest of Britain's media.
The BBC
Oi M8, you got a loicence for that opinion?
The BBC was born from that most British of things - a desperate rush by the British State to monopolise and control something before its citizens got Big Ideas about freedom or dissent.
The first ever radio broadcast in the UK was in 1920, funded by the owner of the Daily Mail newspaper. This so horrified the powers that be that by the end of the year the government banned all private broadcasting because it was not being done by the Correct People. By 1922, there were over 100 petitons by various organisations to overturn this ban and obtain a radio broadcasting loicence, so the British Government created the British Broadcasting Corporation and decided to keep all the loicences for itself, establishing a state monopoly on radio broadcasting that was to last over half a century.
The BBC was supposed to be politically neutral, a desperate charade it maintains to this day, but as early as 1928 it was censoring news about industrial unrest and reading out government statements as fact. By 1935 it was summarily deplatforming any political party it didn't like the ideas of - Oswald Moseley's British Union of Fascists and Harry Pollitt's Communist Party of Great Britain were the first, but not the last, to see the BBC's famous "neutrality" at first hand as the party political broadcasts they had paid for were cancelled at no notice with no refund. Feeling on a roll, the BBC then censored Winston Churchill himself (then an opposition politician) under orders from the British Foreign Office, who also placed a blackout on reporting its own censorship - it wasn't even 10 years old and was already engaged in meta-censorship, which frankly makes Twitter and Youtube look open and honest by comparison.
The government relented in 1955 and graciously allowed peasants to watch a commercial TV channel (ITV, which continues to broadcast lowest-common-denominator Reality TV and horrible cheap soap operas to Council Estate sofas to this day), but would not relent on the then much more important issue of Radio. As the 1960s got underway, the Beeb's stuffed suits decided that this "Rock and Roll" nonsense was not suitable for delicate British sensibilities and banned almost all music that anyone wanted to listen to from the airwaves. In response, an Irish musician called Ronan O'Rahilly purchased an old ferry and mounted a gigantic radio mast on it, sailing it in international waters as the first British pirate radio station, Radio Caroline, which illegally broadcast the hippest new sounds for only the Heppest of Cats (Daddy-O), causing many a BBC monocle to pop out in disgust (this all makes more sense when you remember that Britain is the nation that spawned Oliver Cromwell). Radio Caroline regularly got 7 million listeners in its heyday, meaning that every day, nearly one in seven people in the UK was listening to it.
Far out! (from shore)
Basically Britain was a giant Kevin Bacon film by this point. I mean it still is a giant Kevin Bacon film, but rather than Footloose it's basically more like Tremors.
"Don't move! They can detect wrongthink!"
Commercial radio wasn't allowed in the UK until 1973.
The BBC - you have no choice but to love it!
Just because the BBC now had competition didn't mean it was going to give up its stranglehold on the country that easily. The BBC's funding was reorganised, and the loicence fee changed from a surcharge on radio receivers (which at least made a vague sort of sense when the BBC was the only one broadcasting radio signals) to a "TV Licence", a separate annual charge that is somehow not a tax, even though it really is, to fund the BBC whether you actually use it or not, because it covers the use of TV sets, whether you watch BBC programming on them or not.
The BBC maintains that this is a "fee", but in the UK, non-payment of the loicence fee is a crime, not a civil debt, just like a tax. You pay it to a government-owned agency, like a tax. "But if you don't have a TV, you don't have to pay it!" is the usual response, but I don't have to pay Petrol Tax if I don't drive a car and it doesn't make it any less of a fucking tax.
The BBC are FUCKING MENTAL about making you pay the Loicence Fee, and were notorious in the days of CRT TVs for their "Detector Vans", vans with equipment looking out for the radiation that those TVs emitted, cross-referencing the results against their records until they found some helpless old lady whose door they could smash down with the Police in tow and haul off to jail (yes really). Nowadays they can't detect modern TVs that way and instead they just post blanket threats to any address without a loicence in the arrogant belief that anyone without one must be evading rather than, you know, not owning a TV.
When my aunt died, her house remained empty for over a year as the paperwork took its course and I tried to sell the place on behalf of the family. Her TV Loicence expired shortly after her death and of course was not renewed because her bank accounts were closed. So I chose not to tell the BBC the house was empty just to see what would happen. Well what happened is that eight increasingly aggressive letters arrived over the course of the year. All but the first threatened criminal charges (against what would have been a 73 year old woman with dementia), the third onwards were written in whole or in part with red ink, and those same letters all threatened that an "Enforcement Officer" would force entry to the property accompanied by Police if she didn't pay up. Of course these were empty threats (unless they did show up mob-handed to an empty house, which would have been funny, but if they did they didn't force entry, which was a shame as I would have quite enjoyed reporting the burglary to the same coppers who committed it). In fact baiting the TV licence people to come to houses with no TV set just to tell them to fuck off is becoming a bit of a pastime for the more based sections of the British population.
Their intimidation campaigns are not just against terrified old ladies. These are all genuine, unedited and unironic posters put up by the BBC Loicence people in public places.
The BBC - we'll get ours, don't you fucking worry.
What the BBC considers important - let's play a game.
The BBC, with its massive, taxpayer-funded advantage over other media, is not afraid to throw its weight around and become a propaganda outlet. But unlike in its past, the Beeb is no longer a government mouthpiece - it has its own, distinct agenda and often clashes with the government of the day, safe in the smug knowledge that any politician who dares threaten it will become its next victim.
No clearer was this bias than when bearded Communist Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party. Contrary to what you might expect, the BBC immediately turned on him. Why? Because Corbyn, being an old-school Trotskyist, believed in "No War but the Class War" and there was no room in that for dangerhairs and genderblobs, and this was therefore deemed Problematic. Like most of the hard Left, Labour has always had a bit of a problem with antisemitism, with it being closely integrated with the Palenstinian lobby and the BDS mob, and of course given its near-stranglehold on the Muslim vote. But when Corbyn was elected, this was suddenly the biggest problem ever and the BBC hounded him over it for the entire length of his leadership, and beyond, in an eventually successful attempt to have him cancelled. Take a look:
2,470 results for "Corbyn" and "Antisemitism" in the same article. How many is that? Well let's do a comparison, let's compare it to the equivalent - Islamophobia in the Conservative party. Now there's a long history of Tories hating the Muzzies that goes back to at least the 1960s. Let's see how many hits we get for the equivalent search on the BBC's site for "Conservative" and "Islamophobia", covering every leader of the Tories rather than just Corbyn (who was Labour leader for just four and a half years):
Huh, would you look at that?
Let's play a game, using Google's site search to see what the BBC wants you to think is important. I think it's reasonable to say that the more a media outlet talks about a thing, the more it thinks that thing is what you need to be aware of. So let's take a look at some of the BBC's little obsessions:
"Banksy" - 6,850 hits.
Compared to:
-"Leonardo da Vinci" 5,780
-"Monet" 5,630
-"Salvador Dali" - 1,560
-"John Constable" 1,290
The BBC is obsessed with jumped-up graffiti vandal and Bristol hipster darling "Banksy" and mentions his tedious lefty takes more than they mention almost any other artist in all of human history (he's second only to Pablo Picasso). The BBC's coverage is of course totally uncritical and often one of complete horror if anyone removes or "defaces" the crap he splatters on other people's stuff without asking them.
"Islam" 173,000
Compared to:
-"Christianity" 46,700
-"Atheism" 19,200
-"Hinduism" 11,800
-"Rochdale Grooming" 6,810
Yup, the BBC sure love the Religion of Peace (tm), giving it four times as many mentions on its website as the majority religion and established State religion of the UK.
"Greta Thunberg" - 5,130 hits.
Compared to:
-"Ed Davey" (leader of the Liberal Democrats and former government minister) 4,470
-"Tim Berners-Lee" 3,030
-"Alan Turing" 2,150
-"Malala Yousafzai" 2,070
The BBC can't get enough of Greta Thunberg. She has more than twice the mentions on the site of Malala Yousafzai. I mean, what did Malala do other than get shot in the head by the Taliban for the crime of going to school, surviving and becoming a UN ambassador advocating for (and bringing about) the education of millions women in the developing world? Pah! Saint Greta was on a boat once! And Donald Trump was mean to her, and everyone knows having Bad Orange Man being mean to you on Twitter is much worse than being shot in the head by the Taliban, as 75 gorillion dead trannies could tell you.
Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter bio has TWICE made the front page of the BBC News website:
Speaking of...
"Twitter" 4,430,000 Hits
Compared to
-"London" 4,300,000
-"Prime Minister" 274,000
-"Boris Johnson" 213,000
-"Donald Trump" 98,000
Yes, the BBC's website mentions Twitter more often than it mentions the British capital city, which is fair enough as I think the BBC thinks that Twitter is the capital of the entire world. Browse through the Beeb's site, and you will notice just how many articles were clearly written by lazy, brain-dead journos just browsing Twitter for stories. As an entirely random example, the 9th Google result for "Twitter Outrage" on the BBC site brings us this recent article about protests at the death of a jailed political activist in India.
If you read the article (which like almost all BBC articles carries no byline), you will notice that whoever wrote it "researched" it entirely on Twitter and clearly never left their desk in their comfortable air-conditioned Manchester office. In total, the article contains three embedded Tweets, and links to two others. In fact, of all the links and sources in the article, only two lead to something other than a Tweet or another BBC story (sourced from Tweets). The pictures are all from monolithic photo house Getty Images.
This is fairly typical of BBC "Journalism" these days. Why go to dangerous parts of the world and report on what is happening when you can dick about on your phone all day and call it "work"?
Speaking of that "Twitter Outrage" search, it turned up 10,800 hits. That compares to:
"Cultural Revolution" 3,130
"Killing Fields" 1,990
"Great Leap Forward" 583
"Holomodor" 95
I will leave you to draw your own conclusions on that one.
"Racism" 169,000 Hits
(Did you notice they answered their own question before even asking it? That's a Neuro-Linguistic Programming technique.)
Compared to
-"Terrorism" 143,000
-"Venezuela" 81,800
-"World War Two" 39,600
-"Holocaust" 28,100
-"Genocide" 22,500
-"Soviet Union" 20,900
I'm pretty sure the BBC is more obsessed with racism than the KKK at this point. Bear in mind that the above search also includes the entire BBC History website as well as the news channel, but clearly no historical atrocity comes close to Barry from Solihull calling a millionaire footballer a tosser on Facebook.
Let's take this opportunity to go a little deeper and look at the BBC's propaganda techniques in more detail. Let's look at a recent event. The England football team lost the final of the European championships to Italy on penalties. As (bad) luck would have it, the three players who missed penalties for England were all black, and one in particular, Marcus Rashford, has a reputation as something of a social activist. Last year he campaigned for children sent home from school during the coof to be given free food by the government, a cause to which he contributed approximately none of his estimated £10.4m ($14.2m) annual wages, for which he was awarded an MBE.
The BBC, being infiltrated by dangerhairs, has long been campaigning for censorship of social media, and a big theme in the last year has been "online racist abuse of footballers". The BBC is pretty keen to push this agenda, but much less keen to actually show you any of this alleged abuse. But trust us, it's racist. That's another interesting thing, the BBC seems to think that it is the final arbiter on what is racist and what isn't, and you shouldn't worry your pretty little heads about it. Look at the language in this article: (archive)
A mural supporting the England players who faced racial abuse in the aftermath of the Euro 2020 final has been fixed by a community after it was defaced.
Racist graffiti was daubed over the painting of Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka's shirt numbers in Darlington on Saturday.
The news of the damage was shared by diversity charity The Arthur Wharton Foundation, who called it "vile".
Within hours, locals with brushes and paint had arrived to fix the work.
The mural in Drury Street was painted shortly after the final in which England lost to Italy on penalties, and was in support of the three players, who had faced a lot of abuse on social media in the aftermath.
It was painted alongside one celebrating Wharton, who was the first black professional footballer in England.
Born in Ghana in 1865, Wharton came to the UK in the 1880s, initially to train as a missionary, but his sporting prowess saw him signed as a goalkeeper for Darlington FC at the age of 19.
The foundation's Shaun Campbell said it was alerted to the damage on Saturday morning and had contacted Durham Police.
He said the words were "vile racist abuse", which was "terrible to see".
"However, with paint brush in hand and paint at the ready, the community turned up," he said.
"Disgusted at what had taken place, we collectively righted the wrong.
"It was so moving [and] touched me deeply."
Racist graffiti was daubed over the painting of Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka's shirt numbers in Darlington on Saturday.
The news of the damage was shared by diversity charity The Arthur Wharton Foundation, who called it "vile".
Within hours, locals with brushes and paint had arrived to fix the work.
The mural in Drury Street was painted shortly after the final in which England lost to Italy on penalties, and was in support of the three players, who had faced a lot of abuse on social media in the aftermath.
It was painted alongside one celebrating Wharton, who was the first black professional footballer in England.
Born in Ghana in 1865, Wharton came to the UK in the 1880s, initially to train as a missionary, but his sporting prowess saw him signed as a goalkeeper for Darlington FC at the age of 19.
The foundation's Shaun Campbell said it was alerted to the damage on Saturday morning and had contacted Durham Police.
He said the words were "vile racist abuse", which was "terrible to see".
"However, with paint brush in hand and paint at the ready, the community turned up," he said.
"Disgusted at what had taken place, we collectively righted the wrong.
"It was so moving [and] touched me deeply."
The graffiti is never shown, in fact no evidence of its existence is shown. There's just some obviously posed people aiming paintbrushes at an already graffiti-free wall. But the graffiti is described, objectively as "racist" no less than five times. The objective of this article isn't to make you think about whether whatever was daubed (if anything) was racist, that has already been decided for you. It's gone now, so you're not supposed to feel shock at seeing it. But you are supposed to feel shame, and feel that the local worthy (this "Shaun Campbell") character who contacted the BBC with his posed picture is a great person, and definitely not the only source of the article and the only person whose account is presented and in fact the only person who claims to have any evidence that this ever happened, which he won't show you because Reasons.
An outlier, perhaps? I only chose it because it was the most recent I could find, but let's look at another: (archive)
Another, similar incident. But this time, reading between the lines, enough people saw the original graffiti (and took pictures of it) that the Beeb can't *quite* claim it was racist. But the BBC is doing all it can to fool you into thinking that it is. Note this quote from the local Plod:
"Greater Manchester Police said an investigation had been launched after the force received a report of racially aggravated damage at 02:50 BST. Appealing for information, Ch Supt Paul Savill said: "Hate crime in any form is completely unacceptable and not welcome here in our city." It's not actually a claim that the graffiti was racist, but it is phrased to look like it is.
The article mentions racism or racial abuse six times. As well as the local Filth, It has quotes from the Mayor of Manchester, the England football manager Gareth Southgate, and even Prime Minister Boris Johnson himself, all of which mention and condemn racism. So that graffiti must have been pretty shocking, huh? What vile racial epithet did they include to warrant such a response from the great and the good? So bad that our innocent eyes must be shielded from it, lest we all join Stormfront and start the Racial Holy War? Well look what I found:
Someone drew a dick on it.
(In a subsequent article (archive) they quietly admitted: "Vandalism that was sprayed on a mural of Marcus Rashford is "not believed to be of a racial nature", say police." Well Duh.)
But it didn't matter, they got what they wanted. Something Must Be Done, after all, and you can't have a good moral panic without getting politicians involved. Labour called for "online racists" (or people who draw dicks, presumably), banned from football matches. Hence this headline on the front page, using an image of the mural that by that point was known not to have any racial abuse on it:
But clearly that article didn't have enough clicks or outrage, because less than 30 minutes later the headline was re-written to show that even the nasty, racist Tories think you're shameful for not being in lockstep with the Correct Thinking:
Both headlines led to the same article. This constant re-wording of headlines and articles is a constant menace on the BBC news site, and it happens so often and so quickly that even the Wayback machine doesn't always catch it, and if you put an article in an archive queue it may have changed yet again before it's actually archived. Even fucking Vice News leave a note when they edit an article, but that paragon of journalistic integrity the BBC doesn't bother.
"Transgender" 16,300
Compared to
-"Bisexual" 13,600
-"African American" 12,800
-"Deforestation" 8,280
-"Antarctic Icecaps" 3,570
-"Ozone Layer" 1,970
-"Stafford Hospital" (see my last post) 1,420
-"Prison Rape" 49
The BBC's coverage of trans issues is exactly what you would expect - uncritical, and with much seethe and cope. And let's see a rogue's gallery of the usual suspects that definitely don't end up in articles because they're in the same tranny discords as the journos, no idea where you got that idea from. See if you can spot your favourite:
And I'm sure you guessed that Zoe Quinn has been referenced over 1100 times on the BBC website as well, though apparently she's not as important as "Wheelchair Basketball", which has just under 2000 references. But she is clearly more important to the gaming industry than "Todd Howard" (29 hits), "Bobby Kotick" (27 hits) or even "Electronic Arts" (736).
---
Here's some more headlines, taken from a single random day last week. The BBC thought ALL these stories were important enough to make the front page of a national and international news website.
---
Was the BBC ever any good?
To some extent. It was never impartial, but it at least used to make some kind of effort with its journalism. Reporters like John Simpson and Kate Adie became famous for their bravery, infiltrating war zones to bring unique reports from situations of genuine danger. But then you had shitheads like Martin Bashir, who in 1995 forged documents to fool Princess Diana into thinking that members of her household were leaking her personal information to the press, using that as leverage to get the imfamous interview that destroyed her marriage and made all her dirty laundry public, because she wrongly thought it was all going to come out anyway. Bashir was still the Beeb's Religion correspondent until earlier this year, when he mysteriously retired for "health reasons" the day before the forgery story broke, a narrative that the BBC itself never questioned.
But even Bashir's skulduggery seems a bit high-effort for the modern BBC, because that's not a story you can source entirely from Twitter.
I've only mentioned the Beeb's news coverage here, because there's only so much I can write and research in a single shitpost. But I will point out that their 2019 "Dracula" miniseries featured black and far-Eastern nuns at a 19th Century Budapest nunnery, and a stronk female protagonist who at one point delivered a 2-minute lecture to
Next - the rest of Britain's media.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2020
They thought the West had chemical weapons too - which they did, but nowhere near as dangerous - and knew about the Manhattan Project, which they themselves had allegedly already achieved by 1943.
Gonna get a knock on the door for this redpill but fuck it.
In 1943 there was an enormous explosion in central Germany - German physicists had already discovered the fission process but unlike the USA/UK, had not bothered with the enrichment process.
Enriching Uranium is the process of removing the more fissionable materials from the mixed bulk of uranium - a centrifuge is used in a painfully long and expensive process of spinning a rock around really fast until the slightly heavier bit is strained out by the G force.
This enrichment is critical in a usable bomb - the Germans kept their '43 device under wraps, likely because they didn't bother enriching it.
The reason for this is that a "natural" uranium device would be so huge and bulky, it would be unusable. It would be 10-20x the size of the equivalent device made out of enriched uranium.
The lack of enrichment, combined with the little materials the Germans had, it is not likely they had any need for the nuclear bomb. They had more than enough with their Tabun (among other, more dangerous variants) - Tabun was discovered IN Germany, by Germans, and acquired by 1939 in significant quantities. They had it throughout the war, oftentimes at the front, but Hitler kept ordering it be withdrawn incase a rogue officer used it. The other variants were Sarin, the same gas allegedly used by Assad in Syria to kill a whole bunch (probably not true) and for perspective, the missiles allegedly used in Syria contained around 50L of Sarin - let's just keep my google history safe and say that that's 50kg, and 1 tonne is therefor 20 rockets-worth. This, which is relatively impure since it's Arab-made and likely contained some kind of goat urine, and I'm assuming it's kept in pressurised liquid form rather than as a gas, which is a big assumption to make and likely untrue - it could have only been a few kg stored in the rockets, if it was already a gas. The USA claims that this lead to 1300 fatalities in the area it hit.
The Germans, rather than using 50-year-old Russian stockpiles, were using fresh and pure, Deutsch variety Sarin, which is roughly the difference between a donkey on a wheelchair and a new Porsche.
Remember, Germany is presently the largest economy in Europe and is a very successful nation. This may not be the case if they used these weapons - West Germany, particularly Britain, recognised that Germany shouldn't be punished for WWII (this is also why the majority of West Germans live in what was the British Occupied Zone) - the other aspect is that the Germans likely had no fucking idea how much of a victory he would have gotten with the nerve agents. Hitler was a war veteran himself and knew the British and Americans in particular were very advanced - which they were, they had the Manhattan project.
He likely was not aware of how retarded they were and they were actually planning on dropping their one nuclear bomb, the single atomic bomb they could produce per month at the time, on Germany - Germany had surrendered by the time it was ready, so Japan got it instead.
Seriously, our leaders, who we praise and put on our money, were so retarded that they knowingly tried to nuke the country with atleast 50,000 tonnes of nerve agent ready-to-fire in case they did.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2017
Oh and not 30 minutes after I posted the above, this appeared on the News homepage:
It would only be a more BBC article if Greta Thunberg tweeted a Banksy picture of it.
(The BBC are desperate for people to take women's football seriously and give it a ridiculously high profile, but nobody cares.)
It would only be a more BBC article if Greta Thunberg tweeted a Banksy picture of it.
(The BBC are desperate for people to take women's football seriously and give it a ridiculously high profile, but nobody cares.)
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2020
You forgot to mention the horrifying paedophile rings involved in the BBC.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
Yeah, pretty much the same here but also with the WNBA. If you think women's soccer is boring, try women's basketball.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
I was going to call bullshit on this, but Wikipedia has an article on TV detector vans which covers the matter mostly uncritically. Hmm, I'm still skeptical. Who's to say they didn't just mount scary-looking antennas on top of a van and drive it around so that people paid so they wouldn't get caught by them?
Indeed. I remember reading about the Jimmy Saville stuff and thinking, "no, this is too horrific to be true. People are just making shit up about this guy after he died." There's no way his behavior was a nearly-open secret for literal decades and nobody bothered trying to do anything about it until after he croaked… I hope?
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2020
He was actually a drug lord too, who ran the scenes in the Midlands.
Not many people outside of the BBC knew he was a nonce, but practically everybody who was so much as a bouncer in the entire English Midlands knew that he was a piece of shit. The nonce shit was part of it, but lesser than the drugs and murders.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014