Nicky Campbell is having a phone-in about the Daily Mail article that stated the Marxist Ralph Miliband ‘hated Britain’. (just an aside…Ed Miliband wants to give 16 year olds the vote…and yet he says we must dismiss the youthful, 17 year old, writings of his father in his diary as the foolishness of that youthfulness!)
The same Ralph Miliband who wouldn’t support Labour Party because he thought that Labour would always betray the working class…guess he was right there.
Campbell raises the fact that the Mail in the 1930’s had given Hitler and Mosley’s Blackshirts some support.
Ironic that the Left attack the Mail for denouncing Miliband’s politics….by themselves denouncing Mosley’s politics…doesn’t Mosley have relatives who would be ‘hurt and offended’ by such outrageous ‘smears’?
The BBC itself was more than ready to appease Hitler and look the other way as he rampaged across Europe.
The BBC went so far as to bar Churchill, ‘The Voice in the Wilderness’, from the airwaves in case he upset Herr Hitler.
Churchill said that the war was the easiest war to have avoided if the Allies had stood up to Hitler’s earliest manoeuvres.
In other words the likes of the BBC ensured that a devastating world war happened.
Lloyd George appeased Hitler…wanting to sign a peace with him…so much so that the Sunday Pictorial, then a mass circulation paper, ran a headline:
‘We Accuse Lloyd George!’
And who can forget the highly influential book ‘The Guilty Men’, published in 1940, which attacked British politicians for their appeasement of Hitler…destroying the reputations of Chamberlain and Baldwin….one of the authors of the book….Labour’s Michael Foot.
And of course there’s Labour’s Oswald Mosley…the leader of the Fascist Blackshirts in Britain….could the Daily Mail criticise his politics now?
And just as the BBC appeased Hitler it now appeases Muslim terrorists…or militants as it likes to call them.
Remember this:
Since September 11 Britain has been warned of the ‘inevitability’ of catastrophic terrorist attack. But has the danger been exaggerated? A major new TV documentary claims that the perceived threat is a politically driven fantasy – and al-Qaida a dark illusion. (From the Guardian…in 2004)
The faces of that ‘Dark Illusion’ one year later 7/7/2005:
The Guardian was talking about this BBC programme which was a highly political attack on the ‘Neo-Cons'(ironically originally Marxists) and the War on Terror…it tells us that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist:
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear
‘The nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our societies is an illusion….Wherever one looks for this al-Qaeda organisation the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy.’
In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.
The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.
At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists.
Together they created today’s nightmare vision of an organised terror network.
The Power of Nightmares, broadcast at prime time, which sought to prove that, in the words of its producer, the threat of global terrorism, “is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media”.
Adam Curtis, the film maker was desperate for it to be true, that Al Qaeda didn’t exist..so much so that he would deny it even if a bomb went off…as of course many did, and are doing now:
“If a bomb goes off, the fear I have is that everyone will say, ‘You’re completely wrong,’ even if the incident doesn’t touch my argument. This shows the way we have all become trapped, the way even I have become trapped by a fear that is completely irrational.”
Great that the BBC should think that it can, rather than report the news, seek to alter the news, to make the news itself, by interfering in the political process and to change the course of history by broadcasting its own propaganda.
The Daily Mail prints what is essentially a credible assessment of the effects of Ralph Milibands political beliefs and all hell breaks loose…the BBC broadcasts a highly political intervention in an attempt to actually change events by falsifying facts in the hope that they can the Public’s perceptions who will then pressurise governments to change course.
Nicky Campbell this morning was castigating William Hague for possibly supporting Al Qaeda, that non existent organisation…he asked…
‘Do you acknowledge the strength and danger of the extremist groups?‘
Funny how times change…now the BBC is attacking the politicians for possibly lending support to Al Qaeda rather than for attacking it.
But of course Al Qaeda doesn’t exist…so no problem..how do I know..because the BBC told me it doesn’t…it’s a myth, a phantom, a fantasy, an irrational fear.
Just like Marxism it seems.
Whilst I have no sympathy for either the Daily Mail or the Millibands I was interested to hear the “Today” programme going in to bat for the Millibands by identifying the Mail’s case as just a rehash of “the cricket test”. They concentrated on Ralph’s dislike of British institutions – quite a long list but no mention of the BBC! Perhaps a more straightforward case against Milliband would have been to discuss “you sometimes want them almost to lose [the war] to show them how things are”. But as he said that at 17 he surely could be excused as just young & daft.
‘….But as he said that at 17 he surely could be excused as just young & daft.’
I’m afraid that avenue of defence was closed given that Ed Miliband had just called for 16- and 17-year-olds to have the vote
And what of his Falklands view then?
Or was he just Adrian Mole in slightly longer trousers back then too?
Luckily thickies at the BBC only go back as far as 1997 for THEIR history…only the Media profs, judges and advisers like Leveson or MacPherson get the PhD by citing Thatch and the miners/Malvinas from 1979 onwards…
Hence the calibre of moron we` see on the Left today.
Rank Savile, Laski, Hobsbawn and Milibandy in order of cultural corrosion…might make a good QI question eh?
Funny too that line fed to poor dim Emily Maitless last night about Viscount Rothermeres vies from before WW2.
It was repeated today on the Today show as if it were something to be treasured….so clearly it`s the attack line chosen by the BBC.
Who came up with that one?…got to be a case study in who actually writes these dhimmiwits scripts for them…and how they get trawled and trailed until somebody cares(oh dear!).
The BBC are truly desperate aren`t they?…no surprise that their Ralphie being trashed brings back the Savile flashbacks.
The Left don`t like it up them do they?
Let`s do this one for Maggie eh?..it`s what she would have wanted after what the Left did to her!
Anyone who continues to follow Marxist ideology in to adulthood, must surely have a mental age that never develops beyond that of a 17 year old.
Good article, Alan, on BBC and political appeasement.
Whereas ‘Daily Mail’ seems to have learnt from the 1930s mistakes of appeasement, the BBC hasn’t, and still is inclined to appease Britain’s Islamic jihadist enemies .
If Hitler were around today and if his Stormtroopers wore pink uniforms and his tanks were pink the BBC and our lefty elite would bend over and welcome him in, I’m sure there’s a euphemism in there somewhere….
Hugo Boss would never have designed a pink uniform!
Wasn’t Hitler’s right hand man Ernst Röhm
openly homosexual?
Rumours of the exurberance of certain members of the SA, including Rohm, were widespread. I don’t think he was openly gay, but he was certainly one of the first of the Nazi camps.
LOL! Deserves a few more likes!
He was and once his usefulness had come to an end Hitler had him arrested and shot.
A lesson from history the BBC/left should heed when they support Islamic extremest as they do currently.
Don’t forget that the Guardian fired Malcolm Muggeridge for reporting on the Ukrainian famine in which at least 20 million people were starved to death systematically and many were forced to cannibalism.
It was deemed anti-stalin to do so. Instead a NYT journalist got a pulitzer for reporting that the Ukrainians were well fed.
The left wing. Home to monsters.
Its great that you bring up the mass-murder of the Ukrainian’s, Chris. It is a subject that I know of, but know actually very little, and I would imagine that that is the same of most people.
We never hear the stories of the atrocities committed by the left of the political spectrum, unless you count the Nazi’s, who the left have made us all believe were ‘right-wing’.
We quite rightly condemn the murder of Jews, Gypsy’s and others at the hands of the Nazi’s but give little or scant space about the atrocities by Stalin, Mao and others.
I await a BBC documentary on the above.
Adolph Miliband got off very lightly. I somehow doubt his vision of Marxist Britain would have been achieved peacefully.
Assorted Abu’s have been deported for seeking the dismantling of Britain by force.
islamism and islamists are the heirs to nazism and nazis,hitler must be rolling in his grave now thinking why did i not form an alliance with the muslim world in world war 2,same hatred of the jews and same fascist ideology would of went down well in hitlers dream of the third reich with his islamist stormtroopers and world domination,hitler would of made a great muslim,he did not drink,he did not smoke,he did not eat pork,and was a vegetarian,as for up his own backside your shout if your a leftie tricky nicky cambell.cant stand the man and his appeasing with radio 5 live of radical islam with there far left supporters who clogs up the lines in them biased phone ins he has.
This blog is turning into something weird tonight. Is it magic mushroom season?
“This blog is turning into something weird tonight”
—-
That this coincides with you being the dominant contributor must be a sheer coincidence.
” dominant contributor”
Surely only second to your esteemed self, third after Chris(I need to mention Saville in every post )H, or perhaps fourth after George(I check under the bed every night for Muslims)R ………………..
Possibly.
But I want to be here and, other than forays into teasing such as yourself (which does up the tally), do tend to refer to BBC bias with URLs.
Your presence and contribution seems less ‘productive’, other than making the BBC seem even less defensible with comments like the one just managed.
Bravo.
Unscientific I know, but a perusal of the “Midweek Thread” shows you have posted 7 times but only once with an URL?
Is 14% the level of productivity I should aspire to?
Thanks for the “Bravo” – always nice to be appreciated.
“Reach out, Albi there!” by the Four Tops.
‘Unscientific I know..’
Along with selective.
A combination that should have you elevated to ‘science’ editor at the BBC before you can say ‘is settled’.
On a semantic basis, I would point in mitigation to my use of the word ‘tend’.
As to aspiration, might it be worth now checking the totality of your contribution for anything supported by substance, vs. a body of work more often characterised by personal opinion masquerading as unique insight.
Very BBC.
Has Alba -‘I see no bias’ -Man ever criticised the BBC for bias?
He is determined to go down as the last defender of the ship, ‘Biased -BBC’.
He claims no vested interest in his daily, unswerving dedication to BBC bias.
And you, Albaman, check inside your bed for your Muslims, you are so embedded.
I think you will find the nazis had several meetings with the Grand Mufti during WW2, and I believe there was an SS unit comprised of arabs.
If Al Qaeda and these extremist groups don’t exist, what’s the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate-in-Chief doing sending all those drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia? Shouldn’t the BBC be asking Him instead of trying to stitch up hapless Hague?
INBBC cannot see the similarities between the horrendous, murderous crimes of Islamic jihadists, committed in the name of their ideology, and that of the Nazis.
And rather than understand the motivation of such Islamic jihad horror, INBBC is inclined to under-state, and under-report it, for its own political reasons.