British Liberal Media's Multicultural Fascism Exposed

[DieselDaisy]

I will give you an example of liberal bias. There was a report about remain's referendum campaign, or a sector of remain's, being illegal yet where was the blanket coverage which it awarded to the irregularities in the leave campaign, irregularities proven false?

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/david-cameron/news/91572/official-eu-remain-campaign

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-appeal-darren-grimes-eu-referendum-spending-rules-vote-leave-a9012981.html

Scottish Independence is just that, ''independence''. Yet UK withdrawal from the EU is ''crashing out''. We are constantly exposed to negativity on withdrawal such as pharmaceutical shortages yet where is the negative aspects on remaining? Being a federal constituent of a (Verhofstadt) ''empire'' with an EU army would be seen by many as a dubious course for the European Union, yet Britain will be exposed to this trajectory by remaining? Question Time's panels are awash with remainers, usually only possessing one leave opinion to counterbalance five remainers.  

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

19 hours ago, soon said:

Bolded part - my faith has a specific focus on ecology like how your Paganism does too. And I too am horrified by the lack of coverage of the Climate Crisis. That said, sometimes it seems that you asking for your Pagan values to be centred. But Paganism isnt the official British faith just like Islam isnt. So in asking the BBC to cover events the way a Pagan would prioritize it is kinda asking for multiculturalism, no?

I'm not really asking for paganism to be centred, just using it as an example. 90% of the 'new' religious coverage over the last 20 years seems to be Islam. I don't know if that's the media's choice, or because Muslim viewers are the ones most pushy about putting stories forward. Sometimes, Muslims go on TV to talk about some other issue; the community, feminism, environment etc; but then start on about Islam, saying it can't be separated, and they are proud Muslims etc, even if they've been abused by their partner etc.

Despite Britain being historically 'pagan', and the Middle-Eastern religions' timescale (all life 10,000 years old or less) being disproved by science, there's hardly any coverage of outside the weather - might mention longest/shortest day and equinox - today is the autumn/fall in northern hemisphere! Halloween is basically a pagan festival, like most of the others (Christmas - Midwinter etc) but not treated as such now, or even its historical context mentioned.

Britain and other European and Commonwealth countries have always been multicultural, but New Labour made it into a policy by opening up the borders, like this article says: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

'The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote". As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants. Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons. Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.'

They said they wanted to 'change the face of Britain' and also spent all the money, with a minister childishly leaving a note when they left office telling his Tory successor that. Now, there's Brexit, and Labour has been taken over by the militant left, many of whom are the people New Labour left in!

 

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

Bernardo Silva friendly tweet another ridiculous example highlighting Orwellian 1984 Multicultural Fascism: supposed victim laughed about it, but powers-that-be want to stir up trouble!
On the other hand I saw a black journalist doing a newspaper round-up call some voluntary border force guards 'thugs' without knowing anything else about them.
I haven't heard of any action against him, and don't expect to. One law for 'white British' (Silva is of course Portuguese, so 'white European' in his case, although he may feel brown?) and another for others; with the native people the ones discriminated against!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/premier-league/fa-contact-man-city-in-relation-to-bernardo-silva-tweet/ar-AAHIY5d?ocid=sf

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

BBC-created Muslim celebrity Nadiya Hussein revealing she'd been abused as a child didn't make Sunday Morning Live, but the story about Muslim parents winning court case to have their ill child moved to Italy for treatment did; as did Harry and Meghan's complaints against the British media!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/bake-off-winner-nadiya-hussain-reveals-she-was-sexually-assaulted-at-age-five/ar-AAIkBhD?ocid=spartanntp

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

Jeremy Clarkson right about BBC caving in over Munchetty. She's always pushing the race issue; like the football example I posted earlier:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jeremy-clarkson-blasts-bbc-for-u-turn-on-naga-munchetty-racism-ruling-ex-top-gear-host-says-director-general-lord-tony-hall-threw-standards-chief-under-a-bus-by-undermining-decision/ar-AAIrnDK?ocid=spartanntp

Conversely, I have often agreed with Munchetty on other issues, such as animal welfare and the environment; and am opposed to Clarkson's negative attitude to them; which is why I'm a greenYgrey supporter!

[DieselDaisy]

BBC is just a liberal propaganda agency now, whether that be remain, environmental nutters, race and gay issues or political correctness. It is just a sounding platform for those issues. 

[SoulMonster]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

BBC is just a liberal propaganda agency now, whether that be remain, environmental nutters, race and gay issues or political correctness. It is just a sounding platform for those issues. 

Hasn't BBC always been the voice of reason? 

[soon]

"Environmental nutters" what like people who deny climate science and the urgency of the task? Like the typically fiscally conservative people who inexplicably want to spend all other forms of of wealth as fast as possible? Those race to the bottom folks?

[action]

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Hasn't BBC always been the voice of reason? 

nah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_sexual_abuse_cases

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

"Environmental nutters" what like people who deny climate science and the urgency of the task? Like the typically fiscally conservative people who inexplicably want to spend all other forms of of wealth as fast as possible? Those race to the bottom folks?

No, like Extinction Rebellion and the Greta cult. 

2 minutes ago, action said:

nah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_sexual_abuse_cases

Noncing shop also. 

[action]

5 minutes ago, soon said:

"Environmental nutters" what like people who deny climate science and the urgency of the task? Like the typically fiscally conservative people who inexplicably want to spend all other forms of of wealth as fast as possible? Those race to the bottom folks?

according to the kardashev scale, we are a type I civilisation, and by this point are unable to revert climate change on a planetary level

there is evidence for climate change, but there is no evidence we can do anything about it

 

[soon]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Greta cult. 

The only thing you've put forward to justify calling it a cult is that demonstrators make large scale puppets, as is common at protests before she was even born.

2 minutes ago, action said:

according to the kardashev scale, we are a type I civilisation, and by this point are unable to revert climate change on a planetary level

there is evidence for climate change, but there is no evidence we can do anything about it

That is categorically untrue. I swear you've not listened to a single Greta speech! Heres what the scientist say we ned to do. And we have 11 years only to do it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report 

[action]

Just now, soon said:

 

That is categorically untrue. I swear you've not listened to a single Greta speech! Heres what the scientist say we ned to do. And we have 11 years only to do it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report 

in 2009, michael jackson said we only have three more years or so.

it doesn't matter. three years, 11 years... 

how are we going to revert climate change again? the earth is a sphere whose circumfence is 40.075 kilometers around the equator. it is of a massive scale, and nothing we ever do will make even a dent in a planetary evolution.

I've got some bad news for you: climate change will worsen from here on out. Famine, disease and drought will rise with it. There will be crying and an increase in environmental nutter activity, possibly in violent ways. because that's what the extreme left is known for: violent parades. "We want peace, with violence if necessary"

And you know what? I don't care, I really don't. if humanity disapeared tomorrow, it would be the best thing that happened to earth in millions of years. It'll be all good, relax.

[soon]

1 minute ago, action said:

in 2009, michael jackson said we only have three more years or so.

it doesn't matter. three years, 11 years... 

how are we going to revert climate change again? the earth is a sphere whose circumfence is 40.075 kilometers around the equator. it is of a massive scale, and nothing we ever do will make even a dent in a planetary evolution.

I've got some bad news for you: climate change will worsen from here on out. Famine, disease and drought will rise with it. There will be crying and an increase in environmental nutter activity, possibly in violent ways. because that's what the extreme left is known for: violent parades. "We want peace, with violence if necessary"

And you know what? I don't care, I really don't. if humanity disapeared tomorrow, it would be the best thing that happened to earth in millions of years. It'll be all good, relax.

I stopped reading at "Michael Jackson.." 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, action said:

how are we going to revert climate change again? the earth is a sphere whose circumfence is 40.075 kilometers around the equator. it is of a massive scale, and nothing we ever do will make even a dent in a planetary evolution.

Nonsense. We are already changing the global climate in negative ways. That proves we DO have the power to affect ut.

[action]

Just now, soon said:

I stopped reading at "Michael Jackson.." 

I stopped reading at "soon" 

[action]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Nonsense. We are already changing the global climate in negative ways. That proves we DO have the power to affect ut.

I think you should familiarise yourself with the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy increases over time. It's far easier to spread energy, than to contain it, in other words it's much easier to warm up earth than to cool it down. it requires an unbelievable amount of energy to neutralise the greenhouse effect.

I'm sorry, no, we don't have the power to cool down earth.

Edited October 11, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, action said:

I think you should familiarise yourself with the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy increases over time. It's far easier to spread energy, than to contain it, in other words it's much easier to warm up earth than to cool it down. 

Huh? If it is easier to spread energy, then it should be easier to cool down Earth by reducing the greenhouse gases that contain warmth, which would allow heat to radiate off Earth into space.

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, action said:

I'm sorry, no, we don't have the power to cool down earth.

Huh? Have you never heard of greenhouse gases? If we emit less greenhouse gases, more heat will radiate off Earth and it will be cooled down.

It's funny that you so frequently talk about physics but obviously is so ignorant about this field of science.

[soon]

13 minutes ago, action said:

I stopped reading at "soon" 

Yes, clearly you didnt even read the first paragraph of the article on the UN report.

Then youd know that the conversation is about not heating it up at our current rate, before it becomes an irreversible situation in 11 years. Paris Agreement, UN report. All that shit that inspired Greta.

[action]

5 minutes ago, soon said:

Yes, clearly you didnt even read the first paragraph of the article on the UN report.

Then youd know that the conversation is about not heating it up at our current rate, before it becomes an irreversible situation in 11 years. Paris Agreement, UN report. All that shit that inspired Greta.

I agree that we should not be heating up earth. I don't think anyone says otherwise.

the thing is, we can't not heat up earth. We don't have the technical means to do, and because we need food to even stay alive (which requires freeing up land for agriculture, machines to harvest etc...), it's not possible to decrease CO2 in meanigfull quantities. We can decrease it with a few percentages, maybe, but each year more people are born and CO2 output increases, so it's a fight you can not win.

but like I said: no worries. Earth will take care of us one way or another, and it has a simple solution to the problem: mass extinction of mankind.

Edited October 11, 2019 by action

[action]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Huh? If it is easier to spread energy, then it should be easier to cool down Earth by reducing the greenhouse gases that contain warmth, which would allow heat to radiate off Earth into space.

well obviously it's not, see the greenhouse effect 

[soon]

4 minutes ago, action said:

I agree that we should not be heating up earth. I don't think anyone says otherwise.

the thing is, we can't not heat up earth. We don't have the technical means to do, and because we need food to even stay alive (which requires freeing up land for agriculture, machines to harvest etc...), it's not possible to decrease CO2 in meanigfull quantities. We can decrease it with a few percentages, maybe, but each year more people are born and CO2 output increases, so it's a fight you can not win.

but like I said: no worries. Earth will take care of us one way or another, and it has a simple solution to the problem: mass extinction of mankind.

You've laid out the solutions, just masked as fatalism.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, action said:

well obviously it's not, see the greenhouse effect 

But again, we can alter the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rather easily. It wouldn't be a case of violating a law of physics, as you erroneously presents it. If you look at the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere over history, it has fluctuated greatly, both due to natural processes like volcanic eruptions and fires, but also as a result of living organisms like evolution of aerobic microorganisms and human activity. 

[action]

you see, much of the problem is rooted in "anthropocentrism". the misguided belief that everything on earth and even the universe revolves around mankind.

It's this ridiculous belief that earth is made for "us" and that the only way earth can move on, is if "we" keep on existing.

A quick look at our planetary history however, shows that mankind on a scale of 12 hours is only here for the last 5 minutes, and that over the course of many geological timescales, species came and went.

When the dinosaurs got extinct (due to planet sized climate change), the planet didnt cease to exist. Other species got their chance.

well, the same will happen here; 

Inevitably, the climate will change in such ways that mankind can no longer stand it, and we can't survive. This place will then become a paradise for species who favour a hot climate. With the extinction of mankind, nature will repair itself, new species will arise and much of the sorrow that's rampant on earth today will be long forgotten, with all living things in the future being oblivious about our short but idiotic little run on earth.

Edited October 11, 2019 by action