Saturday, 13 February 2016

Analysis Of A BBC Immigration Debate

Scattered around the prole-feed of British MSM television scheduling are little segments dedicated to "debating the issues" such as mass immigration, the establishment is so paranoid (and rightly so) about these ''sensitive subjects'' that even the terminology used to describe them is an issue. At the moment they prefer the term ''Refugee Crisis'' because the moral high-ground is superficially bequeathed to the people who want to see Europeans totally dispossessed and destroyed on their own soil. 
 These segments which pop up on political shows and as extras to news coverage follow a standard format and the one selected here is very typical of what the Native British can expect by way of debate on the subject of their End of Days, or Welcoming Refugees, depending on your perspective. The only reason this particular back and forth could be considered noteworthy is that it took place in the immediate aftermath of the Cologne mass sex attacks, or, as the BBC would have it "a few isolated incidents".

For those out here, inhabiting the radical Far Right Extremist fringe, the interest is to strip this forcibly subsidized machine down and look at its moving parts and circuitry. 

 And so it begins...

* A weird wombat looking woman (Jo Coburn) opens the segment by explaining that German attitudes are changing and post Cologne, and other mass sex attacks, people are turning against the non White influx. A report follows explaining what happened with German women giving their accounts of being groped and tensions between anti immigrant groups and Leftists.

* Coburn then introduces Breitbart London editor, Raheem Kassam, as ''Right Wing'' as if to warn the audience and then asks whether it is right for attitudes to immigration to have changed after the mass sex attacks in German cities and whether this would also effect attitudes in Britain "after a number of incidents". Raheem replies that it certainly would and that what happened is exactly what ''The Right'' warned about in the first place.

* Raheem doesn't even finish his reply and the camera switches to a rather thuggish looking man who looks hurt and angry. As Raheem says ''people (Germans) have had to go through a terrible ordeal'' the man shakes his head disapprovingly.  This is Giles Fraser and he may have already been introduced in an earlier segment but at any rate we are supposed to know who he is and he acts, and is treated like, a co-host rather than a guest.

* The question Coburn puts to Fraser is ''Are you surprised that attitudes have changed?'' Fraser completely ignores the question and whereas Coburn kept haranguing Raheem for an answer she lets Fraser go off on an angry rant. Fraser begins by reluctantly telling us the sex attacks were ''a bad thing and no-one is going to say otherwise but it has been blown out of all proportion''. Fraser becomes more excitable as he tells us that a 16 year old boy was murdered right next to his parish and it didn't get anything like the coverage of Cologne.

The boy Fraser refers to, an African immigrant involved with a black street gang riot: ''Up to 30 people were seen fighting next to a children's playground on the Aylesbury estate before Moe was fatally injured.''

* Fraser then continues by shouting that he's a ''more the merrier'' type when it comes to immigrants because they have a hard life where they come from. He acknowledges that there will be ''challenges'' but that we should ''celebrate that fact'' and that we should be ''up for all the troubles that come''. In other words, Fraser accepts that there will be mass sex attacks and that we should just put up with it.

* You would have thought Coburn might challenge Fraser's lunacy and shockingly cruel diatribe, but she doesn't, she turns on Raheem and accuses him of ''blaming an entire group for a few bad apples'' Raheem explains the absurdity of blaming all apples because of a few bad ones and then patiently tells Coburn and Fraser that there really are rapists and terrorists coming in, it is a fact. Fraser simply points out that we already have rapists and terrorists here and then goes on to say he's a ''Let em all in type'' free of background checks, simply open up the country completely to everyone in Africa and Asia. You might think Coburn would finally challenge Fraser on his insane views, but you'd be wrong....

* Coburn then accusingly questions Raheem on whether he is simply peddling ''Islamophobia'' and ''playing into the hands of the Far Right and other extremist groups''. Let's just pause for a second here, during the course of this debate Giles Fraser has repeatedly stated that the inflow of immigrants be unending, that they can literally ALL come into Europe. And he's said this while acknowledging European women will be raped and molested and that terrorists will also come in and blow us up. The moderator of this discussion didn't even try to challenge him on any of this but instead deflects it back onto the people who are worried about being raped and bombed and shot, Raheem then has to defend groups such as PEGIDA.

* The debate then draws to a close with Frasier going off on another tirade on ''Islamophobia'' in British society and that the government's anti terror strategies are unfairly targeting Muslims and are "nonsense''. The last words, predictably, go to Fraser ''Refugees should be welcome''. 

Breitbart has often been the focus of criticism on this blog and we need not get into it again here, Raheem obviously isn't White but from the perspective of Counter Jihad, Civic Nationalist types that's an advantage because it's far more difficult to hurl ''racist'' at him when discussing these topics. That's pretty straight forward and many White British people will understand that tactic. However, what are the great masses of our people to make of Fraser and Coburn? what is it they actually see? What they will take away from Coburn is a rather dopey media type who seems weirdly incapable of seeing the wider picture. Fraser will be seen as an extreme example of a ''bleeding heart liberal do-gooder''who means well but is misguided and a little moronic. 
 In actual fact both Coburn and Fraser are Jewish. When Fraser advocates ''letting em all in'' fully in the knowledge of and admitting to, the rapes and misery and murders that will follow, he isn't doing so as a deluded White Liberal, he's doing so as a non White person knowing that his people are unlikely to be the ones suffering. It isn't ''Oh look, another daft do-gooder'' it is ''He's a foreign element openly advocating for our genocide!''

So an Asian and two Jews are on the BBC discussing issues which effect the ethnic interests and future of the White British, and the White British themselves are entirely absent from the debate. Many of us have become so inured to this that it's worth transplanting the whole issue to another country in order to make a comparison.

 Just imagine a Japanese man switched on his television to see the issue of mass immigration being discussed. There's a civil war in Bangladesh and South Korea has taken in a million or so refugees from Bangladesh, though in reality people from Pakistan and Afghanistan and Africa have flooded in. 

The Japanese people are aware that these immigrants have carried out mass sex attacks and terror in South Korea. So our hypothetical Japanese man sits down to watch the debate on tv and sees that there is not one Japanese person actually on the panel. The moderator is an Indonesian, another Indonesian explains that Japan must accept limitless Millions of non Japanese people despite it being inevitable that Japanese women will be violated, and the only half way reasonable opinion is voiced by an Indian. 

 This is what the ghastly abomination called the BBC does to us every single day.

No comments:

Post a Comment