Television and radio broadcasting today helps
to shape, mould and inform the views of millions of people every
day. Because these mediums are so powerful they have a duty, both moral
and legal, to accurately and fairly represent the views of its population
as well as those of dissident groups within that population.
The question is, what can you do about it when the broadcasters do
not carry out these obligations. The truth is, virtually nothing!
You can complain to the broadcasting watchdogs and, if they feel your
complaint has merit, they will complain to the station that broadcast
the offensive material. In turn, the offending broadcaster will issue
an apology about whatever it was they did wrong. This is highly unsatisfactory
because it does not stop further, identical, breaches of the law at
a later date. The current system gives the broadcasters a way of avoiding
the kind of court actions the rest of us have to endure if we break
the law. How would you feel if you caught the local burglar robbing
your home and when you called the police they contacted the burglar
and complained and asked him to issue an apology to you and a promise
-- you know he will break -- not to do it again?
There is also another and more sinister side to this cosy set-up. Imagine
you are the head of a national broadcaster like the BBC. Further, imagine
that you hold very strong personal political views that you would love
to impose on the population as a whole. Unfortunately, the population
do not share your views and show no sign of doing so in the near future.
One way to get your views broadcast to the nation would be to recruit
others into the organisation who also share your views and then place
them into key positions within the corporation. Once this is done, your
personal political ‘slant’ can be added to every appropriate
news report. You can commission programs that also reflect your views.
The power you would have over the views of the population would be massive
and frightening. The fact that most people do not share your views would
now be irrelevant. Now you have the power to mould the publics thinking
so that they will, in time, come to share those personal political views
but without being aware of how they were manipulated into that position.
Do you think this is just scare mongering and it could not happen?
You would be wrong. It is happening today at the BBC.
In order to understand what I mean by the above statement it is necessary
to give some historical background to it.
Mainstream feminism calls, quite rightly, for a level playing field
between men and women, both in law and in the workplace etc.
However, there is another strand of feminism that most people regard
as extreme and do not subscribe to. It is known, among other names,
as Radical Feminism. Radical feminism is not based upon the ideals of
equality between the sexes, but upon the idea of revenge upon and replacement
of, the ‘patriarchy’. Its views are rooted in communist,
revolutionary Russia and was first postulated by Marx and Engels and
other such ‘luminaries’ in the world of communism.
In the early 1970’s in Great Britain, the mainstream and reasonable
feminist organisations suffered a take over by their more extreme, radical
sisters. There followed an outbreak of mild bombings, demonstrations,
ousting of detractors and death threats * made against those who wrote
about what was going on. Powerful background support was given to these
people by the extreme left wing of the Labour party and trade unions.
The fledgling domestic abuse and refuge movement was taken over completely
and its founder ousted and threatened to the point were she was forced
to leave the country in exile for a time.
The radical feminists, (both male and female) during the two decades
of the 70’s and 80’s, aided by their powerful political
allies, quickly advanced into positions of high influence within publishing,
broadcasting, education and social services. The politicians wrote laws
that helped smooth their paths into the highest echelons of these organisations
and so ensured that the political philosophies of radical feminism were
widely disseminated.
By the 1990’s the BBC, along with large portions of the print
media, had been thoroughly infiltrated and the slow manipulation of
the population began. The problem was, the British people (much to their
credit), were not interested in the message of the radical feminists
because, in the main, they simply do not believe it. This led to a more
aggressive policy by the radical feminist element in our society and
by the year 2000 the BBC began to pump the political views of this group
into more and more of its programming. At the same time, the BBC began
to suppress all contrary debate and exclude anyone who did not go along
with the radical feminist ethos. So began the most disgusting high jacking
of British democracy ever seen in this country. We are all having a
political viewpoint we have no interest in, foisted upon us by a powerful
broadcaster and other institutions and all without being given a platform
on which to object. It all amounts to an horrendous brainwashing of
the population by a minority political group. Imagine what would happen
if the B.N.P managed to do this in the future!
Incidentally, at the same time as all of this was happening in Great
Britain, it was also happening in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and
America. If that is not an organised attempt the thwart western democracy,
then I do not know what is! These events have been well documented and
the information is available in many places on the Internet.
The BBC will not allow any masculist views to be aired on their programs
in anything like the coverage they give to the feminist view point.
Neither will they allow the men's movement to discuss 3.3 million men
who suffer domestic abuse in the UK and who have no refuges to escape
too with their children. In fact, all discussion on matters unrelated
to the radical feminist agenda, is completely ignored. However, the
feminist ethos and position is pumped at us all relentlessly.
At the time of writing this I am aware that just this morning on the
BBC breakfast news program, another feminist author was given space
to plug her views. No contrary position was allowed be given by way
of balance. The net effect of all of this is that we, the British people,
are not allowed to think outside of the feminist box, or question any
of the feminist viewpoints or interpretations of history, or philosophy.
Nothing is more dangerous. If you doubt it, consider Germany in 1935.
Now, as then, a minority is being allowed to impose a political viewpoint
on the majority.
Bias in broadcasting, while seeming to be harmless and low key, may
well have a darker and more organised side than most of us realise.
Our only chance of stemming the tide is not through the useless regulatory
bodies, or the self regulation of the broadcasters, but through the
courts where we can at least argue our case publicly before the people.
For the moment, the men's movement in the UK and a few other unaffiliated
organisations are the only ones who are speaking of these matters. We
have to work harder to get these disturbing facts placed before the
people so that they may pass an informed judgement on those who have
perpetrated these deceptions.
*Dan Lynch writes: "I admire Erin Pizzey for her objectivity when
it comes to violence in the home and for her constant efforts to search
for a solution by looking at the whole picture and not to create a 'blame
game'.
Erin Pizzey is accredited with having opened the first modern shelter
for abused women and is the founder of the women’s shelter movement.
That was in 1971. She is the author of numerous books, including probably
the first book on the subject of domestic violence, Scream Quietly or
the Neighbours Will Hear, as well as Prone to Violence, which is now
an online book that was originally published in paperback. The paperback
is a rare find and, according to some, worth a tremendous amount. To
my understanding it is now in reprint.
Erin has been doing her work in the field for over 30 years.
It's funny, you'd think we would be having an Erin Pizzey day, or parades
in her honour, even memorabilia or a constant mention of her contribution,
on television, radio or newspaper, each time the issue comes up. Hell;
even mention her on all those numerous pamphlets that are circulated
or on billboards about Domestic Violence that can be seen all across
the U.K., Canada the US, right down to Australia and New Zealand.
What she got instead was ostracism and death threats. Erin was cast
out of many circles because of her statements. She has been denied web
space at nearly every Domestic Violence site there is.
You wouldn't think that people would be burning or trashing her books
in every English-speaking country in the world to the point that it
has been found that there are only about two known copies of her book
Prone to Violence left in Canadian libraries.
How did this pioneer come to deserve such wrath from fellow DV counselors
and feminists; what did she do to elicit such hatred? Erin stated that
women, too, are abusers, that they are often violent, and not just in
self-defense. Studies show that they are equally likely, or even more
likely than men, to be the ones who initiate violence – the ones
who attack and elicit a self-defense response from their partners."
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.htm
