The BBC: Pro-EU and Anti-America

Humans tend to polarize in their cultural and political beliefs. People join others who support their beliefs and oppose those who have a different view. Issues may be small and local, or encompass an entire worldview. People will bifurcate, absent unifying external threat.

In Britain, the old debate between the left and the right has been partially superseded by a relatively new and evolving debate that pits anti—Americans against Euro—skeptics. Or to convert it to the affirmative, pro—Americans against pro—Europeans. It's the same thing really, minus the extra energy provided by resentment.

Some may think it's too simplistic to assume that all British anti—Americans are pro—European, and vice versa. Maybe they are right, but it cannot be denied that there is an extreme polarity between the two camps.

In the context of the BBC and the propagation of their well documented anti—American views, it's only natural that one becomes suspicious about their overall objectives. Since we can say for certain that the BBC is aggressively anti—American, the question that springs into my mind is why?

The fact that the BBC News editors and journalists are predominantly left—wing does not answer that question. Many of them may hate the US for the usual reasons of bitterness and envy, but that shouldn't necessarily convert into the massive semantic propaganda campaign currently underway at the BBC, which denigrates all things American.

My gut instinct, and that's all it is at this time —— because this is very hard to prove —— is that by bashing the US, the BBC is slowly trying to brainwash the British population into believing that the EU Super State is an alternative and viable worldview, along the same line as Chirac's often stated vision of a new bipolar world order.

In its simplest form, the BBC's game is to convince British citizens that America is bad, which consequently implies that the EU is, by contrast, good.  If one bashes the US enough, then people naturally will look to the alternative, and the only one on offer in the UK is to become part of the EU Super State. From my perspective, it seems a perfectly logical strategy.

Of course, this strategy makes odd bedfellows between Tony Blair's government and the BBC, because they are in fact working in tandem on this transcendent issue. This underlying concordance may represent the reason why Blair will not reform the mandatory license fee system ($200+ per year per television receiver). He desperately desires to become a big shot in the EU, and he won't act against the Beeb — especially if they are willing to help him drag Britain kicking and screaming into the new EU Constitution.

Whatever Blair may have said about the importance of the transatlantic relationship in the past should really be taken with a grain of salt. I know this is probably disappointing for many Americans, but the fact of the matter is that the British Prime Minister is hugely ambitious, and his real priority is himself. Blair is in no way an ideologue, because if the transatlantic alliance were his priority, he wouldn't be flirting with the ridiculous and horribly undemocratic EU Constitution.

This is why many of us in the UK have become deeply skeptical about practically anything Blair has to say these days.

In practice, he needs the BBC to help him convince the British people that further integration with Europe, and ceding more power to its institutions, is a good thing for the UK.

However, Blair may not last much longer as the Prime Minister, as he is now in serious trouble with the electorate, on issues such as immigration and his decision not to allow the British people a referendum on the EU Constitution. In the latest poll, only about 20% of the nation still trusts him.

The BBC, on the other hand, will continue to be a threat to the Transatlantic Alliance well into the future. Even after all the documented cases of clear anti—American bias have been brought to the attention of their complaints department, they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that there is a serious imbalance to their news coverage.

This makes many of us even more certain in our belief that this isn't just some phase the BBC is currently going through, but more likely a concerted effort on behalf of the EU to turn the British public against the old 'special relationship'.

Of course, the scandalous aspect of this anti—American and pro—European editorial direction by the BBC is that it is in flagrant breach of their so—called 'public service remit.' They are using British taxpayers' money to fund an undeclared propaganda campaign against the US, in order to help the EU fulfill its strategic ambitions.

This strategic marriage between the BBC and EU shouldn't really surprise anyone. There is a definite resemblance between the two organizations in how they operate and their methods of funding. They both can only exist through generous tax receipts, and are governed by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. In a way, they compliment each other and it is in each of their interests that the other survives.

An example of this mutuality can be demonstrated by the fact that every time a British citizen has challenged the undemocratic license fee at the European Court of Justice, the case gets comprehensively thrown—out.  That's very odd, considering the EU usually loves sticking its nose in the legal affairs of its member states. The EU has clearly been protecting the BBC and its license fee, which only the British have to pay.

So what can be done about this?

In the UK, we need to step up our campaign of exposing the anti—American and pro—European bias of the BBC. We also need to organize a nationwide petition against the continuation of the license fee, and perhaps even refuse en masse to pay the tax, even if thousands of us end up in prison. Think about it: thousands of ordinary law—abiding British citizens being jailed because they don't agree with the political views expressed by the BBC. That scenario would enable British citizens to legitimately apply for political asylum in another country. All the criteria for political refugee status would be met, and this could become incredibly embarrassing for the British government.

Americans could also play a part in our battle against the undemocratic BBC license fee, with initiatives such as boycotting BBC America, petitioning cable and satellite systems to remove its programming, or writing letters to Congress and the White House, urging political leaders to shun the BBC's correspondents.

Why should Americans care about all this?

Well, it's America that is being slandered, minute—by—minute, hour—by—hour, every day of the year at the BBC.

The BBC is the enemy of all right—thinking people, who understand that the world is a safer place with the Transatlantic Alliance intact. The BBC and the EU are doing their best to break it up.

If they are successful in their objective, we'll have only ourselves to blame, because no—one will be able to say we were not warned.

Michael Morris is our London Correspondent

Humans tend to polarize in their cultural and political beliefs. People join others who support their beliefs and oppose those who have a different view. Issues may be small and local, or encompass an entire worldview. People will bifurcate, absent unifying external threat.

In Britain, the old debate between the left and the right has been partially superseded by a relatively new and evolving debate that pits anti—Americans against Euro—skeptics. Or to convert it to the affirmative, pro—Americans against pro—Europeans. It's the same thing really, minus the extra energy provided by resentment.

Some may think it's too simplistic to assume that all British anti—Americans are pro—European, and vice versa. Maybe they are right, but it cannot be denied that there is an extreme polarity between the two camps.

In the context of the BBC and the propagation of their well documented anti—American views, it's only natural that one becomes suspicious about their overall objectives. Since we can say for certain that the BBC is aggressively anti—American, the question that springs into my mind is why?

The fact that the BBC News editors and journalists are predominantly left—wing does not answer that question. Many of them may hate the US for the usual reasons of bitterness and envy, but that shouldn't necessarily convert into the massive semantic propaganda campaign currently underway at the BBC, which denigrates all things American.

My gut instinct, and that's all it is at this time —— because this is very hard to prove —— is that by bashing the US, the BBC is slowly trying to brainwash the British population into believing that the EU Super State is an alternative and viable worldview, along the same line as Chirac's often stated vision of a new bipolar world order.

In its simplest form, the BBC's game is to convince British citizens that America is bad, which consequently implies that the EU is, by contrast, good.  If one bashes the US enough, then people naturally will look to the alternative, and the only one on offer in the UK is to become part of the EU Super State. From my perspective, it seems a perfectly logical strategy.

Of course, this strategy makes odd bedfellows between Tony Blair's government and the BBC, because they are in fact working in tandem on this transcendent issue. This underlying concordance may represent the reason why Blair will not reform the mandatory license fee system ($200+ per year per television receiver). He desperately desires to become a big shot in the EU, and he won't act against the Beeb — especially if they are willing to help him drag Britain kicking and screaming into the new EU Constitution.

Whatever Blair may have said about the importance of the transatlantic relationship in the past should really be taken with a grain of salt. I know this is probably disappointing for many Americans, but the fact of the matter is that the British Prime Minister is hugely ambitious, and his real priority is himself. Blair is in no way an ideologue, because if the transatlantic alliance were his priority, he wouldn't be flirting with the ridiculous and horribly undemocratic EU Constitution.

This is why many of us in the UK have become deeply skeptical about practically anything Blair has to say these days.

In practice, he needs the BBC to help him convince the British people that further integration with Europe, and ceding more power to its institutions, is a good thing for the UK.

However, Blair may not last much longer as the Prime Minister, as he is now in serious trouble with the electorate, on issues such as immigration and his decision not to allow the British people a referendum on the EU Constitution. In the latest poll, only about 20% of the nation still trusts him.

The BBC, on the other hand, will continue to be a threat to the Transatlantic Alliance well into the future. Even after all the documented cases of clear anti—American bias have been brought to the attention of their complaints department, they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that there is a serious imbalance to their news coverage.

This makes many of us even more certain in our belief that this isn't just some phase the BBC is currently going through, but more likely a concerted effort on behalf of the EU to turn the British public against the old 'special relationship'.

Of course, the scandalous aspect of this anti—American and pro—European editorial direction by the BBC is that it is in flagrant breach of their so—called 'public service remit.' They are using British taxpayers' money to fund an undeclared propaganda campaign against the US, in order to help the EU fulfill its strategic ambitions.

This strategic marriage between the BBC and EU shouldn't really surprise anyone. There is a definite resemblance between the two organizations in how they operate and their methods of funding. They both can only exist through generous tax receipts, and are governed by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. In a way, they compliment each other and it is in each of their interests that the other survives.

An example of this mutuality can be demonstrated by the fact that every time a British citizen has challenged the undemocratic license fee at the European Court of Justice, the case gets comprehensively thrown—out.  That's very odd, considering the EU usually loves sticking its nose in the legal affairs of its member states. The EU has clearly been protecting the BBC and its license fee, which only the British have to pay.

So what can be done about this?

In the UK, we need to step up our campaign of exposing the anti—American and pro—European bias of the BBC. We also need to organize a nationwide petition against the continuation of the license fee, and perhaps even refuse en masse to pay the tax, even if thousands of us end up in prison. Think about it: thousands of ordinary law—abiding British citizens being jailed because they don't agree with the political views expressed by the BBC. That scenario would enable British citizens to legitimately apply for political asylum in another country. All the criteria for political refugee status would be met, and this could become incredibly embarrassing for the British government.

Americans could also play a part in our battle against the undemocratic BBC license fee, with initiatives such as boycotting BBC America, petitioning cable and satellite systems to remove its programming, or writing letters to Congress and the White House, urging political leaders to shun the BBC's correspondents.

Why should Americans care about all this?

Well, it's America that is being slandered, minute—by—minute, hour—by—hour, every day of the year at the BBC.

The BBC is the enemy of all right—thinking people, who understand that the world is a safer place with the Transatlantic Alliance intact. The BBC and the EU are doing their best to break it up.

If they are successful in their objective, we'll have only ourselves to blame, because no—one will be able to say we were not warned.

Michael Morris is our London Correspondent