Is the White Male Under Attack?

[The Atheist]

It's ok now - the argument's over.

It is still women who are under attack:

(do not read if you are of a delicate disposition)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...d-2072201.html

[Emil Miller]

But conspiracy theory is just the proper way to describe it! As FifthElement has pointed out in the case of the UK's media, where exactly is this 'black bias'?



I have not been arguing about affirmative action, at least in these past few pages. The issue at hand is whether or not white males are indeed discriminated as much or more than other minorities. I do indeed have some problems with Affirmative Action as it is today (not as JFK founded it), and while I think its ends are in the right, its means are not helping solve the problem and may indeed be worsening it. But please, provide me with some legitimate evidence that affirmative action has indeed, in the long run, effected the white population to the point that one can say that they are "under attack" or facing as much discrimination as minorities do.



Again, when did I ever go about defending affirmative action? I think I only mentioned it once in regards to SLG's post. Please do not assume things about me.

The statistics in question were provided so as to illustrate the invalidity of the thesis of this thread which is; that the white male is "under attack" and facing just as much discrimination as other minorities. You have yet acknowledge them in the context in which I was providing them. This has nothing to do with affirmative action, which may be, to your suprise, is not an anti-white policy on behest of the government, unless you prove to me otherwise.



Really? Explicity forbidden? Idk know about the BBC, but last I looked, here in the US, Fox News was still the highest rated "news" network.

Also, I would like to ask you; please present me with some direct examples of this "anti-white" broadcasting in the media. I would love to see it.

The BBC has operated since its creation in 1927 under a Royal Charter as a public corporation. The Charter decreed that the BBC's views be entirely independent of any private or governmental influence. It is thereby required to be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners.

I have just discovered that our most recent socialist government has changed the charter. Spot the difference? To help you, I have highlighted the relevant changes.

A number of important changes were made in the latest Charter to the Corporation's management and purpose:

Abolition of the Board of Governors, and their replacement by the BBC Trust.
A redefinition of the BBC's "public services" (which are considered its prime function):
Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
Promoting education and learning;
Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.
The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content: high quality, originality, innovation, to be challenging and to be engaging.
The BBC must demonstrate that it provides public value in all of its major activities.

[BienvenuJDC]

The BBC has operated since its creation in 1927 under a Royal Charter as a public corporation. The Charter decreed that the BBC's views be entirely independent of any private or governmental influence. It is thereby required to be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners.

I have just discovered that our most recent socialist government has changed the charter. Spot the difference? To help you, I have highlighted the relevant changes.

A number of important changes were made in the latest Charter to the Corporation's management and purpose:

Abolition of the Board of Governors, and their replacement by the BBC Trust.
A redefinition of the BBC's "public services" (which are considered its prime function):
Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
Promoting education and learning;
Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.
The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content: high quality, originality, innovation, to be challenging and to be engaging.
The BBC must demonstrate that it provides public value in all of its major activities.

Hmmm...were the "pigs" painting the sign again? Sounds a bit Orwellian...

[Emil Miller]

Hmmm...were the "pigs" painting the sign again? Sounds a bit Orwellian...

You are right. It's no coincidence that Orwell was employed by the BBC during WWII, but those were exceptional circumstances.

[OrphanPip]

I'm pretty sure the second highlighted portion is merely a reference to BBC international broadcasting. The BBC broadcasts in the US, Canada, Australia, and several other countries around the world. Moreover, this clearly benefits the UK by promoting their cultural influence beyond their borders.

Personally, being the rabid homosexual atheist socialist I am, the only news channel I watch is Al Jazeera.

[DanielBenoit]

A number of important changes were made in the latest Charter to the Corporation's management and purpose:

Abolition of the Board of Governors, and their replacement by the BBC Trust.
A redefinition of the BBC's "public services" (which are considered its prime function):
Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
Promoting education and learning;
Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.
The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content: high quality, originality, innovation, to be challenging and to be engaging.
The BBC must demonstrate that it provides public value in all of its major activities.

Whoaaa, that's some pretty radical anti-white extremist policies. Damn, I should've known beforehand that the BBC's new policies were destroying our moral decorum of our society and media.

[BienvenuJDC]

Whoaaa, that's some pretty radical anti-white extremist policies. Damn, I should've known beforehand that the BBC's new policies were destroying our moral decorum of our society and media.

Maybe you should read Animal Farm (again if you already have)... the changes are always subtle. But it seems that any argument presented will be met with disregard. I've been called an extremist for a while now. It really means nothing anymore.

[DanielBenoit]

Maybe you should read Animal Farm (again if you already have)... the changes are always subtle. But it seems that any argument presented will be met with disregard. I've been called an extremist for a while now. It really means nothing anymore.

I indeed have read Animal Farm and I indeed do understand Orwell's brilliant insight into how language is manipulated in order to virtually control minds. But that does not justify one accusing the BBC of whatever terrible thing you are accusing it of for harmless policies such as. . . . promoting education and learning?

Maybe I'm not using my magnifying glass well enough, or maybe my semantic deconstrucation isn't practical enough, but please explain to me the 'Orwellian' significance behind the BBC's new policies so as to make it as sinister as some kind of communist propaganda system.

Also, I was asking Brian to display for me the so called 'pro-black' biases in the media. I was a little disappointed with what he gave me

Say whatever you like about the UK media, liberalized or not, I don't care. The issue at hand is in regards to the racial bias the media has been accused by Brian of having.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=DanielBenoit;951249]... promoting education and learning? QUOTE]


Might I suggest that you re-read 1984? In which the concepts of Newspeak and doublethink are introduced. If you don't know already, Orwell used his wartime propaganda work at the BBC as the model for Big Brother's broadcasting system. Whatever the satirical intent, there is more than a little truth in the observation.
Having given up watching television, which largely consists of rubbish, I spend quite a lot of time listening to the BBCs radio output. Presumably on account of 'affirmative action', there are an increasing number non-white presenters and a plethora of programmes about Africa, usually concentrating on social problems. Other minorities are disproportionately catered for and, if one isn't, the BBC programmers will soon find it and, no matter how small the minority, it will receive plenty of coverage.
There are also an ever increasing number of 'standup comedians' who are not only unfunny but whose 'jokes' are practically all anti-establishment.
One really has to have experienced the BBC over a number of years to understand the extent of its decline. As I have pointed out, the new charter gives them the opportunity to ditch objectivity and apply the subjective approach. {edit}So now the BBC, the socialists and the minorities are happy; leaving those who don't fall into those categories having to increasingly switch off what used to be a fine sevice.

[Propter W.]

Might I suggest that you re-read 1984? In which the concepts of Newspeak and doublethink are introduced.

Language does not define our thoughts or our understanding of the world. Newspeak is an example of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. True, language can marginally influence thought, but certainly not in the way Orwell suggested. 1984 is a work of fiction, not a work on linguistic relativity.

Besides, it's a very big (and unsubstantiated) jump to say that "Sustaining citizenship and civil society, representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities and bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK is an anti-white policy.

And are you seriously saying unfunny anti-establishment stand-up comedians is a sign that whites are being discriminated against?

To suggest that the decline of the media (and I'm not merely talking about the BBC) is due to anti-white policies is absolutely ridiculous and in fact not based on anything except your racial prejudices and delusions.

[Emil Miller]

Language does not define our thoughts or our understanding of the world. Newspeak is an example of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. True, language can marginally influence thought, but certainly not in the way Orwell suggested. 1984 is a work of fiction, not a work on linguistic relativity.

Besides, it's a very big (and unsubstantiated) jump to say that "Sustaining citizenship and civil society, representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities and bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK is an anti-white policy.

And are you seriously saying unfunny anti-establishment stand-up comedians is a sign that whites are being discriminated against?

To suggest that the decline of the media (and I'm not merely talking about the BBC) is due to anti-white policies is absolutely ridiculous and in fact not based on anything except your racial prejudices and delusions.

1. I think George Orwell probably knew more about the usage and abusage of language in relation to propaganda than yourself.

2. I don't know if you listen regularly to the BBC's 'flagship' channel, Radio4, but they are disproportionately pro-black if not anti-white.

3. I am not saying that unfunny stand-up comedians are directly promoting anti-white discrimination but they are promoting socialism, which has already initiated anti-white discrimination through the previous Socialist government's 'positive discrimination' policies.

4. I'm not suggesting that anti-white policies are the cause of the BBC's decline ( I don't speak for other broadcasters ) but I am suggesting that the socialist slant of much of what is broadcast since the creation of its new charter in 2006, has discredited its claim to impartiality and compromised the variety of programmes at the listener's disposal.

[papayahed]

1. I think George Orwell probably knew more about the usage and abusage of language in relation to propaganda than yourself.


2. I don't know if you listen regularly to the BBC's 'flagship' channel, Radio4, but they are disproportionately pro-black if not anti-white.

3. I am not saying that unfunny stand-up comedians are directly promoting anti-white discrimination but they are promoting socialism, which has already initiated anti-white discrimination through the previous Socialist government's 'positive discrimination' policies.

4. I'm not suggesting that anti-white policies are the cause of the BBC's decline ( I don't speak for other broadcasters ) but I am suggesting that the socialist slant of much of what is broadcast since the creation of its new charter in 2006, has discredited its claim to impartiality and compromised the variety of programmes at the listener's disposal.

When I read this post I can't help but think of my original post in this thread.

Times change and money talks. Why in the world would a media company, that is in business to make money, knowingly be anti-white? Why alienate their largest group of customers?

Could it possibly be that they realize that they can also capture other listeners/viewers by adding programming geared towards minorities? Doesn't it make more sense that it is based on profits then a conspiracy to bring down their largest customer base?

I'll say it again. 30 years ago white men looked at TV, radio , and the board room and they saw people like them. Today they look around and there's different people. Does that mean those people are anti-white? No, it means those people are pro-themelves and making a decent living for themselves and their familes.

[Emil Miller]

When I read this post I can't help but think of my original post in this thread.

Times change and money talks. Why in the world would a media company, that is in business to make money, knowingly be anti-white? Why alienate their largest group of customers?

Could it possibly be that they realize that they can also capture other listeners/viewers by adding programming geared towards minorities? Doesn't it make more sense that it is based on profits then a conspiracy to bring down their largest customer base?

I'll say it again. 30 years ago white men looked at TV, radio , and the board room and they saw people like them. Today they look around and there's different people. Does that mean those people are anti-white? No, it means those people are pro-themelves and making a decent living for themselves and their familes.

I should explain that the BBC isn't a privately owned business. It is a public corporation and is funded primarily by the license fee that is charged to public users. It doesn't have share holders like an ordinary company and is answerable to the British government through members of a trust.
There is no conspiracy as such but liberal bias has been increasing to such an extent that it is a standing joke in the UK that you can't get a job with the BBC unless you are from a minority or read the UK's leading socialist newspaper. To give you a fuller picture of the machinations that take place within the corporation would involve entering into the realm of politics and I have already been edited by the moderators on this thread.
If you are really interested, you could try reading my book which covers this subject in some detail.

[Propter W.]

1. I think George Orwell probably knew more about the usage and abusage of language in relation to propaganda than yourself.

Based on what exactly?

Anyway, Newspeak does not work like Orwell thought. Language does not define thought, nor does restricting vocabulary or language diminish thought. Newspeak is a classic example of linguistic determinism. If you claim Newspeak is a valid theory then this is what you have to accept:

If a certain term that exists in language A does not exist in language B, speakers of B would be incapable of perceiving that which the term describes.

Reducing the meaning of "free" so that it can only be used in sentences like "the dog is free from lice" in no way eliminates the concept of freedom nor does it prevent anyone from understanding that concept. Keep with the times{EDIT}. Things, including linguistic theories, have changed since the 40s.

As for the rest of your post: {EDIT} "How is it possible black people are allowed to present things on TV these days? You won't see any black presenters on prime time, though...

Also, could you explain a radio programme can be "pro-black" and "anti-white"? They've got a bunch of Black Panthers presenting no doubt? Saying the whities are a lower race, right?

Anyway, I'm off... That is, if I can survive another day in this world where the white man is so terribly, terribly oppressed.

[Scheherazade]

I'll say it again. 30 years ago white men looked at TV, radio , and the board room and they saw people like them. Today they look around and there's different people. Does that mean those people are anti-white? No, it means those people are pro-themelves and making a decent living for themselves and their familes.

I think Papaya makes an excellent point here.

To me, it feels like this is nothing more than "the new baby" syndrome. Once a new baby arrives in the family, the older siblings do not get the attention they used to and start complaining that they are unfairly treated.

The white man, being used to have the bigger and better cut of everything, now cannot accept the fact that they do not get the opportunities they once used to be given by default and, gasp, need to work hard and compete to have the things they desire.