How the BBC used the Trump petition for their own political agenda

BBC what we want you to think 650

The BBC have a political agenda. They are liberal, “progressive”, left wing and statist. They also control around half of the UK’s total news reach, which gives them incredible power. They use this power to push their agenda, it is called social conditioning. They get their messages and beliefs inside the brains of everyone in Britain. Including you. What they say becomes the accepted social norm.

Donald Trump stands for exactly the opposite of what the BBC stand for, he must have them spitting feathers. And he could become President of the United States of America, which would have the BBC bursting blood vessels. So they have spent the last two days plugging a petition to ban Trump from the UK. On national and local TV and radio, on their website, on the World Service, on social media. And, of course they have succeeded. The hard of thinking, those with no critical faculties, have signed the petition in droves. Proof once again that half the population have an IQ of less than 100.

What the BBC are trying to do is to harm Trump’s presidential chances by censoring him and giving him bad publicity. They are trying to censor free speech and in doing so take away our basic human rights. This is a momentous disgrace.

Now the BBC is governed by law. It has a Charter and “The Agreement”, which details the BBC’s regulatory duties (click here to read it). The Agreement says: The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output. Something the BBC utterly disregard as they promote their own agenda.

There is another petition which is very highly relevant to the Trump story and which gives it the balance that the BBC are legally required to broadcast. But they ignore it because it doesn’t fit in with their brainwashing. This petition says: Stop all immigration and close the UK borders until ISIS is defeated. And it has 443,320 signatures (you can sign it here).

So there you can clearly see how the BBC construct their message to suit their political agenda. And every time you watch, listen or read any of their output you are being manipulated.

Global warming pause 650

Another good example of this is global warming, something that the BBC like because, like terrorism, it is good excuse for the state to increase its powers over all of us. So the BBC present global warming to us as a fact, with no debate. They have become warmist fascists. But the reality is that there is very good science and very good data to support both sides of the climate debate. A debate that is of great importance and a debate that the BBC, by law, should be presenting. This is a disgrace and is yet another example of the BBC suppressing free speech.

BBC receipts from EU 650

It goes on and on. The BBC is pro Zionist, so Israeli aggression is presented as a good thing and Palestinian resistance as a bad thing. The BBC is pro EU so gives a very distorted message on the upsides and downsides of membership. In France the BBC hate the success of Marine Le Pen and her FN party, so they always describe it as “far right” and call it the “National Front” so as to confuse people by associating it with with a British political party with that name, both of these are lies, just go and look at FN policies.  On every major issue the BBC has an agenda which they are brainwashing you with. By spin, by biased presentation, by omission of facts, opinions and events that go against their agenda. You are being manipulated.

Here are some previous articles about the BBC that you might find interesting:

The BBC must go.

Lefties at the BBC.

BBC create 2 huge problems for themselves.




  1. “Proof once again that half the population have an IQ of less than 100”

    That’s part of the definition of IQ. Did you know half of the population are poorer than average???


      1. Thanks. The IQ scale is defined deliberately such that half of any population will score above 100, half below 100. That’s what an IQ of 100 *means*.
        As for which half I’m in – the score I got when tested on the Cattell III B test in 1990 was 161. I was a bit disappointed with that at the time – 148 indicates a score in the top 2% (the “pass” mark for entry into Mensa) and 161 doesn’t intuitively seem that far past it. I neither knew nor cared to find out the significance of it until I started typing this reply, and now discover (thanks, Google) that 161 is in fact the maximum possible IQ measurable on that test. I feel better now. Cheers for that.


  2. ‘Proof once again that half the population have an IQ of less than 100.’

    Well, yes … it’s a bell curve.

    ‘the BBC present global warming to us as a fact, with no debate.’

    Ironically, the BBC has been criticized consistently by leading voices in the scientific community. That is, due to the ‘fair’ nature of their science communication. For example: It often has tried to be ‘fair and balanced’ on topics which are damaged by such an approach. i.e. on topics with overwhelmingly one-sided supports. For example, global warming and homeopathy.

    ‘But the reality is that there is very good science and very good data to support both sides of the climate debate.’

    Except the overwhelmingly majority of scientists (climate and non-climate) think that warming is occurring. And that it is almost certainly been massively accelerated by humans. The disagreements — which are massively blown out of proportion by people seeking to represent them as evidence of schisms in the scientific community — regard the extent of the damage has and may cause, and how possible it may be to combat effectively.

    There is no neat – ‘there’s good data on both sides’ – debate. There are no such sides in the scientific community. These arguments happen outside of the scientific community — by pundits with usually zero scientific understanding or qualification. Usually businessman and politicians.

    There are very, very few well-qualified scientific that you could find to bat for what you said. Most be annoyed, but not surprised — a public that treat science like philosophy, where it’s always a ‘just a theory’, or ‘up for debate’, and where glib charts can replicate decades of study and experimentation.

    I know you won’t care – but what you said is total fallacy.


    1. While I’m not advocating for any particular side on the climate change issue, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of science when you say “the overwhelming majority of scientists”. The whole point of scientific thinking was to make science as objective as possible – a search for truth, not a “truth through majority consensus” field. History is littered with examples (“the earth is flat”, “women are not capable of ______, bloodletting is the cure, fat, not sugars causes heart disease, etc. “black holes don’t actually exist”, etc.) where the majority turned out to be wrong, at least as far as we know at the present. And of course, history has plenty of examples where the majority seem to have been correct as well. My point is that so many people who virulently advocate for a decisive human factor in climate change do so based on this “everybody says so” mentality rather than any actual knowledge of measurable factors. This is the scary part for me – and this mentality is present in all kinds of opinions that are presented as “scientific” facts by those who are simply the garden variety dogmatists that are, and always have been typical of humanity. (This in contrast to people who have a grasp of the issues and are indeed basing their opinions on rational thought and reasoning. This is also not to ignore the presence of dogmatists who don’t believe in humans’ effect on climate change simply because…….”because”.)


  3. Further on the topic of Global Warming, I would recommend these reading materials. They are in order from most recommended (but most of headache to read) to easiest to digest (but much, much more simplistic).


Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.