The BBC: Washington’s Mouthpiece

[Paul Rigby]

The BBC: Washington's Mouthpiece

Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/03/...g-roberts/

Once upon a time the BBC was a news organization, but that was before the organization sold out to Washington. Today the BBC is a liar for Washington. Indeed, the BBC is a despicable organization that believes that "exceptional, indispensable" Washington has the right to determine the fate of all peoples.

The proof is everywhere. Just look here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26606097

The BBC says that the referendum in Crimera is disputed. But by whom? Not by the people voting. The dispute comes from the anti-democratic forces that are not votingthe Obama regime and its puppet UK government and puppet BBC ministry of propaganda.

How far the BBC has fallen! Look as these BBC lies:

Lie: "Many Crimeans loyal to Kiev boycotted the referendum, and the EU and US condemned it as illegal."

Fact: More than 80% voted and the vote was 96% against Washington. So who precisely boycotted the vote, and how could it have made any difference? The BBC doesn't care. The BBC's job is to lie for Washington. Let's assume that the 20% of voters who did not turn out would all have voted against rejoining Russia. That 20% together with the 4% who did vote not to rejoin Russia could give a vote of 24% against and 76% for. So, despite the BBC's utterly dishonest attempt to suggest that it wasn't a majority vote, it would have made no difference whatsoever if the vote turnout had been 100% instead of 80%.

Lie: "Pro-Russian forces took control of Crimea in February."

Fact: Anyone who would repeat this Washington lie at this stage is totally devoid of all integrity. Crimeans took control of their destiny. Crimeans refused to let Washington and its corrupt British puppet take control of Crimea's destiny. Crimeans stood up to the lies and intimidation coming out of Washington and its two-bit punk NATO puppets. Crimeans gave the finger to the utterly corrupt West.

The BBC has totally discredited itself as a news organization and revealed itself as an organ of Washington's Ministry of Propaganda. The BBC has made itself totally unreliable. No informed person will ever agains believe a BBC report.

It is extraordinary that the BBC is so biased and careless in its reporting that the BBC did not notice that the BBC itself reported that 58% of the citizens of Crimea are Russian; yet more than 80% of the population voted and 96% voted to return to Russia where Crimea existed until Khrushchev put Crimea, without a vote, into Ukraine. Clearly, not merely the Russian population voted.

The BBC might as well be abolished. It is nothing but another mouthpiece for Washington. Anyone who believes any BBC report is a gullible fool. Who needs the BBC when you can tune into the lies issuing directly from the White House?

[David Guyatt]

I would argue a little differently to Paul Craig Roberts.

The BBC is now wholly a tool of the British government (it mostly was anyway, but hey) and the British government is a complete tool (in all senses of the meaning) of Washington. Close, but not quite the same thing in my view.

The last vestige of the Beeb's independence disappeared during the Blair years with the fallout from the assassination of Dr. David Kelly and the dodgy dossier affair.

[Peter Presland]

I would argue a little differently to Paul Craig Roberts.

The BBC is now wholly a tool of the British government (it mostly was anyway, but hey) and the British government is a complete tool (in all senses of the meaning) of Washington. Close, but not quite the same thing in my view.

The last vestige of the Beeb's independence disappeared during the Blair years with the fallout from the assassination of Dr. David Kelly and the dodgy dossier affair.

I concur with all of that but I am becoming ever more skeptical about assuming the UK, US, French, German etc etc so-called "Governtments" (ie the public faces of nation states) to be the real power-brokers in the globalising end-game we are witnessing.

Real power it seems to me is increasingly trans-national and offers ever decreasing allegiance to nation states whose "governments" it largely controls. A couple of quotes; The first from the CEO of ExxonMobile on the prospect of western (non)-sanctions over Crimea:

"There has been no impact on any of our plans or activities at this point, nor would I expect there to be any, barring governments taking steps that are beyond our control," he said at the company's recent annual meeting, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. "We don't see any new challenges out of the current situation."

My boldfacing of that little Freudian slip or is it that they are so damned cock-sure of themselves that they don't care about the facade any more?.

And the former ExxonMobile CEO Lee Raymond when asked about the prospects of Exxon building more US refining capacity to forstall impending gasoline shortages:

Raymond's reply: "I'm not a U.S. company and I don't make decisions based on what's good for the U.S."

Quite so.

Nation states remain the best and most useful means for the real trans-national power arbiters to herd their respective populations, the better to keep them fearful and compliant - and blissfully ignorant of what is really going on.

Put a bit crudely I guess but you get the gist.

[Charlie Prima]

- edited -

[David Guyatt]

I don't disagree at all Peter.

I continue to see nation states - in the west anyway - as the willing tools of transnational corporations, big business and wealth. This is not something at all new, as you know.

The US state is useful to these powerful business groups in that it has the largest military in the world - financed by the taxes of the masses (thus very cheap for business and wealth) - that can be tasked to work on their behalf to achieve their long term goals.

But every now and again though, nation states do take the wrong steps that cause the elite serious problems. Think WWII and the financing and arming of Hitler's resurgent Germany to attack Russia - and the way many British, French and especially US major businesses traded with the enemy during that war. They too had no care for borders which they saw as a hindrance to business. Roosevelt was powerless to charge any of them with treason as he wanted to do, because he knew they would just shut down industry and curtail the "war effort" on him.

Even during the height of the cold war, big European multinationals were trading heavily with Russia.

The whole thing about western democracy and freedom is a complete blind to keep taxpayers bleeding without rioting and ruining the show.

Arguments between nations usually translate as arguments between differently domiciled business interests wrangling over who gets the biggest share of a given pie.

That's how I see things anyway.

Yours in cynicism ::bowtie::

[Paul Rigby]

[video=youtube_share;FHVRE0QzwIA]http://youtu.be/FHVRE0QzwIA[/video]