The BBC-The Bastardisation of British Culture-The Saga Continues Part 4

Colin D. Robertson says

Hello Donna,

You said:

"the ridiculous and utterly misplaced rant against a supposed effort at "Social Engineering" (whatever that may be!) is downright blameworthy. The decision to cast a woman of color as Guinevere is a casting choice. It requires no comment at all given a suitable attitude to the color-blindedness which ought to characterize the attitude of any decent person."

Oh contraire. I think you'll find the BBC is very far from colour-blind, being obsessed with casting ethnic minorities no matter how inappropriate.

Producers get paid yearly bonuses if they hit a certain target for casting ethnic minorities. It is not, therefore, accidental that such casting takes place. The producers are doing it for the money, their superiors are doing it for PC streetcred.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6240208.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202787/TV-bosses-face-sack-dont-hit-diversity-targets-says-BBC-executive.html

http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2006/no1_campion

So while it is technically true that casting a woman of colour as Guinevere is "a casting choice", the choice is politically-loaded and very deliberate.

Given the low quality of acting in "Merlin", I find the idea that they chose "the best actor for the role" very unlikely. Casting ethnic minorities is a conscious decision - especially when the roles would never have been white in the first place (a black Friar Tuck etc.).

It is all deliberate, and springs from middle-class self-hate and Western colonial guilt. They are trying to retcon British society to modern standards. Kids watching this will believe that Britain was always multicultural, and will therefore be confused about people moaning about immigration and political correctness etc. It's rather like the Nazis putting a swastika flag into the hand of every child at the earliest opportunity, to ensure their obedience.

Thus, it is social engineering.

mad mushroom says:

While I'm no expert on Arthurian/British mythology, I'm pretty sure there would have been no black knights at the court of King Arthur (or whatever was the true basis for the legend). Or even black settlers. Then there's the issue of the lack of religion in this series. King Arthur - myth or fact - was supposed to have ruled sometime after the retreat of the Roman Empire. Rome brought Christianity to these shores: and that Early Insular Christianity was still alive hundreds of years later when Pope Gregory I sent Augustine to convert King Æthelberht of Kent. Yet in the Merlin series the only time religion gets any mention at all is when that tired, old phrase 'It's a mark of the old religion ... sire' gets trotted out.
There are no priests in Merlin, no chaplains, no monks, no prayers, no God. In case such content offends certain minority quarters, perhaps. This is revisionist, politically correct history of the worst sort: mind-numbing pap for the same generation that lapped up Russel Davies' camp rubbish. Unfortunately, the forces now in control of the government and the BBC (New Labour & Tories being pretty much the same after all, and they'll soon realise it) are determined to stamp out all the cohesive institutions of our society that ordinary people have taken for granted for the last hundred years: family, marriage, religion, courtesy, law and order. Ever read George Orwell? The totalitarian state described in '1984' destroys these institutions to prevent organised opposition. What does the New Labour/Tories/Lib Dem Alliance have in store for us?

Colin D. Robertson says:

Mad_mushroom, I agree with everything in your post.

You suggest that Christianity is omitted in case it offends minorities. I think it's even worse than that: it's in case Christianity offends the trendy white middle-class Islington metrosexuals (who populate the BBC itself).

The communists realised in the 1920s that national identity is a block to revolution. While it is too early to define what the future holds, it's fairly obvious that national identity is being slowly crushed (if it weren't, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron would each have been done for treason).

New Labour's desire for mass immigration into Britain ("to rub the Right's nose in it") is evidence that social cohesion and the wishes of the British people mean nothing to our elite. Then there's Jack Straw, who wrote that "the English as a race are not worth saving", though thankfully he never got the chance to revamp our constitution.

The wilful skewing of our history and mythology by our cultural elite (the BBC) is a way to estrange the British people from their own heritage. And you don't do that for the sake of it. There has to be some reasoning. Either it's because, as you suggest, some new world order is on the way, or it's more open-ended; a simple dislike for Britain, Christianity, and our history. (I definitely think the Empire has a role in British self-hate.)

Of course people say Merlin is "just a TV show". But in a time like ours with people reading less and less and community playing an ever smaller part in people's lives, TV shows are of monumental cultural importance. They inform the public of who they are, where they came from, etc. If a modern child derived all their knowledge of their heritage from shows like "Merlin", they wouldn't even know that they live in a post-Christian country. Then again, Russell T Davies (whom you rightly vilify) openly said that historical accuracy doesn't matter.

It even seeps into programmes like "Lark Rise to Candleford". While it may be charming and cosy, the way it is done (acting, dialogue, music, etc.) is so anodyne that I barely recognise it as English life. They've simply transposed trendy/banal attitudes onto pretty backdrops.

Either way, I do believe that in this century there is going to be massive civil unrest in Britain, and that programmes like "Merlin" will one day be seen as the corrosive agents of left-wing dogma that they are. When they realise en masse that their countries are being stolen from them by a detached, sanctimonious elite, people will rebel as a matter of survival.

Religion-A Question of Race and Ethnicity.

The ancients believed that religion is indissolubly related to the race and ethnicity of a people. Once an individual, family, clan, tribe or nation divorces itself from the foundation religion of their ancestors they face the prospect of initially a loss of identity and then ultimately extermination as a distinct sociobiological entity.
"The ancients took for granted that religion was indissolubly linked to a particular city or people. Indeed, there was no term for religion in the sense we now use it to refer to the beliefs and practices of a specific group of people or of a voluntary association divorced from ethnic or national identity....The idea of an association of people bound together by a religious allegiance with its own traditions and beliefs, its own history, and its own way of life independent of a particular city or nation was foreign to the ancients. Religion belonged to a people, and it was bestowed on an individual by the people or nation from which one came or in which one lived."[Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, quoted via James C. Russell, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity.]
We see this happening today in Britain.
The christianisation of the northern European peoples resulted in a gradual loss of racial consciousness which followed an inversion of their spiritual values and a suppression of their beliefs. Today the Germanic and Celtic peoples of Britain are experiencing anomie, a lack of values and norms. Feeling cut off from their spiritual and cultural roots many of them turn to alcohol, drug addiction, gambling and vice as a palliative cure for their feelings of rootlessness.
The adoption of Christianity at the point of the sword and the fire brand has caused Aryan man to adopt a set of anti-values which denegrate the hierarchical nature of human society which is a reflection of nature. False ideals of humanitarianism, `democracy` and equality have psychologically weakened the Aryan peoples so that they now lack the will to resist the genocide that awaits them perpetrated by the alien and semitic religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The adherence to a universalist religion which denies the validity and primacy or race and ethnicity is a form of race treason.
Only by responding to the call of the blood will we as a race deliver ourselves from the disaster which awaits us as a race.
Woden awaits for His people to hear and respond to the call. Wodenism/Odinism/Wotanism is the natural religion of the Germanic peoples. Woden awaits His folk to return to Him and abandon the failed religion of a failed Jewish `messiah`.
Once a critical mass of our people have responded to Woden`s call there will be a sufficient quantity of our people who will act at the right time to throw off the shackles of the traitorous alien funded and controlled establishments who dominate the political scene.
At the same time that this revolution will occur you will notice great changes in the natural order and indeed the last year or so has seen that Mutter Erde has pissed on the lie of `global warming`. Fimbulvetr is upon us and heralds the coming Ragnarok. Our lands will be cleansed from the filth which currently contaminates our sacred soil and our peoples will be delivered.

BBC-The Bastardisation of British Culture-The Saga Continues Part 3

David Sandilands

I'm not sure what truth you are trying to argue for. If Arthur ever actually existed, he probably wasnt like the character in Mallory's stories, which are sourced to a large degree from French tales. Your comment that Guinevere should have been cast as a Nordic beauty because it would make more rational sense, is actually quite irrational as Arthur (as first mentioned by Nennius) spent his life defending his people from Hengist (the Saxon mercenary) and there were not yet any Nordic people on the scene. The Romans had been around for 400 years and had only just left when Arthur was supposed to have come to prominance. This was therefore Roman Britain on it's last legs. It is more likely,historically, that the Romans had brought Africans with them, as slaves , traders even soldiers.
Anyway, it's only a TV light entertainment series, not a historical drama.


Wulf V`s Response

"Light entertainment" with a thick overlay of politically correct revisionism:all aimed at the uncritical young who soak up everything like a sponge. This is what I find detestable and all carried out under the cloak of "entertainment" and at the expense of British TV licence payers.
I would have thought that my review and subsequent comment speak for themselves but clearly you have not understood the "truth I am arguing for". The BBC have sullied an aspect of northern European mythology by portraying Indo-Europeans of the so-called `Dark Ages` as being welcoming to aliens and `democratic` when the truth is just the opposite. You cannot project the antivalues of the 21st century onto that period of our history. Whether Arthur existed or not is in fact a secondary issue: what matters is the BBC`s social re-engineering of northern European society to fit today`s multiculti agenda.
For your information, the Celts of the pre Anglo-Saxon conquest-the real Celts were a Nordic people and closely related to the Germanic invaders. There is no evidence of any African presence in these islands at these times. In fact there is strong evidence that the `Roman` auxillaries were Germanic foederati and indeed there has been a Germanic presence in parts of Britain and the isles since at least the 4th century CE.

Sure Start Children`s Centres-Indoctrination of the Young

A good Aryan woman recently reported to me that at her local Sure Start Centre a member of staff attempted[in vain] to persuade her Nordic child to desist from playing with her favourite white doll and to take an interest in the negro one instead. Indeed 2/3 of the dolls were black and this is in a pracically all white area.
I do not for one minute believe that this was by accident.
What made the experience most pernicious is that the staff member hugged and cradled the black doll sending out the not so subliminal message that Nordic children should aspire to or at least not rule out the possibility of having mixed race children. I find this totally abhorrent. Consequently this experience of political correctness gone mad has totally deterred the mother from using that resource.
The British Aryan-hating state is clearly committed to the bastardisation of the Aryan race in these islands and its strategy is to indoctrinate the young at an early age.
Indeed this indoctrination of the young is official government policy:
http://www.education.gov.uk/b0010314/racist-bullying/preventing-bullying/persona-dolls-and-philosophy-for-children-an-early-years-project
http://nrif.homeoffice.gov.uk/education/earlyyears/contributingtothecommunity/celebratingdiversity.asp

BBC-Bastardisation of British Culture-The Saga Continues

Following on from yesterday`s article about the pathetic attempt by the BBC to socially engineer perceptions of British history and mythology and to piss on one of the greatest of Aryan myths this is a response to one of Wulf V`s reviews of the aforesaid TV show on Amazon UK and the rather politically correct anti-Aryan reply that he has received. Please note that "T Stone"[Stein?}admits to never having watched this piece of crap but is nevertheless offended by his remarks:-

Wulf V`s Review

This review is from: Merlin - Series 1 - Complete [DVD] [2008] (DVD)
This TV show has absolutely nothing to do with the King Arthur of British mythology.
Anybody expecting anything like a faithful retelling of the story will be severely disappointed. The acting is poor and the story lines mediocre. It is clearly aimed at children but is viewed at a time when most of them are or should be in bed.
Merlin is shown to be a servant of the young Prince Arthur and to be younger than him. Anyone familiar with Sir Thomas Malory`s Le Morte Darthur will know that not only was Merlin considerably older than Arthur but the prince was taken and raised by a foster father and had no knowledge of his royal birth until he drew Excalibur. The actor who plays Arthur is ineffectual and does not strike one as a hero.
Hardly any of the male characters look as if they came straight from the Middle or Dark Ages with their short modern hairstyles and clean shaven chins.
The greatest crime of all is the BBC`s attempt at social engineering, casting a black woman as Guinevere and furthermore portraying her as a maid rather than a noble woman. Is this BBC`s pathetic attempt at trying to convey Britain as always having been a multiracial society and a classless democracy where a prince would favour an unattractive maid of a different race over an atttractive princess of Nordic appearance[see episode six of series 3]? Don`t buy this absolute PC tosh!

"T Stone`s" Response

The series (Merlin) that is decried by this reviewer may be good or bad. I can't say, as I have not seen it. However, the review itself is abominable strictly on its own. It says nothing useful about the series but much about its author!

To begin with, citing Mallory as the canonical form of all things Arthurian ignores his place or any such author's role in the composition of one story that is drawn from a long tradition of others. Mallory did not invent Arthur; he inherited a vast collection of material from many lands and many eras, possibly dating back to the paleolithic period. He made constant editorial decisions to include some strrands of this material and exclude or change others. Once upon a time, I'd wager, Pendragon breathed fire and had scales, Morgan was indeed une fey. In this respect Mallory played an identical role to that of the monkish redactor of Beowulf or the authors of both testaments of Judaeo-Christian religion. More recently, J.R.R. Tolkien and Ms. Rowling have done the same to widespread praise. These folks, including Sir Thomas, can do pretty much what they want with the material, as long as they do it well and give us a great story.

Misunderstanding the transition of myth is one thing, the ridiculous and utterly misplaced rant against a supposed effort at "Social Engineering" (whatever that may be!) is downright blameworthy. The decision to cast a woman of color as Guinevere is a casting choice. It requires no comment at all given a suitable attitude to the color-blindedness which ought to characterize the attitude of any decent person. We have, after all, been asked to evaluate our neighbors by the contents of their character, not the color of their skin. It is particularly dismaying that the author of this review cites his feeling that a "Nordic Beauty", (whatever that is) would be the more rational choice. Didn't the author's antecedents fight a rather nasty war to forever dispel the myth of one physiology's claim of superiority over another?

Finally, his dismissal of an England of racial diversity and classlessness is his most dismaying error regarding the inspiration and the meaning of the tale of this once and future king. At its core and in its best retellings, the story of Arthur is about the quest of all people for their own Camelot, a kingdom where the lowly receive equal justice with the great, where might does not make right, where true peace enables a good life for all. At its center is the notion that such a place is not made from magical spells but by deeds of courage, compassion and wisdom. None of these qualities are the byproducts of social engineering but represent the shared hopes of all people of all classes, colors, eras and beliefs who seek the better life that is enshrined at the center of this great story.
[from tstone1046@aol.com]

Wulf V`s Response

You admit to never having watched a single episode of this TV series and yet you single out my post to comment on.
Are you implying that the inclusion of not just one but a considerable number of black actors in Merlin is a matter of complete chance, that no selection by racial criteria has occurred?
This is surely by design and one has to question the motivation of the script writers and the BBC in their attempts to distort Arthurian mythology. This is a rather pathetic attempt by overpaid middle class BBC executives in executing a political agenda at the expense of British-genuinely British taxpayers.
Also please don`t attempt to assume what my `antecedents` are: you have already guessed wrongly.
May I suggest that in future you take the trouble to research the material that is being reviewed before you venture to comment: it would carry more weight!

BBC-Bastardisation of British Culture

The BBC have really excelled themselves in the piece of crap called Merlin on Saturday evenings which is now into series 3. According to the BBC Arthurian Britain had an immigrant problem. I caught sight of an episode last night and counted somewhere in the region of half a dozen negroes in a crowd scene.
If this travesty was not enough there was worse to come. They have cast a negress in the role of Guinevere and renamed her Gwen and have portrayed her as a lowly serving girl. How very `democratic`! How very `diverse` and `multicultural`. How `enriching`!
I do not normally use coarse language on my blogs but this time I am well and truly pissed off by this corporation of race traitors who have taken a mysterious and wonderful Aryan legend and pissed on it by socially engineering Dark Ages Britain into some kind of racial melting pot. Not only that but they have done it at British television licence payers` expense!
The BBC is the only service provider in this country who is authorised to charge people for a service that they have never asked for and do not want. It is time that the downtrodden British masses stopped paying their annual robber tax and told this corporation of pigs around the trough to seek some honest work.
Perhaps the script writer in his haste to socially engineer Aryan society overlooked one important fact. Guinevere is Welsh and means `fair one, white, soft, smooth`. Perhaps he would care to reply to this article and explain to us all how a negress can possible be described as `fair` and `white`?
Guinevere is a mythological contruct but even with mythological characters script writers should not take such shameful liberties in their quest to rewrite Aryan myth to make it more palatable to 21st century politically correct indoctrinated brain dead audiences.
Apart from this actress`s racial origins she cannot by any description be termed beautiful and no prince in his right mind would forego his future throne for a rather unattractive negress serving girl. It wouldn`t and didn`t happen. The purpose of royal marriage is for political and dynastic reasons not for some rosy feel good emotion.
If this wasn`t enough they have also portrayed Merin as a lowly servant and somewhat younger than Arthur. Again this is another shameful taking of liberties with the actual story.

The Inevitability of Ragnarok

One thing that Germanic mythology teaches us is that Ragnarok is inevitable. The Norns spin the threads of Wyrd from the moment that we are born. We cannot escape our Wyrd but we can decide how we meet it and it is this aspect which determine the hero who is to become the Einheriar and the coward or nithing.
The Einheriar is by nature a lone wolf and stands apart from the crowd or the herd. Often he or she meets with a certain amount of hostility from others, particularly from the herds of human cattle or flocks of human sheep. For the lone wolf does not need the herd. He may at times seek out a pack of other wolves and combine forces with them for individual or collective strength but he does not instinctively need them. The purpose of the pack is collective security. The human sheep or cow however seeks to lose its individual identity amongst the collective out of sheer fear or psychological inadequacy. The weakling becomes subsumed by the shapeless mass. To reject the herd is to show real strength and individuality but it can also incur the wrath and hostility of weaker individuals because they come fact to face with their own weakness and inadequacy when they encounter the lone wolf. What the herd does not understand it fears and what it fears it attacks.
The herd by its very nature is stupid for it consists of stupid and weak individuals and they will go the way that Wyrd has dictated without any impact at all on the woof and weft of the web of Wyrd. The Einheriar cannot change his Wyrd anymore than the weakling and coward but he or she can have an inpact upon the web and consequently upon others.
Ragnarok is part of the Wyrd set for humanity, the gods and all of creation. It cannot be escaped but as Einheriar, called by Woden we can achieve for ourselves true immortality and become as gods in the coming Golden Age which follows Ragnarok.
Ragnarok has the etymological meaning of the final destiny of the gods from ragna[geneitive plural of regin-gods or ruling powers] and rok-end, fate]. The term was wrongly transcribed by Snorri Sturluson as Ragnarokr which has caused its general mistranslation into twilight of the gods[Wagner`s Goetterdaemmerung].
Woden chooses and calls out his Einheriar who have been destined by Wyrd to incarnate at a specific time and in a specific place in order to fulfill the will of the All Father.
It is not surprising that those who profess to be followers of Woden are strong individuals by nature who are distinct and seperate from the masses. It is these men and women who will one day share in the governance of the earth under the coming generation of gods.