BBC clip on Saudis fleeing Islam in the KSA

Proof that the BBC is not as driven by a postmodern narrative as Canada’s CBC.

Or its more afraid of what should happen to a state broadcaster who betrays it’s own people and the truth itself once the people catch on. Either way, the CBC is unlikely to ever do anything even this honest.

h/t Wrath of Khan.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

17 Replies to “BBC clip on Saudis fleeing Islam in the KSA”

  1. There is little difference I can see in the terror inflicted on asylum seekers by communist or Islamic regimes. Same animal.

  2. Encouraging, both to hear of Saudis, especially women, leaving that islamic craphole (and the majority no doubt abandoning islam in the process) and … that the BBC would actually report something that reflects poorly on islam. Very odd. And I agree, Eeyore: the CBC would never do the same. (I wonder what got into the Beeb ….)

      • They know the mood of the British people much better the we do, if they are getting scared of what the people are close to doing things are looking up for our side.

    • And I agree, Eeyore: the CBC would never do the same. (I wonder what got into the Beeb ….)

      The murder of Khashoggi provided that last scintilla of imagined moral repugnance to where commie-infested Beeb finally was able to muster their (long-deferred) poutrage over what the Magic Kingdom™ has been doing forever.

  3. This video is heavily jilletted:

    “I renounced Islam…”

    “Saudi Arabia’s Guardianship System…”

    ‘My father abused me…’

    ‘The Saudi Government.’

    1. This is not anti-Islam. The Saudi-version she renounced. She did not denounce Islam.

    2. ‘Toxic Masculinity,’ and it’s ‘The Patriarchy.’

    Therefore the BBC has codified: don’t be upset if there is regime change; and there’s a better Islam.

    Getting money easily into UK banks may just suddenly become impossible to withdraw for the Saudi Royal Family.

  4. 9 out of 10 Saudi asylum seekers are women, the video mentions. I’ve sometimes thought that women were an Achilles heel for islam: I mean, how long can a society survive with at least half its population subjugated and oppressed? How long will that half put up with that?

    (At least 1400 hundred years, apparently. Sigh).

  5. We’re being played.
    It’s the MB/Iran vs the Gulfies.

    Another info operation, like the Khashoggi affair. This BBC piece reveals deeply infiltrated Western corporate media. May as well be Tasnim, Hurriyet, Middle East Eye, etc. Increasingly sophisticated media manipulation.

    Stories crafted for sentimental Westerners – abused women, dead kids, political prisoners, torture. Going on for a thousand years, a constant in tardish society.

    So why now?

    => Disrupt the relationship between Saudi, PTrump, and Israel. Perhaps even incite Arab Spring-2, Saudi Arabia version.

    => Change the line of succession from Crown Prince MbS to another royal, one aligned with the Turk and the global MB.

    • “Increasingly sophisticated media manipulation.”

      The BBC is happy to show a made to look like a ‘liberal Western girl’ as victim to Saudi Guardianship Islam; but when it come to familial rape of thousands of liberal Western girls all over the UK, it had nothing to do with Islam.

      Yuckie, nice to comment on an eagle eye.

    • Stories crafted for sentimental Westerners – abused women, dead kids, political prisoners, torture. Going on for a thousand years, a constant in tardish society.

      Thank you for the confirmation, yucki. When it comes to the canal-water changelessness of ossified Islam, never does that old French saying take on more meaning.

      plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

      Why people think anything has changed with MbS (aside from the House of Saud’s PR agency) constitutes a masterclass in how to stage-manage customer relations.

      To date, there isn’t a sign to indicate that it’s anything but business as usual in the Magic Kingdom™. The entire Khashoggi brouhaha proved this better than Perry Mason ever could.

  6. Yucki, PC, I looked again and thanks. I tried to challenge both your observations as I watched, but it fits too well to not be an info-op. While I would expect no less a slick production from BBC, this weird animation, voice over and mood music strike me once one looks at it through the different lense.. And look at the perfect dovetail of the evil patriarchy and the “unwanted” Islam. Jilletted, indeed. Jillette simply air brushed out the Wahabis brand from the patriarchy in its commercials. But this one is more than Jilletted.

    Sophisticated, for sure. Getting everyone to nod in agreement to the evils of the Saudi version of Islam without expanding on the whole religion to include Iran? Or is the expansion implied? To the contrary. I’d say the confinement is explicit. In fact it’s cut like a knife to keep it Saudi.

    Which summarily means a two-stage bifurcation made possible only by a western-born, radical leftist of Persian extraction deep in the BBC, if one were to attempt to profile.

    Is it fair to say, then, that the Saudi slam only got sold to the BBC boss who stamped its approval because it piggy-backed on the Patriarchy slam?

    Yeah, sure, that’s the way to do it.

    Tell me if I’m out to lunch.

    • Thing about these info ops, they work with factually accurate information. It’s the selection and direction that give it away. Where are they going with this…?

      Saudi atrocities (from a Western perspective), SOP for the region, have become a hot topic in all the MB/Iran mouthpieces. Paki-BBC hasn’t suddenly become islamophobic; it’s Saudi Arabia that’s the target, not the “patriarchy”.

      A technique the Soviets mastered. Now that Western MSM has become crude and transparent, we’re looking at alternative media we presume to be “independent”. Very little is, in fact.

      They’ll grab us by our confirmation bias. And they’re very, very good.

      Say, an outlet features frequent anti-NATO articles. All well-reasoned, we’re nodding yes, valid argument. The author might be a professor at Harvard who contributes regularly to The Nation. Or a libertarian like Patrick Buchanan. Or a weapons “expert” who snows us with jargon to trash Boeing or ridicule a preparedness initiative.

      It’s mostly more diffuse, aimed at conditioning reader skepticism toward the establishment every which way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *