We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The wicked and the wilfully blind reveal themselves

Nothing however beats the BBC’s coverage. They are reporting Castro’s death more favourably than Thatcher’s. No ‘controversial’. No mention of the thousands summarily executed after the revolution. No mention that he demanded the USSR nuke the USA. No mention of the decades of impoverishment and human rights abuse. No mention of his secret police rounding up homosexuals and putting them in concentration camps. Castro gets a free pass on democratic norms – “his critics accused him of being a dictator”. Does the BBC think that is only an allegation? Particular congratulations to the BBC News Channel, who interviewed “Cuba expert” Richard Gott, without mentioning he was a KGB agent of influence. Slow clap.

Guido Fawkes

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VKEmail this to someone

32 comments to The wicked and the wilfully blind reveal themselves

  • The Jannie

    Give them the clap they so richly deserve. (Barry Humphries)

  • Yesterday, I watched some of that beeb coverage and then changed channel – life’s too short. (I later rinsed my mind out by watching the second episode of “Grand Tour”. 🙂 )

    Half-an-hour ago, Natalie Solent and I agreed (in a minor aside to a discussion we were having) that the BBC is in some ways better than when Greg Dyke ran it. Seeing this post reminded me of yesterday’s coverage – which showed me that in other ways, the beeb is as bad as it was or worse.

  • Kevin B

    To be fair to the BBC, they have mentioned the d word. Admittedly it was only when quoting the Donald who called Castro ‘a brutal dictator’, but it’s a start.

  • Kevin B (November 26, 2016 at 7:04 pm), the BBC quote Trump to mock whatever idea he’s pushing. If that’s their only mention of Castro’s being a dictator, then it’s the loudest way the beeb know of saying “dictator? – how can you say that!”

    (I appreciate your post may have been ironic. 🙂 )

  • Snorri Godhi

    With time, i am coming to see Trump not just as a lesser evil, but, just possibly, as a positive good. (Flawed, but even Thatcher was flawed.) Who else would have started to dance on Castro’s grave while his body is still warm? not to mention his calling a meeting with the press, just to tell them that they are liars.

    Niall: is there any way i can reach you by email? i’d like to give you a belated answer to your question about the logical relationship of free will to political opinions, and this is not the place to do so. (Not just because it seems desirable to keep my answer hidden from Paul Marks’ eyes.)

  • bobby b

    Sometimes, people surprise you.

    Here’s a realistic statement concerning Castro’s timely death put out by the leader of the U.S. House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi.

    Yeah, a few obligatory mentions of Obama’s move toward Cuba, but a surprisingly honest comment by one of the top two or three Democrats in the U.S.

  • Slartibartfarst

    The B-BBC’s and the Korbynista’s statements regarding Castro’s death display a telling and deliberate blindness to the truth and horror of the Castro regime’s brutal oppression and dictatorship, and Pelosi’s statement looked good until the parting dig at Trump “With the bold leadership of President Obama (etc.)”. Just can’t help themselves can they?

    These “liberal” cultural marxists and TARDs defined themselves as an elitist ruling class, with their own virtue-signalling, posturing arrogance and language of “always-oh-so-right-we-know-better-than-you” elitist hubris, repeatedly telling the many millions of the working class and the vast majority of voters what uneducated “deplorables” (a more pejorative and derogatory label for the proles) they are to think any differently, with the implicit and looming suggestion that maybe “such people” shouldn’t be allowed to have a full vote, if any, in future. Incredibly, this self-defining language was repeatedly used throughout Brexit and Clexit, and post, and it evidently communicated a very clear message to “the proles”.

    No wonder then, that the electorate massively voted them out in Brexit and Clexit, and in the latter case, it clearly didn’t seem to be so much a vote for Trump as a vote against the Obama-Clinton Borg and to get rid of their bureaucratic oppressors and their brownshirts – as is pointed out pretty well here: Uniquely Talented: Only the Democrats Could Have Lost to Trump

    By contrast, Trump’s very direct and no-holds-barred communiqué on the announcement of Castro’s death is entirely consistent with what he said in his campaign – i.e., he will press Cuba to do what the American people demand for the Cuban people: freedom, democracy, etc. (implicit regime change). Let’s hope he gets on with that. It would be good to see the new POTUS do something constructive and positive to liberate an oppressed people, rather than bombing them to bits like the old POTUS. None of this “normalisation” absurdity.

  • Slartibartfarst

    Speak of the Devil!
    I just now read this post on THE GRONMARK BLOG:
    Celebrating MAD Magazine’s anarchic early covers – and how it rescued its publisher from the American Comic Book Code

    Look at the last picture in the post – the MAD Magazine cover for October ’63 No.82

    “You’ll get a bang out of this issue of MAD”

    Rather droll. Good timing…

  • NickM

    I haven’t been to Cuba but I have been to the Dry Tortugas in FL. They have a small informal exhibition of the “vessels” Cubans have used to get out. Shocking. I have the pics somewhere. Sorry but I’m amidst a sorting of tens of thousands of pics across umpteen HDs, SD cards etc…

  • Runcie Balspune

    One aspect of Castro’s regime that is rarely touched is his willingness to allow a foreign power to site nuclear missiles directly threatening a neighboring state. This fact was conveniently forgotten during the height of anti-nuclear protests at Greenham Common, supported by the very same people who were part of the Cuba support groups.

    Referring that subject there was a 1994 film called The Cuban Nipple Crisis which followed a photographer trying to take pictures for a topless calendar in Cuba, it was a great expose of Cuba’s social attitude and controlling government, they were assigned a minder just like North Korea (the other socialist monarchy).

  • Mr Ed

    The Left only took an interest in human rights issues in Cuba under Castro when they were referring to the Guantánamo US Navy base.

  • Alisa

    Nick’s link there is telling – not only regarding our “leaders” in what is supposed to be the West, but the language of the piece itself. And this is not a leftist paper, as far as I’m aware. Not that I’m surprised, mind you, just disgusted.

  • Alisa

    Thanks for that link, Bobby – I agree that it is not to be taken for granted at all, the obligatory Obamabumlicking notwithstanding. I do wonder though what exactly brought this about – I mean, she is not even from FL…

    BTW, I suggest replacing ‘timely’ with ‘belated’ 👿

  • CaptDMO

    ….with Cuba producing some of the FINEST auto body mechanics IN THE WORLD!
    (Second only to Dominicans?)
    But just remember, that auto body repair business? “You didn’t build that!”

  • I have pointed out that the Castro’s regime is in fact a Monarchy whose creed happens to be derived from Marx and Lenin.

  • NickM

    Mr Ed,
    80-90% of the lionization of Castro is hatred of the USA and him being seen as the poster-boy for that enterprise. He could be forgiven almost any abysmal antics for being in the”frontline” against the evil, EVIL USA.

  • Alisa

    Indeed, Demetrius – much like North Korea.

  • Lee Moore

    On the BBC…..

    In a deeply shameful and unworthy gloatfest, I have spent a bit of time over the last couple of weeks rewatching the US election night coverage on Youtube on different channels. Yesterday I got round to the BBC. I confess I was a bit surprised at the lightness of obvious bias. Since the point of watching is not to celebrate Trump’s victory but to wallow in the weeping of lefties, it was a bit of a disappointment. Andrew Neil was Andrew Neil, sharp and cutting at both sides expense and right down the middle. Even Katty Kay was fairly balanced (!)

    The panel guests were a bit of a giveaway. They did have a few Republicans rotating onto the panel, but I think only one out of about four was an actual Trump supporter. The others “voted for someone else.” A similar pattern was apparent in their outside broadcasts – there was a huge emphasis on the young and the immigrants (all Hillaryites natch) and nada from the deplorables, and the on location Beebettes went through the same elation – puzzlement – concern – dismay – grief evolution as the young weeping Clintonians they were covering. But back at HQ, Andrew Neil was perfectly fair, as was Emily Maitlis.

    Jeremy Vine wasn’t biased – just indescribably pleased with himself and equally indescribably annoying. (And the BBC grasp of the numbers was woeful. None of them seemed to realise that when a state was called for Trump when he was leading 52-38, that didn’t mean he was projected to win it by 12 points. It just meant he was 12 points ahead on the count so far, and was projected to win. Much lunatic discussion proceeded from this basic misunderstanding.)

    So overall the Beeb was nothing like as one eyed as ABC, which was itself much the least one eyed of the US networks.

    I hardly ever watch the BBC these days as my stomach can no longer take the smug sanctimony, but their US election night stuff was far less awful than I was expecting.But obviously you can’t seriously expect them to say that Castro was a small time thug by 20th century standards, on a par with Pinochet, but without the good grace to have an election and step down after being beaten.

  • K

    It sends a chill up my spine for mainstream media outlets to praise totalitarian dictators, even in death. It means that a large segment of the ruling class, at best, are not viscerally repelled by such methods and at worst exposing their plans to “get things done” over the heads of the lumpen proles.

  • One aspect of Castro’s regime that is rarely touched is his willingness to allow a foreign power to site nuclear missiles directly threatening a neighboring state.

    It was worse than that: he advocated a nuclear first strike on the USA, which turned Khrushchev white. He was also an opportunistic thug more than a communist revolutionary, as I explain here.

  • Alisa

    He was also an opportunistic thug more than a communist revolutionary

    I think that pretty much describes the whole lot of them. Some started from ideology, some discovered it later and liked it, all used it cynically to their personal advantage – but the fact is that only those who were opportunistic thugs to begin with managed to reach positions of power. Those communist ideologues who didn’t have enough thuggery and cunning in them, all ended up as Enemies of the People.

  • Johnnydub

    “at worst exposing their plans to “get things done” over the heads of the lumpen proles.”

    Its more fundamental than that.

    They simply wont lose any sleep if people die in order for them to get what they want. It really is the defining difference between the left and the right.

  • Paul Marks

    The BBC (and most other “mainstream media” outlets – for example the New York Times and Al Jazeera) are even reporting the improvements in health as Gospel.

    The history of these lies (the lies about social improvements in Cuba) is an example of the “double lie” method.

    The first level of lie is lies about the PRESENT – for example stuff such as “health care is free in Cuba” – in reality bribes have to be paid (at least by ordinary people) to get treatment.

    But there is also the second level of lie – as well as lies about the present there are also lies about the past.

    Virtually every statistic about the 1950s situation in Cuba produced by the Cuban government is a lie – and lies that are repeated in the Western media as the truth (and find their way into official reports and university texts).

    Even international organisations, the U.N. and so on, ignore their own reports from the 1950s (reports rotting away neglected) and accept what the Cuban government says-their-reports-said.

    Yes an organisation is told (for example) “your report of 1956 said Cuban infant mortality was X” and they will just believe this – rather than checking their own files, and later editions (produced by these very organisations) will contain the figures (will contain “X”) they were told their 1950s reports stated – even though the actual 1950s documents gave different numbers.

    It is as if I want up to you and said “last year on this day you had beef for dinner” – you may (or may not) have a vague memory of having lamb for dinner, but if I say it STRONGLY enough (and produce official looking documents “proving” this “fact” about the past) I will get you believing you had beef for dinner on this day last year.

    And when asked about it at some later point – you will report what I have TOLD you, not your own memory (which you most likely do not have anyway).

    The key to the Cuban regime approach is to lie (both about the present and about the past – the “double lie”) – but to lie shamelessly and systematically. Being Marxists they are very good at this.

  • Paul Marks

    “No beggars on the streets of Havana” says the BBC.

    Perhaps we can reintroduce the vagrancy laws to the United Kingdom and round up beggars and put them in prison – would the the BBC like that?

    How about empty the prisons (and mental homes) of murderers and rapists and so on – and sent them to Florida? Mr Castro did that – some years ago. And as most people who escape from Cuba are good people fleeing a murdering Marxist tyrant American law states that anyone who lands in America from Cuba can not be sent back.

    Interestingly both Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz (both Cuban Americans) want America to have the right to refuse people that Castro has SENT (rather than who really escaped).

  • the other rob

    Interestingly both Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz (both Cuban Americans) want America to have the right to refuse people that Castro has SENT (rather than who really escaped).

    I don’t like “Hyphenated American” terms. When I threw in my lot with the USA, I became an American, just like all the rest. Not an English-American.

    To my mind, this distinction is fundamental to the “melting pot” concept that, for decades, underpinned American exceptionalism. The Multi-Cultis have sought to deprecate the concept, in recent times, which is as good a reason as any to reinforce it.

    ISTR that a POTUS once said something very similar.

  • bobby b

    “I don’t like “Hyphenated American” terms.”

    But however can we claim our various victimhoods if we can’t wear the label of our own particular victim status?

    This is why several campuses here in the U.S. now call the melting-pot concept a micro-aggression against the not-yet-melted.

  • Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker!) Gray

    We had a Prime Minister who didn’t want Australians to be hyphenated-Australians. PM Howard was big on assimilation. I bet he didn’t get many Muslim votes!

  • Alisa

    This is excellent – and from a Laborite at CNN, no less.

  • Alisa

    He’l quite a character, it turns out.

  • Mr Ed

    It should be remembered that Castro’s forces kidnapped Juan Manual Fangio before the Cuban Grand Prix, and reportedly that Cuban forces in Angola used nerve gas on UNITA forces.