BBC Musk

There is a whiff of desperation in the air and it is emanating from the BBC. In a car crash of an interview, reminiscent of Kathy Newman's self-immolating attempt to shoot down Jordan Peterson for Channel 4, the BBC’s North America Technology reporter, James Clayton, similarly imploded in the face of perfectly reasonable questions from Elon Musk.

Elon Musk is supposedly one of the richest people on Earth. His purchase of Twitter has brought some public attention to the issue of free speech in so-called democracies.

Musk initially became fabulously wealthy thanks to the unwavering support of a clique of globalists and accelerationists, alongside governments, that kept Musk afloat whenever his businesses failed, often by pouring enormous taxpayer subsidies into his speculative ventures. He holds the world record for loosing a largest ever personal fortune when he dumped Tesla stock to finance the Twitter deal.

Musk was reportedly a WEF young global leader and launched his Space-X business with the support of Mike Griffin, then the president and Chief Operations Officer for the CIA's investment firm, In-Q-Tel. Having started his entrepreneurial life in the 1990s, by 2008 Musk was flat broke and, despite considerable taxpayer investment, Space-X was bankrupt.

Luckily, by then Griffin was the NASA Administrator and he awarded Elon a $3 billion USD space station resupply contract. Musk's company was yet to successfully launch a single rocket, but Griffin bailed it out anyway. NASA is funded by US taxpayers.

Despite initial claims of charity, the CIA front organisation, USAID, is paying Space-X handsomely to provide the Ukrainian military and citizens access to its Starlink satellite communication system. Safe to say, Musk has a working relationship with the US intelligence community and the CIA in particular.

The grandson of a leader of the Technocracy movement, Musk is a transhumanist who wants to insert computer chips in our brains and insists that we just have to physically merge with machines, thereby eradicating humanity as a species. He promotes Universal Basic Income (UBI), carbon taxes, mRNA vaccine technology and pretty much every other globalists ambition you can shake a stick at.

Musk is a big fan of the idea of an everything app like China's WeChat or Ukraine's Diia. He is making moves to turn Twitter into such an app.

Despite all of this, Musk is being promoted by many as some sort of champion of the people, dedicated to free speech. Meanwhile, Twitter continues to censor journalists and also appears to be throttling the sharing of Substack posts, including my own.

The BBC is a state broadcaster which the proposed UK internet regulator, Ofcom, likes to refer to as Public Service Broadcaster (PSB). Claiming that PSB's deliver "impartial and trusted news," the fact that the BBC is funded at the discretion of the government and is controlled by the government is a conflict of interest that Ofcom suggests we should just ignore. Instead, according to Ofcom, we can simply "trust" whatever the BBC tells us.

Following Musk's take over, the BBC was listed on Twitter as "government funded media." While this is an accurate description of the BBC, it subsequently appealed to Twitter which agreed to change the description to "publicly funded media." 

"Publicly funded" makes the BBC sound a bit more like the commercial or independent media that is voluntarily supported by its audience. But no one funds the BBC voluntarily. Even those who want to fund it are coerced into doing so.

UK citizens are legally compelled to pay the TV license---fund the BBC---if they want to watch live television broadcasts. Increasingly, the British are choosing not to fund the BBC and are legally barred from watching TV.

The BBC's need to describe itself as "publicly" funded, intentionally misleads Twitter users. We are simply told that the BBC is trustworthy despite that evidently not being the case.

To his credit, Musk had no problem offering a coherent definition of free speech. Providing it stays within the law---doesn't incite violence or any other crime---he described it well:

Free speech is meaningless unless you allow people you don't like to say things you don't like. [. . .] At the point at which you loose free speech, it doesn't come back.

Clayton appeared incapable of grasping this concept, and simply returned to ill defined concepts like "misinformation" and "hate speech."  Musk asked Clayton who the arbiter of these selective restrictions on free speech should be.

Musk made the BBC's James Clayton look particularly silly during their discussion about Clayton's allegation that "hate speech" had spiked on Twitter since Musk took the reigns. When Musk asked Clayton to define "hate speech," after fumbling about for a bit, he offered "something that is slightly racist or slightly sexist."

Herein lies the crux of the the arguments of those who would see so-called "hate speech" used as a pretext to censor free speech. They either have no concept of the importance of free speech in a supposed democracy and do not, or cannot, except that it inevitably comes with risks, or are willing to cast it aside in order to silence opinions they don't like.

A somewhat perplexed Musk, presumably wondering what subjective criteria Clayton had applied to decide that something was "slightly" racist or sexist, quite reasonably asked Clayton to give him an example. Clayton couldn't cite one.

Clayton's response was to point out that there are "many organisations that say that, that kind of information is on the rise. [. . .] for example the Strategic Dialogue Institute [Institute of Strategic Dialogue (ISD)] in the UK, they will say that."

Clayton's "investigative journalism" is evidently reliant upon whatever he is told by these other organisations. This is seemingly typical for censorship advocates.

They do not appear to understand that the responsibility for critical thinking is theirs. A growing body of people seem to genuinely believe that another organisation can check facts for them. It is a total abdication of what it is to be a conscious, intelligent human being.

Again, Musk's response seemed reasonable:

People will say all sorts of nonsense, I am literally asking for a single example and you can't name one.

Following Clayton's public humiliation the BBC decided to strike back with Twitter Hate Speech: What is the Evidence? According to the BBC, the "evidence" can be found in a series of reports by a number of well funded organisations, including the BBC itself.

The BBC stated:

There are both in-depth studies and anecdotal evidence that suggest hate speech has been growing under Mr Musk's tenure.

The BBC cited a report published by the ISD and its partner, CASM Technologies. The ISD is a UK based global think tank supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Omidyar Group, the Open society Foundation, the British Council, the EU, the UN, numerous western governments and the intended UK internet regulator, Ofcom, among others.

The ISD says it is "independent" although it has to represent the interests of its funding and partner organisations---otherwise they wouldn't support it---so it isn't remotely "independent," as it falsely claims. The ISD is an unelected body which boasts:

The ISD is uniquely able to turn research and analysis into evidence-based policy and action. [. . .] We formulate and advocate policy solutions, and provide local authorities, central governments and multilateral institutions with the data, expertise and technical support to deliver evidence-based policy and programming.

The ISD is a global public-private partnership (G3P) which shapes government policy. As such, it places policy control into the hands of alleged philanthropists, global corporations, NGOs and civil society organisation. It is essentially an anti-democratic organisation that serves to undermine purported democracies.

CASM Technology, which says its purpose as "confronting online harm," is a similar (G3P) which is "supported" by the BBC, the UK Cabinet Office, the ISD, etc. CASM Technologies and the ISD have developed "Beam data analysis" which CASM says has won awards and constitutes "a powerful hate speech detection methodology."

This "powerful" methodology consists of the ISD hoovering up tweets and then analysing them to identify content they have called "plausibly antisemitic." ISD and CASM explain the "plausibly antisemtic" label they have made up:

Our approach uses an innovative algorithmic architecture to classify Tweets which could be interpreted as ‘plausibly antisemitic’, where at least one reasonable interpretation of a message’s meaning fell within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. [. . .] [C]oded language of ‘globalists’, ‘puppeteers’ and ‘financiers’ [has been] interpreted as plausibly antisemitic. 

"Reasonable interpretation" appears to be key here. Primarily because that "interpretation" doesn't appear to be reasonable at all.

The Beam "methodology" is to flag certain words in tweets, call them antisemitic without any discernible justification, and then claim this as evidence of "hate speech." Many of these words were "coded" in the database called Hatebase, which recently wrapped up its operation but is cited in the Beam report.

Hatebase was project set up by the Sentinel Project and the Dark Data Project. They list the words deemed to be hateful by the USAID---the CIA--and various governments, etc.

For example, the Hatebase definition of "globalist" is supposedly "extremely offensive" and represents:

Coded language often used as a negative euphemism for Jew

Hatebase's makey-uppy definition also adds a "non-hateful" meaning of "internationally-minded person." Quite why Hatebase bothered to do this is anyone's guess because the actual definition of "globalist" is:

Someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way, rather than according to what is best for one particular country

Of course, if you ignore what words like "globalist" or "financier" mean, and instead claim they are indicative of "hate speech," then, by applying your totally unhinged interpretation as you scour social media, you are going to find a lot of "hate."

The BBC presumably considers the ISD report to be an "in-depth study." It offers this gibberish as "research" to its readers. In reality, as Musk pointed out, it is all just "nonsense." All it appears to evidence is that the BBC doesn't know enough to stop digging when it is in a hole.

Continuing its efforts to bury itself, the BBC also cites an article from the Center For Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Its equally ludicrous "analysis" is based upon counting how often expletives crop up in tweets. It also counts derogatory terms, such as "n****r," but doesn't "analyse" who used it and in what context. It could be a rapper citing song lyrics for all the CCDH knows.

Slapping these utterly meaningless statistics together, the CCDH presents their own fairy tale as evidence of "hate." The BBC then calls this dross “evidence.”

To illustrate just how far it has fallen down the "hate speech" rabbit hole, unlike the BBC's Clayton, the CCDH did provide some specific examples of what it called "hate." For example, it cited the Tweet of Tim Pool who, in reference to Club Q, where the Colorado Spring nightclub shooting reportedly occurred, said:

We shouldn't tolerate pedophiles grooming kids. Club Q had a grooming event. How do prevent the violence and stop the grooming?

It is important to note that Pool was asking how we "prevent the violence" and "stop the grooming." Only a psychopath would choose to call this "hate."

Pool's tweet suggested a possible link between the shooting and the Club Q "event." This led the CCDH to claim that Pool was "promoting hate towards LGBTQ+ people." This allegation does not stand up to scrutiny. 

The "event" in question was an all age drag show that was due to run the day after the reported shooting. Whether this was a "grooming event," as Pool claimed, is unknown, but previous all age drag shows at Club C, where acts like Connie Lingus entertained the children, suggests that possibility. 

According to the UK National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) a sign of child-grooming is that the child exhibits "sexualised behaviour, language or an understanding of sex that's not appropriate for their age." The NSPCC describes the processes that lead to this sexualisation of children:

Children’s sexual development is shaped by their environment, experiences and what they see. [. . .] Sometimes children may have been sexually abused themselves and not understand that what happened to them was wrong.

The NSPCC considers that anything the child sees that leads the child to develop an age-inappropriate understanding of sex is abuse and part of the grooming process. Exposing children to such experiences is "wrong."

The NSPCC is particularly concerned about the "premature sexualisation of children" and the increased risks this presents to the child:

The premature sexualisation of children is an issue that concerns parents, politicians and policy makers alike. The NSPCC is particularly concerned about the extent to which sexualisation drives abuse or other harm to children.

There is nothing wrong with men and women dressing up in garish costumes to entertain children with age-appropriate song & dance routines or pantomime, etc. Nor is there anything wrong with appropriately dressed drag queens reading suitable stories to children.

But wearing bondage gear, thongs and nipple tassels, simulating sex acts, exposing yourself or adorning a comedy erect phallus in front of children is "wrong." The NSPCC are among the child protection organisations that consider this a form of "grooming."

If anyone performs lewd acts in front of children that is a form of abuse. Should drag queens be excused from this adult responsibility?

There is a lot of evidence that all age drag shows lead to the premature sexualisation of children and can therefore constitute grooming. Any "reasonable" person, who cares about the welfare of children, can have legitimate concerns about some all age drag shows. 

If the proportion of all age drag shows that evidently do sexualise children continue, then, this can only benefit paedophiles. The evidence, from the NSPCC and others, suggests that we need to think carefully about the content of these shows. Yet the CCDH is attempting to make any criticism of all age drag shows practically impossible by labelling it ant-LGBTQ+ "hate speech." 

Pool has criticised the febrile environment that is building around the transgender issue. His opinion is that the suppression of debate about all age drag shows is heightening tensions and increasing the risk of violence. This is something he appears to oppose.  

Pool's tweet was injudicious and badly timed. He is of the opinion that all age drag shows should be banned. Regardless of whether or not his specific allegation about the pending Club Q event was accurate, there was every reason for him to suspect that it would be a "grooming event." 

Pool did not claim that all drag queens are paedophiles, as the CCDH falsely imputes. He opposed both the violence and the grooming and suggested that unless we address people's revulsion at adult stage acts performing for children, the risk of a violent backlash against such events is likely to increase.  

It seems reasonably clear that Pools tweet was not intended to promote attacks on the LGBTQ+ community. In fact, it seems to be part of his efforts to stop them. Pool may hold opinions that some LGBTQ+ don’t agree with, but that is no basis for accusing him of hate.

Pools opinion about the emerging risk of violence is seemingly based upon a fair appraisal of what some people actually think, rather than what they are supposed to think. To describe Pools isolated tweet as "hate" is, on its face, totally absurd. 

The CEO of the CCDH, Imran Ahmed, is a "hate speech" extremist who believes that people who do not share his opinions should be imprisoned. He said that anyone who questions the safety and efficacy of vaccines are part of an "extremist group that pose a national security risk."

Ahmed believes that the government should censor free speech, as do the BBC, and is part of a gaggle of propagandists who claim they wish to protect "democratic freedoms," apparently by doing everything they possibly can to remove them. He supports the imposition of the Online Safety Act in the UK. To justify the censorship legislation, Ahmed said that people who questioned vaccines, during the pseudopandemic, were spreading "vile hatred and dangerous medical misinformation."

We now know that they weren't. Research clearly shows that there are sound scientific reasons to question the Covid jabs.

Ahmed's accusations were unwarranted at the time and seem even more ridiculous today. But, regardless of the evidence, the insistence by people like Ahmed and organisations like the BBC that questioning jabs ever constitutes "hate" is nonsensical.

The BBC serves up a never ending stream of propaganda and provable disinformation. To cite the farcical claims of the ISD and CASM, and the CCDH' spurious opinion about Pool's tweet, as "evidence," epitomises the way the BBC shapes narratives to mislead its audience.

While what it has offered technically constitutes "evidence," that doesn't mean the evidence is unquestionable or proves the BBC's claims. The BBC has simply listed some opinions, expressed by organisations that share its enthusiasm for censorship, and claimed that this therefore substantiates its allegation that "hate" has increased on Twitter. 

Irrespective of Musk's questionable agenda, he was easily able to expose the zealotry of a lunatic fringe that enjoys disproportionate power and political influence. Perhaps Clayton just believes whatever he is told by "trusted" sources and doesn't know any better, but people like Ahmed and organisations like the BBC know exactly what they are doing. 

Their role is to propagandise and spread disinformation to convince the public to accept the need for state censorship. To do this they are creating fake news and preposterous reports about the alleged problem of "hate." These ridiculous, poorly evidenced assertions are then fed into a self perpetuating, self referencing propaganda loop. 

The CCDH, the BBC and others cite each others claims to present myths as plausible opinion. In truth, the whole house of cards is formed from little more than state propaganda. The so-called "evidence" offered is invariably risible claptrap. 

Humiliated by Musk, the BBC has doubled down on its propaganda. All it has achieved is to provide further evidence that demonstrates it is unworthy of anyone's "trust."