The BBC’s deep and abiding hatred of England and the native English


Ever wondered what your Dad did in the war? Wrong question; ask rather what he was up to before it started. Did he sport a lapel badge showing Mussolini’s boyish profile, and after the war, sadly lost to the wrong side, when you and your mother thought he was asleep in front of the football, was he, at best, dreaming of black-shirted world domination?  In ‘Britain’s Fascist Thread,’ BBC Radio 4, for three weeks from Feb 12th, Camilla Schofield, Senior Lecturer in Modern History at UEA, explores what she calls, ‘The unbroken thread of fascism in Britain.’

Despite there being no far- right MPs in our Parliament, unlike those of France, Italy, Spain, the EU and eastern Europe, and the failure of the NF, BNP or even Nigel Farage to ever gain a seat in the Commons, Schofield believes that fascism has always been endemic to Britain. We invented it and still embrace it. She took the term, ‘Unbroken Thread,’ from a new book by Joe Mulhall, ‘British Fascism After the Holocaust. From the Birth of Denial to the Notting Hill Riots 1939–1958.’ According to publicity, ‘Adding to our understanding of the evolving ideology of fascism, the persistent nature of antisemitism and the blossoming of Britain’s anti-immigration movement.’ Mulhall is an, ‘Historian of fascism,’ and Senior Researcher at the anti-fascist organisation, ‘HOPE Not Hate,’ which has just launched a report on far-right ‘terror’ in Europe.

The program starts with soundtrack from the British Union of Fascists (BUF) rally at Olympia, June 7th 1934, when 12,000 gathered to hear former Labour minister, Oswald Mosley proclaim a new political movement. A crackly voice from the newsreel also tells us it was ‘new’ but Schofield, who teaches 20th century British history, the ‘British Empire and postcolonialism,’ insists it was just the revival of an entrenched ideology. ‘Is fascism a fundamentally alien thing?’ she asks, ‘Something we fought against in our finest hour, intrinsically opposite to our values or something closer to home, more deep- rooted?’

We know her answer and no one in the program disagrees as she finds, ‘A century long thread of fascism in Britain which runs parallel to the stories we commonly tell ourselves but which is a persistent part of this nation’s story.’ Loud fascist cheering from the sound-track before we hear about the evils of the Edwardian past; eugenics, race theory, social Darwinism, all apparently the result of British imperialism.

According to Dr Liam Liburd (Not Libtard) lecturer in ‘Colonial and Post-Colonial British History,’ at King’s College, London, ‘Fascism is a (British) Imperial outgrowth.’ A British response to Gandhi in India, Labour militancy and the Bolshevik revolution. In 2020 he received a PhD, for work on, ‘The Eternal Imperialists: Empire, Race and Gender on the British Radical Right, 1918-1968.’ He also blames the rise of fascism on, ‘Die-hard conservatives and Tory peers,’ and suggests that support for Mussolini was not just about making the trains run on time, a long held British aspiration, but connected to, ‘Imperial anxiety.’

For Liburd everything is about the evils of empire but Canadian, Julie Gottlieb, Professor of Modern History at Sheffield, unexpectedly blames women and ‘Feminine Fascism.’ Her research includes Women’s history and gender studies, the construction of gender identities in politics and women in the Conservative Party, ‘comparative fascism, particularly gender and fascism in comparative perspective,’ (for some reason ‘comparative,’ has to be repeated.) and of course good old, race and identity ‘in the British context,’ and not surprisingly, the history of suicide.

She blames the start of 1930s fascism on Rotha Lintorn Orman, a Kensington toff and former Girl Guide, who in 1923 tried to bring the ‘Italian Fascisti’ to Britain, mainly because she liked the uniform. Twenty five percent of BUF members were female. ‘British fascism always had a feminine edge,’ says Gottlieb mysteriously; perhaps she means ‘Camp,’ a word that is now none pc.

Liburd marched us back to Empire, its nadir with the Amritsar Massacre in 1919. General Dyer ordered it, with the ‘casual authoritarianism of colonial rule.’ The British, Liburd said, approved of this, ‘swaggering imperialism, connected to white supremacy and the colonies.’ Significantly he didn’t mention that Churchill, Secretary of State for War, demanded that Dyer be punished for the massacre. The Army Council suspended him and he was forced to resign. Churchill loomed large over the whole program despite never being mentioned. The arch imperialist was of course also violently anti-fascist. That conundrum obviously couldn’t be harnessed to back up their argument.

Back in the blighted motherland, we heard about the notorious Daily Mail support for the Black-shirts, (the Daily Mirror also supported Hitler) and Lord Rothermere’s post-card competition when he invited readers to state what they liked best about Mosley to win free tickets to the Olympia rally. A lot of communists sent them in, gained entry and heckled Mosley relentlessly. We were on P.G Wodehouse, ‘Black-shorts’ territory, a very comical British dénouement, but the humour was lost on Schofield but she did admit that after the rally the Mail withdrew its support for Mosely, the BBC banned him, and BUF membership collapsed, leaving it dead in its jackboots.

Many of us might think that the ‘thread’ had snapped, not at all, even if there are no actual fascists about the point of the series is to express the new historical narrative now pouring from our universities about the all-encompassing effect on Britain of colonialism and ‘white supremacy.’

UEA, where Schofield teaches, advertises its BA in History thus: ‘Imagine analysing depictions of slave ships, or considering the social and political power of African American jazz.’ Liburd, not only lectures at Kings College but blogs for The Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right, (CARR) a ‘Research centre and ‘pedagogical outreach’ initiative (meaning children) focused on the study and countering of radical right extremism and intersecting phenomena e.g., populism, gender, antisemitism, and Islamophobia.’ CARR is led by Prof Matthew Feldman, an American graduate of Oxford Brookes University, and former co-director of Teesside’s Centre for Fascist, Anti-fascist and Post-fascist Studies, with American Prof. Cynthia Miller-Idriss, who specialises in study of ‘White supremacy.’ Her new book is entitled, ‘Hate in the Homeland.’

This BBC program represents, ‘Hate of the Homeland,’ that is the UK.

The next two episodes will scrutinise the ‘thread’ as it existed after the war and ‘exists’ today. Apparently, our fascism is little changed from Mosely’s time. ‘It relies on a remarkably similar language of victimhood,’ says Schofield. It seeks, ‘An absolutist view of free speech,’ and the ‘domination of people of colour, Islam, and the Left,’ and ‘believes in a ‘Jewish world plot.’ In fact, she says, what we have now is, ‘The essence of fascism; fantasies of racial purity and distorted myths of the past.’ ‘The way those war stories have been repeated has disfigured our view of ourselves, masking the ordinariness, the Britishness of Fascism.’ She blames the current upsurge in ordinary British black-shirtedness, or what she calls, the ‘Blitz spirit’ on Brexit and the pandemic.

Gottleib, also notes with dismay that the Right is demanding free speech, and the common British delusion of freedom. ‘After 1945 we were are lulled into a false sense of security,’ she says, ‘about Britain’s virtue, and Britain being the antithesis of Nazism.’

Liburd warns, ‘British fascism is indigenous.’ That language of anthropology is increasingly popular among academics de-colonising the language when talking about Britain, and he tells us, ‘The ideology of fascism was a British political tradition, of Empire and Imperialist attitudes, to ‘make Britain great again.’

Trump had to appear although difficult beast Churchill didn’t, and somehow they forgot to explore Left- wing opposition to fighting Nazi Germany after the 1940 Nazi-Soviet pact, or mention how the British Communist Party called for an armistice with Hitler on the basis of ‘The right of all peoples to determine their own destiny.’

Hopefully the series will explore the relationship of modern fascism to the failure of state education since the 1970s, which has left working-class communities semi-literate and gullible to dangerous ideas, including vaccine phobia. They might also explain why working people now reject socialism with all its promises of progress and liberty, the great alternative to the evils of fascism. Could that be something to do with the Labour movement passing almost entirely into the hands of wealthy middle-class academics, the sort who have produced this program, as far removed as possible from the people who once voted Labour?  People who perhaps resent being called fascist if they try to express their views on immigration.

If you can’t get enough national self-hatred, you can listen to The News Quiz, BBC Radio 4, where Irish comedian Andrew Maxwell just referred to Nelson as, ‘A tiny little imperialist,’ and next Tuesday on BBC one, watch Lucy Worsley explore, ‘The dark side of the Blitz spirit.’

‘If Hitler’s intent in bombing London had been to fuel class division,’ she tells us, ‘it was starting to look like that was working.’ That wasn’t his intention and the bombing didn’t achieve its aim of breaking British morale, but that is by the BBC by.

Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine

Subscribe to the quarterly digital magazine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

27 Comments on The BBC’s deep and abiding hatred of England and the native English

  1. “On a whole range of subjects, the BBC is not even-handed. It is not, for example, on racism or gender prejudice, which is fine by me” (Jeremy Paxman).
    For a closer definition, see the section, “Bias & the Beeb” in Nick Robinson’s “Live from Downing Street” (2013).

  2. There are nationalist populist parties in other legislatures because they have proportional representation.

    Our system is effective in not actually being representative. Of course, since it benefits the career politicians in the two major parties, they are not going to change it any time soon, are they,

    As it is. many people vote for one or other of them to keep out the other lot who they like even less. They prop each other up like two scarecrows in a field. Take one away and the other would collapse.

    • Very true. Johnson’s comprehensive betrayal of every Conservative policy position bar Brexit would be impossible were he not propped up by the prospect of an even worse Labour government. But this effect is reaching its sell by date. Many of the most naturally active Tory voters or thinkers are already alienated. Without this group, the Tory party is like an army minus NCOs. The voters will not be so readily corralled at the next election and I foresee the old Conservative response kicking in – simply not bothering to vote at all. This is inadequate, of course. It helped Blair into power in 97; so all those who are interested in rescuing Britain from the soft left poison slowly destroying our world must unite behind a practical programme and a single new party ready to contest a limited by influential number of constituencies. There is no room for ego, grandstanding or dogma for the situation is critical.

    • Money helps. Look at the party fundmasters. Compare the fate of Blair and Corbyn. Press control helps: “It’s the ‘Sun’ wot wunnit” &c. Capture of the culture helps: Look at the fate of England since 1960.

  3. This takes me back to the Sixties when a Conservative Researcher called Julie Gooding provided statistical and other data on BBC leftism, and inspired me, then working alongside Geoffrey Stewart-Smith MP and Norris McWhirter in anti-communist research, to start collecting evidence on this subject. It was a matter of ideological slant, not just a position towards the Labour Party. South Vietnam and South Africa were obvious targets, but the problem went deeper and wider.

    Working through the “Radio Times” and “The Listener” (a journal that belonged to a literary culture, along with “Books & Bookmen” and “Punch” which have also sadly expired), plus press reviews, I amassed over many years material on programmes and personnel that eventually filled a dozen cardboard boxes. No interest was shown en route by MPs or groups like NAVLA, and I considered trying to write and hopefully publish a book myself, Unfortunately fate ruled this out when a massive flood in the lockup store ruined most of the paper-based collection.

    However, in recent years a few publications have taken up the issue, rather late in the day when the bias has become not only more obvious but also more politically normative and less easily reversed; cf. the protests against HMG’s feeble “culture war” efforts in the BBC’s print-partner “The Guardian”. Still, the studies by e.g. Robin Aitken and David Sedgwick are worthwhile.

    Hugh Carleton Greene stated that “racism” was not tolerated at the BBC, but of course this term has been extended to mean much more than incitement to hatred or violence against (non-white) ethnic groups; it extends to biological anthropology and problems of polyethnic immigration. ITV has followed suit, one notable feature being the representation of exclusively “black” faces in advertisements far in excess of their population %age as recorded in the last census. Television now resembles the society depicted by George Orwell (who worked for a while in “our own” Minitrue): Newspeak for the “educated”; Prolefeed (i.e. porn, violent, trash entertainment) for the gullible “masses”.

    • Orwell also encountered communism in action. In Britain he described a speech by Mosley as “bollox”. Others on the independent left, like John Scanlon, Hugh Ross Williamson, Wilfred Risdon, John Beckett and others took a more favourable view. Orwell also made a few remarks about the appeal of Hitler. Ideological prejudice lends disenchantment to the view; e.g, Naomi Mitchison’s mixed comments on the blackshirts at Olympia at the time, and her later autobiographical reference to enjoyment in attempting to “break up” his lawful and otherwise peaceful meetings. Bob Edwards who fought Franco in Spain had no illusions,unlike those Labourites described by Giles Udy in his book on gulag denial, about Sovietism, also advocated an industrial (instead of geographical) franchise, like the BUF. Things are not always what they seem; “prejudice and terminology count for too much”; objective research is beneficial; people, even politicians, live and learn, and change fashion, e.g. John Strachey, Stephen Spender, John Dos Passos, James Burnham, Beverley Nichols, J. Middleton Murry, to name a few.

  4. BBC R4 was my only real contact with the outside world for about three months during last year’s lockdown. I didn’t listen regularly but mainly out of curiosity to see how biased they are… and they are pretty insufferable. I can’t listen now, I just get too angry; Adam Gopnik’s ‘Point of View’, just after the Capitol Hill incident might just as well have been an Article of the BBC manifesto.

  5. Mussolini was a follower of Gentilli, an Italian Marxist who felt that ‘historical inevitability’ had proven wrong, and that Statism was the correct way for Socialism to be expressed and not a class based socialism as Marx predicted.
    Italian fascism was intrinsically nationalist and socialist and was the doyen of the FDR administration in 1930’s USA, so much so that his ‘blue eagle’ scheme fell foul of the SCOTUS.
    In the late ’40’s Marcuse and Adorno re-engineered fascist socialism into cultural Marxism and created a political red herring that untied the socialism from national socialism and cellotaped it to the political ‘right’, and unfortunately, it stuck.
    The Right is about small government and non interfearence in everyday life, one cannot describe fascism this way in any shape of form. Yes modern fascism still exists – those who want to control and censor and dictate what is politically correct – Is it called wokism in its current form?

  6. PS. There is of course a vast literature on Jews and on antisemitism, but I forgot one signficant book, and wish to mention a little-known curious item that should interest anticommunist readers.

    The first is Julius Carlebach, “Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism” (1978) which discusses extensively the question of how “Jewish” was the chief architect of communism, and to some extent how “racist” he and his Gentile comrade Engels were in comparison to contemporaries (now being vilified in the current attack on English and other “Dead White European Males”).

    The other, available online, is Earl Browder, “The Jewish People and the War” (1940). Written during the Nazi-Soviet Pact, when the Kremlin was discreetly undermining British defences, this publication from the leader of the American Communists aimed to deter US intervention in the European conflict, but his naming of the alleged war lobbyists was considerably more specific than Lindbergh in the US and Mosley had been in the UK.

  7. Guest worker Let me make it clear. If you post anymore racist or implied anti Semitic statements I will block you permanently. I am going to delete the two posts one about jews and the other about interracial marriage.

  8. Racism is bad. Race realism is necessary. But it is too hard to deal with. So it is often classed as racism, in efforts to keep things quiet. And such censorship is corrosive. Trust and confidence in the social order are destroyed. And the people perish.

  9. Of course, were this catch all definition of fascism to be applied logically no people on earth would escape it. And conflating anti-Semitism with resistance to the sudden influx of heavily alien populations is nothing more than a libellous sophistry. The first involves betraying a small, harmless, assimilated minority; the second is the natural reaction of communities the world over – witness the recent friction at the South Africa frontier in the face of migration from Zimbabwe. And domination by the left is a fiction, is it? So the BBC opposes migration, I suppose? It supports the death penalty, campaigns relentlessly for the restoration of grammar schools, opposes the “trans” movement at every opportunity? The first question is this: are these low grad academic worms just mad or merely malignant? Have they swallowed their own lies? And the second question? How on earth do we save ourselves from their poisonous dominion?

    • Save ourselves from full and final enslavement? I say it can be done if 10% of adult Whites, and any adult non-Whites who are pro-Western, join their local Tory branch and devise and implement a smart, tough strategy to put things to rights. Success will require sacrifice of time and money, without cease. Others say this will not work because entrenched office-holders in the Tory Party. bottom to top, prefer things as they are -esp in regard to holding their own office. My response to that is: If there is no sacrifice by the striving productive classes in The Trenches of this Terrible War, yes, full and final enslavement of the striving productive classes is inevitable. Just as we saw at Animal Farm.

    • “Fascism” is a term that lacks precision, and has become a mere term of abuse, but refers to the Italian political system established by Mussolini 90 years ago, and to other movements whose policies likewise favoured nationalism, autarky, corporate statism and anti-communism, For an objective account of its ideology see especially the books by Professor A. James Gregor.

  10. Dear Jane,
    You have made a keen observation, and also given insight into the causes of the BBC’s hatred of us, as a people. The BBC is only one of the large organistions (both public and privately funded) who hate the British in general, and the Ulster unionist, and English in particular. Such hatred of white people (often by wealthier whites) isn’t confined to the UK, Emily Sands-Bonin writes about the situation in France in Conservative Woman:

  11. And, of course, it wouldn’t be mentioned that Oswald Mosely was a Labour Party M.P. from 1926 – 1931 and served in the Labour government.

    I gave up television reception some six or more years ago and I stopped listening to any programs on BBC Radio 4 about two years ago. Talkradio is the only broadcaster to which I now listen with Mike Graham and Kevin O’Sullivan providing me with intelligent comment from invited M.P.s and journalists who have not bought into the Marxist social model that bedevils the English.

    • Re Sir Oswald Mosley (not “Mosely”) it is ironic that he was one of the first politicians to appear on TV at its initial experimental stage, but was totally banned for decades until he left party-politics and wrote an autobiography. During that time there were completely hostile references to which he was denied reply, one of them in which Richard Dimbleby described an isolated and surrounded Tommy Moran, a miner and boxer, battle off a gang of thugs, as “here we see Blackshirts beating up Jews”, the precise opposite of visible facts. This occurred during the period of the so-called “Battle of Cable Street”, described by Roy Hattersley as a hand-to-hand fight between fascists and local people; a complete myth, for the events in that street consisted mainly of communists running away from the police. British Union marchers did not enter the street, but subsequently held large meetings in the East End and almost doubled their local membership.

      Mosley had indeed served in the Labour government which rejected his proposals to cope with the slump; these formed the core of his subsequent “fascism” in his New Party and British Union. The key theme of his lifelong economics was to bring access to sufficient food and raw materials under national control, minimising fatal dependence on the export trade. His meetings to put his ideas to the public were often subject to violent attack, for example by leftwing razor gangs in Glasgow in 1931. This was also the case at Olympia which was targeted by the Communist Party, disturbed by his comparative membership progress, to make his supporters “tremble inside and outside the hall”. Over 60 stewards were treated for serious injuries, and some taken to hospital; a Tory MP saw a girl blackshirt slashed across her face. British Union membership fell after the adverse falsification, but bumpily recuperated and reached original levels by 1939, as confirmed by Stewart Rawnsley, Martin Pugh and other impartial researchers.

      As Prof. Alan Taylor and Norman St John-Stevas noted, Mosley was full of ideas. These ranged from the pre-war extraction of oil from coal to the post-war restoration of West Indian industry. Despite six books and innumerable articles, these have hardly even been examined. Instead, Mosley has been vilified as a unique monster. Whether he advocated British leadership of the prewar Empire or of postwar Europe, he is long dead and now harmless, but since his opponents alone have been responsible for our present mess, against his recommendations at every stage, could people not at least acknowledge the contrast in studies so rare as (say) Andrew Gamble’s “Britain in Decline” (1994)? The need to fake the history of Mosley in disgusting TV programmes like “Peaky Blinders” tells its own story.

      When Mosley resigned from government 90 years ago, he said “what I fear most is a slow crumbling down the years”. Well, that’s what has happened, after all, and whatevever may be said against his egoistic personality or mistaken tactics, his enemies alone must take the blame.

  12. It’s where the money is, alas. The customer’s always right. I fear the Far Left were condescendingly indulged, obtained a bridgehead and then kicked out everyone who had different opinions. The Far Left don’t do toleration of academic diversity because it weakens their power. As particularly obtuse pupils they believe there is only one correct answer.

  13. The UAE History BA blurb actually says: ‘Imagine reading the first ever work of a Christian woman, examining Henry VIII’s armour, or considering the social and political power of African American jazz.’

    That’s a fairly balanced projection. Did you check? I’m no lover of woke academia and their swivel-eyed lunacy, but factual inaccuracies make us all look bad.

    • Contests for power, fought by way of facts and logic, are these days mostly fought by those who do not realise that the anti-empirical forces already control the place. And perhaps separately, African American jazz would not exist had not European, esp the English, established the American colonies and had not Europeans created all the musical instruments and other apparatus that pertains, including radio, TV, and clubs and bars.

  14. Fascism -that’s authoritarian ultranationalism, by most accounts. Now, as the graphic atop this article suggests, and as we know by looking around us, we are actually already enslaved by authoritarian anti-nationalists and authoritarian supra-nationalists. Far as we know, in all polities since the Year Dot, power-seekers of the authoritarian kind have pursued power by promising all boons and benefits, everything for free, to everyone from everywhere if such denizens and incomers will only agree to put these authoritarian power-mongers into positions of power and keep them there. All this was being tried on several millenia before Marx arrived and codified the matter for later inspiration to Western academics -and for power-mongers, both home-grown and from everywhere else, now resident in the West.