April 2019:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5xhNXVfPYQ



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2019 08:05PM by Tevai.

Wow.

>>She's saying how exploitative all these MLMs are, when she works for a corporation that everyone in the UK is FORCED to pay for!

Well, I am forced to pay for a lot of cable channels that I don't want in order to get the ones that I do want.

I'm sure that the British will get the TV tax issue sorted out in time if it's outlived its usefulness. They do have an elected Parliament over there, right?

Don’t worry, summer. The thread will be closed soon!

Gosh! So, over 100 MLM companies founded in Salt Lake? Seems a very lucrative business for the people at the top... not so much for others.

Just read that the founders of Uber just became Billionaires...again, don’t think the people actually driving cars and picking up passengers are doing that well!

Thanks for the link, a real eye-opener!

It is a startling figure, but how many of these are of any significance? I've never heard of Younique. Avon yes, Younique no. Is Avon LDS? Most of them probably go nowhere.

The link with serving missions is convincing.

We probably should call them what they are - pyramid schemes.

p.s. The BBC itself is also a scam, but better not tell her that.

I thought Mormonism WAS a MLM.

She's saying how exploitative all these MLMs are, when she works for a corporation that everyone in the UK is FORCED to pay for! Doesn't matter if you're poor, old, or abandoning the BBC like most young Brits are, you have to pay. Most of the BBC is political propaganda, both for the English royal family, and also for social(ist) causes in most other areas. (A contradictory combination.)

The BBC is the broadcasting arm of the British state, although it pretends to be otherwise.

For years, other broadcasters were prevented from entering their domain and competing. Now there are hundreds of channels, streaming services like Prime and Netflix, and the BBC is painting itself into an SJW corner.

Even though few people watch the BBC anymore, and viewing figures flagship programs like Doctor Who are going down the sewer, British people are still forced to pay for their toxic waste.

If there is a big MLM in the UK, she eorks for it. And all the stories about Mormon men did it and ran away don't apply to the BBC.

Oh geez, here we go again. You can come out from under the covers: that's not really Trotsky's ghost in your closet


-------------
> [The reporter is] saying how exploitative all these MLMs are,
> when she works for a corporation that everyone in
> the UK is FORCED to pay for!

In what sense is a TV tax, supported by generations of voters and their representatives, like an MLM? It costs about $15 per month per household and supports up to 15 devices, so roughly one dollar per screen. There is no deception, no opportunity for households to invest their own money in the hope of garnering untold riches. So how is it an MLM?


---------------
> Doesn't matter if
> you're poor, old, or abandoning the BBC like most
> young Brits are, you have to pay.

Old people are exempt. So there's that.


-------------
> Most of the BBC
> is political propaganda, both for the English
> royal family, and also for social(ist) causes in
> most other areas. (A contradictory combination.)

The "contradiction" vanishes if you recognize that the monarchy is a national symbol with no governmental power. And it would be nice if instead of overwrought conclusions you offered some evidence of the supposed socialism purveyed by the BBC.


-----------------
> For years, other broadcasters were prevented from
> entering their domain and competing.

Yup. And those years ended in the 1970s, back in Ezra's day.


--------------
> Now there are
> hundreds of channels, streaming services like
> Prime and Netflix, and the BBC is painting itself
> into an SJW corner.

That is a strange passage. Do you realize that the BBC news division is distinct from the company's entertainment channels? Then why would you disparage a news story (and its reporter) by comparing it to American companies that only offer entertainment and don't "do" news at all? Does the rise of In-and-Out discredit Fox News? Because that is your logic.


--------------
> Even though few people watch the BBC anymore, and
> viewing figures flagship programs like Doctor Who
> are going down the sewer, British people are still
> forced to pay for their toxic waste.

Again, Doctor Who is irrelevant to the news division. And whether the BBC produces "toxic waste" depends on one's perspective, surely. Can you offer any specific examples?


---------------
> If there is a big MLM in the UK, she eorks for it.

In what sense is the BBC an MLM operation? Does it use false promises of vast riches to motivate people to raise money for it? Because that's what an MLM does.


-----------
> And all the stories about Mormon men did it and
> ran away don't apply to the BBC.

Wut?


Surely you can find a more coherent way to advance your political agenda. Trying to shoehorn them in by claiming that the BBC is an MLM isn't a great approach.

There used to be a girl in my ward who had lived in Britain as a student. She said she would regularly get rude and threatening letters demanding that she "cough up" money for their stupid "TV License". She even brought one home as a souvenir. Apparently they send these to everyone. And if you don't pay, they send people around to your home, who demand to get access to look around. Often these are big threatening men. There are videos on Youtube.

If you're blind, you get a reduction, but still have to pay. How kind!

I'm told there is even a number you can ring, if you want to inform on your neigbors - "Hello hello, me ole mucker, me neighbor got no TV license. Get them coppers round please. I'll make ye a nice cup of tea wben you're over dear. Chim chiminy chooroo."

"In what sense is a TV tax, supported by generations of voters and their representatives, like an MLM?"

I probably shouldn't call it an MLM, but it is a SCAM. They tell you if you pay you will get quality television (you don't, apart from wildlife docs). They also tell you will pay for new programing (most of what they broadcast are reruns). They also pretend they are neutral (they are only quasi-autonomous of the government).

Supported by generations? It's not. The BBC's viewing figures are collapsing. First, they got commercial television which took millons of their viewers away. Then subscription services, then streaming services. Have a look online, there is big opposition to the "TV License". Even politicians want to get rid of it.

By the way I esteem most commercial television as dross, but the difference is you must pay for the state television. You have no choice about it.

It doesn't help that they had a massive pedophile scandal some years ago, bigger than any US broadcaster, and many people question how accurate their news is. (This is not a new thing - they lied about Iraq apparently, and that's going back nearly twenty years.) They also produce documentaries on British history which are full of lies and distortions, as well as dramas which have political messages implanted in them, like that medieval England had the same demographic make up as today. Even this clip is full of subliminal political messages about how business is bad, men are bad and the USA is to blame. They can afford to go after the LDS because it's so weak in the UK. They'd never go after the Church of England like this, because the Queen heads it, and they won't touch her.

"The "contradiction" vanishes if you recognize that the monarchy is a national symbol with no governmental power."

Yes, I've heard that one before. It does have power, it just keeps it quiet. They can remove elected governments if they wish, but that is the nuclear option so they don't use it. They also pay little or no tax.

"Does it use false promises of vast riches to motivate people to raise money for it? "

Yes! If you look at what they show, a considerable portion of their content consists of American-made programs (some of which are really old - we're talking sixties, seventies and eighties here - stuff like Columbo or Quincy), their own content (which is often just as old) etc, whils promising new material. A lot of the new material isn't even British - not just American but Australian too.

"Do you realize that the BBC news division is distinct from the company's entertainment channels?"

Same funding, same corporation. They have a dedicated news channel (which came along decades after CNN etc), and also show their news on their main channel.

"And it would be nice if instead of overwrought conclusions you offered some evidence of the supposed socialism purveyed by the BBC."

I don't even have to go into detail about content. The very idea of a state-owned broadcaster which it is compulsory for the public to pay for is socialist. That's before you even look at what else they do. It actually competes against and attempts to undermine other services (unsuccessfully). Even has its own publishing arm.

"Yup. And those years ended in the 1970s, back in Ezra's day."

Wrong. There was one commercial channel then, which could only broadcast by paying money to the government in a bidding war. In the 1980s, when I visited there were three or four channels (mostly showing reruns and American content, alongside very cheap looking British content), two of those channels were BBC. Things began to shift in the 1990s, but it is only within the last ten to fifteen years that the average person could receive more than five channels, without paying extra. Now there is *REAL* competition and the BBC is struggling.

Jordan Wrote:


-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're blind, you get a reduction, but still
> have to pay. How kind!

You said old people don't get a pass, which is false. Now you assert that it is unfair for blind people to get a 50% discount, which at first glance seems a reasonable objection because they can't see. But if those blind people really found TV useless they surely wouldn't purchase. . . televisions. But they do. In fact, the majority of the blind find it valuable to LISTEN to the broadcasts and are willing to pay for them.


------------
> Chim chiminy chooroo."

Is that meant to convey a familiarity with the UK?


--------------
> I probably shouldn't call it an MLM. . .

Uh, yeah.


--------------
> . . . but it is a SCAM. They tell you if you pay you will get
> quality television (you don't, apart from wildlife
> docs). They also tell you will pay for new
> programing (most of what they broadcast are
> reruns). They also pretend they are neutral (they
> are only quasi-autonomous of the government).

Evidence? Preferably not anecdotal but statistical and conducted by people who know what they are doing.


--------------
> Supported by generations? It's not. The BBC's
> viewing figures are collapsing. First, they got
> commercial television which took millons of their
> viewers away. Then subscription services, then
> streaming services.

There is evidence available if you would like to peruse it.* Average daily consumption of BBC content per person in the UK in 2017 was 2 hours and 44 minutes. 92% of Britons consume BBC content every week, and 86% of those in the 15-34 range. In 2018 68% of British were "very satisfied" with BBC TV and another 21% were "satisfied." (An interjection: do you think any US channel satisfies 89% of the American people? Because I don't.) Where do British people get their news? 62% of them get it primarily from BBC One. So no, your characterization of the BBC's demise is greatly exaggerated.


--------------
> Even
> politicians want to get rid of it.

There are British politicians who want to get rid of the UK itself. There are American politicians who want to get rid of California. Such politicians are curiosities, like people alive in 2019 who fear communism.


-------------
> By the way I esteem most commercial television as
> dross, but the difference is you must pay for the
> state television. You have no choice about it.

So what? If a democracy elects to pay a pittance for a television station, it's no skin off your hide.


-------------
> It doesn't help that they had a massive pedophile
> scandal some years ago, bigger than any US
> broadcaster, and many people question how
> accurate their news is.

Irrelevant.


------------
> They also produce
> documentaries on British history which are full of
> lies and distortions, as well as dramas which have
> political messages implanted in them, like that
> medieval England had the same demographic make up
> as today. Even this clip is full of subliminal
> political messages about how business is bad, men
> are bad and the USA is to blame.

You found a TV show you didn't like? I'm sorry. Perhaps if they hired you as programmer. . .


--------------
> They can afford
> to go after the LDS because it's so weak in the
> UK.

I believe their coverage of the LDS church has been accurate and helpful.


------------
> [The monarchy] does have
> power, it just keeps it quiet. They can remove
> elected governments if they wish, but that is the
> nuclear option so they don't use it.

Utterly false. The crown cannot remove an elected government.


----------
> They also pay
> little or no tax.

Neither does the Library of Congress, the Defense Department, the IRS, or the Secret Service. The monarchy is a governmental institution paid for by public funds. Of course it doesn't pay taxes on government functions.


-------------
LW: "Does it use false promises of vast riches to
motivate people to raise money for it? "

> Yes! If you look at what they show, a considerable
> portion of their content consists of American-made
> programs (some of which are really old - we're
> talking sixties, seventies and eighties here -
> stuff like Columbo or Quincy), their own content
> (which is often just as old) etc, whils promising
> new material. A lot of the new material isn't even
> British - not just American but Australian too.

Non-sequitur. I asked if the BBC promised "vast riches." You answered with an emphatic "yes!" and then addressed a different topic.


----------------
> The very idea of a state-owned broadcaster which
> it is compulsory for the public to pay for is
> socialist.

That is your opinion, informed by your reverence for Ezra Taft Benson and your shared concern about bodily fluids. Virtually every country has state-financed (that's what the BBC is, not "state-owned") broadcasting services. If those expenditures are subject to democratic oversight, they are democratic choices. Whether W. Cleon Skousen or Joseph McCarthy would approve is neither here nor there.


---------------
Jordan originally writes: "For years, other broadcasters were prevented from entering their domain and competing." I replied that those days ended in the 1970s. Jordan now asserts that I am

> Wrong. There was one commercial channel then,
> which could only broadcast by paying money to the
> government in a bidding war.

I checked into it and I was indeed wrong. The BBC monopoly did not end in the 1970s: it ended in 1955 with the establishment of ITV. But let's not let that understatement of my point overshadow your attempted legerdemain: confronted with the fact that competition did exist in the 1970s, you are now citing that fact in support of your contention that there was no competition in the 1970s.


-------------
> In the 1980s, when I
> visited there were three or four channels (mostly
> showing reruns and American content, alongside
> very cheap looking British content), two of those
> channels were BBC.

So the UK was five or ten years behind the US?


---------------
> Now there is *REAL* competition and the BBC
> is struggling.

Sure. ABC, NBC, CBS are all struggling too. Is that because they are state-funded? No. It's because people, particularly young people, are turning to internet media, John Stewart, and other sources. The BBC is not unique.

Well, as a traditional broadcasting system it is unique. 70% of Britons think it is a great resource and use it as their primary source of information daily. It's audience share is vastly higher than that of any other UK network.** Its global reach, measured weekly, has been steadily growing and now tops 376 million viewers.*** CNN claims 378 million viewers around the world, so the two are virtually neck-and-neck.****

So why do you insist that the BBC is failing?




*https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/124420/BBC-annex-2-performance.pdf

**https://www.statista.com/statistics/269983/leading-tv-broadcasters-in-the-uk-by-audience-share/

***https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2018/bbc-global-audience

****http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/cnn-fact-sheet/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2019 02:13PM by Lot's Wife.

The original ETB ref was not mine.

The BBC viewing figures are in freefall. Back in the 1980s they would pull in tens of millions of viewers for major primetime. Now they boast if they get several million. Millenials and Gen Z are not much interested in broadcast television, especially if a lot of the content that is shown was made before their own parents were born. They stream everything. The BBC has more reruns on its main channels than a hamster on amphetamines.

Choice and competition. Terrible things.

The pedophile scandal is not "irrelevant". It was perhaps the biggest in British history. Are you even aware that the wave of "Me Too" started sith BBC cover ups? There are a number of them, but Jimmy Savile is the most prolific known sex offender in British history. His victims numbered in the hundreds and included children, hospital patients and dead people. Yet it was known and written about decades before, and he was a close friend of Prince Charles (who would visit his mountain cabin at weekends), and would also visit with politicians so it was covered up. Many people lost their trust in the BBC, because of this. Savile was the worst, but they make Weinstein and Cosby look like monks.

The British Queen does have the power to remove governments. All new ones swear loyalty to her, are instaled by her, and are dissolved by her. The crown has power elsewhere and removed an Australian PM in the 1970s.

Charging sight impaired people for television... Just sick and indefensible.

I had to rewrite the last reply as it was lost by my phone. I did address each point.

"
I checked into it and I was indeed wrong. The BBC monopoly did not end in the 1970s: it ended in 1955 with the establishment of ITV."

ITV was and is nothing like commercial channels in the USA. It is extremely heavily regulated by the British government, and tows the same political line as the BBC. It has advertizing. but is under the state thumb.

I am well aware that Rupert Murdoch is a partisan source, but he has spoken extensively about the difficulty he had breaking into the socialist monopoly of British television at the turn of the 1990s. When he did, he revolutionized it. He showed decent films not long after release, instead of rerunning old Bond films over and over. He showed live sports events, for which there was high demand from the public and bars. And he provided the first serious competition to the BBC in the news department.

But Murdoch's network was satellite and an additional fee, so it took another ten or twenty years for his competition to reach all viewers.

"confronted with the fact that competition did exist in the 1970s,"

It didn't. There were only three channels in the 1970s. Two were BBC. BBC had the reserved rights to major sporting events etc. ITV was a semi-nationalized, state franchise and only one channel. It was lower budget than the BBC as well.

The state owned radio masts didn't even broadcast ITV in some remote parts of the UK in the 1970s. (I've asked people about this.)

So no, there was no real competition.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> I am well aware that Rupert Murdoch is a partisan
> source, but he has spoken extensively about the
> difficulty he had breaking into the socialist
> monopoly of British television at the turn of the
> 1990s. When he did, he revolutionized it. He
> showed decent films not long after release,
> instead of rerunning old Bond films over and over.
> He showed live sports events, for which there was
> high demand from the public and bars. And he
> provided the first serious competition to the BBC
> in the news department.

So you are saying that British TV changed radically in the 1990s with lots of new options available to consumers. Was that not true in the US as well? What I am trying to grasp is the role played by socialism in (Maggie Thatcher's) Britain that retarded growth and innovation at roughly the same time and in roughly the same degree as in (Ronald Reagan's) United States.


---------------
> But Murdoch's network was satellite and an
> additional fee, so it took another ten or twenty
> years for his competition to reach all viewers.

So perhaps socialism wasn't to blame for the slow expansion of Murdoch's television empire after all.

Do you have any response to the penetration and approval data that I presented and sourced above or are we to ignore evidence that contradicts your views?


---------------
> The BBC viewing figures are in freefall. Back in
> the 1980s they would pull in tens of millions of
> viewers for major primetime. Now they boast if
> they get several million.

Yes, you have said that several times. You still have not provided any evidence to back up your assertion.

But I'll go farther. You are arguing that the BBC is a particularly bad system, which implies its decline is worse than for other networks and in other countries. But that is not true. As I indicated above, with documentation, the BBC's domestic approval rates are nearly 90% and its global viewership is increasing, not decreasing.

There is definitely a shift from TV to other sources of news. But that problem is irrelevant to your critique of the BBC if it is afflicting other companies in the UK and abroad as well. And what we find is that broadcast television is in decline everywhere. In the US, for instance, it fell from about 46 million in 1985-1986 to about 28 million in 2008-2009 and has continued to fall.* Do you have any evidence that the fall for the BBC has been more precipitous than for the US networks? Because without evidence, your assertions are worth no more than the electrons they are printed on.


-------------
> Millenials and Gen Z are
> not much interested in broadcast television,
> especially if a lot of the content that is shown
> was made before their own parents were born. They
> stream everything.

I hope you realize that the same thing is happening with other UK television stations and with their peers in Europe, Japan and the United States. In the US, for instance, the 18-34 age group watches less than 1/3 of the broadcast television consumed by those past retirement.** The BBC actually performs better in that demographic than do the US companies.


--------------
> The pedophile scandal is not "irrelevant". It was
> perhaps the biggest in British history.

What precisely are you claiming? I can see how the scandal was relevant if you are just throwing mud at the company, but explain to me the connection to your purported decline in quality due to government influence over content.


------------------------
> The British Queen does have the power to remove
> governments. All new ones swear loyalty to her,
> are instaled by her, and are dissolved by her. The
> crown has power elsewhere and removed an
> Australian PM in the 1970s.

Australia has a written constitution that differs from the unwritten UK one and explicitly gives the monarch the power to do that. The power to dissolve parliament and appoint a PM of her choosing has in the UK been theoretical, and not actual, for two centuries. And in any case the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of 2011 nixed that as well. So no, the queen does not have the power to dissolve a UK government on her own.


------------
You argue that socialist state-influence renders the BBC a lousy network but have offered no evidence of that. The television industry as a whole is in decline throughout the OECD. The BBC has reacted to that trend better than most by switching to other media. Compared to other television operations, the BBC has done extraordinarily well with extremely high approval ratings and rapid expansion into new technologies and new geographies.

So if one believes it is a "socialist" enterprise, then it indicates that socialism is a superior economic system. I of course dissent from that view; I do not think state-supported autonomous broadcasting is "socialist" nor that socialism is a better form of economic organization. So what is the BBC in the UK environment? A democratically chosen and, for nearly a century, democratically reapproved, system of media networks that has a very solid record. It experiences the same challenges as other networks but has weathered them significantly better than most of its competitors.

If you disagree, fine. But your arguments would have more persuasive power if they were based in fact.





*https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-massmedia/chapter/9-3-issues-and-trends-in-the-television-industry/

**https://www.businessinsider.com/young-people-arent-watching-as-much-tv-anymore-charts-2018-8

Nice work LW.

Australia also has a national government owned broadcasting network, built on the BBC model, called the ABC.

It faces the same criticisms as Jordan mounts, because it provides services to regional areas and covers stories of interest to minorities and Aboriginal communities etc. The current centre-right government criticises its news coverage for being left-leaning and progressive, which is sometimes true, but only in the sense that most journalists have interests in new ideas and responses to a changing world.

Much of the rest of the media here is owned by Murdoch and takes a Fox News approach to the 'truth'. Many of us do not mind the ABC providing a bit of balance.

Sometimes the government tries to reduce its funding or influence its editorial style. Public opinion always defends its right to exist as a kind of public defence against a federal government seeking not to be held to account. Its an important part of our democracy.

We do not fund it via a TV licence though - it is just funded from normal government revenues.

(Sorry - no connection to MLMs or Mormonism)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2019 09:55PM by oldpobot.

Thanks, oldpobot. I consider the BBC an excellent source. There are times when it has been off the mark, sometimes by a long-shot, but there is an editorial independence that surely does not exist in the polarized media that dominate most OECD economies today.

And the notion that the BBC beat the drums for the American debacle in Iraq does nothing but put it in good company with CNN, Fox News, the NYT, the WSJ, the French government, the US government, the British government, etc. The problem in that instance stemmed from state (Cheney et al.) influence over the media, a phenomenon that has, as you note, expanded in scale in the US, Australia and a lot of other countries. The danger, in other words, is not the source of funding but rather the extent of political influence over the media--a danger that bedevils both public and commercial broadcasters, sometimes the latter more than the former.

I'm also concerned with the way that "socialism" creeps into so many of our discussions on RfM. Socialism is real, with arguable merits and demerits, but it is not properly an epithet. When political discourse degenerates to the point where people throw words like "socialism" and "fascism" around thoughtlessly, it becomes impossible to have meaningful conversation and the odds of Orwellian "progression" increase.

Anyway, I ramble. I hope you have a nice afternoon.

I don't think you are getting just how important the BBC abuse scandal has been. It was massive and has rezhaped the entire dynamic. Of course, as usual it was twisted into "men = bad" (much like the BBC report on MLMs does), but it was a sea change in British society. It dominated their news for years. It destroyed faith in the BBC for many Brritish people.

Basically, you have a broadcasting corporation which takes money off poor and disabled people in society, and in return pays certain presenters and corporate directors millions per year. It is atate run, despite all the legal casuistry to prove otherwise. The BBC never criticizea the royals, and frequently is predictive of British wars before they happen which suggests state intelligence feeds them news.

Yes, the BBC is a socialist institution, in the same way their health service is, or all the enterprises Thatcher sold off during the 1980s. It is nationalized. That is what socialism means. The Labor Party in the UK was openly socialist for years, and would call itself such - they even sing "The Red Flag".

Australia gets a mention below. I know that they dropped the stupid TV license system for a taxation based one years ago. They probably realized having thugs check every cattle station in the Outback or across the continent was not practical like in the UK. I suppose they make a good few AUS$ from selling their dreadful soap operas to fill up BBC schedules alongside reruns of formulaic 1970s American cop shows (Who loves you baby?)

Apologies again for the spelling. This is a phone keyboard, and way too small for my digits. :)

are you talking about the Jimmy Savile pedophile scandal? Yes it was appalling what he got away with, and the BBC tolerated his behaviour and that of several other pedophile entertainers. The guy looked like everybody's idea of a pedophile and yet was given unsupervised access to vulnerable sick children in hospitals.


The BBC is part of the British establishment. I don't know if they get advance notice of wars from the Foreign Office. Your objection seems to be mostly to the principle of a tax-funded state-owned news/entertainment system. They certainly produce some good TV shows, and some bad ones. I guess if you are a small-government type, they are an easy target. But the UK is not a small-government sort of place. It has a large public sector and welfare state. The poor people who are paying for the BBC via their licence fee are also getting very cheap subsidised health care. Swings and roundabouts.


And don't knock Australian crap TV soap operas! They provide good training grounds for many of our best known actors. Though I wouldn't watch one in a pink fit. They are designed to appeal to British audiences by showing lost of blue sky, swimming pools and beaches.

Also to best of my knowledge, Australia has never had a TV licence fee (at least for the last 50 years). And nearly all of us live in large coastal cities, rather than on Outback cattle station, so government thugs could pretty easily round up the non-payers, after they finished tying down all the loose kangaroos hopping about in the streets.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think you are getting just how important
> the BBC abuse scandal has been. It was massive and
> has rezhaped the entire dynamic.

Oh, I understand how horrible that scandal was. But that is irrelevant to our discussion, which is over the "socialist" nature of the BBC and its programming. Given that topic, I won't follow you down your latest rabbit hole.


--------------------
> Of course, as
> usual it was twisted into "men = bad" (much like
> the BBC report on MLMs does)

How nice that you found a way to introduce another of your bete noirs to the discussion. That is why you and Bruce McDonkie were reinforcing each other's views the other day. And no, I won't follow you down this rabbit hole either.


--------------
> Basically, you have a broadcasting corporation
> which takes money off poor and disabled people in
> society, and in return pays certain presenters and
> corporate directors millions per year. It is atate
> run, despite all the legal casuistry to prove
> otherwise.

You mean the BBC is a business that charges people for a service and then pays its employees for providing that service? And it has some extremely high paid employees who could be hired away by competitors--just like in the United States? That doesn't seem a very strong argument, Jordan.


---------------
> The BBC never criticizea the royals,
> and frequently is predictive of British wars
> before they happen which suggests state
> intelligence feeds them news.

There you go again, following the conspiratorial Yellow Brick Road.


-------------
> Yes, the BBC is a socialist institution, in the
> same way their health service is, or all the
> enterprises Thatcher sold off during the 1980s. It
> is nationalized. That is what socialism means.


Wow. Maggie Thatcher sold off a lot of state-owned enterprises. True. Do you not think it relevant that she did NOT privatize the BBC? There have been other Conservative Party MPs since then, too, and they didn't sell off the BBC. Why even Teresa May, who was three days ago PM was a BBC-supporting Conservative PM. So perhaps the BBC is NOT a socialist plot; perhaps it is something that Britons across the political spectrum support. Perhaps it is the legitimate expression of democratic will.


----------
> The
> Labor Party in the UK was openly socialist for
> years, and would call itself such - they even sing
> "The Red Flag".

How appalling! A political party has changed its orientation over the course of a century. Thank heaven US political parties still stand for the principles they espoused 30 years ago.


-----------------
> Australia gets a mention below. I know that they
> dropped the stupid TV license system for a
> taxation based one years ago. They probably
> realized having thugs check every cattle station
> in the Outback or across the continent was not
> practical like in the UK.

Above you argued that the reason the BBC is "socialist," ergo evil, is because it is state-sponsored. Here you argue that Australia's public broadcasting is better than the BBC because the former is funded through taxes whereas the latter is financed through licensing fees. So it isn't state-sponsorship that is the problem after all? Taxes are good, licenses are bad?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taxes are good, licenses are bad?

I'm just going to jump in and say as someone who has lived in the UK for over 30 years, and paid the license fee. I'm just going to say that even if the BBC does lean slightly left in it's reporting (and I really mean only slightly), I still think it is a pretty good institution in Britain. Sure, it's not perfect, but pretty good.

I can't watch any Free OTA American TV because the BBC raised me to never experience commercials in the middle of my shows. I also can't watch cable or satellite because they charge me a lot more than the BBC ever did, and still bombard me with never ending commercials.

I never said "taxes are good, licenses are bad". As a funding model, it is more logical than sending the Cochise County Cowboys around every home to collect it, and demand entry to them all. Especially in a country which could swallow up Great Britain at least ten times over, yet has a fraction of the population.

It isn't a pretty good institution - its schedule consists of reruns, American programming and propaganda. I don't think everything they have made is bad, but then again Russia Today has made some good apolitical documentaries (look up "The Madman at the Cathedral" or whatever it is), and the Nazis even made a half decent film about Mary, Queen of Scots, which is not overtly anti-Semitic. But I wouldn't pretend either of these were made by apolitical organizations. The BBC makes decent wildlife docs (although the reminders about climate change, extinction and deforestation every five minutes detract from what we're seeing)

I'm not a great fan of commercials, but there's always someone funding a TV channel somewhere, and they influence the content. Would you prefer to be influenced by MI5 rather than Walmart or a socialist professor rather than Mom & Pop's Groceries?

As I keep saying to the poster above, the Savile etc Scandal is NOT IRRELEVANT. That is like saying the pedophile scandal in the RC church is irrelevant to the Vatican - both have destroyed a huge part of their support base. They are not trusted anymore by many people

Jordan, ever muddier.


------------
> I never said "taxes are good, licenses are bad".
> As a funding model, it is more logical than
> sending the Cochise County Cowboys around every
> home to collect it, and demand entry to them all.
> Especially in a country which could swallow up
> Great Britain at least ten times over, yet has a
> fraction of the population.

We were talking about whether socialist influences ruin the BBC. You then digressed, suggesting that Australia's system of funding its socialist broadcasting company was better than Britain's system of funding its socialist broadcasting company. Now you assert that we misread you; that claim you never said that. And yet your very next sentence makes precisely the argument you just disavowed.

You are tied up in knots, Jordan, and still haven't been able to prove that the BBC is a bad operation. I provided evidence, lots of evidence and lots of sources, indicating that the BBC is at least as good as private broadcasters, and you have nothing to offer but more chanting of your unproved mantra. That's religion, my friend, not rational analysis.


--------------
> It isn't a pretty good institution - its schedule
> consists of reruns, American programming and
> propaganda. I don't think everything they have
> made is bad, but then again Russia Today has made
> some good apolitical documentaries (look up "The
> Madman at the Cathedral" or whatever it is), and
> the Nazis even made a half decent film about Mary,
> Queen of Scots, which is not overtly anti-Semitic.
> But I wouldn't pretend either of these were made
> by apolitical organizations. The BBC makes decent
> wildlife docs (although the reminders about
> climate change, extinction and deforestation every
> five minutes detract from what we're seeing)

Again, do you have any evidence from reputable sources or are we supposed to beaten into submission through constant repetition of your personal views?


---------------
> I'm not a great fan of commercials, but there's
> always someone funding a TV channel somewhere, and
> they influence the content. Would you prefer to be
> influenced by MI5 rather than Walmart or a
> socialist professor rather than Mom & Pop's
> Groceries?

Is that you, Bruce?


---------------
> As I keep saying to the poster above, the Savile
> etc Scandal is NOT IRRELEVANT. That is like saying
> the pedophile scandal in the RC church is
> irrelevant to the Vatican - both have destroyed a
> huge part of their support base. They are not
> trusted anymore by many people

The question you raised was whether socialism produces bad product at the BBC. Are you attributing the sex scandal to what you call the funding structure of the BBC? Because if not, it's another red herring.

Chant, Brother, chant!

Jordan's real objection to the BBC isn't how it is funded.
His objection is that it doesn't sound like Fox News, or Breitbart, or Daily Stormer.

TV Critic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jordan's real objection to the BBC isn't how it is
> funded.
> His objection is that it doesn't sound like Fox
> News, or Breitbart, or Daily Stormer.

Nice try, but Fox News and Breitbart are right wing prolefeed IMHO. Der Sturmer ceased publication before most of us were born.

> Nice try, but....Der Sturmer ceased
> publication before most of us were born.

Daily Stormer is a current website, a current podcast, and a current Twitter account.

Certainly "Daily Stormer" has not "ceased publication."

The theme of your posts on this topic is that the BBC is a socialist enterprise and hence is a bad commercial enterprise. So whether you like State TV or not, you share a fundamental world. Your fondness for conspiracy theories in the "voices in one's head" thread indicates still more familiarity.

I'm going to keep an eye out for Jordan's half decent Nazi Party film about Mary Queen of Scots. I haven't heard of it before, but I'm sure it will pop up on our Special Broadcasting Service (SBS - sometimes known as 'Sex Before Soccer'. SBS is another state-owned taxpayer funded Aussie TV service that would irritate Jordan. It services the large proportion of our population that come from somewhere else, showing lots of news programs from around the world as well as lots of soccer (usually ignored on other channels due to competition from other sorts of football) and a startlingly large amount of sex-themed documentaries and Euro-porn films. SBS gets away with showing a lot more sex than the commercial channels, no doubt due to the influence of our spy agencies a la MI5.


SBS also shows quirky documentaries about religion and politics - including a famous one where one of our Jewish-Australian media personalities went to Utah to buy Mormon underwear.

> SBS also shows quirky documentaries
> about religion and politics -
> including a famous one where one of
> our Jewish-Australian media
> personalities went to Utah to buy
> Mormon underwear.


What size?

good question! what are the options?

Heck if I know! When I last wore the garmies, only one-piece garmies were available, and I wore a size Stud...

One of the quirks of modern media is that Sergei Eisenstein's dramas are regularly available but Nazi ones are not. I suppose this is because presumably Stalin's mass slaughter is not considered bad, while Hitler's is

Either way, the only reason I mentioned that film is because it is a watchable artwork from an objectionable regime. Likewise the BBC is unapologetic, or at least evasive about the numerous atrocities commited by the British Empire. You sou don't think they conquered most of Africa, Canada, Australia, NZ and South Asia by asking nicely do you? Ans they started off by oppressing the Scots and Irish (the BBC dances around that subject too).

Anyway I am not a follower of National SOCIALISM. The reason you guys have been trained to say Nazi, is because the left don't like the fact "socialism" is in their title.

Are you asserting that Nazi films are as good as Alexander Nevsky?

Because, you know, people tend to watch quality films rather than feeling an obligation to watch a Nazi flick for every movie produced by a Russian genius.

What Nazi film would you recommend as the equal of Nevsky?

Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda films for Hitler are rightly praised for their cinematic qualities. Eisenstein likewise. I remember as a teenager seeing the Odessa Steps sequence from the Battleship Potemkin, also Fritz Lang's Metropolis. All very powerful silent films, even if you don't follow the politics of the film-makers.

Your point about the use of the term 'Nazi' is I presume meant to annoy. Left-leaning people are not necessarily socialist in the sense that the Germans or the Soviets used it 100 years ago. The current movement of young 'socialists' in the USA doesn't have the power to make the whole planet use the term 'Nazi' in place of 'National Socialist'. Everyone was already doing that, including the Germans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2019 09:20PM by oldpobot.

oldpobot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Left-leaning people are
> not necessarily socialist in the sense that the
> Germans or the Soviets used it 100 years ago.

Couldn't agree more. People use the word "socialist" without knowing what it means. You offer the point with regard to young Westerners but it applies with equal validity, if for largely opposite reasons, to Jordan.


-------------
> The
> current movement of young 'socialists' in the USA
> doesn't have the power to make the whole planet
> use the term 'Nazi' in place of 'National
> Socialist'.

When young Americans describe themselves as "socialists," they mean "slightly left of center." In the European context they would count as slightly right of center.

As for the word "Nazi," the new wave of "socialists" don't realize that the Nazis were socialists nor that the term applies to economic organization rather than politics.


--------------
Those observations offer yet more reason to laugh when someone cries out in the night upon contemplating Trotsky in the closet.

By the way, I'm mildly annoyed at you for offering specific movies done by Nazis and their compatriots. I was challenging Jordan, and now you've given him the answers.

You could make bank in college preparation in the United States, helping kids score better on their entrance exams.

Well as long as you're only mildly annoyed I can live with that.

I do actually want Jordan to tell us more about this reasonably good Nazi film on Mary Queen of Scots. I can't be bothered googling it but it does sound interesting. Was it straight history or perhaps a rom-com? I wonder what language the characters spoke in? And was it ever released in the UK?

We do seem to be getting further away from the topic, but pure ex-Mormonism can get a bit tedious, especially for those of us who were never Mormon in the first place.

You've never been Mormon? You poor man. Think of all the insanity you've missed! Well, I guess you can be insane and NOT Mormon although the odds are substantially lower.

As for Jordan's favorite film, Das Herz der Königin, it is generally considered kitsch. Which isn't surprising. In any case, it is not comparable to Eisenstein's work.

How did you find your way to this Island of Misfit Toys?

I hope you've gone to bed by now LW, its getting late.

I will check out the National Socialist film for sure!

I am here because I got interested in cults and sects after dating a young JW girl for a while. Mormonism is endlessly fascinating as part of the American sociological/ political/ religious story, which is itself very interesting. Comparing RFM with ex-JW sites, the cult is less severe on its people, but obviously still very toxic. Watching the TSCC change so rapidly over the last few years via this forum has also been very interesting.

Religion is much less significant here than it is in the US. Issues like the abortion debate do not even register. Gay marriage did for a while, but it has now faded into history. I don't know anybody who goes to church, except for my Mum for whom it is a social event only.

It's very interesting to observe how it all plays out in your neck of the woods.

all the best

OP

LW either has an urgent professional assignment or lives with Elyse in France where, doncha know, the Muslims are raping and pillaging at will. Thank God for Le Pen!

I share your fascination with cults (well, in my case religion in general), have enjoyed your posts, and am glad you choose to spend time in our little warren. As for American politics, please be patient. Hopefully we'll get things back on track sooner rather than later.

Until then, keep your eyes open for roving bands of Syrians. They are coming for your women!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Until then, keep your eyes open for roving bands
> of Syrians. They are coming for your women!

There wouldn't be all those Syrian refugees if the people you support hadn't started the civil war. Arming Islamic militants and bombing the place, purely because Assad is a Russian ally.

What kind of government murders people and then invites their friends and relatives in to stay, and expects those survivors to be grateful and happy for what you did to their country?

Bless your heart!


-----------------
> There wouldn't be all those Syrian refugees if the
> people you support hadn't started the civil war.

Whom do you think I support?


---------------
> Arming Islamic militants and bombing the place,
> purely because Assad is a Russian ally.

Arming Islamic militants?? The only people the US armed in Syria were the Kurds. Are they your "Islamic militants?"

You do have some idiosyncratic views!


-------------
> What kind of government murders people and then
> invites their friends and relatives in to stay,
> and expects those survivors to be grateful and
> happy for what you did to their country?

I don't know, Jordan, what kind of government does that?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The theme of your posts on this topic is that the
> BBC is a socialist enterprise and hence is a bad
> commercial enterprise. So whether you like State
> TV or not, you share a fundamental world.

The BBC is not a commercial enterprise. I have pointed that out repeatedly. It is state-run, which is one of the definitions of socialism.

Despite not being commercial, it does compete with commercial enterprises, who do not have the right to levy a compulsory fee to all television users in the UK.

Not all commercial enterprises are good by any means, but any such broadcasting corporation always tows the line of its owners and controllers. (Controller was the BBC's own term for the people heading it up in the old days). Most television panders to people of average to low intelligence, and that includes the BBC.

Bless you, my son.

"that's not really Trotsky's ghost in your closet"

<snort>

I saw this one a few days ago, called the NXIVM cult. It's another MLM cult started by this guy from Albany New York who had an Iq of over 200. And he made himself up to be a spiritual leader requiring his followers to gather 10 people under them. Then he had a special little endowment where he could have intimate relationships with women who were so excited to go to bed with him. His general conferences consisted of lots of awards and praise given his way by the followers. Finally the FBI got involved and put a stop to it all.

But there is just so much that's similar to the early mormon story. It's creepy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBQ2XJj8hr4

No doubt he claimed to have an IQ of over 200, but that doesn't mean he does.

The helicopter footage of SLC reminded me of how many commercial buildings have been built around the temple. Could you imagine if the Vatican was surrounded by ugly skyscrapers? They make the temple look really small and unimpressive.

Mette Harrison wrote an op-ed for ReligionNews: "10 reasons Mormons dominate multi-level marketing companies" (dated June 20, 2017)


1- Insularity. Mormons tend to be trusting, especially of other Mormons. We tend to want to believe that other Mormons are good, because surely if they know and believe in the gospel then they want the best for other people and aren’t trying to cheat people out of money.

2- Money as a blessing. Mormons may not know what the phrase “prosperity gospel” means, but many believe in the principle that if someone has money then they must be blessed by God.

3- An unusually high number of SAHMS. Mormons encourage women to stay at home, but these days that leaves many families to struggle for any extra income. It also means that Mormon stay-at-home moms use their time to try to make money for extra things.

4- Easy mobilization. Mormons have a built-in network, complete with phone numbers, physical addresses, and emails. They may not think twice about using this information to send out invitations to their “parties” about a new product/brand that is also an MLM, even if using ward lists for business purposes is against the rules of the church.

5- Door to door experience. Former Mormon missionaries are used to sales techniques. They’re not afraid of rejection and they are sometimes very aggressive.

6- The personal touch. Mormons are used to hearing testimonials and connecting that to “deeper” truth. Some might argue this means Mormons are particularly vulnerable to anecdotal evidence.

7- Big claims. Mormons often hear people scoffing at our religious ideas, our founder, and our scripture. Because we’ve grown accustomed to that, we may be more likely to shrug off criticisms even when we shouldn’t.

8- Top-down structure. Mormons are comfortable with a hierarchical institution where people at the top know more than people at the bottom, and to paying money “up-stream.” I know this may sound like a crude way of describing tithing. But looking at it from the outside, there are certain similarities.

9- Naivete. Mormons have a tendency to believe that they are “chosen” or “special,” and may be more easily led to believe that an opportunity has come to them from God rather than dismissing things that are “too good to be true.”

10- Skimming the surface. Sadly, Mormon church meetings do not lead Mormons to ask hard questions. Instead, we may be more vulnerable to being led to ask the questions that people want us to ask. If a question/answer format is offered, we may not think more deeply.

I would add one more - innocence. I genuinely believe many LDS are innocent. This can be charming in some ways, but a form of vulnerability too. Mormons are childlike - they avoid certain lifestyles, are very sheltered, are law abiding and so on.

Or at least, they pretend to be, and hide the fact when they haven't been.

As Americans, they have the delusion that social class doesn't exist (false) and that anyone can get rich (partly true).

You can see even many exmos don't want to hear anything which challenges their new world view. Truth is not a popularity contest as someone once said.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I genuinely believe many LDS are innocent. This can be charming in some ways, but a form of vulnerability

Agreed.

> Truth is not a popularity contest...

Ha! Good points!

Yah.

It is not that they are so trusting or easy to fool - it is because they are greedy. Somehow they believe they deserve more money than other people .

Excellent observation...

And sometimes it appears as if they believe themselves worthy of being absolved of guilt because they were trying to do the right thing.

but that doesn't mean you can't try every angle possible to get other people to pay for your lunch...and keep paying and paying and paying. That's what MLMs are.

About 20 years ago I was inundated with visits and calls from TBM relatives and acquaintances I had not heard from in years. They all wanted to recruit me into their "downline" for a certain famous MLM headquartered in Provo. "Oldskin" or something like that.

I got all that special attention because I was living outside the U.S. in a country that was virgin territory for Oldskin, as Oldskin had only recently gotten permission to do business in my country of residence.

The sales pitch was always the same. If I signed up with them, I would have trainloads and truckloads and wagonloads of money pouring in automatically from my downline people (who I would obviously first have to recruit with a similar sales pitch). What they strenuously avoided mentioning was that they would be getting richer from all of my work recruiting and managing downliners than I would be (if things went as advertised, which obviously would never happen in the real world).

I kept asking them about the products that were ostensibly the only tangible things being offered to customers. They had no time to talk about the products. The products were just widgets, gizmos, props. You don't make money selling the products. You make money recruiting subordinate "salespeople" who buy sales kits and pay sign up fees and crap like that. It was clear that it was just another pyramid scheme. It was equally easy to see that anyone making even a modest living off it would be spending 50-60 hours per week managing their downline.

I said thanks, but no thanks. The last thing I wanted to do was get into sales of any kind, let alone sales operations for a pyramid scheme. I monitored how the friends and relatives did with their Oldskin efforts over the next several years. All of them ended up spending more money on "kits" and "product samples" and such than they ever earned and gave up completely.

But hey, they still believe that Joseph Smith translated ancient Egyptian writings on golden plates that are now being stored in a vault in heaven. I guess they enjoy their fantasies and Oldskin was just another fun fantasy while it lasted. I guess Oldskin is still in business. But I haven't heard anything about them for years.

It is a simple link.

Most Mormon men and many Mormon women are returned missionaries who have been through one of the most intensive sales training courses in the world.

MLM is an opportunity (or so they think) for them to provide for their families by making use of that sales training.

Mormon heaven is set up precisely as an MLM. You can be in Elohim's divine downline, and eventually your kids who become gods will be in your own downline, increasing your own glory. And Elohim reports to his own upline as well. Those early early gods must be making some serious glory bank. Are there malls in the CK multiverse where the gods can spend their GloryBucks™?

Dallin Ox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mormon heaven is set up precisely as an MLM. You
> can be in Elohim's divine downline, and eventually
> your kids who become gods will be in your own
> downline, increasing your own glory. And Elohim
> reports to his own upline as well. Those early
> early gods must be making some serious glory bank.
> Are there malls in the CK multiverse where the
> gods can spend their GloryBucks™?

Exactly. If you pay a full tithe and only if, will you receive Celestial Glory.

I've cut and pasted this from a closed thread. I had some further thoughts on this.

"...If the presenter had done her research, she would have also known that the LDS also creates a kind of welfare dependency, which leads Mormons to get involved in very obviously risky business ventures, without thinking them out, because they know they have a safety net."

IMO there are a lot of factors that attract Mormons to MLMs. You have the pressure of the tithe, which drains needed funds away from families. You have the insistence/encouragement on having SAHMs. Mormons often place too much trust in their fellow ward members. And then there is the prosperity gospel.