Is it ethical to boycott the BBC?

Dear Ethan,

Esther Madeley-Sumner

Dear Esther,

Normally I would be in favour of pulling a TV programme, in fact of pulling all of the ecologically and mentally harmful rubbish that is transmitted through the Evil Eye, or what I prefer to call the Toxic Box, that is a television set. TV doesn’t only rot the brain, it also poisons the planet. Like little nukes waiting to go off in homes around the country, TV sets contain large amounts of nasty toxins, including lead, mercury and cadmium, which means they pose a serious eco-risk if dumped in landfills.

When brainwashed consumers peruse TVs in Currys or Argos, do any of them stop to think of the extremely distressing effect their TV will have on seagulls and rats – those oppressed creatures who have no choice but to live off our discarded drudge – when they later dump the TV in a nappy-filled, condom-packed, puke-infested landfill? Of course they don’t. They’re too desperate to keep up with the equally mind-raped Joneses next door by getting the latest digital model, and they can’t wait to rush home and get their fix of Celebrity Bollock Swap or The Great Global Warming Swindle or some other poisonous dross that passes for ‘entertainment’ these days.

So a mass TV switch-off, a neverending boycott of the Beeb if you like, would be a good thing. One less programme is a step in the right direction. But make no mistake – the BBC’s decision to pull the plug on Planet Relief is nothing less than an eco-crime, which shows that they have buckled under the pressure of a tiny but uber-powerful gang of climate-change deniers who use their connections in the world of banking, politics and Judaism – sorry, I mean journalism – to control what the public can and cannot hear about climate change. The BBC has clearly been bought off by the Pollutinati: the sect of oil-funded scientists and commentators who DICTATE the climate change agenda today.

What drives me most crazy, Esther, is the idea that the BBC cannot show Planet Relief because it must remain impartial! WHAT!? Impartial on the issue of climate change?! Fair and balanced on the subject of the coming Holocaust?! This disgusting idea gives the impression that there are two sides to this ‘debate’, when there most definitely are not. Instead there is the perfectly airtight, unquestionable and unchallengeable science on climate change which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that cheap flights and shopping at supermarkets and flushing your toilet more than once a day leads DIRECTLY to death and destruction in Botswana (see the famous Tesco-Botswana line graph produced by Danish climatologists) – and then there is the oily cabal of super-rich businessmen and Hitlerian commentators who spread criminal tosh about how global warming ‘is not that bad’ and might actually be ‘good for us’! (Imagine if someone said the HOLOCAUST was ‘good for us’! That would be no more shocking than saying ‘warmer weather’ is a good thing when it will in fact devour the Earth in furious hellfire.)

Does that sound like a ‘debate’ to you, Esther? No, of course not. Because it’s not a debate. There is simply common sense about climate change, and the need to massively cut back the human population (by 5.9 billion ideally) and radically change the behaviour of every single human who currently infests the planet – and that common sense is under attack from the rapacious insanity of bought-off peddlers of oil-interested LIES and FILTH. Now, it seems, the BBC has become rapaciously insane, too.

The BBC has missed one key point: there can be no balance or objectivity or debate on climate change. It is beyond debate, above debate, superior to debate. The time for debate is gone, dead and buried. Now there must only be ACTION, ACTION, ACTION. Tell me this, would the Beeb have a ‘balanced’ debate on serial killers – perhaps by inviting Rose West or Dennis Nielsen or Ian Brady on to Newsnight to counter the views of the families of murder victims? Would it have a ‘balanced’ debate on rape, by always ensuring that a convicted rapist was present in discussions with rape victim representatives? Would it ‘balance’ out every discussion of the Holocaust by getting David Irving, or some nutjob descendant of Hitler or Goebbels, to ‘debate’ the issues with a survivor from Auschwitz? Well, giving airtime to the deniers, or even just floating the idea that a debate on climate change is possible or – yuk – desirable, is the same as giving airtime to murderers, rapists and Nazi exterminators.

In fact, it’s worse, because more is at stake in the coming Holocaust of consumerism-induced floods, quakes and swarms of locusts than was at stake even in the Nazi Holocaust. Anyone who denies climate change or wishes to ‘debate’ it, or who dares to question the graphs that plot precisely what will happen to the planet if we continue driving cars and eating junk food, MUST be denied air time and any other kind of platform. You can call it censorship, if you like – I prefer to call it saving the planet from evil men.

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised by the BBC’s dastardly decision. After all, from what I hear (I don’t have a TV myself, of course), the corporation has long favoured deniers over environmentalists. When do you EVER see the representatives of green groups on TV, or hear politicians talking openly about the need to save the planet? The brave Climate Action Camp at Heathrow was only given three or four minutes’ coverage on the evening news – a disgrace. Green views are seriously sidelined by TV companies, and climate change deniers are given free rein. Martin Durkin, for example, the Goebbels of the Pollutinati (my sources tell me he was recently elected overlord of the sect in a ceremony in Florence), was given 90 MINUTES to spread his filth on Channel 4.

I don’t have a TV, and I had no desire to watch Planet Relief. I have no idea who ‘David Brent’ or ‘Jonathan Ross’ are. But at a time when the masses are enslaved by TV images and in awe of celebrities, this programme might have changed some of their ways, or at least induced massive feelings of guilt. The BBC says it pulled the show because the masses don’t like being ‘lectured to’. Indeed. The time for lecturing, like the time for debate, is over. Now we need action to correct the masses’ behaviour: higher taxes; tougher penalties for carbon criminals; and compulsory showings of truthful films about climate change in nurseries, schools, colleges, workplaces and retirement homes rather than one-off optional-to-watch Planet Reliefs.

Ethan Greenhart is here to answer all your questions about ethical living in the twenty-first century. Email him at {encode=”Ethan.Greenhart@spiked-online.com” title=”Ethan.Greenhart@spiked-online.com”}. Read his earlier columns here.