A Post-Truth Era? Part 1 – Trump and Brexit

The phrase “post-truth” seems to have rather entered the lexicon of news-speak lately.  Let’s have a look at what the usual suspects are saying about the “post-truth” “phenomenon”.


Late in 2016 I was listening to a BBC TV News (World Service) program where a presenter (Allan Little) was doing one of those end of year reflections on what is going on in the world.  He was bemoaning the victories of Brexit in the UK and Trump in the US, and trying to draw parallels between the two, and trying to figure out what on earth could have led to this twin disaster.  He didn’t call it a twin disaster of course in so many words but his doom-laden tone of voice spoke a thousand words.

The Year Everything Changed

The preamble to the program (aired Tue 27 Dec 2016):

This was the year of ‘post-truth’ politics, fake news and when some of the foundations of how global politics and trade are determined have been questioned. In many ways this has been a year when the silent majority has become vocal, and when old certainties have been questioned. This has also been a year when the internet has proved to be about something much more than about educating and connecting – and as a result has it made us not just less informed, but dangerously ill-informed and disconnected?

The internet is making us “dangerously ill-informed and disconnected” is it?  I was under the impression that the exact opposite was happening.  Is this a real concern or is the mainstream media (MSM) just worried that they are losing their grip over the distribution of “information”?  I will be coming back to this question in more detail in future posts, but in general I think the explosion of information sharing and debate on the internet is something to be welcomed very enthusiastically, even if quite a lot of misinformation is flying around.  There are also a lot of facts and great arguments flying around as well, and consequently lazy MSM journalism is being challenged as never before, and that can only be a good thing for the rest of us.

The program reflects on the fact that areas in the UK and the US are still struggling with the after effects of the closure of large scale industries in the “rust belt” in the US and in the north of the UK.  The conclusion here is that the rising economic tide has failed to “lift all boats”.  Its true, there are still areas plagued by high unemployment both in the UK and the US, and these areas do correspond pretty much with former industrial areas.  The sub-text to all this is that policy from the 1980s onward has failed these areas, and this has caused the people in these areas to vote for (what the BBC wants to portray as the twin disasters of) Brexit and Trump.  A lot of areas in the UK which have not benefited so much from a rising economic tide have also suffered from high levels of immigration, a point made by some of the UKIP supporters that Mr. Little interviews.

Mr. Little then interviews an American pro-Democrat writer called Naomi Wolf who apparently (according to Wikipedia) is a “third wave feminist” (whatever the heck that is).  She bemoans some of Obama’s policies, suggesting that Democrats have become complacent and turned a blind eye to things they shouldn’t have:

6:45    …if our democracy was still strong it wouldn’t matter that we have a crazy man in the White House ….
if you spend 12 years dismantling checks and balances enacting secret law suspending aspects of the constitution …
You’re left with rubble when the demagogue is elected ….

Mr. Little then turns his attention to the Brexit campaign, describing how:

9:30    Boris Johnson and Michael Gove toured the country in a bus emblazoned with the now notorious slogan “we send £350m a week to Brussels lets spend it on the NHS instead” …. Many said it was a sign that British politics had entered a new era, known as “post-truth“.

He then makes an astonishing claim, about this “notorious slogan”:

10:10    … it seems to have disappeared from the national debate about Brexit

Mr. Little is indulging in a little “post-truthiness” himself here, it has not “disappeared from the national debate” at all, in fact the MSM have been talking about this one gaffe by the Leave campaign almost non-stop ever since the referendum result was in.  They have been using this single point relentlessly to try to undermine the result, as will become clear as we examine articles from the other usual suspects.  Let’s pause a moment here and think carefully about this point, as we’re going to be hearing about it over and over again.

First of all, the £350m claim was refuted (in this article dated 27 May 2016):

The Institute for Fiscal Studies earlier this week labelled the £350m figure “clearly absurd” and said that an accurate figure of the net UK contribution taking into account the rebate and spending in Britain was £175m a week – half the Leave figure.

Further, the House of Commons Treasury Committee today branded the £350m claim “highly misleading” in a new report on the costs and benefits of the EU. Andrew Tyrie, the committee’s chair, said the Leave campaign’s battle bus should be “repainted” as soon as possible.

Granted, it was misleading, but how much significance did it really have in persuading people to vote for Brexit?  Very little I suspect, almost no effect at all probably.  I have yet to hear a single Leave voter say they have changed their mind about Brexit as a result of this slogan being refuted.

Everyone I know who voted Leave voted Leave for a whole mountain of other reasons including –

  • Open borders within the EU and the resulting mass immigration into the UK (probably the main reason).  Note that other countries haven’t been complaining so much about the open borders mainly no doubt because their countries have not been seeing such high levels of mass immigration.
  • The fact the EU leaders seem to have no interest in defending the EU’s external borders from illegal immigration (millions of young men have been swarming across the Med, mostly from Muslim majority countries)
  • The looming prospect of an EU army (quite what its for considering the previous point we don’t know – defence and security does not seem to figure very highly at all in the EU’s thinking)
  • EU red-tape hampering businesses (that’s a very big reason among small business owners especially)
  • The undemocratic nature of it (Juncker was not elected by the people for example)
  • The fact that some very bad people could not be deported from the UK because of their “right to a family life”
  • Attacks on the freedom of the press and freedom of speech
  • The situation in Ukraine
  • UK fishing rights

…and lots and lots and lots of other reasons.  I simply don’t believe that this claim about the exact amount the UK gives to the EU each week seriously came into it – and in any case £175m a week is still a lot of money.

The relentless repeating of this one criticism of the Leave campaign in the MSM is a good example of the technique of “saturation”.  The MSM know really that this slogan wasn’t that big a deal in the result, but by relentlessly reminding us of it they create doubt in the public’s minds and raise the hopes of those who still want to remain in the EU.  Just how big an impact it had is impossible to prove with absolute certainty, so it can’t be said that they are simply lying about it.  Of course the motive behind this particular use of saturation is to try to increase the chances of a second referendum being held that they hope would overturn the Brexit result.

Returning to the program now, Mr. Little seems to think that the US has really gone over the edge into the “post-truth” era, he thinks the UK is still just managing to keep a better perspective (no doubt thanks to the existence of the UK’s Ministry of Truth (aka the BBC)):

10:47    There is still a public square in British politics where you will meet views you do not like… its gone in America and it could go here too.  The dangers to democracy are obvious.

Blimey, the end is nigh then, you will see what I mean now about the doom-laden tone of this program.  The “public square” is gone from US politics is it?  I had to listen to this a second time to make sure he really said that.  I wonder if any readers from the US would like to express their opinion about that statement – add comments below this post?

Seemingly in an attempt to back this claim up with some hard evidence, Mr. Little then interviews an old school news editor who refers to a satirical “fake news” website that emerged during the Trump campaign.

13:29     “Pope Francis shocks world endorses Donald Trump releases statement” …. This was shared a million times on social media, the debunking of that was shared 30,000 times.

This old school guy is trying to imply that most people who saw the statement must have believed it because they didn’t look for a debunking of the statement!  LOOK, YOU DON’T NEED TO HAVE THAT STATEMENT DEBUNKED IT IS OBVIOUSLY A JOKE!!!!  I’m pretty sure (reasonably sure) that most people who saw this statement just thought hey that’s a funny bit of fake news (LOL) and soon forgot about it.  Anybody that did believe it is too dumb to vote sensibly anyway, and most of those people normally vote for the Democrats, as revealed by Mark Dice’s petition to gain approval for Karl Marx’s appointment as Hillary Clinton’s economic adviser.

At this point, only half way through this BBC program about the “post-truth” era we are supposed to be entering, I have had enough of hearing the BBC view, I’m done.  Let’s move on to the next of the usual suspects.


Here, the Guardian announce the fact that the Oxford dictionary has declared the phrase as the “word of the year” for 2016:
‘Post-truth’ named word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries


In the era of Donald Trump and Brexit, Oxford Dictionaries has declared “post-truth” to be its international word of the year.
The spike in usage, it said, is “in the context of the EU referendum in the United Kingdom and the presidential election in the United States”.

Why has there been a spike in usage??  BECAUSE THE MSM HAVE BEEN USING THE WORD A LOT!!!  The MSM have generated their own news here.  By not mentioning the fact that its the MSM who have pushed the phrase in the first place, they are subtly distancing themselves from the “news” that the Oxford dictionary found a spike in usage of the term during the campaigns of Brexit and Trump.  This helps to subliminally create an impression that this “post-truth” phenomenon is something that’s really happening in the real world.

Looking back to May 2016 however (when the spike began) we see this article in the Guardian:
Post-truth politicians such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are no joke

This article begins with a major attack on Donald Trump, for example:

To adapt Mary McCarthy’s critique of the novelist Lillian Hellman, every word Trump says is a lie, including “and” and “the”.

Well I somehow doubt if even most people who actually voted for Trump take every word he says at face value, but to suggest EVERYTHING Trump says is a lie, well that is itself a big lie, obviously.  They are joking, we know that, except they aren’t really, they mean it.

The writer then proceeds to attack Boris Johnson (BoJo).  First they point to the claim on the Leave campaign battle bus that the UK was sending £350m a week to the EU:

Emblazoned on the side was the slogan: “We send the EU £350 million a week.” Except it’s not true

It seems that almost every time the phrase “post-truth” appears in the UK media, there is a mention of this single error by the Leave campaign.

The writer then attacks BoJo’s mocking dig at what was called “project fear” by the Leave campaign:

…his critique of David Cameron’s speech on Monday, which had focused on the national security implications of a Brexit. Johnson hit back:

“I think all this talk of world war three and bubonic plague is demented, frankly.”

Now, its clear to anyone with a half a brain that BoJo is making a joke here to make a point, as BoJo often does.  He is not suggesting that Cameron ACTUALLY SAID that Brexit would lead to World War Three and bubonic plague.  But wait, did I say this is clear to anyone with half a brain?  To the Guardian writer it seems, its NOT clear:

Who but a cretin would suggest that the black death would be the result of a British break from the EU? And yet a scan of the text of Cameron’s speech yields no results for either “bubonic” or “world war three”.

The Guardian writer actually went back and checked Cameron’s speech to see if the words were there, I’m a bit speechless!  I can’t go any further with this article, time to move on to the next…


In this article the Independent does at least recognize that lying in the world of politics is not exactly a new phenomenon:

We are not living in a ‘post-truth’ world, we are living the lies of others

That’s a good point, lets pause and remember just a tiny number of episodes from the days prior to this new “post-truth” era:

  • Richard Nixon – “I am not a crook,”
  • George W Bush –  “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
  • Tony Blair’s govt. – “Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to use them.”
  • Tony Blair’s govt. – Did not disclose new Labour’s plan to “rub the right’s nose in diversity” by letting millions of people immigrate into the country.
  • David Cameron – promised that his govt. would reverse the trend begun by New Labour and reduce immigration to the 10s of 1000s – no ifs no buts he said.
  • Bill Clinton – “I did not have sexual relations with that woman [Monica Lewinsky]”.
  • The Clintons – All sorts of accusations and counter-accusations are swirling around the Clinton Foundation and have been doing so for some time.  Someone is not telling the truth.
  • Banking Crisis – One can only begin to imagine how many lies were told before and during the banking crisis of 2008.
  • Gordon Brown – I saved the world.

More predictably there is yet another reference in this Independent article to the £350m claim on the battle bus.

The article points to coverage of the war in Syria:

I suspect that “post-truth” has more to do with social media than mendacious elections. The use of social media in reporting the battle of eastern Aleppo has been extraordinary, weird, dangerous, even murderous, when not a single Western journalist could report the eastern Aleppo war at first hand. Much damage has been done to the very credibility of journalism – and to politicians…

This is another dig at social media of course from the MSM, but at least the Independent acknowledges that journalists and politicians haven’t exactly been covering themselves with glory in their coverage of this war.  I’ll come back to the subject of Syria in the next post.


The economist took a hilarious dig at Donald Trump’s claim that “Obama is the founder of ISIS and Hillary Clinton is the co-founder”:

The post-truth world – Yes, I’d lie to you

No says the economist, he wasn’t joking, he really meant that literally – Obama is the commander in chief of the Islamic State, apparently!  No doubt Obama personally ordered those be-headings (I jest here of course he didn’t).

Then, just as all the above articles did, the economist repeats the point about the EU £350m slogan, and sneers at the (actually worrying if you have a brain and know anything about Islam) prospect of Turkey joining the EU:

And he is not the only prominent practitioner of post-truth politics. Britons voted to leave the European Union in June on the basis of a campaign of blatant misinformation, including the “fact” that EU membership costs their country £350m ($470m) a week, which could be spent instead on the National Health Service, and that Turkey is likely to join the EU by 2020.

We don’t know if Turkey will join the EU by 2020 (or any time in the future), we don’t know at all.  The arguments against this happening were all based on the fact that the EU has requirements about new members joining that Turkey would supposedly not meet.  What we do know is that the EU is supposed to have rules, and when Greece joined the EURO, the rules were ignored.  So, people no longer TRUST the EU, and with good reason.  Its not perhaps so much a case of post-truth here, as post-trust.  What’s more, the EU has a very friendly attitude towards Islam in general, as revealed in a speech by Federica Mogherini , the “High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”, when she said that:

Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and – what matters most – in Europe’s present and future

That’s another reason for wanting to get out of the EU by the way, at least in my book.  I don’t want Islam in my culture or in my food thanks very much.


Of course we are not at all entering a “post-truth” era and the mainstream media know this well enough.  The media’s repetitive use of the phrase “post-truth” is a deliberate ploy to try to slander both Brexit and Trump’s election as being based PRIMARILY on misinformation.  This is another case of “saturation” – an idea being relentlessly repeated across the mainstream media.

What is happening is that people of the West are finally beginning to rise up against the elites who have (among other anti-democratic things) been rubbing the public’s nose in diversity by allowing and encouraging huge, unprecedented levels of mass immigration that have changed whole communities beyond recognition in a very short space of time.  The establishment viewpoint characterized by the phrase “political correctness” is being undermined very significantly as seen in the Brexit result and the election of Donald Trump.

We would rather elect a less “experienced” politician (experienced at politics that is) who we believe to have our best interests at heart (even if they say daft things from time to time) than a career politician who is well-practiced at the art of deceit and does not have the people’s best interests at heart.


Bill Whittle talks about decline in areas of America such as Detroit




Political Correctness Was Always Mad


Merriam Webster provides us with this definition:

conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

I would describe political correctness as a set of ideas relating to race and gender that are accepted as indisputable truth, and that therefore can “legitimately” be defended from all criticism by any means fair or not fair. It is this latter aspect of political correctness that is the most troubling and dangerous, this idea that it is not necessary to defend the set of ideas purely with reason and evidence. It is this aspect of political correctness that leads me to say political correctness was always mad, because I don’t believe any ideas should ever be protected from being questioned. These are some of the ideas that I think form part of this specially protected set of ideas (of course this is a broad generalization):

  • Racism is very bad.
  • Some words are inherently racist and therefore should never be used (the set of words thereby excluded seems to grow ever larger).
  • Opposing immigration is racist and therefore opposing immigration is also very bad.
  • Diversity is strength.
  • All races are exactly equal and therefore employers must hire exact numbers of each race to match the local population or applications.
  • Only white people are racist (contradicts the above idea suggesting that white people are uniquely inferior to other races in this respect). This idea was summarized by the catch-phrase “racism is the white man’s disease”. This leads to further ideas such as the idea there is nothing for white people to fear from white populations becoming racial minorities.
  • “Positive” discrimination is necessary to force the racist white employers and educational establishments to hire/accept the right numbers of other races.
  • Dislike of Islam (Islamophobia) (or other minority beliefs) is racist and therefore is also very bad.
  • Overt displays of the host’s nationality – flags or religious symbols, may upset ethnic minorities and therefore should be suppressed.
  • Different genders should be exactly equally represented in all professions.
  • Women can perform just as well as men if they are not discriminated against.
  • Women should be paid exactly the same as men for the same occupation.
  • Women who choose to have no children as a lifestyle choice should be celebrated for their decision.
  • Homophobia is very bad.
  • Opposing gay marriage is homophobic and therefore is also very bad.
  • Opposing the teaching in schools of things that must not be opposed (the above list) is also very bad.


A major problem with many of these ideas is that they vastly over-simplify realities. For example, men are physically stronger than women in general and therefore better suited to certain occupations. If women have children this will necessarily impact their ability to pursue careers on an equal footing with men, therefore enforcing equal gender pay may inhibit employers’ competitiveness. Racism can be seen in many races, not just among white people. The way the Japanese treated Chinese people after they invaded parts of China in the early 20th century can be seen as just one example of evidence of this.

All races are not necessarily equal in all aspects at all, this can be seen in athletics where certain groups often do better in running events.  Here is a BBC article on the subject. They point to the athletic prowess of the runners from the Nandi region of Kenya. They also point out that the African Bambuti tribe have a certain advantage in the sport of walking through low doorways, that is obviously a genetic advantage:

Is it wrong to note 100m winners are always black?

Of course, since this is a BBC article, they are pushing the politically correct idea that racial discrimination is bad. The objective of the article is to point out that athletic prowess is particular not to black people in general but to particular African groups, and that therefore generalizations about black people (and other larger racial groups) are illogical. The agenda here is to promote the idea of “positive” discrimination – the article then cites a study that they claim proves that employers discriminate against people purely because they have African names. They then reach the conclusion from this study that irrational discrimination is behind black performance in “economic development”, quote:

For many economists, this assumption, which gets under the radar of our conscious thought, explains why black people still lag behind white people in economic development more than four decades after the introduction of race-relations legislation.

There is a huge leap in thinking going on here, from a single study involving 5,000 fake CVs to a conclusion about black people’s economic performance in the Western world in general. There is for one thing plausibly another large factor that the BBC have overlooked entirely, beyond discrimination – that black people might actually have lower AVERAGE intelligence than white people. In fact, the only studies that have been done on the subject suggest just that – the famous (or infamous if you are politically correct) studies of Richard Lynn for example.  It is perfectly possible that this may be the largest reason “why black people still lag behind white people in economic development” (although most probably there are more than one factors at work).

Something the BBC also seem to be overlooking (no doubt due to the fact that they are left-leaning employees themselves), is that people can also set up their own businesses, and become employers themselves.  It is also perfectly possible that there may be other factors at play in employers’ hiring decisions, that are not well described by the simplistic phrase “racial discrimination”.  The question of whether “positive” discrimination is a good idea or not is a large one (I will come back to that on another occasion), I am merely pointing out here that when arguments are made within the strait jacket of politically correct limits, then the conclusions are likely to be wildly over-simplistic.

Of course it is intelligence that is the biggest factor in economic success in today’s world, not running ability or the ability to walk under low doorways. Conformity to political correctness is preventing the BBC from even mentioning the question of IQ and race here, which is obviously crucial to the question of racial discrimination in the modern technology-driven workplace. The believers in political correctness should put their efforts into trying to prove professor Lynn’s data is wrong rather than simply slandering him/calling him names, if they are serious about challenging his theories.  Are the employers who discriminate really doing so just because they are “racist”, or because they are facing an economic reality that will negatively affect their business if they ignore it?

There are too many problems with these individual ideas in the politically “correct” set to discuss them all in a single post, I will come back to them in detail in future posts. Even considering just these few objections it quickly becomes clear that our Western societies have NOT in fact arrived at a perfect set of ideas about equality. It also becomes clear that many of these current ideas negatively impact competitiveness. If Western societies implement government-enforced recruitment policies based on these ideas, while other societies do not, then Western societies may well begin to lag behind those other societies. Also, the strait jacket of political correctness creates inertia in thinking, and thinking needs to be dynamic to meet the challenges of an ever changing world.


A particular problem with some of the ideas is that the terms used have never been well defined by those using them. What, exactly, is a racist? Is the BBC author in the above mentioned article a racist for suggesting that some African groups may tend to statistically perform better in certain athletic events? Richard Lynn was widely accused of racism (and fiercely vilified) merely for conducting a study into IQ and race, yet his conclusion was not that his own race (white Europeans) were the most intelligent – in fact he concluded that some Far Eastern groups had the highest IQ!  If his statistical data turns out to reflect reality, will he still be considered a racist for publishing it, or does the charge of racism only apply if he is wrong, or if he can be shown to be deliberately lying?

My own idea of what constitutes a racist would include someone who thought that ALL non-white people were inferior to ALL white people in every way, which is an idea that is clearly false – some black people are clearly very intelligent and some white people are clearly very stupid. A racist would typically be someone who would like to see all non-white people deported from their country, or worse. A racist would be someone who felt no shame in shouting out racial epithets at people of other races.

Clearly my definition here is a very long way away from this writer’s at the National Union of Journalists who seems to include at least a third of the UK population (including 12 million UKIP supporters) in his definition:


And it’s true; UKIP aren’t necessarily openly racist. But neither are Pegida. Instead they seek to capitalise on a fear of ‘an other’ who they claim is becoming more powerful even though the reality is that minority communities overall remain just that.

Of course these words and phrases suppress the nuances of a person’s opinions and throw lots of people with widely different views into the same category. Is an “Islamophobe” someone who puts a pig’s head in a mosque doorway AND also someone who is critical of the Islamic religion in an intellectual way, such as Richard Dawkins or the Reverend Canon Gavin Ashenden (a chaplain to the Queen)? Is it really even sane to lump all these opinions in the same category?

Its a very sad reflection on the last and current UK Prime Ministers, that they bandy words around without ever it seems even thinking about what they mean by them, let alone telling us what they mean by them. “We must stamp out extremism in ALL its forms” said these dimwits. David Cameron also for example used the phrase “sickening Islamophobe” without giving us the slightest hint what he meant by the word.


Sometimes words that previously had been reasonably clearly defined began to expand greatly in their meaning, at least in their usage among the PC brigade. As many others have pointed out, these words have been so over-used and misused by now that they are becoming practically meaningless. If a racist now includes everyone who wants to limit immigration because they are worried about the impact on wages for their peers, then blimey that’s quite a broad definition of the word racist, so broad in fact the meaning is practically actually now a different meaning.

Those people who are still concerned about ACTUAL racism should be worried about these trends towards greater vagueness in language, because people are beginning to rebel and consider the tags “racist” and “far-right” as badges of honour, a sign that they are willing to speak out against the strait jacket of political correctness.

The phrase “far-right” was always misleading because it was used to describe people with strongly racist and nationalistic viewpoints whose politics were not particularly right-wing at all, and often were in fact left of centre. The phrase “National SOCIALIST” is a bit of a giveaway here. By sheer persistence of use the phrase eventually stuck, a phrase that casually slanders the right wing by suggesting there is something right-wing about racism. The true economically “far-right”, the libertarians, are in fact often open borders advocates who are not troubled by questions of race at all.

A new phrase the “alt-right” has arisen to describe people with a particular view-point that is generally fairly closely associated with the libertarian view-point rather than racist-nationalist groups. Lately however there seems to be an unconnected but simultaneous effort from those on the left and those of racist-nationalist tendencies to conflate the two terms, for example consider this quote from the Guardian:

It may be that Gab becomes an online sanctuary for the far right. It’s not clear whether anyone else will join the party. The question then will be: will isolation in such a bubble simply intensify and normalize alt-right views?

In this single paragraph in an article about the twitter alternative gab, the Guardian writer simultaneously slanders the gab site as “far-right” (i.e. they are hinting that its users are racist/nationalist), and also conflates the far-right and alt-right as indistinguishable from each other.  By slandering gab in this way they are (not subtly) hinting that their readers should not go there, lest they be deemed racists.


Political correctness has not stood still, it is a movement that has grown and gathered momentum as it went. The phrase “political correctness gone mad” emerged as the first challenge to the prevailing and it seemed ever expanding reach of political correctness. An example of this trend was Oxford city council’s proposal to rename Christmas to the ‘Winter Light Festival’ on the grounds that it would be more “inclusive”

A number of attempts to ban the cross of St George contrasted with failure to ban the ISIS flag:

Why are we ’embarrassed’ to fly the Cross of St George but the vile ISIS flag is FINE?

Words previously in widespread usage such as “coloured” were being outlawed as someone had now ridiculously decided they were inherently racist – the actor Benedict Cumberbatch was vilified for using the word in a well-meaning way. So eventually the PC monster had begun to eat its own silly parents and children.

Much more troubling still was the fact that the rules of political correctness were beginning to be enshrined in law. Politicians had begun clamouring for laws to stamp out homophobia and Islamophobia before they had even properly defined what they meant by these words. Vague laws were being passed that could be (and have been) used against anyone who challenged the ideas of political correctness. The thought policing we were warned about by George Orwell was becoming a reality. This could be seen for example in the conviction of one Mr. Stephen Bennett, prosecuted for making some “grossly offensive” general remarks about Muslims and women on a Facebook page.

Harriet Harman, UK politician, proposed a so-called “Equality Bill” which was in fact discriminatory against white males.

Under the proposals, employers would be legally allowed to discriminate in favour of a job candidate on the basis of their race or gender where the candidates were otherwise equally qualified.
Michael Millar, writing in The Spectator, was of the opinion that, “The Equality Bill before parliament today gives employers the right to choose an ethnic minority candidate or female candidate over a white male, specifically because they are an ethnic minority or female.”


Political correctness has been enforced in society by its supporters who have for some time  formed the majority in all the elite institutions that have influence over our beliefs – government, the judiciary, the police, the media, academia, teaching, the unions. They have also long formed a majority in the arts – film, theatre, music.


In a brilliant essay on the subject, Stella Morabito identifies 2 main features of the psychological manipulation practiced by the propagators of “politically correct” ideas – saturation and suppression:

Public opinion is often molded through a calculated process of psychological manipulation that takes two main forms: saturation and suppression.

I strongly advise readers to read her article in full:

Dissecting Political Correctness

Saturation involves persistently repeating politically correct points of view, and suppression involves preventing other points of view from being heard, and suppressing facts. Suppression of opinions is achieved often by ostracism and slander when it is otherwise difficult to silence them completely. A form of slander I discussed above that is used in suppression is the deliberate confusion/blurring of the meaning of different phrases such as far-right, alt-right, racist, anti-immigration.


The mainstream media throughout the West has long suppressed non-PC viewpoints simply by not broadcasting these viewpoints, or at least by only rarely broadcasting them. Sometimes other views are occasionally presented but usually with cues such as “look out, what this person is about to say is racist/sexist”! TV and radio presenters in the UK will often adopt a particular tone of voice when speaking to those they deem racist/sexist, and sometimes be quite rude to their guests. For example, in a recent interview on the BBC TV with Nigel Farage the presenter persistently rustled papers near her microphone whenever Mr. Farage was speaking. In another example the BBC TV were interviewing a Donald Trump supporter and they cut the supporter off mid sentence at the end of the interview. Of course either of these incidents on their own could have been a trivial simple mistake, but after you watch BBC TV politics programmes for long enough you start to see there is a definite pattern.

Another much more significant thing is the way the mainstream media has also adopted subtle techniques to suppress facts. For example, mainstream media has been routinely suppressing the fact that most of the migrants coming across the Mediterranean from Africa in the ongoing migrant crisis are fit young men. This was accomplished by repetitively publishing pictures of very young children and women in articles on the subject, rather than outright misinformation.

This example demonstrates just how dangerous political correctness can become. The motives of the migrants were obscured and Europeans were encouraged to think that they were welcoming in desperate refugees whereas they were in fact welcoming in large numbers of opportunistic economic migrants and criminal elements, many of whom have gone on to commit crimes including rapes and murders and even terrorist attacks.

If large numbers of young men travel long distances without females accompanying them, then it can be easily predicted that some of those young men will be sexually frustrated and some will commit sexual crimes as a result. Political correctness discouraged the mainstream media from informing the general public of these realities, for fear of being called racists for portraying this wave of immigration in a negative light.

In the UK, all the broadcast TV channels are quite obviously subscribers to politically correct ideology, and the BBC especially has a uniquely powerful position having several terrestial TV channels and 4 FM radio channels. The Islamic religion has almost never been challenged to any significant extent on any mainstream TV channels in the UK. Only very rarely have opposing voices been heard. On one episode of Newsnight the critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali was interviewed by a presenter who behaved as if she were disgusted by Ms. Ali and rather spoke to her in the same manner that a BBC presenter would speak to a member of the BNP.

The only newspapers that fall outside the politically correct sphere in the UK such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express are routinely vilified/derided by the rest of the mainstream media with phrases such as “the gutter press”. During the migrant crisis the Daily Express became my newspaper of choice because it routinely publishes important stories revealing the character of this wave of migration that were almost never seen in the politically “correct” mainstream media, for example:

Squalor on the streets of Paris as migrants turn capital into ‘APOCALYPSE’




In the Daily Mail some inconvenient claims were made about the father of a child migrant in Calais, who pop-singer Lily Allen had shed tears over and apologized to:

The father of the Jungle boy who made Lily Allen cry

This is the same Daily Mail that the BBC routinely derides on political and comedy shows such as “Have I Got News For You”. The story has neither been published nor disputed by the rest of the mainstream media.

Of course the emergence of the Breitbart news website has helped to stir things up quite significantly. This website has been rapidly gaining readership, much to the consternation of the mainstream media, who have been routinely slandering it as “far-right”, “ethno-nationalist” etc..

It won’t be long before Breitbart IS the mainstream media, and papers like the Guardian begin to lose ground to them, because the suppression technique of slander is NOT WORKING against Breitbart.


I mentioned an article published on the NUJ’s website above, also in this article it says.

We provide support to those actively fighting racists and fascists on our streets.

We must call on our politicians to explain why they allow racists on our streets and challenge them to not allow that in the future.

When we hear that demonstrations are taking place to “rid these islands of Islam”, we should all be very concerned.

Now why is a union of journalists getting involved in politics like this? Ever heard of the impartiality of the press? Surely journalists should be filming and writing about fighting on the streets, not SUPPORTING it? As I mentioned above the article seems to also tar the UKIP party as a racist organization. Is this NATIONAL union of journalists really sure they ought to be openly opposing (and slandering) a party that represents 12% of the UK electorate (at the last election).

There was a time when the NUJ had quite a lot of influence over journalism in the UK:


The good news is that this union is rapidly losing support among the younger generation of journalists, at least if this is anything to go by:



I already mentioned the creation of laws to enforce political correctness in the UK above. The laws include laws which have been used to prosecute non-politically correct speech, and so-called “equality” legislation that is in fact discriminatory against white males.

Perhaps the high-water mark of the era of political correctness in the UK has been the rise of Theresa May to be the (unelected) UK Prime Minister. The coverage of the leadership contest in the mainstream media was brazenly biased against the non-politically correct candidate, Andrea Leadsom. Leadsom was vilified in a series of phoney scandals which included “babygate” and “gaymarriagegate”. Leadsom had dared to mention the fact that she was a mother (contrasting with the childless Theresa May), this was the “scandal” called “babygate”. Leadsom had also dared to suggest that she might have doubts about gay marriage, this was the “scandal” called “gaymarriagegate”. Of course the mainstream media was also opposed to Leadsom’s candidacy because she had campaigned for the UK to leave the politically correct monster called the “European Union”.

In the most ominous sign of a drift towards a thought-police state, Theresa May had recently advanced a “Counter-Extremism” bill that included a measure called “Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders“. These orders were clearly designed to enforce political correctness through the law courts, particularly to suppress politically incorrect “Islamophobia”, but also to suppress other politically incorrect opinions – one conservative MP even suggested that the orders should be used against school teachers who dared to express doubts about gay marriage.


Peter Hitchens wrote an article about political correctness in today’s police force in the UK:


Some other views:




These techniques of suppression and saturation however could only be applied as long as media was restricted to a relatively small number of organizations and (delivery platforms – printed papers/tv/radio) – and the PC brigade largely controlled the mainstream media. Now, thanks to the internet, anyone can publish ideas that the whole world can read. Also very importantly, smart phones are now widely available that enable people to easily record video footage of events on the spot that contradict the mainstream media narrative and expose their suppression tactics:


More and more people are beginning to openly question the mainstream media via blogs and social media platforms. The anonymity that is possible on the internet makes it easy to evade the suppression techniques of vilification and ostracism. A true revolution in human thought is beginning to take place. It should be welcomed and allowed to flourish, because it will become the greatest enabler of human progress of all time, in all spheres, if it is freely allowed to develop. Most people are not evil, believe it you “elites”, they do not need to have the truth hidden from them like this, they will not suddenly turn into ogres.

Sensing that they are losing their grip, some of the leaders are now trying to control the social media platforms and harvest data about individuals using mass surveillance (ostensibly under the guise of the combatting of terrorism and paedophilia). This is only likely to result in

  1. More suspicion of the leaders, more erosion of trust in politics.
  2. New social media platforms arising (such as the Twitter alternative gab.ai mentioned above) whose main motivation is simply to avoid censorship.
  3. Use of encryption techniques that bypass national governments’ control such as Tor. Ironically the Internet and Tor were first created by the US govt.

We must not underestimate what lengths the leaders will go to suppress dissent:


Outside Germany at least we should now see the rise of alternatives.

In the longer run, the only way that national governments will be able to stop this explosion of individuals publishing their ideas and (e.g. video) evidence will be to physically separate their countries from the rest of the internet and then heavily censor internet publication.

For smaller countries the impact on ecommerce will be too great and I do not expect that most countries will in the end even attempt such separation, although they will probably contemplate it when it becomes clear to them just how hopeless attempts at censorship will be otherwise.  Another route they may attempt is to outlaw encryption that they cannot break, in fact e.g. the UK govt. has already mooted this.


As Ovid once said, it is right to learn, even from the enemy. One of the tools of political correctness enforcement – saturation – can and should be used to turn the tables. Every time someone shouts “racist Islamophobe”, shout back “Islam is not a race”! Repeat this every time, never be afraid of repeating yourself. Also, keep repeating the truth about Islam – that it incites violence and condones child abuse.

Our goal should be to use the truth to fight back – suppression of the truth should be met by exposing the truth. The truth will always be more powerful than lies. We have the greatest tool mankind has ever had to combat falsehood – the internet. Use the freedom it brings or lose it, and oppose all attempts at censorship, even of opinions you don’t agree with. As Noam Chomsky put it:

If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.

(I’m not a huge fan, but he is spot on about that).


The tyranny of political “correctness” has been exposed for what it is but there is now a danger that the ruling elites will try to silence dissent with greater censorship and further restrictions on freedom of speech. Join the fight using reason and evidence to undermine the mainstream media’s PC narrative. If you haven’t already, start blogging, join conversations on social media, anonymously or in person, say what you think, spread information and ideas, write to your MPs. The very idea of political correctness needs to be utterly discredited and freedom of speech needs to be allowed to flourish once more.


The Principle of the Thing – Equality Before The Law
Groupthink In Action





The “Trump Hate Surge”


In this article the BBC quotes a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) report that claims a significant wave of hate crime followed the US presidential election with only a tiny percentage of crimes classified as “anti-Trump”:

‘Trump effect’ led to hate crime surge, report finds

The title of the BBC article states the claim as fact.  It also makes no attempt to question any of the “findings” throughout the whole article.  So, the assertion is stated as fact that there has been a surge in hate crime and that the hate has come almost exclusively from Trump supporters.  To give a bit of perspective on the SPLC, this is a group that has labelled both Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as “anti-Muslim extremists”.  In a later article the BBC admits the “evidence” provided in the report was purely anecdotal.

The article concludes by quoting the SPLC’s dig at Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon:

The SPLC has been very critical of Mr Trump’s decision to appoint a right-wing media executive to the role of chief White House strategist.

The group accused Stephen Bannon of being “the main driver behind Breitbart [News] becoming a white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill“.

Um, that would be the Breitbart that employs Raheem Kassam the British journalist of Indian and Muslim origin?  The BBC really doesn’t like the upstart Breitbart news organization, that’s something that has been becoming very clear of late.

However in another article a rather different picture starts to emerge (but only if you read the article all the way to the end):

US Election 2016: Are hate crimes spiking after Trump’s victory?

Pride of place of course goes to a young Muslim woman who is mentioned first.  A dreadful story of a hijab being pulled (or almost pulled) off, really terrible.  She decided not to report the terrible hate crime to the police and we will have to take her word for the whole thing, she is reported to have said:

“I decided not to press charges because I’m not here to expose anyone, …”

This apparently was just one of many (alleged) attacks motivated by “racial or religious hatred” which have been claimed on social media but not with any evidence to back them up.

The article then refers to what it calls:

a number of credible reports of hate crimes

which apparently included a couple of incidents of graffiti with swastikas and pro-Trump slogans.  “Credible”, really, in what sense are these “credible” hate crimes?  We don’t know who wrote this graffiti, it could easily have been put there by anti-Trump agitators.  Well, I suppose that would constitute a hate crime against Trump supporters then but we can be sure the BBC have not thought their claim through to that sort of extent.

Hate Hoax: Student Arrested for Alleged Nazi, Anti-Semitic Graffiti

Also mentioned is the alleged robbery of a student who claimed that her purse and car were stolen by two men who “made comments about President-elect Trump and Muslims”.  Again, it seems we only have her word for this whole thing at the moment, so it seems the BBC has now invented a new meaning of the word “credible”.

Then, there is mention of a violent attack by a group of black men who attack and rob a white man shouting “don’t vote Trump” (this story is actually backed up by some video footage although the BBC chooses not to link to the video).  Finally, it seems we have an incident actually backed up with some real video evidence, and its a Trump supporter who is being attacked (or did they just assume he was because he was white?).  There is also reference to an attack on a white schoolgirl Trump supporter by a black schoolmate.  This incident was also supported by video evidence.

So, to summarize this article there are only two incidents described that are actually backed up with hard evidence, and both of these are attacks AGAINST Trump supporters.  However by pushing these two incidents to the end of the article the BBC are downplaying the significance of these incidents in favour of the alleged incidents supposedly BY Trump supporters.

Elsewhere on the web we find actually there have been quite a few more well substantiated cases of attacks against Trump supporters:


In another article, the BBC hints (in their oh so subtle way) that Trump’s promise to defend the USA’s borders constitutes hate speech and suggests that his promises for example to build a wall on the US/Mexico border or stop Muslim immigration could be deemed “unacceptable incitement” “by some”:

Donald Trump: Free speech v hate speech


that a “great, great wall” should be built between the US and Mexico
most recently. that Muslims should be banned from entering the US solely on grounds of their religion

They conclude the article with this following statement which is clearly designed to hint that the USA currently has the balance all wrong:

The contrast between the different legal approaches highlights the difficulty of trying to balance the individual’s right to voicing their own opinion with protecting community interests and deterring hate crimes.


A really shocking story was reported in the Independent about a vicious attack on the New York subway where a Muslim woman ALMOST had her hijab pulled off and ALMOST had her purse stolen while she was travelling on the subway!!!!  The three drunken WHITE (ugh) louts (allegedly) said “Donald Trump” to her among other unspeakable things.  The police have mounted a huge investigation into the alleged assault (or maybe they haven’t).


These white louts (described as “disgusting pigs” by the “victim” (we have to use quotes because the assault is only alleged at this time)) might have tousled her hair as well, but (praises be to Allah) they didn’t manage that.  It could have been REALLY SERIOUS, but it wasn’t. What a relief!  No surveillance evidence or eyewitness testimony or smartphone footage has come to light to back the story up.

[UPDATE – the woman in the hijab in the above story has since been arrested for “filing a false report”.  She could now face up to one year in prison:




Another article in the Independent summarized the terrible wave of vicious hate crime sweeping America since Trump’s election:


Many of the alleged incidents were documented on Facebook, intriguingly few of the many alleged incidents described in this article seems to have involved any actual physical violence beyond the alleged pulling of hijabs and throwing of water.  There was one alleged incident where a young gay man was allegedly assaulted (pictured covered in blood in the article) but this incident has apparently not been reported to the police for some reason, nor do hospitals have any record of treating the victim.  If you can bear to read to the end of this article you will see an update which says a story involving the Muslim student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who “had her purse stolen” was fabricated as now admitted apparently by the student herself.  Maybe one or two of the other incidents might have actually happened, you never know…


There seems to have been far more actually documented violence AGAINST Trump supporters but this reality has been inverted by the usual suspects in the mainstream media.







Groupthink In Action

I mentioned an episode of the BBC Radio 4 series called “Law in Action” in a recent post. The episode was:

Terrorism, Extremism and the Law

In this episode the BBC presenter Joshua Rozenberg (JR) talks with a Muslim called Dr. Salman Butt, with the former GCHQ director Sir David Omand, and with David Anderson QC (DA QC), about the government’s “Prevent” strategy and the surveillance bill known as the Snooper’s charter.

[Note: The longer 45 minute version of the program is found by clicking on the download MP3 link in the above web page]

I decided to write a specific post about this program because I think it helps to shine a light on the way the government and the mainstream media (particularly the BBC) exist in a narrow-minded ideological group-think bubble. Together they reinforce each others’ prejudices and work to block voices from outside the bubble from being heard. Many people consequently have come to the view that the current establishment is engaging in a sort of conspiracy that is actively working for the benefit only of a narrow rich elite, and against the interests of ordinary people. Unfortunately I think there is a degree of truth in this, although I think the closed nature of the establishment “clique” is also a problem in its own right. Even if there is such a big conspiracy going on, it will eventually come back to haunt the establishment elite themselves as the whole Western world will either likely descend into chaos and conflict, or become part of a theocratic caliphate which will not be kind to the former elite. Either way, they are living in a deluded ideological bubble which needs to be burst, and soon.

[Click the READ MORE button to see this post in full:]

Read More »



Just as during the Brexit EU Referendum, the BBC “News” service confidently predicted a Clinton victory right up to the point when it became inescapably obvious that Trump was winning. To be fair, US opinion polls had been suggesting a close race with Clinton always shown in the lead. Once again, the opinion polls got it wrong.

The BBC was rightly criticized for its bias throughout the campaign:



David Attenborough, the (formerly) much loved wildlife documentary presenter famous for his Life on Earth programs on BBC TV, has called for the assassination of Donald Trump. Was he joking? I am not entirely sure, judge for yourself:

Attenborough’s head is in his hands but his response is curiously phlegmatic. Or perhaps pragmatic. “Yes, I know. Well, we lived through that with earlier presidents – they’ve been equally guilty… But what alternative do we have? Do we have any control or influence over the American elections?  Of course we don’t. [sotto voce] We could shoot him… It’s not a bad idea…” He catches my eye and giggles.

See the article in full here:


The “joke” certainly wasn’t very funny when you consider that there had been an actual attempt not long before by a British youth to actually shoot Donald Trump:


If he had jokingly called for the assassination of Theresa May do we think he would have escaped prosecution? Is there some special reason why its OK for a BBC TV presenter to call for the assassination of a political candidate whose political views he disagrees with? A young man was arrested and convicted in the UK for joking about blowing up an airport not so long ago. Increasing numbers of people have been prosecuted for merely “grossly offensive” comments on social media, but this was actual publicly voiced direct incitement to murder from an influential British public figure, albeit seemingly made in fairly jokey spirit.

Its time for a level playing field, its time to restore the freedom of speech and the principle of equality before the law. Those on the left have long escaped even rebuke from the left-leaning mainstream media for comments that would have led to the arrest and prosecution of those in less privileged positions. In my own legal framework I proposed that direct incitement would have to meet the test of “credibility” and I feel that Mr. Attenborough’s comment would fail that test (just). However, the law is being applied currently in a very unfair and inconsistent manner. There are too many laws endangering the freedom of speech.

I am not calling for David Attenborough’s arrest here, I am calling for a return to a meaningful degree of freedom of speech in the UK. He should be vilified for his statement however, it was a very crass and irresponsible thing to say, especially given the recent attempt on Mr. Trump’s life. It also wasn’t very long ago since a UK politician was murdered in broad daylight by a member of the public. All politicians take a great risk in the public service, regardless of what we think of their policies.


Have the Clintons defrauded the UK taxpayer? Some of the allegations coming from the US seem to suggest so. I will be returning to this subject in future posts.


I hope the Trump era will mean:

  • that the Anglosphere will now recover a sensible degree of pride and self-confidence.
  • that the era of receding freedom of expression will not just come to an end, but be reversed.
  • that the West’s disastrous recent meddling in the Middle East will come to an end and peace and stability will return to that region.
  • that the migrant influx into Europe and the West generally will be halted and reversed.
  • that the birth rate of Western Europeans will recover and return to sustainable levels, along with a return of our self-confidence.
  • that we will begin to win the ideological war against Islamic influence that so far we have been losing as much by our own fear and timidity as by the aggression of those who wish to take human progress backwards to the 7th century.

However we should not merely sit back and HOPE for these things to happen. Lets remember the famous words of the former (Democrat) president JFK:

“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

We have a real opportunity here to reverse the toxic trends of self-loathing and political “correctness” which has blighted the West for so long.  If this is not merely to be a blip, but a real and permanent change in direction, then we all have a lot of work to do. It is time for people to rise up and participate in politics and public debate like never before. We have this great invention – the internet – at our disposal. Vast amounts of information about government policy for one thing are now easily available to us. We can scrutinize and question our governments’ plans like never before. Huge numbers of people have already joined the debate and arguments are being developed at a rate never before seen in human history. If you haven’t already, then please – start a blog, join in debates, get busy raising issues that concern you, write to your political representatives, join a demonstration. Do not allow this opportunity to go to waste, find the courage to voice your convictions.

Don’t forget, Donald Trump is only one man and he is not perfect. Many have called him a demagogue and even voiced fears that he will turn into some sort of dictator. I think these fears are unfounded, but power tends to corrupt and so we must hold him to account just as we should any leader when we disagree with a policy or direction. It is time for a new era of public participation to begin.


Its NO LONGER A Free Country