The Participator




A group of bloggers (including myself) have recently launched a political opinion website. The aim is to host differing opinions on a wide range of topics, our sole uniting concerns are explained in the About page:

This site is bringing together writers on politics and social issues who are united in concerns about creeping authoritarianism and encroachments on the freedom of speech, and the erosion of equality before the law. Beyond those uniting concerns, many differing opinions are represented here on other issues.

We are welcoming articles from readers. We are using Disqus as the comment platform.

Recent focus was on the French election including these articles:

War In Paris: Who’s In Control? Not The Cops

(John L. Work shares his thoughts about the predicament of France’s riot policemen.)

Civilization’s Fulcrum Moment

(Jillian Becker describes how civilization itself is at risk.)

But we are also asking bigger questions about government policy throughout the West, for example:

The Gulf Between What European Voters Want And Immigration Policy

(I call out the hypocrisy of European governments who claim to be showing compassion in the migrant crisis).

Pianists In A Brothel

(Dr Tim Morgan criticizes neo-liberalism.)

The Welfare State We’re In

(I ask some difficult questions about the welfare state.)

BBC Daily Politics: Shining A Spotlight On Student Illiberalism

(Political blogger Samuel Hooper criticizes the trend towards increasing illiberalism on university campuses, and asks whether under 21s should lose the vote).

Brexit Day – The People’s Victory

(Tom (British Awakening) celebrates the glorious event of the triggering of article 50.)

We have also re-published a number of articles previously featured at:

Not the Daily Telegraph

You may wish to comment on those if you missed them first time around e.g.:

The Fake Spectrum

by British Awakening

Lies, Omissions and False Narratives – It’s Nothing To Do With Islam

by Seymour Clare

Hope you can find some time to visit. This is the link to the front page:


“Fake News” and “Fact Checks” – Eva Bartlett and the Mannequin Challenge

I know probably everybody reading this has heard of Eva Bartlett by now, and you’ve probably seen the clip. However I couldn’t put this out of my mind somehow, I started to look at it all more closely. I fear that a lot of people have become a bit too partisan deciding that “she’s one of us”, “yes that’s right” and so forth. Sometimes you need to be partisan in things, very probably we do now on the Syria situation, but I just felt inclined to try and have a closer look. One big question, was Assad really using chemical weapons against civilians, and if so do you really want to be joining either side of a conflict where things like that are happening (possibly on both sides, more on that in a second)?


She made some very serious allegations about Western mainstream media coverage of the war in Syria. She also made some very serious allegations about a group called the Syria Civil Defense, who are also known as the White Helmets. The group’s stated mission is to save lives by rescuing as many people from the war zone as possible.

Here is Eva Bartlett in action at the UN conference just in case you haven’t seen it yet:

2 key points:

At 5:13 she talks about the (alleged) attack on the al Quds hospital.

At 9:45 she talks about the opposition making chemical weapons.


Channel 4 did a “fact check” on EB’s claims. Near the start there was a claim that started alarm bells ringing in my head:

She writes a blog for the state-funded Russian media outlet Russia Today and is candid about her support for the regime of Bashar al-Assad, who is fighting Syrian rebels with Russian and Iranian help.

Eva Bartlett’s blog is not “for the state-funded Russian media outlet Russia Today”, Eva Bartlett’s blog is Eva Bartlett’s blog, says Eva Bartlett.

She has appeared on RT, but then as she points out, so have quite a lot of other people. Merely appearing on the programme does not make her an RT employee, as this seems to be implying, any more than Tommy Robinson’s appearance on the Daily Politics makes him a BBC employee. Of course she must be financially supported somehow, but for channel 4 to make this claim without presenting any evidence to us, well its really quite irritating, isn’t it.

Here is the link if you want to check the “fact check”, it was already looking not very credible in my mind:

Further down is an absolutely stupid statement:

It’s not clear whether critics of the White Helmets believe that all the videos the group posts of people being rescued from bombed-out houses are fake.

Critics of the White Helmets are not all going to think exactly the same way about this, this is just stupid. I only mention this because it seems to me this is a sort of slur against ALL critics of the White Helmets – lumping them all together, presumably with the intention of hinting that this is all a big conspiracy theory. It also asks:

Why use fake victims when there were other real people to film and photograph?

another really stupid question. To film real people in a war zone must be difficult to do, not to mention EXTREMELY dangerous. It also says:

And we have a Reuters photographer on the ground at one of the incidents, who was satisfied that the events he was recording were genuine.

Now this *sounds* quite impressive doesn’t it, but we only have their word for this, we’ve no way of verifying this from the “fact check” at least.

I wasn’t really sure about what channel 4 were saying here about the girl, it seemed to me they had selected particular photos where the girl’s face was contorted/or different angles. It seemed they were focusing just on one claim and I couldn’t really (frankly) be bothered to go into it too deeply. So I scrolled down to read the comments below the “fact-check” article. In the comments a couple of people had posted links to a Youtube video featuring some of the White Helmets in a “mannequin challenge”.


What is a mannequin challenge (call me square but I’d never heard of this before)? This is a funny internet craze where people create videos showing groups of people who appear to be frozen in time while the camera pans around viewing them from different angles. It seems that some bright sparks in the White Helmets organization decided that it would be a good idea to make a mannequin challenge video of one of their “rescues”, in this case of a man from a bomb site. Unfortunately they didn’t really think this thing through, because by creating such an obviously fake video they have seriously damaged the credibility of the whole organization in one fell stroke. Any video they now produce of one of their “rescues” is going to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, however realistic or even actually real it may be. You can view the video in this article:

Quote from the article:

“The video and the related posts were recorded by RFS media with Syria Civil Defence (White Helmets) volunteers, who hoped to create a connection between the horror of Syria and the outside world, using the viral Mannequin Challenge,” the statement read.

“This was an error of judgement, and we apologise on behalf of the volunteers involved.

I can’t however help wondering in watching this mannequin challenge video if the people involved have done this sort of thing before (acting), there is something practiced about it, it does not look particularly amateurish to me. However of course I could be totally wrong, that’s pure speculation. You can watch it in the link and tell me what do you think.

Another quote from the article:

But critics, often pro-Assad or pro-Russia accounts on social media, allege links to jihadist groups and have long claimed that the organisation fabricates reports and rescues.

I can’t help feeling this is another attempt to discredit the people questioning the white helmets – the phrase “often pro-Assad or pro-Russia” seems loaded to me. So what if they are “pro-Assad” or “pro-Russia”, what difference does that make? What matters is whether the claims are true or false. This very article is surely doing exactly that – claiming that the white helmets have fabricated a rescue! Are the BBC “pro-Assad” or “pro-Russia”? I’ve never been under THAT impression. At least the BBC reported this, although I don’t know how prominently (this is a thing, sometimes the BBC will publish something important but not put it on the front page, squirrel it away in a section).

At the end of the article it says this:

A spokesman for the RFS told the BBC that the activist group occasionally used this kind of campaign to help shine a spotlight on the suffering of millions of ordinary Syrians.

He pointed out that in the past it had attempted to raise awareness of the conflict by leveraging the popularity of computer game Pokemon Go and comic-book heroes The Avengers.

Terrible though all this is I almost laughed when I read that somehow. Note it says “this kind of campaign”. What, faked rescue videos shine a spotlight on what exactly? Pokemon Go in a war-zone? That seems particularly alarming, don’t try this in your own war-zones kids.

This is a very important point to make I think – if we are to be no longer allowed to view a fake news item like this mannequin challenge video by the “White Helmets”, then we lose a vital bit of information that helps us decide whether to take the “White Helmets” seriously or whether to question every single video they produce. Of course this one video alone does not prove that they are a completely fake organization, not by any means. It is just one small piece of evidence that can help us to build a picture. If European governments ever go ahead with their plan to censor fake news, this vital information may end up being suppressed.

There are other serious allegations about the White Helmets mentioned at Wikipedia:


Snopes also “fact-checked” some of Eva’s claims including the Al Quds hospital claims and one about the little girl called “Aya”


Despite Bartlett’s claims, the existence of multiple children named “Aya” does not indicate the “recycling” of victims or prove that accounts of violence against Syrian civilians by their government are falsified. It attests only to the popularity of the given name Aya among Syrian families.

I didn’t look into this “fact-check” in detail, any feedback on it would be much appreciated – I think the stuff about the al-Quds hospital is much more interesting than this business about “Aya”, but if they believe in White Helmets videos after all the above then we have to wonder a bit at least. We know that the White Helmets have faked at least one video, after all.


Judging from some interviews I listened to, it would seem she is now spending a lot of time batting away these claims of “fake news” rather than actually reporting on things. It seems a shame really, doesn’t it. Why not do some reporting of your own MSM, instead of playing these childish games and slandering people without showing us anything to back your claims up with.


I’ve been confused since this whole thing started about whose side the West is on in the civil war in Syria, maybe we’re not sure. However apparently (according to the BBC) we have special forces fighting against the Islamic State:


The pictures, which date from June, follow an attack by the so-called Islamic State (IS) on the moderate rebel New Syrian Army base of Al Tanaf on the Syria-Iraq border.

Now, I’m sorry but I’ve really reached the point where I take the word “moderate” with a pinch of salt in all this. I suppose if we’re fighting the Islamic State then its a good thing, but if we’re helping to destablize Assad’s regime, well you see I just don’t know..

Back in 2013, we were trying to start a war against Assad:

Fair enough in that this was about trying to deter the use of chemical weapons, but now we have these claims that the “rebels” also may have used chemical weapons. Are we going to bomb both sides in the conflict? I suppose that might make sense if we had really precise weapons but in another claim, the RAF were accused of hitting some Syrian forces. We had Obama giving Assad “red line” warnings and things on that and then he didn’t do anything, if I remember right.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Assad DID use chemical weapons on civilians and its been proved by the UN:


The US and other council members have repeatedly blamed the Syrian government for the chlorine gas attacks, saying no other party in the four-year civil war has helicopters to deliver the toxic chemicals.

However in other claims surface to surface rockets were used to deliver chemical weapons.

Syria chemical attack: Key UN findings


I came across this website/blog which I’ve been following for a while to try and pick up anything useful but I’ve not commented on this site. Some of it may be fake news, or it may reflect what’s going on, I just don’t know (there I go again). It seems though that they genuinely are trying to make sense of what’s going on there, but it definitely is pro-Assad. There does seem to be another side of the story – that there are people in Syria who are Sunnis but they are also pro-Assad, who knows maybe even the majority of them are in this category. One of EB’s claims is that the Western media exaggerates the Sunni-Shia split. Some of the people who comment there are Muslims I think but the website is pro-Trump, so its a bit of an interesting mix of viewpoints to my mind:


I’ve looked at some of her blog but not in great depth. If anyone wants to dig in a bit and tell us all what they think I would be interested in what they have to say.


One link I noticed in her (EB’s) blogroll was the Corbett Report. I followed this guy for a little while ages (a few years) ago but I rather quickly came to the conclusion that he was a bit too into “conspiracy theories”, I didn’t think his claims really stood up to scrutiny after a while. He jumps to a lot of conclusions in my opinion, and the conclusions don’t seem to necessarily follow on from the claims he makes. He has some conspiracy about 9/11. I have never come across a 9/11 conspiracy theory that I found convincing, although I haven’t really taken a deep interest in the subject anyway. This is not to say I didn’t think questions needed to be asked about a lot of aspects of what happened, I’m just saying that I don’t believe the whole thing was orchestrated by people in the US, as Corbett seems to think. Linking to this site is not a plus point for Eva Bartlett in my view, unfortunately it kind of feeds into the narrative that she is a “conspiracy theorist” herself, and I don’t really get the impression that she is.

9/11 Conspiracy Theory:


In general I’m inclined to come to the conclusion that I don’t feel any of the sources are totally reliable, the phrase “fog of war” springs to mind. The war seems like a choice between the lesser (Assad) of two great evils.

If our governments are going to go meddling in these places and help enable the dismantling of law and order (leading to these terrible atrocities – see some of the links below), then I feel complicit in what they are doing, more and more these days. I am not anti-war as a principle thing at all, but I think we need to be a lot more questioning of what our government is doing. I have lost almost all confidence in our governments on almost every front. What do you think? Any fact-checking of my above article will be appreciated, I don’t want to make a mistake on this stuff.

If you think I got anything wrong, please let me know.


Syria conflict: Rebels ‘filmed beheading boy’ in Aleppo (quite why the BBC put that in quotes I don’t know, there is a video of it happening I believe (though I didn’t watch it)):


A legal adviser for the Western-backed Free Syrian Army was also cited by Enab Baladi as saying it would hold to account those responsible for such a violation.


In the feedback we received for this post at Not the Daily Telegraph, commenter DJ Mystery Twister posted a link to a Youtube video of a presentation by one Robert Stuart.

This contains claims that a BBC Panorama program featured fake footage of victims of chemical attacks in Syria.  The claim is also made that the BBC program was intended to encourage support for a UK military intervention in Syria against Assad that the then UK Prime Minister called for.  The UK government were defeated in parliament on this occasion however.

[@26.00] At the Frontline club the journalist does seem evasive – trying to suppress questions:

“It kind of makes me sick to my stomach that people would even believe that that did not happen.”

“I don’t want to even talk about that.”


Where Did All The (QE) Money Go?

[Second in a 2 part series about economics (the subject no-one knows much about) by a non-expert]


The idea of quantitative easing (QE) supposedly arose because inflation was falling in the wake of the banking crisis and people at the top started worrying about a “deflationary spiral” (you know for example where the house prices start to go down to sensible levels instead of going up all the time). The idea of QE is SUPPOSED to be that you depress interest rates and this stimulates lending, which in turn stimulates the economy. A side effect (or is it the main effect) of QE is that it depresses the yield on bonds (relative to how much the bonds cost), and therefore makes it cheaper for govt.s to borrow more money (I think that’s how it works). With our governments struggling with a seemingly ever growing debt burden, you can see the attraction of THAT to the govt. QE is not supposed to be like printing extra banknotes (you know like they did in Weimar Germany), but I think it is like that, except that its not banknotes that get made up out of thin air, its 1s and 0s on a computer somewhere, and there are also different immediate effects, which I will try to identify presently.

In this article the BBC attempts to explain quantitative easing to dummies:


Between 2008 and 2015, the US Federal Reserve in total bought bonds worth more than $3.7 trillion.

The UK created £375bn ($550bn) of new money in its QE programme between 2009 and 2012.

Hearing of all this extra money being printed at the time got me thinking, maybe I can get my hands on some of it! I therefore decided to ask for a raise. I went to see my boss at the office in which I worked and, a bit like Oliver Twist begging for his extra bowl of gruel, I meekly asked for a raise. “What, can’t you see I’ve got IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO RIGHT NOW TINKER!!!” shouted my boss and he thumped his fist on his desk, causing the steel balls of his desktop toy to crash into each other in a menacing manner. I imagined I could hear my colleagues sniggering in the office behind me as I retreated to his office door, stammering as I went “I’m sorry Mr. Shankly I did not realize you were so busy”. As I shuffled back to my desk I could see my colleagues smirking all around me and I thought to myself – I wish I was a banker, what am I doing here? It was true that that noble profession had taken a bit of a hit in the popularity stakes in recent years, following the recent banking crisis (like interest rates, popularity can go below zero). However it still seemed to be the only occupation where people still made anything like a decent income. It seemed pretty clear unfortunately that I was not going to see any of this money, after all. Anyway, enough about my own tragicomic existence.

At the end of the above BBC article there is a section titled:

Are there any losers from QE?

in which the BBC identifies who it thinks are the losers:

investors have to pay more to get the same income.

However I have this nagging feeling that these investors are not necessarily losers at all if they decide to sell their bonds back to the govt. (more on that in a moment). I have this nagging feeling that we, the little people, are the real losers, somehow. Remember that in matters of finance, there are always a lot of speculators swimming around with their dorsal fins sticking out of the water, waiting for an easy meal. I know that pensioners own bonds in their pension funds, so pensioners could be winners or losers in this I suspect, depending on who is managing their funds. There are a lot of younger people to think about however as well, who are struggling and striving away while the debt that will be their children’s legacy is growing.


Now I began to start wondering what on earth was going on in the wake of all this “quantitative easing”. In the first place, I rather expected high inflation to result (that’s normally what happens when govt.s print loads of money). There was a bit of inflation going on in the supermarket, I seemed to notice, but not really a huge amount. There did seem to be a slight improvement in the economy, if the newspapers were anything to go by, but you can’t believe everything you read in the newspapers. My own economic circumstances did not seem to have improved at all, what with slight inflation and stagnant wages and house prices going up again.

Then they reduced and then stopped quantitative easing for a bit, and again, nothing much seemed to happen. Where was this deflationary spiral we had been warned about by the experts? Surely now that QE had slowed down, there would be deflation! What the heck was going on?? Some media “economics” pundits were actually suggesting that the problem was we weren’t doing ENOUGH “quantitative easing”! It was such a great idea that we needed to print MORE money. In this article there is a graph showing how QE was in fact reduced in the UK from 2011 to 2012:

An anonymous young man showed up at a talk by Lionel Shriver (I don’t know who she is either), and explained to Ms. Shriver why the huge quantitative easing had not caused high inflation:


‘Only 8 per cent of QE has been re-lent into the productive economy’. The rest has gone to hedge funds and investment banks, which have stuck the dosh into ‘property and luxury assets of all kinds — which is why we see massive inflation in these particular asset classes, but not for the rest of us’.

I have a funny feeling that young man was right. This seems an entirely plausible account to me. I had been scratching my head about this for some time, trying to figure out what the heck was going on. So, the owners of these particular asset classes had got very rich, THAT was what had happened, and that was more or less ALL that had happened (apart from very low interest rates for govt. debt). This seemed to me rather believable, and a bit sickening, to put it mildly. But, if you just sell something (in this case bonds) for the same price you bought it, then you are no richer. The question is, are the bonds bought back at the same price the bonds were originally sold for? I think probably not.

Now I am dimly aware of a thing called the bond market. If there is a market for bonds, then bond prices surely go up and down, because that’s what things normally do in financial markets. I don’t know if this is really how it works (so please jump in and comment below if you know better than me), but it seems to me if people hear the govt. is about to buy back a load of its own bonds, then the price is going to go UP beforehand, meaning that some people who own bonds are going to get rich out of quantitative easing, because they will be selling for more than the price they bought at. Apparently I’m not the first person to think of this, but its “apparently” more complicated according to an expert at investopedia (when is finance not):

If anybody can read that and translate it into short plain English for me I will be grateful. So far, my suspicions remain. Why would people sell things at the same price they bought them at? Possibly they had decided the govt. was a dodgy institution and they just wanted to get rid of them? No, I don’t think things have got anywhere near that bad yet. Confidence in govt. lending may one day collapse, but we’re nowhere near that point yet, IMHO.

In a similar way (although in reverse), when Gordon Brown announced to the world that he was going to sell half of the UK’s gold reserves, the price of gold fell in anticipation, causing the UK to lose a lot of money in the sale:,_1999%E2%80%932002


The advance notice of the substantial sales drove the price of gold down by 10% by the time of the first auction on 6 July 1999

No doubt, not only did the UK get poorer, but some speculators circling around saw their opportunity and made a killing. If we blindly trust our politicians to look after the nation’s finances, then well you see what I’m driving at, that’s not been going very well in the recent past.


Here is the view from the Bank of England (beware, the BofE may be somewhat BIASED in this matter):

If you follow a link to a pdf at the end of this, you see it says:

The Bank of England creates new money electronically to buy financial assets like government bonds. This cash injection lowers the cost of borrowing and boosts asset prices to support spending and get inflation back to target.

Right, see that? That seems to be an admission of the assumption I made at the beginning, that a motivation is to lower the cost of govt. borrowing, its not all just about controlling inflation/deflation. So, it IS like Weimar Germany money printing, its just that the IMMEDIATE effects are different. That worries me, because I wonder what the LONGER term effects will be like as well.


Yes it is in the UK (I’m not sure about the US). Now that the bandwagon is rolling, its difficult to get it to stop. QE seems to have spread like a virus, the Japanese, the EU. I thought the UK had stopped but it appears they started again in 2016:

QE or not QE The Bank of England’s new quantitative-easing programme is not a failure

Note this article seems to think QE is good but it also seems to confirm that telling people in advance you’re going to buy large quantities of something affects the price, although it does so in economist-speak:

Bank officials suspect that the holders of long-term bonds underestimated the price that would prevail at the auction on August 9th. As a result they held back from selling. Now, however, the expectation is that at the next auction of long-term gilts, expected to be on August 16th, the final price will be higher. Investors are unlikely to make the same mistake.


What is Corbynomics exactly? When I first heard about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s “QE for the people” idea, I had visions of red helicopters (emblazoned with the hammer and sickle), flying over council estates and dropping wads of cash on the delighted inhabitants. I posted my council housing application that same day, hoping to position myself directly under the helicopters’ flight path.

It seems I got it wrong though, that’s not quite what “QE for the people” is all about. The Daily Mail explains it in their financial section:


His biggest headline-grabber has been the suggestion of People’s QE to fund his infrastructure plans, which we explain below.
Meanwhile, Corbyn says he would end the public sector pay freeze, and he is a staunch opponent of welfare cuts. He argues that austerity is about political choices not economic necessities – and that there is money available.
new, large-scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Well you know, there is always money available, over in socialism opposite-land. It seems Corbyn is actually planning to print money and use it to build council houses for one thing, and then rent them out (no doubt at low rents well below the rental market) to poor people, including to those who don’t work no doubt. Having now spent a considerable part of my adult life working and saving to buy a little house which forever grew in “value”, always staying tantalizingly just beyond reach, I have to tell you readers that I am not very happy about Corbyn’s plans, not very happy at all. Being a wage slave for a company is one thing, but being a wage slave for a company AND a loony lefty govt., well that’s too much. I quit.

Governments in the UK in the last century built a lot of council houses (and tower blocks), and many of them have since been demolished. A lot of the houses that were demolished to make way for the new council houses were perfectly useful houses, that were labelled as “slums” by the govt. often for really silly reasons such as the fact that they didn’t have bathrooms. A lot of the tower blocks that replaced these perfectly good houses have since become slums themselves, “sink estates” where drug taking and gang culture goes on. Quite a lot of these tower blocks have been blown up in controlled demolitions since. I don’t want to sound patronizing, I know this is very basic economics, but if you build some houses and then knock them down and then build some more and then knock them down and so on, this all costs money.

It seems a slum is more defined by the behaviour of its inhabitants than the buildings. Many of the tower blocks were truly hideous as well, and many of the little terrace houses that escaped demolition have since had bathrooms and fancy kitchens installed (not to mention damp proofing) and the areas have become gentrified and seen astronomical house price rises despite the modest investment in refurbishment. If you think drug taking and gang culture doesn’t go on in nicer low-rise estates as well btw, think again, it does. This is probably a subject for a separate discussion though, council housing is a big subject in its own right, and I do appreciate there were problems with overcrowding in those days.

Would Corbyn’s ‘QE for people’ float or sink Britain?


For the avoidance of doubt, this is not same-old, same-old socialism; it is new, radical thinking.

It sounds very same-old, same-old to me. Is this the same-old, same-old BBC, grasping at a straw – leftyism may have failed in every “form” its taken, its just not been done the right way yet (bit like what many Muslims in the West say about Islam)? Robert Peston, the smug BBC (now ITV) economist superstar, does however conclude his article by expressing doubts about Corbynomics (I can never quite work out if Peston is a proper lefty or not, he seems to hedge his bets in both directions here):

Because there would be widespread concerns that the Bank of England would be indirectly financing white elephants via this investment bank – and would, as I mentioned earlier, be throwing good money after bad.

Ambrose Evans Pritchard (that well known member of the Communist party (that’s fake news by the way, he isnt really)) at the DT is egging Corbyn on:

Jeremy Corbyn’s QE for the people is exactly what the world may soon need


Much of the money has leaked into asset booms, greatly enriching the “haves”, with a painfully slow trickle-down to the rest of society. A pervasive sense that the financial elites pulled a blinder – while austerity is for little people – explains in part why Mr Corbyn has suddenly stormed into the limelight, and why the US socialist Bernie Sanders has so upset the Democratic primaries.

AEP seems to confirm my above suspicions here about QE causing an asset boom at least. Note what he is saying here, note it well – Corbyn should not be underestimated. Note particularly that Corbyn is promising to crack down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, which will also be a vote winner, even though every party always says that. Then AEP made me wonder if he might be a member of the Communist party after all, when he says this:

[Milton] Friedman did not, of course, mean that banknotes should be dropped from the sky, though they could be in extremis, but rather that central banks have the means to create money to fund tax cuts, or to cover state spending, until the economy comes back to life.

See that “though they could be in extremis”, so AEP would actually support the fictional/joke helicopter drop that I described at the beginning of this section. Fortunately one of our correspondents was on hand to witness the first helicopter money drop:

PILOT: Welcome on board Mr Evans-Pritchard, did you bring those suitcases full of banknotes that we told you to bring, of your own money, that we’re going to throw out of the helicopter?

AEP: Yes, I brought them as requested, I think this scheme is an excellent investment opportunity! Power to the people!

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: Corbyn air traffic control here, you are clear for takeoff! Good luck with the money drop!

That’s fake news by the way, I just made that up.

AEP also says this:

Some invoke the spectre of Weimar, but Germany’s hyperinflation of 1923 followed the breakdown of the Wilhelmine state after the First World War. The German people saw it as their patriotic duty not to pay taxes that would be siphoned off for Versailles reparations.

Weimar tells us absolutely nothing about the merits or demerits of monetary financing in stable democratic societies with fully-functioning institutions that face a deflation crisis.

I would be interested to know what readers make of THAT.

Corbyn also wants to introduce a MAXIMUM wage, just by the by:

How would Tinkernomics work? Tinker is of the view that when governments meddle, they make a mess. Tinker favours a more hands off approach that involves governments not printing money, and not doing a lot of other things as well, such as knocking perfectly good houses down to make way for new houses that have to be knocked down after a few decades.


There is no easy way out of a big national debt (IMHO), except to reduce govt. spending or increase taxes, or to sell off assets. I suspect that some people are getting rich out of QE right now, not for doing anything useful. It may be that the national debt (that’s OUR debt) is not going up as rapidly as it might otherwise be if bond yields were higher, but we can’t keep doing this QE, we are living in la la land if we think so.

If the real aim of QE is to get the national debt down (or stop it getting any bigger) by printing money, and the fear about a deflationary spiral is unfounded (as it seems to be to me), then I think the consequence will be some type of inflation.  There will be inflation in SOMETHING corresponding to the amount of the QE, and growing wealth inequality if the QE mainly benefits people who are already rich.

If we keep doing the type of QE we have been doing then the wealth gap will grow so big that eventually Corbyn will be able to storm the capital with his comrades and the red flag will be flying over Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament (not literally of course).

What do you think? Please add your comments below.


Jon Roland:

The Guardian jumps on the Corbynomics bandwagon:

Are Our Banks Still Too Big To Fail?

[Readers please note I will come back to the post-truth part 2 after this series, I got distracted onto the subject of the banking crisis and related stuff this week.]

[First in a 2 part series on a subject no-one knows much about – economics]


There was a time when I kept my head down, shuffling along with the other commuters, then jammed in like a dead sardine on a tube train as I made my way to my 9-5 office job. I did sometimes wonder what went on inside those giant soulless steel and glass office blocks towering all around me, that seemed to grow ever taller. I did sometimes wonder why the UK seemed to be so obsessed with finance in London while the rest of the country dwindled. The former industrial powerhouse of the Midlands and North was now a depressed area where state welfare seemed to be the main source of a great many people’s incomes. Mrs. Thatcher seemed to have transformed the country for the better overall, there were no longer 3 day weeks, endless strikes and power cuts at least. Somehow however unless you were a banker, or a stockbroker, or a property magnate, or a lawyer perhaps, you had this painful feeling that you were being screwed. What did all these now-venerated occupations have in common? Well they were essentially non-productive in the sense that they did not produce anything useful or even tangible.

I had begun to notice that the more money I earned, that more of those extra earnings seemed to disappear in deductions that mysteriously occurred on my pay cheque. The little terraced house I thought I was going to be able to afford next year, when I got that pay increase I was promised for my hard work, had mysteriously acquired another £20,000 in “value” and was as far beyond my reach as ever. I was striving it seemed, to little avail. I began to take an interest in economics, hoping to solve this riddle of my futile existence. I read the newspaper columns and talked to my friends and colleagues. Some people were confident that there would soon be a house price crash. “House prices can’t just keep on rising forever” they said, “it doesn’t make sense!”. We (the little people) were all hoping for this – the thing that the “economists” were most afraid of, a house price crash – so that we could finally afford to buy a house.

Pundits in the media debated what was being called Gordon Brown’s “miracle economy”, and Prime Minister Tony Blair (of the Labour party) lauded his sidekick at no.11 “the best chancellor for 100 years.”:


Stephanie finds, as she travels the country, that it is spending and borrowing that has filled the gap – thanks to cheap money and cheap Asian imports.

How can you run an economy on “spending and borrowing” I wondered, is this really the best we’ve done for 100 years? Where on earth was all this “cheap money” coming from? Was this a miracle or a mirage? My experience of money was that it was very expensive, the concept of “cheap” money was quite alien to me.

That eminent banker Fred Goodwin, the CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland, became Sir Fred Goodwin, his knighthood awarded for “services to banking”. Us mere mortals could only gaze up in awe at the towering giants of the banking world, who loomed above us like demi-gods, flying to and fro between the financial capitals of the world in their private jets, dealing in billions.


Then came the banking crisis of 2008/9 and finally my nagging doubts about what was really going on, had turned to downright alarm. Was that basket that the UK had been putting all its eggs into, the financial sector, in fact just a giant house of cards that was about to tumble down? Fortunately Gordon Brown (of the Labour party), now the Prime Minister, was on hand to sort out the mess, he stepped up to the dispatch box in the House of Commons and casually revealed that he had saved the world. British politics had produced a real saviour to rival any of those fictitious Marvel comic-book super-heroes.

However before long my nagging doubts began to return. Had Gordon Brown really saved the world or merely “kicked the can down the road”? We were being told that the banks were too big to be allowed to fail, and so the PM had bailed the banks out, adding a large lump of extra debt to our national debt. The national debt had shot up from 35.5% of GDP in April 2008 to 65.5% of GDP by the time Labour were voted out in May 2010, and during the so-called “austerity” period that followed, where the Coalition and Conservatives were in power, the debt has continued to grow (it now stands at 83.9% (depending on who you ask)), although it is has stopped rising so quickly now (figures from the ONS):

By the way the UK national debt total is now apparently:


In case you got lost among all those digits – that’s quite a lot. To put it in context its very roughly £75,000 per taxpayer by my calculations. That’s what it was a couple of days ago anyway, according to:

although the Daily Telegraph seems to think its a bit lower than that:

At last house prices had indeed crashed somewhat but it wasn’t long before they started to rise again, albeit in a more shaky manner, as demonstrated by this graph:

Sir Fred (aka “Fred the Shred”), the man who more than anybody in the UK had come to be associated with the banking crisis, was reduced back to merely plain old Fred again, losing his knighthood in 2012. It seems he was also not a banker, if this is accurate:

The Labour front benches were in some confusion about how Fred had ever come to be knighted in the first place (it was something about charity was it Harriet, not “services to banking”?), to the amusement of the other parties:


So, Fred the Shred was taken down a peg or two (maybe that wasn’t enough pegs), but what had caused the crash? As the 2008 crisis unfolded we had learned about all the hair-raising goings on that had led to the crisis, such as these convoluted things called “collateralized debt obligations” (CDOs) which we were told (if I remember right) were “parcels” containing lots of little bits of debt, including dodgy “sub-prime” mortgage debts.

Other complicated sounding thingies like “credit default swaps” also were mentioned, you can find out what they are all about here (good luck with that):

We were told banks were lending to each other in a bizarre spider’s web of interconnections. Why?? Why were banks lending to each other? The point of banks is to lend to individual people and businesses, not to EACH OTHER, surely?? This system is also known as Fictional Reserve Banking – where banks lend to each other to somehow (I don’t know how) create the impression that they have reserves. I am of course making this all up, or am I? Judge for yourself:


Low transaction volume in this market was a major contributing factor to the financial crisis of 2007.

Am I alone here or does this sound patently absurd? Low levels of inter-bank lending was a major cause of the financial crisis?


Enough of reminiscing about all this, let us turn our minds to where we are at now, and where we are heading. What has changed at the banks exactly?  Perhaps some of the worst excesses have receded, but I wonder – is inter bank lending still going on, it appears that it is:

Who on earth is lending to our government now that interest rates are set at the ridiculously low rate of 0.25% (I fear the answer is the banks)? Is lending to the government really a safe thing to do with your hard earned savings? Would you lend money to Gordon Brown for example, if he was just a person?

According to this article, some sub-prime lending is back (although at a high interest rate):

In this article the BBC asks why anyone would lend money at a negative interest rate (negative interest rates are now a thing apparently). Generosity perhaps? Philanthropy? I don’t know, here is the BBC’s view:

I can’t help looking at all this stuff without thinking its just not possible for a real human being to know what’s going on in the financial sector any more. It wasn’t back in the run up to the financial crisis, and I really believe that it still isn’t. That worries me. To give us some idea of how complicated its got – apparently whizz kids in the financial “industry” have created mind-boggling computer programs that automatically make speculative transactions, this led to a new type of thingy called a “flash crash” in 2010:

Wow, that’s flashy!! Did those whizz kids get their Ferraris repo’d I wonder?


I don’t want to start a panic, a run on the banks, but I am continuing to wonder – are the banks still too big to fail? Has anything really changed in the banking sector? As I walk down the high street in my little town, I see the same big names that were there before – HSBC, Natwest, RBS etc., and the big building societies as well.

The government has guaranteed deposits of up to £75,000 but does this just make us lazy and not bother to look for alternatives to the high street banks, and not question THEIR credit worthiness? The very fact that big banks are “too big to fail” i.e. will be bailed out by the govt., surely makes us more inclined to bank with those very banks, giving them an unfair competitive advantage and making them lazy? This is always the problem with govt. interventions of course, the unintended consequences.

If the banks are still “too big to fail”, and we have another crisis, what will happen? Will the govt. bail the banks out again and add even more to the national debt? Is a bailout actually a sort of reward for failure, where does all the bailout money actually go, is there any oversight? Of course the heads of the failed organizations are usually at least replaced, but many of the employees and the organization itself are often not, so the organization still survives – RBS is still with us for example.

The Guardian takes a look at Steve Eisman’s view on the likelihood of another crash (Steve Eisman got rich quick by predicting the last crisis and shorting stocks):

Although he is focused on Italian banks in particular, I can’t help wondering if a crisis in the Eurozone could easily cause major problems for our financial sector, what with all this inter-bank lending going on, not to mention the basic economic impact such a crisis would have on the UK. Also, do our banks and pension funds own government bonds issued by other countries I wonder? Perhaps we should be reassured by Eisman’s view of our banks today:

I’m not really worried about England’s banks,” says Eisman. “They are in better shape than most in Europe.

This article talks knowingly about “stress tests” but I have to wonder if anyone just tried blowing really hard at the house of cards to see if it would fall down. After every crisis these people emerge who were unknown before the crisis, and shot to fame for predicting the crisis. I think we need to be careful not to assume they didn’t just get lucky. There still seem to be quite a few dubious things going on as far as I can see, from my limited knowledge.


The “Austrian” school think we should return to the gold standard, might not be a bad idea:

A guy called George Selgin thinks that we could avoid future banking crises, he has published some of his ideas here:

New forms of currency have emerged – we have recently seen the emergence of Bitcoin and the Totnes pound:

I’m not sure if these will help the situation or not.

I wonder if the very phrase “too big to fail” is a misleading one. Could we make our big banks smaller without damaging their competitiveness in the global economy? Is the question the wrong one to be asking in any case, should we instead be asking if our govt. has grown too big to function sensibly? We have come to rely on our govt. to sort out any problems that come up, but does the govt. just make even bigger problems more likely in the longer run when it does “sort” our problems out in the present?

No-one wants to lose all their savings so its comforting to know the govt. has guaranteed our savings, but without such a guarantee we would be more cautious – we would spread the risk probably by splitting our savings across different banks for example. We might also be more likely to try other forms of investment to spread the risk still further. There are interesting new alternatives out there such as peer-to-peer lending sites for both personal loans and business loans now. We put all our money in the big banks but I have heard from businesses that these same banks are reluctant to lend (no doubt partly because the interest rates are so low). Is this state regulated and state supported (on a crutch) banking sector more of a hindrance to economic prosperity now? Is the relationship between governments and banks something like a marriage gone wrong where both partners are too afraid of what might happen if they split up? I am increasingly inclined to think so myself. The more I think about politics the more I think we need a smaller, less interventionist state. Maybe its not so much more regulation that we need, but rather a lot less regulation and interference.


I don’t know the answers to all these huge questions, but I have a nagging feeling that the questions probably need to be asked in order to forestall another worse crisis in the future. There is also the question of course – could we get our money back at some point for the last bailout or will our grandchildren still be paying for the mistakes of the bankers and politicians? What do you think about it all? Please add your by comments below (please try to make your explanations intelligible to the non-banker especially if you are an industry insider).

In the next episode I will take a highly in-expert look into the phenomenon of “Quantitative Easing”.

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 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


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 »

High Court Judge Rules Islam Is A Religion Of Peace!

A UK High Court judge has ruled that Islam is a religion of peace as part of a decision in a libel case. This is very troubling because it may set a precedent that could influence future court judgements in the UK. This very serious (and probably wilful) misunderstanding of the Islamic religion is now in danger of becoming entrenched in the UK legal system. The case in question was a libel action brought by one Shakeel Begg against the British Broadcasting Corporation. The full details of the case are available here:

The case was commented on quite widely in the media, for example Douglas Murray hailed the judgement as a landmark victory in an article in the Spectator. However most commentators including Mr. Murray seem to have overlooked the fact that the ruling included this pronouncement about the nature of the Islamic religion. This aspect and the details of the judgement were brought to my notice by Graham Senior-Milne, who has written a detailed paper looking particularly at this aspect of the case. Its an entertaining and thought-provoking read, he draws some interesting conclusions:

Some comments on the case of Shakeel Begg v BBC

For brevity here I will just quote a few of his key points in this post.

One website that did comment on the interpretation of Islam in the judgement was a prominent UK Islamic website. I won’t link to that article as it may attract unwelcome attention from various directions, but in the article they also complained that the judgement would set a legal precedent about what is “acceptable” Islam in the UK courts.


Mr. Begg felt that he had been libelled by an episode of the BBC’s Sunday Politics program. The words he was particularly upset about were these:

The East London Mosque, which you personally and the MCB closely associated with, it’s also the venue for a number of extremist speakers and speakers who espouse extremist positions. This year Shakeel Begg, he spoke there and hailed jihad as “the greatest of deeds”. In 2009 the mosque hosted a video presentation by somebody described by US security as an Al-Quaeda supporter. You had another speaker there who in the past had described Christians and Jews as “filth”. You’ve had a jihadist supporter of the Taliban there. Why do you do nothing to stop extremism, extremists like that, at this mosque with which you’re associated with.


You can see the bailii page for the full judgement, but here are some of the most important points:

It is common ground that Islam is a religion of peace. The Qur’an is a book of peace.


I find the words complained of (“WCO”) are substantially true in their meanings: (1) The Claimant is an extremist Islamic speaker who espouses extremist Islamic positions. (2) The Claimant had recently promoted and encouraged religious violence by telling Muslims that violence in support of Islam would constitute a man’s greatest deed.


The Claimant was something of a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ character: he presented a (benign) face to the local Lewisham and inter-faith community and another (extremist) face to receptive Muslim audiences on chosen occasions.


Mr. Senior-Milne draws our attention to paragraphs 112-113. In these paragraphs the judge hears Mr. Begg’s expert say that the Quran “licences” both offensive and defensive jihad, and the BBC’s expert say that it only allows armed defence. The experts also agree that there are differences of opinion among both Sunni and Shia jurists about what even constitutes offensive and defensive jihad. Somehow the judge then perplexingly decides from all this “expert” testimony that the Quran permits only defensive jihad, despite the clear difference in opinion between the two experts and the fact they say there is confusion among Islamic jurists on the question as well. In Mr. Senior-Milne’s words:

Arriving at a clear view necessarily means that you have resolved the key uncertainties, whatever they are. This is utter nonsense.  And it is nonsense in relation to the most critical question – whether Islam is a religion of peace. If Islam mandates offensive war then, by definition, it is not a religion of peace. So how can you conclude that Islam is a religion of peace while leaving unanswered the question of whether Islam mandates offensive war? You can’t.


No, it is not a religion of peace because Islam incites violence/offensive warfare/terror against the “disbelievers”.  I explained my own reasons for reaching this conclusion here:

Incitement and Religion

Douglas Murray and Ayaan Hirsi Ali also managed to convince a large audience in an Intelligence Squared debate that Islam is not a religion of peace, despite the fact that they were up against Maajid Nawaz who is a Muslim who is very familiar with his own religion.

The judge came to the wrong conclusion about Islam.  The idea that Islam is a religion of peace is not “common ground” at all.


The judge seemed to think that it was necessary to decide whether Mr. Begg’s views were extreme compared to mainstream Islam. No it was not necessary to do this. There was no need for the court to listen to any experts’ opinions about the nature of the Islamic religion. As Mr. Senior-Milne puts it:

The question of extremism should not be judged by reference to (through the prism of) Islam at all – and for a very simple reason. If Islam itself is extreme in a certain way by the standards of the ordinary reasonable man, then a man who espouses such extremism is not extreme by Islamic standards (he is mainstream Islam), but he is extreme by the standards of the ordinary reasonable man. And it is by the standards of the ordinary reasonable man that the question of libel must be assessed – as Haddon-Cave himself acknowledges elsewhere in his judgment (para. 62).

Put it this way, if Haddon-Cave had found that Islam is extreme, would be have found that the BBC had libelled Shakeel Begg because, while he does espouse terrorism, he is not extreme by Islamic standards because Islam itself mandates terrorism?


The judgement has at least exposed Mr. Shakeel Begg’s activities and also shone a bit of a spotlight on what goes on in Lewisham mosque. It also has shone a bit of a spotlight on the Muslim Council of Britain, as Douglas Murray points out, serious questions now need to be asked of that organization because the Lewisham Islamic centre is a member.

Had we better perhaps investigate some more of the UK’s mosques to discover if more of them are similarly misunderstanding their religion (or should we say THE HON. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE’s interpretation of their religion)? Those of you who remember the excellent Channel 4 documentary Undercover Mosque will know that this isn’t the first time that those preaching in mosques have misunderstood THE HON. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE’s interpretation of their religion. To be fair those preachers had been speaking before THE HON. MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE had announced his decision.

Douglas Murray also draws our attention to the fact that apparently Lewisham mosque operates as a charity. Readers may wish to vent their frustration at the charity commission for assisting in the propagation of such extreme views. From Douglas Murray’s article:

Perhaps readers would like to ask the Charity Commission themselves. Complaints to the Charity Commission can be registered here:

The Lewisham Islamic Centre’s Charity number is: 285641.

Please submit your complaint.


Mr. Senior Milne says that:

Note that the case has taken three years to determine (and there might still be an appeal).

I find it very alarming that so much of the High Court’s time has been wasted on this matter. I hope that Mr. Begg will personally have to foot the bill to cover every last penny of the costs.


A Dr Salman Butt is apparently bringing a somewhat similar libel action against the UK government for accusing him of being an extremist. He can be heard talking about his views here:

BBC Radio 4 Law in Action

(Note – BBC programs do not always remain available indefinitely, readers might want to download the podcast if they want to listen at a later date).

It will be interesting to see whether this judgement will have a bearing on the decision in this forthcoming case.


Theresa May and David Cameron have been promising for some time that they will “stamp out extremism in all its forms” as an objective of their “Prevent” strategy. Many are inclined to think the strategy is having a good effect when it upsets Muslims. However the problem with the government’s strategy is not only that it is based on the avoidance of truth about the Islamic religion, but more worryingly still they have decided that all sorts of other people merit the label “extremist”, including some of their political opponents, and that those people should be silenced using “Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders”. They also want to tar opponents of the Islamic religion with the label “extremist”, because they too fail to fall in line with the establishment version of Islam. Could it be that the judge in this case felt somehow obliged to reinforce the government’s re-invention of the Islamic religion (which some have referred to disparagingly as “MI5 Islam”)?

It should not matter in our legal system who is an “extremist” and who is not. The word is subjective, it can never therefore be a useful term in drawing up laws. What matters is who incites violence and who does not.


This judgement about the nature of the Islamic religion seems to have been inspired by the establishment’s group-think view of how the threat of Islamic terrorism should be countered. The establishment imagine (in their deluded ideological bubble) that if they redefine Islam as a peaceful friendly sort of religion that the followers of the religion will stop noticing the words plainly written in black and white in their holy books. Obviously it is a strategy not only utterly doomed to failure but also almost certainly likely to exacerbate the dangers we face – by suppressing the honest debate that needs to take place and so allowing the problems to grow unchallenged.


Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders

The Pretend Strategy – From Chamberlain to Cameron


The “Brexit Hate Surge”

Around the time of the Brexit referendum the BBC and other online media outlets began sensationally reporting that there had been a surge of reported “hate crime reports” or “hate crime incidents” in the UK following the result. The narrative was that this was a sign of an upsurge of racism or xenophobia against immigrants/people of foreign origins. Many news sites were quick to try to portray this phenomenon as somehow a product of the Brexit campaign. This should be regarded as a sort of smear campaign against the Leave campaign. Were these sites trying to create the environment for a second EU referendum? The fact that these same sites had generally shown a pro-Remain bias should be noted.

Feeble politicians were goaded by pseudo-journalists into condemning the disgusting epidemic of hate.  Note that I use the phrase “hate incident” because that is the technically correct phrase to use, while the media generally referred to “reported hate crime” or “hate crime incidents”. I use the “hate incident” wording because the figures generally reported are merely the REPORTS of “hate incidents”, which are not necessarily crimes. By referring to these figures as “hate crime” reports the media are misleading their readers.


At the Independent news site this article appeared:

EU referendum: Reports of hate crime increase 57% following Brexit vote


There were 85 reports of hate crimes to True Vision, a police-funded reporting website, between Thursday and Sunday compared with 54 reports over the same period four weeks ago.

So, this sensationalist headline referring to a 57% increase was in fact referring to the reporting of a mere 31 reported hate incidents NATIONWIDE. Hardly statistically significant in a country of 65,000,000 PLUS people. The article also did not reveal what the nature of those 31 incidents was.

There was a similarly absurd article about the same data published by sky news:

Hate Crime Reports Up 57% In Brexit Aftermath

An even more sensationalist headline appeared a few days later in the Independent:

Racism unleashed: True extent of the ‘explosion of blatant hate’ that followed Brexit result revealed


Exclusive: Prime Minister accused of helping create the ‘hostile environment’ that paved the way for ‘F*** off to Poland’ messages, excrement through letter boxes, and racist abuse from children as young as ten

The Independent also published another report that attempted to prove that the hate surge was largest in Euro-sceptic areas in a further attempt to tarnish the Leave campaign:

Brexit: Surge in anti-immigrant hate crime in areas that voted to leave EU


In the BBC news website this article appeared:

The article began with this sensational announcement in bold letters:

More than 6,000 hate crimes have been reported to police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the wake of the EU referendum, figures show.

By using the phrase “in the wake of the EU referendum”, the wording here is clearly designed to sensationally suggest that the 6,000 hate incidents are somehow related to the EU referendum. In fact the figure of 6,000 was just the TOTAL number of reported hate incidents in the UK for the month. The article then reveals that this figure was only around 30% higher than the same period in the previous year. So even if you take these figures blindly at face value, then the most you could sensibly claim is that 1,800 reported “hate incidents” were somehow POSSIBLY (not NECESSARILY) related to the EU referendum campaign. Furthermore the quoted figures were for a whole month, they were not restricted to the immediate period around the referendum.

Further down the article it is then suggested that there have been changes in the way “hate incidents” are reported.

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the rise in reports could also be in part due to increased awareness of the problem and greater awareness of how to report it.

… thereby casting further doubt on the sensational announcement at the start of the article.  In reference to this it should be noted that there had also been an 18% increase in 2015 over the previous year, which was probably due to the fact that the public are being encouraged to report more of these “hate incidents”.

The article also stated:

The main type of offence reported over the month was “violence against the person”, which includes harassment and common assault, as well as verbal abuse, spitting and “barging”.

This is again misleading because incidents reported are not necessarily offences. Only once the police have investigated the “hate incident” and successfully prosecuted the case can it be described as an offence. Before then it is only at most an alleged offence. Some of the reported incidents may have been entirely made up for all we know, many others may well not have qualified as crime at all. It also seems very strange to me that mere “verbal abuse” should be included in a category of “violence against the person”.

The article overall contains two videos which both describe particular alleged racist incidents. This helps to build a subliminal impression that the figures related to racist “hate incidents” alone. However there is NO BREAKDOWN of the figures to reveal the more specific nature of the incidents, for example if there was a surge in racism which races were involved.

In summary then the very worst case is that 1,800 extra “hate incidents” were reported in the whole month period. So, out of a UK total population of 65.1 million (at least) then less than 0.003% (or about 1 in every 35,000 people) felt the need to report such an incident to the police in this month over and above incidents reported last year. Also, bear in mind that these included as “hate incidents” behaviour as minor as verbal abuse (one estimate put these at 76% of the reported incidents (1)). For all we know most of these incidents might have been cases of verbal abuse aimed at Leave campaigners. We just don’t know.


Judging by the ferocity of hatred against Nigel Farage uncovered by Breitbart here:

‘Shoot And Stab Nigel Farage’: Hundreds Of Social Media Messages Urging Attacks On UKIP Leader Revealed

I think its fairly safe to say that any actual increase in hate that genuinely can be attributed to the referendum campaign did not by any means all come from the Leave side of the argument.  Ironically one of the “hate criminals” revealed in this article is one Noel Fielding, a “comedian” who regularly appears on BBC TV, who apparently had “joked” in 2015 (2):

“don’t applaud Farage, stab him”


Breitbart reported:

Speaking on Tuesday, Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton clarified that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed.

See the article in full here:


The London Mayor wasted no time in trying to link the supposed racial hate surge with the referendum:

“You can’t escape the conclusion that there is a link between the referendum and a surge in racial incidents.”

During the referendum campaign he had attempted to tar the Leave campaign with the phrase “project hate” (3):

“Immigration has brought huge economic, cultural and social benefits to our country,” Mr Khan said. “Your campaign hasn’t been project fear, it’s been project hate as far as immigration is concerned.”

This is the same Sadiq Khan who not so long ago referred to “Uncle Toms” during a TV interview.  The phrase is a highly derogatory term that is used to describe those of ethnic minorities who get too friendly with the white man (4).

The wannabe first Muslim Prime Minister of the UK is now seizing his opportunity to set up an Orwellian specialized thought police unit to censor the internet:

London Mayor To Set Up Police ‘Online Hate Crime Hub’ In ‘Partnership’ With Social Media Firms

Anybody voting for this man can expect the UK would turn into a quasi theocratic Islamic police state, Erdogan style, if he is ever elected to the top job.


As you can imagine our new UK home secretary Amber Rudd, far from trying to damp down the surge in wild exaggeration by our stupid media, jumped on the bandwagon instead and announced a plan to tackle “hate crime”:

Another quote from the Independent (5):

New Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced a series of measures to tackle hate crime following a surge in reports after the Brexit vote.

She was quoted as saying:

“Hatred does not get a seat at the table, and we will do everything we can to stamp it out”

You can’t “stamp out” hatred home secretary.  Hatred is thought, you can’t “stamp out” what goes on in people’s minds.

Meanwhile the new home secretary continues to fail to regain control of our borders.  Her predecessor, Theresa May, also failed to regain control of our borders during the 5 years she was the home secretary.  The Conservatives were elected in 2010 with the promise that they were going to reduce immigration to the 10s of 1000s, no ifs, no buts, said the (then) Tory leader David Cameron.  They have failed to reduce immigration throughout their whole time in office so far, and they continue to not reduce immigration.


Some voices of reason were to be heard elsewhere on the web however:

Imaginary Yet True Headline: British Treat Opponents Tolerantly After Brexit Vote


Considering that the sensational media reporting began before there was even any significant data available, we cannot discount the possibility that these articles may have also increased awareness of the reporting system’s existence.   This could have encouraged people to report incidents that they might not have bothered to report otherwise.


To summarize, the media have attempted to smear the Brexit referendum result as creating a significantly increased climate of racial hatred on the basis of no evidence at all.  Our political leaders have hastily responded to the non-event.

See Also:

The BBC’s own article on the previous year’s 18% (2014-2015) “surge” in hate incidents that was obviously nothing to do with the referendum: