Anti-Semitism…The Facts…Just Not The Facts As You Know Them



Imagine my surprise when I heard 5Live telling us in concerned tones that anti-Semitism was on the rise in universities.  I was surprised because it was not four weeks ago that I was posting about the BBC scrambling to put out a counter to claims that anti-Semitism was rife at universities.  I guess the BBC didn’t want our Christmas to be spoiled with all those claims reminding us that the Jews killed Jesus.

Four weeks on and, well, it’s not really the BBC’s choice of subject, it’s a Jewish guest editor’s choice….the BBC really are getting all diverse and multicultural.  Oh..hold on…she maybe Jewish almost certainly left-leaning and of a BBC persuasion…anyone who uses the words ‘uplifting’ and ‘privileged’ is definitely suspect.  Suspicions unfortunately confirmed by just about every other word.  She’s a guest editor on the BBC for a reason.

So anti-Semitism is rising in universities?  Well not in this alternate universe.  The BBC seems to have found another Jewish student in complete denial or too scared to tell the truth.

Anti-Semitism is rising in universities not because of fellow students, of whatever ideological persuasion, but because of outsiders, neo-Nazis, Fascists, the Far-Right…..and of course Islamophobia is a concern for her.  In fact Jews and Muslim students get along just fine….people who face the same oppression must unite our guest editor tells us.

Image result for hitler was right muslims

She tells us of some graffiti that said ‘Hitler was right’.  Hmmm…Seem to remember that’s something that comes out of the mouths of highly respected moderate Muslim preachers…..

Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.

Still, it’s got to be those neo-Nazis, not a single word about Muslim anti-Semitism nor indeed Labour Party anti-Semitism.

Nihal expressed surprise at the graffiti and said he couldn’t believe that in 2017 this was the world we live in…well, Nihal, it’s the world that the BBC’s reporting  has helped create with its remorseless and maliciously anti-Israel/Jewish ‘reporting.

The CST gave some facts, it put some numbers to the anti-Semitism.  And indeed white boys were responsible for 55%.

But hang on….45% was down to essentially Muslims…or Pakistanis, Arabs and Blacks [how many are converts?] as the man rather coyly called them.  So 45% is due to ethnic minorities, basically Muslims…of which there are under 3 million, what 4-5% of the population?…and how many Whites?  87% or so of the population is White….so 45% of anti-Semitism is due to 4-5% and the rest is due to 87% of the population…telling figures no?

But hang on again, there’s one more wrinkle…not all the white boy anti-Semites are Far-Right neo-Nazi Fascists…many of them are of the Left….reference Labour.

So when the BBC tells us that Britain is getting nastier and more racist due to a rise in the Far-Right due to Brexit one look at the figures tells a completely different tale.

Shame everyone seems to scared to say anything…or are lying through their teeth.






Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Facts, Alt-Facts, or Just No Facts?


The BBC has been blitzing us with half-truths and lies by omission as it continues its assault on Trump.

Got to laugh at those who whinge about Trump getting a state visit so ‘early’…same people probably applauded Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize as he took office.

The BBC in all its hours of coverage have never, in my hearing, mentioned that Obama also blocked Iraqi refugees for 6 months…even as they tell us how important an ally Iraq is to us and Trump’s ban will wreck the relationship…or that the countries chosen were chosen by Obama’s administration as of concern….ah no…they have finally caught up after days not reporting it….at least it’s on the website if not on news bulletins.   Read it though and it tries to blame the Republicans for Obama’s restrictions or tries to muddy the water and confuse you as to whether Obama did ban Iraqi refugees…

Trump referred to an incident in May 2011 when the FBI indicted two Iraqi citizens in Kentucky on federal terrorism charges. Both were accused of providing material support to al-Qaeda and had been involved in attacks against US forces in Iraq.

A hearing before the Subcommittee on Counter-terrorism and Intelligence found that the pair had “exploited special Iraqi refugee programs”. The vetting system came under review and this resulted in fewer Iraqi refugee admissions that year.

The number of refugees from Iraq dropped from 18,016 to 9,388 as a result of the suspension. That number increased to 12,163 the following year.


The BBC does not correct anyone who says it is a ban on Muslims….clearly not as so many other Muslim countries are not so banned and Muslims from non-Muslim countries are not banned.  The BBC also insists on referring to the 7 countries as ‘Muslim majority’…when the fact they are Muslim is irrelevant…what they should say perhaps is ‘Terrorist infested’ as a more truthful description and explanation for the bans.

The BBC does not correct, indeed tells us itself, that the British people are alarmed at Trump’s ban…and they reference the petition giving it massive airtime in the hope, no doubt, that more and more people will sign up.

Funny how ‘populism’ is suddenly popular at the BBC….a highly democratic vote to leave the EU is classed by the BBC as a drift towards Fascism and a Britain that is turning nastier and more racist but a very one-sided petition is the voice of the British people being heard?

Let’s look at the petition.   Or rather let’s look at the map of where the signatures are coming from.

Curious thing…nearly all the numbers are from Labour areas…or from Nick Clegg’s and SNP cosmopolitan areas….The demonstration in London was led by Owen Jones and Labour’s top draw politicians were there to speak…..let me put forward a thought…that Labour and LibDem activists are signing up in large numbers in order to embarrass Theresa May?

A fairly obvious conclusion when you look at the facts and who is making the most noise here and who benefits the most from doing so.  The BBC’s finest political brains for some reason have been unable to see such a possibility.

Here’s another oddity…Corbyn is up in arms about Trump coming here…

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said Mr Trump “should not be welcomed to Britain while he abuses our shared values with his shameful Muslim ban and attacks on refugees’ and women’s rights”.

This is the man who said we must invite his friends, the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah into Parliament, and yet he wants to ban the President of our closest and most powerful ally?  Again the BBC’s finest don’t notice anything amiss.

“Tomorrow evening it will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. And I’ve also invited friends from Hamas to come and speak as well. Unfortunately the Israelis would not allow them to travel here… The idea that [Hamas] should be labelled as a terrorist organisation by the British government is really a big, big historical mistake and I would invite the government to reconsider its position on this matter and start talking directly to Hamas and Hezbollah.”

What we’re getting from the BBC is not news but a massive propaganda drive designed to portray Trump as racist, deranged and self-obsessed…not to mention reckless and amateur.

Just another day with Lord Hall Hall’s BBC.  Goebbel’s secretary might have died but his understudies live on….I think he’d be proud.







Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone


The BBC coverage of Brexit is dire. They still can’t handle the fact we voted OUT  and so they desperately hang on to any lifeline to keep their EU hopes alive. Take the way they cover this story…

Leaders of the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are to press for a greater role in Brexit negotiations when they hold talks with Theresa May in Cardiff. The Scottish and Welsh governments have produced plans that would allow them to keep full access to the single market. However, they say they have not seen any signs that the UK government is taking their proposals seriously.

Gosh – and WHY might that be, BBC?

Do you think it is because the UK voted to LEAVE the Single Market, the Customs Union and indeed every other facet of the EU. The delusionalists in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast may wish reality to be different but it isn’t. Yet the BBC does all it can to keep these delusional regional tinpot third rate politicians happy by bigging up their ludicrous agenda.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone


Further to Alan’s post below, the BBC are in full on “Muslim victimhood” mongering mode. This morning, the utterly DIRE Today programme, was out to try and link together several stories.

First of all, they had Trump “rowing” back on his “Muslim Ban.”  In fact neither has happened. The detail in the legislation brought forward by the President makes it clear that this is a temporary travel restriction on people from seven specific countries. It does not apply to DOZENS of other Muslim countries. But the BBC is hellbent to see Islamophobia everywhere. Secondly, they went on to talk about the Petition to Ban the US President from the US. This bit driven on-line hissy fit is pathetic but the BBC treat it as if it had credence. And then, as the coup de grace, the BBC announces the murders in the Quebec mosque – a “terrorist” attack. The sly insinuation is that Trump is stoking up SUCH hatred against Muslims that some nutters have taken it upon themselves to kill Muslims. However, it is emerging that at least one of the two suspects is…Moroccan. There are reports of them shouting “Allahu Akhbar” as they conducted the attack. There is a clear possibility that this is internecine Muslim killing, but that is contra to the BBC narrative.

The best laugh of there morning was the BBC reporting breathlessly on the need to crack down on “fake news” when they are a prime purveyor of such.

No shame, no balance and beyond salvation. Axe the license tax,

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone


Who, what, where, when, why.

Fairly basic journalistic principles.  Not for the BBC who when ‘reporting’ a shooting in a Canadian mosque fail utterly too bring us any information of any relevance other than this was ‘a terrorist attack on Muslims’ thus suggesting it was non-Muslims doing the shooting.  It could be.  But two minutes on Google and you find out first it is a Sunni Muslim cultural centre [so we can probably dismiss Sunni against Shia or Ahmadiya].

Second that those arrested are allegedly a Quebec citizen [ethnicity/religion unknown] and an ‘Arab’….

Un des deux hommes arrêtés dans le cadre de l’attentat terroriste survenu dans une mosquée de Québec serait d’origine québécoise et l’autre serait d’origine arabe

Third that witnesses say that the shooters shouted ‘Allah Akhbar’ [CBC News]…maybe a ‘false flag’..but unlikely as they must know they were likely to be caught and thus exposed.

This information has been easily available all night and yet the Today show mentioned none of them in its ‘report’ and markedly failed to ask ‘who’ the shooters were…a normal question of any journalist especially when the shooters had been arrested and thus something must be known of their identity…you suspect they didn’t ask because they knew the available information is rather inconvenient for the BBC narrative. The R4 news similarly censored what we were allowed to know….again telling us this was a terrorist attack on Muslims….indeed it was and yet the BBC approach is to insinuate that it is an Islamophobic attack rather than an inter-Muslim dispute of some kind which so far the limited evidence seems to point to.

The BBC website does a similarly limited report on the shooting, however the BBC is able to bring you information about something that didn’t happen last night but is intended to encourage you to think this was an Islamophobic attack…

In June last year the same mosque was the target of an Islamophobic incident when a pig’s head was left in front of the building, with a card saying “bonne appetit”.

Eating pork is forbidden in Islam..

Once again the BBC shapes the news in order to manipulate your views.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

The Douzey that is the Dozy Doucet


Three very seriously and dangerously subversive anti-Western, anti-Trump narratives in one interview from Lyse Doucet to which I referred earlier but Craig at Is the BBC biased? [hell yeah] has helpfully gone to the huge effort of transcribing….

First, that terrorism is our fault and that any action we take to tackle it only angers Muslims more and radicalises them more.  Doucet says this is a ban on all Muslims [patently not as she later admits…paradoxically trying to use the fact not all Muslims are banned as a stick to beat Trump with] and that Trump is condemning a whole religion [again clearly not…just the violent fanatics whom Obama has already pinpointed…a fact Doucet misses out].  A narrative that is beloved of the Muslim radicals themselves…a win win…they win if you bow to their violence, and then they win if you bow to their you do what they want because otherwise it would inflame the situation…otherwise known as blackmail.  Doucet also links Trump’s policy to the Far-Right in Europe in an incredibly grotesque and fantastical piece of journalism. [LOL]

Second, that the BBC fully intends, as always, to personalise immigrants’ stories in order to exploit the viewer’s emotions, manipulating their thoughts and perceptions towards being more sympathetic and less reasoned and logical about things….facts no longer matter here.

Third, that there is the claim that Trump is avoiding countries he does business with…as mentioned the countries targeted are those listed by Obama as of concern, those that are failed states with large numbers of Islamist terrorists roaming freely around them.  Pakistan [despite a long history of also backing the Taliban] and Saudi [with along record of backing IS, as has Turkey …a NATO member] are supposedly strategic partners and allies…hence not targeted…right or wrong…long term US, and UK, policy, not a Trump thing at all.

Shame Doucet, supposedly a professional journalist, cannot provide us with a proper analysis rather than conspiracy theories and prejudiced idiocy that passes for BBC journalism these days that itself fuels and supports the terrorist narrative….such as this…

  1.  This would provide fodder for recruitment, it would give more fuel to the fire – and, literally, they are fires in the Middle East caused by the so-called Islamic State fighters and this proves their point. So it is a very, very dangerous, a very potent weapon, in the hands of a so-called Islamic state. And I think the distinction has to be that former president Clinton, former President Barack Obama, Western leaders, have talked about about the need to fight against those elements who used Islam, the religion of Islam, for violence, for political reasons, But it is not the same thing as condemning a whole religion on the basis of religion. But we’ve seen now, not just in the United States but across Europe as well, far-right leaders, populist leaders, using this as a political weapon to tarnish an entire religion because of actions carried out by those…and those who know the faith well say that it is a distortion of of the religion.
  2.  They say it’s racist, it’s illegal and it’s a huge black mark on the United States. So, and I think, as more and more stories continue to come out of people stopped at the airport, people whose lives will be torn apart. The stories you’re hearing now are heartbreaking. People have waited years and years for their green card or to be accepted as refugees now literally been turned back.
  3.  You can find now on the internet the maps which show the countries which had been banned and the ones which haven’t, and some other countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, are places where Donald Trump does business.
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone


It’s not just a BIASED broadcaster, it’s disreputable and a menace. BBC coverage of President Trump’s first week has been a scandal and as I write this it is foaming at the mouth about a non-existing ‘Muslim Ban”. Just about EVERY BBC presenter (including, lamentably Andrew Neil) is hostile to Trump and their studios are full of “experts” who come to damn Trump. There is NO pretence at balance, this is pure narrative and it sickens my stomach. You?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Assassinate Trump…it’s the liberal way


Thanks to Guest Who for this…

Of course one assassination attempt has already been made on Trump, by a Brit, undoubtedly influenced by the BBC’s sensationalist and scaremongering fake news stories that constantly labelled Trump a racist, a sexist and an Islamophobe and repeatedly built on the idea that Trump would bring about the end of the world as we know it with a rise in racism, fascism and war.

If Knight is not arrested and charged why not?  The police might also consider bringing in Lord Hall for questioning…..

President Obama blamed Fox News and talk radio for virtually every problem his administration encountered, warning in his waning days that these “domestic propagandists” were far more damaging to America than any interference from hostile powers like Russia.

The ‘domestic propagandists’ that work at the BBC are genuinely dangerous, the real enemy within that fuels terror and incites hatred and division between races and religions.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

‘We’ are the Enemy


The BBC has trotted out the usual narrative that Trump’s temporary ban on people entering the US from certain countries of concern to Obama will fuel terrorism.  I might suggest the sensationalist, mendacious and false reporting of the BBC actually fuels terrorism as it gives unwarranted credibility and justification to the radical recruiters and terrorists.

Others have similar concerns about the likes of the BBC’s pro-terror narrative...from Terra Incognita…

“Fueling terrorism”: It’s always “our” fault


There is always a narrative about “fueling” terrorism.

1950s-1960s Why is there terrorism
“Colonialism fuels terrorism

1970s Why is there terrorism?
“Israel is fueling terrorism by suppressing Palestinians and its occupation of Arab and Islamic lands”

1980s Why is there terrorism?
“US policy in Iran fueled the revolution that then became extreme and caused terrorism, and US support of Mujahidin in Afghanistan caused terrorism”

Early 1990s Why is there terrorism?
“US-supported regimes and secular dictators and lack of democracy fuel terror by suppressing the demands of the people”

Late 1990s and 9/11 Why is there terrorism?
“US bases in the Kingdom on the land of the two holy sites defiles Islam and fuels terrorism and US role in Afghanistan created blowback, as well as US support for Israel.”

2002 Why is there terrorism?
Poverty and discrimination cause terrorism as well as dictatorship in the Arab world”

2003 Why is there terrorism?
“The US and allied invasion of Iraq fueled extremism

2004-2014 Why is there terrorism?
“Lack of jobs, global warming and opportunity forces young men to become radicalized in Europe and fuels extremism”

2014 Why is there terrorism
“Assad’s crackdown on demands for democracy and Maliki’s disenfranchisement of Sunni Arabs in Iraq fuels terrorism”

2015-2016 Why is there terrorism?
“The rise of the right wing in Europe and racism fuels extremism and terrorism

2017 Why is there terrorism?
“Donald Trump’s immigration ban fuels extremism and terrorism.”


May I propose an alternative theory of how extremism is fueled.

Extremism is primarily fueled by hateful and intolerant societies that produce large numbers of ignorant and bigoted people who are willing dupes, fellow travelers, useful idiots, and some of whome are actual extremists. Within such a society there are also those on its margins, even outsiders, who seek to convert to zealotry because it provides an easy answer and there are psychopaths and sociopaths who seek an excuse to murder others.

Into this society comes voices who exploit the existing bigotry, ignorance and intolerance and encourages people to become extremist terrorists. They exploit the existing and non-existing grievances of the people through preaching and other forms of propaganda using the most modern medium and religion as a cover or rubric to bring in the public. Very small numbers of people join with the extremists, but even a very small number (.01%) of society willing to commit mass murder can wreak havoc.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

The Muslim ‘Ban’


Looking at the BBC frontpage there are endless reports linked to the Trump immigration action and yet not a lot of actual facts.  Pretty much a fact free zone…much like this story about Mo Farrah….a full-on British citizen so really should have no trouble entering the US…but the BBC works it into a scandal…Mo is upset…he’s an ‘alien’…

“On 1 January this year, Her Majesty The Queen made me a Knight of the Realm. On 27 January, President Donald Trump seems to have made me an alien.”

The BBC is telling us that Trump is banning ‘Muslims’…but fairly obviously he is not…just stopping people from certain countries, as defined as being of concern by Obama, from travelling…and it is not a ‘ban’ fullstop, but a temporary, as we always knew, measure that is intended to allow more secure vetting to be implemented.  The BBC is once again involved in stirring up Muslim anger and deliberately creating a narrative that invents a grievance that will be exploited by terrorists.

Obama already restricted travel from these countries but in a below the liberal radar deception and he deported thousands of immigrants back across the border…from ABC News….

Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President

President Barack Obama has often been referred to by immigration groups as the “Deporter in Chief.”

Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who “self-deported” or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection

And note…91% of those removed in 2015 were criminals…in other words Trump was correct when he complained about criminals coming across the border as migrants…

In fiscal year 2015, 91 percent of people removed from inside the U.S. were previously convicted of a crime.


Obama set in motion the travel ban from certain countries for refugees….

From WND:

Although the Obama administration currently[2015] refuses to temporarily pause its Syrian refugee resettlement program in the United States, the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

The terrorists were not taken into custody until 2011. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. State Department stopped processing refugee requests from Iraqis for six months in order to review and revamp security screening procedures:

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.

Trump’s law refers to Obama’s definition of which countries are of concern….

I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.

Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you…

In February 2016 “The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.” It noted “the three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals.” It was the US policy under Obama to restrict and target people “who have been present in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions).” This was text of the US Customs and Border Protection in 2015 relating to “the Visa Waiver Program and Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015“. The link even includes the seven nation list in it: “Iraq, Syria, Iran, SUdan, Somalia or Yemen.”  And the media knew this back in May 2016 when some civil rights groups complained about it. “These restrictions have provoked an outcry from the Iranian-American community, as well as Arab-American and civil-liberties groups, who say the restrictions on dual nationals and certain travelers are discriminatory and could be imposed against American dual nationals.”

Obama didn’t explicitly ban travel from these countries he merely imposed restrictions that meant travel might well be impossible…

DHS remains concerned about the risks posed by the situation in Syria and Iraq, where instability has attracted thousands of foreign fighters, including many from VWP countries. Such individuals could travel to the United States for operational purposes on their own or at the behest of violent extremist groups.

The U.S. Congress shares this concern, and on December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, which includes the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act). The Act, among other things, establishes new eligibility requirements for travel under the VWP. These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States. Instead, a traveler who does not meet the requirements must obtain a visa for travel to the United States, which generally includes an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

The BBC’s Toxic Anti-Trump Venom


Switched the radio on and 10 minutes in the BBC had already managed to disseminate a stream of ludicrous but toxic, poisonous, messages of hate towards Trump.  Guess I was just lucky to tune in at that time.  So unusual for the BBC to be spreading such venomous fear, loathing and hostility about Trump.

They took a gleeful pleasure in reading out the Observer/Guardian view of Trump along with Saira Khan’s careful and reasoned thoughts [perhaps she was actually talking about Islam?]…

The Observer concludes that the president “cannot be trusted” on issues that affect Britain, describing him as “ignorant, prejudiced and vicious in ways that no American leader has been”.

Sunday Mirror columnist Saira Khan describes Trump’s policies as “damaging, isolationist, racist, sexist, Islamophobic, backward”, and likely to trigger an “economic arms race” of tit-for-tat tariffs.

The only ‘pro’- Trump newspaper quote came from Niall Ferguson, who was rabidly anti-Trump during the election and whose ‘pro’- Trump message was in fact a meaningless waffle that ended in ‘Maybe we shouldn’t judge quite’s early days’.  Really hard hitting stuff then.

Then we had Lyse Doucet, an immmigrant who is given carte blanche to spread her own pro-immigration prejudice on the BBC, who told us that the reason Trump didn’t stop travellers from Saudi Arabia was because of his business interests there…never mind he hasn’t blocked those from Afghanistan [and so many, many other Muslim countries]….despite no business interests there.  Hmmm…OK…so did Obama try to block the release of documents that showed Saudi was behind 9/11 because he had business interests there or was it due to geo-political considerations that meant the US weighed up the pros and cons and decided Saudi as an ally outweighed Saudi as an open enemy? Right or wrong, Trump and his advisers would have made exactly the same calculation…and the countries that are blocked are basically failed states that are rife with Islamic terrorists plus Iran which is openly a source of terror and anti-American aggression around the world.  Doucet fails to apply the same standards to Obama as she does to Trump in what is a fairly outrageous slander of him.  Funny how the BBC always dodges the huge amounts of money funnelled towards the Clintons by the Saudis as evidenced by the hacked emails that the BBC also refuses to investigate.

Doucet then articulated what is the BBC’s favourite tactic when trying to weaponise immigrants for the cause…personalise their stories…millions of immigrants are scary but ignore them and tell the tale of individual immigrants and pull the wool over the viewers’ eyes as to the consequences of millions of these people with their ‘heartwarming and compelling personal stories’ coming to a Europe near you.  I’m sure everyone is absolutely wonderful in person but as a group bringing an ideology that is radically opposed to nearly all Western values?  As a group the politics and dynamics are very, very different to what an individual might profess…they often put aside personal beliefs in the interest of the amorphous group interest…either through some inherent link to that group that generates an obligation or duty or by intense pressure to conform from the more determined and extreme which is impossible to avoid if you are in a ghettoised or closed off community.  The BBC knows that and smothers the truth.  Doucet thought Trump would come under pressure as more and more tales of personal suffering of those stopped from entering would hit the media…the BBC in particular no doubt….indeed as I type the BBC has a headline…

‘Trump has not seen our suffering’

Have no fear…the BBC will make sure it gets headline status.

The BBC naturally actively seeks to avoid the other side, the personal tales of the victims of immigrants…those murdered, raped, abused, robbed, assaulted or otherwise made victims of crime by immigrants.  Nor indeed the less dramatic but no-less important tales of the ‘natives’ who can’t get into hospitals or to see the GP, or can’t get their child into the school of their choice, or get on the housing ladder because of immigration, or whose wages are undercut or who can’t even get a job.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone


Image result for caliphate uk


I’ve been searching the news sites but surprisingly have found absolutely no outraged cries denouncing the BBC because of its Islamophobia, racism, anti-Muslim bigotry, discrimination and misuse of licence-payers’ money to stoke anti-Muslim feeling with the blackest of racist propaganda from the usual sources such as the somewhat creepy Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Muslim Council of Britain.

Surprising because the BBC has been filming a series, Caliphate-UK, that portrays a Britain that has fallen to an Islamic invasion and is under the yoke of a monstrous, inhumane and fascist-like Muslim regime.  The actor Rufus Sewell, who plays an ISIS-like extremist given a position of command in the UK, says that ‘I think reducing Muslims to stereotypical extremists and headchopping radicals screaming ‘Allah Akbar’ as a kind of easy entertainment takes us away from the important fact that they were human beings.  Islam is not populated by all the evil people in the world.  Radicalisation happened to a lot of normal people…it could happen again.  It nearly happened here.  What’s vital is that you get the story of the human beings being sucked into an evil world-view without knowing it as Muslims often are.  That’s one of the things that makes it so timely what we are doing now.’

Maeve Dermody who plays Sewell’s Christian sex slave, says the rise in Islamic supremacist narratives across the world makes this warning from an imagined history unusually pertinent saying “We have such a diminishned sense of history.”

So yes…the Caliphate….a warning from history that we should do more than switch on as if it were merely the latest in historical, dramatic TV entertainment.

Oh, wait, my mistake, should have gone to Specsavers….the BBC is going to broadcast a new series depicting Britain under the jackboot of a Nazi regime…SS-GB, from a Len Deighton book from 1978…..naturally this is not timed nor intended to be a commentary on Brexit or Leave voters…the BBC is definitely not likening those who support Brexit to Nazis nor trying to imply that Brexit and opposition to the Liberal gangsterism that dominates now is leading to the 1930’s.  No, no, no.

However others aren’t quite so dishonest…

Rufus Sewell in the Sunday Times….

“I thnk reducing Nazis to werewolves and zombies and vampires and aliens, as a knd of entertainment, takes us away from the important fact that they were human beings.  Germany was not populated at that time by all the evil people in the world.  It happened to a lot of normal people.  It could happen again.  It nearly happened here.  What’s vital is that you get the story of the human beings being sucked into an evil-world view without knowing it.  That’s one of the things that makes it so timely that we’re doing it now.”

Maeve Dermody fellow actor…“The rise in nationalist sentiment around the world makes this warning from an imagined history unusually pertinent….we have such a diminished sense of history.”


The BBC is using licence money to pump out a viciously racist and political slander against Brexit and those who voted for it in what is the blackest form of propaganda.  Who are the real fascists?  They are making this BBC series.  Brexit an ‘evil world view’?  Only on the BBC.





Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

No Evidence?

President Obama was asked during the campaign last year if illegal immigrants had anything to fear from federal authorities if they voted in the presidential race.

“Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting,” he was asked on a Latino YouTube channel. “‘So if I vote, will Immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?’”

“Not true, and the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself,” Mr. Obama said. “And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential.”

So vote Democrat, vote often and don’t worry…no-one’s checking?

The BBC insists that Trump had no evidence to back any claim about voter fraud…when of course he did have some evidence…of non-citizens voting and voter fraud elsewhere in previous US elections.  But what of the recent election?  Trump wasn’t talking just about non-citizens but the Washington Times reports Hillary Clinton may have received some benefit from them…will the BBC report this?  I’m guessing not….and even if they do it’ll soon be ‘forgotten’ and we’ll be back to the ‘no evidence’ mantra…..

Trump argument bolstered: Clinton could have received 800,000 votes from noncitizens

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

ased on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.
“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”

It should also be noted that US states count even non-citizens in their censuses and use that number to decide how many representatives that state will have…thus the more non-citizens there are, even if they cannot vote, that state will get more money and more political clout…and most immigrant states are Democrat…so the Democrats benefit even if there is no vote.  A wrinkle I’m sure the BBC is not keen to mention.

Or this…that Democrat cities want non-citizens to vote…at a local level for now…and indeed allow that…

Some cities are moving to expand voting rights to include noncitizens.

The latest is San Francisco, where the Nov. 8 ballot will include a measure allowing the parents or legal guardians of any student in the city’s public schools to vote in school board elections. The right would be extended to those with green cards, visas, or no documentation at all.

This is an interesting analysis which mirrors what happened almost exactly in the UK, even to the timing.  The Democrats used to be just as hard-line on immigration as the Republicans but that changed around 2002….and now the Democrats see flooding the country with immigrants, grateful immigrants, as a way of winning political power…it failed this time but when yet more millions of immigrants have slipped in to the US?

When the Chicago Council began asking that question in 1998, Democrats saw large-scale immigration no differently from Republicans. After 2002, that started to change, as the percentage of Democratic respondents expressing concern has steadily declined.

Democratic voters probably don’t sit around thinking that higher levels of immigration will lead to a commanding majority. But party leaders do, and devise their policies and messages accordingly.

Essentially the Democrats and Labour sold out and betrayed their country and their population in order to win office.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone


Appropriately for a philosopher, he identifies post-modernism and relativism as the intellectual roots “lurking in the background” of post-truth.

So that’ll be the BBC’s fault then as it relativises its news and tells us there is no  such thing as good and bad…everything is equally of value….culture, religion and no such thing as ‘Britishness’.

Matthew Parris, essentially Justin Webb in drag, openly articulates what the BBC employees must wish they could say quite so openly about Brexit and Trump. In the Times last Wednesday we had a classic piece of BBC mindset as Parris sneeringly insulted Leave voters telling us how stupid they are…

‘How about a collection of the stupid thinigs that voters say, and the stupid things the public can talk themselves into believing [Brexit  ed]?  I might call the anthology Taking Back Control.’

There are plenty more who display similar attitudes to the Leave voter (Soubry and Farron leap to mind) and are in the process of having a liberal meltdown as they see the world supposedly collapsing around them.  For your amusement I have assembled a collection, an anthology perhaps, of the finest and most demented, maybe deranged is a suitable, in vogue, word…but first some voices of clarity and reason on Brexit and Trump…one, Andrew Marr, coming in from the darkness to suggest the über-liberal diehards and nay-sayers should perhaps accept democracy and work to make Brexit a success…Not everyone will agree with all Marr wants to happen but at least he accepts a democratic vote and the need to act positively…

An optimist’s guide to Brexit

Remainers are paralysed by fear of leaving the EU. But it offers huge opportunities for change, on both left and right.

“Brexit will not happen.” It cannot actually happen. Parliament, we are told, will force the deluded people to come to their senses, aided by the judiciary and big business. If the people have made a mistake, then can they not be shown the latest economic forecasts and be obliged, somehow, to think again?

With respect to all involved, and – briefly – to adopt the demotic of Boris Johnson, this must be cobblers. If parliament asked the people of the UK to vote on a subject of such huge importance; and if, after exhaustive and exhausting debate, they made their decision, by a clear majority; and if they were then told that it wasn’t going to happen, or at least not without a second vote, the glossy fabric of British democracy would be ripped to shreds. Frankly, I dread to think what would follow.

Rather than being paralysed by fear, we ought to be on the lip of a great invigoration of our democracy. Yet hardly anyone seems to be talking about the new agendas that are opening up.

For all of us who believe in British democratic culture, there can be exciting times ahead. The winds of change can be invigorating, not simply bloody cold. 

Here’s a couple from Brendan O’Neil….

The sneering response to Trump’s victory reveals exactly why he won

If you want to know why Trump won, just look at the response to his winning. The lofty contempt for ‘low information’ Americans. The barely concealed disgust for the rednecks and cretins of ‘flyover’ America who are apparently racist and misogynistic and homophobic. The haughty sneering at the vulgar, moneyed American political system and how it has allowed a wealthy candidate to poison the little people’s mushy, malleable minds.

This response to Trump’s victory reveals why Trump was victorious. Because those who do politics these days — the political establishment, the media, the academy, the celeb set — are so contemptuous of ordinary people, so hateful of the herd, so convinced that the mass of society cannot be trusted to make political decisions, and now those ordinary people have given their response to such top-down sneering and prejudice.

This nasty, reactionary turn against democracy by so many of the well-educated both explains the victory of Trump, which neatly doubles up as a slap in the face of the establishment, and confirms why democracy is more important today than it has ever been.


After Brexit in June and now the victory of Donald Trump, everyone’s freaking out about the howling little people and their ripping-up of the political script.

2016 is the year of rage, commentators claim. Brexit was a “howl of rage”, says the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland. And now it’s been joined by the “anti-establishment anger” of those American voters who elevated Trump to the most powerful post on Earth. It was “rage, not reason” that made people go for Trump, says an American neuroscientist.

In fact, these ordinary people, because they live and work in the belly of society in a way that cut-off experts and observers usually don’t, can actually have a *better* understanding of what’s wrong with society and how it might be fixed.

Less jaundiced by power, more aware of where everyday society isn’t working properly, the masses often have a keener sensitivity to political and social problems and what might be done about them.

I would sooner entrust political decisions to the first 50 people I encounter on my walk through town than to 50 people with PhDs. Too much democracy? There isn’t enough.

So now we move onto the fun stuff…the mental collapse and meltdown of the liberal ‘elite’ in black and white.  Who to start with?  Hmmm…Parris is as good a place as any…a man who admits he’s a soap dodger who doesn’t wash anymore…perhaps his dear old mum should have washed potty-mouthed Parris’ mouth out with some soap and water when he was younger….

For the first time in my life, I feel ashamed to be British

These last few months I’ve seen a Britain, specifically an England, that I simply do not like. I’ve seen a nasty side, and seen colleagues and friends pander to it in a way I never thought they would. It has made me feel lonely in my own country, and the experience has touched me irreparably.

The reliance of the leaders and opinion leaders of the Leave campaign upon resentment of foreigners, dislike of immigration and — in many cases — hatred of immigrants, has been absolutely disgraceful. It should be a stain upon our conscience.

Anti-immigrant feeling won it for Leave, and they know it. They used it, rode it and are complicit in it. I’ve been dismayed to see people I’ve respected descend to this. I never thought either that the reserves of xenophobia in England were so strong, nor that people who should know better would play upon them with such careless cynicism. I was doubly naive.

It won’t wash. [And nor do I] Not when you know why they want to take back control.

Over the last few months a poison has been seeping through our national life. My faith in my fellow English, in our democracy, and in those who serve it in high places led me wholly to underestimate its potency or its capacity to spread.

Parris again as he dismisses ‘the people’ and their right to have a voice in elections…suggesting it should be left to the elite and better educated…

After Trump, I’m losing faith in democracy

It’s not just that it has produced results I profoundly dislike. It’s to do with the merging of crowd and mob

The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States may have signalled the death of the closest thing we have to a religion in politics. On both sides of the Atlantic, democracy risks being knocked from the high altar as an unmitigated and unquestioned good.

The man’s obviously a fool and a nasty fool too. The contest should have been a walkover for Hillary Clinton. But it wasn’t. What happened? Can we be sure any longer that democracy works? Is it really the reliable bulwark against political madness that we always supposed?

I am beginning to question democracy… is producing results I profoundly dislike.

I believed in the wisdom of crowds but not mobs. Democracy was of course about inviting the considered view of the crowd but it was just as much about keeping the mob from the gates. I knew public sentiment sloshes around, sometimes quite violently, and I knew huge numbers of voters could be horribly if temporarily misled by false prospectuses, by lies, by unreasonable hopes and by sudden fears and hatreds.

The crowd — ‘true democracy’ — could be wise where a mob might be foolish, because we weren’t governed by the mob, real or virtual. There was no internet, no Facebook, no Twitter, no social media.

‘The crowd’ was a collective noun for millions of individuals, often conferring but finally thinking alone. That was what elections — general, presidential — were for.

It has seemed that the crowd and the mob have begun to merge into each other. Now we can so easily discover what a ‘majority’ think they want at any one moment, and — worse — ignorant hooligans can discover with a click on a keyboard that there are millions like them out there — our faith in democracy, our faith in the ‘government by the people’ part of the trio, is being tested to its logical limit.

Unless we find procedures for distinguishing between the evanescent and the more considered manifestations of public opinion, the Trumps and Farages of our age will kill our faith in democracy.

 Parris is just channelling the BBC’s own anti-Internet narrative that seeks to demonise and close down those they deem to have unacceptable voices.

Who next?  Perhaps the man who funds so  much of the liberal assault on democracy and national sovereignty (No complaints from Obama here)…George Soros….This smacks of a great deal of hypocrisy and wilful blindness…he attacks Trump for saying the same things about globalisation….he damns the EU’s political and economic record and the refugee crisis and yet backs the EU…he damns globalisation and yet he is at the heart of it and it is the project that the liberal elite all champion…except Trump of course…so Soros says one thing, on the EU and globalisation, but does the opposite himself….whilst claiming Trump is a dictator in the making, likening him to Hitler…

Open Society Needs Defending

I find the current moment in history very painful. Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of closed societies — from fascist dictatorships to mafia states — are on the rise. How could this happen? The only explanation I can find is that elected leaders failed to meet voters’ legitimate expectations and aspirations and that this failure led electorates to become disenchanted with the prevailing versions of democracy and capitalism. Quite simply, many people felt that the elites had stolen their democracy.

Globalization has had far-reaching economic and political consequences. It has brought about some economic convergence between poor and rich countries; but it increased inequality within both poor and rich countries. In the developed world, the benefits accrued mainly to large owners of financial capital, who constitute less than 1% of the population. The lack of redistributive policies is the main source of the dissatisfaction that democracy’s opponents have exploited. But there were other contributing factors as well, particularly in Europe.

I was an avid supporter of the European Union from its inception. I regarded it as the embodiment of the idea of an open society: an association of democratic states willing to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the common good. It started out at as a bold experiment in what Popper called “piecemeal social engineering.” The leaders set an attainable objective and a fixed timeline and mobilized the political will needed to meet it, knowing full well that each step would necessitate a further step forward. That is how the European Coal and Steel Community developed into the EU.

But then something went woefully wrong.

Germany emerged as the hegemonic power in Europe, but it failed to live up to the obligations that successful hegemons must fulfill, namely looking beyond their narrow self-interest to the interests of the people who depend on them. Compare the behavior of the US after WWII with Germany’s behavior after the crash of 2008: The US launched the Marshall Plan, which led to the development of the EU; Germany imposed an austerity program that served its narrow self-interest.

After the Crash of 2008, the EU and the eurozone became increasingly dysfunctional.

The eurozone became the victim of antiquated laws; much-needed reforms could be enacted only by finding loopholes in them. That is how institutions became increasingly complicated, and electorates became alienated.

The rise of anti-EU movements further impeded the functioning of institutions. And these forces of disintegration received a powerful boost in 2016, first from Brexit, then from the election of Trump in the US, and on December 4 from Italian voters’ rejection, by a wide margin, of constitutional reforms.

Democracy is now in crisis. Even the US, the world’s leading democracy, elected a con artist and would-be dictator as its president. Although Trump has toned down his rhetoric since he was elected, he has changed neither his behavior nor his advisers. His Cabinet comprises incompetent extremists and retired generals.

I am particularly worried about the fate of the EU, which is in danger of coming under the influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin…in a brilliant move, he exploited social-media companies’ business model to spread misinformation and fake news, disorienting electorates and destabilizing democracies. That is how he helped Trump get elected.

The same is likely to happen in the European election season in 2017 in the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. In France, the two leading contenders are close to Putin and eager to appease him. If either wins, Putin’s dominance of Europe will become a fait accompli.

With economic growth lagging and the refugee crisis out of control, the EU is on the verge of breakdown and is set to undergo an experience similar to that of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Those who believe that the EU needs to be saved in order to be reinvented must do whatever they can to bring about a better outcome.

Then we’ve got this piece of fantasy from Matthew D’Ancona in the Guardian…Brexit and Trump…due to bigotry and prejudice…did like this...’Have the courage to declare that worthwhile solutions are never easy.’.…that’ll be Brexit then…the worthwhile solution?  Who’d have thought from this tract that D’Ancona was a fan?…

How do liberals halt the march of the right? Stand our ground and toughen up

We can fight bigotry and prejudice if we’re prepared to challenge, probe and correct – relentlessly.

This is the biggest political scrap since the cold war: autocracy versus democratic institutions; liberalism versus traditionalism; wall-building versus openness. The alt-right, Ukip and Breitbart understand that. Do you?

Pluralism, women’s equality, ethnic diversity, our responsibility to refugees, internationalism, LGBT rights – all that is now under systematic attack.

Colonise your opponents’ language

The Brexiteers, alt-right and Breitbart gang have been expert in their vocabulary. “Take back control” was a great campaign slogan. But what does “control” mean?  And why is centrist speech dismissed as “virtue signalling” while fiercely rightwing language is hailed as “plain speaking”? As for “liberal elite”, that has come to mean little more that “people in London I don’t like”. Again, point this out. You’ll find that the most sensitive “snowflake” of the lot is an alt-right tweeter called upon to define his terms.

Treat opinion polls as no more than partial snapshots of opinion rather than flawless oracles.  Distrust those who invoke “the people”. There is no British Volk – one of the finest features of these heterogeneous islands.

Don’t give an inch to the protectionists and the border-closers.

Stand up for immigration

Not just as an economic necessity but as a cultural good. If there is such a thing as “Britishness”, it has cordial multiplicity at its heart. Stamp on the economically illiterate idea that immigration is a zero-sum game, and that newcomers are depriving Britons of work, housing, school places and healthcare.


Nick Cohen’s brain always gets set aside whenever he talks of Brexit…voted for by fools, those with no common sense and the gullible…not to mention the Nazis…..

Enough bleating – time to hold our lying leaders to account

Liberal opponents of Trump and Brexit face the same challenge as ever: how can we make the powerful pay for the untruths they feed the masses?

Instead of laughing at their transparent falsehoods or being insulted at being taken for fools, blocs of voters have handed them victory. Evidence could not shake them. Common sense could not reach them. Surely, their gullibility shows we have arrived in a new dystopia.

The British are experiencing their own version of Trumpish triumphalism. In our case, too, the answer to every hard question is a brute proclamation of power. Are you seriously going to take us out of the single market? Leave won. And the customs union? Leave won. What about EU citizens here? Leave won. And British citizens there? Leave won.

Fighting back should be easy – if you cannot expose charlatans such as Trump and Johnson, you should step aside a make way for people who can.

To pretend that we are living in a culture without historical precedent is to make modernity an excuse for the abnegation of political responsibility. The question for the Anglo-Saxon opposition is not how to cope with a world where truth has suddenly become as hard to find as Trump’s tax returns. It is the same question that has faced every opposition in the history of democracy: how can we make the powerful pay for the lies they have fed to the masses?  [erm….vote Brexit and Trump…job done]

Here’s Stephen Bush in the New Statesman…seemingly failing to grasp the meaning of democracy….but making the obligatory mention of Der Führer…

The lesson of 2016? We were wrong to put our faith in democracy

Hitler, whose rise necessitated my family’s rebrand, seized power by democratic means. All four owed their rise to popular discontent with the ruling class, yet none was or is particularly inconvenienced by journalists attempting to hold them to account. That America’s terrifying new president is the victor in a free and fair election doesn’t change the fact he may signal the end of democracy at home and the collapse of the global order abroad.

The New Statesman also brings us the celebrated Laurie Penny…bizarrely  her final thought is this as she sniffs out bullshit in everyday political life….’In the age of bullshit and rotten politics, it is often the case that he who smelt it, dealt it.’… if the below is written by one who ‘smelt’ the bullshit presumably she also dealt it…as indeed you might think reading this pile of execrable bull…..

Why in the post-truth age, the bullshitters are winning

The key difference between the liar and the bullshit artist is that the liar has at least some regard for the truth.

Katie Hopkins is a bullshit artist. Donald Trump is a bullshit artist. Nigel Farage is a bullshit artist. These people are the faces of the age of bullshit, an age that defies any charge of hypocrisy, because the con is open and shameless.

There is a certain kind of stupid mistake that only smart people make, and that is to assume that a sober set of facts can step into the ring with an easy, comforting lie and win. We have entered a new moment in public and political conversation, a moment which many pundits have dubbed the “post truth” age. I prefer to think of it as the age of bullshit. [So Laurie is not one of those ”certain kind of smart people’?  Figures]

The liar wishes to conceal the truth. The bullshit artist, by contrast, wants to destroy the entire concept of truth, not to deceive but to confuse, confound and control.

This is what people mean when they refer to our political moment as a “post truth” age. It is not quite the same as lies, though lying may well be involved. “Post-truth” is closer to bullshit. It’s the “Hall of Mirrors” strategy perfected in Putin’s Russia, where an explosion of fake news and cultured online trolling bolsters the regime not simply by pumping out pro-Kremlin propaganda, but by making it impossible for citizens to entirely trust anything they read or hear.

Of course we can’t miss out the BBC which provides us with the thoughts of philosopher A.C. Grayling…and they’re very worth a read… he writes about something that just doesn’t exist in the way he describes…..the ‘Post-Truth Era’….it is the liberal’s rhetoric about this ”post-truth era’ that is the real lie… designed to delegitimise Trump’s election and Brexit by saying the ‘stupid’ voters were lied to and misled….

What does post-truth mean for a philosopher?

“Post-truth” has come to describe a type of campaigning that has turned the political world upside down. {A description favoured by the Liberals…such as the BBC which wrote this intro]

Fuelled by emotive arguments rather than fact-checks, it was a phrase that tried to capture the gut-instinct, anti-establishment politics that swept Donald Trump and Brexit supporters to victory.

Oxford Dictionaries made it the word of the year, defining it as where “objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”.

But what does this new world mean for academics and scientists whose whole purpose is trying to establish objective facts?

“Post-truth” has come to describe a type of campaigning that has turned the political world upside down.

Fuelled by emotive arguments rather than fact-checks, it was a phrase that tried to capture the gut-instinct, anti-establishment politics that swept Donald Trump and Brexit supporters to victory.

Oxford Dictionaries made it the word of the year, defining it as where “objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”.

But what does this new world mean for academics and scientists whose whole purpose is trying to establish objective facts?

Grayling says….

“The whole post-truth phenomenon is about, ‘My opinion is worth more than the facts.’ It’s about how I feel about things.”

Presumably quoting a BBC memo.

Naturally he is in fact concerned that the public is allowed to voice opinion on social media and apparently cannot distinguish between fact and fiction [a very BBC meme]…he tells us…

“Fake news” on social media became part of the post-election debate in the US – and Prof Grayling warns of an online culture that can’t distinguish between fact and fiction.

“Put the words ‘did the’ into Google and one of the first things you see is, ‘Did the Holocaust happen?’ and the links will take you to claims that it didn’t,” he says.

Hmmm…not so much…tried it and first thing to come up is the latest right-wing conspiracy theory…….

Ylvis – The Fox (What Does The Fox Say?) [Official music video HD …
3 Sep 2013 – Uploaded by TVNorge

Music video from the Norwegian talk show I kveld med YLVIS. … The Fox – Alvin and the Chipmunks ..

Oh and this…which was also a story on the Today show this morning….

Did the White House just mistake British PM for porn star ‘Teresa May …

1 day ago – Staffers made the mistake in an official schedule for her meeting with President Donald Trump, where the PM will seek to cement London and …

It is an irony that Grayling blames the BBC’s penchant for relativising everything as opening the door to post-facts…the BBC’s reporting so often untroubled by evidence…..

Appropriately for a philosopher, he identifies post-modernism and relativism as the intellectual roots “lurking in the background” of post-truth.

“Everything is relative. Stories are being made up all the time – there is no such thing as the truth. You can see how that has filtered its way indirectly into post-truth.”

He says this has unintentionally “opened the door” to a type of politics untroubled by evidence.

And then there’s that obligatory reference to Hitler…

“There are some really uncomfortable parallels with the 1930s,” he says.

“These guys have realised you don’t need facts, you just lie.”


Hope you enjoyed that short tour of the liberal mind in meltdown…I’m sure there’s plenty more to  come.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone