General Quotes and Comments
"One should be clear
that in referring to the 'state propaganda apparatus' here I do not
mean that it comes from the state. Our system differs strikingly
from, say, the Soviet Union, where the propaganda system literally
is directed and controlled by the state. We're not a society which
has a Ministry of Truth which produces doctrine which everyone then
must obey at a severe cost if you don't. Our system works much
differently and much more effectively. It's a privatized system of
propaganda, including the media, the journals of opinion and in
general including the broad participation of the articulate
intelligentsia, the educated part of the population. The more
articulate elements of these groups, the ones who have access to the
media, including intellectual journals, and who essentially control
the educational apparatus, they should properly be referred to as a
class of 'commissars'. That's their essential function: to design,
propagate and create a system of doctrines and beliefs which will
undermine independent thought and prevent understanding and analysis
of institutional structures and their functions. That's their social
role. I don't mean to say they're conscious of it. In fact, they're
not. In a really effective system of indoctrination the commissars
are quite unaware of it and believe that they themselves are
independent, critical minds. If you investigate the actual
productions of the media, the journals of opinion etc., you find
exactly that. It's a very narrow, very tightly constrained and
grotesquely inaccurate account of the world in which we live" [Noam
Chomsky, Chronicles of Dissent: Interview with David Barsamian
"Political Correctness is an enforced morality, not a real morality.
It gives the appearance that people are treating each other with
respect, while underneath it causes resentment. It is also
patronising, dishonest, and a shoddy replacement for British
manners. The BBC is the chief exponent of Political Correctness and
should be sorely reprimanded"
"In my view, 'bias' is
too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the pervading
culture. The better word is a 'mindset'. At the core of the BBC, in
its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left"
"Peter Sissons' memoirs
serve to confirm everything we already knew about the ingrained bias
at the BBC. Pro-Europe, anti-American; pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel;
pro-Labour, anti-Tory. All you had to do was turn on the wireless
yesterday morning. According to the BBC, the most important story in
the whole world at 8am was that an Arab television station was
reporting that the peace-loving Palestinians had been scuppered by
the evil Izza-ra-aylees. Half an hour later, the next most important
story was that the wicked Izza-ra-aylees had been found guilty of
'war crimes' by an entirely independent UN committee, featuring
representatives of those beacons of human rights, Saudi Arabia and
Somalia. You won't be surprised to learn that the wickedness of the
evil Izza-ra-aylees was the front page lead in the Guardian
yesterday. I don't know why the BBC even bothers to pretend it is
impartial. its idea of balanced 'news' is reading out the Guardian
every morning" [Richard Littlejohn, Daily Mail, 25 January
"The BBC is, of course, not interested in the truth. In fact, it
fills very well the role of an Orwellian Ministry of Truth, whose
only purpose is to indoctrinate the public in socialist claptrap.
How long must the people of Britain supinely pay the license to
these ['useful idiots']?"
[Reader's comment, March 25th, 2011, 9.06am, at
"On BBC Radio 4 this
morning John Humphrys suggested that by identifying the rapists as
Pakistani Muslims rather than just Asians was to give ammunition to
the right-wing. So the BBC continues to cover up the brutality of
Muslim gang rape rather than face the reality of the modern Britain
produced by malignant and catastrophic left-wing ideology. By doing
this the BBC ... is complicit in the rape of our children"
"I say it again, what is
wrong with the diversity that Britain already has? We hear time and
time again from the BBC lecturing us that Britain is a multicultural
society. Well I'm afraid outside the main city centers it ... isn't;
unlike the anti-white, anti-English, anti-Christian BBC, some of us
... are still proud to be white and British - and I couldn't care
less what culture or race one comes from so long as they respect our
way of life and traditions. I love different cultures of the World
and enjoy living side-by-side Sikhs and Buddhists and so on BUT this
is Britain and the BBC should remember that we too want to be
recognised for who we are and not have our identities airbrushed
from the pages of history by upper class, guilt-ridden urban
liberals who hold the working classes in utter contempt. ... I would
remind the BBC that the majority of people who fund its existence
are not from outer Mongolia or Trinidad but Britain so why don't
they stop obsessing over race and imposing the multicultural thought
on us all and just get on with what they are paid to do until such
time the tyranny of the enforced TV Licence is removed once and for
all..." [Comment at
"If [Carol Thatcher]
really doesn't know that it's crude bad manners to call black people
'golliwogs', then she's even stupider than she looks. And yet,
despite all this, I have to say that her sacking is a creepy and
disgraceful thing. It's creepy because of the Stasi-type informer
who reported her, when an upturned glass of red wine over the
Thatcher blonde locks would have been more honest and a better
lesson. And it's disgraceful because of the BBC's feigned outrage,
when it shelters in its studios great regiments of Left-wing bigots
and hate-mongers who can say what they like"
Mail on Sunday, 7 February 2009].
"Don't make the mistake of
thinking that the BBC is a news reporting organization. The BBC is a
campaigning organisation with many agendas to further. The news is
subservient to the various narratives that the BBC wish to advance"
"How we used to jeer at
the Soviet Union for claiming record tractor production, record
wheat production and record economic growth. These fatuous lies were
obvious falsehoods, ... But our own official figures are now just as
laughably false. The worst of all are the annual claims that our
schools are producing a new generation of brilliant wonder children.
... For more than a decade, people like me have been abused and
denounced because we dared to point out that British school
standards were failing, and that our bench-mark examinations were
being watered down. ... Now our case is absolutely proved, by the
sudden halt in ever-improving grades. This was caused by a simple
warning from the government, requiring the exam boards to show that
any more 'improvement' was justified by better quality work. And yet
the lies continue. The BBC, ... has never questioned the absurd
Stalinist claims of our education industry, ... That is because the
causes of our wretched education standards, ... lie in the failed
Left-wing policies of the Sixties. The BBC passionately supports
these policies, and the Tory Party has adopted them just as their
utter failure has become evident to anyone with a spark of
intelligence" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 26 August
"Here's the real reason
why the BBC can't host a statue of George Orwell (Orwell himself
would have loathed the idea of such a graven image). Orwell was
neither of the Left nor of the Right, but dedicated to truth at any
cost. The BBC, by contrast, can and does distort the truth to serve
its Leftist ends" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 26 August
"Last weekend, almost
every BBC radio bulletin I listened to, over several days, mentioned
a petition calling for full implementation of the Leveson Report
into the press, and said that the number of signatures was rising.
Unless they can show that they have ever done this with any other
comparable petition, I believe this is objective evidence of BBC
bias on a matter of public controversy. Will the BBC Trust act?"
[Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 09 December 2012].
"I am besieged by
unhappy citizens distressed by the BBC's decision to move a
favourite programme, Sunday Half Hour, from its evening slot on
Radio 2 to a pre-dawn timing. One writes: 'It is obviously a
move to kill off one of the few Christian programmes.' I suspect he
may be right. The BBC's right-on executives tend to treat older
listeners as if they are already dead" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday,
13 January 2013].
"First, the new BBC
director general makes New Labourite James Purnell his strategy
director. Now, with the appointment of Guardian veteran Ian Katz to
edit Newsnight, Tony Hall adds another Left-winger to his stable.
With a political editor who was also at the Guardian, and an ex-Trotskyist
as economics editor, Mr Katz will be among soulmates on the
programme. One question: how can 'new broom' Lord Hall claim, with a
straight face, that the BBC is politically unbiased?"
Comment, 18 May 2013].
"In a rare moment of
inspiration, the BBC sent Justine and Bee Rowlatt, and two of their
children, to live in Germany the way Germans do, for a TV programme.
It is amazing how little we in Britain know of our great rival, and
this was a clever way of opening our eyes. I just wish the Rowlatts,
especially Bee, had made a bit more of an effort to learn the
language and to wonder if the Germans didn't have something to teach
us, especially about raising children. Here's what they found.
Germany has schools that teach people the skills of work. It has
real apprenticeships. It has family-owned manufacturing industries
in every town, which export around the world on quality as well as
price. Work itself remains hard and disciplined, but it is
well-paid, and money goes further there than here. If you have
children, you are subsidised and mothers are not pressured to go to
work - rather the reverse. Debt is feared and despised. Thrift is
encouraged. ... Sunday is a real day of rest. Noisy neighbours get
into trouble, and inconsiderate drivers meet with immediate
disapproval. ... I might add that it still has grammar schools and
wonderful railways. And that it is the only Western nation with
millions of citizens who actually experienced communism, and who
were liberated from it. Which is perhaps why they value their
country more highly than we value ours"
[Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday,
11 August 2013].
"Have you noticed how
mainstream advertisements are turning political? While waiting to
see that puzzling but exciting film Captain Phillips, I endured two
bank commercials. In one, a young man was seeking a home loan
because he didn't like his granny's 'Right-wing views'. In another
we were shown two female twins, with contrasting lives but the same
sort of debit card. One had a husband. The other had a lesbian
girlfriend. What are these commercials really selling?"
[Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 27 October 2013].
"I am absolutely
appalled by the way the media is making [Nelson Mandela] out to be a
god. For the first time in my life I have come to understand how the
'whole world' will follow after the beast. Never could quite get my
head around that, but now I do. With every passing day, we [here in
South Africa] have either a farmer murdered, baby raped (last week
was 6 WEEK old baby), an old pensioner brutally attacked and our
media is silent. All because of the AbortionNecklacingCommunists"
hysteria following the death [of Nelson Mandela] is verging on
propaganda. ... I was particularly struck by the uncritical coverage
by the BBC, ignoring part of the story which they clearly do not
want to be seen. They've fallen over themselves to see the
positivity, with one view, but not highlighting the pursuit and
endorsement of terrorism which left a trail of victims"
"Nelson Mandela's South
Africa is the rape and murder capital of the world, not something to
[be] celebrated really, but all I am seeing across the entire MSM is
gushing praise for Mandela. Now this might be right, or it might be
wrong, but why is no counter-argument permissible? The Daily
Telegraph has five articles praising Mandela that THOU WILL NOT
DISSENT - all the comments are disabled. When it comes to non-White
Saints we must approve or be forced into silence, RIP freedom of
speech in Great Britain" [Paul
Weston, comment at
"I rather enjoyed singer
P.J. Harvey's edition of BBC Radio 4's Today programme. It wasn't
that much more Left-wing than it normally is, and I agreed with its
strong support for liberty, its dislike of war and its condemnation
of torture. It was far more honest and blatant than usual about its
bias - which of course makes that bias much easier to resist. The
BBC's real partiality is effective because most people don't notice
it - the careful selection of subjects and guests to exclude some
views and help others, the prominence given to favoured causes, tone
of voice in interviews, who gets selected for soft treatment, and
who for the third degree, and who gets the last word. How about P.J.
Hitchens as guest editor next Christmas? I could show them how
genuinely fair broadcasting can be done, even by a biased person,
though I'm not sure they want to know"
[Peter Hitchens, Mail on
Sunday, 05 January 2014].
"The left-wing Guardian
newspaper (the only one BBC staffers read) rightly takes a firm line
against censorship. But when Melissa Kite submitted an article on
'addiction', in which she described me as 'intellectually
brilliant', The Guardian censored the words. Personally, I think
Melissa was far too kind, but that's not the point. She said it.
They cut it out" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on
Sunday, 19 January 2014].
"How does the BBC get
away with its blatantly racialist plan to ensure that one in every
seven actors or presenters is black, Asian or from an ethnic
minority within three years? When are we going to judge people not
by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character,
as Martin Luther King said we should? Anyway, if it's diversity the
BBC wants, it could start by employing any journalists at all who
are aren't fanatically Green or Left-wing"
[Peter Hitchens, Mail
on Sunday, 29 June 2014].
Fake Journalism and Fake
An extended extract from
Fake Journalism, Fake Virtue
"It's a truism that the
mainstream media, the academy, and the political establishment (both
Republican and Democrat)
[EMcD: likewise in the UK]
constitute a vast echo chamber. If you want to play in their
sandbox, you have to stay within the designated parameters, or risk
being ejected without your bucket and shovel.
"The virtuous folk are
those who pass the ideological tests. They are the ones allowed to
play in the sandbox. They reinforce their virtue by signaling it to
each other using a variety of undefined but well-known mechanisms.
Virtue-signaling may be recognised by the use of certain words and
phrases, such as 'diversity', 'tolerance', 'inclusion' (positive),
'racism', 'hate', '(fill in the blank) phobia', and 'extremist'
(negative). A savvy denizen of the sandbox knows which of the
signalled concepts must be approved, and which must be denounced.
Those who approve or denounce appropriately are allowed to stay and
"It's important to
remember that post-modern virtue as displayed in the sandbox does
not depend on facts. It depends on the positions one takes
with respect to the Narrative.
"The term 'fake news'
was recently added to the virtue-signaling lexicon. Fake news is any
information that conveys a position lying outside the Narrative.
Therefore fake news must be severely denounced by those who want to
[End of Extract]
The Principles of Newspeak
An extract from the
Appendix to the novel 1984 by Gorge Orwell, quoted at:
Language Wars: The Road to Tyranny Is Paved With Language Censorship
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only
to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental
health habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc (English Socialist
Party) but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was
intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and
Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought
diverging from the principles of Ingsoc - should be literally
unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its
vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle
expression to every meaning that a party member could properly wish
to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the
possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods.
"This was done partly by the invention
of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by
stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far
as possible of all secondary meanings whatsoever. To give a
single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but
it could only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free
from lice' or 'This field is free from weeds'. It
could not be used in its old sense of 'politically free' or
'intellectually free' since political and intellectual freedom no
longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity
nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical
words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and
no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive.
"Newspeak was designed not to extend
but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was
indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a
[End of Extract]
extended extract is from the
The Origin of 'Identity Politics' & 'Political Correctness'
(sometimes dubbed 'political correctness') is the result of a
political-Left major backlash against the mass of ordinary people
(in Europe and 'the West'), beginning in the 1920s/30s, in the wake
of the persistent failure of Marxist theory to be realised in
European 'revolution' or any real change through democracy. In
shifting the blame away from Marxist theory and those gullible
enough to adhere to it, and on to those the theory had prescribed
and predicted would have been the beneficiaries, if only they had
responded accordingly ('the [white, male] workers'); then the
cognitive-dissonance within the political-left mindset caused by
this crisis to an extent was salved"
"As with any fervent ideology, a
hallmark of the political-Left is interpreting anything and
everything in its own ideological terms to claim as a manifestation
of the ideology and its prophecy - jumping on a bandwagon, so to
speak; though here only to hijack it. The bandwagon here was, of
course, the American civil rights movement, which though enjoying
ubiquitous support within black communities - to the point often of
various forms of extremism - featured virtually nil endorsement of
socialism ... It is from the time of this co-option that 'identity
politics' dates; many considering that the movement was incorporated
into the Left in the wake of King's assassination in 1968 - the
major turning-point year in political-Left politics generally"
"'Civil rights', as the first great
'single-issue' campaign, served not least to provide an acceptable
cloak for the Left to avoid provoking a resurgence of McCarthysim.
The major social upheaval of 'civil rights' with its large-scale and
widespread rioting was easily the nearest thing in then recent US
history to look like the promised Marxist 'revolution', and
obviously was just the practical application the 'theory' was
seeking. Moreover, the protagonists (black Americans) were eminently
separable form the now despised 'workers' per se, in being
presentable as a new 'group; from outside of the former fray of
'boss' versus 'worker'.
"This accident of history served to
add 'black' to 'woman' as 'the new oppressed' ... 'The worker' in
effect was retrospectively stereotyped as both 'man' and 'white'.
With the inverse of this stereotype of 'white' being not just 'black
American' but 'black' - that is, ethnic-minority generically ... so
it was that the new 'agents of social change' / 'disadvantaged' /
'oppressed' were extended from women to also include all ethnic
"It is only with the knowledge of how
this developed that sense can be made of why ethnicity is held above
the myriad other possible differences that could be utilised as
in-group markers, when in fact there is nothing inherent in
ethnicity as an in-group marker to produce inter-group prejudice
that is particularly more pernicious"
"Indeed, the worst inter-communal
conflicts nominally between different ethnicities usually are
between different cultural heritages with no discernible 'racial'
differences of any kind - and what (non-ethnic) differences there
are can be minimal; the lack of contrast actually fuelling the
intensity of conflict, such is the need for groups to feel
distinguished from each other"
"Furthermore, ethnic prejudice is
anything but restricted to or even predominantly 'white' on 'black':
inter-ethnic (eg, 'black' on Asian) and ethnic-on-'white' 'racism'
can be, often is and may usually be the greater problem; and a
negative attitude to a certain ethnicity does not imply a similar
attitude to other ethnicities"
"The specific US experience, given
the highly divisive politics in the wake of the American Civil War
over the basis of the Southern US economy in African slavery, does
not translate to elsewhere; notably not to Europe - as was starkly
evidenced in the experience of World War II 'black' American GIs
stationed in England in how they were favourably received by locals,
who sided with them when discriminated against"
"'Racial divides' in European 'white'
host countries are the result not of mutual antipathy but
affiliative forces, principally within migrant enclaves and
secondarily within the 'host' community; in both cases being through
in-group 'love', not out-group 'hate'"
[EMcD: though the latter
part of this observation is indeed true in normal circumstances,
this does not, of course, take account of the Islamic/Koranic
doctrines of Al-Hijra (Immigration), Taqiyya (Lying and Deceit), and Razzia/Ghazwa
(Rape and Slavery), Dawa (Cultural and Stealth Jihad), and Terrorist
and Violent Jihad, carried out by fundamentalist Muslims as
they settle in increasing numbers in Western countries with the sole
purpose of making every remaining Dar al-Harb ('House of War': i.e.
any non-Muslim country) into a Dar al-Islam ('House of Submission': i.e all Muslim countries) until Islam finally achieves its
longed-for global Caliphate.]
[End of Extract]
"The Frankfurt School
believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the
hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the
problems facing society, then that society would never reach the
state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary
to provoke socialist revolution.
Their task, therefore, was as
swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do
this they called for the most negative destructive criticism
possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to
de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the
'oppressive' order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a
virus - 'continuing the work of Western Marxists by other means' as
one of their members noted.
To further the advance
of their 'quiet' cultural revolution ... the [Frankfurt] School
recommended (among other things):
(1) the creation of racism
(2) continual change to create confusion,
(3) the teaching
of sex and homosexuality to children,
(4) the undermining of
schools' and teachers' authority,
(5) huge immigration to destroy
(6) the promotion of excessive drinking,
(7) emptying of
(8) an unreliable legal system with bias against victims
(9) dependency on the state or state benefits,
control and dumbing down of media,
(11) encouraging the breakdown of
One of the main ideas
of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism'
- the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences
between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships
between men and women. To further their aims they would:
the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and
mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary
educators of their children,
(b) abolish differences in the
education of boys and girls,
(c) abolish all forms of male dominance
- hence the presence of women in the armed forces,
(d) declare women
to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'."
eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to
create a social state:
Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the
Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as
possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight
back if you are providing everything for them to live;
- Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That wa6y you are
able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty;
Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from
the Government. That way you are able to create a police state;
Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives
(Food, Housing, and Income);
Education - Take control of that people read and listen
to - take control of what children learn in school;
Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government
Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and
the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier
to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor" [source].
"Woe unto them that call evil
good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
note that the inclusion of any quotation or item on this page does not
imply we would necessarily endorse the source from which the extract is
taken; neither can we necessarily vouch for any other materials by the
or any groups or
ministries or websites with which they may be associated, or any
periodicals to which they may contribute, or the
beliefs of whatever kind they may hold, or any other aspect of their
work or ministry or position.