Author Archives: Alan

Here’s another Guardian story but again it illustrates the same prejudices that are hard wired into the psyches of the BBCers in their loathing of anything that smacks of ‘Right Wing’ populism….ie anything that the general public might believe or enjoy.

I have included much more of the material than is stricly necessary because it is of interest regardless of BBC bias concerns….read on…..

Unmitigated lefty loathing of the Daily Mail….hardly a day goes by on the BBC or in the Guardian when the daily Mail is not mentioned in a dismissive and sneering tone. It is the one paper that seems to inherently stick in the craw of the left….presenter after presenter will say something of a leftwing nature and then reel back in mock horror saying ‘that’ll be headlines in the Mail tomorrow’.

The Mail reports some scientific research into brain responses to certain stimuli and gets the  Guardianista hot under the collar and very excited and overwrought:

Racism is ‘hardwired’ into the human brain – and people can be prejudiced without knowing it

The Guardian response is to emote outrage and damaged sensibilities as well as proclaiming the inherent nastiness of all Right wingers….inherent?  Surely not?

What this ‘racism is hardwired’ story says about the Daily Mail

The misuse of science to support the idea that racism is inevitable forms a persistent, low drumbeat on the right

The Daily Mail has bad news for “right-thinking” people everywhere: ‘Racism is “hardwired” into the human brain’. Even well-meaning progressives “make unconscious decisions based on a person’s race”. It is inescapable. To claim that racism is hardwired is to say that it is natural.

The one small hitch in this story is adverted to in that shopworn phrase “scientists say”. A discordant note should always sound in the reader’s mind when a journalist opens an article with this assurance.

For, in point of fact, scientists don’t say.

…..actually the scientists did say that racism is not a conscious act…..‘Thus far, we have obtained modest evidence about these processes as they operate in our brains, unbeknownst to our conscious selves.  A network of interacting brain regions is important in the unintentional, implicit expression of racial attitudes and its control. People tend to show unintentional indications of race bias, even when they are motivated to be non-prejudiced

You can have an implicit bias and choose not to act on it, and the DLPFC may be trying to regulate the emotional responses that conflict with our egalitarian goals and beliefs.’

Clearly the problem is the Guardianista’s own prejudices, presumably ones which he has consciously chosen to adopt as a lifestyle ‘accessory’….First thing to note of course is that he says ‘that shopworn phrase “scientists say”. A discordant note should always sound in the reader’s mind when a journalist opens an article with this assurance.’

I am amused because I’m certain somewhere in the Guardian there is an article or two that tells me in no uncertain terms climate change is totally man made because ‘scientists say it is’.

Moving on, a session on Google quickly brings up article after article from ‘respectable’ publishers…many from the Guardian itself…saying exactly what the Mail has said.

Clearly the Guardianista has a purely ideological take on this and the facts have little bearing on the matter…however here for your interest are some of the facts as report after report reveal…..

From the Guardian

They just can’t help it

What kind of brain do you have? There really are big differences between the male and female brain, says Simon Baron-Cohen. And they could help explain conditions such as autism Do you have a male or female brain?

From a science journal:

Hard-wired xenophobia and facial similarity effects.

One brain-based argument Hanft didn’t include is likely one of the most potent: our brains are wired to trust people who look like us more than those who don’t. No doubt part of this tendency dates back to hunter-gatherer days when recognizing members of your tribe was important, and members of other tribes might be a threat. One interesting piece of research showed that facial similarity was a major factor in trust, implying that “differentiation of kin” is a key factor.

From the Lefty Washington Post:

The Egalitarian Brain” by New York University psychologist David Amodio, a chapter in the new book “Are We Born Racist?,” ….our brains are wired to make snap judgments on race. ….our brains will never be “color blind.” Of course, our brains also have a neocortex that can “override our immediate, but sometimes inappropriate, reactions to people from other groups,” .

From a psychologist:

Stone Age survival needs hard-wired into our brains to create a two-tiered system of conscious and subconscious thought. Elucidated by 2002 Nobel Prize winner in economics Daniel Kahneman, the systems are divided into the prehistoric System One (Gut) and System Two (Head). Gut is quick, evolutionary and designed to react to mortal threats, while Head is more modern, conscious thought capable of analyzing statistics and being rational….decisions are mostly made by the gut .

From the hallowed BBC:

Are political beliefs hard-wired?

If it was possible to “see” political belief in the structure of the brain, and if science could predict whether a person was left or right wing.

The obvious answer was to take a look at the brains of two MP’s with diametrically opposing views – step forward Thatcherite Conservative Alan Duncan, and Labour stalwart Stephen Pound, who agreed to undergo a structural brain scan using Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or MRI.

The results showed a strong correlation between between political belief and two specific regions of the brain. The grey matter of the anterior cingulate was significantly thicker amongst those who described themselves as liberal, or left wing, while the amygdala – an area associated with emotional processing – was larger in those who regarded themselves as conservative or right wing.

“It’s a remarkable finding” says professor Rees. “We were very surprised to find two areas of the brain from which we could predict political attitudes.”

From the Independent:

Brain shape ‘shows political allegiance’

Neuroscientists are examining whether political allegiances are hard-wired into people after finding evidence that the brains of conservatives are a different shape to those of left-wingers.

Scans of 90 students’ brains at University College London (UCL) uncovered a “strong correlation” between the thickness of two particular areas of grey matter and an individual’s views.

The research was carried out by Geraint Rees director of the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience

From the Guardian:

The Optimism Bias by Tali Sharot: extract

Our brains may be hardwired to look on the bright side, says neuroscientist Tali Sharot in this extract from her new book

We like to think of ourselves as rational creatures. We watch our backs, weigh the odds, pack an umbrella. But both neuroscience and social science suggest that we are more optimistic than realistic.

Hardwired for hope?

Findings from a study I conducted a few years ago with prominent neuroscientist Elizabeth Phelps suggest this…Why would our brains be wired in this way? It is tempting to speculate that optimism was selected by evolution precisely because, on balance, positive expectations enhance the odds of survival….and emerging data that optimism is linked to specific genes.

From the Guardian:

The brain… it makes you think. Doesn’t it?

Are we governed by unconscious processes? Neuroscience believes so.

It is clear at this point that we are irrevocably tied to the 3lb of strange computational material found within our skulls. The brain is utterly alien to us, and yet our personalities, hopes, fears and aspirations all depend on the integrity of this biological tissue. How do we know this? Because when the brain changes, we change.  As much as we like to think about the body and mind living separate existences, the mental is not separable from the physical

Indeed, brains and culture operate in a feedback loop, each influencing the other.

Nonetheless, culture does leave its signature in the circuitry of the individual brain. If you were to examine an acorn by itself, it could tell you a great deal about its surroundings – from moisture to microbes to the sunlight conditions of the larger forest. By analogy, an individual brain reflects its culture. ….it does give a richer understanding of the wellspring of our ideas, moral intuitions, biases and beliefs. Sometimes these internal drives are genetically embedded, other times they are culturally instructed – but in all cases their mark ends up written into the fabric of the brain.

From the Guardian:

Natural born killers

Does scientific evidence that war is hardwired into human society mean that we are doomed to live in perpetual conflict?

According to an emerging theory reported in New Scientist, “not only is war as ancient as human kind … but it has played an integral role in our evolution”.

Experts from numerous disciplines  now seem to agree that warfare is hardwired into our societies and behaviour.

Oh NOOO…from the Daily Mail:

Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study

Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced. Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel ‘safe’.  Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.

Funny how the Guardianistas don’t object to that one …in fact they love it……　

From the Guardian:

The right’s stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left

We have been too polite to mention the Canadian study published last month in the journal Psychological Science, which revealed that people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence. Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.

There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly “different” others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.

Yes, conservatism thrives on low intelligence and poor information.

And last but not least:

HARD WIRED TO BE A SOFT TOUCH

So on the one hand right wingers are of low intelligence and so pre-disposed to be racist by their underpowered little brains…on the other hand the brain is not hardwired to be racist so it must therefore be a conscious decison to be racist based on some form of presumably intelligent reasoning.

The real reason the Guardianista hated the story of course was that it suggested that even he, in the darkest corners of his mind, was just perhaps a little bit racist however hard he tried to play it down and hide it….except of course in the case of right wingers or Daily Mail readers who are fair game for any abuse.

And a final comment from discerning reader of the Guardian:

daffers56

27 June 2012 4:44PM

Perhaps it is now time for the Daily Mail to be exposed for the nasty, irresponsible and immoral rag it is! This type of journalism spreads lies, falsehoods and disinformation. This in turn leads to the erosion of a decent and cohesive Society. We must have a free press, but with those same freedoms must come responsibility. If individuals behaved in similar ways they would be subject to the rule of the Law. We can only guess how deep this rot extends and who sanctions it?

Indeed…er except most such stories come from the pages of the Guardian itself.

Whilst Eddie Mair on R4 attacks Bankers as ‘greedy, unscrupulous liars’  nowhere to be seen is an expose of Labour’s underhand and corrupt methods where it funds ‘charities’ that then go out and promote a Labour agenda…..if a ‘mere’ blog like Guido Fawkes can dig up these stories the question is why can’t the all powerful and well resourced BBC?

Perhaps the will is missing.

The BBC has indulged its anti-Establishment leanings and satisfied its simmering desire to hack away at the Police Force in a polemical onslaught based on, well not very much really. They drag up a few examples of bad practise but how many good ones?  None.  Hardly what you might call balanced or anywhere near the truth. 

It is what you might call a dangerous lie being peddled by the BBC in its film ‘Can We Trust The Police?’.

The truth is that this programme is not about the Police it’s all about assuaging the guilt ridden ‘hideously white’ BBC employees who are ground down by the angst of inheriting the history of imperialism and colonialism that is now perpetuated in the ‘ethnic’ ghettoes of our cities….until the people of colour break free from the yoke of the whiteman and his oppression they will never succeed and prosper and develop in their own right, fulfilling their destiny to be independent free willed people. What is going on is not crime but revolution, an insurgency against an alien culture imposed upon them….until they break free from the bonds that tie them to a system that keeps them in a cycle of deprivation of spirit, wealth and humanity they are in effect still slaves under the whiphand of their white masters.

Bet that’s on some BBC employee’s blog.

The BBC is in a highly privileged position….it has the ability to choose a subject, make a film about it and then broadcast it to the world.

The subject of that film of course has little say in what impression of him is given to the world.

The BBC is at liberty to make any claim it likes as long as it believes it can back it up in some shape or form. The subject of the film can only make an effective complaint after the film has been broadcast by which time the damage is done regardless of whether the BBC has been ‘mistaken’ and issues an apology.

The BBC has all the power…it decides the subject matter, it decides who presents a film, who appears on it to give ‘evidence’, what questions are asked and what answers are broadcast and of course the overall shape of the film once it goes through the editing process so that it arrives at the required conclusions.

The recent BBC film ‘Can We Trust The Police’ is a case in point showing the BBC at its worst when it sets out to answer a question that it has already  written the answer to…it just needs to ‘find’ the ‘proof’.

They chose Adam Deacon to present the show. He is a mixed race rapper/actor who claims to have suffered police harassment himself and set out to show that this is in fact the way the police work as a norm rather than the exception….essentially he is a rebel without a cause…sure some police go too far….but not all by a long stretch…and I could make a similar film about any job …..Harold Shipman?  Stafford Hospital, Firemen….and of course media johnnies who set out to spread alarm, fear and anger in their various reports either here in ‘deprived’ communities or with regard to events in the Middle East where ill conceived prejudices and distorted views lead to ‘angry’ Muslims and terrorism in the UK….you could make a valid claim that 7/7 was a direct result of BBC coverage of the Iraq War and the run up to it.

The choice of presenter immediately tells you that this is not a serious programme and is unconcerned about providing balance and truth, and yet it is a subject of enormous importance and the wrong impression of the police given by the programme could have serious repercussions.

Is he going to be biased? Yes he is, and he was…how does it serve anybodies interest to have someone who is already predisposed to hate the police present a programme that seems deliberately designed to cause even more deep distrust of them?

It is starkly apparent this programme set out to sow distrust amongst certain communities towards the police and to reinforce impressions given by vested interests who seek to create conflict in order to gain their own influence.

A highly irresponsible programme that is at heart deeply dishonest and malign in intention and that paints every police officer now serving as racist and violent.

The fallout from reinforcing such stereotypes is a steep fall off in respect and trust for not only the police but all ‘Establishment’ institutions and the Law itself….resulting in anarchy and more riots….which it must be said the BBC seemed to revel in as it gave them the chance to bash the police, always a favourite, and of course to blame the Tory cuts for making people desperate and deprived…though mostly depraved.

The BBC stance to policing…arresting criminals makes them feel harassed and humiliated, angry and alienated…..the answer clearly is not to arrest them or punish them in any way…..a happy criminal is one who of course won’t commit any crimes any more now that he has a sunny disposition and the respect and understanding of Authority.

Dwayne (sometime BBC social alienation consultant) says:  ‘Leevin skool soon, carrears teecher sed cud be ‘bergler’ now as a carreer choyse like. Terific i Thort, no GSCEs like but skool of hard nocks an all, QBE or so the nonce of a privat skool kid i mugged sed i was.

Aparantly sign up as bergler an you get a guverment card that you take too argos an pick wot you like outta the catalog an the council even giv yoo a showffered motor home. No nite shift no longer, helth an safty is execlent like…no broken windows too climb throo and no homeowners hittin you. A dreem job like. peachey.

Saves the posesive homeowners crying on coppers shoalders, saves the pigs havin to come lookin for me an upsettin me mam, an saves money not puttin me in the slammer. All for the cost of a few argos consoomabals (thrown away soon by throwway sosiaty anyways) an’ made for pense in chinky land.’

The Colonel says: ‘And how about those damned druggies eh? I say conscript the blighters, put ’em in khaki and march ’em into Stalinist penal battalions over to Africa and Cambodia to clear mines by stamping through the bush. Damned fine method, worked in WW 2, saw off the Hun and won the War on the Nazis, should work on the War on Drugs, what?’

The BBC says:

“Do it. Do it if it feels good. Do it now. The church is wrong. Your parents are old fogies. Everyone is doing it. Don’t be left out. You’re entitled to something for nothing. There are no bad consequences. And besides, you won’t get caught.  In many ways our society has failed you, ignoring the hard-won lessons of history, the accumulated wisdom of the ages, the maxims of morality. Truths revealed, experienced and long respected are not well taught to most in your generation. “

The spectacled theorist would have given his life for his doctrine rather than for his people.

The abstract principles that the law of democracy and ‘liberty’ are more sacred than the welfare of the nation under which principles these intelligentsia will defend the worst kind of tyranny, though it may be leading a people to ruin, because it is fleeting embodiment of the ‘authority of the state’ and another will reject even a highly beneficial government if it should happen not to be in accord with his notion of democracy.

Because man made laws, he subsequently comes to think that he exists for the sake of the laws.

Hitler said that, but in yesterday’s Reith Lecture, if your sensibilites would prefer, Niall Ferguson said something similar….that we become ruled by Lawyers and the Law becomes an end in itself…..has the rule of law in the English-speaking world inadvertently gone back to Bleak House? Has the rule of law degenerated into the rule of lawyers?

Much the same as the Left’s ideology…regardless of the effects it may have upon the people the doctrine will be followed….Immigration is ‘good’ therefore even if shown to be ‘bad’ we must  continue down that path.

A fine illustration of this has surfaced today in the Telegraph highlighting the contradictions in what the Left claim they desire for the youth of this country and the things they do in reality.

The official agent in Beijing for universities in the elite Russell Group claimed that it could secure over-subscribed places for a Chinese student purporting to have scored three C grades in their A-levels – when British students are required to have at least A, A and B.

Undercover reporters were also told to tell the UK authorities that the student would be returning home immediately after graduation – even if that was not their intention – in order to secure a visa.

Universities were accused of profiteering by rejecting tens of thousands of British teenagers, currently sitting A-levels, so they can fill places with more profitable foreign students

The BBC et al tell us immigration is the great economic secret weapon of this country…and that limits on immigration means universities will not be able to recruit foreign students along with their foreign exchange.

The BBC et al tell us conversely that it is vital to tackle youth unemployment in this country and that education and access to good university education is vital for social mobility.

Many of those unemployed ‘youth’ might have got their foot on the first rung of the jobs ladder had it not been for being undercut by cheap foreign labour…and some being discouraged from getting work because of the high levels of benefits they receive.

Even if they applied themselves and looked to secure themselves a prosperous future by getting a university degree it seems they are again blocked by foreign immigrants who are now leapfrogging the queue by waving wads of cash at the universities.

This all raises some questions….as the import of immigrants and foreign students is a cause célèbre of the Left how can they reconcile that with the fact that because of their policies youth unemployment is increased, social mobility is stifled and essentially the ‘hated’ values of Capitalism have distorted the access to universities and blocks that pathway to a better future for the less well off in society who cannot compete with rich foreign students…or indeed the rich British ones?

The Principles of BBC NewsSpeak

‘What is important is not what the creator

of an idea of genius may mean, but what this idea

becomes in the mouth of whomever transmits it.’

Adolf Hitler

The principles are whatever the BBC says they are.

BBC NewsSpeak is the official language of the Liberal Elite and has been devised to meet the ideological needs of PolCoPS, or Politically Correct Progressive Socialism. In the year 2007 there is not as yet many who use BBC NewsSpeak as their sole means of communication, either in speech or writing. The leading stories in the BBC News, and articles in the Guardian and Independent are written in it, but this is a tour de force which can only be carried out by dedicated specialists such as James Naughtie, Polly Toynbee and Simon Jenkins. It is expected that BBC NewsSpeak will finally supersede the Plain and Simple Speak (or standard English, as we would call it) by about the year 2030. Meanwhile it gains ground steadily, all in the BBC Political Party and fellow travellers tend to use BBC NewsSpeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their broadcasts, political articles and in the cafe culture of Primrose Hill and Nottinghill Gate.

The purpose of BBC NewsSpeak is not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Progressive Socialism, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Divergence from the principles of a Progressive Socialist Society would be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words. It’s vocabulary is so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a BBC Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. For example the word free still exists in BBC NewsSpeak but can only exist in such statements as ‘This dog is free of lice’. It could not be used in it’s old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer exists even as a concept. The Party does your thinking for you, Aunty knows best.

BBC NewsSpeak is designed not to extend your knowledge or range of thought but to diminish it.

All BBC NewsSpeak words are deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, not only have in every case a political implication, but are intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them. Many are a verbal shorthand, often packing whole ranges of ideas into a few syllables, and at the same time expressing those ideas more accurately and forcefully than ordinary language. To take a single example: Whitemale, meaning ‘racist thug who has historically oppressed and exploited the world’. Conversely BRITISHMuslim would be used to indicate someone ‘oppressed and discriminated against by Whitemale, ignored and demeaned by a Whitemale dominated Establishment, and therefore justified in murders driven by social and economic deprivation imposed on them by an uncaring society’.

A typical BBC NewsSpeak sentence such as BRITISHMuslims bellyfeel Jihad Blair would in Plain and Simple Speak be rendered as ‘Muslims, who are very definitely British and therefore it is all the more surprising and shocking that they feel so desperate. These feelings of outrage are an indictment and condemnation of Blair‘s foreign policies, and it is imperative that we understand the problems that produce this anger and why this anger will be expressed in the form of violence against the State and non-Muslims should the vaunted Democratic process not give them a proper voice and the respect and consideration they feel they are due. Bombs can be part of the Democratic Process, understandable and justifiable if you are unemployed or perceive yourself as oppressed by virtue of your religion or skin colour’.

To grasp the full meaning of the BBC NewsSpeak sentence you have to have a clear idea of what is meant by PolCoPS. And in addition, only a person thoroughly grounded in PolCoPS could appreciate the full force of the word bellyfeel, which implies a blind, fundamentalist and enthusiastic acceptance difficult to imagine in a world of the Whitemale which is inextricably mixed up with the idea of wickedness and decadence.

As with the word free, words which had once borne a heretical meaning are sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. Countless other words such as honour, justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science and christianity have simply ceased to exist. A few blanket words covered them, and, in covering them, abolished them. All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty, equality and democracy are contained in the single word bushthink, whilst all words grouping themselves round the concepts of objectivity, rationalism and impartiality are contained in the single word relativethink. Greater precision would be dangerous, leading to broadening of thought and giving rise to ideas that might challenge the New Orthodoxy. In BBC NewsSpeak it is seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it was heretical: beyond that point the necessary words cease to exist.

Some words display a frank and contemptuous understanding of the real nature of the Liberal Elite’s Progressive Society. An example is prolefeed, meaning the rubbishy entertainment and spurious news which the BBC Party hands out to the masses.

The BBC Party is a Progressive Socialist entity imbued with morals and principles which it promotes and defends relentlessly and with unbounded zeal, Guardians of Truth and Social Justice. If it is necessary to tell convenient lies or to twist the truth in order to defend truth then so be it, in the name of the Greater Good. The benefit of mankind is a long term project that will materialise only by conscious effort and will of the intelligentsia who take on the mantle, the self-imposed responsibility, of representing the less fortunate, the less intellectually endowed members of society that is the obligation of the privileged placed in a position of leadership by reason of their natural ability, application, devotion to duty and the will to create a just and civil society. A selfless and dedicated group, who are prepared to immerse themselves deep into the world of filth, lies and black propaganda that sully their souls in order that lesser men may live in peace, harmony and blissful ignorance of the battles being fought on their behalf.

Ironically in this society created and nurtured by the BBC Party those who have the best knowledge of what is happening and the power to influence events are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane.

The name of every organisation, or body of people, or doctrine, or country, or institution, or public building is invariably cut down into the familiar shape, that is a single easily pronounced word with the smallest number of syllables that would preserve the original derivation. This was not done with the sole objective of saving time. In the early decades of the twentieth century telescoped words and phrases were characteristic of political language.

It can be noticed that the tendency to use abbreviations of this kind was most marked in totalitarian countries and totalitarian organisations. Examples were such words as Nazi, Gestapo, Comintern, Agitprop, Tory and lately Neo-con. The BBC Party endorses these words and the use of Neo-con and Tory are especially favoured, even more so if juxtaposed with Nazi, Gestapo or Fascist. Neo-con can be seen as an attempt to link an undesirable political dogma with the Nazis by the use of ‘Neo’ whilst ‘Con’ clearly has its own bad connotations. Shortening a word also shortens its meaning, limiting peoples scope for expanding what it might represent. Neo-con is easily spat out, a word which is easily recognised and limited in purpose and meaning, though no one can actually give a definition of what it is to be a Neo-con, everybody knows it doesn’t have good associations and these associations are carefully nurtured and built upon by the BBC Party ensuring no one would admit to having Neo-con thoughts.

Another purpose of the clipping of words is to induce unmistakable meaning which can be uttered rapidly and which will rouse the minimum of echoes in the speaker’s mind, to make speech independent of conscience.

Ultimately the intention is to make articulate speech without involving the higher brain areas at all. This aim has been frankly admitted by the BBC Party word ’duckspeak’, meaning to ‘quack like a duck’. BBC NewsSpeak readers will begin using this form of articulation once the Liberal education reforms are felt to be having the desired effect. Dictionaries are available now from Her ex-Majesty’s Stationers and as a download from BBC digitprop. They are available in Arabic, Chinese and all other languages except English which has of course been declassified and recognised as an imperialist language used to oppress and colonise culturally other indigenous populations around the world. BBC NewsSpeak in the form of ’duckspeak’ is to replace all other languages eventually so that we may live in peaceful co-existence and mutual respect. Simplified language with fewer chances to be misunderstood, fewer political thoughts and hence fewer possibilities of conflict. No talking, no reasoning, no discussion, no debate and you cannot be ‘conflicted’. The BBC NewsSpeak Revolution brings Resolution to World hostilities. An end to ‘difference’.

This is well under way with the Left gradually morphing into the Right, a phenomenon that began with the Stalinists of the 1930’s adopting the state sponsored violence of the Fascists with outspoken support of the western intellectuals who in an early example of doublethink managed to endorse mass murder and political tyranny whilst praising the humanitarian principles of the executioners. This peculiar linking together of opposites – knowledge with ignorance; cynicism with fanaticism- is a distinguishing feature of BBC Party and Liberal-Leftist ideology. In the modern age the Party rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it chooses to do this in the name of Socialism, and at the same time lends fervent support to Fascist dictators. It preaches a contempt for the working class, it systematically undermines the solidarity of the family, it considers Democracy a ‘Sacred Thing’ but something too precious for the people to exercise freely, they may vote in ways that are clearly abhorrent to right, that is to say Left, thinking persons. Even the name of it’s governing body, the BBC Trust, exhibits a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The BBC Trust being the body that conceals the lies of the BBC behind a mask of virtue, not an ordinary hypocrisy but a deliberate exercise in doublethink.

From the foregoing account it will be seen that in BBC NewsSpeak the expression of unorthodox opinions is well-nigh impossible. It is possible to utter heresies of a very crude kind, a species of blasphemy, such as Liberty, Egality and Fraternity; but such statements and concepts could not be sustained by reasoned argument, because the necessary words are no longer available. With the passage of time and new Acts of Parliament as directed by the BBC Committee for the Moral Good, ‘Plain and Simple Speak’ will die out to be replaced by the new orthodoxy as children will know of no other world and the last link with the past is severed. The mutability of the past is the central tenet of the BBC Party. If you control the past you control the future; if you control the present you control the past. Past events, it is argued have no objective existence and since the Party has full control of all records and is in equally full control of the minds of its adherents, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses it to be. If it is necessary for Party members to rearrange their memories or to tamper with written or film records then it is necessary for them to forget that they have done so in order for the truth to be realised. This technique in Plain and Simple Speak is called reality control, in BBC NewsSpeak it is called doublethink. This is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The process of manufacturing the new truth is a conscious one to be carried out with precision but also unconscious to circumvent feelings of falsity and hence guilt.

The essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies whilst genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies.

History has already been rewritten by the Liberal Left. Pre-60’s literature, institutions, traditions and culture are subject to disdainspeak. The pre-revolutionary history can only be read subject to ideological interpretation, alteration in sense as well as language.

Take for example the well known passage from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new Government…..

….It is impossible to render this into BBC NewsSpeak without losing the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing so would be to swallow the whole passage up in the word crimethink.

With apologies to Eric Blair, father of the Neo-con movement and heroic namesake of his chief Apostle, Anthony.

You’ve had to put up with a solid diet of my take on BBC bias for two weeks but David should be back in the saddle very shortly.

I shall say thanks for not abusing me too much and pointing me in the direction of some good stories.

You may wonder if the blog has any effect on the BBC…of course that’s hard to tell…but it is read by some surprising people and has had a few posts resurface in the main stream newspapers.  Without it there definitely would be no effect.

However now that David is returning from his two weeks holiday, hopefully away from most of the BBC output, he may be in a good mood…while it lasts you might like to pitch some ideas to him that could  further the reach and influence of this blog and increase its effect on the BBC or influence people who ‘have influence’.

I have seen a couple of ideas already that people have put up in the open threads so if you have some big ideas that would shake the BBC out of  its complacency now’s your chance to put them up in lights.

Bear in mind this is a volunteer run blog with limited resources….and it has to retain its essential purpose….nothing to stop you suggesting it grows or ‘commercialises’ but that is totally down to David.

It’s all yours…..

Question 1.  How do you spell ‘Labour got it wrong’?

Answer: ‘The Tories did it’

What is the missing word in this report  on the failure of PFI hospitals?

And the answer isn’t ‘Tory’.

Hospitals are either going to close or be put into ‘administration’ because their costs have spiralled out of control as they try to make the PFI payments.

What else is there?

Oh yes this: ‘The capital simply has too many hospitals.’

The BBC report down plays the PFI payments as causes of the huge losses and blames firstly the wrong type of patients, secondly not enough of the wrong type of patients anyway, and only lastly having to find huge sums of money to pay off Labour’s (yes that’s the word) PFI scheme….South London Healthcare cut costs by £47 million but still overspent by £40 million…by my maths that is a loss of £87 million in one year without the savings.  Money well spent by Labour trying to ‘buy’ an election or two.

So the truth about Labour’s NHS spending splurge that built vast numbers of hospitals is that there are too many hospitals, built in the wrong places, and designed for the wrong mix of patients.

Isn’t it ironic that it is Labour spending that has broken the NHS and not ‘Tory Cuts’?

Would the report have mentioned the Tories if they had implemented vastly improvident financial planning for the NHS and it had all gone very, very wrong?

I would like to think not…but somehow know better.

Update:

Yes it is the Tories fault……’could it be that the Tories ‘pointless’ reorganisation of the NHS has distracted them from the proper running of the NHS and delayed them taking action to prevent the meltdown?’  ….asks BBC news reader.

The BBC’s Black Ops co-conspirator has surfaced in the shape of the Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger going in for the kill whilst Murdoch is down…but still not out.

It is of course beautifully written…articulate and erudite…however it’s beautifully written tripe with a huge side order of self interested drivel.

The overwhelming case for plurality

This is not just about Rupert Murdoch – allowing media power to be concentrated in the hands of a few multibillionaires will impoverish society

Rusbridger claims this is not just about Murdoch but you’d be hard pushed to find any other target other than another fellow Australian ‘right wing’ business magnate mentioned in the piece.

Here is Rusbridger’s breakdown of the essential questions to ask about any media organisation:

In the UK, there is currently more choice, but the economics of news are undergoing a fundamental revolution, so nothing should be taken for granted. There are other powerful media organisations in the UK, including the BBC. In order to gauge the potential threat, try asking seven critical questions:

a) Does it have strong internal governance?

b) Is it effectively externally regulated?

c) Is it subject to, and does it comply with, the law?

d) Is it subjected to normal scrutiny by press and parliament?

e) Does it overtly try to exert public political influence?

f) Does it privately lobby over regulation or competition issues?

g) Does it actively work to expose the private lives of politicians or other public figures?

On such a scorecard, the BBC would score one out of seven – in the sense that only one of the issues, f), is engaged. News Corp would score seven.　

The BBC would only score one out of seven? Seriously? I think you could make the case quite easily that all seven questions apply in a negative way to the BBC to one extent or another.

News Corp has consistently used cross-subsidies to keep down the price of the Times…the Times is still selling at below the cost of production and is 20p cheaper than any of its direct competitors – a fact prominently advertised on its masthead every day.

When Murdoch bought the paper it was on its last legs…he pretty much not only saved the Times but the whole of Fleet Street…or Wapping as it now is.

Rusbridger claims this…‘The Guardian, an independently owned newspaper…’

Let’s remind ourselves of just who pays the bills at the Guardian…and it’s not through sales of the paper which by rights should have folded a long time ago….it is kept afloat by its big business partner….The Guardian has been consistently loss-making. The National Newspaper division of GMG, which also includes The Observer, reported operating losses of £49.9m in 2006, up from £18.6m in 2005.[78] The paper is therefore heavily dependent on cross-subsidisation from profitable companies within the group, including Auto Trader ….not to mention the large advertising revenue it receives from the BBC (a cross subsidy?) for its recruitment adverts.

And look here….The Guardian and its parent groups participate in Project Syndicate, established by George Soros, and intervened in 1995 to save the Mail & Guardian in South Africa, but Guardian Media Group sold the majority of its shares in the Mail & Guardian in 2002.

That’ll be George Soros the multi billionaire financier…..and of course he doesn’t mention the real killer for most news organisations…the BBC website, which is loathed by its commercial competitors who have to earn a living….and the BBC is in its own right a multi-billionaire media empire….something that has conveniently slipped Rusbridger’s notice.

So when Rusbridger says this:

Anything that concentrates power in the hands of fewer and fewer multibillionaire proprietors – whether corporations or individuals – will impoverish our society.

You know he is talking out of his backside….because he is just as much in league with big business and the media moguls running the BBC as any Murdoch or other media baron.

The Guardian of course allows the BBC to say things it can’t say itself. 

The link between the Guardian and the BBC should be investigated and broken…certainly BBC recruiting should be done through a wider range of news papers and other platforms…not only  stopping the cross subsidy to the Guardian but accessing a wider range of the population with hopefully  more broad and tolerant perspective on life.

Here’s something that should get the hearts all aflutter in the corridors of the BBC:

Peter Sands, the chief executive of Standard Chartered, had a breakfast meeting with the Prime Minister on Monday during which he is understood to have raised concerns over a British breakaway.

The warning was sounded amid growing calls from Conservative MPs for Britain to have an “in-out” referendum on the country’s ongoing membership of the European Union.

The disclosure that Mr Sands is concerned about the prospect of Britain leaving the EU underlines how the growing political speculation over the issue may be alarming the City. Such warnings may lead to senior ministers publicly being forced to rule out such a referendum.

The BBC don’t seem to have picked up on this story yet but my bet is that it will grab the headlines tomorrow and reserve itself a place on the Today programme.

Strange though when you think how often the BBC indicated the contacts between Murdoch and politicians were somehow illicit and ill advised…Murdoch clearly making them jump on command to further his commercial interests.

Not so long ago somebody said this:

Rupert Murdoch warned John Major to switch policy on Europe or his papers would not support him, the ex-prime minister has told the Leveson Inquiry.

Sir John recalled the exchange from a private meeting in 1997, which he said he had not spoken about before.

He said the discussion was one he was unlikely to forget. “It is not often someone sits in front of a prime minister and says to a prime minister ‘I would like you to change your policy or my organisation cannot support you’,”

So here we have one of the ‘evil’ bankers having a cosy breakfast  with Cameron and saying ‘don’t leave Europe or we’re ruined’  and no one turns a hair?

Suddenly the BBC’s opinion of bankers will change and the vested interests being pushed at a private meeting with the PM will be an essential lubricant for the free flowing successful continuity of the economy…ie growth…no doubt.

This is a fine illustration of the hypocrisy surrounding Murdoch…we all know there are meetings with all sorts of ‘lobbyists’ from all types of organisation with politicians…business, charity, media and very occasionally us the People get a look in.  The whole Leveson saga might have looked very different if the BBC had stood back and not used the opportunity to damage Murdoch as much as possible for its own commercial and ideological ends.

And as Guido points out the ‘outraged’ Steve Coogan seems to have got over it and gone to work for Sky taking  ‘The Murdoch shilling’…guess cash wins over principles.

Funny old world.

 ….or shoots itself in the foot.

The BBC has commissioned a report on the BBC’s coverage of the ‘Arab Spring’…its conclusions….

The BBC’s coverage of the Arab Spring was generally impartial but could have benefited from greater breadth and context, according to the BBC Trust.

It said the BBC should have done more to authenticate user-generated content (UGC), such as mobile phone footage taken by activists or bystanders.

The Trust praised “the considerable courage of journalists and technicians on the ground to bring stories to air”.

Its report described the BBC’s overall coverage as “remarkable”.

The BBC said it was pleased to see the report’s broad support for its coverage as a whole and the overall recognition of much “outstanding” and “remarkable” journalism.

Having read the article it would seem there was a fair bit missing from the BBC reports…as with its European and Israel/Palestine reports when again background and context were missing.  The BBC are quick to give some facts and then weave  a mythical tale out of them and offering it to us as the journalist’s ‘opinion’…without context and background we, ourselves, cannot judge the plausability of such opinion. 

However I think it fair to say that they also missed, or refused to acknowledge,  the essential truth of these events…that the Islamists were always going to be the main winners in this set of revolutions.

The other point might be just how ready the BBC are to publish this report and yet have steadfastly refused to publish the Balen Report.

There really must be something quite bad in that report…just who would be for the high jump if it ever came out? Perhaps once Mark Thompson vanishes off to his next highly rewarding private media enterprise we may find out.

Update:

From the Guardian report on this story:

Alison Hastings, chair of the BBC Trust’s editorial standards committee, said: “Achieving impartiality across a range of conflicting voices, all eager to command world attention, and where propaganda and fact are sometimes hard to distinguish, continues to present a unique set of challenges. It is remarkable and a credit to BBC News’s commitment and bravery that the Arab spring was covered in a way the audience found engaging, especially alongside a number of other major world news events like the Japanese tsunami.”

A challenge to be impartial?  Well only if you are offering opinions…otherwise it should be relatively simple…and making their own life simpler…to just report fact and if using uncorroborated information from unconfirmed sources then the viewer should be notified that the information is not completely reliable…but does provide some background and allow the viewer to judge for themselves.

And one more thing which will no doubt cheer up the Israelis…..Mortimer’s report into the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of the Arab spring, published on Monday, urged executives to limit Bowen’s travel “so that he would have more time to share his insight and provide them with overall strategic guidance”.

I’m certain the Israelis will be delighted to know that Bowen will be mentoring his replacements and instilling into them his insights and philosophy as well as guiding the whole BBC Middle East enterprise with a Svengali like mastery in his own inimitable style providing the viewers with an undoubtedly original if possibly unusual view of events.