Selective reality and sheep

So a school in Kent is due to have the children's pet sheep, Marcus, slaughtered. The headteacher, a woman, believes that this will educate the kids about the food chain, the economy, and where food comes from. The School Council apparently voted 13 to 1 to kill poor Marcus, who has been at the school's farm since he was a small lamb.

Here we have the classic symptom of Ciabatta munching, pompous, hypocritical and stupid Middle England: selective reality.

This being the English education system, kids are treated as if they're made of glass and are decieved about every single aspect of life. Health and Safety mania means that they can't come under the slightest risk: football in the playground is with a foam ball; conkers only with protective googles and gloves etc. Political Correctness means that boys are absolutely emasculated and made to act like girls, or else they're deemed "Special Needs" and are thusly condemned and even given "kiddie cocaine" aka Ritalin. All competition is banned. Individualism is stamped upon, in favour of "consensus style" learning, which favours females. No child ever "fails". Their expectations are kept high and negativity is not allowed to be expressed to their ever more clueless, but nevertheless pushy, parents. Most of whom are convinced that their child is a prodigy. Endless rounds of ballet lessons, music lessons, acting lessons, football clubs, tennis clubs etc will inevitably produce......the usual tiny percentage of British kids with talent. For this, their childhood is robbed.

Their weak, greedy, stupid and unbelievably pompous parents wish at every turn to protect their kids- and themselves- from the realities of life. But sheep being slaughtered? Oh no, let them learn about that, because it won't impact their chances. This is another sign of the weak modern man pretending to be hard, realistic and brave. Such men rarely dare stand up to their wives, and are completely compliant with society's ever shifting attitudes. An army of physical- and mental- clones. Ask the opinion of one, you'll get the opinion of the many.

So poor Marcus the sheep gets killed to inform kids of the economy? Really? When less than 4 % of the British population work on a farm, and even less on sheep farms? When most women these days can hardly tell a rack of lamb from a rolled leg of pork, let alone the grim realities of killing animals for food? You want kids to know about the economy: why not give them the facts: that by accident of birth, their future prospects are already mapped out for them: anything else is against the grain. Or you could tell them about 3rd World debt, and how their parents' greed causes untold death in other countries, so that they can have their "consumer goods" and silly 4 x 4's. Or how Uncle Gordon and his cronies decide that helping car manufacturers is Socialism, (and daddy will tell you how nasty that is), but helping big bankers who have made collosal profits for the last 30 years is not socialism. You could tell them how mummy and daddy's generation condoned the selling off of public utilities such as gas, water, railways and electricity, to other countries, and then moaned about how the UK is losing its sovereignty to Europe, and how their kids are going to pay the highest fuel and rail prices in Europe, because the government allowed a free for all. Tell them about nice Mr. Brown's pillaging of the pensions funds, which mean that they'll have to pay for mummy and daddy when they get too old to work, and how they'll have to work far longer themselves. Or how the planet's buggered up by greed and stupidity and selective reality.

You could also tell them why we've had 3 illegal wars against countries who have done us no harm, but they had oil we wanted for ourselves. That's economics: all too real economics. You want them to have realism? Tell them the truth about what our army is having to do out in Afghanistan: show them dead Afghanis, or the savage murder of retreating Iraqi soldiers on the road to Basra during the first Gulf War : and if that doesn't sicken them, there's no hope. Or of Philipino kids being paid pence per pair of trainers mummy and daddy will pay a hundred pounds for.

The irony of it: these are kids who have been wrapped in cotton wool all the lives. Everything is a lethal threat; every adult is a kiddie fiddler.

Kids are taught non-stop politically correct bullshit to "stop" sexism, "homophobia", bullying, racism etc. "Diversity", which actually means the opposite: to be "diverse" in this sense, there is only one "correct" way to think. Hence, we achieve terrible homogeneity. Political Correctness: the decadent creed that presents itself as moral.

And so, in the name of "reality", poor Marcus the sheep is due to be slaughtered. Sick adults encouraging children to vote to kill him: as if kids, and a mere 13 of the poor brainwashed little mites, can make such terrible judgements. The same sheep many are attached to and who hand fed him. What are the implications of this, apart from utter futility re: reality?

It is bordering on mental abuse. We used to teach children to be kind to animals, to foster their more noble feelings. In the hope that humanity to animals might spread to become humanity to other people. But in an age of weak, spineless, reprobate men, devoid of real masculity- the hallmark of which is individualism- most families no longer have pets. No, pets would plainly be too much of a responsibility, in an age where most attempt to offload the responsibility of their own children. A callous, me-first age.

That the "School Council" were probably brainwashed into doing this (we don't allow kids to vote because of their obvious lack of maturity, remember?), makes it even worse. They'll learn nothing from it: Marcus the sheep will return in a freezer pack that they could have bought at Tescos. The death of a pet for nothing whatsoever in a world full of lies and hypocrisy. Where adults even take the kids' pets from them. Against a background of utter unrealism. And the only reality parents want their kids to be taught is not representative reality anymore, and is nowhere so lethal as the reality they hide from themselves. Simply because some truths are too inconvenient. Like pets. And children.

Something that becomes immediately thought provoking is that perhaps this is how politicians start out: they become mini clones of mum and dad, become school council members, and vote to kill their pets because someone above them wants it that way, even if other kids don't. Do the sensible thing: isolate the little bastards now, and watch them carefully. When they start showing utterly corrupt and hypocritical, lying and self serving tendencies, then there's really nothing else for it: set up the Guillotine and give them the ultimate dose of reality. And do the world a favour.

Much kudos to Paul O'Grady, who has apparently offered to save Marcus. But something tells me that the sadistic tendencies of modern adults will win the day. No wonder I'm a misanthropist.

Ciabatta munchers and (credit) crunchers

We've fallen in hard times, apparently. The poor, put upon, badly treated Middle Classes are reducing to rooting through bins and raiding the hedgerows in order to keep themselves in Chelsea Tractors, and up and down the country, the Stepford Wives rejects, the orange and blondes are bemoaning the fact that they cannot have the latest Prada handbag or Jimmy Choo shoes. Probably in order to attract another husband before this one goes bust. In this society, it's very much for better, OK, for worse- I'm off with the female of the species.

The Paper Millionaires which abound have just had a hard dose of reality after 30+ years of living stupidly. Predicted by me some time in the mid 1980's, but never mind. As John Pilger put it so well: "A few got very rich, some did alright on credit, whilst the rest were disposessed in the American way". In other words, a few real multimillionaires, lots of paper ones, and the invention of the Underclass, who don't exist until the Government wants to scare the rest of us with them. All three main political parties exist for, and are filled with, middle class, Ciabatta munching greedy bastards with all the self interest, selfishness and hypocrisy that afflict that class.

Home ownership has been an insane obsession here ever since Thatcher. Yet, many extremely fundamental facts have been consistently ignored: but watch, as Brown and his cohorts wheel them out:

1. A basic prerequisite of life is a home. Especially in the Northern Hemisphere.
2. House prices are relative. If your home goes up in value, so do most seller's houses. Ergo, you have to pay more to buy a replacement.
3. You don't own a house until it's paid for, and for most people, this used to be a life's work. 25 years was the norm.
4. If house prices rise to the extent where whole swathes of the population cannot afford one, then a crisis is waiting to happen. See point 1.
5. When, (as has happened), the shit hits the fan, Government can point out these fundamental facts plus the simple fact that no matter how much your house has devalued, nevertheless, you still have a home. Unlike a sizeable chunk of the population. See points 1 & 4.

Greed, as ever the hallmark of the Middle Class, is to blame. Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown know their beast, and if you want to catch a pig, appeal to greed. This is what they did: keep the middle classes happy by letting them think that they're well off, and have their heads in the trough. So long as the "Credit" (see below) keeps on coming, then the day of judgement can be postponed, oh, until someone else is in office. Such is the problem of democracy where (a) the ruling class are so corrupt and (b) the electorate are so stupid. Plato was right!

Every damned morning, as soon as the poor husband is out of sight, the pampered orange and blondes get treated to programmes about houses. Buying them, selling them, houses here, abroad, at auction. Legions of the pseudo middle class, (the Working Class who believe that they're fully paid up Ciabatta Munchers), now fancy themselves as "Developers". A house is no longer a prerequisite of life, it's an "investment", a "property", a "project" or a "development". A Middle Class piggy bank where, ironically, they are allowed to charge more in rents to people too poor to buy their own house than the mortgage payments would be on the same house! Such pigs thoroughly deserve a dose of reality. Let's do some maths, which is not my strong point, but here we go:

In my area, the average home costs £200,000.
A newly qualified teacher, for example, would earn approx £20k

Hence, their mortage, if 100%, would have to be TEN TIMES their annual income. Even if they had a partner on the same income, the standard rules supposedly advised (4 times dual income) would still put the house out of their reach. And they'd still have to run the house!

Now imagine the situation for legions of other British citizens, those on National Minimum Wage and up to £20k. Massive swathes of the population cannot buy a home, whilst the detestible Middle Classes bleat as soon as their "property" devalues. This, they call the "Feelgood Factor"- the impression that one is wealthy, on paper at least. In reality, one is up to one's neck in DEBT. See below........

What's in a word?

One of the more glaringly obvious examples of the stupidity of the Middle Classes is how bad terms have been turned on their head to present themselves as positive terms- and no-one has noticed! Apart from me, at least.

Let me explain. Credit is simply where one is in the black at the bank.
Where you owe them money, this is called Debit. Otherwise known as Debt.

Take a look at your last bank statement: there, you'll find no ambivalence: it'll say "Debit" if you owe them.

A symptomatic advertisement had some moron gleefully and cheerfully loading himself up with yet more debt by "Consolidating his Credit" into one large lump, and explaining cheerfully and casually to the camera that "at least now we have all our credit in one place", before yelling to his wife that "I've sorted out the credit" She's overjoyed, too.

For those of us who speak English, and not Advertisingmanese, what he's actually done is put all the money he owes into one place, and commited himself from now to doomsday to paying it back. What power there is in words, and to quote Hitler: "if a lie, no matter how preposterous, is repeated often enough and loud enough, it will eventually be accepted as truth". Like "Smooth" beers: what's in a word? "Smooth" actually means "bland".

Now, it's reached amusing levels of hysteria. The poor old Ciabatta Munchers are struggling, and, in a level of hypocrisy only the stupid Middle Class can achieve, they want Socialist measures from NuLabour. After 30+ years of gloating about the "beauty" of the Free Market Economy, where the rich get richer and the poor stay down, (wealth NEVER filters down, but that's a whole new rant), now they want their banks and homes saving by Central Government. Funny that only as they look like losing them do their "Properties" and "developments" actually become homes.

Car manufacturer Rover was told to get stuffed when it wanted a Government bailout. Likewise a lot of other manufacturing companies between 1979 and now. But banks who presided over and encouraged the most stupid episode in British social history, copying their even greedier pals in the USA, and who have made vast fortunes over the years, and hence should have contingency plans, well, they get a more or less bottomless pit of taxpayers money thrown at them. So that they can then sit on it. What a house of cards that was.

Meantime, no-one yet has seen the lunacy of allowed the so- called City of London free reign over the economy. Running an economy via the Markets is akin to playing Russian Roulette with an automatic instead of a revolver. (Guarantees a bullet through the brain). Listen and be told: banks exist only to enrich themselves. They're out to make profits, and their shareholders are all that matters. When that profit is under threat we get.... a situation like today. Brown can pump as much money as he likes into the banks- it will avail him nothing, because they will simply sit on it until he puts interest rates up again. And remember, the fool just lowered them to "stimulate the economy". Banks take their lead from the Bank of England. Or, is that the other way around?

If nothing else, the astute should know, and the rest should learn, that several lessons can be learnt from this:

1. The Middle Class haven't changed, and are still the enemy of the (admittedly dwindling) true Working class. They've rigged the system from top to bottom to apparently suit them, and largely at the expense of the Working Class. They are more insistent, more complaining, more hypocritical and immensely more greedy. Make no mistake: their gains are not at the expense of the truly rich.

2. Old fashioned principles about money and ownership should be applied. Don't buy what you can't afford, keep your wife or husband in check, don't borrow or lend money, and remember that its not yours until it's paid for. The Working Class were once scathing of those who lived off easy credit, second mortgages were seen as a desperate and irresonsible act, and strutting about when all your money is purely in paper, and hence liable to disappear at any time, was seen as laughable.

3. One cannot trust Big Business. We're now paying the price, literally, of selling off our utilities, our railways, and most of our banks are in the hands of other countries or the Multis. Soon, more chickens will come home to roost as another of my predictions comes true: we'll regret closing the coal mines. And I made that one at the time of the Miners Strike, were Government callously destroyed not just people's jobs, but their communities, their social cohesion, and any hope of a better future. To the cheers of the Ciabatta Munching Middle Class, who now ironically want the same state to bail them out. What goes around, comes around, and personally I'll shed no tears for them.

4. Government is absolutely the last thing you should trust- about anything. If those bastards can lie about a war, and fail utterly to ever explain why we are in Afghanistan, or even to claim that they're fans of the Arctic Monkeys (and then not be able to name one of their songs), then nothing is sacred. As they used to say in the Soviet Union: "don't believe something until it is officially denied".

5. The Media, ever the good little lapdog of Government and bloody Murdoch, talked us into this attrocious state- every bit of it. Don't expect them to tell the truth about the whole sordid business. (See "No Alternative" for more on the British Media).

The best one can do is to apply old fashioned notions about money, posers, and a healthy dose of cynicism about the stupid and greedy Middle Class, and be amused as they flail about and whine that little Tarquin and Clamydia can't go to the prestigious (but no better) private school, where they'll learn vital social skills such as Advanced snobbery, speaking in a ridiculous, fake accent, and hone their sycophantic and complaining skills. Just like mummy and daddy did. They deserve all they get, it's long overdue.

No alternative

A much vaunted feature of modern British culture is the diversity and impartiality of our media. We are forever being told that ours is the highest quality, most diverse and most free media in the world.

Journalists- both T.V and newspaper- are frequently having awards ceremonies, congratulating each other on their integrity, their journalistic skills, and their fearless pursuit of truth. Recently, there was even a call for “front line” journalists to be able to be awarded a medal, like the soldiers they "apparently" rub shoulders with.

But to what extent is it true? Do we have an impartial, diverse and highly dedicated media? The answer, from over 20 years of despairing over the media’s cowardice, duplicity and mindlessness has to be “No”.

Pick up a newspaper. Read the stories- and after sifting through the half witted trivia such as David Beckham’s new haircut, or the pathetic and mindless adoration of “celebrities” and the predictable women’s section (diets, make up, relationships, “real life” horror stories, feminist propaganda and mild misandry) and the ongoing men’s soap opera that is football, and what’s left is what might be called “The News”.

An uncanny thing strikes you after reading 3 or 4 newspapers: they all say much the same things. They may appear to challenge one or two aspects of the story, but, essentially, they never question the BIG lies or controversies. They may, for example, criticise the Hutton Inquiry for being too sympathetic to the government. They may state that Dr David Kelly’s death was unresolved- but nowhere do they point out that the PURPOSE of the Hutton Inquiry was not just an inquest into Dr Kelly’s unfortunate and needless death, but into the legitimacy of Tony Blair’s war with Iraq. In short, they allow themselves to be sidetracked. The highly fictional WMD were all but forgotten.

No-one pointed out that even if the WMD were found, such an attack on Iraq was illegal. Read the Geneva Convention and the words of the judges at the Nuremberg War Trials- attacks on a country represents one of the greatest crimes on earth.

We’ve had John Simpson and other “reporters” congratulating themselves on their integrity- but where were the interviews with the Iraqi regime? Ordinary Iraqis? Or, come to that, ordinary Afghanis after the U.S led invasion of Afghanistan?

No British newspaper went into any depth. There is virtually a blackout on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. No news stories even attempt to lift the lid on much that goes on. This is war reporting of the worst possible kind: sanitised, self-censoring, mindless, evasive and cowardly. They might as well stay at home and just parrot the Government’s version of events. Contrast this with real reporters like Don Mc Cullin, who beat his head against the wall, trying to get the real horrors of war to the public via his superb photography. And his frustration when only the ones of generals decorating soldiers, visiting wounded men and U.S soldiers distributing aid packages to Vietnamese people (and the day after, they’ll be ordered to drop napalm instead) were published.

We are forever being told that we get the news “as it happens”. Yet, some form of self- censorship is plainly evident. Has journalism finally become the twin sister to spin? Are journalists these days so lacking in courage, and are so career focussed that they think it to be part of their job to cover up, deceive and deny the truth, even when doing so costs lives? If so, they are accomplices to tyrants and war criminals. And I believe it is so.

The BBC and “Impartiality”

The BBC is in no position to tell the truth. The once mighty and best broadcaster in the world is now a weak, effete shadow of its former self. Government long ago reeled it in and has tamed it utterly. How?

Foreign readers may be surprised to know that the BBC is still allegedly a public asset, and that the BBC is seen as a public service broadcaster with a charter to educate and inform the British public. This service is paid for via a Television Licence fee which everyone (except old age pensioners) pays per T.V set. This is, at time of writing, £121.00 for a colour T.V and a black and white licence costs £40.50.

(Edit; February 2007. A colour TV Licence now costs £131.50 and a black and white licence costs £44.00. The BBC wants even more money to spread government propaganda. Not even the Nazis made ordinary citizens pay for their propaganda!).

This is a considerable income- and means that the BBC does not broadcast commercials, and therefore (in theory) can make far more diverse programs because it does not rely on commercial sponsorship or advertising revenue.

Guess who controls the Licence fee? Its cost- or, indeed, whether it is levied at all? That’s right- Central Government. It is easy to see that this is an extremely powerful lever on the BBC. Show anything the Government doesn’t like- and they’ll scrap the licence fee, leaving the BBC high and dry. The brainwashed British public won’t mind, because they resent paying the licence fee in the first place. The government can even claim- with much justification- that the BBC is in breach of its charter. Most programmes are neither educational nor informative. The BBC’s stock diet is soap operas, second hand sport, programs about home ownership and American imports. And, ad nauseum, repeats.

This explains a great deal. The BBC is now merely a mouthpiece for government. Yes, we may get the Jeremy Paxmans “giving ministers a hard time” but it’s usually still within the established framework of “accepted truths”- truths that need to be challenged, and would be if Journalists did their job. Paxman may criticise, for example, the Bush/Blair alliance for not finding the mythical and elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction, but they’ll still drum in the “essential truth” that “Saddam is a monster and a tyrant”. Of course, they’ll forget to point out that he was a monster and a tyrant put in place with U.K and U.S backing, and that even if he is a monster, we have no legal or even moral right to attack his country and kill civilians quicker than he could.

“Independent Television”?

The name says it all, doesn’t it? “Independent” T.V. Not subject to the revenue provided by central government taxation, hence not answerable to the same masters as the BBC has, right? Wrong.

The ITV (Independent Television) network is not supported by the licence fee. (Although you must have a TV licence in order to watch ITV programmes). Government does not subsidise the ITV. However, big business does, via advertising, and the influence this has over the ITV cannot be underestimated.

The British manufacture almost nothing these days. Our utilities, even, are mostly in the hands of other nations or the Multinationals. Hence, only the cult of the “Consumer Society” and rocketing personal debt keeps our economy going. That, and the great Chinese conveyor belt. Advertising is therefore crucial to Big Business- and hence advertising revenue is absolutely critical to Independent Television. Upset the Multinationals, and bang goes the advertising revenue.

But that’s not all. For the benefit of foreign readers: the British Independent T.V network is supposedly regional, although, in practice, programmes from any area get shown in any other area- in that sense, it is a national market. However, each T.V company that operates holds a franchise for its region. For instance, HTV Wales “covers” Wales: Grampian T.V as far as I know covers Scotland, whilst Granada used to represent the North West etc.

Guess who controls these franchises? Guess who decides which T.V company keeps, loses or gains it’s franchise? That’s right: central government. This is a very considerable lever to make sure that only “approved” programmes or points of views get aired.

An (in)famous example was Thames TV’s documentary, “Death on the rock”, which told of the events where an illegal SAS squad killed alleged I.R.A members in Gibraltar. This was, of course, highly embarrassing to the Thatcher government. This was one programme they did not want to get out. Result? When the time came for Thames TV to renew its franchise, it was refused. Of course, other reasons were given, such as Thames’ programmes not getting a large enough audience (which was plainly untrue: Thames TV made some of the most respected and watched programmes in the history of T.V). Thames TV disappeared, and were replaced by Carlton T.V who, in my opinion, have never made a decent programme in their existence. High quality documentaries and other programmes were swapped overnight for dross: rubbishy game shows, soaps, programmes by T.V about T.V. About as challenging as a 2 piece jigsaw puzzle.

Of course, this is all a part of the wider socio-political picture in the UK, one that, as usual, originates in America. A well educated population is plainly harder to control than a stupid, undereducated one. The easy way, of course, is to tell them that they are discerning, clever, astute and well educated- simply because they are so well informed. The BBC, in particular, is nauseating in its mission to congratulate itself on it’s integrity, professionalism, and how accurate its reporting is.

It is easy to shatter this cheap and tacky veneer. Try posting anything even vaguely controversial on the BBC’s forums, and you’ll be “moderated” before you know it. “Moderated” being newspeak for “deleted”, no matter how politely you couch your post.

So narrow is the level of debate from the BBC and the Independent Channels that you could easily be forgiven for thinking that the world really is as television reports it. “Little Englander” mentality prevails, where politics is merely what happens in Westminster, (and nowhere outside), where our politicians are basically honest and decent and earnest in their intentions (whereas in reality, most are pathological liars and amoral career minded opportunists of the worst possible sort), where certain “truths” are never, ever questioned (e.g. Capitalism is the only way, “Communism” is what they had in the former Soviet Union, high house prices are good, men and women are not just equal, but the same (except, of course, women are better than men), that homosexuality is absolutely normal and is accepted as such by everyone, (and yet it must be promoted at every available opportunity, hence the vast majority of men on UK television are, if not effeminate, then at least androgynous or effete). Politician’s speeches are analysed not for truth or actual relevance but as a “performance”. Like, “never mind that he/she’s a lying bastard, he/she put on a good performance versus the other party’s lying bastard).

I could go on.

The tragic thing is- this stuff actually works. A high percentage of Britons believe the recycled lies and misinformation and social propaganda we receive from our media.

The story from the newspapers is even worse. Equally as narrow in debate as the BBC or ITV etc, newspapers are mindless, shamefully shallow, and unashamedly biased (but always within that “Middle England” sphere. We’re talking minds so narrow they could look through a keyhole with both eyes). The “Express”, “Mail” and “Telegraph” are like reading about a foreign country, certainly not the one I’ve lived in for the last 40 odd years. The “Times” is a supposedly “up market” “Sun” (but generally without the tits), as you’d expect from Murdoch, with his deeply reactionary/Neocon leanings. The Guardian? A horrible, stupid and deeply false newspaper, aimed at the “Ciabatta munching” English middle classes, most of whom see themselves as Liberals, but who are in fact dupes of the reactionary Right Wing. Pretentious, ostentatious, narrow minded, and even narrower of debate, toothless and shallow, that’s the typical readership of the Guardian. Sprinkled heavily with social references to this book or that book, or earnestly taking seriously the seriously laughable (e.g. Even rabid feminists are taken seriously, and their vile rants taken as gospel truth. Germaine Greer is revered as a Goddess of actual fact rather than of half baked misandry and espousing Feminism as an excuse for women to act like a bitch on heat. Example:

“The willingly suffered discomfort of the Sixties bra, she opined vigorously, was a hideous symbol of male oppression”.

Sure, men like women with pointy, cone shaped tits. Sure, men tell their wives and girlfriends what to wear. Sure, fashion isn’t almost exclusively the realm of gay men and of women.

We may know this, but the Guardian won’t usually even discuss it. It pretends to be far encompassing, yet manages to keep debate narrow, by doing just as all the other forms of media do: by pretending that there are Essential Truths underlying all their “stories” and that these are so “true” that they don’t need to be questioned.

But, worst of all, the Guardian espouses the need for change and pretends to dislike the system……..yet it’s readership are mostly teachers, doctors and other moderately well-to-do people who are, by definition, moderately successful products of the system and who plainly believe in the system, because without it, they’re plainly nothing. Educators, for instance, tend to believe in education. And few like to be told that their educational credential are worthless. So it’s a case of whine and complain, but please don’t really change anything.

The Internet as an alternative? The main media corporations are already here, are well established, and are also aware that a good 50% of what appears on the ‘net is spurious rubbish. Hence, they’ve plenty of scope for spreading more lies and intentionally misleading misinformation. Plus, the Internet itself is often presented as a regular hive of perverts, traitors, fraudsters, terrorists and lunatics. (As it is). This does the BBC and ITV etc. no harm at all: it merely makes them appear to have more integrity, more professionalism. And, eventually, it could pave the way to a censored Internet……..presumably with the BBC and friends as the beneficiaries.

So, what do we do about this relentless wave of misinformation and downright lies by a bunch of (mainly Southern) English careerists? These people who have turned Journalism into a black art of spin, deceit and downright mouthpieces of a corrupt government?

So all-pervading are their lies that for most people, they aren’t lies at all. Most British people’s “opinions” are implanted and based on assumptions no intelligent person would fail to question. But, in all fairness to them, it is hard to find any other alternative. We may just as well have one newspaper, and call it “Pravda”, and ban all the others. For, at least, being openly lied to by the state taught citizens of the former USSR to know when they were being lied to, to learn to read between the lines and discern the truth by application of reason based on a wider knowledge of facts- facts which are real, and not the simple minded result of twisting things to suit our own prejudices, which is, of course, stock in trade with the British media.

But I fear that the odds are stacked against us, especially within what is effectively a U.S style 2 party system (and they’re virtually identical), an education system hellbent on promoting “diversity” and PC values, whilst training our kids to be no better than able to pass (ever easier) exams. A classic case of government saying “tell them that they’re clever, but in reality, they’re stupid”). In a society which also- paradoxically, given its much vaunted love of “multiculturalism and diversity”- increasingly is homogenising our society and where “eccentrics” or real individuals are harder to find, it’s harder to find any diversity of opinion. Just as our “retail experience” or musical tastes must be shoehorned into a marketing man’s “genre”, so people are encouraged to label those who are outside the mould politically. For instance, I get called a Fascist, Racist, Commie, homophobe and Reactionary all the time. None of these labels are utterly untrue: and none of them are all true. The truth, as the British people must learn for themselves, is far more complicated, far more precious, and yet far more dangerous than they could possible believe. It is also frequently uncomfortable. Yet, the truth, no matter how unpalatable, remains the truth.