mesnip81016

We must not allow the ideologists to pervert the uncomfortable Truths of the empiricists. That road leads inevitably to Room 101. Believe in yourself, not propagandists.


It’s an unusual ATEOTD tonight, although I do think this is the best column for the post to be in. If I may, I’d like to register a few things first, as a sort of intro to the subject matter.

I don’t devote anything like as much time as I did three years ago to ‘news’ at The Slog. The three things I lack in that area today are time, energy, and either primary or published sources to trust. The last of these three is the key: everywhere is spin, spite, placement, hidden paid-for content and sting. Twenty years ago, one read opinions, listened to first hand information, weighed the debate and then came to a view. Today, that kind of journalism is restricted to a dwindling number of respected columnists: the rest, as Orwell remarked, is simply PR whores peddling propaganda.

I also increasingly avoid what, for want of a more accurate description, I call “causes”. Not only do these suck one in (and then start getting tetchy if you don’t post every hour) they all have factions, wings, tribes, tendencies and – in most cases – ideologies. (They may not be called that, but believe me, they wobble, fly, land and quack like ideologies)

Certain individual subjects in turn I avoid except in special circumstances – for instance, genuine inside information. These include climate change, paedophilia, extra terrestrials, football, the Olympics and rape cases. The hatemail afterwards is too awful to contemplate, let alone deconstruct.

But even with WASPIs, global warming and sex-abuse, the information being peddled (or the injustice being done) is so abhorrent, I will still get stuck in if I’m confident of my facts.


You might think that doesn’t leave very much to write about, but the opposite is true: analysis of media, economics, business, banking and politics are all available – and represent subjects about which I have 30 or more years of informed experience.

However, there is one final area of great importance that most commentators eschew these days, and that is personal observation. I’m pretty certain that they avoid using it as a ‘source’ – or a weapon in debate – because one major lie nurtured by Progressives is that no personal observation whatsoever is admissable as evidence: it is ‘hearsay’ (that’s exactly what it isn’t) it is bigotry (not necessarily) or it is ‘sample of one’ tabloid junk. And if all else fails, then of course it’s an ism – racism, fattism, sexism, nationalism – or a phobia: homophobia, islamophobia and so forth. This last group shows up pc for what it really is: a continuation of the Stalinist belief – uniquely recorded by Solzhenytsin and others – that if you don’t believe the correct view, you have a mental illness.

Attacks on personal observation have a sound scientific basis. What you ‘see’ is often influenced by what one has ‘learned’ or been told at school or at home. Indeed, it is a central tenet of good science that interpretation of any event must be rigorously interrogated for evidence of preconditioned conclusions based on prejudice. But the ‘progressive’ catechism abuses this practice, making it the spurious basis for interpretations that are empirically invalid.

This is nothing less than an Establishment desire to make you the Citizen doubt the evidence of your own primary senses. To – again – cast doubt on your judgement and sanity…if you will, to knock you off-balance. In my opinion, the last 100 or so pages of 1984 represent the best fictional debunking of this technique ever written – which is why Orwell’s classic remains a bestseller.

Most recently, such an epidemiology of doubt was used by progressive media, bloggers and tweeters who make up the Kommentariat to apply mainline Room 101 tactics to the real nature of migrants occupying the ‘Jungle’ in Calais. As is often the case with such debates, the kneejerkers went through three stages:

  • The dismissal of age estimation as “poorly defined”
  • The dismissal of the photography as “deliberately selective”
  • The use of their own (selective) post photography.

To the open mind, there is obvious goalpost movement here: one starting point – “your observation of their ages is wrong” – is proved by Home Office figures to be nonsense….and so the emphasis shifts to “the nasty fascist media only printed the exceptions”. When further wide angle photographic and evacuation evidence in turn disproves that approach, a flood of shots are produced to show only persons under three feet in height….with no supporting provenance whatsoever.


My point here is that – as an unaligned observer – I can only see this as a tussle between empiricists and ideologists.

Am I really unaligned? Well, today, all the usual suspects from the real Far Right have flooded Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere with stories of rape by the occupants of the former jungle at the very moment it was being forcibly evacuated by French police. That strikes me as either highly unlikely, or evidence that all migrants are severely stupid: would you walk into Dock Green police station and then rape an innocent occupant on live telly? Logic suggests that this too is propaganda.

And be in no doubt: rape has been used ad nauseam, from Day One of the EU’s self-inflicted migrant crisis, as a weapon to suggest that Islamic and/or African negroid men are sexually psychotic. Equally, ideologists of the radical feminist Left use the same argument: men are wired to violate, not love: their sexual modus operandum is rape.

There are many ideologies with their own Establishments. Their one overriding commonality is that they tell and nurture lies. And as such, they are Enemies of Civilisation.


My career history Sun headline is this: writer, market researcher, communications strategist, advertophile, business analyst, commentator, philosopher.

Permit me to offer one or two facts about researching the realities of modern social anthropology in particular, and the use of primary senses in particular.

If, over a long period, I interview 800 representative citizens….and then check what they told me against collected, comparable statistics….I will learn that people’s stated attitudes are very often not reflected in their behaviour.

If a gp over many years talks to patients with growing liver damage, he or she will learn that they lie about their alcohol consumption.

If a resident of a ‘rough’ neighbourhood observes during any given year dozens of pimps knocking seven bells out of prostitutes in the early hours of the morning, that resident will note that there is a vice problem in the area, and violence is involved which may involve one or more ethnicities.

Progressives would dismiss all this as Sample of One, but their dismissal is complete bollocks: it is the collection of personally observed behaviour based on multiple examples, and typified by hundreds of individuals. It simply will not do to write it off as emotional bigotry.


And so towards the bottom line.

My contention is that any and every attack upon an individual in society with observed experience of bad behaviour is an attack upon every sovereign Citizen.

It is a full-frontal assault on the liberty of every sane social person’s right to express an experiential opinion.

Progressives anally retaining a discredited ideology and seeking to rubbish, silence or otherwise censor such empirical realities are indivisible and inseparable from delusional knuckle-draggers using terms like chink, nignog, sponger, gyppo, darkie, tree-hugger or jungle-bunny to make their ‘point’.

The things people say are derived from a facility that is at most 600,000 years old. The things we see are informed by a sense going back 40 million years to when we were fish.

If you lose faith in the evidence of your eyes, then the perverted priests gain control over your brain. Give them power, and they will falsify Wikipedia entries, economic statistics, climate data and photographs.

So by all means question what your hear. But do not automatically dismiss what you see.


Connected at The Slog: Smoke gets in your eyes