Thursday, 4 January 2018


Just say no

I recommend that you stop watching the news

Because the news contrives to frighten you.

Morrissey, Spent the Day in Bed

I imagine that, if you are reading this, at the very least you take the mainstream media cum grano salis, as pretentious types like me write when we mean ‘with a grain of salt.’ Mind you, you think that information extraneous, but it might win you a pub or bar quiz one day, in which case the drinks are on you.

I well remember, at the turn of the millennium, not quite being certain which British newspaper was ‘my’ newspaper. I used to go to the pub and pick out the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail from the rack before settling down with my pint. Five years ago, I made a New Year resolution not to buy a ‘paper for a year. I have bought two since. One because I wanted a cricketing memento of an English Ashes win, and the other because Thierry Henry had returned in a one-off game for Arsenal, and scored a cup winner against Leeds United. Even then, my bitch of a wife threw the copy of The Sun away. I hope she’s well. Actually, that isn’t true. I hope she’s in a well. But I digress.

2017 was the year of fake news. More, it was the year in which both sides in the cultural civil war – and it is a war – accused the other of producing fake news. Now, there is an immediate point to be made here.

None of us know. Not to a certainty. There is a metaphysical aspect to our consumption of the news. Our belief in one news story or another is akin to Kierkegaard’s leap of faith, the blind jump with which one accepts God. I give him a capital letter because it might curry favour come the day. (God, I mean, not Kierkegaard). We weren’t there, we didn’t witness the events being described, we can never be utterly certain either that they took place at all or, if they did, that they took place in the way described. But we still make that leap. We feel that one aspect of a news story, or a piece of BBC reportage, or a feature in The Washington Post, or The Daily Mail, or The Guardian or Sweden’s Aftonbladet is likely to be trying to inform us truly, or pull that famous wool over our enquiring eyes.

Now, the war over fake news reduces to a playground fight or those arguments between romantically attached people I will bet my Rickenbacker 4001 1981 bass guitar at least one of you good people has had. It runs something like this;

‘You’re an idiot!’

‘No, you’re an idiot!’

‘No, YOU’RE an idiot!!’


And so on and so forth. Both sides accuse the other of falsifying the facts, and there has been much talk of a ‘post-truth’ world.

So, from where do we drink at the well of truth? The main problem is an old Socialist sleight-of-hand, what we might call ‘complication theory’. I noted a phenomenon, some years ago, when I used to listen to the BBC’s Today programme. The form would be something like this. A BBC journalist would ask some Leftist politician, pundit or activist a straightforward question. The answer would invariably begin with a variation on the following;

‘Well, it’s not quite that simple…’

What this translates as, of course, is that the topic under scrutiny is blindingly simple and obvious. The writer Steve Sailer has famously noted that political correctness is built on the foundation stone of ‘not noticing’. One of the ways that the Left divert attention is to summon up the devil in the detail, like the puppet devil who would appear from a trapdoor in the wonderful Victorian mechanical toys that provided entertainment before the genuine Satan of television was spawned.

The world, politically speaking, is a very easy place to understand. On one side, you have the globalist, open-border, Progressivist, Blairite, SJW, Antifa, anti-white Sorosistas who wish to produce a mean average herd of grass-munching thickos with their X-Boxes and iPhones and reality TV and sportsball. On the other, you have those little people who can see the precipice that the West is hurtling towards like an express train steaming towards a rotted and crumbling bridge. And they notice. And some of us say so. What though it gets us fired from jobs and loses us 90% of our erstwhile ‘friends’, as has happened to me.

And the MSM want nothing more than to facilitate the coming carnage. Be it self-hatred, Scruton’s oikophobia, ­Takuan Seiyo’s mea-culpism or Guillaume Faye’s ethnomasocism, this self-hatred is absolutely supported by the mainstream press. That means the newspapers you buy. That means the televisual news you watch. That means the resultant opinions of your co-workers, family, and acquaintances.

Take a stance. Say no to the news. Everything you need to read will come to you via the dissident internet. Any MSM that concerns you will be filtered through the medium of those sites and writers who resist this mummer’s play of lies and subterfuge.

Even the British police officer – and I know you are there – reading this does not believe in what she is told is the truth. Deep in her heart, she knows that the course the modern world is steering will ultimately harm her children. But she needs to cling on to her job in order to provide for those same children. And so, like Winston Smith, she must hold on to her smile like an egg in a spoon and pretend she believes in the chaff spat out by the mills of the MSM.

Do not support the media. Encourage independent thought in your own minds. And attempt to change the minds of at least one person you know. No more newspapers. No more Hollywood. No more television. No more radio. Don’t just think for yourselves. Read for yourselves.

This has been a public service announcement.


  1. I have sometimes thought that what we take as ideological differences (and I certainly don't mean to minimize those) are in fact differences concerning the underlying facts. In other words, it's the difference in perceived facts that is at the root of our disagreement; everything else is just pabulum and construct. A case of "premises, premises".

  2. Well, that is an epistemelogical point, a point about truth itself. And I agree. The first essay in Russell's The Problems of Philosophy explores the different perceptions of a simple table. Two viewers agree that the table is there, but they have a different perception of it. What I am getting at is media spin, the way that the media will play out an event with certain aspects emphasized, and others relegated to the back seat of the class. And if, as you say, there is a difference in the perception of a fact or event, what concerns me is that the difference is not arrived at via free debate, but manipulated by powerful media forces, backed by undeniable state ideology. Premises are vulnerable things, and can be used for good or ill. But I think we are drifting into the arena of relativism, and I must go and have a lie down...