The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

THE TORY PARTY AND TELEGRAPH FULL OF LEFTISTS? YOU'RE JOKING!

The Tory Party and Telegraph full of leftists? I can almost hear people laughing at the claim. Many will say it's the statement of some kind of 'far-right' paranoid conspiracist. You know, a right-wing equivalent of a leftist who accuses everyone who dares to disagree with him of being a 'racist' or a 'fascist'.

Actually, I'm not saying that every Telegraph journalist is a leftist, because I doubt I could even claim that about the 'progressive' Guardian. I'm not even saying that the Telegraph journalists who are leftist are leftist in every way. But the fact is that neither The Telegraph nor the Conservative Party live in a vacuum completely separate from the left-liberal environment the rest of us live in.

Considering the Telegraph articles I've read recently on subjects as diverse as the EDLRichard Dawkins's 'Islamophobia'UKIPthe joys of mass immigrationthe 'racism' of the Football Association (FA), obsequious pieces on all things Islamic (also by the Tory Party), the propagation of multiculturalism, etc., I don't need to hear the words "I am a leftist" from these people. But self-descriptions don't always coincide with what people or institutions actually are.

I have to confess that I was very naive about The Telegraph and the Conservative Party until very recently! I simply assumed that 'The Torygraph' and the Tory Party simply couldn't, almost by definition, indulge in Left-speak and leftist thought processes.

Actually, it's very easy to be both a posh Telegraph journalist and a cultural leftist. After all, the Trotskyist/ progressive Left is chockablock with similarly posh people. (Check out the legions of well-heeled 'progressive'lawyers and the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers' Party.) Poshness and leftism, in fact, go together like wine and cheese.

In addition, many Telegraph journalists and high-ranking leftists will have gone to the same public schools and then gone on together to Oxbridge, and now they live in the same posh parts of London. In other words – and excuse my French – these journalists and leftist bigwigs share the same milieu.

The Telegraph is, on the whole, economically Right; but Left, or at least left-liberal, when it comes to just about everything else.

The Left has created the vocabulary which most people – including Telegraph journalists, Conservative politicians and myself – currently speak. It's the only language-game that has any political leverage at the momentand they think that there's no alternative.

 

SOME IRREGULARS AT THE TELEGRAPH

The editor of The Telegraph will of course say that his organ is pretty broad. And, yes, I'm aware of journalists like Ed West and Andrew Gilligan. Nonetheless, apart from the latter two keeping a firm eye on all the obvious and outright Islamists in the UK, everything else I say about their newspapercould equally apply to them. I'm aware that The Telegraph spends at least some time on suspected and convicted Islamic terrorists; the problem is that it doesn’t spend much, if any, time on the Koranic texts, Islamic ideologies and institutions which lead these Islamic terrorists to do what they do.

It's also clear that such journalists at The Telegraph – Andrew Gilligan especially – have no time at all for any of the critics of Islam and Islamism who exist outside the three main parties. This means, effectively, that they have no time at all for any critics of Islam and Islamism, full stop. Why? Because the main parties are almost silent on such issues.

The Conservative Party is highly unlikely to do anything about Islamism, Islamisation, female genital mutilation, Muslim grooming, radical imams, the MCB/ MAB/ MPACUK, etc. Consider the fact that David Cameron has just made London the sharia capital of finance; has appointed an unelected Muslim as his Minister for Faiths and Communities (Baroness Warsi, the militant 'anti-secularist', i.e. opponent of all criticism of Islam); has called critics of Islam "sick"; and notoriously said that the Woolwich atrocity "had nothing to do with Islam".

The Telegraph sees itself as being decent in the British way. It sometimes questions immigration, fanatical anti-racism and zealous political correctness. It's not of course as noisy and uncouth about these issues as others are. And the newspaper still supports a party – the Conservative Party – which has done little, if anything, about mass immigration, rampant political correctness and fanatical anti-racism. Indeed the Telegraph often castigates even the Tories for pandering to racism or for offering easy solutions when it comes to immigration.

So because the Telegraph has retained its ancient infatuation with the Conservative Party, all its sophistication and grandstanding decency on mass immigration, political correctness, etc. will likely change nothing.

 

ANTONIO GRAMSCI: NO REVOLUTION? THEN TAKE OVER THE INSTITUTIONS!

Now let me tell you a short story which may help explain my general position as advanced above.

In the 1920s and 1930s, the Italian Marxist revolutionary, Antonio Gramsci, advised his fellow revolutionaries to, well, give up on (violent) revolution. Or, at least, Gramsci realised that a leftist/ Marxist revolution wasn't on the cards in the Europe of the 1920s and 1930s. Consequently, he advised leftists/ Marxists to take over the institutions. That is, he wrote a lot about 'the ruling hegemony' and that hegemony was instantiated in all the leading institutions of the capitalist European countries.

Gramsci believed that this 'bourgeois', 'capitalist' hegemony should be replaced by a leftist/ Marxist one. Clearly, he wasn't against political or powerful hegemonies as such, he was just against the wrong kinds of hegemony.

Anyway, Gramsci's advice was duly noted, and by the 1960s the taking over of the institutions by leftists/ Marxists – at least in the UK – had well and truly begun and, indeed, this internal revolution was already bearing fruit.

Now it's 2013 it can be seen that these once-revolutionaries have nearly achieved their goal. Leftists rule the roost in large parts of the BBC, the universities, the rights and race industries, the law, the national and regional newspapers, the charities, the local councils, the Church of England, etc.

Now could it be that these revolutionaries – they often call themselves 'progressives' nowadays – have taken over two of the most powerful institutions of all: The Telegraph and the Conservative Party? Of course not! Nonetheless, since most institutions have already been taken over, and cultural leftism is the norm, in a certain sense Trotskyists or progressives don't need to take over The Telegraph and Conservative Party because cultural leftism is already in the blood of many Conservative MPs and Telegraph journalists. They can't help but imbibe some heavy doses of political correctness, multiculturalist propaganda and the general leftism that pervades every aspect of our society today.

Tags: -, A, Foe?, Friend, Murphy, P, Telegraph:, The, UK:, by, More…or

Views: 181

Replies to This Discussion

Comment by Joe Bloggs

Since PAM drew my attention to his article on The Telegraph, I thought I'd go and see what he objected to.
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6181-...

I mentioned that I curse The Telegraph several times a week (and The Spectator, I might add).  I curse them for exactly the reasons that PAM criticises The Telegraph.  However, I will use this opportunity to once again pimp out Friedrich Hayek's "Why I Am Not A Conservative".   As I've mentioned many times, by 1960 Hayek, von Mises and James Burnham were all independently describing the British Tory party as "a socialist party".  The recent documentary on Thatcher the revolutionary made the same point: between the 1930s and 1980 (Thatcher) the British Tories were happy to be socialists (indeed, that documentary pointed out that they were drawn to that 20th century brand of socialism called "fascism").

Thatcher was the anomaly.  She was the Hayek-inspired revolutionary.  And the party stabbed her in the back.  Because they (along with the rest of LibLabCon) wanted to pour their energy into the crypto-fascist project, the European Union.

Thus, I think PAM should not be so surprised by the Leftism of The Telegraph.  However, it is important to also understand that The Telegraph segments its readership: the online version is far more Leftist than the print version.  The print version no doubt is marketed (mostly) to the older (conservative) generation who do not use the internet for news consumption.  The online version is concerned with appealing to a wider demographic.

For decades I had long-running arguments with an elderly friend of mine who was a General and a life-long Telegraph reader.  He died recently, but not before he could savour the pleasure of having me point out that The Telegraph was too leftwing.

I too noted the comment on the Telegraph, and thought "Yeah, whatever".  I've got a cheap online subscription to the Telegraph, but what can you do?  Its the best of a bad bunch.

Then I went back and read the full article on Liberty GB and paid more attention.  Then, as if to drive the point home, I read this article, which is pure Leftist propaganda designed to mislead and obfuscate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1047846...

Where do I begin with this article?

(1) There is a cheap attempt to split Jews from Israel and the Likud

(2) This doesn't sound like parrotting overblown rhetoric, but more like a simple statement of fact:

I have obtained this briefing, which parroted the overblown rhetoric with which Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, responded to the deal in Geneva. The CFI warned Tory MPs that “the world’s most dangerous regime has taken a significant step towards obtaining the world’s most dangerous weapon” – echoing Mr Netanyahu almost verbatim.

(3) The above statement is supposed to be refuted by this:

This was not merely propaganda. It was ignorant and poorly informed. Under the accord reached in Geneva, Iran must convert all uranium enriched to the 20 per cent level (the closest to weapons grade) into harmless oxide. That cannot fairly be described as a “step towards” a nuclear bomb. It’s obviously a welcome step in the opposite direction

This is just unbelievably childish.  At what point since the Ayatollah took power, has Iran shown any indication that it will abide by its agreements? How often has it agreed to a temporary truce for re-stocking, then gone back to its old ways?  When has it allowed full and fair inspections of the whole country and atomic facilities (known and unknown)?

(4) When has Iran not lied and deceived the West / its enemies?  We do not have any reason to believe that this treaty is signed in good faith, just as we don't have any reason to believe that Iran will not continue to conduct a proxy war in the Middle East.

(5) Is Peter Oborne a totally naive idiot, or is he now receiving a stipend from the Iranian government?  

The briefing goes on to claim that “Iran has actively enriched uranium to 20 per cent fissile purity, far exceeding civilian purposes”. In fact, there certainly is a civilian purpose for such uranium: it can be used to fuel the Tehran Research Reactor, a facility that produces medical isotopes and nothing else.

Why do I have to say that this is a very convenient excuse?  Also, why do I also have to point out that the quantities required for "medical isotopes" can be bought far cheaper than building your own reactor? 

(6) Finally, because there are more deceptions, but I've run out of patience for dealing with them:

Most misleading of all, the CFI told Tory MPs that “Iran is operating as many as 18,000 centrifuges, including more than 1,000 new models (IR-2m) that are far more efficient”. In fact, Iran is running 10,000 centrifuges. It does have another 9,500, including those advanced ones, but they are standing idle. Under the Geneva agreement, they will remain that way, since Iran has agreed not to use them.

  • The CFI said "as many as", so their statement of 18000 is true
  • Is Iran really running 10,000 centrifuges.  For God's sake, this is pitiful Oborne.  How much are they paying you?  See (3) and (4) above.
  • Are you sure the advanced ones are standing idle?  Do we just take Oborne's word for it? Ridiculous.
  • "Iran has agreed not to use them".  Once again, this is so infantile, we have to ask who is wiping Oborne's bottom for him.  See (3) and (4) above again.

I think I need to review my Telegraph subscription.  Its better to have nothing than to have this kind of misleading drivel.

Maybe this is ot - or maybe not - a few weeks ago I caught a snatch of a debate on the BBC news channel, a german newspaper editor looked exasperated at the usual Left vs Right debate and said "people don't believe in 'Left' and 'Right' anymore... they believe in Right and Wrong" ...something which I support the gist of, people are seeing that the establishment just use the tweedle dum/tweedle dee of left and right to pursue their aims, most notably with mass immigration - the left cheerleaded it to get more votes ( or more sinisterly, rioters and political goon squads) and to enable them to smear their opponents as "racist" etc), and the right supported it to get cheap labour and more sinisterly to operate a "strategy of tension" within society by inviting in certain disliked groups of immigrants and playing them off against the indiginous population.

Alan/Joe,

I've only had two articles rejected by American Thinker - this was one of them. (The other was "too pro-EDL").

One of the editors said that it simply wasn't on to criticise "fellow conservatives". I can only think that he assumes that the British Conservative Party is the EXACT counterpart of the Republican Party. But why should anyone believe that?

I'm not an expert on the Republicans, but I suppose some of the stuff I say about the Tories may well be said about the Republicans too.

Antony,

I can understand people having a problem with the restrictions and box-thinking implied by using the words “Right” and “Left” all the time. Despite that, I still think they are relevant and sometimes accurate. What usually happens is a person thinks of a particular belief, or even a theory, which is neither Left nor Right and he thereby thinks that this stops him being either Left or Right in total. You will often find that those who de-stress the Right-Left distinction/s in one small area can nevertheless be classed as Leftist or Rightist in just about all other (political) areas. (The same happens with those who same that “Islamism is a 20th century phenomenon” and justify that claim by singling out, say, Muslims using mobile phones USING democratic processes.)

The other thing that's done is to go back to the French Revolution and its peculiarities and say that's when the terms “Right” and “Left” were coined. That's true, literally speaking. But the divisions pre-date the French Revolution - it's just that the words, “Right” and “Left” don't. But they are only words in this respect. Just take one example. Conservatism and radicalism, however they are cashed out, most certainly pre-dated the French revolution, as did collectivism/totalitarianism (Plato) and liberalism (Locke, etc.) Most of the Right-Left distinctions pre-date the French Revolution and the use of those precise words.

Having said, even if they can be classed as psychologically and sociologically “natural” distinctions, they are not by that fact necessary ones. That's the mistake Marxists made when the criticised those who said that “capitalism was natural” or that the family was. They said “natural” – not “necessary”. That is, something can be quite natural but still NATURALLY change over time. That is, something natural, such as various and ancient Left-Right distinctions, may well change over time and still be fairly natural. What is natural is a factor of society; and society is a factor of what's natural.

Antony said:

Maybe this is ot - or maybe not - a few weeks ago I caught a snatch of a debate on the BBC news channel, a german newspaper editor looked exasperated at the usual Left vs Right debate and said "people don't believe in 'Left' and 'Right' anymore... they believe in Right and Wrong" ...something which I support the gist of, people are seeing that the establishment just use the tweedle dum/tweedle dee of left and right to pursue their aims, most notably with mass immigration - the left cheerleaded it to get more votes ( or more sinisterly, rioters and political goon squads) and to enable them to smear their opponents as "racist" etc), and the right supported it to get cheap labour and more sinisterly to operate a "strategy of tension" within society by inviting in certain disliked groups of immigrants and playing them off against the indiginous population.

That's useful info.  I'll try submit an article to them!

Paul Austin Murphy said:

Alan/Joe,

I've only had two articles rejected by American Thinker - this was one of them. (The other was "too pro-EDL").

Joe,

How different, exactly, is the hard copy from the Internet version (The Telegraph)? Are there different articles? Are the journalists different? Or is the editorial line different? I haven't read the hard version for years. In fact, I'm not an expert on any daily newspaper because I don't read any of them every day and never have. I almost hate journalese as much as I hate academic writing although that doesn't apply to news items; just to "commentaries" and "opinion pieces".

I wouldn't go so far as to call either the Telegraph or its journalists "socialist". I don't think they are economic or political socialists - on the whole. But they are, as I said, "cultural Leftists". This is a very convenient term. And, like all such terms, it can be over-used and also used without much thought. Nonetheless, it does capture something important. You get some people on the Liberty GB comments section classing everyone who disagree with them as "cultural Marxists". Then again, I guy called me a "liberal nationalist" the other day. He said it as a criticism but I quite like it.

Comment by Joe Bloggs

Since PAM drew my attention to his article on The Telegraph, I thought I'd go and see what he objected to.
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6181-...

I mentioned that I curse The Telegraph several times a week (and The Spectator, I might add).  I curse them for exactly the reasons that PAM criticises The Telegraph.  However, I will use this opportunity to once again pimp out Friedrich Hayek's "Why I Am Not A Conservative".   As I've mentioned many times, by 1960 Hayek, von Mises and James Burnham were all independently describing the British Tory party as "a socialist party".  The recent documentary on Thatcher the revolutionary made the same point: between the 1930s and 1980 (Thatcher) the British Tories were happy to be socialists (indeed, that documentary pointed out that they were drawn to that 20th century brand of socialism called "fascism") ...

Its always the case that so much is said by news papers, just like politicians, that doesn't fit with their  supposed belief system.

wouldn't it be easier if news papers reported news, and weren't pushing an agenda.  The Telegraph is right wing, in so far as it isn't left wing.  I find most things that are right wing today would have been called leftwing  40/50 years ago. I feel its all relative.

The news papers, the politicians, this country has been moving further left for decades, its not going to stop.

Lets face it, we had a little play with democracy last century, where the common people  were allowed to vote, where as before it was men of property who voted. This itself  was a recent  system of govenment. Before that Kings and Queens along with their Lords and  Barons decided things.

People vote for the speed that we travel down the path to socialism, not 'if'.  I'm sure David Cameron  could have been quite comfortable in Harold Wilson's government and the Telegraph of today would have happily supported them.     

Once again, The Telegraph allowed comments on a story, only to close this within 4 hours.  By that point, there were 243 comments. Other stories have had comments open for days on end, with 3000 or more comments.

Here's another story about islam, where The Telegraph closed comments within 2 hours.

Disqus tells me there has been a reply to a comment I left here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10918012/Ukip-voter...

When I visit that story, all the comments have been deleted.  Not just closed. Deleted. Within 4 hours of permitting comments, The Telegraph deletes them all.

What can that mean?  Nothing except the comments were full of UKIPPERS demonstrating they were very much not disconnected because of lack of IT skills.

Joe, couldn't you just contact The Telegraph and ask it what its general policy is on comments?

Was Umma's point that all UKIP supporters are old or that they are thick?

“The BBC has carried out some very interesting research on this - 1 in 5 people in our economy cannot do the full basics online of sending and receiving an email, browsing the internet, filling in an online form."

Where is there a mention of UKIP in that? He has moved from this evidence (if it is evidence), to an assumption that it MUST particularly apply to UKIP supporters... but why?

RSS

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service