Private Eye reconsidered after fifty years   Mostly written 2013. This version v. 2 June 2021 Establishment gadfly? Lively satire? Insider stories? . . . . . . Controlled Pseudo-Opposition? 'Communist'/Jewish Front? Useful Idiocy? Non-articles?

Introduction: Why bother with this small British phenomenon?

Twenty Years Before Private Eye

Note on writers—here's a contemporary quotation from C N Parkinson (1960): '... modern governments go far beyond printing records of debates [.. it is reserved to H.M. Stationery Office to produce a daily list ... of official publications ... the experience of Britain in World War II goes to prove that it is everyone else who has to go without, the official printer redoubling his efforts... ] ... many civil servants began their lives with dreams of authorship. They saw themselves, first of all, as dramatists, novelists, essayists and poets, only reluctantly accepting the role of bureaucrat. The more readily, therefore, do they plunge into print at the public expense. It is true that their works must often remain anonymous but they hope perhaps that the secret of authorship will leak out... "Look!" they fancy hearing the whisper, "there is the author of Coccidiosis in chickens!" or "That man over there wrote Expanded Nitrile Ebonite for Sandwich Construction." ...

Note Parkinson's assumption that writing, preferably in modes established millennia ago, has primacy in government. Let's look at evidence that this leads to a type of ignorant arrogance, and that dim ex-public schoolboys became a positive menace.

Radio, TV, Film: The Power of Language to Broadcast Unreason
Younger people might be interested in this review of a book on John Reith, one of the very few BBC people to have made much impression. He was dull and dour, had a high opinion of his abilities, and shaped the BBC, as was required, into the pompous slippery deceptiveness needed to promote world war. At the time the Eye was founded, the BBC was in effect a government department, staffed largely by demobbed wartime types, and entirely undemocratic. TV changed this a bit: now its staffed by a mixture of Jewish-dominated propagandists with people who at least try to aim for both popular and higher-brow entertainment.

---

['Baron von Lotsov' in an Internet forum, in 2013, explains how attitudes to homosexuality, race, crime, education, life, are transmitted:–]
    ' ... It's all done as a sort of pecking order, indeed just as a typical communist state is set up. If you listen to [BBC] Radio 4 they often have the liberal elite giving out advice to their underlings. First of all they don't tend to communicate in a logical manner, rather they are into the arts, but the arts are the transmission medium for the ideology. It works on the psychological level. For example, you will often get a member of the liberal elite saying this or that work is absolutely fantastic and wonderful, as in novels or plays of one sort or another, and this stuff is essentially mind control. Instructions are not transmitted in a direct way. That would be too easy to bust. They kind of set the mood and general emphasis of different things. It's subliminal communication in other words. This psycho-woman doesn’t know what she is doing, but she is doing it even so. ...'

NOTES on MARXISM - 1. USELESSNESS It's no accident that Marxism is tolerated and encouraged: it is completely useless, with its jargon, its emphasis on just one of many possible power struggles between groups, its absence of anything on militarism, its absence of science (and therefore the importance of raw materials etc), its absence of anything on propaganda and education, its absence of discussion of splits between workers in different industries. .. It was looked upon with worry at first, but later accepted in Darwinian fashion as its hopeless nothingness became clearer. Marx died in 1883, predating most of electricity, telephones, aeroplanes, motor cars, newspapers, radio, TV, bombing and fighting planes.
    Even sociology which is not obviously Marxian is concerned with unimportant problems:Weber on suicide (one of the least important of any phenomena) and on bureaucracy (a footnote to modern industrialism) are just two examples.

NOTES on MARXISM - 2. AS POOR MAN'S P.P.E. (PHILOSOPHY, POLITICS AND ECONOMICS
PPE is relatively new (1920s Oxford; something like an updated version of 'Greats', probably based on German Jewish attitudes: 'All that was German about Marx was his education at Bonn and Berlin, where he specialized in philosophy, economics and history' said C N Parkinson) and is an interesting study object for persons wanting to understand how important subjects are evaded: Oxford's present 'course information', about a century later, is online. Many British politicians studied this subject; and indeed their motive was to get into politics. Many other politicians studied law—the House of Commons has a large proportion of lawyers. The most important missing pieces of the world, as presented by PPE, in my view, are (1) Science and technology (including the difference between empiricism and science); (2) Some feeling for biology and ecology and different psychologies; (3) The influence of Jews, notably in paper money and in control of information—a subset of examination of legal systems; (4) Military and police matters, from wars down to small disturbances and assassinations.
    All the public school types in Private Eye must have been aware of the influence of PPE as something like a supposed summit of the education system in Britain. Incredibly, many people supported this system. An example is Hugh Trevor-Roper (later Lord Dacre) who described the 19th century public school and university curriculum of Greek and Roman writings as perfectly adapted to the world they were to administer. (I'm unsure of the exact wording). The result was that many of them were slaughtered in the 'Great War' (Eton has wall memorials to dead Etonians 1914-1918 to this day), having no idea what to expect, or how it had been started. And thousands were brought 'up against the staggering secret they had never suspected—the compete control exercised over [metals] ... absolutely necessary to the nation's survival by half a dozen Jews. ...'
    Granted that education systems tend to avoid unpleasant truths, we can see Marxism is ideal as an evasionist system, as described above. It has its own philosophy (mostly Hegel), its own politics (mostly the 'French Revolution'), and its own economics (mostly cotton mills in northern England, the 'labour theory of value'). The 'Communist Manifesto' was plagiarised. A lot was added later (Hobson on empire, for example). I think this combination of evasiveness with simpleness is the secret of its popularity with such people as Tony Benn, Paul Foot, and Claud Cockburn, who ran a predecessor publication to Private Eye, The Week. See below for Cockburn's life and work.
      Schoolchildren were also targetted: an example is Kitty Little (b 1922). There's a 70-minuted recorded talk by her, including that topic.

Private Eye writers   Claud Cockburn 1904-1981 OVERVIEW: Claud Cockburn played a part early in the Private Eye phenomenon, as an 'elder statesman' type rather than a contributor. He regarded himself as a Marxist in a technical sense; the roots seem to be either the influence of G B Shaw, or miscellaneous Jewish influences—translations of Marx, and the 'Russian Revolution'. He was from an affluent family; some of his early life was spent in China. I'd guess he had difficulty earning a living, since he seems not to have worked at anything other than writing. He wrote among other publications for the 'Communist' (read: Jewish) Daily Worker, which seemed to him, he wrote, in his autobiography I, Claud, almost completely futile. The book on the British Secret Services, Spycatcher (by Peter Wright; published 1987) describes spying on the Daily Worker. Cockburn thought one reason the Daily Worker sold was because of its good horse racing tipster.     Cockburn had sons Alexander, a similar type; Andrew, and Patrick; and other kids by other mums.     What's relevant here is his publication, The Week, amateurishly produced, on yellow paper, which looked villainous, he said. C E M Joad, the philosopher who plagiarised Bertrand Russell, gave it some free advertising. One of C P Snow's novels includes it as The Note; a politician in his novel gets a small snide mention in that publication. Cockburn said he invented the 'Cliveden Set', rich aristocratic plotters, and then discovered he'd guessed correctly. I think we can be absolutely certain that Winston Churchill's bribe by the 'Focus Group' would not have been leaked by The Week; there is absolutely no mention of Jews that I know of, which of course vitiates almost everything he wrote on economic power. Cockburn spent time in Spain; he knew Hemingway, but so far as I know produced no novel, or anything like Orwell's phoney book on Catalonia. Claud Cockburn: Union Power (1976)   Published when Cockburn was over 70, by William Kimber, a small publisher, this book was cheaply produced with no illustrations of any sort, not even graphs, and is unindexed—often evidence of money-saving. It even has a typo on the very first page. Internal evidence suggests it was mostly written much earlier, then dusted-off, maybe in the hope of profiting from the miners' strikes in Britain. Or perhaps it was a 'wee sweetie' cast to him as a reward for a lifetime's useful idiocy: Cockburn's life conforms exactly to the 'Frankfurt School' analysis. Presumably, in primitive societies most people did what they had to; populations were presumably small, and mobility difficult. Modern technology allows large numbers of people to gather and work. As with cities, and armies, and tribes, groups can increase their power, with varying upper limits, usually not impressively high. Cockburn's version of Marxism is based on the idea, which he repeats very often, that the 'working class' has interests which are opposed to other classes. Cockburn was not intelligent enough to come up with anything abstract; his book looks at British history for three quarters of the 20th century, but he's hopeless at general laws. The General Strike (1926—when Cockburn was not much older than 21) must have impressed him. His insistence on inevitability of conflict, and the non-existence of normal times, perhaps came from this influence. And perhaps from his upbringing, where his family wondered which would come first—war, or revolution. However, another Marxist tradition—having no idea what to do to get 'socialism'—suited Cockburn. His book tries to suggest dark hints and forebodings, but is hopelessly vulnerable to ordinary common-sense criticisms. [1] In a sense, anyone's interest is opposite to everyone else's, but the facts of child rearing, co-operation in constructing societies, the need for defences, divisions of labour and specialisations of work, make it obvious the situation is more complicated than that. Probably the emphasis on 'class war' was simply a Frankfurt style propagandist simplification. [2] Cockburn never took professionalisation very seriously (though there's some material on running power stations, and he was aware of the possibilities of computer experts wielding power; air traffic controller strikes were in the future). This is all very well for Jews in Russia with paper money supplied externally; expertise was bought, probably very incompetently. And it's easy to over-estimate the numbers in industries; northern mill towns impressed their contemporaries, but huge numbers of people there dealt with food, clothing, coal, building, domestic work, education. And there may be bankruptcies. [3] I remember two striking examples of party recruiters being brushed off: the first was a chap in a university: he said to an unwilling listener something like "First, the workers are exploited by the bosses. The whole class is exploited. That's true, isn't it?" "No." "Have you heard of the dialectic?" "No." The second was at a social meeting; person A was saying "The working class to this day have disadvantages. It's outrageous; they have to take what is theirs. It's about time. And think of Auschwitz." Person B evidently found A an irritant; he said "Society has to be organised. The workers are nothing without the middle classes. Nothing!" Cockburn has interesting material, mostly quoted from other writers, mostly Jews, but all interpreted with dubious honesty. Corelli Barnett in quoted on the working conditions of men around 1914 resembling wartime conditions—rats, trenches, rain, poor food, explosions. Fair enough point, but they weren't expected to climb out of trenches and be shot. Cockburn regards war as promoting science (as did Arthur Keith, and Bertrand Russell); Cockburn's examples include penicillin, and a sea sickness preventative for Normandy landings, and probably nuclear weapons, now known to be a fake; he doesn't seem to realise this could just be a post-hoc justification by people who made money, i.e. just bullshit, in the same way that claims NASA led to useful inventions is doubtful. Cockburn quotes from The Strange Death of Liberal England on increasing numbers of strikes. But he adds many strikes were frivolous; at the present day, NHS managers' car parks empty early on Fridays, but this doesn't prove they want revolution. And millions of days lost is hard to get into perspective: there's lost time through late deliveries, machinery failures, learning. Supposed full employment may in fact hide waste: teaching probably wastes billions of days. Cockburn mentions folk memories as important things, instancing the Taff Vale judgment (1901) and clearly the situation changed from smaller-scale production. It's quite saddening to see how little useful material Cockburn amassed after a lifetime's work. • He noticed if there's full employment and high demand, unions get powerful; but in depressions, their membership drops. If there's a war, unions become more like partners and become important; women get employed; Cockburn does his best not to be jubilant about wars, but he's close. Wars provide booms, he thinks, pun intended; he regarded the Second World War as a 'battle for National Survival' in what now seems a naive manner. Cockburn says nothing about the debt accumulated, which of course Jews would want unmentioned, and he seemed uninterested in it. In the same way, Britain's coal industry was subsidised to a fantastic extent; but the media barely mentioned this. • Cockburn discusses the situation, without suggesting anything useful, in e.g. Durham in the 1930s, and comments by observers: why don't they revolt? How can they tolerate it? • Cockburn notices for example that more money could be made by investing overseas than in Britain (or at least that was the claim). Should machine tools be exported? Should expertise be sold to foreigners? But he has no theory as to what should be done. Ultimately, his book says little: sometimes groups of men in some industries have power; sometimes they don't. He says nothing about individuals and freelancers. Significantly, he says nothing about bureaucracies, huge groups of ruling people, though their danger ought to have been obvious from the USSR. At the present time we have 'Common Purpose' which is a form of secret union, displacing Freemasons as planners and big finance schemes have displaced small local businesses. His book tails off, a disappointing minor effort and very red herring indeed.

Social histories of the time make a lot of the contraceptive pill (1961) married women only, and 1962 the year the Beatles became known; a second BBC channel was started in 1964. Maybe it's worth noticing the propaganda use of TV: Till Death Us Do Part (with 'Alf Garnett') started 1965, and the derivative American TV series All In The Family (with 'Archie Bunker') started in 1971. (I wondered if there was a connection between 'Johnny Speight' and J M Spaight of Bombing Vindicated of 1944, but I couldn't find any. However, a publishing company, W Speaight & Sons, which published Zionist books in London, strongly suggests 'Johnny Speight' was another Jewish writer). There was a vast expansion of education (including the Open University), town planning, health measures and so on. Unfortunately, this included a vast consolidation of war opportunities. By now, the shining hopes and new vistas have been pretty thoroughly stunted and deformed, as we see surveying just a small part of the darker side:–

• 1962 Cuba missile crisis supposedly involving nuclear missiles occurred; in retrospect probably a way to keep weapons sales and profits up, plus perhaps being an anti-white move, or perhaps to instil the idea of a world divided into the 'West' and 'Communism' as opposed to being run by 'Jews' or some other hypothesis.
• 1963 The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving.
• J F Kennedy, elected in November 1960, was murdered in November 1963; This must have been carefully planned, and any media likely to sniff around Johnson and subsequent legislation would have to have been Jewish-influenced or controlled. In fact it's possible Private Eye's editorship may have been influenced by this.
• 1965 Capital Punishment abolished. Largely a Jewish campaign. Quintin Hogg (=Lord Hailsham) commented on the Jewish hypocrisy here after killing German leaders.
• 1965 Bertrand Russell tore up his Labour party membership card and his Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal was announced for 1967. On Russell's death in 1970, the Eye printed a childishly insulting mock obituary.
• 1967 USS Liberty attacked by Israel, now known to have been L B Johnson's attempt to start USA war with Egypt.
• 1968 Reprint of F J P Veale Advance to Barbarism
• 1969 NASA's first fake moon landings of a series.
• Laws included 1967 Abortion Act; 1972 European Communities Act; and 'Race Relations' and Immigration Acts e.g. 1968, 1971, 1976, 1978
• 1974 First publication of Did Six Million Really Die? (1974) (attributed to Richard Verrall)

In this period, Private Eye invented and stuck to a number of stylistic devices:–

• 'Lord Gnome' as the condescending proprietor. The name presumably suggests Switzerland and Swiss money, rather than a more accurate Jewish suggestion. In the same way the Jewish media often portray crooks as Italian.
• Nicknames, sometimes effective, sometimes not, such as 'The Swinging Turds' (Peter Cook, apparently referring to the Beatles); 'Spiggy Topes' (apparently John Lennon); 'Okay Yoni' (Yoko Ono); 'Mafia Arrow' (Mia Farrow - who incidentally acted a young girl in some US nuclear scare films); Von-armed Bendit (Daniel Cohn-Bendit - note the suppression of 'Cohen'); Masturbami (Mastroianni); President 'Raygun'. The Grauniad newspaper was called that on account of the supposed high number of misprints (not for any serious reason).
• A crossword with obscene, impolite, vulgar etc clues and solutions. These are (or were) meticulously correct in composition, and so presumably the work of a crossword compiler at play
• Ads including the 'Thai wife' and begging letter types.
• Contributors signed by nickname, who may, or may not, be the same person throughout. For example, 'Piloti' wrote on buildings and architecture and disappearing heritage for example in London (though there's nothing on destruction elsewhere). Lunchtime O'Booze is another such nickname. I seem to recall Miles Kington of Let's Parler Franglais was a contributor, and Craig Brown is or was, but contributors' actual names are almost never given, as will be seen.

Very likely 'Dave Spart' and 'Deirdre Spart' mocked genuinely-concerned, but misinformed, types, not rent-a-thug and rent-a-chant mobs funded by Jews. Here are examples: Greenham Common women etc, Kate Hudson on CND, Protestors Handbook. The infinite tragedy of the Vietnam War started 'Dave Spart' (as far as I remember) on his career and of course was, and is, marked by Jewish media lies. Vietnam War with its massive crop of lies, rather ineffectual opposition, and fake opponents.

• There is apparently serious material on business, finance, medicine, and Europe, but which, on examination, yields little. Usually attacks are on members of public organisations—watchdogs, investigators, departments, inspectors, police or whatnot who haven't done their jobs. There is little attempt to identify causes. This of course deflects criticism away from the serious issues. For example, there is never anything on the control of paper money by Jews.
• The Prime Minister's 'diary', or notebook, or report, or wife's diary, is a permanent feature. Invariably it's based on gossip, trivia, famous people, and conventional views of what parties and their leaders do. An occasional variant looks at e.g. Princess Diana, rugby players... Amusing; not serious.
• Centre pages, mostly compiled by looking at the 'news' and writing short jokes in formats that suit the page size.
• From The Message Boards is relatively new, mimicking semi-literate computer comments with semi-literate nicknames. Interesting jubilation over deliberately dumbed-down British education. An earlier version was 'Dave Spart' (see box, right), poking fun at would-be left-wingers from downmarket areas of London who, it's clear now, hadn't grasped the Jewish connection of the modern world.
• There is of course a pitiful lack of reliable science—nothing they say on windfarms, nuclear matters, 9/11, OPs, drugs, farming, global warming, global cooling, or any such subject, can be assumed to be correct or even remotely competent.
• Dear to Eye hearts (cp Parkinson above) is a heavy emphasis (disguised somewhat by being separated) on books, and what they call bookmen—the editorial and other types in the publishing industry. It's amusing to read their envious reviews of big-selling hack books. There are TV reviews, but only as consumers. Many soft literary writers are very conscious of their precarious positions: advertising being their default/ failure position. (A John Cleese film had a line: '... too thick to go into advertising').
• Very important note: anonymous writers in newspapers and especially TV news and programmes are never identified, and never criticised.

An early (1962) cover showing (I think) Paul Foot's father. Comparison with the very first cover (above, 'Churchill Cult..') shows an initial idea was to report inside information on political party matters. This may have been with the intention of getting 'Labour' elected, as many people at the time still thought of 'Labour' as a socialist party. Or something more Frankfurt School. Or perhaps they genuinely thought they had valuable secret information. Or perhaps it was daring to diminish Churchill—even though plenty of damaging information existed.     Anyway, serious political investigation never happened.

Cover Friday 10 May 1968. The caption says: Bloody Greek immigrant! Next time I'll pull my finger out and smear his face with it    This is a comment on a speech by Enoch Powell M.P. Sat 20 April 1968; the cover therefore was the next issue after the speech; two weeks was clearly not enough for their artwork people. The caption pretends that H R H Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is on the same footing as mass immigrants: the D of E used both expressions, 'widdle' and 'finger out'. Powell's speech was famous for the phrase "I seem to see the Tiber foaming with much blood." This Eye cover is part of the Britain-wide synthetic outrage made up about the speech. Opinions vary, but Powell's speech seems high on rhetoric to me, and low on fact. I does not mention the role played by Jews in forcing immigration; possibly Powell was not aware of it.

Cover Fri 29 March 1968. B/w photo outside the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square, London. Demonstration on March 17 1968.     The captions are: I can't see what all the Fuzz are about, Ho! Ho! very satirical, Move along there please, Excuse me officer have you got the right time? and Please sir can we have our marbles back?     It's not known what proportion of Britain's population were aware of US atrocities: I'd guess not more than 2 - 3%. Millions had died there; this demonstration however may well have been controlled opposition. The callousness became part of what was misnamed 'satire'. Ingrams, if not a 'swinging turd', certainly must count as a 'stinking turd'.

Back to top

Private Eye writers   Christopher Booker 1937- OVERVIEW: Booker is said to have edited the 'Eye' up to issue 40 i.e. less than 2 years from 1961, assuming no missing issues. This may be why Booker, in his book The Neophiliacs (published 1969) gives 1963 as a terminal year of frightfulness for Britain. Below is a review of his book, I hope not too long. His attitude to the changing world was, it seems, incomprehension; so his view of satirical news must have been different from most. And there's a significant point of interest, which is that Booker, very unusually, specifically mentioned Jewish property speculators and rent criminals. I suspect these may be what led to Ingrams taking over the editorship. Christopher Booker: The Neophiliacs Internal evidence suggests that most of this book was written long before 1969, possibly in 1963 when he ceased editing Private Eye. He dates the 'satire boom' 1961-1963. He details a BBC TV thing of 1963, about Christine Keeler, who had sex with numerous high-up people, but the density of information after that plummets—for example, Enoch Powell's mid-1968 speech is barely mentioned, as is other 1968 material, and the 'moon landing' appears only only in endnotes.     His book is fitted around the idea, based on Jung, and/or Greek tragedy, that groups of people in times of turmoil go through a process schematised in 4 stages (pages 71 ff): [1] Anticipation [2] Dream when things temporarily go right, a collective fantasy [3] Frustration (Booker unconvincingly includes bad weather, traffic jams, car crashes, and power cuts as examples) [4] Nightmare. He gives examples: the film Jules et Jim, Macbeth, Lolita, and The Great Gatsby without seeming to understand that scriptwriters design their works that way. Booker claims this happens in reality: his example of course is Germans and Hitler (though he supplements this with teddy boys, and romanticism).     With incredible naivete, Booker thinks films and newspapers appear in response to public demand: thus for example decline in derring-do war films. He was too young to understand publishing as a process of planning and promotion. (Where are the films of Romanov deaths? Of the Ukraine famine? Of Dresden and people burning? Of the Anglo-Israel war?). Booker assumes headlines, critical reviews, and commentators mirror the public views, rather than form and shape them: he gives an incredible smorgasbord of headline bits, as though stuff in papers must represents important events.     The overall feeling of this book is that Booker is baffled by modern life, but has been told the correct way to behave is to be 'mature' and accept things. I infer this e.g. from his attitude to nuclear war: he clearly believes H-bombs exist; but demonstrations are silly. It's impossible to know if he was aware of US genocide in Vietnam, but he says concern causes 'neuroses'; of course, he doesn't say the Second World War caused neuroses. Booker takes refuge in Jung and Christianity. People like him became known as 'young fogeys'. Booker notices a trend in writers to absurd claims, though he doesn't realise this is the result of Jewish media control. For example (page 27) Heath is described using these implausible adjectives: tough energetic ruthless energy abrasive young classless professional. Booker attributes this to Schlesinger on Kennedy. He notes the use of 'vibrant' to suggest vitality vs. order. Booker regards Britain as public school (i.e. pay; for example Etonians) vs all others. This of course can hide Jews as part of an elite.     He know no science whatever: his description of the Festival of Britain as bright-coloured plastic and concrete etc shows he has no idea about polythene and other then-new materials. He has no idea about the technologies of television; he seems to have little idea of colour printing, regarding colour supplements as a weird oddity, a bit odd since the Eye itself had to be printed, as of course did their public school mag. He has no idea about special effects and colour film, essential to James Bond films. Heathrow was new but it's clear air travel was a mystery to him, as were reinforced concrete, float glass, steel tower blocks. He seems surprised that contraceptive pills changed things. He has little idea about sound processing, and stereo, vinyl discs, transistors, and electric instruments (which still to this day worrying composers). He seems puzzled by new styles in interiors, fed by new types of lighting.     Booker has little idea of economics: he doesn't know about paper money or the leverage it can give in the wrong hands. He seems surprised at Rachmanism. He describes his surprise at shipyards closing, but has no feeling for international organisation on unions.     Like many commentators at the time, he has no feeling for the push behind immigration; he has no idea it was planned, with (for example) assistance supposedly designed for British people deliberately extended to immigrants. He talks as though they just happened to come, and as though anyone—even billions—from the 'Commonwealth' could all fit into Britain's small islands. Two much more recent books (reviews open in another tab) which in my view show the same strengths (making an effort) but also the same weakness (sheer ignorance). Scared to Death lists plenty of fairly recent scares, but the authors have no science methodology; their book is retrospective and they have no way to reliably identify new lies. (Note that 'AIDS', fluoridation, nuclear weapons, and nuclear power are unmentioned). Christopher Booker & Richard North: Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth (first published 2007) The Great Deception is a valuable big book on the EU, but omits all the material usually regarded as conspiratorial. It's descriptive, and therefore doesn't solve the problem of why all this happened. Christopher Booker & Richard North: The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union (first published 2003). [Cover design varies]

1988 Eye. Caption: Ich bin ein Guildforder.     (1994 first 'free' elections in South Africa). Zola Budd was a self-trained athlete, who ran fast. The caption echoes JFK's "I am a type of sausage" declaration. Presumably mock German, for Jewish propaganda reasons, involving the prolonged propaganda campaign against South Africa.

SPOOF: What might have been a genuinely satirical cover design, showing Thatcher aware of what she was being told to do [laughter], and Begin making an honest and vicious remark [laughter].     Naturally Private Eye never ran any such cover design. Jewish violence and greed being taboo topics.

Spot the Spoof Cover! After about twenty years the format of the Eye was fixed. Apart from ever-growing advertising (including cars—something to do with their subscribers) the material stayed much the same. It's worth repeating that after twenty years Eye printed NOTHING on TV news writers and screen writers. There is no reported scandal on people producing bogus crime statistics, bogus population figures, bogus social benefit figures—all this being highly relevant to deindustrialisation of Britain and its wrecking by immigration. Other fellow public school types—civil servants, senior civil servants for life, spies, ambassadors, BBC hacks, churchmen, academics—all these types receive no satirical treatment. There were some comments on Robert Maxwell ('the Bouncing Czech'—in fact a 'Jew') and Rupert Murdoch (either a 'Jew' or effectively a 'Jew') though of course nothing on Jewish agendas worldwide. This aspect of the Eye has proved permanent: see e.g. my review below (which Amazon removed!) of Craig Brown's supposedly satirical 'diaries'.

Back to top

Editors

RICHARD INGRAMS [b 1937] edited until 1986

Ingrams edited the magazine along the lines explained above until he was aged about 50; his successor, Ian Hislop, was 26, in fact more or less the same age Ingrams had been at the start of his work. A lot was made of this supposedly sudden replacement in the establishment media—a sure sign it was accepted. (Other investigative/ satirical/ genuine news magazines arrived, then sank without trace: I seem to remember Scallywag (which ran child sex abuse allegations) and Mother Jones—but may be wrong). Obviously a replacement must have felt to be sound; and in any case Ingrams is stated to have remained chairman, so that decisions could be chewed over. However, this adds weight to the idea that the magazine was simply pursuing its agenda: experience and knowledge were very much secondary to their policy, which I'm assuming based on the evidence was more-or-less standard Frankfurt School anti-white pro-Jewish propaganda.

The Eye built up a reputation, at least in the controlled media, of identifying and pursing serious frauds: T Dan Smith is an early example; later examples include disastrous NHS computer systems, Europe commentators, medical commentators, someone called Richard Brooks, 'a former tax inspector, on tax havens', someone on BSE. If there were any competent media studies departments, there would be comparisons of fraud and incompetence tabulated by media outlet. It's difficult to be certain, but for example this look into British private hospitals has only a few attributions to Private Eye.

There's some material online by a lawyer, Geoffrey Bindman, on the 'Goldenballs' fund in the 1970s and 1980s, asking for money to fund a legal case brought by Goldsmith, a billionaire Jew. The thought occurred to me that the whole thing could easily have been rigged up: with say 250,000 readers donating an average of (say) a tenner, a tidy sum could be made. Why would a billionaire piddle about in such a way? Possible? Well, another thing the Eye did not do was list tricks played by the legal profession. As far as I can remember, for example, no detailed inside story was made of the way lawyers decide how to apportion legal aid between lawyers.

One of their lost cases, which suggests some carelessness, was tied up with 30 January 1984's BBC Panorama programme, "Maggie's Militant Tendency", which alleged that Neil Hamilton MP gave a Nazi salute in Berlin a parliamentary visit in August 1983. Neil Hamilton also said in Parliament, when Greville Janner (accused of child sex) said he had lost half of his family in the Holocaust, "Unfortunately, the wrong half." I think I'm right in saying Private Eye relied on Searchlight, a Jewish front, for their information, which may give some indication of the poor quality of their sources.

Note added 2013-11-27 (i.e. 27 Oct 2013)
Ingrams is related to a British 'psyops' worker of the Second World War - who presumably helped tell lies about Hitler's intentions, lies about fire bombing of German cities, and lies about Stalin, the Red Army, Jews in the USSR, and the true costs of the Second World War.

[From a Daily Telegraph obituary:-]
Leonard Victor Ingrams was born on September 1 1941, the youngest of four sons of Leonard St Clair Ingrams, who served in the Secret Service in the Second World War. His mother, Victoria Susan Reid before marriage, was musical and a friend of Vaughan Williams, Benjamin Britten and Imogen Holst; and his brother is Richard, the former editor of Private Eye.

From Udo Walendy, The Methods of Reeducation, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho/Weser, 1979. This extract from Simon Shappard's heretical.com website. Added 24 July 2014

    ...Within an hour of Hitler having spoken I [this is 'Sefton Delmer', a Jew from Hungary] was on the air with my reply. And without a moment's hesitation I turned his peace offer down. My colleagues at the BBC had approved of what I meant to say. That was enough authority for me.
    "Herr Hitler," I said in my smoothest and most deferential German, "you have on occasion in the past consulted me as to the mood of the British public. So permit me to render your excellency this little service once again tonight. Let me tell you what we here in Britain think of this appeal of yours to what you are pleased to call our reason and common sense. Herr Führer and Reichskanzler, we hurl it right back at you, right in your evil smelling teeth..."
[NB the Imperial War Museum has a yellowed copy of Hitler's plea for peace, after the defeat of France].
    ...Duff Cooper rallied to my support with all his suave authority. He assured the House that my talk had the Cabinet's full approval. And when the Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax replied to Hitler a couple of days after me the sense of what he said was the same, although he used rather more restrained language. (Black Boomerang, pp. 16-18.

Sefton Delmer finally was entrusted with the command of a "Research Unit," which, however, did not have anything to do with research—but was simply the cover-name for special radio stations giving the impression, "as if they were working at some place inside the Europe occupied by Hitler." His initial chief was Leonard Ingrams, a key employee in "the Cloak-and-Dagger Organisation S.O.2 later renamed S.O.E. (Special Operations Executive) which was responsible for the organisation of resistance, sabotage, assassination and kindred enterprises" (pp. 36-37). Delmer's remit: "There are no limits. No holds are barred" (p. 38).

Delmer's instructions included the following: "Accuracy first," I used to tell the writers. "We must never lie by accident, or through slovenliness, only deliberately!" And as we put out news bulletin after news bulletin and service programme after service programme an entire system of subversive campaigns developed. (p. 92) ...

Ingrams went on to found a similar-looking magazine, The Oldie which I was surprised to find is still in existence. I noticed two prominently-advertised contributors for the current issue: Joan Bakewell, who was for most of her life involved with the BBC, in 'arts' and 'religion' and, later, 'old age'. (I haven't found her official BBC positions, though I'm pretty sure she had some). One of her achievements was shagging Harold Pinter, and I believe Private Eye hinted at this. If you know nothing of the truth about Judaism and Islam, because of BBC censorship, this shiksa/whore has some responsibility. (See for example Jews and Muslims as similar violent cults). Another contributor was Tony Benn whose autobiography shows that in his entire career he never grasped what was happening in the world; either that or he was a fellow-traveller.

Back to top

Private Eye writers   Paul Foot OVERVIEW: Paul Foot was born in Haifa, then part of the British Palestine Mandate, where incidentally Yigal Gluckstein ('Tony Cliff') was born. Possibly the Foot family were Jewish, perhaps spending time in Palestine making promises the British government would be unable to keep. Foot had a privileged early life including private education at both prep. school and at Shrewsbury public school. He became a life long member of the trotskyite SWP (formerly the International Socialists). He continually preached 'workers revolution' usually to middle class fellow-travellers and occasionally to actual workers. It's impossible for non-intimates to know what his attitude was to 'Jews': he may have been a useful idiot, or possibly from family of crypto-Jews. The SWP went through changes in the late 1990s: at one point it was funded, with annual conferences in University of London Union; then suddenly money seems to have been withdrawn, and comrades were expected to pay. Speeches were also cut back to a few minutes. [Private Eye published 'Footnotes' for most of its life, including after Foot's death. Small prizes are still offered for material in his style: a recent prize was awarded to an anti-white pressure group criticising the British treatment of 'asylum seeker' children; the fact they are not in a neighbouring country to their own, and are here illegally, isn't mentioned.]   Private Eye writers 3rd Feb 2013   Paul Foot 1937-2004 The Politics of Harold Wilson (1968) Foot's book on Wilson was published as a red-backed 'Penguin Special', and written before Foot was 30. It's unindexed. Foot's sources are unclear, but probably were largely newspaper libraries on specific subjects, and letters from people who knew Wilson, and biographies. Possibly Foot kept his own press cuttings. And Foot credits Jewish front organisations, without the slightest sign that he regarded them as biased or suspect: the 'Institute of Race Relations', 'Anti-Apartheid', 'International Socialism' magazine, 'New Statesman'. The book has two parts: the first half is a biography of Wilson's politics, including academics like G D H Cole, and, later, politicians such as Stafford Cripps, Gaitskell, Kennedy before his murder. The second half is on issues deemed important by Foot, all of them suggested by the ordinary media: European 'Economic Community' or Commonwealth or US links? 'Racialism' in southern Africa? Foreign aid to independent (sic) countries? Foot piles on detail, usually quotations from speeches and newspapers, interspersed with official media history, plus his own commentary. The actual minutes and other records would be secret at the time, of course, though Foot shows no sign of understanding systematic lies and biases. I'll try to present a deep revisionist view here, slipping through this book fairly rapidly and picking out topics:– • Labour 'landslide' of 1945 was in fact just a modest victory. • Balance of payments: there was a huge emphasis on exports. Why? WW2 had left Britain in huge debt to the USA (not repaid until about 2000) and they wanted their money. Also of course the US was in debt with huge phoney nuclear project and other military expenses. Foot of course doesn't know or mention this.     A related issue is devaluation of the pound, a big issue at the time. Foot has no analysis of who gains and loses - in fact usually Jews benefited. • Immigration. Immigrants claimed benefits; these were designed for the British, i.e. whites, but were in effect extended to immigrants without debate. Foot of course doesn't mention this. • Labour Party funding: Labour started with Jewish funding; in effect Jewish paper money and other scams funded 'Labour'. Naturally Foot doesn't mention this (his life was spent in organisations—school, university, family homes and assets, newspapers—where the funding was traditional and nearly invisible). • Union trouble: there was a lot of discussion of 'communists' leading unions, and in fact the NUS, NUJ, and many unions had leaders funded covertly by Jewish interests. Ordinary honest workers were kept out of the educational and promotional aspects of union life. In this way trouble could be caused more or less anywhere in Britain. Foot of course says nothing of this. • Slavery. Foot emphasised the Atlantic slave trade, probably following a few hack academics. He says and knows nothing of Muslim slaves, the African slave trade, or Jewish involvement in slavery. Note that Foot really believed the 'Russian Revolution' was a spontaneous uprising; he seems to have had no idea Lenin had access to vast funds of money. All his life he was a theoretical revolutionary, and all his life he had no idea that Marxism was a Jewish construct. • Arms: mostly these were under the control of Weinstock and advisors like Bondi, with techies scrabbling for money. Much of their equipment never worked. Foot says nothing about this. • Labour only got in in 1964 because many conservatives switched to Liberal. Foot says nothing about proportional representation. • Foot knows nothing of Lyndon Johnson's switch of the USA to fervent Zionist support. (Significantly, Foot on Suez makes no mention of Israeli intervention). • Foot, like Booker, supported unlimited immigration as though it was self-evidently a 'left wing' policy. And of action against South Africa and Rhodesia. This seems to have been almost universal among such people. Foot, again characteristically, says nothing about the Boer War resulting in Jewish control of minerals. 1990 THE CASE FOR SOCIALISM published by the Socialist Workers Party. You might expect this smallish book to explain the case for socialism. In fact, it doesn't, and Foot uses the pseudo-authority of Marx to explain why not (pages 15, 72): Marx never described what 'socialism' would be, which of course is useful to Foot. ('When people asked Marx for blueprints of a socialist society, he steadfastly refused to supply them.') In fact, this is a valuable part of Marxism for useful idiots, allowing them to dodge the issue. Probably it's a significant reason, along with absence of science, that the pretence was built up of Marx as a great thinker. Foot still assumes there was a genuine revolution in Russia, starting in 1905; he thinks the USSR was efficient, since he doesn't understand that all the technology was imported, being paid for by Jewish money from the west, using Russians as slave labour—the ones who weren't murdered. Foot's book is a run-through of the history of the twentieth century, but with a new emphasis on the USSR not being socialist. It's state capitalist. Foot goes through Thatcher and Reagan, the 'fall' of communism, and so on, almost always looking at money; wars hardly appear despite the vast death and destruction. Foot does not mention Jewish finance; nor does he discuss Jewish power in both the USA and USSR. And his technical knowledge is nil. Let's interpret these omissions: • 'Economic power' is a key phrase here. It appeared in other writers, for example Bertrand Russell. The important issue here, which the phrase hides, is the difference between financial power and everyday economic power, such as might be seen in factories, docks, railways, airports, building sites, farms, power plants, and arrangements for competitive selling of products.     'Economic power' (and 'workers control of economic power', 'democratic control of economic power' etc) are phrases aimed at workers and voters. Finance is much less noticeable than everyday economic structures; whole industries can change ownership, but of course they look exactly the same as before. This of course is a pro-Jewish attitude, designed to suggest that horrible money-grabbing capitalist business owners represent 'economic power'. (Landowners have a similar relation to power: the Queen for example, and the Church, own vast tracts of land and buildings, but these institutions would rather not mention this. Probably the growth in connections between Jewish money and landowners is explained by the mutual low profile). • 'State capitalism' (Foot's view of Jewish control in the USSR) manages to hide the financial connection. In the same way that 'Stalinism' hides the Jewish control of the USSR behind a front man. • Jews straddling the USA, Europe and USSR: Foot illustrates the incompetence of the USSR by the much-publicised-at-the-time sales of wheat to Russia at knock-down prices. This was presented as a cunning Commie coup against the 'West'. In fact of course Jews decided what was wanted and got American wheat; with control over the media it was easy to present this in any way they desired.     Both Reaganism and Thatcherism were devices to get publicly-owned assets, notably large-scale infrastructure, into Jewish hands, under the pretext of efficiency. • Another important example is union activity. There was quite a bit of discussion about 'communist union leaders', usually treated as though these were alliances with 'reds'. In fact of course union leaders could be groomed, funded, and inserted into position. Any industry targeted for destruction could be removed, perhaps under the pretext that it had become too difficult to manage. This applies also to propagandists: the NUJ's guidelines, which still exist, forcing journalists to misreport race incidents, were passed by a Polish Jew with a false name (MacShane). The NUS has probably always had groomed 'leaders' of this type; most students work too hard (or at least long) to lose time on such activities. • Jewish power found a perfection of rottenness in fake think-tanks and propagandist university and college departments. Jewish paper money cost them nothing; in effect, inflation paid them a percentage of GNP, and of course they'd get fallout from Jewish scams. And the whole set-up suited their hectoring style of propagandist word-twisting, notably in fields relevant to chosen people fantasists, such as anti-white racism. • Foot's scientific and technological ignorance: Nuclear weapons: it's now known that all this was a fake, though Foot was scientifically a complete ignoramus—another useful attribute in all useful idiots.     This is an extreme and controversial example; less difficult is the miners' strike in Britain. British coalfields were some of the longest-established in the world, and all the easily-won coal had long gone. Men had to journey underground, sometimes for miles. Contrast this with Pennsylvania, where there are 60-foot thick seams of very high-grade, low-contaminant coal, near the surface. And with eastern Europe, with lower grade 'brown coal' something like Irish peat. The TV 'news' coverage never mentioned any technical issues whatever; they were the same type as Foot: long on irresponsible oratory and uninformed preaching. There doesn't seem any doubt Foot really thought revolutions were an imminent possibility. He lists France 1789 and Russia (1917-ish, but not 1905) and France 1968, Portugal 1974, Iran 1979, Poland 1981—but of course omits the far more numerous coups, invasions, military takeovers. Foot was an engaging speaker, and possibly saw himself as a Lenin or Rosa Luxemburg figure: certainly the ending of this book—'There has never been a time when socialism - real socialism, socialism from below, ... democracy, ... fighting against capitalism - is more relevant.'—is more of a rousing speech than anything analytical, as of course he never says what he means by 'socialism'. Foot's book (1990) dates after the 'fall' of the USSR, which he thought was a magical event attributed to millions of oppressed Russians and east Europeans. Probably the truth is the Jews running it made such a mess of things that they decided to move, after of course legally tying up major assets as best they could. Foot despaired of political parties; he noted that every Labour government left the country with more unemployment when they were voted out than when they started; and Conservative governments built more council housing than Labour. But he had no idea of the influence of finance on political parties. So all his comments on 20th-Century 'democracies' are more or less worthless. Readers on the 'Frankfurt School' will appreciate that many of Foot's views are inexplicable without the Jewish hypothesis. For example, Penguin published Immigration and Race in British Politics for him in 1965, before Enoch Powell's famous but evasive 1967 speech. And yet what could Foot know of race, or immigration, or politics, aged about 25? Near the end of his book (page 87) he gives three examples of 'fighting minorities': the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, 'the Anti Nazi league in the 1970s', and the anti-poll tax movement. The first of these 'went a long way to changing people's attitudes to the Vietnam War': in fact knowledge of the Vietnam genocide was and still is censored by the Jewish media, presumably because it would show up the likes of Kissinger as amongst the most evil people who have ever lived. The second of course was pure anti-free speech thuggery, another typical Jewish activity. Poll tax activity was pretty much an unimportant diversion. So we find that the 'Frankfurt School' hypothesis fits the real world far better than Foot's tendentious inaccuracies. However the main point here may be that Foot, aged over 50, having spent his entire life on nothing but politics, and convinced that huge changes may soon happen, could give no description of 'socialism'. Paul Foot was a pure example of the hard-working 'useful idiot'.

Back to top

Editors

IAN HISLOP [b 1960] editor of Private Eye from 1986

Hislop as far as I know was a backroom figure for a few years, presumably, if the provisional thesis of this piece is more or less right, being 'groomed' to present a pro-Jewish and anti-white front. He was under thirty and it's not credible to me that he could have built up an independent world view of his own.

On the Jewish issue, it appears to be the case that Hislop is exceptionally tiny; possibly this could be some genetic characteristic, though so far as I know not geneticist has commented. Of course, it may not be.

He appeared from 1990 on BBC television in Have I Got News For You, largely with Paul Merton as something like a double act. The news is always official pseudo-news, and the 'guests' generally comedians or actors; no serious people get invitations (unless Ken Livingstone and Boris Osman are regarded as serious). In view of this free advertising, it's remarkable that Private Eye sales stayed low.

(A reminder: I'd say anti-white racism (whites as deserving to be exterminated), and omission of mention of Jewish activities are the leading media news drivers. For example, promoting miscegenation, promoting illegal and any other immigration, and not reporting crimes against whites are priorities; as are refusing to mention facts about Jewish 'holy books', and such Jewish activities as use of paper money for Jewish purposes, promoting and profiting from wars, and using white women as prostitutes. Wider perspectives include concealment of the parts played by Jews in slavery, and the continuing lying about Germany and the Holohoax and other Jewish frauds. The reader may like to watch episodes of Have I Got News For You, perhaps on BBC's iPlayer, or perhaps Youtube, and judge whether the BBC are guided by something of that sort).

Private Eye writers   Craig Brown - British 'alternative' media as a fake Craig Brown: The Lost Diaries     Amazon removed this review! Satire and cowardice don't mix—disappointingly lightweight and superficial Craig Brown writes parodies for Private Eye, a [British] magazine with an unjustified reputation for serious news exposure, and has written for years; his pieces typically occupying about half an Eye page. About 26 each year, therefore. I'm unsure if he has written 365 by now; quite possibly he's been at it for more than fifteen years. There may be some copyright issue with Private Eye; Hislop is listed as his 'editor' and the sources are not made clear. [NB for American readers, Hislop is on a 'current affairs' TV programme called 'Have I Got News for You'—mostly politically correct garbage]. However, I recognised some fragments originally in the Eye—our Queen explaining what a railway train is to Tony Blair, 'Ming' Campbell on Saddam Hussein being no friend of the Lib Dems, Michael Winner in a ridiculous anthropophagy story. Most of the 'diary entries' are too short to have been printed unchanged. A cover blurb from the failing 'Sunday Times' says Brown's the 'greatest living satirist'. So what do we find here? This collection, or rewrite, is indexed, and as many names as possible are shoehorned in—thus a Shirley Williams reference proved only to be a mention in passing, not a joke diary entry. Many seem oddly dated, for example Edward Heath. There are such people as Clive Bell and Racine and Lord Lucan and George V; maybe some date coincidence justified their presence. But, given a quarter century or more, what a potential feast we have—ingredients spread on display perhaps including our Archbishop of Canterbury, a political appointee selected by a war criminal; Tony Benn, a consummate hypocrite; Ken Livingstone, Mandelson—well; whole clutches of official state media people—Yentob, Clive James, Dimblebeys, Barry Norman; Callaghan, Major, sundry shadows. I'd have liked some satire at the expense of Susan Greenfield. (And Brian Cox. Maybe Dawkins)—too much to hope for, though. Diane Abbott? What about various black appointees who embezzled? What about the Stephen Lawrence propaganda fest? Maybe Dizaei (I think) and 'black police officers' introducing their cultural traits to Britain? Perhaps a Rothschild advising the Queen—surely there's satirical scope for comments on the murder of the Romanovs by Jews in Russia, maybe with smart rejoinders about German royalty? Sadly, there's little of any merit. Brown has a narrow range of techniques: one is cartoonish exaggeration as with Winner—another example is Roger Scruton mounting a horse backwards. This can work—there's Esther Rantzen complaining about tight belts, though I have to say that plump Daily Mail chap did it better. Another is language, obviously—there's a simple divide between chavs and soap 'stars'—his Madonna has an American accent, and Jonathan Woss says "gweat"—and more-or-less literary figures (such as Hitchens—nothing on Elie Weisel—Isaiah Berlin, A L Rowse, Anthony Burgess etc) who are mostly pastiched with long words, as their underlying outlooks and concepts seem out of Brown's range. (The Dalai Lama pieces... couldn't Brown have done a bit of background work? Harold Pinter and Antonia Fraser—ditto; not just a bit of foul-mouthed stuff touched with east end slang!) As a thought substitute there are walk-on parts for such as Murdoch and Kissinger, both handled with kid gloves. Omitted names, in no particular order, as well as those listed above, include Andrew Neather, any Dimbleby, any BBC boss e.g. Dyke, J K Rowling, heads of any of the Civil Service, Intelligence, military, the Commission on Equality and Human Rights, the MacPherson Report, asylum barristers—surely there's food for the satirist there!! An odd omission is Eye writers. Wheen, author of a very useless book on a serious topic, is missing. So is Booker. So is Hislop—a horrible prematurely aged pig-faced little clown, posing for his TV sound bites on Diane, 9/11, or whatever, obvious lies with obviously fake canned laughter. Nor his holiday novelist wife, who seems to thinks nice girls should forever get taxpayers' money for non-jobs.. Just as people of the defunct USSR must sometimes stumble across an old issue of Krokodil and gaze in wonder at its restricted little grubby porthole on the world, so must Craig Brown's books be viewed. Shallowness and parody don't mix; neither do satire and cowardice mix. Avoid this book.

The Best of 'Dear Bill' by Richard Ingrams and John Wells (published by Andre Deutsch .. guess what) has Private Eye pieces from 1980-1985 under the general rubric 'Dear Bill' - letters to 'Bill' from Denis Thatcher, husband of Margaret Thatcher, up to about half way through her nominal Prime Minister-ship. It's really quite extraordinary what trash this book is. Denis Thatcher had oil interests, and probably some covert interests, combined with perhaps some awareness of the oil world. Nothing of this appears in these 'letters'; he's presented solely as a drunkard who dislikes every type of human being; I won't spell anything out, as the book certainly doesn't warrant it, but typically if Thatcher went to Japan, or the USA, or France, or Germany, or Switzerland, or Downing Street, or Arab countries, the two authors presumably amused themselves assembling contemptuous commentaries in slang they assumed Thatcher would use. However the serious business—Thatcher's retinue and support of Jews, anxious to get their hands on Britain's public assets; Reagan's retinue of Jews, ditto, don't appear at all. Wars, the then-current damage by Jews to South Africa, white workers ... all are treated as nothing. And this is not satire; serious satire of course includes reference to actualities. So far as I know, Wells was just another public school nonentity, amiable and vacant, and with no intellectual interests at all. He was given some free TV publicity for his theatre show 'Anyone for Denis', I'd guess by the BBC.

Private Eye writers   Francis Wheen OVERVIEW: When (deputy editor of Private Eye since the late 1980s) appears to be just another 'award winning' Jewish liar. Award-winning in the sense of being awarded by other supposed 'Jews'. Francis Wheen: How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World Very likely another Jewish liar ... 6th Feb 2013 I wrote a dismissive review of Wheen's book How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World in 2010, unaware at the time he was deputy editor of Private Eye magazine. In fact, he seems to have worked there something like a quarter of a century by now. A bit of burrowing reveals he wrote a book on Karl Marx; and also 'won an Isaac Deutscher prize', Deutscher being a pro-Stalin Jew, whose wife, amusingly, thought Trotsky would have been a better catch. His surname may be cognate with e.g. Vaughan, Whine. All this of course puts him right on the jadar screen. Tantalisingly, I found he'd had a fire: his extremely valuable collection of books and papers, stored in what looked like a garden shed, had gone up in flames, sufficiently intense to completely destroy the structure and evidence. I remember being told by a printer that books are rather difficult to burn; water is the enemy of books. Anyway ... How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World is not about a legendary African monster. And it's not about 'how' absurdities are spread. Rather it's an account of topics in the same style as American skeptics groups, covering anything except what's important. Wheen starts his book with a preamble on the 'Enlightenment', I'd guess relying on university memories of official history, emphasising the USA (not Germany, apart from bits on Kant and Hegel!), then another starting-point: he dates the modern world of 'Mumbo-Jumbo' from 1979, with Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran, and Margaret Thatcher. It's difficult to know if any of this is intended seriously; journalists like to be thought clever, without having to think (Bertrand Russell's words). The endnotes reveal the way the book was constructed: about half the material taken from ordinary newspapers, about 1/4 taken from think-tanks—generally the Jewish race or money ones—and the remaining quarter quotes books. As a result the book is almost unendurable to plough through—it's one press-cutting after another, with little discernible thread of logic. The entire book follows the Jewish agenda. One has to assume this is conscious and deliberate. For example (page 85) '... many post-modernists seemed to accept the demise of socialism and the success of capitalism as immutable facts of life. ...' In fact of course the Jewish-run USSR and its unfortunate satellites was never 'socialist'. And for that matter the successor regimes, also controlled by Jewish paper money, weren't capitalist either. As regards the USA, around page 30 is a discussion on junk bonds etc: '... Boesky ... bought stock in companies which ... were targeted for takeover shortly afterwards. ... Dennis Levine was tipping him off... Michael Milken['s] ... high-risk, high-yield 'junk bonds' [converted] ... equity into debt to finance the merger mania. ... T Boone Pickens and Sir James Goldsmith ... would acquire a menacingly large stake in a company and then terrify the firm's owners into buying it back... economic tsunami of 19 October 1987 ... What saved it was... the new chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, who flooded the market with cheap credit..' No doubt this is romanticised to hide the obviously fraudulence, but the point here is that the Jewish connections go unremarked, notably the two-tier system with Jews controlling the issue of paper money. Wheen says nothing about the more decorous, but perhaps just as disastrous, link between Thatcher and Keith Joseph, and getting British public assets into private (i.e. read Jewish) hands. There's more similar stuff on the dot com pseudo-boom. The Islamic material condemns Muslims from several viewpoints, including the fake attribution of 9/11, and their bases for anti-Americanism such as Palestine and numerous coups and wars are omitted; but Judaism is just as backward and in fact historically the two cults are inter-related. But there is no discussion of Jews as superstitious and vicious. There are accounts of anti-evolution American citizens and other absurdly simple people—Reagan and Diana Spencer as just two examples—but there's nothing on Jews promoting anti-white immigration, anti-white laws and what have you. Wheen discusses military budgets of the USA, but the beneficiaries, presumably Jews, are, I suppose I need hardly say, never discussed. The only thing that struck me as interesting was the material in the chapter with the typically rather vague title 'The demolition merchants of reality'. (Vague titles permit material to be inserted or moved around later). This deals with 'deconstruction' and such people as the Jew Derrida. Eagleton, Barthes and others figure, but the introduction describes Colin MacCabe, in an English department, in 1981, in a tussle faintly resembling A J P Taylor vs Hugh Trevor-Roper a couple of decades earlier. In that previous case, Taylor, pro-Jewish and probably actually Jewish, lost—and Private Eye always used 'Hugh Very-Ropey' as their selected pseudonym for the winner. (I'm not suggesting he was anything other than very ropy, by the way). MacCabe lost his academic battle, in the short term, making up for it by accepting positions based on his new renown. But, again, there was a Jewish link. One of the ideas of 'deconstruction' is the idea that reality (or language, or texts, or something) is a 'construct' or 'social construct'. In the same way Boas pretended race didn't exist, many Jews like a fluctuating model of the world. Pragmatism had the same purpose: if Jews control propaganda, what they say is 'truth'. Anyway—before reading Wheen I'd missed this rather obvious fact. I suppose I should be grateful.

40-minute CD package with Private Eye. This is the back, listing all the writers/'stars'. For some reason the continuity is provided by mimicry of BBC Radio 4 ("Radio Bore"), an agonisingly dull channel. We have 'satire' on Tracey Emin sh!tting on a table, Martin Amis and his teeth and a comment on 'nuclear war', the Australian doing Edna Everedge, political stuff through the letterbox slit of two parties only, the pornographer who bought the Daily Express (no serious detail), a female announcer feeding a supposedly on the spot reporter with things to say on burning cattle, a song by a Prince Charles mimic on the theme "isn't it awful". Painfully ambition-free light material. Just as people realised later they were duped by Tony Blair, very many readers must have slowly understood they'd get little from Private Eye.

    LITTLE attention has been paid to Tony Blair's old flatmate Lord Falconer since he took up his new job as minister of state for transport, local government and the regions. Fellow-peers are now begging Lord Gnome to rectify this omission.
    "After 'doing a Moore' (burying bad news) and 'doing a McDonald' (airbrushing words out of Hansard), 'doing a Falconer' has now become Lords shorthand for being a pompous prat," one reveals.
    The trait was mentioned recently when Lord Williams, Leader of the House, congratulated the veteran Lord Peyton on 50 years in parliament as an MP and then life peer. "Had I realised that I would be surrounded by such warmth," Peyton replied genially, "I might have tabled a question for the noble and learned lord, Lord Falconer, who, to mark a special occasion, could then have answered it."
    Peyton's joke alluded to a typical Falconer cover-up. On 18 October he had been asked whether Stephen Byers or Jo Moore "were involved in any discussions or correspondence relating to the removal of Mr Alun Evans from his post" - a story that had been widely reported in the press. Falconer evaded the point by babbling about Evans's new job instead. A couple of days later Lady Blatch tabled a similar written question, whereupon Falconer referred her to his original answer - which, of course, had completely ducked the question.
    "The man is incapable of answering a straight question," one disgruntled denizen of the Upper House grumbles. Not quite true, however. Last week Lord Tanner asked Falconer whether pilots of British passenger aircraft could take "evasive action" if they were attacked by hijackers. Certainly not, Lord Falconer replied, since "extreme manoeuvres by aircraft could pose a significant risk to the safety of an aircraft and its passengers"!

IN THE TEAROOM
    THE home office documents left in a Westminster pub by a careless civil servant can be read as further evidence of "new" Labour's preoccupation with spin. But they also tell a more interesting story: one of driving ambition and acute political positioning.
    The home secretary David Blunkett is locked in competition with health secretary Alan Milburn in a race to come top of the class for "delivery". At stake is more than three gold stars. A reputation as "Britain's most competent minister" is seen as a necessary preliminary to establishing Blunkett as the most likely "stop-Gordon" candidate in the succession to President Blair, a post lately vacated by the dithering Jack Straw. What is envisaged is a three-way contest in which Labour's MPs, rank-and-file and affiliated unions get to choose between a young turk (probably Milburn), the dreaded chancellor, who will sack all the lickspittles and placemen; and safe, cuddly David Blunkett, the "caretaker" or compromise option, who will promise to keep them on.
    No minister has worked harder over the summer months than the home secretary. His normally sleepy department has been turned upside down. Police, prisons, the asylum system - all are being revamped to cultivate the image of Mr Capable. The cannabis announcement, together with a floated, then adroitly withdrawn, proposal for ID cards, sends out a Mr Reasonable signal too.
    The situation is complicated by the fact that the "delivery" papers are being marked by two sets of examiners: one in Gordon Brown's treasury, the other in Number 10. Luckily for Blunkett the Downing Street team is headed by his old crony, the educationalist Michael Barber. Another of Blunkett's former advisers, Tom Bentley, is now installed at the think tank Demos, which last month published the home secretary's "personal political vision", a book designed to establish him as a sort of low-rent philosopher king.
    'Urquhart'

---

This [above] is verbatim from the 'HP Sauce' column. (HP = Houses of Parliament; 'Urquhart' is a name from a short feeble BBC series). It's curious to read such material, which absurdly implies ministers are selected by some sort of democratic process. I was amused particularly because Blunkett is blind; he couldn't possibly have worked harder than any minister, unless, as is no doubt entirely possible, the others did nothing over summer. Another source of amusement is the date and names: at about this time, both Jack 'Straw' ('Jewish'; real name uncertain) and Blunkett were planning the process, not in their election manifesto, of flooding Britain with immigrants. And there's no mention of the effects of the official version of 9/11 on the British version of 'homeland security'.

The Premiership [sic] ... (ITV)
TELEVISED football often contains cases of the pundits getting it wrong but, in the case of The Premiership, the pundits were right. As Square Eyes warned after only one week, David Liddiment's £183m football highlights show was never going to pull a crowd of much more than four million at 7pm on Saturday, And so it proved, with the ITV network boss forced to enact the most humiliating climbdown since the grand old duke of York marched them back to the bottom again.
    It's worth rehearsing why the show could never have worked. The biggest matches in the Premiership are nabbed by Sky for Saturday mornings and Sunday afternoons; true footy nuts are still travelling back from the match at 7pm; a soccer show at that time virtually excludes female viewers who are crucial to the building of a hit audience. However you did the maths, it will never come to more than five million on a good day, which peak-time advertisers regard as a slap in the face.
    The point of claiming victory for critics is not to crow. But, if so many people could see the flaw in The Premiership in advance, harsh questions have to be asked about why Liddiment and ITV didn't. Even more worrying is that they have previous recent form in calling the game wrongly. When they launched Survivor - ITV's biggest 2001 show apart from the footy - flaws which would limit its impact were instantly apparent. Planned as an answer to Channel 4's Big Brother, ITV's endurance game show, shot on a tropical island and edited before an episode went out, it completely lacked the interactive element which had made BB a success.
    This means that ITVl's two summer and autumn bankers were, from the start, miscalculated for the channel which commissioned them. Given that the one ITVI hit in the period -the gay-meets-girl series Bob And Rose - was a BBC2-type prestige piece, Liddiment seems dangerously lacking in the first quality of a successful channel controller: knowing what the public wants and understanding where to screen it.
    The other skill a network boss most needs is the ability to handle talent sympathetically but firmly. In the Premiership debacle, Liddiment has also failed there. There are strong rumours that he finally moved his trademark football show under pressure from Cilia whose Blind Date will now occupy the ex-soccer slot. He also seems to have agreed that Desmond Lynam, signed at a virtually seven-figure fee to work a couple of days a week, can pre-record The Premiership in its new 10.30pm slot in order to allow him to get home for supper. Giving in to the demands of a star who has succeeded is almost inevitable in the TV industry. Acceding to the whinges of one whose show has flopped suggests a very weak manager.
    Also, the fact that the replacement for The Premiership is a 16-year-old ITV series with ratings in decline for several years is a comment on a wider content crisis at ITV. This was underlined by the National TV Awards, screened on the day after Liddiment's football-boot-in-mouth announcement about his Saturday schedule. Etc...

---

It's quite funny to see the seriousness (and the envy) of the hack writer pretending that Africans kicking a ball around is a worthwhile topic. The ridiculous title, the pretence of understanding the finances—paper money and the intersecting sets with interests are complicated—the implication that no 'shows' should decline, the second-guessing about advertisers on TV who have far and away most money to spend of any advertisers apart from the state and controllers of paper money ...

MEDIA NEWS
    FOLLOWING the Beeb's disastrous decision to let its unwatched BBC News 24 channel break into BBCs 1 and 2 to lead coverage of the 11 September attacks in the US, there was a high level post-mortem meeting.
    Why was rival Sky News (cost per annum: £3 2m) on air with the breaking story 20 minutes before BBC News 24 (cost per annum: £50m)? And why did viewers change channels in droves when confronted by News 24's young, inexperienced and unknown faces?
    Such questions were aired all over the newspapers too; so much so that Roger Mosey, head of television news, was ordered to write to Sunday Business in defence of his digital albatross. Preferring to quote a viewing figure of 33m from across the Beeb's entire output instead of the miserable 280,000 that News 24 could claim as a single channel, Mosey explained the BBC's "appeal" to viewers: "They don't want us to take the Sky News route of plugging into American networks to fill any gaps."
    Er, but that's just what News 24 did and still does on a regular basis. Sky News "opts out" to the Digger's Fox channel; BBC News 24 does exactly the same to ABC News - often with disastrous results.
    For example, on the night Fergal Keane accurately reported "Pakistani troops firing into the air", to fend off a crowd of desperate Afghan refugees trying to cross the border (BBC Six O'Clock News, 22 October), BBC News 24 handed over to ABC News and its pisspoor Peter Jennings. His lead story using exactly the same pictures? "Pakistani troops today opened fire on refugees."
    Nevertheless director-general Greg Dyke has ordained that BBC News 24 will in future be the first port of call whenever a big story breaks - the first time priority has been given to the rolling digital service. At least it picks up more viewers when simulcast on the usual analogue services in preference to the news output most BBC viewers prefer.

---

This [above article, verbatim from Private Eye] refers to 9/11 and (of course) the BBC simply copied the US New York Jewish media. There was not the remotest independence. They were tipped off but (probably being unused to US-style time zones) got things wrong, predicting the fall of WTC7 before it happened. This article concentrates on some decision about digital broadcasting by the astoundingly stupid Greg Dyke. Note that the head of TV news appears to be a Jew. Of course there's another obvious point: the BBC gets money compulsorily. They simply have no need to worry about costs. Why would they? And note also the 'disaster' commented on here: a mistake, or lie, about Afghan refugees—as though trivial things like refugees are ever reported accurately by the BBC!

Conclusion: Private Eye is just more phoney 'controlled opposition'.

NEW!!!   Spot the Spoof Private Eye Covers!

Genuine dull cover design.	Commentary on possibly the most worthless monarch Britain has ever had. Spoof Eye cover.	Spoof cover. Draws attention to the non-British nature of the three biggest Jewish-funded parties.
Spoof cover. Commentary on BBC lies about 9/11, but also Private Eye. Why did they do nothing?	Spoof cover. Miseducation by Jews is intentional. Incredibly, British education is supposedly headed by a Jew.	Spoof cover. Muslim immunity from policing unremarked by Private Eye Why?
Spoof cover. 'Board of Deputies of British Jews' presents 'Jack Straw' with a silver present for telling lies	Authentic dull Private Eye cover. A huge war; all they can do is make a feeble joke as though Dubya was in control.	Spoof cover. Mad 'jewish' women following their inbred fanatical anti-white beliefs; could be a genetic trait.
Spoof cover. Comment on ridiculous confetti titles.	Spoof cover: Andrew Brons and difficulty of being serious.	Spoof cover. Suggested by Christian couple being prosecuted for not wanting men to have rectal sex in their guest house.
Spoof cover. Commentary on Muslims and police.	Genuine dull Eye cover on the important subject of football.	Spoof cover. Based on a Daily Mail piece.
Spoof Private Eye cover. Mild comments on mass murderers.	Spoof Private Eye cover. Multicultural hack hypocrite Marr getting the medical treatment most appropriate to himself.	Spoof Private Eye cover commenting on Jewish push of genocide against whites, using simple-minded allies.
Spoof cover. Mild comment on attacks on whites in Africa, unreported by the Jewish media.	Spoof cover. Ineffectual idiot and Jewish-background man, plus Ugandan	Genuine dull Private Eye cover design.

Back to top

---

Comment

Subject .. Private Eye
From .... Endzog
To ...... anything@big-lies.com
Date .... Thu 9 April 2015 12:07
I enjoyed your article on Private Eye immensely including the book reviews. Private Eye has long been a source of annoyance to me because along with BBC comedy like That Was The Week That Was along with numerous other morally and politically corrupting Jewish productions with Marrano Jewish stars like Steptoe, Till death Do Us Part, St Trinians, Pete and Dud, Monty Python and all the way up to Alas Smith and Jones, Harry Enfield, and The Fast Show totally seduced me into an ethnically-suicidal liberalism.

I never realised that the target in almost every case of the Jewish mass-psychological Hegelian humour technique was that group Jewish racists (excuse the word which a future nationalist government should dissuade from use) hated most; the British working class, that most indigenous of groups whom they have not only ethnically genocided into a minority group but picked off Queen Victoria style by the Member for Golders Green Margaret Thatcher and her successors to be raised up into the middle-class where they can join the Jews in despising their former selves.

The origin of the Eye is of course The Spectator of 1711, sundry gossip sheets of the time and later Samuel Johnson, Boswell and the coffee house gossips. Interestingly the Jew has never built on the tradition of the very excellent Strand Magazine nor Punch which are above their intellectual level being that the Hebrews and their Khazar co-religionists are rather more of the clever than the intelligent variety.

I have contacted Eye before to raise some the issues you have, for example their turning the other way while our nation and race was being wiped out by the Jews, but only recently I have been looking at Jews in British comedy and have not actually found one famous name who I do not suspect of being a Jew, in fact if you look carefully into the parentage you will either find confirmation or a failure of Jewish sites like Wiki to list anything at all about their family background. Harry Lauder the quintessential Scot was a Jew, Kenneth Clarke's father was a Jeweller, suspected paedophile Michael Gove's mother was a Jew and then he was adopted by Judaeo-Christians. Cliff Richard, Jimmy Savile, Richard Branson, Una King MP a black Jew, Mervyn King, and Kate Middleton is a Jew with a long Sephardic ancestry as is her son Prince George:
https://endzog.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/the-great-kate-middleton-scam-shes-a-jew/

Your point about Ingram being brought in after a Semitic faux-pas has me suspecting him as well. Marrano Jews are often sent to Christian schools, given Christian names, jokingly adopt Christianity as their 'faith' when you would expect them to declare themselves as proud atheists which they invariably are, yet remain totally Jewish. The theatrical millionaire suburb of Hampstead wherin live many and sundry Jews from the News is one of the least diverse areas of London almost exclusively Jewish and white yet it is from there issue large numbers of hypocrites who call all of us who are condemned to co-exist with the savage mud-peoples, racists.

You asked if readers would report heroes or martyrs of free speech and I would bring your attention to Joshua Bonehill who is to mount that rarest of events; a protest against the Jews on Clapton Common Hackney called 'Liberate Stamford Hill' and who I feel needs support.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMNjmLgz6wtWDxKJK9ZVLrA

Regards,
endzog.
Back to top

---

HTML and most (non-Private Eye, non-cover design) content Rae West 25 Feb 2013. Some book reviews written earlier. This is unfinished: amendments and emendments may well follow. Running jokes and Spart indexed 23 July 2014 | Psyops note 24 July 2014 | 40th anniversary added 2 June 2021 (when I happened to rediscover the CD!) | Oxford and Jewish 'education' note 21 Oct 2021