This all started, three blogs ago, as a piece about David Hughes, who worked as a doorman/cashier/DJ at the Le Strip club in Toronto from 1982 to 1994.
It then began to divert via undercover work for the CSIS (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service), neo-Nazis, a massive counterfeiting scheme, planned terrorism in the 1980s, a far right Christian Identity religious group, a Ku Klux Klan gathering and a South African apartheid regime connection to, at the end of the last blog, membership of the Rhodesian Army.
“Hold on!” I said to David Hughes. “The Rhodesian Army”?
So, I think not unreasonably, I asked him for more background…
He responded…
David serving in the York Regional Police, in the 1970s…
As far as the Rhodesian Army was concerned, I became aware of the conflict ongoing in that country while attending Police College in Alymer, Ontario as a member of York Regional Police Force in 1976.
One of my classmates, Ken, was a member of Peel Regional Police Force and had recently immigrated to Canada after spending several years in the BSAP (British South Africa Police) who were the equivalent to our RCMP in the then-country of Rhodesia.
He was about ten years older than me and I looked up to him as a mentor with his worldly experience – not only as a police officer in Rhodesia but also because of his prior service as a ‘bobby’ in the Birmingham police force in Great Britain.
Ken told me I was too young to be policeman and that I should travel the world and join either the BSAP in South Africa or the Rhodesian Army.
So, in December 1978, I took him up on his advice and quit York Regional police.
By January 1979 I had flown to Rhodesia and joined the Rhodesian Army.
David Hughes says: “The Rhodesian Army was 85% African during that era and these are some of the African soldiers served with at the time – tough, disciplined soldiers…” (Photo taken April 1979)
May 1979: David Hughes in the Rhodesian Army “in my ‘blackface’ – We called it “black is beautiful camo creme”.
Initially, I was posted as a recruit to the Rhodesian SAS regiment where I underwent three months of their recruit training and selection – but I ultimately dropped off the course and transferred into the Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment where I served under American Major Darryl Winkler (a former US Army Vietnam veteran who had received a battlefield commission during that war).
I served in that unit throughout the remainder of the Bush War until Rhodesia ultimately became Zimbabwe in 1980.
Obtaining an early discharge from the Zimbabwe Army, I traveled to South Africa and went to the SADF (South African Defence Force) recruiting office in Pretoria and was given an offer of employment.
I was all set to join the SADF and engage in the war that was beginning in earnest in that country when I got homesick and returned to Canada.
I tried to get hired by 13 different police forces in Canada when I returned but no police force would touch me because of the ‘racist’ connotations associated with the Rhodesian conflict.
I spent the next five years working three jobs (one of which was at Le Strip) in order to make a living before I was hired by Canadian Pacific Rail in 1986 and my fortunes began to change for the better. Even then I still hung on to the the part-time job at Le Strip until 1994 because my level of seniority at the railway was such that I still needed part-time work to make ends meet.
It was about David Hughes, who worked as a doorman/cashier/DJ at Le Strip 1982-1994… and as a trainman on the Canadian Pacific Railway system 1986-2019… and as a ‘Confidential Informant’ for the Ontario Provincial Police… and for CSIS (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service) around that time.
In yesterday’s blog about David Hughes’ undercover work in Canada, he said:
“Grant Bristow’s meeting with Max French at Le Strip was arranged by me… At the time, Grant was a Confidential Informant for CSIS (which I also had a indirect role in creating).”
So, obviously, I asked about this role.
He replied:
The role I am referring to is how Grant Bristow came to the attention of CSIS and ended up becoming a CI for them. It was as a result of his recruitment by the South African embassy in Toronto (around 1984?) to provide intelligence on ANC (African National Congress) personnel in the city who were organizing protests against the apartheid regime in South Africa at the time.
Grant had met a couple of the South African embassy’s “diplomatic staff” (BOSS agents, no doubt) and parlayed his friendship and knowledge of my serving in the Rhodesian Army in 1979/80 into a job offer from them to provide information that would assist the South Africans in their battle against the ANC.
At the time Grant was working for Kuehne+Nagel in Toronto… One of the services they offered back in the 1980s/1990s was private investigators (who were required to be licensed under Provincial legislation) to ferret out employee theft and fraud.
They had contracts with Canada Post to provide security services at the Gateway Postal sorting facility and Grant spent a lot of time there doing undercover work for the security company in addition to his part time work as a DJ at Le Strip.
Kuehne+Nagel was where (I think?) he got his first taste of undercover work which was to stand him in good stead when he began to act as a CI for CSIS. He had a unique personality trait that I think helped ingratiate him into whatever role was required of him at the time. His personality could be demure as a sheepdog or as brash and bombastic as a WWE wrestler calling out his opponent in the ring combined with a chameleon like ability to instantly blend into whatever social environment he was enmeshed in at the moment.
He managed to gather a handful of would-be security staff into his plan and out of the blue one day called me up and asked if I would give his ‘recruits’ a lecture on the ANC.
I agreed and about a half dozen of ‘Grant’s Gaggle’ showed up at my apartment one weekend. I spent the next hour or so giving them the benefit of what I knew about the ANC as a result of my experiences in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in 1979/80… which, honestly, wasn’t really much.
Grant was a little vague about exactly what he was up to… I could not figure out whether what he was telling me about the South Africans was legitimate or not.
Through all of this, though, Grant attracted the attention of CSIS and they managed to turn him into a CI and he began working against the interests of the South African Embassy in Toronto and gave CSIS information which ultimately led to the expulsion of a number of the South African diplomatic staff for “activities inconsistent with their diplomatic status”.
All of this occurred before his recruitment into the white supremacist neo-Nazi Heritage Front (see previous blog) and activities as a CSIS spy in that group for several years in what was called by CSIS, “OP Governor”.
When Grant’s role was exposed by the Toronto Sun in the mid-1990s, a public outcry led the Conservative Government of the time to convene an inquiry by the Security Intelligence Review Committee into the matter.
I gave in-camera testimony at the committee and their report, titled The Heritage Front Affair, under the Chairmanship of the Right Honorable Val Meredith ultimately determined that CSIS (while testing the limits of what was appropriate for the agency) acted within the limits of their mandate under the law and that Grant Bristow had performed an act of great benefit to his country and its citizens.
A conclusion that, in my opinion, was entirely correct.
Of course, Grant was given a new identity by CSIS and spirited to an unknown location somewhere in Canada where he was paid for the services he had rendered to the Government of Canada as a CSIS spy.
For me, life went on as normal and I worked often with Max French at CP Rail until I transferred to the London Division in 1998 and spent the remainder of my career working out of that terminal. Oftentimes I would run a train to Toronto and see Max in passing. In all of that time he never indicated that he suspected me during our association.
To this day, unless he reads this blog, I wonder if he ever did…
PS – I attach a photo of me back in those days…much better than the AI pic you created yesterday.
…and also one of me in the Rhodesian Army.
HOLD ON! HOLD ON!… “One of me in the Rhodesian Army”… ???
Last week, I blogged here about the fact that the Reuters news agency was investigating – for a second time – whether ‘President Obonjo’ (aka comedian Benjamin Bello) really is the president of an African country.
In fact, this time, the worrying suspicion was that he is actually the President of the whole of Africa and that he had threatened to invade the US in support of Donald Trump.
Reuters have today – presumably after a week of detailed research and fact-checking – come up with their conclusion… printed in full below…
Fact Check: Video of ‘African President’ American invasion is a comedy skit
By Reuters Fact Check
March 14, 2024
A video of comedian Benjamin Bankole Bello playing his character “President Obonjo of Lafta Republic” has been shared online as showing the “President of Africa” threatening to invade America over Trump’s prosecution.
The clip shared on Instagram shows Bello saying, in part, “If Biden and his people continue to prosecute Donald Trump, then I tell you this much, we will invade America.” The video is overlaid with text reading,“The President of Africa threatens to invade America over Biden’s corruption” and “Imagine Trump being so racist he had the backing of all of Africa and their President.”
Comments in response include: “But people would still say trump is racist and he’s the problem. Meanwhile you have Presidents from other countries defending the man because they know he’s still is rightfully so the COMMANDER AND CHIEF” and “He’s sending his soldiers to infiltrate via the open south border.”
The circulating clip is a snippet from a TikTok video posted by Bello on his account “presidentobonjo” on Oct. 4, 2023, after Trump appeared in court in a civil fraud case on Oct. 2.
The comedian regularly shares skits dressed as the same character on his social media profiles.
Ian Hawkins, a spokesperson for Bello, said in an email that President Obonjo is a comedy character created by the comedian and parodies world leaders. “The President often comments satirically on news events and current affairs,” Hawkins added.
Reuters has previously addressed another video of Bello’s character misrepresented online as the “African President.”
VERDICT
Satire. The video shows comedy character “President Obanjo” played by UK-based comedian Benjamin Bello.
This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team.
With all the misinformation swirling around, it is good to know that the Reuters news agency takes its journalistic responsibilities seriously when supplying worldwide news and media sources with facts.
But a joke’s a joke.
Reuters employs around 2,500 journalists and 600 photojournalists in about 200 locations worldwide.
In August last year, Reuters fact-checked President Obonjo, a British stand-up comedy act that has been performing for over ten years.
The shtick is that President Obonjo is the leader/dictator of the Lafta Republic in Africa.
So convincing did many people (largely Americans) find this act that they believed President Obonjo was real.
Last August, Reuters’ initial fact-check was triggered when prominent right-wing commentator Melissa Tate shared a video of President Obonjo calling on America “to release Donald Trump immediately”.
Melissa Tate shared his online appeal with her 530,000 followers on Twitter as if it were real.
She captioned the clip: “African President expresses sadness of the loss of democracy in America following the Biden regime’s arrest of a former President & the disrespect of a mugshot. The world is watch[ing] the fall of America in amazement.” (I blogged about it all at the time HERE.)
When Reuters carried out a fact-check and discovered for certain last August that Malcolm Hardee Comedy Award winner President Obonjo was indeed ‘just’ a comedy act – even if a very good comedy act – that seemed to be the end of it.
But, this week, Reuters was sleuthing again – double or maybe triple checking that the good President was not a real African head of state masquerading for some inexplicable reason as a UK comedian.
It takes a big stretch of the imagination, but Reuters’ experienced team was prepared to make that stretch.
This time, they were checking a TikTok video (shared on Instagram) in which President Obonjo threatened to invade the US “if Biden and his people continue to prosecute Donald Trump”. It was re-posted by humanities_truth_ with the line “The president of Africa threatens to invade America over Biden’s corruption”.
A member of President Obonjo’s fictional Ministry of Media Relations was able to reassure Reuters that such an invasion is not imminent:
“Thank you for your enquiry. I am pleased to confirm that President Obonjo is indeed a character created by the comedian Benjamin Bello and the clip you provided is of him commenting in character on the news.
“President Obonjo of Lafta Republic is a comedy character who has appeared in a British TV special on ITVX and at numerous comedy festivals in the UK. The President often comments satirically on news events and current affairs. It is a sign of the times that a comedian who parodies world leaders is hard to distinguish from a genuine politician. So long as politicians keep clowning, it’s entirely fair for President Obonjo to play them at their own game, with better jokes and less collateral damage. For more information please see www.presidentobonjo.com”
I fear (or do I mean hope?) that, in US election year, this may not be the last we hear of Obonjo-gate. Of course, if Reuters were able to uncover the truth, it would be a real coup for them.
Far be it from me to say my blog is widely read – it could, after all, be merely coincidence – but, a few brief hours after I posted yesterday’s blog on comedy character President Obonjo, there was a military coup in Gabon, overthrowing President Ali Bongo, the namesake of the famed UK comedy magician and former President of the Magic Circle Ali Bongo…. This BBC News report has appeared (correct at the time of posting)
It has been suggested that this coup could have been a case of mistaken identity, with the CIA, confused by the current flurry of online Obonjo publicity in the US, overthrowing someone they thought was President Obonjo to undermine the Donald Trump campaign…
Or not.
Gabon coup: Army officers say they are taking power
By George Wright & Kathryn Armstrong
Army officers have appeared on national television in Gabon to say they have taken power.
They said they were annulling the results of Saturday’s election, in which President Ali Bongo was declared the winner.
The electoral commission said Mr Bongo had won just under two-thirds of the votes in an election the opposition argued was fraudulent.
His overthrow would end his family’s 53-year hold on power in Gabon.
Gabon is one of Africa’s major oil producers, while nearly 90% of the country is covered by forests.
Twelve soldiers appeared on television early on Wednesday morning, announcing they were cancelling the results of the election and dissolving “all the institutions of the republic”.
They added that the country’s borders had been closed “until further notice”.
If confirmed, this would be the eighth coup in former French colonies in Africa in the past three years.
However, most of the others have been further north, in the Sahel region where an Islamist insurgency has led to rising complaints that the democratically elected governments were failing to protect the civilian populations.
French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne said her country was following the situation closely, while the European Union’s foreign policy chief said a military takeover would increase instability in Africa.
“This is a big issue for Europe,” said Josep Borrell.
Meanwhile, French mining group Eramet, which employs thousands of people in Gabon, said it had stopped all work in the country for security reasons.
The soldiers who announced the apparent coup said they were from the Committee of Transition and the Restoration of Institutions and represent security and defence forces in the country.
One of the soldiers said on TV channel Gabon 24: “We have decided to defend peace by putting an end to the current regime.”
This, he added, was down to “irresponsible, unpredictable governance resulting in a continuing deterioration in social cohesion th,at risks leading the country into chaos”.
The sounds of loud gunfire could be heard in the country’s capital, Libreville, following the broadcast.
A resident in the western city of Port Gentil told the BBC World Service’s Newsday programme he was woken by a friend who told him about the soldier’s broadcast.
“There was a communique being played again and again on the two national TV channels,” they said, adding that it appeared that all parts of Gabon’s defence and security forces were involved.
BBC World Service Africa editor Will Ross says this suggests the coup is perhaps not “done and dusted” and there will be some resistance.
There was no immediate response by the government to the soldiers’ announcement and the whereabouts of Mr Bongo are unknown.
Internet access was suspended following Saturday’s election for security reasons, but was restored shortly after the apparent takeover. A curfew is also in place.
Ali Bongo was declared the winner of Saturday’s election, which the opposition argued was fraudulent
As in previous general elections in Gabon, there were serious concerns about the process in Saturday’s vote.
Main opposition candidate Albert Ondo Ossa complained that many polling stations lacked ballot papers bearing his name, while the coalition he represents said the names of some of those who had withdrawn from the presidential race had still been on the ballot sheet.
Campaign group Reporters Without Borders said foreign media had been banned from setting foot in the country to cover the vote.
Both of Mr Bongo’s previous wins were disputed as fraudulent by opponents. This time, controversial changes were made to voting papers just weeks before election day.
Mr Bongo came to power when his father Omar died in 2009.
In 2018, he suffered a stroke which sidelined him for almost a year and led to calls for him to step aside.
The following year, a failed coup attempt saw mutinying soldiers sent to prison.
Malcolm Hardee Award winning British comedian Benjamin Bankole Bello has been performing as fictional African dictator President Obonjo of the LAFTA Republic for almost 12 years.
For the last five days, he has been trolled by both Trump supporters and Trump opponents on the internet.
I talked to him this morning…
JOHN: So you did your comedy show at this month’s Edinburgh Fringe…
BENJAMIN: Yes, I took my show African Zelensky up there for ten days. So many things happened. I lost my luggage; I found it again; Ukranians came to the show; one Ukranian wrote back with a 3-page document about my show; then I had Russians come to the show who said they were going to tell Putin I was supporting him and I said No No No…
I didn’t go to Edinburgh to impress or get reviews. I went there to test my show. And it went very well.
Obonjo re Trump arrest on TikTok
Then, of course, Donald Trump got arrested so one morning, in my bedroom, with two flags behind me, I did a TikTok video saying basically I’m a friend of Donald Trump. I’m very worried about the state of democracy. I pretended I didn’t know he had been released and I gave the American government an ultimatum: RELEASE HIM IMMEDIATELY! THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO SILENCE YOUR OPPONENT!
I just uploaded it to TikTok and thought that was it.
But, within a couple of days, the video had gone viral and got almost a million views.
I thought: Oh, OK…
But, a couple of days later, someone called Melissa Tate, a Right Wing Conservative blogger with about half a million followers on Twitter, blogged to say an African president supports Donald Trump.
Before I knew what was happening, there were about 60,000 reTweets – some from black Trump supporters, some from people who don’t support Trump but think MAGA supporters are stupid.
Some of the non-MAGA supporters did some fact checking on me to see if I am a real president and it is hilarious. The comments are just comedy gold! There is a debate going on between MAGA supporters who are for Trump and those who are not for Trump and people within the Republican Party who are saying: How could you have reTweeted a fictional dictator? It shows you guys are stupid.
I have had people confuse me with President Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Ali Bongo of Gabon. Some people even confused me with President Obama… They don’t even know what their ex-President looks like!
They’ve been visiting my website and yesterday Reuters got in touch to find out who was behind my video – Am I a comedian? Am I a president? They could see there’s a comedian Benjamin Bankole Bello who plays the character of President Obonjo. But can you clarify? Because people online are taking the video seriously…
Someone calling himself Ford News with around 100,000 followers posted that I “was never a voice of democracy and ran out of his country. He was a brutal dictator.”
I wrote back saying “I want you to tell me within 24 hours where you got the information that I am a brutal dictator and that I fled my country and came to the UK or I will contact my lawyers.” He deleted the Tweet.
Unbelievable! The key thing for me, John, is that, in terms of social media … I am sitting in my bedroom with two flags behind me, I am broadcasting to the world and people believe I am a real African president. It shows that social media has blurred the line between what is true and what is false.
Then there’s the racism. Confusing me with other black presidents in Africa. Crazy. Absolutely crazy.
JOHN: Do Presidents Obasanjo and Ali Bongo look anything like you?
Presidents Obasanjo of Nigeria (left) and Ali Bongo of Gabon (right) (Photos: Helene C. Stikkel/US Department of Defense + US Department of State)
BENJAMIN: They look nothing like me. Ali Bongo has been in power for years and he has had a stroke. He doesn’t want to leave office. They are both older than me and one of them has had a stroke. A stroke! (LAUGHS)
JOHN: Well, you are very convincing as President Obonjo.
BENJAMIN: There was a review of my Edinburgh Fringe show which said it was “so convincing it almost broke the walls of satire”.
Americans have been trolling me for the past five days. Including black Trump supporters. They’ve tagged Donald Trump about me. I don’t know what Donald Trump thinks. They have tagged Kevin McCarthy, the House Speaker. They have tagged Tucker Carlson, the guy who used to work for Fox News. Someone told me “You have trolled the entire GOP from your bedroom in Britain”.
Despite the fact some people have said, “Oh, he is a comedian,” people have still said, “Oh, I don’t care. He’s actually speaking the truth as a President.”
JOHN: Perhaps you could be the compromise presidential candidate for the Republican Party. You could claim you were born in the US. There’s a chance no-one would check.
BENJAMIN: You’re pushing me to go to America.
JOHN: Seems reasonable. If democracy crashes there, they will need an experienced dictator. You walk the walk and talk the talk convincingly.
The day after this blog was posted, there was a coup in Gabon, overthrowing President Ali Bongo – see my blog HERE
Artificial Intelligence has no morals, no thoughts of its own, no beliefs of its own.
So I asked ChatGPT to write a 200-word political manifesto for each of the UK’s four main Parties… and another.
The AI does not itself ‘believe’ any of what follows; it is just spouting out the emotionless words expected of it… It will be interesting to see what the ‘real’ and allegedly heartfelt manifestos say…
The manifestos below are in alphabetical order of Party… except for the final manifesto…
Note that ChatGPT prefers the use of confusing numbers to bullet points and prefers US to UK spellings…
Write a 200 word political manifesto for the Conservative Party…
A VISION FOR A STRONGER FUTURE The AI Conservative Party Manifesto
Introduction:
The Conservative Party envisions a prosperous and resilient nation built on the foundations of freedom, individual responsibility, and limited government intervention. We are committed to preserving and advancing the values that have made our country great, while addressing the challenges of the 21st century. Our manifesto outlines key principles and policy objectives that will guide us in creating a brighter future for all.
Economic Growth:
We believe in free-market principles that stimulate innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation. We will lower taxes for individuals and businesses, reduce burdensome regulations, and foster a competitive business environment. We aim to prioritize investments in infrastructure, research, and development to bolster economic growth and increase global competitiveness.
Fiscal Responsibility:
We are dedicated to responsible fiscal management. We will strive to reduce the national debt, balance the budget, and implement transparent and efficient public spending. We will promote fiscal discipline while safeguarding essential public services.
Strong National Defense:
We recognize the importance of a robust defense capability to ensure the safety and security of our citizens. We will increase defense spending to modernize our armed forces, support our military personnel, and reinforce alliances for peace and stability.
Sovereignty and Immigration:
We believe in upholding national sovereignty and controlling our borders. We will establish a fair and efficient immigration system that prioritizes the national interest, while welcoming those who contribute positively to our society and economy.
Education and Skills:
We are committed to providing high-quality education and equipping our citizens with the skills necessary to thrive in the modern world. We will invest in education, expand vocational training, and promote apprenticeship programs to foster a skilled workforce.
Family and Social Values:
We cherish the importance of traditional family values and social cohesion. We will support policies that strengthen families, protect the sanctity of life, and preserve our cultural heritage. We will prioritize community engagement, volunteering, and social responsibility.
Conclusion:
The Conservative Party manifesto represents a clear vision for a stronger and more prosperous future. By championing individual liberty, free-market principles, and responsible governance, we aim to empower our citizens, protect our nation’s interests, and build a society where opportunity and prosperity are accessible to all. Together, let us forge a path towards a brighter tomorrow, rooted in conservative values and a commitment to the common good.
Write a 200 word political manifesto for the Labour Party…
BUILDING A FAIR AND INCLUSIVE FUTURE The AI Labour Party Manifesto
Introduction:
The Labour Party is dedicated to creating a society that values equality, justice, and opportunity for all. Our manifesto outlines a progressive vision that aims to address social and economic disparities, promote sustainable development, and empower communities across the nation.
Economic Justice:
We believe in a fair economy that benefits everyone. We will prioritize job creation, invest in infrastructure, and support small businesses and entrepreneurs. We will promote a living wage, fair taxation, and robust workers’ rights to ensure economic security and reduce inequality.
Quality Public Services:
We are committed to strengthening public services to guarantee equal access to essential services such as healthcare, education, and social care. We will increase funding for public schools, improve the National Health Service, and invest in affordable housing to provide a better quality of life for all citizens.
Climate Change and Sustainability:
We recognize the urgency of addressing climate change and transitioning to a sustainable future. We will invest in renewable energy, create green jobs, and prioritize environmental protection. We will work towards carbon neutrality, support international climate agreements, and promote sustainable practices across industries.
Social Justice and Equality:
We champion equality and social justice. We will implement policies to tackle discrimination, promote gender equality, and ensure LGBTQ+ rights. We will work to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality, and provide support for vulnerable groups to create a fairer society for all.
Education and Skills:
We are committed to providing accessible and high-quality education for all. We will increase funding for schools, reduce class sizes, and invest in vocational training and lifelong learning. We will strive to bridge the education attainment gap and empower individuals to reach their full potential.
International Cooperation:
We believe in building strong international partnerships based on mutual respect and cooperation. We will promote peace, diplomacy, and human rights on the global stage, and work towards a fairer and more just world.
Conclusion:
The Labour Party manifesto embodies a progressive and inclusive vision for a better future. Through policies that promote economic justice, invest in public services, address climate change, and champion equality, we aim to create a society that leaves no one behind. By working together, we can build a fairer, more compassionate, and sustainable future for all citizens, where everyone has the opportunity to thrive and contribute to our collective success.
Write a 200 word political manifesto for the Liberal Democrat Party…
A PROGRESSIVE VISION FOR A BETTER FUTURE The AI Liberal Democrat Party Manifesto
We, the Liberal Democrats, stand for a society that fosters freedom, equality, and opportunity for all. Our manifesto outlines our commitment to creating a fairer and more inclusive Britain, where every individual can thrive and contribute to the collective progress of our nation.
Education and Innovation: We will prioritize investment in education, ensuring accessible and high-quality learning from early childhood to adulthood. We will support teachers, reduce class sizes, and modernize curricula to equip our children with the skills they need for the future. We will also champion scientific research and innovation to drive economic growth and address societal challenges.
Sustainable Economy: We will promote a sustainable and green economy, fostering clean technologies and renewable energy sources. We will create jobs in green industries, tackle climate change, and transition towards a carbon-neutral society. We will also support small businesses and entrepreneurs, enabling them to thrive and contribute to economic growth.
Social Justice: We will fight inequality and discrimination in all its forms. We will work towards equal pay, tackle the gender pay gap, and promote diversity and inclusion. We will invest in affordable housing, prioritize mental health support, and ensure that no one is left behind in our society.
Human Rights: We will champion human rights at home and abroad. We will defend civil liberties, protect refugees and asylum seekers, and promote global cooperation to address humanitarian crises. We will also advocate for electoral reform, including proportional representation, to ensure fair and representative democracy.
Europe and International Relations: We will work to maintain strong ties with Europe and promote international cooperation. We will advocate for a close relationship with the European Union, protect workers’ rights, and champion the free movement of people. We will also prioritize international development and support efforts to tackle global poverty and inequality.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to building a brighter future for all. We believe in an open, tolerant, and progressive Britain, and we invite you to join us in shaping a society that embraces diversity, protects the vulnerable, and promotes opportunity for everyone. Together, let us create a nation we can all be proud of.
Write a 200 word political manifesto for the Scottish National Party…
EMPOWERING SCOTLAND’S FUTURE The AI Scottish National Manifesto
The Scottish National Party (SNP) is dedicated to realizing Scotland’s full potential as an independent nation. Our manifesto outlines our vision for a prosperous, fair, and inclusive Scotland, where decisions are made by the people who live and work here.
Independence: We believe that Scotland’s future should be determined by the people of Scotland. We will continue our campaign for independence, allowing us to make decisions that reflect our values, priorities, and aspirations.
Economic Growth: We will focus on sustainable economic growth, investing in key industries such as renewable energy, tourism, and innovation. We will create new jobs, support small businesses, and ensure that Scotland’s wealth benefits all of our citizens.
Social Justice: We are committed to tackling inequality and creating a fairer society. We will fight poverty, invest in public services, and protect workers’ rights. We will also advocate for a living wage and affordable housing for all.
Education and Healthcare: We will prioritize investment in education and healthcare, ensuring that every child has access to high-quality education and that our healthcare system is properly funded and accessible to all. We will also support our universities and research institutions to foster innovation and drive progress.
Climate Action: We will lead the way in tackling climate change, aiming for Scotland to become a carbon-neutral nation. We will invest in renewable energy, promote sustainable transportation, and protect our natural environment for future generations.
The SNP is committed to Scotland’s future. We believe in the power of our people, the strength of our communities, and the potential of our nation. Together, let us shape a Scotland that is prosperous, fair, and proud on the world stage.
Write a 200 word political manifesto of empty words…
THE ILLUSION OF PROGRESS The AI Manifesto
Introduction:
In this political manifesto, we present a collection of empty words that create the illusion of progress while lacking substance and true intent. We pledge to use empty rhetoric, hollow promises, and vague statements to deceive the public. Our manifesto relies on the following principles:
Ambiguous Visions: We will craft grandiose visions with no concrete plans for implementation. Our words will sound appealing, but they will lack substance, making it impossible to hold us accountable for any failure to deliver.
Generic Statements: We will use generic statements that can be interpreted in various ways, allowing us to appeal to different groups without committing to any specific actions or policies. This approach ensures that we can avoid controversy and maintain a broad base of support.
False Promises: We will make extravagant promises without any intention of fulfilling them. By offering hope and lofty goals without clear strategies, we can manipulate public sentiment and gain short-term popularity.
Lack of Transparency: We will avoid transparency at all costs, concealing our true intentions and avoiding any genuine dialogue with the public. This tactic ensures that we can continue to operate free from fact-based scrutiny or accountability.
Empty Slogans: We will rely on catchy slogans and buzzwords to create an illusion of progress. These empty phrases will distract the public from our lack of substantive policies and actions, keeping them satisfied with empty rhetoric.
Conclusion:
This manifesto represents a cynical approach to politics, relying on empty words to maintain power and influence. By employing ambiguous visions, generic statements, false promises, lack of transparency, and empty slogans, we seek to manipulate public opinion while avoiding meaningful change. We believe in the power of empty words to create a façade of progress without the need for actual substance or accountability. Beware of those who employ such tactics, as their promises may lead to disappointment and disillusionment.
So, initially, I asked ChatGPT AI to write me a 250 word political manifesto on the benefits of cannibalism. Why not?
It came up with this answer:
I feel there is a missed opportunity there but, unfazed, I asked it to just come up with a more generic 250 word political manifesto to win a UK general election. This was the AI’s suggestion
I think this template must be the one used by all UK political parties (with some minor spelling changes) and look forward to hearing it being spouted (again) by both Conservative and Labour Parties (and possibly the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and minor parties like the Liberal Democrats) at the next Local, the next General and all subsequent elections.
The B vocabulary. The B vocabulary consisted of words which had been deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.
Without a full understanding of the principles of Ingsoc it was difficult to use these words correctly. In some cases they could be translated into Oldspeak, or even into words taken from the A vocabulary, but this usually demanded a long paraphrase and always involved the loss of certain overtones. The B words were a sort of verbal shorthand, often packing whole ranges of ideas into a few syllables, and at the same time more accurate and forcible than ordinary language.
The B words were in all cases compound words. They consisted of two or more words, or portions of words, welded together in an easily pronounceable form. The resulting amalgam was always a noun-verb, and inflected according to the ordinary rules. To take a single example: the word goodthink, meaning, very roughly, ‘orthodoxy’, or, if one chose to regard it as a verb, ‘to think in an orthodox manner’. This inflected as follows: noun-verb, goodthink; past tense and past participle, goodthinked; present participle, goodthinking; adjective, goodthinkful; adverb, goodthinkwise; verbal noun, goodthinker.
The B words were not constructed on any etymological plan. The words of which they were made up could be any parts of speech, and could be placed in any order and mutilated in any way which made them easy to pronounce while indicating their derivation. In the word crimethink (thoughtcrime), for instance, the think came second, whereas in thinkpol (Thought Police) it came first, and in the latter word police had lost its second syllable.
Because of the great difficulty in securing euphony, irregular formations were commoner in the B vocabulary than in the A vocabulary. For example, the adjective forms of Minitrue, Minipax, and Miniluv were, respectively, Minitruthful, Minipeaceful, and Minilovely, simply because –trueful, –paxful, and –loveful were sliightly awkward to pronounce. In principle, however, all B words could inflect, and all inflected in exactly the same way.
Some of the B words had highly subtilized meanings, barely intelligible to anyone who had not mastered the language as a whole. Consider, for example, such a typical sentence from a Times leading article as Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. The shortest rendering that one could make of this in Oldspeak would be: ‘Those whose ideas were formed before the Revolution cannot have a full emotional understanding of the principles of English Socialism.’ But this is not an adequate translation.
To begin with, in order to grasp the full meaning of the Newspeak sentence quoted above, one would have to have a clear idea of what is meant by Ingsoc. And in addition, only a person thoroughly grounded in Ingsoc could appreciate the full force of the word bellyfeel, which implied a blind, enthusiastic acceptance difficult to imagine today; or of the word oldthink, which was inextricably mixed up with the idea of wickedness and decadence. But the special function of certain Newspeak words, of which oldthink was one, was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them.
These words, necessarily few in number, had had their meanings extended until they contained within themselves whole batteries of words which, as they were sufficiently covered by a single comprehensive term, could now be scrapped and forgotten. The greatest difficulty facing the compilers of the Newspeak Dictionary was not to invent new words, but, having invented them, to make sure what they meant: to make sure, that is to say, what ranges of words they cancelled by their existence.
As we have already seen in the case of the word free, words which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. Countless other words such as honour,justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science, and religion had simply ceased to exist. A few blanket words covered them, and, in covering them, abolished them.
All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty and equality, for instance, were contained in the single word crimethink, while all words grouping themselves round the concepts of objectivity and rationalism were contained in the single word oldthink. Greater precision would have been dangerous. What was required in a Party member was an outlook similar to that of the ancient Hebrew who knew, without knowing much else, that all nations other than his own worshipped ‘false gods’. He did not need to know that these gods were called Baal, Osiris, Moloch, Ashtaroth, and the like: probably the less he knew about them the better for his orthodoxy. He knew Jehovah and the commandments of Jehovah: he knew, therefore, that all gods with other names or other attributes were false gods.
In somewhat the same way, the party member knew what constituted right conduct, and in exceedingly vague, generalized terms he knew what kinds of departure from it were possible. His sexual life, for example, was entirely regulated by the two Newspeak words sexcrime (sexual immorality) and goodsex (chastity). Sexcrime covered all sexual misdeeds whatever. It covered fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other perversions, and, in addition, normal intercourse practised for its own sake. There was no need to enumerate them separately, since they were all equally culpable, and, in principle, all punishable by death.
In the C vocabulary, which consisted of scientific and technical words, it might be necessary to give specialized names to certain sexual aberrations, but the ordinary citizen had no need of them. He knew what was meant by goodsex — that is to say, normal intercourse between man and wife, for the sole purpose of begetting children, and without physical pleasure on the part of the woman: all else was sexcrime.
In Newspeak it was seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it was heretical: beyond that point the necessary words were nonexistent.
No word in the B vocabulary was ideologically neutral. A great many were euphemisms. Such words, for instance, as joycamp (forced-labour camp) or Minipax (Ministry of Peace, i.e. Ministry of War) meant almost the exact opposite of what they appeared to mean. Some words, on the other hand, displayed a frank and contemptuous understanding of the real nature of Oceanic society.
An example was prolefeed, meaning the rubbishy entertainment and spurious news which the Party handed out to the masses. Other words, again, were ambivalent, having the connotation ‘good’ when applied to the Party and ‘bad’ when applied to its enemies. But in addition there were great numbers of words which at first sight appeared to be mere abbreviations and which derived their ideological colour not from their meaning, but from their structure.
So far as it could be contrived, everything that had or might have political significance of any kind was fitted into the B vocabulary. The name of every organization, or body of people, or doctrine, or country, or institution, or public building, was invariably cut down into the familiar shape; that is, a single easily pronounced word with the smallest number of syllables that would preserve the original derivation.
In the Ministry of Truth, for example, the Records Department, in which Winston Smith worked, was called Recdep, the Fiction Department was called Ficdep, the Teleprogrammes Department was called Teledep, and so on. This was not done solely with the object of saving time. Even in the early decades of the twentieth century, telescoped words and phrases had been one of the characteristic features of political language; and it had been noticed that the tendency to use abbreviations of this kind was most marked in totalitarian countries and totalitarian organizations.
Examples were such words as Nazi, Gestapo, Comintern, Inprecorr, Agitprop. In the beginning the practice had been adopted as it were instinctively, but in Newspeak it was used with a conscious purpose. It was perceived that in thus abbreviating a name one narrowed and subtly altered its meaning, by cutting out most of the associations that would otherwise cling to it. The words Communist International, for instance, call up a composite picture of universal human brotherhood, red flags, barricades, Karl Marx, and the Paris Commune.
The word Comintern, on the other hand, suggests merely a tightly-knit organization and a well-defined body of doctrine. It refers to something almost as easily recognized, and as limited in purpose, as a chair or a table. Comintern is a word that can be uttered almost without taking thought, whereas Communist International is a phrase over which one is obliged to linger at least momentarily.
In the same way, the associations called up by a word like Minitrue are fewer and more controllable than those called up by Ministry of Truth. This accounted not only for the habit of abbreviating whenever possible, but also for the almost exaggerated care that was taken to make every word easily pronounceable.
In Newspeak, euphony outweighed every consideration other than exactitude of meaning. Regularity of grammar was always sacrificed to it when it seemed necessary. And rightly so, since what was required, above all for political purposes, was short clipped words of unmistakable meaning which could be uttered rapidly and which roused the minimum of echoes in the speaker’s mind. The words of the B vocabulary even gained in force from the fact that nearly all of them were very much alike. Almost invariably these words — goodthink, Minipax, prolefeed, sexcrime, joycamp, Ingsoc, bellyfeel, thinkpol, and countless others — were words of two or three syllables, with the stress distributed equally between the first syllable and the last.
The use of them encouraged a gabbling style of speech, at once staccato and monotonous. And this was exactly what was aimed at. The intention was to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral, as nearly as possible independent of consciousness. For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgement should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets. His training fitted him to do this, the language gave him an almost foolproof instrument, and the texture of the words, with their harsh sound and a certain wilful ugliness which was in accord with the spirit of Ingsoc, assisted the process still further.
So did the fact of having very few words to choose from. Relative to our own, the Newspeak vocabulary was tiny, and new ways of reducing it were constantly being devised. Newspeak, indeed, differed from most all other languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought.
Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak, meaning ‘to quack like a duck’. Like various other words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.
Two things had a big impact on me when I was young.
One was seeing film footage of the Nazi’s Belsen concentration camp when I was around 11 or 12.
The other big impact was reading George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four when I was around 14 or 15.
George Orwell died in London, on 21st January 1950 at the early age of 46.
So his works came out of copyright in the UK on 1st January 2021.
The Appendix to Nineteen Eighty-Four fascinated me almost as much the novel itself.
Here it is…
Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing. The leading articles in the Times were written in it, but this was a tour de force which could only be carried out by a specialist. It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or Standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050.
Meanwhile it gained ground steadily, all Party members tending to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech. The version in use in 1984, and embodied in the Ninth and Tenth Editions of the Newspeak Dictionary, was a provisional one, and contained many superfluous words and archaic formations which were due to be suppressed later. It is with the final, perfected version, as embodied in the Eleventh Edition of the Dictionary, that we are concerned here.
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods.
This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless.
Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.
Newspeak was founded on the English language as we now know it, though many Newspeak sentences, even when not containing newly-created words, would be barely intelligible to an English-speaker of our own day. Newspeak words were divided into three distinct classes, known as the A vocabulary, the B vocabulary (also called compound words), and the C vocabulary. It will be simpler to discuss each class separately, but the grammatical peculiarities of the language can be dealt with in the section devoted to the A vocabulary, since the same rules held good for all three categories.
The A vocabulary. The A vocabulary consisted of the words needed for the business of everyday life — for such things as eating, drinking, working, putting on one’s clothes, going up and down stairs, riding in vehicles, gardening, cooking, and the like. It was composed almost entirely of words that we already possess words like hit, run, dog, tree, sugar, house, field — but in comparison with the present-day English vocabulary their number was extremely small, while their meanings were far more rigidly defined. All ambiguities and shades of meaning had been purged out of them.
So far as it could be achieved, a Newspeak word of this class was simply a staccato sound expressing one clearly understood concept. It would have been quite impossible to use the A vocabulary for literary purposes or for political or philosophical discussion. It was intended only to express simple, purposive thoughts, usually involving concrete objects or physical actions.
The grammar of Newspeak had two outstanding peculiarities. The first of these was an almost complete interchangeability between different parts of speech. Any word in the language (in principle this applied even to very abstract words such as if or when) could be used either as verb, noun, adjective, or adverb. Between the verb and the noun form, when they were of the same root, there was never any variation, this rule of itself involving the destruction of many archaic forms.
The word thought, for example, did not exist in Newspeak. Its place was taken by think, which did duty for both noun and verb. No etymological principle was followed here: in some cases it was the original noun that was chosen for retention, in other cases the verb. Even where a noun and verb of kindred meaning were not etymologically connected, one or other of them was frequently suppressed. There was, for example, no such word as cut, its meaning being sufficiently covered by the noun-verb knife.
Adjectives were formed by adding the suffix –ful to the noun-verb, and adverbs by adding –wise. Thus for example, speedful meant ‘rapid’ and speedwise meant ‘quickly’. Certain of our present-day adjectives, such as good, strong, big, black, soft, were retained, but their total number was very small. There was little need for them, since almost any adjectival meaning could be arrived at by adding –ful to a noun-verb. None of the now-existing adverbs was retained, except for a very few already ending in –wise: the –wise termination was invariable. The word well, for example, was replaced by goodwise.
In addition, any word — this again applied in principle to every word in the language — could be negatived by adding the affix un-, or could be strengthened by the affix plus-, or, for still greater emphasis, doubleplus-. Thus, for example, uncold meant ‘warm’, while pluscold and doublepluscold meant, respectively, ‘very cold’ and ‘superlatively cold’. It was also possible, as in present-day English, to modify the meaning of almost any word by prepositional affixes such as ante-, post-, up-, down-, etc.
By such methods it was found possible to bring about an enormous diminution of vocabulary. Given, for instance, the word good, there was no need for such a word as bad, since the required meaning was equally well — indeed, better — expressed by ungood. All that was necessary, in any case where two words formed a natural pair of opposites, was to decide which of them to suppress. Dark, for example, could be replaced by unlight, or light by undark, according to preference.
The second distinguishing mark of Newspeak grammar was its regularity. Subject to a few exceptions which are mentioned below all inflexions followed the same rules. Thus, in all verbs the preterite and the past participle were the same and ended in –ed. The preterite of steal was stealed, the preterite of think was thinked, and so on throughout the language, all such forms as swam, gave, brought, spoke, taken, etc., being abolished. All plurals were made by adding –s or –es as the case might be. The plurals of man, ox, life, were mans, oxes, lifes. Comparison of adjectives was invariably made by adding –er, –est (good, gooder, goodest), irregular forms and the more, most formation being suppressed.
The only classes of words that were still allowed to inflect irregularly were the pronouns, the relatives, the demonstrative adjectives, and the auxiliary verbs. All of these followed their ancient usage, except that whom had been scrapped as unnecessary, and the shall, should tenses had been dropped, all their uses being covered by will and would. There were also certain irregularities in word-formation arising out of the need for rapid and easy speech.
A word which was difficult to utter, or was liable to be incorrectly heard, was held to be ipso facto a bad word: occasionally therefore, for the sake of euphony, extra letters were inserted into a word or an archaic formation was retained. But this need made itself felt chiefly in connexion with the B vocabulary. Why so great an importance was attached to ease of pronunciation will be made clear later in this essay.
With all the misinformation swirling around, it is good to know that the 
SO IT GOES - John Fleming's blog 