Not only Google and Facebook, but Vimeo and others censoring Christians.

There has been much talk about both Christians and the Gospel message in all its forms and many conservative new subjects such as paedophilia in the upper levels of society being either censored or demoted in both search findings and in monetization.

At one time it looked like there were many other places that you could put out your work, like for example Vimeo. However, it appears that many of these other sites are also being shut down to the gospel too.

A few days ago, (April 3, 2017) Charisma News reported on the case of Vimeo banning videos of the testimonies of people who have moved on from a homosexual life, and who are now living as heterosexuals.

Read more here.


BBC accused of bias

Around 70 MPs have apparently signed a letter to director-general Lord Hall complaining about the Corporation’s gloomy reporting of Brexit.

Tory MP Julian Knight

Tory MP Julian Knight

Tory MP Julian Knight, who apparently co-ordinated the letter, has warned that the BBC is in danger of losing touch with its viewers and giving too much airtime to ‘diehard Remainers’.

The BBC has a duty to offer impartial coverage of Brexit, said Mr Knight, a former BBC journalist.

He added: ‘It must be careful not to lose the trust of the 52 per cent who voted Leave, as well as those Remainers like myself who respect the will of the people and want to get on with delivering Brexit.’

The Daily Mail is reporting that ‘last night the BBC insisted its coverage of Brexit has been ‘responsible and impartial’’. However, the appearance that we at The Red Pill Report have seen is that there appears to be a bias against leave. For example is the opportunity given to Richard Dorkings to berated the “ill-informed voters,” over their foolish decision to leave the EU.

Mr Knight gives the example of the prominent coverage given to so-called “regretful Remainers” in the aftermath of the vote, even though all available polling suggests no shift in public opinion towards the EU since the vote.

The Daily Mail gives these examples of BBC bias.

  • In January, the Victoria Derbyshire show visited Great Yarmouth, which voted heavily for Leave, but everyone they interviewed expressed doubts.
  • MPs said in October shows were ‘heavily biased’ against Leave campaigners. An analysis of Radio 4 found listeners were two and a half times more likely to hear a pro-EU speaker.
  • Pro-EU producer Nick Pisani, 53, handled a 50-minute debate on the BBC World news channel.
  • Assistant political editor Norman Smith predicted the pound would fall after Theresa May’s comments on the single market. The pound rallied.
  • Positive economic news is often presented ‘despite Brexit’. An online headline in November read: ‘UK construction rises despite Brexit vote.’

Former Tory Party leader Iain Duncan Smith, who is among the signatories, said: ‘Anyone can see that the way the BBC is covering this issue is not balanced. Everything is reported in a negative way, and we are subjected to endless coverage of the likes of Blair and Major. We are constantly told by the BBC that it is all too difficult and everything is going to go wrong – it is almost as if they feel they have to act as the opposition on this.’

This poor reporting by the BBC is one of the reasons behind us starting The Red Pill Report.

Picture of bad food

Discrimination – always bad?

I notest a great tweet by James White today.

Words so easily become weaponised against thought. The Orwellian “Newspeak” that we a constantly being bombarded with today has become a tool to stop discussion and free thought.

I was told a little while ago, that I must not judge anyone. Well, there is a sense in which that is true. The final judgement is for God and him alone. But that was not what he meant.

What he was telling not to do was to way someone’s words and to see if what they were saying was true or not. If we do not do this how can we, try the spirits?

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1)

Do not be bullied into not discriminating. At times discrimination is a very good thing. If you are offered some dodgy business or some gone off seafood, be discriminating. You should do the same in all areas of your life.

the taxonomy of fake news

The taxonomy of fake news

Search, ‘fake news’ on Google and you will be offered just a few results from the approximately 167,000,000 results that Google has found for that term.

Fake news is everywhere… Well in both senses of the word. It seems that almost everyone is talking about fake news, and a whole lot of people are pushing fake news.

But just what is fake news?

Claire Wardle, Leading strategy and research for First Draft, has put some work into helping us be more specific when we talk about fake news.

She talks about fake news being on a spectrum from the less bad to the downright made up. Starting at the less bad she lists…

  • Satire & Parody – No intention to cause harm but has potential to fool.
  • False connection – e.g. Clickbase. When headlines don’t support the content, (I would have said when the content does not support the headlines)
  • Misleading content – Misleading use of information to frame an issue or individual
  • False context – When genuine content is shared with false contextual information
  • Imposter content – When genuine sources are impersonated
  • Manipulated content – When information or imagery is manipulated to deceive
  • Fabricated content– New content, that is 100% false is designed to deceive and to do harm. (I would add, or to promote a cause)

There is another very big use of the term, ‘fake news,’ that Claire Wardle does not covere here. That is when the news is genuine, well reported, correct in every detail, but when it is not what the person calling it fake news wants you to hear.

This is most commonly seen when the right leaning conservative independent media are pointing out problems with the liberal elite and the left-leaning establishment or media.

An example from today on the BBC.

I guess that this could actually be called, ‘fake science,’ but it is much the same in the way that it is portrayed. Which end of Claire Wardle’s list do you think this list comes from?

The headline for this story is, “Star’s seven Earth-sized worlds set record.”

Well, the earth-sized world did not set any records today, but leaving aside that fact let us just look at the content of this story. Let us take a look at just a few phrases from it.

“Researchers say that all seven could potentially support liquid water on the surface, depending on the other properties of those planets.

Well, yes, and of course all seven may not have any water at all.

“Three are within the conventional “habitable” zone where life is considered a possibility.”

‘Possible,’ is another weasel word. Almost anything is possible. All seven planets may be colonised initially with ratchet screwdrivers, but it is not likely.

“The planets… are described in the journal Nature.”

All that has been observed is a dimming in the light from the star, there precious little description yet possible.

“They could have some liquid water – and maybe life.”

They could be flowing with milk and honey, and there may be a continuous hot dog themed fanfare running on all seven planets.

‘Could’, ‘possibly’, and ‘we think’ are what we now accept as science.

On top of all of this is the use of imagery that suggests that we know an awful lot more than the start light dims occasionally.

There is an awful lot of detail in these images for planets that we have never seen.

Strangely enough, Claire Wardle, the same lady that is talking about this spectrum of fake news, was on BBC’s Newsnight saying, “Our brains are adapted to trust visuals much more.” The same day that the BBC is using visuals to promote the idea that there are these seven planets that are likely to have life on them. I would put this just one step away from Claire Wardle’s worse end of the fake news spectrum, as ‘Manipulated content.” What about you?

Tweet from BBC Newsnight

Please help us find and rate fake news. Contact us here about ‘fake news’ that you find.



France image

America spying on France

WikiLeaks has recently released classified CIA espionage orders revealing that for an alleged seven-month period the USA was spying on all the major French political parties during the 2012 French presidential elections.

The documents show that all of France’s major political parties were targeted for infiltration by the CIA’s human and electronic spies.

Not only do the document show that the USA was spying on France, but also that they were seeking to gain, “influence and implement political decisions.”

Part of the documents.

From page four.

This is not in its self that surprising, I expect that most developed countries are seeking continuous intelligence on other major countries current and possible governments, or spying on them. The thing that is surprising about this is the fact the USA have been going overboard trying to implicate Russa in influencing the USA presidential elections for which so far NO evidence has been made public, but here we see that the same intelligence agencies that are accusing Russa are themselves doing the same.

One might be tempted to call, Hypocrisy!”

John Bercow

Trump must be very, very wicked

This past Monday, (Mon 6 Feb 2017), John Bercow, (Speaker of the House of Commons), said that he is ‘strongly opposed’ to President Trump delivering an address in Westminster Hall.

John Bercow said,

“Before the imposition of the migrant ban, I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall. After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall.”

He later added,

“We value our relationship with the United States.” and “However, as far as this place is concerned I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons.”

We could look at the fact that as the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow is supposed to remain neutral on all political matters, and that once he has declared such an opinion he is no longer fit to chair a discussion… well on many matters that could relate to America and Donald Trump. Can you imagine going to a football match between West Ham and Arsenal and finding that the referee is wearing a West Ham hat and scarf? How believable are his decision going to be? John Bercow has opened himself up to a whole lot of possible trouble in future debates.

But I want us to consider just how foolish it is for a man in the position of John Bercow to step into this argument, and just how irrational or hypercritical his statement is.

John Bercow, along with many, many other MP’s and people who hold influential positions in the public eye are either willfully or unwittingly, going along with the leftist propaganda that Trump is an evil man.

I do not want to become an apologist for Trump, but accusations against him of misogyny, and racism are thin at best, and at worst are old and almost totally baseless. Yes, he has temporarily banned people from seven countries, but not because of religion or race, but based on the risk of terrorism.

You may disagree, and I guess you have the right to think you know him better than… well better than others who are intimately connected with him. And you may have had access to the daily intelligence briefings that he is given. However, I have not had either privilege.

Surely, before we condemn him, we need more that just the feeling that he is a ‘bad man,’ or the rantings of incoherent protestors in the streets at are violent and lawless. I have heard no rational evidence based, arguments against him.

Trump campaigned on several major policies, that of securing America’s borders and getting the country back to work. Why are we condemning him for keeping his campaign promises?

But just how bad must John Bercow think that Donald Trump is?


In September 2012 John Bercow welcomed the of Indonesia, President Susilo Yudhoyono.

The Speaker said at the time: “Mr President, it is a huge pleasure as well as a considerable honour for me, on behalf of both houses of parliament, to welcome you here today… it is also a huge privilege to introduce you personally. I do not know if there is an equivalent Indonesian expression for the phrase ‘renaissance man’ which we use to identify people with many attributes, but if it exists then it surely applies to yourself.”

Human Rights Watch says President Yudhoyono “left behind a toxic legacy of rising religious intolerance and related violence”, condemning “the Yudhoyono government’s sorry record” on human rights. Yudhoyono’s feared police force was “actively complicit in incidents of harassment, intimidation or violence against religious minorities”. His government was complicit in the “violation of the rights and freedoms of the country’s religious minorities”. Bercow said it was a “huge privilege” to introduce Yudhoyono to parliament.

Bercow said it was a “huge privilege” to introduce Yudhoyono to parliament. So Trump must be worse than this.


In November 2012 Bercow allowed the Emir of Kuwait His Highness Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah to address parliament.

John Bercow said of him “Your Highness it is my privilege to welcome you here to our Parliament for this important stage of your state visit. Your presence here today is a welcome reminder of the many intimate ties that exist between our nations and our peoples”

Human Rights Watch says, “Women, (In Kuwait), continue to face discrimination in many aspects of their lives, and large legal gaps remain in protections for women. Kuwait has no laws prohibiting domestic violence, sexual harassment, or marital rape.” Maybe Bercow thinks that Kuwaiti women do not mind a bit of sexism.

Kuwait also bans Israeli passport holders from travelling there, but hating Jews is not that bad is it Mr. Bercow? He did not oppose the Kuwaiti Emir from speaking in parliament…

It is illegal to be gay in Kuwait, but not in America under Trump. But surely something that Trump does must be really bad. It must be worse than this.


In October 2014 Bercow welcomed Singapore’s President Tony Tan Keng Yam to speak to parliament.

Male homosexuality is illegal in Singapore.

Human Rights Watch has condemned President Tan’s record on “limiting rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association using overly broad legal provisions on security, public order, morality, and racial and religious harmony”.

Bercow smiled and shook hands with President Tan as he introduced him to speak to parliament. So Trump must be worse than this.


Bercow welcomed China’s President Xi Jinping In October 2015. He told China’s President, It was “my pleasure” to have him to address parliament.

China is an authoritarian state, according to Human Rights Watch its government “systematically curtails a wide range of fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly, and religion”.

Amnesty International recorded at least 1,634 executions in China in 2015.

The church in china is very, very badly persecuted and oppressed.

Again, Trump really must be bad if he is less worthy to address parliament than President Xi Jinping.

North Korean

In March of 2011, John Bercow entertained representatives from the North Korean regime in his apartments for tea.

Human Rights Watch says “North Korea remains among the world’s most repressive countries. All basic freedoms have been severely restricted”.

North Korea each year tops the list of the countries in the world that persecute Christians.

Are you getting the picture? If Trump is worse than representatives from the North Korean regime, Bercow really must have some pretty damning information about Trump.


Bercow lavished praise on the human rights abusing leaders of Kuwait, Indonesia, Singapore, China, and North Korea, yet bans Trump. You are left asking WHY?

You could conclude that John Bercow only said those nice things about these leaders as a responsibility of his office, but then surely he should be doing the same about Trump?

No there must be another reason.

Was it just ill thought out? Was it just that he loves to be in the headlines? Was it a bid for popularity?

I am not going to pretend that I know what was going through His mind, but we at least can say that is was not based on a rational consideration of Trump compared to other leaders that he has welcomed.

It appears that there is a worldwide irrational hatred for Trump. How much of this is genuinely felt and how much is, people jumping on a popular bandwagon, I do not know. There is some evidence that in the USA a few people are being paid to organise opposition to Trump.

My best guess is that for a very great number of people, it is that they hate people who tell the truth.

“… men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19)

When did winning become wrong?

It can not have been more than a few months since demands were being made for Trump to accept the results of the US election. The implication being the one that wins… wins, and you must not complain. The most popular candidate will lead the country. (leaving aside arguments over the electoral college system.)

Then just after Trump won the election, we were told that well Hillary got more votes, so she should be the president. (Hillary, you can’t change the rules of a competition after you lose. If the presidential contest were for the popular vote, Trump probably would have campaigned in a different way so that he gained a higher popular vote.) But still, at least they are arguing that the most popular candidate should be considered the winner.

But now, however, Trump is being trashed for being ‘populist,’ for having appealed to to many people!

Now we are being told that populist parties in Europe are evil or wrong. In France, the National Front, in Austria, the Freedom Party, in Spain, Podemos and in Britain, the U.K. Independence Party among many more are all condemned for being populist.

Apparently, it is now wrong to be voted for by a lot of people.


First, let’s define what a populist is, a populist is “a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.”

Just how can it be so wrong, in a society that believes ins democracy for a political party to seek to represent the interests of the ordinary person? The problem is probably, that the “ordinary people.” are waking up and beginning to express their opinions and the, ruling class, the ruling elite do not like it. The political scientist, the sociologist, the globalists, the Keynesian economists, etc. believe that they know what is best for you, and you the people should shut up and let them rule.

Until very recently both Labour and Conservative political parties made frequent use of focus groups or the like to help them to formulate their marketing to appeal to the masses. To be populist. That was the whole purpose of New Labour. It was to try to resell the socialist Labour party to people that were rejecting traditional socialist values. Tony Blair worked at making socialism palatable to the masses.

For many years now democracy has been a convenient tool for the ruling parties to use to give you the appearance that the people are expressing their will and choosing the government.

The voters are given a choice; you have the pro-Europe Labour party or the pro-Europe Conservative party. Hay, but you get to choose!

The voters are given a choice; you have the pro-abortion Labour party or the pro-abortion Conservative party. Hay, but you get to choose!

But something has gone wrong. The sleeping giant that is the people is waking up.

There are a number of things that have contributed to this.

The Internet.

The internet that was in many ways supposed to be a tool for the ‘power that be’ so they know everything about you, and so that you spent more and more of your time on porn or cat videos, has become a tool for the people.

Citizen journalists, alternative media, call it what you want, the cat is out of the bag. Ordinary folk now have access to a wide audience, be it posts on Facebook or Twitter or alternative news broadcasts like Trunews or Info Wars, the gatekeepers have lost control.

For probably more than a hundred years, the means of reaching the masses has moved from the church congregation through the preaching of the word of God, to the media barons, firstly in newsprint then cinema and Pathé News then on to radio and TV. Access to the press has been tightly controlled and on the whole in the hand of the liberal elite and what is often called the social progressive. (Though I do not like that term, it is probably actually more regressive than progressive.)

Now, for almost nothing, you can become a blogger, vlogger or podcast host. Probably more in America than in the UK, this has become a very powerful force. Many American alternatives or independent news outlets regularly get higher numbers of viewers or listeners than what we might still just about call the mainstream media like Fox News or CNN.

Conservative political personalities.

In Europe probably political characters like Jean-Marie Le Pen of France, (and now his daughter Marion Perrine Le Pen), and Nigel Farage of the UK’s UKIP, have played a bigger part in the awakening of the ordinary person than the alternative media. Le Pen, Farage and other populist party leaders have fought for years against the vilification and oppression of the mainstream media and have slowly grown to the point where they just can not be ignored anymore.


Added to this is the very real feeling among much of the general population that immigration is having a detrimental effect on people’s lives. Yes, I can hear some of you already shouting “Xenophobia!” or “Racist!” but name calling does not make a good argument, nor change the facts.

Yes, there has been a deal of racist and xenophobic hatred and even criminal and immoral behaviour driven by such feelings. However, people’s lives are genuinely being affected by the globalist programme of forcing multiculturalism upon us. This does not excuse bad behaviour, but nor can we say that because a few people have been racist, uncontrolled immigration must be accepted without question.

Around 2.3 million nationals of other EU countries are in work in the UK. That’s about 7% of people in work here in Britain. 7% may not seem that high, but if you are one of the 1.69 million unemployed looking for work. you may feel that “They have your job!”

In many areas of work, the number of migrants working is a much larger percentage than just 7%. Where I work, there are approximately 50% migrants in the workforce and in many areas it is much higher. Without going into the rights and wrongs of the situation here, this has lead to a significant number of people feeling that our government are not looking out for our needs, but just the needs of large corporations for cheap labour.

The people are waking up

For whatever the reason, or the combination of reasons, the populous is waking up. Much like happened in America in 1787, or in England in 1215, the people are not going to be treated as slaves or chatles.

Now that the people are waking up and saying to the ruling elite, “NO! We will not let you remake the world in your image,” “we will not let you rule us and milk us for your gain.” Now, populism must be made out to be evil or wrong. Liberalism, (which is truly not liberal at all), along with socialism and communism demands that the people are made subservient to the ruling classes.

That is why the mainstream media, the liberal elite, and the progressive intellectuals, have been co-opted into the ‘newspeak’ process of re-branding populism. Trying to tell us that democracy is wrong and immoral.

Do not let them call your opinions wrong or worthless. Stand up! Become active, contact your member of parliament, write that blog, sign the petition, but above all, think about what you are being told, or should I say, ‘what you are being sold?’

Sadiq Khan Tweet

Muslims matter, Jews don’t count!

Sadiq Khan apparently told senior diplomats that the international community must show “moral leadership” by speaking out against Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The Lord Mayor of London apparently urged global leaders to condemn the US President’s “cruel, prejudiced and counterproductive” policy as he hosted the largest ever gathering of ambassadors and dignitaries at City Hall.

More than 100 countries were be represented, including five of the seven covered by the ban – Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya – but not Somalia or Syria.

However, eleven of the countries represented do not allow Jewish Israelis into their countries at all, but there is no record of him calling publicly for the international community to show “moral leadership” by speaking out against these countries bans on Jewish free travel.

It appears that Sadiq Khan is of the opinion that Muslims must have no restrictions on them, but Jews can be mistreated with impunity. Is it that he is a hypocrite or is he just a publicity seeking “popularist.” Ho, I do not think he would rant to be called a populatist, that is one of Trump’s sins.

The crowds from Obama’s in 2009 Javier Zarracina/Vox (on the left) compared to Trump’s inauguration in 2017 (on the right).

What do the inauguration crowd sizes tell us?

There is lots of attention being given to the relative size of the crowds that gathered for the inauguration of Obama and Trump.

Most of the mainstream media are claiming that Trumps crowd was smaller than either of Obama’s inauguration crowd sizes. And many of them are extrapolating from that to say that therefore Trump is less popular than Obama. But what is the truth?

Just what ‘was’ the crowd size?

In truth, it appears that we just do not know. There are many photo compilations that claim to show both the Trump and Obama crowds. To judge crowd size from these pictures, we would need additional information, like the relative time of each photo, were people spaced approximately evenly in both photos and were people roughly allowed into the same areas in both photos.

This, I do not think we know.

At the first press conference of the new administration, White House press secretary, Sean Spicer claimed that it “was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period.” I am not sure what information he bases this on, nor do I know if this was a wise statement for him to make. Many people are calling, “Liar, liar, pants on fire,” to his claim. Some people, e.g. Love B Scott are claiming that Trump only got 1/7th the crowd that Obama achieved.

Today, I do not want to enter into the truth or otherwise of the claims about crowd sizes, nor enter into the argument around the facts of the relative crowd sizes. What I want to ask is…

What do these crowd sizes tell us about the relative popularity of Trump and Obama?

So, What does crowd size tell us? It says the ‘Crowd Size!’ Everything else is interpretation or conjecture.

The crowd size says nothing about the motivation of the people who are, in attendance or who are, not in attendance.

So what possible reasons could there be for a different turn out for Trump?

1 It could be that Trump is, (as is being claimed), less popular than Obama.

But are there alternative interpretations?

2 Could it be that the crowd for Trump was smaller, (if it was) because during the last few months there has been a great deal of talk about anti-Trump protests? In fact, there has been a lot more than just talk, there have been a great number of anti-Trump protests and many of them violent. There have even been a large number of people calling for the assassination of Donald Trump. Could it be that people have been scared off by these events, or maybe they are worried that their children may see the murder of the President or see violent protests?

3 Could it have something to do with the local popularity of Trump and Obama? The inauguration is held in Washington DC, (District of Columbia). In the District of Columbia, in 2008 Obama received 245,800 votes, that is over 92% of the vote. In 2016, in the District of Columbia Trump received only 12,723 votes, that is only just over 4% of the vote. Hillary Clinton locally to the inauguration received 282,830 votes over 90% of the vote. Is it possible that the fact that Obama received 88% more ‘local’ votes had an effect on the crowd size? How far would you travel to see the inauguration?

So if Obama’s local vote was very nearly 20 times that of Trumps local vote, is could be considered a triumph for Trump that there were some many people there.

In Texas Trump got 4,681,590 votes, sixteen times Clintons vote on DC, but it is well over a thousand miles to Washington. And the view is better on the TV.

So, what do the turnout numbers tell?

They tell us the turnout. Nothing else!