Trevor Phillips and the art of doublethink

Doublethink was coined by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four and means “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them”.

Doublethink works, and has been an effective weapon in the globalists’ success in changing the way people think and behave.


The war in Afghanistan is to make us safer from terrorists – at the same time as allowing an unknown number of them to live here and turn their taxpayer-funded houses into bomb factories.


Let the Government control your life, so you don’t have to bother.


State education and indoctrination by the BBC since birth equips people to be experts on everything – in their own mind.

“Equality” and “Human Rights” thrive on doublethink – and hypocrisy – and, of course, the downright illogical. This is because an agenda has been set and the rules must fit, but made to look impartial.

So, when Trevor Phillips says that his Equality and Human Rights Commission will stand up for believers, anyone who knows anything about the man and his Ministry will instantly shudder. Or just laugh uncontrollably.

Trevor Phillips

Just go.

Phillips starts by talking sense – these people need to talk some sense to be believable to even the most dimwitted prole. He talks about “fashionable atheism” and that “people of belief” feel that they are “under siege, that they are often disadvantaged, that they are looked at and considered in some way different and their faith makes them less worthy of regard.”

This is true, but of course, it is largely down to organisations like his, which he somehow has the nerve to deny.

He adds that, “There is a view that says religion is a private matter and it’s entirely a choice. I think that’s entirely not right.

I believe that the Christ died for me and that means a) spreading the Good News and b) trying to live as He directed. This means that keeping my faith private is not an option.

And why should it be in a free country?

The equality watchdog chairman said it would support believers who suffer discrimination because of their faith, and conceded there was a perception it had not done so in the past.

“That is slap bang in the middle of our anti-discriminatory work,” he said.

Are those guffaws I can hear? The man’s being serious.

“Being an Anglican, being a Muslim or being a Methodist or being a Jew is just as much part of your identity and you should not be penalised or treated in a discriminatory way because of that. That’s part of the settlement of a liberal democracy.

Did someone tell him that the UK is a liberal democracy? The correct definition is “constitutional monarchy”.

“Our business is defending the believer. The law we’re here to implement recognises that religious identity is an essential part of this society. It’s an essential element of being a fulfilled human being.

“My real worry is that there are people who may well feel they’re being treated unfairly because of their faith and who actually in fact may be being treated unfairly because of their faith but for some reason feel they can’t get our support in getting justice.”

I know you are waiting for the “buts” and here they are.

The quid pro quo for standing up for individual believers is that churches and faith groups have to fall into line with the views of wider society to keep their charitable status, Mr Phillips signalled.

Yes, we must “fall in line” just like other dictatorships insist upon.

“People are being confused about the right of the individual to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression and the freedoms of particular institutions or organisations.

And of course, it’s our old friend, homosexuality, which is at the centre:

Mr Phillips says that the refusal to allow Catholic adoption agencies an exemption from laws stating homosexual couples could not be discriminated against was even more clear cut.

“Catholic care was a clearer and simpler case. You’re offering a public service and you’re a charity and there are rules about how charities behave. You have to play by the rules. We can’t have a set of rules that apply to one group of people simply because they happen to think it’s right.”

No, a corrupt and discredited government agency now decides right and wrong and our freedom only extends as far as the choices they allow us.

Equality laws should not impinge on the way that religious institutions are run, Mr Phillips said – meaning gay bishops and women priests are not a matter for his watchdog.

“It’s perfectly fair that you can’t be a Roman Catholic priest unless you’re a man,” he said.

“It seems right that the reach of anti-discriminatory law should stop at the door of the church or mosque.

And yet it doesn’t. A church can get into trouble for not employing a homosexual as a youth leader.

Then Phillips starts losing the plot completely,

“At the moment the law says it [appointing openly gay bishops] is a matter for the Church of England. It’s probably right.

“I’m not keen on the idea of a church run by the state. I don’t think the law should run to telling churches how they should conduct their own affairs.”

A string of high-profile legal cases involving Christians who feel discriminated against because of objections to homosexuality may be fuelled by evangelical activists who are seeking political influence – not helping their religion – he warned.

“I think the most likely victim of actual religious discrimination in British society is a Muslim but the person who is most likely to feel slighted because of their religion is an evangelical Christian,” he said.

No, Phillips, it is about people who demand the right that others adhere to their standards on their property and the right to express their opinions without being arrested and to be able to adopt children without being forced to indoctrinate them with your PC garbage.

“There are a lot of Christian activist voices who appear bent on stressing the kind of persecution that I don’t think really exists in this country. There are some Christian organisations who basically want to have a fight and therefore they’re constantly defining the ground in such a way that anyone who doesn’t agree wholly agree with them about everything is essentially a messenger from Satan.

“I think for a lot of Christian activists, they want to have a fight and they choose sexual orientation as the ground to fight it on. I think that whole argument isn’t about the rights of Christians. It’s about politics. It’s about a group of people who really want to have weight and influence and they’ve chosen that particular ground.

Personally I don’t know why they don’t choose ground that really is defending Christian values. I wish they’d choose gambling or human trafficking or something.”

And we do, but we also defend other values, and our rights – including what we allow on our own property. That is a most essential part of liberty: for every citizen of this country.

in a highly provocative comment Mr Phillips said he believed Anglican and Catholic churches were seeing growing congregations from African and Carribean (sic) backgrounds with “old time” views which put them at odds with mainstream Britain.

“In the Christian and Muslim faiths migration has given some of the great faith institutions a massive shot in the arm,” he said.

“I come from that kind of community. We like our faith strong and pretty undiluted. If you come from an Afro-Caribbean Christian background the attitudes to homosexuality are unambiguous, they are undiluted, they are nasty and in some cases homicidal.

Now he is equating people who have traditional beliefs with murderers. YOU are the nasty one, Phillips, by a country mile. But I imagine that this is how you have kept your job for so long.

“I think there’s an awful lot of noise about the Church being persecuted but there is a more real issue that the conventional churches face that the people who are really driving their revival and success believe in an old time religion which in my view is incompatible with a modern, multi-ethnic, multicultural society.

And multiculturalism has been dismissed as a failure by most commentators, including himself. And anyway, the point of multiculturalism was that every “community” could get on with living the way it wanted.

“Muslim communities in this country are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they’re doing their best to try to develop an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy.

40% of Muslim students want Sharia law in this country. I suggest that Phillips is confused and that they are actually more keen to integrate with Saudi Arabia or Iran. Everyone knows that Muslims are the least likely group to try to integrate. I don’t think it would be unfair at this stage to call Phillips an outrageous liar.

“One of the aspects of that is essentially saying ‘whatever we feel about matter of sexuality we’re going to have to deal with the fact that most of our neighbours, most of our children’s friends, most of our work mates have a broader, more liberal view and we just have to live with that’.

And we’re back to sexuality: where all roads seem to lead eventually and why I have written about it to such an extent. That is because the perceived rights of those who wish to live contrary to good morals and good health have been allowed to impinge upon the rights of everyone else in the name of “equality”.

“Integration is also about compromise and I think the reason you don’t hear a lot about that from Muslims is that they’re trying to find ways of being good Muslims in a way that is consistent with the society they’re living in.”

He is saying that Muslims are good and Christians are bad. Being willing to accept alternative sexualities seems to be his only yardstick to “integration” and he conveniently avoids the fact that Muslims generally are vehemently, sometimes violently, opposed to homosexual behaviour. Not only in traditional Muslim lands, but also in the UK, where whole areas have been declared “gay free zones“.

But they aren’t “old-time” traditional Christians, so he lets them off.

Because the Religion of Peace is beyond reproach. It’s all everyone else’s fault that they cannot get along like every other known group of people in this country.

I call for the sacking of Trevor Phillips. It should have happened years ago.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Trevor Phillips and the art of doublethink

  1. len says:

    What we are experiencing in the UK ,and the World, is a reversal of values and of reason. ‘Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.'(Isaiah 5:20)

  2. Thanks for this post Stewart.

    I thoroughly agree with you that what Trevor Phillips represents is awful – indeed evil.

    I would abolish the EHRC quango in an instant given the political power to do so – as I’m sure would you.

    It was the EHRC which funded the homopervuals who successfully sued the unfortunate B&B owners (who don’t give double rooms to unmarried couples) last year.

    The whole ‘Equality’ industry is primarily focused upon the destruction of Judaeo-Christian standards in our society, and the main strategic approach is undoubtedly that of launching homopervual attacks at every opportunity.

    ‘Human Rights’ is another term that has been utterly queered to mean the opposite of what it ought. The EHRC is greatly concerned for the ‘right’ to force homopervual behaviour upon other members of the public, but the EHRC is unconcerned about a genuine right such as the right to life itself.

    I have to disagree with you over one thing Stewart: Afghanistan. The US-led Western military presence in Afghanistan is nothing to do with Afghanistan itself and everything to do with the US having a strategic presence and power base in the region – which I’d say is a good thing, having American power on the doorstep of Pakistan and Iran. Problem is it’s a massive financial burden upon the US Government, and there is the need to play politics with appeasing public opinion over ‘bringing the boys home’. But from a strictly politico-military perspective it makes absolute sense for the US to maintain a strategic presence in that region if at all possible. What the US Government really needs to do is move away from the idea of it being a ‘war’ in Afghanistan and come clean about its really being an essential strategic occupation in relation to Pakistan and Iran… but of course that would involve telling the truth, and the truth is politically inconvenient when the President has to please parochial-minded American voters if he wants a second term next year (and for at least half a dozen other good reasons I can think of).

  3. English Viking says:

    Trevor Phillips will be one of the first against the wall when I am King. Along with the muppets that put him in this position in the first place.

    One of the words that really needs to classified as a doublethink classic is ‘racist’. Apparently, a black/brown person can be openly prejudiced against a white person and this is all down to this person’s commitment to ‘anti-racism’. Use the same words, the exact same words, and just change around the colours, you’re a racist.

    An example: imagine the trouble a ‘White Police Officers Organisation’ would cause, but the current Black one that exists is fine. Instead of Afro-Caribbean Community Centres, Imagine White Anglo Saxon varieties. Then imagine the taxpayer being ordered to pay for these things, and threatened with arrest if they object.

    To put an arch-racist in charge of the top ‘anti-racist’ organisation in the UK is a stroke of genius.

    PS I note his dislike of most things white does not stretch to the female of the species, though.

    PPS All the lemmings that wish to call me stupid names, fire away. You will see, one day, that I was right, and you were wrong. Trouble is, it’ll be too late by then.

  4. English Viking says:

    Hey Stewie,

    1984 is my favourite book, after the KJV, obviously.

    It literally changed my life. Upon closing its cover, I realised I was a sheep. that I was Winston, that I too would scream ‘Do it to Julia!’.

    From that day forward, I refused to be told what to think, what to eat, wear, like, dislike, etc. I was 14.

    I genuinely believe that God used it to direct me toward Him.

    I recently read a book called 1985, by Anthony Burgess. Same guy that wrote Clockwork Orange. Really, you need to read it if you are concerned with ‘doublethink’.

  5. Stewart Cowan says:


    We just need to look around the world today to see how much dictators hate Christians. Because with Christianity comes freedom and they don’t want that, so will do as much as we let them get away with to try and incapacitate us to control the whole of society. It is a very important thing which liberals, “atheists” and Muslim apologists have missed, as they condemn our “old-time” religion and in doing so, will condemn themselves to live under tyranny.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:


    Indeed, I would abolish modern “human rights” legislation, because it is discriminatory and unfair. Homosexuals are another group (to the ones I mentioned in my reply to Len) who want to see Christianity watered down, but likewise, they will suffer like the rest of us when Judeo-Christian values are replaced by Marxist or Islamic ones.

    the EHRC is unconcerned about a genuine right such as the right to life itself.

    Well said, and a powerful condemnation of “human rights” when the life most needful of “rights” is slaughtered on demand.

    I mentioned Afghanistan because the government expects us to simultaneously believe we are at war there to “keep us safe” here while allowing terrorists to come and live among us.

    Clearly, the war is about the oil pipeline (and drugs?) and for geopolitical reasons, as you say. They couldn’t admit all this publically, so they have to lie and pretend it is to keep us safe from al-CIAda, but I do not support risking British lives in pursuit of US corporate interests and NWO/globalist expansion.

  7. Stewart Cowan says:


    How fortunate the social re-engineers must feel to have such a useful idiot in Trevor Phillips. His main enemy is Christians and especially his own kinsfolk. He must have been carefully chosen for the ability to dump on his own.

    I think to a lot of folk, having black police or other organisations isn’t a big deal, but I think it serves to further Balkanise the population to control us easier, and clearly it is racist if membership depends on ethnicity (apologists will remind us that white people can join the Black Police Assoc, but that’s hardly the point).

    I read 1984 at school and believed that it would be a reality one day, though not as soon as 1984 (I probably read it c1979). Naturally, I had a renewed interest in the book a few years ago as I became more awake to the globalists’ agenda of destroying our society in order to control it.

  8. Vee says:

    Commendable analysis here!

    But les’s not forget, one of his best mates is the Prince of Darkness -homosexual Peter Mendelson

  9. robbo says:

    This means that keeping my faith private is not an option.

    And why should it be in a free country?

    This means that keeping my faith private is not an option.

    And why should it be in a free country?

    Is anyone else totally gobsmacked by that statement and question combination?

  10. robbo says:

    Did someone tell him that the UK is a liberal democracy? The correct definition is “constitutional monarchy”.


    I think that is what he meant isn’t it?

Leave a Reply to len Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>