How language manipulation distorted national identities


One winters morning in 1997 my bedside radio turned itself on with the news. The bulletin informed me about a new building that may be the tallest ‘in Europe’ before mentioning a new sports car which could be the fastest ‘European’ car in the world. The newsflash then told listeners about an incident in a faraway place – I forget the specifics – and that there were ‘Europeans’ involved.

The next morning, a similar pattern continued, with yet more references to ‘Europe’ and ‘Europeans’. Then, as if a switch had been flicked, I started noticing it all over the media, particularly the BBC. A few days went by and eventually I mentioned it to my wife and her response, which I remember to this day, was: ‘Why do they keep saying the word Europe, over and over again, in the news?’ As someone with a background in psychology and subsequently with an interest in indoctrination, my wife and I are aware of such techniques and both naturally pay close attention to the way in which language is used.

Unsurprisingly, nobody was talking about why there had been a monumental shift in language use in the media. It just happened, seemingly overnight. At the time, I saw people around me increasingly use the word ‘European’ to describe themselves when, just a short time before that, such a scenario wouldn’t have even come under consideration. This, my dear friends, is how relatively easy it is to influence the wider public.

Fast-forward to today and we are told that the vast majority of British young people favour staying in the European Union. But, if we look at the bigger picture, this voter behaviour doesn’t make much sense. People in that age bracket are generally anti-establishment rather than for it. If their education had been politically balanced (many would perhaps rightly argue that there should not be any political bias in education) then – at the very least – their opinions should roughly reflect the national mood. But it isn’t, and it doesn’t. Alarm bells should be ringing.

And this may sound ‘conspiracy theorist’ which, by the way, has intentionally become a dirty word to shut down anybody questioning the mainstream narrative. Obviously there are no conspiracies at the top of Western governments and all politicians are perfect models of altruism *cough*.

Not all indoctrination is bad. Helping someone understand their own thought processes to help quit smoking or other addiction, for example, is arguably also a form of brainwashing. But in this instance, the intention is to help the individual. Crucially, the individual is aware of what is about to take place.

What should be of concern is when this takes place without our conscious awareness. Because, and you don’t need me to spell this out, that if it’s being done deceitfully we can pretty much guarantee that it isn’t in our interests. So how do we know? It can be difficult, but here are some pointers:

  1. When you see or hear a headline, first ask yourself why this story is being aired? Or how much air-time it is getting? Who benefits from you buying into the narrative? There are endless stories all over the world the media can choose from, so why did they choose this one?
  2. What and how is language being used? Are there any words or phrases that are being repeated often? This is important because if this is the case, you will notice people around you repeating the same phrases as their own
  3. Spend time on numbers 1 and 2 before you get involved in the story. The moment you delve in and get involved in the arguments, you are psychologically much less able to step back and evaluate with the same effectiveness. It is, literally, the perfect example of: ‘Can’t see the wood for the trees’.

An example of where this has been the case:

“The European Union’s objective is to maintain peace throughout Europe” – how many times have we heard that? It has been repeated in the media for years so… it must be true, right? Let’s brush politics aside for a moment and just use logic. If forming a political union with power over and above national governments magically creates peace, then what are we waiting for? Where is the Middle Eastern Union? Peace between Palestine and Israel in the blink of an eye, right? Obviously not. A political union doesn’t guarantee peace. Co-operation and mutual respect is what garners peace between countries, and you don’t need a political union for that.

So, back to the point I started with, the identity of being ‘European’ as we often refer to it today in the UK was distributed via the mainstream media back in 1997. Before then, we were French, Italian, German, British etc. Since then, the reference point of national identities has been replaced whenever possible with the term ‘European’. And at the same time, we have another narrative that being proud of your country is somehow frowned upon, thus suppressing that perspective, while at the same time promoting the European identity. Waving your national flag and singing the national anthem is a bad thing apparently, unless of course it’s the EU flag being hoisted aloft outside Strasbourg with the EU anthem playing in the background.

So please, be aware of your surroundings especially when it comes to the media. Don’t get drawn into any story without first asking yourself why it even exists as a headline. Remember the media want to sell papers and compete for viewing figures – that is their only bottom-line. Get your news from a variety of sources outside the mainstream hymn sheet such as Shy Society.

There’s a very good reason that the mainstream media try to dismiss alternative news outlets and it isn’t because they care for the public getting correct the information. They don’t care – and in many cases are the worst purveyors of fake news. All they want is their monopoly maintained, hence why the self-righteous BBC (of all people) have now taken it upon themselves to ‘help students identify fake news’. Pardon the pun, but you literally couldn’t make it up. I’m not personally into their music but as the Flobots once sang: ‘There is a war on for your mind’ and it is a sentiment which rings truer today than it ever has done before.

Shy Society.
Standing up for those without a voice in Britain

Follow Marco Anthony (@HeyTony) on Twitter!

Like our content? Consider a one-off donation via PayPal:


  1. This makes perfect sense of course BUT whenever I look closer at this kind of speculation I have to ask WHO and HOW. If this is planned and coordinated over such a wide swath of media how is this carried out? Can it be proved that this is a strategic and well planned effort? Without any evidence it will continue to fall into that dreaded conspiracy and theory bucket. I think it’s more likely that somebody like the BBC starts this from the editorial desk and the other outlets just parrot along as usual… no plan or coordination just “lemming like” blither and blather.

    • Peter Hitchens thinks, and he should know – and I tend to agree – that most news organisations parrot governments’ globalist mantra because if they didn’t they’d fall out of favour with them and wouldn’t be able to get interviews and stories from ministers or information from off-the-record sources including from the civil service. It’s a club.

  2. Good point Pill. I am the author of this article and appreciate your comment. You need to look at the flow of information. The distortion comes from the news agencies, there are just a few of them compared to newspapers and tv news stations and it is them that provide the talking points for our media.
    Can it be proven? Well, it depends how well they hide it.
    I will say this, there is no dreaded conspiracy bucket. As yourself why it has become dreaded? It’s to shut us up. When we see a pattern emerging we should ask questions. As they say, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. If we become afraid of being branded a conspiracy theorist then we become quiet or simply believe everything at face value, neither of which is acceptable.
    Thanks for the feedback, appreciate it!

    • Yes! From an American. We easily can take the “European” name-calling for granted…it was somewhat “PC” but an article like this points out that this tactic IS a tactic. The whole point of your journalism is to point out the use of a tactic, get readers to think back to that point in time before the particular tactic was employed. Then you start gathering the pieces of this “global” puzzle and you organise them so you can connect them appropriately.

  3. I saw that news story on the BBC about educating children about fake news. In none of the three videos embedded in the story were any examples of what the BBC mean by fake news. Because all they ever have mentioned as examples in the past are things like Facebook stories about the Pope supporting Trump. So they know they can’t come up with any good examples. Such fake stories have no effect on anything. So really the BBC are just trying to delegitimise non-main stream media outlets, by creating a general distrust of any organisations outside the MSM.

    Here’s some fake BBC news: anyone or any party disagreeing with very high levels of immigration is consistently called ‘anti-immigration’, even often ‘anti-immigrant’. Perfectly reasonable people portrayed as viscerally against individual immigrants. It really annoys me. I’ve wasted my time and complained about this to the BBC. The BS answers always say, oh it’s a general term to describe a person or a party’s opposition. Or they’ll dig out some quote from some outlier at the AfD, or the Northern League about how Germans or Italian citizens should be put first – and the BBC claim this amounts to be against all immigration and hostile to all immigrants. That is exactly how the BBC respond. It’s idiotic.

    The BBC also quite often refer to the EU as Europe, making anyone against the EU appear narrow-minded and against any foreigner from other European countries.

  4. I believe that the EU itself may have orchestrated this narrative. It is well known that it is an offence within EU institutions to criticise the EU itself. I also suspect it may originate from graduates of Common Purpose – they all think they know what is best for ‘us’ and have plans to engineer social change such as we see today.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here