The Guardian (of London) Newspaper--now morally-lost and a disgrace

TalkPro and Con

Join LibraryThing to post.

The Guardian (of London) Newspaper--now morally-lost and a disgrace

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

Edited: Mar 10, 2016, 4:33am

It is sad when a newspaper that once not only defended the best of the European Enlightenment's ideals but also explained and promoted them to the general public loses its way morally and becomes a voice of ignorance, of bigotry and of censorious stupidity. The Guardian newspaper of London which once spoke for the great democratic interests of people—men and women—of all walks of life now betrays those same and instead defends a narrow, selfish, privileged class which resembles in many respects the worst of Britain's hereditary wealthy as exemplified in the so-called “upper class.” Britain remains a deeply class-defined and divided society and things have worsened in the years since the end of the world war of 1939-1945.

The Guardian is a victim of the demoralisation which preceded and worsened through and after the “Thatcher period” of British politics. A great many things—institutions and people—suffered under Thatcher's stupid and cruel rule. The Guardian newspaper suffered, too, as did the Labour Party—suffered immensely. When Labour's would-be leaders lost their former faith in social and economic justice, independent of social status and wealth, it became a party driven by short-term, blinkered ambitions by which only the immediate and the expedient was prized. Labour, so long savaged by the idiocy which made Thatcher's views domiant, chose to abandon its principles, to sell them out and along with them, to sell out the people that had depended on those principles being defended somewhere in the ranks of institutions of power.

With the advent of Tony Blair, the Labour Party—or the miscreant thing into which it had morphed—saw renewed electoral victories as the “proof” of the wisdom and of the utility—for “utility” and “expediency” had become synonymous with “wisdom” under the new leaders—of the new leadership's departure from the former defence of principles. Tragically, The Guardian became, allowed itself to become, a part of all this and failed to recognise and warn against the dangers which it courted by becoming a voice of support for “New” Labour. While it was not unconditional in its support, it was ideologically blinkered and it has remained so ever since.

But not until the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party in September of last year did the full scope of The Guardian's moral decline show itself. Now, with The Guardian a leading opponent of Corbyn and all the desperately-needed reforms his advance brings to light, we can see what was only partially evident when Labour seemed to be a party struggling to combat Tory initiatives which were reducing the scope of government as a source of support for all who lacked the resources of the wealthy to provide for life's social and economic essentials.

Now, with Corbyn on the political forefront, the gulf which separates what The Guardian once represented and defended and what it defends today is starkly, painfully, evident.

The paper has become a moral disgrace—taking and publicly defending positions which are clearly motivated by what in any other circumstances should be recognised as bigotry and selfish egotism.

This situation leaves Britain without any national daily newspaper of quality. It leaves orphaned the public it once defended –and does this when that public has at last a chance to see a new leader—Jeremy Corbyn—take up the defence of their interests against those of wealth and power.

Mar 10, 2016, 9:03am

Corbyn seems like a politician that I would like quite a lot.

As for the Guardian it's going the way that almost all major media has gone before them. That it was some kind of voice a bit later in the day than almost all the other major media I guess would be to its credit. Really I might look at stuff from those sources now and again but I don't trust them and they're not my major sources of information. Don't know what it's like it Britain but the 24-7 news channels and newspaper conglomerates here have propagated a centrist to rightist neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda and they've been hammering away at their themes for quite some time and this year just looking at what's going on with our election it's easy to see there is pretty powerful backlash against all that.

Mar 10, 2016, 9:28am

Media...all big business. No matter what the individual employees may believe, businesses in general are highly conservative and resist any change. Particularly any change that might affect the incomes of the owners. The Guardian dates from a time when opposing 'The Man' was good business. Now it's not.

Mar 10, 2016, 11:40am

Try the Daily Telegraph.

Mar 10, 2016, 11:46am

Totally agree, sadly the media are all in the establishment's pockets.

Edited: Sep 28, 2016, 8:21am


In reaction to their treatment by The Guardian's "moderators," a small group of former readers have started a site of their own where they attempt to demonstrate what, in The Guardian's phrase, goes by the name of "Comment Is Free" should really be like:

They are called "OffGuardian"

Find them here :


Well, "Off-Guardian" has gone "off the deep-end" and now they are practicing themselves exactly what they'd been preaching against at The Guardian of London newspaper.

In a sad and recent development, they've gotten it into their idiotic fucking heads that, in order to be fairly and consistently "skeptical," they're obliged to be "open-minded" about the mania known as the "9/11 truthers'" conspiracists.

So, that does it for me at their site. I post this to notify the interested reader that I no longer credit "" as worth any reasonable person's time.

My last post went like this--- they've probably deleted it, as they were doing that with my recent unapproved opinions about the 9/11 truthers' conspiracy--which I reject as idiotic nonsense, the delusions of paranoid cranks or agents provacateurs designed to discredit all conspiracy theories--especially valid ones, unlike the claimed deliberate clandestine demolition of the NYC World Trade Center towers, 1, 2 & 7. :


September 28, 2016


It’s now very clear you and this site have become the very kind of censorious. inolerant, doctrinaire and closed-and-bloody-mined thing you created it to oppose in The Guardian of London’s newspaper.

What a pity. I’m done with you–and I know you’ll be delighted. You don’t really want critical commentary here which doesn’t serve your favorite hobby-horses. This thread is an example of your doing serious harm to your project’s respectability and I understand that you cannot see that. So much the better. Your readership, like that of The Guardian, shall drop off. It’s what you deserve.

Mar 11, 2016, 11:05am

Edited: Mar 26, 2016, 8:24am

>7 timspalding:

Here's to your enjoying Hillary Clinton or The Donald as your next president of the United States.

Edited: Mar 18, 2016, 9:22am

(Adapted from Robert Palmer's lyrics "Johnny And Mary")

Graunie's always runnin' around
Tryin' to find

He needs all the world to con-firm
That he aint lo-one-ly

Mary counts the walls
Knows he tires Eas-i-ly

Graunie thinks
The-world-would-be right
The Truth from him

Mary says
"He changes his mind
More than a wo-o-man"

But she made her bed
Even when the
Chance was slim

Graunie says,
"Hes willing to learn
When he de-cides,

Graunie says'
"He'll live-an-y-where
When he earns Ti-ime--to"

Mary combs her hair
Says, "She should be
Used to it"

Mary always

She says that he still acts
Like he is bein' dis-co-ver'd

Scared that he'll be caught
With-out a

runnin' around
runnin' around

Graunie feels hes

Mary says, "Hes lackin' a real
Sense of

So she combs her hair
Knows he tires eas-i-ly

Graunie's always runnin' around
Tryin' to find

He needs all the world to con-firm
That he aint Lo-one-ly

Mary counts the walls
Says, "She should be
Used to it"

Graunie's always runnin' around
Runnin' around

Mar 18, 2016, 9:56am

>7 timspalding: Heckling is generally fine sport that I enjoy, and that one was funny, but the extended laugh fest of the predominantly male, over-priviledged assholes made me a bit sick.

Edited: Mar 19, 2016, 1:04pm



Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem
Jonathan Freedland

Link to article:

I wrote and posted the following comment which was immediately deleted by "moderators" at The Guardian as unfit :

20m ago
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

The _Regressive_"Left" has problem when it comes to religion in general and to
Judaism in particlular. It scraps the Enlightenment principles it's supposed to
defend and promote on all other occasions because these principles are
irreconcilable with all stripes of Jewish identity-- the atheist "Jewish"
persons included.

Have a good look at the youngster pictured below the article's headline and
then try and explain how that boy came to be that way absent an all-consuming
indoctrination by both of his parents

Each morning, upon rising from bed, he'll say the same prayer in which he gives
thanks to God: first for his having been born a Jew and second for
having been born a male rather than a female.
In the second of these two
attitudes, The Guardian cannot find and spend enough in ink and in
column-inches to properly denounce it were it to concern any other kind of

And if the youth pictured had been a girl dressed in a burqa, practically
eveyone at The Guardian would feel anxious about her health and safety
and her chances, within her home environment, of ever coming to an enlightened
state of feminist emancipation from the patriachal society all around her.
That a girl in that photo could be in serious danger of what some would
easily regard as child-abuse, is a thought which could easily come to the minds
of many at this newspaper.

But, here, all that is overlooked because, here, the matter concerns
Jews--unique in their protected place.

(As these views _don't_ enjoy any similarly sacrosanct protection at The
Guardian, I've archived my copy against this post's likely deletion.)

Mar 19, 2016, 1:36pm

I believe this 'an all-consuming indoctrination by both of his parents.' is where they tossed you on your ass. You would have had a better chance had you led up to that through argument rather than starting there.

Mar 19, 2016, 11:57pm

"Give me the child until he is six, and he is mine."

Whether we call it 'instruction' or 'indoctrination', it's very difficult to shake off early training of basic concepts.

Mar 20, 2016, 9:42am

>12 RickHarsch:

..."You would have had a better chance had you led up to that through argument rather than starting there."

Much experience of The Guardian's censorship leads me to doubt that. Their agenda cannot be tip-toed up to quietly because reason does not move them. They operate in the same manner as any typical arrogant and irresponsible censorious power operates. The more cogent, more convincing an argument, the more likely it is to be banned.

The Guardian has abandoned all respect for journalistic standards to become a parody of them, driven by a an obviously blinkered doctrinaire agenda which is often diametrically opposed to the best of Enlightenment principles of honesty and fairness. It's now a joke of a newspaper, only worth reading for the shock value of seeing misguided former-liberal thinkers make fools of themselves.

Mar 20, 2016, 12:01pm

>14 proximity1: Then I will drop speculation about the topic and ask what the hell the obvious fact that an orthodox Jewish child is raised orthodoxically Jewish has to do with anything?
There are plenty of problems with the article to point out--for instance, the bizarre comparison between the Russians in Syria and the Israelis in Israel. Why are you concerned with 'all-consuming indoctrination' when that is so common throughout the child-rearing world? Besides, you mis-characterize the child and deliberately mislead as to how patriarchy works. Children in patriarchal societies do not thank anyone they are born male. They just learn how to act male.

Then you end with this: 'But, here, all that is overlooked because, here, the matter concerns
Jews--unique in their protected place.' The author has bent over backwards to say that of course there are legitimate left critics of Israel, but has also made a strong effort to argue that people not refer to Israelis as Jews if they mean Israelis. In other words, in a battle between you and the author, you lose by coming off as, quite likely, antisemitic given your statement and where you state it.

Edited: Mar 20, 2016, 12:58pm

..."and ask what the hell the obvious fact that an orthodox Jewish child is raised orthodoxically Jewish has to do with anything?"

So, in your universe, a child is, a priori, "an orthodox Jewish child" simply by and from birth into an orthodox Jewish family-- that is, _before_ he's been "raised" (taught anything about religion) "that way"?


RE: "Children in patriarchal societies do not thank anyone they are born male."

Oh? Really? I think that this boy is:


On the issue of the post's having been censored, am I to understand that you agree with that decision of the censors?

Mar 20, 2016, 1:33pm

You are to understand according to your capacity, but before I go further on this I wonder in whose universe children are brought up outside the faith of their parents. I think my own mother would be mightily offended if anyone questioned her methods of 'indoctrinating' her children who were taught to be, raised to be, expected to be, Lutheran believers in the Christian god.

Less important, you should look at where and how you mis-used 'a priori' to mangle a simple point.

I do have an opinion regarding censorship in such contexts and this one in particular.

Mar 21, 2016, 5:17am

>17 RickHarsch:

I'm all through engaging with your bad-faith comments.

Mar 21, 2016, 10:38am

Wow. Bad faith comments. I expect no one but the author of #18 has any interest in the exchange, but on the off chance one of you does, please see if you can explain how my comments were made in bad faith.

Edited: Mar 26, 2016, 4:26am

In an opinion column in yesterday's Guardian, the author asks, "What good are all the women's networking efforts if, lacking access to male gatekeepers who make appointments to executive boards, determine promotions and new-hiring, etc., these women remain isolated in their networks? "

A comment went, "To gain such access, you have to be willing to go where the men go after hours."

Came the reply: "Such places are often 'invitation only.' "

Another venture, "Men also go to strip-tease joints" and the like. To which this comment: I don't imagine a woman being comfortable at a strip club.

I answered that she--yes, she--also seems to have been ubable to meet the challenge to imagine that there are men, too, who aren't really quite comfortable in strip clubs. And I don't refer to effeminate men but to ordinary healthy active men with sex lives with one or more than one woman.

That post didn't last three minutes before it was removed as a violation of the standards for comment.

My comment points up the common sense fact that the world does not conform to The Guardian's idiotic and blatantly sexually bigoted notions whereby all men are similarly suited to find a strip club a comfortable place to meet after work and secretly make their plans away from any women's attention and participation.

To admit that would be to instantly discredit the key assumptions of their feminist dogma.

Mar 26, 2016, 7:24am

>20 proximity1: The comment was rejected not as anti-feminist, but as offensive for this: 'And I don't refer to effeminate men but to ordinary healthy active men'....

Mar 26, 2016, 7:27am

Enjoying Hillary Clinton or The Donald as your next president if the United States.

Edited: Mar 26, 2016, 8:28am

>21 RickHarsch:

First: how would you know that?--unless you're a moderator there or know one and you were told this by that source.

Second: even if you're correct, exactly what the hell is objectionable about that--and _why_?

Third: Again, even if you're correct, how is one supposed to know in advance that this phrase in this context is or might be objectionable--that is, to the moderators at The Guardian?

Mar 26, 2016, 8:25am

>22 Kristen007:

Typogr. error corrected. Happy now?

Mar 26, 2016, 10:05am

>23 proximity1: In the best of faith, I am telling you that differentiating between 'effeminate' and 'ordinary healthy men' suggests a rather disturbing bias.

Edited: Mar 26, 2016, 1:11pm

>25 RickHarsch:

And I, in equally good faith am suggesting that overweening suspicion in self-appointed moral police--such as is evident in the censorship at The Guardian-- is a terribly poor basis for judging others' intent. Here, it was necessary to make two distinctions with brevity. I had to make clear that, on the one hand, I meant neither gay men nor men of any apparent effeminacy. On the other, I had to indicate that I meant normal, healthy heterosexuals as opposed to those with a pathological sexual obsession for women's corporeal exhibition--great painters excepted! ;^).

But these nuances are beyond the narrow and shallow imagination of the feminist thought-police at The Guardian. They are _looking_ for malign intent; it is not surprising that they so often believe they've found it.

You're doing something similar--finding an excuse for censorship because, as we're at odds here, you'd _like_ to find one.

I meant nothing disparaging about effeminate men--only that they do exist and they are not the types I intended the reader to suppose I meant. And that's all there was to it. My words above are a paraphrase from memory. The original did not combine "healthy" and "normal" as a distinction with
effeminate but with unhealthy heterosexual obsession with women's bodies.

Our exchange is a milder one but still a casebook example of what has gone so badly wrong at The Guardian: moderators with woefully poor insight loosed on unsuspecting readers--second-guessing those readers' intentions and getting things spectacularly wrong as they delete their thoughtful comments.

_Other_ readers don't seem to have the moderators' poor insight. They see the comments as the writers intended them. It's an infuriating and Kafkaesque experience there.

People with petty minds and impoverished imaginations should _not_ take on work as Moral Thought Police.

Mar 26, 2016, 1:06pm

>26 proximity1: You may disagree with me, but you are wrong to suggest that I am motivated by support for the Guardian's policy or the way they carry it out. I would rather your opinion be printed and let other readers tell you what they think.

Mar 26, 2016, 1:16pm

>27 RickHarsch:

Good for you for holding and stating that view. It's a helpful corrective because one could have interpreted you to have found good cause for the moderators' _immediate_ removal of my comment. He--or she--must have felt very sure of himself or herself because the reaction was instant.

Edited: Apr 1, 2016, 11:39am

The Guardian (London) to become serious newspaper

AP / London, 01 April, 2016

In a move which has taken the world of professional journalists by surprise, executives of the news group responsible for publishing The Guardian (of London) announced today their intentions to convert the national daily to a full-scale serious newspaper, dropping their stance as a parody of a serious newspaper. When asked for their reactions to the decision, all but one line reporter on the paper's staff responded with , "No comment." The sole exception responded with, "No fucking comment you arsehole."

("April Fool," of course!)

Edited: Apr 1, 2016, 10:57am

I'm still a Grauniad reader, as I have been for many decades, but I would agree that it has lost its edge and become too centrist.

I only read it online now, so I can avoid clicking on all the bits I don't like, but on the odd occasion when I am in UK and get hold of a real copy, I just can't believe the crap they publish in the lifestyle sections. Do people really live like that? Or do they really aspire to live like that? Sad.

For many years I used to get the weekly airmail version. It always arrived weeks late, but there was so much good deep stuff to read that it didn't really matter. And it had Steve Bell's If cartoons in it, which don't seem to be in the online version. And it included an English translation of Le Monde. And finally, the airmail paper made great bog paper, cut into small squares and hung up on a nail in the pit latrine.

Like proximity1, I am a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and I think he is the best thing that has happened to the Labour Party for decades. Even if he is unelectable as prime minister in the short term, at least he is challenging people to think beyond government-by-opinion-polls and to reflect on the principles which underlie the Labour Party. Imagine that - a politician who actually believes in principles! Apart from anything else, it's great to see one who doesn't look like a clone - I could never really tell the difference between David Cameron, Nick Clegg, the Miliband brothers and a whole host of lesser politicians who apparently all went to the same schools, speak with the same accent, go to the same barber and make up their minds according to the same opinion polls. And it's sad to see so many left-of-centre voices, including that of the Guardian, sniping at Corbyn. He was democratically elected within the party, so give the poor sod a chance.

Edited: Apr 4, 2016, 3:35am

>30 John5918:

;^ )

" I just can't believe the crap they publish in the lifestyle sections."

!♡¡ Yes!


Thank you for that comment! How well I know what you mean! It inspired me to think of this in reply:

"I'm (political candidate's name here e.g.) and I approve this statement."

( U.S. Federal Election Commission rules now require that all paid political announcements carried over public communications have this statement from the candidate endorsing the content of the foregoing announcement. Things had become so bad, with candidates claiming that they had no knowledge of their campaign ads, that Congress (or the Executive branch) was finally moved to act.))

Your comments welcome here!

Edited: Apr 4, 2016, 8:34am

Fresh! Classic idiotic Guardian "journalism" :

"Gay Talese in Twitter storm after failing to name inspirational female writers" ( that is, (left out of the headline) as _having been_ important sources of inspiration to _him_ in _his own_ career)

An Example of Guardian-approved reader's-comment Bullshit from "below the line" :

" MGFMSKM ElfenLied2
20h ago
0 1

You still aren't responding to my point that the comments against his critics on here have tended towards the hyperbolic.

Have you read the Twitter comments made? Most of them were just suggesting women writers he should read. Hardly the kind of vitriolic "I'm right, you're evil rar rar rar" you seem to think it is.

And, on a quite basic level, he was factually wrong. Making the generalisations he did flies in the face of evidence: Hannah Arendt and Joan Didion were both high-profile, educated women writing in the 50s and 60s writing about things he claims women at that time were not interested in.

Being old and important doesn't make you right, and it certainly doesn't mean you can't say stupid and sexist things, It's also pretty naive to think it's just '20 year olds' critical of him, especially given Gloria Steinem's pointed out some of his similarly sexist remarks in the past.

My response (we'll see if the asshole moderators delete it) went like this:

proximity1 MGFMSKM
4 Apr 2016 13:27
0 1

(citing "MGFMSKM")

"And, on a quite basic level, he was factually wrong. Making the generalisations he did flies in the face of evidence: Hannah Arendt and Joan Didion were both high-profile, educated women writing in the 50s and 60s writing about things he claims women at that time were not interested in."

I recalled from the article's text that:

"In an appearance at Boston University, Talese was asked to name women writers who inspired him."

(and then wrote:)

"How can his answer have been "factually wrong?! It doesn't make a damn bit of difference how "good" Arendt or Didion were. If they weren't inspirations to him. To have named them or any other writer just to coddle the interviewer's sexist biases should have been dishonest and, thus, wrong."

Apr 5, 2016, 6:54am

A Guardian reader's comment:

1h ago

Another smarmy piece, implying a connection between Trump and Sanders. To 'rub shoulders' with someone means to associate with them, which is not even remotely what is being reported. After this lie of a headline, the opening paragraphs dishonestly lump the two candidates into the fear mongering term 'insurgent' and draws a false equivalency between Sanders supporters and Trump supporters. Shame on the Guardian.

"For the first time in the campaign, Trump’s wife, Melania, spoke." Not true, she spoke at a rally last month. Clearly basic fact checking has been neglected in favour of lengthy discussions on the best way to use language to manipulate our understanding of the political process.

An honest discussion of which democratic candidate has been 'rubbing shoulders' with Trump might reflect on his decade long friendship with Hilary, a guest at his wedding in 2005. In a Trump vs Clinton election we will get two long-time friends who both represent the New York financial sector that brought the global economy to its knees - one playing the role of pantomime villain, the other embracing whatever progressive opinions will get the only serious political alternative out of her way.

I cannot fathom why the Guardian holds its readers in such contempt."


from the pseudo-news report at this link:

Edited: Apr 6, 2016, 5:11am

Want to comment on the news and opinion reportage concerning the infamous "Panama Papers" story?

Well, don't waste your time waiting for The Guardian to allow you a place to do that!

Edited: Apr 8, 2016, 12:08pm

Online newspapers love "clicks". Each "click"of the mouse records another "page viewed", another set of eyeballs on the page's ads--or so the theory goes.

Guardian readers routinely complain in their on-line comments of their having been suckered into opening a page only to discover that it isn't at all what they'd expected from the headline. The word for this is "click-bait" and it's rife in The Guardian .

At The Guardian in my visits over the past couple of months, the average number of pages inadvertently "opened" per login session has at least doubled from three to something between six and eight. But that's just the average. There are occasions on which, during the course of browsing, I experience twelve to fifteen undesired pages loading--and for every one of them, a re-load of the former page is obliged. That means that the total jumps to thirty if fifteen pages are improperly loaded. Sometimes I've known a page to load even though I have done nothing at all. Just "boom"! and I'm at a page I had no intention of viewing.

Is The Guardian negligently running its site or is it deliberately taking advantage of wildly exaggerated records of page-views?--which the paper banks on as a basis for ad revenue.

Take one hundred thousand readers and caculate the page views if each experiences my averages of false page-views per session: eight false page loads, doubled (becuase I have to reload a previous page _needlessly_) makes for sixteen f*$!@ page-views--over and above what I'd loaded intentionally -- multiplied by 100,000 readers: 1.6m false page views per session--not per _day_, per session in which 100,000 people are logged in.

Apr 9, 2016, 8:46am

Guardian headline:

" 'Blame me,' for missteps over offshore investments, says Cameron "


"Er, Yes, sir, Prime minister. Who else? after all!"


As usual in The Guardian's "Panama Papers" reporting, no readers' comments are allowed.

Apr 9, 2016, 9:52pm

No newspaper is interested in morality, unless it's to point fingers. These are "end justifies the means" people, not Boy Scouts.

Of course The Guardian is a left-wing rag. All of them rags. It's what they do. It's up to us to avoid taking it too seriously. Once you do that, they've won.

Edited: Apr 10, 2016, 7:15am


>37 barney67:

"It's up to us to avoid taking it too seriously. Once you do that, they've won."

Nonsense! Try to avoid taking breathing seriously, or thinking--many actually do in this latter case.

Try to avoid having any self-respect or political consciousness. Many are also obviously capable of that. Once--as now--the general citizenry accepts as normal a press which is a laughing stock, then, yes, "they"--i.e. the major wielders of power--have as good as won. That is how and why reasoning and messages such as yours help "them" so much.

Apr 10, 2016, 6:40am

>37 barney67:

By nobody's standards was the Guardian ever a "rag". "Left wing rag" is an accolade properly applied to tabloids such as the Mirror, just as the right wing equivalents include the Sun, Express and Mail, maybe the Telegraph, but probably not the Times. The Guardian was and is a broadsheet, a respectable left wing newspaper. I agree with proximity1 that it is not what it used to be, but that doesn't make it a rag.

Apr 10, 2016, 9:22am

As long as George Monbiot writes for them and Steve Bell draws for them, they are among the highest ranking newspapers in English.

Apr 10, 2016, 9:56am

>40 RickHarsch:

Steve Bell must be one of the best satirical cartoonists ever.

Edited: Apr 10, 2016, 12:03pm

This message has been deleted by its author.

Edited: Apr 10, 2016, 12:05pm

>42 barney67:

I read US newspapers from time to time. They are certainly no better than the serious papers from Britain and other parts of Europe.

Edited to add: Ah, I see you have just deleted your message that I just replied to.

Edited: Apr 12, 2016, 4:18am

From postings at the Guardian's "We-want-to engage-with our-readers-BUT_ ..." article:

17h ago
9 10

The decision to close comments on all Panama Papers articles was unfortunate.

I can't help but think that one of the reasons is that you don't want the tax avoidance policies of the Guardian Media Group to be questioned by the public.


GreenWyvern GreenWyvern
17h ago

3 4

I've had comments deleted without trace for quietly and factually stating publicly available information about offshore deals by the Guardian Media Group.

So much for integrity in journalism.




olls25 replying to ; GreenWyvern
17h ago
1 2

Or perhaps they just don't want to be sued because a Ciffer has posted a libellous comment.


proximity1 replying to: olls25
21m ago
0 1

If The Guardian is held responsible for the comments of readers published at its site, eventhough the paper is neither necessarily aware of those comments nor in agreement with them, then this bespeaks a problem with British law, not with readers or their commentary. The right way to deal with this matter is to address the law--IF it is indeed the case that the paper can be held legally responsible for readers' comments--that must be opposed and changed. Othewise, it is only newspaper editors and journalists who enjoy "free speech" while the public "enjoys" the right to silently look on.

No, thank you. If that's the case here, then the sooner your paper folds in bankruptcy, the better, as far as I'm comcerned. If the paper's view is "good riddance to comments we don't like," then my reply is "good riddance to this paper."


In response to CommunityMod

"Robust criticism of the work is fine but baseless and dismissive insults are not."

And _you_ --that is, the criticised parties-- get to determine for yourselves what constitutes "Robust criticism of the work" and what constitutes "baseless and dismissive insults."

You're not just implying that, here, what counts are your own opinions--i.e. those of the newspaper's staff that count-- and all others be damned, you're as good as stating this flat out.

That is, you assert the right to be judge and jury in your own cause . That's a flagrant violation of the most basic principle of fairness, "no person may be a judge in his own cause."
View discussion

Edited: Apr 12, 2016, 7:51am

My comment-- saved here before it's deleted _there_.

"Guideline" 3: ..."any content that others might find extremely offensive or threatening."

Of course, what's also not made clear in this hopelessly vague "guideline" is the fact that we've got to guess correctly about each and every moderator's ideas of what constitute "others' " ideas of "offensive or threatening." Under "guideline" 3, you (i.e. the paper's staff) have carte blanche to to remove whatever you want to--completely arbitrarily. All the commenter has to do is guess wrongly.

Edited: Apr 12, 2016, 10:33am

recently posted to the Graun:

"The people you indicate as most abused are, unless I'm mistaken, opinion columnists whose opinions are being opposed, rejected, disputed. I grant that your evidence shows that some of this opposition is expressed in personal terms which refer to the author's alleged faults or defects but I don't grant that in each and every case those criticisms are unfounded or unreasonable. It is just possible that the criticisms "ignorant," "uninformed," "sexist," ( an allegation frequently made--and made unfairly-- _by_ Guardian writers) are sometimes accurate descriptions of some of your writers' work. "Protecting" them from such criticisms is a disservice to both writer and your readers.

"I took your quiz and passed every comment as allowable because it was the expression of an opinion which, when published, allows readers to have a fuller picture if actual opinion. Your efforts to sanitize your readers' comments then produces a false picture of what your readers are actually thinking and writing. That is more to be regretted than any of the several comments your moderators chose to censor.

" RE the supposed bias against your female opinion columnists--which you've chosen to attribute to sexism: there's another explanation available which is to me much more reasonable, more likely and more respectable: the readers comments you've defined as abusive are, rather, simply making valid arguments against what this paper makes a crusade of promoting: blatantly bigoted sexist prejudice which automatically defines women as the victim and men as the victimizers. In many instances, your opinion columnists use their columns to preach and to defend such sexist bigotry. When readers object, your own house bias defines this criticism as "abusive." But the problem and the fault is properly attributable to your paper's home-based crusading prejudices which are morally and intellectually dishonest and factually often flatly false. Objecting readers are, then, wrongly censored as "abusive."

Edited: Apr 13, 2016, 8:00am


As I was in the process of writing and revising this, the comments thread closed up!

Oh well! :

In response to this:

" Eduard Jons @ 1h ago said:
I have to say that, despite my criticisms of moderators below, I think it both entirely believable and sadly unsurprising that black and women writers experience the most abuse in the comments. The problem is that the fact of this seems to have led to the same sledgehammer approach to moderation being used to crack an altogether softer nut - non-abusive comments."

I'd written-- too late to post:

"? Wow. as they say, "Just 'wow.'"

"I completely disagree with your reasoning. The Guardian's senior editorial management have claimed to have statistics which unambiguously demonstrate a very serious charge: that some of their writers are the habitual targets of vicious verbal abuse and threats from readers' comments and that this is neither due to any mistaken or biased analysis of the comments nor due to any other conceivable motive than simple bigotry toward women for no other reason than that they are women and towards others for no other reason than their skin colour. If those serious accusations are true, then these measures are the least that the paper can do to protect their writers from physically dangerous threats which they had no part in provoking and which they can do nothing themselves to prevent.

"But all of that depends on the scrupulously strict validity of the assumption that their critics have not and could not possibly have any other conceivably valid motive for their words--which must all be, beyond anyone's doubt,"beyond the pale of tolerability."

"If all that was really true, I'd be advocating these men and women be escorted to and from work by armed body-guards. I'd be calling for the arrest and criminal prosecution of those who've made physical threats. All of that is very serious. The question for the paper's management would then be: are we doing enough to protect them from harm?

"But the question shouldn't be: are we censoring enough to protect them from criticisms which are capable of being understood and explained as reasonable reactions --though they result in hurt feelings and can leave the writers depresed?"

Apr 13, 2016, 8:38am

Here's Sam Harris, writing about the on-line journal Salon :

" I consider Salon to be among the worst offenders of the new pseudo-journalism, and I have long maintained a personal boycott of the website. I ask my publishers to ignore any requests from its editors for interviews or for review copies of my books. And on the rare occasions that Salon publishes good work—the articles of Jeffrey Tayler stand out—I decline to forward the links on social media. My reason is simple: Despite the work of a few blameless writers, Salon
has become a cesspool of lies and moral confusion."

Simply replace "Salon " in the foregoing passage with The Guardian and you have a summary of my opinion of The Guardian --not to mention other British national daily newspapers.

At The Guardian Online there is an opinion essay entitled
"Is it Too Late to Stop the Trolls From Trampling Over Our Entire Political Discourse? " by Owen Jones--a staff opinion columnist.

In keeping with a recently adopted policy at the paper, this article, like numerous others, has been deemed best closed to readers' comments. In keeping with my own recently adopted policy, I now boycott all Guardian opinion articles which are closed to readers' comments--although I'd already dropped Jones' essays from my reading as I'd judged his opinions consistently too stupid to be worth my time.

Apr 13, 2016, 12:22pm

So, then Proximity, how much time do you spend with your beloved Guardian per day?

Edited: Apr 15, 2016, 12:42pm

"But Sanders shows no signs of going away quietly."

Another day of cynicism, bias and bullshit at the piece-of-shit newspaper.

A descriptive summary, published at the webpage of the French bookstore, Gibert Joseph, of the thesis of Yves Michaud's most recent book, Contre la bienveillance :

" Description

"Le constat est maintenant partout : la puissance du fondamentalisme religieux, la montée des populismes de droite comme de gauche, le discrédit de la classe politique, le rejet de la construction européenne, rendent caducs les schémas anciens. En particulier l'idée que la démocratie, à force de bienveillance, peut tolérer toutes les différences, toutes les croyances. Oui ! Il y a des croyances insupportables et intolérables. Non ! Le populisme n'est pas une illusion qui se dissipera d'elle-même avec un peu de pédagogie et de bonne volonté. Non ! La politique internationale n'obéit pas aux chartes du droit international. Il faut dénoncer la tyrannie des bons sentiments, la politique de l'émotion et de la compassion. Non que la bienveillance soit un sentiment indigne, mais nous devons cesser de croire qu'on peut bâtir sur elle une communauté politique."

That comment--which I may return to later to offer a translation when I have more time--encapsulates much of what most of The Guardian's writers and management cannot for the life of them understand.

Edited: Apr 15, 2016, 10:54am

Some good work published today in the Guardian:

from the article:

'The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.'

Edited: Apr 23, 2016, 2:44am

"Since I was about to become the first woman to run the Guardian (not, sad to say, a bazillion-dollar internet company), I decided that I had a responsibility to try to do something about it."
--Guardian editor Katharine Viner

That's so nice. While British society continues to be savaged by decades of Tory-inspired rule (whether that is currently done by actual Tories or formerly done by their "New Labour" look-alikes) Ms. Viner's decision to make "cyber bullying" her signature cause is pathetically emblematic of the moral decline in Left-wing
poltical consciousness.

She calls her initiative, "The Web We Want."

This cause is so remote from the urgent needs of people, such "low-hanging fruit" to pick for an objective. It takes a personal problem--the fact that
Guardian opinion-writers are so morally and intellectually shallow that they're confronted everyday by readers' comments which expose this shallowness and, by doing that, leave the writers' egos bruised and their tender feelings hurt--and turns it into a shiny social cause.

Viner reminds me of a posh private prep-school girl who's trying to come up with a cause to champion. The girls need something that is simple, requires little effort from them, something which won't in the least disturb the workings of the political power structure and, finally, something which is selfishly gratifying. So, after much considering, the girls decide that henceforth they'll eat only organically-grown pop-corn. They'll also encourage all their friends to eat only organically-grown pop-corn--by attempting to shame them.

At The Guardian, this initiative translates practically into taming unruly reader's comments by enforcing a code of conduct which makes truth subservient to a sterile, shallow, concept of being polite on-line. This is supposed to be a serious contribution to making the world a better place--for girls at posh private prep-schools and their Mummies and Daddies.

So, now, when Viner's writers and editors are in closed-door meetings with the politically powerful, she can hold a trump card in reserve: threatening to unleash her cowed, servile and politely mild-mannered readers' comments upon the vicious policies planned by the government.

We . are . saved .!! Hallelujah!

Apr 23, 2016, 6:16am

I'm beginning to love these posts and look forward to them the way people who read comments sections after articles do.

(Not that you are wrong, Proxy--always in the neighborhood--especially about the socio-politicals the Guardian is responding to or not)

Edited: Apr 25, 2016, 3:58am

"What if your conscience objects to not being able to beat up dark guys on campus?"

For those interested in the twisted reasoning behind this idiotic bit of political correctness, there you have it. Using "he," "him," and "his" as the general unspecified pronouns for an individual, whether male or female, was a serious source of bigotry and violence. By using "they," "them" and "theirs" we make life harder for violent bigots. Confused, they can't identify those they should hate and attack. Thus the change has made this world a better, (and, please excuse this unintended irony) more "tolerant"place for women, gays, lesbians, transsexuals and "people of colour."

Never mind that these things are sheer unsubstantiated speculation by the politically-correct thought-police. Never mind that stupidity has made serious gains in the wake of this nonsense. What's most important is a smug sense of self-satisfaction--no matter how falsely or shallowly based, no matter how trivial, vain or foolish.

Let's all say "they," "them" and theirs" and pretend we're actually contributing to making the world a better place.

Apr 26, 2016, 8:27am


goodgollymsmolly replied:
45m ago
0 1

"It's an little sad for you that you can't imagine quiet and/or polite people having mind-blowing sex. I've fucked two angry belligerent pricks in my whole life, and they were two of the lousiest lays I ever had."

"A quiet guy who was just sweet and charming and considerate turned out to be an utter beast who turned me into a shivering heap."
(My answer):

As usual , we find your views being "defended" by distorting facts and others' words and meanings into ridiculous pictures they never suggested.

I never suggested that "quiet and/or polite people" are relative strangers to "having mind-blowing sex."

Rather, I took this newspaper's words as it published them ("caveman": look it up yourself for the dictionaries' definitions of the sense intended in this context) and related that concept to this paper's current crusade to rid its readers' comments of everything that does not conform to its priggish, politically-correct notions by which the editors conveniently define being "polite" online.

So your challenge isn't that of imagining Mr. & Ms. Caveman having "mind-blowing sex,"--though that really is a Guardian feminist's fantasy. It's rather to find cavemen who'd have no trouble meeting this PC paper's moderators' expectations for respectful (I.e. offend none of our protected groups) discourse.
goodgollymsmolly to proximity1
26m ago
1 2

my word. Here we go again. I'm not sure how many times I can remind the duds below the line of this, but hey. Once more for the cheap seats at the back, eh?

'Caveman' is not 'The Guardian's' word. It is a word used by a woman who has written in to ask PSC some advice about her sex life with her husband. It doesn't mean anything about all men. It doesn't say anything about a 'Guardian feminist's fantasy'. It's not an instruction manual for men. It has nothing at all to do with you, or any man, or anyone outside her and her husband. It's a word used by one woman to describe the way she would like her husband to occasionally behave in bed with her.

I don't have a challenge 'finding cavemen who would meet a moderators expectation', because that's not what I am looking for. It's not what the woman who wrote in is looking for. You're the one getting your underoos in a bunch about how moderating online abuse is somehow incongruous with this strangers sexual desires.

What is so difficult to grasp about the fact that this isn't about you or some greater societal issue or truth? Why on earth are you conflaiting this woman's sex life with the Guardian's policy on online abuse? SURELY you can see that it's an absolutely ludicrous argument?

20m ago
0 1

(Citing) " Caveman' is not 'The Guardian's' word. It is a word used by a woman who has written in to ask PSC some advice about her sex life with her husband. It doesn't mean anything about all men. It doesn't say anything about a 'Guardian feminist's fantasy'."

(My reply to the immediately-above):

A reader wrote in using the term--yes. But The Guardian editor(s) chose this reader's query and comment, chose it to publish it for their own readers' consideration and comment. They could have chosen differently but they didn't.

These were The Guardian's editorial descions--whatever the woman behind the query said or thought about it. In fact, my point is that, by having chosen to publish this query--in the writer's own words, rather than re-worded or, indeed, the same plaint by any number of other women--like you--but worded differently, without the "caveman" reference--these editors in a sense "subscribed" to that expression because, unlike open readers' comments "below the line," nothing is automatically open and publishable without prior editorial decision in this part of the paper--all the queries are chosen.

You can try as you wish to make it all seem like an incredible coincidence. But it isn't. The editors find that the reader's query resonates with them and those with whom they so identify and so they chose to publish this query--I suppose, a very Guardian-feminist kind of "problem."

20m ago
0 1

"goodgollymsmolly" writes:

... "SURELY you can see that it's an absolutely ludicrous argument?"
" I don't have a challenge 'finding cavemen who would meet a moderators expectation', because that's not what I am looking for. It's not what the woman who wrote in is looking for."

(My reply):

It's precisely what this paper's editors are looking for: this is the world-vision they seek to promote, the result they want to make real, this explains their proselytizing on the topic ad nauseum here--to men. Their desired ideal: Men who are never aggressive except as, when, where and how the women in their lives want them to be.

Edited: Apr 29, 2016, 2:46am

Like a heroin addict craving a "fix," The Guardian, in its insatiable quest for page-views on its website, is now fomenting a click-bait-driven witch-hunt for so-called "antisemites" within the U.K. Labour Party.

27 / 04 : Naz Shah: suspended pending an internal investigation.

28 / 04 : Ken Livingstone : suspended pending an internal investigation-- for remarks made while defending Naz Shah from charges of being an antisemite.


Apr 28, 2016, 4:41pm

It's a good thing that Labour's High Sparrow is rooting out the anti-semites.

Apr 29, 2016, 2:56am

>57 theoria:

May those who stoke this fire be consumed by it and their names live in ignominy ever after.

Edited: Apr 29, 2016, 12:00pm

I think Ken Livingstone ought to bring a slander suit against MP John Mann and a libel suit against The Guardian. He's being used to beat up on Jeremy Corbyn and this whole affair is a witch hunt cooked up by or with the help of The Guardian, now no more than a scandal sheet and trafficker in gutter-sniping propaganda.

For the youngsters who've never seen one, what the paper is doing is called a witch-hunt.

May 2, 2016, 3:09am

my comment in reply to a reader's comment about the closure of readers' comments at The Guardian's opinion articles--

More than interesting! Thank you for making this observation. I think that the whole phony issue of online (internet "social-'medium' " fora) bullying was conceived at The Guardian during meetings at which executives discussed plans to launch a campaign designed to smear Jeremy Corbyn with trumped up claims of "anti-semitism" as a "problem" which Corbyn is "failing to address." It was no doubt mentioned that such a smear-campaign would be met with fierce objections and condemnations by readers in their comments "below the line." To prevent that, an excusing rationale was necessary so that readers' comments could be preempted. Thus the bogus campaign to "cleanse" the web of online "abuse" which threatens "free speech," the sanctimonious claims to fight "sexism," to "make the internet social commentary a place which is 'safe' for victims of "bullying."

The supreme irony appears to be that this was, it seems to me, all a deliberate prelude to The Guardian's own bullying plans: to libel and smear Corbyn's Labour Party in the weeks just prior to local elections.

Had there been no such careful operation which resulted in just what you and others observe--the strategic closure of opinion articles to readers' comments--the entire smear-campaign should have been made out for exactly what it is in the comments of readers.

The Guardian has now gone beyond doctrinaire stupidity to become Machiavellian in a viciousness that resembles the rest of the disgusting U.K. press.

Edited: May 3, 2016, 1:33pm

"Distasteful in the extreme"?

loathesome scandal-mongering gutter-journalism smacking of the worst in McCarthyism of the 1950s.

May 3, 2016, 2:02pm


In the world of professional journalism there is nothing--absolutely nothing--safer for a paper to print than "The Trouble of Anti-Semitism in Our Midst"

This is "clap-trap" of the cheapest, lowest kind.

Edited: May 4, 2016, 5:58am

"America's Trump nightmare has arrived"

4 May 2016 09:21

(my reader comment) :

6 Recommend

"Certain things have become very clear in the course of the past seven months. Let's list some of them:

"1) The Guardian has come out into full view as a paper which is fundamentally deeply distrustful of democracy when it actually begins to reflect popular opinion as opposed to being a sham and a cover for rule by alternating cliques of elites who live completely out of touch with the everyday reality of ordianry people.

"2) This paper's editorial management worships at the altar of so-called state-of-the-art public-opinion-sampling and, without themselves having any good idea of the limits and conditions of this art, not "science" they venture to make wildly unsubstantiable claims about what is supposedly sure to happen "just over the horizon" according to the (favoured) latest polls.

"3) This paper has now undertaken blatant propagandizing for its own partisan interests which are anti-democratic contrary, to those of most of its readers and which have created the Britain of unaffordable homes and dysfunctional schools and hospitals--a world of greater and greater privatisation of the commonweal.

"4) Serious news reporting is now an afterthought at this paper, supplanted by a priority for entertainment-driven interests and cheap, morally shallow feel-good reporting which panders to narrow and exclusive cliquish interest groups who "identify" by these narrow interests. Rahter than a picture on the world, the paper tries to be a traffic-warden of popular morality--and in doing so, is usually inferior in its own moral understanding to those whom the paper's blinkered writers lecture.

"5) The paper seems in fact to advocate a genuine "Nanny-state" for a political and social order--provided only that the "Nanny" is a manaically zealous creature of "Political Correctness" run amok.

"If Trump's election comes to pass and proves to be the disaster we're told--with such strikingly fallible prescience by this paper and its poor record of predicting what shall happen later today, let alone next week or next month-- that is shall be, well, then that is part of the way democracy is supposed to be allowed to work.

"To be free to set the course of public affairs entails the right and the scope to go wrong. Lord knows our so-called "betters"--in power without interruption since Reagan and Thatcher--have demonstrated a capacity to go spectacularly wrong and this doesn't seem to have bothered this paper's editorial direction in the least.

"We could actually learn important political lessons as a nation by making the "mistake" of electing Donald Trump. In electing Hillary Clinton, we'd ensure another mistake without any chance of a useful lesson coming out of it--exactly as has happened under Barack Obama."

View discussion

May 5, 2016, 5:05am

"But Sanders won't get the nomination."

(I replied)

"I heard that Sanders was unelectable--that he couldn't win a primary. Then he won one. "Fine," said his detractors --who simply don't want him to win in the first place--"he can't win several more primaries." Then he went on to win several more. "Sure," they replied, "he can win several primaries but he can't catch Hillary."

"It would be more respectable to have simply stated the truth: you don't want Sanders at any "price,"--even if that means watching Trump defeat Clinton--the most unpopular Democratic candidate for president since 1984--though, at the same time, you are quite capable of shamelessly using the "threat" of Trump's potential election as a scare-tactic to lead voters to support your candidate.

" No deal. There's a great candidate on offer: Sanders. If you reject him, you deserve to hear Trump pronounce the words, 'I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' "

Edited: May 5, 2016, 8:54am

The progressive trend is moving away from print and television news media--entities which are controlled by wealthy interests and which have become more and more propagandistic and less and less presenting facts or information in a fair and objective manner. To go further on television media---It's become all about the show and very little about any kind of real content. The likes of Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews and Megyn Kelly are not really journalists. They are people playing a role and pushing a corporate agenda. CNN is the Corporatist News Network---NBC and MSNBC are owned by General Electric (who by the way is our tax dodging-est American corporation). Fox News--the most propagandistic of 24-7 news channels is owned by an Australian who also owns numerous other American and world news sources including the Wall St. Journal and the New York Post and believe it or not Rupert Murdoch even owns the Dow Jones.

So anyway I have no doubt Trump will make an awful President. Could he be any worse than George W. Bush?---the man who played a large part in collapsing our and the world's economies--gave the United States preemptive war, regime change and the curtailing of personal liberties?---all the extralegal snooping into the lives of ordinary people? And......all these disgruntled republicans unhappy over the non-establishment Donald being their party's nominee who if given the chance would gladly put George W. and his partner Dick right back in office--am I to feel sorry that they don't like the Donald? Could the Donald do more damage than George W. and Dick did? I'm thinking probably not.

Hillary is going to be awful as well. Just less inclined to shake things up than Donald---she'll cross the aisle though and make friends with her enemies and they'll create more center rightist policy. Got to be seen to be accomplishing something. I have this thought that if Hillary decides to put lots and lots of boots on the ground in Syria (just as a for instance) congress will once again not do its job of seriously debating the why's and why nots of doing that and just give her the same carte blanche as any of her predecessors. However if Donald were to want to do the same congress actually might stop him because I'm thinking the democrats will as a cohesive unit fight Donald on any and every fucked up thing he tries and Donald won't have enough support from his own party to overcome that.

Anyway I do get that Donald is sleazy and corrupt. That he race baits and throws around slurs and is maybe the closest thing to a Tourette's case that has ever run for the country's highest office. And he's certainly not a genius or even a real benefactor of ordinary Americans. It will be a matter of outlasting him. It will be congress's job to keep the damage he can do to a minimum--to rein him in and marginalize him. Don't expect the congress to do the same for Hillary.

May 6, 2016, 12:34am

My current main gripe with the Grauniad is much more mundane. I want to read the UK version (nostalgia for my roots, maybe?) but whatever I type into the address line (like it thinks it knows better than me and it detects where I am in the world (obviously not in UK) and automatically redirects me to the international edition at I then have to delete the /international and replace it by /uk. Trivial, perhaps, but it gets very tedious doing that each morning, especially on a slow internet connection.

But I also have to say again that I am finding the articles more and more superficial and less and less in the tradition of the Grauniad as I knew it a couple of decades ago.

Edited: May 6, 2016, 1:17am

Their website software is clunky, slow and a constant pain in the ass-- much like their editorial line. The shift to vacuous fluff-stuff is deliberate. The Queen editor is from the features world of newspaper work, not the news side of it. For her, news really ought to be "fun."

Save and clip and paste either of the following-- does it work?

May 6, 2016, 10:05am

>67 proximity1:

Aha, that first one seems to work, even after I saved it as a favourite. Thank you. That's one more little frustration avoided every morning!

Edited: May 6, 2016, 12:09pm

If you've been reading The Guardian's dire warnings about the progress of presidential candidate Trump, note the following comment from a reader at The New York Times's website from an article : What a Trump Presidency Would Look Like:

Rick Hoff Lake Como, PA :

"I have yet to decide if I can vote for Mr Trump, but I do know I cannot vote for Mrs Clinton. She will say whatever she has to say to get your vote, she will down play all of her previous mis-steps and say she is in it for the people. I think she has to release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street as Donald should release any transcripts of speeches he has made of the same ilk. Then the people can decide.

"A thing I will take into consideration is the fact that no president, ever, got everything they wanted or did everything they claimed they would do while campaigning. So let us not think Trump will either. But he will bring a new perspective, he will make all of the status quo politicians that dominate Washington take notice, maybe even change a bit to keep their jobs. Hillary will be more of the same, so that goes nowhere.
I would consider a third party candidate, the climate is ripe!"

May 5, 2016 at 8:47 p.m.

Recommend (2)

May 6, 2016, 11:58am

I don't think Trump would get everything he wants if he were the next President, but I don't think the new perspective he would bring would be a good one.

May 8, 2016, 8:44am

Yes, as Corbyn has it, politics is about taking sides. Jess, Hilary, Clive and Sadiq-- you, along with with this newspaper, are clearly not on our side--that is, we who are wholeheartedly with Jeremy Corbyn as party leader. You're really most interested in Corbyn as Ex-party leader.

Sadiq Khan won the office of London mayor, yes. But Corbyn's Labour party didn't win it with Khan. That's a pity. Khan doesn't and cannot represent me while he's busy :

... "repeatedly seeking to distance himself from Corbyn, holding few joint campaign appearances and leaving him off his publicity material."

Or ..."urging his leader to 'get a grip' on accusations of antisemitism in the party."

Such are Tory-like positions. Labour already "reaches out"--and has done since Corbyn took over.

May 8, 2016, 11:58am

Mr Khan knows there is no Corbyn in England's dreaming.

Edited: May 10, 2016, 3:57am

Guardian pro-Clinton propaganda article:

" 'I've been silent': Harvard's Clinton backers face life on a pro-Bernie campus "

my reader's comnent:

10 May 2016 08:20

0 Recommend

' “I think Bernie Sanders supporters need to understand that Hillary is not the enemy here,” Ho said.'

I can recognise and rank my adversaries by their importance in opposing what I believe--and, at three times Ms. Ho's age, my lived experience of political life affords me much better insight into the candidates than she pretends to have.

It's beyond doubt to me that Hillary Clinton is the serious adversary of much that is politically important to me--and, moreover, she's a more effective adversary of these things than I have any reason to expect that Donald Trump could be.

While the mainstream press excessively demonizes Trump's faults, it treats Hillary's faults lightly or passes over them in silence.

RE: "Koppelman said he was prompted to out himself as a Clinton supporter due to frustration at being unable to be open about it. He wanted to address what he sees as a double standard among some Sanders supporters – that to support Clinton is to fail to support the fight for equality."

Or, in other words, →◆privileged New York Harvard student, complaining that he's not free to voice his support for Hillary Clinton, writes open-letter to the press voicing his support for Hillary Clinton.◆

Throughout my life, practically every political cause and ideal I've believed in has been unpopular --often even among self -deluded people who mistakenly think of themselves as politically left-wing. That's a part of taking responsibility for one's beliefs--advocating them in the face of what appears to be powerful and at times apparently majority opposition.

That's "difficult"?, that's "unpopular"?, that's "lonely and isolating"? That's tough! That's how life is. Speak up for what you believe in and speak out against what you oppose. And take with due composure and reflection the criticism that comes from your doing that rather than complaining about others' rights to voice their differing opinions.

Edited: May 10, 2016, 8:45am

..." risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world"...

One of the following measures was cited unfavorably as it entailed a risk: namely that it "risks alienating mainsream Muslims around the world"...--

Was it,

A.) A plan to simultaneously hijack several U.S. passenger airliners and fly them into skyscrapers in U.S. cities killing and maiming thousands?

B.) A plan to launch serial gun and bomb attacks at half a dozen Paris cafes, restaurants and live music theatres and the capital's national sports stadium all in a single evening killing and maiming hundreds ?

C.) A plan to detonate a bomb near the finish-line of a major U.S. city's annual marathon race killing or maiming several people ?

D.) A plan to temporarily bar non-citizen and non-resident Muslims seeking to enter the U.S. ?

Edited: May 11, 2016, 9:15am

11 May 2016 13:25
1 Recommend In response to RobotOwl
He won't. It seems from his remarks--"Trump must never never be elected as president"-- that Sanders imtends to endorse Clinton if he's denied the nomination.

His supporters aren't obliged to make that mistake. Some can see what Sanders can't: Clinton is _far_ worse for the U.S. than Trump. They'll vote for Trump to save the Democratic party from remaining in the hands of the neo-con "Democratic Leadership Conference."

Sanders has no excuse for failing to understand that, with the DLC in charge of the Democratic parth and HRC in the White House, Sanders' own supporters are forced to fight for his initiatives on two "fronts" rather than just one.

Archconservatives already owned one major political party. To have allowed them to own both for so long is not just a disgrace and a moral outrage, it's politically plain stupid.

Now they also own this fucking newspaper.

View discussion


stopduhmammals DavidEire

"And what makes you think non-whites can't become regressive and right-wing? are non-whites inherently virtuous?"

Reply Report


In Guardianista-land, yes, of course they are!

It's going to be interesting to watch just how far this doctrinaire newspaper shall go before its editors come to recognise their own racist, sexist and otherwise bigoted prejudices.


3h ago

Jesus, can you imagine a white journalist being given a platform to say that he is waiting and looking forward to, oh I don't know, South Africa being a majority white nation

Reply Report

SarmadR DavidHAMeron

That's not what he's saying though.
He's saying the nation is unjust. It is racist. And the only true reversal of unjust racism can come when there is an equality in race demographics.
South African example is a shrewd one, but you're trying to blot over historical details and context.
The white man has been supremely unjust in American history - and South African history. See why your example doesn't play out well?

Reply Report


"He's saying the nation is unjust. It is racist. And the only true reversal of unjust racism can come when there is an equality in race demographics."

Right-- because, clearly, and according to Guardian doctrine, everyone is a slave to an identity dictated by his skin-colour, her sex, "its" "binary" or "non-binary" gender-"orientation." Only such a view as that could explain putting up this bigoted shit for serious consideration.

May 13, 2016, 1:28am

Not the Grauniad at fault this time, but an example of how the media uncritically jumped on an anti-Corbyn bandwagon?

BBC may have shown bias against Corbyn, says former trust chair (Guardian)

Edited: May 16, 2016, 2:40pm

In response to:

US elections 2016

How Donald Trump emboldens bigots across the world

by Amana Fontanella-Khan

If there were a United Nations of the global far right, Donald Trump would be its undisputed leader. His message does not just resonate in the forlorn rust-belt towns of rural America: it travels far beyond the country’s shores. It is bigotry without borders.

Consider the incredible prayer session organized for him in New Delhi by a nationalist Hindu group last week. Amid prayer bells, incense and chanting, good wishes fluttered from the Indian capital all the way to the US. A poster made for the occasion declared Trump to be the “hope for humanity”.

Despite his unwavering “America First” nationalism, Trump’s message has struck a chord with the Hindu right because they share a common enemy. Long at odds with religious minorities in the country, it is no surprise that some Hindu nationalists approve of Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigration to the United States. “He’s the only man who can put an end to Islamic terrorism”, said Hindu Sena chief Vishnu Gupta. “He is the savior of mankind.”

They are not the only ones to hold Trump in high esteem. The far-right Greek Golden Dawn party support him. The founder of France’s Front National, Jean-Marie Le Pen, said he would vote for him. The Dutch leader of the Party of Freedom and anti-Islam campaigner, Geert Wilders, now tweets things like “Make The Netherlands Great Again!”. Meanwhile the head of Italy’s anti-immigrant Northern League party, Matteo Salvini, says he considers Trump “heroic” and added “we are on the same wavelength when it comes to many things”.

1 2 3 4 … 11 next

16m ago

Your thesis must have something going for it. I, too, am noticing an increase in bigotry in places. I think it's driven by people who are fearful, insecure and are ready to see enemies everywhere--even when they are more imagined than real. For example, only in the past month or six weeks, I heard a supposedly respectable national political figure in the U.S. state flatly that all voters of a certain category should feel duty-bound to vote for this political figure's favoured candidate--simply because, as women, these voters owed their allegiance to the candidate--Hillary Clinton.

That's open, flagrant, sexist bigotry. Somehow people are feeling more emboldened to display such bigotry. It's sad. What can become done? I think only better education to help people recognise bigotry when they'd otherwise overlook it.

Edited: May 17, 2016, 5:12am

"Corbyn more popular than ever among Labour Party members."


Probably--by my guess--7/8ths of employed people go to jobs everyday which they loathe, hate, or deeply dislike.

Fortunately, for the alleged 25% of Labour's members who don't really like Corbyn, they are free to stay, free to leave, free to go form their own party and free to dream on their nostalgic fantasies. They're even free to drop dead if none of these other possibilities appeals to them.

For The Guardian's character-assassins, perhaps it's "back to the drawing board."

Lord knows you'll keep looking for some way to undermine Corbyn.

I'm delighted. It seems that the "share-values" on the openly-traded market for "Corbyn Labour" and for "The Guardian's Public Influence" are inversely related.

Finally! A spot of _good_ news!

May 17, 2016, 10:07am

>78 proximity1: You should be gladdened that The Guardian is seeking qualitative data from the public concerning the performance of Labour's High Sparrow.

Edited: May 24, 2016, 8:18am

' However, Cole said that other senior police officers have concerns about the plans and (T)he Guardian (it's a newspaper! ) has learned separately that several British police chiefs are opposed or have serious reservations.

' “Unless you can define what extremism is very clearly then it’s going to be really challenging to enforce,” Cole said.'

' “We don’t want to be the thought police, we absolutely don’t want to be the thought police.” '

Bless your little blue-clad hearts! Okay, then: No "Guardian readers'-comments-moderator moonlighting work for you, then!

Edited: May 24, 2016, 6:18pm

It seems to me there is a British culture that has almost nothing to do with and is beyond the politically powerful and the aristocracy and that Corbyn speaks to that. I've always looked at the British Royal House and the aristocratic class as a bunch of parasites that the British population would be much better off without.

The issues in Britain aren't always different from the issues in the US of A. It's a good thing when there is someone who can make a popular impact speaking truth to power. For instance Martin Luther King who was a lot more than less hated by the elites.

May 24, 2016, 8:04pm

Unfortunately, Mr Corbyn's £3 cadres are not representative of the wider British electorate.

Edited: May 25, 2016, 12:21am

>82 theoria:

Well, that remains to be seen at a general election. They are certainly not representative of Labour MPs. If the latter were to stand with their duly elected leader, support him and cooperate with him, instead of undermining and back-biting him, Labour might have a chance. A party disunited is less likely to prevail with the electorate.

PS: Ex-Cameron aide attacks establishment 'bullying' of Jeremy Corbyn (Guardian)

Edited: May 26, 2016, 1:15pm

Once an institution starts to take up a deliberate practice of misrepresentation of facts, things have a way of spreading--like an infection, once-healthy areas nearby become, first, slightly tainted, then, gradually, more seriously infected by the practices as they grow more routine and become accepted as normal.

Things might begin as a modest ambition to defend an idea, a principle, thought to be important and necessary to "making the world a better place." In that way, what seem at first to be only the most trivial compromises with strict facts can be excused as not very important compared to the great goal b which everyone's attention is focused. Gradually these trivial points become entangled in other issues and earlier compromises require augmentation, shoring up, as critics who notice the small discrepancies speak up, causing embarrassment.

The next step is a crucial one because it concerns standing firm--refusing the critics' observations, "doubling down" over what is still quite trivial--or changing tack and reconsidering where and how things are going.

Supposedly, ostensibly, (again) "to make the world a better place for 'everyone,' " decision-makers at The Guardian at some point, it seems, have taken up their idea of feminism, of "the next set of challenges facing women" as they see it, and decided that they are going to throw great time, effort and resources into an organized effort to lead a full-blown crusade to change social habits and assumptions on matters they've defined as proper to feminism. If this were the 12th or 13th Century, there'd already have been battle deaths by this point.

To defend their notions of the feminism they imagine, the paper's writers and managers have had to first stretch the truth about men and women. Usually this involves claiming that women in general are victims or sufferers of something which strikes them unlike it strikes men. Usually, that's factually false and the truth has to be stretched in order to make and maintain such claims.

(more later)

May 28, 2016, 3:33am

Jonathan Freeland writes :

You can try to argue those point by point, starting out with a concession that, yes, on foreign policy, she’s a hawk. But then you’d note that Hillary was once demonised by the American right as a dangerous leftie “feminazi,” thanks to her decades-long record as a progressive and reformer. Or you could point to her actual policy positions on, say, Wall Street and inequality, and note that she has shifted leftward – partly under pressure from Sanders – and that, of the two, her proposals, according to most analysts, are the more serious and practical.

This, however, would be to miss the point. The choice in November will not be between Sanders and Clinton. Barring a freak event – or an FBI indictment over her past use of private email – the choice will be between Clinton and Trump. And on that, anyone on the left should know exactly where they stand.

If they’re struggling with that thought, a bit of recent history might help. In 1968, a lot of leftists fell in love with the Sanders-like, anti-war campaigner Eugene McCarthy, and could not bring themselves to vote for the Democrats’ eventual nominee, Hubert Humphrey: the result was Richard Nixon. In 1980, Ted Kennedy was the new darling. Plenty of his supporters couldn’t stomach Jimmy Carter: 27% of them voted for Ronald Reagan, so helping launch the Reagan revolution.

In 2000 many progressives found Al Gore uninspiring; they said there was little to distinguish him from George W Bush. Some insisted on “voting their conscience” and backing the Green party challenger, Ralph Nader, even in states like Florida, where the main contest was on a knife-edge.

Nader has always insisted that Gore’s failure to win that state, and so the presidency, was Gore’s fault and his alone. But the official (though suspect) tally had Gore lose Florida by just 537 votes. Very few of the 97,421 Floridians who voted for Nader would have had to switch to make the difference.

And what a difference. Gore was a trailblazer on climate change, sounding the alarm a quarter of a century ago. Imagine the impact he could have had if it had been him, rather than Bush, in the White House. To say nothing of the invasion of Iraq, which few believe Gore would have undertaken – an act the current secretary of state, John Kerry, privately describes as “the greatest foreign policy disaster in history”.

I’m aware this is a perennial dilemma for the left, one not confined to the US. Why should progressives always have to compromise, to back the lesser of two evils, to put electoral pragmatism first? Why can’t they decide that a centrist like Clinton is too flawed, too tainted to deserve their vote? Why can’t they keep their conscience clean and force the powers that be to change rather than always taking their votes for granted?

Those arguments have appeal – but they have to take second place at a time like this. Just as they did in 2002, when the French left held its nose and voted for Jacques Chirac rather than see a racist like Jean-Marie Le Pen become president. This is one of those moments, except easier. For Clinton is no Chirac.

So Sanders should fight his campaign till 7 June. His has been an extraordinary achievement, one that could lead to a new progressive movement in the US. But on that day in June he needs to change his tone, stop depicting Clinton as a corrupt pawn of Wall Street, and stop shredding her reputation in the eyes of the young, liberal and independent voters he has won over and whom she needs. He needs to endorse her with a full throat.

Otherwise he may well succeed in making her unelectable; her numbers are tumbling as it is. If that happens, the winner will not be him or the left. It will be President Donald Trump – and the darkness he will bring to America and the world.

Edited: May 28, 2016, 9:11am

#85--Clinton is no trailblazer on climate change as far as I can tell. Up until recently she was if not a fracking enthusiast something that wasn't far away from it. She's certainly taken plenty of money from the oil and gas industry. As well she was for the pipeline. Recently she has run into trouble in West Virginia over her coal mining remarks. Even so she has dodgy history when it comes to cleaner forms of energy and does not seem a person to me all that willing to take on the oncoming climate catastrophe that seems headed our way in the near future.

If we move the subject over to LGBT rights--she's hardly in the forefront either. Until a couple years ago she was still defending the Defense of Marriage Act--a very conservative position to be defending I might add. On minimum wage--the push in NYS to increase it to $15 was hardly the idea or work of Andrew Cuomo or Hillary Clinton--yet when it became law they congratulated themselves as the victors of the proposal. Up until that point her much more modest suggestion was $12.

Watching Jimmy Dore on youtube yesterday as he dissected Joy Behar of The View wondering to Bernie Sanders why couldn't he just get over Hillary's pro-Iraq war vote? One might ask the parent of a dead or wounded soldier the same question. Why not just forget about it? So....the dead, the physically and/or psychologically maimed, the suicides........the fact that America tortures now......that we continue to do collateral damage drone strikes.....that we have imprisoned some people for well over a decade without trial. Maybe Hillary didn't ask for all that but she's often touted her foreign policy experience and there are pretty good reasons IMO to question her judgement on a number of issues.

We'll get to corruption. Much more than the e-mails---the very possible collusion between the office of the Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation bothers me a lot. There seems to be connectable dots between large financial and political interests not only here but abroad and the Clinton Foundation and the office of the Secretary of State during her time as head. The Clinton's take money from just about every conceivable source without distinction to what they are or what they want. Foreign dictatorships, fracking companies, arms dealers, the private prison industry.

She used to be on the right side of the health care issue. Now she takes money from pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Living in Britain or Canada or wherever you are and if there is an actual socialized health care system it's easy to take all that for granted. Here in the United States there are lots of people not making a lot of money who cannot afford paying a health insurance company out of pocket. If it's a choice between eating or having a roof or ceiling over your head or the heat turned on in winter. The American government can always find money when we need to go to war. It can always find money to provision an overseas military base. We have 900+ of those. Our government defends other peoples while at the same time not giving a fuck about their own and if that statement seems a little over the top--just look at our incarceration ranking as compared to the rest of the world. We can find money to bail out investment banks. What the American government has a problem doing is finding money to invest in its own citizens. Sanders says we have an oligarchy. Well? Is it disputable? Anyway another issue with our health care system---for the people who can afford to pay is that what they can afford to pay absolutely can have an impact on the health care decisions they do make. Pulled tooth (covered) or root canal (not covered--$1000 you pay)? Would people have to have a think over that in Canada or Sweden? Your options on how to treat other stuff as well? What exactly your insurance company will cover and what it won't can be a big deal.

We can go and on--the stupidity of our War on drugs is another one. The main problem with Hillary Clinton is she's not a progressive even if a lot of voters continue to believe she is. She's just on the wrong side of too many issues--and pocketing a lot of campaign cash because she is. No way I'm voting for her. What other people do is up to them.

Edited: May 28, 2016, 9:52am

>86 lriley:

An excellent demolition of Freedland's idiotic commentary. I recommend you re-post your points in the readers' comments section beneath his column. When I first posted >84 proximity1: , the column wasn't open to readers' comments. But now it is. See the end of this post for the link.

Here is my own comment from the readers' comments to his article :

→ "Freedland has many problems making this argument and, as Trump puts it, "closing the deal."

"Many Americans--leftists included --have "seen the future" which Mrs. Clinton promises and they do not want it: many of them have eight years of experience of the Clintons in the White House--and I do mean Clintons with an "s." They're fed up with that and it's no wonder.

"To actually manage the electoral processes so that voters are left with a "choice" between the Clintons or Donald Trump is both the ultimate insult and the ultimate in admission that the political and electoral systems are thoroughly and corruptly owned and controlled by wealthy private interests which loathe democracy as an idea.

"These people are con artists proposing to coerce voters with a deliberately designed terrible choice of 'the lesser of two evils.'

"That was once a clever con-man's ploy; today it is a bankrupt idea which should not persuade anyone. Shame on Americans if they again fall for such a ruse. The Demo-publicans and the Republi-crats should see their bluff called--and raised by Bernie Sanders' bid.

"Now we have a clear choice and, before Californians vote, Mrs. Clinton and her rich and powerful backers should be put on notice: you're playing a busted flush and if you persist, we're going to call your bluff.

"Get out while you can or the Trump presidency is on your head, madam."


Freedland's column:

A plea to Hillary’s Democrat critics: don’t hand the White House to Trump

Edited: May 28, 2016, 2:14pm

#87--the problem with me and commenting on news articles is I'd have to sign up with the paper--filtering through their ads from then on or sign up to Google or some social media outfit like Facebook or twitter--something that I've very much avoided up 'til now. Reluctance to do so has stopped me from commenting on something or other many, many, many times but..........

Anyway something else that's coming along here is austerity for Puerto Rico and by the way Clinton wants it and Sanders doesn't. Who would have thunk?--but neo-liberals are still liberals, aren't they?--and if they're liberals they have to be progressives?--and by extension leftists then too?--or at least whenever it suits them. Austerity is a very dangerous precedent to be giving a US President--it's a free lab experiment on an American territory today could well wind up expanding into the country later. It will be great for our bank happy neo-libs and neo-cons to set up a small commission to rule dictatorially over the economic lives of Puerto Ricans . It's funny that some of the same people and interests who flatlined our economy didn't get austerity---they got bailed out.

May 28, 2016, 3:56pm

Tony Blair: Corbyn government would be a dangerous experiment (Guardian)

I find it incredible that a former Labour leader would be so negative about the current Labour leader.

May 28, 2016, 5:11pm

#89--it seems to me that the Blair govt. kept intact the economic agenda the Thatcher/Major governments accomplished--much as Bill Clinton kept intact Reagan/Bush 1's economic agenda and then Clinton dumped Glass-Steagal and going on to deregulate the financial markets. All of the Reagan's, Thatcher's, Clinton's, Major's, Blair's and Bush's categorize as neo-libs or neo-cons--similar in economic agenda reading out of Ayn Rand novels to script economic policy. They are peas in a pod.

Sanders and Corbyn are both populist politicians who have different ideas about economics that are more people centric than corporate/bank friendly. It doesn't surprise me then that Blair is upset that Corbyn would go down another path.

May 29, 2016, 1:07am

>90 lriley:

Yes, I agree with you on Blair, his policies and where he sits on the political spectrum. I suppose I'm just taken aback at the lack of party loyalty, party discipline, whatever one wants to call it.

May 30, 2016, 10:29am

The Guardian -- still breaking new ground in making itself --or showing itself to be-- irrelevant and useless to its thinking readers :


"In an age when even the powerful decry elites, we're all anti-establishment now" by
Ian Leslie

May 31, 2016, 12:26pm

RE :

"Ridiculing Brexiters is a sure way to lose the argument for staying in the EU" by
Gary Younge

my latest love-letter to the damnable and fucking useless Guardian of London :

"If, come 24 June, the liberal establishment should wonder what could have possessed voters to be so stupid and small-minded as to vote to leave the European Union, they could do worse than ponder whether they didn’t win people over precisely because they treated them as “stupid” and “small-minded”.

Include the editorial management of this newspaper in "the liberal establishment" and their like-minded readers who join them in treating the (probably more numerous) "Leave" cohort as imbeciles.

The prescriptive bent of this newspaper is arrogant beyond belief--and not only or mostly on this topic. The Guardian editors and writers--with you and one or two as notable exceptions (for reasons of which this article is a good example)--have zero moral authority, none, nada, zilch. And they go on as though they are completely oblivious to that.



E.g: If you routinely support the establishment in its regular defrauding of the public's rightful role in a responsive democratic order, expect that public to despise and distrust you.

If the government offers this same public a chance to say "No!"--to almost anything important-- any such scorned, maligned and locked-out public shall sieze that chance with a justified vengeance!

Jun 1, 2016, 10:50am

>94 John5918:

( from their report's copy-- saying more than they intended )

... "Afterwards, the Corbyn was criticised" ...

Lol! Classic Guardian "stupid."

Jun 1, 2016, 12:27pm

"Which is the world's most stylish city?"

The new face of Guardian journalism. Zero substance, zero interest, zero time or efforts offered to (or asked of) readers. Pure pap, fluff & crap.

It's now not only insulting to read The Guardian, it's embarrassing.

Edited: Jun 5, 2016, 4:37am

Published at "Off-Guardian" on May 26, 2016

The Web They Want: How a twitter wordsearch justifies internet censorship
by Kit

Readers' Comments on the article.

"Earlier this year the Guardian launched their new campaign – “The Web We Want”. It’s an agenda driven campaign to suppress free speech and protect the ancien media regime from the alt-news revolution, in the name of protecting ethnic minorities, female writers and the LGBT community from the all the hate that pours out of the privileged fingertips of all the white men on the internet.

"We have written extensively on what the Guardian really means by “the web they want”. We know their statistics are a farce and can see through their editorial double talk. Their place in a planned roll out of an idea is obvious, coinciding with political climbers from all parties making speeches attacking free speech in the name of freedom. Banning liberty because…won’t somebody please think of the children!

"When the Guardian talks about “taking action” against internet abuse, we know what they mean. They mean censorship. There’s nothing more need be said. But this latest story cries out for a response."

(full article at the link above this excerpt.)

Jun 5, 2016, 4:40am

RE :

"Trump, Brexit and demand for change: the year of the political outsider"

Typical of the new neo-liberal Guardian, this paper presents "change" as some sort of rare, freak outcome of the working of democratic practice instead of something that ought to be an ordinary aspect of people's working their will through these processes.

Rather than a hardly-changing band of elite technocratic insiders, Hey, everyone! it's the friggin' "Year of the 'Outsider'!" -- that is, for a weak and fleeting moment, average people 'get a look in,' are allowed to feel the illusion of actually mattering in the "democratic" processes.

What crap this is!

Notice, for example,

... "many suspect the genie will not go back into the bottle so easily this time around."

Yeah, wouldn't that just be terrible!

Edited: Jul 4, 2016, 8:37am

Classic characteristics of political propaganda on view

One of the hallmarks of life in really shitty times --times such as the lost decades from 1925 to 1945 in Germany--is that you're confronted with undisguised political propaganda.

For those who have never before seen a blatant example of a so-called mainstream newspaper practicing political propaganda, this story offers a primer. It has everything: canned quotes, savage innuendo, loaded language, manipulave selection of facts and a designed effort to distort the true events and their significance.

Joseph Goebbels would be proud of this fake news report:

Labour seeks leadership deal as Jeremy Corbyn stands his ground / "Unite" leader says unions ready to broker peace with Corbyn allies seeking to avoid historic split

Edited: Sep 28, 2016, 9:52am


Well, "Off-Guardian" (See >6 proximity1:) has gone "off the deep-end" and now they are practicing themselves exactly what they'd been preaching against at The Guardian of London newspaper.

In a sad and recent development, they've gotten it into their idiotic fucking heads that, in order to be fairly and consistently "skeptical," they're obliged to be "open-minded" about the mania known as the "9/11 truthers'" conspiracists.

So, that does it for me at their site. I post this to notify the interested reader that I no longer credit "" as worth any reasonable person's time.

My last post went like this--- they've probably deleted it, as they were doing that with my recent unapproved opinions about the 9/11 truthers' conspiracy--which I reject as idiotic nonsense, the delusions of paranoid cranks or agents provacateurs designed to discredit all conspiracy theories--especially valid ones, unlike the claimed deliberate clandestine demolition of the NYC World Trade Center towers, 1, 2 & 7. :


September 28, 2016


It’s now very clear you and this site have become the very kind of censorious. inolerant, doctrinaire and closed-and-bloody-mined thing you created it to oppose in The Guardian of London’s newspaper.

What a pity. I’m done with you–and I know you’ll be delighted. You don’t really want critical commentary here which doesn’t serve your favorite hobby-horses. This thread is an example of your doing serious harm to your project’s respectability and I understand that you cannot see that. So much the better. Your readership, like that of The Guardian, shall drop off. It’s what you deserve.