blackcatte, Catte, featured, media watch, UK

The “revolution” is being televised – & we should ask why

by Catte

There is something strange about the media coverage of the Grenfell tragedy. The BBC is giving over acres of space to the pain and anger of the residents. The Guardian’s front page currently looks the The Canary, and in its Opinion section Jonathan Freedland, of all people, is saying Grenfell will “forever stand as a rebuke to the Right”.

He’s correct of course, but that’s not the point. The point is Freedland, the BBC and the Guardian are the “Right” now and have been for many years, in so much as they have been, until a week ago, staunch defenders of the rabid, fascistic and despoiling policies that have characterised the “liberal” agenda since Blair. They have approved illegal wars, mass murder, “austerity”, mass surveillance, the despoiling of the NHS, the deprivation of the weak and vulnerable. They believe the suffering of the poor and powerless is merely a necessary adjunct to social “progress.”

So, what is going on here?

Maybe the “liberal” media is seeing the light and realising the years of deprivation have gone too far? Maybe the Guardian suddenly really supports social justice and the welfare state? Maybe Grenfell will be a catalyst for real change, ignite the dormant sense of decency in our champagne “socialists” and left-of-centre opinion-makers.

Well, maybe. But it doesn’t seem like a good bet does it?

Maybe the media are bandwagon-jumping. Following the story, not creating it because the social tide is currently too strong to ignore?

This is a bit more plausible, but the BBC and the rest of the tame media can easily ignore a crowd of ten thousand marching through central London when it wants to. They do similar things all the time. If they didn’t want us to know about this upsurge of anger wouldn’t they simply not talk about it, just as they didn’t talk about the mass anti-war demos and didn’t cover the anti-austerity demos, and (mostly) didn’t cover the huge crowds Corbyn was collecting?

I think when the BBC’s front page looks like this:

when social unrest is televised by state-controlled channels and when line-toeing neoliberals like Jonathan Freedland are rebuking the “Right” we need to be a bit more sceptical than to simply assume the good guys are suddenly in ascendancy and the media has no choice to but to scutter along in their wake.

There are not many examples in history where major news events or catalysing moments just happened through spontaneous popular movements, with the press corps and establishment running to catch up. Mostly even seemingly spontaneous events have been planned and provoked or exploited by vested interests of one sort or another. “News” isn’t an objective entity. It’s created by the act of narration. If you don’t tell the story the story isn’t “news.” The only reason we ever know an event has occurred is because the paid scribes were detailed to tell us it did. The Peasants’ Revolt may have started as a social protest of sorts but it ended up as a PR exercise for the Divine Right of Kings, and the extant narratives make sure Richard II got all the best lines.

This is the reality of what the establishment-serving media is. It doesn’t exist to pass on facts, it exists purely to create narratives. We shouldn’t just forget that when the current narrative appears to serve decent interests or to tell some sort of truth. Because it probably isn’t ultimately doing either.

Does it matter in this case? Isn’t any publicity good publicity if it helps bring justice and help to the victims of the Grenfell tragedy? If May can be arm-twisted into handing over cash, and if the publicity helps make sure such events become less likely in the future, does it matter what agenda the media may be following

To an extent that is obviously true. And let’s hope some good does come from the publicity being given to the anger of the people in the streets. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question and remain sceptical when the wolf slips on his sheepskin.


  1. A curious detail I hadn’t heard before @ 2:25… this resident of Grenfell says a team from the Fire Brigade came around the Saturday before the fire “to speak to the people in their houses… and check the alarms that they were working… and told us the protocol was to close your door because the fire door will withstand the heat…”

    • It’s all part of the psyop which is itself just a part of the strategy to foment class, race and religion divisiveness. Come on, St Aug. Do you really think that the Fire Brigade was round the building the week before? They’re all crisis actors. For me to believe any of these events is real I need to see some convincing evidence and that does not mean half-way credible-sounding crisis actors. We hear about all the people at the windows but we don’t see any except in vertical mobile phone footage where it’s hard to determine if the people are even in the building. We should see something that looks as if it could not be staged and we do not. We should see some genuinely distraught people and we do not. As per usual. Babies do not survive being thrown from 9th storey windows and the fact that the media is simply reporting this event as reported by a witness I think is just an example of how they treat us completely like idiots in these events … it’s just like the ludicrous story they reported of the heroic Pied Piper of Manchester who took children to the Holiday Inn … or was it the Premier Inn? … after the concert. It’s like they make us complicit because we accept these lunacies.

      • “It’s all part of the psyop which is itself just a part of the strategy to foment class, race and religion divisiveness. Come on, St Aug. Do you really think that the Fire Brigade was round the building the week before? They’re all crisis actors.”

        Your second sentence strikes me as peculiar, FG. Don’t get your logic.

        To be totally honest, I just think you’ve got a hold of a popular YT trope (Psyop) and can’t let go, but if all these witnesses are Crisis Actors, the level of the acting has suddenly improved so profoundly that we may as well surrender, because Verifiable Reality would therefore be so worthless, as a concept, that we can’t hope to detect or fight the illusions. But I don’t buy that. Not at all.

        I can tell the difference between the best actor in the world… and a real witness… when watching an unedited clip of c. 5 minutes. I’ve seen children give Grenfell witness testimony that was so seamless and convincing that they’ve have to be computer-generated holograms to be lying… and what argues AGAINST that is why on Earth would GOV go to the trouble, when it’s easier to kill a tower full of “nobodies” (a classification I fully admit applies to me)? I think you’re getting lost in a Pop Trope… you’re forgetting some very down to Earth facts. Real Estate not a factor, in your opinion?

        And why would they need to burn down a building, while faking many deaths, to “foment class, race and religion divisiveness”? It’s much, much simpler than that to achieve those goals and, in any case, that particular project (Race Hate) is an ongoing success with or without Grenfell. And, again: the witness/survivor testimony. I find quite a bit of it solid.

        I mean, fair enough, we disagree. but I think the “Psyop” trope is overwhelming the Logic, here.

        Also: what are your reasons for thinking that simulated deaths, in this case, are clearly preferable to Real Deaths, from the POV of TFIC? I haven’t picked that up from you, yet.

        PS “Babies do not survive being thrown from 9th storey windows” I think it’s an unlikely story as well… however, a while back a baby supposedly survived an 8-storey fall, into a man’s arms, in China. Bullshit or not, the notion that a fake hero story could be grafted onto a case of real deaths presents no contradictions in logic, We can easily sort Grenfell into “unlikely” and “likely” parts and still come away with “Real Deaths + Narrative Propaganda Agenda”.

        • St Aug, I tend to try to look at the evidence rather than question why they would do this or that or “wouldn’t it make more sense to do blah?” When you start doing that you get into the problem of the fallacious logic of argumentum ad speculum. No doubt I’m guilty of it myself but I really try to just look at the evidence.

          I cannot accept the child being thrown from the 9th storey regardless of what may have happened in China and I feel certain that if a child had been thrown there would have been someone to capture it digitally. From virtual start to finish I’d imagine there would have been people looking up at the building watching what was happening. Also, wouldn’t you think that the person who caught the baby would have been interviewed and quite a bit more would have been made of this and wouldn’t the baby have suffered some sort of injury even if it survived and wouldn’t this have been reported? Not to mention interviews with the baby’s parents, assuming they survived. (Doing the argumentum ad speculum myself.)

          If you can reply with links to all the videos you think show real testimony I’d be grateful. Maybe you haven’t got the links recorded so you can’t but ones you’ve linked to so far I don’t find particularly convincing are Lowkey’s interview with one of the inhabitants and another guy with a beard. There’s no sense of trauma to me – and this event would be extremely traumatic for those escaping the burning building and even moreso for those suffering the loss of loved ones or simply not knowing if their loved ones are dead or alive. When people are distraught they’re down on their knees, they’re weeping wildly, sounds emerge from them that have never emerged before, they lose complete sense of themselves and are completely caught up in their grief – this is what the people in the video of those who lost loved ones in the (suspicious) MH370 tragedy displayed. There is none of this … but I guess we just leave it at an impasse.

          • “If you can reply with links to all the videos you think show real testimony I’d be grateful.”

            FG, I’ve done that throughout the course of our debate.

            “There’s no sense of trauma to me… When people are distraught they’re down on their knees, they’re weeping wildly…”

            I think it’s a bit much to expect that from a Brother who’s one-camera with another Brother… speaking as a Brother myself. That guy comes across as a guy who saved his family’s life… he’s not feeling traumatized, he’s feeling lucky/ heroic/ angry. I think you have to have a wider selection of templates to choose from when judging human behavior. Also: as nutty/absurd as Robbie Parker’s on-camera behavior was the day after his “daughter” was “gunned down”, if Parker were the only Sandy Hook “parents” behaving strangely, it wouldn’t have been proof of anything. It was the fact that every single on-camera “witness/survivor” during the Sandy Hook event acted extremely peculiar (given the circumstances) and quite a few seemed to be bemused (and unable to remember the facts of their “childrens'” lives/deaths) that indicated a hoax.

            Seriously, I think it may be an experience thing. I’m 58 years old and I’ve seen so much, in so many different cultures and classes and countries, and what I’m picking up from the credible interviews I’ve seen attached to Grenfell is anger. A lot of those people understand that they survived an attempt to burn them alive and they’re angry… don’t expect them to behave the same way that some naive, middle class “White” people might. While a dozen set of parents seeming rather light-hearted about the supposed gun-deaths of their 9-year-old children is a blatant clue, there is, in fact, a nuanced range of behaviors we can see, across varieties of people, in reaction to a near-death experience.

            Anomalies do not necessarily, by default, contradict the Reality of an event… it depends on where the anomalies are placed. The baby-tossed-from-9-stories-and-caught can be entirely fabricated without contradicting the utterly plausible notion that a tower block fire killed a lot of poor people in London. Some witnesses could, in fact, be liars, for whatever reason (wanting to get in on the possible pay-outs later? Put up to it by TFIC wanting to control the narrative? Etc)… that wouldn’t logically undermine the “deaths in a tower block” theory. Now, had we seen no fire… or burnt out building… that would be different. The on-camera fire plus lots of credible witnesses (or superhumanly perfect actors, able to lie seamlessly through long interviews, without cuts or prompting) plus my knowledge of the fact that the lives of the Poor count for nothing to TFIC: that’s enough for me to believe this: poor people died in a tower block fire in London.

            Now: was it arson? Was that building actually designed to maximize fatalities? Those are the questions, imo.

            I still don’t quite understand why you think, in this specific case, that TFIC would go out of their way to simulate deaths when real deaths would be so much easier. The victims weren’t “White”, middle class Londoners whose relatives are capable of wreaking havoc… the victims were probably largely undocumented and at the very bottom of the pyramid. The only people easier to get away with killing are in Syria/ Iraq/ Afghanistan and so on.

            In this Empire, you can shoot an unarmed POC on-camera, in fact, and not even lose your job! So why would TFIC hesitate to burn a tower block full of us? That refrigerator is going to take most of the blame, right?

            • (Christ: full of typos… but I was interacting with Daughter and Wife while typing… so try to make sense of this anyway)

            • These events follow the same modus operandi. They can’t be killing people for real in one event but not the others.

              The first thing I do when looking at an event is compare what the media TELL us to what they SHOW us. Bingo! They tell us that there are people at windows but we see no people at windows except in vertical mobile phone footage that does not clearly indicate that the people are, in fact, in Grenfell Tower or in it when the building is aflame. Why no wideshot so we can see them properly surrounded by flames? Very significant lack of evidence here. There are quite a few things reported that are not captured digitally which in this situation I find extremely suspicious.

              In an event such as this one I expect PRIMARY evidence of people being taken from the building showing injury and I expect a sense of commotion and I simply do expect easily identifiable distraughtness despite what your experience may be. I expect people to show distraughtness in one way or another that I can identify and I do not see that.

              Then, as already stated there seems to be an agenda: the flammable cladding (at least two “witnesses” with one especially giving an extremely bizarre story of tearing off a strip and sticking it on his phone), the hiding of the number of dead people and the general shoddy treatment by the PTB. The cladding theme and the hiding-the-number-of-dead-people theme are expressed by different people and intertwined throughout the event making the notion of a real event overlaid with a false narrative impossible in my view.

              My feeling is that you think this event is real because it’s so plausible. So it is but I think the evidence shows that even though it’s plausible it’s still staged. And I think, according to Occam’s Razor, a staged event fits better than a real event. A real event cannot properly accommodate the obvious crisis acting that reveals an agenda … among the other usual crisis acting problems.

              And did you see this page in my comment above?

              So StAug, I think at this point, nothing you say could convince me that the event was real … and probably vice versa. It will be interesting to see how our opinions compare on the next one.

              • “So StAug, I think at this point, nothing you say could convince me that the event was real … and probably vice versa”

                This is true, FG! We’ll meet on the next one…! Hug

  2. “Hundreds of residents of a housing estate in north London have been evacuated overnight after fire inspectors warned that five tower blocks were at risk following the Grenfell Tower blaze.

    People living on the Chalcots estate in Swiss Cottage were woken throughout the night and told to immediately leave their homes after Camden council became the first in the country to order an evacuation of blocks at risk of a similar fire.

    Those affected described scenes of confusion as they were told the council “could not guarantee our resident’s safety” and asked to find alternative accommodation or report to a local leisure centre, where hundreds of mattresses had been laid out. Others were offered hotel rooms for the night.”

    Why in the night? Was this a safety precaution or a Gestapo raid? And why weren’t emergency accommodations organized in advance of this drastic action? Rhetorical questions all, of course: The Poor are always handled like cattle, as a matter of policy. Perhaps this is just the beginning of the Great Purge (moving the Undesirables away from the center) and a possible clue as to why the Grenfell fire “happened”. “Humanitarian Concerns” is just such an unbeatable cover for any insidious scheme TFIC come up with, domestically or abroad.

    Now let’s see if Gov can stick all the blame for Grenfell on the shoddy contractors and a few hapless inspectors… maybe even the Hotpoint manufacturers. Would it be beyond hypothetical conspirators to use the Hotpoint’s bad safety record as a means for getting the Grenfell fire to happen (that is, for covering the real method), or was this all just catastrophic serendipity?

    We may never know but it seems, in any case, that this Tragedy will be used to someone’s great advantage while The Poor take the fall and some patsies take the blame.

    • I agree.

      It’s not often that I feel anything remotely like a tinge of sympathy for white goods manufacturers but all the reports that point to a malfunctioning Hotpoint fridge/freezer as the cause of the fire seem to rely on the fact that there was a FF175BP model “at the centre of the tragedy” and a mysterious resident who claimed (amid the blaze apparently) that it was the cause of the fire, which started in his/her flat. Whether this person subsequently died in the blaze or has just disappeared isn’t clear. Hotpoint are in crisis management mode but are naturally saying that they are working with the authorities to obtain access to the appliance so that they can assist with the ongoing investigations.

      Yet the police already seem anxious to confirm, in proper on-the-ball sleuth manner, that it was the Hotpoint fridge/freezer that sparked the fire. Shouldn’t they be a tad more circumspect until the results are in from the investigation? All they seem to be going on is an unidentified witness to the start of the blaze who may, in the circumstances, have been easily mistaken in his/her belief that it was the unit that was the source. Apart from anything else, among numerous alternative possibilities, even if the fridge/freezer was the proximate location, it could be down to bad installation/connection to the mains, which would not be the fault of Hotpoint. This would be especially likely if it was a second-hand purchase.

      I’m always wary when there’s a rush to judgement. It doesn’t help anyone except those who can’t bear uncertainty – and/or those with an agenda.

      • “Shouldn’t they be a tad more circumspect until the results are in from the investigation?”

        Indeed! Fishy.

  3. DLL says

    Another way to look at it is that they have youtube channels and embedded videos. They can’t very well have hundreds of hours of video content only being produced by citizen journalists, and niche markets pandering to extremes, so they have to cover it, and they can’t have hundred of hours of BBC-produced content, slowly manipulating the debate, only being posted to their social media feeds and not covered on the main channel in any meaningful way.

  4. DLL says

    Perhaps they’re using the competing tensions of anger threatening to spiral out of control and the overt lack of organisation by the local council, the Government and the Greater London Authority to argue, in the future, that they should bring in the Army (‘Strong and Stable’) to command and control the scene.

    • Mel says

      Dialectics has been traditionally regarded as the heart, soul and modus operandi of the Left (ie Marx, et al).
      Not so… the Right are past masters and religious groups expert practitioners long before dialectics was formalised..think Jesuit/Jew…. both would lie to ensure that outcome is achieved. Obviously, a lot to say on that one…! 😀

      • Mel says

        And I think Gil Scott Heron was closer to the mark … or the Marx for that matter..! 😀

  5. Alan says

    Although I neither watch nor read either outlet mentioned, whatever their purpose, it isn’t to inform. The Guardian screen shot seems more interested in political fallout and some fake condolences courtesy of the Queen. The BBC although stuck in the wartime spirit it appears to cherish, carries the same. Empathy, compassion and honesty have no place in the mainstream British media, the less focus upon them the better.

  6. Addicted to Distracted By Bruce Charlton Makes for compelling if Uncomfortable reading.

    It will offend most readers but he has a very good point, I do not share his pessimism but the rest is hard to argue with.

    “People and events presented by the media as Good are always in reality bad; and people or events presented by the media as bad are usually (but not always) Good – and when bad people or events are not presented as Good, then they are condemned as bad for the wrong reasons.
    Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be presented as Good by the Mass Media; then it will invariably be the case that they also are said to be Good for the wrong reasons.
    Thus, the major output of the modern international Mass Media consists of only four categories:
    1. Good presented as bad
    2. Bad presented as Good
    (That is to say simple inversion)
    3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
    4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
    (That is to say explanatory inversion)
    These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.
    Therefore those who want to free their minds from the Mass Media must first avoid as much Mass Media output as possible, and secondly develop automatic negativistic behaviour towards the Mass Media output which they cannot avoid”.

    • Seamus Padraig says

      My sentiments exactly! Thanks for the link.

      • Hmmmm… while that excerpt (cited up-thread) is rather good, I’m not sure how well the larger argument works after visiting his blog and reading through excerpts from the book. I’ve become suspicious of the Author’s ideological POV, because he also writes:

        “The standard model by which people try to understand media bias is a government which tells the media what to say and vets what it says in all minute particulars: something like Stalin and The Party dictating what got written, and what was not written, in Pravda.
        That obviously isn’t what happens in the modern world – it would of course be impossible, such is the utterly vast volume of material being generated; and stupid people suppose this means that the media and government are independent the one of the other.
        The Mass Media is not biased to Leftism, it is Leftism; so of course, Leftism must come from within the media: the bias is generated by the Mass Media.”

        Well, no, I think not; I reject the apparent Structuralist argument and the characterization of Mass Media as inherently Leftist, for starters. Still, in quick bursts, some bits of his presentation are good.

    • Unfortunately, I had to un-like this passage, which is spot-on, after reading the Author’s blog of the book the passage comes from, because the book also features utter bilge like…

      “(Instead, and for the past several decades, probably the single most valorized group among the revolutionary Leftist parties of the UK have been… religious terrorists based in the Middle East whose primary motivation is the extermination of Israel! A more extreme inversion of Old Left priorities could scarcely be imagined!)”

      Ugh, no. Stupidly mendacious, in fact. I will not be purchasing this book.

    • From reading his blog, I now know that Bruce Charlton is a Zionist. Just want anyone, who (like me) was initially seduced by this neat little excerpt, to be warned about Charlton’s greater project.

      • Hi, St Aug, Charlton’s stuff is free to download, It is not perfect nothing ever is. Looking at the separate arguments that people make rather than the ideology of the writer is a good practice I think, and one that is increaSINGLY Rare.
        An example of Writers such as Charlton in the Past would be, say, Ezra Pound and his ABC of economics. Now Pound was a Fascist, that does not though diminish the criticism of debt based money and the Gold Standard, set out in his ABC of economics. I would argue the Same applies to Charlton, but also to Adolph Hitler and Mein Kamph. I have read all three, they provide insights to particular and peculiar world views but provide a perspective on events which the Orthodox Historical narrative obscure. Frank Harris is another writer worth reading, he was a friend and biographer of Oscar Wilde, yet his book, England or Germany a critique of social relations in the the UK , USA and Germany in the run-up to the First world war is a perspective you will not find in any standard History Text,

        Kant contrasts “apodictic” with “problematic” and “assertoric” in the Critique of Pure Reason, on page A70/B95. . These matters are to do with what we know as truth in the world which is sometimes called reality. Some commentators have been arguing a ´Post-Truth´ turn in the news this is a logical error in reasoning for as Frank Harris says in England or Germany, p.144 (

        ´´Genius welcomes criticism; the more the
        merrier, the higher the better. “Come look
        what I’m doing´´, it cries fearlessly, knowing
        that truth must help it and that in an open
        struggle between truth and falsehood, truth has
        nothing to fear. ´´

        The same goes for Tragedy and Hope by Caroll Quigley, he was writing from the perspective of an elitist and yet manages to provide the core of most of the John Bircher type narratives in Skousen and Alex Jones´s world views,

        ”The reader of Pope, as of every author, is advised to begin by letting him say what he has to say, in his own manner to an open mind that seeks only to receive the impressions which the writer wishes to convey. First let the mind and spirit of the writer come into free, full contact with the mind and spirit of the reader, whose attitude at the first reading should be simply receptive. Such reading is the condition precedent to all true judgment of a writer’s work. All criticism that is not so grounded spreads as fog over a poet’s page. Read, reader, for yourself, without once pausing to remember what you have been told to think´´.
        Henry Morley.
        the idea before it was clothed in words
        heard in minds, as uttered thought
        the communication of arranged ideas
        Thoughts lifting mist from the poet´s page.

        To set the stage, not in the round
        but, to see the scene in the sphere
        Which actors will the playwright lay
        on the page´s narrative to steer.

        Quiggleys words.p.232 tragedy and Hope.
        ´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack
        of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretense that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their
        reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”
        Foucault. the episteme.

        ´´would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be
        acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as
        scientific.”[1] Michel Foucault.

        the Pragmatist in me inspired by C S Pierce my favourite modern philosopher and one of the finest logicians that have come down to us says this.
        CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: In order to
        reason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtues
        as intellectual honesty and sincerity a
        nd a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientific
        inquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them
        to the laboratory and the field has been a craving to
        know how things really were … (1-34).
        [Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake
        (1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth with in
        tentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235).
        [When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines wh
        at the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which
        determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham
        reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men
        come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative….

        Just my 5 penneth worth. But read widely and drink deeply of the pool of all knowledge. Judging a book by its cover was always an overrated past time in my opinion.

        • ” Looking at the separate arguments that people make rather than the ideology of the writer is a good practice I think…”

          That’s certainly an absurd position to make. I’m not going to “follow” a Right wing Zionist’s work just because bits and pieces of what she or he writes make sense when isolated from the whole. Eg, plenty of White Supremacist theorists wrote things against BHO which were, in bits, similar to my critiques of BHO, but what counted was the profound ways in which they differed from my POV and their greater agenda, which is Evil.

          “Judging a book by its cover was always an overrated past time in my opinion.”

          That’s the opposite of what I’m doing: I’m judging a Right wing Zionist Trojan Horse by its texts.

            • I do not doubt that it seems absurd to you. It is not that way for me.
              To Argue that the Context of any argument advanced by any person at any part of their body of work must necessarily be given a context as the whole Body of their work is I think the absurd position.
              I do not know and neither do I care if Bruce Charlton is a Zionist. I am confident in my own Opposition to Zionism, and accept that others have a different opinion and probably a quite different Context.
              In short, there are many sides to all questions. And I find that the Jain conception of Syādvāda has much to recommend it. It

              “is a theory of qualified predication, states Koller. It states that all knowledge claims must be qualified in many ways, because reality is manysided.[30] It is done so systematically in later Jain texts through saptibhaṅgīnāya or “the theory of sevenfold scheme”.[30] These saptibhaṅgī seem to be have been first formulated in Jainism by the 5th or 6th century CE Svetambara scholar Mallavadin,[31] and they are:[29][32][33]
              Affirmation: syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
              Denial: syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
              Joint but successive affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
              Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
              Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
              Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
              Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable”.

              • “I do not know and neither do I care if Bruce Charlton is a Zionist. I am confident in my own Opposition to Zionism, ”

                That the self-undermining contradiction, implicit in these two statements, is not obvious to you… is the reason I can’t take your argument seriously. Imagine writing the following in support of, say, David Duke:

                “I do not know and neither do I care if David Duke is a Racist. I am confident in my own Opposition to Racism… ”

                One couldn’t help questioning the cogency, validity or sincerity of the commenter’s “Anti-Racism” after reading such a remark, no?

        • PS Being in possession of, or citing, numerous texts is of no value if one doesn’t know how to read or decode the texts; people of the Radical Skepticism community (that’s the loose term I use for “us”) too often cite Quigley as some kind of whistle-blower when he was, in fact, an apologist… at best he was playing a double game. The mere fact that the flagship crypto-Right winger of the NeoLiberal movement (Bill Clinton) cited Quigley as a mentor is all you need to know.

          Regarding Charlton’s assault on “Left Wing Media”: who does Charlton think the average owner of a Global Media Empire resembles, Billy Bragg? The Media Owners are Right wing and they serve the Corporate War Machine, which is Right wing. But contrary to popular (Leftist) belief, the Right wing are neither incompetent nor dumb, and they’ve been using Left/Liberal Cover to get way with war-making, genocide, asset-stripping Serfs and every other Evil for at least a century. Before that they hid behind the faux-Morality of the Church.

          Writers like Charlton attempt to gain traction among gullible types on the other side of the ideological fence, but his technique is too crude to work (he could learn a thing or two from Lyndon Larouche, who tucks his poison much deeper within the folds of the otherwise-interesting info he sometimes offered); in the posted (up thread) excerpt I initially liked, Charlton does a pretty good job of describing/ decrying Right wing, Zionist propaganda techniques… which only makes Charlton interesting until one discovers, a few paragraphs later, that Charlton is a Right wing Zionist.

          Sorry. He needs to polish his Bullshit a little harder.

          • ST Aug, you are welcome to your own self-congratulatory Dogma.
            I if you wish to discuss the Semiotics, Semantics and Logic of media, Media Discourse and Social Relations I am more than happy to do that.
            First of all though If you wish to discuss things with another person it is as well to ask them if they believe something when they are available to answer the question, Ascribing beliefs employing your own EGO projection does not free yourself from the thought prison of EGO and Political Correctness.
            Where is your evidence that Charlton is a Zionist, I have not come across any in what I have read of his work.
            On David Duke, he is a self-declared White Supremacist, I have seen evidence of this, even so, if Duke, for instance, advance arguments regarding say AGW CO2 induced Climate Change I would look at his arguments and not dismiss his Belief or otherwise based upon his objectionable views to me on Racial Equality and Eugenics.
            This is an interesting comment along this theme from a friend , funnily enough on Charlton as well.

            Adrian Bailey
            Adrian Bailey More or less what I find with Charlton, Roger. Easy and thought provoking, occasionally tipping my ideas upside down. Truly, there is no reason why a conservative can’t be a great thinker. Hitchens, though, for me at least, and many like him are at best quick witted journos (Spiked comes to mind) stating the obvious – such as when, so often, rhetoric and emotionalism once stripped away reveal an empty space. As – to me – many of these libertarians are feeding into political debate at some level (beyond their specifically political articles) I’ll happily employ a bit of emotive rhetoric in the name of ‘strategic essentialism’. Rees-Mogg, I didn’t realise had an intellectual output to be honest about, but I haven’t looked. I just like making mischief by using pictures of him looking daft 🙂

            I will update out own discussion on My Blog as it develops St Aug.

            • “ST Aug, you are welcome to your own self-congratulatory Dogma.”

              Thanks for that! Laugh

              If Charlton were writing original thoughts or introducing new research, perhaps there’d be an argument to rescue the useful bits from the poison. But the brief excerpt, from Charlton’s texts, that I initially liked, I liked because I agree with it, not because I’d never thought it, or seen it in other forms, before. In lieu of manifest Genius popping up, here and there, in the texts from a Right wing Zionist, I prefer reading writers (some brilliant) who are neither Right wing nor Zionist. You are obviously free to read Charlton and sing his praises, but your argument in support of his texts (and their usefulness to non-Right wingers) remains, in my opinion, weak.

              Why not cite a passage from Charlton you consider brilliant and original?

              • St Aug, My own tastes and recommendations regarding literature, Art or Political economy can be found in the link to my Good Reads Page on My Blog.
                I do not pretend to know or seek to persuade I am only learning ever, and not qualified to Judge or indeed prepared to be judged by you or anyone.
                Asked for evidence regarding Charlton I note you have offered none.
                It is not my place or indeed a role I volunteer for myself to cheerleader anyone Left or Right. My method is merely to speak as I find.
                ““Son,” my father continued, “European nations refused to consider the Gypsies equal to themselves for similar reasons the Negroes are considered inferior to the Caucasian race. I want you to remember that the sin of discrimination pales in comparison to extermination. My dear son, I hate to think of what the future of Shívó’s community would have been if Hitler’s Aryan view and dictatorship had prevailed. We are still living in a world of nations who think of themselves more than of others and, most of the time, behave like the green wheat.” Then, quoting an ancient Arab proverb, he said,

                Up and above keeps its head while green is the wheat;

                It is capable of bowing only after ripe and ready to reap.

                “People, like wheat,” my father told me, “must reach maturity in order to understand, appreciate, and accept. They must learn to see, to hear, and to behave. Behave not like the green wheat, a poorly educated man or an impolite person, but like the ripe wheat.”

                “My dear son,” he continued, “I want you to remember that only an ignorant man is rude, and only a crude person is capable of bragging about his racial superiority. Looking down upon and insulting another man is not in the character of polite men. Some men are ignorant. Others are arrogant. Sometimes people are arrogant because they know no humility. At times, some people are insecure, cowardly, and afraid, and they have to learn to be brave. You have to learn about these qualities of men. It is a hard way of learning, but you have to learn it on your own.”

            • “On David Duke, he is a self-declared White Supremacist, I have seen evidence of this, even so, if Duke, for instance, advance arguments regarding say AGW CO2 induced Climate Change I would look at his arguments and not dismiss his Belief or otherwise based upon his objectionable views to me on Racial Equality and Eugenics.”

              Well, only if David Duke were also a Climate Scientist or a Scientist at all. In other words: if he were presenting a special argument, that I couldn’t find anywhere else, which somehow advanced or clarified the debate, and his position could not in any way be detected to support his Sinister Agenda: sure. But that’s never the case.

              Charlton is a mediocre opinionator I would welcome as a Fellow Radical (because we need the sheer numbers)… if he weren’t the opposite of a Radical. But he is: he aligns himself (as a Right wing Zionist) with Hegemony. The details of his presentation are irrelevant and they certainly don’t mitigate the sins of his greater project.

              We of the “Left”/ Left need to be more discerning and, also, a little less self-underminingly “open minded” when it comes to the Kool Aid. What we need to understand is that the Right/Left divide is not symmetrical… the two sides are not equal in force. The Left was raised and educated (aka Propagandized) by Right wing institutions… we are, unfortunately, an anomalous appurtenance on a vast, Right wing entity that is much older than living memory. It’s the context for everything we know and we are susceptible to its many tricks and its seductive pseudo-paradoxes. The Academy is a Right wing institution… the philosophers that are popularized are popularized because they serve/served an Imperial agenda (what is, eg, “Dasein” but the secret rallying cry of Europe’s carving up of “sub human” Africa in the 19th century? Interesting side note: the film “Being There” contains winks at this critique).

              I’d argued that we start off, as Radicals, being divided, at best. Fanon’s work regarding the double-consciousness of “Negritude” applies to the Radical as well. Your advocacy of Charlton’s tainted material is a symptom of this, in my opinion. But my opinion is of no importance and I fear this “debate” is doing nothing more, for either of us, than eating up part of a perfectly good Sunday.

              Not that I write all that without expecting a rebuttal! Laugh. But I probably will let you have the last word, at this point, unless you come up with something genuinely interesting…

  7. Kevin Morris says

    I’m old enough to have seen events like this and the paranoia that often comes in their wake many, many times before. Last week and the day before the fire I was speaking with an old friend about his son. ‘He’s really into the whole conspiracy thing at the moment’. I responded that he does have a point, but added that it really does no good to spend too much time brooding on the fact.

    Forgetting the whole MSM and paranoia issue for a minute it is arguable that all the media are doing is their job. Perhaps it has come rather late in the day but that is at least understandable because what we have had, certainly since the mid eighties is the post postwar consensus. In her memorable phrase Margaret Thatcher told us that ‘There is no alternative’ and loads of us, including many politicians of the left believed her. Ultimately, the likes of Blair and Brown believed they could do it better but after those thirteen years of relatively civilised government we were thrown into, ‘We’re all in it together’ whilst knowing that, no we bloody well aren’t!

    What happened on Wednesday laid bare the dishonesty of TINA and other blandishments from politicians who didn’t care and perhaps for the first time since the seventies, it is becoming clear that there has got to be an alternative. Frankly, if the utter rawness of what happened on Wednesday and what has followed is starting to get through, then I for one applaud the media for reporting that fact. It’s now up to the progressive politicians of this benighted country to seize the day.

    It’s about bloody time they did!

  8. Turn on the Comments says

    Did anyone read yesterdays Telegraph?
    Read these links. Makes for some interesting additions to this article.
    If the so called lefties really wanted to help, then why could not the rich ones, like Lilly Alan give some of her house to shelter the homeless?
    What does Corbyn think his policy of commandeering empty homes do to the economy? Now he is saying that the UK government has the means to “occupy it, compulsory purchase it, requisition it.” But how does the law work? I bet the government would soon see itself in court if they did take any action like this.
    Commandeering is surely only used in times of war.
    If the EU can give money to help the homeless after those terrible fires in Portugal, and if they really want the UK to stay in the bloc, where is their money for this terrible disaster?
    As for May are we not already seeing moves being made by the Chancellor to be PM? Has he not said “Grenfell Tower cladding is banned in the UK” has he also not criticised the way the Conservatives fought the general election campaign? Go on Hammond make your move!

    • anon says

      Lilly Alan did in fact give shelter to the homeless.

    • Some of the firefighters said the scene was like a warzone re your comment on commandeering. In a borough of empty houses then it makes complete sense to suggest some are used to help the homeless.
      Re Hammond, none of them will make a move as they know that it will undermine their already very shaky grip on power. If even Boris ‘on a permanent leadership campaign’ Johnson is keeping a lid on his aspirations then that tells you how much they know that this government is walking a tightrope.

  9. Matt says

    This article questions the narrative. The answer? It’s actually simple and not because the media “cares”. The media didn’t care in 2002 when hundreds of thousands ordinary British citizens marched in London twice against Blair’s Iraq War. I remember going to a pub in London shortly after attending my 2nd march and watching the BBC’s scant coverage which made the protests look like a picnic in Hyde park with a few friends. No, the answer is not in the media finding its lost moral compass, the answer is simple: The EU and it’s desperation.

    Brexit has threatened both its and Washington’s authority and will eventually take more countries with it. It’s no secret that Corbyn makes easily pleasing promises (Note: As did Blair’s Labour did before bathing in PFIs to “save” the NHS, which we are still paying for), but, in regards to the EU, Labour have been weak and focused more on their Remoaning minority, gathering more support from the youth through peer pressure. The UK embraced the US’s ‘High School’ mentality years ago and I lived through it and noticed it and hated it and now the young know no different and call May names with the cool kid Corbyn and slap her lunch tray from her hands. You’d think May was directly responsible for Grenfell the way media play it, with no a mention of Sadiq Khan’s culpability as London’s Mayor.

    The EU is desperate and the EU and US power groups want May’s hard Brexit to end and so the media faithful to Washington, attempt to oust her by association with “Austerity” to this “accident”. It’s also no coincidence that Merkel is now opposing the new US sanctions against Russia. The EU has been made to tidy their act up by Brexit and will do anything to survive and Grenfell provides the momentum for calls for May to step down and thus a hard Brexit avoided, whilst the EU stands at the open door like a jilted lover hoping the UK will turn around and come back. If it’s smart, it won’t.

  10. Wow! Am I the only one to suggest that this was a staged event? I cannot believe it. There are a ton of videos on YouTube pointing to so many elements that suggest staging. The most convincing one I think is this guy reading his script. I mean, seriously … And, of course, as is stated in the article – the massive media. Massive media is always a clue to staged event.

    And there’s that same similarity to the Manchester Bombing. We’re told things we’re not shown. Why so many “eyewitness reports”? We live in the digital age. If a baby really were thrown from the 9th or 10th storey and caught and saved wouldn’t there have been someone to capture it? Folks, it’s an impossibility and it’s no surprise at all that it no one was there to capture it cos it didn’t happen, did it? Where is the convincing footage of anyone looking as if they’re going to get burned alive or anyone who’s suffered injury from fire? Where is the reality to this event? All we see are people who seem like crisis actors.

    Peaky Saku sounds as if he’s speaking from the heart, doesn’t he? But you know what? I think he might be an agent provocateur. And the constant reference to him “swearing on the BBC” when he’s a supposed witness on the street sounds very stagey.

    The power global elite are hotting up the fomenting of civil unrest and it’s going to get ugly and THEN they’re really going to clamp down with their fascist rule.

    • billybakke says

      Masses, literally tens of thousands of people all over London (me included) know people that where directly involved, whether fire fighters (in my case) or the friends and family of victims. Not every tragedy in society is staged! You give to much power to the powerful by such assertions. You disenfranchise and belittle the voices and the real grievances of the working class and the victims who have suffered. That is not to say that the information and the narrative around this tragedy is not being controlled, distorted and used by those jockeying for power, within the UK and elsewhere? But I would respectfully suggest that you come to London, that you visit the area and the communities affected before disrespecting the reality of their grief, loss and tragedy with such speculative theories. Evidence-less musings like this seem to me to serve no purpose other than to obfuscate and fracture dissent.
      You call out agent provocateur as you provoke wildly!

      • DLL says

        Even in ‘real’ events, there would also be pretend victims, survivors and volunteers, both to help control the narrative in the mainstream media and to influence the politics amongst griefing families and survivors. The attempted dispersment of the families to places like Manchester, Birmingham, Peterborough etc would further frustrate any political organisation or collective unity amongst the families.

        • billybakke says

          Most of us on here now the reality of Gladio and the now in play Gladio B. We know the reality of the on going ‘Strategy of Tension’. We know that the those in power literally have no boundaries when it comes to running Psyops and false flags to control and manipulate public opinion. But those who think a false flag is staged by actors do not understand how the world works. Terrorists are real. The attacks are real. They are carried out by idiot Salafist fuckbags who believe in what they do. Does this mean that these dimwitted extremist are not being manipulated by outside forces, of course not. The US and the Saudis have been playing this game for half a century. From Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq to Syria, Libya and now the Philippines. The delicious irony of the fact that Islamist terrorists are in fact an arm of US power is totally lost on the cunt who stabs people to death in London and blows up children in Manchester. I do not trust those who constantly seek to undermine attacks with childish narratives about actors and pretend victims.

          The tragedy of Grenfell is REAL. It is a harrowing lesson in capitalist greed and neo liberal selfish profiteering. It is an event which has created so much anger that even the MSM realise that they have to acknowledge it. What is the purpose of muddying this narrative with speculative theories, when the ‘truth’ can be used to punish those responsible and hold to account those who are guilty. As this article points out we must be wary of the MSM and the repositioning that is being attempted by the so called left commentariate. The general election has only served to illuminated the inherent hypocrisy within the voices of power and the corporate funded media. Voices of dissent (within the UK) are for the first time in a generation seeking the ascendancy. The MSM is panicked. Wild speculation only serves to bolster those who wish to shut down debate and i for one would argue that some/most of it is just disinformation and itself part of the strategy of tension!

          • DLL says

            “We know that the those in power literally have no boundaries when it comes to running Psyops and false flags to control and manipulate public opinion. But those who think a false flag is staged by actors do not understand how the world works.”

            The use of ‘actors’ is no different than using agent provocateurs. ‘no boundaries’ would mean cold-blooded murder, using agents to pose as survivors (in and amongst real victims) in order to help control any narrative or a completely staged event, You yourself are visiting a site which ran an article about ‘actors’ being used in a false-flag attack in Syria only the other day. If there were interviewees bearing false witness, then you have to consider that possibility.that the fire was started deliberately (you may have to consider it anyway) and that the ‘fridge fire’ maybe something of a red herring or that it occured because of a deliberate power surge.

            From the PTB point of view, there’s good reasons to use a completely staged event. The initial cost of the operation is higher and more complex in terms of set-up, but then they don’t have much longer term difficulties of dealing with families and mutual-support organisations, like in Hillsborough and no-one with ‘interested person’ status to turn the pushed narrative in on itself.

            If you’re better than the mainstream media, then you would name your fireman friend, in the interests of verifiability, otherwise using it in your arguments is underhanded and should be retracted.

            If there are at least three survivors who start laughing as soon as they go off camera, and another set who are laughing on camera – and most of the witnesses or volunteers used are constrained to a frequently used group of about two-dozen or less people (although there are more benign explanations), then you can’t ignore the fact that some may have been planted to help control the narrative.

            • billybakke says

              I would admit to actors being used in Syria and the false flags there being completely staged. That society is unfortunately so dysfunctional, through years of terrible warfare that such false flags are possible. Yes i think that the powers that be would rather cold boldly kill than leave themselves open to expoure through all the complication that staging events would create in the West, to think otherwise seems to me naive. Of course i will not name my friend who is a fireman. To ask me to do so is absurd! To call me argument underhanded is, i think a personal attack that is unwarranted and will only stifle debate. Good luck with your theories.

    • The Oddities in this one look like Damage Control, imo. I think something awful has happened (unlike re: Manchester, we can see very clear footage of the disaster: a burning/burnt building) and people in power are going to be liable and there’s going to be a panicked effort to limited the extent of that liability. Unless TFIC set the fire (cui bono? Wouldn’t seem to be anyone, in this case) and there was foreknowledge, I don’t think there’s a coherent plan in place to keep certain powerful people from being imprisoned or fined in a huge way; Media may well be attempting to help these powerful people in the aftermath. Some witnesses seem a little “off” but others seem far more convincing that any witnesses I’ve seen in connection with any “terror” events of the past 20 years.

      Now, the famous Riots of 2011 struck me as fishy, in that the Poor were deliberately taunted (with the Mark Duggan death and the insensitive handling of it) into exploding… with agents provocateurs used as accelerants… the subsequent fires performed a “service” for powerful landowners who wanted to rebuild anyway (wasn’t there an Historical and “protected” building in the way of redevelopment….?) (picture of that building here: No one powerful could take the blame for the 2011 Riots; a “cui bono” approach to that one yields plausible results.

      Grenfell strikes me as different. Again: maybe someone set the fire for nefarious reasons, but this isn’t fitting into one of those familiar TFIC scenarios. This strikes me as one of those “Third World” disasters in which the Poor are too often and randomly martyred.

    • For example, I’ve never seen an interview with an FF “terrorism survivor/ witness” that rang this true; this is a useful comparison to all the standard “crisis actor” fakes we see all the time: this guy is clearly recounting an actual experience:

      • StAug, StAug, what are you saying? The global power elite finally got to you? Yeah, this guy is just a better crisis actor. You know how tough an actor’s gig is. We just have such low expectations that when someone seems half-way credible we tend to believe them (funnily enough though someone on YouTube doesn’t think he’s so great). What about this guy though – and notice the tablet under the reporter’s arm in the last second – one can only infer that that’s what he was reading from –

        You desperately need to take a trip to YouTube and search “Grenfell Tower” “hoax”. There are some excellent videos. A new hoax analyst to watch is Sky Watcher Tommo.

        We see very clear footage of the disaster because they want the building to come down. In fact, it seems it may have been scheduled for demolition (suggest watching the whole video) … just as they wanted WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 to come down on 9/11 … not to mention their desire for the virtual destruction of the other buildings at the World Trade Centre … and now they’re probably going to bring down other buildings on the strength of Grenfell. Also, it’s very easy to evacuate people from a building prior to setting it aflame, if indeed that’s even required. Perhaps it was unoccupied. Setting off a real bomb is a whole different story especially when you don’t want to destroy property.

        What we don’t see is very clear footage, if any, of the injured. We see some body bags but nothing, of course, could be easier to stage than body bags.

        This hoax analysis video shows footage of loved ones of those who died in the MH370 crash. I was amazed to find myself burst into tears watching it. I think it’s so psychologically damaging to constantly watch crisis actors (whether you believe that they’re real or not). What a contrast.

        • “StAug, StAug, what are you saying? The global power elite finally got to you?”

          Ha ha! Nah. I just don’t see compelling evidence that this is a hoax; I mean, maybe it is, but I don’t see the jaw-dropping cluster of red flags that this was in the general sense faked. The claim that a cheaply-constructed building full of poor people caught fire isn’t an extraordinary claim, so it doesn’t require extraordinary proof. To claim that someone deliberately blew himself up in order to kill teen aged girls in order to send a political message: that’s an extraordinary claim, and, in the absence of compelling evidence, I don’t buy it.

          I just take these events one at a time, on a case by case basis. When dozens of parents go on camera after their children were supposedly gunned-down and they fail to cry and they seem giddy, even, in some cases, and forget the proper details of their children’s lives and/or deaths, I can reasonably assume that’s evidence of fakery. But I don’t see enough evidence of fakery with the tower fire (yet) and I’m certainly not running around claiming that anyone who doubts Grenfell is “disgusting” because “people died” and all that. I think it’s important to remain clear eyed and to require a certain level of compelling evidence either way.

          My only question (thus far) is: was the fire set on purpose?

          “We see very clear footage of the disaster because they want the building to come down. In fact, it seems it may have been scheduled for demolition”

          Well, yeah, which might indicate arson, but how does that indicate that no people were involved? If the witness video I cite is a performance and that guy is an actor, he’s better than anyone I’ve seen since Pacino! Laugh

          If some other witnesses seem dodgy or false, that could well be because someone wants to control how the narrative plays out.

          My question is: if they wanted to bring that building down and you agree that it actually burned, cui bono in the case that the deaths were faked? What advantage in faking the deaths in this case?

          • Eg: all my experience on Earth tells me this witness isn’t lying/acting:

            • I’ve watched, very closely, about a dozen witness/ survivor videos now and they’ve all been extremely convincing. So, in my opinion, I know at the very least that people fled a burning building in the middle of the night. I also know, from convincing witness testimony, that the building had a lot of people in it and that, if anything, more people died than is being admitted. Comparing the witness/survivor testimony I’ve seen from Grenfell, with the witness/survivor testimony from so many famous crises of the recent past, I’d say the very convincing Grenfell testimonies make testimonies from Sandy Hook, Boston, Aurora, et al, seem even more staged/scripted than they already seemed (if that’s possible).

              The questions I’m left with are: is the story about the faulty refrigerator (supposedly starting the fire) true? If it’s not true, was this a case of arson? If it was arson, what was the purpose? No particular Theory stands out, as yet.

              If witness/survivor testimony is available in an event like this, that’s the first thing I look at. The first objective is to judge the veracity of the testimony. Watching videos of people analyzing anomalies is only useful immediately, imo, in the event that witness/ survivor testimony is unavailable or clearly false. Bearing in mind the tremendous volume of Deliberate Disinfo that springs up around every major “news” Event, I pick through the ALT ANALYSIS vids very carefully in the days and weeks after something happens. A lot of those channels are run by hucksters and Cog Diss agents.

              Above all I trust my common sense and my ability to judge human behavior (using a sample size greater than one or two subjects); I can’t go with Default Hoax thinking any more than I can go with Default Not Hoax thinking.

              So, nope, not Brainwashed yet, FlaxGirl! Laugh

              • (PS: just so you know: I was not the one who down-voted your comment! I wouldn’t do so because I think you’re sincere and I don’t take it personally that you think I’ve been duped on this one, Flaxgirl. The struggle continues! Unity!)

          • I think faking the deaths was just part of the series of trauma-based mind control psyops they’re bombarding us with – they like to keep up the terror business no matter whether it’s a suicide bombing, mass shooting, vehicle rampage or fire tragedy.

            I suspected it was a staged event after about 20 seconds of it appearing on the screen without knowing the first thing about it … but I don’t think I’m suffering from confirmation bias :). Here are five things I think that expose the event was staged (with real fire) – but I think there are plenty more.

            Witness says that when workers came to install insulation he tore a bit off and lit it with his lighter to demonstrate to them that it was flammable.

            Witnesses selling the I-know-a-fireman-who-told-us line.

            Analyst explains how it’s impossible to drop a baby from a 10th story. (You could refute this by saying that it was just an “eyewitness report” but with these events the media always seem to be suspiciously reporting “eyewitness reports” when, firstly, you’d think that the event would have been captured digitally and secondly, as it sounds impossible, the media should have done a little investigation to verify the “eyewitness report” before reporting it themselves.

            Inhabitant who seems like a crisis actor and smiling friend

            Man rescued after 12 hours. Why isn’t there media photography of this? A vertical mobile phone size allows a narrow focus so that we can’t see the state of the building or if this man is even in Grenfell Tower.

            Where is evidence of a single injured person? Where are the people being taken away in ambulances? Where are the people jumping from the building? – Just like Manchester except that there was a real fire whereas there was no bomb blast at Manchester.

            • “Analyst explains how it’s impossible to drop a baby from a 10th story.”

              Well, what I believe I detect is an overlay of a false narratives to add, possibly, some feel good “hero” stories to diffuse the stark horror of the way these people died as devalued humans; or narratives to distract from Government culpability… general Ass-Covering.

              But the survivor interviews I’ve seen ring totally true, for me. I think, again, that either the whole thing was a terrible accident made possible by Third World conditions, or the blaze was Nazi arson related to development schemes and Racist disregard for non-White Life.

              I don’t doubt people died in that fire; I think, if anything, the deaths are profoundly under-reported. False Flags and Psyops aren’t the only tools in the Psychopath Toolkit, Comrade!

              • As I said in my other comment, StAug, if you can show me something that looks definitively as though it couldn’t have been staged I’d be grateful. I’d think in a real event it shouldn’t be too difficult. Can you show me anything that resembles this?

                While some witnesses may not seem obviously fake, none of them seem definitively real, and then others do seem very obviously fake: one guy is obviously reading, for goodness’ sake and then the three in my comment above look utterly fake to me. A guy says he tore (then changed it to “broke”) a strip off cladding that workers were going to install, stuck it on his mobile phone and set it alight. If you really did believe that something was flammable would you stick in on your mobile phone to light it and would you tear a bit of the cladding off yourself? Wouldn’t you ask for a bit and would you even be able to “tear or break some off” and would the workers let you in any case? Come on!

                • “As I said in my other comment, StAug, if you can show me something that looks definitively as though it couldn’t have been staged I’d be grateful.”

                  Isn’t the burning/burnt building the largest not-staged artifact of this event?

                  • Not arguing about the building fire being real – although how it came about and how it was managed are two very interesting questions. But people dying and being injured – where is the evidence of that apart from easily stageable body bags?

                    • Well, again, FG, I trust my experience on Earth to judge the c. 10 fairly long-form witness/survivor videos that I’ve seen which strike me as utterly credible. The same methods I’ve used to invalidate every aspect of the Official Narratives of 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston, et al, tell me that Grenfell is not the same kind of Event. In none of the Events I list above are there any credible witness/survivor testimonies, whereas Grenfell seems chock full of them.

                      There’s nothing implausible or extraordinary about the claim that hundreds of poor people died in an overcrowded, shoddily-constructed tower with zero safety standards; that coupled with the convincing witness/survivor testimonies is enough to convince me that people died. Do you think those people weren’t considered expendable by TFIC? This would be a case, if this is indeed a matter of arson, in which it would be easier to set the place aflame and let the unwanted/ uncared for humans die than simulating deaths. Killing Middle Class First Worlders can be risky for TFIC; this just isn’t the case with “Refugees” and The Congenital Underclass. With the added aspect that these Blackwater-type Commandos who assassinate patsies and set blazes despise these people and would not hesitate to burn them alive as they undoubtedly did so in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan et al. It’s just more War Action for them.

                      The shocking death toll would be sufficient to inspire a massive (calculated) “emotional” legislative reaction of, say, banning tower blocks in the area or all over the “better” parts of London. Re-sculpting the demographic face of “better” parts of London may well have been the goal. Conversely, it the event wasn’t planned, downplaying the actual numbers of deaths may well be what it’s all about. We probably won’t know either way… we can only guess… but running with whatever cool theory random YouTubers (some of whom are hucksters, others being Flat-Earth-type Disinfo) come up with just isn’t my thing.

                      I’m looking at such “evidence” as is available and drawing my own tentative conclusions, based on what I can see/ hear and based, also, on my knowledge of History (aka: The Poor and People of Color and “foreigners” are traditionally disposable). The “Trauma-Based Programming” theory doesn’t fly, imo, for reasons I state above… I think these kinds of “traumas” have lost that kind of impact. And the “fomenting of unrest” could well be a side-“benefit” but real deaths wouldn’t preclude such a benefit, would they? If they want to trigger Riots/ Race Hate, why not really just kill people? It appears to me that they have… though I can’t know for sure.

                      I mean, if all (or most) of the witness/survivor clips I’d seen had seemed false, I’d be of a very different opinion. But they didn’t. Quite a few seemed real. I’m convinced people died… and suspect the figure is large.

                      We’re at an impasse, therefore, but so what? Comment thread impasses aren’t a problem; we can agree to disagree and continue to sift through “clues” as time goes on.

              • And just one more thing. I was quite proud that I suspected that Peaky Saku was an agent provocateur before I saw YouTube analysts point it out although I didn’t suspect it immediately – only after I saw that there was a protest march happening. It did cross my mind about DJ Isla but I couldn’t reconcile the fact that she indicates the fakery so well – she asks the very pertinent question, “Where are the victims?”, even though she’s asking it to supposedly suggest that a cover up is going on to mask the high number whereas the question works equally well for a staged event.

                Peaky Saku went to the posh school Charterhouse (supposedly on a scholarship) and on his YouTube page he shows a mask in front of a devil image in front of a face. DJ Isla is also into masks. See video

            • “Where is evidence of a single injured person? Where are the people being taken away in ambulances? ”

              But that’s just it: there was one stairwell for the 24-floor building and people were initially advised to stay in their flats; by the time most of them realized that no help was coming, it was too late, the stairwell was ablaze and there was no way out; a few people were lucky enough to escape but it would appear that many died from the smoke and the flames.

              There’s a fair amount of video material documenting people in the building as it burns; go to the 7:30 mark of this one:

              • Funnily enough, I actually wrote a comment on that video saying it showed the event was fake. If one side of the building is not in flames why can’t people all exit that side? Maybe people did come down on ropes but that isn’t impossible to stage either.

                There were so many firefighters there. Why was the building on fire for so long? How does cladding going on fire penetrate the building like that – it’s a cement building – wouldn’t it tend to simply stay outside? There’s one “witness” saying he peered down on the lower floors and saw that it was the cladding that was the problem. Really, a witness knew that it was the cladding that was the problem from the moment he looked down below?

                Don’t you think that there’s very strong evidence of crisis actors? And if so, then the event simply has to be staged, even if somehow people died or were injured. You cannot have crisis actors if the event wasn’t staged and even if some seem better than others none of them really get your emotions as they do in a real event.

                If you can show me one thing that couldn’t have been staged I’d be grateful. Otherwise, from the ridiculous amount of what looks like crisis acting and what seems to me to be an improbable event in the first place (a building being set aflame like a torch so quickly by its cladding) – I have no option but to conclude that this event was staged.

                • “You cannot have crisis actors if the event wasn’t staged…”

                  Well, no, you can have crisis actors being introduced after the event, in order to try to get control of the narrative and push it one way or another. If, for example, the fire was started deliberately and you wanted to make sure that suspicions didn’t drift in that direction… or if you wanted to inject some “miracle” stories or “hero” stories (like the “baby thrown from the 10th floor and caught safely” to get people in The Audience to focus on some misdirection.

                  And re: the building “only burned on one side” (did it?), “why didn’t people exit that side?”… the story is there was only one stairwell, and that became full of smoke and flames after people had obeyed the bizarre “stay put” order for so long it was too late to run.

                  Logically, if we both agree that that building actually burned, and some witness/survivor interviews appear genuine (certainly to me they do) and some seem fake (the guy who’s obviously reading his statement is suspect), we can still conclude that people died and that at least part of the story was being stage-managed.

                  I personally don’t believe this is “a trauma-inducing psyop”… because I think it’s obvious that such stories no longer induce “trauma” in The Audience; I think this one has more old fashioned objectives, having to do with changing the face of London, and that the people who were killed (I suspect there were lots of those) were disposable and also despised by the engineers of the disaster (if this was arson). From what I’ve read and seen on this, it’s beginning to look like the building was designed (or retrofitted) to be a crematorium. The gas lines, zero sprinklers, no integrated fire alarm, the boiler placement, the cladding, the single stairwell, the “stay put” protocol : perfectly designed to kill those people. What I find especially suspicious is a high-profile story about the dangerous design of those Hotpoint refrigerators from 2015: perfect foreshadowing… not too recent that it’s obvious, not too long ago that it was forgotten.

                  Maybe it was a terrible accident that will be exploited to achieve the Evil Real Estate Goals (after the negative fallout /legal liabilities are tamped down)… how can we ever know for sure? But, you know, anything can be faked these days… all we really have is the dark parlor game of speculation. For me, the witness/survivor testimonies I’ve seen ring true (truer than most Alt YouTubers’ analyses), for you they don’t.

                  But don’t you think that, in the absence of a “terrorist” to take the blame and demonize for fake and/or deliberately inflated casualty figures, this is the exact opposite of the Standard Crisis Event, and that what Gov would be working to hide might be the total magnitude (possibly figures in the multiple hundreds) of real deaths….?

                  What we should be looking for are believable home-made videos of residents of the area claiming that nobody lived in that building… wouldn’t that be the case if a building of that size went up in flames yet all (or the vast majority) of the victims were faked?

                  • I do not see evidence of injury or death other than easily faked body bags as I said in above comment. And I see zero distraughtness – which I would expect to be extremely manifest. There’s also lots of bizarre crisis acting which I’ve put links to in other comments. I have simply not seen what I consider evidence of the alleged event.

                    Show me something that couldn’t have been staged and I’ll pay attention.

                    • “I do not see evidence of injury or death other than easily faked body bags as I said in above comment.”

                      I don’t quite get why you keep swerving around the witness/survivor testimony. Bizarre interviews don’t discount non-bizarre interviews; the two sets of interviews may merely indicate (as I said before) a false narrative being overlaid on the true narrative. The bizarre interviews prove nothing, whereas the credible witness/survivor interviews prove that people were, in fact, trapped in a burning building. Common sense then indicates (in the absence of any evidence that the building was empty at the time) that quite a few people would have died. I don’t need to see charred remains (which are as fake-able as anything else, by the way)… I just need a credible primary source. Further, after dividing info into the two camps (Extraordinary vs Non-Extraordinary), the notion that people actually died doesn’t appear to require Extraordinary Evidence… this is a reliable sifting method. These are the Logical Dimensions of my method for having a look at such events.

                      I think experience helps, to an extent. Twenty-plus years of looking closely, gathering info, reading books on the (hidden or downplayed… I have a large library) History behind our condition… I’ve done extensive reading on everything from Waco to Jonestown to the Lennon assassination… and then the 15-plus years of the GWB/BHO streak of Events… and my sense, after all that, is that it’s good to remember that the trickery and Evil don’t always come in a few, simple, easily-labeled (and rumbled) packages. I think we have to try to use the terms “False Flag” and “Psyop” with more accuracy… it’s not always either one of the two. Sometimes it’s just simple murder.

                  • The Reply button does not appear on your two recent comments so I’ll reply here.

                    I’d be wary of thinking of a Standard Crisis Event. Hoax analyst, Richard Dolan, predicts financial false flags and corporate false flags. YouTuber Anaconda MaltLiquor suggests that the deaths at the theme park, Dreamworld, on the Gold Coast may have been faked so that the park could be sold off.

                    Grenfell was slated for demolition in 2014 so it could have been unoccupied. Is there clear evidence that it wasn’t unoccupied? I thought initially that it could have been either evacuated or unoccupied but I guess they couldn’t guarantee that all the inhabitants would be willing to play along so it would have had to be unoccupied for a staged event. If there’s proof it wasn’t I’d be interested to see that.

                    I do not believe that the real event would have happened and so much false narrative would be brought in afterwards. It seems very pre-planned. We have the guy who allegedly tore a strip off the cladding when the workers came to install it and also the guy who noticed the cladding being the cause of the problem on the lower floors as he looked over his balcony. We have the two guys talking about the fireman they know who told them about the 42 bodies “hiding together”. We have Peaky Saku, former Charterhouse student, who I’m convinced is an agent provocateur. I cannot go with real then staged.

                    Reasons I believe this to be staged:

                    I see no genuine distraughtness which I would expect.
                    I see lots of obvious crisis acting with the seeming agenda of making out that the PTB are really screwing over the people – Peaky Saku, focus on the cladding, the supposed hiding of the number of dead people – and no testimony that strikes me as definitely genuine – you disagree with me on that, so be it.
                    I see no evidence of injured people and nothing in particular that strikes me as showing that the event is definitely real.
                    The baby saved from 9th storey drop strikes me as a possible “ludicrous event” hallmark of staged events similar to the heroic pied piper of Manchester.
                    The length of the fire strikes me as too long considering the number of firefighters.

                    Perhaps we are at an impasse which is fine and perhaps in time things will be revealed that sway the conclusion one way or another or perhaps new events will simply take our attention – already there’s been the Finsbury Park event and the one in Newcastle. It just goes on and on.

                    • “Perhaps we are at an impasse which is fine and perhaps in time things will be revealed that sway the conclusion one way or another …”

                      Barring a deathbed confession, probably not, though. All we can do is soldier on, guessing…!

                  • Again the Reply button not showing on your final comment so I’m replying here.

                    One thing to keep in mind is that analysts such as Ole Dammegard say that the perpetrators of these staged events believe that they can justify them as long as they let you know they’re doing them. If they let us know and we do nothing about it, it’s our own fault according to their reasoning.

                    I think that the baby-thrown-from-9th-storey-and-saved story is CRUCIAL – this is not a case of some random witness making things up and the media not bothering to verify. This is an absurdity thrown at us to make us complicit in their fakery because we simply accept it just like the Pied Piper of Manchester and the guy calling for his daughter, Ellen.

                    Another thing they do too to “let us know” is indicate events in advance from one event to another or in other ways, eg, via Hollywood movies. The YouTuber Spudgy Pang aka Shillers List (I think Spudgy channel was shut down) believes there will be an event in Seattle in August probably involving a parade and a missile (I’m not sure why he thinks this – he’s right into all the numbers and symbols and I lose track of that stuff) – he’s guessing on Aug 13. (I think other analysts are predicting Seattle too but I’m not sure.) I looked up the Seattle calendar and would you believe there will be a Parade of Ships Aug 1-6 (Spudgy gave no indication of being aware of this). A guy in one of the Grenfell videos is wearing a Seattle t-shirt (I don’t remember which unfortunately but it was a guy sitting on a lounge). No doubt the perpetrators have lots of events in their pipeline and due to various contingencies may not go ahead with this or that event so I’m not counting on an event in Seattle at all but if it happens – you saw it here first. I think Spudgy is a very good analyst in some ways but he’s so over-the-top anti-Zionist it interferes with his reasoning and a number of claims he makes I think are completely absurd, especially about other analysts. But, as it is true that these events are essentially Zionist-driven, it is good that he’s pointing that out.

                    Ole Dammegard claims (I think his claim is verified but not sure where) he predicted an attack in London (the Westminster attack) because he noticed particular camera focus on the clock tower resembling Big Ben at Flinders St station in the Melbourne vehicle rampage event. When reporting the Nice truck attack the media mentioned the truck passing the Westminster Hotel on the Promenade des Anglais. Of course, these could all be coincidences but it’s worth considering.

                    • Fg!

                      Be wary of Ole Dammegard, who associates with Peekay22 (Flat Earther) and who both praise (or praised) Alex Jones (controlled opposition), tied also to Jim Fetzer (more controlled opposition and total Disinfo). These people will bait the trap with half-good info. The Flat Earth is one of the most toxic projects running and they’re using it to weaken, confuse, discredit and scatter the movement of Radical Skeptics which was gaining (“too much”) momentum a few years ago. Scott Creighton (with his occasional blind spots) is one of the few really trustworthy Radically Skeptical researchers left and he’s in poor health and dire financial circumstances. When the Dammegards and Peekays take over “the movement”, it’s finished (in its current form, at least).

                      PS Not that you can’t extract some decent info, from even the most tainted sources, if you sift it with enough care…

                  • Again no Reply button on your last comment about being beware of Ole Dammegard.

                    I tend to judge what people say purely on the basis of content, especially in the false-flag hoax business. I find hoax analysts will believe that an event is a hoax that I don’t think they have enough evidence for but they can provide very good evidence for other events. Sometimes I find their interpretations of evidence invalid – but we all make mistakes. I find it distressing that hoax analysts often slag each other off. I want no part of that, I just judge on the basis of content – each and every time.

                    I believe there is good evidence for the claim that the power elite “shows” us what they’re up to. The pied piper of Manchester, the Manchester guy calling for his daughter Ellen, the guy saying he put a piece of cladding on his phone to light it, the baby thrown from the 9th storey, the child thrown 150m according to her parents in the Melbourne vehicle rampage – all these things are utterly ridiculous and we’re being made a mockery of. The power elite are certainly letting us know but we’re simply not picking it up.

  11. When they start reporting on the ACTUAL number of dead and what kind of idiot–or idiots–signs off on letting a multi-story hi-rise have hundreds of occupants WITHOUT sprinklers or hallway smoke alarms, then they’ll be getting somewhat honest.

    As for the current reporting, it’s just a ‘Buzzards Banquet,’ posting endless stories about the dead to make the cash register ring.

  12. betrayedplanet says

    I do not trust MSM, our fallen Guardian nor the rest of the assholes who have stood by and watched the asset stripping, the destruction of the ill, poor and vulnerable, the money laundering and tax evasion, the killing off of industry, the abuse of the NHS, schools, community care, not even remotely. They cannot avoid presenting this latest avoidable tragedy with a bloody modicum of decency, such is the outrage of a population under severe stress, emotional, physical and spiritual. For 7 long yrs people have sucked up the abuse and disenfranchisement, told we must live within our means whilst the rich cream everything off the top and send it offshore without paying tax while the tax payers subsidise poverty wages.
    They saved £4750 on non fire-resistant cladding for Grenfell house, that is £4750 for approx 100 lives burnt in what was a 100percent avoidable fire. Of course the MSM have to be seen to be at least human, but we know its bullshit and as soon as the rage dies down it will be back to the same as usual. BBC will revert to their insipid Tory favouring nonsense.
    We need to oust this shower of profligate sociopaths asap so the people have a chance of recovering from the extreme abuse of the last 7years,

  13. flybow says

    I don’t really think anything has changed. In a block where 520 people lived, they are claiming only 58 dead or missing. Where are the people? There is disinformation being pumped out.

  14. My heart goes out to those victims. The terror for some would have been extreme and the mental anguish of all affected will take some time to heal.

  15. Firstly my sympathies for all those affected by this horrendous tragedy. A tragedy that could so easily have been avoided.

    It has occurred to me that much of this media coverage, talked about above, is angled at damage limitation for the Tories and realignment of the Neo-liberal agenda in the UK. It has been very obvious that the coverage of Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and their socialist anti-austerity agenda has been largely blanked out of the MSM and since the election and then with this tragedy no real attempt has been made to link the two.

    What also struck me is that even the Queen has been swung into action as May has proved as hopeless in a crisis as in the election campaign. As one or two comments on here have pointed out, it looks clear that May is being hung out to dry, in an attempt to make her the Aunt Sally for the old Tory austerity agenda. All this while they scrabble around to try and find someone who might encapsulate some kind of reformed “Social Conservative” agenda to lead them into another election. It’s doubtful they will achieve this. But rest assured that the MSM will try to enable this as much as is credibly possible.

  16. Sasha Smirnoff says

    Echoed my immediate suspicion re. the press trying to out-do each other in terms of outrage. Their job is to channel dissent and rebellion into “safe” outlets, and if a human sacrifice is necessary (Maybot), so be it. You’re a credit to our species, Miss Catte!

  17. chrissy says

    My view of the shift from the MSM in regard to Grenfell is much more cynical regarding their motives for seemingly “jumping on the bandwagon” to balance the narrative. Mrs. May and her cohorts are just puppets. The BBC, as well as the media et al, are working both sides in an attempt to cause the revolution they can then move in and control. Both sides are controlled by the powers that be in their effort to create chaos. Why? Strictly evil intentions to gain more control/power over us, then imposing Marshal law and more rights being taken away in the name of “order” and protection. I don’t trust ANYTHING the so-called media presents as news or commentary. One thing I feel sure of is that eventually, good will triumph.

  18. There is an important diversion away from the fact that safety was traded for energy “efficiency” in order to attain climate “goals” creating victims of climate hysteria.

    • BigBG says

      Really? Really??? Multiple issues will be raised after this horrific avoidable event: the external spread of fire; the use of cheaper cladding; the compromising of fire compartmentalisation (with exposed gas pipes; rubbish in corridors…); faulty wiring; cost cutting and shoddy workmanship… the fact that the Residents Committee were assiduously ignored. Not to mention poor decision making at local and central government: ignoring the Lakanal recommendations for instance. This had more to do with the ‘gentrification’ of an ugly tower block; to make it more pleasing for the Boroughs richer residents. But no, it was “climate hysteria”??? Really???

  19. nils hansen says

    Something is going on. Norwegian paper VG’s headline is “More people are dying in England – scientist thinks it is linked to austerity”.
    Maybe the elite has understood the Tories are finished, and will try to influence Corbyn and maybe even reverse Brexit somehow? Norwegian mainstream media is like mainstream media everywhere just copy and paste from American and pro-Western media.

  20. Trader1 says

    From reading the “BBC the Myth of a Public service” I get the impression that the BBC has contact with the various crime families who run the UK state, many of them went to the same schools after all. Sometimes they play for one side sometimes another depending on where their financial interests seem to lie. So if one side gives them the nod to attack another they might go for it if it is to their advantage. What they will not be doing is listening to the public or doing it’s bidding or supporting it.

  21. I tend to agree with Paul Mason they’re just in total panic – after all its all occurred in one week —

  22. I fear it’s more that the MSM are fighting for their survival and take control of what they see as the popular narrative. Reading the comments section in the Guardian, while being presented with a digital begging bowl, gives a very good indication how betrayed its readers feel and will no doubt withhold funds accordingly.

  23. The BBC, how ever much it might pretend otherwise, was kowtowing to the Tories in the run up to the election on the basis that the Tories looked likely to win. Murdoch and co were read to pounce and whilst the BBC would have been butchered anyway in the event of a Tory landslide, they did during the election what any typical bully’s sycophantic sidekick would do: stand on the sidelines and snigger as the bully put the boot in. Following the remarkable outcome of the election, suddenly they all rush to the other end of the playground; the threat of Murdoch now seems that much remoter; why there may even be a Labour government soon and people might remember how they behaved before June 8th, May is on her knees and they can snigger at her – and perhaps even join in the kicking she is getting. Craven is the word I was looking for.

    As for the Guardian, without the featherbed of the licence fee, the equation is even simpler. They got on the wrong side of history and alienated a good part of their readership, partly through bankrupt ideology but also through their perceived need to occupy a global niche and the market that goes with it . This is no longer just a sinking ship – this is a rusty sieve. Hence the sudden apologies from all and sundry regarding their unrelenting two year campaign to destroy Jeremy Corbyn. They can’t afford to stick to their guns, nay even principles, because they don’t have any and every utterance is dictated by an opportunistic desire to survive. Freedland, Toynbee, White, Jones, Monbiot and many other columnists have to go into overdrive in an attempt to expunge their previous views from the record – and ever accompanied by pleas for money to support their “fearless” journalism. The problem is elephants like me don’t forget. Craven is the word I was looking for.

    • “Freedland, Toynbee, White, Jones, Monbiot and many other columnists have to go into overdrive in an attempt to expunge their previous views from the record…” Absolutely right – and they aren’t at all conscious (presumably) of their contradictions. Nor do they care I suppose, as long as the remuneration keeps coming.
      Presstitutes all.

  24. runner77 says

    Realising that they are losing the support and belief of many people, I suspect that the MSM are trying to outflank and contain the breakout. If one attempts to stop a runaway train, one first runs beside it at the same speed and in the same direction before jumping on board and applying the brakes. Likewise, the MSM will first try to realign themselves with popular opinion and then attempt to redirect and limit the rebellion. We are already witnessing the first stage of this process, with Theresa May being the sacrificial scapegoat, so that criticism is focused on one person rather than on the entire government or indeed the entire political system.

    • Edwige says

      See a good example of that from Rawnsley today who deliberately obfuscates (or is he really that stupid?) the difference between a public inquiry and an inquest.

      Also, even mentioning the Saville inquiry doesn’t trigger him to drop an ‘l’ and consider May and the Savile inquiry which the entire establishment seem determined to flush as deeply down the memory hole as possible for reasons that can only be guessed at (and none of them are good).

      • Edwige says

        The article published today by Louise Christian (no comments allowed) pushing a public inquiry and damning inquests starts to look like a distinct line being pushed when combined with Rawnsley yesterday.

        Are they going to publish an article with a similar bias in favour of an inquest? Are they even going to publish a “these are the pros of public inquiries, these are the pros of inquests, make up your own mind” piece?

  25. The BBC has never had a position on anything nor will it, because it’s committed to the totally spurious and contradictory concept of ‘balance’. If one side has a say then so must the other. Decades ago the young Jonathan Dimbleby resigned from the BBC over exactly this matter, when the corporation felt that, in its coverage of Apartheid South Africa, equal time should be devoted to the views of the government in the interests of balance.

    • Simon Roberts says

      That may have been the case previously, but I finally saw how far the BBC had fallen when it came to Libia – they showed the UK, French and US premiers saying “Qaddafi has to go”, then some uptight random Libyans “welcoming” the invasion, then one Islamic Sisterhood woman dancing round with a banner saying the Wst must be destroyed as their counter argument. This was also the time when Ron Paul was heading up the GOP Presidential candidacy race and the Beeb airbrushed him out of existence.

    • Lumpy Gravy says

      … because it’s committed to the totally spurious
      and contradictory concept of ‘balance’.

      This is nonsense. The BBC has never been “balanced”. Just because they constantly refer to themselves as “balanced” doesn’t mean that this is actually so. How people in 2017 can still fall for this tired old propaganda lie is beyond me. As you can read here and in many other articles and analysis the BBC was deliberately set up to be unbalanced. It was a reaction of the British bourgeoisie who were horrified by the successful Russian revolution and the failed allied war of intervention against Russia. Thus, since its first broadcast in the 1920s the BBC has led a ceaseless broad-spectrum assault on its listeners’ and viewers’ conscience and on their perception of reality, and over the years they became very good at it, much better than anybody else. This is why today many NPR radio stations across the US relay BBC World News because many US listeners seem to prefer the more sophisticated, devious and cunning BBC propaganda over the unsophisticated and brutish US propaganda.

  26. John says

    My guess is that establishment outlets like the BBC and Guardian have calculated that Mrs May is not long for this present political world. Therefore, criticising her is a cost-free option.
    Once her replacement is in place, we will probably see the BBC, Guardian et. al . all line up together to re-start bashing Corbyn and the Labour Party.
    This temporary change in their behaviour is no fresh new dawn, I am afraid to say.
    It provides them with a pseudo-defence against the charge of political bias to wheel out when needed.
    For them it really is a win-win situation.

  27. Gregory De Wode says

    Good question! I believe that both the BBC & the Guardian are bandwagon-jumping for survival purposes, they must be very aware now how much the people have rejected their fake narratives. There was a noticable change in their reporting since the election due to Labour/Corbyn’s massive support, perhaps they have been forced to change their tune. I am very suprised by the BBC’s coverage of Grenfell, perhaps some of their people have “woken up” as a result of this, that’s the feeling I get.

  28. I am in the USA and anyway don’t follow BM (bought media or bowel movement, take your pick). So, are they covering the reasons for the fire or just the protests?

  29. Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:

    I’m glad someone else is being circumspect in watching this sudden lurch towards decent humanitarian concern unfolding – I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Comments are closed.