Every week, on a Sunday, we like to highlight three or four stories that go full-Guardian, but don’t require an entire article of refutation.
We encourage reader-participation here, so if you come across something you feel should be included in the next edition either post a link below, or send us an e-mail.
The Guardian has a story covering the campaign from two NGOs to have David Icke thrown off all social media platforms. While the article is very long on the various claims made by Icke and the D-list celebrities who agree with censoring the man, it goes into decidedly less detail on who funds the NGOs involved.
It also disregards entirely the potential ethical problems posed by large well-funded institutions campaigning for the censorship of an individual. And avoids any questioning of the idea of giant tech companies cooperating with the government to decide which opinions are allowed.
This isn’t about David Icke, it’s about setting a precedent – censorship for the public good. The Center for Countering Digital Hate and Hope Note Hate are the terrifying face of modern authoritarianism. Fascism in the name of friendliness and safety.
“First they came for the conspiracy theorists…”
The Lockdown and Doublethink
This is just a nice display of how modern journalism requires an editorial line that totally disregards internal logic.
In this article, Simon Tisdall documents all the ways in which the lockdown-generated economic crash could destroy the lives of people in the third world. And in this one Polly Toynbee goes into great detail about all the unemployed young people we’re about to create…because of the lockdown. Neither of them argues the lockdown should be ended.
Whilst here, Robert Reich says that Trump ending the lockdown would be terrible and dangerous and kill people, and Lloyd Green blames Trump for surging unemployment in the US, without mentioning the lockdown at all.
You see, ending the Lockdown is bad, because Trump wants to do it. But also, the lockdown is causing massive unemployment – both here and abroad – which could kill millions of people thanks to poverty, famine, and non-Covid diseases.
Keeping the meat-packing plants open is dangerous and irresponsible, but there are fears of panic buying or food shortages if they’re closed. There’s no word on the potential deaths caused by starvation and food shortages, which are discussed at length in other articles.
In summary, we’re told he lockdown’s effect will kill literally 10x more people than the disease has done so far, but if you want to end it you’re a pro-Trump anti-science virus-denier.
Russia, Russia, Russia!
Perhaps a sign that the Covid19 narrative is waning is The Guardian’s abandonment of it’s happy-clappy Coke-advert approach to globalism, and return to what it does best – vilify Russia based on flimsy evidence and to very little purpose.
Firstly, by repeating the totally unsubstantiated claims that Putin is planning to assassinate the mayor of Prague. Apparently the motive is the removal of a statue of a Soviet war hero. At least, according to the “anonymous sources in Czech intelligence”, whose assertions (and existence) remain unquestioned throughout the article.
Secondly, by claiming that the coronavirus aidRussia delivered to Italy was done partly for “political purposes” – to which the response “No shit Sherlock” comes to mind.
Maybe The Guardian genuinely thinks that when NATO countries deliver aid they do it out of the kindness of their hearts, anonymously, without even a thought to geo-politics or public relations. Or maybe they’ll say any rubbish they’re told to say.
It is interesting that this story appears this week, though, and not a month ago when the aid was delivered. A sign that narrative cohesion is collapsing? Or that some people (namely Russia) won’t be welcome at the globalist party? Or maybe that they plan to abandon the “we’re all in this together” aspect of the Coronavirus panic?
Who knows. It’s reassuring to see Russophobic nonsense back on the Guardian’s front page though.
BONUS – Navel Gazing World Championships
The Guardian’s opinion section is always a wonderful source of the truly absurdly shallow. While their coronavirus coverage totally neglects the arguments against the lockdown and experts dissenting from the “consensus”, they DO have plenty of space for one novelist struggling in the lockdown…even though they wrote a book about self-isolation and for a lady to ramble on about she doesn’t mind staying inside anymore.
These are real, heartfelt thoughts…and not at all attempts to boost novel sales (the book is linked to three times), or just ego-maniacally pat themselves on the back.
Good for a chuckle.
* * *