about

CPScottAndHDD

“Comment is free but facts are sacred” – CP Scott, former editor of the Guardian.

We provide a home for the comment – & the facts – you no longer find in the MSM.

OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages. We followed with dismay and disappointment the increasingly distorted and tendentious news reporting on Libya, the proxy-war in Syria, and the Ukraine Crisis.  Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.

Our small group is dispersed globally, with representatives from North America, Britain, and Southern and Eastern Europe. The site is our own work, and is not supported by any governments, institutions or pressure groups.

We believe in the concept of truth itself — not merely in that of competing narratives — and  in the sanctity of facts themselves.   For that reason, we shall try to track them down, present them to the public, and preserve them as best we can.  We believe in a true free press that (consistently) speaks truth to power.   And we’ll be doing our little best to remind our mainstream media, including The Guardian itself, that this is supposed to be their duty. They probably won’t listen, but we’ll keep saying it anyway.

If you’re also sick of being stifled, moderated, abused or slandered as Putinbots or worse, and censored to oblivion on any of the Readers’ Comments sections of our mainstream press, come and tell us about it. We operate a completely open comment policy, and all shades of opinion are welcome.

Update April 2015. Off-Guardian.org is the successor citizen-media organization created by the three founding members of the original OffGuardian site. As you may know, our original site suffered an act of internal sabotage on April 13-14, 2015, when it was summarily closed down on us.  Fortunately, we had a back-up copy of the whole site made only a couple of days before this took place and have been able to reconstitute Off-Guardian immediately.  While we might never be able to determine with any finality whether this was an act of a mentally unstable person or of someone with an undisclosed agenda, the attempt to silence us failed.  On here, neither the powers that be nor saboteurs can take us down, slander, or shut us up.

Systematic, BlackCatte, Vaska


240 Comments

  1. sabelmouse says

    just posted this , deleted within seconds.

    This could have been a meaningful article about airtime being given to conspiracy theorists with sometimes dangerous consequences. Wakefield and the anti-vaccination brigade have done immense harm to children across the world.
    what are conspiracy theorist? google the actual history of that term.

    why would a bowl specialist doing a CASE study noting measles virus in their bowels, and speaking out against a already banned elsewhere triple vaccine, and recommending single vaccines instead be a conspiracy theorist?

    meanwhile, he, his later exonerated boss, and co workers were specialists on bowel issues.

    what harm did they do?

    they helped thse children, ask the parents.

    and there have been measles outbreaks in fully vaccinated pops since the 80s. hence more and more boosters. vaccine waning, AND it’s estimated to have a 10% failure rate.

    again, what harm?

    the mmr has caused all sorts, including death.

    and even in africa, a malnourished child [ vaccination contraindicated but still done] has a better chance of health and survival after a measles infection than with the vaccine.

    I FOUND THIS TO BE EXTREMELY INFORMATIVE:

    “Dr. Peter Aaby, “Low mortality after mild measles infection compared to uninfected children in rural West Africa,” Vaccine 21 (1-2): 120-6;

    November 2002

    Children in Africa who got and recovered from natural measles (90% recover even in Africa, and vitamin A doubles their recovery rate) had only one-fifth the all-cause mortality in the subsequent four years as those who either got the vaccine or just did not get natural measles.

    Natural measles is the best possible training for the immune system.“

    Lack of vitamin A and poor nutrition has been acknowledged by WHO as a causative factor in in severe measles cases. Adequate Vitamin A and good nutrition results in mild measles which can have a positive effect on children’s health.

    Low mortality after mild measles infection compared to uninfected children in rural West Africa.

    Conclusion: When measles infection is mild, clinical measles has no long-term excess mortality and may be associated with better overall survival than no clinical measles infection. Sub-clinical measles is common among immunised children and is not associated with excess mortality.

    https://www(dot)ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nih(dot)gov/pubmed/12443670

    Balance’ isn’t about dragging experts down to our level

    my reply on this article to title comment. both deleted. i wonder why? 😉

    not this as yet.

    that is censorship
    just think, near everyone who knew the sun moves around the earth. those who said otherwise courted death.
    consensus can never be an argument. especially when consensus can be achieved by coercion.
    i am NOT debating climate change btw.
    i am debating consensus.

    reply to this.

    If 97% of climate scientists think climate change is real and being caused by human activity then coverage should reflect that it is a near certainty that this is true. 3% of airtime on the subject should be reserved for those who disagree.

    the guardian, champion of a free and just world!

    • sabelmouse says

      i’d put this on my tumblr, with embeds, and different fonds. and here forgot to draw lines. the top is what i replied to. then my reply + comments from elsewhere, disqus. then another reply to another comment. hopefully not deleted yet. though i will get screaming about not ”believing” in climate change , when that’s not what i am talking about.

      • sabelmouse says

        the last one has been deleted as well + me telling the person i replied to first that it wasn’t nasty.

        comment if free, that is it gives them clicks/advertising revenue. and they do their best to further corporate interests, and fascism.

        along with all the incitement to war.

        still pretending to be ‘’journalism’’ give ‘’ balanced’’ views, and asking for money.

        what a truly nefarious site.

  2. Pingback: Is The Guardian Newspaper Scourge Of The Left It Once Championed? | PopularResistance.Org

  3. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA – Site Title

  4. Pingback: “DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS?” – 10 LESSONS FROM HISTORY THAT WILL DESTROY YOUR TRUST IN THE CIA - The Daily Coin

  5. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA – Survival Stockpile

  6. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA | Patriot Rising

  7. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA

  8. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA – How to survive when SHTF

  9. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA - True Patriot

  10. Pingback: "Democratic Institutions?" – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA | The Daily Sheeple

  11. Martin Usher says

    I find that censorship in the Guardian is a bit more subtle than just moderating comments. They seem to run a sort of “Golden Shield” type setup where the topics available for comment and whether the comments are closed or not varies depending on who the system thinks you are. I noticed this because I can access the Guardian through several different systems.

    I used to like contributing to CiF but I don’t bother that much now because comments are not so much moderated as guided — there’s a world view that they have to agree with or they don’t pass muster. Its a very restrictive world view as well, since I publish comments under my real name and am careful to avoid inflammatory and derogatory posts and the usual raft of conspiracy theories. Its a pity because I’ve been reading (and subscribing to) the Guardian since it was the Manchester Guardian and the modern incarnation is but a shadow of its former liberal self.

    • Sandy Robertson says

      I agree with your view that the Guardian is ever declining. I’m possibly misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying that if one accesses them through certain methods then you can comment on articles that are not open to comment ? Baffled.

    • Jan Brooker says

      I used to post regularly as captainbeefheart AND pay a £5p.m. supporter’s sub. Been a Guardian reader for 40+ years, but got fed up of paying for the privilege of being ‘modded off’. Never use foul language or conspiracy theories, but there are comments that are not allowed to be made [so much for Comment is Free] especially regarding Jeremy Corbyn, Zionist Israel or Palestine. Anyway, the ‘i’ is only 0.60p.d. [0.80p Saturdays]. Cheaper, more concise and without a succession of neo-liberal commentators. With 600,000 Labour Party members and a Guardian circulation of c.150,000, the G seems to have a ‘death wish’. What a Business Plan!

    • Edward Kasner says

      I have just had an experience that has finished me with the Guardian forever. I posted this:

      “Today the Mail On Sunday claims that a Labour MP is saying that his party is ‘a sewer’ of anti-Semitism. I would like to ask people reading this post : have they ever heard or read a Labour MP or activist actually say anything that was anti-Semitic? I certainly haven’t, but then I don’t get around much.”

      It was removed in 2 minutes.

      • Sandy Robertson says

        I’d suggest you email them and demand to know what community standard you broke, as I always do. I know they will fob you off 99% of the time but they need to know people won’t meekly accept this. I wonder what they think when they increasingly see comments that show readers think their articles are drivel (don’t actually say that or they’ll say we accept criticism not smears). I have had posts reinstated with an apology a couple of times.

      • Martin Usher says

        The problem is merely that the definition of ‘anti-Semitic’ has been widened by some Jewish organizations to include any criticism of the State of Israel and especially its policies with regard to Palestinians. A big no-no, for example, is to refer to the Gaza area as a ‘ghetto’. Since the whole “embattled outpost of democracy n a hostile environment” thing has worn a bit thin over the years as people realize just how asymmetrical the power — political, military and financial — is in that region its not surprising that the level of criticism has grown to the point where many people regard it as an apartheid state. Whether you agree with this or not the facts on the ground speak for themselves and they’re difficult to counter using traditional propaganda so one tactic is to go after the critics, labeling them as anti-Semitic (if they’re Jewish they’re called ‘self-haters’). Its a crude but fairly effective tactic.

        Attacking the Labour party and especially its leader as anti-Semitic is a bit cheeky considering that the intellectual underpinnings of socialist thought were largely the work of Jews. (So much so that the Nazis used it as a selling point in their struggle against Russia and Bolshevism — communism was apparently a Jewish plot to achieve World Domination!) In the UK the area of London represented by Jeremy Corbyn was notorious for middle class intellectual socialists that wrote a lot but didn’t actually do much (my mother was an unabahsed prole from the East End….there was quite a bit of needle there)(having a brother in law who was one of ‘them’ might be the other reason!). Anyway, I don’t expect modern middle class readers of or even the journalists at the Grauniad to know about this.

        BTW — There was an article in the G. about ‘diversity’ in journalism last week that had an open comment thread. Some wag posted a comment what was effectively a spreadsheet giving the educational background of Guardian contributors. Predictably enough there’s a fair sprinkling of public schools and a preponderance of Oxbridge.

  12. Some folk in the scientific community will expound ad nauseam quoting facts concerning black holes in space… however a black hole is an artifice used to explain a deficit of mass in a century old theory that has zilch predictive qualities.

    Facts are chimeric, they are not sacred.

    ‘Should’ is a word that implies moral overreach.

    I humbly suggest you change your tag/sub heading from the dorky/frumpy ‘cos facts are sacred’ to something a bit more in keeping with the progressive shit you guys are doing!!

    many blessings

    Jim

  13. bevin says

    It is getting a bit ancient now but this piece by Jill Abramson
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/27/trump-fbi-us-constitution

    is amazing.
    She claims for example that because “Strzok had led the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation so the notion of him being a pro-Democratic mole is, simply, ludicrous.”
    Whether she misses the point that Strozk, an obvious Clinton fan, used his position to exculpate Hillary and tone down censure of her action, is unlikely.
    She concludes that “The Republicans want to destroy the public’s faith in the impartiality of the FBI, in order to undermine Mueller. ”
    That’s right “destroy the public’s faith in the impartiality of the FBI” the sort of thing that would have made Hercules toss in the towel. And according to Jill a dangerous affront to the Constitution.
    Her defence of the FBI incidentally relies heavily on the fact that that Watergate’s Deep Throat marched in its saintly ranks.
    The great weight of the 436 carefully culled comments (and cursorily scanned) appear to confirm her fears.

  14. bevin says

    What would the legal implications of helping the good old grauniad out by opening comments on current articles be?
    Take this for example:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/23/rex-tillerson-russia-bears-responsibility-for-syria-chemical-attacks

    It is the kind of issue-information warmongering- that ought to be commented on by potential victims of war. But the Guardian hasn’t opened it to comment. And, if it ever does, it will kill off any decent ones.

    • Ok. We’ll do it as an experiment and see how it catches on. But good luck getting a link to us pass the mods on there for more than five minutes

      • Sandy Robertson says

        Indeed. Also the fact is the Community Standards are so long and verbose that if they want to bin you they will find a way. Awhile back someone here helpfully advised that I should omit even mild insults so as not to give mods an excuse to censor me – yet I quite often see things like advocating assassination of the POTUS allowed to slide. There’s no consistency but object and they say they don’t have enough time so WE must report things to them. Odd how they ALWAYS appear to have time to censor someone like me who they clearly think of as right-wing. I’m really not, I’m just in favour of fair play to (gasp) even Trump.

        • sabelmouse says

          in a nutshell; don’t upset corporate sponsors, also don’t make us look bad [ as if ] by fighting. we’ll delete everything and pretend rainbows and kittens.

  15. sabelmouse says

    suspended again , this time for mentioning the connection between ed and veganism. no warning either. seriously!
    just proves to me that veganism is corporate sponsored, like the guardian.

    • Admin says

      Don’t suppose you kept a copy of your comment? (we always ask, but people rarely remember)

    • Sandy Robertson says

      They are unbelievable in their alleged commitment to free speech at the same time as they stifle it. Under a piece that mentioned Trump’s Muslim ban, I said that most terrorists in USA jails are not Americans so the ban made sense as they don’t want to be like Sweden. When I enquired why my post was immediately censored I was told it broke standards by being off topic as the article did not mention Sweden! So now alluding for comparison to something is off topic? By that rule, the comments that compare Trump to Hitler would get modded if Hitler is not mentioned above the line…odd how that never happens.

        • Sandy Robertson says

          I notice that more and more articles get widespread ridicule in the comments, which are often quickly closed sometimes with a note they were ‘opened in error’! The plummeting finances and the begging for donations…none of this appears to give them pause for self analysis.

          • sabelmouse says

            as long as they get clicks/advertising revenue they probs don’t care.

          • Sandy Robertson says

            True. I definitely notice an increase in misleading clickbait headers.

  16. Frank Poster says

    After more than 7 years on the Guardian / CiF I finally deleted my account. I’d made some objective comments the other day about the review of Luke (MI6)) Harding’s book. It was the most subjective PoS I’d read in a long time, but I kept calm and wrote a good argument which got many upvotes and equally good comments in return. It survived for half a day at least, so there was no offence taken by the mod. My guess is that Harding himself took a look and had it removed.

    I feel bad for not continuing, but after seven years, I’m keeping away from the site except for football reports. Unfortunately whilst there today they had two appallingly misandrist articles about men – the long read, and Ms Parkinson having a go at Damon for talking common sense. The Guardian is now overtly acting in an Orwellian manner, working with the Ministry Of (illiberal) Truth to accuse all men of Thought Crimes against women. It’s utterly appalling what’s going on. We can no longer comment there, it’s pointless. How to proceed?

    • The Cad says

      I make the odd sarcastic visit to the Heil and get a better deal from the censors than i ever did from the Graun. I re-registered a few times by pressing the little button inside a wi-fi receiver but they found a way round that.

  17. Thanks for this site guys.

    I stopped commenting on climate change articles on the Graun when my posts were persistently deleted, particularly those following pronouncements of global disaster from Rocky Rex.

    I don’t care if I’m right or wrong on the subject, I do care that my sceptical comments reside aside those of an alarmist.

    BTW, I won’t contribute to your site, nor will I contribute to any other. You rise, or fall on your own success.

    Don’t beg, just get better.

    • Anna Zimmerman says

      “Enjoyment is always bound up with gratitude; if this gratitude is deeply felt it includes the wish to return goodness received and is thus the basis of generosity. There is always a close connection between being able to accept and to give, and both are part of the relation to the good object and therefore counteract loneliness. Furthermore, the feeling of generosity underlies creativeness….”

      ― Melanie Klein, Envy And Gratitude And Other Works 1946-1963

    • Frankly Speaking says

      So how do you think a site existis and can succeed? Via a magic money tree?

      Good journalism needs to be financially rewarded by those that read it and apprecite it, how else can those journalists pay their bills, site hosting, etc? If they don’t charge site access then they need to appeal for donations – I’m referring to this site not the Grauniad. Do you think doing such work should be a mere hobby? Do you think the BBC, Sky, Times, Guardian, Daily Heil etc work for free?

      For you and others to simply stand back, with the comment “I won’t contribute to your site, nor will I contribute to any other. You rise, or fall on your own success. Don’t beg, just get better” is astonishingly aloof to say the least. Why should they bother to write for you? By your stance, they can rise in jouranlistic success, in the quality of their work, but they can fall financially and the site can disappear because you choose not to reward it.

      • Martin Usher says

        I actively subscribe to news sources because Comment might be Free but Journalism certainly isn’t.

        The big question that should be on everyone’s minds is “How much is this worth to me?”. How much should be all chip in a month and where should it go to?

  18. sabelmouse says

    banned by the guardian again, probably for mentioning the dangers of gardasil. and linking this film .

    at least they’re not beholden to corporate sponsores/big pharma.

    • Sandy Robertson says

      I still battle on The Guardian comment threads, probably because I intuit that they’d prefer me to go away. My most recent spat was on a thread about drug abuse. I stated that my GP was offered a license to prescribe heroin. Some guy replied sarcastically, asking if heroin was “legalised” you’d think the press would report it. I replied saying something like “of course heroin hasn’t been legalised,you fool! What did I say that could give that impression…” My post was immediately censored. When I queried it I was informed calling another poster a “fool” broke guidelines! When I pointed out I couldn’t square that with the times I’d been abused in much worse language they’d allowed to stand, they said snootily they can’t be expected to monitor threads and I need to inform them if I’m offended! After that I had a totally innocuous post removed which I finally had reinstated. I’m left with the impression that if you are clearly not a supporter of Guardianesque views moderators, officially or not, target you.

      • sabelmouse says

        they leave all sorts of language all the time.
        i think it’s a mix of saying something that threatens their capitalist overlords, and individual moderator’s issues.

        • Sandy Robertson says

          They claim (ahem) the discrepancy arises because they don’t have time to monitor threads and it’s up to us to flag offensive posts. But I would be really surprised if that guy reported me just for using the word “fool”…and if he did, more fool them for finding it offensive. The community standards are so Byzantine they can be interpreted any way they choose. Criticise one of their writers and that’s a “smear. They actually told me that while it’s ok to abuse Nigel Farage, if he ever wrote an article in the Guardian then it wouldn’t be ok to be abusive about him! I asked does that mean anyone who writes for them is specially protected from being criticised as they’d told me Guardian writers are NOT public figures and only public figures are fair game, not the writers or other commenters. Of course they had no answer.

      • LogicalArgumentsOnly says

        Here’s a tip, take it for what it’s worth. Win more arguments by avoiding ‘Ad Hominem’ – IE – attacking the person. Even if they attack you personally, don’t match it, better it. Focus totally on presenting your logical argument and be happy when your opponent messes up by attacking the person. If I was debating with you and you called me a fool, I would gain confidence that I am closer to winning because you probably don’t know the rules of debate, because the odds would suggest that you don’t recognise the logical fallacies. Study them, practice them and gain confidence when they appear against you. Don’t complain that the moderators are biased, learn, adjust and try not to insult anyone, instead put all of your focus on making really powerful, logical counter-arguments. Hope this helps.

        • sabelmouse says

          i do all that anyways. it’s disagreeing with the article, or endangering their corporate sponsorship/propaganda that gets things deleted/you banned.

          • LogicalArgumentsOnly says

            Fair enough, but for clarity my comment was in reply to Sandy Robertson who said that they had said – ‘of course heroin hasn’t been legalised,you fool!’ If Sandy does this, Sandy is handing them the excuse ‘it was flagged for being offensive’. If Sandy steers clear of insults completely, not only is the argument stronger but they simply cannot use that excuse for deleting it anymore. If there is an agenda, force it out into the open, don’t give them a convenient ‘get out’.

            • sabelmouse says

              i agree but they’ll still get you however polite if you endanger their bottom line.
              but even then it’s somewhat arbitrary.

        • The usual suspects says

          As I agree with you i still have a hard time holding my toung while all around me are idiots. Some thing about calling a spade a spade. him going to work on my delivery though as this is great advice .

    • How in Gods name can you associate this with right or left wing?

      My daughter contracted Narcolepsy, commonly associated with the Avian flue vaccination. Except that she didn’t have the vaccination. So do I condemn the left wing deviants for her condition because she didn’t have the vaccination, so I can’t blame the deviant right wing?

      You are insane.

          • bevin says

            No. I was suggesting that you were ‘replying’ to a comment which was totally unconnected with the issue which is, understandably, of particular interest to you.
            Unless I am mistaken the August post was one by someone who had just come across OffGuardian and was expressing approval of the idea behind it.

  19. Pingback: Saudi-investor kjøper The Independent | steigan.no

  20. phil bayliss says

    Reading the comments appears to offer evidence that ‘truth’ has become a Deleuzean rhizome. Any kind of discourse appears ‘true’, as it links to other nodes in the media nexus. Everything is true and everything is false. Philosophy used to be clean, but now traduced, so that any kind of personal experience (as a personal truth) is now part of the ‘commentariat’. I would like to believe Vanessa Beelly/Eva Bartlett, as opposed to Boris Johnson (I am at a loss to quote any kind of American ‘source’). Until we can return to a face to face communication moment (which given a couple of billion people on the planet) is obviously impossible, we are generally fucked.

  21. Tom Warwick says

    Admins, I think some of your writers and commenters go completely off the deep end in their vicious attacks on people like George Monbiot. The criterion should be factual correctness, and at least two of the people smearing Monbiot on one of your recent pages (including the article’s author) base their attacks on clear falsehoods. See my comments here: https://off-guardian.org/2017/02/23/a-beginners-guide-to-the-guardian/

    For example, one of the people posting there falsely claims that “Monbiot did support the 2003 invasion of Iraq”. No, he didn’t (and I’ll be notifying Monbiot of these attempts to smear his reputation). I clicked on this person’s gravatar, and found that she writes for The Kremlin Stooge website, and her gravatar-cited website links to a small network of Russia/Putin-friendly websites. I note that OffGuardian also has links to some of these websites (eg The Kremlin Stooge), and that one of the main criticisms seen on OffGuardian is that the Guardian is “Russophobic” or “anti-Russian”.

    No doubt there’s an innocent explanation, but when it goes hand in hand with persistent, calculated smears of people like Monbiot, I start to wonder. What’s the story here?

    NOTE FROM ADMINsee our reply below

    • As to our writers, you’ll have to link to any specific articles we have published relating to George Monbiot before we can comment.

      The rest of your rather regrettable conspiratorial innuendo can be boiled down to this – are we working for/allied with/ payrolled by or associated in any way with the Russian government or any of its organisations?.

      The answer to that is no.

      Yes we are concerned about the irrational and hysterical Russophobia in the media, principally because it has the potential to push us into a war with another nuclear power that will end life on earth. If you don’t share or even comprehend that concern we suggest you consider matters more deeply.

      Do please inform George Monbiot of anything you choose – but we suspect, like most of the Guardian journos, he already checks in here from time to time 🙂

    • Anna Zimmerman says

      Dear Tom Warwick, putting aside the issue of whether George Monbiot did or did not support the Iraq War, your point seems to be that someone that writes for ‘The Kremlin Stooge’ or other Russophile sites should be persona non grata. Perhaps you would like to explain why? I’ve just read through a few posts on ‘The Kremlin Stooge’ and thought they were perfectly acceptable – reasonable, even. Perhaps you do not understand the irony inherent in the choice of name?

      • Tom Warwick says

        Anna, if I were putting aside the concerted attempt to smear Monbiot that I witnessed here, then I’d probably agree with you. But since that was my main concern, I’m curious as to origin of, and reason for, such smears. I’m also wondering if the stated purpose of this site tells the whole story. Since you say that you believe in the “concept of truth” and the “sanctity of facts”, I’m sure you’ll want to make sure that you don’t publish malicious falsehoods in future.

        • Anna Zimmerman says

          You have not answered my question – why should anyone’s stance on Russia matter vis-à-vis the issue of Monbiot? I presume that you mean that this is some kind of litmus test for moral probity, but you have not justified the connection. In order to prove the worth of your point, you need to do more than indulge in the kind of question-begging assumptions about Russian perfidy that regularly grace The Guardian. In doing so you unwittingly demonstrated one reason why Off-Guardian needs to exist – to challenge that kind of lazy ‘guilt by association’. As I said, you may indeed be correct about Monbiot – even the best journalists get things wrong, and I am not an expert on his views and cannot comment – but you have fatally weakened your point by dragging in a complete irrelevance that only demonstrates your own bias.

    • Bevin says

      Are you sure that this a ‘concerted attempt to smear Monbiot”? He is a well known writer in an organ which, by transforming itself dramatically in the past few years, has angered a lot of people who question why Monbiot is still there, almost all other dissenters having been dropped.
      He also adopts a very controversial position on the nuclear question which, again angers many who see him as the guardian’s token green. Finally he is no slouch at smearing others: I recollect a period in which he insisted that any dissent on the received wisdom that Serbia had practised genocide at Serebenica was akin to “Holocaust Denial”. He accused Herman and Peterson of just that, as I recollect, for their research on Rwanda.
      I often enjoy his columns but he is a very ruthless and dishonest controversialist- it is unsurprising that he is occasionally repaid in the currency which he employs.

      • Bevin says

        There is also this, from MediaLens, regarding Monbiot’s silence over the Libyan invasion:
        “…George Monbiot’s March 15 Guardian article contained all three search terms – his sole mention of Libya in the past 12 months – but he was writing about Saudi Arabia: ‘We won’t trouble Saudi’s tyrants with calls to reform while we crave their oil.’ The article had nothing to say about the looming assault on Libya, just four days away. Monbiot has had nothing to say since.”
        https://archive.org/stream/largeandsmallho00kenygoog#page/n61/mode/1up

        The failure to condemn this flagrant aggression was curious, and inexplicable.

  22. Tom Turner says

    So who’s behind Off-Guardian? I came to the ‘About’ page to check out the names. Is it a secret?

    • No one is “behind” OffG. Of the five original founders, three remain and another editor (Kit Knightly) joined. There are therefore four editors in all, all private citizens of Europe or North America. Two of the editors publish under pseudonyms for reasons of personal choice related to their professional fields. OffG is entirely self-funded apart from the small amounts we receive as donations through our PayPal button. We have never received payment from any government, organisation or NGO.

  23. Julie says

    hope you are all watching the daily webcast ‘Where is Eric Braverman’ (now day 72). He was CEO of Clinton Foundation and outed as a leak in the Podesta email. Said ‘Follow the Money’ and disappeared, now missing 72 days. The webcast does exactly that and follows the money Clinton Foundation selling arms, sarin gas and stingers to ISIS and their corruption laid bare. Follow the daily reports and look back from day 50. This should be MSM but not covered.

  24. sabelmouse says

    where is that funny ”they are all russian spies” comment gone?

  25. I have just discovered your site. I was googling something to do with Syria – because I have spent much of the past few weeks reading and thinking about Syria. People like Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Vanessa Beeley. And I have been slowly coming to the conclusion that the western political class and western media have no concern whatsoever about truth. And I find that frightening.

    Through your site I read an article by Peter Oborne that dated to February. He told of his experiences in Aleppo then. It seems like nobody in the political-media establishment listened then. 10 months later the politicians and media are still trotting out the same things.

    When I came to the words above “We believe in the concept of truth itself — not merely in that of competing narratives — and in the sanctity of facts themselves”, I was really struck. In fact, I was overcome.

    I am so glad that you believe in truth. I am so glad you are doing this.

    However I don’t imagine anyone will listen.

    I find it so sad.

    But keep doing it anyway!!

    • Brutally Remastered says

      If you have not already: look up Eva Bartlett (ingaza blog), a Canadian freelancer who has been in Syria and is eviscerating in her calm, public negation of the fake news being propogated concerning Syria. Might cheer you up, she did me…

      https://youtu.be/ueyWGyddepw
      Fun starts at circa 13:00

      • This is a prime example of how you can be tricked by someone with an agenda … on both sides of the political and ideological divide. Eva Bartlett is not an ‘independent journalist’, nor is she some hero reporting about some ‘fabrications’ in the Syrian war, she does in fact twist facts to fit her agenda, that of supporting the Syrian regime.
        That she blogs for the state-funded Russian media outlet Russia Today would have to raise concerns straight away. I feel for those children this woman thinks are fakes.
        She is either stupid to have been tricked the way she has by the RUssian backed regime, or she is deliberately distorting information, the exact thing she’s accusing Western journalists of doing. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children

        • Anna Zimmerman says

          Dear Sherylgwyther
          It is clear that the irony of sneering at RT as a ‘state-funded media outlet’ and then citing an article hosted by the British government controlled Channel 4 is lost on you, but no matter. Let us address the article itself, which is a classic example of ‘ignoratio elenchi’, an argumentative fallacy beloved of propagandists everywhere. It may indeed be the case that these particular photographs may be genuine, but that hardly constitutes the most important element of Ms Bartlett’s work. I notice that the Channel 4 article steers well clear of addressing her most cogent points – that Syria under Assad was never the hell on earth portrayed by the Western media, that the ‘civil war’ was always deliberately engineered by interested powers intent on regime change and that the majority of the Syrian public would dearly love a return to the status quo ante and overwhelmingly blame the West for the destruction of the last years. Clearly Channel 4 has nothing to say on these subjects, other than merely parroting the official line which is increasingly wearing thin in the face of the evidence. Their inability to properly address these points is damning enough in itself.

          • Anna Zimmerman, the funny thing is I’m usually very cynical about the western press (esp those owned by Rupert Murdoch). They’re all pushing agendas to further capitalism and ultimately, the big oil and coal company billionaires who refuse to heed the message that fossil fuel is on its way out.
            My big concern is that Russia Today falls into the same category as Murdoch’s The Australian – pushing agendas one way or another.
            Truly thoughtful and analytical people would question Bartlett’s work as much as they’d question anyone’s – taking one side so completely against another is as bad as taking Murdoch’s crap as gospel truth. Bartlett made the mistake of going overboard and not checking her so called facts properly. Therefore, her valid points were ‘lost in translation’.

            • pavlovscat7 says

              As a career move Sheryl…You should get a film crew together and go and volunteer in the Israeli medical facilities in the stolen Golan Heights…that are doing fine hippocratic work there, patching up the wounded Jihadis and sending them back into the fray in Syria. Don’t let the film crew disturb the drilling works going on there under the boerse horse trading auspices of Rupert Murdoch and Baron Rothschild though.. Haaretz is the only media that is allowed to laugh at that amorality:

            • Anna Zimmerman says

              Hello Sherylgwyther, thanks for the reply. I would certainly agree that RT has an ‘agenda’ to push, and from time to time they do irritate me because they tend to focus on a fairly narrow range of stories for their news coverage (although their documentaries are often excellent and certainly far more varied in terms of subject matter). However within the scope of that agenda I have found them to be a far more reliable source of information than any of the other state-funded outlets. Syria is just one example of this amongst many. As a contrast, I find BBC documentaries and ‘news’ programmes so distorted as to be almost unwatchable. I subscribe to a very large range of news sources and also read academic books on world politics/finance/economics/history/philosophy/anthropology, so I am able to ‘triangulate’ sources and discard the very glaring deviations from reality that we are asked to swallow whole. Eva Bartlett is far from a lone voice, as I have observed from years of learning about the Middle East. I also have students from the area from time to time, who share their experiences. I find nothing remarkable in her writing, because the woes of Western interventionism are a familiar theme for any serious scholar of post-war international relations. Here is William Blum’s infamous list of instances when the US attempted/succeeded in overthrowing foreign governments: https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list
              I mention these because the US has developed a set of strategies for the purpose, many of which they have clearly used in the Syrian theatre – long term funding of NGOs to promote ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’, hijacking legitimate civilian protests often through the use of paramilitary forces, paying said paramilitaries to act as proxy armies (often through a circuitous route so there are proxies within proxies), mass propaganda, particularly aimed at discrediting the existing regime, funnelling arms, providing military ‘advisors’, covert operations, accusations of biological warfare or similar, false flags…I could go on and on. The point is that it would take a wilfully blind and/or ignorant person not to notice that Syria is just business as usual for the West – and I cannot attribute any more nobility to their aims on this occasion than on any other.

              • Totally agree, Anna. But in the end, I trust neither the Americans nor the Russians. I think both Trump and Putin should be in jail, for what they’ve already done against human and civil rights, and for what they will do to all of us in the future. Both are evil dictators and I can’t wait to see them get true justice in the end. Preferably a firing squad.

                • Frank says

                  ”Trump and Putin are evil dictators” Really? I presume that you are aware that they were both democratically elected. This may be unpalatable to you but none the less it is a fact. What do you propose in terms of elections which return people you don’t happen to like? A coup perhaps, like the one that is currently going on led by the US deep state and media and – I imagine – supported by people like you.

                  From a realistic as opposed to a moral/ideological geopolitical perspective the pertinent question is not who is purer and righteous in the sight of God or more likely their own estimation, but who is the greater threat to global peace and stability. And as Chomsky has never hesitated to point out Gallup Polls and Pew Surveys have indicated that overwhelming the world in general views the US as the greatest threat to world peace and stability. But hey, don’t take my word for it, check in out yourself.

                  Geopolitics is not a morality play. It is about nations who have neither permanent friends of allies but only permanent interests, in pursuit of those interests. The rest is emotionalist, sentimental bullshit.

                    • Carrie says

                      No. It doesn’t. Most of them just get rich. Some of them also get knighthoods or OBEs or some other honour they don’t deserve.

                    • In your statement you are the prosecutor who levels the charge. You are the Judge who passes the death sentence. And you are the executioner killing in cold blood. I am only glad you have no power, you would be a terrible dictator.

        • Helen says

          So the state funded RT ‘raises concerns’ but not the state owned Channel 4 news? Your blindness as to your own prejudice reduce the validity of your comments significantly. That aside, of course not all the children presented as victims of SAA bombings are faked – and I doubt Eva Bartlett has stated that. Aerial bombing cause civilian casualties. The Western deception is that the SAA are intending these casualties whilst the ‘collateral damage’ of our bombs are of course not so.
          It is also true that the West has spent billions on propaganda – including going to the extreme of producing fake Al Qaeda videos (see Bell Pottinger scandal). It is a fact that the ‘White Helmets’ were set up by a former British military intelligence officer and many of their members have been photographed whilst on active military duty for Islamic terror groups.
          I feel sorry for the people who are suffering because people like you fall for the lies of the US and her allies that have lead us into a series of disastrous middle eastern wars with incalculable loss of life.

        • Deano says

          You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Stick to writing your third rate children’s books. If Either Eva or Vanessa Beeley had you one to one on a factual basis they would DESTROY YOU. they have been to Syria, they have reported on the truth, based on facts, unlike you. Where do your facts come from? Corrupt Western media, no doubt. Typical out of touch Australian reading and believing your corrupt ABC and heinous Australian Guardian.

        • Brutally Remastered says

          To automatically assume that everything, every reporter etc on RT is compromised is facile. In fact, one American lawyer and media analyst has stated that he has never, ever been asked what he was going to say when going live on same nor ever been given “guidelines” nor a talk about content.
          After the evidence piling up against nefarious MSM and the testimony of the, now dead, Dr UdoUlfkotte, I think I will risk my online integrity and trust the independents above those large organisations that have manifest continued, cynical bias.
          I see that a couple of smarmy, well-heeled “film makers” are going to the Oscars for their work on the White Helmets in Syria; I trust they will recieve all due approval from that august crowd…

  26. Pingback: America's News Is Heavily Censored

  27. Nicholas A. Earth says

    Pleased to come along your way. Well done!
    Please stick to it. We are many and the word goes around.
    Will shall follow and judge.
    Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere. Just JUSTICE.
    Thanks for your hospitality.

  28. Sandy Robertson says

    So delighted to find you. I constantly call for civil discourse on Guardian comments, yet get moderated for nothing while real filth is allowed if it’s about someone they hate like Trump. They never write about Hillary Clinton allegations about Haiti or Huma Abedin or Clinton Foundation in an investigative manner, just blabber saying only misogynists don’t like her. I’m not blind to Trump’s manifest flaws, nor Brexit’s, but why has the paper become a one-sided manifesto echo chamber for the Islington elite media club. I wrote that articles that are just promos for the authors own books or shows are not what the paper ought to be doing and got modded on two occasions. When I reposted mentioning the censorship I was put on pre moderation for weeks, in spite of the fact that after I contacted them they had to agree the original post had nothing wrong with it and eventually reinstated it; they kept me on pre mod until just now. It’s very sad what the paper has become. They’re failing financially because of the way it’s run and have the cheek to ask for donations!

  29. Dear Off Guardian, I am so glad I found you. The New Guardian is such a disappointment. What on earth happened to it? I learned more from the comments than I did from the news stories. I knew somehow that the wounded
    Fans must be lurking somewhere! Kudos to you for starting this.

    • remaster says

      Second that! The comments sections are almost always more interesting and a greater source of inspiration for reference than that to which they refer. A most interesting time to be alive in the West, unfortunately, a most tragic in other parts…

  30. I found you by a posting on Facebook regarding an alternative account of what is happening in Eastern Aleppo, information I have seen elsewhere without so much detail. It has become impossible to trust any media. Even in Canada, our once good CBC has been shredded of it’s trustworthiness. My “news” all comes from alternative media. There is, however, so much of that which is definitively biased, to say the least. I have lived life without needing, or wanting dogmatic opinions or beliefs. This era of government intrusion and deprivation of dissent is both troubling and something I could not have predicted in my younger years.

    I will be interested in your articles, continuing the approach I learned young – of having no obligation to believe anything as unchanging truth or necessary fact. What my 72 years of life have taught me is that everyone experiences, thinks/feels, conceptualizes somewhat different to the same given situation. “Objectivity”, is a worthy goal, an urgently needed question as much as subjectivity will always interfere. I acknowledge my predispositions as a life-long non-conformist to authoritarian dictates, a believer in the real possibility of Justice in all areas and in alternative resolutions to conflict other than organized mass murder. I am a pacifist and never a ‘passiviiist’.

    Thank you.

  31. Wiremu says

    Hi there.
    Just found your site via James Corbett and very pleased to know of it’s existence. I have been banned from all Cif for many months after making an historical comparison/allusion to the content of a slippery little J Freedland article: very telling in the Voltaire sense.
    Am quite sickened by what is going on there and in/on other outlets as free speech and democratic principles are being eroded particularly concerning BDS, Palestine, Syria and all things Russian Federation.

    Thanks
    ciao4now

  32. Without trying to sound paranoid, please be careful, as we both know that you’re offending some very powerful and vindictive people who have no problem resorting to violence to solve what they perceive to be as troublesome.

    And please get up a donation button so some of us can help this very worthy cause that way.

  33. Pingback: about « Musings of a Penpusher

  34. Tony Reynolds says

    It may be useful to have a summary of the Tories’ record in office:

    They have doubled the national debt to £1.5 trillion, increased the NHS deficit to £2 billion, ensured the richest 1% now own as much as the 55% poorest, increased house prices, enriched nursing and other agencies, cancelled the bank levy, cut corporation tax cut to 45%, condoned tax evasion by multinationals, tolerated tax havens, boosted the lobbying industry, violated international safety regulations by flying nuclear materials between the UK and US, invited China to build a nuclear reactor in Essex, sold arms to dictatorships and increased the number of refugees, abolished workers’ rights, ruined homes and businesses by neglecting flood defences in favour of renewing Trident and bombing Syria, given 83% of a £300 million two-year fund to Tory-run councils, privatised and permitted inhuman immigration centres, failed to reduce pollution, abolished subsidies for green energy projects, left 18 million people with inadequate housing, 12 million people so poor they have no social life, 5.5 million people in debt, 1.85 million people unemployed (3/4 million young people 16-24), 1.7 million OAPs in poverty, 2.5 million children in damp homes and 1.5 million without proper food, failed to support the steel industry, abolished students’ grants and trebled their fees, cut social services for old and infirm people, increased the cost of nursery places by 33% per cent, reduced the number of child care and Sure Start centres, introduced diabolical supermarket “training” schemes FOR NO PAY, condoned unjust zero hours contracts, tolerated an inexcusable shortage of apprenticeships, failed to improve treatment for mental illness, compelled 343 libraries to close and 8000 staff to lose their jobs, increased VAT to 20%, cancelled legal aid for the poor, deceived the public about tax credit cuts, alienated Moslems, deprived workers of their rights, jeopardised education with inefficient, profit-making academies, failed to condemn the Saudi government for unjust executions, reduced allowances to opposition parties, virtually silenced the House of Lords, compelled doctors, nurses and teachers to go on strike and plan to introduce 6 million higher National Insurance payments of £450 per annum and, worst of all, prompted a UN investigation into disabled people’s suicides – and almost certainly the deaths of evicted children. Even Cameron’s mother (who lost the job she loved) and aunt signed a petition against his cuts to social services.

    Hamlet’s wise remark that “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” certainly applies to the United Kingdom where this Government is of the rich, by the rich and for the rich – with the top jobs in the cabinet held by more than a dozen millionaires and future heirs of family empires which receive a larger sum in donations than all the other political parties put together – in return for subsidies, directorships, sinecures, peerages, honorary degrees, membership of illustrious clubs and societies, beneficial changes to the laws – and hell knows what else… Cameron and Osborne visit Rupert Murdoch regularly to receive his latest instructions. They also give wealthy landowners an annual subsidy of £3.5 billion to keep their land off the market and increase the cost of property for the rest of us while many people are living in atrocious conditions because house building has been deliberately neglected:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/life-and-society/2011/03/million-acres-land-ownership

    • Monkeybiz says

      Actually Tony, the NHS debt is closer to £18Bn in terms of the gap between what is needed and what is being provided, this is despite a 13% reduction in costs by the NHS and the Tory fairy dust “£10Bn (actually £7.8 and after various accounting tricks really only around £3.2) of new money”. Savings of £22Bn are expected, so plus the magic “£8bn (or £10bn according to May’s latest claim) there is close to a £30bn gap between what government provides to the NHS and what is needed. Don’t give them any wriggle room. They create quite enough of their own.

  35. Rob says

    Just brilliant , pse pse pse keep going esp now as we need all the help and BALANCE we can get to offset the establishment agenda.
    Thanks and soon as you get the donation sys in place I am happy to pay , lets run the rag Graun out of town

  36. Jesse Morgan says

    whoops! I found the editor apologies, still can’t fund out about funding… Jesse

  37. Jesse Morgan says

    Hello,

    Looks like and interesting site. I wonder:

    Where is your funding coming from? Who is the editor?

    Cheers

    Jesse

    • OffG Editor says

      Thanks for the enquiry. We don’t currently have a donation system in place, and all our funding has come from our own pockets. We have discussed opening it up for reader financial contributions, and may well be doing so soon – especially as we are planning to move to our own dedicated webspace which will increase our costs fairly substantially.

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole