Pat Condell: "The ugliest newspaper in Britain"

Post Reply New Topic

Here in Britain we have a newspaper called The Guardian whose reputation as a sanctimonious mouthpiece for the great multicultural con trick is now being eclipsed by a more rancid reputation for anti-Semitism.

The Guardian used to represent what used to be called the liberal tradition, and at one time it could be relied on for reasonably balanced coverage. Sloping to the left, of course, but in a fair way, an honest way. Those days have gone.

Nowadays The Guardian has become so obsessed with the State of Israel and has come to hate it with such a lopsided Scandinavian intensity that it has lost all sense of proportion.

Nowadays The Guardian publishes writers who engage in anti-Semitic slurs, it willingly acts as a propaganda platform for the murdering terrorists of Hamas, and it misrepresents the facts in the Middle East to persuade its readers to support a fascist religious war of hate against a genuine democracy where Arabs and Jews have equal rights, although you'll never hear about that in The Guardian whose writers prefer to push the lie, the fiction, of the apartheid state.

When it was forced to respond to repeated accusations of being anti-Semitic, The Guardian seemed a lot more concerned with possible damage to its reputation than with whether or not anti-Semitism is a bad thing, when I think we all know that if Muslims were complaining about "Islamophobia" they'd be trampling over each other at the Guardian to put things right. But Jews? Meh.

And what all this means is that if you let it be known that you read The Guardian it now says something about you that, on reflection, you may not want it to say. In short, The Guardian is now stigmatising its own readers - not that many of them don't do a fine job of stigmatising themselves.

Guardian readers are, in the main, educated middle class people who regard themselves as liberal leftish intellectual types. Not the common clay, as it were. And many of them inhabit a rarified bubble of hypocrisy that only they seem unaware of. For example, they call themselves liberal, yet they're often the most enthusiastic about censoring the opinions of others, which is about the most illiberal thing you can do.

This is because The Guardian is written by and for the same narrow class of patronising know-it-all pinheads who have stolen the BBC from the rest of us and destroyed its impartiality. The kind of people who are so smug in their shallow certainties and so sure of the moral superiority of their views that they have no compunction about slandering anyone who disagrees as a fascist or a crank. Such is the BBC's hatred of Israel, by the way, that they couldn't even give it a capital city in their Olympic guide, yet they gave one to the Palestinians who haven't even got a country and never will have, the way they're going about it.

Both The Guardian and the BBC are part of what's called the "progressive consensus" under whose auspices the language has been systematically emasculated and words like "tolerance" and "fairness" and "diversity" and, well, "progressive" no longer mean what they say. In each case the shell of the word is still there but it has been hollowed out and filled with something altogether less savoury, and actually quite sinister. In this artificial PC Newspeak world the feckless and the stupid, for example, are never referred to as feckless or stupid because that might damage their self-esteem. Instead, they're called "disadvantaged" and "vulnerable" which renders them victims, and, as such, automatically virtuous. And we all know by now that the golden rule for virtuous victims is that they should never be required to take responsibility for their actions or their circumstances. It must always, somehow, be somebody else's fault. It's what I call the Palestinian syndrome, and it saturates The Guardian from cover to cover.

So who reads the Guardian? Mult-culties, liberal lefties, touchy-feely bleeding hearts. Is that a stereotype? I do hope not. The kind of people who cause ten times as many problems as they solve because they're so wilfully naïve on everyone else's behalf. People who throw the words "racist" and "Islamophobe" around like monkeys with their own faeces, and who love diversity, but make sure their own kids go to a school where everybody speaks English.

Maybe you know some fossilised old lefty who is still mentally wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt. You can bet your life they read the Guardian. And you probably know one of those comically self-righteous anti-capitalists with a mortgage and a pension; there's another Guardian reader. Self-hating Jews who support the Palestinians, women and gay people who defend Islamic misogyny and homophobia all read The Guardian, and you know you're firmly in Guardian territory when you find yourself being lectured on social justice by some middle-aged university-educated prick who has spent his whole life on the dole.

Guardian readers are the kind of people who gravitate to the high moral ground on just about every issue because their values (being leftish liberal values) are automatically more virtuous than everybody else's. So virtuous are they, in fact, that they appear to be impregnable even to the stigma of anti-Semitism if it's in a good cause, and there is no better cause for a committed Guardianista, no cause more holy (meaning more fashionable to support at dinner parties) than romanticising the murdering terrorists of Hamas as freedom fighters when freedom is actually what they're fighting against.

The Guardian and its sheeplike readers agonise endlessly about the poor Palestinians while maintaining a rigorous ideological blindness to the core problem which is that the Jews want peace and the Arabs don't because the Arabs are driven primarily by religious hatred, so whatever the Jews concede will never, ever be enough because the Arabs want blood. They want the Jews dead. They don't want a two state solution, Guardian readers. They want a one state solution with no goddamned Jews in it and they have repeatedly made it crystal clear that they will settle for nothing less. Is everybody deaf?

So, if this is your position, and if you support Hamas, as The Guardian does, it is definitely your position (Sieg Heil, anyone?) then you need to be a bit more honest about your position and admit that what you're supporting, ultimately, is religious genocide. On the other hand, if it's not your position then maybe you should do yourself a favour and stop reading The Guardian, because right now every time you pick that thing up you leave a film of filth on your soul.

Peace, and so on and so forth. Yeah.

There's a lot of validity in that speech, even if it is somewhat drowned out at points by the very thing he ironically detests in the Guardian - Anti Semitism.

Where is the anti-Semitism in what he says? If anything, he's pointing out that sometimes liberal Jews can sometimes naïvely go against their best interests in order to fit in - he didn't just limit the comparisons to misguided pro-Palestinian Jews by the way, but the kind of feminist that excuses Islamist misogyny. Same principle.

It does seem very quaint: people in England still read newspapers.

Oh, don't get me wrong - newspapers in Britain are dying a slow death.

Quite a few British national daily newspapers have lost half their total readership in the space of ten years (the Daily Mirror had an average circulation of 2.16m copies in January 2002; ten years later that has slumped drastically to 1.10m).

But they're not quite dead yet.

A lot of people look for viewpoints that will affirm their own biases.

This is true and ultimately why many still buy local and national papers in Britain as they would not actively seek news on the net for things such as sport, politics, celeb stuff.

"We all have the idea we'll be married later. Some of us even marry very young. But until then, we have plenty of time, and it's fun doing this. If it's a girl that's easily talked to, you shouldn't assume it's a long-term thing. They're girls for two or three days, just to see how far we can go. A hot brunette. A little tan, a nice butt and nice tits. The naughty sluts. Bla-bla, you talk to her, tell her to give you her telephone number, tell her to meet you the next day, that's just how we do that. To be honest, in 99% of cases it never works. We often hang out in groups of twenty guys, that's a lot. And women base their idea on stereotypes about Arabs. You have to tell us you're already taken - already married, that is. And then you show them your hand. If you're not married, wear a fake ring. Pretend. Not all, but many of us respect a married woman. Then we'll leave you alone."

"Did you look in the mirror? If nobody was watching you, wouldn't you feel bad? Instead of lecturing us, you should thank us for making you feel like a real woman! If I were a little younger, I wouldn't leave you alone! I'd have you! If you don't want to be addressed like this, there's only one solution - pay me! And I'll walk right behind you at all times. And if someone says something, I'll murder him. You should just be quiet. If you respond, they'll certainly assume you're asking for it. Put headphones on, like the other girls. And let them talk. Such a beauty thinking like that - what a shame. It's your fault. They didn't do anything wrong, lady."