Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
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 "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? Multi-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 naive 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 *** 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.