Craig Murray on how the Guardian are sinking to even lower depths:
Watching live, I too did not think that John McDonnell’s Chairman Mao joke was wise, because of the obvious misrepresentation to which it was open in the right wing press. But in fact while the openly right wing media all have a go, they all respect the basic tenets of journalism by fairly reflecting both the content and the context of what Corbyn said:
The Labour shadow chancellor mocked the Chancellor – who he dubbed “Comrade Osborne” – for encouraging China to invest in British infrastructure projects…
After joking about the sale of public assets to the Chinese government, Mr McDonnell said: “To assist Comrade Osborne about dealing with his new found comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book.”
Mr McDonnell accused his Tory rival of selling off Government assets to foreign nations such as China.
He said: “Nationalisation is ok for him as long as its by any other state but ours.
“To assist comrade Osborne in his dealings with his new-found comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book.”
The Daily Mail
The Shadow Chancellor, who could not be mistaken for Jimmy Tarbuck even on a good day, was essaying a satirical dig at Mr Osborne for becoming too chummy with Chinese investors. He argued that Mr Osborne was nationalising our economy – but turning it over to the Chinese state.
That is pretty plain, is it not? And actually fair journalism.
Yet astonishingly the Guardian ran three whole articles entirely about the McDonnell gaffe. You could read every single word of these three articles and not learn the basic information provided in each of the three Blue Tory papers above. The utterly disgraceful Jonathan Jones, John Crace andTom Phillips all managed to produce articles which utterly omit what McDonnell actually said and why he said it, to contrive to give the impression that McDonnell was quoting Mao straight and with approval.
As a member of the NUJ myself, I cannot say how much it pains me to see colleagues renouncing every single tenet of professional, let alone ethical, journalism in order to produce a deliberate distortion of the truth. Even the Blue Tory newspapers did not here sink to anything like the depths plumbed by the Red Tories of the Guardian.
Crace, Jones and Phillips have crossed a line and are not journalists. What are they? Paid lying bastards.
Read the rest here
Dellers picks up on the recent Spiked Farage interview. The parallels with the climate change debate are uncanny.
‘All through the civilisation of human beings, people form establishments’, he says: ‘An interwoven network that actually has a very big generational context, in that it hands on down. And we are challenging the establishment — we are challenging their very thought; we are challenging the very basis upon which they exist and operate. And there is nobody in history who has taken on the establishment and has not received the kind of treatment I am getting.’
All of this makes perfect sense to me, not only because of what I have personally seen of the way Farage in particular and UKIPers generally are traduced in the media, but also because it gels so perfectly with what is going on right now in the parallel world of the climate change debate. Farage is the political equivalent of those outlying scientists described by Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions: the ones whose reward for challenging the cosy consensus is to be vilified and excluded by an Establishment which dare not admit that it is wrong because that would be to lose its power, its money and its grip on the prevailing culture.
Farage makes this connection explicit when he talks about environmentalism:
The politics of environmentalism is utterly hostile to progress, he says. ‘If Natalie Bennett won the election, we’d all be living in caves’, he says with a chortle. ‘[This politics] is very regressive. There is nothing progressive in terms of the evolution of society or living standards in what these people stand for. And the whole thing is based on a fallacy: that our fossil fuels are going to run out and therefore we have to adapt the way we live. Actually, the shale-gas [revolution] has shown over the past decade that we are finding more and more of this stuff.’ As for the idea that we should stop digging for coal or shale or uranium and instead turn to renewable energy — ‘I think wind energy is the biggest collective economic insanity I’ve seen in my entire life. I’ve never seen anything more stupid, more illogical, or more irrational.’
Here, Farage is kicking against one of the key planks of 21st-century consensus politics: the idea of planetary vulnerability and human hubris. And he gets massive flak for it. ‘[Climate change] is like a religion’, he says. ‘And you’re demonised if you question it. Ostracised completely. Johnny Ball. Think Of A Number. Brilliant man. He compares the amount of CO2 we produce in the whole atmosphere to a ping-pong ball in the Albert Hall, and he is completely ostracised for years. We’re almost back to Galileo. Whether it’s Galileo or Darwin, you challenge consensus, whether it’s in science, whether it’s in politics, and you are demonised for doing it.’ He remembers, in 2006, being on a Sunday morning TV show and being branded a ‘DENIER! DENIER!’ (his emphasis) after he raised issues with climate-change orthodoxy. ‘I thought I was attending the Salem witch trials. Quite extraordinary.’
via The real reason why the media hates Nigel Farage – Breitbart.
I started this blog to support some of the investigations I do into the weather/climate, especially those periods which have passed into climate amnesia. I subscribe to the mantra that what has gone before will happen again…eventually. Any pronoucement that anything is unprecedented is a crock of shit born of ignorance – and I put myself (or rather my warmista past life) in that category. Now I mostly do that stuff over at the weatheraction.wordpress.com site which I am eternally grateful for Piers Corbyn allowing me the latitude to explore. I took up that site lest it become a parody site, no more no less. After hanging onto it for a while I launched it last year. That left this site in a quandary. So after some not very careful thought and inspired by such sites as Chiefios I think now is the time to explore other areas although the climate core/mission is hard to escape. Many threads in the debate are interwoven try as I might escape it (I really did have hopes of this site being a non political entity – I laugh at my optimism now). All I would say is the aversion I once attested to sites such as Steven Goddard’s (aka Tony Heller) have softened. I get where they come from – even if I do not always agree. Tolerance does not mean you have to listen to my opinion, nor I yours but I hope you will because I will listen to you – as long as you don’t shout. I can can chew things over just don’t force it down my throat. It is by exposure to ideas and people I rejected out of principle that I have learnt much. I may not agree with you but share a quiet pint with me and I will defend your opinion – as long as you are not advocating violence of opinion or deed. I have no time for that.
So, I will now throw more into the mix and I want to listen. It’s a rare, under appreciated gift we all have if we can cut out the noise. Comments are welcome. Trolls can stay under the bridge.
I hope readers will understand that whilst I may not agree, I will lend an ear. I may not agree with your solutions but I can be empathetic to the cause of our collective maladies.