I’ve tagged this piece to link it to my series on Anti-Russian propaganda in the UK press. But really it belongs in a special category of its own devoted to the ravings of Guardian journalist Luke Harding. Harding – who was once posted to Moscow (and whose tenure ended when the Russians declined to renew his Visa – a matter which he depicts as being ‘thrown out’ of Russia) – is notorious for his “join the dots” journalism on Russia. (His words). For Harding “joining the dots” means inventing all sorts of stories which – for Harding at least – must be true because they are the only possible explanation which connects some dots. He shows you the dots – simple facts in the public domain – and then claims that the dots prove the lines – his stories which “connect the dots”. He is informing us about the lines which must be there because of the dots. The alternative explanation is that the lines are purely in Harding’s own head.
The property was a miniscule one-bedroomed ‘house’ on a development at the edge of town.
Let’s call him Mr Get Rich-quick. He told me, as he showed me round, (it didn’t take long), that he worked for a couple of Pakis in the pharmaceutical business. He didn’t like them because they were overpricing drugs which they were selling to the NHS. By this he established his patriotic credentials. I think the idea was that he was on my side, a fellow Brit; not an exploitative landlord. He had principles; he didn’t like the NHS being ripped off. However, he overdid it and, crudely, invented what he presumably thought would be a mutual enemy – Pakis. In trying to sound patriotic he ended up being racist. Perhaps better not to be a buy-to-let landlord in the first place and then the problem wouldn’t arise. Continue reading “My Buy to Let landlords”
One feature of this election has been the willingness of some sections of the press to tell bare-faced lie after lie. I have been reading the Guardian and occasionally The Independent – and both of these papers have relentlessly lied.
One feature of these lies is that they appear to be made by people who either a) are of such feeble intelligence that they can’t grasp nuance and complexity of a situation or b) who are normal but who count on their readers being of type a). Either way – this isn’t just about lying. Wish that it were. This is about a kind of bestial disregard for truth. Continue reading “It is not just politicians who tell lies”
The documents show that the US – under 3 administrations – has been duping the American public about the Afghan war – attempting to present it as a success even when they knew it was a costly failure (in lives as well as money). Continue reading “Lies about the Afghan war”
One feature of this election is how denunciations are replacing debate. Rather than say that your opponent is wrong and showing why his views are wrong by argument and (where relevant) evidence people – ordinary people, as well as politicians and the press, simply denounce the other person.
The liberal-left are resorting to outright deliberate lying to try to smuggle Corbyn into power (even though they probably know it would be a total disaster). We documented the other day a case where the Independent lied about what Johnson had said. Continue reading “Straight lies in the liberal press in an attempt to win the election”
There is a strong movement in public discourse in the UK to only permit a single, approved, narrative on a wide range of questions. The unifying and ‘moral’ basis of the discourse seems to be something to do with victimhood.
It is not allowed to express contrary opinions. People who do are hung, drawn and quartered. Their views are so obviously bigoted and wrong that no one needs to actually present a reason why they are wrong. In expressing contrary opinions they are not seen as mistaken but as evil. If people make a public humiliating apology – and almost all do – they may be permitted to remain in the fold, on license. Otherwise they are exiled. Politicians must spent a lot of effort making sure they don’t transgress. It is obvious that many politicians express opinions which they don’t hold so as not to fall foul of the thought police.
Who is driving this discourse – which has arisen only in the last 10-20 years or so?