Further to my previous post, I was pleasantly surprised to see this comment by “MJuma2018” to a Guardian piece called “A new era of lies: Mark Zuckerberg has just ushered in an extinction-level event for truth on social media”:
Part of the reason SM has become a source of news for many is declining trust in traditional media platforms including liberal ones that set out to subtly manipulate readers. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it. Who holds the media accountable for manipulating readers rather than reporting news? Should they also be held responsible for misleading/manipulative content like the Hunter Biden laptop story and Biden’s cognitive status?
What’s so surprising about that comment? The fact that it has been up for four hours despite including the words “Hunter Biden’s laptop”. My most recent attempt to mention Hunter Biden’s laptop on a Guardian comment was on 6th November 2024. It was instantly deleted, as was any comment – however polite, however on-point – containing any combination of those three words over the four years since the controversy began. I presume this was automatic. Comments that referred to the Laptop from Hell using circumlocution were also inevitably deleted after a slightly longer time, with the phrase, “This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.”
I relieved my feelings by immediately following up my deleted comment with this one,
I just demonstrated to myself that even now, four years later, the mere mention of a certain electronic device that featured in a news story broken by the New York Post brings swift euthanasia to a comment on this website. Guys, stuff like that makes people lose trust in the media.
It was deleted too, of course. Dunno what quality to melt the censor’s heart MJuma2018’s comment had that my very similar one of two months ago lacked, but I am glad to see someone at Guardian Towers woke up.
I say we nuke the Guardian from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
What the Guardian calls “lies” is the truth – as Malcolm Muggeridge found out 90 years ago, when he was dismissed by the Guardian (then the Manchester Guardian) for telling the truth about the deaths of millions of people in the socialist Soviet Union.
It has not changed – the Guardian continues to lie, about just about everything.
As for Hunter Biden – the bribes were never really for him, he was the “bagman” for his father Joseph “Joe the Big Guy” Biden.
The media has known for many years that Joseph Biden is a bribe taker – including from foreign powers such as the People’s Republic of China, but they (like the FBI and other swine – and the word “swine” is well deserved) have covered-it-up.
Just like they covered up the blatant rigging of the 2020 United States Presidential Election (which the Guardian calls “lies”).
Meanwhile people remain rotting in prison for opposing corruption and election rigging.
In one case a man has a 22 year prison sentence when he was not even at the Capitol building – or anywhere near it. He was branded a “white supremacist” – when he is NOT white.
Both the civil and the criminal courts are totally corrupt in many American cities – Washington D.C., New York City and others.
Perhaps the Guardian will say it is “lies” when I point out that Mr Floyd died of drugs he willingly consumed, a corrupt judge and jury put a person, Derick Chauvin in prison for “murder” when they knew (they knew) that no murder had taken place – and, as they knew he would be, Mr Chauvin was cut up with a knife.
Guardian types have made up corrupt juries here in the United Kingdom – such as the jury that found “not guilty” the people who had helped George Blake, a traitor – a Soviet agent, escape from prison. They knew the people on trial were guilty, they had even boasted of their treason in a book, the jury shared-their-evil – the jury was not intellectually mistaken, it was made up of evil-people, traitors, Guardian types.
There can be no compromise with people who convict the innocent and find the guilty innocent – and laugh as they do it.
There can be no compromise with Guardian or New York Times type people – they are not intellectually mistaken, they-are-evil.
Paul Marks: I agree with most of what you say there. In the case of the Derek Chauvin trial however, I’m not sure that the jury were corrupt; more likely they were terrified of the consequences of letting Mr Chauvin go free.
That would also be a form of corruption.
It is interesting to wonder why they do this precise type of censorship. I understand why they wanted to censor the whole laptop story in the main sources of news; but here? Some comment on some news story in some British newspaper.
After all, how much does some random comment move anyone to have a different opinion? It is a weird thing that they can’t allow something that disagrees with the orthodoxy, even something as trivial and inconsequential as one out of a thousand comments on some Guardian news article. I mean how many people in the world would actually have read Natalie’s comment? My guess is less than one hundred people in the whole world, and how many of them are not inclined to think she must be a “crazy ultra right wing maga dupe” for even saying so, and consequently ignore it.
It is just strange to me that they censor not because they fear the effect that the information would have by being in public, but just because they can’t stand a world in which the orthodoxy is breached, no matter how inconsequentially.
In a world in which “the science is settled” is their ultimate argument for so many things, dissent and disagreement mean the science is not settled. Can’t have that.
From this particular jury pool, there were very very few people who were not all in on the woke crusades.
From interviews and leaks, it is clear that the jury was happy – proud – to convict Chauvin. It gives them too much credit to think they only did what they did because of pressure.
bobby b. wrote:
‘From interviews and leaks, it is clear that the jury was happy – proud – to convict Chauvin.’
Too right. When Detroit had its own George Floyd moment, 30-something years ago (Google ‘Malice Green’ for details) the mayor was proudly calling the police officers involved ‘murderers’ on TV before their trial even began, and I well-recall a prominent Detroit politician telling the jury pool that it was their ‘civic duty’ to convict the officers. (That politician later spent time in the Federal pokey for the most petty and banal corruption, but who’s counting?) That the convictions they eagerly provided were overturned later due to egregious misconduct by the prosecutors ran on page 19 of section D, under the reports of ship passages. Malice Green is long-forgotten, but the lawlessness he embodied lives on and thrives in Detroit. As do the attitudes that surrounded that trial, and it’s one reason why there’s no hope for Detroit.
llater,
llamas
Fraser Orr, I had so many Guardian comments that mentioned Hunter Biden’s laptop instantly censored that I am now convinced it was an automated process – all the censorship was probably the result of one decision made in late 2020 when the 51 intelligence “experts” had pronounced the laptop fake. Occasionally I saw comments from other people that mentioned the laptop briefly appear, only to disappear almost immediately.
Although that presents a different picture of the motivations of the censors from the one you painted, it is as – or more – frightening to contemplate. Once something got on the censorship list it stuck there for years, even though, as you say, the benefit of the censorship to their side was trivial at best, and more probably was a net loss because it made them look stupid and frightened, and further diminished their value as a purveyor of news.
No doubt there are a bunch of other topics that are being similarly deleted even now. Without some definite pressure to remove an item, the list gets ever longer without anyone consciously deciding anything.
Bill de Sarse and Alisa – both excellent points.
However, the judge was certainly corrupt – he has a long record of leftist (including Critical Race Theory Marxist) activity – the hatred he showed, for example, to an Asian police officer (for the crime of being a Christian) was intense.
As for the jury – I watched part of an interview with one female member of the jury, her giggling amusement was unbearable, I had to turn it off. The lady clearly knew Mr Chauvin was innocent – indeed that is why she found him guilty. Of course, that does NOT mean that other jury members were not acting out of fear, rather than sadism, they could indeed have been acting out of fear.
Natalie Solent.
Yes – 51 intelligence officials, including ex heads of the CIA and other agencies.
And this is not the only time they have blatantly lied – they have done so often and always for clearly Collectivist political reasons.
It appears that John Brennan was not the only traitor in the service – indeed how could he be, after all how could a man known to be a supporter of the American Communist Party be let into the CIA and rise to be Director of the CIA without this agency (and other services) ALREADY being rotten.
This does not mean they are Marxists – but it does mean they have nothing hatred and contempt for the principles of the United States, for the Bill of Rights.
With all due respect to Fred_Z it is not the Guardian newspaper that needs to be nuked from orbit – it is the “intelligence and security community” – British as well as America.
They are a bunch of Collectivists (viciously so) – they hate and despise traditional liberties, they need to go away. Their organisations are utterly corrupted.
There is an inbuilt problem with having government agencies guard against Collectivism.
The problem is that government agencies are, by their very nature, naturally supportive of Collectivism.
So whilst the FBI, CIA (and so on) might NOT be formally Marxist – they will have a natural tendency to end up supporting some form of Collectivist tyranny.
llamas – thank you for pointing out that the corruption is not of recent origin.
That, far from being a “white supremacist” regime, areas of the United States (and the Federal government) were being unjust, long ago, in order to push the corrupt agenda that is now called “equity”.
“Affirmative Action”, giving jobs and contracts to people who are black (or some other “disadvantaged group”) because-they-are-black – dates back some 60 years, to the 1964 Act. It is why, for example, the tens of billions of Dollars pledged by the Federal Government to “high speech internet connection” more than three years ago, have achieved nothing – because the “correct” companies (who have ticked all the DEI boxes) can not do the work, and, even if they could, they can not guarantee that the work would benefit XYZ groups.
Corrupt trials are a natural extension of all this.
In the United Kingdom there were no “Jim Crow” laws to correct – indeed British law did not accept the concept of “race” till 1965 – yet we have gone down the same corrupt road, indeed we have gone further down it than the United States has.
In the United States at least it could be said “present injustice is to correct past injustice” – that is sickening “two wrongs make a right” thinking, but at least it can be understood.
But, contrary to the lies told by the BBC (and the rest of the far left “mainstream” media) and the education system, there were no “racist laws” in Britain in the past.
The “history” now being taught in the United Kingdom is a tissue of lies – which tries to justify present injustice by MAKING UP past injustices.