The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJonathan Cook Archive
How the Guardian Betrayed Not Only Corbyn But the Last Vestiges of British Democracy
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It is simply astonishing that the first attempt by the Guardian – the only major British newspaper styling itself as on the liberal-left – to properly examine the contents of a devastating internal Labour party report leaked in April is taking place nearly four months after the 860-page report first came to light.

If you are a Labour party member, the Guardian is the only “serious”, big-circulation paper claiming to represent your values and concerns.

One might therefore have assumed that anything that touches deeply on Labour party affairs – on issues of transparency and probity, on the subversion of the party’s democratic structures, on abuses or fraud by its officials – would be of endless interest to the paper. One might have assumed it would wish both to dedicate significant resources to investigating such matters for itself and to air all sides of the ensuing debate to weigh their respective merits.

Not a bit of it. For months, the leaked report and its implications have barely registered in the Guardian’s pages. When they have, the coverage has been superficial and largely one-sided – the side that is deeply hostile to its former leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

That very much fits a pattern of coverage of the Corbyn years by the paper, as I have tried to document. It echoes the paper’s treatment of an earlier scandal, back in early 2017, when an undercover Al-Jazeera reporter filmed pro-Israel Labour activists working with the Israeli embassy to damage Corbyn from within. A series of shocking reports by Al-Jazeera merited minimal coverage from the Guardian at the time they were aired and then immediately sank without trace, as though they were of no relevance to later developments – most especially, of course, the claims by these same groups of a supposed “antisemitism crisis” in Labour.

Sadly, the latest reports by the Guardian on the leaked report –presented as an “exclusive” – do not fundamentally change its long-running approach.

Kicked into the long grass

In fact, what the paper means by an “exclusive” is that it has seen documents responding to the leaked report that were submitted by Corbyn and his team to the Forde inquiry – Labour’s official investigation into that report and the circumstances of its leaking. The deadline for submissions to Martin Forde QC arrived last week.

Setting up the Forde inquiry was the method by which Corbyn’s successor, Keir Starmer, hoped to kick the leaked report into the long grass till next year. Doubtless Starmer believes that by then the report will be stale news and that he will have had time to purge from the party, or at least intimidate into silence, the most outspoken remnants of Corbyn’s supporters.

Corbyn’s submission on the leaked report is an “exclusive” for the Guardian only because no one in the corporate media bothered till now to cover the debates raging in Labour since the leak four months ago. The arguments made by Corbyn and his supporters, so prominent on social media, have been entirely absent from the so-called “mainstream”.

When Corbyn finally got a chance to air the issues raised by the leaked report in a series of articles on the Middle East Eye website, its coverage went viral, underscoring how much interest there is in this matter among Labour members.

Nonetheless, despite desperately needing clicks and revenue in this especially difficult time for the corporate media, the Guardian is still spurning revelatory accounts of Corbyn’s time in office by his former team.

One published last week – disclosing that, after winning the leadership election, Corbyn arrived to find the leader’s offices gutted, that Labour HQ staff refused to approve the hiring of even basic staff for him, and that disinformation was constantly leaked to the media – was relegated to the OpenDemocracy website.

That Joe Ryle, a Corbyn team insider, either could not find a home for his insights in the Guardian or didn’t even try says it all – because much of the disinformation he laments being peddled to the media ended up in the Guardian, which was only too happy to amplify it as long as it was harming Corbyn.

A political coup

Meanwhile, everything in the Guardian’s latest “exclusive” confirms what has long been in the public realm, via the leaked report.

Through its extensive documentation of WhatsApp messages and emails, the report shows conclusively that senior Labour officials who had dominated the party machine since the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown eras – and were still loyal to the party’s centre-right incarnation as New Labour – worked at every turn to oust Corbyn from the leadership. They even tried to invent ways to bar him from standing in a rerun leadership election a year later, in 2016, after Owen Smith, the Labour right’s preferred candidate, challenged him.

Corbyn and his supporters were viewed as dangerous “Trots” – to use a derisive term that dominates those exchanges.

The messages show these same officials did their level best to sabotage Labour’s 2017 general election campaign – an election that Corbyn was less than 3,000 votes from winning. Party officials starved marginal seats Corbyn hoped to win of money and instead focused resources on MPs hostile to Corbyn. It seems they preferred a Tory win if it gave momentum to their efforts to rid the party of Corbyn.

Or, as the submission notes: “It’s not impossible that Jeremy Corbyn might now be in his third year as a Labour prime minister were it not for the unauthorised, unilateral action taken by a handful of senior party officials.”

The exchanges in the report also show that these officials on the party’s right privately gave voice to horrifying racism towards other party members, especially black members of the party loyal to Corbyn.

And the leaked report confirms the long-running claims of Corbyn and his team that the impression of “institutional antisemitism” in Labour – a narrative promoted in the corporate media without any actual evidence beyond the anecdotal – had been stoked by the party’s rightwing, Blairite officials.

They appear to have delayed and obstructed the handling of the small number of antisemitism complaints – usually found by trawling through old social media posts – to embarrass Corbyn and make the “antisemitism crisis” narrative appear more credible.


Corbyn’s team have pointed out that these officials – whose salaries were paid by the membership, which elected Corbyn as party leader – cheated those members of their dues and their rights, as well as, of course, subverting the entire democratic process. The submission rightly asks the inquiry to consider whether the money spent by Labour officials to undermine Corbyn “constituted fraudulent activity”.

One might go even further and argue that what they did amounted to a political coup.

The bogus ‘whistleblower’ narrative

Even now, as the Guardian reports on Corbyn’s submission to the Forde inquiry, it has downplayed the evidence underpinning his case, especially on the antisemitism issue – which the Guardian played such a key role in weaponising in the first place.

The paper’s latest coverage treats the Corbyn “claims” sceptically, as though the leaked report exists in a political vacuum and there are no other yardsticks by which the truth of its evidence or the plausibility of its claims can be measured.

Let’s start with one illustrative matter. The Guardian, as with the rest of the corporate media, even now avoids drawing the most obvious conclusion from the leaked report.

Racism was endemic in the language and behaviours of Labour’s senior, rightwing officials, as shown time and again in the WhatsApp messages and emails.

And yet it is these very same officials – those who oversaw the complaints procedure as well as the organisation of party headquarters – who, according to the corporate media narrative, were so troubled by one specific kind of racism, antisemitism, that they turned it into the biggest, most enduring crisis facing Corbyn during his five-year tenure as leader.

To accept the corporate media narrative on this supposed “antisemitism crisis”, we must ignore several things:

  • the lack of any statistical evidence of a specific antisemitism problem in Labour;
  • the vehement racism expressed by Labour officials, as well as their overt and abiding hostility to Corbyn;
  • moves by party officials forcing Corbyn to accept a new definition of antisemitism that shifted the focus from a hatred of Jews to criticism of Israel;
  • and the fact that the handling of antisemitism complaints dramatically improved once these rightwing officials were removed from their positions.

And yet in its latest reporting, as with its earlier coverage, the Guardian simply ignores all this confirmatory evidence.

There are several reasons for this, as I have documented before, but one very obvious one is this: the Guardian, like the rest of the British media, had worked hard to present former officials on the right of the party as brave “whistleblowers” long before they were exposed by the leaked report.

Like the BBC’s much-criticised Panorama “investigation” last year into Labour’s alleged “antisemitism crisis”, the Guardian took the claims of these former staff – of their supposed selfless sacrifice to save the party from anti-Jewish bigots – at face value.

In fact, it was likely even worse than that. The Guardian and BBC weren’t just passive, neutral recipients of the disinformation offered by these supposed “whistleblowers”. They shared the Labour right’s deep antipathy to Corbyn and everything he stood for, and as a result almost certainly served as willing, even enthusiastic channels for that disinformation.

The Guardian hardly bothers to conceal where its sympathies lie. It continues to laud Blair from beyond the political grave and, while Corbyn was leader, gave him slots in its pages to regularly lambast Corbyn and scaremonger about Labour’s “takeover” by the supposedly “extreme” and “hard” left. The paper did so despite the fact that Blair had grown ever more discredited as evidence amassed that his actions in invading Iraq in 2003 were crimes against humanity.

Were the Guardian to now question the narrative it promoted about Corbyn – a narrative demolished by the leaked report – the paper would have to admit several uncomfortable things:

  • that for years it was either gulled by, or cooperated with, the Blairites’ campaign of disinformation;
  • that it took no serious steps to investigate the Labour right’s claims or to find out for itself what was really going on in Labour HQ;
  • that it avoided cultivating a relationship with Corbyn’s team while he was in office that would have helped it to ascertain more effectively what was happening inside the party;
  • or that, if it did cultivate such a relationship (and, after all, Seumas Milne took up his post as Corbyn’s chief adviser immediately after leaving the Guardian), it consistently and intentionally excluded the Corbyn team’s account of events in its reporting.

To now question the narrative it invested so much energy in crafting would risk Guardian readers drawing the most plausible conclusion for their paper’s consistent reporting failures: that the Guardian was profoundly opposed to Corbyn becoming prime minister and allowed itself, along with the rest of the corporate media, to be used as channel for the Labour right’s disinformation.

Stabbed in the back

None of that has changed in the latest coverage of Corbyn’s submission to Forde concerning the leaked report.

The Guardian could not realistically ignore that submission by the party’s former leader and his team. But the paper could – and does – strip out the context on which the submission was based so as not to undermine or discredit its previous reporting against Corbyn.

Its main article on the Corbyn team’s submission becomes a claim and counter-claim story, with an emphasis on an unnamed former official arguing that criticism of him and other former staff at Labour HQ is nothing more than a “mythical ‘stab in the back’ conspiracy theory”.

The problem is that there are acres of evidence in the leaked report that these officials did stab Corbyn and his team in the back – and, helpfully for the rest of us, recorded some of their subversive, anti-democratic activities in private internal correspondence between themselves. Anyone examining those message chains would find it hard not to conclude that these officials were actively plotting against Corbyn.

To discredit the Corbyn team’s submission, the Labour right would need to show that these messages were invented. They don’t try to do that because those messages are very obviously only too real.

Instead they have tried two different, inconsistent strategies. First, they have argued that their messages were presented in a way that was misleading or misrepresented what they said. This claim does not hold water, given that the leaked report includes very lengthy, back-and-forth exchanges between senior staff. The context of those exchanges is included – context the officials themselves provided in their messages to each other.

Second, the self-styled “whistleblowers” now claim that publication of their messages – documenting efforts to undermine Corbyn – violates their right to privacy and breaches data protection laws. They can apparently see no public interest in publishing information that exposes their attempts to subvert the party’s internal democratic processes.

It seems that these “whistleblowers” are more committed to data concealment than exposure – despite the title they have bestowed on themselves. This is a strange breed of whistleblower indeed, one that seeks to prevent transparency and accountability.

In a telling move, despite claiming that their messages have been misrepresented, these former officials want the Forde inquiry to be shut down rather than given the chance to investigate their claims and, assuming they are right, exonerate them.

Further, they are trying to intimidate the party into abandoning the investigation by threatening to bankrupt it through legal actions for breaching their privacy. The last thing they appear to want is openness and a proper accounting of the Corbyn era.

Shrugging its shoulders


In its latest reporting, the Guardian frames the leaked report as “clearly intended to present a pro-Corbyn narrative for posterity” – as though the antisemitism narrative the Guardian and the rest of the corporate media spent nearly five years crafting and promoting was not clearly intended to do the precise opposite: to present an anti-Corbyn narrative for posterity.

Peter Walker, the paper’s political correspondent, describes the messages of former, rightwing Labour officials as “straying” into “apparent” racism and misogyny, as though the relentless efforts revealed in these exchanges to damage and undermine prominent black MPs like Diane Abbott are open to a different interpretation.

According to Walker, the report’s evidence of election-scuppering in 2017 is “circumstantial” and “there is seemingly no proof of active obstruction”. Even assuming that were true, such a deficiency could easily be remedied had the Guardian, with all its staff and resources, made even the most cursory effort to investigate the leaked report’s claims since April – or in the years before, when the Corbyn team were trying to counter the disinformation spread by the Labour right.

The Guardian largely shrugs its shoulders, repeatedly insinuating that all this constitutes little more than Labour playground bickering. Starmer is presented as school principal – the one responsible adult in the party – who, we are told, is “no stranger to managing Labour factions”.

The Guardian ignores the enormous stakes in play both for Labour members who expected to be able to shape the party’s future using its supposedly democratic processes and for the very functioning of British democracy itself. Because if the leaked report is right, the British political system looks deeply rigged: there to ensure that only the establishment-loving right and centre-right ever get to hold power.

The Guardian’s approach suggests that the paper has abdicated all responsibility for either doing real journalism on its Westminster doorstep or for acting as a watchdog on the British political system.

Guardian hypocrisy

Typifying the hypocrisy of the Guardian and its continuing efforts to present itself a hapless bystander rather than active participant in efforts to disrupt the Labour party’s internal democratic processes and sabotage the 2017 and 2019 elections is its lead columnist Jonathan Freedland.

Outside of the Guardian’s editorials, Freedland’s columns represent the closest we have to a window on the ideological soul of the paper. He is a barometer of the political mood there.

Freedland was among the loudest and most hostile opponents of Corbyn throughout his time as leader. Freedland was also one of the chief purveyors and justifiers of the fabled antisemitism narrative against Corbyn.

He, and the rightwing Jewish Chronicle he also writes for, gave these claims an official Jewish seal of approval. They trumpeted the narrow, self-serving perspective of Jewish organisations like the Board of Deputies, whose leaders are nowadays closely allied with the Conservative party.

They amplified the bogus claims of the Jewish Labour Movement, a tiny, pro-Israel organisation inside Labour that was exposed – though the Guardian, of course, never mentions it – as effectively an entryist group, and one working closely with the Israeli embassy, in that detailed undercover investigation filmed by Al-Jazeera.

Freedland and the Chronicle endlessly derided Jewish groups that supported Corbyn, such as Jewish Voice for Labour, Just Jews and Jewdas, with antisemitic insinuations that they were the “wrong kind of Jews”. Freedland argued that strenuous criticism of Israel was antisemitic by definition because Israel lay at the heart of any proper Jew’s identity.

It did not therefore matter whether critics could show that Israel was constitutionally racist – a state similar to apartheid South Africa – as many scholars have done. Freedland argued that Jews and Israel were all but indistinguishable, and to call Israel racist was to malign Jews who identified with it. (Apparently unaware of the Pandora’s box such a conflation opened up, he rightly – if inconsistently – claimed that it was antisemitic for anyone to make the same argument in reverse: blaming Jews for Israel’s actions.)

Freedland pushed hard for Labour to be forced to adopt that new, troubling definition of antisemitism, produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that shifted the focus away from hatred of Jews to criticism of Israel. Under this new definition, claims that Israel was “a racist endeavour” – a view shared by some prominent Israeli scholars – was treated as definitive proof of antisemitism.

One-party politics

If anyone gave the weaponisation of antisemitism against Corbyn an air of bipartisan respectability it was Freedland and his newspaper, the Guardian. They made sure Corbyn was hounded by the antisemitism claims while he was Labour leader, overshadowing everything else he did. That confected narrative neutralised his lifelong activism as an anti-racist, it polluted his claims to be a principled politician fighting for the underdog.

Freedland and the Guardian not only helped to breathe life into the antisemitism allegations but they made them sound credible to large sections of the Labour membership too.

The rightwing media presented the Corbyn project as a traitorous, hard-left move, in cahoots with Putin’s Russia, to undermine Britain. Meanwhile, Freedland and the Guardian destroyed Corbyn from his liberal-left flank by portraying him and his supporters as a mob of leftwing Nazis-in-waiting.

Corbynism, in Freedland’s telling, became a “sect”, a cult of dangerous leftists divorced from political realities. And then, with astonishing chutzpah, Freedland blamed Corbyn’s failure at the ballot box – a failure Freedland and the Guardian had helped to engineer – as a betrayal of the poor and the vulnerable.

Remember, Corbyn lost by less than 3,000 votes in a handful of Labour marginals in 2017. Despite all this, Freedland and the Guardian now pretend that they played no role in destroying Corbyn, they behave as if their hands are clean.

But Freedland’s actions, like those of his newspaper, had one inevitable outcome. They ushered in the only alternative to Corbyn: a government of the hard right led by Boris Johnson.

Freedland’s choice to assist Johnson by undermining Corbyn – and, worse, to do so on the basis of a disinformation campaign – makes him culpable, as it does the Guardian, in everything that flowed from his decision. But Freedland, like the Guardian, still pontificates on the horrors of the Johnson government, as if they share no blame for helping Johnson win power.

In his latest column, Freedland writes: “The guiding principle [of the Johnson government] seems to be brazen cronyism, coupled with the arrogance of those who believe they are untouchable and that rules are for little people.”

Why should the Tories under Johnson be so “arrogant”, so sure they are “untouchable”, that “rules are for little people”, and that there is no political price to be paid for “cronyism”?

Might it not have much to do with seeing Freedland and the Guardian assist so willingly in the corporate media’s efforts to destroy the only political alternative to “rule by the rich” Toryism? Might the Johnson government have grown more confident knowing that the ostensibly liberal-left media were just as determined as the rightwing media to undermine the only politician on offer who stood for precisely the opposite political values they did?

Might it not reflect an understanding by Johnson and his chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, that Freedland and the Guardian have played a hugely significant part in ensuring that Britain effectively has a one-party state – and that when it returns to being a formal two-party state, as it seems to be doing once again now that Starmer is running the Labour party, both those parties will offer the same establishment-worshipping agenda, even if in two mildly different flavours?

The Guardian, like the rest of the corporate media, has derided and vilified as “populism” the emergence of any real political alternative.

The leaked report offered a brief peek behind the curtain at how politics in Britain – and elsewhere – really works. It showed that, during Corbyn’s time as leader, the political battle lines became intensely real. They were no longer the charade of a phoney fight between left and right, between Labour and Conservative.

Instead, the battle shifted to where it mattered, to where it might finally make change possible: for control of the Labour party so that it might really represent the poor and vulnerable against rule by the rich. Labour became the battleground, and the Guardian made all too clear where its true loyalties lie.

(Republished from Jonathan Cook by permission of author or representative)
Hide 52 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Because if the leaked report is right, the British political system looks deeply rigged: there to ensure that only the establishment-loving right and centre-right ever get to hold power.”
    The UK, like the US, & other ostensibly “democratic” States have become effectively One Party States, dedicated to implementing a neoliberal agenda.
    The UK public, absent the internet, has no access to any news that approximates reality.
    The Guardian is possibly the most disgraceful example of a once quasi-independent newspaper, simply falling to its knees at the mere sound of the Establishment’s fly being pulled down. They are a sickening disgrace (& I don’t forget Assange here, either).
    And the UK Labour Party ? Utter filth.

  2. jsinton says:

    Guardian is a NWO paper. It is neither left nor right, or rather it’s “controlled opposition” left. It’s corporatocracy. It’s akin to Indy, CNN, MSNBC. It’s pretend progressive, but Neo-con pro war. It pushes the COVID hoax, disparages hydroxycholoriquine to the benefit of Big Pharma. It pushed White Lives Don’t Matter. It’s the death of journalism. None of should be read nor considered. Orwell was a prophet.

  3. I honestly believe that Corbyn had something to hide and was blackmailed. We all have our secrets and they are known to the deep state which reveals it’s hand when necessary. Corbyn acted like a soggy milquetoast. All he had to do was fight and go down in flames but he lacked the courage.

    • Replies: @brabantian
    , @Amon
  4. jsinton @2 is right. The idea that any of the MSM are (I forget your exact phrase) “deeply concerned” with the welfare of the Labour Party (except in an entirely negative sense) is incredibly naive! Come on! Surely you understand, it is, like all the rest, controlled by the Integrity Initiative and is the part of the ruling Class’s Propaganda Arm adapted to (that is to say, intended to appeal to) the soft-left wing of British politics. It is in fact, no more “left-wing” than the Sun or the Daily Mail. It is in effect, part of the same organization.

  5. @animalogic

    The Gadaruins whine is a natural complement to the Daily Torylaugh

    which sends them over the edge every time.

  6. Freedland was on the front of the battle against Corbyn. Now he writes against Boris Johnson. This might suggest that he has strong political values. Because Labor was reformed and takes the right direction Freedland can again support its new leader, Starmer. But I don’t think that this is correct. The only thing that really matters for Freedland is The Country. I never believed anything that he wrote because this was clear. Starmer is very good for him because Johnson is a bit suspect while Starmer is 100% under control because his children are Jewish.

    What makes me curious is to know how this process happened in The Guardian. For a time it was possible to discuss matters freely in the Guardian. The name of its comment sections was “Comment is Free”. Articles could be commented. They had also many critical articles about The Country which influenced the opinion of people and threatened the veil of ignorance of the current ideology surrounding The Country. As far as I know they were the only big mainstream newspaper which did that, maybe also The Independent, but they were much smaller). Seth Fredman who had served in its army wrote succesively critical articles about The Country. Critical articles by other authors were published.

    Of course, there was pressure against The Guardian. The people who lost all discussions in the comments section of the newspaper formed a group and tried to intimidate the newspaper from the outside with a report with exemples of “antisemitism” in the comments (which if they existed at all were immediately deleted anyway) and lack of balance in the reporting. The Guardian took rightly the side of global warming and didn’t think that balance was necessary. They didn’t think that they had to hear the other side in the name of balance. But they thought that in the case of The Country they had to have a balanced view and gave space for the apologists of apartheid for The Country. At the same time the comment section was restricted. As time went by the newspaper stoped publishing regularly articles about The Country. Critical authors disappeared. Comment wasn’t free anymore.

    Yesterday The Guardian published an article about Kamala Harris by Richard Wolffe. I read the article in the morning and thought of writing a comment. But the comments were already closed. They opened and closed in the same morning.

    I would like to know how this happened. Why and how has all this changed? Are there people inside the newspaper who have direct power? Or are the people who lead the newspaper simply naive and simply follow directions and trends that come directly or indirectly from the outside? (I thought that maybe what happened to Starmer is the same that happened to The Guardian). Or were they afraid of a hard campaign against them from the outside with legal consequences? (I wondered what Seth Fredman does nowadays and was surprised when I saw, but this is another story).

  7. eD says:

    On the matter of the “Guardian”, there is a website called “Off Guardian”, which is pretty much the Guardian as it used to be until about a decade ago. Its worth checking out. It is one of the few opinion producers, including websites, to call the COVID scam for what it was.

    The “Guardian” was backed financially by a trust set up precisely to maintain its independence. My understanding is that the trust was destroyed in the 2008 financial crisis and the newspaper was bailed out and taken over by one of the “five eyes” intelligence agencies. The result is that you now are more likely to get anti-establishment pieces in news outlets that were always openly pro-establishment.

    Since the “Guardian” (and “Independent” and “Private Eye”, which were also destroyed or taken over about the same time) really did provide a service in running reasonably independent news pieces to British journalism, and the BBC doesn’t maintain even pretend to be objective anymore, its actually quite hard to figure out what is going on in British politics. But with the Labour Party, it seems that it got taken over by the Deep State, using Blair as a vehicle, in the 1990s, then the ordinary party members took it back briefly in the 2010s, but got slapped down.

  8. Wielgus says:

    A commentator on the deep state in Britain going by the name of Larry O’Hara expressed the view back in the early 1990s that journalists in Britain were lazy, cowardly and servants to the established order, and that “liberal” papers like this one were if anything even worse than the openly conservative outlets. The Grauniad may have got worse but it was never that good.
    My impression is that for a time it collaborated with Wikileaks, then helped throw Assange under a bus when the pressure grew.

    • Replies: @Chiron
  9. Chiron says:

    A commentator on the deep state in Britain going by the name of Larry O’Hara expressed the view back in the early 1990s that journalists in Britain were lazy, cowardly and servants to the established order, and that “liberal” papers like this one were if anything even worse than the openly conservative outlets. The Grauniad may have got worse but it was never that good.“

    Yeah, the Guardian is a cowardly newspaper that represents the worst of the Anglo-Left, totally impotent, powerless and eager to betrayal the Left at every turn. Reading the Grauniad some years ago almost turned me in a conservative because I was
    disgusted by what was published by it.

    The guys who said that the Guardian is a “NWO” newspaper is not totally wrong. I would say it’s a gatekeeper for the Anglo-Left, likely run by the Five Eyes.

  10. dvorak says:

    If I were CIA, I would fund and staff the Guardian, because I’m not supposed to fund domestic media.

    If I were MI6, I would fund and staff the New York Times.


    • Replies: @Miville
  11. Anon[302] • Disclaimer says:

    Corbyn’s Labour party wasn’t defeated by right-wing Blairites yelping about antisemitism in the press. Labour got whacked because the average Briton thought Labour had gone completely nuts. Everything Labour did was right out the Antifa-Soros playbook, and that’s not mainstream politics even for the left. An old, white working-class guy couldn’t relate to Corbyn and his platform. If you look at the numbers, Corbyn lost his votes to the Lib Dems, not the Conservatives.

    • Replies: @Astaroth
    , @Derer
  12. To hell with democracy.

    The only functional, reproducing societies on Earth are those who completely abstain from participation in politics and the humanities.

    Politics is death. It doesn’t matter if Corbyn was railroaded, because there is no such thing as a political solution to the actual problems our societies face.

    Likewise, it doesn’t matter if we get censored, because few people cared about anything we had to say to begin with. And among those who did care: their interest never amounted to anytning effectual. It’s all just circle jerking, mostly by demented morons who thought their twisted interpretation of reality was the correct one.

    Applaud censorship. Censorship is the enforced realization that they are ineffectual. To suggest that this is somehow less moral than allowing them to run around like headless chickens, flailing their arms and screaming that slogan of the eternally downtrodden: “WE NEED!!!“, — as the world around them goes up in flames — is outrageous. Censorship is a charitable act of social euthanasia for these stubbornly retarded mutants who actually believe their cringeworthy ramblings are going to add up with a solution for anything.

    Those people doing the censoring? It isn’t as if they’re going to make their ideological dreams become reality, either.

    The people running our society are the scientists. They were making your life easy for you just fine without your worthless ass opinions.

    • Disagree: Ann Nonny Mouse
    • Troll: HammerJack
    • Replies: @HeebHunter
  13. The anglos are even more subhumans than their spawns. The amerimutts.
    We would like to make joke of how stupid amis are, how they are slave of pissrael.
    Just look at how these island monkeys treat a slight opposition to pissrahell.

    british israelism is still alive and well.
    Forget about the tragedy of ww1 and ww2. These island monkeys are the real plague upon Europe and the rest of the world.

  14. Reading the first few comments here makes me want to run to the toilet again.

    Are westeners so retarded that despite all that happened since the last decade, that ANY media outlet that is mainstream isnt a gov shill since at least WW1?

    This is why you deserve to be replaced. All of you.

  15. R2b says:

    The ”Guardian of Israel”, isn’t ?
    In my pariah-state, we heard almost naught of (((this))), in msm.
    Only vaguely about a crisis in the Labour.
    Ken Livingstone on the defense, in some stairways, but no analysis.
    And why didn’t Jeremy fight?
    I hope we some day will find out.
    Maybe he was concerned about his health and private life?
    And as hinted by nr 3, he knew (((their))) next weapon?

  16. ThereisaGod says: • Website

    God is allowing ruling Satanists and their fellow-travellers to reveal their true nature as never before. These creatures are going for broke. Soon they will all be swept away.

  17. Z-man says:

    As much as I detest Corbyn types he’s becoming a good tool for us White Nationalists.

  18. jim jones says:

    Boris won because he respected the result of the Referendum while Labour were for open borders and mass immigration, simple as

  19. Altai says:

    Do you know, when the triumph of liberal social values came sweeping across the land, I was very young, depending on how you count it, it started decades before I was born. I grew up middle class and couldn’t understand how, if everyone was so avowedly for ’empathy’ and ‘inclusiveness’ that class politics still operated.

    But then I reached adolescence and I realised how decoupled the two things were from each other. All these people who go on about gay rights, trans rights, racial issues, they still just sneer at poor people and consider it just right to begrudge and hate them. The things I’ve heard ‘progressive’ people say to me without them realising my own background with my mild accent.

    The reality is that social liberalism of any kind is typically supported by the wealthy elite since it gives them more latitude to enjoy their riches. It also tacitly removes social responsibility by weakening senses of collective responsibility and collective social structure. People become atomised and find it hard to mobilise. Social institutions that might be vehicles for resistance against the hostile takeover and selling off of their society become weak. And most importantly, people stop feeling like they’re a part or an owner of their own society. It all just unravels. It all just disintegrates and the media tells you it’s natural and normal as suicide rates keep going up.

    The attacks on Corbyn by the very progressive elites in the media validate this. A lot of the people histrionically attacking him get to keep calling themselves ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘left wing’. Has Rachel Reilly suffered any backlash from the supposedly left-wing media/comedian set in London?

    Social liberalism is just a kind of individualism that goes nicely with the individualism of Regan/Thatcher/Blairite economics. Once it’s given primacy over economic collectivism or once it’s taken to too much of an extreme to rekindle the kind of social solidarity needed to oppose elite economics, it’s over for the real left.

    • Agree: Ann Nonny Mouse
  20. @UncommonGround

    I had only ever written 2 comments in the Guardian in response to one of Freedman’s many articles on Anti-Semitism. They were very mild but did criticize “The Country”. Within 10 minutes I received an email from the Guardian stating that my comments had received numerous complaints as they were deemed “offensive”, and therefore, were promptly removed. I had tried to make one more comment- but a message came up stating that my comments were now being moderated. I felt like this would have been something that happens in countries like China. You cannot, ever criticize “the Country” whether or not what you are stating can be backed up with actual facts. This paper has become utterly worthless for real, unbiased news.

  21. Who wrote the report and why does it have any credibility at all?

  22. @JohnPlywood

    This. “Democracy” in modern sense is nothing but another control method so the filthy masses can pretend their opinions matter. Well, they did once, when they had moral principles, imposed on them by the elites, who they too had a duty to check and hold responsible, by force if necessary.

    Let this shit show burn.

  23. Alfred says:

    All Labour leaders for around 50 years have been corrupt. They deliberately ignored the interests of their supposed constituency – the British white working classes. They permitted the massive import of cheap labour from the 3rd world. They sent their kids to white only schools in the suburbs while their supporters’ kids had to go to schools where kids spoke a multitude of languages other than English at home. They allowed the east end of London to be taken over by Bangladeshis. The whites were squeezed out of council houses to be replaced by illegal immigrants.

    In sum, the Labour party got what it deserved. It has become almost an irrelevance. It is just another Jew-controlled party.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  24. Astaroth says:

    Yes this was part of the reason for Corbyn’s defeat, but the main reason was Labour’s intent to sabotage Brexit. Labour lost seats throughout it’s Brexit voting heartland. I think that this was not only because many Labour people were in favour of preventing Brexit at all costs, but also part of the plan to throw the election. I was a Labour voter, until Blair became leader, I no longer vote. My late father also stopped voting at the same time. I think Labour lost many voters because of Blair.

  25. @Rev. Spooner

    Re Corbyn being possibly blackmailed or having his own sordid connections –

    Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy’s father David Corbyn working for Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific projects during World War 2, Victor Rothschild once being one of the most powerful people in Britain, credited with having a BBC director sacked at his request

    Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals including Corbyn’s Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst “child abuse rings were operating within all 12 of the borough’s children’s homes” in Corbyn’s district … not very decent of him … but arguably he would have been totally destroyed much earlier if he tried to confront UK politically-connected paedos … this is also covered by Aangirfan on her site, see above link

    But Corbyn has been friendly with Palestinian folks, like Jonathan Cook the author above, Jonathan Cook apparently Jewish himself and a dual citizen with Israel, tho he tends not to mention this … tho Cook indeed writes sympathetically about Palestinians, & about Jewish abuse of power both in Israel-Palestine & in Britain

    The Guardian was denounced as a criminal entity involved in wholesale media bribery, in the USA Dept of Justice Inspector General file on crimes involving Robert Mueller, the Guardian described in joining in the spreading of lies assisting criminal threats to murder a witness providing information both to the US FBI and to the UK Crown Prosecution Service and National Crime Agency

  26. chris says:

    The saddest thing about this great piece is the author’s hitherto, seemingly unbridled faith in the MSM.

    I assume most people reading here have long since shed this belief like old superstitions from more primitive ages.

    I realize he’s a very good journalist, but this piece, meant as a corrective, has the feel of writing a list of grievances about the Communist party shortcomings to Stalin.

    Western MSM is simply the official Propaganda ministries, and Corbyn’s treatment and its significance for “British [wow!] democracy” pales in comparison to Assange’s.

    • Agree: Kali
    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
    , @Alden
  27. Amon says:
    @Rev. Spooner

    How does one fight when the entire system is against them.

    • Replies: @HeebHunter
  28. @Amon

    By not participating, cleverly profiting and playing the system. And more importantly, stop praising the retarded golems who made this mess just because they were muh grandpa.

  29. @Alfred

    Having been in the UK several times in the early 70s, I was always surprised at how strong the support for Enoch Powell was among the working class. It was my first lesson in how disconnected Labour was from its constituents.
    At the end of the Major era in the early 90s a friend, who was a Liberal Democrat, said something like ‘if the socialists don’t win the next election, we’re all doomed’. Of course the leader of Labour, at the time was John Smith, who was a throwback like Corbyn, and probably more so. How convenient that Smith died suddenly and Blair, the antithesis of Labour, became leader.

    • Agree: alfred
  30. The conservatives are hardly closed border fans. Johnson just said he wanted to give visas to three million Hong Kong residents.

    • Replies: @alfred
  31. alfred says:

    How convenient that Smith died suddenly and Blair, the antithesis of Labour, became leader.

    Most convenient.

    Also the unfortunate demise of Robin Cook while out for a walk. Tony Blair seems to be an incredibly lucky man. 🙁

    Robin Cook died of heart disease, autopsy finds

    Autopsies, like everything else can be arranged. Just look at what the coroner in Victoria did about the 26 Australian dead on the MH-17

    The Victorian state coroner Iain West (lead image) has concluded a 60-minute inquest into the deaths of Australians on board Malaysian Airlines MH17 by issuing a statement of findings contradicting the coroner’s own statements, as well as the evidence of reports from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and courtroom testimony from the senior Australian police officer investigating the MH17 crash.


  32. Isn’t the Guardian’s stance and interference precisely what is meant by the “weaponized media” an instrument more deadly than any existing weaponry. And doesn’t the Guardian materialize in every which way the Jewish control of the media?
    And don’t the Jewish “victims” then start whining about
    How many times does this scenario need to be repeated before there is appropriate response?
    The one element I have left out is the monumental damage to the entire world that Jews are causing now and have caused in the past.
    This damage is what has give rise to a factually and morally based dislike and rejection of Jews.

    • Agree: Ann Nonny Mouse, Kali
    • Replies: @artichoke
  33. niente says:

    Both in Brazil and Argentina, the liberal-left journals, Pagina12 and Brasil247, respectively, are Soros-Gates Zio oriented. The Guardian is old sale.

  34. alfred says:
    @Eugene Norman

    Johnson just said he wanted to give visas to three million Hong Kong residents.

    Rather ironic. When the British controlled Hong Kong, the Chinese of Hong Kong were totally disenfranchised. Johnson knows that these Chinese would all vote Conservative. He is no friend of the Chinese of Hong Kong.

    Senior Hong Kong policemen were British. Many of them became immensely wealthy during their stay in Hong Kong. It was a plum posting.

    Around 1977, I was staying at a top hotel in Hong Kong. I was very young. I had a short haircut and I was wearing a short sleeved shirt. In the lobby, a beautiful Chinese prostitute assumed that I was a policeman. She offered me her services for free. I politely declined. I did not tell her that I was on business.

    There were very few young Westerners in Hong Kong in those days. I guess we are going back to something similar. But the days when a Chinese gentleman in a white suit would drive you from the airport to the hotel in a white Rolls Royce are definitely over.

  35. vot tak says:

    “and the Guardian made all too clear where its true loyalties lie.”

    With the israeli very far right. Even Craig Murray described the guardian as a neocon rag.

  36. @UncommonGround

    The Guardian changed somewhere around the time of the Manning or Snowden leaks, after the police raided them and took away their computers.

  37. “It was a fragment of the abolished past like a fossil bone which turns up in the wrong stratum and destroys a geological theory. It was enough to blow the Party to atoms, if in some way it could have been published to the world and significance made known.”

    – Orwell, 1984

    “The Zionists would have us believe there is no such thing as an Arab. They have also adopted the attitude that the State of Israel, unlike every other state on earth, is sacrosanct and outside any criticism whatsoever. This is the more irritating since the Jewish people as a whole have never been reticent in their criticisms of every other state and society on the globe.”

    – Dorothy Thompson, 1950

    (End Judeo Lese Majeste? Take back the MSM.)

  38. vot tak says:

    “Corbynism, in Freedland’s telling, became a “sect”, a cult of dangerous leftists divorced from political realities. And then, with astonishing chutzpah, Freedland blamed Corbyn’s failure at the ballot box – a failure Freedland and the Guardian had helped to engineer – as a betrayal of the poor and the vulnerable.”

    Back during the 2004-5 orange color rev against the ukraine freedland was the only staff writer to question this zionazi-nazi regime change op at the guardian in one commentary article (there was one other, who wrote 2 commentaries, but he was a guest writer). All the rest of the guardian’s coverage of this color rev was wildly promoting it. Essentially all their day to day “news” promoted it. Essentially, 3 articles out of probably more than a 100 were not blatant propaganda for this zionazi-nazi regime change covert war.

    A few years later I read a freedland interview with one of guardian’s deranged zio-propagandists called linda grant. It was all praise and gushing love. Now who is linda grant? A far right likudite parasite/propagandist. But not just a propagandist, she ran a ring of similar websayanim on guardian’s old talk forum (guardiantalk) 15-25 years ago. She, and they, made sure any genuine critics of zionazism and israel were banned from the website. One her tactics was to “befriend” the victim, pretend friendship and fellowship to their views, then once having extracted a suitable anti-zionist statement from the person, to misrepresent it and point it out to the mods, insisting they ban the person. She would gloat about these victories afterwards, to the delight of her fellow websayanim.

    The net result of this was there was literally no regular Muslim comment writers on guardiantalk except one woman, a swiss convert, who was working with the websayanim. This out of literally 100s, maybe 1000s of regular comment writers on the site. Anti-zionist comment writers, not affiliated with the guardianista websayanim network, were quickly fingered and booted from the site.

    When freedland gushed over grant, he knew full well this role of hers at guardiantalk, along with her fanatical zionazism. Both freedland and grant are what the guardian represents, likud extremism wrapped in a phoney left or independent wrapper. The level of duplicity from these israelis is bottomless.

  39. Derer says:

    Using antisemitism card works in a society of dimwits…it has reverse effect in more educated societies. How come the Kosovo criminal Blair is freely walking the streets?

    • Agree: Ram
  40. Miville says:

    The Guardian, as long as the Berlin Wall stood tall and solid, was THE most servile Western press organ to the Soviet Politburo. They veered towards neo-liberalism only at the orders of former Politburo responsables turning into Russian oligarchs. That press organ used to exist for one reason : covering and justifying Soviet crimes. By the time it was a Soviet organ, the personnel was all Jewish : not a single non-Jewish White Englishman could publish, not even George Orwell. This paper was criminal right from the start. Even the criticisms of Western capitalism they seemed to make at that time had for sole purpose the targeting of non-Jewish, national capital in favor of international and pro-Soviet Jewish one.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @artichoke
  41. Miville says:

    Anyway the Guardian was Mossad first since day one (long before Israel was founded) and the KGB in as much the Mossad allowed it.

  42. Art says:

    It is a shame, but political parties supersede democracy. Voters come second at best.

    It is foolish to be a one-party voter. It is plain to see that the Labor Party ignored its voters. The Labor rank & file voted for Corbyn – and the “party” apparatus destroyed him. Voters do not count to the party elite. This is true everywhere in the world.

    To the elite party members, winning and losing is less important than keeping the current party bigwigs in charge of the organization. The Labor Party elite feared they would lose their cushy jobs under Corbyn.

    We must vote – but our votes must not be automatic (especially in primaries).

  43. Antisemitism is not racism.

    • Agree: Derer
  44. @eD

    I do not think that Private Eye has changed much over the last few decades. It has perhaps drifted a bit more to the left lately but otherwise it is the same.
    It is currently putting the boot into EY, ex Ernst & Young, accountants who specialise in fraudulent audits and are close enough to politicsand politicians to get away with it. Their coverage of major Post Office fraud and their unreliable computer system will not have pleased the Establishment either.

  45. @chris

    Thanks for mentioning Assange. Corbyn didn’t. You’re right about the absurdity of calling Britain a democracy, as though the prancing of our rulers meant that.

  46. Alden says:

    Agree. From my teens I haven’t believed anything in the MSM. It’s a very standard silly journalistic trick. Start out with a couple paragraphs of shock that such things go on as though they don’t happen every day.

    The guardian’s been hard left since the 1920s and anti White forever. Even in the 1950s there were endless articles about how badly the sacred saintly black immigrant Caribbean’s were treated by the evil prole White British.

    1960s to 2000 guardian was just one long sermon about the evil British working class being mean to the immigrants. Guardian covered up crime welfare dependency the Rotherham Oxford Gatwick sex slavery of White British girls by Muslims. Covered up knife attacks and racist murders of Whites by Muslims and blacks.

    Totally detestable anti White rag

    • Agree: artichoke
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  47. @Alden

    “Guardian covered up crime welfare dependency the Rotherham Oxford Gatwick sex slavery of White British girls by Muslims. Covered up knife attacks and racist murders of Whites by Muslims and blacks.”


    Tangentially related, this from the local Bradford paper in Yorkshire. Can you imagine white people living in India protesting about Kashmiri rapists in Bradford?

    • Replies: @artichoke
  48. artichoke says:

    This link to the supposed “horrifying racism” contains no examples of racism, just criticism of two black female MP’s. Lots of other MP’s were criticized too of course, but the article isn’t interested in that.

  49. artichoke says:
    @Lynda Brayer

    But (even assuming the Guardian is Jewish controlled which you have not shown at all) there are many other newspapers. The Guardian is the only one to cover this story, apparently, so the others are even slower. And you’re complaining so bitterly about the monumental damage supposedly caused by the Guardian and the supposed Jews who supposedly own it supposedly?

  50. artichoke says:

    I guess Pakistan is complaining about Kashmir. Rather odd to call it an “occupation” by India considering that before Pakistan was split off India so the Muslims could have their own country, it was all India.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  51. artichoke says:

    And it’s been 30 years, so how about now? Being pro-Soviet is rather out of fashion these days. Is it still Jewish owned? Presumably if it were, you would be giving recent (and verifiable) data.

  52. @artichoke

    Kashmir’s always been a bit of an oddity in that even before Raj days it had a Hindu ruler despite being mainly Muslim. But that wasn’t unusual on the subcontinent – the King of Kandy in Sri Lanka was a Tamil Hindu, but his subjects were Buddhist.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jonathan Cook Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement