|
Meanwhile, as America grieved, The Guardian and
its imprinted disciples who pervade the British media seized on the opportunity
to mock Republican President George W. Bush simply because he had referred to
the terrorists in his native vernacular as "folk".
A few conservative columnists in
the British Press are now commenting openly on the Guardian’s corroding influence over British society.
The effect, they say, is everywhere.
Through its doting patronage by the media establishment and the
chattering classes, soft policing, trendy teaching, decline in Christian
worship, and political correctness, are now the order of the day.
New Yorkers used to remark how safe London’s
streets were. Not any more. In Britain violent crime and burglary are rampant, while
those who defend their property are locked up for assault or worse.
In America citizens of all creeds and races salute with pride the Stars
and Stripes and sing the Star Spangled
Banner. But thanks to the Guardian’s pervasive liberal agenda, in Britain such
manifestations of national pride are now portrayed as a mark of far-right
extremism, to the point that displaying the national flag is held to be
synonymous with racism, no less.
But of all the examples of the
Guardian’s corrupting power, none compares to the national witch-hunt
whipped up by the Guardian almost a decade ago with its ‘cash for questions’
campaign against the Conservative administration of John Major.
This began in October 1994, when the Guardian
accused London’s then top parliamentary lobbyist Ian Greer of corrupting
Conservative MPs. Though it was a
false, invented, and evidence-free tale that the Guardian had hung on the spitefully-motivated endorsement of Mohamed
‘Al’ Fayed — a man whom only four years earlier the Guardian had condemned as a liar and purveyor of “cock and bull
stories”— such is its brainwashing capacity the Guardian succeeded in using this yarn to smear Major’s
government; and then escaped redress from Greer and its other innocent victim,
Conservative minister Neil Hamilton MP, by enacting a sophisticated conspiracy
to pervert the course of justice of their libel actions.
One audacious component of the Guardian’s
plot was the supplementing of its original story — which focused entirely on
the supposed corrupt activities of the lobbyist Greer — with an entirely
different one in which Greer did not even feature. Another was the bolstering of its weak defence two years
later, days before the libel trial, with testimony from three coerced Fayed
employees.
Free to continue without the impediment of
scrutiny from the BBC and other British media organisations, in early 1997 the Guardian
then deepened its conspiracy by submitting forged documents to the parliamentary
inquiry into the affair. A few
months later the Guardian then
resurrected and conflated the three distinct tales to skewer the outcome of the
British general election with an effectiveness that Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe
could only dream. The Conservative
Party, which allotted no resources to investigate the affair, has yet to recover
from Labour’s resultant landslide victory.
In late 1999 the Guardian involved itself in dirty tricks yet again and helped
overcome a second libel action brought by Neil Hamilton.
A crucial factor in the Guardian’s
effectiveness as a political weapon is its unique ownership.
The Scott Trust, which owns the
Guardian, was set up in 1936 by The
Manchester Guardian’s then owner, John Scott, the son of the paper’s
famous long-time liberal editor and owner C P Scott, to protect the
newspaper from predators in the event of his death.
In an altruistic gesture John Scott gave his newspaper to his
journalists. For decades the
arrangement worked well. But
recently the Scott Trust has become infiltrated by those who had a direct
involvement in the Guardian’s conspiracy. And
so, quite literally, the British media’s agenda is now steered by a
self-perpetuating oligarchy dominated by subversive criminals who have proven
themselves capable of writing history as they see fit.
In sections two and three of my website www.Guardianlies.com
I have laid out some of the evidence proving that the Guardian’s editors, journalists, and lawyers conspired to pervert
Sir Gordon Downey’s Parliamentary inquiry and defeat two High Court actions.
At the time of writing there have been over 42,000 visitors.
Yet the Guardian has prospered,
protected by its imprinted disciples throughout the British media, while its
ideological foes are either hamstrung by conflicts of interest, too weak to
admit they were duped, or just plain bewildered by it all.
The British media’s uncritical acceptance of the
Guardian’s demonstrably false story and its stubborn reluctance to discuss
the evidence exposing the plethora of lies the Guardian
told, currently serves as the ultimate case study to show how the British media,
and through the British media British society itself, has been subjugated by
that newspaper.
The BBC’s censorial, biased, Guardian-led
news service is now being beamed into the homes of millions of Americans the
length and breadth of the United States. Britain’s
Conservative Party did nothing and is now paying the price.
George W. Bush and the American people take note.
Consider yourselves well and truly warned.
This article was published in the summer 2003 edition of the
London Miscellany magazine
|
|
