Sadly main stream media newspapers both here and abroad have lost much objectivity (and I am being kind here) – but much of the public is unaware of these seismic political shifts. Please help teach others to know which newspapers/media sources stand to the far left, left, center, and right as well as try to be more objective. Though the old Soviet-era papers Pravda and Izvestia are gone – their ghosts live on!The Guardian;
The ugliest newspaper in Britain and which appears on Google News as an "impartial" news source
View Pat Condell’s excellent 7 minute video.
http://youtu.be/GOgV6Fvc8wc
Posts
Liberal newspapers losing money in the internet age:
Among the influential hard-core liberal newspapers, the New York Times leads America, the Guardian England, and HaAretz Israel.
Their editorial positions are always consistent: all are atheistic, but they insist that if there were devils, then white christian conservatives (formerly led by Bush, and now by Romney) would be the Great Satan, and Jewish Israel the Little Satan. Conversely, if there were angels, then obama would be jesus (although lately they are doubting his actual performance).
They are all fantastically arrogant and delusional, and are convinced the world hangs on their every word and opinion.
Reality, though, is dealing them a harsh blow.
All these papers are incredibly expensive to run. They have huge staffs, 24 hour coverage, and many editions, and they always vastly overestimate how much advertising revenue they will receive, and how much people are willing to pay out of their pockets to read them.
They once had virtual monopolies, but now the competition is ferocious (Fox News and internet newsblogs).
As a result, it appears they are in the process of going bankrupt.
The New York Times stock price was $48 ten years ago, and is now $7.50 ( a loss of 85%).
The Guardian is owned by a rich private trust fund. It loses huge amounts of money every year, but does not say when it will totally run out of money.
HaAretz may be very close to the brink. It is privately owned, by a German Jewish family that fled Hitler but still loves Germans, and thinks Hitler was just a momentary blip who did not reflect the true heart and soul of the German people (like I said, they are delusional). As its losses mount, it has sold much of its ownership to a German publishing company that actually collaborated with Hitler in World War Two. Most recently, it has started charging for access to most of its articles. I take this as a sign that the end is near; since, if you want your daily dose of Jew-hate, why pay HaAretz when you can still get it free from the Guardian?
Their is a rich vein of antisemitism in the british, it is often hidden deep. In the Guardian and BBC it breaks surface, it is most insidious in the universities! It time to bring your children out of the cess pit and home to Israel
Clive Said:
The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition
Aristocratic anti-Semites at Hampton Court
Yehuda Avner, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 14, 2005
The sheer splendor of Henry VIII’s Great Hall at Hampton Court Palace, with its 16th-century Flemish tapestries and soaring hammer-beam ceiling, is an inspiration for prestigious entertaining on a prodigious scale.
Queen Elizabeth II habitually celebrates her official birthday there, a sparkling occasion which assembles ministers of the crown, peers of the realm, knighted dignitaries, church notables, civic leaders and foreign ambassadors. Insignia of high rank and ancient office are on dazzling display, and a courtier in a black cocked-hat, red livery and great silver chains, boisterously strikes the floor with a huge baton while announcing the entry of each personage at the top of his voice.
The royal banquet of the summer of 1988 was particularly noteworthy for the salacious gossip which was making the rounds of the Great Hall. champagne-fuelled guests were abuzz with the tittle-tattle triggered by the tabloids titillating that Britain’s future king, Charles Prince of Wales, husband of the widely-adored Princess Diana, had taken a mistress. Her name was Camilla Parker Bowles, and she was a married woman!
As the evening got under way, the Archbishop of Canterbury was seen hurriedly disappearing with prime minister Margaret Thatcher into an adjoining chamber, where they were said to have engaged in an animated exchange on the royal succession.
This, at least, was the speculation of the person on my right, a baroness whose name I do not recall but whose appearance was unforgettable. She had cobweb-like yellowish hair, a long neck noosed in yards of pearls, a prominent Adam’s apple, and was dressed in a fussy fire engine red. She had a face like a samovar.
“Charles has taken a feather out of Henry VIII’s cap, I wager,” she remarked in a tone ringing with reproach. “Did you know that after Henry married Anne Boleyn he still played hanky-panky with her sister, Mary – and their mother, too, right here in Hampton Court. Did you know that?”
I confessed that I didn’t.
“And at the very same time he was also conducting an affair with a wench called Elizabeth Blount, also right here in Hampton Court. Did you know that?”
Again, I admitted that I didn’t.
“And did you know that not only was she his mistress, she gave birth to his only son?”
Once more I acknowledged that I didn’t.
The woman stared sharply at me through her pince-nez as though I was a nincompoop. Whereupon, she emitted a long audible sigh of incredulity, and hissed, “Do leopards change their spots? Can Charles the philanderer ever change his?” With that, she cast a sudden jaundiced eye at the white-gloved butler who was obsequiously placing a golden plate of kosher cuisine before me.
“Foreigners!” she mumbled under her breath.
“Bah!” and she tucked into her own dish.
Whether this was meant as a slur on my beliefs or a slight at my ignorance I did not have the time to fathom, for now the lady on my left – a Lady Carpenter, wife of the dean of Westminster Abbey – marked my serving and began pontificating about the virtues of religious traditions. She was a trim, middle-aged lady of pious appearance – no make-up, no jewelry, her silvery hair simply done, her dress unadorned.
The fellow next to her, a husky, soldierly type in his early 70s, with an aristocratic nose, glossy bald head, and piercing blue eyes, joined in to jovially declare, “By sheer chance, I partook of a kosher meal myself in New York last week.”
“How interesting,” gasped Lady Carpenter. She sounded quite spellbound at the thought.
“Oh yes, indeed. I was out with a Muslim chap I know, a Pakistani. And since we couldn’t find a halal restaurant we ended up in a kosher one. Good chicken soup, I can tell you. Ha, ha!”
He spoke in a top drawer accent, and a crimson sash crossed his chest decorated with royal insignia and military honors. Proffering me his hand, he said, “My name is Howard, but people call me Norfolk.”
I blushed at my gaucherie, for I had failed to recognize the Duke of Norfolk, Premier Earl of the English peerage and chief layman of the English Catholic Church.
“Dr. Inamullah Kahn,” he warbled in his sonorous, la-di-da fashion – “that’s the fellow I was with – is the secretary-general of the World Muslim Congress. And we’d just awarded him the Templeton Prize.”
The Templeton Prize is one of the most munificent prizes in the world – a cool $1.5 million – and is awarded for innovative contributions to the harmonious coexistence of religion and science. I deduced that the duke was on its judge’s panel.
“And do you know,” he piped on, smiling in an unmirthful way so that his upper-echelon face contorted into a sort of sneer, “an influential New York lobby had the absolute effrontery to try and pressure us at the last minute to withdraw the prize.”
“Really, Your Grace?” sighed Lady Carpenter. “How dreadful! But why, oh why would they want to do such a thing?” Her voice had trailed off into a whispery woe.
“Because, madam,” answered the Duke with alacrity, “Dr. Inamullah Kahn is a friend and supporter of Yasser Arafat and his cause, that’s why.”
“And who is this lobby?” I asked, antlers rising.
“Oh, come, come, ambassador, you know as well as I do who the lobby is.” His expression was prim, his lips a tight smile.
“No. Who?”
“The Jew press of New York, of course.”
“The what?” I could not believe my ears.
“The Jew press of New York,” he gamely repeated.
My heart was beating fast. “You’re an anti-Semite, sir,” I blurted out, totally beside myself.
“Am I? It never occurred to me,” He seemed genuinely taken aback.
Alarmed presumably at my breathlessness, Lady Carpenter began to rub my back, cooing with unreserved, melodramatic emotion, “Ambassador, ambassador, please do not let the wounds of 2,000 years be reopened. Let me mollify them with the balm of Jerusalem.”
And as she rubbed, the Duke of Norfolk repeated over and over again, “Nothing personal, old boy – nothing personal.”
These theatrics were halted by the red-liveried toastmaster who, barking for silence, commanded everybody to rise for the Loyal Toast. Instantly, the merry tables of the Great Hall went mute, and everybody rose. Then, we all settled down to the speeches.
The orations done, guests moved into an adjacent grand parlor where brandy, liqueurs, coffee and cigars were proffered, and a string quintet played Bach.
Amid the hubbub I came face to face with the baroness, who was enjoying a tipple. She was standing under a Gainsborough, not far from the secretary of state for Scotland, Malcolm Rifkind, and the head of the Liberal Party, David Steel. They were engaged in vehement conversation.
By now a trifle inebriated, the baroness snarled, “Look at them – politicians! Talk, talk, talk!”
“Scotsmen do seem to have much to talk about,” I bantered for want of nothing better to say.
A derisive expression spread across the baroness’s beaky face, and with a jerk of her chin in Rifkind’s direction, scoffed, “He’s not a Scotsman. He’s one of yours.”
That was enough! Earlier, this insufferable woman had addressed me in an admixture of paternalism and hauteur. Now it was pure hauteur – anti-Semitic hauteur.
Irate, I retorted: “How can you say a man born in Edinburgh, raised in Edinburgh, educated in Edinburgh, represents a constituency in Edinburgh, and is the secretary of state for Scotland – is not a Scotsman?”
The baroness’s lips twisted into a disdainful smile as she pointed in the direction of another Jew who was a member of prime minister Thatcher’s cabinet – the secretary of state for trade and industry, Lord David Young. Cynically, she chortled, “Young’s an Englishman as much as Rifkind’s a Scotsman.”
Aghast, I quickly gazed around the big room in search of Jewish members of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet.
“Look,” I exclaimed challengingly, “There’s Keith Joseph, secretary of state for education and science. And over there is Leon Brittan, the home secretary. And by the window is Nigel Lawson, the chancellor of the exchequer. And there’s Michael Howard, minister of state for local government – in addition to Malcolm Rifkind and David Young. So what do you make of that?”
Her eyes were a vicious glint. She said nothing.
“So how come Mrs. Thatcher has so many Jews in her cabinet?” I kept on.
Smoothly, snootily, she answered, “Because Margaret Thatcher is most comfortable among the lower middle class,” and off she traipsed, tipsy.
That night I learned that there are grand houses of the British aristocracy where one can be an anti-Semite without shame, and where one can be an anti-Semite without knowing it.
When Michael Howard fought an election as head of the British Conservative Party a few weeks ago, amid anti-Semitic slurs and undertones, I conjured up the memory of Hampton Court. One cannot be a Jew in British political life without learning a lot about anti-Semites. It is often a subtle, oblique, residual thing – a feeling that Jews are somehow not quite fully British.
And this is a reminder, surely, that anti-Semitism has proven to be the most durable of ideologies. It has reemerged to become a powerful force in world affairs.
Will Israel be more durable than anti-Semitism? Few things have been. Yet, ironically, anti-Semitism itself has kept many a Jew a Jew. And this goes for the Jewishness of the Jewish state, too.
The writer, a veteran diplomat, served as ambassador to the Court of St. James.
IS EVERYBODY DEAF, ASKS PAT CONDELL.
Deaf to the clear and specific message given by PA Arabs that they want to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews in it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And that seems to be the problem not only in the West but in Israel itself.
There is pervasive silence among Israeli Jews about the ideological and historical connections between PA-Gaza Arabs and the Nazis.
Israel rents air frequencies to PA-TV, which uses them to indoctrinate its youth with Nazi-like ideology demonizing Jews, using Islam and Arab nationalism to justify the mass slaughter of Jews.
The same Jewish folks who freak out at every instance of Europeans attacking Jews seem unresponsive to the constant barrage of anti-Semitic propaganda AND physical attacks perpetrated by their Arab neighbors.
Here is today’s report about the PA’s own Hitler’s Youth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Israeli Jews are not deaf, but are rather silent, not organizing to fight back against Arab threats, and ignoring their own rights.
Some of the most important issues:
1) Israel’s legal rights to Judea and Samaria based on the League of Nations/St Remo Conference.
Do you ever hear decent, nationalist Jews mention this? A few do (like our Ted Belman). But most don’t, and if they do, they don’t act on it. So this giant legal weapon is disregarded, and they continue talking about legitimizing a few Jewish homes here and there.
2) Israeli Jews right to worship in safety at Temple Mount and at holy sites located in the PA.
3) The straight line linking old JEWISH anti-Zionists from Herzl’s time, who vehemently opposed the idea of a Jewish state, all the way through their opposition to it during the Holocaust, and now – renamed post-Zionists – openly siding with the enemy, advocating partition and justifying Arab terror based on the “occupation”.
Why not a campaign denouncing anti-Zionist, pro-Arab Jews for what they really are: TRAITORS?
4) Israeli authorities’ misrepresentation of those in the PA who celebrate the killing of Jews as “moderates”, insistently offering them Jewish land, while sanctioning profitable trade between Israeli business and PA-Gaza terrorists.
5) Allowing years of offering the Jewish heartland to terrorists, without specifically consulting Israeli citizens and PA Arabs by means of a referendum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is an recent and important news report that was apparently ignored by most media, by Israeli nationalists, and by the public.
Why was there never a serious attempt to insist on a referendum both in Israel and the PA before even thinking of handing over the Jewish heartland to the enemy?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There you are…. this problem with unexplainable silence among the people most affected by these issues.
great stuff Pat. The guardian makes me sick.
This is very good–these words need to be spoken loudly and often–to hell with the fragile little egos of the useful idiots of the British Marxists!
Except for one thing–Pat Condell unnecessarily blasphemed God!
The Guardian reminds me of some in the Marxist Israeli media.
You could practically substitute “Ha’aretz” for the “Guardian” and the shoe would fit.