Subscribe
Notify of
guest

207 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago

“the Little Circle of Manchester elites believed that the power of democracy, and even of free expression, should be limited to a small elect who were educated and intelligent enough to be entrusted with such power.“

The left never changes – “you deplorables shut up and listen while we tell you what’s good for you.”

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Bollis
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

The “Little Circle of Manchester” syndrome is alive and cloying to this day, exemplified by those in charge at the Whitworth Art Gallery who’ve created something called the Office of Arte Ùtil (the pseuds) to “use art for positive social change”.

Condescension Central.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Office of Arte Util. Actually that’s hilarious, beyond parody.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Office of Arte Util. Actually that’s hilarious, beyond parody.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

I was going to quote the same sentence to the same effect.
They truly are evil people who seem only of seeing virtue in their evil.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Steve M
Steve M
1 year ago

I think it’s wrong to characterise them as evil, something they’d be more likely to think about those who don’t subscribe to their world view.
I’d call them misguided, and unaware of the damage they’re doing to the institutions they’ve wheedled their way into.
On the one hand, it’s perfectly true that certain groups in society were woefully under-represented in galleries and making provision for artists with something to contribute from any background can’t be argued against.
What can, and should be disputed at every available opportunity is the belief that art should be used for didactic social purposes. It’s quite simply to fall way short of understanding what great art is about – a never-ending reaching for the human soul at any time in history. It’s telling that they fail to understand that.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve M
Steve M
Steve M
1 year ago

I think it’s wrong to characterise them as evil, something they’d be more likely to think about those who don’t subscribe to their world view.
I’d call them misguided, and unaware of the damage they’re doing to the institutions they’ve wheedled their way into.
On the one hand, it’s perfectly true that certain groups in society were woefully under-represented in galleries and making provision for artists with something to contribute from any background can’t be argued against.
What can, and should be disputed at every available opportunity is the belief that art should be used for didactic social purposes. It’s quite simply to fall way short of understanding what great art is about – a never-ending reaching for the human soul at any time in history. It’s telling that they fail to understand that.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve M
colm kelly
colm kelly
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

That’s a bit simplistic. That was the standard view of democracy back then, found in such liberal luminaries as John Stuart Mill. Even today all sides tend to condemn the “masses”when they don’t deliver the “correct” results. How do you think the most militant Brexiteers would have reacted if Remain had one? Probably quite like militant Remainers did react, complaining that the people were duped, etc

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  colm kelly

No doubt true. We all think we’re right, but conservatives tend to empirical thinking. Their guiding star is “does it work?”

There can’t be much disputing that progressives tend to the theoretical. From Marxism to critical theory, high flown complex theories are applied to social issues. The difficulty understanding the theory is part of the attraction to its proponents, automatically making them part of an elite. The people subjected to the theory are reduced to numbers and the results are always catastrophic for them.

No doubt there are lots of examples where this doesn’t apply but, for me, it holds true as a rule of thumb.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  colm kelly

No doubt true. We all think we’re right, but conservatives tend to empirical thinking. Their guiding star is “does it work?”

There can’t be much disputing that progressives tend to the theoretical. From Marxism to critical theory, high flown complex theories are applied to social issues. The difficulty understanding the theory is part of the attraction to its proponents, automatically making them part of an elite. The people subjected to the theory are reduced to numbers and the results are always catastrophic for them.

No doubt there are lots of examples where this doesn’t apply but, for me, it holds true as a rule of thumb.

Karthik Gopalan
Karthik Gopalan
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

The degree of vileness of any person or institution is measurable by the degree of stridency of their sanctimony. In India, the usurious money lenders are the most overtly religious and by far the most preachy. In the United States, the New York Times and the WaPo are the greatest enablers of the cancel culture while they view the entire world through their biased prisms. Journalism is long dead for these people – it’s simply a function of driving their agenda, no matter how disingenuously.

andy young
andy young
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

Beat me to it! Was just going to add: ca change plus ca change.

Jacqueline Burns
Jacqueline Burns
1 year ago
Reply to  andy young

I was thinking ‘Hoist with their own petard, by gum!’

Jacqueline Burns
Jacqueline Burns
1 year ago
Reply to  andy young

I was thinking ‘Hoist with their own petard, by gum!’

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

The fact that the Guardian building has its own dedicated branch of Waitrose kind of says it all, I think.

M Harries
M Harries
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

Yes, the hypocrisy is toe-curling; but then again, is being eligible to vote on the basis of nothing more than the attainment of a certain age
on what is prudent sovereign treasury management and prudent social / community policies
wise and in the best interests of society generally? Particularly when in certain parts the voting licence is given at age 16?

Jacqueline Burns
Jacqueline Burns
1 year ago
Reply to  M Harries

Just because something happens, doesn’t make it right! Quite a few murders take place (even in some places sanctioned by the legal system), does that make it right? I think not!

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

In a world of moral relativity, it may be right by some.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

In a world of moral relativity, it may be right by some.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  M Harries

Once we reach the culmination of our Idiocracy, we might be able to answer that question. Who knows? Perhaps the elite have always been right in that the masses are simply incapable of self government. We’ll see.

Jacqueline Burns
Jacqueline Burns
1 year ago
Reply to  M Harries

Just because something happens, doesn’t make it right! Quite a few murders take place (even in some places sanctioned by the legal system), does that make it right? I think not!

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  M Harries

Once we reach the culmination of our Idiocracy, we might be able to answer that question. Who knows? Perhaps the elite have always been right in that the masses are simply incapable of self government. We’ll see.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

The “Little Circle of Manchester” syndrome is alive and cloying to this day, exemplified by those in charge at the Whitworth Art Gallery who’ve created something called the Office of Arte Ùtil (the pseuds) to “use art for positive social change”.

Condescension Central.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

I was going to quote the same sentence to the same effect.
They truly are evil people who seem only of seeing virtue in their evil.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
colm kelly
colm kelly
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

That’s a bit simplistic. That was the standard view of democracy back then, found in such liberal luminaries as John Stuart Mill. Even today all sides tend to condemn the “masses”when they don’t deliver the “correct” results. How do you think the most militant Brexiteers would have reacted if Remain had one? Probably quite like militant Remainers did react, complaining that the people were duped, etc

Karthik Gopalan
Karthik Gopalan
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

The degree of vileness of any person or institution is measurable by the degree of stridency of their sanctimony. In India, the usurious money lenders are the most overtly religious and by far the most preachy. In the United States, the New York Times and the WaPo are the greatest enablers of the cancel culture while they view the entire world through their biased prisms. Journalism is long dead for these people – it’s simply a function of driving their agenda, no matter how disingenuously.

andy young
andy young
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

Beat me to it! Was just going to add: ca change plus ca change.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

The fact that the Guardian building has its own dedicated branch of Waitrose kind of says it all, I think.

M Harries
M Harries
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

Yes, the hypocrisy is toe-curling; but then again, is being eligible to vote on the basis of nothing more than the attainment of a certain age
on what is prudent sovereign treasury management and prudent social / community policies
wise and in the best interests of society generally? Particularly when in certain parts the voting licence is given at age 16?

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago

“the Little Circle of Manchester elites believed that the power of democracy, and even of free expression, should be limited to a small elect who were educated and intelligent enough to be entrusted with such power.“

The left never changes – “you deplorables shut up and listen while we tell you what’s good for you.”

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Bollis
Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago

Next question: why has the Guardian shilled all these years for the Bolsheviks and Maoism, given that the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China were the two biggest and cruelest slave states in history?
Inquiring minds would like to know. Maybe Guardian editor Katharine Viner could help us there.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

When Malcom Muggeridge revealed the mass murder caused by famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s he was sacked by The Guardian.
Orwell in his various essays describes the character of the middle class left Wing .In his essay ” Limits to Pessimism ” he says “the shallow self righteousness of the left wing intelligentia”. Orwell’s essay ” The lion and Unicorn ” describe the left wing middle class very well.
The LWMC
“Their negative, querulous attitude
Lack of constructive suggestions
Irresponsible carping
Live in a world of ideas with little contact with physical reality
Flabby pacifists up to 1935.Shrieked fro war 1935 -39 and cooled off when war started
Anti fascist during Spanish Civil war defeatist now
Severance from the common culture of the country
Take their cookery from Paris opinion from Moscow
Ashamed of their own nationality
Consider disgraceful about being English about being English. Snigger at every English institution from horse racing to suet puddings
All through the critical years chipping away at English moral, quasi pacifist, pro Moscow and anti British
Purely negative creatures.”
This is only one essy from 1940, there are far more with similar comments.

Glyn R
Glyn R
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

I’ve come across that mindset multiple times during my life. Really beggars belief. One such claimed that the caste system in India had been introduced by the English as they were so “class obsessed”. I also found they were often snobs who actively despised the (white) working class.
Question them and they fall apart because their knowledge and understanding is makes a shallow puddle seem deep.

Last edited 1 year ago by Glyn R
Glyn R
Glyn R
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

I’ve come across that mindset multiple times during my life. Really beggars belief. One such claimed that the caste system in India had been introduced by the English as they were so “class obsessed”. I also found they were often snobs who actively despised the (white) working class.
Question them and they fall apart because their knowledge and understanding is makes a shallow puddle seem deep.

Last edited 1 year ago by Glyn R
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

The Guardian sacked Malcom Muggeridge in the early 1930s for reporting the mass murder caused by starvation in the Ukarine.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

What about that Welsh chap, whose name unfortunately escapes me who was later killed/ murdered?

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago

You could have googled it before you posted your comment.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

Yes I could, but normally an informed commentator from UnHerd would get there first, but not on this particular occasion apparently.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

Jawhol mein fuhrer

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

Yes I could, but normally an informed commentator from UnHerd would get there first, but not on this particular occasion apparently.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

Jawhol mein fuhrer

Paul Marshall
Paul Marshall
1 year ago

Gareth jones

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Marshall

Thank you.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Marshall

Thank you.

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago

You could have googled it before you posted your comment.

Paul Marshall
Paul Marshall
1 year ago

Gareth jones

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

What about that Welsh chap, whose name unfortunately escapes me who was later killed/ murdered?

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

‘You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, doncha know’?

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

When Malcom Muggeridge revealed the mass murder caused by famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s he was sacked by The Guardian.
Orwell in his various essays describes the character of the middle class left Wing .In his essay ” Limits to Pessimism ” he says “the shallow self righteousness of the left wing intelligentia”. Orwell’s essay ” The lion and Unicorn ” describe the left wing middle class very well.
The LWMC
“Their negative, querulous attitude
Lack of constructive suggestions
Irresponsible carping
Live in a world of ideas with little contact with physical reality
Flabby pacifists up to 1935.Shrieked fro war 1935 -39 and cooled off when war started
Anti fascist during Spanish Civil war defeatist now
Severance from the common culture of the country
Take their cookery from Paris opinion from Moscow
Ashamed of their own nationality
Consider disgraceful about being English about being English. Snigger at every English institution from horse racing to suet puddings
All through the critical years chipping away at English moral, quasi pacifist, pro Moscow and anti British
Purely negative creatures.”
This is only one essy from 1940, there are far more with similar comments.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

The Guardian sacked Malcom Muggeridge in the early 1930s for reporting the mass murder caused by starvation in the Ukarine.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

‘You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, doncha know’?

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago

Next question: why has the Guardian shilled all these years for the Bolsheviks and Maoism, given that the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China were the two biggest and cruelest slave states in history?
Inquiring minds would like to know. Maybe Guardian editor Katharine Viner could help us there.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

The Guardian today is no more responsible for things that happened 180 years ago than any of us are for the Irish Potato Famine in the 1840s. In just the same way that children are not – and should not be – responsible for the decisions and any debts of their parents. The whole concept of hereditary guilt is just wrong. As is punishing a group of people for the actions of individuals (group punishment).
English law has always been quite clear about these matters. We need to fight back against ignorant and misguided people spreading this nonsense.
The only issue I have with the Guardian here is their double standards. If they support hereditary guilt and group punishment (they don’t seem particularly keen on older white men – but I’m not letting it bother me) they can’t be surprised if they eventually get judged against the same “standard”.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I totally agree with you about inherted sins, but, when I first read about the possible slavery links of the Guardian founder, I did rather think “ha, hoisted by your own petard”, and endulged in a little schadenfreude (my bad, I know).

charles bradshaw
charles bradshaw
1 year ago

There’s no need to feel bad. Taking pleasure in deceit and hypocrisy being exposed is not schadenfreude, but a sign of virtue.

charles bradshaw
charles bradshaw
1 year ago

There’s no need to feel bad. Taking pleasure in deceit and hypocrisy being exposed is not schadenfreude, but a sign of virtue.

terence fitzpatrick
terence fitzpatrick
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Agreed. Those responsible for the trade were the African rulers who sold their own people and the merchants who bought them.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago

I agree, these African leaders must be considered the first cause. We don’t know what might have happened if said leaders had refused to sell people; it’s possible that the Europeans would have done their own raiding and it’s also possible that they would have just said “dash it all, chaps, let’s go home”, and sailed off into the sunset.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

I doubt it , disease would have killed the Europeans.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

That was my first thought, but there’s no accounting for what people will do for money; they might have hired locals to do the dirty work. But we’ll never know.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago

“… there’s no accounting for what people will do for money”? What happened to the payroll department?

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago

“… there’s no accounting for what people will do for money”? What happened to the payroll department?

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

That was my first thought, but there’s no accounting for what people will do for money; they might have hired locals to do the dirty work. But we’ll never know.

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago

Thanks for the chuckle.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

Ha! Someone had to pick the cotton.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

I doubt it , disease would have killed the Europeans.

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago

Thanks for the chuckle.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

Ha! Someone had to pick the cotton.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Hear hear! But why is this not said out loud in the media? And why did Africans not invade, colonise and enslave Europeans? We all know the answer, of course… but no one has the backbone, guts and courage to say so?

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
1 year ago

Actually northern Africans (Algiers) did capture Christian Slaves(European) in the 18th/19th century
 the bombardment of Algiers was a famous naval battle when lord Exmouth forced the Bey to release them

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

Yes, This slave-trade is often forgotten, along with the East African trade into the Middle East and Zanzibar. There were whole villages on the south west coast of England and in Ireland. Robert Davis reckoned that something like one million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves in North Africa and Ottoman Empire between the 15th and 19th centuries. Small compared with the Atlantic trade, but still significant. In Ireland the little harbour village of Baltimore, County Cork was attacked and. almost all the villagers were taken to a life of slavery in North Africa.

Some historians estimate as many as 17 million people were enslaved on the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa, and c5 million African slaves were transported by Arab slave traders to other parts of the world between 1500 and 1900.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago

Arab slave traders raided Iceland and eastern Europe for ‘merchandise’; it’s on account of the captured and sold Slavs that we have the word slave. But what I miss in all this hubbub is that it was the British that ended a global curse that had existed as long as humanity.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

You forgot about the ancient Jews of the Old Testament, enslaved by the Egyptians.

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago

Arab slave traders raided Iceland and eastern Europe for ‘merchandise’; it’s on account of the captured and sold Slavs that we have the word slave. But what I miss in all this hubbub is that it was the British that ended a global curse that had existed as long as humanity.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

You forgot about the ancient Jews of the Old Testament, enslaved by the Egyptians.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

Most notably from Baltimore, Co Cork!
“They” must have fetched a handsome price given their unusual colouring!

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

Yes, This slave-trade is often forgotten, along with the East African trade into the Middle East and Zanzibar. There were whole villages on the south west coast of England and in Ireland. Robert Davis reckoned that something like one million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves in North Africa and Ottoman Empire between the 15th and 19th centuries. Small compared with the Atlantic trade, but still significant. In Ireland the little harbour village of Baltimore, County Cork was attacked and. almost all the villagers were taken to a life of slavery in North Africa.

Some historians estimate as many as 17 million people were enslaved on the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa, and c5 million African slaves were transported by Arab slave traders to other parts of the world between 1500 and 1900.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

Most notably from Baltimore, Co Cork!
“They” must have fetched a handsome price given their unusual colouring!

Annest John
Annest John
1 year ago

I think your question is an important one but don’t think it requires great courage to answer – Technology – from transport to weapons to agricultural cultivation (the latter dependent on the inescapable facts of geography)

Hank Brad
Hank Brad
1 year ago

And why did Africans not invade, colonise and enslave Europeans?
Oh, but they did, as @Andrew Wise has pointed out. And ‘everyone’ with a history book has known it. But in today’s ‘progressive’ circles, morality is wholly rigged against the Golden Rule and the Bible and the Europeans which promoted it. Oh, and Americans too.

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago

Pray do tell because I don’t know why.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

You’re not a DAR*by any chance?

(*Daughter of the American Revolution.)

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

You’re not a DAR*by any chance?

(*Daughter of the American Revolution.)

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago

Thomas Sowell’s book Conquest and Culture is quite good on this. Societies with active trading networks tend to develop faster than those without. Cross fertilisation of ideas, rudimentary counting, etc all being necessary for trade.

Trade involves transport of goods and the cheapest way of doing that is via water. Places with long, navigable rivers, deep into their interior, have tended to develop faster. Africa has relatively few.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

For that matter, now that the world is 150+ years beyond this subject, why is the continent of Africa still living in the 19th century? Their main product produced continues to be extreme poverty.

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
1 year ago

Actually northern Africans (Algiers) did capture Christian Slaves(European) in the 18th/19th century
 the bombardment of Algiers was a famous naval battle when lord Exmouth forced the Bey to release them

Annest John
Annest John
1 year ago

I think your question is an important one but don’t think it requires great courage to answer – Technology – from transport to weapons to agricultural cultivation (the latter dependent on the inescapable facts of geography)

Hank Brad
Hank Brad
1 year ago

And why did Africans not invade, colonise and enslave Europeans?
Oh, but they did, as @Andrew Wise has pointed out. And ‘everyone’ with a history book has known it. But in today’s ‘progressive’ circles, morality is wholly rigged against the Golden Rule and the Bible and the Europeans which promoted it. Oh, and Americans too.

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago

Pray do tell because I don’t know why.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago

Thomas Sowell’s book Conquest and Culture is quite good on this. Societies with active trading networks tend to develop faster than those without. Cross fertilisation of ideas, rudimentary counting, etc all being necessary for trade.

Trade involves transport of goods and the cheapest way of doing that is via water. Places with long, navigable rivers, deep into their interior, have tended to develop faster. Africa has relatively few.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

For that matter, now that the world is 150+ years beyond this subject, why is the continent of Africa still living in the 19th century? Their main product produced continues to be extreme poverty.

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago

Man’s inhumanity to man is colorless.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

American?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

We are all slaves to our sin.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

We are all slaves to our sin.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

American?

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

Well, the indentured Irish labourers who were shipped to the colonies were often treated just as badly as the African slaves.

Liam Brady
Liam Brady
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

British orphans were getting shipped to the colonies up to the 1970s. Many suffered all manner of abuse and most were little more than slaves.

Liam Brady
Liam Brady
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

British orphans were getting shipped to the colonies up to the 1970s. Many suffered all manner of abuse and most were little more than slaves.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago

I agree, these African leaders must be considered the first cause. We don’t know what might have happened if said leaders had refused to sell people; it’s possible that the Europeans would have done their own raiding and it’s also possible that they would have just said “dash it all, chaps, let’s go home”, and sailed off into the sunset.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Hear hear! But why is this not said out loud in the media? And why did Africans not invade, colonise and enslave Europeans? We all know the answer, of course… but no one has the backbone, guts and courage to say so?

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago

Man’s inhumanity to man is colorless.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

Well, the indentured Irish labourers who were shipped to the colonies were often treated just as badly as the African slaves.

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Every anniversary of VE Day, without fail, some Guardian hack will pen an article insisting that anyone who shows any pride in Britain’s wartime past is jingoistic and somehow laying claim to glories that belonged to another generation. Yet many of those authors who push such miserabilist bilge, also insist we should all shoulder the guilt for anything bad done by this country in its imperial past.
Admiration for heroes in the comparatively recent past is backwards looking, yet we’re somehow on the hook for reparations to the colonised 200 years later? It doesn’t seem a consistent position.
Why should the statute of limitations for guilt should run so much longer than that of glory?

Last edited 1 year ago by Paddy Taylor
Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Pretty well all the ‘older white men’ in my part of North London are avid readers of the Guardian. The air is full of their mating calls: ‘The Gawdian says …’, ‘did you say that thing in today’s Gawdian?’ Its basic appeal is that it tells them that their behaviour doesn’t matter so long as they have the right opinions.

Glyn R
Glyn R
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

“The whole concept of hereditary guilt is just wrong.” Of course but it exists in several cultures such as in Pakistan and India where bonded labour still immiserates the lives of well over a million men, women and children working off the debts – but never ever managing to do so – of previous generations. This despite the fact that the practice has been supposedly outlawed.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I totally agree with you about inherted sins, but, when I first read about the possible slavery links of the Guardian founder, I did rather think “ha, hoisted by your own petard”, and endulged in a little schadenfreude (my bad, I know).

terence fitzpatrick
terence fitzpatrick
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Agreed. Those responsible for the trade were the African rulers who sold their own people and the merchants who bought them.

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Every anniversary of VE Day, without fail, some Guardian hack will pen an article insisting that anyone who shows any pride in Britain’s wartime past is jingoistic and somehow laying claim to glories that belonged to another generation. Yet many of those authors who push such miserabilist bilge, also insist we should all shoulder the guilt for anything bad done by this country in its imperial past.
Admiration for heroes in the comparatively recent past is backwards looking, yet we’re somehow on the hook for reparations to the colonised 200 years later? It doesn’t seem a consistent position.
Why should the statute of limitations for guilt should run so much longer than that of glory?

Last edited 1 year ago by Paddy Taylor
Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Pretty well all the ‘older white men’ in my part of North London are avid readers of the Guardian. The air is full of their mating calls: ‘The Gawdian says …’, ‘did you say that thing in today’s Gawdian?’ Its basic appeal is that it tells them that their behaviour doesn’t matter so long as they have the right opinions.

Glyn R
Glyn R
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

“The whole concept of hereditary guilt is just wrong.” Of course but it exists in several cultures such as in Pakistan and India where bonded labour still immiserates the lives of well over a million men, women and children working off the debts – but never ever managing to do so – of previous generations. This despite the fact that the practice has been supposedly outlawed.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

The Guardian today is no more responsible for things that happened 180 years ago than any of us are for the Irish Potato Famine in the 1840s. In just the same way that children are not – and should not be – responsible for the decisions and any debts of their parents. The whole concept of hereditary guilt is just wrong. As is punishing a group of people for the actions of individuals (group punishment).
English law has always been quite clear about these matters. We need to fight back against ignorant and misguided people spreading this nonsense.
The only issue I have with the Guardian here is their double standards. If they support hereditary guilt and group punishment (they don’t seem particularly keen on older white men – but I’m not letting it bother me) they can’t be surprised if they eventually get judged against the same “standard”.

John Le Huquet
John Le Huquet
1 year ago

The Guardian has form on not reporting on matters that dont fit in to their worldview. They said very little about the sexual exploitation of young white girls by predominantly men of Pakistani heritage. Had it been the other way round, white men exploiting young Asian girls, the paper would have gone into meltdown.

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago
Reply to  John Le Huquet

The common denominator is men.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

American?

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

Misandry alert.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Nonsense, just a bit of banter!

Incidentally she opened the batting with “ You could have googled it before you posted your comment”.

So fair game don’t you think Ms Barrows?

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
1 year ago

Really? Or do you have evidence that shows women were equally involved in that exploitation?

M B
M B
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

The child exploitation rings were not the result of “men”.
You might as well say they were the result of “humans”! Anyone suggesting that such crimes should be blamed on an entire gender, clearly has bigotry issues of their own & is in no position to correct someone else.
So, yes, misandry is an accurate description of this mindset.
More significant is the ideological position of these paedophile rings. The male & female supporters of this ideology maintain that Mohammed, who married a 61/2 to 7yr old little girl (Aisha), is the perfect moral example, so of course, these paedophile rings were not paedophile at all in their view. Now THAT is a serious problem.
When a Tory politician dared to point this out a few years ago he was simply sacked………

M B
M B
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

The child exploitation rings were not the result of “men”.
You might as well say they were the result of “humans”! Anyone suggesting that such crimes should be blamed on an entire gender, clearly has bigotry issues of their own & is in no position to correct someone else.
So, yes, misandry is an accurate description of this mindset.
More significant is the ideological position of these paedophile rings. The male & female supporters of this ideology maintain that Mohammed, who married a 61/2 to 7yr old little girl (Aisha), is the perfect moral example, so of course, these paedophile rings were not paedophile at all in their view. Now THAT is a serious problem.
When a Tory politician dared to point this out a few years ago he was simply sacked………

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Nonsense, just a bit of banter!

Incidentally she opened the batting with “ You could have googled it before you posted your comment”.

So fair game don’t you think Ms Barrows?

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
1 year ago

Really? Or do you have evidence that shows women were equally involved in that exploitation?

PAUL NATHANSON
PAUL NATHANSON
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

But the phenomenon under discussion is self-righteous hypocrisy.

andy donnelly
andy donnelly
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

The common denominator is children

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

American?

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

Misandry alert.

PAUL NATHANSON
PAUL NATHANSON
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

But the phenomenon under discussion is self-righteous hypocrisy.

andy donnelly
andy donnelly
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

The common denominator is children

Jacqueline Burns
Jacqueline Burns
1 year ago
Reply to  John Le Huquet

So did all the other ‘woke’ folk eg. the police!

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago
Reply to  John Le Huquet

The common denominator is men.

Jacqueline Burns
Jacqueline Burns
1 year ago
Reply to  John Le Huquet

So did all the other ‘woke’ folk eg. the police!

John Le Huquet
John Le Huquet
1 year ago

The Guardian has form on not reporting on matters that dont fit in to their worldview. They said very little about the sexual exploitation of young white girls by predominantly men of Pakistani heritage. Had it been the other way round, white men exploiting young Asian girls, the paper would have gone into meltdown.

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago

There simply isn’t room to list all the Guardian’s hypocrisies.
But just a flavour:
John Edward Taylor, the founder, witnessed the “Peterloo massacre”, and the papers current incarnation used the 200th anniversary of Peterloo to lay claim to the heritage of those who’d died in the name of “Democracy, liberty and fraternity”. Articles abounded, with the great and good of the G writing staff all wishing to associate themselves with the noble aims of the Perterloo “martyrs”, whilst at the very same moment they were explicitly engaged in a campaign to disenfranchise millions of ordinary voters who’d voted for Brexit.
The arguments that the Guardian’s “Peoples’ Ref” devotees used – that the “little people” were too ill-informed, too easily swayed by lies etc, were precisely the same arguments that had previously been used against universal suffrage: That working class people, or women, were not informed enough, not educated enough, not intellectually robust enough, to deserve the vote.
The hypocrisy was simply breath-taking. – Though utterly unsurprising.
Guardian Media Group, when it sold its 50% stake in Auto Trader to Apax Partners in 2008, used a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying corporation tax. GMG realised over £300 million in profit on that sale – yet paid not a sou in Corporation tax. This was all perfectly legal.
Over the years Guardian Media Group has invested hundreds of millions in offshore hedge funds. Keeping it under the radar and beyond the grasp of HMRC. Again, all perfectly legal.
Yet the Guardian loves nothing more than to thunder its disapproval of large multinationals – Starbucks, Apple, Vodafone etc – and the unnamed “super-rich” for not “paying their fair share.” Guardian hacks regularly get their knickers in a bunch over such tax avoidance strategies – though oddly never train their guns on their employers. Why do multinationals warrant such opprobrium whilst GMG escape any such criticism?
Any time a Guardian op-ed references the Daily Mail, it is a cast-iron certainty that the article – not to mention several dozen posters – will bring up the 1930’s Daily Mail “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” headline – as proof that the Mail is fascistic. It gets boring to point this out – particularly as I’m not a Mail reader myself – the stupid unthinking hypocrisy of Guardian posters imagining that their paper of choice is all things good and the Daily Mail is all bad.
The DM did indeed briefly support the British Union of Fascists, up until Kristallnacht, at which point they withdrew any such support and became virulently anti-fascist. The Guardian, on the other hand, was staunchly pro-Eugenics and supported the idea for a very long time after most civilised people had recognised it as an abomination.
If they’re going to insult a newspaper for what they endorsed 80+ years ago, they might want to pick their targets more carefully, lest they shoot themselves in the foot.
The Guardian has championed some indefensible causes in its past, yet always puts out the idea that they occupy the moral high ground. They lambasted any paper that they considered was not being anti-Trump enough, so I always like to remind them of Op-Ed praise they’ve previously heaped on other nationalists in their time… “Mr Ceausescu, has shown immense courage in asserting Romania’s independence from the Russians and encouraging Romania’s nationalism” … for instance!
The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there – and those who insist on judging the past by the acceptable norms of C21st activism, only make themselves look ignorant and foolish, particularly given the propensity of Guardian editorials to indulge in “Offence Archaeology” – to uncover minor indiscretions of public figures from 20 or 30 years ago and then use them to hound that person out of office – whilst at the same time giving a free pass to anyone from their own side of the political aisle. Charges of bullying against Bercow and Meghan Markle are airily dismissed, whilst similar charges are mercilessly pursued against Priti Patel and Dominic Raab.
The Guardian is RELENTLESSLY negative – about pretty much everything. Over the last 15 years it has got markedly worse. It was always sanctimonious but it at least tried to incorporate a broader spectrum of ideas and didn’t wrap itself in the flag of liberal victimhood. (I even remember when it occasionally published ‘positive’ stories – which seems a very long time ago now).
Any objectivity has vanished. Any hope has been dashed that a Guardian editorial might ever assess a policy on its merits, and stop judging a policy, an action, a statement based solely on who has espoused it and what tribe they belong to. Whether that be a political tribe or any of the other boxes into which “Liberals” seek to place us in their ‘hierarchy of victim-status’.
Their ongoing narrative is wholly at odds with reality. The Guardian has a dystopian worldview and narrative predicated on catastrophism – it seems almost as though they are willing such a future into existence.
The Guardian proudly trumpets “Comment is free
 but facts are sacred”. Yet facts are so routinely ignored in favour of their preferred narrative that I wonder how the Editors still put out CP Scott’s dictum every day with a straight face.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paddy Taylor
Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

This is an incredibly detailed indictment of the failings of the present day Guardian, and you include factual detail to support your argument. I thank-you for this reasoned and calm post.

Graham Willis
Graham Willis
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Fantastic comment.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

A masterful evisceration, thank you.

Presumably “knickers in a bunch” is the Scotch version of ‘knickers in a twist’?

Oliver Nicholson
Oliver Nicholson
1 year ago

Surely Scotchmen do not wear knickers, because kilts….

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

‘They’ probably do now thanks to the SNP and its gender tosh.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

‘They’ probably do now thanks to the SNP and its gender tosh.

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago

Aye

Oliver Nicholson
Oliver Nicholson
1 year ago

Surely Scotchmen do not wear knickers, because kilts….

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago

Aye

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Brilliant, worthy of Orwell.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

I think you’re being much to kind to them.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

This is an incredibly detailed indictment of the failings of the present day Guardian, and you include factual detail to support your argument. I thank-you for this reasoned and calm post.

Graham Willis
Graham Willis
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Fantastic comment.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

A masterful evisceration, thank you.

Presumably “knickers in a bunch” is the Scotch version of ‘knickers in a twist’?

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Brilliant, worthy of Orwell.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

I think you’re being much to kind to them.

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago

There simply isn’t room to list all the Guardian’s hypocrisies.
But just a flavour:
John Edward Taylor, the founder, witnessed the “Peterloo massacre”, and the papers current incarnation used the 200th anniversary of Peterloo to lay claim to the heritage of those who’d died in the name of “Democracy, liberty and fraternity”. Articles abounded, with the great and good of the G writing staff all wishing to associate themselves with the noble aims of the Perterloo “martyrs”, whilst at the very same moment they were explicitly engaged in a campaign to disenfranchise millions of ordinary voters who’d voted for Brexit.
The arguments that the Guardian’s “Peoples’ Ref” devotees used – that the “little people” were too ill-informed, too easily swayed by lies etc, were precisely the same arguments that had previously been used against universal suffrage: That working class people, or women, were not informed enough, not educated enough, not intellectually robust enough, to deserve the vote.
The hypocrisy was simply breath-taking. – Though utterly unsurprising.
Guardian Media Group, when it sold its 50% stake in Auto Trader to Apax Partners in 2008, used a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying corporation tax. GMG realised over £300 million in profit on that sale – yet paid not a sou in Corporation tax. This was all perfectly legal.
Over the years Guardian Media Group has invested hundreds of millions in offshore hedge funds. Keeping it under the radar and beyond the grasp of HMRC. Again, all perfectly legal.
Yet the Guardian loves nothing more than to thunder its disapproval of large multinationals – Starbucks, Apple, Vodafone etc – and the unnamed “super-rich” for not “paying their fair share.” Guardian hacks regularly get their knickers in a bunch over such tax avoidance strategies – though oddly never train their guns on their employers. Why do multinationals warrant such opprobrium whilst GMG escape any such criticism?
Any time a Guardian op-ed references the Daily Mail, it is a cast-iron certainty that the article – not to mention several dozen posters – will bring up the 1930’s Daily Mail “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” headline – as proof that the Mail is fascistic. It gets boring to point this out – particularly as I’m not a Mail reader myself – the stupid unthinking hypocrisy of Guardian posters imagining that their paper of choice is all things good and the Daily Mail is all bad.
The DM did indeed briefly support the British Union of Fascists, up until Kristallnacht, at which point they withdrew any such support and became virulently anti-fascist. The Guardian, on the other hand, was staunchly pro-Eugenics and supported the idea for a very long time after most civilised people had recognised it as an abomination.
If they’re going to insult a newspaper for what they endorsed 80+ years ago, they might want to pick their targets more carefully, lest they shoot themselves in the foot.
The Guardian has championed some indefensible causes in its past, yet always puts out the idea that they occupy the moral high ground. They lambasted any paper that they considered was not being anti-Trump enough, so I always like to remind them of Op-Ed praise they’ve previously heaped on other nationalists in their time… “Mr Ceausescu, has shown immense courage in asserting Romania’s independence from the Russians and encouraging Romania’s nationalism” … for instance!
The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there – and those who insist on judging the past by the acceptable norms of C21st activism, only make themselves look ignorant and foolish, particularly given the propensity of Guardian editorials to indulge in “Offence Archaeology” – to uncover minor indiscretions of public figures from 20 or 30 years ago and then use them to hound that person out of office – whilst at the same time giving a free pass to anyone from their own side of the political aisle. Charges of bullying against Bercow and Meghan Markle are airily dismissed, whilst similar charges are mercilessly pursued against Priti Patel and Dominic Raab.
The Guardian is RELENTLESSLY negative – about pretty much everything. Over the last 15 years it has got markedly worse. It was always sanctimonious but it at least tried to incorporate a broader spectrum of ideas and didn’t wrap itself in the flag of liberal victimhood. (I even remember when it occasionally published ‘positive’ stories – which seems a very long time ago now).
Any objectivity has vanished. Any hope has been dashed that a Guardian editorial might ever assess a policy on its merits, and stop judging a policy, an action, a statement based solely on who has espoused it and what tribe they belong to. Whether that be a political tribe or any of the other boxes into which “Liberals” seek to place us in their ‘hierarchy of victim-status’.
Their ongoing narrative is wholly at odds with reality. The Guardian has a dystopian worldview and narrative predicated on catastrophism – it seems almost as though they are willing such a future into existence.
The Guardian proudly trumpets “Comment is free
 but facts are sacred”. Yet facts are so routinely ignored in favour of their preferred narrative that I wonder how the Editors still put out CP Scott’s dictum every day with a straight face.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paddy Taylor
Derek Smith
Derek Smith
1 year ago

Unserious racial grifters revealed to be unserious by serious racial grifters.

Aidan A
Aidan A
1 year ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

Couldn’t agree more.

Aidan A
Aidan A
1 year ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

Couldn’t agree more.

Derek Smith
Derek Smith
1 year ago

Unserious racial grifters revealed to be unserious by serious racial grifters.

Roger Mortimer
Roger Mortimer
1 year ago

The Guardian is learning that if you suck up to bullies, it doesn’t make them leave you alone, it encourages them to see you as weak.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Mortimer

They are the bullies. And very stupid ones at that.

Aidan A
Aidan A
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Mortimer

Well said.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Mortimer

They are the bullies. And very stupid ones at that.

Aidan A
Aidan A
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Mortimer

Well said.

Roger Mortimer
Roger Mortimer
1 year ago

The Guardian is learning that if you suck up to bullies, it doesn’t make them leave you alone, it encourages them to see you as weak.

Roddy Campbell
Roddy Campbell
1 year ago

It’s always a pleasure watching the revolution eating it’s children.

Roddy Campbell
Roddy Campbell
1 year ago

It’s always a pleasure watching the revolution eating it’s children.

Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
1 year ago

It’s all very, very sad. The Guardian was once the home of serious, analytical, investigative journalism. It wouldn’t always get everything right, and yes it has always leaned leftwards. But at least it tried to be truthful. Now it’s trapped in corporate-sponsored, self-destructive narratives around white privilege, net zero, vaccine efficacy, safe spaces, gender ideology and all the rest of it that actively deny the value of freedom of expression of diverse and conflicting views and opinions in the pursuit of truth, usually in the name of “keeping everyone safe” or “preventing harm”.

They are suffocating the liberal democracy which their predecessors helped to found, from within. The tragedy is that the leadership at the Guardian, and other such formerly broadly liberal institutions, just cannot see it for what it is. They cannot perceive the gross harms that they are doing. From the outside, it is easy to see the inevitability of their disordered, bleak nihilism, grounded in the negative emotions of guilt, envy, and resentment, turning in on itself, as it has on historical slavery. But from the inside, it just doesn’t look like that.

So forgive them, for they know not what they do. They are not bad people. Those of us fortunate to be able to see through the reheated Marxian nonsense that is critical social and race theories should challenge ourselves to try and love those who have sadly got themselves tangled up in it all: to meet their negativity with positivity, to criticise them with a friendly smile and an open heart, to offer a helping hand out rather than a facepalm of rejection, and above all to try our level best to remain kind, gracious and humble rather than hurt, angry and self-righteous. A tough, perhaps impossible, standard to meet but it is something to aim for and it might just be the way we break the downward spiral of recrimination and anger and so get out of this chaotic mess we find ourselves in.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

As a former regular Guardian reader, I can only second what you say about what the Guardian was and what it is now. At first it just made me a little sad to see this venerable newspaper devolving into another “rag”, but after a time I started to get angry – where now do we find a place for reasoned, honest argument from a Left perspective? I find it too difficult to forgive them, though, brcause, unlike you, I believe that they do know what they are doing, and they are prepared to ignore the consequences. They have allowed the lunatics to take over the asylum and what we now see is the result, to the detriment of political discussion in this country.

Last edited 1 year ago by Linda Hutchinson
Aw Zk
Aw Zk
1 year ago

As a former regular Guardian reader I am saddened by what it has become but I am more angry than sad. I started buying The Guardian around the time of the Jonathan Aitken scandal and when it exposed his lies The Guardian had the sword of truth. For the next decade or so it was a credible and respected national newspaper and its circulation was holding up well despite the growth of the web. However, after it exposed the phone hacking scandal at the News Of The World and the PCC collapsed The Guardian became a law unto itself.

In the latter years of Alan Rusbridger’s editorship it sold the sword of truth in exchange for clicks by publishing anything by anyone it thought was a victim without caring whether what they wrote was true or fair. The Guardian wanted to dominate the global market for self-pity and it tried to do so by assembling the world’s largest collection of bad writers, mostly on freelance terms. Katharine Viner was largely responsible for this as deputy editor and then editor of its US and Australian outposts and tried to continue this as editor but it couldn’t afford to pay ÂŁ320 every time anyone was offended by anything but by then The Guardian’s credibility and the goodwill of its print readership had been lost.

But The Guardian knew what it was doing. It knew that it was publishing statements without checking them, it knew that it was publishing statements that it knew were untrue and it knew that its system of self-regulation was a sham. It didn’t care because whilst The Guardian was portraying itself as changing from being a national newspaper to being a global website it was changing in another way: The Guardian went from being a newspaper to being a cult. It became cult-like in its output, its internal culture and its business model (trying to squeeze as much money as it could out of loyal supporters whilst always looking for new suckers). It even started to build its own Jonestown in the Midland Goods Shed where the faithful would assemble and listen to its leaders whilst drinking Guardian coffee but the plan was abandoned on cost grounds. Now it is drifting along looking for the next bandwagon to jump on even though it knows it damages any cause it supports because that’s what The Guardian does now.

The Guardian deserves to be destroyed because it has betrayed its readers, its history and some of its own journalists. It could and should have been destroyed years ago but no journalist or organisation was willing and able to do so even though lying is to The Guardian what phone hacking was to the News Of The World but done in plain sight. The Guardian is a dishonest, hypocritical, sanctimonious organisation which doesn’t deserve its air of moral superiority. It just persuades itself that the lies that it tells and the hatred that it peddles are morally justified.

Aw Zk
Aw Zk
1 year ago

As a former regular Guardian reader I am saddened by what it has become but I am more angry than sad. I started buying The Guardian around the time of the Jonathan Aitken scandal and when it exposed his lies The Guardian had the sword of truth. For the next decade or so it was a credible and respected national newspaper and its circulation was holding up well despite the growth of the web. However, after it exposed the phone hacking scandal at the News Of The World and the PCC collapsed The Guardian became a law unto itself.

In the latter years of Alan Rusbridger’s editorship it sold the sword of truth in exchange for clicks by publishing anything by anyone it thought was a victim without caring whether what they wrote was true or fair. The Guardian wanted to dominate the global market for self-pity and it tried to do so by assembling the world’s largest collection of bad writers, mostly on freelance terms. Katharine Viner was largely responsible for this as deputy editor and then editor of its US and Australian outposts and tried to continue this as editor but it couldn’t afford to pay ÂŁ320 every time anyone was offended by anything but by then The Guardian’s credibility and the goodwill of its print readership had been lost.

But The Guardian knew what it was doing. It knew that it was publishing statements without checking them, it knew that it was publishing statements that it knew were untrue and it knew that its system of self-regulation was a sham. It didn’t care because whilst The Guardian was portraying itself as changing from being a national newspaper to being a global website it was changing in another way: The Guardian went from being a newspaper to being a cult. It became cult-like in its output, its internal culture and its business model (trying to squeeze as much money as it could out of loyal supporters whilst always looking for new suckers). It even started to build its own Jonestown in the Midland Goods Shed where the faithful would assemble and listen to its leaders whilst drinking Guardian coffee but the plan was abandoned on cost grounds. Now it is drifting along looking for the next bandwagon to jump on even though it knows it damages any cause it supports because that’s what The Guardian does now.

The Guardian deserves to be destroyed because it has betrayed its readers, its history and some of its own journalists. It could and should have been destroyed years ago but no journalist or organisation was willing and able to do so even though lying is to The Guardian what phone hacking was to the News Of The World but done in plain sight. The Guardian is a dishonest, hypocritical, sanctimonious organisation which doesn’t deserve its air of moral superiority. It just persuades itself that the lies that it tells and the hatred that it peddles are morally justified.

Caroline Ayers
Caroline Ayers
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

What a brilliant comment. I’m reading the biography of Elizabeth Gaskell, one of my favourite authors (“Wives and Daughters” is sublime!). She lived in Manchester, was horrified by the conditions of the English cotton mill workers and tried to raise public awareness about them through her writings, most obviously through “North and South”. I haven’t found out yet what her views were on the slaves who produced the cotton in America, and whether she included them in her social campaigning (I don’t think so though). Thus she could probably also be attacked now as a “white supremacist”. (How misguided!) There should never be a hierarchy of causes. One should not criticise for example someone who devotes themselves to looking after stray animals on the basis that they care more for animals than people and thus are in some way morally deficient – we can’t all solve everything and each of us must do our part with what is placed before us in our lives. However, what I do know is that Elizabeth Gaskell, who believed utterly in speaking the truth, and was full of fun and yet also intensely kind, would have echoed your comment – that we should approach everything and everyone including the writers at the Guardian, with both clear eyed truth, but also tolerance and understanding. The writers at the Guardian need to be called out in this way. We need everyone to see how dangerous these Identitarian Marxist ways of thinking are.

Last edited 1 year ago by Caroline Ayers
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Caroline Ayers

What did you think of the ‘Telly’ version a few years ago?

Caroline Ayers
Caroline Ayers
1 year ago

Haven’t watched the telly version of Wives and Daughters yet as I need to order the DVDs!! It looks great – Keeley Hawes (sp?) as Cynthia, Michael Gambon as the Squire, Francesca Annis as the silly stepmother… (I may have seen it years ago but can’t remember for sure). I gave the book to my 89 year old mother for Christmas and she is loving it – she’d only read North and South previously. ) x

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Caroline Ayers

I am sorry, I should have been more precise as I meant ‘North and South’, the BBC version with the late Tim Pigott-Smith and Daniela Denny-Ashe. Probably 10-15 years ago now!

Caroline Ayers
Caroline Ayers
1 year ago

Definitely haven’t watched that!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Caroline Ayers

You should if you ever get the chance.
Richard Armitage played an excellent ‘Mill owner’.

Much of the ‘North’ was filmed around the splendid Glasgow Necropolis, a suitably grim location.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Caroline Ayers

You should if you ever get the chance.
Richard Armitage played an excellent ‘Mill owner’.

Much of the ‘North’ was filmed around the splendid Glasgow Necropolis, a suitably grim location.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Radio 4 version was brilliant

Caroline Ayers
Caroline Ayers
1 year ago

Definitely haven’t watched that!

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Radio 4 version was brilliant

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Caroline Ayers

I am sorry, I should have been more precise as I meant ‘North and South’, the BBC version with the late Tim Pigott-Smith and Daniela Denny-Ashe. Probably 10-15 years ago now!

Caroline Ayers
Caroline Ayers
1 year ago

Haven’t watched the telly version of Wives and Daughters yet as I need to order the DVDs!! It looks great – Keeley Hawes (sp?) as Cynthia, Michael Gambon as the Squire, Francesca Annis as the silly stepmother… (I may have seen it years ago but can’t remember for sure). I gave the book to my 89 year old mother for Christmas and she is loving it – she’d only read North and South previously. ) x

Susie Bell
Susie Bell
1 year ago
Reply to  Caroline Ayers

You make a brilliant point about the cotton mill workers who get overlooked in the race clamour. I daresay the Little Circle were relieved that their employees were too badly educated to have an amanuensis to detail their many hurts and miseries. When the race warriors point at us white folks and our exploitation of slaves how many people was that? Because the population in the Industrial Revolution lived hungry, cold lives. The spoils of slavery were enjoyed by a very tiny number of British people, while the masses toiled, not much better off than the southern slaves who produced the raw goods. Were the employees at John Edward Taylor’s mills enjoying better wages, an education for their children, safe working conditions, decent housing? I suspect not.

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago
Reply to  Susie Bell

Excellent point, well said.

CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago
Reply to  Susie Bell

Excellent point, well said.

Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
1 year ago
Reply to  Caroline Ayers

Thank you. I agree. I’ve been reflecting lately on how angry and let down I have felt over the past few years by people who I thought should know better. My conclusion is that pointing the finger at them and accusing them of ignorance, cowardice, or venality is not going to change their minds, it’s only going to make them dig their heels in further, and deepen the divisions. While there are some very good, decent people on the conservative right, they are never going to be able on their own to convince people who see themselves as left progressives to change their minds. Whereas the captured progressive left or technocratic centre won’t be able easily to ignore or dismiss carefully considered constructive criticism from a left or centre perspective that acknowledges their point of view, recognises that they have some legitimate grievances and ideas, and does not directly assault their ego by suggesting that they have some kind of mal-intent. Dissenting leftists and centrists need to overcome the fear factor and any historical prejudices they might hold, and accept that in today’s world they have some common causes with those on the right against the captured left. Those on the right need to do likewise. We can debate who should own the railways another day; for now we just need to win the argument that it’s not racist or patriarchal to make the trains run on time.

Not only is better for one’s own mental state, whatever one’s own politics, to be approaching “culture war” issues with the kind of mindset that assumes good intent of all involved, but I really do believe it is the only way that we are going to be able to break the spell of magical wokery that abounds about the kingdom. My feeling is that we might be closer than it might seem to turning the corner and regaining some sense of order & a better grasp on reality in our politics and culture if we can just keep being positive, amicable, and forgiving to those with whom we might disagree – hard though it may sometimes be to do so (and heaven knows that I have lost, and continue to lose, my rag at them on occasion!).

Caroline Ayers
Caroline Ayers
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Yes you are so right – in the battle of ideas against dangerous wokism, we must also, (as you say) acknowledge their point of view, recognise they have some legitimate grievances.. and keep on being positive, amicable and forgiving.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Yes! A very sane and wholesome reminder. Who do you persuade with ad hominem denouncements? Especially an undifferentiated thing like: “The Left are all part of nihilistic cult” or “every conservative is an malevolent guardian of wealth and privilege”.
Even as a way to preach to the already converted and stir up energy it’s pretty negative, and to a large degree just isn’t true. Most people mean well and have significant good in them. Most among the more historically grounded sort of conservative can acknowledge a place for liberal and innovative forces, and most of the sane people to the left (they exist) can acknowledge the merit of forces that protect and conserve a great deal of what we have, and what has gone before.
Don’t call the statue-toppling, race-rioting extremists a fair representation of the Left, unless you think the most violent element among the Capitol breachers or Unite the Right marchers fairly represent the Right.
There has to be such a thing as an engaged moderate–I’m trying to be one. People will disagree over whether the present-day far-far left or far-far right represent a greater threat to our lives and liberty, but I want no part of either of them. Vote no on both! Love your enemy and reach out to your presumed opponent when you can.
I applaud your post, Mr. Horsman.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

The problem is that what people believe is a reflection of who they are. It goes very deep and isn’t just a matter of changing someone’s mind. Mind set is formed very young and is a combination of nature and nurture.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

Nature always TRIUMPHS over nurture.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Ludicrous. I would have thought a blueblood of self-announced high white privilege such as yourself would have a more nuanced view.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Experience and Hans Eysenck have taught me otherwise.

Incidentally what is all this “self-announced high white privilege” tosh?
You sound like an old scold.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

You said were “born to extreme privilege though no fault of your own” elsewhere on these boards. And that your ancestors were “handsomely compensated” in 1837 in connection with the slave trade. Correct?
Can’t you see that the background (not merely genetic) you cherish has a measure of prevailing influence on your point of view?
Is it nature or nurture though? Yes, it is. Determinists and blank slaters notwithstanding, the “debate” is like arguing whether there’s more day or night at the equator.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Well to be : “born to extreme privilege through no fault of my own” does NOT equate to “high white privilege” (whatever that means) in my book. It is merely a statement of fact.

Incidentally I don’t “cherish” my background but rather just accept it for what it is.

Slightly baffled by your sentence “is it nature or nurture though?”
Surely it is quite simple, ‘You can’t put in what God left out’. QED?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Not demonstrated at all. No one has the wherewithal to discern an individual’s uppermost potential based on their lived outcomes alone. Lucky people who escape dreadful families and neighborhoods can go on to outperform those left behind, somewhat irrespective of their measured intelligence or outward pre-escape character. In fact, Identical twins brought up in different home environments, while eerily similar in personality often have remarkably different behavior and life outcomes. (e.g.: one becomes a drug addict, one doesn’t).
I admit that “blueblood of high white privilege” was a bit of cheap shot. But supporting your essentialist or determinist views with a racialist IQ proponent doesn’t help remove the sense of racialized privilege or self regard, sir.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

[rendered (even more ) irrelevant]

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

C’est la vie!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Indeed.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Indeed.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

C’est la vie!

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

What is privilege ? If one is shipwrecked in lifeboat being a fisherman hardened to cold water will increase one chances of survival, likewise a beduin in a plane crash in a desert.
Today being descended from a long line of landowners may not be much of an advantage but from a along line of upper middle class scholars such as the Huxleys, Wedgewood Benns, James Dyson, etc probably confers enhanced academic ability.,

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Not demonstrated at all. No one has the wherewithal to discern an individual’s uppermost potential based on their lived outcomes alone. Lucky people who escape dreadful families and neighborhoods can go on to outperform those left behind, somewhat irrespective of their measured intelligence or outward pre-escape character. In fact, Identical twins brought up in different home environments, while eerily similar in personality often have remarkably different behavior and life outcomes. (e.g.: one becomes a drug addict, one doesn’t).
I admit that “blueblood of high white privilege” was a bit of cheap shot. But supporting your essentialist or determinist views with a racialist IQ proponent doesn’t help remove the sense of racialized privilege or self regard, sir.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

[rendered (even more ) irrelevant]

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

What is privilege ? If one is shipwrecked in lifeboat being a fisherman hardened to cold water will increase one chances of survival, likewise a beduin in a plane crash in a desert.
Today being descended from a long line of landowners may not be much of an advantage but from a along line of upper middle class scholars such as the Huxleys, Wedgewood Benns, James Dyson, etc probably confers enhanced academic ability.,

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Well to be : “born to extreme privilege through no fault of my own” does NOT equate to “high white privilege” (whatever that means) in my book. It is merely a statement of fact.

Incidentally I don’t “cherish” my background but rather just accept it for what it is.

Slightly baffled by your sentence “is it nature or nurture though?”
Surely it is quite simple, ‘You can’t put in what God left out’. QED?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

You said were “born to extreme privilege though no fault of your own” elsewhere on these boards. And that your ancestors were “handsomely compensated” in 1837 in connection with the slave trade. Correct?
Can’t you see that the background (not merely genetic) you cherish has a measure of prevailing influence on your point of view?
Is it nature or nurture though? Yes, it is. Determinists and blank slaters notwithstanding, the “debate” is like arguing whether there’s more day or night at the equator.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Experience and Hans Eysenck have taught me otherwise.

Incidentally what is all this “self-announced high white privilege” tosh?
You sound like an old scold.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Ludicrous. I would have thought a blueblood of self-announced high white privilege such as yourself would have a more nuanced view.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

But it is not fixed in place. Should parents give up when the children hit four because Freud or whomever says the personality is immovably formed?
I agree that were are not blank or fully erasable slates but experience and (to some extent) voluntary kinds of engagement with the world (behavior, mindset) can continue to work deep changes in people, for better or worse, throughout their lives.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

Nature always TRIUMPHS over nurture.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  CLARE KNIGHT

But it is not fixed in place. Should parents give up when the children hit four because Freud or whomever says the personality is immovably formed?
I agree that were are not blank or fully erasable slates but experience and (to some extent) voluntary kinds of engagement with the world (behavior, mindset) can continue to work deep changes in people, for better or worse, throughout their lives.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

I am sure not one can change their minds. Muggeridge stated Communism is an urban religion attractive to those with a grudge against their fellow man and civilisation. Muggeridge and Orwell understood the character of the left wing middle class. I think it boils down to lack of physical and mental toughness plus practical skills to enjoy the rough and tumble of life. Look at what degrees and sports they play. Has the labour Parties of Hampstead, Highgate and Islington ever included rugby playing engineers? Now compare Guardian types to rugby playing miners and those working in heavy industry or commercial trawling.
Those who have conquered fear can walk with the animals which was why George Adamson could walk with lions.On a physical level I think most Guardian types are fearful of tough practical men which is why they turned on traditional Labour/Democrat voting blue collar and manual workers and ignore plight of those who lived in squalid slums and worked in satanic mills. One cannot hate what one does not fear.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

So the tough practical blokes also fear the “Guardian types”? Or the hatred is unidirectional?
Fear and hatred indeed strongly intersect but not without exception, I don’t think.
Can someone have contempt for something they don’t fear, or at least don’t fear much? Can someone love some person or thing they also fear, at least in part?
Making hate and fear interchangeable or inseparable takes it too far, in my opinion.
Mr. Horsman does not assert that their minds can’t be changed, but this: “My conclusion is that pointing the finger at them and accusing them of ignorance, cowardice, or venality is not going to change their minds, it’s only going to make them dig their heels in further, and deepen the divisions“.
Do you disagree with that? “Hey, Guardian types, stop hating and fearing me like a little coward and come listen to a tough practical man!”

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Those who have conquered fear can walk with the wild animals; G Adamson and lions being a good example.
If one watches tough women, say those who run construction site canteens,market stalls, landladies of pubs in rough areas, farmers/land owners working with dangerous animals ( bulls, cows, sows, stallions, ), especially those who hunt and working alongside tough men, they invariably have a relaxed cheerful calm authoritative confidence which often is lacking from upper middle class urban professional mercantile types who appear brittle, nervous in the presence of the builder. Someone who can be thrown from a horse or knocked flying by an animal, or fall over, land in cold wet mud, laugh it off and carry on has mental and physical resilience and will therefore tend to be relaxed.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Fine. I’ve done building work so I know what you mean. But there is plenty of rage and fear in the average person who is quite physically unafraid. That’s the pushback or balancing act I was attempting.
If you assert a close correlation between fear and hatred–not without reason–then the hatred of many tradespeople for intellectually propped-up weaklings has an element of fear too. Or are you suggesting the hardy working folk are damn near devoid of both hatred and fear?
A muscled and tattooed ex-con who’s rarely worked (20 year sentence) might intimidate a rugged working man, but the ex-con is not therefore without his own hatred and fears.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Someone has passed the test is secure in the knowledge of what they have achieved, tend to be relaxed, have a sense of humour, can laugh at themselves. They are easy to work with because they largely lack fear, hatred and an inferiority complex .
The very tough skilled foremen with combat experience I have worked with respect scholarship; the truly top engineer but see through the inadequate very quickly. When insults are traded easily and everyone gives as good as they get, one has a good team. The phrase ” No insult meant” with the reply ” None taken ” has become rare.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

That sounds wonderful. A far more positive and resilient bunch than many, probably most, I’d guess. I still don’t think Guardian readers fit so neatly into your hypersensitive weakling mold, nor that all tradespeople are hale fellows well-met. Many are, but I’ve worked with some real jerks and weasels too.
Thanks for a good exchange. No offense taken on this side of the pond.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I have worked with some exceptional foremen and engineers, the types who turned deserts into the vibrant cities and oil installations of the Middle East in the 1960s to 1980s. Working out of doors when temperatures hit 54 Centigrade is hard work. However, these foremen had fought in the jungles of Malaya and Borneo , in the mountains of the Radfan, Yemen and Oman before they entered the construction/oil industies. Many of the British supervisors/foremen on the oil installations were ex Parachute Regiment/Royal Marine Commandos/Special Forces and served overseas which is why the various Arab National Oil Companies employed them.
I doubt we will ever see their kind again. They had the ability to earn the respect competent tough competent men from all races and religions.
The Guardian was not common reading material.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

I think you’ve idealized your own slice of the past, but I admit these manly men sound pretty impressive. What was common reading material among these hardboiled dudes?

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Look at photographs of the Middle East pre WW2 and look at it now at it now. The men I worked with fought in the various conflicts and then  built the modern infrastructure. The greater the challenge, the greater the attraction for them. They enjoyed listening to the experience of others of similar background such as a Kate Adey but had little time reading the opinions of those who lacked their worldliness.
In Britain, inherited wealth either induces people to seek a life of adventure or one of security and comfort; The Guardian is a temple for the latter. The Guardian is happy to sacrifice anyone who helps it to maintain a life of security and comfort.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Ok. Thanks for the example (Kate Adey) to help color your generalized claims.
Incidentally, I don’t love the Guardian, except that it is free and one can mine some worthwhile items there, from my American point of view.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Ok. Thanks for the example (Kate Adey) to help color your generalized claims.
Incidentally, I don’t love the Guardian, except that it is free and one can mine some worthwhile items there, from my American point of view.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Look at photographs of the Middle East pre WW2 and look at it now at it now. The men I worked with fought in the various conflicts and then  built the modern infrastructure. The greater the challenge, the greater the attraction for them. They enjoyed listening to the experience of others of similar background such as a Kate Adey but had little time reading the opinions of those who lacked their worldliness.
In Britain, inherited wealth either induces people to seek a life of adventure or one of security and comfort; The Guardian is a temple for the latter. The Guardian is happy to sacrifice anyone who helps it to maintain a life of security and comfort.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

I think you’ve idealized your own slice of the past, but I admit these manly men sound pretty impressive. What was common reading material among these hardboiled dudes?

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I have worked with some exceptional foremen and engineers, the types who turned deserts into the vibrant cities and oil installations of the Middle East in the 1960s to 1980s. Working out of doors when temperatures hit 54 Centigrade is hard work. However, these foremen had fought in the jungles of Malaya and Borneo , in the mountains of the Radfan, Yemen and Oman before they entered the construction/oil industies. Many of the British supervisors/foremen on the oil installations were ex Parachute Regiment/Royal Marine Commandos/Special Forces and served overseas which is why the various Arab National Oil Companies employed them.
I doubt we will ever see their kind again. They had the ability to earn the respect competent tough competent men from all races and religions.
The Guardian was not common reading material.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

That sounds wonderful. A far more positive and resilient bunch than many, probably most, I’d guess. I still don’t think Guardian readers fit so neatly into your hypersensitive weakling mold, nor that all tradespeople are hale fellows well-met. Many are, but I’ve worked with some real jerks and weasels too.
Thanks for a good exchange. No offense taken on this side of the pond.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Someone has passed the test is secure in the knowledge of what they have achieved, tend to be relaxed, have a sense of humour, can laugh at themselves. They are easy to work with because they largely lack fear, hatred and an inferiority complex .
The very tough skilled foremen with combat experience I have worked with respect scholarship; the truly top engineer but see through the inadequate very quickly. When insults are traded easily and everyone gives as good as they get, one has a good team. The phrase ” No insult meant” with the reply ” None taken ” has become rare.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Fine. I’ve done building work so I know what you mean. But there is plenty of rage and fear in the average person who is quite physically unafraid. That’s the pushback or balancing act I was attempting.
If you assert a close correlation between fear and hatred–not without reason–then the hatred of many tradespeople for intellectually propped-up weaklings has an element of fear too. Or are you suggesting the hardy working folk are damn near devoid of both hatred and fear?
A muscled and tattooed ex-con who’s rarely worked (20 year sentence) might intimidate a rugged working man, but the ex-con is not therefore without his own hatred and fears.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Those who have conquered fear can walk with the wild animals; G Adamson and lions being a good example.
If one watches tough women, say those who run construction site canteens,market stalls, landladies of pubs in rough areas, farmers/land owners working with dangerous animals ( bulls, cows, sows, stallions, ), especially those who hunt and working alongside tough men, they invariably have a relaxed cheerful calm authoritative confidence which often is lacking from upper middle class urban professional mercantile types who appear brittle, nervous in the presence of the builder. Someone who can be thrown from a horse or knocked flying by an animal, or fall over, land in cold wet mud, laugh it off and carry on has mental and physical resilience and will therefore tend to be relaxed.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

So the tough practical blokes also fear the “Guardian types”? Or the hatred is unidirectional?
Fear and hatred indeed strongly intersect but not without exception, I don’t think.
Can someone have contempt for something they don’t fear, or at least don’t fear much? Can someone love some person or thing they also fear, at least in part?
Making hate and fear interchangeable or inseparable takes it too far, in my opinion.
Mr. Horsman does not assert that their minds can’t be changed, but this: “My conclusion is that pointing the finger at them and accusing them of ignorance, cowardice, or venality is not going to change their minds, it’s only going to make them dig their heels in further, and deepen the divisions“.
Do you disagree with that? “Hey, Guardian types, stop hating and fearing me like a little coward and come listen to a tough practical man!”

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Caroline Ayers
Caroline Ayers
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Yes you are so right – in the battle of ideas against dangerous wokism, we must also, (as you say) acknowledge their point of view, recognise they have some legitimate grievances.. and keep on being positive, amicable and forgiving.