Hillary Clinton IS The Guardian 982

Hillary Clinton is American, owned by financial interests to whom she is completely in thrall, a rabid neo-conservative warmonger, completely uncritical of Israel and focused for any claim to be progressive entirely on identity politics. Which is also a precise description of today’s Guardian newspaper. The once august and intellectual title is now a shrill cheerleader for far right Blairites and wealthy American feminists.

The Guardian is as unabashed in its support for Clinton as in its support for the Blairites. The stream of “feminist” articles about why it would advance the cause of women to have a deeply corrupt right winger in the White House is steadily growing into a torrent. It is a perfect example of what I wrote of a month ago, the cause of feminism being hijacked to neo-conservative ends.

Bernie Sanders is not perfect – nobody is. But he understands that obscene and still burgeoning wealth inequality is the greatest problem of western society, and that the state framework supporting crazed banking structures is the root cause of this. The support for him is a sign of the inevitable popular reaction to the extreme inequality of society. Sanders is channelling that reaction effectively.

The establishment therefore circles its wagons around Hillary Clinton. The hope is that women can be persuaded it is an act of misogyny simply to stand in her way. The other great establishment hope is that the Democrat party machinery is so strong in black communities, that black Americans can be in effect ordered to vote for a woman who epitomises the system which disadvantages them, rather than an apostle of genuine change in the economic order. I retain hope the establishment may find that black Americans are cleverer than that.

The machinery used to manipulate identity politics – racial and gender – is all that Clinton has. If Clinton beats Sanders, it will be the perfect demonstration of the fact that identity politics has become the enemy of progress in society.

In the field of identity, Bernie Sanders would be the first non-Christian President of the United States. Would that not be wonderful in a country whose politicians feel the need to genuflect to swarms of religious evolution-denying nutters who believe foreign wars are good because they presage the Rapture?

And would it not be great if the first President since Carter not in thrall to Israel were Jewish?

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

982 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton IS The Guardian

1 5 6 7 8 9 33
  • Tony_0pmoc

    Only My Sis was at Greenham Common and not as a Political Activist..but just as a Trainee Nurse…my girl and I were at stonehenge at the time but we were all fuckin hippies from Oldham and Burnley and Bradford and Skelmersdake and we were all f’kin Blonde as well..and we had and still have flowers in our hair

    Lancashire and Yorkshire Blondes VS You Lot??

    Still going strong as is My Ex

    I phone her up…she is a little bit kind of nice and she still loves me after all this time…she has kept her own original hair colour…

    Aussie Version (from Serbia Originally – well her Mum and Dad were..The Nicest Girl with Brown Hair…are you gonna be my girl)..I Never Did AC/DC..I didn’t even know about a rampant rabbit…nor a condom (brought up Catholic – they were banned)

    “Jet – Are You Gonna Be My Girl”


    Well of course I have invited her again to Cambridge Rock Festival…both her kids are Top Lawyers..and you thought I was joking.

    Life in the Old Dog Yet. xx


  • Tony_0pmoc

    So all you sad cunts.do you want.any more evidence..before We Put You on TRIAL?

    For War Crimes Against Humanity…

    Currently Starting With You “The stumbling block was Philip Hammond at Defence,” he said.

    “It’s very frustrating.

    “There’s no way that I was going to draft something that would embarrass the British government.”



    So you think it is OK For Our RAF and ARMY To TARGET SCHOOLS

    “UN initiative to protect schools in war zones vetoed by Britain”

    Britain has refused to sign up to a UN agreement on protecting schools in wartime, which has been signed by 51 states, despite the fact it was drawn up by a former UK military officer.

    The agreement was championed by the UN children’s fund UNICEF to protect schools from attack during conflicts. It aimed to set out a “safe schools declaration” and provide guidelines for military forces.

    However, it was reported on Tuesday by the Telegraph newspaper that Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond had effectively vetoed the move after having opposed it as head of two government departments.

    Already signed by 51 nations, the initiative was developed in response to deadly attacks on schools in Syria and Yemen.

    In a statement on Monday, Amnesty International senior crisis advisor Lama Fakih reported how schools were being targeted with deadly effect in Yemen, where a Sunni/Shia proxy war is currently being fought with Saudi and Iranian backing.

    “The Saudi Arabia-led coalition launched a series of unlawful airstrikes on schools being used for educational – not for military – purposes, a flagrant violation of the laws of war,” she wrote.

    “Schools are central to civilian life, they are meant to offer a safe space for children. Yemen’s young school pupils are being forced to pay the price for these attacks,” she added.

    It was hoped Britain would be a leading voice in the campaign to protect schoolchildren and schools after the high-profile campaign against sexual violence in warzones led by Phillip Hammond’s predecessor William Hague and movie star Angelina Jolie.

    But Britain, like the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, did not sign up.

    It is rumored that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Foreign Office have been put off by fears of litigation given the volume of cases brought against the military for alleged crimes in the Iraq and Afghan occupations.

    Initially it appears that of the three government departments whose support was needed only the MoD – then under Hammond – was resisting, while the Department for International Development (DFID) and Hague’s Foreign Office were supportive.

    Hammond’s subsequent shift from defense to the Foreign Office is felt to have poisoned both the military and diplomatic ministries against the initiative, despite the fact the agreement was drawn up by a former British naval officer.

    Steven Haines, who drew up the British military rulebook for the 2003 Iraq invasion, is now a professor of international law at the University of Greenwich.

    He told the Telegraph of his disappointment at the government’s response to his proposals.

    “The stumbling block was Philip Hammond at Defence,” he said.

    “It’s very frustrating.

    “There’s no way that I was going to draft something that would embarrass the British government.”

    The declaration, which was launched in Norway in 2015, commits governments to six guidelines including one which prevents military forces for using from using active schools as military bases.

    It was thought that if Britain signed up then its role as a trainer of foreign troops would help to engender respect for schools and schoolchildren among military forces globally.

    A Foreign Office spokesman defended the move, telling the paper that while they “support the spirit of the initiative, we have concerns that the Guidelines do not mirror the exact language and content of International Humanitarian Law.

    “Therefore the UK, along with several other countries, was not able to sign the Safe Schools Declaration in Oslo in May 2015,” the spokesman said.

    Britain’s concern about future legal cases may spring from its controversial military support for regional ally Saudi Arabia in the Gulf theocracy’s war in Yemen.

    That support has included both material backing, in the form of weapons and munitions traded by UK arms firms subject to government license, and the presence of British military personnel as advisors to the Saudi military.

    The UK government maintains the military advisors are present in Saudi headquarters to ensure international law is followed.

  • Paul Barbara

    The pair of the Clintons are evil. Here is a list of ‘Mysterious Deaths’ around them:
    90 SUSPICIOUS DEATHS OF INDIVIDUALS CLOSE TO BILL CLINTON, 81 WHILE PRESIDENT: http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty/liberty/bdycount.txt

    While Governor of Arkansas, he oversaw massive amounts of cocaine being brought in by the planeload, courtesy of the CIA and Reagan and Bush Sr. Presidencies, in furtherance of their illegal, immoral backing of the Contra mercenary thugs.
    Bill Clinton got his cut of profits, and his own personal supply of cocaine.

    Hillary Clinton abused Cathy O’Brien sexually whilst she was a Mind-Controlled MK-ULTRA slave (see her books, particularly ‘Access Denied: For Reasons of National Security’, and her videos, particularly ‘Cathy O’Brien Ex Illuminati Mind Control Victim MK Ultra The Granada Forum 10/31/96’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoMAFr5pQck ).

    There are a number of alleged ‘unladylike’ quotes of hers at ‘Snopes – Hildabeast’.

    All in all, a thoroughly revolting pair of Luciferians (yes, she even sported a ‘Stars and Stripes’ flag upside down at one of her earlier fundraisers, and it appeared on her website, until some sharp-eyed person spotted it and blasted the info all over the web; she then removed it. Incidentally, the Republican ‘Elephant’ logo had three upright stars on it, till the Bush Jr. Presidency, when they were turned upside down, were they remain – upside-down stars have occult, Satanic significance, for anyone’s info who was unaware).

  • Paul Barbara

    Correction to my previous post; the flag was not upside down at the Clinton fundraiser – the stars had been printed on it upside down.

  • Paul Barbara

    @John Goss – I’ve sent the Hammond petition details to someone who will forward it to many groups, and also put it on the 9/11 ‘Campaigning’ section.
    I hope you’ve found time to watch the Cathy O’Brien video (I’ve put the link in above comment, re Hillary Clinton).

  • J Galt

    Even if you believe that Sanders is genuine – which isn’t very likely – the system is rigged against him as Clinton actually leaves NH with most of the delegates despite loosing the popular vote!

  • craig Post author


    Nobody is more hostile to Saudi princes than I am. But I am a great believer in acquittal by jury and presuming it was a jury that acquitted him I do not think there should be a retrial. His evidence as you give it is quite obviously ludicrous. But possibly the jury found other evidence equally unconvincing and decided all were lying about a possibly consensual act? I give that purely as one hypothesis to explain the jury’s thinking. But it is a dangerous course to start revisiting jury acquittals.

  • Macky

    @Glenn, thanks for the info about the petition; yet this is just one example of the corruption that can & does occur in the British Justice System, corruption that can only happen with the connivance of those at the top of our political system. Funny how there’s no so angry “Feminists” writing angry opinion pieces about this case in the Guardian or anywhere in the MSM.

    Talking of curruption, here’s Chunky Mark doing PMQ’s, if only !;


  • Habbabkuk (Are you a person of interest?)

    Paul Barbara

    You made my morning with your post at 03h39 about the Clintons:

    Ninety deaths, Bill smuggling cocaine, Hillary sexually abusing a woman, dark Satanic signs and connections… 🙂

    Anyone who believes all that is very seriously disturbed and should get treatment before it’s too late.

  • Macky

    @Craig, perhaps you are presuming too much; would you care to address this;

    “Judge Martin Griffiths allowed for 20 minutes of Abdulaziz’s testimony to be heard in private, a rarely granted exception.”

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Can Sanders fix it, even if elected? Paul Craig Roberts thinks not, and his reasons are set out here:


    He concludes –

    Historically, capitalism was justified on the grounds that it guaranteed the efficient use of society’s resources. Profits were a sign that resources were being used to maximize social welfare, and losses were a sign of inefficient resource use, which was corrected by the firm going out of business. This is no longer the case when the economic policy of a counry serves to protect financial institutions that are “too big to fail” and when profits reflect the relocation abroad of US GDP as a result of jobs offshoring. Clearly, American capitalism no longer serves society, and the worsening distribution of income and wealth prove it.

    None of these serious problems will be addressed by the presidential candidates, and no party’s platform will consist of a rescue plan for America. Unbridled greed, short-term in nature, will continue to drive America into the ground.

    Ditto the UK.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    11/02/16 1:43am

    Lol thank you, Node. I take the hint! I did do the same myself after posting.

    I am attempting to point out some fabrications on Twitter to Oliver Kamm and Joan Smith, for example. My replies to their tweets are not being shown. If they’re blocking them somehow, I’m flattered: I have tweeted 11 times and already I am into censored territory, what a compliment. But maybe it’s just my incompetence. Not sure.

    Kind regards,


  • John Spencer-Davis

    11/02/16 8:50am

    I assume “private” does not mean without the presence of the jury!

    Kind regards,


  • Macky

    JDD; “I assume “private” does not mean without the presence of the jury!”

    Would be helpful to know for sure, but doesn’t distract that Ordinary Joe Bloggs would not have had this privilege, hence the “rarely granted” part; and of course the political quashing of past Saudi Arm Sales corruption cases does indicate a possible parallel.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    11/02/16 9:36am

    Paying £11 for the privilege of listening to Kamm? Not likely.

    11/02/16 9:44am

    Well, on the face of it that’s true, but we don’t know the reason for the granting at the moment, to be fair. I agree that it is most probably undue deference. That may have influenced the jury. Who can say?

    The dropping of corruption investigations at the personal intervention of one T. Blair is utterly scandalous.

    Kind regards,


  • Macky

    JSD; “Paying £11 for the privilege of listening to Kamm? Not likely.”

    It may be money well spent if somebody does a “Finkelstein” on him ! 😀

    JSD; “The dropping of corruption investigations at the personal intervention of one T. Blair is utterly scandalous.”

    Yes, but Blair is just one individual, it’s the system that’s at fault for allowing such interference & manipulation in the first place, a quite deliberate feature imho.

  • Doug Scorgie

    Habbabkuk (Are you a person of interest?)

    10 Feb, 2016 – 10:14 am


    “Interesting article, thank you.”

    Habbabkuk, Graham proposed a “disagreement hierarchy” in a 2008 essay “How to Disagree”

    Graham’s hierarchy can be represented as a pyramid with the most convincing form of disagreement at the top, and the weakest at the bottom”

    You Habbabkuk and your supporters move around in the bottom four sections of the Graham hierarchy.


  • John Spencer-Davis

    11/02/16 10:56am

    I say Mark Golding has done exactly what he says he has done.

    Kind regards,


  • John Spencer-Davis

    Interesting. Joan Smith put the following tweet up on Oliver Kamm’s Twitter feed:

    “That would be the Craig Murray who named one of the alleged victims when he appeared with me on Newsnight.”

    To which I sent the following replies:

    “Yes, the one the New York Times named in 2010 as having given an interview to a Swedish newspaper…”


    “..and the one whose lawyer was publicly identified as such when interviewed by ABC in July 2012.”

    On neither tweet did I name the “alleged victim”. Result? Joan Smith has now blocked me on Twitter.

    As I say, I am rather flattered, but I am learning something new about freedom of speech.

    Kind regards,


  • Macky

    JSD; “but I am learning something new about freedom of speech”

    Yes, it’s quite contemptible that people resort to censorship against what you are pointing out, either to hide their embarrassment, and/or because they have not got the intellectual honesty to counter your point.

    Happens even in the most unexpected of places ! 😉

  • Ba'al Zevul

    JS-D….think she does irony?


    Tacking back to secret trials –


    I thought the prosecution evidence that was previously released to the press was pretty damning (or blessing, for us fans of Tony). There’s a McGuffin here: he got off. Getting in touch with my inner conspiracy theorist suggests the notion that Incedal was either set up by or voluntarily working with our defenders of freedomndemocracy. Hmmm?

  • glenn_uk

    Is that the same Joan Smith who wrote a fawning article, “All praise John McCain” in the 2008 US Presidential elections? “Insane” McCain did his usual thing, nuzzling up to the press at some BBQ he hosted in one of his grand houses. Joan Smith was among the many pundits who got schmoozed, and dutifully trotted out all the illusions about McCain like she was a breathless PR assistant.

    I’ve never had the least respect for her since.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Ba’al Zevul
    11/02/16 12:42pm

    I assume that Incedal was tried by jury. Next, the jury will go. I have no doubt at all about that.

    Ba’al and Macky

    Joan Smith has every right to refuse to engage with me, as I discussed with Trowbridge Ford a while back. But it is rather startling behaviour, particularly as I pointed out hard facts and in a way that was considerate of the alleged victim.

    Kind regards,


  • Chris Rogers


    Is that Joan Smith the so called ‘human rights & feminist’ personality?

    Given I have zero knowledge of this woman, suffice to say any critique of her and her bullshit on Twitter is not tolerated, hence the ‘block’ no doubt.

    The glitteratzi, of which Joan and the Zionist Cabal at The Guardian are members do not like criticism, it upsets their karma and view of themselves – we see it all the time with Jonathan Freedland, who is one of the most crass and annoying London media types one can ever meet. To call him ‘smug’ would be an understatement. And yet The Guardian pays this muckraker a handsome fortune.

    Given that it’s likely The Independent & Sunday Independent will cease publishing shortly, one trusts the same fate will apply to The Guardian, which has not been The Guardian since about 2007. Twas not a good idea to abolish the Scott Trust and Rushbridger has much to answer for. Wonder what Peter Preston makes of all this – really liked The Guardian when he was at the helm.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Chris Rogers
    11/02/16 12:54pm

    Thanks for your interesting response. Yes, that’s correct. I don’t know a lot about her either, although I know she is married to ex-convict Denis MacShane and I think she was very gung-ho for putting the MP expenses scandal to rest. But I think I now know all I need to know about her.

    Oliver Kamm put this tweet up:

    “Well, now; just clashed with Craig Murray on @LBC, who claimed allegations of assault & rape against Assange are “political correctness”.”

    To which I have sent the following reply:

    “As you well know, that is a fabrication: Murray said nothing of the kind, as anyone can hear by listening to the broadcast.”

    Kamm does not seem to have blocked me, but that response does not appear on his Twitter feed, so I assume he has deleted it somehow.

    Kind regards,


  • Chris Rogers


    As you, Twitter is a bit of of mystery to me, i did use it a bit for business purposes and was highly active on the political scene with regards the run-up to last July’s election and the Labour Party Leadership contest – one does not hold back on the invective and came a cropper when one of my friends, a very well known economist, instructed me that all my posts were ‘public’ and perhaps I should curtail it a little – given I had/have a professional life.

    However, not once did I ever block anyone on Twitter and took some major criticism from Tories and New Labour alike, most of these so called Twitter users with personality egos just seem to like an echo chamber – its is the mutual appreciation society with 140 letters – those who are honest and fervent in their beliefs do not block, i.e., the majority of those i follow on Twitter do not block or delete, rather they give as good as they get, which is why i ‘suspect’ these London types and media personalities greatly, they really are presstitutes for sale for the highest bidder, much like many of our elected MP’s are. It really is distressing, particularly when they tell massive lies and use deceit to further their own goals and push more coin in their overflowing pockets.

1 5 6 7 8 9 33

Comments are closed.