Thursday, 5 April 2018

Living In A Madhouse: The Guardian vs The Guardian's Comments Section







If, like me, you're an avid hate-reader of The Guardian you may have noticed that they close their comments section on what they would call ''sensitive issues''. Those sensitive issues usually involve Islam, immigration, grooming and political correctness. Personally, I thought they closed their comments because their opinion pieces were tripe and the editors simply could stand witnessing their over paid writers and pundits take another pounding off the public.

 But it turns out I was wrong, in fact the Guardian have been engaged in a lengthy investigation into their own comments section which, they claim, has been the target of a consistent ''cyber-attack'' carried out by Russian trolls. In his article ''What do Russian trolls fear most? Transparency'' Paul Chadwick enlightens us as to what exactly has been going:

 It is a modest effort to chart how far, in 2016-17 in particular, Russian trolls infected the Guardian and its online debate forums. The results are heartening, in the sense that they indicate a relative lack of impact – which is in part a credit to the mostly unsung work of the moderators of comment threads.
The Guardian's comments section moderators, wielding their doctorates in queer theory and inter-gender studies are valiantly holding the line against legions of Ivans seeking to undermine ''Liberal Values''.
Sifting 47m comments received since late 2015, the analysts looked into the impact of a set of 55 companies, individual names (real and fake), Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and email accounts, and Twitter hashtags, which was gleaned from an indictment made public by US special counsel Robert Mueller during his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Amazingly, despite this massive operation no Russian companies, governmental organizations or even individuals have been found, but that doesn't seem to matter because as Chadwick explains:
Bear in mind that an identified account or hashtag may not be Russian-made; it may be genuine, but its sentiments chime sufficiently with trolls’ aims for them to boost it
So we don't know who the Russian trolls are, or where they are, but that's unimportant because the Guardian can tell merely by the ''sentiment'' expressed that they're suffering a cyber-attack from the Russian bots.

 The Russian trolls themselves wasted no time invading Chadwick's article exposing them, the best rated comment responding to Chadwick was by a Russian troll called ''gondwanaboy'' who posted:
The Ministry of Truth has declared that anyone who disagrees with the official narrative is a Troll and will be charged with the thought crime of "Wrong Think"
According to Chadwick a sure sign that you're dealing with a Russian spy troll is that they'll think of Hillary Clinton as a corrupt shill, and sure enough, they fell right into Chadwick's trap:
''early impressions are that the trolls seemed to cluster most around comments alleging criminality or warmongering by Clinton.
If you substitute 'the trolls' for 'the critical thinkers' in the sentence above, then it also will be a correct one.''
The main contention of the liberal-left, and the Guardian in particular, is that Putin is using Russian trolls to embolden the populist nationalist right across the western world. Andrew Rawnsley's piece called ''Populists will eventually be found out – moderates must be ready for that day'' is an appeal to the liberal-left not to give up, sooner or later the populists will lose favour and then the fortunes of the Globalist left will rise again.

 Needless to say, the Russian trolls were busy here too, in this case they were ''subverting Liberal Democracy'' by pleading with the liberal-left to listen to what the public want:

Best rated by ''queequeg7''
A key factor in any democratic country is for the winning party to propose policies which people want to vote for, and in Europe people don’t seem to want to vote for more immigration.
So you can call it ‘populism’ but it’s really just democracy- and the left will either have to adopt the views of the electorate on this issue or face total wipe-out across Europe
Obviously, only a Russian would express this ''sentiment'' toward left-liberalism after all the joys they've bestowed on the European natives.

 Another Kremlin agent writes:
The left and centre left completely failed to deliver on things people truly care about. All they offered were failed policies and accusations of racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc, for anyone who didn't tow the line. Now the pendulum is starting to swing the other way in many countries. I for one am happy about that.
Again and again we see the Russian strategy as exposed by the Guardian.
''Dream on Andrew. All over Europe the so called populist parties have made advances. The old centre or so called moderates are losing it big time. Partly because they are no longer "moderate" nor centre, but have an extreme agenda of their own (uncontrolled mass immigration, divisive identity politics, censorship and suppression of free speech) and people are waking up to that fact. The so called populists are in fact more moderate in most respects.
{
I think it was Giles Brandreth who said, as an MP I despised my constituents but it was a surprise to me to find out the feeling was mutual when they promptly voted me out of office.
That about sums up the present day relationship between the centre left and a significant proportion of the working class they claim to represent.
}
"Many voters may have given up on social democrats, but they still like the idea of a regulated market economy with good public services and decent welfare protection."
 They don't want mass immigration though, which is conspicuously absent from that list. And untill social democrats address and deal with that, they ain't getting elected in Europe.

Obviously, we are the Russians, that is to say, the British public. Imagine the gob-smacking levels of hubris, the insurmountable levels of arrogance to be in the position of a Guardian columnist and to be told daily that they're a fool and an idiot who does great harm, by the very people they claim to speak for. In such situations a lie can be comforting, and anyway, the plebs will understand eventually, they will tell themselves.

 The problem with reality shattering a world view based on lies is that there's always the incentive perpetuate the lie a bit longer, thus the original lie needs more lies to prop itself up. Like ''Flat-Earthers'' when asked why the sea does not flow over the edge of the planet, the Guardian needs a new layer of lies to explain why their values are viewed as deluded at best, psychotic at worst. 

I'll give the last word to the commentor called ''steverandomno'' 

In today's journalistic environment, it is not necessary to lie to subvert democracy. When media has become so biased, superficial and disingenuous in it's choices of narratives, all an agitator has to do is focus on the inconvenient truths that the media are seen to be deliberately avoiding.
The tone and perceived dishonesty of the media provide a fertile ground for contrarian agitators. Fix that and they will not be as effective.















Become a Patron!
To Post on Twitter

Tip Jar

No comments:

Post a Comment