The Guardian: Sinister Propaganda & Fake News


It’s been a couple of weeks since my last entry, a nice little hiatus in which hopefully any readers have brought themselves up to speed with the plethora of evidence against wind energy and its destructive impacts. I’ve not come into contact with that many turbines since my last entry, just the usual horrendous and dangerous blight that lines long stretches of our motorways.

I’m pleased to report that the broken turbine next to the Scammonden viaduct currently remains broken, its three blades lying lifeless on the ground and its naked nacelle exposed to the elements. Will anyone bother fixing it? I shall keep you posted. Let’s hope that whatever has afflicted this turbine spreads and takes out the remainder of the unwelcome turbines around Kirklees and Calderdale. I’m certain that by the end of the year, just over six weeks from now, more of these turbines will fail. As always, I will be quick on the scene to take video footage of any accidents.

My several M62 journeys have afforded me regular views of Scout Moor, Crook Hill and the various single turbines on the hillsides immediately north of Manchester. There is a whole swathe of Green Belt that has been trashed by these inappropriate turbines, the two off Ashworth Road near Rochdale in particular casting a negative shadow over the otherwise scenic Pennine foothills.


I’ve also been down to London a couple of times since writing, taking me out of my current home patch and back to my Southern roots. Both the A1 and M1 link West Yorkshire with London: heading south, the A1(M) splits adjacent to Hook Moor Wind Farm, a horrid and dangerous affair rejected THREE TIMES by Leeds City Council, and once again only approved on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate under their abysmal and probably corrupt old methodology (the one still largely prevalent in Scotland that says: whatever a wind developer wants, a wind developer gets, and to hell with the general public).

I generally prefer the A1 as there is far less wind blight than the M1, large parts of which are now almost undrivable due to the hazardous wind blight that dominates the landscape between Lutterworth and Northampton, hundreds of massive turbines with their flashing red lights (“Devil’s Eyes”, the locals call them apparently) stretching off as far as the eye can see. One of these turbines, in particular, caught my attention and sparked another One-Man campaign.

I’m referring to the horrible turbine at the Tesco Distribution Centre near Daventry, accompanied by a misanthropic and anti-democratic banner “Less CO2 emissions using wind turbines”. Despite my best efforts to have this banner forcibly removed – so far I’ve contacted Tesco head office, the local Planning Department, the Highways Agency and the Advertising Standards Agency to complain about its offensive, bias-motivated hate speech – it’s still there leering at motorists and sticking two fingers up at nature lovers. Oh well, it’s living proof of the kind of people who promote wind turbines: huge great capitalist corporations like Tesco who can use them as a greenwashing/money-laundering tool.

Lesson for activists: don’t be discouraged by a lack of support from the authorities when you alert them to a new issue. Technological and administrative processes will always be more adept at dealing with known issues over unknown ones. I see this at work constantly – there are templates for how to deal with known and understood issues, but the moment you step outside the Overton Window and present someone with a new and unaccounted-for problem, then you get the tumbleweed treatment. But don’t get discouraged, because eventually when enough people start to experience the same issue, often after a serious failure of some sort, solutions will soon be found.

And so, even if right now nobody is directly forcing Tesco to remove the offensive poster, in terms of the wider war Tesco is on the losing side; it’s just taking longer for them to acknowledge how badly they’ve screwed up. Maybe this is a symptom of their problems as a corporation – they don’t listen to the public, they’re not honest, they’re basically a terrible company with whom I’ve not shopped for over a year now.

Only a fool, or a horsemeat fan, would shop at Tescos.

The A1 corridor has generally avoided the worst of the wind blight, other than the two horrifying wind farms near Doncaster, and at the other end, the truly nauseating wind farm near Biggleswade. YUK! There are also several lone turbines between Worksop and Grantham, yet again disgusting and totally out of place, rendering vast areas of the countryside unpleasant and inhospitable. Wind turbines are truly a pox on an area.

So that’s the real-life turbines I’ve encountered these last couple of weeks. The main developments have come from the internet. First up, some GREAT NEWS! Leeds-based spivs EnergieKontor have been forced to take my advice and combine sex with travel (ie fuck off). They’re not wanted at Bonchester Bridge, as I made VERY clear to them down the phone and via email šŸ˜‰ Luckily I no longer need to place the company under a curse, as the local community has done it for me. No thanks to the Scottish Planning Inspectors, who recommended the awful Pines Burn proposal; instead this is the voice of the council themselves who have stood up to the bullies and told them to vamoose.

And there’s yet more bad news for doomed EnergieKontor, with Communities Secretary Sajid Javid once again proving himself to be spot-on in his judgement.

What a LEGEND! I’ve always had a soft spot for the Rochdale-born MP, ever since his secretary empathetically responded to my Rooley Moor objection letter. saying that although Mr Javid couldn’t formally help me as I didn’t live in the constituency myself, he most certainly took on board my views. I’ll say! Every now and then I hear the salient points from my letter repeated in Mr Javid’s own words. Either he’s just naturally on my wavelength (great minds think alike and all that!), or else he’e genuinely listened to what we Wind Warriors have been telling him all this time, and realised there might actually be something in what we’re saying.


Now we come to the main point of today’s entry: as always I’m writing the full truth as I understand it, because truth is its own reward. The truth is a thing of beauty and spirituality, the sun that lights up and energises human consciousness. Maybe it’s a personal thing, and I really don’t mean to sound like I’m virtue-signalling in any way, but the truth is pretty much the only thing I’m interested in. I’d rather go through life alone yet wedded to the truth, rather than fall for any kind of illusion whatsoever, and this is one of the worst qualities of wind turbines – they bring lies and untruth into my safe space, causing amygdala hijacks and adverse physiological reactions with their creepy deceptions and covert hostility.

I now have another piece of evidence, through sheer luck witnessed by an impartial observer, that there are Dishonest Bananas out there deliberately and systematically misleading the public about the negative impacts of wind energy. My witness is a dear friend of mine, an incredibly clever man who used to work on security systems for the Ministry of Defence, ie someone who knows a thing or two about logic, science and technology. For what it’s worth, my friend is not a Wind Warrior, indeed I encourage him to play Devil’s Advocate and to logic-chop my hypotheses. He wants hard facts, evidence and valid reasons for opposing wind blight; like everyone he supports the idea of clean, green energy, and originally gave full support to the rollout of wind farms. I’ve only semi-persuaded him of their horrors, which is good, because, once again: HONESTY!Ā I don’t want fake support, it’s not what this intellectual odyssey is all about. It’s about getting to the truth of the matter.

I once again refer to my role model Lieutenant Columbo: what motivates him above all is to prove, with incontrovertible evidence, that whatever lies he’s been told are false. And that’s how it is with me. Hit me with some truths and I’ll incorporate them into my understanding of the world. I gain absolutely nothing from expressing myself within an echo chamber; although it gives me emotional support and boosts my confidence by sharing my findings with fellow Wind Warriors, what I want more than anything is to peel away the soft support for wind amongst casual observers, and to bring previously pro-wind supporters around to the side of nature and truth. You must all know by now, I’m equally happy to shift my stance if it can be proven that I’m believing lies and basing my own views upon untruths.

I was alerted to a debate on The Guardian’s website, which I thought might be fertile ground for engaging with some wind supporters and planting some seeds of truth. As you can see, I’ve linked to The Guardian several times, including in my very last post. I’ve not previously been biased against The Guardian, although I did remark upon how comments are disabled on some of its more dubious opinion pieces.

I now realise that The Guardian is really NOT interested in an honest exchange of opinions, as for reasons best known to itself, it decided to delete my perfectly civil, inoffensive comments (right in front of my witness’s eyes). Because there was hardly any direct speech in my initial comment, merely some useful links to scientific research that I thought would forward the discussion, I can repeat verbatim what I typed, and let you be the judge of exactly why the Guardian might have decided to pull my comments within seconds.

The “debate”:

My contribution, which sparked a couple of replies before deletion:

“Scientific evidence that wind turbines increase rates of suicide: ‘Current technology uses wind turbinesā€™ blade aerodynamics to convert wind energy to electricity. This process generates significant low-frequency noise that reportedly results in residentsā€™ sleep disruptions, among other annoyance symptoms. However, the existence and the importance of wind farmsā€™ health effects on a population scale remain unknown. Exploiting over 800 utility-scale wind turbine installation events in the United States from 2001-2013, I show robust evidence that wind farms lead to significant increases in suicide.’

Scientific evidence that people would rather live further away from wind turbines:

63 peer-reviewed articles proving health problems associated with wind turbines:

Go ahead and screw yourselves up, but not me (or the whales), thanks.”

Someone rapidly replied, calling my post “Bollocks”, before going on to say: “There are four beautiful turbines near me and I’ve not topped myself yet.”

Now bear in mind that this is the apparently progressive Guardian, so one might have assumed that issues relating to suicide and mental health would be treated with a smidgen less callous indifference. But, as I have said repeatedly throughout this blog, when it comes to wind turbines, normal standards don’t apply, and the nature-destroying, humanity-harming predatory corporations that would otherwise be on the receiving end of the progressives’ ire have miraculously been transformed into planet-saving Messiahs who can do no wrong. Nowadays at The Guardian, it’s us poor victims of eco-vandals who are laughed at and ridiculed, while the bulldozers are cheered on.


Lest it be forgotten, The Guardian is as capitalist and corporate as McDonalds and Coca-Cola. It sells fantasy. It won’t take you very long perusing their website before intrusive pop-ups start asking you for money to support their “independent journalism.” Yet someone truly independent like me, who brings real news and scientific research to the debate, free of charge, has their contributions instantly deleted!

I simply asked the chap who claimed to live near these four wonderful turbines for some more details about them, so I could do my own research into what makes their design such a success story. My comment was gone within seconds. No insults, no rudeness, no bad language, rather a genuine attempt to enter into an intelligent discourse with someone with an opposing view. Our opening salvos should be seen as just that – the real debate should come after the initial introductions, as we settle down into a full and fearless exchange of ideas, in pursuit of some shared consensus about the nature of reality.

The Guardian blocked the discourse after barely two messages each. How does that move the dialogue forward? Why would The Guardian block links to peer-reviewed scientific research? What is their agenda? I received no notification that my comments were in breach of any rules, they simply disappeared into the ether as if I’d never posted them!

If the science is wrong, then here’s the perfect opportunity to debunk it. There’s no way on earth I would continue to promulgate information I knew to be false! The net result of just rubbing out the science is that The Guardian has proven itself to be untrustworthy. Even if people disagree with some of my opinions, the objective truth is that I have clearly done my research and know my topic inside out. I am equipped with dates, places, policies, scientific research and personal contact with wind victims all across the world. Surely someone with my experience and passion for this topic should be welcomed with open arms into any debate about wind farms? What kind of debate is it when those who are most interested in the topic, those who have done the most research and fieldwork, are not even allowed to take part?

The answer is, it’s not a debate. It’s not motivated by truth, it’s motivated by a hidden agenda. Maybe there is an acceptable level of disagreement tolerated (anything incoherent that makes dissenters look stupid!), but in my case the simple and intellectually honest act of linking to the latest scientific research was deemed beyond the pale.

It’s almost like The Guardian’s biggest enemy is science itself.

More than that, The Guardian has revealed itself to be an enemy of nature. How any truly Green-minded individual could support this fake news rag is a mystery. The scientific research I have drawn upon really does exist, that’s the truth. The research might be flawed, possibly, in which case the voice of nature would be to draw attention to those flaws and move the research forward, applying the Hegelian Dialectic principle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. As with all debates, whenever I come across a thesis I disagree with, I try and present the antithesis. Science, truth, rationality and reason are all about the synthesis – factoring in all those awkward contradictions to arrive at a one-size-fits-all axiom of inarguable truth! In this case – my antithesis to the central thesis of The Guardian’s viewpoint was simply erased from history.

What they should have done is kept my comments up there and allowed people to fire logical shots at any flaws in the research. We could have batted the dialogue backwards and forwards, really getting under the skin of the topic, before gradually reaching some level of agreement. The Guardian denied its readers the opportunity to experience the voice of nature, instead it has created an artificial bubble of non-reality in order to make profit from the fantasies of its readership.

As my ex-MoD friend pointed out so succinctly, what’s more important to The Guardian (and maybe all media outlets) is to reinforce the existing beliefs of their core readership, than simply to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

That’s where this blog comes in. And, as always, priority is always given to those who disagree. I actively want you to reach out and express opposing opinions to mine!

I can’t think of any circumstances whatsoever in which I’d delete a single comment on here, even if “offensive” in anyway. If that’s what I make someone feel with my words, then that’s the true voice of nature. I’d be lying to you all, and above all myself, were I to delete any comments that arise from my think-pieces!

EDIT: I’ve emailed The Guardian with a link to this piece, and I’ve invited them to reply to my allegations. They have yet to respond. But surely that says it all: once again I am being totally transparent and hospitable, welcoming even those I vehemently disagree with to have their say and to move the dialogue forward. I’ve said in black and white, repeatedly, that if the facts change I’ll change my opinion. I love everyone, it’s not PERSONAL, just an intellectual battle of ideas, with the best idea going ahead and shaping government policy. Luckily, the man who actually makes the decisions, Mr Javid, is a beacon of rationality and reason in an ocean of delusion, deception and detachment from nature.

I hope this proves the difference between my approach and that of The Guardian: I invite them to express themselves, I welcome them to my forum and offer them the right to reply. The Guardian, on the other hand, sneakily delete comments they don’t like, and shut out those with the wrong opinions (I’ve had confirmation that this has happened to others as well). As a result, their comments section is artificial, unnatural, contrived, skewed, flawed.

There’s a word for The Guardian’s approach: BIGOTRY.

Bigotry: “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself”

On the issue of wind energy, comment is truly free on my website. Literally everyone reading is encouraged to have their say, particularly those with an opposing opinion. I might actually learn something from those contributors bringing new information into the discourse! Whereas The Guardian’s website is an exercise in pure, closed-minded bigotry.

I hope everyone reading can spot the difference and figure out whose approach is the more honest, natural and true!


EDIT 2: Hmmmm. I may have been a bit hasty in my unqualified support for Sajid Javid! A few days since this post (it’s now the 17th November) and I see Mr Javid has ruffled a few feathers with his intent to launch a massive house building programme. Surely this is the antithesis to my own BANANA (Build Absolutely None Anywhere Near Anyone) stance? If it was Sajid who used the word NIMBY, rather than the sub-editors at Metro, then WE REALLY NEED TO TALK!

Luckily I’m not a bigot. Luckily I don’t shut out opinions that differ from mine, but instead I engage with them, I deal with them head-on, and I really try and get under the skin of the antithesis to my original thesis, as always in search of synthesis.

Do we really need new homes? Why? What reason is there that the population has outgrown the buildings available? Is it that we are having more and more babies, with families getting bigger and bigger? Or is it that there are more families to house? If so, where did these new families come from? Have we stemmed the increase in our population, or is it still rising?

Anyone have any ideas why our population has risen so dramatically since 1997?

The synthesis to the house building problem is to ensure we pick the right locations. Nobody wants to live higher than 300 metres above sea level in the UK, unless they’re a glutton for ice-driving, so our uplands should be safe. I’m more worried about the Green Belts that separate our urban areas.

Being totally intellectually honest about it, where I’m sat right now was once upon a time fields. Vast swathes of North Leeds were built upon relatively high altitude open moorland (the clue is in the names: Moortown, Moorallerton, Tinshill, Cookridge etc), yet now these formerly green fields have been covered inĀ suburban sprawl.

Indeed my town of birth, Crowborough, is an urban Marilyn (see my post “I Was Born On A Marilyn”). A few hundred years ago it’d have been part of the ancient Forest of Anderida, now it’s a medium-sized town housing 25,000 people. The trig point is in somebody’s back garden! So everywhere was countryside once upon a time. Where do we draw the line?

I’m starting to think the best synthesis of all would be an actual face-to-face meeting and interview with Sajid Javid, preferably on film, in which I can put my questions to him. Even if I fundamentally disagree with the house building policy – and I’d need to chat with him first of all to work out exactly what he wants to do, and where, before knowing whether I agree or not – I’d thoroughly enjoy the intellectual discourse with a man who clearly has a strong point of view about the wellbeing of the UK. A letter to his secretary will follow…let’s see if we can hook up the first ever MindWind video interview with an MP!Ā 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s