![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/guardian-article-header.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nMinutes of Ministry of Defence (MoD) meetings have confirmed the role of Britain\u2019s Guardian<\/em> newspaper as a mouthpiece for the intelligence agencies.<\/span><\/p>\n Last week, independent journalist Matt Kennard revealed that the paper\u2019s deputy editor, Paul Johnson, was personally thanked by the Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice (or D-Notice) committee for integrating the Guardian<\/em> into the operations of the security services.<\/span><\/p>\n Minutes of a meeting in 2018 read: \u201cThe Chairman thanked Paul Johnson for his service to the Committee. Paul had joined the Committee in the wake of the Snowden affair and had been instrumental in re-establishing links with the Guardian.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n D-Notices are used by the British state to veto the publication of news damaging to its interests. The slavish collusion of the mainstream media ensures that such notices function as gag orders.<\/span><\/p>\n Johnson joined the committee in 2014 and evidently excelled in his performance. A separate set of minutes from the first meeting attended by Johnson records the Guardian<\/em>\u2019s close collaboration with military officials.<\/span><\/p>\n Under a section detailing \u201cadvice\u201d given by the intelligence agencies to the media, the document reads \u201cmost of the occurrences and requests for advice were related to further publications by The Guardian<\/em> of extracts from the Snowden documents. The Secretary reported that the engagement of DPBAC [Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee] Secretariat with The Guardian<\/em> had continued to strengthen during the last six months, with regular dialogues between the Secretary and Deputy Secretaries and Guardian<\/em> journalists.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The secretary and deputy secretaries were Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance CB OBE, Air Commodore David Adams and Brigadier Geoffrey Dodds OBE. The chairman was Peter Watkins CBE, the MoD\u2019s director general of Strategy, Security and Policy Operations.<\/span><\/p>\n Under the direction of these military intelligence handlers, the Guardian<\/em> played a role in bringing other newspapers internationally to heel. The minutes note, \u201cbecause of an agreement between The Guardian<\/em> and allied publications overseas to coordinate their respective disclosures of Snowden material, advice given to the Guardian<\/em> has been passed on to the New York Times<\/em> and others, helping guide the disclosures of these outlets.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In September 2014, the Guardian<\/em> allowed the former head of GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) Sir David Omand to publish an article titled, \u201cEdward Snowden\u2019s leaks are misguided\u2014they risk exposing us to cyber-attacks.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n He declared, \u201cJournalists are not best placed to identify security risks; we have to trust those who oversee the intelligence-gathering.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In 2016, Paul Johnson used an unprecedented interview with a serving head of MI5, Andrew Parker, to propagandize for the antidemocratic, warmongering interests of British imperialism.<\/span><\/p>\n These facts are damning proof of the Guardian<\/em>\u2019s total integration into the propaganda wing of the MoD following its involvement in the WikiLeaks and Snowden files releases. Indeed, the work of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange has served to expose and confirm the deep ties of the entire mainstream media to the military-intelligence complex.<\/span><\/p>\n The Guardian<\/em> has been viewed historically as the voice of British liberal dissent, critical of the worst excesses of British capitalism at home and abroad. But it has always acted as a political policeman\u2014filtering the news \u201cresponsibly\u201d and channelling the resulting anger into impotent moral appeals to the state and other authorities. Its dealings with Assange and Snowden transformed political allegiance into direct subservience. Its liberal, critical pretensions unravelled in a matter of a few months.<\/span><\/p>\n When Assange looked to the Guardian<\/em> and other papers internationally such as the New York Times<\/em> to publish the Afghan and Iraq war logs and secret US diplomatic cables in 2010, the editors\u2019 main concern was damage control. Within a month of an initial publication of documents, the Guardian<\/em> had broken off relations with Assange\u2014publishing an infamous December 17 editorial \u201cWikiLeaks: the man and the idea.\u201d It stated that the Guardian<\/em> had only agreed to publish \u201ca small number of cables\u201d to control the political fall-out from the details of murder, torture, espionage and corruption they revealed and give it the opportunity of \u201cediting, contextualising, explanation and redaction.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The main purpose of the editorial was to support Assange\u2019s extradition to Sweden on trumped-up allegations of sexual misconduct relating to a trip to that country a few months earlier.<\/span><\/p>\n Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian’s opinion editor, giving a speech at Chatham House: the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a globalist think tank. Click to enlarge<\/p><\/div>\n In an op-ed piece published last month by former Guardian<\/em> editor Alan Rusbridger, he assumes to take the moral high ground by claiming that WikiLeaks issued leaks unredacted, and wanted to continue this practise, in contrast with his \u201cresponsible\u201d journalism. An editorial published immediately prior to Rusbridger\u2019s article, again supporting Assange\u2019s extradition to Sweden to face \u201ccharges\u201d that don\u2019t exist, stated, \u201cThe Guardian disapproved of the mass publication of unredacted documents … and broke with Mr. Assange over the issue.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This is a self-serving lie. WikiLeaks has pointed out that the editorial \u201cconveniently leaves out\u201d that it was the Guardian<\/em> \u2014through a book authored by David Leigh and Luke Harding\u2014that disclosed the password to the digital file Assange had given them in confidence. The book was a hatchet job<\/a><\/strong><\/span> on WikiLeaks. The rights to it were sold, becoming the basis of a slanderous<\/a><\/strong><\/span> Hollywood movie.<\/span><\/p>\n When NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked files detailing blanket state surveillance of the world\u2019s population in 2013, the Guardian<\/em> set out to play the same \u201cresponsible\u201d role. Asked afterwards if the paper had held back from publishing anything about GCHQ and UK security services because of \u201cworries about national security,\u201d the ever-pliant Mr. Rusbridger replied, \u201cYes, we\u2019ve held back a great deal, we\u2019ve published a small amount of what we have read.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This time, however, the Guardian<\/em> was told by the security services that even rigorously filtering the Snowden\u2019s revelations was not good enough. It must stop publishing immediately.<\/span><\/p>\n The country\u2019s top civil servant, Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, called the Guardian<\/em>\u2019s offices to pass on the demands of then Prime Minister David Cameron that the Snowden material either be returned to the government or destroyed. Editors were threatened with legal action if they did not comply.<\/span><\/p>\n Rusbridger later explained, \u201cThe tone was steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others within government and Whitehall favoured a far more draconian approach.\u201d This is a masterpiece of understatement. Emails obtained by the Associated Press in 2014 showed that this was an operation conducted in intimate collusion between the government, the British security services and the US National Security Agency, including then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/a>