Monday, 19 October 2009

The Horror, The Horror





If one thing really sickens me about modern Brit politics it’s the ongoing farrago about whether flabby, oily creep Nick Griffin should appear on Question Time.

For those who don’t know, Question Time is a mindnumbing show the purpose of which seems to be to discourage anyone from being vaguely interested in politics. It consists of numerous egocentric middle Englander bigmouths who generally agree on most things (‘humanitarian’ intervention, utilitarian justification for surveillance state, the inherent efficiency of privatisation, embarrassed dislike of poor people, US hegemony, 'right to choose', secularism) who squabble over lexical quibbles, lack of disclaimers, deliberate misinterpretation, lack of praise for their personality cult leader and other idiotic non-arguments Eg ‘Vladimir Putin and George Bush are both monsters’ ‘I strongly disapprove of your implying moral equivalence between Putin and Bush’ (Boris Johnson’s words of wisdom).

It is awful, awful, awful television. The highlight will be Boris Johnson saying ‘cripes’ or Christopher Hitchens’ purple head getting engorged as he yells at an elderly lady for not providing enough disclaimers about opposing fatwas.

If you assembled the most charmless, arrogant, opinionated, oily, patronising, self-righteous, over-praised, under-achieving pillocks you’ve ever met and got them to have a debate, then it would probably provide a sunny picture of humanity compared to Question Time.

Which leads us to Mr Griffin. Now, maybe Peter Hain is justified to think that Nick Griffin will look good on Question Time. That is not a compliment. It’s like saying that being hanged with chicken wire looks pretty good compared to being scraped to death by oyster shells. Yes, that is Nick at the top of the page: he looks like one of Dr Moreau's worst attempts and is incredibly sleazy to boot.

But there is a chance that oily gimp Griffin will not come across as quite so hysterically self-righteous as his co-panelists. Especially as I can pretty much guarantee that a Tory will appear to call him ‘left wing’ for supporting renationalisation of the Railways. Given that John Major’s privatisation led to rail companies receiving four times as much in annual subsidies as was spent running British Rail (whilst the ticket prices are through the roof) it is sad that only a nutter like Griffin supports renationalisation, whilst the hysterical narcissists who pass for ‘left wing’ these days are entirely in favour of the privatisation process. So maybe by appearing on Any Questions, Nick might find a few more saddos to support him purely because of how appalling his fellow panelists will be. If nothing else he seems to be the great white hope, as it were, for public transport.

However, I think in a sense, hyping up the BNP ‘threat’ is even darker. Griffin’s clowns are utterly unlikely to become a significant electoral force. Yet the idea that they will get tens of millions of votes overnight is more a sign of how the establishment suspects that the British working classes are seething racists who would support Nazis if they only knew that they existed. Poor people in Britain are thoroughly dehumanised as income inequality grows. Implying that they are far-right extremists who are too thick to know it yet is more a way of easing the upper middle-class conscience than based on any empirical research.

Needless to say, Peter Hain’s squawking is creepy in its own right. He belongs to a party that has launched preemptive war on three countries, which has supported the ecocide in Serbia, the endless bombing in Afghanistan and has not questioned the use of torture and white phosphorus in Iraq.

Yet he will not hesitate to leap onto his high horse whenever he decides that a ‘bad party’ is out there. And he will make a legal case against it.

PS: Saw this disturbing article which also speaks volumes about freedom of speech in modern Britain.

Yes, Jan Moir's article was disgusting and stupid. Yet do we really need the rozzers to tell Daily Mail writers what is acceptable or not? Seems like the best way to create a society where Daily Mail journalists tell the rozzers what's acceptable or not.

What about those people who praise the 'humanitarian intervention' in Serbia whilst ignoring the vast numbers of rapes, murders and lootings inflicted upon the Serbs by the KLA goons?

Update: Nick Cohen proves my points far better than I could. For those who don't know, Cohen is a snide, astoundingly ugly, oily creep who is wrong about absolutely everything: and needless to say, he is often invited to Question Time.

He thinks that Michael Gove (the snide, astoundingly ugly, emotionally damaged oily creep who thinks that the Fallujah 'shake'n'bake operation against civilians was a moral success) would be ideal to debate an extremist. Jack Straw who helped turn Britain into a police state would also be a valid 'mainstream' opponent. Nick provides the following gem:
'All extremisms, far left, far right and religious fundamentalists, are the same in essence. And today, although the BNP strains at the leash to attack British Muslims, prominent neo-Nazis who grace its rallies will join British Trotskyists in appearing on Press TV, the Iranian propaganda station, and the BNP's foreign affairs spokesman denounces "the warmongers in London and Washington" with all the fervour of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.'

Nick proves he cannot write a coherent sentence or have a coherent thought (which hasn't stopped him being nominated for an Orwell Award) whilst implying that extremists are those who are opposed to preemptive strikes on other countries rather than those who support Britain's role as militant imperialist lapdog. I do not think that the BNP are getting smarter, more ethical or more popular, its just that the mainstream is plunging to meet them.

6 comments:

  1. Jan Moir's article was not very sensitive and pretty tabloid but it contains something very interesting about the hedonistic way some gay people behave. The fact that Gatley's boyfriend (civil union partner in fact) invited another bloke in and Gatley slept on a sofa speaks volumes. Such things are hushed up by a chorus of outrage these days.

    I didn't know private railway companies get subsidies from the state. That's not very capitalist, no wonder the tickets are outrageously expensive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Leos
    Admittedly I didn't read the article though I'd read highlights. Being honest, reading the whole thing made me sleepy, she seems a complete thicko.

    I can't say I like reading about gay people, but I do think slating them when they are recently dead is vile as is the implication that his death was not by natural causes.

    Having said that 1) The Daily Mail is an abysmal paper (sorry, Bogdan ;-) and people read it expecting to find shocks and celeb gossip. Ghoulish articles aren't even so bad if they are all-out offensive (http://cuttingthroughthebullshit.blogspot.com/2009/06/davoid-carradine-perfect-symbol-of-usa.html) but Moir's tone of moral superiority whilst attacking the recently deceased in grating. The irony is that very few people, and certainly very few Gateley fans, would have known about the article if it was not for this twitter hysteria and 2) Getting the bill involved over a newspaper article is pretty creepy 3) I think gay adoption is wrong and would be harmful. Unlike the Mail's star columnist Richard Littlejohn, I do not know of 'countless cases' of children being stolen by social workers to be given to gay couples. But I do know that nasty homophobia like this draws up battlelines where anything goes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. HI Gregor,

    totally agree re question time - I sort of want Griffin to go on just to see the other panelists combust in self righteous indignation. Since Griffin has recently started calling non-white British people 'Civicly British' rather than 'Indigenously British' whites, there probably isn't much difference between the BNP and the Tory newspapers when it comes to immigration and the dreaded 'asylum seeker, living in luxury, on our taxes, first choice for council houses, clogging up the NHS'. Can imagine Gove's horrible self righteous expression when he tries to explain why the BNP are disgusting and the Tories aren't though...

    Wouldn't expect much more from the Daily Fail than Moir's moralising. The fact that she's prepared to write such disrespectful rubbish days after a man's death just to get attention says more about her than it does about Gateley. I thought you couldn't slander the dead though? She should have stuff thrown and shouted at her in the street by disgruntled Boyzone fans rather than it being a criminalised matter.

    Can't agree with you about homosexuals not being allowed to adopt - you say it might be harmful - but more harmful than what? Being 'brought up' by a couple of crack addicts in a slum somewhere? Or in an abusive home? I think adoption is pretty much a last resort for social workers these days and the most important factor in a child's upbringing is having a stable loving home - I don't see why this can't be provided by two parents of the same sex.

    I thought as a Classicist you'd be more open to the fruits of the man love - think about Epaminondas and the mighty Thebans - think of Alexander !!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Gar

    Pleased I've found a kindred spirit re question time and the hideously self-righteous plonkers on it. I actually think it would be a bit of a scream to have Nick Griffin on just to see people who've achieved absolutely nothing for humanity feeling that they are the bee's knees purely because they don't support forced euthanasia and compulsory sterilisation. Did you know Nick Griffin's favourite writer is Richard Littlejohn who's just won an 'editorial intelligence' award? Of course they are poles apart, hrmrm.

    Just thinking re Gove, I found the use of white phosphorus at Fallujah especially sickening because I'd read accounts of its use at Dresden. Doesn't it say something about the self-righteous moralising gits that we have to depend on 60 year old descriptions of weaponry to know what its effects are? As Mark Ames said 'Anna Politkovskaya's death was a tragedy, but when Western journalists are getting all self-rightous about it, who is the American Anna Politkovskaya'? If there is a British or American Anna Politkovskaya, she'd never appear on Question Time.

    As for 'man love' I fear you have fallen under the misconceptions of 300 where Leonidas speaks of 'Athenian boy lovers' (talk about pot calling the kettle black). True, Socrates was guilty of it, but he also wanted to remove the exciting bits from The Odyssey (maybe not a good confession for a Phil-Hellene, but I found The Republic deeply creepy).

    Still, thanks for saying 'as a classicist' rather than a fan of 'Are You Being Served'.

    Perhaps you are right that concerning children in unhappy homes there is no 'good' alternative. Yet I think they would be greatly troubled and bullied at school if brought up by gay couples. They'd probably be afraid of women/ men and unable to form relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ Gareth

    There is no proof to believe that homosexual homes are any better than heterosexuals and vice versa.

    @ Gregor

    I agree Daily Mail is horrible but I like them in a sense. They say they write rants and do not try to fashion themselves as a place for intelligent read. The Times or The Independent write really stupid articles yet the public mood towards them is not such that people would call what they read rants.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Leos

    'They say they write rants and do not try to fashion themselves as a place for intelligent read. The Times or The Independent write really stupid articles yet the public mood towards them is not such that people would call what they read rants.'

    The strange thing is, when you say the public mood, maybe you mean the 'family' of Metropolitan journos/ politicians. Most editorials with a comment section are full of people who disagree and think the writer is an evil oaf.

    However, the Daily Mail 1) Has a very poor standard of 'news' articles which are often fabricated 2)Expresses a lot of raw hatred and 3) As I see it they often make people angry at the right things (stealing of civil liberties, housing shortage, government lies) but blame them on the wrong targets 'left wing' Labour, terrorists, immigrants.

    Still, I agree that the differences between Te Grauniad and The Daily Mail are largely cosmetic and their treatment of Russia is identical.

    ReplyDelete