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.