Sunday, 11 October 2009
Look Behind You!
There is a saying that something is 'mad enough to work'. I keep thinking of this whenever our solidly neo-liberal media/political establishment get on their high horses whenever the BNP (Bedwetting Narcoleptic Pillocks as I think of them) get five or six votes somewhere. I don't know if the BNP is actually getting more votes. I do know that cock-eyed self-styled-ubermensch Nick Griffin is as likely to become Prime Minister as I am to become Mr Universe.
However, the political establishment is very concerned that Radio one let a couple of bedwetting narcoleptic pillocks get their fifteen minutes of fame:
It provoked this response from Jeremy Hunt:
"The point of interviewing the BNP is to make sure that they are held to account for their totally noxious views. It would appear that did not happen here and that is a matter of great concern,"
Yes, a matter of great concern. Because the Brits are too thick not to realise that these are bad people and they are racist? After all the Brits are thick enough to not care about the Labour/ Tory attacks on civil liberties and destroying the economy. But let's focus on the important things: two BNP clowns being given airtime.
Frankly, I'd make a better Nazi than those guys, and I'm a sandal wearing Guardian reader. There are probably hundreds of overweight 'ethnically British' Brits limping and staggering through Blighty in 'Cole' tee-shirts. Even from a completely amoral perspective he was not the best target.
Meanwhile, presumably this is not of great concern:
Seems Gordy is aiming for a Yeltsin award. All three political parties are unamimously supporting his measures to flog Britain's state owned assets. Funny how this came when everyone was horrified that the BNP had a couple of minutes on national radio. Certainly, Gordon Clown was living up to his nickname in doing it at the worst possible economic time, though it was a 'good time' in the sense that the press were mouthing off about the BNP.
It seems to me that the purpose of BNP coverage is two-fold 1) Whenever the centre parties mess up, they can be a useful diversion and 2) To show that neo-liberals really, really are not nasty totalitarian imperialists.
The thing that makes me squeamish here is that the neo-liberals have more blood on their hands to date and incite hatred and support unnecessary wars, yet they are very different to the 'far right' BNP.
Of course, there are many complex debates about multiculturalism in Britain and if the ghettoes are breeding resentment and instability. There is also a debate about religion and how much religion can be criticised without veering into criticising the race that practices it.
Given the large number of 'liberals' who have supported bloodthirsty wars on Muslims, I felt a bit queasy about this subtitle on an article on the English Defence League:
So if skinheads attack Islam then it is to do with race (and what is 'racially aggravated material')? But if Christopher Hitchens, Martin Amis or Sam Miller call to harm Muslims* then it is 'muscular secularism'?
This isn't a defence of the EDL but it does seem to me that by demonising them, the media is adopting a double standard with the neo-liberal intelligensia who completely supported the 'war on terror' and launched Stalinist attacks on those who disagreed with the bombing of Iraq.
When a dictator finally does get his grubby paws on Britain's vast CCTV network and DNA database, it is unlikely they'll come from the BNP. It is far more likely that they'll say they need to take our liberties away to protect us from ourselves in the name of liberty.
*Amis later splendidly defended his statement as a 'thought experiment'. I can just see the contents of a future popular philosophy book:
-Descartes: Of demons and Mind/ Body Dualism
-Phillipa Foot: Trolley Cars and utilitarian ethics
-Martin Amis: Inflict GBH on Johny Foreigner to set him on the straight and narrow
-Plato: Shadows in the Cave and Sensory Perception