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


  1. Do these BNP 'clowns' rarely appear on the mainstram televisions? There's more air time for political 'clowns' in Romania, I guess...

    Anyway, I assume the Brit media + the political establishment (the three big parties) need these little 'demons'.

    I fully agree with you that this neo-liberal intelligensia launches Stalinistic attacks on whoever disagrees with them... I bet they would make 'denying global warming' a crime, and maybe they will do it sooner or later :-(

  2. Hi Bogdan

    'Do these BNP 'clowns' rarely appear on the mainstram televisions? There's more air time for political 'clowns' in Romania, I guess...'

    For background, the BNP are literally the British Nazi party. It seems to me that right wing parties in Europe are fairly well organised, make some intelligent points and stand for popular values like Christianity and tradition and often adress real probles of freedom of speech and repressive laws. The BNP on the other hand are 'Nazi' for being pagan, racially obsessive, historically indifferent and with militaristic idealism. (incidentally, I find it inaccurate that many people think fascism and Nazism are synonyms, whilst it was really bad diplomacy by the West that put Mussolini into Hitler's camp: which is not an endorsement of Il Duce, but I think an important distinction).

    I do actually understand the success of the cultural far right in France and the Netherlands (which is also not an endorsement). I recently read that a French minister boasted about paying 'boys' for sex in Thailand and only the National Front strongly protested. Surely that's not the liberalism DeTocqueville supported? And what of the Netherlands where a proudly irreverent people are set to be muzzled by some of the most stifling political correctness laws in Europe?

    By contrast, the BNP are so stupid and inarticulate that I half suspect that they are funded by the NWO to provide 'baddies' to make the neo-liberals look good.

    'I fully agree with you that this neo-liberal intelligensia launches Stalinistic attacks on whoever disagrees with them... I bet they would make 'denying global warming' a crime, and maybe they will do it sooner or later :-('

    Probably through Brussels. There are a few good features about the EU, well one good thing: freedom of movement. But still, I feel a bit shocked at how the Lisbon treaty has been steamrolled through the continent.

    Especially the 'president' post. Seems Bliar is already preparing for the role. And he's ideal: a 'Christian' who supports abortion, pre-emptive bombing and creating human-animal hybrids. Someone who sold his own country for a few dollars. It does look bleak.

  3. It may be a correct assumption that these BNP weirdos "are funded by the NWO to provide 'baddies' to make the neo-liberals look good."

    I'm delighted to see that you begin to have doubts about some of the 'eurobullshit' coming from Brussels.

    But what if D. Chamleon actually calls the Brits to a referendum?

    As for T. Bliar, let us not worry too much. I hope that there's still common sense left in the EU to reject such a shameful proposal.

    However, never say never to anything...

  4. Dear Bogdan

    My views on the EU are the same as always: I think freedom of movement and trade is good. But their bureaucracy and desire for central government is disturbing.

    Previously I thought that there were enough small-c conservative countries that would prevent it getting too powerful, but with the Poles, Czechs and Irish all caving in over this dubious Lisbon treaty, I'm beginning to wonder.

    I suspect that Mr Chameleon will probably forget about the referendum. He knows that the impact on the economy would be too great (especially after Gordon Clown's recent handiwork). He's probably feeling very stupid now, having joined an alliance with the Visegrad nations, hoping that they'd block it.

  5. I do not think the rise of the BNP is something remarkable but their success means only one thing, the utter failure of the mainstream parties. Just like in Germany in 1930's, Hitler was a fool but the centrists were greater. I still do not find the BNP to be an alternative, which is however badly needed.

    Good thing you mentioned the EDL, from occasional visits to their forum I get the impression that they are rather moderate in comparison with Hitchens. But Hitchens is a member of the elite while these guys come from the working class casuals. They get diffent treatment.

  6. What do you think of the UK Independence Party?

  7. @AK If I can answer this, I like the UKIP, it reminds me of the Czech Freedom Party. Besides Nigel Farage is a good speaker.

  8. @Leos
    I don't know much about the EDL. Given their skinhead haircuts and bomber jackets, I think it's unlikely that they are defending secular liberalism. But on the other hand, our neoliberal middle class journalists are always given the benefit of the doubt, even when they call for wars against Islamic countries that have not provoked us. They do not seem to see that our greatest danger from terrorism is not a bloke in a cave (or more likely a palace in Saudi Arabia) but from the Muslim extremists in Britain.

    The strange irony is that there are paralells in how the mainstream media treats both the British underclass and the Muslims: on one hand they are protected by 'political correctness' on the other thoroughly demonised in 'politically correct' ways (which may be a blog post).

    As for UKIP, I don't know. for me the question is not so much what is best for Britain as what would be worse?

    Would the system that's gifted us with Gordon Clown really be worse than Europe? With the FPTP system UKIP have little say in British politics. I should probably read more about them, though I seem to remember reading that they had disreputable links to Berezovsky.