The BNP controversy

Ok I have been a bit out of it again. Sorry for that. I haven't finished some of things I was going to do yet.

I'd just like to say a few words about the BNP controversy that's taken over in the last few days since Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time. And I hope I'm not saying anything too obvious.

If anyone has seen the Question Time last Thursday, it's important to remember something that some will already know, but some won't and that Griffin himself mentioned.

And that is that a lot of people in global 'right'/Nationalist movement have effectively disowned Griffin some time ago. Although there's a rather polite article on his site today, people like David Duke and so on see Griffin as, in Griffin's own words a 'sell out' and his behavior as highly suspicious.

It's also important to remember that the history of what is sometimes termed 'fringe politics' is a history riddled with infiltration and agent provocateurs. I know Michael Collins Piper wrote a book about his own experiences called The Judas Goats, and I would like to read it sometime.

There is genuine concern about the radical direction of government that may as well have come out of the early Soviet Union. There's also genuine concern about the very basic fundamental things that make up society, the most precious institutions are being torn apart, attacked and reassembled under a new edict of social modernity aka a kind of anti-culture, a kind of anti-nationalism. Like it or not immigration, culture and race is a part of that discourse. That's nothing to do with being quote/unquote "racist".

There are genuine questions and real heart-felt disagreements people have with the way society and government has gone in many areas and the massive damage that's been inflicted. That's the reality, and it's a painful reality we've been talking about for years on here. And if people want to know why it's happened, and why would a country do that to itself ? That's because "WE", are simply not in control. There are other forces in control.

To make matters worse, everything's become mired in a culture of fanatical political correctness, where little old ladies get interrigated by the police if they don't like a gay parade, all to enforce a set of top-down cultural norms based on sickening lunacy.

So the collapse of government into a rancid quango of remote elites and political lickspittles (New Labour) dispensing extraordinary radical policies and tearing up the rule of law, while at the same time trying to hide what they are doing by giving you new 'values' of 'diversity' and 'tolerance', 'social responsibility' and so on.

And I think there real issues of what society means at all anymore or what the nation state means. And I'm sorry to say I think partly that's the idea by the government and media.

So of course any nationalist or 'ultra'-conservative party is going to gain some political momentum in that environment. And some people won't like or understand what I'm going to say here, but in principle it's not a bad thing at all. The problem I see, is that I think there's a real question mark about what exactly Nick Griffin does represent.

Nick Griffin seems to be there on the BBC getting the publicity he is because he's saying all the wrong things, not the right ones.

From supporting the atrocities in Gaza, to this focus on Islam to this rather evasive blur about what they even stand for, some of the things Griffin says are very difficult to separate from what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have said and that has to be some sort of clue at least about what's happening here.

And I can't help but be concerned that good conservatives, good nationalists are being fed a line, with a caricature Lord Haw-Haw party that's just going to take them in the wrong direction again.

There is possibly an effort to make the BNP attractive by creating a media hysteria about them.

And the idea that the BNP and Nick Griffin are controlling that is a nonsense. This is all a creation of the media. I.e not the real issues underneath are NOT a creation of the media, they are absolutely real and therefore there is strong possibility that the 'solution' being presented, could be bogus.

BBC and sickening barbarity towards fish

I just saw a glimpse of something on one of the BBC channels that appeared to be about eating fish in Japan.

And I have to say I was absolutely disgusted at this program for depicting the cruel and awful treatment of the poisonous Fugu fish by a Japanese restaurant or factory or something. It was just hideous cruelty.

I do love fish as food, I think fish are a wonderful food.

However I also know that fish are wonderful animals, not some numb stupid lump of prehistoric flesh.

I really do hope that in the western countries, and as you may guess I'm writing this totally off the top of my head, that there are laws that apply to the treatment of fish for food that are humane. I take it there are laws, and I haven't looked at this subject at all so I just don't know, but one would assume there are laws in place about the cruel and degrading treatment of animals that are used for food like cows and pigs and how they are killed. And I certainly hope that applies to fish.

Skinning a fish, cutting its mouth off and taking its eyes out while alive I would describe as sickening barbarism.

And frankly the BBC, I think it was the BBC should consider their quirky voyeurism of this; those executives, directors and producers, along with those Japanese restaurant or factory staff ask themselves if you think it is a big funny joke, imagine the same was happening to your dog or cat.

The recent attack on the Catholic Church

I meant to get this done last night. I wanted to comment a little on this recent thing with the Bishop and the Pope and the Vatican , which I think has been conspicuous as perhaps of one of the more wanton attempts to attack the Catholic Church I've seen the media come up with.

There are sensitive topics buried in this for sure, but frankly it's also the height of vulgarity for the media as a whole, for Jewish groups, commentators and non-Jewish sympathisers, along with the likes of Angela Merkel to try to grandstand by creating a campaign out of the views of one man, against the recent backdrop of the horrors in Gaza at the hands of Israel, and the overall situation there for some time.

I think it's very conspicuous.

From the BBC, to the New York Times to the Times of London, what we have witnessed is nothing short of just another concerted vicious campaign of egregious drivel dressed up in the usual secular probity to needlessly whip up controversy using some guy nobody had even heard of, almost certainly set up to have exactly this effect, to preemptively attack the Church to make sure it doesn't step too out of line, and in particular to provide another wonderful distraction to the recent gutting of Gaza.

Of course this is all the while propagandizing the usual message to the hapless proles that the Church is secretly wicked, backward, and so on, and must demonstrate its commitment to all things we the media tell it are 'worthy' including its own castration.

Well that's what psychotic drivel is. While we understand people wanting to do what may seem like the right thing, I think it's incorrect to frame these issues around some bottomless pit of endless interfaith 'placation', and I'm kind of lost as to how the role of the Church is supposed to be demonstrated first and foremost as whatever the media tells it it should be.

It should just be itself.

And this all too familiar picture of having to pay sufficient reverence to the crimes of the Holocaust, is one that's become way outside of just basic decency, sympathy, understanding and good will. And it's not just the Holocaust, the structure of this is used over and over again.

I'm sorry to say, at least in what I've seen plucked out and presented by the media which I have no doubt could well be flawed, I can't help but be somewhat inquisitive with some of the things said or at least how their are framed, such as the Pope apparently having to express his "indisputable solidarity with Jews".

I'm no theologian but surely the Church has a indisputable solidarity to all mankind.

And why seriously was German Chancellor Angela Merkel telling the Pope what to do ? What serious explanation is there for this ? Enough of this crap already. This is silly. This is just not healthy.

Excuse my language, but Angela Merkel looks like a real f*cking joke. Even more of a f*cking joke and ridiculous puppet than she did, and that's truly saying something.

And really I find this use of the Holocaust to attack things that are inherently good, absolutely vile actually. It gets to a point of sickly awfulness.

You see there is a bottom rung of reality, and if we can't even meet that rung, what's the point ?

Now the Bishop has been sacked from his post, much to the delight of the global media establishment, despite him being almost irrelevant in this, just another ticked box on the list of things to quote Reuters of how the Pope has 'angered Jews'.

There's no polite way of saying this, but I suspect the Catholic Church should be 'angering Jews'. Not as a mission, but simply as part of its business of believing something different.

Look at the words 'ultra-traditionalist' in the BBC's version, as if that's something despicable.

Well you know what, I think that's a wonderful thing to be an' ultra-traditionalist'.

And that's after the Vatican demanded the Bishop recants, presumably after being told what to do by Angela Merkel.

So much for the Vatican secretly running the world.

And I'm going to say something else shocking now. Devastating though the crimes of WWII were, the world doesn't revolve around the Holocaust and being seen to pay it sufficient reverence in the form of tokens of appeasement and the whole thing played out like some ridiculous childish spectacle in the media.

This ghoulish fascination, this sickly surveillance to see who dares put a foot out of line, or can be coerced or provoked to put a foot out of line on the Holocaust and how that can be seized upon to attack institutions, has got to stop.

At some point it gets ridiculous and I think many good people out there who would normally be horrified and hungry for knowledge at many of the things that went on during World War II are now after being bombarded with this stream of nonsense, starting to say the Holocaust seems to be code for something else, and is that something else something I should care about ?

And the world is sick of these whining pages of drivel in the Times dedicated to demonstrating why some part of the Church is not sufficiently apologetic, acquiescent and philo-semitic enough.

The world is sick of hearing how 'good' 'Christians' worshiping at the fount of The War on Terror, Israel's sickening barbarism against Palestians and the moral, legislative and administritive deconstruction of their own societies and are 'real Christians', 'progressive Christians', 'moderate Christians'.

Frankly fuck off.

The problem for the media is (and I hate to be so sweeping but that's how it is) it's dug itself into a hole over this and tried to run with it in a million different sub-directions, tripping over itself to try to escalate the issue into some trend of not exactly 'pro Jewish' sentiment. Apparently the Vatican's has no other duties or concerns but to agree.

Personally I think the Vatican should be pro-Christian and pro-mankind, and the Pope should follow his own position, quoted in the Guardian back in August 2005 when :

"...Israel criticised Pope Benedict for not mentioning attacks on Israelis in a condemnation of terrorism. The Vatican responded with a terse statement asking Israel not to tell the Pope what to say"

But then again all of this whole sordid affair in the media shows how reasonable, and humble and gracious the Pope is, and frankly how unreasonable, vicious, hate-filled, nasty and childish and psychotic his enemies in the media and this particular campaign against him and the Catholic Church has been.

BBC: report finds what everybody already knows

Well well well. Look what we have today (now yesterday) in the Daily Mail, but I'm not going to quote from their website on this as the real juicy wording and commentary is in their print edition, of which some parts I will just cite now:

"THE BBC is criticised for its 'Liberal' ('' are mine -j) leanings in an official report published today, leading to claims that the corporation is institutionally biased. BBC executives have been attacked for not reflecting a 'broader range of views; and not thinking outside its Left-leaning comfort zone'.

The report, commissioned by the BBC, also attacks the way the corporation has pandered to politically motivated celebrities such as Bob Geldof (perhaps once a genuine guy, now a figure for 'global poverty' branded internationism? -j) and allowed schedules...(now listen very carefully to this -j)..to be hijacked by special interest groups [...]

As part of the report's investigation, senior figures at the corporation were forced to admit it was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment.

It was also suggested that the BBC is guilty of political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside.

[...] John Whittingdale, Tory chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, added (and again, this is pretty important -j):

"The bias is not necessarily party political - it is the BBC view of the world, and the BBC has always found it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world.

The report, which has been in preparation since 2005, raises concerns that across comedy, drama and entertainment shows, the BBC has allowed itself to be used by some campaign groups. (We talked about this a little while back re: adoption agencies/gay people etc we'll come back to this another time because this is very significant to unravel -j)

[...]The report follows a speech by Paul Dacre, editor-in cheif of Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail, at the beginning of the year about the BBC's failure to reflect the broader views of British people.

What follows is from earlier in the year, which I wasn't aware of at the time, but is very important commentary:

Delivering the Hugh Cudlipp Memorial lecture in January, Mr Dacre said: 'What really disturbs me is that the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small "c" which just happens to be the values held by millions of Britons.

It is hostile to conservatism and the traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euroscepticism, capitalism and big business, the country-side, Christianity and family values.

Conversly, it is sympathetic to Labour, European Federalism, the State and State spending , mass immigration, minority rights, multiculturalism, alternative lifestyles, abortion and progressiveness in the education and justice systems.

During last October's impartiality summit, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a Bible being thrown away but would not do the same for the Koran.

The BBC denied the report found any evidence of institutional bias of evidence of Left-leaning output"

I don't really know what to say at the moment, other than I disagree with the part of the report, which I don't think I quoted here which said BBC news itself isn't biased. I disagree with that, it is. But I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Do comment and be as candid you like.

BBC report

Guy Smith (producer BBC 9/11) on Alex Jones

Via 911 Blogger:

Well worth a listen indeed. This person Guy Smith is an apparently a pretty sad piece of work, it saddens me that licence payer's' money goes into the wages of people like this. Intersesting, he is very very nervous in the interview and what you note is the very real institutional, cultural embedded difficulty for many in opening one's mind to this and that the BBC's position is very much an approach to containment on the topic.

Interview Here

9/11 Alex Jones BBC hit piece The Conspiracy Files Guy Smith