Choice for today: rubbish, or another kind of rubbish

A tad worrying that some in the chatterati classes seem to be buying into the the 'enemy of my enemy...' approach of the MSM a tad uncritically.

From setting up Murdoch as the alternative the BBC, to allowing the BNP onto QT, two wrongs still do not make a right.

Or maybe that's more 'inviting on an extreme right' does not make for 'balance'.

Yes, the BNP should get its platform equally to show its colours and be judged accordingly.

But if we are talking QT... on the BBC... any notion that it will be more than an agenda-dripping, rigged ratings-fest farce of heat over light is risible.

As with any 'panel' put up by the MSM today, especially when audiences, and their responses, are still in the hands of the few, who can invite on, and moderate off according to personal whim.

Double-edged knives

Small band of bigots

As the BNP hopefully slides back into the minor, if cautionary niche such organisations will always occupy, I was watching a documentary last night on Night of the Long Knives, and the part it played in cementing Hitler's power base by crushing the SA, which was deemed a tad too extreme even for most Nazis jockeying for control over the masses.

What most struck me was the highly effective part played by the state media, who explained it all away to the evident satisfaction of the public, who got seduced into being rather too comfortable being told what to think by a government/media 'elite' (not sure if they had to pay a fee for it in 1934, mind). Didn't work out so well, as I recall.

Let's see how well history unfolds this time. Knives can have two edges.

Telegraph - Hitler's BNP membership gets leaked

Newsnight - see if I get 'moderated' or not - so far... yes. I'm sure it's the link to a dodgy YouTube. Yes, that'll be it.

BBBC - A well-considered comment in reply to another -

'it is to this country's immense credit that facism has never established a foothold here.'

Let’s see, off the top of my head we have:

a) Increasing rule by an un-elected and unaccountable political class

b) Unwanted and un-voted for social engineering on a nation wide scale

c) All criticism of said unwanted and un-voted for social engineering publicly suppressed

d) A politicised police force

e) Surveillance cameras everywhere

f) Id cards on their way

g) State indoctrination in schools

h) Relentless state propaganda on the state run media

i) Officially state sanctioned discrimination (so called ‘positive’ discrimination against the native population)

j) And now a campaign of intimidation against a legal party.

It may not be fascism, but it sure aint anything approaching a healthy democracy either.
In fact it's a profoundly unhealthy status quo none of us should be willing to accept any longer.

I wish I could hook up Voltaire

He must be spinning like a top and could power a small town.

The BNP situation has brought the best and worst out of people and the current systems of debate. I of course have felt moved to pitch in.

I would hope that anything I have written could not be seen as a defence of the BNP (actually I am rather woefully informed on it as a party, but have learned enough not to be keen and hence have tended to ignore it, perhaps foolishly. Thing is, it is a legitimate political party in this country, so I struggle to comprehend why some see it as a special case in comparison to other entities that are allowed to spout views that others might find hard to stomach), but it's safe to say the issue has polarised debate. Sadly it has also resulted in a lot of ad hominems and one of my major bugbears, namely trying to make links between objective statements to subjective associations to try and devalue what is said simply by who is saying having, possibly 'known' someone else.

I tend to respect the views of a poster who stands behind their actual name more, but can these days see sense in a nickname. What can give cause for concern is when you end up involved with an 'Anon' as in the case below. Oddly, whilst initially disconcerted, and perhaps daft not to have figured out one way or t'other still, in this instance I'm hoping was meant to be supportive:

'I clicked on your homepage link and was taken to a blogger content warning, suggesting your site is pornographic.

I was expecting something about re-cycling or the advertising biz.

You'd better check that the kids haven't been up to some practical jokes.'

To which I replied, well, tried to*:

Hmn, the times we are in. Apt in the context of what is being discussed.

Friend or foe? Often hard to tell.

I'd forgotten about that link [to this blog], which gets popped in automatically I guess, so I suppose I'll need to remember to remove it if some are minded to track one from the shadows because they might find an opinion one they need to 'address'.

The reason for that warning is simple and less sinister. Google's Blogger allows you (and I so choose) to give those who venture there the option to warn more delicate souls that things may be of a more robust nature. No porn, at least I don't think so, but strong language can be and is used, though not too often my me. Especially if I link here!

That you were expecting reuse or ad-related stuff suggests you either already know my other activities or persevered through to the site. Horses for courses. I tend not to impose my interest in politics and/or matters of democracy, media professionalism, objectivity, etc on those who are not expecting it or would wish it to be dragged into these other areas. Hence different blogs for different topics. Funny how such diverse areas can often overlap, mind.

It can be... disconcerting... that some can get interested in who you are as much as the value of what you are saying, though how you walk does have a bearing on what you talk, I guess.

But you'll gather that I am not a great fan of playing the person rather than the ball. Hence I find the obsessive and relentless tribalism and pigeon-holing of some (from any 'side') counter-productive to the value of many discussions.

Just the facts, ma'am. Preferably with links. Opinions based on these also fine. Disagreeing, too, but I do find any rebuttals based on defaults to group-think comfort zone collectivist accusations also lacking in value.

*By way of major irony I could not post this on the site in question, which periodically seems to have some glitch that prevents upload.

Gaurdian - A postcode protest against the BNP

Reading through, from the originator (especially) down (with more than a few beacons of hope in the mire, thanks heavens), two things come to mind:

1) Careful what you wish for.

2) Engage brain before booting up PC.

Often I get emails that were not meant to be sent, followed by 'recalls'. I do confess curiosity can get the better of one, but I tend now to assume if it isn't meant to be read, it shouldn't be. The mentality of those combing this unfortunate 'list' to see who they might 'target' is therefore an odd, if worrying one. Especially as all that will be possessed is a few bits of data that may or may not be accurate at all, let alone give any insight into the person who one never knew existed until now, but suddenly demands confrontation through little more than guilt by association. An interesting precedent to set for the future and the next generation indeed.

Telegraph - BNP members should not be hounded out of their jobs - As a matter of interest, should one sign up, Pete Townshend-style, only just to keep tabs on things, but not actually DO anything, as such, wrong, but especially being it's a legitimate (with 'yada-yada obligatory not me either' disclaimer here) political party 'n all, why would being a member even warrant this discussion being raised?

Funny old thing, democracy

Abuse all sorts of things in all sorts of ways on the BBC; slap wrist; do collect your £200/m.

Preside over an 8 year long child care system that has yet to learn a lesson; no problem.

Belong to a political party that, last time I looked, was/is allowed to operate in this country...

Employers warn staff on BNP list face dismissal

So long as 'values' are shared, or even just claimed to be, who cares what else actually happens?

I actually belong to (might have to review a curious nature in this brave new world) a few organisations (not the BNP*, it is almost mandatory to add. Me, I'd like to be made aware of what their representatives have to say, or know what they have done/are doing, and vote accordingly on the merits or otherwise of these words or actions) I happen to disagree with, as I get information from them that helps me maintain a balanced level of awareness not always possible from bathing in the warm glow of fellow group-thinkers.

You know what might be funny? Include in a future list such as this a few who might be mortified that they were on there... and then have it nicked and broadcast for the waiting mob to really worry about accuracy before 'responding'.

And imagine the powers that be trying to unravel whether being on a list means you actually wanted to be on the list, much less sharing the views of fellow listees to the same extent... if at all.

But I am sure if 'proper procedure is followed' then while a few innocents might suffer the overall stats will be good. Now, where have I heard that before recently?

Gotta love the Guardian, CiF and that Animal Farmian mindset that can often be selectively applied by some. Who says we can't still do great irony in this country?

Gaurdian - The BNP has rights too

Telegraph - Does the BNP shop at M&S? - As the topic is 'guilt by association'

Telegraph - The BNP is a problem for Labour, not the Tories

To paraphrase Groucho Marx, 'I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that could have me down as a member.. and then lose it'. This of course includes other data careless organisations I have even less choice over currently.

Newsnight -

Newsnight -

'Are you, or have you ever been...?'

I hate the "Popular Tory Front" more than the "Front of Popular Toryism".

As I have found myself in agreement with most of the rest (might have stumbled over 'execute' even if in jest) of what you have written (and, need it be said, your right to say it), but I even though just making a point I would wish you had not used this particular word here in such context.

While it has been devalued in many ways, and now includes Broccoli, I have tried to persuade my kids that 'hate' is something to be reserved for, and applied to only truly exceptional circumstances, if at all.

A difficult job when the visceral manifestations of this extreme sentiment is on display daily, and at/from the the highest levels, and easily picked up on and amplified by various tribal groups in need of targets to unite them.

I was once, I think, member of some Local entity with the word 'Conservative' in it (Hence enough enough for me to be described 'You Tory voter' in some minds, no matter how misguided). Why did I join? Well, they held monthly business breakfasts and hence seemed a nifty way to network (not so much as it turns out, so I have long forgone the £15 full-English and 6am wake-up).

Will I have cause to rue this 'lapse' with the new world order we are heading towards? Hard to imagine a while ago, but not as I listen to Breakfast News intone its near daily raft of 'new measures announced by the government', most barely or simply ill-thought out, and almost every-one pure 'catch-all' but 'do-nothing to the quality of justice but make it easy to fine all others' in nature.

Indy - Union: 'Ban teachers who are BNP supporters' - First they came for...

In defence of democracy

Albeit with some difficulty. A forum has got excited about the BBC essentially erasing the BNP from debate in some areas.

One poster defended this by saying that they 'that only 1 in 7 support them in this area'

To which another pointed out:

'Only one in four voted the present government into power.'

While there are many in the political infirmament with whom I disagree, in a democracy I would prefer their words and deeds were allowed to exist in open contest so they may be defeated by more reasoned, persuasive words and deeds from others.

From such as the Guardian to those it recruits for, both behind and in front of camera, I am both astounded and depressed that there is not recognition that 'favouring' certain 'acceptable' views and giving them voice, decrying those who don't espouse them and, worse, actually telling voting public who go off message and support 'the wrong side' that they are 'misguided', is probably the most divisive and disastrous policy they can possibly follow.

Assuming, that is, they are seeking to encourage democratic, consensual politics and moderation.

Mind you, in the mess we are in, getting in power with 25% approval may be the best we have, but is woeful. However, the minute any pol tells me that they 'have a mandate from the people' on this basis is when they have lost my support for ever more.