Good day for the BNP

Nick Griffin has lost his court cas against Tauriq Khalid, a taxi driver Griffin accused of making racially abusive comments and threats towards Griffin (1).

This is precisely what Griffin would have wanted, and expected to happen. It's unlikely he'd have bothered to pursue sucha trivial prosecution if he actually thought he would win.

The BNP's main tactic is victimhood. They target people who feel marginalised and ignored. To appeal to these people, they BNP sets its self up as the party that the other paries try to ignore and marginalise. One of their standard refrains is that the authorities don't listen and don't care about what is happening to everyday white British people. Here's a fairly typical bleat, from a couple of days ago:

Of course, the authorities, both locally and nationally, are adhering to their accustomed policy of studied denial about the scale and prevalence of anti-white racist attacks. (2)

Winning his case would have shown that the BNP could be treated fairly by the system.

Griffin has lost his case, but I doubt he'll be at all upset about it - the BNP has gained another example of supposed politically correct racism against whites. He gets some publicity, and, much more importantly, gets to bang the "PC Authorities Ignore Racism Against Whites" drum a bit.

1 - "Man cleared of BNP racial abuse," unattributed BC article, published 4th of November, 2009. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/8342591.stm)
2 - "Is Savile Town Becoming Yet Another ‘No-Go Area’ for British People," by George Fanning. Publsihed on the BNP website, 1st of November, 2009. (http://bnp.org.uk/2009/11/is-savile-town-becoming-yet-another-no-go-area-for-british-people/)

Brutal Thug Boris Johnson Harrasses Teenage Girls

Boris Johnson, tsar of London, has once again demonstrated his total unfittness for office by attacking a group of young women with an iron bar (1).

That the victims of this vicious assault were female only adds to the air of disgusting menace, that hangs about the Stalin of the Thames, like a cloud of flies around the corpse of a dog on a hot day.

Apparently, Johnson spotted some young girls while out cycling - looking for trouble might be more accurate - and promptly set about them, raining insults on them when he discovered that his disgustingly flabby, lard encased frame was too swollen from guzzling the baubles of office to mount an effective pursuit.

What is more depressing of this modern day fable of oligarchical oppression is that the victims of this attack were merely trying to better themselves- aspiring to the possession of the sort of things that Johnson is so bloated with privilege that he would not even notice.

It is regrettable that the girls in question lacked genuine class consciousness and were motivated only by crude, materialistic concerns - setting themselves up as Little Johnsons, in effect, using threats and violence of their own against another. But given that the other was already far more privileged and wealthy than these girls could ever aspire to be, their crime must be veiewed in the light of the far greater crime of modern industrial capitalism.

Johnson demonstrated that the only real law is that might is right - a powerfully built man threatening a group of girls with an iron bar is, in minature, a perfect emblem of the social and sexual exploitation of the proletariat by the forces of capital and their political allies.

The Tsar's office was not willing to comment on this latest act of aggressive thuggery by the the despotic Johnson. This is not surprising. They must be working overtime to find some way to show this vicious, cowardly assault in a positive light.

1 - "Johnson saves woman from 'oiks'," unattributed BBC article. Published 3rd of November, 2009. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8340865.stm). Do I really need to say my article is a piss take? Probably. It's a piss take, you quilt!

Obviously, they were very convincing ...

Actors who appeared in the film The Firm have been identified as football hooligans, in the BBC's Crimewatch and in The Sun:

Movie actors' mugshots shown in BBC online appeal for football hooligansCast members of The Firm appear alongside wanted hooligans in image on BBC crimewatch website

The BBC has admitted it posted pictures of actors from the film The Firm on the Crimewatch website and wrongly claimed they were football hooligans earlier this week.

Yesterday the Sun also printed the pictures of The Firm actors on under the headline "Hooligan Hunt" on page 25 after the Metropolitan police supplied them to the paper. The Sun is expected to run another story tomorrow admitting its mistake and blaming the Met for the error.

The corporation today also blamed the Met for the mistake, saying police had provided its Crimewatch show with the images. (1)

Of course, there's no reason why you can't be an actor and a thug - they aren't exclusive categories.

Maybe we should round them up and interrogate them, perhaps even transport them to some undisclosed location and have them tortured by proxy - after all, if they don't admit to being hooligans, it just shows that standard interrogation techniques aren't effective, and need to be 'enhanced.' Surely no-one is niave enough to fall for that "We were just acting in a film" line?

And while we're about it, we should intern all other actors as well, just to be on the safe side. It seems harsh, but we're talking about protecting our way of life here, and anyway, these oddball artistic types have never really belonged, or made any effort to integrate. We should close down the theatres and cinemas - they are clearly breeding grounds for hooliganism, extremism and racism, with white men blacking up to (n.b. not to be confused with Tory M.P.s, who do it as a bit off a laugh) and dressing up as Nazis (n.b. not to be confused with Prince Harry, who does it as a bit of a laugh).

And anyone who has ever been to see a pantomine, been to the cinema or even rented a DVD should be put on a special list that a Home Office mandarin can leave lying on the tube ...

1 - "Movie actors' mugshots shown in BBC online appeal for football hooligans," by James RObinson. Published in The Guardian, 30th of October, 2009. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/30/actors-mugshots-bbc-appeal-football-hooligans)

On religion and capitalism

Victor Billot penned a column on religion, specifically in relation to Marxism, which was published in the ODT the other day (1):

Marx describes religion here as the very real projection of human hopes and desires, an impulse for a better world.

But to him, religion is nonetheless a human creation that is holding back people from improving their real lives in the here and now, as they wait for "pie in the sky when you die" (that quote is from Joe Hill).

As Marx said: "Man makes religion, religion does not make man".

The withering up of religion in capitalist societies is something I've been thinking about lately. Religion, according to Marx and Billot, is the missing ingredient that makes the capitalist model of the 19th century work. By believing in the sweet hereafter, people could cope with the material circumstances of thier existance - and the circumstances they imposed on others. So wage slavery and actual slavery were ameliorated through religion, both fromt heoe point of view of the salve and the slave owner, the worker and the capitalist.

So does the fading of formal religion an indication that material relations have changed to make it unnecessary? Of course not. The need is still there, but the opium has change. Instead of formal religion, we have the cult of individualism and achievement, and scientific rationalism. We are persuaded to work and behave not through our anticipation of reward in the next world, but of reward at a later date in this world - which, for all practical purposes, amounts tot he same thing. We work, so that others can be rich, in the hope and anticipation that we might be rich in the end. That this doesn't work is borne out by ample evidence all around us, but never-the-less we continue to believe it - and I choose the verb 'believe' deliberately, as it isn't a rational process.

In the meantime, of course, the rich continue to be rich, and usually end up richer. Everyone else continues to be poor and usually end up poorer.

And just as we use religion to ameleriorate babrabisms like slavery, we do the same sort of thing today, justifying the use of child labour, slave labour and indentured labour as being a necessary part of helping these countries 'develop' - meaning helping the rich in these countries become richer, just like our rich people.

And the terrible thing is that people really, really believe all the aspirational crap they are given, just like a couple of hundred years ago they really believed in a Heaven for the meek and the weak.

We haven't really learned very much, have we?

1 - "Man makes religion; it does not make man," by Victor Billot. Published in the Otago Daily Times, 30th of October, 2009. (http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/80040/man-makes-religion-it-does-not-make-man)

Spongebob in China

In one of my less glorious moments of parenting, I allowed lurgee jnr to watch this clip on You Tube, thinking it was just innocent Spongebob fun ...

He's only three and a bit, perhaps not ready for the truth ... Still, I found it slightly amusing. Though not as amusing as the fact that this clip has been viewed 13 million times. That's a lot of very perplexed kids, or a lot of very, very bored adults.

The Daily Mail and Andrew Green- a marriage made in Heaven

Sir Andrew Green, head of anti-immigration pressure group Migration Watch, has penned a poisonous little article in The Daily Mail (1) about - unsurprisingly - immigration and how it is a Bad Thing, because he says so. The piece is titled "We must halt this conspiracy of silence over our immigration crisis," which led me to wonder - how does one 'halt' an abstract noun like 'conspiracy' or ineed, 'halt' a silence? You can expose a conspiracy and break a silence, but neither is amenable to halting.

Green goes on, unsurprisingly, at length. His comments in bold, mine in plain.

In any case, why do we want immigration on anything like this scale? For years we have been bombarded with government propaganda about the economic value of immigration.

But the government case was blown apart last year when the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords found unanimously that there was no evidence that net migration generated significant economic benefits for the existing UK population"

A feeble attempt at misdirection.

Some hyperbolic spewing about 'government propaganda about the economic value of immigration,' without reference to a single example, which is rather odd since we've been 'bombarded' for 'years' with this 'propoganda.' If that was the case, surely Green would have been able to cite a speech to prove he wasn't just making stuff up? But not a sniffle of evidence, not even an statement of what he claims the government claims. Whoop-de-do. The government has claimed there is economic value in migration. How much value is claimed, is left unclear by Green.

The reason for this obscurantism becomes clear in the next paragraph, when our third rate Paul Daniels pulls his rabbit out of the hat, reminding us that "the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords found unanimously that there was no evidence that net migration generated significant economic benefits for the existing UK population." I see. The government has claimed there is economic value in immigration. The Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords found there is economic value in immigration. But because it isn't 'significant' we're treated to a full Andrew Green tirade. Bear in mind that Mr Green didn't quote anyone specifying that there was 'significant' economic benefit. So the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords agrees with the government - there is economic value in immigration.

Meanwhile, there are very definite costs to uncontrolled immigration.

Here Mr Green is bombarding us with propoganda of his own. The British immigration system is not 'uncontrolled.' There are plenty of limits and controls on it. You can not just amble into the country. My wife - before she was burdened with that title - had to leave Britain because - golly - her visa ran out and she was no longer permitted to remain.

Trevor Phillips, head of the Human Rights and Equality Commission, has been warning for years that we are 'sleepwalking into segregation'. He has said we are a society which is becoming more divided by race and religion, almost without noticing it.

For stating this truth, he has been vilified by the Left and ignored by the Government. But the facts are on his side. In central London primary schools, only 20 per cent of pupils are now classified as 'white British'.

More inventions on the part of Mr green. Analysing Trevor Phillips's 'Sleepwalking into segregation' address, the Guardian (2) quoted Peter Hain (he's gummint, right?):

The Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain, who lived in South Africa before moving to the UK as a teenager in the late 60s, said Mr Phillips's warning had to be taken "very seriously" and was "very worrying".

And, from the same article, Lord Ousley, former head of the Commission for Racial Equality:

Today, Lord Ousley said Mr Phillips seemed to be saying the government had "failed".

"He's right in so far as he needs to highlight the fact we do have concentrations and clusters of ethnic groups in areas that are suffering poverty, racialism, exclusion and discrimination," he told the BBC's Today programme.

"It's not new - it's been around for a while. It may be getting worse."

So he wasn't ignored, far less excoriated, for expressing his views. But lets not worry about the truth, eh? After all, this is getting published in the Mail.

It is also worth noting that Green is presenting Phillips as a champion of the anti-immigration lobby, which is not the case. His concern in his 'sleepwalking' speech wasn't immigration, but the failure of immigrant and host communities to adapt and adjust, and the ghettoisation that resulted.

But while the politicians might ignore all this, the public are perfectly aware of the problem. The results of recent opinion polls are startling.

Eighty-four per cent are worried about our population hitting 70million in 20 years or so, including two thirds of our ethnic population. Seventy-one per cent are worried about the impact of immigration, including 45 per cent of the ethnic communities.

I'm not surprised they are worried, with this sort of crap being printed in the newspapers. Perhaps the Mail should devote more column inches to things that are more worth while worrying about - climate change and environmental degradation being the obvious ones - but it won't, because that would mean telling its readers that they might have to face up to some unpleasant realities about their way of life.

And that's the important bit, the point of Green's pointless little rant. Immigration, immigrants, the governement, politcal correctness, all become useful distractions, generating a pervasive false consciousness in the middle and working classes, where jobs aren't being lost due to economic ruthlessness or incompetence by the rich and powerful, but because of immigrants. We get told to worry lots about globalisation when it takes the form of movements of peoples, to distract us from it when it means the movements of jobs and capital.

Of course, the left subscribe to this silliness as well. The current spleening abotu Griffin on question time, and the BNP in general, is evidence of how they've bought into it. It helps define them and give them purpose, without actually having to do much about the large, pressing, unspeakable issues. By loathing the BNP and vilifying Nick Griffin, and Andrew Green, we can all go on living in pretty much the same way as the people who read the Mail with out feeling like they are licking a turd, or who vote for Griffin, or who will watch him flounder on Question Time and still - such is the power of false consciousness - see it as a triumphant challenge to authority.

Not that authority actually gives a toss about Griffin and his knuckledragging cohorts. The real authorities - not the people we vote in, or as likely, don't vote in, every few years - don't care particularly for Griffins repulsiveness. If some unlikely chain of events were to catapult him to Number 10, they would do business with him. They have the power and money to buy him, like they had the power and money to buy off the Labour Party.

Of course, it is rather unlikely they'll have to buy off Griffin, who's political half life is measured in months, rather than years.

1 - "We must halt this conspiracy of silence over our immigration crisis," published in the Daily Mail, 22nd of October, 2009. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1222078/SIR-ANDREW-GREEN-We-halt-conspiracy-silence-immigration-crisis.html)
2 - "Britain 'sleepwalking to segregation'," unattributed article, published in the Guardian, 19th of September, 2005. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/19/race.socialexclusion)

More on the Mail's incapacity to tell the truth

Someone's told me that, technically, the Daily Mail figure of 67,000 people claiming Incapacity Benefit in 1997 may actually be correct (1).

This is because circa 1996, the old Invalidity Benefit was phased out and replaced with the new Incapacity Benefit. People were not necessarily switched from one to the other, however - I think there are still some people drawing Invalidity Benefit today, though no-one has been added to the role since 1996 at the latest. So, the Daily Mail might actually be telling the literal truth - there might only have been 67,000 people claiming Incapacity Benefit in 1997.

This doesn't clear them of the charge of being a lying shitrag, however, as they neglected to mention the 2 million+ people who were incapacitated and claiming Invalidity Benefit, and who have since been switched to Incapacity Benfit, accounting for the 'soaring' Incapacity Benefit role, post-1997. Whatever the name of the benefit, the numbers of those incapable of work have remained fairly static, ever since the mid-nineties, between about 2.25 and 2.5 million.

So what might have been a simple piece of incompetence now looks more and more like a deliberate attempt to mislead, by inciting a bit of anti-Labour 'Hell in a Handcart' sentiment amoung the lumpen-middle classes that read the Mail. In light of this, I'm not gonig to bother amending the title of yesterday's post. If they have not interest in reporting things fairly and informatively, why should I?

1 - As described previosuly on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/10/daily-mail-in-just-making-up-numbers.html