?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Stop making sense.


How many one-eyed chubby lads can be trying for control of the country at the same time? What are the odds?

Consider - the Brown Gorgon refused to join in Labour's attempts to decry Nick the Griff. Have you ever seen the two of them appear simultaneously on live TV, even on different channels? Why do we hear nothing of Nick the Griff when the Brown Gorgon is out annoying the troops somewhere or irritating other world leaders?

Take a look at Chicken Yoghourt's comparison chart.

Why, just as everyone is saying 'Oh, the BNP are racist and racist is a really bad thing', do we get a Labour MP making the ridiculous assertion that the BBC don't invite her on to Question Time because they are racist? Why does Labour allow their MP to completely devalue the word just after that whole show was set up to call Nick the Griff a racist?

Why, when people are worried sick about immigration, does Strawman Jack insist that there is no cap on immigration (unless you've come here for a job)? Why, just after that, do we get the leak that the whole immigration fiasco was deliberately set up by Labour? Why are Labour ministers trying to incite the masses to rise up? Do they really imagine that a few words from Nick the Griff will set off a civil war? Do they really think the population of this country are that stupid, or are they just trying to scare the immigrants?

All those protests, threats of legal action, demands to silence the BNP at every turn have had an entirely predictable result. 22% of voters would now consider voting BNP. Remind me, what was the percentage of voters who put Labour into power?

The government cannot be this stupid. It is not possible to be as mindless as they appear on this issue and still be able to co-ordinate more than two muscles simultaneously. Yes, I think they are idiots but they are clearly not parked on the green benches by attendants and left to drool, cackle and throw their faeces at each other. They simply cannot be stupid enough not to realise what they are doing.

I have come up with four possible explanations.

One, Labour really are sufficiently spiteful and malicious that they would rather see the BNP win the next election than let the Tories have it.

Two, Labour realise they have completely lost control of immigration but can't back down without appearing to be total retards. So they plan to let the BNP sort it out.

Three, the only chance the Brown Gorgon has to stay in power is to invoke the Civil Contingencies act, and to do that he'll need widespread rioting. They keep pushing for riots. This might be another attempt.

Four, and this is by far the most likely - The real Brown Gorgon has been kidnapped and replaced by Nick the Griff in a saggy mask.

No wonder most people stay away from politics. The stance of any of the parties is about as decipherable as a David Lynch film. People take a look at the papers, shake their heads and say 'This makes no sense at all'. The cartoons are more logical. The Sudoku puzzle at least has a solution. The politics pages read like the product of a particularly drunken scriptwriting session by the Monty Python team.

Baroness Warsi said her party would 'listen to people' about immigration. Maybe she meant it but, you know, we've heard this line a lot over the last twelve years and we don't believe it.

Politicians will not listen, and what they say makes no sense.

Maybe David Icke was right after all.
wordpress blog stats

Comments

( 19 comments — Leave a comment )
(Anonymous)
23rd Oct, 2009 21:55 (UTC)
Rob
No-one on earth could be surprised that Labour's policy on immigration was based on spiting their political enemies, and nothing else. EVERYTHING Labour does is either to enrich themselves or to persue their vendettas. Everything.

Fortunately, it looks as if they have built a bomb which will vaporise themselves as well as fuck the country.
leg_iron
24th Oct, 2009 00:58 (UTC)
Re: Rob
An entire government based on spite for the last twelve years.

I really think we should avoid all riots until after the Tories get in. Then riot. Then let the Cameroids enact the civil contingencies act.

Boot on the other foot, eh, Labour?
(Anonymous)
23rd Oct, 2009 23:14 (UTC)
Yes interesting times. A government that cares less for it's own people than for it's own spiteful agenda. Opening the floodgates to millions of anti western muslims yet declares war on muslim countries.
It says that Griffen is a racist yet it bombs and kills thousands in illegal wars against non whites. How many muslims has Griffen murdered ? None.
How long will the Gorgon and his despicable cabinet cling onto power ? Will he manage to totally trash our country before he goes ?
The report in the London Evening Standard shows that Labour are only interested in their own agenda and have no interest in their country.
I think hanging for treason is still legal.
leg_iron
24th Oct, 2009 01:00 (UTC)
They don't let all Mulims in. If they've acted as interpreters for British troops, Labour don't like them.

If they want to preach death and destruction, Labour love them.

They really shouldn't count on a block Muslim vote, you know. A lot of Muslims aren't too happy about the selective nature of Labour's immigration policy.
(Anonymous)
24th Oct, 2009 16:05 (UTC)
Alas, no it isn't, Anonymous. That penalty was changed to "imprisonment for life" by Labour in 1998 - just a year after they were first elected. Convenient, huh?
(Anonymous)
23rd Oct, 2009 23:22 (UTC)
I agree Leg Iron - unfortunately I just think it's plain old stupidity and a complete ignorance about how people think.

I'm not a BNP supporter and Nick Griffin is clearly a nasty piece of work, but the blanket criticism of him by mainstream politicos (who are loathed and despised by the public) and by the mainstream press that potential BNP supporters read and expect to reflect their views, will only lead to people feeling as if the BNP are somehow being bullied and suppressed and that these people are having their views ignored. I saw Hain decrying the fact that 8 million people watched Griffin yesterday as people might vote for him. What!? I mean, what? Is he sctually saying, with a straight face, that in a democracy it's right to suppress parties that people might actually want to vote for in case they actually do? Apparently so.

Similarly, the fact that Griffin wasn't just invited on as a regular panellist to comment on the economy, crime, Afghanistan etc but was instead subjected to anti-BNP questioning all night long does nothing to dissuade disenchanted and disenfranchised voters from thinking that he was being unfairly picked on and squashed by the mainstream politicos who are all alike and all ignore them. That'll gain votes, as will his new underdog status, something which I see he has already started to play up to.

Indeed, despite his clearly extremist views he said a lot that, despite Righteous outrage, a helluva lot of people will agree with. Despite Righteous sqealings a lot of people in the street and in the pubs and in factories and shoping centres will agree with him that what gays do in their own home is fine but the sight of two men kissing is "creepy". A lot of people will think it's perfectly reasonable to be againt Islam as it is anti-Democracy and oppresses women (I loved the bit when he said this and a few people cheered and most of the audience turned disgustedly to see who had done so. So, what? They are pro-oppression of women and anti-democracy, are they?) Similarly, his defense of BNP use of Churchill was spot on for any who know about it - he put the Koran on the level of Mein Kampf, killed Moslems in at least two military campaigns and said something about "Mohammedism being a savage and barbarous belief system" - I'm paraphrasing). His claims of the BBC being an ultra-leftist organisation would have rung true with many, many people and it was interesting that his views on immigration were supported by an Asian man who was worried about "them all coming over here."

While his performance suffered because 1) He isn't very photogenic (fat and greasy is never a good luck) and 2) He is clearly an extremist posing as a moderate, given that much of what actually left his mouth was actually quite reasonable, despite the universal media condemnation of his performance it's hardly surprising that BNP membership applications have sky rocketed and their web site (already the most visited of all UK political parties) crashed under increased traffic.

Then again, that's what the Rightoeus do - they condemn, they denormalise. After all, these are the people who think that the best way to get people to stop smoking is to persecute smokers and institute virtual apartheid against them rather than to just leave people alone and let them give up when they want to. They don't understand that when people are bullied and shrieked at they kick back, they become entrenched. Hardly surprising therefore that smoking rates are increasing in Ireland, Scotland and Engand. The Righteous have no idea about how people think. (cont)

(Anonymous)
23rd Oct, 2009 23:22 (UTC)
(continued)

And it's the same here - they don't realise that the worst thing they can do is condemn Griffin. People hate our politicians, so anyone who is hated by them must be good, right? Especially if they are bullied and oppressed and actually say (even if they obviously actually believe otherwise) a lot of things that many people will agree with.

Yes Griffin was sweaty and oily and smiled at the wrong times. But given what he has been doing today (with his complaint to the BBC) one can only assume that he knew how the Righteous would react and planned for it. He is shrewder than the Press are giving him credit for - yet another Righteous failing that Griffin will exploit. By calling him a political lightweight they are underestimating him. And yet again falling right into Griffin's trap.

Interesting times....
leg_iron
24th Oct, 2009 01:04 (UTC)
I suspect the 'sweaty and nervous' might have been an act. He is not dim, this guy. He knew he'd get rounded on and he stayed calm and let the other side do all the shouting and name-calling. He might well have played the 'picked-on geeky kid' deliberately.

The complaint about being 'bullied' on the show, well, I'll bet he'd written that weeks ago.

I would have, in his place.
(Anonymous)
24th Oct, 2009 14:43 (UTC)
Griffin on Q-Time
He did Leg-Iron. This is an email from him that I got BEFORE the show::

" Question Time is scheduled for 10.35pm tomorrow evening (Thursday) and will be a milestone in the indomitable march of the British National Party towards saving our country.

Our violent opponents on the far Left have promised to lay siege and barricade the studio venue, because they know only too well that this could be THE key moment that propels the BNP into the big time.

Never before have we had the chance to present our patriotic, common sense solutions to Britain's nightmare situation to the public at large in such a prominent fashion.

However, members and supporters must be aware that this show will be a stage-managed farce organised in a specific way to leave several impressions:

The audience will be hand-picked and overtly hostile - thus giving the impression that the British people at large must be hostile to BNP views.
The panellists will be overtly hostile, even the non-political guests will be hostile. Everyone will be hostile - this will leave the impression to non-informed viewers that BNP views have minority status.
I will, no doubt, be interrupted, shouted down, slandered, put on the spot, and subject to a scrutiny that would be a thousand times more intense than anything directed at other panellists.

It will, in other words, be political blood sport.

But I am relishing this opportunity, and I know that, despite the stage-managed hostile audience and panellists, YOU, the ordinary members, supporters and voters of the BNP, will be in the studio with me as I take on the corrupt, treacherous swine destroying our beautiful island nation.


Yours sincerely for Britannia

Nick Griffin MEP
Chairman, BNP "

He knew what was coming, but he still attended. He is neither stupid nor cowardly.

Morgan
giolla
23rd Oct, 2009 23:34 (UTC)
Just read this and WTF! where they thinking, I mean if there's even a grain of truth in this then the BNP and the conspiracy nuts had a point. If there wasn't enough evidence to accuse those in power of treason before this then there must be now. I currently think that David Icke being right probably makes the most sense I mean really WTF!
leg_iron
24th Oct, 2009 01:06 (UTC)
That's the strange thing. The day after the attempt to slate BNP immigration policy, this pops up.

A lot of people are now thinking 'Hey, that Griffin bloke had a point'.

It has to be deliberate. Nobody can be this stupid. Not even Mr. Bean could have done this without planning.
giolla
24th Oct, 2009 09:47 (UTC)
The question though is who did the planning, after all could the telegraph have had this article for a while and just been waiting for the "right" moment to publish. The timing is very strange though as you say.
(Anonymous)
24th Oct, 2009 14:49 (UTC)
My take on it
This is what I blogged the day after the show::

"
Friday, 23 October 2009
QUESTION TIME? IT WAS LIKE NO OTHER QT I'VE EVER SEEN BEFORE
The only time I've ever seen it resembling that programme was the time the American ambassador was on the panel and everyone laid into him. I felt so ashamed that a guest in our country could be so abused and mistreated.

Last night was worse, except this time I'm not ashamed: I'm ANGRY!

The entire format of the program was changed; instead of the audience questions being about current affairs, with the panel members all giving their take on those events, it was a mugging of Nick Griffin. It was as if the BBC laid in wait down a dark alley with a club until Griffin walked by and then amushed him and bludgeoned him into intensive care.

QT selects its audience, QT selects which audience questions will be allowed, QT selects who will be represented on the panel. They selected an audience that was overwhelmingly hostile (and QT knew they would be because audience applicants are vetted and have to suggest what question they will ask - then QT selects both audience and question). Questions that were entirely about the BNP. Panel members that were also entirely hostile. And even the panel chair, Dimblebum was hostile, when he knows damned well he is supposed to be neutral. There was only one question related to current affairs (why are we admitting so many immigrants while unemployment is relentlessly rising?), and that was entirely ignored as everyone went back into bludgeon Griffin mode.

I believe this whole program was an ambush, deliberately planned by the BBC from the very first day they announced Nick was to appear. Indeed, I think they planned the ambush before then, got permission from Brown to do it, and THEN announced that we were to be represented. The BBC, and everyone involved in this mugging should be ashamed of theselves.

Why did they do it? There's a general election in a few months and we take an awful lot of votes from Labour. Labour wants them back. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if it was Labour's dirty tricks team that initiated the whole thing, and that's why Brown was so cool about us being on the show.

Here's a comment by a self-proclaimed Liberal who has no intention of ever voting BNP, taken from today's Gurdian. He has the decency to be thoroughly ashamed - it shows in what he said:

Grauniadliberal
23 Oct 09, 11:56am (about 3 hours ago)

I'm a liberal and hate far-right ideas with a passion, but this edition of Question Time was disturbing, worrying and misconceived. In my opinion it was not Question Time at all but Lynching Time and it will only play right into the hands of the BNP.
(Anonymous)
24th Oct, 2009 14:49 (UTC)
Re: My take on it cont./
The rules of liberal democracy state that a wide range of voices must be heard and the rules of the BBC state that politicians with enough electoral support can appear on Question Time. The BNP, unfortunately, is now in this position. As a liberal I subscribe to the ideal of diversity - I may hate your views but will defend to the death your right to express them in a democratic society.
Question Time last night fell way short of this imperative. The format of the programme was totally and utterly skewed to shape it into an all out, hour long attack on Nick Griffin and his (odious) policies. All of the rest of the panel attacked at every opportunity like mad dogs, as did the supposedly independent chairman and the supposedly balanced audience (all liberals like me it seemed). The questions were all loaded against Nick Griffin - where were the questions on the postal strike or any other current event, as there usually would be?
What's the problem you say - doesn't the BNP deserve it? Well yes I expect they do, but to screen a wholly biased lynching of this sort will only serve one purpose and that is to increase the standing of the BNP and give it what it most wants, to be seen as a victim bulied and excluded by an unaccountable liberal media and political elite. Hitler achieved power exactly by engineering hysterical confrontations and then milking them for all it was worth.
Let us ask one question - who seemed most hysterical and unreasonable last night, NIck Griffin or the panel and audience, particularly Jack Straw? This is not the way to deal with the BNP. Reasoned and calm argument is. More of this and the flames of fascism really will be fanned and then liberalism in Britain really will face an enormous challenge from which it may never recover."

When I last looked it had been 'recommended' by 119 Guardian readers - so we do have some civilised opponents out there.

Yours very angrily,

Morg
(Anonymous)
24th Oct, 2009 09:13 (UTC)
It does make sense
The Civil Contingencies Act.

Labours "Ace in the Hole".

They are deliberately trying to provoke violence on the streets. How can we have a General Election when the country is in turmoil.

There must be a "firm hand on the tiller".

The Brown Gorgon to the rescue!
(Anonymous)
24th Oct, 2009 10:21 (UTC)
Destroying Britain
Importing people as a way to destroy the indigenous culture is well established - the Russians did it in most of their smaller satellites and the Americans did it in spades although in the latter case it was largely collateral damage than deliberate policy - still the Native American population is now about 1 million compared with the estimated 25 million at the start of the colonisation of the country: there is a model for our future. ‘Little Britain’ may be derided, but it hosts Little India, Little Pakistan, Little Bangladesh and littler Little Other Places.

It was not coincidental that immigration rocketed when the Iraqi war started - a good way to keep people looking at the wrong things. It might be that our involvement in the war was just so that immigration could be ramped up under cover.

They always quote the net immigration figure, which hides the true extent of immigration – if the net immigration figure is 184,000, what is the gross immigration figure if 300,000 flee this country? Also we are sometimes quoted the adult or even head of household immigration figure, overlooking the dependants attached.

Once immigration has achieved a certain level Heathrow ceases to be the main port of entry and the maternity wards take over. Immigration can be curbed or even stopped altogether and the media and politicos will trumpet that achievement loud and long – the reality will hit home a couple of decades down the line.

Fomenting civil unrest in a multi-culti society is easy - they tend to be violent (the US) and the opportunity for intra-migrant violence is probably higher than immigrant verses tolerant natives. The outcome will be the same - the natives will be blamed and punished for all acts of violence and I suspect elements of the 'ausorities' are just gagging for the opportunity to impose martial law in these lands. Bear in mind that post-Lisbon the real 'ausorities' will be in Brussels, not Westminster, and they have a paramilitary police called the Euro Gendarmerie Force (http://www.eurogendfor.eu/) to call upon. This force includes Turkey and their badge is a flaming grenade upon a sword: nice.

You will have nothing left to hide, and everything to fear.
stewart_cowan
24th Oct, 2009 13:13 (UTC)
Conspiracy truths

David Icke is right on many things, but there's something a bit fishy about him. I recommend Alex Jones http://www.prisonplanet.com/ for all your conspiracy truths.
(Anonymous)
24th Oct, 2009 19:29 (UTC)
David Icke has been right an uncanny number of times over the years, much to many people's surprise and to his detractors' dismay. If you read any of his early books now it's a bit like re-reading 1984 – much of what was written all those years ago is here, now, just as he described it. It's quite spooky, actually. Quite whether his reasons as to who the powers-that-be are and why they do what they do still stretches credibility somewhat, even to a sceptic-turned-convert like myself, but the tactics and methods used are described with frightening accuracy and, as time unfolds, the ultimate goals which, way back then, he cited as the reasons for these activities, are starting to look rather less far-fetched than they used to. Let's not forget, too, that at the time of publishing his first books, Icke himself was vilified and ridiculed by the British media in a very similar way as Griffin is now (was it the Clive Anderson show where he walked off because virtually the first thing Anderson said was that Icke's latest book was a "load of old guff" or something equally un-host-like?) – a sure sign that "they" were as afraid of Icke and his opinions then as they now are of Griffin and his.
antipholus
25th Oct, 2009 04:37 (UTC)
Given that NuLabour are, by any definition of the word, fascist, then perhaps it makes sense to lay the ground for an openly fascist party? That is if the BNP is indeed a hotbed of Combat 18 oi oi revelry.

Number 3 seems most likely. Civil Contingencies Act - they didn't get their Summer of Rage, so they're upping the ante.
( 19 comments — Leave a comment )