Are one in five really considering voting for the BNP?
If so, and Nick’s appearance on QT was the catalyst, some thoughts belatedly occurred to me.
It’s generally accepted that QT exposed him as a holocaust denier and racist. Yet despite that, and despite the fact that being a racist is perceived as the ultimate wickedness, one in five have somehow managed to push Nick’s racism to the back of their minds. Or should that be the backs of their mind.
The thing QT exposed was the very thing the BNP has been trying to hide. But imagine if Mr. Griffin really wasn’t a racist, what if he opposed mass Muslim immigration because he genuinely loved Britain’s values?
Or, what if someone else who wasn’t Nick Griffin and who wasn’t a racist, did so; say a politician from one of the mainstream parties? Dream on.
If the BBC thinks that simply revealing the BNP’s racism is enough to discredit it, what about the type of racism that the BBC itself tacitly peddles. Can we have that revealed in a custom made question Time? Can we have a panel of multi-party pro-Zionists versus Helen Boaden?
Someone needs to ask why Islington antisemitism is alright, but confronting genuine concerns about Islamism is all wrong.
We see how the BBC portrays the Jewish state, and we observe that the mud they’ve slung has stuck to diaspora Jews. We haven’t yet reached the stage where it’s okay to openly espouse antisemitism, but anti Zionism does have a full seal of approval even when it’s demonstrably a mere cloak.
Not even Jack Straw’s unnecessary “As-s-Jew” outburst was enough to deter potential BNP voters from assuming that it’s permissible to turn a blind eye to a a bit of harmless holocaust denial.
I don’t know whether my grandparents came to the UK from eastern Europe intentionally, or whether they ended up here by accident, as many did. But they assimilated, and their descendants are respectable members of British society. They made no demands and adapted.
There is a world of difference between racism and objection to Islamification of Europe. But neither our government nor the BBC will admit that.
If there is a genuinely benign interpretation of Islam that accepts and respects others, no problemo. Muslims that follow that variation on a theme should be welcome to live wherever they’re prepared to assimilate. Reiterating that Islam is the religion of peace is not enough, nor is trying to normalise cultural practices that are antithetical to ours.
What angers the potential BNP voters is that their understandable objections to demands for Sharia law, 12,000 seater mosques, belligerent burka wearing, refusal to integrate, Asian-on-white racism and demonstrations against British soldiers are branded Islamophobic, and considered beyond the pale, too taboo to discuss.
So the BBC is the flagship of hypocrisy on that score, and has played a considerable part in creating this ‘one in five’ sorry state of affairs.
I see Peter Hain is given a prime BBC spot to proclaim how right he was about the BNP getting an increase in support after the QT prog, he is of course wrong about the reason for the increase in support, rather he kept silent about the real reason.
The nasty lynch mob setup job by the BBC prompted that increase in support, Hain didnt have anything to say about that little fact.
The rigged audience, the cruel and nasty bullying by that rigged audience sickened many viewers to the point that they now support the BNP, in this country we value free and courteous debate, we hate and despise the gross and unfair lynch mob setup show trial.
The rigged audience encouraged to boo and jeer, the rigged questions and the utterly hostile Dimblebore, the fascist rage mob baying for blood outside has shown the ordinary British voter the truth about modern Britain and the tyranny of the bullying minority bigots of whom Hain is one.
The BBC Have Your Say posters gave a right kicking to QT and all associated with it as we all know. But I have also read newspapers online from The Guardian to the Daily Mail. The newspapers themselves are getting a kicking from posters because of their demonisation of Griffin beforehand. I see the Daily Mail now has an article virtually defending Jack Straw’s dad against Griffin’s dad. As we now know, Jack’s dad was imprisoned and Nick’s dad fought. The DM article by a Nick Sears basically says that it was ok for Jack’s dad not to fight because he was a known conscientious objector….and he attacked Nick’s dad ‘because he was only ground crew’. Bloody hell, the mainstream media really know how to anger a whole lot of people in one go dont they? Im sure that surviving members of WWII groundcrew will love what the article says. What is the matter with mainstream media???
The BBC in particular but a lot of them really are out of touch with the ‘ordinary voters’……ie those that dont live in London.
Sorry bad form to post to your own post…but I meant to say those that dont live in certain parts of London where media types and the liberal live.
cassandra
yes yes yes.
Uncontrolled immigration and its impact on local communities is, I thimk, the main driver for BNP support. The more the mainstream parties appear in collusion to kill any real debate – calling any critics racist etc and suppressing the real figures, the more support the BNP will garner.
I would not vote BNP, I think a lot of their ideas are nutty, I prefer UKIP, cannot see myself voting for “Zac” Goldsmith in my constituency – I might as well vote Green ! – and I saw too much when in Whitehall to trust the Labour Party anywhere near the economy.
I imagine that the BNP may now increase its ACTUAL vote levels in the election – hopefully mainly at the expense of Labour.
And maybe millions will now see that the BBC is part of the whole attempt to smother debate on immigration – especially immigration from utterly alien cultures which are at odds with everything Britian used to stand for..
Worth reading.
http://undhimmi.com/2009/10/23/strictly-come-lynching-a-state-sponsored-show-trial/#more-4863
Why, thanks for the mention Marky 🙂
That’s ok, it was very good. 🙂
More than anything else, this episode reveals just how either biased or willfully misguided the BBC is, as well as all those political party representatives. The focus on the issue of immigration only at its most basic level is exactly why all these people put more of the public off the major parties.
Sure, Dimbelby busted Jack Straw for spouting without substance, but again, that was on the most superficial aspect of immigration: numbers. That’s only the leaky scab of the underlying serious wound: fascistic multiculturalism to the point of reverse discrimination. The discussion of cold numbers in and out doesn’t address the heart of the issue, nor does it actually address why so many people who are not – the BBC and all those dopey pols took care to remind you – actually racist are thinking about voting BNP for real.
There was no discussion of why those nasty white people the BBC keeps talking about actually feel that their country is being taken away from them. To listen to the BBC and Bonnie Greer and their kind, one would think it’s just that these indigenous Brits are unhappy that there are differently-colored people near them, full stop. There was no discussion whatsoever of no-go areas, favoritism regarding local funding. Nor was there any discussion of the fact that the politicians and mainstream media disimiss those concerns as racist. And of course nobody will dare mention that the official state broadcaster actively produces programmes to instruct those who might consider voting BNP that their concerns are illegetimate because they are racist, and not by actually addressing the concerns in depth.
Worst of all, the BBC and these dopey politicians have no answer for Griffin when he says that the most important thing is that Britain remain a fundamentally British and Christian country. Because the major parties refuse to say anything similar, and the official state broadcaster of the UK says that’s a racist sentiment, people will continue to consider voting BNP. Beeboid management is, of course, viscerally biased against saying that Britain ought to be that way.
(“Is” isn’t the same thing as “Ought To Be”. One is temporal, and that’s the problem.)
The personal biases of Beeboids prevents them from seeing this, and that’s why they created the QT episode they did.
The BBC HYS forum is very telling, 4500 odd comments in the moderation queue, it begs the question just how many staffers are on duty?
The BBC made a blunder with the HYS topic, they are getting a well deserved kicking right now, ant guesses how many comments will still be in the mod queue when the topic is capped and stopped?
I gave up trying to post on HYS as the moderation queue seems to act as a reject queue for those that break no rules but the BBC don’t agree with.
News Sniffer has managed to catch three censored comments,
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/bbc/threads/show/11704
There is no such thing as a benign form of Islam, just as there is no such thing as a benign form of Nazism. Both were created by anti-Semites who hated Christianity, democracy and womens’ rights and loved war.
Yes
HYS is amazing right now – I’ve never seen anything like it.
I read the first ten pages and every comment was totally anti-beeb, even from people who detested Griffin.
The first few comments have more tham 1000 recommendations – unprecedented.
There may be no such thing as a benign form of Islam. It seems there’s no such thing as a benign form of the BNP either.
Is there a benign form of the beeboid Jane Corbin?
Hang on Sue, isn’t the BBC masquerading under a facade of impartiality whilst being run by old style left wing multicultural fascists?? Pots and kettles!
Why hang on? Have I ever said any other?
Watching Mark Byford this morning I was astonished to hear him reiterate the same patently unbelievable trick the BBC resorted to when they decided not to broadcast the Gaza appeal, ”That it proves we’re not biased.” “Our charter obligations blah blah .” “ We must be impartial.”
Proclaiming that one uncharacteristic blip is enough to to prove you haven’t been doing what you obviously have been doing is ludicrous.
I’m not sure whether Mr. Byford is hiding his talent under his wig. Can he have got where he is today if he is genuinely so un self-aware? Is the cosy consensus so cosy that they don’t realise that outsiders might have a different view of what constitutes impartiality?
I think the politicians of all three main parties know more about what the appeal of the BNP really is than they’re letting on. I hope so. I think they were terrified that Nick Griffin would succeed in doing what they do, sell himself to the public. So eveyone made damned sure he wouldn’t get away with it.
The fallout, (the underdog factor, and the inadequacy of the other panellists and the obviousness of the elephant in the room, Islam) I think were unintended consequences, and Mark Byford pretending that Griffin’s appearance proved the BBC isn’t biased was misguided, opportunistic and it won’t wash.
I don’t think anyone came out well from it, but there is a chance that the people who matter will at last notice the elephant.
Sue – Sorry, I misunderstood the gist of your comment – I agree with your last post
Another factor to consider and one beyond the reasoning abilities of the average BBC group mind .
Griffin has a deal of unsavoury past history. I am sure he knows that this is a serious handicap and will always come back to haunt him
I am sure he is quite prepared to yield his position to a younger unencumbered and charismatic leader should one appear.
Now such a leader would be a serious threat to all existing parties.
Who knows what might happen.
By concentrating their attacks on Griffin the exisiting parties could be making a serious mistake.
Unless the matters raised by the BNP are addressed and soon and the BNP itself subject to scrutiny then we run the risk that a real demogogue could emerge.
It always happens very quickly just look at the history books or do I have to spell it out.
No doubt the liberal left is congratulating itself at on it’s attacks on Griffin on QT. Very very premature and foolish.