Mud Sticks

You can’t do much about your reputation. A bad reputation can follow you like a shadow and place you at a considerable disadvantage in all your future endeavours.
Some movements, philosophies or ideologies are deemed so despicable that no affiliate or former member can ever dissociate themselves from the body’s loathsome reputation. But inexplicably, others with an equally ignominious record do it with ease.
Double standards exist. Some people can’t do a thing right, while others, apparently not for want of trying, just can’t put a foot wrong.

Take Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, representing the sunny-side of Islam. The commissioning editors of the BBC happily disregard all negative factors associated with the religion of peace, and give Shaykh Mogra a platform on radio 4 to preach to us every morning for a whole week, as though certain unmentionable issues had never raised their ugly heads. For instance Islam’s approach to women, to sex and to the non-believer; not to mention, literally, the antics of a certain publicity-seeking band of poppy-burning beardies, the Muslim Council of Britain’s duplicitous record, Islam’s inherent antisemitism, oh, and Islamic-inspired terrorism.

Ibriham Mogra can shayke off (sorry) all association with that nasty stuff and quote passages from the Koran as though butter wouldn’t melt in his beard. He evidently believes these unfortunate things are ‘nothing to do with me, guv.’
In stark contrast, certain other ideologies or movements are deemed ‘beyond the pale’. An individual associated with any of these despised bodies is automatically pushed into purgatory. Take the Nazi. Can there be a benign Nazi? At one end of the spectrum we have Goebbels and co., and at the milder end, the ‘gullible victim of propaganda’ and the ‘only following orders’ brand of Nazi. All are permanently regarded as personae non gratae, with the exception of one reformed Nazi who has made a convincing case by publicly denouncing his former incarnation and reinventing himself as the Pope. According to Wiki, Joseph Alois Ratzinger was “an unenthusiastic member” of the Hitler Youth all along, so that’s okay.

There’s little prospect of exoneration for Israel however. As far as the BBC is concerned Israel’s pariah status is set in stone. It is unremittingly portrayed as ‘beyond the pale’, and is seen by the BBC as indomitably fiendish, even though most of the evil-doing the BBC finds so unforgivable is a construct of their very own.

Organisations like the BNP can’t rehabilitate themselves. No matter how plausible he tries to be, Nick Griffin was caught on camera being racist and antisemitic, and his denials and ostensible changes of heart aren’t fooling anyone.
Similarly, Tommy Robinson has a lot of work to do on the EDL’s image before he’ll be able to distance himself from its reputation for thuggery and racism.
Incidentally, when the BBC set attack-dog Paxman onto ‘Tommy Robinson’, I doubt Paxo suspected he was in for a profound pasting. But that’s what he ended up with. The BBC was so confident that Robinson’s guilt-by-association was enough to crush him, that they didn’t bother to do any pre-interview research. In the event Paxo stabbed wildly and spuriously in all directions, and had to resort to making those faces. It probably wasn’t that particular humiliating fiasco of an interview that deterred the BBC from putting the good Shaykh up for a similar grilling before setting him up with a week’s worth of Prayers for the Day. But surely, if all things really were equal, they’d give Tommy a regular spot on the radio and send the Shaykh in for a couple of rounds with Paxo.

The BBC can brush aside the evil-doings of his religious compatriots, such as terrorism, wife beating, honour killing and gay-bashing, but can’t overlook alleged skinhead thuggery.
Every morning, for seven glorious days, Shayhk Mogra has been quoting some incomprehensible passages straight from the Koran for our edification.
On two occasions he assumed our fond familiarity with the Hajj, and an episode entitled “Kick Racism Out” contained the following:

“Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “O people, indeed your Lord and Sustainer is One and your ancestor is one. All of you descend from Adam and Adam was made of earth. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab nor for a non-Arab over an Arab; neither for a white person over a black person nor a black person over a white person except the superiority gained through righteousness. Indeed the noblest of you to God is the one who is most conscious of God.”

I wondered momentarily if the above-mentioned exception does subtly bestow superiority upon very ‘righteous’ Muslims, which by sleight of hand exempts me and the other kafir from being considered their equal. But I was all wrong, because he continued:

“Dear God, cleanse our hearts and give us the strength to be more righteous. Enable us to respect all human beings as equals and as members of Your family, amin.”

(‘Amin’ is Muslim for ‘Amen’)

Somehow Shaykh Mogra feels able to pick and choose which bits of the holy Koran he condones, and which bits he rejects. One of the latter is the death penalty for apostasy, which he says is outdated and old fashioned. But, would you adam an’ eve it, he’s sticking with the literal interpretation of the creation? “ All of you descend from Adam and Adam was made of earth.

His Pollyanna version of the ROP doesn’t mention the Jihad. But he’s not your typical Islamic cleric. Hizb ut-Tahrir calls him a ‘government linked sellout’ and, on apostasy: “Even the kafir reporter knows more on Islam sharia then[sic] Mogra!”

I’m afraid today’s prayer really takes the biscuit. It’s called Caring for Women.

If the BBC can pretend that Islam’s record of caring for women bears any relation to this sermon, I’d like to know how.
The next passage has something of the literary style of Enid Blyton about it:

“He who supports three daughters or sisters by educating them and being merciful to them until they become self sufficient, God will make Paradise compulsory for him.” A man then asked, “What about two daughters or sisters, will the same apply to two?” Another asked, “What about one daughter or sister?” Muhammad said, “The same applies to one daughter or sister.”

(I don’t know how respectfully Noddy and Big Ears treated women, but they had a very unPC reputation with regard to golliwogs.)
He continues:

“He who has a daughter and looks after her and does not disgrace her, nor does he prefer his sons over her, God will admit him to Paradise.”

Disgrace her? How? Oh never mind. Next week’s Prayers for the Day are by Alison Twaddle.

Viewpoint: You Are A Potential Far-Right Extremist

Here’s another “Viewpoint” from the Left. And it’s a real insight into the beliefs of the Left and the BBC on this particular issue. When I directly associate this viewpoint with the BBC, I do it because this essay didn’t happen randomly or spontaneously: it was predetermined by a BBC editor, as are all these “Viewpoint” pieces. They want something on a given topic, and they go out and find someone to do it. So I believe it’s quite fair to tie the BBC to Goodwin’s mast (or is the other way around?) In any case, here it is:

What are BNP supporters really like?

The opening section is a classic example of using an outlier to make a point about the main group. You’ll never guess who academic Matthew Goodwin chose to use as his example of a BNP member. But first, as this is a classically structured piece from an academic-type, Goodwin has to do the exposition, in which he sets the scene for his protagonist.

Sharon was born and raised in the local village. She knew everyone, and devoted much of her spare time to helping the Residents Association. She was never really that interested in politics. Her husband was a Conservative, but she only went along to the meetings because she liked the sandwiches.

So we the “A” theme: an ordinary citizen, a good neighbor, etc., someone who was never politically active before. Now for the “B” theme.

But then, over the years, things began to change. For Sharon, it seemed as though the way of life she had become accustomed to was under threat.

She talked about feeling a sense of injustice about what had been perpetrated on her fellow citizens – our increasing involvement with Europe, the loss of our manufacturing base, a dwindling sense of respect among young people and the creeping advance of political correctness.

You can all guess what’s coming next, right?

But more than anything, she was concerned about a new phase of immigration into the country. She was profoundly anxious, especially about the impact of this rapid and unsettling change on her friends and loved ones.

Her concern wasn’t simply about the economy. It stemmed from her feeling that British culture, values and the national community were under threat.

This is not meant to be a strawman (woman), because Goodwin’s agenda is not merely to strike it down. He’s got a much bigger point to make. So on to the development section. So far, this is someone whom we could easily dismiss as being the usual xenophobic Little Englander, who hangs the St. George Cross out her window even when there’s no sports tournament going on. But then we get the shocking revelation about our Sharon, meant to focus your concern:

Sharon was Jewish, and the party that she decided to join was the British National Party.

Shock

This is very clever. By using this outlier, whom Goodwin believes should cause some cognitive dissonance in his readers, he can instantly claim that the awful beliefs of the BNP are spreading far beyond the usual white suspects.

Though aware of its history of anti-Semitism and holocaust denial, for her the far right was the only movement that was serious about tackling the threat from Islam.

As if it’s only the far right who are concerned about it. Right there we have the Narrative. Any concern about the specific type of Islamic immigration is “far right”. The development of her tale continues, in which Goodwin tells us of the approbation Sharon faced from her friends, neighbors, and even her boss, as well as abuse from the local anti-fascist kiddies.

Sharon told me she could handle all of that, but what really hurt, she explained, was that she was reviled by the very people that she was fighting to protect.

Now the big picture, Goodwin’s main goal here, is starting to come together.

When I asked Sharon why, despite all of these consequences, she carries on there was little hesitation: “Because doing nothing is not an option. I am fighting for the survival of my people.”

“My people”, as in the British people. I must say it’s very refreshing to see something allowed through the BBC in which a Jew is presented identifying herself as British without hints of dual loyalty. Better still, Goodwin doesn’t present this is as Jew vs. Muslim, either. He uses her as an example of how the “far right” concern about how extreme immigration policies are harming British culture is spreading. That, to Goodwin and the BBC, is a very, very serious problem.

So he starts with the scaremongering.

I spent the next four years travelling up and down the country to interview some of the most committed followers of the far right. Conventional wisdom tells us there is something “wrong” with people like Sharon. Implicit in the stereotypes is that they are driven by crude racism, irrational impulses, and psychological problems.

The inadequacy of these stereotypes became quickly apparent during the interviews. On the whole, most of the activists appeared as relatively normal people.

What a shock, eh? Who could have imagined? Although notice how anyone concerned is still labeled “activist”. Goodwin realizes that it’s ordinary, apolitical, non-activist people feeling this way (hence his use of our Sharon to set the scene), but can’t process it. They’re still all activists to him. In other words, this is not an ordinary concern, held by ordinary people who don’t have a specific agenda of any kind. The next bit is very revealing of his and the BBC’s mindset, though. Check out the attitudes laid out, as if this is what everyone ought to think about the BNP or anyone concerned about extreme immigration:

Rather than isolated, they seemed well connected to their local communities. Rather than irrational, they had a clearly defined and coherent set of goals. Rather than psychologically damaged, they seemed balanced, reasonable and articulate.

How many people outside the far Left and the BBC and Leftoid media believe that anyone concerned about extreme immigration must be psychologically damaged? As I said, very revealing of the mindset. Goodwin spends another paragraph on his realization that not everyone he spoke to was a Nazi. Then he again uses Sharon as a launching point to show how these concerns are spreading. And he continues to use the “extremist” label.

Driving back from that first interview with Sharon, my mind wandered to my own grandparents who had expressed similar though not as extreme views about the scale and pace of immigration. I used to ask them why they never supported parties like the BNP, or the old National Front and they would look at me as though I were mad: “The Blackshirts?’, they would say, “oh no, we’d never vote for that lot.”

Implicit in their reaction is a sentiment firmly entrenched in the collective British mindset – that no matter how bad things get, Britain is immune to the appeals of extremists. It is difficult to quantify, but centres on the notion there is just something fundamentally “unBritish” about supporting extremists.

The thought occurs at this point that at no time does Goodwin discuss any of the other platforms of the BNP, e.g. Socialism, anit-war isolationism, or deporting Jamaicans as well as all Muslims. If one supports even a single one of their notions, one is then labeled an extremist. It’s the intellectual fascism of the Left which causes this kind of thinking. One must not hold a single unapproved thought, and any thought which isn’t approved by the bien pensants is “extreme”. There is no reasoned argument, no middle ground permitted.

And so the point of this Viewpoint is that this “extremism” is spreading much farther than we might think.

But is Britain really immune to a successful far right party? I think it would be mistaken to assume that this tradition has deprived extremists of fertile soil.

When we look at the evidence there is a large reservoir of potential support for a far right party. Large numbers of us have become concerned about the issue of immigration – at one point, it was more important to us than education, crime and the NHS.

In fact, one out of every five of us thought it was the most important issue facing the country. And the concern was not simply about competition over jobs or council housing. Surveys told us that two-thirds of the population thought Britain was “losing its culture” because of immigration.

Note the clever academic use of the first-person plural. In this way, Goodwin cements the notion that more and more ordinary people – possibly some of your neighbors, friends, or even relations – might be susceptible to this extremist thought. Fortunately, he’s much sharper and more honest than your average BBC journo regarding the actual concern about extreme immigration:

Also, those who are concerned about immigration are not concerned simply about traditional immigration. Significant numbers of us are also anxious over the presence and perceived compatibility of settled Muslim communities.

“Settled”. I like that. Presumably that includes “no-go areas”. Are those merely “perceived”? The mindset is revealed again.

At the time that two BNP members were elected to the European Parliament in 2009, over two-fifths of the population expressed agreement with the suggestion that even in its milder forms Islam poses a danger to Western civilisation.

Now we get the conflation of concern over extreme immigration and the refusal of some to join society with religious bigotry. It’s a slippery slope from here, really. Goodwin begins to attack the credibility of those who express concern about extreme immigration.

Muslims now find themselves at the core of a new and potent far right narrative, which vilifies Muslim communities while claiming to defend traditions of tolerance, gender equality and the rights of homosexuals. It downplays socially unacceptable arguments about race in favour of more acceptable arguments about the compatibility of values and cultures.

In other words, any of you here who complain that the BBC tends to play down or ignore how the more conservative, fundamentalist Muslims treat women and homosexuals are really just bigots using a smokescreen. You don’t really care about women getting acid thrown on their faces or young girls sent off to Pakistan to be forced into copulation with a middle-aged man, or killed by their fathers and brothers for being seen with a non-Muslim, or about regular executions of homosexuals. That’s all a facade used to slip your bigoted beliefs in under the door.

It is quite easy to see how this argument could be implanted in Britain. Imagine a far right populist who was free of extremist baggage and who talked about the need to oppose Islam in order to protect British traditions of parliamentary democracy, or who rallied against Muslims while proclaiming to defend the rights of women, homosexuals or civil liberties.

“Far right”. If you have any concern about extreme immigration, or that honor killings, abuse of women, no-go areas, the transformation of your neighborhood into something in which you are made to feel alien, or even just your local shop no longer carrying your favorites in favor of comestibles from another country, you are “far right”, and extremist. Again, no reasoned argument is allowed, no middle ground permitted. You’re either with Goodwin, or against common decency.

The rest of the piece is more of the same, but the last line is very amusingly blinkered, in which Goodwin drives home his theme about the BNP message spreading far and wide:

My view is that if they were free of baggage and political amateurism they would be met with significant support.

He’s taking the position that this is only about how the modern BNP is attempting to re-create its image, and distance itself from the fascists of distant memory. But it’s clearly much, much more than that. The concern about extreme immigration goes far beyond people how identify as “far right”, and that scares him. Goodwin seems not to understand that people can draw the conclusion that unfettered swarms of fundamentalists from medieval or even more primitive societies will have difficulty integrating and will do what most every other immigrant group has done historically: live amongst their own kind and attempt to recreate a bit of the old country in their new home. This is normal behavior for all immigrant groups, but becomes a real problem when the incentive to join the society of their new home – even only peripherally, in the manner of many ultra-orthodox Jews, for example – is not only removed but anyone who asks about it is scolded and ostracized. Yet Goodwin and the BBC believe that this is only a “far right” viewpoint, and one that can really only be spread by “far right” extremist activists.

The other problem is that he insists on associating concern about a single issue with all the rest of the “baggage”. Goodwin will not address the issue of extreme immigration except to tar anyone concerned about it as being “far right”. Debate is stifled yet again. And this, sadly, is exactly the BBC Narrative on the issue.

PS: Goodwin is described as an academic who is “an expert in electoral behaviour and extremism at the University of Nottingham”. Curious how his books only on the BNP are enough to secure his bona fides as an expert on extremism. Is there no extremism from the other side? Or his he an expert only on one side of the spectrum? I think we know the answer to that, and I won’t hold my breath waiting for a “Viewpoint” piece coming from the other side.

WHY "QUESTION TIME" FAILED TO DESTROY THE BNP

James Forsythe, in the Telegraph, hits the nail squarely on the head when he says the the BNP can be dismissed – but their constituency can not. Unfortunately almost all politicians and vast swathes of the media, the BBC above all, have consistently failed to make any serious analysis of why the party has grown in membership and electoral support over the last fifteen years despite the seedy nature of it’s current leadership.

So naturally, as Minette Marrin pointed out in The Times, BBC’s Question Time concentrated on shooting the messenger by setting him up.

What Griffin’s Question Time also showed was, for lack of a better word, the pusillanimous political correctness of the BBC and its lack of moral courage — something not peculiar to it, but characteristic of most public debate today. Deciding to involve a studio audience and then rigging it, to get the sort of response that’s felt to be right, is a form of moral cowardice and it happens all the time.

Initially the BBC and the chattering classes felt Question Time had cracked it. By exposing Griffin as comparatively inarticulate, nervous and unsophisticated they hoped to destroy him and his party. Instead they turned him into a martyr. Also, by completely subsuming concerns about immigration and identity within the concept of “racism” they closed the debate yet again – and gave many of those people who voted BNP a signal that their worst fears had been justified.

Many of the middle ranking, younger cadres in the BNP, unlike Griffin, do not come from the old Tyndall/Webster NF machine with it’s neo nazi fetishism and aryan folk mythology. They will not be able to be baited in the way that Griffin was baited.

What will the BBC do then?

PROTESTING THE BBC…

Tomorrow should be interesting. I’m recording a contribution for BBC NI “Hearts and Minds” TV programme due to be broadcast tomorrow evening. In essence I have a three minute spot to say whatever I want on local political matters. However I am led to believe that there is a protest planned for outside the BBC Headquarters in Belfast for allowing the BNP onto Question Time next week so I hope to have a chat with any protesters I see. Seeing as how the BBC loves having IRA terrorists and Jihad apologists on it, I fail to see why the BNP is to be denied. So it would be interesting to understand what exactly they are protesting about.

THE OXLEY MORON?

Here is an item looking at Australian immigration in the 1990’s and how it dealt with “far right” parties. How can this be applied in the UK with the rise of the BNP, asks our wonderful BBC? It is a demolition job on Pauline Hanson and her “One Nation” Party and I have little interest in her but the thing that struck me was the sneering of Nick Bryant at the end and the consequential snickering of Sarah Montague. Listen to the last twenty seconds.

Bias Never Pays in the end

Last night was a great example of where deceitful politicking gets you, yet so far the BBC have learnt little. Today they report that “The BNP won more than 120,139 votes in the Yorkshire region, slightly less than in 2004”. This detail obscures the fact that their share of the vote increased (which they don’t mention). It’s the wishful thinking that finds this kind of reporting satisfying, and fails to represent the political issue fairly, which has given the Labour-sympathising, Toynbee-Alibai-Brown promoting BBC the bad name it has, and contributed to the rise of the BNP for saying “what you will never hear” on the BBC.

Thanks to the commenters who reported on BBC bias through the evening. The comment thread makes interesting reading.

GOD’S COMICS…

I read the BBC coverage of Druid Williams and Sentamu urging people NOT to vote for the BNP. This is presented as a moral intervention in national politics but I wondered why the BBC’s highly paid theological correspondents have not enquired why the holy duo did not take similar action to stop people voting for the pro-Jihad Respect Party or the pro-IRA Sinn Fein Party? Could it be that this thin veneer of theological bubble is being applied to cover up what is a naked political and establishment driven intervention in the European election? Why is the BNP uniquely targeted by the Anglican Church and why does the BBC not open up this debate more broadly to ensure ALL odious groups are examined under the gaze of a moral/theological microscope? In my book, the BNP is going to gain as fools like Williams bleat to no avail. I do not agree with that the BNP say, but I support their right to say it. Evidently our Church leaders feel differently but the reasoning behind their pious comments is never examined.

THAT BNP VICTORY

I see the BBC gives that paragon of political integrity Peter Hain (!) the chance to sound off on the “shock” BNP victory in the local council election in Sevenoaks. Wonder will the BBC’s political experts consider why it is that the increase in BNP votes seems remarkably proportionate to the decrease in Labour votes? The BBC and others on the political left portray the BNP as “extreme-right”even though it is essentially socialist in nature. So when it becomes clearer by the day that the advance of the BNP is related to the retreat of Labour, perhaps the BBC may like to consider asking some tougher questions of Mr Hain.

HEAVENS ABOVE.

I see the BBC report on the Church of England’s decision to stop clergy from being members of the BNP provides an entirely one-sided analysis of the issue. To be clear; I have NO time whatsover for the BNP but I do accept they are a lawful political party. This clear discrimination against them does not meet with the approval of all Anglicans and it would have been nice for the BBC to provide space for those who take issue with this decision. Some people might equally think that a government which has abandoned our national borders, engaged in reckless economic policies, failed in its duty to our armed forces and prostrated itself to Islam is JUST as morally repugnant as the BNP. But the BBC would never consider that possibility or give space to those who might think it. The BNP is the great pariah party for the established political left and so when a decision like this is taken by the General Synod it is celebrated by the BBC.

BNP and the BBC!

Well then, I am sure you will heard plenty about the BNP’s published membership list today. I first caught Nick Griffin being interviewed about this on Today this morning by John Humphrys and I reckon Griffin acquitted himself quite well. Whilst I am no admirer of the socialistic racist nonsense served up by the BNP, I did chuckle at Humphrys evident dismay when Griffin wondered aloud why radical Islam was not treated in the same way as the BNP? In fact that’s really my point here. The BBC trumpets the cliched establishment revulsion at the BNP and loves to suggest it is “far-right” when in fact it is more accurately “hard-left” with a flurry of racism added. So how does that make it any different to the likes of “Respect” – other than it is not Jihad-sympathetic? And isn’t it cute the way the BBC finds room for UKIP’s Nigel Farage to stick the boot into the BNP whilst it normally ignores him on most other issues? The best way to test the BNP, in my view, would be for the BBC to allow Griffin onto the likes of Question Time so that his party views could be examined just like the other parties but the BBC chooses to ignore the BNP whilst finding time for other comedians such as Marcus Brigstocke. But that just is not going to happen and so by ignoring the BNP, the BBC actually helps create an undeserved mystique for the organisation. I never did see the list that was published but wondered if the BNP has members in the BBC?

SOCIAL COHESION AND SAVING GORDON.

Just ten minutes this morning into the “Today” programme on BC Radio 4 and I had to turn it off.

Just before the 7 a.m. news we had an item on “social cohesion”and the racial tensions that are evident in places like Dagenham. The spectre of the rise of the BNP was raised by the BBC interviewer and all agreed that this “far-right” abomination was undesirable. The solution to “divided communities” appeared to be “arts-based” social initiatives! Tell it to the Jihadists and those within the Muslim community who support them and who refuse to integrate within our communities. The BBC can’t even see the problem but instead fulminate against “the far right”.

Meanwhile, just a few minutes later and after a weekend which saw John Prescott, Cherie Blair and Lord Levy all expose Gordon Brown’s dysfunctional personality, the BBC then ran an item clearly designed to bolster Brown. The loathsome Denis McShane and Lance Price were allowed to explain why all this tittle-tattle meant nothing and said more about those who indulged in it than it did about the Great Leader. It seemed to escape them that all this invective against Brown was coming from within the Party, from senior figures. Operation Save Gordon seems in full swing and it should prove hugely entertaining to watch the BBC explain away what looks set to be a rout of Labour in Crewe in but a few weeks!

AFTERMATH.

Well, it’s the morning after as the dust settles and what have the BBC been saying? Well, they have been struggling to get past a sentence about Boris Johnson which does not contain the word “buffoon” for starters. Then we have them giving Jack Straw – the Chemical Ali of the Labour project – being given an easy ride on Today where he was allowed to babble about how great Labour had been but how it had been damaged by not listening enough and those pesky global financial pressures. You could feel the pain in the interviewers tone, I doubt champagne corks popped last night at Broadcasting House. I also noticed two stories that the BBC have not bothered much about following the results of the London elections. First the success of the BNP. Whether you like them or not – and I don’t -nonetheless their performance was quite credible and worthy of more coverage. It got virtually no coverage. Why? Also the crushing defeat at the poll by Saddam Hussein’s cheer-leader George Galloway has hardly been mentioned. Surely the BBC wouldn’t want to minimise the rejection of this nauseous specimen?