Unlike others, I don't think it is a disaster at all that Jeffrey Marshall's comments have been exposed. Nothing the media say now will stop the BNP doing well.
There is a resurgence of the "Right" on the Continent as we speak, and there is no similar expenses scandal there.
http://sofiaecho.com/2009/05/24/724102_european-parliament-elections-2009-pleas-not-to-aid-extremist-parties
As far as I am concerned, I stand by everything I have said here and elsewhere, but am willing to apologise and withdraw any statement should the need arise and facts and events prove me wrong.
We are all entitled to our opinion and our views, BNP or not. There is no indication that Jeffrey Marshall is about to become dictator and institute euthanasia and mass extermination of whoever it is The Observer and others are trying to suggest he wants exterminated.
There is no stated policy of eugenics and mass extermination in the BNP manifesto or any danger of there being one.
If we want to get upset about something as peripheral as Jeffrey Marshall's opinion about whether the seriously disabled should be kept officiously alive in order to pay lip service to the political orthodoxy of indiscriminate compassion, then surely abortion is an issue that is more immediately relevant.
To say we do not care about those who will always be a burden on the state is not a hanging offence.
Jeffrey Marshall should stand by his comments unless he has changed his mind.
If his comments are indeed hanging offences, then we can ask them if we live in a "compassionate" totalitarian state where expression of anything that is not apparently compassionate-sounding is by definition thoughtcrime.
Perhaps they would like to send confirmation by return.
There is a resurgence of the "Right" on the Continent as we speak, and there is no similar expenses scandal there.
http://sofiaecho.com/2009/05/24/724102_european-parliament-elections-2009-pleas-not-to-aid-extremist-parties
As far as I am concerned, I stand by everything I have said here and elsewhere, but am willing to apologise and withdraw any statement should the need arise and facts and events prove me wrong.
We are all entitled to our opinion and our views, BNP or not. There is no indication that Jeffrey Marshall is about to become dictator and institute euthanasia and mass extermination of whoever it is The Observer and others are trying to suggest he wants exterminated.
There is no stated policy of eugenics and mass extermination in the BNP manifesto or any danger of there being one.
If we want to get upset about something as peripheral as Jeffrey Marshall's opinion about whether the seriously disabled should be kept officiously alive in order to pay lip service to the political orthodoxy of indiscriminate compassion, then surely abortion is an issue that is more immediately relevant.
To say we do not care about those who will always be a burden on the state is not a hanging offence.
Jeffrey Marshall should stand by his comments unless he has changed his mind.
If his comments are indeed hanging offences, then we can ask them if we live in a "compassionate" totalitarian state where expression of anything that is not apparently compassionate-sounding is by definition thoughtcrime.
Perhaps they would like to send confirmation by return.
5 comments:
I've noticed you support the BNP, judging by some of your comments.
Do you advocate media which is subsumed by the current government in order to influence public opinion?
I would assume not, as that would be an imposition from a totalitarian government, which is something you seem to be opposed to. Yet this is a policy that Nick Griffin has at one point supported, along with the claim that disingenuity is essential in establishing support for a party. Once those two claims are combined, when considering the audience, it is hard to ever trust a word that comes out of his mouth. I'm sure your LibLabCon leaders, or however you state it, have done made similar statements or have demonstrated that commitment, but at least they did better to cover it up.
As for Susan Boyle, she had already suffered a nervous breakdown before receiving second place, but I very much doubt that would have influenced your opinion of her. The same paradigm can be seen with Pat Condell. He denigrated the Muslim protesters against the Iraq war. Had it been the RRS or Dawkins there, I doubt he'd have the same reaction.
Concerning your website - I highly laud the principles outlaid in the site. I've asked my local MP about the use of the internet in achieving direct democracy, as well as emailing Mike Godwin about it... However, I think some problems could use ironing out. The first is of systemic bias - the audience your website serves is limited by where the link is posted and found, how many people have access to it, among other things. The second is of framing of the questions, which can severely impact the results. In implementing law based on direct democracy, I think minimum participation, free access to all citizens who would wish to vote and deadlines would have to be considered. In order to achieve some degree of consistency, debate would have to be encouraged on issues. Minimum terms set in which the laws will not be overturned, nor similar, but opposite laws by imposed. Of course, this would be subject to dismissal as the result of completely unforeseen circumstances... Sorry if this is old hat to you, I've read a little and commented a lot. That said, I've bookmarked your website and I'll try to spread it around. Though I may travel in more liberal circles. C'est la vie.
To be honest, Anonymous, I did not quite understand your question:
"Do you advocate media which is subsumed by the current government in order to influence public opinion?" and hope you will come back to explain.
It is hard to trust anything that comes out of anyone's mouth, really, but one must assume that politicians will at least try to do what is both popular and in the National Interest.
Not being blessed with unlimited funds, I am unable to obtain the publicity necessary for 1party4all to be brought into British public's consciousness.
The trouble is that even with those who desire change, they are curiously close-minded about how the change is to come about and who is to bring this about.
It being the case that is usually the "Far Right" who are feeling the most disgruntled, it is invariably the case that they are more active online.
Also, most people prefer not to venture out of their comfort zones.
The awful truth is nobody likes politics - they view political engagement as hypocritical and self-serving, or futile, upsetting and frustrating.
1party4all is really just to demonstrate the purest and fairest form there is and really to introduce the concept to a generally apathetic and antagonistic public.
I had in mind my version of corporate direct democracy working along the lines of company law and under a narrower franchise.
Of course this very idea dismays and distresses people.
I have approached many people who are active politically, but they want a website which is just perfect and what they want.
No such thing exists, of course, because most people don't really know what they want or can't articulate it with sufficient detail and clarity.
"Just make me feel happy and safe again", they all seem to be saying, but it is the nature of politics to upset and discomfit us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw
This is what I'm talking about. You describe yourself as a political commentator. Would you be happy working for the Ministry of Truth?
There is a lot of pro- and anti-BNP propaganda here there and everywhere, and I believe the most sensible thing to do is judge them by their manifesto and what they say officially.
I therefore wonder if Anonymous of 17 June 2009 21:41:00 BST agrees with the "eggstremist" eggthrowers on College Green that there should be "no free speech for Fascists"?
I suppose you could call me an extremist Libertarian because I actually believe in free speech for all, whether BNP or not, shocking though this might sound to you, Anonymous.
"Fascist" by the way, has no real meaning now, if you are not Italian and not a supporter of Mussolini.
It is is just a general term of abuse meaning "bossy, micromanaging, aggressive, unpleasant and possibly violent".
In any case, I reject the false dichotomy of "Left" and "Right" and prefer to divide political ideologies between the Puritans, ie those who would ban things and pass more restrictive laws, and the Libertarians, who just want themselves and others to be left alone if no one is harmed.
Perhaps now would be an appropriate time to revive the terms of Roundhead and Cavalier?
The entire number of query to become attempted is hundred.
Post a Comment