Noel Edmonds is not news

This popped up on the BBC latest news ticker thing that goes across the top of the browser.

How in the name of blue holy Valhalla, is that important breaking news that the country must hear about urgently? I mean, it's not like there hasn't been anything important happening lately except that whole worldwide recession thing.

Barack Obama is......

Barack Obama contributed an article to The Times today, the online version of which can be veiwed here. I particularly like the fact that at the end of the article, the paper kindly points out to readers that 'Barack Obama is President of the U.S'. I'm just wondering how many people who read The Times do not have any idea who Barack Obama is? Someone who reads The Times and does not know who he is, would quite possibly be the most unique imbecile in the country. Or smashed off their tits on acid.

Google Street

Apparently Google Street has had to remove a lot of images following complaints from people photographed. One includes a picture of what appears to be a man either vomiting or about to give another man head. I cannot decide.

Fortunately, the BBC reproduced it for posterity here, seemingly oblivious to the irony of the whole situation.

St. Patrick's Day

Went out last night for St. Patrick's Day. Noticed two things.

1) What is romantic about spending the night getting off with a bloke in a bar? It's hardly very poetic. Especially when the guy instantly squeezes the girls arse like his making orange juice as soon as she succumbs to the rohipnol. Plus wetlook tights look absolutely horrendous, and clearly attract morons.

2) It's St. Patrick's Day, you must dress up. So hey, why not go for the Republic of Ireland football shirt? "It's St. Patrick's Day, so I've come as an Irish person". - Well thank fuck you pointed that out with the shirt, I thought you'd come as a German.

Baader Meinhof/Generation Kill

By chance I saw two motion picture events this week that I feel the sudden urge to pointlessly type away into this thing about.

Number one is The Baader Meinhof Complex. I saw this Wednesday night and found it an extremely interesting film. The way the film bought out the character of Ulrike Meinhof and thus the whole question of why someone would resort to terrorism was I felt both the best, and most frustrating part of the film. The best because it made me simply think about the mindset and just generally the sort of person who gets involved in a terrorist organization, but also the most frustrating because it was not fully developed and thus I was left feeling that I didn't totally understand the fundamental question of why? But then again, the movie only had a limited time to show the major events of the RAF in the 1970s, which it did very well, but ultimately was not able to bring the main protaganists characters out fully.

The second feature of my week was the last in the series of Generation Kill. For anyone who hasn't seen this, and that is probably the vast majority of people as it was shamelessly shown only on Fx, yet the series showed how truly amateur British television is by comparison. Over the course of 7 episodes, the series followed the men of Bravo Company, in the U.S Marines 1st Recon Battalion as they invaded Iraq in 2003. This was from start to finish, a simply brilliant series. And had one of the most fascinatingly powerful endings which has to be seen in the context of the whole series to be fully understood. It was not an exceptional ending, but the way it was done, I just found it an immensely powerful and thought-provoking reflection on a group of young men taking part in the most controversial and complex military conflicts of recent times.

On the Shoulders of Giants

I have such exciting days. At work today I discovered a giant paper clip. It was so big, I put it next to a fine liner marker pen for comparison.

Then I indulged in some more junk mail. Finding this little fact on how the female body works.

"Give her love, give her fuel with your extra mega tool."

I never knew that women apparently use sperm for energy.

I have also noticed that they seem to have hired a poet to write these email subjects, as more and more are showing literary flair. Especially this one.

"Become bigger and cooler and start loving a ruler"

Brilliant. I think we could have a new W.B. Yeats on our hands here.

Afghanistan

Found this on the BBC news today - Obama hints at talks with Taleban

I went to a lecture on Friday evening in which a very esteemed and frighteningly clever Professor from Harvard gave a talk on Barack Obama and the American Democratic Tradition. Afterwards most of the questions focused on the prospects of changing the American political landscape, especially after hopes were raised to epically high proportions during his election campaign. My own view on that is that he will find it incredibly hard, a Democrat president will always struggle immensely, even with a majority, as they have to fight both the Republicans and their own right, let alone a cultural hegemony dominated still by Reaganism - or in this country, Thatcherism. Although, a crisis does provide opportunity, I personally don't sense that the institutions which create our political culture in the UK are ready for the end of the 1980s consensus, and I suspect the same is true of the USA. (see Gramsci on culture and hegemony, I think the guy's work on culture is fantastic)

Anyway, this story at the top is linked, because a friend afterwards mentioned that he wanted to ask about Afghanistan, as it seemed that change wouldn't be a short time coming there, in fact if anything, the fresh injection of more US troops suggested more of the same in that troubled land. I had wondered several times before about how exactly the war against the Taleban was supposed to be won? I have been studying Vietnam recently, and although casualties are a lot lower (on the US side anyway), it seems that the war in Afghanistan against the Taleban could be just as unwinnable, if the US is looking for a conventional victory. Unfortunately, unlike Vietnam, the war was sparked by a direct attack on the USA itself, which means that these sorts of questions could be resisted even more than they were in Vietnam. But I cannot see how this insurgency can be fully defeated and the Taleban banished forever, short of devastating the whole of Afghanistan. Thus, they will have to negotiate at some point. So hopefully, talks with the Taleban could be a very small step on the road to change in Afghanistan.

Bowl of Rice and a Gun in Your Back

Found this gem earlier on theregister.co.uk about the latest BNP anti-immigration poster using a picture of a Spitfire flown by a Polish Squadron during the war. The attempt by Simon Derby to defend the poster was a piece of pure unadulterated bollocks. I quote from the article;

"It's not like the BNP are against Polish people as a nation. We are against Polish people coming over here and undercutting British workers. I mean how would the Polish people feel if their government started letting in millions of Vietnamese and letting them work for three bowls of rice a day. That's exactly what it's like over here at the moment - our government has let far too many people in."

Yes that is exactly what it is like. The government imports Polish workers and pays them on three bowls of rice a day. Millions of them are here, sat around building sites all over the country, eating their rice. Three bowls of rice is officially the minimum wage now.

I think Mr. Derby was listening to the radio the other day, and what he believed to be a statement from Gordon Brown was actually 'Holiday in Cambodia'.

I'd Rather be a Lefty Than These Morons

Stumbled upon the 'BNP Language & Concepts Discipline Manual' earlier, I recommend everyone read it, it is available on their website and is a hoot. Frighteningly, people believe this crap.

For example

"Rule #1: The BNP is not a ‘racist’ or ‘racial’ or ‘racialist’ or ‘race-conscious’ or ‘white’ or ‘white-people’s’ party. It should never be referred to as such by BNP activists, and anyone else who does so must be politely but firmly corrected. The precisely correct description of what we are, in the standard terminology of international comparative politics, is an ‘ethno-nationalist’ party. That is, we espouse, like many political parties all over the world, the interests of the particular ethnic groups to which we belong. There is nothing fascistic or unusual about this, and we don’t have to apologise for it. If we must describe our attitude towards race, it is ‘racial realism,’ as no-one can admit being against realism."

Precisely, if people cannot be convinced by divisive and hateful ideologies, then term it as something people cannot dispute. Like 'realism' or 'accept this or I'll smash your fucking face in'.

"Rule #4: ....it is absolutely necessary for us to draw a clear distinction between the ‘bad old days’ of the party (before 2000) and ‘what we represent today.’ Today, we stand for ‘21st century nationalism,’ as opposed to the outdated ‘20th century nationalism’ which had so many problems. Without this distinction, bad deeds from ‘our naughty past’ can be used to mis-characterise our present political identity. Since these bad deeds did occur, denying them merely creates an impression of dishonesty, while admitting them is disarmingly honest and prevents our enemies from blocking our message by dwelling on our past."

Yeah 20th century nationalism had so many downsides such as Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, the Holocaust etc etc. But they have changed. Remember no racism.

"Rule #15. BNP activists and writers should never refer to ‘black Britons’ or ‘Asian Britons’ etc, for the simple reason that such persons do not exist. These people are ‘black residents’ of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese. Collectively, foreign residents of other races should be referred to as ‘racial foreigners’, a non-pejorative term that makes clear the distinction needing to be drawn. The key in such matters is above all to maintain necessary distinctions while avoiding provocation and insult."

Yes you cannot be racist when other races don't exist. Genius. Immigration doesn't exist either.

"Rule #17. Britain does not have ‘immigrants,’ a term proper for use in settler societies like Canada, Argentina, and the USA. It has ‘guest workers,’ ‘foreign workers,’ or ‘descendants of foreign workers.’ They are, depending on who they are, ‘racial foreigners,’ ‘religious foreigners’ or ‘persons of foreign religion,’ or ‘ethnic foreigners.’"

Britain has always been settled apparently, and thus those who came over with the Saxons are merely 'descendants of foreign workers'. Of course, those descended from Jewish migration are O.K as well.

Rule #11: The BNP is not an antisemitic party: we do not believe that Jews per se are bad, though we do, of course, reserve the right to condemn individual Jews that are doing something bad. Because of the inflammatory nature of this issue, as well as the party’s past, it is best to simply never speak or write of Jews at all. It is especially important not to use them as a clumsy code word for other things: if you really mean ‘American imperial ambitions in the Middle East’ or ‘the treasonous propensities of international financiers,’ then simple truthfulness requires that you say so. Same goes for ‘Zionism,’ which means the belief that Palestine belongs to the Jews and is not a general synonym for ‘Jews behaving badly.’"

What is brilliant about this statement is that they claim they will condemn Jews who do bad things but will not write or speak of Jews at all. That is an interesting idea. Also, I love the 'We're not anti Semitic but....' overtones of that paragraph.

So there we have it, the BNP successfully dispel the myth that they are racist and xenophobic by being racist and xenophobic.