Monday, 5 April 2010

The Griffin, the Righteous and Hercules the Parrot.

This is a very tangled one. Even a mustachioed Belgian detective would have trouble with it. Columbo would call it a five-cigar job. However, I think the BNP come out of it rather well, in the end. I cannot say whether it was devised or accidental but it has 'Agatha Christie' all over it.

The Guardian reports that Mark Collett, the nastier side of the BNP, has been arrested for plotting to kill Nick the Griff.

Plausible?

Well, Nick the Griff started out as a serious racist, even to the extent of saying the Holocaust was an exaggeration. I could be wrong on this but as far as I remember, he didn't deny it happened, he claimed it was far less extreme than it really was. Not that that is any excuse. What the Nazis did in those camps is beyond anything anyone would dare put into a modern horror film. Downplaying the extent of their depravity is just wrong.

However, Nick the Griff no longer 'denies the holocaust'. Naturally, the UAF won't let him off with that. I, however, would. He was wrong. He admits he was wrong, and he apologised for saying the things he said. Let it go.

Reference the previous post, and older ones on Righteous methods. One of them is 'the apology'. There are three important rules for Righteous training. One, never compromise. Two, never apologise and three, never admit you were wrong.

Compromise is seen as a weakness by the Righteous. A weakness to be exploited. Which is why I now say smokers must not attempt compromise.

Nick the Griff compromised on his membership requirements. The BNP is no longer 'white only'. Good enough? Nope. That compromise was the wedge just entering the crevice. The Righteous are going to keep hammering. Watch out for demands that the BNP have non-white candidates at the next election, a non-white leader to 'prove they are not racist' and so on. The quotas are coming.

Apology is submission. When you apologise, you set yourself below the person you apologise to. Not consciously or deliberately but by apologising, you are admitting that the other person is in a morally superior position. You are deferring to a higher member of the pack. That is why none of those officials ever apologise, no matter how idiotic their actions have been. That is why calls for 'apology' ring out as soon as anyone says or does anything that could even remotely justify such a call.

Nick the Griff apologised. He also admitted he was wrong. Admitting error means you are not infallible. The Righteous will always use that against you. You were wrong about that thing, years ago, and you confessed. Therefore you are probably wrong about this thing, now.

No Righteous ever admits error. The papers are full of examples.

What we have now is Nick the Griff going a bit soft as far as a hardline thug like Collett is concerned. He's letting the coloured people in and he's apologised for his Holocaust comments and admitted he was wrong.

Would Collett go as far as plotting to kill the Griff? Well, he's a thug, and sees the Griff as going soft, and can't win in any leadership contest, so yes he bloody well would is my conclusion. Whether he did or not, we'll have to wait and see but I do believe he would.

On the other hand, the UAF and Searchlight depend for their very existence on the BNP being run by a clone of Hitler. Nick the Griff softening his previous hardline stance does not sit well with them. They have to keep him evil because if he isn't more evil than Satan, they are out of a job.

At the same time, the Righteous have wedges tapped into crevices in the BNP. They have the reversal on the Holocaust and they now have a crack in the 'whites-only' rule. Since the BNP say they would reverse the smoking ban, they have to be subjugated into Righteousness and those wedges are the start of it.

Then we have the Griff himself. He is not stupid, despite what the UAF etc want us all to believe. He knows that the main weapon against him is his party's historic racism. So he would be happy to let the courts break his whites-only rule because he doesn't really need it any more, and because so many voters are not white these days. If he is going to get anywhere at all, he needs non-white votes. Mark Collett is a liability in every respect - thuggish, hardline, deeply racist and very definitely a Nazi reborn. Many of those initially swayed by the Griffin line would be repulsed by the Collett line. Getting rid of him would help, not hinder, the BNP's chances.

So, could the Griff have set up Collett to take this fall? He's smart enough to do it and smart enough to know that it would boost his party's chances. Did he? We'll probably never know.

Searchlight have jumped on this as proof that the 'non-violent' part of the Griffin rhetoric is a lie.

"Nick Griffin is constantly claiming he is the leader of a moderate, non-violent organisation," the Searchlight spokesman said. "It is difficult to see how he can square that assertion with his statement to the police that his own head of publicity has been plotting to kill him."

Is it difficult, Searchlight Spokesman Four of Seven? A party that claims non-violence finds that a senior member has been plotting violence and immediately expels him. None of the Labour 'well, we'll just have a bit of an inquiry to see whether we should put him on the naughty step for a while'. No, they find he has been up to bad stuff and not only is he out, he is straight in the hands of the police.

How many parties have reacted like that when they find their MPs, never mind their members, are involved in something seriously dodgy?

Searchlight are crowing, the Righteous think they can drive their wedges deeper, but this is PR gold for the BNP. And Nick the Griff knows it.

Could it all be a setup? Possibly, but who among those voters will even consider it? All they will see is that the main obstacle to them considering the BNP - Mark 'Seig heil' Collett - has been removed. They will also see that the BNP do not let their members hide behind the party when they are caught at something dodgy. No matter how senior they are - one strike and you're out. True or not, doesn't matter.

I still won't vote for you, Nick. You have too many policies I just don't like. I think, though, that this bit of news will bring a lot of votes your way if you play it right.

But then, don't forget those Righteous, Nick. They have their wedges in you and the nearer you get to an MP, the deeper they will try to drive them. Don't dismiss the Righteous as irrelevant.

They are far nastier than anything you have ever been accused of.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Where-by I couldn't be 100% certain, I may well have stumbled upon Mark Colet's You Tube channel where-by he gives one or two of his own thoughts, on his internal ruck with Nicky boy Griffin.

Anonymous said...

your a doctor of science leg iron,iq 150 the first casualty of war is the truth

Leg-iron said...

Anon 1 - could be him, but it doesn't 'feel' right.

Anon 2 - 150 is pissed ;) As now.
The truth died before the war started. We can no longer use truth as a weapon in any fight against politics or the Righteous.

Nobody knows what it means any more.

Junican said...

The only thing that worries me about the idea of the holocaust is: where are the bodies? Even if one accepts that bodies were burned, where are all the ashes and the bones? You cannot bury or burn an enormous number of people without traces of those people being evident, can you?

Without denying anything, is it not reasonable to ask what happened to the bodies and where are the ashes and the bones? It may well be that the powers that be have decided that we, the people, are too sqeemish to know the facts.
There is nothing wrong with asking these questions. For example, I do not recall anyone ever saying that hundreds of sacks were found which could be used to transport ash and bones to some other place for processing.

I am not saying that there was no 'holocaust'. I have no idea whether there was or not. But it needs seriously to be asked: where are the bodies?; if no bodies, where are the ashes?; if no ashes, where are the sackes which would have been available to transport the ashes and bones?
These questions need answers.

I know that these are horribly, horribly difficult things for us to contemplate, but if we do not contemplate them, we will never, ever know the truth, will we?

PT Barnum said...

Griffin's past history is far nastier than your observations, from his days with the National Front in the 70s and 80s. What he has, which his short-haired and beer-gutted cohorts lack, is enough nous to play the political game and turn the BNP into something which looks and sounds wholly reasonable. I doubt he has seriously abandoned any of his original obnoxious beliefs but he can appear as if he has.

He has so much more in common with the UAF than either of them realise. Same coin, different sides. Given power, both would annihilate those they regard as subhuman.

Dave H said...

I don't think it's disputed that Grffin said this in court:

"I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat."

It would take a fair piece of sophistry not to summarise that as holocaust denial. Since then, he's been obliged to change his tune out of electoral pragmatism because, frankly, anti-semitism doesn't have much traction with the majority. Anti-Islamism is (quite deservedly) a different matter.

The BNP won't get ever be more than a fringe party (thank God) but I can well understand why people would vote for them: it's the best way of sticking two fingers up at the Righteous, whilst simultaneously pissing and vomiting on them too.

Best of all, if the Labour Party finish behind the BNP anywhere, their collective heads will react if they were in a film by David Cronenberg. Very satisfying.

The Jet Set said...

"Where are the Ashes?...." To think we live in a world where people are educated......

opinions powered by SendLove.to