A Manufactured Controversy

There are some things in life that are so Goddamn awful that the English language as we know it just doesn’t convey our emotions. I know a good twenty or so words, and fuck is one of my most highly rated, but even that doesn’t do justice to the feeling when I watch the news and see someone as fucking fucked up as that fucker Sarah Palin. But she now knows how I feel, because she’s seen something so horrendous that she felt the need to invent a new word. What can be so dreadful to cause such a commotion? What minor local issue can be so important that a President’s reelection could lie in the balance because of it? Well fuck me if the Muslims haven’t arrived in America, Sharia law in tow, and it starts right now in down town lower Manhattan.

With a name like “Ground Zero Mosque” I must admit I was expecting something pretty awesome. Fuck whose religion it is, spending £100 million on a bad ass building is cool. I was expecting a giant monstrosity of a building, one that requires Satan’s PA system every time it calls people to prayers. At the very least I wanted surface to air missiles, machine-gun turrents, and enough small arms to fuel a military coup. And judging by how people are going on, that’s what we’re going to get.

Except we’re not. The Ground Zero Mosque is A) Not at Ground Zero and B) Not a mosque. As far as names go “Ground Zero Mosque” is pretty bad. The best explanation comes from Keith Olbermann, with his shit hot American accent:

So, ok, it’s isn’t a mosque. But isn’t it, you know, a bit Muslimy, and aren’t they all, like, terrorists? The Imam behind it all has committed such hideous Jihadi offences such as working with the FBI, and lecturing against Islamic extremism. But the board, maybe they’re all evil and beardy? Well let’s look at the board;  A Catholic nun, a Vice President of a Jewish center and an under-Secretary-General of the UN. Clearly Bin Laden has hand picked these people personally to lead the Islamic assault on America.

We can also ask ourselves, if this isn’t a mosque at Ground Zero, why is it being described so? The answer is obvious; calling it accurately as a “Islamic community center open to people of all faiths a good distance and completely out of sight of Ground Zero” will not provide ire among the population. By calling it this the right acknowledges the fact that the truth is not anywhere near as controversial. The reasons for doing so I will return to.

So if “The Ground Zero Mosque” isn’t as it seems, what’s the controversy about? Well the criticism essentially is this; the 9/11 attackers did what they did in the name of Islam. Therefore to build something Islamic near Ground Zero is either a “victory” for terrorists, or an insult to the victim’s memories. It’s a pretty small victory, if a community center opposing fundamentalist Islam was built two blocks away from Ground Zero. Doubtless that is exactly what Bin Laden hoped would happen nine years after the attacks. And it’s a pretty big insult, a community center that the families of the victims will never see, and wouldn’t have heard of if not for the huge controversy.

So why the controversy? It’s not a mosque, it’s not near Ground Zero, it’s not run by radicals. In short there’s nothing any reasonable person would get worked up about. But if we look at where the controversy is coming from, the far right, then a dark and cynical reason emerges.

The far right don’t don’t care about this multi-culturalism nonsense, coexistence or any of that; they want a far right Christian state, and everything else be damned. Looking at the “mosque” issue this way tells us that instead of what most people perceive; that this is an irrational campaign based on ignorance, that actually this is an entirely rational campaign to attack mainstream Islam.

The anti-Islam movement fears the moderate Muslims far more than the radicals. It’s easy to turn people against Al Qaeda. They fly fecking planes into buildings forchristsake. But to turn people against the Muslims who want to live peacefully, who want a liberal state, who are quintessentially American, is far harder. Hence either A) Trying to link all moderate Muslim groups with radicals or B) Claim Islam itself is the problem.

With the community center we’ve seen both of these tactics, to varying success. But the latter has been more effective. As the article says, the only opposition to the community center can lie in either ignorance or holding all of Islam responsible for the attack. Over 50% of Americans oppose the building of a “mosque”, so the Christian right have succeeded in getting the majority of American people to essentially unite against Islam. And it is only a small step from “no mosque at place X” to “no mosques anywhere.” That is what the right wants. Indeed this is starting. As the Guardian writes the controversy over the mosque is “fuelling anti-Muslim protests across US”.

The irony is this attitude plays into the hands of Al Qaeda and militant Islamic organizations. Al Qaeda and the Christian far right are partners in the same game. Both give each other what they need. They are each others greatest ally.

It’s difficult to tell just how much they know their actions benefit militant extremists. They could just be ignorant, but there are more worrying possibilities.

George Bush’s administration was heavily influenced, and indeed staffed, by these sorts of people. The Bush administration pushed on with policies (the most obvious being the Iraq War) that they knew would cause an increase in the possibility of further terrorist attacks. Indeed terrorism has increased sevenfold since the invasion of Iraq, in line with the predictions the Bush administration ignored, putting short term interest ahead of the safety of their nation. So the possibility exists the anti-Muslim crowd know their actions increase the chance of terrorism, but push on with it nonetheless, as the benefits of stoking Islamophobia outweigh the safety of their country.

A third, even more worrying possibility exits; they push on with their actions in the knowledge that their actions increase the chance of terrorism, and that is a factor in why they do it. If we understand attacks by radical Muslims further the agenda of the anti-Muslim crowd, then logically it follows they hope for further attacks, knowing it will play into their hands, and create a perpetual cycle which benefits their agenda, at the expense of the wellbeing of perhaps the entire world. This may be a step too far for some people, but considering many on the Christian right practically pray for nuclear Armageddon, it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility.

Regardless of why, it is clear the actions of the right are endangering us all. Liberals and the left must not cower from the challenge. Joining in with the bellicose words of the right only makes things worse. American liberals need to grow the pair of balls they have so desperately been missing and stand up to the right. The right are winning. This controversy has been beneficial to their cause, as they doubtless knew when creating it. This isn’t about a mere Islamic center; this is about Islam’s wider role in American society. This could be a large step in turning the American people against all Muslims.

They came first for the Muslims…


Just an example of the far right stoking up the controversy to further their own ends is the Coalition to Honour Ground Zero. The website for which is owned by the neo-conservative Frank Gaffney. Some of Gaffney’s enlightened thoughts are that Obama is a Muslim and is trying to impose Sharia law on America by, well, your guess is as good as mine as to what he’s smoking to come up with that conclusion. The Mission Statement bemoaning certain mosques as “Trojan Horses” echoes the concept of the “latency phase” where Muslims are coming in as undercover terrorists, with little baby terrorists.


Defending Israeli war crimes; the drinking game

Since the massacre of Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s little bitches have had their work cut out justifying every white phosphorous attack, every “systematic” destruction of civilian targets, every abuse, every murder, every crime. In a way I pity them. Previously they could trot out the old excuses, as the world reviled at the suicide bombings on Israel. But after the 2008-2009 massacre everything changed. In the words of Gideon Levy;

“The world acts differently toward us, turns a blind eye to Dimona and is silent about the occupation, and now it no longer wants to keep silent about Gaza. Why? Because this time we went too far.”

After the initial reports during the invasion, the world was taken back, but Israel’s defenders carried on, against all odds. Like the defenders of the Alamo, they took it upon themselves to defeat the hoards of anti-Semitic evidence produced. The IDF fucked up a school? Hamas were using it to fire rockets. The IDF fucked up a hospital? Hamas were using it to fire rockets. The IDF fuck up children? Hamas were using them as human shields. How do you know all this? Oh we don’t, but our blind prejudice tells us those towel heads are monsters and those lovely Western people are all kind hearted. But then the reports came out. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, the Goldstone Misson. All respected organizations and individuals, all carrying a consistent message; Israel’s assault on Gaza caused untold death and destruction. As the facts of the invasion became clear, and the pro-Israeli accounts were shown to be bollocks (see This Time We Went Too Far, Norman Finkelstein [New York, 2010] for a total demolition of the Cordesman report) Israel’s defenders had to come up with new excuses to satisfy their bloodlust.

So as the inane arguments arose, I’ve decided to give some sort of meaning to them. They’re useless in debate, but I figured if I make a drinking game out of it, their time and effort wouldn’t have been in vain. So here it is; fill your house with cheap, weak alcohol (you’re going to do a lot of drinking), load up a speech defending Israel (or, for the more adventurous, sneak into a debate with a hipflask of an alcohol of your choosing, and do it there*) and get ready for a hangover

1 Finger

  • Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East
  • The Old Testament says Palestine is ours
  • The IDF is “the most moral army in the world”
  • The world is “demonizing” Israel
  • Why does everyone criticize Israel when other bad shit is happening?
  • Blatant factual lie i.e. Hamas broke the truce
  • Totally dodges the question i.e. so why does Israel systemically torture prisoners? “Israel complies with the rule of law etc” n.b. in dodging the question the statesman may commit another drinking hazard i.e. Israel is a democracy that doesn’t torture. In this case do two fingers.
  • Totally ignores Israeli double standards e.g. Hamas uses human shields, but doesn’t mention Israel does it too

2 Fingers

  • X is true because IDF spokesman Y said so
  • Jewish critic of Israel is a “self hating Jew”
  • It’s the Palestinian’s fault we’re oppressing them
  • Clash of Civilizations

3 Fingers

  • Compares Hamas to Nazis, but then gets angry when someone makes the same comparison to Israel, as it’s in bad taste.

Down Pint

  • Look, who gives a fuck about those sand-niggers?
  • I enjoy beating one off to the dead children, ok?

Drink every alcoholic substance within a square mile

  • Mossad take out person asking difficult question
  • Speaker actually gives a compelling argument.

Note – Obviously these don’t have to be word for word, just the general concept is needed to drink. If in doubt; drink.

* I take no responsibility for anyone getting caught. In fact, I should say don’t do this, being the responsible adult that I am. But what I am saying is you should definitely do this.

The Daily Masturbate – part 2

I’ve never really understood conservatives. I’m talking about the relatively sane conservatives, not the Tea Party movement in America or a comparatively batty equivalent. No, in Britain we have right wing conservatives, but they’re British right wing conservatives, which means they’re too polite to be too mental. Let’s face it, you’re not going to get Sir Anthony Wilson the Third complaining about what the proles study in school like the right do in America are you? But all the same, I’ve never really got my head around these contradictions.

One core tenant of conservatism is their traditional morality. So down with computer games, pornography and adultery, and up with family values, faithfulness and 60 year old whisky. But no-one quite likes sleazy pornography like conservatives. The Daily Mail is a great example of this. Conservative until the end, the Mail campaigns against this permissive society where children are taught about sex before the age of 35, and filth lines the screens of the idiot’s lantern. However, there is no newspaper that rejoices more in said filth than the Mail. Despite trying to give itself an image as a “quality” newspaper (whenever we have one of them tell me) the Mail still falls back to smut and garbage. So let’s have a look as this conservative moralism today, the 25th of May.

The Female section on the right hand side of the website is a good start. Let’s see how it progresses:

Cheeky Amanda Holden gives a glimpse of the derrière her husband had immortalised in a plaster cast

First link in and we have a picture of some ass. Nice. 6/10

Victoria Beckham shows off her tousled new bed-head bob at mobile phone party

A disappointing effort next. Plenty of moderately attractive women in dresses, but it would take some imagination to beat one out over that. 2/10

Rivalry, what rivalry? SJP steals show in hot lemon as Sex And The City stars dress up to the nines for world premiere of sequel

Another disappointing effort. Same as above. 2/10

Miley Cyrus sports a tiny polka dot bikini during a family break in Mexico with her country star father Billy Ray

Now this is more like it. Ticks all the boxes. Barely legal girl? Check. Tiny bikini? Check. Completely pointless? Definitely. 9/10

I’m so very sorry: Shamed Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson sobs as she apologises for letting people down

A valiant attempt to add a bit of spice to the story. Sadly Sarah Ferguson isn’t A) Attractive or B) Remotely naked in any photos, but the Mail do try and make things interesting by showing a picture of young women in skirts as they’re slightly related to Sarah Ferguson. 1/10, but a bonus point for trying, so 2/10

What’s this, the Garden of Eden? Naked woman in full bloom at Chelsea Flower Show (hope the Queen didn’t see)

Blimey, this is the jackpot. Naked women, but it’s “art” so the picture is justified. Get in the hole! 10/10. Also loving the “hope the Queen didn’t see” part. Well if she missed it I’m sure some irresponsible newspaper will show a picture to give her a second chance

Oversized funnyman James Corden stocks up on calories at McDonald’s after baring his belly in the park

Very poor effort. First they call James Corden a “funnyman”, which is scientifically inaccurate. Secondly there’s absolutely nothing to wank over. Third, there seems to be a women in a bikini in a later picture, yet they didn’t get a full frontal of her. The author must be new to the Mail. 0/10

Coronation Street star Samia Smith shows off toned post-baby body

I don’t think anything needs to be added here. 8/10

What’s new Pussycat? Nicole Scherzinger is joined by four new members as PCD unveils a brand new line-up

Some might say this is just another attempt to show attractive women in little clothing, but I have it on good authority that Daily Mail readers are mad for the Pussycat Dolls. 6/10

Kylie Minogue’s seal of approval sends sales of age-old skin lotion rocketing

I’m not sure how to rate this. On the one hand the picture of Kylie’s most famous asset is completely unwarrented. This is an article about her facial cream for frick’s sake. But at the same time, there are far better picture’s of Kylie’s arse floating around the internet. 5/10. Had the imagination but didn’t do enough with it

‘I don’t want Madonna arms’: Christine Bleakley stops pumping iron in the gym

Another disappointing attempt. The Mail have stayed faithful to the (non) story here. They haven’t got any glam photos of Ms Bleakley and instead make her look a bit, well, man-ish. 1/10

Fire up the Quattro! Heather Mills steps back to the Eighties at Arabia 3D premiere

To be honest I’m starting to get bored of these red carpet pictures. 1/10

How Lily Cole went from stunning to studious: From glam in Cannes to cardigan at Cambridge exam

A poor ending. Hot woman doesn’t look quite so hot in exam. Shock horror. I look like a traumatised Vietnam veteran in my exams. 2/10

Overall it’s been a disappointing day for Female readers. Only one nude women and two in bikinis, the rest being mainly red carpet dresses. Still, there’s always tomorrow.

Don’t let Iran get the bomb, only give it to decent regimes, like Apartheid South Africa

What with all the evidence Iran is likely to obtain a nuclear weapon very soon (err?) Israel is making sure the country whose leader threatened to wipe Israel off the map (if you say so) doesn’t get that far. So Israel’s far right tosspot of a Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently stated:

“The greatest danger mankind faces is a radical regime, without limits to its cruelty, obtaining nuclear capabilities”

Quite right. Nuclear weapons should be reserved only for those states with moderate aims and a superb human rights record. States like America and Israel.

So with such rhetoric condemning the potential of radical and brutal regime achieving nuclear armament, it will come as no surprise to cynics around the world that Israel tried to sell nuclear weapons to Apartheid South Africa.

Such a revelation would be an embarrassment to the state of Israel regardless of the context, but with the current climate the timing of this finding has a sweet sense of irony.

You see, Israel aren’t all too happy with a certain judge Goldstone and his report (pdf) because, horror of horrors, it attributes blame towards Israel for the “22 days of dead and destruction” in Gaza (Amnesty International). Naturally Israel and her defenders weren’t going to let this stand. After all, you have a greatly respected Jewish, pro-Israeli judge criticising the actions of Israel. The result of this has been defenders of Israel have thrown everything they possibly can at Goldstone’s methods and character, some of it valid criticism, some of it total shite.

But the most recent attack has been Goldstone’s record in Apartheid South Africa. Now his actions in South Africa at the time were unjustified, yes, and criticism is valid here, although it conveniently ignores the role he played in bringing apart a peaceful end to Apartheid. The origin of this story came from the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth with an article entitled “Judge Goldstone’s dark past”. Sasha Polakow-Suransky who came across the documents about the attempted sale of nuclear weapons in research for his forthcoming book The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa mentions a humorous irony of Yediot Ahronoth’s revelation:

“In October 1985, as it happens, the editor of Yediot Ahronoth’s weekend magazine, Aharon Shamir, came to South Africa to meet with a mid-level Foreign Ministry functionary. When the bureaucrat complained that South Africa was being denounced everywhere as undemocratic but could not risk giving blacks the vote, Shamir advised: “Give the blacks the vote very slowly. See how it works. Bit by bit. If you see that your bit by bit approach is not working, change it. But make the world believe you are sincere. You have to be hypocritical to survive.”

Woops. Still, at least people actually involved in these relations are criticising Goldstone because of this

“Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, who denounced Goldstone as “a man of double standards,” because he “sentenced black people to death” appears to have some double standards of his own. Rivlin was no doubt fully informed of Israel’s military alliance with South Africa during the 1980s, given that he served on the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the 12th Knesset from 1988-1992–a position that gave him nearly unfettered access to sensitive military documents and high-level discussions of Israel’s defense doctrine. These were the peak years of arms sales to South Africa, exceeding $1.5 billion in 1988 and approximately $800 million in 1989.”


Still, I’m sure the pro-Israel lobby will come across a new and perhaps more effective method of attacking judge Goldstone. A fiver says someone claims he walks around naked except for novelty socks.

How to really decide the election

I haven’t really been too interested in the recent election, if I’m brutally honest. The pre-election predictions, television debates, campaigning, and generally bullshit isn’t my idea of fun, whereas the post-election fracas where we endlessly debated about which lucky fellow would taste Nick Clegg’s cock got so confusing and boring even the most hardened union  stalwart secretly wanted Clegg to hurry the fuck up and join the Tories.

But the election has highlighted just how bloody awful our election system is. Single Member Simple Plurality or First Past the Post (FPTP) has never been a wonderful system, which requires a far greater belief in the independence of the House of Commons than there actually is. The MP – constituency link might actually mean something if the MP wasn’t the bitch of their party whips. But the election results have been particularly shocking this year.

A good example is this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/07/general-election-2010-results

“If you divide the number of votes each party received by the number of seats they won (as things stand now), you get these figures:
Conservatives: 35,021
Labour: 33,338
Liberal Democrat: 119,397”

Democracy in action.

But that’s boring, so I’ve come up with a more interesting way of sorting the parties – % of vote relative to large donations. After all, money talks in this election, and understandably the major two parties dominated this area

So the Conservatives got 36.1% of the vote with £7,317,601.74 (who gave the 1.74?) – This means each 1% of the vote cost them £202,703, or £213712 with public funding. Excellent value for money

Labour got 29% with 5,283,198.85 – This means each 1% of the vote cost them £182,179

The Liberal Democrats got 23% with a whopping £724,000 – This means each 1% of the vote cost them £31,478, or £39,752 with public funding.

The Co-Operative Party only got £33,745, but none of the vote. Proof, if it is needed, that the public don’t know what’s best for them.

So the Conservatives – 1% of the vote for £213,712

Labour – 1% of the vote for £182,179

Liberal Democrats – 1% of the vote for £39,752

God forbid what might happen if the parties were on equal footing before a proportional system. Something as hideous as democracy might spring up.

Thieving Foreign Bastards

If there’s one issue that really gets on my wick, it’s the benefits culture in this country. I can deal with all those Pakis and Niggers coming over here and stealing our jobs, because they bring their curry recipes as well. I can deal with this “permissive” society because I secretly knock one out over the moralising articles in the Mail. I can even deal with the fact that’s it’s illegal to murder homos. But the one issue I really can’t stand is those foreigners who come over here, and we just give them everything and expect nothing. Disgusting.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a racist. I even once only kicked a Chinaman half to death because I felt pity on him half-way through. Just the other day a British family were caught sponging off our benefits system. Clear questions need to be asked about why our benefits system is so poor (and also what daft cunts would call their child Mercedes?) But there’s one family I want to focus on in particular.

Now, don’t get me wrong, when a family does come over here, it’s a good thing that we give them a helping hand with funds so they can set up their business. However this family first came to this country over 160 years ago! Since then their benefits have soared.

In a year it is estimated that their expenditure is around £40 million!

I’ll say it again, £40 million. £40 million pounds, and yet they do no work whatsoever!

I can scarce believe it myself.

But that’s not all.

They have 21 (yes, 21) private residences. All paid for at your expense.

So while we have a problem with those lower class spongers, their crimes pale in comparison to some of the great scams that political correctness has allowed in this country.

I’m truly disgusted.

Oh and here’s a picture of the leaching fuckers:

The New BNP Curriculum

Rejoice, racists of the world, you’re now allowed to teach in schools! Herr Hitler would be so proud. Now some killjoys are moaning about active racists not treating black children the same as white children. But this is just a lie. One BNP member told me “We’ll treat those niggers and jungle-buddies the same as our Aryan brothers.” Quite right too.

But while those lefty bastards are moaning about this progressive decision, the BNP have drawn up their timetable for the new school year. Let’s take a look shall we…

8:30-9 – Assembly – The children turn up in their uniform of brown shirts and march into the hall before picking up their daily copy of the Mail. Then the Fuhrer gives a passionate speech on the important events in the week, such as the evidence of anti-white discrimination when a slightly brown looking guy gave him a slightly dodgy look in the street.

9-11 – English – What else? The language isn’t studied, only what it means to be English. The language of Shakespeare is ignored as poofter gay talk and instead they study films such as This is England which is “about skinheads, but they’re not really racist, because one of them is a black kid. They turn on him in the end, but because he was one of the gang they’re not really racist. They just believe in what they believe in

11-1 – Science – None of this liberal dogma about evolution, we’re going straight into eugenics. One hour of lectures being taught of how black people are inferior and a “perfect slave race”. The next is spent studying the ground breaking research done at Auschwitz by the famed Dr. Carl Clauberg and others.

1-2 – Lunch – Instead of the traditional school dining room, everyone sits around a dining table and listens to their grandparents get slightly drunk and complain about the black family down the road. After eating bullying of the local black kids is advised.

2-4 – History – To counter the myth of the “Holocaust” the works of David Irvin and Nick Griffin are examined to prove it was indeed a “Holohoax” Then the wonders of the British Empire are taught, like the good old days when blacks were slaves, Indians were starving, and the white man reigned supreme. Rule Britannia.

4-5 – Politics – And to finish off the day a special visit from the man himself. Miss-tah Niccccccck Griffin.

Well there you have it, the new timetable for our children, ready to create the next generation of Aryan superheros.