M'Athhew D'Anconna - '1 Inch' Attacks !

In a torrent of cliches as bitter as salt and as sour as a lemon, the New Statesman editor, Matthew '1 Inch' D'anconna ( so named in a 'street' homage to the American Gansta Rapper 50 Cent and also because of his diminutive, almost freakish, stature) has attacked the BNP.

Cue turkey analogy.

check.

Lets start with the first trite statement ; the BNP is responsible for 'the cultivation of intolerance and racial tension'.

Ooookkaayy.


H'mmmmm.

Now here we see a classic journalistic idiot technique. Conflate causation with correlation. For example a BNP member may decide to go hiking in wales but that does not mean he is responsible for the rainfall in Wales on that day.

First one cannot ' cultivate intolerance'.

I wonder what a 'cultivating intolerance' looks like.

Is it like an aubergine of hatred, a potato of racism or a cauliflower of contempt ?

I suppose it needs bullshit go grow, so Mr. D'Anconna will be quite the grower we expect, seeing as he is so profligate in his ability to disseminate bullshit.

The BNP cannot cultivate intolerance.

Its like comparing the shout of an ant to the scream of the engines of a commercial 747 jet liner.

The media are the primary cultivators in our society, so if intolerance exists it is a product of both the the media and the government who are the two primary cultivators in our society capable of disseminating information capable of changing or directing the social consensus.

If intolerance exists in society it is because the media peddle it and the government cause it.

Intolerance is also a term so wide in its meaning, it means nothing unless specifically linked to an specific type of 'intolerance' - does he mean Lactose Intolerance, Latex Intolerance, Wheat Intolerance or Idiot Intolerance which is what I get when I read Mr. D'Anconnas old bollocks.

Therefore the BNP do not disseminate or cultivate intolerance.

Moving on.

" Like Sinn Fein-IRA with its “Armalite and ballot box” strategy, the BNP runs on twin tracks ".

Well, no. Not really.

Thats a lie isnt it Matthew.

The IRA had a political strategy based on terrorism and democracy.

We have one based simply on democracy.

So neither factually nor numerically is Matthew correct on that one either.

Moving on.

As for the phrasing of 'Skinhead brutes', you can almost the homo-erotic sigh at the end cant you.

If you would like us to leave the room and leave you alone with your laptop Matthew, just let us know.

Heres a tip - an interesting story, and one that Matthew might to look into as a future exclusive for the New Statesman, is the new about the wheelchair bound, blind, one legged, transexual, female professional bodyguard from Guadeloupe just put in charge of protecting the Pope.

Havent heard of it.

Thats because it wont ever happen will it you dick.

So until then expect to see heavy set, white, working class males, big built and wearing scary sunglasses do security work in this country.

Cue 'bunker' gag.

Check.


' A minor strain of hostility' he calls racial strife between various immigrant groups in London.

Oh right.

I suppose Mr.A'nconna would describe the Iraq War as a 'bit of a tiff - with bombs'.


In fact I think he did, seeing as he is a Zionist tool in their Zionist media toolbox.

He is a spanner I think.

Melanie Phillips is the insidious rusty, stanley knife at the bottom of the box with the blade exposed that seeks to cut any hand that dares enter the Zionist toolbox.

Edmund Standing is that fluff encrusted Blu-tack that never sticks again to anything, even including the stickiest substance in the entire universe if it could ever be found.

I suppose in D'Anconna Land the American Civil War was a family spat, WW2 was a bloody good row and

Vietnam just a harsh stare.

An exchange of gunfire in the streets, murder, stabbings, shootings, gang warfare = minor hostility.


" fan the flames and exploit the simmering anger. "

Check.


" historical product of nations and races coming together ".

Check.


Uh oh - whats this.

" a black American musical form — the blues " - funny that.

Wasnt it a white man who invented the guitar and who invented the electric guitar ?

Try playing blues on the spoons (also invented by a white man).

It just aint the same.

Adolph Rickenbacker, George Beauchamp and Les Paul developed the electric guitar and they were all white.

The earliest extant six string guitar was built in 1779 by Gaetano Vinaccia (1759 - after 1831) in Naples, Italy. Also white.


Therefore the blues was just singing, before the white man invented the guitar.

As for Blues music that came from the spiritual songs of the Southern Scots-Irish Churches of the time that christianised their Black African slaves.

Studies by Willie Ruff and others have situated the origin of "black" spiritual music inside enslaved peoples' exposure to their masters' Hebridean-originated gospels.[6] African-American economist and historian Thomas Sowell also notes that the southern, black, ex-slave population was acculturated to a considerable degree by and among their Scots-Irish "redneck" neighbours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_blues

So using the Blues musical genre as a way to talk about white musicians absorbing black influences, when in fact the guitar was invented by whites, the electric guitar invented by whites and the Blues musical genre began as a form of spiritual singing in the Scots-Irish Churches of the South that was taught to Christianised African slaves and which they copied is a bit silly isnt it.

Clapton going to America was returning the Blues to it White roots, not Whitey seeking blues credibility by mimicking Black Blues musicians.

Jeff Beck and Clapton are true Blues singers of a White tradition, not scions of an exclusively black musical genre.

But hey, why should D'Anconna know this - he is just a journalist aint he, and most of them talk out of their arses dont they.

Bored now of talking about D'Anconna.

Got something more important to do. Like watch Friends or something.



















http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23805912-beware-the-bnp-has-never-been-more-dangerous.do


If turkeys had the vote, it is theoretically possible that they would join a party that was strongly pro-Christmas. Possible, but unlikely.

Yesterday, the BNP voted at an “extraordinary general meeting” in Essex to amend its constitution so black and Asian Britons can join its ranks. As Nick Griffin, the BNP's leader, told Sky News, this is likely to result in a “trickle, rather than a flood” of membership applications: and even a “trickle” may be pushing it.

The whole idea is, of course, innately hilarious: a party founded on the cultivation of intolerance and racial tension declaring that it has an open-door policy. In its 2005 manifesto, the BNP called for “voluntary resettlement” of immigrants and their descendants. So it wants you to leave the country but, before you do, invites you to join up and pay the membership fees (a standard rate of £30 pa, or £60 for the party's “gold” category, which presumably will entitle its new black and Asian members to a better class of dinghy when they are urged “to return to their lands of ethnic origin”).

Yet, even as we mock, we should be vigilant. The BNP is exploiting this constitutional change for all it is worth, both as evidence that it is being victimised and (the opposite claim) that it is voluntarily “modernising”. In truth, the new membership policy has been forced upon the party by the threat of legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. On the BNP's website, there is currently a webcast by Griffin, complaining about the quango's attack on “this little party of ours”.

At the same time, the new membership policy fits neatly with his more general pursuit of incremental legitimacy. Like Sinn Fein-IRA with its “Armalite and ballot box” strategy, the BNP runs on twin tracks. Look at the so-called “security” at BNP gatherings if you doubt that the party still depends on a hardcore of skinhead brutes. At the same time, Griffin himself — a suit-wearing Cambridge graduate — has fought for years to bring the movement out of the Bierkeller and into mainstream political life.

This is why the election of two BNP candidates (Griffin and Andrew Brons) to the European Parliament last June was so depressing: it gave the party a claim to more serious media coverage, including Griffin's hugely contentious appearance on Question Time last November. The opening of the party's membership to non-whites is also part of this spurious process of “modernisation”: Clause Fourth Reich, so to speak.

Tony Blair had his Big Tent. Now Griffin will pretend that he has a Big Bunker, a rainbow coalition of prejudice. And it is certainly true that a plural society inevitably generates new tensions: where I live in east London, there is now a minor strain of hostility between second and third generation Afro-Caribbean Britons and newer arrivals from the enlarged EU: the working-class black community objects that it is being driven out of the service economy — cleaning, childcare — by Eastern European economic migrants who have undercut their wage-rates. In an age of globalisation and unprecedented population mobility, any complex urban society will generate such abrasions. And deplorable political movements such as the BNP will always be on hand to fan the flames and exploit the simmering anger.

As I wrote in November, Griffin and his gang are themselves refugees from reality, asylum seekers from the modern world. They choose to ignore the significant role that economic migration played (and will play again) in the years of non-inflationary growth. Worse, they seek to preserve something that never really existed: Britain is the historical product of nations and races coming together and commingling. Historically, this country has been a port rather than a fortress, a place of trade, exchange and racial interaction. Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, Jews, Afro-Caribbeans, Asians, Eastern Europeans: pluralism is the very essence of our island story. Some of my best friends are Jutes.

At the wonderful Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck concert at the O2 Centre last night, it occurred to me that Britain is the only country on earth that could take a black American musical form — the blues — adapt it to a new setting and, eventually, revive it in its very country of origin (as Clapton and many others did in the Sixties). The BNP has no grasp of the porousness and heterogeneity of true Britishness.

Yet, more than ever in its 28-year history, the party represents a clear and present danger. A matter of weeks from now, it will field a number of parliamentary candidates in the general election: most dangerously, Griffin himself in Barking. The seat is held by Labour's Margaret Hodge, defending a majority of almost 9,000.

Safe? By no means. Labour's own polling shows that the category of voter most easily described as “white van man” is warming alarmingly to the BNP: in seven out of 11 wards, more than 50 per cent of this tranche of voters — more than 70 per cent in some areas — think they might vote for Griffin. Ever willing to nurture the voters' anxieties and resentments, the BNP has prospered during the recession and exploited the collapse of trust in the political class. In Barking, it sees a real chance to pull off an extraordinary victory.

It is bad enough that the party is represented in town halls and at Strasbourg. But the election of Griffin as an MP would be much, much worse. For the Commons is not just another representative assembly. Never forget: in our unwritten constitution, the Queen-in-Parliament is sovereign. I don't know about you, but the thought of the BNP having a share in that sovereignty, however small, makes me sick to the stomach, and more determined than ever that the battle of Barking should not be lost. In the end, in spite of all its absurdities, the BNP's advance is no laughing matter.