Search This Blog

Saturday, 4 September 2010

The Root of Our Problem — Drawing Back the Veil on Censorship

The Root of Our Problem — Drawing Back the Veil

Ever wondered why the media never criticise or even mention the violent activities of groups who oppose the British National Party or groups which try to disrupt the lawful activities of BNP members? Dr Phil Edwards, former national press officer for the party, makes some observations.
When thousands of leftist demonstrators blockaded the BBC Television Centre last October 2009 in an attempt to prevent BNP Chairman Nick Griffin from appearing on BBC’s Question Time, a number of police officers were injured and arrests were made. But there was no criticism of the mob by the media.
That year’s Red White and Blue Festival had similar disruption; again without any media criticism of UAF and similar groups who used violence and intimidation to prevent the arrival of visitors.
Ever wondered why the media routinely brand the BNP as “violent” or “thuggish” when BNP members studiously avoid ANY confrontation that could lead to such violence, whilst at the same time the same media ignore the violent history of left wing and other Marxist inspired activists?
What precisely is “wrong” or “hateful” in using the political process to protect our homeland from the problems caused by enforced diversity and mass, uncontrolled immigration and why do the media never report even the slightest possibility that we may have some valid points?
After all, many of us can agree with parts of the establishment’s status quo. Where’s the reciprocity?
Then there’s the constant repetition in the press of certain untruths about the capabilities of our politicians (false evaluations of Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time being a prime example) or a total lack of objectivity with regard to reporting of BNP policies.
And why should “indigenous” be put in parenthesis (“  ”) when applied to indigenous Brits but not when applied to, say Australian aborigines, or Native Americans?
Why do ordinary people, our co-racial, indigenous people, react so strangely and irrationally when the BNP is mentioned and why are so many people totally unaware of our true aspirations?
Finally, in an age where politicians and media folk fall over themselves to parade their “equal opportunity” credentials, why is there zero media criticism of individuals or organisations which discriminate against BNP election candidates by barring them from election hustings or other debating opportunities?
Now, it shouldn’t need me to point out the obvious inconsistencies of the above — any fair minded person will see immediately how irrational and illogical the media are behaving.
The old adage “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story” is only part of the answer to the mystery. No, there’s a very sinister and worrying aspect to this whole situation, and without the unique catalytic property of nationalism in general and the British National Party in particular, it would pass unnoticed.
Our exposure of the root cause of our national malaise, as opposed to the symptoms — of which we are all painfully aware — could well turn out to be our greatest and lasting legacy to Nationalism, not just in Britain, but in the world in general.
During my time as the party’s National Press Officer, many people complained to me that they were confused about how some particular newspaper columnist would rant and rave about the state of the country, crime, welfare dependency and, yes, immigration — the topics on which we have considered opinions — and then finish off by routinely condemning the BNP as “evil”, “loathsome” etc. How could this be? Why should the Daily Express use big headlines bemoaning immigration yet at the same time knock the BNP?
Well, the answer’s easy — it sells copy, and anyway, each paper has its own particular “stance” on party political allegiance — invariably one of the establishment parties. They simply don’t care about what they publish or the problems of the people involved.
The press really are media whores (Stanley Baldwin said, in criticising the media barons who owned British newspapers, in a speech in London on March 17, 1931 they have “Power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.”)
I remember a few years ago, a very prominent yet friendly hack actually phoned me after his otherwise reasonable weekly Sunday Times piece described the BNP as “loathsome” or other such epithet, to explain that he had not put that term in his original article, but was inserted by someone higher up the food chain in order to “protect his career.”
Consider this — if the media choose not to report an occurrence, whether it be a politician’s speech, a race riot, an earthquake, anything, then to all intents and purposes it hasn’t happened — except, of course, for the people closely involved. But for the rest of us, it hasn’t happened. 
The media create “the news.” To use the trade jargon, it gives a story “legs,” or attention and longevity.
Or they can ignore it and let it fade away — and note just how the entire mass media appear to sing from the same song sheet. Globalisation is good for their business but not so good for the rest of us, victims of pro-multiracial and pro-multicultural government policies.
What sort of "democracy" is that?
Imagine just how much large corporations spend on “slow burn” advertising, a form of conditioning or brainwashing, to fix their brand of coffee or their little furry price comparison web site in the public conscience. 
Well, the mass media have done just that, free of charge, to put off people from supporting the BNP.
Just who do the newspaper owners and their editors think they are, with their greedy, global ambitions, peddling daily trivia, pompous opinionated nonsense from over paid hacks, selling our country down the river for their 30 pieces of silver?
Who do the people behind the Guardian rag think they are, “setting the political agenda” yet being totally unaccountable to the voters — nobody voted for the anonymous men who write the Guardian “Opinion” columns?
And just listen to BBC hacks on current affairs programmes openly reading from and quoting from “the newspapers” as if they are holy writ! Talk about incestuous!
Thankfully, with the arrival of the digital media age we need the mass media less and less.
Opinions can be aired on the World Wide Web, we are no longer prisoners of the internationalist editors and the press barons, newspapers are closing, hacks and pompous, overpaid columnists are regularly being put on the dole.
We can all do our bit to accelerate this process. Do you really need to buy that daily rag? Why not read their web version, it’s free?
Hate sheets like the Daily Mirror are in deep financial trouble. Why not help it along by stopping buying the childish, offensive rag and punish their hate filled hacks, promoters of multiculturalism all, and the ludicrous “Hope Not Hate” bus?
Our greatest and lasting legacy to Nationalism, not just in Britain, but in the world in general will only be effective if we keep up the pressure and spread the good news.