Thursday, April 21

Bloggers of the world unite …

I got into a discussion with Sonia about blogs, why I bother reading them and the reason why people take the time and effort to write the blogs. I VERY CAREFULLY refrained from telling her about my own efforts. I very much suspect she would not appreciate my observations of her being publicly aired. I’d end up looking like a pound (or for the politically correct among you, 454 grams) of mince in a string vest after she had finished with me. My little pocket Venus can be a bit fierce at times … in fact she’s fierce all the time.

After much mulling and toying with the reasons in my mind I came to a conclusion. See if you agree with me …

The reason why blogs are written is because the writers feel disenfranchised by the normal channels of communication and information.

There! I’ve said it. I know it is the reason I feel the need to climb on my metaphorical soapbox and pontificate to the world at large (or small if you prefer). Now comes the explanation.

Looking at the mass media there is a remarkable uniformity in the quality of, and the message of the output, be it radio, TV or newspapers. There appears to me to be little variation in the coverage of the range of topics and it is remarkably consistent in its blandness and consensus. This is regardless of the TV channel, newspaper or whatever. The message is “Everything is basically OK and we’re all one big happy family”. As Herr Goebells (the Nazi Minister of Propaganda) said “Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it”.

Of course there are taboos – the mildest comment or question regarding crime, the “management” (and I use the word advisedly) of the NHS, immigration and multiculturism, the personal lifestyle choices of various sectors of society and their expectation that society as a whole should not just subsidise them but pick up the tab completely and so forth.

Any mention of these (and you can add your own personal favourites to the list – in fact feel free to do so) is screamed down by the Politically Correct Thought Police (or PCTP). You are perfectly free to express your opinion PROVIDED it is in complete and utter agreement with these intolerant bigots. Otherwise you will be accused of being “-ist” – be it racist, fascist, elitist, or whatever. This is shorthand for them saying “You are not allowed to have an opinion that I disagree with and I am not going to address your points in a sensible way. You are simply NOT ALLOWED to think this”. It is McCarthyism at its worst.

For those of you who don't understand the expression, McCarthy led the witch hunts for Communists in America during the 1950’s and any denunciation however unsubstantiated or malicious resulted in the wrecking of that persons career, their ostracism and exclusion from society etc. Considering the remorseless and implacable efforts of the USSR to destroy the West, I think an equally robust and single minded response was necessary. I think it is useless to try to reason with unreasonable people – you cannot use half measures when your very survival is at stake but the McCarthy approach was not the correct one. Of course McCarthy was one of the “evil right wing capitalists” so it is allowable to vilify him and his methods whereas a similar process in a left wing or communist country goes unremarked (e.g. the Stalinist show trials of the 1930’s in Russia, the Chinese Army killing protestors in Tiannaman Square in full view of the worlds media, the appalling slavery of the North Korean people, the suffering of Zimbabwe, Burma etc.). One rule for the Left Wing, Right On, Politically Correct, condemnation for the rest …

Taking the ultimate taboo, immigration and multiculturism as an example, where is the discussion and debate about this in the mass media? Answer – there isn’t any mention of it. I did see a phone-in poll on Channel 4 stating that 98% of respondents thought that immigration controls were not working. And that’s it.

My own personal opinion is that multiculturism is an oxymoron. It can be FORCED onto a society by threats and intimidation but History shows that once the gun pointed at the collective head of the population is removed, the results are the same as taking the lid off a pressure cooker at full pressure. Look how Yugoslavia, the USSR and other countries have fragmented once the artificial, enforced constraints were removed. A writer called Robert Ardrey wrote a series of books in the late 1960’s and 1970’s examining the HOW and WHY of human nature. In essence he studied the human species in the same way anthropologists and zoologists studied other group animals. Some of the fine detail of his work has been superseded by more recent research (principally Dian Fossey’s work with gorillas and chimpanzees in Africa) but the core themes are remarkably relevant today.

However you define a society (and for the purposes of the discussion, I’ll cut and paste a dictionary definition here)

  1. The totality of social relationships among humans.

  2. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

  3. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.

  4. An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest: a folklore society; a society of bird watchers.

You will notice that the words “common culture”, “mutual”, “shared” are used. In other words, the Chess playing society, the local photographic society etc. all correspond to the definitions above. Naturally there will be people within these groups that will disagree with minor elements of the society’s rules but you do not join the local photographic society and insist that (for example) all members should drive and enthuse about the same make of car. If you want to do that, join the appropriate club owners club.

By any definition, society in Britain does not correspond to the definitions given above – we have sections of the population who are antagonistic to the way Britain is run, are opposed to the laws and foundations of the society we accept and live in, their pleading for special interest and favour and the rewriting of the laws to accomodate their predjudices etc. are devisive.

It is my unease with the fragmentation and disintegration of society in Britain which is a major concern of myself and when discussed in open – a rare event - with a lot of other people too. But are my and other peoples concerns addressed? Are we allowed to question or discuss things rationally and openly? No – the media stonewalls and ignores anyone who raises the mildest question or lambastes them with the fullest force they can bring to bear as being “-ist”. Which of course effectively stops any discussion and the target frantically trying to "prove" that they are not the evil person the label defines them to be.

So, in short I feel disenfranchised from mainstream discussions and political life. I turn to blogs to seek an alternative viewpoint. It is my opinion that no matter what I know, there will be someone out there with greater knowledge of the subject than I. The only way I can access the information and see a different and insightful viewpoint is to search it out and the results of the inquiries are surprising. The insights from various people and occupations give lie to the propaganda and misinformation pedalled by the media. The freedom of the internet and the ability to openly discuss the taboo subjects are a refreshing breath of sanity in an anodyne world.

I’ll list the links I visit regularly at the right of the page once I can puzzle out how to stop my detail and the links sinking to the bottom of the page like a lead balloon. The Policemans Blog and “Walking the Streets” (a Traffic Warden, who writes particularly well) are worth mentioning. Melanie Phillips is well worth reading too. CIVITAS is running an intelligent voters listing on various topics. The last three are accessible from the coppers blog. But to dismiss their intelligent, thoughtful and concerned writings as being "-ist" is to arrogantly dismiss the real fears of a lot of other people too.

Just gotta find out how to get the blog to behave and list them …..


Blogger Bill Sticker said...

Thank you Sean. Your blog isn't so bad either.

As for McCarthy, he was censured in 1952 and died in 1957. Here's a link to his biography.

Joseph McCarthy's bio



1:49 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home