The BNP

Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time yesterday has sparked a lot of controversy. From it all, we can see this:

1. People are no longer viewed by people as having the right to express their views on national television if they differ to other people's views.
2. A lot of people misunderstand the BNP's policies and jump to conclusions.
3. Anyone with 'controversial' views that are not approved of by the majority of the population will not be allowed to partake in a fair and honest discussion, they will instead be attacked on all fronts.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not a BNP supporter, the policies that they have chosen to make clear, such as education and environmental issues are ones I heartily disagree with. For everything else, I think there can be no definite answer. Nick Griffin has been shady in the past about his views on immigration and the presence of other ethnicities in the UK. If what I have heard is true, then I disagree with his views.

However, he could simply be trying to pander to white 'British' (Anglo-Saxon) population. By providing someone to blame, ie foreigners, he has helped many people out. It's exactly what Hitler did. He disguised his genuine policies with those that are in the best interest of the population, and by attempting to intimidate British people by providing them with an enemy and a threat, Griffin can manipulate many stupid people who cannot think for themselves, which is unfortunately a great deal of our population, meaning he could win an election.

Alternatively, Griffin could simply be someone who cares greatly about his country and views immigration as a threat to the prestige of the UK. He's clearly an intelligent man, so there is probably more than meets the eye to his policies. The vast majority of his party is made up of mindless thugs, but there are some smart people at the top. It begs the question really, how can someone as intelligent as he is hold such views? (If indeed they are his views. Both him and the press are being deliberately deceptive). He may simply be a man who does not hold these opinions at all, rather he simply wants control of the country. And by providing stupid people with an enemy and misleading the same stupid people, he could gain enough supporters to be voted into power, with which he could do as he pleases.

As I've said, I don't agree with what Griffin is said to believe but I don't like the way that everyone jumps on the bandwagon of hating him just because they're 'supposed to'. People should think more about politics. He should also definitely be allowed to express his opinions through his political party and on television, and simply express them in general. If we ever lose the right to do these things, we will lose a basic right to express ourselves. Nobody will ever think outside the box and nobody will ever question the government's decisions, which I believe is a necessity. It allows the government to see both sides of an issue, so they can make a more rounded decision.

I also believe that people should not be persecuted, ridiculed and banned from expressing their opinions simply because they differ to most other people's opinions. Yes, you can say their policies are an affront to several basic human rights, but again, nobody truly knows what their policies are, and even so, it is simply a difference of opinion. Everybody should be allowed to express their opinions, be it through speech or their own political party. It's just a matter of opinion.

There is one thing I admire about Griffin though, and that is that he continues to stand up for what he believes in (despite it being utterly perverse), in the face of colossal opposition and general hatred towards him. It takes a special kind of devotion for a man to jeopardise his livelihood and security just to make his political views heard. Having said that, I sincerely hope the BNP never gain office in this country for several reasons:

1. Their policies are not clear. They have been deceptive in the past and they could well be now.
2. What the policies appear to be are ones that I completely disagree with and they are affronts to people's freedom.
3. It would mean that the majority of our population is easily manipulated and mislead, which would in turn mean that the majority of our population is stupid and there is no hope for us as a species.

Anyway, just wanted to make a point about that, as it's all over the news at the moment.

Climate Change, The Future of Our Planet

How many times have you been told you need to help stop climate change (supposedly single handedly)? I'm willing to bet it'll be in the dozens. It appears that whenever you need to carry out a task, be it a simple, every-day task or a complicated scheme, the impacts of this task on climate change need to be considered, because we all need to 'save the planet' from our oh so disgusting and piteous selves.

The people that are telling you that you need to 'save the planet' and 'think of the polar bears' are usually single, middle aged women who have no job and nothing better to do than protest about something that they clearly haven't thought through.

All it takes is a few minutes skim reading a brief summary of the earth's history, and even an idiot can tell that the process the earth is going through at the moment - or about to enter fully - is entirely natural. We haven't broken the planet, we haven't messed it up as a species, all we've done is sped up an entirely natural process which we should easily be able to cope with and adapt to.

The protestors will tell you that when we enter the next ice age, we're all going to be doomed, so we must start recycling paper and farting less. Firstly, we are still technically in an ice age, so already you're hearing a falsehood. Secondly, if humanity has survived countless other 'ice ages' before now, and emerged intact, I seriously doubt that with our technology and infrastructure that we possess at the moment, we won't be able to survive a bit of ice. Having said that, my doubts about humanity's future increase every day. All it takes is anything Hannah Montana themed (amongst many other things) to crush any optimism before it has even germinated.

At the full extent of the 'last ice age', not all of the planet was covered with ice as you may have been led to believe. There were still plenty of areas of land with no ice covering them. In fact, the ice didn't even extend to the very south of England. Indeed, it will become much colder all over the world, but we can easily adapt. Unfortunately for supposed lesser species, they lack the brainpower to adapt nearly as quickly as us humans and many species will die, which is extremely undesirable. Animals are cute. They keep us company. But it's a natural process, and more should evolve to replace them - as went the entire history of life on earth before now. It's not as if humans are wiping our every shred of life on the planet other than our own. Evolution will occur, more animals will appear (albeit in a long time), it's that simple.

Everyone has become so caught up with 'saving the planet' that the measures they take interfere with basic practicality. You can't print anything anymore, because that one piece of paper you use from a pack of several hundred will definitely result in an impossibly high amount of trees being cut down. All your fault, Mr. Smith from London. The Amazonian villagers and polar bears will commit their lives to tracking you down and destroying you. There's no escape.

The Military

I suppose the main problem I have with the military is the way it's portrayed by the media and the government. The military appeals to all sorts of people, bright and dumb. Personally I'm not sure why. But I think it may have something to do with the press and the government.

The papers seem very fond of idolising soldiers as national heroes. Anyone could be watching, especially children, and if they see the news channels and papers idolising soldiers and treating them like heroes, then they may too join the army and become paid thugs.

For a nation, the military is useful. It fights off invasions, keeps the country safe. Now, if our military were actually doing that, I'd understand the labeling of them as heroes. For the country anyway. On a biological basis they're simply people who have killed more than the other group of people.

But our military isn't doing that. The majority of the public continue to be blinded by the media into thinking that it's a great loss when we lose soldiers. It's not. The way I see it, a soldier is no different to a mercenary. Both of them kill people for money given to them by a group of people. For mercenaries, it could be anyone, with soldiers, it happens to be the state government. Another dead soldier is just one less mindless thug. Heartbreaking for a family, but not even mildly upsetting for a species.

Militaries always have been and continue to be used as pawns by governments to do whatever they require, which is not always to defend a state against invasion or serious threat to the majority of the population. So, children around the world are brainwashed into thinking that being a soldier is a heroic thing, a noble thing. It's disgusting.

There are TV adverts for the military, radio adverts and billboards advertising their presence to the population. At my school when I was in year 11, we went to a careers convention. There were different stalls for each career path and it was interesting and helpful. But with the biggest stall and the most exciting displays were for the military, ready to recruit children into the armies of governments to send wherever they like and be marked as 'expendable'. Most people my age weren't really aware of what was going on. Why should they be? They're just kids really, only a bit bigger.

Then at another time in the same year, we were told there was a trip to Biggin Hill, a localish air base where they put on air shows, which I think are pretty awesome. We were all tricked. The whole thing was one gigantic advert for the military, another ploy to persuade weak minded children into joining the military, killing other people for money. It's sickening.

So, when a child is convinced to join the military, they undergo a rigorous process of being broken down emotionally. Every ounce of their personality is removed until they're just a mindless drone, programmed to kill people that the government doesn't like. Personally, I don't see the attraction in being broken down into a creature with no imagination and no feelings anymore, and I'm sure if people who were signing up for the army realised what they were getting themselves in for, they would change their mind. I've learnt that soldiers even undergo emotional training, to teach them how to feel emtions that they've long since lost. Now that's pretty sad.

But instead of letting the puiblic know about the shocking reality, the image of the military is sold to us as one of great courage and honour, achieving great things in the name of justice. Well, I've got news for you. Most of the time it isn't. And it's just plain irresponsible of the authorities to attempt to recruit school children into the military, to train them up to kill others. If only they knew what they were getting themselves into.

Mobile Phone Speakers

Before I begin, I'd just like to make it absolutely clear that I'd like to shoot the person who came up with the idea for these. But when you think about it, who is more stupid, Jnr. Sales Clerk Johnson or the Marketing Director who approved his idea? I like to think the conversation went a little like this:

'Sir, while I was sitting on my sofa watching Big Brother, I had a great Idea. Why don't mobile phones have speakers on them, so people can play whatever music they have on their phones - which is bound to be in a poor quality file format - wherever they go, where there are bound to be other people?'

'Johnson you're a genius! Nobody could possibly be annoyed by this, everyone will be happy! I'm giving you £1b to invest into this, there must be a huge potential market in the huge number of twats who used to walk around with radios on their shoulders, but can't anymore because they'd look like pricks! We'll be seen as liberators of the pricks!'

If only, if only the MD was correct. But God forbid, it did pass to the chavs. One can no longer go anywhere in public without a background noise of incredibly poor quality hip-hop music probably downloaded from Limewire assaulting one's eardrums.

What possesses people to do such a thing? They should at least have the decency to buy an MP3 player, nobody else would then have to listen to their crap all the time.

But then there's another thing. Why do people insist on having a constant personal soundtrack wherever they go? I can understand the attraction of listening to music personally on a journey somewhere, but while you're walking down a high street? You have only yourself to blame if you walk into a lamppost while flicking through 12 pirated Jay-Z albums [actually, I'm not even sure that he's created 12 what he calls 'albums' but whatever, I can't be bothered to check].

So where's the attraction in such a ghastly looking thing dangling from your mobile phone, spewing white noise as you walk along? I can't possibly see one. Maybe it's just me, but I believe this hellish creation was a bad idea.

Personally, I wait 'till I get home to listen to music, in my quiet room, with my highest-possible-quality-music on my excellent speakers, rather than walking down a miserable high street holding my phone out in front of me while it churns out diabolical sounding music and annoys anyone who passes within a square mile of myself (because you must have it that loud, blud).