New Morrissey website 'Morrissey Central', including lengthy statement re The Independent

Discussion in 'General Discussion archive 2018 (read-only)' started by Anonymous, Apr 1, 2018.

By Anonymous on Apr 1, 2018 at 12:35 AM
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Obviously the successor to True To You has now arrived:

    Why The Independent hates independence - Morrissey Central
    March 28, 2018

    The importance of an artist (or political figure) is sometimes evident in the efforts taken to silence them. Two weeks ago, with stiff-backed priggishness, The Independent printed an extreme Hate Piece so loaded with vile bile that it almost choked on its own endless capacity to be appalled. As its target, it seemed evident that The Independent found me so morally shredded and physically repulsive that I appeared to fascinate them, whilst it also seemed obvious that any announcement of my painful death would make them laugh loudly. Yes, this is what we’re dealing with. Their moral outrage is certain that it has hit upon something as they take a stab at just about everything whilst hitting nothing.
    Telford grooming gangs? Hardly worth a whisper in The Independent. Instead let’s demonize Morrissey - who deserves our indefatigable abuse since he appears to be saying some things that many people are actually thinking. To truthophobics, I am apparently worse than useless.

    You see, The Independent ‘newspaper’ isn’t actually a paper with news, and it will express only the views of their editor/dictator, whose name is Christian Broughton. What he will tell us is happening and what we see is happening are two entirely different things. In order to find out the truth of anything, you must take note of what Christian Broughton does not allow into print.
    My manager (Peter Katsis) spoke to Christian Broughton after the Hate Piece had appeared, and he asked why Broughton had sanctioned such a diabolically contrived and bitterly inaccurate mess. Broughton pointed out that “it would be difficult to find anyone at The Independent
    who agreed with Morrissey’s views.” This almost- illiterate reply fully reveals The Independent’s dog-yapping will to destroy anyone with a view that doesn’t match their own. The Independent, you see, must supervise and censor art - that is their function.
    But what are my views? And why do they ‘get at’ the stiff boundaries of The Independent? And what is The Independent independent of? Truth? Shame? They state confidently that, when I recently asked a packed audience at Glasgow Arena if they actually liked Nicola Sturgeon, that half the audience walked out in disgust towards me. As you can guess, without any principals of justice. The Glasgow audience, in fact, roared a deafening “NOOOOO!” in reply to the question, and not one person was known to have left the venue in protest. The Independent is willing to lie to its readers in order to create a skewed truth, and to hell with any principals of justice. If the newspaper is willing to take such silly risks with very basic facts then what on earth could they report that you would actually believe? They tell their readers that I “loathe Nicola Sturgeon” (which is untrue), and they explain by way of sneering slur how I am “loving Brexit”.

    I believe I have mentioned Brexit twice in my entire life, and neither comment expressed love. I had explained how Brexit had been a strike for democracy because of the disgust that the political elite had shown towards the people who did not vote the way that they were warned to by media bullies. But why attack anyone who loves Brexit? Almost two years on from the result, the EU still has not allowed the UK to leave its clutches - which simply explains exactly why the Leave campaigners voted as they did in the first place. Doesn’t it twig?
    However, any Brexit loathing by The Independent does not reflect majority opinion, and this lends them no independent thought whatsoever, but blind bureaucratic arrogance instead. This is symptomatic of a modern, shredded British society, where free speech no longer exists. When the print media are lost for a reply, they simply change the subject by naming their
    opponent as ‘racist’, which is the perfect ploy because most people are naturally appalled to be called racist, and they step back in silence, and the debate collapses unresolved. Use of the word often only ever comes from people who themselves are intolerant. It works. Even though England introduced the world to democracy, great art and great literature, it is now leading the way with a dark and largely hidden agenda where no one is entitled to disagree; only one interest and opinion must prevail within the print media. Art is now fully outside tabloid journalism, and the gaping hole shrieks at us via the commercial arena with its automatic laughter and the impotent emotion of reality TV. The American genius William Burroughs was once interviewed on Radio 1 in the 1970s. Today’s Radio 1 is such an intellectually paralyzed blast of surface that it would not remotely consider interviewing anyone of the nature or intellect of Burroughs. Is civilization over? The cannibalistic mobile grave known as The Guardian suggests so. Thrilled at the knowledge of their own power, both The Guardian and The Independent daily confirm the views of everyone who morally objects to them (and The News of The World turns in its urn.) Their intolerant and totalitarian criticism of others reveals so much about themselves. Perhaps newspapers just cannot keep up with the open-ness and tolerance of internet news sites? The future of The Independent seems only a question of your commitment to it. It claims that I support Harvey Weinstein - someone about whom I know almost nothing. I do not believe I could recognize him in photographs. The Independent also claims that my audience have deserted me - yet this month I have completed my most successful UK tour, selling 22,000 tickets in London alone, selling out concerts at Alexandra Palace, The London Palladium, Brixton Academy and The Royal Albert Hall, all played within the space of 8 days. The Independent has an almost breathless capacity for misinformation and deception. Its uncontested rules of hate are like a fully drawn bow aiming its arrow at 42 targets, yet hitting none; bitter at the core, yet taking a stab, as its writer moves with one-way-or-another-you-will-remember-my-name outrage.

    I am neither Loony Left nor Far Right. I am a humanitarian. I have not ever once voted in a British election because I have not ever discovered a party that represents my views. My main social concern is the abolition of the abattoir, the continued existence of which in modern times is beyond sane belief.
    I confess that my life in music has been stunted by shyness, and this remains. I am too interior, and this can often seem like bone splitting arrogance. But it is not. I do not want to be like anyone else in music because there is no point. I want to bring something different into view. When I attempt to clarify, I will admit that it often sounds like an attack. I believe England can look after itself. It does not need the EU to police its laws, its thought, its borders or its liberty. It does not take a genius to arrive at this viewpoint.

    Because The Independent cannot keep their own views under control, it seems obvious to me that we must source our information from alternative news outlets - they, at any rate, are telling us that we should. British mainstream media is now so politically correct that basic truth is actually impossible, and although it is obsessed with promoting social diversity they will not accept diverse opinion. Most British newspapers can only offer secrecy. When news is offered as opinion, it can only therefore be biased. Last year I completed a questionnaire for The Daily Mail in which one of their questions was ‘Whom do you most dislike?’. I replied ‘Theresa May, because of her support for killing foxes and badgers.’ The questionnaire appeared in print, but the Theresa May reply was missing because it obviously didn’t fit with the Mail’s political position as Theresa May’s personal notice-board. Journalists only ever talk to other journalists, it seems.

    ‘The London intellect, so pert and shallow,
    like a stream that never reaches the ocean.’
    E. M. Forster.

    I have been criticized in the UK for so long (nowhere else!) that anything said about me no longer strikes me as a threat because I am still, after all, here. We should, I think, be striving for something more morally useful than whatever The Independent vomits out by way of spite.

    Katie Boyle, who very sadly died this week, said “you have to accept [the press] telling complete lies about you. You can’t take legal action because that fans the flame.” I see what she means!

    In 1887 the masthead of The New York Times began its famous slogan: All The News That’s Fit To Print.
    In 2018, The masthead of The Independent should read All The Shit That’s Fit To Print. The Independent has tried to put me out of circulation: and viva hate, to that!


    23 March 2018.


    Media coverage:

    Related item:
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 7, 2018
    • Like Like x 6


Discussion in 'General Discussion archive 2018 (read-only)' started by Anonymous, Apr 1, 2018.

    1. Anonymous
      You're a defeatist, I hope you don't have any children. When it's too late it's too late for you as well.

      Ordinary people never sent any troops abroad but who don't like muslims and remember Palestine-Israel?

      We were always stuck inbetween their never ending war and now you feel you and me and others are to blame.

      • Troll Troll x 1
    2. reelfountain
      Yeah, it's all our fault, isn't it. It's us making them do what they do. Mass child rape, bombings, beheadings... Poor Muslims.
    3. Charlie Cheswick
      Charlie Cheswick
      I didn't say it was all our fault, just like it has nothing to do with us either. Do you ever take somebody's words for what they are or do you always have to put your own version of them in return that mean something completely different?
    4. reelfountain
      You certainly like to sit on that fence.
    5. Anonymous
      He's a classic cuck. Lionheart soaghetti arms.
      • Troll Troll x 1
    6. lanterns
      the more often i think about this message, the more meaningful it becomes to me. Especially the first sentence strikes me as one of the best first sentences i've read for a long time. thank you, morrissey, in times of trouble and looming depression, your words are the only medicine that can help.
      • Like Like x 3
      • Dislike Dislike x 1
    7. reelfountain
      Nobody in the public eye is as intuitive and honest as Morrissey.
      • Like Like x 3
    8. vegan.cro spirit #4
      vegan.cro spirit #4
    9. Anonymous
      Shame you hated the rest of it but maybe you go for the cover of books and records?
    10. vegan.cro spirit #4
      vegan.cro spirit #4
      Fetch,Fido LOOOLL
    11. lanterns
      plus couragous and generous in sharing his internal struggles. he won't let anybody dictate to him what they want him to feel.
      • Like Like x 2
    12. vegan.cro spirit #22
      vegan.cro spirit #22
      Let me see... so the US escalated 'dodgy' Islamism to help fight the Russians. Dude you are an utter tool.
      I mean, you are certified moron. 'dodgy' Islamism. LOL
    13. bhops
      The problem in the case of Rotherham is that these attacks were not investigated thoroughly specifically because of the religion of the possible perpetrators, ie. the police didn't want to be seen as racist. That is a very problematic issue IMHO. The idea that the authorities were too afraid to investigate possible crime lest it been seen as politically incorrect should trouble you immensely. The pendulum has swing too far the other way.

      The media is complicit as well, the MSM has zero problem drumming up outrage over the Catholic church suppressing all the sexual abuse that has been going on for decades and so they should as it is a disgusting and shameful stain on the church. However when it comes to Muslim grooming gangs?? Not a peep. The double standard is clear to see and it's the lack of coverage that unfortunately creates a vacuum for far-right ideology to swoop in and fill.
      Last edited: Apr 7, 2018
      • Like Like x 3
    14. URBANUS
      Some sense at last, I'd vote for you if you ran for office somewhere cause you make a lot of sense.
      • Troll Troll x 1
    15. URBANUS
    16. Truth
      Life is not black and white. It's easy not to "sit on that fence" when you simplify everything. You don't like terrorism? We can probably all agree on that. But what led to the modern proliferation of terror tactics? It was largely the actions of the West, Henry Kissinger in particular, and his efforts to destabilize the Middle East, Syria in particular.
      Recognizing that is not the same as supporting terror or excusing it. This is not some game where we're trying to foist the blame on someone. "It is what it is" as the philosopher said.
      On the other hand I do understand how stupid people on "both sides" can be. Stupid left-wing morons who want to cry racism when the average person says aloud that it would be nice to be able to get on a train or go to a concert without worrying about being blown to bits by some Muslim asshole are just as bad as those stupid right-wing morons who want to blame terror on every Muslim.
      And England does have a problem with people falsely crying racism when "the Muslim problem" is brought up. Without assimilation, with "the floodgates being opened" and hundreds of thousands of people coming into the country, many of whom seem to have no wish to fit in, it's not hard to see the problem. But then when they do try to fit in, when they only want to live peaceably, there is still some idiot talking about how fast they speak, how you can't understand their accents, etc, etc. Yes, that would be Morrissey.
      So just because the world is black and white for you and all very simple, that's only because you see it in those terms.
    17. Truth
      This is what many people believe. So either those people are racist/bigoted/xenophobic and their prejudice causes them to see things in a distorted way or there is actually some truth to the perception and the reports that the police seem to have failed to investigate thoroughly. Realistically there is probably some truth to both sides of that.
      So the next question is, if there is some truth to this is it because of some sort of police policy? I find that hard to believe. The police in the UK and the US have the ability technically and legally to investigate anyone, and in a way that would be pretty difficult to even detect. They can read your email, listen to your phone calls, monitor your online activity, track your whereabouts at all times if you carry a phone, and you wouldn't even know they were/are doing it.
      So is it really logical to say that the police don't investigate because they don't want to appear prejudiced? Who would even know?
      When some of these terror activities happen it comes out later in the news that the police actually were aware of the activities. It's not really about Muslims, either, specifically. But the Boston Marathon bombers were known to police, The man who shot up the nightclub in Florida was known. The kid who shot up the school in Florida was known. The couple the office party in San Bernardino were known. These are all US but I've seen similar reports about UK suspects.
      So, if the police knew about them in advance, which they did, that leaves two choices. Either there are so many of these nuts out there threatening these sorts of attacks that the police don't have the resources to thoroughly investigate, or, and here's where it goes totally Flat Earth tinfoil hat, they actually do not stop these people even when they could.
      That sounds totally crazy, but there have been cases where the FBI, in the process of setting up a sting, has actually supplied at least one person with weapons and materials to create a car bomb.
      We've already seen how both parties in the US have used terror attacks for political and monetary gain. Is it really that crazy to think that maybe some of these attacks happen not because the police are incompetent or afraid of being labeled racist, but because these attacks are part of a larger agenda?
      I won't say that is the case, but I think it has to be considered because there is certainly evidence to support the idea and I just can't see a strong case for the police being afraid of their investigation being perceived as racist.
    18. Peppermint
      No. In the UK the police are heavily influenced, and directed by, the events, thinking and governments of the day. Probably the most famous example of this is the Stephen Lawrence case: a black teenager who was murdered by a gang of white racist youths while waiting at a bus stop in South London in 1993. The findings that came out of the landmark inquiry into the police investigation - in which the police not only failed to secure the arrests of the - known - perpetrators but did everything they could to smear the entire Lawrence family - were so shocking that they changed the way policing was carried out. The entire Metropolitan Police force was branded 'institutionally racist' - justifiably so - but I think over time this helped to create panic and confusion about dealing appropriately with BAME people. I'm sure there are other factors, and I'm attempting to explain something complex with only one example, but it was a pretty seismic event.

      And it's been well established in those grooming cases which have already come to court that the reason why police and local authorities did nothing was a fear of being seen as racist.
      • Insightful Insightful x 1
    19. E Scott
      E Scott
      Does Anadin come free when you register with this forum.
      • Funny Funny x 2
    20. reelfountain
      I respect your opinion. But I still think demolition of the mosques is a good idea.
      Last edited: Apr 7, 2018

Share This Page