|What We Think||Nationalist comment on the month's news|
Muddle or conspiracy?
Former American President Franklin D. Roosevelt once famously said of world politics at the highest level: "Things don't just happen; if they happen, you can bet they were planned that way."
These are words well worth recalling as we survey the apparent chaos of the present government's non-existent policies of immigration control. As the invasion of so called refugees and asylum-seekers reaches flood level, we have to ask: is what we are witnessing the product just of incompetence and muddle, or is there behind it a deeper plan aimed at destroying Britain as an identifiable nation and making it a prototype for a faceless New World Order, coffee-coloured in complexion, cosmopolitan in allegiance and slave-like in its obedience to its global masters?
Of incompetence and muddle in current British affairs there is evidence enough, and it is easy to believe that at the lower levels of administration our failure to stop the immigrant flood stems from nothing more sinister than official ineptness, combined with a paralysed fear on the part of civil service apparatchiks that they may bring upon themselves the stigma of racism and thus have their roads to all further promotion blocked indefinitely. The era of New Labour has brought in a whole culture of official brainlessness and irresponsibility that exceeds even previous post-war standards. But it is difficult to give credence to the idea that this alone accounts for what is now happening at our air and maritime ports of entry as a country which is already one of the most overcrowded in the world groans under the impact of yet further wave after wave of new settlers while an enraged public opinion seems totally impotent when it comes to prevailing on our rulers to raise the drawbridge and say - and mean - "No more!"
Day after day, newspapers highlight ever crazier manifestations of the problem. One such spotlights fears that over 700 foreign nurses carry the AIDS virus. Another tells us that known figures for entry are now reckoned to be 250,000 annually. Next we are treated to descriptions of luxurious assembly centres with free board and lodging, TVs in every bedroom, swimming pools and gymnasia and new furniture. Then there is a report of a library granting free DVDs to immigrants while everyone else has to pay for them. Then there is the news of £723,000 of lottery money being given out in grants to organisations opposing deportations. Have we left anything out? Oh yes, £1 million granted to give asylum-seekers day trips and holidays to beauty spots. Not least, a sober reminder of where the nation is heading: the news that one child in eight now being born in Britain belongs to an ethnic minority.
The catalogue of hand-outs and goodies being offered to the invaders now sounds almost like a brochure issued by a travel company absolutely desperate to entice as many people as possible to buy its tour packages. Come to our sunny shores and you will find absolute paradise awaiting you when you arrive!
But the strangest paradox in all this is that the policy of let 'em all come upon which the Blair Government seems to be set is not even electorally popular, whether in Britain or elsewhere. New anti-immigration parties on the European Continent have enormously increased their support among the voters in recent years. In Australia what appeared to a firm line by Prime Minister Howard against a boatload of asylum-seekers virtually turned in his favour an election he seemed almost certain to lose. Here in Britain the rise in votes for the British National Party clearly indicates that candidates prepared to defend the country's borders and traditional identity have a trump card to play.
It might be thought astonishing that New Labour, which perhaps more than any party of government in our history has its ear finely tuned to the issues that it can turn to its advantage among the voters, refuses to play this card but on the contrary, is committed to policies in the immigration field guaranteed to make it less, rather than more, popular.
This phenomenon can surely only be explained by the fact that Tony Blair & Co. must feel themselves answerable to a power and an authority yet higher in importance than that of popular opinion, which determines the outcome of parliamentary and local government elections.
Just what is that power and authority? The answer to that question is so complex that space available here would nowhere near suffice to provide it. But what can be said is that it must be a power and authority unknown to the great mass of people upon whose will parliamentary democracy, theoretically at least, is supposed to depend.
Which means that Britain today is the victim of something that cannot be described as anything less than a conspiracy - a conspiracy best described by the title of an article extending over two pages printed in the Daily Mail on August 10: How Britain is destroying itself. But nations do not willingly and knowingly destroy themselves. Their enemies do it for them.
And today this nation faces an enemy more ruthless, more destructive, more insidious and more threatening to its survival than any it has yet encountered in its history. It is an enemy within our gates, and we had better wake up, recognise it and fight it before it is too late!
If they're British and white, they ain't all right!
If, after the foregoing commentary on immigration, there is anyone still sceptical about the existence of forces within Britain bent on the destruction of our people, they need only follow the shameful story of what has been happening in the one-time thriving British colony of Rhodesia, now the cesspool of corruption and terror known as Zimbabwe - for events there, and our Government's response to them, parallel exactly what is happening here.
Hundreds of articles and reader's letters in newspapers during the past few months have focused on Tony Blair's propensity to call for military intervention to defend human rights in one country after another around the world while strangely failing to support the same kind of intervention to defend the rights of farmers in Zimbabwe who are having their property invaded and confiscated, and some of whom have been murdered when they dared to resist. These raids and murders have been carried out by armed thugs with the approval of President Robert Mugabe, beside whose crimes those (real or alleged) of Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic fade into insignificance.
Why then does Blair do nothing about Zimbabwe beyond the occasional muted expression of regret? Precisely because he is beholden to the same forces that are now promoting the invasion of the United Kingdom. His gang yammer on about the rights of the asylum-seekers but never consider the rights of the indigenous British populace. Likewise, they are preoccupied with the rights of Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Kosovans, Kurds in Iraq or Turkey, non-Taliban Afghans, Somalis and heaven knows who else. But they care not a damn for the rights of Rhodesian farmers - not despite but precisely because of the fact that they are white and mainly of British stock. That is the name of the game of present-day British and global politics. Once you get the hang of the rules, you'll have no difficulty in working things out and knowing what is next going to happen.
Gay Duncan heralds new Tory agenda
The implication contained in an earlier section of this column - that to Tony Blair there seem to be things more important than pleasing voters - might equally be applied to the new Tory leadership. Many media commentators have observed that the timing of shadow cabinet member Alan Duncan's outing of himself as a homosexual was not accidental but was intended to fit in neatly with the new softly-softly, caring image of the Tory Party now being promoted frantically by party leader lain Duncan Smith. Did one Duncan whisper to the other: "It's a good time to nail your colours to the mast, Alan"? We will probably never know, but what we do know is that IDS seems just not to be listening to what Mr. and Mrs. Average in the street are saying but gives the impression of being tuned in to some ethereal voice from far beyond, telling him what have to be the norms of the new age in which he hopes to keep his place as the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. Again, the question arises: who really is running Britain? What is the nature of this mysterious authority to which nearly all mainstream politicians feel obliged to defer - far above the concerns of the common multitude?
One senior Tory, Nicholas Soames, has stated:-
With the first part of what Mr. Soames has said we can wholeheartedly agree. What we cannot agree with is his assertion that it does not matter to the voters what kind of sexual activity Mr. Duncan prefers. That may apply to some voters but certainly not all - we just cannot believe that such air-headed views are as prevalent as Mr. Soames makes out. To say that there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals apart from what they do in their bedrooms is about on a par with saying that black people do not differ at all from white people apart from the colour of their skins. Homosexuals simply are not normal people as the main body of society understands the term. Whether their sexual activities should again be made illegal is a matter of opinion and on this even Spearhead readers are divided but few can seriously contest that they are people with wholly different mental and emotional make-ups to those of ordinary folk. Their responses to political issues are bound, in a number of areas, to be different. Some of us witnessed this process at work when we tried to co-exist with homosexuals (politically that is) in the pre-1980 National Front. It taught us a salutary lesson.
Far from it being irrelevant that Alan Duncan has outed himself, it happens to be highly relevant and, in fact, all to the good. Voters should know whether a candidate is homosexual or heterosexual before they decide whether to vote for him or her. At least in this regard, though certainly not in the way intended either by him or his leader, Mr. Duncan has done us all a favour.
Duckism raises its ugly head
Here's a bit of light relief amongst all the seriousness and gloom. Conservationists in Spain are up in arms about the invasion by British ducks of Spanish ducks' living space. Apparently, the British ruddy duck, imported half a century ago from North America, is migrating to the Continent and breeding with the white-headed duck, an endangered species with its main colony in Spain. As a result of Spanish pressure in the EU, Britain has agreed to a cull of 4,000 ruddy ducks in this country - virtually the entire ruddy-duck population - at a cost of £5 million.
Apparently, for a country to be concerned with the preservation of its indigenous duck population and to call for drastic measures to curb the immigration of foreign breeds that might threaten its survival - even to the point of having them killed - is perfectly alright. No one has yet invented a phrase like duckism to demonise such an attitude. As a result, anti-duckism has not yet become a political creed. But one never knows...