What We Think    
    Nationalist comment on the month's news    

Britain's fault

No-one should have been surprised or shocked by the attempted storming of the Channel Tunnel at Christmas by a mob of more than 500 illegal immigrants, largely Afghans, at Sangatte. The mob were taking advantage of a slack period during the seasonal break to walk the Tunnel to Britain. They were confronted and held off by French riot police while train services were disrupted for 10 hours. It has been confidently predicted that further attempts of the same kind will be made in the near future.

The search for scapegoats proceeded immediately. The deputy director of the Red Cross refugee centre at Sangatte, one Michel Meriaux, was blamed for not informing either the tunnel operators or the police, though he knew of the plan beforehand. Our own government has continued to blame the French authorities for allowing the centre to remain in operation, saying that this merely encourages the would-be migrants to make a beeline for Sangatte with a view to getting thence to the UK.

In fact, whatever responsibility may lie with M. Meriaux or the French authorities for this fiasco, where Britain is concerned the chief culprits are our own Government. Of all the countries in Europe that have become targets for the so-called ‘refugees’, Britain has been made the most attractive and is the one which most of the refugees want to get to. Our immigration controls are a total farce. The arrivals know very well that they will get good accommodation and ample food and living allowances here while their applications to settle are being processed. In the meantime it is the easiest thing in the world for them to disappear into the interior of the country and not be discovered - even if the authorities subsequently turn the applications down. They also know that, whatever the currents of public opinion, New Labour itself in fact wants the country to be flooded by immigrants as part of its policy of ‘diversity’.

One would-be immigrant stopped at Sangatte, Karimi Khram, from Kabul, put it in a nutshell: "We will not stop coming. We will try every night. We have to make it into the UK."

As long as this country remains the chief target for the asylum-seekers, they are going to make for Sangatte, for there lies the best springboard for their attempts to get here. If the French authorities closed the refugee centre down, they would only go somewhere else. They are making their way here because it has got around the world that we are the biggest suckers of all the countries to which they would consider heading.

Britain needs to send out a signal to the whole world that no more of these immigrants will be allowed in - quite regardless of what plausible case they may have for asylum. If this involves tough measures at our ports of entry to repel the invaders, then so be it. They were never forced to come here in the first place, and if they don't like the way they're treated when they arrive, then - hard cheese! They only have themselves to blame. Such a policy would not be needed for long anyway, as the message would soon get through.

Not that there is the slightest chance of this Government, or a Tory Government, adopting such a policy. Only the British National Party would ever have the courage to do that!

Nonsense about the riots

Apparently, those who thought they witnessed hordes of trouble makers, overwhelmingly Asian, running amok in Lancashire and Yorkshire last Summer, attacking people, setting fire to cars and shops and smashing up neighbourhoods, were experiencing hallucinations. Though some Asians were involved, an equal number of Whites were!

This, at least, is what we are expected to think if we believe a report, commissioned by the Home Office, which came out last month. The report alleges widespread rioting by Whites as well as Asians. It puts a great deal of blame on the police. It claims that so-called ‘right-wing extremists’ played a major part in the trouble. It says that some politicians have been at fault for not doing enough to promote ‘togetherness’ between the indigenous and ethnic minority communities. It does criticise some Asians too, as if as an after-thought. Big deal!

Just about everyone and everything are to blame for what happened - except, of course, this and previous governments' policy of allowing vast numbers of unassimilable immigrants to flood into Britain over the past 50 years. To suggest that that has been a factor in bringing about the mayhem simply would not do! It all follows a familiar pattern: people of the leftist-liberal persuasion (which means just about everyone exercising power in modern Britain) create catastrophes and then take it out on everyone but themselves. And far from acknowledging that a policy has failed and setting about reversing it, they protest that it has not been carried out thoroughly enough, and they demand that it be enforced with all the greater commitment!

At the centre of this exercise in self-whitewash is a plea in the report for greater integration. "It is essential," it says in one part, "to establish a great sense of citizenship based on a few common principles which are shared and observed by all sections of the community." The solution? Well, more of the ethnics need to learn English so that they won't feel ‘separate’ from the natives. There must a sense of common ‘British’ nationality uniting everyone. Immigrant communities, Asian ones in particular, must be less ‘segregated’.

This, of course, has again opened up the inane debate which is not really a debate at all: between ‘multi-culturalism’ and ‘multi-racialism’. The ‘multi-culturalists’ are seen as those who want to maintain the distinct identities of the various ethnic communities, while the ‘multi-racialists’ are the ones who urge integration into a single ‘British’ community - a kind of national and cultural gleichschaltung, as the Germans would put it. Tories like Lord Tebbit have for years been urging the latter. Many elements among Labour, by contrast, have stood in favour of ‘multi-culturalism’. It now seems that the Labour mainstream, headed by the Government itself, is inclining towards the Tory view.

The argument, of course, is a red herring - an artificially contrived diversion from the real issue, which is whether we should have a large population of non-European peoples in Britain or not - in other words, whether the ethnics should stay or whether they should go. This magazine has always counselled that there is no future for such people in this country - nor any future for the country with them - whether they are segregated or integrated, whether they maintain distinct communities, identities and cultures or whether they are merged into one single stew. The latter has always been the American dream and principle - the ‘Melting Pot’ - and it has failed abysmally. Britain should take note, and not be led along the same road.

Actually, there is another factor of which we should be aware, which intrudes into the race issue. This is that those who call for greater integration of the different communities have an ulterior motive which they prefer to conceal. In a thoroughly homogenised ‘multi-racial’ (but not ‘multi-cultural’) population, people will be exposed just to the one cultural influence: globalist, capitalist, materialist, liberal, permissive and ‘politically correct’. That is precisely what our masters seek for us. The existence of ‘multi-culturalism’, on the other hand, carries the danger that some will be exposed to other influences not approved within the prevailing orthodoxy - influences particularly present in Islam, with its traditionalist and authoritarian leanings. We draw attention to the radio talk by Dr. W. L. Pierce, the text of which is reproduced elsewhere in this issue, in which this matter is examined in greater detail.

The right road ahead for Britain lies neither in ‘multi-culturalism’ nor ‘multi-racialism’, but in complete racial separation and the eventual resettlement overseas of the non-white communities. However, pending this becoming possible we believe that of the two - ‘multi-culturalism’ or ‘multi-racialism’ - the former is the lesser evil. At least it underlines that the Asian and Afro-Caribbean populations in this country are different, are not British and can never become so. That, at least, is a start towards the solution of the problem.

    Spearhead Online