What We Think    
    Nationalist comment on the month's news    

Mind Britain's business!

As we go to press, the newspapers are doing their best to whip up a wholly phoney ‘patriotism’ so as to give justification to the deployment of some of Britain's finest fighting troops in especially difficult operations against Al Qaeda guerillas in Afghanistan. More than 1,700 Royal Marine commandos are being sent in, at the request of the Americans, to support their own units in the anticipated coming battle.

Of course, the Royal Marines are men of which we should be immensely proud; there are no better soldiers to be found anywhere in the world. They are indeed an elite among fighting men - not just of this country but world-wide.

And it is precisely for this reason that we can least afford to lose them. As they were flown in, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon warned that we must be ready to accept casualties; and that is a grim prospect.

Not only are the kind of men comprising Marine commandos and SAS units the product of intensive training, at considerable national expense, they are recruited from among the very best human material in the British population. A mere look at a photo of a group of them shows that they constitute the finest in the race, not only in discipline, courage and physical attributes but in the genes than run in them, handed down from the best of our ancestors.

Perhaps the worst of all the tragedies attending the two World Wars of the 20th century was the genetic impoverishment of the belligerent white nations as a result of a death-toll never remotely justified by the issues over which the wars were fought. The whole Western World was racially enfeebled by these holocausts (real ones!), and many of its weaknesses of today can be attributed to those blood-lettings.

If any benefit could be derived from all this, it lies in the lessons it should have provided for the future. If white men of the finest quality, whether British, American or otherwise, are going to have their lives risked again, it must be in defence of some very vital national - and racial - interests, and for no other reason.

And this is the danger. What vital British, American or other national interest, where the western world is concerned, is at stake in the present war in Afghanistan? If it be answered that we all have an interest in the elimination of terrorism, we would reply: yes indeed! But before we sacrifice our best men in a fight against terrorism we should be sure that we are identifying its proper cause and its proper source. In previous issues we have spotlighted the extremely selective ‘anti-terrorist’ stance of our Prime Minister whereby he rails against Islamic terrorists, but does next to nothing about black terrorism against British people in Zimbabwe, aids and abets Israeli terrorism in Palestine and capitulates to Irish Republican terrorism at home.

We believe that Islamic terrorism is primarily a response to the globalist policies of the United States whereby the Americans have taken it upon themselves to be the world's policemen, and in particular to be the protectors, backers and arms-suppliers of Israel in that nation's brutal war of suppression against the Palestinian people. If American support for Israel were to be withdrawn, the |raison d'être for Islamic terrorism would be mostly removed and the chances of world peace vastly enhanced.

As these events are unfolding in Afghanistan, the US is now preparing for an armed strike against Iraq and, as with Afghanistan, the British Government looks like trotting along like an obedient poodle in its support. Right at this moment Tony Blair is desperately trying to ‘sell’ his reluctant cabinet and party on the idea that we must go along with the Americans in attacking Iraq. And why? Because, we are told, Saddam Hussein is an awfully bad man who has weapons of mass destruction and is therefore a menace to the peace of the world!

This is baloney.

Iraq has a population of a mere 20-25 million. It is a Third World country with very little industry. Its only substantial resource is oil - which it needs to sell to the western world to survive. The very idea that it would use its weapons in an attack on the West belongs to cloud-cuckooland. Saddam Hussein would have to be an absolute maniac to embark on such a venture, and that he most certainly is not.

Much more probable is that Saddam has stockpiled an arsenal of weapons for essentially defensive purposes - in anticipation of a US strike and as a deterrent against it. It may be that such weapons will one day be used offensively, but if so that could only be against Israel, never against the western powers, least of all the U.S.A.

Whether Blair will go along with the Americans in an attack against Iraq is not yet known. He certainly wants to. Having never worn uniform himself, let alone seen a shot fired in anger, he loves strutting around acting the little warlord - though the perilously undermanned and under-equipped state of Britain's forces scarcely justifies such a posture.

But Blair is having big trouble persuading New Labour - soaked as it is in the party's traditions of pacifism - to go along with his sabre-rattling. He also seems to be getting nowhere in persuading his partners in Europe. So we may yet be saved from the insanity of getting yet more of the cream of our young manhood killed in no legitimate British quarrel.

African nemesis

Events go from bad to worse in the once fair country formerly called Rhodesia and now going to ruin under the absurd name of ‘Zimbabwe’. As these words are written, the murder of another white farmer, Terry Ford, has just been announced. Local tyrant Robert Mugabe has won another election, characterised by vote-rigging and intimidation of opponents. What is left of the national economy descends into ever-greater chaos.

Meanwhile, white liberals here in Britain scratch their heads in agonised perplexity as they observe developments. What has happened? How has it all gone wrong? Where have we failed? Their bewilderment would be comical if it were not against a background of events so tragic. What has happened is quite simple. Africa, liberated from the guiding hand of the White Man, is reverting to type. This has been going on for close on four decades, and the news from ‘Zimbabwe’ merely constitutes a particularly glaring manifestation of it. Yet the Guardian-reading classes still do not get it. Their smug little dream world of ‘race-equality’ and ‘anti-colonialism’ lies in tatters. Yet none of it is their fault!

An isolated hint of reality came from Peter Hitchens, writing in The Mail on Sunday,(March 17th), when he said:-

‘The British establishment handed over Zimbabwe, bound and gagged, two decades ago. They knew what they were doing. They feebly pretended that independence was better than British colonial rule; that the British Empire had been wicked and greedy.

‘Now, by our half-hearted and short-term interventions in the post-imperial world, we acknowledge our mistake. But does anyone actually admit that it was wrong to dismantle the empire? Not a chance.’

What was especially pitiful was Tony Blair's attempt at the recent Commonwealth conference to mobilise the attending nations against Mugabe's Government and his failure to get more than one year's suspension of Commonwealth membership. His argument was that Mugabe was violating the rules of ‘democracy’ in his conduct of the recent election and that they should apply pressure to bring the dictator to heel.

But why the hell should they care? They are mostly nations who do not see themselves as having the slightest stake or interest in what happens in ‘Zimbabwe’. Democracy violated? So what! There is nothing in the political traditions or cultures of these nations to suggest they give a damn about democracy, let alone that they should trouble themselves to get us British out of a mess that was our own creation in the first place.

Mugabe had a point when he retorted: "It is not the right or the responsibility of the British to decide on our elections. We don't decide on theirs, and why should they poke their pink noses in our business?"

In fact, Mugabe's stance was somewhat nearer the reality of the present situation in Africa than was that of our Prime Minister. By ditching Rhodesia years back, we forfeited our right to have any say in what happened there. Our attempted intervention in the name of ‘democracy’ was pathetic. Africans could see this, even if our politicians here in Britain could not.

Certainly, we should have intervened; but our intervention should have had nothing to do with Mugabe's alleged violations of ‘democracy’. We should have intervened in protection of the white people of ‘Zimbabwe’ most of whom either hold British passports or are at least of British descent, and we should have stated honestly and forthrightly that this was our reason: that we were protecting our own kind and that politics had nothing to do with it.

But if we were going to intervene at all we should have done so effectively by using the only language Mugabe and his kind understand; that of ruthless armed force. Instead of wasting our military manpower in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, where no British interests are threatened, we should be sending the Marines and other units into ‘Zimbabwe’, not to safeguard ‘democracy’ there but to protect British people. It is still not too late to do this, but we fear that neither this Government nor any alternative Tory one would have the gumption.

Terry Ford is the latest casualty of the folly and gutlessness of modern British political leaders and the opinion-formers who stand behind them. He is not likely to be the last.

The Commonwealth: end it or mend it?

Whatever may have happened at the referred-to Commonwealth meeting at which Tony Blair placed the ‘Zimbabwe’ crisis on the agenda, we should not draw the wrong conclusions from the results.

As did Simon Heffer when, writing in the Daily Mail on March 2nd, he said:-

‘It would be good if the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia today were the last. The Commonwealth is an absurd organisation hijacked by Third World Marxists whose only interest in life is to bleed the richer countries (especially Britain) for funds. Its main purpose of spreading civilisation and democracy throughout the former British Empire has manifestly failed. For example, its toleration of "Butcher Bob" Mugabe, the dictator of Zimbabwe, is sickening. It is clearly time this long-running farce was ended.’

Heffer was half-right but only half. Most certainly, the Commonwealth as it is today, with its purported goal of spreading civilisation and democracy, is ridiculous. In those terms it always has been, and those who over forty years have maintained such a pretence have only been deluding themselves.

But to lump all the Commonwealth together as if it were a single entity - good or bad according to a single criterion - is utterly wrong. The Commonwealth is in fact a very complex institution which cannot be judged according to such simplistic reasoning.

On the one hand, there are the many former colonies and dependencies predominently, where not exclusively, populated by non-Whites which today form part of the Third World, with its perpetual poverty, its quasi-Marxism and its parasite role vis-a-vis Britain and the West.

On the other hand, there are the modern advanced nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where the populations are overwhelmingly white and European, and still to a very large extent of British descent, especially in Australia and New Zealand where despite recent immigration, Anglo-Celts are still a majority.

Australia and Canada are vast in territorial size and natural resources. They can supply most of the minerals and energy products which Britain needs to import. They have ample room for Britain's surplus population (white, that is) and by systematically organised emigration, as took place to Australia after World War II, this could enable us to restore a high birth-rate in this country without the danger of overcrowding.

This portion of the Commonwealth could provide us with the enlarged economic area that is so often being touted by the Euro lobby as a reason for Britain having to surrender her sovereignty to the EU.

Of course, it would need the consent and co-operation of the countries in question for a renewal of the old partnership with Britain to be established. But have any governments in modern times seriously tried to obtain this?

If a future British Government did try, it might fail. But we will never know whether we are doomed to fail unless we try. And if we devoted to the task the same patience and effort that governments have displayed over the past four decades to make Europe a single entity, with Britain ‘in the heart’ of it - all to no avail, we might be surprised at what could be achieved.

So, contrary to what Mr. Heffer maintains, we should not ‘end’ the Commonwealth; we should just ditch its most useless parts, and then try to weld the remainder into a real force in the world - to be used for the mutual benefit of its white peoples.

    Spearhead Online