What We Think    
    Nationalist comment on the month's news    

Evil beyond description

Britain stumbles as if blindfold into a new year more or less resigned to the fact that its prime minister, sometime this month, is likely to take us into a war in which some British armed services personnel stand to get killed and perhaps many more disabled and permanently impaired in health by what has come to be known as Gulf War Syndrome; in which retaliation at home through domestic terrorism is not just possible but probable; and which will incur an expense currently estimated at £5 billion (probably running to a great deal more) - and all this in pursuit of no legitimate national interest whatsoever. Our chosen adversary, Iraq, could not seriously threaten us even if it wanted to. We are not vitally reliant, as is the United States, on Iraqi oil supplies. On the other hand, we stand to forfeit vast reserves of international goodwill and respect by our action in participating in President Bush's attack on Saddam Hussein and his country.

Various opinion polls have pointed clearly to the fact that the majority of ordinary folk in Britain are against our involvement in Bush's war, but this matters not a jot to the political class, which in the overwhelming majority is in favour of it (providing of course, as is assured, that none of them will be called upon to do any of the fighting).

These plain and simple facts reveal much, but perhaps above all they reveal the nauseating fumes of humbug which emit forth from the citadels of ‘liberal’ opinion, where dwell those who make comfortable livings as claimants to the moral high ground in world politics: who in most circumstances bray forth their commitment to ‘peace’, ‘love’ and the ‘brotherhood of man’, who decry the use of armed force in international conflicts as ‘imperialism’ and ‘militarism’, who generally treat their country's soldiers with neglect and contempt while denigrating their traditions and valour. But now we witness these high priests and priestesses of liberal values tamely acquiescing in Tony's war policy because to do so has become the fashionable and profitable cause célèbre of the day - and, in the case of those with political ambition, the surest way to keep their noses clean with a view to future promotion.

But while there undoubtedly is wide spread opposition in Britain to Blair's war, it lacks vehemence; it is without militancy and passion; it tut-tuts rather than rages. Compared with the insurgent spirit of the anti-hunt protestors, its dissent has the temperature of a damp squib.

So Blair & Co. - unless they are pulling a gigantic bluff against us all - will go ahead. They will march against Iraq as obedient curs wagging their tails in complicity with the shouted orders of Washington, hoping perhaps to get appreciative pats on the head from Dubya when it is all over - though just when that will be it is dangerous to predict. Thus has a once great and proud nation been brought by a couple of generations of political midgets to the very pits of slavery and subservience; and thus must the descendants of those who manned the thin red line at Waterloo and who defended the stockades at Rorke's Drift die in the sand and suffocate in the heat of a remote foreign land whose possession is not worth a cut finger of any one of them.

And they must do so, not for Queen and country, but for the globalist World Order, for the ‘Special Relationship’ and, not least for the cause of Israel Über Alles.

VIP treatment demanded

With the closure of the refugee camp at Sangatte, near Calais, the flood of asylum seekers into Britain accelerated to a considerable extent last month. But are these people grateful for our hospitality? A gang of 23 Iraqi Kurds arrived here expecting the red carpet treatment and definitely not expecting to have to earn their keep. To begin with they were put up at a three-star hotel in Luton, but then they were moved to a fruit-packing farm near Cambridge, where they had been given work. Their jobs would have earned them up to £10 an hour, and the hostel accommodation was of a good standard, with meals provided, along with television and games rooms and a washing and ironing service - a life of luxury compared with we they were used to back home, and what many Brits had to make do with over Christmas.

But none of this was good enough. They had grown to like their £95-a-night rooms at the hotel, so they abandoned their new abode and made their way back to Luton, where they staged an angry protest on Christmas Eve, demanding to be let back in again. Police were called as the situation became potentially violent when the hotel staff refused to let them in. Eventually the Home Office defused things by getting six of them into a nearby hotel while the remainder were sent to stay with family and friends - apparently not at all hard to locate.

This was just one small cameo in a farcical saga. The Daily Express of December 17th had it well summed up. In a front-page story headed ‘Luxury Life of Asylum-Seekers’ it reported:-

‘Hundreds of asylum-seekers are staying in luxury hotels at the taxpayers expense, it was revealed last night.

‘The Government was accused by watchdogs of ‘losing the plot’ by paying for refugees to stay in rooms that cost the public up to £140 a night.

‘A Daily Express investigation found immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan enjoying 24-hour room service, 15-channel cable TV, including porn films, Sony PlayStations, a swimming pool, Jacuzzi, sauna, steam room, solariums and fully air-conditioned gym...

‘Their stay could last up to three months. They have been found accommodation at short notice under Home Secretary David Blunkett's deal with the French to take a total of 1,000 refugees from the shut-down Sangatte camp across the Channel...

‘Last week it emerged that a hotel in West London had ordered guests to pack up and leave to make way for an influx of 120 Iraqi and Afghan refugees.’

Does it not sometimes seem as if our political masters, in a kind of insane perversity, actually enjoy inflicting outrages like these on their obviously despised voters - a kind of rubbing of noses in the dirt for the sheer hell of it? Such would appear to have become the total alienation between rulers and people that often precedes revolutionary upheaval. Many of us, as we choked over our Christmas dinners on hearing news like this, must have been dreaming of new uses for lamp-posts when comes the day of liberation!

Great news for IDS!

Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith must have been feeling pleased with himself at some of the seasonal news. According to a report in The Daily Telegraph of December 27th, his party is starting to win more fans among the country's Blacks. The report said:-

‘The Conservative Party is on the verge of securing the support of leading figures in Britain's black community who are growing disillusioned with Tony Blair and Labour.

‘Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, has held talks with senior Afro-Caribbean business figures who are considering making large donations to the party.’

It is news to us that there are Afro-Caribbean business figures able to make large donations to anyone or anything, but we will leave that aside for the moment and look more closely at this development. Apparently, what has happened is that there are some black people who are getting to feel that Labour takes their support too much for granted. What they have decided to do is play hard to get with Labour and enquire more closely into what the Tories can offer them. Some of them have not been disappointed. According to Simon Woodley, national co-ordinator of ‘Operation Black Vote’ (whatever that may be), many of his kinfolk have not thought in the past that the Tory Party cares for them, but...

‘... there has never been more of an open-door policy on race issues from the Tory establishment, and it's being noticed.’

So bully for Dunkers! But the leader did suffer a little embarrassment early in December. In his drive to recruit more black and Asian MPs he had set up a special section in the party for this purpose and appointed in charge of it one Mark MacGregor. Now back in the 1980s Mr. MacGregor was one of the leading lights in the Federation of Conservative Students. He and a then colleague Douglas Smith had taken part in a magazine interview in which Smith was alleged to have said, in reply to a question, that the FCS would not expel anyone who used the word ‘wog’ - presumably in reference to a certain ethnic minority. This, apparently, was an utterly dreadful admission, and it was one of the factors that led to the Tory Chairman of the time, Norman Tebbit, closing the FCS down on the grounds that it was ‘too extreme.’

Mr. MacGregor has, since those days, obviously seen the light where his career in the Tory Party is concerned and has now joined the ranks of the party's politically correct - with such apparent zeal and commitment that Dunkers considers him a suitable person to head the drive for more ‘ethnics’. But his past still haunts him, and there was quite a row in the party last month over his appointment. He was not the one who in those distant days spoke of accepting people who used the word ‘wog’; Mr. Smith was. But he (Macgregor) was a colleague of him (Smith). So on the basis of guilt-by-association Mr. MacGregor was damnable and therefore damned. The now Lord Tebbit protested that he (MacGregor) was unfit to be a member of the party, let alone part of its chief executive. But Mr. MacGregor was truly repentant for his past sins. Said he in a recent statement:

‘I've always believed that racists are not only stupid but wrong. Anyone who expresses racist views or attitudes has no place in the Conservative Party.’

So Mr. MacGregor shows himself a true Tory; he remains on course for promotion; and all live happily ever after.

Wider still and wider

Champions of European Union have for some 30-40 years been at pains to protest that the purpose of union has been to defend European Civilisation by making it unified instead of divided. We in this magazine, to the contrary, have maintained always that the union idea has very little to do with the defence of European Civilisation but is conceived as no more than a stepping stone to a one-world state, in which Europeans will be a minority.

Now the EU, with Tony Blair's more than willing support, wants to bring Turkey into ‘Europe’ - and that's not all; plans are afoot for the incorporation of North African nations like Morocco and Tunisia. The only conditions, apparently, are whether these nations meet the criteria of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’. The fact that they are not by the wildest stretch of imagination European seems to matter not at all - although some members of the Euro élite, like former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, are not too keen on their inclusion.

Probably, it will end up with these doubters being overruled and the Turks and many millions - perhaps hundreds of millions - of peoples from Asia and Africa all being brought in. As The Sunday Times asked in a worried article on the 15th December, "How Big Can it Get?" The answer is, of course, that there is no limit to how big it can - and will - get, if the globalists who dominate European policy have their way. Needless to say, in this inflated ‘Europe’ great historic nations like Britain, France and Germany, will just be swamped. And that, of course, is the objective.

Confession of impotence

New Labour's Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has made a depressing but not exactly surprising confession. He said last month that it could take ‘decades’ for Britain's roads and railways to be operating at the desired level of efficiency.

All that this illustrates is paralysis at the heart of government and the political system. They know what needs to be done but haven't the will to get it done. This will be Britain's epitaph if radical change in the system doesn't come soon.

    Spearhead Online