What We Think    
    Nationalist comment on the month's news    

Madman on the loose

If ever the world needed reminding that America has a power-crazed lunatic in the White House ready to involve us all in perpetual war, this should have become absolutely clear from President George W. Bush’s swearing-in speech in Washington on the 20th of last month. The speech amounted to a declaration, in so many words, that while he was President America was prepared, if necessary, to take military action again and again wherever he thought a country needed 'freedom' imposed upon it – his idea of freedom, that is. Though the speech lasted a mere 17 minutes, he used the word no less than 27 times, and 'liberty' 15 times. With the results of his export of 'freedom' to Iraq painfully visible on our TV screens every day, this is a chilling thought.

The Bush speech said, in effect, that America and its President had set themselves up as the arbiters of what kind of political system every country around the world should have. But it was clear that the country especially earmarked for attention was Iran, the next-door neighbour of Iraq, four times its size and with over three times its population. Looking at what is now happening in Iraq, the idea of US forces, with or without those of the President’s British lackeys, trying to maintain control there just staggers the imagination.

Just as blatant lies were used by Bush and Blair to persuade us we had to attack and occupy Iraq because of its supposed "weapons of mass-destruction," now the tune of the moment is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and will soon have a full-blown nuclear capacity. Just supposing this were true, the idea that the Iranians would ever use that capacity to attack anyone belongs to Hollywood fantasy. They know that immediately they did this the Americans would wipe them off the face of the earth. They are not that stupid.

The reality is, of course, very different from the rhetoric. When Bush or Blair rabbit on about countries needing 'freedom', what they really mean is that the countries they have their eyes on must be run by people firmly under the control of, and subservient to, the US-Zionist 'New World Order'; countries with governments and leaders willing to serve as US-Zionist puppets and who will never dare to have policies of their own.

As everyone knows, there is a country in the Middle East in possession of nuclear weapons. It is called Israel. If an American politician – especially one with a profitable career ahead of him – is ever asked about Israel’s nuclear weapons, he will reply that in Israel’s case they are needed for defensive purposes. Israel is a nation surrounded by hostile neighbours, and thus needs to be strongly armed. But when this argument is turned on its head and someone suggests that other nations in the region, such as Iran for instance, also feel they have hostile neighbours (Israel for instance) and thus need to be strongly armed, that of course is not permissible. These politicians know which way their bread is buttered!

We can expect that in the coming months there is going to be a crescendo of alarmist hype about what is happening in Iran and how we must be prepared to take action to stop it. And we can expect that the ever faithful Tony Blair will declare himself ready to follow in GW’s wake like the poodle he is – recent denials from Foreign Secretary Straw notwithstanding. Whether he will get away with it this time remains to be seen. At least we cannot say we haven’t been warned.

Howard tries a ‘Thatcher’

Tory leader Michael Howard was accused last month of playing the 'race card' when he made a promise that his party, if in power, would "turn back all asylum-seekers." Howard claimed that if the Conservatives won the coming election all asylum-seekers would be turned back at British ports and airports by new armed squads of security guards on duty 24 hours a day. In addition, the 250,000 asylum-seekers already here whose claims have been turned down would be thrown out.

Sounds tough, doesn’t it? But that is all it is – mere sound. Coming from the leader of a party whose record on controlling immigration is utterly abysmal, Howard’s promise deserves to be greeted with gales of laughter. It all remind us of Maggie Thatcher’s infamous statement made back in 1979 about the British people being afraid of being 'swamped' by immigrants. This undoubtedly took a lot of votes from the premier nationalist party of the time, the National Front. Of course, it all turned out to be mere hot air: under the Thatcher Governments of the 1980s the immigrants continued to pour in, as before.

Very predictably, Howard’s pledge, unconvincing though it was, brought howls of protest from Labour and the old phrase 'race card' was trotted out. Very likely, the Tory leader anticipated this and gauged that it would give him and his party added credibility with the electorate. We have reached a point now when being accused by Labour of being 'racist' is worth a stack of votes.

Clearly, Howard’s eye is on the threat from the BNP. This is his quite cynical way of countering that threat. Will the British public be fooled, as many were in 1979? We shall see.

Meaningless ceremony

The latest gimmick from the Government is the idea of a special 'citizenship' ceremony for all 18-year-olds in which they would take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, listen to speeches and receive certificates to mark their coming of age as British citizens. Whether the idea ever gets further than the talking stage is questionable, but of course talk is this Government’s main speciality.

It is reported that the scheme is part of an official drive to improve 'community cohesion'. The purpose was well summed up by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail on 21st January when she said that, decoded, the idea...

'... means that ministers are frightened rigid by growing tensions between Britain’s different ethnic groups and the prospect of national unity breaking down.

'As ever, though, they have taken a serious problem, failed to address it properly and then attempted to cover up this failure by a prime example of gesture politics.'

We know Melanie Phillips well enough to know that her idea of addressing the race problem properly is very different from our own. Nevertheless, her words as quoted here are absolutely correct so far as they go.

The ceremony idea seems in fact to come straight out of the Tory textbook on citizenship politics. Everyone must be integrated so as to become 'British' regardless of race, colour or creed. The idea is a nonsense. Immigrants from all backgrounds arriving in the United States take an oath of allegiance to the Flag and the Constitution. This means nothing more than that it bestows upon them certain 'rights' which they find it highly convenient to enjoy. It does not make them Americans, any more than Asian, Afro-Caribbean and other allsorts from around the world would be made 'British' by holding their hands in the air, mouthing a few words and, perhaps, signing a piece of paper.

What makes people British is that they belong to the indigenous population of the British Isles – or that, in some cases, they may come from closely related European stocks and be able to integrate into that population as their Saxon, Norse and Huguenot predecessors did. Beyond these closely circumscribed racial boundaries people are not British – and no kind of ceremony, however decorative and full of nice words, will change that.

Tickling at the booze culture

Surely one of the emptiest debates for many years is the current one concerning whether alcohol should be on sale at all hours instead of sales being restricted, as in the past. Obviously, the Government is only concerned with one aspect of the issue: will the extension of hours pull in more votes for Labour. Senior police officers up and down the land seem to be of the view that the relaxing of the rules will create more, rather than less, drunken hooliganism. We might be inclined to listen to those officers with more respect than we listen to politicians – but for the fact that today’s crop of police top brass have got it wrong on so many issues, and are so clearly incompetent in the job of tackling crime, that they enjoy a level of credibility not very much higher.

In our opinion, making licensing hours a big issue in dealing with drunken behaviour amounts to firing far wide of the target. Increasing drunkenness is a consequence of a deeply unhappy society, full of people pessimistic about the future, with no worthwhile goals in life and no standards or pride; people who just live for momentary pleasure and relief from boredom and gloom. Add to this a culture totally lacking in any appreciation of discipline, and little preparedness by parents or schoolteachers to impart it to the young, and you have a cast-iron recipe for streets littered with rolling bodies, male and female, utterly paralytic or otherwise spoiling for a fight with whomever happens to be standing near.

Widespread drunken behaviour in public places is just one of many symptoms of a society that is decadent. None of this is going to be changed by altering the rules governing the sale of drink; but we doubt if the politicians of today will ever get the message.

    Spearhead Online