What We Think    
    Nationalist comment on the month's news    

A fraud and a farce

As the racket of 'democracy' degenerates ever further, parliamentary and other elections take on more and more the elements of fraud and farce. The British general election, due to be held on the 5th of this month, is no different. Media reports have highlighted the dangers of fraudulence likely to occur through the abuse of the postal voting system, but that will be only the tip of the iceberg. The entire proceedings are being conducted in an atmosphere of such dishonesty that, whichever party wins, the verdict will have very little to do with the actual will of the people that is supposed to be the keystone of democratic politics; nor will it have the smallest effect on the way in which the country is governed thereafter.

This has never been better exhibited – at least by mainstream journalists – than in an article titled 'The phoney election', written by Peter Oborne and appearing in the Daily Mail on 23rd April. Mr. Oborne, though by no means any kind of foaming 'far-right' radical, illustrated admirably the forces that have taken over our political system and perverted it to their own purposes.

He began by describing a TV walkabout by Tony Blair in Rushden, Northamptonshire, where the Premier was shown shaking hands and talking with what the viewers were supposed to think were ordinary local people. Smiles, nods and friendly reactions from everyone were on display. However, said Oborne, this was not a gathering of the local public but...

'The point is that every person there I spoke to was a Labour Party member – there is no doubt that these 'ordinary' voters were handpicked.

'Party officials tried to stop me getting in. Had any other members of the public got to hear that Tony Blair was in town and tried to meet him, then they also would have been barred.

'Mr. Blair had made sure he was among friends, so there were no worries about a hostile reaction, or even an awkward question. The media presence was strictly controlled.'

And Oborne continued a little further on:-

'The ancient institutions of British democracy have been captured by a new professional political élite, which no longer seeks to communicate with the voters as equals.

'Instead, it sets out to dupe, deceive and manipulate us from behind the scenes. The terrifying thing is that many ordinary voters do not even understand this is happening.'


'This pitiful general election is turning into a matter for national shame. The main parties all agree about the substantive issues, but pretend they do not by manufacturing artificial differences. Very often they resort to lies and deceit to distinguish themselves from rivals.'

So what is Mr. Oborne saying? Only what our magazine has been saying for some forty years, though as the years have passed the truth of it has been increasingly underlined as the racket has revealed itself ever more glaringly.

But perhaps the most sinister and alarming of Mr. Oborne's revelations was where he wrote of the manner in which the leading parties employ computer technology to ascertain the likely voting tendencies of electors and then target them specially with approaches geared to their perceived feelings. Let him take up the story:-

'Political parties can now use a mass of information about ordinary citizens, which most us wrongly assume is private: our credit card details, our shopping habits, what magazines we read, what restaurants we eat at, how much we are in debt... For instance, someone who has lived in the same house for more than ten years and has very low personal indebtedness is extremely likely to vote Tory. By contrast, heavily indebted people who have recently moved house are likely to fall into the category of swing voter.'

So just how does this kind of information which is supposed to be private fall into the hands of the political party chiefs? Credit card details should only be known to our banks – and possibly to the police in the rare instances of people being investigated for crimes. Shopping habits? What, do party snoops follow everyone when they go shopping? Or do they get this information from debit entries on credit card account statements – in which case how? Do they tail us when we go to buy magazines or eat out? This seems ridiculous, as it would take millions of them to do so. As for indebtedness, again this is information which only banks and similar bodies should know, with the tiny few exceptions mentioned.

One can only conclude from all this that such knowledge about our private circumstances – however acquired – is passed on to some kind of state bureau and thence handed to the political parties – needless to say, those political parties on the state's 'approved' list: it is inconceivable that it could be placed at the disposal of a party like the BNP.

We have in the past been ridiculed by people in the media as 'conspiracy nuts' but here is evidence from a writer and occasional broadcaster who enjoys a well-esteemed position in the media world admitting what cannot be otherwise described than as a conspiracy by the ruling establishment to control supposedly 'free' citizens and ensure, as far as possible, that they vote for one or another of that establishment's nominally separate and 'alternative' parties which theoretically offer a 'choice' but in reality stand, as Mr. Oborne himself acknowledges, for virtually the same things!

The immigration 'con'

We spoke about it in our March issue but since then things have moved on, and now we see both Labour and Tory locked in an utterly bogus debate on the raging issue of immigration, on evidence so far becoming the number-one issue in this election. On April 22nd he delivered a speech, conveniently scheduled for Dover, in which he claimed to show concern for the voters' worries about immigration. In this speech Princess Tony even went so far as to borrow, almost word-for-word, the language of Tory leader Michael Howard when he said: "Concern over asylum and immigration is not racism" and "It's not racist to talk about immigration." Just listen to this gem of humbug coming from the Prime Minister when speaking of the Tories:-

'Why do they say we 'pussyfoot' around on this issue when they know perfectly well we have been legislating on it from 1998 onwards, tightening the system, often in the face of their opposition?

'It is an attempt deliberately to exploit people's fears, to suggest that, for reasons of political correctness, those in power don't dare deal with the issue, so that the public is left with the impression that they are being silenced in their concerns, that we are blindly ignoring them or telling them that to raise the issue is racist, when actually the opposite is true.'

One has to pause to take a deep breath before pondering on this quite staggering statement from Mr. Blair. 'Pussyfooting' is exactly what his Government has been doing on the immigration issue since taking power eight years ago, but so also have the Tories pussyfooted equally until quite recently, when Mr. Howard discovered the issue was a potential vote-winner. And not only that, both Labour and the Tories have been pussyfooting over the immigrant invasion since it began more than half a century ago. Let us not forget how Tory leader Edward Heath sacked Enoch Powell and hounded him into the political wilderness for daring to raise the issue as long back as 1968. Are the Tories now realising that Powell was right? If so, they should admit it honestly and openly and deliver him a posthumous apology; but of course there is no chance they will ever do so.

As for Blair's claim that New Labour has been 'legislating', they can legislate till they are blue in the face. What the British public wants to see is clear evidence of diminishing numbers of immigrants on our streets – something of which there is not the slightest sign.

Exploiting people's fears! Isn't that what democratic politics have always been about? With the body politic always divided into warring factions, what else can we ever expect than that each faction will exploit public fears over this and that in order to 'get' one over the other. As soon as one politician disagrees with another about something, he is venturing into the territory in which people's fears are likely to be exploited. Sometimes this is entirely justified. You may as well as say that someone who sets off a fire alarm is exploiting people's fear of being caught in a blazing building! The very phrase is ridiculous, infantile and dishonest; but precisely for this reason it has become the stock-in-trade of today's party politicians.

The other common feature of the present bogus immigration debate is the regular tendency of both politicians and media pundits to say that if the immigration issue is not addressed, the voters will be driven into the arms of the 'awful' BNP. But what is so awful about the BNP? It has only been saying, since its launch in 1982, what many mainstream politicians are now saying, albeit in a watered down form, about the immigration danger. If ever there was a case of shooting the messenger this is it. We nationalists are pilloried and reviled for sounding warnings many years ago which are now being heeded, very belatedly, by our revilers!

There is, of course, one essential thing missing from this now open debate, and it is something we spotlighted in our leader article on the subject two months ago. All those engaged in the debate on behalf of the mainstream parties still refuse to admit that the immigration issue is, more than anything else, one about race. The immigrant invasion is a threat to this nation precisely because nearly all the invaders belong to races and cultures that are alien to it and unassimilable within it. Both Howard and now Blair say it is not 'racist' to be concerned about immigration; but in fact any concern about immigration that excludes racial considerations is just meaningless. The immigration issue is a racial issue first and foremost, and approaching it from any other standpoint is just skating around the problem – in effect 'pussyfooting', as Mr. Blair seems so anxious to deny he is doing.

We should end this analysis on an upbeat note. It is a sign of some progress towards truth and common sense that immigration is now accepted as a fit topic for national discussion. The very fact that it has become so stands to the credit of the so-called 'racists' who have campaigned on the issue for many years, not of the shameless opportunists who have very recently climbed on the bandwagon. We must now carry the debate the remainder of the way, so that before long it will become 'mainstream' to discuss immigration as the racial issue that, primarily, it is. Then we will really be getting somewhere!

Contradicting themselves

As a classic example of the double-speak currently employed by the 'liberal' press on the topic of race and immigration, The Sunday Times of 10th April featured two items which should be studied carefully.

On page 22 there was an article about 'tolerant' Britain in which the writer, John Elliott, spoke glowingly about how easy-going the British were about their next-door neighbours. "In Britain," he said, "91 per cent are not concerned by having neighbours of a different race, compared with 68 per cent in Turkey, 83 per cent in Belgium and a world average of 84 per cent." Bully for us Brits! But then on page 16 of the very same paper there appeared at the top of the page a report by David Leppard headed 'Immigration rise increases segregation in British cities'. The report went on to say that:-

'An increasingly mobile population means that white families are moving from Birmingham, Manchester and Bradford to be replaced by immigrants from Asia.'

The report went on to cite a survey made by the London School of Economics (not exactly an 'extreme right-wing' institution) last year which found that "in inner-city areas ethnic minorities were becoming isolated because the white population was moving out."

This, of course, was just another way of acknowledging the widely recognised phenomenon of 'white flight'. So what should we believe: answers given to pollsters by householders questioned about their preference for neighbours – householders, like so many, frightened of being branded as 'racist' – or the evidence of people voting with their feet by moving away from heavily 'ethnic' areas into overwhelmingly white areas out of town?

    Spearhead Online