Not muddle - policy!

For some time, we have been saying that the apparently uncontrolled flood of immigrants into Britain is not the result of mere confusion (though there is quite enough of the latter from what must surely be the most incompetent government in our history); the flood is a matter of quite conscious policy, shaped by New Labour's fanatical internationalist outlook and its obeisance to its paymasters in powerful places. Writer and journalist Peter Hitchens has described it as the deliberate 'Abolition of Britain', though Hitchens himself has taken care not to introduce the racial dimension into his arguments. A race-mixing programme for all white nations is the order of the day - as dictated by the globalists, to whom prime ministers, presidents, cabinets and parliaments are mere puppets.

A few years ago such an assertion would have sounded cranky, and there may still be people around today who would dismiss it as such; but the naked facts of what is happening increasingly underline the truth of it.

Last month, one Steve Moxon, a hitherto obscure apparatchnik working in the Sheffield office of the Immigration & Nationality Directorate, hit national headlines by blowing the whistle on what he discovered to be a deliberate government policy of fast-forwarding settlement applications by many thousands of would-be immigrants while bypassing the rule under which their backgrounds are supposed to be examined. The applicants have been given permission to stay in Britain on the claim that they are skilled, wealth-creating migrants, but the checks necessary to establish this in each case have been abandoned on instructions from high up in the Government!

Said Mr. Moxon in a press statement:

'I've granted residency to people who should never in a million years have been allowed into this country. It was clear to me that a staged withdrawal from immigration rules was taking place as far as these applications were concerned. The checks were being diluted and diluted to the point where no rules whatsoever were being applied.'

At the same time Moxon produced evidence that there is a clear policy to hush up these new procedures. A memo to civil servants has ordered them not to make any mention of the policy. It said: "As this is not a published policy... no reference should be made to this."

In other words, don't let the British public know what is happening! While the Government continues to keep up a public posture of controlling immigration and exercising strict supervision over applications, it is in fact doing nothing of the kind.

Mr. Moxon has in the meantime been suspended from his job and says he expects in due course to be fired. The only thing that might prevent this is the Government's fear that he could in that event feel able to speak even more freely and frankly about the scandal than he has done so far.

We use the word advisedly but what we are witnessing here is a conspiracy - just one small feature of a conspiracy that is really much larger and involves the planned racial destruction of our country, but an important and revealing feature nevertheless. And for that we should be grateful to this civil servant who had the courage to speak out.

His Master's Voice speaks

Tony Blair astounded and seriously worried even many of his most loyal supporters last month when he went further than he has ever gone before in his embrace of globalism, world government and international meddling. Speaking in defence of his decision to take the country into the war in Iraq, he called for a new framework of international law that would make it easier for 'democracies' to oust 'tyrannies'. He said:-

'It may well be that under international law as presently constituted a régime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing we can do.

'This may be the law, but should it be? If it is a global threat, it needs a global response, based on global rules.'

What the Prime Minister was, in effect, saying was that new globalist legislation was needed which would entitle certain self-appointed keepers of global order and 'democracy' to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states whose conduct of their affairs was not satisfactory to those keepers. This, inevitably, meant military action if no other form of pressure worked. It meant that any leader or government anywhere whom the globalists did not like could be overthrown as if by prescriptive right of the overthrowers.

Of course, when Tony referred to régimes 'brutalising' and 'oppressing' their peoples what he really meant was régimes which, not meeting the approval of folk like him, could be presented as brutalising and oppressing their peoples by an orchestrated mass media onslaught, using any fabricated stories coming to hand. If Tony and his globalist masters had no particular axe to grind against a régime, its rulers could go on brutalising and oppressing to their hearts' content. It would all depend on essentially political considerations. Thus the kind of laws Tony was suggesting would not apply to Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe; nor would they apply to Ariel Sharon in Israel. These régimes, you see, are politically 'acceptable', whereas those like that of Saddam Hussein in Iraq are not. Hence the need for military action, where necessary, to enforce the globalists' will - in some cases but not others. You get the idea?

Hush up the facts!

The number of HIV cases in Glasgow is rising fast because of immigration from Africa. In 2002-03 there were 85 new cases in the area, an increase of 77 per cent over the previous year and double the figure for the year before that.

One would have thought that the public health authorities would view this matter as one of the utmost seriousness and designate the protection of the populace from such a hazard as being an absolute priority. But no! Public statements have been designed deliberately to obfuscate and mislead. The Scottish Centre for Infection & Environmental Health just says that the majority of new cases are resulting from people getting the disease abroad and bringing it to Scotland with them. The impression given here is one of Scots travelling to Africa and becoming HIV-positive when there rather than of Africans arriving in Britain and bringing it with them. So why are the proper facts concerning the identities of the carriers not made known? Prof. David Goldberg, who oversees HIV and AIDS monitoring, says: "That is information that we have not published because it is felt that it is not appropriate. We have to take into account the potential for racism, xenophobia, etc."

Sheila McLean, professor of medical law and ethics at Glasgow University, agrees. She says that the only reason she can think of for knowing the HIV figures would be to encourage prejudice against non-Whites.

So preventing 'racism' is more important than protecting the public from the AIDS virus. Thank you, Professors Goldberg and McLean, for letting us know!

Chasing the pink vote

We have already advised readers that the new Tory régime of Michael Howard (real name Michael Hecht) is likely to be even 'wetter' and more liberal and politically correct than the previous Duncan Smith one - and that is really saying something! It was reported in The Sunday Times of March 14th that later in the month there would be a summit conference in Westminster, attended by representatives of homosexual organisations from all over the country and abroad, whose agenda would be to open up 'dialogue' between the Tory Party and the 'gay' community and thus (although this was not specifically stated) endear the Tories to 'gay' electors.

As part of all this, a number of policy initiatives have been launched. One is to appoint an 'anti-homophobic' officer for every school (cost to the taxpayer not detailed). Another is to legislate against insurance firms discriminating against 'gay' men (lesbians apparently not included but no doubt that will come).

Meanwhile, Commander Brian Paddick, Britain's highest-ranking openly 'gay' police officer, has been invited to talks about 'hate' crime against 'gays' and lesbians (good to know that here the latter are not forgotten!).

According to the Sunday Times report:

'The search for gay-friendly policies to include in the party's manifesto for the next election follows a radical shift in its attitude towards gays and lesbians since Howard become leader.

'In a keynote speech last month the Tory leader backed plans for a form of 'gay marriage' by signalling his support for civil partnership rights for same-sex couples...

'The spirit of inclusiveness has also been reflected in the party's apparent increased willingness to select openly gay people as candidates.'

Should we be outraged? It would be natural if we were, but in fact we should be pleased. All this puts a label firmly on the Tory Party which can leave no doubt as to where it stands and what it has become. Not a single lesson from its failures in the recent past has been learned. It staggers blindly on, oblivious to the reasons why it is so little loved by Middle Britain, and ever more anxious to imitate its Labour rival. And to those who want real political change in Britain this is all to the good.

The real point about the Gibson film

Up to now we have not seen Mel Gibson's controversial production The Passion of the Christ, and so cannot comment on its merits as a work of the film-maker's art. It may be very good. It may be awful. But this misses the real point in the controversy.

The real point is Mr. Gibson's right to make the film and the right of the public around the world to see it and judge it for themselves. Over the past months there has been a furious argument over this fundamental issue, and this argument tells us much more about what is going on in the world than Mr. Gibson could ever have told us in the film itself.

The great heresy of the film is that, in its portrayal of the death of Christ and the events leading up to it, it reflects ungenerously (and possibly inaccurately) on the Jews. Well, so what? The same Mel Gibson played leading roles as an actor in two films, Braveheart and The Patriot, which many would feel reflected very ungenerously on the English in one case and the British generally (though the English mostly) in the other. Both of these films were extremely careless in their treatment of historical truth but the British, and especially the English, were expected not to mind - and indeed most of us didn't mind, though perhaps we should have done. At least, none of us suggested for one second that the films should not be allowed to be produced and shown. Britain, America and most of the other countries where they were put on view are supposed to be 'democracies' - that is countries where films are shown which might delight some people and greatly offend others. Thus it has always been. That is what film production and distribution in free societies are all about.

Hollywood has for the past 60-odd years been churning out thousands upon thousands of films dealing with World War II which are extremely ungenerous in their portrayal of Germans - certain Germans, at least, if not all Germans - just as The Passion was apparently ungenerous in its portrayal of certain, though not all, Jews. Aside from this, the historical accuracy of many of these films might be disputed just as the historical accuracy of The Passion is disputed.

Germans today might take offence at these World War II films from the standpoint both of their ethnic stereotyping and of their historical accuracy. Yet they are not expected to do so, and wherever and whenever they do they are dismissed as incorrigible nazi apologists who are not worth listening to.

But apparently it is quite legitimate for Jews all over the world to be outraged at the production and showing of Gibson's Passion, and indeed to demand that it be withdrawn from distribution - all on the grounds that it might incite racial hatred against Jews and is anyway not factually accurate - whereas it would not be legitimate for Brits or Germans to demand the banning of Braveheart and The Patriot, in the one case, and thousands of World War II (and not a few World War I) films in the other case - even supposing they were intolerant enough to do so.

That, readers, is the real point about The Passion. Think on it.

Another sell-out planned?

It was reported last month that the Alvis company, which makes the world-beating Challenger 2 tank, is targeted for takeover by the American firm General Dynamics, the producer of the Abrams tank, which, like the Challenger, was used in Iraq. It is generally known that the Challenger outperformed the Abrams in that conflict.