Tony Blair is wrong in his claim that "it is not racist to talk about immigration." And it is hardly likely that the BNP, a legal political party which puts the halting of further immigration high up on its manifesto, will no longer be referred to as a 'racist' or 'xenophobic' party. Let us have a frank and open discussion on the subject, say the Tories. But why has there been no such discussion before? Because the liberal media have for decades kept a censorious grip on the whole issue.

Don't think that the immigration debate will curtail the picture editors from stepping up their images of a (false) multicultural Britain. And Michael Howard will not get an easy ride when he raises the issue at the next election, either.

The word 'racism' has scarcely ever been used by the general public or even by institutional bodies, only by the media. Later, of course, successive governments and other institutions of officialdom used the word when it became in their interests to do so, and thus to turn the awkward subject of immigration into a white-guilt issue. Hence the press and the broadcasters let the government off the hook, and became an accomplice to one of the greatest acts of political wrongdoing ever committed in this country – unfettered immigration that never had the consent of the British people.

In fact the media fostered a catastrophic untruth by implying that 'multi-culturalism' had a high moral purpose, and they unnecessarily polarized the political culture and the general public on the issue and deliberately confused humanitarian and internationalist factors with straightforward matters of public policy and what was in Britain's national interest. The reality was that hundreds of thousands of people with dubious legal identities were pouring into this country, often smuggled in, and most were making residential and financial claims on the country to which they were not entitled. Hence the moral 'high ground' on which the media claims to stand is actually the lowest ground imaginable.

A few of the tabloids on the 'right' have played up the immigration issue in recent years, but they have been extremely clever by the manner in which they have tended to negate everything they say, in the form of copy spread out on different pages. If anything, there has been a dramatic rise in the spread of pro-multicultural sentiment. For example, a picture in The Times showed Tony Blair proudly handing over the door keys to a black woman in her newly purchased, shared-ownership home in Northolt. They didn't have to print this picture, so why did they?

The Times now has many regular black and Asian columnists, and their pictures, of course, are prominently displayed. When the anti-immigration Dutch MP, Pim Fortuyn, was brutally gunned down in the street, The Times cartoonist, Peter Brookes, implied that he had it coming to him!

Whatever readers of Spearhead think of Robert Kilroy-Silk, at least he is on our side when he says: "Our country is being stolen from us and we have never been asked for our permission." Yet Kilroy-Silk has been sneeringly turned into a figure of fun: Robert Richardson of The Times recently wrote a jokey article saying: "'Tanning International' wants to do a picture spread, and 'Psychology' magazine is hoping to do an in-depth interview" (implying that RK-S is mentally ill).

The Telegraph is also drifting to the left as well as dumbing down. At the height of the immigration debate in January a huge and unnecessary picture, taking up half a broadsheet page, of 'Lady Amos', the black peeress (who wasn't in any way in the news) was gratuitously thrust down our throats.

Beserk Guardian

Although there was a big rush of immigration stories after Michael Howard had made his bid to make the subject an election issue, just as many articles appeared saying, dishonestly of course, that "we need more immigrants." In fact, after the issue burst wide open, The Guardian went berserk with its lies. Entire supplements were printed on the benefits of multi-culturalism. "Islam allows us to integrate into Britain's shared national culture," wrote Tariq Ramadan. This is not only a lie directed at the British people in order to justify Mr. Ramadan's existence here, but is a lie even from his own point of view. If he is a Pakistani writer, he wouldn't even have any 'common culture' with Hindus, let alone anything in common with white Europeans. 'Multi-culturalism', in any event, implies that there is no national culture.

Similarly, The Guardian's main leader article on 20th January 2005 used the heading 'Diversity, not segregation'. In fact, that is a mindless assertion because the word 'diversity' stems from 'difference', 'division', and 'unlikeness', and is actually contrary to traditional socialist thinking, which aimed to do away with class and income differences. But whereas class and status are abstractions, racial differences are highly visible, and also advertise people's immigrant status – and no matter how long these people live in Britain they can never disguise this.

Spectre of Enoch Powell

The left-liberal Tim Hames, writing sanctimoniously in The Times, had a headline: "Howard is tiptoeing into Enoch's footsteps. Remember what happened to him?" We do – he was destroyed by the likes of Hames!

This happened the day after Enoch Powell gave his Birmingham speech on 20th April 1968. This was the first time that it was clear that editors were prepared to go against public opinion: prior to that date – and largely because many journalists were of working-class origin themselves and had roots in the neighbourhood of their local paper – they tended to be on the side of the local people. For example, after Powell's speech the Wolverhampton Express & Star received 5,000 letters supporting him and only 300 against. A subsequent postcard poll resulted in over 35,000 votes in Powell's favour, with hardly any against.

Smarting considerably from this rebuff from their own readerships, newspapers from that time onwards made it a point of honour to abuse the white working class, whom they branded 'racists' and people who should learn to be more broad-minded and 'tolerant'. These journalists became, as a result, a dangerous element of subversion in this country as the immigrants continued to flood in: having branded the working class as 'racist' they found it difficult to change their tune.

Gradually, the loathing for the working class spread to everything it stood for: support for the Royal Family, self-reliant communities, patriotism, deference, independence and parochialism. In fact, it was this last aspect that the liberal journalists hated most: an attachment to local customs and the neighbourhood, rather than a belief in what they (the journalists) thought were morally superior globalist attitudes.

Newspaper 'groupthink'

As time passed, the newspapers started to recruit left-wing journalists straight from the universities. Soon they adopted a collective 'groupthink' – a belief in a new kind of one-worldism that can be brought about by racial and cultural mixing. They were greatly aided by the growing centralisation of the media and the multi-national corporations that financed them, most of which were based in cosmopolitan London, so that multi-cultural values (which they mistook as another version of 'cosmopolitanism') soon dominated the rest of the news agenda across the country.

Then the editors started to dumb down their pages. They created needless anxiety with endless health and environmental scares, few of which turned out to be true. They then enlarged the picture content of their newspapers. This enabled them to show more ethnic minority faces, getting their stock photos of workplaces and social situations after doing deals with picture agencies such as Image Bank, Alamy and Getty, which during the 1980s changed all their photo images from white to white and black – "to reflect the multi-cultural nature of modern Britain." So, for example, an article in the press about recruitment will show a young black woman boss interviewing a young white Englishman. Now virtually all articles about careers and education, whether featured in the 'right-wing' tabloids or not, are generously, even lavishly illustrated with pictures of ethnic minorities.

Two other related aspects crept into the immigration debate. The media tried to rebut the common belief that immigrants were mere 'spongers'. This was related to the erroneous argument about the economic benefits of immigration, since in virtually every case the journalists deliberately left out the fact that immigrant workers bring in with them their extended families and relatives, many of whom then become a burden on the housing and welfare infrastructure. But this suspect 'immigration-is-beneficial' argument arises because, as we have seen, the press is increasingly controlled by the multi-nationals, who like cheap labour – and cheap labour at any cost to the well being of this country.

Focus on big earners

So the journalists are increasingly obliged to say – in the teeth of all the evidence to the contrary and just to please their financiers – that "if you can make money, you are welcome here." Indeed, The Sunday Times just can't wait to tell us how successful immigrants are. In its 20th February 2005 issue there was a full-page feature with the headline 'Letting in tomorrow's tycoons', and this cited nine 'ethnics' who have made a lot of money in this country – conveniently ignoring the many thousands who have cost us money to keep.

These journalists completely miss the point, of course. We just don't care how much money the immigrants make: we don't want them here! Asians, the pro-business group often singled out, are not ethnically British, and they would certainly not be allowed to own property or businesses in many Third World countries in the free and easy manner in which they are allowed to in Britain.

These people are members of a diaspora; we do not know their legal status as citizens; we have no knowledge of their cultures or traditions; and we have never asked them to come and live next to us in our streets, or to become our employers. To tell us that they are now making pots of money over here (and circulating most of it among their own kind, with much of it sent back to their homelands), is to add insult to injury.