Use It - Or Lose It !!
To The Future - By Nick Griffin
Chairman - British
was the expert view at the start of the First
World War. As the bands played and the boys in
smart new uniforms paraded past cheering crowds
to the train stations, the rulers of every European
country except Switzerland thought of honour and
glory, commercial advantage and increased profits,
and the 'need' to thrash 'enemies' with whom they
had no fundamental quarrel.
So the civilised world marched
happily to war, totally unaware of the fact that
the ensuing carnage would not only claim millions
of lives, but also destroy most of the regimes
responsible. In August 1914 the whole of Europe
was dominated by monarchies, Christianity and
deference; but the old certainties were about
to be cut down by the new warfare. Four years
later the Crowned heads lay broken in the mud
and the established order was swept aside. Even
for the 'victors', the world was changed forever.
Nearly one hundred years later,
the modern rulers of the Western world are sleep-walking
into another world war, absent-mindedly cheered
on by the busy shoppers whose manic credit-financed
consumerism is the only thing propping up the
crumbling world economy.
Once again, from the point of view of
the ruling 'elite', there are good reasons for a War-to-End
- All- ('Terrorist')-Wars: The economic benefits to be had
from knocking out key competitors are now mirrored by the
prospect of dirt-cheap oil from a puppet regime in Iraq.
Where the bosses of Krupps and ICI saw the chance for extra
profits then, high-tech companies and US
oil giants see the same glittering opportunity today.
A quick victory abroad will also, as always, shift popular
attention from politically embarrassing problems at home.
Under cover of a war against evil, Imperially minded leaders
will be able to expand and consolidate their empires. Then
it was a matter of kicking the Germans out of "Britain's"
Africa, this time it's going to be kicking the Palestinians
out of Sharon's Greater Israel. And, for all the key players,
there's the prospect of getting themselves into the history
books. Greed, stupidity and vanity - human nature being
what it is, the rulers who sign the death warrants of the
young generation haven't changed in the slightest. Watch
Tony Blair and George W Bush puff up their chests and the
mass media whip up the war fever. Here we are, right back
in August 1914.
NEW RULES AND REALITIES
Of course, the coming war won't be anything
like the First World War in tactical terms. That's the whole
point of how huge and uncontrollable conflicts catch out
those who start them so eagerly. They're all ready to fight
the last war, but changed enemies and the new technologies
and tactics at their disposal mean that things rarely work
out as expected. This is invariably the case even when the
devastating form of the new warfare has already been tried
and tested. In 1914 the rulers and their generals had already
seen rapid-fire rifles and machine guns at work from the
Sudan to South Africa. In 2002 we've already seen nerve
gas attacks on crowded underground trains and what vans
packed with explosives can do to civilian targets. The slaughter
of British soldiers by Boer marksmen on Spion Kop showed
anyone prepared to think things through what would happen
on the Somme. The Twin Towers and Bali are, likewise, the
shape of the war to come. Just as the Kaiser and the Prime
Minister should have known what hell it would be on the
front line, so Bush and Blair should know that - this time
around - there isn't going to be a front line at all, but
that this generation will still get its grandstand view
To compare November 2002 with August
1914 is not to predict massive Western casualties in any
big push against Saddam Hussein. The odds are that overwhelming
US airpower will destroy Iraq's army every bit as easily
as it crushed the Taliban in Afghanistan. This isn't certain,
of course; indeed, the news that Ukraine has recently supplied
Iraq with a $100 million state-of-the-art ground-to-air
defence system seems to have contributed to President Bush's
last minute reversion to diplomacy and suggestion that Saddam
Hussein might not have to go after all, as long as he complies
with all sorts of demands. A desire to stamp on its elite's
'enemies', coupled with a reluctance to take any casualties,
is making America look less and less like a would-be International
Policeman for the New World Order, and more and more like
a Global Bully - plenty of threats but no action.
PLAN FOR AMERICAN
That said, the sheer political and media
clout of the 'American' war party is such that the odds
are that they'll quickly roast Bush's cold feet. The war
against Iraq, after all, isn't a spur of the moment whim,
but part of a longestablished plan which some very powerful
people are determined will be put into practice - and soon.
party' around Bush drew up its blueprint for the creation
of a global 'Pax Americana' - the first stage of which is
to be an attack on Iraq - in September 2000, before its
man even became President. The document, entitled 'Rebuilding
America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For
A New Century', was drawn up by the neoconservative think-tank
Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows that Bush and his chief
cronies, including Dick Cheney (vice- president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary) and Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's
deputy), have intended all along to take military control
of the Gulf region, whether or not Saddam Hussein was in
power. It says: "The United States has for decades
sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security.
While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime
of Saddam Hussein."
PNAC report also refers to the use of key allies such
as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means
of exercising American global leadership." Properly
translated this means: "We want cheap oil and to deal
with the Middle Eastern enemies of Israel. But even our
stupid voters won't be too keen to have their sons brought
home in body bags, but fortunately we can rely on Tony Blair
to pay the 'blood price' with British lives."
To refer to Israel in this context is,
of course, not considered polite, but it is a fact nevertheless.
It most certainly is not 'anti-Semitic' to make this point,
not least because there have been massive demonstrations
in Israel itself by ordinary Jews who oppose their own government's
brutal suppression of the Palestinians as well as the threatened
war against Iraq. Jewish civil rights activists such as
Israel Shamir have been at the forefront of the campaign
to expose the role of the Zionist
cabal around President Bush in pushing for an attack
on Saddam Hussein. The extent of the influence of the White
House Zionist lobby was exposed in The Guardian on 3rd September,
in an article entitled 'Playing Skittles With Saddam': "The
'skittles theory' of the Middle East - that one ball aimed
at Iraq can knock down several regimes - has been around
for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has
come to the fore in the United States on the back of the
'war against terrorism'. \ "Its roots can be traced,
at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli
think-tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies. Entitled 'A clean break: a new strategy for securing
the realm', it was intended as a political blueprint for
the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. "The
paper set out a plan by which Israel would 'shape its strategic
environment', beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein
. To succeed, the paper stressed, Israel would have to win
broad American support."
Furthermore, the paper made it clear
that Iraq was only the first of a number of Middle Eastern
skittles that Israel should aim to knock down; it explained
how Syria and Lebanon would also be dealt with once Saddam
Hussein had gone.
The full significance of the document,
however, isn't so much what it said, as who produced it.
The Guardian explains: "The leader of the 'prominent
opinion makers' who wrote it was Richard Perle - now chairman
of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon. Also among
the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative
lawyer, who now holds one of the top four posts at the Pentagon."
Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser
and his wife, Meyrav. David Wurmser is now at the State
Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton, the under-secretary
for arms control and international security. "With
several of the 'Clean Break paper's authors now holding
key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to 'transcend'
its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal
more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may
even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it.
"The six-year-old plan for Israel's 'strategic environment'
remains more or less intact, though two extra skittles -
Saudi Arabia and Iran - have joined Iraq, Syria and Lebanon
on the hit list."
Another well-known and very influential
neo-conservative, Norman Podhoretz, goes even further: "The
regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown . are not confined
to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq,
Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend
to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of
America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak,
along with the Palestinian Authority."
PLAYING WITH FIRE
If this is the 'minimum', one dreads
to think of what the warmongers around Bush would regard
as the 'ideal'! The ordinary public may think that an attack
on Iraq over alleged support for terrorism won't signal
the beginning of a new World War, but the ordinary public
in 1914 didn't understand the significance of Austria's
attack on the Serbs over the assassination of an obscure
Archduke either. Whatever happens in the next Iraq war -
and, as already noted, it is quite likely to be a turkey
shoot for the US air force - it will only be the beginning.
For a start, Bush and Co have already drawn up plans for
the military occupation of Iraq. This, it is envisaged,
will not be "over by Christmas," but will last
for up to six years, during which time a combination of
sticks and carrots would be used to "impose a new political
culture" on the defeated nation, just as was done on
Germany and Japan after WW2.
The crucial difference, of course, is
that defeated Germany and Japan had no allies. They had
no friendly states in which resistance fighters could regroup
and plan to fight on. They didn't have any of the weapons
- tanks, ships and planes - with which advanced industrial
states wage conventional war. And members of the broken
German and Japanese armed forces were not at liberty to
jet around the world and merge into German and Japanese
communities in London, Paris, Moscow or Washington DC, so
terrorist attacks in the victors' own cities weren't an
With their plans to bully and invade
a string of weak Middle Eastern states, however, Bush, Blair
& Co. are opening up a whole new can of worms. Whatever
they say about this being essentially political, a "War
on Terror", that's not how it will be seen from the
top of the world's minarets. In picking a fight with the
world's one billion Muslims, the current ruling elite of
the West are taking on a very different kind of enemy and
dragging us into a very different and very unconventional
That doesn't mean, however, that it isn't
possible to take an educated guess at what form the war
will take. Just as several far-sighted British and German
military theorists after World War One dreamt up the blitzkrieg
tactics of the coming rematch, so military theorists have
already proposed ways in which 'asymmetrical warfare' can
be used even by weak countries to defeat the world's last
Superpower, the USA. The key predictive text for the tactics
of the coming World War was written in 1999 by two Senior
Colonels in the Chinese Army, and published with the endorsement
of the Chinese government. The resulting book, 'Unrestricted
Warfare', has one basic aim: to offer China and other 'weak'
countries a strategy to break the United States, without
a full-scale invasion, by using unusual or 'asymmetrical'
Among the 'new' tactics proposed for
21st century war are the manipulation of Western media outlets,
suicide bombings, cyber attacks on critical high-tech infrastructure
and using immigrants as a fifth column. Most
striking of all, however, is the prediction that an attack
by Osama bin Laden on the World Trade Center would be
the kind of 'unrestricted warfare' tactic that could bring
America to its knees.
That was written back in 1999, but asked
about their uncanny prediction after the event, the Colonels
agreed that the unconventional assaults of September 11th
were straight from the pages of their book and prove that
their theory is correct: "The attacks demonstrated
the United State's fragility and weakness and showed that
essentially it is unable to stand attacks . The United States,
a giant tiger, has been dealing with mice; unexpectedly,
this time it was bitten by mice - it has been wielding a
large hammer but has been unable to find the flea."
Having predicted such problems for the
USA, the Colonels were equally blunt in analysing their
long-term impact: "September 11th, 2001, very likely
is the beginning of the decline of the United States as
a Superpower." American military experts are inclined
to agree. Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, former Chief of Staff
of US Forces Korea, a man with direct experience of dealing
with the Chinese military in action, warns that: "The
9/11 attacks may be just the beginning. Many terrorist nations
and groups will try to imitate this operation. China's war
book 'Unrestricted Warfare' will be their text."
THE CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS
The fiery bloodbath in Bali rolled several
benefits of such 'unconventional' warfare into one: It was
a further devastating blow to the airlines and tourist industry
which form an important part of the modern Western economy;
it will inflict serious damage on the Indonesian economy,
and hence on the chances of that unstable collection of
ethnic and religious groups remaining under the control
of a pro-Western government; and it made it clear to both
the Australians and British that their governments' insistence
on backing America in the Middle East puts them directly
in the firing line.
This last point is the most important.
Although the initial impact of the atrocity was to swing
public opinion in both countries more in favour of war,
the long-term effect of such terrorism, repeated over and
over again, will be to sap the will of the soft-minded,
selfish West to continue the fight, and to turn people against
the governments that refuse to sue for peace.
But this isn't the biggest problem facing
our masters. The real danger of their decision to provoke
of Civilisations predicted by Samuel Huntington is that,
while they are unlikely to lose militarily, they cannot
do other than lose politically. Win or lose on the battlefield,
the liberal Establishment will lose on the home front. The
fatal flaw in their plan to impose Western ways on the Islamic
world at gunpoint is that they have allowed a significant
and growing Muslim minority into the Western world. In the
short term, this raises the possibility that the kind of
xenophobic war hysteria being whipped up by the likes of
the Daily Express and 'Panorama' might create the kind of
mob violence suffered by German and Italian shopkeepers
in British cities in 1914 and 1939.
CIVIL WAR DANGER
Longer term, and far more serious as
a destabilising factor in a multiracial society, there is
the question of how the Muslim minority will feel when they
see their adopted homeland at war with their co-religionists.
What the Koran tells them about
the endless struggle between the Faithful and the Infidels
is something about which - owing to recent additional restrictions
on free speech, enacted by 'New' Labour with the eager backing
of the party formerly known as the Conservatives - I am
no longer at liberty to comment, so I would merely recommend
that you go to your local library and find out for yourself.
But consider the options if 'we' go to war. Either the Iraqis
will once again be exterminated on an industrial scale by
the Yanks and the RAF, in which case the feeling of persecution
and outraged helplessness that is the thing that turns young
Palestinians into suicide bombers will be felt by millions
of Muslims all over the world. What will happen to the diversity
of places like Bradford if or when such bombs start going
off in Britain?
Or they will put up a stiff house-to-house
fight, in which case large numbers of British servicemen
will come home in body bags, and huge numbers of ordinary
Brits at home will be angry and may well be inclined to
take that anger out on the nearest Muslim, even though he
or she may well actually think that Saddam Hussein is a
murderous old goat much better off dead. What will happen
in London if Bangladeshi restaurants suffer the same fate
as German-owned shops did in 1914?
In either case, the biggest casualty
of the war will not, for once, be truth, but the relative
peace of the liberals' glorious multicultural society. In
Britain, as in France, Germany, Holland and all the other
liberal-run countries populated by blocks of the 32 million
Muslims now estimated to live in Europe, the Clash of Civilisations
heralded by the attack on Iraq could all too easily become
a civil war as well. At the very least, we will undoubtedly
see the native white/Christian majority hit by the kind
of low level extreme fundamentalist violence that has made
us the main victims of racist attacks and led to the murders
of innocents like Ross
Parker and Gavin
THE FURTHER COLLAPSE
In many European countries, support for
nationalist parties akin to the BNP already hovers around
the 18% mark also achieved by Steve Batkin in Stoke. Establishment
commentators were quick to put that stunning result, like
our advances in Burnley and Oldham, down to "racial
tension" in the areas in question. Whether that's true
is not to be debated here, but if the liberals believe that
a handful of riots last summer was all it took to turn thousands
of ordinary people into BNP voters, what do they think is
going to happen if an extremist handful of those rioters
- let alone any of the 4,000 Al Qaeda-trained militants
officially estimated as living in our country - decide to
bring the war home to Britain?
This is not something that is going to
happen next week, perhaps not even over the next year or
so. But it will happen sooner or later. How could it be
otherwise? The US government is planning to occupy Iraq
with the help of 10,000 British soldiers. The people behind
that plan say openly that they know that the likely result
of a 'Western' victory in the Gulf will be the fall of the
House of Saud, resulting in the need to march into Saudi
Arabia as well in order to keep its oil wealth out of the
hands of the Talibanlike regime which would otherwise take
over. That in turn would make likely that other corrupt
pro-American governments in the Islamic world would fall
like so many dominoes: Egypt; the Magreb; Indonesia; even
the narco-nuclear state of Pakistan.
With every new crisis, even a 'Western'
'victory' will produce fresh problems - a new place where
young occupation soldiers will be easy terrorist targets,
another puppet regime to pay for and prop up, a further
load of high octane fuel thrown on the already raging fire
of resentment and hatred of those who feel defeated and
humiliated, wherever they happen to live. The security that
most Westerners took for granted for forty years or so is
over. Mr. Fear is just around the corner, and everyone knows
what he looks like. And all this won't be over by Christmas,
or even in six years' time like the American neoconservatives
It will go on, and on, and on - Belfast
on a global scale - for a generation. Apart from Armageddon,
there are only three ways in which it can end:
i) The de-Islamification of hundreds
of millions of people;
ii) Tensions in the multicultural West
leading to the political defeat of the liberal elites and
their replacement by nationalist governments which will
do a peace deal with Islam - "We'll get out of your
part of the world if you'll get out of ours;"
iii) A collapse in US political will
and economic viability leading to a return to isolationism
- a cross between the cut-and-run from Vietnam and the German
collapse in 1918, something which would also quite possibly
lead to the political and cultural eclipse of America's
client regimes elsewhere in the West, and the consequent
victory of nationalism.
From the nationalist point
of view, "two out of three ain't bad", especially
when the first of the three just isn't a realistic possibility.
It is in this sense, not in terms of the possibility of
massive casualties among our servicemen or of a 'dirty'
nuclear device going off in Trafalgar Square, that we're
back in August 1914. We are sliding into a war which our
soldiers will probably 'win', but which our masters can
only lose. Just as the social order that the Victorians
took for granted died in the mud of Flanders, so the multicultural
Utopia of the liberal elite will die as the sounds of the
dusty conflict in the Middle East echo through the streets
of the West.
Cutting off the hands and feet and then parading them
An English teacher had his eyes cut out
and is then paraded around for 'being against Islam'.
A man and child being stoned to death
Algeria and Egypt are among those countries which ...
... dare not let their electors