For Immediate Release:
February 15, 2010
Jordan Zammit
President and Founder,
MSU Sons of Liberty
MSUSonsOfLiberty@gmail.com

The newly-formed registered student organization at Michigan State University, the Sons of Liberty, canceled its first public event. Nick Griffin, a democratically-elected member of the European Parliament and chairman of the British National Party, was scheduled to speak at MSU on February 18 regarding the fraud of man-made global warming. The event was canceled because left-wing agitators caused other organizations to cancel their own events that featured Griffin, and it could not be justified for Griffin to fly to the U.S. to only speak at MSU and at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

After a synopsis of Griffin’s schedule was released to the media, left-wing agitators relentlessly threatened with violence and death the organizers of the events. This caused Taylor Somers, the leader of Kenyon College’s conservative Robert A. Taft Society, to cancel his club’s event out of concern for safety of his fellow students. It was confirmed that Griffin would not come to the U.S. after leftists successfully caused three hotels to rescind their offers to allow the biyearly American Renaissance conference from being hosted at their properties.

Griffin could not afford to spend time in the U.S. to only speak at MSU and at CPAC when he could otherwise spend his time campaigning for a seat in the U.K. Parliament. The Sons of Liberty does not fault him for canceling his trip to the U.S., and the student organization looks forward to hosting him—hopefully as M.P. Nick Griffin—when he next crosses the pond.

Jordan Zammit, the founder and president of the Sons of Liberty, said, “The Left does a very good job of advocating free speech for themselves while denying it to others. I am very proud to say that the Sons of Liberty, in its inaugural run, did what it was meant to do and that is ensure that all points of view are presented and that the first amendment is upheld for ALL people to the fullest. If the other speaking venues would not have canceled and his speaking tour called off, I can assure you Mr. Griffin would have been here Thursday afternoon as scheduled, intimidation or not.”

The BNP-U.S. liaison is planning to file a complaint with the United States Department of Justice because elements of the Left conspired to deprive American citizens of their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and participate in political discourse, which is in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. That federal law states that “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State . . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Zammit also said, “Although Griffin was targeted in Sweden with assassination by leftists when they tried to bomb the train he was riding on in 2006, members of the Sons of Liberty were not—and are not—afraid of the red menace. My organization is made up of common sense young men and women, both considerably liberal and conservative, of numerous races and creeds, whom all believe that the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution are something sacred, and that no matter who is speaking, he or she has every right to, and whether you agree with them or not, it can never hurt to listen.”

For Immediate Release:
February 8, 2010
Jordan Zammit
Founder and President,
MSU Sons of Liberty
MSUSonsOfLiberty@gmail.com

East Lansing, Mich.—The newly established and registered student organization at Michigan State University, the Sons of Liberty, will host Nick Griffin as a speaker from noon to 1:30 p.m. on February 18, 2010, to discuss how the fraud of man-made global warming is used by liberals to attack the sovereignty of nation-states. Griffin is the chairman of the British National Party—the fourth largest and fastest growing political party in the United Kingdom—and he is an elected parliamentarian of the European Parliament and current candidate for the U.K. Parliament.

Michigan State University will be Griffin’s first public event; he will also speak at Kenyon College in Gambier, OH, at the American Renaissance conference in Washington, D.C., and he is expected to make an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., as well.

Griffin is no stranger to MSU, for on October 28, 2008, Griffin was hosted by the now defunct chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom and attempted to deliver a speech on the threat of Islam and mass immigration. During the event, left-wing agitators attempted to drown out his message by shouting him down and by pulling fire alarms after beating an effigy of him outside. Immediately following his speech, a mob of armed leftists attacked people sympathetic with Griffin’s message with baseball bats, sticks, and canes (http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2007/10/police_brief_103007). The event was briefly covered on FOX New’s The Hannity & Colmes Show.

Jordan Zammit, a political science/pre-law freshman and founder and president of the Sons of Liberty, said, “It is an honor to host a distinguished speaker like Nick Griffin. His views will greatly contribute to the marketplace of ideas which is a fundamental aspect of a collegiate education.” The Sons of Liberty was named after the secretive pre-Revolutionary War group of American patriots—including Paul Revere, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and John and Samuel Adams—who advocated for freedom and sovereignty.

Taylor Somers

Left-wing terrorists win another round.

The following statement from Taylor Somers of Kenyon College appears on the One People’s Project website:

We have been in communication with Campus Safety, and we have come to a consensus regarding the upcoming Griffin event. While we had wanted to shake things up, the reaction against the event has been compelling. The possibility of violence, or at least unintentional injury, to Kenyon students at such an event outweighs, we feel, any contribution that could be gained from having Griffin speak. Never have we intended to incite violence or to otherwise provide an atmosphere in which it becomes at all likely. With Campus Safety’s advice in mind, and as members of the Kenyon community, we must take it upon ourselves to do the right thing and ensure no one is injured. It isn’t worth the possibility of violence or the further pain that will almost certainly be caused, so with those concerns in mind we have cancelled.

The hurt that this controversy has already caused is palpable. There is a rift, an upset in the Kenyon community, and I will accept personal responsibility for that as I think a sense of honor compels me. It was never my intention to cause such a hurt, and so I think the only decent option is to minimize it at this point. It saddens me that many of those with whom I’ve been on friendly terms are now at odds with me. I would like to apologize to those offended or who feel or felt threatened by the immanent presence of Nick Griffin, who I have never claimed did not say many things that were wrong in the past and present. Your passioned appeals, along with the concerns for the safety and integrity of this school and those who attend it, have persuaded me that we were on the wrong course. I am attempting to right that course now.

As for my own views which were dragged into all of this, I intend to embark on a path of radical self-examination. Those who know me personally will recognize I’m not a bigot, fascist, or totalitarian, but rather, perhaps, more of a contrarian (yet one who believes in a free society, even though we may find difficulty agreeing on what that is). Some of that which I have written over the past day and night could be described as knee-jerk reaction to being attacked personally, and I can recognize failures in my own judgment due to that fact. I think I have been beholden to a more abstract and theoretical point of view than is merited by real life, as has been made clear over the course of this trouble. I only ask that it not be assumed I am insincere in this appeal. I am being sincere, and I humbly submit my apologies to those of you voicing your legitimate concerns who I have attacked for recognizing my failures in judgment before I saw them myself.

I realize this has been difficult, and has created a rift. I’m willing to try to correct that, to learn a lesson, and go on with life, if you’re all willing to go on with life as well. I’ll not go out in search of controversy or extreme methods to incite discussion, however curious I may be. The Taft Society will exercise better and more sensitive judgment with regard to who we bring to campus. I should really thank you all for persuading us toward the right course of action, and indeed I do thank you for that.

With Best Wishes,
Taylor Somers
Robert A. Taft Society

This should come as no surprise from a college kid narcissistic enough to pen this pretentious interview.

Joe Owens was “on the door,” working as a bouncer at a popular Liverpool nightspot called The Garage when three fun-seekers came in: a blind man and his two companions. Sitting the blind man down, one of his friends went to the bar, the other to the men’s room. As Owens writes:

It didn’t take too long before the white trash noticed this, as well as the fact that he was blind. One scumbag went over to the blind guy and sat next to him, while removing his own shoe. He then waved this obviously smelly shoe under the nose of the blind guy and held it there. This was to the great merriment of his friends . . . (p. 193)

The bullying continued, and at last Owens was made aware of the situation:

Never have I witnessed such a despicable spectacle. Running over as fast as my legs could carry me, I kicked this low life in the face and put him to sleep. I have seldom, if ever enjoyed dishing out the ultra-violence as much as I did to this dog. (p. 193)

Joe Owens is known up and down the United Kingdom as a veteran nationalist street-fighter, a genuinely “hard man” feared and loathed by the far left, who called him the “Nazi Assassin” for the vicious, almost clinical punishment he meted out to communist and anarchist thugs who preyed on politically incorrect activists, often with the connivance of the police and special interests.

Owens’ new tell-all book Action! Race War to Door Wars, is an absorbing, fascinating glimpse inside the mind of a segment of nationalist politics many would prefer to ignore or pretend doesn’t exist: young working-class men animated not by theory and books but by tribal instinct and first-hand experience of the effects of nonwhite immigration and a changing world that leaves their kind behind.

Action! takes the reader through Joe Owens’ political awakening in the 1970s; the violence, jail time, and eventual disillusionment that followed; his career at some of the best-known night clubs of the English rave scene; and his re-engagement with politics, rising to become the bodyguard of Nick Griffin, present leader of the British National Party.

The incident with the blind man and the bully, which Owens calls “a depressing story,” is perhaps the best example of what draws many of the men of Owens’ class to nationalism. They hate bullies, despise unfairness and hypocrisy, and see nationalism less as politics than as a survival strategy. Poorer whites are the first to feel the effects of nonwhite immigration, with the crime and competition for scarce social resources that come along with it. Their response is often explosive.

Certainly the violence Joe Owens confesses to is extreme, but it didn’t come out of thin air. Owens was at the height of his game at a very important point in the racial history of the UK, the 1970s and 1980s, as the effects of the government’s open door immigration policy, never consented to by the electorate, was becoming evident to a growing number of people.

The result: a resistance movement that sank roots deep into the public housing council estates of white Britain. This pro-white group was the National Front (NF), an organization that mixed an uncompromising call for ending immigration and beginning repatriation with a defense of the welfare state and working class social gains, from the eight-hour day to the National Health Service. The NF program had the potential, largely realized, of drawing off hundreds of thousands of blue collar whites from support of the Labour Party, which had long taken them for granted. The sight of thousands of white working people marching in England’s streets to international attention terrified the Establishment, from the Tories’ corporate owners craving cheap non-white workers to the Labour Party and special interest groups who supported Third World immigration on ideological grounds.

In the 1977 London election, the NF scored an astounding 119,000 votes, with even the Labour Party admitting that the NF had put out “the most dynamic, exciting, and hard-hitting leaflet of the campaign.” The tally was a shock to the system, which felt that something clearly had to be done: calling the NF “Nazis” and “racists” hadn’t worked.

The UK’s equivalent of the Anti-Defamation League is the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which met in 1977 with Labour Party officials to devise a strategy. A small Trotskyite sect called the Socialist Workers’ Party was approached with a view to a plan to destroy the National Front.

Like all Trotskyite groupuscles the SWP was (and still is) marginal at best, but their leader “Tony Cliff” had a nose for business. Born Yigael Gluckstein in 1917 in what would soon (in 1920) be British Mandate Palestine, Cliff had earlier on made an ideological concession to “imperialism” over the Korean War and had no problem with concocting an ideologically correct formula to benefit the corporate immigration agenda by agreeing to help form the Anti-Nazi League, the ANL, which with swift inevitability was called ANAL by its detractors.

(American readers will recall the outcry in 2006 over “Nuestro Himno,” the version of “Star-Spangled Banner” sung en Español by famous Hispanic artists as part of the run-up to the illegal alien amnesty campaign. The man behind the record was Adam Kidron, none other than the nephew of Tony Cliff/Yigael Gluckstein.)

Among the ANL’s initiatives was Rock Against Racism, which enlisted popular bands for well-financed carnivals and concerts to draw large numbers of kids in the hope of overshadowing the NF’s self-financed events.

These machinations were high level, but the effects were soon felt on the streets of the United Kingdom by the likes of Joe Owens, who discusses a nationalist Liverpool sidewalk paper sale when he saw a group of “Reds” coming. “The leaflet they were distributing was advertising a Rock Against Racism Carnival. . . . I had not even had time to read it when all hell broke loose. . . . Immediately dropping my papers I ran to the aid of my comrades” (p. 16). What followed was merely one of many brutal physical confrontations with communists who, empowered by the connection their leadership had to power and finance, were in fact the paramilitary arm of corporate/state policy enabling Third World immigration.

The people involved in attacking nationalism were not only weedy lefty students, but hardened criminals and killers, drawn from the demimonde of drugs and organized crime. One who actually pulled a gun on a local BNP organizer was Dessie Noonan, head of a Manchester crime family and responsible, police say, for numerous murders. Noonan himself was eventually to die on a sidewalk, stabbed to death by his black crack dealer.

Members of the ANL, and spin-offs like Red Action (some of whom were Irish Republican Army terrorists) had no compunction about attempting to kill dissidents, emboldened as they were by the official protection they enjoyed. The most famous nationalist victim was probably Albert Marriner, an old-age pensioner, Second World War veteran, and NF member who was hit on the head with a brick and killed in 1983.

The aim of the orchestrated violence was to send a message to white Britons that they could engage nationalist politics only at their own physical peril. As a result, nationalism became isolated and attracted a number of people who thrived on the atmosphere of intimidation.

What is interesting in Owens’ account of his early political career is how small a role ideology played in the “action” the book is named for. He confesses that he was ignorant of the ideological identity of the political thugs he punished so mercilessly. “I knew what Communist meant and associated it with Russia. I could not understand why they were concerned” (p. 15). Three decades after one beating he says that “I am now aware that they were the Socialist Workers Party. This was a violent Trotskyite grouping, whose aim was revolution and the smashing of the UK state. We commonly knew them as Reds.” Indeed, Owens’ disgust for the “Reds” often seems more elemental than ideological: “Like some scripted scene from a TV show they moved in in unison in our direction shrieking, ’NAZI! NAZI! NAZI!’ . . . What a bunch of sad bastards and total misfits they were” (p. 27).

Ideological considerations were also only secondary in the curious life-or-death lash-ups that occurred among the street-level nationalists Owens talks about. The National Front had a number of “more hard-line” grouplets on its coattails, each claiming to be more extreme than the next. One such organization was the British Movement, founded in 1968 by Colin Jordan, uniforms and Hitler worship included. Another group was the National Socialist Party of the UK (NSPUK), run by an elderly lady in Eire, where speech laws were liberal by UK standards, and where US-derived National Socialist propaganda was run off with abandon.

The NF was a fanatically “loyalist” group, totally opposed to the Irish Republican Army and what it stood for. It openly renounced Nazism, pointing to its numerous war hero members, but despite the BM’s Nazism and the NSPUK’s support for the IRA (which goes unmentioned by Owens), none of these details of history and politics stopped cooperation in Liverpool against the common “Red enemy.” After one punch-up, Owens had to explain his alliances to a larger NF meeting. “I . . . explained what had happened on Church Street. I gave a very detailed account of the British Movement lads being arrested . . . that without the British Movement guys we would surely have  taken a very bad beating” (p. 18). It is unknown how much further the violence of the controlled left played a role in determining nationalist policy like this, but still, straight up neo-Nazis, in the Hollywood sense, were able to work side-by-side with working class white patriots like Joe Owens, driven together by common need.

One explanation for such cooperation is that the fetishism of Third Reich symbols and slogans among some white blue collar youth does not necessarily indicate a commitment to, or even real understanding of National Socialism. Instead, swastikas and lightning bolts are often seen as the most powerful sigils available to evoke a sense of militancy in the face of often-immediate physical danger. To youth raised on media portrayals of “Nazism” as ominous and evil, these symbols become the ultimate expression of brawn and rebellion.

It is often ineffective to point out that their use defeats the overall purpose, because for many of these kids the purpose is to intimidate, and even offend, not to transform society. Many older activists have responded either by catering to this short-sightedness or by rejecting this class of young people out of hand. A more sensible course, followed by many European groups, has been to wean young people from Third Reich fetishism by giving them a substantive ideological education.

Similar ideological looseness can be seen in the schizophrenic response of Owens’ circle when it came to political action. Owens understood that the racial crisis in the UK was the result of official, government policy, enforced at all bureaucratic levels, right down to the police, who protected the Reds and arrested nationalists. Yet when the black Liverpool slum of Toxteth exploded in riots against the police, Owens found himself fighting on the side of the cops and their chief, a politically correct creature named Chief Constable Ken Oxford. “Now don’t get me wrong, I was no Oxford fan. I looked upon him and the rest of his kind as sellouts to the mob and the Reds. Shouting ‘Oxford in’ was just to wind the Reds up and get a bit of publicity” (p. 41). Provoking reactions from political enemies had the expected result for Owens’ new political group, John Tyndall’s New National Front (NNF), which even planned a pro-police march. “The NNF gained a lot of local publicity from all this, but sadly failed to make real political headway . . . In hindsight, it is a shame that confrontation was our only approach to politics” (p. 43).

In those days before the internet, the NF had to make news to be seen, and marches were key to raising their profile. In the end, by being physical deterrents to leftist/state violence, men like Joe Owens prevented the NF from being wiped out. That task, once again, fell to better-schooled people at much higher echelons. Owens touches on one aspect, the self-destruction the NF underwent, “with infighting in every quarter” (p. 23).

Efforts with names like the “British Campaign Against the Boat People” seemed to calculate an accommodation to the leftist image of nationalists as heartless people bullying the weak. “In retrospect I wonder what those Vietnamese must have made of it all. A small army of assorted skinheads who screamed abuse at them, attacked them. Did anyone explain to them who we were? Why we were there?” (p. 21). While the system that allowed the immigration crisis to deepen was at fault, people widely viewed as clearly helpless were, if anything, easily manipulated into being made into the victims of a carefully controlled image of intolerance.

Eventually, the all-around pressure on the National Front, among which was a lack of strategic focus, led to dissolution from within. Joe Owens touches on the numerous splits and purges and how he stayed with the “hard-line,” ideologically committed to John Tyndall.

While the Board of Deputies of British Jews sank undoubted millions into defeating the National Front, and internal mayhem weakened it, Margaret Thatcher’s 1978 nod to the concerns the NF had aroused is widely assumed to have gelded the NF and won Thatcher the 1979 election. “People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture,” she said, receiving thousands of supporting letters and gaining an immediate 5 percent jump in opinion polls. The NF, “associated with violence” that had been manufactured, and incapable of constructing a coherent profile, never recovered. Nationalism sank into sectarianism, extremism, and irrelevancy, consumed by the confrontationalist politics that had been so skillfully imposed on it.

While Owens had never been a physical slouch, and the National Front was physically fearless, Owens was eventually overtaken by the actions and thinking of his extreme associates. In 1983, “a silly thing to do,” as he admits, was sending “envelopes lined with razor blades to prominent members of Liverpool’s Jewish community.” Despite the fact that he was motivated by the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians at Sabra and Chatilla in Lebanon, he admits that “they were just the straws that broke the camel’s back as far as I was concerned” (pp. 52, 53). He was jailed for a year.

Back on the street, Joe Owens’ political commitments weakened. In the early 1970s he had been influenced by the Bruce Lee juggernaut, a fad that also fascinated another hard man of Owens’ generation, Andy McNab, whose book Bravo Two Zero on his SAS Special Forces experiences has a lot in common with Owens’ own account of another kind of active life (see note 1). Owens parlayed his interest into competition fighting, where he excelled, and then into a lucrative career as a bouncer.

The long, fascinating section of his book detailing his nightclub life has little if any political interest for readers, but does say a lot about Owens’ character as a genuinely tough man. He doesn’t brag or gloat, but gives worthy opponents respect, part of the honor ethos he says he learned in martial arts. A stoic approach was certainly called for. In those days, Liverpool’s nightlife was plagued by organized crime, and the feuds and violence saw the police attempt to frame him for various crimes, most seriously murder. People like Owens see a side to policing most of us don’t: the corruption and brutality that pervades the operations of many police forces.

Owens’ sense of personal honor shines throughout his book. The mix of objective political events and the hard work of a new generation of serious nationalist leaders had made the British National Party into a viable political force, the first such nationalist group in the UK since those heady days of Joe Owens’ youth in the 1970s. With the advent of the internet, marches became unimportant, and with them went the organized opposition nationalism had faced in the 70s. But that didn’t mean people weren’t still gunning for the BNP. Nick Griffin, the new BNP chief, needed protecting, and Joe Owens offered himself, an absorbing tale he tells in the final chapters of the book. Among his adventures is a tale of how he bravely helped fend off a Red mob anxious to tear Griffin and French leader Jean-Marie Le Pen limb from limb.

Owens’ personal code made his engagement with the politics of the possible difficult. Far from the hard streets of his political youth, Owens faced the disillusionment many feel among professional politicians. And while his problems with the new BNP seem personal, he definitely shows a high degree of insight into modern nationalist thinking. With biting candor he points out that we “only have to look at the white power movement in the USA, to see how far off track our cause has gone . . . If our race has to rely on swastika tattooed skinheads to survive then we are finished.” But Owens’ main insight has to do with those who should know better and yet haven’t broken out of the old fashioned thinking that has held the cause back.

He is also honest: “I have led a very mixed-up life, without any real sense of purpose. . . . My life has been both exciting and dangerous but sadly, I have nothing to show other than plenty of odd and amusing memories” (p. 291). But Owens, despite his disillusionment, remains unrepentant, something that was in question when news that he planned to release a book came out, especially since he had had a public falling out with the BNP. There was some concern that his memoirs would be a “prodigal son” recantation in the style of Führer Ex and the tattooed convicts paraded regularly on daytime television to bemoan their past lives of “hatred”(see note 2). Searchlight even greeted the news of Owens’ pending book with a headline, “Nazi Godfather Spills the Beans.”

The mainstream author Owens initially worked with had something like that in mind. Since the late 1990s the UK has seen a renewed and lucrative interest in “lad” programs, books, and films, a reaction to the engineered emasculation of white males over the course of the previous three decades. Tell-alls from former gangsters, soccer hooligans, and Special Forces veterans fly off the shelves. Author Graham Johnson saw a chance to benefit from this market, and he and Owens began work on the project. But there was a catch:

Graham explained to me that the book would have to show that I had now changed my views, and looked back on my life with disdain. I compromised saying I wouldn’t change a thing in my life but would admit the path I’d taken hadn’t really changed anything. (p. 272)

Owens’ well-honed sense of suspicion—the hotel room meetings Owens suspected may have been bugged and the leading questions about Owens’ alleged crimes—finally led Owens to drop out of the project, returning a cash advance in the process, something he didn’t have to do but which was demanded by his personal code. Owens struck out on his own, penning a highly readable, politically uncompromising memoir as a result.

It is a testament to the rise of the new media—the same media that ended the old nationalist confrontational politics—that Action! Race Wars to Door Wars even appeared. Instead of hoping to find a main-stream publisher, Owens turned to Lulu, an on-demand internet publishing service (see note 3). Action! suffers from a clumsy title and the lack of a seasoned editor. It also could use an index. But as an absorbing read, Action! is difficult to put down.

(2) Ingo Hasselbach, with Tom Reiss, Führer Ex (New York: Random House, 1996). Among similar “confessional” snitchographies are Thomas Martinez with John Guinther, Brotherhood Of Murder (New York: Pocket Books, 1990) and Ray Hill and Andrew Bell, The Other Face of Terror (London: Collins, 1988). In all three books, the protagonists claimed to have experienced epiphanies about the odious nature of their “hatred” when faced with serious criminal charges. Needless to say, their accounts are deemed highly suspect by some readers, and their denunciations of their former “comrades” often revolve around illegal behavior they themselves instigated or otherwise enabled.

(3) Available in three formats, download, paperback, and hardcover, from the Lulu website:  http://www.lulu.com/content/985684.

After much controversy, discussion, soul-searching, explanation, and legal posturing, BNP Chairman and Member of European Parliament Nick Griffin was allowed to participate in the BBC’s premier political television program, Question Time. The format of this show consists of a panel of politicians and public figures, sitting at a table, chaired by a moderator (David Dimbleby), and facing an audience inside a television studio. The purpose of the show is to perpetuate the illusion of a democratic society, whereby members of the public are given the opportunity to question politicians and public figures on current affairs issues in front of the nation. The show broadcasts from different cities every week, and average audience figures tend to be under the 3 million mark.

The audience for the 22 October 2009 edition — that is, the edition with Nick Griffin — was nearly 8 million viewers.

Nick Griffin is not new to mainstream television, having appeared on various news programs broadcast by corporate networks, including the BBC, ITN, and Sky. Appearing in Question Time, however, was different, for this is a one-hour forum, intended for mainstream politicians only. And this being the first time that the leader of a pro-White party was allowed to contribute his views to the political debate alongside mainstream politicians, the unrepresentative liberal clique that staff the present British establishment was terrified that Mr. Griffin’s appearance would cast the BNP as a credible party, thus increasing the voting public’s level of comfort with admitting sympathy for the party’s policies on race and immigration. The BBC bosses, however, perhaps because they relished the boost in audience, perhaps because they feared exposing themselves as the organ of liberal fascism that we all know they are, felt that they had better allow Mr. Griffin into their studio, deciding to remember that they are obligated to fulfill a charter of due impartiality.

I knew that the BBC would use every trick in the book to massively bias the program against Mr. Griffin, and ensure that he was properly and thoroughly humiliated. I knew that they would ensure that both the audience and fellow panelists were aggressively hostile. I knew also that they would focus their odion laserbeams onto Mr. Griffin for the duration of the program. I knew that they would make sure to keep the political discussion well away from relevant issues by dredging up the Nazis, the Holocaust, and the Ku Klux Klan. And I knew that Mr. Griffin would be interrupted at every possible moment and not given adequate opportunity to reply to accusations.

And, of course, I was not disappointed.

The BBC hosted the program in heavily multicultural London, thereby ensuring a strong presence by ethnic minorities while avoiding, by only technically fulfilling, their moral obligation to host an audience representative of the British population. And the BBC then invited Jack Straw, the (Jewish-descended) Justice Secretary, representing Labour; Bonnie Greer, a Chicago-born ultra-liberal Black playwright, author, and critic; Muslim Conservative politician Sayeeda Warsi, Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action (yes, we now need a whole ministry to try to keep communities from exploding); and Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat’s home affairs spokesman, a socialist. The set up was almost cartoonish in its tendentiousness, to the point where I could not help but imagine the program makers standing around the kettle in the BBC kitchen, doubled up in hysterical laughter, with tears running down their faces, as they dreamt up ever more outrageous ways to pervert the program.

The resulting spectacle presented by the BBC was shameful. The panelists were childish, their arguments moronic, their ad hominems base, their sophistry unbelievable, their self-delusion even more so. And their fear, in the secret knowledge that their position in these troubled times is weaker and more precarious than the public realizes, glaringly obvious.

As to the audience, it was apparent to anyone with detectable cranial cubicage that the BBC had comically contrived to fill the studio with all manner of hooting apes, pious liberals, rabid anti-racists, self-hating Whites, irascible Blacks, militant homosexuals, and politically agitated Muslims. The audience represented all manner of tricky demographics, including mixed-race British citizens, inter-racial couples, and descendants of Asian and Afro-Caribbean immigrants.

Accordingly, Mr Griffin was barely given opportunity to express himself on behalf of the million who voted for him: He was systematically attacked, he was seldom allowed to respond, he was almost never allowed to finish his sentences, and every minor hesitation or draw for breath was rudely exploited by his pitiless opponents. Mr. Dimbleby, who happens to be the president of the Institute for Citizenship, which issues resource packs aimed at promoting diversity and (get this) educating people about media bias, studiously tolerated this chaos. So much for due impartiality!

And, of course, all the while, an unwashed anti-White rabble of deranged, deformed, egg-pelting terrorists — sponsored by the government with tax-payers’ money — protested outside, having been frustrated in their attempts to prevent Mr. Griffin from entering the building or to have the BBC workers go on strike.

Mr. Griffin’s performance was not excellent. He was nervous, he faltered, he sought to be liked, to refute his media image as a hater, a Nazi, a racist, and a potential mass murderer in a suit, and he even made absurd attempts to ingratiate himself with Bonnie Greer. It seems harsh to rebuke him for being nervous: This is, to a large degree, physiological, and it is easier said than done to perform brilliantly in a psychologically hostile environment, in a situation that poses as a great opportunity, yet has been so carefully engineered to embarrass and discredit.

It also seems harsh to rebuke him for attempting to discredit the media portrayal of him as a nasty, hate-filled, and unpleasant hoodlum — no ordinary human wants to be perceived like that. Yet the nervousness is linked to what, to my mind, is the main weakness in Mr. Griffin’s position, so clearly exposed in the program, and to what motivated his attempts to make friends with those who despise him: As a politician, access to power and the media is a function of his being liked, and his being liked is a function of his perceived legitimacy as a politician, which is, in turn, a function of how much he is willing to conform to the liberal establishment’s ideological orthodoxy.

In other words, Mr. Griffin’s position is dependent on the favors and toleration of a corrupt power structure that abhors him and is fundamentally inimical to the interests of those whom he was elected to represent.

In the post mortem examination, Mr. Griffin will probably hope for sympathy and will re-evaluate his tactics. There is no question that his efforts to re-present the BNP to the public as a sensible party have yielded electoral results, and that, as a result, he has been able to reach a much wider audience.

There is also no question that many voters know that the only way to motivate mainstream politicians to listen to concerns they would rather ignore is to scare them with the threat of a so-called ‘fascist’ party coming to power. It was the BNP ‘threat,’ after all, that motivated the Conservatives to make immigration a campaign issue in the 2005 general election. Moreover, it is true that major movements have had marginal beginnings — one has only to look at the Labour Party itself. It is therefore possible that the BNP could continue to grow.

Yet, the creeps that comprise the present establishment will never cede power voluntarily: they are absolutely ruthless and amoral, they are convinced of their own righteousness, and they will never permit a threat to their existence. If there is a lesson from Mr. Griffin’s appearance in Question Time, it is that, when dealing with the enemy, it is futile to be anything but perfectly frank in one’s hostility, vicious in one’s humor, and relentless in one’s aggression. However elegant the suit or polished the language, one has to be proud to be considered a monster, a beast, a demon, and never apologize for it, never feel one owes an explanation, never accept their terms, never empathize, never sympathize, and never issue an apology. One must encourage their fear, relish their discomfort, and revel in their demonizations.

Some might not agree with unconventional opinions, but they all respect what they fear.

It is painful to think of the opportunities that went unexploited in this program. In theory, it should have been easy to make the establishment politicians in the panel look like fools, for it is not as if their parties have not already supplied — through a lurid chain of failure, corruption, deception, embezzlement, and scandals of every stripe, all going back decades — ample ammunition with which to gun them down into the trench of discredit and professional embarrassment. They are vermin; a horripilating freak show of intellectual dwarves, equivocating slugs, fiscal leeches, snake oil salesmen, lying demagogues, pompous ideologues, toxic pedagogues, legal eels, media lice, economic burglars, political toads, crooks, cowards, traitors, cretins, weirdos, academic fraudsters, and orangutanaceous buffoons. It should have been equally easy to ridicule their delirious utopian visions, for they have failed on every level, and the mess we are in is entirely of their making. No one else has been in power.

Unfortunately, Mr. Griffin’s desire for legitimacy and acceptance, caused him to temper his aggression and offer amiability: Much time was wasted in the effort to appear moderate by explaining, denying, or qualifying alleged remarks and previous statements, and not enough was invested in vigorously attacking the corrupt politicians and mediacrats, their lies, their cravenness, their slipperiness, and their catastrophic policy failures.

Mr. Griffin has performed much more forcefully on other occasions, and to his credit, he did go on the offensive several times, such was when he pointed out that during World War II his father had served in the RAF while Mr. Straw’s had been in prison for refusing to fight for his country. However, on the whole, despite presenting some sound arguments, he came across as defensive, almost obsequious, which hostile observers have smugly interpreted (for the ‘edification’ of fence-sitters) as evasion and as Mr. Griffin’s deceptiveness in the secret knowledge that he is wrong.

But he is not wrong. The aboriginals of the British Isles are White. They have never been, and will never be, anything else. They have a culture, a language, an identity, and a geographical space of their own. They are right to desire a White society. They are right to desire its continuity and prosperity. They are right to desire the ability to define themselves and to choose their own destiny. They are right to loathe and despise those who seek to take away what is rightfully theirs. They are right to wish the destruction of those who seek to destroy them. They are right to be vicious and ruthless in dealing with their enemies, because their enemies are vicious and ruthless too. They are right, and the Left is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, forever wrong.

This issue transcends British politics, because the same applies everywhere else across traditional White homelands. Utopian liberals dream of cohesive communities of multicultural diversity where very different groups live in splendid, impossible harmony, followed by a homogenized brown world were everyone looks the same, earns the same, and thinks the same. For utopian liberals equality is the ultimate goal, the key to happiness and human progress. If the price is the destruction of genius, the suppression of individuality, and the irrecoverable loss of beauty, so be it. It is monstrous, perverse, insane. Yet they are absolutely determined to realize their vision.

If we are to stop them, if we are to survive them, we have to embrace the Nietzschean maxim and dare to be ourselves. To be assertive and devoid of qualms in the pursuit of glory — of glory defined by us, for us, and in our terms. To not care what they think, to scorn their friendship, and be prepared to eat them, lest they eat us first.

Let us hope Mr. Griffin’s appearance has cured the hopeful of any illusions that this is anything but an all out war to the finish.

The root of this consternation was the perception by liberal fanatics that the BBC was lending credibility to the Chairman of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, by giving him a spot on the panel of Question Time. The fact that the BBC’s guidelines require them to host representatives who have achieved a certain level of influence among the electorate is totally irrelevant to this apoplectic rabble hell-bent on censorship.

The frantic attempt by the enemies of Life to silence a critic of their agenda filled me with excitement and anticipation. Many of the machinations of the protesters outside the TV Centre were being broadcast live on BBC News, and their desperation to stop Griffin’s appearance was so transparent that it provoked many thinking men into taking a closer look at Griffin and his ideas.

While I was concerned with whether or not Nick Griffin would make it into the BBC studio safely, I didn’t give much thought to problems that would arise once he was already on the air. I was sure that he would handle himself well once he got his foot in the door. Griffin had sent out an e-mail update, just hours before the broadcast was recorded, in which he stated that the panel, and the audience, of QT would be deliberately stacked against him; however, he said that he was prepared for this and that he would use this vehicle to disseminate our message and cut through the fog of media lies. Right before entering the studio, he said he was prepared for an old-fashioned, political rough-and-tumble.

I assumed that we would see an intelligent, well-educated (Nick is a Cambridge man), polished orator and Political Soldier deliver a life-affirming defense of our Cause, remaining steadfast in the face of blistering criticism. Unfortunately, I was disappointed by Mr. Griffin’s performance on Question Time , and it truly saddens me that such an extraordinary opportunity to reach the British public was squandered.

The program was clearly configured to discredit Nick Griffin, and the usual format of the show was altered in a manner conducive to the witch hunt they sought, by consistently providing traps into which they hoped Griffin would fall; sadly, on more than one occasion, he did just that. David Duke provides some good analysis of the performance on his web site, which I think is worth reading for anyone who aspires to a role of prominence in Identity politics. Whatever your opinion might be of David Duke, he handles the media adroitly, and his exchange with Wolf Blitzer, which aired live on CNN, is legendary.

Griffin knew going into this situation that he was facing a group of people entirely hostile to his perspective, and yet he failed to assumed a posture that fit the situation. Rather than steeling himself for the inevitable hostility and projecting confidence in the face of overwhelming opposition, he sat there sheepishly grinning, staring at the desk, and forcing himself to clap for the other panelists, one of which was a particularly acerbic Negress with a habit of deriding the BNP constituency, and all of whom were obviously tasked with assailing him. Shockingly, they did not return Griffin’s civility. He patiently waited for his turn to speak and allowed each of them to state their opinions clearly, whereas they shouted over him and subjected him to a torrent of verbal abuse.

We, as White Nationalists, must not allow ourselves to swallow, to any degree, the enemy propaganda that we are doing something shameful or dirty by standing up for ourselves, our culture, and our collective identity. When the angry Negress told Griffin that no party in the world is based on “indigenous populations,” he had a perfect opportunity to name some of the many parties in the world with consanguineous prerequisites.

Specifically, he had a chance to touch on Israel: a bigoted, war-mongering, Apartheid state whose outrages should be brought into the public discourse as much as possible. However, as Duke notes, Griffin negated that opportunity by previously stating his support for Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. I understand why Griffin does not want to attack the Jews, even if I disagree with this tactic; however, there is a big difference between not attacking Jews and being so philosemitic that you justify Zionist atrocities. What does Griffin hope to achieve by fawning over Israel? Does he think we will ever really achieve support from Jews? Does he think Jewish money comes without strings attached?

Griffin was easily lured into criticism of Muslims and other out-groups, yet he spoke very little about the nature of British Identity, how it is unique, and why it must be safeguarded. He was afforded the chance to defend our heritage and unique nature several times, most notably when the Negress on the panel rejected the notion of indigenous British people and began mumbling about Neanderthals.

We must defend our identity without being lured into disparaging others. We should provide newcomers and lemmings with very common metaphors to which they can relate: “I love my children more than the children of others, but that doesn’t mean I hate other children.” Don’t get into arguments about superiority and inter-cultural value judgments. It’s just not worth the hassle. European people are superior at reproducing other European people, and that is simply a fact. We don’t need to prove anything beyond that; our uniqueness is of intrinsic value and anyone who denies that is trying to deny Life.

Too often, Griffin came across as a dejected outsider peddling the politics of ressentiment. He seemed to lack resolve, and more importantly, Geist. He nodded his head, smiled, and seemed to concur when other panelists suggested that people were voting for the BNP simply out of frustration and a lack of options. The panelists argued that these were not so much votes for the BNP, but rather protest votes against the current system, and Griffin did not seem to challenge this. I was reminded of Nietzsche’s quote from On the Genealogy of Morals:

The slave revolt in morality begins when resentment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the resentment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge. While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is “outside,” what
is “different,” what is “not itself”; and this No is its creative deed. This inversion of the value-positing eye — this need to direct one’s view outward instead of back to oneself — is of the essence of resentment: in order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile external environment: it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all –
its action is fundamentally reaction.

How many BNP voters are truly committed to our world-view, and how many vote for the BNP in secrecy and shame, largely to protest the current state of affairs? This is an important question, and one of the reasons why I believe it is vital for us to be strong, determined, and life-affirming in our rhetoric. We must vanquish “the cloud” to which Jonathan Bowden often refers: a cloud which will continue to descend upon us, confusing and distorting our efforts, until we summon the resolve necessary to lift it. Lifting this cloud is an essential first step in the “reevaluation of values” needed in order to restore ourselves to health. Greg Johnson summed up this imperative quite well in a recent e-mail:

We will never save ourselves, much less recover what we have lost, until we have a moral revolution: until we stop apologizing for our ancestors, stop apologizing for ourselves, and start asserting ourselves and our interests — not furtively, sneakily, and apologetically — but righteously, with the unshakable conviction that we make the world a better place. It is the self-assertion that comes naturally to any healthy organism, and if we cannot summon it, then we will be culled as one of nature’s rejects.

We can no longer afford to politely play the games of our enemies, by their rules, hoping to get lucky at some point. We must overturn the tables and expose the sinister rigging beneath it. We must do this boldly and openly, coupling mastery of style with uncorrupted masculine principle. I urge Mr. Griffin to consider the choice outlined by his fellow countryman, Alex Kurtagic, and insist on assuming a place of majesty rather than servitude.

NOTE: The appearance is now available on YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=BNP+Nick+Griffin+on+BBC+Question&search_sort=video_recently_uploaded

From Occidental Dissent, October 23, 2009

It is better to stay politically irrelevant and racialized than powerful and deracialized. If the BNP ever has a Prime Minister like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush it will have been utterly and completely defeated.

* * *

Allow me to restate your [Barnes'] argument from a different perspective:

“The Communist Party USA is a political party. Therefore we must get elected into power, that requires a populist approach. In order to implement Marxist-Leninism, we must be elected. Politics is the art of the possible, not ideological posturing that alienates mass support.”

Your fundamental mistake is identifying power with the ballot box and engagement in democratic politics. In the U.S., the Socialist Party and Communist Party USA were able to get much of their agenda passed in spite of their political irrelevance. In contrast, the Conservatives who support the GOP have 40 years of electoral victories under their belt and almost nothing to show for it. A small minority of ideologues has utterly triumphed over millions of pragmatists.

The Left always wins in the end because it understands that power is about controlling discourse, not winning elections. The Right (like Barnes here) operates on the latter assumption, wins pyrrhic victories, then capitulates and surrenders. That’s why the British Left is trying so hard to force the BNP to change its constitution. In surrendering the language of race, you’re doing exactly what they want you to do; allowing the Left to control the discourse and dominate the national conversation on its own terms.

The inevitable result will be deracialization and a softening of nationalism. The boundry marker of legitimate public discourse will shift to the left. It is better to make a stand and push in the opposite direction even if it is politically expedient to do so.

* * *

[Barnes:] That’s your job. We are politicians who seek power.

Like all conservatives, you have it ass backwards: win the cultural war over discourse and power will follow; securing council seats and MPs is pointless unless you control the culture … you won’t be in a position to change anything without a public uproar.

[Barnes:] We have a great idea – its called GREAT BRITAIN.

You’re not doing a very good job of presenting it.

[Barnes:] Its not our job to act as propagandists for the white race, we are British Nationalists.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

[Barnes:] = Our values are British, our philosophy Ethno-Nationalism.

1.) Define ‘British values’.

2.) It is amusing to see you equate White Nationalism, a version of racial nationalism, with National Socialism, a version of ethno-nationalism.

* * *

[Barnes:] All truly long lasting revolutions are achieved step by step with consent, not with paroxsyms of violence imposed upon an unwilling populace.

Actually, I would argue that “long lasting revolutions” are “achieved step by step” in fights over discourse. In France and America, the rhetoric of liberty and equality triumphed before the first shots of revolution were fired. In the aftermath of World War II, the rhetoric of ‘human rights’ triumphed across the British political spectrum before the full implications of that idea were worked out in later decades. In the 1960s, Americans didn’t know that ‘civil rights’ implied self hating masochism or the worship of ‘diversity’. Ideas are always entertained before their consequences become apparent.

You’re proposing that British nationalists surrender the discourse of race out of short term political expediency. I’m beginning to think you don’t have the stomach for revolutionary political struggle. Persecution by the authorities, going to jail for one’s beliefs, refusing to compromise on principle, enduring hate and violence, even martyrdom come with the territory. It is what creates the necessary sympathy for a vanguardist cadre to metamorphize into a mass movement.

[Barnes:] The word Folk implies an indigenous people with an organic connection to the land, a national culture and a British Constitution.

Is this an accurate description of contemporary Britons, in particular the working class, a majority of whom have lived in urban conditions for almost a century now?

[Barnes:] As Americans you have a connection to the land based on history, but you are not indigenous to America and therefore I understand that you do not have a ‘Folkish consciousness’ – though I suspect those of you with English, Irish etc roots would understand what a Folk consciousness is if you returned to visit your ancestral homelands where your ancestors evolved and took a walk in an English wood or had a pint in a rual Irish pub or visited Newgrange or Stonhenge.

Anglo-Americans are as indigenous to the United States as the Normans or Anglo-Saxons are to Britain. A folk consciousness exists in rural areas of the American South as surely as it does in Britain, probably even more so given the leftward tilt of the British political spectrum, itself a product of urbanization.

[Barnes:] What you define as intellectualism eg Folk, Nation and Culture, are to us the antithesis of intellectualism – they are the organic realities of our everyday lives as opposed to an ideological viewpoint such as race which is rooted in abstract history and the ‘coldness’ of genetic research.

This ignores the fact that White Nationalism was an organic response to the conditions of the American frontier experience: in the wilderness of North America, the racial differences between White, Black, and Red were naturally more salient than the ethnic differences between racially homogeneous Europeans. The ideal that America was a ‘white man’s country’ emerged long before the advent of genetic science or the first attempts at scientific racialism in the late eighteenth century.

[Barnes:] We are rooted to this earth, you were torn from this earth and transplanted elsewhere – therefore you have never felt the power or beauty of an organic connection to the sacred earth of a Heimat, a homeland based on a natural and organic connection as opposed to loyalty to abstractions of history and civic nationalism.

Judging from the whiggers and chavs that now populate your country, I don’t see this organic connection to the land of which you speak so highly. Undoubtedly, it once existed in Britain (prior to the seventeenth century when ‘enclosure’ destroyed the British peasantry), but those days are long since passed. Like the Dutch, the British have been an urbanized people for over a hundred years now.

* * *

Barnes is arguing for inclusion of non-Whites in the BNP on the basis of Culturalism (to conform to the Equality Commission). His talking point about Eastern European immigrants is nothing more than spin meant to distract attention away from the real issue (the litmus test of BNP membership). In fact, he is expanding the definition of ‘Britishness’, not narrowing it.

The neocons whinge endlessly about “culture” and “shared values” when arguing against multiculturalist liberals. They are ideologues, not ethnonationalists. Like the neocons, Barnes associates racialism with Hitler and Nazism. Barnes is saying we should accept non-Whites into our fold who ’share our values’. How is this substantially different from Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity? It’s not.

His proposal essentially substitutes neoconservatism for ethnonationalism. It treats and harps on the symptoms of our decline, not the disease itself. It proposes an electoral strategy (not a cultural one) to ultimate victory. It is founded upon the textbook conservative argument that racialists are unelectable fringe extremists and the ‘pragmatic’ thing to do is to tailor one’s message to reflect (rather than direct) public opinion. It substitutes the ethnic basis of membership for an abstract/ideological one, albeit smuggled in the Halloween costume of ‘folkishness’.

The next logical step is to water down the message even further into Geert Wilders neoconservatism: a full throated embrace of Zionism and philo-Semitism combined with an aggressive posture against Islam in the name of defending liberal values.

From Occidental Dissent, September 8, 2009

Lee John Barnes, the British National Party’s Legal Director, has a few choice words for White Nationalists. At Majority Rights, this has invited a flurry of negative responses from GuessedWorker and other British commentators. In response to the BNP’s recent legal difficulties, Barnes has attempted to construct an all encompassing culturalist ideology which he juxtaposes against White Nationalism and other versions of racialism.

Here is a point by point response to Barnes’ accusations:

(1) British Nationalism is a political movement designed to represent and promote the interests of the Indigenous British people, whilst white nationalism represents the interests of all whites worldwide.

This is a caricature of White Nationalism based on a single facet of its platform. Insofar as White Nationalism has an “international” aspect at all, its adherents only seek to foster intraracial amity and cooperation on issues of mutual concern such as third world immigration, fighting multiculturalism, the Jewish Question and overthrowing the ideological hegemony of liberalism in the West. There is nothing whatsoever objectionable about this – unless one prefers the bloodshed and ethnic bigotry of twentieth century Europe, which may ultimately prove fatal to the White race, especially if it were to be revisited.

(2) At the same time as the Equality Commission are labouring under their own delusions as to what the BNP stand for, the White Nationalist mob on the various internet forums are demanding the BNP fight to the death for its ‘white only’ membership policy – which merely confirms these people are idiots and have never even bothered to read the BNP constitution as well as the Equality Commission.

These “idiots” on “various internet forums” (most of whom are probably BNP supporters) are only expressing the sentiment that the BNP should remain an exclusive political vehicle for ethnic Britons, as opposed to the Front National in France which has non-White members and elected representatives. They are using the word “White” as a litmus test for “assimilated Indigenous British” or “European race” which you admit are mentioned in the BNP Constitution.

In other words, John should not be denied membership on account of his Irish grandmother; Jacob who is 1/8th Dutch; Winston Churchill who was 1/2 American; Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth II for having German ancestors. The line of “assimilable” should be drawn around Europe. On the other hand, your garden variety Abdul or Mohammad would remain excluded. This is a sensible policy. What is so objectionable about it?

(3) What we have is an INDIGENOUS FOLK COMMUNITY membership which is not the same as a ‘whites only’ membership.

If not Whites of European ancestry, who are the “assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain?” It is plainly a legal obsfucation of ‘White’; one only made necessary by the Orwellian legal circumstances that British nationalists live under in the United Kingdom.

(4) A whites only membership would make the BNP a ‘white nationalist’ party not a BRITISH national party.

No, it would not. The BNP could remain a “British national party” while admitting that Winston Churchill or Queen Elizabeth II are British in spite of their “non-indigenous” ancestry. That wouldn’t necessarily entail open borders with Poland or Romania.

(5) The fact that the idiots on some internet sites think the BNP is a white nationalist party, as opposed to a BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY for the indigenous British people, merely proves these people are too busy believing their own propaganda to realise they are talking nonsense.

The misunderstanding could easily be corrected by amending your membership policy to explicitly include non-Whites (from Jamaica, Pakistan, India, etc.) or by excluding “non-indigenous” Europeans (Germans, Irish, Poles, Italians, etc). Instead, the BNP tries to have a “whites only” membership policy by using other euphemisms for it to satisfy the Equality Commission.

(6) … have no regard for the preservation of indigenous British culture and cultures and would allow any whites membership to the party such as unassimilated Poles and white Eastern Europeans and allow unlimited whites access in to the country.

This is a straw man. As GuessedWorker pointed out, White Nationalists generally don’t have any objection to the preservation of British culture, excluding unassimilated Europeans from BNP membership, or a more restrictive immigration policy that would obviate the problem of mass immigration from the Continent. After all, it’s your country; you should run the show.

(7) A white nationalist welcomes mass immigration into the UK as long as the immigrants are white eg Polish, Russians etc regardless of how this affects the interests of the indgenous British folk.

This is a spurious, unsupported fabrication of the White Nationalist position on immigration. Barnes is conflating a “whites only” membership basis with support for unrestricted mass immigration from Europe. There is no reason why the former entails the latter. Even Americans tailored our immigration policy to privilege Northwestern Europeans over Whites from Southern and Eastern Europe.

(8) A white nationalist would never support the slogan ‘British jobs for British workers’ as that would mean that all immigration into the UK from white nations would have to be stopped and whites who are not British would be denied access to British jobs

Once again, Barnes creates and attacks a straw man caricature of the White Nationalist position on immigration. I don’t know many White Nationalists who object to nativist preferences in employment. Personally, I would rather American jobs go to American workers than unassimilated European foreign nationals.

(9) whilst the fundamental aim of white nationalism is the compulsory repatriation of all non-whites and them replaced by whites from anywhere in the world, the fundamental aim of British nationalism os to put the interests of the British people first.

This is false. The fundamental aim of White Nationalism is the creation of a Jew-free, White ethnostate in North America for Americans and Canadians who wish to secede from the multiracial polygot. The immigration policy of this hypothetical nation-state is only a secondary consideration and has little to do with your racial circumstances in the UK other than wishing you good will.

(10) The fact that the policies of white nationalism if enacted into law would destroy British culture by importing into the country millions of culturally disparate whites from around the world to replace culturally british non-whites and at the same destroy the unique ethnic gene lines of the indigenous British folk groups via the mixing of the different ethnic sub sets of the white race into one homogenous racial enetity is irrelevant to white nationalists – white nationalists do not care that the indigenous British could become extinct in our own country along with British culture as long as Britain was filled with whites.

This is a baseless accusation. Adapted to British circumstances, White Nationalism would entail 1.) a racially based ethnostate for the British people 2.) and the repatriation of all Jews and non-Whites abroad. It would not necessarily entail open borders with the European continent. Membership in this British ethnostate would be on a White basis. The non-indigenous White elements in Britain would be repatriated or absorbed over time like the Irish and Huguenot minorities that came before them. This alternative is infinitely preferable to the liberal status quo that now prevails in Britain.

(11) Only white nationalists regard British culture as irrelevant and disregard the fact that Polish people may be white, but that they are not indigenous British and that real genetic ethnic differences exist between us.

If British nationalists don’t desire Polish immigrants, they could easily amend their immigration laws and exclude them without raising much objection from White Nationalists on this side of the Atlantic.  Barnes continues to attack his straw man of White Nationalism. In reality, White Nationalists support the preservation of traditional British culture, say, the cultivation of the English language. I don’t know where Barnes got the impression that White Nationalists insist upon open borders with Europe.

(12) Polish people may easily assimilate into Britain and British culture and become British, but they are still of Polish ethnicity.

Would assimilated Poles be excluded in a Britain under BNP rule?

(13) A simple DNA test can reveal whether we are Anglo-Saxon or Celts, or Italians or Germans thereby revealing that real genetic ethnic differences exist between the ethnic sub sets of the white race.

Actually, these ethnic categories shade into each other in a far more subtle way than the broad racial differences which have accumulated over thousands of years. They cut across and through artificial European borders. The difference between a Nigerian and a Dane is far more clear cut than the small differences that have accumulated between Norwegians and Icelanders.

(14) There is no one white race – the white race is comprised of a set of ethnic sub sets that have evolved from the original white racial root group.

Ethnicity has far more to do with superficial cultural differences than heredity.

(15) Over time the different tribal groups that grew from the original racial root group have evolved real ethnic genetic differences that make them unique ethnic groups.

These “ethnic genetic differences” should not be conflated so easily with the existing national groups of Europe which are drawn primarily along linguistic fault lines.

(16) Therefore white nationalism and British Nationalism are diametrically opposed both in ideology and application.

This is nonsense. White Nationalists and British Nationalists mostly share common goals.

(17) The BNP want all immigration including white immigration from Europe stopped. White nationalists want more white immigration into the UK.

This is another reiteration of the same straw man addressed above.

(18) The BNP want white Eastern European immigrants returned home. White nationalists want white estern europeans to stay and non-whites returned home.

Actually, White Nationalists have no clear cut position on the issue, and neither do British Nationalists. Instead, there is a spectrum of opinion that ranges from deportation/exclusion to assimiliation/inclusion. American White Nationalists really don’t give much thought to your immigration policy aside from recommending that non-Whites be excluded/deported.

(19) The BNP want all illegal immigrants, white or otherwise, returned home. The white nationalists want whites to stay.

… provided they assimilate and the borders are closed.

(20) A white nationalist would rather have in the country a white Eastern European Muslim than a Black British born Christian.

This is true.

(21) The BNP want all asylum seekers, white or otherwise, returned home. White nationalists want white immigrants to stay.

Yet another straw man.

(22) The BNP say Britain First – white nationalists say ‘Our Race is our nation’.

Most British White Nationalists would agree with the slogan “Britain First,” but would not agree that entails hostility to non-Britons or indifference to the racial struggle abroad.

(23) The flag of the BNP is the British flag, the symbol of white nationalism is the Celtic Sun Wheel.

White Nationalism doesn’t have a symbol.

(24) The political ideology of white nationalism is National Socialism, the politics of the BNP are British Nationalism.

White Nationalism isn’t National Socialism. The aspiration to create a White ethnostate in North America has little to do with the Third Reich and goes back centuries. It is an indigenous American ideal that was reflected in traditional American immigration law until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.

(25) You cannot say ‘My race is my nation’ and then say ‘I am a British nationalist’ – the two are fundamentally opposed and irreconcilable ideological positions.

Nonsense. That particular slogan (one that is rarely used by White Nationalists) entails nothing more than social concern for the welfare of Whites abroad. There is no contradiction between British Nationalism and, say, caring about the fate of the Rhodesians and Afrikaners in Southern Africa.

(26) The problem is that white nationalists have not realised this – so they think that when the BNP has to change its membership policy this is an abandonment of our ‘white nationalist policy’ when the BNP is not a white nationalist party anyway !

White Nationalists probably haven’t realized the positions you ascribe to them as they were concocted out of your own imagination and then are wholly due to the peculiar circumstances of the BNP and its institutional need to reposition itself in a changed legal environment.

(27) What we have have to do is therefore finally define what the BNP stands for in a way that British nationalists and white nationalists can see the difference.

All you have to do is to amend the BNP membership policy to include assimilated non-Whites. That will indeed create a vital distinction between White Nationalism and your version of British Nationalism.

(28) After the constitution changes the BNP will still be an Indigenous British party based on ethno-nationalism which represents the interests of the indigenous British people. But we will also be shifting emphasis onto the defence of British culture as well as indigenous rights.

In other words, the BNP is repositioning itself as a neoconservative political party.

(29) This therefore shifts us further away from white nationalism.

… and further towards liberalism.

(30) Whilst the BNP represents the interests of the indigenous British it can also represent the interests of the Naturalised British citizens who are ASSIMILATED as we defend British culture.

… like the black soldiers who fight in Britain’s imperial wars.

(31) The BNP cannot, and will not, ever represent the interests of Colonists.

I’m not so sure. You seem to be moving in that general direction.

(32) Assimilated British Naturalised Citizens want to defend British culture and values.

i.e., Neoconservatism.

(33) They do not want to see Sharia law in the UK, they do not want Islamist thugs spitting at British soldiers, including black British soldiers, on British streets, they dont want multi-culturalism as they want to live in a British culture, they dont want mass immigration as they know it will lead to a civil war in the future, they dont want to be given extra rights on the grounds of their race by white liberals who despise British culture, they dont want their kids taught about the joys of anal sex, they dont want their children sexualised by pervert teachers who think its more important that 5 year olds are taught how to wear a condom than to read and write properly, they dont want their taxes spent on refugee centres and translations services, they dont want British streets turned into war zones between different foriegn drugs gangs, they dont want crack gangs, white prostitutes, islamist heroin dealers and the rest of the filth of multi-culturalism perverting their children and British society, they dont white liberal teachers teaching their kids to have a chip on their shoulder about racism and that they dont have to work hard at school as they can be rap stars or unemployed drug dealers, they dont want their kids taught about Islam and not about Christianity, they want free speech not political correctness and liberalism. They want a decent British society with a mono-cultural British culture, not a multi-cultural society with no British culture.They are not the enemy.

… and they are non-White!

(34) Between them and us we share a mutual desire for the return of our British culture. The aim of any constitutional change must be to create an alliance based on them and us defending British culture.

This isn’t British Nationalism at all. It is Neoconservatism.

(35) Whilst the primary aim of the BNP will always be to represent the interests of the indigenous British people, the BNP must also create a mass social movement for the preservation of British culture that enables us to bridge this gap.

We must be practical! We have to sneak up on the liberals! This means downplaying the importance of race, exaggerating the importance of culture! This is textbook Neoconservatism.

(36) The real irony is that the white nationalists are multi-culturalists – they would rather have a multi-cultural Britain comprised of Polish, Russian, German immigrants who retain their own ancestral cultures, than a Britain with a British culture if that means we have to have a tiny minority of non-whites who are British by birth and culture.

The real irony here is that Lee John Barnes is trying to disguise this seachange in policy from British Nationalism to Neoconservatism by attacking American White Nationalists who have no interest whatsoever in whether or not Poles are allowed to settle in Britain.

(37) White Nationalism is by its very nature a multi-cultural ideology, for it puts the issue of race before the preservation of national cultures.

White Nationalists oppose multiculturalism and multiracialism. Lee John Barnes is surrendering to multiracialism while maintaining a fictitious opposition to multiculturalism. Is any serious minded British nationalist stupid enough to believe that Britain’s West Indian minority will ever assimilate to British cultural norms?

(38) The irony is that when white nationalists say ‘my race is my nation’ this statement is anti-nationalist, anti-the British indigenous folk communities and anti-British culture.

No, it simply indicates that White Nationalists aren’t narrowminded, bigoted Little Englander neocons who care only about their own backyard. We’re not about to abandon our concern for the plight of Whites abroad out of political expediency.

(39) Even the politics of white nationalism – National Socialism – are despised by the majority of British whites who we need to vote us into power.

White Nationalism isn’t National Socialism. Watering down British Nationalism into Neoconservatism only confirms our suspicion that nothing will ever come of the BNP aside from a few council victories and seats in the European Parliament. Why vote for the BNP when authentic conservative parties like the UKIP or the Tories already exist?

(40) Its a pity they do not analyse this statement

Feel free to write back.

Update: A further addendum in response to Barnes’ comments.

Are you honestly trying to tell me there are no WN’s in the BNP or no British WN’s !!!!

Of course there are White Nationalists in Britain. I haven’t seen you present any evidence that your caricature is a representative sample of their views.

The fact is the ideology of WN is simpy that , an ideology, it is not based on genetic or scientific reality today.

British Nationalism isn’t based on any “genetic or scientific reality” either. Science is a purely descriptive understanding of the natural world. It has nothing to do with (prescriptive) political philosophy of any kind.

WN is National Socialism – not British Nationalism.

White Nationalism is the project of creating a Jew-free, White ethnostate in North America for Americans and Canadians who desire to secede from the multiracial polygot. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the political programme of the NSDAP as it existed in NS Germany. There are only superficial similarities between the two.

Regardless of what country a WN is in they are a WN, as WN is anti-nationalist, that is the point of WN !

I know bullshit when I see it. The raison d’être of White Nationalism is the creation of a White ethnostate in North America. How in the world is such a project “anti-nationalist”?

So an US WN is the exact same as a UK WN !

This is false.

But my article does not relate to the USA, it relates to Britain – and white nationalism in the UK is completely superfluous as to our ethnic and cultural survival.

White Nationalism is preferable to Neoconservatism.

The fact that there are no intellectuals in white nationalism is proof exactly of my point – the WN’s in this country are defined by their thuggery, anti-social behaviour, lack of thought and intellectual analysis and their fetish for Nazism.

This could easily be a verbatim description of the BNP found in the Guardian.

In the UK all WN’s should stay out of politics – as they are simply a liability.

This is also the attitude of the liberal mainstream in Britain towards the BNP.

THE PATH TO POWER IS CULTURALISM, AS CULTURALISM IS A POPULIST POLITICAL IDEOLOGY THAT THE VOTERS WILL VOTE FOR – unlike racialism which voters have been conditoned to despise.

Restated: Conservatism is the path to power. Racialism is impractical in a democratic political context in which voters have been conditioned to have a knee jerk reaction to any expression of White racial interests.

The threat from WN’s is that they are unlectable and therefore they make any party they associate with unelectable.

Barnes is invoking liberal talking points (the same ones used against the BNP, I might add) to attack White Nationalists.

WN in the UK is merely political suicide and delays our transition into power.

In a nutshell, the case for conservatism.

Most US WN’s are Nazis – and proud of it.

No evidence is presented to support this accusation.

The intellectual elite of the US Pro-white movement may not be Nazis eg Jared Taylor but the movement and white youth is 95 % WN.

White Nationalism isn’t National Socialism. Barnes continues to use every liberal talking point against British nationalists.

The elite may reject nazism, but the youth and nazi groups that comprise 95 % of the US ‘white rights’ movement reject them.

Anywhere from 5% to 15% of White Americans still hold old fashioned traditional racial views. That’s millions of people. The vast majority of them have never heard of White Nationalism. An insignificant miniscule fraction of them are Neo-Nazis.

The politics of WN have been, and would be, disastrous for the White Ethnic Communities worldwide, and no one votes for Nazis.

Barnes doesn’t have any real concern for preserving the distinct ethnicities of Europe. This is just a convenient talking point. He is willing to accept assimilated and naturalized non-Whites into Britain and the BNP.

Nazis are a political liability, and are usually the loudest mouthed in any group simply as the politics of Nazism attracts the cranks, the show offs and the egotists.

White Nationalism isn’t Nazism.

I think you can have a politics of Ethnicity, Nationalism and Culture – I am British by ethnicity, I live in Britain a Nation and I want to preserve British culture.

In other words, Barnes is advocating a form of nationalist politics - one based on the terminology of Franz Boas and Ashley Montagu.

These are the boundaries that I want to preserve, the natural organic boundaries of folk, nation and culture – not the mythos of race.

A hundred years ago, British nationalists used the language of race to describe what are today termed ’cultural’ and ‘ethnic’ characteristics. There is nothing whatsoever organic about what Barnes is proposing. It is borrowed wholly from mid-twentieth century cultural anthropology. It is the product of the various anti-racist ideological crusades against racialism.

They are organic realities, the politics of blood is based on myths. The lines of defence that concern me are BRITISH ones, not mythic ones.

Nonsense. Barnes fetish for “British culture” isn’t based at all upon objective, hard nosed, natural science. There is no scientific argument for preserving the English language or enjoying British literature.

The baby was left so long in the bathwater by those obsessing over race, that it drowned long before it was ever thrown out of the tub.

The liberal mainstream would love to cast the BNP out of British politics.

The issue about nazis in the white community movement isnt that they will replicate 1933 in Germany and take power, the danger is that they prevent nationalist parties taking power.

Feel free to do a Google blog search of your own site. You are frequently attacked for being sympathetic to Nazism yourself. Your furious attacks on White Nationalism hasn’t impressed the crew over at Harry’s Place. If every Neo-Nazi in Britain were to disappear tomorrow, the mainstream “anti-fascist” line against the BNP wouldn’t miss a beat.

If you honestely are saying the WN movement in America isnt the majority of the white activists, then you need to speak to the people who actually know the real situation. For every Jared Taylor there are a hundred skinheads.

For every Jared Taylor, there are thousands of racially conscious White Americans who have never heard of White Nationalism. Even Leonard Zeskind or Carol Swain doesn’t argue that the majority of White Nationalists are Neo-Nazi skinheads.

You appear to think the primary motivation of BNP members is WN, it isnt – its about defending british culture, national sovereignity, against the EU, UN, the domination of american culture, the defence of our people and heritage – race hardly figures at all except for the WN’s.

Is this the BNP? Now it sounds more like the UKIP.

we are too busy fighting for our national and cultural survival to worry too much about the survival of whites in south africa

I will make a note of that: the nu-BNP doesn’t care about the plight of Whites in South Africa.

We may despise whats happening to whites around the world, but we have to hold and defend our soil – not fixate on how others defend theirs.

In Barnes mind, the two are mutually exclusive.

Culture is a populist philosophy, racialism isnt. We have to get elected into power – so we must be a populist movement and party, otherwise whats the point of being in the political process.

Barnes is apparently ignorant of the etymology of ‘populism’: it is an American term derived from the late nineteenth century Populist Party whose rank and file were almost exclusively racially conscious White Americans.

Posturing forever on the margins of politics about race wont save either our race, nation, folk or culture.

The solution, you see, is to replace British Nationalism with Neoconservatism. That’s the ticket!

I dont think our shared ‘genetic specificity’ mattred much when in WW2, and it wont matter much when Europe and the EU allows in millions of african immigrants into Britain.

Barnes wouldn’t object to millions of African immigrants in Britain provided they speak English, watch the BBC, play cricket and ‘motor’ around on Sunday.

We must defend our soil – not mythic ideas of race. Myth is an miniscule aspect of culture, it is not an aspect of politics. Politics is based on history, not myth.

Barnes knows little about politics. The driving force behind liberalism is the mythic ideal of a colorblind utopia where racial differences are nonexistent. As for British soil, it wouldn’t be worth defending if it was populated by Pakis and Jamaicans.

Those who live in a world of myths worrying about the white race whilst the streets of Britain are filling up with immigrants are simply wasting what little time we have to get into power and save our folk, nation and culture. We do politics, not myths and solipsistic navel gazing masquerading as politics.

Why not vote for the Tories or the GOP? They’re far better at democratic politics than you are. That’s the obvious conclusion to draw from this line of reasoning.

Yes it is simple – we either get voted into power or we lose everything. People dont vote for racialist parties.

The vast majority of British Whites aren’t voting for the BNP either.

One would think that an award-winning journalist writing for a national “quality” newspaper and with access to some of the most eminent personages of the age would be capable of penning an intelligent article about an unconventional politician, providing novel insights and depth of analysis where his lesser peers would have been content with a facile regurgitation of clichés. Unfortunately, we live in an age when, not originality of approach or sophistication of insight, but blind subjection to Freudo-Marxist dogma and crass fealty to the state-sponsored party line are the key to achieving recognition in a journalistic career.

Nigel Farndale’s recent piece for the Daily Telegraph on the launch of the British National Party’s European election manifesto offers yet more evidence — if any was needed — of the vulgar extent to which the mainstream media routinely insult the intelligence of educated readers and seek to manufacture opinion in an effort to perpetuate the existing establishment, of which they are a part and the main organ of communication. . . . More

from Spearhead, May 2004

John Tyndall

Editor’s Note: I have decided to reprint John Tyndall’s impressively dignified, rational, and pragmatic discussion of the Jewish Question in British National Party politics because it is an ideal introduction to an issue that remains relevant to all white nationalist parties and organizations.

It keeps coming back to haunt us–the Jewish Question, that is. So it has done for many hundreds of years and so it will continue to do as long as Jewish power is a major factor in the world.

I well remember my own induction into Jewish issues. It occurred when, as a young man in the late 1950s, I first became involved in British Nationalism. Essentially, I wanted to do something to lift up my own country and people; I had no wish whatever to become engaged in fights with Jews. I recall, with some embarrassment today, the rather pompous and precocious lectures I gave to others that they should steer well clear of any mention of Jews in an unflattering context lest this bring down upon us the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ or, even worse, ‘Nazism’. I once wrote a letter to my then chief and mentor A. K. Chesterton containing some strictures of this kind. His reply stung me a little at the time, though when I think about it now it seems a masterpiece of diplomacy. Here was this upstart–a virtual know-nothing–presuming to tell him what was what on a subject on which he had been a world-acclaimed authority for at least 20 years!

But sobering experiences and enlightenment were not far away. I soon came to realise, in the course of being a keen activist in the patriotic movement, that though we may do everything possible to avoid conflict with Jewry, Jewry–or at least its politically organised elements–was determined on conflict with us. Protesting that one was not ‘anti-Semitic’ was of no avail; the moment one became involved and identified with the struggle for one’s own race and nation–in my case the British race and nation–one became tarred by the Jews with the mark of the Devil. And, as I later learned, one became a name on a file in the offices of various Jewish organisations and a figure on the Jewish ‘hit list’–perhaps not literally in the sense of assassination but most definitely figuratively, as an enemy to be watched, monitored and, when thought necessary, publicly reviled.

Awakening

I described this process of awakening in The Eleventh Hour:

Bit by bit, it started to come home to me, in the form of incontrovertible evidence, that there was present in Britain and around the world a definite Jewish network wielding immense influence and power – through money, through politics and through its strong foothold, in some sectors amounting to virtual monopoly, in the mass media.

And further on:

Then what of the uses of Jewish wealth and power? I set to work studying the political orientation of Jewish writers in the press, Jewish book-publishers, Jewish political leaders, political philosophers and academics. I investigated the various causes to which Jewish money was being donated.

The truth was inescapable. In not one single case could I find any prominent, powerful and influential Jewish personage who identified himself or herself with any cause complementary to the interests of the British Nation… Quite the contrary, every cause inimical to these things seemed to have Jewish participation and backing. Looking back to the political arguments I had had earlier, it now occurred to me, as it had not done at the time, that the most vociferous and aggressive opponents of all I believed in had been Jews.

I became aware of a strange paradox. While Jews were to be found among the most ardent and committed opponents of British Nationalism and British race-loyalty, they were at the same time the most passionate champions of nationalism and race consciousness on the part of their own people . . .

Unavoidable question

This awakening forced me, against all my initial inclinations, to acknowledge that there was, very definitely, a ‘Jewish Question’. It was a question which patriots of all countries seeking the salvation of their peoples were bound to encounter and deal with, whether they wished it or not. Exactly how that question should be dealt with was, and remains, a subject of much greater complexity, and this subject has given rise to a vast myriad of opinions and arguments. But to suppose that the question could just be ignored or wished away was to dwell in cloud-cuckoo-land. The wrath and hatred of organized Jewry is a mountain that stands in the path of every movement of enlightened racial patriotism wherever one cares to look in the world, but in particular among nations of White European pedigree.

Right now this issue is being brought home to us in almost every TV news bulletin as we see scenes of carnage in Iraq–the legacy of the insane war against that country waged by America and Britain and their coalition allies. And why are we in Iraq against all our better interests? Every knowledgeable observer of the international scene knows why we are there, although few–particularly in the ranks of well-paid journalists and broadcasters–dare admit it publicly. We are there because Israel demands that we should be there to serve as its own shield against an insurgent Arab and Muslim world, And how is tiny Israel able to dictate such a policy to nations like the United States and United Kingdom? Again, every knowledgeable observer knows how but few dare to say: the Israeli lobby in Washington virtually owns the US government and President, while its brethren in this country virtually own Tony Blair.

In an article in these pages last month the writer quoted from a statement by Israeli President Ariel Sharon made on radio October 3rd 2001: “We the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.” This quote has had an extensive world wide circulation and, to my knowledge, has never been publicly disavowed by anyone in Sharon’s administration. In any event whether authentic or not, it represents what everyone knows to be the truth.

The tragedy now being enacted in Iraq is but the most recent installment of a whole series of major tragedies convulsing the world extending back to the Russian Revolution in 1917, through World War II, through the fiasco of Suez in 1956, right up to the present–and not excluding the economic rape of post-communist Russia–in which organized Jewry, whether as instigator or perceived victim, has played a central part. Whether we care to admit it or not, there is a ‘Jewish Question’–a phenomenon that has cast the Jews in an absolutely unique role that sets them quite apart from the rest of the nations. Whether this leads to us viewing them sympathetically or in opposition, acceptance of that overriding truth is the essential foundation of all debate. And the Jewish Question simply will not go away.

Attempted sabotage of meetings

Let us come now to the impact which this Jewish Question has on our own movement, the British National Party. That impact was manifest in a very special way back in 1998, when I headed a team of BNP officials whose job it was to organize our then customary Annual Rally. We experienced great difficulty in obtaining premises for the event until one was eventually acquired in the West Midlands. A year previously we had run up against the same problem when a hotel booking in Shepperton, Middlesex, had been canceled at the last moment as a result of threatening telephone calls to the management. In reply to our inquiries about these threats, a management representative had admitted that they had come from “a Jewish organization.” Now, for the 1998 rally, we had booked a large room at the Moat House Hotel in Northampton. Shortly afterwards, this booking was terminated. The manager told us quite openly on the telephone that the cause of the termination was a telephone call threatening demonstrations which he had received from the “Jewish Board of Deputies” (customary shorthand for the Board of Deputies of British Jews).

The BNP subsequently had an exchange of correspondence with the Board on this matter in which the latter made no attempt to deny its role in putting pressure on the hotel (details of this correspondence were given in two reports in the January and February 1999 issues of Spearhead).

To appreciate the significance of these attempts by organized Jewry to prevent the BNP holding meetings, it is necessary for the reader to know that neither up till that time nor since did the party make any statements, written or verbal, that could be reasonably construed as ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘anti-Jewish’. Some periodicals published independently in support of the BNP had occasionally published articles critical of actions by specific Jews and Jewish organizations, but even in these cases nothing had ever been written calling for Jews to be ill-treated individually merely because they were Jews. In fact these articles were no more ‘anti-Jewish’ than articles attacking the IRA could be called ‘anti-Irish’.

This episode of the canceled meeting-hall bookings was just one of many that have underlined that organized Jewry has been at war with the BNP since the party’s inception 22 years ago. Our crime, quite clearly, has been that we are patriotic and nationalist–something which only the Jews themselves are permitted to be in this modern world.

And here is the vital point: the war by organized Jewry against the BNP is going to continue for as long as it is perceived to be a patriotic and nationalist party and as long as it is regarded as a political ‘threat’, quite regardless of anything the BNP may itself do to convince the world that it is not ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘anti-Jewish’. Likewise, non-Jewish politicians, journalists and broadcasters who have been opposed to the BNP for all these years are not going to weaken in their opposition as a result of any such declarations.

And here is where it is time to examine the latest ‘gimmick’ employed by the current BNP leadership by its adoption of a Jewish candidate to contest a local government election in the Epping Forest area. I use the word ‘gimmick’ deliberately for that is precisely what it is–just as previous gimmicks have been used, notably the adoption of a candidate in Cumbria who was reported as rejoicing in his black son-in-law and half-black grandchild and the granting of a regular column to a Sikh writer in the party newspaper. These previous gimmicks have achieved nothing other than to cause considerable internal disquiet within the party, leading to some resignations, and so it will be with this latest one involving the Epping Forest candidate.

Doing what is needed to win

Let us at this point clear the decks of confusion as to what this argument is all about. To some people, it may appear as an argument between the ‘purists’ in the nationalist camp, who insist on the maintenance of absolute ideological rectitude, and the ‘pragmatists’, who insist that the party must say and do what is necessary for political success. It may surprise some people when I state that I belong very firmly among the latter. I too believe that the BNP must say and do what is necessary to win, and that where that might involve tactical compromises that are intelligently designed to have some tangible political effect I am prepared to endorse them. In fact, I have no more time than Mr. Griffin professes to have for those perpetual ‘losers’ on the nationalist scene who are more interested in purity than in victory.

And in this regard the ‘purists’ would do well to study the histories of the movements and leaders they claim most to admire, for they would discover that they too were not above tactical compromises when the situation demanded.

My opposition to the adoption of the Jewish candidate is based on the same considerations as those which led me to oppose the previous gimmicks and stunts mentioned. I do not believe that, in terms of practical politics, it will achieve anything useful at all. It will not win the BNP a single vote. It will not make it in the slightest way more popular either with the Jewish community in this country or the broader internationalist establishment of which that community is the driving engine. It will not gain the party any brownie points with the mass media.

The one thing that the adoption will achieve–and has already achieved–is to cause further alarm, dismay and disillusionment in the ranks of the BNP’s most dedicated supporters and activists.

We must never forget that part of what is necessary to win is that we keep our movement together, united in conviction, strong in resolve and high in morale. Tactical maneuvers that have a contrary effect are not politically clever; they are politically self-defeating.

This latest move has been defended on similar grounds to the moves made in the past. It will convince the public that the party is not ‘racist’. It will nail the ‘anti-Semitic’ smear. It will scotch the allegations that the BNP is a ‘Nazi’ party.

Well, so far nobody outside Mr. Griffin’s circle seems to be listening. Immediately the adoption of the candidate, Mrs. Pat Richardson (née Feldman), was announced, the London Jewish News published an article making it clear that the Jews were not fooled, and it quoted a Labour Friends of Israel spokesman, David Mencer, as calling the move “a sick stunt.” Meanwhile top Jew Lord Janner reacted by saying: “The BNP are trying hard to be respectable but we know them for what they are–the direct descendants of Hitler’s Nazis.” Then in a report in The Guardian on the 23rd March it was announced that:

MPs from all parties are hoping to use the horrors of the Nazi holocaust to attack right-wing extremists in Britain.

Amid fears that the BNP could win a seat in the European parliamentary elections in June, MPs from all the main parties used visits to the Auschwitz concentration camp to warn of the dangers of embracing the far right.

And the Board of Deputies, referred to earlier, is still busy in the anti-BNP war. It was announced last month that the Board was urging all Jews to vote in the forthcoming European elections to keep the BNP out.

Not an issue to voters

There will no doubt be some simple souls who will protest that all this underlines the need for the BNP to parade its credentials as a party that is not ‘anti-Semitic’, hence the need for a Jewish candidate or two. But the thinking is fundamentally flawed. The claim, as can be seen, cuts absolutely no ice with the influential and the powerful. What then of the ordinary voters? Well, my own experience when the party’s parliamentary candidate at Dagenham in 1994 was that never once was the issue of Jews raised in any one of the hundreds of calls I made when canvassing (nor, incidentally, was the question of whether repatriation of other ethnic groups should be obligatory or voluntary). What of more recent times? Take Burnley, the area of our greatest successes so far. Steven Smith, who more than any other single person was the architect of those successes, has confirmed to me that neither were Jews ever an issue in the campaigns in which he was involved. Public concern which led to BNP councillors being elected in Burnley was about the impact of other minority groups, particularly Muslims, on the town. Public knowledge there that the party had a Jewish candidate standing somewhere, he says, would have neither increased nor reduced the BNP vote in Burnley one jot. The matter would have been one of supreme indifference to the voters there. In the course of the victorious campaigns in Burnley the local and national media and the active left screamed loudly that we were ‘racists’. This did not in the slightest way spoil our prospects, and may indeed have enhanced them.

Then there is Steve Batkin, the BNP’s victorious council election candidate in Stoke-on-Trent, another area where the party vote has risen enormously. Immediately prior to the local government elections in the city last year, the local newspaper persuaded Steve, against his better judgment, to make a statement denying the so-called ‘Holocaust’. This was plastered across the front page on the eve of the poll. Steve still got elected! He acknowledges now that the statement was a mistake, but it didn’t stop him winning! The issue simply did not impinge one way or the other on the concerns that occupied Stoke voters. Steve Batkin, like Steve Smith in Burnley, has confirmed that Jews simply weren’t an issue on the doorstep in Stoke; asylum-seekers certainly were, and very much so. Knowledge that the BNP had a Jewish candidate, he has confirmed, would not have made the slightest difference either way.

I have spoken to organizers in a number of other areas where the BNP has obtained good election results, and these, without wishing to be named, have said much the same thing. Jews have not been an issue. ‘Anti-Semitism’ or ‘pro-Semitism’ have been far from people’s minds.

But these matters are not far from people’s minds in the BNP. For all the reasons I have given in the earlier part of this article, they are very much in the forefront. To those experienced in party activity and at the higher levels of political understanding, organized Jewry is perceived as an enemy of everything we stand for–not by our choice but by its choice. We would far rather it be otherwise, but that is the way it is in the world we live in. This being so, it is fair and honest to say that there is within the BNP a great deal of very powerful feeling over the fact that Jewry, while insisting on the right of the Jews to be nationalistic and ‘racist’, will not recognize the right of other peoples to be so–but, on the contrary, will not hesitate to sabotage the activities of those who assert this right.

Cynical game

I know nothing of Mrs. Richardson, having never met her. In what I write here there is nothing personal intended against her. She has simply become a pawn in what I believe to be a quite cynical game being played for no real advantage to the BNP but solely in order to further a certain agenda for change in the party of which she probably has no inkling. I believe that in her interest, as well as the party’s interest, she should never have been placed in that position–a position that has already put her under some exceedingly unpleasant pressure, which is likely to increase as the election campaign hots up. The pressure results from the strong feelings within the BNP that her selection has generated and, not least, it has also come from her fellow Jews outside. All this is probably a great deal worse than the lady deserves.

The pressure from people in the BNP is derived from background knowledge of the role of the Jewish community in opposition to our party. Mrs. Richardson is not to blame for this but, as happens in the real world, she is by her Jewish identity inextricably linked with the forces responsible.

In World War II persons of German nationality residing in Britain were interned without trial because our country was engaged in a war with theirs. They probably had nothing to do with that war. They may well have opposed the German leadership of the time. But by the very fact that they were German, in a war situation in which Britain was fighting against Germany, it was considered that they could not enjoy the rights of ordinary citizens but must be placed outside the pale of citizenship–as much for their own protection as from the standpoint of our national security.

And of course this ruling would have had double the force had there ever been any suggestion of a German occupying a position of responsibility in the country at the time. In such a situation that suggestion would have been regarded as quite preposterous.

And this is a question that has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of World War II, only with the existence of the war as a fact.

Likewise, the question of the BNP adopting a Jewish candidate has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of organized Jewry’s quarrel with our party, only with the recognition of that quarrel as a fact. Jews would not tolerate BNP members joining Jewish organizations, let alone acting as their public representatives, even if those members were in no way anti-Jewish but wanted good relations with the Jewish community. There can be no alternative but for the same rule to operate in reverse.

And the fact of Jewry’s quarrel with the BNP is one of which Mr. Griffin is as aware as anyone. Not only is he on record as having written numerous articles and pamphlets addressing the realities of the Jewish Question–notably in the field of Holocaust denial–but I have in my office a large file of correspondence in which he has expressed his opinions on the subject to me in no uncertain terms. All this makes a complete nonsense of his current Jew-friendly postures. There may be people in the BNP who can with straight faces and complete honesty publicly proclaim their philo-Semitic credentials, but Nick Griffin is not one of them.

Talking about party image…

There is one thing on which I am in complete agreement with Mr. Griffin. This is that, with elections coming up which are of huge importance to the BNP, the party needs to take great care not to present any avoidable propaganda weapons to its enemies, that the public image it puts across to the British voters is–as far as this lies within its control–vitally important.

But a very welcome weapon has in fact been handed to the BNP’s enemies on a plate by the selection as leading candidate for a seat on the Greater London Authority of a man who in his earlier days established for himself a police record of unruly behavior at football grounds–who in the parlance of those enemies would be called a ‘football hooligan’. Now many of us can get up to silly things in our younger days, as I can myself testify; but the idea that this man might be the BNP’s leading (and possibly sole) representative on the GLA sits rather oddly, to say the least, with the claim that a Jewish candidate must be adopted because it is essential to the party’s ‘good image’. So it was also with the selection not long ago of a candidate in the North of England who once was convicted for posting razor blades to a Jewish judge. Again, that candidate would no doubt regret his past behavior and it should not be held against him for ever; but this is a party whose present leaders insist that it has ‘changed’, that it is has smartened up its public image and that they are making it much more ‘acceptable’ than previously. So just what is going on?

The purpose of the stunts?

I suspect that what is going on is something very different from the policy line now being peddled to the membership and the public. I have said earlier that these various stunts–the candidate with the black son-in-law, the Sikh columnist, and now the Jewish lady standing in Epping Forest–make zero difference to the BNP’s appeal to the voters. And this is certainly true in the case of those voters whom the party can conceivably hope to win over in the foreseeable future. But I have also said that the stunts cause a great deal of unrest internally, leading to dissatisfaction and lowered morale in the ranks, and in many cases to people leaving the party.

But perhaps to some in the BNP this is the very purpose of the exercise. Conversations that I have had with some members and conversations with other members that have been relayed on to me, suggest that there is a great deal of exultation in some circles when certain people do leave. It is, in some minds, all part of the necessary process of turning the party from a fighting movement of genuine racial nationalists into one of tame Tories–perhaps so much so that it will place itself in a position to link up with other Tories in a realignment of the so-called political ‘right’ that would become nothing but a toothless safety-valve run by the establishment instead of a serious challenge to it.

Of course, this is not the way the supporters of the stunts would describe it. They would describe it as part of the necessary process of making the BNP ‘electable’. And I would have no doubt that some of them actually believe this.

But they are tragically and dangerously wrong. What has made the BNP more electable is the drastic change in the national political climate that has occurred as the disaster of multi-racialism, predicted by the party’s pioneers so long ago, has started to impact on millions of voters, as our cities and towns have been torn apart by ethnic strife and crime and, not least, as the tabloid press has been forced to face these issues honestly and admit that the entire ghastly experiment is collapsing. That is what has made the BNP more electable.

That and the hard work and dedication of superb teams of activists in the areas where we have had the greatest success–to many of whom I have spoken and many of whom do not share the naive supposition that adopting Jewish candidates is going to help take us into the ‘mainstream’ of politics.

But also tragically and dangerously wrong are the people who imagine that resignations from the BNP are going to solve anything. Those who might decide that burning their membership cards is an appropriate response to the adoption of Jewish candidates and similar gestures are falling obligingly into the very trap set for them by those who want to mold our party to the specifications of an emasculated Toryism rather than a virile nationalism. With the nationalists gone, the Tories will take over. It would be insane to let that happen.

Rules of engagement

To round off this article, I would suggest a few basic ground rules that should govern the BNP’s approach to the unavoidable ‘Jewish Question’.

The first is that the party should not, under whatever perceived provocation, be drawn into crude attacks on Jews as a race–a necessity from the standpoint of avoiding prosecution, quite apart from its obvious moral ramifications.

In our behavior towards individual Jews we should act with absolute correctness, treating them as we would have them treat us.

We should nevertheless recognize their self-imposed separateness and perception of themselves as ‘special’ and ‘chosen’–something which their own leaders have made abundantly clear again and again.

Moreover, we should recognize that organized Jewry constitutes a formidable power in the world with an agenda of its own, dedicated to the pursuit of Jewish interests above and beyond any other interests. This is something for which we should not ‘hate’ Jews but should respect them. We should display the same single-minded dedication to British and white racial interests as the Jews do to Jewish racial interests.

When, and only when, the pursuit by Jews of their own racial interests brings them into conflict with our interests should we do battle with them, and in that event we should make clear what the nature of the battle is: it is not a battle waged by the BNP against Jews because they are Jews; it is one waged only against certain Jews who are threatening us.

We should on no account ill-treat Jews on grounds of their race, and we should make it clear, whenever the subject of Jews and the BNP arises, that in a future BNP-governed Britain Jews who mind their own business and do not attempt to use their power to damage Britain have nothing whatever to fear from us.

At the same time we should not make a taboo of the issue of Zionism and organized Zionist power. Within party circles and in our publications we should permit a frank and free discussion of this power–always provided that it is conducted in moderate language, that it avoids insults and that it excludes the emissions of obvious cranks.

No person or group should be attacked because they are Jewish but neither should any person or group be immune to attack because they are Jewish. If certain individuals or groups give us strong grounds to attack them for their actions, the fact that they may be Jewish should not exempt them from such attacks.

When all this is said, the BNP should, so long as it is legally permissible, exclude Jews from membership, and in any event should not appoint Jews to positions in the party nor select them as candidates for elections. They would not do it for us, and there is no reason why we should do it for them.