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.

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

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.