Nick Griffin And His Australian Speaking Tour: Time For Straight Talk From Australian Nationalists About The British National Party.
This article was edited after it was first posted on the Internet on September 19.
In November last year, I had e-mail correspondence with Nick Griffin, Chairman of the British National Party (BNP). I asked him if any Australians had contacted him with a view to their gaining some sort of 'recognition' from his party. He told me they had.
He added: "We'll give qualified backing to what we can see of anyone who on face value is at least talking sense and appears compatible with us. Overall, I don't see why Aussie nats should take any great notice of a bunch of Poms on the other side of the world!"
This was the best position regardless of the 'approaches' made - real caution. Yet, it seems this position has now somewhat changed and Nick Griffin has accepted an invitation to speak in Australia from some persons who are anxious, not simply to adapt any positive ideas or methods from the BNP, but rather to adopt that party as a mentor on all questions and veritably (whether asked for or not) - take the BNP on, as a 'big brother'.
Over the last few years, matters concerning the ideological and political direction of the BNP have been placed before the Australian nationalists. There has been much discussion and increasing trepidation. As someone who has had direct and indirect contact with Nick Griffin over some 26 years, I do not speak out of turn, nor do I write without recalling those historical bonds that existed through the times of the British National Front and Australian National Action in which we were respectively involved. It is always painful to criticise a party or a person which/whom one has previously had some regard.
Australian nationalists had already noted that there has been a breach between the BNP and certain other European parties of nationalism extant since at least 2004. It demanded attention to the details.
Regrettably, facts have tended to accumulate, even over the last several months, and these facts suggest that the BNP has adopted a false position on Islam, the Middle East and Zionism. This is no mean matter. It is not insignificant. It affects every area of its ideology, politics and organization. Sadly, if there are some Australians who take the BNP as any sort of 'guide', then - they will replicate its mistakes.
It seems the case that the BNP maintains that the main immigration threat to Britain is Islamic migration (it is just one of several JS), that Britain will be Islamified, that the main threat to "Western civilization" is the Islamic world, that Israel is a counter-balance to that world, that alliances can be made with Establishment and Zionist forces in Britain against this threat, that this will help 'mainstream' the BNP, making it more acceptable to the public and less likely to be labelled racist or neo-fascist. It is a composite position that blends together as a poisonous puree.
This position has been openly stated by several in the BNP, Nick Griffin, Martin Wingfield and Lee Barnes.
Last year, Nick wrote:
"It stands to reason that adopting an 'Islamophobic' position that appeals to large numbers of ordinary people - including un-nudged journalists - is going to produce on average much better media coverage than siding with Iran and banging on about 'Jewish power', which is guaranteed to raise hackles of virtually every single journalist in the western world."
Nick knows, as I do, that a lot of drivel about "Jews" and "Jewish power" has been written by all sorts of people, from the erudite to the psychopathic. But he knows as I do too, that opposition to Zionism within our countries and its malignant expression in Israel, is not anti semitism, nor is such criticism without substance or merit, nor without a degree of public understanding. The use of this phrase "banging on about 'Jewish power'" is one big furphy - because Zionist power, so aptly expressed in the neo-conservative (neo-con) movement in America, is just one big elephant in the room. It is not "banging on" about a myth to state a cold fact. In the past he has said much the same.
What is clear about Nick Griffin's text here, is that through the pen of its leader, the BNP is stating that in exchange for the recruitment of the ill-informed, in exchange for access to the media, in exchange for rendering lip service to the warmongering of the present British state in the Middle East and supporting war as it eventuates, it is prepared to effectively alter course on matters of grave public importance. It prefers not to lead public opinion, but to pander.
The usage of Islamophobia as a tool was criticised by no less than Jean-Marie Le Pen, a man whose critique of alien (including Muslim) immigration into France, is well known. . Indeed, Le Pen recently attended a conference opposing the "Islamicisation" of some European cities. Yet, Le Pen said some time ago in the 98th edition of Arabies magazine: "They're provoking French fears of what is commonly called 'Islamism' or 'Muslim religious activism.' The ones who provoke or manipulate these fears, not hesitating to grossly distort Islam's message to make it better fit their conceptions, do it from a very precise standpoint: that of the globalist utopia and the ideology of Human Rights which assumes the destruction of cultural identities and the rejection of transcendence. Their dream is of a sterilized Islam rendered harmless."
Is this why the BNP no longer liaises with the French National Front? What was Le Pen's policy overall?: that to end immigration and reverse it, France had to engage with the Islamic world, that to do this, France had to reject the American policy of confrontation often waged - for Israel's sake. So said his presidential campaign material of 2007 and his other statements, explicitly and implicitly.
Of late, Ruth Smeeth, of the Community Security Trust in Britain, said: "The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel and at the same time demonises Islam and the Muslim world. They are actively campaigning in Jewish communities, particularly in London, making a lot of their one Jewish councillor, their support of Israel and attacking Muslims."
One prominent Zionist inside the British Jewish community in London called the BNP a few months ago - "the most Zionist party in Britain". Such an accolade! In the past, Nick would have baulked.
The editor of BNP newspaper, Freedom, Martin Wingfield, wrote on his blog recently: "There has been a growing dialogue between senior members of the Jewish community and the BNP and today there are an increasing number of Jews campaigning for the BNP and feeling very comfortable with their political choice." What sort of dialogue? Where? When?
Now let's get a grip here. It is a matter of absolute fact that a small sliver of Jewish opinion has always voted for nationalist candidates. That was known in the 1970's in the case of the British National Front and throughout the long years of le Pen's activism in France. However, and it is one large 'however', there were very, very, particular, historical and cultural reasons why that was so. When the British National Party now courts Jewish votes it does so, not upon any agenda other than Islamophobia, that is agreeing with the validity of Zionism and the neo-con world view and offering such persons another 'radical' version of it. This is hardly disintegrating Jewish community support for Zionism - but rather the reverse.
Nor is it simply a matter of a policy being 'right' or 'wrong' ideologically. There is also the question of where it really leads politically and organizationally. It is the view of the Australian nationalists that it leads to the BNP's co-option by the Establishment. What does that mean? It means that despite any of its other policies or views put out to the public, despite the presence in the party of any number of genuine nationalists, despite any 'secret-plans' (sic) on the part of the leadership to get free of the embrace of the Establishment and turn the tables - the party will be locked into effective support for the regime. The clever game, the mainstreaming, will all come to one big fat zero. Once one is hooked by the Establishment on a crucial area of ideology and politics, the party loses its independence generally. It may even transpire that its other public campaigns lure in the support for an utterly false project.
Indeed, once emplaced, the new line also offers the establishment politicians and media a powerful weapon of control. The media will continue to trot out the allegation of 'racism', 'anti-semitism', 'fascism' and the party will squeal about trying to 'prove' it is the opposite, courtesy of its new 'Islamophobic' policy. But that is the game in motion: the whip is cracked and the circus animal performs even better. A reward of 'good publicity' is then extended as the party pales its position on other key questions to insignificance. The BNP becomes a satellite of the system it sometimes pretends to fight.
Anyone doubting that this has occurred previously in European nationalist politics need only read the history of Italy's National Alliance. Basically - the same story.
It is fairly the case that the new line of the BNP did not emerge over night. As said, it was drip-fed into the party step by step. Whether it was a 'plan' or a 'tendency' that matured in stages is also not quite the immediate point either. We are dealing with the situation as it stands. This policy direction may be the product of a faction which has rammed it through the party. It may be, or it may not be, that the chairman of the party actually, privately,supports these views. Whatever the case, these views now predominate in the leadership. And if these views now predominate because of pure opportunism, what other views may soon be imposed upon the party in the name of mainstreaming success?
There is always a radical counter policy if in fact Nick Griffin still holds to nationalist views: he could call for a 'rebellion' against the reactionary faction, mobilise the rank and file, find common ground with the British National Front and other nationalist-minded people and bring them into alliance or membership to offset any minor membership blood-letting - all to renew the party and the movement generally. We reasonably predict that will not occur.
What should the British nationalist policy be on Islam, the Middle East and Zionism? By all means should Islamic migration and Islamic culture be rejected on British soil, as should other alien waves that threaten to submerge the British people. But there should be no British support for the war on terror, the war for oil, for Israel's safety. As Nick Griffin put it yesteryear, the Zionists have even played a role in Islamic immigration, have infiltrated Britain's institutions, spied upon Britain and misused British blood in Middle East adventures. It is possible to separate the immigration question from the foreign policy question - and Nick Griffin knows it.
At the end of it all, we Australians run our own race. Certainly, salvation will not come of copying the BNP, even if it was on the right course. The whole matter of the BNP's direction is now well and truly out in the open. That is to the good, as there are no more deceptions. British nationalists can clearly choose. Australian nationalists are certainly not obliged to 'follow' any foreign party, but they too must confront the same questions. The matter of Nick's supposed speaking tour has brought these matters to a head.
I do not believe in unity at any price, or unity if it compromises principles. The rift is there. The two roads are nationalist politics - or opportunism. One is right and one is wrong. One will lead to real success and the other to a failure, one all dressed up in tassles and bathed in bright media lights, but a bitter defeat where so many people would have offered their souls to a false enterprise.
The choice is ours.