The BNP And The APP: Time To Discuss The Mainstreamer Line On Race And Immigration. Where To Now?

Jim Saleam July 14 2009.

The text of the article reproduced here demands close study by Australian nationalists, especially those who find themselves inside the Australian Protectionist Party (APP) It is a publically known fact the APP insists on the virtues of its link with the British National Party (BNP). Once again we see, the BNP abandons a position, this time on the ethnic future of Britain - with the policy shift organized amidst the deceptive rhetorical flummery about sinking refugee boats and voluntary repatriation.

But first, as reported on the BBC website (July 12):

"British National Party leader Nick Griffin has said he no longer wants to see an all-white United Kingdom.

Mr Griffin, who is due to take up his seat as an MEP for the North West, said the idea of a UK without ethnic minorities was "simply not do-able".

Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Mr Griffin said: "Nobody out there wants it or would pay for it."

He said claims that he was a fascist were "smears" but said the European Union was "very close to fascism".

Mr Griffin told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show that the BNP would put more money into voluntary repatriation programmes for members of ethnic minorities "who want to go back to their lands of ethnic origin".

He added that Britain was overcrowded and "terribly unstable" as a result of its "multicultural experiment". "

The BNP leader also defended his view that the EU should sink boats carrying illegal immigrants."

Mr Griffin said: "What needs to be done as an example is to sink a couple of boats near the shores of Libya - throw them lifebelts so they can paddle back, so they understand they will never get to Europe.

"Because the alternative is accepting that Britain eventually is going to end up like Africa."


Ok. Like much else that has been said as the "BNP supertanker" has been slowly turned around towards the mainstream, the devil is in the details.

As we know, Britain had in 1919, a 'coloured' (black) minority of some 20,000 persons, descendants of freed slaves, working people who inhabited the docklands. 'Mixing' was a rarity. They have descendants. Is that the sort of ethnic minority Nick Griffin is talking about? We doubt it. Does he mean that after voluntary repatriation and other schemes, a small number of people across different ethnic backgrounds, may remain? We doubt it. Does he mean that the descendants of the odd Chinese restauranteur or merchant may remain? We doubt it.

It seems that Nick Griffin is saying that Britain will remain under the BNP a multiracial society. He is saying that the numbers may fall - but that is it. He has mainstreamed to the point of pure reason. No one would pay for the hard policy. Does he next advocate biological assimilation??

It was said by many in Britain and in Australia, that just as Nick Griffin opted to support Zionism on the world stage to gain 'acceptability', ie to supposedly get around being dubbed a fascist and to mobilise all those who put the anti Islamic cause first thereby earning a mainstream clientele, so inevitably also in search of mainstream acceptability he would also support a type of civic patriotism on the matters of immigration and multiculturalism. If defined large groups of aliens are to remain on British soil, then Nick Griffin's vision is either a type of 'co-ordinated' multiculturalism that supposedly binds the loyalties of aliens to the British state, or outright assimilation, cultural and biological assimilation. What is it to be?

The problem (or one problem) of mainstreaming is that people are recruited who believe in its postulates. If people like the idea of Britain being a multiracial society and join BNP, then they will govern its conduct. There will be no turning the tables.

The Australia First Party rejected the BNP link. The Australian Protectionist Party affirmed it. Indeed, the search for a link with the BNP appears to have governed the division between Australia First nationalism and APP patriotism. We recall, in all the arguments that have gone on in the broad movement since 2006, that we were according to our critics, just obstructive, sectarian, unprofessional and paranoid about a media-friendly posture ever meaning policy-abandonment. We were told to effectively copy the BNP. Substantial efforts were made by APP to curry favour with the BNP. Proof of that appears in their public documents. We were even told that the BNP rhetoric on this and that where it seemed we had some point - was all just a clever game.

We think not. We won't be conned. Are we being unreasonable by noting to the APP that they have said these things? And that they must now explain them?

Yet, we are still being fair and analytical of the BNP. It is true that there is a right and a wrong way to present a policy, let alone a right way to carry it out once in government. It is equally true that if immigration has taken 60 years to wreck Britain, it will take another 60 years to undo. It may be a matter of humanity and circumstancces - but it is also matter of preserving the British identity and a matter of the will to do that!. It seems upon the evidence that the BNP has walked away from the holy grail of policy.

It is now very much incumbent upon those who founded the APP to be honest and direct and either adopt an Aussie version of the BNP line - or clearly repudiate it.

If they repudiate the BNP line, then they have taken the first step in reaffirming Australian nationalism. We await developments.

Home: Defend Australian Nationalism