Following on from the blog article below about the article in the Jewish Chronicle, that I provided for any visitors to this blog from the Jewish Chronicle, I hereby also provide the facts about the BNP that David Rowan, the editor of the JC and self appointed spokesman for the Zionist extremist wing of The Labour Party, has failed to inform members of the British Jewish Community about.
By their fruits (or lack of them) shall you know them
By News Team ⋅ November 10, 2007 ⋅ Email this post ⋅ Print this post ⋅ Post a comment
Originally published on 21st March 2006 (removed by previous web editor).
If the neo-cons didn’t have the “world-Jewish conspiracy” theorists to hamstring patriotic opposition to their war, they’d have to invent them. Nick Griffin warns against a monumental blunder.
“Don’t let yourself be played like a fiddle” was the warning I received the other day from an American nationalist whose dedication to the cause of white survival is without doubt very sincere. The warning relates to the way in which the British National Party is positioned very firmly to benefit politically from ever-growing popular concern about the rise of Islam. The concern behind it is the belief that the growth of such sentiment is all part of a plot by powerful neo-conservatives to get America, Britain and the nations of Europe to invade the Middle East and make the world safe for the Zionist state of Israel. By extension, anyone who criticises Islam is liable to be accused by hardcore adherents of this theory of “working for the Jews.”
As a matter of fact, I have no doubt at all that the neo-con clique around George Bush are indeed influenced by such considerations; the power of the Zionist lobby in American politics is a straightforward political fact of life. The purpose of this article is neither to rehash nor to deny the material that proves this to be the case.
Nor am I launching a personal attack on Michael Hoffmann, author of the excellent book ‘They Were White and They Were Slaves’, who has recently criticised me for describing Islam as an evil religion (actually I said it was a “vicious, wicked faith”, but I’ll go with “evil” too). But it is to sound in return my own warning to people whose one-track concern about “the Jews” is blinding them to the clear and present danger of resurgent Islam.
Mike is one such person. “What is it about the Koran or Muhammad that makes Islam evil?” he asks, alleging as he does so that such claims are “racist neo-con propaganda”. Oh dear, the words “lost” and “plot” spring to mind, although there’s nothing here that a day or two living with a white (or, for that matter, Hindu or Pakistani Christian) family in Muslim-dominated parts of Bradford wouldn’t cure.
So for those who haven’t had the benefit of such intensive diversity training, where should we start? How about the Koran’s advocacy of world conquest and the subjugation or murder of non-Muslims? How about the fact that Allah told his followers that the whole world is their Promised Land (tough on the previous occupants), which is surely a bit more drastic than the most extreme Zionists’ claim on the bit of desert between the Nile and the Euphrates?
Or how about the mass beheadings of POWs, the rape of their wives and the enslavement of their children, as practised with gusto by Muhammad, thereby providing religious justification for such horrors and an example of Islamic ‘best practice’ for all time? What’s evil about Islam? Go ask the Serbs, go ask the Sikhs, go ask the remnants of once vibrant Christian communities in Pakistan or Egypt, come ask the mothers of Keighley.
I cannot for the life of me see how the fact that there are also some thoroughly unpleasant ‘racist’ sections in the Talmud can in some way make it wrong for genuine European patriots to warn of the danger posed by mass Muslim immigration. Not least because the Talmud is only a collection of ancient and often contradictory commentaries and debates, which individual Jews are not obliged to study or believe. This is very different from the position with the Koran, which all Muslims are obliged - on pain of death for apostasy - to follow as the literal word of Allah.
Furthermore, in real politics in the real world, one’s proper choice of enemy is a group who you gain a worthwhile level of extra support by identifying, who you have a realistic chance of beating, and whose defeat will take you the furthest towards your goal. With millions of our people desperately and very reasonably worried by the spread of Islam and its adherents, and with the mass media - for a variety of reasons, to which we will come later in this essay - playing ‘Islamophobic’ messages like a scratched CD, the proper choice of enemy needn’t be left to rocket scientists.
Mr. Hoffmann’s polemic may look good on paper, but here in Britain, we are not, contrary to his analysis, fighting Islamification on behalf either of the US Federal government or the ‘right’ of Elton John to ‘marry’ his boyfriend. We fight it because it is incompatible with the fundamental values of our civilisation, and because its followers would, if victorious, reduce our grandchildren to tax cows and sexual playthings.
Yes, I know, you can say such things have already come to pass under our present masters, and if we had a record of silence on such things we could indeed fairly be criticised as hypocrites. But we do not. The BNP has always taken a strong position on such issues, and continues to do so. We do not need lectures from anyone about the dangers and injustices of free market capitalism, and not only would we not allow Elton John to marry his boyfriend but our proposals for a strengthened Clause 28 would prevent such a sick parody of real marriage being shown on TV in any case.
Nor can we accept Mr. Hoffmann’s ridiculous suggestion that “If King Alfred the Great or Edward I could see Britain today they would join the Muslims in their protests and demonstrations rather than support so foul and degenerate a system.” For a start, Alfred was not that far from being a contemporary of Charles Martel, and would no doubt have reacted the same way to that great Frankish king had a Moorish invasion fleet landed on the coast of Dorset. And Edward I came from the era of the Crusades, when huge Western armies battled not only to secure access for Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, but also in a vital defensive backlash against centuries of Muslim aggression on the shrinking frontiers of Christendom itself.
Failure of American nationalists
Now, Mr. Hoffmann is a well-read man with a genuinely wide knowledge of European history, and he for one is certainly not in it for the money. The underlying problem here is not ignorance, nor even, in reality, a soft spot for Muslim immigration. It is the utter failure of people like him in the USA to build a political power-winning machine for genuine nationalism. This is what leads to the absurd idea that the only choice is between supporting Muslim demonstrators or favouring the degenerate, atomised and crassly materialistic society that they want to tear down.
If people like Mr. Hoffmann had spent more time working out how to build a serious grassroots political movement, and less time worrying about whether the Moon Landings actually happened or not, then they would perhaps realise that it is possible to oppose both the Islamification of the Western world and the neo-cons’ drive to annexe the Middle East.
They might also work out that to give such opposition the slightest chance of success one has to make hardball political decisions about engaging with the public in terms that they can understand, instead of treating them with thinly veiled contempt or even hatred and damning them for failing to grasp at once the brilliance of one’s own esoteric insights.
So allow me to return the favour of the well-intended caution at the start of this essay by issuing a sincere warning of my own to the same people who are worrying - or in some cases seeking to make political mischief with the allegation - that the BNP is “dancing to the neocon tune.”
First of all, let’s recap on just how many positions we take which are diametrically opposed to the neo-con agenda:
We are against the war in Iraq;
We are against overseas military adventures generally (though sending an SAS platoon to arrest and hang Robert Mugabe, and halt the persecution and extermination of the last white Rhodesians would be the exception to prove the rule);
We don’t want to export our political system to the Third World;
We don’t believe in imposing our economic system by force;
We don’t believe in multi-culturalism;
We don’t believe in laissez-faire economics domestically;
We oppose international free trade;
We don’t believe in ‘propositional nations’;
We don’t seek to impose Western culture on the whole world.
This final point leads us, in passing, to note the fundamental similarity between Islam and neo-conservatism, whereby both favour one all-encompassing global system, against which resistance is regarded as immoral heresy, and whose triumph will usher in the ‘end of history’.
In statistical terms, the individuals who - despite all the evidence to the contrary - confuse us with, or accuse us of supporting, the neo-cons, are utterly irrelevant. But in the white nationalist movement in its broadest sense they are, while clearly in the minority, still a significant element. Particularly in the United States, in Germany, and among small theoretical groups in most European countries (Britain included), there are a fair few sincere people who are quite convinced that we shouldn’t be nasty to Islam and that “the real enemy is the Jew.”
So here’s my warning to these people: The enemy of your old enemy may turn out not to be your friend, but something much worse. And, on top of that piece of facts-of-life commonsense, there is a piece of plain realpolitik that those who attack the BNP stance on Islam should also take into account:
They are perilously close to entrenching themselves in political dead ground from which there can be no escape. Instead of working to take advantage of the biggest crisis that the genocidal multi-culti ‘experiment’ has ever faced, they are in danger of turning themselves into a despised, powerless and doomed cartoon caricature - a composite of Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw Haw and Jane Fonda. Truly, they are living examples of the old adage that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, and then as farce.
When the overwhelming majority of the instinctively patriotic people of our nations feel threatened by an alien force which is self-evidently evil by Christian and democratic secular values alike, to place oneself in the position whereby our political opponents can portray you as an enemy sympathiser, a collaborator, a traitor, is political suicide.
That a significant number of US-based white nationalists look set to make precisely this catastrophic blunder is, as a matter of fact, no surprise: The USA is, after all, the country whose ‘far-right’ leadership has consistently failed even to establish a viable national organisation. They have freedoms, opportunities and resources that we European nationalists can only dream of, yet the USA shares with Ireland alone in the white world the dishonour of not having a proper nationalist political party.
By what monumental arrogance do such pathetic failures claim the right to criticise others, while their own people are doomed to perish not just for want of a realistic vision, but even of an organisation that will even try to save them?
The Irish have a valid excuse - the IRA threaten, beat and are willing to shoot anyone who opposes their ethnocidal neo-Marxist multi-culti version of ‘nationalism’ - but the American leaders have none. “The country’s too big”? Nonsense; distance and sparse population didn’t stop Pauline Hanson frightening the life out of the Australian Establishment, before her inexperience, naivety and a clique of liberal civic nationalist advisors killed off her grassroots rebellion. “Americans are too individualistic on account of their Anglo-Celtic roots?” That won’t do either. Again, Australians are even more so, and, in any case, Americans of German, Italian, Slavic, etc descent almost certainly outnumber those whose ancestors hailed from the British Isles, so this old excuse is precisely that.
No! If you seek the reason for the organisational void in American nationalism, blame several generations of self-appointed leaders and self-publicists who have consistently let down their dedicated, loyal, generous, good-hearted followers by one shatteringly bad judgement call after another.
Now they are doing it again, by abandoning the proper nationalist stance of complete neutrality and isolationism in connection with the endless quarrel between two rival bands of Middle Easterners. Siding with Islam against the neocons is no more a viable tactic than volunteering to infect yourself with the Ebola virus instead of AIDS.
Most ironic of all, in doing so, by defending and excusing Islam, they are cutting themselves off so thoroughly from any possibility of winning public support, and thus they are playing into the hands of the very neo-cons they are so desperate to oppose.
The neocon push for an endless war in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, for the ‘democratisation’ of the entire Muslim world is a reality. And it is wrong - wrong strategically, tactically, practically and morally. But precisely because the people pushing for it are so influential and so ruthless, the only thing that can stop their war (and it can be stopped, because they are ordinary mortals, not demigods or the Devil incarnate) is the effective mobilisation of mass support for the withdrawal of Western troops from the Middle East, and non-involvement over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
To do that, those who oppose the neocons’ schemes in the Middle East have to be able to connect with huge numbers of ordinary people in order to mobilise that mass support. Our message must therefore be within the reach of the mass mind.
That doesn’t mean that we have to repeat slavishly what is said in the mainstream media, but it does mean that our message must be couched in terms close enough to popular opinion, as shaped by that media, to be listened to with interest and sympathy, rather than being instantly dismissed as the ravings of lunatics.
The aims must be principled and inflexible; the means as flexible as required to be achievable; and when it comes to the ways in which those means are ’sold’ to the public, ‘will they buy this?’ is the only question worth asking. I’m sorry if that makes me sound like a Leninist, but the ability and willingness to grasp these hard political realities is the thing that marks out the serious would-be revolutionaries from the tough-talking do-nothings, the cranks and the Snake Oil salesmen.
Only a vanishingly small proportion of the general population of the West even know about, let alone give any credence to, the plethora of ‘right-wing’ websites that maintain that “9/11 was carried out by the Mossad” or that Iran is a great place because it hosts the occasional conference on Holocaust revisionism. But such is human nature - especially as amplified by the World Wide Web’s hyper-democracy in ideas - that those who believe such things unwittingly set up a closed feedback loop among themselves.
This makes them ever more certain that they are right and - what is far more dangerous among people who need to win popular support to achieve anything - more and more certain that the public only have to be told “the truth” for them to jump to their side, and that anyone who proposes a different strategy is a fool, an enemy agent or a traitor (if that sounds just like the neo-cons, their Marxist predecessors, or their Muslim alter-egos that’s no surprise, for all these mindsets are quintessentially non-European in origin and totalitarian by nature).
So, without a second thought as to the effectiveness of their ‘strategy’, these Internet cockerels of the anti-Semitic new dawn stand on their virtual dung heaps and crow that “We’re in the Middle East for the Jews. This is a war for Israel, organised as part of a Jewish plot to rule the world.”
To which, and here’s the problem in practical terms: Perhaps 30% of the entire population immediately think “great, let’s hope the Jews and Our Boys win and wipe out those limb-amputating, suicide-bombing Arab Muslims,” and go back to their sitcoms and football games.
Probably another 60% of the entire population have been trained from infancy by the TV stations and teachers of the most efficient brainwashing machine in human history to regard any criticism of Israel, especially coming from white nationalists, as proof of a secret desire to herd Jews into gas chambers. Accordingly, they also turn their backs against anyone saying such things.
Thus the claim that “We’re in the Middle East for the Jews. This is a war for Israel organised as part of a Jewish plot to rule the world” has precisely the opposite effect on around 90% of the population to that which we must presume is intended by those who make it (though bitter experience tells us that some of those screaming such things the loudest are agent provocateurs seeking to demonise and disrupt the nationalist movement).
Tactics for losing
Such Charge of the Light Brigade tactics may, by a certain distorted light, be ‘magnificent’, but they are certainly not politics. And, unless abandoned by a defining majority of the people who should be organising the resistance to current trends and policies, they won’t just kill a few hundred unfortunate cavalrymen (in an earlier daft war that was nothing to do with us) but our entire race.
Even if every single bombing attack on Western targets, 9/11, Paris, Bali, Madrid, assorted embassies and 7/7 included, was carried out by Mossad agents, it wouldn’t advance our cause one iota to say so. In fact such an idea is so out of kilter with overwhelming popular belief that it marks out to the public those who propagate it as mad.
This is not good politics, and can only be indulged in by those who have spent so much time talking and emailing only with their fellow ‘extremists’ that they have lost touch with reality as the rest of the world sees it - or by individuals to whom those same ‘extremists’ are not potential allies with whom to work to break out of the nationalist ghetto, but a meal ticket.
It’s bad enough in the United States, but it is positively suicidal in Europe, Britain included, because the vast majority of the population which is most likely to be receptive to our nationalist message is already wary (to use what is probably a gross understatement) of Muslims. To even hint of making common cause with Islam - or put ourselves in a position when opponents can suggest to the masses that this is the case - is political insanity.
And yet this is precisely what some nationalists in Germany, for example, did in the wake of 9/11, and it is exactly what some nationalist revisionists in Britain, the USA, Italy, and so on are doing over the Danish cartoon controversy.
Untold millions of white Europeans watched with growing anger as mobs of perfectly ordinary observant Muslims burnt embassies, butchered policemen and threatened Holy War over a few not particularly unflattering pictures of their prophet. But, meanwhile, various nationalist writers and self-appointed spokesmen were showing their growing disconnection from political reality by repeating Islamic claims (which may or may not contain some elements of truth) that the whole affair was part of a Mossad plot to poison relations between Muslims and white Europeans.
Poison relations between us and these charming people? Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of London or Oldham or Keighley or Bradford. Or, for that matter, Malmo or Paris or Sydney or Brooklyn. I’ll show you poison, and it doesn’t come from our people, or even from those busy boys in the Mossad. It comes from a set of beliefs and resultant tactics that have come within a whisker of destroying our Europe altogether twice in the last fifteen hundred years, and are close to doing so again. The real Clash of Civilisations is not fated to take place in Persia or Arabia, but here in the heart of the West.
“May or may not contain some elements of truth,” I said. Is that too cynical for the purists? Then they need to wake up to the rules of real life politics rather than settling for last place every time. It’s better to be a little cynical on this issue and stand a chance of winning than to fret about which bunch of liars are lying in this particular instance and in so doing miss a great political opportunity to surf our message into the public mind on the back of a media tsunami of ‘Islamophobia’.
What has caused this mainstream media U-turn whereby quite strident criticism of Islam is now commonplace? It could all be part of that same neo-con conspiracy, or it could be the fact that liberal and homosexual chatterati are beginning to feel as threatened by the growth of Islam as the white working class communities they despise so much started to several decades ago. Perhaps journalists and editors are simply reflecting the changing views and prejudices of the population of which they form a part. Or it might be a simple marketing decision - knocking asylum seekers and Muslims sells newspapers.
My best guess is that it’s a combination of many such factors, but who knows? Frankly, who cares? We don’t have the media clout ourselves to swim against the tide, but as it’s running in our favour in terms of boosting public rejection of mass immigration and the multi-cult, why should we even want to? Instead of wasting time worrying about it, we should - to mix metaphors - be organising to make hay while the sun shines.
Whatever is causing the media shift on matters multi-cultural, here in Britain it has gone as far as leading to some remarkably fair coverage of the British National Party in general, and some stunning publicity opportunities for yours truly in particular. Here the real conspiracy nuts are having a field day: “Griffin’s sold out to the Jews, that’s why he gets media coverage and such fair treatment,” they squeal hysterically. Well, I can assure you that I’ve never had a midnight visit from a group of black clad rabbis to offer to exchange my soul for ten minutes with Eamonn Holmes on Sky News.
One or two others, slightly less hysterical but still obsessed by “the Jews”, suggest that my motivation for being so critical of Islam is the hope that “the Jewish media will go easy on the BNP.” In fact, I would have thought it self-evident that the BNP is critical of Islam for the simple reason that it is an aggressive imperialistic, anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-scientific, anti-human menace, and that it is on the verge - in historical terms - of conquering the whole of Europe (America would follow later, by instalments).
If a growing number of Jewish media personnel have also come to the conclusion that allowing large numbers of Third Worlders in general and Muslims in particular wasn’t such a good idea after all, and that it’s time to start bailing out their European lifeboat before it’s too late, then any resulting lowering in their traditional (and actually, in the wake of Mr. Hitler, understandable) tendency to be hostile to European ethnic consciousness can only be a good thing.
I had an interesting conversation with one of the Judeo-obsessives a couple of weeks ago. Although at least giving me credit for not having sold my soul for a purse full of shekels from the Learned Elders, but he did opine that “the Jews will never treat you fairly, they hate us too much.” When I pointed out that, during the Leeds Free Speech Trial, huge sections of the British media did indeed treat us remarkably fairly, he did a sudden about-face from the usual claim that said media are rigidly controlled.
“They don’t have every day control. Owners and editors just set the general tone and work by nudges rather than direct orders.” As you like it, but if that’s true then it stands to reason that adopting an ‘Islamophobic’ position that appeals to huge 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 the hackles of virtually every single journalist in the Western world.
Focus on the real goal
Some people may not like this fact, but that won’t make it any less potent, and it won’t make ignoring it any less disastrous in the real world - which, the ‘hardliners’ must try to remember, is the one in which those who would save our race must operate.
Since, for whatever reason, our recent position does seem to be softening media hostility towards us, it is clearly something we should continue with, and which fellow nationalists in other countries would do well to emulate. The alternative is to adopt the approach of London’s infamous Millwall soccer hooligans - “no one likes us, we don’t care.”
In case anyone hasn’t quite got how democratic politics - and even physical force, for that matter - works, let me spell it out in simple terms: If no one likes you, you won’t have enough people on your side to win. Perhaps some people are happy to live off collections from the converted or off selling books, but I want to win, because unless we win our people face extinction.
That is not to say that I necessarily want to be liked. I am sure, for a start, that this essay is going to upset some people and lose me a few friends, especially in the USA. That’s unfortunate, but it can’t be helped, for I simply cannot bear any longer to see people who should be working effectively for the survival of all we hold dear led down a blind alley by a small number of cranks, fools, crooks, self-publicists and (the larger number) good folks whose only failing is that they have never been forced to sit down and think logically about possible paths to the power without which all ideology and principles are in vain.
I have in the past been in that last category myself, so I know that there is a way out of it, that it’s better (though not necessarily more comfortable) to be out of it, and that I have a duty to help as many as possible of the willing victims of that mentality to get out of it.
For the truth is that, far from the BNP “dancing to the neo-con tune”, it is those ‘hardliners’ who would rather attack the Jews than the Muslims who are performing an extraordinarily useful function for the neo-cons: Demonising white nationalist opposition to their war as the preserve of KKKlowns, Nutzi crazies and conspiracy cultists.
In addition to this tactical consideration, there is also the little matter of truth: The neo-cons are mainly Jewish, but they are not “the Jews”. When it comes to Middle Eastern policy, they are a particular faction, an unofficial overseas agitprop department of Israel’s ruling Likud party.
To oppose their war is not to oppose “the Jews”, but only one group of Jews and their Christian-Zionist and plutocrat allies.
Jewish opponents to neo-cons
In fact, any anti-Semite worth his salt could just as easily ‘prove’ that it is “the Jews” who are behind the efforts to stop those nice Christians George Bush and Dick Cheney from making the world safe for American capitalism by killing all those A-rabs and confiscating their oil. Just look at the key players in the ‘American’ anti-war movement: Within days of 9/11, Susan “the white race is the cancer of history” Sontag was widely quoted in the US media sympathising with the Saudi kamikazes. And the now late and unlamented Sontag was by no means unusual.
Take a look at the list of leftist ‘opinion-formers’ who signed the “Not in Our Name” denunciation of the war in Iraq. Glance at the ‘intellectuals’ who formed the so-called New Left in the 1960s - Gerda Lerner, Maurice Zeitlin, Leslie Cagan, James Weinstein et al, and you’ll find them still active, manning the high command positions of all the groups that came together for the massive Stop the War demonstrations in the run up to the second Gulf War. Just take a look at the number of Jewish radical leftists in the American Civil Liberties Union.
Most striking of all is the report in Frontpage magazine about MoveOn.org. This is perhaps the biggest of the various American Internet organisations which worked during the 2004 primaries to win the Democratic nomination for the anti-war candidate Howard Dean. MoveOn.org was helped in this quest by a $15 million gift from none other than George Soros.
Now, if George, who despite his name is most definitely not of Greek extraction, had given a donation of that size to a pro-war think tank, the world Jewish conspiracy crowd would never let us hear the last of it. But since this inconvenient fact doesn’t fit in with their pre-determined thesis, they consign it to the memory hole. Even anti-Establishment ‘historical researchers’ have their own Ministry of Truth operations, which mix real facts, repeat research errors or downright lies, and ‘lose’ items that don’t fit the pattern they want to see.
But such dishonest or blindside self-censorship cannot change the actual facts: While the neo-cons are pushing for the ‘War on Terror’ (not actually for a Clash of Civilisations, for they are fervent multi-culturalists and supporters of mass cheap labour immigration, and so constantly reiterate the fiction that it’s only Islamist extremism that’s the problem, rather than Islam itself), their radical leftist Jewish cousins are frantically pulling in the other direction.
It may not always be Politically Correct even to name them as an ethnic group, but the plain truth is that individual Jews are prominent on both sides of this quarrel. Wow! There’s a surprise, since individual Christians, individual white atheists, and no doubt individual Red Indians find themselves in exactly the same position, on the opposite side of the war fence to their parents, siblings, cousins and childhood friends: Some for, some against, some don’t know.
Why are a disproportionate number of Jews involved in various movements? “So they can control both sides of the argument,” is the fallback position of the doctrinaire anti-Semites, and the fact that they can shift so quickly from ignoring inconvenient facts to incorporating them in their Grand Scheme is an indicator that we are dealing here with cultist faith rather than a rational assessment of facts.
Come on, George Soros doesn’t give $15 million to a cause with which he doesn’t agree, and all those leftwing Jews running the anti-war movement aren’t really pro-war and cunningly pretending to be anti-war just to stop the tactical geniuses of the anti-Semitic American ‘right’ from building a mass support base and sweeping to power. The sad truth is that most of them have shown themselves incapable of working out how to sweep a floor, let alone how to sweep to power.
This is not to say that all Jews are angels who can do no wrong. While some Jews have made valuable contributions to our civilisation, others have not. Marxism, the Frankfurt School, feminism, the multi-cult - one only has to make the most cursory study of the origin of such socially devastating movements to find radical leftists from East European Ashkenazi stock playing a vastly disproportionate role. Why?
Partly because it was in their ethnic self-interest - a weak gentile society is less likely to identify and persecute Jews than certain kinds of strong one. Conversely, evolutionary biological theory would predict that, in the coming war between Islam and the West (which predates the founding of the Zionist state, stemming as it does from the oil wealth of Wahhabi-dominated Saudi Arabia) that same ethnic self-interest will lead to some Jews becoming champions of the survival of Western civilisation. After all, if they don’t, their kind will be the first to have their throats cut along the road to the eternal night of Islamic despotism.
But there’s another reason for Jewish over-representation in all sorts of intellectual movements, which has no connection with ethno-centrism at all: On average, Jews are the cleverest people on the planet. Someone had to be, after all, and a people who have been selectively bred for intelligence by internal choice and external pressure for nearly two thousand years were always more likely to be brighter than groups which valued brawn more than brains. As a result, unless a certain intellectual, political or economic trend is directly opposed to self-perceived Jewish interests, it is likely to contain at or near the top a disproportionate number of individual Jews.
As a matter of fact, even intellectual movements that are opposed to self-perceived Jewish interests often attract individual Jews. Thus a young secular American Jew like David Cole could go to Auschwitz and make revisionist videos, and because they were happy with his message the anti-Semites thought he was the best thing since sliced bread.
Now the same people are happily sending around the press statement from Iran’s state-run news agency, Mehr, about the Tehran Holocaust revisionist conference. “Several anti-Zionist rabbis are in Tehran to take part in the conference,” said the statement. What have we here? Good Jews? Mad Jews? Or Satanically devious bad Jews who want to take over Holocaust revisionism and use it in their plot to take over the world?
See what I mean about this conspiracy drivel driving people mad? It is one thing to have a proper history of political conspiracy, such as a history of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution, that accepts the standards of normal historical evidence. It is quite another to have a conspiracy theory that won’t accept such evidence because it believes that the conspiracy is so powerful that it can fake any evidence it needs, and therefore forms an intellectual ‘closed loop’ from which there is no escape. Such a theory can ‘prove’ any possible claim and ignore any possible fact. Even if some of the facts on which it relies are true, the overall effect is therefore to take the theory out of the world of real history and to place it in the realms of pseudo-religious faith.
Jews in all camps
So let’s move on from the twistings and turnings and omissions of the conspiracy cult theorists and get back to some solid facts. What are we to make of the presence of Jews in movements that, far from being anti-white, are regarded by most white nationalists - conspiracy cranks included - as being good things? This is well illustrated by the briefest of glances at two pre- and post-WW2 ‘right-wing’ phenomena: The rise of Italian fascism, in which assimilated Italian Jews played a major part, not least the fact that Mussolini’s long-term Jewish mistress financed the March on Rome to the tune of 1 million lire.
More recently, Prof. Herrnstein was part of the duo of scientists whose Bell Curve was the book that broke the logjam holding back the now almost complete normalisation of scientific studies of genetically determined average racial difference, while Prof. Levin’s Why Race Matters also helped greatly in doing away with the lethal propaganda myth that to discuss such things was to seek to reopen Auschwitz.
Of course it is possible to point to negatives such as the NKVD and the Gulag system, the Frankfurt School or Richard Perle, but to fail to set these against positives - even if the latter are outweighed - is to leave the realms of fact and to descend through selective research to the madness which blamed Jews for the Black Death, and which marks out the proponents of such fantasies as cranks whom 99% of ordinary people will avoid like the plague.
Which brings me back to current events in the Middle East. Even if the war against Iraq, and the coming attack on Iran was a “Jewish plot”, to make that the great public reason for opposing would so terrify many Jews that they will be unable to accept that mass non-white immigration and multi-culturalism are now bigger threats to Jewish survival than anything else. Thus we would throw away the clear chance of some Jews who in the past have campaigned for immigration and against those who oppose it moving towards a position of confused neutrality on this issue, or even of seeing that helping us to reverse the tide of colour and Islamification is their only hope.
[Anyone who scoffs at this, and who is unaware of the furious private debate going on behind the superficially monolithic pro-immigration facade of American Jewish organisations in particular should read Dr. Stephen Steinlight’s thoroughly Judeocentric High Noon to Midnight - why current immigration policy dooms American Jewry, produced for the Center for Immigration Studies and available here.
The right words
The neo-Nazi “global Jewish conspiracy” line also triggers a Pavlovian PC reaction among most educated gentiles as well. Most journalists are not directly ordered to write or to bury specific stories, they just know the kind of things that can and cannot safely be said, and inevitably they also reflect the opinions of the wider society of which they are a part. Let’s look at how this works in practice:
Phrase A: “British or American soldiers should not be sent off to die in a dusty desert in order to bring ‘democracy’ to people who have never bothered to secure it for themselves and who do not appear to want it.”
This is to express the fundamental nationalist policy of keeping out of foreign wars that have nothing to do with us, in a way which guarantees the instinctive agreement of a large section of the population, and which even those who favour such intervention will admit is a position with its roots in commonsense, normal opinions well within our homegrown political traditions. Try it out in a bar or works canteen or bus queue near you, and see what I mean. Hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees? I’m not surprised.
Then rephrase the same demand for troop withdrawal and neutrality in the terminology of the knee-jerk anti-Semites who say that the BNP has ‘sold out’: “British or American soldiers should not be sent off to die in a dusty desert to serve the Jewish conspiracy for world domination.”
Try this Phrase B out on your non-political friends, workmates or neighbours and see what proportion agree. Go on, I’m serious - at least as far as saying that I don’t want to hear a squeak of disagreement with this article from anyone who isn’t willing to do so.
Consequences of siding with Islam
Having settled that point, let’s take a look at the longer term consequence of abandoning the true nationalist position of non-involvement in other people’s quarrels and siding with the Muslims: Those who agree with Iran that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map are - if they are involved in real life politics as opposed to juvenile posturing - setting themselves up to be asked, ‘what would you do with the Jews, then?’
What can those who want to see Hamas win actually say? Will they reveal psychopathic fantasies about exterminating five million Israelis - including many who are at this very moment campaigning for a peace deal with the Palestinians, and quite a few ultra-Orthodox ones who believe that the Zionist state is blasphemous (strange monolithic conspiracy, this one!) - or accept a flood of additional refugees into our already overcrowded West? Is it not far more realistic to be neutral, as nationalists are supposed to be? Let’s get real, it just isn’t our job to bother about the Middle East.
We should campaign to stop the EU helping to fund the Palestinian Authority and sucking up to the Arab world, not because we are or should be pro-Israel, but because there are far better things to do with our money, because we don’t want to drift into Eurabia, and because the entire place is of no proper concern of ours.
Even the question of oil should be dealt with by a Swedish-style crash programme to wean ourselves off the stuff, not least because it’s an environmental disaster and is going to become scarce and so impossibly expensive sooner or later anyway. The only thing of any interest to us is that potential flood of refugees. Apart from that, what happens in the Middle East should be a matter of sublime indifference to a properly run Western nation.
That reminds us that no Western nations are properly run at present, which is of course what we’re here to change. The proper approach for us to take to the adventures of Bush & Blair and those behind them is therefore to look for ways in which this conflict could help us on the road to power.
Clearly the neo-cons/oil companies/vain or stupid politicians, etc hope that they can have their Clash in the Middle East without paying any price closer to home. Perhaps they can pull this off, but past historical examples and a commonsense appraisal of the situation suggest this is very unlikely. The price they could easily pay for that war propaganda and pressure for the West to do their bidding in Middle East could be to so destabilise multi-racial Western societies that nationalists will stand a real chance of winning political power.
Pretty much everyone with any experience in building and sustaining any kind of nationalist organisation knows that we get publicity by playing judo with the power of the media. With so much at stake, and so little time left, however, it is time to give much more careful thought about the aim of such tactics.
If it is just to get publicity for individuals, then harping on about “the Jews” is a very effective tactic. After all, it gets publicity, as it gives every single person with a scrap of power in the media - many but not all individuals from each of the following groups: liberals, capitalists, homosexuals, ethnic minorities, Jews, Marxists - both the means and often the motive to smear us all by association with crazies. In addition, it allows pro-war lobby to characterise opposition to their schemes as insane or wicked. If the neo-cons didn’t have the baggage-laden anti-Semites, especially in America, as bogeymen, they’d have to invent them.
Yet despite the glaring obviousness of this fact, there is still competition among some self-styled nationalists to see who can say the toughest things about “Jewish wars for Israel.” No doubt it pays rather well, for the historical actions of some Jews and Jewish organisations have created a sizeable (though statistically and politically irrelevant) number of people alienated from normal politics and willing to hand over their wallets to individuals or groups willing to deal in such material.
No doubt some of those (activists of German descent in particular) who push such material do so with the very best of intentions. Probably only a minority do so because it’s the most profitable form of Snake Oil they’ve been able to find. But whatever the motivation, the actual effect of their propaganda operations is the same: To widen the gulf between nationalism and the public, to make our job harder, and to leave the neo-cons even freer to push us into their wars, safe in the knowledge that nationalism will not be able to take advantage of the stresses their schemes place on the genocidal multi-cult that is destroying our world.
Laying out our stall
It is time for all nationalists to oppose Bush and Blair’s and the neo-cons’ Middle Eastern ventures on proper nationalist grounds. We should oppose the war-mongers on grounds of what they do, not what they are. For simple propaganda reasons we should go out of our way to avoid criticism of neo-cons being portrayed as ‘anti-Semitism’ by pointing to the contra-indicators: The huge peace movement in Israel, the radical left Jews opposed to the war in Western countries, the role of other motivations and interest groups - oil, reconstruction contracts, and the vanity of individual politicians.
Saying this is not a matter of “trying to get the support of the Jews in the media” (although looking for ways to weaken, even slightly, old hostilities that make the job of winning power harder is the proper concern of organisations that are serious about getting somewhere in the real world, as opposed to standing for ever on the sidelines hoping that a warm feeling of being virtuous will make up for the pain of losing) it is a matter of commonsense political tactics.
We should be positioning ourselves to take advantage for our own political ends of the growing wave of public hostility to Islam currently being whipped up by the mass media. This is not a matter of dancing to neo-con tunes, but of finding members of the public who are already used to the sound of that kind of music willing to cross over and dance to our tune.
For reasons of natural sentiment and neo-con war propaganda alike, the public will not join in any group dance which appears to include Muslims (in Britain and Europe in particular) or A-rabs (in the USA especially). And the more of our boys who come home in body bags, and the more the irresponsible neo-con project inflames the Islamic world against us, the more strongly this factor will affect the political climate.
In the real world, it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether the Danish cartoons furore or 9/11 were the work of Islamic fundamentalists with huge levels of support among ‘ordinary’ Muslims (for the record, my belief); or of Muslim extremists who no more represent mainstream Islam than the KKK represents white America; or of CIA or Mossad black bag teams seeking to stampede us into World War Three.
Spanner in the works
From the point of view of those of us working and organising to save the nations of the West and the great race that built them from irreversible subjection and subsequent extinction, it really doesn’t matter which group Providence has chosen to drop - at the eleventh hour - a giant spanner into the works of the multi-culti tolerance machine, and of the even bigger debt-recycling contraption that passes for the American economy on which it is perched.
Who dropped that spanner, and why they did so, will be a matter of interest to future generations of historians, and even perhaps the next generation of Western politicians. But for our generation, such arguments are - like putting ourselves in a position where the public could be persuaded that we are sympathetic to the enemy in the now unavoidable Clash of Civilisations - a luxury we cannot afford.
All we need to know is that the spanner has been dropped in among the whirring, clanking cogs and wheels, and that pieces of the multi-racial genocide machine are already breaking and flying off as a result. Sooner or later, one of those pieces may well in turn foul up something in the workings of the debt-recycling machine, and then opportunity will knock for those who are already organised and positioned to take full advantage of it.
In the meantime, we need to redouble our efforts to organise a credible and acceptable political alternative to the old parties and governing institutions which are so closely identified with those interlinked machines, and are going to be very badly damaged indeed as they fall apart under the strains of a war without borders or mercy.
In 1914, the Crowned Heads of Europe scarcely paused for thought as they gave the signal to start the First World War that, within three or four years, left them lying broken in the dust, their power destroyed forever. By the time this new conflict is over, those who started it may in turn have reason to rue the day they let slip the dogs of hate and war.
Our job is not to apportion blame for the chaos, but to position ourselves so as to take maximum advantage of it. There is no point standing like King Canute, ordering the tide to go and flood a different beach; rather, we must ride the wave of public opinion and harness its power for our own use.
THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY (BNP) GOES STRAIGHT
by Robert Locke
The depth of the crisis facing Israel and other Western nations from Moslem terrorism, and more profoundly from Moslem immigration, is such that some unconventional political allies deserve a glance they would not otherwise merit. The small hard-right nationalist parties of Europe are among them, if only because they are sometimes the only political forces that are serious about this crisis in nations where the mainstream left is deluded and the mainstream right feckless.
The destruction of America by mass immigration is mirrored in most Western nations. The temptations of cheap labor for the business class that dominates rightist parties, and of electoral cannon fodder for the permanent-government class that dominates leftist parties, are the same everywhere. Even Israel has been affected, in the form of a not-so-secret addiction to cheap Arab labor that has created behind-the-scenes pressures to hang onto a dangerous population.
Although mainstream anti-immigration groups in most Western nations have had no particular association with anti-Semitism in recent years, this has unfortunately not been true of the political parties that have taken opposition to immigration as their raison d'être. With some exceptions, these parties -- which exist in all Western nations except Ireland and the USA -- have tended to base themselves on old-school ethno-nationalism that is at best suspicious of Jews, and at worst sympathetic to Hitlerism
But this is, fortunately, changing, which may eventually make such parties useful participants in the Clash of Civilizations. Let's take Britain as our example, and look at the changes in the British National Party (www.bnp.org.uk.)
The BNP's origins are utterly unpleasant. It began as something called the National Front (NF) in the late 1960's, a noisy and occasionally violent protest group known for shaven heads and combat boots. If the NF wasn't formally Nazi -- this is Britain, after all, within living memory of the Blitz -- it clearly at least sympathized with Nazism. It was correct about immigration -- for which there is absolutely no conceivable reason in a small overcrowded island like Britain -- but otherwise a colorful horror show. Its rump version (natfront.org.uk) still exists, and its founder, John Tyndall, recently died, unrepentant to the last.
The NF had no lasting accomplishments, though it was at one point in the early 70's the 4th-largest political movement in Britain, after Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Party. But in the late 1990's, elements of the British National Party, as a faction of the NF had renamed itself, sought to break out of fringe politics and go mainstream. They believed the country needed to be saved from immigration and the submersion of Britain in the EU before it was too late.
Objectively, the immigration situation in the UK is not as bad as in the US, though deteriorating fast. Britain is currently 93% British, but decaying at about 1% per year. At present rates of immigration and demographic change, the British people will be a minority in Britain by 2050, as they already are in London. The present Blair government has done everything it can, lawfully and unlawfully, to increase immigration.
In the BNP, matters came to a head in a leadership struggle in 1999, in which the aforementioned Mr. Tyndall was ousted and replaced by Nick Griffin, a charismatic Cambridge-educated lawyer. Griffin set about reshaping the party into an organization capable of waging mainstream politics without abandoning its core convictions.
The party's core conviction has always been, in whatever incarnation, a fairly straightforward "Britain for the British" message: foreigners out, national sovereignty in. What is new is that today it is, by world standards, a fairly conventional right-wing populist ethno-nationalist party, having abandoned the fascistic trappings, tendency to violence, and weird obsessions that once characterized it.
The party's transformation is not wholly complete as of this writing. Some of the rank-and-file membership is clearly not as far along as its leadership. But, after four years of reform, the BNP seems to have managed a decisive break with its past and become a credible "major minor party," as they say in Britain. (In the UK, minor parties are considerably more important than in the US, both electorally and ideologically, though not as important as in Israel.)
The BNP's new ideological complexion is generally denied by its opponents, both on the left and on the establishment "right," which is as hostile to serious nationalism as the Republican Party in the US. But it seems to be real. The accusations of "sell-out" hurled at present BNP leadership by devotees of the old ways make this clear, if nothing else does.
It would seem, in fact, that there is no longer any basis to consider the party outside the scope of legitimate democratic politics - begging, of course, the question whether even truly noxious parties should be banned, if we take democracy seriously. Such participation is something the party's opponents, from the Blair government on down, are trying to deny it, sometimes in ways that raise questions about Britain's claim to be democratic.
When last in the UK, I interviewed chairman Nick Griffin about his party at his farmhouse in the mountains of Wales, soaking wet from opening farm gates in the rain but gradually drying out in front of his fireplace. The root change, as he saw it, was the change from being centered on hating foreigners to being centered on a love of one's own country. As he put it,
"At the end of the day, it's always the positive agendas that win in politics. Anger about what is being done to this country is legitimate, but mere anger just leads to hooliganism and political impotence. It attracts angry activists who can't behave themselves or articulate an agenda, and once you've milked the public's resentments, you've got nothing more to offer them and you stall politically. It's the positive vision of a restored and redeemed Britain that's the key for us now."
In the last year or so, the BNP has completed the final stages of its ideological reforms. The three big things that had to go were anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and fascist-socialist economics. To wit:
1. The BNP has now evolved to the point where it doesn't have any significant antagonism towards Jews as such, or towards Israel. Unlike the left, it has no interest in Palestinians or the larger Arab cause, and it takes the Islamic threat seriously. It has zero inclination to actively side against Israel, simply because it really wants to have nothing to do with the Middle East at all. Griffin said:
"As nationalists, our duty is to work to build a better country for our own people, not to worry about or interfere in the affairs of others. The Middle East is simply not our problem or our business."
To some extent, this attitude just reflects the fact that ethno-nationalist parties ultimately reflect, naturally enough, the national characters of the nations they represent. Britain, although snobbish, is simply not a particularly anti-Semitic culture by European standards. It has historically had, going back to Benjamin Disraeli's tenure as Prime Minister in the 1870's, a greater presence of Jews on the political right than, say, the US or France, let alone Russia or Germany. Thatcher had a lot more Jewish support in her country than Reagan had in the US.
This attitude is also a reflection of the fact that Britain's great religious enemy right now, Islam, is not only obviously not Jewish, but is itself an obvious enemy of Jews, and thus tends to put British and Israeli nationalists on the same side of a global struggle. And the BNP is immensely serious about fighting the Islamification of Britain. As Griffin put it,
"We are deeply concerned about the mainly -- though not exclusively - French elite project to morph the EU, Turkey and the Mahgreb into 'Eurabia'. Bat Y'eor is 100% right about this. If this now far-advanced scheme comes to fruition then it would in turn lead to the Islamification of the whole European continent. A generation ago the revival of the historic Islamic threat to Europe would have been unthinkable; now it is clearly destined to be the great issue and decision of our time. For us, the closely linked threats of mass Third World immigration and Islamification outweigh all other considerations.
On the specific question of anti-Semitism, Griffin said this:
"Look -- we have very serious enemies in this country, both at home and abroad. If you're going to go with that old [National Front] nonsense of Jews under every bed and responsible for all the ills of the world, then you're going to have a crazy strategic vision of who you're fighting and what to do about it. The idea that 'the Jew is the enemy' is simply over for us now, and not a moment too soon, because now we can get on with the real struggles."
He qualified this by saying:
"We insist on the right to criticize individual Jews who do wrong or Jewish groups which use the influence and power that all organized and motivated groups have to lobby, for example, for British foreign policy to take directions at odds with our national interest. But there is a world of difference between such criticism and the old fantasies about Learned Elders of Zion controlling the world, and the rabid anti-Semitism that they reflect and incite."
Clearly, this qualification is elastic, and could be abused. But one notes that it would rule out, if sincere, even a Pat Buchanan level of anti-Israelism or anti-Semitism. And the BNP does seem to have dropped the Jewish Conspiracy angle: while it opposed the Iraq war, and did complain about Jews who lobbied for Britain to fight in it, this was not generalized into attacks on the Jewish community as such and was peripheral to blaming the war on Tony Blair and the pursuit of oil.
One sign of this reformed attitude towards Jews is that the BNP not only has Jewish members, but even has a Jewish officeholder: Councilor Pat Richardson, elected last year by residents of the borough of Epping Forest, just north of London.
2. The old National Front had been suspicious towards the United States as a foreign power occupying Britain, an antagonism muted during the Cold War by fanatic anti-communism. But the BNP has now adopted a foreign-policy stance whose self-described essence is "staying out of trouble," i.e. avoiding foreign conflicts. So while it is unwilling to fight wars on behalf of the US, it has rejected doctrinaire anti-Americanism. It even suggested, in its official 2005 manifesto, that it would allow American military bases to remain on British soil -- albeit, it seems, reluctantly and on account of realpolitik considerations of not wanting to provoke American opposition and needing a counterbalance to the power of continental Europe.
3. The BNP was originally, and until recently, at heart a socialist party with an economic policy based on 1930's fascist models that have largely been forgotten outside far-right fringe movements. The party's generally working-class orientation (its voters are largely alienated white working class; its leadership is generally upper-working-class with a sprinkling of the exceptionally independent-minded highly educated) made socialism natural, as did its early recognition that mass immigration to Britain was largely driven by business interests. However, Margaret Thatcher killed the credibility of socialism in Britain, so the party has since moved towards a form of economic nationalism that combines worker-owned ESOP capitalism (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) with an admiration for the paternalistic developmental economics of East Asian nations like Japan and the Asian "tigers."
Economics has not generally been the center of its message, but may become more prominent if Britain suffers a serious recession, which seems to be impending. The party has for some time been accusing the present government of selling out the nation's long-term economic future, so it probably stands to benefit from a downturn.
Despite these changes, the party is still handicapped by its past, simply because its pre-reform era remains a recent memory in the mind of the British public. Its opponents can still plausibly, if inaccurately, call it "fascist" and bring up past violent incidents of its supporters. Although it is impossible to quantify with absolute confidence, probably 10-15% of currently reported incidents are actually real, the rest being either a) ancient history, b) wholly fabricated, c) exaggerated, d) perpetrated by other organizations, e) routine working-class rowdiness, or f) speech crimes and other offences that would not be considered crimes at all in the US.
Given that the British government is known to employ agents provocateurs, given the interest of the British race-relations industry in fabricating or exaggerating incidents to justify its own power, and given the plethora of left-wing groups involved in seeking, stirring up, or faking trouble, one must apply some discount to what one hears about the BNP. Equally, one must remember that some of these stories are true. But given that the ruling Labour Party still has its labor-union thugs and the Conservatives its crooked businessmen, it is doubtful that the BNP is more indictable for lawlessness than the major parties.
The British voting public -- which is deeply dissatisfied with the mainstream political establishment in Britain and eager for alternatives to listen to, if not actually vote for -- seems to be gradually, and with due skepticism, picking up on the fact that the BNP has changed. This will take longer with the political and journalistic establishment, which has a vested interest in keeping this newly-mainstream political competitor "beyond the pale." When the BNP isn't criticizing the destruction of Britain by immigration and the EU, it is usually, criticizing the incompetence, corruption, and fraudulence of the present government and opposition, something that hardly endears it to them.
The BNP has accused Tony Blair's ruling Labour government of waging an empty war on terror. It has accused this government of ignoring supposedly effective solutions, like establishing effective border controls and ending Moslem immigration, and resorting instead to measures that either make the problem worse, like invading Iraq, or amount to mere power grabs and authoritarian posturing. It has claimed that while the government's proposed new anti-terror law will violate legal due process and the rights of the accused, this government has so vitiated the police with political correctness that it is unable to enforce existing laws with ethnic minorities. It has argued that without serious enforcement of such laws against crimes like illegal immigration, people smuggling, illegal weapons, ordinary gangsterism, and drug smuggling, any anti-terror effort is doomed from the start, because such non-political crimes are the foundation of terrorist operations.
The BNP has also opposed the government's attempts to abolish such basic legal rights as trial-by-jury even for non-terrorist cases. It has a curious de facto ideological alliance on such questions with some British civil libertarians, which extends to its opposition to national identification cards and other illiberal measures.
In the May 2005 British election, the BNP hounded the opposition Conservatives with accusations of insincerity in their pledge to reduce immigration. As this pledge has been made and broken by successive Conservative governments for decades, this seems to have resonated with the public, and the BNP probably thus played at least a small role in Michael Howard's defeat. That British voting turnouts are at record lows suggests that the BNP's main electoral effect, thus far, has been to undermine public confidence in both major parties, despite not capturing a large vote for itself.
The BNP is subject to continuous harassment by the government, which subjects it to police surveillance and other measures that are quite surprising to learn of in a democratic nation -- though similar things are, of course, done in Israel to dissident parties. Arbitrary arrests of its leadership, seizures of party literature, interference with its bank accounts, and attempts to fire its members from public-sector employment are routine. This harassment may subside in future, if the party's new-found legitimacy becomes more widely recognized, or it may not, probably depending on how much public sympathy it wins.
Most Americans are unaware that British law makes it actually illegal to say things like,
"Islam is a wicked and evil faith,"
Which BNP chairman Griffin is soon to be on trial for saying, with real jail time as a possible outcome. Americans who admire Tony Blair because he consented to send Britain's tiny army to Iraq have no idea how terribly he is repressing basic freedom of speech at home. The penetration of European Union law into British law only makes things worse, based as it is on a Napoleonic tradition that lacks Anglo-American ideas about freedom of speech.
The BNP's effectiveness is enhanced by the existence of a "respectable" doppelganger, the United Kingdom Independence Party (ukip.org), which began as a quit-the-European-Union movement but has morphed into a polite bourgeois imitation of about 80% of what the BNP stands for. The mainstream political establishment seems to have deliberately promoted UKIP to steal the BNP's thunder, but then the respectability of UKIP has meant that the BNP's ideas, which are mostly similar, can no longer be dismissed as fringe. And the BNP has "street cred" (credibility) with the alienated working class, which its genteel doppelganger doesn't, and Britain still being Britain, class still matters.
The EU is an aspiring superstate that aims to displace America from its dominant world position, if not become the outright nucleus of a world government. Recent popular votes in several European states against further EU integration have been answered by the EU establishment with plans to continue with the federal project regardless. It has been giving a billion Euros a year (roughly a billion dollars) to the Palestinian Authority, plus the legitimacy of recognition. The BNP's opposition to such funding, and to the EU itself, therefore places it in a very interesting position for anyone who cares about Israel. It is, at the very least, an interesting creature to watch, and not the monster it once was.
1. Locke, Robert, "Is Population Transfer the Solution to the Palestinian Problem -- And Some Others?," July 8, 2003,
2. Locke, Robert, Rethinking History: Were the Nazis Really Nationalists?" August 28, 2001,
5. Locke, Robert, "Abolish The European Union," June 5, 2002,
7. Locke, Robert, "Islam: A Defective Civilization?" February 28, 2002,
9. Locke, Robert, "Abolish The European Union," June 5, 2002,
10. Locke, Robert, "Conspiracy Theory and the National Question," July 24, 2004,