The British National Party
I’ve been watching Nick Griffin on youtube. There’s videos of interviews with him (not just the question time appearance), the speech with David Duke, protests against him and all that. Sometimes, interviewers appeared to give him a surprising amount of space to explain his views. When I think about it, I think all journalists should always challenge politicians. Some of them challenged Griffin with hostility: I think they should be like that with all parties (Tim Sebastian is pretty good in this manner).
Griffin himself is revolting. But that is inadequate: he won a million votes. He is facile, and has an ability to appear sensible. If you take the time to speak to racists, you’ll find most of them usually have some sort of rationalisation for their views. Griffin isn’t Hanson. Hanson was largely incompetent and unintelligent, One Nation had no political infrastructure, so its decline was inevitable. Griffin is more sophisticated. The video with Duke showed he wanted to crossover from the fringe right to appeal to the more “I’m not racist, but” type of right. Hanson was stupid enough to probably sincerely believe she wasn’t being racist. Griffin surely knows that he is racist. He says that Nazis think he’s sold out and betrayed the “nationalist” cause: I can believe that too. He is a politician, as wily and willing to compromise his principles as any other politician. If anything, that makes him more of a menace to racial equality and civil liberties in Britain. Not just because of the threat of him winning more seats, but if you watch his question time appearance, because you see the revolting spectacle of other parties trying to appeal to his constituency by showing how worried they are about immigrants too.
Some of the things he said will play terribly to the public. When he equivocated, and appeared to defend the Ku Klux Klan (David Duke was the leader of an “almost” non-violent Klan group), it is hard to imagine anyone can respond except with astonishment. The KKK is known as a repulsive racist organisation: even if it was non-violent, it would still turn the stomachs of people who oppose racism (and even closet racists would not feel comfortable with that sort of racism). Similarly, he is obviously a Holocaust denier, and saying that he has changed his mind on some thing is obviously not good enough (and saying its on the basis of radio intercepts of a massacre in Eastern Europe just shows he probably doesn’t believe in the gas chambers). Whether or not Brits are anti-racists is one thing: the patriotic Brits, on the other hand, could not conceivably line up behind an apologist of Hitler who thinks he wasn’t that bad, when they are ever so proud of Churchill’s struggle against Hitler, and remember the bombing of England and so on.
Then there are his policies. Really, right wing pundits aren’t so different from him, and probably quietly agree with him on various issues. He warns about Islam: there’s no shortage of pundits in America who share his views. Coulter, Horowitz, Daniel Pipes – the list can go on. He even said in one interview that the sinking of an asylum seeking boat was somehow the British government’s fault (sound familiar?), and so the humane thing would be to sink one of these boats to send a message to the rest that we’re not a soft touch. How long will it be till the British Andrew Bolts start saying “well, he has a point”?
Interestingly, Haaretz reported that the Jewish establishment has been silent on the BNP (I didn’t want to link to BNP videos, so that’s why I’m only linking now). If I were to hazard a guess for this, we should look no further than Griffin declaring on Question Time that his was the only party that stood entirely behind Israel in its attack on “Hamas terrorists” at the December/January massacre. Of course, this is not all: if you watch Griffin, you’ll find that he pitches his appeal in language obviously borrowed from Zionists. I think he’s probably shrewd in this: he does share values with (say) Lieberman, and really plenty of mainstream Zionists if we’re to be honest. He talks about the English (white folks) being the real “indigenous” people, who feel shut out of their own country. Everyone else has ethnic representative groups, why can’t they? They’re victims too. He talks about national identity and so on: really, I think he should be considered a natioanlist, but a self-conscious ethnic nationalist. That’s really what political Zionism is.
Nick Griffin’s quiet fans
Let’s start with the Spectator. Fraser Nelson:
Where I differ from most is that I also regard them as a real danger in our politics and society, rather than a lunatic fringe. Som of their views (anti-EU, anti-mass immigration) are that of the mainstream in Britain but find no Westminster representation.
Mainstream. Okay. Now consider Melanie Phillips. You know, she of “Jews for Genocide” (those who disagree with her about Israel), and disbelieving climate change and evolution. You know, the one who AIJAC had as a guest (you can see them complimenting her here and here. Phillips says of Griffin:
Those who support him do not in the main do so because they are racially prejudiced. It is because he also opposes mass immigration, Islamisation and the loss of sovereignty to the EU.These are all legitimate concerns which are widely held by people who fear the loss of Britain’s historic identity — but which are stigmatised as beyond the pale by an intelligentsia which considers any such expression of nationalistic sentiment to be a form of racism.
Look at her Muslim baiting here:
Yesterday, he showed his slipperiness in an interview on Sky News in which he unblinkingly claimed that he now had no problem with ’settled ethnic minorities’ such as Afro-Caribbeans, Sikhs or Hindus, only with ‘colonists who want to change our country into something completely different’ — which is code for those who want to Islamise Britain and replace its values with Islamic Sharia law.
Such distinctions should fool no one. The BNP is hostile not merely to Islamic supremacists but to all Muslims, including those who threaten no one’s way of life.
This is just a joke. Look how concerned she is to whip up fear against Muslims. How is she so different from the BNP?
The liberal intelligentsia has put the BNP’s rise down to the bigotry and imbecility of ordinary people.
Having turned patriotism from a civic virtue into a racial crime, however, it is that elite which has driven thousands of decent, patriotic British people, both white and dark-skinned, to supporting the BNP.
This is because it appears to be the only party (except for UKIP, which is seen to be a single issue, anti-European organisation) that allows them to uphold such a belief.
What a terrible indictment — that the only party which allows people to express their patriotism is one that exploits and manipulates such feelings for other, unsavoury, ends.
The mainstream parties seem principally concerned to demonstrate their own virtue by competing to be the loudest to denounce the BNP as vile and despicable.
This, however, conceals a devastating reality — that the people who are truly responsible for the rise of the BNP by abandoning and demonising the ordinary decent people of Britain are none other than themselves.
Of course, Phillips warns of the real threat in a later article:
The frenzy over the participation of BNP leader Nick Griffin on Question Time this week has been a classic case of failing to identify the real elephant in the room.
By fixating on the ‘far right’ as the supremely evil force in British public life, the mainstream political class has failed to grasp that a half-baked neo-Nazi rabble is not the main issue. There is another more lethal type of fascism on the march in the form of Islamic supremacism.
Look at how bigoted she is against Muslims. Read the article. She then explains: BNP’s support would drop if its program were adopted.
This is why all decent people must join in the fight against Islamic supremacism. Support for the BNP would plummet if the political mainstream were to limit immigration, denounce cultural Islamic imperialism and refuse to give one inch to sharia law, saying no to polygamy, sharia finance, sharia courts and all attempts to set up a parallel Islamic society in Britain.
Here, she warns that “all three parties not only refuse to address the issues that concern the public most deeply and emotionally, but also demonise those who express such anxieties as racists or fascists.” No wonder people turn to the BNP, right?