Humbug in the
guise of 'politics'
'Divisive, Dishonest and Daft',
says JOHN TYNDALL of the
latest BNP tactical analysis

NO MATTER how long our experience in the struggle for race and nation, there is a central truth of which we need constant reminders. This is of the almost infinite resources of human gullibility. Most of us are acclimatised to this where it concerns the general public of this or any other country, and we are obliged in our work 'in the field', as it were - that is in our campaigns to win over prospective voters and members - never to make assumptions that enemy propaganda is so crudely ridiculous that masses of people will not fall for it; and this imposes continual constraints upon us to correct that propaganda in our own messages to those we seek to win over.
    Less obvious, but also never to be forgotten, is that in the ranks of our own adherents - those who have overcome the first hurdle of anti-nationalist indoctrination and enlisted in the good fight - the temptation to swallow attractive-sounding slogans and clichés, without too much thought for what lies behind them, is something to which by no means everybody is immune.
    In thinking about my own contribution to this issue, I had hoped to give a rest to matters of internal controversy and instead focus on one or other of the important national and world issues which our magazine needs to address. I vastly prefer writing about these more general political subjects, and I am sure that most of our readers vastly prefer reading about them. Having dealt with some questions internal to our party last month, I was of a mind to leave such questions alone for at least a while.
    This was before I saw the June edition of the BNP house journal Identity, which in certain pages contained such tendentious nonsense that it could not be allowed to pass without comment.

'Key enemies'
    The main body of the nonsense is contained in an article 'Moving Forward for good' by the journal's editor and BNP chairman Nick Griffin. The article focuses on what the writer calls "key enemies" which the party must overcome to ensure political success.
    Mr. Griffin begins by speaking about the media smears with which the BNP has to contend and the need to avoid doing anything to justify them - an assertion with which, so far, every sensible person in the party would agree, only with the rider that those same smears will come our way whether they are justified or not. But let us read on. Mr. Griffin then says that...

... a few individual members - but more often 'supporters' and 'hangers-on' - have continued to associate with some of the failed ideas and attitudes which were commonplace in the party's long-gone days of careless, doomed extremism. Some people may have thought that such attitudes on the part of a few well-meaning 'old hands' could be tolerated. The reality is that such tolerance is neither possible nor desired."
    Now this covers a multitude of sins. Taken at broad face value and not analysed for detail, it is a statement with which few would quarrel. But it would be useful to know specifically what "failed ideas and attitudes" the writer has in mind. If he is referring essentially to the lunatic-fringe politics of such groups as Combat 18, with 
their fancy-dress antics and ostentatious Hitler worship, and with their propensity towards illegality and violence, I know of no serious person in the BNP who would dispute that such people and tendencies must be kept strictly at arms length - as indeed has always been the case in the BNP right from its beginnings in 1982, but with far greater strictness and thoroughness since the start of the 1990s. So what "long-gone days of careless, doomed extremism" is Mr. Griffin talking about? No days that I can recognise as part of BNP history. And it is worth reminding him, in case he is unaware, that the party fought a bitter battle to keep Combat 18 elements out during the turbulent years of 1994-96 - before he made his own entry into it shortly after.
    Mr. Griffin goes on to assert that "The BNP has changed enormously over the last few years, and our victories in Burnley and greatly improved showing almost everywhere where we stood on May 2nd are partly the reward for those changes." Well, I am not sure what he means by "the last few years." The real watershed signifying the party's determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990. I could say that our victory at Millwall in 1993 and tremendous showing across East London a few months later- events I referred to in my article of last month headed 'Lessons from present and past' - were partly the reward for this reorientation of strategy and tactics. Nothing very much has altered since then, despite Mr. Griffin's claims to the contrary.
    In all this there is the constant harping on what has in fact been a carefully manufactured myth: that only in the past three years has the BNP abandoned 'lunatic-fringe' policies and adopted a new, 'moderate' and 'voter-friendly' approach. The true fact is that we were never in lunatic-fringe politics to begin with, but from 1990 onwards made much more strenuous efforts to distance ourselves from such tendencies and people than we had done previously. All this was a long, long time before Nick Griffin came on the scene.

Nick's 'Three H's'
    Mr. Griffin then turns in his article to speak of what he calls the 'Three H's' - Hard Talk, Hobbyism and Hitler. Again we find him here tilting at windmills, slaying bogys that simply do not exist in the BNP except among people on its outer periphery who have no influence whatever on policy and never have done.
    Beginning with 'Hard Talk', the BNP chairman castigates those who, in the sanctity of pubs and drawing rooms, advocate violence against minorities and opponents, and romance on about the genocidal measures they would like to see carried out when the BNP comes to power. And he says:-

"Never say anything to anybody which your fellow members wouldn't be happy to see quoted on News at Ten. If you can't abide by that rule, then the time to leave is now, before you unwittingly provide some repulsive left-wing hack with a stick with which to beat us."
    I could not agree more! But why speak as if this is some sort of 'new' rule in the party. It has always been the rule, though I will acknowledge that there is no harm in repeating it from time to time. If Mr. Griffin's purpose is no more than that, I have no argument with what he says. He is stating the obvious, but to what he is saying I will only add something equally obvious: that the type of 'repulsive left-wing hack' to which he refers will not be deterred by absence of such 'hard talk' from reporting it in his column the next day or week as if it were verified fact.
    And before we leave the subject of 'Hard Talk', it might be apposite to say that we must welcome Mr. Griffin's conversion away from this tendency, since it does not seem so very long since he was heard across the nation on the Cook Report in 1997 saying that "We need to take political people and convert them into thugs." If ever there was a case of talking carelessly with media 'hacks' within earshot, this was it. I well remember wincing as I watched the programme and heard this piece of idiocy. It is comforting to know that Nick now realises a need for discretion which most us have realised a great deal longer!

Football fans
    What of 'Hobbyism'? Well, what Nick says here is that nationalists should no longer court the support of football fans, as happened in the past. To back up his words, he says that those who were recruited to our politics from the football terraces were few in number and mostly useless anyway, and that even the 'muscle' they were sometimes able to supply is not now needed. And he continues:-

"The BNP is transforming itself into a sophisticated, professional party (which it never sought to do before of course!) that is recruiting more and more serious, mature and responsible men and women of all ages and walks of life. We are just not interested in young adult males who are more interested in wasting a Saturday at a football match - let alone risk getting arrested in utterly juvenile confrontations with other British males who probably share their political views."
    I can agree with much of this, though I think that in places it is somewhat oversimplified and over-generalised. It is true that a great many of the football fans induced to associate with us briefly in times past did not turn out to be very valuable recruitment material, but a minority did become good nationalists and it would be wrong to dismiss their contribution. The important question is that of whether, with maturing years, they got football thuggery out of their system and turned their energies to more constructive pursuits. Some did not, some did. Let us not tar everyone with the same brush.

'Muscle' not needed?
    As for saying that 'muscle' is no longer needed, what kind of planet is Nick living on? Does he really suppose that just because the BNP is recruiting "more and more serious, mature and responsible men and women" it is going to be left in peace by the militants of the left? We can be quite sure that the more our party grows and is perceived by its enemies as 'dangerous' the more certain and the more vicious will be the tactics of physical intimidation employed against it. And on such occasions - taking into account the decreasing ability or inclination of the police to be on the spot to prevent law-breaking - we will be very glad to have strong young men available to ensure the orderly conduct of our activities and the safety of our members, women in particular.
    Of course it is true that we do not want yobbos to whom the violence and excitement are more important than the serious politics -the types who seek confrontation for confrontation's sake - but to imagine that in the present climate prevailing in Britain's multiracial cities we can be assured the facility to conduct our politics at all times in the manner of a vicarage tea party is to make us hostages to fate of an extremely perilous kind.
    This aside, the question must be asked: How sincere is Nick Griffin really about the matters of which he speaks? Here he is writing in Spearhead in April 1996:-

"The cringing liberals and the populists have got it all wrong. Far from confrontation frightening worthwhile people away, by strengthening the bonds of the group it actually attracts them - provided you win!"
    And again in November of the same year:-
"Of course, confrontation does still have a vital role to play in building comradeship between nationalists, and respect for our movement among the general public; but it must be confrontation with the right targets, and at times and places calculated to avoid unnecessary casualties and show us to be disciplined defenders of the interests of the British people, not a gang of adventurist hooligans..."
    If we are to take at face value what he is now saying in Identity, it would seem as if Nick has abandoned the view expressed above about confrontation "strengthening the bonds of the group" and "building comradeship." Well, we all have the right to change our minds but our Nick seems to do so rather more often than most - a topic to which I will return. A little further on in the same article, we find him speaking of racial tensions in British cities coming to boiling point, and saying:-
"This will create a need for local leadership and organisation to enable white communities on the frontlines to defend themselves effectively, both physically and politically. This is where the next decade will see a struggle for the control of the streets in which huge numbers of ordinary Britons will take a desperate interest, just as happened, for example, along the Shankill/Falls and Short Strand/Newtonards Road flashpoints in Belfast in the early 1970s. It will be essential for British nationalists to be at the forefront of such developments in mainland cities, for which the defeat of the Red/immigrant march on Southwark and the East End 'Rights for Whites' campaign were valuable early experiments."
    Is this the same Nick Griffin who is now saying that we neither desire nor need 'muscle' anymore? And should we not note that in the foregoing passage he speaks of "the next decade"? Well, we are still in that next decade. Is Nick telling us that it is he who has changed or that the situation 'on the streets' has changed - in less than a decade? I certainly do not believe that the latter has occurred, so that his forecast in that regard would be correct. But if it is, the assertion that 'muscle' is no longer needed is pure poppycock. No movement for great change across history has been able to do without 'muscle'; the important thing is that it is muscle that is disciplined, orderly, properly directed, and employed defensively as a last resort when police are not available and grave injury to members is the stark alternative.

Out with skinheads
    Anything more on the subject of 'hobby-ism'? Well, yes. Another target of Mr. Griffin here is skinheads. Here he is considerate enough to make a distinction between natural skinheads like William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith (while very diplomatically excluding Yours Truly!) and those who are skinheads through choice, of whom for some strange reason he cites two black footballers as exemplars. "Skinheads," he says "- even in suits - scare the public. Of course it's unfair, but I don't make the rules; I'm just explaining some of the things we've got do to win the game, and ditching the last vestiges of this unfairly demonised youth cult is one of them."
    Now that is interesting. Again we find a contradiction between the Nick Griffin of 2002 and the Nick Griffin of not so many years earlier. Here is Nick in Spearhead in February 1996:-

"Attempts to 'clean up our image' through political education and the imposition of tighter discipline on wanton unruly elements are essential. But there is a world of difference between such credibility-boosters and, for example, the often related tendency to look down on skinhead supporters not on account of what they do but because of what they are" (JT's emphasis).
    Well, here we have another change in attitude over six years or so - but is it really as long as that? Those present at the Red, White and Blue Summer Festival in Wales in 2001 have testified - as do numerous photographs - that a not inconsiderable number of young men were present who certainly wore extremely short haircuts, though perhaps not skinhead dress. At meetings around the country at which I have spoken quite recently the same phenomena could be observed. Should I have ordered those fellows out of the meetings on the threat of refusing to speak if they didn't go? Should Nick Griffin do so when they are present when he is speaking? I think we have to accept that in the times in which we live this fashion of very short, even shaven, hair is with us whether we like or not, as is that of men sporting long hair and/or ponytails. Of the three, I tend to prefer the first. Nick is a great one for telling us that we must move with the times. I suggest that he do so in this case.

The Hitler bogy
    But it is where Mr. Griffin turns to the matter of the third 'H' - Hitler - that he really opens up some challenging questions. We must identify and actively reject Hitler as an enemy, he says. Well, that is a rather strange way of talking about someone who has been dead for 57 years, but I assume that this is just Nick's quaint way of saying that the BNP should eschew any kind of public statements or imagery that are evocative of Hitler and the Nazis. Well of course we should! And I just don't know anyone in the party who disputes this or ever did dispute it. It has been standard party policy since our foundation and, as with other things, has been enforced with ever greater rigour since the early 'nineties. To say that we must enforce it now rather sounds like teaching Grandmother to suck eggs. But let Nick explain further:-

"Thankfully, the time has long gone when the BNP would tolerate the known presence of deluded individuals as members or on our fringes with a perverted nostalgia for the 1930s. But we now have to promote our anti-Nazi credentials more vigorously, not just to dilute the impact of further media fantasy stories, but to leave no room for doubt in the minds of the British people about who we are and where we are going."
    I have two things to say about this. The first is that I have always regarded the matter of BNP members' attitudes to movements in past history, including National Socialism, as one of personal opinion and conscience. As long as they observe the rule that the BNP as a party wants no association with such movements, what they think about them privately is their own affair. Should there be members who have some admiration for some of the things Hitler did in Germany (such as, for instance, the promotion of patriotism and the restoration of national pride, the creation of full employment, the achievement of high standards of public health and the building of motorways many years before Britain started to do so), I see no reason to condemn them for that - least of all to insult them by calling their views 'perverted'. I take it as an unalterable fact, whether we would wish it or not, that there are going to be people present in modern nationalism who privately will see virtue in at least some of the policies carried out in the Germany of that time, just as there will also be people who see no good at all in that episode of history. The BNP, if it is to become powerful, must do what all powerful movements do: it must become a 'broad church', encompassing a number of different strands of nationalism and patriotism. It is impractical and it is silly to defeat this objective by creating wholly unnecessary divisions between British Nationalists of today by opening up arguments and quarrels over what happened in another country more than half a century ago. If some BNP speaker gets up on a platform and praises Hitler, then he must certainly be silenced and disciplined. If BNP members go out into the streets brandishing swastikas, then most certainly they should be kicked out. There is no argument about this. But what members think in their own minds - and indeed even what they may talk about in the privacy of their homes or the company of their friends - is their business, and to imagine that our party can 'police' such thoughts or discussion is to take us into the realm of Nineteen-Eighty-Four. I do not believe in treating BNP members like children.

Alienating good patriots
    That is one reason why I believe that for the party to start promoting what Mr. Griffin calls its "anti-Nazi credentials" will achieve no good whatsoever. It will only alienate a number of very good and sound members and supporters who will see in it a cheap and shoddy piece of gimmickry that does not even have the virtue of being sincere, and which would have to involve the BNP joining in the enemy game of falsifying history - in other words becoming a pack of liars no better than the mainstream politicians and mass media whom we despise. Is this what Nick Griffin wants?

Here is a typical group of BNP activists. It will be noticed that some of the men have
extremely short haircuts - skinheads possibly? Now the policy seems to be to exclude them.

    The other reason why such a policy should be avoided is that it will not anyway have the slightest effect on the way the media think about us and treat us. We will still get called the same names and we will still be tarred with the same associations. Indeed, if anything, this will increase because the more the BNP shouts that it is 'anti-Nazi' the more our gutter journalists and broadcasters can be relied upon to pull out every stop to refute such a claim.
    The sensible thing for the BNP to do with regard to such controversies belonging to the past is to ignore them - at least as far as possible: that is to say that we should neither enter into them for the purpose of defending Hitler nor that of attacking him. We should treat him for what he is: history. We are in business to engage in modern politics in Britain, not to argue over historical questions belonging to Germany.

But Mr. Griffin is not finished on this subject. Let him continue:-

"There are two main reasons for the pollution of British nationalism over three or four decades by this immensely damaging 1930s political necrophilia. First, there was the fact that several of the leading figures in the National Front and the old BNP had either flirted with Nazism in the early stages of their careers or, even worse, were still 'closet' Nazis, greatly excited by fantasies of huge parade grounds and 'government with the power to govern' (i.e. dictatorship). "Such people, even those who had grown out of their youthful enthusiasm for Mr. Hitler & Co. had a vested interest in allowing or encouraging careless extremism and identification with 1930s fascism among each new generation of nationalist activists, so as to minimise the chances of them concluding that their leaders' records were an albatross around our collective neck. Fortunately, these individuals are no longer a factor in the BNP."
    Now I wonder which individuals Nick has in mind here! Shall we have a competition to guess who - with a prize for the first correct answer to arrive in the post? As for people in the nationalist movement having a 'vested interest' in maintaining certain ideas and fallacies, that is a very interesting theory, and one which might take us along some revealing routes should we explore it more thoroughly. But enough of that for the moment. Much more fundamental to all this is the question of both Mr. Griffin's consistency and sincerity in the ideas he is now espousing. He is clearly anxious to talk about what some of his fellow nationalists said and did in the past. In this case it is of some relevance to enquire into what he himself has said and done in the past. I have given some examples, but there are more. First, however, we might return to his argument that the BNP must promote its "anti-Nazi credentials" 
Same singer; different song
   "The size and nature of the BNP vote in the May elections should have made it clear to Blair and Blunkett that they are not going to undermine our popularity by pretending to adopt our policies. Quite the contrary in fact. They may, perhaps, be still operating under the myth that it was Mrs. Thatcher talking tough on immigration in 1979 that destroyed the political threat of the National Front. In fact, it was mainly the lack of a politically mature strategy, organisation and image on the part of the NF itself that resulted in its inability to take advantage of the favourable political climate and led to its ultimate demise."
NICK GRIFFIN (Leader article. Identity, June 2002}

     "The unusual external circumstances which have retarded us are easily dealt with. Most important was the 'Thatcher Revolution'. True, the Tories have been living on borrowed time by selling off the family silver and blowing the North Sea oil bonanza. True, they have actively encouraged the globalisation which has wreaked havoc with our economy. True, the brief reduction in the national debt at the height of the Lawson boom has now been turned around with the biggest borrowing spree in our history. But these chickens are only just now coming home to roost, and, up till now, have had little time to make a real impact on British politics.
    "In the meantime, some of the changes of the Thatcher years - the breaking of the monopoly of bureaucratic empires such as British Telecom - were genuinely beneficial, while others, such as the emasculation of the trades unions - while having generally bad effects on millions of workers, did at least make Britain more competitive in the short term, particularly compared with the highly regulated economies of our social democratically-ruled rivals. In addition, being forced out of the EMS spared us the economic strangulation being suffered by France, All this will change rapidly after the next general election under the totally inexperienced and opportunistic Labour Party .
    "Furthermore, Margaret Thatcher skilfully dressed her radical commitment to old-fashioned liberalism - complete with free movement of capital and labour - in the trappings and verbiage of traditional right-wing Conservatism. Harsh though the 1980s were to millions of workers in the old heavy industries, most of the generally right-wing self-employed artisans and the middle class were thoroughly satisfied with the status quo until the quickening pace of disintegration after 1992 began to show them that their prosperity and jobs are also draining away to the Far East, The 'loadsamoney' culture which kept these people happy throughout the 1980s is now seen to be a thing of the past."

NICK GRIFFIN (Article 'Time to go to the ball'. Spearhead, January 1997)

     "The 1979 General Election was a huge disappointment for the NF. Contesting more than 300 seats, much had been expected. But Thatcher's carefully cultivated 'right-wing* image had persuaded large numbers of NF voters to go over to the Tories.
    "Humiliated NF candidates and naive members looked around for scapegoats and a cleverly organised campaign of subversion supplied them..."

NICK GRIFFIN (Article, 'Agents provocateurs and destabilisation'. Patriot, Spring 1999).
while at the same time saying and doing nothing to allow the media to link it with 'Nazism'. Right?

'Nazi' links
    Well, there are two things that immediately come to mind in this regard. One is talk of Jewish influence; the other is what some call 'Holocaust-denial'. No reader needs telling that the moment anyone dares to say anything critical of Jewish power or Jewish actions he is liable to be labelled a 'Nazi'. It avails little to protest that leading politicians, writers and thinkers over the ages have crossed swords with Jewry long before the Nazis or Hitler were ever heard of. The equation of Nazism' and criticism of Jews is the current media-fostered perception, and we have to live with it. Likewise, the same perception exists with regard to those who question the veracity of all or part of the 'Holocaust' legend. If you dispute that the orthodox and official version of the 'Holocaust' is true, you are a 'Nazi' - despite the fact that the forerunner of the modern Holocaust-revisionist movement was a French socialist, Paul Rassinier, who was not only an anti-Nazi but actually spent some time in a German concentration camp for his pains.
    Now if we are to take seriously Nick Griffin's injunction not to do or say anything that might, fairly or not, invite the 'Nazi' smear against the BNP, this must surely include critical mention of Jews and engagement in the Holocaust-revisionist debate. So just what is Nick's record in this department?
    I have in front of me an article from the January 1996 issue of Spearhead sub-headed 'Nick Griffin surveys the machinations of the movie industry as Jews 'sting' Japs'. The article, Nick's first in the magazine, is about the attempts of Japanese big business to use its financial power to get a foothold in Hollywood. Speaking of the latter, Nick says - as it happens, quite correctly - that Hollywood is "the heart of a Race War - a war to turn the white nations of the world into a demoralised, atomised, mongrelised rabble" And he continues:­

"Having worked so hard to establish this deadly stranglehold on long-term opinion-forming, the controllers of Hollywood, almost entirely Jewish, were clearly deeply concerned when, at the end of the 1980s, the long boom in consumer electrical goods gave several Japanese companies the money and motivation to grab a piece of the lucrative Hollywood action."

    A month later (February 1996) we find Nick saying in this magazine:­

"The Messianic nature of Judaism has clearly always been an important factor, at least subconsciously, in the hugely disproportionate role of racial Jews in both Communism and Capitalism."
    Now I do not object to these statements because I believe them to be fair comment; were it otherwise I would not have permitted their publication in Spearhead. But the fact is that if we are going to play the game of
'purifying' ourselves of anything that might invite the smear of 'Nazism' - the game that Mr. Griffin is now insisting that we play ­ such statements provide a classic example of the very thing he now claims to be against.

Nick the Holocaust revisionist
    As I have said, the same thing is true of Holocaust revisionism. Here Nick seems to be keen to erase any mention of this subject in BNP circles lest it might sound 'Nazi', and not long after his taking over the party leadership all books dealing with it were removed from the catalogue of the party's book distribution subsidiary Freedom Books. So it might be interesting to enquire into what he was saying on that very same subject not so long before. This is Nick in an article headed 'Populism or Power?' in Spearhead in February 1996:­

"For the last fifty years the vision underlying all the vile sickness of this age of ruins has been the so-called 'Holocaust'....
"The New World struggling to be born cannot do so until this lie is publicly exposed, ridiculed and destroyed....
"If nationalists don't bury this deadly lie, nobody will. In the case of Britain, that means that members of the British National Party have a duty to be involved as active participants in the revisionist struggle."
    In addition to these declarations of the Griffin faith, I have a fat wad of private correspondence in my files consisting of letters from Nick in which he bangs on about the need to combat the 'Holocaust Myth' in letter after letter. In fact, I thought at the time that he had got the issue totally out of perspective, and I advised him that it would be better that he devote his time and energies to other matters. Enough good material, I said, had been written on the subject for us not to need any more. Meanwhile as far back as 1990 or thereabouts, the whole topic was discussed at a BNP leadership conference after which I took the decision, not to 'outlaw' Holocaust Revisionism in the party, but to give it less prominence and devote less attention to it than previously. This was because, as with Hitler, it was a matter of historical debate that fell outside the proper range of issues with which the BNP should be connected. This decision was taken precisely because for the party to take up a corporate position on Holocaust Revisionism would invite avoidable 'Nazi' smears. That did not mean, of course, that the subject should not be discussed nor that the party's book subsidiary should not sell publications dealing with it, just as it did many other publications that were independently written and produced. Of course, though the BNP has never adopted any official standpoint on Holocaust Revisionism this has not prevented many mainstream media writers alleging that it "denies the Holocaust."

Praise for Waffen-SS
    Is that all on the question of Mr. Griffin's credentials as an 'anti-Nazi'? Far from it. I have before me a copy of a magazine called The Rune, published in 1995. It contains a three-page article about the Waffen-SS. The
article consists of an almost uninterrupted paean of praise for the fighting and political qualities of that branch of the German and allied armed forces, with no reference whatever to any 'crimes' its members may have committed, save one small paragraph about a single brigade made up of criminals from Germany's prisons and another unit comprised of Russian volunteers, each of which got "out of control" on the odd occasion. Here is the final paragraph:­

"Many historians have stated that probably no troops in the West today could be compared with SS troops. The culture of National Socialist Germany idolised heroism and self-sacrifice, and SS troops were hardened to outdoor life in the Hitler Youth. Today, the US Army discusses 'homosexual rights', the Union Jack flag is hidden in Northern Ireland to avoid offending sensitive IRA sympathisers, and the 'Professionals' are riddled with self­seeking careerists. What comparison could there be to the religiously fanatical 'Political troops of yesterday' whose motto was 'Believe, Obey, Fight'."
    Actually, I thought the latter was the motto of the Italian Fascisti, but that is a detail. This article is unsigned, but whoever wrote it responsibility for its publication must lie with the editor of the magazine. And who might that editor be? It is clearly stated on the inside of the front page: Nick Griffin!
The next issue of Nick's magazine, of which I also have a copy, continues in similar vein. There is a two-page article eulogising Mosley's Blackshirts, another one praising Hitler's invasion of Russia and a leader article, which one must presume was written by Nick himself, containing this interesting paragraph on the subject of the BNP's council election victory in 1993:­
"The electors of Millwall did not back a Post-Modernist Rightist party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not rational debate."

The quest for 'respectability'
    It will now perhaps be understood why I and numerous others cannot attach too much sincerity or seriousness to Nick Griffin's recent Identity article, in which the themes of 'respectability' and 'moderation' are ever­present, with the former appearing in his closing words 0 While we are talking about 'respectability' it is perhaps opportune to read what Nick had to say on the subject in Spearhead in December 19960 There he spoke of...

" ... the perennial heresy of British and many European nationalisms, whereby basic principles and fundamental matters of ideology are sacrificed in the quest for 'respectability' and rapid electoral success. Since 'respectability' is a commodity bestowed or withheld entirely by a mass media which is, for political and racial reasons, unremittingly hostile to any manifestation of European ethnic consciousness, such a quest is a hunt for fools' gold (NG's emphasis in the original). This tendency always starts with well-meaning suggestions about the benefits of tidying up a policy here or keeping quiet about a particularly unfashionable issue there, but, if given way to, develops a momentum of its own down an ever more slippery slope. This is why such moves are doomed to end in either rapid and abject failure, or slightly longer term betrayal and splintering."
    The contrast between what Nick Griffin was writing here and what, more lately, he has been advocating - and carrying out - in the BNP is so glaring as to need no further elaboration. .
    Nick Griffin cannot here even be granted the excuse that a man in politics may change his opinions as a result of experience, for in the very same current Identity article he condemns those who in the earlier stages of their careers had 'flirted' with ideas different to those they espouse today. Nick is permitted to change his political postures with bewildering regularity, while it is not conceded that others might also change. And mark this: the 180-degree turns by Nick Griffin have occurred over a period of a mere five to seven years; yet other people are condemned for things they said and did up to 40 years ago!
    I could go on and on, for I have records in my files of self-contradictory assertions by Mr. Griffin sufficient in volume to fill the whole 28 pages of several issues of this magazine. What has been written here wiIl have to suffice - for it already goes to a length I would prefer not to make habitual.

Where the argument started
    Some may ask: why drag these matters up? Why not just occupy the whole of the space in Spearhead with positive items of news and views, steering clear of internal controversy? Well, there is nothing I would rather do more; but it is Mr. Griffin who has raised these matters and not I. As they have been raised - and as the manner of their raising is obviously as divisive to our party as it is possible to get - I feel that what has been said must be answered. I believe that Nick Griffin's article 'Moving forward for good', as published in the June 2002 issue of Identity, is one of the most blatantly mendacious pieces of humbug I have ever read in a lifetime devoted to the patriotic cause in Britain. I also believe that it is quite cynically aimed at the wide-eyed and the gullible within our party - a constituency which Mr. Griffin seems to make a habit of cultivating with special care, since it is the least critical, the least inclined to look behind the fine phrases to the reality beyond, and the most anxious to read good intentions into everything said and written which bears the party's official stamp.
    Mr. Griffin has spoken in his article of the 'Three H's'. Well, I might term what he has written as the 'Three D's' - Divisive, Dishonest and Daft. No other description is appropriate.
    We might conclude this study of Nick Griffin past and present by asking the question: what are all his current protestations for? Well, here is a guess. Could it be that Nick's ultimate purpose in 'Moving forward for good' is to prime people in the BNP for an imminent wielding of the axe against dissenters and 'heretics' - in other words, all those people remaining in the party with whom he feels uncomfortable? In that case I look forward to meeting him on the scaffold.

Reproduced with acknowledgements to John Tyndall's former Spearhead magazine