The BNP: Anti-asylum protest, racist sect or power-winning movement? By Nick Griffin

[Nick Griffin explains the need for commonsense in achieving long term goals.]

By Nick Griffin, February 2003

Recent comments by Oldham and Keighley Labour MPs Phil Woolas and Ann Cryer on the problem of anti-white violence, and anti-asylum comments from the Prime Minister and Home Secretary, show very clearly that New Labour is working very hard to steal the BNP’s best-known clothes. This presents both the need and the opportunity for us to clarify our position on the crucial subject of race.

In this official statement, party chairman Nick Griffin explains why, while the BNP is not racist, it must not become multi-racist either. Our fundamental determination to secure a future for white children is restated, and an area of uncertainty is addressed and a position which is both principled and politically realistic is firmly established. We don’t hate anyone, especially the mixed race children who are the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism, but that does not mean that we accept miscegenation as moral or normal. We do not and we never will.

The unique position in which the BNP now finds itself in relation to potential mass support demands both that we do not succumb to the arrogance that can come from perceived success, and on the other side of the coin that we do not allow the pursuit of power to lead us to forget why we wanted it in the first place. Here, then is what makes the BNP’s racial realist position very different from the crude racism of grouplets like the National Front, from the cowardly confusion of the Conservative leadership, and from the cynical racist electoral opportunism of New Labour.

Reality of race

Mankind is divided into races, and those races, while sharing many common features of humanity, are innately different in many ways beyond mere colour. Despite the propaganda of neo-Marxist academic and media prostitutes, and the cowardice of conservatives who dare not stand up to the totalitarian bullying of Political Correctness, this is a fact. Whether those differences are God-given or the result of evolutionary pressure is irrelevant; the important fact is that the British National Party recognises such ineradicable facts of human nature and seeks to base its political programme on such realities, and not on the pernicious fantasy of ‘human equality.’

The most important first consequence of our acceptance of innate human differences is our recognition that nationality, while it is influenced by many factors — including shared loyalties, common history, religious heritage and personal identification — is first and foremost decided by ethnicity.

Norman Tebbitt’s ‘cricket test’ would be a valid indicator if only small numbers were involved, but in an era of mass migrations such civic nationalism is not enough either to explain history or to avoid the repetition at some stage in the future of the most common consequence of multi-racial ‘experiments’ — the collapse of social cohesion leading to mayhem, mass murder and genocide. And, even if, by some miraculous suspension of the depressingly familiar historic pattern, we could avoid such horrors, we would still oppose mass immigration for two reasons:

First, our Masters never asked us if we wanted it and, second, we don’t. This isn’t a matter of ‘racism’; it’s simply a fact of human nature. The divine or Darwinian pressures which created different races in the first place also very clearly created the innate human tendency to prefer ‘us’ to ‘them’ as the way in which such differences would be preserved. So while we don’t hate other peoples, we would rather mix with our own. In a nutshell, we want to walk down our streets and see the familiar faces which a hundred generations would all have recognised as ‘British’ — and all normal people of all races feel the same way.

More to asylum issues than economics

This is where we differ from many conservative types who claim to oppose the current asylum flood on the grounds that the newcomers are ‘spongers’. Undoubtedly many are, and it is both a reason to oppose their coming and a wonderful political opportunity for us to use against those who favour their arrival. But we are not conservatives, and our primary reason for opposing the asylum flood is not economic. We’ve got plenty of homegrown parasites of our own, from welfare bums through to millionaire lawyers and City gamblers. Things wouldn’t suddenly be rosy in our national garden even if we never again saw a single bogus refugee.

We wouldn’t want asylum seekers from Iraq or Afghanistan or Somalia or wherever, even if they did bring material benefits, because even the greatest such gains would be more than offset by the fact that their very presence in such numbers will inevitably transform our society, changing Britain and the British peoples into something which is not British and not what is politely called ‘European’, and impolitely called ‘white’. Conversely, if the remaining 40,000 whites of overwhelmingly British stock facing brutal persecution in Robert Mugabe’s Marxist hell-hole all wanted to come to Britain, we would welcome them with open arms. They are our kith and kin, they share our values and our culture, and they would integrate immediately and earn their own living.

We believe not just that our people are different from others, but that such genuine diversity is worth preserving. It is not a matter of ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’. Thus, for example, as racial realists we have no choice but to accept the wealth of scientific data which shows that East Asians — Japanese or Chinese for example — who live in Western societies have lower average crime rates and higher average intelligence levels than us whites, and that these differences are genetically determined, persisting even when factors such as socio-economic status are taken into account. But recognising these facts does not mean that we would welcome the arrival of several million Japanese or Chinese immigrants.

Nor even does it mean that we think that it is a good thing for even a single person of European stock to have so much as one child with a Japanese or Chinese. We do not, because such a union mixes what are not meant to be mixed, destroys two ancient family lines, and undermines two equally great but entirely separate cultures. And we know that most self-respecting Japanese, Chinese and Africans feel exactly the same way.

The analogy of neighbours

This does not make us ‘racists’. If this phrase — invented by the mass murderer Leon Trotsky — means anything, it means individuals who hate other people on account of their being of a different race. We do not. To recognise that the family who live next door are not your family is not to hate them. To point out to them that they have every right to do what they want to in their own house, but no right even to come into yours unless you invite them, or to stay in it once you ask them to go, is not to hate them.

To demand those privileges for yourself, but to claim the right to go into their house and do whatever you want regardless of their wishes would indicate, if not hatred, at least contempt, but that is not our position. We are not imperialists. We don’t want to conquer and exploit anyone else, we simply want to be left with our own culture and identity intact.

We do not demand for our own people any more than the basic human rights which we would extend to every nation, people and tribe on this planet: the right to preserve their own territory, traditions and ethnic identity. The right to preserve, in other words, the things which, by marking their differences from the mass of humanity, make them human and turn their society from an ant heap into a community. We believe, in a nutshell, in the human right to discriminate.

But, of course, in Britain and indeed the entire West, today, we are part way through a process — artificially imposed by a dogmatic liberal ruling class — that is steadily destroying the very possibility of preserving our racial and cultural differences, and the unique nations to which they have given rise.

Now, although the tone of this article has been relatively philosophical, we are not here to explain what is going on, but to halt and reverse it. This means operating politically — and doing what is necessary to win — in the conditions in which we live, not those in which we would like to live.

We live in a System in which the current masters of politics, popular entertainment, education and the legal system are overtly, even fanatically, in favour of what they call integration, which is something which honest scientists call miscegenation, and which we recognise as a form of genocide. This last assessment is shared by perhaps 10,000 people in the entire country, and would probably be regarded as an overstatement even by some — though, mercifully, not many — of our own activists.

Pavlovian hate response

On top of this tiny number of well-informed realistic idealists, there is a larger number of real ‘race-haters’ — mainly people whose personal experiences of the impact of the multi-racial society have been so bad that they have ended up with a Pavlovian reflex against all non-whites. Presumably some of these people are likely to vote for us, but they have long been recognised as thoroughly unsuitable as members. Nothing positive can be built on such negative foundations.

Meanwhile, there are some 50 million native Brits who are overwhelmingly opposed to the asylum flood, to the positive discrimination scam, to anti-white violence by extremist Islamic fundamentalists, and to black gun crime, but who have all had their views formed, to a greater or lesser degree, by the most intensive, sophisticated and evil programme of brainwashing in history.

Over the last few months, we have begun to see signs that, despite this, some of those millions are starting to wake up. When even arch-liberal Guardian hack David Aaronovitch admits that: “All over the place now you find people discussing a possible vote for the BNP. Perhaps in the past it would have been the Conservatives, but now they discuss the BNP and what it could do, as they might discuss the plot of a Hollywood movie. Oh yes, politics is alive and getting exciting. That’s the bad news”, there is clearly now the potential for a seismic shift in the British political landscape.

BNP success so far, small but pivotal

But we must not get carried away. To win five council seats, force the ruling party to undertake a breath-taking series of rhetorical U-turns, and get millions of ordinary decent people talking about us is quite an achievement. Yet it is not power. As yet it isn’t even a sniff of real influence. It’s a Will o’ the Wisp light produced by a deep rottenness within the Body Politic; a flame which gives hope, but is still nothing like hot enough to set the British political scene alight for good.
The root of the problem is that, at present, most people are thinking about voting for us not out of choice, but precisely because they feel they have no choice. We are at present, for the vast majority, only the last resort.

This is an improvement on where we were a few years ago, but it is still not good enough. Support that is only ours because of a specific perceived crisis can all too easily evaporate if that crisis is generally felt to have passed. And anyone who believes that super cynics like Tony Blair wouldn’t sacrifice a couple of years’ worth of asylum seekers in order to cling to power clearly has very little grasp of the nature of the devious beast we are up against.

Now, there’s no need to panic over this. Most of what we stand for, in all sorts of social and economic fields, as well as our far better known policy of halting and reversing the tide of immigration, is very close to the desires of the majority of the electorate. We only have to inform them of where we stand on these issues and — every bit as important — be seen as a credible political force with a chance of getting in to the position to turn our ideas into actions, to be able to win millions of votes from all the old parties.

Our opponents understand this all too well, which is why they never even attempt to answer us on these issues, relying instead on two falsehoods: The old and increasingly unbelievable canard about ‘Nazism’, and the allegation that we are ‘racist.’ This latter tag is the more believable even today, and hence the more effective. It is no good hoping to deal with this problem by pretending it doesn’t exist. If we remain seen as ‘racist bigots’ by the public once the asylum crisis subsides, our base of electoral support could collapse almost overnight.

BNP — voice of the majority

There cannot be a BNP activist who has not heard over and over again the phrase “I’m not a racist, but …”, but some still have not understood what this really signifies: The fact that the British people as a whole are positively schizophrenic when it comes to this issue. “It’s too late” is another example of this, combining as it does both the recognition that the whole multi-racial ‘experiment’ is an unwelcome disaster, and the feeling that there is now choice but to accept it.

At a more basic level there can be little doubt that virtually every one of our voters and a majority of our activists are compromised by some aspect of the ‘multi-culti’ experiment, whether it be supporting sports teams which include non-whites, buying ‘ethnic’ take-aways, or getting on perfectly well with a few individual members of ethnic minorities, even while consciously rejecting the propaganda lie that “Britain is a wonderful example of a multi-racial society.”

There are moral and sentimental grounds for taking a stance against every single aspect of the multi-culti ‘Project’, but when it comes to practical politics only a tiny handful of fundamentalist cranks believe that such a position would be anything other than political suicide. The way to get the power we need to halt and reverse this programme of cultural and ethnic genocide is to turn the language and tactics of our opponents against them. Thus, for example, the huge response we get when we highlight and pledge to oppose anti-white racism is in large part the result of years of brainwashing about the evil of ‘racism’. Such subtle Judo tactics are a hundred more times effective than a suicidal frontal assault trying to explain inherited racial differences to people who have been convinced that such ideas are an unacceptable mixture of heresy and blasphemy.

Freedom article

Such calculations, of course, are precisely what led Martin Wingfield to include in February’s Freedom an article based on a story which appeared in a Cumbrian newspaper, in which a prospective BNP candidate shot his local opponents’ accusations of ‘racism’ down in flames with the devastating response that “I’m the grandfather of two mixed-race children who I love dearly.”

Now, Freedom is the BNP’s main public mouthpiece. It is, first and foremost, a propaganda vehicle. Martin Wingfield’s brief is to turn out a snappy, easily grasped summary of our ideas, and to present them in a way which demolishes the smears of our opponents. The new reader should put the copy down feeling either pleasure or amazement that he or she agrees with pretty much everything in it, and having had all sorts of media-inspired misconceptions about the party laid to rest. Ideally they should conclude that it’s just another newspaper. That we’re just another party. That everything about us is ‘normal’, even by the standards of the fundamentally abnormal world-view created by an indoctrination process which began the first time their parents sat them in front of a television, intensified in school and has gone on every day ever since. And as a result they should feel comfortable voting for us, and perhaps even feel inclined to get involved and help us spread such a commonsense message. That is what a party newspaper is for, and Martin Wingfield, as the best popular journalist in modern British nationalist history, is a very important part of our power-winning machine.

If, by contrast, you have gone beyond the discontent of the nearly awakening masses, and want to have a better grasp of the principles of modern ethnic nationalism and the long-term aims of the BNP, then the things to study are Identity, our website and the educational series of Vanguard CDs.

BNP will not become the Tories

Shallow media commentators may be greatly exercised at present by the idea of us replacing the Tories as the main opposition to New Labour in an ever-increasing part of the country, but no one should be inclined to think that this means we are becoming a new Conservative party. Oh no! The key word is ‘replace’, not ‘become’, and anyone who doubts this should make a point of re-reading some of the articles in ID in recent months, such as the pieces on future urban design and the potential of local distributive currencies. There is more genuine, practical radicalism here than in dozen copies of the New Statesman or Red Pepper. This party is certainly not here with the aim of saving globalist capitalism from the consequences of its own greed and folly. There is at our very centre a mature but radical impulse not just to save the best of the past, but also to build something even better for the future. We want to clean the gutters and make the streets safe, but we also aim for the stars, both figuratively and literally.

But to return to Freedom. In pursuit of his brief to produce a support- and vote-winning machine, the editor of February’s issue has created something which is probably perfect from an external point of view (and if you don’t believe me, get a slightly sceptical friend to read it) but which struck many experienced and dedicated nationalists like a wet dead rat in the face.

Decline of the National Front

This was undoubtedly a misjudgement, and one for which, as sole editor, Martin is responsible, but it really isn’t his fault. The problem is the ambiguity and apparent contradiction which was created at the heart of the BNP when we made the historically vital switch from calling for compulsory repatriation of every last non-white, to a policy of halting further immigration, reversing the tide voluntarily and ending the position whereby we native British are second class citizens in our own country.

Those, incidentally, who profess to believe that our present level of success is unrelated to this shift, and the related move away from confrontational attitudes, and is solely the result of “external events and circumstances”, need to explain the utter and abject failure during the same period of the rump of the National Front. This ever-declining band of ‘hard-liners’ have spent the last three years calling us ‘sell-outs’ and parading their tough policies and their big boots. Yet its organisation, far from growing as external circumstances should in theory allow, has gone backwards, with genuine nationalists leaving it even faster than enemy stooges can join in the hope of using it to pollute the waters in which we swim.

Our long term goals

While such people have tried to make hay out of our tactical shift, we have advanced the first mile or so on the thousand mile long trek to power. But from the reaction of some to the latest Freedom, there seems to be some uncertainty about what we intend to do with that power once we get it. This is a dangerous gap, and as such it needs to be closed right now.

We all know that our first aim is to once shut the gates on any further immigration, put an end to anti-white discrimination, and to spend whatever it takes to persuade so many non-whites to return to their ethnic homelands that Britain once again becomes — and will remain for all time — the fundamentally white nation that it always was before 1948.

And we all know that this will mean that a greatly reduced number of non-whites who have integrated with our society and who accept the new position will be allowed to stay and be granted the full protection of the law as citizens. They and their descendants — and a failure of any group to adjust its birth rate to match ours would have to be taken as a sign that they have not integrated and cannot stay — can live here on that basis for as long as they accept the democratically expressed wishes of the native British whose country this must always be.

Much though many people would rather see a totally all-white Britain, this less than perfect arrangement is the price our children will have to pay for the treason of our Masters and the fact that the United States of America is under the control of multi-racist fanatics who would bomb this country back into the Stone Age if we gave them the excuse by evicting the last non-whites at gunpoint.

Status of non-Europeans

But here comes the point which we perhaps haven’t made clearly enough up until now: Those non-Europeans who stay will have British passports and will be protected by our laws, but they will be regarded as permanent guests, and not as native English, Scots, Welsh or Irish, because such status springs from blood and not from printers’ ink. If that’s Politically Incorrect, that’s just tough.

So what of those who mix? Well, once again, let’s get something straight. We’re not going to impose laws against miscegenation, still less persecute anybody, but neither do we subscribe to the convenient fiction that it’s a good thing. It is not, it is a bad thing, and we condemn it, as genuine nationalists of all cultures condemn it because it destroys their own people too.

There is a close analogy here with homosexuality. No one knows what causes some individuals to do what the majority of any healthy society places on a scale somewhere between distasteful and abhorrent, but some individuals will behave in that way whatever the bulk of popular opinion. But there is a world of difference between having a very small proportion of the population behave such ways because that is their natural inclination, and the present circumstances where such “alternative lifestyle choices” are presented as valid — even superior — by the most powerful behavioural modification programme in human history.

The real tragedies of mixing

However much we understand why miscegenation is fundamentally a bad thing, we must understand that the biggest victims of all when it occurs are the children who so often do not know where they belong or who they are. The second biggest victims are the families who are either torn apart or who have to learn to live with and to make the best of a tragic situation. And third in the list of unfortunates are the race-mixers themselves. Those who preach the wonders of multi-racism would be amazed at the number of people who telephone our contact lines and tell us that they have one or several children by partners of other races, and how, for all sorts of reasons, they now bitterly regret it.

Such tragedies are, by their very nature, something that has been done and cannot be reversed. Our job is not to cry over the milk that has already been spilt, but to do everything possible to get ourselves in the position from which we can stop any significant amounts more going the same way. There are a hundred ways in which miscegenation could be discouraged — having TV soaps portray the problems it really can cause rather than presenting a fantasy picture of how wonderful it is supposed to be would be just one. Best of all, however, would be an education system that teaches children of different races to have pride in their own people and to understand the essentially unnatural and destructive nature of miscegenation. We will replace promotion with rejection, but we cannot introduce persecution.

With such a system in place, and with a continual effort being made to convince and encourage our long-term guests that their families would have better futures back in their own countries, the problems associated with miscegenation would steadily decline. Yes, there would still be some, but on such a small scale that, in genetic as well as cultural terms, it would be irrelevant. And, of course, a comprehensive programme of national preference schemes designed to undo the wrongs of decades of anti-white ‘positive discrimination’ policies would boost the confidence and status of our own people, further weakening any remaining tendency of our own youngsters to seek partners from other ethnic groups.

To anyone who still finds that position far from their ideal, all I can say that if you try to get your ideal under the circumstances of modern British politics, you will fail to get anything. And in that case, it won’t be a handful of someone else’s grandchildren that you have to worry about. It will be your own. That is how bad things are, and why we cannot afford to ask for the Moon.


What has been laid out here and in previous related articles is the very best we are going to get. And the British National Party is the only organisation with the faintest chance of getting it.

For those who want to bawl about being part of a mythical ‘Master Race’, there’s the National Front. For those who want a petty chauvinism based on a flag and a passport, there’s the UK Independence Party. For those who seek power at all costs there’s New Labour. For those who want to be part of a respectable and comfortably powerless official opposition there’s the Conservative party.

We are rapidly approaching a moment of truly historic decision. The interrelated questions of mass immigration and liberal globalism are coming to a head. At such a moment, with a defining number of the British people awake and thinking about issues which they have been able to dodge for a generation, it is inevitable that other parties will move — or at least pretend to move — towards the political centre of gravity of the population. A lurch, in other words, to what is commonly called ‘the right’.

Blair and Blunkett and UKIP have already got the message and are talking more and more about asylum. Phil Woolas has even started talking about racist attacks on white people in Oldham. Even the uniquely useless Tories will be forced to sort out their act and start making the same noises. They are all going to try to move onto our political turf.

No time for posturing

At such a time it is a temptation to think that, because millions of people are shifting towards us, we can in turn move to a more ‘principled’, ‘hard-line’ position, and still take a significant number of voters with us. Tempting, but politically suicidal. For years we’ve had the advantage of being the only people speaking out on race-related issues. Superficially, that advantage is about to vanish. Now, therefore, is the very time when we have to be seen to move even closer to the political centre of gravity of the British electorate than ever. If we don’t do so, someone else will.

Funnily enough, that doesn’t involve any real shift from where we stand now, but it certainly doesn’t mean getting hot under the collar about the way in which one very decent and hard-working BNP activist has come to terms with what many of us would regard as a family tragedy; or the way in which both he and Martin Wingfield have seen it as a way to weaken the ‘racist’ stumbling block which remains the biggest political obstacle that we have to overcome.

So I’m asking people to put up with that, and to seize on the issue of Freedom as a particularly good campaigning tool for the forthcoming local elections. And I’m asking people to understand that making political capital out of something doesn’t mean that we necessarily approve of it. We’re here to win votes and power, not to indulge ourselves in our own version of politically correct dogma.

Where will it end”? — Answers given

In turn, I’m going here to clear up a couple of ‘grey areas’. First so that our activists don’t have ask the question “where will it end?” And second so that we don’t end up recruiting and then disappointing people who do not share our aims. There are enough hidden agendas in politics without us adding another one.

Do I regard a black or Asian, who loves Britain, as a suitable candidate to stand for the BNP at election time? No, I do not. While superficially this would be a clever move I think it could easily confuse the public and make them think we’re pro-multi-racial like all the old gang politicians. We can work with such people through the Ethnic Liason Committee, thereby both benefiting ourselves politically and, hopefully, making more and more of the frustrated people who resent what has been done to our country realise that the people to blame are the politicians and the Masters of the media, not ordinary non-whites who just want to get on with their own lives.

Do I regard a black or Asian who loves Britain as a suitable person to join the BNP? No, even though I can see the external political advantages of such a move, I would not push this on the party while ethnically-aware natives are not allowed to discriminate in any other field of their lives. I believe that everybody has a fundamental human right to discriminate, on whatever grounds they wish. Until we achieve state power and restore that right, as part of an unalterable written constitution, then I believe that, while the choice remains legally open to us, we owe it to the British people to provide one, just one, institution in which they do not have to endure forced racial integration. If black police officers can have such a body, so can we, and it can only be the British National Party.

Do I regard someone who is married to or living with a partner of another race as a suitable member or candidate for the BNP? No, because by their choice they have clearly shown that they do not share our most fundamental values. They might agree with everything else we stand for, but they would have to be asked to keep a respectful distance. Let them vote for us by all means, secure in the knowledge that we wish them, their partner and their offspring no harm, but that’s as far as it could go.

Do I regard someone with half-caste grandchildren as a suitable member or candidate for the BNP? Yes, if that individual personally believes in and adheres to our principles. That doesn’t for one moment mean that we approve of their circumstances, but the wrong-headed decision of their grown-up offspring is something over which they have no control. I would ask them not to bring those grandchildren, despite their probable love for them as individuals, to BNP events because they must understand that, to many of our people, the British National Party is the only respite we have from an otherwise endless diet of force-fed multi-racism.

Our real opportunity

We are here to build a power-winning machine. In the world of real politics, into which we are only just beginning to step, that can sometimes mean sacrificing dogmas and attitudes which sects which are content to remain powerless social clubs can retain without ill-effect. We are different. We have a real chance now to progress in a rapid leap of just a few years from ineffective pressure group to a potential party of government. We must not blow that chance, for we will not get another one.

But neither must we become a mere power-winning machine. We do not seek power for its own sake, but so that we can use it to do the things we must do to protect our people and secure a future for white children. That has always been our aim, is our aim, and will always remain our aim.

Originally published on the website of the British National Party.

Speak Your Mind