Posted on 06/10/2006 1:09:12 AM PDT by rmlew
The British National Party did very well at local elections in England on May 4 and now holds 32 council seats across the country. In some areas—notably in East London—it has replaced Labour as the dominant political force among the ethnically-British working- and lower-middle class.
According to the Spectator (April 15), Labour voters are switching to the BNP in such large numbers because they believe that only the BNP articulates what they are thinking: “Today’s BNP possesses the local campaigning skills and ability to make a personal connection with the voter that mainstream parties have forgotten.” Margaret Hodge, the Labour Employment Minister, told the press that 8 out of 10 white voters in her east London constituency of Barking admitted being tempted to vote for the BNP.
Is Britain on the verge of a major realignment, and can the bipartisan mould of establishmentarian politics be broken? Is the BNP becoming a respectable and electable party? This was the first question we put to Nick Griffin, the BNP Chairman, who gave us an exclusive interview during his recent visit to the United States:
Nick Griffin: I became involved with the British National Party out of desperation at the fact that no-one else was doing anything in Britain to stand up for the survival of Western culture, Western values, British independence in relation to the European Union, and a number of similar, closely related issues. I was elected to lead the BNP in 1999 and we changed it from being an unelectable joke into an organization with dozens of elected local government officials. We’ve been described by a number of hostile academics as having achieved more in terms of British nationalist success in three or four years than all the previous incarnations of this set of ideas since the 1970s. We are still a small organization, but with a very large and growing resonance with the British public as a whole.
Of course “respectability” is in the eye of the beholder, or whoever is publishing a newspaper, and we are not within the pale of the current British establishment. It is not somewhere where I wish to be, because that establishment has presided over the decline of Britain to a point where it is being destroyed as a sovereign political entity. Its traditional culture is being destroyed. The native peoples of Britain, according to our government figures, are going to become a minority in their own homeland somewhere between 2060 and the end of this century. The establishment which has done that while being paid out of our taxes, and which is putting in prison those who complain about it, is not an establishment by which I wish to be considered respectable.
We are ethno-nationalists but we are not racist. In any event, “racism” has become a Leftist cant term and now it can literally mean anything. Its real meaning is the belief that one race is superior to others, as opposed to being merely different from others. There are ethnic differences, there are racial differences between various groups around the world, which is a fact of life. If “racism” means anything, it means looking at those differences and saying that one group is better than another and entitled to a higher status than another. The ethno-nationalist position is to recognize that ethnic and cultural differences exist, that the best way to preserve the diversity of humanity and harmony within a community is to maintain as high a correlation as possible between the boundaries of ethnic groups and the boundaries of sovereign states. If you look around the world, the incidence of violence and strife is invariably high when this correlation between ethnic and national borders is low.
Q: In addition to your opposition to immigration, which is the defining trait of the BNP with many voters, what other issues you regard as important?
Griffin: We are particularly concerned about the very rapidly growing Muslim population in Britain, and the associated problem of the way in which our establishment bends over backwards to favor anything Islamic over anything Christian, but also over anything traditionally secular that Muslims decide to find objectionable.
In addition, we are opposed to Britain’s membership of the European super-state for a variety of constitutional, legal, political, economic, and practical reasons. The European Union has its roots in a socialist and materialist set of values that became dominant in Western Europe after the Second World War. Everything that the European Union touches, it seeks to homogenize. America is much bigger than Europe, but the process is vaguely similar in that it eradicates regional peculiarities. In Europe we still have huge differences in language and culture, ways of doing things, ways of being, ways of belonging, and all that within very small distances. The European Union, above all else, is about wiping out those differences. It is clearly eradicating them at the political and economic level, but also at the level of culture. It’s a force for making the entire continent of Europe blend in the sameness that destroys all particularisms that make it interesting.
Ping
Yeah, Britain can only be saved by a party so immersed in thuggery that they couldn't find enough candidates without criminal records to stand in the recent local elections...
There are 1.6 million Muslims in a country of approximately 60 million. There is no data to substantiate this point of yours.
The BNP are a bunch of opportunists. When it suited him, Nick Griffin courted fundamentalist Islam. As the aforementioend article states -
But in the mid 1980s, when Griffin was a leading officer in the National Front, he openly cavorted with Islamic extremists, supporting the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fundamentalist regime in Iran and sought backing from Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi.
None of us should have anything to do with the BNP, and the idea that we should is puerile nonsense.
Ivan
In our time the issue appears to be immigration and multiculturalism. It seems to me that an anti-immigrant party has a lot more built in supporters than something like the Green party or the consensus middle party-of-the-net that the left is trying to create.
Unfortunately I don't know anything about British politics or the cast of characters called out. It may well be that the profiled leader has, as others claim, an appalling background. Of course, if I'm remembering correctly so do many other European politicians. Are not several current German leaders former members of terrorist supporting ultra-leftists groups. (Red Army Faction). The IRA has it's political wing. And France and Italy regularly elect Communists. (I guess they are good Communists, and not bad Communists, but again this is a facet of Euro politics I've never bothered to understand.) If nothing else it should be a bit of a wakeup call to the elites. The frogs are getting jumpy and noticing the heat of the water.
CW II ping.
From what I have seen in the U.K., white folks are not in danger of becoming a minority. France and Belgium on the other hand, may go Islamic over the next century, in terms of their population, if not government.
Well for a start Britain doesn't need saving particularly- and frankly, if the choice was destruction or BNP I'd rather see us go out honourably then taint ourselves with their nastiness.
Not that that will happen, of course- Britain has always been rather good at absorbing immigrants and will continue to do so. As I recall, both the Irish in the 1860's onwards and the Jews around the turn of the century were both large immigrant communities that refused to assimilate and produced terrorists- we seem to have integrated them rather well, considering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.