nick griffin

Image © Copyright Garry Cook

warning signNick Griffin, 49 when this image was taken, chairman of the British National Party. Photographed in Burnley

 

outsidersOnce dismissively known as Britain’s Nazi party, the BNP has a growing number of supporters across the country, particularly in areas with large multi-racial communities.

 

The right-wing party is notorious for its views on immigration and has been accused of stirring up racial hatred in problem areas – working-class northern towns like Oldham and Burnley.

 

Click on the Outsiders logo to return to the Outsiders page.

 

 

 

Nick Griffin says:

 

The BNP, when I was elected to lead it, had about 1200 members. It’s now got more than 10,000 and the idea that you can have a hidden agenda party when you are recruiting nine times your existing number to a respectable front, it’s a nonsense – the party has genuinely changed.


In some areas, even new areas we go into, the phrase that comes back repeatedly over the years, is people treating you like liberators walking down the street and they say, ‘where have you been?’.

 

There’s tremendous enthusiasm in some places. In others there’s a guarded respect. And in others it’s, ‘you’re not the National Front are you?’, which is the most common thing.

 

So there’s nothing wrong with the BNP in ordinary people’s eyes, it’s just the concern of what’s behind or in the past and have things really changed. The average person, politically-minded, will say, ‘I agree with what you say’ in policy terms and in terms of perception of the problems in society are, ‘but I don’t agree with what you do’.

 

When they say that, they are thinking about what they’ve seen on BBC docu-dramas where we go throwing bricks through Asian shop windows and nonsense like this.


In a population that has probably given up voting, certainly in a local elections, to be perceived as different to the rest is potentially of enormous value.

 

So we’re in this strange half-way house between being reviled and detested in the way the left media say we are and regarded as the best things since sliced bread. Basically people agree with what we say but are concerned about the image.


The thing which we really are with most of people is, ‘well, at least they tell the truth’. We may be a bit rough round the edges. We’re a very small, under-funded, shambolic
organisation in many ways, but because we’ve offered an alternative and have shown that in certain circumstances the public will vote for us, we’ve forced the entire political elite to at least pay lip-service to talking about the issues.


Trevor Philips and others have said, ‘unless we talk about these issues then the BNP are the only ones talking about these issues and the public will switch to them’.


As a general rule whenever we are elected we actually make an impact, racial attacks by whites fall, which I put down to a community which believes that it is represented, that its concerns are represented in the political process, and doesn’t have to go outside the
political process. The liberals who say, ‘oh, people vote for the BNP then racial attacks will rise’ should know better.


At the moment we have a lack of or feeling that there’s no chance of fair political representation. It’s an open invitation to violence and, in the end, terrorism.

 

If you can express theoretically unpopular minority views through the ballot box you don’t have to go down the road and putting bricks through windows.

 

So when you see racial attack rates falling in Barking and Dagenham after we got elected I’d say that bares out the logic of the position that if people think they are being represented they don’t have to go and do anything else.

 


Yes, there is racial violence. Every single multi-cultural, multi-racial society in the world has racial violence, whether it’s Kenya, Rwanda, Serbia or Britain.

 

Throughout history most of the bloodiest conflicts are the same thing. Britain isn’t immune. The more multi-cultural we are the more tensions, more stresses, the more violence there will be.

 

That violence isn’t created by people who recognise the differences. I’d say it’s actually created by the liberals who try and gloss over the differences. To say that the people who warned that this system was going to cause trouble wanted it is like saying the weatherman is responsible for the storm. It’s an illogical fallacy.


In certain areas, any of the mixed northern towns, someone who is second generation West Indian or half West Indian, half English, almost all identify with us and look up to us for help because their kids get picked on by young Muslims even more than our kids do.

 

Likewise Sikhs don’t like Hindus. There’s not many Sikhs and Hindus in somewhere like Blackburn. Their numbers have crashed because they’ve been ethnically cleansed – not by us, by the Muslims.


Since Britain is about to overtake Holland as the most over-crowded country in Europe, and over-crowded countries are not comfortable, not healthy, bad for the environment, socially a bad thing, it follows that since mass immigration is causing that the answer is to stop it. So, yeah, shut the doors.


The government at present spends about £100,000 each year that’s available so that ethnic minorities who want to return to their land of ethnic origin can do and be financially helped. There is no moral difference between the Labour Government’s £100,000 a year and our £4billion a year. People don’t have to go, but a lot would.

 

If people are going to stay, that’s fine – we don’t have the moral right to throw them out. Our masters invited them in, we sat back and voted for the bastards and didn’t bother about it.


A Muslim area here [Burnley] like this will stay like that but they will have to accept that Burnley is an English town, and that England and Britain have certain core cultural traditional philosophical religious values.


It’s a matter of accepting and understanding that their religious beliefs and their cultural beliefs and so on have to fit in with ours. If there’s a fundamental clash in our society, say in animal welfare where you’ve got the clash of the instincts of over several hundred years and the tendency overall of the English population.


There’s a fundamental clash between that and Halal meat. The Muslims can solve it one of several ways. They either become vegetarians, they eat pre-stunned halal meat and accept Halal meet can be pre-stunned or they leave.

 

It’s their choice. But if you have a small but growing population which says that what we want to do is radically unacceptable to the majority of the population then it is utterly unavoidable that there’s going to be trouble.


And that is one of the duties of anyone involved in politics – to think long-erm and to take unpopular decisions now to avoid worse problems in the future.


In 2005 our manifesto had more words in it than any other party. About ten per cent of it was about immigration and related issues. You can’t mention anything about ethnic differences or ethnic problems.


The liberal media only ever wants to ask me about immigration or Islam and doesn’t want to talk about policies we have about globalisation – which are actually far more radical.

 

Jeremy Clarkson, Jon Gaunt, Richard Littlejohn, it’s interesting that most of them are having an impact basically ­expressing our kind of views but they do so in a way which is just respectable enough to be
acceptable.