Outside of the BBC Television Centre last evening, tensions mounted between police and the unruly horde of communists who had come to disrupt the recording of one of Britain’s longest-running and most widely viewed political debate programs, Question Time. Predictably, the leftist terrorists directed their violence at the police; several of them had to be dragged out, subdued, and some were even arrested.
The root of this consternation was the perception by liberal fanatics that the BBC was lending credibility to the Chairman of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, by giving him a spot on the panel of Question Time. The fact that the BBC’s guidelines require them to host representatives who have achieved a certain level of influence among the electorate is totally irrelevant to this apoplectic rabble hell-bent on censorship.
The frantic attempt by the enemies of Life to silence a critic of their agenda filled me with excitement and anticipation. Many of the machinations of the protesters outside the TV Centre were being broadcast live on BBC News, and their desperation to stop Griffin’s appearance was so transparent that it provoked many thinking men into taking a closer look at Griffin and his ideas.
While I was concerned with whether or not Nick Griffin would make it into the BBC studio safely, I didn’t give much thought to problems that would arise once he was already on the air; I was sure that he would handle himself well once he got his foot in the door. Griffin had sent out an e-mail update, just hours before the broadcast was recorded, in which he stated that the panel, and the audience, of QT would be deliberately stacked against him; however, he said that he was prepared for this, and that he would use this vehicle to disseminate our message and cut through the fog of media lies. Right before entering the studio, he said he was prepared for an old-fashioned, political rough-and-tumble.
I assumed that we would see an intelligent, well-educated (Nick is a Cambridge man), polished orator and Political Soldier deliver a life-affirming defense of our Cause, remaining steadfast in the face of blistering criticism. Unfortunately, I was disappointed by the performance Mr. Griffin delivered on Question Time last evening, and it truly saddens me that such an extraordinary opportunity to reach the British public was squandered.
The program was clearly configured to discredit Nick Griffin, and the usual format of the show was altered in a manner conducive to the witch hunt they sought, by consistently providing traps into which they hoped Griffin would fall; sadly, on more than one occasion, he did just that. David Duke provides some good analysis of the performance on his web site, which I think is worth reading for anyone who aspires to a role of prominence in Identity politics. Whatever your opinion might be of David Duke, he handles the media adroitly, and his exchange with Wolf Blitzer, which aired live on CNN, is legendary.
Griffin knew going into this situation that he was facing a group of people entirely hostile to his perspective, and yet he failed to assumed a posture that fit the situation. Rather than steeling himself for the inevitable hostility and projecting confidence in the face of overwhelming opposition, he sat there sheepishly grinning, staring at the desk, and forcing himself to clap for the other panelists, one of which was a particularly acerbic negress with a habit of deriding the BNP constituency, and all of whom were obviously tasked with assailing him. Shockingly, they did not return Griffin’s civility. He patiently waited for his turn to speak and allowed each of them to state their opinions clearly, whereas they shouted over him and subjected him to a torrent of verbal abuse.
We, as White Nationalists, must not allow ourselves to swallow, to any degree, the enemy propaganda that we are doing something shameful or dirty by standing up for ourselves, our culture, and our collective identity. When the angry negress told Griffin that no party in the world is based on “indigenous populations,” he had a perfect opportunity to name some of the many parties in the world with consanguineous prerequisites. Specifically, he had a chance to touch on Israel: a bigoted, war-mongering, Apartheid state whose outrages should be brought into the public discourse as much as possible. However, as Duke notes, Griffin negated that opportunity by previously stating his support for Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. I understand why Griffin does not want to attack the Jews, as I comprehend the tactic even if I disagree with it; however, there is a big difference between not attacking Jews and being so philosemitic that you justify Zionist atrocities. What does Griffin hope to achieve by fawning over Israel? Does he think we will ever really achieve support from Jews? Does he think Jewish money comes without strings attached?
Griffin was easily lured into criticism of muslims and other out-groups, yet he spoke very little about the nature of British Identity, how it is unique, and why it must be safeguarded. He was afforded the chance to defend our heritage and uniqueness several times, most notably when the Negress on the panel rejected the notion of indigenous British people and began mumbling about Neanderthals, but he chose not to.
We must defend our identity without being lured into disparaging others. We should provide newcomers with very common metaphors to which they can relate: “I love my children more than the children of others, but that doesn’t mean I hate other children.” Don’t get into arguments about superiority and inter-cultural value judgments. It’s just not worth the hassle. European people are superior at reproducing other European people, and that is simply a fact. We don’t need to prove anything beyond that; our unique nature is of intrinsic value and anyone who denies that is attempting to deny Life.
Too often, Griffin came across as a dejected outsider peddling the politics of ressentiment. He seemed to lack resolve, and more importantly, Geist. He nodded his head, smiled, and seemed to concur when other panelists suggested that people were voting for the BNP simply out of frustration and a lack of options. The panelists argued that these were not so much votes for the BNP, but rather protest votes against the current political establishment, and Griffin did not seem to challenge this premise. I was reminded of Nietzsche’s quote from Geneology of Morals:
“The slave revolt in morality begins when resentment itself
becomes creative and gives birth to values: the resentment of
natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and
compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge. While every
noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself,
slave morality from the outset says No to what is “outside,” what
is “different,” what is “not itself”; and this No is its creative deed.
This inversion of the value-positing eye — this need to direct
one’s view outward instead of back to oneself — is of the
essence of resentment: in order to exist, slave morality always
first needs a hostile external environment: it needs,
physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all —
its action is fundamentally reaction.”
How many BNP voters are truly committed to our world-view, and how many vote for the BNP in secrecy and shame, largely to protest the current state of affairs? This is an important question, and one of the reasons why I believe it is vital for us to be strong, determined, and life-affirming in our rhetoric. We must vanquish “the cloud” to which Jonathan Bowden often refers: a cloud of moral opprobrium which will continue to descend upon us, confusing and distorting our efforts, until we summon the resolve necessary to lift it. Lifting this cloud is an essential first step in the “reevaluation of values” needed in order to restore ourselves to health. Greg Johnson summed up this imperative quite well in a recent e-mail:
“We will never save ourselves, much less recover what we have lost, until we have a moral revolution: until we stop apologizing for our ancestors, stop apologizing for ourselves, and start asserting ourselves and our interests — not furtively, sneakily, and apologetically — but righteously, with the unshakeable conviction that we make the world a better place. It is the self-assertion that comes naturally to any healthy organism, and if we cannot summon it, then we will be culled as one of nature’s rejects.”
We can no longer afford to politely play the games of our enemies, by their rules, hoping to get lucky at some point. We must overturn the tables and expose the sinister rigging beneath them. We must do this boldly and openly, coupling mastery of style with uncorrupted masculine principle. I urge Mr. Griffin to consider the choice outlined by his fellow countryman, Alex Kurtagic, and insist on assuming a place of majesty rather than servitude.
NOTE: The appearance is now available on YouTube here:
When will leaders such as Griffin realize that attempting to soft-sell and placate the anti-White system just doesn’t work. They love it when you go on the defensive, so they can twist and distort the discourse.
When will a nationalist leader just shout right back in their face that our people and our culture have a right to exist and pursue our interests. Is it that hard? White Britain (and the White world, for that matter) needs to see someone finally stand up to these curs. God, this drives me nuts when they back down. Especially when it’s an intelligent man like Griffin who has the verbal tools to counter their feeble egalitarian drivel.
You’ve got to get mad dog mean, Nick. This ain’t a frivolous football match, it’s for our survival.
Say what you want about Nick Griffin’s performance (I happen to agree with you), but it has yielded fruitful results
Consider the following:
* The BNP enjoyed a 30% increase in membership interest following the Question Time show
* Last night’s Question Time peaked had around 8 million viewers, far higher than the usual 2.5 million.
* 20 percent of the British population, polled an hour after Question Time, say they are “seriously considering” voting for the BNP
* Griffin vs Straw is a draw, according to The Times
* Even Nick Griffin’s opponents have admitted that Griffin was treated unfairly. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/23/bbc-viewers-reaction-nick-griffin-questiontime]
*
Yosemite,
Griffin was certainly mistreated by the media, and I acknowledged that in my entry, but he knew he was going to be mistreated and he should have comported himself accordingly. Assuming the role of beleaguered underdog is not fitting for any statesman, particularly a nationalist leader in Britain.
I want to see Griffin and the BNP succeed, but I think constructive criticism should be leveled when it is warranted, and in my opinion Nick Griffin dropped the ball last night.
You’ve got to get mad dog mean, Nick. This ain’t a frivolous football match, it’s for our survival.
Oh you dumb fuck. You know what your enemies are thinking? Yes, yes, please do that, oh please do that! Then you too can enjoy the ‘success’ of the National Front.
Whatever your opinion might be of David Duke, he handles the media adroitly, and his exchange with Wolf Blitzer, which aired live on CNN, is legendary.
Legendary, eh? Says it all, really. There’s nothing in your admissions about being a nerdish bookworm that suggests you’ve had any experience in connecting with and moving and motivating people, changing their feelings. Nothing at all. Yet you’ll sit there, a million miles from the lines, and lecture a man who’s figured out a thing or two about how to roll up his sleeve, reach into the crevice, and fiddle around until he gets the light bulb flashing. But pay me no mind. Let it be more long faces and clenched teeth. That’s the ticket!
There’s nothing in your admissions about being a nerdish bookworm
Oops, I thought Wally posted this entry. The rest of my point still stands.
“Griffin negated that opportunity by previously stating his support for Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. I understand why Griffin does not want to attack the Jews, as I comprehend the tactic even if I disagree with it; however, there is a big difference between not attacking Jews and being so philosemitic that you justify Zionist atrocities.”
Griffin is a British version of right-wing Israelis. He wants the same thing they do – wogs out of his country. So why should he attack another country for doing (in a half-assed way) the same thing he wants to do?
I have no illusions that Jews are going to support white ethnonationalism, but I still don’t see how it helps a right-wing nationalist to parrot Noam Chomsky on Israel.
Jesus Silver, that’s laying it on thick even for me.
The problem with working-class derived nationalist parties like the BNP is that they give no mention at all of the hierarchy of man. What truly defines Europe, in my opinion, is our ancient and noble caste system which has more or less completely collapsed. Nick Griffin is an intelligent and capable man, but he is not a nobleman or a king, and the middle classes and above understand this and feel an inherent revulsion at being ruled by such a man. When will the BNP begin to fight for the return of the monarchy?
I like the general thrust of this article, which seems to be that white nationalists need to learn how to make themselves palatable and reasonable when in mainstream forums. You guys are so used to being marginalized that when you get a moment in the spotlight, not sure how to act. One problem is that a truly attractive figure, someone like Jared Taylor, would NOT be called back — he just sounds too sensible. Duke often makes a lot of sense too, but he gives off a sufficiently repellant vibe with his bleached hair and plastic surgery and ex-con past that the media will invite him back. (Or at least they did a few years ago.)
“I have no illusions that Jews are going to support white ethnonationalism, but I still don’t see how it helps a right-wing nationalist to parrot Noam Chomsky on Israel.”
That is absolutely correct. Israel is the one nation outside of Asia or Africa that elites think is justified in remaining as an ethnostate. Rather than accept this premise and argue that European peoples deserve the same, people like David Duke prefer to consort with anti-racist activists fighting Jewish nationalism (Zionism).
I’ve never understood what anti-Semitic white nationalist hope to achieve by speaking out against Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.
Andrew Redmond on John Bean’s memoir Shades of Black in the current Occidental Quarterly fails to point out that the book is a mea culpa. Bean spends his entire adult life in the extreme right, beginning with Mosley, even going to prison only to emerges a contrite philo-Semite. Redmond indicates that Bean is Nick Griffin’s mentor. This may explain his disinclination or inability to properly defend himself against the “Holocaust denier” smear. Griffin fumbled the ball on “Question Time.” I haven’t followed his career as an orator. I’ve only read about his rise to political viability with a seat in the EU. He gave no indication during his appearance on “Question Time” that can speak at all. Does he do better when he isn’t the brunt of so much anti-racist rectitude?
” Say what you want about Nick Griffin’s performance (I happen to agree with you), but it has yielded fruitful results”
One must learn to walk before they can run.
Also one must keep in mind the so-called ‘forum’ that Griffin was in. It would take a Herculean Personality type to be able to confront and win out against such an array of baddies.
That some were swayed over to a BNP-style of thinking shows that at least SOME progress was made and frankly a meta-assessment shows that things are trending to White Nationalist types of thinking!
” I’ve never understood what anti-Semitic white nationalist hope to achieve by speaking out against Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.”
Show the massive double-standard that Organized Jewry partakes in (no Ethno-states for Whites, but one for Jews). Also some just want to take easy pot-shots at the Traditional Enemy just because of the things they have done in the past (murders of Vicki Weaver and Rachel Corrie, attack on USS Liberty, Jonathan Pollard Spying, etc.,…)
On the Holocaust, he would have done well to say that he agrees with the traditional history, but is against suppression and criminalization of free speech. In fact, I would think calling for American style free speech protections ought to be the FIRST item on any reasonable European political agenda!
I’ve seen the You Tube clip now. Yes, Griffin really does look terrible.
Britain needs a Jared Taylor.
On Nick Griffin: “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” [Erasmus]
At least one journalist in “The Guardian” claims that Griffin’s views aren’t too extreme: “Nick Griffin’s view’s are far from outdated” – http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/oct/24/nick-griffin-bnp-population
Notice how the botched ‘debate’ was of the roundtable-type — in a political and media world utterly dominated by traitorous ‘antis,’ this isn’t a good idea. Every time a person such as Griffin spoke who advocates for the preservation of European Whites he/she would be met with a wave of extremely hostile energy from all the other people in the panel and audience, which throws him off his stride.
In this case, the audience looked to be about 1/3 non-White, 1/3 White liberal, and 1/3 others (who were probably still mostly skeptical of the BNP). Trust me, this is coming from a seasoned debater: it’s very difficult to keep your head in an environment where everyone wants to literally try to shout you down or even physically fight you just for utilizing free speech and expressing personal opinions, especially if they are deemed non-PC and “racist.”
In the future, Griffin should stick mostly to intense 1-on-1 in-depth interviews where he can express his opinions away from a seethingly hostile panel and audience who threatens to rush the stage and bash his head in.
Also, the physical layout and proxemics of debate-forums means a great deal. True debates should be conducted with the people standing up (usually behind podiums), and the participant debaters should be situated a good ways apart. In this case they are seated and crammed together too tightly, and Griffin was intentionally seated beside that Negroid by the (likely Jewish) organizers of the debate so that every time he spoke he would have to contend with her rabidly negative/hostile energy emanating all over him.
I’m surprised to see no links to the video(s) of that, it’s important for people to see it for themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=BNP+Nick+Griffin+on+BBC+Question&search_sort=video_recently_uploaded
I think we’re being a bit hard on the old chap!
The sheer negative energy in that room against him was incredible. The Muslim woman on the panel looked like she was clenching her teeth when she talked about Griffin.
I admire him for just going on the show and keeping his composure.
Perhaps he could have been more persuasive and dominant, but I think he did gain the sympathy of many whites.
Becoming a “mad dog” would have been a huge mistake.
My biggest complaint against what Griffin said during that show was how he disrespected David Duke. I think it’s counterproductive and dishonorable to try to curry favor (pun intended) with our enemies by denigrating fellow respectable racialists. At the very least that type of discussion should be between us.
You know the situation is dire when even the non-whites are telling Jews (one of the panelists) that they need to slow down or stop immigration because it’s going to ruin the country.
There’s a balance to be struck in white advocacy between ignoring (or even appeasing) powerful jewish interests and coming off like a disgruntled monomaniac by dragging every question or concern back to the Jew. Even if, hypothetically, our entire predicament is completely due to jewish shenanigans, it would still be important to project a balanced and complete perspective to our target audience.
Oh, and a double standard doesn’t get resolved by imposing an equal and opposite double standard. Why do I see so many of us accusing Israel of being an apartheid regime? As I understand it, apartheid protected our brothers and sisters from third world poverty, depravity, rape, and unspeakably tortuous murder. It kind of reminds me of that silly debate tactics some people use where they accuse open borders types of being racist for causing the black underclass to compete with illegals for jobs. Or depicting Obama as Hitler. WTF?
As this article here nicely states, we can’t win this by accepting the enemy’s rules. You don’t score some cheap points on one issue by implicitly accepting the entire multicult mythology. When both Duke and Campbell accuse Israel of being “an apartheid state”, they appear to be doing the very thing they caught Griffin doing.
Oh, and a double standard doesn’t get resolved by imposing an equal and opposite double standard. Why do I see so many of us accusing Israel of being an apartheid regime?
Two possible reasons, one good the other not.
Some people just want to hurt Jews. That simple. Hurting Israel hurts Jews and that’s what makes them happy.
Some do it because they hope it’ll loosen the Jewish stranglehold back home. That’s honorable but tactically suspect because weakening the “neocons” only strengthens the “liberals,” on whom the Jewish hold seems even stronger. Then again, there are cracks everywhere that can be exploited. So I don’t understand what problem you have with pointing out the immigration devastates blacks; if it makes white liberals reverberate with cognitive dissonance it’s obviously useful.
There’s a balance to be struck in white advocacy between ignoring (or even appeasing) powerful jewish interests and coming off like a disgruntled monomaniac by dragging every question or concern back to the Jew.
Good point. Thought this is a two way street. Some people on the other side of this issue just can’t seem to restrain themselves from “dragging every question or concern back to the Jew.” Auster’s first comment on Griffin following his appearance is wholly consumed by it.
Beauregard,
this is a two way street.
You’re totally right. Thank you for reminding me of the other half of that equation.
Silver,
I don’t understand what problem you have with pointing out the immigration devastates blacks
I suppose that I don’t have a problem with that, per se, as long as it’s presented in a manner that doesn’t implicitly accept the hostile premises. Maybe I can try to demonstrate it:
Goofus: The real racists here are these people who are devastating America’s struggling Black community by flooding the job market with immigrants.
Gallant: Open borders isn’t causing racial harmony. It’s causing racial tension. When these Mexicans invade, the first people they put out of work is the Blacks. Mexican street gangsters even shoot Black children who stumble onto their “turf”.
See how Goofus implicitly condones the witch hunt for racists? Or how Goofus implicitly accepts the narrative that Blacks in America have received a raw deal? I think Gallant creates the cognitive dissonance you’re speaking of while refraining from accepting the hostile premises.
But maybe I’m splitting hairs.
Please, no Mad Dog Grif. In fact, someone more capable and talented than Grif needs to be found to head the party. Stealing high end pols from the Tories wouldn’t be a bad idea either.
Israel should be supported rather than opposed. Israel is good because if the Jews are living there they are not living in our White nations.
Mark,
I wish Griffin only the best, and if I was too hard on him, that certainly wasn’t my intention.
As you noted, he claimed that he shared a platform with David Duke, at an (AF)BNP meeting (which means it was his meeting, to which he presumably invited Duke) in 2000, but that he only did this in order to debate Duke and prove his theories wrong so that he (Griffin) could save young people from following Duke down the nefarious path of racism. These comments about David Duke were evasive, unnecessarily hostile, and quite frankly, they came across as being laughably dishonest.
I am not advocating a “Mad Dog Griffin,” but a confident, self-affirming, Yea-saying Griffin who defends himself and his people with vigor and without reservation or shame.
You’re right about the links. I will add them to the post. Thanks.
Wiki,
There is nothing at all wrong with Apartheid, which is precisely my point: Jews are allowed to preserve Israel as a “Jewish state,” one which is far more rabidly xenophobic and violent than South Africa or Rhodesia ever were, while we are denied similar rights to self-determination.
If Israel can preserve its culture/religion/identity at any cost, why can’t we? If Israel is wrong in doing so, then why are we supporting them? Where is the UN Security Council to deal with this “rogue nation?” These are difficult questions for high-level liberal politicians to answer, as they are beholden to Jewish financial support. They must give a hypocritical answer, and the intelligent viewer can extrapolate much from this contradiction.
Wiki,
I think it’s a good strategy to expose double standards and hypocrisy. People have an innate dislike of this, so it’s an easy appeal and anyone can understand it.
Imagine if it were Bowden and not Griffin that was on Question Time…
Griffin is, under normal circumstances, a better speaker and debater than almost all mainstream politicians in the UK. That is a fact that even the establishment media and antis have acknowledged. There is no nationalist politician in the UK that anyone is aware of who could do better than him in his role. There are no high level Conservatives who want to have anything to do with the BNP or pro-white advocacy of any kind, not that those people are oozing charisma or brilliant debaters anyway. The idea that Griffin can be easily replaced with someone better is laughable.
This post and the comments are too hard on Griffin and reflect a lack of knowledge about what the BNP has done to make the progress that it has. They have adopted a strategy of being nice and non-militant and it has paid off very well. Any attempt to take a more aggressive posture will be spun by the media to reflect badly on the BNP. They are playing by the rules because they aren’t strong enough yet to do otherwise. This is called “politics.” WN need to become more savvy in the political arena. I wish I could find some the late 90’s Griffin articles where he explains the basis for the BNP’s strategy and describes the failures of earlier British Nationalists who though just being right was enough to win. This is all part of the plan.
My first reaction was that of Mr. Campbell. However, thinking about it through the weekend and seeing the backlash against the left, I have to say it worked like a charm. People have pointed out, correctly I think, that Mr. Griffin was never allowed a chance to be heard. The whole thing was a setup from the word go and everybody sees it. For all of their slurs of bigot and racist trying to slander Griffin, it was our enemies who looked evil rather then Griffin and the BNP. This could be a major turning point. We should harp on this and end our criticism of Griffin, even if it is correct.
I think what White nationalist writers must do now is join the bandwagon. Start pointing out about how mistreated Mr. Griffin was. One of our problems through the years has been our enemy’s success of portraying us as evil. Let’s turn the tables on them and start propaganda work in favor of the BNP. Rather then critiquing Mr. Griffin, we need to be slamming our enemies as haters of free speech and just plain haters of White people. This debate provides great material for this argument.
ATBOTL,
I have read Griffin’s writing going back to the 1980s, so I am aware of his tactical objectives. I’m not attacking him or saying he should be replaced, but urging him to be more confident and clear.
I don’t think there is any WN out there who can honestly say he wasn’t disappointed by Griffin’s appearance. I hope he does better next time, and I don’t think that writing a blog post expressing that opinion is overly harsh.
Millirone,
I think the sympathy he is receiving is reflective of just how wrong he was to adopt a stance of weakness and resignation during the broadcast. Imagine how the British public would react if Griffin had delivered the sort of tour-de-force of which he is capable; the very notion of it was enough for the social Marxists to besiege the BBC Television Centre and “peacefully” smash up everything in sight.
Alex Kurtagic on Nick Griffin’s performance:
http://www.toqonline.com/2009/10/griffin-on-question-time/
Nick has done so many things right in his march to electoral success that I’m surprised and disappointed by his performance and apparent glee at being repeatedly insulted. I cringe every time a pro-white figure adopts an apologetic tone when explaining his viewpoints. Nick should study David Duke who has been masterful in dealing with the hostile mainstream media.
Sometimes I feel WN’s are so preoccupied with presenting an image of refinement and non-violence that it comes at the expense of appearing to represent a worthy cause. I recall about 3-4 yrs ago on an American talk show discussing the topic of race. A self styled husband and wife and devotees of Nazism were guests among others. They were treated to jeers and guffaws throughout but stood firm and verbally sparred with all comers. They weren’t the most attractive people (swastika tattoos and all) but were very articulate and defended their beliefs and opinions while skewering many in the hostile audience.
We certainly don’t have to dress up as and act like Nazis to make our point but there is something to glean from everyone in dealing with the media……including the extreme among us.
David Duke is scum, but he performs relatively well in a hostile audience. Jared Taylor is even better, though.
Griffin has handled hostile interviews very well before. This was different — he was in a room with a riled up mob that hated his guts. It wasn’t an interview or debate in the normal sense. He could have done better, but anyone would have struggled under these circumstances.
BTW, Auster described Griffin “as someone who has followed with interest Griffin’s intellectually impressive re-making of the once very nasty BNP into a non-anti-Semitic party.”
So to Auster, the important thing about Nick Griffin’s tenure as leader of the BNP is not the party’s growth or electoral success, but that it is no longer “anti-Semitic.”