Interview with Nick Griffin - May 2004

Anyone skilled in the art of giving racial offence would know that maximum effect would be achieved by calling an Indian a “Paki”, a “Paki” a Bangladeshi and a Bangladeshi or anyone non-White a “nigger”. These days it would seem that appearing to confuse the British National Party with the National Front would generate equivalent indignation among the parties’ respective membership. (The NF campaigns for the forced repatriation of non-Whites and hold marches, while the BNP never march, I was told by the Chairman Nick Griffin, and are apparently content with voluntary repatriation.) Being lumped together with another group with whom one feels no true affinity but merely superficial similarities - is offensive precisely because it makes false, sweeping and unflattering assumptions as well as robbing those on the receiving end of their individuality, so precious to our sense of uniqueness and place in the world.

Intrigued by the confused and confusing nature of the debate on race and politics, I telephoned Dr Phil Edwards the BNP Press Officer with whom I discussed the Bell Curve. He believes that this research has conclusively proven the inherent genetic inferiority of blacks since in terms of statistics it shows their lower intellectual attainments and greater propensity for crime. It struck me that the same could be said of the poor of any society who have not had the same opportunities in life as one. The apparent racial differences must surely come down to cultural environment. Our discussion however remained friendly and polite, even after I had let it be known that I was non-White, and he helpfully put me in touch with Nick Griffin to arrange the interview I sought. Affable and charming, I found myself unexpectedly and suddenly on first name terms with Nick when I called him. We met in a pub in South East London.

My interest in the BNP had been piqued by a polite paragraph in their membership web page which stated that, while they “welcomed contact and co-operation with nationalists and patriots of other races, and with other non-Whites who oppose enforced multiculturalism”, the BNP asks them to “respect their right to an organisation of their own, for their own”.

Had non-Whites really been banging on their door demanding to become members? This was puzzlingly at odds with their media reputation of being nasty to non-Whites.

Why would non-Whites wish to join a party formed with the very intention of removing them from this country?

The answer appears to be racism, but this time practised by white liberals who insist on regarding all non-whites as one amorphous group with common interests. Recently, I observed black people on Channel 4’s Without Prejudice? complaining about bogus asylum seekers and then being shouted down by white liberals for daring to express such a view, bearing in mind the colour of their skin. It is precisely this kind of ideological bigotry – the implication that non-whites are all the same, expected to think alike and be enthusiastically welcoming of all manner of immigrants and asylum seekers - that sends some of them into the reluctant arms of the BNP.

He showed an impressive grasp of the differing cultures of the various Asian peoples. It seems there are already existing tensions between Muslims, Sikhs, Kashmiris and Hindus which increasing numbers would only exacerbate. The non-whites who have approached the BNP are concerned that uncontrolled immigration would only make more probable the likelihood of a white backlash against all non-Whites. Their perception is that the BNP is the only party unafraid and uncowed by political correctness to speak out sufficiently strongly against uncontrolled immigration.

He describes a time when “a common human link” between himself and an initially abusive Kashmiri was established after the latter had been persuaded that British whites losing their homeland to foreign influences was comparable to the situation in Kashmir. The Kashmiri even invited him to speak at his local community centre to expand on this theme, but this was declined on the grounds that he would have ended up “on a kebab skewer”. In a conversation with a Muslim, there was agreement that such a degree of unrestricted immigration would not have been tolerated in Pakistan or indeed any country uncontaminated by post-imperialist white guilt and the totalitarian censorship that is political correctness. A significant number of non-whites “instinctively feel there may well be a point where even the very tolerant British will pass a certain point when all foreigners will get it in the neck.” During the Muslim riots in Oldham, Bradford and Burnley, Sikhs felt that if this carried on, “the English are going to throw us all out.” The more Westernised Muslims are concerned that the “more wild and crazy Taliban-types from Afghanistan are giving them a bad name and in any case have no desire to live like them or to dress their women up like black crows. If the Taliban types were in, the first people they would eliminate would be these moderate mullahs because they would be seen as apostates.” Self-preservation then, is the operative reason for non-white support of the BNP.

Was there not an argument then for the BNP to allow non-whites to join since that would at once the remove the stigma of racism rendering them instantly more voter-friendly and inclusive?

He acknowledges that we now live in a multicultural and multiracial society but “all multiracial societies eventually slip towards a situation like Bosnia. It is a lesson of history. It is possible to stop it somewhere, but they tend to go down that road especially when there are limited resources. In a multicultural society each group rubs up against the other groups to get the biggest possible slice of the pie. If you have an unrepresented group, it will get a smaller share of the pie. There is a Black Police Officers Association, a Black Lawyers Association and so on pushing for the interests of their ethnic group while white police officers in politically correct London, Birmingham and Manchester have been threatened with expulsion if they join the BNP.”

He concedes that it would be helpful in refuting claims of racism if there were a number of “ethnics” in the BNP but until there is a level playing field for all, the interests of whites would be gradually eroded, since political parties are the only organisation which are legally allowed to discriminate in this way. The BNP will “multiculturalise” itself when and only when the institutions remove discrimination against whites as a whole. It is the notoriety of its colour bar which makes the BNP newsworthy and he seems to think that if that were dropped, the BNP would become just another ineffectual fringe party. The other reason he cites is the predictable disappointment of the BNP’s more “purist” supporters.

What is his view on compulsory identity cards, which seems an administratively efficient way of sorting out those entitled to remain from the others who do not?

He is against them on the grounds that the First and Second World War was fought precisely to distinguish Britain from the more authoritarian European countries. The absence of compulsory identity cards is a badge of British liberty and is a matter on which he says he will not compromise. While authoritarian governments would simply impose them without consent, he continued, liberals in favour of ID cards would deliberately allow, “in their hypocrisy, the problem to get so bad that their imposition comes to be accepted as inevitable and necessary”.

On economic policy, I asked him to comment on Lord Tebbit recently describing the BNP as “socialist” on BBC1’s Question Time. The Chairman is against international capitalism because he thinks it is by nature and inclination multicultural and refers to “parasites” in the City of London with a noticeable tinge of anti-capitalist venom. I would have thought that monocultural would have been a more accurate description since, as consumers, the international capitalists would wish us to become more uniform in our preferences so that these can be predicted, manipulated and catered for with greater ease.

I put it to him that a right wing Libertarian might think that Britain’s current social ills can be traced back to the foundation of the welfare state, so attractive to all classes, nations and races of scroungers. This must have been when the rot set in, since socialism made it possible for artificially high wages imposed by the unions as well as welfare handouts to enable the British to refuse low-paid jobs. The BNP however have plans to dismantle the welfare state and aims to maintain a fully-funded National Health Service. He makes the point that a liberal immigration policy would make any welfare ultimately unsustainable. He “wouldn’t say the BNP has a socialist economic policy”, but concedes that it is “way to the left of Tony Blair”.

Continuing his diatribe against Liberals, he points out that they in fact make things worse for the very people they mean to help. The birching of criminals – short, sharp shocks – would nip in the bud the criminal tendencies of young men. On the other hand, weakly discouraging them with lenient sentences does them a disservice since they will continue to re-offend until they become unemployable career criminals. The BNP would have them birched to very firmly discourage them, but without giving them a criminal record for the first offence, so that a line can be drawn under a criminal past. It has the advantage of being cheaper than prison.

Was there ever a golden age for the British people?

His chosen one is the age after serfdom had broken down, when a large number of yeomanry owned their land, were independent and responsible for their own lives – a time when freedom was balanced by order. The medieval serf, he pointed out, had to work one day in three for his feudal lord, “which sounds terrible but meant that the other days were free, making their tax freedom day March, compared to our tax freedom day which starts in June. We are therefore twice as heavily taxed as medieval peasants.”

We were agreed that confiscation of a citizen’s property and income amounts to an infringement of his freedom - the higher the tax, the greater the infringement on a citizen’s liberty. What would be the top rate of income tax under a BNP government?

It seems the BNP would abolish income tax altogether. Direct taxation of income has the effect of being a disincentive to hard work. The cleverest people direct their energies towards tax avoidance and collection and the best brains are therefore wasted in this unproductive exercise. If through indirect taxes revenue were raised on only luxury goods (which would include cars and televisions under a BNP government), revenue would be raised more cheaply and easily. These would be dearer under a BNP government, “but we would all have more money to pay for them. Income tax is evaded by the dishonest, the criminal and the illegal immigrant, but under indirect taxation, even the foreign tourist would pay tax. A BNP Chancellor would have the goal of raising revenue, and need not distinguish between whether he raises it from direct or indirect taxation, as long as the required sum was raised. Unemployed accountants (which he describes as “a total waste of economic resources”) and tax collectors would find new jobs as extra border guards to catch smugglers (smuggling being the only form of tax evasion available in a BNP Britain), drug-dealers and illegal immigrants.

Big business marginalizing the small independent shop-owner, and in particular Sainsbury’s supermarkets (being the Blair government’s biggest contributor), are excoriated as are Health Inspectors. “There is a direct correlation in the number of Public Health Inspectors and the number of food poisoning cases. They have both gone up at the same rate, so they haven’t achieved anything.” Instead of Health Inspectors a BNP Britain would have glass doors or CCTV in restaurant kitchens and any diner would have a right of inspection. Restaurants would be compelled by law to display a list of food poisoning cases that may have occurred which would cause restaurateurs to police themselves. That this might leave many of them vulnerable to false and malicious accusations of food poisoning and therefore not be very popular amongst restaurateurs was met with the reflection that food poisoning cases are very hard to prove anyway.

He believes Britain is full up with meddling bureaucrats who worsen the very problem their purpose it is to alleviate. The more that is done for people in the form of social services – child protection and the like – the less they will do for themselves. He proposes punishing those who fail to report child abuse if this leads to the death of a child. This struck me as going against the fundamental principle of English law that one is under no legal duty to save another’s life, or there would be no end to the prosecution and persecution of those who fail in this onerous and uncertain duty.

How would the BNP regulate race relations, assuming that non-whites would not be directed to the nearest ports of exit?

In practical terms I was told the BNP would repeal the Race Relations Act. If anyone in business is “sufficiently bigoted to turn down someone who is better for the job than somebody else, they are going to lose out. It is their human right to discriminate. If they want to lose money by not having a bright young computer engineer working for them because they are the wrong colour, then it is their right to do so. On the one hand you could say that it is bigoted and stupid. On the other you can say they are just doing what they want and are happier, and money isn’t everything. If they’re happier with their lives and their business and they feel they understand the person who’s working for them, then it is not for the state to interfere, either by saying you’re going to make more money this way and we’re going to force you or for reasons of social engineering we’re going to force you, because we want everyone to love each other. It is very short-sighted because for most Brits, the more this is forced on them, the more they resent it. So, we’d abolish the whole damned lot.” If this is really as far as it goes, then I cannot imagine that this would be considered extreme by those of a libertarian bent.

He impressed upon me his knowledge of the culture and behaviour of the different races. According to him, Sikhs are the Asians who have integrated particularly well. They do not present a demographic threat as they now have a birth rate as low as the whites, treat their women as equals, nor do they seek to impose their culture on others. The Muslims birth rate however is noticeably higher and the practice of their religion more fundamentalist with each subsequent generation. They appear to be “breeding their way to majority status. When they get their majority status then they oppress everybody else. That is what Islam does. It’s a very aggressive religion indeed.” He has this to say of the Koran: “It is not a “huge screed like the Bible. There’s hardly anything in it. It’s very light and simple. Look at it through the eyes of a troublemaker who wants power and influence in his community and see what they can say to an impressionable teenager. Islam is a religion which is fundamentally aggressive and intolerant, with an alienated population.”

My holidays in Turkey did not give me the impression of an intolerant society. He agrees that since Kemal Ataturk secularised the Turkish state, Turkey could more or less be regarded as part of the West, particularly in the cities. “The Wahabi sect founded in Saudi Arabia 250 years ago who massacred other Muslims in pursuit of its fundamentalist brand of ideology is now immensely strong. A mosque a week is being opened in Britain and the majority of them are being funded by Saudi oil money.” Saudi princes, he says, have been working under an arrangement with the Wahabists for the past 30 years whereby they fund the propagation of Wahabism and are in return left in peace to continue their dissolute lifestyle, in clear contravention of Islamic strictures. These Wahabi-sponsored mosques are not preaching moderation but the most fundamentalist of Islam fundamentalism, which is a “nightmare to live near”.

On the subject of the voluntary repatriation of non-Whites, I asked what sum I would receive if I took up the offer of repatriation in order to retire to the warmer climes of my country of origin. I was assured I would receive a full pension, but no more. The targeted group would be non-Whites of child-bearing age and their families.

How much would they get to help them go home?

He cannot put a figure on it because he doesn’t know how much the British taxpayer would be prepared to pay.

What is there to prevent a BNP government from ejecting all non-whites Idi Amin-style, without the benefit of a resettlement grant?

“Huge numbers of people have someone from an ethnic minority background that they’re very fond of, someone involved with their family, someone who’s a close friend. If we break our word in that regard and start hurling them out at gunpoint, we’re going to be voted out of office. It would not be practical, it would be inhuman, it would disrupt the economy. It’s got to be phased, steady and by agreement. If we hurled out all the non-white nurses, it would benefit their country to get them back, but would leave Britain in a health crisis and we would in turn be thrown out of government at the next election. If you say we would institute a dictatorship and not relinquish power, I would say we at the BNP believe that all governments incline towards tyranny given half a chance, eventually. The only ultimate guarantee against a tyrannical government is an armed people along the Swiss model, where every citizen would have a modern assault rifle. Switzerland has virtually no gun crime because its citizens are properly trained to handle firearms responsibly. It is practically uninvadable. Why bother if every single adult is trained in arms? Switzerland has mountains and we have a huge moat. This means that the defence bill can be cheaper and a government cannot infringe on the rights of its people because if it does the people can rise up and shoot the people who rule. That is the only guarantee of freedom: when the government knows that it governs on the sufferance and with the consent of the people. Once we arm the people we cannot be a government intending to impose our way like a latter-day Gestapo.” It might just be relevant to mention that Nick has lost the sight of one eye through a firearms accident in the 80s.

On the subject of Holocaust Denial over which he has made a number of controversial pronouncements, he accepts that he has been “rude” about the Holocaust but stresses that he has never denied that Jews were killed simply because they were Jews. Nationalists tend to be rude about the Holocaust, he explains, simply because they are always being accused of wanting to gas people whenever the subject of immigration is mentioned.

My final question was his favourite colour. “For the benefit of any journalist, I should say black or white, but the truth is that it is the green of spring beech leaves.”