Stormfront on Griffin
Am reading some interesting Stormfront forum footage concerning post-election Nick Griffin interviews. Griffin in this particular forum is criticised heavily by some white British nationalists for being too tolerant towards non-white people (plus Jews and Muslims etc.) Why? Because he said in a BBC interview that he would represent all people in his constituency regardless of race or ethnic group, as long as they were legal and paying taxes etc.
Griffin did keep emphasising that his first priority is representing the white working class but that he would also represent everyone else; for example if Pakistani British people from his constituency came to him for help in his MEP capacity he would try and help them.
Certain Stormfront forum users took this as meaning that Griffin is not concerned enough with race and that he is essentially endorsing multiculturalism.
One writer to the forum then said that the readers of the forum must understand that Griffin has to lie to become a player in mainstream politics.
More to the point is the fact that Griffin is legally obligated to represent all his constituents.
It’s odd and ironic watching Griffin being criticised for being too moderate.
Why should it be odd? For the last number of years, Griffin has been unambiguously criticizing anti-Semitism and saying it is both wrong in itself and a fatal distraction from the defense of the West, and he has also been kicking anti-Semites out of the BNP. Naturally the hard-line anti-Semites would be hostile to him, and I assume that that hostility has been expressed many times at forums such as Stormfront. The fact that the Stormfront types are now also criticizing him for saying that he would represent his constituents would only be a continuation of what I assume has been a long time unhappiness with him in those quarters.
I knew that Griffin was relatively moderate compared to Stormfront, but it is still odd to read the actual criticism. I had never seen criticism of him by Stormfront before.
I wonder if free market conservatives also criticise him/BNP for being too “left wing” or “socialist.” [LA replies: Of course they do, all the time.]
Funny, the Greens did better than the BNP and UKIP did much better … yet everyone on every talk show is talking about the BNP.
Most people phoning in support their right to be heard.
“Funny, the Greens did better than the BNP and UKIP did much better … yet everyone on every talk show is talking about the BNP.”
It’s not odd. The BNP with their ethnicity-conscious, pro-white British position represent the OPPOSITE of the sacred ruling principle of modern British society. Modern Britain and the modern West are organized around the principle that white people are guilty, that white people shall not discriminate against nonwhites (it doesn’t go the other way), that white people shall not exclude nonwhites, that whites must be completely open to nonwhites, and that white people have no right to maintain their historic societies. The BNP explicitly opposes all that. That’s why their victory is so significant and that’s why it represents the ultimate nightmare for modern liberal Britons and that’s why the liberals can’t stop obsessing about it, even though the BNP only won two seats. Such a dramatic breach in their anti-racist (meaning anti-white) ruling ideology completely freaks them out.
“Most people phoning in support their right to be heard.”
Ken Hechtman writes:
More to the point, these are two deliberate strategic decisions Nick Griffin made some time ago.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 13, 2009 10:37 AM | Send
1. He wants a break with the unreformed Nazis on Stormfront and elsewhere. The bigger, louder and more public, the better.
This (see attached photo) is what he’s up against. He needs to prove he isn’t one of those lunatics who wants to reopen Auschwitz and there is no better evidence he can present that he isn’t one of them than their own words to that effect.
2. BNP councilors are reinventing the party’s public image by doing exemplary constituency work. Even their black and brown constituents have been quoted in the British press saying so. Nick Griffin diverts party money and volunteer labor into his councilors’ constit work and this is unheard of. Every other politician, and this includes the ones I work for, lies awake at night thinking of ways to divert government money and manpower to party purposes. Nick Griffin is investing party resources in his party’s reputation for good government.