By their fruits (or lack of them) shall you know them

Nick Griffin

Our Most Visible Enemy

There is a legion of strawmen in the following article, which may have its origin in a dispute at the recent AmRen conference. Griffin's claim that Euro-American racialists sympathize with Islam is an exaggeration, almost a libel, and Griffin selects as his most prominent antagonist the eccentric Michael Hoffmann, an irrational Islamophile who is not a White nationalist. (If you have nothing better to do with your time, Hoffman's blog post, to which Griffin is responding, is here.)

It is, furthermore, far from conspiracy fiction to say that neoconservative Jews, acting in the interests of Israel and against the interests of the United States, were responsible for the disastrous Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. That proposition, once almost the exclusive preserve of far-right websites, has just now entered the mainstream of political discourse via an academic study of the Israel Lobby published by Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. (See Justin Raimundo's summary of the study here and the full text, in PDF, here). Put simply, if there were no Jews in the United States, or if Jews were excluded from any role in shaping American Mideast policy, or if Jews were not so massively overrepresented among opinion-shaping elites, the American military would not be in Baghdad today. Since the Iraq invasion has thus far cost over two thousand American lives, along with the lives of about one hundred thousand Iraqis, criticism of the Jewish power that engineered the invasion is hardly a cultish exercise. Being right should count for something, even if it doesn't make you popular.

We should all, however, be clear about the central issue that Nick Griffin addresses. The Islamic invasion of Europe is the greatest threat our Western civilization faces. If identifying and attacking Jewish power leaves the impression that you sympathize with Islam, or more specifically that you are indifferent to the catastrophe of Muslim immigration into the West, then you should stop attacking Jewish power. In terms of what Griffin calls "real politics in the real world," which is different from Internet politics, your worst enemy is your most visible enemy, and no one could accuse Muslims in the West of failing to make their aggression plainly visible. No rational non-Muslim looks forward to an Islamic Europe, but an Islamic Europe is a certainty unless Whites regain the will to defend our civilization. The opinions of a dedicated and successful nationalist politician, who has done much to alert Britons to the existential threat of colonizing Muslim immigration and the suicidal insanity of multiracialism, are therefore of interest to all White nationalists.


"Don't let yourself be played like a fiddle" was the warning I received the other day from an American nationalist whose dedication to the cause of white survival is without doubt very sincere. The warning relates to the way in which the British National Party is positioned very firmly to benefit politically from ever-growing popular concern about the rise of Islam. The concern behind it is the belief that the growth of such sentiment is all part of a plot by powerful neo-conservatives to get America, Britain and the nations of Europe to invade the Middle East and make the world safe for the Zionist state of Israel. By extension, anyone who criticises Islam is liable to be accused by hardcore adherents of this theory of "working for the Jews."

As a matter of fact, I have no doubt at all that the neo-con clique around George Bush are indeed influenced by such considerations; the power of the Zionist lobby in American politics is a straightforward political fact of life. The purpose of this article is neither to rehash nor to deny the material that proves this to be the case.

Nor am I launching a personal attack on Michael Hoffmann, author of the excellent book They Were White and They Were Slaves, who has recently criticised me for describing Islam as an evil religion (actually I said it was a "vicious, wicked faith", but I'll go with "evil" too). But it is to sound in return my own warning to people whose one-track concern about "the Jews" is blinding them to the clear and present danger of resurgent Islam.

Mike is one such person. "What is it about the Koran or Muhammad that makes Islam evil?" he asks, alleging as he does so that such claims are "racist neo-con propaganda". Oh dear, the words "lost" and "plot" spring to mind, although there's nothing here that a day or two living with a white (or, for that matter, Hindu or Pakistani Christian) family in Muslim-dominated parts of Bradford wouldn't cure.

Bloody history

So for those who haven't had the benefit of such intensive diversity training, where should we start? How about the Koran's advocacy of world conquest and the subjugation or murder of non-Muslims? How about the fact that Allah told his followers that the whole world is their Promised Land (tough on the previous occupants), which is surely a bit more drastic than the most extreme Zionists' claim on the bit of desert between the Nile and the Euphrates? Or how about the mass beheadings of POWs, the rape of their wives and the enslavement of their children, as practised with gusto by Muhammad, thereby providing religious justification for such horrors and an example of Islamic 'best practice' for all time? What's evil about Islam? Go ask the Serbs, go ask the Sikhs, go ask the remnants of once vibrant Christian communities in Pakistan or Egypt, come ask the mothers of Keighley.

Albanian Muslims deface (and urinate in) a Serbian Orthodox Church, burned during an anti-Serb pogrom in Kosovo.

I cannot for the life of me see how the fact that there are also some thoroughly unpleasant 'racist' sections in the Talmud can in some way make it wrong for genuine European patriots to warn of the danger posed by mass Muslim immigration. Not least because the Talmud is only a collection of ancient and often contradictory commentaries and debates, which individual Jews are not obliged to study or believe. This is very different from the position with the Koran, which all Muslims are obliged -- on pain of death for apostasy -- to follow as the literal word of Allah.

Furthermore, in real politics in the real world, one's proper choice of enemy is a group who you gain a worthwhile level of extra support by identifying, who you have a realistic chance of beating, and whose defeat will take you the furthest towards your goal. With millions of our people desperately and very reasonably worried by the spread of Islam and its adherents, and with the mass media -- for a variety of reasons, to which we will come later in this essay -- playing 'Islamophobic' messages like a scratched CD, the proper choice of enemy needn't be left to rocket scientists.

British future

Mr. Hoffmann's polemic may look good on paper, but here in Britain, we are not, contrary to his analysis, fighting Islamification on behalf either of the US Federal government or the 'right' of Elton John to 'marry' his boyfriend. We fight it because it is incompatible with the fundamental values of our civilisation, and because its followers would, if victorious, reduce our grandchildren to tax cows and sexual playthings.

Yes, I know, you can say such things have already come to pass under our present masters, and if we had a record of silence on such things we could indeed fairly be criticised as hypocrites. But we do not. The BNP has always taken a strong position on such issues, and continues to do so. We do not need lectures from anyone about the dangers and injustices of free market capitalism, and not only would we not allow Elton John to marry his boyfriend but our proposals for a strengthened Clause 28 would prevent such a sick parody of real marriage being shown on TV in any case.

Nor can we accept Mr. Hoffmann's ridiculous suggestion that "If King Alfred the Great or Edward I could see Britain today they would join the Muslims in their protests and demonstrations rather than support so foul and degenerate a system." For a start, Alfred was not that far from being a contemporary of Charles Martel, and would no doubt have reacted the same way to that great Frankish king had a Moorish invasion fleet landed on the coast of Dorset. And Edward I came from the era of the Crusades, when huge Western armies battled not only to secure access for Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, but also in a vital defensive backlash against centuries of Muslim aggression on the shrinking frontiers of Christendom itself.

Failure of American nationalists

Now, Mr. Hoffmann is a well-read man with a genuinely wide knowledge of European history, and he for one is certainly not in it for the money. The underlying problem here is not ignorance, nor even, in reality, a soft spot for Muslim immigration. It is the utter failure of people like him in the USA to build a political power-winning machine for genuine nationalism. This is what leads to the absurd idea that the only choice is between supporting Muslim demonstrators or favouring the degenerate, atomised and crassly materialistic society that they want to tear down.

If people like Mr. Hoffmann had spent more time working out how to build a serious grassroots political movement, and less time worrying about whether the Moon Landings actually happened or not, then they would perhaps realise that it is possible to oppose both the Islamification of the Western world and the neo-cons' drive to annexe the Middle East.

They might also work out that to give such opposition the slightest chance of success one has to make hardball political decisions about engaging with the public in terms that they can understand, instead of treating them with thinly veiled contempt or even hatred and damning them for failing to grasp at once the brilliance of one's own esoteric insights.

So allow me to return the favour of the well-intended caution at the start of this essay by issuing a sincere warning of my own to the same people who are worrying -- or in some cases seeking to make political mischief with the allegation -- that the BNP is "dancing to the neocon tune."

First of all, let's recap on just how many positions we take which are diametrically opposed to the neo-con agenda:

1) We are against the war in Iraq;

2) We are against overseas military adventures generally (though sending an SAS platoon to arrest and hang Robert Mugabe, and halt the persecution and extermination of the last white Rhodesians would be the exception to prove the rule);

3) We don't want to export our political system to the Third World;

4) We don't believe in imposing our economic system by force;

5) We don't believe in multi-culturalism;

6) We don't believe in laissez-faire economics domestically;

7) We oppose international free trade;

8) We don't believe in 'propositional nations';

9) We don't seek to impose Western culture on the whole world.

This final point leads us, in passing, to note the fundamental similarity between Islam and neo-conservatism, whereby both favour one all-encompassing global system, against which resistance is regarded as immoral heresy, and whose triumph will usher in the 'end of history'.

In statistical terms, the individuals who -- despite all the evidence to the contrary -- confuse us with, or accuse us of supporting, the neo-cons, are utterly irrelevant. But in the white nationalist movement in its broadest sense they are, while clearly in the minority, still a significant element. Particularly in the United States, in Germany, and among small theoretical groups in most European countries (Britain included), there are a fair few sincere people who are quite convinced that we shouldn't be nasty to Islam and that "the real enemy is the Jew."


So here's my warning to these people: The enemy of your old enemy may turn out not to be your friend, but something much worse. And, on top of that piece of facts-of-life commonsense, there is a piece of plain realpolitik that those who attack the BNP stance on Islam should also take into account:

They are perilously close to entrenching themselves in political dead ground from which there can be no escape. Instead of working to take advantage of the biggest crisis that the genocidal multi-culti 'experiment' has ever faced, they are in danger of turning themselves into a despised, powerless and doomed cartoon caricature -- a composite of Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw Haw and Jane Fonda. Truly, they are living examples of the old adage that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, and then as farce. [Image: Cartoon jihadist in London.]

When the overwhelming majority of the instinctively patriotic people of our nations feel threatened by an alien force which is self-evidently evil by Christian and democratic secular values alike, to place oneself in the position whereby our political opponents can portray you as an enemy sympathiser, a collaborator, a traitor, is political suicide.


That a significant number of US-based white nationalists look set to make precisely this catastrophic blunder is, as a matter of fact, no surprise: The USA is, after all, the country whose 'far-right' leadership has consistently failed even to establish a viable national organisation. They have freedoms, opportunities and resources that we European nationalists can only dream of, yet the USA shares with Ireland alone in the white world the dishonour of not having a proper nationalist political party. By what monumental arrogance do such pathetic failures claim the right to criticise others, while their own people are doomed to perish not just for want of a realistic vision, but even of an organisation that will even try to save them?

The Irish have a valid excuse -- the IRA threaten, beat and are willing to shoot anyone who opposes their ethnocidal neo-Marxist multi-culti version of 'nationalism' -- but the American leaders have none. "The country's too big"? Nonsense; distance and sparse population didn't stop Pauline Hanson frightening the life out of the Australian Establishment, before her inexperience, naivety and a clique of liberal civic nationalist advisors killed off her grassroots rebellion. "Americans are too individualistic on account of their Anglo-Celtic roots?" That won't do either. Again, Australians are even more so, and, in any case, Americans of German, Italian, Slavic, etc descent almost certainly outnumber those whose ancestors hailed from the British Isles, so this old excuse is precisely that.

No! If you seek the reason for the organisational void in American nationalism, blame several generations of self-appointed leaders and self-publicists who have consistently let down their dedicated, loyal, generous, good-hearted followers by one shatteringly bad judgement call after another. Now they are doing it again, by abandoning the proper nationalist stance of complete neutrality and isolationism in connection with the endless quarrel between two rival bands of Middle Easterners. Siding with Islam against the neocons is no more a viable tactic than volunteering to infect yourself with the Ebola virus instead of AIDS.

Most ironic of all, in doing so, by defending and excusing Islam, they are cutting themselves off so thoroughly from any possibility of winning public support, and thus they are playing into the hands of the very neo-cons they are so desperate to oppose.


The neocon push for an endless war in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, for the 'democratisation' of the entire Muslim world is a reality. And it is wrong -- wrong strategically, tactically, practically and morally. But precisely because the people pushing for it are so influential and so ruthless, the only thing that can stop their war (and it can be stopped, because they are ordinary mortals, not demigods or the Devil incarnate) is the effective mobilisation of mass support for the withdrawal of Western troops from the Middle East, and non-involvement over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

To do that, those who oppose the neocons' schemes in the Middle East have to be able to connect with huge numbers of ordinary people in order to mobilise that mass support. Our message must therefore be within the reach of the mass mind.

That doesn't mean that we have to repeat slavishly what is said in the mainstream media, but it does mean that our message must be couched in terms close enough to popular opinion, as shaped by that media, to be listened to with interest and sympathy, rather than being instantly dismissed as the ravings of lunatics.

The aims must be principled and inflexible; the means as flexible as required to be achievable; and when it comes to the ways in which those means are 'sold' to the public, 'will they buy this?' is the only question worth asking. I'm sorry if that makes me sound like a Leninist, but the ability and willingness to grasp these hard political realities is the thing that marks out the serious would-be revolutionaries from the tough-talking do-nothings, the cranks and the Snake Oil salesmen. [Image: Exporting democracy.]

Closed shop

Only a vanishingly small proportion of the general population of the West even know about, let alone give any credence to, the plethora of 'right-wing' websites that maintain that "9/11 was carried out by the Mossad" or that Iran is a great place because it hosts the occasional conference on Holocaust revisionism. But such is human nature -- especially as amplified by the World Wide Web's hyper-democracy in ideas -- that those who believe such things unwittingly set up a closed feedback loop among themselves.

This makes them ever more certain that they are right and -- what is far more dangerous among people who need to win popular support to achieve anything -- more and more certain that the public only have to be told "the truth" for them to jump to their side, and that anyone who proposes a different strategy is a fool, an enemy agent or a traitor (if that sounds just like the neo-cons, their Marxist predecessors, or their Muslim alter-egos that's no surprise, for all these mindsets are quintessentially non-European in origin and totalitarian by nature).

So, without a second thought as to the effectiveness of their 'strategy', these Internet cockerels of the anti-Semitic new dawn stand on their virtual dung heaps and crow that "We're in the Middle East for the Jews. This is a war for Israel, organised as part of a Jewish plot to rule the world."

To which, and here's the problem in practical terms: Perhaps 30% of the entire population immediately think "great, let's hope the Jews and Our Boys win and wipe out those limb-amputating, suicide-bombing Arab Muslims," and go back to their sitcoms and football games.

Probably another 60% of the entire population have been trained from infancy by the TV stations and teachers of the most efficient brainwashing machine in human history to regard any criticism of Israel, especially coming from white nationalists, as proof of a secret desire to herd Jews into gas chambers. Accordingly, they also turn their backs against anyone saying such things. Thus the claim that "We're in the Middle East for the Jews. This is a war for Israel organised as part of a Jewish plot to rule the world" has precisely the opposite effect on around 90% of the population to that which we must presume is intended by those who make it (though bitter experience tells us that some of those screaming such things the loudest are agent provocateurs seeking to demonise and disrupt the nationalist movement).

Tactics for losing

Such Charge of the Light Brigade tactics may, by a certain distorted light, be 'magnificent', but they are certainly not politics. And, unless abandoned by a defining majority of the people who should be organising the resistance to current trends and policies, they won't just kill a few hundred unfortunate cavalrymen (in an earlier daft war that was nothing to do with us) but our entire race.

Even if every single bombing attack on Western targets, 9/11, Paris, Bali, Madrid, assorted embassies and 7/7 included, was carried out by Mossad agents, it wouldn't advance our cause one iota to say so. In fact such an idea is so out of kilter with overwhelming popular belief that it marks out to the public those who propagate it as mad.

This is not good politics, and can only be indulged in by those who have spent so much time talking and emailing only with their fellow 'extremists' that they have lost touch with reality as the rest of the world sees it -- or by individuals to whom those same 'extremists' are not potential allies with whom to work to break out of the nationalist ghetto, but a meal ticket. It's bad enough in the United States, but it is positively suicidal in Europe, Britain included, because the vast majority of the population which is most likely to be receptive to our nationalist message is already wary (to use what is probably a gross understatement) of Muslims. To even hint of making common cause with Islam -- or put ourselves in a position when opponents can suggest to the masses that this is the case -- is political insanity. [Image: Islam lands in America.]

And yet this is precisely what some nationalists in Germany, for example, did in the wake of 9/11, and it is exactly what some nationalist revisionists in Britain, the USA, Italy, and so on are doing over the Danish cartoon controversy.