Nick Griffin’s hidden agenda

— Editor’s note: This post is republished from Shane Croucher’s personal blog, our Asst. Deputy Editor. This is an insightful and well-researched piece and does not necessarily represent the views of The Linc or the University of Lincoln.

I’m surprised that I’ve never seen the above clip before. I’m equally surprised that it’s been viewed less than 9,000 times. This is the kind of evidence that needs to be spread far and wide. Nick Griffin openly declares that the BNP hide behind a soft lexis of propaganda in order to gain popularity. Perhaps more shockingly, he happily reveals his true agenda — a whites-only Britain.

In the video, Griffin imparts BNP spin-tactics. He says:

There’s a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. The British National Party isn’t about selling out its ideas — which are your ideas too — but we are determined now to sell them. That means to use saleable words.

Basically, Griffin has told an audience consisting of David Duke supporters, i.e. racists, that the BNP holds the same views. He categorically says that the BNP has not changed at its core. It’s still the same fascist National Front that it used to be. Yet it is gaining popularity. Some people are starting believe that they aren’t racist, just realist. They’re falling for the softly-softly BNP spin and being lured in by the buzz-words. Griffin sheds light on their new propaganda tactic:

[selling our ideas] basically means using saleable words… freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable.

Griffin clearly identifies areas that the BNP can manipulate and distort in order to gain support for the party. The idea that your freedom is at risk from foreign invaders, you should feel insecure because of the risk of terrorism, misrepresenting perceptions of political correctness as erosion of identity and heritage. I could go on. Hyperbole, fear-mongering, and scapegoats are the BNP’s most powerful weapons.

The man showed that he is intent on duping the public into thinking the BNP holds legitimate views when he said if the BNP is “subtle enough” then they may find themselves in control of the media, and subsequently in a position to brainwash the electorate into wanting the removal of all non-whites from Britain. This is abhorrent, scary, and once again highlights that the BNP are not fit to be listed as a political party.

Griffin says:

“If you hold that [fascist policy] out as your sole aim to start with, you’re going to get nowhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity we talk about identity.”

The evidence just comes through thick and fast. The BNP do not want non-whites in Britain, no matter what they say in the press or on their website. They will use the public’s desperation at our current ruling elite to gain popularity and pursue their hidden motives. The truth lies under the surface as has been proven time and time and time again.

Nick Griffin once said:

Without the white race nothing matters. [Other right-wing parties] believe that the answer to the race question is integration and a futile attempt to create “Black Britons”, while we affirm that non-whites have no place here at all and will not rest until every last one has left our land.

There’s no room for the BNP in Britain.

12 Responses to Nick Griffin’s hidden agenda

  1. Roy Webb says:

    Will the BNP be allowed a right of reply? Or is “control of the media” ok as long as it’s by people like Croucher? Does Croucher seriously believe that British identity actually isn’t at risk from multiculturalism and mass immigration? When are we going to hear about the Communist histories of the senior Labour ministers, or the criminals at Searchlight?

    It’s interesting to see Croucher say that the media can be used to brainwash the public. That shows what contempt he has for the average person. Never mind that the ‘mainstream’ government has introduced Orwellian “hate speech” laws which have nothing to with stopping “hate” but are all about controlling which opinions we’re allowed to hear. Is Croucher ok with this type of censorship?

  2. Miriam Binder says:

    @ Roy Webb #1 – Could you define British Identity please? I’ve heard it bandied about quite a bit but no one has yet been able to define it – though they do not appear to have any trouble in determining that ‘it’ (whatever ‘it’ is) is at risk.

  3. Dave says:

    ”Will the BNP be allowed a right of reply? Or is “con­trol of the media” ok as long as it’s by people like Croucher? Does Croucher ser­i­ously believe that Brit­ish iden­tity actu­ally isn’t at risk from mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism and mass immig­ra­tion? When are we going to hear about the Com­mun­ist his­tor­ies of the senior Labour min­is­ters, or the crim­in­als at Searchlight?

    It’s inter­est­ing to see Croucher say that the media can be used to brain­wash the pub­lic. That shows what con­tempt he has for the aver­age per­son. Never mind that the ‘main­stream’ gov­ern­ment has intro­duced Orwellian “hate speech” laws which have noth­ing to with stop­ping “hate” but are all about con­trolling which opin­ions we’re allowed to hear. Is Croucher ok with this type of censorship? ”

    When Griffin talks about ‘controlling the media’ he means getting goons like ‘Roy Webb’ to troll around the net providing ‘spontaneous opinion’ in the vague belief that this will foster some kind of popular revolt, or shuffle to the far right. Roy Webb is a sad man – I bet he has many other monickers too. Get out the house a little Roy, for goodness sake!

    The funny thing is, Roys attitude represents a form of totalitarian thinking in itself. The idea that you have the ‘truth’ and all you have to do is ‘put it out there’ and the ‘people’ will flock towards your pathetic cause.

    Sounds like brain washing to me, an old Nazi – o sorry I meant ‘euro nationalist’ – trick.

  4. Hello Roy,

    The comments section underneath my article is free and open – surely the perfect forum for right of reply?

    When Griffin talks about “control of the BBC” in the video, he is referring to directly influencing the political ideology in order to control public opinion. As far as I’m aware, as bad as Labour and the Tories are, they don’t do this when in power. The BBC remains independent, despite its public funding. This is something that Griffin would clearly like to change.

    What is the British Identity and how is it being eroded? Once you’ve presented your case, i’ll respond.

    Of course the media can be used to brainwash the public – that’s exactly what propaganda is designed to do. Look at the tabloids and the bile they produce. Whether an article is based on fact is seemingly irrelevant, yet look at how much influence they have on public thinking, particularly the Mail and The Sun.

    Sure, the government has eroded our civil liberties in the name of counter-terrorism – something I totally disagree with. The clampdown on protesting is abhorrent, and is something we should be very concerned about. However, in terms of speaking like we are on here, public speaking, blogs, newspapers etc free speech still exists. It’s enshrined in article 10 of the European Human Rights Act. If you genuinely believe your right to free speech has been infringed, take it to the courts – they’ll rule in your favour if it genuinely has. As long as you’re not inciting racial or religious hatred, you’re free to say what you wish.

    However, using ‘free speech’ as a blanket of protection for spreading vile racist opinion is just not acceptable.

  5. Steve says:

    Yeah, yeah, keep dreaming… don’t be jealous at the BNPs success. They will continue to grow and they certainly are NOT racists!

  6. Roy Webb says:

    “However, using ‘free speech’ as a blanket of protection for spreading vile racist opinion is just not acceptable.”

    Pompous, arrogant rubbish. Clearly you’re not too worried about being ‘incited to hatred’ as you trawl through Youtube listening to Griffin’s speeches. What makes you and the thought police different to the rest of us? How do we know you haven’t been intellectually contaminated with all that exposure to ‘hate’? ‘Hate speech’ law is not actually about stopping people speaking – it’s about stopping people listening. You can then label any opinion you don’t like as ‘hate’ and criminalise it. Trying to police people’s emotions is evil and fascistic. How easy would it be to ban, say, pro-atheist or pro-abortion ideas under the guise of some kind of ‘hate’ argument?

    Where’s the victim in a ‘hate speech’ crime anyway – we already have laws to prevent people committing violent acts or inciting them. Could you please define ‘hate’? And what happens when a person incites hate while relaying factual information? Should they still be prosecuted? The laws make no provision for truth. What if I called Heidi Klum and Seal’s children ‘mongrels’? Would that be hate speech?

    The BBC is a left-leaning organisation, generally sympathetic to Labour although not controlled by them. Andrew Marr would know – read his opinion http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6764779.stm. Don’t The Guardian and Hope Not Hate promote racial tension against whites by only reporting racist attacks against non-white people? The majority of such attacks are against whites. Aren’t they spewing bile?

    What is Shane and Miriam’s problem with identifying British Identity? In a ‘multicultural society’ why is it that the only culture they have trouble defining is British? Are they equally confused by notions of Pakistani or Tibetan identity?

    Shane, the East End Cockney culture is a very visible example of native British culture being eroded by mass immigration. Where I used to live the people used to refer to themselves as British – now they refer to themselves as Bangladeshi. That’s an example erosion of British identity in Britain.

    Dave, Griffin never ‘got’ me to do anything – I’ve never met or spoken to him in my life. Good to see the ‘Nazi’ slur in there – proof you’re all out of genuine arguments. Keep ’em coming…

  7. The only reason you had two MEPs elected is because of the disillusionment with mainstream parties, not an increase in support. In both the regions where the BNP had candidates elected to the European Parliament, the BNP vote was actually down on 2004.

    Open your eyes, they are inherently racist – does the video not show you that? Or the other examples I gave at the bottom? Or the swathes of other evidence out there?

  8. Ivy Norton says:

    Excellent points, Roy, I totally agree with you. Where I was born in North London – I live 200 miles away now – you barely see a white person or hear English spoken. It breaks my heart. All my wonderful childhood memories of where I was brought up and all the lovely people and friends I knew have all been replaced by third-world immigrants.

    White flight they call it, but we had no choice. I went there last year for a nostalgic visit and was met with Muslim women wrapped up in black, Halal meat shops, African shops and graffiti everywhere. Our chip shop was an Indian takeaway. It was painful, like grieving and I’ll never forgive the successive traitorous British governments since the second world war, especially this foul Labour government for what they’ve done to our country. And the foul Tories for selling us out to the European cesspit of corruption. Snouts in the trough is putting it very mildly. Needless to say I will not be voting for any of the Labour, Tory, or Liberal traitors.

  9. Mark Watson says:

    The BNP are all ignorant and mad racists.
    It is a tradgedy that they and thier vile members do little but attempt to spread thier doctrine of hate.
    I am appalled that they spout on about ‘ freedom ‘ and ‘ democracy ‘ as they campaign to do away with both for many.

  10. I’m not worried about being ‘incited to hatred’, because I’m not susceptible to Griffin’s propagndist nonsense – but some people are. That’s a cause for concern.

    Of course the law is there to stop people listening – listening to racially charged nonsense aimed at segregating society, targeting specific racial groups for hate based on one thing alone – the colour of their skin.

    You completely miss the point about labeling hate speech – you can differentiate between sensible debate and hate speech. Calling mixed race children mongrels is pretty disgusting. You clearly use the term for emotional effect, contextualising the mixing of races as animalistic – mongrels being a term used for animals – so, hate speech? I don’t know, but one thing’s for sure is the contempt in the tone of your writing. It’s not always necessarily what you say, but how you say it.

    Hope Not Hate is an organisation aimed at directly targeting the BNP. The BNP, as I’m sure you’re aware, is a white organisation that doesn’t like other races. So, of course they’re going to cover white on black race crime, as that’s what the BNP has links to. Race hate crime is universally wrong, whether it’s white on black, black on white – whatever. It’s totally unacceptable. You can’t justify race hate crime in any situation.

    I don’t have problem with labeling British Identity. Everything from Shakespeare, to being well-mannered and polite, to the amazing architecture of our cathedrals and castles all make up parts of our culture and identity. Is this defined by race? No. Is this being ‘eroded’? No. Point me to the evidence that it is.

    BBC and a left-wing bias? I don’t know, there’s evidence to show the opposite http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/08/mehdi-hasan-bbc-wing-bias-corporation

    East Enders in London? Wasn’t that an area that had masses of Irish immigrants who made up a large part of the Cockneys? Hardly British, is it. London has always been a melting pot.

    I actually love East London as it is – I’ll be moving to Bethnal Green when I graduate. The mix of cultures and communities is something that hugely appeals to me.

  11. David Rowlands says:

    There is nothing duplicitous in Nick Griffin’s spiel. As ethno-nationalists the BNP rightly view ‘non-white’ immigration as detrimental to British national identity. This is a fact which the BNP quite openly has not budged from – thankfully. I hope that the BNP will retain this view, for it is only by the propagation of this fact that we Britons will ensure our national survival. To re-assert our British identity as ethnic EUROPEANS will go a long way to doing this, and will ensure that the continued presence of non-British ethnic groups in the UK -( which the BNP accepts as real politique, rather than as a political ideal as anti-British leftists and liberals do) will not lead to the eventual destruction of the British people due to recent ‘non-white’ immigration.

    P.S Miriam Binder: I have been unequivocal about what is British identity. Identity is not code, it is what we see ourselves as being. The BNP aim to re-assert British ethnic identity in the face of systematic and institutional denigration and attack.

  12. Emily Gough says:

    Some of you are claiming that this man deserves to be anything other than despised. That makes me terrified to be a Briton, to live in a country where people can be attacked by ignorant fascists just because they have a different colour skin or have a different sexual preference — to me is not only wrong but shocking and I can only thank Shane for bringing this to the attention of more than those who would have seen it.