Last night, Channel 4 screened a documentary in which Keith Allen interviewed Nick Griffin, bringing more objectivity to the man and his politics than is usual for the liberal media.
Keith Allen is the father of singer-songwriter Lily Allen; he spoke approvingly of his daughter writing a song about the supposed evils of something called racism, a song with the alluring title F--k You, at least, that's how the man from SongFacts spells it. Filial pride or not, most men would not approve of their daughters cussin' an' cursin' like navvies.
Allen followed Griffin to his office in the European Parliament where he managed to interview him. In spite of his clear anti-Griffin bias, this was no hatchet job. For those who can receive it, the programme can currently be found here, otherwise watch out for it on YouTube.
As usual with any programme relating to the far right, the media wants to talk about one issue and one issue alone, race; the reason is not hard to seek. For the past forty years if not considerably longer, parties and pressure groups of the extreme left have made a comfortable living in Britain peddling the fascist menace usually with the implication that anyone who campaigns for a white or predominantly white Britain is the second coming of Adolf Hitler. The campaign against the so-called racist right has at times been hysterical, yet this has nothing at all to do with opposing bigotry and hatred while promoting the universal brotherhood of man. The proof of this pudding is in the eating.
In October 1994, a BBC news report revealed to the people of Britain that a foreign nation led by a great statesman was rounding up its immigrant black workers and shipping them en masse back to their countries of origin. No legal process, no polite collect your passport and report to the nearest airport even, rather arrrest, detention and deportation. Yet there was not so much as a whimper of protest from the usual suspects, the Socialist Workers Party and other apologists for the recent riots.
The name of the country concerned was South Africa, and the name of that great statesman? Nelson Mandela!
Indeed, such apparently racist deportations are nothing new, and they are ongoing. Recently, Saudi Arabia deported 78 foreign workers for no better reason than they were suffering from sexually transmitted diseases. Again, there was not a whimper from the “anti-racists” and defenders of minorities. Why not? Because the offending parties were not white, that is why not. Interestingly, at the time of the South African deportations, there was said to be much talk by South Africans - of all races - that the infernal immigrants were taking our jobs, responsible for organised crime, and so on. These are complaints that are echoed throughout history, and often they have little or nothing to do with race. While the natives are generally friendly towards tourists, they are often resentful of aliens who among other things are perceived as receiving preferential treatment, whether or not they actually are.
The British have long been perceived, rightly, as a soft touch as far as immigrants, refugees and latterly so-called asylum seekers are concerned. We have tolerated such undesirables as crank economist Karl Marx and convicted terrorist Abū Qatāda.
So why this double standard on race? The answer was provided by Lothrop Stoddard as long ago as 1920 when he wrote: “in every quarter of the globe, in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the United States, Bolshevik agitators whisper in the ears of discontented colored men their gospel of hatred and revenge. Every nationalist aspiration, every political grievance, every social discrimination, is fuel for Bolshevism's hellish incitement to racial as well as to class war.”
It is or should be quite clear that somebody has got it in for the White Man, indeed some - like Noel Ignatiev and his odious Race Traitor outfit - don't even bother to hide it, calling for the eradication (read genocide) of the White Race. So where does Islam fit into all this? Nowhere, as Mr Griffin well knows, yet according to him in this programme, Islam is a wicked and cruel faith, the Holy Qur’ān is a military manual, etc and ad nauseum. These are views Griffin has espoused publicly since well before 9/11, so what can be the reason? How about pragmatism?
By the late 1990s, the self-styled liberal elite that had done so much not only to tolerate but to promote both non-white immigration into these island and so-called multi-racialism was beginning to have second thoughts. They realised that Moslems especially were more independent-minded than the sheeple, and in addition to preserving their own culture they were revolted by what they perceived as Western decadance, including the promotion or simply tolerance of, homosexuality. Neither did they share the view peddled by the Zionist lobby and its fellow travellers that Israel is America's and our vital ally in the Middle East, an island of democracy in a sea of Arab tyranny.
Griffin and his fellow travellers, including the English Defence League, have been trying to straddle the fence, but this is a strategy that is doomed to fail, especially at a time when many Jews have woken up to the true nature of Zionism, and are more than willing to join in the struggle for a fair and just settlement to the issue of Palestine.
If Griffin had an iota of either common sense or decency he would realise that true Islam is not an enemy but ally of the West, or can he really have forgotten its prohibition of usury? Alas, his betrayal of the late John Tyndall, who invited him into the party at a time when no one else would touch him, reveals that he is sorely lacking in the decency and integrity departments. In any case, both he and the BNP are going nowhere; it is not political parties but pressure groups, lobbying and the dissemination of ideas that change the world, or even Britain, for better or for worse.
The one positive thing that should be said about Griffin is his views on the war on terror; we should not have invaded Iraq and we should not be in Afghanistan. Many people realised this before our governments toppled Saddam Hussein, now the only people who don't, are those who think they have a vested interest in believing the contrary.