Current Issue
Next Issue
Back Issues
Marxist Theory
Socialist History
Left Politics
Left Groups
New Interventions
Islamophobia Watch

How to Achieve an All-White Britain

Nick Griffin

This article was first published in the November 1998 issue of John Tyndall’s fascist magazine Spearhead, of which Griffin was editor, under the title "No time for Peter Pan! Nick Griffin says that ‘extremists’ need to grow up".

The article was a response to criticism of the BNP by other far-right groups, following a radio interview in which Michael Newland, then a leading figure in the party, had publicly abandoned the BNP's longstanding policy of compulsory ‘repatriation’ for the non-white population of the UK in favour of a ‘voluntary’ scheme.

Griffin made it clear that the change of line was not a change of principle but merely a tactical adaptation to popular consciousness, and that the BNP's objective was to transform Britain into a "99 per cent genetically white country".

ARE YOU sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin. By the standards of normal politics and public relations, Mike Newland’s two-hour interview on the popular James Whale show on Talk Radio was a triumph for the BNP. As the talk show host and his obviously vetted callers grew more and more desperate in their attempts to discredit the party, Mr. Newland’s calm, reasonable presentation of the case for nationalism and against multi-racialism brought a long burst of commonsense to a medium generally dominated by the prejudices of the metropolitan elite.

Yet, while huge numbers of more than two million listeners in homes and cars all over Britain were nodding their heads in agreement with the British National Party spokesman, a few individuals who believe themselves to be exempt from the standards of normal politics were rubbing their hands over an opportunity to attack us. Within days, their well-oiled little machines rolled into action, sending tapes and e-mails to our local units, accusing Mike Newland and the BNP of "selling out" and "going soft."

In order to try to make these claims stick, they had to ignore a great deal of what Mike had actually said: His repeated insistence to a black caller that, just because she was born in Britain, it is not her land of ethnic origin; his criticism of the double-standards of the Zionist lobby; his skilful hammering home of the point that Britain is the homeland of the British people, that it is the only one that we’ve got, and that, on present trends, we are losing it.

Perhaps most significant of all, Mike forced a well-known national radio presenter and staunch advocate of multi-racialism to admit on the most popular radio talk show in Britain that, on present trends, the British look set to become first a minority, and then a memory, in their own country. The cat is out of the bag! That must have shaken many tens of thousands of people into looking at what’s happening in their towns in a very different light.

Unmobilised army
Remember why the party agreed to send a spokesman to be grilled by the pushy and aggressive Mr. Whale – it was because it was felt that the interview could provide a platform for the BNP. A platform for what? So that we could preen and puff ourselves up over how our small but perfectly formed private debating society had told ‘them’ how hardline we are, and never mind that in doing so we had reinforced the stereotyped belief of many ordinary listeners that British nationalists are ‘unreasonable extremists’? Or so that we could encourage some of the vast unmobilised army of disenfranchised and discontented Britons to think that, after all, there might just be an organisation out there which speaks for them, in the reasoned, quiet, decent voice with which our people have traditionally spoken?

So what do these cranks want us to do? Go on national radio and advocate a policy under which, under even cursory questioning by a hostile interviewer, one has to admit would involve compulsion, whereupon the public are regaled with false, but very upsetting, images of whole families being dragged, kicking and screaming, from their homes.

No doubt there are some thousands of Britons in whom the horrors of enforced multi-racialism have bred such desperation and hatred that they would actually relish the idea. But let’s keep our heads out of clouds of tear gas and our feet firmly on the real ground.

There are millions of voters in this country – perhaps 95 per cent of the total – who would say that immigration should be stopped. There are certainly almost as many – including a majority of blacks and a fair few Asians – who would agree that generous grants should be made available for those who wish to return to their lands of ethnic origin. There are millions, almost certainly a majority, and certainly enough to elect a government, who would go along with the proposal that it’s time to reverse the politically correct denigration and dismantling of native British culture, traditions and identity.

For all the media guff about "diversity and cultural enrichment" most of the white people of Britain wouldn’t shed any tears if every non-white in the country was simply to disappear overnight, but no more than two or three in every hundred of them – believing and feeling what they do after years of brainwashing – would agree that half-castes and the second generation coloured lad who drinks in their local should be forced to pack up and go along with all the rest.

I wish with all my heart that this was not so. As Mike told the Talk Radio audience, the recent DNA research, by Oxford University’s Institute of Molecular Medicine, which showed that literally 99 per cent of the people in these islands whose families were here before 1948 are descended from the European pioneers who settled here between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago (or perhaps from more recent European immigrants of exactly the same origins; it is not clear if the researchers considered this possibility), illustrates the priceless genetic treasure which a few hundred treacherous politicians have sullied, and are working to destroy forever.

Criminal politicians
One day they must be called to explain that treason, but the crime against our ancestors and our unborn posterity has been committed by the politicians and their well-placed allies, not by the immigrants who were their pawns. They too were duped and exploited, with tales of "streets of gold" and "your mother country welcomes you." However much we dislike the mess of which they are a part, they and their children are not to blame, and the British people – with their infuriating muddle-headedness, sympathy for the underdog, and their lack of understanding of the genetic threat their presence poses – will never elect a government which proposes to make them suffer for it.

I used to think otherwise, then to hope otherwise, then to kid myself otherwise, but this is the truth – and you probably already know that it is the truth. Over the last year I have been approached by some of the BNP’s best organisers and activists and told that they have reached, reluctantly, the same conclusion.

The reality of the situation was brought home to me talking late one damp evening with a small group of farmers on a picket line in North Wales a few months back. These were men staring ruin in the face. Some farmed land, and lived in houses, which had been in their families for hundreds of years. When the coal-miners were globalised out of existence they lost ‘only’ their jobs and their self-respect; at least they got big redundancy payments. But no-one is going to pay off the farmers, so on top of the dole queue they face bankruptcy and homelessness. Their incomes last year fell by 50 per cent; by the end of this year the drop will have reached 80 per cent – and many started out on only £10,000 a year.

They would happily strangle the last government minister with the guts of the last banker. They are now talking openly about blowing up electricity pylons. When we discuss globalisation, about the EU, about capital punishment and paedophiles, about protectionism, about building a land where tradition counts for more than Money, they are ready to back the BNP. But, although they have no sympathy whatsoever for the multi-racial society, and although they understand that the cost of propping up that crazed experiment is one of the reasons why the money isn’t there to to help them, even these desperate men still don’t think it would be right to force people who have lived here all their lives to go ‘home’ to a place they have never seen. Those who would argue that the British people will be forced to grasp the racial nettle by dint of falling on hard times must explain how much harder a group of them are ever likely to be hit.

In areas with significant immigrant populations, particularly where young Muslims are growing ever more militant and anti-white, history and elementary knowledge of human nature tell us of the inevitability of mutual hatred splitting the communities along ethnic fault-lines which will make the communal troubles of Belfast and London-derry look like a local football derby. In those unhappy places, forcible repatriation of every last non-white may well become a saleable policy. But how many of them will there ever be where whites are in the electoral majority? Fifty? Eighty? One hundred? Enough, especially with the introduction of prop-ortional representation in some elections, to give a party standing on such a platform some representation, but nothing like enough to give it power.

Getting worse
Yet, if we don’t get power, the situation, unacceptably bad already, will go on getting worse. Let me make an example of East London, and permit me to use the language of marketing, because that is our line of business. Twenty years ago it was possible to sell forced repatriation to large numbers of voters in Bow, but not in Barking or Basildon. Today, it is becoming possible to sell it in Barking, but still not in Basildon, and not now in Bow either, because there are not enough whites left. Twenty years from now, it might be possible to win in Basildon, but Barking will have gone the same way as Bow, and racially aware people in Basildon will be thinking about moving to Bute.

Feeling uncomfortable yet? I hope so, because this is the most difficult thing I’ve ever written in three years with Spearhead, and I need to make every single reader uncomfortable enough to think, rather than just read. I’m sure that I could make you happier by dealing with some other subject. Nothing would be easier than gaining a few cheap, unthinking cheers by claiming that Mike Newland was wrong to deviate from the official party line and to refuse to be impaled on repatriation at bayonet point – which, under the circumstances, is the logical result of that word ‘compulsory’.

I’m not in politics for cheap cheers; if I was I could probably have had a safe Tory seat years ago. I’m in it, among other things, because I want to help stop the immigration which is destroying this and every other white nation in the world. Then I want to see that deadly tide turned. I want to see Britain become the 99 per cent genetically white country she was just eleven years before I was born, and I want to die knowing that I have helped to set her on a course whereby her future genetic makeup will one day not even resemble that of January 1948, but that of July 1914. Nothing will ever turn me from working towards that final vision.

A vision, not a dream. It is not something which might just happen in the night, we have to make it happen, with real people in real life. If we continue to ask for something which the British people – at their present dumbed-down level of racial awareness – will not give us, then it will not happen, and even what little we have left will be lost forever.

This is the simple-minded, or wicked, deceit of those who bawl ‘sell-out’ about a policy of ‘softly-softly-catchee-monkey’. For it is not a question of "Mike Newland’s sell-out" versus "sending every last one back." The only possible choice is between developing a repatriation policy for most – based on consent – which we can sell to a decisive proportion of the British people, and seeing the present flood of some 150,000 extra every year continue. Which of those do you prefer? That is the choice you have to make. It’s not a matter of anyone ‘selling-out’, it’s a matter of realpolitik – the fact that politics is always the art of the possible.

It’s alright for the religious cranks in the International Third Position who launched the attack on us. You see, they actually believe that England will be saved if enough people pray to the Virgin Mary to intercede on our behalf. I wonder whether the last pure whites in ancient India, in Egypt, in Athens and in Rome enjoyed similar fantasies as their civilisations floundered in a sea of alien blood as well?

As a matter of fact, that fate doesn’t bother the ITP, because – although they pose as racial nationalists in order to sell Nazi videos to gullible youngsters – their leaders do not believe in ‘biological racism’. And they practise what they preach; I have been told by two different people who are sympathetic to their stance as a whole that even they were disgusted, on meeting the new wife of one of their key London activists, to find that she is what they describe as a South American mestizo. But she’s a Catholic, so that’s alright by the leaders of the ITP.

Not to be copied
For that matter, they’re quite happy to back the Front National – despite the fact that it has black and Arab members and welcomes non-whites who pledge allegiance to France – something the BNP will never emulate as long as I have a say in the matter – not to mention its affiliated Circle of French National Jews. This latter wouldn’t worry them, of course, because not so long ago they assiduously cultivated the rather eccentric American Rabbi Schiller, while their statement of principles condemns "the evil of anti-Semitism." "We need to get the Jews off our backs," the ITP’s chief theoretician once told me, managing to include cynical sell-out, grotesque naivety and anti-Semitism in one short sentence.

And for all their mock outrage over Mike Newland’s suggestion that a few Arabs do not pose a serious racial threat to Britain, these people are so pro-Palestinian that they would rather have Zionists living in London than Tel Aviv. Sorry though I feel for the dispossessed Palestinians, I have to differ!

Similarly, they have written favourably of the Fiamma (‘Flame’) party in Italy, which took 2.6 per cent of the vote in 1996, and which is made up of a number of nationalist grouplets which agreed to come together on a ‘minimalist programme’ of opposition to Maastricht, to hidden powers such as Marxism, Zionism and Freemasonry, and to immig-ration. Two years ago, I asked one of the Third Positionists’ leaders how it was that this attempt to build a broad-based, electioneering party, avoiding the detailed ideological programme which could divide its constituent groups, was acceptable to the purists of the ITP when, for attempting to do the same thing in Britain they have condemned me as a ‘reactionary sell-out’? "Yes," he conceded, "there are many similarities. But there is one big difference – the Cross." In other words, their quarrel with the BNP is not that we fight elections, not that we do not adopt an explicitly anti-capitalist stance at all times, not even our racial policy, but the fact that the party is not controlled by fundamentalist Catholics.

While I am not a Christian, I am not anti-Catholic. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Catholic Social Doctrine which produced Rerum Novarum and influenced the likes of Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton. I believe that Distributism is a concept which will grow in importance to us as we work out how to rebuild the shattered, dispossessed communities and exhausted land left by capitalist agriculture. But I do not understand how any white man, in possession of the reason with which nature or God has blessed us, can make political decisions on which could hang the survival of our kind on the basis of religious affiliation.

The whole idea is so ludicrous that one has to wonder whether in fact it is simply a cloak for a baser motive still. It is very noticeable that the ITP, like most of those who have leapt to criticise the ‘BNP electioneering sell-out’, hide behind pseudonyms.

Anonymous calls to arms
It’s very easy to write stirring calls to arms and urge your readers on to fight and die for your extremely pure principles when you live in anonymity abroad, or as a recluse on top of a remote hilltop, when you call yourself ‘Ranting Ron’, or hide behind silly Gaelic noms de plume – something which also reflects the ITP’s support for a United Ireland, and the cultural genocide of the Ulster loyalists (being Protestants they don’t count. Nor do pagans, Odinists, Identity Christians, atheists or agnostics, but that’s another story).

Easy when you only sell your publications to other nationalists, not to members of the public on multi-racial streets. Easy when the only leaflets you put out are circulars attacking the BNP which you send to PO Boxes, rather than the public recruitment leaflets which we put out on street corners and on dodgy estates (I except the activists of the ITP’s only really active local group, in Oldham, from this criticism, but have to tell them that they’re in the wrong organisation). Easy to argue that "every last one has to go" when preaching to a closed clique of the converted, and when your Asian workmates think that you’re a card-carrying Liberal Democrat with a penchant for workers’ co-ops. Easy to advocate "sinking roots in your community" and to refer to non-whites as ‘Muds’ when the doe-eyed Filipina au pairs who share your church pew in North London think that you’re just another middle class Christian.

All very easy – provided you can convince yourself that not standing in elections in Britain is a matter of principle, even though it isn’t in Italy, and that tailoring your policies so that they win over, rather than repel, members of the public, is a ‘sell-out’. Then you can get back to building fantasy Cathedrals in the air with ‘perfect’ policies which no-one will ever implement.

The same concern over motives must hang, as well, over the several other small groups of self-confessed ‘extremists’ and ‘racists’ who, hoping to poach BNP members, also allege that any tactical withdrawal from the unsaleable forced repatriation policy is a ‘sell-out’.

How many of these people really believe that, and how many are simply losers, happy to count for something in their own little circles of fellow-extremists? Since the Cause already provides them with a small but worshipful audience, perhaps even with a small income, do they even want to get anywhere? Or are they happy going through the motions of challenging the status quo, while knowing all the time that things are never going to get serious, because not enough people will ever support their purist line for their comfortable-sized group to have to enter the real world?

Still, enough of the problems of others. Let’s return to those facing Britain, and in particular to finding a way in which to ‘square the circle’ – bridging the gulf between what we ideally want to do about coloured immigration, and what the British people will let us do. Mike Newland – thinking on his feet to avoid turning one of the best media opportunities the BNP has had into an expose, of our ‘ruthless brutality’ – came up with one particularly masterful phrase.

First, he pointed out that, fundamentally, "it’s all a question of numbers." Therefore, said Mr. Newland, once we’ve got rid of the illegals and the bogus asylum-seekers, then done deals with the huge numbers who would leave voluntarily in exchange for generous resettlement grants, we would be prepared to make exceptions for law-abiding non-whites, allowing some to stay "once the number was reduced to a level at which they did not threaten our identity."

The beauty of this formula is its flexibility. What the ordinary brainwashed citizen of Airstrip One’s fifty-year-old 1998 RaceLove regime will understand by this phrase may well be very different from the interpretation which you and I might give it. Or from what that same honest, thoughtful citizen might conclude after a few years watching the box once the British people regain control of their own mass media.

Slice by slice
We are not Leninists, to liken our opponents to a large salami, which cannot be swallowed whole, but can comfortably be eaten slice by slice, but you will agree that the attitudes of the electorate may well change once we have our hands on the levers of power, particularly once several million previously staunch supporters of the multi-racial experiment have left marginal seats for warmer climes.

Are you beginning to feel less uncomfortable now? Well, let’s see if I can make things cosier still. Back in 1968, when the repatriation policy since associated with British Nation-alism was first popularised, it was possible to think in terms of the repatriation of all non-whites within one parliamentary term. In the light of the huge numbers which have flowed in every year since, however, that is clearly no longer practical.

It is therefore no sacrifice of our principles at all to ask the electorate for a one-term mandate for the following programme: An immediate halt to immigration; the expulsion of all illegal immigrants and criminals not holding British nationality; the beginning of a programme whereby the £2.8 billion per year now thrown down the drain in foreign aid handouts would go to fund an initial wave of purely voluntary repatriation.

At the end of our first term in office, we would then seek a mandate for a second phase of the process: This would involve making formal and binding agreements with countries such as Jamaica, whereby we would commit Britain to certain trade arrangements which would bolster their economies (in the case of Jamaica, for example, we could pledge to buy all our imported sugar there for at least 15 years), and devote very significant slices of our foreign aid money to improving their infrastructures of roads, hospitals, universities, and so on, in return for their taking larger numbers of the returning immigrants who would also be coming ‘home’ with large sums of money in their pockets – both from selling assets they have acquired in Britain and from personal resettlement grants. All this, too, would be on a voluntary basis.

Bearing in mind Bernie Grant’s findings that at least 40 per cent of Londoners of West Indian origin would go back straight away in return for the air fare and a lump sum for each family, it should be clear that, with this far more generous and constructive programme on offer, voluntary repatriation would yet again keep our Resettlement Office fully occupied for the whole of a second term.

By then, the problem may well have solved itself. After all, without being in the slightest bit rude, uncivilised or aggressive about it, TV programmes, advertisments and government information handouts would long since have stopped doing everything possible to create the false impression of Britain as an irreversibly multi-racial, mutli-cultural country. We wouldn’t make anyone a second class citizen, but non-whites would no longer be super-citizens and media-hyped role models.

As it became increasingly obvious that Britain is our homeland again, and that it would stay that way forever, it’s reasonable to assume that more and more non-whites would join the list of volunteers to go. Why would any even want to stay in a country which manifestly didn’t want them, and declared that a principle of national preference would henceforth guide all policy decisions at all levels of government?

The position of individuals of mixed race is, of course, particularly sad, and would have to be handled with special delicacy and generosity. (The National Front – incidently – from its inception in 1967 right up until today – has always said that those whose ancestors came here before 1948 would be allowed to stay). As these individuals invariably take on the ethnic identity and attitudes of the coloured parent, however, it is likely that the vast majority of them would gladly join the general exodus ‘back home’.

Financial bounty
In addition, there are countries in the world where they would be very welcome, particularly with the financial bounty they would take with them. Parts of South America could well suit some, while various Back to Africa movements – which we could help to buy huge tracts of land in the sub-Saharan continent which, on present trends, will have been widely depopulated by then – may well welcome brothers and sisters with European attitudes, skills and training. After all, virtually none of the Afro-Americans and Rastafarians who form the backbone of the growing Back to Africa movement among young blacks are themselves of pure African descent.

At some point though, perhaps ten or twelve years down the line, everyone who wanted to go would have gone, and some would still be here. Then we would have to take stock and decide whether or not their numbers "pose a threat to the British identity." If that was still felt to be a possibility, the question of what to do should be put to the entire British electorate in a free, fair referendum. This might give three options: 1) A return to an open-door and multi-racialism; 2) A ban on further coloured immigration but acceptance of those immigrants and their descendants who remain, provided that they obey the laws of the land; 3) Compulsory repatriation.

Fundamentally British
Option 1) should be put, because the resulting crushing rejection of such a crazed suggestion would provide the mandate for the insertion in a written constitution of measures to prohibit anyone from ever again lobbying or conspiring to subvert the fundamentally British ethnic character of the peoples of these islands.

Option 3), if supported by the majority, would give rise to an Act of Parliament, which representing the democratically-expressed will of the British people, would become a law which would have to be obeyed like any other. By this time, however, the gentle process of purely voluntary resettlement would have established such a precedent for repatriation, and reduced the numbers still here so enormously, that the prospect of violent resistance would have vanished. Resettlement would no longer appear as a threat, but as the normal thing, and as better for all concerned.

Likewise, the fact that a white racial nationalist ethos would permeate every aspect of national life – from Top of the Pops to the education system – would make it more and more obvious to the remaining immigrants that there was really nothing for them in Britain any more. Together with the scrapping of ‘positive discrimination’, anti-white Race Laws and the like, the legal system would be further changed to reflect the values and wishes of our people. So, for example, the ritual slaughter of animals would be made illegal, as it already is in civilised European countries such as Switzerland.

Option 2) would not appeal to us, but if it were the one chosen by the majority we would have to go along with it, although there would be nothing to stop the same question being put again a few years later. In the meantime, generous grants would still be available for those who belatedly changed their minds. Given the way in which half-castes generally identify with the coloured side of their family, there can be little doubt that their numbers would continue to decrease as individuals and families "went back to their roots." Similarly, those who break our laws would be thrown out immediately.

By this time too, systems and inducements for encouraging the natural regeneration and expansion of the best of our own stock would be well underway, leading to a further steady fall in the proportion of non-whites in the population.

Less damage
Returning to the present, the prospect of an Option 3 compulsory repatriation law some years down the line would still draw the fire of the likes of James Whale. But it would be a very much harder target, and cause us much less damage even when hit. After all, virtually no-one is going to object to the proposals laid out for our first two terms in office, and we can tell them, honestly, but without compromising our principles, that the black lad who drinks in their pub isn’t going to be sent anywhere unless they decide he should be.

Media hack: "But what about the possibility of compulsory repatriation in your third term?"

BNP spokesman: "Well, if a majority of voters support the plan, surely you wouldn’t deny them their democratic right to determine the future of their own country?

With a little more subtlety, we could avoid even this patch of rather thin ice. All we ever need discuss is our plan for two terms of removing illegals without compensation (and remember, by the way, that the number of ‘legals’ cannot possibly exceed the total number of non-whites which our Establishment opponents claim are in the country, so everyone surplus to that figure will obviously be illegal and not entitled to compensation) and a large-scale programme of voluntary repatriation. After that, our only commitment needs to be to hold a free and fair referendum, in which we would ask the British people what, if anything, to do next on the subject.

Two terms of enforcing existing laws and paying people to go who want to go, followed by a democratic referendum – isn’t that easier to ‘sell’ than compulsory repatriation for all, including the coloured lad who drinks in the local? Yet we can stand on that ground without for a moment giving up our eventual ideal of a mono-racial Britain. And we can ensure that the BNP never loses sight of that aim by quietly educating our own, growing, membership in the realities of racial politics, even though they are of no great interest to the public at large.

Quite apart from the undoubted enormous political benefits of such a ‘saleable’ position, there is one last very important argument in its favour. This is the European Declaration of Human Rights, which, over the next couple of years, will be understood by even the dullest magistrate and stick-in-the-mud judge to take precedence over Acts of Parliament. This provides an absolute guarantee of freedom of speech – even for ideas which are controversial and which tend to disturb the public, as long as they do not involve the advocacy of the use of violence or force against anyone else.

Implicit threat
All bar the newest readers will know of my five days intensive training course in the workings of the minds of those running the English legal system earlier this year. And many will also know that I have a respectable Cambridge law degree. So I trust that you will take my word for it when I tell you that there is not the slightest doubt that the vile slithering creatures who hide their corruption under wigs and gowns and pompous ceremony would have no trouble at all in concluding that the advocacy of compulsory repatriation for non-whites involves an implicit but clear threat to use force against them. This would be as true at the European Court as at Bow Street and the Old Bailey.

Conversely, even the slimiest and most anti-white prosecution barrister or professional ‘anti-racist’ would be hard-pressed to explain how a commitment to voluntary repatriation and a referendum constitutes a threat to anybody. As a result, the Race L:aws on the statute books of Westminster’s glorified parish council would be overruled by the European law which guarantees freedom of speech for those who advocate changes which, however radical and disturbing, can be implemented without coercion of others.

This is not an abstract protection, as was shown in the recent case where the European Court knocked a big hole in the oppressive laws which are meant to suppress free speech about politically incorrect facts about the Second World War in France.

Of course, it doesn’t matter to tiny groups which, despite their grand-sounding names or importance in years gone by, are so small and marginalised that the powers-that-be know that they can safely ignore them.

Yes, it’s very easy for irresponsible political Peter Pans, who have neither the ability nor the intention of launching a real challenge for the political power which alone can save our race and nation, to criticise Michael Newland and demand that the BNP continue to wear a millstone around its neck. They can be as extreme as they like, because their ‘policies’ don’t come under public scrutiny, and will never be anything more than the shrill slogans of isolated and irrelevant sects.

Fighting on our terms
They aren’t the ones in the front line, they’re not the ones trying to win over sympathetic but soft members of the public; they’re not the ones who are a sufficient threat to the Establishment to face Race Act prosecutions for the ‘in your face’ racism of their small circulation publications. So they don’t need to avail themselves of the protection which the European Declaration of Human Rights is going to provide for opponents of multi-cultural genocide who pick their words and their ground carefully.

Like old men back home in Blighty, they are in a safe position from which to urge the activists, the troops at the front, to continue to make suicidal over-the-top attacks which can never gain more than a few feet of ground. My belief is that a plan of attack which identifies and targets the enemy’s weak points, and which cuts the barbed wire entanglements rather than flinging ourselves on them, is more likely to create the breakthrough which will set us on the road to victory. I’m sorry if my argument has disturbed your Spearhead-reading session this month, but I hope that you feel comfortable again now that I have reached my conclusion.

To use the words of the evil genius Lenin, whose political fortunes were made by the old fools who sacrificed the flower of European youth in that earlier no-win war: "There is no political cunning which cannot be overcome by greater political cunning."