Over the past two years, for reasons that should be obvious to most of our readers, Spearhead has been extremely sparing in its criticisms of the British National Party leadership. But this has not been good enough for some people. To them, even the mildest dissent from decisions made on behalf of the BNP is something to be stigmatised as "sniping", "sour grapes", "rocking the boat" and even "attacks on the party". To some, in the true spirit of Stalinism, frank and free internal debate would be better outlawed, and whenever it manifests itself it should be given the label of 'treason' - although, if memories stretch back a little further than two years, it will be recalled that the very people who are hyper-sensitive to this kind of thing did a great deal of it themselves when they were seeking to obtain, rather than being the occupants of, the seats of power in the party.

It has been the policy of this magazine to give these touchy souls the very minimum excuse to condemn us on the above grounds, while at the same time refusing to be silenced when anything happens which calls strongly for critical comment. Nick Griffin, when appearing at the count in Oldham for the announcement of the general election result there, wore a tee-shirt bearing the words "Gagged for speaking the truth". Well, the rule that there should not be a gag on the truth applies not just to some of us, but to all of us. We at Spearhead have in fact witnessed a number of developments in the BNP over the past year or two which have caused us deep unease, but we have often gagged ourselves when it has come to protesting about them rather than provide fuel for our opponents in the party to attack us for disloyalty.

Committee for "ethnics"

For instance, we have to say that we have never been very happy about the formation of a special circle attached to the BNP called the "Ethnic Liaison Committee". The explained purpose of this circle is to enable co-operation between the party and non-white ethnic minority groups who favour its policy of stopping immigration and promoting voluntary repatriation. With the idea of such co-operation in itself we have no quarrel, and in fact under the previous party leadership the occasional joint action with non-white groups was permitted. However, we felt that the concept had been taken a step too far with the setting up of a specific organisation, which gave it a formal recognition which it had not previously enjoyed. Our principal reservation about this move was that, whatever protestations may be made to the contrary, it would be taken by many in the party to indicate something almost tantamount to the granting of membership status to its non-European participants.

We know that this has been denied; the party has said of the circle that it means: "friends not family, co-operation not membership.". Maybe so, but the fact remains that, to a substantial body of opinion in the BNP, it has been seen as the thin end of the wedge of admission of non-whites to the party. Such a view may well be unfounded, but nevertheless persists. Experience in the past has taught us that organisational innovations which cause such apprehension and unrest among the membership, however rationally they may be explained, are to be avoided. The gut instinct of our members should never be lightly ignored, for it is the fuel that drives the party on.

It is not true, incidentally, that this editor, when BNP leader, ever consented to a half-Turkish person being admitted to BNP membership, although consent was given to his helping the party as non-member.

Nevertheless, despite our misgivings the time the formation of the "Ethnic Liaison Committee" was announced, we did not loudly proclaim these misgivings in these columns or anywhere else. As we have indicated, our policy has always been to ration criticism as sparingly as possible.

"Salt in the soup"

Later, another matter came to our notice which gave rise to serious concern. In an article on the BNP in the Daily Mirror on the 29th May this year Nick Griffin was quoted as using favourite metaphor of his to describe the presence ethnic minorities in Britain. "A little salt in the soup," he said, "is OK". He was then reported as going on to say "If you have soup without any salt is frankly unpalatable and the salt makes the soup slightly more interesting." But... "If you put too much salt in the soup the it is horrible."

No possible construction could be put on these words but that Mr. Griffin finds "unpalatable" a Britain with no non-white ethnic minorities, that he thinks a Britain with some ethnic minorities is "slightly more interesting" but that with too many of the ethnic minorities the country would become "horrible".

We could hardly believe our eyes as we read these words. Was Mr Griffin actually being misquoted by the Daily Mirror writer, one Paul Byrne? We thought it only fair to ask him, and to this purpose a letter was dispatched to him by one of our contacts around the country purporting to be an ordinary member of the public and enquiring whether the words printed were actually what he said. Our contact never received a reply.

Mindful always of the need to guard against Spearhead's being seen as a platform for internal grumbles and a source of party disunity, we said nothing about this at the time biting our tongues, so to speak, as so often we had done before.

But now there has been a further development over which we feel we cannot maintain silence. In an interview on BBC Three Counties Radio at the beginning of last month, later relayed through several other stations and quoted extensively in newspapers, BNP leader Nick Griffin announced that he was looking for links with the Sikh community. Precisely what kind of links we do not know, but perhaps this would mean nothing more than the joint actions authorised by the previous party leadership and referred to earlier in this article. At this stage it would be premature to jump to conclusions.

Multi-culturalism accepted

But what gave far greater ground for concern and alarm was the accompanying statement, made during the same interview, that: "The BNP accepts that a whites-only Britain was no longer possible, and wants to make the best of a bad job out of the multi-cultural society."

As to the meaning of this statement, we cannot see that there could be more than one: that the BNP has now abandoned its commitment to the eventual achievement of an all-white Britain, that it accepts the multi-cultural society as an unchangeable fact, and that we must now just grin and bear it and make the best of it. This, if correct, is fully in accordance with what Mr. Griffin appears to have said to the Daily Mirror in May, and it amounts to a betrayal of BNP activists and a repudiation of everything they have fought for over the past 19 years.

Perhaps there will be some who will claim that these statements should not be taken too literally, that they are merely examples of clever tactics, that Mr. Griffin's purpose is no more than to fend off the charge that the BNP are "racists", and that party supporters should understand this.

But we would disagree. We believe that not only are such declarations wrong in principle but, furthermore, they are not even politically clever.

Of course, we recognise that sometimes things have to be said (or not said) publicly which do not totally reflect what politicians believe privately. Of course, we are aware that in the real world of politics a straight line is not always the best route to a desired destination. Only two months ago, in a signed article in Spearhead, this editor acknowledged this in the context of another issue, saying:-

‘Every moral imperative has to be evaluated in terms, among other things, of its practicability. Without political power, nothing "moral" can he done; and that which in pursuit of what is morally desirable renders political power forever out of reach is self-defeating.’

But we do not believe that this general rule of politics, valid though it is in some situations and over some issues, justifies this quite shameful surrender, in the name of the British National Party, over what is perhaps the core principle of its entire political beliefs.

Do those who defend this kind of nonsense suppose for one single moment that declarations like those of Mr. Griffin to the Daily Mirror and to Three Counties Radio will diminish in the slightest bit the implacable hostility of the media towards the BNP and their continued branding of it as a party of "racists"?

And do they imagine for one moment that this kind of ingratiating waffle is going to impress the electors of places like Oldham, Burnley and London's Newham and Tower Hamlets. Just how many votes would have been won in Oldham as a result of the locals reading this tiny piece of small print in the Daily Mirror a few days before? We suspect very few, if any at all. Our votes in Oldham were achieved by what the locals saw on the streets with their own eyes in the way of Asians rioting and tearing their town apart. It is hardly likely that, as these people beheld their cars burning and their neighbours' windows being smashed, they had time for such niceties as "salt in the soup."

Wrong signals

On the other hand, declarations that the British National Party no longer aims at an all-white Britain, and that its leader actually favours some ethnic minority presence here as making the country "more interesting", are going to send out all the wrong signals to the hard core of its active membership, who have not sweated, sacrificed and battled for all these years past for anything less than a total restoration of their country to its indigenous white people.

Contrary to all this nonsense, a whites-only Britain is indeed possible - through a BNP victory. And without such a victory not even any limited relief from the present multi racial horror will ever be possible. Needless to say, there are many views as to how this aim will be achieved, and we should listen to every such view that is presented in a sensible and civilised way. And there is no reason for the BNP to abandon its commitment - which it has always had - to achieve such a whites-only Britain by the most humane possible means.

But the day we abandon our commitment to the aim itself will be the day for the abandonment of our party and all it stands for and has fought for. If some are willing to contemplate this, this magazine most certainly is not.

Already, our telephone lines have been buzzing with angry comments on this latest piece of tampering with the party's principles, and we have received numerous requests for guidance as to what to do.

Our response is very simple. We say to everyone: do not, under any circumstances and whatever your anger, entertain for one moment the idea of quitting the party. There is nowhere else to go. Other nationalist organisations are totally ineffective and are going nowhere. Splits and breakaways will achieve nothing as recent evidence should have proved. This issue can only be resolved and must be resolved within the BNP.

Whilst strong emotions on this matter are understandable, emotions are never good guidelines for political action. Torn-up or returned membership cards may get something off the chest, but they accomplish nothing more, and they simply disempower people when it comes to doing something practical to put things right.