Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The Nick Griffin Interview: Now Online in Full

The full Nick Griffin has now been posted on the Total Politics website, all 5,000 words of it. The reaction so far on Twitter has been quite interesting, with hardline "no platformists" maintaining their view that I was wrong to do the interview in the first place, but others tweeting how revealing they found it. Several political opponents have tweeted to compliment me on it. I recognise that it is an interview which will polarise opinion, but I have absolutely no regrets, apart from the fact it had to be edited down to 5,000 words - but that's four times as many as you'd get in a national newspaper for this type of interview.

In the interview you did with Andrew Marr last year you said that you found Mein Kampf very dull but enjoyed one chapter of it. Which chapter was that?
That was the chapter on propaganda - that was interesting.

In what way?
Because it's a long time since I read it, I can't remember it. The only thing I can remember is repetition. But I suppose perhaps the Nazis were ahead of their time in now standard advertising's irrelevant really.

How do you react to being called a fascist?
We're not fascist. If fascism is defined in its proper sense, it's about worship of the state or of a man that personifies the state. Our tradition is very much in the British tradition of limited government with checks and balances and so on.

You could have fooled me. Half your policy programme involves a larger state.
We're not fascist in that regard. It's about a close, almost incestuous relationship, between the state and the corporations. It's corporate fascism. The Thatcherite, Blairite PFI - that's fascist. Another defining factor of fascism is the use of political violence as a political weapon against your opponents. And we're the victims of a Marxist fascism - we do not practise or want to practise violence against anyone else.

Apart from throwing journalists out of press conferences...
Apart from throwing out lying journalists when they're asked. I've been instructed that the fellow that quite gleefully grabbed his nose and twisted it shouldn't be put on duties like that anymore, because that was over the top. But the journalist was still breaking the law and he was removed with the minimum force necessary.

When did you stop denying the Holocaust?
I've never actually denied the Holocaust. I've said some terribly rude things about it and the way it's exploited.

You said: "It's well known that chimneys from the buildings at Auschwitz are fake."
Ah, but I also said in the piece that huge numbers of Jews were persecuted or murdered by the Nazis and their allies just because they were Jewish in one of the great crimes of the twentieth century. To deny the Holocaust is presumably to say that no one was killed, that the camps didn't exist. Obviously that would be nonsense.

Do you believe six million Jews were killed?
That's the same old problem. I genuinely cannot discuss it with you because European law forbids it.

That's bollocks.
It's not bollocks. European law....

What you're saying then is you don't believe six million were killed.
There are defence lawyers in Germany in prison now because they've explained in court what their client said.

It's a simple enough question. You either believe that six million Jews died in the Holocaust or you don't.
The Holocaust happened.

But you're not willing to say that six million Jews died?
Precisely six million?

Around six million - that's the accepted number by historians.
I don't think that there should be any restrictions on historical inquiry. Nor should it be an offence to be wrong. But since it is an offence to be wrong - it's an offence to discuss what I used to believe or even the extent to which I've changed my mind - and I have done. I really can't talk about it.

You can talk about it to the extent that you can say whether or not you believe that around six million Jews died.
I can't tell you because it's - look, I'm not going to be interrupted and left with something that I've said that I wasn't...

This won't be edited.
I suppose I can tell you that the reasons for my doubts were, specifically with the six million figure. The problem was the way it was used as a moral club to prevent any sensible debate about immigration. That's the issue. It's nothing to do with anti-semitism or anything. And there's been people, including Jews and former concentration camp inmates, who've said that aspects of this history have been exaggerated and so on. So that's the base line. When I was at school, the figure of six million was made up of four million murdered at Auschwitz and two million murdered elsewhere. That's six million.

Well, that's not true.
That was the fact as presented to people in the 1970s. Then it emerged that the authorities of Auschwitz downgraded the scale of the murders there from four million to a still shattering and appalling 1.1 million. So you're 2.9 million short.

There were lots of other death camps, not just Auschwitz.
No, the figure of six million came from the idea that in all the other death camps and elsewhere, two million died and in Auschwitz there were four million gassed and cremated - that's where the figure was made up from. Take the noughts off. If you have six and take away 2.9, do you still have six? No one would say where they came from. All they would do is persecute anyone who said six, take away 2.9, does not equal six. They were put in prison, beaten, had their houses firebombed, driven from their jobs. That greatly offended me and made me take up the issue of their behalf. But what I will say now is I believe that the evidence that came from British intelligence of German operations behind the lines on the Eastern front makes it quite possible to believe that a million people were shot to death on anti-partisan warfare, mainly as hostages and that the Germans, naturally enough, didn't pick white Russian or Belarussian peasants, who were quite often on their side. They picked the local Jewish community because most of the partisans were Jewish, which again you can't really be surprised about, as it's one of these cycles of horror. So therefore, you are no longer missing the 2.9. You are missing nearly two million. That's all. It would be interesting to be told where they come from. But because the powersthat- be are so convinced that it's true and have passed laws to say that it's true, and because it is irrelevant and because it's deliberately misunderstood, anyone who questions this is held up as anti-semitic. Whereas, it's nothing to do with antisemitism at all. It's about the rights of free speech, or the right of the states and powerful vested interest groups, to prevent free speech. That's what it's actually about. But because everyone's misunderstood or it leads one to jail, I have no doubt whatsoever that the others, the missing ones, must have been there so clearly the six million figure is correct.

Can you think of one positive aspect of immigration?
Well, a wide range of curries is a plus. But there again, I've got the recipes.

The reason I ask that is when you look across the range of policies you outline on your website, almost every one you look at - and you demonstrated it earlier with the environmental stuff - leads back to immigration.
It's a fair summary of the situation, as all things are interconnected. Secondly, it's a failing of ours and a failing of quite a lot of our writers, as they are all virtually untrained and virtually all volunteers. They write about things with their own glasses and perspectives on. We'd be better as a propaganda machine if we did have it separated out and even where you could see a connection we didn't point to it. But we're not a spin party.

Even though you like the spin chapter in Mein Kampf so much. In your 2005 manifesto you said: "We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land's population burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home." What does "firm" mean and what does "home" mean, because they are quite difficult to define?
Firm would mean that certainly in the case of serious criminals and illegals and people whose right to work was removed. For instance, when we left the European Union, there wouldn't be a choice about it. They would have to go.

If we are talking about the Eastern Europeans, who have got the right to come here, it is obvious where home is. With most people, it is clear where they have come from. If people have entered this country and torn their documents up, then even if they have been granted asylum, they shouldn't have been, and we would reverse that.

But if you don't know where they have come from, you can't return them there.
If you want to, you can virtually find out which village they come from in Africa with DNA tests. Someone has got to take them. But their presence here isn't fair. And it is not legal.

Just because you want to send them somewhere, doesn't mean that the state you want to send them to has to accept them. What do you do if they say no?
Well... we'll find some silly European liberal state which will happily take them. Someone will take them.

You reckon?
Yes, someone will take them.

"Firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home..." Is that policy still your policy now?
Yes, broadly so. Let's reword the bit in the case of ones who have no right to be here. It would be firm. It wouldn't be brutal, it would be firm. In the case of people who have come here legally, who are integrated into our society, we would say: "Look it is on the table. If you want to take it, you can take it."

There are about 5.5 million British people who have emigrated or are working abroad. Do you think that the countries in which they live should encourage them to return here?
That is up to them. That's their right. We have African leaders all over Southern Africa, begging Britain to stop poaching our NHS staff. They use them as cheap labour. They often aren't up to the skill levels that are the best that we can produce. Once they have been here, if we could say to those countries: "Here is money for infrastructure and so on. We will help you with foreign aid because you will have a larger population." We would use it partly to undo some of the damage that mass immigration has caused.

Read the full interview HERE (this extract is only about a third of it)


JS said...

Its so nice seeing some balanced journalism. Im about as likely to vote BNP as throw myself under a train, but to not allow free speech like this is far more dangerous than the open discussion of non-mainstream ideologies.

Well done.

donpaskini said...

Hi Iain,

Interested in your "behind the scenes" take on what Griffin said - which bits do you think are most damaging to him & the BNP? Were there any bits where he seemed particularly uncomfortable or unable to answer your points? How did he compare to other interviewees that you've interviewed for TP?

Also, what are the "some things" that you think that hardcore Marxists have infiltrated into our society? Surprised to hear you give any credence to this particular far right conspiracy theory.

Goodwin said...

I can't imagine ever voting BNP but Griffin has to be one of the few politicians out there who tells it like it is. Having been a traditional Tory who now finds himself unable to vote for the current Left of Centre, Christian Social Europhile Rich and Gay Party that Dave leads it is however just a wee bit tempting.

Jimmy said...

You gave him the rope and let him hang himself. Good job.

Jason Myers said...

Ian - a triumpth for freedom of speech. Don't agree with Nick Griffin about a lot but the best way is to let him keep digging...

Hope we get some interviews with other party leaders soon. Would love to see you interview Brown or Cameron

Unknown said...

You've done a good job here Iain, I have to say.

As expected, Griffin comes across as a cretin.

The bit about how Sting should be playing benefit concerts for the human race, as our diversity is under threat was particularly amusing!

DaveA said...

I think this was a very good interview. I am sure if you scratch the surface you will easily find the pencil moustache, although a free election has moderated much of the BNP, publically at least.

Tories like me think that immigration has greatly undermined the British culture and have some sympathy with the BNP especially as the left cry racist at the first suggestion of a debate.

Your interview and the ugly ejection of the Times' journalist from their meeting has left me that these people should not gain any further influence.

Martin S said...

Iain, anyone who says you should not have undertaken this interview is deluded enough to think that they are the world.

Scott Adams describes it well in his: 'I am the World error'. "I do not like Country and Western music, so Country and Western music is not popular."

Blair said...

I disagree with Griffin on most things, but he comes across perfectly reasonably, and no more dangerous to British society than say, Michael Foot was.

I think he is a target of far more hate and bigotry than he is a practitioner of it. Good on him for standing up for his beliefs and participating in democracy. Now it is up to the rest of us to explain why he is wrong.

Dangerouslysubversivedad said...

Well done Iain. I know how much pressure the No Platform crowd can bring to bear from personal experience when I interviewed a BNP MEP candidate for Tangled Web last year, and it takes guts to stand up to them when they get their Righteous on. Damn good job.

Houdini said...

I didn't think it would make it through eh?

Iain Dale said...

No idea what u are talking about. I haven't disallowed a single comment today, on this thread or on any other.

Blackacre said...

This shows that it is better to engage - the economics were laughable and the attempts to spin his way out of racism were transparent. No platforming makes him a hidden treat; a proper interview just reveals how ridiculous his policies are.

tremulous said...

I really don't care about Nick Griffin, although you're clearly right to conduct and publish the interview.
But I do find distortions of history endlessly tedious. The only estimate for specifically Jewish deaths in the Holocaust that carries the slightest authority is five million (5,113,000). It is in Raul Hilberg's magisterial 'The Destruction of the European Jews'.

Unknown said...

Griffin may be a complete idiot but at least he answers questions and says what he believes in, no matter how flawed, rather than what he is told to say or believes a certain demographic will latch on to.

I may disagree with him till the cows come home but I at least respect him for that.

They have as much chance of getting into power and Nick Griffin being PM as Gary Glitter does anyhow so why the press get their knickers into a twist over such a swivel eyed comical figure is beyond me, it merely gives them more publicity than the Monster Raving Loony Party, or is that what they want?

More controversy = More Papers sold???

Moriarty said...

Yes Iain a good interview. Fantastic.


I happen to believe that my 6 month old son is best brought up to believe that the best arrangement is that his two parents are of opposite gender and that an aberration from that orthodoxy is wrong.

Would you prosecute me?

And yes: I will tell him that my belief is that homosexuality is immoral. Is my belief. Am I allowed that?

javelin said...

I think it's important that you showed that Total Politics is apolitical. This will allow the mag to move on from the usual politically biased papers.

The significance of the interview will be how many times it is cited.

I think the no platform argument is just so weak. It's basic premise is hear no evil ... and is fundamentally patronising and offensive to the reader.

Now I guess you will have to find a Class based left wing party to interview. Thing is nature matters to the right so you end up with race based politics, whereas class matters to the left so you might like to dig up a class warrior up from somewhere. If you can find a democratically elected one.

Cogito Dexter said...

Nick Griffin is a plagiarist and clearly doesn't have an original thought in his head...

Take a look at from which comes the basis of his immigration comment. Rowan Atkinson played a part in which his racist character says "A lot of immigrants are from Pakistan and India... and I like curry. But now that we've got the recipe, is there any reason for them to stay?"

Mind you, Rowan Atkinson is funny...

ChristalPalace said...

Well done for taking on this interview Iain, the more airtime he gets, the more his true character shines through.

"Good lord, I will shoot someone for that."

But he isn't a Nazi, of course.

Local Member said...

One point you discussed with Mr Griffin was the expulsion of a Times journalist from a recent BNP meeting. Some years ago, Labour and many trade unions banned the Times, Sun and other Murdoch owned papers from their conferences. How does this differ from the BNP's actions?

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Ordinary people killed the Jews. If you want to know the kind of person that did this, just look in the mirror.

We sat on our hands telling ourselves it had nothing to do with us, and vilified those who wanted to fight.

We did not want to get involved. We bought the lies. We liked the sweeteners. It was us or them.

It begins with finding a scapegoat.

My suggestion to everyone today, in the UK, is that they take a very hard look at who the scapegoaters are and who they are targeting and observe their methods. It is the very people who would seek to shut Nick Griffin up and deny him his freedom.

But maybe you will leave it...until the somebody gets stoned to death, or you are denied a job because you are white and male. Or because you say you are a Christian, or because they arrest you simply because you happen to be a vocal opponent, such as a Tory MP. When they come to get you, I hope you realise you should have said something before, and perhaps, seen it coming.

This country is sleep-walking into totalitarianism. Somebody has to wake up.

Kenny Davidson said...

This interview just covered old ground. Nothing new has come out of the interview. The same old pathetic questions. I dont think Dale is up to the job of taking on the BNP what so ever.

The bit where you say'That's bollocks', could you not have just said that is not true. Not very professional. If Griffin did say anything you know EU laws would have him on some trumped up charge in another EU country. There was plenty of other things in the interview that i could pick out. But in all a very amateurish interview on your part Ian.

OldSlaughter said...

I thought Nick Griffin was a bit of an idiot and was not to be trusted.

However, now I have read Iain Dale's interview with him I have seen the error of my ways. I am now a fascist racist and have in fact send the BNP £1000. I wish Amazon would get a move on with that copy of Mein Kampf.

You see what you did there Iain?

Richard Wells said...

I thought it was a very good and interesting interview Iain. Well done. Would love to read the rest of it though!

My view is that if the BNP are treated the same as every other party then their views and policies will be exposed eventually - at worst they are vile and offensive, at best they are just hopelessly flawed.

The more the main parties and the establishment push them away the more support they will attract because the people they are trying to appeal to already have no respect for what the main parties tell them. If someone you don't respect tells you not to talk to someone you don't know then what would you do?

The only way to get rid of the BNP is to let people find out for themselves

Guessedworker said...

Nick Griffin did well. He is too authoritarian, perhaps, but overall I think he has proved to be a skilful transitional leader for the BNP, and has done a more than adequate job of bringing ethnic survival for the English into the realm of political possibilities.

Personally, I would like to see him expand on our existential crisis, and on the non-right of post-1948 immigrant populations to take our ancestral homeland away from us. This is the correct response to unthinking innocents like Ian who are all caught up in the humanistic ethno-masochism and anti-European racism of advanced liberal ideology.

As for the Holocaust it is, as many of my generation can recall, a publicity campaign which began in the 1970s. The numbers of the dead and the causes of death are not known. The official narrative is religious in character, but it is an extremely useful religion for Jews. It achieves four ends:

(i) It justifies Zionist Israel.

(ii) It facilitates financial parasitism.

(iii) It ascribes guilt to Europeans generally, and prevents them from a nationalist defence against race-replacement immigration by Africans and Asians.

(iv) It puts Jews beyond criticism and gives their intellectual leadership a free hand to institute a destructive critique of European culture, as evinced in such wonders as Classical Marxism, revolutionary internationalism, Critical Theory, Postmodernism, Freudianism, second-wave Feminism, second-wave Libertarianism, Gay Rights/LBGT Rights, Human Rights, White Privilege/White Abolitionism, Agitation for open borders and mass immigration, academic race-denial, encouragement for white race-mixing, promulgation of hate speech law, internet pornography ... among others.

No other ethnicity is implicated in the authorship and practise of these diverse goods. They are not Icelandic specialities. They are not Zulu. They are Jewish, sadly.

None of this Griffin can say. It very rarely gets said at all. But when it is, it is never denied on the basis of fact. It is simply written off by whatever illegitimate means comes to hand, while the the speaker is smeared and silenced.

My advice to anyone of European descent who reads this list and is shocked - shocked, I tell you - that it should ever be even thought about, never mind said in public, is to ask yourself how you came to be rendered unable to defend your own people and our culture. Because you are no use to us as you are.

neil craig said...

He is quite right about the rigidly enforced 6 millionn Holocaust figure.

It is intellectually dishionest & totalitarian to say no discussion is posible on the exact numbers. There is probably no genocide in which the numbers can be tied down by much more than 50% because the evidence tends to disappear & people onn both sides want to push.

How many people died inn Biafra - 1 -3 million

Killed by Stalin - 2m to 50 m

Armenians - 100,000 - 3 m

American natives (N&S) - 20 m -200 m

so though the Jewish Holocaust has been much more fully investigated than of these others nobody can say it is exactly 6 million.

Manfarang said...

The veterans of The Palestine Police were about equally divided in their sympathies for the Arab or Jewish population in what was the Mandate.
The Stern gang was a very small group.
If Griffin's knowledge of Law is as good as his knowledge history no wonder he never became a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Superb stuff. Iain's non-antogonistic but clear-minded and persistent interviewing style reveals far more of the real Griffin than Question Time (or Paxo) ever could. David Frost - eat your heart out.