.
Earlier, John Tyndall had given Nick Griffin a job helping out on the production of Spearhead magazine. Being a younger man with an active mind and a certain persona, and not carrying quite as much political baggage as JT, Griffin attracted enough support from members to be given the Chairmanship of the Party. Understandably, JT opposed this most strongly, as he had founded the party - and pinched the title from me!
As I had let it be known that I had joined the new BNP, for the first time, thinking that with younger people with energy in charge it could better exploit the growing dissatisfaction with the old parties in modern multicultural Britain (and I was also writing occasional articles for Spearhead), Tyndall began to write to me and e-mail me at length on why he considered Griffin was not the correct person to be leading our Party. I will admit that what he said in the sections I produce below could be said to be motivated by his desire to seek revenge upon Griffin, whom he had given a job to while unemployed only to see him take over his position as Party leader. For this reason, although I was concerned with some of the views he expressed, they were mainly views and few facts. It is because of the strange behaviour of Griffin within the past two years in particular, where he has taken so many actions that turned possible small victories into defeats, that I now think it is time for all to see what, according to John Tyndall, has motivated Nick Griffin. Whether JT was right I still do not know.
AGENTS AT CAMBRIDGE
In May 2001 I wrote to JT explaining why I was backing Griffin, despite a warning from a mutual acquaintance that he could be working for MI5. In a lengthy e-mail reply of May 22nd JT wrote of MI5 agents:
They may be paid or they may not depending on the nature of their work and their perceived motivation. It is well known that the state security services, with MI5 in the forefront, have scouts placed at key situs like, for instance, Cambridge, where young men (and possibly women) are found who are seen to be talented and destined for influential roles in the society of the future. They are befriended so as to ascertain what kind of characters they are, what makes them tick, and what – most importantly - are their personal weaknesses and vulnerable spots: strong sex drives (whether homo or hetero); a liking for drink; ditto for money; big egos and correspondingly big ambition; psychopathic tendencies, including total amorality and lack of scruple; not least, strong ideological motivation (of whatever kind).
In late 1999 in an Internal Discussion Paper No.7 John Tyndall wrote:
With the Combat 18 trouble behind us, it was always certain that a new offensive would be launched by the establishment to disrupt the BNP from the inside. As far back as the early 1990s certain personnel were in place to do this, though their ranks, I have no doubt, have been augmented by more recent recruits. In Defending the Realm (Andre Deutsch 1999), a book about MI5, the authors, Mark Hollingsworth and Nick Fielding, had this to say on page 62:
“More recently, as the National Front declined into a mere rump, the British National Party (BNP) has been seen as more dangerous. By the early 1990s MI5 had successfully recruited or turned several agents inside the BNP…”
Returning to JT’s letter to me of May 22nd, 2001, he wrote:
When at Cambridge in the 1970s, Griffin got himself well-known as ‘Mr National Front’. I know this because a friend of mine in the BNP knew him there. He has told me that G was constantly striking provocative poses, with nazi-fringe gestures, just to get himself attention. From my friend’s description, the picture I have is of a young pup attracted to politics mainly because of the ‘buzz’ it gives him and because of his desire for self-publicity and aggrandisement. I am inclined to think that his choice of the ‘far right’ rather than the ‘far left’ could have been influence by his Tory family background – or simply by the fact that the former would have been more controversial, more ‘shocking’, more attention-grabbing and, not least, somewhere where there was less ‘competition’ from other egotists and attention-seekers. Remember, the NF was big news at the time, and anyone at place like Cambridge with half a brain and a persuasive tongue could quickly win notoriety – something Griffin loves.
NO BURNING CONVICTION
Tyndall continued:
I have talked to Griffin at length and on many occasions, and one thing that has stuck out very forcibly has been the manifest lack of any really burning conviction in the ideals of race and nation. He understands our case intellectually and quite possibly embraces it from that standpoint, but I detect no passion in his exposition. I detect, on the other hand, that to him nationalist politics is a hugely enjoyable game.
On this theme, in a letter to me of April 9th 1999 Tyndall wrote:
I have flipped through Spearheads for the past three years during which he (NG) has been doing the editorial and production work. In only a very small number does he actually address himself to real national or world political issues and say anything meaningful on them. G is most at home in ‘house journal’ stuff – matters concerning the promotion and organisation of the BNP. Here he has made some quite useful contributions, but the imbalance betrays a certain mindset. He has never in my presence expressed an opinion about anything beyond internal party matters with any semblance of feeling, let alone passion.
Again returning to Tyndall’s letter of May 22nd 2001, he writes:
Not withstanding his well-known ‘Achilles heel’, (Martin) Webster is a very shrewd observer of the political scene. His main theory about Griffin is this: the establishment knows that as the multi-racial society collapses and other manifestations of globalism provoke more and more public anger, the emergence of some nationalist movement like the BNP is inevitable. The matter therefore becomes one of whether such a movement constitutes genuine opposition or ‘controlled’ opposition. It is obviously the policy of the powers that be that such a movement will be ‘controlled’ opposition. If there is going to be a movement like the BNP, Webster says, far better that it have someone like Griffin at the head of it than another type of person.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
In a further e-mail to me Tyndall was of the opinion that the ‘talking up’ of the BNP by the media at that time fitted in with Webster’s view. The ‘talking up’ does not exist now, because the establishment’s objective has been achieved.
Still looking for more substantial evidence that Griffin was working for the establishment I asked JT to give me something more factual. He replied on May 25th:
You ask for concrete proof concerning my theory (and Webster’s) as to where Griffin is coming from and who his backers are. Well of course, John, in the nature of these things proof cannot possibly be available – not at least at this time. Conspirators in politics take care not to leave the evidence lying around. All ideas of political conspiracy have to rest on circumstantial evidence – or at least nearly all. The thing is to add up the facts we know, and then decide if they make sense against the background of ‘official’ explanations. One of these days when I have more time, I will produce something with documentation and detail explaining why I think there is overwhelming evidence that Griffin is being backed by the establishment. Certain things that have happened both before and after his takeover of the BNP permit no other interpretation.
Unfortunately, John Tyndall’s untimely death meant that I was not to see this documentation he referred to. If he were alive today he might say were not the following events circumstantial evidence?
• The Marmite fiasco that won no votes but cost £15K.
• The fake murder plot that he ensured was picked up by the media on the eve of last May’s Polling Day.
• The Buckingham Palace Queen’s Garden Party farce.
• The Question Time programme where Griffin, with numerous heavies, arrived at the Studio like the Godfather entering the Supreme Court but performed more like little boy lost - and looking for a surrogate mummy in the form of Bonny Greer. Of course the programme was a set-up and was an insult to the democracy it claimed to represent. But the point is that Griffin has shown on previous interviews that he had the wit to exploit several opportunities to score. Yet with at least eight million watching about all he managed to interject was that some of the Ku Klux Klan ‘were quite moderate’, and that he was ‘unable to give an opinion’ on whether or not he believed the holocaust took place.
It was this event that first caused me to starting thinking: ‘Was John Tyndall right about Griffin?’
If his case may lack, at present, the final evidence, plenty of evidence exists that Nick Griffin’s growing ineptitude is destroying the Party, of which the failure at Barnsley is one more example. If he does not stand down as Chairman within the next 30 days – by which time the numerous creditors’ court cases will render the Party insolvent - then we should immediately turn the BNP Reform 2011 movement into its active replacement.
http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2011/03/was-tyndall-right-about-griffin.htmlNWN: John Bean was one of those that John Tyndall described as "appearing from nowhere" when Griffin hijacked the BNP in 1999. Bean had disappeared from nationalism from the very early 1970's till 1999-2000. So how Bean can say the BNP were not advancing is nonsense. How would he know, he wasn't involved and hadn't been in nationalism for 30 years. He has been told about this in the past, but still decides to ignore that information today. Eddy Butler was another who flitted about and supported Griffin in 1999 and remained a strong supporter of Griffin till very recently. Not too clever is Mr Butler it seems !Both Butler and Bean had no time for John Tyndall, but now after both being 'fooled' for all this time, expect us to laud them and to place them both at the top of the nationalist leaders and hope we will stand on their every word .NWN's Pete Barker used to argue with John Tyndall about the whether or not Griffin was a 'state agent' fairly regularly. John Tyndall used to argue that he "didn't think Griffin was state, but did agree that people like Tony Lecomber and Simon Darby were working for the state ". Pete Barker stuck with his hypothesis since 2001 that; "Nick Griffin was working for the state and there was planning in everything he did. He was working to destroy and decimate the cause of Brtish nationalism". This was as early as 2001.
'NorthWestNationalists' has since 2001 been at the vanguard of opposition to Griffin and his treacherous escapades, and received many threats and ostracism from a few who ought to have known better, in the early days of 2001 and since. It is far easier now to criticise 'Griffin & the Griffinites'.
