Time and time again BNP supporters encounter the same lies, twisted facts and myths from opponents of the BNP. These range from the usual boring "Nazi" comments, distortions of history, to the outright ridiculous.
Here I'm going to debunk as many of these as possible and provide the truth and real facts.
#1 - Lie: Opposing immigration from non-white countries is racist and so the BNP must be racists.
Firstly, the BNP does not oppose all immigration, it opposes MASS immigration. That is an important distinction. It's logical that a country needs some level of immigration. However a small amount of sensible and selective immigration to balance the number of people leaving the
country and provide skills, is completely different to the mass EU and third world immigration the UK has been experiencing.
The BNP opposes mass immigration for a whole host of political reasons, but primarily because it believes it has an adverse effect on Britain, it's indigenous people and long term survival. This opposition has little to do with non-white ethnicity which is more a consequential factor.
The BNP is also not alone in opposing immigration. The General Election of 2010 showed immigration to be the number one concern among voters. Quite rightly people are concerned about the accelerated and unparalleled levels of immigration we saw under the last Labour government.
And lastly, "race" and it's derivatives such as "racism" are greatly misused. They are in fact legal and political "blanket terms" of convenience used to silence political and social critics. They are also without any basis in scientific fact as the notion of separate human races has been scientifically discredited for more than half century.
So in summary, no, it's not "racist" to oppose mass immigration, regardless of where it comes from.
#2 - Lie: BNP is nothing more than a group of racist Nazi Fascists and their agenda is a Nazi Fascist one
This is one of the more absurd ones but also one of the most common lies from BNP opponents. Usually it's uttered by those who don't even have the slightest inkling what Fascism actually means, let alone an understanding of what National Socialism aka Nazism actually is.
Usually the people who repeat this lie are misinformed and haven't even bothered to do their homework and find out what the BNP's politics are about and how they compare to National Socialism.
Right, let's get one thing one clear here before we begin. Nationalism and National Socialism are not the same thing. They are completely separate and different.
Nationalism and being a "Nationalist" are generic terms which can mean several different things, but primarily they are about putting the interests of your country and it's culture first above other considerations.
National Socialism however was a distinct political and social ideology that originated from Germany. It was created by the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka the Nazi Party. It was based upon a political manifesto containing 25 points that explained the principles of their political and social ideology. The so-called "25 point plan" which was a form of Italian-inspired Fascist dictatorship military rule, combined with socialist principles.
If you go through the 25 point plan and compare closely each point to the BNP's political manifesto (which incidentally is not hidden or secretive, and is available to download freely from the BNP website), you will see that there is no similarity between the politics of the Nazi's and the BNP. So if the BNP does not even share any of the politics of the Nazi 25 point plan, how can the politics of the BNP be considered National Socialist? They can't of course. And logically therefore, BNP officers and supporters, cannot be called "Nazi's".
Anyone who accuses the BNP of being Fascist needs to look up the word and understand what it actually means and what Fascism actually entails. When you do, you will see that the BNP in no way resembles a militarian or dictatorship authoritarian style organisation. Neither does the BNP propose a Fascist style of government for the UK, which would be required if the BNP truly were Fascist.
In fact, you will find nothing could be further from the truth if you compare the policies of the BNP to the system we live under in Britain today. A country with a partly state-controlled media, laws that inhibit freedom of speech and self-expression, state-sponsored anti-democratic organisations such as UAF, a biased-political voting system with cross-party collusion between the three main parties to undermine smaller parties like the BNP. By contrast, the BNP has policies for dealing with all these problems which would result in a more open and free society that grants freedoms and political representations to all ethnic groups, not just minorities.
United Against Fascism (perhaps United Against Freedom is more appropriate) deserves a special mention here. It is of course the state-sponsored organisation I mentioned which was set-up to directly oppose the BNP. It's aim is to deny the BNP a political platform and ultimately to shut-down the BNP. It's methods are violence, public intimidation and obstruction, plus the usual smearing and anti-BNP propaganda spreading. What is Fascism again? Fascism is about one dominant political system (i.e. no open democracy), enforced with violence and by the prohibiting of all others political parties and political opposition. So basically the UAF resemble that which they accuse the BNP of being and claim to be fighting, namely Fascists.
#3 - Lie: The BNP wishes to deport all non-white people from Britain if it ever gains power.
This is a case of simple scaremongering. The BNP has no such aim or policy. In fact, the BNP's policy on voluntary repatriation is quite clear. Voluntary being the key word. The BNP would not force anyone to leave Britain who doesn't wish to leave. Those who wish to leave would be helped to do so. This is not even the BNP's policy. It's a policy belonging to the Labour Party and is still current government policy but not very well known or publicised. The BNP would simply publicise the policy and increase the amount of support available to people wishing to return to their own countries of origin or other countries.
Why does the BNP wish to promote this policy? Because the BNP believes people should have the right to live where they choose and they believe that people belong with their own kindred people. Society as a whole functions better if there is strong social cohesion and this can only be achieved through close social bonds and social integration. The BNP does not believe this can be achieved with lots of different alien and opposing cultures being forced to live together.
That said, the BNP also acknowledges that some people who came to live in the UK have integrated well and consider themselves British citizens and fully settled here. The BNP has no problem with these people being in the UK.
#4 - Lie: Britain and its Empire plundered half the world, occupying countries illegally, stealing their resources, murdering and enslaving people. Mass immigration and marginalising of the white Indigenous people is simply Britain getting a taste of it's own medicine and what it deserves.
This is the kind of vile anti-British propaganda we frequently hear from non-white people who have a deep seated hatred towards white British people. But more often it also comes from some non-British white people who have a historic hatred and resentment towards British people, particularly from our Communist friends and some American/Irish people.
It is of course a gross distortion of history. Anyone who does any basic research into the British Empire can establish this for themselves. Firstly, Britain did not "occupy countries illegally" since when Britain established most of it's early colonies, the land on which they were established were not countries as we recognise them today, they were merely continents. There were no laws or international treaties governing who owned these lands. The world was a very different place back then and to apply the legal and political moralities of today to the world as it was back then is utterly ridiculous.
Britain as the world's foremost power eventually had to take control over some vital areas of the world in order to secure trade and open trade markets around the world. This came about through trade treaties and Royal Charters, not through military conquest or forced occupation. Britain's empire was almost an accident. It came about through a myriad of trading merchants and private companies.
In areas where the British Empire did exercise direct rule over people such as in India, this was by and large done respectfully and with the co-operation of the existing ruling elite.
Far from murdering, exploiting or enslaving people, the British Empire created better living standards for people by providing education, science, industrial and economic advancement, political and legal organisation, plus a great deal of investment into local infrastructure. Britain brought order to what were, let's face it, often extremely uncivilised and primitive cultures engaged in centuries of bitter feudal warring.
One only has to look at the astonishing transformations that resulted directly from British rule to territories such as Hong Kong, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore.
Britain has put in far more than it ever took out of third world countries such as India, Pakistan and South Africa. In fact, Britain continues to pay billions every year in "foreign aid" to these countries.
If you look at the history of the British Empire from a military context, there are very few major conflicts involving the British military and fewer still that resulted in wide-scale loss of life to indigenous people. What is often misrepresented here are the deaths of aborigines and Maori's which came about through disease, not war.
#5 - Myth: "Indian/Asian/African soldiers fought in World War II and saved Britain from Nazi tyranny, you owe us a debt of gratitude and we have the right to live in the UK"
This is a common myth which many people automatically believe. Firstly, the Asian and African participation in WWII in the British armed services would of made no difference at all on whether Britain had fell to Nazi invasion, not one jot of difference.
The Nazi invasion of Britain was to be carried out using air and naval power..Air and sea was the ONLY way it could be achieved, since Britain is an island. Very few (if any) Indian/Asian or Africans served in the Royal Air Force and Navy. Fewer still were British-based in the home-guard. Regardless of the amount of Indian/Asian non-white serving military personnel during WWII, it would of not made any difference to Britain's survival.
The crucial factor in Britain's war effort and own survival, was the protection of its north Atlantic supply line from America. And also our own effort and public morale in surviving the daily Blitz assault (bombing of British towns and cities by the Luftwaffe). Outside help played a very small role in these two crucial areas. Britain shouldered the burden and survived this pretty much alone.
To suggest that the Indian/Asian/African army divisions fought for Britain is something of a gross misrepresentation. They fought as countries of the British Empire and for their own survival as much as they did for the survival of the British Empire itself. Don't forget that by then, the Nazi's had occupied all of Europe and were moving swiftly to the East via Africa and the Middle East. It was only a matter of time before they occupied Africa and all of the Middle East, India and Asia.
There was also the looming threat to Asia from Japan with its imperial aspirations which posed a threat to British colonial countries. These countries under British rule, fought for THEIR survival.
Youtube ban
3 months ago
