The ‘The BNP Is An Anti-Immigration Party’ Myth

The one myth that gets most of us, journalists, politicians, practically everyone is the myth that the BNP is an anti-immigration party yet it’s a myth that is easily shown to be a myth.

I despair every time I read a newspaper article that states things like “…the anti-immigration party The BNP…” etc.

Since Griffin took over The BNP this is possibly one of his greatest victories, getting us all to discuss immigration on their terms.

Here is the BNP immigration policy from the 1997 general election under John Tyndall, an outspoken neo-Nazi:

“The horrifying future that awaits Britain as a result of the follies of Third World immigration can only be averted if we adopt two very firm policies: 1) Future immigration of non-whites must be stopped; 2) Non-whites already here must be repatriated or otherwise resettled overseas and Britain made once again a white country”. – BNP General Election Manifesto 1997

and here is the BNP immigration policy from the 2005 general election under former law student and convicted racist Nick Griffin:

“A BNP government would accept no further immigration from any of the parts of the world which present the prospect of an almost limitless flow of immigration: Africa, Asia, China, Eastern and South Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South America would all be placed on an immediate ‘stop’ list.” – BNP General Election Manifesto 2005

The old policy wording is blatantly racist, that’s because there’s a big difference between The BNP of John Tyndall and The BNP of Nick Griffin. Tyndall was all about old style outspoken fascism, that sort of strategy (or lack of) may have worked for The BNP or National Front under different political circumstances but in today’s political climate it’s a definite turn off for voters.

Griffin saw this problem and set about using carefully worded propaganda based on legal, marketing and spin to present the party as being a party that appears more legitimate and acceptable to the public.

Here is part of a transcript from a video of Nick Griffin addressing members of the KKK in America where he describes his new tactics:

‘There’s a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. The British National Party isn’t about selling out its ideas – which are your ideas too – but we are determined now to sell them. That means to use saleable words.’

So, under The BNP the party is not about selling out it’s ideology, the same ideology as The KKK, but about making it saleable and therefore electable!

Back to the more recent immigration policy, let’s dissect it to get at how it works.

First of all it starts off with telling us that The BNP would stop immigration from regions that “present the prospect of an almost limitless flow of immigration”

Right, get stuck in:

Firstly the policy immediately contradicts the idea that The BNP is an anti-immigration party! It even says at the top of the page on the manifesto that The BNP would call a halt to ALL immigration, yet the actual policy itself discriminates on the basis of where the immigration is from! Therefore it is clear that The BNP only proposes to stop SOME immigration not all of it.

So what is this discrimination based on?

We are led to believe it’s to do with population:

“almost limitless”, what does that mean exactly? Can something actually be almost limitless? I argue that no it can’t, it’s either limited or unlimited, there’s no between but let’s assume there is and carry on.

Next we have the ’stop list’:

“Africa, Asia, China, Eastern and South Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South America”

how has The BNP determined that these regions above all others, present ‘almost limitless’ immigration? Is it because of the massive ‘flood’ of people from er.. South America? Is there a threat of millions of Cubans coming over here for example? Oh no, hang on, Cubans aren’t actually allowed to leave! So I can’t quite see why they would stop immigration from the whole of South America unless there was another reason why they’d want to do that? It couldn’t possibly be because there are a large proportion of non-whites, socialists and communists in South America could it?

Thinking about it, surely most countries on the planet present the prospect of almost limitless immigration? Hang on, what about Europe? Only eastern and south Eastern Europe are on that list yet Europeans are pretty much free to come and go here, very strange. Oh hang on, of course, the argument is that The BNP has to abide by EU rules, doesn’t it? Er.. like The BNP gives a crap about EU rules and beside it’s already specified that it would stop people from Eastern Europe.

Hmmm… good point, how about all those countries that aren’t on The BNP’s stop list?

OK well I tried to find some statistics to back up the BNP’s claims so I looked at the last census. I discovered that the number 1 country of origin for our existing immigrants in the UK is: The Republic of Ireland. They aren’t on the list even though it’s where the largest group of immigrants in the UK come from! Also in the top 20 are Germany, Australia, North America and a load of other places not on the stop list.

So what is it that the countries on the stop list have in common compared to the countries not on the stop list?

One thing that springs to mind is that the majority of their populations are non white (or potentially Muslim or Socialist).

I think by now you’ve got the gist of where I’m going with this one!

Essentially I’m pretty certain that The BNP’s own policies show the following quite clearly:

1. The BNP is not an anti-immigration party, it is not against all immigration, immigration is not the real issue!
2. The BNP under Griffin has attempted to redefine the debate on immigration based on racial, cultural and religious terms rather than fairness. Unfortunately, it appears to have been successful.

I think it’s time we stopped debating issues on The BNP’s terms, this is why the appearance on Question Time of Nick Griffin was so dangerous and did anti-fascism damage, we entered into things on their terms. This myth about anti-immigration is not only going unchallenged but it’s apparently accepted and spread about by everyone especially the media.

I think this particular myth illustrates perfectly why Griffin has had so much more success at getting voters’ attention than Tyndall. He has preyed on people’s fears, pointed the finger of blame so that people feel better about themselves (it’s someone else to blame) and given people a disguised legitimate means to voice their prejudices.

So when you next hear or read the word “immigration” or “immigrant” who will you picture in your mind? Will it be the non-white Muslim or the white Irish man? If every time it’s the non-white Muslim then ask yourself why that is? Who are the real ‘mindbenders’ here?