The ‘The BNP Is Morally Superior To Other Parties’ Myth

The Myth

The BNP is morally superior to the main parties, because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the MP’s Expenses Scandal.

“But it’s too late for that. Everything is falling in around their heads and the Libs, Labs, and Cons are responding as Liblabcons and everyone can see it. The Westminster expenses crisis hasn’t helped. As if it wasn’t bad enough having their thieving exposed, the investigation and subsequent brouhaha has confirmed them as an arrogant political class that sees itself as above the law; Liblabcon not Lib, Lab, Con.

They fiddled across party political lines; they were all at it. And when they were caught with their fingers in the till Lib, Lab, and Con alike had the damned nerve to try to talk their way out of it. Even the course of their pathetic excuses followed the same path. First came the denial, with the evidence still on their snouts, and when that didn’t work they tried to shift the blame; ‘It wasn’t us it was the rules what done it, honest guv.’ The rules weren’t tight enough, they invited abuse. And the Liblabcon swine accepted the invitation and stuffed their faces. Burp.”

“The shocking revelations of how Tory, Labour and Lib-Dem members of parliament have grossly abused their positions of trust to make the taxpayers pay up for food, housing and other expenses just gets worse and worse.

The latest revelations include:

- Prime Minister Gordon Brown has claimed more than £100,000 in second-home allowances despite having two grace-and-favour properties. House of Commons figures show that Mr Brown has claimed a total of £116,234 in the Additional Cost Allowance for running a second home since 2001. The cash was for a flat in Westminster, even though Mr Brown has lived in accommodation in Downing Street since 1997.

- Chancellor Alistair Darling claimed money for his Edinburgh home and renting out his London flat while living in 11 Downing Street rent-free.

- Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, already exposed for claiming porn films on the taxpayer, is now under scrutiny for claiming £116,000 for her constituency house in Worcestershire.

- Tory MP for Hertsmere, Herts, James Clappison claimed almost £100,000 of taxpayers cash for a second home while building up a property empire. Mr Clappison owns 22 houses which he rents out yet has pocketed £97,892 in Commons allowances intended to pay for a second home.

- Labour Housing Minister Margaret Beckett claimed a second home allowance while living in a grace-and-favour apartment and collecting rent from another property.

- The Speaker of the House of Commons, Labour MP for Glasgow North East, Michael Martin, has been exposed as claiming more than £150,000 for holidays courtesy of the taxpayer. Mr Martin and his wife have holidayed in Hawaii, the Bahamas, New York and Rome – all courtesy of the state. On every trip except one Mr Martin travelled first class or business class.

Mr Martin also claimed £4,000 in taxi bills run up by his wife.

To add insult to injury, when the thousands of free air miles accumulated as a result of his travels was credited to him, Mr Martin then handed these free air tickets out to members of his family.

- All members of parliament voted for a five percent limit on price rises in the taxpayer-subsidised bars, restaurants and cafeterias of Westminster. This means that they will avoid the price hikes of up to eighteen percent faced by the public in supermarkets and other stores across the country. Taxpayers will be forced to pay an extra £5 million a year to bankroll the exclusive food and drink for the MPs.

MPs already enjoy heavily subsidised food and drink prices i.e. a cup of tea costs 30p, a breakfast about £2.10 and a pint of lager is about £1 cheaper than in nearby pubs. They are also able to claim up to £400 a month for groceries.

- Backbench MPs from all parties spent more than £1.4 million on fact-finding visits to exotic destinations. Locations for these inquiries by House of Commons select committees included Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Shanghai, New York, Sydney and Barcelona.

Accommodation in five-star hotels, first-class flights and a daily cash allowance for extras are all provided from Treasury funds.

And despite the recession, MPs have already booked overseas jaunts costing more than £1 million in total for the year ahead. Trips already pencilled in include the Work and Pensions Committee going to Canada to look at pensioner poverty at a cost of up to £55,083.

The Justice Committee will head to South Africa “at a cost of £48,051” to study the role of a prison officer.

- The Westminster expenses bill is already nearly £100 million a year, and at least 130 MPs have second homes which they rent out while claiming housing allowances.

- The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, confirmed he was investigating another Labour MP over an allowance claimed for a second home in London after a complaint was lodged by BNP spokesman on police matters, Mr Michael Barnbrook.

Mr Lyon has started an enquiry into Leyton and Wanstead MP Harry Cohen who claims costs for his east London home because he lists a house 70 miles away in Colchester, Essex as his main residence.

Mr Lyon is also investigating a complaint about Labour minister Tony McNulty, who claimed thousands of pounds in allowances for the house in which his parents live in his Harrow East constituency.

British taxpayers who are sick and tired of these parasites sucking the very life blood out of this nation while simultaneously destroying it through mass immigration, Islamification, subservience to the EU and gross economic incompetence, can vote BNP on June 4.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORuCwYGZZKo

“The BNP has warned for years that the main source of terrorism in Britain is British foreign policy which incites the Muslim world against us, and mass Third World immigration which creates a huge pool from which radicalised Muslims can recruit.

Sir Michael also pointed out the ‘horrific’ human cost to this war generated on ‘false grounds.’ He wrote that ‘over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and more than 4,500 soldiers from coalition forces have been killed during almost seven years of the occupation and probably ten times that number have been injured. Two million Iraqis have fled their country and another two million have been internally displaced.’

Sir Michael then repeated another BNP point by writing that the decision to go to war was one ‘in which the majority of MPs . . . were complicit’.”

November 30, 2009

The Truth

The most obvious answer to this – one that the BNP are careful not to mention – is that despite their accusations against other parties that “they were all at it” in the MPs’ Expenses Scandal and the decision to go to war was one “in which the majority of MPs were complicit”, they don’t actually have any MPs themselves!

There’s a big difference between not wanting to do something and being unable to do something. If for example someone was of murderous intent but were for whatever reason unable to commit murder, they could hardly say their morals were superior to someone who actually carried out the deed. We only have the BNP’s word for it that if they had MPs they wouldn’t claim the maximum amount of expenses or vote in favour of war.

In fact at council level the BNP is notorious for claiming the maximum in allowances, but barely doing anything to earn them. In Barking and Dagenham BNP councillors have an annual allowance of £9,810 (2008 figures), but some only turned up to six meetings between May 2007 and May 2008. That’s £1,635 per council meeting.

According to the Barking and Dagenham Post, Jamie Jarvis was paid £9,810 to attend 27 council meetings, but only turned up for 7. Sandra Doncaster attended 8 council meetings in the space of a year. Darren Tuffs, Ronald Doncaster and Tracey Lansdown only showed up to 6 meetings from 2007 to 2008.

They were being paid out of the taxpayers’ money to attend meetings that they never bothered to show up to.

Notice they even manage to obsessively drag in immigration and Muslims into a scandal involving politicians’ expenses.

“British taxpayers who are sick and tired of these parasites sucking the very life blood out of this nation while simultaneously destroying it through mass immigration, Islamification, subservience to the EU and gross economic incompetence, can vote BNP on June 4.”

The BNP’s attempts at trying to take the moral high ground regarding war also aren’t what they seem. If we take one of the above quotes plus another one from the BNP website, a pattern starts to emerge.

“The BNP has warned for years that the main source of terrorism in Britain is British foreign policy which incites the Muslim world against us, and mass Third World immigration which creates a huge pool from which radicalised Muslims can recruit.”

“The BNP demands the immediate withdrawal of all British troops from Afghanistan.
Furthermore, the BNP asserts that the terrorist threat to Britain will only subside once the interlinked issues of mass Third World immigration and our nation’s biased foreign policy are addressed.
Mass Third World immigration has created a large pool from which radical Islamists can recruit. This situation needs urgent attention and redressing, in the form of a halt on all immigration and the encouragement of voluntary repatriation.
Britain’s current foreign policy is correctly interpreted by the Muslim world as biased against them. This has led to Britain taking part in the illegal and immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In turn, these conflicts have provided the excuse needed by Islamists in Britain to whip up hatred of the British people.
Terrorism in Britain will only cease once British foreign policy is seen to be unbiased and fair in the Middle East “and when there is no longer a large pool of Third World immigrants resident in this country.”

December 14, 2009

So there you have it. The BNP believes that Britain’s involvement in conflicts in Third World and Muslim countries, brings the people of those countries to the UK. That means that their objections to war are part of their all-encompassing immigration policy, and hostility towards Muslims and non-whites living in the UK. So what they want is an end to involvement in Third World and Muslim countries and the ‘repatriation’ of Muslims and people from the Third World. Although they do express some concern with the loss of human life, they mostly see foreign conflicts as bringing large numbers of non-white people to Britain.

Comparisons between the BNP and other parties should be made solely on what their values are. As the BNP has never been in government it is an unreasonable comparison to say that they haven’t led the UK into a war but Labour have. Despite what the BNP say about them, the Labour Party isn’t inherently malicious or malevolent in its core values. The BNP on the other hand a) hasn’t been in government so has no track record to defend in that respect and b) has an inherently malicious and malevolent set of core values.

Labour do not, for instance, have the reintroduction of the death penalty and corporal punishment as an election promise. They do not say they will arm British citizens with assault rifles, deny the vote to anyone who doesn’t do military service, make second class citizens out of people based on the colour of their skin, behave in a hostile or unhelpful way towards other countries and international organisations, or ethnically cleanse millions of people from the UK due to their race or religion.

Those are all things the BNP says it will do if elected. They also say they will bring all the Armed Forces home to the UK, but boost military spending. Why? My guess is they think they’ll need them to round up and deport all the ethnic minorities and political opponents. If elected it is not inconceivable that the BNP could plunge Britain into a civil war that could result in the deaths of many thousands and the physical displacement of millions.

What to another party may be seen as an aberration in behaviour, is what the BNP actually stands for. Other parties do not have “If elected we will slaughter hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East” in their manifestos.

The BNP says it will be “committed to….restoring…. the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948“. It also says it is, “the British National Party’s determination not simply to stop any further mass immigration into the British Isles, but also to reverse the tide which has transformed vast areas of our country out of all recognition over the last fifty years“. It also intends to introduce apartheid, “in the understanding that genocide through integration is a threat to all peoples across the world, we also intend to develop a model of ‘multi-culturalism’ which combines peaceful co-existence with the maintenance of cultural and biological separation“. They want to indoctrinate the British public into accepting apartheid in Britain by introducing a, “Clause 28-style proscription against the promotion of racial integration in schools and the media“.

The BNP therefore includes apartheid and ethnic cleansing in its constitution and manifesto. Are the BNP therefore more moral than the parties they criticise? No, they’re simply in an ideal position to pretend they are.

© One Million United