Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Standing for British Freedom

British Freedom: Paul Weston

As we reported last week, our long-time friend and contributor Paul Weston has been elected the chairman of the British Freedom Party. For those millions of Britons who object to mass immigration and oppose the Islamization of their country, British Freedom offers a real alternative to the three major political parties.

Mr. Weston has just posted a Chairman’s Update at the British Freedom website:

Hello all, many thanks for allowing me this platform to set out my views on the political situation in Britain.

First, there have been many rumours circulating on the net that there has been a hostile takeover of British Freedom. This is not the case at all. I have had a great deal of discussion with members of the executive committee and we decided the best way forward for British Freedom was to start with a clean slate.

Former members of the Executive Council were in full agreement that British Freedom was being held back because of its previous links with discredited nationalist parties. As many of you are aware, there was a recent survey suggesting that a political party based on the policies of British Freedom would be supported by a large percentage of the population, but many are held back because of their history, no matter that the committee members had broken those links.

It is a shame that this is the case. The former committee members are all good people driven by passion and bravery in the defence of their country which is being slowly destroyed before our very eyes.

But we must face up to the political reality of the situation, which is exactly what has now been done. British Freedom can longer be attacked by the leftist media via character assassination, which has strengthened the party considerably.

Over the coming weeks I will be writing articles and making video blogs which will show the danger Britain – and particularly England – is in. We are living in a political and moral world turned upside down. What was once good is now bad and what was once bad is now good.

I genuinely believe that Britain is not in the terrible state it is in because of well intentioned incompetence, but because a leftist attempt, decades in the making, has been carried out in order to subvert and destroy our people and our country.

After WWII the Soviet Union militarily took over all the European countries within its geographical sphere. This is an unarguable fact, but rarely discussed was the Communist International’s desire to subvert the rest of the world in order to prepare for a global Communist takeover.

This is why much of our destruction can be linked directly to Communist ideology. The Marxists were anti-family, anti-religion, anti-capitalism and pro- Big State. We see the result of this all around us today, and anyone who thinks this is some right-wing fantasy should ask themselves why Marxist teachers in Communist countries produced the best educated children in Europe, whilst their counterparts in Britain produced children barely literate, numerate or employable.

Most of our Trades Union leaders were Communists and the result of their constant strikes has been the destruction of much of our industry. If you wish to subvert a capitalist country, first you destroy their means of industrial economic survival – and if that is then followed by a Service Industry economy, then it makes sense to ensure the new white collared paper pushers are unable to read and write.

I will not go into any more detail here, but will shortly post an article entitled “How to Destroy a Country” which in essence is a blueprint of pretty much every piece of government legislation over the last fifty years.

I imagine many of you are familiar with the Norwegian blogger Fjordman, who I believe is the single most important writer today with regard to the deliberate subversion and destruction of the West. I have his permission to publish his articles on the British Freedom site, and will choose a number of them written over the last few years.

They are not new of course, but they are far too important to languish in an archive somewhere, and their age makes them no less relevant today than when they were first written, They are long, but are well worth making the effort to finish. If everyone was aware of Fjordman’s thoughts then most European governments would be thrown out tomorrow…

We will be tweaking the policies section on the site, which will include a 25 point statement of basic principles, which I attach below. I hope they resonate with you. It is an easy read, one page document and whilst I do not want to make it any longer, I welcome feedback on items you may wish to remove or add.

I will sign off now, but just wish to thank all the members of British Freedom who have supported the party to date, and promise that with their continued energy and support we can combine to make British Freedom a household name and a genuine electoral alternative to the three main parties by 2015.

I have taken the liberty of re-ordering the chairman’s twenty-five party principles and grouping them by topic:
Twenty-Five Party Principles

1.Introduce a U.S.-style First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech.
 Foreign Policy
2.Leave the profoundly undemocratic European Union.
3.Rebuild Britain’s Armed Forces to 1980 levels.
4.Withdraw troops from all areas where we are not directly threatened.
5.Cancel foreign aid to countries which do not deserve or need it.
6.Halt any further immigration for a period of five years.
7.Abolish the Human Rights Act, which benefits only foreign criminals/terrorists.
8.Abolish all multicultural and equality quangos.
9.Halt and turn back all aspects of the Islamisation of Britain, including Sharia finance.
10.Promote British values and assimilation, rather than multiculturalism and division.
11.Deport all foreign criminals and illegal immigrants.
 Economic Policy
12.Diminish the public sector and government interference in the private sector.
13.Provide affordable housing for young married families.
14.Apply Super Tax on second and any further homes.
15.Promote and enlarge apprenticeship schemes.
16.Provide tax breaks and financial assistance for new manufacturing companies.
17.Build independent energy resources. Reliance on mid-east oil is dangerous.
 Domestic Policy
18.Drastically reduce crime — criminals should fear the consequences of their behaviour.
19.Allow pubs (not restaurants) to operate as smoking or non-smoking establishments.
20.Ensure no elderly person lives in fear, and can afford both heat and food in the winter.
21.Ensure that a no-drugs policy means literally No Drugs.
 Cultural Issues
22.Repair the damage wreaked by the progressive educational establishment.
23.Promote Christianity, marriage, the family, the community and the Nation State.
24.Tighten regulations on the sexual/violent content of TV, films and games.
25.Live by Christianity’s Golden Rule: “Do unto others as thou wouldst be done by.”


Anonymous said...

Hi Paul,

As a patriotic American, I really appreciate your important goal of re-Britainizing Britain, and I truly wish you the best of luck.

That said, my sincere suggestion is that you re-examine your list of party principles. Brevity is better. To wit, offer fewer and better-worded goals so that more people can REMEMBER those goals.

The goals expressed in this list are internally inconsistent in theme and scope.

Theme: Point 12 is to diminish the public sector and government interference in the private sector.

However, the majority of your other points seem to advocate for MORE public sector and government interference in the private sector.

How do you propose to rebuild the armed forces (3), halt immigration (6), deport foreign criminals and illegal immigrants (11), provide affordable housing for families (13), apply a SuperTax (14), promote and enlarge apprenticeship (15), provide tax breaks (16), build independent energy resources (17), drastically reduce crimes (18), subsidize and/or provide heat and/or food for the elderly (20), police drug use (21), repair the education system (22), and regulate media (24), while diminishing the public sector and government interference in the private sector?!

Moreover, how do you propose to introduce a U.S.-style First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech (1) while simultaneously tightening regulations on the sexual/violent content of TV, films and games (24)?!

Scope: Some of your points should be listed as main points and some of your points should be reassigned as subpoints. To offer smoking in pubs (19) as a point with an equivalent weight to mid-East energy independence (17) appears unbalanced (pun intended).

Still and all, good luck to you!

Anonymous said...

As expat says....

Great idea for a new party. May I make some suggestions?

If you ever want to hold government you will need to develop sound policies in all areas and have a plausible vision to bring Britain into recovery.

You must start taking seats on Borough Councils etc. You will need the experience of contesting elections and blooding new politicians.

Rethink immigration carefully. A full halt for 5 years will be detrimental. Britain still needs people with genuine skills to immigrate. You may wish to give preference to Anglo/Celtic (i.e. Indigenous) members of the British diaspora (Australia/New Zealand/Canada etc).

Super taxes on subsequent homes is venturing into socialism. If that is what you want then fine, just don't expect conservatives to join. If you kick out all illegal and fraudulent immigrants you will see the housing supply jump sharply thus reducing prices. If you make it too expensive to own rental accommodation, the supply will dry up and many low income earners will be on the street.

Paul Weston said...

Egghead, thanks for your thoughts.

The public sector is bloated and gargantuan. For instance, the Ministry of Defence now employs one civil servant for every two servicemen! This is endemic everywhere, particularly so in education with their armies of advisers and counsellors who outnumber teachers, and the National Health Service (NHS) where there are more bureaucrats than nurses. The National Health Service is now the biggest employer in the country....

Then there are the quangos and commissions, the European Regional Offices etc, quite apart from the huge industry in welfare, equality officers, translators, state funded lawyers working on immigration appeals. The list is endless and the savings enormous were they to be culled. Income Tax raised in 2008 was £140 billion, yet the welfare bill alone was £154 billion! The scale of waste is of staggering proportion.

The Labour government deliberately built a dependent client state in order to buy their votes, but the money needed to pay for it ran out years ago. Efficiency is the key here; get rid of the useless state funded jobsworths and concentrate on the necessities of the public sector. That way, it is possible to reduce state employment overall, yet rebuild the necessary core services in an efficient and cost effective manner.

As regards the private sector, it is very hard to start up or run a business in Britain now. The EU has introduced vast amounts of red tape which we could do without completely. They have even reached their tentacles into the banking world, which now exists in tandem with state bail outs and political interference in the Capitalist Economic Cycle.

Politicians, both EU and puppet British, do indeed seem to hate private sector businesses. We are incrementally morphing into big business only, coupled with EU/global governance and the massive bureaucracy that comes with it. This clearly needs to be drastically cut back if the private sector is not to be subsumed by it.

Freedom of Speech a la First Amendment does not need to conflict with censorship of film/game/TV violence. At the moment I cannot criticise Islam, in the future I may not be allowed to criticise the European Union, but I can watch rape, murder, torture and mutilation on mainstream Hollywood output. I would like to reverse this and see no reason why this cannot be achieved.

Smoking in designated pubs is of course fairly trivial in comparison to energy requirements, but I feel it is important because it is yet another mechanism used to control us. If we don’t stop such totalitarianism in the early stages, who knows where we will end up? It is very much the thin end of the wedge, and the thick end might not be the Gulags but who knows? The control freaks who manipulate us through fear of recrimination are cut from the same controlling socialist cloth as the Soviet Communists.

I hope this answers the points you raised. Please forgive my lack of brevity in so doing!

Sagunto said...

Paul Weston -

I agree with @Egghead, that the list of principles hardly seems to quarantee a substantial downsizing of the welfare state, needed to reestablish free market conditions.

As to the protection of our liberties, as an extension of economic freedom, I would strongly favour the reconstruction of firm national borders and a stronger National Defence. But that should i.m.o. be accompanied by measures drastically downsizing the state apparatus in other departments. Same goes for tax breaks. Where do we see actual tax cuts, as in less revenue for the state?

I second, to the full, your statements on post-war Communism and the socialist threat to, and destruction of, our liberties. But where's the complementary story about the influence of the US progressivist state on European "intellectuals" and politicians?

Here's the proposed other half of the story:

The progressivist and unconstitutional superstate USA (Unified States of America, est. 1913) has been a destabilizing/restructuring force in Europe since this nation's participation in WW-I, which gave rise to the Wilsonian fascism of the managerial state (see: Nisbet, 1973; Gottfried, 2002). Whether it's the Wall Street war reparations-scheme foisted upon Germany, or the incessant push for Turkey to enter the EUSSR - today's mirror image of the USA - or the creation (thnx Mr Clinton) of an Islamic state in Europe (or Afghanistan under Reagan, Egypt under Barack Hussein O, Lybia under BHO, Gaza-strip/West bank, all prez.). Political Americanism (i.e. Wilsonian neo-Progressivism) has in fact been something of a double-edged sword.

In the wake of the US' progressivist cultural dominance after WW-2, European nations have been introduced to one particularly nefarious export product from across the Atlantic, which is political correctness and the cult of "Diversity", pushed by those seeking to emulate the US managerial state. We now even have the updated version, Unified States 2.0, the managerial state that masks the exercise of power as a form of caring. As both the protector of designated victims (e.g. Muslims) and the sensitizer of consciousness, this expanding centralized state is authorized to make constant interventions, directly or indirectly, home and abroad, in a wide range of human and commercial relations. This therapeutic state is the end-point of a historical development that since the early 20th century has been characterized by the inherent interests of the state being extended to society, through the extension of its authority to once free areas of human activity, including the economy.

In the case of the Unified States of America, welfare state economy and warfare state hegemony are just other sides of the very same coin. Therapeutic nannyism, Political Correctness and the homogenizing cult of "Diversity", and military progressivism, these are the characteristics of the "deconstitutionalized" USA that many patriotic people in Europe (and the US) would like to see marchin' home.

Anyway, all the best and lots of success with your great work.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

P.s.: while previewing this comment, I see that you've answered Eggy in the meantime, perhaps I should reassess my contribution after having read your comment. Many thanks for personally participating in this thread.

Sagunto said...

(small addition..) PW -

"Efficiency is the key here; get rid of the useless state funded jobsworths and concentrate on the necessities of the public sector. That way, it is possible to reduce state employment overall, yet rebuild the necessary core services in an efficient and cost effective manner."

Wasn't that more or less Tony Blair's "third way", i.e. supporting a downsized, efficiently run welfare state?

Furthermore, the statement quoted begs the question as to what these "core services" are, deemed necessary by British Freedom.

And last, but not least: what about monetary policy, i.e. the need for sound money and a policy that allows the market to function (i.e. no manipulation of interest rates by some central bank; no inflationary increase of the money supply, which is a tax on the people)? In the light of the current global financial crisis, that might seem a curious omission.


Anonymous said...

I second Sagunto with his thanks to Paul Weston for responding - and being open to discussion and debate - with a good sense of humor. :)

Anonymous said...

Well its clear that we have some great brains here, I think it would be a wonderful thing to get them all working together on developing a coherent, patriotic and academic Economic policy.

We will need to have strong policies on the Economy to win the mass populace over to us so why not bring the best minds together?

Peter Stafford,
Former EC member of British Freedom.


Watched a TV commentary on American road movies last night as background while constructing a politically correct (no swastika decals) Messerschmitt Bf 110 kit.

Culturally those road movies are as fraudulent as the historical accuracy of the aircraft kit, the thought crossed my mind this could be Europe's Century.

Anonymous said...

Crucial to make starting up small scale manufacturing enterprise as easy and hassle-free as possible. They can pay the tax later, but not if they can't get started. In the Philippines for instance, it's not difficult to start some tiny earner up, not stifled from the outset, as here. People motivate themselves when they are free to.

Anonymous said...

Always though those Bf110's looked rather impressive, in a arthritic lizardy sort of way.

Anonymous said...

One bloke started out traipsing round day after day with a wheel-barrow, collecting old junk metal bits from the poor working class house tenants. Name was David Brown. Another chap makes flutes in his garden shed, has to leave the door open for some parts of the job, short of space. One player that uses his flutes is called James Galway. Garden Shed. Chervl

Anonymous said...


I support virtually all of the points, but can you clarify Point 21 - No Drugs?

Does this include such traditional staples as Caffeine, Alcohol and Nicotine? Medical drugs? Naturally occurring herbs and plants?

I always thought the best reason to keep drugs illegal is to keep prices, and profits, high.

Do you have a plan on reducing the deficit, is it possible to do so without massive inflation? Fiat money and Fractional Reserve banking creates money that isn't based on anything, and it's easy to devalue by printing more. Robbing value from creditors and savers and transferring it to borrowers.

Our current system of only positive inflation is constantly pushing the prices of all commodities higher.

Whilst I agree with most of the values of Christianity, apart from the concept that all are born guilty, and must constantly strive to earn our forgiveness. It messes people up, and it's the same thing that MC uses against us.

Finally, the Golden Rule is present in all major religions apart from Islame. It certainly pre dates Christianity.

Oh, and what do people make of the fact that 'Government' comes from Govern - to control, and ment(from mental)?

Arthur Stellios

Baron Bodissey said...


Actually, “govern” comes (via Latin and French) from the Greek word kubernân, to steer. The governor was the steersman on a ship. The word “cybernetic” comes from the same root.

The suffix “-ment” comes, of course, from the Latin -mentum (via French). It is added to indicate the result or product of an action.

Government is thus “the result of steering”. In our case, onto the rocks.

Sagunto said...

As kind of a follow-up on the more specific questions by @Egghead (and answer by PW), here's a quote that became my starting point for some more random remarks:

"Freedom of Speech a la First Amendment does not need to conflict with censorship of film/game/TV violence. At the moment I cannot criticise Islam, in the future I may not be allowed to criticise the European Union, but I can watch rape, murder, torture and mutilation on mainstream Hollywood output. I would like to reverse this and see no reason why this cannot be achieved."

To that I'd say that firstly, it would be a pleasure indeed to see Hollywood, and the entertainment industry in general, adhere to higher moral standards. However, it is still the case that when confronted with below standard garbage, one can always switch channels, turn off the tv, or, better yet, throw it out entirely.
Secondly, that it is of course true, that the lack of morality of a certain people can be reflected in the law (tax laws come to mind). But the Law never can change the morality of the people.
That's the leftist/progressivist fallacy of using the state to legislate one's way to appropriate behaviour. Wouldn't that put British Freedom at risk of becoming somewhat of a mirror image of Liberal activists, seeking the power of the managerial state to intervene against behaviour they deem inappropriate? In exactly the same way, radical vegetarians seek to enforce government bans on eating meat. When you seek government power to censor, ban or outlaw non-criminal behaviour, you thereby enhance the power of the state.

If British Freedom as a party is serious about encouraging the family, it is only reasonable then, and perhaps even necessary, to accept that where morals are concerned, the "governing body" is not and should not be the state, but the family. Therefore I'd say, leave the censoring up to the parents.

With this in mind, I'm also curious to know how the party will be promoting marriage. What is British Freedom going to do about the Jacobin notion that only a marriage documented by the state has any real and legally binding value? Because it wasn't until the French Revolution, the most anti-Christian event of the modern period until Communism, that government said something like "your Church marriage is not valid in our eyes, you better come and have a civil ceremony if it's going to mean anything." I submit that, perhaps, government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. That would also be a contribution to promoting Christianity.

The point about smoking is commendable enough, and British Freedom makes a strong and justified case against "control freaks" (though it sits somewhat uneasy, as @Egghead noted, with BF apparently increasing government influence in numerous ways).
So why not leave it also to the owners of restaurants then, to decide whether or not they'd allow smoking? After all, it is their business, isn't it? They would learn soon enough what kind of environment is appreciated by their customers, since it is their job to cater to their clients' wishes.
Again, I see no need for government interference whatsoever.

What I do see, for the moment, is a list of principles, or perhaps rather a set of commendable but also somewhat ambivalent intentions of policy. The question as to what should be the proper place and role of government as specified in this party document, that question still seems to offer a wide range of possible answers.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Anonymous said...

As I have already said that the item one needs further explication, I shall attempt to provide an example.

To start, "Introduce a U.S.-style First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech." is not a very good first principle. I would put it as a sub-principle, a point of explanation of something more basic. In this specific case, I would put it as a component of the principle "Establish the Rule of Law and Equality before the Laws." This principle would also contain items such as removal of special privileges of certain groups to flout the law, or laws that make arbitrary distinctions between persons based on something other than their own actions.

As a principle of law, making clear that no person can be held guilty of a crime for any speech or action that would not have constituted a crime if said or done by some other person gives a very straightforward basis to how you will construct the meaning of "Freedom of Speech". This would be particularly effective in combating the usual Stealth-Jihad tactic of Imams saying things and then turning around and making it a crime for anyone else to report on what they said. On the other hand, it would be as illegal for a person or company to make outrageously false claims about themselves and their works as it would be for others to do so. This can be effectively used to combat sexually explicit advertising, which always has the obvious intent of implying that the advertised products provide sexual gratification (which is generally manifestly untrue).

"2. Leave the profoundly undemocratic European Union." is clearly not a principle at all, it is not even a policy, it is a specific example of an action that would be undertaken pursuant to policy guided by the principle of restoring the sovereignty of the English people. The principle of sovereignty does deserve place as a primary principle, as the establishment of laws necessary to the Rule of Law is itself dependent on the question of sovereignty. Also, all the rights of citizenship derive from the dependence of the nation on their contributions to the economic and military independence that are the basis of national sovereignty.

Thus, "Establish and Defend the Sovereignty of the English/British Nation" could be the principle. Out of the principle several important points concerning the exercise of citizenship and the requirements for attaining it in full measure could be set forth, but what concerns us is the explanation of how the core principles of a Sovereign nation are incompatible with certain current foreign policies and their effects.

The principle of national sovereignty easily covers 3-11 on the current list of principles. These are all clearly subordinate points of protecting and asserting the sovereignty of the nation. Thus we move to "12. Diminish the public sector and government interference in the private sector."

This is really an element of "Establish the Rule of Law and Equality before the Laws." There is a tendency to think that establishing the Rule of Law requires a large public sector. In truth, nothing could be farther from the truth, the very division between the public and private sectors is the most glaring example of having laws that only apply to some rather than to all. If the "public sector" is not exempted from the laws that govern the private sector, it is hard to see what the difference between the two might be.

I shall continue in another post

Anonymous said...

To continue...

One need not make such an argument immediately, it would be more felicitous to argue that the police should be throughly subordinate to the citizenry in the exercise of such powers as the citizens deem it prudent to afford them in carrying out the will of the populace. And in the current circumstance, what is really needed is for the police and other public sector actors to cease their role in enabling depredations against the English people by their avowed enemies.

"13. Provide affordable housing for young married families." and "14. Apply Super Tax on second and any further homes." are both so intimately connected as to be inseparable from a larger consideration of how taxes shape economic activity and thus alter the availability of goods (in this case, housing). A tax on surplus homes has two effects. Simply, it will initially tend to flood the market with homes for sale, driving down the price. In the longer term it reorients the construction industry towards building primary residences, keeping those prices low. On the other hand, if applied consistently, such a law could drive up rents on homes rather considerably. Whether or not to combat this is beyond the scope of this clarification, certainly it would not be hard to allow the tax to only apply to primary residents (rather than the residences themselves) so that renting a house would avoid the tax (driving down rents considerably).

However, overall this falls under the principles of establishing a taxation system that abides principles of equity and justice while serving to discourage undesired economic activity (such as maintaining many partially occupied houses at great expense). I have no really catchy title or phrasing for such a principle, it is hard to think of an attractive name for anything to do with taxes, after all. But I encourage you to consider how the issue of using taxes to discourage undesired economic activity plays into your agenda.

"15. Promote and enlarge apprenticeship schemes." To some extent this is another area where carefully applied inaction is a sufficient means of creating the desired result. Technical vocational training is a market that suffers terrible distortion as a result of the enormous public expenditures in supporting general and higher education. This is therefor a point that should be listed as a desirable effect of reduced direct intervention in the education market. Unnecessary public spending of any kind falls readily under the primary principle of Equality before the Law, if one wishes to emphasize a unified theory of government. But prudence with the public funds is capable of standing on its own as a principle for most purposes of political discourse.

At this point, we have the principles of: 1, Establish the Rule of Law and Equality before the Laws; 2, Establish and Defend the Sovereignty of the Nation; 3, Reform the tax system to discourage activity that harms the national/citizens' economic interests (or however you want to put that); 4, Eliminate wasteful and economically destructive public spending; and 5, Live by Christianity’s Golden Rule: “Do unto others as thou wouldst be done by.”

I believe that these 5 principles currently easily cover (and are in turn explicable in terms of) all the remaining items on the list.

Chiu Chun-Ling

Paul Weston said...

Life is never simple it appears....

I appreciate all the comments made, and have noted the issues raised.

A 25 point plan clearly does not allow for explanation, but perhaps a 25 point plan should not need to be explained if it was absolutely clear at the outset!

I will ponder further and may well tweak it in view of the thoughtful and intelligent comments left here.

Sagunto said...

Thank you Paul for your answer -

Meanwhile, I'd be grateful if @Chiu would care to elaborate a bit on the following:

"Also, all the rights of citizenship derive from the dependence of the nation on their contributions to the economic and military independence that are the basis of national sovereignty.
Out of the principle several important points concerning the exercise of citizenship and the requirements for attaining it in full measure could be set forth."

For the sake of clarity, I emphasized the part that might raise some concerns here and there, i.e. the part about rights, granted conditionally by the national state, or so it seems.
This seems to gravitate toward a conception of rights that might be difficult to reconcile with individual rights in the Western tradition of Natural Law.

Also open to question seems to be the kind of economic and military independence, postulated as preconditions for national sovereignty. Is it about autarky, more or less, or something else?


EscapeVelocity said...

Here is hoping that a British Freedom Party-UKIP coalition government is in the UKs near future.

Wish you well Paul, future Prime Minister of the UK.

Anonymous said...

From Wikipedia: "Autarky is the quality of being self-sufficient. Usually the term is applied to political states or their economic policies. Autarky exists whenever an entity can survive or continue its activities without external assistance. Autarky is not necessarily economic. For example, a military autarky would be a state that could defend itself without help from another country. Autarky can be said to be the policy of a state or other entity when it seeks to be self-sufficient as a whole, but also can be limited to a narrow field such as possession of a key raw material."

Britain and Europe are lacking THE key raw material of the modern age which is OIL.

Israel has some oil. Perhaps one of your policies should be to work closely with Israel to secure oil contracts.

Anonymous said...

Great comments by Sagunto and Chiu Chun-Ling.

Paul, in my opinion, you need to design an easy-to-understand and uniformly positive message. I would like to see your list pared down to three memorable simply-worded main points that are put on posters in lower and middle class British areas - in the windows of every local British business and home - in other words, everywhere that British people look. Also, ask everyone to fly the British flag. Re-instill patriotism in the population.

British Freedom Party:

1. British people will rule Britain.

2. British people will make British laws.

3. British people will enjoy freedom and prosperity.

You need to re-frame the national discussion from the idea that it is Britain's responsibility to take care of everyone else in the world to the idea that it is the British people's responsibility to guard their freedom under the law.

For your one word campaign slogan:

Paul Weston: Britain first.

You are a politician now and must learn to phrase every idea in the positive to offend fewer people and achieve more votes.

Study the speeches of President Ronald Reagan and give people the hope that Britain WILL be saved.

Ralph Lynn said...

Excellent Paul,

Attempting to sum it up neatly:

Stop and reverse Cultural Marxism.

Stop and reverse Socialism.

Step out of Globalisation.

Liberty over group rights.

Ignore the Greens (my addition).

I will be donating to BFP as soon as!

The only way to halt our decline is a reversal of 'progressive' cultural and economic destruction. It's going to be quite a struggle. Many people are trapped in the liberal bubble and cannot even conceive another path; but there are plenty - enough, maybe - who clearly see that lame utopianism is just a mask for an anti human, anti civilisation pathology.

Liberal left globalists have a strangle hold on all levers of power and cultural influence and will turn every weapon at their disposal on those who oppose them. They fight dirty. Power and the destruction of everything that is good is all that matters to them. The (as I see it) slide into a polymorphously perverse stone age with islam around to finish the job/be the favoured 'religion' has to be stopped.

On tightening up regulations re entertainment - good! Boundaries are an essential aid to creativity. There will be squeals from luvvies, commentators and the industry along the lines of 'the Mary Whitehouse Brigade Reborn', but so what?

Ralph Lynn said...

Hiya Egghead!

Re your first comment:

When 50% of the economy is the State, there's a LOT of room for manoeuvre!

And later:

'Paul Weston: Britain first'

That's the name of a British patriotic campaign group, who have recently announced the launch of a political party - the British People's Party. Read about them at British Resistance. They are possibly a little to the left of BFP - fine, Nationalists left, right and centre!

Nationalism is the only cure for global gubmint!

Ralph Lynn said...

How's this for promoting free enterprise and job growth?

'A report, authored by German MEP Klaus-Heiner Lehne, was passed by the European Parliament in Strasbourg on November 15th, and has been forwarded to the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, clearing the way for the measure to be put into legislative format.

Text proposed by the Commission
Article 6

1. The laws of the Member States shall require that, in order that a company may be incorporated or obtain authorisation to commence business, a minimum capital shall be subscribed the amount of which shall be not less than EUR 25 000.'

As reported at

More at:

Shaunantijihad said...

A super tax on landlords will collapse house prices as they try to sell into a panicked market. The banks will subsequently all go bankrupt. 30% of the economy will be wiped out at a stroke. No-one will be able to get a mortgage.

It is far better to simply replace those repatriated by immigrating white people facing genocide across the whole of Africa, but in particular Zimbabwe and South Africa as they are of Anglo-Dutch descent anyway. They can take over the houses left vacant and many will increase the national wealth and prevent a banking collapse.

Are you asking for possible candidates to stand yet?

Anonymous said...

I will attempt to clarify, though given that my words have been interpreted to mean the precise opposite of their plain meaning, I lack full confidence that I have not been deliberately misunderstood.

"Also, all the rights of citizenship derive from the dependence of the nation on their contributions to the economic and military independence that are the basis of national sovereignty."

This is to say that nations are forced to grant the privileges of citizenship (which are necessarily above and beyond any natural rights that all humans may be said to possess) to the citizens because it is from the economic productivity and military abilities of those citizens that nations derive their very existence.

It is not the nation that grants rights to the citizen (conditionally or not), but the citizen that grants simple existence to the nation. How I could make this point more clear is really beyond me. If a nation fails to grant sufficient rights to prompt the citizens to continue to feed, clothe, and defend the nation, then the nation will cease to be sovereign.

My purpose in pointing this out is that the issue of true national sovereignty can never be fully addressed without discussion of the rights (above the natural rights of humans generally) that a nation must provide to those who produce its wealth and defend its interests.

This may be regarded as a special case of the natural right to enjoy the fruits of one's own labors (if we recognize such a right). It is special because a strong and independent nation can only be the fruit of the labor's of a community, so while individuals may qualify to be considered citizens, the rights of citizens are in some degree provided to a class rather than directly to the individuals (for instance, the rights to assembly or commerce cannot be enjoyed privately by an individual, nor does it really make sense to speak of the vote as a strictly personal right).

It is therefore true that the rights of citizenship are different from the completely private individual rights that may be considered natural in the sense that they apply to every human. But I should be at a loss if it were not understood that the rights of citizenship have always and ever been distinct from the rights that naturally accrue to all humans regardless of citizenship.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Sagunto said...

Chiu -

"I will attempt to clarify, though given that my words have been interpreted to mean the precise opposite of their plain meaning, I lack full confidence that I have not been deliberately misunderstood."

I must say that I find your way of exchanging views a bit surprising and rather dissapointing, to be honest. If you have some misgivings, which you obviously have, perhaps it's best, if not simply decent, to name the one you're addressing. I asked for your clarification, in order to check if I had indeed misunderstood you, that's why I thought it best to give you my honest, yet provisional, impression.

If there's any "deliberate" effort on my part here, it concerns nothing beyond trying to understand what you mean. Does that sound fair enough for you?

So why not explain yourself first, wait for my follow-up response, which I guarantee will be as honest and fair a reply as I can muster, and if that's not satisfactory you may complain afterwards and provide me the opportunity to see what I can do, deal?

In other words: when discussing different viewpoints, please show some courtesy and self-restraint before jumping to conclusions about ill-intent. Allow yourself the surprise of finding out that I'm in fact quite willing to be persuaded by sound argumentation ;)

So how about we try that first and just see what happens; what say you?

Thanks anyway for your time and effort Chiu.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Paul Weston said...

I bow before the combined intellect of GoV commenters and have revised the 25 Principal Policies.

The "socialist" references as the Baron would term them have now gone and the British freedom site will be updated shortly.

Many thanks for your input, it was very valuable. We are on a learning curve here, so please be patient with the newbie.

Anonymous said...


If you had been making an effort to understand my last post in any degree, you should easily have understood that I felt somewhat nonplussed by the manner in which you chose to interpret my previous comment. Not mere offense, but a genuine loss as to how I was to make my intent any plainer.

When I was stating that it seemed almost as if my meaning had been purposefully wrested to mean the exact opposite of what I had said, it was a necessary part of explaining just how different your interpretation was from my intent. Indeed, the implication you raised of national independence meaning the government would be a self-sufficient autarchy was so bizarre as to be a complete non sequitur. If you have somehow unintentionally hit upon the tactic of using such an archaic term as "autarky" to describe the idea of national independence without awareness of the modern implications of the word, I must congratulate you on your singular ill-fortune.

I am more than willing to clarify anything I say, but the process of doing so will inevitably involve specifying in plain language the degree to which it has been misunderstood. In cases where the interpretation of what I have said is dramatically divergent from my plain meaning, I will attempt to identify a plausible mechanism by which my words could have been misinterpreted. I worded my hypothesis as to how you could have misinterpreted me so completely as gently as I could, but you seem to feel it was not gentle enough.

My apologies, then, for the crude and inarticulate manner of my speech.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

FREE enterprise begins at home.
The comment above from Ralph Lynn re free enterprise and job growth deserves reading slowly, 10 times over. Deserves publcity.

Anonymous said...

Point 3 is British people will enjoy freedom and prosperity - NOT peace and prosperity - because Islam is now promoted as the Religion of Peace and the word Islam means submission which is the opposite of freedom. :)

Paul, I have read your writings before and have always been impressed. :)

Chiu, we are all on the same side here - the side of freedom. :)

Sagunto, I love to read your comments. :)

Anonymous said...

For my part, I wish to emphasize the sincerity of my apology. While it is true that I claim the defect of my manner of expression is a matter of limited ability rather than moral fault, I am painfully aware of my lack of suavity.

That said, I notice that parts of my comments failed to appear. The first comment would have been something of a preface to the two-part comment, the content was of limited significance. But in the process of splitting the longer comment so as to fit in the character limit, I seem to have omitted a paragraph that should have been in-between the two halves of the comment.

That paragraph further explicated the degree to which a firm emphasis on reduction of the legally privileged public sector could be taken, in a society that was firmly committed to the principle of full Equality before the Law. I refer to this missing paragraph (and the argument of radical reduction of the public sector) in the first line of the second half of the comment. But the paragraph in question is redundant, treating a philosophical point of strict adherence to the principle of Law rather than being oriented towards practical political ends.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Sagunto said...

Chiu -

Got your message. As one honourable GoV-commentator would say, "no harm, no foul".

Take care,

p.s.: Eggy, still like your style: a-okay ;)

Anonymous said...

Hi Ralph Lynn,

In my rush, I forgot to include you in my last comment.

Thanks for your input.

All day, I have thought about your pertinent revelation that "1. The laws of the Member States shall require that, in order that a company may be incorporated or obtain authorisation to commence business, a minimum capital shall be subscribed the amount of which shall be not less than EUR 25 000.'"

This is an EVIL restriction designed to eliminate small businesses.

Small businesses are crucial to a good functioning economy!