Friday, December 09, 2011

Paul Weston on Michael Coren

Paul Weston, the chairman of British Freedom, made his first appearance last night on Michael Coren’s program on SUN TV.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Previous posts about British Freedom:

2011 Nov 9 It’s Time for British Freedom
    16 Standing for British Freedom
    19 The English Defence League and British Freedom
    24 British Freedom Breaks into the MSM



Good grief,why does he not join the liberals,limp does not quite cover it.

Pierre_Picaud said...

Ok. Cruel to be kind time.

Coren: "Now, British Freedom Party, that sounds like it might be a bit ominous..."

I tried to warn about this. Repeatedly. This first impression is not limited to Coren. (who after all is sympathetic!) *sigh*

As a totally unknown political entity virtually everyone's first exposure to the party will be the name, and it will govern entirely whether they decide to genuinely delve further into looking at its policies.

Nobody knows who they are, a name change could be filed through the electoral commission in a matter of six weeks.

I won't be listened to, but nevertheless, there it is.

Paul's really going to have to tone down the, "them", "their", "they", "these people"-s... otherwise he will find himself royally shafted in his first proper MSM encounter.

Mark my words.

Pierre_Picaud said...

Re-reading the second part of my last comment, I came to the conclusion that it was needlessly un-constructive criticism.

"them", "their", "they", "these people" can be adequately and intelligently substituted by the phrases:

"Members of the Islamic community"

"Muslim members of society." Etc.

This certainly projects what you would want them to be, rather than what they are, but this is not the point.

Paul will probably only get one bite of the cherry on British MSM TV. The whole socialist edifice - in its entirety - will be focused and determined to accomplish one aim:

Pigeon-holing BFP into its allocated slot as a "hate party", for the whole exercise to be nothing more than a confirmation to the audience of a mental programming they have been receiving for 40 years.

There is no, "If I just get the chance to talk to people and tell them the honest truth, they will listen." This is painfully naive.

As soon. AS SOON as he uses pronouns like "they" and "them" he will be rounded on: "Who do you mean by them? What do you mean by they? That's the whole problem with society we shouldn't be thinking in terms of they and them - we shoudln't be alienating people - we should be including them, and talking about "us" about community. Party's like your are always rightly rejected by the British people in their droves, precisely because you sow division in this way."

To be clear. Yes! We ALL KNOW this is all utter utter bullsh*t, we know it, but it doesn't matter. It's a mental slot that the public has been groomed to understand. It's not logical, it's pavlovian.

If he is to get a second bite of the cherry: he must confound the stereotype, not confirm it; undermine the programming, not reinforce it.

It's a tall order, but Paul can do it. I'm very confident of that.

The biggest problem is confirmation bias, there will be people on his right urging and urging him to go further, to be more reckless, he must temper this instinct. Image is all. Soundbites to pat questions an absolute must. Always remain conscious of the bigger picture.

Sagunto said...

PP -


Pigeon-holing BFP into its allocated slot as a "hate party" [..]"

Duly noted and agreed.

So why, I ask, try to avert that fate? Why not prepare to attack the progressivist MSM and thus instantly gain the sympathy of every Englishman with some common sense? This is what Pim Fortuyn did and achieved, when he sky-rocketed on the Dutch political scene. Attack the lamestream media themselves. Didn't do Geert Wilders any harm either, and what's the name of his party again?

Your tactic, though understandable in a world without internet, would be of no avail anyway, as you yourself indicate, since the BFP would be attacked regardless. And what's more, it would only make Paul look like yet another politician who appears to be tough talkin' but who ultimately submits to the MSM hegemony in the eyes of the people.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Pierre_Picaud said...


The answer to your question is as sad as it is simple. It was because Pim was gay, and had a predilection for Moroccan lads.

He confounded the stereotype - in his person - the mental reflex of: "he must have these views because he's a racist" was circumvented. He couldn't (in the media conception) be racist because he was a designated minority. So what he said was given credence and a hearing. (If for no other reason that it represented a from of curious cognitive dissonance for multiculturalism.)

As a member of a designated minority group, it was impossible within the narrative to classify him as a true "hater": true haters are always white, invariably male, and usually middle-aged.

Note for example who is the person who's been subjected to the greatest hate campaign in the EDL, it's not Tommy, it's Guramit Singh. It's the gay and Sikh and Jewish divisions that are purposefully ignored in public while overwhelming and cloak & dagger efforts are made to crush them in private. They are magic bullets because they: undemrine the narrative.

They make the person at home think to themselves, "Hey! This doesn't gel with what I've been told to believe for the past 40 years..." And it is within that split second of that "Hey!" that you get the opportunity of presenting them with an alternative and beginning to bring them round to your point of view.

The arch-political strategist Peter Mandelson was not wrong when he said, "election are always won in the middle." This is the key. those who agree with us, or lean in our direction, will come with us anyway: if you can want to go from 4% to 40% you have to pitch to that 40% - and that unfortunate begins with slowly peeling off the layers of programming they've been subjected to for decades.

i.e. That anyone who says minority X is problematic, is mentally disturbed and even giving them the time of day is the first step towards Auschwitz.

It's not nice, it's not fair, but it's reality: I'm not arguing that Paul not box, I am arguing that he box clever.

It's all well and good talking about the internet, but the truth is we ARE outnumbered and out-gunned: the chief weapons in our arsenal must therefore be our intellects, pre-empting and outflanking the predictable thrusts and parries of our opponents in order to gain what advantage we can.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Weston did very well in this interview. He was calm and clear and explained things. This is the best and most promising approach: to be open, honest and reasonable, and not trying to please the PC MSM with their Newspeak who will always crack down on anybody who does not conform to their view. What matters is not the reaction by the PC MSM but the perception by the public. People sould see that there is an alternative and that there are still politicians
who have the courage to fight for the truth. Many voters need badly such politicians and will vote for them. British Freedom Party is an
excellent name for such a party.
As Sagunto rightly pointed out, such an approach has led Fortuyn and Wilders in the Netherlands to considerable success, in spite of a very hostile media climate. That is democracy.

Anonymous said...

I think that it is reasonable to lead with your positive principles and not deign to answer charges before they are explicitly framed.

Don't bother to list the things you're not against. Just say what you're for, equality before the law and the freedom and dignity of the individual. Yes, your party is focused on the political situation in Great Britain, it is therefore a British party...for freedom.

Of course, long-distance interviews are always going to be difficult, the personal connection is harder to establish not only because of limitations of the technology but because of cultural barriers. That makes it more important that you stress and define what you are for rather than talk too much about what you are (or are not) against. Freedom for the individual means being held accountable for one's personal actions and not being discriminated against based on one's race (no need to mention that you're particularly concerned about discrimination against whites unless you are asked what kinds of racial discrimination which case you can then describe the particular racial discriminations that are recent and relevant).

Still, congratulations are in order here. The effort to establish a British government that upholds freedom is making waves. Keep it up.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

Pierre Picaud,

Yes, I picked up on his use of they & them etc. As I said on one of the other threads here recently, the powers-that-be will assign meaning to the words that issue from Paul's mouth based on his RELATIONSHIP with them, and with their beloved minority groups.

He's got a target on him already, if he makes a grammatical move like that on the msm he'll be pulling the trigger for them. They'll lap that up for sure.

And yes, it's all rubbish but that's how they think & how they operate. It's pointless pretending otherwise.

Sagunto said...

PP -


That's rather simple indeed ;) and really beside the point I made.

You don't mention Wilders' success after Fortuyn and I should have mentioned Bolkestein's success before Fortuyn. Both of these political leaders without any claim to minority status. So whereas your statements about Fortuyn are basically correct, that's not why he attracted so many votes.
That was because of the structural problem with immigration and Islam, already manifest in Dutch society since the late seventies. The public over the years has witnessed how these problems were first anathemized by the MSM and then declared forbidden territory for dissenters. There is widespread hatred for the disingenuousness of the MSM and part of Fortuyn's and Wilders' attraction has been due to their taking the lamestreamers to task.

Now again, what is the name of Wilders' political party?


You can take my word for it, since I've seen it happening both with Wilders and Fortuyn: a politician who parts ways with the establishment to stand up for the maligned and suppressed truth should never, ever, compromise his message to the audience by following your advice, however smartly attired. He should use the media while attacking and exposing the media for what they are: lapdogs of the establishment. And the public will recognize truthfulness when they see it, because they are fed up.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,