Freedom Institute: BNP's thinking "sound"

by Richard Waghorne - Freedom Institute Sun Jun 13, 2004 22:31 rwaghorne at freedominst dot org

Conor,

That sounds about right. I presume you're refering to Berlin in your use of 'negative' but irrespective of that the example above is a fair illustration.

Richard

www.freedominst.org

by ZXBarcalow Tue Jun 08, 2004 03:31

I think the term 'negative freedom' means the absence of coercive power restricting freedom. As opposed to 'positive freedom' which means the freedom to do something.

Example: We have 'negative' freedom if the law protects us against arbitrary arrest . We are 'positively' free to go on holiday if we are wealthy enough to.

I think that's what it means. I could be wrong...

by Darren O'Brien Mon Jun 07, 2004 13:03 dobrien at freedominst dot org

Conor,

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on exactly what is a "negative freedom", what you believe constitutes one, who it applies to, who you believe exercises them and in what way, and not just use it as a banner headline.

I would be interested in your explanation of how you can construe a freedom as being negative, and specifically if you identify one or more that concerns you why this is so.

As always, you can contact any of us in the freedom institute or visit our website to get further information if you have specific queries

With regards,

Darren

by Conor - SAucd Sat Jun 05, 2004 21:07

Does the FI deal in negative freedoms?

by pc Thu Jun 03, 2004 14:24

these seem to be an american idea, these proper sounding research institutes, they put out reports and they at first sound reasonable seems to be coming over here but its hard to tell where they all come from presumably out of universities but its hard to tell which ones are legit and whats legit

anyone know of any research institutes more here

by David Sun May 30, 2004 20:45

"We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. We will also clamp down on the flood of ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries."


Well, Aren't we lucky that Ireland and Britain are all the way up here in north west Europe, Obviously that means we should never have to offer refuge to any victims of poverty, war or natural disaster.

by Badman Sun May 30, 2004 20:20

The pomposity of these young pups never ceases to amaze. The author of this piece clearly thinks that it is a 'scientific' and 'rational' presentation of the facts - and he's mighty pround of his uniquely balanced intellect that can provide such a pure exposition of freedom of speech that it should serve as a model to us all.

This would be merely irritating - the usual ill-informed pompous squeekings of the aspiring ruling class - if it were not for the fact that the writer was unable to repress the evidence of his rabid and deluded political beliefs.

1. The term "political correctness" or one of its variations is used 8 times in his above comment with not a single definition. In fact whenever anything to do with "modern Western governments" is mentioned, the give-away phrase is never far away. Presumably, according to this individual, everybody from Thatcher to Bush to Blair to Berlusconi are part of this "political correctness".

Such use of this term, without any attempt to define it or describe the types of policy that it incorporates is typical of modern fascism. A term that is in itself meaningless is used willy-nilly to dismiss 99% of political thought in the world. If you dismiss them you don't have to deal with their arguments and you are free to build your own little deluded set of theories without the inconveniences of sane people pointing out how stupid you sound.

2. The author unilaterally decides to redefine the term 'left' to include the BNP and the Nazis! Again this is typical of fascist discourse, where everything that they don't agree with is simple labelled 'red' and that's the end of the conversation, mate.

Although, the author doesn't define what he means by the term 'left', there is a few clues scattered around the text to give us a hint of what he's talking about (or at least what planet he's writing from).

A. The quote "unemployment in this country will be brought to an end, and secure, well-paid employment will flourish." from BNP material is used as sole justification that the BNP have left wing economic policies. From this I gather that he believes that saying that you want to eliminate unemployment and provide well-played employment to all is clear evidence of being left-wing. This places pretty much every single electoral political party ever very firmly on the Left and why stop there, even Pinochet and Mussolini said that this is what he wanted.

B. The reference to the Nazi's "Left-Wing industrial policy and State control of the individual?" From this we can further learn that "state control of the individual" is another attribute of the left (the reference to the industrial policy is a mere assertion and offers no clues). Again Pinochet springs to mind as a noted leftist under this definition.

The author obviously doesn't consider the anarchists and other libertarian 'left-wing' communists to be part of the left, which they would probably dispute (as would 99.9% of the population).

In essence, the author adopts an arbitrary and seriously unusual definition of the left and, without telling us of his unusual understanding of the word, proceeds to lump all of the things that he doesn't like into this category. A technique that is symptomatic of a mind that is at once feeble yet uniquely arrogant and self-confident..

3. The author states that "racism, and racial tension, is largely a consequence of State interference in the lives of people who would otherwise be too busy working, providing for their families and socialising, to be bothered by such issues."

This is presented as an assertion that is obviously true and needs no evidence to back it up. This theory is again unusual, presented without evidence, and contradicts many, many serious academic studies into the sources of racism that have been founded on the detailed study of large quantities of evidence.

In short, the author presents a worthless statement which could only be convincing to the tiny proportion of the population who believe that state interference is the source of _all_ problems and that this is such an obvious fact that it needs no argument. Convincing to fascists: maybe; to anybody else: laughable.

4. The racism that runs throughout the article is very apparent and hardly backs up the rational approach that the autor claims that this article exemplifies. The author "states that there are indeed Whites being left behind thru all this politicised wrangling", maybe there are, but not one single mention of the people of colour who are already left behind. How can you write an article that largely concerns itself with equality and race but neglects to mention the fact that people of colour are on average much 'less equal' than white people and only mentions cases of white people being "less equal" to individual blacks (again with no real evidence)?

The hard statistical evidence on inequalities between ethnic groups is extremely well know, well documented and easy to discover. We can only assume that the author chose not to mention it as he is a racist.

5. The text is full of the sort of casual lies about the state of the world that is typical of the deluded far right.

" English Whites are too self-conscious and "guilty" to parade their national flag during sports events"

This is just a lie. Many English fans do so. The only reason I've ever heard for people not doing so is because they don't want to be mistaken for right-wing fanatics such as the author of the above piece (and I have much sympathy for their concerns).

Asylum seekers are all "either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries"

An interesting god-like knowledge of 'all' asylum seekers.

"public celebration of 2,000 year old Christian festivals like Christmas and Easter is diluted, and often banned, by City Councils."

Yeah, right. It happens sooooo often that US and UK councils ban christmas. What strange, extra-terrestrial. Nazi discussion boards have you been hanging around on?

There are many more glaring holes in the 'rational' article above. I don't have the week it would take to go through them all. Suffice to say that this text is the product of a deluded mind which has only the msot tenuous links to the reality that most of us abide in. It's a bit worrying that the author seems to have no idea how raving he sounds and its even more worrying for the FI that their articles sound so similar to a typical bone-head rant on one of the fascist internet discussion boards.

by John Lalor - Freedom Institute Sun May 30, 2004 18:56

It seems that Ireland is not ready for open debate. The mere mention of any party to the Right of the Labour Party causes palpitations amongst the noble Left. While the Freedom Institute has in the past been given the opportunity to have threads deleted by the administrators of indymedia.ie, we have refused this offer. Freedom of Speech is one of the most important issues to true libertarians, regardless of the sentiment, affiliation or taste of the proponent. This right is too important to be censored here, trimmed there.

Having scanned the thread commenced by “Naziwatch” (good to see people reporting on the actions of today’s Nazis – the Left monitoring the Left, or have you not studied the history of Nazi’s Left-Wing industrial policy and State control of the individual?), it seems it took the aforementioned six words to curse, and a mere seven to misspell. Some things never change in the upper intellectual echelons of the Left… While we at the FI welcome all criticism, and censor nothing, it is such a shame we cannot ourselves gain the same treatment.

Here is a repost from the Freedom Institute (without indentation, it is difficult to follow, but I put the original article’s pieces in inverted-commas.):

1.

“…It is parties like the BNP who step in and vacuum up votes from the disenchanted. One more consequence of this is the curtailing of freedom of speech. The BNP are all-too conscious of the blocking of real, honest debate by Labour/Lib-Dem ministers and counsellors. A call before the 2001 British General Election by Labour, for parties to "agree" not to "play the race card," was the most despicable example of a politically correct culture where image is everything, and substance is best avoided. Britain is now suffering the consequences of years of refusal to speak about the issues. The BNP know this; many ordinary folk know this, and the solidarity created between the two is absolutely the fault of the moral cowardice to debate the issues.”

I state that there are indeed Whites being left behind thru all this politicised wrangling. From this, I fully endorse open discourse (Freedom of Speech) in all areas of politics. I accuse Britain’s Labour Party in particular of “moral cowardice” in their avoidance to discuss the issues openly. I tell of how the BNP are enjoying the consequences of this – not that the consequences are a good thing, especially that of the BNP’s increased vote-take.


2.

“The usual slander abounds: the likes of the FI, the UKIP and the BNP, unhappy with a full-blown Schengen Pact, are deemed, as usual, "Xenophobic and isolationist". As we repeatedly see, the original goals of the old EEC - free movement of individuals with EU-member passports, and free trade within the EU - was achieved long ago. Achieving these freedoms was a wonderful thing. Further centralised power in Brussels was never in the interest of the member states - but it is in the interest of so many in Brussels.”

I think I qualify this pretty well.


3.

“What the BNP Have To Say
The FI have been compared with violent Right-wing groups. One such group would be the British National Party (BNP). What is their policy on immigration? How many of their detractors have actually read their manifestos?”

The latter question is a good point, I would say.


4.

“Whatever one may think of the "right" of the immigrants to stay in their chosen country, few disagree that the immigration systems of countries like Britain and France are a shambles. When the politically correct powers-that-be refuse to act in a way that resembles the opinion of a great many rational citizens, the hard-line parties and groups gain stronger following. However, what these groups demand is rarely quoted accurately, and blanket smears enable most not to bother finding out for themselves. While others fail to give them a moment’s thought, the FI believe too strongly in freedom of speech to resort to such intellectual cowardice.”

I open with the right to choose whether or not one agrees with the right of immigrants to stay. I draw the argument away from “yes” and “no” and take it to a point where we can argue logistics, avoiding sentiment and opinion.

I rightly say that a failure to at least listen to the public always leads to “unpopular” (with whom?) parties rising. This is a fact that I point out – I neither agree nor disagree with the whole issue in this statement.

I believe my accrediting of the FI with the label of being firm believers in Freedom of Speech is not just true, but it is trying to lead readers by example. Inaccuracies in quotations are the scourge of both freedom of the media, and, more dangerously, a growth in the public’s ire at being patronised and “lied to by the politicians.”


5.

“On many occasions, the BNP show their Left-wing economic views. They claim that, when their economic manifesto is followed, "unemployment in this country will be brought to an end, and secure, well-paid employment will flourish." Michael Tanner of the USLP might not agree: "In 1989, the U.S. Department of Labour reviewed nearly 100 studies on the relationship between immigration and unemployment and concluded that ‘neither U.S. workers nor most minority workers appear adversely affected by immigration.’" Regardless of centuries of evidence about the mutually beneficial relationship between the immigrant and their new country, the BNP are not interested. Britain - a country who owes much to immigration in the last 60 years - is not in economic need of immigrants, according to the BNP. No, they, "also call for preference in the job market to be given to native Britons." While the siege-mentality between the poor(er)/unemployed folks, and the BNP counsellor, will surely add up to votes for the BNP, it will not be thanks to sound understanding of the economy.”

Left Wing economics? Undeniable. I am trying pretty hard to ridicule them. (Shall I spell it out?: I show that I disagree; that they disgust me; that they are economically irresponsible; that most of their policies are completely against where we stand on immigration.) I immediately back up my stance, not with the usual empty rhetoric and slanging, but with respectable economic-research sources. This sourcing, time and time again, shows that we are fervently pro-immigration.

I ridicule the BNP in five separate sentences in this paragraph. All criticism is based on terrible economic policy, and, most of all, their complete hypocrisy in relation to how immigrants and indigenous Britons have both hugely benefited from much post-WWII immigration.

Where I do support the BNP’s views is on issues regarding the despicable and explosive way in which Politically Correct policies are turning sections of society in on each other. I stand by these statements 100%.


6.

“Equality Before Law
In Britain, we find that the BNP is quick to claim that it stands for the "common folk" - the very same "common folk" that the traditional Left have forsaken for more chic environs. No matter what one’s opinion is of a fiercely nationalist organisation, they must realise that the growing popularity on the BNP has been greatly aided by its opponents. The BNP are happy to listen to the poorer in society, whose lives have been affected by reverse discrimination and high racial tension (such as in Bradford). And who can blame them? No, it’s not the fault of the Asians and Afro-Caribbeans - who, unfortunately, take the blame. Look no further than the politically correct policies of modern Western governments, too scared to address emotional issues of racism and discrimination. But the BNP aren’t scared:

"We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. We will also clamp down on the flood of ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries."”

I would have thought the Left would embrace our demand for, “Equality Before Law”… I again ridicule the Liberal Left, and accuse them of leaving the genuinely needy behind. I again separate allegiance and neutrality when I state that the BNP is lapping up votes thanks to their careless political opponents’ disinterest in the less well-off. I do not say such increase in BNP’s popularity is a good thing.

“The BNP are happy to listen to the poorer in society”: endorsement? No – more a, “you regular parties have dropped the ball…now look who’s in there chatting to your constituents…”

Do I blame the Blacks and Asians?: “it’s not the fault of the Asians and Afro-Caribbeans - who, unfortunately, take the blame. Look no further than the politically correct policies of modern Western governments, too scared to address emotional issues of racism and discrimination. But the BNP aren’t scared.” I didn’t think so. I will, however, never relent in accusing and attacking the regular parties for failing in their various tasks. Political Correctness is a baton with which to beat genuine cries of foul play in society – and, despite what many of our critics would have others believe, victims come in all colours and races…

The BNP quote looks a little dangerous, until I qualify it with: “While the claims in the latter statement might not be completely accurate, the BNP have a captive audience.”


7.

“Indeed, racism, and racial tension, is largely a consequence of State interference in the lives of people who would otherwise be too busy working, providing for their families and socialising, to be bothered by such issues. But people have an inherent appreciation for "fairness" and "equality" before the law. Punish Whites more than Minorities for committing "racially motivated" crimes; dole out unaccountable money funded by taxes paid largely by those hard-working folk - these are a recipe for resentment in proud nationals.”

Isn’t that the biggest endorsement of real multiculturalism, or what?!


8.

“The BNP continue, by claiming that they "will abolish all council spending on Politically Correct projects designed to favour Labour and Lib Dem pet minorities." They believe that their, "proposals will help to reduce tensions which have reached dangerous levels in many parts of urban Britain." As explained, above, there is some sound thinking about racial tension here. They claim that,
"Once such inequalities have been ended, different ethnic groups within the population will have money spent on them according to the percentage of the taxpaying population they make up. ... Unequal council spending in favour of minorities has done enormous damage to community relations; it must be replaced by fair and equal treatment for all."”

Would my endorsement of this policy not help to diffuse racial tensions?


9.

“Not only are they in tune with natural human reaction to unfair treatment, they also (albeit, for once) profess sound fiscal behaviour in demanding that spending be proportional to population. Further, they believe that,
"The imposition of ‘equal opportunities’ quotas is both unfair on the majority who are discriminated against, and condescending to capable members of ethnic minorities who are seen as having obtained jobs on account of their colour rather than their personal abilities. Council run ‘equal opportunities’ policies encourage racial tensions and deny the taxpaying public the right to have the best people doing the jobs for which we have to pay."”

This is a criticism of genuinely unfair treatment of people.


10.

“As America has found, and countries like Sri Lanka and India discovered decades ago, meddling with society - demanding quotas and a false sense of equality - is tantamount to incitement. The BNP’s description of these policies as being, "condescending to capable members of minorities," is absolutely true. The US is so riddled with "Affirmative Action" (See Note 2) that, when blacks attain good positions and university places, naturally, questions are quietly asked about whether or not they got there through the quota system. As for the social construction (i.e. licensing and legal coercion) in cities like Bradford, Oldham and London, this is causing a large population of Whites to be left behind. (In fact, the BNP have picked up votes from some blacks and Hindus, dissatisfied with Muslim issues, in Oldham!)”

I try to show that we can learn from others’ mistakes. I also show how it’s more than just Whites who are finding solace with their BNP counsellors.


11.

“Where’s the Pride?
Finally, we find just how bad things have gotten: where English Whites are too self-conscious and "guilty" to parade their national flag during sports events; where the apparent sensibilities of minorities outweigh the right of proud English to fly their flag (here’s an interesting test: imagine the uproar if many Irish fans were similarly-treated during soccer and rugby world cup fever). Again, quicker than a Sinn Fein councillor with the chance of using a populist, working class cause, the BNP therefore step up:
"In order to balance years of official promotion of ‘ethnic’ identities and cultures - generally at the expense of the majority community - we will introduce a council-funded St. George’s Day festival, together with recognition in schools and council buildings of the Saints Days of the patron saints of the other indigenous nations and cultures of the British family of nations: St. Andrew; St. David and St. Patrick."

The Muslim Mayor of Oldham banned the English flag on St. George’s Day in 2001. And in the US, the recently invented African-American holiday of "Kwanza" is billed as having the vital importance, while public celebration of 2,000 year old Christian festivals like Christmas and Easter is diluted, and often banned, by City Councils. Is it any wonder that there is racial tension in cities throughout Britain and Europe? While the BNP are a pretty distasteful party, to lay the blame on their shoulders is simplistic and fraudulent. Accusing the BNP of inciting hatred is analogous to claiming that sleazy gossip magazines and tabloid journalism drive lowbrow public opinion. They are there because there is a market for it. Why there is such a market needs to be addressed.”

Seriously, who could (maybe in private) disagree with the problem of indigenous folk being prevented from flying their own flag? Do I propose to ban Arabian, Caribbean, African and Asian countries’ flags flying? No, and this is the important difference. I endorse real equality.



Conclusion.

I request that those of you who have the capability to look beyond political allegiance actually read this article. It is large, and detailed, but hides nothing. It may be cumbersome, but using others’ reports to refer to an article is hardly a very reliable way of getting the true meaning of this supposedly-inflammatory work.

Endemic in the history of despotic States has been the suppression of speech. Campus speech codes ruin open debate in the US. Incitement Laws and Race-Hate legislation sound good in principle, but, in practice, they fall far short of promises. I myself have read Marx and Engels. While most of their economics is woefully naïve and disproved, not only should one read all there is on a topic (regardless of the position of the argument), but even the likes of Marx and Engels wrote things worth remembering.

To say that immigration is a disgrace in modern-Britain is accepted by many on the Left. I repeat the sentiment throughout the article that it is a fool who blames the immigrant. In fact, under immigration laws designed by the FI, our proportion of immigrants would be far higher, and we would welcome this. Using Switzerland as an example, accusations of Xenophobia and intolerance are rife, but their policies and the healthy state of the country belie most of the labelling from the EU. Factual ignorance of the position of one’s opponent displays weak (or non-existent) research.

The economic policies – which, by definition, are protectionist, and quite Left-wing –
of the BNP are a disgrace. They attach this nonsense to their ideals about immigration to produce a manifesto that would be economically damaging to Britain (and, dare I say, culturally ruinous). Worse still, they would be economically devastating to impoverished foreign nationals, desperate for a better (and, often, safer) life.

What we find is protectionism for inefficient and privileged Western World workers, by the blocking of entry of the hungry and ambitious. It is “national pride” (i.e. “Buy Irish” propaganda) masking genuine disregard for the welfare of the 3rd World’s citizens, and an arrogant ignorance of the demands of the consumer. My repeated quoting of Thomas Jefferson should have suggested so.

As an aside, in reading much of the remarks about the FI’s policy on immigration, I am brought to realising that many of our critics would not be the best people to listen to genuine worries and injustice upon poor(er) White communities. Again, and absolutely not the fault of minorities, there just seems to be too much political capital in rushing to the side of one race before another’s.

We at the FI demand absolute equality, not politically correct “equality”.

by John mcGuirk - Freedom Institute Sun May 30, 2004 17:18 jmcguirk at freedominst dot org www.freedominst.org 086 083 2011

To whom it may concern;

If whoever posted this had taken the time or the effort to read the report from which he or she is quoting, it would have been obvious to that person that the Freedom Institute advocates a policy of open-borders migration, hardly a BNP policy. What the author of our report has identified, rightly, is the sentiment behind BNP support and how best to undermine that sentiment. The report identifies the cause of the disease that is the BNP and seeks to address it. It does not at any point support the aims of the BNP. Anybody who doubts this should follow the link provided by the poster to the report itself, where the remarks can be read in context.

Any further queries on this matter should be directed to myself or to [email protected].

Kind Regards,

John McGuirk
Freedom Institute

by Chrimbo Sun May 30, 2004 16:34

These right wingers are always exposed for what they are in the end, - racists, pure and simple. How anybody could ever be right wing amazes me. They're all scum.