Countdown to Serfdom

Tomorrow morning, the 17th day of Ramadan, British voters will go to the polls in a referendum on whether or not the UK will remain in the European Union. Sad to say, the wind seems to have shifted in the direction of Remain, so that after June 23rd the people of the United Kingdom will enter a permanent state of serfdom. From Friday on, the good peasants of Albion will have to tug their forelocks in perpetuity to the Lord of the Manor in Brussels.

Paul Weston of Liberty GB did another radio “interview” today, with an outfit called talkRadio. No one has ever spoken to these “journalists” like this before and they seem unable to handle it.

For some reason the interviewers don’t even seem to be ashamed when they know they have no argument. Their psychology must be very interesting…

Note: After the first few minutes, this interview gets VERY interesting:

Paul Weston is a British-based writer who focuses on the damage done to Western Civilisation by the hard left’s ongoing cultural revolution, which seeks to destroy the Christian, capitalist and racial base of the West. He is now one of the leaders of PEGIDA UK, and is also the leader of Liberty GB. His website may be found here, and his political Facebook page here. For links to his essays, see the Paul Weston Archives.

38 thoughts on “Countdown to Serfdom

  1. Countdown to Serfdom is a very good way to describe what’s about to happen.
    I’d bet good money Cameron will address the sodden masses and inform them:
    “Well it was very close, but Britain will remain in the EU…”
    Whether Brits actually vote ‘out’ or not, the EU will ‘fix’ it!

  2. It’s amazing how the interviewer launches into a virtual tirade against Weston. His questions are unintelligent, badgering, pompous in his ignorance.

    • When you are trying to win an argument by saying ‘It doesn’t matter what my opinion is!’ you know you have in fact, lost the argument.

  3. Why hasn’t Britain sided with the Visegrad countries so far? They show us what a union of European countries is capable of. Why isn’t there a politician who poses an alternative EU. Why are we all sidetracked by this either you’re in, or out, dichtomy.

    The established order will continue its onslaught no matter what the outcome. The only victims are the British pensioners in Spain and Eastern European workers. The real problem is not being tackled here.

    • That will come later, a common market with truly democratic countries interested in having a level trading field, not 23 countries marching in goose-step over the cliff. To mention that now would be distracting and provide more ammunition to the Remain sheeple.

  4. Paul’s best point would have been that some of the electorate may have voted for Jo Cox as a person rather than as a representative of the Labour Party, and that therefore they might not want whoever the Labour Party chooses to “replace” her. He did kind of make the second half of that argument, but he passed up the chance to make the first part (which strengthens the second part), even when the interviewer suggested it to him. Maybe it is because Paul disagrees so much with the viewpoints that Jo Cox represented, he cannot imagine that anyone would have voted for her on that basis. Or maybe he feared a follow up question, as to how likely it was that any such voter would prefer the Liberty GB candidate to the Labour Party candidate, given how contrary to Jo Cox’s views Liberty GB’s are.

    One contradictory point that the interviewer made was alleging that “Jo Cox’s colleagues” will now be forced to campaign, given that he then went on to say that Liberty GB had no chance of winning the seat. If that’s a fact (and I think it is) then there will be no necessity for anyone to campaign against them.

  5. His use of language is uncharacteristically unfortunate. In a representative parliamentary system, a candidate standing in an election doesn’t provide the people with ‘representation’–that’s what the successful candidate provides. What a candidate standing at an election does for his or her supporters is to provide those supporters with an opportunity to give effect to their choice. What he’s really saying is that no candidate gives the supporters of his party no reason to vote.

  6. I have to confess I don’t think Weston did a very good job in the interview. I also didn’t see the interviewer as particularly hostile. The personal views of the interviewer may or may not have coincided with the running of a Liberty GB candidate, but Weston clearly had a chance to address the issue, and got bogged down in attacking the interviewer.

    In particular:
    1) Weston let himself be drawn into acknowledging the “vast majority of Muslims are peaceful”, instead of pointing out that regardless of whether a Muslim engages in violence, the base tenets of Islam are clear that it is the individual responsibility of Muslims to institute Muslim law (sharia). A Muslim who ignores that mandate is subject to the death penalty. Therefore, the more Muslims present, the more difficult to maintain democratic institutions;

    2) Weston got bogged down in arguing about the percentages of the electorate that didn’t vote for the assassinated parliament member and that they wouldn’t be represented. Weston should have said that the business of a representative government is to run for election and represent the constituents, and that function doesn’t stop with assassinations. It doesn’t matter if someone’s feelings are hurt when you do your job. If the constituency didn’t agree with running a candidate, they would just not vote for him, and the Labor candidate would not have to put any work at all in running.

    3) Weston got bogged down with talking about the opinions of the interviewer, who was bringing out the opposing points of view. The interviewer was correct in stating that it didn’t matter what his opinions were, as long as Weston had the opportunity to present his point of view, which in all fairness, he did. He just chose to take up a large percentage of the time chasing red herrings.

    • There is old adage that says never argue with a stupid person because they will drag you down to their level. This interview proves the wisdom of it. Paul Weston did well imo to keep an even temper.

    • I disagree only to say that the interviewer was an insufferable, lefty putz who soon showed he wasn’t about to have an honest debate. This “dynamic” whereby he can interrupt freely, at length, and aggressively and is immune from having his assumptions politely challenged by questions from an interviewee is preposterous.

      Further, he was dishonest to argue that Mr. Weston was challenging the FPTP electoral formula. How he got there was simply by distorting his views.

      Weston accurately pointed out that representative government doesn’t, shouldn’t, and hasn’t ground to a halt because some moron kills a politician.

      The crux of the matter, moreover, is that this “grief” that “everyone” is supposedly feeling is sanctimonious garbage. Any adult person knows the grief of the families involved and how this will affect them for years but it’s pure posturing to pretend to feel some personal loss. Personally, I can appreciate the ghastly slaughter in Orlando and Manhattan but I didn’t lose a second’s sleep or shed one tear and don’t now. What I did and do feel is white hot fury. What I don’t feel is actual grief for strangers. Am I fit to walk among men?

      Anyway, isn’t it signature leftism to say that if we stop living/eating/attending heavy metal concerts/breathing/laughing/writing poems/linking arms in the street/lighting tiny candles/speaking out/electing new morons then “they” will have won?

      This “journalist” on a mission was also quick to try to deflect Weston’s point about assassination of other MPs by saying that historical precedent shouldn’t inform us on how to behave in the present and that society should move “forward” by – you guessed it! – doing what he approves of. This is the quintessential leftist nonsense about the irrelevance of the past and the stupidity of our forebears. Not only that but this joker could channel the voters of Hartwell-Wildebeest-Lutefisk just by existing. It is exactly tradition and precedent that are reliable guides when times are dark and confused.

      I think Weston did the right thing by confronting this ill-mannered, pumped-up varlet when the interruptions started to darken the sky and the heretofore unannounced “dynamic” was brought into view. The interview headed south quickly and it was necessary to take the man on, which PW did with commendable firmness and good manners. Marine Le Pen took no guff from a BBC anchorbabe when, under similar circumstances, there was “an agenda.”

      I agree that PW made a strategic error on the “most Muslims are lovely” point. The existential threat to any infidel nation is the presence of more than 1,000 Muslims. Muslims killed, expelled, subjugated, oppressed, enslaved, or impressed infidels everywhere they took over. They do so today and identical treatment must be accorded Muslims in return. Not out of revenge but simply to survive. There can be no compromise on this point.

      However, this is my view, not his, and he is leading LibertyGB. As I like to say, if it were easy, everybody would do it. And you got to fight the nearest Indian.

      • Thanks for that Col Bunny. I had no intention of talking about Islam in this interview. I wanted to make one point only, which was that allowing an uncontested election was undemocratic. These “interviews” usually only last around 5 mins, so to divert onto the issue of Islam and domination was somewhere I didn’t want to go.

    • “1) Weston let himself be drawn into acknowledging the “vast majority of Muslims are peaceful”, instead of pointing out that regardless of whether a Muslim engages in violence, the base tenets of Islam are clear that it is the individual responsibility of Muslims to institute Muslim law (sharia). A Muslim who ignores that mandate is subject to the death penalty. Therefore, the more Muslims present, the more difficult to maintain democratic institutions…”

      I agree that this was a serious lapse in Weston’s ability to deal with this interviewer (especially since Weston opens by saying the problem is the most important one for this entire 21st century); though the problem is much graver even than Ronald B. describes it. Given everything we know (or should know, by now) about Islam and Muslims, if our Western civilization is to survive (and not merely one small part of it (UK), we must stop inching along with our learning curve about the problem and graduate to two informed realizations:

      1) the problem is Muslims putting Islam into practice; it is not just “Islam” as some kind of abstraction floating around as a bundle of repellent ideas — and this problem is systemic and metastasizing;


      2) since we cannot discern the difference between genuinely harmless Muslims and dangerous Muslims with reliability adequate for our safety in the long term, so we must consider all Muslims the problem and stop this nonsense about different types & flavors of Muslims.

      As for #1, the interviewer had the upper hand: there is a logic to the PC MCs and the Leftists on this one aspect of the issue. They recognize that the problem is Muslims, not Islam. The Counter-Jihad meanwhile is busy trying to say no, the problem is Islam, not Muslims. The PC MCs and Leftists are right; but they draw the wrong conclusions (“most Muslims just wanna have a sandwich”). As long as the Counter-Jihad fails to engage this aspect head on, it will be forever scrambling around futzing with the ball under game rules set by the mainstream.

      Well, not “forever”. Mohammedans will destroy our societies before forever comes. Unless we turn this collective Titanic around (which I’m less and less inclined to hope will happen with each passing year…)

  7. I would have considered it a long shot anyway. The ‘Remain’ camp will most likely commit fraud in the referendum. They’ve used every other dirty trick in the book, why not fraud? I have also head that the referendum is not really legally binding, so what’s to stop Cameron from simply ignoring it? An then there is the trend for the EU to ignore referendums anyway.

    I see this working out the same way it will in the rest of Europe. With blood.

    • That’s what I think. They will get the result they want, regardless of how people vote.

    • Unfortunately, even the most cursory examination of recent European history indicates that your final sentence is likely to turn out to be an accurate prediction of where Europe is going.

      Whose blood will be shed most decisively is still in question, and this referendum has the potential to deliver us from too deep an involvement in the final collapse of Frau Merkel’s EUSSR, but I suspect like you that the remain camp will turn the result to their advantage by open fraud.

      The war is not over until the last battle is won.

  8. BTW

    The latest Polls are showing a swing back to Leave with s seven point margin as it was before the Cox murder. Remain is no longer in the lead and losing their sympathy vote.

  9. Does it really matter what the people in Britain vote for in a plebiscite anyway? After all, each new parliament is sovereign. Each one can undo what the previous one did at anytime. Arbitrary rule is what it looks like. Does it sound familiar? Tyranny? The kings ruled by divine right. Where is parliament’s source of authority if it is supreme? So it matters what parliament does, not what the people do. England is under the rule of parliament, not under the rule of law. In other words, parliament is the law unto itself.

  10. What a curious interview. Somehow placing a candidate in a bi-election is un-democratic or heartless or something?
    The fact that first past the post almost always ends up with a minority candidate does not negate the fact that over 50% of the electorate did not vote for the MP.
    The fact that the MP was murdered by a lunatic does not mean that the electorate should be denied an election.
    Maybe an increase in NHS mental health services but no election? I think not.
    If anything, someone should run on increased mental health services…

  11. The moron radio interviewer makes MSNBC and CNN seem intelligent. Not sure if he ever got his “A’ levels? Sounds more like a 15 year old school leaver who took way too many drugs.

  12. It’s really world-wide, innit? Washington, England, The Vatican, they just don’t care, “we win-you lose” Supreme arrogance.

  13. Oh God, another brainwashed, indoctrinated ego on steroids masquerading as an interviewer. He states that his opinion is neither here nor there then spends the bulk of the ‘interview’ shouting down Weston with his own opinion. In his own vernacular, wha’ a tossa!

  14. I liked it when Weston said per some objection the interviewer had made: “What you’ve accused me of is, a) irrelevant, and b) I didn’t say it.” And then he gently suggested that the interviewer’s specific insistence on certain points was unintelligent, and the interviewer jumped on that, “Well, maybe they’ll get a more educated interviewer someday,” suggesting Weston had made a class-putdown. Intelligence has nothing to do with education. Any git knows that. I liked Boris Johnson’s recent speech praising Leave as a decision rooting for hope, the future, independence, and a belief in Britain. Good stuff.

  15. This is theatre for the masses, designed to make them feel as though they have any control over their governments. The EU will not lose grip on its satellites.

  16. Sam Delaney is not only a brazen mouthpiece for the PC Marxists he also has an acutely embarassing “mockney” accent.

    When the main parties decide not to contest the seat that is an example of consensus politics. Just as Paul Weston says, it is a denial of choice and thus undemocratic.

  17. In his campaign Mr. Buckby ought to point to the unfortunate murder of poor Ms. Cox as still another instance of the unraveling of British society under the burden of excessive immigration. He can then link it to the other atrocities, most of which were at the hands of Muslims, which have turned that once ordered and law abiding country into a Chicago writ large.

  18. Latest on referendum. Labour activist actively campaigning for Remain
    ( In full view of a policeman who would appear to be doing nothing) directly outside of the voting station in Tower Hamlets!
    This is a criminal act!
    Coupled with the mawkish Jo Cox memorial in Trafalgar Square yesterday,
    With the usual luvvies suspects and the compliant “more in common” audience, BREXIT has little or no chance of success.
    I am very sorry for the dreadful murder of Jo Cox and my heart goes out to her family and friends, however let’s have some perspective, she was a back bencher for just over a year, now she has almost been canonised as saint by people who never even knew her.
    Cameron and Osborne, to their ever lasting shame politicised her death to ensure the gullible would vote for Remain.
    As a Brexiteer myself, along with millions of others, will not forget the rancid methods used by this odious PM who is knowingly sacrificing the nation to further his own political future.

  19. At 15:24-32, a very telling exchange:

    Paul Weston: You haven’t spoken to any of the constituents, yet you want to take away their democratic mandate…

    Sam Delaney: I wish I had the power to do that sort of thing…

  20. I have come across many arguments for Brexit and yet, not one, which is in my view is the most important one.
    If GB stays in EU, it opens the door for Turkey to join the union. I wonder why no politician or journalist mentions such an important point, or maybe they don’t see it.

  21. Quote: “Sad to say, the wind seems to have shifted in the direction of Remain, so that after June 23rd the people of the United Kingdom will enter a permanent state of serfdom.” You were wrong. The Britains voted to leave the European Union. That is my prediction. I am very happy. Greetings from Germany.

    • At this time (4:22 am BST) it’s still too close to call, and Leave is ahead. Much further ahead than I thought it would ever be.

    • And from the US. The British chose manhood and nationhood once more, rather than selling their birthright for a mess of porridge. The pound has sunk because the bankers can no longer look forward to their open-ended, unregulated and unscrutinized deals backed up by the taxpayers of Europe. Britain can once more make its own decisions and follow its own laws. The economy and pound will stabilize, this time based on a solid economy and production, rather than financial deals and shaky loans propping up profligate governments.

Comments are closed.