Friday, 11 November 2011

New Executive Council for British Freedom!

British Freedom is pleased to announce the results of our recent internal party elections for positions on the Executive Council. It should be noted that the founder members that formed the Executive Council agreed to act in their positions for a period of twelve months only in order to establish a solid foundation upon which British Freedom could be built. After that twelve-month period the positions on the Executive Council would then be opened to all qualifying members that wished to apply.

The outgoing members of the Executive Council decided not to stand for re-election, but are very pleased to offer their full support and backing to those who wished to take up the challenge of driving the party forward. Only three positions received applications, and in all three cases the nominees were elected unopposed. The new Executive Council offers British Freedom a great deal of knowledge, experience, political contacts and will no doubt lead the party on to greater success and political achievement than it has already enjoyed in its first twelve months of existence.

 The new British Freedom Executive Council is as follows:
Paul Weston: Age 48. Chairman. Previously stood as the PPC for UKIP in the 2010 General Election. I have been writing and speaking since 2007 in the defence of my country, with most of my articles appearing online at the Gates of Vienna website. An archive can be found at my own website

I believe Great Britain has been subjected to a prolonged and drawn-out period of deliberate subversion from the 1960s until today, and that the architects of that subversion now control all the institutions of the state, including education and the media.

 Most government policies over the last few decades seem to be a blueprint for the destruction of a country and its people, and now even our Sovereignty has been stripped from us, leaving Britain ruled by unelected Socialist Dictat from a foreign power.

 This has effectively been a revolution, and if we wish to genuinely oppose this deliberate destruction of our once decent, moral, proud and beautiful country, we should now consider ourselves counter-revolutionaries — in mind if not deed. Over the last few years I have attended any number of conferences and meetings centred on the ever growing threat of Islam, and I am known to, and in contact with, all the leaders of the European Freedom parties, their backers and their online media outlets. [hr_shadow]


Dr. George Whale: National Nominating Officer. Although I’ve been an active member of the British Freedom Party for most of its existence, my most recent involvement in politics was more than 20 years ago (with Labour – and no, I’m not proud of it!). I don’t think that matters, because ours is a party not of political climbers, but of people with deep belief in Britain.

British Freedom is uniquely positioned as an organisation in which people of all classes and backgrounds work together towards a vital goal — the goal of saving this beautiful country from self-destruction. British Freedom will become the party of national unity, steering Britain away from its present path, a path of accelerating decline and ultimate strife.

 My background is in the print industry, the software industry and academic research. Currently I work as a research project manager with a leading UK university. I have degrees in fine art and computing, and a PhD in creativity and cognition. [hr_shadow]  

  Richard Bateman: Age 39. Treasurer. I have been involved with finance and political activism for many years. I do not believe the Britain of 2050 will be a country fit for our children and grandchildren to live in, unless steps are taken now to remedy this. We cannot afford to wait until it is too late, because “too late” could very well mean civil disorder of such magnitude it could be comparable to the fracturing of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Wars have always been fought over tribal, territorial and religious issues. By importing and appeasing Islam, our politicians have shown a criminal irresponsibility with regard to the very people they purport to represent — the native British. [hr_shadow]

Thursday, 22 September 2011

British Freedom News Letter!

Take a look:

Sunday, 21 August 2011

Ten Reasons to Join British Freedom

1. The British Freedom Party welcomes ALL genuine patriots, regardless of background. We don’t care if you’re rich or poor, young or old, male or female, black or white — just as long as you love Britain and want to help make it Great again.

2. We are Cultural Nationalists, in other words, we believe that culture is the glue that binds society together and that all people living here must embrace British laws, values, history, traditions and ways of life. We reject Civic Nationalism — which says that anybody just off the boat from Karachi or Gdansk and given a British passport is just as British as we are; and we reject Racial Nationalism — because race-based politics has no place in our country.

3. British Freedom condemns the bigotry, corruption, criminality and strategic stupidity that have crippled British nationalism in the past. We intend to make nationalist politics legitimate, respected and successful, as they are in many other countries.

4. We are committed to ending immigration, expelling foreign criminals, colonisers and illegal immigrants, withdrawing from the EU, and reasserting British priorities in every area of national life. These objectives are non-negotiable. Ending immigration is the first, crucial action for maintaining the indigenous majority, without which our unique national character would be lost.

5. We will put British people at the front of queues for jobs, housing, health and education; because unlike mainstream parties, we understand that Britain belongs to the British.

6. We don’t give a damn about political correctness. We will defend the freedoms that so many of our forebears gave their lives for, including freedom of speech. You can say what you think in our party.

7. Parties with much the same views and policies as us are now enjoying great success across Europe. The PVV, True Finns, Danish People’s Party and so on — they all started out small but determined, like us.

8. British Freedom’s Chairman and Executive Council are experienced nationalists with a wealth of political and life experience between them (and a good few university degrees too). The leader, Executive and party officers aren’t career politicians, but people with jobs, families, commitments and all the difficulties that go with them. We understand the problems facing this country because, like you (and unlike our ruling elite), we live with them day to day.

9. We believe in real democracy. All Executive positions will be up for grabs at the next party AGM, and we want to involve more new members in activism and decision making.

10. You can join the British Freedom Party for free as a non-voting Associate Member. We believe that nobody should have to pay to defend their country.

How Many Immigrants, How Much Grooming?…

Recommended read:

Wednesday, 15 June 2011

Recent Wigan BNP meeting fiasco

This is what I hope is a taster of the madness and lunacy that was spouted by the current BNP hierarchy at the recent Wigan BNP meeting. There is, was a lot more than this and I hope much more is uploaded. The lunatics are definitely in charge of the BNP at the moment, this is why its imperative to get rid of Mad Nick Griffin.

Monday, 6 June 2011

Nick Griffin dying a thousand deaths

Must watch video's of Nick Griffin the sole architect and man, with no honour, responsible for the BNP's destruction, digging a hole for himself. A lunatic with no answers to any questions running and ruining the once mighty and proud BNP.

He was slaughtered on Question Time and here he is/was slaughtered by his own BNP membership!

The final two minutes on video two with the stand off between him and Eddy Butler are sensational.

Wednesday, 9 March 2011

Why the British Freedom Party was Founded

by George Whale and Michael Wood

In Britain, the chasm between mainstream political opinion on the one side, and public opinion on the other, now gapes so wide that not even the staunchest party supporters can any longer skirt around it. Tim Montgomerie, editor of the ConservativeHome website, best summed up the situation in a BBC radio interview a while back:

I think there are a huge number of issues now where the main political parties in Parliament all think the same – Europe, the war in Afghanistan, prisons, climate change – there’s a whole range of issues where the public may have different views from the MPs but no mainstream party represents them.

The roots of the liberal consensus in Parliament and public estrangement from politics may be deep and tangled, but perhaps part of the problem is the remoteness of today’s professional politicians from normal life. Addressing the specific issue of immigration, newspaper columnist Peter Hitchens – old-fashioned Tory and fierce critic of the party’s leftward lurch under David Cameron – recently commented:
… the modernised Tory Party, just like its New Labour twin, actively favours large-scale migration. Rich young careerists in pleasant parts of London – who form the core of all our establishment parties – couldn’t function without the cheap servants and cheap restaurants that immigration brings.

Not for them the other side of immigration – the transformation of familiar neighbourhoods into foreign territory. Not for them the schools where many pupils cannot speak English, and the overloaded public services. Not for them the mosque and the madrassa where the church and the pub used to be.

Searchlight report

A report published 28 February 2011 by the Searchlight Education Trust confirms the existence of a substantial – hitherto all but invisible – section of the British electorate comprising people who are worried about the nation’s continuing transformation, but find themselves politically disenfranchised, stranded between the mainstream parties and those at the nationalist fringe.

Fear & Hope describes a survey carried out by polling organisation Populus, who asked 5,054 people 91 questions on faith, ethnicity and national identity. Billed as “the most systematic study of contemporary attitudes to race, identity, nationhood and extremism available in England”, it found that:

• the English are sceptical of multiculturalism and deeply resentful of mass immigration
• they fear extremist Islam
• Black and Asian groups share these concerns
• negativity about immigration is linked to economic pessimism
• the British National Party (BNP) “is in decline” and there is “a limit to the potential growth” of the English Defence League (EDL)
• most people are traditional rather than “progressive”
• the vast majority reject political violence
• there is “popular support for a non-violent and non-racist” nationalist political party.

The report speaks of “an assertive nationalism”, of “a new politics built around… identity, culture and nationhood which transcends both an older class politics and even more recent debates around demographics and immigration”.

The British Freedom Party

It was in response to the need for a nationalism untainted by racialism and street violence that British Freedom was founded last year. Both of the authors of this article are members of the new party.

The party takes inspiration from popular freedom parties in Austria, Switzerland, Italy and elsewhere, but especially Geert Wilders’ PVV in the Netherlands, which with 24 MPs is poised to turn back the tide of enforced immigration, to confront Islamic militancy, and to challenge the political elites who seem intent on that nation’s destruction.

Like its European counterparts, British Freedom espouses cultural nationalism, as opposed to ethnic nationalism. We believe that national identity derives primarily from the integration of individuals and communities into an established culture, their acceptance of and allegiance to the rich set of customs, values, political procedures, laws and understandings handed down by tradition.

We know that cultural and social integration is achievable, because so many have already achieved it. Integrated immigrant communities provide the strongest evidence of the essentially cultural character of Britishness. Because for every Muslim bomb-maker or honour killer living in Britain, countless numbers of his co-religionists are working hard, learning our language and history, paying taxes, obeying the law, raising families and doing their best to fit in.

Similarly, for every chippy East London ‘gangsta’ who likes to mug white people for a living, there are countless others from the same part of town and from the same racial background who work, study, fix up their cars, take their girlfriends to the movies and play Sunday morning soccer on Hackney Marshes.
The difference between the law-breakers and the law-keepers, the hostile and the integrated, is primarily cultural. Culture and race are connected, but they are evidently separable.

A common characteristic among successful integrators is that, through immersion in our culture, they come to acquire a strongly British self-identity, a type of patriotism that is comparable, though not identical, to that of indigenous Britons – more so when family roots in this country are generations deep.
We in the Freedom Party believe that the resolution of present problems lies not in some dream of restoring Britain’s postwar racial balance (however desirable that may seem, it is impossible), but in distinguishing between destructive and constructive people and forces in society, dealing robustly with the former and strongly incentivising the latter.

Unlike liberals, we do not deny ethnicity as an important component of self-identity, national identity and historical continuity. Neither do we deny that bringing so many races together in a small island has created terrible difficulties, or that native Britons seethe with anger at the unwanted changes wrought on their communities by mass immigration. And that is why one of British Freedom’s main migration policy demands is an immediate halt to further immigration.
We define ourselves in terms of a traditional pro-Britain attitude, an attitude that informs all of our policies: economic policies that emphasise the revitalisation of industries in which Britain has traditionally excelled; agricultural, energy, environmental and defence policies geared towards national self-sufficiency and independence; crime and justice policies that seek to restore traditional practices of policing, deterrence and punishment; health policies that prioritise treatment for British citizens; and education policies that emphasise traditional competencies as well as academic freedom and rigour.

Cultural nationalism versus ethnic nationalism

Ironically, the British Freedom Party owes its existence to the anti-nationalist establishment. Under the UK’s Equality Act, which forced racial and ethno-nationalist parties to amend offending clauses in their constitution related to membership criteria and objectives, Culture is not one of the 7 grounds listed under the Act that are unlawful when used as direct or indirect discrimination. Therefore, by ramming this vexatious act through the British Parliament, the establishment opened the door to a nationalism that is potentially far more dynamic and certainly more populist than its race-centric or ethno-centric counterparts.

British ethno-nationalism is underpinned, rationalised and justified by the ‘indigenous argument’. The BNP’s one major victory was to force establishment figures, mainstream politicians and journalists to define sections of the British populace as the ‘indigenous population’, thereby recognising and legitimising core ethno-nationalist arguments, in the face of ignorant claims that the UK is a ‘mongrel nation’ – which is in itself an attempt to psychologically divorce the indigenous population from its ancestral homelands.

However, we find that most of the support for parties such as the BNP is policy-orientated, and not ideological, demonstrating that the support isn’t ‘getting their message’ and can quite easily switch over to parties that offer the same populist policies – EU withdrawal, an end to mass immigration – without any ideological hurdles.

Nick Griffin’s BNP was quick to dismiss the English Defence League as a tool of the state. This proclamation should be taken with a large pinch of salt. The BNP, prior to the emergence of the EDL, held the monopoly in the anti-Islamisation quarter. It’s no secret that Nick Griffin looked upon the rise of the EDL with jealousy, and even going as far as to suggest that the BNP resurrect the street activities that the party abandoned in the late 90s, in an effort to halt the haemorrhaging of support.
Poll results tell us that the core policies of the BNP are very popular, but when these policies are attached to the BNP name, the support falls significantly, because of the historical baggage carried by a party that has tried to change its spots over the last decade, but has failed to dispose its most high profile purveyor, Nick Griffin. Therefore, the BNP under its current leader has its national vote share ceilinged at 5%, not enough to win a single seat in the parliament which holds the key to withdrawal from the European Union.

The decline of the British National Party and the rise of the English Defence League are probably related. But for all the EDL’s noise and visibility, and its skill in mobilising sectors of the disaffected working class, it looks an unlikely candidate to rescue Britain from the triple scourge of mass immigration, multiculturalism and globalisation.

For one thing, the League is not a political party; for another, it isn’t much concerned with issues other than “militant Islam”; and for a third, it doesn’t appeal to most people, largely because of its suspected links to soccer hooliganism. Mr and Mrs Middle England – if we may so designate traditional, patriotic voters – would no more think of participating in an “E-E-EDL” chant at some raucous street rally than of inviting Nick Griffin and his twin rottweilers to Sunday lunch.


Britain has a proud record of defending freedom through many of the darkest periods of European history. But the systematic undermining of national self-confidence by the ruling elite has eroded our capacity to oppose the nation’s dismantling.
For us to retain our distinctive identity, which has both cultural and ethnic components, requires decisive action to stop the tide of immigration, to reverse the handover of powers to the European Union and other undemocratic, supranational interests, and to restore British values, traditions and freedoms to the centre of public life.

To achieve this requires political power, which in turn requires broad popular support. That is why the British Freedom Party welcomes patriots of all backgrounds. Our inclusiveness, in terms of class, race and age, distinguishes us from other comparable parties, for example UKIP (the UK Independence Party), which is fundamentally a single-issue party appealing to older, middle class people.
We provide common ground for all those who feel betrayed by establishment parties, for “people who strongly resent the direction their country has taken” (to borrow Colin Liddell’s phrase), including traditional Conservatives, disaffected heartland Labour voters, pragmatists from other nationalist groupings, and patriotic minorities.

British Freedom is a moderate party founded on principles of cultural nationalism. We present populist policies within a nationalist ideological framework, but without focussing on ethno-centric objectives and policies, because it’s our belief that indigenous ethnic interests are best presented by a non-partisan ‘civil rights’ organisation.

About the authors
George Whale is a research administrator and former software engineer and print specialist. He has a Ph.D. in creative cognition from Loughborough University, UK, and currently lives and works in Glasgow, Scotland.
Michael Wood is a nationalist of 10 years’ standing, and a member of the Executive Council of the British Freedom Party. He has degrees in Marine Biology, Geology and Physical Geography from Cardiff University and works as a Spokesman.

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

A day of BNP expulsion reinstatement's to the Party

It seems there is a lot of movement in the BNP at the moment concerning internal BNP Party position changes. Not only that, this sites contributors were contacted this morning and notified that Peter Stafford Jnr and Peter Squire's unjustified, illegal expulsions from the Party they had both served so admirably have been dropped and that they have both been reinstated as BNP members with immediate effect. Letters received below.

Above Peter Squires letter and below Peter Stafford Jnr's letter. CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE.

The contributors on this site have their own ideas as to why these reinstatement's have happened and after speaking to both Peter Squire and Peter Stafford this morning they also have their own views. Peter Squire goes on to state that there is nothing he would like more than to work alongside the newly appointed North West Regional Organiser Mike Whitby to take Liverpool BNP and the North West to new political heights, however in Liverpool there are too many irreparable damages and grudges that have occurred since the General Election last year.

Peter Squire further adds that Mike Whitby is a good sort, however events and hard line disruptive personalities currently working within Liverpool BNP will be intent on destroying any bridges that Mike Whitby will want and wish to repair. This being the case circumstances and situations because of "the lunatic BNP fringe faction", closely aligned too Mike Whitby, will make his job of reconciliation near nigh an impossible one with the more level headed,calm, moderate Liverpool BNP members.

This site however wishes Mike Whitby well in his endeavours as Liverpool Organiser and New BNP North West Regional Organiser.

Sunday, 16 January 2011

The continued sad slide of Liverpool BNP.

Having been a BNP member for over eight years, I have never before witnessed the shameful and embarrassing way that the current crop of Liverpool BNP officials and members conducted themselves and the way in which they were acting at the Oldham By Election count on Thursday 13th January. I can honestly say it’s been the first time I’ve been embarrassed to wear the BNP rosette which I have worn with so much pride in the past.

The Merseyside contingency of the BNP who were there, supposedly acting as ambassadors for the BNP colours acted more like thugs, proceeded to shout abuse at other Nationalists from other Nationalist political parties who were present at the civic hall for the By Election count in Oldham.

At one point a police officer had to caution Peter and Andrew Tierney and also Andy Leary for threatening behaviour to a lone English Democrat Nationalist, who whatever one’s views and opinions of that Party is a fellow Nationalist. Peter Tierney also tried to goad Paul Nuttal the UKIP Parliamentary candidate and current UKIP MEP, however he rose above the abuse and ignored Peter Tierney.

On more than one occasion the Liverpool BNP contingent were reported to the police by members of the English Democrats who were on the end of verbal abuse from the disgraceful behaviour of various members of the Liverpool BNP contingent. On another occasion a polling officer had to intervene when he witnessed the bullying and intimidation from a Liverpool BNP official and his very angry friend against another Nationalist. All this unravelled in front of Clive Jefferson who did nothing.

It would seem from the scenes I witnessed that members of Liverpool BNP were just there to confront other Nationalists and to behave in a manner which was well below acceptable and certainly well below what should be expected at such events at a Parliamentary count, more so as TV crews and reporters were present from all the major TV broadcaster channels.

Steven Greenhalgh who is a fully paid up life member of the BNP asked Clive Jefferson two simple questions which were greeted with aggression and sarcasm from him. Is this the way a leading official should act towards other BNP members? Having spoken to Steven Greenhalgh the questions he asked were, 1. When will Peter Squire get a date for his tribunal after he was expelled from the party for supporting Eddy Butlers leadership challenge against Nick Griffin last year, his appeal was lodged several months ago 2. Why has Clive Jefferson not responded to Steven Greenhalgh’s official complaint dated the 23rd November 2010 regarding Peter Tierney acting as BNP security by not allowing and refusing various BNP members, officials and activists, some of who were local and Parliamentary candidate’s entry to an official BNP meeting? No satisfactory response or answers came from Clive Jefferson, who just walked away whilst sweating profusely, maybe because the TV cameras were there.

Going back to the count it has to be said all the other BNP officials and representatives who were there were a credit to the British National Party. It was just the shameful actions of the Liverpool BNP contingent by their behaviour which needs to be questioned; also Clive Jefferson’s intransigence to a few polite questions was very disappointing.

A lot more could be said about the appalling actions from some members of Liverpool BNP the other night. It looks as if it’s a case though of the tail wagging the dog there with the Tierney’s destroying the group whilst they're current Liverpool Organiser willingly follows. why? Because Mike Whitby has to.