We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

UKIP gets a new leader

So Baron Pearson of Rannoch has become the new leader of UKIP. I can only hope that he has a better grasp of real economics than Nigel Farage, who although he was very sound on a great many issues, was clueless in that respect in that he basically was offering more of the same deranged Keynesian bollocks being proffered by both the main parties. Well we shall see I suppose.

I once heard a very good pro free-trade diatribe by Pearson some years back which is an encouraging sign and his support of Geert Wilders on the Fitna issue was glorious and suggests he may well be dependable on civil liberties.

32 comments to UKIP gets a new leader

  • Direct Democracy and a full range of policies – What’s not to like?

  • Frederick Davies

    Are they still having money problems with the Electoral Commission?

  • I love direct democracy, especially its Swiss version. It would be nice if UKIP were to endorse the old fashioned Swiss rule that no one could vote unless they were carrying a sword. This symbolized the individual’s commitment to the Eindiggenossenshaften ( Almost Untranslatable Swiss German).

  • Henry Palfrey

    What’s not to like?

    He’s a culturalist. He will defend the wrong line – the one that sees this:


    … as a free speech problem in the making.

    But doubtless a lot of distressed Tories, eyeing Dave, will see him as a respectable way to make their little, pointless protest.

  • Are there any actual liberals in UKIP, by which I mean people who support the free movement goods and people? When there are, I might support them, but for the moment, they strike me as being about as loathsome as every other political party, and rather more nationalistic than most.

  • “Are there any actual liberals in UKIP”


  • Okay, fair enough. You definitely count.

  • Verity

    Michael Jennings – free movement of people is what has turned Britain in a “multicultural” – with one culture being elevated above the others – hell hole.

  • No Verity, it’s the welfare state what did it.

  • Indeed Alisa, it is not free movement of people that is the problem, it is the welfare state actually subsidising both non-integration and the decay of the host culture.

  • Jamess

    Do tell us more about Pearson as and when you find out. Would be great if there was at least one party who understood economics.

  • Paul Marks

    There was historically free movement of people.

    In the past people were free to come to Britain – and go to the Workhouse if no one was prepared to give them work (I would not have even had Workhouses – but then I am not nice), and there were no “antidiscrimination” laws to make people employ people. Or to have them as tenants in houses, or to serve them in shops, or to…. (well anything really).

    Oddly enough multiculturalism was not a feature of Britain. There was the Jewish community of East London (a minority even there) and some small communities in other towns – but that was about it. The “waves of migrants transforming the population of these islands” (the official story taught in the schools, universities and the media) is largely not true over the last few centuries – migrants were actually small in number.

    Rich people seeking a home for their money (they have always been welcome), and real political exiles who would have been killed if they stayed home (not people claiming that in order to fool immigration officers) and, well, that was about it.

    However, legally if someone wanted to turn up in Britain and starve to death – they were free to do so (even Workhouses were voluntary remember).

    It is much the same in the United States.

    How many illegal immigrants would there be if (for example) hospital ERs were not forced to give them medical treatment (with the pius hope that they will pay sometime later – which they do not do). By the way the “ER’s must never turn people away” statute was passed under Reagan (a statute that makes a nonsense of the idea that hospitals are independent of the government – and is one of the many reasons that American health care is so expensive, because these cost get passed on to the people who do pay).

    Then there is the free education (“the children” “the children”), and the free just about everything else.

    It is not the lack of a big fence (or a minefield or whatever is the latest demand) that causes the flood of illegals – it is the policy of subsidizing them.

    There really is no hope.

    I watched the pathetic Bloomberg television station the other day and they were talking about the million Dollars spent over one year on the health care of one vagrant in Reno (accept that they did call “Marty” a vagrant – they called him a “homeless person”). The guest and the host (“Charle” Rosen or whatever his name is) agreed what should be done – the man should be given his own house and other help (which would somehow reduce his medical bills).

    A society like this (where even the business stations are run by lunatics who think that money grows on trees and have no Common Sense what so ever) can not survive – and does not deserve to.

    Within living memory “Marty” would have been told to move on – and if he did not he would have been arrested for vagrancy and would have been set to mending the roads (the prison doctor would not have cost a million Dollars a year for one man). “But Marty would not have lasted long under such cruelity” – then he would have had to go to the Church relief, and regardless of what Church it was he would have had to get his life in order. No drink or drugs for Marty – but a lot of cleaning and washing up.

    Welfare Liberalism or “Compassionate Conservativsm” is simply national bankrupcy and the breakdown of civil society.

    In the end all the “compassion” will lead to mass starvation.

  • Henry Palfrey

    it is the welfare state actually subsidising both non-integration and the decay of the host culture

    Half right. But the half that’s wrong suggests that it’s somehow OK to integrate foreigners into our ancestral homeland. It cannot be so without the collective consent of the people – our people – which, of course, is never asked for because in almost all cases it would never be given.

    This is the fundamental difficulty that UKIP have and the BNP don’t. UKIP does not – probably dare not – grasp that the rights and interests of peoples both exist and are sovereign in the political. Where the ruling class detaches from them, as it has for the last six decades in this country, that class is traitorous – a fact confirmed by Neathergate and by Chilcott.

    Anyone with eyes can see that “the white working-class” is slowly realising that it has rights and interests which are ancestral and racial. As things stand, UKIP can only prosper electorally so long as this understanding does not begin to spread beyond the WWC.

    It almost certainly will, though, as the demographic crisis intensifies over the next two or so parliaments.

  • But the half that’s wrong suggests that it’s somehow OK to integrate foreigners into our ancestral homeland.

    I do not give a damn about some imagined ‘ancestral homeland’ and I have more in common with high initiative wealth creating Poles, Slovaks and Czechs who have arrived recently regardless of their origins than I do with some parasitic welfare vampire of impeccably British origins. My main objection to UKIP is their immigration policies in fact, it is much of the other stuff that has my interest (anti-EU and pro-free trade)… and maybe with Pearsson we will get a more coherent position on economics generally.

    It cannot be so without the collective consent of the people – our people –

    ‘Our’? I care less than nothing about race and the notion any friend of liberty would care to replace a bunch of collectivist oafs like Brown and Cameron with a bunch of fascist collectivists oafs like the BNP is laughable.

    That said, the BNP do give us a useful axiomatically abominated target to liken some of our anti-capitalist enemies to 🙂

  • M

    Most of UKIP’s support would (rightly) vanish if they began to support mass immigration. People who support mass immigration should support Labour. After all, the government has done a lot to vastly increase immigration to Britain. And like libertarian enthusiasts for mass immigration, the Labour party also seem to take great pleasure in denigrating and insulting the ‘native’ British population.

  • Verity

    Well said, Paul Marks! Bullseye!

    And it’s not just “compassion”, but enforced compassion.

    Also, well written, Henry Palfrey!

    Perry of dual citizenship, I think the poster was referring to forced integration, not the natural integration that happens when people change countries and try to learn the ways of that country and try to get along and not draw attention to themselves.

  • Henry Palfrey

    Since I am posting here under an explicit threat of censorship it is not possible for me to answer you, young Commodius, with the range of argument I should wish. Should you, however, equip yourself with the same arms as me I shall gladly enter the arena.

    I am pretty certain, however, that you have no interest in a fair fight.

    How old are you, as a matter of fact – that was a really very childish and irresponsible reply.

  • Perry of dual citizenship, I think the poster was referring to forced integration

    Oh really? Henry Palfrey is a BNP supporter, so he is a folkish (not so) crypto fascist, so that is by no means clear. The whole blood and soil ‘ancestral homelands’ shtick should make it clear that he is about as far on the ‘other side’ as one can possibly get. As far as I am concerned, the BNP are a bit like a beardless Taliban for palefaces.

    And ideally Verity, I would like to have twenty citizenships

  • Henry Palfrey

    Well, you make a lot of noise, Mr de Havilland. But let’s see if you have any intellectual beef. We will start with a couple of simple questions:

    Which is the higher human interest: existence of will?

    And if you really want to claim that it is will, which is the higher of these: the will to continue existing or the will to end that existence?

    Now, let’s not have any more bluster. Your very characteristically liberal but also, of course, fascistic cleavage to colourful denunciations should have no place in this debate. And nor, to be honest, should the fact that I regard you as an errant child.

    Good luck with those questions, incidentally. You are going to need it.

  • Martin

    “…some imagined “ancestral homeland””

    I’m 48. Seven of my grandparents were born in the West Riding (as was I), the other in what is now the Irish Republic. Given the limited amount of immigration into the British Isles between the Danish settlements in the ninth century and WW2 it is overwhelmingly probable that a thousand years ago nearly all of my ancestors were living in the British Isles.

    Genetic archaeology has disproved the apparently still widely believed myth of “Celts” being completely replaced by Anglo-Saxon invaders, so if we go back a further thousand years then it is very likely that most of my ancestors were living in the British Isles and the rest in areas of NW Europe bordering the North Sea; if I had to guess I’d imagine, rounding to the nearest 5%, 75:25.

    I am not imagining that this is my ancestral homeland, because it clearly is, and I am getting increasingly sick of vile anti-English racists who deny this.

  • Henry Palfrey

    Sincere apologies, that should read existence OR will.

  • I am not imagining that this is my ancestral homeland, because it clearly is, and I am getting increasingly sick of vile anti-English racists who deny this.

    I am sure you ain’t imagining it, but so what? Go read the comment I am replying to: the issue here is one of claiming ancestry leading to some political imperative to ‘keep the wogs out’ and the supposed derivation of rights from genetic origins… that is the issue here as we are not talking about mere genealogy.

  • Which is the higher human interest: existence or will?

    Ah you are that particular strain eh? Well I will break my usual rule and temporarily delude myself that one can have a rational debate with racists.

    What matters to me is that a culture of liberty survives and grows and the genetic make up who carries it means very little to me. The reason I get so much hate mail from radical muslims is I keep making the point that once the government stops giving them tax money to subsidise their Dark Ages culture, their granddaughters will be marrying out, wearing mini skirts, drinking in pubs and be as god-free as a practicle matter as, say, their white ‘Church’ of England neighbours.

    I oppose an indolence inducing culture destroying welfare state that denies free association (I fully support the right of benighted bigots like you to discriminate to your heart’s content against whoever you want to), imposes the cost of welfare parasites on unwilling wealth creators and adds insult to injury by subsidising the import more parasites from overseas as if we did not have enough home grown ones). And the state, far from making us safer prevents not just political action to makes us safe against alien religious lunatics but also the far more important natural social and economic exclusion that non-integration brings (which would dry up the pool of people not really interested in jointing the twenty first century).

    The problem here is one caused by political action… the solution is primarily not more political action (although some is needed) so much as a rolling back of political action so that social forces can actually do what they have always done… the waves of high initiative economically and socially easy to integrate central Europeans was a case study in how immigration can be highly beneficial, so it is not ‘immigration’ per se that is the problem but rather immigration-plus-the-welfare-state.

    The contrast with packs of very useful Polish and Slovak builders (I could never have got all the work on my house done that I did had they not brought the cost of quality work down) with the (thankfully small number) of eastern European gypsy parasites arriving is stark. But they are the ‘markers’ for why welfare statism attracts the wrong sort of immigrants (and it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture).

  • Paul Marks

    In Denis Hills’ autobiography (“Tyrants and Mountains: A Reckless Life” – I recommend it) he asks why the leaders of the “master race” were unable to control their desire for sweets and pastry products – as seen by their fatness and rotten teeth.

    He also asks if the National Socialists believed in the honour code of the warrior why they picked on the weak – the women and the children.

    All this Mr Hills (a man about as un P.C. as it possible to be) came upon in his travels in Europe n the 1930’s.

    The Nazis were corrupt, lying, bullies.

    And the B.N.P. are just the same.

    I do not judge people on the colour of their skin – I judge them on their beliefs.

    Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell and so on I am proud to call my brothers, whereas there are many White Anglo Saxon Protestants who I would not cross the road to spit on (although they are not really “Protestants” any more than they are “Catholics” – in that the people I am thinking of “interpret” God to mean “the people” or other such).

    “You would say that – you have the blood of a Jew in your body”.

    Yes indeed – and the “blood of the Irish” as well.

    Truly I am racially inferior – unlike those fine examples of the “Aryan” race that make up the B.N.P.

  • James Waterton

    should the fact that I regard you as an errant child.

    Good luck with those questions, incidentally. You are going to need it.

    You pompous fool. You’re clearly convinced that anyone can be brought around to your point of view by the bigoted rationale that persuaded a simpleton like you. Hilarious. Don’t flatter yourself. It’s as clear as day where your “existence vs will” line of reasoning concludes, and it’s an example of exactly the kind of intellectual poverty I’d expect from a BNP supporter.

  • In other news, LPUK has a new leader too

  • I have worked with Lord Pearson and he is a good man. We shall see if UKIP can continue with the success they had in the Euro-elections.

  • Sunfish

    I’m very confused.

    How did a discussion of UKIP -a party which appears to be populated mainly by civilized people of normal intelligence- get sidetracked into a discussion of the BNP, which as near as I can tell is no more than the wing of Arbeit that’s populated mostly by people dumber than a sack of hammers and who need to blame immigrants for the fact that they suck at life?

    I just don’t really see what the one had to do with the others, up until the BNP shills[1] threadjacked the discussion.

    [1] They’re like the Paulistinians of UK politics. The Esperantists of UK politics. The Scientologists of UK politics. Possibly even the Obamatards of UK politics.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Sunfish wins the beer for best comment on this board!

  • Ha, he makes his own beer – give him something he can use.

  • Sunfish

    I value all beer, not just my own. I celebrate diversity, shall we say.

    Besides, it was Perry and Paul who did all of the intellectual heavy lifting. I was just cranky. Our own “Real Men of Genius, Messrs. ‘Trying to Reason With Fools On The Internet” (“Like wrestling with a pig!”)

    So this (Czech, not Anheuser-Busch) Bud’s for you!

  • Laird

    Hey, don’t denigrate “cranky”. There’s far too little healthy crankiness in this world, and far too much posturing sanctimony. Keep it up!