Ireland’s anti-immigration revolt fizzles out

As H&D predicted a month ago, Ireland’s much-hyped anti-immigration movement turned into a divided and mostly feeble electoral challenge last week. (Though Ireland voted on Friday, results weren’t declared until yesterday, and in some cases counting is still underway.)

While H&D readers can celebrate the fact that Sinn Féin has lost many votes due to its pro-immigration stance and general wokeism, it would sadly be wrong to conclude that any coherent anti-immigration movement has yet emerged.

In the European elections, the tragi-comic National Party’s competing factions polled 0.8% and 0.7% of first preferences in the Dublin constituency; and 0.6% and 0.5% in the Midlands/NW constituency. In the South constituency neither faction put up a candidate.

(Bear in mind that in both the European and local council elections in Ireland, the STV electoral system helps smaller parties to maximise their support, because there is no such thing as a “wasted vote” – unlike in the UK’s first-past-the-post system where smaller parties usually struggle for credibility.)

In the local elections, the deputy leader of the Reynolds faction of the NP (Patrick Quinlan) did manage to win one of the five seats in the Blanchardstown-Mulhuddart ward of Fingal County Council, to the west of Dublin. Parts of this area have suffered serious deprivation and crime problems for decades: some of the background to recent anti-immigrant riots involves conflict between native Irish gangsters and imported criminals.

Patrick Quinlan (above left), deputy leader of one of the bitterly divided National Party factions, won a local council seat on the outskirts of Dublin but polled only 0.7% in the European Parliamentary seat.

But this was the only success for either National Party faction across the whole of Ireland.

The Irish Freedom Party – which is the main voice of the ‘Irexit’ movement and has also adopted a milder version of anti-immigration policies – also won just one council seat in the entire country. This was in the Palmerstown-Fonthill ward of South Dublin County Council.

In the European elections, the Irish Freedom Party polled 0.9% in Dublin, 2.0% in Midlands/NW (where their candidate was the party leader Hermann Kelly, once associated with Nigel Farage), and 1.8% in South.

A smaller fringe party involved in the anti-immgration protests, ‘The Irish People’ fared even worse with 0.7% in Midlands/NW; 0.7% in South; and 0.5% in Dublin.

Veteran Marxist and ‘Official IRA’ activist Malachy Steenson has recently become an anti-immigration independent and won a Dublin City Council seat. It’s not clear how much of this old leaflet he still endorses.

In most of the country, the more substantial electoral challenges came from longer-established parties and independents who combined an element of anti-immigration politics with traditional Catholicism, and in several cases had a background in the IRA or other anti-British, republican terrorist causes. British patriots should be very careful indeed in welcoming these successes, since regardless of their stance on immigration, many of these Irish ‘nationalist’ individuals and parties are fundamentally our enemies.

Aontú, led by a former Sinn Féin activist and including defectors from both Sinn Féin and the traditional conservative-republican party Fianna Fáil, polled 2.8% in Dublin; 6.0% in Midlands/NW (where their candidate was party leader Peader Toíbín); and 2.1% in South. They retained several local council seats.

The strongest results for the Irish ‘right’ were obtained by Independent Ireland (a party created last November by reactionary conservative businessmen who had fallen out with the old gang parties) and by various other independent candidates who became well-known for their roles in the recent referendum campaign, where Irish voters resisted demands for wokeist changes to their country’s constitution.

Two independent candidates were elected to Dublin City Council, including Malachy Steenson who describes himself as a ‘republican socialist’ and was a veteran activist in the ‘Official IRA’ and its Marxist political front, the Workers Party (known as ‘the Stickies’), but now associates with a jumble of anti-woke causes as well as versions of Marxist republicanism.

In Dublin’s four-member European constituency, Independent Ireland’s candidate – radio celebrity Niall Boylan – finished fifth after transfers from other conservative and anti-immigration candidates just failed to gain him a seat. Boylan had taken 8.1% of first preference votes.

Peter Casey, a wealthy right-wing conservative, polled 3.1% in Midlands/NW, where the strongest broadly ‘right-wing’/conservative candidate was Independent Ireland’s Ciaran Mullooly with 8.4%. The count continues today, and it’s not impossible that Mullooly might be elected as one of this constituency’s five MEPs. Like his colleague in Dublin, Mullooly is a well-known broadcast journalist.

Similarly in South, barrister and independent candidate Michael McNamara (one of the leaders of the anti-woke ‘No’ campaign in the recent constitutional referendum) polled 8.2% of first preferences, and with the count continuing today he stands a chance of being elected once preferences of defeated candidates are redistributed.

European right advances, but what does the ‘right’ now stand for?

Several anti-immigration parties increased their votes substantially in the European Parliamentary elections, where votes were counted overnight on Sunday and Monday. Results in Ireland are still awaited, but as we explain elsewhere on this site, it’s already clear that the radical wing of the Irish anti-immigration movement has failed to fulfil expectations.

H&D has published the most detailed analysis of the Europe-wide results from a non-party, nationalist perspective. Click here to read our report, which will be updated once the full Irish results become available.

As explained in the forthcoming issue of our magazine, the most important aspect of these European elections is not so much the result for individual parties in particular countries, but whether it will be possible to build a cross-party alliance in the European Parliament that is able to exert meaningful pressure on immigration policy and related matters.

Key problems here include bitter divisions among European nationalists (partly though not exclusively related to different attitudes to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine), as well as the underlying reality that the European Parliament has limited powers even over European Union institutions.

That’s why we have described last night’s results as a matter of protest, rather than power.

Nevertheless, these votes are a heartening indication of the tide of opinion among Europeans, especially among younger voters.

Tomorrow belongs to us!

Anti-immigration parties advance in European elections: but this is protest, not power

Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella of the RN achieved some of yesterday’s best results for anti-immigration parties

Broadly as predicted, anti-immigration parties from what the media term the ‘far right’ have made big advances at the European Parliamentary elections – though the biggest winners overall were conservative parties; the ‘far right’ itself doesn’t exist as a coherent force; and the European Parliament has very limited powers.

[Please note that some of the statistics below might be altered very slightly as final checks are made to election counts. Ireland’s results are not yet available but we shall report on them later today.]

First the good news. In France, Marine Le Pen’s RN (successor to the National Front) was easily the largest party overnight with 31.4%, ahead of President Macron’s ‘centrist’ party on 14.6%, and the slowly recovering Socialists on 13.8%. The far-left party France Insoumise is now obviously in decline after several years as the leading force on the French left: they polled 9.9%. And France still has the weakest mainstream conservative party in Europe – the Republicans, who took just 7.2%.

France is one of the few European countries that has not just one but two electorally credible ‘far right’ parties. In fact until Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it had seemed likely that the new Reconquête party led by the Jewish journalist Éric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen’s niece Marion Maréchal, would overtake Le Pen’s party. However, while Le Pen swiftly condemned Putin, Zemmour found it much more difficult to escape the electoral consequences of his earlier Putinism, and his party swiftly declined.

Reconquête are both harder line than RN against immigration (especially against Islam) and more traditionally conservative (in an Anglo-American, quasi-Thatcherite sense) on economic matters, while Le Pen has taken her party onto quasi-socialist turf and has become the natural leader of French workers.

This week Zemmour and Maréchal were (just about) able to celebrate. Together with the Greens, they just scraped over the 5% threshold and will have five MEPs, including both Maréchal and Zemmour’s partner Sarah Knafo.

Within hours of polls closing, President Macron called a snap general election. This will of course be a parliamentary not presidential election, since under the French system Macron will remain in office as President (and ultimately in control of foreign policy etc.) regardless of who becomes Prime Minister. But there is now a very real (though outside) possibility that Marine Le Pen will be Prime Minister of France within a few weeks.

While France continues to demonstrate the electoral toxicity of Putinism, it’s a very different story in Germany, where two blatantly pro-Moscow parties polled very well. AfD (Alternative for Germany) was originally a Thatcherite conservative party, but quickly became an anti-immigration party in opposition to the treachery of former Chancellor Angela Merkel.

This week, despite various scandals that have beset the party leadership with (for once) justified media exposés of their shady connections to both China and Russia, AfD polled 15.9% and overtook Chancellor Olof Scholz’s party SPD who fell to 13.9%. The mainstream conservative alliance CDU-CSU were easily the largest force with 30%, while the Greens (Scholz’s coalition partners) fell to 11.9%.

Very predictably the Homeland Party (which is the renamed NPD, Germany’s oldest surviving nationalist party) collapsed even further to a record low of 0.1% (27th of the 35 party lists, down among the joke and ego-trip parties). The good news is that the old NPD / Homeland is disappearing. The radical challenge to the corrupt AfD in future will come from the new party Dritte Weg, a party which stands for traditional nationalism, rejects Putinism, and is attracting growing numbers of young activists, though of course it didn’t contest the European election and is just at the stage of beginning to fight local and regional campaigns.

AfD leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla celebrating last night

Another interesting development was the collapse of the Left Party (Die Linke, which was formed soon after the semi-reunification of Germany in the 1990s as an alliance of old communists and hardline socialists) to only 2.7%. Luckily for them Germany, unlike France, has no electoral threshold – so they will retain three MEPs, at least until 2029 when a new threshold system will be introduced.

Most of the old Left Party vote went to a new party created by one of their former leaders, the half-Iranian Sahra Wagenknecht, who is a long-term Russian asset and unsurprisingly shares AfD’s Putinism, while taking a Stalinist line in other policy areas.

Wagenknecht’s party polled 6.2% nationwide and was especially strong in parts of the former East Germany. In Thuringia, for example, AfD was the largest party with 30.7%, while Wagenknecht’s BSW polled 15%.

One consequence of AfD’s pro-Moscow stance is that it will have few friends in the new Parliament, having been shunned by most other anti-immigration / nationalist parties.

H&D will report further in the coming weeks and months on the reshaping of the European right.

In the Netherlands, Marine Le Pen’s allies in the PVV (Freedom Party), led by Geert Wilders, finished second with 17.7%, a huge advance on its disappointing European election performance five years ago, though slightly down on their 23.5% in last year’s Dutch general election.

The rival Dutch nationalist party FvD (Forum for Democracy) whose leader Thierry Baudet once seemed a credible successor to Wilders as an anti-immigration leader but rapidly declined into fringe conspiracy theories and Putinism, collapsed from 11% to 2.5% and will no longer have any MEPs.

Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders casting his vote

In Belgium, the Flemish nationalist Vlaams Belang (another important Le Pen ally) might have emerged the largest single party in one of Europe’s most politically fragmented countries, though final results are not yet clear. VB polled 13.9% but there were also big gains for the more ‘moderate’ Flemish nationalist/conservative party N-VA (New Flemish Alliance) who are only a fraction behind VB and in final results might yet overtake them.

Austria saw a historic success for another Le Pen ally, the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), who in a close three-way split have emerged as the largest party with 25.7%. Despite this victory, if they wish to be influential in the new Parliament they will have to watch their step on foreign policy, as Le Pen and her allies have indicated they will be utterly ruthless in expelling any party that discredits the anti-immigration cause by getting too close to Moscow.

In Italy, Giorgia Meloni – the effective leader of the mainstream European right (i.e. of the block that stands to the right of conservatism and is at least nominally anti-immigration, while avoiding ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ overtones) – had another election success. Her party ‘Brothers of Italy’ (Fratelli d’Italia) took 28.8%, ahead of the centre-left PD on 24%. A long-way behind these two were the once-successful but now declining anti-system protest party Five Star Movement on 10.0%, and then Meloni’s coalition partners Lega and Forza Italia, on 9.0% and 9.6% respectively.

Forza Italia is the remnant of the late Silvio Berlusconi’s reactionary conservative party, while Lega‘s leader Matteo Salvini was once the highest profile anti-immigration politician in Italy, but has long since been overshadowed by Meloni. Almost as much as Zemmour in France, Salvini has had to live down his former Putinism.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni addressing a pre-election rally

Meloni’s main political allies in the outgoing Parliament were the conservative-populist former governing party in Poland, Law and Justice. They lost power in last October’s Polish general election, and remained in second place yesterday with 35.7%, just behind the liberal/centrist slate ‘Civic Coalition’.

A rival Polish populist movement known as Confederation bounced back from several years of internal party conflict, polling 11.8% and gaining six MEPs. It’s not clear with whom they will ally in the new Parliament, as their political positions are anti-immigration, economically libertarian, and anti-Putin.

The strength of the anti-immigration right in the European Parliament will now depend to a large extent on whether Le Pen and Meloni can work together, or whether Europe’s conservative establishment manage to co-opt Meloni and some other quasi-nationalist parties.

Among the latter, one of the most widely publicised is in Spain whose reactionary conservative party Vox is a typical example of the trend towards pro-Israel, pro-capitalist stances among quasi-nationalist parties. Vox advanced from 6.2% (four MEPs) in 2019 to 9.6% (six MEPs) yesterday, barely justifying the hype it has been given in the media, but the big winners in Spain were the mainstream conservative PP, whose vote shot up from 20.2% to 34.2%.

Vox leader Santiago Abascal casting his vote yesterday.

Crank conspiracy theories embraced by some in our own movement were represented on Spanish ballot papers by a new party SALF (‘The Party is Over’), founded by an ideologically shallow social media celebrity, Alvise Pérez. A decade ago Peréz was a student in England at Leeds University, where he was active in the Liberal Democrats, and he later joined the Lib Dems’s short-lived Spanish equivalent Ciudadanos (Citizens).

His more recent success in building a political movement on the back of online conspiracy theorising and stunts, merely demonstrates the political idiocy of a large section of the ‘dissident’ movement, including the so-called ‘alt right’. Pérez’s party polled 4.6%, enough to gain three MEPs.

As usual the fringe right in Spain – a party that claims to represent the Falangist tradition – polled a tiny vote, amounting to just 0.05%.

In Portugal Vox’s imitator CHEGA (which translates as “Enough”, as in “We’ve had enough!”) polled 9.8%, up from 1.5% in 2019 when the party had only just been formed and was part of a hastily patched up joint ‘right-wing’ slate.

Croatia is one of several European countries where the broad right has reorganised itself in recent years. The largest party that represents traditional Croatian nationalist views is the Homeland Movement, who polled 8.8%, enough to elect one MEP.

Greece has seen some of the most blatant interference with ‘democratic’ politics. At the 2014 election, the national socialist party Golden Dawn polled 9.4% and elected three MEPs. This was one of several strong election results for Golden Dawn during the 2010s, but the party was subjected both to violent attack from left-wing terrorists, and to legalistic attack by the Greek state. As a result its leaders found themselves in jail and the party was effectively banned.

At yesterday’s election the main anti-immigration party was Greek Solution, though it’s a reactionary rather than national socialist party, and has expressed Putinist foreign policy positions. They polled 9.5% yesterday.

Cyprus has an anti-immigration party once seen as allied to Golden Dawn. This is the National Popular Front (ELAM): they polled 11.2% yesterday, up from 8.3% in 2019.

In Malta a national-socialist party allied to Golden Dawn – Imperium Europa, led by Norman Lowell – polled 3.2% in 2019. This year that fell slightly to 2.6%.

Among advances for anti-immigration parties, in Finland the Finns Party lost one of their seats, with their vote declining to 7.6% as voters rallied behind the government’s strongly anti-Moscow stance. To be fair, the Finns Party are also strongly anti-Putin, but in a country on the frontline at a time of crisis, there is a tendency to rally behind the government. In this respect Germany is the exception, because decades of brainwashing have taught Germans that they aren’t allowed to take a strong military stance against their enemies. Finnish patriots haven’t been emasculated.

Sweden Democrats celebrating last night!

In Sweden the main anti-immigration party Sweden Democrats polled 13.2%, very slightly down on their historic success in 2019.

Similarly in Denmark the Danish People’s Party fell slightly from 10.8% to 6.4%.

While some ‘mainstream’ anti-immigration parties can seem discreditable and cowardly, one of the most honourable and courageous of these parties is in Estonia, where the Conservative People’s Party (EKRE) advanced to 14.9%, from 12.7% in 2019.

In neighbouring Latvia the anti-immigration party National Alliance similarly advanced to 22.1%, from 16.5% five years ago.

For complicated geopolitical and historical reasons, the position in the third Baltic republic, Lithuania, is more nuanced. There, the largest of several ‘right-wing’ parties also represents the interests of ethnic Poles. (It should be remembered that during the 16th-17th centuries, during what we in the UK think of as the Elizabethean and Jacobean eras, the confederation Poland-Lithuania was one of the greatest powers in Europe.)

This Polish-Lithuanian party LLRA-KSS polled 5.8% this year, a fraction up from 2014. The rest of the Lithuanian ‘right’ is fragmented, with the National Alliance (a relatively new party founded in 2016), for example, polling 3.8%.

With most of the electorally credible ‘right’ (outside Germany) having moved against Putin, Hungary‘s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is in a delicate position. His party Fidesz remained easily the largest force at yesterday’s election, polling 44.3%, while the once-effective but now marginal nationalist party Jobbik managed only 1%. But it’s not yet clear with whom Fidesz‘s MEPs will ally in the new Parliament.

Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán all smiles with his Italian counterpart, but their parties’ relations in the European Parliament have not been easy, since Meloni is staunchly pro-Ukraine, whereas Orbán has pushed a softcore Putinism.

One of the few openly Putinist parties in the new Parliament is from Bulgaria, where the ‘Revival’ party polled 15.4%, a huge increase on their 1% in 2019 and reflecting the traditional instability of Bulgarian politics where wild swings of this kind are not uncommon. These Bulgarian Putinists are unlikely to find many allies in the new Parliament, unless AfD choose to go into the wilderness with them.

Romania‘s new populist ‘right-wing’ party AUR has adopted a softer form of Putinism, seeking to undermine Europe’s support for Ukraine without being blatantly pro-Moscow. As in much of South-Eastern Europe, the position is complicated by petty nationalism / chauvinism, with AUR for example promoting anti-Hungarian themes. (A lot of this is rooted in disputes going back to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the redrawing of Europe’s map following the First World War.)

AUR polled 15% but unlike the Bulgarian ‘Revival’ party it’s likely to moderate its stance on foreign policy, so as to remain part of one of the mainstream pan-nationalist or conservative groups in the new Parliament.

Slovakia‘s politics hit the headlines last month with the attempted assassination of Prime Minister Robert Fico, whose party Smer is difficult to place on the ideological map, being both left-wing and populist/’nationalist’. Smer was the second-largest party yesterday, polling 24.8%. As with the Romanian AUR, it might moderate its stance on the war in Ukraine so as to be admitted into one of the cross-party groups in the new Parliament, but since it was until recently in the same group as the UK Labour Party, it’s far from clear where it would naturally belong!

The more hardline nationalist party SNS (Slovak National Party), who back in 2014 were strong enough to elect an MEP), polled only 1.9% yesterday. Another Slovakian party, Freedom & Solidarity, represents a very different type of ‘right-wing'” socially libertarian, Eurosceptic, and ‘right-wing’ on economics in a US-style, pro-capitalist sense. They polled 4.9% yesterday.

Politics in the Czech Republic is another area that can mystify racial nationalist observers in other countries. The main anti-immigration party Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD – allied to Marine Le Pen’s RN, Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party, and other such forces in the European Parliament) is led by the quarter-Japanese, quarter-Korean, half-Czech, Tomio Okamura.

Last year one of their two MEPs, retired general Hynek Blaško, broke away to form a blatantly Putinist party but obtained a humiliating 0.5% yesterday. Meanwhile his former party fell to 5.7%, but will retain one MEP.

In Slovenia there is very little that could be termed a ‘nationalist’ party. The tiny Slovenian National Party split again a few years ago, and one of its activists founded a libertarian and anti-lockdown party ‘Resni.ca‘. They polled 4% yesterday, not enough to gain an MEP.

Luxembourg has no significant anti-immigration party, and its largest ‘right-wing’ force is a party that mainly represents the interests of pensioners, the mildly populist ADR, which polled 11.8% yesterday, enough to elect one MEP who will probably ally with Meloni’s ‘moderate’ nationalist group if it remains in its present form.

H&D will continue to monitor developments in Europe during the coming weeks, and will report on the reshaping of the electorally-focused side of European nationalism both here and in future editions of the magazine.

Fighting for race and nation at the ballot box

While the rest of Europe is engaged in elections for a ‘Parliament’ that has little genuine power over European institutions, nominations were published this weekend across the UK for the General Election on 4th July.

H&D readers will have varying views on the efficacy of contesting such elections, but we can all agree that the list of candidates reflects a slow but perceptible recovery from the disaster inflicted on our movement by Nick Griffin’s destruction of the BNP more than a decade ago.

There are two main groups of nationalist candidates. The British Democrats, who achieved a handful of strong results at the local council elections last month, are fighting four constituencies: Basildon & Billericay (where Chris Bateman is standing against Conservative Party chairman Richard Holden); Faversham & Mid Kent (Lawrence Rustem); Maidstone & Malling (Gary Butler); and Doncaster North (where Frank Calladine is up against former Labour leader Ed Miliband).

Mr Calladine is the only racial nationalist candidate in the UK who will not have a Reform UK opponent.

Three of the British Democrat candidates are already parish councillors. They understand that in present circumstances it’s difficult to contest parliamentary elections – party chairman and H&D patron Dr Jim Lewthwaite has emphasised that nationalism is a long-term project – but it’s important to offer the British people a genuine choice, and to take a step forward in rebuilding nationalism amid the collapse of the Tory party and the transformation of mainstream politics.

The English Democrats (unlike the Brit Dems) are primarily a civic nationalist party, but their candidates this year include several staunch racial nationalists, as well as others whose main focus is on constitutional reform. The party’s platform highlights a pledge to “end immigration now!”

The fifteen ED candidates nationwide include the well-known anti-immigration campaigner Steve Laws in Dover & Deal, and four members of Patriotic Alternative: Thomas Bryer in Makerfield, Craig Buckley in Leigh & Atherton, Patrick McGrath in Bolton West, and Matthew Darrington in Newark.

Also standing for the EDs are party chairman Robin Tilbrook (Brentwood & Ongar), former Brexit Party founding chairman Catherine Blaiklock (Great Yarmouth), and longstanding campaigners for an English Parliament such as Steve Morris (contesting Bury South for the first time, having earlier stood in many council elections).

Two former BNP activists are standing as independents on anti-immigration manifestos: Joe Owens in Liverpool Wavertree, and Dr Andrew Emerson in Chichester.

Later this week H&D will analyse the campaign so far, and examine potential benefits for our cause from the present political drama.

95-year-old Ursula Haverbeck in court again this week

The 95-year-old German scholar and publisher Ursula Haverbeck returned to court this week, for an appeal hearing against a prison sentence for political ‘crimes’. (In the photo above, Ursula is discussing an earlier case with her lawyer, Wolfram Nahrath.)

Ursula’s ‘offence’ is to have raised questions about the orthodox version of 1940s German history (a history which she lived through, unlike the vast majority of today’s Germans).

On Friday 7th June she appeared in court in Hamburg (a journey of more than 130 miles from her home) in relation to a conviction that dates back to 2015. Appeal hearings in the case were delayed several times, partly due to a backlog of cases during the pandemic. Additional hearings are scheduled for 12th and 26th June.

Ursula has repeatedly been charged (and convicted) since 2004 for questioning the alleged extermination of six million Jews in purported homicidal “gas chambers”: an alleged mass murder presumed by orthodox historians to have been carried out on the orders of Adolf Hitler – even though these orthodox historians have never been able to produce the slightest evidence for such orders, nor establish how and where the murders took place.

German courts refuse even to discuss the evidence concerning this alleged “Holocaust”. They frequently impose jail sentences on dissident historians, scientists, and publishers.

Ursula Haverbeck with her fellow patriot and scholar, the late Dr Rigolf Hennig.

The German-Canadian Ernst Zündel was deported to Germany in 2005 and arrested on arrival. He was held in Mannheim prison for exactly five years until his release in March 2010, having also been imprisoned from 2003-2005 in the USA and Canada awaiting deportation.

The scientist and historian Germar Rudolf was extradited from the USA to Germany in 2005 and imprisoned until 2009. Many other countries including France, Austria, and Russia also criminalise historical revisionism, but the Federal Republic (today’s occupied Germany) has some of the most severe punishments.

Ursula Haverbeck herself served a jail sentence in Bielefeld from 2018-20, and is due to serve a further jail sentence confirmed by a Berlin court in 2022. The main difficulty in enforcing this sentence seems to be that few prisons (or even prison hospitals) have appropriate facilities to accommodate a 95-year-old prisoner.

Among the last survivors of the wartime generation, Ursula Haverbeck has ensured – by her remarkable tenacity, intelligence, and courage – that the pursuit of historical truth continues, in defiance of politically-directed courts and enemy-occupied governments.

The latest state repression against Vincent Reynouard

The heroic revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard, who as regular readers of H&D and the Real History blog will know, was imprisoned in Edinburgh from November 2022 until his deportation to France in February 2024, is facing further efforts by the Parisian courts to silence him.

Vincent’s ‘crime’ is to have raised serious questions about the orthodox history of the Second World War, in particular the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, and (in his most recent work) the legend of Oradour-sur-Glâne, where the Waffen-SS is accused of having killed 643 civilians.

In an article at his blog, Vincent has described the latest stages of the French state’s repressive efforts against him. Here is an English translation of his article (click here for a German translation).


On April 17 at the Paris High Court (tribunal de grand instance), I appeared before a sentencing enforcement judge (JAP). Why had he summoned me? Because France has begun an “extension of surrender” process against me. This means that after having obtained my extradition from Scotland, the French courts will ask the Scottish authorities for their consent so that two sentences and one further court order issued against me in France between 2017 and 2021, while I was in England, can be made enforceable.

A desire to silence me as quickly as possible

Reduced expectations

Article 695-18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes clear:
When the public prosecutor who issued the European arrest warrant has obtained the surrender of the person sought, the person cannot be prosecuted, convicted or detained with a view to serving a custodial sentence for any act whatsoever, prior to the extradition and other than that which motivated this process.

However, the French authorities obtained my extradition specifically over seven videos that I published on the internet between September 2019 and April 2020. They did not invoke the two sentences and the additional French court order, because although, taken together, they inflict on me fifteen months of incarceration, taken separately, each one sentences me to less than a year in prison, which makes an extradition request impossible.

Consequently, when, on February 2nd 2024, I was handed over, handcuffed, to the French authorities, an investigating judge indicted me and placed me under judicial supervision for the seven videos mentioned in the arrest warrant.

I am accused of “public denial, minimisation or relativisation of a war crime”, “publicly disputing the existence of a crime against humanity committed during the Second World War” and “public incitement to hatred or violence due to [racial or religious] origin…”. As preventive detention does not exist – or not yet – for these so-called “publishing” offences, that same evening, I walked free from the court.

I still won’t shut up

For my opponents, this was a great disappointment, because some had already assumed I would be incarcerated. When, on October 12, 2023, the Scottish justice in the first hearing authorised my extradition, the president of the National Association of the Families of the Martyrs of Oradour-sur-Glane, Benoît Sadry, proclaimed : “We can rejoice that he is coming back to be imprisoned!

Others probably thought that after fifteen months in prison in Scotland, an extradition and an immediate indictment involving judicial supervision, I would henceforth keep silent, wishing to avoid making my case worse.

They were wrong. The very evening of my arrival in France, I gave a video interview to Jérôme Bourbon and Florian Rouanet. Then came those carried out by Égalité & Réconciliation and Nereus Osa. The apotheosis was my participation in the show Deep Geopolitics, presented by Mike Borowski, in the company of Alain Soral and Alexandre Juving-Brunet.

There are also weekly conferences, organised throughout France. I have already traveled to Nantes, Chartres, Quimper, Rouen, Montauban, Perpignan, Le-Puy-en-Velay and Lyon. Other meetings are planned, from Vannes to Strasbourg and from Dunkirk to Savoie.

Finally, I write articles published in the columns of Rivarol, on my blog with its Newsletter as well as on my GAB page.

Using the most extraordinary exceptions to the Penal Code

In June 2023, the director of the Jean Jaurès Foundation’s Political Radicalism Monitoring Centre, Jean-Yves Camus, declared: “faced with an ideologue like Reynouard, unfortunately, imprisonment is the only way to silence his propaganda.” Since February 2, 2024, my opponents have followed this advice.

Hence this “extension” approach initiated against me. It is based on article 695-18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As we have seen, this prevents France using the two judgments and court order (issued against me while I was in exile in Britain) as grounds for throwing me into prison.

But it also provides for exceptions. The French authorities cannot enforce these court decisions, except “when the judicial authority of the executing Member State, which surrendered the person, expressly consents”. Paris will therefore ask Edinburgh for its consent.

In my presence and in front of my lawyer, the sentencing enforcement judge admitted that this was a fairly unusual step, and that in relation to any UK court, it was a first for publishing offences.

He also underlined that the actions criminalised in the two sentences and in the court order were “old ”: these involve three publications (two videos and a book I believe) dating from 2014, 2017 and 2019, i.e. actions going back five, seven and ten years.

Let’s press on!

But no matter: my adversaries absolutely aim to gag me; after having moved heaven and earth to obtain my extradition, they will do everything to proceed against me as quickly as possible.

The “extension of surrender” provides for a hearing to be held in Edinburgh. At the end of the debates, the Scottish court will rule on whether or not to authorise France to make the three legal decisions taken against me enforceable.

My lawyer assumed that, given bureaucratic tardiness, the case would not be decided for another year. But the judge said France hoped for a Paris hearing within a week, and a hearing in Edinburgh before the summer. Yes, really, they aim to incarcerate me as quickly as possible…


Looking for a brave Scottish lawyer

We are already preparing for the hearing in Scotland. A Scottish lawyer will be contacted.

A lawyer exhausted by the revisionist fight

I will dismiss the one who defended me when I was imprisoned in Edinburgh, because I gained the distinct impression that over the months he became timid.

In November 2022, he was enthusiastic about defending me. He warmly assured me: “If we condemn revisionism and throw people in prison for this reason, then we can also restore slavery. Human rights are indivisible.”

But later he confided to me: “I received calls from many newspapers, including Israeli ones. I defend you on the basis of Law; I refuse to be your spokesperson. I want to die peacefully, in my bed.”

As the weeks went by, I noticed that together with his colleague, he adopted a minimal defense. In particular, he did not want me to speak in front of the judges. During the hearings, I was there, sitting like a fool. My destiny was at stake, but the judges ignored me and my lawyer refused to allow me to speak.

I still hear the prosecutor claiming that my videos conveyed “frightening levels of anti-Semitism”. However, my colleague had transmitted to the Defence a file which included everything I had said on the Jewish problem since 2018. It demonstrated beyond any possible dispute that I was “Judeo-indifferent”, not by strategy but by conviction.

It was time for my lawyer to produce it. He did nothing, simply responding that my videos should be judged in their entirety, not on a few extracts presented out of context. He was right.

However, instead of analysing them and quoting passages to emphasise that they developed rational arguments, without any “hatred”, he opted to engage in legal debate over whether the nature of my comments was “offensive” or “grossly offensive”. Unsurprisingly, the prosecutor called them “grossly offensive.”

Defend full freedom of expression

To give my lawyer the opportunity to respond, I sent him the judgment in Handyside v. United Kingdom (December 7th, 1976). The European Court of Human Rights declared:

Freedom of expression […] is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”. 

I had also brought to the attention of my lawyer the preface to Robert Faurisson’s Mémoire en Défense. Written by the Jewish author Noam Chomsky, who emphasised:

even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi […] this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defence of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defence.

Arguments on legal technicalities are of no use in a trial for revisionism

I hoped that my lawyer would produce this material to assert my right to present, calmly and rationally, my historical and political theses, without their character being judged as “offensive” or “grossly offensive”, but even when he asserted that the use of the law sanctioning “grossly offensive” remarks was being abused in the present case, he failed to back this by citing the Handyside judgment and Noam Chomsky’s preface.

Responding to the prosecutor’s allegations, he responded timidly: “I consider that my client’s comments could be seen as offensive without being grossly so.”

At that moment, I knew that the game was lost, because instead of fighting on the ground of reason and invoking the very clear opinions expressed by people above all suspicion, the Defence had been drawn onto the ground of a subjective choice between “offensive” or “grossly offensive”? It was talking about the sex of angels… The not-so-courageous judges would quite naturally claim that my publications were “grossly offensive”.

The consequences of an uncompromising fight for the truth

Today, I am convinced that my lawyer received calls and messages that, rightly or wrongly, intimidated him. I don’t blame him, because by asserting my National Socialism, I am largely responsible for it. Of course, I explain that National Socialism is not Hitlerism: Hitlerism is one manifestation of it at a given time, in a given country, to resolve given problems. It involved numerous contingencies, such as euthanasia of the mentally-handicapped, experiments on human guinea pigs, radical anti-Judaism or the opening of concentration camps.

You can be a National Socialist without wanting to imitate everything that was done under the Third Reich. But very few people listen to my explanations. For the vast majority, a “Nazi” is a madman who wants to massacre Jews, “sub-races” and the mentally-handicapped, while he locks up opponents in concentration camps and fanaticises the young, destroys culture and reduces women to the rank of progenitors. Therefore, the simple fact of saying to a lawyer: “Are you defending a Nazi?” is often enough to intimidate him.

Hold Scottish justice accountable for its responsibilities

So I hope to find a Scottish defence counsel who will show more courage. We will inform him of the hysterical repression raging in France.

Our goal is for him to hold his country’s justice system accountable by saying: “Violating British tradition which requires offering the right of asylum to politically persecuted people, you have handed over a French citizen whose only ‘crime’ is to express historical and political opinions that displease the powerful. Are you going to commit another ignominy by authorising France to incarcerate him, following court decisions rendered in the name of a repressive law which does not exist here?”

Will we find a lawyer brave enough to adopt this strategy? And if so, will the judges back down from committing a new ignominy? Hopes are slim, even illusory. But no matter: even without hope of victory, we must fight and denounce the scandal.

Faced with the importance of the issue, I will not remain silent

Should we deduce from this that before the summer or at the start of the next school year, I will return to prison? No, because if Scotland accedes to the wishes of the French authorities, then I will oppose the two judgments and will lodge an appeal (in cassation) against the judgment. The first two cases will start from scratch and the third will be examined after several months.

During these several months, I intend to give as many conferences as possible and write as many articles as possible. I have dedicated my life to revisionism: blows and threats will neither keep me silent nor force me to recant.

Some will criticise my stubbornness. “You have already sacrificed your family in a fight that does not interest the French. People worry about the future which is played out in the present, not the past.” It is true that according to a recent survey, the French are above all concerned about crime, inflation, the environment, social inequalities and the economic situation of the country.

But if, truly, the past were irrelevant, then the authorities would leave me alone. However, as we have seen, they are struggling to silence me as quickly as possible.

This is all the more revealing since I have no support in the major media, no complicity in the academic world or any appreciable financial assistance: for thirty years, I have published my works myself and I have earned my living as a private tutor. The repression that is launched against me as a revisionist historian of the Second World War demonstrates that this period weighs on the present, and therefore on the future.

To those who doubt this, I would remind you that a brochure published by the Education Ministry warns:

the Shoah does not belong to the past. From 1945, the resurgence of liberated nations after the most absolute dehumanization that the world has ever had to endure, gave rise to new institutions.

Among these institutions is the United Nations. On September 26, 2018, their Secretary General, António Guterres, proclaimed: “The origins of the United Nations themselves are rooted in the need to learn the lessons of the Holocaust.”

Youth, first target of the guardians of Memory

Engraving the Shoah in the soul of humanity

Hence the propaganda targeting young people. At a time when the last of the wartime deportees are dying, some pass on the “Memory” to young people so that they can internalise it and pass it on in their turn. Addressing young Belgians heading to Auschwitz, the director of the War Heritage Museum, Michel Jaupart, declared:

Today, you will encounter history, and become memory-bearers […] You will be able to relate this journey to your parents, to your friends, and later to your children.

Elsewhere, a young Frenchman who became one of these “memory-bearers” confirms that he understood his mission: 

Talking about the Shoah, in class and outside, raises our awareness. No one remains indifferent when I tell what I learn, and I intend to continue to bear witness, so that later my future children will in turn become ambassadors of this memory.

The journalist who reports these remarks concludes: “Holocaust survivors need not worry: young people are taking over“. This is the objective of the authorities: to perpetuate the memory from generation to generation.

In 2006, commemorating the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Israeli President Moshe Katsav stated:

Now that the stain of the Holocaust is etched into the soul of mankind forever, Yad Vashem is the faithful guardian of the path of memory for the Jewish people and all of humanity, for all time.

Technology to perpetuate memory

In order to achieve this objective, “Memory” is disseminated everywhere, partly thanks to new technologies. In Eure, a history professor announces:

We want a plaque for Jewish deportees from Eure to be placed in 2025 in Évreux. Next year, we would like to do podcasts, and we have the idea of ​​creating a route around the city using QR codes.

The use of new technologies will make it possible to create “memory 2.0”. The Shoah Memorial explains this as follows:.

The Shoah Memorial, a participant in the field of education, wishes to initiate a debate on the issues of transmission 2.0
Writers, actors, influencers, historians, YouTubers, today have a vital role to play as transmitters of memory and spokespersons […]
By mobilizing influencer ambassadors of the young generation, through a unique 100% digital “infotainment” format, the Shoah Memorial confirms its ambition dynamically to move the lines, so as better to raise awareness among young and adolescent audiences.

Already, survivors have been filmed and reproduced in the form of holograms: not only can they repeat their testimony endlessly, but artificial intelligence coupled with voice recognition software allows people to ask questions and have them answered by these virtual people. Former deportees who have been dead for ages will therefore be able to continue transmitting “Memory”.

Memory: a propaganda weapon in the service of globalism

A teaching that is in no way neutral

But the authorities’ objective goes beyond the transmission of memories of the past. It is also — and above all — political: the authorities seek first and foremost to combat anti-Judaism. The author of an article entitled “Teaching the Shoah in a civic education approach” concludes:

This teaching, even very incomplete, of the Shoah within the framework of the civic education course […] goes beyond the issues of memory, the empowerment of future generations in the face of any new avatar of anti-Semitism being the main objective.

It is so obvious that the young recruits are aware of it. After hearing the testimony of Ginette Kolinka and visiting Auschwitz, a student from the Saint-Avold high school, Lother, declared:

She always encourages students to be the guardians of this memory which must never disappear. This is why we are committed to this project so that this memory never disappears and that Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism never take over .

Anti-Judaism is not the only target, however. The brochure Memory and history of the Shoah at school explains:

vigilance against the possible return of barbarism cannot be reduced to this corpus of knowledge and patiently built critical consciousness, which we call culture; we must also think differently about ‘otherness’, and understand cultural diversity as the very essence of humanity. An education open to the world, to outsiders and ‘otherness’ is one of the best defences against prejudice and racism.

Engaging young people under the banner of anti-racism

The final objective is therefore to use “Memory” to encourage anti-racism. The evidence abounds.

For the years 2023-2026, the “National Plan to combat racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination linked to origin” established by the DILCRAH (France’s Interministerial Delegation to Combat Racism, Anti-Semitism and Anti-LGBT Hate) provides for fifteen “flagship measures”. The first is the following:

Organise a historical or memorial visit linked to racism, anti-Semitism or anti-Gypsyism for each student during their schooling .

Beyond, therefore, the fight against anti-Judaism, “Memory” serves to recruit young people under the banner of anti-racism.

In this context, Auschwitz and Oradour are equally important. At the end of August 2020, after a revisionist inscription was painted on the Oradour Memory Center, the head of CRIF (the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions), Francis Kalifat, reacted by announcing:

There is no difference between a Holocaust denier and a denier of Oradour-sur-Glâne or a denier of another genocide. These are the same people who fuel Holocaust denial and who are entering this field today, which is a new development […] These same deniers are now attacking the very memory that constitutes the identity of France.

Train good anti-fascist democrats

Six years earlier, participating in the commemorations of the seventieth anniversary of the Oradour-sur-Glâne tragedy, Manuel Valls (then French Prime Minister) had declared:

Oradour represents a Europe that was to be destroyed to the finish, it is humanity that was to be murdered to the finish. And in this tomb of ruins that we have just visited, in this silence, the walls do not speak. They shout ! […] And behind these cries, those of the six hundred and forty-two victims, rise other cries, those of the millions of dead in the camps .

And Valls added:

Oradour is also a warning to keep fighting and never let ideologies of death flourish. We know it well, […] they have not disappeared […] Fanaticism, radicalism always have their leaders, their doctrines sowing the seeds of terror, to have no consideration for human life or civilian populations – and it is up to us, democracy, it is up to France to concede nothing, to leave no breach and to act with the greatest determination. Here and everywhere in Europe, in the entire world.

It is clear: from Oradour to Auschwitz, memories merge to give rise to anti-fascism and, beyond that, anti-racism. All this in the name of democracy. The authorities do not hide it. France’s Official Bulletin of National Education explains:

As part of its historical dimension, the teaching of the Shoah has a civic purpose and responds to a moral obligation. It is not just a question of transmitting memory and knowledge: we must give all students the elements of culture and reflection enabling them to reject all forms of racism and discrimination and to understand that, contravening the Declaration of human and citizen rights, they make democracy impossible.

Memory is therefore a tool intended to format young people in order to transform them into good democrats.

Building a morality of non-discrimination

Therefore, we will not be surprised to hear Amel, 16 years old, a young “memory-bearer”, declare on his return from Auschwitz:

It enriched me in terms of general culture, and also in a human sense, because it makes us understand the present; it’s the same as all other forms of racism, such as homophobia.

For its part, the Canopé network offers teachers educational materials to maintain “Memory” in order to fight against discrimination. They presents it as follows:

Implementing a memory project within your class or your school, building a collective memory, opening dialogue and getting students to reflect on republican values ​​contributes preventing and fighting against discrimination.

Among the documents offered is a work entitled: Lessons of the Shoah. Its author, Gérard Rabinovitch, writes:

The purpose of this work is to attempt to outline – supported by facts exhumed, explored, recorded – how the Shoah, in its indelible lesson, calls for thoughtful perspective, alert syntheses, ethical warnings. It is not just a question of “duty to remember”, it is a question of taking stock of the fact that “Nazism constituted for the West a historical milestone and a transformative episode to which contemporary societies remain dependent”, as highlighted by the jurist and psychoanalyst Pierre Legendre.

The terrors of the 20th century, this “permanent liquidation machine” as the writer Imre Kertész calls it, mobilise historians as vigilantes of the facts; call upon political philosophy to rethink its founding questions. What is a good life? What is a good society? What is good collective action? They call for a non-soothing anthropology, demystified by evidence, and lucid by necessity.

We see that the Memory of the Shoah serves to build a morality, that of non-discrimination.

Hence the “gas chamber” placed at the centre of History. In a work intended to combat Marine Le Pen, we read:

as they indelibly mark the memory and consciousness of all humanity […] the gas chambers are at the centre of the History of the Second World War and at the centre of History. 

In other words: the “gas chamber” is a heritage that all of humanity must embrace in the present, because it contributes to shaping consciences.

A repression which requires, on the other hand, mutual assistance

In such a context, the revisionists are quite naturally ranked among the main enemies to be fought. Gérard Rabinovitch writes:

Teaching the history of the Shoah, restoring the entirety of its facts, against the falsifiers, the deniers or the rhetorical boasts, is to do an educational work as well as a civic one.

But against revisionism, teaching remains insufficient; judicial repression must complete it. Under the title “Denying the Holocaust is a racist crime”, the vice-president of the Advisory Center for Jewish and Israeli Relations (CIJA), Richard Marceau, and his collaborator Emmanuelle Amar state:

Denying the Shoah is an indicator, yes, of hatred of the Jew. But it is also a troubling marker of radicalisation, for which society as a whole will one day inevitably pay the price. What begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews.

Hence the need, they conclude, to criminalise revisionism in order to protect all of society.

In Europe, this criminalisation is well advanced: many countries have adopted so-called anti-revisionist laws. The UK is among the exceptions. But by accepting my extradition, she sent a clear message: the island will not become a refuge for hunted revisionists. The relentless persecution endured by free researchers demonstrates the capital importance of the past.

I am living proof: compared to the means available to the guardians of “Memory”, I am destitute. Faced by their vocal pronouncements, I can only whisper. But this whisper is still too much. My opponents want to silence me as quickly as possible. If, truly, the past had no importance and if the official story offered all the guarantees of solidity, then such relentlessness would not exist.

Our adversaries fear revisionism because it endangers their weapons of political propaganda. By dedicating my life to the revisionist fight, I have certainly sacrificed a lot, including my family, but I fight for all the children of France and Europe, so that we stop instilling in them a false memory from which arises a morality favouring the poison of globalism. Thank you to those who support me in this mission.

The exhausted volcanoes – Diane Abbott, Nigel Farage, and campaign u-turns

The General Election has already seen its first U-turns, as two headlines from the campaign’s first week were reversed.

But far from indicating genuine potential for change, these U-turns revealed the weakness of both the mainstream left and the mainstream civic nationalist ‘right’, which have long exhausted whatever radicalism they once possessed.

U-turn number one involved Diane Abbott, the first black woman elected to Parliament in 1987, who (as we discussed a few days ago) got herself suspended from the Labour Party for trying to claim a higher victim status for blacks – thus committing sacrilege against the ‘Holocaust’, liberal Europe’s only religious faith.

Supposedly the question was whether Abbott had done sufficient penance for this sin against the Holy Holocaust. But the real question was whether the Labour leadership’s Jewish friends felt they could risk offending both the black lobby and the feminist lobby.

One big risk was that Abbott might stand as an independent and make common cause with her old comrade Jeremy Corbyn.

So, on balance, Labour decided that an ageing and sick negress wasn’t a real danger to an imminent Labour government with a likely majority of more than 150.

Or to use a vulgar political cliché, that she was better “inside the tent p*****g out, than outside the tent p*****g in”.

So after briefing the press that Abbott would be prevented from standing as a Labour candidate, party bosses suddenly decided she remained a good comrade after all.

Naturally, the Tory press have argued that this long drawn out Abbott fiasco proves the strength and danger of the Labour ‘left’. In fact it proves the opposite.

Abbott’s type of ‘left’ is now toothless. Most of its once-‘radical’ demands are today’s woke orthodoxy. Palestine is pretty much the only exception, and Starmer’s party is confident that its Zionist policy will easily survive whatever rhetorical challenges the likes of Abbott can launch from the backbenches.

This week’s second U-turn was Nigel Farage’s decision that he would, after all, be a parliamentary candidate for Reform UK, a party he already effectively owned, and where he has now openly taken over as leader.

Just over a week after announcing that six weeks wasn’t long enough to fight a credible election campaign from scratch, Farage decided that in fact four and a half weeks was more than enough. The lucky voters are in one of England’s most deprived but Whitest constituencies, the Essex seaside resort of Clacton.

Douglas Carswell (above left), a former Tory, was re-elected twice in Clacton for UKIP, but soon fell out with its then leader Nigel Farage.

Perhaps Clacton’s residents will be gullible enough to believe Farage offers a genuine alternative to the Westminster gang politicians. Perhaps they will decide he is the best of a grim bunch.

But as with Abbott, the Farage u-turn actually demonstrates the weakness of Reform UK, not its strength.

It’s unlikely that many Britons could name another Reform UK politician apart from Farage. And apart from Brexit (now yesterday’s issue) and immigration (where Farage continues to speak with forked tongue) few voters would be able to name a Reform UK policy. Since the party lacks any serious branch structure around the country, it’s unlikely that anyone will enlighten them.

The Farage campaign will be an extended con-trick, as Reform UK’s new/old leader pretends that a colour-blind policy can restrict immigration in any meaningful way, or that it can improve the many immigration-related crises of modern Britain.

Brexit resulted in increased rather then reduced immigration – and far more importantly it replaced European immigrants with African and Asian immigrants, the very opposite of what most pro-Brexit voters dreamed of.

This should have been no surprise to Farage.

Time and again in the European Parliament and elsewhere, sincere anti-immigration politicians such as Andrew Brons put Farage on the spot, eliciting confirmation that the former UKIP, former Brexit Party, and now Reform UK leader was not genuinely anti-immigration.

Farage and Reform UK are slavish devotees of ‘free market’ globalism. And it is global capitalism itself (not wokeism or some bogeyman like Klaus Schwab or George Soros) that is the engine of mass migration.

That’s why what Britain and Europe needs is not the moribund Marxism of Abbott and Corbyn, nor the fake ‘patriotism’ of Farage and Tice. These are what Disraeli (when speaking of the Victorian Liberal Party and his rival Gladstone) famously called: “a range of exhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest. But the situation is still dangerous. There are occasional earthquakes, and ever and anon the dark rumbling of the sea.

For Disraeli’s co-racialists today, the civic nationalist ‘right’ and the anti-Zionist ‘left’ are similarly capable of just the occasional rumble, and at most a minor earthquake.

Those of us looking for a revolutionary earthquake must instead build a movement that offers a true socialist nationalism that unites all true Europeans.

That’s our movement’s task for the next five years, whether or not the likes of Abbott and Farage are in Parliament playing their futile games for the television cameras.

Political prisoner Sam Melia barred from access to his children – a new low for British ‘justice’

Sam Melia, Yorkshire organiser of Patriotic Alternative, who is presently serving a two year prison sentence for the ‘crime’ of distributing anti-immigration stickers via Telegram, has now been told that he is no longer allowed contact with his children.

This decision has been made not by a court, but by the prison authorities at HMP Hull, in collaboration with bureaucrats from the National Probation Service. Sam was moved from Leeds prison to Hull two weeks ago.

As many H&D readers will know, Sam and his wife Laura Towler (deputy leader of PA) have a two-year-old daughter Catherine, and a month-old baby Violet.

There has never been any suggestion that the ‘crimes’ for which Sam was convicted have any connection to children in any way; nor has he ever even been charged with any offence relating to children. Even Sam’s worst enemies would concede that he has been a loyal and hard-working father.

But the prison and probation authorities have now decided – for entirely political reasons – to classify Sam as a Person Posing Risk to Children (PPRC).

Sam and Laura last October celebrating the first scans of their second daughter Violet. By the time Violet was born, Sam had already been imprisoned.

When asked the reasons for this wicked lie, the authorities admit they do “not state he poses a direct risk of serious harm to children, but by the child/ren being exposed to posters, insignia, literature and attitudes assessed as racist and offensive.”

Remember, this is a man who is in a prison cell in Hull, where quite obviously he has no access to “racist and offensive” material. Moreover, no reasonable person could imagine that a two-year-old child and a one-month-old baby could be influenced (for good or ill) by political material, whether “racist” or of any other kind.

But the authorities’ ukase bars Sam from being visited by his infant children; receiving phone calls or photographs from them; or even from receiving news about them from his wife (or from anyone else).

As Laura wrote yesterday on the PA website:
“These restrictions are complete overkill for a ‘criminal’ such as Sam and amount to nothing more than the political persecution of a loving father and husband. Sam is heartbroken at the prospect of not being able to see his children and although our newborn baby has no idea what’s going on, our toddler is confused as to why she’s no longer allowed to see or talk to her daddy.”

Due to having been identified as a ‘PPRC’, Sam will automatically be subjected to these appalling restrictions until an ‘assessment’ of his case is carried out by prison and probation bureaucrats. This process has now started, and to begin with Sam had to complete forms for each of his children, explaining why he believed he was entitled to be in contact with them.

As Laura points out, they now have to wait for the bureaucracy to grind out its judgment, which could take weeks or months. “This means that Sam will miss out on maintaining a strong relationship with our toddler, building a relationship with our newborn baby, and our children will miss out on seeing and speaking with their dad.”

Sam and Laura have been regular guests at H&D events. Here Laura (above right) shares the platform in Preston with (left to right) Dr Jim Lewthwaite, Keith Axon, Peter Rushton and Isabel Peralta.

H&D encourages our readers to contact HMP Hull, explaining why Sam Melia’s treatment is an outrage to all normal standards of justice and decency. Please use polite language despite the provocation!

The prison governor, Mr Shaun Mycroft, can be contacted either by email at candc.hull@justice.gov.uk or by post at the following address:
Complaints and Correspondence Hull
HMP Hull
Hedon Road
Hull
HU9 5LS

As with any correspondence referring to Sam Melia’s case, please quote his prison number: A3370FC.

Readers should also be aware that on 9th June, Sam will be celebrating his 35th birthday – behind bars, and now without access to his children (or even to news about his children).

Birthday cards can be sent to Sam at the following address:
Samuel Melia
A3370FC
HMP Hull 
Hedon Road
Hull
HU9 5LS

We would also encourage all readers who have not already done so, to sign the Free Sam Melia petition which is online here.

Labour and the victim card

Diane Abbott addressing a rally in her Hackney constituency this week.

As the UK general election campaign ends its first week, Labour still looks a certain winner. But the party’s first stumble has illustrated the problem of victim culture in today’s woke world.

Veteran left-wing MP Diane Abbott was suspended from Labour more than a year ago, in one of the party’s many disputes over ‘anti-semitism’.

She had written a letter to The Observer (the UK’s oldest newspaper and traditionally linked to the liberal left) in which she tried to argue that only blacks suffer from “racism”.

Abbott (who was the UK’s first black female MP when elected for the North London constituency Hackney North & Stoke Newington in 1987) wrote that while other minorities such as Jews, Irish and “Travellers” (the obligatory woke term for gypsies) experience “prejudice”, which she defined as “similar to racism”, it was not the same as the black experience of racism, which she implied was something much worse.

“It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”

Also on Wednesday, Jeremy Corbyn launched his campaign to be re-elected as an Independent in Islington North, where has been a Labour MP since 1983.

As is inevitable in the 21st century, when any controversy over race arises, the question could not be debated in a normal manner and instead had to trigger an internal party “disciplinary procedure”, even after Abbott had apologised for her letter.

Disputes over whether this disciplinary process had concluded, and if so whether Abbott could now stand as a Labour candidate on 4th July, have become such a tangled affair that Abbott’s fate was twice the lead story for the BBC’s Newsnight on Tuesday and Wednesday this week.

Right now it looks as though Labour has tried to allow Abbott to retire with dignity after 37 years at Westminster, having been reinstated to the party, but they are determined not to allow her to stand again as a Labour candidate.

Setting all technicalities aside, what does it tell those of us outside Labour ranks about the state of today’s politics.

It’s interesting that the moment Abbott implied anything potentially anti-semitic (even if her implication was unintentional) she incurred the party leadership’s wrath – whereas her many anti-British and anti-White outbursts over the years were not only tolerated, but even won her promotion.

Diane Abbott’s pro-republican interview in 1984 where she explicitly linked the ‘Troops Out’ and ‘Black British’ causes.

In 1984, three years before she became an MP, Abbott told a pro-republican journal: “Ireland is our struggle – every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us.” This was a time when republican terrorists were routinely shooting and bombing civilians as well as soldiers and policemen, across Ulster and the British mainland.

In 1996 Abbott said that her local hospital should not recruit “blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls” as nurses because they had “never met a black person before”.

These are just two of a whole catalogue of extremist remarks made by Abbott throughout her career.

Turning to her letter to The Observer last April, the truth is that ‘racism’ and ‘anti-semitism’ are political positions which should be argued in a normal manner – but in the 2020s anything venturing onto such ground is treated as an allegation or scandal, requiring months of investigation (if the alleged ‘anti-semite’ is black), or instant defenestration (if the miscreant is White).

Abbott’s real problem is not ‘anti-semitism’ but incoherence. Her mind is so muddled and her self-obsession as a black woman so complete, that she didn’t pause to consider the implications of what she was writing.

The important unwritten and unaddressed question behind Abbott’s letter is whether the orthodox account of ‘Holocaust’ history is correct.

In other words, were millions of Jews murdered in homicidal gas chambers during the Second World War as part of a planned programme of extermination ordered by Adolf Hitler?

If they were, then Abbott’s equation of this experience with school playground abuse suffered by redheads was either monstrously ignorant or deliberately ‘anti-semitic’. If orthodox ‘Holocaust’ history is even broadly accurate, then nothing ever experienced by blacks comes close to what was experienced by Jews. The only times when black people have been the target of planned campaigns of ethnic extermination, have been at the hands of other blacks.

Stephen Pollard was one of many prominent Jewish journalists who called for Abbott’s expulsion from Labour.

But if the ‘Holocaust’ narrative is fundamentally wrong, then Abbott’s elevation of the black experience as a ‘victim card’ trumping anything experienced by Jews, Irish or other minorities, becomes more understandable and credible from her point of view – whatever we might think from our standpoint as White racial nationalists.

Inevitably, however, in all of the media hype around Diane Abbott, the fundamental question has not been considered. And if she chooses to stand again as an Independent, as her old comrade Jeremy Corbyn is doing, we can again expect that the underlying issues will be ignored.

Instead the media and fellow politicians will obsess over whether Diane Abbott has been shown sufficient ‘respect’ as a black woman. Or conversely whether she has shown enough ‘respect’ to Britain’s Jewish community.

We shouldn’t care a damn about these issues of ‘respect’. We shouldn’t care a damn about the ‘feelings’ of blacks, Jews, or any other minority group.

If politicians wish to play a part in governing the United Kingdom – once the centre of the greatest Empire the world has ever known – they should be capable of addressing issues in a responsible and adult manner, without having tantrums about the status of their particular ethnic group or gender. And the same applies to voters.

UK’s latest failed Prime Minister triggers election

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced this afternoon that there will be a general election on 4th July. This will almost certainly result in a Labour government, leaving Sunak as the 14th shortest serving PM in our nation’s history.

His Labour opponents are doubtless correct that one reason for calling an election now was fear that during the summer a new immigration crisis, involving yet more ‘small boats’ crossing the Channel, would prove the government’s impotence.

But few H&D readers will expect anything better from Labour once they return to office. The nationalist movement remains in a state of transition, as we have explained in our analysis of the local elections earlier this month. It’s unlikely that there will be more than a handful of nationalist candidates on 4th July, but as ever we shall provide detailed coverage of the campaign and its implications for our cause, including a close look at the ‘civic nationalist’ party Reform UK and its imitators.

Despite frequent rhetoric, Sunak’s Tories have proved incapable of halting the flow of illegal immigrants crossing the English Channel in ‘small boats’.

Most importantly, the likely destruction of the Tory Party at the polls in six weeks time, where Sunak will probably go down to a defeat as bad as (or worse than) the landslide suffered by John Major in 1997, will change the UK’s political landscape in ways that ought to create new opportunities for nascent nationalist parties such as the British Democrats, Homeland Party, and (if and when it registers for electoral purposes) Patriotic Alternative.

H&D will continue to be the only credible, factionally independent source for news about nationalism in the UK, including electoral aspects in the coming weeks. Our next print edition will appear very soon after next month’s European elections.

Six of those who served shorter terms than Sunak were obscure 18th century PMs, dating from an era when politics was more a matter of court factions than ‘parliamentary democracy’.

And two of the more recent PMs to serve very short terms were men who had the misfortune to die or become fatally ill while in office, including one of the best PMs in our history, Bonar Law.

Sunak’s impending defeat will allow him to spend more time with his wife and their billionaire family: his father-in-law is one of the wealthiest men in India.

Sunak’s situation most closely resembles Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who had the misfortune to become Prime Minister at the tail end of a long period of Tory rule when there was a general mood of “time for a change”. But in 1964 Douglas-Home managed a far closer result than Sunak will be capable of in 2024.

For racial nationalists, another interesting aspect of this year’s general election will be how far George Galloway’s Workers Party, or independent candidates (mainly Asians) challenging Labour in Muslim areas, will succeed in damaging Labour over its pro-Zionist stance.

This evening we have already seen what is arguably the first Galloway ‘scalp’ of the campaign. Halifax MP Holly Lynch has retired at the very young age of 37. Though she claims this is due to having a young child and another baby on the way, she is almost certainly running scared of a Galloway-backed campaign in a seat that has been marginal at some previous elections, and which has a large Muslim minority.

Halifax was one of only three boroughs where Galloway’s party won a council seat this month.

By retiring at this very late stage, just before a general election, Ms Lynch has effectively allowed Labour’s leadership to impose a chosen candidate – a fact that Galloway will doubtless exploit by pointing out the ways in which Labour has taken Muslim voters for granted.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers