Isabel Peralta answers X users’ questions

Two weeks after being banned from Instagram, our European correspondent Isabel Peralta answered questions submitted by Twitter users in a live podcast last night.

We have now produced an English-subtitled video version of this podcast.

Among other issues, Isabel focuses on the need for European unity to combat the present racial crisis. This is a theme that will be addressed further in the November edition of H&D as we continue our discussion of nationalist strategy.

Praxis revolucionaria: la estrategia de la protesta callejera

Durante los últimos días, los nacionalistas británicos y europeos han tenido que elegir cuándo y cómo participar en protestas callejeras. El editor asistente de H&D, Peter Rushton, ofrece esta introducción a la estrategia de protesta callejera en 2023. This article is also available in English.

España se está volviendo rápidamente ingobernable a medida que los patriotas (incluida nuestra corresponsal europea Isabel Peralta) salen a las calles en protesta contra el sórdido y traicionero acuerdo de amnistía ofrecido a los subversivos catalanes por el primer ministro Pedro Sánchez. Mientras tanto, en Londres, el criminal de carrera Stephen Yaxley-Lennon –más conocido como “Tommy Robinson”– está intentando otro regreso político como líder de las contraprotestas contra los partidarios de Palestina. Y en París, la principal líder de la oposición, Marine Le Pen, pasada y futura candidata presidencial por el partido nacionalista Rassemblement National (anteriormente Frente Nacional Francés), ha participado en una manifestación pro-Israel.

¿Qué factores deberían tener en cuenta los nacionalistas raciales al decidir si adoptan una estrategia de protestas callejeras?

En primer lugar, debemos centrar nuestra mente en el objetivo de la protesta. Esto puede parecer obvio, pero lamentablemente en 2023 muchos nacionalistas están demasiado dispuestos a calzarse las botas de marcha simplemente para “hacer algo”, porque están frustrados por las evidentes crisis de la sociedad europea y la aparente incapacidad de los partidos nacionalistas para montar un serio desafío político (tras, por ejemplo, el colapso del BNP en el Reino Unido hasta convertirlo en un mero canal de recaudación de fondos para sus líderes corruptos e indolentes).

Tomando los tres ejemplos anteriores, el caso más obvio es la manifestación parisina que pretendía única y descaradamente ser una manifestación a favor de Israel. La postura de Marine Le Pen fue bien recibida nada menos que por Serge Klarsfeld, el principal “antinazi” francés que ahora tiene 88 años y tiene vínculos de larga data con la inteligencia israelí. Klarsfeld dijo al periódico conservador Le Figaro: “Cuando veo a un gran partido de extrema derecha abandonar el antisemitismo y el negacionismo y avanzar hacia nuestros valores republicanos, naturalmente me alegro”.

Los lectores de H&D comprenderán que no me alegro. Pero tampoco me sorprende. Este fin de semana es simplemente la culminación de una relación de larga data entre la dinastía Le Pen y los servicios de inteligencia israelíes, que finalmente lograron apoderarse de los dos principales partidos políticos de la “extrema derecha” francesa.

El llamado de Tommy Robinson a los patriotas británicos para que descendieran sobre Londres y se opusieran a los manifestantes pro palestinos fue sólo un poco más complicado. Robinson saltó a la fama en 2009 como líder de la Liga de Defensa Inglesa (EDL) con una agenda explícitamente antimusulmana. Aunque era declaradamente “antirracista” y contaba con numerosos activistas no blancos, el EDL creció justo cuando el BNP comenzaba a implosionar y atrajo a muchas personas que alguna vez habrían sido partidarios del BNP.

Aunque ha sido desacreditado varias veces en la última década, Robinson recibe una fuerte promoción de los medios de comunicación y algunos nacionalistas sinceros todavía lo consideran un líder de algo que se parece vagamente a nuestra causa patriótica. Es especialmente popular entre las bandas de fútbol y otros que están (a menudo por razones honorables) deseosos de enfrentarse a los enemigos de la Europa blanca en las calles.

Pero el objetivo del llamado a la acción del sábado pasado en Londres fue obviamente fraudulento, como se apresuraron a señalar tanto H&D como el líder de Alternativa Patriótica, Mark Collett.

Una amplia gama de reaccionarios, incluidos periódicos conservadores y la entonces ministra del Interior, Suella Braverman (una india casada con un judío), amplificaron la falsa afirmación de Robinson de que el Cenotafio estaba amenazado por manifestantes pro palestinos (principalmente de origen extranjero). El hecho es que la marcha del sábado hacia Gaza nunca iba a amenazar el Cenotafio, ni siquiera pasar por Whitehall.

En otras palabras, el objetivo central del grito de guerra de Robinson era fraudulento. Su objetivo era principalmente incorporar a los nacionalistas británicos (una versión diminuta, fragmentada y de baja categoría del partido de Marine Le Pen) como aliados explícitos del sionismo. Y en segundo lugar, dividir, desviar y desacreditar a aquellos patriotas que de otro modo podrían contribuir a construir un auténtico desafío nacionalista racial a nuestra traicionera élite política.

El variopinto grupo de Robinson logró ser a la vez una “mala óptica” para el nacionalismo y representar una ideología contraproducente y fundamentalmente defectuosa. Como dijo una vez un analista francés (atribuido erróneamente al estadista Talleyrand): C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute. Es peor que un crimen, es un error.

Por el contrario, el objetivo central de las continuas manifestaciones en Madrid es totalmente válido: oponerse a la desintegración de España. Esta traición nacional es un acuerdo cínico del primer ministro Pedro Sánchez, líder del falso partido “socialista” español PSOE. Como explicó Isabel Peralta en el número 116 de H&D hace dos meses, el circo político partidista español resultó en unas elecciones parlamentarias inconclusas. Para obtener una mayoría en el parlamento de Madrid (las Cortes), Sánchez debe llegar a acuerdos no sólo con sus principales aliados de la extrema izquierda, sino también con una variedad de partidos regionalistas/separatistas vascos y catalanes.

Entre ellos se encuentra el partido separatista catalán de línea dura Junts, cuyos líderes han estado prófugos de la justicia española durante varios años. Fueron declarados culpables de sedición y otros delitos después de que organizaran un “referéndum” ilegal como parte de un esfuerzo inconstitucional para separarse de España. Y a pesar de ser políticamente conservadora en otros aspectos, su conspiración antiespañola se ganó el apoyo de la habitual galería internacional de subversivos antieuropeos, incluido el abogado paquistaní “escocés” Aamer Anwar, que comenzó su carrera política como un vándalo marxista destrozando el monumento erigida en homenaje a Rudolf Hess cerca de Glasgow.

Sánchez ha ofrecido una amnistía a Junts por los crímenes de sus dirigentes. El propio Primer Ministro está subvirtiendo deliberadamente tanto la Constitución española como el Estado de derecho, simplemente para obtener una mayoría parlamentaria que le permita mantenerse en el cargo. La situación es en cierto modo similar a la de Gran Bretaña en 1913-14, cuando el líder conservador Bonar Law denunció un pacto con los “nacionalistas” irlandeses diseñado para mantener en el cargo al primer ministro liberal Asquith:
“No reconocemos al gabinete liberal como el gobierno constitucional de un pueblo libre. Los consideramos un comité revolucionario que ha entrado mediante fraude en el poder despótico”.

En respuesta al escandaloso acuerdo de amnistía, los patriotas españoles se han manifestado durante las últimas diez noches en el centro de Madrid, enfrentándose a filas masivas de policías armados frente a la sede del gobernante PSOE. Mayores madrileños junto a bandas de fútbol; conservadores, nacionalistas cívicos, falangistas y nacionalsocialistas; Todo esto y más han llenado las calles de su capital, y la autoridad del gobierno de Sánchez se está desmoronando.

Por lo tanto, en el caso de las manifestaciones de Madrid –en marcado contraste con París y Londres– el objetivo de las protestas callejeras es claramente válido y vale la pena apoyarlo. De hecho, es deber de los nacionalistas raciales asumir un papel de liderazgo en tales protestas, incluso si están organizadas por reaccionarios conservadores con quienes tenemos poco más en común.

Entonces, la segunda pregunta es: ¿cómo contribuye una protesta callejera en particular a promover nuestra ideología y hacer avanzar nuestro proyecto político más amplio?

Volviendo brevemente al caos del sábado pasado en Londres, podemos ver fácilmente que (incluso dejando de lado el prospecto fundamentalmente fraudulento de “Tommy Robinson” y sus colegas propagandistas sionistas) los nacionalistas raciales no ganaban nada participando en tal evento.

No había posibilidad de promover ideas nacionalistas raciales, y toda la farsa simplemente estaba llevando a muchos patriotas, por lo demás sinceros, a un callejón sin salida político.

En Madrid, por el contrario, la situación exige una planificación estratégica seria, además de valentía. Es obvio que los líderes de las manifestaciones antiSánchez son reaccionarios, principalmente del supuestamente “derecha” Vox y del conservador Partido Popular. Por lo tanto, al participar, siempre existe el riesgo de que los nacionalistas raciales simplemente actúen como soldados de infantería en beneficio de nuestros enemigos.

Porque no cabe duda de que la reaccionaria “derecha” es nuestro enemigo. En cierto modo, un enemigo más mortífero que la “izquierda” subversiva.

Pero es un riesgo que vale la pena correr. No sólo porque es nuestro deber estar en primera línea cuando nuestra nación está bajo ataque (ya sea como patriotas británicos y del Ulster enfrentando al IRA y sus simpatizantes, o como patriotas españoles enfrentando a sus equivalentes vascos o catalanes), sino porque al demostrar nuestra compromiso –nuestra devoción fanática a la raza y la nación– podemos comenzar a despertar incluso a aquellos de nuestros compatriotas que anteriormente tenían una perspectiva ideológica limitada.

Además, la evidente quiebra de la constitución “democrática” española de 1978 significa ahora que los acontecimientos se están moviendo rápidamente y que el potencial de radicalización es mayor que en cualquier otro lugar de Europa occidental.

Sin embargo, es esencial que los nacionalistas raciales logren el delicado equilibrio de participar en una protesta de base amplia, pero también mantener nuestro mensaje distintivo.

Esto se puede lograr mejor mediante:
(a) continuar con un aluvión de propaganda en línea centrada en nuestra ideología central y relacionarla con la confrontación en rápido desarrollo en las calles:
y (b) garantizar que nuestros militantes exhiban carteles y pancartas que reflejen nuestro mensaje, no el mensaje reaccionario.

Esto significa, por ejemplo, que ya sea en Madrid, París o Londres nunca debemos llevar pancartas o publicar propaganda en línea que exponga nuestro caso en términos religiosos más que raciales.

Por supuesto, en varios puntos de nuestra lucha tendremos aliados que piensen principalmente en términos religiosos, lo que significa que en Madrid nuestros aliados serán a menudo católicos devotos, mientras que en Belfast o Glasgow nuestros aliados serán a menudo protestantes militantes.

Pero nuestra lucha contra el debilitamiento de la civilización occidental y la traición de nuestras naciones y nuestra raza no es una lucha contra el Islam, como tampoco es una lucha a favor o en contra del Papa. Para nosotros no supone ninguna diferencia si un inmigrante no europeo es musulmán, cristiano, hindú, budista, zoroástrico o marxista/ateo. Resistimos la invasión no europea en nombre de la preservación racial y del verdadero renacimiento europeo, no en nombre de ningún dios o dioses.

Adoptar una agenda obsesionada con el Islam es la peor forma de rendirse a la política reaccionaria. Ya sea que en casos particulares sirva o no a la agenda sionista, simplemente no tiene parte en una lucha nacionalista racial ideológicamente coherente.

Sólo manteniendo una línea ideológica coherente podremos obtener alguna ventaja política de estos enfrentamientos callejeros. Nunca debemos olvidar que la nuestra es una guerra de ideas, no una simple escaramuza callejera de adolescentes. Las batallas en las calles son un medio para lograr un fin, no un fin en sí mismas.

Lo que nos lleva a un tema final para el análisis de hoy. Habiendo abordado la estrategia, ¿qué pasa con las tácticas? ¿Qué métodos son justificables en la consecución de nuestros objetivos?

La respuesta simple es que todos y cada uno de los métodos son justificables, siempre que sean necesarios y estén adecuadamente enfocados.

En Gran Bretaña continental, todo discurso sobre violencia política es (en todas las circunstancias actuales concebibles) completamente contraproducente y debería ser rechazado por nacionalistas raciales serios, independientemente de consideraciones morales y legales. Mientras que en Irlanda del Norte ha habido momentos en el pasado muy reciente en los que la violencia no sólo era necesaria, sino que era el deber de todo patriota decente en la lucha contra un enemigo vil y asesino: el IRA y sus representantes y escisiones.

En Madrid, las acciones traicioneras y subversivas del Primer Ministro han cruzado la línea en la que la resistencia –incluso la resistencia violenta– se convierte no sólo en una opción sino en un deber.

Así que la pregunta central para los nacionalistas no es si la violencia está filosóficamente justificada, sino en qué punto se vuelve necesaria y prácticamente alcanzable. Esa es una decisión que sólo pueden tomar en el día a día los involucrados. Pero nuevamente el imperativo para los líderes de nuestro movimiento es mantener un sentido de objetivo más amplio. La adrenalina de la batalla debe atenuarse con un enfoque estratégico. Estamos en política para lograr una revolución nacional, no para obtener la satisfacción a corto plazo que se puede obtener eligiendo un concejal o destrozando las instalaciones de nuestros enemigos.

Y esa revolución nacional se logrará mediante un compromiso constante y un pensamiento serio, no mediante la mentalidad que prevalece en Internet según la cual un día se hacen afirmaciones extravagantes para ser olvidadas al día siguiente, en busca del siguiente “cebo para hacer clic”, el los siguientes “me gusta”, los siguientes “seguidores”.

El tipo de seguidores que necesitamos son personas que lean un libro y pasen horas arriesgándose en una confrontación callejera. Como dijo mi viejo camarada Jonathan Bowden, necesitamos el retorno del concepto ideal de Lord Byron: el matón culto.

Otros artículos en este sitio y en H&D examinarán la ideología que sustentará y motivará a estos matones cultos: la praxis revolucionaria de la década de 2020.

Revolutionary praxis: the strategy of street protest

During recent days British and European nationalists have had to choose when and how to engage in street protests. H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton offers this introduction to the strategy of street protest in 2023 – Este artículo también está disponible en traducción al español.

Spain is rapidly becoming ungovernable as patriots (including our European correspondent Isabel Peralta) take to the streets in protest against the squalid and treacherous amnesty deal offered to Catalan subversives by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Meanwhile in London, the career criminal Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – better known as ‘Tommy Robinson’ – is attempting another political comeback as leader of counter-protests against supporters of Palestine. And in Paris, the main opposition leader Marine Le Pen, past and future presidential candidate for the nationalist party Rassemblement National (formerly the French National Front) has marched on a pro-Israel demonstration.

What factors should be borne in mind by racial nationalists when deciding whether to adopt a strategy of street protests?

First and foremost, we should focus our minds on the protest’s objective. This might seem obvious – but sadly in 2023 many nationalists are only too keen to put on their marching boots merely in order to “do something”, because they are frustrated by the evident crises of European society and the apparent inability of nationalist parties to mount a serious political challenge (following, for example, the collapse of the BNP into a mere fundraising channel for its corrupt and indolent leaders).

Taking the three examples above, the most obvious case is the Parisian demonstration which was solely and blatantly intended as a rally for Israel. Marine Le Pen’s stance was welcomed by none other than Serge Klarsfeld, the leading French “anti-nazi” now aged 88 who has longstanding ties to Israeli intelligence. Klarsfeld told the conservative newspaper Le Figaro: “when I see a big party of the far right abandon anti-semitism and negationism and move towards our Republican values, naturally I rejoice.”

H&D readers will understand that I’m not rejoicing. But neither am I surprised. This weekend is merely the culmination of a longstanding relationship between the Le Pen dynasty and Israeli intelligence services, who have at last succeeded in taking over both of the main political parties of the French “far right”.

Tommy Robinson’s call for British patriots to descend on London and oppose pro-Palestinian demonstrators was only slightly more complicated. Robinson came to prominence in 2009 as leader of the English Defence League (EDL) with an explicitly anti-Muslim agenda. Though it was avowedly “anti-racist” and had numerous non-White activists, the EDL grew just as the BNP was starting to implode, and it attracted many people who would once have been BNP supporters.

Though he has been discredited several times in the past decade, Robinson is heavily promoted by the media and is still viewed by some sincere nationalists as a leader of something that vaguely resembles our patriotic cause. He is especially popular with football gangs and others who are (often for honourable reasons) eager to confront the enemies of White Europe on the streets.

But the objective of last Saturday’s call to action in London was obviously fraudulent, as both H&D and Patriotic Alternative leader Mark Collett were quick to point out.

A wide range of reactionaries including Tory newspapers and then Home Secretary Suella Braverman (an Indian married to a Jew) amplified Robinson’s false claim that the Cenotaph was threatened by pro-Palestinian marchers (mainly of alien origin). The fact is that Saturday’s march for Gaza was never going to threaten the Cenotaph, or even pass down Whitehall.

In other words the central objective of Robinson’s rallying cry was fraudulent. Its objective was primarily to embed British nationalists (a tiny, fragmented and downmarket version of Marine Le Pen’s party) as explicit allies of Zionism. And secondly to divide, misdirect and discredit those patriots who might otherwise contribute to building a genuine racial nationalist challenge to our treacherous political elite.

Robinson’s motley crew managed to be both ‘bad optics’ for nationalism, and to represent a counter-productive, fundamentally flawed ideology. As was once said by a French analyst (and misattributed to the statesman Talleyrand): C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute. It’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake.

By contrast the central objective of the continuing demonstrations in Madrid is entirely valid: to oppose the break-up of Spain. This national betrayal is a cynical deal by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, leader of Spain’s fake ‘socialist’ party PSOE. As Isabel Peralta explained in issue 116 of H&D two months ago, Spain’s party political circus resulted in an inconclusive parliamentary election. To obtain a majority in Madrid’s parliament (the Cortes), Sánchez must cut deals not only with his main allies on the extreme left, but with an assortment of Basque and Catalan regionalist/separatist parties.

Among these is the hardline Catalan separatist party Junts, whose leaders have been fugitives from Spanish justice for several years. They were convicted of sedition and other crimes after they set up an illegal ‘referendum’ as part of an unconstitutional effort to secede from Spain. And despite being politically conservative in other respects, their anti-Spanish conspiracy won the support of the usual international gallery of anti-European subversives, including the ‘Scottish’ Pakistani lawyer Aamer Anwar, who began his political career as a Marxist vandal smashing the Rudolf Hess memorial stone near Glasgow.

Sánchez has offered an amnesty to Junts for its leaders’ crimes. The Prime Minister himself is deliberately subverting both the Spanish constitution and the rule of law, merely in order to obtain a parliamentary majority to sustain himself in office. The situation is in some ways similar to Britain in 1913-14, when the Conservative leader Bonar Law denounced a pact with Irish ‘Nationalists’ designed to keep Liberal Prime Minister Asquith in office:
“We do not recognise the Liberal cabinet as the constitutional government of a free people. We regard them as a revolutionary committee which has entered by fraud upon despotic power.”

In response to the outrageous amnesty deal, Spanish patriots have turned out for the past ten nights in central Madrid, confronting massed ranks of armed police outside the headquarters of the ruling PSOE. Elderly Madrid residents alongside football gangs; conservatives, civic nationalists, Falangists, and national socialists; all these and more have packed the streets of their capital city, and the authority of the Sánchez government is crumbling.

Therefore, in the case of the Madrid demonstrations – in stark contrast to Paris and London – the objective of the street protests is clearly valid and worth supporting. In fact it is the duty of racial nationalists to take a leading role in such protests, even if they are organised by conservative reactionaries with whom we have little else in common.

So the second question becomes, how does a particular street protest contribute to promoting our ideology and advancing our broader political project?

Turning again briefly to last Saturday’s shambles in London, we can easily see that (even setting aside the fundamentally fraudulent prospectus of ‘Tommy Robinson’ and his fellow Zionist propagandists) there was nothing to be gained for racial nationalists from participating in such an event.

There was no possibility of advancing racial nationalist ideas, and the entire charade was simply leading many otherwise sincere patriots down a political cul-de-sac.

In Madrid by contrast the situation calls for serious strategic planning as well as courage. It’s obvious that the leaders of the anti-Sánchez demonstrations are reactionaries – principally from the supposedly ‘right-wing’ Vox and the conservative Partido Popular. Therefore by participating, there is always a risk that racial nationalists are simply acting as footsoldiers for the benefit of our enemies.

For there can be no doubt that the reactionary ‘right-wing’ is our enemy. In some ways a more deadly enemy than the subversive ‘left’.

But it’s a risk well worth taking. Not only because it is our duty to be on the front line when our nation is under attack (whether as British and Ulster patriots confronting the IRA and its sympathisers, or as Spanish patriots confronting their Basque or Catalan equivalents), but because by demonstrating our commitment – our fanatical devotion to race and nation – we can begin to awaken even those of our compatriots who previously had a limited ideological perspective.

Moreover the self-evident bankruptcy of Spain’s 1978 ‘democratic’ constitution now means that events are moving rapidly, and the potential for radicalisation is greater than anywhere else in Western Europe.

It is, however, essential for racial nationalists to achieve the delicate balance of both participating in a broadly-based protest, but also maintaining our distinct message.

This can best be achieved by:
(a) continuing a barrage of online propaganda focused on our core ideology, and relating it to the rapidly developing confrontation on the streets:
and (b) ensuring that our militants are displaying placards and banners that reflect our message, not the reactionary message.

This means, for example, that whether in Madrid, Paris or London we should never carry placards or post online propaganda that puts our case in religious rather than racial terms.

Of course at various points in our struggle we shall have allies who think primarily in religious terms – which means that in Madrid our allies will often be devout Catholics, whereas in Belfast or Glasgow our allies will often be militant Protestants.

But our fight against the undermining of Western civilization and the betrayal of our nations and our race is not a fight against Islam, any more than it is a fight for or against the Pope. It makes absolutely no difference to us whether a non-European immigrant is Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian or Marxist/Atheist. We resist the non-European invasion in the name of racial preservation and true European renaissance – not in the name of any God or Gods.

To adopt an Islam-obsessed agenda is the worst kind of surrender to reactionary politics. Whether or not in particular cases it also serves the Zionist agenda, it simply has no part in an ideologically coherent racial nationalist struggle.

It is only by maintaining a coherent ideological line that we can obtain any political advantage from these street confrontations. We should never forget that ours is a war of ideas, not a mere street skirmish for adolescents. The battles on the streets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

Which brings us to a final topic for today’s analysis. Having addressed strategy, what about tactics? What methods are justifiable in pursuit of our objectives?

The simple answer to that is that any and every method is justifiable, provided it is necessary and properly focused.

In mainland Britain all talk of political violence is (in all conceivable present circumstances) utterly counter-productive and should be rejected by serious racial nationalists, irrespective of moral and legal considerations. Whereas in Northern Ireland there have been times in the very recent past where violence was not only necessary, but was the duty of every decent patriot in the struggle against a vile and murderous foe – the IRA and its proxies and splinters.

In Madrid the treacherous and subversive actions of the Prime Minister have crossed the line at which resistance – even violent resistance – becomes not only an option but a duty.

So the central question for nationalists is not whether violence is philosophically justified, but at what point it becomes both necessary and practically achievable. That’s a decision that can only be taken on a day-to-day basis by those involved. But again the imperative for our movement’s leaders is to maintain a sense of the broader objective. The adrenalin of battle needs to be tempered by strategic focus. We are in politics to achieve a national revolution, not to obtain the short term satisfaction that can be gained either by electing a councillor or vandalising our enemies’ premises.

And that national revolution will be achieved by consistent commitment and serious thinking, not by the mentality prevalent on the internet by which extravagant claims are made one day, only to be forgotten the next, in pursuit of the next ‘click-bait’, the next ‘likes’, the next ‘followers’.

The type of followers we need are people who will both read a book, and spend hours putting themselves on the line in a street confrontation. As my old comrade Jonathan Bowden put it, we need a return of Lord Byron’s ideal concept: the cultured thug.

Further articles on this site and in H&D will examine the ideology that will sustain and motivate these cultured thugs: the revolutionary praxis of the 2020s.

THE LADDER TO POWER – THE ONLY NATIONALIST STRATEGY THAT HAS EVER WORKED IN BRITAIN

Introduction – the View from Today:

The “Ladder Strategy”, a practical blueprint for how the Nationalist Movement could advance to its ultimate objective of national government, evolved on the ground in the 1960s and ’70s in branches of the John Bean iteration of the British National Party and the mid-1970s National Party breakaway from the National Front.

It was first articulated in a coherent form, as expounded here, by leading 1970s and ‘80s Nationalist activist Steve Brady, who had himself been involved in its implementation by the Blackburn and Lewisham and Southwark Branches of the National Party in the mid-’70s. An implementation rewarded by the unprecedented election of two Nationalist councillors in Blackburn in May 1976 and a 26% vote in a council election in Deptford, South London, for the NP later that year. In the latter case, the National Front, despite being much bigger and better known, but wedded to a strategy aimed at winning national media publicity rather than the NP alternative sinking local roots and sustained campaigning in the community, was easily beaten by the NP, gaining only 18%. Had the NF stood aside in the wider interests of the Movement, the combined vote would have seen the NP candidate elected.

Steve shared his experiences, and the strategy they embodied, at NF political training weekends at Liss House, in rural Hampshire, in the early 1980s. Young activists trained at these camps went on to apply the strategy in the latest iteration of the BNP in the 1990s and 2000s, with resounding success, culminating in the election of over fifty councillors across the country, including four at County Council level, and two Members of the European Parliament.

Meanwhile, Steve Brady, by now a member of the National Directorate of the Flag section of the National Front after Nick Griffin split the party in early 1986, documented the strategy in these two articles published in the Flag NF ideological magazine Vanguard in late 1987.

In the first article, Steve explains why the previous Nationalist strategy of trying to win support and grow itself by attracting national media publicity through marches and demonstrations was fatally flawed, because the national media “central nexus” is irreconcilably hostile to our Movement and, understandably from its point of view, refused to allow itself to be used in this way. So the coverage thus obtained in TV and newspapers, what would now be termed the Mainstream Media, MSM, was relentlessly hostile and negative. As Steve once put it, we were “giving our worst enemy a vital message to give to our best friends”. Therefore this strategy had failed and, he argued and events were to prove, would continue to fail.

Instead he argued that we should communicate with our target audience, the White British public, directly and in person, via the so called local nexus, via knocking on their doors and campaigning on local issues in their communities, aided by carefully produced national and local printed media, a Party newspaper and local leaflets and newsletters. In the second of his articles, Steve explained that this would build the first, foundation, rung on the Ladder to Power. Which in turn would enable the building of the second, and so on.

That ladder was based on the simple idea that if, as the Movement does, you face a high barrier, a political wall, keeping you from your target, national power, you do not persist with futile attempts to jump it in one leap, hoping, inevitably in vain, for a boost over from a hostile MSM. Instead you build a ladder, where constructing each rung of itself endows you with the resources in terms of membership and public support to aspire realistically to build the next rung, and so on all the way to Government.

This was scoffed at by our enemies at the time, given that the Movement then struggled to achieve even the lowest rung anywhere, despite earlier success, rendered ineffectual by the factionalism, disunity and selfish egotism that have been the persisting bane of our Movement. However, when seriously implemented, locally in Tower Hamlets in the early 1990s and then nationally from 2000 on, the strategy demonstrably worked. By 2010, with dozens of Nationalist councillors and two MEPs, our enemies were not laughing at all. Under better and broader leadership, the BNP would by then have been poised realistically to hope to attain its first national MPs by the 2015 General Election. Instead Nick Griffin destroyed his second Nationalist party.

But the strategy here reproduced is still valid and would still work. Even on a local scale with a tiny organisation, H&D Editor Mark Cotterill was able to use it to win election to Blackburn council, so even small, local groups can, and should, start to climb the ladder now. This actually probably shows that even the credit Steve gave to using the Central Nexus to get the organisation’s name across to the public is misplaced – the public at large had never heard of Mark’s party from the central nexus, but using the local nexus effectively won him the seat anyway. Future movements may well be able to ignore the central nexus, the MSM, pretty much, as long as they use the local nexus and follow the Ladder Strategy based on it. Unlike any alternatives put forward and in some cases tried again and again for the best part of a century, it actually works.

Therefore we reproduce it here, unedited. It does show its age and its origin, but we believe that in no way undermines its essential validity and usefulness.

However, obviously given the articles are nearly 40 years old, and written by a senior member of his particular Nationalist group, the details are occasionally dated and slanted to boost the author’s faction at the time and reflect its own particular ideological position on some issues, a position not necessarily required for the strategy described to work. The resources of the Flag NF in late 1987 are, notably, not understated! Although it is true, for example, that the group’s Birmingham Branch did begin to implement the Ladder Strategy, their organisation collapsed before they got very far with it.

It collapsed because, as the author himself later admitted, whilst it was true, and probably still is, that most of the British public are sympathetic to a broad British Nationalist programme of social conservatism, economic radicalism, and maintaining the essential ethnic identity of our homeland, by 1987 few of that public would have taken the National Front seriously as a potential vehicle for such a programme.

Its earlier futile national media/central nexus-oriented strategy, leading to a self-defeating reliance on marches which our opponents were able to make ever more violent, repelling much of the public, had already discredited it beyond repair.

In hindsight, the NF should have switched from a central nexus strategy to and exclusively local nexus oriented one after its last march not portrayed as “NF MARCH SPARKS RIOT”, Red Lion Square in June 1974. Our opponents discovered then, and know now, that violent opposition to our, originally peaceful, demos is used by the MSM to blame us for the violence and put people off. This may not be true, however, for local community protests, e.g. against “asylum seeker” hostels, where our opponents will be dealt with by the local community.

However the NF had persisted with a central nexus strategy based on marches long after its political sell-by date and had become linked in the public mind with the skinheads and football hooligans who were needed to make the marches physically viable, and whose presence the MSM central nexus was delighted to publicise. After they had seen off the Griffin faction, most of the Flag leadership realised the NF had poisoned its own PR water by 1992, and walked away. It is possible that, if they had persisted long enough in a community/local nexus communication strategy, they might have detoxified their brand directly with the public, eventually. We will never know.

More notably, this was all written many years before the rise of the Internet and social media. However, I am sure the author of said articles would argue that this new technology is less of a radical alternative way of taking our message to the public than it seems, being essentially more a part of the old central nexus than the local one or some new nexus connecting us and the public..

It is true that unlike when using the MSM itself, Nationalists can control the content of their own messages on these media. This is certainly most useful, especially, it could be argued, for communicating ideological and political education to other Nationalists rather than the general public. Nonetheless as far as taking our message to the public goes it lacks the direct personal contact with Nationalists which is the key strength of the local nexus approach in overcoming MSM smear propaganda.

Also, and most importantly, a communications strategy based on the Internet and social media is fatally vulnerable to the fact that this medium, like the old TV/newspaper MSM central nexus, is totally and absolutely controlled by our irreconcilable enemies, Zuckerberg and his ilk, who can, often have and always if we look like getting anywhere using those media will, simply pull the plug and shut us down. They still control the medium and can silence the message.

This is not true of, and only of, the local nexus on which, and only on which the Ladder Strategy is based. That Strategy can proceed perfectly well in the face of unrelented MSM bile and the total exclusion of Nationalists from the Internet and social media, which may well happen. “New Technology”, while certainly worth using while we still can, is not a quick fix or an easy way around the enemy control of our media.

There is no substitute for the hard graft of talking to our people direct themselves, campaigning on issues which of themselves may be of little direct relevance to our Nationalist ideology but which matter to the communities involved, and building, step by step, the ladder which will, as trying it has shown, bring us ultimately to power, and thus save our Race and Nation. There is no other, easier way or simple short-cut to do that. Here is the way to win that we know works.

Click here to read The Road to Power, Part 1 (first published in Vanguard, October 1987).

THE ROAD TO POWER 2 – THE LADDER STRATEGY

In the first article in this series, I outlined the broad strategic direction in which the National Front is pointing – towards the “local information nexus”, towards direct contact with the people, and away from the “central nexus”, the mass media, as a means of putting across our message. Now I want to get down to brass tacks, and outline the first steps each Branch must take on the long road to victory.

The first step is to select a “target ward”, the ward in which the NF will build its first mass support base in each area. These wards should be selected for, obviously, good NF potential, where our policies on e.g. immigration, unemployment or whatever will be seen as directly relevant to the local people, but where the situation, especially the racial one, is not so hopeless in the foreseeable future that local Whites have despaired, fled, or stayed because they like the way things are now.

They should also be surrounded by other wards in the same Parliamentary constituency which are mostly, if not as good as the selected target ward, at least of reasonable potential. For ultimately the constituency will itself be targeted. Finally, obviously, the target ward should be reasonably accessible to local Branch activists.

The next step is to survey the target ward in depth. This is done in two sweeps. Sweep one consists of activists, over a period of weeks, knocking on every door in the ward selling NF literature. To make this easier, The Flag in particular has been carefully designed to appeal to ordinary people who may never have seen an NF publication before.

On a copy of the electoral roll for the ward, each house’s response is noted. Sympathisers will form the basis of a permanent monthly paper round, and will be invited to buy extra Flags etc. to pass on to their friends; eventually some will be politically educated and recruited. “Don’t knows” will be leafletted and intermittently visited again. Hostiles will also be noted and ignored/avoided in future..

Sweep two, at more or less the same time but with different personnel (especially older or more reticent activists) will also go through the ward, not identifying themselves as NF but conducting an “opinion poll”, aimed at identifying the main local issues in the ward, for later local propaganda targeting. Birmingham Branch, who have successfully done this, will be pleased to explain the details to other Branches.

POTENTIAL RECRUITS

In the succeeding months, some activists simply service the existing doorstep paper buyers every month (here again, the older or more reticent come into their own.) These potential recruits should gradually be introduced to more in-depth Party literature, so that by the time they are ready to join the Party, if they ever are, they will understand at least basic ideology. Again, in the NF Statement of Policy and 100 Questions and Answers, the Party national centre has provided the Branches with the resource they need.

Meanwhile, the Branch begins production of a regular ward leaflet, homing in on local issues identified by the “poll”. This is distributed to every door not known to be inhabited by hostiles (or Immigrants!). Those whose appearance or manner is less effective on the doorstep can do this.

Later another paper sale attempt will be made to those “don’t knows”. The effectiveness of these leaflets can be gauged both by follow-ups coming from them and by getting feedback from the regular paper-buyers.

Feedback from these people on national literature, especially The Flag, should also be asked for “What did you think of last month’s paper? What did you especially agree with/not like?”) This feedback on every paper/magazine and leaflet issue from every Branch is needed by national centre so we can “fine-tune” our output to make it even more effective for Branches to use.

After a while, potential recruits among the regular paper round can be invited to aspecial Branch meeting. This should to an extent be “stage-managed”, with a carefully designed decoration (flags, banners etc.), literature table (no fringe irrelevance!), audience and the best speakers briefed on local issues.

The aim is to push them into making the final step and signing up, or if they have already to reinforce their enthusiasm and commitment. Boring and divisive meetings should be confined to committed activists. Also special meetings aimed at youth should be held.

“WARD COMMITTEE”

After some months of this, perhaps a year, the Branch should have attained Rung Two on the local ‘ladder to power’. By this stage, there should be enough locally-recruited activists (only a few are required) to form a “Ward Committee”. This is responsible initially for servicing and slowly extending the door-to-door paper round, and putting out local leaflets. Later, it will produce these itself, after training from the Branch.

The Branch itself will thus be freed to commence Rung One in an adjacent ward. In the initial target ward, someone, ideally a local, should be adopted as a local candidate – NOT a few weeks before polling day, but well in advance. This candidate’s main role will be to get him or herself well known, liked and respected in the local ward community. Practical help with local peoples’ problems, e.g. with the Council, should be made available.

Here the aim isn’t to boost the NF directly but to actually help people, thus earning gratitude and respect. So in, for example, letters on behalf of people the NF name (hated and feared by many, especially Communist, “Labour” Councils) should not in general be used.

The measure of actual attainment will be provided by a local candidate’s poll in the target ward – and it is to obtain such a concrete measure, not at this stage to win, that such a seat should be contested. Bv the time Rung Two has been reached, the NF vote should have risen from under 1 to 5 per cent. As has been achieved in their target ward by the “pilot project” Branch, Birmingham, in about 12 months.

INTERNAL POWER

The aim now is for the Branch to bring ward after ward in the target constituency up to Rung Two, so that ward after ward begins to run under its own internal power, freeing Branch activists (who of course may come from another constituency entirely) to move on to the next one.

Rung Three has been reached when most wards in the target seat have their own ward committees and can poll 5-10% in local elections. At this stage the ward committees can set up between them a Constituency Committee, and indeed may as well now apply for admission to the NF Confederacy as a Branch in their own right, since the ultimate NF aim is one Branch per parliamentary seat.

During the Rung Two to Three transition, the best ward candidate should be being built up, years in advance of an election if possible, as a locally known Parliamentary candidate. With an average NF local poll of over 5% and indeed with many of these voters personally known to ward activists as regular paper buyers, a Parliamentary election, General or By, can now be contested with a reasonable prospect of reaching 5% and saving our deposit, boosting credibility locally and nationally. (In fact, it’s pointless to fight seats otherwise, usually five saved deposits are worth 50 1% polls).

The aim now is Rung Four, in which, with credibility enhanced by a saved deposit and good local candidates in place in most wards, the local vote reaches the 25 – 35% mark. At this stage, the NF is a serious local political force. The local media will take us seriously. On previous experience in Blackburn and S.E. London, where this strategy was applied in the mid-70s and worked, some local media, aware that NF voters buy papers, will moderate or even cease their hostility.

Others will not do so, but will resort to careful probing to find our weaknesses.

As pointed out in my last article, given intimate local contact between the Party and the people, the obviously untrue “Nazi” smear will fail. But we must be sure our candidates, in particular, are persons of good, or at least locally acceptable, character without skeletons in cupboards. A local NF HQ advice centre should now be attainable, as well as a local Flag-style paper (perhaps initially simply a 2-page local insert in the Flag).

NF COUNCILLORS
Rung Five sees NF Councillors elected on around 40% of the vote. These must behave themselves, as the eyes of the nation, and a hostile mass media, will be on them. Actual local power may be attainable here too. Again, the first NF Council must be very careful, a showpiece to the country at large. The media will now nationally take the NF seriously, though only as a local phenomenon – areas we do well in will be “Britain’s Alabamas”.

The Race Issue will begin to be moved, by the NF’s rise and Immigrant-Red counter-(and probably over-) reaction toward the centre of the political stage, to our advantage. There will be another Anti-Nazi League, but a party dug in locally and not dependent on the national media to communicate with the public should withstand the challenge this time. Votes in target Parliamentary seats are 25-35%.

At Rung Six, the first NF MPs are elected. The Party is now at the stage reached by the Front National in France, with maybe one million voters. Beyond this point, the NF itself so transforms the nature of British politics that further prediction now is pointless, due to insufficient data. But by the time we reach Rung Six, Rungs Seven, Eight and so on will have been mapped out. And so on to power.

This, as can hopefully be seen, is a concrete plan. Locally, Rung Five has been reached and can be again. What has changed since the 1970s isn’t the British public, which after the race riots is as racialist as ever. It’s the NF, and the way it is perceived by the public. These things are up to us to change.

The mass support of the Seventies is still there. We need to turn towards it, and tap into it in a coherent, planned way, which will avoid the “swamp-and-split” cycle of the 1970s. The NF, like a comet, has spent a long time in the cold and the dark after its first blazing passage near the real world. We have used that time to equip ourselves ideologically, to remove Hitlerites and bourgeois student poseurs, and to evolve a clear plan for power.

Now we have reached the far point of our orbit and we are headed back inward toward the sunlight and the people. Once more we shall blaze forth in the political firmament – but this time we will stay there. If we put the work in.

All this strategy needs for success is a lot of hard, sometimes boring, effort, week after week, month after month, year after year. There may well be no sudden breakthroughs, there may well be some setbacks. But if we stick through it in the coming years, in the end, by our own efforts, we will win:- “Victory or defeat lie in our hands alone” – Let us make sure that our hands forge Victory.

The Road to Power 1 – How we convey our Message

As Vanguard stated in issue 1, the National Front is Britain’s most popular party – it’s just that the public don’t realise that yet! Much of the public, as opinion polls show, agree with NF policies. To translate that into mass popular support what we have to do is to convey to the public a fairly simple message: “We, the NF, agree with you. We say what you think. We can turn what we say, and you believe, into a better reality we can all live in, if you, the public, will join us and help us do it.”

How do we get that message across? To answer that question, we have to look at how the public receive messages, how they find out what is going on in the world around them. In a classic piece of political analysis, the American racial nationalist intellectual Dr. William L. Pierce identified two “information nexuses” through which facts and opinions, not always clearly separated are conveyed to the people, the “central nexus” and the “local nexus”.

The “central nexus” is basically the national mass media. National newspapers, radio, the cinema, television. The central nexus is relatively new – national newspapers are at most 300 years old – and had little mass impact until general literacy became a reality at the end of the last century. Radio, cinema and the TV are all 20th century creations. The central nexus is, at most, no older than the oldest living Britons today.

Before that nexus existed, and alongside it today, is the “local nexus”. This consists of what people see for themselves, what they hear from people they know, what they find out from talking to people face-to-face, and, at the highest level what they read in immediately accessible local newspapers serving their own community.

OUR MESSAGE
Both nexuses, central and local, convey information to the people. Which one should we concentrate on in getting our information, our message, across?

In the past, the NF has concentrated overwhelmingly on using the central nexus, the mass media. Throughout the late Sixties and early Seventies the NF “crashed its way into the headlines.” Marches, demonstrations and stunts ensured that the name “National Front” was a household word.

By 1977 everyone knew our Party’s name and, in the most basic terms, what we stood for – if only “sending the Blacks back”. This was a vital, necessary political achievement, since without such use of the central nexus, the NF would have lacked the essential political credibility that comes from a well-established “brand name”.

However, in my view a strategy of getting our message across dependent, as the NF’s traditionally has been, mostly on the central nexus is now fatally flawed. It has, and had a decade ago, yielded the one certain return available – getting our name across.

But the next problem, brand image, what people having heard of us thought of us, lay outside our control as far as the central nexus is concerned. It depended on outside events – for example some African dictator deciding to rid his country of Asians and thus putting “race” in the news, and how those events were reported in the central nexus. For example the Ugandan Asians were portrayed by the media as a threat, as “ASIAN HORDE INVADES BRITAIN”, thus benefitting, in the short-term at least, the NF. The Vietnamese “Boat People” by contrast, were portrayed as helpless, hapless refugees deserving only of sympathy.

Finally, further gains from the central nexus depended also on how we were reported. In the early 1970’s the NF was generally reported in the media as “right-wing”, “anti-Immigrant” etc. As such, given a media “Immigration scare” the public stampeded toward us in great, and often somewhat indigestible, waves, so that even the quantity and quality of our membership became entirely dependent on outside influences beyond our control.

By the late Seventies, the media were portraying the NF less favourably as “neo-Nazi”, “fascist” etc. So the recruits dried up. This was partly our fault but it was also, very largely, the fault of the central nexus.

For the central nexus overlords, the media bosses, are no friends to racial nationalism, and were not prepared to be used by it. It has, after all, been the single great achievement of the central nexus, in its century of existence, to transform a basically healthy popular culture to the multiracialist Coca-Cola junk-culture of today.

It was, I would argue, ten years ago, that the NF should have ceased concentrating on the central nexus to put across our message to the public. For by doing so we were in the ludicrous position of someone who gives his worst enemy a vital message to deliver to his best friend. And then wonders why the message isn’t getting across!

ALTERNATIVE
What, then, is the alternative? Clearly, the local nexus. Put simply relying not on Press headlines and TV stories but direct communication on doorsteps, via local newsletters, and in letters to local newspapers (who unlike national ones often actually print them) to get across our message to the people.

This method of putting our message across is less exciting and glamorous than marches and fisticuffs with politically irrelevant Marxist cranks. It involves lots of hard, boring work, but the advantages are overwhelming.

At last WE determine the message the public gets. Instead of our message being at best garbled into some sort of reactionary ultra-Toryism and at worst totally falsified as neo-Nazi cultist lunacy it arrives in the hands of the people in the same state it left the editors of NF national publications or local newsletters and the lips of NF members on the doorsteps.

Moreover, the public are more likely to believe that message. When information from the central and local nexus conflicts, the public generally believe the latter. “You can’t”, they say “always believe what you read in the papers”, but most people do believe what they have seen, heard, and assessed for themselves. One presentable NF member putting across a credible case on a doorstep confers immunity to a hundred Press smear stories.

Yet another advantage of using the local nexus is that it controls recruitment, and sometimes reduces it. This may sound a strange advantage, but what I mean is that the number of recruits gained, being proportional to the number of doorsteps knocked on, rather than to the number of race scare stories in the Sun, is therefore proportional to the number of doorstep knockers. And thus to the ability of the local branch to assimilate, train and turn into doorstep knockers such recruits.

We get steady, sustained growth, with the flow of recruits increasing only in proportion to the ability of the Party to assimilate them. Eventually, of course, our sheer size will generate media publicity in itself – but it also gives the Party at least some real power to control it.

The final advantage of concentrating on the local nexus to put across our message is perhaps the most persuasive. It works! Whenever the NF has broken through to win real mass support – in West Bromwich in 1973, Newham in 1974, Leicester in 1977 and, increasingly, in the West Midlands today – the key factor standing out is that the Party locally has got stuck into the local nexus.

It has hammered on doors, pushed local issues, written to local papers, put out locally-produced, locally relevant newsletters and leaflets and generally dug into the local community.

Now we know what we’re doing, we can, not just break through, but stay through, and build our strongest citadel in the hearts and minds of our people.

Click here to read The Road to Power Part 2 – The Ladder Strategy, first published in Vanguard, November 1987.

17th June 1953 – still relevant to us in 2022

This is a translation of a perceptive article posted online yesterday by the fast-growing German nationalist group Der III. Weg (‘The Third Way’ – no connection to the 1980s / 1990s UK organisation of the same name). Photos added by H&D: any errors in translation are our responsibility.

Almost 70 years have passed since people in central Germany rose up against the Bolshevisation of their homeland by Moscow’s GDR puppets and fought desperately against oncoming Soviet tanks, which finally violently crushed the uprising. 34 demonstrators lost their lives in the anti-Soviet uprising (Volksaufstand) that day. Subsequently, more insurgents died as a result of death sentences by Soviet court-martials or as a result of the conditions in the communist prisons.

On June 17th 1953, Germans had gathered in East Berlin, Halle, Magdeburg, Leipzig and Dresden with the Deutschlandlied on their lips and, in addition to social improvements, also demanded national goals such as the dismissal of the GDR government, which was dependent on Moscow, the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the Reunification of Germany. This uprising against the corrupt Soviet system, together with the “Prague Spring” of 1968, symbolises the resistance of the oppressed peoples in the Eastern Bloc countries against the Muscovite tyranny, against which the nations of Europe fought heroically in the years 1941-45, before they finally had to kneel before Moscow thanks to the alliance of Churchill and Roosevelt with Stalin.

Until recently, awareness of the Muscovite threat seemed to be shared only among the older generations among us. Too far away in the past was the time when the oppressive Stalinist regime in central Germany shot down rebellious workers who wanted a united German fatherland. The idea that Moscow could again reach out to Europe to seize parts of it and impose its system on them, as the Soviet predecessor system of today’s Russian Federation practiced against all western neighbouring states and on itself since the beginning of its existence, was too unreal. Though with the help of the Allies from 1945, it was even able to subdue the entire eastern half of Europe.

In the years that followed, Russia joined the ranks of the “democratic states” in the world. From then on, the USA and its allies were considered the only imperialists in the world who, with their wars of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and the continued presence of American military bases in Europe even after the collapse of the Eastern bloc, rightly earned the status of occupiers and warmongers . That changed when the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine on February 24th 2022 under the pretext of “denazifying” Ukraine, but actually wanting to reincorporate it into the Russian Empire. What had been hidden for years before was now openly apparent. The restoration of the old imperialist Soviet Union is a declared goal of the Kremlin’s policy under Putin.

What happened almost 70 years ago in the cities of Central Germany, we are experiencing again just 2000 km to the east, in cities like Kherson and Melitopol, where the civilian population is making life as difficult as possible for the Russian occupiers, blocking the progress of military vehicles and gathering for mass protests on the streets under waving national flags, even at the risk of being gunned down by Putin’s troops. In Kherson, however, the Russian occupiers are planning to install another separatist bandit republic under the leadership of puppets loyal to Moscow – in the spirit of Ulbricht, Pieck and Grotewohl at the time of the early GDR – after the removal and arrest of local Ukrainian politicians.

And the so-called “victory flag” of the Russians has not changed compared to then. The red flag with hammer and sickle is now waving in central squares in Russian-held cities where the national symbols of Ukraine have been removed. The Bolshevik monster was never dead, just slumbering for the past 30 years. Europe’s struggle for freedom against the old enemy did not come to an end after the fall of the Soviet Union, but is now experiencing a resurrection. Reason enough to commemorate June 17th 1953 and its freedom fighters more consciously than ever this year, because our people still have a long way to go before they have paid the last bloody toll in the fight against Bolshevism and Muscovite imperialism.

Reading the electoral runes in a tough week for the movement

As the final results were declared today in local and regional elections across most of the UK (with the exception of Northern Ireland) we can begin to draw the lessons – some very predictable, others not.

The real losers of these elections (so far as ‘our’ side of politics is concerned) are very clear. The principal outcome was the demise of UKIP and its various offshoots, remnants of Nigel Farage’s movement that changed British history by forcing David Cameron to hold the Brexit referendum in 2016, then forcing successive Tory leaders to follow through with Brexit in 2019/2020.

UKIP’s largest faction followed Farage into his Brexit Party in 2019, and with Farage’s retirement from electoral politics this has been rebranded into Reform UK under the leadership of property tycoon Richard Tice.

These elections were an absolute catastrophe for Tice and Reform UK.

He decided to focus mainly on seeking election to the Greater London Assembly via the proportional list system, which benefits smaller parties and helped the BNP’s Richard Barnbrook to get elected to the GLA in 2008 as well as electing two UKIP members to the GLA in 2016.

Tice needed to poll somewhere around 6% to get elected: he managed a fraction under 1%, less than one-sixth of the vote that UKIP had achieved in 2016.

Even the rump of UKIP scraped together a slate that defeated Reform UK on the GLA list by polling a fraction over 1%. Humiliatingly both Reform UK and UKIP were beaten by a gaggle of fringe parties including the Christian People’s Alliance; the Animal Welfare Party; Rejoin EU; and the Women’s Equality Party!

One of UKIP’s GLA members elected in 2016 was David Kurten, a half-Jamaican who broke away to form the Heritage Party during UKIP’s many internal wrangles. Kurten’s slate polled a mere 0.5%, and he took 0.4% in the London mayoral election (where Tice didn’t stand).

Reform UK and UKIP were also hammered in the Welsh Parliament (Senedd) elections, where UKIP had won seven seats in 2016, again thanks to a proportional list system.

This week neither Reform UK nor UKIP came close to winning a single Welsh seat. In each region UKIP polled slightly higher than Reform UK, but even UKIP’s highest vote was 2% in the South Wales East region (where party leader Neil Hamilton headed the slate). In this region five years ago UKIP were runners-up with 17.8% and won two seats!

The picture was almost uniformly grim for the spectrum of Brexiteer parties across the English council elections, where they saw most of their votes devoured by Boris Johnson’s Conservatives.

Only in Derby did Reform UK win two council seats. One of these was a former UKIP councillor re-elected under his new colours, the other was a local businessman who was given a free run by the Derby Conservatives choosing not to put up a candidate in his ward.

So across the whole of England only two Reform UK councillors were elected. Elsewhere most Reform UK votes were so poor that they will struggle to discern any evidence of even a modest electoral base on which to build.

It will suffice to mention a handful of examples typical of the nationwide picture. In Queensbury ward, Bradford, once held by BNP husband-and-wife team Paul and Lynda Cromie, Reform UK polled only 2.6% and the Tories easily won the seat.

In Wakefield a Reform UK candidate managed just 5.2% in a ward where UKIP had taken 36.6% in 2014.

UKIP couldn’t take any factional schadenfreude from their rivals’ defeats: in another Wakefield ward that had been won by UKIP in 2014, this year’s candidate managed only 3.1%.

A curiosity particular to Wakefield is that the best of the old UKIP candidates had chosen to join the smallest of its factional breakaways. Cliff Parsons, who had polled 40.5% in the Normanton ward as recently as 2019, defected to the Alliance for Democracy & Freedom, founded by former UKIP MEP Mike Hookem, and was the best of the Brexiteer candidates in the borough this year, but even he only polled 7.1% this time.

The West Midlands mayoral election might have seemed tailor-made for Reform UK. There were only five candidates, and Reform UK’s Pete Durnell was the only one that might be considered to the right of the Tories. Incumbent mayor Andy Street is on the far left of the Conservative Party and (for the minority of voters who care about such things in 2021) is openly homosexual.

And this is a region that includes not only multiracial Birmingham but many White working-class areas such as the ‘Black Country’ boroughs of Sandwell and Dudley. In short, this is what was once considered ‘Enoch Powell country’, and includes numerous council wards once held or targeted by the BNP in the 1990s and 2000s.

Yet even here, and with an electoral system that favours smaller parties by giving voters two preferences, Reform UK only polled 2.2%.

The inescapable conclusion is that Reform UK failed to get any coherent message across to voters. And one reason for that is that the party’s ideology (even were it more clearly expressed) is unlikely to appeal to large numbers of White working-class voters.

Tice’s party is essentially neo-Thatcherite, and while Thatcherism in its heyday had some appeal to workers in the Midlands and South, times have changed. Such voters now prefer Boris Johnson’s interventionist and socially conservative brand to the small-state, tax-cutting, libertarian stance of the neo-Thatcherites.

In the North of course, even Thatcherism at its peak had limited appeal, so why would today’s voters opt for a second-rate imitation of Thatcherism, peddling a set of ideas long past their sell-by date?

Other splinters from UKIP attempted to present slightly different varieties of post-Brexit populism but had smaller resources than either Reform UK or UKIP and seem likely to fizzle out quickly. The Democrats & Veterans Party (founded by former UKIP leadership candidate John Rees-Evans) has been rebranded as the Five Star Direct Democracy Party. Their sole candidate this year – James Dalton in Holme Valley South ward, Kirklees – had polled 14.1% as D&V candidate in 2019, but this fell to just 1.0% for the rebranded party this year. Vicky Felton – elected as D&V councillor for Monk Bretton ward, Barnsley, in 2019 now sits as an independent and the rebranded party had no candidate in her ward this year.

Alongside Reform UK and UKIP, the other clear losers of this week’s elections are the anti-lockdown parties. Easily the most high-profile candidate from this camp was television actor Laurence Fox, who founded his own party ‘Reclaim’, funded by a former UKIP and Tory donor, and stood for Mayor of London.

Due to his earlier celebrity, Fox secured disproportionate media coverage but was unable to turn this into votes, despite being endorsed by Tice’s Reform UK who didn’t put up their own London Mayoral candidate.

While his initial political interventions at the start of 2020 had been anti-‘woke’ and in defence of ‘British values’, and during the past year he was a vocal opponent of ‘Black Lives Matter’ extremists, Fox increasingly drifted into being primarily an anti-lockdown and Covid-sceptic candidate.

As such he was one of several in the London race who were pushing some combination of anti-lockdown and/or anti-vaccination politics, sometimes indulging to a greater or lesser extent in what some would term ‘conspiracy theories’.

It’s now clear beyond doubt that (whatever the rights and wrongs of the Covid and vaccination issues) this form of politics was not a sound electoral strategy.

Fox polled only 1.9% in the London Mayoral contest, despite the system allowing voters two Mayoral preferences, beaten not only by the main four parties (Labour, Conservative, Green, and Liberal Democrat) but by a 23-year-old YouTube ‘star’ who specialises in ‘prank’ videos.

At least four other Mayoral candidates were pushing similar ideas on Covid, but they fared even worse. US-born YouTube conspiracy theorist Brian Rose polled 1.2%; Piers Corbyn, who has specialised in getting himself arrested at anti-lockdown demos but is still best known as brother of the former Labour leader, managed 0.8%; UKIP’s Peter Gammons just 0.6%; and as mentioned earlier, David Kurten of the Heritage Party, 0.4%.

Some H&D readers might argue that this was just a London phenomenon, and that surely elsewhere in the country there would be a more receptive audience for anti-lockdown politics. But the verdict of the ballot box is inescapable.

Dozens of candidates stood in local or regional elections for the Freedom Alliance, a single-issue anti-lockdown party. Without exception they polled microscopically tiny votes. Their highest Welsh regional vote was 0.7%, despite the list system favouring small parties.

Even where there was no competition for the ‘protest vote’, Freedom Alliance candidates polled poorly, for example 2% in Tong ward, Bradford; 1.3% in Coalville South, Leicestershire; and 1% in Tottington ward, Bury.

In an old BNP target area – Balderstone & Kirkholt ward, Rochdale – the Freedom Alliance approached credibility with 3.6%, but the fact that this was one of their best votes indicates the scale of electoral defeat that the anti-lockdown movement has suffered.

Freedom Alliance put together an impressive-looking slate of twenty county council candidates in Devon, but their results ranged from 0.7% to 3.7%.

From an electoral point of view, the anti-lockdown movement is dead and buried.

We now turn to the third and less obvious set of losers from this year’s elections: the Islam-obsessed wing of nationalism.

Here the evidence is more mixed, and right up to polling day H&D expected that the For Britain Movement, founded by former UKIP leadership candidate Anne-Marie Waters, would win several seats and would emerge from this year’s elections as the strongest force in the broadly-defined nationalist movement.

While For Britain is not a racial nationalist party, and Ms Waters herself is explicitly ‘anti-racist’ with political roots on the left, there are several longstanding racial nationalists in the party, including Epping Forest Councillor Julian Leppert and the party’s chief electoral strategist Eddy Butler, both of whom were senior BNP activists for many years. Former BNP councillor Graham Partner was For Britain candidate for Coalville North, Leicestershire this week, polling 4%; while another well-known BNP figure standing for For Britain was Lawrence Rustem in Shepway South, Maidstone, who polled 2.6%.

Cllr Leppert was not up for re-election this year, but contested the Waltham Abbey division of Essex County Council, finishing fourth with 6.8% in a race where he had been thought to have a chance of winning. The party’s lead candidate in Epping Forest this year, former BNP councillor Mrs Pat Richardson, had at the start of the campaign been expected to win the Waltham Abbey Honey Lane ward, but finished third with 18.2%; while the other three For Britain candidates in Epping Forest polled between 3.2% and 5.8%.

The party’s other elected councillor Karen King – in De Bruce ward, Hartlepool – is from its ‘anti-racist’ wing and is a close ally of Ms Waters, who moved to Hartlepool to stand as a second For Britain candidate for the three vacancies in this year’s all-out council elections in the town.

Far from gaining seats, For Britain lost the one they were defending: Ms King polled 23.4% (the party’s highest vote) but lost her seat despite the Conservatives only having a single candidate for the three De Bruce ward seats. Ms Waters finished more than 150 votes further down the field.

And these (together with Mrs Richardson’s Epping Forest result) were the best For Britain performances!

The rest of their results ranged from modest to disastrous, as our published list confirms.

One result in particular illustrates For Britain’s big problem. In Keighley West ward, Bradford, there was a crowded field of nine candidates, and the resurgent Tories gained the seat from Labour. This was the original ‘grooming scandal’ town, and if there were to be anywhere in the country where For Britain’s special emphasis on anti-Islam politics was to gain traction it should have been here.

Yet For Britain’s Keighley candidate polled only 1.4%, beaten not only by the major parties but even by the candidate of the dying UKIP, who polled 2.7%.

During the last 24 hours senior figures within For Britain have begun blaming each other for the scale of their defeat, but we suspect that individuals within the leadership are not personally at fault.

The evidence suggests two conclusions:

(1) Whatever the variety of nationalism on offer, most of our target voters this year chose to ‘reward’ Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party for the government’s handling of both the pandemic and Brexit – and it seems likely that there was nothing we could have done in the short term to hold back that tide. The medium-long term situation could of course be very different, and there is every reason to think that some form of nationalist politics has the potential to rebuild within a year or two.

(2) As H&D has long argued, obsessive anti-Islam politics has limited appeal to White British voters, who unlike their counterparts in the USA and some European countries, are no longer accustomed to thinking of politics in theological terms. By all means criticise individual or collective Muslim behaviour when appropriate, but it is toxic in British politics to be seen as some sort of obsessive ‘nutter’ on religious topics, which are seen by most White Britons as part of the private sphere not the party political.

What’s far worse is that within the last few years anti-Islam politics has been tainted both by yobbery and by the personal dishonesty of several leading anti-Islam campaigners – notably the EDL founder ‘Tommy Robinson’, who is both a yob and a money-grabbing crook.

We have no doubt that Ms Waters and her colleagues are – unlike ‘Tommy Robinson’ – honest, sincere and decent individuals. But if For Britain is to be part of a realignment of nationalist politics its approach will have to be more nuanced and less obsessed with Islam.

So where do we find positive lessons from this grim set of results?

The good news is that (as ever) hard work and sensible campaign literature can make a positive difference. Independent nationalist candidate Pete Molloy won an impressive victory in Spennymoor ward, Durham as well as re-election to Spennymoor Town Council; fellow independent Mark Cotterill (H&D‘s editor) polled 15.7% in Ribbleton ward, Preston, despite another of this year’s typical Tory surges in such depressed White areas; former BNP official Chris Roberts achieved far better results than other anti-lockdown candidates, polling 9.3% in Boyce ward, Castle Point; and Eddy Butler’s well-organised team in Epping Forest (despite falling well short of the expected victories) polled far better than most of the other For Britain candidates nationwide.

Other signs that there remains (even in this week of excellent Conservative votes) a public appetite for politics to the right of the Tories, included the 9.8% vote for English Democrats leader Robin Tilbrook in the contest for Essex Police Commissioner; the 26.3% vote in Bablake ward, Coventry, for defending councillor Glenn Williams, who came close to retaining his seat despite having been thrown out of the Conservative Party for ‘racism’ (his particular crime having been to praise Enoch Powell); and the victory of Andrew Walker who was elected in Darwen South, Blackburn with Darwen, as a Conservative despite the party having disowned him (again for ‘racism’) a few days before polling day.

It will be interesting to see whether Cllr Walker chooses to sit as an independent or seeks to join another party.

There are still a handful of election results to come. H&D will continue to digest the results and will reflect further on their lessons, both here on this website and in the May-June edition of the magazine which will go to press within the next 48 hours.

Power Shift in Washington

Despite various possible legal and constitutional arguments, it seems obvious that Donald Trump has lost the 2020 election, but equally obvious that the result was far closer than pollsters and pundits predicted. From a racial nationalist standpoint, there are positive and negative lessons from these results.

On the positive side, White working class (in British terms) or middle class (in US terms) American voters have for the second successive presidential election defied political correctness and voted for a man who at least in terms of surface showmanship, seems to reject all of modern liberalism’s shibboleths.

As in 2016, pollsters and journalists failed to pick up the extent of White Americans’ rejection of the ‘woke’ agenda. Ohio – long seen as a marginal ‘swing state’ and where most pollsters predicted a gain for Biden this year – remained solidly pro-Trump, who (with 90% of votes counted) looks to have won the state 53%-45% compared to a 52%-44% victory against Hillary Clinton in 2016. Examples of increasingly loyal pro-Trump areas include Clark County, Ohio, voting 57% for Trump in 2016 and 61% for Trump this year. Clark County (75% White) was once a strong manufacturing area, but industry has declined catastrophically in recent decades and it is now among the most depressed areas in America.

The state of West Virginia, where White workers were once reliable supporters of Democratic presidential candidates – voting 68% for Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and even supporting losing Democratic candidates such as Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Michael Dukakis in 1988 – again strongly backed Trump with 68.5% in 2016 and 69% this year.

Some readers will remember the old National Alliance compound in Marlinton, West Virginia. This is part of Pocahontas County which backed Trump with 68% in 2016 and 69% this year. The new NA headquarters is even an even more pro-Trump area – Johnson County, Tennessee, voting 82% for Trump in 2016 and 83% this year!

Falls Church County, Virginia, where H&D editor Mark Cotterill once lived, is at the opposite political extreme, voting 76-13 in favour of Hillary Clinton in 2016, and 82-17 for Biden this year. The state of Virginia as a whole has shifted in the opposite direction to its West Virginia neighbour: once a ‘swing state’ that voted 62% for Ronald Reagan in 1984 and backed even losing Republican candidates George Bush (1992) and Bob Dole (1996), Virginia is now solidly behind the Democratic Party. This seems to reflect not only demographic change, with increasing numbers of black and Hispanic Virginians, but also a distaste for the modern Republican party among many younger, educated and fairly affluent White voters (especially young women) – although very wealthy Whites seem to have set aside their social liberalism and rewarded Trump for his tax cuts.

An unexpected aspect of racial politics this year involved Hispanic voters. While statisticians lump Hispanics together as a bloc, in reality they fall into two broadly opposed camps. This year Trump increased his support among strongly anti-communist Cuban immigrants (especially numerous in the crucial swing state of Florida) and some other conservative and/or Catholic Hispanics, who are alienated by the Democrats’ swing to the left, especially on social issues such as abortion. Though not himself noted for piety, Trump solidified his support among Christian conservatives by nominating Catholic legal scholar Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court a few weeks before the election.

While these Hispanics were repelled by the Democrats’ turn to the ‘left’ and more particularly by their obsession with feminism, ‘trans’ rights and general ‘wokeism’, a very different bloc of Hispanics is in the vanguard of semi-socialist politics. These voters backed leftwing challenger Bernie Sanders rather than Biden in the Democratic primaries, and were targeted by specialist sections of the Trump campaign using Facebook messaging etc. to persuade them that Biden was an establishment candidate who wasn’t worth backing.

Where Biden does seem to have improved on Clinton’s woeful campaign is among some White blue-collar workers who were persuaded to return to the Democratic fold. This was undoubtedly a factor in Biden recapturing two absolutely crucial states – Wisconsin and Michigan – by tiny margins. Equally if not more important is the long-term demographic change, with increasing numbers of Black voters tipping the balance in some states.

After he came down heavily on the side of ‘civil rights’ in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson confided to one of his closest aides that in doing so he had lost the South for the Democratic Party for a generation. Arguably this turned out to be two generations, but eventually (as Johnson implicitly predicted) increasing numbers of new black voters would compensate for the loss of White ex-Democrats.

Despite Trump slightly increasing his support among black voters (probably again concentrated among a small number of black Christian conservatives), the more important trend was the higher turnout of overwhelmingly pro-Biden blacks that helped offset support for Trump among ‘poor Whites’.

This (rather than over-hyped allegations of ‘fraud’) was the main reason why in states such as Pennsylvania and Georgia, early Trump leads were whittled down as ballots from black-dominated areas of Philadelphia and Atlanta were added to vote totals. Emblematic of this trend was Gwinnett County, Georgia. This county was 90% White as recently as 1990, but Whites have recently slipped to minority status here: appropriately enough, Gwinnett County’s ballots were among the last to be completely counted this year and seem likely to confirm Biden’s winning path to the White House – due to demographics, not fraud.

None of this should surprise H&D readers. If anything, the surprise is that after months of black rioting, tearing down statues, looting, and open insults to traditional notions of civility and order – even after all this, many White voters effectively surrendered to the radical ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, either by voting for Biden or simply giving up on democratic politics.

One clear example was in Mississippi, where 68% of voters backed a change to the state flag, removing the image of the old Confederate battle flag. In 2001 a similar initiative was rejected, but BLM-related campaigns had renewed pressure this year. Even while backing Trump by a 59-39% margin, Mississippi voters this year gave up the battle to retain their 126-year-old flag.

Trump’s defeat is not the end of White America, but it is the end of a particular variant of populist White resistance. The very fact that many Trump supporters (taking their cue from the President himself) were so quick to take refuge in impotent rage about ‘fraud’ indicates the futility of their conspiracist, paranoid political strategy. Trump spent much of his presidency tweeting about the evils of the political establishment – despite controlling both the White House and Senate. The sad truth is that Trump didn’t have much of a concrete agenda and leaves behind little concrete legacy aside from a conservative majority on the Supreme Court – and even that becomes less tangible the closer one examines the meaning of ‘conservatism’.

The President’s devotion to Israel won him little support among Jewish voters, 77% of whom backed his opponent Joe Biden. For all the campaign rhetoric, US policy in the Middle East will change very little under Biden – US-sponsored efforts to build bridges between Israel and Arab dictatorships will continue, with the ultimate objective of a de facto Saudi-Israeli alliance against Iran. Just like Trump (but with less inflammatory tweeting) President Biden will seek a ‘tougher’ form of nuclear deal with Iran, though he might be more open than his predecessor to realistic voices in London, Paris and Berlin who favour something closer to the Obama-era deal with Tehran.

Trump was a modest improvement on the 2001-2009, neocon-dominated Bush Administration. Yet from day one his senior appointments lacked quality, integrity or ideological backbone: the Reagan era was a halcyon age by contrast. While Reagan Republicanism was a long way from the ideological spectrum of H&D‘s readership, the Reagan White House included some pretty solid paleoconservatives, and even those who weren’t on our ideological wavelength were generally a class above their Trump-era counterparts.

As in the UK, the US political scene is marked by an obvious racial consciousness among White working/middle-class voters, but lack of a serious political infrastructure giving those voters a voice. Following Trump’s defeat, the Republican party establishment will seek to reassert control and ensure selection of a more ‘moderate’ presidential candidate in 2024. Trump himself was sui generis, and there is no new Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul on the horizon. Even at humbler levels of the political system, it’s difficult to find high-quality defenders of White America. So-called ‘right-wingers’ are more likely to be crank conspiracy theorists such as newly elected Republican Congresswomen Lauren Boebert (Colorado) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia), who support the frankly weird and amorphous ‘QAnon’ theory. One factor this year (which alert readers will have deduced from statistics quoted earlier) was the almost total disappearance of third party candidates. Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen was on the ballot in every state but generally polled only 1% compared to 3.3% for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in 2016.

COVID – the nationalist perspective

by H&D correspondent Ian Freeman, writing from Northwich, Cheshire

Whilst the nationalist Movement should not in my view expend our very limited resources on getting involved in campaigning on short-term issues around the current C0VID-19 pandemic, there are a number of wider points which could be made from a Nationalist perspective. Most importantly, the very existence of the pandemic, and the threat of future ones, vindicates our position and offers us a unique opportunity in the longer term.

The salient points here are:

Firstly, the current arbitrary and draconian Govt measures turned on and off by decree in a chaotic and confused way are unlikely to prove effective in controlling the virus or even sustainable, but that is their problem, not ours.

A short period of limited lockdown to build NHS capacity and a Track and Trace system, together with drastic measures to sequester and shield the most vulnerable, most of whom could have been personally identified at the outset, combined with complete closure of all ports and airports to all passengers, save returning Britons who should have been confined to quarantine camps for 14 days, would have been a reasonable and proportionate measure.

Apart from setting up the Nightingale hospitals, which should reduce the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed, this evidently was not done, so in most respects in Britain the lockdown was wasted. Lockdowns in large populations, as opposed to those in small isolated ones such as New Zealand and the Channel Islands cannot eradicate the virus because they would need to be kept going so long that the economy, and as a result society, would collapse, leading to a sort of “Zombie Apocalypse” catastrophe in which most of the population dies horribly amid hunger, other diseases such as cholera and typhus, and violent general disorder. The three-month lockdown in Britain cost about 20% of the economy. Nobody knows how much more of the economy can be sacrificed before a disastrous civilization collapse, but I would advise against the experiment!

In societies as populous and densely populated as ours, at best lockdowns press the short-term Pause button on the virus’s spread, because they have to be abandoned before they reach pressing Stop lest the economy collapses, followed by society. In fairness, even Professor Neil Ferguson made this point in March in the paper he wrote to scare the Government into a lockdown. All the British Government has done by its futile lockdown is move the inevitable main wave of the pandemic out of summer into the peak National Health Service demand winter period.

The subsequent chronic, confused and erratic sub-lockdown measures dragging on for months we see now are likely not to work in terms of stopping the virus spreading, may cost more in lives directly and indirectly than they save, and impoverish the country for decades. Such impoverishment amongst other things means, far from “protecting” it we shall no longer be able to afford the NHS we had. Whilst the lives of an entire generation of children and young people will be blighted. The endless muddled flow of arbitrary and draconian measures, differing from place to place almost at random, will be increasingly ignored and flouted as the public weary of the whole thing, which, like the Prime Minister himself it seems, they will cease to understand anyway. “Social distancing” and mask wearing conflict with very profound aspects of evolved human social behaviour, and so are unsustainable in the long run anyway.

Hiding political muddle behind a specious mask of “following The Science” shows the sort of total lack of understanding of what Science is, let alone what it says, typical of the Western ruling caste. Science is a process, not a body of knowledge. It is not – especially in dealing with a new disease on the basis of, initially, little hard data – an Infallible Oracle. Indeed, if, like the British Government, you set up an advisory committee comprised only of those scientists who agree with the policy of the politicians who appointed them, it can serve as a pseudo-scientific echo chamber for said politicians.

The real Science suggests, and many of the numerous eminent scientists in relevant fields sedulously excluded from the Government’s SAGE fig leaf over their own ineptitude believe, that herd immunity, natural or via a vaccine, is the only way out for this, like every other, pandemic. Ironically Boris Johnson was basically right about this at the outset and then panicked or was put under intolerable political pressure. Images of chaos in NHS hospitals would have played to a traditional perceived Tory weakness – clearly not so much lives as votes were at stake!

Secondly the complete suspension of the System’s pretence of “freedom” reveals the utter hypocrisy underlying their regime. Supposedly we fought two World Wars to defend the very freedoms which were simply snatched away at a moment’s notice in the face of what was already known to be a historically trifling pandemic (the Case Fatality Rate of which was known in March to be of the order of 1%, and even the World Health Organisation now say it is only 0.5-1%, comparable with severe influenza pandemics: indeed the 1918 Spanish flu had a Case fatality rate of 2-3%).

The May VE Day celebrations in which a nation of prisoners under arbitrary house arrest “celebrated the defence of freedom” were simply absurd and an insult to the memory of those who gave their lives, as they honestly, however misguidedly, believed, “for our freedom”.

The extreme risk aversion and unwillingness to sustain (likely very mild, by historical standards) casualties of Western regimes today manifest throughout this pandemic will be noted by enemies which, unlike an RNA virus, have minds. Twice in the previous century our nation and others were willing to sacrifice lives to defend freedom (as the public were told and believed). Now we evidently do the opposite.

Thirdly, now the System knows it can impose an all-pervading dictatorship it will be tempted to do so again, for more directly political reasons. That is the only point in all this immediately relevant to Nationalists. That said, it is not yet clear if that current dictatorship will continue to function or will break down in a mixture of sullen non-compliance and street resistance. Hopefully so, or the veneer of “civil liberties” and a “free society” will have proved ephemeral indeed.

Ironically, the “human rights violations” inherent in the lockdowns and their enforcement would previously have drawn the ire of the very regimes now perpetrating them! The System has been revealed beyond dispute as utterly rooted in hypocrisy and lies, which must strengthen the long-term hand of national revolutionary forces seeking its overthrow.

Fourthly it is interesting that the measures implemented do not serve in any way, that I can see, the interests of global corporate capitalism. Indeed, quite the reverse. This shows its “Money Power” is not all powerful, which gives us hope. Nor indeed are our rulers, very evidently, wise, far-sighted or even basically competent. The obstacles in our path are evidently weaker and less formidable than we imagined!

Fifthly the virus is most likely a natural phenomenon, the latest of the epidemic diseases of other animals to jump to our species, in this case from rhinolophine bats. It is remotely possible it could be a bioweapon – the total absence of evidence that it is one either means it isn’t or that the developers have successfully concealed all trace and evidence of their work. Which they would have to do – unleashing, by design or accident, a bioweapon would be regarded by the rest of the world, and notably the United States, as the equivalent of a nuclear first strike, justifying right across the political spectrum of the West massive retaliation. Although its power is growing, China is not yet in a position to win, or even survive as a state or a society, such a conflict, knows this, and would therefore be most careful to avoid triggering it. The more so as the balance of forces is steadily tilting in its favour anyway. President Xi and his Government know this and have shown themselves anything but fools. As indeed they would be to put a bioweapons lab in the middle of Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, when anyone who, like me, has flown over China can see the vast expanses of wilderness covering the north and west of the country in which to keep it both hidden and safely isolated from any risk of accidentally harming their own people. As Chinese nuclear weapon sites are.

All the other explanations of the pandemic being spouted – CoVID-19 “does not exist/was caused by the Government/a Paedophile Plot/Bill Gates/giant alien lizards/5G masts” etc. are, in the complete absence of the extraordinary evidence, or pretty much any evidence, needed to uphold such extraordinary claims simply deranged loony nonsense. The “lockdown-sceptic” movement, founded on a rational and sensible base of upholding our traditional freedoms and civil liberties and constitutional rights as ably argued by the likes of retired top judge Lord Sumption, is in serious danger of discrediting itself by association with a menagerie of these cranks and nutjobs, the likes of Piers Corbyn and the Giant Lizard Man David Icke. Were we to involve ourselves in this movement they would be used to discredit us and we would be used to discredit them. We would in my view gain nothing by doing so and would be wasting our time and resources.

As we would by getting drawn into the anti-vaxxer lunacy which will I suspect shortly rear its head – “any CoVID vaccine is a plot to poison us or take over our brains” etc. etc. There is a real danger a vaccine, which is the deus ex machina which will end this particular mess and save the System’s bacon, may be rushed out in haste with inadequate testing. To help counter which I would advise readers to do as I have and volunteer to test it – should the vaccine start turning me into a Giant Lizard I will be sure to let you all know.

My view is that we should avoid being drawn into any of this. We should not waste our time on any short-term tactical imbroglio around this pandemic, to which we have nothing in particular to contribute and whose outcome we are as yet too weak to influence anyway. Instead we should take a long-term strategic view on the – long warned about (including by me 15 years ago!) – and now visibly real Pandemic Threat. Of which CoVID is only the beginning.

For, given the endless proliferation of our species, the relentless pressure on formerly wild areas where hitherto untouched wild species may carry potential zoonoses of this sort, and the habit of, especially, the Chinese and non-Muslim Africans of eating exotic wildlife (“bushmeat”) there will certainly be many more of these pandemics from entirely natural causes in the coming years. This is not “a once in a century pandemic”: it is the first rumble of the coming storm, and of course was long predicted.

Our position should be that the Government may or may not have over-reacted to the threat of this current pandemic, but it certainly will under-react to the threat of the next one. And the one after that, and so on, some of them inevitably much worse than this historically very minor pandemic, with death rates not of 0.5-1% but similar to historical pandemics such as the Black Death and the Antonine and Justinianic Plagues, with 30 to 60% of the population dying. We do not know if our civilization could survive that. The origin of that threat lies in the very ideology of liberal capitalist internationalism and is one to which only nationalism has the answer.

For the root cause of the current pandemic, and the much worse ones that will surely follow, is their system based on globalisation and the large-scale rapid movement of people. Moreover, the threat is made worse by the biological and cultural homogenisation of the world’s population through mass Immigration and race mixing, a promotion of universal sameness touted in best Orwellian style as “promoting diversity”. Because that homogenization is turning our species into a genetically similar monoculture, and such monocultures, be they of crops, cattle or people, are most at risk from new diseases.

The best defence against future pandemics, the best way to “keep us safe” from future viruses, is to replace the current globalised world with a world of separate, genetically distinct nations, independent and as far as possible self-sufficient economies, in which new diseases are kept out behind strong, impermeable borders secured by firm quarantines on all arrivals. That world nationalism, and only nationalism, offers.

As recent events have shown, the globalist, internationalist alternative threatens not just our national and racial identities, about which not everyone cares, but all our own individual lives and those of our families, about which everyone does care. It is here, making that broad, strategic point, not messing about with cranks and loonies in the details of the current crisis, that Nationalists should be pitching in.

Taking a broader view against globalisation and internationalism to stop all future pandemics generally, rather than wasting our meagre resources opposing our governments’ floundering attempts to deal with this one specifically, plays to our Movement’s Unique Selling Point. The more so as many influential and expert minds will concede that we are basically right.

As can be seen from the leading textbook on this sort of thing, Global Catastrophic Risks, edited by Nick Bostrom and Milan M. Cirkovic, published by Oxford University Press in 2008. A book our rulers evidently never bothered to read, at the cost now of our lives. On page 16 thereof, the Editors make our case for us thus:

“the evolution as well as the spread of pathogens is highly dependent on human civilization. The worldwide spread of germs became possible inhabited continents were connected by travel routes. By now, globalization in the form of travel and trade has reached such an extent that a highly contagious disease could spread to virtually all parts of the world within a matter of days or weeks.

“Kilbourne” (New York Medical College Professor Edwin Kilbourne, one of the world’s leading virologists and epidemiologists) “also draws attention to another aspect of globalization as a factor increasing pandemic risk: homogenization of peoples, practices, and cultures. The more the human population comes to resemble a single homogeneous niche, the greater the potential for a single pathogen to saturate it quickly. Kilbourne mentions the ‘one rotten apple syndrome’, resulting from the mass production of food and behavioural fads:

“If one contaminated item, apple, egg or, most recently, spinach leaf carries a billion bacteria not an unreasonable estimate and it enters a pool of cake mix constituents then packaged and sent to millions of customers nationwide, a bewildering epidemic may ensue.

“Conversely, cultural as well as genetic diversity reduces the likelihood that any single pattern will be adopted universally before it is discovered to be dangerous, whether the pattern be virus RNA, a dangerous new chemical or material, or a stifling ideology.”

So, the Science follows us. Nationalists, and only Nationalists, offer a way out of an endless nightmare of wave after wave of pandemics, of which CoVID-19 is but the first ripple, a tide which will sweep away our civilization. A tide only Nationalism can stem.

By taking such a long-term, strategic stand, we can win support – possibly rather reluctant support in some cases! – in circles which hitherto were closed to us. What governments do about the CoVID-19 pandemic may or may not prove them right in the short term. That is not, or should not be, our concern. The existence of the CoVID-19 pandemic proves us right in the long term. Our task is to focus on making that clear to all.

—————

Comment from H&D Assistant Editor Peter Rushton: – In several recent issues I have argued implicitly against Covid conspiracy theory, and explicitly against movement groups or parties engaging in militant anti-lockdown protests. My view on that isn’t likely to change. Although from a purely personal perspective I find the Covid regulations intensely annoying and obstructive, I don’t think there’s any political mileage movement-wise in positioning ourselves either in favour of wild conspiracy theory, or in favour of lawbreaking.

Having said that, I’m appalled by the heavy-handed police reaction to anti-lockdown demonstrators, as witnessed for example both in London and Melbourne.

Next Page »