Will the real Nick Griffin please stand up?

You might think that someone from Labour, the Tories or Lib Dems would win the title “grossest hypocritical crook in British politics” – yet this week’s winner is yet again Nick Griffin, former chairman of the BNP.

Less than four months ago, Griffin was taking every opportunity to sneer at the 96-year-old Queen Elizabeth II and her family.

While there is room for a serious debate as to how far the Royal Family shares responsibility for the disastrous trajectory of British politics during the 20th century – especially during the reigns of Elizabeth II and her father George VI – Griffin was characteristically avoiding serious debate and engaging in cheap shots, with implications of weird conspiracy theory.

That’s either because he believes this sort of crass conspiracism, or because he believes that most ‘nationalist’ readers and potential donors have given up on serious politics and are now part of an easily exploited, defeatist cult.

On May 31st Griffin tweeted images of the then Queen and her son (now King Charles III) with two notorious paedophiles – Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile. Outside the ranks of paranoid loons, no-one believes that the Queen or the future King were aware of or party to these crimes. But Griffin doesn’t care about historical or political truth, he only cares about impressing credulous donors, and he believes (rightly or wrongly) that many of his readers are dupes who can easily be sold this sort of tale.

In another tweet on May 28th, Griffin made a fairer point about the deleterious transformation of Britain during the Queen’s reign, though again with a slight implication that this was part of some weird establishment conspiracy to which the Queen was herself party.

So now that the Queen’s death is the main news headline worldwide, does Griffin take the opportunity to repeat his earlier slurs? Does he even – for once in his life – make a serious point about British politics and the monarchy’s present and historical role?

No, Nick being Nick, he can’t resist the opportunity for yet another hypocritical somersault. He can see a bandwagon, and he attempts to jump on it. Less than four months ago Griffin attacked the Queen as “Elizabeth the Disastrous” and a friend of paedophiles – implicitly part of sinister establishment conspiracies.

Now in Griffin’s latest tweet she is “the rock on which modern Britain was built”. And the privately atheist Nick also indulges in the pseudo-Christian flummery that he has recently embraced as part of his ‘Templar’ scam. The man truly has no shame.

The nauseating hypocrite Nick Griffin was a disaster for British nationalism. Our movement is only now beginning to escape from the wreck he created.

Former BNP councillor Barry Birks dies aged 83

Barry Birks, who has died aged 83, was among the brave band of patriots who fought back against the colonisation of their country. Barry was Burnley born and bred, he left school aged 16 in 1955 and joined the armed forces, serving in the Royal Marines.

After being demobbed he went into the building industry and was self-employed for most of his working life.

Barry was a lifelong patriot. He joined the Burnley branch of the BNP in 2001 after the general election, having seen the branch featured on BBC television news following the 11.3% vote for parliamentary candidate Steve Smith.

Barry was a keen activist despite being approaching his 63rd birthday when first joining the party, and he did more than his fair share of leafleting. Barry also got stuck in when encountering hostile lefties on his many leafleting expeditions, no doubt calling upon his experiences as a Royal Marine!

Barry was elected a BNP councillor for Whittlefield with Ightenhill ward in 2003 and served until 2006, contributing frequently in council chamber discussions and standing up for the good people of Burnley.

After the BNP Barry joined Steve Smith in the England First Party. He looked after the EFP’s printing, with a large photocopier based at his house in Cliviger.

His wife Maureen became the EFP treasurer.

Barry will be sorely missed by his many friends, as well as by his widow Maureen, children and grandchildren.

H&D thanks Steven Smith, former Burnley BNP branch organiser and former chairman EFP, for this obituary notice.

Post-Brexit civic nationalists face High Noon in Yorkshire and Devon by-elections

Nominations closed this afternoon for two parliamentary by-elections to be held on 23rd June in the West Yorkshire constituency of Wakefield and the Devon constituency of Tiverton & Honiton.

Each of these by-elections follows scandals that disgraced the previous Conservative MP. In Wakefield a homosexual Muslim Conservative – overseas readers might think we are making this up but it’s absolutely true – resigned after being convicted for sexually assaulting a teenage boy. He has since been imprisoned.

In Tiverton & Honiton, the local Conservative MP resigned after he admitted viewing pornography on his phone while at work in the chamber of the House of Commons. Readers will appreciate that parliamentary proceedings can be boring, but this was probably not the best way to relieve the tedium.

Each by-election has attracted a range of civic nationalist, populist and/or anti-Islam candidates.

In Wakefield voters can choose between:
Ashlea Simon of Britain First, an anti-Islamist party backed by former BNP official Paul Golding – as reported in the current edition of H&D, Miss Simon achieved the best nationalist vote at the recent local council elections, polling 21.6% in Walkden North, Salford;

Jayda Fransen, Mr Golding’s former partner both in Britain First and in private life, who is now based in Northern Ireland where she works for Christian businessman Jim Dowson and his political frontman Nick Griffin – they call their outfit the British Freedom Party but it is not in fact a registered political party, so Ms Fransen is listed as Independent on the ballot paper;

Chris Walsh, a Wakefield gym owner and the most local of the civic nationalist candidates, representing the Reform UK party backed by former Brexit Party and UKIP leader Nigel Farage;

Therese Hirst, a frequent candidate in Yorkshire elections for the English Democrats, a party led by Essex solicitor Robin Tilbrook which campaigns for an English Parliament – Ms Hirst (a Theology graduate of Durham University) finished runner-up at the Batley & Spen parliamentary by-election in 2016, polling 4.8%;

Jordan Gaskell, who at the age of 19 received UKIP’s best vote at the recent local government elections: 10.4% in Hindley ward, Wigan – like Ashlea Simon he has what might prove a big disadvantage of coming from the wrong side of the Pennines, though unlike Jayda Fransen he is at least based in England.

Other anti-establishment parties contesting Wakefield include the CoVID-sceptic ‘Freedom Alliance’, the Christian Peoples Alliance, the Yorkshire Party, and the left-populist Northern Independence Party.

Wakefield’s Conservatives have (perhaps surprisingly) selected another Asian candidate. There is also an Asian independent standing, as well as the ‘Monster Raving Loony Party’, and the usual Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green parties.

The by-election is almost certain to be won either by Labour or the Conservatives, but an unusually poor or good result might either finish off one of the crowded field of nationalist or semi-nationalist parties, or give one of them the boost required to raise their profile.

At present none of these parties has anything like the profile achieved by the National Front in the 1970s, the BNP in the 1990s and 2000s, or UKIP and the Brexit Party in the 2010s.

Tiverton & Honiton in contrast to Wakefield is almost certain to be a battle between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Here there is a slightly different range of civic nationalist candidates:
Frankie Rufolo is Exeter organiser of the For Britain Movement, the anti-Islamist party founded by former UKIP leadership candidate Anne-Marie Waters. Mr Rufolo has stood several times in Exeter City Council elections, most recently polling 7.7%.
Andy Foan, a former Royal Navy and RAF pilot, is standing for Reform UK.
Ben Walker, also a Royal Navy veteran, is standing for UKIP, for whom he was once a councillor in South Gloucestershire. In 2019 he was fined more than £11,000 for breaking building regulations.
Jordan Donoghue-Morgan is standing for the Heritage Party, which has absolutely no connection to H&D and is a splinter from UKIP.

Since UKIP were runners-up with 16.5% in this constituency in 2015, there is a fairly substantial civic nationalist or populist right-wing vote to share between these candidates, especially given the Conservative Party’s recent problems.

As in Wakefield, an especially good or bad result for any of the above four candidates could propel their party either into significance or into extinction.

Other candidates in Tiverton & Honiton are the usual ‘big four’: Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Green.

Neither of the two fastest-growing nationalist organisations in Britain is contesting either of these by-elections. Patriotic Alternative is not yet a registered political party so cannot yet appear on ballot papers. The British Democratic Party has decided (probably wisely) not to enter a crowded field that is likely to turn into a media circus.

Nationalist results at 2022 local elections

Votes have been counted across most of the UK in local council elections, as well as crucial contests for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

As previously explained in H&D, there were much reduced numbers of candidates this year from the UK’s various racial and civic nationalist parties. The once-mighty BNP now seems totally defunct, having no candidates anywhere in the country and no longer even a functioning website.

By far the best result so far was achieved by Ashlea Simon of Britain First, who finished runner-up in Walkden North, Salford with 508 votes (21.6%). H&D has been very critical of Britain First’s leader Paul Golding on both ideological and personal grounds, but we have to admit this is a very good result and a credit to Ms Simon and her campaign team.

The other nationalist party making progress this year is the British Democrats, and even they only had four candidates nationwide. Lawrence Rustem achieved 117 votes (13.7%) in Shepway South ward, Maidstone. Last year Mr Rustem polled 25 votes (2.6%) in the same ward as a For Britain candidate.

British Democrat leader Dr Jim Lewthwaite finished third of six candidates in Wyke ward, Bradford, with 214 votes (7.1%), slightly up from 6.2% in the same ward last year.

Among other Brit Dem candidates, Chris Bateman polled 100 votes (4.6%) in Laindon Park, Basildon. This was the first ever British Democrat campaign in Basildon. Similarly breaking new ground for the Brit Dems was former BNP candidate Michael Jones who polled 253 votes (5.7%) in East Wickham ward, Bexley.

By contrast the For Britain Movement seems to be going backwards: its leader Anne-Marie Waters was heavily defeated in De Bruce ward, Hartlepool. Click here for our analysis of that result.

What had been For Britain’s strongest branch in Epping Forest was marking time this year with token campaigns. Eddy Butler polled just 11 votes (1.3%) in Loughton Alderton, and former BNP councillor Pat Richardson 16 votes (2.0%) in Loughton Broadway.

Former BNP activist Gary Bergin polled 57 votes (1.7%) as For Britain candidate in Claughton ward, Wirral, down from 1.9% last year, while in nearby Shevington ward, Knowsley, Christine Dillon managed only 18 votes (1.0%). One of the party’s few substantial branches is Exeter, where organiser Frankie Rufolo polled 192 votes (7.7%) in Exwick ward. Mr Rufolo’s Exeter colleagues fared a lot worse: Eric Bransden polling 35 votes (1.2%) in Topsham ward, and Chris Stone 25 votes (0.9%) in St Thomas.

Among the other early results was Langley Mill & Aldercar, Amber Valley, where the National Front’s Tim Knowles polled 28 votes (2.6%), a fraction down from 2.7% in 2018. Another veteran NF candidate Chris Jackson (once North West regional organiser for the BNP) yet again contested his home ward of Todmorden, Calderdale, polling 101 votes (3.1%), up from 2.3% last year.

On the civic wing of nationalism, Reform UK – the main faction of the old UKIP, backed by Nigel Farage and led by Richard Tice – is fading badly. In Chipping Ongar, Greensted and Marden Ash ward, Epping Forest, Reform UK’s Peter Bell finished bottom of the poll with 26 votes (2.7%), behind Robin Tilbrook of the English Democrats with 72 votes (7.5%).

Other English Democrat results included 8.3% for Maxine Spencer in Dearne North, Barnsley and 5.5% for her neighbour Janus Polenceusz in Dearne South.

Reform UK seems now to have just one strong branch – Derby, where they held on to the two council seats they were defending – plus one semi-strong branch, Bolton, where as in Derby they had a full slate of candidates, three of whom managed above 10%. In the rest of the country the party barely exists.

The remaining fragment of UKIP – which was the country’s largest party at the 2014 European Parliamentary elections – had only seventeen candidates for English councils plus eleven candidates for Scottish councils. Only Jordan Gaskell in Hindley ward, Wigan with 10.4% achieved a remotely credible vote.

Two UKIP splinter groups still just about function. The Heritage Party, led by half-Jamaican former London Assembly member David Kurten, had fourteen English council candidates and one Welsh, plus one candidate for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Their best vote was 7.9% for Nick Smith in Cippenham Green ward, Slough, while most others polled tiny votes. An even smaller UKIP splinter is the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom, the best of whose five English council results was 7.3% for Phillip Moulson in South ward, NE Lincolnshire.

Gary Butler – who has contested elections during the past twelve years for the National Front, BNP and English Democrats – this year polled 49 votes (3.3%) as an Independent in Heath ward, Maidstone. His wife Melanie Butler polled 94 votes (5.8%) in Shepway North, Maidstone.

Graham Williamson – a leading activist in the National Front during the 1980s – has long since abandoned racial nationalism in favour of ‘community politics’. He was easily re-elected in South Hornchurch ward, Havering, for his ‘Rainham Independent Residents Association’.

Click here to see full breakdown of nationalist / UKIP type candidates and their results.

A party on its deathbed: no BNP candidates in this year’s elections

See also updated list of candidates

Regular H&D readers will know that our editor and assistant editor were once leading activists in the British National Party. Twenty years ago our editor raised money for Nick Griffin (then party leader) and paid for the Griffin family’s holiday in the USA.

Unfortunately Griffin betrayed us all and destroyed the party, leaving a political wreck to be steered round hopelessly by his successor Adam Walker and his crooked treasurer Clive Jefferson.

The BNP now only exists to obtain donations and legacies for the benefit of its leaders, not for any sort of serious politics: and now the slow death of the party has been confirmed by its failure to field a single candidate anywhere in the UK at this year’s local council elections.

Other nationalist parties are at least making an effort, devoting their far more modest financial resources to actual politics rather than to their leaders’ personal benefit.

The National Front has two candidates this year, Chris Jackson in Calderdale and Tim Knowles in Amber Valley.

H&D expects Dr Jim Lewthwaite, leader of the British Democrats, again to run the most effective nationalist campaign, standing again in Wyke ward, Bradford. This year he has three fellow British Democrat candidates, all in the south of England and all ex-BNP: Michael Jones in Bexley, Chris Bateman in Basildon, and former councillor Lawrence Rustem in Maidstone.

Eddy Butler who masterminded the BNP’s first ever election victory in East London in 1993, is now in the For Britain Movement, a populist anti-immigration party whose leader Anne Marie Waters (a former UKIP leadership candidate) is sincerely ‘anti-racist’ but many of whose candidates and activists are ex-BNP, including its only elected councillor Julian Leppert.

Ms Waters will make a second attempt to win De Bruce ward, Hartlepool, after her near-miss last year, while Eddy Butler and former BNP councillor Patricia Richardson are contesting wards in Epping Forest. There are a total of 14 For Britain candidates nationwide.

Paul Golding, who twenty years ago was one of Nick Griffin’s young favourites, had promised fifty candidates or more from his anti-Muslim party Britain First, newly re-registered with the Electoral Commission, but has delivered only three. One of these is Golding’s girlfriend Ashlea Simon, standing in Salford; while another is ex-BNP candidate Nicholas Scanlon in Greenwich.

Robin Tilbrook’s English Democrats, at the opposite end of the spectrum from Paul Golding in terms of respectability but very much a ‘civic nationalist’ party, have five candidates including Mr Tilbrook himself in Epping Forest and Steve Morris in Bury, each of whom have been doggedly contesting the same wards for several years.

The only remaining unresolved controversy about Brexit is how it will affect the Union with Northern Ireland. We shall be looking at Ulster politics soon in another article. On the mainland it seems that the various pro-Brexit parties are steadily declining. The largest of them is Reform UK who have 123 candidates this year, and who are contesting every seat in two council areas: Bolton and Derby.

UKIP is now almost dead but has managed to find 28 candidates, while the Heritage Party (no connection to H&D!) led by half-Jamaican former UKIP leadership candidate David Kurten has 15 candidates.

H&D will have full reports on the local election campaign and analysis of the results in Issue 108 of our magazine which will be published the week after polling day in May.

Note: The statistics in this article and the accompanying candidate list have been obtained from many hours of research on local council websites across the UK during the past two days. Inevitably there is the possibility of error either by ourselves or by council returning officers. H&D will continually update and correct all facts relating to this year’s elections and this site will continue to be the most accurate and impartial source for electoral news regarding British nationalist parties across the ideological spectrum.

Nationalist and patriotic candidates at the 2022 elections

Note: The statistics below have been obtained from many hours of research on local council websites across the UK during the past few days. Inevitably there is the possibility of error either by ourselves or by council returning officers. H&D will continually update and correct all facts relating to this year’s elections and this site will continue to be the most accurate and impartial source for electoral news regarding British nationalist parties across the ideological spectrum.

National Front – 2 candidates
Tim Knowles, Langley Mill & Aldercar, Amber Valley 28 votes (2.6%) 4th of 4
Chris Jackson, Todmoden, Calderdale 101 votes (3.1%) 5th of 5

British Democrats – 4 candidates
Chris Bateman, Laindon Park, Basildon 100 votes (4.6%) 4th of 5
Michael Jones, East Wickham, Bexley 253 votes (5.7%) 8th of 8 in three vacancy election
Dr Jim Lewthwaite, Wyke, Bradford 214 votes (7.1%) 3rd of 6
Lawrence Rustem, Shepway South, Maidstone 117 votes (13.7%) 3rd of 4

For Britain Movement – 14 candidates
Leo Robinson, Keighley West, Bradford 41 votes (1.2%) 7th of 7
Eddy Butler, Loughton Alderton, Epping Forest 11 votes (1.3%) 4th of 4
Pat Richardson, Loughton Broadway, Epping Forest 16 votes (2.0%) 4th of 4
Frankie Rufolo, Exwick, Exeter 192 votes (7.7%) 7th of 9 in two vacancy election
Chris Stone, St Thomas, Exeter 25 votes (0.9%) 6th of 6
Eric Bransden, Topsham, Exeter 35 votes (1.2%) 4th of 4
Anne-Marie Waters, De Bruce, Hartlepool 203 votes (14.5%) 3rd of 4
Barry McGrath, St Andrew’s & Docklands, Hull 65 votes (3.8%) 4th of 4
Christine Dillon, Shevington, Knowsley 18 votes (1.0%) 4th of 4
Terrence Oakes, Town Centre, St Helens 176 votes (15.3%) 4th of 4 in two vacancy election
Sam Harding, Charlemont with Grove Vale, Sandwell 74 votes (2.6%) 4th of 5
Nigel Pearson, Chard South, Somerset 171 votes (6.1%) 7th of 7
Mia Americanos-Molinaro, Welham Green & Hatfield South, Welwyn Hatfield 19 votes (1.1%) 5th of 5
Gary Bergin, Claughton, Wirral 57 votes (1.7%) 5th of 5

Britain First – 3 candidates
Nicholas Scanlon, Eltham Page, Greenwich 255 votes (10.6%) 6th of 7 in two vacancy election
Ashlea Simon, Walkden North, Salford 508 votes (21.6%) 2nd
Carl Burgess, Brynna and Llanharan, Rhondda 191 votes (5.6%) 8th of 8 candidates in three vacancy election

English Democrats – 5 candidates
Maxine Spencer, Dearne North, Barnsley 128 votes (8.3%) 3rd of 5
Janus Polenceusz, Dearne South, Barnsley 101 votes (5.5%) 4th of 5
Steve Morris, Besses, Bury 166 votes (5.3%) 10th of 11 in three vacancy election
David Black, Sinfin, Derby 56 votes (2.3%) 5th of 5
Robin Tilbrook, Chipping Ongar, Greensted & Marden Ash, Epping Forest 72 votes (7.5%) 4th of 5

English Constitution Party – 2 candidates
Colin Birch, Hylands & Harrow Lodge, London Borough of Havering 140 votes (4.5%)
Jane Birch, Hylands & Harrow Lodge, London Borough of Havering 125 votes

Reform UK – 123 candidates
Sam Wood, Lligwy, Anglesey 108 votes (3.5%) 7th of 7 in two vacancy election
Norma Saggers, Lee Chapel N, Basildon 157 votes (8.7%) 3rd of 3
Ian Bishop, Billesley, Birmingham 93 votes (2.2%) 9th of 9 in two vacancy election
Aimee Monson, Astley Bridge, Bolton 108 votes (3.1%) 5th of 5
Daniel Swarbrick, Bradshaw, Bolton 191 votes (5.8%) 4th of 4
Martin Mcloughlin, Breightmet, Bolton 228 votes (7.4%) 3rd of 4
Amy Hare, Bromley Cross, Bolton 183 votes (4.5%) 4th of 5
Gareth Fitzsimmons, Crompton, Bolton 198 votes (5.0%) 3rd of 4
Sharon Whitworth, Farnworth, Bolton 143 votes (4.9%) 4th of 5
Alex McAllister, Great Lever, Bolton 149 votes (5.2%) 3rd of 5
Norman Cryer, Halliwell, Bolton 156 votes (5.6%) 3rd of 5
Phillip Worthington, Harper Green, Bolton 180 votes (5.6%) 4th of 5
Gordon Campbell, Heaton & Lostock, Bolton 596 votes (13.9%) 3rd of 4
Loren Richards, Horwich & Blackrod, Bolton 46 votes (1.2%) 6th of 6
Darren Lear, Horwich NE, Bolton 40 votes (1.1%) 6th of 6
Robert Lowe, Hulton, Bolton 171 votes (5.3%) 5th of 5
Julie Pattison, Kearsley, Bolton 221 votes (7.6%) 5th of 6
Keith Harris, Little Lever & Darcy Lever, Bolton 485 votes (14.8%) 4th of 5
Christopher Riley, Rumworth, Bolton 62 votes (1.7%) 4th of 5
Helen Shaw, Smithills, Bolton 183 votes (4.8%) 4th of 5
Trevor Jones, Tonge with the Haulgh, Bolton 401 votes (13.9%) 3rd of 4
Jeff Armstrong, Westhoughton N & Chew Moor, Bolton 84 votes (2.2%) 5th of 5
Richard Bates, Westhoughton S, Bolton 97 votes (2.8%) 5th of 5
Robert Prince, Brentwood North, Brentwood 31 votes (1.9%) 5th of 5
Kevin Cadwallader, East, Bury 236 votes (7.6%) 8th of 9 in three vacancy election
Paul Allen, Norton Canes, Cannock Chase 87 votes (5.0%) 3rd of 3
Steven Thomas, College, Cheltenham 47 votes (2.4%) 8th of 8 in two vacancy election
Allan Griffiths, Furnace Green, Crawley 91 votes (5.2%) 4th of 4
David Surtees, Seaton, Cumberland 69 votes (4.1%) 5th of 5
Julie Paxton, Abbey, Derby 103 votes (3.5%) 5th of 5
David Adams, Allestree, Derby 139 votes (2.9%) 5th of 5
Alan Graves, Alvaston, Derby [defending councillor] 1,692 votes (54.9%) 1st of 4
Stephen Handley, Arboretum, Derby 128 votes (4.9%) 4th of 4
James Wise, Blagreaves, Derby 103 votes (2.8%) 4th of 4
Alan Lindsey, Boulton, Derby [new candidate defending seat] 1,176 votes (41.0%) 1st of 4
Alfred Saxby, Chaddesden, Derby 89 votes (3.0%) 4th of 5
George Warren, Chellaston, Derby 100 votes (2.6%) 5th of 5
Lucy Murphy, Darley, Derby 104 votes (2.7%) 5th of 5
Gouy de Muyncke, Derwent, Derby 62 votes (2.8%) 4th of 4
Carol Bradley, Littleover, Derby 55 votes (1.3%) 5th of 5
Nigel Caulton, Mackworth, Derby 97 votes (3.7%) 5th of 5
Steve Peach, Mickleover, Derby 85 votes (1.7%) 5th of 5
Anthony Blaney, Normanton, Derby 135 votes (4.8%) 3rd of 4
Helen Caulton, Oakwood, Derby 82 votes (2.6%) 5th of 5
Brenden May, Sinfin, Derby 96 votes (3.9%) 4th of 5
Stephen Fowke, Spondon, Derby 248 votes (7.5%) 5th of 5
Austin Ward, Brierley Hill, Dudley 89 votes (3.7%) 4th of 4
Clare Fawcett, Eastleigh C, Eastleigh 70 votes (3.1%) 6th of 6
Peter Bell, Chipping Ongar, Greensted and Marden Ash, Epping Forest 26 votes (2.7%) 5th of 5
Steve Richards, Fareham West, Fareham 44 votes (1.9%) 6th of 6
Dave Vernon, Connah’s Quay – Golftyn, Flintshire 52 votes (4.7%) 5th of 5 in two vacancy election
Aaron Pinder, Leesland & Newton, Gosport 93 votes (4.6%) 7th of 7 in two vacancy election
Steve Wright, Manor House, Hartlepool 131 votes (10.7%) 4th of 4
Steve Sandick, Rossmere, Hartlepool 43 votes (3.6%) 4th of 4
Glynis Jones, Seaton, Hartlepool 295 votes (17.4%) 3rd of 3
Sarah Smith, Godmanchester and Hemingford Abbots, Huntingdonshire 206 votes (7.1%) 7th of 7 in three vacancy election
Ian Robinson, Netherton, Hyndburn 88 votes (7.9%) 3rd of 3
Wayne Fitzharris, Overton, Hyndburn 178 votes (11.6%) 3rd of 3
Sarah-Kay Fitzharris, Peel, Hyndburn 45 votes (6.1%) 3rd of 3
Paul Hacker, Rishton, Hyndburn 81 votes (5.1%) 4th of 4
Paul Brown, St Oswald’s, Hyndburn 120 votes (5.8%) 6th of 7 in two vacancy election
Richard Oakley, St Oswald’s, Hyndburn 35 votes 7th of 7 in two vacancy election
Susan Laird, Holme Valley N, Kirklees 63 votes (1.2%) 6th of 6
Michael Pastor, Blackfen & Lamorbey, London Borough of Bexley 325 votes (7.4%) 8th of 8 in three vacancy ward
Marc Mason, Blendon & Penhill, London Borough of Bexley 262 votes (6.2%) 8th of 8 in three vacancy ward
Marian Newton, Falconwood & Welling, London Borough of Bexley 245 votes (5.7%) 8th of 8 in three vacancy ward
Linda Purcell, St Mary’s & St James, London Borough of Bexley 125 votes (4.1%) 6th of 7 in two vacancy election
Graham Reakes, Kelsey & Eden Park, London Borough of Bromley 105 votes (2.2%) 10th of 10 in three vacancy election
Edward Apostolides, Shortlands & Park Langley, London Borough of Bromley 156 votes (3.1%) 10th of 10 in three vacancy election
Victor Jackson, West Wickham, London Borough of Bromley 133 votes (2.6%) 11th of 11 in three vacancy election
David Schofield, Bush Hill Park, London Borough of Enfield 71 votes (1.6%) 11th of 11 in three vacancy election
Jeff Evans, Ridgeway, London Borough of Enfield 88 votes (1.8%) 11th of 11 in three vacancy election
Deborah Cairns, Whitewebbs, London Borough of Enfield 85 votes (1.7%) 11th of 12 in three vacancy election
Wendy Beaumont, Eltham Park & Progress, London Borough of Greenwich 98 votes (2.3%) 7th of 7 in two vacancy election
Tom Bright, Eltham Town & Avery Hill, London Borough of Greenwich 164 votes (3.5%) 10th of 10 in three vacancy election
Terry Wheeler, Greenwich Peninsula, London Borough of Greenwich 48 votes (2.3%) 13th of 13 in three vacancy election
Sharon Kent, Kidbrooke Park, London Borough of Greenwich 127 votes (4.9%) 7th of 7 in two vacancy election
Mark Simpson, Mottingham, Coldharbour & New Eltham, London Borough of Greenwich 149 votes (3.4%) 8th of 8 in three vacancy election
Ruth Handyside, Shooters Hill, London Borough of Greenwich 89 votes (2.8%) 7th of 7 in two vacancy election
Jimmy Wu, Woolwich Arsenal, London Borough of Greenwich 74 votes (2.4%) 10th of 10 in three vacancy election
Ian Price, Hatch End, London Borough of Harrow 208 votes (6.2%) 7th of 7 in two vacancy election
Zbigniew Kowalczyk, Pinner South, London Borough of Harrow 108 votes (1.8%) 9th of 9 in three vacancy election
Howard Koch, Stanmore, London Borough of Harrow 95 votes (2.4%) 11th of 11 in three vacancy election
Lynne Huxtable, Beam Park, London Borough of Havering 23 votes (2.0%) 8th of 8 in two vacancy election
David Small, Bunhill, London Borough of Islington 51 votes (2.1%) 13th of 14 in three vacancy election
Edward Cole, Clapham Common & Abbeville, London Borough of Lambeth 23 votes (0.8%) 9th of 9 in two vacancy election
Kay McKenzie, Custom House, London Borough of Newham 93 votes (3.2%) 14th of 14 in three vacancy election
Daniel Oxley, Royal Albert, London Borough of Newham 48 votes (3.3%) 9th of 9 in two vacancy election
David Sandground, Wall End, London Borough of Newham 103 votes (2.4%) 13th of 14 in three vacancy election
Alex Wilson, Bridge, London Borough of Redbridge 274 votes (6.8%) 9th of 10 in three vacancy election
Paul Randolfi, Dulwich Village, London Borough of Southwark 50 votes (1.1%) 9th of 9 in two vacancy election
John Cronin, Old Kent Road, London Borough of Southwark 121 votes (3.2%) 11th of 11 in three vacancy election
Matt Davis, Chingford Green, London Borough of Waltham Forest 150 votes (3.4%) 9th of 9 in three vacancy election
Robin Williams, Endlebury, London Borough of Waltham Forest 54 votes (1.9%) 7th of 7 in two vacancy election
Richard King, Larkswood, London Borough of Waltham Forest 70 votes (1.6%) 11th of 11 in three vacancy election
Nick Buckley, Deansgate, Manchester 30 votes (1.7%) 5th of 5
Gordon Fletcher, Valley, North Tyneside 110 votes (3.9%) 4th of 4
Robert Everall, Cayton, North Yorkshire 130 votes (11.0%) 4th of 4
Sue Morris, Park, Peterborough 116 votes (4.1%) 5th of 5
Tony Allen, Paston & Walton, Peterborough 142 votes (7.1%) 5th of 5
Frank Knight, Batchley & Brockhill, Redditch 103 votes (5.3%) 3rd of 4
Chris Scott, Horley C & S, Reigate & Banstead 181 votes (8.2%) 4th of 4
Joseph Fox, South Park & Woodhatch, Reigate & Banstead 90 votes (4.0%) 4th of 4
Phil Bourqui, Uppingham, Rutland 36 votes (2.9%)
Peter Durnell, Bristnall, Sandwell 150 votes (6.2%) 3rd of 4
Graham Nock, Charlemont with Grove Vale, Sandwell 53 votes (1.9%) 5th of 5
John Booker, West Ecclesfield, Sheffield 356 votes (8.4%) 4th of 5
Alan Grace, St Luke’s, Southend 45 votes (1.9%) 7th of 7
Amodio Amato, Woodfield, Stevenage 50 votes (3.5%) 4th of 4
Taff Davies, Cheadle Hulme South, Stockport 64 votes (1.5%) 5th of 5
Dottie Hopkins, Davenport & Cale Green, Stockport 108 votes (3.4%) 5th of 6
Lynn Schofield, Edgeley & Cheadle Heath, Stockport 60 votes (2.0%) 5th of 5
John Kelly, Offerton, Stockport 91 votes (2.7%) 5th of 5
Stephen Speakman, Stepping Hill, Stockport 46 votes (1.1%) 5th of 5
Barbara Mitchison, Denton NE, Tameside 100 votes (4.7%) 4th of 4
Mike Hancock, Cowbridge, Vale of Glamorgan 190 votes (5.7%) 9th of 9 in three vacancy election
David Dews, Wrenthorpe & Outwood W, Wakefield 160 votes (3.9%) 6th of 6
Elaine Williams, Birchills-Leamore, Walsall 156 votes (7.1%) 3rd of 3
Graham Eardley, Pelsall, Walsall 278 votes (10.4%) 3rd of 3
Neal Webber, Oxhey, Watford 37 votes (1.8%) 4th of 4
Max Windsor-Peplow, Bedwardine, Worcester 30 votes (1.1%) 6th of 7
Paul Hickling, St Peter’s Parish, Worcester 29 votes (1.4%) 5th of 5
Charles Dodman, Little Acton, Wrexham 12 votes (1.5%) 4th of 4

UKIP – 28 candidates
George Cowen, North Berwick Coastal, East Lothian 18 first prefs (0.3%) 8th of 8 in three vacancy election
Stuart Martin, Grangemouth, Falkirk 27 first prefs (0.5%) 8th of 8 in three vacancy election
Gerald Haddrell, Kirkcaldy N, Fife 45 first prefs (0.9%) 8th of 8 in three vacancy election
Christopher Ho, Greater Pollok, Glasgow 46 first prefs (0.5%) 11th of 11 in four vacancy election
Melanie Roberts, Colne Valley, Kirklees 106 votes (1.9%) 5th of 5
Kathleen Garner, South Croydon, London Borough of Croydon – 117 votes (2.5%) 13th of 13 in three vacancy election
Julie Carter, Ealing Common, London Borough of Ealing 101 votes (1.7%) 11th of 11 in three vacancy election
Nicholas Markwell, Greenford Broadway, London Borough of Ealing 158 votes (3.9%) 11th of 11 in three vacancy election
Geoff Courtenay, Colham & Cowley, London Borough of Hillingdon 199 votes (4.8%) 11th of 11 in three vacancy election
Daryl Gardner, Airdrie N, North Lanarkshire 25 first prefs (0.4%) 8th of 8 in four vacancy election
Neil Wilson, Motherwell SE & Ravenscraig, North Lanarkshire 40 first prefs (0.7%) 8th of 8 in four vacancy election
Jane McEachan, Battle Hill, North Tyneside 113 votes (4.4%) 4th of 4
Jack Thomson, Chirton, North Tyneside 89 votes (4.4%) 5th of 5
Pamela Hood, Cullercoats, North Tyneside 60 votes (1.6%) 4th of 5
William Jackson, Preston, North Tyneside 49 votes (1.6%) 5th of 5
Henry Marshall, Tynemouth, North Tyneside 69 votes (1.7%) 4th of 4
Lynda Davis, Almond & Earn, Perth & Kinross 50 first prefs (1.3%) 6th of 6 in three vacancy election
Michael Virgo, Stannington, Sheffield 122 votes (2.2%) 6th of 6
Peter Richardson, Somerton, Somerset 97 votes (2.6%) 6th of 6 in two vacancy election
Janice Mackay, Clydesdale S, South Lanarkshire 52 first prefs (1.0%) 8th of 8
David Mackay, East Kilbride Central S, South Lanarkshire 30 first prefs (0.6%) 9th of 9
Yvonne Mackay, East Kilbride W, South Lanarkshire 18 first prefs (0.3%) 8th of 8
Donald Mackay, Larkhall, South Lanarkshire 21 first prefs (0.3%) 9th of 9
Reg Coulson, Copt Hill, Sunderland – Mr Coulson died during the campaign so this election was countermanded
Alun Elder-Brown, Broadwater, Tunbridge Wells 18 votes (1.4%) 6th of 6
Victor Webb, Culverden, Tunbridge Wells 85 votes (3.5%) 4th of 4
Jordan Gaskell, Hindley, Wigan 231 votes (10.4%) 4th of 4
Philip Griffiths, Oxton, Wirral 38 votes (1.0%) 5th of 5

Heritage Party – 16 candidates
Glenn Beattie, Upper Bann constituency, Northern Ireland Assembly, 128 first prefs (0.2%) 12th of 12 in five vacancy STV election
Rob Gordon, Talybolion, Anglesey 48 votes (2.2%) 11th of 11 in three vacancy election
Andrew Ross, Craven, Bradford 60 votes (1.0%) 6th of 6
Ben Downton, St Mary’s, Castle Point 23 votes (1.2%) 4th of 4
Caroline Morra, Broadfield, Crawley 112 votes (6.0%) 4th of 4
William Dixon, Howgate, Cumberland 50 votes (3.4%) 4th of 5
Charlie Garrod, Walton South, Elmbridge 69 votes (2.3%) 4th of 4
Frances Crompton, Yateley West, Hart 52 votes (2.2%) 4th of 4
Zachary Stiling, Selsdon & Addington Village, London Borough of Croydon – 45 votes (1.3%) 9th of 9 in two vacancy election
Michelle Dray, Baldock Town, North Hertfordshire 32 votes (1.5%) 5th of 5
Bernard Toolan, Peverell, Plymouth 92 votes (2.0%) 5th of 5
Nick Smith, Cippenham Green, Slough 138 votes (7.9%) 3rd of 3
David Cox, Carterton NW, West Oxfordshire 39 votes (3.3%) 5th of 5
Judith Squire, Heathlands, Woking 58 votes (1.9%) 4th of 4
Richard Squire, Mount Hermon, Woking 53 votes (1.7%) 4th of 4
Tim Read, St John’s, Woking 87 votes (3.1%) 4th of 4

Alliance for Democracy and Freedom – 5 candidates
Sarah Packman, Bramley, Basingstoke & Deane 175 votes (7.2%) 3rd of 3
Marianne Fitzgerald, Binley & Willenhall, Coventry 113 votes (3.4%) 5th of 5
Sandra Sparrow, Stoke Park, Ipswich 31 votes (1.7%) 5th of 5
Phillip Moulson, South, NE Lincolnshire 102 votes (7.3%) 3rd of 4
Paul Goldring, Royton N, Oldham 79 votes (3.1%) 5th of 5

Independents
Gary Butler, Heath, Maidstone 49 votes (3.3%) 5th of 5
Melanie Butler, Shepway North, Maidstone 94 votes (5.8%) 5th of 5

further details to follow

Two legends of British Nationalism – John Tyndall reviews John Bean

John Bean – one of H&D‘s oldest subscribers – died on November 9th last year and his obituary by our assistant editor Peter Rushton appeared in our January 2022 issue (#106).

A large part of postwar British nationalist history involves John Bean and his sometime ally, sometime rival John Tyndall, former chairman of the National Front and British National Party, who was a great friend of H&D until his death in July 2005 and remains an inspiration today.

In the November 1999 issue of his journal Spearhead, John Tyndall reviewed John Bean’s memoir Many Shades of Black, and as an addition to our memorial tribute we reprint that review below: it serves as a useful introduction for younger readers to the sometimes tangled history of our movement in the decades after 1960.

MEMORIES AND MYTHS

John Tyndall reviews a political autobiography which revives some ancient controversies

It is often said to be the custom of retired war generals to write their memoirs, justifying their decisions and answering their critics. This is fair enough; we are all human, and we all have a disposition to do it – whether or not the chronicle of events in which we have been involved ever actually gets into print.

One such chronicle which has got into print has recently been produced by John Bean, a veteran nationalist. In the case of the writer, the war has been a political one – to be precise, the same war as that in which I myself have been engaged over a largely overlapping period: the struggle of national and patriotic forces in Britain against those of liberalism, globalism and multi-racialism. John Bean and I have at various times been allies and antagonists in that struggle, mostly the former. Needless to say, the antagonisms have been the consequence of tactical differences rather than ones of principle.

Many Shades of Black is easy to read, quite fascinating to the connoisseur of the history of the British nationalist movement and seldom proceeding far without glimpses of the rich sense of humour that is one of my abiding memories of JB. By far the best in my opinion (although it may offend some) occurs very early in the book when the writer speaks, tongue in cheek, of his part in winning World War II. Alluding to Germany’s führer, he says:–

“Sheltering in his Berlin bunker, he was told that the British and American armies were pouring over the Rhine and the Russians were hammering on the gates of Berlin. Then came the telegram (a month late) that John Bean had joined the RAF. Hitler shot himself.”

Just too late too see any action in the war, John Bean subsequently did his national service in the Royal Navy. But we are running ahead of ourselves. The first chapter covers the author’s childhood and adolescence, spent mainly in the South London suburbs, his experience of the wartime Blitz and his consequent evacuation, first to Devon and later to the Lake District; his rather scampish propensity as a young boy to land himself in trouble; and an early political flirtation with communism, which he soon grew out of.

There then follows an account, with some amusing anecdotes, of the author’s service life, including a visit to Trinidad. This was John Bean’s first acquaintance with the non-White races, and it was instructive. Of it, he says:–

“More than one-third of the Trinidadian population at that time were descendants of indentured labourers from India. The remainder were mainly descendants of African slaves, with a fair proportion of French Creoles, British and Spanish colonists, and quite a few who are a combination of the lot. But it was always the African descendant who ended up as the inhabitant of the shanty hut.
“The Chinese had a virtual monopoly in general stores and the wholesale trade of domestic articles. The Indians controlled all taxicabs, public transport and the cinemas; and the Portuguese the rum industry. In the face of these closed shops the black Trinidadians had nothing left but to labour in the sugar-cane fields, a position that has changed little today.”

Was this the consequence of some kind of ‘racist’ oppression or was it just the natural order? Said the author a little further on:–

“We… began to accept the view of a number of Indian, Portuguese and Spanish-origin Trinidadians that to a certain extent many of the inhabitants of the shanty towns were there of their own choosing. It is all a question of values. Many of them considered it is better to spend their hard-earned cash on a gaily coloured new shirt or a bottle of rum rather than waste it on rent for shelter in such an equable climate…”

Back in civilian life, John Bean eventually found employment as a civilian technician in the paint industry, which soon took him to India. Then still something of a liberal, he expected to find the local population amicably disposed to Britons after having recently acquired their independence from the Raj, but: –

“It was a great disappointment to find, instead of goodwill, the honeymoon atmosphere prophesied by liberal journalusts, an abundance of criticisms, open abuse and sometimes precocious advice on how Britain should run her affairs.”

So what had happened? Simple. The young industrial chemist was beholding people who respected power – specifically the power of the White Man. Once this power had been relinquished, that same White Man, far from being regarded with friendliness, was despised for his weakness and treated accordingly.

Speaking of these experiences in exotic parts, the writer says in conclusion to the second chapter in which they are described:–

“I had become aware of the racial differences that had created the various cultures of mankind. This made me a racialist, but certainly not a ‘race hater’. Twenty years of radical right activity were to make me realise that there can be, unfortunately, a rather narrow dividing line.”

Why the need for this concluding statement? Of course, racial consciousness, like every other idea, can be pushed to extremes, but that does not invalidate it. Here we encounter a tendency among racial patriots, by no means confined to the author of Many Shades of Black: a slightly apologetic feeling of guilt for a sentiment over which one should never feel guilty nor apologise but should assert with constant firmness and with no ‘ifs’ nor ‘buts’, while at the same time naturally avoiding language that is crude or insulting.

Returning to Britain after a spell abroad, John Bean appears to have undergone an experience which many share after having been away for a while: a tendency to look at their own country in a new way, often a more critical way than in the past. Perhaps this is just the natural consequence of the vivid reminder that there is a great big world outside, of which we are only a part: a world in which we have to compete, in which not everybody loves us or feels they owe us anything. I recall, as if it were only yesterday, similar impressions in my own case after two years as a national serviceman in Germany.

Here, in a chapter headed ‘Blackshirt apprentice’, the writer relates his concern about the changing human landscape in the country which, like so many others, he irritatingly refers to as ‘England’. It leads him into radical politics, and in 1950 we find him in the party of Sir Oswald Mosley, now called Union Movement.

After a few years came disillusionment. Mosley himself remained a fascinating figure, admired for both his intelligence and his courage; but the types of people he seemed mostly to recruit were a different matter (an impression I myself shared when I began an examination of the movement, without ever joining it, a short time afterwards).

The Mosleyites were under constant physical attack by communists and also by members of a Jewish gang known then as the 43 Group. They quite rightly defended themselves, and fights became a regular feature of their meetings and public demonstrations. Here there arose a problem which has been the subject of dispute on the radical right to this day.

The mass media, even then, had been well drilled to deny publicity to Mosley’s people in any shape or form which focused serious attention on their policies. Their only hope of getting in the news, therefore, lay in the frequent brawls that attended their activities. For this they should not have been blamed. The normal media boycott was not their fault, any more than was the organised violence that pursued them on the streets and in the meeting halls. If the violence served to win them public attention, whereby then people would enquire into their policies and obtain a fairer picture of what they actually stood for, who could blame them for taking advantage of this? An army fighting a guerrilla war in occupied territory, in which most normal rights – including that of receiving a fair hearing – are denied to it, should not be reproached for seizing upon every available weapon necessary for survival. That is the way it is in the world of real politics.

But the weapon was double-edged. The reputation for violence which, in the first place quite unfairly, pursued Mosley’s followers made them acquire an image which gave out a number of wrong signals to would-be recruits. If the perpetrators of the violence happened, as was often the case, to be Jewish, certain further signals would be emitted. Says John Bean, commenting on this tendency:–

“…whenever they received press publicity over some skirmish in the East End, the thinking public were assured just that much more of their hooligan and mob-like character. For the most part, the only recruits such publicity gained were political morons looking for excitement, or those people who suffer from a brand of anti-semitism that is not even ‘blessed’ with a political foundation but is sheerly social anti-semitism often based on jealousy.”

In later years, my own experiences bore out some – though not all – of the author’s conclusions, with the difference of detail that the focus then centred on black and Asian, rather than Jewish, people. John Bean here speaks of “the thinking public”, but I would challenge his use of this term. People who think really seriously about political matters will not be deterred from seeking information about a political group by the mere fact that violence often seems to attend its activities; they will enquire into the source of the violence, taking care to ascertain whether the group that is the object of their interest is responsible for it or merely its victim. When I was leading the National Front in the 1970s, the rowdyism that was almost constantly present when we showed ourselves in public in any prominent way probably did put off some people who would otherwise have been inclined to support us. But there were nevertheless a good many who saw through media propaganda, which tended to lump us together with our attackers as if we were equally responsible for the trouble, and recognised quite clearly where the real blame lay. We attracted large numbers of very decent, intelligent and politically serious Britons to our cause, while also picking up just a few who joined for other, less commendable, reasons.

It must be remembered that back in those times, as today, hooligan behaviour by those on the political left was a familiar phenomenon by no means confined to occasions where nationalists were the targets. In quite recent memory was the Battle of Grosvenor Square, where a left-wing mob besieged the American Embassy, taking its anger and hysteria out on the police who were there to protect it. There was the violent picketing of docks and factories arising out of industrial disputes. There were the Greenham Common disturbances, as well as those surrounding the miners’ strike. Later there were the poll-tax riots, not to forget the racial conflagrations of the 1980s which not even the biased media could attribute to any White ‘racist’ intervention. Members of the British public with anything resembling brains are well used to these left-wing, ‘anti-racist’ and often anti-police tactics, and are perfectly capable of perceiving their presence behind organised attacks on patriots. Our experience of the ’70s was that, when the NF was targeted by the same gangs, that became, in many eyes, almost a recommendation rather than a deterrent. “If that crowd are against you, you must be doing something right!” was a comment that I heard frequently during those years. They were years of quite spectacular recruitment to the nationalist cause, in which the vast majority were ordinary folk not looking for punch-ups, nor motivated by irrational hatred towards other races, but concerned to preserve their country’s identity and prepared to face physical attacks if that was necessary in the excercise of their freedoms.

There nevertheless is some validity in what John Bean has said on this matter, albeit that the issue can be grossly oversimplified. Violence can attract those with a natural disposition towards it, and public discussion of the race issue can appeal to negative sentiments of hate just as to positive ones of love. It is all a matter of how carefully the party leadership exercises a fine-tuning balance on such matters, how it regulates the choice of what is said and what is done. I believe that we got the balance very nearly right in the 1970s – not 100% right, perhaps, but much more right than wrong. It could well be that Mosley’s party failed, in its time, to achieve this balance; and that, at the end of the day, has to be down to Mosley himself.

On the rebound from Mosley, John Bean was persuaded by some members of his family to join the Tories, and enlisted as a member in the Barnes branch, in South West London. This venture lasted precisely two months. From the standpoint of his social ideas, JB might have found compatibility with Labour but, as he states, “I had joined the Conservative Party because it was more of a home for patriots and nationalists…” But the tiny horizons of his fellow Tories soon dismayed him. This, he says:

“…was a new world of politics, where my fellow members’ minds seemed dominated by minutes of the previous meetings, points of order related to local drainage and other trivia, and a lack of interest in looking at policies now that the country was ‘back in the safe hands of the Conservatives’ under Churchill…”

Of course, this preoccupation with the minute and the parochial thoroughly suited the party chiefs, as it does down to this day. The Tory rank and file have always been notoriously docile in their acceptance of the party line as determined by their supposed superiors at Central Office. Again, it seemed to have been a case of like calling out to like. Just as the regular brawls in which Mosleyites were constantly engaged tended to attract belligerent spirits addicted to brawling, so did the polite tameness of constituency Tories have the habit of pulling in the equally tame. This has always been the problem with modern Conservatism. Even where glimmerings of the political ‘light’ may occasionally filter through the general fog, the impulse to action is paralysed due to the prevailing atmosphere of genteel inertia and the wholly undynamic types it encourages.

Bean was now looking for an organisation outside the political mainstream but not, in his own words, “irrevocably tarred with the brush of anti-semitism and fascism as Mosley’s movement was.” Here we see him pursuing a chimera that has obsessed and frustrated countless thousands of basically sound patriots in Britain, while at the same time serving as a constant source of friction between people who should be united. The truth is that the ‘brush’ he so much rejected – more out of tactical considerations than of personal conviction – is something that is always going to ‘tar’ genuine patriotic organisations as long as effective power in Britain lies with the liberal-globalist establishment and as long as the news media remain in that establishment’s hands.

Of course, those patriotic organisations should not go out of their way to get ‘tarred’ beyond normal expectation. They should exclude, as far as possible, campaigning methods and imagery which positively invite the media to draw such connections. This goes without saying, and I have myself been at fault many years ago, when much younger, in becoming involved briefly with a political group which made just these errors. But, all this having been acknowledged, it remains a fact that the eagerness of patriots to attain the unattainable – a public image 100% free of any taint of ‘fascist’ or ‘anti-semitic’ connections, justified or not – has become a neurosis which has constantly poisoned and enfeebled nationalist parties, and very often caused them to splinter with the result that the factions into which they have divided have all been totally impotent, with or without the ‘fascist’ label.

Some in the nationalist movement have in fact quite cynically exploited this neurosis in the course of power-struggles where it has been their own ambition, rather than any genuine distaste or fear of ‘fascism’, that has been the driving factor. However, in the case of John Bean I believe that his fears on these counts were always sincere, if misconceived.

Bean’s next serious foray into active politics was with the League of Empire Loyalists, which satisfied his quest for a movement with a ‘non-fascist’ pedigree (though in fact led by a former Mosley lieutenant, A.K. Chesterton). The League never had pretensions to becoming a party but was conceived, and operated, essentially as a movement of protest. Of course, protest groups have their place in the political landscape but always as mere means to an end; there is not the slightest point in their activity unless its object is to bring pressure to bear on those who actually wield the power, so that the latter will carry out the policies for which the protestors clamour. If there is not a hope of this happening, the protest becomes a waste of time – except in special circumstances where it serves a covert purpose of preparing the way for the formation of a political party, with a strategy for the eventual winning of power, at a later date.

There never was the slightest hope of any party of political power (which realistically could only be the Tory Party) adopting the policies that the League advocated. But neither was there any preparedness by the League’s leadership to see the League itself as a party in the making. Its activities, therefore, were leading nowhere. Bean saw this – as also did a younger League member who in the meantime had joined a little while after him. That member’s name was John Tyndall.

I enlisted in the LEL for the same reason as Bean did: because it was the best outlet of its time for people of nationalist opinions who wanted to do something active. We came to the same conclusions about the League’s limited future, largely independently but through some discussion. This discussion eventually led, in 1958, to the formation of the National Labour Party, mainly initiated, and subsequently led, by Bean but with me in a supporting role. As a preliminary to the setting up of the NLP, Bean and Chesterton had exchanged letters on the subject in which the latter had said:–

“I do not feel any deep conviction that the League, unless it has a big break, will get very far, but I do think that you are in danger of abandoning the substance for the shadow. The result could well be years of effort without making the slightest impact on the public mind. The loss of you would be grievous to us, and fragmentation of effort might be annoying, but quite honestly I think that you are going out into the wilderness and that nothing more will be heard of you in any serious political connection.”

Chesterton was at the same time right and wrong. There would indeed be fragmentation of effort, and that is always retrograde when people have previously been working together. The NLP did indeed constitute, to a great extent at least, an abandonment of substance for shadow. The result was to be years of the NLP, and other parties of its type, making at least very little impact on the public mind. The NLP was indeed a step into the wilderness.

But such a step was always inevitable as long as Chesterton remained determined that the LEL remain an organisation of protest and nothing more. There were bound to be others – if not Bean and Tyndall, then someone else – who would take the process a step further and form something intended to channel this protest into a party, aiming, however remotely, at political power. What would have been far preferable to the fragmentation of which Chesterton spoke was an agreement that the League should become a party itself, if only in embryo. After all, had he not admitted that the League was unlikely to get very far? The party that should have been formed then was eventually formed nine years later. They were nine years of much wasted time, including some political misadventures which might well otherwise have been avoided.

‘National Labour’ made some small impact during its two-year career, but it remained very much on the outer fringes of political life in Britain, and largely if not entirely justified Chesterton’s prognosis. In 1960 the NLP amalgamated with another group, the White Defence League, to form the British National Party – which should not be confused with the party of the same name which operates today. Though the NLP brought considerably more members into the merger than did the WDL, it was the head of the latter group, Colin Jordan, who became overall leader of the new combination. This was not unconnected with the fact that Jordan was able to supply a headquarters building as a major bargaining counter. The merger was a positive step forward – a change from the trend of the previous years in that it constituted a move towards greater unity among nationalists instead of greater division. It was also much to Bean’s credit: he sacrificed his position of seniority in the interests of the greater cause – a good example to others which was not always subsequently followed.

But after another two years much of this good was undone. Here I myself must take some of the blame, but so also must Bean. As is usual in political parties, there were different wings: the ‘moderates’ and the ‘militants’. Bean represented the former while Colin Jordan, and I myself in a more junior capacity, were classified as the latter. Had more mature attitudes prevailed, these divisions might have been contained within the party by a spirit of compromise and more readiness for discussion on both sides. As it was, they led to a thoroughly acrimonious split, which occurred in 1962. The consequence of this was that the BNP carried on, now with Bean in charge, while the more ‘militant’ faction reformed as the National Socialist Movement under Jordan.

As Jordan’s main lieutenant, I have taken some ‘stick’ in nationalist circles ever since for this very foolish error. The truth is that I never wanted the reformed party to adopt the name ‘National Socialist’ but went along with the decision once Jordan made it. I blame myself, not Jordan, for my doing so. The fact was that I had had enough of splits. I hadn’t wanted this split in the first place but it was forced by others. I wasn’t prepared to lead people into a further split, but neither did I want to drop out of political activity. In accordance with my view that once the party leader has made a decision it should be followed, irrespective of agreement or otherwise, I went along with Jordan’s scheme for a party under the new name chosen, and subsequently adapted myself to the ‘party line’.

The book under discussion here is John Bean’s, not mine; and this diversion may seem a little like my trying to take centre stage from him. However, as the error involved in the setting up of the NSM, and my participation in it, forms part of a major theme of Many Shades of Black, I have no alternative but to dwell on it a little – with apologies to the author! There will be cause to refer to this subject again.

Naturally, John Bean in his book goes to some lengths to justify his own position in this division, and I certainly do not propose to defend Jordan’s and mine. But more important than the question of where lay the greater blame was the fact that, once again, the nationalist movement had suffered a further fragmentation. Now the movement was splintered into three main strands. There was the League of Empire Loyalists, from which Bean & Co. had split to form the NLP (later the BNP); there was the BNP itself; and now there was the National Socialist Movement – smaller than either but large in the publicity it came to attract. Needless to say, the partisans of each faction strove energetically to explain to everyone why they were right and the others wrong. It was all quite tragic and it was all quite futile. None of these grouplets had any serious political future as they then stood; which was the most ‘right’ of the three was rather academic.

Two years on from these events, I was forced into doing what I had always wanted to avoid doing: I led a split myself. Seeing that the NSM was going nowhere but not being accepted within the other groups, I and probably the main body of party activists parted company with Jordan and set up the Greater Britain Movement. There were now four mutually hostile factions all splashing about in the political wilderness, doomed to total irrelevance. This had to change, and I was one of those who set about changing it.

By a process that has been documented elsewhere, these factions, excluding the NSM, came together in the late 1960s to form the National Front, thus virtually putting an end to the debilitating divisions by which the nationalist movement in Britain had been racked for the past two decades. Again, John Bean was to be commended for consenting to some loss of personal status in order to make this possible.

All this time, JB had been editing and publishing, on a slightly irregular basis, a tabloid-style paper called Combat. The contribution of Combat to the growth of British Nationalism – small though the movement was by comparison with some others of its kind around the world – deserves some praise. For most of his political life Bean had never been a full-time activist; he had usually had to earn his living outside politics – and support a wife and two children into the bargain. When his input of activity, plus his contributions as a publisher and journalist, are taken into account against this background, it can be seen that his sacrifices for the nationalist cause were considerable. In 1968 he suddenly approached me and informed me he was retiring from active politics and volunteered to hand over the subscription list of Combat to my own journal Spearhead, which had been founded just under three years earlier. This gave the latter a considerable boost, and it should not be forgotten.

On the other hand, JB’s withdrawal from the struggle, at 41 years of age, was a matter of deep regret notwithstanding our numerous disagreements. His book, however, does not end at this point, but goes on to cover much of the story of the National Front and comment on developments beyond.

Some painfully slow and frustrating negotiations preceded the setting-up of the NF in 1967. Here we encountered again the neurotic fear of the ‘fascist’ taint on the part of people who simply could not perceive the ‘bigger picture’. The nationalist right in Britain had been impotent for two decades, not primarily because this taint had rubbed off on some of its factions, but because of its woeful disunity. This disunity meant that no single faction was able to command the membership numbers and resources to make the kind of impact upon public opinion that would lead people to think that nationalism was a serious force and therefore worth joining. Until that primary obstacle had been overcome – which could only happen by way of a merger of the factions and the consequent mobilisation of far greater membership numbers and resources – arguments about ‘fascist’ or ‘nazi’ labels and how to deal with them amounted to spitting in the wind.

That the new, unified movement that was required would need to distance itself from ‘fascism’, ‘nazism’ and at least the cruder manifestations of ‘anti-semitism’ referred to previously by Bean – all this was beyond dispute. What bogged down negotiations towards the merger was the small-minded tendency of so many of the key negotiators to reject the idea of entering into any kind of political association with others who in the past had been connected with groups termed ‘fascist’ or ‘nazi’ – though their own previous groups had hardly demonstrated roaring political success by comparison. What was needed was mutual tolerance, compromise and a preparedness to draw a line under past misadventures and failures and look forward to the future. What the new movement had to do was harmonise all the forces of dynamism, activism and, where applicable, leadership available to nationalism from whatever quarter they came. In fact it took a few more years for it to be demonstrated, in the bracing arena of real national politics, that individuals’ associations previous to their involvement with the NF were completely irrelevant to their usefulness to that party; much more important were their personal attributes of energy, talent, dedication and commitment to the common cause.

In his book John Bean takes us on a journey through the often labyrinthine process of these arguments and obstructions which simply postponed what everyone should have seen as wholly necessary and, if nationalism was to become a real force in this country, inevitable. One excerpt from this narrative was instructive. Describing the Acton by-election, in West London, in which Andrew Fountaine, now the NF’s Executive Director, was the candidate and received 1,400 votes, Bean says that seven days before the poll he saw lots of ‘Vote Fountaine’ posters on view and thought the candidate likely to top 5,000 votes, but…

“He then became the victim of a ‘fascist’ smear campaign: first, from an illegal leaflet distributed throughout Acton by the 62 Group [the successor to the former 43 Group – see review of television drama ‘Ridley Road’ in H&D #107 and #108]; second from Liberal and Labour canvassers; third, from a scurrilous leaflet issued by the Liberals on the eve of poll. The Fountaine posters were soon taken down.”

Here there is a confusion between cause and effect based on facile assumptions rather than serious analysis. In the first place, estimates of voting figures, whether drawn from canvassing returns or numbers of posters in windows, almost always greatly exceed results eventually achieved. Then there is the assumption that all those who removed their posters necessarily changed their voting intentions as a result of the same pressures. Much more likely is that they were frightened of getting bricks through their windows!

And even if votes for Fountaine were significantly affected by the smear campaign, this just goes to show that a candidate like AF, with absolutely no past record of association with ‘fascism’, stands just the same chance of having the ‘fascist’ label slapped on him as does another who does have such a record.

And if it be argued that Fountaine would not have earned those smears had he represented a party with no former ‘fascists’ or ‘nazis’ within it, it can only be said that, ‘earn’ or not, he would still have got them! We have all learned through experience that these smearmongers have not the slightest regard for the truth; if ‘fascist’ or ‘nazi’ connections do not exist in the record of a patriotic would-be politician, his opponents will invent them! John Bean ought to understand this, but his description of these events gives little sign of it.

In the final section of his book, Bean looks back on his years as an active nationalist, and pays particular attention to the rise and fall of the National Front, giving six reasons for the latter.

With the first reason one can readily agree. This was the action of the Tories under Margaret Thatcher of stealing the clothing of the NF by implied promises on immigration put forward at the 1979 general election.

As a second reason, the author cites the “almost continual internal warfare that beset the National Front from its foundation…” Here again, he is substantially correct, though he might have said a great deal more in analysis of the causes of that warfare. As an example of an over-facile dismissal of the phenomenon, he takes the example of one-time Leicester Organiser Anthony Reed-Herbert as one of those who were ‘worn down’ by all the in-fighting. I was able to witness closely the events surrounding Reed-Herbert’s defection. In fact, what he did was lead a treacherous and disloyal faction into a breakaway party, based mainly in the Midlands. In my view, establishment infiltration and internal subversion was a far more significant cause of splits than people being ‘worn down’, though the latter factor did play a part in gaining followers for these treacherous elements. Which category Reed-Herbert came into I cannot say.

As reason No. 3, Bean speaks of marches and demonstrations. He begins by saying that such activities have a part to play in politics when they are held for specific reasons and are disciplined – but, he continues, the famous Lewisham march in 1977, which led to a pitched battle mainly between left-wingers and police, was a step too far in this regard.

Well, my recollection of the Lewisham march is that it was very well disciplined and that all the trouble was caused by the opposition. As to whether the march was held for a specific reason, the reason was a protest against mugging, and the area chosen was one in which that practice had attained epidemic proportions. Arguments as to whether Lewisham was “a march too far” have raged up to this day. We come back to the question of a fine tuning aimed at balance between the need for a party to maintain a high public profile and the need for it to avoid a reputation just for brawling. I have said that in this regard we in the NF in those days got the balance nearly right. Unanimity about Lewisham will never be achieved, but at the end of the day we should keep our sense of proportion. One march attended by a riot did not destroy a political movement; other factors were much more important.

John Bean goes on to cite ‘nazi’ smear propaganda as reason No. 4 for the NF’s demise, but then he as good as answers his own claim by acknowledging that other groups of people, such as Kingsley Read’s National Party, who split from the NF to avoid the smears, still went on receiving them. He is of course perfectly right: It is not a question of whether these smears adversely affect nationalist support; probably they do but just how much will never be quantifiable; it is a question of there being no way of avoiding them and therefore of our having to live with them and not fall out over them.

The fifth reason put forward opens up an intriguing debate. Says the author: –

“People interested in joining the NF did so primarily on the issue of immigration. When they wrote in for further details most found that they also had sympathy for some of the other NF views, such as opposition to Britain’s membership of the Common Market; the return of capital punishment for child murderers and the murderers of police officers; denouncing the international bankers who put profit before national interest and jobs. But when they looked through the pages of National Front News and Spearhead they would see other issues that did not appear in the general leaflets and the usually well-written election addresses. These would be articles on Jewish financial power, alleged Jewish control of the media and Zionist influences over British and American foreign policy…”

Well, no-one can please everybody all of the time! But seriously, was the NF to exclude frank discussion of ‘background’ issues which, in the opinion of its leaders, had a very real bearing on the more obvious issues of immigration, Europe and the economy? I believe not. Obviously, the discussion has to be conducted carefully, and we did attempt to do just this. But always there is something liable to said that upsets someone. A party that can completely prevent this belongs to the world of fantasy. At the end of the day, the items in our publications of that time which John Bean evidently thinks should have been excluded did not prevent many thousands joining. As for putting off voters, hardly one voter in a quarter of a million would ever have read such material.

What John Bean seems wholly incapable of realising is that, just as the laws of internal combustion rule that one cannot indefinitely keep a lid on a boiling kettle without it being blown off, once one permits discussion of certain subjects like immigration, Europe and international banking – as must be permitted in the nationalist movement, one could not prevent the extension of that discussion to origins and causes if one tried. My honest opinion on the matter is that, at the end of the day, people ready in the 1970s to join the National Front (or in the 1990s to join the latter-day BNP) are not likely to be put off in any significant numbers from doing so by seeing references to these subjects in publications or, if they were, would be certain to find some other reason for non-participation even if those ones were not available.

John Bean’s final reason (6) for the waning of the NF (and BNP) vote in their traditional areas is ‘White Flight’. Here he is of course partly right, but this would only indicate the need for some changes in campaign locations. Even here, however, the theory, in as much as it applies to the late 1970s and early 1980s, is rather contradicted by the BNP’s excellent results in East London in the early to mid-’90s.

All this, as the reader will by now have concluded, has become something much more than a book review. There is a reason. John Bean’s analysis of the problems besetting British Nationalism during his and later times gets to the heart of the big questions of success and failure, even when his conclusions are, at least in my opinion, off target. There are moments when, in diagnosing failures and setbacks, we are prone to get a little too close to the picture and become immersed in too much minor detail. Here is where there is a need to step back somewhat, transport ourselves mentally to the mountain-top, so to speak, and take more of an overview.

One of the first things we need to recognise is that the kind of country Britain has become in the second half of the 20th century provides one of the most difficult environments in the developed world for the building of a movement of national awakening. National character and temperament, the erosion of education and the prevailing transatlantic ‘pop’ culture, not least the virtual two-party electoral system, all militate against those engaged in such an endeavour. These things do not make the endeavour impossible, but they do necessitate steely determination, almost infinite patience and perseverance, and a calm, adult attitude towards failures and setbacks – making these latter the occasions for deep analysis and serious discussion rather than knee-jerk emotional reactions.

All too often, these conditions have not been properly understood and the rules stemming from them not followed.

The main result, and by far the most damaging one, has been the division of forces. Almost everywhere in the world, patriotic movements engaged in the fight against the liberal-globalist establishment are grossly under-resourced by comparison with their enemies. This makes it imperative for them to combine and coordinate the resources they do have. Wherever these resources are split, impotence is the outcome.

For a few years in the 1970s, patriotic forces in Britain were about 90% united under the National Front. This, combined with other factors outside the range of our discussion here, made for its strength and success. The moment this unity was broken, impotence for many years was the inevitable consequence.

Gradually, a new unity has been forged by way of the rise to dominance of the nationalist movement by the British National Party – though this has not yet proceeded as far as was the case with the NF two decades ago. It is absolutely essential that this unity be maintained, whatever temptations may emerge for it to be undermined and ruptured.

If this is to be achieved, the lessons of the Front’s break-up must be thoroughly digested. Here it avails us nothing to argue interminably about the responsibility to be apportioned to this or that individual; rather should we be concentrating on particular tendencies of thought and action which were ultimately destructive.

One has been pinpointed, if only by implication: the failure to understand the immensely difficult terrain on which we fight, and thence the need for an acceptance of very patient timescales for the achievement of success.

There was another which cannot be stressed too strongly. This was the unwillingness of people representing certain strands of nationalist thinking to understand and tolerate others representing different, but not necessarily incompatible, strands. Here the ghosts of the past were all too often allowed to haunt and plague the present.

The previous era in which nationalist forces enjoyed power in major countries and prevailed over a substantial part of Europe was the nazi and fascist era of the 1930s and 1940s. The shadow of that era – even if it is merely a negative one – cannot be eradicated, however much we try.

An adult approach to the problems of today and tomorrow must first be based on a recognition that times are different, that history has moved on and that methods that might have been appropriate to deal with problems of the pre-war and wartime period in parts of Europe are not necessarily suitable to the present, also that this previous era carries a popular stigma that requires a firm distancing on our part from its imagery and associations.

But equally, such an adult approach must recognise that there will be individuals comprising a not negligible part of the patriotic and radical right of today who will refuse to see no good at all in those revolutionary experiments of yesterday, however unhappily they may have ended. The idea that such individuals can be totally excommunicated from our modern movement and all the strands of their thinking rejected as if they constituted some latter-day bubonic plague – that is not only in principle wrong but it is also wildly unrealistic. Failure to recognise this truth in the 1970s was a major generator of quarreling and division. It must not be allowed to have the same consequences in the future.

Taking this question a stage further, we have to understand that, whatever distance is established between modern nationalism and former national socialism and fascism, the nazi and fascist labels are going to be slapped on us by our opponents in the media and in other political parties, particularly those of the left. There just is no way to avoid these labels without abandoning altogether every robust principle of race and nation and becoming little better than flag-waving Tories. What we have to do is rid ourselves of that particular neurosis brought on by constant worrying and fretting over the matter and the resultant quarrelling and splitting into which this so often degenerates.

There is one further factor which contributed with immense destructive power to the disasters of the 1970s, and in particular to the eventual fragmentation and demise of the National Front, and John Bean’s failure to mention this in his book might be regarded as a serious omission but, possibly, for the mitigation of limited space in a work of 252 pages.

In every damaging division in nationalist parties that I have witnessed over the years, there has been abundant evidence, if only circumstantial, of enemy intervention – whether one wishes to put this down to government and its political policing agencies of Special Branch and MI5, the Tories, the Left, Zionists or any combination of these. The infiltration of patriotic movements by hostile agents is a worldwide phenomenon and by no means a new one. It has a number of purposes, of which the most obvious is the gathering of information – particularly on activities which might extend into realms of illegality. There is also the trick of incitement of less mature members to actions which, if not illegal, cause political embarrassment and loss of support. But by far the most devastating function of the infiltrator is the promotion of internal discord and division, preferably (from his paymasters’ standpoint) leading to outright splits. This is accomplished by exploiting natural tensions that are going to exist in any political organisation: personal feuds and rivalries; arguments over ideology and tactics; frustration over electoral setbacks or slow growth and progress.

There is no certain way of immunising a nationalist party against the enemy infiltrator. Total vetting is out of the question with the small resources of internal security that are usually available. Trained instinct in the way of character judgement is a useful aid, but it is never infallible. By far the most important and effective defence is to do everything possible to render the infiltrator relatively powerless by ensuring that his most destructive strategy – the sowing if internal conflict and splintering – does not succeed. Even this cannot always be accomplished to perfection, given the human factor that is always present; but awareness of the danger, and vigilance against it, can go a long way.

In Many Shades of Black John Bean has done nationalists in Britain a favour by inducing us to look at our problems and ask ourselves some necessary questions. It is my opinion that he has not by any means supplied all the correct answers. Nevertheless, his analysis does have the virtue that, in the context of present disputes at least, it comes from one who has no axes to grind. This apart, the book seldom fails to entertain. At the end of this counter-analysis which has gone far beyond the length normal to such an exercise, I recommend it!

Civic nationalism wiped off the map

For at least twenty years we have grown used to being told that racial nationalism is ‘unrealistic’ and that the only ‘electable’ alternative to the political establishment is ‘civic nationalism’. We should forget about race, forget awkward aspects of British or European history, forget all essential principles, and focus on a vague form of protest vote combined with strictly non-racial ‘patriotism’: so the argument has traditionally gone.

The high tide of civic nationalism was the Brexit referendum victory in 2016. Before and after that result, parties led by Nigel Farage (first UKIP, then the Brexit Party) seriously challenged the party system, but once Brexit had been achieved, Farage’s politics (essentially an ultra-reactionary version of Thatcherism) lost all relevance.

Several different parties and independents have competed for the same political territory: waffling about immigration while determined not to be ‘racist’; still fighting the Brexit war long after it ended; and obsessed by some version or other of anti-vaccination conspiracy theory. What has been entirely lacking has been any serious political ideology or vision.

There are only two good reasons to be in politics: either to win, obtaining at least some portion of power over the fate of our nations and peoples; or to set out a clear and consistent ideology capable of rallying and inspiring our people if future political circumstances afford any chances to do so.

Civic nationalism does neither: it is the politics both of defeat and of ideological vacuity.

Just before 1.30 this morning, the credibility of civic nationalism ended for good, finally burying the era when Brexit dominated British politics.

At yesterday’s Southend West by-election, none of the major parties stood against the Conservatives, out of respect for the by-election having been caused by the murder of the late MP David Amess.

This meant that from the start of the campaign, there was an open goal for any ‘minor’ party or candidate who could demonstrate the slightest shred of credibility: none of them could do so.

By polling day the government had discredited itself to a barely imaginable extent, so there was obvious potential for a ‘protest vote’. Not one of the various civic nationalist candidates was able to mobilise such a protest.

The once mighty UKIP had furthest to fall, and duly did so, polling a mere 400 votes (2.7%) across the entire constituency and pushed into third place behind the unlikely runner-up on 3.4%, Jason Pilley of the Psychedelic Movement, whose main policy seems to be legalising cannabis but in other respects is yet another cut taxes, cut government spending, neo-Thatcherite libertarian.

The obvious political space in Britain today is for a credible form of radical racial nationalism, but no such party of any size has existed since Nick Griffin turned the BNP into his personal retirement fund.

Griffin’s latest scam – the British Freedom Party – was not able to put its name on the ballot paper due to not being officially registered, so its leader Jayda Fransen stood as an independent. She polled 299 votes (2.0%), finishing fifth of the nine candidates, and most of these votes were probably due to her being the only candidate described on the ballot paper as an independent. In reality her campaign was just another fundraising stunt by the men who really run her party – Nick Griffin and his ‘business adviser’ Jim Dowson.

Griffin and Dowson weren’t even prepared to spend money on a leaflet to take advantage of the free mailshot to voters that candidates are given in return for their £500 deposit. Any donors to ‘British Freedom’ who expected a serious campaign have (yet again) been conned.

By far the most creditable performance among the civic nationalist fringe candidates was by English Democrat candidate Catherine Blaiklock, who finished fourth with 320 votes (2.2%) despite competing for many of the same voters as UKIP (a far better known and publicised party). Many H&D readers will dislike Ms Blaiklock for having twice married non-Whites, but she has never pretended to be a racial nationalist and cannot be accused of hypocrisy. Moreover her party leader Robin Tilbrook is a thoroughly honest and able spokesman for his cause. Sadly that cause – primarily focused on an English Parliament though also commendably drawing attention to failures of immigration policy – is too limited to rally much support from racial nationalists.

The Heritage Party – a UKIP splinter led by a half-Jamaican and obsessed by anti-vaccination issues, polled only 1.6%, and other versions of the same message received even less support – just 1.1% for the ‘Freedom Alliance’ and 0.6% for the most conspiracist version of the anti-vaccination cause, offered by Graham Moore of the English Constitution Party.

With the exception of Mr Tilbrook who is a good spokesman for a limited cause, the rest of the civic nationalist candidates and leaders should take a long hard look at themselves after this latest debacle. Their only honest conclusion must be that they are simply not good enough: not of serious calibre as parliamentary candidates, not serious as parties, and offering no serious ideological challenge to the system they profess to oppose.

Our own movement also needs to take a good look at itself. First we need to sort out what are the essentials of our ideology and put in place a proper system of ideological and political training for our recruits. Second we need to sort out our attitude to the electoral process: when and where do we fight elections, and what will be our vehicle for doing so?

There’s no need for defeatism; there is need for realism – and the death of civic nationalism leaves us with no excuses for our own failures.

H&D will seek to play its part during 2022 in the long overdue relaunch of a serious racial nationalist challenge to Britain’s morally and ideologically bankrupt politics.

John Bean 1927-2021

We were very sad to hear that our oldest subscriber – and the oldest surviving former leader of a British nationalist party – John Bean died this afternoon (9th November) aged 94. A tribute will appear in the January-February edition of H&D, since the November-December issue has already gone to press.

John was born on June 27th, 1927 in Carshalton, Surrey. The family moved to Blackfen, near Sidcup in Kent, where at the age of 13 he suffered the trauma of being bombed out of the family home in February 1941.

Aged 18, John began his National Service in 1945. He was largely apolitical, although he had briefly flirted with communism whilst at school, calling for support for the Soviet Union. (It’s probably for this reason that MI5 opened a personal file on John much earlier than those on other postwar nationalists: though nothing from this file has yet been released to the National Archives, we do know that he was assigned the file number PF 135975. In those days the lower the PF number, the older the file, so John Bean’s file must have begun earlier than those on his older comrades Andrew Fountaine, PF 154245, or Colin Jordan, PF 204076.)

Initially he was a trainee navigator in the RAF Volunteer Reserve. Later as a sailor in the Royal Navy. John became a radar mechanic and was placed on HMS Bulawayo, a fleet supply ship which made several visits to Trinidad until the end of his naval service in June 1948.

He briefly lived in India during 1950, working as a chemist in a paint factory, although he failed to settle and returned to Britain six months later.

Upon his return, John began to attend meetings of the Union Movement, being attracted by the ‘Europe a Nation’ policy and by the time Oswald Mosley had spent in prison for his beliefs. John initially served as a member of the Special Propaganda Service, the main duty of which was to sell copies of the party’s newspaper Union.

Soon however he became a leading figure active on behalf of the UM in the East End of London, before being appointed to head a branch in Putney in 1952. Despite these advancements, John grew disillusioned of the UM’s chances of making any real headway and he left them altogether in February 1953. A brief stopover in the local Conservative Party in Barnes followed but lasted only two months.

After a spell on the side-lines he then linked up with Andrew Fountaine, who had been attempting to form his own party, the National Front, and began to produce a journal, National Unity.

His work attracted the attention of A.K. Chesterton and, with the National Front idea failing to get off the ground, he decided to join the League of Empire Loyalists, serving as its Northern Organiser and then in the HQ in London. Continuing to produce his paper, now called The Loyalist, John soon became frustrated at both the lack of political activity and the links to the Conservative Party that were the hallmarks of the LEL.

He left in 1957 to set up the National Labour Party with Fountaine. Fountaine, a Norfolk landowner from a rural landowning family, was officially President of the new group, but was largely a figurehead: control actually lay with John. The new party’s inaugural meeting took place in a private at the Carpenters Arms pub in Brick Lane, East London, on 24th May 1958.

The NLP gained a few minor results in elections but was always destined to be a small fringe movement, and as a result John decided to merge his party with another LEL splinter group, the White Defence League in 1960 to form the British National Party.

John Bean was made leader of the party upon its foundation. Early in the group’s life, both John and former White Defence League leader Colin Jordan were approached by Oswald Mosley, who offered them roles in his Union Movement if they agreed to its subsuming the BNP, but both men rejected the offer.

Initially gaining some support in London, the party soon ran into trouble when it became clear that Colin Jordan was emerging as its spokesman. A journalist commented in 1962 that Jordan was becoming the British Adolf Hitler. John jokingly responded to the Daily Mail reporter that that made him “the British Joseph Goebbels”. Despite this, John soon clashed with Jordan over his extremism and before long Jordan had left to form the National Socialist Movement, taking emerging figures John Tyndall and Denis Pirie with him. Matters had come to a head at the party’s national council meeting in 1962 when John proposed a motion to condemn Jordan’s open support for National Socialism. It was passed 7 to 5, but the party immediately split as a result, albeit with around 80% of the membership remaining within the BNP. John had blamed the associations with National Socialism that Jordan and Tyndall brought for the party’s marginal position in British politics.

At the 1964 general election John Bean stood as BNP candidate in Southall and obtained 3,410 votes (9.3%), the highest post-war vote for a minority party at that time. Another BNP candidate picked up nearly 2,000 votes in Deptford. In 1966 he again stood in Southall, but his vote fell to 2,600. With BNP membership only marginally increasing, John felt the need to try to create a nationalist front with like groups and arranged, with the help of Ted Budden, a private meeting with his old mentor A.K. Chesterton and a spokesman of the Racial Preservation Society. The result of the meeting was the founding of the National Front in 1967.

John became something of a peripheral figure in the NF, as the BNP element was somewhat side-lined. He held the post of Deputy Chairman of the Executive Directorate, a body which was largely subordinate to the Policy Directorate and stood as second candidate for the Ealing constituency in the 1967 Greater London Council elections until resigning in 1968. Still an NF member, he was recalled to positions of minor influence from time to time until 1972 when he largely ceased active involvement. Retreating into political retirement, his membership lapsed in 1977.

He emerged only briefly to lend some support to his old friend Andrew Fountaine’s NF Constitutional Movement and to take part in the Countryside Alliance March of 1st March 1998 – which was also attended by supporters of Nick Griffin, by then inside the BNP.

John eventually ended his retirement after the political fall of John Tyndall and joined the British National Party under the leadership of Nick Griffin. He became an active official of the BNP (mostly in administration) and was a candidate for the party in the 2004 European elections, where he was seventh on a list of seven candidates for the Scotland constituency.

He formerly ran his own website, but then wrote a regular column for the main BNP website, and served as editor of BNP magazine Identity until March 2010.

Due to dissatisfaction with his leadership, John demanded that Nick Griffin resign as National Chairman and focus more on representing the North West region as an MEP.

In May 2011, John endorsed Andrew Brons (the BNP MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber) in his challenge for the BNP leadership. He made significant contributions to the Brons team web site, including articles on ‘Genetics and Inheritance’ and ‘Nationalism and a European Confederation’. He subsequently became involved in Brons’s party the British Democratic Party, established in February 2013.

John lived in London, and later Suffolk, before retiring to Yorkshire to live nearer his expanding family – three grandchildren, and five great grandchildren who survive him together with his son, daughter, and wife of 72 years Marion.

During periods away from politics John wrote four books.

Ten Miles from Anywhere (Hedgerow Publishing 1995), looked at the changes in a Suffolk village from the beginning of the 20th century.

Many Shades of Black, (New Millennium 1999), was Bean’s political memoirs up to that date.

His first novel Blood in the Square, which fictionalized some of his political experiences in the 1960s.

And in August 2016 his historical novel Trail of the Viking Finger (Troubador Publications).

Hallowe’en Nightmare for Anti-Fascists!

This weekend was a Hallowe’een nightmare for anti-fascists and their crooked allies Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson. Not to mention middle-aged hooligan and Dick Emery tribute act Matthew Collins, risibly titled “Head of Intelligence” at Hope not Hate, who true to form “got it wrong again”!

The fast-growing nationalist movement Patriotic Alternative held an excellent conference in the beautiful surroundings of the Lake District, with 240 PA activists and guests in attendance and a line-up of first-rate speakers. Meanwhile Hope not Hate, Unite Against Fascism, Nick Griffin, Jim Dowson, and a depressing line-up of sad and bitter losers joined forces to post lie after lie on social media, falsely claiming that the event had been cancelled.

While the audience was assembling at the Villa Levens Hotel late on Saturday morning, hotel management tried to cancel the booking. However PA leaders Mark Collett, Laura Towler and colleagues stood firm and successfully insisted that the conference must proceed.

Apart from this stress to Mark and Laura, no-one attending the conference was in any way inconvenienced throughout the afternoon. We heard excellent speakers in first rate surroundings, enjoyed a splendid buffet lunch, and sold many copies of H&D while meeting up with old friends and making new ones.

Adding to our enjoyment of this great event was the embarrassment caused to ‘anti-fascists’ whose grotesque lies were so swiftly and comprehensively exposed.

Gullible readers of both ‘anti-fascist’ and Griffinite social media accounts were fed a stream of deceit all day, as the likes of Matthew Collins congratulated themselves on supposedly getting the PA conference cancelled.

While we enjoyed the best nationalist event in years, sad antifa losers and bitter factional obsessives reposted the lies of Hope not Hate, whose credibility might never recover from the total deception they have perpetrated on readers and donors.

Collins and Hope not Hate raved on Twitter that the “secret conference has been rumbled… descended into chaos and farce, with the Cumbrian venue cancelling the booking as people were arriving… Recriminations are now flying around. …Many were angry that they travelled to such a remote location, only to be turned around the moment they arrived. The question is less can Collett regain the trust of his members, but whether they will stay around to hear him out. A quite humiliating day for Collett and PA.”

This ‘anti-fascist’ account was 100% untrue – made much worse by the fact that Hope not Hate didn’t simply repeat untruths picked up online (partly from their little helpers in Griffin and Dowson’s floundering confidence trick that masquerades as a ‘British Freedom Party’). HNH went much further, characteristically embroidering their tissue of inaccurate gossip so as to give their donors the quite fraudulent impression that they had an on-the-ground ‘intelligence’ operation and were actually reporting from outside or inside the hotel.

HNH and their rivals in a superficially more competent ‘intelligence’ organisation called Red Flare began the day by falling out over who should claim credit for discovering the venue, but within hours were in an even more bitter dispute over whether HNH had deliberately lied about the conference being ‘cancelled’.

Priceless examples of this internal war included a violent antifa group calling itself ‘Football Lads and Lasses Against Fascism’ writing:
“Do not believe a word coming out of UAF or Hope not Hate, who prematurely claimed ‘victory’ and credit for exposing this event.”

Similarly Red Flare posted:
“Claims about fascist activity should not be based on speculation or wishful thinking but on verifiable information. …Exaggerated and premature claims of [PA’s] demise only serve to demobilise opposition.”

The truth is that whether or not the opposition is ‘demobilised’ by its own incompetence and dishonesty, the racial nationalist movement will eventually win because we stand for truth and justice, whereas the left denies nature, denies science, denies history and denies political reality. We look forward to reporting on further victories for our movement and further confusion and division among our enemies!

Links to video from the event will be posted here as and when available. A selection of photos are already online here.

Thanks to our old friend Liam Haines who sold many copies of H&D and wished he had brought more! And to Lady Michèle Renouf who donated a copy of her Jailing Opinions DVD to every conference attendee.

(Michèle’s new video which also features H&D Assistant Editor Peter Rushton is now online at the link below)

Speakers from the 2021 PA conference

« Previous Page — Next Page »