Tugendhat’s fundraising “blew rivals out of the water”: is he Britain’s next Foreign Secretary?

Tom Tugendhat – the “clean start” candidate?

In recent weeks H&D has been looking closely at Tom Tugendhat, who finished fifth in the contest for leadership of the Conservative Party but is now tipped to be Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary when Liz Truss becomes Prime Minister next month.

At his new Real History blog, our assistant editor Peter Rushton published a detailed article about Tugendhat’s extraordinary family history.

And official records published this morning show that Tugendhat raised more than £123,000 in donations – vastly more than his leadership rivals. (These donations contributed to the rapid rise in his profile, meaning that a man who has never been even a junior minister is now in line for one of the top three posts in the next cabinet.)

Sir Mick Davis

Almost as soon as his campaign began, Tugendhat received £25,000 from a company controlled by Sir Mick Davis, a South African born Jewish businessman who for eight years chaired the Jewish Leadership Council, described as “responsible for the strategic imperatives of UK Jewry”. He was knighted in 2015 for “services to Holocaust commemoration and education”.

Together with a fellow tycoon, Sir Mick Davis paid the legal expenses of a Tory MP who made false allegations against the anti-Zionist former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Sir Christian Sweeting – a major donor to the Tugendhat campaign – has a prominent role in Vatican charities and investments: he is seen here with Lady Sweeting introducing their son to Pope Francis.

Another £42,000 donation came from a company jointly controlled by Sir Christian Sweeting, a property developer who was charged with a firearms offence in 2001. The firearms charge was later dropped with Mr Sweeting awarded costs, but his bad luck with unfounded suspicions continued later the same year when his premises were searched by Devon & Cornwall police fraud squad.

Ian Mukherjee

And hedge fund tycoon Ian Mukherjee (a generous donor to the pro-Remain campaign before the 2016 Brexit referendum) gave Tugendhat £50,000. Mukherjee was a partner and managing director of Goldman Sachs for fifteen years.

Tugendhat’s donations dwarfed those to rival campaigns. For example Rishi Sunak has so far declared only £3,195 in donations (in the form of free office space). Though admittedly Sunak’s personal and family wealth means that he scarcely needs donors.

It’s not yet clear why Tugendhat needed quite such a vast campaign war chest, bearing in mind that his campaign was in theory targeting only 357 fellow MPs, many of whom he would already know personally.

His reported £123,000 in donations worked out at almost £4,000 per vote, but if Britain ends up with its most pro-Zionist Foreign Secretary ever, some of the donors might think their money well spent.

Tugendhat seals Truss victory: will his reward be Defence or Foreign Office?

In this morning’s Times, former Tory leadership candidate Tom Tugendhat delivered the final killer blow to Rishi Sunak’s chances of becoming Prime Minister.

Tugendhat has endorsed Liz Truss – who was already favourite and now seems a virtual certainty to win the support of Conservative Party members. The winner will be announced on September 5th.

The question now being asked around Westminster is whether Truss has promised Tugendhat a top job in exchange for his support. Most educated guesses are that Ben Wallace (presently Defence Secretary) will be promoted to Foreign Secretary, and that Tugendhat (a former military intelligence officer) will succeed Wallace at the Ministry of Defence.

But there remains an outside chance that Tugendhat will be made Foreign Secretary. (This possibility is highlighted by Sky News – see video above.)

Either way, it’s extraordinary progress for a man whose grandfather – as H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton reveals in a detailed exposé at the Real History blog – was repeatedly investigated by MI5 and was a business partner of Israel’s first president and the founder of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme.

Tom Tugendhat served in Iraq and Afghanistan, but his grandfather was investigated for decades by MI5

Another defeat for London Holocaust Memorial plan – is it time to scrap the scheme?

The vast ‘Holocaust Memorial’ which has now been rejected three times by planning authorities and courts, but which the British Government still insists on promoting

Vastly expensive plans for a huge Holocaust memorial in London, next to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey, have suffered another defeat after the Court of Appeal refused to hear the case.

In April this year the High Court blocked the plans, and this week an appeal by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation fell at the first hurdle.

Former prime minister David Cameron launched the plan in 2014 by appointing a Holocaust Commission which reported the following year, recommending a prominent new memorial with attached “learning centre”. The plan soon acquired cross-party support and in July 2016 Victoria Tower Gardens – a park adjacent to Parliament – was chosen as the site.

Architects David Adjaye and Ron Arad were chosen for the project. Their initial budget of £50 million has since risen to a current estimate of £102.9 million.

In 2019 Westminster City Council’s planning authority rejected the proposal. The two leading politicians who co-chaired the project – Conservative Lord Pickles and Labour’s Ed Balls – wrote to the council complaining that planning officers were “giving excessive weight to the number of objections lodged on the planning portal”.

These objections lodged with the council included a detailed report by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton (who now also writes the Real History Blog). His report to Westminster City Council was based on detailed research into the planning history of the original London Holocaust memorial in the 1980s – click here to read.

The late Richard Edmonds recorded a film with Lady Michèle Renouf on the site of the proposed memorial. Click here to view this film.

Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Carrington, who had won the Military Cross for his bravery during the Second World War, wrote of the original plans for a London Holocaust Memorial: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

Government ministers sought to override Westminster Council by appointing a Whitehall inspector who recommended acceptance of the plan. Housing minister Chris Pincher officially approved the scheme in July 2021. (Pincher has since been disgraced after a series of alcohol-fuelled sexual assaults on young men; his downfall led to the recent resignation of Prime Minister Boris Johnson.)

In April this year Mrs Justice Thornton in the High Court ruled that Pincher had acted unlawfully, because Victoria Tower Gardens is protected by a statute dating back to 1900 which specifically prevents it being used as anything other than a garden open to the public.

This week the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no realistic prospect of the High Court judgment being overturned, so it would not hear the case. “There is no real prospect of successfully arguing that the judge’s construction of the 1900 Act was wrong… On the contrary, it was plainly correct.”

The Appeal Court judges rebuked the Holocaust Memorial Foundation for arguing that objectors to the proposal should not have been allowed to raise one of their successful legal points: “It is extremely unattractive for the losing party to argue that his opponent should not have been allowed to introduce a legal argument that turned out to be correct.”

In a typically shameless and arrogant gesture, government minister Paul Scully and Holocaust Educational Trust chief executive Karen Pollock insisted this week that they still support the project, despite it now having been rejected three times – by city council planners, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal.

Lord Pickles, seen here with former Prime Minister Theresa May, is co-chairman of the Holocaust memorial project. He also advocates introducing a law to ban “Holocaust denial” in the UK.

H&D understands that the only realistic possibility of forcing through the project now would be for the government to introduce legislation (which would have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament) repealing the 1900 law and allowing Victoria Tower Gardens to be used for something other than a park.

If such a law is proposed, we shall use this as an opportunity for a long-overdue debate on the whole principle of whether London should be forced to have a vastly expensive Holocaust memorial. Such a debate must ask the central questions:
What was the ‘Holocaust’?
What did British intelligence and British ministers know (or think they knew) about the ‘Holocaust’ during the 1940s, and what was the factual basis for their knowledge?
What was the relationship between international Jewish organisations and the British war effort, including propaganda and subversive warfare organisations?

If the British taxpayer is expected to pay more than £100 million, and sacrifice a large chunk of the nation’s capital city, to memorialise the ‘Holocaust’, then we have a right to expect answers to these questions.

Tories battle to captain sinking ship

Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss during ITV’s leadership debate – a disaster for the Conservative Party and for our Disunited Kingdom

Today the semi-comic, semi-tragic contest for leadership of the once mighty Conservative & Unionist Party was reduced to two candidates, who will make their pitch to Tory members during the coming weeks.

This is the party that has been in government for 47 of the 77 years since the Second World War, but viewers cringed at the poor quality of televised “debates” between the contenders – in an election that is only happening because the present Prime Minister Boris Johnson was forced to take responsibility for the sexual incontinence of his Deputy Chief Whip.

Party members must now choose between:
Rishi Sunak, son of wealthy Indian immigrants who left East Africa in the 1960s; entered politics after working for investment bank Goldman Sachs and a couple of “hedge funds”; married to the daughter of an Indian billionaire – Mrs Sunak has non-domiciled tax status allowing her to avoid around £20 million in UK taxes;
and
Liz Truss, a former president of Oxford University Liberal Democrats who saw that the Conservatives offered more chance of a parliamentary career; supported the ultra-woke Tory leader David Cameron who saved her career after a scandal in her private life; supported the “Remain” cause in the Brexit referendum, until Cameron was defeated and Truss reinvented herself as a Brexiteer and “right-winger”.

Sunak was Chancellor of the Exchequer until resigning this month to launch his campaign to replace Johnson. Truss has been Foreign Secretary since last September.

Liz Truss (above left) – now likely to be Britain’s next Prime Minister – with Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid after signing a UK-Israel deal on cyber technology, trade and defence.

Both Sunak and Truss are courting their former leadership rival Tom Tugendhat, who is likely to be offered a senior post in the next Cabinet, probably as Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary.

Today H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton published an investigation of Tugendhat’s strange family history in an article for the Real History blog: his grandfather Dr Georg Tugendhat was investigated for decades by MI5. Georg Tugendhat had close connections to international financial criminals and suspected spies, and his business partners included the first President of Israel and the founder of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme.

One very odd aspect of the leadership election was that when Tugendhat was eliminated, his votes did not transfer wholesale to Penny Mordaunt, who on most issues was closer to Tugendhat than any of the other remaining contenders.

How the Daily Mail sank Penny Mordaunt’s leadership campaign

A clue as to why Tugendhat’s transfers split as they did – and why Mordaunt’s campaign was eventually derailed – is Monday’s Daily Mail front page, which dug up an old story that Mordaunt had dared to meet with representatives of the Muslim Council of Britain.

This meeting enraged the Zionist lobby. Tugendhat was the most pro-Israel of the leadership candidates, and Mordaunt’s MCB meeting implied that she was not a slavish follower of the Zionist agenda. So because of this one issue (and despite agreeing with Mordaunt on most other key issues) the Tugendhat vote mainly went elsewhere, guaranteeing a Truss v Sunak contest.

Multi-coloured Tory leadership 2022: ethnic alibis for anti–”wokeness”

Kemi Badenoch, daughter of Nigerian immigrants and the most anti-‘woke’ candidate in this year’s Conservative leadership election

The political circus of modern Conservatism has pitched its tent in the full glare of media attention. Racial nationalists and (more broadly) traditional patriots are looking on in despair.

On 7th July Boris Johnson – despite having won a landslide majority in December 2019 to deliver Brexit (and for better or worse, having largely succeeded in doing so) was forced to resign. His departure will be delayed until election of a successor.

Until this afternoon there were no fewer than twelve candidates either declared or on the point of declaring. (Within the last hour this was reduced to eight nominated candidates for tomorrow’s first ballot.)

And the most striking aspect is that the most traditionalist, anti-“woke” candidates are from ethnic minorities.

Suella Braverman, whose parents were ethnic Indians (partly Goan) arriving in the UK from Africa in the 1960s, is presently Attorney General. Three years ago she attracted criticism from left-wing and Jewish lobbies after daring to state that her party was committed to “a battle against cultural Marxism”, though nothing she has said or written suggests that she has any advanced understanding of what this term means.

When announcing her leadership bid a few days ago, Braverman told an interviewer: “We need to get rid of all this woke rubbish.”

(above left to right) Leadership candidates Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak in Downing Street with ousted Prime Minister Boris Johnson

Meanwhile Kemi Badenoch, who until last week was “Equalities Minister” in Johnson’s government, launched her campaign with an article in The Times that focused heavily on anti-“woke” arguments.

Badenoch, daughter of Nigerian immigrants, wrote: ”Our country is falsely criticised as oppressive to minorities and immoral, because it enforces its own borders. We cannot maintain a cohesive nation state with the zero-sum identity politics we see today.

“Exemplified by coercive control, the imposition of views, the shutting down of debate, the end of due process, identity politics is not about tolerance or individual rights but the very opposite of our crucial and enduring British values.”

What is truly pathetic about this leadership contest so far is that so-called “right-wing” conservatives are hiding behind the skirts of black women, apparently in the belief that in 2022 any opinions that might remotely be described as “racist” can only be expressed via a non-White spokeswoman.

Jeremy Hunt – the only White Gentile male candidate for the Tory leadership – with his Chinese wife Lucia Guo

Thus the Conservative Party leadership contest has become almost like the multiracial dystopian vision of London depicted in the series Gangs of London.

Ethnic backgrounds of the initial twelve declared or likely contenders included:
a Nigerian (Kemi Badenoch); a Goanese Buddhist (Suella Braverman); a Pakistani Muslim (Rehman Chishti – dropped out) and an Pakistani apostate Muslim (Sajid Javid – dropped out); two Indian Hindus (Rishi Sunak – present favourite – and Priti Patel – dropped out); an Iraqi Kurd and apparently apostate Muslim (Nadhim Zahawi); a Jew (Grant Shapps – dropped out); and a semi-Jew (Tom Tugendhat).

Only three of the eight nominated or initial twelve potential candidates are of straightforwardly British or Irish background going back three generations or more: Jeremy Hunt, Liz Truss and Penny Mordaunt.

Some readers might be surprised that of the nine ‘ethnic’ candidates, only one was a practising Muslim, and he dropped out having come nowhere close to securing sufficient nominations. This is Gillingham MP and imam’s son Rehman Chishti, recently appointed to a junior post at the Foreign Office. Chishti took his oath of allegiance as an MP on the Koran, but also had copies of the Torah and the King James Bible placed on the despatch box during his swearing-in. Even such conspicuous devotion to multi-faith liberalism got him nowhere.

British Expat Says: “No Matter Bad the U.S. Immigration Disaster, the U.K. Is Worse”

John Derbyshire (above left with Peter Brimelow of VDARE and Sam Dickson) is a expatriate Briton long resident in the USA. This article was first published at VDARE.com

We just got numbers for illegal aliens apprehended on our southern border last month: a tad short of 240,000 . That’s the highest number of migrant encounters recorded in one month ever. It brings total encounters in Fiscal Year 2022 to more than one and a half million.

That’s “encounter,” mind. The actual encounter being tallied there is one between an invader and a Border Patrol officer. Either the invader presents himself to Border Patrol with some plausible claim for entry, or he tried to sneak in avoiding the Patrol but got caught by chance. Some large but unknown number of sneak-ins did not get caught.

The good news is that 42 percent of these encounters were deported—or at any rate, “processed for deportation”—under Title 42, the Trump-era protocol allowing deportation on health grounds that Joe Biden tried to end until he was thwarted by a judge.

The other 58 percent are being processed under Title 8 of current immigration law. That will result in some number of them being deported. How many: fifty percent? a hundred percent? ten percent? I don’t know.

For a clue I have this from Washington Examiner:
“More than 2 million migrants were stopped while attempting to enter the U.S. from Mexico illegally in the calendar year 2021 [not to be confused with fiscal year] … Of the 2 million, roughly 1.1 million were immediately expelled back to Mexico or flown to other countries. Some attempted crossing multiple times, inflating the numbers. But nearly 800,000 were released into the U.S.”
(‘Two million stopped while illegally entering US from Mexico in 2021’, by Anna Giaritelli, January 24, 2022)

As dumb and treasonous as our current immigration policies are, they fairly glow with integrity, efficiency, and patriotism by comparison with Britain’s. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say—and I say it in all earnestness—that Britain’s clueless, brainless, worthless government is currently perpetrating the greatest immigration fiasco since Chinese General Wu Sangui opened the gates of China to the Manchus in 1644.

I’ve been reporting to you, most recently on June 3rd, about the swelling numbers of illegal aliens crossing the English Channel from France—more than ten thousand so far this year.

This is the fourth year it’s been happening. The numbers for these four years, to the nearest thousand: 2019—two, 2020—eight, 2021—twenty-nine. Estimates for this year’s total start at fifty; and once again, these are thousands, so that’s fifty thousand.

Essentially none of these invaders get expelled. They plead asylum or refugee status, although that is a priori preposterous: they’re coming most recently from France, where they could also have claimed asylum. They destroy their identity documents so they can’t be deported. The British authorities conscientiously process their bogus asylum claims anyway, putting them up in good hotels while the processing is under way.

For three of those four years the invasion went on with the British government doing nothing at all about it. This, incredible to report, is a government of the Conservative Party; but these are metropolitan progressives led by a Prime Minister who has, all through his political career, been well-known as an enthusiast for multiculturalism.

Then, earlier this year, pressure from voters became too strong to ignore. The government grudgingly agreed to do something about the invasion.

A Rwandan hotel for the poor, oppressed ‘asylum seekers’

What did they do? They cut an agreement with the black African country of Rwanda to take in some of the illegals while their obviously-fake asylum applications were processed. We first heard that 700 illegals would be shipped to Rwanda, to be accommodated in that country’s hotels.

Britain, however, is choc-a-bloc with well-funded groups who favor mass illegal immigration. They got busy lawyering. That 700 was quickly whittled down to 130—which is still a good plane-load.

By the time the first flight to Rwanda was scheduled for Tuesday last week, the 130 had been further whittled down to seven. The pro-illegal activists swung into action on Tuesday, blocking exit routes from the airport detention center and lawyering up a frenzy. By late Tuesday it seemed there was just one illegal left on the plane.

Then some outfit called the European Court of Human Rights issued an injunction to prevent that one illegal being deported. So the flight was cancelled. Number of illegals deported: zero.

Wait: Didn’t the Brits unshackle themselves from Europe? How come they have to obey this ruling by a bunch of Frogs, Krauts, Dagos, and Wops? I have no idea. Nobody in Britain seems to have any idea, either.

While all this was going on, of course several hundred new scofflaws landed in Britain and were escorted to nice hotels.

Did I say “fiasco”? This makes our own Border Tsar—or “Tsarina,” I guess—this makes Kamala Harris look like a strategic mastermind.

As an ex-Brit, in a spirit of nostalgic affection for the old place, I hereby offer my advice to the British government free of charge.

  • Arrest everyone who lands in your country illegally. Confine them in special secure camps, with the right to self-deport at any time. (What, you don’t have those kinds of facilities? Then build them, dammit. When COVID came up the ChiComs built a 1,500-room hospital in five days.)
  • Children should be placed in care facilities with adequate nutrition and basic education. If I remember my Charles Dickens correctly, Britain used to excel at this.
  • You are welcome to my suggestion that you restore the excellent former system of hulks: surplus ships fitted out with secure cells, like those used to handle the overflow from Britain’s prisons in the 18th and 19th centuries. Hulks have the advantage that they can be moored well offshore, so they don’t cause offense to the pleasant British landscape the way on-shore camps would. They also spare the hassle of getting land rights and so on. Hulks: what’s not to like?
  • The tens of thousands of illegal aliens already in Britain as a result of these past four years of inaction need to be rounded up and incarcerated as above.

The easy way to do this is to rescind any rights they have been given to work in your country. To avoid them working illegally, establish an E-verify system based on National Insurance Number (that’s the British equivalent of a Social Security Number), with brutal penalties for employers who hire without checking.

That should take care of the problem.

No, no, no need to thank me. You’re welcome!

—–

John Derbyshire writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him.) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

For years he’s been podcasting at Radio Derb, now available at VDARE.com for no charge. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

Full acknowledgements to VDARE and John Derbyshire for letting us reprint the article:

VDARE.com news – America’s Immigration Voice.
The VDARE Foundation, PO Box 211, Litchfield, CT 06759, USA

Editor’s note:
John Derbyshire was born in Northampton, in the south Midlands, in June 1945. He attended the Northampton School for Boys and graduated from University College London, where he studied mathematics. He emigrated to the USA in the 1960s. Before turning to writing full-time, he worked on Wall Street as a computer programmer. John worked as a writer at National Review until he was terminated in 2012 because of an alleged “racist” article published in Taki’s Magazine.
He then moved on to work for Vdare, where he could write more freely.

In 1996 he wrote the novel Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream which was a New York Times “Notable Book of the Year”. His 2004 non-fiction book Prime Obsession won the Mathematical Association of America’s inaugural Euler Book Prize. A political book, We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism, was released in September 2009.

I met John over 25 years ago at an American Renaissance Conference in Northern Virginia, and recently sent sent him a copy of Heritage and Destiny magazine.

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

Disgraced “gay Muslim Tory” MP Imran Ahmad Khan, whose criminal conviction prompted the Wakefield by-election

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;

Nick Griffin and Jayda Fransen promoting the ‘British Freedom Party’: the only problem is the party doesn’t exist, so Ms Fransen has to stand as an Independent

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.

Frankie Rufolo (above right) with For Britain Movement leader Anne-Marie Waters

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.

Conservative Future?

England’s most racially divided borough might soon see the first niqab-wearing Conservative councillor.

Fajila Patel is contesting the Bastwell & Daisyfield ward of Blackburn with Darwen borough council in North West England. In 2011’s census the equivalent ward was 85.3% Muslim. Its inhabitants are from varying backgrounds in the Indian sub-continent, some originating in Pakistan but others in India.

According to that 2011 Census, 7.1% of households in the borough had no-one who spoke English “as a main language” – and in Bastwell ward this figure was 26.1%. The main languages spoken in Bastwell other than English are Gujarati, Punjabi and Urdu.

Last year Mrs Patel’s husband – taxi driver ‘Tiger’ Patel – won the neighbouring and similarly Asian-dominated Audley ward, after the campaign video below. These two wards form the core of Blackburn’s Asian population which has expanded into numerous other areas of the town during the decades since Asians first arrived in the borough in the 1960s.

As with many other old industrial towns in the region, including Oldham and Preston, Asians first arrived to work in the declining cotton mills and other manufacturing industry, whose owners liked these immigrants because they would work for low wages and were happy with unpopular shifts such as night work.

When most of this industry disappeared, the Asian communities typically moved into taxi-driving and the retail and food industries, but also experienced high unemployment and crime.

Politically they were exploited by the Labour Party, who treated them as clients who were dependent on the state’s largesse and would therefore have to accept Labour’s ultra-liberal ideas on social issues, many of which are anathema to conservative Muslims.

Typically Labour chose to promote very Westernised, ‘feminist’ Asian women who were in no way representative of their communities, and this led to a backlash. ‘Tiger’ Patel defeated one such very ‘modern’ Muslim Labour woman in Audley ward last year.

The Conservative Party has cynically struck a deal with hardline Muslims in these areas. There could be two defeats for Labour in their former Asian heartland: Mrs Patel stands a good chance of repeating her husband’s victory, while in Audley ward there could be a second shock. Incumbent councillor Yusuf-Jan Virmani is standing for re-election as an independent, after being expelled from Labour last year for alleged ‘anti-semitism’.

What’s certain is that neither Labour nor the Conservatives will speak for Blackburn’s indigenous British. H&D‘s editor Mark Cotterill was elected as a councillor in the mainly White Meadowhead ward of Blackburn in 2006, but since he left the area and moved to Preston, no racial nationalist candidate has come close to being elected.

The Conservative Party’s adoption of an extreme Muslim agenda in Blackburn highlights the desperate need for a party that will address the concerns of the indigenous British. Across the whole of England this year there are very few such candidates. H&D will report on their campaigns, on the results achieved, and on the prospects for a long-overdue realignment of pro-British politics.

Dodgy billionaires, Prime Ministers, and Spanish Royalty – three generations of an elite political cabal

(above left to right) Boris Johnson, now Prime Minister; Zac Goldsmith; and then Prime Minister David Cameron during a rally for Goldsmith’s 2016 London Mayoral campaign

One of Britain’s wealthiest politicians is caught in a web of political and financial intrigue, involving the former mistress of Spain’s ex-King, as well a corrupt police officer who provided private services to ultra-wealthy clients.

Zac Goldsmith – now Lord Goldsmith – is a close friend and political ally of Prime Minister Boris Johnson. He allowed Johnson and his new wife Carrie to use his Marbella estate for a holiday in October last year. In 2016 Goldsmith (now married to a member of the Rothschild family) was Conservative candidate for Mayor of London.

He is mentioned in secret recordings (made a year before that mayoral election) of a conversation at a Belgravia apartment between Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein (former mistress of King Juan Carlos) and a Spanish detective called José Manuel Villarejo, who boasted that he had “a better intelligence service” than the Spanish government and that for a suitable fee he could use this to protect Sayn-Wittgenstein’s interests and the interests of her friends, including Goldsmith and his brother Ben.

King Juan Carlos, later forced to abdicate, with his then mistress Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein

The Goldsmiths were worried about a Spanish tax dispute – involving the very property where the Prime Minister and his wife later stayed. Eventually Spanish tax inspectors ruled that the Goldsmiths owed up to £21 million (€26 million) in unpaid taxes, and the case is still to be resolved in court.

While H&D has no idea whether or to what extent the Goldsmiths were culpable in this matter, the secret recording reveals that Sayn-Wittgenstein was asking for the corrupt detective’s help, because she said Ben Goldsmith was worried that even if there had been no crime committed, the undisputed details of the case involving properties held via obscure tax avoiding arrangements in the Cayman Islands, would mean Zac was politically “dead”.

The detective reassured her: “I have tough people, serious people, and people who don’t exist.”

Corrupt Spanish detective Juan Manuel Villarejo

He is now on trial in Spain for a wide range of bribery and corruption charges.

Zac Goldsmith is the son of Sir James Goldsmith, one of the most controversial businessmen in 20th century British history. Despite being a ‘right-wing’ Conservative and later founder of his own Eurosceptic ‘Referendum Party’ that contested the 1997 general election, Sir James obtained his knighthood in controversial circumstances from Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson in 1976.

He was one of a group of Jewish businessmen who provided financial help for Wilson and for Wilson’s political secretary Marcia Williams (later Lady Falkender).

Sir James Goldsmith

Last week H&D‘s Peter Rushton filed Freedom of Information requests for a range of official documents involving these controversial businessmen and Wilson’s 1976 honours list that gave them peerages and knighthoods. Goldsmith was known to have been particularly close to Marcia Williams, as was another businessman knighted on the list, Sir Eric Miller, who was found shot dead in his garden on the Jewish festival of Yom Kippur in 1977.

At that time Miller was under investigation for his ties to a leading Jewish organised crime figure, former solicitor and financier Judah Binstock, who fled London to avoid prosecution and spent the last decades of his life in Marbella, not far from the Goldsmiths’ estate, becoming one of the area’s leading landowners and a serious operator in the complex world of shady business and financial crime.

Just as is now alleged with Sayn-Wittgenstein, Binstock and Miller had corrupt policemen on their payrolls, which led to one of the worst scandals in the history of London’s Metropolitan Police.

Others in the Downing Street cabal included two tycoons who were suspected by Britain’s security and intelligence services of ties to Soviet bloc intelligence – Joseph Kagan and Rudy Sternberg, who were each elevated by Wilson to the House of Lords.

Readers shouldn’t be surprised that the Spanish royal family ended up implicated in this sinister saga. As we have previously documented, Queen Ena of Spain – the British princess who was the grandmother of King Juan Carlos – was herself on the payroll of Spain’s most notorious crypto-Jewish gangster Juan March.

We shall be reporting further on this high-level political cabal as new documents become available.

This site will soon feature a special section dealing with the ongoing war for real history and the real Europe. It’s time for Britons and fellow Europeans to know the truth about their own recent history and about the men in the shadows behind our rulers.

A Happy St Patrick’s Day to all H&D readers worldwide

St Patrick

H&D wishes all our Irish, Northern Irish and Ulster Scots readers a very happy Saint Patrick’s Day – whichever part of the world you are in.

Editor’s note: The first article – “Saint Patrick the Patron Saint of the USA” – was written twelve years ago, but the same issues are still being discussed in Loyalist circles today – now mainly on internet forums. So, it was fitting that we republished it (in hard copy in issue #77 of H&D) on St Patrick’s Day 2017.

It was America that spawned the St Patrick’s Day parade, not Ireland, and its origins are both Protestant and British…

As March 17th approaches, the annual debate has reignited on whether Unionism should embrace St Patrick and the day set aside for his commemoration. Over the last five years there has been a slow emergence of Protestant participation on the date, though that has been via the creation of new events rather than involvement in existing ones. This article examines the origin of St Patrick’s Day parades, this new emerging trend, its motivation and where it may possibly lead.

The question ‘where is the biggest St Patrick’s Day parade in Northern Ireland?’ at first glance would appear easily answered. Belfast most would say, with a few probably suggesting the Cathedral City of Armagh or even where he was allegedly laid to rest, Downpatrick. What will surprise many is that the largest parade for the last few years by sheer number of participants has been in the small County Armagh village of Killylea. It is here since 2005 the Cormeen Rising Sons of William Flute Band have held their annual band procession and competition. Last year the Cormeen parade saw 42 bands take part (in comparison to the seven that paraded at the Dublin event), amounting to approximately 1800 band members. Thousands of spectators stood along the route, despite it being a bitterly cold evening.

Cormeen Rising Sons of William chairman Mark Gibson explains that the bands original motivation for the parade came more out of necessity than anything else. “The band season is very busy, and when trying to find a date for our parade it was difficult to define one that didn’t clash with other bands locally.” Some members suggested March 17 as a solution to the problem, but the band was nervous. “We were concerned about how a St Patrick’s Day parade would go down in our community, the parade in Armagh never was very welcoming, but we made a decision to try it and it has been a success.”


From that initial year where thirteen bands took part, the parade is now among the largest in the Province. It’s not only the number of bands participating that has increased, but also the crowds attending to watch, and the event is increasingly becoming a fixture in the calendar for many Unionists. Another band, the Ulster Protestant Boys Flute Coleraine, have started a similar event on the date that too is growing. The ever increasing scale of both processions indicates clearly that there is certainly a willingness within the PUL (Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist) community to be involved in St Patrick’s Day. Where the schisms emerge are with the issues of why and how.

It is generally acknowledged that in the distant past Patrick was not a controversial figure for Protestants in Ireland or beyond. His ‘sainthood’ was never conferred by the Pope and pre-dates the reformation, so he was never seen as being the possession of ‘Rome’. St Patrick was seen as an evangelical Christian who had made personal sacrifice to spread the gospel in Ireland. The anniversary of his death was observed and commemorated by all Protestant denominations to different degrees, with the Church of Ireland in particular very active.

The shift from an anniversary of religious significance towards an ‘Irish’ event however first took place in the United States in 1737. In Boston that year the Irish Charitable Society, made up of Protestant immigrants (some of whom were British Soldiers), held their first meeting and dinner. The purpose was to both honour Patrick in the context of their Protestant faith and to reach out the hand of friendship to other Irish immigrants. The exercise obviously struck a chord and the practise spread, with the first recorded parade in New York in 1766, with again British Soldiers of Irish blood heavily involved. It was America that spawned the St Patrick’s Day parade, not Ireland, and its origins are both Protestant and British.

During that period in history the vast majority of Irish immigrants were Presbyterian, however from 1830 it was Catholic arrivals who were in the ascendancy. With that change began an emphasis towards anti-British sentiment in the demonstrations. In the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War anything portrayed as anti-colonial was well received, with even the many original Protestant immigrant descendants non-antagonistic of this motivation. Many British ‘Loyalists’ had left for Canada, and effectively the descendants of the original Protestant Irish settlers remaining saw themselves as primarily American in identity, with all that was left for their original ‘homeland’ of Ireland simply folk memory and sentimentality.

Orangemen with lambeg drums during 12th July Orangefest celebrations in Dromara, County Down, Northern Ireland

Mike Cronin, author of A History of St Patrick’s Day, states that whilst this tradition was developing, back in Ireland the first parades didn’t take place until the 1840’s and even then they were organised by Temperance societies. Mike emphasises the lack of public celebration “The only other major events in nineteenth century Ireland was a trooping of the colour ceremony and grand ball held at Dublin Castle.” So even as late as 1911 the largest St Patrick’s Day occasion in Ireland was still rooted in a joint Irish and British expression of identity. Protestant churches and some Orange Lodges throughout the island appear to have held minor functions on the date, but these were very subdued affairs, and essentially even post-partition very little changed. Catholic observance of the day continued to different degrees in different areas, as did the Protestant nod to Patrick.

Right up until the 1960s the primary theme of St Patrick’s Day in both Northern Ireland and the Republic still remained religious observance, with even from 1923 to then public houses and bars in the Republic of Ireland closed by law. A poll conducted in 1968 suggested that 20% of Northern Irish Protestants at this stage still considered themselves Irish. The onset of civil unrest in Northern Ireland coincided however with the importation of the American style to St Patrick’s events in Dublin and elsewhere. Now whilst a violent conflict was being waged in the name of all things Irish, St Patrick’s Day parades were starting to display the features that had developed in the United States. On these parades Irish identity was perceived by Northern Protestants as being defined as aggressively anti-British and anti-Protestant, with the disjointed and casual nature of the parades and the now integral alcohol element alien to PUL parading traditions and customs.

As the IRA campaign escalated, many Protestants simply could not divorce the fact that these celebrations displayed an exclusive form of Irish sentiment whilst a campaign was being waged against them in the name of Ireland. As the years progressed, in Northern Ireland in particular it became apparent that the day was being deliberately used in many instances as an extension of the Irish Republican war against Unionism.

Grand Orange Lodge Director of Services Dr David Hume reiterates the view that in the recent past it has been the nature of the parades and commemorative events that turned Protestants away. “The perception among Unionism is without doubt that Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism has used St Patrick’s Day parades as a weapon, effectively using the ‘shield’ of Patrick to express obvious militant anti-British and therefore anti-Unionist sentiment.” David believes that the manner and focus of these events is totally at odds with the purported motivation. “St Patrick’s Day should be used as a day of reflection on the religious significance of Patrick, something far removed from the aggressive and confrontational use of symbolism; and the huge emphasis on alcohol consumption that currently seems to be the case.” David bluntly states that the date isn’t an important one on the ‘Orange’ calendar, but recognises that it does have a place in society.

There remains one annual Orange Order parade related to St Patrick’s Day, which is held each year in Ballymena. One of the participating Lodges is The Cross of St Patrick LOL 688 which was founded in 1967. A lodge spokesperson describes the motivation behind its formation as being “to reclaim the heritage of Saint Patrick” explaining that “Brethren were concerned that Patrick’s heritage was being hijacked by Roman Catholicism and Republicanism.” The lodge’s concerns would appear to have been reflecting the growing sense of alienation the PUL community was feeling regarding St Patricks events.

The Cross of St Patrick LOL 688

There is no doubt that this alienation effectively forced many Protestants into an automatically negative position regarding St Patrick’s Day. With the advent of the IRA cessations of violence and the ongoing political process however, it has become apparent that many within Unionism have been able to reflect much more on the meaning of St Patrick’s Day for them. The ending of a violent ‘Irish’ physical campaign has given space to examine the date, with many now realising that it once was a date of relevance that they were forced into denying, and there is a willingness to make it relevant again. Nevertheless this reflection and willingness has not as yet manifested itself into significant participation in civic St Patrick’s Day parades.

With a few exceptions, such as the participation of an unashamedly Loyalist Blood and Thunder band in the 2003 Limerick St Patrick’s Band competition, Unionism still does not feel comfortable taking part in the modern version of a St Patrick’s parade. Concerns still exist regarding the involvement of militant Republicanism in such events along with the aggressive use of flags and symbols, but the problem seems to go much deeper.

Iain Carlisle of the Ulster Scots Community Network has a very straightforward and unambiguous answer regarding Unionist involvement in St Patrick’s Day events. Iain states very clearly “I don’t think there has to be ANY justification given for Protestants or Unionists marking Patrick’s day”, but goes on to say that “there is however a fundamental difference of approach to both Patrick as a person and the means of celebration within the Unionist community”. Iain’s comments would appear to reflect not just a general uncomfortable position with the overtly ‘United Ireland’ underlying St Patrick’s Day theme, but the actual motivation and method of celebration.

All historical examinations of Protestant Irish and their approach and relationship with Patrick indicates that for them he has never truly deviated from having a purely theological relevance. On St Patrick’s Day however the majority of Catholics, Irish Nationalists, Republicans, those of Irish descent and indeed anyone who wants a day out, St Patrick’s significance as a religious icon is purely tokenistic. St Patrick is merely a figurehead for overt Irish nationalism and a holiday. In turn the Unionist tradition of parading has developed from a military perspective and the American style parades are an alien concept, being perceived as being undisciplined and overtly casual.

Whilst new events have arisen, it is obvious that Unionism has no desire to abandon its central belief of Patrick’s religious relevance, and in addition is reluctant to embrace what it sees as an alien approach to parades. Even with the emergence of band parades on the date, they in themselves are a much more disciplined and subdued practise than their counterparts on the day. Whatever the future holds, it is clear that the PUL community is going through an ongoing examination of Patrick and his relevance to them. As journalist Chris Ryder recently pointed out “there will be no going back to the view that St Patrick was a Catholic, and a saint only for Catholics.”

The second article “Enoch Powell’s Suppressed Article Rediscovered”, on St Patrick, was published by us in March 2016 (in hard copy in issue 71 of H&D) it certainly added fuel to the (Loyalist) bonfire!

This article was first published in Heritage and Destiny magazine, #71 (March-April 2016), but is still very valid today. (See also our article on ‘St Patrick: Patron Saint of the USA?‘)

Enoch Powell’s Suppressed Article (on St Patrick, Ulster and the Scots Irish Identity) Rediscovered – with introduction by Peter Rushton, H&D Assistant Editor

After the Conservatives returned to government under Margaret Thatcher in 1979, Enoch Powell hoped Ulster’s status as an integral part of the United Kingdom would be reaffirmed. Some of the leading figures on Thatcher’s wing of the Conservative Party were Powellites, and until the eve of the 1979 election the Tories’ Northern Ireland spokesman had been Airey Neave – a strong and determined Unionist. Tragically Neave was murdered by a car bomb at the House of Commons in March 1979, and his successors pursued a very different policy: commitment to Ulster’s identity was progressively weakened through the 1980s.

Powell came to believe that the CIA had a hand in Airey Neave’s murder, and it is now established that MI6 and CIA operatives had been pursuing a deal with the IRA since the mid-1970s.

In January 1981 however (still believing that Thatcher’s government would defend the Union) Powell proposed that the Foreign Office should produce articles and booklets for the American public to explain Ulster’s distinct identity. It was agreed that Powell would write a brief article to be published in U.S. newspapers on St Patrick’s Day (17th March 1981) and that a 1965 booklet – Scotch-Irish and Ulster – would be reprinted, both with Foreign Office support.

Although Powell submitted the article and welcomed republication of the pamphlet, both were sidelined: the anti-Ulster faction in Whitehall and Washington triumphed. The article and related official correspondence remained classified until February 2015, and H&D now reveals the story for the first time after I obtained the documents from the National Archives.

Enoch Powell on the campaign trail

If St Patrick has a Member to represent him in Parliament, I must surely be that man. My constituency in the House of Commons is Down South, the southern half of the county of Down, which looks across the Irish Sea beyond the Isle of Man to Cumberland and Galloway. From that southern half there projects a peninsula which the ancient geographers were already calling Dunum, or Down; and Downpatrick, the town which stands at the isthmus of that peninsula, happily combines the name of the place and that of the British missionary with a late Roman surname who we believe brought Christianity from the largest to the second largest of the British Isles.

The peninsula where he landed, baptised his first converts, built his first church and laid his bones to rest has still a palpable individuality. When I drive into it – its traditional name is Lecale – from some other part of my constituency, I am always conscious of crossing a threshold. But the same is just as true of the whole north-eastern part of Ireland to which that peninsula is attached: it is distinct and separate from the rest, as if by a decree of nature. Geographically and geologically it had its own pattern, a mountain ring enclosing an inner central plain, long before man came there at all; and its earliest inhabitants were linked by blood and intercourse with the neighbouring mainland. The passage which St Patrick made was no voyage of exploration: he took a ticket on a two-way traffic route rather like that across the English Channel between Dover and Calais (which in point of fact is somewhat longer).

This north-east part was called “Ulster” centuries before Henry VIII (no friend of St Patrick’s!) used the word to dub one of the four administrative provinces into which he divided his Irish kingdom. Whatever elements, across the centuries, came to Ulster were drawn into its distinct identity. The Norman baron who, with a handful of knights and the king’s permission, rode north from Dublin into Ulster in the 1170s founded an independent principality – the earldom of Ulster, which is today held by the Queen’s cousin, the Duke of Gloucester. Into Ulster flowed settlers from England and Wales as well as from Scotland, long before the Plantation of James I; and the separateness of the province claimed and enveloped them all.

St Patrick’s grave

That happened pre-eminently to those Scots who were the major element in the settlement of the forfeited lands at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Research has proved that they by no means displaced the earlier Ulstermen so comprehensively as was intended and is often believed. It is also true that they only represented one, albeit the largest, of a series of contingents earlier and later who returned across the narrow North Channel to the land from which the ancestors of many of them had originally come in remote, even prehistoric times. The great fact, however, is that, like the rest, they became part of Ulster.

The vocabulary of American history has called those people Scotch Irish. The truer name is that by which they liked, and still like, to call themselves – Ulster Scots. For they were indeed, and remain in virtue of many ties, Scots; but above all they were Ulstermen. This therefore was the Ulster, unique from its beginning, which contributed a disproportionate share – including at least ten presidents – to the foundation and to the spirit of the American nation right from the origins of its independence. It is a contribution as distinct from the rest, and as distinctive, as any other, whether Irish, English or Scots.

The modern search for national roots is, I believe, as healthy as it is popular and expanding. It has already brought many Americans, and not only those with demonstrable ancestral ties, to Ulster, to learn on the spot – the only sure way – the truth about its past and its present. Those who come are coming to the place which, of all spots on the globe, is peculiarly and forever St Patrick’s. On his day America is remembered in Ulster, as Ulster ought to be remembered in America.

Editor’s note: J. Enoch Powell (1912-1998) was Ulster Unionist MP for South Down, 1974-87, having earlier been Conservative MP for Wolverhampton South West, 1950-74. His career in Conservative politics ended when he was sacked as the party’s defence spokesman in April 1968, following his famous “Rivers of blood” speech which criticised Britain’s racial transformation, which can be read online here.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers