Political establishment joins forces to promote ‘Holocaust’ cult

This week political leaders from across the party spectrum joined forces in Westminster to demand obeisance to the only religion that now has any significance for the international elite: the cult of Holocaustianity.

As regular readers will know, recent Tory governments (in response to insistent demands by the Zionist lobby) have been determined to build a vast ‘Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre’ in Victoria Tower Gardens, a park adjacent to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey.

This month a parliamentary report on the project said that its costs (originally estimated at £50 million) could rise to more than £150 million.

Undaunted, Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron addressed a cross-party gathering this week and insisted: “We will get it built, and when we get it built, it will be a lasting memorial, not just vital because of what it commemorates, but vital because of what it educates.”

Will this grandiose project truly be dedicated to “education”? Will it promote serious research into the ‘Holocaust’ – research and questioning that is already illegal in many European countries?

Or will it further entrench the approach implied by the recent judgment of Scotland’s highest court when extraditing dissident scholar Vincent Reynouard to France? The judge in the Reynouard case ruled that raising difficult questions about the ‘Holocaust’ and related subjects could be deemed “grossly offensive” under Scottish (and by extension one can assume also English) law.

All this is a long way from the approach of a previous Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, who in response to earlier demands from British Jews for a much smaller Holocaust memorial wrote: “The whole idea is preposterous.”

Carrington’s senior advisers at the Foreign Office summarised the arguments in an aide memoire drawn up for his meeting to discuss the proposed memorial with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:
“Why a memorial to Holocaust after 35 years? Is real motive political? Concerned at use made of Holocaust by present Israeli government to justify unacceptable policies and pillory European peace efforts unjustifiably.”

One might think that in the light of current events, such objections are even more valid in 2024 than they were in the early 1980s.

Then 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”.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton researched this entire subject in considerable detail and presented a report to the Westminster City Council planning enquiry into the present proposals.

This enquiry decided against the ‘Memorial’, and a court judgment later ruled against the Government.

Adding yet further expense to the project, subsequent Tory governments have pressed ahead and forced through a change in the law, overriding both the courts and Westminster City Council.

No one can be in any doubt as to who rules Britain in 2024. The vast ‘Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre’ deliberately dominates the scene alongside some of Britain’s most historic buildings. Only one people and their self-serving version of history now matters – and it’s not the British people.

‘Democratic’ farce on VE Day

Sir Keir Starmer and his latest recruit, bedecked with the Union Flag trappings of fake patriotism

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer chose the perfect day to encapsulate the farce of ‘democratic’ party politics.

Each year on the anniversary of VE Day we have become used to nauseating rhetoric about how millions of Europeans – including 450,000 Britons – died during the Second World War to ‘make the world safe for democracy’.

This year, the man who within a few months will almost certainly become the UK Prime Minister chose the anniversary of VE Day to demonstrate that ‘democratic choice’ is meaningless.

The leader of what is supposedly a party of the ‘democratic left’ yesterday welcomed into Labour’s ranks one of the most ‘right wing’ Conservative MPs in Parliament, Natalie Elphicke.

The press have concentrated on aspects of Mrs Elphicke’s family life, and the allegations that ended her husband’s political career.

But frankly all of that is triviality, compared to the essential political facts.

Same flag, different leader: Natalie Elphicke with her previous political hero, Boris Johnson

It is literally impossible to think of a more ‘right wing’ MP in the present Parliament than Mrs Elphicke. Ideologically it would have been more logical for her to defect to Reform UK than to Labour, but clearly she made a cynical decision that Labour had more to offer her.

On Starmer’s side there was an equally cynical decision to welcome her defection, because all that matters to the Labour leader is the point-scoring Westminster game. Mrs Elphicke’s defection damages Prime Minister Sunak and the Conservative Party, therefore it is good news for Starmer. Nothing else counts.

It’s now apparent that only one political stance can prevent someone being welcomed into the Labour Party: criticism of the State of Israel, or any other comment that can be construed as ‘anti-semitic’.

Anyone who passes that test is allowed into Starmer’s party.

The one benefit of this nauseating spectacle is that no-one can any longer be in doubt. The ‘democratic’ game of party politics is by its very nature incapable of generating solutions for the multiple crises besetting the UK and Europe in 2024.

Those for whom patriotism means more than a photo opportunity should need no further incentive to get ourselves organised and present UK voters with a genuine alternative.

Tory civil war breaks out over Israel

In recent months Israel’s invasion of Gaza has caused serious splits inside the Labour Party, including the resignation of numerous councillors, as we reported yesterday.

But today it was the Conservative Party’s turn for bitter divisions on the same issue, and on the broader question of Zionism.

Former Foreign Office minister Sir Alan Duncan, during an interview on LBC, rounded on fellow Tories whom he accused of “serving the interests of another country” – namely Israel.

Sir Alan specifically named Tom Tugendhat, security minister in Rishi Sunak’s government, and called for him to be sacked.

H&D‘s assistant editor exposed the extraordinary history of the Tugendhat family almost two years ago in an article at the Real History blog.

And here at H&D we reported in 2017 on the outrageous behaviour of Israeli Embassy official Shai Masot, who infiltrated the Tory party and tried to destroy Sir Alan Duncan’s ministerial career.

Perhaps today was Sir Alan’s revenge?

Whatever his motives, it now seems there is a split in Tory ranks over whether to continue the party’s policy of slavish devotion to Israel.

We are all “extremists” now

The ludicrous statement to Parliament this week by Michael Gove listed the British National Socialist Movement (better known as British Movement) and Patriotic Alternative as examples of “extremist” groups to be covered by his new official definition.

However, since the purpose of this new definition is for government to restrict its engagement with and funding of such “extremist” organisations, it seems most unlikely that including BM or PA will have any practical effect. Neither organisation is known for links to government!

The biggest danger is not from this week’s statement (which in itself is pretty meaningless so far as racial nationalism is concerned), but rather from its broader implications. It is just another sign of the direction in which official policy is moving, as governments around the “democratic” world panic at the self-evident failure of the post-1945 multiracial experiment.

Submissions to Parliament in 2021 identified H&D as the main example of a “harmful extrmist” publication that had stayed within UK law

(In 2021 during the earliest parliamentary discussions of a new legal definition of “harmful extremism”, the influential pressure group ‘Hacked Off’ highlighted H&D as the prime example of “online harm” that had managed to stay within the law. We reported these developments in this article more than two years ago: Gove’s announcement can be seen as a further move along the lines that were already discernible then.)

British Movement was founded by Colin Jordan in 1968 after his earlier party – the National Socialist Movement – was wound down due to legal problems. Today’s General Secretary of BM – Stephen Frost – was one of the leaders of a group of national socialists who kept the movement alive, in association with Colin Jordan, when it was in danger of being destroyed by Michael McLaughlin.

Today BM keeps the ideological flame of national socialism burning brightly, and is involved in a wide range of social and cultural activities. The movement is especially closely involved in the racial nationalist music scene.

BM’s General Secretary Steve Frost with Isabel Peralta at the 2023 H&D conference in Preston, where both Steve and Isabel were speakers

Patriotic Alternative was formed in 2019 and has held a series of high quality conferences, in addition to taking the lead in numerous demonstrations around the UK, especially in relation to the scandal of ‘asylum seekers’ / illegal immigrants being housed at vast expense in British hotels.

PA’s Yorkshire organiser Sam Melia was recently jailed for the ‘crime’ of distributing stickers that draw attention to the failings of the multiracial society. This outrageous conviction has become 2024’s most widely publicised case of political repression in the ‘democratic’ world.

PA leader Mark Collett has spoken at several H&D events

Gove’s announcement will remind historians of the “purge” procedure instituted by Attlee’s postwar Labour government and its “anti-subversion” cabinet committee GEN 183. This treated “fascists”, who by 1947 were a very marginal group in the UK, alongside communists.

Both sets of “extremists” were to be excluded from certain jobs, in government or sensitive industries. The “far right” then as now was used as a figleaf, so that the government couldn’t be accused of witch-hunting communists then, and Muslims now.

Michael Gove, a notorious Israel Firster, is seen here in Jerusalem meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in April 2021.

In a broader context, unaffected by Gove’s announcement which in itself changes nothing for nationalists, British patriots and their European allies remain targeted by an array of repressive measures, as Sam Melia, Vincent Reynouard and our own European correspondent Isabel Peralta have discovered.

We know – and we expect Michael Gove also knows (though he refuses to admit it) – who the real extremists and terrorists are. The terrorists’ best friend in Parliament – Jeremy Corbyn – has, not coincidentally, been among the most vocal advocates of persecuting “fascists”.

We are undaunted by repression. We will continue to fight back against all efforts to criminalise our ideas. We will continue to demonstrate that allegations of “inciting violence” are a travesty. We stand for civilisation against the barbarism and crookedness of Gove’s world.

“Extremism” in the defence of our race is not a crime. It is a duty.

Tories abandon the ‘Red Wall’

This week’s government reshuffle is far more important than the usual parliamentary manoeuvres. In effect it signals the end of the Conservative Party’s attempt to rebrand itself as the voice of White workers.

After British voters backed Brexit in 2016, the governing party’s first reaction was to abandon its experiment with extreme social liberalism. Under Prime Minister David Cameron (Tory leader from 2005-2016) and his right-hand man George Osborne, the Tories combined economic austerity with an unprecedented and overt friendliness towards racial and sexual minorities. They sought in effect to become the natural home of black transsexual stockbrokers, and they were surprised when in the Brexit referendum, White working class voters refused to follow their lead.

This was scrapped by Cameron’s replacement in 2016, Theresa May, who was instinctively a traditional Tory Anglican, though with much of the woolly-mindedness that this implies.

Mrs May had opposed Brexit, and she tried unsuccessfully to implement a Brexit-lite, thus losing support on both sides of the argument. Moreover, as her staff soon discovered, she had a deep-rooted personal detestation for the louche style of the Cameron-Osborne regime. She loathed their history of drug-taking, their arrogant sense of public-school entitlement, and their contempt for ordinary people.

Kemi Badenoch (another possible “right-wing” candidate for the post-Sunak leadership of the Conservative Party) with her husband Hamish, and then Prime Minister Theresa May

Mrs May’s tragedy was that while many of her instincts were “right-wing”, she also had many of the hang-ups of her generation: she sought to be both traditionally English and genuinely “anti-racist”. And needless to say she is utterly devoted to Zionism (in stark contrast to an earlier generation of traditional Tories, even in the “moderate” faction, such as Lord Carrington and Sir Ian Gilmour).

These contradictions eventually destroyed Mrs May’s government, and it was under her successor Boris Johnson that the Cameron approach was utterly scrapped. Instead of economic austerity, Johnson promised that Brexit would bring a totally new Conservative policy of “levelling-up”, i.e. investment in those impoverished areas of the North and Midlands that had swung the referendum in his favour.

And combined with this policy reversal, Johnson and his allies made noises (at least) indicating a new social conservatism, especially as regards immigration and related issues such as crime and housing.

In December 2019 this transformation of the Tories into a quasi-nationalist party produced a landslide election victory. Johnson’s party made historic inroads into previously safe Labour constituencies, breaking down what journalists had dubbed the “Red Wall”.

Boris Johnson was the most convincing ‘populist’ Conservative leader in his party’s history. Rishi Sunak has never looked comfortable in this role.

Most importantly, where Mrs May had equivocated, Johnson delivered what seemed to most voters to be an acceptable form of Brexit (with the tragic exception of a weak and treacherous policy on the Northern Ireland border question).

Even after the various scandals that destroyed Johnson’s government, he seems to have maintained a level of popularity in these “Red Wall” areas that has eluded his successors. In 2002 the Tories lurched towards a very different “right-wing” approach on economics, adopting American-style policies that would have had a disastrous effect on working-class voters, during the short-lived Truss premiership.

And then they opted for a Prime Minister straight out of the Goldman Sachs training manual. Rishi Sunak, the son of Indian immigrants who is married to the daughter of one of India’s wealthiest men, tried unconvincingly to be the voice of both multiracial plutocrats and indigenous proletarians. He has been an electoral failure since his first day in office.

As nemesis approached (with a General Election due by January 2025 at the absolute latest) Sunak attempted the “dog whistle” politics of “culture wars” – weird though this always seemed, when three of the four most senior posts in his government have been held by non-Whites.

One of those weird non-White “nationalists” was the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, who provoked the current crisis by taking an extreme line against pro-Palestinian demonstrators. So extreme, in fact, that it brought the Home Secretary into conflict with the Metropolitan Police.

No doubt part of Braverman’s motive for picking this fight is that (though herself the daughter of ethnic Indian immigrants) she is married to a Jewish businessman. But another motive is surely that Braverman is seeking to put herself in pole position as the “right wing” candidate for the Conservative Party leadership, after Sunak’s inevitable defeat in about a year’s time.

Suella Braverman as Home Secretary meeting with the leadership of the Zionist pressure group Community Security Trust, whose jailbird founder Gerald Ronson (above centre) was one of the leaders of the violent “anti-fascist” 62 Group

And how did Sunak respond to this challenge? On Monday morning he sacked Braverman, and after moving James Cleverly (another son of immigrants, in his case Africans) to the Home Office, made the extraordinary decision to bring back former Prime Minister David Cameron as Foreign Secretary.

Cameron left active politics in 2016 immediately following his defeat over Brexit. Like Wagner’s Flying Dutchman, he has returned after a seven-year absence.

This lurch into the past represents the Conservative Party’s abandonment of Johnson’s “Red Wall” strategy. Sunak’s Tories will now be openly focused on retaining their traditional affluent supporters, and regaining those who deserted them over Brexit. That will inevitably mean scrapping even a pretence of sharing the concerns of the White working-class.

A couple of careerist “right-wingers” (Esther McVey and Dame Andrea Leadsom) have returned to the lower ranks of government, in a token effort by Sunak to appease the “right”.

But the truth is that this is a recapture of the Tory Party by the Goldman Sachs brigade – the people with whom Sunak has always been most at home.

For real British nationalists, this begins a period of historic opportunity. As regular H&D readers will know, our movement is in a shambolic state. The British Democrats are the only electorally-focused representatives of traditional British nationalism, and they only function in a few areas of the country.

During the coming weeks and months, H&D will examine the strategies that British nationalists and our European counterparts are adopting in response to the present crisis.

Tory slump continues: civic nationalists still struggling for relevance

Reform UK leader Richard Tice with his Tamworth by-election candidate Ian Cooper and campaign team

Yesterday’s parliamentary by-elections showed Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government heading for a 1997-style landslide defeat. Despite this Tory collapse, civic nationalist parties are nowhere near the level of support that they enjoyed in the pre-Brexit era.

Each of the by-elections was in a very White constituency, so Labour’s victories owed nothing to ethnic minority support. Mid Bedfordshire is a very affluent collection of villages and small towns, and has never previously elected a Labour MP. Tamworth is more mixed socially (though not racially), with far more working-class voters, and was strongly pro-Brexit. Under its earlier name SE Staffordshire, but with similar boundaries, it fell to Labour at a by-election in 1996 and in the Blair landslide a year later, but at other times has been solidly Tory.

Apart from the Tories, the biggest losers were the United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP polled 18.5% in Tamworth at the pre-Brexit general election in 2015, but yesterday UKIP candidate Robert Bilcliff managed only 1.7%.

Heritage Party Alberto Thomas polled only 0.2% in Mid Bedfordshire for the fast disappearing UKIP splinter group

The Heritage Party – a UKIP splinter group that in recent years has specialised in peddling conspiracy theories and anti-vaccination campaigns – had an even more embarrassing result in Mid Bedfordshire, where Heritage candidate Alberto Thomas polled only 0.2%. Just slightly ahead of Mr Thomas with 0.3% was Antonio Vitiello for the English Democrats (a party that has just reached an electoral pact with UKIP).

After these results there are bound to be serious questions as to whether UKIP, the Heritage Party or the English Democrats have any future in electoral politics. The EDs do at least have a rationale for continued existence, as they have the distinctive policy of campaigning for an English Parliament.

The much better-funded Reform UK again proved itself to be (by far) the strongest of the civic nationalist parties, and in Tamworth their candidate Ian Cooper managed to save his deposit, the first Reform UK candidate to achieve this since party leader Richard Tice almost two years ago in Old Bexley & Sidcup.

Mr Cooper polled 5.4% and finished in third place, at last breaking his party’s miserable run of twelve lost deposits.

But it’s important to recognise the following factors:

  • Tamworth was a very strongly pro-Brexit constituency;
  • The circumstances of this by-election, caused by the resignation of a Tory MP who was found to have made repeated homosexual assaults while drunk, were obviously ideal for a right-of-centre, ‘protest vote’ party.
  • The Conservative vote collapsed, but lifelong Tories chose to stay at home and were not inspired by Reform UK’s lukewarm civic nationalism.
  • A significant number of voters would have been confused by the Reform UK candidate having the same surname as the Tory candidate – previous research has shown that this type of confusion is always a factor (though only a minor one) when there are two candidates on the ballot paper with the same surname.

It’s not unduly cynical to point out that in each of yesterday’s by-elections, Reform UK just happened to select candidates who had the same name as one of the rival candidates from a major party. In Mid Bedfordshire, Reform UK’s Dave Holland lost his deposit but managed 3.6%, no doubt helped slightly by the non-coincidence that the Liberal Democrat candidate was named Emma Holland-Lindsay.

UKIP’s Tamworth by-election candidate had a regularly updated Facebook page but a less impressive campaign organisation on the streets: he polled only 1.7%

It’s a shame that Reform UK is so bereft of serious policies and serious ideological inspiration that it resorts to these shabby tricks, but even with the benefit of such ploys it’s becoming obvious that Richard Tice’s party is on the road to nowhere. Reform UK is at most a minor irritant costing the Tories a few hundred votes and will perhaps hand a few extra seats to Labour as Keir Starmer heads for Downing Street next year, but the party has nothing more to offer.

One much smaller party will be reasonably satisfied with their result. Britain First took a big gamble in choosing to stand in Tamworth where their candidate – deputy party leader Ashlea Simon – has no local connections. However, Ms Simon and party leader Paul Golding perceived that Tamworth is strongly pro-Brexit and felt that especially the White working-class section of its electorate might prove receptive to Britain First’s message.

After carrying out a serious and energetic campaign in Tamworth, Ms Simon polled 2.3% and finished in fourth place (ahead of the Greens and Liberal Democrats).

Britain First took the gamble of fighting a serious by-election campaign in Tamworth and achieved fourth place with 2.3%: not brilliant but certainly not a disaster. They will see this as a result to build on.

H&D is not especially sympathetic to Britain First’s brand of civic nationalism, with its intense focus on hostility to Islam and its insistence on multi-racialism. But we can see that while this is far from an outstanding result, it is much better than the three previous large scale BF campaigns, at the Rochester & Strood and Wakefield by-elections, and the 2016 London mayoral election.

In short, this was not a great result for Ms Simon, but certainly not a disaster – bearing in mind that the party has far less resources than Reform UK and does not enjoy the regular hype on GB News that is still given to Tice’s party.

With the BNP moribund, the NF barely functioning as an electoral party, neither PA nor the Homeland Party yet being registered, and the British Democrats yet to take off as a significant force at the ballot box, Mr Golding and Ms Simon will be regarded by some H&D readers as the next best thing to having a real racial nationalist party.

However, for some of us the lesson of this week’s by-elections is that all forms of civic nationalism are failing – not only failing to offer principled opposition to the zeitgeist, but also failing in their own terms at even the shabbiest and most ‘pragmatic’ level of politics.

The 4.6% polled at yesterday’s Mid Bedfordshire by-election by a local parish councillor standing as an independent parliamentary candidate – and the low turnouts in both constituencies (especially Tamworth) – show the extent of public disillusionment with the mainstream parties. Some form of nationalist party ought to be capable of getting its act together and mobilising this disillusionment, even with only a fraction of the funds that have been wasted on UKIP, Reform UK and various pro-Brexit splinter parties.

Politicised policing in the UK

Home Secretary Suella Braverman – who was being applauded by some racial nationalists only a week ago after a speech about immigration – has wasted no time in seeking to politicise the response of UK police officers to the developing war in Palestine.

Braverman is the daughter of Indian immigrants who moved to Britain during the 1960s. She is married to a Jewish businessman, Rael Braverman.

And she has obvious ambitions to succeed her fellow Indian Rishi Sunak as the UK’s Prime Minister.

Today Braverman abandoned any pretence that her party is interested in a just and lasting Middle East peace settlement.

Writing to Chief Constables across England and Wales, Braverman reminded them that support for Hamas is a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act, which means that even wearing certain symbols can lead to a jail sentence in the UK. (See Saturday’s H&D article written within hours of Hamas breaching Israeli security.)

The Israeli flag flying alongside the Union flag outside the Home Office in London today.

But she went further. In a blatant attempt to silence political debate, Braverman now seeks to criminalise one of the slogans most widely heard on pro-Palestinian demonstrations. She told Chief Constables:
“It is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.”

Braverman even suggests that displaying a Palestinian flag at a demonstration should in some circumstances be regarded as a criminal offence.

Perhaps most significantly, the Home Secretary used this letter to suggest to Chief Constables that (for the first time in the UK) possession of a swastika symbol should be treated as a criminal offence, in the context of a pro-Palestinian demonstration.

In most cases, H&D readers would probably deprecate the use of swastikas at such events, as they are almost always used by leftwing anti-Zionists in the context of suggesting an equivalence between National Socialism and Zionism. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary’s suggestion – that simple possession of a swastika symbol should be a criminal offence – is a dangerous development and one which should be resisted by all legal means.

Our readers will not be surprised to see that Braverman highlighted the “close collaboration” between English and Welsh police forces and the ultra-Zionist lobby group Community Security Trust (CST).

A photo circulated by Braverman’s office shows the Home Secretary (above right) visiting the hardline Zionist lobby group Community Security Trust, alongside CST’s founder Gerald Ronson (above centre) who has criminal convictions for fraud and a politically motivated assault.

CST grew out of the violent anti-fascist 62 Group which specialised in physical attacks on British nationalists during the 1960s. CST’s founder Gerald Ronson was in charge of finances for the 62 Group, working alongside its “field commander” Cyril Paskin and its intelligence chief Gerry Gable, who is now the editor and publisher of Searchlight. Gable and two other 62 Group operatives were convicted for an illegal entry into the home of historian David Irving, where they aimed to steal documents.

Paskin, Ronson, and Gable planned many acts of political thuggery. One of the last 62 Group operations was in November 1971, when the 62 Group attacked a conference in a Brighton Hotel organised by the Northern League, an academic racial nationalist group. Paskin and others received suspended prison sentences for affray.

Some years earlier, Gerald Ronson was convicted of a politically motivated assault on a member of Sir Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement.

During the mid-1960s, the 62 Group evolved into a more politically focused group called JACOB, which in turn evolved into CST. The development of JACOB was advised by Monica Medicks, an Israeli intelligence officer who had previously been a member of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun.

Unlike Suella Braverman and the Conservative Party, Heritage and Destiny supports the interests of Britons and Europeans rather than Israelis.

Cyril Paskin, “field commander” of the violent anti-fascist 62 Group and closest street-fighting ally of CST founder Gerald Ronson

European nationalists have different views on the Middle East. But our movements – and future nationalist governments in Europe – will act in the interests of Europeans and will never prostrate ourselves as the uncritical tools of international Zionist lobbies. Especially not lobbies with a long record of anti-European, anti-nationalist violence.

Both Braverman and her political opponent Jeremy Corbyn are playing games with the issues of “racism” and “anti-semitism”. Corbyn persistently lies about the historical events of Cable Street in 1936 (where Jews and Communists fought London police in an effort to obstruct a march by Mosley’s supporters), and as we recently reported, he took the extraordinary step of writing to Braverman to pressure the Home Secretary into banning our European correspondent Isabel Peralta from entering the UK.

And now we see Braverman herself seeking to criminalise anti-Zionism and extend the UK’s criminal law into other areas of previously legitimate political debate.

H&D will of course try to stay within the law at all times. But Braverman is playing a dangerous game: her present trajectory is likely to force a confrontation in which not only British nationalists, but people of various political persuasions critical of Israel are dragged into court. If this happens, she can expect to be fought at every level, from the streets of Britain to the European Courts.

Will Labour save the Union?!?

SNP candidate Katy Loudon on her way to crushing defeat, with Scotland’s First Minister Humza Yousaf

A few minutes ago Labour won a huge victory in the Rutherglen & Hamilton West parliamentary by-election, caused by a successful recall petition against the disgraced SNP MP Margaret Ferrier, who had breached pandemic regulations.

This is a constituency on the outskirts of Glasgow, and was one of many that swung heavily to the SNP in 2015. Labour briefly took it back with a tiny majority in 2017, before losing again to the SNP in 2019.

Given the circumstances of the previous MP’s departure, no-one was surprised by Labour’s win, but what was remarkable was its scale: a swing of more than 20%, with Labour taking 58.6% of the vote (up from 34.5% four years ago).

With the collapse in the Conservative Party’s vote – losing their deposit on only 3.9% after polling 15% here in 2019 – it’s perhaps surprising that Reform UK made no impact at all, taking only 1.3% (almost identical to the UKIP vote in 2019). This was the second bad result in 24 hours for Reform UK: they managed only 6.3% in a local council by-election in Tamworth, where their candidate is also standing in the forthcoming Tamworth parliamentary by-election and there has been intense activity in recent weeks promoting him. UKIP also fielded their parliamentary candidate in this local Tamworth by-election and polled only 1.6%.

Nigel Farage was dancing with former Home Secretary Priti Patel at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, while his friends in Reform UK were limping towards 1.3% in the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election. Is the party over?

Back in Rutherglen, Niall Fraser from the Scottish Family Party fought an energetic campaign, opposing the absurd wokeness of the SNP and Labour on gender issues, but took only 319 votes (1.0%).

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this by-election result is that it is yet another signal of the end of SNP hegemony. Until the last year or two, many H&D readers might have been excused for being pessimistic about the future of the Union. But the SNP’s many crises look as though they might prove terminal for the cause of Scottish ‘independence’.

Another hopeful sign this week was a statement by Labour’s leader Sir Keir Starmer that he could not envisage circumstances where he would call a referendum in Northern Ireland on the future of the Union.

Of course H&D will continue to oppose Starmer and his party on almost all of their policies, and we can expect that (like the Tories) Labour will pursue policies that betray Ulster by stealth.

But that doesn’t stop us welcoming the total defeat of Jeremy Corbyn and his gang of IRA sympathisers, who had they somehow entered Downing Street would have betrayed Ulster to the IRA as well as abandoning our fellow Europeans to Vladimir Putin’s horde of barbarians.

The SNP are a less gruesome band of traitors, but their total defeat is again something to celebrate. One small step towards the renewal of the United Kingdom, which will of course also require the defeat of the other old gang parties!

Sam Swerling 1939-2023

H&D learned with great sadness of the death of one of our oldest regular readers, retired law lecturer and former Westminster city councillor Sam Swerling, yesterday at the age of 83.

In an era when Conservatives have been among the worst traitors in our political life, Sam Swerling was a rare example of fearless loyalty and commitment to patriotic principles: a stout defender of the Union, race and nation.

Nor was he a ‘Little Englander’: Sam had many connections to European nationalists, especially in France.

Sam Swerling addressing a conference of the Traditional Britain Group

Educated at Repton and Trinity College, Dublin, Sam Swerling spent most of his career as a partner in a firm of solicitors in the City of London, and as a law lecturer and teacher at City University, London.

Sam became a Conservative Party activist in the late 1950s, and fought his first election campaign in 1959 as Conservative candidate for Newham North-West, in what was then the London County Council.

In February 1974 he was parliamentary candidate for Stalybridge & Hyde (coincidentally close to the home of H&D’s assistant editor, who was only 7 years old at the time and not yet politically active!). Sam polled 16,854 votes (32%). And in 1978 he was elected councillor for the Marylebone ward on Westminster City Council.

Sam Swerling (above right) with his fellow TBG vice-president, Professor John Kersey

In 1965 Sam Swerling joined the Monday Club, which was then becoming the main vehicle for traditional patriotism inside the Conservative Party, and from 1972-1993 he was a member of the Monday Club’s Executive Council, editing several of its publications. Sam was chairman of the Monday Club from 1980-82.

After the Monday Club’s demise, Sam Swerling became an active member of three organisations which sought to carry on the fight for traditional conservatism, in both domestic and foreign policy: the Western Goals Institute, Conservative Democratic Alliance, and Traditional Britain Group.

The last of these is still flourishing, under the leadership of Gregory Lauder-Frost, and Sam was Vice-President of TBG until his death.

In 2017 he published his political memoir Sam Swerling – Nation, Tradition & Liberty, reviewed by Adrian Davies in Issue 82 of H&D.

A tribute to Sam will appear in the next edition of our magazine.

Hindu tribal vote saves Tories in Uxbridge: civic nationalists fail again

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (above, far right) with his wife and her Indian billionaire parents. The Hindu vote saved Sunak’s party in this week’s Uxbridge by-election

On a generally disastrous night for Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Party, the Prime Minister was saved by his fellow Hindus from what would otherwise have been a historic hat-trick of defeats.

Two safe Tory seats were lost on massive swings – the rural West Country constituency Somerton & Frome falling to the Liberal Democrats, and the previously ultra-Tory North Yorkshire constituency of Selby & Ainsty electing a Labour MP.

But Uxbridge & South Ruislip in North West London – which should have been a much easier target for Labour – narrowly stayed Tory with a wafer-thin majority of 495 votes.

With good reason, most of the media will focus on the London Mayor’s unpopular ‘Ulez’ policy – the extension of the Ultra Low Emission Zone that imposes a fee on drivers of the most polluting vehicles. The Conservative campaign in Uxbridge focused almost entirely on this issue, even though in principle Ulez was first agreed by the Conservative London Mayor Boris Johnson in 2015. No doubt the Tories were also helped by their candidate being a local, middle-aged family man; whereas Labour brought in a young homosexual candidate from Camden (a very different part of London). However we should also note that another young homosexual candidate won a historic victory for Labour on the same day in Selby & Ainsty.

One of Sunak’s first acts as Prime Minister was to conduct a Hindu ceremony in Downing Street

But the media will ignore another vital factor. Uxbridge & South Ruislip is 8.6% Hindu (almost five times the national average of 1.8%). Evidence from local elections since Sunak became leader has shown that Hindus have swung heavily to the Tories (evidently for tribal reasons), and many Tories have close ties to the Hindu fundamentalist government of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi. The problem for Sunak and his party is that there are not that many constituencies in the UK where Hindus are a significant electoral force. England is 6.7% Muslim but only 1.8% Hindu.

This week’s by-elections were yet another predictable disaster for civic nationalism. UKIP (now a moribund shadow of the party that won 24 European parliamentary seats and forced David Cameron to promise a Brexit referendum) fought two of the three, and polled joke votes even by their standards. UKIP deputy leader Rebecca Jane took only 61 votes (0.2%) in Uxbridge, and might be wishing she was back in one of her old roles as ‘reality TV’ contestant and Marilyn Monroe impersonator. Peter Richardson in Somerton & Frome fared only slightly better with 0.7%.

UKIP’s efforts to campaign against illegal immigration cannot rescue this dying civic nationalist party.

By far the biggest name in civic nationalism, actor Laurence Fox, stood in Uxbridge for his Reclaim party which is little more than a one-man band, but well-financed. His 714 votes (2.3%) were an improvement on the 1% taken by his former deputy Martin Daubney in Reclaim’s previous by-election effort (North Shropshire in December 2021), but Fox’s donors must be starting to wonder whether this is the best use of their cash.

The anti-vaccination campaigner Piers Corbyn (brother of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn) also stood in Uxbridge but polled only 101 votes (0.3%): perhaps even his strongest supporters will now wake up to the fact that there is absolutely no electoral potential in peddling conspiracy theories about the pandemic.

Laurence Fox (above right) with leading supporters of his floundering civic nationalist party Reclaim.

In Somerton & Frome, Reform UK (which is clearly the largest successor party to UKIP on the civic nationalist scene, but equally clearly is failing to make any serious headway) lost yet another deposit, polling 1,303 votes (3.4%).

Similarly in Selby & Ainsty, Reform UK took only 1,332 votes (3.7%), beaten not only by the Greens but by the regionalist Yorkshire Party. Another ex-UKIP splinter party, the Heritage Party (founded by half-Jamaican anti-vaccination campaigner David Kurten) managed just 162 votes (0.5%).

These were the ninth and tenth successive Reform UK lost deposits in parliamentary by-elections: a stark contrast to some national opinion polls and the regular hyping of the party by Nigel Farage and his friends at GB News.

The truth is that the ‘free market’ capitalist ideology that underpins both Reform UK and the Tories offers no solution to the UK’s immigration crisis and related crises in housing and transport policy.

The challenge for any racial nationalist party that gets its act together to fill the UK’s political vacuum will be to link London’s chronic overcrowding to the transport issue. Crude populist gestures against the ‘Ulez’ policy won’t suffice. Nationalists have to reclaim the green agenda as our own, not reject it – but we need to explain that a green agenda means ending the mass immigration, multiculti madness.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers