Labour promise post-Brexit immigration nightmare

Diane Abbott – seen here (right) with Jeremy Corbyn – today announced Labour’s post-Brexit immigration policy

Some H&D readers were always sceptical about Brexit, fearing that immigration policy would actually get worse after we left the European Union. UKIP spokesmen regularly argued that they would prefer immigrants from India (and by implication English-speaking countries in Africa) to those from Eastern Europe.

UKIP of course is now semi-extinct, so that party’s views on race and immigration are irrelevant, but there is a real possibility that post-Brexit Britain will have a Labour government. Today we found out what that might mean.

Diane Abbott – who has been such a disaster as Shadow Home Secretary that she was hidden away for most of the 2017 election campaign – today announced Labour’s immigration policy, and many H&D readers might now be thinking we would be better off in the EU than risking this open door disaster.

Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn were seen in the 1980s as the ‘loony left’, highlighted in this Tory election poster, but Tory failure now leaves these extremists on the brink of power.

Ms Abbott said that a Labour government would end any preferential system for Europeans:

“Sadly at the current time we have a class system for migrants.

“Commonwealth migrants and other non-EU migrants are treated in a way that is tantamount to making them second-class migrants.

“They struggle to bring partners or spouses here. They have to meet minimum income targets. They can lose their right to residency simply by travelling home for family reasons.

“It’s not fair, it’s not humane, it’s not reasonable.

“Labour will end the established system of first and second-class migrants. And we will do so, not by treating EU migrants as appallingly as Commonwealth and other non-EU migrants have been treated for a long time. We will end the first and second-class system by treating everyone fairly.”

We fear that Ms Abbott was not thinking of South African, Australian or other White Commonwealth migrants. We all know the type of people who will be queuing up to take advantage of a Corbyn-Abbott run Britain.

Simon Heffer on ‘The English revolution’

Simon Heffer addressing the Traditional Britain Group

In this week’s New Statesman, Enoch Powell’s biographer Simon Heffer has an excellent article putting Brexit in the context of previous attempts by Tory elites to respond to ‘the condition of England’.

The ‘condition of England question’ was first formulated in 1839 by the great Victorian writer Thomas Carlyle (long out of fashion) whom Heffer rightly admires. Like the 19th century Whigs whom Carlyle criticised for their blindness towards the desperate state of the Victorian working class, David Cameron ignored a blatant malfunction of the political system that had promoted him.

As Heffer puts it: “The democratic malfunction that millions of voters felt between 1975 and 2016 was that however they voted they would not alter membership of the EU, and the EU had an increasing impact on their lives and economic prospects. If you school people in the notion that the establishment of their social order relies on their ability to vote and not on deference to a Carlylean aristocracy – a properly progressive argument – then denying them a choice on a fundamental issue for decades will, when the choice is finally presented, resemble the bursting of a dam. So it was two years ago.”

Might Heffer himself be starting to recognise that the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s (when combined with mass immigration) had a corrosive effect on society, and that free market ‘right-wingers’ (who are in fact Victorian-style liberals but misnamed ‘conservatives’ on both sides of the Atlantic) have been just as blinkered as the Whigs in their assumptions about benign historical ‘progress’?

Click here to read the full article.

 

German government on the brink over immigration policy – is this the end for Merkel?

Angela Merkel (left) is at odds with her own interior minister Horst Seehofer (right) over immigration policy in a row that could transform European politics.

Germany’s coalition government is on the verge of collapse due to serious splits over immigration policy.

Chancellor Angela Merkel took the disastrous decision in 2015 to admit more than a million refugees in what amounted to an ‘open border’ policy. Now her own interior minister (equivalent to a British Home Secretary) is threatening to resign.

This is especially serious because the minister concerned (Horst Seehofer) leads the Bavarian conservative party CSU, which has been allied to Merkel’s CDU for the entire history of the German Federal Republic: all the way back to 1945.

Seehofer’s immediate concern is so-called “secondary migration”, by which immigrants to one EU country then move to another EU country. Understandably he wants Germany to have control of its own borders.

Merkel tried last week to reach a deal with other EU leaders which would satisfy her anti-immigration critics, both among her own government allies and in the general population, but she seems to have failed.

If Seehofer’s CSU splits from the CDU, it will be the most serious change in Western European politics since the Second World War – a much bigger deal than Brexit – and might give a tremendous boost to plans for a continent-wide alliance of anti-immigration parties, now being promoted by Italy’s deputy prime minister and interior minister Matteo Salvini.

(July 3rd update: Seehofer and Merkel seemed to have patched up a deal to avoid an immediate split in the government, but the big issues remain unresolved and the latest deal is causing a fresh immigration row with Austria.)

Meanwhile demonstrations have been held for the last two weekends in the cities of Hamm and Nuremberg against the imprisonment of 89-year-old Ursula Haverbeck for the opinion crime of ‘Holocaust denial’. Mrs Haverbeck dared to question the establishment’s line on 1940s history – the very same historical myths that underpinned the postwar political consensus which is now collapsing.

The most recent protest march last Saturday (see below) was attended by veteran British nationalist and campaigner for historical truth Richard Edmonds, whose speech begins at 25:28 in the first video below.

This week the latest Orwellian trial will take place in Germany, featuring Canadian-German Alfred Schaefer and his sister, violinist Monika Schaefer, a Canadian citizen who has been imprisoned since January awaiting trial for the ‘crime’ of uploading a ‘Holocaust denial’ video to YouTube.

Arlene Foster speaks for UK after May’s blunders

As Prime Minister Theresa May blunders through another day of chaotic Brexit negotiations, it has been left to Arlene Foster, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, to stand up for the principles once understood by every member of May’s Conservative & Unionist Party.

Mrs Foster today made clear:
“Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom. We will not accept any form of regulatory divergence which separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the United Kingdom. The economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom will not be compromised in any way.”

How on earth could a Conservative Prime Minister have allowed herself to be drawn into a position where that “economic and constitutional integrity” could be questioned in the slightest degree?

What part of the words “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” does the Prime Minister fail to comprehend?

Too many Tories have been relying on the complacent assumption that DUP MPs will continue to support the government at Westminster (despite every provocation and betrayal) because they cannot possibly risk a Jeremy Corbyn government.

It’s time for the DUP (and any remaining genuine Tory patriots) to call that bluff.

German election campaign livens up with frontrunner Merkel under pressure

Martin Schulz (left) failed to achieve the debate victory he needed to revive the SPD’s challenge to German Chancellor Angela Merkel (right)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel remains a strong favourite to secure re-election when her fellow countrymen go to the polls on 24th September.  In 2015 Merkel’s decision to admit well over a million asylum seekers seemed to be not only a catastrophe for Germans but a political disaster for Merkel herself. Her conservative CDU-CSU [the CDU operates in most of Germany but has a longstanding partnership with the Catholic CSU in Bavaria] was losing votes to a new anti-immigration party Alternative for Germany (AfD) throughout late 2015 and 2016.

Then at the start of this year the SPD (German equivalent of the Labour Party) started to take a lead in opinion polls after selecting former European Parliament president Martin Schulz as its candidate for Chancellor.

However once the campaign got under way many voters, especially in the more prosperous western areas of Germany, began to turn back to Merkel partly out of fear that the SPD would form a coalition government including the neo-Marxist Left Party (Die Linke) as well as the Greens.  The Left Party includes former leaders of the Communist Party that ruled the former East Germany until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

A further complication is that former SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has taken a position on the board of the Russian state oil company Rosneft, raising suspicions among journalists hostile to Putin.

The TV debate on September 3rd between Merkel and Schulz was seen as the socialist opposition’s last chance to revive their campaign.

However Schulz failed to make significant progress in the debate and seems headed for certain defeat.

Frauke Petry, co-leader of the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany, decided earlier this year not to be AfD’s candidate for Chancellor

Meanwhile AfD has suffered internal strains, with co-leader Frauke Petry deciding not to be the party’s candidate for Chancellor.

In recent days Merkel has tried to take her campaign to eastern areas that remain hostile to her immigration policy.  The Financial Times this weekend describes a disastrous Merkel campaign event in Bitterfeld, an industrial town in Lower Saxony where AfD remains strong.  Some predict that while AfD’s nationwide vote will be under 10%, it could poll closer to 20% in the East (outside the capital Berlin which remains a leftist stronghold).

AfD has not resolved internal debates over how to deal with present-day Germany’s tyrannical laws that dictate not only what can be said on racial matters, but how scientists, historians, lawyers and ordinary citizens can discuss issues of 20th century history.

Germany’s main nationalist party the NPD will be fielding candidates in most of the country both at constituency and list level. (The German election system is partly based on Westminster style constituencies but with a ‘top-up’ element based on party lists, to create a Parliament that represents the percentage votes achieved by each party, with a 5% threshold required to obtain any MPs.)

Ursula Haverbeck in discussion with her lawyer Wolfram Nahrath during court proceedings in November 2016

Recently the 88-year-old Ursula Haverbeck was given a two-year sentence for ‘Holocaust denial’ after questioning the increasingly discredited official version of history that dictates 6 million Jews were murdered, supposedly mainly in homicidal gas chambers during the Second World War.

German prosecutors and government representatives refuse to answer Frau Haverbeck’s questions as to how, where and on whose orders such supposed mass killings took place: instead of answering such questions they bring further criminal charges. However contrary to some reports Frau Haverbeck is not presently in a prison cell, as despite court verdicts and sentences there are still appeal processes going on.

Meanwhile the 81-year-old lawyer Horst Mahler remains imprisoned near Berlin on similar charges, having been handed back to German custody in June by the Hungarian government. Mahler had been released from a 12-year prison sentence on health grounds after becoming critically ill and having a leg amputated, but prosecutors ordered his return to prison earlier this year.

UKIP executive decides not to block EDL-linked candidate

Peter Whittle (left), bookies’ favourite to win the UKIP leadership, with former leader Nigel Farage

[spacer height=”20px”]UKIP’s latest leadership election will have eleven candidates after the party’s national executive announced yesterday that they had decided not to block an EDL-linked candidate from standing.

‘Moderates’ on the executive tried to block the leadership campaign of Anne Marie Waters, a former Labour Party member whose campaign team includes ex-BNP member Jack Buckby. Ms Waters is a longstanding ally of Paul Weston (head of Liberty GB) and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, alias ‘Tommy Robinson’ (founder of the English Defence League, EDL).

Liberal media outrage against Ms Waters (typified by a Nick Cohen column in The Observer) is matched by opposition to her candidature within UKIP, almost all of whose MEPs would quit if she became leader or deputy leader. Mike Hookem, UKIP’s deputy chief whip in the European Parliament whose immediate superior – chief whip Stuart Agnew – is Ms Waters only senior supporter, quit in protest yesterday saying that “turning a blind eye to extremist views” was “not something I am prepared to do”.

H&D readers will remember last year’s fracas involving former leadership favourite Steven Woolfe, which seemed to show that Mr Hookem was more likely to inflict a black eye (if provoked) than turn a blind eye.

Among those condemning Ms Waters is rival leadership candidate Jane Collins, an MEP for Yorkshire & Humber who fought two high-profile parliamentary by-elections for UKIP: Barnsley Central in 2011 and Rotherham in 2012, but Ms Collins is a fringe candidate in a contest that (if you believe the bookies) is now realistically a five-horse race.[spacer height=”20px”]

David Kurten (left) with leadership rival David Coburn MEP

[spacer height=”20px”]A UKIP establishment bandwagon was growing behind David Kurten, a mixed-race UKIP member of the London Assembly, who now has the backing of the Farage-Banks lobby group Leave.EU.  Leave.EU’s backing for Kurten was a blow to Welsh businessman John Rees-Evans, who has organised a nationwide tour to promote his campaign for ‘direct democracy’ to revive UKIP, but apparent ‘homophobic’ comments by Kurten have revived Rees-Evans’s chances.

The field of ‘moderate’ candidates has been further confused by the late entry into the race of Henry Bolton, a military intelligence veteran who stood for Kent Police & Crime Commissioner last year. Bolton is the dark horse in the race, and seems to be picking up support from ‘moderates’ who think that neither Kurten nor Rees-Evans are serious leadership material.

Libertarians disturbed by the anti-Islamist obsessions of Waters and Peter Whittle (described by the Jewish Chronicle as “the Israel-loving friendly face of UKIP” and current favourite to win, after promising to appoint Waters his deputy) are tending to back David Coburn (UKIP’s only Scottish MEP) or Ben Walker (an ex-Tory and councillor for a Bristol suburb), but some will try to pick a ‘non-Islamophobic’ winner from among Kurten, Rees-Evans and Bolton, so as to block the ‘extremists’ Whittle and Waters.

Coburn and Whittle are gay, while Waters is a lesbian. Former leadership candidate Suzanne Evans was thus able to post on Twitter celebrating the fact that “33% of UKIP’s leadership candidates are gay. What other party has ever been able to say that?”

Surprise candidates joining the race but likely to finish as also-rans include Aidan Powlesland, parliamentary candidate for South Suffolk earlier this year, who is an enthusiast for space exploration; David Allen, 2017 parliamentary candidate for Rochester & Strood; and Marion Mason, a former Tory councillor who was UKIP candidate for Hertfordshire Police & Crime Commissioner.

The result of the leadership election will be announced at UKIP’s conference on September 29th in Torquay, after which senior figures such as Nigel Farage and Arron Banks will get on with the serious business of organising a split.

UKIP economic spokesman quits, criticising libertarian faction

Patrick O’Flynn MEP, who resigned today as UKIP economic spokesman

UKIP economic spokesman Patrick O’Flynn – an MEP for Eastern England who was formerly Political Editor of the Daily Express – has resigned.

While most UKIP news recently has focused on the increasingly influential group in the party that is obsessed with Islam and seeks to take UKIP in an EDL or Pegida-style direction, O’Flynn’s resignation is prompted by a very different split – his disagreement with the ultra-Thatcherite ‘libertarians’ in the party.

O’Flynn said in his resignation statement today:
“It is clear to me that UKIP’s activist base wishes to go in a more libertarian, shrink-the-state and Thatcherite direction when it comes to economic policy.
“Ever since becoming prominent in the party, I have argued for UKIP to be at the common sense centre of politics, rather than allowing itself to be defined as on the right wing. For example, I have sought support for tough measures to combat corporate tax avoidance and proposed a premium rate of VAT for luxury goods in order to make that tax more equitable. I have also championed more resources for the NHS, arguing against those in the party who would prefer to run healthcare on private insurance lines.”

The libertarian faction criticised by O’Flynn advocates policies that might go down well on golf courses and in Rotary Clubs across southern England, but which would kill off any chance of challenging Labour in its northern working-class heartlands.

It remains to be seen which strand of UKIP will dominate in the new movement planned by former leader Nigel Farage and his financial backer Arron Banks.

John Rees-Evans, third favourite in this year’s UKIP leadership election, at a hustings during last November’s contest

One of UKIP’s leading libertarians – West Midlands MEP and ex-Tory Bill Etheridge – announced this week that he was withdrawing his nomination for UKIP leader.  Etheridge is bitterly opposed to the two anti-Islamist candidates for leader, London Assembly member Peter Whittle and former Pegida UK deputy leader Anne Marie Waters.

The Guardian today picked up on the story reported by H&D eleven days ago, that Ms Waters’ campaign is being run by former BNP member Jack Buckby.

While a groundswell of members has built up behind the anti-Islamist agenda, making Whittle and Waters the two favourites, most of UKIP’s leading members (including almost all its MEPs) are appalled by the prospect of the party becoming a political wing of the EDL.  They have no clear front-runner to back, but perhaps the most likely challenge to Whittle and Waters is from John Rees-Evans, a Welsh businessman who polled 18.1% in last year’s leadership contest that was won by Paul Nuttall.

A late entrant in the race and potential dark horse is Henry Bolton, former military intelligence officer and counter-terrorism expert, who was UKIP’s candidate last year for Kent Police & Crime Commissioner.

Dark horse UKIP leadership candidate Henry Bolton has extensive experience as a military intelligence officer and counter-terrorism expert

Will Brexit mean more Asian immigrants?

Curry lobbyist Pasha Khandaker (left) with Tory minister Justine Greening

Curry lobbyist Pasha Khandaker (left) with Tory minister Justine Greening

While many sections of our movement enthusiastically campaigned for ‘Brexit’ and are still celebrating victory in this year’s referendum, a little-discussed subplot of the Brexit drama developed further this week.

For most Brexit voters, immigration was the most important issue at stake in the referendum.  Yet among their fellow Brexiteers were lobby groups such as the Bangladesh Caterers Association, representing Britain’s curry restaurant trade.  They backed Brexit on the basis that reducing immigration from European countries would mean increasing immigration from the Indian subcontinent.

Now the curry trade is further inflaming the debate.  According to the Financial Times, Pasha Khandaker, president of the Bangladesh Caterers Association, has said that he is disappointed by the current rhetoric of Theresa May and her Home Secretary Amber Rudd, who have indicated their aim to reduce annual net migration to below 100,000.

Mr Khandaker sees this as a betrayal, since he believed that Brexit would lead to an “Australian style points system” which would benefit his industry’s case for more Asian immigrants.

H&D would make two points here.  First, this exposes yet again the absurdity of nationalists arguing for an Australian-style immigration system, which every informed person knows has for many years been a disaster for White Australia.

Second: Mr Khandaker shouldn’t be too worried by Tory rhetoric on immigration.  If past experience is any guide, the present Prime Minister (just like her ‘Iron Lady’ predecessor) will talk a great deal about immigration, then preside over a further ethnic transformation of our country.

Even if today’s Tories succeed in cutting net immigration to 100,000, the ethnic complexion of those new arrivals will be a great deal darker than when we were in the EU.  Good news for colour-blind Ukippers perhaps, but a disaster for racial nationalists.

Historical research criminalised: Paris court convicts Prof. Robert Faurisson

Prof. Robert Faurisson with Lady Renouf at the Tehran Conference in 2006, where his speech became the focus of several criminal trials in Paris. The most recent conviction was in September 2016.

Prof. Robert Faurisson with Lady Renouf at the Tehran Conference in 2006, where his speech became the focus of several criminal trials in Paris. The most recent conviction was in September 2016.

A Paris court on Tuesday this week gave Prof. Robert Faurisson – an 87-year-old half-French, half Scot who was Professor of French Literature at the University of Lyon – a four-month suspended jail sentence and a €4,000 fine. Judgement on a further charge will be given later this week.

The circumstances of Prof. Faurisson’s trial were explained at a meeting of the London Forum in July 2016 by Lady Michèle Renouf, who was the sole defence witness alongside Prof. Faurisson at his Paris trial.

In September 2016 Prof. Faurisson was convicted under the French “racial hatred” law for the 60-word sentence translated below: the Paris court taking the extraordinary view that his reference to “the State of Israel and international Zionism” amounted to an illegal attack on Jews as a “race”.

For this “offence” Prof. Faurisson received a 4 month suspended prison sentence and a fine of €4,000. He was ordered in addition to pay €5,000 in compensation and costs to LICRA, a French association combatting “racism and anti-semitism”.

Two additional charges under the French “Gayssot Act” prohibiting “Holocaust denial”, which related specifically to Prof. Faurisson’s Tehran conference speech, were set aside.

Prof. Faurisson immediately announced his intention to appeal against this latest conviction: an appeal which is of the highest importance for historical and political researchers worldwide, and in particular for anyone campaigning against the policies of the Israeli Government. It would seem that the latest judgement opens the way for any robust criticism of Israel to be criminalised in France as anti-Jewish “racial hatred”, even if neither Jews nor Judaism have been mentioned!

Further reports and analysis of this case will appear in the next edition of Heritage and Destiny.

An earlier interview with Prof. Robert Faurisson can be seen below (including English subtitles), in which he explains the background to his famous 60-word French sentence summarising his research conclusions. Prof. Faurisson’s words (again criminalised by the Paris court this week), read in English:
“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”

Massive leak of Soros documents exposes anti-racist agenda

Soros

A network of organisations run by billionaire George Soros (notorious for his profitable speculation against the pound on ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992) has been successfully targeted in a massive leak of confidential documents, published online today.

One organisation lavishly funded by Soros was the British “antifascist” group Hope Not Hate, which in one of the leaked documents is shown receiving $93,740 for just one of its projects – Hope Camp – in advance of the 2014 elections.

This was part of a series of Soros-funded projects intended to influence those elections.  According to the leaked documents, Hope Camp’s “purpose is to provide a community organizers’ training program for local anti-hate organizations, especially those wanting to engage in the 2014 European elections.  The training model will combine the experience, the organizing and campaigning skills developed and used by HOPE not hate in the UK and by United We Dream in the US.”

The smoking gun: leaked document shows Soros funding for "anti-racist" campaign at 2014 elections - click to view full size

The smoking gun: leaked document shows Soros funding for “anti-racist” campaign at 2014 elections – click to view full size

UK political parties are of course prohibited from receiving overseas donations from people not on the UK electoral register.  It will be interesting to see whether the Electoral Commission takes a close look at foreign, non-party intervention in the electoral process.

Although Soros & Co. might have been well pleased with the BNP’s defeat in 2014, the truth is that this had little to do with “antifascist” campaigning.  Nick Griffin had already effectively destroyed his own party’s chances years earlier.

Moreover, another of the leaked Soros documents – a review of the European campaign, written in November 2014 – showed that not everything went the billionaire’s way.  The document makes clear that the Soros foundations “concentrated a large amount of resources and energy to try and bolster the groups and campaigns which could, in some ways, mitigate the feared populist surge in the EP elections.”

This involved “exposing the weaknesses of the extreme right”.

However, while some projects “far exceeded our expectations”, others “surprised us in a negative way. The grant to UNITED, for example, was a clear disappointment.  While the proposal was well written and the cooperation with ENAR and HOPE not Hate, two OSF grantees which generally deliver great work, seemed promising, not much was achieved on the ground. …Arguing that the HOPE not Hate approach could not be applied in other countries due to particular sensitivities, the project ended up with five very different projects on the ground, with little coordination amongst them. …It was a typical case of a project which looked great on paper, but was an unexpected disappointment in practice.”

H&D looks forward to analysing these leaked documents further: but two points are already evident. Firstly, there was massive financial intervention by George Soros and his foundations in a covert effort to influence European elections.  Secondly, despite lavish funding, many of these interventions failed and are continuing to fail, as European nationalist movements continue to advance!

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter