Madrid government surrenders to immigration blackmail
The Spanish government has been humiliated, conceding to Moroccan blackmail over illegal immigration. Simultaneously, by a strange non-coincidence, politically motivated prosecutors in Madrid have leaked news that they are preparing a criminal case for ‘racial incitement’ against H&D’s Spanish comrade Isabel Peralta, over an anti-immigration speech that she gave outside the Moroccan Embassy in May last year.
Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has surrendered control over Madrid’s diplomacy, because he has proved unable or unwilling to exercise control over immigration.
And the consequences could be severe for Spain’s access to natural gas, and the prices paid for energy by long-suffering Spanish consumers.
This all concerns Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony, where control has since 1976 been disputed between Morocco and an independence movement called Polisario Front, which is backed by Algeria.
Until this week, the Madrid government backed the Polisario – i.e. backed Western Sahara’s independence from Morocco – partly in order to remain on good terms with Algeria, which supplies Spain with natural gas.
For a year or more, Morocco has sought to blackmail Spain into changing its position on Western Sahara. Morocco’s main weapon is control over illegal immigration into Spanish territory. They have indicated that they are prepared to turn the immigration tap on or off. And Spain’s socialist government is naturally unable or unwilling to take firm action against the consequent flood.
Essentially this was the background to a demonstration addressed by Isabel Peralta in Madrid in May last year. The demonstration targeted both the Moroccan government’s blackmail, and the Spanish authorities’ weakness.
Now the argument of Isabel and her colleagues in the Spanish nationalist youth movement Bastión Frontal has proved correct, but the response has been to threaten criminal charges against Isabel!
Having for decades argued that Western Sahara’s future should be settled by a referendum of its inhabitants, the Madrid government has this week carried out a U-turn and adopted a pro-Moroccan position.
Consequently the Moroccan Ambassador to Madrid has been reinstated, but the Algerian Ambassador has been recalled, threatening vital trade deals including the supply of natural gas.
The entire situation is a shambles, rooted in the inability of Spain’s socialist government to stand up for Spanish interests.
And as so often across the West, when the arguments of nationalists are vindicated, the authorities’ response is to persecute us. And as so often, weakness in the face of an invader or a blackmailer merely invites further invasion and further blackmail.
H&D readers will hear more from Isabel Peralta, beginning with our next edition in May.
Europe shamed by Jared Taylor’s deportation
An apocryphal British newspaper headline supposedly once read: “Fog in Channel – Continent cut off”.
This was of course a joke at the expense of insular Britons, in fact according to the historian Niall Ferguson it was first promoted by German National-Socialist propagandists.
However as of 2019 the joke is now on Europe’s institutions. On Friday American Renaissance editor and author Jared Taylor was detained at Zurich airport and deported back to the USA. He appears to have been banned from the entire “Schengen area”, which means most of Europe, with the exception of the UK, Ireland and some Balkan countries.
In the name of “security”, Europe’s guardians have decided to cut off their citizens from one of the world’s most important writers and thinkers on racial questions. Since the race problem is by far the greatest threat to Europe, the guardians of our security have thus become part of the problem.
Mr Taylor – a Yale graduate and author of the classic text on America’s racial crisis Paved With Good Intentions – was changing planes in Switzerland en route to Stockholm for the Scandza Forum, the latest in a series of conferences that have brought together some of the most important European thinkers and activists on racial questions.
He had also intended to attend a further conference in Turku, Finland.
In an update posted to his website, Mr Taylor explains:
The officer at passport control in Zurich airport had already stamped my passport and waved me through to my Stockholm flight when she called after me to come back. She stared at her computer screen and told me I had to wait. She didn’t say why. In a few minutes, a policeman arrived and told me there was an order from Poland that barred me from all 26 countries in the Schengen Zone.
He said the Poles did not give a reason for the ban, and he asked me what I had done. I said I give talks on immigration, and someone in Poland must not like them. “That makes me a political criminal,” I said.
The officer took me to an interrogation room and asked me about my travel plans. He went off to another room for a while and came back with a form for me to sign, saying that I understood I had been denied entry and was being sent back to the United States. After some more waiting, he fingerprinted me and took my photograph. He then turned me over to a man in civilian clothes, who took me to a spare, dormitory-like accommodation where I will spend the night. It’s not a jail. People pay the equivalent of $40 to spend the night here if they miss a flight. I am free to walk around the terminal, I can make phone calls and use the internet, and I have a meal voucher that is supposed to last me for the next 12 hours. The officer kept my passport, though, and won’t give it back to me until I board the flight home.
Fortunately the internet means that (for the time being at any rate) Europeans can still access Mr Taylor’s work at the American Renaissance website, and the contributions of other speakers at the Scandza Forum.
The multiracial society’s collapse is evident all around us. Those same border security officials who excluded Mr Taylor have utterly failed to protect our continent from the real and continuing threat.
Immigration surges after Brexit referendum
Many of those who voted in 2016’s referendum for the UK to leave the European Union believed that this would lead to a rapid reduction in immigration. A continuing debate ensued for example in the pages of H&D between keen Brexit campaigners (who broadly believed that leaving the EU would be a major blow against the multiracialist establishment) and more sceptical racial nationalists, some of whom feared that Brexit would actually worsen our country’s racial problems.
This week official statistics confirmed the sceptics’ worst fears. It is now apparent that almost from the moment of the 2016 referendum, net immigration from EU countries began to fall. In fact there is net emigration from the UK to the Central and Eastern European nations known as the EU8: i.e. Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
However there has been a sharp rise in net immigration from outside the EU, not only increasing numbers of university students (especially from China) but other immigrants from Africa and Asia. Prime Minister Theresa May’s office actually boasted that this increase in immigration was a positive sign!
Conservative-dominated governments for the past nine years have consistently stated their aim to reduce annual net immigration to below 100,000. If achieved, that would take us back to the start of the Blair / ‘New Labour’ era in 1997, when net immigration was 50,000.
Don’t forget that even then, there would be tens of thousands more people arriving in the UK than leaving, and these immigrants would be constantly adding to our existing non-British population.
Shockingly, none of those Conservative-led governments since 2010 has got anywhere near even their modest 100,000 immigrant target. The most recent figures for the year ending June 2018 show net immigration of 273,000.
And of these an increasing proportion are non-Europeans. In that same 12 month period, the number of non-EU citizens who are in the UK on a long term basis rose by 248,000, whereas the same figure for EU citizens was 74,000.
A very large number of the new arrivals are from India.
The UK faces an ever more dangerous demographic time bomb, and this crisis has been worsened by the Brexit process (so far).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Election success for German anti-immigration party
Frauke Petry, leader of Alternative for Germany, which achieved tremendous gains in German elections yesterday.
The anti-immigration party “Alternative for Germany” (Alternative für Deutschland – AfD) has made worldwide headlines this week after yesterday’s elections to three German state parliaments (Landtag) in which AfD finished in second or third place.
AfD was only formed in 2013 and until last summer was mainly focused on reform of the European Union and the single currency: effectively a milder version of our UKIP. In the European Parliament its members were in the same transnational group as David Cameron’s Conservatives and the Polish governing party Law & Justice. They have now been expelled from this group and will probably ally with the Austrian Freedom Party and Marine Le Pen’s French National Front.
AfD was transformed into a more radical anti-immigration force less than a year ago under a new leader – Frauke Petry – and is now seen as the main voice for Germans disgusted by the liberal immigration policy of their Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Mrs Merkel’s Conservative CDU and its traditional opposition the SPD (similar to our Labour Party) were the big losers in yesterday’s elections, and the anti-immigration AfD were the big winners, fighting all three states for the first time.
The most dramatic result was in the former East German state of Saxony-Anhalt, where AfD finished second with 24.2% and will now be the main opposition to an unprincipled coalition of conservatives, socialists and greens who will attempt to govern the region. The nationalist NPD (which is fighting a court case against an attempted ban by German authorities) polled 1.9% (down from 4.6% last time) and a new nationalist party called Die Rechte (The Right) polled 0.2%.
AfD finished third in the traditionally prosperous and conservative western German state of Baden-Württemberg, polling 15.1%. The NPD (for whom this was never a stronghold) slipped from 1.0% to 0.4% and another nationalist party, the Republikaner (who held seats in Baden-Württemberg from 1992 to 2001) similarly fell from 1.1% to 0.3%.
In another western German state – Rhineland Palatinate – the AfD again finished third with 12.6%, while the NPD and Republikaner polled 0.5% (down from 1.1%) and 0.2% (down from 0.8%).
The immigration crisis and the rise of AfD inspired large numbers of Germans to take part in these elections: turnout was 61.1% in Saxony Anhalt and 70.4% in Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland Palatinate.
We can now expect AfD (despite the levels of support achieved in these elections) to be intensively targeted by Germany’s heavily politicised security agencies, who will support efforts by establishment politicians to intimidate anti-immigration campaigners.
Nationalist event survives attempted government ban
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance and Dr Tom Sunic, philosopher and former Croatian diplomat, addressed a private dinner of 76 European nationalists in Budapest following the banning of the European Congress (see earlier report).
The Hungarian government’s attempt to silence discussion of racial realities confronting Europeans worldwide has backfired, with extensive media coverage of Jared Taylor’s successful rescuing of the event and his message to attendees, who had flown to Budapest from many countries sharing a common European heritage now under threat from multiracial mania.
BBC News has posted a long report by their correspondent in Budapest.
On the American Renaissance website, there is a full account of the last week’s dramatic events in Budapest – and the text of Jared Taylor’s address to Saturday evening’s dinner.
Tom Sunic’s after dinner speech (introduced by Jared Taylor) can be viewed below:
Narrow defeat for German nationalists
The NPD – Germany’s main nationalist party – suffered a narrow defeat this weekend in elections for the regional parliament of Saxony. At the last elections five years ago the NPD polled 5.6%, winning eight seats. This year their vote fell by a fraction to 4.95%, very slightly below the required 5% threshold, so there will be no NPD members in the new Landtag.
The main reason for this defeat was the arrival on the German political scene of a new eurosceptic party – Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) – which is effectively a more liberal version of UKIP. AFD won 9.7% and will have fourteen seats in the new Saxony Landtag, their first success in any of the German regional parliaments.
AFD is seen as a respectable protest vote by millions of German voters who (like many of their fellow Europeans) despair of the establishment parties. To this extent their electoral breakthrough (like that of UKIP) is a positive development.
Sadly however one consequence has been to deprive genuine nationalists of a parliamentary voice. Unlike the NPD, AFD is mostly pro-immigration and pro-EU, though hostile to the euro.
The biggest losers in the Saxony election were the FDP – Germany’s liberal party and traditional coalition partners of the ruling conservatives. The FDP lost all of their Landtag seats after their vote collapsed from 10.0% to 3.8%.
Labour leader in row over immigration policy
Labour’s former immigration minister Barbara Roche hits out at her party leader’s planned policy changes.
Opinion polls suggest that by 2015 Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister. But in his anxiety to reassure voters that he understands their concerns about immigration, Miliband has sparked a row with Labour’s former immigration minister.
In an article for the Independent on Sunday on 20th January 2013, Barbara Roche – who was immigration minister in Tony Blair’s government from 1999 to 2001 – complains that “over the past few months there has been a concerted attack, from across the political spectrum, on the last Labour Government’s record on immigration.”
Mrs Roche – formerly Barbara Margolis – enjoyed a high flying career from her days as head girl of the Jews Free School in Camden (the largest Jewish school in Europe), via Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, and several years as a Middle Temple barrister. Elected as MP for the multi-ethnic Hornsey & Wood Green in 1992, she lost her seat in 2005 – seen as a political casualty of Tony Blair’s Iraq war, which she had strongly supported but which was opposed by many of her constituents, not least Muslim voters.
In her IoS article Mrs Roche points out that during her time as a minister there was a panic over asylum seekers, but no real debate over immigration policy (as opposed to asylum). She argues that the assumption behind the 1971 Immigration Act – seeking to end “primary” immigration of the sort that had taken place on a large scale since the arrival of West Indian immigrants aboard the Empire Windrush in 1948 – was wrong. According to Mrs Roche, “legal migration is, in an age of globalisation, an economic, social and cultural good.”
Mrs Roche’s article was provoked by Ed Miliband’s BBC interview a few days earlier, the latest of a series in which the Labour leader indicated that the Blair and Brown governments had made mistakes in underestimating the scale of Eastern European immigration, and failing to understand immigration’s impact on White working class Britons.
In a speech to the Fabian Society on 12th January, Miliband had gone even further:
“High levels of migration were having huge effects on the lives of people in our country. And too often those in power seemed not to accept this. The fact that they didn’t explains partly why people turned against us in the last general election. So we must work to ensure that it never happens again.”
Needless to say, Labour has no intention of adopting a genuinely sane immigration policy. The internal dispute is over to what extent they should openly and proudly celebrate immigration (as Mrs Roche argues), or whether they should offer at least a pretence of caring about the White working class (as Mr Miliband seems to prefer).
